Liverpool Norwich service to be split at Nottingham

[Bletchleyite]

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.

And once again the Airport knackers proper service provision on far, far more important routes. Will this ever end and sense be seen?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

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?

This has the obvious disadvantage of meaning that services have to go to Victoria, which is perhaps less convenient for most passengers than Piccadilly, but has this option been investigated at all with a view to reducing congestion not only for Castlefield but also Stockport-Manchester (which I understand is very congested)?

Denton and Reddish South might actually end up with a usable level of service, especially if the line were redoubled throughout.

 

[Aictos]

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.

Similar to the "silly" policy that Virgin Trains have with the Train Manager not being allowed in the front unit of a pair of Class 22Xs?

As anyone wishing to chance it could just board the front unit and not have any form of ticket check done, not that I'm saying people ought to fare dodge but surely one that loses revenue...

Oh wait, actually it is a sensible policy as it means that there are two safety critical members of train crew in each unit which for operational reasons is preferred by the TOC.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Denton and Reddish South might actually end up with a usable level of service, especially if the line were redoubled throughout.

I doubt this service would stop at those. I do think it would be a good idea to provide an hourly or even half-hourly Stockport to Vic shuttle (or maybe an extension of a DMU service terminating at Vic), but I believe WCML paths are an issue.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I doubt this service would stop at those. I do think it would be a good idea to provide an hourly or even half-hourly Stockport to Vic shuttle (or maybe an extension of a DMU service terminating at Vic), but I believe WCML paths are an issue.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the service in question need stop there, but a general upgrade (or, rather, perhaps reinstatement) of the line could see a much better service provided as a "side" benefit. I'm guessing that Stockport Viaduct is going to be the stumbling block for any upgrades to provide an independent fifth line into Stockport for this kind of a service? If so, it's presumably an issue that will only be able to be fixed when or if HS2 Phase 2b relieves the WCML in this area

 

[DanTrain]

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.

The problem here is you'd have to reverse at Stalybridge I think, unles it were possible to build a chord, looks pretty tight to me though. That may not per se be a problem, but it is making the service even more complicated and putting it further at risk of hold ups.

Scrap that, just seen the chord that leaves north of Denton!

Plus does anyone actually want to go to Man Vic, it's not very useful for onward connections although I guess it's better located for shopping, the arena etc so swings and roundabouts...

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem here is you'd have to reverse at Stalybridge I think, unles it were possible to build a chord, looks pretty tight to me though.

There already is one, look at an OS map.

 

[DanTrain]

There already is one, look at an OS map.

See my edit...just noticed it

 

[OwlMan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleethorpes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimsby

Technically they're not...they're in Yorkshire and the Humber. You are of course right that routes are designated for operational reasons not location, but I don't see how EMR operating to Liverpool is preferential when TPE already have a base at Liverpool.

Humber is not a local authority. Grimsby & Cleethorpes are part of North East Lincolnshire Unitary Authority. Scunthorpe is in North Lincolnshire.
Both are part of the East Midlands

 

[Greybeard33]

And once again the Airport knackers proper service provision on far, far more important routes. Will this ever end and sense be seen?

Junction conflicts at Slade Lane, Ardwick and Piccadilly throat are minimised when all Airport line services go through P13/14. If you want more Liverpool - Sheffield services through Piccadilly, you really need a flyover at Ardwick.

The original Manchester Hub study evaluated an Ardwick flyover as an alternative to the Ordsall Chord and concluded it would be more costly and less beneficial. Of course, hindsight is wonderful....

 

[Bletchleyite]

So everything comes back to P15/16, the Oxford Road works and Deansgate closure being needed rather than excuses being made.

 

[naverag]

Humber is not a local authority. Grimsby & Cleethorpes are part of North East Lincolnshire Unitary Authority. Scunthorpe is in North Lincolnshire.
Both are part of the East Midlands

Incorrect, both are part of Yorkshire and the Humber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_and_the_Humber

 

[Senex]

There already is one, look at an OS map.

