Greater Anglia to be Nationalised

[AndrewE]

The flows from Norwich beyond Peterborough are not big: Nottingham 11k, Sheffield 8k, Manchester 9k and Liverpool 2k. By comparison Norwich-Peterborough is 41k then there is at 18k of journeys Norwich-Leeds/York/Edinburgh that involve a change at Peterborough. Most passengers in and out of Norwich are not coming from or going beyond Peterborough.

How much are those figures influenced by split ticketing? My experience is of being in the minority getting off at Peterboro.

But you've still got to provide those services Peterborough to Birmingham and Peterborough to Nottingham/beyond. It would be lunacy to split them and have two sets of terminating services.

agreed

No it would not be lunacy. It would be an overdue recognition that long distance cross country journeys are a relatively minor part of what the 21st century railway does,

That sounds like a London-centric opinion. If there is evidence for it I would suggest that it is because of the way timetables (and fares) have been structured to favour london-based journeys.

that they are not resilient in a congested network, and that those services need to prioritise the much bigger short distance flows that support their local economies. Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough would also benefit from a service that could concentrate on the short distance flows.

Birmingham-Nuneaton-Leicester-Peterborough is a key orbital service: Just because it doesn't serve London is no reason why it should be relegated to catering for short-distance flows.

 

[saismee]

I agree about the additional fee/PF comment not making complete sense as missing a connection due to a delay/cancellation entitles you to travel on the train before or after, so no fee needed and any penalty fare would be entirely invalid.

I also want to add to this: I also agree that other operators should also be charging a fee for wrong advance tickets, not a full PF. It shouldn't be too small or it would lead to people buying random advances and using them as flexible tickets, then paying the fee. Maybe one train before/after the one specified could be a smaller fee, and any other train could be charged up to a single flexible ticket price.

 

[High Dyke]

Birmingham-Nuneaton-Leicester-Peterborough is a key orbital service: Just because it doesn't serve London is no reason why it should be relegated to catering for short-distance flows.

Some of us are of an age when the service was Birmingham-Nuneaton-Leicester-Peterborough-Norwich. Loco hauled behind Class 31's.

 

[dk1]

Some of us are of an age when the service was Birmingham-Nuneaton-Leicester-Peterborough-Norwich. Loco hauled behind Class 31's.

I’m in that group. They were very infrequent though and some laboriously slow as parcels vehicles sometimes got attached/detached en-route and frequently an engine change at March. From the 1970s when upgraded to loco-hauled, the BR catering for some reason was withdrawn, not being reintroduced until 1984/5 when a private operator took over. This was subsequently changed again to ‘Rightline Catering’ when the ‘Express’ Sprinter timetable was launched in 1988.

 

[Mainsideman]

The t&c’s amalgamation at GNR will be fascinating to see

Cant see it myself, will be a mess to sort out

 

[Magdalia]

That sounds like a London-centric opinion.

No it isn't London-centric. But it is unashamedly Anglian-centric, and, in particular, Cambridge-centric.

Some of us are of an age when the service was Birmingham-Nuneaton-Leicester-Peterborough-Norwich. Loco hauled behind Class 31's.

Birmingham-Norwich was 5 trains per day in each direction. It evolved by joining together lots of shorter distance journeys, and was operationally driven. Joining services through Peterborough only came in the 1970s after Peterborough station was rebuilt. The long through journeys were brought in because they were convenient for using loco hauled trains instead of DMUs, as they required fewer run rounds.

The number of Norwich-Birmingham through trains per day now is zero. That shows how important they are for through journeys.

The through trains offered now are a result of the way that services were broken up for privatisation. They suited the railway at the time, but that's 30 years ago now. Back then Cambridge was a sleepy University City and air traffic at Stansted was at a much lower level. Things have changed and the railway needs to change too.

 

[dk1]

No it isn't London-centric. But it is unashamedly Anglian-centric, and, in particular, Cambridge-centric.


Birmingham-Norwich was 5 trains per day in each direction. It evolved by joining together lots of shorter distance journeys, and was operationally driven. Joining services through Peterborough only came in the 1970s after Peterborough station was rebuilt. The long through journeys were brought in because they were convenient for using loco hauled trains instead of DMUs, as they required fewer run rounds.

The number of Norwich-Birmingham through trains per day now is zero. That shows how important they are for through journeys.

The through trains offered now are a result of the way that services were broken up for privatisation. They suited the railway at the time, but that's 30 years ago now. Back then Cambridge was a sleepy University City and air traffic at Stansted was at a much lower level. Things have changed and the railway needs to change too.

