Would an LNER Connect Subbrand for the Kings Cross - Kings Lynn/Peterborough services be an improvement?

[RailWonderer]

There is a thread at the moment about the dire state of the Thameslink 700s and put together, the amount of vandalism added to the cheap spec, oppressive ambiance and poor state of the rolling stock makes them a very unpleasant train, especially for longer distance journeys. The few times I've been on them (albeit in the middle of the day) I felt the same, but was luckily only doing short hop journeys.

Using spare 379s in LNER livery, (yes, DfT most likely won't approve funding and ETCS installation until passenger numbers rise and the costcutting era is over) would the half hourly Cambridge fasts and the half hourly Peterboroughs starting from KX serve as a better train for the ECML and Cambridge branch?
The 379s are far superior to the 700s, would be less vandalised just like the current 387s vs the 700s, and will have better seating and tables for laptop working and eating food which would be more appropriate for these service, especially the Peterboroughs which are mostly 700 served. The 387s would go off to Southern, but this is not for the short term obviously.

Thoughts?

 

[Royston Vasey]

There is nothing wrong with Great Northern or the Electrostars running this route. It has very little in common with LNER, in terms of service, staffing or rolling stock, and a lot more in common with TLGN as a franchise. 387s often end up on TL locals but 700s never end up on the faster GN services, so the ambience of those is a moot point really.

 

[RailWonderer]

There is nothing wrong with Great Northern or the Electrostars running this route. It has very little in common with LNER, in terms of service, staffing or rolling stock, and a lot more in common with TLGN as a franchise. 387s often end up on TL locals but 700s never end up on the faster GN services, so the ambience of those is a moot point really.

I was thinking of uniformity like EMR connect with EMR intercity and of course, the higher fares on the GN fasts than the TL stoppers.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I was thinking of uniformity like EMR connect with EMR intercity and of course, the higher fares on the GN fasts than the TL stoppers.

Higher fares? There's no premium over the TL stoppers, only one set of tickets down the Royston branch.

There is a premium for TL & GN over the GA-only route into Liverpool St which is much slower and also features lots of Advance fares, but the TL fares are the same as the "Cruisers".

 

[30907]

I was thinking of uniformity like EMR connect with EMR intercity and of course, the higher fares on the GN fasts than the TL stoppers.

But KGX-PBO GN semifasts are peak only (and always have been) so little uniformity there.

 

[DanNCL]

If LNER should take on any local services it should be Northern services in the North East, not the stuff from GTR.

 

[CBlue]

The Cambridge fasts are only ~45 minutes in terms of journey time so hardly need tables for laptop working or food. It's not like we're dealing with a +3 hour long journey here...
387s do the job fine (although despite the slightly worse seats, the 700s ride far better over rougher spots of track). If anything, higher capacity units would be better than fitting more tables....the fasts normally fill up well even during off peak.

Slapping LNER branding on some of the services would just add to the jumbled mess of ToCs and brandings between Cambridge and London and not improve a thing.

 

[D365]

Slapping LNER branding on some of the services would just add to the jumbled mess of ToCs and brandings between Cambridge and London and not improve a thing.

I do think that there should be some consideration of renaming Thameslink services to "Midland" and "Great Northern" routes. But you're right that introducing new brands wouldn't really help to fix any existing confusion.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I was thinking of uniformity like EMR connect with EMR intercity and of course, the higher fares on the GN fasts than the TL stoppers.

I'm not sure what the EMR Connect branding achieves other than try to justify a massive downgrade in rolling stock and service to what came before!

 

[Magdalia]

I do much of my rail travel with Great Northern. It has almost nothing in common with LNER apart from a bit of sharing of platforms at the Kings Cross terminus and sharing paths on the fast lines between Kings Cross and Hitchin.

LNER's business model would be totally inappropriate for the Great Northern service to/from Cambridge and the Fens.

Reorganisations are expensive and disruptive. There's nothing here to indicate any gains that would justify the upheaval.

Reading between the lines, this proposal looks like another Trojan Horse for getting class 379s onto the GN. That isn't going to happen because a fleet of 30 units is too small for the GN operation.

