High Dyke
Established Member
To be really pedantic they are actually in North East Lincolnshire; just to distinguish it from the frim folk yon side of the Humber!
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Liverpool Norwich service to be split at Nottingham
- Thread starter Chester1
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Stations like Meadowhall and Dore and Totley can't accommodate 6 carriages, so the doors in the non-platformed carriage(s) are locked OOU temporarily before arriving into those stations. AFAIK the 185s don't have proper SDO so you need a guard in each part of the train so they can lock/unlock doors OOU when needed.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes, it is, for several reasons - one that Class 185s are quite low density and so barely carry more passengers than a 2-car Class 158, part of this is First Class provision which is welcome for such a long, slow journey. Another is that the Class 158 formations are getting close to capacity anyway.
6 car is exactly the capacity required for now and for the next 5-10 years.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Can they not do standard Desiro unit deselect?
I know that, but it's not a reason on its own that should mean they need two guards. What problem do they have which means they need to?
I believe they are indeed equipped with unit deselect as you say.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Or is it just TPE policy, like Northern have the thing about the guard not being allowed in the front unit of a pair? A silly policy though in my view, and one that causes Northern to haemorrhage revenue.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Then why are two guards needed? The guard would just release from the front cab of the rear unit like any other Desiro. This would even be compliant with Northern's "one member of staff in each unit" policy. It might be a bit of an annoyance for anyone who boards the wrong unit, of course, but that requires quality announcements, and if anyone ignores them, their loss, it's just a trip to Sheffield and back.
Not a clue! It was news to me that they were!
If I'm honest, I really don't know. The 08:53 from the Airport to Cleethorpes was always a double when I commuted out that way, and I suspect unit deselect was used past Doncaster as everyone was always moved to the front three coaches.
They have two guards on the double services where all of the train is accommodated at every station anyway, so it must be policy rather than an operational need for it.
Overcrowding surpresses demand. I would expect 2 services run by double 185s between Manchester and Sheffield to be overcrowded by the current end date for the franchise in 2023. That is when the third service should now start (but presumably run by Northern). 10 years is certainly an optimistic even if the third service launches in 2023!
If double 185s are adequate capacity for Liverpool-Nottingham then a Mark V sets internally cascaded would be too.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
You have probably predicted this, but I don't think they should go for a third service, rather they should start planning for 9-car operation. 240m (OK, an 11 car Pendolino is a *little bit* over) is the sensible maximum train length as is well established in the South East - we should get there before this obsession with frequency increases is pursued any more.
Doesn't help on non-gangwayed units.
As with other Desiros, 444s in particular, ordering trains without specifying full SDO seems remarkably short-sighted.
Killingworth
Established Member
No, it isn't certain yet (not publicly anyway) which is probably driving TPE planners up the wall. Northern Connect don't do 1st class. DfT want first class offering on all fast services on at least the Manchester-Sheffield corridor. 158's don't do 1st class. 4 coaches are just about adequate for most of the day
185s come as 3 or 6 coach trains. DfT want a refreshment service throughout the train, so that means doubling up, leaving aside any need for guards.After deducting almost half a 1st class section a 3 car 185 is woefully inadequate., but it doesn't need as many as 6 cars on most trains - yet.
They can operate with one guard, but can't stop at any station where selective door opening needs to be opened without two. Dore & Totley currently gets Monday-Friday stops by two regular 6 coach trains now. They are timed for a one minute stop. They normally take at least 2 minutes! The platform was 6 coach length until 1985 and is due to be lengthened, by 2022.
That's where the prevarication is coming in. Until the Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Scheme can be completed the 4th passenger path can't be allocated and until it is remapping of existing services is being deferred. It occurs to me that getting on with the split now would be sensible. Assuming the Stagecoach protests don't go sufficiently legal to scupper everything, I can't see why the remapping couldn't begin as soon as December, or at the latest next May. But that brings us to question if TPE would still want to use 185s even if they then have enough.
Incidentally I have used the service from Dore to Norwich a couple of times - probably a rare journey, and also from Chesterfield. Maybe half a carriage at most stay aboard through Nottingham. On my last trip several of them were travelling together from Manchester to a meeting at the Woodland Trust's offices in Grantham, a journey they seemed to make several times a month. (I'd mention that if fares are important either routeing can be cheapest, as ECML loadings can vary a lot to influence thed rates.)
