East Midlands Trains General Discussion

[Royston Vasey]

We should not be catering for lazy people 15mins is a good and simple conection time.

And who on earth are you to say that??

I count myself as a rail enthusiast, but a passenger first and foremost. I am not "lazy" but when paying a lot of my hard-earned cash for travel I'd hope that TOCs would try to provide the best service possile for the highest amount of passengers, within their limitations like rolling stock availability of course. As I've said a number of times on this forum, TOCs are businesses like any others and any idiot knows that if you dissatisfy your customers for long enough, they will stop buying your product. "Lazy" people pay through the nose too.

Most passengers aren't as savvy as most on here in knowing exactly what train, platform, direction to head to when connecting and are put off by it. You may sneer at that, but that is reality, it isn't the passenger's fault, it is offputting and can be quite an anxious experience to have to make a ten minute connection at a large station, wondering if your train will get there in time and whether you'll find the right train in time. A through route may make the difference between travelling by train and thinking "what the hell, I'll drive, it's too much hassle". The other aspect of course, is that once you have provided a through service and take it away as suggested in this thread, you're going to disenfranchise many regular users, particularly after the first time the first train is delayed and connection missed.

It is not lazy to want a reasonable through route when, as so often the case these days, other services are not held for delays. I really hope people genuinely within the industry (and I get the impression you aren't) don't have your attitude towards the passenger/customer because i despair if so. Happily I don't think that's the case.

 

[Mintona]

The only place I have regularly seen connections held is Swindon, for the late train to Stroud, Gloucester and Cheltenham, as there isn't one direct from London, so changing at Swindon is necessary.

We are not allowed to hold connections, it would cost us hundreds of pounds in delay minutes, and a good chance of disciplinary action if doing it without authorization.

 

[MCR247]

Splitting servies is not a good way to encourage people to travel by train. At Nottingham I have seen an XC 170 terminatin due nin on P1 being held because of a delayed EMT 158 Liverpool - Norwich :roll:. The XC service was delayed 10 minutes because the EMT one need to use the through platform!:roll:
So if you were connecting, you could of missed it!

 

[222001]

Splitting servies is not a good way to encourage people to travel by train.

I agree. The only thing is that it just seems such a waste that 4 car 158s can make their way to Norwich when the route is not as busy south of Nottingham. They should leave half of it behind at Nottingham for another service to hook up with (or do they allready do that?)!

 

[MCR247]

Yeah, I thought of that, but Norwich trains usually stop at P1, with north trains P5, so they would have to send it to Eastcroft to reverse, and they leave within 1? minutes of each other? and the Norwich ones arec normally late!

 

[ashworth]

My experiences of using the Liverpool-Norwich route is that quite a significant number of passengers do travel through Nottingham without getting off.

Although there are very few people who travel the whole distance from Liverpool to Norwich there are many people who use this service for quite lengthy through journeys such as Peterborough-Manchester, Norwich-Sheffield etc etc.
I know passengers to and from East Anglia to Sheffield and Manchester could use the ECML for fast journeys between Peterborough and Doncaster and then change, but that is not what people want. They want a through train, without the worry of missed connections, especially in these days of AP tickets.
Advance purchase tickets are often not available for journeys involving a change of train and EMT are especially bad for not providing this facility even on journeys that are wholly with EMT.

The only good point that may come from splitting the service at Nottingham would probably be less passengers on both halves of the journey, making travel in a 2 car 158 more bearable. But that's not what the railways should be about forcing more people onto the roads because of the inconvenience of having to change trains in these days when connections are not held even for a few minutes if a train is late running.
Changing trains and the fear of missed connections does put people off travelling and can make a rail journey very stressful, especially late at night when you begin to realise that your train is running late.

I no longer even consider going out for days from Nottingham that involve changing at Crewe now that there is no through train from Nottingham and it requires an additional change at Derby. I have been caught out too many times with a wait of up to an hour on the return journey on a cold Derby station.

 

[WillPS]

I prefer the 158's myself,


They couldn't have bid for the 180's as this would have required DaFT's backing.

There is nothing stopping them Getting the 180s on Loan to eccorage growth and show DfT the benifts of having theese units.