 

[RobShipway]

I do much of my rail travel with Great Northern. It has almost nothing in common with LNER apart from a bit of sharing of platforms at the Kings Cross terminus and sharing paths on the fast lines between Kings Cross and Hitchin.

LNER's business model would be totally inappropriate for the Great Northern service to/from Cambridge and the Fens.

Reorganisations are expensive and disruptive. There's nothing here to indicate any gains that would justify the upheaval.

Reading between the lines, this proposal looks like another Trojan Horse for getting class 379s onto the GN. That isn't going to happen because a fleet of 30 units is too small for the GN operation.

Since Great Northern have about 36 class 387's in their fleet I do not see the class 379's being able to replace the 387's with GN. As others have said in others threads, you would if possible not want a mix of fleets with minor fleets.

I personally think that it is more likely that Great Northern services are more likely to be merged into Thameslink. However, I think that the TOC will remain as is for the time being as the cost would be too much presently to rename Great Northern to be part of Thameslink and to have a more beneficial name for the combined services.

The only fleet of class 387's that the class 379 fleet could replace is the none Heathrow Express fleet with GWR. However, unlike what I have said in other threads I do not see that happening either, as outside the dedicated 12 class 387's for Heathrow Express, GWR would need spare class 387's to operate the Heathrow Express services in Emergency that could be modified to operate the Heathrow Express service.

Whilst I think that it is horrible to be scrapping such a young fleet of trains, it has been done with 2 of the class 360/2 fleet and the class 332 fleet.

 

[RailWonderer]

I always thought the Great Northern branding doesn't sound right for a South East operator and should either be merged into Thameslink as said before, or merged into LNER, which doesn't sound popular.

I'm not sure what the EMR Connect branding achieves other than try to justify a massive downgrade in rolling stock and service to what came before!

It's now the Luton Express, so they've changed it again! The 360s when refurbished properly were not intended as a downgrade from the Meridians, the refurb was cancelled on cost grounds. I think the sub brand is needed as the service is not IC but it cannot be Thameslink either as it serves the Midlands.

 

[CBlue]

I personally think that it is more likely that Great Northern services are more likely to be merged into Thameslink. However, I think that the TOC will remain as is for the time being as the cost would be too much presently to rename Great Northern to be part of Thameslink and to have a more beneficial name for the combined services.

Sometime this year I understand some of the Thameslink branded stopping services that terminate at Kings Cross are to be rebranded as Great Northern services, so can't see the brands merging.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I use Thameslink a lot, and the 700s are great, a lot better than the 360s EMR use on the Corby service

 

[CBlue]

I always thought the Great Northern branding doesn't sound right for a South East operator and should either be merged into Thameslink as said before, or merged into LNER, which doesn't sound popular

Historically the Great Northern Railway operated to Cambridge and indeed the station building is still there. I imagine the name refers to "North of London" rather than the North of England... although by your own argument, LNER branding wouldn't make sense geographically either!

Given we have "East Midlands Railway" operating across the country to Liverpool you are never going to get brand names to fit into some spurious boxes.

I use Thameslink a lot, and the 700s are great, a lot better than the 360s EMR use on the Corby service

They certainly ride far better than the 387s along the ECML, even if the seats are a touch worse. Far less jolting and bouncing.

 

[D365]

I personally think that it is more likely that Great Northern services are more likely to be merged into Thameslink. However, I think that the TOC will remain as is for the time being as the cost would be too much presently to rename Great Northern to be part of Thameslink and to have a more beneficial name for the combined services.

They’re already merged, for all intents and purposes. What would be the point of confusing the travelling public by having Class 387s, which no longer operate the Thameslink route, be branded as Thameslink trains?

 

[RobShipway]

They’re already merged, for all intents and purposes. What would be the point of confusing the travelling public by having Class 387s, which no longer operate the Thameslink route, be branded as Thameslink trains?

Yes, they are merged as being part of GTR. But I meant as being merged with doing away with the name Great Northern and the trains within the Great Northern fleets carrying the Thameslink name.

