The reason the hourly Ipswich-Peterborough that GA wanted to introduce didn't happen was that it wouldn't fit due to the freight paths, though I don't know whether it was Ely-Peterborough or Ipswich-Ely that was the problem there
I cannot see Glasgow to Plymouth services happening, due to the fact that any open access trains are successful due to the fact that they either start from or finish at the largest city in the UK, i.e. London which is the point many like ZWK500 has made at the start of this thread.
I'd addressed the Brum point above - the legacy operators would object. If you can stop there then great, but B'ham New Street has ample services to Devon already as well us up the WCML.
Where are you going after Tame Bridge as getting a path through New St is often just as difficult as stopping there. It would be solved if the XC Bristol Manchester's started back in Devon as the New St "issue" would be solved by changing at Wolves or Stafford.
Thus leading back to some of the Scotland/SW traffic travelling via the WCML in the first place to alleviate an issue that didn't exist until the DfT meddled in 2007!
I was using Inverness - Brighton as an example of the fact that deep thought needs to be put into where and how a train gets from A to B and the route and paths that would be available to the train for the Open Access Operator.
The proximity to London is obviously a factor but it’s a similar distance in time as Colchester, Ipswich, Peterborough, Northampton, Bedford, Leicester, Oxford etc. Much of the higher figure relates to much greater inward commuting into Cambridge from places like Ely, Newmarket and Royston.
Peterborough to Ely has capacity but it’s the bottle neck of Ely North Junction that’s limiting additional paths. However, Norwich to Peterborough reversals via Ely take up 2 paths whereas Cambridge to Peterborough only takes up 1 because a reversal isn’t required.
I am surprised at that, given the very poor siting of Cambridge station relative to the city centre, or other sites of major employment such as the Addenbrooke's medical campus.
Trains running between Norwich and March could use the loop north of Ely to avoid the reversal at Ely station, but that reduces connectivity from Cambridge in particular. I recall travelling from Cambridge to Manchester in August 1974 and had to change twice (at Ely and March).
Cambridge is too expensive for a lot of people, so commuting in by train is common. Also, the siting isn't that poor for the city centre. The biomedical campus is relatively easily reached by bus via the busway , and that will of course become easier when Cambridge South opens
It’s actually quite interesting what has happened because in a way you’re right - the station was poorly sited for the city centre being 2km to the south east. However, that has actually been an opportunity in recent years as much of the recent employment has been focused around the station together with high density housing so it’s very much a destination and Amazon, Apple, Google, Deloitte, Stantec and several other large firms are located right by the station.
Cambridge South station is under construction next to the Biomedical campus including Addenbrookes.
precisely this - and the recent opening of Cambridge North has increased patronage and links to the employment areas there. The three stations will actually be well placed to serve some of the city’s major employment areas.
My point is I think there is justification for some Cambridge to the North - which with the exception of Brighton is the busiest station in the UK with no direct services to the north of England. Greater Cambridge is no backwater - if direct services can run from Bournemouth and Southampton, and from Plymouth and Exeter, all of which have fewer than half the passengers that Cambridge does then I think Cambridge could. Brighton is difficult admittedly given its geography but Cambridge is already considerably north of London. There is also the country’s 4th busiest airport just to the south where some trains can be extended. There is a direct train from Birmingham so why not Leeds?
XC Bournemouths are back to hourly from May though, (according to RTT), so your spare path has gone.
To yield the paths, maybe it could take the place of the TPE Scotland to Manchester, TfW Manchester to Cardiff and GWR Cardiff to Penzance services and simply run through.
What a railtour does for one move is not a good indication of a repeating pattern.
You really expecting passengers that are travelling down from Glasgow to say Plymouth to be getting off a train at Birmingham New Street, then back on again when it is ready to leave? What if the passengers are disabled and in a wheelchair, are you expecting station staff to get a ramp out to get the passngers off, then do the same again say 30 minutes to an hour later.
Where have I said people are expected to get off and back on again? I merely mentioned that the train may need to be held there for a period of time for pathing.
Unfortunately I fear the lack of paths on the two track lines would be an issue for longer distance. I would expect any service to only go as far as Didcot at best as future capacity would better used serving the likes of Bassett, Wantage, and the "proposed" station in the New Eastern Villages than going long distance from Heathrow
I am pretty sure they didn't rebid for the paths found for them in the Dec 22 timetable, they are at risk of losing those if so.
It's a bit odd that they are saying which manufacturers they are in talks with. Something doesn't add up with this story.
GU are just being honest as to who they are in talks with. However, whether they choose Hitachi or CAF I do not see trains from these manufacturers being ready for them to use in 2025 with current orders either manufacturer is needing to complete. The only option I believe would be if it is an add on order to class Hitachi 805 or 807 or 810 orders. I suspect that it will be an add on order to class 805 units. Although a bi-mode version of class 397 would be interesting to see, especially if it is made in Wales!
My assumption, however dangerous, is to show they're in discussions with the two manufacturers who have modern, active, 125mph stock and therefore they should be taken seriously, at least according to them.
Of course, it doesn't say exactly what the discussion has been. It may have been as quick as 'how much to add a dozen extra trainsets onto the order?' and 'when do you need us to confirm by?'
