My Idea for Great Northern post 2021

[thealm]

When Great Northern finishes in 2021 my idea would be to:

• Transfer the current ECML stopping services over to Thameslink (Moorgate to Welwyn GC) to create something of a Sevenoaks to Welwyn Garden City all day with say 12 coaches matching the same capacity as before.
• Hertford loop services move to a LNER metro service.
• Kings Lynn service also moves to LNER but uses Azuma's.
• Current GN fast services use excess 717's released from Welwyn services.

Could this work?

 

[CBlue]

I don't see how these ideas could work.

Azumas are overkill for the Kings Lynn / Cambridge expresses which already use 110mph stock most of the time. How is transferring the service to LNER going to improve it?

Hertford Loop being operated as a metro by LNER - their business is running expresses to NE England and Scotland, not all stops to Stevenage.

Likewise 717's with a top speed of 85mph replacing 100/110mph stock would require a lot of padding to be put in timetables...so lowering capacity on the Southern ECML and slowing down any fast journeys.

 

[Bald Rick]

When Great Northern finishes in 2021 my idea would be to:

• Transfer the current ECML stopping services over to Thameslink (Moorgate to Welwyn GC) to create something of a Sevenoaks to Welwyn Garden City all day with say 12 coaches matching the same capacity as before.
• Hertford loop services move to a LNER metro service.
• Kings Lynn service also moves to LNER but uses Azuma's.
• Current GN fast services use excess 717's released from Welwyn services.

Could this work?

In a word, no.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

When Great Northern finishes in 2021 my idea would be to:

• Transfer the current ECML stopping services over to Thameslink (Moorgate to Welwyn GC) to create something of a Sevenoaks to Welwyn Garden City all day with say 12 coaches matching the same capacity as before.
• Hertford loop services move to a LNER metro service.
• Kings Lynn service also moves to LNER but uses Azuma's.
• Current GN fast services use excess 717's released from Welwyn services.

Could this work?

1) Why? Thameslink is for anything going via the route between St Pancras and Blackfriars including both stations. No point Great Northern does not fit. I think LNER would be better as a metro service.

so I would have all Great Northern services form an LNER metro service

 

[London Trains]

Not really. One of the major problems is Welwyn passengers losing services to Moorgate (so losing a direct connection to the City) and will cause mass changing at Finsbury Park onto the Hertford - Moorgate trains. Also the 717s will not keep up with other services, and Azumas would be awful on a stopping service.

If it were up to me I would have:

• Moorgate to Welwyn/Hertford transfer to TfL and become a London Overground route.
• Kings Lynn services transfer to LNER, but continue to be operated by 387s, in 12 car formations to Ely, where they will split, having 8 cars to Kings Lynn and 4 cars to Wisbech (reopen the line) calling at March.
• Continue to have the slow Thameslink Cambridge services operate out of Kings Cross (dont bother with Maidstone) and after HS2, have a Kings Cross to Peterborough service to make the route 4tph. This way, all stations have a service to Kings Cross and the bigger stations have services down the Thameslink core.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Not really. One of the major problems is Welwyn passengers losing services to Moorgate (so losing a direct connection to the City) and will cause mass changing at Finsbury Park onto the Hertford - Moorgate trains. Also the 717s will not keep up with other services, and Azumas would be awful on a stopping service.

If it were up to me I would have:

• Moorgate to Welwyn/Hertford transfer to TfL and become a London Overground route.
• Kings Lynn services transfer to LNER, but continue to be operated by 387s, in 12 car formations to Ely, where they will split, having 8 cars to Kings Lynn and 4 cars to Wisbech (reopen the line) calling at March.
• Continue to have the slow Thameslink Cambridge services operate out of Kings Cross (dont bother with Maidstone) and after HS2, have a Kings Cross to Peterborough service to make the route 4tph. This way, all stations have a service to Kings Cross and the bigger stations have services down the Thameslink core.

