What stock "should" operate Liverpool-Norwich services?

[CockneySparrow]

How would the much, much higher powered 222's be unable to keep to 158 timings ?

Arriving too early everywhere, especially considering the 158s have generous timings at the moment, I mean it arrives in Norwich some 10 minutes early as it is

But there I think there is a speed restriction on the breckland line

 

[edwin_m]

IMHO, I would re-route the Liverpool-Norwich via Toton or Derby, Loughborough, Melton Mowbray & Peterborough using 2x4 Car 158s or maybe cascade 170s and reform several as 4 Cars (using centre carriages) with others reformed as 2 Cars, 180s or even Non-Tilting Voyagers onto the service

If Nottingham-Grantham-Peterborough is well loaded, maybe extend other services to infill the void.

Not sure what the logic is behind avoiding Nottingham, which is a bigger city than Derby but generally has a poorer rail service and your changes would only exacerbate that.

Loughborough and Melton might be worth doing, although as it is operationally easier than Grantham I suspect the TOC or DfT view is that Grantham offers more passenger benefits otherwise they would have switched it already.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How would the much, much higher powered 222's be unable to keep to 158 timings ?

Large parts of this route have 90mph speeds for Sprinters only, and a 222 would be limited to the lower speed. Someone has posted that the 222 can keep to time when substituted, but it would use a lot more fuel to do so.

 

[ainsworth74]

Arriving too early everywhere, especially considering the 158s have generous timings at the moment, I mean it arrives in Norwich some 10 minutes early as it is

Which is surely a good thing as you can reduce the journey time?

But there I think there is a speed restriction on the breckland line

Depending on how long the speed restriction is this might not matter. 185s are capable of matching 170/158s around Selby and Scarborough even though they're limited to a lower speed simply because they accelerate like the proverbial off a shovel!

 

[WestCountry]

how much longer would the Cambridge-Norwich service take if it stopped at (most) stations on every service?

Alternatively, what about a serious recast, so that there was an hourly Liverpool - Norwich stopping only at Thetford, the current Cambridge-Norwich stopping at a couple more stations, and a third service, Cambridge-Norwich stopping at every station?

The CBG-NRW already does stop almost everywhere, the EMT only calls Ely-Thetford-Norwich most of the time. A second Cambridge-Norwich with less stops would be useful for capacity (even after making them 3-car, they're quite full), but it wouldn't let you cut the Thetford call.

TBH, I think the best solution in the medium term would simply be to add an extra 158 for the full length of each round-trip, for 6-car formations west of Nottingham and 4-car to the east. That would allow a slightly lower-density interior layout with more tables and luggage space without horrible overcrowding.
170s aren't an option because of the lack of gangways, splitting at Nottingham is necessary for efficient use of units. Perhaps 172s released by Snow Hill line electrification will eventually be available, these could be used in 5-car sets on the eastern half and 7-car to the west.
22x would lose too much capacity; a 5-car Meridian ~= a 4-car 158 in seats.
185 are non-gangwayed and the wrong length - 3-car isn't really enough for the eastern section, 6-car would be overkill and perhaps not enough long-term for the western half. Both of these would also suffer from differential speed limits on the Eastern section, although of course they'd be faster on the ECML and maybe the Pennines.
Imaginary gangwayed 175s would be perfect, but there's no such thing and probably never will be...

 

[joeykins82]

Clearly the answer is to electrify the whole bloody thing and order a load of 444-esque stock for it

 

[CockneySparrow]

Which is surely a good thing as you can reduce the journey time?

Yes an no, it gets pulled up everywhere on route as other services get priority such as the stretch between Grantham and Peterborough, for example if there is a problem on the EC then it will arrive on time in Peterborough and not early, sometimes a couple of minutes late if needed

 

[cslusarc]

IMHO, I would re-route the Liverpool-Norwich via Toton or Derby, Loughborough, Melton Mowbray & Peterborough using 2x4 Car 158s or maybe cascade 170s and reform several as 4 Cars (using centre carriages) with others reformed as 2 Cars, 180s or even Non-Tilting Voyagers onto the service

If Nottingham-Grantham-Peterborough is well loaded, maybe extend other services to infill the void.

