• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

ECML blocked Stevenage - Hitchin (09/08 and 10/08))

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
3,400
No trains to Inverness?

Yes, that thought did occur as there's a 1731 and a 1935 from Edinburgh to Inverness. But I assume Scotrail refused acceptance. Perhaps concerned that the 1731 would be swamped?
There was acceptance arranged, however Scotrail trains are full enough without LNER filling them too.

Although you could use the trains, use of the LNER coaches was encouraged. They are also faster, with an "all-stops" one and two "direct & non-stop" ones.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
28,601
Location
Redcar
There was acceptance arranged, however Scotrail trains are full enough without LNER filling them too.

Although you could use the trains, use of the LNER coaches was encouraged. They are also faster, with an "all-stops" one and two "direct & non-stop" ones.
Ah very good, when I looked earlier in the afternoon the LNER website suggested road transport as the only option.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
3,940
Location
The Fens
Another case where a crossing between the up slow and up fast between the junction and the station would have been useful.

I'm not sure why one hasn't been put in - there seems to be plenty of room to do so, and the advantage in potentially allowing a fast up train to proceed off the branch without having to wait for a late stopping train to leave the up platform at Hitchin, is something that seems would be useful multiple times a week.
Cambridge Junction is only 12 chains north of Hitchin station. There is not plenty of room. That 12 chains of space is currently occupied by an up fast to up slow crossover so that up trains can get off the fast line to stop at Hitchin, plus the points to get out of the yard. The limited space means that the up fast to up slow crossover has a 30mph speed restriction. I am old enough to remember when Peterborough-Kings Cross trains used it every morning.

The current arrangement, with a 70mph up slow to up fast crossover at Hitchin South, is far better 99.99% of the time. Any up slow to up fast crossover north of the station would have a very slow speed restriction and would also require the existing up fast to up slow crossover to be moved further northwards.
 

philjo

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2009
Messages
2,912
Cambridge Junction is only 12 chains north of Hitchin station. There is not plenty of room. That 12 chains of space is currently occupied by an up fast to up slow crossover so that up trains can get off the fast line to stop at Hitchin, plus the points to get out of the yard. The limited space means that the up fast to up slow crossover has a 30mph speed restriction. I am old enough to remember when Peterborough-Kings Cross trains used it every morning.

The current arrangement, with a 70mph up slow to up fast crossover at Hitchin South, is far better 99.99% of the time. Any up slow to up fast crossover north of the station would have a very slow speed restriction and would also require the existing up fast to up slow crossover to be moved further northwards.

When the Hitchin flyover was built I remember reading of a proposal to a install a new crossover on the straight section at Hitchin East junction to allow up fast services from Cambridge to switch to the down line allowing it to then directly access the up fast line at Cambridge Junction. I think besides giving more flexibility for trains coming off the Cambridge branch one of the reasons was the fast services were usually directly behind the stopper at that point so it would be more likely to allow the fast services to keep their booked path on the fast line if the stopper was slightly late. I haven’t seen anything mentioned about this recently, I assume it was shelved due to funding ?
 

700720

Member
Joined
21 Feb 2024
Messages
43
Location
Cambridge
Yep, disruption is now expected until the end of the day. I hope it’s fixed by the time I’m heading into London (Sunday), because with the ECML closed the GA services to Liverpool St will be packed to the brim!
I meant this almost sarcastically, but it seems to be fast becoming a reality. Major disruption now expected until 7am tomorrow for TL/GN.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,904
Location
Surrey
The current arrangement, with a 70mph up slow to up fast crossover at Hitchin South, is far better 99.99% of the time. Any up slow to up fast crossover north of the station would have a very slow speed restriction and would also require the existing up fast to up slow crossover to be moved further northwards.
I wonder whether it was it this crossover that instigated the dewiring over 2C55?