2) requires electrification to Wisbech as well as reopening the line

 

[thealm]

What my idea is is about uncluttering services on ECML South so if Kings Lynn service went Azuma operated that would mean that fast line services would be 125 all the way and as Thameslink pretty much call at stations between Welwyn GC and Finsbury Park it can be incorporated together. Welwyn passengers would still have connections to the city and beyond with Thameslink.
With 717's uprated to 110mph.

 

[A0wen]

What my idea is is about uncluttering services on ECML South so if Kings Lynn service went Azuma operated that would mean that fast line services would be 125 all the way and as Thameslink pretty much call at stations between Welwyn GC and Finsbury Park it can be incorporated together. Welwyn passengers would still have connections to the city and beyond with Thameslink.
With 717's uprated to 110mph.

But that 125mph would only be south of Hitchin - I don't believe Hitchin to Cambridge or Cambridge Kings Lynn is 125mph?

And surely the bigger issue on the ECML south of Hitchin remains the 2 track section through Welwyn North? Putting faster trains through there doesn't magically create additional capacity.

 

[thealm]

But that 125mph would only be south of Hitchin - I don't believe Hitchin to Cambridge or Cambridge Kings Lynn is 125mph?

And surely the bigger issue on the ECML south of Hitchin remains the 2 track section through Welwyn North? Putting faster trains through there doesn't magically create additional capacity.

125mph from Hitchin but through Welwyn North it is the same amount of services but it would be faster.

 

[A0wen]

125mph from Hitchin but through Welwyn North it is the same amount of services but it would be faster.

So if it's the "same amount of services" how does it improve things exactly? Apart from using 125mph long distance rolling stock on a service which neither needs nor warrants it?

 

[Bald Rick]

125mph from Hitchin but through Welwyn North it is the same amount of services but it would be faster.

The 125 only starts at Woolmer Green, so that’s 8 miles to Hitchin at 125. Allowing for acceleration / deceleration, especially at Hitchin, you’re looking at saving perhaps half a minute at best.

 

[Bald Rick]

With 717's uprated to 110mph.

How do you do that then?

 

[43074]

When Great Northern finishes in 2021 my idea would be to:

• Transfer the current ECML stopping services over to Thameslink (Moorgate to Welwyn GC) to create something of a Sevenoaks to Welwyn Garden City all day with say 12 coaches matching the same capacity as before.
• Hertford loop services move to a LNER metro service.
• Kings Lynn service also moves to LNER but uses Azuma's.
• Current GN fast services use excess 717's released from Welwyn services.

Could this work?

In a word; no. Some thoughts:

1) How do you overcome the platform length limitations on the GN Metro routes (hence 6 car 717s and supplemented by the odd 8 car) for your 12 car Sevenoaks idea?

2) Where do the paths through the core come from to provide the extra Welwyn Sevenoaks services you would need to run to meet demand? 2x12 car would be insufficient and people value frequency on metro routes anyway.

3) If the inners should be run by any TOC its London Overground, they're pretty similar to the lower Lea in terms of market and catchment area. LNER would be a poor fit.

4) Azumas would be a poor fit for Kings Lynn, the 125mph capability on the route is limited as already discussed and dwell times at Cambridge, Royston etc would be through the roof compared to 387s.

5) Uprating 85mph 717s to 110mph would be technically challenging and totally pointless as there are 387s available from your Azuma idea.

 

[CBlue]

I think we've arrived at a conclusion here.

There are speculative ideas and then there is make-believe - this is definitely the latter.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think this thread suggests we need two tiers of "Speculative Ideas" threads; a "serious proposals" thread and a "casual proposals" thread.

The Specuative Ideas thread is along with the History and Nolstagia thread, where I spend most of my time on this forum. I enjoy reading peoples ideas regardless of their plausiblity and dont want users' proposals to be silenced, similarly to how London Recconections moderates its comments section. However, I think many people simply cannot be assumed to be aware of the myriad of problems that stand in the way of a Bromley North to Charing Cross service. Some users may be quite young and, like how I was at 13, bursting with railway related ideas (such as my long held proposal for a St. Pancras to Blackpool service via Manchester and Bolton) and are simply unaware of why its simply impossible for a 07:15 departure from X due to path conflicts on the approach to X.