Norwich to Birmingham was dropped by Regional Railways before privatisation. It was all down to traincrew route learning costs when Norwich drivers extended their route knowledge beyond Peterborough. It was decided to concentrate that depot on Nottingham via both routes rather than Leicester-Birmingham too and concentrate Cambridge depot on that route. Some ad-hoc Norwich-Birmingham services continued with crew changes at Ely/Leicester at 08:19, 12:49 and 17:10 on weekdays but where lost with the split up of Central Trains in 2007.

 

[Wivenswold]

A missed connection (e.g. the railways fault) at will see you carried on the next available service of the same operator based on current rules (or another operator with some pragmatism). Can you elaborate on your small additional fee and/or penalty fare comment?

Yes of course. In the same way that since I've been in insurance I get asked all manner questions about what policies cover, those who've known me since my days working in booking offices usually vent their anger at me when they've had ticket issues enroute to seeing me.

The penalty fare was Virgin West Coast about 6-7 years ago when a friend was delayed by a signal blackout at Liverpool Street, Euston services were also in chaos that afternoon so she was pointed by the gate staff towards the next known departure to Liverpool. Then given a penalty fare for being on the wrong train. I urged her to complain. I don't know whether it was overturned, I can ask though.

Last summer another friend was stranded at their Northern (the TOC) station for an hour and a half due "driver shortages", Aventi were fine with it but that train was also delayed. So as he'd arrived at Liverpool Street in the middle of the peak he was told he'd have to pay a little extra to travel on a peak service. I think it was about £7 he paid which he actually thought wasn't too bad but that may have been fatigue of running 2.5 hours late by that point.

I think perhaps that RPIs are a little more flexible/better trained these days. They were certainly quite zealous when they first started on my line back in the early nineties.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The penalty fare was Virgin West Coast about 6-7 years ago when a friend was delayed by a signal blackout at Liverpool Street, Euston services were also in chaos that afternoon so she was pointed by the gate staff towards the next known departure to Liverpool. Then given a penalty fare for being on the wrong train. I urged her to complain. I don't know whether it was overturned, I can ask though.

That won't have been a Penalty Fare, it will probably just have been an Anytime Single. Virgin have never done Penalty Fares and nor do Avanti.

 

[Wivenswold]

Jeez, an anytime single is bad enough punishment for something that's totally out of your control. That would have been about £50 plus.
I'd hate to start a dispute over semantics but from view point of a passenger who had a tight budget for the journey that's a "penalty fare" that she was charged for issues out of her control even if it wasn't actually a "Penalty Fare".

 

[GraphitProjekt]

One of the merits of my proposal to break cross country routes at Peterborough is that it further reduces contamination of Greater Anglia from the rest of the network.

I have to disagree though. You seem to be suggesting forgoing the XC routes in order to use their paths for a more intensive service between PBO and CBG/NRW. I agree that their should be more provision on those routes. However, you'd need a significant re-modelling of Ely junction which is already sort of being mentioned. Furthermore, EWR is proposing to four track the route south Cambridge in order to separate flows from the Hitchin Line/New EWR line on one set of tracks, and services coming southwards from WAML on the other. The EWR long term strategy is to electrify and double the line to Newmarket and extend Liverpool Street trains to terminate their to open up a bit of space in Cambridge station from those terminating tracks. Electrifying that route might only be justified with the electrification of the whole Ipswich to Ely/Cambridge line because of the freight flows. Same goes for Ely to Peterborough in terms of electrification. Further down the line, the Leicester area has been slated for re-modelling for a while.

I know all these projects are kind of nebulous are fighting it out in planning hell, but they are actually being pursued by the rail industry to at least some extent, so there may be quite a bit of capacity enhancement happening in this area. That capacity enhancement is absolutely required for what you're talking about anyway but could most likely also accommodate the Birmingham to Stansted route.

I also believe that the demand is low because the service is bad, and as a sometimes user of the Norwich-Liverpool train (as far as Nottingham or Sheffield), the best thing they can do to that in the short term is run longer trains.
And, isn't this like the whole rationale of EWR? How many people do Bedford to Cambridge right now? Basically no one because the route by train is terrible - but they've clearly proven that need enough to be able to propose building a new line. Journeys like Cambridge to Leicester or Norwich to Nottingham could see more demand if they are improved by higher capacity rolling stock and journey time reduction brought about by a range of infrastructure investments (Leicester remodelling, Ely junction remodelling, FtN electrification, Breckland line electrification (mentioned by Norfolk County Council) which are simultaneously important to many other operations. Especially the higher capacity stock because that might in theory bring down ticket prices (in a world where ROSCOS don't exist).

 

[Cowley]

As of now. No more penalty fare stuff in this thread please folks. It’s very much off topic.

Thanks!

 

[Magdalia]

You seem to be suggesting forgoing the XC routes in order to use their paths for a more intensive service between PBO and CBG/NRW. I agree that their should be more provision on those routes.

I'm looking at better use of the existing infrastructure and train paths. We don't have time to wait for infrastructure improvements.

