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

[37057]

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

Assuning those 15 units go to another TOC under a separate TSA, then that makes very little sense. After all that's the foundation of train planning and creating a barrier between two fleets complicates things greatly. You loose the ability to make the 3am decisions of swapping units around and planning certain things back later, both operators will feel the loss of that freedom. Then there's staff/parts/pit space allocation and who gets priority, who's paying for what etc. Unit mileage imbalances effects overhaul and exam cycles. Very messy and if it can be avoided I think it should! Of course theres the option for the 15-unit TOC to take on the maintenance but in the long run that probably won't be viable considering how fickle long term planning on the railway is!

 

[Purple Orange]

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

To be honest I have not given that two seconds thought and I probably won’t. But the thrust of my comment is that the service that northern and XC provide is not good enough.

 

[Killingworth]

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.

Logic isn't always apparent on railway operations, but my understanding originally was that the route would be recast once the Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Scheme was completed - in December 2018! Since then the Castlefield fiasco has added a more pressing complexity to the route. Thanks to COVID there must be concerns as to whether the latest extended completion target of December 2023 can be met.

It seems the DfT are wanting to get this route change out of the way and December 2021 is still the current target.

Rolling stock with centre doors is one factor in helping to improve punctuality. Any of the three TOCs can lease and deploy stock to provide that.

TPE want to use the 185s (although they must be expensive to run, especially in multiple) and can see fleet advantages in using them on Liverpool - Nottingham.

East Midlands would be strongly preferred to Northern by most current users. If they have been asked to tender it would be the reliabilty issue that would be the main reason any would use to base an objection. As that's largely Network Rail's responsibility the poisoned chalice can't easily be improved by TOCs any time soon.

 

[LowLevel]

Logic isn't always apparent on railway operations, but my understanding originally was that the route would be recast once the Hope Valley Capacity Improvement Scheme was completed - in December 2018! Since then the Castlefield fiasco has added a more pressing complexity to the route. Thanks to COVID there must be concerns as to whether the latest extended completion target of December 2023 can be met.

It seems the DfT are wanting to get this route change out of the way and December 2021 is still the current target.

Rolling stock with centre doors is one factor in helping to improve punctuality. Any of the three TOCs can lease and deploy stock to provide that.

TPE want to use the 185s (although they must be expensive to run, especially in multiple) and can see fleet advantages in using them on Liverpool - Nottingham.

East Midlands would be strongly preferred to Northern by most current users. If they have been asked to tender it would be the reliabilty issue that would be the main reason any would use to base an objection. As that's largely Network Rail's responsibility the poisoned chalice can't easily be improved by TOCs any time soon.

News had been expected once again by all parties by now and still isn't forthcoming. If EMR do retain the route, it is meant to still be on the premise of it splitting at Nottingham.

 

[Killingworth]

This poll is unrealistic. We know that for years TPE have been suggesting they're the favourite candidate, and they probably are. Just why DfT can't get on with it and make the decision to give it to them we can only guess at, but if Northern aren't putting in a strong bid the EMR award covers the option for them to keep the route. It's now a given that Nottingham - Liverpool will be separated from Nottingham - Norwich

For that reason this poll should include EMR as a realistic option. XC is pure speculation, a distant runner still in a stable far from this field - unless anyone has heard specifically different.

 

[LowLevel]

This poll is unrealistic. We know that for years TPE have been suggesting they're the favourite candidate, and they probably are. Just why DfT can't get on with it and make the decision to give it to them we can only guess at, but if Northern aren't putting in a strong bid the EMR award covers the option for them to keep the route. It's now a given that Nottingham - Liverpool will be separated from Nottingham - Norwich

For that reason this poll should include EMR as a realistic option. XC is pure speculation, a distant runner still in a stable far from this field - unless anyone has heard specifically different.

As far as I am aware only TPE or EMR are in the running at present.

 

[Gareth]

Staying with EMR is more likely than people think. Firstly, it avoids the faff of transferring crews and stock to another company. Also, the route does run on the MML, if only for a relatively small part of the journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Staying with EMR is more likely than people think. Firstly, it avoids the faff of transferring crews and stock to another company. Also, the route does run on the MML, if only for a relatively small part of the journey.

True. Wasn't the whole basis of moving it elsewhere (i.e. to TPE) purely so there was a reason to keep all the 185s with them rather than because there was a particular problem with EMT operating it, which by and large they seem to do a good job of doing?

 

[markymark2000]

True. Wasn't the whole basis of moving it elsewhere (i.e. to TPE) purely so there was a reason to keep all the 185s with them rather than because there was a particular problem with EMT operating it, which by and large they seem to do a good job of doing?

TPE I think it fits their network better though in that they already run Liverpool to Manchester (albeit via Chat Moss but they did run via Warrington and people were very unhappy to see TPE go) and Manchester to Sheffield and the fact that they run these fast services and they have the staff at 3 points on the route so if anything were to happen, they should be able to keep things running a bit easier.
Northern is often associated with being quite slow and they don't have the catering side which I think would be appreciated on the route.
EMR has crew at only 2 points, Sheffield to Liverpool is way out of their area and so if the service is split, it makes little sense them having it. Having 2 operators on routes can confuse passengers, this is 3 (Liv-Man and Man-Shf). The only benefit I can see the EMR keeping the service is for competition and reduced fares on the route west of Sheffield.

