Liverpool Norwich service to be split at Nottingham

[chubs]

What people forget is that when you see the passengers who stay aboard at Nottingham, what you can't see is all the other passengers who've gone via the ECML or London.

Presumably some research was done into this?

Personally I've never met anyone who has gone via London for Sheffield or Manchester. For Liverpool yes.

 

[chubs]

The average person just wants a train to where they're going, with as few changes as possible and for a reasonable price.

Agree entirely, although it appears all the enthusiasts are against us.

Loads of people use these direct services long distance. You have a seat reservation on a train that goes all the way. This is what people want. I'm not going to switch trains twice just to save 30 minutes and £10. If the suggested routing was to do that instead of using the direct service people would just roll their eyes at you.

It probably will increase reliability for both sections but passengers will be lost.

 

[Ianno87]

Presumably some research was done into this?

Personally I've never met anyone who has gone via London for Sheffield or Manchester. For Liverpool yes.

The DfT will no doubt have access to all the actual fares data and made an evidence-based decision from that. But repeat: It's not necessarily via London as the alternative for some flows - e.g. Peterborough to Sheffield via Doncaster is much faster than direct via Nottingham. The EMT service is simply too slow compared to other routes.

But, from my own experience (from Cambridge, heading to Manchester area), either via Euston, or via LNER to Leeds are at least as competitive timewise, with 'Intercity' quality trains.

 

[Ianno87]

Agree entirely, although it appears all the enthusiasts are against us.

Loads of people use these direct services long distance. You have a seat reservation on a train that goes all the way. This is what people want. I'm not going to switch trains twice just to save 30 minutes and £10. If the suggested routing was to do that instead of using the direct service people would just roll their eyes at you.

Lots of people do do that.

If I've been at a meeting in Manchester and want to get home to Cambridge, I'll favour an extra change if it can get me home 30-60 minutes quicker. I'm not going to waste time getting home simply for the convenience of a direct service.

It's the 'enthusiasts' who seem obsessed with direct trains from everywhere to everywhere. Designing the network around the minority to the detriment of the majority.

 

[edwin_m]

I always found a problem with the current service was the lack of direct services this side of the Pennines at the extremes of the day due to all services starting out in Nottingham. This might at least help to rebalance services in the morning and evening. Is there possibility of more trains being stabled in Sheffield?

The first few southbound and the last few northbound are effectively covered between Nottingham and Sheffield by the EMT HST workings that start and end their days at Neville Hill depot - which obviously doesn't help at all west of Sheffield. This ties in with the likelihood that EMT will not be using Neville Hill in future (although appears they will still run some services to Leeds).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lots of people do do that.

If I've been at a meeting in Manchester and want to get home to Cambridge, I'll favour an extra change if it can get me home 30-60 minutes quicker. I'm not going to waste time getting home simply for the convenience of a direct service.

When going north from MKC I have the option of a direct train via Birmingham or changing at Crewe. The latter saves 27 minutes northbound (I forget the saving southbound). I sometimes take the through train and sometimes change, depending on whether I've got heavy luggage or whether I've got something specific to do on the train e.g. some work. It's not as clear cut as you say.

I similarly don't always take the fastest train when commuting if taking a slower one will ensure a seat. I'd rather sit for 45 minutes than stand for 30.

It's horses for courses.

 

[YorkshireBear]

When going north from MKC I have the option of a direct train via Birmingham or changing at Crewe. The latter saves 27 minutes northbound (I forget the saving southbound). I sometimes take the through train and sometimes change, depending on whether I've got heavy luggage or whether I've got something specific to do on the train e.g. some work. It's not as clear cut as you say.

I similarly don't always take the fastest train when commuting if taking a slower one will ensure a seat. I'd rather sit for 45 minutes than stand for 30.

It's horses for courses.

Yep this is my attitude too. I think splitting is possibly a mistake but I am very close to the fence on this one. The route sites with Cross Country but doesn't follow their usual routes.

I think my main concern is that Liverpool Nottingham will end up with 3 car 185s.... That would be massively backwards!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think my main concern is that Liverpool Nottingham will end up with 3 car 185s.... That would be massively backwards!

I suspect there may be 3-car operation at quiet times just as there's 2-car operation at quiet times now (a 3-car 185 has similar capacity to a 2-car 158 as the former has a very low density layout and the latter a very high density one) - but any plan to operate 3-car all day will simply not work.

 

[talltim]

Perhaps it could be only 6 car to Sheffield? A Cleethorpes-Manchester service could take the 3 cars back across the core in the opposite direction to avoid blocking a platform? It would also reduce the number of units required if Manchester-Cleethorpes was also only 6 car between Sheffield-Manchester.

Have you tried getting on it eastbound at Sheffield?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yep this is my attitude too. I think splitting is possibly a mistake but I am very close to the fence on this one. The route sites with Cross Country but doesn't follow their usual routes.