Adelantes cost a bomb, are reaaaaallly unreliable, unavailable for any length of time to make them worth improving and not able to keep to Sprinter timings on several sections of the Norwich - Liverpool route. On the whole, a pretty dumb idea.

And who on earth are you to say that??

I count myself as a rail enthusiast, but a passenger first and foremost. I am not "lazy" but when paying a lot of my hard-earned cash for travel I'd hope that TOCs would try to provide the best service possile for the highest amount of passengers, within their limitations like rolling stock availability of course. As I've said a number of times on this forum, TOCs are businesses like any others and any idiot knows that if you dissatisfy your customers for long enough, they will stop buying your product. "Lazy" people pay through the nose too.

Most passengers aren't as savvy as most on here in knowing exactly what train, platform, direction to head to when connecting and are put off by it. You may sneer at that, but that is reality, it isn't the passenger's fault, it is offputting and can be quite an anxious experience to have to make a ten minute connection at a large station, wondering if your train will get there in time and whether you'll find the right train in time. A through route may make the difference between travelling by train and thinking "what the hell, I'll drive, it's too much hassle". The other aspect of course, is that once you have provided a through service and take it away as suggested in this thread, you're going to disenfranchise many regular users, particularly after the first time the first train is delayed and connection missed.

It is not lazy to want a reasonable through route when, as so often the case these days, other services are not held for delays. I really hope people genuinely within the industry (and I get the impression you aren't) don't have your attitude towards the passenger/customer because i despair if so. Happily I don't think that's the case.

Absolutely agree - brilliant post.

My experiences of using the Liverpool-Norwich route is that quite a significant number of passengers do travel through Nottingham without getting off.

Although there are very few people who travel the whole distance from Liverpool to Norwich there are many people who use this service for quite lengthy through journeys such as Peterborough-Manchester, Norwich-Sheffield etc etc.
I know passengers to and from East Anglia to Sheffield and Manchester could use the ECML for fast journeys between Peterborough and Doncaster and then change, but that is not what people want. They want a through train, without the worry of missed connections, especially in these days of AP tickets.
Advance purchase tickets are often not available for journeys involving a change of train and EMT are especially bad for not providing this facility even on journeys that are wholly with EMT.

The only good point that may come from splitting the service at Nottingham would probably be less passengers on both halves of the journey, making travel in a 2 car 158 more bearable. But that's not what the railways should be about forcing more people onto the roads because of the inconvenience of having to change trains in these days when connections are not held even for a few minutes if a train is late running.
Changing trains and the fear of missed connections does put people off travelling and can make a rail journey very stressful, especially late at night when you begin to realise that your train is running late.

I no longer even consider going out for days from Nottingham that involve changing at Crewe now that there is no through train from Nottingham and it requires an additional change at Derby. I have been caught out too many times with a wait of up to an hour on the return journey on a cold Derby station.

I conceed that splitting is a step back rather than forward. I too think it's scandalous that Central Trains and EMT have gotten away with cutting the Derby-Nottingham section of the Crewe-Nottingham(-Skegness) service. They're still bloody franchised to do it, but satisfy that commitment by providing a once weekly (!!) service from Crewe to Nottingham late on Sunday nights.

On a similar note, I miss the all-inclusive deals Central Trains used to do, particularly the excellent value for money Alton Towers one.

 

[Failed Unit]

I conceed that splitting is a step back rather than forward. I too think it's scandalous that Central Trains and EMT have gotten away with cutting the Derby-Nottingham section of the Crewe-Nottingham(-Skegness) service. They're still bloody franchised to do it, but satisfy that commitment by providing a once weekly (!!) service from Crewe to Nottingham late on Sunday nights.

On a similar note, I miss the all-inclusive deals Central Trains used to do, particularly the excellent value for money Alton Towers one.

I also haven't used Derby - Crewe now it no longer runs to / from Nottingham. If I am travelling to the North West I now travel via Manchester and Bolton to get to Preston. More customers for the overcrowded famous route! The didn't have a path when they split it, but one has suddenly appeared to run to Matlock. Shame they don't have enough stock to run Nottingham - Derby and split with 1/2 the train running to Crewe and the other half running to Matlock.

