Splitting up Liverpool to Norwich to be re-examined (again!)

[Failed Unit]

EMT seem to like long ECS runs. Shame the can't come to an arrangement with Northern to berth the units at Liverpool and provide some crew until an EMT crew can meet the stock en route. Very BR. Lol.

 

[43074]

You could certainly run longer trains that stop at Sheffield/ Stockport/ Piccadilly/ Lime Street - which is why I struggle with the "we need to build a line through Matlock if we want to free up capacity through the Hope Valley argument - but I don't know what through demand there'd be by tying the London service to the Liverpool service (given that Derby already has direct trains to the WCML at Stoke/ Crewe and Leicester already has direct trains to the WCML at Nuneaton).

The service between Nuneaton and the North West is inadequate to be touted as some sort of alternative to direct services from Leicester; Derby perhaps. If there were hourly Virgin services to Manchester calling then it would be great, but reality is that the Trent Valley stopper is slow North of Nuneaton and - whilst recognising the transformational impact of the service on the Trent Valley towns - doesn't really cut the mustard for a link between Leicester & the North West as a regional service.

Well, it involves running a couple of ECS from Nottingham to Liverpool at about three o'clock in the morning, which doesn't sound very "convenient"?

The 04:06 Nottingham to Liverpool ECS runs via Dore South, Marple & Newton-le-Willows so is convenient from the point of view of retaining train crew route knowledge of these routes in the event of disruption or engineering works etc. It splits at Liverpool to form the 06:47 & 07:43 to Norwich, sounds as convenient as possible without having the inconvenience of a small train crew depot somewhere in the North West, similar to that in Norwich. I understand the only reason the Norwich services don't run this way is a throwback to the semaphore signalled Brecklands Line, to save on the costs of manning the boxes for early and late ECS moves between Norwich & Nottingham.

I'd be happy with that - TPE don't seem particularly bothered about the Hope Valley (all the other TPE routes are getting new trains and/or increased frequencies - we just get some more cascaded 185s on the existing frequency) - one operator would make more sense and giving it to EMT would get my vote.

I'd agree with you here, especially with EMT running the Barton service from next year which will probably continue to use TPE crew based at Cleethorpes, it makes sense from that perspective. Might have to be careful with competition though, as Stagecoach run many of the bus services in that area, running all rail services bar the Brigg Line would give them a virtual monopoly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd agree with you here, especially with EMT running the Barton service from next year which will probably continue to use TPE crew based at Cleethorpes, it makes sense from that perspective. Might have to be careful with competition though, as Stagecoach run many of the bus services in that area, running all rail services bar the Brigg Line would give them a virtual monopoly.

TOCs tend to be so far arms-length from their bus operator parents that there is practically no actual concern with this.

 

[Failed Unit]

I'd agree with you here, especially with EMT running the Barton service from next year which will probably continue to use TPE crew based at Cleethorpes, it makes sense from that perspective. Might have to be careful with competition though, as Stagecoach run many of the bus services in that area, running all rail services bar the Brigg Line would give them a virtual monopoly.

I don't thing the bus monopoly will make much difference when you consider stagecoaches bus presence in the East Midlands in general.

 

[sprinterguy]

Good question. How many 158s are required to increase all Liverpool-Nottingham runs to 6-car?

A minimum of nine units, split to allow the formation of 18 x 3-car units, using basic back-of-an-envelope calculations, not accounting for maintenance spares or allowing for anything more than 3-car trains east of Nottingham. At which point you might as well go the whole hog and just lengthen EMTs' full fleet of 25 class 158s to 3-car (or at least 24 of them, leaving ATW with a fleet of 12).

The number of 185s available, 22, does essentially work from a purely mathematical standpoint in terms of perhaps 10 x 6-car and 2 x 3-car formations (indirectly) replacing 12 x 2-car class 158s. However I'm unsure how the directly released class 175s are supposed to interwork with the hypothetical remaining twelve class 158 on Birmingham - Cambrian/North Wales coast diagrams.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many units are required for the Cambrian services alone?

