What stock "should" operate Liverpool-Norwich services?

[MCR247]

Oh were back to "who runs the route should be decided by the franchise name" logic :roll:

 

[Whistler40145]

Actually, how many units per day are required by EMT & how many spare units do they have?

 

[43074]

Actually, how many units per day are required by EMT & how many spare units do they have?

EMT require 19 158s for the Norwich to Liverpool service - 12 of which work Norwich - Liverpool etc. and the other 7 work just Nottingham to Liverpool. 1 Diagram (NM252) works to Lowestoft before the 07:57 departure from Norwich and then after a return trip to Liverpool it works to Great Yarmouth.

Another 3 units are used on Nottingham to Skegness and Leicester to Lincoln diagrams.

So they need 22 units per day, and 3 units spare/avaliable for maintenance.


EDIT: On second thoughts, it does make sense that the service is part of the East Midlands Trains franchise, because the route is centered on Nottingham. Many diagrams start or finish there, this is where splitting and joining takes place and there is a clear divide between patronage in the West and patronage in the East. There is also a maintenance depot there. If Northern ran the service, the 158s would be based at Leeds so performance may become an issue. If TPE ran the service, the 185s couldn't run to 158 timings on the sections East of Nottingham. Nor do EMT fitters have traction knowledge of the 185s should they stable overnight at Nottingham.

 

[Whistler40145]

As earlier in the thread, it was mentioned that extra 158s would be required for the Cambrian, why doesn't EMT do a direct swap with its 158s for Arriva Trains Wales fleet of 175s?

This would provide 2 & 3 car sets.

 

[Rheilffordd]

As earlier in the thread, it was mentioned that extra 158s would be required for the Cambrian, why doesn't EMT do a direct swap with its 158s for Arriva Trains Wales fleet of 175s?

This would provide 2 & 3 car sets.

ATW need the 3-car 175s more than it does more 2-car 158s!

Surely 3-car 175s would also be a massive reduction in seating too, as most EMT Liverpool services are 4-car 158! You could couple, but no gangway and probably awkward at some stations.

 

[Whistler40145]

I would reconfigure several 3 car units as 4 or 5 car sets using the centre carriages, the remaining units would run on other services in reduced formation.

Another alternative is to go down the road of hiring in stock & locos, whether you use top 'n' tail DRS 37/4s+Mk 2s or a 67+Mk 3s+DVT as per Chiltern Trains.

 

[9K43]

A class 47, with a rake of 14 Mk1 Coaches and a dining car

 

[dannyandy]

One thing that people seem to be forgetting is that the platforms aren't long enough to take anything more than 2 158s together in some places let alone 222 s etc. SDO would be a necessity but not suitable considering how busy the peak services are.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A class 47, with a rake of 14 Mk1 Coaches and a dining car

Presumably with a DBSO? (or you could change locos and shunt/release at Sheffield)...

 

[Rhydgaled]

New stock - purpose built regional express units to replace the 158s on various routes across the country - routes that are too complicated / too low priority to electrify in the next 20-30 years, like Liverpool - Norwich, Stansted - Birmingham, Nottingham - Cardiff.

Something like this:



(It's a rough idea, that I'm sure is full of gaping holes and has zero chance of becoming reality)

Make it a bi-mode, perhaps reduce it to 3-car or 4-car units (removing the 1st class accomadation), and move the doors to vestibles at the vehicle ends to maximise seating flexibility in between and you've nailed it. The only diesel regional express stock we have currently are 158s, 159s and 175s, and there aren't nearly enough to go arround (maybe that would change if the remainder of SWT's network was electrified though).

