Should C2C be merged with Greater Anglia?

[Essex Express]

Moderator note - split from:

Greater Anglia Bombardier Aventras (Class 720): Technical discussion and introduction

There doesn't seem to be a thread about these units so thought I would create one. Do we know anything about the acceleration/power characteristics of these trains yet? Note: This thread is about the technical aspects of the units and their introduction, not about the seats!

www.railforums.co.uk

The Issue of not enough Class 745 needs to be addressed.
It makes better sense to merge c2c into Greater Anglia operation under one management. This then gives the options to move stock around the network.
The best option would be to have the class 745 units on all Norwich to London plus the Ipswich semi fasts and off possible an odd Clacton line
Class 755 running all the present diesel services plus taking on the Harwich and Walton shuttles duties. Plus any other GEML services if they can cover.
Class 720 used the following
All Hertford East
All Cambridge.
Batch for the Stansted Exprees upgrade done need about 20 units.
All Southend Victoria and c2c
If the GEML towards Braintree and Colchester is short of class 720 peak working can be class 357. But with the number of spare class 720 around the one batch of class 357 could be withdrawn. Depot then could be
Norwich all class 745 and 755
Ilford and East Ham all class 720 and Clacton could look after the class 357 peak hour only units. Another option is class 357 could do the Harwich and Wlaton as well to free up some class 745 for the mainline.

 

[Kite159]

It makes better sense to merge c2c into Greater Anglia operation under one management. This then gives the options to move stock around the network.

Why?

C2C is pretty much self-contained and you won't get 357s moving across to Greater Anglia without the cost of training. Yes in theory C2C could get some of the surplus 720s from GA to allow the refurb program for the 357s to be kicked up a gear but their current fleet is suitable for the traffic, especially as these days their 720s get used more often than the 387s ever did.

And why use a 755 on the Harwich/Walton shuttles rather than a 720? Although in the past a 755 has been used on Harwich - Manningtree services, so they are cleared.

In an ideal world some of the 'surplus' 720s would get modified to be more suitable for Stansted Connect services, i.e. making them similar to the C2C batch in having 3-1+2 seating in parts, extra luggage space. Maybe getting reclassed as 720/2s to keep them separate from the regular 720s

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Why?

C2C is pretty much self-contained and you won't get 357s moving across to Greater Anglia without the cost of training. Yes in theory C2C could get some of the surplus 720s from GA to allow the refurb program for the 357s to be kicked up a gear but their current fleet is suitable for the traffic, especially as these days their 720s get used more often than the 387s ever did.

And why use a 755 on the Harwich/Walton shuttles rather than a 720? Although in the past a 755 has been used on Harwich - Manningtree services, so they are cleared.

In an ideal world some of the 'surplus' 720s would get modified to be more suitable for Stansted Connect services, i.e. making them similar to the C2C batch in having 3-1+2 seating in parts, extra luggage space. Maybe getting reclassed as 720/2s to keep them separate from the regular 720s

You know what they really need to do, negotiate a variation to the Rock Rail leasing contract to get 5 more intercity trains and 5 more Stansted express instead of the 20 spare commuter trains.. I know that's not how rail leasing appears to work but any other leasing contract works like that (notice I don't use the specific class numbers). If you were a logistics company and you're leasing 100 vans and 20 HGVs you could vary the contract at a mutually agreeable cost.

 

[Mikey C]

The 745s on the Stansted service are REALLY useful because of their low floor. Indeed airport services are the ones which benefit most from level boarding, when you consider the number of people with luggage, which will be far greater than on Ipswich/Norwich services.

 

[Harpo]

Since privatisation and delivery of the class 357, C2C/LTS has had its best ever period of sustained service reliability since before WW2. (I’m not that old!)

Having a dedicated management team has to be a huge factor in achieving that. In reverse, the LTS struggled when it was subservient to the GE, much as the GE struggled when it played second fiddle to Jorvik and ‘ordered to the GN’ was a constant power controller groan.

If the Southend Rail Travellers Association has a decent corporate memory I suspect they’d be concerned about going back to ‘Misery Line’ days.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If GBR means anything at all it will involve a new regional structure with fewer separate TOCs.
None of the current TOC domains may survive the next 3 years, before the new rail robber barons are appointed.

