Direct Norwich - Liverpool Lime Street service to be axed?

[w0033944]

It would appear that DfT want to transfer Nottingham-Liverpool services from EMT to TPE, thereby severing East Anglia-Northwest services:

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/norwich_could_lose_direct_train_link_to_liverpool_1_3658989 (Yes, I know the image is of a Norwich-London Liverpool Street service on the GEML)

Britain’s longest east to west rail link could be broken up in a “regressive” plan which will see the loss of a direct train from Norwich to Merseyside.


Business leaders said the planned shake up will only add to the region’s infrastructure difficulties, and has called on the government to rethink its plans. The Department for Transport wants to transfer the track from Nottingham to Liverpool, currently operated by East Midlands trains, to the TransPennine express, meaning trains from Norwich would stop in Nottingham and a change would be required.

More than 4.5 million passengers use the services which directly link Norwich, Thetford and Ely to Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool, and about 350,000 travel through Nottingham on the line each year.

Chris Starkie, managing director of New Anglia LEP, said: “The Government has made a commitment to increase investment in east to west high-speed lines between northern cities. These plans fly contrary to that and will result in East Anglia losing a vital direct link to the north and north-west.

“Our growing population and economy demands infrastructure that is fit for purpose, including improved connections by rail, road, air and sea. Now is the time we should be seeing further enhancement and investment to our rail links. We call on the Transport Secretary to rethink this regressive proposal.”

Norwich North MP Chloe Smith, who heads the East Anglian Rail Prospectus, said: “We lack good east to west links in this country and it will be a great shame to lose one of them that does already exist, and that serves both business and leisure passengers alike going across the country from Norwich westwards.”
Advertisement

A DfT spokesperson said they were seeking views on the plans and no final decision had been made.

She said: “We are investing record amounts in building a world-class rail network. This means more seats, improved connections and better journeys for millions of passengers. To make sure we make the most of this investment, it is vital we hear the views of the people who use these services.

“As part of our consultation into the Northern and Transpennine Express franchises, we are seeking views on whether to transfer the Liverpool – Nottingham section of the East Midlands Trains franchise to Transpennine Express. However, no final decision has been made.”

Nova Fairbank, from the Norfolk Chamber of Commerce said: “The Norfolk business community has long identified that one of the key barriers to growth in Norfolk is lack of decent infrastructure in terms of both road and rail. The proposed changes to the Norwich to Liverpool train service will mean there is no longer a direct connection between Norfolk and Liverpool, which can only add to the difficulties faced by Norfolk businesses.”

A spokeswoman for East Midlands Trains said:

“We believe that in reaching its final decision the DfT needs to consider the value of maintaining a direct train service between the North West and East Anglia. The impact of splitting the service at Nottingham would directly affect around 350,000 passengers a year who use the route to travel through Nottingham, whose journeys may be extended by any timetable change. We believe it would also have a detrimental impact on passenger journeys in the east of the network.”

I'm sure there would be significant benefits for someone along the route or in the wider north-west region (I'd be interested to hear views on the matter), but it does seem to be a strange decision.

 

[swt_passenger]

...(I'd be interested to hear views on the matter), but it does seem to be a strange decision.

There are a number of posts about this in the TPE/Northern thread already...

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=101715

 

[w0033944]

There are a number of posts about this in the TPE/Northern thread already...

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=101715

Apologies - I haven't had time to browse threads which outwardly appeared unrelated just recently.

 

[swt_passenger]

Apologies - I haven't had time to browse threads which outwardly appeared unrelated just recently.

No need to apologise, especially as you've just seen it independently via an 'East Anglian' source. I think DfT will keep trying to push this, they wanted to split across Nottingham years ago when Central trains were split up as well, but gave up following that consultation. Probably thought it wouldn't be noticed in amongst all the other stuff like regional electrification and Pacer replacement. This time, as you report, EMT are against it as well...

 

[w0033944]

No need to apologise, especially as you've just seen it independently via an 'East Anglian' source. I think DfT will keep trying to push this, they wanted to split across Nottingham years ago when Central trains were split up as well, but gave up following that consultation. Probably thought it wouldn't be noticed in amongst all the other stuff like regional electrification and Pacer replacement. This time, as you report, EMT are against it as well...