There was a much better one in the past, which would have given quite a fast route between Stockport and Victoria (and was the route used when regular trains ran)—Denton Jn to Ashton Moss South Jn to Droylesden Station Jn. Unfortunately it duplicated the route from Denton Jn to Droylesden via Ashton Moss Jn and Ashton Moss South Jn which also gave access to the curve to OA&GB Jn and so provided both westwards and eastwards connections to the Stalybridge line. So the direct line went—and then the OA&GB curve went, so the reason for keeping the worse route to Victoria disappeared.

 

[Senex]

Junction conflicts at Slade Lane, Ardwick and Piccadilly throat are minimised when all Airport line services go through P13/14. If you want more Liverpool - Sheffield services through Piccadilly, you really need a flyover at Ardwick.

The original Manchester Hub study evaluated an Ardwick flyover as an alternative to the Ordsall Chord and concluded it would be more costly and less beneficial. Of course, hindsight is wonderful....

I wonder how many of the infrastructure facilities we now regard as indispensable would ever have been built if today's strict cost-benefit rules had been applied in the past.

 

[londonmidland]

Comfort wise: What and when the new trains do turn up (TPE 185s seems to be a favourable candidate) it’ll certainly be a big upgrade over the 156s and the occasional 153s which tend to appear on the Liverpool to Nottingham services.

In fact 156s are no longer strangers to the route and provide no WiFi, plug sockets or air conditioning. All of what TPE offers.
The leg room on both 156s and 153 is pretty poor too.

 

[LowLevel]

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.

It's simple enough. It is politically, economically and morally unacceptable to make up to 100 guards and drivers at EMT(R) redundant as a result of a paper shuffling exercise. This is magnified because they will all be required deal with the increase in services due over the next few years so consequently it's pointless losing some entirely functional traincrews with extensive and valuable route knowledge only to have to recruit them all again 18 months later.

Consequently, as it was explained in the ITT, the remapping of the Liverpool service is designed to be concurrent with the introduction of the extra services the next few years to absorb the surplus traincrew (which aren't really surplus anyway).

It would be a bit too much to take to be told that not only are you not good enough to run the service you've turned into some half decent over the last 30 years not to mention losing some useful travel facilities, you're also being made redundant and a result of some DfT and TfN crayonistas.

 

[Chester1]

It's simple enough. It is politically, economically and morally unacceptable to make up to 100 guards and drivers at EMT(R) redundant as a result of a paper shuffling exercise. This is magnified because they will all be required deal with the increase in services due over the next few years so consequently it's pointless losing some entirely functional traincrews with extensive and valuable route knowledge only to have to recruit them all again 18 months later.

Consequently, as it was explained in the ITT, the remapping of the Liverpool service is designed to be concurrent with the introduction of the extra services the next few years to absorb the surplus traincrew (which aren't really surplus anyway).

It would be a bit too much to take to be told that not only are you not good enough to run the service you've turned into some half decent over the last 30 years not to mention losing some useful travel facilities, you're also being made redundant and a result of some DfT and TfN crayonistas.

Who is suggesting making anyone redundant? Wouldn't staff just be TUPEd to TPE or Northern? Presumably there would need to be a reshuffling of which staff work which routes. The franchise award states "early in the franchise" which would indicate earlier than Hope Valley upgrade completion in 2023.

 

[LowLevel]

Who is suggesting making anyone redundant? Wouldn't staff just be TUPEd to TPE or Northern? Presumably there would need to be a reshuffling of which staff work which routes. The franchise award states "early in the franchise" which would indicate earlier than Hope Valley upgrade completion in 2023.

The ITT suggests what I said - it says to reduce the impact on the existing staff changes will be delayed.

There's little point in TUPEing staff over when half the advantage is having better distribution of them to cover the work. You won't find many staff based in Nottingham or Derby with much of an interest in moving to Liverpool, Manchester or Sheffield (though there might be a handful) and they're not going to want or have room for a large depot in Nottingham.

Somewhere between 40 and 50 staff from each grade of guard and driver depend on this work (hence 80 to 100) and tying the new operator to a large Nottingham depot would defeat the object entirely - there's no reason EMT couldn't deliver an IC style service themselves if that was the case.

