East Midlands Franchise 2019-

[ashworth]

As an alternative solution could the service be split at Manchester Piccadilly instead ?

Most of the delays seem to be generated in passing through the congested two track corridor across Manchester. Starting the service from the terminus part of the station eliminates that and TPE can provide the section on to Liverpool.

This solution also removes the concern about missed connections at Nottingham meaning an hours wait.

Won’t happen. Too sensible!

 

[Killingworth]

It it was to be split, IMO the logical location would be Sheffield. EMT has very poor links from Nottingham to Sheffield through most of the day except for the Norwich-Liverpools, and both Sheffield and Nottingham are very much EMT stations. So if the Liverpool section was transferred to another TOC, I hope EMT would run Norwich-Sheffield and that other TOC would terminate at Sheffield (or work beyond like TPE does now).

This is an option that is being seriously considered. Alternate trains to overlap. Say, Liverpool - Sheffield 2 hourly, Liverpool - Nottingham 2 hourly, Sheffield - Norwich 2 hourly, Nottingham - Norwich 2 hourly.

Hourly service between all stations, but losing through services in the quest for a more resilient railway.

 

[B&I]

As an alternative solution could the service be split at Manchester Piccadilly instead ?

Most of the delays seem to be generated in passing through the congested two track corridor across Manchester. Starting the service from the terminus part of the station eliminates that and TPE can provide the section on to Liverpool.

This solution also removes the concern about missed connections at Nottingham meaning an hours wait.

Brilliant! If this service terminated at Piccadilly, where would Liverpool passengers be transferring to those TPE services ?

There really is no problem relating to rail travel in the northern half of England that someone on this forum won't suggest solving by cutting services to Liverpool, rather than addressing rhe actual cause of the problem.

 

[B&I]

If Nottingham to Liverpool was given to another TOC, would it be worth having a Norwich to Crewe service via Nottingham, Derby, etc?

This is close to my preference, which would be to replace Liverpool-Norwich via Nottingham with
1. Liverpool-Hull via Manchester and Sheffield
2. Norwich-West Yorkshire (Bradford ?) via Peterborough, Nottingham and Sheffield
3. Liverpool-Norwich via Crewe, Stoke, Derby, Nottingham and Peterborough. This last would require the most significant investment to enable the requisite movements at Crewe, and to improve line speeds from Stoke to Derby - if that was done I suspect journey times from Derby and all points east to the north west could be cut substantially over the current via-Sheffield detour. If splitting was feasible, this service could include Manchester and Stansted portions, or a separate Manchester-Stansted service could be run to increase frequency over the Crewe-Ely section.

The current service is useful to a lot of different markets, but is also being expected to do too many things at once in a reliable fashion.

 

[B&I]

It's currently a darn site more reliable than everything else in the area.

A late entry for the 2018 World Damning With Faint Praise Championships

 

[B&I]

Has the Liverpool to Norwich service always been as unreliable and problematic as it currently is? Is it just my imagination or has it only become a problem quite recently during the last 5 years. Apart from overcrowding between Sheffield and Manchester I always found it reasonably reliable when I used to use it quite regularly in the past. Has it been recent changes to timetables between Liverpool and Manchester and increased number of trains using the line between Manchester Piccadilly, Oxford Road and Deansgate that have caused the unreliability?

I’ve always been absolutely against splitting the service but I suppose if it has to be done Nottingham is probably the best place to split it. I do, however, feel sorry for passengers who regularly travel to or from stations like Sheffield, Chesterfield and Alfeton to East Anglia if they are to lose their through service. It won’t be much fun if there are delays and they arrive in Nottingham to see their connection just leaving with another hour to wait.

Approaching 15 years ago, under Central Trains, Liverpool-Norwich trains were cancelled continually thanks to lack of drivers. Things had improved dramatically since then, though delays to westbound trains of a few minutes by Piccadilly remained common. Punctuality seems to me to have now dropped off a cliff again, along with pretty much everything else around Manchester, so I think this is a case of The Castlefield Cataclysm Stikes Again

 

[yorksrob]

A late entry for the 2018 World Damning With Faint Praise Championships

Ha ha, I see your point,

However, in my experience it has generally turned up - and been a bit of a lifeline these past few months, given everything else that's been going on.