I'm working my way throuh the thread you linked, but I've not yet found much on the subject other than which units TPE will use to operate Nottingham-Liverpool. What do you think the DfT's motivation is in wanting to divide at Nottingham?

 

[edwin_m]

350000 per year is somewhere around 40 per train by my reckoning, which seems to make a good case for keeping it. As stated it seems to be driven by a desire to tidy up the franchise map in the NW, and/or to use some 185s when displaced by electrification.

 

[w0033944]

350000 per year is somewhere around 40 per train by my reckoning, which seems to make a good case for keeping it. As stated it seems to be driven by a desire to tidy up the franchise map in the NW, and/or to use some 185s when displaced by electrification.

I'm afraid my knowledge of the rail industry is minimal compared to most here, so I'm sure this is a stupid question, but, if they're searching for ways to use displaced Desiros, couldn't those units be transferred to EMT so that the route can stay in the hands of one operator?

 

[route:oxford]

Once East-West fully opens...

Will the quickest route from Liverpool to Norwich be via Milton Keynes?

 

[unlevel42]

When booking tickets between Sheffield and Cambridge the most common route offered is via Doncaster and Stevenage as it is often slightly faster.

However one change at Ely and wait is much more convenient and cheaper if split at Nottingham.

The through Nottingham rail usage would increase above the figures mentioned if there was a small speed up of the route.

 

[Dolge]

Don't see the objection to this proposal, if Norwich - Liverpool is replaced with Norwich - Birmingham XC services, a Cambridge - Nottingham EMT service (or even Cambridge - Crewe) and Nottingham - Liverpool goes to TPEX. Better all round. On the numbers quoted there are only about 30 passengers per train traveling through Nottingham. Norwich - Birmingham is surely a much bigger market, and the one that was always served historically.

 

[sidmouth]

When travelling Peterborough to Liverpool I always travel either via Leeds or Nuneaton and Crewe, much quicker and better trains (including on board catering).

 

[w0033944]

Don't see the objection to this proposal, if Norwich - Liverpool is replaced with Norwich - Birmingham XC services, a Cambridge - Nottingham EMT service (or even Cambridge - Crewe) and Nottingham - Liverpool goes to TPEX. Better all round. On the numbers quoted there are only about 30 passengers per train traveling through Nottingham. Norwich - Birmingham is surely a much bigger market, and the one that was always served historically.

I wasn't aware that an XC service from Norwich to Birmingham was in the pipeline? As far as I was aware, Norwich-Liverpool Lime Street with EMT was to be replaced with Norwich-Nottingham with the same TOC. Presumably, travellers wishing to get from Norwich to Liverpool in your scenario would have to go from Norwich to Cambridge via AGA, then EMT to Nottingham, followed by TPEx to Liverpool, or XC to Birmingham, then to Liverpool with someone else?

I get that more people may want to travel to Birmingham than to Liverpool, but if you are awkward (and, by the sounds of it, 350, 000 people per year are), then the above surely cannot be spun as an improvement?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When travelling Peterborough to Liverpool I always travel either via Leeds or Nuneaton and Crewe, much quicker and better trains (including on board catering).

I presume, then that if you were doing Norwich-Liverpool, you'd take the EMT Norwich-Nottingham train as far as Peterborough, then change?

 

[Mugby]

I wouldn't have thought many of the 350.000 travel through to Norwich, surely the majority of them get off at Grantham or Peterborough? Local MP's and the Norfolk Chamber of Commerce however, are almost duty bound to object to the service being split, they could hardly be seen to do anything else.

Will the western part simply terminate at Nottingham? the options are rather limited, only Lincoln or Leicester perhaps?

 

[chubs]

Last time I travelled most of the way (Norwich - Manchester) on this service so did pretty much everyone else in my coach, with some remaining on to Liverpool. Its popular at weekends for students too. Would be a real shame if it was axed and you had to change at Nottingham.

 

[w0033944]

I wouldn't have thought many of the 350.000 travel through to Norwich, surely the majority of them get off at Grantham or Peterborough? Local MP's and the Norfolk Chamber of Commerce however, are almost duty bound to object to the service being split, they could hardly be seen to do anything else.

Will the western part simply terminate at Nottingham? the options are rather limited, only Lincoln or Leicester perhaps?

As I read it, it's an aggregate of journeys through Nottingham in both directions - there may not be 350,000 trips from Liverpool to Norwich each year, but there are, apparently, 350,000 from places on one side of Nottingham travelling to places on the other side with EMT!