 

[Killingworth]

It's simple enough. It is politically, economically and morally unacceptable to make up to 100 guards and drivers at EMT(R) redundant as a result of a paper shuffling exercise. This is magnified because they will all be required deal with the increase in services due over the next few years so consequently it's pointless losing some entirely functional traincrews with extensive and valuable route knowledge only to have to recruit them all again 18 months later.

Consequently, as it was explained in the ITT, the remapping of the Liverpool service is designed to be concurrent with the introduction of the extra services the next few years to absorb the surplus traincrew (which aren't really surplus anyway).

It would be a bit too much to take to be told that not only are you not good enough to run the service you've turned into some half decent over the last 30 years not to mention losing some useful travel facilities, you're also being made redundant and a result of some DfT and TfN crayonistas.

It's all a mess and continuing the present franchise until after the Williams Review would probably have been better, but we arent in that position.

As far as this route is concerned the crews have had to put up with a lot that is totally beyond their control. Remapping should have occurred in December 2018 if the Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Scheme had been completed to the original timetable.

Thanks to the delays caused by the public inquiry that won't now be before December 2022 and could slip into 2023.

New services can't run before then. Present services will continue to experience congestion issues until then.

Available rolling stock is another issue. 158s are OK but too often they've been short formed with a single 158 unit instead of 2, or a 156 or 153 has.been used.

The present uncertainty for those crewing the service must be torture. I can't see major, if any, redundancies as whoever takes over will need most of those trained people. And redeployment in Nottingham should be possible. I would not be happy with the present TUPE moves back and forth, but current terms should remain almost unchanged.

Having been threatened with a TUPE, then given notice of redundancy, only for that to be withdrawn about 2 weeks before the effective date, I have a little understanding of what it's like!

 

[Chester1]

The ITT suggests what I said - it says to reduce the impact on the existing staff changes will be delayed.

There's little point in TUPEing staff over when half the advantage is having better distribution of them to cover the work. You won't find many staff based in Nottingham or Derby with much of an interest in moving to Liverpool, Manchester or Sheffield (though there might be a handful) and they're not going to want or have room for a large depot in Nottingham.

Somewhere between 40 and 50 staff from each grade of guard and driver depend on this work (hence 80 to 100) and tying the new operator to a large Nottingham depot would defeat the object entirely - there's no reason EMT couldn't deliver an IC style service themselves if that was the case.

The ITT has been superceded by the franchise award, it has been announced the route will be split "early in the franchise" while 2023 would be half way through it. Why would people need to move home? Do EMT and TPE both have staff in Sheffield? If so, TUPE EMT drivers and guards in Sheffield to TPE and run the service from Sheffield.

 

[LowLevel]

It's all a mess and continuing the present franchise until after the Williams Review would probably have been better, but we arent in that position.

As far as this route is concerned the crews have had to put up with a lot that is totally beyond their control. Remapping should have occurred in December 2018 if the Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Scheme had been completed to the original timetable.

Thanks to the delays caused by the public inquiry that won't now be before December 2022 and could slip into 2023.

New services can't run before then. Present services will continue to experience congestion issues until then.

Available rolling stock is another issue. 158s are OK but too often they've been short formed with a single 158 unit instead of 2, or a 156 or 153 has.been used.

The present uncertainty for those crewing the service must be torture. I can't see major, if any, redundancies as whoever takes over will need most of those trained people. And redeployment in Nottingham should be possible. I would not be happy with the present TUPE moves back and forth, but current terms should remain almost unchanged.

Having been threatened with a TUPE, then given notice of redundancy, only for that to be withdrawn about 2 weeks before the effective date, I have a little understanding of what it's like!

I don't think any redundancies are likely but running the service on the never never for the last 4+ years with constant direct awards and tired rolling stock has been difficult. It is basically where TPE was pre 185 in 2005 but the trains have another few hundred thousand miles on the clock.