The other split that upset a lot of people has splitting of Lincoln - Leicester - Nuneaton - Birmingham. I gave CT both barrels with this and all I ever got back was it is to improve timekeeping, again no good if you lose your direct service as a train would still be late and you lose your connection as a result. I wish CT had been more honest and said DaFT told us to as it may have given us chance to protest at DaFT and get the service cut reverse. From Birmingham it was quicker to change at Nottingham anyway as the Derby route was quicker, no-one did as the direct train was the only way you knew roughly when you would get all the way to Lincoln. Timekeeping wasn't that bad really either. It may have annoyed Lincoln, but now it is no longer possible to travel from Nuneaton - Nottingham a journey that has been available direct for over 20 years. Likewise Loughborough - Birmingham lost out. I wonder if there is anyway this it could ever come back again now. People that cut direct trains in my experience never understand the consequences first hand!

 

[Guinness]

Stagecoah whanted a cheap franchise and they got one along with cheap rolling stock to go with it.

Why how much Subsidy are they receiving/ paying in premium to other companies that bided for the franchise?

 

[222001]

Adelantes cost a bomb, are reaaaaallly unreliable, unavailable for any length of time to make them worth improving and not able to keep to Sprinter timings on several sections of the Norwich - Liverpool route. On the whole, a pretty dumb idea.


Absolutely agree - brilliant post.

I agree to.
To be honest, in the end, all this route needs a some new decent trains. Perhaps 172s or a lightweight version of a 222.
The spec for the ideal for the route would be:
- Lightweight as to deal with restrictions past Nottingham
- Intercity style interior - similar to the 158s where doors are at the end of the carraiges
- 4 carraiges in length
- 100/110 mph top speed
- Half of one carraige first class

 

[Failed Unit]

I agree to.
To be honest, in the end, all this route needs a some new decent trains. Perhaps 172s or a lightweight version of a 222.
The spec for the ideal for the route would be:
- Lightweight as to deal with restrictions past Nottingham
- Intercity style interior - similar to the 158s where doors are at the end of the carraiges
- 4 carraiges in length
- 100/110 mph top speed
- Half of one carraige first class

Or 2x 158's Seriously however 1st Class would be nice and the extra speed may help it stay off the slow lines on the ECML.

I wonder where we would be now if the 185's had never been ordered a seriously overcrowded network.

I would like to see Cleethorpes - Manchester Airport come in the same area as EMT. Yes Cleethorpes isn't in the East Midlands but my justification is as follows (I am also assuming Cleethorpes- Barton is moved away from Northern).

- Grimsby has one operator and a lot of dead mileage is cut out as units needed for Newark services can be stabled at Grimsby and not need to run dead miles back to Lincoln.
- One operator for the Sheffield - Manchester route.

Remember as well TPE do not serve any other stations on the route other than Manchester, Sheffield, Doncaster and Barnetby - Grimsby already have EMT services using them.

If a new build was ever authorised then use it on Cleethorpes - Manchester Airport services as well and send the 185's back over to Hull - Manchester.

Alternatively recreate regional railways an it would achieve all these objectives and have one operator for all parts of the route.

 

[bluenoxid]

I don't get it. The efficiencies gained would be wasteful for your plan. I do agree that the Barton Branch is on a limb but surely better efficiency gains would be made by transferring the Cleethorpes to Manchester route to Northern once the 172 fleet rolls out. Cleethorpes depot transfers into the Northern empire along with a few 172's. The route is quite regional in honesty attracting the same type of train as Leeds -Nottingham.

In all honest you're painting over cracks and not really sorting out the capacity problems with the network or the crack. At least dulux stays in business

 

[Failed Unit]

I don't get it. The efficiencies gained would be wasteful for your plan. I do agree that the Barton Branch is on a limb but surely better efficiency gains would be made by transferring the Cleethorpes to Manchester route to Northern once the 172 fleet rolls out. Cleethorpes depot transfers into the Northern empire along with a few 172's. The route is quite regional in honesty attracting the same type of train as Leeds -Nottingham.

