Gap beyond Nottingham for Liverpool-Norwich services (specifically 1L12)

[59CosG95]

Hi all,
Question regarding the service pattern for EMR's Liverpool-Norwich trains:
Why is it that you have 5 hourly trains from Nottingham to Norwich in a row (1040, 1139, 1239, 1339 & 1439) and then a gap at what would be the 1539 departure?
Pathing issues around Peterborough? Not enough stock?
Thanks in advance!

 

[TheBigD]

The Mon to Sat 1539 ex Nottingham and 1857 ex Norwich were withdrawn during covid and have yet to be reinstated.
No idea when or if they are going to return.

 

[dk1]

The Mon to Sat 1539 ex Nottingham and 1857 ex Norwich were withdrawn during covid and have yet to be reinstated.
No idea when or if they are going to return.

Yes, these are the last two services yet to return to the schedule. Hopefully next May when XC return to a full Stansted timetable.

 

[ChrisC]

Another train missing from that route since Covid is the 0852 on Saturdays between Liverpool and Nottingham. The train starts from Nottingham at 1133 for Norwich. With the growth in Saturday leisure travel that one causes real problems not just from Liverpool but more so further along the route with the missing departure from Manchester at 0943 and Sheffield at 1039.

 

[59CosG95]

Ahh I see - thanks for the clarification!

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Another train missing from that route since Covid is the 0852 on Saturdays between Liverpool and Nottingham. The train starts from Nottingham at 1133 for Norwich. With the growth in Saturday leisure travel that one causes real problems not just from Liverpool but more so further along the route with the missing departure from Manchester at 0943 and Sheffield at 1039.

Given the 0900-1100 period is the key long distance leisure window, yes I can see that would be an issue!

 

[59CosG95]

ISTR there were plans to split the service operationally, giving Liverpool-Nottingham services to another operator (TPE?) and extending the Norwich-Nottingham part onwards to terminate at Derby. I think it was all mooted pre-Covid, so it's little wonder it never came to fruition!

 

[ChrisC]

Given the 0900-1100 period is the key long distance leisure window, yes I can see that would be an issue!

It’s the missing train between Sheffield and Nottingham where the main problems occur. The Leeds-Nottingham trains are already crowded being only 2 carriages, and because there is no EMR train at 1039, the 1103 Northern service can be very overcrowded south of Sheffield and often difficult to board by the time it reaches Alfreton, Langley Mill and Ilkeston.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

The Mon to Sat 1539 ex Nottingham and 1857 ex Norwich were withdrawn during covid and have yet to be reinstated.
No idea when or if they are going to return.

I'm not sure there's enough units, train crew etc to reintroduce the missing services, it would be unwise to try if they're not going to reliably be able to run it

 

[dk1]

ISTR there were plans to split the service operationally, giving Liverpool-Nottingham services to another operator (TPE?) and extending the Norwich-Nottingham part onwards to terminate at Derby. I think it was all mooted pre-Covid, so it's little wonder it never came to fruition!

Not anymore.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Not anymore.

It was a pretty poor idea, severing the only direct route between Peterborough and East Anglia with the North West of England for essentially operational convenience. Glad it didn’t happen tbh. Others opinions may differ.

 

[childwallblues]

Perhaps EMR might try to update the service by retaining some Meridians. The route now see 5/6 car 170s in addition to the usual 4 car 158s.

 

[IrishDave]

ISTR there were plans to split the service operationally, giving Liverpool-Nottingham services to another operator (TPE?) and extending the Norwich-Nottingham part onwards to terminate at Derby. I think it was all mooted pre-Covid, so it's little wonder it never came to fruition!

I think it's not come to fruition in part because it was realised that breaking them at Nottingham means either:

1. Leaving the trains in their current paths but split them in two at Nottingham, meaning that passengers have to wait an hour at Nottingham for the next train (in order to have a connection compliant with the minimum connection allowance of 8 minutes for Nottingham); or
2. Changing the paths the trains run in either west of Nottingham or east of Nottingham.

The paths west of Nottingham interact with the WCML and the MML and would be near-impossible to change, especially through the Castlefield Corridor. The paths east of Nottingham interact with the ECML and then have to pass through the bottleneck that is Ely North Junction twice on their way to Norwich; changing those would probably require a pretty large timetable rewrite of the ECML and West Anglia (at a minimum) to accommodate different paths for these trains, and... well, we've seen just how well changing the ECML timetable is going.

