Why is the GEML always closed on weekends?

Class 170101 · 27 Nov 2019

Bald Rick said:
The ‘right’ number is surely the number required to deliver a safe and reasonably reliable railway?

I accept your point but the question I ask is are the possessions utilised to their fullest extent and I'm afraid seeing what I've seen (and others have seen) NR have a lot of convincing to do on this matter.

RailUK Forums

The Planner · 27 Nov 2019

Class 170101 said:
I accept your point but the question I ask is are the possessions utilised to their fullest extent and I'm afraid seeing what I've seen (and others have seen) NR have a lot of convincing to do on this matter.

And like I always say, TOC/FOCs can take NR to dispute if they don't believe we are utilising the access or it isn't necessary. If an access dispute resolution committee don't believe NR have done due diligence or can prove the requirement we lose it, simple as.

Bald Rick · 27 Nov 2019

Class 170101 said:
I accept your point but the question I ask is are the possessions utilised to their fullest extent and I'm afraid seeing what I've seen (and others have seen) NR have a lot of convincing to do on this matter.

I’ll be the first to agree that not all possessions are used to their full effectiveness, but if they were, I can guarantee you’d lose work and have a lot more overruns. And like I always say, for big programmes of work - particularly in autumn / winter - it is necessary to overbook possessions. If the weather is bad you will lose work. If the last couple of trains are running late, you will lose work. If a critical piece of plant fails, you will lose work. You have to have contingency resource to meet a programme schedule to allow for things not going to plan. The key resource, of all of them, is the access (possessions).

And as @The Planner says, the operators are part of that decision making process.

306024 · 27 Nov 2019

It seems to have gone under the radar that the base Sunday timetable on the GEML now operates over all four tracks between Liverpool St and Shenfield from about 09.00 to 21.00. This has speeded up GA trains and allows a basic 15 minute frequency on the TfL Shenfield service, whereas previously two of the four TfL trains per hour terminated at Gidea Park.

There will of course be occasions when NR need more access for engineering work, but that now has to be strategically planned rather than simply having two tracks blocked for 20 miles every Sunday.

All that was agreed without having to go through a dispute process, which is of course how it should be.

trebor79 · 27 Nov 2019

dk1 said:
From Ipswich it's half hourly with plans for three an hour, the odd Peterborough is two hourly again with plans to go hourly, but you overlooked mentioning the hourly Cambridge which also stops at Needham. Plenty of freight uses the route as far as Haughley too & this is growing all the time. Add to this Stadlers which return to Crown Point for fuel & its busier than you think. I'm nowhere near implying quadrupling is necessary or needed but as you say at the least resignalling to 4-aspect has been overdue for years now. The original set up here was designed for a less busy & declining railway in the 1980s.

I thought the Peterborough can't go hourly due to level crossing risk assessment?

dk1 · 27 Nov 2019

trebor79 said:
I thought the Peterborough can't go hourly due to level crossing risk assessment?

Very true but it's still an aspiration.

Taunton · 28 Nov 2019

Bald Rick said:
What is more, weekend engineering works there [GE Cambridge line] are rather limited - usually no more than a handful of weekends each year, because of Stansted services.

Can it be explained why, just because there are "Stansted services", a line can then get away with significantly fewer weekend closures.

Bald Rick said:
If the last couple of trains are running late, you will lose work

I've read of this, that works are disorganised by last trains running late. But on the couple of occasions when I've been in the last scheduled train before closure, we have been told "Late - missed it - diverted - tough". For example the last Pendolino of the day from Carlisle to Euston, when Stafford to Rugby was being closed overnight, 10 minutes late approaching Stafford, diverted via Bescot, lost another hour.

trebor79 · 28 Nov 2019

Taunton said:
Can it be explained why, just because there are "Stansted services", a line can then get away with significantly fewer weekend closures.

