Revised relaunch of 'Project Rio' - could it work?

[Philip]

Do you think an updated 'Project Rio' (Manchester-St Pancras via MML) could work in today's railway, bearing in mind more people are nowadays keen to look for cheaper journeys rather than faster ones?

The idea would be for EMR to divert their Liverpool-Norwich service to London every 2 hours. It would still call at Sheffield & Chesterfield, but then serve Derby & Leicester before non-stop St Pancras. Alfreton, Langley Mill, Nottingham and stations onwards to Norwich would still be served from the North West on a 2-hourly basis.

Class 180s would be used; they are 125mph intercity trains and a good number are spare, waiting for a TOC to put them to use. They are far from an outrageous suggestion for this kind of service, as they have still been intensively used until very recently. This would also free up some 158s & 170s to strengthen the remaining Liverpool-Norwich services, hopefully with all running as 6-coach trains.

Manchester-Nottingham would see a reduced service level, but this would be partly compensated for by the remaining services having longer trains, and new direct connections would begin between the North West & Derby/Leicester, as well as giving Manchester & Liverpool a necessary cheaper alternative for travel to London.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Neptune]

Do you think an updated 'Project Rio' (Manchester-St Pancras via MML) could work in today's railway, bearing in mind more people are nowadays keen to look for cheaper journeys rather than faster ones?

The idea would be for EMR to divert their Liverpool-Norwich service to London every 2 hours. It would still call at Sheffield & Chesterfield, but then serve Derby & Leicester before non-stop St Pancras. Alfreton, Langley Mill, Nottingham and stations onwards to Norwich would still be served from the North West on a 2-hourly basis.

Class 180s would be used; they are 125mph intercity trains and a good number are spare, waiting for a TOC to put them to use. They are far from an outrageous suggestion for this kind of service, as they have still been intensively used until very recently. This would also free up some 158s & 170s to strengthen the remaining Liverpool-Norwich services, hopefully with all running as 6-coach trains.

Manchester-Nottingham would see a reduced service level, but this would be partly compensated for by the remaining services having longer trains, and new direct connections would begin between the North West & Derby/Leicester, as well as giving Manchester & Liverpool a necessary cheaper alternative for travel to London.

What are your thoughts?

There are 2 180’s in store and the rest are with GC. That means the service would have to be sub 1 hour in either direction with zero spare unit capacity to get it 2 hourly.

I guess I’m not alone in seeing this as the first glitch to this plan.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe with 222s when they become available.

Until then no. 180s just need scrapped, they are unreliable junk.

 

[Philip]

There are 2 180’s in store and the rest are with GC. That means the service would have to be sub 1 hour in either direction with zero spare unit capacity to get it 2 hourly.

I guess I’m not alone in seeing this as the first glitch to this plan.

I thought GC were planning to replace their 180s?

 

[The Planner]

Why should the Norwich Liverpool service be cut to do this? a 2 hourly class 180 which has 287 seats vs 1800 per hour via the West Coast which can be yield managed via advances. It would be an absolute money pit and you won't get the paths on the MML either. It would also take an age longer for anyone looking for a cheap fare from Liverpool to London via LNWR, by the time you have got to Sheffield you would be at New St and connecting to another train.

 

[Neptune]

Why should the Norwich Liverpool service be cut to do this? a 2 hourly class 180 which has 287 seats vs 1800 per hour via the West Coast which can be yield managed via advances. It would be an absolute money pit and you won't get the paths on the MML either. It would also take an age longer than anyone looking for a cheap fare from Liverpool to London via LNWR, by the time you have got to Sheffield you would be at New St and connecting to another train.

The loadings of the Liverpool - Norwich services east of Chesterfield are also heavy, heavier than any slow Manchester - St Pancras service will be. Is it a case of it was done once (by the way it was poorly used during the WCRM when there were less alternatives to use than now) so it must be done again?

 

[A S Leib]

• Apart from London Northwestern Crewe services only being ~35 minutes slower than Avanti services from Euston, there's ~300,000 journeys per year between Nottingham and Chesterfield, Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool.
• Cross-country services to / from East Anglia are poor enough in their current state (nothing else except 1 tph to Birmingham, with a lot of plans dependent on East West Rail to Cambridge being built) that cutting the other one in half probably wouldn't go down brilliantly.
• The aspiration for the network should be clockface timetables; at the very least, Nottingham to Liverpool should be hourly, and preferably as far as at least Peterborough.
• Whilst it could be an effect of not having direct services, Derby has more journeys to / from York than Manchester, and almost as many for Coventry.