If you're not going to radically alter the service (split it, speed it up significantly, divert it elsewhere etc), then...:

Problems with the 158s:

• 90mph running on the thirty five mile section from Grantham to Peterborough isn't ideal (given that every other passenger service on that bit of line is 125mph stock)
• Narrow doors are a bit of a hassle at stations like Manchester Piccadilly (compared to the time taken to unload/ load a 170/185 etc)

Benefits of the 158s:

• 90mph is fine for most of the route (lets face it, little scope for higher speed between Liverpool and Chesterfield due to congestion - head out of Lime Street at 125mph and you'll soon catch up a Pacer ahead)
• Most of the passengers are doing distances that the 158 interiors are okay for - not ideal for "End to end" passengers, but then what is?
• Corridor connections allow the service to have extra capacity on the busier (western) side of the route
• Four coaches (west side)/ two coaches (east side) seems a decent amount of capacity - could always be more, like with many services, but good enough for now
• Plenty scope for extra 158s freed up by electrification elsewhere to add to the capacity on the Liverpool - Norwich service (rather than having a stand-alone fleet that can't easily be added to)

So, the answer is... keep 158s

Additional benifit of 158s: narrow doors at in vestibles at the end of unit provides more room for seats, legroom or tables (more of any of these things are good for longer distance passengers) and allows the aircon/heating (assuming they are working correctly) to work without having to contend with cold/hot air from outside coming directly into the passenger saloon when the doors open.

Clearly the answer is to electrify the whole bloody thing and order a load of 444-esque stock for it

Good plan, or stick diesel engines under some of the coaches and make it a bi-mode (a regional express bi-mode would be far more useful than an intercity one in my opinion, it is generally going to me easier/more worthwhile to complete electrification of the intercity network than it is to wire all regional express routes).

The doors being at the ends of the carriage of the 444's, I think you will find, would slow the cascade in the rush hour off them down, compared to where the doors are situated on a 14x or 15x train which they would be replacing.

You would be better with 450/350 esque stock as the doors are located in the prime places on this trains for disembarkation.

Class 444's are really more of an Inter City train.

Take the buffet car and one other coach out of a class 444, put standard class seating in the remaining three carriages and you have would have something similar to a 3-car 158, which in my opinion (alongside 159s and 2-car 158s) is the ideal regional express train. Yes, doors at the ends of coaches increase dwell times but the outer-suburban door layout on 170s and 185s is not suitable for a regional express service. This is largely based on the report my non-enthusist brother gave when we sent him by rail from Cardiff to Nottingham: "the doors were in the wrong place" he said.

A regional express service should not normally be 'all-shacks' in any case (except where the service is the only one on a branch line, eg. Cambrian lines, the train then goes limited stop east of Shrewsbury). This means there are less station dwells to extend (and making the train a coach longer, to give an extra two sets of doors, should help mitigate that at the busiset stations which should have sufficently long platforms).

Another alternative is to go down the road of hiring in stock & locos, whether you use top 'n' tail DRS 37/4s+Mk 2s or a 67+Mk 3s+DVT as per Chiltern Trains.

Top&Tail? 40t bike sheds (DVTs)? That sounds expensive. What you want is a DBSO, then you only need one non-passenger-carrying vehicle (the locomotive).

 

[WestCountry]

How about Hope Valley electrification (logical follow-on from MML and presumably Sheffield-Doncaster in CP6), then splitting the service at Nottingham.
Give the west side to TPE or their successor, using more of whatever's procured for North TP, and the east to XC to be interworked with the Cardiffs using 3-car 170s. There should be enough 170s free after TP and Scottish wiring for XC to be able to resource it.

 

[edwin_m]

How about Hope Valley electrification (logical follow-on from MML and presumably Sheffield-Doncaster in CP6), then splitting the service at Nottingham.
Give the west side to TPE or their successor, using more of whatever's procured for North TP, and the east to XC to be interworked with the Cardiffs using 3-car 170s. There should be enough 170s free after TP and Scottish wiring for XC to be able to resource it.

Splitting at Nottingham was looked at in 2007ish and the decision made to keep the present arrangement. Possibly because Nottingham isn't a good place for onward connections.

If Hope Valley was electrified then it might make more sense to electrify Nottingham-Grantham as well and split at Peterborough. This may not have been possible in 2007 but probably will be with completion of the new platform. The section using the ECML would then be electric, reducing capacity problems there, with the added bonus of an electrified diversionary route for the MML. Assuming the franchise map stays broadly unchanged, Peterborough-Norwich would fall more naturally into the Greater Anglia franchise and Liverpool-Peterborough remain with EMT.