Former colleagues of mine sometimes travel from Sheffield to Norwich. They never use the direct service. It takes too long with almost 10 minutes at Nottingham for recovery and to detach/attach 2 coaches. It's quicker out to Doncaster and then the ECML to catch up with that direct service at Grantham - saving about 13 minutes! I prefer to stay on the same train all the way for peace of mind.
kevconnor
Member
Going back to the days of central trains, before the 158 were put on the route I use to get this service quite frequently between Manchester, Sheffield and Nottingham. It was mostly covered by Class 170. whilst nice for the route they're size and capacity, even then, was wholly inadequate for the route.
Additionally, there was always chronic lateness and delay, it would be rare for these services to be on time. From memory the delays were normally worse westbound but that may be more due to timing as i would travel westbound mid afternoon and eastbound early morning.
Additionally, there was always chronic lateness and delay, it would be rare for these services to be on time. From memory the delays were normally worse westbound but that may be more due to timing as i would travel westbound mid afternoon and eastbound early morning.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
In what way does it not help on non-gangwayed units? It stops the doors opening off the platform, that is the requirement. It might hack off the odd passenger who failed to pay attention, but that's a customer service issue, not a safety issue.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Again, why? There is no technical reason for this requirement if they have standard Desiro UDS.
The main issue with that is the Oxford Road rebuild to allow longer trains will cost much more than the Hope Valley upgrade. Thats not even factoring in Airport platforms length of just under 200m (lengthening would be very expensive due to track layout) or any other stations. I would use extra capacity from the passing loops to switch from two express and one stopper to two express and two semi fast (one via Reddish). No express should stop between Stockport and Sheffield but this would not be a problem with two semi fast services.
If the DfT are serious about making TPE and Manchester-Sheffield services genuinely intercity quality they won't allow 185s to be used long term. They are high quality but they are neither the right length for TPE or cheap enough for Northern. If IR want them then they should be allowed as many as they want. Thats no doubt what Eversholt will agree to if IR offers enough money.
Killingworth
Established Member
There may not be, but there's an operational requirement - the precise reason for that is beyond a mere passenger. (Apparently the two guards could be in the same unit the way it's worded.) It seems reservations are allocated with little or no consideration that carriages 4 and 5 will be out of a platform. The 4th is the only way to gain access. That may be half first class so imagine over 50 people trying to get in one door, some with luggage and maybe a booked bike. It needs two guards to encourage orderly entry - although in practice the second unit will probably leave with some space and there'll be standees in the first! Booking seats for passengers from the short platformed stations in only the first 4 carriages might be a way to resolve much of that.
A 6 car 158 might fill more quickly despite the end doors and the load would shuffle down the train once on the way.
Killingworth
Established Member
Overcrowding is restricting demand. When a consultant doctor I've met who lives in Sheffield and wants to travel first class most days to his hospital in Manchester has to sit on the floor with his laptop once he's unhappy. When it happened every day for a week he cracked. He has a nice car. He's been driving since before Christmas. A lot were turned off in the latter part of 2018 and are only just returning.
I'd agree that we should have TPE 6 cars at peak times asap, and that should have happened by now if new stock had been available. East Midlands could beef up to 6 if stock were available but where to detach the extras not required over all the route all day? Nottingham!
There is now overcrowding on all 3 TOCs operating over the Hope Valley route, but at different times of day over different parts and on different days. Any problem with one very quickly knocks on to the others.
I'd agree that planning for more than 6 coaches should be in hand, although 8 might be a more practical limit. However, Meadowhall only takes 5 and Dore & Totley 4 (to be 6 by late 2022) so the whole thing needs thinking through for other stations along all the routes. Many platforms will be difficult to extend. The 7.09 out of Sheffield is the one that is currently being hit hardest when only 3 carriages appear. Normally with 6 it is usually full.
Passenger number growth on the route has been consistently upwards for many years, already approaching the level the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme forecast for 2023, if not exceeding it. The obsession with faster trains to London doesn't cut it for those standing all around the country. Yes, lets have longer trains, but we'll need a lot more platform space first.
8 coaches limit for Manchester Airport. 6 coach limit for Oxford Road (TPE double 350 services fouled points). If the latter is rebuilt as per the long delayed transport works act order then it would remove a major bottleneck but only one. 2tph (express) of double 185s or Mark Vs will (just about) do until 2023 and after a third express service will buy more time. I agree to an extent with @Bletchleyite wish to reduce frequency and extend of train lengths. However, lets start by removing all 2/3 coach services through Castlefield first! Its not unreasonable to introduce a third express service on the Hope Valley before expanding past 6 coach length, especially when the Hope Valley passing loops will be relatively cheap.
