Norwich-Liverpool Lime Street

[WillPS]

My big beef with 158s is that the air con doesn't work. I can't ever find any single tickets less than £62 for Norwich-Chesterfield. I end up paying about 40p/mile for a train with no air con. That WAS a problem back in June/July. Now I drive and won't touch the money pit that is our railway netowrk with a bargepole! Given that the drinks trolley gets off at Nottingham, I'm surprised there weren't any medical emergencies due to heat exhaustion.
I would suggest to bolster capacity, to use rakes of 4/5 ex Anglia or VirginXC MKII or even MKIII with a DVT or ex Anglian DBSO. Then, what sort of sloco? Some bright spark had the idea to buy great big heavy powerful things that have a top speed faster than most routes, and due to their RA have to go slower than something less powerful (?). I'm not an expert but I believe that's the great problem with class 67s. So, although a seemingly retrograde step, it might be the most pragmatic solution to go back to 60s/70s stock pulled by 37s or 47s.
Oh and lump together the track, tocs and roscos as well.

Try Megatrain from Nottingham?

The aircon on most of EMTs 158s is sorted now.

 

[charley_17/7]

My big beef with 158s is that the air con doesn't work. I can't ever find any single tickets less than £62 for Norwich-Chesterfield. I end up paying about 40p/mile for a train with no air con.

Splitting at Peterborough and Nottingham brings the cost down to £51 (Anytime Singles).

If travelling Off-Peak, splitting at Ely, Peterborough, Grantham and Nottingham brings it down to £47.70 (13.20+9.60+7.90+7.00+10)

Alternatively, buy an East Midlands Day Ranger (£29) and add Norwich to Peterborough (£16.60 Off Peak Day Single) and Alfreton to Chesterfield (£5 Anytime Single), totals £50.60.

 

[xtradj]

This route should be cut. I.e. Lime Street - Notts and Notts - Norwich

It also needs to cut out stopping at pointless stations like Dore or Chinley. It should be an express service not a long distance stopper. It is surely the worst route we have in the UK

Also the trains need to be replaced, but they wont, and never will probably.

 

[charley_17/7]

This route should be cut. I.e. Lime Street - Notts and Notts - Norwich

It also needs to cut out stopping at pointless stations like Dore or Chinley. It should be an express service not a long distance stopper. It is surely the worst route we have in the UK

Also the trains need to be replaced, but they wont, and never will probably.

That was the thinking a while back, it was rumoured Liverpool - Nottingham could get hived off to TPE.

Stopping at 'pointless' stations like Chinley and Dore & Totley are a necessity, because these stations have a poor enough 'regular' service, yet provide a serious volume of traffic (full platform) during the peaks, as well as relieving overcrowding on Hope Valley stopping trains (which are generally Class 142s).

 

[Anvil1984]

Sorry but must disagree on that one, Long distance services often make peak time calls at smaller but well used stops to take the weight off the stoppers. But also you make it sound like a regular occurance please not there are no EMT departures in either direction from Dore inbetween the 0828 and 1730 services then nothing after the 1834 til 2328.
Chinley has nothing after the 0803 until 1703 then nothing after the 1809 til 2253.

 

[YorkshireBear]

yeah agree with two recent posts they only stop in peaks and for me thats way better than adding an extra service, i caught a two car EMT from stockport to sheffield on a south pennines day ranger, it was packed almost to bursting and then got to comfortable stadning after chinley alot of people got off, same with dore.

 

[dk1]

This route must never be split. It serves so many different markets but is also very very poular with through travellers from all parts of Norfolk & East Anglia to Sheffield & especially Manchester. With a few tweaks here & there it could be better but hey-ho on the whole it works fairly well. From next May most will be 4-car Not-Liv so problem solved! Lets stop trying to break up another useful cross-country link. Haven't we lost enough of them over the last few years just to keep the franchise map looking neat & tidy??

 

[t0ffeeman]

They only stop in the Peaks in the Peaks. I'll get my coat....