 

[tbtc]

Hope Valley would be good, but you'd also need to do the Warrington Central line (between Liverpool and Manchester) and the Erewash Valley line (between Chesterfield and Nottingham), so I can't see it being EMU capable from Liverpool to Peterborough any time soon (sadly).

Trouble with a route like this is that we enthusiasts obsess about the few "end to end" passengers, like Newcastle to Manchester Airport or Edinburgh to Plymouth, when very few do the whole trip.

 

[ainsworth74]

Additional benifit of 158s: narrow doors at in vestibles at the end of unit provides more room for seats, legroom or tables (more of any of these things are good for longer distance passengers) and allows the aircon/heating (assuming they are working correctly) to work without having to contend with cold/hot air from outside coming directly into the passenger saloon when the doors open.

Disadvantage of narrow doors: Significantly increased dwell times at busy stations and on this route there are more than a few of them.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Disadvantage of narrow doors: Significantly increased dwell times at busy stations and on this route there are more than a few of them.

Which was already mentioned in the list of benifits/disbenifits I quoted. Personally, I think the pros/cons of the two different door layouts work out as:

• 1/3, 2/3 doors - better for stoppers and acceptable for short-distance branch services (under an hour)
• Class 158/175-style door layout - better for regional express, lengthy rural services of over an hour and intercity work

Most stations called at by Intercity services are major busy stations yet the doors haven't been moved midway along the passenger saloons in intercity stock.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The Liverpool-Norwich service, like the North Transpennine, suffers from the fact that it's essentially two services in one: For the sake of argument, if there's 50 people on board a 158 vehicle heading up the Hope Valley let's say 10 of them are going Liverpool-Nottingham, chances are that 30 of the other 40 will only be travelling Manchester-Sheffield. Whilst the first 10 would want end doors, a trolley or better, and a good choice of table seats- the others will really only be bothered about getting a seat at all; and not having to queue for ages to get off.

Clearly a 158 is ideal for the first group, but a 185 would be more suitable for the latter. There isn't an easy way of keeping everyone happy, short of making sure every service is 10 cars long and made up of a mixture of stock. The design suggested by dosxuk appears to be a reasonable compromise between the two, with doors at 0/3 and 2/3. As long as there's an internal door keeping draughts out of the saloons it would work. After all, pacers and 444s have both proven that doors don't need to all be in the same place!

 

[northwichcat]

The Liverpool-Norwich service, like the North Transpennine, suffers from the fact that it's essentially two services in one

Not sure about that statement.

If one person is travelling between Liverpool and Sheffield, another between Manchester and Peterborough, another between Manchester and Nottingham, another between Sheffield and Nottingham and another between Sheffield and Norwich then despite no-one travelling end-to-end there isn't a middle point where everyone alights and you can split the service.

Even the Sunday only Chester to Southport via Stockport service, which on paper is two services joined up for Sundays only, could cause people problems if you split it up. If you were travelling between Salford Crescent and Northwich and the services were split at Piccadilly, a missed connection on a Sunday could cause a 2 hour delay to your journey.

Liverpool-Norwich managed to escape Central chopping it up like they did with most of their long routes like Crewe to Skegness and Liverpool to Stansted Airport, so either Central or the ORR must have seen the route as having a lot more potential as a through service.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Not sure about that statement.

If one person is travelling between Liverpool and Sheffield, another between Manchester and Peterborough, another between Manchester and Nottingham, another between Sheffield and Nottingham and another between Sheffield and Norwich then despite no-one travelling end-to-end there isn't a middle point where everyone alights and you can split the service.

Even the Sunday only Chester to Southport via Stockport service, which on paper is two services joined up for Sundays only, could cause people problems if you split it up. If you were travelling between Salford Crescent and Northwich and the services were split at Piccadilly, a missed connection on a Sunday could cause a 2 hour delay to your journey.

Liverpool-Norwich managed to escape Central chopping it up like they did with most of their long routes like Crewe to Skegness and Liverpool to Stansted Airport, so either Central or the ORR must have seen the route as having a lot more potential as a through service.

