Liverpool Norwich service to be split at Nottingham

[Confused52]

There is - the route can't play its part in moving people from the built up area to the centre of Liverpool and Manchester effectively because it is two-track railway (although you then hit the capacity issues at each end).

That is why it is sometimes seen as a possible extension route for Merseyrail from Hunts Cross to Warrington and to Metrolink from Cornbrook to Warrington.

That is the Andy Burnham view but it leaves travellers from Warrington, Liverpool South Parkway, Widnes stranded on the road and not inside Piccadilly Station, Metrolink is not a train for the purposes of connecions.

 

[edwin_m]

There is nothing wrong with the CLC, its the bloody Castlefield corridor that's the problem. Like someone said earlier, its like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There is - the route can't play its part in moving people from the built up area to the centre of Liverpool and Manchester effectively because it is two-track railway (although you then hit the capacity issues at each end).

That is why it is sometimes seen as a possible extension route for Merseyrail from Hunts Cross to Warrington and to Metrolink from Cornbrook to Warrington.

Not only a two-track railway with little opportunity to overtake, but one where there is justification to run a mix of fast and slow services. The result being that 4TPH, which is well within capacity if they all have the same journey time, in fact pushes the capacity utilization close to 100%. And it feeds those often-late trains straight into the Castlefield Corridor, contributing to knock-on delays on other services.

A solution that doesn't disadvantage anyone significantly would probably be some combination of:

• Electrification or some other way to get higher-performance trains on the stoppers, so they can keep ahead of the fasts better and/or make more stops at the stations currently served infrequently.
• Short workings with extra turnbacks near the middle of the route, again so the stopper gets out of the way well before the fast arrives.
• Or...

 

[td97]

Do EMR sign Chat Moss?

 

[PHILIPE]

Do EMR sign Chat Moss?

Yes for diversions. An ECS runs from Nottingham to Liverpool via Chat Moss to maintain route knowledge

 

[bunnahabhain]

Do EMR sign Chat Moss?

Yes, Chat Moss, Romiley, Beighton, Clay Cross to Ambergate, and Toton Centre are diversions for the Liverpool route. The only sections that don't have a diversion are through Chesterfield, the Hope Valley, and Manchester itself.

 

[frodshamfella]

Last time I checked these were in (or may as well be) the Liverpool City Region and primarily served by Merseyrail Electrics. I already called those out as the only people who really go via Liverpool for onward destinations - and a lot of them don't - for instance Wigan NW is a popular IC railhead for people in West Lancashire, or Burscough Bridge which is basically West Lancs Parkway for Manchester, and those on the Wirral might go via Chester instead to London.

My point is that (give or take the odd cruise/IoM passenger) Liverpool Lime St is only really serving origins/destinations bounded by the WCML to the east, Preston to the north and Chester to the south, and even then many of those passengers will go via those alternative railheads.

The majority from Wirral would use Lime Street, you.might go to Chester id you were living at Spital someone like that but its still 50/ 50. I would expect most other outlying areas to.also use Lime Street as a.connection point , even burscough you would be safer taking a regular Merseyrail to.connect than the hit or miss Northern service to Wigan.

 

[td97]

Thanks both.
The cut-back to Piccadilly wasn't a recommendation to complement the TOC change (that I'm aware of).

 

[frodshamfella]

Last time I checked these were in (or may as well be) the Liverpool City Region and primarily served by Merseyrail Electrics. I already called those out as the only people who really go via Liverpool for onward destinations - and a lot of them don't - for instance Wigan NW is a popular IC railhead for people in West Lancashire, or Burscough Bridge which is basically West Lancs Parkway for Manchester, and those on the Wirral might go via Chester instead to London.

My point is that (give or take the odd cruise/IoM passenger) Liverpool Lime St is only really serving origins/destinations bounded by the WCML to the east, Preston to the north and Chester to the south, and even then many of those passengers will go via those alternative railheads.

Warrington's station do draw passengers way beyond the town itself, so I think its pretty large really.

 

[ainsworth74]

Right. This thread has become a right mess with multiple different off-topic discussions ranging from "my idea to remap services through Sheffield" to "why Liverpool is or isn't hard done by". As a reminder this thread is about the Liverpool - Norwich service being split. I can see the sense in the recent discussion of the service potentially being curtailed at Manchester Piccadilly (apart from a few trains per day) but the whole host of other issues that have flooded the thread of late are off-topic.

Therefore please ensure that future contributions to this thread are either about the service being split (and potentially transferred in part to another operator) or other issues directly related to the service involving plans that are actually under consideration.

"My idea for..." or "What I think they should do is..." style suggestions should be confined to the Speculative Ideas section either in an existing thread or in a new thread.

