Could GA do a Norwich to Heathrow airport service

[Adrian1980uk]

I know there would be many challenges on capacity through the Elizabeth line tunnels and you can change at Stratford/Liverpool street but I was just thinking you could path a 755 for example to give direct links to Colchester/Ipswich etc.

 

[Trainbike46]

I know there would be many challenges on capacity through the Elizabeth line tunnels and you can change at Stratford/Liverpool street but I was just thinking you could path a 755 for example to give direct links to Colchester/Ipswich etc.

The Lizzie Line core has CBTC signalling, and the only national rail stock that currently has that is the 345s (and maybe the watford DC line LO stock?). 755s, 745s and 720s as it stands could not run through the crossrail core. Obviously, such a train would also need door positions to match the platform edge doors in the core.

In addition, is a single change at Liverpool Street really that much of a problem? I don't think there's actually that much benefit in running such a service

 

[JonathanH]

I know there would be many challenges on capacity through the Elizabeth line tunnels and you can change at Stratford/Liverpool street but I was just thinking you could path a 755 for example to give direct links to Colchester/Ipswich etc.

The only trains which can run on the Elizabeth Line are 345 units.

 

[CarrotPie]

(and maybe the watford DC line LO stock?).

They don't (why would they?). Only 345s do, but there's not much stopping retrofitting.

 

[306024]

What is the commercial demand for such a service? Never mind the logistical, operational, and performance obstacles. Norwich to Barking would be a more aptly named suggestion

 

[Adrian1980uk]

What is the commercial demand for such a service? Never mind the logistical, operational, and performance obstacles. Norwich to Barking would be a more aptly named suggestion

I'll be honest, I was thinking it's Barking from a operational point of view but I'm not sure from a demand point of view but yes you'd have to retrofit a 755 or 720s with the capabilities required for the tunnels.

 

[JonathanH]

I'll be honest, I was thinking it's Barking from a operational point of view but I'm not sure from a demand point of view but yes you'd have to retrofit a 755 or 720s with the capabilities required for the tunnels.

It would be easier to just use a 345 to run to Norwich, which is within the realms of practicality, but never going to happen.

 

[306024]

The Elizabeth line is really a glorified high capacity tube line, that just happens to be part of the national rail network. It is all about moving increasingly high volumes of people in central London, which is what a 345 is designed to do.

It would be easier to just use a 345 to run to Norwich.

Precisely!

 

[PTR 444]

If such a service did exist, could it run via the North London Line and the freight chord from the WLL to the GWML near Old Oak Common? Upon seeing this thread, I was reminded of the ex Anglia Railways London Crosslink service which IIRC ran between Ipswich and Basingstoke.

 

[zwk500]

If you wanted a 755 to Heathrow you could run via North London Line and Acton Wells but the operational problems would be just as bad. And you need ETCS to run to Heathrow, which 755s aren't fitted with as yet.

 

[fishwomp]

Am reminded of the Alan Partridge line (actually, is that a good name for the GA London route?) -- "this will put Norwich on the map".. "why would I want to do that?":

https://partridge.cloud/scene/?id=ANVzK74vgZ2g

 

[MarkyT]

If you wanted a 755 to Heathrow you could run via North London Line and Acton Wells but the operational problems would be just as bad. And you need ETCS to run to Heathrow, which 755s aren't fitted with as yet.

At least that should be fairly straightforward albeit at a cost and with time out of service for the work. They are from a Swiss company, the only nation on Earth to have more or less their entire standard gauge railway network equipped with some form of ETCS, and they're based on European models that are usually supplied with it. The trains may already have an active onboard ETCS computer and DMI system talking to the traction and braking and emulating existing legacy protection systems through those interfaces. Can't see a separate AWS sunflower indicator so that suggests it is being shown already on one of the screens there's plenty of screen real estate across the driving console. The UK FLIRTS will certainly have been specified to be 'ETCS - ready', as I believe have all new UK trains for quite a while. I think there'll be more difficulty implementing the Elizabeth Line CBTC system onboard different trains, however. The door spacing on the FLIRTS is completely different to the 345's, so won't match the platform screen doors. They're too low for the new platforms, resulting in a significant step-down. All that means they wouldn't be able to stop anywhere in the central tunnel section across London, even Liverpool Street and Paddington, weakening the commercial case. North London routing would be slow and tedious like the old diesel service that went that way as you'd have to fit in between existng all stations LO services and freights, saving little time from missing any stops.

 

[Bald Rick]

I saw this thread and thought… “Sit back and open the popcorn”

 

[43096]

What is the commercial demand for such a service? Never mind the logistical, operational, and performance obstacles. Norwich to Barking would be a more aptly named suggestion

Upminster would be better. Eight stops beyond Barking...

 

[306024]

I saw this thread and thought… “Sit back and open the popcorn”

At least while people are posting on this thread they aren't doing any harm!

 

[dk1]

If such a service did exist, could it run via the North London Line and the freight chord from the WLL to the GWML near Old Oak Common? Upon seeing this thread, I was reminded of the ex Anglia Railways London Crosslink service which IIRC ran between Ipswich and Basingstoke.

It basically ran from Ipswich to Basingstoke with a daily extension to Norwich and several turning/starting short of Ipswich. The long term goal was a triangle Ipswich/Milton Keynes/Southampton but was never fulfilled.

 

[RailWonderer]

Pathing problems exist on in the core which is so intensely operated that fitting a 755 path non-stop from Stratford or Chelmsford to Heathrow non-stop wouldn't be possible. You could not stop at any of the core stations due to platform edge doors and you would catch up on Elizabeth Line services further down the line. I'd love to see it but unfortunately London is too large and overcapacity everywhere to see it happen.

When they built those platform edge doors it was clear the intention was to only ever run 345s, and their successors in 30 years time will also need identical door widths too. It's not like the Thameslink core which only sees 700s but can take 387s as well.

 

[BigB]

Errr, change at Stratford???

Logically as soon as you extend a service that operates in the core outwith the area then any delays it picks up en route back to London cause many issues to the already tight headways.