Idea: Could GTR's Great Northern services be extended to Doncaster?

[pt_mad]

Considering how well LNR works as a regional operator on the West Coast Mainline, I was wondering whether it would be viable or possible for Thameslink Great Northern to run further north than Peterborough?

I'm not necessarily asking about franchise agreements or competition rights, (although I would be interested in knowing whether there would be any restriction in place to prevent this), but whether in theory running further north would be possible in terms of paths, uptake, connectivity, journey improvements and markets.

Also, could there be an improved Thameslink service to Peterborough itself?

Now I know this involves two track sections along some of the route, but the ECML doesn't exactly seem full to bursting. Could it be done with thoughtful planning?

Also, if it could be done, what sort of services would be worth running, stopping where, and at what frequency?

 

[LowLevel]

I'm not sure what the point would be. The ECML is a lot more sparsely populated in terms of stations than the WCML and thus running 155 mile journeys making very few stops would seem to be an odd thing for a London South East outer suburban operator to be doing.

 

[xc170]

Another case of "Yes, but why??"

 

[Andrewh32]

I believe that VTEC wanted to extend all the services that finish at Newark so that they finished at Doncaster but weren't allowed which I think was down to lack of paths

 

[TheBigD]

Deleted

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Could you fit in an attractive 100mph path between Peterborough and Doncaster? Looking at a line up for the down direction during a weekday off-peak at Clapypole (for sake of reference) it seems that most of the VTEC/GC/HT services are quite evenly spaced, which doesn't allow a slower service to really fit through a gap in flighting. Of course then you also have to get it into Donny, and hope a similarly nice path works in the up...

 

[yorkie]

Could it be done with thoughtful planning?

Not easily or viably.

Also, if it could be done, what sort of services would be worth running

None worth running.

stopping where

It was your idea What did you have in mind?

and at what frequency?

Not very frequently! I guess you could fit something in the hours there isn't an xx48 departure from King's Cross, but you'd not be able to stop at many stations and/or run at much less than 125mph unless you were planning to be overtaken, which would make the path extremely unattractive and unviable.

 

[Agent_Squash]

But surely once TL takes over the majority of the GN network, it would be a good idea to use the 110mph capable 387s a la the WCML on longer services?

 

[pt_mad]

But surely once TL takes over the majority of the GN network, it would be a good idea to use the 110mph capable 387s a la the WCML on longer services?

Yes, this kind of thing.

It wasn't exactly an idea. It was a question. (But the mods changed the thread to 'idea...' rather than 'could Great Northern services run to Doncaster'?).


Reason for asking was if there's any possibility that once the Azumas are introduced fully on East Coast with a new timetable, whether stops will be reduced in any way at the intermediate town stations.
As it's surprising that there are Edinburgh services at times calling at Newark and Grantham. And if this were to change in the future, presumably something would need to pick up the slack.

 

[pt_mad]

Not easily or viably.

None worth running.

It was your idea What did you have in mind?

Not very frequently! I guess you could fit something in the hours there isn't an xx48 departure from King's Cross, but you'd not be able to stop at many stations and/or run at much less than 125mph unless you were planning to be overtaken, which would make the path extremely unattractive and unviable.

Say a 110mph Electrostar service calling at say (one stop before Arlesley) Arlesley, Huntington, Peterborough, (over take move) Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster. Would that not be attractive at 100 or 110mph with cheaply priced fares?

And not sure it would be that much of a problem the franchisee running that far north as they go all the way to Kings Lynn already which is a fair hop.

 

[DarloRich]

Considering how well LNR works as a regional operator on the West Coast Mainline, I was wondering whether it would be viable or possible for Thameslink Great Northern to run further north than Peterborough?

I'm not necessarily asking about franchise agreements or competition rights, (although I would be interested in knowing whether there would be any restriction in place to prevent this), but whether in theory running further north would be possible in terms of paths, uptake, connectivity, journey improvements and markets.

Also, could there be an improved Thameslink service to Peterborough itself?

Now I know this involves two track sections along some of the route, but the ECML doesn't exactly seem full to bursting. Could it be done with thoughtful planning?

Also, if it could be done, what sort of services would be worth running, stopping where, and at what frequency?

