Norwich-Liverpool Lime Street

[Flywaver]

Ely should not lose connections with EMT. Unless NXEA had an hourly service from Ipswich to Peterborough then it would not be such a bad sacrifice. Ely is also handy for passengers getting to London.When other routes like Norwich - Liv St or Peterborough - KX have problems..
That happens alot.....
EMT are more interested in the service going via Melton Mowbray all day. They are EMT stations after all....
Also the Corby - Leicester shuttle in the peak hour..

 

[MCR247]

But if EMT wanted to run via Melton, that would mean a reversal, although it could work if they ran it like:

4 car Liverpool - Nottingham
Splits
Front 2 to Grantham
Rear 2 to Norwich via Loughborough

 

[Failed Unit]

But if EMT wanted to run via Melton, that would mean a reversal, although it could work if they ran it like:

4 car Liverpool - Nottingham
Splits
Front 2 to Grantham
Rear 2 to Norwich via Loughborough

Or Skegness

Peterborough - Nottingham via Loughborough would be useful but diverting the Norwich trains is a large time penalty and not enough stock to run it alone.

 

[MCR247]

I thought about merging it with the current Skegness trains, but I think it would be better to have it run to Grantham as then maybe the Skegness can just go via Grantham every 2 hours

Also, it would probably be a waste of a 158 to run it to Skeggy

 

[Failed Unit]

Of course running a 158 to skeggy isn't a waste of a 158. 158s make good commuter trains. Just look at how they are used in Scotland. Lol

Ducks

 

[MCR247]

lol, but for EMT its a waste

 

[MidnightFlyer]

We've had lots of debate about this service before, latest I heard was removing the Sheffield stop/reverse to shave 18 mins of the journey time. I think that stops like Widnes, Alfreton and Thetford COULD be removed, but I think passenger levels do warrant 3tph/direction at Widnes, and 2tph/direction at the other two. It's strange when you see this service calling at the likes of Bingham, Hough Green and Harling Road in the peaks, but then I suppose if you remove them, how do you replace the service?

 

[tbtc]

We've had lots of debate about this service before, latest I heard was removing the Sheffield stop/reverse to shave 18 mins of the journey time

As long as Sheffield gets a replacement Manchester service (extend the Hull - Doncaster - Sheffield 158) and a replacement Nottingham service (extend the "other" Leeds - Barnsley - Sheffield semi-fast) I'd be perfectly happy.

If the existing links to/from Sheffield weren't so busy then there's little reason to divert the Liverpool - Norwich service through Sheffield, as an 18 minute diversion in both directions is almost a unit "cost"

 

[WillPS]

As long as Sheffield gets a replacement Manchester service (extend the Hull - Doncaster - Sheffield 158) and a replacement Nottingham service (extend the "other" Leeds - Barnsley - Sheffield semi-fast) I'd be perfectly happy.

If the existing links to/from Sheffield weren't so busy then there's little reason to divert the Liverpool - Norwich service through Sheffield, as an 18 minute diversion in both directions is almost a unit "cost"

Sheffield - Nottingham is a busy corridor too though, certainly inadequately served by the once hourly service there was until December 2008.

 

[tbtc]

Sheffield - Nottingham is a busy corridor too though, certainly inadequately served by the once hourly service there was until December 2008.

I agree, but I'd be just as happy if the half hourly Sheffield - Nottingham service was made up with local routes; in fact it may be better for Sheffield passengers as we'd not be fighting for seats with long-distance passengers.

 

[Welshman]

When I protested to Central Trains re their breaking the erstwhile through Crewe-Skegness service at Nottingham, they replied that the service was too long to maintain punctuality; that they needed a longer dwell time at Nottingham to load the Skeggy passengers and it was a different market from Nottingham to Skegness cf. Crewe-Nottingham. So for those reasons, I don't think extending a portion of the present Liverpool-Nottingham services to Skegness would work.