 

[northwichcat]

EMT seem to like long ECS runs. Shame the can't come to an arrangement with Northern to berth the units at Liverpool and provide some crew until an EMT crew can meet the stock en route. Very BR. Lol.

Problem is old Northern made the decision to move the FNW 158s to Neville Hill so there are no Lime Street crews who still sign 158s, so if EMT wanted to use Northern crews they'd presumably have to pay extra to have them working 158s or they'd have to use 156s on the early/late services.

 

[Class 170101]

Indeed. One of the reasons for the proposed Nottingham split is because other TPE services serve Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield so the western section would be less of an operational inconvenience than it is for EMT.

My view is still that this route should be part of XC and not TPE or EMT (and I know there are those who don't agree).

I would also be interested whether it would be acceptable for Warrington Central to lose its last regional service once TPE moves to the Newton Le Willow route.

Currently it has EMT between Liverpool and Norwich and TPE between Liverpool and the Scarborough / Northeast of England.

 

[bunnahabhain]

With regards to 5M06 it enables two guards and two drivers to retain road knowledge on Dore Curve, Chat Moss and Romiley. There is also currently an STP diagram running as required FSX at 2140 Liverpool to Nottingham via Chat Moss, Romiley, Dore Curve and on occasion Derby as well. All of this means as a passenger you are more likely to be kept moving during disruption, and the traincrew don't need a 'Road Review' day on those routes as often as they otherwise would. I've certainly never had any road review days because of 5M06 and various other ECS runs that take me over my diversions.

The current aspiration for the route for those who can change it is a more Intercity style offering, with a potential fleet of Bi-modes shared with MML services, so potentially you'd be seeing 1st class, hot food, longer and faster trains and a shorter journey time. Leave it as is, and you'll find there's a hell of a lot of latent demand that travel Norwich-North West via Doncaster as the online journey planner come out with it £1 cheaper or 1min faster. The number of times I've seen folk travelling Liverpool to Norwich, changing Manchester, Leeds and Peterborough only to rejoin exactly the same train baffles me!

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A couple of points.

Firstly, if a "crayonista" is someone who indulges in fantasies involving unlikely line construction/re-opening or complicated remapping of service patterns then what is the equivalent term for someone who is keen to make massive changes to current fleet dispositions to fit in with a crayonista fantasy? Because it seems there's a lot of it going on here! All this talk of taking 158s away from ATW is surely a complete non-starter. They were fitted, at some expense, with ETCS which is now a requirement for operating the Cambrian line services but which is unlikely to come into widespread operation elsewhere much before the 158s are life-expired. And some have mentioned the relatively modern depot at Machynlleth which is undoubtedly reducing the need for the units to go elsewhere for attention. Both these factors significantly reduces the cost effectiveness of any plans to send these 158s anywhere else. I really can't see them doing anything other than remaining where they are now apart from some small adjustments to their non-Cambrian operations. That's before we consider the cost and practicality of retro-fitting ETCS to current unit types.

Secondly, some assumptions have been made about the 185s and the scope for re-configuring their interiors. But when the EMT 158s were refurbished they came back with almost no tables or luggage stacks. In spite of these apparent disadvantages these units receive regular praise on here and not just in this thread. If the 185s received similar treatment with removed luggage stacks (as Siemens-built stock they have better overhead racks better than most other modern trains), tables confined to seat backs and first class removed I wonder just how many seats they could actually accommodate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the 185s received similar treatment with removed luggage stacks (as Siemens-built stock they have better overhead racks better than most other modern trains), tables confined to seat backs and first class removed I wonder just how many seats they could actually accommodate.

Not *quite* as many. The doors-at-about-thirds configuration limits your ability to add extra rows as you can't just shuffle seats along to the same extent.

Looking at a seating plan, if you converted 1st to standard, removed all luggage stacks and went all-airline except where you need the seating to reverse direction, I reckon you would go from the present 171 seats to 194, adding 23 seats. It *might* be possible to go as far as 198 if you add an extra row in the centre section that has almost all tables in coach B but the seats are quite upright so removing the tables may not provide as much extra space as you think.

