• 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!

GEML Capacity Study - possible new locos and Mk3 refurbishment?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
2,581
[Fantasy]Some want Mk 3s, some want EMUs. Why not take the 24 Class 442s, rebuild with a new a.c. traction package (pantograph on the motor coach), Chiltern style power doors in place of the original plug doors and completely revamped interiors.[/Fantasy]
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

F1Ken

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2012
Messages
41
Being a regular GEML user, the 321's and Mark 3's are just the right stock in my opinion for the line, they just need a refurbishment! Watch out for 321448 emerging from Doncaster soon... But in my opinion, do the following and you're sorted:

Refurbish the 321's with 2+2 seating and a DDA toilet in the DTCO. Rip out the toilets in the TSOL, which gives a TSO, an MSO and DTSO just for standard class seating, nothing else. by my reckoning, you would only lose about 30-40 seats per unit which are quite often not used as a lot of people don't sit in the middle seats of the bays of 3. As for the Traction Package, it was ruled not cost effective to re-do the SWT 455's which still have EE507 motors over 40 years old, so I doubt you'll get new traction packages to replace 24 year old Brush Traction motors. Just overhaul them heavily and the bogie's too, and you're good to go I think. No need for A/C in my opinion either, expensive, space consuming which there might not be enough anyway, and even on hot summers days the hopper windows provide plenty of air!

Overhaul the Mark 3's as Chiltern have, new seats, DDA toilets, retention tanks and plug doors, get some TRAXX's to run with these, and new DVT's. There's a bit of a cascade opportunity here too. With the 5 360's from HEx being redundant soon, bung them together with the 21 FGE units, make 'em up to 110mph and deploy them on the ECML and deploy them on the residual peak-hour semi-fasts post-Thameslink. Cascade the 12 317's, and the 13 321's back to Anglia. With LM eventually getting the 350/4's from TPE after a few years, you can displace the 7 321's here, over to Anglia too. The 20 321's replace the 20 diagrammed 360's with a shortfall of one set which I'm sure can be made up. The 12 317's go to West Anglia along with the 9 317/7's, which can replace the 18 or so 315's in use on Enfield and Chingford services. This provides the whole fleet of 61 315's which can be moved onto the Valley's or wherever they are needed. There might be around 3 317's spare once you've taken this into account, so you could diagram a triplet on the GEML in the peak which allows 3 321's to strengthen elsewhere.

With this plan you get one fleet for the GEML outer-suburban services which are fit for purpose and inexpensive to keep going, and I'm sure you reduce maintenance costs and diagramming complexity and train-crew competency issues by having just one fleet. Same with the WA by eradicating the 315's, and you do this all and providing a little extra capacity for a fraction of the cost of ordering new trains! :)

That sound like a great plan! And I agree about the AC for the 321's not needed. And you would loose that great sound!
 

Pugwash

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2011
Messages
337
Being a regular GEML user, the 321's and Mark 3's are just the right stock in my opinion for the line, they just need a refurbishment! Watch out for 321448 emerging from Doncaster soon... But in my opinion, do the following and you're sorted:

Refurbish the 321's with 2+2 seating and a DDA toilet in the DTCO. Rip out the toilets in the TSOL, which gives a TSO, an MSO and DTSO just for standard class seating, nothing else. by my reckoning, you would only lose about 30-40 seats per unit which are quite often not used as a lot of people don't sit in the middle seats of the bays of 3. As for the Traction Package, it was ruled not cost effective to re-do the SWT 455's which still have EE507 motors over 40 years old, so I doubt you'll get new traction packages to replace 24 year old Brush Traction motors. Just overhaul them heavily and the bogie's too, and you're good to go I think. No need for A/C in my opinion either, expensive, space consuming which there might not be enough anyway, and even on hot summers days the hopper windows provide plenty of air!

Overhaul the Mark 3's as Chiltern have, new seats, DDA toilets, retention tanks and plug doors, get some TRAXX's to run with these, and new DVT's. There's a bit of a cascade opportunity here too. With the 5 360's from HEx being redundant soon, bung them together with the 21 FGE units, make 'em up to 110mph and deploy them on the ECML and deploy them on the residual peak-hour semi-fasts post-Thameslink. Cascade the 12 317's, and the 13 321's back to Anglia. With LM eventually getting the 350/4's from TPE after a few years, you can displace the 7 321's here, over to Anglia too. The 20 321's replace the 20 diagrammed 360's with a shortfall of one set which I'm sure can be made up. The 12 317's go to West Anglia along with the 9 317/7's, which can replace the 18 or so 315's in use on Enfield and Chingford services. This provides the whole fleet of 61 315's which can be moved onto the Valley's or wherever they are needed. There might be around 3 317's spare once you've taken this into account, so you could diagram a triplet on the GEML in the peak which allows 3 321's to strengthen elsewhere.

