Improvements to non-major East-West links

[A S Leib]

I don't think either service needs to be more than hourly*, but almost all of them being two carriages feels rather unambitious.

*Apart from maybe between Derby and Stoke-on-Trent, the only section without any other services, even if changing at Tamworth can work out quicker for Derby to Crewe.

Which improvements could feasibly be made to Crewe – Newark (/ eventually Lincoln) and Norwich – Liverpool services? I think the starting point would be to have all of the latter services have at least four carriages. Some already are from what I can tell from Real Time Trains, so I don't think infrastructure would be an issue; just finding rolling stock.

Between Derby and Crewe, I think ideally there'd be a second hourly service, but I don't know if either Stoke, Derby or anywhere nearby has the capacity for terminating such a service. There's little enough demand from the intermediate stations to stations east of Nottingham (~1 person per day from Uttoxeter and Tutbury & Hatton combined to Newark) that I don't think both services would have to be stoppers between Derby and Stoke-on-Trent. I'm also not sure if any time savings would justify skipping stations, even though Brampton and Bardon Mill, for example, only get 1tp2h off-peak when there's 2tph on that part of the Tyne Valley line.

 

[Zomboid]

Just making the trains longer wouldn't serve any purpose, unless the current trains are overloaded. Just because a train runs a long distance doesn't mean it needs to have lots of carriages.

They tend to be 2 car east of Nottingham, right? They do run through a few places of some note, but they're generally not that big and quite widely spaced. I don't think there's currently any direct service between Cambridge and Nottingham, so that's an option, but it looks like it'd add about an hour to go in and out before heading to Norwich, so whilst that might encourage demand from Cambridge, it'd do nothing positive for the Norwich passengers.

As we're crayoning here, perhaps a split/join at Ely with Norwich and Stansted portions might justify longer trains, though how you'd get more trains into Stansted is a problem I wouldn't want to tackle.

 

[A S Leib]

I initially searched for Sheffield then calling at Norwich on Real Time Trains; I didn't realise that they're four carriages west of Nottingham.

 

[The Mercian]

If you’re going to have a North Mercian East West Rail from Crewe to Lincoln then I’d go 2tph, 4 carriage trains and electrification. Unsure on the stopping pattern but I’d suggest only major stations served. Such a shame Derby is on a N/S axis and we have to reverse in and out .

 

[Zomboid]

Things may have changed since I last read about how the service operated, but that was my understanding.

But a direct Stansted service might justify having a portion to split off at Ely, if sufficient carriages and paths into the airport can be found.

 

[The Planner]

Its a long way down any electrification list. You would run any new service to Crewe, no point terminating at Stoke.

 

[A S Leib]

With the current timetable it's barely possible to go to Leeds or London for two hours on a Sunday from Uttoxeter, so earlier Sunday services would count as an improvement. I can't remember if they're currently planned or why they start so late at the moment.

 

[The Planner]

With the current timetable it's barely possible to go to Leeds or London for two hours on a Sunday from Uttoxeter, so earlier Sunday services would count as an improvement. I can't remember if they're currently planned or why they start so late at the moment.

Without checking, I would assume signal box opening hours.

 

[duffield]

Split Liverpool - Nottingham - Norwich at Nottingham.

Run a proper intercity service Liverpool to Nottingham, five coach IETs of some sort.

Run three coach 170s Nottingham to Norwich.

That's my plan, anyhow.

 

[BranstonJnc]

Which improvements could feasibly be made to Crewe – Newark (/ eventually Lincoln) and Norwich – Liverpool services? I think the starting point would be to have all of the latter services have at least four carriages. Some already are from what I can tell from Real Time Trains, so I don't think infrastructure would be an issue; just finding rolling stock.

Between Derby and Crewe, I think ideally there'd be a second hourly service, but I don't know if either Stoke, Derby or anywhere nearby has the capacity for terminating such a service. There's little enough demand from the intermediate stations to stations east of Nottingham (~1 person per day from Uttoxeter and Tutbury & Hatton combined to Newark) that I don't think both services would have to be stoppers between Derby and Stoke-on-Trent. I'm also not sure if any time savings would justify skipping stations, even though Brampton and Bardon Mill, for example, only get 1tp2h off-peak when there's 2tph on that part of the Tyne Valley line.

For Stoke to Derby, a half-hourly service from Crewe to Derby, preferably both from Manchester Airport (it would mean Northern don't have to run to Styal and such), and preferably with a new stop at Meir. One train preferably to not stop at every stop, only at the biggest ones (so maybe only Uttoxeter). Extending to Nottingham doesn't seem preferable when you already have the Matlock and the half-hourly XC, perhaps extend the 'quick' Crewe - Derby from above.

