Train operators eye Harrogate

[Metroland]

Apologies if this has been posted before.

Direct and frequent rail services could be introduced between Harrogate and London in less than two years.

Apart from one service a day, the existing service involves a small, slow train to York or Leeds before transferring to a direct London train.

Two train operators - Hull Trains and National Express (East Coast) - have asked the rail regulator for permission to run a service every two hours.

The rail regulator says the East Coast Main Line can handle more services.

It is considering the applications, but no date has yet been set for an announcement on whether either bid has been successful.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/7358052.stm

 

[P156KWJ]

thought the Wellwyn bottleneck couldn't handle any more traffic!

 

[djw1981]

The new NXEC York path would be extended to Harrogate, and HT propose to split at Doncaster IIRC. Both want the cl180's for this purpose.

 

[me123]

thought the Wellwyn bottleneck couldn't handle any more traffic!

It's being quadrupled in the next few years anyway IIRC.

 

[yorkie]

thought the Wellwyn bottleneck couldn't handle any more traffic!

Off peak? sure it can - just look at the utilisation at peak time!

It's being quadrupled in the next few years anyway IIRC.

Is it?! More like in the next few centuries! For the equivalent cost, you could probably upgrade the Hertford loop with passing loops and 100mph top speed and get rid of the short sections north of Hertford and still have cash to spare.

 

[theblackwatch]

The new NXEC York path would be extended to Harrogate, and HT propose to split at Doncaster IIRC. Both want the cl180's for this purpose.

HT have stated that they will split at Retford or Selby if required. The BBC report is a bit misleading as it infers that both TOCs want to run trains every 2 hours, whereas in reality only NXEC does. HT's plan is for 3 or 4 return trips per day.

 

[adambro]

I suspect that splitting won't go down well with NR. A number of open access operators have made this part of their proposals and had it dismissed. The major problem with it of course is that if the train is delayed and then has to be split it causes worse knock on effects because of the requirement to route two delayed trains.

 

[me123]

Is it?! More like in the next few centuries! For the equivalent cost, you could probably upgrade the Hertford loop with passing loops and 100mph top speed and get rid of the short sections north of Hertford and still have cash to spare.

I had some feeling that it was planned to happen in the next few years, along with the Hitchin flyover?

 

[Max]

I had some feeling that it was planned to happen in the next few years, along with the Hitchin flyover?

I believe you're misinformed about the Welwyn Viaduct, it would cost millions (if not billions)to construct a new bridge, rebuild Welwyn North and the subsequent tunnel.

 

[me123]

^ I was aware that it would be a difficult task to say the least, but I thought they were going to do it? Probably just a farfetched proposal from somewhere.

 

[djw1981]

It was in the original 2000 ECML plan.

The current RUS suggests longer platform at Welwyn, greater use of Hertford loop, and capping Lertchworth/Royston services at Welwyn so the available paths can be used for long-distance services.

 

[yorkie]

The xx52 and xx22 at peak times from KGX should be curtailed at WGC (and vice-versa in the morning peak), as they are reportedly quite empty beyond WGC.

Pax for Welwyn North and Knebworth arrive only 6 minutes earlier than the following semi-fast services which leave KGX 14 minutes later.

Given that a slow path must consume about as much capacity as 2 fast paths, that frees up (potentially) an extra 4 fast trains per hour from KGX in the peaks (assuming platform capacity is up to it), or perhaps just an extra 2 with more robustness to the timetable.

 

[me123]

With the services to CBG and PBO being as frequent and as lengthy, it's not as if there's a major loss in the capacity at peak times anyway so if it does free up faster paths (which, givem the bottleneck situation, it will do), all the better for the large demand on these new services.

In theory, 6tph can run fasts with a 10 minute gap (ie, xx;x0), leaving time for the Cambridge fast services(xx:15 and xx:45). In reality, the fast services can operate with as short as a 3-minute interval (eg, 1700 and 1703 ex KGX) but the bottleneck at Welwyn restricts such a frequent service as does platforming at KGX.

I would imaging 6tph is easily possible, 5 NXEC and one HT/GC. I think 7 or even 8 at peak times is not out of the question, even with the FCC Cambridge and King's Lynn fast diagrams, but the platforming at KGX would be put under a lot of pressure even with Platform Y. Furthermore, the local services would need to be carefully timed at Welwyn to ensure the bottleneck doesn't cause congestion. And the services would need to work at Hitchin as well, which is a pretty major issue.

 

[Nym]

Well, we have computers nowerdays that can work this out, somone build one and work it out, I think the delays can be ironed out by slack timetabling at Doncaster, most things can be sorted by slack timetables, but then reducing delays increases journey times and reduces capacity, we'll just have to see