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

[Bald Rick]

For example you could hire a Northern unit to work Leeds - Doncaster shuttles and flip some of the London - Leeds services to Edinburgh.

I’m not sure you could, unless some cross country or TPE servcies didn‘t make it to York from the south. And it would (obviously) be deeply unpopular in Yorkshire.

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.

That you could do, although it eouldcost a lot more than having to pay GC their costs.

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.

This is true.

 

[Starmill]

I’m not sure you could, unless some cross country or TPE servcies didn‘t make it to York from the south. And it would (obviously) be deeply unpopular in Yorkshire.



That you could do, although it eouldcost a lot more than having to pay GC their costs.




This is true.

I think that the reality of the situation is probably that the point Bletchleyite is raising will be addressed quite adequately by the proposed new timetable, with all of the political costs that reducing the quality of the service from Northallerton, Berwick-upon-Tweed and other places that these changes would entail. Unless, of course, someone's got a rabbit ready to pull out of the proverbial hat to keep the current level of service as good as today everywhere intermediately, and also raise capacity and lower journey times end-to-end. It is unlikely that services between London and Leeds or Edinburgh and Leeds need further (much bigger) political cost spending to move them onto Edinburgh - London axis instead.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I wasn't proposing that GC be paid at cost and coerced into lumping it either. Rather that they'd be paid a fully-burdened commercially negotiated rate to give back some of their rights temporarily, which included an extra amount to subsidise the continued operation of the York - Sunderland leg. The Austrian government sort of did something like this with WestBahn during the pandemic, letting them a special contract to keep them going in exchange for their making slightly different stops and accepting OBB tickets.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think that the reality of the situation is probably that the point Bletchleyite is raising will be addressed quite adequately by the proposed new timetable, with all of the political costs that reducing the quality of the service from Northallerton, Berwick-upon-Tweed and other places that these changes would entail. Unless, of course, someone's got a rabbit ready to pull out of the proverbial hat to keep the current level of service as good as today everywhere intermediately, and also raise capacity and lower journey times end-to-end. It is unlikely that services between London and Leeds or Edinburgh and Leeds need further (much bigger) political cost spending to move them onto Edinburgh - London axis instead. For the avoidance of any doubt, I wasn't proposing that GC be paid at cost and coerced into lumping it either. Rather that they'd be paid a fully-burdened commercially negotiated rate to give back some of their rights temporarily, which included an extra amount to subsidise the continued operation of the York - Sunderland leg. The Austrian government sort of did something like this with WestBahn during the pandemic, letting them a special contract to keep them going in exchange for their making slightly different stops and accepting OBB tickets.

Well, quite. The most straightforward solution to increase long distance capacity on the ECML would be to buy out all the OA rights (or let them expire without renewal) and then use the paths to best advantage. This would be (in my opinion) somewhat chepaer than the infrastructure required to deliver a similar result and better for passengers overall in terms of service offer. It would also be better for the taxpayer. However the current Governement will not entertain this.

(checks latest date of General Election).

 

[Nottingham59]

Well, quite. The most straightforward solution to increase long distance capacity on the ECML would be to buy out all the OA rights (or let them expire without renewal) and then use the paths to best advantage. This would be (in my opinion) somewhat chepaer than the infrastructure required to deliver a similar result and better for passengers overall in terms of service offer. It would also be better for the taxpayer. However the current Governement will not entertain this.

(checks latest date of General Election).

You could simply pay GC to run full length trains, and give them calling rights to more places en route ...

EDIT: Or terminate HS2 at Old Oak Common and dig the tunnels to the 400m platforms at Euston from somewhere like Alexandra Palace instead, to serve 400m trains from the ECML

The whole rationale for HS2 Euston is that it was the last place in Central London that could have been used for long platforms. And Sunak is now going to build housing over half of that space.

Outside the centre, I have wondered if you could construct 400m (preferably 540m) platforms at Stratford, using the eastern edge of the Olymic Park, so that the northern end was near the Stratford International platforms, and the southern end was near Stratford mainline station? Could be done in conjunction with Lea Valley four-tracking.

Alternatively, there is space alongside the ECML just north of Finsbury Park station, where long terminating platforms could fit.

 

[gingertom]

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 significant 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.

I'm pretty sure the IEP procurement allowed for sets to be extended. A 9-car ought to be able to be extended to 11 with one powered car and one unpowered. Anything beyond 11 might need an additional transformer to be carried somewhere in the consist, and modifying platforms to accommodate would be a challenge at most locations, as already mentioned upthread.

 

[Halifaxlad]

The whole rationale for HS2 Euston is that it was the last place in Central London that could have been used for long platforms. And Sunak is now going to build housing over half of that space.