If you terminate at Derby, you can circulate one train an hour I suspect ECS via Chaddesden.

I still have a preference for the Nottingham - Liverpool to be split in half, and TPE take over the section from Liverpool to Nottingham. What you do with Norwich - Nottingham, you could either extend it round to Leicester as the Ivanhoe stopper, or extend it to Mansfield Woodhouse, both to save on platform space. The existing performance is dire.

I still think there's merit to TPE running 6 car Liverpool - Sheffield every 30 minutes, cut half the train off at Sheffield. 3 coaches onwards to Cleethorpes or Nottingham, the other 3 can then be coupled to another portion and sent straight back.

 

[swt_passenger]

Split Liverpool - Nottingham - Norwich at Nottingham.

Run a proper intercity service Liverpool to Nottingham, five coach IETs of some sort.

Run three coach 170s Nottingham to Norwich.

That's my plan, anyhow.

…and the DfT’s preposed franchise remapping to TPE not that long ago.

 

[duffield]

…and the DfT’s preposed franchise remapping to TPE not that long ago.

Absolutely, but I don't think they proposed 5 coach IETs though.

 

[dk1]

For Stoke to Derby, a half-hourly service from Crewe to Derby, preferably both from Manchester Airport (it would mean Northern don't have to run to Styal and such), and preferably with a new stop at Meir. One train preferably to not stop at every stop, only at the biggest ones (so maybe only Uttoxeter). Extending to Nottingham doesn't seem preferable when you already have the Matlock and the half-hourly XC, perhaps extend the 'quick' Crewe - Derby from above.

If you terminate at Derby, you can circulate one train an hour I suspect ECS via Chaddesden.

I still have a preference for the Nottingham - Liverpool to be split in half, and TPE take over the section from Liverpool to Nottingham. What you do with Norwich - Nottingham, you could either extend it round to Leicester as the Ivanhoe stopper, or extend it to Mansfield Woodhouse, both to save on platform space. The existing performance is dire.

I still think there's merit to TPE running 6 car Liverpool - Sheffield every 30 minutes, cut half the train off at Sheffield. 3 coaches onwards to Cleethorpes or Nottingham, the other 3 can then be coupled to another portion and sent straight back.

If the Liverpool to Norwich route was ever split (and I hope it never is) I often thought that extending the Leeds-Nottingham service to Norwich would at least continue a through service as far as Sheffield. The platform extension at Leeds will allow longer than 2-cars on the route soon too.

 

[Magdalia]

Which improvements could feasibly be made to Crewe – Newark (/ eventually Lincoln) and Norwich – Liverpool services?

They tend to be 2 car east of Nottingham, right?

You are right, nearly all of them are 2 car east of Nottingham. In particular this makes them a profligate misuse of scarce capacity in the Ely area. Reversals at Ely mean that they are taking up 4 paths per hour with 2 car trains through a very congested bit of railway.

Split Liverpool - Nottingham - Norwich at Nottingham.

My preferred solution is to split at Peterborough. But Nottingham does have its advantages, especially as it is easier to do quickly, and has a layout more suitable for reversals.

What you do with Norwich - Nottingham

I don't think there's currently any direct service between Cambridge and Nottingham, so that's an option, but it looks like it'd add about an hour to go in and out before heading to Norwich, so whilst that might encourage demand from Cambridge, it'd do nothing positive for the Norwich passengers.

In the longer term I would invest in some battery bimode EMUs to work Norwich-Stansted and Stansted-Nottingham, the latter instead of Birmingham. This would release class 755s from Norwich-Stansted to work Norwich-Peterborough. The bimode technology might need to improve a bit more to be able to run all the way Ely-Trowse on battery without any more OHL. On the other hand being able to run Peterborough-Grantham on electric would be a huge step forward.

how you'd get more trains into Stansted is a problem I wouldn't want to tackle.

Stansted-Cambridge-Ely would still be 2tph, but all with the bimode EMUs, alternately to Norwich and Nottingham. How long they can be is constrained by what can be done with the Stansted platforms.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Split Liverpool - Nottingham - Norwich at Nottingham.

Run a proper intercity service Liverpool to Nottingham, five coach IETs of some sort.

Run three coach 170s Nottingham to Norwich.

That's my plan, anyhow.

Just run 5 car through surely?

 

[duffield]

Just run 5 car through surely?