It fits with XC about as well as the "XC lite" Class 170 services do, i.e. not at all. It's a string of regional expresses connected together for operational convenience and to offer passengers wider journey opportunities, with most journeys being primarily local - in some ways even more so than TPE, let alone XC. It is not and will not be an IC operation, and lopping a large number of stops out of it to make it one would be counterproductive and probably make a Class 153 with large bog adequate for passenger numbers.

TPE is probably the best place for it, really.

 

[Iskra]

That’s a lot of splitting and joining 185s at Sheffield...is there enough platform space for all of this?

I don't know, but my gut feeling is that Sheffield's through platforms are actually fairly lightly used, apart from EMT IC trains sitting in them to turn around.

Have you tried getting on it eastbound at Sheffield?

Yes, I do Sheffield-Meadowhall frequently. It varies but it's never as busy as the Leeds-Manchester core TP trains which are literally wedged. There are usually some seats between Sheffield and Meadowhall although they often go unused as they are 'reserved'. There is a massive churn at Doncaster. I was once on a 6-car Meadowhall-Cleethorpes that was too busy for a 3 car but probably didn't need 6 cars. On the way back it just carried fresh air.

Doncaster would be a more appropriate place to drop a second unit in terms of passenger demand, but are there enough trains to allow both routes to be 6 cars if you do it there? Operationally it's more wasteful and could be more problematic to do it at Doncaster as it seems to have more demand for through platform space.

I guess it depends which is scarcer, units or platform capacity, as to how you would make it work.

 

[Failed Unit]

Years ago such a split was suggested. Front 3 continue to Cleethorpes. Rear 3 reverse an go to Leicester via Derby. I don’t know how serious the suggestion was. May be just from a railway users group.

 

[talltim]

I don't know, but my gut feeling is that Sheffield's through platforms are actually fairly lightly used, apart from EMT IC trains sitting in them to turn around.



Yes, I do Sheffield-Meadowhall frequently. It varies but it's never as busy as the Leeds-Manchester core TP trains which are literally wedged. There are usually some seats between Sheffield and Meadowhall although they often go unused as they are 'reserved'. There is a massive churn at Doncaster. I was once on a 6-car Meadowhall-Cleethorpes that was too busy for a 3 car but probably didn't need 6 cars. On the way back it just carried fresh air.

Doncaster would be a more appropriate place to drop a second unit in terms of passenger demand, but are there enough trains to allow both routes to be 6 cars if you do it there? Operationally it's more wasteful and could be more problematic to do it at Doncaster as it seems to have more demand for through platform space.

I guess it depends which is scarcer, units or platform capacity, as to how you would make it work.

Think we are talking about different parts of the split. Three cars east of Sheffield onto Nottingham would be a tight squeeze, even without the people who made different arrangements to go east of Nottingham.

 

[YorkshireBear]

It fits with XC about as well as the "XC lite" Class 170 services do, i.e. not at all. It's a string of regional expresses connected together for operational convenience and to offer passengers wider journey opportunities, with most journeys being primarily local - in some ways even more so than TPE, let alone XC. It is not and will not be an IC operation, and lopping a large number of stops out of it to make it one would be counterproductive and probably make a Class 153 with large bog adequate for passenger numbers.

TPE is probably the best place for it, really.

I meant the Liverpool Norwich just on the fact that it spans so much of the country and goes so far beyond EMT route boundaries, the new one is definitely better sat with TPE.

 

[td97]

any "consultation" would just be a farce,

No, a thorough and independent consultation was carried out around the time of TPE & Northern's franchise renewals (as with all rail-related changes).
They were the only operators considered for the route (no XC).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I meant the Liverpool Norwich just on the fact that it spans so much of the country and goes so far beyond EMT route boundaries, the new one is definitely better sat with TPE.

It still doesn't fit XC as it's a string of regional expresses, unlike the rest of XC. It's most like TPE of all the franchises, but in a way is more like a very long Northern Connect type service than even that.

To be fair, though, it started out the same as TPE - a Regional Railways Express/Alphaline (remember that?) service using Class 158s. It's just that TPE has been heavily upgraded (to progressively become a bit more IC) over time and that route hasn't.

 

[swt_passenger]

Cross Coubtry is unlikely and would be a mad decision. I reckon (and hope) it’ll be TPE, they have route knowledge on much of the track in question and already operate the other Hope Valley fast so it might rationalise that line a bit, plus they used to operate on the Warrington line.

Agree, the thing is that the Cross Country franchise is defined as operating long distance and regional services that pass through Birmingham New St. There are regular proposals here to add all sorts of new random routes, but I don’t see any logic behind them. In fact I’d prefer to see “XC-lite” handed back to more appropriate regional operators to give the franchise more focus on the traditional XC routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agree, the thing is that the Cross Country franchise is defined as operating long distance and regional services that pass through Birmingham New St. There are regular proposals here to add all sorts of new random routes, but I don’t see any logic behind them. In fact I’d prefer to see“XC-lite” handed back to more appropriate regional operators to give the franchise more focus on the traditional XC routes.

