Could the Norwich - Liverpool service be sped up?

[MattRat]

Why would you miss out the single biggest urban area on the whole route?

sometimes I despair.

It was an example, since Castlefield is a well known choke point. But any other suggestions are welcome. The main thing is having a fast service and a slow service together if possible, so no one loses out.

 

[70014IronDuke]

To be fair I drive the Stansted 755s as far as Cambridge

apologies, my error

but I have monitored & frequently used the 158s on that route since they were introduced over 30 years ago. In fact I was onboard the very first 156 from Yarmouth to Liverpool at 08:56 in May 1988. The crowding sometimes is not good & you know if boarding at Norwich there’s very little chance of getting a seat before Peterborough. Lots of luggage & inter-connecting for Yorkshire/NE/Scotland as well as intermediate traffic. Just needs to be shown a little more love.

but this is in the spirit of what I meant.

 

[dk1]

apologies, my error

but this is in the spirit of what I meant.

EMR even offered trolley catering right through to Norwich today. Bonus!!

 

[Grumpy]

When travelling between Nottingham and Sheffield I always feel it’s somewhat leisurely. Thus 30mph crawl over the pointwork at Trowell and then a gentle trundle along the Erewash Valley. This seems to be a generally well laid out,formerly 4track,route with no obvious hindrances to fast running such as steep hills or sharp curves. However I believe the route is restricted to 70/80mph whereas the services are operated by DMU’s capable of 90-100 mph. Perhaps there is some potential for saving journey time here.

 

[YorksLad12]

The service currently provides the only EMR connection from Nottingham to Sheffield which as they are both EMR managed stations in Major cities is quite important. Maybe some upgrades to the line and running the outgoing class 222's on the route as it also gets overcrowded at Rush Hour from Nottingham onwards. Maybe terminate this at Nottingham with a connection train onto Norwich and 20 minute dwell at Nottingham for both services for onward travel.

The challenge with the 222s is that they can't use sprinter differentials (though I'm not sure there are any west of Nottingham)

If you turned them into 4-car sets, would they be faster (and thus able to maintain the timings)?

As we're speculating: there could be a second Nottingham-Sheffield service, if EMR took over the Northern service that runs through to Leeds. That, and the Sheffield-Lincoln service(s), spend as much time in EMR's territory as Northern's. Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham-Norwich, anyone?

 

[43096]

If you turned them into 4-car sets, would they be faster (and thus able to maintain the timings)?

No.

 

[dk1]

If you turned them into 4-car sets, would they be faster (and thus able to maintain the timings)?

As we're speculating: there could be a second Nottingham-Sheffield service, if EMR took over the Northern service that runs through to Leeds. That, and the Sheffield-Lincoln service(s), spend as much time in EMR's territory as Northern's. Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham-Norwich, anyone?

I have often thought that too & if (& I sincerely hope it never happens) the route gets split at Nottingham, extending the Leeds through would make the best of a bad job. Obviously not as an end to end but at least Sheffield/Chesterfield would still have a direct link to Peterborough & East Anglia.

 

[William3000]

I agree scrapping Norwich-Peterborough would be a bad idea, however I do think the Ipswich should be hourly, at least until Ely. It was disappointing when the planned frequency increase didn't happen because of capacity restraints
I could see the case for running the Norwich-Liverpool service with 755s - specifically if their superior acceleration and top speed means the service can be sped up (even if that's only possible on the peterborough-grantham section!)

There are a few sections where 755s could do 161km/h (100mph) I think. Obviously Peterborough to Grantham but there is a fairly lengthy stretch on the Midland Mainline which I presume it could do that. Similarly between Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly?
Also the Norwich to Liverpool Ls always seems to stop for about 4-5 mins at Ely and Sheffield to reverse and sometimes 10-12 mins at Nottingham. With superior acceleration and doing the full 161km/h where possible, it could be possible to shave 25-30 mins off the journey time. But obviously the problem is likely - as others have mentioned - to be pathing.

 

[D365]

It was an example, since Castlefield is a well known choke point. But any other suggestions are welcome. The main thing is having a fast service and a slow service together if possible, so no one loses out.

I'm confused - what does this mean?

Castlefield is one of several constraints on the Liverpool - Nottingham route, but the constraints exist because Manchester and Sheffield are key population centres.

When travelling between Nottingham and Sheffield I always feel it’s somewhat leisurely. Thus 30mph crawl over the pointwork at Trowell and then a gentle trundle along the Erewash Valley. This seems to be a generally well laid out,formerly 4track,route with no obvious hindrances to fast running such as steep hills or sharp curves. However I believe the route is restricted to 70/80mph whereas the services are operated by DMU’s capable of 90-100 mph. Perhaps there is some potential for saving journey time here.