Thank you

 

[43074]

Not only a two-track railway with little opportunity to overtake, but one where there is justification to run a mix of fast and slow services. The result being that 4TPH, which is well within capacity if they all have the same journey time, in fact pushes the capacity utilization close to 100%. And it feeds those often-late trains straight into the Castlefield Corridor, contributing to knock-on delays on other services.

A solution that doesn't disadvantage anyone significantly would probably be some combination of:

• Electrification or some other way to get higher-performance trains on the stoppers, so they can keep ahead of the fasts better and/or make more stops at the stations currently served infrequently.
• Short workings with extra turnbacks near the middle of the route, again so the stopper gets out of the way well before the fast arrives.
• Or...

Maybe a compromise would be to split the stopper at Warrington Central and provide a connection into the fast service behind to either Manchester or Liverpool? That way you can provide a half hourly all stations service improving the service to the local stations but the connections at Warrington would not be to the detriment of those making though journeys to Manc/Liverpool.

 

[Greybeard33]

So if I am understanding correctly the timetable planners will place every other service currently using the Castlefield corridor in the timetable first, then if there is a gap to accomodate the EMR service. Whilst you may be right in terms of the service actually continuing to terminate at Lime Street on 'contingent' grounds, it still presumably leaves it very very vulnerable to be the first service culled if anything goes wrong.

Network Rail's position was stated in a letter on the ORR website that you linked in your previous post:

With regard to the specific detail of the rights sought, Network Rail, whilst noting that no changes are sought, does not support firm rights for any train services which involve the use of the section of route between Castlefield Junction and Manchester Piccadilly East Junction. Network Rail notes the declaration of congested infrastructure between Castlefield Junction and Manchester Piccadilly East Junction inclusive as notified to ORR in its letter of 16th April 2019. In view of this declaration, Network Rail is currently unable to support the extension of firm rights for train slots that operate across this section but does support the extension of these rights on a contingent basis until SCD in 2021.

https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/41277/nr-letter-orr-emt-directions-2019-06-07.pdf

So NR is supportive of contingent rights for EMR through the Castlefield Corridor until at least May 2021.

The EMR service is not uniquely vulnerable; the following Northern services that interface with the Castlefield Corridor are currently operating under contingent rights that expire in May 2020:

• Manchester Airport - Barrow/Windermere
• Manchester Airport - Liverpool via Warrington Central
• Leeds - Chester/Ellesmere Port*

See https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pd...north-limited-16th-supplemental-agreement.pdf. The draft Northern 25th SA track access application, currently out for consultation, seeks, with NR support, to extend these contingent rights to December 2020.

Following the Northern precedent, it seems likely that EMR's contingent rights will be renewed on a 6-monthly basis until such time as there is a major timetable recast to alleviate the congestion through Manchester.

*Although the Chester/Ellesmere Port services do not pass through the corridor, they are regarded as "interfacing" with it, in that they potentially conflict with corridor services at Ordsall Lane and Irwell Street Junctions.

 

[Confused52]

Thanks both.
The cut-back to Piccadilly wasn't a recommendation to complement the TOC change (that I'm aware of).

Just for clarification - there is no cut-back to Piccadilly planned for the Dec 2020 timetable change. The next change will be in Dec 2021 when the route split happens. What the service will change to at that point is something that will need to be negotiated by whover is involved then. What is cut back to Piccadilly is the firm rights and Piccadilly to Lime Street is using contingent rights. However they already fit and because the Castlefield corridor is now declared as congested infrastructure there will not be more trains allowed to get firm rights when neither Northern or EMR could get them. Any allocation under the Code of Conduct has to be even handed and stopping one service that is timetabled and heavily used to allow another would be a brave decision. Particularly so because it would be made by a public body and would therefore be subject to judicial review. I just cannot see anyone being brave or foolhardy enough to rock the boat before the DfT make a franchise decision and everything can be blamed on them!

 

[notlob.divad]

Network Rail's position was stated in a letter on the ORR website that you linked in your previous post:

https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/41277/nr-letter-orr-emt-directions-2019-06-07.pdf

So NR is supportive of contingent rights for EMR through the Castlefield Corridor until at least May 2021.

The EMR service is not uniquely vulnerable; the following Northern services that interface with the Castlefield Corridor are currently operating under contingent rights that expire in May 2020:

• Manchester Airport - Barrow/Windermere
• Manchester Airport - Liverpool via Warrington Central
• Leeds - Chester/Ellesmere Port*

See https://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pd...north-limited-16th-supplemental-agreement.pdf. The draft Northern 25th SA track access application, currently out for consultation, seeks, with NR support, to extend these contingent rights to December 2020.

Following the Northern precedent, it seems likely that EMR's contingent rights will be renewed on a 6-monthly basis until such time as there is a major timetable recast to alleviate the congestion through Manchester.

*Although the Chester/Ellesmere Port services do not pass through the corridor, they are regarded as "interfacing" with it, in that they potentially conflict with corridor services at Ordsall Lane and Irwell Street Junctions.