I don't know if there's enough capacity for a fourth hourly passenger train on the Hope Valley line; my guess is probably not at the moment. I wonder if a 5-carriage 810 would be too long for the smaller Hope Valley stations, and whether or not splitting a 10-carriage St. Pancras train at Sheffield would be possible, but that still seems inconvenient.

 

[mike57]

Using 180s? They catch fire and are unreliable.

EMR services out of Sheffield towards Nottingham have been well loaded on the two occasions I have used them, so not sure making this 1tp2h would work.

What fares could be offered to make the extra hours journey attractive, bear in mind current cheapest Sheffield - London fares, you couldn't undercut those or people would buy Manchester London Tickets and try and join at Sheffield, you may exclude it in the ticket conditions but...

Could St Pancras handle the extra traffic? I understood the new cut down version was pretty well at capacity

 

[The Planner]

The loadings of the Liverpool - Norwich services east of Chesterfield are also heavy, heavier than any slow Manchester - St Pancras service will be. Is it a case of it was done once (by the way it was poorly used during the WCRM when there were less alternatives to use than now) so it must be done again?

Of course it is, suggest a Paddington to Birkenhead service and this place would implode!

 

[Russel]

If the price was right, I could see this working, it would need to be more in line with LNWR fares than any of EMR's own fares, which are rather high.

As has been said, if this was to be launched with 180s, then, no, just don't bother.

 

[JonathanH]

If the price was right, I could see this working, it would need to be more in line with LNWR fares than any of EMR's own fares, which are rather high.

I could spot a problem with that.

There are already fares valid from Manchester to London via Chesterfield, and as "EMR and connections". They aren't as cheap as LNWR fares via Crewe, so I can't imagine why the cost of running extra through services would result in any plan to offer cheaper fares.

 

[43096]

Do you think an updated 'Project Rio' (Manchester-St Pancras via MML) could work in today's railway, bearing in mind more people are nowadays keen to look for cheaper journeys rather than faster ones?

The idea would be for EMR to divert their Liverpool-Norwich service to London every 2 hours. It would still call at Sheffield & Chesterfield, but then serve Derby & Leicester before non-stop St Pancras. Alfreton, Langley Mill, Nottingham and stations onwards to Norwich would still be served from the North West on a 2-hourly basis.

Class 180s would be used; they are 125mph intercity trains and a good number are spare, waiting for a TOC to put them to use. They are far from an outrageous suggestion for this kind of service, as they have still been intensively used until very recently. This would also free up some 158s & 170s to strengthen the remaining Liverpool-Norwich services, hopefully with all running as 6-coach trains.

Manchester-Nottingham would see a reduced service level, but this would be partly compensated for by the remaining services having longer trains, and new direct connections would begin between the North West & Derby/Leicester, as well as giving Manchester & Liverpool a necessary cheaper alternative for travel to London.

What are your thoughts?

Why would anyone doing London to Manchester go from St. Pancras? So the real target would likely be any East Midlands to Manchester flows, which for Nottingham and Chesterfield are already provided for. So really it's Leicester and Derby - which can be reached with one change currently. At best you might send one train per two hours via Derby instead of the Erewash.

 

[Bald Rick]

The idea would be for EMR to divert their Liverpool-Norwich service to London every 2 hours.

Which of the existing EMR servcies into St Pancras are you cancelling to make space for this?

We are told on other threads they are all very busy, and it sounds like you want to replace it eith a service full of cheap tickets. Therefore:

1) Reducing a good source of income on EMRs highest earning service group, for one that is lower
2) Reducing the connectivity on a key cross country route - thereby reducing income on EMRs second highest earning service group
3) Intending to take passengers from Avanti through cheaper fares, thereby reducing income on the highest revenue flow in the country.
4) all at considerable extra cost through inefficient use of rolling stock and crew.


Why would the taxpayer want to pay for this?

 

[deltic08]

Considering the main flow is Liverpool-Nottingham, I think this has legs. It would avoid joining and dividing at Nottingham and as long as the connection onwards to Norwich is cross platform.
If the Nottingham-London diagram became a normal Nottingham-London diagram, then capacity at St Pancras is not a problem if still using 5 car 222s. It would be better if 810s were available as only Hazel Grove-Dore and Chesterfield-Nottingham will be unelectrified otherwise much diesel running under the wires. Alternatively, make it a normal Sheffield- London service if 810s and it would be electric all the way to London with connection at Sheffield for Nottingham and Norwich.
This service still needs to be hourly.