With this plan you get one fleet for the GEML outer-suburban services which are fit for purpose and inexpensive to keep going, and I'm sure you reduce maintenance costs and diagramming complexity and train-crew competency issues by having just one fleet. Same with the WA by eradicating the 315's, and you do this all and providing a little extra capacity for a fraction of the cost of ordering new trains! :)

and there speaks someone who has not used the GEML in the peak, all seats are used and the trains are full and standing.

The 321's are also very tired, they need new seats, the hotchpotch of ex first class seats scattered in various units standardised and new toilets.

The lack of AC outside the peak may not be required, but try being on a full and standing 321 in the summer, it is like an oven, in the winter they are incredibly humid. Given the climate is warming another 4c in the summer and they would be dangerously warm.

Given new units will be required for the network, it would be better to build new trains fit for purpose in the 21st century and to totally refurbish the 321's for re-distribution around the network, GA does not have enough spare units to allow for the units they have to be fully refurbished.
 

captainbigun

Member
Joined
3 May 2009
Messages
977
and there speaks someone who has not used the GEML in the peak, all seats are used and the trains are full and standing.

The 321's are also very tired, they need new seats, the hotchpotch of ex first class seats scattered in various units standardised and new toilets.

The lack of AC outside the peak may not be required, but try being on a full and standing 321 in the summer, it is like an oven, in the winter they are incredibly humid. Given the climate is warming another 4c in the summer and they would be dangerously warm.

Given new units will be required for the network, it would be better to build new trains fit for purpose in the 21st century and to totally refurbish the 321's for re-distribution around the network, GA does not have enough spare units to allow for the units they have to be fully refurbished.

+1

If the 360s are moved elsewhere there will be armageddon.
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
9,717
Location
Croydon
I would favour refurbishing the MK3s and replacing the 90s. There should (well will be eventually) be plenty of freight work for them.

Surprised the 321s cannot go above 100mph. Never mind cascade them. Maybe that is what the toc (Govia iirc) that runs Southern is asking for quotes for (110mph emus) just a vague connection.

Back in reality its so obvious - need I explain. What a wonderfull excuse to buy more IEPs and therefore help justify the ongoing folly :roll:. Gosh I hope I have not given DaFT an idea.
 
Last edited:

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,194
Being a regular GEML user, the 321's and Mark 3's are just the right stock in my opinion for the line, they just need a refurbishment! Watch out for 321448 emerging from Doncaster soon... But in my opinion, do the following and you're sorted:

Refurbish the 321's with 2+2 seating and a DDA toilet in the DTCO. Rip out the toilets in the TSOL, which gives a TSO, an MSO and DTSO just for standard class seating, nothing else. by my reckoning, you would only lose about 30-40 seats per unit which are quite often not used as a lot of people don't sit in the middle seats of the bays of 3. As for the Traction Package, it was ruled not cost effective to re-do the SWT 455's which still have EE507 motors over 40 years old, so I doubt you'll get new traction packages to replace 24 year old Brush Traction motors. Just overhaul them heavily and the bogie's too, and you're good to go I think. No need for A/C in my opinion either, expensive, space consuming which there might not be enough anyway, and even on hot summers days the hopper windows provide plenty of air!

Overhaul the Mark 3's as Chiltern have, new seats, DDA toilets, retention tanks and plug doors, get some TRAXX's to run with these, and new DVT's. There's a bit of a cascade opportunity here too. With the 5 360's from HEx being redundant soon, bung them together with the 21 FGE units, make 'em up to 110mph and deploy them on the ECML on the residual peak-hour semi-fasts post-Thameslink. Cascade the 12 317's, and the 13 321's back to Anglia. With LM eventually getting the 350/4's from TPE after a few years, you can displace the 7 321's here, over to Anglia too. The 20 321's replace the 20 diagrammed 360's with a shortfall of one set which I'm sure can be made up. The 12 317's go to West Anglia along with the 9 317/7's, which can replace the 18 or so 315's in use on Enfield and Chingford services. This provides the whole fleet of 61 315's which can be moved onto the Valley's or wherever they are needed. There might be around 3 317's spare once you've taken this into account, so you could diagram a triplet on the GEML in the peak which allows 3 321's to strengthen elsewhere.