In my view, the Liverpool-Norwich service is too long and tries to satsify too many differing markets. Nottingham is a natural dividing point, as the practice of terminating there in the event of late-running shows. Also, I wonder if it is necessary to go through to Liverpool - are there that many through passengers?

So in an ideal world, I'd run Norwich-Nottingham [possibly under an E Anglia franchise], and a Nottingham-Derby-Totley South curve- Stockport-Manchester service by EMT, meeting the request for a faster Nottingham-Manchester journey and opening new possibilities from Derby, which apart from project Rio has not had a through service to Manchester since the Midland line through the Peak was closed.

This would be something similar to the temporary service operated when the Erewash Valley was modernised a while back, [but then the Nottingham-Liverpools passed slowly through Derby - a wasted opportunity if there ever was one.] As then, Sheffield-Manchester could remain half-hourly with the TPE service being supplemented by an EMT shuttle, and if 3 tph creates capacity problems at Stockport, could not the shuttle be an extension of the Manchester-Hazel Grove stopper, thus creating a regular Hazel Grove-Sheffield service? Then if the existing Leeds-Nottingham service were to be supplemented by extending the present Leeds-Barnsley-Sheffield fast service to Nottingham, Sheffield-Nottingham would remain half-hourly too.

That would leave Manchester - Liverpool to TPE and Northern.

I appreciate this would not please through pax from Liverpool and Manchester -Peterborough and beyond, but are there that many anyhow, and would they not go via London for a quicker and more comfortable journey? It would however, open-up a new market from Derby and create a faster and more robust service from Nottingham-Manchester, which, if not also trying to cater for the Nottingham-Sheffield and Sheffield-Manchester flows, would go some way to easing the overcrowding on the existing service.

There are bound to be glaring problems with this suggestion, so I now sit back for you to point them out to me!!

 

[WillPS]

I agree, but I'd be just as happy if the half hourly Sheffield - Nottingham service was made up with local routes; in fact it may be better for Sheffield passengers as we'd not be fighting for seats with long-distance passengers.

Perhaps by extending the Robin Hood Line - reversing at Worksop and then running 'fast' down the Sheffield - Lincoln line, calling only at Kiveton Park? Not a bad suggestion!

 

[ukrob]

Also, I wonder if it is necessary to go through to Liverpool - are there that many through passengers?

So in an ideal world, I'd run Norwich-Nottingham [possibly under an E Anglia franchise], and a Nottingham-Derby-Totley South curve- Stockport-Manchester service by EMT,

That would leave Manchester - Liverpool to TPE and Northern.

There are bound to be glaring problems with this suggestion, so I now sit back for you to point them out to me!!

You are probably already aware that EMT are to run the majority of services as four car from Liverpool to Nottingham in the future due to capacity problems throughout the route. So where do the units come from for the Liverpool - Manchester replacement if you remove what is already there in addition to what is planned? There are currently six X 2 car services per hour, seven are planned, and you want to change it to five. Northern also want an additional service per hour (instead of Liverpool - Warrington Bank Quay).

I agree the end to end journey is very long, but don't start removing capacity from one of the busiest stretches

 

[Failed Unit]

As well like the splitting of a lot of the recent kills a lot of real flows. Not many people did Lincoln - Shrewsbury. But Lincoln & Loughborough - birmingham. Nuneaton - Nottingham and Shrewsbury - liecester were all lost. Likewise Stoke-on-Trent to Nottingham and Derby-Skegness were lost journeys. Peterborough - Sheffield is quicker via Doncaster but it is a reasonable direct flow.

 

[Welshman]

Cutting-back the service to Manchester-Nottingham would mean not as many 158s would be needed, which would mean some units could go to Northern both to extend the Leeds-Sheffield service and to form an extra Liverpool-Manchester shuttle. So there could still be 7x2car tph on that section, and a more reliable service to boot, as it would not be affected by delays east of Manchester.
Through services such as Liverpool-Norwich are convenient, but are they necessary every hour, especially if the resources could be used to strengthen the service on the busiest stretches?