Therefore, I suggest a new thread for serious proposals, in which the user must at least demonstrate some level of thinking of how their solution can be implemented and what its benefits are.

Another suggestion could be to create a sticky "Frequently made proposals" thread within the Speculative Proposals forum, explaining, gently, why the most common suggestions are impossible to carry out. Such as a Waterloo and City Line extension. Otherwise, the entire point of a Speculative Ideas sub-forum to provide a safe-haven away from the normal day to day discussions of the railway is useless if it continues to wind up those with a higher level of industry knowledge everytime they see an unfeasible proposal.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Obviously, giving the Welwyn and Hertford stopping trains (I believe Moorgate can just about get to 14tph instead of 12tph with the current signalling) to be London Overground, with the Welwyn and Hornsey (Inner) drivers taking over. I'd standardise the timetable at the same time, taking advantage of capacity to Stevenage now and what not.

There needs to be 4tph between Finsbury Park and Blackfriars on Thameslink off-peak, and 8tph at peak. The best way to achieve this is to operate the Peterborough and Cambridge services to Brighton, creating a standard 15-minutely path between Hitchin and Three Bridges. Bedford services can then go elsewhere (Reigate eventually, Horsham, Grinstead etc.).

To add a peak-time overlay, I'd smash in the Cambridge 'slow' (but amend it, so as to run it Cambridge - Foxton - Shepreth - Meldreth - Royston - Ashwell - Baldock - Letchworth - Hitchin - Stevenage - Knebworth - Welwyn North - Finsbury Park) and a Royston 'slow' (Royston - Ashwell - Baldock - Letchworth - Hitchin - Stevenage - Knebworth - Welwyn North - Welwyn Garden - Hatfield - Finsbury Park), both going south through Blackfriars to 'somewhere' (Gillingham via Herne Hill and Ashford Intl via Herne Hill make reasonable sense!). Off peak, it would just be a Cambridge - Kings Cross slow service - no through running.

That would leave the Kings Lynn and Peterborough express services unaccounted for, and the Welwyn peak 'special' services. See next.

The Kings Lynn services, which I estimate even if you use 8 car trains north of Cambridge, and even if they ran half-hourly, would require 26 units maximum, should be operated by 379s (we worked out in a previous thread there's a 30 second time penalty on the fast lines south of Hitchin in either direction maximum as a result), and be an LNER service. Train crew at Kings Lynn and Kings Cross for this. Light maintenance can be done at Hornsey or Bounds Green, with heavy work sub-contracted to Ilford as might be standard.

To finish, you require some IEPs (I believe there are some spare due to the timetables not quite coming up to full anytime soon) to do the peak Peterborough trains, which should omit the Stevenage call (those folk can board one of many other services, or put a call in on other Intercity services for connectivity), and be fast Kings Cross <> Biggleswade. They could be extended north of Peterborough to the Grantham 'back platform', Newark or even Lincoln at peak times. Train crew based at Peterborough, split with Thameslink. As some of the Kings Cross establishment would be needed for Kings Lynn work, you could use the Peterborough drivers for Lincoln, Newark and some stopping York and Leeds work to 'make up for it'. If you need some extra stock for Peterborough peak work, I would probably go so far as to have a fleet of 'plain' 387s which could be sub-leased from Southern during the Monday to Friday time, cycling on and off maintenance at weekends south of the river. It's a perfectly workable solution.

I'd also move the Hitchin driver depot to Letchworth, as so many units would be coming on/off there at the start and end of service.

 

[London Trains]

Bedford services can then go elsewhere (Reigate eventually, Horsham, Grinstead etc.).

