When the ECML is closed..

[Yew]

I am just wondering what measures could be put in place to mitigate problems with ECML closure.

Firstly, It seems to me that the ECML and MML have common traction, HST's. So could Meridians be doubled up, to provide an extra path every two hours that could be ran by a EC hst, with EC and EMT crew?

Following in this vein, could any freight be canceled, to free up more MML paths?


Finally, could diversions be put in place?, For example if there was a suicide of the footbridge at tuxford, could a diversion via Lincoln (Newark Ngate => Turnaround at lincoln => turnaround at the linking line at retford low level to retford high level) Or via sheffield (Leave ECML at peterbrough, then up EC branch lines to sheffield, then rejoining at Retford.)

I know that there are some problems with my ideas (route signing I imagine, possibly traction clearances) But with the deteriorating state of the ECML overheads, alongside other problems out of railway control, maybe some spare branch line capacity could be used to releive congestion on the other lines


Regards, Yew

 

[ushawk]

Dont believe the MML should be changed because of ECML troubles, as then your adding troubles to MML pax.

Other branches should be signed by staff though.

 

[Yew]

Dont believe the MML should be changed because of ECML troubles, as then your adding troubles to MML pax.

Other branches should be signed by staff though.

I was trying to decrease overcrowding, 10 car meridians and HST's would give more capacity, okay the HST replacing one of the meridian services could run a little late, however I think most people would prefer to be a litttle late than standing room only.

Its possible some meridian services could be extended to lincoln too if required (they are cleared, and at least some drivers sign the routes.)

 

[Aictos]

I think the best thing to do would be to modernise the Joint Line and let Lincoln Central take over the newly installed Multi Aspect Signalling for the whole route with the signalbox being manned 24/7 then look at maybe electrifying the route.

This would make the Joint line much more valuable in times of disruption providing of course train crews keep up their route knowledge as it would no longer depend on part time hours.

If this got done then fair enough it would be slower then going via Grantham however it would keep the railway running and with the line speed of certain parts of the line being upgraded, it might even end up only being 10 to 20 minutes slower then going via Grantham.

As to diverting on the MML, I oppose this as it means causing even more disruption regarding overcrowding on these trains - I do not oppose it if done for major works such as Project Rio.

 

[tbtc]

The problem is that when they electrified the ECML they didn't electrify any "parallel" lines.

So, whilst you can run electrified trains between London and Manchester/Glasgow "via Birmingham" (when the line through the Trent Valley is closed)...

...and will be able to run London - Glasgow trains "via Manchester" (when the Bolton line is electrified as part of the Lancashire Triangle)...

...there's no option to run electrified ECML services via alternative routes (apart from the Hertford loop).

For example, London - Cambridge - Peterborough? London - Lincoln - Doncaster? London - Leeds - York? London - Hartlepool - Newcastle? And (the one I declare an interest in) London - MML - Leeds! None of these are electrified, and none of them even appear to be on the radar for electrification.

I like the idea of having a "plan B" timetable (in the way that some bus routes have "snow" timetables, to plan for weather disruption), but the lack of electrified routes would make this very difficult indeed.

 

[Nym]

I beleive VT have various contingancy timetables for certain parts of routes being blocked, but no idea what they are...

 

[ChrisCooper]

The problem with alternative routes is pathing. If for example Peterborough to Ely was electrified, getting paths into Liverpool St would be a nightmare. Even pathing from Peterborough to Ely would not be easy with all the freight. Why should customers including freight) on secondary lines suffer just so that Intercity passengers have minimal disruption to their journies? You've also got to make sure crews sign the diversionary routes. It's one thing when the diversionary route is a regular route your TOC uses (the WCML alternative routes for example) but much harder otherwise. I've twice been sat on diesel trains that were fully cleared for a diversionary route because the crew did not sign the diversion. Economically it's a balencing act between providing backup for times of disruption and just taking the losses (compensation, fines and any lost custom). In terms of lost custom, disruption might push passengers onto the roads, but they soon realise that the roads have just as many problems, and sitting in a plush first class coach with at seat service whilst stuck due to problems on the railways is better than sitting in a traffic jam on the A1. If problems are occuring too often, then the better option is to spend money dealing with the problems instead of spending money on working around the problems.

 

[E&W Lucas]

The first problem with re routing services, is that there has to be a driver available to conduct it. The reality is that there is unlikely to be..