 

[720144]

Moderator note - split from:

Greater Anglia Bombardier Aventras (Class 720): Technical discussion and introduction

There doesn't seem to be a thread about these units so thought I would create one. Do we know anything about the acceleration/power characteristics of these trains yet? Note: This thread is about the technical aspects of the units and their introduction, not about the seats!

www.railforums.co.uk

The Issue of not enough Class 745 needs to be addressed.
It makes better sense to merge c2c into Greater Anglia operation under one management. This then gives the options to move stock around the network.
The best option would be to have the class 745 units on all Norwich to London plus the Ipswich semi fasts and off possible an odd Clacton line
Class 755 running all the present diesel services plus taking on the Harwich and Walton shuttles duties. Plus any other GEML services if they can cover.
Class 720 used the following
All Hertford East
All Cambridge.
Batch for the Stansted Exprees upgrade done need about 20 units.
All Southend Victoria and c2c
If the GEML towards Braintree and Colchester is short of class 720 peak working can be class 357. But with the number of spare class 720 around the one batch of class 357 could be withdrawn. Depot then could be
Norwich all class 745 and 755
Ilford and East Ham all class 720 and Clacton could look after the class 357 peak hour only units. Another option is class 357 could do the Harwich and Wlaton as well to free up some class 745 for the mainline.

No chance. I’d love to dream it would ever happen but nah, c2c & greater anglia are 2 separate train operating companies even though they share Stratford & Liverpool Street together. I think Stadler need to produce at least 10 more 745s 5x/0 IC & 5x/1 SX for more flexibility on the airport express & intercity, to save at least a few units to be taken out of service per week for maintenance, just like 4/5 745s have been taken out for a few weeks & have been seeing the spare triple traction 755s running on the intercity & the 720s on the airport runs. Only problem to solve.

 

[ScottGallagher]

The C2C name might well disappear anyway if the area were to be remapped into what could be GBR Eastern Region

 

[stuu]

No. It's sensible that it has it's own management. The train fleet would likely stay separate anyway

 

[Trainbike46]

Keeping dedicated management for the LTS makes sense. The fact that they have the same traction as GA does mean there is potential of swapping out rolling stock as needed between the two (e.g., some GA 720s with LTS if there are engineering work to Southend via GA)

No chance. I’d love to dream it would ever happen but nah, c2c & greater anglia are 2 separate train operating companies even though they share Stratford & Liverpool Street together. I think Stadler need to produce at least 10 more 745s 5x/0 IC & 5x/1 SX for more flexibility on the airport express & intercity, to save at least a few units to be taken out of service per week for maintenance, just like 4/5 745s have been taken out for a few weeks & have been seeing the spare triple traction 755s running on the intercity & the 720s on the airport runs. Only problem to solve.

That seems like a lot of extra units, way more than I would say they are short. I'd also argue that any extras should all be the IC type, you can always declassify the first class when it is on StanEx if you really want to

 

[JLH4AC]

I am not sure that it would help with rolling stock issues as the fleets are maintained at different depots, given DtT's push for "cost-effectiveness" I doubt Greater Anglia/C2C would have ordered more than the bare minimum of units needed for a reliable service, if Essex Thameside and Greater Anglia is anything like most of the all other franchise there is likely not enough drivers trained on those route at the moment to allow more train without an unreasonable amount of overtime, and there are likely many other issues with moving stock between the routes.

It does make sense that Essex Thameside being the smallest rail franchise on the mainland would be merged either into Greater Anglia or the Thameslink franchise when GBR takes over and does away with the illusion of competition. Semi-independent management could be maintained if it is deemed that having a dedicated management team is needed. I don’t see any specific reason why this single commuter route requires a dedicated management team any more than other commuter routes, the improved service reliability since privatization is likely primarily due to infrastructure and rolling stock improvements mandated by franchise commitments rather than anything exceptional about the management especially considering that many of the improvements occurred under the London Lines combined management.

 

[Meerkat]

You know what they really need to do, negotiate a variation to the Rock Rail leasing contract to get 5 more intercity trains and 5 more Stansted express instead of the 20 spare commuter trains.. I know that's not how rail leasing appears to work but any other leasing contract works like that (notice I don't use the specific class numbers). If you were a logistics company and you're leasing 100 vans and 20 HGVs you could vary the contract at a mutually agreeable cost.

Bet you couldn't cheaply alter that vans v HGVs contract if the trains had been ordered and were in build/delivered.

 

[Trainbike46]

I am not sure that it would help with rolling stock issues as the fleets are maintained at different depots, given DtT's push for "cost-effectiveness" I doubt Greater Anglia would have ordered more than the bare minimum of units needed for a reliable service, if Essex Thameside is anything like most of the all other franchise there is likely not enough drivers trained on Essex Thameside route at the moment to allow more train without an unreasonable amount of overtime, and there are likely many other issues with moving stock between the routes.

GA ordered three fleets, the 755s (regionals), the 745s (IC and StanEx), and the 720s (everything else), based on the timetable and passenger growth expected before covid. However, the timetable changes for the most part haven't happened, and passenger growth hasn't matched the pre-covid expectations. This means GA now has more 755s and 720s than strictly needed, while being short on 745s.