In all honest you're painting over cracks and not really sorting out the capacity problems with the network or the crack. At least dulux stays in business

Cleethorpes - Manchester would be no more or less efficent under EMT then it is under TPE. It is just having all of Lincolnshire under then same TOC would save a lot of dead mileage runs, even if that TOC is Northern.

At the moment there is a lot of wastage and having the "regional railways" element of EMT (including Norwich - Liverpool) moved over to Northern would be a vast improvement, Cleethorpes - Manchester Airport move over as well.

I think that recreating regional railways as an enterty would be a good thing. It would save on units as well as dead miles. Look at the past to changes creating TPE and splitting up CT have both resulted been avialable for front line services.

 

[John_158]

At the moment there is a lot of wastage and having the "regional railways" element of EMT (including Norwich - Liverpool) moved over to Northern would be a vast improvement, Cleethorpes - Manchester Airport move over as well.

Prehaps thats not a bad idear as Northern Could run as far as Nottingham* using 180s ie keeping hold of there exsiting ones and gaining prehaps an extra two possibley three more 180s once they recive there 150s cascaded from London Midland.

*EMT would run from Nottingham to Norwich

Ok still spliting the Service but iam sure the train from Liverpool would come in to Nottingham on the Platform that is next to the bay Platform and the Nottingham-Norwich Service use the Bay platform.

This could actutually mean that EMT could effectivley swop 158s for 156s with Northern making EMTs fleet more standard as the 156s are jsut as comfortable and suitable as 158s plus more simple as there are no complicated things such as Airconditiong etc.

Another idear would be for FTPE to recive 9 new build 4or5 car units along with extra carriges for 40 of the existing 185s dispalcing 9 185s for use on Hull-Manchester freeing up 9 170s to go to FGW displacing 153s fro EMT not sure how many but would surgest 9.

 

[Ben]

At the moment there is a lot of wastage and having the "regional railways" element of EMT (including Norwich - Liverpool) moved over to Northern would be a vast improvement, Cleethorpes - Manchester Airport move over as well.

Prehaps thats not a bad idear as Northern Could run as far as Nottingham* using 180s ie keeping hold of there exsiting ones and gaining prehaps an extra two possibley three more 180s once they recive there 150s cascaded from London Midland.

*EMT would run from Nottingham to Norwich

Ok still spliting the Service but iam sure the train from Liverpool would come in to Nottingham on the Platform that is next to the bay Platform and the Nottingham-Norwich Service use the Bay platform.

This could actutually mean that EMT could effectivley swop 158s for 156s with Northern making EMTs fleet more standard as the 156s are jsut as comfortable and suitable as 158s plus more simple as there are no complicated things such as Airconditiong etc.

Another idear would be for FTPE to recive 9 new build 4or5 car units along with extra carriges for 40 of the existing 185s dispalcing 9 185s for use on Hull-Manchester freeing up 9 170s to go to FGW displacing 153s fro EMT not sure how many but would surgest 9.

You clearly have no idea.

185s cannot be routinely used on MAN-HUL due to weight issues after Selby(?)

 

[Failed Unit]

*EMT would run from Nottingham to Norwich

Ok still spliting the Service but iam sure the train from Liverpool would come in to Nottingham on the Platform that is next to the bay Platform and the Nottingham-Norwich Service use the Bay platform.

I am afraid I would never agree that it is a good idea to split this (or any other service) It is anti-passenger to say the least and the railway is supposed to provide customer services they want to use, spliting routes definately makes things worse for the customer. Lets say for example the route moved to Northern, there is absolutely no reason they couldn't run to Norwich! The big improvement would be that is a unit failed in Manchester they may be able to find another one.

 

[John_158]

I am afraid I would never agree that it is a good idea to split this (or any other service) It is anti-passenger to say the least and the railway is supposed to provide customer services they want to use, spliting routes definately makes things worse for the customer. Lets say for example the route moved to Northern, there is absolutely no reason they couldn't run to Norwich! The big improvement would be that is a unit failed in Manchester they may be able to find another one.

