Could Norfolk be better connected?

[jamesontheroad]

I've just found this thread, so apologies for catching up with a few points.

I've posted more than enough on other threads, including the one relating to the current East Midlands franchise prospectus, about EMT's Liverpool - Norwich route. But to sum up my humble opinions: it's too valuable to too many people to be split or re-routed. There aren't many through passengers from one end to the other, but those that choose to take the slower direct route than the quicker route via London do so because if you've got luggage, children or less than one hundred per cent mobility (or all three) the comfort of a direct train outweighs the marginal saving (less than 30 minutes) going via London.

I agree with those who would like to see Birmingham - Stansted aligned with the same operator as Liverpool - Norwich. This would allow for the possible return of interworking, with alternate trains from Stansted serving Liverpool and Birmingham, and alternate trains from Norwich serving Liverpool and Birmingham. Passengers always prefer direct trains.

Regarding Britvic closing (and Unilever announcing their plans for the other half of their shared site in the new year), the simple fact is that the land on which the factory sits is now worth more as a residential development opportunity than a productive industrial site. The margins on food production in this country are absurdly thin, and Brexit is hammering the industry with increased costs that don't yet seem to be countering the export appeal thanks to the collapsed value of the pound. Britvic can make juice in any of their other factories and Unilever can make mustard in any of a hundred sites around Europe, so the once proud connection between Colman's Mustard and Norwich is now hanging by a thread. Mark my words - in 10 years, that entire site (within walking distance of the station and city) will be tiny Barratt boxes and Taylor Wimpey des-res.

Extending the Norwich - Cambridge trains through to Stansted will indeed enhance the city's connectivity, but if I could ask for one big Christmas present, it'd be bi-mode (or a wired Breckland Line) services from Norwich to King's Cross via Ely and Cambridge. Yes, we have a reasonable service to Liverpool Street, but it is always desirable for a city to have a choice, both for accommodating disruptions but also for stimulating competition between different operators.

That said... our local MP in Norwich North (the Tory Chloe Smith) is a keen advocate of "Norwich in 90" - that is to say, at least two peak time services that connect Norwich to the capital in an hour and a half. I strongly oppose this idea, not because I'm a Norfolk boy who hates the big city (although there is a correlation ) but because as soon as Norwich finds itself less than 90 minutes from London the city will become part of the capital's commuter belt. Right now, one of Norwich's greatest charms is its affordability. You can rent a very decent three bedroom terraced house for less than £700/m, and still one buy one for much less than £200,000. For small businesses, the surplus of small, irregularly sized, older buildings in the centre of the city makes it very easy to start a business, hence the richness of the economic activity in the Market Place and Lanes. Norwich is liveable and affordable compared to many cities in the south-east, and I'd love it to stay that way for years to come. Unfortunately, speeding up trains to London will not help that. Contraversial as it may sound, I'm happy to be 1h45-2h00 from London.

 

[frodshamfella]

I don't think rail wise it is that poorly connected. 30 minute frequent to London of peak.

60 minute frequency to Liverpool via Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield, Peterborough etc. These trains are packed as well, with many people travelling as far as Manchester.

60 minute frequency to Cambridge via Ely (for Birmingham and Stansted).

I feel it's served pretty well for a city of it's size.

The new Stansted direct services will be a very welcome addition.

OK these are all from Norwich, but the smaller towns just don't have the demand to justify direct services and the change at Norwich is very easy.

I don't feel the road is that bad either now the final section of the A11 is sorted out, although admittedly the other routes can get jammed.

In new year I am travelling the whole route Liverpool to Norwich, it takes a long time, but it's a useful link. I've done it before and I've found it a very busy route, sometimes no refreshment trolley because they physically can't move it down the aisle.You do need a drink in 5 and half hours for sure, so will bring my own, just in case. I am travelling with luggage so this is the easiest route, however its not always the cheapest.

 

[HSTEd]

The Liverpool Norwich is seriously hurt by its slovenly timings, which are unfortunately forced upon it by all the various busy lines it must operate on.

If it was a fixed formation throughout that would enable the Nottingham wait time to be bore down on a little, but to make serious use of that you would have to do a serious timetable recast on the ECML - so perhaps after HS2 well and truly shakes things up?

