What next for Norwich route?

[sprinterguy]

Sunderland is a city, so is Newcastle. So the Metro should be upgraded to Intercity status?

[OFF TOPIC] Oh yes, please do! Many is the day I long for the return of Transpennine services to Sunderland, so I can enjoy 20 minutes of first class luxury up to Newcastle[/OFF TOPIC]

Physically, it wouldn't be difficult to extend the Grand Central services to serve Newcastle as well as Sunderland to give an Intercity service between the two, and operationally it would provide a much more convenient turn round point for the trains. However I know there are many reasons, including revenue extraction from the existing East Coast market and others why this is not done, and furthermore, getting back on topic, would Grand Central be interested in extending to Newcastle for the purpose of providing an Intercity service between towns on the Durham coast? No, probably not. Why? Because the market for that type of service isn't there.

Which goes somewhere to proving that an Intercity service cannot be justified purely on the grounds that the route has Intercity trains operating on it at the moment, as Junglejames has done: There has to be a suitable market for it: The Norwich route has a mixed market: It isn't purely a commuter line, it's too long, but neither is it completely a long distance Intercity route. In exactly the same way that a 444 isn't a commuter train, nor is it a long distance Intercity train: It's somewhere in the middle. Just like the Norwich line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You mean the 1970s coaches and the unwanted 90s?

Neither are going to last long term - they are both on their last legs

Agreed. Whilst the 90s and mark 3s are not currently "past it" by any means, it is not being suggested that a replacement takes place immediately: When the current rolling stock is life expired, sometime later in this decade, new trains are ordered.

 

[thefab444]

The other bonus of procurring a large batch of 344s for the Norwich line is it would make a small growth order of 444s for SWT (about 10 - 15 would do the trick) much more affordable.

 

[tbtc]

The other bonus of procurring a large batch of 344s for the Norwich line is it would make a small growth order of 444s for SWT (about 10 - 15 would do the trick) much more affordable.

Thats a good point. There are too many classes needing a "small" increase (hence my "generic centre car" thread) - this would be a great way of getting additional capacity on SWT and bringing down the unit costs...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

[OFF TOPIC] Oh yes, please do! Many is the day I long for the return of Transpennine services to Sunderland, so I can enjoy 20 minutes of first class luxury up to Newcastle[/OFF TOPIC]

Physically, it wouldn't be difficult to extend the Grand Central services to serve Newcastle as well as Sunderland to give an Intercity service between the two, and operationally it would provide a much more convenient turn round point for the trains. However I know there are many reasons, including revenue extraction from the existing East Coast market and others why this is not done, and furthermore, getting back on topic, would Grand Central be interested in extending to Newcastle for the purpose of providing an Intercity service between towns on the Durham coast? No, probably not. Why? Because the market for that type of service isn't there

If it was all one company then I think the GC service should run to Newcastle - providing additional services from Newcastle to Hartlepool etc. Arriva Trains Northern used to run some York - Yarm - Hartlepool - Sunderland - Newcastle (Hexham?) services back in the day...

However, getting back to James' point - not all service between cities needs to be Intercity. Leeds to Bradford is more of a "Metro" service, for example. A buffet car isn't going to work on those trips

Also, as far as "Intercity" - how do you define it? I mean, the local football team may be Elgin City, but should Elgin get the same level of trains as other "Cities"? Should Intercity trains not stop at large towns? Wouldn't be popular with Diss residents - they have no other services!

 

[sprinterguy]

If it was all one company then I think the GC service should run to Newcastle - providing additional services from Newcastle to Hartlepool etc. Arriva Trains Northern used to run some York - Yarm - Hartlepool - Sunderland - Newcastle (Hexham?) services back in the day...

Undoubtedly some direct Newcastle-Sunderland-Hartlepool-Yarm-York direct trains would be great to have, and some additional services down the Durham coast would certainly be welcome, but, as you've picked up on as well, an Intercity standard of service on such workings would never be feasible within the north east.

Anyway, back to East Anglia!

 

[junglejames]

Sunderland is a city, so is Newcastle. So the Metro should be upgraded to Intercity status?

I mean, if you want to play that game then Manchester to Salford should be Intercity

If EMUs are suitable for London - Cambridge/ Brighton/ Portsmouth/ Southampton etc then what is different about Norwich? I think a lot of people are thinking "EMU = commuter unit with 3-2 seating, no toilet"...

