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

[Neptune]

The trouble with all that is that the Cleethorpes goes to Manchester Airport and not Liverpool.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The trouble with all that is that the Cleethorpes goes to Manchester Airport and not Liverpool.

Aware, but would be a combination of easy to justify and easy to do. It would also free up a path to the Airport for something else - whatever that is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would this be in addition to the stopper or instead of it? I wouldn't want to move to a system of skip stop along there. The reason being that much of the use-case for the stopper is leisure (hikers etc) and people like to do things like getting the train between the local stations and walking back and similar.

 

[Ianno87]

If they were *really* clever they could get the crossing moves to take place at Slade Lane every 30 minutes in both directions, which in turn would mean a crossing move at Castlefield fifteen minutes later and therefore another simultaneous crossing as part of a wider timetable re-map. This would mean two pairs of Double 185s between Lime Street and Sheffield.

At Sheffield, the Cleethorpes would lose a set which would be joined on the reverse leg back towards Liverpool by a unit. Very good use of capacity. You could reasonably do the same on the Nottingham.

I'd argue that the double set capacity is also likely to be required Doncaster-Sheffield as well. Trouble then is losing a logical place to split the service, so that probably means running 6-cars all the way to Cleethorpes (in excess of likely demand).

 

[Llandudno]

If they were *really* clever they could get the crossing moves to take place at Slade Lane every 30 minutes in both directions, which in turn would mean a crossing move at Castlefield fifteen minutes later and therefore another simultaneous crossing as part of a wider timetable re-map. This would mean two pairs of Double 185s between Lime Street and Sheffield.

At Sheffield, the Cleethorpes would lose a set which would be joined on the reverse leg back towards Liverpool by a unit. Very good use of capacity. You could reasonably do the same on the Nottingham.

You would assume these fast CLC Express services would all call at Warrington Central, Warrington West and Liverpool South Parkway.

Additional capacity could be added for one of two services to call at Urmston and Birchwood each; Widnes and Hunts Cross (also one in two).

Therefore, between Liverpool and Stockport you'll have:
- 1tph Liverpool Lime St, Liverpool South Pkwy, Hunts Cross, Warrington West, Warrington Ctl, Birchwood, Oxford Road, Piccadilly, Stockport.
- 1tph Liverpool Lime St, Liverpool South Pkwy, Widnes, Warrington West, Warrington Ctl, Urmston, Oxford Road, Piccadilly, Stockport.

On the Hope Valley, there's a need one has to suggest all trains stopping at Hazel Grove to encourage out-of-Manchester connections, and also at Dore & Totley to provide a decent frequency to/from Sheffield for them. At peak and off-peak, one call in each service at an extra point (one at Edale and one at Chinley to supplement the local hourly service), and then at peak times an extra stop at the two remaining busiest stations of Hope and Hathersage. This would leave only Bamford and Grindleford reliant on stopping trains.

So the end game looks something like:
- 1tph Liverpool Lime St, Liverpool South Pkwy, Hunts Cross, Warrington West, Warrington Ctl, Birchwood, Oxford Road, Piccadilly, Stockport, Hazel Grove, Edale, [Hope], Dore & Totley, Sheffield.
- 1tph Liverpool Lime St, Liverpool South Pkwy, Widnes, Warrington West, Warrington Ctl, Urmston, Oxford Road, Piccadilly, Stockport, Hazel Grove, Chinley, [Hathersage], Dore & Totley, Sheffield.

Realistically, some could argue deceleration but it's at least more likely to work for the end user.

Jeez, the Nottingham to Manchester/Liverpool travel time is long enough because of the reversal at Sheffield there is no need for extra Hope Valley Shacks stops or Warrington West for that matter.

A compromise might be one train per hour calls at Dore and the other train per hour calls at Hazel Grove?