 

[Bevan Price]

When I protested to Central Trains re their breaking the erstwhile through Crewe-Skegness service at Nottingham, they replied that the service was too long to maintain punctuality; that they needed a longer dwell time at Nottingham to load the Skeggy passengers and it was a different market from Nottingham to Skegness cf. Crewe-Nottingham. So for those reasons, I don't think extending a portion of the present Liverpool-Nottingham services to Skegness would work.

In my view, the Liverpool-Norwich service is too long and tries to satsify too many differing markets. Nottingham is a natural dividing point, as the practice of terminating there in the event of late-running shows. Also, I wonder if it is necessary to go through to Liverpool - are there that many through passengers?

So in an ideal world, I'd run Norwich-Nottingham [possibly under an E Anglia franchise], and a Nottingham-Derby-Totley South curve- Stockport-Manchester service by EMT, meeting the request for a faster Nottingham-Manchester journey and opening new possibilities from Derby, which apart from project Rio has not had a through service to Manchester since the Midland line through the Peak was closed. !

Well, you would deprive Liverpool - Sheffield of through services. Liverpool / Manchester - Sheffield passengers are probably the major users of the northern end of the Liverpool - Norwich services - with only a minority travelling beyond Sheffield or Nottingham. The proposed boosting of the Liverpool - Nottingham section to 2 x 2 car 158 should improve capacity.

If you omitted Sheffield, then for much of the day, you would not need anything longer than a 2 car unit. Even a single hourly Class 153 would probably suffice for the off-peak flow between Manchester & Nottingham.

Bevan

 

[TheBigD]

I had the "pleasure" of travelling from Liverpool to Peterborough today on the 1552 from Lime Street.

2 car 158 was full with a few standing on departure from Lime Street.
After Liverpool South Parkway the train was full and standing, with many stood in the vestibules but not in the aisles, the same from Warrington.

At Manchester the fun started! 4 minutes to cram everyone on at Oxford Rd, with passengers standing all down the aisles. At Piccadilly it took 6 minutes to cram the lucky ones on. Platform staff were asking people to move down the train, even though there wasn't any space for them to move to. Lot's left behind as it was physically impossible to get any more people in to the front carriage. Eventually left 6 minutes late.

At Stockport there were also loads waiting including someone with a bike, who didn't look too impressed! 3 minutes to get people on/off at and left people behind again. Left 9 late.

With a heavily overloaded train the 158 struggled through the Hope valley. I counted about 25 getting off at both Chinley and Dore.*

At Sheffeild the same situation though I don't think anyone was left behind. Left 10 late. Again the 158 seemed to struggle on the climb away from Sheffield and Nottingham was reached 13 late.

A lot alighted at Nottingham but I would guess at least 1/3 - 1/2 half the coach stayed on.

Arrived at Nottingham at 1847, 13 late. Loads getting on, and we left 16 late, full with only a few standing in the vestibules.

Afterleaving Nottingham it soon became apparent that the 1845 Skegness service was in front and we staggered to Grantham, now 31 late.

I'm now at home enjoying a fine single malt!

The extra 156's from Northern to allow for 4 car operation Between Liverpool and Nottingham can't come soon enough.

* I've read in Todays Railways that Northern are trying to extend the 1645 from Piccadilly to Sheffield. If this happens could the Chinley and Dore stops be removed from the 1552 to provide more space for long distance travellers?

 

[Invincibles]

Both the Transpennine Express and EMT trains that do call at Chinley and Dore are well used to those stations by commuters. It has often made me wonder if it would be possible to extend one of the Hazel Grove or New Mills Central terminators to Chinley instead. It does seem pretty clear though that simply leaving those passengers to the Northern stoppers is not an option.

4 car on Liverpool - Nottingham and any release of 185s from Manchester - Scotland duties will help a lot.

 

[paul1609]

The line through Matlock would be on my list of potential reopenings, it'd be a very valuable link. Railtrack suggested reopening it, at one stage, but that came to nothing.

Well remembered about the Virgin Derby - Birmingham - Manchester trip - always a quirk in the leaflets that one

I cycled most of the Buxton to Matlock line last year. Id previously assumed that it was a main line but the alignment must have been more suited to steam services. I reckon that if it was reopened much of it would only have a linespeed of only 50 to 60 mph so it would be more suitable for stopping tourist services than as an express through route.
i believe that the National park board came to the conclusion that the income would not cover the day to day expenses of running the service.

