EMR December 2020 Timetable Consultation

[Jorge Da Silva]

Some alterations are needed to the proposals.

• Current 1645 Nottingham HST service to St. Pancras deposits a large number of passengers getting off the train at Luton Town station. This service will need to be retained. I use it often. There will be a need for some direct through service throughout the day. Perhaps call on alternative hours at either Luton Parkway or Bedford.
• The prospect of having to change at KETTERING and again at LEICESTER is unattractive and unviable for many passengers . One change may work with cross platform interchange but two won't. At Kettering passengers will have to walk up flights of stairs over the bridge and down again. Not very user friendly for disabled and elderly people or with prams and luggage even with a lift when it works. I can't see EMR timetabling the fast Nottingham service to call on platform 2 on the slow at Kettering northbound behind the Corby stopper for passenger convenience and P1 southbound.
• What is despartely needed is a through train to Manchester Piccadilly from places such as Luton, Kettering, Leicester and Derby preferably direct avoiding Sheffield . Connectvity from Leicester to Manchester is very poor and there is untapped demand for such a service even if it had to reverse at Sheffield. (During the west coast route modernisation under Project Rio the direct service carried a very healthy number of through passengers).

Is a Manchester train more important than a direct service to Leeds?

and there are plans for a third fast train per hour between Manchester and Sheffield when the hope valley line upgrade is complete.

 

[BlockBackBobby]

The EMR track access application for December 2020 has been published on the Network Rail website. The details are as expected.

Any chance of a link please?

 

[Killingworth]

Is a Manchester train more important than a direct service to Leeds?

and there are plans for a third fast train per hour between Manchester and Sheffield when the hope valley line upgrade is complete.

The Hope Valley scheme won't be completed before December 2023 timetable changes by which time anything may happen. Originally proposed to allow 4 fast paths per hour it is now struggling to fit in 3, but that will be for the DfT and TOC's to resolve nearer completion. Where the third service begins and ends is unclear, but anything extra running anywhere near Manchester will be fraught with reliability issues!

My current understanding is that the scheme should be given the go ahead by late 2020/early 2021 at which time that December 2023 date may be confirmed. It would seem likely that about that time TPE wil be given the go ahead to retain 185s and possibly take over Nottingham - Liverpool in 2021.

 

[cle]

Is a Manchester train more important than a direct service to Leeds?

and there are plans for a third fast train per hour between Manchester and Sheffield when the hope valley line upgrade is complete.

I'd say yes to Manchester over Leeds. Derby has Leeds services already, so that's one big pair covered.

Manchester is a larger market overall, and Stockport is larger than Wakefield too (as the 'outer stop').

That said, an hourly Leeds might be very useful for the intermediate journeys too.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'd say yes to Manchester over Leeds. Derby has Leeds services already, so that's one big pair covered.

Manchester is a larger market overall, and Stockport is larger than Wakefield too (as the 'outer stop').

That said, an hourly Leeds might be very useful for the intermediate journeys too.

My reading of the track access application is that the future EMR Leeds service is one per day each way...

 

[tbtc]

Some alterations are needed to the proposals.

• Current 1645 Nottingham HST service to St. Pancras deposits a large number of passengers getting off the train at Luton Town station. This service will need to be retained. I use it often. There will be a need for some direct through service throughout the day. Perhaps call on alternative hours at either Luton Parkway or Bedford.
• The prospect of having to change at KETTERING and again at LEICESTER is unattractive and unviable for many passengers . One change may work with cross platform interchange but two won't. At Kettering passengers will have to walk up flights of stairs over the bridge and down again. Not very user friendly for disabled and elderly people or with prams and luggage even with a lift when it works. I can't see EMR timetabling the fast Nottingham service to call on platform 2 on the slow at Kettering northbound behind the Corby stopper for passenger convenience and P1 southbound.
• What is despartely needed is a through train to Manchester Piccadilly from places such as Luton, Kettering, Leicester and Derby preferably direct avoiding Sheffield . Connectvity from Leicester to Manchester is very poor and there is untapped demand for such a service even if it had to reverse at Sheffield. (During the west coast route modernisation under Project Rio the direct service carried a very healthy number of through passengers).

