IC225 for GEML?

[dk1]

The buffet service also does very well on this route. Takings can be in excess of £300 per single journey. Now remember that that is with just one member of staff & all 1st class tea/coffee/juice & snacks are handed out free. Trolley service is provided in addition on selected services if staff are spare/available but on some peak trains it is not possible to get through the train until after Colchester/Manningtree due to overcrowding.

 

[Tobbes]

If the crossings were sorted, the signalling upgraded, the OLE retensioned, the power supply strengthened, the track maintenance enhanced (considerably), some bridges rebuilt, some embankments strengthened, places of (staff) safety provided for 100mph+ operation, some track renewed to 100mph+ standards, some of the curves realigned, and some junctions removed altogether, then most of the route is fit for 125. Exceptions are through Chelmsford, Colchester, Manningtree and Ipswich station areas but trains would be stopping there.

Assuming 125 where it is currently 100, and a train of Pendolinesque characteristics, the journey time saving London-Norwich is approx 8mins on today's stopping pattern. Roughly half this saving is due to the better acceleration / braking of the train, and half is due to the raised line speeds. This assumes that all the slower trains in front are shifted out of the way, these being the ones that call at wayside halts such as Shenfield, Witham etc.

With new trains it would be an awful lot of money to save 4 mins. Alternatively knock out a stop for free.

Bald Rick - many thanks for such a comprehensive answer. Yes, far too much for such a small saving, but I suppose the second order question is whether there are upgrades that could be done incrementally - ie, that all future work will be to support 125 running, gently knitting the route together. I'm also surprised by your comment that the maintenance regime would have to be substantially better for 125 vice 100 - in my ignorance, I'd assumed that there wouldn't be much in it.

Thanks again,

Tobbes

 

[Dave1987]

Bald Rick - many thanks for such a comprehensive answer. Yes, far too much for such a small saving, but I suppose the second order question is whether there are upgrades that could be done incrementally - ie, that all future work will be to support 125 running, gently knitting the route together. I'm also surprised by your comment that the maintenance regime would have to be substantially better for 125 vice 100 - in my ignorance, I'd assumed that there wouldn't be much in it.

Thanks again,

Tobbes

Line inspections would have to be even more frequent as the track would get even more of a pounding. It would be very nice to have an 125mph railway on GEML as I would love to drive at that speed but it just isn't going to happen. 110mph is a bit more realistic from Shenfield onwards but I still don't see it happening.

 

[Bald Rick]

Maintenance regime: I'll quote the then track engineer when we were discussing this 5 years ago...

'With a lot of work we could get it to 125, but I'm not sure how we'd keep it there'

South of Haughley Jn (Stowmarket) particularly, the lines take a hammering from freight, and what lies beneath the ballast is pretty spongey at best.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

. 110mph is a bit more realistic from Shenfield onwards but I still don't see it happening.

Most of the standards change at 101mph, so the cost for 110 is not far off that for 125 so long as the track geometry is okay.

 

[dk1]

Maintenance regime: I'll quote the then track engineer when we were discussing this 5 years ago...

'With a lot of work we could get it to 125, but I'm not sure how we'd keep it there'

South of Haughley Jn (Stowmarket) particularly, the lines take a hammering from freight, and what lies beneath the ballast is pretty spongey at best.

That sounds about right. What makes the GEML a challenge & a different baby to anything else.

 

[Dave1987]

Maintenance regime: I'll quote the then track engineer when we were discussing this 5 years ago...

'With a lot of work we could get it to 125, but I'm not sure how we'd keep it there'

South of Haughley Jn (Stowmarket) particularly, the lines take a hammering from freight, and what lies beneath the ballast is pretty spongey at best.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Most of the standards change at 101mph, so the cost for 110 is not far off that for 125 so long as the track geometry is okay.

I was under the impression signal spacing and level crossings were the main obstacle to 110mph north of Shenfield?

 

[Bald Rick]

That sounds about right. What makes the GEML a challenge & a different baby to anything else.

What it's built on, in places. Much the same as the dead straight ECML south of Peterboro' to Connington(?) which is 100.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was under the impression signal spacing and level crossings were the main obstacle to 110mph north of Shenfield?

Level crossings is probably the most difficult to solve, particularly north of Ipswich. But the rest is still a challenge.

 

[dk1]

What it's built on, in places. Much the same as the dead straight ECML south of Peterboro' to Connington(?) which is 100.