I think any money would be better spent on increasing line speeds and capacity on the Edale route.

 

[dk1]

I had the "pleasure" of travelling from Liverpool to Peterborough today on the 1552 from Lime Street.

A lot alighted at Nottingham but I would guess at least 1/3 - 1/2 half the coach stayed on.

Arrived at Nottingham at 1847, 13 late. Loads getting on, and we left 16 late, full with only a few standing in the vestibules.

Afterleaving Nottingham it soon became apparent that the 1845 Skegness service was in front and we staggered to Grantham, now 31 late.

The extra 156's from Northern to allow for 4 car operation Between Liverpool and Nottingham can't come soon enough.

Ahh so thats the reason for this service being such a poor performer. A few minutes delay arriving Nottingham allows the Skeggy stopper out first. I often get delayed by this poor peformer at Ely when working the 20.20 Cambridge to Norwich & miss my train home .

Ironically when the 158 fleet for this route where based at Crown Point in the early 90s maintainance would do their utmost to have a set spare ready by thursday night/friday. The then 10.03 from Norwich would be strengthened to 2x158s for it's very popular 15.52 return from Lime Street.

 

[tbtc]

I think any money would be better spent on increasing line speeds and capacity on the Edale route.

Capacity through the Hope Valley really needs sorting out.

From the two track line out of Sheffield (which it shares with the Nottingham/ London/ Birmingham services), the single chord at Dore (services stop on the single track bit, despite the three or so services in each direction every hour), the lack of loops (meaning a service stopping at Dore/ Grindleford/ Hathersage/ Bamford/ Hope/ Edale etc is soon caught up by a "fast", plus the slow freight)...

Then, of course, there's the tight slots at Stockport, the single track section outside Hazel Grove, the headache that is 13/14 at Piccadilly... It's a wonder these trains don't lose time on each trip...

At the moment the Northern Pacer gets to Sheffield a minute or two before the "fast" behind it, and then leaves just a minute or two before the next "fast", so if the stopper is delayed eastbound then it holds up the "fast" and if the "fast" is delayed westbound then it will get stuck behind the Pacer losing it half an hour

The frustrating thing about this is that the roads are rubbish from Sheffield to Manchester (single track A road, twisting and turning), so an improved train service could take a huge chunk of the market. The Leeds - Manchester or Sheffield - Leeds services both compete with fast motorway links, so it'll always be hard for rail, but Sheffield to Manchester would be a good market for rail to take a big share of the market of...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ahh so thats the reason for this service being such a poor performer

Trying to cram everyone into a two car 158 on this line is a guaranteed way to lose a few minutes on each trip. That was one big advantage of the Turbostars, they could get people on a good bit faster

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I'm going to throw a strange suggestion into the ring now, but would a 220/221 be alright for this route? I know platforms at the peak-time stations (Dore/Chinley etc) may need extending (Voyagers don't have SDO, do they?), but a 2-car 158 isn't enough for this route, when I've used it to come back from Norwich, it's been full and standing from there to Nottingham at least.

I remember it used to run to Cambridge too (a service extention Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge-Ely-Norwich, once or twice a day only), but this was removed by EMT 2 years ago.

 

[tbtc]

I'm going to throw a strange suggestion into the ring now, but would a 220/221 be alright for this route? I know platforms at the peak-time stations (Dore/Chinley etc) may need extending (Voyagers don't have SDO, do they?), but a 2-car 158 isn't enough for this route, when I've used it to come back from Norwich, it's been full and standing from there to Nottingham at least

The 158 is fine for the line speeds and paths that this route has, plus a four car Voyager isn't *that* much of a capacity increase (a four car 158 would be a lot better).

Plus, the ability to "join/split" 158s (with their corridor connections) would be a good way of gradually increasing capacity (I'd like to see EMT increase this to five coaches west of Nottingham, three coaches east of Nottingham)

Plus, what spare Voyagers?

