Liverpool-Manchester-Nottingham-somewhere else?

[northwichcat]

Should Liverpool-Norwich services continue to go to Norwich or would it be better for EMT to run something like a Liverpool-Skegness service?

I do know that when 222s were used for the Grand National they had to spilt services at Nottingham as 222s aren't suitable for the line in to Norwich.

 

[WillPS]

There isn't enough 222s to do anything other than the occasional run without 'downgrading' London services to HSTs.

I think the route really needs Turbostars - but in all fairness EMT have done a great job with their 158 refurbs and 2x158 between Nottingham and Liverpool will do the trick nicely.

 

[northwichcat]

I agree their aren't enough 222s on a weekday but EMT were keen on using 222s on some Saturday services on Liverpool-Norwich, when there are less London services, but realised they would need to retime the Peterborough-Norwich section, which could have required an extra unit or spilt the service at Nottingham, which is against the franchise agreement.

It isn't just 222s that are the issue - the weight problems going in to Norwich would also be a reason for not putting 180s on to Liverpool-Norwich.

 

[WillPS]

Indeed, it's the very soft land twixt Ely and Thetford which causes the restriction.

I don't really agree with splitting the service at Nottingham; I really think EMT wasn't the right fit for the route though.

 

[tbtc]

EMT have done a great job with their 158 refurbs and 2x158 between Nottingham and Liverpool will do the trick nicely.

EMT have done very well with the resources that they have got. The "new" franchises gave London Midland/ XC all the 170s and left EMT with the older 158s.

One advantage of not running Nottingham - Norwich would be that the hourly Grantham - Peterborough 158 takes ECML capacity and (IIRC) the southbound 158 has to cross the northbound ECML twice (which causes capacity problems).

Better to terminate it at Grantham and run a service from the East Midlands to East Anglia via Leicester instead (fewer conflicting movements)

 

[northwichcat]

and 2x158 between Nottingham and Liverpool will do the trick nicely.

You do realise all services after the 156 cascade will be 2 car between Nottingham and Norwich and around half will be 4 car between Nottingham and Liverpool. The lack of any 3 car units with EMT obviously means no 3 and 5 car workings as under CT, where 5 cars would be a welcome return on peak Liverpool-Manchester services where passengers can overfill the stoppers as the expresses are already fully loaded.

 

[trainfanatic]

Who would want to go to Skegness from Liverpool

Skegness as an ultimate destination is seasonal. It would be OK to run to Grantham, but thats about as far East (except for Norwich) as a year round service could hope to generate revenue.

 

[Welshman]

Who would want to go to Skegness from Liverpool

Agreed - there's not an obvious market from Liverpool to Skegness. But judging from folks changing at Grantham from EC trains to/from Leeds & the North on Fridays and Saturdays, there might be a case for running one or two of the Leeds-Barnsley-Sheffield- Nottingham trains on to Skegness, to replace the Yorkshire-Skegness services that used to run via Lincoln and Bellwater Junction. But as that would involve co-operation between Northern and EMT, it's unlikely to happen!
Regarding the Liverpool-Norwich link, surely it would be better to allow EMT to run the Nottingham-Liverpool section with 221s or 222s, and NXEA on to Norwich with 170s, provided that good connections at Nottingham were maintained for the small numbers of passengers travelling through.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

They used to run (as normal) PBO-Ely-cambridge-Ely-Norwich in early mornings and late at night, they could just run it to Cambridge - but it is used well Norwich-PBO for the ECML

 

[Bevan Price]

How many passengers are there from Liverpool / Manchester to Norwich ? Only then can you decide what services are needed. If there is to be a change, I would suggest that alternate trains run to Cambridge (or Stansted), instead of them all going to Norwich.

Also, alternate Birmingham - Stansted services could be diverted to Norwich. This would allow Ely to Norwich & Ely to Cambridge / Stansted to retain hourly services, but with a wider selection of destinations having through services / thereby reducing the need for passengers to change at Ely or Peterborough.

Bevan

 

[ivanhoe]

I remember BR starting this service in the 1980's when the service ran Liverpool to Harwich Parkeston Quay. They always ran via Loughborough and Melton Mowbray and I also remember on occasions there being only 1 carriage. Personally, I would run it as far as Peterborough via Loughborough and Leicester but it would mean three changes for the driver( Sheffield, Notts and Leicester) .

 

[Pumbaa]

Although not in East Midlands, it would be best off (I think) going via Doncaster from Sheffield to Hull. Both Lpool and Hull are important port cities; the two direct trains via Leeds are well used end to end. If not this, then running to Cambridge via Leicester would also be preferable to running to Norwich.

 

[northwichcat]

Although not in East Midlands, it would be best off (I think) going via Doncaster from Sheffield to Hull. Both Lpool and Hull are important port cities; the two direct trains via Leeds are well used end to end. If not this, then running to Cambridge via Leicester would also be preferable to running to Norwich.