I agree, XC-lite needs to go to either EMT or WMT, and I think it will be going to the latter? It's a poor fit for XC and is not particularly well run.

 

[Peter A]

I agree, XC-lite needs to go to either EMT or WMT, and I think it will be going to the latter? It's a poor fit for XC and is not particularly well run.

I reckon Birmingham to Nottingham and Birmingham to Leicester/Stansted could fit in well with EMT. As for Birmingham to Cardiff, I'm not sure where would be best for that one

 

[OwlMan]

My point is that the problem is not with the trains, it is with the ticketing and the public interface.
I think East Anglia - Manchester is only routed either via London or via Sheffield
And that is patently a disgrace.

No they are not. There are no walkup tickets routed via Sheffield
Walk up tickets to Peterbourough, Ely, Cambridge & Norwich (using either Not via London or Any Permitted as appropiate) are valid from Manchester via Leeds & Doncaster; Leeds, York & Doncaster; Crewe, Uttoxeter & Derby; or Birmingham/Nuneaton & Leicester as well as via Sheffield and then either Nottingham or Doncaster

 

[MikeWM]

Loads of people use these direct services long distance. You have a seat reservation on a train that goes all the way. This is what people want. I'm not going to switch trains twice just to save 30 minutes and £10. If the suggested routing was to do that instead of using the direct service people would just roll their eyes at you.

It probably will increase reliability for both sections but passengers will be lost.

I agree entirely, as I pointed out in the earlier thread with the example of my mother, who is probably a fairly 'average' passenger in the sense she quite likes trains but isn't an enthusiast, and takes a handful of trips a year.

She'll happily get this when it is a direct service between Liverpool and Ely - she can get on the train, switch off, listen to some music, read a book or do a puzzle, and eventually she ends up where she wants to be, even if it does take quite a while. Bluntly, there's no way she'll do it if it requires a change at Nottingham. And if I suggested to her going via Leeds and Peterborough the response would be a 'why on earth would I do that' look and then a terse 'no way'.

I'm not suggesting that you would necessarily create this service as it is if you were designing the rail network from scratch. But the fact is it exists, has existed for many years, and people are used to using it. Breaking it is a very poor decision.

 

[MikeWM]

No they are not. There are no walkup tickets routed via Sheffield
Walk up tickets to Peterbourough, Ely, Cambridge & Norwich (using either Not via London or Any Permitted as appropiate) are valid from Manchester via Leeds & Doncaster; Leeds, York & Doncaster; Crewe, Uttoxeter & Derby; or Birmingham/Nuneaton & Leicester as well as via Sheffield and then either Nottingham or Doncaster

Has York always been an option? Seems I can easily get a routing for that for Cambridge to Liverpool using NR, but I didn't think that was the case in the past.

(If so, may do it next week, as I'll be doing Cambridge -> Liverpool, and via York would be a bit of variety

 

[eastdyke]

No they are not. There are no walkup tickets routed via Sheffield
Walk up tickets to Peterbourough, Ely, Cambridge & Norwich (using either Not via London or Any Permitted as appropiate) are valid from Manchester via Leeds & Doncaster; Leeds, York & Doncaster; Crewe, Uttoxeter & Derby; or Birmingham/Nuneaton & Leicester as well as via Sheffield and then either Nottingham or Doncaster

Sorry should have said 'for advance tickets'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

FWIW my Dad is coming to visit in June and has booked (yes, I told him it was pointless to do so as it's on a Super Off Peak, but he likes his planning!) to travel on a direct Liverpool to Bletchley via Birmingham LNR service. Despite this being grindingly slow, the direct service was of value to his decision (not to mention the incredibly cheap fare).

Curiously it's a one-way service - the southbound runs onto a semifast from Northampton, the northbound from a fast that doesn't call at Bletchley except for about 4tpd at odd times.

 

[Ianno87]

I agree entirely, as I pointed out in the earlier thread with the example of my mother, who is probably a fairly 'average' passenger in the sense she quite likes trains but isn't an enthusiast, and takes a handful of trips a year.

She'll happily get this when it is a direct service between Liverpool and Ely - she can get on the train, switch off, listen to some music, read a book or do a puzzle, and eventually she ends up where she wants to be, even if it does take quite a while. Bluntly, there's no way she'll do it if it requires a change at Nottingham. And if I suggested to her going via Leeds and Peterborough the response would be a 'why on earth would I do that' look and then a terse 'no way'.