I've read of this, that works are disorganised by last trains running late. But on the couple of occasions when I've been in the last scheduled train before closure, we have been told "Late - missed it - diverted - tough". For example the last Pendolino of the day from Carlisle to Euston, when Stafford to Rugby was being closed overnight, 10 minutes late approaching Stafford, diverted via Bescot, lost another hour.

But there aren't that many diversionary routes between say, Colchester and Chelmsford are there?

Bald Rick · 28 Nov 2019

Taunton said:
Can it be explained why, just because there are "Stansted services", a line can then get away with significantly fewer weekend closures.

I've read of this, that works are disorganised by last trains running late. But on the couple of occasions when I've been in the last scheduled train before closure, we have been told "Late - missed it - diverted - tough". For example the last Pendolino of the day from Carlisle to Euston, when Stafford to Rugby was being closed overnight, 10 minutes late approaching Stafford, diverted via Bescot, lost another hour.

It’s lower speed and about a third of the tonnage for a start. The freight on the GEML really knock the track around. Also the OLE between Coppermill Jn and Stansted is between 20 and 38 years newer than what was on the GE west of Shenfield. Also, there are (short) possession opportunities mid week nights on the WAML, which enables small scale stuff like inspection, and perhaps even replacing simple rail defects. This has to be done at weekends between Shenfield and Colchester.

Re last trains, where there’s a diversionary route, and/or the work is critical, that’s the deal.

LAX54 · 29 Nov 2019

trebor79 said:
But there aren't that many diversionary routes between say, Colchester and Chelmsford are there?

Quite, and if the 2330 to Norwich is an hour late, the block will be an hour late being taken, and subsequent work loss in that possession, this will then need replanning, and maybe an ESR
Blocks London side of Haughley can be a real pain, due to traffic levels 24/7. although they do cyclic blocks now, with all traffic diverted via the GEML or via Bury and Ely overnight.

vinnym70 · 30 Nov 2019

Are there plans to route freight from Felixstowe away from London? I assume GEML > NLL isn't really an optimum route unless that freight is headed to the south of the country?

306024 · 30 Nov 2019

The problem is divert onto what other route? Cross Country via Ely is more or less at capacity too with some other pinch points, and more than tricky for electric locomotives.

vinnym70 · 30 Nov 2019

I guess that's really my question. I don't see anything other than endless growth in passenger journeys on GEML and NLL and this thread seems to suggest that at least part of the issue with maintenance on the GEML is related to the tonnage and requirement to run nearly 24x7.

Bald Rick · 30 Nov 2019

vinnym70 said:
Are there plans to route freight from Felixstowe away from London? I assume GEML > NLL isn't really an optimum route unless that freight is headed to the south of the country?

306024 said:
The problem is divert onto what other route? Cross Country via Ely is more or less at capacity too with some other pinch points, and more than tricky for electric locomotives.

Part of the issue is that a lot of the freight on the GEML is destined for the south east or west. There’s aggregates trains to and from Marks Tey / Chelmsford and elsewhere that come from Acton and elsewhere in the London area, containers between Felixstowe and Wentloog, also containers between Felixstowe and Tilbury, Felixstowe and London, etc.

Class 170101 · 30 Nov 2019

trebor79 said:
I thought the Peterborough can't go hourly due to level crossing risk assessment?

dk1 said:
Very true but it's still an aspiration.

Has anyone actually tried to timetable it I wonder to see if there is enough track?

dk1 · 30 Nov 2019

Class 170101 said:
Has anyone actually tried to timetable it I wonder to see if there is enough track?

It's down to level crossing risk rather than track.

O L Leigh · 1 Dec 2019

TubeMapCentral said:
Then on the other hand we are told that any attempt to relieve or improve the route is unneccessary.

I didn't say that the route was not in need of upgrading. In fact, if you look back through my posting history, you will see that I have a long record of highlighting the lack of investment in the Anglia region.

My reason for posting what you have quoted is that the upgrades proposed up-thread were ridiculously over-the-top, expensive and would take many years to deliver. How many Sundays would need to be disrupted simply in order to reduce the number of Sundays disrupted?