I'd like to think so. Derby-Sheffield is so much faster (and faster than driving, too).

 

[MattRat]

I'm confused - what does this mean?

Castlefield is one of several constraints on the Liverpool - Nottingham route, but the constraints exist because Manchester and Sheffield are key population centres.

You have a slow service that focuses on people in the middle of the journey, and the fast service for end to end travel, with stops in only a few extra places. Say if it went via Crewe instead, the fast service would stop there.

 

[jfollows]

There are a few sections where 755s could do 161km/h (100mph) I think. ... Similarly between Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly?

Definitely not.
90mph for a subset of the distance, increasing the limit to 100mph would hardly make any difference anyway.

 

[70014IronDuke]

There are a few sections where 755s could do 161km/h (100mph) I think. Obviously Peterborough to Grantham but there is a fairly lengthy stretch on the Midland Mainline which I presume it could do that. Similarly between Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly?

Do you mean between Derby and Clay Cross? If so, how do you get it there? Via the extra miles into Derby? That will leave you slower than via the present Erewash. And that's not counting the pathing problems across Trent and Derby jcns.

Also the Norwich to Liverpool Ls always seems to stop for about 4-5 mins at Ely and Sheffield to reverse and

So what are you saying, avoid Ely and Sheffield?

Many here would say no, these are important traffic points.

Of course, they are. But I wonder if it could be done, perhaps on services on alternate hours - but then I suspect you run into pathing issues at the next choke point.

If you stop at these places, you need to reverse, and for that you need, er, perhaps 4-5 minutes?

sometimes 10-12 mins at Nottingham. With superior acceleration and doing the full 161km/h where possible, it could be possible to shave 25-30 mins off the journey time. But obviously the problem is likely - as others have mentioned - to be pathing.

Apart from the fact that units sometimes uncouple/couple up here, I suspect the planners/operators are very happy to have these minutes as recovery time, allowing late running trains (at least of a few minutes) to get back into their proper paths for the next part of the trip.

 

[dk1]

Apart from the fact that units sometimes uncouple/couple up here, I suspect the planners/operators are very happy to have these minutes as recovery time, allowing late running trains (at least of a few minutes) to get back into their proper paths for the next part of the trip.

A very welcome performance buffer much of the time & should there not be a catering trolley, time to grab refreshments

 

[D365]

You have a slow service that focuses on people in the middle of the journey, and the fast service for end to end travel, with stops in only a few extra places. Say if it went via Crewe instead, the fast service would stop there.

Ok, so you're proposing an entirely additional service. Not a 'fast' as such.

A very welcome performance buffer much of the time & should there not be a catering trolley, time to grab refreshments

Is there a catering outlet on the platforms?

 

[Manutd1999]

You could save 10 minutes or so by going via the Chat Moss line instead of via Warrington

 

[Grumpy]

I'd like to think so. Derby-Sheffield is so much faster (and faster than driving, too).

Sheffield to Derby is approx 30 minutes. Sheffield to Nottingham is approx 10% further but takes 50+minutes, admittedly with an additional stop.

 

[Bartsimho]

Sheffield to Derby is approx 30 minutes. Sheffield to Nottingham is approx 10% further but takes 50+minutes, admittedly with an additional stop.

It has 3 more stops but the line speed is also lower as well

 

[D365]

It has 3 more stops but the line speed is also lower as well

Most EMR trains don't do all three stops.

 

[dk1]

Is there a catering outlet on the platforms?

Used many of them over the years at Nottingham. Pumpkin etc.

Most EMR trains don't do all three stops.

They stop at two but unlike the Derby route it’s basically a secondary main line with lower speed junctions in places too.

 

[70014IronDuke]

It has 3 more stops but the line speed is also lower as well

Regardless of how many stops the EMR service makes, what is the point of running via Derby (unless, of course, the Peak Forest line were open)?

Notthingham - Derby - Sheffield will take longer and complicate the pathing more than Nottingham - Sheffield direct.

Derby - Sheffield has at least 3 TPH, whereas the current service provides 50% of the Nottingham - Sheffield services and serves Alfreton, giving its population a wide variety of direct destinations. Unless your Derby service stopped at Belper (eating up capacity, if it exists in the first place), the only real advantage is to give Derby extra direct destinations to the NW and E Anglia. Nice to have, but hardly critical, and not worth the extra time and diversionary miles.

 

[Bartsimho]

Regardless of how many stops the EMR service makes, what is the point of running via Derby (unless, of course, the Peak Forest line were open)?

Notthingham - Derby - Sheffield will take longer and complicate the pathing more than Nottingham - Sheffield direct.