I meant this almost sarcastically, but it seems to be fast becoming a reality. Major disruption now expected until 7am tomorrow for TL/GN.
I believe thats because they need an all lines closure overnight to get the Up Slow rewired and re-registered
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
8,106
Drivers have not been able to 'floor it' for years now. Trains exceeding speed limits are braked/brought to a stand as a result. This is why it amuses me when live announcements still say that 'we can probably make up time en route' - unless there is significant pathing allowance or similar - no, you can't make up time.
But it does also depend on Section Running Times, some can be rather generous, others too tight, but they can also be an average of all drivers. Therefore some drivers will be faster than average, some slower than average.
I made up almost ten minutes earlier due to a combination of pathing allowances, a decent unit capable of beating the timetable, and snappy dispatch by the guard and station staff. There’s nothing unusual about that - hence the announcements.
Not surprised at all.
 

HST43257

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,606
Location
York
Travelling from Humberside to London this morning was chaos.
0628 Brough - Doncaster (quick breakfast stop)
0720 Doncaster - Sheffield, where I made sure I was quick over the footbridge to P7 for
0800 1C23 to St Pancras which the TM refused to dispatch until people had de-boarded. We left people behind at every station down to STP and every aisle was completely full and standing as it was only a 5 car. Arrived nearly 20L into London…

Hoping the journey back up later is slightly less stressful and Hull Trains are back running through to KGX!
Haha I was also on this from Doncaster onwards. Absolute horror show. The train was deemed unsafe pre Sheffield deboarding, yet we ended up so much busier by the end of the journey. Sounds like the faster one behind was a 10 car, which was painful to hear
 

Ecmlleeds

Member
Joined
6 Dec 2019
Messages
7
Location
Leeds
I know someone on 1A41 yesterday, they said:

47815 dragged it back north, Hitchin - St Neots.

The 47 was then detached at St Neots.

The IC225 then ran as 1F41 to Peterborough, and terminated.

Pax had the option of either getting off the IC225 at St Neots, and a 5-car Azuma picked them up and took them to Kings Cross, or getting off it at Peterborough, and travelling back north on 1D36.
Yes this is correct, I was the guard on 1A41.

Pax for KGX alighted at St Neots where a set came to pick them up, then originally the plan was for 1D36 to stop at St Neots to pick up anyone wanting to go back north, but it got delayed at SVG so the set from the now terminated 1A41 ran as 1G41 to PBO with pax on who went north from there on 1D36.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,904
Location
Surrey
Yes this is correct, I was the guard on 1A41.

Pax for KGX alighted at St Neots where a set came to pick them up, then originally the plan was for 1D36 to stop at St Neots to pick up anyone wanting to go back north, but it got delayed at SVG so the set from the now terminated 1A41 ran as 1G41 to PBO with pax on who went north from there on 1D36.
That was a shift an half then! May I ask if evacuation to Hitchin Stn was ever contemplated?
 

GordonT

Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
826
Yes this is correct, I was the guard on 1A41.

Pax for KGX alighted at St Neots where a set came to pick them up, then originally the plan was for 1D36 to stop at St Neots to pick up anyone wanting to go back north, but it got delayed at SVG so the set from the now terminated 1A41 ran as 1G41 to PBO with pax on who went north from there on 1D36.
How long were traincrew typically working beyond their normal finishing time because of this emergency situation?
 

Ecmlleeds

Member
Joined
6 Dec 2019
Messages
7
Location
Leeds
That was a shift an half then! May I ask if evacuation to Hitchin Stn was ever contemplated?
Certainly was! Yes, all options were considered however as the rescue loco was coming and that allowed us to move - it was deemed safer to remain on the train than get everyone down on to the track.
 
Joined
8 Feb 2021
Messages
686
Location
York
Haha I was also on this from Doncaster onwards. Absolute horror show. The train was deemed unsafe pre Sheffield deboarding, yet we ended up so much busier by the end of the journey. Sounds like the faster one behind was a 10 car, which was painful to hear
Yes, think they deboarded so some people further south could get on.

Think the smarter thing to do would’ve been to have us run Shef-Derby-Leicester-London only and put the local stops onto the 10-car 30min later but that’s too much common sense…
 

merry

Member
Joined
19 Oct 2011
Messages
114
So another dewirement / OLE damage near Thirsk this evening. This is becoming has become a bit of a joke, IMO.
Seems we have new areas of regular OLE issues on the ECML. It used to be the Retford area a few years ago, now that seems to have had some attention and it's new places instead.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
8,106
So another dewirement / OLE damage near Thirsk this evening. This is becoming has become a bit of a joke, IMO.
Seems we have new areas of regular OLE issues on the ECML. It used to be the Retford area a few years ago, now that seems to have had some attention and it's new places instead.
And there isn't a diversion around this part of the ECML.
 

