• 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!

Task force to speed up Norwich-London route

Status
Not open for further replies.

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
9,672
For me at least (a mainly weekend traveller between London and Ipswich), having trains which ran later into the evening/night would be far more useful than just getting there ten minutes faster.
I suspect it'd be easier to implement as well.

Depends, i think the GEML needs a fair bit of overnight maintenance.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
5,078
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
Depends, i think the GEML needs a fair bit of overnight maintenance.
Very few overnight blocks (two track closures to Shenfield and bi-di working excepted) apart from Saturday nights due to freight traffic. Can't close up shop with a raft of liners that need to move...
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,609
Location
Torbay
Whilst its always good to look at shaving off some journey time on any route, it can be counterproductive to push for these somewhat arbitrary headline targets such as '90 minutes to Norwich' or 'under 3 hours to Plymouth'. Such slogans might be very popular with business groups in the particular cities concerned, but the economics and utility of the routes often rely heavily on serving a number of places along the route. If for example local stops between Ipswich and Norwich were abolished to achieve 90 minutes, then lucrative London commuter business from those rural outposts as well as useful local transport links could be sacrificed, or would have to substituted by additional (possibly less attractive) local trains at additional operating expense and for which track capacity may not exist. There's clearly no guarantee that the additional trunk haul business attracted by the reduced express journey time would pay for the additional operating expense or indeed investment in rolling stock and infrastructure required.
 

andrew bell

Member
Joined
24 Aug 2011
Messages
437
Location
Great Yarmouth
I am not sure how practical it will be but can't they expand the bridge at Trowse to help speed up the times as (I think) its single tracked over it
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
19,895
Location
East Anglia
I am not sure how practical it will be but can't they expand the bridge at Trowse to help speed up the times as (I think) its single tracked over it

You will not get above 40mph due to line curvature either side. Used to be 15 :o
 

AndyLandy

Established Member
Joined
30 Oct 2011
Messages
1,323
Location
Southampton, UK
In My personal opinion, The Liverpool Street -Norwich LHCS services could be replaced by 5 Car 110mph EMU. Doubling the EMU's to create a 10 car in the peaks unless current service provision needs full Mk.3 sets throughout the day, then 10 car EMU's (Class 444 type) could be used.

Step 1: AC version of the 444.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: All railway problems are solved!

Sorry, couldn't resist, but AC 444s seem to frequently come up as a suggestion to solve just about anything. (Of course, the GEML is one place where they probably actually make reasonable sense)
 

Martin222002

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2011
Messages
267
Location
Chesterfield, Derbyshire
One interesting question is do all the services (per hour) between Norwich and London need to have a journey time of 90 minutes? If not then really only 1tph needs to be that fast, with 2 other tph calling at a similar pattern as they do now, and not necessarily with a 20 minute frequency. Something along the lines of:

1tph Norwich, Ipswich, Colchester, London Liverpool Street
1tph Norwich, Diss, Ipswich, Manningtree, Colchester, London Liverpool Street
1tph Norwich, Diss, Stowmarket, Ipswich, Manningtree, Colchester, Chelmsford, Stratford, London Liverpool Street

Obviously pathing permitting.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,609
Location
Torbay
Another thing you could do is just stop everything at Stratford and say 'that's London' for propaganda sorry marketing purposes. It would save 7 minutes with no effort at all! I think all trains should stop at certain major London approach 'gateway hubs' anyway, for instance SWT expresses at Clapham Junction, HS2 AND GWML at Old Oak if it ever gets built.
 

306024

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2013
Messages
3,974
Location
East Anglia
That has been tried already with Tottenham Hale, just 35 minutes from London to Stansted Airport. It didn't go down well.
 

