Which company would you think will takeover the Liverpool-Nottingham Section of EMR Regional's Liverpool-Manchester-Nottingham-Norwich Route?

[Aictos]

I mentioned TPE because Northern don’t run an express service along the Hope Valley line. The express services are provided by TPE and EMR, which both run via Hazel Grove and (for the most part) only call at Stockport along the way. The only service which Northern currently operates is the stopper via Marple.

I can’t see what I’ve missed in your post. What has Northern got to offer that TPE can’t? Northern would need additional stock to operate an additional service, whereas TPE has the advantage that the 185s will be able to do double duty between Manchester and Sheffield. The only downside I can forsee is removing competition on that route.

Let's see what's wrong with your post...

1. There is no reason why Northern using the Connect brand can't offer a faster service then a stopping service.

2. As I have explained before twice already and this is for the third time in this thread which is getting tiresome, just because TPE currently operate the Class 185 fleet DOESN'T mean they will always operate said fleet as the Class 185 fleet CAN be cascaded, subleased etc to another TOC eg the Grand Central Class 180 that works a peak Northern service so your post is quite invalid.

 

[Ianno87]

There is also an argument that giving Northern a relatively lucrative service helps better its subsidy profile...

 

[Aictos]

There is also an argument that giving Northern a relatively lucrative service helps better its subsidy profile...

There is that too and I admit I didn't think of it myself but do see your point.

 

[Domh245]

Do TPE have a depot at Sheffield? If not, that's another advantage that Northern would have as I understand that they do have one there.

 

[D365]

Do TPE have a depot at Sheffield? If not, that's another advantage that Northern would have as I understand that they do have one there.

A very basic rolling stock depot, I'm not sure that it even fits three car units.

 

[Bevan Price]

I fear that TPE may get Liverpool / Nottingham, which would be a bad idea in my opinion. Although Class 185s are good trains, I suspect that many trains would turn out to be only 3 coaches, which would drastically reduce standard class seating capacity compared with 2x2coach 158s.
Using 2x3 coach 185s would increase operating costs (fuel, etc.) compared with using 158s.

Staying with EMR would be a better option, but IF it has to move elsewhere, Northern would be my preferred option. It is already familiar with Class 158s, and it would be sensible for Northern to receive any 158s displaced from Liverpool/Nottingham services. And with Northern crew depots based in the Liverpool, Manchester & Sheffield areas, it ought to be possible to reduce the amount of ECS running at the start & end of each day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've heard suggestion that it might not be Class 185s, but rather the Mk5a LHCS might be used on it, with double 185s swapping in on TPE because those services are a bit busier. That would be a considerable upgrade.

 

[Aictos]

I fear that TPE may get Liverpool / Nottingham, which would be a bad idea in my opinion. Although Class 185s are good trains, I suspect that many trains would turn out to be only 3 coaches, which would drastically reduce standard class seating capacity compared with 2x2coach 158s.
Using 2x3 coach 185s would increase operating costs (fuel, etc.) compared with using 158s.

Staying with EMR would be a better option, but IF it has to move elsewhere, Northern would be my preferred option. It is already familiar with Class 158s, and it would be sensible for Northern to receive any 158s displaced from Liverpool/Nottingham services. And with Northern crew depots based in the Liverpool, Manchester & Sheffield areas, it ought to be possible to reduce the amount of ECS running at the start & end of each day.

Very good points; Northern depots are already trained up on Class 158s so no extra costs involved, they already have crews based in the areas above so a great reduction in empty ECS moves at start and end of service but also opens the possibility of a Northern depot at Nottingham which could do both Leeds and Liverpool services.

While I believe that Class 185s operating as 6 cars west of Nottingham would be advantageous, I do think that they be better off on TransPennine services like York to Blackpool or used to bolster existing TPE services.

A very basic rolling stock depot, I'm not sure that it even fits three car units.

Nothing that a infrastructure upgrade can't address.

 

[Domh245]

A very basic rolling stock depot, I'm not sure that it even fits three car units.

I was thinking more about crew depots than rolling stock, but it seems that TPE have got one at Sheffield so it's a moot point anyway

 

[D365]

Nothing that a infrastructure upgrade can't address.

Good luck trying to find land within Sheffield city. The depot in question is completely boxed in.

I was thinking more about crew depots than rolling stock, but it seems that TPE have got one at Sheffield so it's a moot point anyway

I had a feeling you might have meant that!

 

[quantinghome]

Whatever the future rolling stock requirements are, surely it makes sense to have a single intercity operator working Manchester-Sheffield?

 

[D365]

Whatever the future rolling stock requirements are, surely it makes sense to have a single intercity operator working Manchester-Sheffield?

That is exactly what my thought process was...

With six car trains as standard please.

 

[Ianno87]

Whatever the future rolling stock requirements are, surely it makes sense to have a single intercity operator working Manchester-Sheffield?