800001

Established Member
Joined
24 Oct 2015
Messages
4,671
So another dewirement / OLE damage near Thirsk this evening. This is becoming has become a bit of a joke, IMO.
Seems we have new areas of regular OLE issues on the ECML. It used to be the Retford area a few years ago, now that seems to have had some attention and it's new places instead.
Where is this dewirement? There isn’t!

There is one, yes one dropper loose above the contact wire on up fast.
All lines open at line speed except up fast which is 20mph for electric past that area.

And there isn't a diversion around this part of the ECML.
Doesn’t need to be, there is no dewirement and all lines are open.
 

HST43257

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2020
Messages
1,606
Location
York
Yes, think they deboarded so some people further south could get on.

Think the smarter thing to do would’ve been to have us run Shef-Derby-Leicester-London only and put the local stops onto the 10-car 30min later but that’s too much common sense…
Yeah we really ought to have taken all the Shefs possible and operated set down only for as much as possible
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
2,643
Location
Northampton
Read quoted message
Just point out that the 5 car train was a semi fast. The 10 car behind was fast, Chesterfield - Derby - Leicester only, so the question about Long Eaton/East Midland Parkway/Loughborough passengers seems to be a valid one. Of course, special stop orders could have been issued.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
28,601
Location
Redcar
I think fundamentally the issue is that when the ECML suffers a catastrophic issue like the one on Friday there simply isn't the capacity available on the MML for roughly four nine/ten-car trains per hour of ECML passengers to be accommodated on the two trains per hour of MML even with some passengers also being diverted via the WCML via Manchester and abandoning/deferring their journeys. So however you try and do it whether you try and ferry people towards 10-car services, if you try and cancel stops or insert stops, or whatever you try, the MML will become rapidly overloaded. It is often overloaded just dealing with its own passenger flows! So we can try coming up with ideas to improve the situation but there will be an element of shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. The MML simply doesn't have the capacity to cope with that volume of displaced passengers.

Of course in an ideal world LNER would be able to divert some of their own services from Kings Cross onto the MML but there is no easy connection (I've done it on Hull Trains, it's quite the shuffle to get from the ECML to MML!), no route knowledge (and it'd be a pain to maintain), pathing would be "interesting", and you probably only need to use it once or twice a year anyway. The slightly less mental option would be to send passengers via GA to Cambridge and onto Peterborough from there where they could intercept LNER services being turned around. But, of course, that also falls over as the link between Ely and Peterbrough is, in most hours, two trains per hour both of which are usually only two or three cars. Good luck accommodating the passengers off, say the 1600, 1603, 1630 and 1633 on that!
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
10,601
Location
London
Just point out that the 5 car train was a semi fast. The 10 car behind was fast, Chesterfield - Derby - Leicester only, so the question about Long Eaton/East Midland Parkway/Loughborough passengers seems to be a valid one. Of course, special stop orders could have been issued.

It’s not unknown for Long Eaton to he missed for long periods during overcrowding. Equally SSOs can be refused if the crews (who are based placed to judge) consider the levels of crowding too dangerous. That’s rare, but if trains are crowded enough for TMs to refuse to dispatch etc. then it’s a distinct possibility.

I think fundamentally the issue is that when the ECML suffers a catastrophic issue like the one on Friday there simply isn't the capacity available on the MML for roughly four nine/ten-car trains per hour of ECML passengers to be accommodated on the two trains per hour of MML even with some passengers also being diverted via the WCML via Manchester and abandoning/deferring their journeys. So however you try and do it whether you try and ferry people towards 10-car services, if you try and cancel stops or insert stops, or whatever you try, the MML will become rapidly overloaded. It is often overloaded just dealing with its own passenger flows! So we can try coming up with ideas to improve the situation but there will be an element of shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. The MML simply doesn't have the capacity to cope with that volume of displaced passengers.

