GEML Capacity Study - possible new locos and Mk3 refurbishment?

[W230]

Er, I thought I referred to it as being single-track?

I don't think Trainfan344 was disagreeing - i'm guessing they were linking to Wikipedia in response to you writing:

...but the one I'm unsure about is Trowse Swing Bridge, which, according to my rail atlas, funnels the 2 tracks of the Brecks line and the 2 tracks of the GEML to a single track crossing the river. Could those more knowledgeable than I please comment on whether this is a problem or not?

Anyway, back on topic, i'd be inclined to agree that it's the lack of the capacity on the GEML which is the main problem, rather than the ageing stock. I'd prefer to see NR improve the capacity first and then plan with more suitable rolling stock from there.

 

[w0033944]

I don't think Trainfan344 was disagreeing - i'm guessing they were linking to Wikipedia in response to you writing:

That's what I assumed, except for the fact that the phrase "single-track" was in normal font in the quoted Wikipedia article, yet he entered it in bold type in his quote, as if to emphasise it.

 

[dk1]

Trowse Bridge is no real problem. With the 40mph line speed trains clear this short section reasonably quickly. In my opinion the biggest issue is that the way the timetable works services 'bunch' around it. Rough hourly crossings are...

02 - Nrw-Lst GA
05 - Liv-Nrw EM
24 - Lst-Nrw GA
27 - Cbg-Nrw GA
32 - Nrw-Lst GA
42 - Nrw-Cbg GA
45 - Lst-Nrw GA
59 - Nrw-Liv EM

It doesnt take much disruption to see trains waiting sometimes on either side. Most common is the period around half past each hour.

 

[306024]

Trowse Bridge is no real problem. With the 40mph line speed trains clear this short section reasonably quickly. In my opinion the biggest issue is that the way the timetable works services 'bunch' around it. Rough hourly crossings are...

02 - Nrw-Lst GA
05 - Liv-Nrw EM
24 - Lst-Nrw GA
27 - Cbg-Nrw GA
32 - Nrw-Lst GA
42 - Nrw-Cbg GA
45 - Lst-Nrw GA
59 - Nrw-Liv EM

It doesnt take much disruption to see trains waiting sometimes on either side. Most common is the period around half past each hour.

Fair comment. With 8 trains an hour over Trowse Swing Bridge it would be nice for them to be 7-8 minutes apart. It's the Cambridge services that are the difficult ones to fit in, which sounds ridiculous on a route that has two trains per hour for most of it, but no one has come up with a better idea while still keeping just 3 units allocated to the service. (Now there's a challenge for someone )

Haughley Jn has a similar issue with the Ipswich - Cambridge services passing each other closely apart. Shame this remained a single lead junction when it was renewed like for like recently.

Given all the different bits of single line all over East Anglia inevitably it can't work perfectly everywhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That depends on what people value more: speed or convenience. Stopping more often means slower trains, but it also means the intermediate stations provide a better service. Some stations lose out (as in the case of Ipswich which has gone from 4tph to 3tph), but overall there is a net improvement.

Also, I doubt splitting up the franchise is a good idea. The railway has slowly been undoing the fragmentation caused by 1993, so I don't think it wants to go back there!

Too true - it caused enough headaches at the time thank you. Both TOC's (Anglia and FGE) played the ORCATS raiding game to get a greater share of available revenue from the route (hence the Ingatestone calls in Norwich services for example).

There is now a requirement for two non stop class 4 freight paths per hour between Ipswich and Stratford, as well as other freight paths. They aren't easy to fit in either - something had to give and the GE 'fast' path was the one to go.

 

[jopsuk]

Hmm, a local news site is pushing the refurb plan, but it only has a Suffolk council cabinet member and a consultant who's worked for Porterbrook supporting it in the article.

 

[w0033944]

Hmm, a local news site is pushing the refurb plan, but it only has a Suffolk council cabinet member and a consultant who's worked for Porterbrook supporting it in the article.

By the sound of it, Ben Gummer and dear Chloe Smith (who's a complete Cameron acolyte and manages to get her photo in our local paper every evening) are also pushing for it. Does anyone here have any knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the locos proposed? I'm also concerned about DVT-first running at 120 mph for safety reasons, but I presume that would be considered?