With this plan you get one fleet for the GEML outer-suburban services which are fit for purpose and inexpensive to keep going, and I'm sure you reduce maintenance costs and diagramming complexity and train-crew competency issues by having just one fleet. Same with the WA by eradicating the 315's, and you do this all and providing a little extra capacity for a fraction of the cost of ordering new trains! :)

Sounds better than my own ideas, apart from that the two ACs have been proposed for all 317s and 321s/322s - see later. I have used 350s a number of times and found them to be quite pleasant, despite each trip using crowded /2s. The acceleration seems quieter than that of an Electrostar, true? I was thinking about installing gangways onto the entire 360 fleet and making up new trains from the HC 5th if possible; GN use depends on how my dad likes them ;) - But that would allow the 365s to be released as a complete set of 40, like the 61 315s in this plan, and the 360s could standardise somewhat with the Desiro City. Would 26 360s do for King's Lynn too - instead of IEP?


... Given new units will be required for the network, it would be better to build new trains fit for purpose in the 21st century and to totally refurbish the 321's for re-distribution around the network, GA does not have enough spare units to allow for the units they have to be fully refurbished.

With the details that have been released of the 317 and 321 refurbishment, treated units will likely turn out better than when first built, and comparable to new trains! There will be spares initially - 8/9 317/7 and later ex-GN 317, 12 and 321, 13, and possibly the Pretendolino to release the 321 Norwich diagram. 315 and 360 can be rid of on Anglia later.

As a(nother) side note, how different are the Mk3 and PEP EMUs in operation?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I would favour refurbishing the MK3s and replacing the 90s. There should (well will be eventually) be plenty of freight work for them.

As do the majority of us, it seems. I doubt we'll be short of electric freight locomotion for a while yet; 86, 90, 92...

Surprised the 321s cannot go above 100mph. Never mind cascade them. Maybe that is what the toc (Govia iirc) that runs Southern is asking for quotes for (110mph emus) just a vague connection.

I'm not surprised considering their age and the day of their build. The Southern-led 116+150 procurement has a direct link to GEML - and we'll be seeing 321s running at 155mph on HS1 next week...

Back in reality its so obvious - need I explain. What a wonderfull excuse to buy more IEPs and therefore help justify the ongoing folly :roll:. Gosh I hope I have not given DaFT an idea.

For replacing the suburban Anglia fleet? No...
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
19,874
Location
East Anglia
and possibly the Pretendolino to release the 321 Norwich diagram. 315 and 360 can be rid of on Anglia later..

As mentioned many times before there isnt a 321 Norwich diagram. Its just an extension stopper to Norwich (totally unsuitable to hauled stock) which forms an additional & un-needed 19.30 back up road.
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,851
Location
UK
The ex First Great Eastern 321's are not in bad need of a refurbishment, but it certainly would help. However the ones that have came over to the GEML in the last few years from other franchises are in dire need of a refurbishment as they are in a far worse condition.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,194
and possibly the Pretendolino to release the 321 Norwich diagram. 315 and 360 can be rid of on Anglia later..

As mentioned many times before there isnt a 321 Norwich diagram. Its just an extension stopper to Norwich (totally unsuitable to hauled stock) which forms an additional & un-needed 19.30 back up road.

Sorry, I keep hearing conflicting reports, but I guess you are reliable ;)
 

F1Ken

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2012
Messages
41
The ex First Great Eastern 321's are not in bad need of a refurbishment, but it certainly would help. However the ones that have came over to the GEML in the last few years from other franchises are in dire need of a refurbishment as they are in a far worse condition.

There not to bad. I love those Blue and Green jelly been seats!

On a serious note the interior of the ex FGE 321's just looks really dated now. But I like dated! :D
 

Dave1987

On Moderation
Joined
20 Oct 2012
Messages
4,563
The current major project is finishing the refresh of the ex silverlink 321's and then the fitment of the GSMR radio. Ive had my first play with the GSMR the other day and as a driver think it is very very good. Apart from the red button not having a cover on it!!
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,851
Location
UK
True the FGE 321's looks a little dated and therefore could benefit from a refresh, but my point was that they are in better condition than the ones that came from Silverlink.

I was on an 8 car 321 a couple of weeks ago, and put one head into the door of the ex Silverlink's back coach and thought, no thanks and got into the second unit's front coach which was much better.
 

306024

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2013
Messages
3,974
Location
East Anglia
As mentioned many times before there isnt a 321 Norwich diagram. Its just an extension stopper to Norwich (totally unsuitable to hauled stock) which forms an additional & un-needed 19.30 back up road.

