F2N capacity enhancement

[Class 170101]

Whilst there is certainly less passenger trains on the route, there hasn't been any reduction in the number of liners.

But more space due to fewer passenger trains to divert freight trains. Not all can be diverted on a full passenger service.

 

[Alfie1014]

Really that long ago for Haughley

Perhaps F2N might not need doing now in capacity terms though with few passengers for the last year and probably for most of this (somehow) an opportunity missed I would have thought.

Whilst there is no doubt that the liner and other freight traffic on the route across the Fens is the revenue earner and strategically the most important, the doubling of the frequency of the Ipswich to Peterborough (and extension to Colchester) as per the original franchise offer has merit in the context of improving regional connectivity. And whilst not advocating its improvement in preference to freight operation it must be a medium term aspiration, after all its probably the least frequent inter-urban route south of the Wash/Severn. Generally connectivity in one of the UKs most benign topographically regions is still pretty poor. Colchester to Cambridge for example barely 47 miles as the crow flies but up to 60-70 miles (1 1/4 to 1 1/2 hours ) by trunk roads and not less than 2 1/4 by rail is just one example.

 

[L Brightwell]

Haughley was supposed to have been done around 4/5 years ago now (I seem to recall a blockade for it) but never happened. However F2N will still be needed even if London Gateway expands simply because London Gateway traffic must either run via T&H or via GEML and NLL via Forest Gate Jn and Stratford - both flat Junctions.to reach the WCML at Willesden. The space isn't there for both Ports to send their trains via London so one must go Cross Country - Felixstowe Freight.

In terms of Nuneaton North its lack of use can only be because Felixstowe Freight goes via London rather than via Leicester and that relates to the constraints Haughley Jn - single lead junction, Soham to Ely Dock Jn single line, Ely North Jn and onwards to Peterborough, Werrington, Syston single line, then the three track section to Leicester and flat junction crossing moves in the Leicester area - quite a list there.


Whilst it might suit HM Treasury to do things piecemeal politically doesn't this approach cost more in the long run?

Expanding London Gateway alone causes constraints on both the busy T&H and NLL routes, not to mention the capacity issues for freight trains using the flat junctions and crunching up paths between Forest Gate and Stratford. Whether you expand London Gateway or Felixstowe to accommodate extra freight growth, you're only going to find yourself dealing with more capacity issues with all the extra traffic running over the bottlenecks along the route. I do believe that the Cross Country route via Ely, Peterborough and Nuneaton is the better route to take as you avoid London and you're not running with other freight alongside to/from places like London Gateway. Whether you run them via London or Cross Country, there are still bottlenecks that need resolving on both key freight routes.

 

[21C101]

Presumably the key to this is when the leicester area trackside signalling equipment is renewed, with whatever is done being set in stone for a generation, and I suspect one reason for reluctance to extend the wires north of Market Harborough for a while yet.

It was recontrolled in 2013 but that was, on the ground, just a largely like for like interlocking renewal I gather.

Four tracks through the Leicester area , presumably with an extra pair of platforms on the reinstated station goods lines is presumably a given.

I guess though with only four an hour each way heading south from Leicester and little if any prospect of that increasing due to, firstly no capacity south of Bedford and secondly HS2 east seeming to be pretty certain to appear as far as Trent Junction, a flyover at Syston is seen as a bit of an indulgence.