Of course in an ideal world LNER would be able to divert some of their own services from Kings Cross onto the MML but there is no easy connection (I've done it on Hull Trains, it's quite the shuffle to get from the ECML to MML!), no route knowledge (and it'd be a pain to maintain), pathing would be "interesting", and you probably only need to use it once or twice a year anyway. The slightly less mental option would be to send passengers via GA to Cambridge and onto Peterborough from there where they could intercept LNER services being turned around. But, of course, that also falls over as the link between Ely and Peterbrough is, in most hours, two trains per hour both of which are usually only two or three cars. Good luck accommodating the passengers off, say the 1600, 1603, 1630 and 1633 on that!

Yes indeed. Even if it was possible to overcome route knowledge and the other issues you mention there still wouldn’t be the capacity on the Southern MML to accommodate ECML services - it’s full to bursting with the existing EMR, Thameslink and freight operations. It’s bad enough when Hull Trains insist on operating into St Pancras, which I gather is due to a longstanding historical arrangement, and that’s only a tiny number of trains per day.
 
Last edited:

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,529
Location
Ely
Cambridge Junction is only 12 chains north of Hitchin station. There is not plenty of room. That 12 chains of space is currently occupied by an up fast to up slow crossover so that up trains can get off the fast line to stop at Hitchin, plus the points to get out of the yard. The limited space means that the up fast to up slow crossover has a 30mph speed restriction. I am old enough to remember when Peterborough-Kings Cross trains used it every morning.

The current arrangement, with a 70mph up slow to up fast crossover at Hitchin South, is far better 99.99% of the time. Any up slow to up fast crossover north of the station would have a very slow speed restriction and would also require the existing up fast to up slow crossover to be moved further northwards.

I appreciate we're heading into 'speculative discussion' here, but looking at the space that is available on Google Maps, there does seem to be plenty of room - eg. between the Cambridge Road bridge and the start of the up platform, there's a down slow to down fast crossing that fits in there just fine, plus a crossing from the up yard line to the up slow, so I don't see why you couldn't also fit a up slow to up fast parallel to these. It may have to have a fairly low speed restriction, and of course would only be useful if there isn't something already on the up fast, but even so that seems rather better than the 0mph you can do now when something is stopped in Hitchin.

And yes, the specifics of what happened on Friday/Saturday is unlikely to happen again anytime soon, but Cambridge fasts having to wait to get onto the mainline because something is stopped in Hitchin up platform is a daily occurrence, so the benefits appear real and probably would be used multiple times a week.
 

philjo

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2009
Messages
2,912
I appreciate we're heading into 'speculative discussion' here, but looking at the space that is available on Google Maps, there does seem to be plenty of room - eg. between the Cambridge Road bridge and the start of the up platform, there's a down slow to down fast crossing that fits in there just fine, plus a crossing from the up yard line to the up slow, so I don't see why you couldn't also fit a up slow to up fast parallel to these. It may have to have a fairly low speed restriction, and of course would only be useful if there isn't something already on the up fast, but even so that seems rather better than the 0mph you can do now when something is stopped in Hitchin.

And yes, the specifics of what happened on Friday/Saturday is unlikely to happen again anytime soon, but Cambridge fasts having to wait to get onto the mainline because something is stopped in Hitchin up platform is a daily occurrence, so the benefits appear real and probably would be used multiple times a week.
See my comments in post 216.
There was a proposal when the flyover line was built to install a new crossover at Hitchin East junction so up services from Cambridge could use the existing down line and able to directly access the up fast line at Cambridge junction. However I haven’t heard anything more about this recently.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,529
Location
Ely
See my comments in post 216.
There was a proposal when the flyover line was built to install a new crossover at Hitchin East junction so up services from Cambridge could use the existing down line and able to directly access the up fast line at Cambridge junction. However I haven’t heard anything more about this recently.

Ah, yes, sorry I initially misparsed what you wrote in #216, Monday morning syndrome!

This seems a sensible plan and doesn't involve adding any more points or track. Guess it would need some signalling work but it sounds a rather good idea to me. Shame it wasn't done.
 

Top