Clay. Such a pain

 

[Tobbes]

Gentlemen,

Thanks very much - very interesting. So the short answer is "no" then; I guess the section Bramford - Haughley Jn along the River Gipping is going to get increasingly hammered by freight when Bacon Factory Curve opens.

A pity, though - it would be nice to shorten journey times to Ipswich and Norwich.

Thanks again,

Tobbes

 

[Bald Rick]

Gentlemen,

Thanks very much - very interesting. So the short answer is "no" then; I guess the section Bramford - Haughley Jn along the River Gipping is going to get increasingly hammered by freight when Bacon Factory Curve opens.

A pity, though - it would be nice to shorten journey times to Ipswich and Norwich.

Thanks again,

Tobbes

That's easy: just remove the Diss call from every other service. You knock 4-5 mins off the journey time and it's revenue positive. The extra generated from quicker journeys more than offsets the thruppence lost from Diss. Not very popular in Diss though.

 

[Tobbes]

That's easy: just remove the Diss call from every other service. You knock 4-5 mins off the journey time and it's revenue positive. The extra generated from quicker journeys more than offsets the thruppence lost from Diss. Not very popular in Diss though.

Interesting - I've often wondered whether there would be a revenue case for re-opening some of the intermediate stations between Ipswich and Norwich (especially in Norfolk) and running all-station EMUs (2 tph?) leaving the intercity services to run Norwich / Ipswich / Colchester / Stratford / LSt. Too much to hope for, I'm sure, but it would be good to see the data, especially given population growth since the mid-60s.

Tobbes

 

[306024]

Funny enough the second Diss call was thought to be revenue positive at the time, which is why it happened in the first place. The trouble is once you introduce stops you have a political struggle to remove them subsequently.

However with today's timetable it is difficult to achieve anyway. On the down you would clash with the xx.40 to Cambridge on the Swing Bridge. On the up you would have to leave Norwich later to avoid a clash with the Cambridge train at Stowmarket, which would then lose the simplicity of xx.00 and xx.30 depatures from both ends. Granted that is not essential, but it is easy to remember.

As for re-opening the likes of Ardleigh, Bentley, Bramford, Claydon, Haughley, Finningham, Mellis, Burston, Tivetshall, Forncett, Flordon and Swainsthorpe - it's a lovely thought Amazing how many stations there were.

The GEML is indeed "a challenge & a different baby to anything else". Which is what makes it more interesting to some of us than the more fashionable ECML, WCML, GWR etc.

 

[dk1]

The Diss call is very revenue positive. Good local traffic to Norwich & both business & leisure traffic from a large area of S.Norfolk & N.Suffolk towards Ipswich/London. Anyone suggesting otherwise hasn't got a clue,

 

[Tobbes]

As for re-opening the likes of Ardleigh, Bentley, Bramford, Claydon, Haughley, Finningham, Mellis, Burston, Tivetshall, Forncett, Flordon and Swainsthorpe - it's a lovely thought Amazing how many stations there were.

The GEML is indeed "a challenge & a different baby to anything else". Which is what makes it more interesting to some of us than the more fashionable ECML, WCML, GWR etc.

Indeed, and not just because I'm from there. I'd be interested in the case for re-opening the smaller stations - Claydon, Haughley, Tivetshall, Forncett, Flordon and Swainsthorpe - it's one of these things that if it would cover the operating costs, the capital costs cry out for s106 / regional grant funding. Great Blakenham SnOasis sounds like it won't happen, but the principle is sound.

Tobbes

 

[306024]

That's easy: just remove the Diss call from every other service. You knock 4-5 mins off the journey time and it's revenue positive. The extra generated from quicker journeys more than offsets the thruppence lost from Diss. Not very popular in Diss though.

We seem to have a disagreement

Passenger loadings from Diss are indeed reasonable. I am always a bit sceptical of the economic theory regarding the revenue v journey time argument. To me it depends on the alternatives available. In East Anglia the roads are currently slow, although the dualing of the final stretch of the A11 will improve London - Norwich journey time and could be a threat to rail.

 

[D6975]

I was surprised at how many pax were boarding/alighting at Diss when I did an Anglia plus earlier this year. Doesn't appear to be much by the way of built up areas visible from the train, but they're all going to/coming from somewhere.

There were always plenty of cars parked up in the adjacent car parks.

Journey times London - Colchester won't improve much unless you can do something about the stoppers. You can have 125mph sets, but if you've got loads of stoppers/semis using the same tracks that won't do any good. It was very noticeable on my way home that once we got past Colchester it was a steady medium speed trundle all the way to Liverpool St.