I'm not suggesting that you would necessarily create this service as it is if you were designing the rail network from scratch. But the fact is it exists, has existed for many years, and people are used to using it. Breaking it is a very poor decision.

Your mother is *not* an average passenger.

Sure, the direct services generates a few trips that would otherwise not take place from the convenience of a direct service. But that is at the expense of the service properly meeting its true market - being frequent and reliable between the likes of Sheffield and Nottingham, Stockport and Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester, etc, for which there is far bigger demand to be met and served.

And for those that lose a through train, the majority are likely to continue to travel with a change, or via other routes.

 

[BR_Nick1980]

All purely speculation at the moment of course but if the Liverpool service goes to TPE and they use 2 x 185s, I don't think such a formation would fit into Platform 4 at Nottingham.
At present, when the 2x 158s are split, the empty unit goes into Eastcroft sidings until it's required again. Depending on how much layover time is given, 2x 185s could pose a problem for platform space.

And, incidentally, Platform 4 at Nottingham is a complete and utter abomination!

I think that was the (original) idea of starting the Liverpool service at Sheffield, because of the capacity - as you say Plat 4 can only accommodate 4 cars. Plat 5 might just fit them in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your mother is *not* an average passenger.

Is there such thing as an average passenger?

Typically retired people value convenience and price over speed. Things like the one-a-day obscure National Express operations (such as the Ormskirk (originates at Southport I think) to the South Coast one my parents have used as we have family down there) are kept going by those people. (Or not - it seems now to be a London service - but it does still exist!)

I don't have a massive problem with this split, but it's mainly because there is a near total passenger changeover at Nottingham, and it has such a capacity problem (and has had for absolutely years - it was an issue in 1995 when I first set foot on it) that anything that allows longer trains is a good idea. If there wasn't, I think there would be a fair chance people would be lost to other modes.

 

[MikeWM]

Your mother is *not* an average passenger.

Sure, the direct services generates a few trips that would otherwise not take place from the convenience of a direct service. But that is at the expense of the service properly meeting its true market - being frequent and reliable between the likes of Sheffield and Nottingham, Stockport and Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester, etc, for which there is far bigger demand to be met and served.

And for those that lose a through train, the majority are likely to continue to travel with a change, or via other routes.

I'd say she is far from untypical of the passengers on the east side of the route.

I don't disagree that the west side needs a better service in some way (already obvious due to the fact the trains are longer). Seems to be though that the logical conclusion of what you're saying is that we should just have separate services Liverpool - Manchester, Manchester - Sheffield, Sheffield - Nottingham. That would be much more reliable, after all, and probably the majority of people will be making one of those journeys. The people that are going further and want a through train - well, they can just change a few more times.

I also point out again this is the exact opposite of one of the main supposed rationales behind the Thameslink project - where it is apparently very important that the vast majority of Great Northern passengers suffer years of delays and ongoing disruption, so that a small number of people can travel direct between Cambridge and Gatwick/Brighton, rather than having to walk the whole one minute to change between Kings Cross and St Pancras. I'm not sure how the railway can square arguing 'changing is fine' on one route where it suits it to do so, and 'changing isn't what people want to do' on another.

 

[Ianno87]

I'd say she is far from untypical of the passengers on the east side of the route.

I don't disagree that the west side needs a better service in some way (already obvious due to the fact the trains are longer). Seems to be though that the logical conclusion of what you're saying is that we should just have separate services Liverpool - Manchester, Manchester - Sheffield, Sheffield - Nottingham. That would be much more reliable, after all, and probably the majority of people will be making one of those journeys. The people that are going further and want a through train - well, they can just change a few more times.

I also point out again this is the exact opposite of one of the main supposed rationales behind the Thameslink project - where it is apparently very important that the vast majority of Great Northern passengers suffer years of delays and ongoing disruption, so that a small number of people can travel direct between Cambridge and Gatwick/Brighton, rather than having to walk the whole one minute to change between Kings Cross and St Pancras. I'm not sure how the railway can square arguing 'changing is fine' on one route where it suits it to do so, and 'changing isn't what people want to do' on another.

No, the point of the Thamelink Programme is to:
-Increase capacity by removing the constraint of London terminal stations
-Improve dispersal across London by avoiding the need for passengers to change onto the tube to get from Kings Cross to London Bridge (for instance) to reach their end destination, thereby relieving the tube.
-Regenerate the south bank and London Bridge areas by imprroving access there

The through trains from Cambridge to Brighton are a happy side effect.

 

[chubs]

I'd also say she is far from an untypical passengers, as I do use that service and again many people who board with me at Norwich leave at Sheffiled and Manchester.

I know quite a few people who would not consider changing half way either as they're elderly, have young kids etc. If the timings aren't great I'll probably consider driving or even flying so that's me potentially lost as a passenger too.

I cannot think of a single person who would currently change twice on that route when the direct train exists, enthusiast or not. It's crazy.