• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Longer (400m?) trains on the ECML - what work would be needed?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,550
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
There is access, but its a pain and adds substantial amounts of time to a journey. We do it with the sleeper when the WCML is shut, it goes via ECML then around the houses to Wembley and back into Euston. You will be hard pressed to find signal sections less than 400m, so it isn't an issue.

Interesting. So a budget hourly ECML Edinburgh service could potentially be run from Euston P1, leaving Kings Cross-Edinburgh as the premium option? Possibly Lumo style with seats packed in and all Standard (but enough luggage space!)?

That's a lot of capacity gained if that'd be viable, and possibly a decent use for spare HS2 units.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,700
Interesting. So a budget hourly ECML Edinburgh service could potentially be run from Euston P1, leaving Kings Cross-Edinburgh as the premium option? Possibly Lumo style with seats packed in and all Standard (but enough luggage space!)?

That's a lot of capacity gained if that'd be viable, and possibly a decent use for spare HS2 units.
As long as people are ok with it taking the best part of 30-40 minutes to do Euston to Haringay.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,550
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
As long as people are ok with it taking the best part of 30-40 minutes to do Euston to Haringay.

If it cost considerably less than LNER (which wouldn't be hard at the moment) you'd sell it, easily. Indeed I wonder if it's something Lumo themselves might take on?

Avanti seem to get plenty of takers for Euston-Scotland via Birmingham at quite cheap prices, and that's just short of 6 hours, this would be more like 5 or just under depending how good an ECML path it got.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,700
If it cost considerably less than LNER (which wouldn't be hard at the moment) you'd sell it, easily. Indeed I wonder if it's something Lumo themselves might take on?
Doubt you would fit it on the NLL with the crossing moves at Kensal Green and Harringay Park junctions.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,828
Tell me about it, Avanti are incredibly unreliable. As for the capacity issues on XC...

and yet in the most recent figures published by ORR, Avanti’s growth in passenger km is 27%*, Cross Country 8%, LNER 1%.

Avanti’s distorted by the reduced timetable in Summer 2022.
 

Peter0124

Established Member
Joined
20 Nov 2016
Messages
2,751
Location
Glasgow
Would a 14 car Azuma (9+5) fit in stations? Not sure how many metres that would be.
 

Krokodil

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2023
Messages
6,580
Location
Wales
and yet in the most recent figures published by ORR, Avanti’s growth in passenger km is 27%*, Cross Country 8%, LNER 1%.

Avanti’s distorted by the reduced timetable in Summer 2022.
Compared with when? Compared with pre-pandemic LNER have already recovered fully, whereas XC and AWC are 30% and 20% down respectively. No surprises when LNER was able to return fairly quickly to a full service whereas Avanti has been beset by crew shortages and XC by a lack of rolling stock (a longstanding issue made worse by the withdrawal of HSTs without replacement). LNER are clearly quite confident that their passenger demand will hold up as they've just hiked fares.

Would a 14 car Azuma (9+5) fit in stations? Not sure how many metres that would be.
364m. Not a lot of places that would fit that can't already take a 400m set.
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
3,188
Location
London
Is there any easy access from the ECML to Euston? If so, there is a long platform used for the sleeper which might be available for longer trains.

Not without a reversal somewhere (such as on the North London Line...) - so not "easy".

Doubt you would fit it on the NLL with the crossing moves at Kensal Green and Harringay Park junctions.

Couldn't you use the North London Incline and reverse at South Hampstead, or isn't there the capacity for that?

How many members of the BLS are there?

BLS??
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,828
So after LNER had already recovered most of its traffic? Better to use a year unaffected by disruption as your datum for a fair comparison, no? Like 2019.

You could say that, but one of my hobbies is pedantry. Had you said ‘long distance travel has boomed’, then that would be more accurate, when comparing to the 2021 or 2022. However you said:


Long distance travel is booming - or at least it's booming where capacity and reliability allow.

Which it isn‘t, now, and specifically not on the ECML, the subject of this thread.


Alternatively, you could compare long distance passenger km to 2019, where you’d find current figures have been in the region of 90-95% of 2019 for around a year, when you allow for the strikes.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,700
Not without a reversal somewhere (such as on the North London Line...) - so not "easy".



Couldn't you use the North London Incline and reverse at South Hampstead, or isn't there the capacity for that?



BLS??
You need to reverse on the Down Slow outside Kings Cross to do that, that is hideous. At Haringay you are away from the main lines. How are you reversing at South Hampstead, unless you are doing it in the Kilburn loop? That is even worse as you are crossing the slows on the approach to Euston twice, once at Camden Jn and again at Kilburn.

