They're not talking about the length of the vehicles & trains, but the length of the route, as a comparison of other countries high speed operations on limited length routes.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
My idea for: Pendolinos for Norwich!
- Thread starter Thumper Bill
- Start date
- Status
They're not talking about the length of the vehicles & trains, but the length of the route, as a comparison of other countries high speed operations on limited length routes.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Surely the power cars are no wider than a Mk3 coach?
Taken in 1997?
It may have been cleared back then in RailTrack days, but I know for a fact that the 43 is not Route Cleared on the LTN currently.
@Yorkie, the route clearance process takes into account the suspension characteristics of every vehicle, the length of the vehicle profile, the location of steps etc. I found that it wasn't the dimensions of the Class 43 that were a problem with the structures, rather the location of the steps.
ryan125hst
Established Member
Whoops! I didn't read that properly. The width of the trains would cause a problem though as they would end up striking the platforms and hitting the trains traveling in the opposite direction!
yorkie said:
My thoughts exactly! Aren't they shorter than the Mk3's, so if anything, would be able to be cleared for more routes?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
They are only 17.80 meters long, but it's irrelevant if there is a clearance problem with the steps.
Why do the steps cause a problem on that route?
I can't give you a definite answer. They shouldn't cause a problem. Theoretically you should be able to run every standard gauge train on every route, but some platforms are lower/higher and closer/further away from the rail than others.
Some platforms may be tighter than others, and it would be these platforms that would cause the gauging infringement. Although, for 99% of platforms the gauge would be fine. It only takes that one to render the gauge fowl of the structure and therefore the gauge (class 43 in this case) is not route cleared.
Some platforms may be tighter than others, and it would be these platforms that would cause the gauging infringement. Although, for 99% of platforms the gauge would be fine. It only takes that one to render the gauge fowl of the structure and therefore the gauge (class 43 in this case) is not route cleared.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Route clearance is often just a matter of paperwork (with the exception of 165/166s). HSTs aren't currently cleared on the GEML because they run nowhere near it, so why go to the bother of the paperwork?
I'm sure Pacers would fit okay on the GEML too, but may not be cleared because they've never been likely to use those lines.
Shinkansen - is there anything it isn't the answer for?
Seriously though, Norwich is a pretty small place and I can't see that kind of investment being viable for that population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population (137)
Well I don't think anyone is suggesting using Japanese trains off the shelf, as it were, but a similar style of operation with UK rolling stock. Though I guess if you were to do it properly you'd end up with an entirely new route so gauging wouldn't be such an issue.
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,021
Sectional Appendix concurs; Class 43 not cleared for the GEML.
Although the fact that they have run in service on the line in the past would indicate that getting clearance would be a formality rather than having to rip half the platforms up and demolish a load of bridges to make them fit.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,337
Well I was proposing building virtually an all new line for the route to Norwich so it would be built to accept Shinkansen width trains, allowing for decent width 3+2 trains to increase seating capacity even if double deckers were considered no go for dwell time reasons.
There would be shrunk trains similar in size to Cl395s to run on routes off the line to places like Clacton or Harwich obviously.
Shinkansen - is there anything it isn't the answer for?
Seriously though, Norwich is a pretty small place and I can't see that kind of investment being viable for that population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population (137)
Well everyone always blames the old nature of our existing railway network for why we can't widely adopt things like double decker trains or intercity sets with 3+2 seats, or 400m long trains as standard.
The obvious solution to this would seem to be to build a new network almost from scratch.
And the cost would indeed by rather high, but we are effectively talking about having to build a new transport infrastructure almost from scratch over the next 20-30 years, why not just do it properly and be able to live off of it for the next hundred years as the Victorians did 100-150 years ago?
Also you have to include other areas along the route, like Braintree, Colchester and Chelmsford which is for some reason larger that Norwich.
Also I imagine the cost of these projects would drop to levels similar to those seen in Japan if we had a rolling construction programme (both of infrastructure and rolling stock).
Pretty misleading list since it ranks districts rather than settlements. Norwich has the 37th largest urban area, comparable to Northampton:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom
Also ranks in the top 30 cities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_United_Kingdom
eastdyke
Established Member
Yes, good old wiki can be misleading!
