East Midlands draft RUS published (inc Norwich-Liverpool)

[David Pemberton]

Network rail has published the Draft Route Utilization Strategy for the East Midlands including the Norwich Liverpool route

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/

At the moment it is listed directly on the Network Rail homepage (if it gets moved off look at the RUS sections on the left-hand navigation)

Plenty to read, and lots of backup data. Of interest to several recent/recurring topics on the forum:

Norwich to Liverpool, especially overcrowding (suggested answer is more coaches...)

Rail travel in Lincolnshire (the sums don't stack up)

MML journey times (stuck with what's planned in Control Period 4, i.e. very little) and don't expect electrification

Doubtless lots more in the 140 odd pages - the neatly laid out appraisals of the options are interesting as they are the clearest insight into the thinking I've seen.

 

[jamesontheroad]

Thanks for sharing. One thing immediately jumps out, which follows on previous suggestions here and elsewhere:

East Midlands Trains (EMT) is currently in discussions with the Department for Transport (DfT) to provide additional capacity on the Liverpool – Norwich service, which will reduce crowding along the route and at other urban centres outside the RUS area. The majority of the crowding occurs between Liverpool and Nottingham and the additional capacity provided will contribute to crowding relief at Nottingham in the peak. There is generally sufficient capacity on existing services to address future growth between Nottingham and Norwich.Therefore, the proposal is that the service will operate with mostly four-car trains between Liverpool and Nottingham and two-cars continuing to Norwich.

In addition, the extension of the 13:52 Liverpool – Nottingham service to Norwich and the strengthening of the 05:52 Norwich to Liverpool will provide further crowding relief at Nottingham and spread the passenger loading across the peak.

The RUS recommends lengthening the busiest two-car services to four-cars (five trains in the eastbound direction and seven trains in the westbound direction) and extending a Liverpool – Nottingham train to Norwich. This will require the provision of an additional 12 vehicles. This option is recommended for implementation by 2019 subject to the conclusion of the commercial negotiations between EMT and the DfT.

EDIT: however, then you get to page 88 and read this footnote to these proposals:

This option is recommended for implementation by 2019 subject to the
conclusion of the commercial negotiations between EMT and the DfT.

Ten years to find 12 extra 2-car units? Presumably by then Glasgow Queen Street - Edinburgh via Falkirk will have been electrified, so maybe ScotRail can cascade some 170s and send some 158s south?

So those of us who have complained about NT having three car 158s instead of EMT won't be seeing any movement there. It looks like 2-car diagrams with doubling up west of Nottingham is the way forward. As long as passengers for stations east of Nottingham are clearly instructed, and coaches are identified appropriately... at least the 158s have the gangways that the 170s don't for moving between units with different destinations en route.

 

[TheBigD]

Love this line from the top of page 7,

In addition, two extra vehicles are
recommended for local peak services in the
East Midlands. It is recommended that some
strengthening takes place as soon as additional
rolling stock becomes available

Christ, 2 whole vehicles!

Did the author's actually use the trains in the East Midlands?

 

[northwichcat]

They probably used them on parts of routes. For the North West one they only looked at Manchester-Stockport for services in Northern Rail's 'South Manchester' services, as of course everyone boarding a Manchester bound train stays on the train until it reaches Manchester.:roll: This means that they correctly noticed that peak Buxton-Manchester trains are overcrowded, but classed peak Chester-Altrincham-Manchester trains as only three quarters full, even though some peak and off-peak services are overcrowded between Knutsford and Altrincham and are less busy between Stockport and Manchester.

They also did the North West RUS counts during school summer holidays, so that means most routes would have had less passengers on during the morning peak than usual. Also using LENNON data is inaccurate, especially in PTE areas where people can be travelling on combined bus and train tickets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For Liverpool to Norwich:

This will eliminate most standing on this corridor. Crowding will still remain on
one morning service and two evening services between Liverpool and
Manchester Oxford Road. This will be addressed by the future Northern RUS.

Does that mean another RUS for the North? I know they screwed up the North West one because they then changed quite a few of the outcomes of the North West RUS because of Virgin wanting extra paths for London trains.

 

[David Pemberton]

Thanks to a couple of long train journeys I've now had a chance to read the RUS cover to cover.

And it's very odd because despite being a Network Rail document (they who look after the track & infrastructure), the majority of their recommendations are to do with rolling stock. Now I am a) easily confused, and b) have a tendency to see conspiracy where there is none. So my fallible logic makes me wonder if Network Rail have written a RUS where most of the recommendations are ones that they won't have to fund, because all their time and money will be focussed elsewhere, e.g. GWML electrification.

Things that I had hoped to see that aren't radical would have included:

1. Increasing the 50 mph linespeed of the 3rd & 4th "freight lines" between Kettering and Bedford (so that they are more use for scheduling passing by fast passengers services of slow passenger services).

2. Remodelling of Bedford to include an up-fast platform (so that MML trains can call at Bedford and then travel non-stop to STP, connecting at Bedford for the improved Thameslink services for intermediate stations).