If they introduce EMUs, it'd be a good time to wire up the remaining parts of East Anglia, allowing through services from London to the coast, allowing services like London - Cambridge - Norwich etc. There are almost thirty DMUs which could be freed up with some "short" electrification
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You mean the 1970s coaches and the unwanted 90s?

Neither are going to last long term - they are both on their last legs

I knew my comment would get this sort of responses. I also said London to Norwich was a fair distance. Something Newcastle to Sunderland isnt.
Also, on top of this argument, i am also saying that 1- it deserves to be an Intercity route (remember most of the other examples you use, i also believe should be Intercity, and 2- As it is already Intercity, is it fair to downgrade it? Again, examples like Kings Lynn, I dont believe should have been downgraded. These are my arguments. Obviously most people want to downgrade the route. Thats fine. At least im not going to be the one in the way of the eggs!!!

As for 90s and Mk3s. Last legs? Sorry, are we talking about the same trains? Anglias 90s and Mk3s are extremely reliable. That doesnt sound like something on its last legs. They easily have 15yrs at least left in them. The 86s and Mk2s were still going strong at a much greater age.
Unwanted 90s? Sorry, so just because DB dont have a requirement for much electric traction, that makes 90s unwanted? Virgin, always needing a 90, Freightliner, needing 90s, Anglia, 90s maintaining a fantastic service between London and Norwich. Unwanted? I think not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

[OFF TOPIC] Oh yes, please do! Many is the day I long for the return of Transpennine services to Sunderland, so I can enjoy 20 minutes of first class luxury up to Newcastle[/OFF TOPIC]

Physically, it wouldn't be difficult to extend the Grand Central services to serve Newcastle as well as Sunderland to give an Intercity service between the two, and operationally it would provide a much more convenient turn round point for the trains. However I know there are many reasons, including revenue extraction from the existing East Coast market and others why this is not done, and furthermore, getting back on topic, would Grand Central be interested in extending to Newcastle for the purpose of providing an Intercity service between towns on the Durham coast? No, probably not. Why? Because the market for that type of service isn't there.

Which goes somewhere to proving that an Intercity service cannot be justified purely on the grounds that the route has Intercity trains operating on it at the moment, as Junglejames has done: There has to be a suitable market for it: The Norwich route has a mixed market: It isn't purely a commuter line, it's too long, but neither is it completely a long distance Intercity route. In exactly the same way that a 444 isn't a commuter train, nor is it a long distance Intercity train: It's somewhere in the middle. Just like the Norwich line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Agreed. Whilst the 90s and mark 3s are not currently "past it" by any means, it is not being suggested that a replacement takes place immediately: When the current rolling stock is life expired, sometime later in this decade, new trains are ordered.

No, its a medium distance Intercity route.
Well we shall agree to disagree. I believe it deserves its Intercity service, whereas you dont. Its a fairly long distance, and the route is a lot more than a commuter run, and it serves some fairly large places en route. Just like a lot of other routes (which arent) should have something approaching an Intercity service. Like London to Southampton to Weymouth. But hey, thats why im not in charge. Because I would run things for the passenger.

 

[thefab444]

You could very easily provide a Class 444 with additional luggage space and a larger buffet/FC area. This would then provide exactly the same level of service as the Mk3 sets, as lets face it, the restaurant is hardly used by NXEA. I'm sure Grammar or somebody else would be willing to supply a more intercity-style model of seat as well.

 

[Ivo]

If they introduce EMUs, it'd be a good time to wire up the remaining parts of East Anglia, allowing through services from London to the coast, allowing services like London - Cambridge - Norwich etc. There are almost thirty DMUs which could be freed up with some "short" electrification

It's a good point, but in practice it wouldn't happen. The Government that agrees it would be criticised for wasting public resources on electrifying a "minor stub" [sure...] of the network, and for putting the likes of Felixstowe and Cromer (both comfortably managed with smaller units) ahead of more important possibilities such as the far simpler Middlesbrough and Walsall. The Government that did not, however, would be criticised for ignoring the chance to withdraw Pacers aplenty by displacing them with more suitable 156s; thereby causing them to launch a feasibility study - which would almost certainly return the conclusion "The Cost-to-Benefit Ratio of this electrification scheme is far too small" (ignoring of course the Pacer bit).

