AGA out of DMUs?

[colchesterken]

That was my whole point, get a load of the 230s say 10 use them on all the locals from Norwich, not of course the Cambridge runs. Mks Tey-Sudb..Felx-Ips, set up a small servicing depot at Crown Point. I read a gen swap takes 10mins, done on a fork lift truck. need a few spare gen sets..that would free up the 15xx DMU s for other services

I want to be king of the railway with an open cheque book, no expense spared

 

[lordbusiness]

I can hear the bleating from the EDP, local MP's etc already if their 'new' trains turned out to be ex LT stock!

I dare say the 230's have their place but many will probably see them as a retrograde step.

 

[Wolfie]

I can hear the bleating from the EDP, local MP's etc already if their 'new' trains turned out to be ex LT stock!

I dare say the 230's have their place but many will probably see them as a retrograde step.

Particularly given that, even if the rural lines lose money, the franchise as a whole pays a hefty premium (unlike Northern which is having money poured in hand over fist).

Methinks Gideon will have problems with the local Tory MPs; if he doesn't find some money he could well kiss goodbye to their votes and hance being Tory leader in 2020...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Particularly given that, even if the rural lines lose money, the franchise as a whole pays a hefty premium (unlike Northern which is having money poured in hand over fist).

Methinks Gideon will have problems with the local Tory MPs; if he doesn't find some money he could well kiss goodbye to their votes and hance being Tory leader in 2020...

Apologies for the slightly off-topic diversion, but apparently the leader of Scottish Tories believes their next leader might be a "dark horse" rather than one of the front-runners (Source: today's i newspaper). Dave wasn't on anyone's mind until he put himself forward after all!

 

[Dave1987]

Considering the Marks Tey - Sudbury 153/156 goes back to Crown Point to be refuelled/inspections etc how exactly are people proposing that is accomplished with those Viva Rail things?

 

[Z12XE]

Colchester old diesel shed I believe.

Of course those on here who are supporters of these contraptions may have a more zany idea to give us a good laugh.

 

[87015]

Not sure Sam but I will endeavour to find out unless someone beats me to it

Going back on last Nottingham tonight.

 

[colchesterken]

I read somewhere they can be refueled from a road tanker. How about in Marks Tey engineers yard. direct off the Sudbury branch. Just a weekly nightime swap for inspection at the new Crown Point depot.. I would use the shed being used for the Mk 3 refurb they finish this year.

 

[Dave1987]

I read somewhere they can be refueled from a road tanker. How about in Marks Tey engineers yard. direct off the Sudbury branch. Just a weekly nightime swap for inspection at the new Crown Point depot.. I would use the shed being used for the Mk 3 refurb they finish this year.

Well for a start the only reason the shed at Colchester is still standing is because it is protected. You can't actually do anything with it. The engineers siding at Marks Tey normally has the Stoneblower parked in it and if it was viable to do that they would already be doing it with the current 153/156's. And I would hate to be the driver who was diagrammed to drive one of them all the way to Crown Point. That would also mean that not only Colchester drivers would have to sign them but also Norwich drivers because Colchester don't sign to Norwich. Sorry but it all sound very very far fetched. For the Marks Tey to Sudbury line I thought the battery train idea was a potential winner if it could be made to work but for these Viva Rail things the logistics don't add up. If Viva Rail manage to convince the next franchisee then its gonna be interesting times ahead.

 

[Z12XE]

And dont forget the Marks Tey S&T is also a light servicing point, I suspect it would be diffcult to ask the people who operate that to just go away because a 230 needs going in there.

This is where I dont get it, suggest to fuel and maintain them at Colchester, Marks Tey, hell why not suggest Chappel with all the cans of worms that will open, surely the point you open a dedicated maintenance point for one or two units (or pay to hire someone elses) then you've lost the cost benefit of a uniformed fleet which all interwork and return to Crown Point every 2.5 days as part of their diagrams?

Also, what about breakdowns and failures, what happens when one breaks how it is resuced, where is it repaired. OK if you have two what about when they both have wheelflats and the crews have lost their traction knowledge on the 156s and you cant simply use one of them? The two week buses of November 2015 would look like a good situation if the dedicated unit (or two) have to be put on low loaders and taken away.