That actually compares surprisingly well with the original Class 158/0 (3-car) layout at 207 seats, though that does allow for luggage racks which, if fitted to the 185 at the same size, would reduce 194 down to 182, which is still 25 seats short. Not to mention that the original Class 158 layout has a lot of tables - an airline-seated one might add another 12 seats per unit or even more if high density.

 

[northwichcat]

It *might* be possible to go as far as 198 if you add an extra row in the centre section that has almost all tables in coach B but the seats are quite upright so removing the tables may not provide as much extra space as you think.

The 3 car 170s have 198 seats so the same number should be possible on the 3 car 185s given the trains are the same length and they both have similar door layouts.

According to the Northern franchise agreement the 3 car 158s currently have 207 seats and will have 221 seats post-refurbishment.

 

[itfcfan]

The current aspiration for the route for those who can change it is a more Intercity style offering, with a potential fleet of Bi-modes shared with MML services, so potentially you'd be seeing 1st class, hot food, longer and faster trains and a shorter journey time.

Whose aspiration is this? As a passenger, it'd be great to see it happen (if you're referring to the entire Norwich-Liverpool corridor), but is any organisation documented in having this as their aspiration?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Not *quite* as many. The doors-at-about-thirds configuration limits your ability to add extra rows as you can't just shuffle seats along to the same extent.

Looking at a seating plan, if you converted 1st to standard, removed all luggage stacks and went all-airline except where you need the seating to reverse direction, I reckon you would go from the present 171 seats to 194, adding 23 seats. It *might* be possible to go as far as 198 if you add an extra row in the centre section that has almost all tables in coach B but the seats are quite upright so removing the tables may not provide as much extra space as you think.

That actually compares surprisingly well with the original Class 158/0 (3-car) layout at 207 seats, though that does allow for luggage racks which, if fitted to the 185 at the same size, would reduce 194 down to 182, which is still 25 seats short. Not to mention that the original Class 158 layout has a lot of tables - an airline-seated one might add another 12 seats per unit or even more if high density.

All of which demonstrates how ultimately all train designs are a compromise in one area or another. The reason 158s can fit what appears to be the highest number of seats is because they have such tiny vestibules but this means extended dwell times on any busy service. The 185s go the other way with decent size vestibules with few seats any distance from them so dwell times are minimised but seating capacity is reduced. In the end the ideal train from a passenger POV is simply long, but try fitting it on all platforms!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course they are - and the 185s, apart from being a coach or two too short, were a sensible compromise for TPE.

However, it could be argued that TPE is itself a poor compromise, and separate, but less frequent, "IC" and regional services would make more sense across the Pennines, with each using suitable stock for that type of service.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Of course they are - and the 185s, apart from being a coach or two too short, were a sensible compromise for TPE.

However, it could be argued that TPE is itself a poor compromise, and separate, but less frequent, "IC" and regional services would make more sense across the Pennines, with each using suitable stock for that type of service.

Ah yes, the German solution. Unfortunately it needs rather more track capacity than is available here. For trans-Pennine rail travel the only really significant capacity improvement on offer at the moment is HS3, if it ever happens. In the meantime more compromise it is then!

 

[g22]

The service between Nuneaton and the North West is inadequate to be touted as some sort of alternative to direct services from Leicester; Derby perhaps. If there were hourly Virgin services to Manchester calling then it would be great, but reality is that the Trent Valley stopper is slow North of Nuneaton and - whilst recognising the transformational impact of the service on the Trent Valley towns - doesn't really cut the mustard for a link between Leicester & the North West as a regional service.

Agree entirely. No need for me to respond any further to the original suggestion that Leicester has good connections to the North West through the WCML at Nuneaton.

 

[bunnahabhain]

Whose aspiration is this? As a passenger, it'd be great to see it happen (if you're referring to the entire Norwich-Liverpool corridor), but is any organisation documented in having this as their aspiration?