Put another way: the Liverpool-Norwich paths are, give or take a minute here and there, broadly the same as they have been since 1992, having survived recasts of every main line they cross, in most cases more than once. They interact with so much that they are very, very difficult to change.

So option 2 is at best very difficult and at worst downright impossible; leaving us with option 1. And let's be honest, option 1 is not going to go down well with anyone who does need to use those services across Nottingham. I'm sure that's not the whole reason why it hasn't happened, but it's definitely part of it.

 

[dk1]

Perhaps EMR might try to update the service by retaining some Meridians. The route now see 5/6 car 170s in addition to the usual 4 car 158s.

We’ve been through this many times before. The Meridians are too heavy for SP speeds in East Anglia.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Oct 2024 ==

It was a pretty poor idea, severing the only direct route between Peterborough and East Anglia with the North West of England for essentially operational convenience. Glad it didn’t happen tbh. Others opinions may differ.

I totally agree. The entire route needs to be retained even though the Nottingham to Norwich section would operate much better under the control of Greater Anglia.

 

[duffield]

Perhaps EMR might try to update the service by retaining some Meridians. The route now see 5/6 car 170s in addition to the usual 4 car 158s.

A 2+2 coach 158 has about 280 standard seats, a class 222 has only 200 standard + 50 1st in five coaches. So they would require some very significant changes just to get a suitable capacity, even if the leasing company was agreeable and didn't have more lucrative plans for them. They're also in a pretty poor state. And I think it's been stated here that they might be unsuitable for eastern parts of the route due to weight restrictions (Edit: including just above while I was typing!).

 

[Shwam3]

We’ve been through this many times before. The Meridians are too heavy for SP speeds in East Anglia.

Almost all the SP speeds in East Anglia were changed to MU a couple of years ago as 755s are also too heavy.

 

[dk1]

Almost all the SP speeds in East Anglia were changed to MU a couple of years ago as 755s are also too heavy.

No they were not. The 755s had their fuel tanks reduced to comply with SP speeds.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

It’s almost irrelevant anyway, as don’t individual classes still need to be cleared for enhanced linespeed differentials on a route-by-route basis regardless? So you could clear Ely-Norwich for MU and still bar 22x from using it.

 

[eastdyke]

It’s almost irrelevant anyway, as don’t individual classes still need to be cleared for enhanced linespeed differentials on a route-by-route basis regardless? So you could clear Ely-Norwich for MU and still bar 22x from using it.

I would certainly hope so! The sectional appendix makes reference only to 'MU' differential speeds now.

The route between Brandon and Peterborough is almost entirely across peat fen. Much of the land is below sea level with water levels managed by the Internal Drainage Boards [primarily for agriculture and flood protection, but increasingly with ecological/environmental influences which may come with additional cost [£!]].
Water may be maintained at higher/lower levels seasonally or due to climatic events.

Because of the permanent way infrastructure across The Fens, generally speed limits are a little lower than might be wanted/expected by some.

 

[dk1]

It’s almost irrelevant anyway, as don’t individual classes still need to be cleared for enhanced linespeed differentials on a route-by-route basis regardless? So you could clear Ely-Norwich for MU and still bar 22x from using it.

222s have operated Norwich-Liverpool during trials but speeds as low as 45mph had serious impacts on it and Greater Anglia services particularly Norwich-Cambridge with some long signal sections across the Breckland route.

 

[bunnahabhain]

Yes, these are the last two services yet to return to the schedule. Hopefully next May when XC return to a full Stansted timetable.

Not quite, the 0851 LIV-NOT is still missing on Saturdays, and from the May 2021 timetable there was an 0501 NOT-SLR via LCN, which then formed the first SLR-LCN, and then sat on the Joint Line for the remainder of the day filling in the gap in services on that route, which I think was 3 x round trips, as well as a number of Newark North Gate shuttles which had been made up to hourly and is now reduced to just 5 trains per day in addition to LNER services.

Regarding discussion of the paths I think they might have to be changed towards the East end of the route as there is talk of the turnaround time for traincrew being extended as Nottingham based crews wouldn't be able to have a break in the turnaround time of the new paths, whether this was from the now withdrawn ECML recast or not, I don't know.