306024

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2013
Messages
3,974
Location
East Anglia
One interesting question is do all the services (per hour) between Norwich and London need to have a journey time of 90 minutes? If not then really only 1tph needs to be that fast, with 2 other tph calling at a similar pattern as they do now, and not necessarily with a 20 minute frequency. Something along the lines of:

1tph Norwich, Ipswich, Colchester, London Liverpool Street
1tph Norwich, Diss, Ipswich, Manningtree, Colchester, London Liverpool Street
1tph Norwich, Diss, Stowmarket, Ipswich, Manningtree, Colchester, Chelmsford, Stratford, London Liverpool Street

Obviously pathing permitting.

Good luck in finding a gap for that ;)

To answer your question, no, but even if you could path your fast train, that's four extra unit diagrams, plus a maintenance spare. Add running costs and you would need a hell of a good business case.
 

JGR

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2012
Messages
147
Location
Ipswich
Another thing you could do is just stop everything at Stratford and say 'that's London' for propaganda sorry marketing purposes. It would save 7 minutes with no effort at all! I think all trains should stop at certain major London approach 'gateway hubs' anyway, for instance SWT expresses at Clapham Junction, HS2 AND GWML at Old Oak if it ever gets built.
I expect you'd soon run out of platforms terminating trains at Stratford.
 

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
One interesting question is do all the services (per hour) between Norwich and London need to have a journey time of 90 minutes?

No. But as you say, to be effective it does need to available all day, rather than an up/down "East Anglian" once a day, each way.

1tph Norwich, Ipswich, Colchester, London Liverpool Street
1tph Norwich, Diss, Ipswich, Manningtree, Colchester, London Liverpool Street
1tph Norwich, Diss, Stowmarket, Ipswich, Manningtree, Colchester, Chelmsford, Stratford, London Liverpool Street

This is a good spread for Norwich, but does Norwich need 3 tph off peak? Wouldn't the intermediate stations be better served by extending the Ipswich terminators as all-stations to Norwich? This would include Needham and opening something between Diss and Norwich (though I don't know the most cost-effective alternative). Yaxley would be a candidate too....

Obviously pathing permitting.

Fair enough, but how many GEML paths will open up south of Ipswich when the Bacon Factory chord opens?

Tobbes
 
Last edited:

Trainfan344

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2012
Messages
2,305
Yes, but what about paths between Stowmarket and Ipswich, not forgetting that GA may want to introduce hourly Ipswich to Peterborough eventually.
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
19,895
Location
East Anglia
Yes, but what about paths between Stowmarket and Ipswich, not forgetting that GA may want to introduce hourly Ipswich to Peterborough eventually.

Signalling Ipswich-Haughley isn't really fit for purpose now. Really needs spacing to be reduced & 4 aspect signalling. The longer sections & Needham Market Station in between along with poor sighting have a negative affect on performance. When resignalled in the 80s it had nothing like the frequency of passenger & Liner trains it has now but did have more in the way of ad-hoc freight & light engine moves.
 

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
Few to none.

Why? Is this just to handle increased traffic from Felixstowe? I thought the whole point was to take Midlands-bound traffic via Haugley and Ely, thereby releasing paths on GEML and on the NLL for the traffic from London Gateway.

Confused,

Tobbes
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
6,562
Location
Somewhere
The vast majority of London bound intermodals will remain as they are now...particularly AC traffic.
 

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
GB / Bald Rick

Many thanks for this. What would be required to re-route the intermodals to the Midlands away from London?
 

GB

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
6,562
Location
Somewhere
I would say electrification of the Haughley to Peterborough route (as well as what ever route is required to get back to the WCML) resginalling and junction improvements at Haughley Jnc.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I would say electrification of the Haughley to Peterborough route (as well as what ever route is required to get back to the WCML) resginalling and junction improvements at Haughley Jnc.