Still with Northern running it and not using 180s and running to Norwich youd still only get 2 Carriges proably a 142 at least with 180s Runnig as far as Nottingham or even Perterborogh at a push would reduce the over crowding.

And with my second idear we could get a minum of three cariges with the extra 153s gainned by the cascade from TPEs new build.

Id love a train direct to Warrington from Seaforth but i have to change at Liverpool Ctl or Hunts Cross.

Two daigrams yesterday where short formed and i suspect by choice as seems to be aregular occurence on a Monday that the 17.31 Ariva in Lime St works 17.52 to Norwich and the 19.35 Arrival works 19.52 to Nottingham both sort fromed last night and still packed out both departures.

 

[Failed Unit]

Still with Northern running it and not using 180s and running to Norwich youd still only get 2 Carriges proably a 142 at least with 180s Runnig as far as Nottingham or even Perterborogh at a push would reduce the over crowding.

pacers are banned south of Chesterfield on the MML and not cleared Nottingham to Norwich anyway They are not going to spend money on clearing them. There is no reason that is only 2 car trains would be used....

Id love a train direct to Warrington from Seaforth but i have to change at Liverpool Ctl or Hunts Cross.

With respect, you are talking about splitting up an existing route with lots of passengers using it. Seaforth - Warrington would be a new route. Birmingham - Cardiff and Nottingham - Birmingham used to be separate routes, would you split them again? BR invested a lot of money in providing infrastructure to provide through services, again some of these have been lost but the Windsor link in Manchester made a lot of people happy by giving a Stockport - Blackpool service.

The fact of the matter is that people don't like changing trains, they like it even less when the service used to be direct. Yes you can't link every station pair in the UK, but we should defend direct services when we have them, I am sure Liverpool misses been on XC's network! Open access operators are talking about restoring Liverpool - Scotland, if people didn't want to travel direct why would the bother?

As for Seaforth - Warrington, if they ever electrify Liverpool - York then someone may think it is a good idea to run onto the Merseyrail electrics rather than into Lime Street Also your service is a lot more frequent, if you miss a connection you wait 30 minutes max, not the hour that you would need to if you split Norwich - Nottingham!

 

[John_158]

pacers are banned south of Chesterfield on the MML and not cleared Nottingham to Norwich anyway They are not going to spend money on clearing them. There is no reason that is only 2 car trains would be used....

You don't know Northern up here like i do then

your service is a lot more frequent, if you miss a connection you wait 30 minutes max, not the hour that you would need to if you split Norwich - Nottingham

Prehaps if they did split it and had 180s they could possible run a half hour service from Nottingham to Norwich as they would have extra 158s.

As for My conections to Warrington it depends on where i change as if i catch the 27 minutes past train from Seafroth to Hunts Cross i have a 15minute wait and if the 27past is cancled or fails en route i could be stuck at Hunts Cross for an Hour as the one from lime St at 29past the hour does not call at Hunts Cross and i can't stand LSPW its a horrible palce.

 

[P156KWJ]

Yeah, I thought of that, but Norwich trains usually stop at P1, with north trains P5, so they would have to send it to Eastcroft to reverse, and they leave within 1? minutes of each other? and the Norwich ones arec normally late!

sorry but that's rubbish! You can depart from platforms 1-5 heading east no worries. It was routine in CT days with Birmingham-Grimsby. you might even be able to go from P6! I can remember London HSTs departing from P1 too

 

[WillPS]

[some random junk on splitting the route, as always]

You are really grating on me now - you don't like the idea of taking out services already locally served - even though this is the only way to make the route actually any quicker, yet you want the service split.

Seems to me you just want something that suits only you. Thank God you're not in any position of power.

 

[P156KWJ]

splitting some services was a good idea. Not Liverpool-Norwich. Lincoln-Shrewsbury was cut to Lincoln-Leicester, Leicester-Birmingham and Birmingham-Shrew land, and Skegness to Crewe was cut to Skegness-Nottingham, Nottingham-Derby, Derby-Crewe. This slashed delays every day, they used to be so unreliable!

 

[John_158]

You are really grating on me now - you don't like the idea of taking out services already locally served - even though this is the only way to make the route actually any quicker, yet you want the service split.