It is possible. It want happen. What would be the point?

 

[ashworth]

It is possible. It want happen. What would be the point?

I agree that it won’t happen.
What would be the point? It would enable easier local journeys between stations. Journeys between two neighbouring market towns like Newark to Retford would be more frequent. If they were on a local secondary route there would probably be at least an hourly service between the two towns at far cheaper prices. However, it won’t happen, as for the small amount of extra passengers, especially at current fare levels, it wouldn’t be viable.

 

[DarloRich]

I agree that it won’t happen.
What would be the point? It would enable easier local journeys between stations. Journeys between two neighbouring market towns like Newark to Retford would be more frequent. If they were on a local secondary route there would probably be at least an hourly service between the two towns at far cheaper prices. However, it won’t happen, as for the small amount of extra passengers, especially at current fare levels, it wouldn’t be viable.

so no point then..............................

 

[pt_mad]

Will there ever be an all stations service at least hourly between Peterborough and Doncaster? Once the Azumas are in full use?

 

[robbeech]

.........but the ECML doesn't exactly seem full to bursting......

Where?

 

[NSE]

No need to stop it Arlesey. If you running a semi fast service your best going something like Kings Cross - Stevenage (though I’d rather skip it as it has other services, unless you’re replacing the Newark stopper) - Biggleswade - St. Neots - Huntingdon - Peterborough and onwards.

 

[pt_mad]

Where?

Well you can stand at Newark and not see a train for ten plus minutes. Not exactly every 3 mins like over on the WCML.

 

[pt_mad]

No need to stop it Arlesey. If you running a semi fast service your best going something like Kings Cross - Stevenage (though I’d rather skip it as it has other services, unless you’re replacing the Newark stopper) - Biggleswade - St. Neots - Huntingdon - Peterborough and onwards.

Sounds good. Could there be a path, providing there was an overtaking move or two?

 

[jon0844]

No need to stop it Arlesey. If you running a semi fast service your best going something like Kings Cross - Stevenage (though I’d rather skip it as it has other services, unless you’re replacing the Newark stopper) - Biggleswade - St. Neots - Huntingdon - Peterborough and onwards.

You'd surely want to run them as Thameslink trains, so people could have a 700 from Brighton to Doncaster, all stations. I'm sure that would be popular!

 

[A0]

I'm sure I read that in the early 80s after the introduction of the HSTs there was a timetable 'tidy up' to address the issue of stops being removed from longer distance services and a York 'semi-fast' was introduced that called something like Stevenage, Huntingdon, Peterboro, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Selby, Doncaster and York ?

Now clearly calling at Selby isn't a goer any longer and arguably Huntingdon is better covered by the suburban services to Peterborough - which at that time didn't exist, the DMU being Hitchin - Huntingdon and irregular services between Huntingdon and Peterborough.

But it's an interesting question whether there is the demand for a regular 'semi-fast' type service from York to London - giving the intermediate stations a regular service - the evidence from the WCML TV stations suggests potentially there is.

 

[pt_mad]

I'm sure I read that in the early 80s after the introduction of the HSTs there was a timetable 'tidy up' to address the issue of stops being removed from longer distance services and a York 'semi-fast' was introduced that called something like Stevenage, Huntingdon, Peterboro, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Selby, Doncaster and York ?

Now clearly calling at Selby isn't a goer any longer and arguably Huntingdon is better covered by the suburban services to Peterborough - which at that time didn't exist, the DMU being Hitchin - Huntingdon and irregular services between Huntingdon and Peterborough.

But it's an interesting question whether there is the demand for a regular 'semi-fast' type service from York to London - giving the intermediate stations a regular service - the evidence from the WCML TV stations suggests potentially there is.

And it no longer needs loco hauled stock to do it. Plenty of 110mph EMUs being produced now.

 

[NSE]

You'd surely want to run them as Thameslink trains, so people could have a 700 from Brighton to Doncaster, all stations. I'm sure that would be popular!

Well Northerners are always complaining they want London trains! Hah!