 

[DanTrain]

This is an option that is being considered. Alternate trains to overlap. Say, Liverpool - Sheffield 2 hourly, Liverpool - Nottingham 2 hourly, Sheffield - Norwich 2 hourly, Nottingham - Norwich 2 hourly.

Hourly service between all stations, but losing through services in the quest for a more resilient railway.

This strikes me as incredibly over-complicated, why not just run hourly Liverpool to Nottingham and Sheffield to Norwich. There's room for another fast Dore-Nottingham (at least until HS2), and perhaps some signalling upgrades may be needed Dore - Sheffield to fit this and another HV in, but it should be possible. Would give Sheffield - Nottingham something approaching a proper service too (currently Sheffield to Derby gets around 21 coaches per hour and Sheffield to Nottingham gets 6!).

2. Norwich-West Yorkshire (Bradford ?) via Peterborough, Nottingham and Sheffield

What says this will be more reliable than Liverpool Norwich - it sounds like a good idea but still involves passing through both Sheffield and Leeds, neither of which are exactly congestion-free?

3. Liverpool-Norwich via Crewe, Stoke, Derby, Nottingham and Peterborough. This last would require the most significant investment to enable the requisite movements at Crewe, and to improve line speeds from Stoke to Derby - if that was done I suspect journey times from Derby and all points east to the north west could be cut substantially over the current via-Sheffield detour. If splitting was feasible, this service could include Manchester and Stansted portions, or a separate Manchester-Stansted service could be run to increase frequency over the Crewe-Ely section.

This has been discussed a lot before, and is interesting, but isn't a large part of Liv-Nor connecting Manchester and environs to Notts/East Anglia, and would cutting Manchester out make a viable service? Equally, a Nottingham to Liverpool via Crewe could provide a vital link to the WCML from Nottingham (which is currently via Birmingham/ Trent Valley to head north).

 

[LowLevel]

Approaching 15 years ago, under Central Trains, Liverpool-Norwich trains were cancelled continually thanks to lack of drivers. Things had improved dramatically since then, though delays to westbound trains of a few minutes by Piccadilly remained common. Punctuality seems to me to have now dropped off a cliff again, along with pretty much everything else around Manchester, so I think this is a case of The Castlefield Cataclysm Stikes Again

5 years ago things were grand. The extra HLOS 156s from Northern had arrived. Short formed trains were nearly unheard of. Punctuality was pretty good. Class 156s very rarely appeared on the route.

2.5 years ago everything started getting worse. In May the Ordsall chord destroyed things and in the last few month the state of the infrastructure between Peterborough and Thetford has come to a head - there's a 5mph emergency speed restriction on the up line at Chettisham for massive freightliners to negotiate, the long 20 slack on the Welney river bridges has now gone (for now) but has been replaced with a long 20 mph at Queen Adelaide between Ely and Shippea Hill.

What's happened? Despite the spec for Persons of Reduced Mobility mods being agreed in 2012 due to constant direct awards due to government mismanagement of franchising the EMT fleet started to go in for work very late.

Consequently there's now more trains to Newark every hour, additional Sunday services and so on and until July when 4 tired 153s from GWR arrived only 1 additional 2 carriage 158 had been drafted in which wasn't enough to replace even the units for mods. The fleet have been worked harder and harder and are now on their last legs.

Similar stories can be repeated for GWR, Wales, Northern, ScotRail and Anglia.

Something revolutionary needs to happen with the new franchise to fix it but the invitation to tender gives little hope of that occurring

 

[Burgerstahl]

The above post from LowLevel is spot on.
The ITT is a typical government fudge of the issue.
Moving the Nottingham to Liverpool part away from EMT is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and the reason for it is to find a use for the Ardwick 185’s in a couple of years time. If it happens it won’t make the service any quicker across Manchester or improve the Eastern end of it.

 

[_toommm_]

Before you read this, I've never been to Norwich so don't know whether there would be a platform or siding where the unit could stable for half an hour if it was on time, and these are just views from a twice daily passenger on this route - I'm not in the industry...

Sheffield would make the best sense. At the moment, platform 7 is only used occasionally by the very service were talking about, plus one of the EM to London in the morning.