Why would the public be confused or care for that matter what TOC name is on the side of the train that they are travelling on as long as it gets them from A to B? Besides, in the past you have had class 700's with the Great Northern name on the side of the trains when doing services out of Kings Cross as per the comment: "On 6 November 2017, Class 700s started on the Great Northern route with the first, 700128, operating the 0656 Peterborough to London Kings Cross service.[43] The Great Northern route has since been partially incorporated in the Thameslink network after through services through the Canal Tunnels began on 26 February 2018.[44] On this route, Class 700s replaced parts of the Class 365 fleet." from the class 700 wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_700. The class 700 where later replaced by class 387 units I believe. But before the class 700 trains, the same passengers would have had the class 365 units.

But wait hasn't many of the services that back in 2016 where operated by Great Northern, are now operated by Thameslink? Also, if you look at services to Peterborough as mentioned in the details above, how many in Realtime trains for tomorrow are run by Great Northern if you select them as the TOC from Kings Cross: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se.../0600-2000?stp=WVSC&show=all&order=wtt&toc=GN

Now, how many are run by Thameslink from Kings Cross to Peterborough and Cambridge: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se.../0600-2000?stp=WVSC&show=all&order=wtt&toc=TL

As it notes on the GTR Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govia_Thameslink_Railway when it comes to services operated by Great Northern:

Great Northern service pattern[edit]​

Since the introduction of regular services through the Canal Tunnels during May 2018, many GTR services on the East Coast Main Line were rebranded from Great Northern to Thameslink. Most of these services have been extended through central London and incorporated into the Thameslink network (as per above), although as of October 2019 some services are yet to be extended. The only services to retain the Great Northern brand are those on the Northern City Line and the express services to/from Cambridge, Ely and King's Lynn, as well as Peterborough at peak times.[42]

The Great Northern off-peak service pattern, with frequencies in trains per hour (tph), consists of the following:[43][44]

Route	tph	Calling at
London King's Cross to Ely	1	Cambridge, Cambridge North, Waterbeach
London King's Cross to King's Lynn	1	Cambridge, Cambridge North, Waterbeach, Ely, Littleport, Downham Market, Watlington
Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City	2	Old Street, Essex Road, Highbury & Islington, Drayton Park, Finsbury Park, Harringay, Hornsey, Alexandra Palace, New Southgate, Oakleigh Park, New Barnet, Hadley Wood, Potters Bar, Brookmans Park, Welham Green, Hatfield
Moorgate to Stevenage via Hertford North	2	Old Street, Essex Road, Highbury & Islington, Drayton Park, Finsbury Park, Harringay, Hornsey, Alexandra Palace, Bowes Park, Palmers Green, Winchmore Hill, Grange Park, Enfield Chase, Gordon Hill, Crews Hill, Cuffley, Bayford, Hertford North, Watton-at-Stone

So I don't really see why the travelling public would be confused anymore than they possibly are already.

 

[D365]

Yes it gets a bit confusing with some of the "Thameslink" Class 700 services only operating into Kings Cross, rather than St Pancras and beyond. But what would be achieved in rebranding the Class 387s and Class 717s?

 

[Brubulus]

GA have/will have loads of spare 720s, so why not give the Kings Lynn services to them and if the 700s have a modicum of reliability, they should be able to operate the Cambridge slows and the Peterborough semi fasts. The 387s could then go to Southern, who actually need them while not significantly increasing rolling stock expenditure.

 

[Magdalia]

GA have/will have loads of spare 720s, so why not give the Kings Lynn services

Kings Lynn could only take single class 720s because the platforms and carriage sidings are not long enough for double units.

 

[J-2739]

GA have/will have loads of spare 720s, so why not give the Kings Lynn services to them and if the 700s have a modicum of reliability, they should be able to operate the Cambridge slows and the Peterborough semi fasts. The 387s could then go to Southern, who actually need them while not significantly increasing rolling stock expenditure.

I think a few people would have some words to say about 720s on the Kings Lynns.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I think a few people would have some words to say about 720s on the Kings Lynns.

Let them say what they want. There's far worse rolling stock situations on the national network. At the end of the day, these are brand new, modern trains with facilities such as pull down tables, charging points and a good amount of seating capacity.

