Could the branch platform at Marks Tey be electrified?

[Aureol Colin]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/abellio-greater-anglia-class-755s-regional-trains.148431

I suspect the lack of changes at Sudbury, reflects the importance of the branch to the management. Of course the plans for through running to Colchester may need the branch platform at Marks Tey being electrified so the power switch over can be done while stopped

 

[eastdyke]

I suspect the lack of changes at Sudbury, reflects the importance of the branch to the management. Of course the plans for through running to Colchester may need the branch platform at Marks Tey being electrified so the power switch over can be done while stopped

I think that it has been more or less confirmed that the service will not extend to Colchester Town as in the FA. Possible conflicts on the 'main line' were considered too great/likely to impact the reliability of the branch service.

 

[dk1]

I suspect the lack of changes at Sudbury, reflects the importance of the branch to the management. Of course the plans for through running to Colchester may need the branch platform at Marks Tey being electrified so the power switch over can be done while stopped

Due to the foot crossing at Mark's Tey it is extremely doubtful regular through running will ever happen again off the branch im afraid.

 

[eastdyke]

Due to the foot crossing at Mark's Tey it is extremely doubtful regular through running will ever happen again off the branch im afraid.

Ah! Thanks for posting, I had rather the wrong reason it seems.
Cheers!

 

[dk1]

Ah! Thanks for posting, I had rather the wrong reason it seems.
Cheers!

Most welcome mate. It was stated very early into the franchise that this commitment was unlikely to move forward.

 

[Jamiescott1]

May be ignorant but 2 trains an hour running at 10mph through a foot crossing- how can this be seen as dangerous and therefore not happening.
What about the trains at the start and end of the day, how are these not considered dangerous?

 

[TheEdge]

May be ignorant but 2 trains an hour running at 10mph through a foot crossing- how can this be seen as dangerous and therefore not happening.
What about the trains at the start and end of the day, how are these not considered dangerous?

Because the railways as a whole (not GA specifically) are risk averse to a fault sometimes...

 

[Tim Regester]

May be ignorant but 2 trains an hour running at 10mph through a foot crossing- how can this be seen as dangerous and therefore not happening.
What about the trains at the start and end of the day, how are these not considered dangerous?

The closeness of the foot crossing at Marks Tey to the front of a stopped Sudbury Train would be the issue, a passenger crossing the line would have no time to react (and with noise cancelling headphones on would not hear) the train starting up and moving off. Made sense when I was told this.

 

[eastdyke]

May be ignorant but 2 trains an hour running at 10mph through a foot crossing- how can this be seen as dangerous and therefore not happening.
What about the trains at the start and end of the day, how are these not considered dangerous?

An increase from 2tpd to 40tpd implies a 'bare bones' unmitigated risk increase of x20.
The ORR places a duty on 'The Railway' to control and wherever possible to reduce crossing risk.
It is likely that a PRM compliant footbridge would be needed to mitigate that risk, assuming no land take needed, say circa £2-£4m?

 

[Tim Regester]

It is likely that a PRM compliant footbridge would be needed to mitigate that risk, assuming no land take needed, say circa £2-£4m?

This is needed at Marks Tey anyway, the existing bridge needs replacing with an accessible bridge/lift, I would think extending it to the car park would be possible, thus eliminating the need for the foot crossing. But attempts to get this bridge replaced in 2015/6 failed due to insufficient passenger numbers, whether there is now more chance of this happening I may be able to find out next week.

 

[eastdyke]

This is needed at Marks Tey anyway, the existing bridge needs replacing with an accessible bridge/lift, I would think extending it to the car park would be possible, thus eliminating the need for the foot crossing. But attempts to get this bridge replaced in 2015/6 failed due to insufficient passenger numbers, whether there is now more chance of this happening I may be able to find out next week.

EADT article here from August 2018.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/new-train-lift-for-sudbury-passengers-1-5651223
Would not be surprised if the existing bridge replacement extended to the Car Park, with lifts turned out a little more than the £4-5m quoted. And I am not at all sure that Mr Burles would still say that MT is at the top of GAs 'Wish List' LOL

The national fund has £300m available – and Mr Burles said he estimated that the cost of the work at Marks Tey would be between £4m and £5m. It is at the top of Greater Anglia’s “wish list,” but political support would be necessary if the money was to be released.

 

[306024]

Ah! Thanks for posting, I had rather the wrong reason it seems.
Cheers!

Not at all. The foot crossing is a good reason, but even if it didn’t exist the notion of running the Sudbury service to Colchester Town is just an operational nightmare crossing the busy GEML. It would also double the cost of the branch operation, with precious little chance of any increased revenue covering those costs.

 

[gingerheid]

Not at all. The foot crossing is a good reason, but even if it didn’t exist the notion of running the Sudbury service to Colchester Town is just an operational nightmare crossing the busy GEML. It would also double the cost of the branch operation, with precious little chance of any increased revenue covering those costs.

All things that were, or should have been known when they bid. Not only do they get to benefit from an unrealistically good bid, but I can't wait for them to claim compensation for not being able to quadruple passenger numbers by operating this service (and Ipswich - Peterborough hourly)!

 

[eastdyke]

Not at all. The foot crossing is a good reason, but even if it didn’t exist the notion of running the Sudbury service to Colchester Town is just an operational nightmare crossing the busy GEML. It would also double the cost of the branch operation, with precious little chance of any increased revenue covering those costs.

Had forgotten about that pesky crossing, always thought performance risk was an issue.
Shame because the idea of getting more Sudbury people to Colchester Town (and out of a few cars) is otherwise very sound, especially with more seats to play with. And that would be 2 units that defo wouldn't need the intra-day drink

 

[Shunter_69]

I believe they can do a whole day of Sudbury’s on a full tank.

There was a low fuel issue yesterday but that was because it wasn’t fuelled overnight.

 

[Tim Regester]

Not at all. The foot crossing is a good reason, but even if it didn’t exist the notion of running the Sudbury service to Colchester Town is just an operational nightmare crossing the busy GEML. It would also double the cost of the branch operation, with precious little chance of any increased revenue covering those costs.

So an alternative, is perhaps to run the train to Colchester North Station (I think it's platform 6) which is how it used to run back in history. That would enable people to connect with intercity trains to Norwich, Peterborough perhaps and certainly London plus Colchester North as well. I always thought Colchester Town was a bit of a stretch. Mind you it would help if there was an integrated bus/train ticketing system which seems highly unlikely for the life of the current Parliament.

 

[dk1]

So an alternative, is perhaps to run the train to Colchester North Station (I think it's platform 6) which is how it used to run back in history. That would enable people to connect with intercity trains to Norwich, Peterborough perhaps and certainly London plus Colchester North as well. I always thought Colchester Town was a bit of a stretch. Mind you it would help if there was an integrated bus/train ticketing system which seems highly unlikely for the life of the current Parliament.

As said the foot crossing is the main issue but it was never going to happen again. Far to busy a railway now on the GEML and far to much of a performance risk for very the few that would benefit.