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

[northwichcat]

The below is in the TPE franchise agreement meaning the option of the route being split up or the option of released 185s being used between Liverpool and Nottingham can't yet be dismissed.

Proposals for the Liverpool to Nottingham Services

9.1 Within 12 months of the Start Date (or such alternative later date as the Secretary of State may agree), the Franchisee shall:

(a) undertake a feasibility study for the purposes of identifying options (“EMT Services Options”) with regards to future service patterns that can be operated by the Franchisee in the event that the Secretary of State (at his sole discretion) elects to vary the train service requirement relating to the East Midlands Franchise such that the Franchisee assumes the responsibility for operating some or all of the railway passenger services between Liverpool and Nottingham. The EMT Services Options to be considered by the Franchisee shall include options which preserve the operation of through services between Liverpool and Norwich;

(b) consult with passengers, user groups, Network Rail and other relevant Stakeholders on the EMT Services Options that it is considering as part of the feasibility study required pursuant to paragraph 9.1(a); and

(c) prepare and submit to the Secretary of State a report which sets out the outcomes of the feasibility study undertaken pursuant to paragraph 9.1(a). Any such report shall include information relating to
(i) the EMT Services Options considered as part of the feasibility study required pursuant to paragraph 9.1(a) including the findings of the consultation undertaken pursuant to paragraph 9.1(b); and
(ii) the operational and financial consequences (if any) of implementing any of the EMT Services Options.

Following the submission of the report required pursuant to paragraph 9.1(c) the Franchisee shall:

(a) promptly respond to the Secretary of State’s reasonable queries in relation to such report (including the provision of such assistance as the Secretary of State may reasonably require in connection with the verification of any information contained in such report); and

(b) upon reasonable notice, attend any such meeting as the Secretary of State may reasonably require for the purposes of discussing the contents of such report.

For the purposes of paragraph 9.1, “East Midlands Franchise” means the rights tendered by the Secretary of State to operate certain railway passenger services identified by him as the East Midlands passenger services (or such other name as he may notify to the Franchisee for this purpose from time to time).

 

[LowLevel]

It's still an option but from what I can gather the general consensus is that it's likely to remain in some form or other. Certainly I think the number of through passengers is increasing though some trains are very quiet at the eastern end. Stagecoach I believe are looking at including some interesting proposals in their franchise bid.

 

[rishtonlad]

I have used the service a few times between Manchester and Nottingham and looking at the reserved seats there appears to always be a far number travelling across Nottingham

 

[Bungle965]

I have used the service a few times between Manchester and Nottingham and looking at the reserved seats there appears to always be a far number travelling across Nottingham

I have used it also quite a few times, all the way from Norwich to Manchester the last time was only about a month ago.
Sam

 

[chubs]

I've done Norwich to Manchester quite a few times, it's always busy with plenty of people travelling quite long distances. It would be a real shame if they split it.

 

[NSE]

I'd love to see it stay also, I like the long routes. However I've only used it in the short bursts that make the dft want to break it up! I've done Liverpool-Manchester, Manchester-Sheffield, Grantham-Peterborough and Peterborough-Ely, not too much left to complete

 

[Chester1]

Does the split need to be in Nottingham? How about combining Liverpool to Sheffield section with a Sheffield to London service? There is sufficient platform at Stockport, Piccadilly and Lime Street but probably not enough at Warrington and Liverpool South Parkway. There would be enough demand in medium term for EMT to fill 7 to 10 carriages. The existing 3 car TPE and 4 car EMT is appallingly inadequate capacity. Could time tablings be altered to make it work?

 

[43074]

Does the split need to be in Nottingham? How about combining Liverpool to Sheffield section with a Sheffield to London service? There is sufficient platform at Stockport, Piccadilly and Lime Street but probably not enough at Warrington and Liverpool South Parkway. There would be enough demand in medium term for EMT to fill 7 to 10 carriages. The existing 3 car TPE and 4 car EMT is appallingly inadequate capacity. Could time tablings be altered to make it work?

Yes... Doing that would lose the important Nottingham - Sheffield - Manchester direct link, and the service is very different either side of Nottingham, it becomes more like TPE between Nottingham and Liverpool. Trains and crew are also based in Nottingham, therefore if you were to split anywhere it would be there.