I would like to see LIV - NRW rerouted to avoid MAN and SHF as it makes to route significantly longer. I like the idea of an efficient routing between LIV and NOT like: LIV - CRE - DBY - NOT

 

[RobShipway]

Clearly the answer is to electrify the whole bloody thing and order a load of 444-esque stock for it

The doors being at the ends of the carriage of the 444's, I think you will find, would slow the cascade in the rush hour off them down, compared to where the doors are situated on a 14x or 15x train which they would be replacing.

You would be better with 450/350 esque stock as the doors are located in the prime places on this trains for disembarkation.

Class 444's are really more of an Inter City train.

 

[joeykins82]

I would like to see LIV - NRW rerouted to avoid MAN and SHF as it makes to route significantly longer. I like the idea of an efficient routing between LIV and NOT like: LIV - CRE - DBY - NOT

Liverpool has 3tph to Crewe already; the purpose of the EMT service isn't to serve end to end passengers (although obviously there are a few passengers aboard for the long haul); it's an inter-urban semi-fast service for journeys like Manchester to Nottingham or Peterborough to Sheffield. Knocking out the Manchester and Sheffield route would be self-defeating.

 

[CockneySparrow]

how much longer would the Cambridge-Norwich service take if it stopped at (most) stations on every service?

Alternatively, what about a serious recast, so that there was an hourly Liverpool - Norwich stopping only at Thetford, the current Cambridge-Norwich stopping at a couple more stations, and a third service, Cambridge-Norwich stopping at every stations.

The location of both Shippea Hill and Lakenheath is remote areas hence why both stations are closed, other than that the CBG to NRW does stop at every station with the exception of Waterbeach which FCC cover adequately although a couple of rush hour services could stop there but dont

Eccles Road and Harling Road are closed as well (unofficially) I believe

Although Shippea Hill is unofficially closed I used to get on there when I lived in Littleport it was the best option out of getting on at LTP and waiting in Ely or driving to Ely and paying to park

On another note slightly off topic I am surprised GA dont do a deal with MNR and run a service to Dereham into Norwich

 

[joeykins82]

The doors being at the ends of the carriage of the 444's, I think you will find, would slow the cascade in the rush hour off them down, compared to where the doors are situated on a 14x or 15x train which they would be replacing.

You would be better with 450/350 esque stock as the doors are located in the prime places on this trains for disembarkation.

Class 444's are really more of an Inter City train.

It's still a limited stop service on a long through route. Suppose it's down to the operator but I'd have opted for the 444 layout over, say, the 380 layout. Then again I've only used it off peak between Ely and Thetford so if it's rammed during the week loading times are perhaps more important then I'm taking in to account!

 

[Kettledrum]

I would like to see LIV - NRW rerouted to avoid MAN and SHF as it makes to route significantly longer. I like the idea of an efficient routing between LIV and NOT like: LIV - CRE - DBY - NOT

Crewe to Derby is a route that seems to have been significantly neglected over the years. Making it part of a longer cross country route might be an opportunity to re-invigorate it and offer substantial journey improvements in this part of the country.

The problem is, I just can't see it happening. The costs of increasing the speed limit and upgrading rolling stock would be prohibitive.....Unless possibly many years in the future, it's upgraded to provide a link between the two arms of HS2.

 

[dk1]

The location of both Shippea Hill and Lakenheath is remote areas hence why both stations are closed, other than that the CBG to NRW does stop at every station with the exception of Waterbeach which FCC cover adequately although a couple of rush hour services could stop there but dont

Eccles Road and Harling Road are closed as well (unofficially) I believe

Although Shippea Hill is unofficially closed I used to get on there when I lived in Littleport it was the best option out of getting on at LTP and waiting in Ely or driving to Ely and paying to park

On another note slightly off topic I am surprised GA dont do a deal with MNR and run a service to Dereham into Norwich

Shippea, Lakenheath, Harling & Eccles closed? I stopped at all bar Lakenheath today.

MNR like most heritage lines is laboriously slow at 25mph & is not the most direct of routes Dereham to Norwich. Best to leave it to the straight 8 or X1 bus services.

 

[Bevan Price]

The CBG-NRW already does stop almost everywhere, the EMT only calls Ely-Thetford-Norwich most of the time. A second Cambridge-Norwich with less stops would be useful for capacity (even after making them 3-car, they're quite full), but it wouldn't let you cut the Thetford call.