Norwich City (around 140,000) does not include the populations of South Norfolk & Broadland District Councils who live within the contiguous conurbation of 'Norwich' which is now probably getting up towards 200,000.
And peeps go to Norwich in far larger numbers than those who go to Chelmsford!! (rather than go home to).
(Politically) I see Norwich getting a slice of overt investment well before 2030.
tbtc
Veteran Member
But nobody would propose a new high speed line just to link London to Northampton, by the same token.
Given the population (and population density) of East Anglia, the current Norwich service is probably about as good as it's going to get (bar the eventual replacement of loco hauled with EMUs to fit an extra coach worth of capacity on the trains)
If it was 100-110mph capable EMUs, you'd potentially get almost two full extra carriages- I bet even with bikes the DVT is usually pretty much empty!
Much of the above re populations is why I suggest it as a branch off a "via Cambridge" Great Northern Shinkansen (headed for Edinburgh via east coast locations)
Much of the above re populations is why I suggest it as a branch off a "via Cambridge" Great Northern Shinkansen (headed for Edinburgh via east coast locations)
eastdyke
Established Member
You are right of course Norwich does not need a 'high speed line'.
But, if you want to compare with Northampton:
Annual station entries & exits Northampton 2004/05 ~ 1.855m, 2010/11 ~ 2.496m, an increase of 35% in 6 years.
Annual station entries & exits Norwich 2004/05 ~ 2.422m, 2010/11 ~ 3.749m, an increase of 55% in 6 years.
Better make that investment another extra coach if First are in with a shout for the next franchise
(figures rounded from ORR Data)
They were looking at using the NMT vs the TRU on GEML, thats why they wanted the gauging clearance sorted.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,337
Well I did propose a West Midland Shinkansen to Birmingham via Northampton and a bunch of other places that would effectively enable all ICWC services to be withdrawn from the southern WCML without loosing connectivity........ and leads to an all shacks train doing the journey in a similar time to todays normal services....
You sound like the same old broken record to be honest. Pendilinos are horrible, they are very cramped as the sides slope inwards so they can tilt. I am quite tall and hate travelling on them, an awful awful design. The only reason ppl like them is because they can't bear to be away from the Internet or not have a plug socket to charge their mobile devices! Mk3's are exceptionally well designed coaches and very comfortable. They are not "knackered" as chiltern have proved. They just need a cosmetic make over. Why do ppl not realise new trains cost hundreds of millions for a new fleet. Much much cheaper to refurb the stock you already have that was built at a time things were built properly.
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,856
With Mk3s though you'd never be allowed above 110mph on the WCML and it could be argued would have made a lot of the line upgrade pointless.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also would 3tph to Birmingham and Manchester, and 1tph to Liverpool and Glasgow have been possible with just Mk3s? Was there a sufficient amount of them to maintain these frequencies? Also, how does the seating capacity of a Mk3 compare to that of an 11-car 390?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also would 3tph to Birmingham and Manchester, and 1tph to Liverpool and Glasgow have been possible with just Mk3s? Was there a sufficient amount of them to maintain these frequencies? Also, how does the seating capacity of a Mk3 compare to that of an 11-car 390?
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,856
I'm not thinking like an accountant, I'm thinking about how a modern, 21st Century transport system needs to work on the busiest main line in Britain. We can't keep on with things because they are nice and traditional. More people than ever are now using trains in Britain and the system can't be allowed to be held back because the older trains were nicer. Further to this, how many people who actually use these trains dislike them? I'd be tempted to say 95%+ of passengers on a 390 actually think they're good trains, certainly heard people commenting such yesterday.
I'm sure if you asked ppl to compare the newly refurbed chiltern mk3's to the pendo's ppl would vote for the mk3's. I understand ppl want modern 21st cent trains with the Internet etc freely available but would cost hundreds of millions of £s. so why not refurb what we have? But I would ask why new trains can't be designed on the mk3. It is arguably the best designed coach ever made.
sprinterguy
Veteran Member
Even without doing the maths, there were a fair number of mark 2 rakes used on the West Coast alongside the mark 3s and of course the frequencies on each corridor were considerably lower in loco hauled days, so it is easy to see that the same frequencies as we enjoy now could not be supported by the mark 3 fleet alone. There must have been no more than about thirty five mark 3 sets on the West Coast.