Problem number two, is that the bill for infrastructure related delays goes to NR. Therefore, there is no financial incentive for TOC's to train their staff on additional diversion routes. Again, it is no good just training a handful, as you cannot guarantee that they would be where they were needed in a time of disruption.

If you want to sort infrastructure related delays on the EcML,a good start would be to introduce draconian punishments for cable theft. The reintroduction of hanging, drawing & quartering would do. Be something for the visitors to the Tower to watch as well.

 

[A0]

The problem is that when they electrified the ECML they didn't electrify any "parallel" lines.

So, whilst you can run electrified trains between London and Manchester/Glasgow "via Birmingham" (when the line through the Trent Valley is closed)...

...and will be able to run London - Glasgow trains "via Manchester" (when the Bolton line is electrified as part of the Lancashire Triangle)...

...there's no option to run electrified ECML services via alternative routes (apart from the Hertford loop).

For example, London - Cambridge - Peterborough? London - Lincoln - Doncaster? London - Leeds - York? London - Hartlepool - Newcastle? And (the one I declare an interest in) London - MML - Leeds! None of these are electrified, and none of them even appear to be on the radar for electrification.

I like the idea of having a "plan B" timetable (in the way that some bus routes have "snow" timetables, to plan for weather disruption), but the lack of electrified routes would make this very difficult indeed.

Not a valid comparison.

The WCML electrification couldn't have avoided Birmingham as London - Birmingham was and still is a major passenger flow.

London - Lincoln isn't a major route. So to have electrified it simply to provide an alternative to the ECML would never have stacked up from a cost/benefit perspective.

I'm not sure electrifying the MML makes much sense either since many of the other services which use the lines will have to remain diesel because of their start / finish points. And you couldn't use the MML as a diversion for the ECML simply because there is no capacity south of Bedford to take on the ECML's services.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Not a valid comparison.

The WCML electrification couldn't have avoided Birmingham as London - Birmingham was and still is a major passenger flow.

London - Lincoln isn't a major route. So to have electrified it simply to provide an alternative to the ECML would never have stacked up from a cost/benefit perspective.

I'm not sure electrifying the MML makes much sense either since many of the other services which use the lines will have to remain diesel because of their start / finish points. And you couldn't use the MML as a diversion for the ECML simply because there is no capacity south of Bedford to take on the ECML's services.

Regarding the MML, it's important to remember that the MML has never been used as a diversion for the ECML, even though HSTs could run that way. Like you, me and others say, paths. The only time I know of trains being diverted to St Pancras from another route was a few weekends back in BR days when some WCML services were diverted from Nuneaton to St Pancras via the Wigston South curve. This was at weekends (so less trains), only a limited service (one an hour I think), and at a time when the MML was less busy (privatisation meant a doubling of off peak mainline services from St Pancras from 2 to 4, now there is a 5th to Corby). Even then pathing south of Bedford was such that the trains had to be electrically hauled under the wires, giving a time penalty at Bedford to uncouple/couple the diesel and north of Bedford due to dragging the electric loco, but allowed much better performance on the southern bit where it mattered. In other cases, Great Western services have diverted into Waterloo, Chiltern have used Paddington, c2c can use Liverpool St and Southern and South Eastern can use Victoria, London Bridge or Charring Cross, but all are weekend or evening (c2c) only IIRC.

 

[Teaboy1]

..........

If you want to sort infrastructure related delays on the EcML,a good start would be to introduce draconian punishments for cable theft. The reintroduction of hanging, drawing & quartering would do. Be something for the visitors to the Tower to watch as well.

Ooohh ......... yes I like the sound of that, count me in !!!

But the reality of any service using the Lincoln route from Newark and then on to Doncaster is pretty grim ......... not many freights to get in the way ... but not many boxes open either when things go wrong unless its planned 6 months in advance.

 

[Tomnick]

The boxes between Newark and Donny via the Midland and then the 'Joint' (Swinderby, Lincoln SCC, Saxilby, Stow Park, Trent Jn, Beckingham) are open most of the time (including overnight?) I believe, except possibly Sunday morning. It's not like Spalding to Sleaford where they only open for one shift normally!

 

[Failed Unit]

The boxes between Newark and Donny via the Midland and then the 'Joint' (Swinderby, Lincoln SCC, Saxilby, Stow Park, Trent Jn, Beckingham) are open most of the time (including overnight?) I believe, except possibly Sunday morning. It's not like Spalding to Sleaford where they only open for one shift normally!

Which should all change by 2014!