TBH, I think the best solution in the medium term would simply be to add an extra 158 for the full length of each round-trip, for 6-car formations west of Nottingham and 4-car to the east. That would allow a slightly lower-density interior layout with more tables and luggage space without horrible overcrowding.
170s aren't an option because of the lack of gangways, splitting at Nottingham is necessary for efficient use of units. Perhaps 172s released by Snow Hill line electrification will eventually be available, these could be used in 5-car sets on the eastern half and 7-car to the west.
22x would lose too much capacity; a 5-car Meridian ~= a 4-car 158 in seats.
185 are non-gangwayed and the wrong length - 3-car isn't really enough for the eastern section, 6-car would be overkill and perhaps not enough long-term for the western half. Both of these would also suffer from differential speed limits on the Eastern section, although of course they'd be faster on the ECML and maybe the Pennines.

No - Class 185 is limited to 70 mph on the Hope Valley line, whereas 90 mph is permitted in some locations by Classes 158 & 170.

 

[Kneedown]

No - Class 185 is limited to 70 mph on the Hope Valley line, whereas 90 mph is permitted in some locations by Classes 158 & 170.

But in practice they can only attain anything approaching 90mph for very short periods before encountering a gradient or lower permanent speed restriction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Someone has posted that the 222 can keep to time when substituted, but it would use a lot more fuel to do so.

That would be me. I wonder how much, if any, extra fuel a 222 would actually use as they get to speed quickly and then the power is eased right down, whereas a 158 is at 100% for most of the way.
Afraid i don't know the fuel consumption for either class at different throttle positions but i would be interested to find out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

170s aren't an option because of the lack of gangways

We managed perfectly well without any problems operating gangwayless 170's on the route in Central Trains days.

22x would lose too much capacity; a 5-car Meridian ~= a 4-car 158 in seats.

But capacity is not just about seats, which are not as much an issue nowadays. It is also about luggage space (or "wasted space" as some put it) which definitely is a big issue. More seats equals more people who bring more luggage, and more seats were bunged into the 158's with luggage space being reduced, causing obvious problems.

 

[MCR247]

At the end of the day the service doesn't need intercity stock with awful seating capacities

 

[dosxuk]

The 222's can keep to 158 timings through superior acceleration on the western half, but failed miserably on the east side when tested (IIRC about 40 mins down on arrival at Norwich), primarily due to differential speeds / path availability through the fens / breckland.

Hence why EMT only substitute 222s onto the west side when running aintree specials, splitting the service at NOT.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Shippea, Lakenheath, Harling & Eccles closed? I stopped at all bar Lakenheath today.

MNR like most heritage lines is laboriously slow at 25mph & is not the most direct of routes Dereham to Norwich. Best to leave it to the straight 8 or X1 bus services.

I said unofficially closed, you were on the one that stops at Shippea Hill around 7:30 then, there is one a day Norwich bound but no return, outof interest did or does anyone get on

I think there is a couple mid afternoon that stop at Eccles & Harling for the school kids but that about it, Lakenheath have a couple each way on a Sunday for the RSPB other than that 99% of trains dont stop

 

[dk1]

I said unofficially closed, you were on the one that stops at Shippea Hill around 7:30 then, there is one a day Norwich bound but no return, outof interest did or does anyone get on

I think there is a couple mid afternoon that stop at Eccles & Harling for the school kids but that about it, Lakenheath have a couple each way on a Sunday for the RSPB other than that 99% of trains dont stop

Shippea stop was only inserted for the 2 schoolchildren to get to Thetford (picked up at Ely on return). One left school a couple of years back & think he other now has. Nobody on/off now. Eccles/Harling are reasonably well used, Lakenheath has occasional punters bit always 'one man & his dog' on 1st up/back from Brandon each Sunday. Spooner is pretty hopeless most of the time.

 

[anti-pacer]

Crewe to Derby is a route that seems to have been significantly neglected over the years. Making it part of a longer cross country route might be an opportunity to re-invigorate it and offer substantial journey improvements in this part of the country.

The problem is, I just can't see it happening. The costs of increasing the speed limit and upgrading rolling stock would be prohibitive.....Unless possibly many years in the future, it's upgraded to provide a link between the two arms of HS2.