 

[Bevan Price]

Personally speaking I’d think outside the box...
- East Midlands trains operating it as a Norwich to Sheffield, supplemented by the Northern Connect from Nottingham to Leeds.
- CrossCountry using Voyager / Meridian rolling stock and the existing Derby / Nottingham / Manchester crew bases to deliver a Manchester - Sheffield - Derby - Nottingham service with some added stops for local connectivity such as Belper and Long Eaton.
- Transfer ‘little stops’ such as Spondon into the Matlock - Nottingham/Newark.
- Use uniform Northern suburban stock on the Liverpool - Manchester sector, potentially even asking TPE to take that back and using double 185s on Cleethorpes services (single 185 east of Sheffield), connecting into the Norwich each way at Sheffield for positive journey opportunities and ‘out of Manchester’ changes.
- Flight the Manchester - Sheffield - Derby - Nottingham Voyager services so there’s about a half-hour gap; and give them off-peak and peak calls at some stations on the Hope Valley.

Even 5 coach Voyagers would be a disaster on Nottingham / Sheffield / Manchester -- you lose at least 50 standard class seats compared with 2 x2 Class 158 formations.

 

[43074]

To be honest I think you could legitimately ask what purpose the Liverpool - Norwich route serves nowadays - in it's current form or otherwise - as it's basically a BR lash up to make economic use of the Sprinters which has survived since Privatisation with no major changes to service levels, albeit with much needed strengthening on the Northern stretch.

It does lots of things, some better than others:

• Connections from Norwich & the Norfolk branches to the ECML at Peterborough, which it actually does pretty well - it's reasonably fast over the distance, averaging a shade under 60mph for the 80 miles with most of it 75mph+
• It's the fast service between Grantham and Nottingham - most Norwich to Liverpool trains are timetabled between 32 and 40 minutes for the journey, whilst the Skegness trains which have irregular stopping patterns are likewise. The Newark to Nottingham route shows what modest improvements could do here, where an improved local service and accelerated Nottingham to Lincoln trains have increased passenger numbers.
• It provides 1 of 2 fast trains per hour on each of the Nottingham - Sheffield, Sheffield - Manchester and Manchester - Liverpool legs
  There's definitely a case for keeping direct Sheffield - Manchester - Liverpool for the direct trains between the big cities it offers; it's effectively a more Southern version of the Leeds - Manchester - Liverpool link, and politically it's important - TPE would seem a logical fit for that
• It attempts to provide the main service between the East Midlands and the North West: Rail links between the East Midlands and North West in general are in need of improvement; the road links are not particularly good - it's either a choice of the A50 & M6 or A6 throughout, both of which are congested and either indirect or slow - but geographically the cities are not distant so there is plenty of demand. From Derby and Leicester getting to Manchester is awkward

So if it were up to me, I would probably remap it like this:

• 1tph Norwich to Peterborough run by Greater Anglia - probably scope to extend back to Great Yarmouth in Summer months based on my experience of using EMR service on Summer afternoons and seeing most of the Yarmouth train cross the concourse at Norwich!
• 1tph Cambridge to Sheffield run by EMR - provides an extra Cambridge to Peterborough train each hour and protects the Peterborough - Nottingham - Sheffield axis; I was slightly surprised when I used a ticket machine at Loughborough once and it listed Cambridge as one of the frequently requested destinations! Maybe running this via Loughborough would be an option that would free up ECML capacity, then replace it between Grantham and Nottingham with an all stations stopper and make the Skegness service the fast train.
• 1tph Sheffield - Liverpool run by TPE - as noted above it is more akin to the TPE North route with lots of flows between the cities which overlap. Possibly with remapping of the Hull to Sheffield service as well?
• 1tph Nottingham - Derby - Manchester run by EMR, limited stop via Stoke-on-Trent to compete with the A50 and protect the 3rd Hope Valley path so it can be used from Sheffield.

(and yes I have too much time on my hands in lockdown!)

 

[Bevan Price]

To be honest I think you could legitimately ask what purpose the Liverpool - Norwich route serves nowadays - in it's current form or otherwise - as it's basically a BR lash up to make economic use of the Sprinters which has survived since Privatisation with no major changes to service levels, albeit with much needed strengthening on the Northern stretch.