 

[WatcherZero]

Or just 7% of the services users.

Maybe if it was something like a quarter it might be significant enough to argue for keeping it.

 

[Tomnick]

Don't see the objection to this proposal, if Norwich - Liverpool is replaced with Norwich - Birmingham XC services, a Cambridge - Nottingham EMT service (or even Cambridge - Crewe) and Nottingham - Liverpool goes to TPEX. Better all round. On the numbers quoted there are only about 30 passengers per train traveling through Nottingham. Norwich - Birmingham is surely a much bigger market, and the one that was always served historically.

Maybe if that was what was being proposed - but it isn't! No-one really benefits from splitting the route, other than the DfT's apparent desire to fit each franchise into a nice tidy container that doesn't reflect passenger needs), but the 30-40 people travelling through Nottingham will be substantially inconvenienced: a change of trains, and possibly a long delay if the hourly services either side don't connect (on the existing timings, does the dwell at Nottingham exceed the minimum connection time?).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or just 7% of the services users.

Maybe if it was something like a quarter it might be significant enough to argue for keeping it.

What benefits are there from not keeping it though? It'd be more helpful to weigh the benefits against the disadvantages, rather than pulling numbers out of the air.

 

[w0033944]

What benefits are there from not keeping it though? It'd be more helpful to weigh the benefits against the disadvantages, rather than pulling numbers out of the air.

I'm glad a seasoned forum member thinks in much the same way I do (being an ignoramus in rail matters). I sometimes think that an infatuation with change for changes' sake is endemic, not just within Government, but, increasingly, within the general population. As you say, if the benefits are as minor as they appear (tidiness on a map), then even a seemingly small disadvantage can (or at least should) indicate that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm afraid my knowledge of the rail industry is minimal compared to most here, so I'm sure this is a stupid question, but, if they're searching for ways to use displaced Desiros, couldn't those units be transferred to EMT so that the route can stay in the hands of one operator?

It could remain as a through route even if East Midlands Trains didn't operate it. After all Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester don't fit nicely in to the East Midlands Trains operating area and yet they manage to operate it as a through service.

There's a Siemens specialist maintenance facility for Desiros at Ardwick (Manchester) so it makes sense for them to stay in the North West. Also it's likely the Desiros would have to run much slower on the line between Peterborough and Norwich due to being much heavier trains which were designed to have good hill climbing abilities.

I think the reasons they are proposing a split are not just due to rolling stock plans but also to reduce costs:
* A Liverpool-Sheffield-Hull service is also proposed so having TPE crews signing all Liverpool-Sheffield services creates an efficiency saving.
* East Midlands Trains do empty runs between Nottingham and Liverpool due to their local/regional crews being based at Nottingham, splitting the service wouldn't prevent empty runs but would reduce the distance of empty runs, again creating an efficiency saving.
* Splitting at Nottingham could allow capacity to better suit demand on both sections of the route. At a quiet time you could have a 3 car Desiro running Liverpool-Nottingham and then a 2 car Sprinter running Nottingham-Norwich, while at a busy time you could have a 6 car Desiro running Liverpool-Nottingham and then a 4 car Sprinter running Nottingham-Norwich. And of course given the journey time from Liverpool to Norwich, as it is it pretty much makes most of the services both peak and off-peak services.

 

[LateThanNever]

I'm glad a seasoned forum member thinks in much the same way I do (being an ignoramus in rail matters). I sometimes think that an infatuation with change for changes' sake is endemic, not just within Government, but, increasingly, within the general population. As you say, if the benefits are as minor as they appear (tidiness on a map), then even a seemingly small disadvantage can (or at least should) indicate that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Quite.

But if the DaFT are so obsessed by tidying up the train franchises keep the same sets but have staff from either 'side' crewing the through trains and promoting the service. The promotion 'either side' might actually be advantageous so DaFT could alter it and save face - if they're worried!

It could remain as a through route even if East Midlands Trains didn't operate it. After all Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester don't fit nicely in to the East Midlands Trains operating area and yet they manage to operate it as a through service.

There's a Siemens specialist maintenance facility for Desiros at Ardwick (Manchester) so it makes sense for them to stay in the North West. Also it's likely the Desiros would have to run much slower on the line between Peterborough and Norwich due to being much heavier trains which were designed to have good hill climbing abilities.