5 coaches are probably not justified east of Nottingham and anything like IETs would probably fall into the same category as 22xs etc. which are (we have been told repeatedly) unsuitable for Peterborough to Norwich due to weight restrictions which would be ruinously expensive to address.

Splitting at Nottingham also makes the two separate services more robust.

However, a cynic might say that I would support this split because my local station is Nottingham, and so it would be a positive rather than a negative for my journeys.

 

[MatthewHutton]

5 coaches are probably not justified east of Nottingham and anything like IETs would probably fall into the same category as 22xs etc. which are (we have been told repeatedly) unsuitable for Peterborough to Norwich due to weight restrictions which would be ruinously expensive to address.

Splitting at Nottingham also makes the two separate services more robust.

However, a cynic might say that I would support this split because my local station is Nottingham, and so it would be a positive rather than a negative for my journeys.

Quite possibly. But if people want to travel through isn’t it best to over specify. The staff cost is the same right?

 

[stevieinselby]

Quite possibly. But if people want to travel through isn’t it best to over specify. The staff cost is the same right?

Through running increases the risk of poor reliability (although arguably not as much as splitting/joining!), and can reduce the flexibility to adjust services on each half to match demand or to meet timetabling requirements. It also increases operational cost if it results in using 5/6-car trains throughout when half of the route only justifies 3-car trains, both in terms of capital purchase cost and ongoing running costs – staffing costs may not change, but they are only a small part of it!

I don't know how many passengers do travel through across Nottingham – if there are significant numbers that do, and so would be inconvenienced by having to change, then it may be appropriate to keep a through service (with or without portion working), but if the numbers are small then it may be that the cost savings and improved resilience would offset the negative impact for those few people.

 

[dk1]

I don't know how many passengers do travel through across Nottingham – if there are significant numbers that do, and so would be inconvenienced by having to change, then it may be appropriate to keep a through service (with or without portion working), but if the numbers are small then it may be that the cost savings and improved resilience would offset the negative impact for those few people.

A few years ago a survey was done which showed that up to 2000 passengers on certain days remained onboard services rather than joining/alighting at Nottingham. Now whether this was all cross City or only the Liverpool-Norwich route I cannot rightly say.

 

[A S Leib]

Now whether this was all cross City or only the Liverpool-Norwich route I cannot rightly say.

Without working out numbers, flows like Peterborough to Sheffield and Manchester feels likelier to be busy than Matlock to Newark or anywhere else east of Nottingham where a change at Derby wouldn't be done instead. Lincoln / Newark to Leicester might (have) be(en) a bigger flow.

 

[BranstonJnc]

Interestingly, looking at the data compendium (admittedly during Covid), and the number of passengers from Norwich to either Sheffield, Manchester or Liverpool is pretty much identical to that of Cambridge and Cambridge North.

It may be unpopular, but if you consider the geography of the A14 and M6 from Cambridge, and the overall journey time by train (2h40) to Birmingham, against a road time of 1h50, should we do a switcheroo?

I mean, if we consider that the Cambridge - Leicester route will be relatively easy post-EWR either via Peterborough or via Bedford, and the onward connections that EWR might offer via the likes of Bletchley (Coventry via there instead of via Nuneaton). Norwich, on the other hand, lacks that.

Cambridge being a big university city, seems more sensibly-linked to somewhere like Manchester, which is growing.

 

[Brubulus]

Interestingly, looking at the data compendium (admittedly during Covid), and the number of passengers from Norwich to either Sheffield, Manchester or Liverpool is pretty much identical to that of Cambridge and Cambridge North.

It may be unpopular, but if you consider the geography of the A14 and M6 from Cambridge, and the overall journey time by train (2h40) to Birmingham, against a road time of 1h50, should we do a switcheroo?

I mean, if we consider that the Cambridge - Leicester route will be relatively easy post-EWR either via Peterborough or via Bedford, and the onward connections that EWR might offer via the likes of Bletchley (Coventry via there instead of via Nuneaton). Norwich, on the other hand, lacks that.

Cambridge being a big university city, seems more sensibly-linked to somewhere like Manchester, which is growing.

Yes, that's a good idea, but a better idea would be likely to move the split from Nottingham to Ely. There's already a reverse happening at Ely, a split and a reverse is a performance risk, but doing both in the same place creates a massive buffer at Nottingham if anything goes wrong, so the train should present to Manchester on time. This then also means Cambridge has links to both Manchester and Birmingham.

The passenger flows are likely inaccurate due to the scale of split ticketing on routes north of Cambridge, so that should be kept in mind.