So, there are *many* passengers who travel regularly from Luton/ Bedford (etc) through to Derby/ Sheffield (i.e. the "many" that you quote as being inconvenienced by the change from having to change at Leicester to having to change at Kettering and Leicester)?

But you want Luton to have a service to Manchester that avoids Sheffield? So that any Luton (etc) passengers would still need to change trains, even if we went back to a St Pancras - Manchester service (despite the three trains per hour up the WCML and HS2 in the pipeline)?

I'm confused.

I get the balance between "Bedfordshire people wanting better links to the north" and "Yorkshire/ East Midlands people wanting fast journeys to London" - and, as I've said on here a few times, I'd be okay with a stop if there were one big hub/junction in Bedfordshire - but the demand is split between five places, each with competing (and different) claims to a stop in the long distance high speed services. The Airport is the leisure destination, Luton is the biggest place, Bedford is the junction (but comes at the cost of weaving over the tracks)... you can't tick all of these boxes at once, and the Thameslink service has a stranglehold on the line south of Bedford, meaning little scope for any increased EMR provision.

About the only other option would be a DMU stopper from Bedford to Leicester but that still wouldn't help with a journey like Luton to Sheffield - and even if we did find the resources for that kind of service, we're talking pretty small numbers (when compared to the long distance inter-city journeys).

 

[Aictos]

So, there are *many* passengers who travel regularly from Luton/ Bedford (etc) through to Derby/ Sheffield (i.e. the "many" that you quote as being inconvenienced by the change from having to change at Leicester to having to change at Kettering and Leicester)?

But you want Luton to have a service to Manchester that avoids Sheffield? So that any Luton (etc) passengers would still need to change trains, even if we went back to a St Pancras - Manchester service (despite the three trains per hour up the WCML and HS2 in the pipeline)?

I'm confused.

I get the balance between "Bedfordshire people wanting better links to the north" and "Yorkshire/ East Midlands people wanting fast journeys to London" - and, as I've said on here a few times, I'd be okay with a stop if there were one big hub/junction in Bedfordshire - but the demand is split between five places, each with competing (and different) claims to a stop in the long distance high speed services. The Airport is the leisure destination, Luton is the biggest place, Bedford is the junction (but comes at the cost of weaving over the tracks)... you can't tick all of these boxes at once, and the Thameslink service has a stranglehold on the line south of Bedford, meaning little scope for any increased EMR provision.

About the only other option would be a DMU stopper from Bedford to Leicester but that still wouldn't help with a journey like Luton to Sheffield - and even if we did find the resources for that kind of service, we're talking pretty small numbers (when compared to the long distance inter-city journeys).

To be fair, the airport did fine before they built Luton Airport Parkway with passengers getting the rail link coach from Luton to the airport and don’t forget you have a frequent 10 minute frequency on Arriva’s A route plus you have Greenline’s 757 route as well as Stagecoach’s 99 route the latter two run a frequent half hourly service...

So rather then stop at the airport, Luton and Bedford, just ignore the airport as you have to get a bus anyway so might as well get one from Luton, leave Bedford until the station is either remodelled or relocated and use Luton as a interchange between IC, TL, coaches and buses.

 

[edwin_m]

Current 1645 Nottingham HST service to St. Pancras deposits a large number of passengers getting off the train at Luton Town station. This service will need to be retained. I use it often. There will be a need for some direct through service throughout the day. Perhaps call on alternative hours at either Luton Parkway or Bedford.

I've responded to suggest the slower Nottingham service should continue to call at the Airport Parkway, as this would provide quite a few links. But there may be reasons why that won't fit in the timetable or the revenue lost due to longer journey time for through passengers may be more than that gained from the extra stop. The whole timetable is built out of fixed intervals all day so it's unlikely they would consider one random stop in a longer-distance train simply because one person uses it and claims others do too.