Best option IMO would be to leave it as is but perhaps forming some 3-car 158s to lengthen the busiest services to 5- or 6-cars West of Nottingham and 3 to the East where required (dependent on rolling stock changes freeing up the required 158s from local services), 7 or 10 cars would be overprovision to the point of stupidity.

 

[robbeech]

It used to be (for the most part) 3 car 170's back in the CT days and that seemed more sensible for the east of Nottingham part. I never travelled it west / north of there back in those days so I don't know if they used to join them up like they do now. The last couple of times I've been on the 4 car 158 variant between Manchester and Sheffield it was very busy and the 2 car variant between Norwich and Peterborough was also busy.

 

[northwichcat]

It used to be (for the most part) 3 car 170's back in the CT days and that seemed more sensible for the east of Nottingham part. I never travelled it west / north of there back in those days so I don't know if they used to join them up like they do now. The last couple of times I've been on the 4 car 158 variant between Manchester and Sheffield it was very busy and the 2 car variant between Norwich and Peterborough was also busy.

With CT it was lucky dip. You could get anything from 2 to 5 car and sometimes it was 158s, other times it was 170s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes... Doing that would lose the important Nottingham - Sheffield - Manchester direct link, and the service is very different either side of Nottingham, it becomes more like TPE between Nottingham and Liverpool. Trains and crew are also based in Nottingham, therefore if you were to split anywhere it would be there.

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. Extending a St Pancras to Sheffield service to Liverpool creates more problems than splitting at Sheffield and less solutions.

 

[43074]

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. Extending a St Pancras to Sheffield service to Liverpool creates more problems than splitting at Sheffield and less solutions.

I don't think it's as an operational inconvenience for EMT at all... The service is worked by train crew primarily based at Nottingham, but with a few in Norwich, the stock is based in Nottingham and they have put a fair bit of effort into the service over the past few years. Since Central days the service has also become far more reliable, being turfed off at Warrington or Ely due to late running are rare these days as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is good news given that the service had a serious punctuality problem right back into 1990s BR.

 

[Chester1]

The other option would be to combine with Nottingham to London HST services. Extra rolling stock would be easy to obtain in the next couple of years. Southbound there is 5 minute gap between the service from Liverpool arriving in Nottingham and the service to London departing. Northbound would require alterations because the London service arrives in Nottingham 8 minutes after the service to Liverpool departs. The Manchester - Sheffield needs at least 6 cars. 9 would allow the TPE service to stay at 3 and use some of the 185s elsewhere.

 

[Haydn1971]

Four cars between Sheffield and Manchester is now starting to show strain - mostly just enough, except for Friday's, edges of university holidays and especially through Sep/Oct silly season. It's been said before that the left over 185s could deliver a mostly six car service between Liverpool and Nottingham, leaving something else to do Nottingham to Norwich. But hopefully the EMT franchise will rustle up something better when it's renewed, maybe something like diesel version of the CAF 397, a Flirt bi-mode, or perhaps simply 222s cascaded by whatever takes over the mainline to London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thing is that 185s have a very space-wasting layout. So 6 cars of 185 is very little more than 4 of 158.

Better would be to cascade more 158s using said 185s to allow 6-car from Liverpool to Nottingham, thence 2. You could perhaps send them to ATW (allowing maintenance to continue to take place at Manchester) and then they can cascade some of their 158s - which would probably be the best fit, as they already have the same seats and would just require new covers.

 

[Haydn1971]

The thing is that 185s have a very space-wasting layout. So 6 cars of 185 is very little more than 4 of 158. Better would be to cascade more 158s to allow 6-car from Liverpool to Nottingham, thence 2.

Agreed, I'm slowly starting to dislike the 185s as a unit, the EMT 158s are more comfortable when the air con works of course

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed, I'm slowly starting to dislike the 185s as a unit, the EMT 158s are more comfortable when the air con works of course

I wouldn't say I dislike them, it's just that with First Class, a low-density layout and doors at quarters (ish) they need to be longer than they are (and would need 6 and 9-car formations to give similar capacity to 4 and 6-car 158s).