It does lots of things, some better than others:

• Connections from Norwich & the Norfolk branches to the ECML at Peterborough, which it actually does pretty well - it's reasonably fast over the distance, averaging a shade under 60mph for the 80 miles with most of it 75mph+
• It's the fast service between Grantham and Nottingham - most Norwich to Liverpool trains are timetabled between 32 and 40 minutes for the journey, whilst the Skegness trains which have irregular stopping patterns are likewise. The Newark to Nottingham route shows what modest improvements could do here, where an improved local service and accelerated Nottingham to Lincoln trains have increased passenger numbers.
• It provides 1 of 2 fast trains per hour on each of the Nottingham - Sheffield, Sheffield - Manchester and Manchester - Liverpool legs
  There's definitely a case for keeping direct Sheffield - Manchester - Liverpool for the direct trains between the big cities it offers; it's effectively a more Southern version of the Leeds - Manchester - Liverpool link, and politically it's important - TPE would seem a logical fit for that
• It attempts to provide the main service between the East Midlands and the North West: Rail links between the East Midlands and North West in general are in need of improvement; the road links are not particularly good - it's either a choice of the A50 & M6 or A6 throughout, both of which are congested and either indirect or slow - but geographically the cities are not distant so there is plenty of demand. From Derby and Leicester getting to Manchester is awkward

So if it were up to me, I would probably remap it like this:

• 1tph Norwich to Peterborough run by Greater Anglia - probably scope to extend back to Great Yarmouth in Summer months based on my experience of using EMR service on Summer afternoons and seeing most of the Yarmouth train cross the concourse at Norwich!
• 1tph Cambridge to Sheffield run by EMR - provides an extra Cambridge to Peterborough train each hour and protects the Peterborough - Nottingham - Sheffield axis; I was slightly surprised when I used a ticket machine at Loughborough once and it listed Cambridge as one of the frequently requested destinations! Maybe running this via Loughborough would be an option that would free up ECML capacity, then replace it between Grantham and Nottingham with an all stations stopper and make the Skegness service the fast train.
• 1tph Sheffield - Liverpool run by TPE - as noted above it is more akin to the TPE North route with lots of flows between the cities which overlap. Possibly with remapping of the Hull to Sheffield service as well?
• 1tph Nottingham - Derby - Manchester run by EMR, limited stop via Stoke-on-Trent to compete with the A50 and protect the 3rd Hope Valley path so it can be used from Sheffield.

(and yes I have too much time on my hands in lockdown!)

I don't think that they could find a dmu path between Stoke & Manchester; if such a path existed, it might be better used for a semi-fast Manchester - Birmingham service, including stops at places like Congleton & Stone.

And if paths could be found via Hope Valley, I would prefer something like
1. Manchester - Sheffield - Derby - Leicester - Peterborough - Cambridge.
2. Liverpool - Manchester - Sheffield - Nottingham - Peterborough (splitting the service there, rather than at Nottingham), plus
3. Leeds - Sheffield - Nottingham - Grantham - Peterborough - Norwich / Great Yarmouth (replacing, or supplementing Northern's Leeds/Nottingham)

 

[Ianno87]

I don't think that they could find a dmu path between Stoke & Manchester; if such a path existed, it might be better used for a semi-fast Manchester - Birmingham service, including stops at places like Congleton & Stone.

And if paths could be found via Hope Valley, I would prefer something like
1. Manchester - Sheffield - Derby - Leicester - Peterborough - Cambridge.
2. Liverpool - Manchester - Sheffield - Nottingham - Peterborough (splitting the service there, rather than at Nottingham), plus
3. Leeds - Sheffield - Nottingham - Grantham - Peterborough - Norwich / Great Yarmouth (replacing, or supplementing Northern's Leeds/Nottingham)

The problem with 3 is that Peterborough-Leeds/Sheffield via Nottingham is very slow. Changing at Peterborough and then LNER is much faster for Norwich passengers.

 

[Killingworth]

It's still not guaranteed to be going to TPE but locally has all but been assumed for years.