 

[LowLevel]

The ITT has been superceded by the franchise award, it has been announced the route will be split "early in the franchise" while 2023 would be half way through it. Why would people need to move home? Do EMT and TPE both have staff in Sheffield? If so, TUPE EMT drivers and guards in Sheffield to TPE and run the service from Sheffield.

EMT have a train manager depot in Sheffield who are totally removed from the Liverpool - Norwich service, don't sign the route, don't sign the traction and are on Midland Mainline terms and conditions devoted to delivering the St Pancras services. There are no drivers there.

The displaced Nottingham and Derby senior conductors also can't cover the train managers work without wholesale contractual harmonisation.

Nothing about moving work around is simple which is why the DfT in taking such a humongous slice of work from one company to hand to another have opened a huge can of worms.

There was a plan to further deal with this by moving services to Birmingham from the East Mids to EM but the West Mids local government squashed that.

I'm sure it will all come out in the coming months but it's not as simple as just telling people they now work for someone else.

 

[mmh]

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.

Alternatively, it's the enthusiasts who are obsessed with which operator runs a service, where the traction and drivers etc come from and so forth.

Every few months at least there's a thread about Norwich to Liverpool, and there's always a focus on why trains that say East Midlands on the side are venturing to places outside the midlands. Non-enthusiasts, and enthusiasts not fixating on individual TOC route maps really don't care!

 

[SteveyBee131]

Humber is not a local authority. Grimsby & Cleethorpes are part of North East Lincolnshire Unitary Authority. Scunthorpe is in North Lincolnshire.
Both are part of the East Midlands

Correct As verified by the fact that the local bus company is Stagecoach East Midlands, and the local ambulances are run by East Midlands Ambulance Service.

Incorrect, both are part of Yorkshire and the Humber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_and_the_Humber

Incorrect. Yorkshire is North of the River, Humber is the river. Humberside, as the area was once called, ceased to exist in the mid 1990s.

I won't claim to be a fountain of knowledge, but I will claim to live in Grimsby and I know what area I live in.

I also know that this is off the topic of this thread (and perhaps the entire forum!) So now, back to subject

 

[DanTrain]

Correct As verified by the fact that the local bus company is Stagecoach East Midlands, and the local ambulances are run by East Midlands Ambulance Service.


Incorrect. Yorkshire is North of the River, Humber is the river. Humberside, as the area was once called, ceased to exist in the mid 1990s.

I won't claim to be a fountain of knowledge, but I will claim to live in Grimsby and I know what area I live in.

I also know that this is off the topic of this thread (and perhaps the entire forum!) So now, back to subject

Erm no, like it or not, these two districts are in the Yorkshire & Humber region, hence why the ‘Humber’ bit is there...it’d be pointless otherwise because Hull is in Yorkshire! I agree it’s ofd to split Lincolnshire in 2, but hey-ho that’s how it is, there’s not a lot of point living in denial.

In fairness, it’s ‘Yorkshire’ ambulance service amd Stagecoach ‘Yorkshire’ because they don’t cover ‘The Humber’ as this area seems to be termed regionally (hardly a measure of where a place is, First South Yorkshire run well into Derbyshire!). In other words you’re right that it’s East Mids in all but name...but Yorkshire (and Humber) have claimed you for our own !

 

[kevconnor]

Who is suggesting making anyone redundant? Wouldn't staff just be TUPEd to TPE or Northern? Presumably there would need to be a reshuffling of which staff work which routes. The franchise award states "early in the franchise" which would indicate earlier than Hope Valley upgrade completion in 2023.

TUPE may not apply, for it to do so there needs to be a transfer, sale or service provision change and then if there is there needs to be an organised grouping of employees who's principle purpose is the service being transferred.

In English this means drivers and conductors would need to be principly or solely rostered to the Notts - Liverpool only route.

 

[Killingworth]

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?