 

[JonathanH]

It would be better if 810s were available as only Hazel Grove-Dore and Chesterfield-Nottingham will be unelectrified otherwise much diesel running under the wires.

People worry about 33 810s not being enough already, without sending them off to Liverpool instead of their core routes.

It would avoid joining and dividing at Nottingham and as long as the connection onwards to Norwich is cross platform.

What about those services which need to be 10 car south of Nottingham and 5 car north of there?

Do you think an updated 'Project Rio' (Manchester-St Pancras via MML) could work in today's railway, bearing in mind more people are nowadays keen to look for cheaper journeys rather than faster ones?

Why would it be cheaper? It sounds like a really awkward service to operate. I suspect people would be more keen if the faster services became cheaper.

 

[Neptune]

I thought GC were planning to replace their 180s?

Not as far as anyone knows. Where have you heard that?

 

[Philip]

Not as far as anyone knows. Where have you heard that?

No where specifically, I just thought the thought was that GC wanted some of the Voyagers cascaded from Avanti and thus were looking to replace the 180s?

 

[Philip]

Which of the existing EMR servcies into St Pancras are you cancelling to make space for this?

We are told on other threads they are all very busy, and it sounds like you want to replace it eith a service full of cheap tickets. Therefore:

1) Reducing a good source of income on EMRs highest earning service group, for one that is lower
2) Reducing the connectivity on a key cross country route - thereby reducing income on EMRs second highest earning service group
3) Intending to take passengers from Avanti through cheaper fares, thereby reducing income on the highest revenue flow in the country.
4) all at considerable extra cost through inefficient use of rolling stock and crew.


Why would the taxpayer want to pay for this?

Quite a few passengers are attracted by direct trains and in combination with some very cheap fares I think it would be a well-used service now.

How about the idea above in combining it with an existing Sheffield-London St Pancras service (extending to Manchester via Marple) and leaving the Liverpool-Norwich as it is?

 

[Mikw]

Do you think an updated 'Project Rio' (Manchester-St Pancras via MML) could work in today's railway, bearing in mind more people are nowadays keen to look for cheaper journeys rather than faster ones?

The idea would be for EMR to divert their Liverpool-Norwich service to London every 2 hours. It would still call at Sheffield & Chesterfield, but then serve Derby & Leicester before non-stop St Pancras. Alfreton, Langley Mill, Nottingham and stations onwards to Norwich would still be served from the North West on a 2-hourly basis.

Class 180s would be used; they are 125mph intercity trains and a good number are spare, waiting for a TOC to put them to use. They are far from an outrageous suggestion for this kind of service, as they have still been intensively used until very recently. This would also free up some 158s & 170s to strengthen the remaining Liverpool-Norwich services, hopefully with all running as 6-coach trains.

Manchester-Nottingham would see a reduced service level, but this would be partly compensated for by the remaining services having longer trains, and new direct connections would begin between the North West & Derby/Leicester, as well as giving Manchester & Liverpool a necessary cheaper alternative for travel to London.

What are your thoughts?

I remember the original Project Rio well. Day returns from Leicester to St Pancras were priced at £10 off peak. It was great.
I also remember that the summer was a hot one, and the HST's regularly lost a power car to the heat, so the journey time as rather slow.

 

[deltic08]

People worry about 33 810s not being enough already, without sending them off to Liverpool instead of their core routes.


What about those services which need to be 10 car south of Nottingham and 5 car north of there?


Why would it be cheaper? It sounds like a really awkward service to operate. I suspect people would be more keen if the faster services became cheaper.

I know, that is why I said IF.
What do they do now when 10 cars are needed south of Nottingham? No different in the future, add 5 at Nottingham. A bit complicated after 222s stop running to London though.
I am not advocating cheaper tickets.

 

[Topological]

Project Rio was great, Leicester to Manchester on near-empty trains in a much faster time than any connecting option.

However, via Nuneaton also works if there is a connection onto the WCML.

Whether one of the two present Sheffield terminators could be sent to Manchester instead? There only used to be 1tph to Sheffield with the other terminating at Derby. To compensate the Chesterfield to Sheffield flow (if absolutely needed) could gain an extension of a present terminator at Sheffield from the Nunnery direction.