 

[AndyLandy]

Journey times London - Colchester won't improve much unless you can do something about the stoppers. You can have 125mph sets, but if you've got loads of stoppers/semis using the same tracks that won't do any good. It was very noticeable on my way home that once we got past Colchester it was a steady medium speed trundle all the way to Liverpool St.

Well, indeed. If you want to make real improvements to journey times, you need to look at a lot of changes.

Firstly, you need to path things in such a way that fast trains don't get caught behind stopping services. In an ideal world, you'd have separate fast and slow lines, but I'm not sure how practical or possible that would be on the GE. At the very least, you'll need sufficient loops to let fast trains pass slow ones, and a timetable to facilitate that.

Secondly, you'll need to reduce the number of calling points. If you've got 2 fast paths per hour, you could alternate some station calls along the route, but this would halve the service frequency to those stations and would remove Intercity journeys between intermediate stations.

Once you've done both of these things, then increased linespeeds will start to have a more meaningful impact on journey times.

 

[tbtc]

Isn't the solution to build 30x 5 car EMUs, but with 15x in one internal configuration and 15x in another and operate them in semi-permanently coupled pairs? (LU and Eurostar seem to manage this type of operation fine)

Example - fifteen of each of:
- Driving First + First + First Buffet + Standard + Standard Shunt
- Shunt Standard + Standard + Standard + Standard + Driving Standard Luggage

Have the "Shunt" vehicles fitted with a standard sized cab, but only fit it out with basic controls suitable for moving the units around in the depot.

As far as the manufacturer is concerned, they've supplied 30x 5 car units. As far as the operator is concerned, they have 15x 10 car units. If the units need cascading later in their lives, the shunt cabs could be refitted with a full cab, and the seating can easily be reconfigured / replaced.

That could well work - the main thing is to have mechanically similar units to others in the UK - we can then play around with the modular internal stuff and have different seating layouts etc (things which can be reversed at a later date).

Not that I'm convinced about ten coaches being required on every service - places like Nottingham and Sheffield make do with five coach trains to London on certain trips.

 

[dk1]

As said before this route is far too busy to be messing around with 5-coach trains & definitely don't want to go down the road of attatching/detaching and all the faffing around that goes with it. Performance would take one hell of a knock.

 

[Dave1987]

That could well work - the main thing is to have mechanically similar units to others in the UK - we can then play around with the modular internal stuff and have different seating layouts etc (things which can be reversed at a later date).

Not that I'm convinced about ten coaches being required on every service - places like Nottingham and Sheffield make do with five coach trains to London on certain trips.

Have ever seen the amount of passengers on the Norwich - London trains? The only services that might get away with a 5 car would be the early morning down Norwich services. Apart from that they need to be full strength. Don't see the issue with having a 10 car emu which would be ideal. Either that or the cascaded trains.

 

[tbtc]

As said before this route is far too busy to be messing around with 5-coach trains & definitely don't want to go down the road of attatching/detaching and all the faffing around that goes with it. Performance would take one hell of a knock.

How come TOCs like SWT/ Southern/ SouthEastern all manage to attach/ detach services on a fairly intense service frequency?

What's unique about the GEML?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Overcrowding would be horrendous. Off-peak travel is very strong on the Norwich route. I can give you an example of 197 passengers on the 13.00 up from Norwich one day last week

Have ever seen the amount of passengers on the Norwich - London trains? The only services that might get away with a 5 car would be the early morning down Norwich services. Apart from that they need to be full strength

I reckon you could get 197 passenegrs on a five coach EMU at lunchtime?

 

[JamesRowden]

Perhaps the present fast intercity service could continue to run in its present form (but using multiple units) and the slower intercity service could be replaced with a service that leaves London and runs as it does presently as far as Colchester or Ipswich and then splits. If 12-car trains of 20m carraiges were used, it could split into three services with for example one running fast to Norwich, one running slow to Norwich and the other one running down one of the braches to provide a direct service to London to the stations that it calls at.

 

[Dave1987]

How come TOCs like SWT/ Southern/ SouthEastern all manage to attach/ detach services on a fairly intense service frequency?

What's unique about the GEML?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




I reckon you could get 197 passenegrs on a five coach EMU at lunchtime?

Seriously have you ever seen the off peak Norwich - London services yourself?

 

[JamesRowden]

Just thought that the branches probably aren't electrified. A slow and fast Norwich split could still happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just seen that there aren't any stations along that section (as someone stated earler).

