Abellio Greater: potential timetable improvements, additional rolling stock & cascades?

[William3000]

There have been rumours of extra vehicles to make the 755/3s up to 4-cars but nothing has come of it. The 745/1s are having tables fitted so they are more suited to Norwich services. Transferring more 720s to the StanEx is the best we can expect really.

How does transferring more 720s benefit those of us using trains between Stansted and London Liverpool St. The 745s are vastly superior. 3+2 seating with lack of luggage capacity is entirely unsuitable.

 

[dk1]

How does transferring more 720s benefit those of us using trains between Stansted and London Liverpool St. The 745s are vastly superior. 3+2 seating with lack of luggage capacity is entirely unsuitable.

As has been mentioned several times before a sub-fleet of around 20 720s could be created with less seating and extra luggage storage. These would be dedicated to the airport services. Everything on the WAML would then be formed of the same or similar EMUs (always helpful should anything fail and need rescuing) and all Stadler units would then be confined to the GEML with easy access to their only depot at Norwich Crown Point.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

How does transferring more 720s benefit those of us using trains between Stansted and London Liverpool St. The 745s are vastly superior. 3+2 seating with lack of luggage capacity is entirely unsuitable.

Agreed in their present configuration the 720s are unsuitable for airport duties, given the stock available i.e, 20 745s and no likelihood in the short term of ordering more, there aren't enough to cover the diagrams required.

There is an argument that you actually fill the Stansted express diagrams first to get a consistent product and then the intercity has whatever is left as it's always going to be a hotch Potch of different products until there is an order for more intercity rolling stock.

There are no good options available unfortunately as GA has to live with an error from many years ago.

 

[HST43257]

There are no good options available unfortunately as GA has to live with an error from many years ago.

My question is how did no one ever realise? 4tph Stansted and 2tph Norwich wasn’t a rocket science idea at that point, was it?

 

[dk1]

My question is how did no one ever realise? 4tph Stansted and 2tph Norwich wasn’t a rocket science idea at that point, was it?

All water under the bridge now but various comments made at the time surrounding Hitachi as the preferred option but due to IEPs couldn’t deliver in the necessary timescale. Stadler was approached only for the 755 fleet initially but this was not cost effective for them. Subsequently they got offered the Intercity/Stansted Express fleet and hence the 745 was chosen too. How much of this is totally true is up for debate but goes someway to explain why things got to where they are.

 

[William3000]

It’s a shame they didn’t just order more 745s across the network. 12 car for Norwich to London and Stansted to London and 8 cars for Cambridge to London, Ipswich to London. Then 2+2 5 car 720s for Bishop’s Stortford to Stratford, and Hertford East, Southend, Braintree, Clacton et. to Liverpool St

 

[dk1]

It’s a shame they didn’t just order more 745s across the network. 12 car for Norwich to London and Stansted to London and 8 cars for Cambridge to London, Ipswich to London. Then 2+2 5 car 720s for Bishop’s Stortford to Stratford, and Hertford East, Southend, Braintree, Clacton et. to Liverpool St

Unfortunately the DfT directive at the time was for as many seats per train as possible. It had to be above those offered by the 317s, 321s, and 360s that went before them.

 

[Magdalia]

My question is how did no one ever realise? 4tph Stansted and 2tph Norwich wasn’t a rocket science idea at that point, was it?

My recollection is that the order of 20 class 745s was predicated on Norwich and Stansted each requiring 9 units from 10 to run the service. Stansted's 4tph is delivered with 9 trains, but I think in the loco hauled days Norwich's 2tph needed 10 trains. Was there an intention to tighten timings and turnrounds to deliver Norwich's 2tph with 9 trains?

Unfortunately the DfT directive at the time was for as many seats per train as possible. It had to be above those offered by the 317s, 321s, and 360s that went before them.

That was before Covid when commuting was rather different.

 

[dk1]

That was before Covid when commuting was rather different.

Totally but that’s all history now. Just have to write it off.

 

[306024]

My recollection is that the order of 20 class 745s was predicated on Norwich and Stansted each requiring 9 units from 10 to run the service. Stansted's 4tph is delivered with 9 trains, but I think in the loco hauled days Norwich's 2tph needed 10 trains. Was there an intention to tighten timings and turnrounds to deliver Norwich's 2tph with 9 trains?

The theory for the Norwich service was 100 minute journey times with 20 min turnarounds each end, equals 8 sets.

Such a timetable on the congested GEML soon proved impossible, and even tweaking it to be done with 9 sets proved undeliverable too. NR said as much, and the TOC planners were not involved, such are the bidding rules. Meanwhile no doubt the offer of a total fleet replacement proved too irresistible, even if the detailed fleet numbers were subsequently incorrect. By the time bid theory met operational practicality it was too late.

The December 2010 timetable (still the basis for todays off peak service) wasn’t arrived at by accident, and you destroy a lot of the connectivity and freight paths if you try to adjust it too far from the current structure.