3. Further linespeed improvements to 125 mph (is anywhere south of Trent 125 mph?)

The message of the RUS seems to be "What you've got in CPL4 and that's it."

 

[Waverley125]

that's the problem though. There's so much that needs doing and there just won't be the will, after Adonis goes, to do it. Especially with the f*****g tories coming in, so the transport budget (and especially the budget for projects in the north) can expect to take a massive hit. Just for the East Midlands we need:

-increased line speeds to 125mph along the entire MML
-electrification from Bedford to Wakefield
-longer trains on Norwich-Liverpool
-better frequency on local services by introducing 'stop' and 'express' services on some routes.

then add on East Anglia, northern england etc. and you get the picture.

 

[northwichcat]

I think you're mixing up 'need' and 'want.' Electrification can reduce long terms costs but involves a very high level of investment in the first place, which is probably why both FGW and EMT Mainline services aren't both going to be electrified in the next few years, one mainline costs enough for now.

If you say 'need' then it should mean things like:
* Extra carriages are needed because passengers are unable to board or have to stand for a long time.
* The seats need replacing because they are broken

If you say 'want' then it should mean something like:
* Extra carriages are wanted because 20 people have to stand for 10 minutes but still reach their destination.
* The seat covers are a bit worn so we want new seat covers.

 

[Kneedown]

MML journey times (stuck with what's planned in Control Period 4, i.e. very little) and don't expect electrification.

It does actually say on page 10 of the document electrification of the MML is recommended and that costings etc are ongoing.

What struck me is that, the mention of 4 car trains from liverpool, dividing into a 2 car service at Notts for the journey to Norwich, would seem to imply more 158's, but it recommends this for implemtation by 2019, by which time 158's will be well past their sell by date. They are now!

 

[Aictos]

2. Remodelling of Bedford to include an up-fast platform (so that MML trains can call at Bedford and then travel non-stop to STP, connecting at Bedford for the improved Thameslink services for intermediate stations).

Well the station will be remodelled in the next few years for the Thameslink project which includes extending the current bay platform though the current concourse!

It actually looks quite impressive what NR, FCC, EMT and LM all want to do regarding the remodelling of the station.

But saying that, since the remodelling will take place, they should have a layout like Stevenage with platforms on all lines allowing services to use any platform.

 

[jamesontheroad]

It does actually say on page 10 of the document electrification of the MML is recommended and that costings etc are ongoing.

What struck me is that, the mention of 4 car trains from liverpool, dividing into a 2 car service at Notts for the journey to Norwich, would seem to imply more 158's, but it recommends this for implemtation by 2019, by which time 158's will be well past their sell by date. They are now!

Perhaps the MML will be electrified by then, and the Meridians can take over

 

[Aictos]

Perhaps the MML will be electrified by then, and the Meridians can take over

Yes but people forget about the limits of the line from Peterborough to Norwich, there is a reason why Turbostars or Sprinters are used and not 222s or similar stock.

Hell, I would love to see 222s in 5 car formations work both Birmingham to Stansted and Norwich to Liverpool in the next XC franchise which would certainly help with the overcrowding but will it happen, probably not!

With the Turbostars and Sprinters being cascaded to elsewhere where they are probably in desperate need of rolling stock ie Northern which would mean finally scrapping the Pacers,

 

[tbtc]

It does actually say on page 10 of the document electrification of the MML is recommended and that costings etc are ongoing.

What struck me is that, the mention of 4 car trains from liverpool, dividing into a 2 car service at Notts for the journey to Norwich, would seem to imply more 158's, but it recommends this for implemtation by 2019, by which time 158's will be well past their sell by date. They are now!

The trouble is that the 170s/ 222s have no corridor connections, which would mess up the plan to split the service at Nottingham.

A novice would suggest getting some new 172s to get round this, and the route *would* get brand new trains IF it were in the West Midlands, but not in the East Midlands!

 

[Aictos]

The trouble is that the 170s/ 222s have no corridor connections, which would mess up the plan to split the service at Nottingham.

A novice would suggest getting some new 172s to get round this, and the route *would* get brand new trains IF it were in the West Midlands, but not in the East Midlands!

Yes but there would be no need to split the service at Nottingham with a 220 type in a 5 car formation as there would be room for all, okay it would still be busy but there would be more chances of getting a seat in the Liverpool to Nottingham section as well as the Nottingham to Norwich section plus the guard could use SDO for stations with shorter platforms.

Anyway, instead of Virgin using 221s over the Birmingham to Scotland route which is electrified anyway, they could look back and reintroduce LHCS on the route freeing up the 221s which could go back to XC which would then take the Norwich to Liverpool service off EMT.

Having said that, Virgin could keep 12 for the Holyheads but seeing as I don't know the area I couldn't say if that would be reasonable but in today's world with the time it takes to get extra rolling stock, it's always a case of robbing peter to pay paul etc...