Sorry to be negative

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The 158 is fine for the line speeds and paths that this route has, plus a four car Voyager isn't *that* much of a capacity increase (a four car 158 would be a lot better).

Plus, the ability to "join/split" 158s (with their corridor connections) would be a good way of gradually increasing capacity (I'd like to see EMT increase this to five coaches west of Nottingham, three coaches east of Nottingham)

Plus, what spare Voyagers?

Sorry to be negative

Plus what sapre 158s to double most service lenghts?

Look, whatever stock you suggest for a route, there's always going to be the overhanging question you raised. Say there were plenty of Voyagers or 158s free*, whiuch would be better?

* - I know this is never going to happen, so don't lecture me on it.

 

[ukrob]

Plus what sapre 158s to double most service lenghts?

Look, whatever stock you suggest for a route, there's always going to be the overhanging question you raised. Say there were plenty of Voyagers or 158s free*, whiuch would be better?

* - I know this is never going to happen, so don't lecture me on it.

Most services are going to be double 158s as far as Nottingham anyway, so where to find 'spare' ones is irrelevant

A double 158 would be preferable to a Voyager. A double EMT 158 has over 300 seats (pretty sure the EMT refurbs have 158 seats crammed in), a four car Voyager has 200 and a five car around 250.

 

[MCR247]

220s and 221s would be crap for this route. They are InterCity trains, this is an InterRegional route, so 170s or something are more appropriate. 158s are actually perfectly fine for this, they just need to be in multiple
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Plus what sapre 158s to double most service lenghts?

Look, whatever stock you suggest for a route, there's always going to be the overhanging question you raised. Say there were plenty of Voyagers or 158s free*, whiuch would be better?

* - I know this is never going to happen, so don't lecture me on it.

158s anyday

 

[MidnightFlyer]

158s is what I thought, never knew Voyagers had such crap capacity. hock:

 

[TheBigD]

...A double EMT 158 has over 300 seats (pretty sure the EMT refurbs have 158 seats crammed in), a four car Voyager has 200 and a five car around 250.

EMT 158's have 146 proper seats and an additional 11 tip up seats in the vestibules/bike/wheelchair space.

Oh, and bugger all luggage space!

 

[tbtc]

Plus what sapre 158s to double most service lenghts?

There will be "spare" 158s at some stage in the near future (e.g. the electrification of Edinburgh - Glasgow and suburban Strathclyde lines will free up some 170s and 158s, and I'd expect the Scottish 170s to remain to send some 158s down south... the Lymington 158 will surely be replaced in the next few years... the 150 cascade will allow some 156 routes to move to 150 operation, and some 156s to take over from 158s on other routes where they are more appropriate... GWML electrification may displace 165/166s to the Cardiff - Portsmouth to release 158s), so it's not unrealistic to assume EMT will have a chance to get some more 158s.

Three 158s would mean six carriages which would be enough to add one additional carriage to all Liverpool - Nottingham services (roughly 2hr 40mins).

I don't think this is unrealistic in the next few years.

Whereas, you'd need around a dozen Voyagers to run the route. Simple maths.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

never knew Voyagers had such crap capacity. hock:

They really are poor, partly due to the three disabled toilets (which I think take up a dozen seats), partly due to the short coaches, partly due to the "crumple zones" in the front/rear cars.

An extension of just a coach or two (with a small toilet) would make a huge difference in capacity.

 

[dk1]

Remember the Voyager family of units cannot run at 'Sprinter' speeds. This is a major disadvantage East of Peterborough & can often be the difference between 75 & 45mph.

 

[hicksy]

Would it be too much trouble to either get opening windows, or fit some air con to the 158s? I prefer their layout to 170s; loads of wasted space and doors opening and closing, putting you in a draft all the time.
Two journeys in June were awful, due mainly to the hot and stuffy air on board.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just remembered about these; if they really want to upgrade the Felixstowe Docks- Nuneaton line for freight, then electrification would make sense. That would make Peterborough-Ely electric; then Norwich-Ely electrification makes some sense too; giving a second electrified (diversionary) route Norwich-London.
Then run Liverpool to Peterborough; terminate the diesel there and go electric to Norwich. OK it would need more platforms putting in, but have you seen the amount of underused sidings etc all around Peterborough? I fully admit that building at Peterborough is going to need someone to pop to Jewson's for for a few bricks and bags of cement though. Also, it then means that the more heavily used part of the route is diesel, the less heavily used part electric, which seems the wrong way round....