 

[JonathanH]

Was there an intention to tighten timings and turnrounds to deliver Norwich's 2tph with 9 trains?

Norwich was meant to be 3tph, with the two faster services sped up to manage a shorter cycle, and a 720 formed service as the slower extra train - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/class-745-stadler-flirts.191504/page-76#post-5206949

 

[dk1]

Norwich was meant to be 3tph, with the two faster services sped up to manage a shorter cycle, and a 720 formed service as the slower extra train - https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-and-introduction.158396/page-81#post-6140929

As someone who drives trains on the route, I always thought 3tph an overkill. I do however think that turnaround times could be cut to increase productivity. Departing Norwich at XX:15/XX:45 and Liverpool Street at XX:00/XX:30 would give a more than ample 30mins and save a diagram/set.

 

[306024]

As someone who drives trains on the route, I always thought 3tph an overkill. I do however think that turnaround times could be cut to increase productivity. Departing Norwich at XX:15/XX:45 and Liverpool Street at XX:00/XX:30 would give a more than ample 30mins and save a diagram/set.

Then try to fit the rest in without destroying connections, freight paths, or increasing costs on the branch lines!

Yes if demand for travel between Ipswich and Norwich could justify 3tph, the A140 would be a dual carriageway throughout.

 

[LowLevel]

As someone who drives trains on the route, I always thought 3tph an overkill. I do however think that turnaround times could be cut to increase productivity. Departing Norwich at XX:15/XX:45 and Liverpool Street at XX:00/XX:30 would give a more than ample 30mins and save a diagram/set.

The old loco hauled turnaround times are certainly overkill with the 745s, it isn't like they need all the tanking etc that used to happen.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

As someone who drives trains on the route, I always thought 3tph an overkill. I do however think that turnaround times could be cut to increase productivity. Departing Norwich at XX:15/XX:45 and Liverpool Street at XX:00/XX:30 would give a more than ample 30mins and save a diagram/set.

3tph in theory opens up different stopping patterns without reducing services to diss and Stowmarket where the most time can be gained by not stopping. South of Ipswich you cannot gain much by not stopping as the train in front stops and you follow it so you reduce speed to account or you lose paths all together to enable the faster service

 

[dk1]

Then try to fit the rest in without destroying connections, freight paths, or increasing costs on the branch lines!

Yes if demand for travel between Ipswich and Norwich could justify 3tph, the A140 would be a dual carriageway throughout.

I know, it’s got so so many implications but works well in my head

The old loco hauled turnaround times are certainly overkill with the 745s, it isn't like they need all the tanking etc that used to happen.

That’s my point on that front. Just a heavy clean & wipe down nowadays.

3tph in theory opens up different stopping patterns without reducing services to diss and Stowmarket where the most time can be gained by not stopping. South of Ipswich you cannot gain much by not stopping as the train in front stops and you follow it so you reduce speed to account or you lose paths all together to enable the faster service

Only a couple of minutes gained at each by omitting Diss/Stow but unfortunately so many other route/path implications south of Ipswich making it worthless. Suppose we are just stuck with what we’ve got Monday-Friday at least.

 

[Magdalia]

The December 2010 timetable (still the basis for todays off peak service) wasn’t arrived at by accident, and you destroy a lot of the connectivity and freight paths if you try to adjust it too far from the current structure.

The December 2010 timetable would have taken time to put together. It is based on meeting traffic patterns from almost 20 years ago.

The railway is very different now, and the Great Eastern Main Line more so than many because, pre-covid, it carried so many commuters, and also because it now has a completely different and better preforming train fleet.

These are very good reasons for rewriting the timetable.

 

[306024]

The December 2010 timetable would have taken time to put together. It is based on meeting traffic patterns from almost 20 years ago.

The railway is very different now, and the Great Eastern Main Line more so than many because, pre-covid, it carried so many commuters, and also because it now has a completely different and better preforming train fleet.

These are very good reasons for rewriting the timetable.

I don’t particularly disagree, but is such a timetable that delivers more winners than losers actually possible? The infrastructure hasn’t changed much, apart from an additional station to slow things down. All the connecting branch lines still have single track sections, which limits the possibilities. The peaks have changed quite a bit though to reflect current loadings, hence the improved performance, as one passenger sneezing no longer causes as much delay.

I know, it’s got so so many implications but works well in my head

That’s what the bid team said!

 

[Adrian1980uk]

I don’t particularly disagree, but is such a timetable that delivers more winners than losers actually possible? The infrastructure hasn’t changed much, apart from an additional station to slow things down. All the connecting branch lines still have single track sections, which limits the possibilities. The peaks have changed quite a bit though to reflect current loadings, hence the improved performance, as one passenger sneezing no longer causes as much delay.


That’s what the bid team said!