I stand by Mark Vs being the best option for Liverpool-Nottingham with extra 802s ordered for North TPE. A proper intercity service with very similar capacity to double 185s. 802s are more suitable for North TPE services and Mark Vs where only ordered because Hitachi did not have enough capacity at the time. Even if they are the winner of the East Midlands Intercity bi mode order they could still deliver 6-8 extra 802s for TPE quickly. I expect to be disappointed by double 185s for the next decade or so!
Killingworth
Established Member
So, East Midlands operate 2 x 158 on Nottingham - Liverpool and that gets very well loaded at peak hours. It will soon need 6 coaches. 185s load quicker than 158s and offer first, so doubled to a 6 carriage train would be an improvement on what we have now through that most restricted part of the route. SDO can cover the smaller platforms for a few years until more capacity arrives with the third fast/semi-fast service. But 3 x 185s are a no go option.
2 Guards are only required where a 6 car train calls at a station with a short platform which requires 4 doors being locked out of use. If 3 doors or fewer are required to be locked, it can be worked by 1 Guard. This will all become irrelevant when C-ASDO (selective door operation) is in operation from May, and services can go back to only requiring 1 Guard.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Fair point. If it runs from the main trainshed it won't cause P13/14 capacity issues, which are the main reason for wanting to reduce frequencies. Another option would be to change the Northern Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester-Airport services to run to Sheffield instead (probably more useful to people on a day to day basis, and a better DMU route due to having almost no electrification at all so no under-wires running) and run an EMU from the main trainshed to replace it.
Dore and Totley is an enigma. Do I understand correctly that it is mostly used as a shuttle to Sheffield and much less so to Manchester and beyond? If so, should the expresses perhaps not stop and be replaced by extending a Northern service from the north terminating at Sheffield to terminate at Dore instead, with the appropriate works to provide a bay platform?
I would be wary of the skip-stop semifast idea without spending a lot of time surveying local flows to see what the demand actually is. As there is little other public transport along the route, I suspect the stoppers will carry a reasonable number of intermediate local flows, including of hikers wanting to do one way and the train back to their accommodation on weekends.
On the first point, Dore and Totley gets a large part of its usage from commuters into both Mancehster and Sheffield, often 50-100 people will turn up for the 07:14 and the 08:14 into Manchester, so removing these would be a no-go. However, I do agree that there's not immediate need to stop a fast service there if it were served by a stopper and a semi-fast, that would already give a quadrupling in service in under 10 years and would allow connections at Sheffield to be much less of a pain, as well as speeding up the Manchester service with a semi-fast.
On the second point I agree, I think the Hope Valley needs a stopper to call at all stations Sheffield-New Mills, which may as well then also call most/all stations to Manchester. However, I'd advocate a semi-fast calling maybe Sheffield-Dore-Hathersage (1tp2h)-Hope (1tp2h)-Chinley-New Mills-Manchester to provide a faster service from the key intermediate stations whilst also giving a reasonably quick 3rd service from Sheffield to Manchester.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It could be an option to make that the third service instead of the express - I wouldn't object to it being layered on top of a stopper, ideally hourly. This one could fit well with being joined to Manchester-Warrington-Liverpool as a Northern Connect service operated perhaps by 5-car Class 195 sets. (Demand would be slightly lower than for the fasts).
I think that might need SDO along the Hope Valley, but nothing that a 195 couldn't deal with. It'd fit well with Northern Connect running through to Liverpool and would allow the Liverpool - Notts to go via Chat Moss without Warrington losing its connection to Sheffield as well.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm not clear what the benefit of sending the Liverpool to Nottingham via Chat Moss would be unless you then send it via Victoria and Denton to take it away from Castlefield? I was thinking more that the 2tph Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester fasts, ideally at precisely opposite half hours like they used to be, would both go to Sheffield, just that one would go beyond. Liverpool-Picc-Airport could be an EMU via Chat Moss instead.
Actually, that might not be a bad way of removing 1tph from Castlefield. Every little helps, as a certain supermarket likes to say.
Greybeard33
Established Member
If the third service were to go to Liverpool, it would have to run via Stockport not New Mills - crossing the throat of Piccadilly is a no-no. But Network Rail has vetoed two of the extra paths between Piccadilly and Stockport that Northern needs to meet its existing franchise commitments, on the grounds of performance risk.
Furthermore, a replacement service between the main shed and the Airport would have to cross the path of the P13/14 - Stockport service on the flat junctions.
Edit: in the current timetable, the Cleethorpes - Airport and Liverpool - Airport via Warrington are on each others' heels between Piccadilly and the Airport both ways. To make the timings work, the TPE Cleethorpes would probably have to go to Liverpool via Warrington in place of the Northern semi-fast, with the additional Sheffield service on the Chat Moss and maybe routed via Victoria and Denton.
Last edited:
- Status