What stock "should" operate Liverpool-Norwich services?

[David Goddard]

Sorry missed that one. Nice to have someone else with the same theory.
Also think there should be two tph between Birmingham and East Anglia but that's a different thread.

 

[43074]

Sorry missed that one. Nice to have someone else with the same theory.
Also think there should be two tph between Birmingham and East Anglia but that's a different thread.

Great minds and all that...

If that were the case you could probably run Norwich or Ipswich to Birmingham as well, and with the splitting and joining idea you would be able to provide each of Ipswich, Norwich and Cambridge with services to Birmingham and Liverpool at least every 2 hours. It'd be a pain to timetable though, I suspect.

Way off topic here.

 

[Greybeard33]

Not sure about all this splitting and joining. Twice in the past couple of months I have seen a EMT Liverpool-bound service failed in Stockport Platform 4, apparently due to coupling problems between the two 158s. In both cases it was eventually got moving again, but not before substantial disruption resulted. The following 323 from Crewe was trapped on the Down Slow and had to be brought into the platform behind the 158s so the passengers could disembark. The subsequent northbound services all had to use Platform 3, causing a queue to build up.

 

[The Ham]

Not sure about all this splitting and joining. Twice in the past couple of months I have seen a EMT Liverpool-bound service failed in Stockport Platform 4, apparently due to coupling problems between the two 158s. In both cases it was eventually got moving again, but not before substantial disruption resulted. The following 323 from Crewe was trapped on the Down Slow and had to be brought into the platform behind the 158s so the passengers could disembark. The subsequent northbound services all had to use Platform 3, causing a queue to build up.

The suggestion was not to put in another split/join, just to move its location. In doing so the risk is no grater than at present.

Also I'm not convinced that spliting/joining need be as bad as it sometimes is, as SWT's manage it with their class 159 fleet all the time with trains running full length to Salisbury and then going to Exeter or Bristol as just one unit all day every day. Likewise they have EMU's which run from London and split at Southampton to run the fast/slow services and then merge on the way back, again all day every day.

 

[dk1]

All this attatching/detaching & different destinations sounds a performance nightmare. Not forgetting the shape of the franchise map now & the sheer amount of traction/route learning that would be involved. I remember some of the delays around 1988/9 when it was all far to complex. Any attatching at Peterborough was quickly altered by the next timetable.

 

[edwin_m]

Peterborough wouldn't be so bad for splitting and joining, with the extra platform meaning that trains on the Ely route don't have to share with East Coast.

There's a plan somewhere to extend the Birmingham-Leicester through to Cambridge, though it seems to have gone rather quiet. Peterborough to Ely is now pretty busy with frequent passengers and increasing numbers of Felixstowe freight trains, but I guess this will be re-signalled at some point allowing trains to run more closely together.

 

[dk1]

Peterborough wouldn't be so bad for splitting and joining, with the extra platform meaning that trains on the Ely route don't have to share with East Coast.

There's a plan somewhere to extend the Birmingham-Leicester through to Cambridge, though it seems to have gone rather quiet. Peterborough to Ely is now pretty busy with frequent passengers and increasing numbers of Felixstowe freight trains, but I guess this will be re-signalled at some point allowing trains to run more closely together.

Things should start to happen once the re-doubling and improvements are complete at Ely North Jnc.