 

[43074]

True. Wasn't the whole basis of moving it elsewhere (i.e. to TPE) purely so there was a reason to keep all the 185s with them rather than because there was a particular problem with EMT operating it, which by and large they seem to do a good job of doing?

To be honest it was largely political (supported by Northern authorities) and to offer a consistent standard of service between Sheffield and Manchester; it was being considered back when the East Midlands Trains franchise started in 2007.

 

[londonmidland]

I think the majority of people on here (including myself) are expecting TPE to get the service between Nottingham and Liverpool The use of stock will probably be 185s but there’s also been some speculation of 68s and MK5s being used for it.

Northern running the service would be my absolute last choice. Granted they now have new stock but I can imagine something like a 2 car 195 turning up which would be horrendous.

Not too long back their Leeds to Nottingham service was pretty poor. What was majority worked by 158s, turned into a random unit generator. You would increasingly find 150s or 153s work the route, and on the odd occasion a Pacer from Leeds, which would be cancelled at Chesterfield.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Northern running the service would be my absolute last choice. Granted they now have new stock but I can imagine something like a 2 car 195 turning up which would be horrendous.

To be fair 2x2 might work fairly well, or better a 2 and a 3, but you just know they'll send out single 2-car sets as they seem pathologically incapable of keeping units on diagram.

Whoever does it there would be considerable benefit to Castlefield of using units with doors at thirds. 158s have always taken far too long to load/unload - in the late 90s, the 0749 Liverpool-Norwich (an incredibly unpunctual train) used to take about 5 minutes to unload at Oxford Road.

 

[Glenn1969]

Surely it would fit TPE better if the split was at Sheffield rather than Nottingham?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely it would fit TPE better if the split was at Sheffield rather than Nottingham?

But then Liverpool has its direct services eroded further. I doubt many people use it as a through service to Norwich (particularly as it's about an hour quicker via London if I recall) but Nottingham is not an unlikely destination.

 

[Glenn1969]

I thought the split was as much about reliability as it was about leaving Liverpool with a direct service to Nottingham ?

 

[LowLevel]

Manchester to Chesterfield (connection for Derby and Leicester) and Nottingham is a big flow.

The plan for now is to continue running with 158s for the time being.

1L06 0742 Liverpool - Norwich as it is now was one of the most unreliable trains in the country and frequently lost it's path through to Manchester courtesy of Northern playing silly games like kicking single 142s out on the stopper immediately in front causing riots throughout the route. The stopper now leaves almost 10 minutes earlier, is usually a 4 car and is much more punctual so as long as TPE and Northern don't muck the corridor up with their 0830ish trains into Manchester being late 1L06 performs far better. Both it and 1L05 load to well over 400 though which does take a long time to detrain at Oxford Road - it's usually full down the aisles from Warrington or even Widnes.

The plan for the time being is to retain some 158s for Liverpool - Norwich until such time as the DfT indicates what is occurring with it. As I mentioned before the two bidders currently are TPE and EMR both on the basis of running Liverpool - Nottingham. EMR were only invited to bid in February or thereabouts when the imminent failure of Northern became apparent. COVID-19 will no doubt muck things up further so I've personally swung from it being definitely TPE to being marginally more likely than not of EMR retaining it at least in the short to medium term.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought the split was as much about reliability as it was about leaving Liverpool with a direct service to Nottingham ?

Yes, but if the problem can be solved with Liverpool still having as much of a useful through service as possible, why artificially minimise it due to arbitrary TOC boundaries?

 

[londonmidland]

Surely it would fit TPE better if the split was at Sheffield rather than Nottingham?

Naturally Nottingham is where the service ‘splits’.

From my experience, a lot of people change, board and alight at Nottingham on the Norwich to Liverpool services. I’m not sure how many through passengers there are from Norwich through to Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool and vice versa, but Nottingham certainly seems the ‘halfway’ point of the service and route.

 

[Ianno87]

Naturally Nottingham is where the service ‘splits’.

From my experience, a lot of people change, board and alight at Nottingham on the Norwich to Liverpool services. I’m not sure how many through passengers there are from Norwich through to Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool and vice versa, but Nottingham certainly seems the ‘halfway’ point of the service and route.

Typically less than fingers on one hand per carriage, in my experience. It's just too slow to be a meaningful through service across Nottingham compared to other routes.

 

[LowLevel]

Typically less than fingers on one hand per carriage, in my experience. It's just too slow to be a meaningful through service across Nottingham compared to other routes.

That depends on the when. Leisure times, Friday, Saturday and Sunday it can be very busy. Normal week days, far less so.

 

[Llandudno]

It make take longer from the North West to East Anglia on the through train via Nottingham, but travelling via London and using the underground is a lot more hassle, especially with luggage and for elderly passengers. It is normally a lot more expensive For the privilege of travelling via London also.