 

[ukrob]

Cutting-back the service to Manchester-Nottingham would mean not as many 158s would be needed, which would mean some units could go to Northern both to extend the Leeds-Sheffield service and to form an extra Liverpool-Manchester shuttle. So there could still be 7x2car tph on that section, and a more reliable service to boot, as it would not be affected by delays east of Manchester.
Through services such as Liverpool-Norwich are convenient, but are they necessary every hour, especially if the resources could be used to strengthen the service on the busiest stretches?

Cutting it back to Manchester would only save three units though so I'm not sure how that would free units up for Liverpool - Manchester (which would need the three for an hourly service anyway) AND the other service you mention.

The service should be Liverpool - Nottingham and run as four car throughout.

 

[sprinterguy]

Cutting back from Liverpool to Manchester wouldn’t save that many 158s though. Two or maybe three at the very most surely? Remembering that there would still be a Nottingham to Norwich service, just separate from the Nottingham-Manchester train. Two or three 158s would be very quickly swallowed up within EMT bolstering capacity on Manchester – Nottingham and maybe other services.

And by missing out Sheffield, and hence having to provide a shuttle service to maintain the Sheffield to Manchester frequency, or as tbtc says, extending the Hull to Sheffield TPE service to Manchester, where are the extra trains going to come from? I think it unlikely that EMT would be contracted to operate a stand-alone service so far away from their main operating area, Northern are unable to provide sufficient capacity on their existing services due to rolling stock shortages, let alone adding extended services, and TPE are also struggling to meet capacity when they are providing two carriage 170s on the Hull route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Cutting it back to Manchester would only save three units though so I'm not sure how that would free units up for Liverpool - Manchester (which would need the three for an hourly service anyway) AND the other service you mention.

The service should be Liverpool - Nottingham and run as four car throughout.

Ah, got there before me!

I agree that the service should be split to give a four carriage Liverpool to Nottingham, and a separate two carriage Nottingham to Norwich train.

 

[tbtc]

In my view, the Liverpool-Norwich service is too long and tries to satsify too many differing markets. Nottingham is a natural dividing point, as the practice of terminating there in the event of late-running shows. Also, I wonder if it is necessary to go through to Liverpool - are there that many through passengers?

Agreed. It'd be a reasonable "one a day" service from the time when BR tried to provide lots of random daily links, but the railways don't have resources to spare on those kind of routes at the moment (given the obvious capacity problems they have).

So in an ideal world, I'd run Norwich-Nottingham [possibly under an E Anglia franchise], and a Nottingham-Derby-Totley South curve- Stockport-Manchester service by EMT, meeting the request for a faster Nottingham-Manchester journey and opening new possibilities from Derby, which apart from project Rio has not had a through service to Manchester since the Midland line through the Peak was closed.

This would be something similar to the temporary service operated when the Erewash Valley was modernised a while back, [but then the Nottingham-Liverpools passed slowly through Derby - a wasted opportunity if there ever was one.] As then, Sheffield-Manchester could remain half-hourly with the TPE service being supplemented by an EMT shuttle, and if 3 tph creates capacity problems at Stockport, could not the shuttle be an extension of the Manchester-Hazel Grove stopper, thus creating a regular Hazel Grove-Sheffield service? Then if the existing Leeds-Nottingham service were to be supplemented by extending the present Leeds-Barnsley-Sheffield fast service to Nottingham, Sheffield-Nottingham would remain half-hourly too.

That would leave Manchester - Liverpool to TPE and Northern.

I appreciate this would not please through pax from Liverpool and Manchester -Peterborough and beyond, but are there that many anyhow, and would they not go via London for a quicker and more comfortable journey? It would however, open-up a new market from Derby and create a faster and more robust service from Nottingham-Manchester, which, if not also trying to cater for the Nottingham-Sheffield and Sheffield-Manchester flows, would go some way to easing the overcrowding on the existing service.