Seems to me you just want something that suits only you. Thank God you're not in any position of power.

Should suite most people as most people don't wan't to be in a sardeen tin and as 180s or anything other than sardeen tins cannot run beyond Peterbough other than at minum speeds.

the answer to overcrwowding is to use 180s which are available even if you do something like this / diagram :-

Diagram 1

180-07.42 Liverpool-Nottingham Termiante on Arrival at Nottingham 10.30
158-10.45 Nottingham to Norwich arr 13.28
158-1357 Norwich - Nottingham arr 16.45
180-16.55 Nottingham-Liverpool arr 19.45
180-19.55 Liverpool-Nottingham arr 22.38

Diagram 2

158-11.57 Norwich-Nottingham arr 14.45
180-14.55 Nottingham-Liverpool arr 17.41
180-17.55 Liverpool-Nottingham arr 20.31
158-20.46 Nottingham-Norwich arr 23.18

1x 180 = 2x158s (2car)






180-Nottingham-Liverpool

 

[WillPS]

Should suite most people as most people don't wan't to be in a sardeen tin and as 180s or anything other than sardeen tins cannot run beyond Peterbough other than at minum speeds.

the answer to overcrwowding is to use 180s which are available even if you do something like this / diagram :-

Diagram 1

180-07.42 Liverpool-Nottingham Termiante on Arrival at Nottingham 10.30
158-10.45 Nottingham to Norwich arr 13.28
158-1357 Norwich - Nottingham arr 16.45
180-16.55 Nottingham-Liverpool arr 19.45
180-19.55 Liverpool-Nottingham arr 22.38

Diagram 2

158-11.57 Norwich-Nottingham arr 14.45
180-14.55 Nottingham-Liverpool arr 17.41
180-17.55 Liverpool-Nottingham arr 20.31
158-20.46 Nottingham-Norwich arr 23.18

1x 180 = 2x158s (2car)






180-Nottingham-Liverpool

It's been looked into - it's not what people want - it's not going to happen!!!

I've already given you several reasons why both splitting and use of 180s are not viable options. This seems to be the concencus here too. Merely repeating your suggestion is really annoying and makes you seem evermore like a total cretin.

 

[Failed Unit]

splitting some services was a good idea. Not Liverpool-Norwich. Lincoln-Shrewsbury was cut to Lincoln-Leicester, Leicester-Birmingham and Birmingham-Shrew land, and Skegness to Crewe was cut to Skegness-Nottingham, Nottingham-Derby, Derby-Crewe. This slashed delays every day, they used to be so unreliable!

It was not a good idea, it has nearly doubled the time it takes to get from Birmingham to Lincoln as a result and is just a con of the PPM. More people are a lot worse off as a result.

Lets take the service that I used Lincoln - Shrewsbury,

The first split was at Birmingham the service from Lincoln used to arrive at x:04 and leave at x:07. When it split these times remained the same so anyone travelling from Leicester - Shrewsbury instantly had thier journey time increased by 30 minutes.

Split 2 was at Leicester the 2 halves again didn't connect at all so Nuneaton - Nottingham travellers had thier journey times increased every journey not on the trains that happened to be delayed. I am sure they would rather be on a 10 minute late train rather than waiting 20 minutes in the cold for a connection! Lincoln passengers needed to travel via Derby, if this service was 15 minutes late instead of arriving at Lincoln 15 minutes late you were now 60 minutes late as you have missed your connection at Nottingham.

I can see very few winners so far.

Now lets have a look at the PPM,
Shrewsbury - Lincoln is now split into 3 separate trains. The section from Birmingham - Leicester still suffers from the same delays, but as you have now got 3 separate trains 2/3 trains are ontime so you have improved your PPM drastically with no effort but the same number of late trains. Instead of 4/10 trains per day are late it is now 4/30 much better :roll:

Look at the passengers on board.
Shrewsbury - Birmingham no change this section was on-time anyway.
Birmingham - Leicester no change this section is still delayed say by 10 minutes.
Leicester - Lincoln on-time (so these passengers save 10 minutes)