But if you want the route to be improved, or even simply maintained so that it can deliver an efficient, resilient service, I'm afraid that you need to bear with the works that are required.

Class 170101 · 1 Dec 2019

dk1 said:
It's down to level crossing risk rather than track.

I know, but it doesn't actually matter if there are no paths to fit the trains through. No Path, no train, no increase in level crossing risk.

GB · 1 Dec 2019

vinnym70 said:
Are there plans to route freight from Felixstowe away from London? I assume GEML > NLL isn't really an optimum route unless that freight is headed to the south of the country?

When the curve at Ipswich was proposed, built and opened that was the idea...well among many bigwigs at NR and the politicians anyway. However anyone with an ounce of operational experience and knowledge knew that would never be the case without significant upgrades between Ipswich and Peterborough.

TubeMapCentral · 2 Dec 2019

O L Leigh said:
I didn't say that the route was not in need of upgrading. In fact, if you look back through my posting history, you will see that I have a long record of highlighting the lack of investment in the Anglia region.

My reason for posting what you have quoted is that the upgrades proposed up-thread were ridiculously over-the-top, expensive and would take many years to deliver. How many Sundays would need to be disrupted simply in order to reduce the number of Sundays disrupted?

But if you want the route to be improved, or even simply maintained so that it can deliver an efficient, resilient service, I'm afraid that you need to bear with the works that are required.

I don't think you are addressing the fundamental problem here, which is not the lack of Sunday services. This is only a sympton of a permanent structural problem that will get worse, and endless patching up/cheapo solutions will never cure. The GEML is maxed out during peaks and brittle. What cost-effective solutions do you have/are happening to reliably expand the current peak service, which was up to 23tph last time I looked.

In exchange for four-tracking to Ipswich, and six-tracking to Shenfield (in tunnel if necessary) — or Romford if cheaper to cut Crossrail services back to Romford and then Brentwood etc. and served by Chelmsford/Southend stoppers — I would happily endure five years of no weekend service. So, stop telling me that I don't want this, I do, and I'm more prepared to take the medicine.

O L Leigh · 2 Dec 2019

TubeMapCentral said:
I don't think you are addressing the fundamental problem here, which is not the lack of Sunday services.

Correct. I am addressing the charge raised by @Sad Sprinter in his original post that the current works are causing disruption on too many Sundays, which is, after all, the thrust of this thread, and the notion raised by @Trainfan344 that the answer to resolving Sunday disruption caused by engineering works is to instigate a far larger and more ambitious programme of upgrades that will, if anything, make the disruption far worse and long-lasting.

TubeMapCentral said:
This is only a symptom of a permanent structural problem that will get worse, and endless patching up/cheapo solutions will never cure.

I don't disagree. As I mentioned earlier, I have long complained about the lack of investment in Anglia region generally and the GE route in particular. The region needs major investment, not only to bring the infrastructure up to the standard required for reliable intensive operation as it stands now, but to address future growth. Crossrail will help a bit in terms of freeing up platforms at Liv St mainline station, but more needs to be done.

TubeMapCentral said:
In exchange for four-tracking to Ipswich, and six-tracking to Shenfield (in tunnel if necessary) — or Romford if cheaper to cut Crossrail services back to Romford and then Brentwood etc. and served by Chelmsford/Southend stoppers.

Great!! But this is not the topic of this thread. Maybe a new one should be started in the appropriate sub-forum so that we can discuss it's merits and potential issues.

TubeMapCentral said:
I would happily endure five years of no weekend service.

I'm glad that you feel that way and I wish that more people were as far-sighted as you but sadly some are not, which is presumably why this thread exists.

TubeMapCentral said:
So, stop telling me that I don't want this, I do, and I'm more prepared to take the medicine.

Excuse me, but I have done no such thing.

Why is the GEML always closed on weekends?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member