It can also be expected that Virgin's typical eight carriage mark 3 rakes would seat less (380 in standard class) than an eleven carriage Pendolino, which seat 444 in standard class, plus additional tip-up seats.
tbtc
Veteran Member
The problem with these arguments is that a lot of people believe that they know what the Great British Public want - it all depends on the question you ask though.
Is a Mk3's nicer interior nice enough to cope with the lack of tilt (so slower speed on the WCML)?
Can anyone argue on the best seats? That's really subjective.
How much trade off do you put between plugs/ wifi and space?
How much of this really matters to passenger numbers? (Virgin Trains don't seem to have lost a significant number of passengers, as far as I am aware?)
...but some people are convinced that *their* view just happens to be the one that the majority of people want.
Manchester77
Established Member
exactly we cannot keep going on refurbishing what we have because otherwise our infrastructural will reach a point where we have to spend astronomical amounts of money overhauling everything. the wcml's fleet was built mainly in the 60s and 70s. I'm not saying that there not a good build but there comes a point when things just aren't fit for purpose and then we need to stock putting a new seat cover over the problem and actually invest in something better and more long term. we don't just get rid of the stuff we then recycle them for other jobs (mk 3s Ganglia)
he's not he's thinking logically and so you want to keep older, less practicle units on a major trunk route because they have nice seats and when you use it you'll be happy. practicability need to come before comforts.
see my first post...
and what are your points to back up your argument (economic, social etc etc)
I suggest you re-read my post. I was suggesting that if they spent some money on the current stock and marketing the route properly, people would stop suggesting that it needs new fast trains. I was certainly not suggesting that pendo's would be a good idea, because it's madness.
The vast majority of the travelling public think like accountants. They want to be able to get from A-B for as little money as possible, and are happy enough putting up with creaking, rattling, noisy old stock if it's cheap enough. If everyone was primarily concerned with comfort then the first class carriages would never have an empty seat.
Sadly, many of the above responses confirm what us East Anglians knew already - to the majority of people, East Anglia is a rural backwater that is rather quaint, but otherwise unimportant.
As an example, the idea that Norwich deserves nothing better than a minor branch line from Cambridge, presumably stopping the GEML at Colchester (AKA the edge of the known world as far as most people are concerned). Might us inbreds be allowed to reuse the trackbed between here and the civilised world as a new road to supplement the A140 and A11?:roll:
As an example, the idea that Norwich deserves nothing better than a minor branch line from Cambridge, presumably stopping the GEML at Colchester (AKA the edge of the known world as far as most people are concerned). Might us inbreds be allowed to reuse the trackbed between here and the civilised world as a new road to supplement the A140 and A11?:roll:
tbtc
Veteran Member
Just dealing with the reality of the situation - Norwich isn't a huge place, any upgrade over 100mph would cause problems with the large number of level crossings in that flat part of the world...
...apologies if I don't suggest HS3 for the area.
I hasten to add that the OP's suggestion is pretty OTT as far as I'm concerned; my point is that some comments (not yours, BTW) have been pretty dismissive. Oh, and FYI, the countryside along that route may not be up to the topographical standards of your area, but it isn't the Fens, either. Given that the Norwich-Ely route is being resignalled with gated crossings being replaced with MCB-OD equipment, there could be a case for replacement of the AHB-X crossings on the GEML with MCB-OD installations to enable 110 mph running, along with necessary signalling modifications?
tbtc
Veteran Member
I think that it'd be a lot easier to justify increased line speeds if the level crossing situation was sorted out. There may be some electric 125mph stock available in a few years time (i.e. the 91/ Mk4s, depending on the IEP situation), which would give the GEML a decent case for an upgrade.
Even 90s can do 110 okay, so there's scope for speed improvements with the existing stock.
But one problem it'll always have is that the fast Norwich service is going to be the only "Inter City" service for the Liverpool Street TOC (however you split up TOC boundaries), which may make EMUs more tempting.
(as for "topography" - I know a few people who moved from East Anglia to South Yorkshire when Norwich Union were shifting jobs around a few years ago and like to complain about the hills here
)- Status