The other problem though is that, with the exception of Great Yarmouth in the summer, there is nowhere in Norfolk or Suffolk that is not already wired that would have major traffic to London. This would mean that any electrification scheme would be centered on areas that have no real need for an expansion in their service (is there really any point in electrifying a line which would have two or possibly three cars an hour?). As for the other idea, London to Norwich via Cambridge, this would render the whole 444 idea far less practical because some passengers would choose to go the long way (let's face it; it would probably be cheaper!).

Back to the main route, I'm still not convinced that dropping Shenfield was a good move. If NXEA were that desperate for an improved service, they could have run one "slow" and one "fast" every hour, with the fast serving only Diss, Ipswich and Colchester and the slow also serving Stowmarket, Manningtree, Chelmsford, Shenfield and Stratford. In my opinion, the latter (the slow) would be an excellent idea for 444 usage. I suspect people in Witham might disagree though.

 

[NXEA!]

Why is it that as soon as the phrase 'Inter-City' surfaces, some people think trains that serve it MUST be locohauled. Look at the WCML. Served by 390's and 221's (with one booked loco-turn a week) connecting many large population centres. They provide a quality service connecting these places in a very fast and tight schedule. If people thought that the service was downgraded because its run by DMU's/EMU's the service wouldn't carry as many passengers as it does. Virgin provide a quality service, and I know that the interiors are far from perfect, but they have revolutionised train-travel along the West Coast with improved speeds and higher-frequencies. I'm not saying that this is what a 444 type unit would do for the Norwich route, but you've got to look at the plus side. They would be more of a standard class within the fleet and like someone mentioned earlier, would most likely have the ability to couple to 360's. The TOC and DfT would then theoretically not have to worry about replacements for 40+ years. With a 2+2 seating plan like the 444's and maybe a bigger buffet counter, they could provide a service easily matching the current loco-hauled service. And like others have mentioned, places of a similar distance like Kings Lynn for example have to use 365's. This proposition of using express EMU's would not be reducing the Norwich routes status, and would in fact give it extra security in that way of having a dedicated fleet of EMU's to operate an express service, almost guaranteeing it a good service and it shows that they're investing in the route. The current stock for the service isn't knackered at all, and can soldier on for another 15 years I think personally, but there is no harm in suggesting ideas ahead of time on the subject on what would be best for the route. Class 90's have a ridiculous acceleration for a locomotive, but its most likely that such an EMU would out-accelerate a 90 and so in this way would cut the time lost from a station stop.

 

[387star]

Okay I will do the right thing and stick to the topic.

How likely is it the 90/mk3/DVT combinations may be axed with the coming franchise. I may be wrong but I have a feeling the new operator will be expected to inject a lot of money in to this rundown franchise in a very short period of time.

I regard the fleet as languishing and I am sure many of the trains will need heavy interior work to keep Passenger Focus surveys from embarrasing those at the top.

 

[Jordy]

Don't use text speak please, its against the rules. And as you said, that post doesn't really have anything to do with the rest of the thread.

 

[RobShipway]

If you think about it, the mk3 coaches are no different than the coaches within the Class 442 trains doing the Gatwick Express and London - Brigton Express services, as the Class 442 coaches are essentially Mk3 coaches. This is what the Class 444 trains were based on when they where designed I believe so having these on the service to Norwich would be no different other than having trains with a longer lif span.

Remember the class 444 trains have doors at the end of the coaches, just like the Class 442 trains, just like the Mk3 coaches.

It seems to me that there is a few people that do noy like change or something they have been used to for quiet a while, but time moves on and sometimes change is there for the good of everyone.

 

[NXEA!]

I seems to me that there is a few people that do not like change or something they have been used to for quiet a while, but time moves on and sometimes change is there for the good of everyone.