There are bound to be glaring problems with this suggestion, so I now sit back for you to point them out to me!!

A few comments (not intended as criticism, just my opinion):

1. If you split the Norwich - Nottingham, I'd be tempted to put this service alongside Skeg - Nottingham, Peterborough - Lincoln - Doncaster, Sheffield - Lincoln, the Barton Line and Sheffield - Retford - Cleethorpes in a Lincolnshire "micro" franchise, or to be bolted onto East Coast (at the next franchise change). The railways in Lincolnshire have long been run for the benefit of people far away (e.g. Central's Grimsby - Chester or Skeg - Manchester Airport), don't connect with ECML services very well etc. Putting all of these together would be a step forward (e.g. the new TOC would have an incentive to connect to ECML services at Peterborough/ Grantham/ Retford/ Doncaster). But that's maybe another story for another thread!

2. From memory, Derby wasn't served on "Project Rio", the trains were slow from London to Leicester (in the path of the Nottingham Turbostar) and then direct via the Erewash Valley/ Hope Valley to Manchester - I don't think many of them even stopped at Chesterfield.

3. There are already four passenger trains an hour from Derby to Chesterfield (plus freight paths, plus the hourly Matlock stopper at the southern end), so I'm not sure you'd find room for a Nottingham - Derby - Chesterfield - Manchester service. Of course, if the Matlock - Stockport line were to be reopened, we'd be talking

4. If you are saving Nottingham - Manchester passengers time by avoiding Sheffield, and running a replacement Sheffield - Manchester service then the logical thing would be to tag the Nottingham service on to the Hazel Grove stopper and let Sheffield keep it's "fast" service. Plus you'd have better connections from Buxton to Chesterfield/Derby that way (same county, but rubbish rail links!).

5. Then again, I'd be tempted to stop all services at Hazel Grove, partly for connections to Buxton, partly because it's a busy place (plus Sheffield - Buxton is a popular journey too)

6. Sadly you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and any change to this service will result in some complaints (even if it's "but, but, but you're getting rid of the essential Ely to Warrington service that I used five years ago). I think you're on the right lines by concentrating resources on the Sheffield/ Manchester/ Nottingham "triangle" and leaving the Norwich side for another TOC though

 

[MCR247]

I disagree, I don't think franchises should be split even more, I think they should be made bigger!

 

[YorkshireBear]

i agree that locals should be intergrated with IC and if merging the two into one franchise is the only way to do that then so be it

 

[ivanhoe]

I disagree, I don't think franchises should be split even more, I think they should be made bigger!

I totally agree. The problem with Liverpool to Norwich is not the length of the journey but the combination of MMl and parts of Central to form EMT. The EMT franchise has split the natural array of routes within the Midlands. I don't advocate Central 2 but a much larger Regional Railways franchise which would be able to utilize the available stock and staff much more efficiently. BR got the cost centres right and now is the time to advocate the return to large franchises based on the pre privatization BR . We don't need a Northern, EMT London Midland, TPE etc franchises. Sure there will need a few Tweeks here and there but surely much larger franchises are the way forward.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I totally agree. The problem with Liverpool to Norwich is not the length of the journey but the combination of MMl and parts of Central to form EMT. The EMT franchise has split the natural array of routes within the Midlands. I don't advocate Central 2 but a much larger Regional Railways franchise which would be able to utilize the available stock and staff much more efficiently. BR got the cost centres right and now is the time to advocate the return to large franchises based on the pre privatization BR . We don't need a Northern, EMT London Midland, TPE etc franchises. Sure there will need a few Tweeks here and there but surely much larger franchises are the way forward.

I still think well all be thrashing around playing rolling stock shuffle until the obvious consequences are pointed out to whatever suggestion. We simply need to order more stock and /or get extra locomotive hauled carriages in service. Regional Railways Central in the mid 90's use to reinforce the Cambrian on summer Saturday and everyone on the Skegnees line would scream blue murder about overcrowding, the next summer Skegness would have extra stock and the Cambrian would go short.