You're right there! Until the Beeching era this station in the Eastern Region, although built by the Midland Railway, had a frequent service to and from Sheffield on two lines. The original mainline was to Derby and the Hope Valley route to Buxton and Manchester was opened for passengers in 1894. By 1903 the original 2 tracks into Sheffield had been extended to 4. Eastern closed all small stations between Sheffield and Derby about 1969. After an appeal to Barbara Castle, Transport Minister, Midland Region kept open the stations from Grindleford into Manchester. Eastern sem to have relented and kept Dore & Totley open, but demolished the footbridge to the southbound mainline platform to ensure nothing would be stopping there! By 1985 they'd reduced the tracks into Sheffield back to 2 and demolished 3 platforms at Dore and removed one track through the station.

During this period of downward spiral traffic from the station collapsed. Service was cut back to 2 hourly terminating at New Mills where a change was necessary for Manchester. Slowly it has dawned on the railway industry that there was demand for more services. Over the last 30 years gradual improvements have been made in the service for commuters - to Manchester! That has resulted in at least 2 tph at commuting times morning and evening, one fast, one slow.

Not so for 4 mile distant Sheffield. Although Northern operate a train every hour they're not all clock face and not all stop. In the evening out of Sheffield there's a gap of 2 hours 33 minutes. Taxi!

Surveys show that only 40% of commuters go that short hop towards Sheffield with 60% going west. The imbalance for return journeys must be greater.

Once the Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Scheme is complete (2022 maybe) more services can run and more will stop at Sheffield South West Parkway. That is the fear of local residents hemmed in by parked cars.

The plans include an apparent option for bi-directional working through the two platforms. That might allow a stopping service from north or east of Sheffield to run down to Dore and turn back there. Local rail users have suggested there may be room for a 3rd bay platform. Network Rail haven't spare cash for that so it would be down to TfN to arrange. At present they may be aware of that local idea but haven't shown any noticeable interest. Tram-train to Dore has been suggested too but may be unsuitable.

Dore station users can't help noticing that stations from New Mills into Piccadilly get a half hourly service. It takes at least half an hour from the Dore & Totley area into Sheffield by bumpy bus. If there were more trains they'd be used for a service taking 6 or 7 minutes.

With 40 catching the 6.14 for Manchester, and maybe 100 the 7.14, the biggest issue is lack of seats, then frequency and punctuality.

Incidentally, some think all 4 platforms at Dore should be reinstated. It may even have been costed. That would cause more rail traffic congestion and major car parking conflicts.

Much as I'd like to catch a tain for London, Edinburgh or Penzance from my local station I don't think it would be cost or operationally effective.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I believe they are indeed equipped with unit deselect as you say.

Not a clue! It was news to me that they were!

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.

There is no requirement to have 2 guards on 6 car 185 services, there is a temporary operational requirement for 2 at Mossley, but that should go at May.

Other than 6 cars stopping at Mossley, where 2 guards are provided it is generally for rostering and diagramming convenience and certainly isn't a requirement .

Unlike on Northern, TPE guards are allowed to swap sets, subject to any short platform operating requirements.

185s now have SDO fitted which is expected to come into use from the May timetable change.

 

[_toommm_]

There is no requirement to have 2 guards on 6 car 185 services, there is a temporary operational requirement for 2 at Mossley, but that should go at May.

Other than 6 cars stopping at Mossley, where 2 guards are provided it is generally for rostering and diagramming convenience and certainly isn't a requirement .

Unlike on Northern, TPE guards are allowed to swap sets, subject to any short platform operating requirements.

185s now have SDO fitted which is expected to come into use from the May timetable change.

They did previously as instead of doing unit deselect at Dore and Meadowhall, the rear guard would lock doors OOU manually.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

They did previously as instead of doing unit deselect at Dore and Meadowhall, the rear guard would lock doors OOU manually.

Unit deselect has been prohibited for some time if passengers are in the rear set. Not entirely sure why, a reason was never given.

If stopping at a short platform with a long train then the procedure is for the guard to lock out manually the required number of doors, up to 3. Only 1 guard is required to do this. By default he would have to be in the back set to do this. If 4 doors are required to be locked out, for example at Mossley, then 2 guards are required. This is only temporary however.

On a 6 car train with no short platform door lock outs to worry about then only 1 guard is needed and they are free to swap sets as they wish.