No matter what time each service is there are only so many trains per an hour you can fit on current infrastructure and my feeling is that it won't change in the next 10 years as there aren't many obvious pinch points between Ipswich and London to address and passing loops aren't really going add capacity

 

[Magdalia]

I don’t particularly disagree, but is such a timetable that delivers more winners than losers actually possible? The infrastructure hasn’t changed much, apart from an additional station to slow things down. All the connecting branch lines still have single track sections, which limits the possibilities. The peaks have changed quite a bit though to reflect current loadings, hence the improved performance, as one passenger sneezing no longer causes as much delay.

Gerry Fiennes, Dick Hardy and Terry Miller will be turning in their graves!

The Great Eastern has a long and illustrious history of meeting each new investment with a new timetable to make best use of the new equipment, and to respond to changes in traffic demand. One of the reasons why the railway isn't doing very well now is that it seems to lack the flexibility to respond to anything new. It therefore does not deliver the productivity gains that should come from that investment.

I doubt that Fiennes, Hardy and Miller would have taken "its all too difficult" for an answer.

 

[dk1]

Gerry Fiennes, Dick Hardy and Terry Miller will be turning in their graves!

The Great Eastern has a long and illustrious history of meeting each new investment with a new timetable to make best use of the new equipment, and to respond to changes in traffic demand. One of the reasons why the railway isn't doing very well now is that it seems to lack the flexibility to respond to anything new. It therefore does not deliver the productivity gains that should come from that investment.

I doubt that Fiennes, Hardy and Miller would have taken "its all too difficult" for an answer.

But the GEML and most of the Greater Anglia network is doing very well now.

 

[Magdalia]

But the GEML and most of the Greater Anglia network is doing very well now.

It is, but this discussion is about changing the timetable to allow more effective deployment of the new trains. If that happened then Greater Anglia would be doing even better.

As this discussion has gone on it has become clear that the issues with deployment of the class 745s in particular are down to GEML timetabling. Sort the timetable and then the Norwich and Stansted services can be run with the existing class 745 fleet, with no need for new trains or class 720 modifications.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

It is, but this discussion is about changing the timetable to allow more effective deployment of the new trains. If that happened then Greater Anglia would be doing even better.

As this discussion has gone on it has become clear that the issues with deployment of the class 745s in particular are down to GEML timetabling. Sort the timetable and then the Norwich and Stansted services can be run with the existing class 745 fleet, with no need for new trains or class 720 modifications.

Clearly there is a sweet spot here but is it deliverable, if you took Norwich to Liverpool in isolation and clear track you could deliver within the current fleet of 10 provided pretty much all are available. We then enter the real world where there are numerous other services south of Ipswich to squeeze in along with freight and to factor in only 8 745/0s are available as 2 are in maintenance and you get the timetable we have.

 

[720144]

The triple traction could be replaced with 745/1 which I suggest is likely once tables are fitted and 720s on Stansted express, not ideal but is where we find ourselves. The infrastructure issue is more insurmountable

You could be correct here. They haven’t needed to put on the triple traction yet this week instead, it’s all the 745/0s running, 3x on Tottenham-Stansted & 7x on Stratford-Norwich with the 3x spare 745/1 filling in for the 10x intercity diagram. This should happen more often when Liverpool Street reopens.

I don’t think the tables will be completed on the 745/1s for another good year or so because, a few haven’t moved from Norwich in well over a month.

But the GEML and most of the Greater Anglia network is doing very well now.

I haven’t seen 745103 104 & 106 run in over a month, how can greater Anglia be doing very well with the Stadler fleet if several trains have to be taken out of service during the winter.

 

[dk1]

I haven’t seen 745103 104 & 106 run in over a month, how can greater Anglia be doing very well with the Stadler fleet if several trains have to be taken out of service during the winter.

That’s an issue for Stadler. I don’t pay attention to what number units I drive. As a train operator and business they are doing very well indeed.

 

[Mikey C]

As an airport service, i.e. one where there's masses of luggage on board, it can be argued that the level entrance 745s are of more use on the Stansteds than the Norwich services!

And it's not like the Heathrow and Gatwick Express services, which are fast from London to the airport, so all you have to worry about are the 2 stations at either end, as a lot of people get on at Tottenham Hale.

 

[720144]

As an airport service, i.e. one where there's masses of luggage on board, it can be argued that the level entrance 745s are of more use on the Stansteds than the Norwich services!

Yes certainly. Level boarding is priority for intercity & express. Declassified first class on the 745/0 is very handy for luggage storage on the stansted express as a 2x1 configuration.

 

[Alfie1014]

3 745 Stansted diagrams covered by 10 car 720s today, possibly due to lack of access to Crown Point over the weekend due to engineering works?

Also 745008 running on Norwich services has 3 out of 5 toilets OOU.

 

[720144]

3 745 Stansted diagrams covered by 10 car 720s today, possibly due to lack of access to Crown Point over the weekend due to engineering works?

Nope not necessarily. There’s 2x 745/1s that haven’t moved from crown point in over 2 months.

Those units are, 745103 & 104

 

[Russel]

Do GA have any active plans to address the issues currently faced or is everything in limbo due to the GBR not being far off?