Destroying Bedford to Brighton would not go down well. It is a long lasting connection that has stayed for over 20 years. If anything, Bedford to Brighton should be 4tph at even 15m intervals, and Cambridge/Peterborough services go elsewhere on a standard 4tph every 15m path, maybe Cambridge to Horsham and Peterborough to Reigate (running every 15m from Hitchin to Redhill)

 

[Ianno87]

Destroying Bedford to Brighton would not go down well. It is a long lasting connection that has stayed for over 20 years. If anything, Bedford to Brighton should be 4tph at even 15m intervals, and Cambridge/Peterborough services go elsewhere on a standard 4tph every 15m path, maybe Cambridge to Horsham and Peterborough to Reigate (running every 15m from Hitchin to Redhill)

Connecting Cambridge with Brighton directly was a stroke of commercial genius. Far more valuable than a third and fourth train between Bedford and Brighton.

 

[London Trains]

Connecting Cambridge with Brighton directly was a stroke of commercial genius. Far more valuable than a third and fourth train between Bedford and Brighton.

Very true. But if a 4tph every 15 minute frequency on the MML, ECML and BML are all wanted, destinations cannot be mixed. Either all Bedford trains or all Cambridge / Peterborough trains have to go to Brighton for a perfect 15m frequency. However it would be an awful decision to sever the link between Bedford and Brighton, so it makes more sense to have all Bedford trains go to Brighton and all ECML trains go to the slower BML destinations via Redhill

 

[Ianno87]

Very true. But if a 4tph every 15 minute frequency on the MML, ECML and BML are all wanted, destinations cannot be mixed. Either all Bedford trains or all Cambridge / Peterborough trains have to go to Brighton for a perfect 15m frequency. However it would be an awful decision to sever the link between Bedford and Brighton, so it makes more sense to have all Bedford trains go to Brighton and all ECML trains go to the slower BML destinations via Redhill

The thing is that the 15 minutes BML Thameslink interval sounds nice, but didn't *really* work. By breaking this with a 10/20 Brighton pattern instead, it has made other things possible instead with arguably a better spread of trains on other flows instead, and resulted in a very, very well-performing timetable.

It also means that you avoided the previous problem where the Fast and slow Thameslinks simply departed one behind the other from Brighton.

 

[JonathanH]

Very true. But if a 4tph every 15 minute frequency on the MML, ECML and BML are all wanted, destinations cannot be mixed. Either all Bedford trains or all Cambridge / Peterborough trains have to go to Brighton for a perfect 15m frequency. However it would be an awful decision to sever the link between Bedford and Brighton, so it makes more sense to have all Bedford trains go to Brighton and all ECML trains go to the slower BML destinations via Redhill

The compromise south of London on this is perfectly adequate - it doesn't need to be at exactly a 15 minute gap. Thameslink services to Brighton every 15 minutes doesn't work because of the need to have a skip-stop pattern to serve all the stations and maintain journey times.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Bedford to Brighton need not exist now same-platform changes are so easy at one of many stations between St Pancras and London Bridge. Standardised paths of the sort as Peterborough and Cambridge to Brighton means all the drivers actually signing a sensible one route and diversions, and the same for the Brighton drivers in reverse...

 

[JonathanH]

Bedford to Brighton need not exist now same-platform changes are so easy at one of many stations between St Pancras and London Bridge. Standardised paths of the sort as Peterborough and Cambridge to Brighton means all the drivers actually signing a sensible one route and diversions, and the same for the Brighton drivers in reverse...

Surely the driver knowledge is all settled with the drivers signing sensible routes. Why mess that up now?

 

[London Trains]

Bedford to Brighton need not exist now same-platform changes are so easy at one of many stations between St Pancras and London Bridge. Standardised paths of the sort as Peterborough and Cambridge to Brighton means all the drivers actually signing a sensible one route and diversions, and the same for the Brighton drivers in reverse...