As far as I'm aware, c2c has more or less the stock they need.

My suggestion was primarily intended as a way to deal with engineering works, events, and other short-term shifts in stock needs - both have the same stock, their lines are connected, so using each others stock occasionally is possible without any crew training or major ECS moves.

It does make sense that Essex Thameside being the smallest rail franchise on the mainland would be merged either into Greater Anglia or the Thameslink franchise when GBR takes over and does away with the illusion of competition. Semi-independent management could be maintained if it is deemed that having a dedicated management team is needed. I don’t see any specific reason why this single commuter route requires a dedicated management team any more than other commuter routes, the improved service reliability since privatization is likely primarily due to infrastructure and rolling stock improvements mandated by franchise commitments rather than anything exceptional about the management especially considering that many of the improvements occurred under the London Lines combined management.

Why on earth would you merge the LTS line with Thameslink? They share no route at all, and serve different markets geographically.

The reason the LTS in particular could (and arguably should), be separate is because it has completely separate infrastructure - unlike most other commuter operations

 

[JonathanH]

I don’t see any specific reason why this single commuter route requires a dedicated management team any more than other commuter routes

While not necessarily a factor in whether the Essex Thameside operation should have a dedicated management team, it certainly had one under Network South East in British Rail days.

 

[TheWalrus]

I think given the small size of C2C and location, it would make sense to operate it as part of a bigger Greater Anglia or Eastern Region GBR. It would give more flexibility with the fleets however I am not sure how it would give more trains? The issue is there arent enough 745s to operate all Stansted and Norwich services. Personally I would like to see some London-Ipswich terminators extended to Lowestoft and towards Bury St Edmunds using 755s. (GA could take on some DMUs from somewhere to facilitate this, perhaps if further electrification releases some or if some suitable units are going off lease. However I cant see this happening). Then the London-Ipswich 720s could go on to Stansteds which would free up some 745s for Norwich, which in turn frees up the 755 diagram.

So yes, I would agree with having GA and C2C under the same management, but not sure this would improve fleet availability for GA.

 

[WAB]

If GBR means anything at all it will involve a new regional structure with fewer separate TOCs.
None of the current TOC domains may survive the next 3 years, before the new rail robber barons are appointed.

It depends on who you listen to at the top. There's plenty of supporters for the sectorised structure with small operating units. Regions are considered by some to be too unwieldy, and splitting responsibilities between different organisations to be foolish.

 

[Harpo]

I think given the small size of C2C and location, it would make sense to operate it as part of a bigger Greater Anglia or Eastern Region GBR.

Please no! Lumping the GE etc in with the ECML never worked. They are hugely different and it always left the GE/LTS as a misunderstood, lower priority in an (understandably) ECML-centric organisation.

 

[TheWalrus]

Please no! Lumping the GE etc in with the ECML never worked. They are hugely different and it always left the GE/LTS as a misunderstood, lower priority in an (understandably) ECML-centric organisation.

I’m not suggesting putting GA or C2C/LTS with the ECML - I would suggest having GA and C2C as one. Like I think Chiltern and West Midlands should really be together, but I wont go into as this thread’s topic is about C2C and GA!

 

[Meerkat]

I’m not suggesting putting GA or C2C/LTS with the ECML - I would suggest having GA and C2C as one. Like I think Chiltern and West Midlands should really be together, but I wont go into as this thread’s topic is about C2C and GA!

What gain are you expecting from this merger?

 

[Mgameing123]

How about we make this public body that oversees all government rail operations who decide on timetabling and what rolling stock routes get?

 

[JLH4AC]

Why on earth would you merge the LTS line with Thameslink? They share no route at all, and serve different markets geographically.

The reason the LTS in particular could (and arguably should), be separate is because it has completely separate infrastructure - unlike most other commuter operations

It could be merged into the Thameslink franchise (Be it in its current TSGN form or one where Southern has been demerged from it.) for the same reason it was part of the Network SouthEast, and London Lines in the past, it is a London commuter route. I do think Greater Anglia would be the better one for it to be merged into but it is not the only option.

Being more isolated from other routes is a reason why it could have a dedicated management team but it is not a reason for it to have one.

While not necessarily a factor in whether the Essex Thameside operation should have a dedicated management team, it certainly had one under Network South East in British Rail days.

If we assign blame or credit to the management organisation for the route's ills and merits that would be a case against having a dedicated management team as LTS suffered under Network SouthEast, though in reality it is likely more accurate to assign the blame for poor service to lack of investment in the route from BR/government, and credit for the improvements to the investment in the route finally coming.