Never a truer word said. Don't misunderstand me people who don't agree with me, I love loco-hauled trains, I think they're far more superior than most trains in terms of comfort, for instance, their interior beats a Pendolinos and a Voyager's hands down. However I think the practicality of running these on a relatively short service has to be questioned at some point. I think for lines such as the Chiltern where they can overtake other services, Loco-hauled trains are a much better solution than DMU's as they can use their higher speeds on this line after Everygreen 3 is completed and do what they're meant to do and run on an express route. Whereas on the East Anglia lines, after Ipswich they can not overtake other services which stop at the smaller stations such as Marks Tey and Kelvedon, and even though there is an overtaking oppurtunity at Witham theoretically, it is never used, and so the services are timetabled to run slower than they could, so as to accomodate higher frequency EMU services with more stops on a predominantly double track railway, which also has a high number of freight. The loco-hauled service cannot be properly justified in these circumtances. Of course I realise the need for a more comfortable and quality service as Norwich is further away than most destinations on the GEML, but I think that maybe the stock isn't being used to its so-called 'potential'.
Like I said, on the Chiltern, there are 100mph line speeds, which I realise is the same as the GEML, but there will be plenty of overtaking oppurtunities such as at Bicester and Princes Risborough, and the frequency of stopping services is far less, which makes this line an ideal candidate for loco-hauled express services, which can run fast through a number of stations and have priority over other services.

 

[RobShipway]

At least if the Class 90's & Mk3 trains are replaced with EMU's, they would at least have toilets and be relatively new stock. Think of the people near were I grew up by the Seaford - Brighton service who have gone from having a regular 377 EMU service to having the majority of the service through the day run by Class 313 which have no toilets for a 30 minute plus journey. Okay, if you are just going to Brighton but not if you are changing trains.

Or for that matter where I live now in Martins Heron on the London Waterloo - Reading route. When I first moved here 4 years ago we had class 450's, now we have lumpy class 458's which to me have no ride capability or at least do not match up to the ride capability of a calss 450. The class 458 ride is just above the old Mk1 ride, whereas the class 450 is a commuter train with a ride like a Mk3. The class 444 are based on the same technology as the class 450 and when I have gone on the class 444 trains when they us eto do the route down from London Waterloo to Portsmouth actually had a slightly better ride than the class 450.

 

[klewer]

At least if the Class 90's & Mk3 trains are replaced with EMU's, they would at least have toilets and be relatively new stock. Think of the people near were I grew up by the Seaford - Brighton service who have gone from having a regular 377 EMU service to having the majority of the service through the day run by Class 313 which have no toilets for a 30 minute plus journey. Okay, if you are just going to Brighton but not if you are changing trains.

Or for that matter where I live now in Martins Heron on the London Waterloo - Reading route. When I first moved here 4 years ago we had class 450's, now we have lumpy class 458's which to me have no ride capability or at least do not match up to the ride capability of a calss 450. The class 458 ride is just above the old Mk1 ride, whereas the class 450 is a commuter train with a ride like a Mk3. The class 444 are based on the same technology as the class 450 and when I have gone on the class 444 trains when they us eto do the route down from London Waterloo to Portsmouth actually had a slightly better ride than the class 450.

...and this is relevant to this topic because...?

 

[A0]

Well if the pre-requisite is it should be Mk3s... perhaps the solution is to refurb some class 317s....

Wikipedia:

The British Rail Class 317 alternating current electric multiple units (EMUs) were built by BREL York in two batches, from 1981-82 and 1985-87. They were the first of several classes of British Rail EMU to be based on the all-steel Mark 3 bodyshell,

A quick refurb, 2+2 seating and formation into 12 car sets..... should be fine.

 

[tbtc]

it deserves to be an Intercity route (remember most of the other examples you use, i also believe should be Intercity, and 2- As it is already Intercity, is it fair to downgrade it?

I'm confused by why you think an EMU couldn't provide an Intercity level of service. Nobody is suggesting standard-class-only with doors at 1/3rd and 2/3rd of the carriage and 3/2 seats.

As for 90s and Mk3s. Last legs? Sorry, are we talking about the same trains? Anglias 90s and Mk3s are extremely reliable. That doesnt sound like something on its last legs. They easily have 15yrs at least left in them. The 86s and Mk2s were still going strong at a much greater age.
Unwanted 90s? Sorry, so just because DB dont have a requirement for much electric traction, that makes 90s unwanted? Virgin, always needing a 90, Freightliner, needing 90s, Anglia, 90s maintaining a fantastic service between London and Norwich. Unwanted? I think not

Just because no other TOC would want spare 90s doesn't make them unwanted? Virgin have one for one journey a week, freight operators have little need for them, you are going to see a lot of 90s withdrawn in the next five years. Sorry
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well if the pre-requisite is it should be Mk3s... perhaps the solution is to refurb some class 317s....