 

[O L Leigh]

As said before this route is far too busy to be messing around with 5-coach trains & definitely don't want to go down the road of attatching/detaching and all the faffing around that goes with it. Performance would take one hell of a knock.

What is this obsession with attaching and detaching en route...?

A 5 car EMU is a good basis on which to base the services running doubled-up to make a 10 car train. It gives flexibility and resilience to the service and simplifies maintenance regimes and diagramming. Just because they are self-contained 5 car units it does not mean that they will, or should be, run as single units.

And while I'm on the subject, the requirements of the GEML should not mean that there is a single unique fleet required. As I have mentioned already, the Cl380 would make a good basis for a new 23 metre medium to long distance EMU and could be configured in any way the operator requires (including, I am sure, external door positioning and type). It would merely become a sub-class of a much larger and widely distributed class, and with a potential requirement for 30 5 car units it would not even be the smallest or most isolated sub-class of any type.

Unfortunately I fear the moment may have already passed. TPE should have been an ideal candidate for such units in the first instance, but in their wisdom the DfT has ordered them Cl350s instead. Daft.

O L Leigh

 

[JamesRowden]

I just looked up the electrified lines and have seen that it would be possible to have services split at Colchester with one half continuing to Norwich and the other half continuing to Clacton On Sea, Walton on the Naze or Harwich Town.

 

[tbtc]

Unfortunately I fear the moment may have already passed. TPE should have been an ideal candidate for such units in the first instance, but in their wisdom the DfT has ordered them Cl350s instead. Daft.

To be fair to the DfT, the small order of 350s are a short term measure only for the Scottish services - they will presumably go to LM after a couple of years.

A big order of EMUs will be required for the meatier bit of TPE - the Manchester - Huddersfield - Leeds corridor (as well as the Blackpool route) - which is where 380s could be an option.

 

[AndyLandy]

To be fair to the DfT, the small order of 350s are a short term measure only for the Scottish services - they will presumably go to LM after a couple of years.

A big order of EMUs will be required for the meatier bit of TPE - the Manchester - Huddersfield - Leeds corridor (as well as the Blackpool route) - which is where 380s could be an option.

That's my understanding. The 350s are only a stopgap measure. They'll run the route now to immediately free up some diesel traction, but when the rest of TPE is electrified, a new fleet will be procured. Indeed, that would seem like the ideal opportunity to tack on an order for some new GE EMUs.

 

[Dave1987]

What is this obsession with attaching and detaching en route...?

A 5 car EMU is a good basis on which to base the services running doubled-up to make a 10 car train. It gives flexibility and resilience to the service and simplifies maintenance regimes and diagramming. Just because they are self-contained 5 car units it does not mean that they will, or should be, run as single units.

And while I'm on the subject, the requirements of the GEML should not mean that there is a single unique fleet required. As I have mentioned already, the Cl380 would make a good basis for a new 23 metre medium to long distance EMU and could be configured in any way the operator requires (including, I am sure, external door positioning and type). It would merely become a sub-class of a much larger and widely distributed class, and with a potential requirement for 30 5 car units it would not even be the smallest or most isolated sub-class of any type.

Unfortunately I fear the moment may have already passed. TPE should have been an ideal candidate for such units in the first instance, but in their wisdom the DfT has ordered them Cl350s instead. Daft.

O L Leigh

So why not just make them 10 car units? Solves the problem of having two separate first class areas and two buffets? The whole point of having emus is to maximise the space available for seating. With 2 x 5 car trains you are always going to have a buffet not in use and some first class passengers having to walk half the train to get their complimentary drinks and snacks.

 

[AndyLandy]

So why not just make them 10 car units? Solves the problem of having two separate first class areas and two buffets? The whole point of having emus is to maximise the space available for seating. With 2 x 5 car trains you are always going to have a buffet not in use and some first class passengers having to walk half the train to get their complimentary drinks and snacks.

We're going round in circles again. Many solutions to those "problems" have already been suggested in the posts above. Either have different internal layouts for the front and rear trains, or orient them such that the first class is in the centre.

You're right that a 10-car design is preferable than pairs of 5-car trains. The realists however realise that there's a far greater chance of actually getting new stock for the GEML if it's piggybacked onto another order for elsewhere. Ordering 5-car EMUs and putting up with the wasted space is a reasonable solution, even if it's not the ideal one.

The current set of loco-hauled Mk3s is adequate; pairs of 5-car EMUs is better; and a dedicated 10-car EMU design is ideal, assuming the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of having a small class of dedicated trains.