Un-needed commercially perhaps, but operationally what goes down must come up :)

And yes dk1 is spot on, the 17.02 from LST is a GE commuter train that only goes to NRW because it can't be timetabled to reverse sooner (although it does help the LST drivers diagrams to work too ;)).
 

oliMw

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2012
Messages
196
After reading a report online about the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML) it seems that the line is constantly under invested. Firstly the Rowling stock on the GEML is seems to be largely aged or second hand, with exception of the Class 360s. The Class 90s and mk3s are looking rather shabby and are showing there age. Not to mention the fact that the last two intercity sets on the GEML are secondhand from the WCML showing how much the GEML is prioritised over other intercity lines for a number of years. The GEML has not had any new Rowling stock for 10 years and much of the stock on the intercity, mainline and suburban services are 20 Years old plus. Is this fair?
 

43074

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2012
Messages
2,253
I think the problem with the privatised railway is that the main lines (the West Coast, Great Western, Midland and East Coast) always get the lion share of investment, whereas under BR, Network SouthEast modernised the Chiltern Line, the LTS and Kent Suburban lines and Regional Railways introduced Pacers and Sprinters, in addition to InterCity modernising the East Coast Main Line.

I suspect that neither the Network SouthEast nor the Regional Railways type modernisation would be done today (except perhaps on Chiltern Railways, who are still improving their network). Had BR still existed, I'm sure there would have been a Total Route Modernisation project on Great Eastern by now. It isn't fair that the Great Eastern is left out, and they are well overdue a significant infrastructure improvement project.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,389
Location
Yorks
Firstly the Rowling stock on the GEML

Would that be the Hogwarts Express :lol:

On a more serious note, there seem to be a fair number of routes which are as long or longer than the GEML which, on account of not being classed as InterCity, tend to have shorter more cramped trains, so rakes of Mk 3's don't seem too bad a deal.

Yes, you'll have a high proportion of end to end journeys on the GEML, but there are probably a reasonable number on some of the others as well, such as those linking the West Midlands with Stanstead, or the transpennine routes.

Perhaps they need a refurb along the lines of the Midland Mainline HST's which I use quite regularly myself and seem in decent enough condition for me (although bright red upholstery seems a little vulgar for my taste).
 

Ironside

Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
418
I understand that the problem with the GEML is more the track or the lack there of, rather than the state of the trains. It could do with an extra track or two in places so the express trains can get out of London quickly.
 

w0033944

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2011
Messages
555
Location
Norfolk
IMO, the main problem with the GEML is that signalling, crossings and catenary limit the top speed of the stock below its design maximum, thereby introducing an artificial limit on the performance of the stock. Other similar problems exist elsewhere in the GA area; some as far as I understand are due to be sorted by 2019, such as Ely North Junction, but the one I'm unsure about is Trowse Swing Bridge, which, according to my rail atlas, funnels the 2 tracks of the Brecks line and the 2 tracks of the GEML to a single track crossing the river. Could those more knowledgeable than I please comment on whether this is a problem or not?
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,194
Thorough refurbishments are planned for the 317 and 321 fleets which will see AC traction and fully refurbished interiors with A/C, extending lifespan by up to 20 years and bringing treated units to effectively new-build standard at a quarter of the price. Ex SX, GN and Midland could be taken on and refurbished to replace 315s remaining after Crossrail, and dare I say it, 360 too - GN fasts/peaks?

Continuing the theme, a 'Chiltern' refurbishment of Mk3 LHCS is proposed with Bombardier Traxx 'Class 93' and passenger-carrying DVTs at the helm. Greater Anglia is looking at improvements throughout the franchise area in an implied bid to retain operation in the long term.
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,897
IMO, the main problem with the GEML is that signalling, crossings and catenary limit the top speed of the stock below its design maximum, thereby introducing an artificial limit on the performance of the stock. Other similar problems exist elsewhere in the GA area; some as far as I understand are due to be sorted by 2019, such as Ely North Junction, but the one I'm unsure about is Trowse Swing Bridge, which, according to my rail atlas, funnels the 2 tracks of the Brecks line and the 2 tracks of the GEML to a single track crossing the river. Could those more knowledgeable than I please comment on whether this is a problem or not?

Trowse - not.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,060
Location
Reston City Centre
there seem to be a fair number of routes which are as long or longer than the GEML which, on account of not being classed as InterCity, tend to have shorter more cramped trains, so rakes of Mk 3's don't seem too bad a deal

Agreed.

Norwich has retained an "inter city" service whilst other edges of the NSE map (Northampton, Southampton, Portsmouth etc) get a much less grand service, no buffet, some 3+2 seating etc.