 

[Anvil1984]

158s DO have air con, just that its not known for being reliable, However the aircon on the Stagecoach units (EMT and SWT) are probably more relaible than other companies particularly the ones which havent had a real refurb

 

[WillPS]

All the former Central/TPE units have had killer Air Con fitted - the former Alphaline ones haven't (I believe because of a difference in lease/ROSCO).

The windows on a 158 do open, but they need a guard to open it with their key (otherwise idiots would open them when the aircon is on/working and the effect would be lost). If you feel a train is uncomfortably hot then ask the guard and he'll open a window for you.

The door positioning of 158s is their downfall - they were never built with a sharp increase in passenger (and thus overcrowding) in mind whereas the Turbostars were. Drafty or not, the Turbostars have massive doors to let people on and off, and large pleasant spaces to stand (with lots of bars to grab). Doors at the end of carriages should only ever be considered where seat availability is much better with relatively few stops (e.g. InterCity services). It could be argued that Turbos of a similar length to Voyagers would do much better in place of them on CrossCountry services.

 

[dk1]

Would it be too much trouble to either get opening windows, or fit some air con to the 158s?

Then Norwich-Ely electrification makes some sense too; giving a second electrified (diversionary) route Norwich-London.

As said in an earlier post 158s do have air-con & un-like 170s they also have opening hopper windows in case of failure which the guard opens with a T-key.

As for electrifiying & using the Thetford line as a diversionary route, please tell that to NXEA management. Following the Ipswich tunnel block in 2005 many drivers/guards where trained up on the Bishop Stortford route for the two daily through trains. Calls for there knowledge to be retained where all ignored & now on the frequent Sundays when the GEML is blocked, 170s sit idle at Orient Way & Crown Point & all the train crew have crossed off the route. What a waste.

 

[Aictos]

If Network Rail were to electrify the Thetford line, they also should electrify the Ipswich to Ely line via Bury St Edmunds and also Ely to Peterborough via March line meaning the lines could be used both as diversionary routes, ECS workings but also means Peterborough would have two electrified routes to London which also means that instead of running a Turbostar from Liverpool Street or Ipswich then NXEA could run a EMU like a 360 for example on a direct though service calling at the same stations as it currently does.

EMT and XC would still run DMUs but unless their routes are also electrify then they will stay that way.

 

[thefab444]

158s DO have air con, just that its not known for being reliable, However the aircon on the Stagecoach units (EMT and SWT) are probably more relaible than other companies particularly the ones which havent had a real refurb

Indeed, despite the seemingly endless modifications SWT have made to their 159s, the airconditioning still isn't what you could call reliable.

 

[Bakerbloke]

Referring to a previous post on stopping at Chinley/Dore:

1. Chinley is the only station in the Peaks that has a very wide catchment area. Have you ever seen the platforms at 7am in the morning?

2. Express services such as EMT supply the only link between Stockport and Chinley with onward connections to Edale and the rest of the Hope Valley.

3. Dore ticket prices supply much needed revenue for the conductors.

4. By retaining a link with Chinley, EMT would probably be first in line to run a service if the line to Matlock/Derby is ever reopened.

I agree that overcrowding is a problem on the 1552 out of Liverpool and I've lost count of the amount of times that I haven't been able to physically get on the service towards Sheffield. Once the Northern hub proposals are put into effect where the Dore junction problems will be solved and Chinley will have 4 lines to allow expresses to pass freight and local stoppers, then there will likely be a 16:45 service from Manchester to Sheffield which will help in easing the overcrowding.

Another thing - this line is going to get even busier. 30 Derbyshire bus services are under threat including the Transpeak Chesterfield to Manchester.

The old Central franchise did, for a while, have four carriages on the 1552 which made the journey much more comfortable - don't know what happened for EMT not to do it.