The prospect of having to change at KETTERING and again at LEICESTER is unattractive and unviable for many passengers . One change may work with cross platform interchange but two won't. At Kettering passengers will have to walk up flights of stairs over the bridge and down again. Not very user friendly for disabled and elderly people or with prams and luggage even with a lift when it works. I can't see EMR timetabling the fast Nottingham service to call on platform 2 on the slow at Kettering northbound behind the Corby stopper for passenger convenience and P1 southbound.

That's a concern, and one hopes they will provide extra assistance and facilities at Kettering. There is a modern footbridge with lifts but same platform interchange is unlikely (Leicester should be same or cross platform). But more stops further south would mean that the longer-distance trains will be crowded out with shorter-distance passengers, as the slower Nottingham is today south of Bedford even off-peak. The objective is to divert those people onto the electrics which in turn facilitiates the shortening of some of the trains that go north of Leicester. All, probably, a consequence of the electrification being "Graylinged" and the need to use expensive bi-modes instead of EMUs.

What is despartely needed is a through train to Manchester Piccadilly from places such as Luton, Kettering, Leicester and Derby preferably direct avoiding Sheffield . Connectvity from Leicester to Manchester is very poor and there is untapped demand for such a service even if it had to reverse at Sheffield. (During the west coast route modernisation under Project Rio the direct service carried a very healthy number of through passengers).

​

During Project Rio the direct London-Manchester service wasn't running so not surprising the alternative provided for that purpose was quite well filled. That says very little about how many would travel between Leicester/Derby and Manchester. The priority for the third Hope Valley path is to improve services between Manchester and Sheffield so it's unlikely a train avoiding Sheffield would be accepted.

 

[Killingworth]

During Project Rio the direct London-Manchester service wasn't running so not surprising the alternative provided for that purpose was quite well filled. That says very little about how many would travel between Leicester/Derby and Manchester. The priority for the third Hope Valley path is to improve services between Manchester and Sheffield so it's unlikely a train avoiding Sheffield would be accepted.

It would be fiercely resisted in Sheffield! When the Hope Valley scheme was originally planned it was to provide 4 fast Hope Valley paths. It might have been slightly more acceptable for one of them to use the Dore curve to miss out Dore and Sheffield.

As far as Project Rio was concerned, wasn't it operating for too short a time to develop new Manchester to East Midlands traffic, and long enough to deter many Manchester - London travellers from using rail? For those reasons some accounts say it wasn't that well filled.

 

[High Dyke]

Class 222s will operate, whether that is in 2020 or 2021 remains to be seen, at present a small band of Senior Conductors sign HSTs and an even smaller band sign HSTs with SDO, nobody as yet signs 222s and Skegness!

222S will also need to be route cleared between Sleaford & Skegness.

 

[cle]

If Birmingham can have actual competition and two routes, and now Crewe/Liverpool - why can't Manchester - or Leeds for that matter.

If Luton or Bedford were hourly (or alternated), and Leicester, Derby and Chesterfield were connected with Stockport and Manchester - to me, that adds up to a reasonably interesting new service. Better than endless Blackpool to London conversations.

Slower than the WCML end to end, of course, but the amount of students and other travellers might be enticed by some cheaper fares from London to Manc too.

Similarly, I think the fast Sheffield should go to Leeds every hour.

 

[gaillark]

Is a Manchester train more important than a direct service to Leeds?

and there are plans for a third fast train per hour between Manchester and Sheffield when the hope valley line upgrade is complete.

Yes Manchester is more important than Leeds as there is an hourly service and better between Derby and Leeds.
Business Leaders have been calling for much improved links to Manchester. Leeds is already well served.

 

[43096]

(During the west coast route modernisation under Project Rio the direct service carried a very healthy number of through passengers).

It didn't. It really didn't. I used that service fairly regularly and other than days when the West Coast route was blocked (which was why it was running in the first place), it was always empty north of Leicester. I regularly had a coach to myself between Leicester and Manchester.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes Manchester is more important than Leeds as there is an hourly service and better between Derby and Leeds.
Business Leaders have been calling for much improved links to Manchester. Leeds is already well served.