Wikipedia:

The British Rail Class 317 alternating current electric multiple units (EMUs) were built by BREL York in two batches, from 1981-82 and 1985-87. They were the first of several classes of British Rail EMU to be based on the all-steel Mark 3 bodyshell,

A quick refurb, 2+2 seating and formation into 12 car sets..... should be fine.

Great point

 

[RobShipway]

...and this is relevant to this topic because...?

It is relevant to this topic because of people feeling that they are loosing the InterCity status of the London - Norwich line if the service went from LHCS to be run by EMU's, that there is area's of this country that have suffered worst conditions when change has been made to the rolling stock of the line.

 

[Failed Unit]

I think London - Norwich and MML have already lost the IC status!

 

[junglejames]

I'm confused by why you think an EMU couldn't provide an Intercity level of service. Nobody is suggesting standard-class-only with doors at 1/3rd and 2/3rd of the carriage and 3/2 seats.



Just because no other TOC would want spare 90s doesn't make them unwanted? Virgin have one for one journey a week, freight operators have little need for them, you are going to see a lot of 90s withdrawn in the next five years. Sorry
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Great point

I know nobody is suggesting all this. However to mee 444s are not a patch on a Mk3. Even the 442s were nicer than the 444s. Well to me anyway.
As for whether an EMU can provide an Intercity service. Well this is depending on peoples view points. To me Intercity is loco hauled, un powered coaches. Thats what i deem Intercity to be, amongst other things.

90s currently are not unwanted. In 5yrs, who knows, but right now they are definitely needed. In fact in 5yrs I can still see both Anglia and Freightliner using 90s. Not Virgin as they will have the extra 390s, but they will still be needed I reckon.
Oh, and currently Virgins 90 is used for 'at least' 1 trip per week, usually more. But it still shows them as being needed when things arent as they should be, or when spare trains are needed.

If we look a bit further into the future, then we will be lucky if we see any locos full stop (well on passenger trains anyway), because it seems EMUs and DMUs are the prefered option, much against what i believe should happen, but hey.

 

[captainbigun]

Distributed traction is the way forward, in time the Mk4 sets will be so replaced and the Mk3 sets sooner still.

The GE cannot continue to lose seating through having two vehicles that don't carry passengers. Replacement with units will not only allow more bums on seats thus increasing capacity of a contrained route, but will also improve journey times.

 

[Chris125]

JungleJames, London-Norwich is run for the benefit of passengers, not enthusiasts. They dont care whether their train is pulled by a loco, and why should they?

What they want are modern trains capable of faster journey times, with modern toilets and power operated doors. They also want more seats. A new-build of 444-type EMU's are the best way of providing this.

Chris

 

[tbtc]

As for whether an EMU can provide an Intercity service. Well this is depending on peoples view points. To me Intercity is loco hauled, un powered coaches. Thats what i deem Intercity to be

I think this is the problem. Passengers don't care whether a train is loco-hauled. Passengers don't even notice (apart from whether they nee to walk a little further at terminal stations to get to/from the first door on the train).

Intercity and Loco Hauled are two different circles on a Venn Diagram. The "it can only be intercity if it has a loco at the end" argument is flawed.

 

[Failed Unit]

JungleJames, London-Norwich is run for the benefit of passengers, not enthusiasts. They dont care whether their train is pulled by a loco, and why should they?

What they want are modern trains capable of faster journey times, with modern toilets and power operated doors. They also want more seats. A new-build of 444-type EMU's are the best way of providing this.

Chris

I don't think they really care about modern trains considering I know many normal passengers that prefer east coast to cross country trains and people prefer the HST on Xc to they voyagers (but that could be because the get a seat).

This route along with MML and certain services on the GWML (Oxford and Exeter stopping) need an EMU with is more IC ambience. Maybe a buffet but I don't think a kitchen is needed. 2+2 seating. Really a modern version of the 442 as many have suggested. Having a loco and DVT wastes space. Modern EMUs will speed up the journey.

I suspect the MMl will be electrified by the time the 90s and mk3 need replacing. Remember they are the youngest mk3 on the network.

The days of restaurants on journeys of less than 2 hours I think are gone.