EMTs "A Railway For Growth" issued a few weeks back documents some of the aspirations, such as Ollerton, Cambridge, and Intercity style services on local routes. Other stuff not documented is insider knowledge that may or many not come to pass. Latest info from the secret squirrels involves two airport stations not currently served by EMT and a major Midlands destination and county that lack proper links.

 

[endecotp]

The number of times I've seen folk travelling Liverpool to Norwich, changing Manchester, Leeds and Peterborough only to rejoin exactly the same train baffles me!

They probably remember when it was possible to save an hour on this route (or to Cambridge) by doing those changes, or Sheffield and Doncaster. That was when it went via Leicester, not Nottingham-Grantham. Even now, it means you can stretch your legs and get something more interesting to eat than being stuck on the same train for all those hours.

 

[bunnahabhain]

They probably remember when it was possible to save an hour on this route (or to Cambridge) by doing those changes, or Sheffield and Doncaster. That was when it went via Leicester, not Nottingham-Grantham. Even now, it means you can stretch your legs and get something more interesting to eat than being stuck on the same train for all those hours.

Agreed, it's a route where having a proper hot food option would probably do quite well, the trolley service on carries a handful of sandwiches and they generally all sell, even with top up orders at Nottingham and Sheffield. I know I'd probably struggle with six hours on it end to end, that said, I'm sure with faster stock and lines peed improvements Nottingham to Grantham (signalled for 90mph now) you may be able to get it down to maybe five and a half hours, certainly westbound..

 

[dk1]

Agreed, it's a route where having a proper hot food option would probably do quite well, the trolley service on carries a handful of sandwiches and they generally all sell, even with top up orders at Nottingham and Sheffield. I know I'd probably struggle with six hours on it end to end, that said, I'm sure with faster stock and lines peed improvements Nottingham to Grantham (signalled for 90mph now) you may be able to get it down to maybe five and a half hours, certainly westbound..

But it's only 5h21 for most Eastbound now & they usually arrive 6 early.

 

[class26]

Agreed, it's a route where having a proper hot food option would probably do quite well, the trolley service on carries a handful of sandwiches and they generally all sell, even with top up orders at Nottingham and Sheffield. I know I'd probably struggle with six hours on it end to end, that said, I'm sure with faster stock and lines peed improvements Nottingham to Grantham (signalled for 90mph now) you may be able to get it down to maybe five and a half hours, certainly westbound..

Been waiting for years for the speed profile between Grantham and Nottingham to be sorted out. It is up and down all over the place, such a mess, i can`t imagine how much fuel is burnt accelerating away from lower PSR`s only to brake again a couple of miles later. It needs a proper sort out and could easily save 10 mins between Grantham and Notts, especially if 90mph was permitted (presumably up to the Trent ?)

 

[chubs]

Hot food is crazy. When everyone else is cutting back I cannot see any sane TOC introducing it. Most stations allow you to purchase food that is a lot better and cheaper than the microwave meal or microwave bacon roll the train would serve.

Increased capacity is far more important.

 

[Bevan Price]

Yes, under my proposal, half of the services between Liverpool and Nottingham , those operated by pairs of 185s, would gain only a small amount of additional capacity (plus a first class offering), whereas the other half would gain a greater amount of additional capacity being formed of 5 or 6-car class 158s.

Under your ATW-based proposal, how many class 185s would you intend to cascade? ATW have 24 class 158s, most of which are used on the Cambrian line, and of those that aren't many work Birmingham - North Wales services which I assume portion work at some point with units that do. As such, partial replacement of the class 158 fleet at ATW seems complicated.

If you propose that class 185s are used to displace class 175s from the North Wales Coast for use on the Cambrian line, assuming that ERTMS can be fitted to the 175s, then that allays some of my other concerns if 185s were used to replace 158s directly: That heavy class 185s may be unsuitable for the Cambrian line, and if the 185s were to continue to be maintained in Manchester then the future would not bode well for an important local employer in a fairly isolated area, in the form of the depot at Machynlleth which currently cares for the 158s. The same may be said of the 175s however in the latter case, which already have a dedicated maintenance facility at Chester, so it seems that Machynlleth depot may still be on thin ice under your proposal given that ATW have a contract with Alstom at Chester for the maintenance of the 175s there.