Rather 'long platforms capable of terminating 400m long services without having to demolish vast residential property' as you could have expanded Marylebone if it wasn't for that reason!

 

[Krokodil]

I'm pretty sure the IEP procurement allowed for sets to be extended. A 9-car ought to be able to be extended to 11 with one powered car and one unpowered. Anything beyond 11 might need an additional transformer to be carried somewhere in the consist, and modifying platforms to accommodate would be a challenge at most locations, as already mentioned upthread.

You won't get that for a reasonable price from Hitachi. Particularly not for any units supplied through Agility.

 

[AlbertBeale]

....

The whole rationale for HS2 Euston is that it was the last place in Central London that could have been used for long platforms. And Sunak is now going to build housing over half of that space.

....

Rather 'long platforms capable of terminating 400m long services without having to demolish vast residential property' as you could have expanded Marylebone if it wasn't for that reason!

But at Euston, there has been lots of demolition of residential property - but it's been poor people's homes, whilst at Marylebone some of the homes house rather richer people...

 

[Trainbike46]

You won't get that for a reasonable price from Hitachi. Particularly not for any units supplied through Agility.

That is the exact fear I had

Though it may be possible to extend the new CAF units to a similar length (so ~285m) for a reasonable price, which would still give you a number of higher capacity sets to use on the busiest axes

 

[gingertom]

You won't get that for a reasonable price from Hitachi. Particularly not for any units supplied through Agility.

sadly I think you are right.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is the exact fear I had

Though it may be possible to extend the new CAF units to a similar length (so ~285m) for a reasonable price, which would still give you a number of higher capacity sets to use on the busiest axes

IETs to XC solving that vexatious problem and a new order of long units for LNER?

 

[AlbertBeale]

IETs to XC solving that vexatious problem and a new order of long units for LNER?

In a rational world, but......

 

[Krokodil]

IETs to XC solving that vexatious problem and a new order of long units for LNER?

Any variation to the Agility contract will cost £££s. We're stuck with the damned things for 27-odd years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Any variation to the Agility contract will cost £££s. We're stuck with the damned things for 27-odd years.

How many 802s (non Agility) are there? We only really need this for Edinburgh.

 

[Starmill]

Any variation to the Agility contract will cost £££s. We're stuck with the damned things for 27-odd years.

27.5 years from early 2019, so now it's more like 22 years

 

[Krokodil]

How many 802s (non Agility) are there? We only really need this for Edinburgh.

I thought that the idea was to cascade LNER 80x to XC? Replacing them at LNER with longer units from CAF? Or have I got everything arse about face?

Anyway, even without involving the Agility units (which have hideously restrictive contracts) you won't get any reasonable prices from Hitachi, whether you're talking about extra vehicles or complete new units. They seem to be pricing themselves out of the running for any new contracts, hence why LNER went for CAF.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought that the idea was to cascade LNER 80x to XC? Replacing them at LNER with longer units from CAF? Or have I got everything arse about face?

Yes. Question was that if doing this would be unaffordable for Agility units are there enough 802s that you could send those out and more longer CAF units in for the Edinburghs?

 

[Trainbike46]

IETs to XC solving that vexatious problem and a new order of long units for LNER?

That would be an ideal solution

Any variation to the Agility contract will cost £££s. We're stuck with the damned things for 27-odd years.

I'm not convinced you need to vary the contract to use the trains on different services as long as they start and end from the same depot(s)?

Which you could do with a recast of XC diagrams, with units starting and finishing from the ends rather than the centre.
Edinburgh and Doncaster aren't out of the way for XC. Only Bounds green would be, but you could keep Bounds green based units at LNER and use them on the quieter service

How many 802s (non Agility) are there? We only really need this for Edinburgh.

none at LNER

I thought that the idea was to cascade LNER 80x to XC? Replacing them at LNER with longer units from CAF? Or have I got everything arse about face?

I think you understood it right; It certainly is the same way I understood it!

Anyway, even without involving the Agility units (which have hideously restrictive contracts) you won't get any reasonable prices from Hitachi, whether you're talking about extra vehicles or complete new units. They seem to be pricing themselves out of the running for any new contracts, hence why LNER went for CAF.

I'm not an expert on business, but they're strategy is curious to say the least

 

[BenS]

Is capacity at Kings Cross a significant barrier to increased capacity for intercity services on the ECML?
If so, is there any potential scope to move commuter services away from Kings Cross? For example there is an existing route from Stevenage to Moorgate. Could capacity on this route be increased?

 

[Starmill]

Is capacity at Kings Cross a significant barrier to increased capacity for intercity services on the ECML?
If so, is there any potential scope to move commuter services away from Kings Cross? For example there is an existing route from Stevenage to Moorgate. Could capacity on this route be increased?

