Splitting trains at Plymouth hasn't worked with GWR and they are now saddled with double manning costs with 2 x 5 car units thanks to cartographer Baker. The problem station is Totnes - there is plenty of room to lengthen the platforms but doing anything costs a fortune these days. Newton Abbot is no longer ideal for splitting trains - and Paignton has a very good connecting 'Metro' service anyway.
1-2tph is a pathetic metro service to Paignton, it needs to be at least 4tph to be considered a good metro service. The 5 cars are useful on the North Cotswolds as you can split at Oxford and 5 to Worcester on a Down service, and run the other 5 to the Sidings at Oxford to join the next Up North Cotswolds service. Newton Abbot at least has three bidirectional platforms; ideally, you would bring the fourth platform back into use.
If you want to do that, there might be a business case for a new deep-level suburban rail tunnel from Soho/Kings Norton to Dudderston to remove the crossing chase and Cross City line services from New Street, which I would expect would free up 6-8 paths per hour per direction. This could enable a platform reduction at Birmingham New Street to increase line speed from 10mph to 25mph.
And there's a few services which feel like somewhat random pairings; there's at least one Graz – Mannheim – Saarbrücken service.
I like the basic premise of what you have done here. In some respects it goes back to the days before electrification and the first New Street rebuild in the 1960s, with the ex LNW and ex Midland lines kept almost completely separate.
This a very busy inter-urban route and needs to be operated as such. I had already had similar thoughts, though only to/from Coventry. It needs to be EMU operated and there is a quick win to do this by bringing the class 350/2s back on lease, releasing Voyagers to lengthen other trains.
If the Reading trains are via Coventry these could be joined up. The GWR lives on (except between Leamington and Oxley)!
I'll let you have this, but only if you don't go beyond Peterborough. There is absolutely no way that importing single line delays from Hereford and Worcester into Ely and Cambridge can be a good idea. Here in the Fens we have enough single line issues of our own thanks!
You're right, but my point is that Manchester-Coventry is a quick win and doesn't have to wait.
Once East West Rail opens, the best route Birmingham-Cambridge will be via Bletchley not Leicester. It is about 20 miles shorter, and on faster track. But it needs direct trains 2tph Birmingham-Bletchley. Milton Keynes stops are no good for this because Milton Keynes won't have direct trains to Cambridge. Connectivity at Bletchley with the West Midlands will also be important for Universal Theme Park traffic.
Peterborough is no more difficult than New Street for terminating trains. Thameslink, Joint Line and Ipswich trains already do it. Cross country services make sense when they are busy in the middle of the journey and quieter at the extremities. Birmingham/Leicester-Cambridge/Stansted is the opposite: busy at either end but not in the middle. It is two separate services only joined together because of history.
So this isn't correct. My Anglian timetable vision with taktfarhplans and symmetries has Norwich-Peterborough and Stansted-Nottingham (or vice versa). Electric/battery bimodes would be ideal for Stansted-Nottingham on existing infrastructure.
Existing experience with Thameslink suggests otherwise. Infrastructure issues south of the river lead to loss of service north of the river and vice versa. However well the core performs, events many miles away lead to service collapse. This risk is managed by not running too far from the core, because the risks multiply with distance. It is no surprise that one of the least reliable parts of Thamesliink is to/from Peterborough.
East West Rail is not hypothetical or elusive, whereas what we are discussing here probably is!
No I wasn't going to suggest that! I have spent more than enough time waiting to do that in the past.
The 2 way goods line is more than 775m long, I'd guess about 840-850m. Isn't that what it is for?
I appreciate that using the 2 way goods for trains heading towards East Anglia introduces conflicting movements.
I know this too, but platform 5 sees very little use for passenger trains, apart from the GN Kings Cross trains that terminate there in the evening peak. For most of the time freight trains occupying platform 5 is not an issue.
On what basis does Peterborough-Ipswich "need" to be at least hourly? A robust and resilient 1tph Peterborough-Cambridge-Stansted is far more important than Peterborough-Ipswich going from 1tp2h to 1tph, which isn't going to happen anyway because of constraints at Ely.
Except we don't. On many routes XC is the local/regional/whatever operator. There is not the hard demarcation of other countries.
and with GBR (and Regions?) coming back I think it is important to lose this mindset. Forget franchises. We need proper local services and inter-city services (and a level in between if we can fit them in or if the potential traffic justifies them.) GBR / The Region exists to serve the transport needs of the population and should be working towards that - a Swiss-style Takt timetable would be my objective, but I do like the idea of 2 half-hourly axes crossing at Brum, one "on" the hour and half-past and the other at 15 and nn45..
Then why isn't 20mph, with ETCS, as doing that itself would increase capacity massively from reduced junction margins and quicker arrival and departures from the station?
However, a deep level tunnel for the Metro services would enable the removal of the 15 minute stands at New Street on Chase Line and 5-10 on Cross City Line. It would also increase effectiveness of your suggestion. It is more of way of removing the bottleneck of Birmingham New Street and Proof House Junction, with a new 60mph Metro line which could also have a stop for the HS2 station to provide better interchange between West Midlands Metro Rail services and HS2 service. This would improve the reliability of Cross country as they would no longer be chasing Cross City line trains between New Street and Barnet Green.
EWR will be even more significant for Birmingham International e.g. the NEC traffic - currently 3 hrs by train vs 90 mins by car! Since Bletchleys not much good as an interchange, should it not be a direct service (continuing to Manchester)? With 10M passengers in the 23/24 yr, Cambridge should have a good direct link to the north.
I came up with a 16tph core frequency, 4tph Chase Line, 12tph Cross City of which 4tph run to Bromsgrove, 4tph to Redditch and 4tph to Longbridge, off peak.
Thanks, I do know Kings Norton to Barnet Green would need remodeling to be paired by use rather than paired by direction.
There is no AWS or overlaps in the station. ETCS is 30 years minimum for New St. It was re-signalled only a couple of years ago.
Yes I am being greedy for Cambridge and I make no apologies for that.
Most of those 10 million journeys are either to/from London, or within the East of England, including Peterborough.
That isn't being remodelled like that as part of Midlands Rail Hub either. Where are the 12tph going north of New St? Lichfield? Again, good luck. You won't get 4tph to Redditch with the current infrastructure either between Barnt Green and Redditch.
The whole point of adding the loop at Alvechurch was to enable a 4tph Redditch service. Some services would terminate at Fort Oaks north of Birmingham.
But who would take the 3hr train to Birmingham e.g. the airport or NEC if you can drive in hr and half. Whereas Brighton is direct and fast. Would Birmingham still be less if a fast direct service?