As for "the route would be better at Greater Anglia", the route was centred on Nottingham from both a rolling stock and traincrew perspective purely because of cost, recent attempts to send the work elsewhere I can think of...
- to TPE with depots at Sheffield and Liverpool gaining work, thrown in the bin early 2020 despite recruitment of drivers already having started due to the increased cost of operation, and COVID.
- with EMR opening at Liverpool depot to take on some of the work, thrown in the bin due to the increased cost of operation.
- with EMR splitting the route and running Liverpool to Nottingham and Matlock/Derby to Norwich, also thrown in the bin because it didn't work.

The only reason a depot at Norwich exists for EMR is because the route wasn't available 24/7 in the early 1990s like it was to Liverpool for running trains ECS for the start/end of service. If it were, almost the entire route would've been worked by Nottingham since the early 1990s. The only other depots to have work on the route have been Norwich (AB signalling Ely-Norwich), Cambridge (diversionary route via Nottingham) and Derby (set up by EMT in 2008 to reduce the headcount at Nottingham and accomodate additional work from Birmingham, Leicester and Crewe depots).

 

[dk1]

Not quite, the 0851 LIV-NOT is still missing on Saturdays, and from the May 2021 timetable there was an 0501 NOT-SLR via LCN, which then formed the first SLR-LCN, and then sat on the Joint Line for the remainder of the day filling in the gap in services on that route, which I think was 3 x round trips, as well as a number of Newark North Gate shuttles which had been made up to hourly and is now reduced to just 5 trains per day in addition to LNER services.

Regarding discussion of the paths I think they might have to be changed towards the East end of the route as there is talk of the turnaround time for traincrew being extended as Nottingham based crews wouldn't be able to have a break in the turnaround time of the new paths, whether this was from the now withdrawn ECML recast or not, I don't know.

As for "the route would be better at Greater Anglia", the route was centred on Nottingham from both a rolling stock and traincrew perspective purely because of cost, recent attempts to send the work elsewhere I can think of...
- to TPE with depots at Sheffield and Liverpool gaining work, thrown in the bin early 2020 despite recruitment of drivers already having started due to the increased cost of operation, and COVID.
- with EMR opening at Liverpool depot to take on some of the work, thrown in the bin due to the increased cost of operation.
- with EMR splitting the route and running Liverpool to Nottingham and Matlock/Derby to Norwich, also thrown in the bin because it didn't work.

The only reason a depot at Norwich exists for EMR is because the route wasn't available 24/7 in the early 1990s like it was to Liverpool for running trains ECS for the start/end of service. If it were, almost the entire route would've been worked by Nottingham since the early 1990s. The only other depots to have work on the route have been Norwich (AB signalling Ely-Norwich), Cambridge (diversionary route via Nottingham) and Derby (set up by EMT in 2008 to reduce the headcount at Nottingham and accomodate additional work from Birmingham, Leicester and Crewe depots).

Yes the 08:51 (SO) has already been mentioned.

Everything changed 1994-1997 in readiness for TOUs to become TOCs (Central Trains & Anglia Railways) at the Norwich end. Drivers/guards went to one operator or the other. Central still had greater presence at Norwich as still serviced trains for a few more years at Crown Point. The next big shake up was the 2007 break up of Central into Cross Country and East Midlands Trains. This left EMT with no reason to serve Ely-Cambridge or use Coldham Lane depot. National Express East Anglia at this point worked the last Norwich-Cambridge service of the day along with the first Cambridge to Norwich (Norwich GA traincrew to this day cover this on a night turn sitting in Cambridge for 6hrs) and as a trade off EMT provided a 158 to NXEA to operate the 05:36 Norwich-Lowestoft/06:38 Lowestoft-Norwich before taking up its 07:55 Liverpool departure. That 158 loan ended in 2019 when we went over to class 755 operation.

Absolute block was abolished across the Breckland route 12yrs ago but overnight maintenance still preclude running in the wee hours except for occasional extras due to engineering blocks on the GEML.

I was only suggesting GA would be perfect at taking over the eastern half of the route should it be split but thankfully that now doesn’t look to be the plan. Long may this useful route continue but hopefully with eventually more capacity and robustness at times of disruption or late running. By late afternoon the reliability of services from Norwich is really poor.

 

[TheBigD]

(snip) ...By late afternoon the reliability of services from Norwich is really poor.

The route has become pretty unreliable at the eastern end, sadly.