Nah, I’ve said it before, I think a service could work with a 110mph EMU as it seems a waste of stock to use a full IC stock on the Newark Stopper. It allows for cheaper advance purchases and keeps some local traffic off IC trains. Also, there maybe some room on the ECML around Newark and Doncaster (I wouldn’t know) but it’s full to capacity south of Peterborough. The three track section and Peterborough and two track at Welwyn need solving before any further additions are made

 

[HSTEd]

The existing timetable does alright in terms of local travel, as much as their is demand for that.

But if the Stoke segment of the route could be sorted out we could put in a lot more, and faster, Liv-Norwich or similar trains.

 

[pt_mad]

The existing timetable does alright in terms of local travel, as much as their is demand for that.

But if the Stoke segment of the route could be sorted out we could put in a lot more, and faster, Liv-Norwich or similar trains.

But the existing timetable stops a fair amount (nearly hourly through a lot of the day time) of Edinburgh services at Newark North Gate. Are they going to want to continue that with the full introduction of the Azumas?

If not then an all major stations 110mph EMU service could be a good way to provide connectivity without slowing down long distance Scotland trains.

People from Grantham make connections at Newark for Edinburgh, rather than Doncaster (or York) at the moment.

 

[HSTEd]

But the existing timetable stops some Scotland services at Newark etc. Are they going to want to continue that with the full introduction of the Azumas?

Given that the new EMU stock has far superior acceleration characteristics to the current loco hauled trains - I would expect more stops, not fewer
The time lost by stopping the train at an intermediate station will shrink drastically.

If not then an all major stations 110mph EMU service could be a good way to provide connectivity without slowing down ultra long distance Scotland trains.

And kill the route's capacity?
If you want t split into ultra-long distance and short-distance then I am afraid you are going to need some 125mph capable short distance trains, otherwise you are going to cause all sorts of pathing problems.

 

[pt_mad]

Given that the new EMU stock has far superior acceleration characteristics to the current loco hauled trains - I would expect more stops, not fewer
The time lost by stopping the train at an intermediate station will shrink drastically.


And kill the route's capacity?
If you want t split into ultra-long distance and short-distance then I am afraid you are going to need some 125mph capable short distance trains, otherwise you are going to cause all sorts of pathing problems.

Well the Pendolinos accelerated better than the loco hauled stock which went before on the WCML. However, the main London to Scotland services have few stops and most do not stop until Warrington from London.

The DFT didn't follow the principal of adding more stops. They wanted fewer.

What is to say this won't follow suit on the ECML?

As for 125mph being needed, 110mph works perfectly well on the West Coast Desiro service, even on the two track fast section between Hanslope and Rugby. And they run fast line most of the time as far as Nuneaton at 110mph. All that is needed is an overtaking move. And there was until recently and I believe may still be a class 90 MK3 set running up and down the ECML anyway. And this is maximum 110mph, but far insuperior acceleration to an EMU.


There's no reason why basically the class 90 set couldn't be substituted by a 110mph class 387 (or 350, although I realise these aren't available) and it wouldn't achieve or improve the current journey time on that working. It more than likely would.

So going on that principal, you could use the improvement in acceleration to insert another couple of stops into a 387 service and offer excellent connectivity.

 

[Ianno87]

Well you can stand at Newark and not see a train for ten plus minutes. Not exactly every 3 mins like over on the WCML.

Two words: Speed differential.

 

[eastdyke]

Two words: Speed differential.

Two more words: Flat crossing!

 

[Darandio]

Well you can stand at Newark and not see a train for ten plus minutes. Not exactly every 3 mins like over on the WCML.

The common misconception that because there is a gap, you believe a train can run in that gap.

 

[pt_mad]

The common misconception that because there is a gap, you believe a train can run in that gap.

Not necessarily every gap. But in one gap per hour. Or, simply replace the class 90 working which currently takes up a path with a nimble EMU, and add several more stops so that people can travel Newark to Grantham more often than now. Or Grantham Retford. Or Newark Retford and so on.

I would still imagine that it'd be possible to run a service like that without using the current class 90 path, with overtaking moves. It's only one path an hour. And if it needs to sit at Peterborough, or somewhere else for an overtake so be it. But with will who's to say it could be done without being too complicated?

I bet there were many people during the project 110 on the West Coast who said LM could never run a Desiro up the fast line at 100 or 110. However, it's been done. Hourly.