If the joint line was electrified I wonder how much demand direct Spalding - London trains would get as an extention of FCC service. Maybe even try:

London, Finsbury park, stevenage, hitchin, Biggleswade, St Neots, Huntingdon, Peterborough, Spalding, Sleaford, Lincoln using FCC semi fast Peterborough slot.

 

[tbtc]

Not a valid comparison.

The WCML electrification couldn't have avoided Birmingham as London - Birmingham was and still is a major passenger flow.

London - Lincoln isn't a major route. So to have electrified it simply to provide an alternative to the ECML would never have stacked up from a cost/benefit perspective.

I'm not sure electrifying the MML makes much sense either since many of the other services which use the lines will have to remain diesel because of their start / finish points. And you couldn't use the MML as a diversion for the ECML simply because there is no capacity south of Bedford to take on the ECML's services.

London - Birmingham is a busy route, as is London - Leeds.

However, when the WCML was electrified, the Birmingham - Stafford line was, meaning you could run London - Birmingham - Scotland.

When the ECML was electrified only the minimum was done, so you can't do London - Leeds - Scotland (the line from Leeds to York wasn't wired), meaning there is no "plan B" when the ECML wires go down.

This is the point I am making, the "cheap" nature of ECML electrification means that there aren't alternative electrified routes when electricity problems occur. Compare that to the WCML which has fully electrified "alternative" routes such as "via Northampton", "via Birmingham", "via Stoke and in a few years time "via Manchester".

As for the MML, its self contained nature means it'd be very efficient in replacing diesel with EMUs (compared to all the branches on the GWML). But its not enough of a political priority.

 

[philjo]

Which should all change by 2014!

If the joint line was electrified I wonder how much demand direct Spalding - London trains would get as an extention of FCC service. Maybe even try:

London, Finsbury park, stevenage, hitchin, Biggleswade, St Neots, Huntingdon, Peterborough, Spalding, Sleaford, Lincoln using FCC semi fast Peterborough slot.

I did wonder if it was feasible for EC to run an additional morning peak HST to London from Lincoln calling at Sleaford & Spalding. Besides offering a direct commuter service it would help to keep the driver's route knowledge current for the Joint Line.

 

[Barrett M95]

I am just wondering what measures could be put in place to mitigate problems with ECML closure.

HS3?.....

 

[Failed Unit]

I did wonder if it was feasible for EC to run an additional morning peak HST to London from Lincoln calling at Sleaford & Spalding. Besides offering a direct commuter service it would help to keep the driver's route knowledge current for the Joint Line.

The problem with doing that is what replaces the Newark stop?

Peterbourgh - Doncaster via joint line I would expect to take around 1h30 once modified, it is 45mins on ECML non-stop and about 1 hour all stops so not a real bad penalty but too much I would suggest for East Coast, Grand Central or Hull trains to divert a service. Don't know if the route was electrified how much difference it would make to frieght. I understand for frieght there will be little difference in time as the spend a lot of time looped on the ECML but eat a lot of paths.

I guess East Coast running a service that way for route knowledge would not be a bad thing.

 

[A0]

London - Birmingham is a busy route, as is London - Leeds.

However, when the WCML was electrified, the Birmingham - Stafford line was, meaning you could run London - Birmingham - Scotland.

When the ECML was electrified only the minimum was done, so you can't do London - Leeds - Scotland (the line from Leeds to York wasn't wired), meaning there is no "plan B" when the ECML wires go down.

This is the point I am making, the "cheap" nature of ECML electrification means that there aren't alternative electrified routes when electricity problems occur. Compare that to the WCML which has fully electrified "alternative" routes such as "via Northampton", "via Birmingham", "via Stoke and in a few years time "via Manchester".


As for the MML, its self contained nature means it'd be very efficient in replacing diesel with EMUs (compared to all the branches on the GWML). But its not enough of a political priority.

With respect, you're missing the point.

Electrification could not have finished at Birmingham - it had to take on Wolverhampton and from there Stafford with an electrification of local WM services.

Northampton is the WCML slow lines, electrification of there had to happen otherwise the Rugby > Euston slows would have remained either steam or diesel.

Electrification of the Stoke line had to happen as it was - and still is - the direct route to Manchester.

None of the above were electrified as alternative or fall back routes, instead they were electrified in their own right to support their individual circumstances.

The ECML with the exception of the Hertford loop does not have similar routes which would have justified electrification in their own right. Lincoln was not and is not a destination either from London or Leeds which attracted sufficient custom. Ditto Peterborough > Cambridge.