The service from Manchester could terminate on 1A, meaning 1B is still serviceable for XC from the South to the North. It could work on a 5 hour round trip, 2 hours roughly to Lime Street, half an hour recovery, 2 hours to Sheffield, half an hour recovery.

The service from Norwich could terminate on 7, and because it's so rarely used, it means it can have lots of recovery time. Sheffield to Norwich takes 4 hours give or take, so the service could work on a 9 hour round trip - 4 hours to Norwich, half an hour recovery, service to Sheffield, half an hour recovery.

Platform 7 can take a 4 car 158 easily so can foresee no problems with that. As for 1A, I believe it can do 5 without looking at the sectional appendix.

 

[Killingworth]

Before you read this, I've never been to Norwich so don't know whether there would be a platform or siding where the unit could stable for half an hour if it was on time, and these are just views from a twice daily passenger on this route - I'm not in the industry...

Sheffield would make the best sense. At the moment, platform 7 is only used occasionally by the very service were talking about, plus one of the EM to London in the morning.

The service from Manchester could terminate on 1A, meaning 1B is still serviceable for XC from the South to the North. It could work on a 5 hour round trip, 2 hours roughly to Lime Street, half an hour recovery, 2 hours to Sheffield, half an hour recovery.

The service from Norwich could terminate on 7, and because it's so rarely used, it means it can have lots of recovery time. Sheffield to Norwich takes 4 hours give or take, so the service could work on a 9 hour round trip - 4 hours to Norwich, half an hour recovery, service to Sheffield, half an hour recovery.

Platform 7 can take a 4 car 158 easily so can foresee no problems with that. As for 1A, I believe it can do 5 without looking at the sectional appendix.

I think you may find Sheffield Platform 7 is used regularly rather less rarely than you may think. Northern Hope Valley stopping services regularly use it (the arrival just after 8.00 I use frequently). Much better than out in the wilds 2C which they can't use if more than 2 carriages! Some East Midlands St Pancras services use it. It's certainly not just East Midlands services between Sheffield and Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Moving the Nottingham to Liverpool part away from EMT is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and the reason for it is to find a use for the Ardwick 185’s in a couple of years time. If it happens it won’t make the service any quicker across Manchester or improve the Eastern end of it.

Well, actually it might. Class 185s have wide doors at thirds, and a move to 6-car operation (particularly if the First Class can be removed and converted to Standard) would provide, for the first time since the route came into existence in the 1990s, adequate capacity at all times of day and thus further speed boarding and alighting.

 

[Killingworth]

Well, actually it might. Class 185s have wide doors at thirds, and a move to 6-car operation (particularly if the First Class can be removed and converted to Standard) would provide, for the first time since the route came into existence in the 1990s, adequate capacity at all times of day and thus further speed boarding and alighting.

If only! 2 x 185 bring their own problems as passengers try to find their carriage and seat, only to find they've jumped into the wrong half of the train in case it moves off without them!

That's another issue, getting passengers to identify where their carriage will be when their train eventually stops. With so many types of stock, with differing lengths of trains and different platforms, it's a real challenge to resolve that alone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If only! 2 x 185 bring their own problems as passengers try to find their carriage and seat, only to find they've jumped into the wrong half of the train in case it moves off without them!

That's another issue, getting passengers to identify where their carriage will be when their train eventually stops. With so many types of stock, with differing lengths of trains and different platforms, it's a real challenge to resolve that alone.

The Swiss, Germans and French manage it with far more combinations of formations than we will ever have. It just requires accurate formation information on the PIS and adequately granular platform markings. Neither are particularly hard to achieve.

 

[Killingworth]

The Swiss, Germans and French manage it with far more combinations of formations than we will ever have. It just requires accurate formation information on the PIS and adequately granular platform markings. Neither are particularly hard to achieve.

They seem to be here!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

They seem to be here!!

The UK does seem to have this overriding view (with a couple of exceptions like VTWC who have done something about this issue) that if it doesn't stop the wheels turning it doesn't matter. The thing is, it very much does.

The bus industry is as bad.

 

[DanTrain]

Before you read this, I've never been to Norwich so don't know whether there would be a platform or siding where the unit could stable for half an hour if it was on time, and these are just views from a twice daily passenger on this route - I'm not in the industry...