Derby - Sheffield has at least 3 TPH, whereas the current service provides 50% of the Nottingham - Sheffield services and serves Alfreton, giving its population a wide variety of direct destinations. Unless your Derby service stopped at Belper (eating up capacity, if it exists in the first place), the only real advantage is to give Derby extra direct destinations to the NW and E Anglia. Nice to have, but hardly critical, and not worth the extra time and diversionary miles.

I was on about the existing Norwich to LLS service in the Nottingham to Sheffield section as it stops at Langley Mill, Alfreton and Dronfield while the standard Derby-Sheffield only stops at Chesterfield which the Nottingham-Sheffield also stops at

 

[JonathanH]

I was on about the existing Norwich to LLS service in the Nottingham to Sheffield section as it stops at Langley Mill, Alfreton and Dronfield

It hasn't generally stopped at Langley Mill or Dronfield since the Northern service started.

 

[dosxuk]

I was on about the existing Norwich to LLS service in the Nottingham to Sheffield section...

London Liverpool Street? Not sure that gets anywhere near Nottingham!

 

[dk1]

*

London Liverpool Street? Not sure that gets anywhere near Nottingham!

Llanishen is LLS

 

[61653 HTAFC]

London Liverpool Street? Not sure that gets anywhere near Nottingham!

Does explain why the services are so busy leaving Norwich though!

I do like how the suggestion of skipping Ely (population 20k, so basically a market town with a big church) and the suggestion of skipping Sheffield (population 500k) are talked about as being of equal or similar implication.

 

[dk1]

Does explain why the services are so busy leaving Norwich though!

I do like how the suggestion of skipping Ely (population 20k, so basically a market town with a big church) and the suggestion of skipping Sheffield (population 500k) are talked about as being of equal or similar implication.

It’s because Ely serves as the connection to Cambridge mainly but also for anywhere south thereof as well as Ipswich & stations on the GEML & of course Kings Lynn.

 

[Trainbike46]

Does explain why the services are so busy leaving Norwich though!

I do like how the suggestion of skipping Ely (population 20k, so basically a market town with a big church) and the suggestion of skipping Sheffield (population 500k) are talked about as being of equal or similar implication.

skipping Ely is a bad idea, because that station offers connections to a range of places (Cambridge, King's Lynn, Stansted, Ipswich, etc.)

Personally, I don't think skipping any stations is a good idea for this service. The ones that exist all have good reason to be there.

The main ways of speeding up the service that are realistic (I think) is switching to faster units with better acceleration, and looking if it is possible to get a faster path/better connecting paths

 

[dk1]

Ely also has half the connectional passengers as Sheffield but then this routes trains are half the length by then

Ely was always the hub of the Provincial ‘Express’ East Anglia to Birmingham/North West network from the outset in 1988.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

skipping Ely is a bad idea, because that station offers connections to a range of places (Cambridge, King's Lynn, Stansted, Ipswich, etc.)

Personally, I don't think skipping any stations is a good idea for this service. The ones that exist all have good reason to be there.

The main ways of speeding up the service that are realistic (I think) is switching to faster units with better accelleration, and looking if it is possible to get a faster path/better connecting paths

I'm guessing both were suggested because of the existence of avoiding lines which would add to the time-saving, particularly with reversals being avoided as a result.
However my point was that no matter what connections can be made at Ely, to place that city in the same bracket as Sheffield is absurd. The two places are vastly different and not remotely comparable.

 

[tbtc]

I do like how the suggestion of skipping Ely (population 20k, so basically a market town with a big church) and the suggestion of skipping Sheffield (population 500k) are talked about as being of equal or similar implication.

These threads tend to have a lot of suggestions about skipping Sheffield (whether by taking the south-west chord at Dore, diverting via Stoke, spending a billion pounds on a slow alignment through Buxton), but it’d be unthinkable to make cuts to somewhere Alfreton

Nobody suggests (say) omitting Nottingham by running via Retford , but avoiding Sheffield seems very popular (although at least nobody has suggested slowing the Hope Valley service down by diverting the Norwich trains via Denton this time around!)

The two questions about speeding the service up tend to be:

1. How many passengers actually travel long enough distances on this service to make the time savings worthwhile?
2. If you could knock half an hour off the end-to-end journey time, would you really want a service linking several of England’s bottlenecks without sufficient time to recover at stations en route?

For those unfamiliar with Norwich - Liverpool, think of it as a Midlands/ Northern version of Cardiff- Portsmouth (linking several cities without being “Inter city”)… capacity is more important than top speed - ensure everything is over a hundred metres long before you start obsessing about speeds