 

[D365]

Am I right in saying that some of the Stansted Express Class 755s have strayed to the Great Eastern? Perhaps a case could be made for a Class 720 subfleet... we've had far worse ideas on this subforum.

However it occurs to me that, aside from platform lengths, the use of Class 720s on the East Coast Main Line would require ETCS fitment, for which the Class 720s are not currently in scope.

 

[bramling]

Let them say what they want. There's far worse rolling stock situations on the national network. At the end of the day, these are brand new, modern trains with facilities such as pull down tables, charging points and a good amount of seating capacity.

Notwithstanding that the Fen Line rail user group is known for being rather vociferous, the fact that the DFT has spent the last decade or so setting rail up as a distress purchase is partly what has got things into the mess they’re now in.

Indeed it may well be contributing to the current economic mess, as labour shortages have got us to the point where the economy needs people to work. The prospect of an uncomfortable commute is hardly going to attract someone in their mid to late 50s to return to the labour market or not take early retirement.

I said what I wanted as regards the 700s being introduced on my local line. As a direct consequence of that one I have gone from using rail to/from London 5 days a week, to only having travelled to London by train a grand total of twice this year so far.

 

[Brubulus]

Kings Lynn could only take single class 720s because the platforms and carriage sidings are not long enough for double units.

Just split at Cambridge, a 5 car 720 has a similar seating capacity to a 8 car 387, even with the recent seat removal. Splitting is a necessity during the peak anyway and it would deliver a significant capacity boost on a service which is a bit too long for standing, especially as there are no intermediate stops where seats would become free. If new units are needed for the rest of GA in the medium to long term, the 379s could always come back on WA, no need for ETCS and allow the 745s to run a few more GEML services.

 

[bramling]

Just split at Cambridge, a 5 car 720 has a similar seating capacity to a 8 car 387, even with the recent seat removal. Splitting is a necessity during the peak anyway and it would deliver a significant capacity boost on a service which is a bit too long for standing, especially as there are no intermediate stops where seats would become free. If new units are needed for the rest of GA in the medium to long term, the 379s could always come back on WA, no need for ETCS and allow the 745s to run a few more GEML services.

This really is getting into solution looking for problem territory.

Money has recently been spent on making the infrastructure suitable for regular 8-car working to Kings Lynn, and one benefit of doing this has been to remove detaching and attaching at Cambridge for all except peak times.

The one change I *would* make is splitting off Thameslink/GN from Southern. In other words a return to the First Capital Connect style of franchise.

 

[RobShipway]

Rather than using the class 720's, would it not be better to be having extra orders of the 5 car class 730/1 units, that way should there be a requirement for 10 car trains people can walk between the units while the train is in motion if required?

 

[D365]

Rather than using the class 720's, would it not be better to be having extra orders of the 5 car class 730/1 units, that way should there be a requirement for 10 car trains people can walk between the units while the train is in motion if required?

Doesn't seem like reason enough to introduce a totally different fleet.

 

[J-2739]

Let them say what they want. There's far worse rolling stock situations on the national network. At the end of the day, these are brand new, modern trains with facilities such as pull down tables, charging points and a good amount of seating capacity.

I agree, I'm quite fond of the 720s myself, but as @bramling said, we know how loud some commuter groups can be!

 

[Magdalia]

Just split at Cambridge, a 5 car 720 has a similar seating capacity to a 8 car 387, even with the recent seat removal. Splitting is a necessity during the peak anyway and it would deliver a significant capacity boost on a service which is a bit too long for standing, especially as there are no intermediate stops where seats would become free. If new units are needed for the rest of GA in the medium to long term, the 379s could always come back on WA, no need for ETCS and allow the 745s to run a few more GEML services.

We have been through this before with class 745s.

There is no platform capacity at Kings Cross for an off peak GN service of trains longer than 160m, and only very limited capacity at peak times.

Splitting/joining at Cambridge would reduce resilience and be very extravagant with scarce platform and traincrew resources. Since the 2018 timetable change it is no longer possible to split and join at Cambridge without creating a huge number of conflicting ecs moves in and out of the carriage sidings, all of which need a driver.