A big unknown is the next Wales franchise. If that requires ATW (or successor) to obtain new trains, then everything changes. Dependent on numbers of new units, some of the existing ATW fleet could become available for cascade.

I don't think any TOC would want to pay the cost of operating 6 car 185s to North Wales - but if they had to use 3 car 185s, the best solution would be to get rid of 1st class, which should make room for 20-30 more standard class seats.

As for Liverpool - Norwick, if it has to be split anywhere, I think Peterborough would be preferable to Nottingham. If we had a united rail system, instead of Major's daft fragmented franchises, it might have been feasible to have Liverpool services going alternately to Cambridge/ Stansted and Norwich/Yarmouth.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for Liverpool - Norwick, if it has to be split anywhere, I think Peterborough would be preferable to Nottingham. If we had a united rail system, instead of Major's daft fragmented franchises, it might have been feasible to have Liverpool services going alternately to Cambridge/ Stansted and Norwich/Yarmouth.

If you read upthread there seems to be hints of a proposal along exactly those lines.

 

[northwichcat]

Hot food is crazy. When everyone else is cutting back I cannot see any sane TOC introducing it.

Arriva seem to have a policy of changing the existing arrangements. On XC a trolley replaced the shop while on Northern facilities at stations will replace the trolley on former-TPE routes

 

[Bletchleyite]

Arriva seem to have a policy of changing the existing arrangements. On XC a trolley replaced the shop while on Northern facilities at stations will replace the trolley on former-TPE routes

Of course many stations don't have facilities - you'd think on places like the Barrow line a trolley might pay reasonably well compared with a South East commuter service where there's likely to be a (highly profitable) coffee franchise at most or all stations.

Isn't that why the Far North has one? No coffee kiosk at Altnabreac

As for hot food, I would agree it probably isn't justified. What has changed since the days of restaurant cars across the network is the imaginative and wide range of quality cold salads and sandwiches you can get - back then it was a proper meal or a curled-up cheese sandwich. Indeed, along those lines something you could do is quality cold food to order?

 

[Esker-pades]

Doesn't mean they can't be refurbished to have a higher seating density. After all the EMT 158s had less seats prior to refurbishment.

*fewer seats

Come on, your signature says that you should know better :P .

 

[northwichcat]

*fewer seats

Come on, your signature says that you should know better :P .

I went to a comprehensive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course many stations don't have facilities - you'd think on places like the Barrow line a trolley might pay reasonably well compared with a South East commuter service where there's likely to be a (highly profitable) coffee franchise at most or all stations.

I imagine they'll get two vending machines - one selling crisps, chocolate, cold drinks and a second doing instant drinks.

 

[Wolfie]

A big unknown is the next Wales franchise. If that requires ATW (or successor) to obtain new trains, then everything changes. Dependent on numbers of new units, some of the existing ATW fleet could become available for cascade.

It would seem highly unlikely that the Welsh Government, having paid towards refurbishing the 158s to an extremely high standard recently, would then mandate their replacement.

I don't think any TOC would want to pay the cost of operating 6 car 185s to North Wales - but if they had to use 3 car 185s, the best solution would be to get rid of 1st class, which should make room for 20-30 more standard class seats.

I agree. While most Desiros are very good trains I am afraid the 185s are a poor compromise which most TOCs will steer clear of.

As for Liverpool - Norwick, if it has to be split anywhere, I think Peterborough would be preferable to Nottingham. If we had a united rail system, instead of Major's daft fragmented franchises, it might have been feasible to have Liverpool services going alternately to Cambridge/ Stansted and Norwich/Yarmouth.

Others have highlighted the sound operational reasons for Nottingham. Also, firstly does Peterboro have the capacity to do that? Secondly is there any demand for Liverpool to Cambridge/Stansted. Thirdly, if we are going to be uber-crayonista why not alternative desitnations at the northern end?