I would only send this to Manchester as crossing the throat of Piccadilly to reach Liverpool seems excessive.

Paths on Hope Valley are supposed to be available so the issue is at the Stockport end. Not sure how to solve that element.

 

[43096]

Considering the main flow is Liverpool-Nottingham, I think this has legs. It would avoid joining and dividing at Nottingham and as long as the connection onwards to Norwich is cross platform.
If the Nottingham-London diagram became a normal Nottingham-London diagram, then capacity at St Pancras is not a problem if still using 5 car 222s. It would be better if 810s were available as only Hazel Grove-Dore and Chesterfield-Nottingham will be unelectrified otherwise much diesel running under the wires. Alternatively, make it a normal Sheffield- London service if 810s and it would be electric all the way to London with connection at Sheffield for Nottingham and Norwich.
This service still needs to be hourly.

Right, so this is now an extension of a Pancras-Nottingham. So it has to go into Nottingham, reverse and back out again. So it is even slower, all on top of an already much slower service to Manchester.

It really isn't getting any better as an "idea"... File under pointless!

 

[dk1]

Many of the Protect Rio services I used had a very low uptake indeed. Although a good idea in principle it was quite an overhyped flop from what I witnessed.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Of course it is, suggest a Paddington to Birkenhead service and this place would implode!

Paddington to Birmingham Moor Street with IETs would be incredible.

 

[Helvellyn]

If we're competing with Avanti go the whole hog. Order a load more 810s and run the fast Sheffield service as a 10-car.

Split at Sheffield and the rear unit can go hourly to Liverpool. The front unit can carry on to Leeds, then over the S&C to Carlisle and run alternate hours to Glasgow/Edinburgh.

 

[Topological]

If we're competing with Avanti go the whole hog. Order a load more 810s and run the fast Sheffield service as a 10-car.

Split at Sheffield and the rear unit can go hourly to Liverpool. The front unit can carry on to Leeds, then over the S&C to Carlisle and run alternate hours to Glasgow/Edinburgh.

Now that is just silly, surely it should be sent via the D&G to Glasgow rather than via Carstairs?

Otherwise, perfectly sensible.

Paddington to Birmingham Moor Street with IETs would be incredible.

That one is actually not that silly IF the IET availability was better since you can just extend the Oxfords and it would relieve pressure on CrossCountry.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Now that is just silly, surely it should be sent via the D&G to Glasgow rather than via Carstairs?

Otherwise, perfectly sensible.


That one is actually not that silly IF the IET availability was better since you can just extend the Oxfords and it would relieve pressure on CrossCountry.

Well I was thinking via the traditional GC/GWR joint line through Bicester. Your point does raise the question though of whether IETs should run to Stratford Upon Avon. I remember there was an interesting thread on the subject not too long ago.

 

[Russel]

Which of the existing EMR servcies into St Pancras are you cancelling to make space for this?

We are told on other threads they are all very busy, and it sounds like you want to replace it eith a service full of cheap tickets. Therefore:

1) Reducing a good source of income on EMRs highest earning service group, for one that is lower
2) Reducing the connectivity on a key cross country route - thereby reducing income on EMRs second highest earning service group
3) Intending to take passengers from Avanti through cheaper fares, thereby reducing income on the highest revenue flow in the country.
4) all at considerable extra cost through inefficient use of rolling stock and crew.


Why would the taxpayer want to pay for this?

All good points, one simple solution here would be to force Avanti to lower their fares to a level that is a little more reasonable, removing the need for EMR to run a cheaper service between London and Manchester.

 

[Bald Rick]

How about the idea above in combining it with an existing Sheffield-London St Pancras service (extending to Manchester via Marple) and leaving the Liverpool-Norwich as it is?

Which trains into Manchester are you going to cancel to make space for these?

Quite a few passengers are attracted by direct trains and in combination with some very cheap fares I think it would be a well-used service now.

And yet they weren’t when it ran previously, there are already direct trains for most of the journeys this would serve, and there are already very cheap fares from London to Manchester to fill spare capacity on the services that do it in a little over 2 hours rather than about 3.

 

[A0wen]

All good points, one simple solution here would be to force Avanti to lower their fares to a level that is a little more reasonable, removing the need for EMR to run a cheaper service between London and Manchester.

There are already cheap London - Manchester fares using LNW to Crewe and TFW onto Manchester. There really isn't the need for another route ehich is less direct and would remove capacity which is needed for other services.