Apologies, my statement was unclear- I didn't mean two services in one in an end-to-end sort of way- more that it performs the tasks of long-distance and shorter regional services- and that it's difficult to specify a train that caters adequately to both markets. North TPE is another example- Between Huddersfield and Leeds it carries large numbers of local passengers whilst still attempting to be a pseudo-intercity link between Liverpool and York. Hence the 185s leaving both groups unhappy!

 

[dosxuk]

In my experience, while not many do the entire route end-end, there's good numbers travelling 2/3 - 3/4 of the route - Norwich - Manchester, Liverpool - Peterborough and the like. The trains don't empty out and refill with completely different people at Nottingham.

 

[WestCountry]

Hope Valley would be good, but you'd also need to do the Warrington Central line (between Liverpool and Manchester) and the Erewash Valley line (between Chesterfield and Nottingham), so I can't see it being EMU capable from Liverpool to Peterborough any time soon (sadly).

Is there any particular reason why it can't run over Chat Moss instead, perhaps swapping it with something else? I'd be surprised if Erewash wasn't done at the same time as the Hope Valley and/or Sheffield-Doncaster - plenty of freight from there heads onto the MML.
Reaching Peterborough seems unlikely though, is there anything else using the Grantham line that could plausibly be electrified? 1tph wouldn't be worth it compared to dozens of other routes. Felixstowe-Nuneaton will probably be wired first, and then you could run EMUs all the way to Ely via Syston Jct.

 

[dosxuk]

Reaching Peterborough seems unlikely though, is there anything else using the Grantham line that could plausibly be electrified? 1tph wouldn't be worth it compared to dozens of other routes. Felixstowe-Nuneaton will probably be wired first, and then you could run EMUs all the way to Ely via Syston Jct.

I'd expect to see Norwich - Ely electrified before Grantham - Nottingham.

 

[northwichcat]

Is there any particular reason why it can't run over Chat Moss instead, perhaps swapping it with something else?

I would have thought Deansgate-Liverpool South Parkway will be higher priority for electrification than Hope Valley, given the latter sees less trains and the former would allow North TPE diversions via Warrington without hanging on to DMUs for that purpose (as Virgin do for Birmingham-Scotland.)

 

[WestCountry]

I'd expect to see Norwich - Ely electrified before Grantham - Nottingham.

That was going to be part of my point before I got lazy and left it out.

Syston Jct is on the Nuneaton-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Felixstowe route, which is likely to be electrified well before either Nottingham-Grantham or Ely-Norwich. Diverting the service that way and using EMUs would probably result in switching from Norwich to Ipswich or Cambridge, at least until the Ely-Norwich line was wired.

 

[Bevan Price]

As earlier in the thread, it was mentioned that extra 158s would be required for the Cambrian, why doesn't EMT do a direct swap with its 158s for Arriva Trains Wales fleet of 175s?

This would provide 2 & 3 car sets.

Like the class 185, class 175 would not be allowed to run at 90 mph in "differential limit" areas on the Hope Valley & elsewhere where train weight is of concern.

( For example, both classes, plus Voyagers, HSTs & loco hauled stock had to obey the lower limit (60 mph) on part of the Kirkham - Blackpool North route, whereas lighter trains (142, 15x) are allowed to run at 70 mph. )

Bevan

 

[CockneySparrow]

That was going to be part of my point before I got lazy and left it out.

Syston Jct is on the Nuneaton-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Felixstowe route, which is likely to be electrified well before either Nottingham-Grantham or Ely-Norwich. Diverting the service that way and using EMUs would probably result in switching from Norwich to Ipswich or Cambridge, at least until the Ely-Norwich line was wired.