The OP complains that "much of the stock on the intercity, mainline and suburban services are 20 Years old plus" but then the 315s are going to be replaced by brand new Crossrail EMUs in a couple of years - plenty of other lines with old stock don't have that to look forward to.

Also worth remembering that the 315s are going to move onto other electrified lines, rather than being withdrawn.
 

Trainfan344

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2012
Messages
2,305
IMO, the main problem with the GEML is that signalling, crossings and catenary limit the top speed of the stock below its design maximum, thereby introducing an artificial limit on the performance of the stock. Other similar problems exist elsewhere in the GA area; some as far as I understand are due to be sorted by 2019, such as Ely North Junction, but the one I'm unsure about is Trowse Swing Bridge, which, according to my rail atlas, funnels the 2 tracks of the Brecks line and the 2 tracks of the GEML to a single track crossing the river. Could those more knowledgeable than I please comment on whether this is a problem or not?

According to the Wikipedia

Trowse swing bridge is a single-track railway bridge which carries the Great Eastern Main Line over the River Wensum just outside Norwich in the United Kingdom
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,518
Location
Southampton
I would have thought that south of Ipswich, where there are additional passenger trains as well as all the freight for Felixstowe, has most of the capacity problems?

I can't see Trowse swing bridge being much of an issue for overall line capacity.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,774
Yes- which is why the line via Bury St Edmunds, Ely and Peterborough is being upgraded to take more freight, thus freeing up capacity on the GEML and NLL.
Perhaps in an ideal world the GEML would be six track* to Shenfield, four track to Ipswich and two track all the way into Norwich- but that's never going to be likely due to the vast, vast expense- not mention demolitions through some towns and cities- that would be required.


*Two for what's currently the Shenfield Metro and will be Crossrail, obviously this can dissappear at Stratford leaving it as a four track approach to Liverpool Street. Two for "local" services beyond Shenfield as far as Ipswich. Two for Norwich and peak time fast services.
 

E-Rail

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Messages
272
Would it not be better to revert the Norwich's to the stopping pattern pre 2004 in order to speed up journey times?

Looking at Anglia's Summer 2003 timetable, the main pattern was

Ex Liverpool Street:

00 - Colchester - Ipswich - Norwich (1:40 total)
30 - Colchester - Manningtree - Ipswich - Stowmarket - Diss - Norwich (1:54)

The semi-fast also had some irregular calls at Ingatestone and a few northbound peak services for Chelmsford. Most (but not all) also called at Stratford.

Although additional calls at Stratford are justified now, it appears journey times on the whole have suffered since Anglia and GE ownership merged with the IC service now forming part of the GE frequency south of Ipswich. Did Ipswich not have four services an hour at one point when the two operators competed?

Perhaps the franchise should be split again to encourage competition once more.
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,518
Location
Southampton
E-Rail said:
Would it not be better to revert the Norwich's to the stopping pattern pre 2004 in order to speed up journey times?

Looking at Anglia's Summer 2003 timetable, the main pattern was

Ex Liverpool Street:

00 - Colchester - Ipswich - Norwich (1:40 total)
30 - Colchester - Manningtree - Ipswich - Stowmarket - Diss - Norwich (1:54)

The semi-fast also had some irregular calls at Ingatestone and a few northbound peak services for Chelmsford. Most (but not all) also called at Stratford.

Although additional calls at Stratford are justified now, it appears journey times on the whole have suffered since Anglia and GE ownership merged with the IC service now forming part of the GE frequency south of Ipswich. Did Ipswich not have four services an hour at one point when the two operators competed?

Perhaps the franchise should be split again to encourage competition once more.

That depends on what people value more: speed or convenience. Stopping more often means slower trains, but it also means the intermediate stations provide a better service. Some stations lose out (as in the case of Ipswich which has gone from 4tph to 3tph), but overall there is a net improvement.

Also, I doubt splitting up the franchise is a good idea. The railway has slowly been undoing the fragmentation caused by 1993, so I don't think it wants to go back there!
 

w0033944

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2011
Messages
555
Location
Norfolk
According to the Wikipedia

Er, I thought I referred to it as being single-track?

If you're correcting my assertion that it takes the Breckland line as well, I'd rather check a rail atlas than use the infamously reliable (ahem!) Wikipedia. Strictly-speaking, the GEML and Breckland line don't converge at the bridge, but they do converge just to the south of it (see https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=52.613289,1.310806&spn=0.003544,0.006899&t=h&z=17 https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=52.619885,1.315897&spn=0.001759,0.003449&t=h&z=18
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top