BLS is Branch Line Society I assume.
 

cinders&ashes

Member
Joined
29 Oct 2023
Messages
69
Location
Havant
11 of which are BA to Heathrow and as has been previously discussed are used by people connecting onto other long haul destinations rather than heading to London as their final destination - dumping them on the train isn't particularly helpful or constructive.

Another 4 of them are EasyJet to Gatwick - given Gatwick is an hour south of London and closer for most of the south coast than London, you'll never compete on time for those journeys either.
Won't need to compete if the UK follows France and Spain's lead and bans domestic flights where there is a train equivalent. Though their initial laws are based on journeys covered in 2.5hrs by train, the intent is to gradually increase that.

I also expect most people flying to Gatwick are heading to London or the region rather than connecting onwards, meaning they'd be travelling back up into London after landing - so the ECML would be competitive anyway.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,550
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Won't need to compete if the UK follows France and Spain's lead and bans domestic flights where there is a train equivalent. Though their initial laws are based on journeys covered in 2.5hrs by train, the intent is to gradually increase that.

You'll need HS2 all the way to Scotland to do that for London-Edinburgh. The one that should be the main target is London-Manchester once Old Oak opens and provides an easy interchange to Heathrow, and it should be done by way of "codesharing" with the airline so the connection is guaranteed or people won't do it (most London-Manchester flyers are making connections).

4 hours is too slow to get much of the market, particularly given how there's a choice of London airport that many people live closer to than Kings Cross, and Edinburgh airport is very close to the centre so far as airports go.
 

cinders&ashes

Member
Joined
29 Oct 2023
Messages
69
Location
Havant
You'll need HS2 all the way to Scotland to do that for London-Edinburgh. The one that should be the main target is London-Manchester once Old Oak opens and provides an easy interchange to Heathrow, and it should be done by way of "codesharing" with the airline so the connection is guaranteed or people won't do it (most London-Manchester flyers are making connections).

4 hours is too slow to get much of the market, particularly given how there's a choice of London airport that many people live closer to than Kings Cross, and Edinburgh airport is very close to the centre so far as airports go.
Interesting point on codesharing. Not sure it is required though or how it'd work given you don't check in and have boarding passes scanned for intercity rail in the way you do for flights.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,550
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Interesting point on codesharing. Not sure it is required though or how it'd work given you don't check in and have boarding passes scanned for intercity rail in the way you do for flights.

I've created a new thread to further this:
 

Krokodil

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2023
Messages
6,580
Location
Wales
Branch Line Society. People who go out of their way to travel on very unusual routes (often to the extent of walking to the very end carriage to red pen a siding right to the buffer stop)

You'll need HS2 all the way to Scotland to do that for London-Edinburgh
As he says the plan in Europe is to tighten the rule over time. The post-HS2 timings will comfortably fit within the four hour limit originally proposed by the French.

4 hours is too slow to get much of the market,
Better get a shift on and build the full network then. Edinburgh via Carlisle was supposed to take 3:40 with Golborne built, and I reckon that Edinburgh via Newcastle would drop to 3:30 with the Leeds leg built. You'd be surprised how a small drop in journey times can have a disproportionate impact on ridership - especially when you take it below a psychological threshold (particularly round numbers in the same sense that shops knock a penny off of their goods to make them feel much cheaper).

Price is one of the main reasons people choose to fly though, and it's a capacity boost that will make that possible (obviously you do need a sympathetic government too).
 

Technologist

Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
467
No, the second set wouldn't go to Newcastle if Newcastle couldn't be adapted to accept 400m trains, hence the suggestion of sending the second set to Sunderland/Middlesbrough/wherever. Obviously this is all well in the future, one can look at platform extensions in 30 years once the Eastern Leg has been open long enough to build demand.


Do you think that it is a coincidence that most TGV, ICE, Shinkensen, AVE and Railjet sets are composed of 200m formations (running individually or in pairs)? There are exceptions of course but clearly it works. 400m is a length that the dedicated HS2 platforms are built to. It is also a length that many other stations which HS2 trains might serve can accommodate, or wouldn't require much work to do so.
There is physical space at Newcastle for 400m long trains, the longest platform is 350m and you could get 500m long platfroms in by extending the shed over the car park. Historically there was a shed and platforms where that car park is.

Newcastle-East-2005.jpg
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,337
There is physical space at Newcastle for 400m long trains, the longest platform is 350m and you could get 500m long platfroms in by extending the shed over the car park. Historically there was a shed and platforms where that car park is.

Newcastle-East-2005.jpg
I have also done a Google Earth exercise/thought experiment on getting 400m trains into Newcastle. It is still extremely challenging even with the use of the car park.
The station is hemmed at both ends by junctions and the station concourse makes getting through platforms onto the north side very difficult, so the car park is of only limited use regardless.