Doubt they would close the Breckland line completely like they did the Fen Line all them years ago, I would imagine they would electrify it in two sections with Thetford being the middle point with EMT running only to Thetford then Ely or vice versa depending on end they start, EMT will probably leave a couple of 158s to do shuttle runs between Thetford calling at all stations into Norwich as applicable

This would free up 3 x 170 for GA to use elsewhere in Anglia

I would also expect the bulk of the work done at weekends with the line closed the odd week here or there

All in all can't see EMT going to Cambridge and definately not Ipswich never in a million years as there simply isn't the paths available to do so

 

[WestCountry]

Doubt they would close the Breckland line completely like they did the Fen Line all them years ago, I would imagine they would electrify it in two sections with Thetford being the middle point with EMT running only to Thetford then Ely or vice versa depending on end they start, EMT will probably leave a couple of 158s to do shuttle runs between Thetford calling at all stations into Norwich as applicable

This would free up 3 x 170 for GA to use elsewhere in Anglia

I would also expect the bulk of the work done at weekends with the line closed the odd week here or there

All in all can't see EMT going to Cambridge and definately not Ipswich never in a million years as there simply isn't the paths available to do so

I meant 'in the time period between Felixstowe-Nuneaton electrification and any future project to Norwich, assuming the two aren't simultaneous or even immediately consecutive', not 'while the Norwich line is actually being electrified'.
If I'm having to clarify my attempted clarifications, I might need to think more about what I'm writing...

 

[Class172]

I was thinking abou the class 442s this morning, and how they (along with the 444s) are the ideal train style for this type of service. Then I though, how hard is it for the 442s to be converted to overhead electrification: I know they have no pantograph well so the carriages would need structural modification.

Then going a step further, could you ever mount some engines under the trailer cars to turn it into a DMU, that could operate Liverpool-Norwich.

 

[edwin_m]

I was thinking abou the class 442s this morning, and how they (along with the 444s) are the ideal train style for this type of service. Then I though, how hard is it for the 442s to be converted to overhead electrification: I know they have no pantograph well so the carriages would need structural modification.

Then going a step further, could you ever mount some engines under the trailer cars to turn it into a DMU, that could operate Liverpool-Norwich.

The electric traction package would need replacing as it has a traditional camshaft system re-used from the REP units, that only works on DC. As well as a pantograph, space would be needed for a transformer. Putting transformers or indeed diesel engines under the trailers is unlikely because they are essentially Mk3 coaches and not designed to carry such a heavy load.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I was thinking abou the class 442s this morning, and how they (along with the 444s) are the ideal train style for this type of service. Then I though, how hard is it for the 442s to be converted to overhead electrification: I know they have no pantograph well so the carriages would need structural modification.

Then going a step further, could you ever mount some engines under the trailer cars to turn it into a DMU, that could operate Liverpool-Norwich.

The electric traction package would need replacing as it has a traditional camshaft system re-used from the REP units, that only works on DC. As well as a pantograph, space would be needed for a transformer. Putting transformers or indeed diesel engines under the trailers is unlikely because they are essentially Mk3 coaches and not designed to carry such a heavy load.

I think 'Class172' is correct saying that something like a class 444 or 442 would be ideal. However, they are needed with their current operators so a new build of similar (but bi-mode) units would be needed. If Southern didn't need the 442s (but they do, so it's irrelevant) it sounds like you'd probablly be better off giving them to SWT in exchange for some of the 444s which should be easy to covert to OHLE power.

Also, since the Liverpool - Norwich service currently splits to provide a longer train on the busier section it might be better if the new units were 2-car and 3-car bi-mode versions of the 442. Then you could have 5-car on the busy section with the 3-car unit continuing over the quieter part.

 

[dosxuk]

Also, since the Liverpool - Norwich service currently splits to provide a longer train on the busier section it might be better if the new units were 2-car and 3-car bi-mode versions of the 442. Then you could have 5-car on the busy section with the 3-car unit continuing over the quieter part.

The "quieter" part is mostly so because of suppressed demand caused by high ticket prices and a lack of stock. Despite that, it's not uncommon for all seats to be taken and people standing in vestibules for most of the route.

IMHO, with an additional Sheffield - Manchester [- Liverpool] service, a 4/5 car service throughout would be a good starting point. It's that section where the service is packed at the moment, even with a 4 car train.

In my idea I included a first class section, because I believe that for people travelling proper distances (Norwich - Sheffield), there would be a demand for more comfortable seats and a quieter atmosphere.