Just for clarification - there is no cut-back to Piccadilly planned for the Dec 2020 timetable change. The next change will be in Dec 2021 when the route split happens. What the service will change to at that point is something that will need to be negotiated by whover is involved then. What is cut back to Piccadilly is the firm rights and Piccadilly to Lime Street is using contingent rights. However they already fit and because the Castlefield corridor is now declared as congested infrastructure there will not be more trains allowed to get firm rights when neither Northern or EMR could get them. Any allocation under the Code of Conduct has to be even handed and stopping one service that is timetabled and heavily used to allow another would be a brave decision. Particularly so because it would be made by a public body and would therefore be subject to judicial review. I just cannot see anyone being brave or foolhardy enough to rock the boat before the DfT make a franchise decision and everything can be blamed on them!

Thank you both for these points it clears the situation up for me. I was not aware that other services were running on contingent rights. It continues to concern me that both the CLC express services fall into that catagory, but this is not the thread to labour that point.

I would have thought in such a situation, the only non-discriminatory outcome for this is for all services running across that section of line to have their firm rights suspended and be allowed to continue on contingent rights. Anything else could lead to accusations that Network Rail is not acting as an honest broker in such a situation.

 

[raetiamann]

Having read the bulk, though not all, of posts on this thread, that main message I have picked up on is that passengers alight and join trains at intermediate stations. Other than that the speculation appears quite pointless.

I haven't seen a case as yet for not running a Nottm-Liverpool beyond the service leaving EMR. I use the service quite regularly and loading seems to me to be quite healthy.

Has anyone seen/heard when the announcement of the transfer is expected?

 

[BHXDMT]

Has anyone seen/heard when the announcement of the transfer is expected?

Rumours are that it's been delayed due to the ongoing Rail Review, but not seen it confirmed anywhere so could be rubbish. Was supposed to be this month apparently.

 

[timothyw9]

Should TPE get the route and use 185's, then at least the dwell times would be better.

158s on P13/14 at Piccadilly spend seemingly forever loading/unloading. Granted TPE has gone back to end door stock which is pretty dire, especially considering some passengers insistence to use one carriage to board at Piccadilly.

 

[yorksrob]

Should TPE get the route and use 185's, then at least the dwell times would be better.

158s on P13/14 at Piccadilly spend seemingly forever loading/unloading. Granted TPE has gone back to end door stock which is pretty dire, especially considering some passengers insistence to use one carriage to board at Piccadilly.

Assuming they are 6 carriage 185's and not 3 carriage ones. Otherwise this won't be the case.

 

[ainsworth74]

Assuming they are 6 carriage 185's and not 3 carriage ones. Otherwise this won't be the case.

Considering the number of 185s floating about the place I'd be staggered if it wasn't mostly 6-car operation.

 

[yorksrob]

Considering the number of 185s floating about the place I'd be staggered if it wasn't mostly 6-car operation.

That's assuming TPE keeps them of course !

 

[ainsworth74]

That's assuming TPE keeps them of course !

I'm not sure what they'd run Liverpool - Nottingham with if they don't?

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not sure what they'd run Liverpool - Nottingham with if they don't?

Or keep enough !

 

[Glenn1969]

Thing is if they don't give this service to TPE who do they give it to instead? Northern Connect? Or could EMR keep hold of it?

 

[tbtc]

I agree 1tph from each station would be a problem but one that would be resolved after the eventual completion of the Hope Valley upgrade. In the long term a split of 2tph express for Piccadilly and 1tph for Victoria would provide more connections and serve a wider area of Manchester city centre than today. Liverpool to Sheffield connectivity would remain unchanged by diverting via Victoria and the CLC would inevitably get a replacement service.

Your plan would "serve a wider area of Manchester city centre than today" by making travel much less attractive - i.e. anyone in central Manchester wanting to go to Sheffield currently just heads to Piccadilly and boards the next eastbound service - if you split the departures between two main Mancunian stations then you give people an awkward situation where they don't know whether they have enough time to rush to one station or head to the other (knowing that if they rush to one and find they've missed their train then they've got under half an hour to cross Manchester city centre in the opposite direction to board the next Sheffield train).

Making passengers more anxious by making things more complicated seems a guaranteed way to make rail travel even less attractive (just so Liverpool can have the civic pride of some long distance services)

Many of the cross Manchester services exist not because of demand but operational convenience: there's very little capacity for terminating services from West of Manchester so running trains to the Airport caters for people who want to go there and means there aren't loads more trains terminating at Piccadilly or Oxford Road from the west. The numbers of people doing Southport or Bolton to Wilmslow or Alderley Edge must be tiny, for instance, so in a sense you're probably right that the numbers are quite small. That said I would actually rather maintain links like Liverpool to Sheffield at the expense of those.