If you electrified the Peterborough to Birmingham route it would enable the XC Birmingham to Stansted service to go over to EMU operation as a bonus ;)

BUT if you're going to wire up that route why not at the same time wire up the Joint Line and allow more AC freight to get to Doncaster that way via Lincoln....
 

tom1681

Member
Joined
3 Jul 2011
Messages
91
Location
Norwich
I am not sure how practical it will be but can't they expand the bridge at Trowse to help speed up the times as (I think) its single tracked over it

Double tracking Trowse Bridge is one of the suggestions - to improve capacity more than anything though.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
7,609
Location
Torbay
I expect you'd soon run out of platforms terminating trains at Stratford.

I wasn't suggesting terminating at Stratford, just adding a stop there for those trains that don't call already.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Double tracking Trowse Bridge is one of the suggestions - to improve capacity more than anything though.

The short double track between Trowse bridge and Norwich station is only just long enough to stand a full length train, and a down train easing up to wait for a platform at the home signal can block the single line completely or for longer than is desirable. Doubling over the bridge and relocating some of the junction pointwork to the London side would improve flexibility a great deal.
 

Johnny_w

Member
Joined
23 Jan 2011
Messages
251
Location
Rural suffolk
I am not a commuter!

Gotta be honest....and a regular GEML traveller (stowmarket), goes anyone actually care?

Serious question. I can't even imagine Norwich → LST commuters would give two monkies about an extra ten mins a day?

Whilst I accept that 10mins x 500 journeys = lots of minutes it's not like they get used in such a way is it?

Just a thought.

JW
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,981
I am not a commuter!

Gotta be honest....and a regular GEML traveller (stowmarket), goes anyone actually care?

Serious question. I can't even imagine Norwich → LST commuters would give two monkies about an extra ten mins a day?

Whilst I accept that 10mins x 500 journeys = lots of minutes it's not like they get used in such a way is it?

Just a thought. JW

I thought it was just a political stunt according to the Railway Eye Blog

http://railwayeye.blogspot.co.uk/2013_11_07_archive.html

This from Norfolk Broads...

Absolutely no panic in the Tory party about vulnerable seats in East Anglia.

No siree, none at all.

So what are we to make of this then?

According to this press release from the Treasury:

Chancellor George Osborne has announced a new taskforce to look at speeding up journey times to East Anglia to drive growth in the region.

Plans for a new expert group charged with finding ways to speed up rail services to the East of England by as much as 25% have been set out by the Chancellor.

The new taskforce will be made up of Department for Transport officials, experts from Network Rail, and local MPs.

Evidently not content with presiding over the most complicated railway structure in the world our Chancellor has decided to abandon boring old things like Route Utilisation Strategies, Control Periods, Statement of Funds Available, etc... etc..., instead he will improve our network by fiat!

Move over ORR, franchise bidders and RDG your skills are not needed, for we have SuperGideon and 'local MPs' to the rescue!

It's not as if our Chancellor has anything else important to do, what with a record deficit and all!
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,954
GB / Bald Rick

Many thanks for this. What would be required to re-route the intermodals to the Midlands away from London?

If you mean all Felixstowe - Midlands / NW traffic, then at least:

Ely - Soham doubling, Ely North LX abolishing and replaced with bypass, Ely-Peterboro' resignalling for higher capacity, Oakham LX abolishing (possibly), Leicester remodelling, grade separation at Wigston (possibly).

And then maybe electrification.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,933
First time I've seen the abolition of Oakham LC proposed - not sure there's any realistic prospect of a bridge directly replacing it...and is it really that much of a problem?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,954
First time I've seen the abolition of Oakham LC proposed - not sure there's any realistic prospect of a bridge directly replacing it...and is it really that much of a problem?

Well it is only a 'possibly'. But it is a problem, especially if you live in Oakham and were to have an extra 50 trains a day across it.

Also, I forgot Kings Dyke LC just east of Peterboro'. That would probably have to go.
 
Last edited:

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,933
Would that be 50 in total, or per direction? An extra one or two each way per hour might upset the locals a bit, but those in a rush are more than welcome to make their way out to the bypass overbridge :) . It can get a bit chaotic, admittedly, if the traffic doesn't have time to clear before the barriers are lowered for the next one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top