Nuneaton - Nottingham (20 minutes+ longer as they have to change and they trains don't connect)

The delays were not as bad as they made out, about 10 minutes. If things went really wrong services were restarted at Nottingham. The PPM has improved but the same number of trains per day are still late, the improved % is just because their are more trains to average it out over. The effort should really have been into fixing the problem in the first place. PPM seems to make passengers suffer more they need to. I would rather be on a train with a 15 minute delay then miss a connection. I think the real reason this route was split was so they could re-shape the franchise but it was a big mistake for the majority of people using the route. If all the trains ran ontime then we wouldn't need to worry about missing connection, but then PPM would be good enough to run direct as well!

Crewe - Nottingham also has caused passengers to suffer big time as they services don't connect either. People tend to head to the North West via Manchester. Some people even travelled in the summer from Stoke-Skegness (god knows why ) They just don't bother now they need 2 changes and the journey is nearly 1 hour longer than it used to be. I know lots of people from Lincoln that now drive to Birmingham International and get the train into the centre from there, rather than risk missing connections. I don't know anyone in Lincolnshire that welcome these changes, they are still getting critised and campaigns at railfuture to have them reversed going on.

 

[Mintona]

The only way you could "kind of" split it is having 2x158 Liverpool - Nottingham, then uncoupling one of them, and have it join onto the next one heading to Liverpool from Norwich, so 4 cars operate Liverpool - Nottingham and 2 cars Nottingham - Norwich. It would take a lot of planning, thought without the risk of missed connections. Plenty of opportunies for "short-forming" though I would suspect.

 

[John_158]

The only way you could "kind of" split it is having 2x158 Liverpool - Nottingham, then uncoupling one of them, and have it join onto the next one heading to Liverpool from Norwich, so 4 cars operate Liverpool - Nottingham and 2 cars Nottingham - Norwich. It would take a lot of planning, thought without the risk of missed connections. Plenty of opportunies for "short-forming" though I would suspect.

Thats the whoel problaem the 158s are so un reliable that diagrams are increasingly becoming short formed at least my idear not every jorney won't be split only a few per day and those whom don't like changing trains can avoid those particular jouneys.

Even if they won't take on 180s for those jouneys involved in my ideartdepeding on how busy the Corby Service is they could use two of the pioneers on those two daigrams.

As there is a chance of taking on 3x180s on a hire basis or sub lease then they ought to grab them whilst they can instead of hoping and relying on a cascade for more 2car units or 153s.

 

[paul1609]

The only way you could "kind of" split it is having 2x158 Liverpool - Nottingham, then uncoupling one of them, and have it join onto the next one heading to Liverpool from Norwich, so 4 cars operate Liverpool - Nottingham and 2 cars Nottingham - Norwich. It would take a lot of planning, thought without the risk of missed connections. Plenty of opportunies for "short-forming" though I would suspect.

This is what the other Stagecoach franchise does every hour at Salisbury on the Waterloo to Exeter LIne with 158s/159s. Up to 9 coaches arrive from London and depending on the train 3 to 6 coaches go on to Yeovil or Exeter. A couple of times a day the other portion goes to Bristol but the detached coaches mostly shunt over to form the front coaches of the next service to London

 

[John_158]

This is what the other Stagecoach franchise does every hour at Salisbury on the Waterloo to Exeter LIne with 158s/159s. Up to 9 coaches arrive from London and depending on the train 3 to 6 coaches go on to Yeovil or Exeter. A couple of times a day the other portion goes to Bristol but the detached coaches mostly shunt over to form the front coaches of the next service to London

Its ok when youve gotthe stock to do it with as SWT may have but EMT havent !

 

[222001]

The only way to deal with EMTs Liverpool-Norwich problem is a cascade from other operators of 15X units. There is no short term fix apart from putting up with it.
Perhaps a 222 could be used at the weekend with times changed to represent the speed restrictions south of Nottingham (or just run a diagram or two that split at Nottingham).
We will find out if they decided to do this in a few months at the next timetable change. They have put up 5/7 car stop signs at stations to Liverpool... Maybe it's a clue! Or they could have been cleared in case of stock shortages or breakdowns.