 

[43096]

Well for a start the only reason the shed at Colchester is still standing is because it is protected. You can't actually do anything with it. The engineers siding at Marks Tey normally has the Stoneblower parked in it and if it was viable to do that they would already be doing it with the current 153/156's. And I would hate to be the driver who was diagrammed to drive one of them all the way to Crown Point. That would also mean that not only Colchester drivers would have to sign them but also Norwich drivers because Colchester don't sign to Norwich. Sorry but it all sound very very far fetched. For the Marks Tey to Sudbury line I thought the battery train idea was a potential winner if it could be made to work but for these Viva Rail things the logistics don't add up. If Viva Rail manage to convince the next franchisee then its gonna be interesting times ahead.

Would it not just be easier and better to string the wires up on the branch? That way you get rid of an island of diesel working, there's no messing around with battery units (which would also be a small non-standard fleet) and you can just use a Dusty Bin from the main fleet.

 

[306024]

Marks Tey, Bures and Sudbury platforms would need lengthening, maybe a bridge or two reconstructing, and as mentioned elsewhere the curvature of the platform at Marks Tey makes units with doors in the middle of the coach very unsuitable unless you are Greg Rutherford (Olympic long jump champion).

So not a cheap solution for a line that sees 2 car loadings in the peak but 1 car loadings most of the rest of the time.

 

[Dave1987]

Marks Tey, Bures and Sudbury platforms would need lengthening, maybe a bridge or two reconstructing, and as mentioned elsewhere the curvature of the platform at Marks Tey makes units with doors in the middle of the coach very unsuitable unless you are Greg Rutherford (Olympic long jump champion).

So not a cheap solution for a line that sees 2 car loadings in the peak but 1 car loadings most of the rest of the time.

Yeah there are multiple bridges that would need reconstruction although some look as though they could be demolished and not be missed. It would be a vast expense for very little gain unless they put this proposed chord in so you could run trains to London. Heard a few whispers about it but none since all "nice to haves" on GEML were all cancelled when NR suddenly became broke.

 

[JonathanH]

As much as it pains me to say it there would be nothing wrong with viva rails babies coming to Anglia, they could happily work an awful lot of the rural services, freeing 170's up for Cambridge/London/Peterborough runs as they were intended to do. The current situation of running 100moh capable 3 car 170s on 55mph max east suffolks is a little bit mad.

Will still need some 170s as don't forget that under the new franchise terms 4 East Suffolk services each way will be extended to/from Liverpool Street once again.

If they had got a move on with getting the Vivarail trains converted and proved and into use in East Anglia, perhaps 170270-170273 could have been sent up to solve the TransPennine Express 170 issue.

 

[dk1]

If they had got a move on with getting the Vivarail trains converted and proved and into use in East Anglia, perhaps 170270-170273 could have been sent up to solve the TransPennine Express 170 issue.

No chance. Hands off our 170s. They are not up for grabs

 

[306024]

If they had got a move on with getting the Vivarail trains converted and proved and into use in East Anglia, perhaps 170270-170273 could have been sent up to solve the TransPennine Express 170 issue.

And create a problem with the timings of the Colchester / Ipswich - Peterborough service. Hands off indeed :roll:

 

[Class 170101]

No chance. Hands off our 170s. They are not up for grabs

And create a problem with the timings of the Colchester / Ipswich - Peterborough service. Hands off indeed :roll:

Sadly given the farce with the TPE 170s it wouldn't surprise me if something like this did happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've always said that Pacers would be perfect for both Sudbury & Felixstowe branch lines.

Thats a sure fire way to see Felixstowe passengers to the competing First Group Bus.

As for the Sudbury branch don't be surprised to see all those punters in their cars to Marks Tey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Will still need some 170s as don't forget that under the new franchise terms 4 East Suffolk services each way will be extended to/from Liverpool Street once again.

Is four each way or four per day in total? Could also be new trains.

 

[bramling]

Sadly given the farce with the TPE 170s it wouldn't surprise me if something like this did happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Thats a sure fire way to see Felixstowe passengers to the competing First Group Bus.

As for the Sudbury branch don't be surprised to see all those punters in their cars to Marks Tey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Is four each way or four per day in total? Could also be new trains.

Whilst I can see the passenger benefits, I can't believe this has surfaced again. Running a short DMU all the way to Liverpool Street is ridiculous -- even at off-peak times 3 cars is simply not enough. Doubling up for some or all of the journey is a waste of scarce DMUs.

The best solution is a reliable interchange at Ipswich. From a passenger point of view, I'd rather have a change of train at Ipswich onto an 8-car EMU to London, than be on an overcrowded Turbostar all the way to Liverpool Street.

 

[dk1]

Is four each way or four per day in total? Could also be new trains.

Each way was the spec. Can't see it being new trains & the 49 mile journey does not lend itself to battery.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Going back on last Nottingham tonight.