Also perhaps if the ECML ever recieves another modernisation they could be persuaded to finish the four track to Grantham and convert the line between Grantham and Peterborough from paired by direction to paired by use? That would allow Norfolk-North trains to run through Peterborough and to Nottingham without crossing the ECML on the flat (slow lines would be to the west of the Fasts)

But all that is far too expensive.

 

[DanTrain]

Having recently travelled from Liverpool to Alfreton to watch Bradford defeat the Town 3-1, I found the eponymous station exceedingly useful. It is also the best way to get to Mansfield from the north as county boundaries & politics seem to stop Robin Hood line services continuing to Sheffield. Connections at Worksop are poor.

My problem is not with Alfreton here per se, but more with the fact Liv- Nor is neither an express nor a local service, it stops at Thetford, Alfreton and Widnes, but then not at Dronfield or Ilkeston, of similar or greater population. As far as I see it, traffic from these places to beyond their enclosing cities on this service is probably fairly small (don't quote me on this though!) and so surely the local service would suffice. Either that or Notts-Liv is signed off as semi-fast and calls at these plus Dore and Birchwood and Wyndomham ect.

Tbh, there's not an easy solution here, it would ideally be a SE - NW version of the XC route, but line speeds make this difficult, so instead it's left as a rather poor relative of other IC-esque routes.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I can only comment that way back the present timings of Norwich - Liverpool are awfully tight due to the many interfaces and the fast dash down the ECML it has to do....as well as the presentation on many flat junctions enroute.

I do like the supportive comments on Norwich being such an affordable place to live.

 

[backontrack]

Firstly: it's important to remember the service frequencies, so here we go.

Currently it's 2tph between Norwich, Thetford and Ely. This is composed of the EMT Nottingham service, operated by 158 Express Sprinters (which sometimes continues to Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool), and the Greater Anglia 'stopper' service, which also calls at Wymondham, Attleborough and Brandon and continues after Ely to Cambridge North, terminating at Cambridge.

A lot of this discussion has been centred around combining Birmingham-Stansted and Liverpool-Norwich so that the two alternate their destinations.

I think that there is a bit more to it than that. Passengers from places such as Nottingham and Sheffield are much more likely to want to travel to Norwich than they are to Stansted, firstly. If they travelled on that section of the route, it'd likely be to visit Cambridge or Ely, so a direct link to Stansted wouldn't be so important for them. You could, thereford, curtail that Liverpool-Stansted service at Cambridge, unless you wanted to immediately turn the service around again and send it to Birmingham. Stopping short of Audley End and Stansted would enable you to extend another service - and East Anglia doesn't really have a big airport, so why not make it the Norwich 'stopper' that you'd extend?

In terms of rolling stock, I wouldn't want to spend the already-crowded Liverpool-Norwich journey on an XC Turbostar, while the Express Sprinters would be wasted on trips to Birmingham and back. I reckon that there's a case for cascading more 170s down from Scotrail to whichever franchise would operate the routes so that they could double them up, or doing the same with 158s. Or maybe those 90+Mk3 sets that Greater Anglia will be replacing soon. Maybe they could be put to good use on the Liverpool runs, or they could be exchanged for HST sets somewhere.

Earlier, I proposed shaking up the current Birmingham-Leicester-Stansted service, which gives a half-hourly train from Birmingham to Leicester, continuing on to Stansted every hour. I proposed diverting the direct Stansted service into Norwich, continuing as the 'stopper', while continuing with an hourly service, operated by EMT, from Leicester to Stansted - thereby giving Norwich an hourly direct service to Birmingham, Nuneaton and Leicester as well as increasing the frequency between Peterborough and Ely to 5tp2h (remember the service from Peterborough to Ipswich via Bury St Edmunds).

However, although connections would be made more easily at Peterborough/Ely onto Cambridge services with the increase between Peterborough and Ely, I'm not sure if this would be sustainable without extremely tight timings at the very least. What's more, the direct Manchester/Sheffield/Nottingham & Nottinghamshire/Grantham-Cambridge market looks like a rather nice thing to pick up on.

 

[cle]

A wired Breckland (too swampy? - they did Chat Moss ok) - would be a huge benefit. Hopefully with line speed improvements too.

A fast service to Kings Cross via Cambridge could be great for the city of Norwich. The issue is the second fast Cambridge being touted for Kings Lynn. Maybe this is better, and Ely would still get the 2tph fast.