I think the reasons they are proposing a split are not just due to rolling stock plans but also to reduce costs:
* A Liverpool-Sheffield-Hull service is also proposed so having TPE crews signing all Liverpool-Sheffield services creates an efficiency saving.
* East Midlands Trains do empty runs between Nottingham and Liverpool due to their local/regional crews being based at Nottingham, splitting the service wouldn't prevent empty runs but would reduce the distance of empty runs, again creating an efficiency saving.
* Splitting at Nottingham could allow capacity to better suit demand on both sections of the route. At a quiet time you could have a 3 car Desiro running Liverpool-Nottingham and then a 2 car Sprinter running Nottingham-Norwich, while at a busy time you could have a 6 car Desiro running Liverpool-Nottingham and then a 4 car Sprinter running Nottingham-Norwich. And of course given the journey time from Liverpool to Norwich, as it is it pretty much makes most of the services both peak and off-peak services.

But there is the small matter of the lack of through service which I think would be important to those 40 passengers per train!

 

[w0033944]

Also it's likely the Desiros would have to run much slower on the line between Peterborough and Norwich due to being much heavier trains which were designed to have good hill climbing abilities.

I wasn't aware that the Brecks route had a particularly low route availability - I know it was under the auspices of the GER, and they had a tendency to lay routes, including their main line as though they were quiet single-track branches, but that was a while ago!

I think the reasons they are proposing a split are not just due to rolling stock plans but also to reduce costs:
* A Liverpool-Sheffield-Hull service is also proposed so having TPE crews signing all Liverpool-Sheffield services creates an efficiency saving.
* East Midlands Trains do empty runs between Nottingham and Liverpool due to their local/regional crews being based at Nottingham, splitting the service wouldn't prevent empty runs but would reduce the distance of empty runs, again creating an efficiency saving.
* Splitting at Nottingham could allow capacity to better suit demand on both sections of the route. At a quiet time you could have a 3 car Desiro running Liverpool-Nottingham and then a 2 car Sprinter running Nottingham-Norwich, while at a busy time you could have a 6 car Desiro running Liverpool-Nottingham and then a 4 car Sprinter running Nottingham-Norwich. And of course given the journey time from Liverpool to Norwich, as it is it pretty much makes most of the services both peak and off-peak services.

Convincing arguments which are making me rethink my opinion. Is there any mechanism by which, if the DfT divide a route like this between two TOCs, they can get them to co-ordinate arrival and departure times so through travellers aren't left waiting for ages at Nottingham?

Quick thought - if the route from Norwich to Nottingham were to be electrified (), could TPEx run a 6 car Desiro from Liverpool to Nottingham, dividing it there so that 3 cars continued through to Norwich, with the reverse happening in the other direction?

 

[Tomnick]

I'm glad a seasoned forum member thinks in much the same way I do (being an ignoramus in rail matters). I sometimes think that an infatuation with change for changes' sake is endemic, not just within Government, but, increasingly, within the general population. As you say, if the benefits are as minor as they appear (tidiness on a map), then even a seemingly small disadvantage can (or at least should) indicate that, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I can see a couple of other - relatively minor - benefits, such as traincrew resourcing north/west of Nottingham (TPE would be in a better position to resources early and late services at the Liverpool end) and avoiding shunts every hour to detach/attach portions at Nottingham. Fitting it into a tidy box, without a long limb stretching out on its own right into the north-west, would avoid some of that - but I doubt it'd justify the 'cost' (to passengers, largely) of doing so.

That said, it might be tidier if EMT also took on the south Transpennine corridor - which would probably justify a small traincrew depot at Piccadilly (who could also work Liverpool - Norwich trains) as well as inheriting the existing depots at Sheffield and Cleethorpes (easing the inefficiencies of the Lincoln - Grimsby lines at either end of the day, and solving the Barton line problem), and bringing the entire fast service along the Hope Valley corridor under a single operator.

If it is split, I'd imagine it's likely to result in a mess of varied traction (would TPE end up taking on some 158s, for example?), adding to the complexity of the operation. The suggestion of 'splitting' it in theory, but working them as through trains in practice, is a good one - but wouldn't it be so much easier if, for example, TPE crews could simply work a couple of diagrams on EMT's behalf?!