 

[Trainbike46]

It could be merged into the Thameslink franchise (Be it in its current TSGN form or one where Southern has been demerged from it.) for the same reason it was part of the Network SouthEast, and London Lines in the past, it is a London commuter route. I do think Greater Anglia would be the better one for it to be merged into but it is not the only option.

So about as much reason for merging it with Thameslink as for merging it with any other london commuter services, whether that is Chiltern or SWR - thank you for clarifying.

 

[JLH4AC]

So about as much reason for merging it with Thameslink as for merging it with any other london commuter services, whether that is Chiltern or SWR - thank you for clarifying.

For reasons of local accountability and operations concerns, it would be better for it to merge with a franchise that also serves East of England and Greater London which would rule out Chiltern, and SWR unless Network Southeast was effectively reformed.

 

[Peter0124]

What if some 720s were instead sent to Norwich and the 745s used on Stansted workings? Would this work in practice

 

[Trainbike46]

For reasons of local accountability and operations concerns, it would be better for it to merge with a franchise that also serves East of England and Greater London which would rule out Chiltern, and SWR unless Network Southeast was effectively reformed.

yes, which is why merging it with GA would make more sense than merging it with any other london commuter operation, whether that is Thameslink, Southeastern or SWR.

Though as stated, I would be of the view that an operation as self-contained as the c2c/LTS operation should be managed independently, and work with other operations where that makes sense (e.g., short-term stock moves with GA)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Dec 2024 ==

What if some 720s were instead sent to Norwich and the 745s used on Stansted workings? Would this work in practice

The 745s are maintained in Norwich, so you need to get them there for maintenance purposes.

 

[dk1]

What if some 720s were instead sent to Norwich and the 745s used on Stansted workings? Would this work in practice

Certainly not. The 745s need to be kept on the GEML as there only depot is at Norwich (2+2 seating in the Norwich route) and 720s (hopefully a sub-fleet dedicated to airport traffic) concentrated on the WAML where almost everything else is a similar fleet. That is the only sensible solution.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Dec 2024 ==

I think given the small size of C2C and location, it would make sense to operate it as part of a bigger Greater Anglia or Eastern Region GBR. It would give more flexibility with the fleets however I am not sure how it would give more trains? The issue is there arent enough 745s to operate all Stansted and Norwich services. Personally I would like to see some London-Ipswich terminators extended to Lowestoft and towards Bury St Edmunds using 755s. (GA could take on some DMUs from somewhere to facilitate this, perhaps if further electrification releases some or if some suitable units are going off lease. However I cant see this happening). Then the London-Ipswich 720s could go on to Stansteds which would free up some 745s for Norwich, which in turn frees up the 755 diagram.

So yes, I would agree with having GA and C2C under the same management, but not sure this would improve fleet availability for GA.

There aren’t that many spare 755s and importing delays to single line sections across the East Suffolk line would be a bad move now the route is hourly. We don’t want any old DMUs on routes now served by the 755 fleet and Crown Point has had over £40m spent on it to modify to only work on this fleet for the next 30+ years.

 

[Class15]

The 745s and 755s are amazing trains IMO, obviously dislike the 745s slightly for replacing the 90 and Mk3 sets but I can see why. I use both these classes to get to Saxmundham and Leiston most summers and the 755s in particular are a huge improvement on what they replaced.

 

[TheWalrus]

Certainly not. The 745s need to be kept on the GEML as there only depot is at Norwich (2+2 seating in the Norwich route) and 720s (hopefully a sub-fleet dedicated to airport traffic) concentrated on the WAML where almost everything else is a similar fleet. That is the only sensible solution.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Dec 2024 ==



There aren’t that many spare 755s and importing delays to single line sections across the East Suffolk line would be a bad move now the route is hourly. We don’t want any old DMUs on routes now served by the 755 fleet and Crown Point has had over £40m spent on it to modify to only work on this fleet for the next 30+ years.

That would be an operational constraint. Ideally a big order of more FLIRTs or similar with bi-mode capability would be good for many routes in and out of the GA network. I do think having all those bi-modes on diesel-only lines is a real waste of that capability! They could be put to better use elsewhere.

 

[miklcct]

No. c2c is completely self contained apart from the weekend extension to Liverpool Street. We don't want Greater Anglia propagating delays into the c2c network.

 

[720144]

That would be an operational constraint. Ideally a big order of more FLIRTs or similar with bi-mode capability would be good for many routes in and out of the GA network. I do think having all those bi-modes on diesel-only lines is a real waste of that capability! They could be put to better use elsewhere.

They do use mainly 3x to pair a triple traction on the intercity diagram & sometimes another spare 3x if 1 or 2 745s taken out of service in which, has exactly been happening in the past 2/3 weeks.