 

[tbtc]

Yes but there would be no need to split the service at Nottingham with a 220 type in a 5 car formation as there would be room for all, okay it would still be busy but there would be more chances of getting a seat in the Liverpool to Nottingham section as well as the Nottingham to Norwich section plus the guard could use SDO for stations with shorter platforms

I'd personally say that two cars is probably enough for the route east of Nottingham (maybe three), but (living in Peterborough) you may disagree!

 

[krus_aragon]

Having said that, Virgin could keep 12 for the Holyheads but seeing as I don't know the area I couldn't say if that would be reasonable

thejunction's diagram lists show eight units making runs to Chester and North Wales on weekdays. Several of those also run to Preston or Birmingham for some of the day. Twelve would surely be enough for the aspired two-hourly service to Bangor/Holyhead as well.

 

[Aictos]

I'd personally say that two cars is probably enough for the route east of Nottingham (maybe three), but (living in Peterborough) you may disagree!

2 cars east of Nottingham is unreasonable as they usually are full between Norwich and Peterborough as seen a few times when I've been at Ely and wanting to travel mainly to Peterborough with every seat used and people standing in the vestibules.

Which is why I much prefer the NXEA 3 car services,

thejunction's diagram lists show eight units making runs to Chester and North Wales on weekdays. Several of those also run to Preston or Birmingham for some of the day. Twelve would surely be enough for the aspired two-hourly service to Bangor/Holyhead as well.

Which leaves only 9 Class 221s for XC but that should be acceptable for either Birmingham to Stansted or Norwich to Liverpool.

 

[Kneedown]

they could look back and reintroduce LHCS on the route freeing up the 221s which could go back to XC which would then take the Norwich to Liverpool service off EMT.

Why should we have the route taken off us? It's not our fault we havn't got adequate rolling stock to run it properly.
Tell you what, XC can have the Liv - Norwich's and we'll have the Cardiff's back!

 

[Aictos]

Why should we have the route taken off us? It's not our fault we havn't got adequate rolling stock to run it properly.
Tell you what, XC can have the Liv - Norwich's and we'll have the Cardiff's back!

Hang on a sec, the only reason I suggest for a XC franchise to run that route is because it's a cross country route - nothing at all to do with the lack of rolling stock.

Much like the West Anglia and Great Northern routes should never have been separated as Thameslink should have merged with South Eastern or Southern.

 

[northwichcat]

All XC services serve Birmingham. Perhaps that's intentional that non-Birmingham services weren't made part of the XC franchise.

Services like Liverpool to Norwich, Manchester Airport to Newcastle, Manchester Airport to Edinburgh, Cardiff to Holyhead and Manchester to Milford Haven shouldn't have inferior rolling stock to XC services whoever runs them.

In reply to the person who said 2 car 158s can't cope east of Nottingham, I've never travelled on that part but I guess they can't cope if 4 car 158s are supposed to be adequate for the Liverpool-Sheffield section, (which they aren't.)

 

[WillPS]

Norwich - Peterborough can get very busy. One of my worst Norwich - Liverpool experiences was coming back on the first day after Christmas from family near Thetford. The thing was flipping rammed! I think the best option is 3 car trains as standard with 153s for strengthening west of Nottingham.

 

[rww100]

Norwich - Peterborough can get very busy. One of my worst Norwich - Liverpool experiences was coming back on the first day after Christmas from family near Thetford. The thing was flipping rammed! I think the best option is 3 car trains as standard with 153s for strengthening west of Nottingham.

3 car trains would just about suffice for the less busy times between Liverpool and Nottingham, but IMO, they should get some 222s on the full route, and then use the 158s to do extra trips between Nottingham and Norwich.

 

[Kneedown]

Hang on a sec, the only reason I suggest for a XC franchise to run that route is because it's a cross country route - nothing at all to do with the lack of rolling stock.

Much like the West Anglia and Great Northern routes should never have been separated as Thameslink should have merged with South Eastern or Southern.

By that reckoning then, a lot of First Trans-Pennine routes should come under XC control.

 

[MCR247]

3 car trains would just about suffice for the less busy times between Liverpool and Nottingham, but IMO, they should get some 222s on the full route, and then use the 158s to do extra trips between Nottingham and Norwich.

extra trips from Notts - Norwich? Waste of units, should be to liverpool.

I've been on the second service of the day from Notts - Norwich. I had a carrige to myself (& family)
I've been on the second Liverpool service, and the train was 50% full

 

[WillPS]

By that reckoning then, a lot of First Trans-Pennine routes should come under XC control.

I'd rather have Norwich - Liverpool become a TransPennine route. It's not a London bound InterCity route, and it's certainly not a "Local" route so it does not belong with East Midlands Trains.

 

[Waverley125]

I'd rather have Norwich - Liverpool become a TransPennine route. It's not a London bound InterCity route, and it's certainly not a "Local" route so it does not belong with East Midlands Trains.

Desiros

 

[monkey]

...desiro 185'shock:

 

[Aictos]

Nah, 444s but AC only!

 

[rww100]

I've never noticed the electrification along this route ...