There is also an hourly service between Nottingham and Manchester so I can't really see that either is more important than the other for links to the East Midlands.

 

[swt_passenger]

I’m sure the consultation is all about EMR’s plans to meet the ITT and the timetable is agreed with DfT already. No idea why extensions to Manchester are even being proposed in this discussion, isn’t it a bit late?

 

[222001]

Any chance of a link please?

It's available in here - https://www.networkrail.co.uk/indus...ormation-for-operators/sale-of-access-rights/

It proves Leeds services will continue - but it's just one London - Leeds evening peak service, that then runs a return Leeds - Derby.

 

[Class 170101]

If services between EMR land to Leeds and Manchester why not extend one of the Sheffield services to Leeds and the other to Manchester (reverse at Sheffield)?

 

[edwin_m]

If services between EMR land to Leeds and Manchester why not extend one of the Sheffield services to Leeds and the other to Manchester (reverse at Sheffield)?

An extra five-car set every hour between Sheffield and both Leeds and Manchester would certainly help with passenger numbers, but there probably wouldn't be a path for them. However to resource these services EMR would have to source around six more bi-modes, which would involve re-writing the franchise agreement, and introduce an extra operator on each route when the general aim is to do the opposite.

 

[BlockBackBobby]

It's available in here - https://www.networkrail.co.uk/indus...ormation-for-operators/sale-of-access-rights/

It proves Leeds services will continue - but it's just one London - Leeds evening peak service, that then runs a return Leeds - Derby.

Thank you

 

[LowLevel]

Well interestingly the supplementary document for the track access application appears to suggest Norwich to Liverpool with a few exceptions will terminate at Man Picc from December 2020. Perhaps that's part of their proposal to mitigate the issues at Castlefield.

 

[tbtc]

An extra five-car set every hour between Sheffield and both Leeds and Manchester would certainly help with passenger numbers, but there probably wouldn't be a path for them. However to resource these services EMR would have to source around six more bi-modes, which would involve re-writing the franchise agreement, and introduce an extra operator on each route when the general aim is to do the opposite.

Agreed - instead we are getting a two coach Northern DMU (the "new" Nottingham - Wakefield Westgate - Bradford service), which won't be much use - extending the St Pancras services would be much more use.

It's a shame that the platforms at Meadowhall are so short otherwise I'd recommend an extension of the half hourly London - Sheffield service onto Meadowhall - Barnsley - Wakefield Kirkgate - Leeds (replacing the Northern DMUs).

But I can't see EMR running anything beyond what they have committed to, and I can't see any Manchester extension happening (or any justification for using MML paths to provide a Manchester service that avoids Sheffield).

 

[cle]

The Hope Valley should be doubled throughout - I'd expect 3-4 faster services at least, plus a local, even if that had to be short-formed and maybe only into Stockport. It's crazy that there can't be both another East Midlands - Manchester, and additional fast Sheffield when both would be so useful.

I always think the Derby-Stoke line could possibly do more on a regional/long distance basis, as it's doubled and has capacity.

 

[OrangeJuice]

I always think the Derby-Stoke line could possibly do more on a regional/long distance basis, as it's doubled and has capacity.

I completely agree it could be a key route to link cross-country from the East Mids onto Crewe and its connections.

However it is painfully slow in places and whilst the rolling stock will be improved it would also be nice for the line speeds to improve too, although I'm not sure whether the signalling or number of level crossings is the biggest hindrance to that

 

[153375]

Reading through the track access application if I’ve read it right there seems to be a few changes on the Nottingham - Skegness route. There’s an additional later Nottingham - Boston train Monday - Saturday. There’s a Doncaster - Boston service once a day which I assume will replace the 20:48 Lincoln - Boston as this appears to have been scrapped. There also seems to be a daily Boston - Newark Northgate service and a all day service on a Sunday which is good. There is also a Saturday only service from Matlock - Sleaford which is a bit of a weird one.
Even more strange there appears to be a Leicester - Peterborough via notts, Lincoln and Sleaford and return on a weekday. Overall it seems good what EMR are proposing but wether it happens remains to be seen.