It would be easier if we could get the T&W Metro to take ov all services to Sunderland, because then simplification of the trackwork would be possible, but I'm not sure it is feasible without it. Would certainly need to get rid of the Scotland facing bays, or at least sacrifice their ability to reach Sunderland.
 
Last edited:

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
4,374
Location
belfast
The way I see it, the goal should be to reduce transport emissions, and part of that is to get more people to travel by train instead of driving/flying etc.

Ideally, the aim for the railway should therefore be to take a larger share of the transport pie in a way that reduces per-seat cost.

That requires the railway to have the capacity to transport more people - and one of the cheaper ways to increase capacity is to increase train length, so the premise for the thread is entirely sound.

a theoretical 11-car 80x would be 286m long, and would fit in platform 0,1,3,4,6,7,8 (platform 2 is 285m so just short, platform 5 is 270 so would require a more signifcant extension) at KGX, so a significant fraction of traffic out of KGX could be lengthened from 9/2x5 to 11 cars without requiring costly infrastructure works

In my view therefore, the first step should be seeing whether the 80x and new CAF units can be extended to 286m for a reasonable price.
 

Halifaxlad

Established Member
Joined
5 Apr 2018
Messages
1,792
Location
The White Rose County
There is physical space at Newcastle for 400m long trains, the longest platform is 350m and you could get 500m long platfroms in by extending the shed over the car park. Historically there was a shed and platforms where that car park is.

I think you maybe should have a look inside the trainshed!

Naturally we could kybosh the footbridge to the island platforms bit then they would become a bit useless!
 

Technologist

Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
467
I think you maybe should have a look inside the trainshed!

Naturally we could kybosh the footbridge to the island platforms bit then they would become a bit useless!
I know those existing platforms are bays, I grew up in Prudhoe.

I figured we could come up with a more compact design for the footbridge and reinstate the through platform.

Probably add a new glass building on the rest of that carpark to move all the stuff moved with the through platform.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,281
I know those existing platforms are bays, I grew up in Prudhoe.

I figured we could come up with a more compact design for the footbridge and reinstate the through platform.

Probably add a new glass building on the rest of that carpark to move all the stuff moved with the through platform.
Immediately before the east end suburban platform removals and the new island being built for P5-8 there were only three through platforms, formerly 8, 9 and 10 and now 2, 3 and 4 so there isn’t really a through platform that can be “reinstated”. You could quite reasonably link P1 and P9 as a new long through platform though.

Of course you might disturb some historic remnant of the smaller 1850s station, but I suspect that‘s too long ago to be considered a rebuild…
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,828
Won't need to compete if the UK follows France and Spain's lead and bans domestic flights where there is a train equivalent.

France and Spain haven‘t banned domestic flights where there is a train equivalent.

If the UK followed France’s lead - banning sales of point to point air tickets between city pairs that have a train equivalent journey under 2.5 hours, the number of flights that would be removed from British skies would be precisely zero. Even if HS 2 was built in full.
 

Technologist

Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
467
Immediately before the east end suburban platform removals and the new island being built for P5-8 there were only three through platforms, formerly 8, 9 and 10 and now 2, 3 and 4 so there isn’t really a through platform that can be “reinstated”. You could quite reasonably link P1 and P9 as a new long through platform though.

Of course you might disturb some historic remnant of the smaller 1850s station, but I suspect that‘s too long ago to be considered a rebuild…
# You knows what a meant, there is physically enough spaces to put some through platforms through that fit 400m trains.

Given that this hypothetical is part of some major investment it's fair to put everything up for grabs and completely remodel the station and stick more regional trains through an expanded Metro.
 

AlbertBeale

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2019
Messages
3,188
Location
London
You need to reverse on the Down Slow outside Kings Cross to do that, that is hideous. At Haringay you are away from the main lines. How are you reversing at South Hampstead, unless you are doing it in the Kilburn loop? That is even worse as you are crossing the slows on the approach to Euston twice, once at Camden Jn and again at Kilburn.

BLS is Branch Line Society I assume.

Thanks!
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,284
Location
Bolton
Worth pointing out that there's a lot of work that could be done to get more capacity in the new timetable even if infrastructure isn't changed. For example you could hire a Northern unit to work Leeds - Doncaster shuttles and flip some of the London - Leeds services to Edinburgh. Obviously this would incur a very large crew cost and would be a huge amount of work to get the sets to balance. Some of them will fit by taking over the CrossCountry service, others will not and will be a mess. The other thing you could do is buy some of GC's slots back off them as these generally do line up OK with XC, and reality is by sending those services to Edinburgh instead of Sunderland you could easily make enough money to cover it. Again you'd probably have to pay GC enough to cover their costs running the York - Sunderland section.

All of the above comes with a lot of pain points and cost, but far less than the costs of trying to modify in 350m or 400m trains.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top