A lot of the cross-Manchester services are written into the franchise - e.g. a certain number of services per hour from Stockport must run through to Bolton or wherever - it's not just the TOC doing it to save costs, it's demanded in the terms of the franchise.

Equating Liverpool to Blackpool and Cumbria? Really??

Yeah - all are destinations on the far side of Manchester that Sheffield used to have direct trains to, all of which are leisure destinations that there'd be some demand to get to - the fact that some people use a through service from Sheffield to Liverpool needs to be measured against the fact that some people would use a through service from Sheffield to Blackpool/ Cumbria (and significantly more people would use a service to central Manchester, so fussing about whether the Sheffield trains run to one west coast destination or another is arguing about relatively low numbers).

When you're clearly not someone with anything to lose from terminating all Liverpool's services at Manchester (just so your own city can run a trophy service to the airport, rather than send that TPE to Liverpool where the real demand lies), who cares what you're "happy" with?

I've argued many times in favour of terminating all Sheffield services in the main shed at Piccadilly - the Airport branch is horribly over-served (with an average passenger loading of thirtysomething, it really doesn't require nine trains per hour, so it makes a lot of sense to me to chop a diesel service from the branch, especially one that currently requires a reversal at Piccadilly).

Too many people are obsessed with the luxury of "trophy" services to the Airport (that might be handy for your annual flight) rather than everyday simple services to city centres.

But then I've also argued about a half hourly service from Humberside - Doncaster - Sheffield - Manchester - Warrington - Liverpool - I just want simpler services in northern England, I think that the current muddle of hourly routes makes things much more complicated than it needs to be - we need fewer services, we need fewer trains running through bottlenecks (and longer carriages on the trains that do run)​

 

[Killingworth]

The Hope Valley line service does at least have 3 trains an hour between Sheffield and Piccadilly so one may cover for the other two when things go pear shaped - as they have this morming with a broken point at Dore Station Junction which totally mesed thngs up for a couple of hours! At least the EMR could escape round the Dore curve and missed out Sheffield while a Northern teminated at Dore before setting off back.

I've just noted the 13.14 Northern departure left on time but got held and passed Totley Tunnel East 12 minutes late after following another late Northern Leeds - Nottingham and then the late Cleethorpes- Manchester TPE, that was delayed at Meadowhall by other late running trains

Patforms 12/13 aren't the only bottlenecks on this service. We need more crossovers and passing loops - but then we have more points to fail and we're back where we started!

Do you laugh or cry? At Dore & Totley passengers have a 1 in 20 chance of a cancelled train, then a 1 in 5 chance of it being over 10 minutes late. Cartoon in today's Sheffield Star may sum it up well.

 

[Jozhua]

Signal failure East of Nottingham today, disruption to both the Notts-Norwich and Notts - Lvpl Lime St sections.

Due to the level of disruption that can be introduced by either side of the leg, hopefully the split will increase reliability.

 

[Tomnick]

Signal failure East of Nottingham today, disruption to both the Notts-Norwich and Notts - Lvpl Lime St sections.

Due to the level of disruption that can be introduced by either side of the leg, hopefully the split will increase reliability.

There’s already provision for late-running services to be restarted at Nottingham with a fresh unit and crew, which was certainly used today during the disruption.

 

[Jozhua]

There’s already provision for late-running services to be restarted at Nottingham with a fresh unit and crew, which was certainly used today during the disruption.

Didn't seem to work this time, the 14.47 was cancelled and the 15.47 ended up arriving in Manchester about 20 minutes late due to crew disruption

 

[Tomnick]

Didn't seem to work this time, the 14.47 was cancelled and the 15.47 ended up arriving in Manchester about 20 minutes late due to crew disruption

The 15.47 left Nottingham right time. Not sure why the 14.47 was cancelled but I don’t think it had anything to do with the inward delay from Norwich. Every train has a fresh crew forward from Nottingham so there’s always the option to restart a delayed service right time as long as there’s a fresh unit available (which there usually will be, even if it’s just the booked attachment going solo).

 

[LowLevel]

The 15.47 left Nottingham right time. Not sure why the 14.47 was cancelled but I don’t think it had anything to do with the inward delay from Norwich. Every train has a fresh crew forward from Nottingham so there’s always the option to restart a delayed service right time as long as there’s a fresh unit available (which there usually will be, even if it’s just the booked attachment going solo).

No driver available I think.

 

[Grumpy Git]

The 15.47 left Nottingham right time. Not sure why the 14.47 was cancelled but I don’t think it had anything to do with the inward delay from Norwich. Every train has a fresh crew forward from Nottingham so there’s always the option to restart a delayed service right time as long as there’s a fresh unit available (which there usually will be, even if it’s just the booked attachment going solo).

Where does that leave any passengers on the inbound delayed train wanting beyond Nottm though?