Still here. Just called Brundall on 08:46 to Yarmouth.

 

[Class 170101]

Each way was the spec. Can't see it being new trains & the 49 mile journey does not lend itself to battery.

Bi-mode as part of a new order of trains to replace Class 90 sets?

 

[dk1]

Bi-mode as part of a new order of trains to replace Class 90 sets?

Could be. Time will tell. Hope we are not disappointed again.

 

[Trainfan344]

Each way was the spec. Can't see it being new trains & the 49 mile journey does not lend itself to battery.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Still here. Just called Brundall on 08:46 to Yarmouth.

Had it on the 19:00 to Lowestoft.

 

[Dave1987]

Bi-mode as part of a new order of trains to replace Class 90 sets?

Bi-modes seem to be in fashion now so probably.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Would it not just be easier and better to string the wires up on the branch? That way you get rid of an island of diesel working, there's no messing around with battery units (which would also be a small non-standard fleet) and you can just use a Dusty Bin from the main fleet.

Could the branch be done with the overhead taking is feed as a kinda sub-feed off the feed from the mainline or would it need its own feed?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Whilst I can see the passenger benefits, I can't believe this has surfaced again. Running a short DMU all the way to Liverpool Street is ridiculous -- even at off-peak times 3 cars is simply not enough. Doubling up for some or all of the journey is a waste of scarce DMUs.

The best solution is a reliable interchange at Ipswich. From a passenger point of view, I'd rather have a change of train at Ipswich onto an 8-car EMU to London, than be on an overcrowded Turbostar all the way to Liverpool Street.

How about splitting/joining at Ipswich? A 3-car unit from Great Yarmouth, another 3 from Lowestoft, maybe even a 2/3-car from Felixstowe/Sudbury (the latter joining at Colchester, alternating with Felixstowe)? Only needs one path into London and will be close to full length once all the portions come together...

 

[grumblingalong]

How about splitting/joining at Ipswich? A 3-car unit from Great Yarmouth, another 3 from Lowestoft, maybe even a 2/3-car from Felixstowe/Sudbury (the latter joining at Colchester, alternating with Felixstowe)? Only needs one path into London and will be close to full length once all the portions come together...

Feasible yes, although every conductor on the network would want to see you dead after they've explained which of the three, three coach, same coloured trains the senior railcard holders should travel in!!

As for electrification on the Sudbury branch "Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty" sums up the likelihood of OHLE being implemented. The only way I could see local support for such a move would be a London bound curve/realignment with direct services a-la Braintree branch.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Feasible yes, although every conductor on the network would want to see you dead after they've explained which of the three, three coach, same coloured trains the senior railcard holders should travel in!!

As for electrification on the Sudbury branch "Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty" sums up the likelihood of OHLE being implemented. The only way I could see local support for such a move would be a London bound curve/realignment with direct services a-la Braintree branch.

It'd only be marginally more complicated than the countless other services which split into two. As long as passengers at Liverpool Street were directed to the correct portion initially (front 2 coaches for Felixstowe/Sudbury, middle three for Lowestoft, rear three for Great Yarmouth. Boards such as those used at St. Pancras (EMT platforms) would help too.

 

[Dave1987]

It'd only be marginally more complicated than the countless other services which split into two. As long as passengers at Liverpool Street were directed to the correct portion initially (front 2 coaches for Felixstowe/Sudbury, middle three for Lowestoft, rear three for Great Yarmouth. Boards such as those used at St. Pancras (EMT platforms) would help too.

So you are proposing that the Sudbury train comes up from London, splits off at Colchester then goes back towards Sudbury? Highly inefficient use of the infrastructure. Unless the chord is built at Marks Tey the Sudbury branch will continue to be as it is at the moment.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

So you are proposing that the Sudbury train comes up from London, splits off at Colchester then goes back towards Sudbury? Highly inefficient use of the infrastructure. Unless the chord is built at Marks Tey the Sudbury branch will continue to be as it is at the moment.

At the present time (without the chord) any through London to Sudbury service would have to reverse either at Colchester or away from platforms beyond the junction at Mark's Tey. A Felixstowe portion (or even Sheringham) would be operationally more convenient, but would it have the demand that Sudbury does?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

As for electrification on the Sudbury branch "Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty" sums up the likelihood of OHLE being implemented.

There's discussion in the Goring Gap, but from a legal perspective, the railway line through an AONB is excepted from all of the AONB relevant legislation, making electrification no more challenging than on any other route.