Is that more or less sensible than having a single operator via Warrington Central?

Define "sense" in this context.

 

[quantinghome]

Is that more or less sensible than having a single operator via Warrington Central?

Define "sense" in this context.

A fair point, given Northern currently run fast(-ish) services over the Liverpool-Manchester and Sheffield-Nottingham sections of the route.

"Sense" in this context... I suppose it comes down to how you decide to split services between Transpennine and Northern. Transpennine should be running the long distance intercity services; Northern should run the commuter and regional services. Clearly there's a considerable overlap though, shown by certain services switching between operators - Barrow-Manchester was Transpennine and Scarborough-Blackpool was branded as Transpennine at one stage. Other long distance services have remained Northern (e.g. Leeds-Carlisle) but these generally don't connect multiple large conurbations and serve a rural hinterland.

I'd think a Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester-Sheffield-Nottingham service is sufficiently long distance and connects enough large conurbations to be assigned to the intercity rather than the regional operator.

 

[Bevan Price]

Whatever the future rolling stock requirements are, surely it makes sense to have a single intercity operator working Manchester-Sheffield?

Then it might be better if Northern also did Manchester - Doncaster / Cleethorpes. ????

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Then it might be better if Northern also did Manchester - Doncaster / Cleethorpes. ????

god No. I use the service and Id prefer TPE even if it is overcrowded though with 6 coaches it is better.

 

[D365]

god No. I use the service and Id prefer TPE even if it is overcrowded though with 6 coaches it is better.

With Northern, I fear the risk of two or four cars substituting on a three or six car service is too great! (Or a return to the days of the random unit generator)

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

With Northern, I fear the risk of two or four cars substituting on a three or six car service is too great! (Or a return to the days of the random unit generator)

Its bad enough as 3-cars and 6-cars was a welcome addition to the service but a 156 or 158 GOD NO!.

 

[LOL The Irony]

TPE makes the most sense since they should have stock spare.

 

[43096]

TPE makes the most sense since they should have stock spare.

Agreed. If they’re using 185s then TPE is the logical operator. If they stick with 158s then Northern.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Its bad enough as 3-cars and 6-cars was a welcome addition to the service but a 156 or 158 GOD NO!.

Erm, it uses 158s, usually 4 car formations. Perhaps with Northern having some centre cars it could be upgraded to 5?

 

[Ianno87]

TPE makes the most sense since they should have stock spare.

But stock can be leased or sub-leased to somebody else, like TPE/Northern have done before.

Train crew is an important issue as well in this, don't forget.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Erm, it uses 158s, usually 4 car formations. Perhaps with Northern having some centre cars it could be upgraded to 5?

i was talking about Manchester to Cleethorpes. Someone suggested it should be ran by Northern.

 

[Aictos]

But stock can be leased or sub-leased to somebody else, like TPE/Northern have done before.

Precisely the point I've made a few times in this thread that's been ignored...

 

[quantinghome]

Staffing and rolling stock can be sorted out. Services have been shifted between operators previously and doubtless will in future.

The more general point is whether or not there needs to be a separate operator for intercity services in the North. As I understand it the rationale in favour of separation is to avoid the Northern operator becoming overly focussed on delivering intercity at the expense of regional and commuter services. If we accept this, then certain things follow. If Manchester-Cleethorpes is considered enough of an intercity route to be placed within Transpennine, then Liverpool-Nottingham certainly should.

The other point is that the south transpennine route feels like a bit of an afterthought, with most of the focus on north transpennine. Combining all Manchester-Sheffield intercity services under one operator will give the route more weight.

 

[37057]

It's probably worth a mention here that C-ASDO is now enabled on the 185s which opens up to ability to operate six-car trains more easily.

 

[Purple Orange]

I find it amazing that this is even a discussion. If passenger considerations were higher up in people’s minds, TPE would win outright here. Northern? Sorry but no thanks.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I find it amazing that this is even a discussion. If passenger considerations were higher up in people’s minds, TPE would win outright here. Northern? Sorry but no thanks.

can you imagine northern running Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes?

 

[Ianno87]

I find it amazing that this is even a discussion. If passenger considerations were higher up in people’s minds, TPE would win outright here. Northern? Sorry but no thanks.

Define "passenger considerations" and how in itself automatically resolves issues related to train crew or stabling availability?

 

[Purple Orange]

The service experienced by a passenger. The wider travelling public don’t need to care about train crew or stabling availability, which granted are operational constraints, but they should be sought to be overcome to deliver the best possible public service.

When I read posts about such constraints, I am more than likely reading an excuse for a better outcome not being achieved. A more extreme example is when there are threads about a story in the press about how a member of staff on the railways treated a passenger very poorly. Even if it is inexcusable, you always get someone saying “there are two sides to a story” before defending the staff member.