Not really. Apart from the Kings Lynn and Cambridge express services, there's not many GTR services left to try to move out.

 

[cinders&ashes]

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.

My post already pointed out it is 2.5hrs with the intent to increase.

As for 2.5hrs impacting precisely zero UK flights, you might want to tell that to BA flying with their 9 LON-MCR daily routes for starters, as the train takes ~2hrs10mins.

 

[Bald Rick]

My post already pointed out it is 2.5hrs with the intent to increase.

As for 2.5hrs impacting precisely zero UK flights, you might want to tell that to BA flying with their 9 LON-MCR daily routes for starters, as the train takes ~2hrs10mins.

You might want to check what I wrote.

The France ‘ban’ has been in place for 9 months, and yet there are still scores of domestic flights daily on routes where you can travel by train sub 2.5hrs.

 

[JamesT]

My post already pointed out it is 2.5hrs with the intent to increase.

As for 2.5hrs impacting precisely zero UK flights, you might want to tell that to BA flying with their 9 LON-MCR daily routes for starters, as the train takes ~2hrs10mins.

As has been pointed out before with reference to the French air ban, it only affects solely domestic tickets. Passengers on through tickets to international destinations are unaffected.
The vast majority of those on LON-MCR will be those connections, hence those flights would not be affected by a French-style ban.

 

[Starmill]

As has been pointed out before with reference to the French air ban, it only affects solely domestic tickets. Passengers on through tickets to international destinations are unaffected.
The vast majority of those on LON-MCR will be those connections, hence those flights would not be affected by a French-style ban.

Given France have actually connected up major airports with TGV services, this isn't likely to remain as is forever in respect of those, of course.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given France have actually connected up major airports with TGV services, this isn't likely to remain as is forever in respect of those, of course.

Except…. France as specifically excluded CDG airport from the scheme, as they have deemed it isn’t in Paris! Hence you can buy air tickets from regional cities to CDG, even where there is a direct TGV to CDG sub 2.5 hrs. (even, as in Lyon’s case, you can get a TGV from airport to airport!!!)

 

[Starmill]

Except…. France as specifically excluded CDG airport from the scheme, as they have deemed it isn’t in Paris! Hence you can buy air tickets from regional cities to CDG, even where there is a direct TGV to CDG sub 2.5 hrs. (even, as in Lyon’s case, you can get a TGV from airport to airport!!!)

Sure the political aspects of the policy are perhaps not working as its proponents might have preferred, indeed maybe you could argue that it has achieved very little beyond 'signalling' a direction of travel. But when the political circumstances change, France will be in a strong position. The UK on the other hand has built no long-distance rail to Heathrow Airport at all, and the service is garbage for anyone who doesn't have a direct service to London Paddington, Hayes & Harlington, Abbey Wood or Stratford - and probably too slow for all of those EL connections. In chucking HS2 in the bin we've all but sealed this fate.

 

[HSTEd]

I doubt the London airport system could ever be properly integrated with long distance rail transport. There are simply too many airports that are spread over too large an area for meaningful integration, and they are all too small to justify integration alone.

Essentially all Paris traffic is from Orly or Charles de Gaulle, both of which are far closer to Paris than the likes of Stansted. Indeed they are only twenty miles apart (comparable to Gatwick-Heathrow) despite being on opposite sides of Paris!
I think the only way to get proper integration would be a major consolidation of airports onto a single (likely new) site, and we all know that won't ever happen.

 

[cinders&ashes]

As has been pointed out before with reference to the French air ban, it only affects solely domestic tickets. Passengers on through tickets to international destinations are unaffected.
The vast majority of those on LON-MCR will be those connections, hence those flights would not be affected by a French-style ban.

Some will, but not all. With those flying domestically no longer buying tickets the viability of those flights will be called into question.

 

[Bald Rick]

Some will, but not all. With those flying domestically no longer buying tickets the viability of those flights will be called into question.

Others in the know have posted previously that somewhere in the region of 80%+ of passengers on Manchester to London flights are connecting at Heathrow. I wouldnt be surprised if some of the rest is aviation employees. Banning point to point ticket sales won‘t materially affect viability of the rest.

 

[spyinthesky]

As I see it, we seem to be unable to be forward thinking as expansion of almost anything is hindered by historical buildings or ancient woodland.
So the future will have nothing to look back on in relation to current infrastructure. (We only seem to modernise within tight parameters)
The railways seem to come off worse than many other areas as we throw up Sporting arenas and Retail parks.
HS1/Eurostar has limited the KGX/STP area and it seems the only future option is either 11 car sets or destroy some history and create some more.
Not being from a railway background I expect plenty of counter arguments but please don’t refrain as I am willing to learn.