What I would have written in January is reinforced by the improved timekeeping on Manchester - Sheffield since the crisis. That's thanks to less than half the number of passenger trains and hardly any passengers, yet even still quite a few have been late.

The 185s have performance advantages, they offer first class, and their door arrangement assists quicker loading. Their main drawback for passengers is the inability to equalise loads down the train when used in multiple due to lack of interconnection between units. That reduces most effective use of total capacity. It also impedes offering an economic trolley service throughout the train.

Until all the Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Scheme work is ready to use, probably late 2023 at the earliest (now slipping back to 2024?), any benefit from the more powerful 185s should be used to improve punctuality. Liverpool - Sheffield had the most dire record until the current crisis when it was cut altogether!

Maybe one or two very carefully selected extra stops might take advantage of that performance before a total recast after the improvements have been made, possibly westbound where timekeeping is slightly better. As loadings may be down by 50% until late in 2020, if not into 2021, it's too early to get too specific about any service changes just now anyway.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

In any case other than 1st (which isn't used by most people despite this Forum having rather an affinity with it at times) the EMR 158s are easily as nice as 185s - indeed, the former have the "next model up" from Grammer's fine range of seating, the IC3000 instead of the Desiro E3000!

If you wish to purchase any such seating go to www.grammer.co.uk (well, I might as well make it read like an advert )

People always seem to be singing the praises of the East Midlands 158s, but I have to go out on a limb and say that they're horrible. Almost entirely airline seating, and a lack of legroom that would make a 153 blush! Only the SWT-hand-me-down units are worthy of a regional express service IMO.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Almost entirely airline seating

I agree there.

a lack of legroom that would make a 153 blush!

I find them to have quite good legroom, better than standard on Pendolino's & Voyager's, some of which are used on services longer than Liverpool - Norwich. In fact, better than most stock on the rails.

 

[Ianno87]

People always seem to be singing the praises of the East Midlands 158s, but I have to go out on a limb and say that they're horrible. Almost entirely airline seating, and a lack of legroom that would make a 153 blush! Only the SWT-hand-me-down units are worthy of a regional express service IMO.

The seats coud be better, but there are plenty of them squeezed in, and laptop work is possible in them.

And window/seat alignment tends to be good as well, and with plenty of floor space under each seat there are other fleets far worse for lack of legroom.

 

[Llandudno]

The seats coud be better, but there are plenty of them squeezed in, and laptop work is possible in them.

And window/seat alignment tends to be good as well, and with plenty of floor space under each seat there are other fleets far worse for lack of legroom.

I quite like the EMR 158s usually kept clean and tidy, yes they may have airline seating but I think that the legroom is quite good. Also plenty of seating capacity for a small train so don’t often have to stand on 4 car diagrams anyway!

You notice the difference when you travel on the grotty EMR 156s or Northerns or TfWs 150s or 158s

 

[tbtc]

(assuming that there's no major changes to service patterns or complicated "solutions" to try to deal with small numbers of long distance passengers) I think it'd make more sense to give the Liverpool - Nottinghams service and the Manchester Airport - Cleethorpes services to Northern.

Northern already serve every station that the Liverpool - Nottingham service serves, they could crew it from both ends of the route, they wouldn't need to set up a small base at the "far" end (or any other messy and expensive compromise).

One TOC through Warrington Central, one TOC through the Hope Valley, one TOC from Yorkshire to Nottingham (when the token Neville Hill extensions are scrapped once HSTs are replaced by 810s), one TOC through Scunthorpe, a common fleet of 185s on the two "fast" Hope Valley services, much better resilience than there currently is.

Plus more scope to rationalise the services in the area at a future date (if there's one TOC on the line).

Cross Country seems to replicate all of the problems that EMR already have - TPE don't particularly care about the Hope Valley line - the only reason not to give it to Northern would be if TPE had a change of heart and actually gave a stuff about their Cleethorpes service or if you accept that Northern already have too much on their plate with everything else.

 

[Llandudno]

(assuming that there's no major changes to service patterns or complicated "solutions" to try to deal with small numbers of long distance passengers) I think it'd make more sense to give the Liverpool - Nottinghams service and the Manchester Airport - Cleethorpes services to Northern.

