ECML Broken Again! (5th March)

[LNW-GW Joint]

One thing baffled me as I watched yesterday's disruption unfold from the comfort of my PC chair...

At no time were Edinburgh services mentioned, despite being as badly affected as the rest.
The day finished with a procession of EC trains 60-90min-plus late into Edinburgh/Glasgow/Aberdeen.
But the web sites (NRES, EC) gave no advice on alternatives and Virgin were never mentioned on the ticket acceptances.
Was this because VT did not agree to accept EC passengers, or was it just an omission?

Surely with that sort of disruption from mid-afternoon, anybody heading to Scotland would just want to head up Euston Road to catch a VT service?

 

[Schnellzug]

One thing baffled me as I watched yesterday's disruption unfold from the comfort of my PC chair...

At no time were Edinburgh services mentioned, despite being as badly affected as the rest.
The day finished with a procession of EC trains 60-90min-plus late into Edinburgh/Glasgow/Aberdeen.
But the web sites (NRES, EC) gave no advice on alternatives and Virgin were never mentioned on the ticket acceptances.
Was this because VT did not agree to accept EC passengers, or was it just an omission?

Surely with that sort of disruption from mid-afternoon, anybody heading to Scotland would just want to head up Euston Road to catch a VT service?

I bet Virgin wouldn't want them too, as their Trains would already be full.


***

If real commercial laws applied, EC would surely be putting pressure on Not Work Rail, even if not publicly, over the catastrophic state of their infrastructure, since EC would be losing huge amounts of Money. But I suppose with the compensation culture, the Train operators get compensation when there's disruption so it doesn't really make much difference to them whether they are able to run Trains or not.
It may be different for Open Access companies, but they obviously wouldn't have anywhere near the clout EC would, and I expect EC would be quite pleased to see them out of the way.

 

[Aictos]

Thing is what the ECML needs and I can think of another mainline which has a higher priority is a lot of TLC and investment.

As a example, it would be nice if the ability to introduce bi-directional signalling between Grantham and York for example would mean least being able to keep trains moving however slow but the costs of doing so would be prohibitive.

Then you have the overheads, in which case the GEML should take priority especially the southern section from Ipswich to Liverpool Street.

 

[The North Briton]

Does anyone think the ECML is simply overworked beyond the ability of the infrastructure to cope? Might there be an argument for thinning the service slightly to reduce the pressure & giving some space to allow for delays? Are they trying to provide service levels that are just too much for it cope with?

I agree. Since EC introduced the current timetable with the Newark and York terminators, any line problem on the Southern half of the route completely shags up the service for tne rest of the day. They are running 20-odd more trains per day with the same amount of rolling stock, and their crew and set diagrams have less contingency built into them, so a sustained period of late running on the Up means there are no crew or sets to work on-time departures from London.

 

[ushawk]

Thing is what the ECML needs and I can think of another mainline which has a higher priority is a lot of TLC and investment.

As a example, it would be nice if the ability to introduce bi-directional signalling between Grantham and York for example would mean least being able to keep trains moving however slow but the costs of doing so would be prohibitive.

Then you have the overheads, in which case the GEML should take priority especially the southern section from Ipswich to Liverpool Street.

You can give a line loads of investment, but you will always get rails occasionally breaking and disruption will be caused. I thought the line was already bi-di (was single line working during yesterdays problems). If it wasnt then delays would have been even bigger.

With the OHLE, everyone knows that it isnt brilliant but there hasnt been any OHLE problems on the ECML recently.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Generally speaking , loadings are now so high (partly driven by the new TT) - that butchering the service to provide some "slots" is not an option - particularly with the peak approaching (and there are a good number of commuters out as far as Docaster)

You really cant win with a disruption of this nature - which effectivly destroyed the performance for the whole day .....

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I thought the line was already bi-di (was single line working during yesterdays problems). If it wasnt then delays would have been even bigger.

No general bi-di signalling on the 2-track section Stoke-Calton Jns as far as I can see from the 2009 SE or Quail maps.
Just the odd reversible bit at stations/junctions for overtaking (eg Newark and Shaftholme Jn).

 

[LE Greys]

I agree. Since EC introduced the current timetable with the Newark and York terminators, any line problem on the Southern half of the route completely shags up the service for tne rest of the day. They are running 20-odd more trains per day with the same amount of rolling stock, and their crew and set diagrams have less contingency built into them, so a sustained period of late running on the Up means there are no crew or sets to work on-time departures from London.

Agreed here, but the government seem to be far more concerned with the WCML's new southern section :roll: . What's needed is a combination of a lot of work on the GE/GN Joint (plus ideally reopening March-Spalding to get freight away from Peterborough), bi-di signalling for the whole length and reinforcement at the electrification weak spots. 140 mph will probably never happen now, so give priority to making sure that the line can work at full stretch rather than increased speed.

 

[Tomnick]

No general bi-di signalling on the 2-track section Stoke-Calton Jns as far as I can see from the 2009 SE or Quail maps.
Just the odd reversible bit at stations/junctions for overtaking (eg Newark and Shaftholme Jn).

Correct. If any form of bi-directional signalling was available, then Single Line Working (if it was brought in - I don't know) would not have been necessary - trains could have been signalled normally, albeit with much reduced capacity.

 

[TheBigD]

...What's needed is a combination of a lot of work on the GE/GN Joint (plus ideally reopening March-Spalding to get freight away from Peterborough)...

Your first point is happening...

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse... line/n ncg52011lne001 final notification.pdf

As for your second one, no chance!!! Best you can hope for is grade seperation at Werrington Jct.

 

[LE Greys]

Your first point is happening...

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse... line/n ncg52011lne001 final notification.pdf

As for your second one, no chance!!! Best you can hope for is grade seperation at Werrington Jct.

That's interesting, and seems useful. No mention of Lincoln level crossing, though. A Werrington flyover is an interesting idea. Back that up with a new down slow from Helpston to Peterborough, and the problems just might be solved. The flyover would have to have access from the up slow, to stop Grantham-Peterborough-Ely services crossing the fast lines. Combined with the Peterborough remodelling, it might be useful. Also a convenient opportunity to install gantries in place of the headspans.

 

[Bald Rick]

I believe this railway will commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of sending a down train on the up line between Grantham and Newark, and return it safely to the down line under full bi-di signalling. God bless ETCS.
(apologies to JFK)