How about reinstating the Skegness/Nottingham-Manchester Airport service, or even a Skegness-Boston-Grantham-Nottingham-Derby-Stoke-Crewe-Chester-North Wales service?

 

[Whistler40145]

IMHO, Liverpool-Norwich should be run by the CrossCountry franchise, then you'd have a better choice of traction.

 

[jopsuk]

Doesn't go via Birmingham, therefore isn't part of the Cross Country franchise. Stock issues aside, fTPE would be a better "fit" for running it.

 

[tbtc]

IMHO, Liverpool-Norwich should be run by the CrossCountry franchise, then you'd have a better choice of traction.

What would XC find spare to run the route (that EMT couldn't get their hands on)?

 

[Whistler40145]

You could give it to FTPE, but 185s aren't really a long distance unit.

Who would want to endure a Class 185 for all that distance?

The best idea somehow is to exchange Northern's 3 Car 158s & run 2 x 3 Car 158s on this service or get CrossCountry to exchange 170s for some of EMTs 2 Car 158s?

 

[swt_passenger]

What would XC find spare to run the route (that EMT couldn't get their hands on)?

Surely better if Virgin were to run the service as they'd bring their Pendolinos?

(By the same inappropriate logic...)

 

[anti-pacer]

Doesn't go via Birmingham, therefore isn't part of the Cross Country franchise. Stock issues aside, fTPE would be a better "fit" for running it.

Norwich-Liverpool may cross the Pennines, but the word "Pennine" is hardly appropriate to the big leg of the journey between Norwich-Nottingham.

East Midlands Trains seems an odd choice too. Only the Chesterfield-Grantham section is actually in the East Midlands.

Cross Country is exactly what that service is, regardles of the fact it doesn't serve Birmingham.

 

[43074]

The best idea somehow is to exchange Northern's 3 Car 158s & run 2 x 3 Car 158s on this service or get CrossCountry to exchange 170s for some of EMTs 2 Car 158s?

Or simply transfer the service to Northern on condition that they use their 3-car 158s on the busiest services? Northern operate alongside the service between Nottingham and Liverpool anyway with their Nottingham to Leeds, Sheffield to Manchester (via Rose Hill) and Manchester Oxford Road to Liverpool services. If Northern start a semi fast Liverpool - Warrington - Manchester Airport service it will make even more sense for this route to transfer, so Northern provide 1/2 hourly fast services between Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester.

 

[anti-pacer]

Or simply transfer the service to Northern on condition that they use their 3-car 158s on the busiest services? Northern operate alongside the service between Nottingham and Liverpool anyway with their Nottingham to Leeds, Sheffield to Manchester (via Rose Hill) and Manchester Oxford Road to Liverpool services. If Northern start a semi fast Liverpool - Warrington - Manchester Airport service it will make even more sense for this route to transfer, so Northern provide 1/2 hourly fast services between Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester.

It wouldn't be that comfortable with Northern's 158's. The seats aren't that good.

 

[northwichcat]

Or simply transfer the service to Northern on condition that they use their 3-car 158s on the busiest services?

They are used on Metro subsided routes and Northern get Metro funding to use them on such services. With Liverpool-Norwich not going in to West Yorkshire I can't see Metro agreeing to that. Northern would then need 158s and 153s off EMT to run the services currently operated by 158s.

Anyway why 3 car 158s on the busiest services unless you mean the 3 car 158s attached to 2 car 158s on the busiest services to be an increase in capacity?

 

[43074]

They are used on Metro subsided routes and Northern get Metro funding to use them on such services. With Liverpool-Norwich not going in to West Yorkshire I can't see Metro agreeing to that. Northern would then need 158s and 153s off EMT to run the services currently operated by 158s.

Didn't know about that arrangement.

Anyway why 3 car 158s on the busiest services unless you mean the 3 car 158s attached to 2 car 158s on the busiest services to be an increase in capacity?

Yes, I mean attach the 3 car 158s attached to 2 car 158s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It wouldn't be that comfortable with Northern's 158's. The seats aren't that good.

I prefer the layout of the Northern 158s to the EMT ones. More seats align with the windows, and the seats aren't so high so you can actually get a decent view. Having said that, some Northern 158s are disgusting inside but that's nothing alterations to the cleaning regime or a refurbishment couldn't sort out.