 

[Qwerty133]

How many 158s would be freed if Nottingham-Liverpool was transferred? Could be around the number of extra units that'd be needed to reform EMTs 153s into 155s without a decrease in units on local services. If so it'd make sense as single 153s won't be appropriate after 2019.

 

[northwichcat]

But there is the small matter of the lack of through service which I think would be important to those 40 passengers per train!

The loss of through journeys had been mentioned quite a few times already in the thread. I was trying to add additional points not repeat existing ones. If you look at what I say generally regarding splitting services I generally condone it where it is suggested for one reason e.g. the overhead electrics end at x so the service should be split at x comes up all the time on this forum.

Maybe a suggestion to feed back if you feel strongly about the split is that you don't support it due to .... and wish for it to remain as a through service. However, if that's not possible as an alternative Leeds-Nottingham could be given to EMT, who could tag it on to Nottingham-Norwich to maintain a through service between Sheffield and Peterborough/Norfolk as well as creating a new link to one of the largest cities in the North.

 

[w0033944]

However, if that's not possible as an alternative Leeds-Nottingham could be given to EMT, who could tag it on to Nottingham-Norwich to maintain a through service between Sheffield and Peterborough/Norfolk as well as creating a new link to one of the largest cities in the North.

Nice idea, but is that in the relevant document? If not, it isn't really a valid supporting argument for doing what is in the document. Taking that idea to its logical conclusion (argumentum ad absurdum), we could agree that the division of East Anglia - North-West services would be fine if we could have HS3 (HS4 now that the Government is pushing for a high-speed trans-Pennine route?) running from the North via. the Midlands to East Anglia; my point is that, if it isn't going to happen, it's pointless adding it to the list of upsides to the division of services which it appears is on the cards.

 

[northwichcat]

How many 158s would be freed if Nottingham-Liverpool was transferred? Could be around the number of extra units that'd be needed to reform EMTs 153s into 155s without a decrease in units on local services. If so it'd make sense as single 153s won't be appropriate after 2019.

There's bigger issues than the 153s which need to be addressed. 153s do have the advantage of being able to be attached to fully compliant 156s with corridor connectors, unlike Pacers.

I'd suggest that EMT may lose 158s to Northern with Northern needing more regional DMUs to be able to extend Blackpool to York services to Scarborough and likely needing to run a new Doncaster to Cleethorpes service.

If you were to give EMT the 7 x 155s and all the 153s (which could be reformed in to 155s) then they'd have around about the right number of units to run all their DMU routes after losing Liverpool-Nottingham so I think that's an option which should be explored.

 

[Mugby]

Convincing arguments which are making me rethink my opinion. Is there any mechanism by which, if the DfT divide a route like this between two TOCs, they can get them to co-ordinate arrival and departure times so through travellers aren't left waiting for ages at Nottingham?

Am I correct in thinking that the XC Birmingham - Cambridge - Stanstead and EMT Nottingham - Norwich services aren't particularly well co-ordinated at either Peterborough or Ely at the moment?

 

[northwichcat]

Nice idea, but is that in the relevant document? If not, it isn't really a valid supporting argument for doing what is in the document.

One of the consultation questions which appears at the end of the section where they mention splitting Liverpool-Norwich and South TPE says "STP4: Are there other options that you would put forward for consideration? Please provide any evidence you may have" So there's no reason why you can't suggest an alternative idea, especially as the Liverpool-Norwich is specifically mentioned and Leeds-Nottingham is currently operated by Northern.

 

[w0033944]

Am I correct in thinking that the XC Birmingham - Cambridge - Stanstead and EMT Nottingham - Norwich services aren't particularly well co-ordinated at either Peterborough or Ely at the moment?

Haven't a clue, I'm afraid - I'm disabled and not a regular rail user. My interest is more in terms of not wanting my local main line station losing direct destinations as I know people in this area use those services.

 

[Bevan Price]

One problem with the franchise system is that it deters original ideas & variety. If we had a national railway passenger network, we could have some Liverpool - Nottingham services extended to Cambridge, rather than Norwich - maybe running alternately to each destination.
Likewise, Birmingham could regain some through services to Norwich. And train crews would be trained to operate a greater variety of units, avoiding the need for wasteful nonsense such as e.c.s. moves between Nottingham & Liverpool.