 

[Welshman]

You're right, tbtc - my memory's letting me down - Project Rio to Manchester did run via the Erewash Valley and not Derby. Which means Derby's not had a through link to Manchester since the Peak line closed under Beeching [with the exception, of course of 1 XC train per day which went via Birmingham!!].

I also like the idea of a mini-Lincolnshire franchise. Lincolnshire always seems to get a raw deal.

 

[tbtc]

You're right, tbtc - my memory's letting me down - Project Rio to Manchester did run via the Erewash Valley and not Derby. Which means Derby's not had a through link to Manchester since the Peak line closed under Beeching [with the exception, of course of 1 XC train per day which went via Birmingham!!].

I also like the idea of a mini-Lincolnshire franchise. Lincolnshire always seems to get a raw deal.

The line through Matlock would be on my list of potential reopenings, it'd be a very valuable link. Railtrack suggested reopening it, at one stage, but that came to nothing.

Well remembered about the Virgin Derby - Birmingham - Manchester trip - always a quirk in the leaflets that one

 

[YorkshireBear]

whats the line like between derby and stoke/crewe could a derby manchester service not fit through there?

 

[WillPS]

Smaller franchises is part of the problem for my money, and bundling up InterCity and regional operators as with EMT is nothing short of daft. Central Trains was an excellent franchise managed terribly.

 

[ashworth]

Perhaps by extending the Robin Hood Line - reversing at Worksop and then running 'fast' down the Sheffield - Lincoln line, calling only at Kiveton Park? Not a bad suggestion!

Perhaps not such a way out idea as may at first appear.
I would suggest extending the hourly Nottingham-Mansfield Woodhouse service to Sheffield missing out Worksop altogether, to create an hourly Nottingham-Mansfield-Sheffield service.
As I've suggested before there is a real lost market between Mansfield and stations on the northern half of the Robin Hood Line to/from Sheffield. Many of those communities look to Sheffield for work, shopping leisure etc rather than Nottingham but the almost 50 minute wait for a connection at Worksop when travelling to Sheffield just forces everyone to travel by road. Passengers travelling to destinations in the north from Mansfield find it easier to drive to Chesterfield or Newark because who wants to be travelling nearly 2 hours and only get as far as Sheffield for your onward connections.

 

[tbtc]

whats the line like between derby and stoke/crewe could a derby manchester service not fit through there?

I've wondered that in the past. The problem is probably paths north of Stoke, since there are two XCs and two Virgins plus the Northern stopper

 

[hicksy]

My big beef with 158s is that the air con doesn't work. I can't ever find any single tickets less than £62 for Norwich-Chesterfield. I end up paying about 40p/mile for a train with no air con. That WAS a problem back in June/July. Now I drive and won't touch the money pit that is our railway netowrk with a bargepole! Given that the drinks trolley gets off at Nottingham, I'm surprised there weren't any medical emergencies due to heat exhaustion.
I would suggest to bolster capacity, to use rakes of 4/5 ex Anglia or VirginXC MKII or even MKIII with a DVT or ex Anglian DBSO. Then, what sort of sloco? Some bright spark had the idea to buy great big heavy powerful things that have a top speed faster than most routes, and due to their RA have to go slower than something less powerful (?). I'm not an expert but I believe that's the great problem with class 67s. So, although a seemingly retrograde step, it might be the most pragmatic solution to go back to 60s/70s stock pulled by 37s or 47s.
Oh and lump together the track, tocs and roscos as well.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I've wondered that in the past. The problem is probably paths north of Stoke, since there are two XCs and two Virgins plus the Northern stopper

well go via sheffield maybe, then the nottingham one can miss out sheffield........ extend other sheffield leeds fast to nottingham and all routes lost are redone.