It would make the departure boards at Ely easier to understand. It doesn't help to have trains to Liverpool Street and Liverpool Lime Street on the same screen.
We have that at Norwich all day every day and manage to survive.....
It would make the departure boards at Ely easier to understand. It doesn't help to have trains to Liverpool Street and Liverpool Lime Street on the same screen.
You would think TPE keeping the 185's is no brainer in order to accommodate this, either by using the 185's directly of displacing the Loco Hauled stock onto this route.
How many diagrams would Liverpool to Nottingham require?
Yes but it might not go down well with the passengers who see their 185s replaced by mk5s and then see the mk5s replaced by 185s again.
Seven assuming the current timetable. That however is based on single units which would be a sizeable reduction on the seating offered now with 2x158s.
2x185 has more capacity than a Mk5 set.
It's not just about capacity though. TPE are promising things like more table seats, more luggage space etc. I also think the mk5s will have actual power sockets, while the 185s will just have USB charging points, which might not go down well with those using laptops.
Have you ever travelled on a Class 185?
I see no positives for the travelling public in this change. What can possibly be improved by removing direct services, and splitting one route across operators? Nottingham is a pain in the arse to connect in, given the distance of many of the eastern platforms from the two overbridges.
My personal view: The staggering Growth in recent years of the Cambridge area means there's probably revenue and a commercial case to be had, particularly where demand is probably suppressed by the need to change at Ely/Peterborough. Just look at the numbers joining a typical XC service at Cambridge now.
185s have proper plug sockets. Even the unrefurbished onesIt's not just about capacity though. TPE are promising things like more table seats, more luggage space etc. I also think the mk5s will have actual power sockets, while the 185s will just have USB charging points, which might not go down well with those using laptops.
Probably find that it won't be a booked connection at Nottingham and folk travelling between the two new services will end up having to fester for an hour.
Hmm Not sure about that personally. The extra travel time may remove more revenue than it earns.Which reminds me - it is of course in Network Rail's interest to replace direct trains with connections, because it increases footfall and revenue at cafés etc on Network Rail property. Yes, you have 45 minutes to kill at Nottingham, but so why not have a coffee?
Small mindedness?
They are prioritising the large number of people who want a reliable service over relatively short distance commutes, say journeys up to fifty miles (over the lower number of people who travel over a hundred and fifty miles)
Look at today's Sheffield - Manchester - Liverpool (South Parkway) service:
- 06:18 left two minutes late
- 07:32 left over four minutes late
- 08:41 left over four minutes late
- 09:40 was on time (!!!!)
- 10:40 left over a minute late
- 11:41 left over five minutes late
- 12:41 left over three minutes late
- 13:40 left over two minutes late
- 14:41 left over a minute late
- 15:40 left over six minutes late
- 16:40 left over three minutes late
- 17:40 left three minutes late
- 18:40 left over a minute late
- 19:40 left over a minute late
- 20:31 left over seven minutes late (the 20:31 terminates at Manchester because EMT run ECS back from Liverpool in the evening since they don't have a depot, so there's no services later than 19:40 from Sheffield to Liverpool - another thing that a change of TOC may change)
That may only look like a minute or two here or there, but almost every service was late - and these trains need to deal with single track bottlenecks at Dore and Hazel Grove before they get over the Stockport Viaduct and through the congested 13/14 corridor at Piccadilly, before trying to get to Oxford Road before the half hourly Northern stoppers occupy the line through Warrington - e.g. the 11:41 from Sheffield was so late today that the Oxford Road - Warrington service was let out ahead of it, further delaying longer distance passengers.
Maybe a few minutes here and there don't look so bad if you are doing a journey like Norwich to Liverpool - there's often sufficient recovery time at the final station that a service can be seen to catch up with any "lost" minutes, but the long distance nature of the service means that people doing short journeys (e.g. I know a couple of people who commute from Stockport to Sheffield) are at the mercy of disruptions far away.
185s have proper plug sockets. Even the unrefurbished ones
Which reminds me - it is of course in Network Rail's interest to replace direct trains with connections, because it increases footfall and revenue at cafés etc on Network Rail property. Yes, you have 45 minutes to kill at Nottingham, but so why not have a coffee?
There's no requirement for TPE to fit proper plug sockets at every pair of seats on the 185s, like there is with the mk5 sets. However, if TPE are fitting proper plug sockets at every pair of seats then it's less of an issue.
It is not a great deal of wires to justify bi-modes i'd say. If they went via chat moss then maybe. But those are two quite small sections. 185s or mk5s certainly seem the logical choice.The refurbished units have 1 socket and 1 usb port per pair of seats. TPE have said every unit is being refurbished to the same standard not just the ones staying for the rest of the franchise. I would order extra 802s and make use of the wires between Lime Street - South Parkway and Trafford Park - Hazel Grove rather than keep extra 185s.
Yes many times on TPE North, TPE South and former TPE North West routes.
Which reminds me - it is of course in Network Rail's interest to replace direct trains with connections, because it increases footfall and revenue at cafés etc on Network Rail property. Yes, you have 45 minutes to kill at Nottingham, but so why not have a coffee?
Then you'd know that only the lack of power sockets is a valid complaint from your list. There are many table seats and there is plenty of luggage space including a very large overhead rack.
Then you'd know that only the lack of power sockets is a valid complaint from your list. There are many table seats and there is plenty of luggage space including a very large overhead rack.
I'd disagree that there's plenty of luggage space - on plenty of occasions the 185 luggage racks are overflowing and I'm sure there's less luggage space on the 185s than the 158s that they replaced.
There is a lot *more* space because unlike on a Class 158 the overhead on a Class 185 will take a large bag happily.
You only get bags on the floor and on seats because people are too lazy to put them up, and for those who aren't capable of that other people are too lazy to assist them.
It is not a great deal of wires to justify bi-modes i'd say. If they went via chat moss then maybe. But those are two quite small sections. 185s or mk5s certainly seem the logical choice.
Might it work to have say 2 x 185 run Nottingham/Sheffield to Ely where they split and half go to Norwich in the existing path and the other half to Stansted Airport in the existing path of the hourly GA Cambridge to Stansted shuttle.
I just put 185's as an example. Could be any other suitable stock. It's the premise of the timings that I'm interested in understanding of it would be feasibleThere's issues with heavy trains running to Norwich. 158s are fine, 185s and 222s would have to run significantly slower.
Worth noting also that the Cam-Stansted shuttle is temporary, anyway, and will (I think) be adjoined to the Norwich-Cambridge train when the bimodes arrive.Might it work to have say 2 x 185 run Nottingham/Sheffield to Ely where they split and half go to Norwich in the existing path and the other half to Stansted Airport in the existing path of the hourly GA Cambridge to Stansted shuttle.