Sheffield would make the best sense. At the moment, platform 7 is only used occasionally by the very service were talking about, plus one of the EM to London in the morning.

The service from Manchester could terminate on 1A, meaning 1B is still serviceable for XC from the South to the North. It could work on a 5 hour round trip, 2 hours roughly to Lime Street, half an hour recovery, 2 hours to Sheffield, half an hour recovery.

The service from Norwich could terminate on 7, and because it's so rarely used, it means it can have lots of recovery time. Sheffield to Norwich takes 4 hours give or take, so the service could work on a 9 hour round trip - 4 hours to Norwich, half an hour recovery, service to Sheffield, half an hour recovery.

Platform 7 can take a 4 car 158 easily so can foresee no problems with that. As for 1A, I believe it can do 5 without looking at the sectional appendix.

Well, actually it might. Class 185s have wide doors at thirds, and a move to 6-car operation (particularly if the First Class can be removed and converted to Standard) would provide, for the first time since the route came into existence in the 1990s, adequate capacity at all times of day and thus further speed boarding and alighting.

These two posts strike me as slightly contradictory (yes I know they're by different people!). Sticking 2 2-car trains in Sheffield for half an hour each would be a stretch, but might just be acheivable using 7 and 2C much more effectivly, but having 2x6 car 185s strikes me as very difficult, especially when you consider that 2 EMT 222s also have to turn back at Sheffield with long waiting times (one ECSs onto the Darnall line and back to do this). Once you add in the plethora of Northern services, plus the requirement to keep at least 2 through platforms clear for XC/TPE, it'd become very hard to manage I suspect.

 

[_toommm_]

These two posts strike me as slightly contradictory (yes I know they're by different people!). Sticking 2 2-car trains in Sheffield for half an hour each would be a stretch, but might just be acheivable using 7 and 2C much more effectivly, but having 2x6 car 185s strikes me as very difficult, especially when you consider that 2 EMT 222s also have to turn back at Sheffield with long waiting times (one ECSs onto the Darnall line and back to do this). Once you add in the plethora of Northern services, plus the requirement to keep at least 2 through platforms clear for XC/TPE, it'd become very hard to manage I suspect.

Bit of an extreme option, but a remodelling of Sheffield may be in order. Having four through roads with no platforms is not necessary - 2 would suffice. One for Northern stabling on sham/strike days, one for freight that doesn't want to go through a platform.

Failing that, another North facing bay could be made out of the space between six and eight - a mirror of platform 7. Or like what Nottigham does, and have A/B/C platforms. A Northern unit in the middle with ample turnaround time, a 3 car 144 to the North eith a quick turnaround on the Huddersfield diagram, and the same on the South end for a service coming straight in and out too.

 

[Tomnick]

A fascinating discussion, but what does splitting the service at Sheffield actually achieve? Whatever you do, it’s likely to involve a long trek between trains for through passengers, but also it’s going to be a pain to accommodate at Sheffield.

Resilience of the service can be addressed at Nottingham by restarting the train right-time there (which leaves through passengers no worse off than if the service was permanently split there) but there’s the certainty of a through service otherwise (so they won’t miss their onward connection in the case of minor delays).

 

[DanTrain]

Failing that, another North facing bay could be made out of the space between six and eight - a mirror of platform 7. Or like what Nottigham does, and have A/B/C platforms. A Northern unit in the middle with ample turnaround time, a 3 car 144 to the North eith a quick turnaround on the Huddersfield diagram, and the same on the South end for a service coming straight in and out too.

This sounds like a good option - those through roads are always empty in the day in the week (well, unless Northern are on strike again), and a few crossovers and some signalling would go a long way to helping, given all Northern run are 2/3/4 car DMUs which don't take up much space!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't see any sense at all in splitting at Sheffield - Nottingham makes more sense, as the character of the service differs massively on either side. Or keep it as a through service if there are enough 185s - 6 car to Notts, 3 car beyond.