And before you keep perpetuating the ill-informed myth that the ECML electrification was somehow done "on the cheap" I suggest you read this thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=48441 taking close note of the posts by 'Old Timer' who clearly knows far more about this than either you or I.

 

[Failed Unit]

Well yet again it showed how much the route misses not having the joint line available following last nights fatality. I guess the main question is should it be electrified or will dragging work? You have thunderbirds at Doncaster and Peterborough but can almost gaurentee that when an incident happens the HSTs are miles away. If money was no object it needs wires, but I can see it happening. Leeds - York and Ely - Peterborough need doing as well (even if termination is at Cambridge).

 

[TheBigD]

...Ely - Peterborough need doing as well (even if termination is at Cambridge).

You'd also need to upgrade the power supply in the Cambridge area as well.

 

[tbtc]

Electrification of the Stoke line had to happen as it was - and still is - the direct route to Manchester

...and Stoke - Crewe?

The ECML with the exception of the Hertford loop does not have similar routes which would have justified electrification in their own right

I'd put Leeds - York up there with Wolverhampton - Stafford or Northampton - Rugby.

And before you keep perpetuating the ill-informed myth that the ECML electrification was somehow done "on the cheap" I suggest you read this thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=48441 taking close note of the posts by 'Old Timer' who clearly knows far more about this than either you or I.

He didn't convince, but thats a story for the other thread...

 

[Nym]

...and Stoke - Crewe?

Was recent and part of the WCML modernisation program for use as a major diversionary route.

 

[tbtc]

Was recent and part of the WCML modernisation program for use as a major diversionary route.

...but we've had no diversionary routes on the ECML, even the Hambleton - Neville Hill route (GNER's "Horseshoe Curve plan) never came to nothing.

No Leeds - York, no Leamside line, no Hambleton, no Durham Coast line, no Harrogate line...

 

[A0]

Was recent and part of the WCML modernisation program for use as a major diversionary route.

Also a very short stretch of line, so it didn't cost much, and it's primary use is to allow the LM London -Stoke - Crewe stopper.

The Peterboro' - Lincoln - Doncaster is far longer by comparison and simply won't attract the same level of traffic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by A0wen
Electrification of the Stoke line had to happen as it was - and still is - the direct route to Manchester

...and Stoke - Crewe?


Quote:
Originally Posted by A0wen
The ECML with the exception of the Hertford loop does not have similar routes which would have justified electrification in their own right

I'd put Leeds - York up there with Wolverhampton - Stafford or Northampton - Rugby.


Quote:
Originally Posted by A0wen
And before you keep perpetuating the ill-informed myth that the ECML electrification was somehow done "on the cheap" I suggest you read this thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=48441 taking close note of the posts by 'Old Timer' who clearly knows far more about this than either you or I.

He didn't convince, but thats a story for the other thread...

Stoke - Crewe has been answered by someone else.

Re Rugby - Northampton and Stafford - Wolverhampton, you didn't pay attention to the point I made, so to reiterate:

Without Northampton electrification, the LONDON - RUGBY locals COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER TO ELECTRIC.

Without Wolves-Stafford, THE WEST MIDLANDS LOCAL SERVICES E.G RUGBY>BIRMINGHAM>STAFFORD COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TURNED OVER TO ELECTRIC.

NEITHER WERE ELECTRIFIED AS "FALL BACK" OR DIVERSION ROUTES, THEY JUSTIFIED ELECTRIFICATION IN THEIR OWN RIGHT.

Understand now?

As for your comment about Old Timer's post - he was there, he was involved, you weren't - so on what basis do you know better about the ECML electrification than he does?

 

[Failed Unit]

I would be interested to know what the paybacks would be of the various sections.

Ely - Peterborough would only really cover the diversion but I guess London liverpool St - peterborough service could operate but are they needed?
Peterborough - Doncaster via Lincoln is a useful way of giving Lincoln direct services but when thameslink comes along most trains will be 8 coaches, not really justifiable on a route where 2 car is enough at the moment (1 is enough at times)
York - Leeds would not alone have any EMU services.
Northallerton - Middlesborough / Durham via Stockton. Again not much scope for local services unless saltburn - Darlington is covered as well.
Leamside route - new service.

Really electrifying the diversions would never really stack up compared to buying more locos and dragging. Planned diversions should be possible with HSTs

The most useful bits Leeds - York - Middlesborough / Durham would be best done with north TPE

I can't ever see justification for the joint line.