 

[sprinterguy]

Does it have to be all or nothing in terms of who serves the Liverpool - Nottingham section of the route? Could not a bi-hourly Transpennine Express service, utilising 6-car class 185 formations, operate between Liverpool and Nottingham in alternate hours to an EMT Liverpool - Norwich service (with a corresponding EMT Nottingham - Norwich "short" service in the same hour as the TPE service)? Through connections across Nottingham would be retained, albeit at half the frequency of the present, and capacity would be increased on the busiest section north and west of Nottingham.

A bi-hourly TPE Liverpool - Nottingham service could be operated by six units in three pairs, with 20 minute turnarounds at each end. Assuming that the vast majority of Liverpool - Norwich services currently operate as 4-cars at least between Liverpool and Nottingham, this would release six corresponding class 158 units, which could be split by EMT to allow the formation of up to 12 x 3-car "hybrid" class 158s to operate as 5 and 6-car formations between Liverpool and Nottingham.

We might even see some healthy competition on advance fares between Transpennine and East Midlands.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We might even see some healthy competition on advance fares between Transpennine and East Midlands.

So complicating things for passengers just in aid of more fallacious competition.

The car is the competition. There is absolutely no need for this kind of thing.

 

[sprinterguy]

The car is the competition. There is absolutely no need for this kind of thing.

It wasn't the primary aim, but I would have thought that the availability of cheap fares and, more importantly, capacity raised from four to six carriages on the majority of services (a handful that are a minimum five) would do much to encourage people away from their cars.

 

[Failed Unit]

I hope it stays as it is, I know more rolling stock isn't going to appear by magic but 4 car throughout with 6 on selected workings between Nottingham & Liverpool.

Making the service Sheffield - Liverpool would be unacceptable the flow from Nottingham is too large.

I don't get why the think TPE should take over, why not EMT take over the Cleethorpes route? Added benefit there is EMT won't need to run as many ECS to Lincoln from Grimsby.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It wasn't the primary aim, but I would have thought that the availability of cheap fares and, more importantly, capacity raised from four to six carriages on the majority of services (a handful that are a minimum five) would do much to encourage people away from their cars.

It's been pointed out, though, that 6-185 barely offers any more capacity, other than standing, than 4-158.

What is needed is 6-158. Or I suppose you could reseat them to a higher density layout, but it's harder to do that with doors at thirds because you can't necessarily stick an extra row in if that would result in no legroom at all.

I reckon 6-car 185s on North Wales services, 158s to EMT.

 

[43074]

The other option would be to combine with Nottingham to London HST services. Extra rolling stock would be easy to obtain in the next couple of years. Southbound there is 5 minute gap between the service from Liverpool arriving in Nottingham and the service to London departing. Northbound would require alterations because the London service arrives in Nottingham 8 minutes after the service to Liverpool departs. The Manchester - Sheffield needs at least 6 cars. 9 would allow the TPE service to stay at 3 and use some of the 185s elsewhere.

Combining with the MML High Speed Services isn't an option at all really - it's been talked of in the past as a way of providing improved connectivity between Leicester/Derby and Manchester but nothing has come of it (yet - EMT published a report recently which suggested improved links between the East Midlands & the North West should be something for the next franchise, but sadly that report has little bearing on what actually happens unless Stagecoach win).

 

[northwichcat]

The thing is that 185s have a very space-wasting layout. So 6 cars of 185 is very little more than 4 of 158.

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.

 

[BlueFox]

I travelled on this service from Nottingham to Manchester for the first time yesterday.
I don't know how many people were already on the train, as I boarded one of the coaches that was added at Nottingham, but there were quite a few from Nottingham going to Manchester and beyond.

When I bought the ticket I was a bit concerned about spending two hours on a 158. The Northern 158s I've experienced have so little legroom it's physically impossible for me to sit in an airline seat. I've previously avoided this route for that reason. The EMT 158 is like a completely different train though. Comfortable seats and plenty of legroom. Better than some newer trains that are designed for longer distances.

 

[sprinterguy]

It's been pointed out, though, that 6-185 barely offers any more capacity, other than standing, than 4-158.

What is needed is 6-158.

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.