I have travelled across Nottingham a number of times and grab a window seat when travelling at 50mph through the Fens with a cup of coffee and headphones on listening to music or reading a book. If I return in the evening I normally get a couple of cans of beer or a bottle of red wine and chill out. Far more relaxing than pushing and shoving on the Tube and then hoping your seat reservations are being honoured on the ECML or MML?

Personally if the Liverpool to Norwich route is split at Nottingham, I would rather EMR retain the Liverpool to Nottingham section as it would retain competition on the fast (ish!) services between Manchester and Sheffield.

Whatever happens don’t let Northern loose on it!

 

[LowLevel]

You can see how much treating passengers well is valued by TPE, the regulars who do Sheffield to Manchester still give us grief about them withdrawing the any permitted off peak day return and mucking about with the off peak return restrictions. In real terms they caused a pretty huge percentage increase in fares.

 

[Ianno87]

That depends on the when. Leisure times, Friday, Saturday and Sunday it can be very busy. Normal week days, far less so.

My count includes Fridays and Saturdays.

It make take longer from the North West to East Anglia on the through train via Nottingham, but travelling via London and using the underground is a lot more hassle, especially with luggage and for elderly passengers. It is normally a lot more expensive For the privilege of travelling via London also.

I have travelled across Nottingham a number of times and grab a window seat when travelling at 50mph through the Fens with a cup of coffee and headphones on listening to music or reading a book. If I return in the evening I normally get a couple of cans of beer or a bottle of red wine and chill out. Far more relaxing than pushing and shoving on the Tube and then hoping your seat reservations are being honoured on the ECML or MML?

Such passengers a very very much in the minority of usage. There becomes a point where it is no longer reasonable to design a service around their needs to the detriment of a far more significant number of passengers making short and medium distance journeys (also elderly and with luggage).

Besides, which has more capacity, a 2-car 158 or a 9-car ECML Azuma?

 

[LowLevel]

My count includes Fridays and Saturdays.



Such passengers a very very much in the minority of usage. There becomes a point where it is no longer reasonable to design a service around their needs to the detriment of a far more significant number of passengers making short and medium distance journeys (also elderly and with luggage).

Besides, which has more capacity, a 2-car 158 or a 9-car ECML Azuma?

My counts come from checking the tickets and having the reservation manifest on my mobile. As I said, demand is very variable and also seasonal. 30-60 is a fairly common figure range but again that can change. If there is football it can go right up.

Owing to capacity issues the pricing isn't very competitive. Advances tend to be quite expensive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can see how much treating passengers well is valued by TPE, the regulars who do Sheffield to Manchester still give us grief about them withdrawing the any permitted off peak day return and mucking about with the off peak return restrictions. In real terms they caused a pretty huge percentage increase in fares.

I'm not sure whether that's about contempt for passengers (though TPE certainly has a cultural history of that) but perhaps more that it's a financial basket case that prior to the emergency measures was very, very near to collapse.

 

[DDB]

If it does stay with EMR it rather mucks up thier plan of only have three classes of train in their fleet. Unless they could magic up some four car 170s from somewhere to run it.

 

[LowLevel]

I'm not sure whether that's about contempt for passengers (though TPE certainly has a cultural history of that) but perhaps more that it's a financial basket case that prior to the emergency measures was very, very near to collapse.

This happened a year or two ago now. They issued a large number of alterations in one go that effectively imposed some significant cost increases. The first day it happened I had uproar from the Dore commuters who had some clever ways of managing it to the point that I made an announcement telling them to direct any anger at price increases to TPE as there was nothing I could do about it.

 

[Nym]

If it does stay with EMR it rather mucks up thier plan of only have three classes of train in their fleet. Unless they could magic up some four car 170s from somewhere to run it.

Retaining all their 158s won't be the end of the world though.
Some diversity for issues with one fleet over the other, some funny problems a bout to surface on both 158s and 170s soon...
Would also allow Southern a bit longer with their 171s provided the numbers add up, come to EMR 4 years down the line when the growth means they need it and there's a doubling in some of their services, for example a semi fast via Utoxetter? This new airport loop service or any number of other enhancements like a Burton commuter service that locking yourself into a scarce fleet will bite you on the backside for later.

 

[swt_passenger]

True. Wasn't the whole basis of moving it elsewhere (i.e. to TPE) purely so there was a reason to keep all the 185s with them rather than because there was a particular problem with EMT operating it, which by and large they seem to do a good job of doing?

IIRC it was first proposed by DfT long before the TPE rolling stock changes were ever thought of. Remember it had come up in franchise consultations some years before it was agreed. (Or bulldozed through by DfT...) Was it originally just one of many routes considered too long to be reliable?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

IIRC it was first proposed by DfT long before the TPE rolling stock changes were ever thought of. Remember it had come up in franchise consultations some years before it was agreed. (Or bulldozed through by DfT...) Was it originally just one of many routes considered too long to be reliable?

I believe when the Central Trains franchise expired in 2007 the DfT proposed that the Liverpool to Nottingham section of the Liverpool to Norwich service should be cut.