 

[OrangeJuice]

Reading through the track access application if I’ve read it right there seems to be a few changes on the Nottingham - Skegness route. There’s an additional later Nottingham - Boston train Monday - Saturday. There’s a Doncaster - Boston service once a day which I assume will replace the 20:48 Lincoln - Boston as this appears to have been scrapped. There also seems to be a daily Boston - Newark Northgate service and a all day service on a Sunday which is good. There is also a Saturday only service from Matlock - Sleaford which is a bit of a weird one.
Even more strange there appears to be a Leicester - Peterborough via notts, Lincoln and Sleaford and return on a weekday. Overall it seems good what EMR are proposing but wether it happens remains to be seen.

Could these be a way of helping diagram capacity where its needed most between peaks?

Or a way of shuffling units between overnight stabling points

 

[MML]

I suggested using the short HSTs which stable at Cricklewood between the morning and evening peaks to operate a St Pancras to Manchester via Sheffield and return.
With new rolling stock and plans to use 2 x 5 car units only in the peak, rather than stabling unwanted units at Cricklewood during the day, the St Pancras to Sheffield service could continue to operate as a 10 car with 5 car units continuing via Hope valley to Manchester on the fast, and 5 cars continuing to Leeds on the semi fast.

 

[Killingworth]

I suggested using the short HSTs which stable at Cricklewood between the morning and evening peaks to operate a St Pancras to Manchester via Sheffield and return.
With new rolling stock and plans to use 2 x 5 car units only in the peak, rather than stabling unwanted units at Cricklewood during the day, the St Pancras to Sheffield service could continue to operate as a 10 car with 5 car units continuing via Hope valley to Manchester on the fast, and 5 cars continuing to Leeds on the semi fast.

As there's not enough room on the Hope Valley line to operate the 3 current services reliably I'm interested to know how an extra service can be fit in. As it is the stopping service can't stop all stations on all journeys as it skip stops to avoid freight paths. There's congestion north and east of Sheffield towards Leeds too.

After December 2023 possibly for Hope Valley, but problematic into Manchester. The Leeds end may be a different story. However it sounds like it would add another potentially unreliable long distance service to the many we have already.

 

[Roast Veg]

As already posted, there's zero chance for any sort of Manchester service. More Leeds services will be very welcome, but I don't expect them to continue.

 

[43096]

I suggested using the short HSTs which stable at Cricklewood between the morning and evening peaks to operate a St Pancras to Manchester via Sheffield and return.
With new rolling stock and plans to use 2 x 5 car units only in the peak, rather than stabling unwanted units at Cricklewood during the day, the St Pancras to Sheffield service could continue to operate as a 10 car with 5 car units continuing via Hope valley to Manchester on the fast, and 5 cars continuing to Leeds on the semi fast.

There aren’t any short HSTs that stable between the peaks at Cricklewood.

I’m not convinced there is much of a market - when the Rio service was running it was usually empty north of Leicester.

 

[ChrisC]

In the consultation document for EMR Regional there is the following statement concerning the Nottingham to Mansfield/Worksop Line.

A consistent, hourly service between Nottingham and Worksop will now run throughout the day, alongside the current hourly service between Nottingham and Mansfield Woodhouse.

Might the statement ‘will now run throughout the day’ mean that there will be some morning peak arrivals in Mansfield from Nottingham?
Currently there is an arrival in Mansfield from Nottingham at 0737 and then nothing else until 0900. Anyone who wants to commute to Mansfield from Nottingham to work and arrive between 0800 and 0900 probably has to use the Pronto Bus. Not very good for a town the size of Mansfield with no morning peak arrivals. Also not very good for anyone who wants to travel north from Robin Hood Line stations via Worksop during the morning peak. In addition following a very intensive service southbound between 0700 and 0810, there are no departures between 0810 and 0910 from Mansfield to Nottingham. A half hourly frequency is maintained between Nottingham and Mansfield throughout the middle of the day but not during the morning peak.

I do understand the problem of the long single line sections between Bulwell and Kirkby in Ashfield which may be part of the reason.