 

[tbtc]

How about combining Liverpool to Sheffield section with a Sheffield to London service? There is sufficient platform at Stockport, Piccadilly and Lime Street but probably not enough at Warrington and Liverpool South Parkway. There would be enough demand in medium term for EMT to fill 7 to 10 carriages. The existing 3 car TPE and 4 car EMT is appallingly inadequate capacity. Could time tablings be altered to make it work?

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).

I don't think it's as an operational inconvenience for EMT at all... The service is worked by train crew primarily based at Nottingham, but with a few in Norwich, the stock is based in Nottingham and they have put a fair bit of effort into the service over the past few years

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"?

Four cars between Sheffield and Manchester is now starting to show strain - mostly just enough, except for Friday's, edges of university holidays and especially through Sep/Oct silly season. It's been said before that the left over 185s could deliver a mostly six car service between Liverpool and Nottingham, leaving something else to do Nottingham to Norwich. But hopefully the EMT franchise will rustle up something better when it's renewed, maybe something like diesel version of the CAF 397, a Flirt bi-mode, or perhaps simply 222s cascaded by whatever takes over the mainline to London.

I can't see the 222s going anywhere other than XC (once freed up).

I think that the Sheffield to Manchester capacity is partly the responsibility of TPE - but that relies on them getting new stock for their priority routes and then cascading some "spare" 185s onto the Hope Valley route that they tend to neglect.

(I don't know who prices the flows over the Hope Valley, in terms of whether it's a TPE route or an EMT route - but it feels like EMT have almost doubled their seating in recent years whilst TPE are still running three coach units a decade later)

The thing is that 185s have a very space-wasting layout. So 6 cars of 185 is very little more than 4 of 158.

Better would be to cascade more 158s using said 185s to allow 6-car from Liverpool to Nottingham, thence 2. You could perhaps send them to ATW (allowing maintenance to continue to take place at Manchester) and then they can cascade some of their 158s - which would probably be the best fit, as they already have the same seats and would just require new covers.

Agreed re 185s - best used on routes that don't need loads of capacity - hence perfect for Manchester Airport (thirtysomething passengers per train).

But I'm less convinced re giving Wales & Borders some 185s - given that they'll need 158s on the Cambrian for the foreseeable future plus they also have the awkward fleet of 175s - would a third fleet of longer distance train (whilst reducing the number of 158s) help or hinder them?

I don't get why the think TPE should take over, why not EMT take over the Cleethorpes route? Added benefit there is EMT won't need to run as many ECS to Lincoln from Grimsby.

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

To some extent - having short saloons makes it difficult to cram an extra row in. That is amply demonstrated by the Class 350/1 and /3, where the centre section is a *bit* too tight, but it's that or lose a row and make it probably way too generous for a commuter train. With a saloon about 20m long, putting one extra row in is a bit easier.

 

[sprinterguy]

To some extent - having short saloons makes it difficult to cram an extra row in. That is amply demonstrated by the Class 350/1 and /3, where the centre section is a *bit* too tight, but it's that or lose a row and make it probably way too generous for a commuter train. With a saloon about 20m long, putting one extra row in is a bit easier.

There's also the fact that, without some more extensive underfloor re-engineering to move toilet tanks around, etc, you essentially lose a whole cab end ahead of the leading set of doors to the disabled toilet on a class 185, even if you did convert one to all standard class or attempt to squeeze an extra row or two of seats in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Ah. Whereas in my proposal all services gain about 130 seats, a real difference.

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.

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

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.

Yes, I would propose that all North Wales Coast services, and all Llandudno-Manchester services, would be operated by pairs of Class 185s. Perhaps even better would be if they were in permanently coupled pairs of which one would become Standard only, and the other would have an entire end coach (the one without the bog) converted to First Class.

For all it would be sad to lose the jobs, Mach depot is not a reason not to do something that makes sense. However, it is possible, I suppose, depending on the number of units required, that Mach depot could retain 158s to use on self-contained Cambrian (-Birmingham) services only, with all other ATW express services going over to 175s maintained at Chester. Indeed, a few extra 158s there, rather than fewer, might help resolve the capacity problem on those services, with the possibility of something like all trains from Birmingham being 6-158 with 4 going to Aber and 2 to Pwllheli on every service.