Nottingham council were wanting faster Manchester services so I'm not sure they would be that happy with your proposal - unless it was in conjunction with a Liverpool-Manchester-Crewe (via the Airport?)-Derby-Nottingham service

 

[MidnightFlyer]

They want to remove the Sheffield stops from these trains, using the freight chord at Dore, they reckon they can shave 20 mins off trains using this . Should just have an additional service every two hours calling at Liverpool Lime St, manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Nottingham, Peterborough, Ely, Cambridge only.

Doubt 158s could do Stansted: only electrics can use the long platforms, and the bay is occupied by XC Turbostars. Also, there's 12 trains an hour over the single track tunnel, could any more be fitted in?

 

[met331]

The 170 were not wanted by EMT as the engineer who made the decision was a SWT one who had just offloaded the 170 from Salisbury. on paper a SWT 158 or 159 was 3 times more reliable than the 170/3. However they didnt bank on the appalling state of Centrals motley collection of 158. They were at one time the most unreliable 158 on NR

 

[tbtc]

Nottingham council were wanting faster Manchester services so I'm not sure they would be that happy with your proposal - unless it was in conjunction with a Liverpool-Manchester-Crewe (via the Airport?)-Derby-Nottingham service

Best way round it would be to extend the hourly Manchester - Hazel Grove service through the Hope Valley to Chesterfield and Nottingham (meaning no more paths needed in the congested Manchester/ Stockport areas), which would give a faster Manchester - Nottingham journey, then the Sheffield - Nottingham stretch could be replaced by an extension of the remaining Leeds- Barnsley - Sheffield "semi fast" and the Liverpool - Sheffield service could be extended onto the Sheffield - Hull service (so a half hourly Manchester - Doncaster service, in conjunction with the Cleethorpes service)

 

[northwichcat]

Best way round it would be to extend the hourly Manchester - Hazel Grove service through the Hope Valley to Chesterfield and Nottingham

Although it's now Preston-Hazel Grove that's mainly 150 operated, except for some peak journeys which start/end in Manchester but can be 142 or 323 operated.

If you're going to do Preston-Nottingham (which may not be a bad idea if there were more trains) I think you'd want something better (and faster) than a 150.

 

[Kneedown]

There isn't enough 222s to do anything other than the occasional run without 'downgrading' London services to HSTs.

I think the route really needs Turbostars - but in all fairness EMT have done a great job with their 158 refurbs and 2x158 between Nottingham and Liverpool will do the trick nicely.

Your first point is correct and the main reason 222's don't appear on the route. Granted there is a short stretch of 45mph restriced track between Ely and Lakenheath, but effect on journey times would be negligible given the faster acceleration of 222's, and also the fact that running times between Grantham and P'boro could be reduced with the 125mph capability.

As regards the second point, although, cosmetically, 158's are a lot better, mechanically and performance wise they are just as bad as they were, if not worse. Many are running around with faults, and most suffer from poor acceleration. Even the Ex Wessex 400hp ones seem to have trouble getting to 90mph these days.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Indeed, it's the very soft land twixt Ely and Thetford which causes the restriction.

I don't really agree with splitting the service at Nottingham; I really think EMT wasn't the right fit for the route though.

As mentioned above, the restriction is from Ely to Lakenheath, a few short miles, and the better acceleration of 222's/180's, plus higher top speed on other stretches of the route negate this.

Why is EMT not "the right fit" for the route? Could any other TOC do a better job do you think?

 

[jamesontheroad]

Why is EMT not "the right fit" for the route? Could any other TOC do a better job do you think?

TPE? It is most definitely a route that crosses the Pennines! And the TPE name would look no less out of place in Norwich as the East Midlands name looks in Liverpool

 

[ashworth]

Nottingham does need faster services to Manchester and indeed a through service to Preston would be very useful for connections to other destination in the NW and Scotland. However, there are problems surrounding many of the previous suggestions all of which are difficult to find an answer to.

Sheffield is a large important city and an an important interchange for passengers changing trains for different destinations. Missing out Sheffield on any long distance service would not be a popular decision. If there was to be a new fast Nottingham-Chesterfield-Stockport-Manchester service, run in addition to the current Norwich-Liverpool and Nottingham-Leeds services I could see no problems but once you start extending these services beyond Nottingham or Manchester people will want to get to Sheffield without having to change trains.

The current Preston-Hazel Grove could be extended but the current stock, apart from the occasional Class 180, is not suitable for a fast long distance journey. Also it is not a particularly fast service especially between Manchester and Hazel Grove.