Possibly Kings Lynn could have a EMU shuttle, using some old stock, connecting in for the second tph - even running on to Stansted (via a new Cambridge South and part of the local 'Crossrail/S Bahn').

Thetford direct to London (some, not all) might be a good thing for the wider catchment up there too. It would also allow EMU operation through to Stansted - possibly connecting in with the Kings Lynn direct hourly and mopping up some local Breckland stops. Almost a Japanese operation!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Firstly: it's important to remember the service frequencies, so here we go.

Currently it's 2tph between Norwich, Thetford and Ely. This is composed of the EMT Nottingham service, operated by 158 Express Sprinters (which sometimes continues to Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool), and the Greater Anglia 'stopper' service, which also calls at Wymondham, Attleborough and Brandon and continues after Ely to Cambridge North, terminating at Cambridge.

A lot of this discussion has been centred around combining Birmingham-Stansted and Liverpool-Norwich so that the two alternate their destinations.

I think that there is a bit more to it than that. Passengers from places such as Nottingham and Sheffield are much more likely to want to travel to Norwich than they are to Stansted, firstly. If they travelled on that section of the route, it'd likely be to visit Cambridge or Ely, so a direct link to Stansted wouldn't be so important for them. You could, thereford, curtail that Liverpool-Stansted service at Cambridge, unless you wanted to immediately turn the service around again and send it to Birmingham. Stopping short of Audley End and Stansted would enable you to extend another service - and East Anglia doesn't really have a big airport, so why not make it the Norwich 'stopper' that you'd extend?

In terms of rolling stock, I wouldn't want to spend the already-crowded Liverpool-Norwich journey on an XC Turbostar, while the Express Sprinters would be wasted on trips to Birmingham and back. I reckon that there's a case for cascading more 170s down from Scotrail to whichever franchise would operate the routes so that they could double them up, or doing the same with 158s. In the long term, however, Voyagers would be best. Or maybe those 90+Mk3 sets that Greater Anglia will be replacing soon. Maybe they could be put to good use on the Liverpool runs, or they could be exchanged for HST sets somewhere.

Earlier, I proposed shaking up the current Birmingham-Leicester-Stansted service, which gives a half-hourly train from Birmingham to Leicester, continuing on to Stansted every hour. I proposed diverting the direct Stansted service into Norwich, continuing as the 'stopper', while continuing with an hourly service, operated by EMT, from Leicester to Stansted - thereby giving Norwich an hourly direct service to Birmingham, Nuneaton and Leicester as well as increasing the frequency between Peterborough and Ely to 5tp2h (remember the service from Peterborough to Ipswich via Bury St Edmunds).

However, although connections would be made more easily at Peterborough/Ely onto Cambridge services with the increase between Peterborough and Ely, I'm not sure if this would be sustainable without extremely tight timings at the very least. What's more, the direct Manchester/Sheffield/Nottingham & Nottinghamshire/Grantham-Cambridge market looks like a rather nice thing to pick up on.

Knocking the Norwich-Cambridge through to Stansted has been a dead cert for years now hasn't it, pending rolling stock?

Lengths of trains into Stansted are hamstrung heavily by the length of the shorter bay there - IIRC it can take nothing more than four cars of a 170, and the intensive turnarounds of StanEx units means it is unlikely you could get anything operationally-desirable into the longer platforms.

 

[backontrack]

Thetford direct to London (some, not all) might be a good thing for the wider catchment up there too. It would also allow EMU operation through to Stansted - possibly connecting in with the Kings Lynn direct hourly and mopping up some local Breckland stops. Almost a Japanese operation!

Back in the WAGN days, wasn't there a through service to London? Or am I thinking of Bury St Edmunds?

 

[Bevan Price]

In terms of rolling stock, I wouldn't want to spend the already-crowded Liverpool-Norwich journey on an XC Turbostar, while the Express Sprinters would be wasted on trips to Birmingham and back. I reckon that there's a case for cascading more 170s down from Scotrail to whichever franchise would operate the routes so that they could double them up, or doing the same with 158s. In the long term, however, Voyagers would be best. Or maybe those 90+Mk3 sets that Greater Anglia will be replacing soon. Maybe they could be put to good use on the Liverpool runs, or they could be exchanged for HST sets somewhere.