Northern already serve every station that the Liverpool - Nottingham service serves, they could crew it from both ends of the route, they wouldn't need to set up a small base at the "far" end (or any other messy and expensive compromise).

One TOC through Warrington Central, one TOC through the Hope Valley, one TOC from Yorkshire to Nottingham (when the token Neville Hill extensions are scrapped once HSTs are replaced by 810s), one TOC through Scunthorpe, a common fleet of 185s on the two "fast" Hope Valley services, much better resilience than there currently is.

Plus more scope to rationalise the services in the area at a future date (if there's one TOC on the line).

Cross Country seems to replicate all of the problems that EMR already have - TPE don't particularly care about the Hope Valley line - the only reason not to give it to Northern would be if TPE had a change of heart and actually gave a stuff about their Cleethorpes service or if you accept that Northern already have too much on their plate with everything else.

Jeez, I think Northern would be the last operator you would give exclusivity to any long distance route!

Do you really want 3+2 seating on a clapped out 150 between Liverpool and Nottingham....?

 

[tbtc]

Jeez, I think Northern would be the last operator you would give exclusivity to any long distance route!

Do you really want 3+2 seating on a clapped out 150 between Liverpool and Nottingham....?

Yes, because of course the people running a future Northern operation are bound to just dump 3+2 seated 150s on a long distance route at any possible opportunity, sure...

(or, y'know, maybe it'd be like Leeds - Nottingham which is pretty much exclusively run by the appropriate longer distance trains - 158s - but occasionally sees something substituted due to lack of stock which is preferable to just cancelling or short forming the service - even though short forming and cancellations have been common on the EMT/EMR service to Liverpool)

 

[Energy]

Northern is already pretty short of diesel stock at the moment so I really wouldn't give them another route.

 

[Killingworth]

Jeez, I think Northern would be the last operator you would give exclusivity to any long distance route!

Do you really want 3+2 seating on a clapped out 150 between Liverpool and Nottingham....?

In fairness to both Northern and TPE a lack of rolling stock has been common to both and much of that is down to delayed new builds coming in and delayed cascades, often the indirect result of delayed new builds being available elsewhere.

Comparing the internal quality of the rolling stock actually turned out on the Hope Valley route is more relevant for future projection. TPE are miles ahead of Northern.

TPE often collect litter between Doncaster and Sheffield. I've been on a Northern train out from Piccadilly on a Sunday morning that was still carrying beer bottles from Saturday night at 11am. The state of some of the refurbished stock already looks tatty and stained. After all the days of little traffic Northern exteriors look grubby.

Direct comparison of 158s between Northern and East Midlands is also interesting. EM aren't expecting to keep theirs so they're possibly not as good as they were, but Northern's seem of lower standard.

However, Northern were hoping to have 195s on the Hope Valley from this month. If they do, and they're kept unusally clean, maybe they might be considered a possible contender. But Northern's strike record hasn't enamoured them to Hope Valley users after being deprived of Saturday services for 6 months and more recently random late cancellations on Sundays.

I'd also point out that DfT were originally wanting both 1st class and a trolley service to be provided on the Liverpool - Sheffield - Nottingham/Norwich, neither of which fits Northern's business model. All is probably up for a rethink after the crisis.

 

[Ianno87]

Northern is already pretty short of diesel stock at the moment so I really wouldn't give them another route.

They'd take on the lease for the appropriate number of 185s.

 

[43074]

(assuming that there's no major changes to service patterns or complicated "solutions" to try to deal with small numbers of long distance passengers)

You mean of the sort you always try to suggest for XC to suit your theory that no one uses XC for long distances?

One TOC through Warrington Central, one TOC through the Hope Valley, one TOC from Yorkshire to Nottingham (when the token Neville Hill extensions are scrapped once HSTs are replaced by 810s), one TOC through Scunthorpe, a common fleet of 185s on the two "fast" Hope Valley services, much better resilience than there currently is.

One TOC at Scunthorpe, such benefits.