Having just returned from spending a few days with friends near Blackpool I know the frustrations of a Nottingham to Blackpool journey that can take almost 4 hours especially with the long wait for a connection in Manchester on the return journey. A fast Nottingham-Chesterfield-Stockport-Manchester-Bolton-Preston or even through to Blackpool service could cut this sort of journey down to little more than 2hrs 30 minutes. However, if this sort of journey was to be introduced wouldn't the people of Sheffield then say that couldn't it call at Sheffield to provide them with a through service to Preston/Blackpool? Financially that would make sense because of the importance of Sheffield but the people of Nottingham would once again lose their fast service to Manchester.

The Windsor Link was originally built to provide good through links across Manchester to avoid the need for long distance travellers to have to change trains or stations. It has not really been used for that reason unless you count journeys to/from the North West and Scotland to Manchester Airport. It has only really been used by local services that have been diverted away from Manchester Victoria to serve Picadilly but recent trends seem to be for trains to be returned to Victoria.

This will not be liked by some people, but perhaps one less train an hour to Manchester Airport wouldn't be a bad idea. Divert one of TPE services each hour from Preston to Nottingham. Which would be the best service to divert I don't know but perhaps an hourly Blackpool North to Nottingham wouldn't be a bad idea. Whether they call at Sheffield or not is another matter!

 

[tbtc]

The current Preston-Hazel Grove could be extended but the current stock, apart from the occasional Class 180, is not suitable for a fast long distance journey

150s aren't ideal, not is stopping at everywhere between Stockport and Manchester, but in the absence of more paths and more stock, it's an option.

150s are capable of 75mph, and the line doesn't have that many sections where you get much faster (given the constraints, like the freight/ Pacers taking the path ahead)

This will not be liked by some people, but perhaps one less train an hour to Manchester Airport wouldn't be a bad idea. Divert one of TPE services each hour from Preston to Nottingham. Which would be the best service to divert I don't know but perhaps an hourly Blackpool North to Nottingham wouldn't be a bad idea. Whether they call at Sheffield or not is another matter!

Good point. Linking up two services (which currently both extend to Manchester Airport) could give a cross-Manchester link like Bolton - Staleybridge (e.g. the Blackpool service linking to the Middlesbrough service), Stockport - Wigan (the Cleethorpes service extended on to the Southport service) etc, as well as giving some good longer distance links, like York to Crewe or Preston to Sheffield which would provide access to main lines elsewhere.

Trouble is, everywhere wants a link to the Airport, even if few really need an hourly service to it. I'd be happy with Sheffield only having a train to the Airport a few times a day (with the option to change at other times of the day) if it meant direct trains to other places at other times (e.g. Blackpool would be a popular one)

 

[northwichcat]

Trouble is, everywhere wants a link to the Airport, even if few really need an hourly service to it. I'd be happy with Sheffield only having a train to the Airport a few times a day (with the option to change at other times of the day) if it meant direct trains to other places at other times (e.g. Blackpool would be a popular one)

The real problem is there's a spur off one line in to the Airport, which doesn't make it easy for through services.

In CP 2014-2019 there is supposed to be a review of past Cheshire County Council proposals for western and eastern links in to the Airport.

The western link would go from near Mobberley to Manchester Airport, which would allow the following options:
1. North Wales to Northwich to Manchester Airport to Manchester Piccadilly to Middlesbrough/Newcastle.
2. Liverpool to Runcorn to Northwich to Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough/Newcastle.
3. Increase in frequency on Chester to Manchester via Altrincham services, which have been cut back due to having to cross lines used by Manchester to London services, which have been increased.
4. Better diversion routes for Chester-Manchester and Crewe-Manchester via Airport.

The easterly link, in basic would allow a train to call at Manchester Airport, Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly without doing the long route that South TPE currently use.

 

[Kneedown]

TPE? It is most definitely a route that crosses the Pennines! And the TPE name would look no less out of place in Norwich as the East Midlands name looks in Liverpool

How would that improve things though? 185's are subject to the same speed restrictions as 222's and 180's would be, without the benefit of 125mph capability between Grantham and P'boro and without the capacity!

 

[Pumbaa]

The 170 were not wanted by EMT as the engineer who made the decision was a SWT one who had just offloaded the 170 from Salisbury. on paper a SWT 158 or 159 was 3 times more reliable than the 170/3. However they didnt bank on the appalling state of Centrals motley collection of 158. They were at one time the most unreliable 158 on NR

Where did you get that from? I appreciate you're a driver, but you're very much mistaken.

EMT/LM/XC as they were had nothing to do with the eventual stock allocations; they were handled by DafT central. Both Centro PTE lobbying DafT for more capacity and willing to stump up cash to keep the 170s there, and loadings on LIV-NRW being misrepresented by CT (somehow) were the reasons for the 170 staying at Tyseley, as well as the obvious operational sense in keeping them central.