.

Voyagers would be a very bad idea for Liverpool - Norwich services. For example, even if they got rid of 1st Class, you would still get only about 216 standard class seats on a 4 car (220) Voyager. That compares with about 280 seats on the 2 x 2 car 158 formations currently used north of Nottingham. Even a 5 car (221) Voyager would only just match the 2x 2 car 158 capacity - and I suspect they might be too long for some stations.

Three coach 170s from Scotland (without 1st class) would provide about 200 seats, so again creating problems north of Nottingham, but a big improvement south/east of Nottingham. Six car 170 formations would also be a problem at some stations.

 

[dk1]

Back in the WAGN days, wasn't there a through service to London? Or am I thinking of Bury St Edmunds?

There hasn't been a through service (apart from Ipswich tunnel blockade in 2004) since BR days. Ipswich had a through service via Bury to Liv.St until around 1980 & Norwich via the Brecks lasted until 1985. If I recall correctly it was around 06:30 from Norwich returning at 18:05 from Liverpool St.

 

[chubs]

Although Norwich - Ely is 2tph this isn't clockface, in face they both leave within minutes of eachother sometimes.

The route did use 170's in the Central Trains these days. They were OK. Certainly nicer than when a manky CT 156 covered for one. I think I prefer the EMT 158's though.

It doesn't have to stop at extra stops or omit certain stops just to appease enthusiasts, it simply "is".

 

[AllensWest]

Not as poorly connected as Middlesbrough

 

[dk1]

From what I hear the plan is that the Norwich-Stansted service will depart at xx.04 behind the EMs service (similar to Sundays) & depart approx xx.30 from Cambridge. This will hopefully better assist the poor performance in the down direction should the Liverpool service be running any more than a few minutes late.

 

[HSTEd]

As I understand it the Breckland line has a lot of SP differentials that would make Voyagers significantly slower even than today's Sprinters.
A fixed formation Turbostar derived unit is probably our best bet if we wanted ideal stock for the route.
What's the shortage platform on Liverpool-Norwich? Would it take 6x23?

 

[grumblingalong]

If I won the lottery.....big time of course.....i'd set up to run services between Bury St Edmunds and Kings Cross joining a Norwich-Kings Cross unit at Cambridge. Big markets to be had in Bury and Newmarket for a direct service, also I believe along the breckland.

 

[DanTrain]

It doesn't have to stop at extra stops or omit certain stops just to appease enthusiasts, it simply "is".

No, but surely the point of lots of this forum is speculation and what-if. If this attitude was taken everywhere, this forum would become noticeably quieter.

 

[Bald Rick]

If I won the lottery.....big time of course.....i'd set up to run services between Bury St Edmunds and Kings Cross joining a Norwich-Kings Cross unit at Cambridge. Big markets to be had in Bury and Newmarket for a direct service, also I believe along the breckland.

It would have to be a very big lottery to pay for new tracks from Hitchin to Kings Cross to get a path for them.

 

[grumblingalong]

It would have to be a very big lottery to pay for new tracks from Hitchin to Kings Cross to get a path for them.

Well the assumption is that Cambridge wouldn't need two fast services to Kings Cross so there's your path, borrowed from GN

 

[Bald Rick]

Well the assumption is that Cambridge wouldn't need two fast services to Kings Cross so there's your path, borrowed from GN

Assumption wrong unfortunately. They are wedged at peak time, and pretty busy off peak.

 

[grumblingalong]

Assumption wrong unfortunately. They are wedged at peak time, and pretty busy off peak.

Well aware of that working into Cambridge and travelling via it often.....still be offering a fast service with my idea anyway so bar a minor reduction in seats (which could be covered by enhancing other services) the losses to the people of Cambridge compared to the gains made to other communities would be negligible.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well aware of that working into Cambridge and travelling via it often.....still be offering a fast service with my idea anyway so bar a minor reduction in seats (which could be covered by enhancing other services) the losses to the people of Cambridge compared to the gains made to other communities would be negligible.

I don't understand what you're saying.