EMR is a better fit for both routes (assuming they are kept as now) based on your logic, TPE South is mainly crewed from Cleethorpes and Sheffield depots and if the Barton route were to move to EMR as well then it would end the cross crewing of TPE and the Barton line as the vast majority of the work at Cleethorpes crew depot would all be under one roof.

There aren't many issues with EMR running the service at the moment tbh, the issue is with the rolling stock but there's no reason that couldn't change. Concerns about 15x units appearing on a Northern operated Cleethorpes - Manchester route are no different to EMR using 156 and 153 units on a regular basis to cover for 158s on Norwich - Liverpool at the moment.

 

[Starmill]

They are not "designed for short, commuter services", that's just door-position prejudice. Have you ever been on one? They are for instance far more comfortable than a Pendolino or Voyager.

Indeed. A six car class 185 set is a thing of beauty. I enjoyed several trips between Manchester and Scotland on them, back in the day. Good quality interiors, top-notch refurbishment. Shame about all of the air pollution / carbon emissions!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, because of course the people running a future Northern operation are bound to just dump 3+2 seated 150s on a long distance route at any possible opportunity, sure...

(or, y'know, maybe it'd be like Leeds - Nottingham which is pretty much exclusively run by the appropriate longer distance trains - 158s - but occasionally sees something substituted due to lack of stock which is preferable to just cancelling or short forming the service - even though short forming and cancellations have been common on the EMT/EMR service to Liverpool)

I'd be more worried about repeated short-forming than exactly what they might use, to be honest.

 

[LowLevel]

Up until COVID-19 I would have said TPE because rightly or wrongly that is what the authorities wanted although Northern going belly up caused some perturbation to the process and EMR being asked to enter a bid to retain the route despite the split at Nottingham - I seem to recall EMR were asked to put a bid in around February time and it wasn't publicised. I assume Northern's franchise cancellation and ongoing problems means they're out and they want some competition for TPE in the bid process.

With the way things are at present, social distancing and so on I can't imagine that the appetite is there to put the training in place to transfer the route over, particularly with the Hope Valley work also being years late.

Personally as a result I can see it staying with EMR in the short to medium term until a) the Hope Valley upgrade is sorted out and b) things like crew route learning can be undertaken with a degree of comfort and common sense.

I might be wrong but I can't see a change of this size going through just at the moment when it can tick over without any need for staff training or operational amendments.

 

[Llandudno]

Yes, because of course the people running a future Northern operation are bound to just dump 3+2 seated 150s on a long distance route at any possible opportunity, sure...

(or, y'know, maybe it'd be like Leeds - Nottingham which is pretty much exclusively run by the appropriate longer distance trains - 158s - but occasionally sees something substituted due to lack of stock which is preferable to just cancelling or short forming the service - even though short forming and cancellations have been common on the EMT/EMR service to Liverpool)

Only speaking from experience as a regular user of Chesterfield station...

 

[Bevan Price]

Northern is already pretty short of diesel stock at the moment so I really wouldn't give them another route.

They could use the 158s that EMR currently use between Liverpool & Nottingham. And if any other 158s are displaced from EMR, Northern could take them to start replacing 150s on some services.

 

[Energy]

They could use the 158s that EMR currently use between Liverpool & Nottingham. And if any other 158s are displaced from EMR, Northern could take them to start replacing 150s on some services.

That stock could be better used to relieve the overcrowding (pre-covid) on Northern's current services rather than giving new services to them.

 

[Purple Orange]

Five pages of debate. What are the chances of this service not going to TPE and using 185s? The way I see it, services should be taken away from Northern and XC, not given to them.

 

[Ianno87]

Five pages of debate. What are the chances of this service not going to TPE and using 185s? The way I see it, services should be taken away from Northern and XC, not given to them.

Probably suggests it would indeed be TPE, but there are logical arguments in favour of Northern.

XC - No chance.

 

[Neptune]

The way I see it, services should be taken away from Northern and XC, not given to them.

Seems a bit irrational. Which services, by whom and with what stock?