If that's true then why cant the Cambridge and Peterborough passengers do the same. I would estimate the flows (Bedford to Brighton and Peterborough / Cambridge to Brighton) being reasonably similar.

In fact Peterborough and Cambridge are close to lots of beaches in Norfolk and Lincolnshire, and have rail links to them, and Bedford has no beaches with easy rail links other than Brighton, so I estimate the flow is less from them to Brighton

 

[Ianno87]

If that's true then why cant the Cambridge and Peterborough passengers do the same. I would estimate the flows (Bedford to Brighton and Peterborough / Cambridge to Brighton) being reasonably similar.

In fact Peterborough and Cambridge are close to lots of beaches in Norfolk and Lincolnshire, and have rail links to them, and Bedford has no beaches with easy rail links other than Brighton, so I estimate the flow is less from them to Brighton

There are far, far bigger drivers of demand on these services than beachgoers...

Just giving Cambridge, Stevenage etc a fast (i.e. not via Redhill) link to Gatwick is very visible with the number of luggage-laden travellers on board.

 

[London Trains]

There are far, far bigger drivers if demand on these services than beachgoers...

If its airports, neither link is needed. Bedford has services to Luton Airport and Peterborough and Cambridge have services to Stansted.

 

[Ianno87]

If its airports, neither link is needed. Bedford has services to Luton Airport and Peterborough and Cambridge have services to Stansted.

**Reminder that you can't fly to everywhere from every airport**

**Reminder that Cambridge is a University city (a pretty famous one at that) that generates air travel globally**

 

[4-SUB 4732]

**Reminder that you can't fly to everywhere from every airport**

**Reminder that Cambridge is a University city (a pretty famous one at that) that generates air travel globally**

Perhaps also worth saying that the GN has significantly higher numbers of railheads than the MML does.

Whatever your opinion, the bulk of the traffic on all lines is commuter; with off-peak and weekend leisure being next and then relatively limited airport traffic (all told, let’s be honest) so where it goes once it gets past London from anywhere you’re coming from makes little difference.

That said, consider the northbound and you’re talking about links from Brighton and Gatwick to Peterborough and Stevenage (East Coast etc) with some same-platform connections; and large swathes of East Anglia via Cambridge as well as North London and Hertfordshire on the Loop and Welwyn stoppers.

On the flip side, you can connect onto EMR at St Pancras as well as the Underground lines you get at Kentish Town; and not all trains stop at West Hampstead to make that argument stick. There’s no special connections at Bedford you can’t make at St Pancras.

 

[greatkingrat]

If its airports, neither link is needed. Bedford has services to Luton Airport and Peterborough and Cambridge have services to Stansted.

Even if Cambridge and Peterborough have direct services to Stansted, none of the intermediate stations do.

 

[Peter Kelford]

When Great Northern finishes in 2021 my idea would be to:

• Transfer the current ECML stopping services over to Thameslink (Moorgate to Welwyn GC) to create something of a Sevenoaks to Welwyn Garden City all day with say 12 coaches matching the same capacity as before.
• Hertford loop services move to a LNER metro service.
• Kings Lynn service also moves to LNER but uses Azuma's.
• Current GN fast services use excess 717's released from Welwyn services.

Could this work?

I don't see the problem with it but then it's also completely useless.

LNER uses Bounds Green, GTR Hornsey. Maintaining a new class at BG is going to be a waste of money, giving LNER part of HN is also a waste of resources/inefficient use. Furthermore, it ends up mixing the brands further, with less consistency. A passenger now sees a GTR train and says 'those white trains', and when they see an LNER 'those red trains'. So the brand colour code is clear. Anyhow, I don't see how brand coherence is a big problem when regular commuters are familiar with those peculiarities. Explaining to them what a TOC Franchise is and how the ECML works, however, is more complicated.

King's Lynn doesn't need 8xxs. Don't forget that Hitchin flyover is 50mph (or is it 80 - I think 50), so there would be no point in doing so, without potentially using the non-grade separated junction which causes more problems than it solves.