Often the train is a few minutes late at Grantham, waits to get across the ECML and then the same at Peterborough, with some "interesting" regulation from the DRS* at York ROC. They will then follow the Ipswich stopper from Peterborough and then the GA Stansted-Norwich from Ely, often resulting in a 30 late arrival. Add in the fact that in several services have the crew take their PNB and you then have late departures.

You also have a number of scurrent speed restrictions for freight (for example, 30mph vice 60mph over Welney Bridges) which hammer the liners and the subsequent passenger trains behind them (1L09, 1L10, 1L11, 1L14 seem to bear the brunt of these delays).

Add to that the frequent faults on the life expired semaphore signals along the March line. For example, 2 signals at Whittlesea were being passed around danger for around 6 weeks earlier this year. Their replacement had been deferred yet again despite the new kit being installed.

The punters are getting a pretty rough deal at the eastern end of the route.

* Dynamic Route Setting, though it often seems to be less than dynamic!

 

[Starmill]

Isn't the problem at Grantham related to issues with using platform 3 for Skegness services?

All that work in the Werrington, Peterborough, Hitchin and Stevenage areas over the past few years, in the Darlington and York areas now, and still trains from Nottingham can't use platform 1 at Grantham.

 

[dk1]

Isn't the problem at Grantham related to issues with using platform 3 for Skegness services?

All that work in the Werrington, Hitchin and Stevenage areas, in the Darlington area now, and still trains from Nottingham can't use platform 1 at Grantham.

That doesn’t help. Grantham is such a pigs ear of a station these days with the current operations.

 

[TheBigD]

Isn't the problem at Grantham related to issues with using platform 3 for Skegness services?

All that work in the Werrington, Peterborough, Hitchin and Stevenage areas over the past few years, in the Darlington and York areas now, and still trains from Nottingham can't use platform 1 at Grantham.

It's not normally the Skegness services that hold them up, unless they're late and then follow the Skegness out of Nottingham.

The eastbound Norwich waits at Nottingham Branch Junction for the westbound Liverpool. If the Liverpool is up to 10-15 late, then the Norwich waits.

Given the cant on the mainlines, I doubt any scheme would allow you to access platform 1 without reducing the linespeed on the main ECML though Grantham.

 

[eastdyke]

To address some of the performance/depot/staffing issues [but of course to raise others] has anyone ever studied splitting the service at Peterborough [PBO]?
GA to take Norwich-PBO, EMR to retain PBO-Lime Street. Platform occupancy/turn backs being a major consideration.

Now I know how much we all like a 'through service' but when that's borked the suffering may outweigh the benefits for many. It certainly does for me and it's a route I use a fair bit.

 

[Starmill]

It's not normally the Skegness services that hold them up, unless they're late and then follow the Skegness out of Nottingham.

The eastbound Norwich waits at Nottingham Branch Junction for the westbound Liverpool. If the Liverpool is up to 10-15 late, then the Norwich waits.

Given the cant on the mainlines, I doubt any scheme would allow you to access platform 1 without reducing the linespeed on the main ECML though Grantham.

I was thinking of the other direction, if the service from Skegness hasn't yet departed Grantham, the one from Norwich gets stopped outside the station. In the past if the train from Skegness was in platform 3 the train from Norwich could arrive simultaneously couldn't it? However, yes, clearly the other conflict is easy done.

 

[TheBigD]

The Skeggy service is pretty reliable these days now that they are (nearly) all booked 3 cars, along with extra summer MFSO strengthening. The delays due to overcrowding are largely a thing of the past.

It's the westbound Liverpool that causes the issue as when it's a few minutes late it will get regulated for the fast LNER Edinburgh at Stoke Jn and then subsequently knock the eastbound Norwich at Nottingham Branch Junction.

Even with 3 in use, the Liverpool couldn't enter platform 4 when a train was signalled in or out of platform 3 due to the overlap of the signals.

 

[dk1]

To address some of the performance/depot/staffing issues [but of course to raise others] has anyone ever studied splitting the service at Peterborough [PBO]?
GA to take Norwich-PBO, EMR to retain PBO-Lime Street. Platform occupancy/turn backs being a major consideration.

Now I know how much we all like a 'through service' but when that's borked the suffering may outweigh the benefits for many. It certainly does for me and it's a route I use a fair bit.

Unless GBR changes things, the politics of sharing crews between operators would be complicated. Both are on different rates of pay. Nothing is easy to change. The last thing anyone wants to do is split the service.