Speaking as someone born and bred close to the northern section of the GEML, I'm interested as to how Norfolk County Council are supposed to close crossings between Ipswich and Norwich. Some could be shut, but, thanks to the landscape and roads around here, road users would have to take massive detours, and Swainsthorpe AHB, which is about 1 1/2 miles from me, is slap bang in the middle of the village! If you closed it, the village would literally be cut in two, and, to get from one half to the other would take about a 2-3 mile drive.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm also concerned about DVT-first running at 120 mph for safety reasons, but I presume that would be considered?

I take it you don't travel southbound on the ECML? The IC225 sets there have DVTs leading at 125mph and were intended originally to be doing 140mph. I don't think there are any safety issues with DVTs leading, the issue with a lightweight vehicle leading was resolved, I believe, by putting a load of cement in the floor of the DVT.

 

[w0033944]

I take it you don't travel southbound on the ECML as the IC225 sets there have DVTs leading at 125mph and were intended originally to be doing 140mph.

True - sorry, brainfade there. I'm disabled and therefore have little experience travelling on the network, but I should have thought, given that I model the ECML (albeit my era ends in the mid-'80s) I thought I once read that the Mk4 DVTs were heavier than the MK3 type used on the GEML, though. Wouldn't that affect maximum safe speed?

 

[Dave1987]

Refurbing the mk3's and DVT's wih new traxx locos is def the most cost effective way of improving services.

 

[w0033944]

Refurbing the mk3's and DVT's wih new traxx locos is def the most cost effective way of improving services.

Only if combined with infrastructure upgrades, i.e. crossings and signalling.

 

[sprinterguy]

True - sorry, brainfade there. I'm disabled and therefore have little experience travelling on the network, but I should have thought, given that I model the ECML (albeit my era ends in the mid-'80s) I thought I once read that the Mk4 DVTs were heavier than the MK3 type used on the GEML, though. Wouldn't that affect maximum safe speed?

The mark 3 DVTs are actually heavier than the mark 4 DVTs: 45.2 tonnes for the mark 3 against 43.2t for the mark 4.

 

[jopsuk]

I think the Mark 3 DVTs have a fair bit of weight in them as well- it was a major consideration after Polmont. Before then, the protoype APTs had run at even higher speeds- they had passenger carrying driving trailers (though with auxiliarly power units) at both ends. Pendolinos have driving trailers (no motors) as well. You're not wrong to have a concern, but it has been thought about!

 

[w0033944]

The mark 3 DVTs are actually heavier than the mark 4 DVTs: 45.2 tonnes for the mark 3 against 43.2t for the mark 4.

Thanks - that alleviates my concern.

 

[sprinterguy]

Pendolinos have driving trailers (no motors) as well. You're not wrong to have a concern, but it has been thought about!

The Pendolinos don't have driving trailers, they are motor vehicles. Otherwise, there would only be four powered carriages in a 9-car set.

 

[aylesbury]

The MD of the franchise is asking stakeholders to put their thaughts into a document for the refurbishment of the entire franchise ,this can only be good for everybody.

 

[johnnyp_360]

Speaking as someone born and bred close to the northern section of the GEML, I'm interested as to how Norfolk County Council are supposed to close crossings between Ipswich and Norwich. Some could be shut, but, thanks to the landscape and roads around here, road users would have to take massive detours, and Swainsthorpe AHB, which is about 1 1/2 miles from me, is slap bang in the middle of the village! If you closed it, the village would literally be cut in two, and, to get from one half to the other would take about a 2-3 mile drive.

Could easily get away with closing (or even both) of the level crossings in Stowmarket with new bridges there.

 

[w0033944]

Could easily get away with closing (or even both) of the level crossings in Stowmarket with new bridges there.

Thanks for that - I'm not familiar with Stowmarket so it's good to hear from someone who knows. Going back to my "local" crossing, the only way I could see of bridging the line would be to put it in a deep cutting, as there are driveways and entrances to properties within a few metres of the crossing.

 

[dk1]

Could easily get away with closing (or even both) of the level crossings in Stowmarket with new bridges there.

Stowmarkets crossings are not a hindrance to higher speed running as they are not AHBs.