The only way to do it would be to replace fast trains that, in peak times, are already full and standing with passengers from Cambridge, Ely and the Lynn line. The alternative for many of these passengers would be to take slower services, causing them to suffer loss in terms of journey time. And there's a lot of them. It is very difficult to take something away from people who already have it, particularly when there are a lot of them. I'm not sure how you would enhance 'other services' beyond what is happening in the next two years either.

 

[grumblingalong]

I don't understand what you're saying.

The only way to do it would be to replace fast trains that, in peak times, are already full and standing with passengers from Cambridge, Ely and the Lynn line. The alternative for many of these passengers would be to take slower services, causing them to suffer loss in terms of journey time. And there's a lot of them. It is very difficult to take something away from people who already have it, particularly when there are a lot of them. I'm not sure how you would enhance 'other services' beyond what is happening in the next two years either.

Loss in journey time beats no journey at all, consider it a balance. As for the enhancements to the service, if you're not running the fast ones that's an extra unit to tack on the back of any remaining 8 coach trains, operations permitting of course. Perhaps even attach the Lynn unit to the back on the Bury/Norwich units, form a 12 car south.

 

[Fred26]

I've long thought a Norwich-Kings Cross service would be a good idea. Join it to an Ipswich-Cambridge service at Cambridge... Four car from Norwich, four from Ipswich and four joining at Cambridge. Twelve through to Kings Cross.
Really Welwyn needs to be four-tracked (and would Cambridge-Hitchin cope with that service? I'm not sure on the capacity on that line.), but that's another story.

 

[anti-pacer]

Just out of interest, do travellers from Wymondham, Attleborough and Thetford generally travel to London via Cambridge or Norwich?

 

[bspahh]

I've long thought a Norwich-Kings Cross service would be a good idea. Join it to an Ipswich-Cambridge service at Cambridge... Four car from Norwich, four from Ipswich and four joining at Cambridge.

I hope not. If you have services from three lines, each of which is on time 90% of the time, combine them into one and it drops to 72.9% reliability there and then.

 

[Altfish]

I hope not. If you have services from three lines, each of which is on time 90% of the time, combine them into one and it drops to 72.9% reliability there and then.

I'm no maths genius but I don't think that is correct!

If each of the 3 lines run 10 trains with a 90% on ratio that means that 9 trains are on time.
Combine the three lines we have 30 trains of which 27 are on time; therefore 90%

I stand to be corrected but I think that is right unless you are saying there is a narrow throat that further delays each line.

 

[eastdyke]

And before others add to the 'slower services are OK' debate take a look at what the customers of the Fen Line think about just that:
Website of Fen Line Users Association
http://www.flua.org.uk/

Great Northern 2018 Timetable Consultation
MANY FEN LINE JOURNEYS SET TO BECOME MUCH LONGER
Proposed 2018 Saturdays and Sundays timetables now out for consultation at www.transformingrail.com
All Fen Line stations affected - those north of Ely affected worst
Many King's Cross to Downham Market and to King's Lynn journeys are planned to become up to 12 MINS SLOWER (one service only 14 MINUTES SLOWER)
Many long stands scheduled at Littleport (6 MINUTES) on many northbound services to wait for southbound services to clear the single line between there and Downham Market (9 miles, 9 minutes journey each way)
And on ......

 

[chubs]

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news...terminated-at-weekends-until-easter-1-5328479

News saying that the GEML will be closed at the London end on weekends from after Christmas until Easter, that direct connection to Kings X would be helpful then.

Trains terminating at Inagtestone or Witham then bus to Newbury Park for Central Line. Not possible to run trains also on the section closer to Liverpool St like they used to to avoid central line?

Are you still allowed to go via Cambridge and then get on a fast service to Kings X? The Cambridge to Liverpool St stopper is so excruciatingly slow. (I assume it is ok to go via Cambridge to Liv St still? They allowed it when the GEML was closed most weekends in the 00's)

 

[eastdyke]

I'm no maths genius but I don't think that is correct!
If each of the 3 lines run 10 trains with a 90% on ratio that means that 9 trains are on time.
Combine the three lines we have 30 trains of which 27 are on time; therefore 90%
I stand to be corrected but I think that is right unless you are saying there is a narrow throat that further delays each line.

90% of incoming trains are on time, sure.
But it is the chance of all 3 being on time that matters as delay to any one will cause delay to the outgoing train, of which there are not 30 but 10.
72.9% is the right answer.