 

[43074]

Nottingham is the logical place to split the route without question, in terms of markets served Nottingham to Liverpool and Nottingham to Norwich are really quite different: Nottingham to Norwich is largely about people in Norwich etc making connections with ECML services at Peterborough, and providing a fast service from Peterborough & Grantham to Nottingham - on the western section there are reasonably strong flows in both directions between all four cities. It might make sense in the event of a future split if crew used on the route are based at, say, an expanded TPE crew depot in Sheffield but it doesn't really make sense to split the service there. That said I don't really see what splitting it achieves when the current setup works well, it's just rearranging the deckchairs - it needs more capacity (both East and West) so using 3-car units with the current splitting and joining at Nottingham would be fine.

185s are very heavy so I don't know if they could operate at Sprinter speed differentials over the Fens (some of which are quite significantly higher) but if that could be overcome they would be perfect.

 

[Killingworth]

185s are very heavy so I don't know if they could operate at Sprinter speed differentials over the Fens (some of which are quite significantly higher) but if that could be overcome they would be perfect.

185s don't seem to be able to use their full speed potential in a lot of places. They amble across from Doncaster to Grimsby on just 2 engines.

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding Liverpool - Norwich split, I would be in favour of and would suggest the following:

1) Liverpool - Manchester - Sheffield - Hull via Warrington Central, Doncaster, and Goole (TPE?)
2) Extension of the present Leeds - Sheffield via Barnsley limited stop to Nottingham so as to maintain the 2tph between Sheffield and Nottingham (Northern)
3) Introduce a limited stop Manchester Piccadilly - Nottingham calling Stockport, Hazel Grove, Chinley, Dore & Totley (if possible to build a platform on the curve), Chesterfield, either Alfreton, Ilkeston Parkway, or Langley Mill, Beeston, and Nottingham. This would be dependent upon the Hope Valley upgrade scheme as per existing thread. (EMT)
4) Nottingham - Norwich via Grantham. Perhaps this section of the route could run as double sets, with a portion being uncoupled at Ely which would continue to Cambridge? (EMT)

I cannot really think of anything better.

 

[Kite159]

Extension of the present Leeds - Sheffield via Barnsley limited stop to Nottingham so as to maintain the 2tph between Sheffield and

Hasn't that already been extended to Lincoln?

 

[Killingworth]

Regarding Liverpool - Norwich split, I would be in favour of and would suggest the following:

1) Liverpool - Manchester - Sheffield - Hull via Warrington Central, Doncaster, and Goole (TPE?)
2) Extension of the present Leeds - Sheffield via Barnsley limited stop to Nottingham so as to maintain the 2tph between Sheffield and Nottingham (Northern)
3) Introduce a limited stop Manchester Piccadilly - Nottingham calling Stockport, Hazel Grove, Chinley, Dore & Totley (if possible to build a platform on the curve), Chesterfield, either Alfreton, Ilkeston Parkway, or Langley Mill, Beeston, and Nottingham. This would be dependent upon the Hope Valley upgrade scheme as per existing thread. (EMT)
4) Nottingham - Norwich via Grantham. Perhaps this section of the route could run as double sets, with a portion being uncoupled at Ely which would continue to Cambridge? (EMT)

I cannot really think of anything better.

1 might be being considered already.

2 might also be possible.

3 couldn't work, although the extra service on the Hope Valley line might well include a semi-fast stopping at Dore, Hope, Chinley and Stockport. Building a platform on the curve through Dore tunnel was thrown out as an idea back either in the 1880s when the Dore & Chinley Railway was being planned, or a little later when the line was quadrupled from Dore into Sheffield in 1903. A station on all 3 tracks on what is now called the railway triangle was envisaged, but all three lines would have been on tight curves, the tightest between Dore West and Dore South junctions.

4 may be feasible.

 

[Killingworth]

Hasn't that already been extended to Lincoln?

Yes, but it could be changed.

 

[Owen T]

185s don't seem to be able to use their full speed potential in a lot of places. They amble across from Doncaster to Grimsby on just 2 engines.

It's true they can't use their speed potential in places (Hope Valley line), but there are no speed differentials between Donny and Grimbsy, the reason for two engines is that part of the route being very quiet from a drivers point of view - more opportunity to use the 'speedset' feature which allows one engine to shut down after 2mins (the eco-mode kicking in).

 

[LowLevel]

Incidentally have a look at the East Midlands Trains Twitter feed this evening for some interesting videos and images of what we are up against.

The fleet of police vehicles trying to contain the football fans rioting at Derby is quite impressive.