For example, a Stansted-Peterborough service, operated by Greater Anglia with class 755s, even if still only hourly, would be a significant improvement on the current offering. The trains would have more capacity, and better performance, enabling them to call at Cambridge North and Cambridge South. Their timings would not be constrained by pathways the other side of Peterborough. The service would be more resilient because there would not be imported delays from the other side of Peterborough.

Furthermore there would be a better timetable, especially going south in the morning and north in the evening. It is absolutely bonkers that there is no direct train from Peterborough to Cambridge arriving before 0800, and no departure from Cambridge to Peterborough after 2100. It is also bonkers that the Peterborough-Cambridge trains are not stopping at Cambridge North. This is no way to serve one of the fastest growing cities in the country.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2025 ==

I also believe that the demand is low because the service is bad

In the case of Cambridge-Peterborough, demand is already high even though the service is rubbish.

And, isn't this like the whole rationale of EWR? How many people do Bedford to Cambridge right now? Basically no one because the route by train is terrible - but they've clearly proven that need enough to be able to propose building a new line.

Both of these are consequences of high economic growth in and around Cambridge. While we wait for EWR we have to get more people in and out of Cambridge by train on the existing routes, making best use of the resources that are already available.

 

[paulmch]

For example, a Stansted-Peterborough service, operated by Greater Anglia with class 755s, even if still only hourly, would be a significant improvement on the current offering. The trains would have more capacity, and better performance, enabling them to call at Cambridge North and Cambridge South. Their timings would not be constrained by pathways the other side of Peterborough. The service would be more resilient because there would not be imported delays from the other side of Peterborough.

Furthermore there would be a better timetable, especially going south in the morning and north in the evening. It is absolutely bonkers that there is no direct train from Peterborough to Cambridge arriving before 0800, and no departure from Cambridge to Peterborough after 2100. It is also bonkers that the Peterborough-Cambridge trains are not stopping at Cambridge North.

A 4-car class 755 has a broadly similar number of seats as a 3-car 170, especially on the refurbished units where first class has been removed.

The plan for Cambridge South when it opens is to have all trains, including XC ones, stop there. I agree that Cambridge North should also be served (not possible with the acceleration profile of a 170), but it would be equally valid to achieve this with higher-performing trains for XC rather than severing arguably the most useful east-west route in the southern half of England.

 

[William3000]

A 4-car class 755 has a broadly similar number of seats as a 3-car 170, especially on the refurbished units where first class has been removed.

The plan for Cambridge South when it opens is to have all trains, including XC ones, stop there. I agree that Cambridge North should also be served (not possible with the acceleration profile of a 170), but it would be equally valid to achieve this with higher-performing trains for XC rather than severing arguably the most useful east-west route in the southern half of England.

Surely the London Paddington to Bristol route is the most useful east-west route in the southern half of England? Birmingham to Cambridge isn’t really in the southern half of England.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Surely the London Paddington to Bristol route is the most useful east-west route in the southern half of England? Birmingham to Cambridge isn’t really in the southern half of England.

It isn't as useful in terms of the number of journey interchange opportunities it offers. Yes, you have a few useful connections in Bristol, Swindon, Didcot, plus the wide range of connections available at Reading.
On the other hand, you have a few useful connections at Cambridge and Leicester, some major strategic links available at Peterborough and Nuneaton, and finally the massive range of connections from Birmingham stations.

 

[paulmch]

Surely the London Paddington to Bristol route is the most useful east-west route in the southern half of England? Birmingham to Cambridge isn’t really in the southern half of England.

Perhaps in the sense that it runs in a west/east direction but its purpose is to connect the West Country with London, not other regions. In terms of railway geography, Birmingham to Stansted provides a much broader level of connectivity.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

You are spot on here.

One of the merits of my proposal to break cross country routes at Peterborough is that it further reduces contamination of Greater Anglia from the rest of the network.


Long distance cross country services import delays from one part of the network to the other. They are part of the problem not part of the solution.

They are across the network but until we have a European approach to simple ie cross platform guaranteed connections at interchange stations its going to face a lot of opposition to break up the network.

 

[Dr Hoo]

They are across the network but until we have a European approach to simple ie cross platform guaranteed connections at interchange stations its going to face a lot of opposition to break up the network.

I’m not clear how ‘guaranteed connections’ fit with avoiding transmission/contamination of disruption. You might as well continue to run through trains.

 

[450.emu]

Fantastic operator, only gripe is the 720's seat layout. It's torture in rush hour if standing in the aisle and not near the doors.

Will they start putting the Double Arrow on these and keep existing livery?

 

[dk1]

Will they start putting the Double Arrow on these and keep existing livery?

None of that information has been announced yet.

 

[GraphitProjekt]

we can only make educated guesses from what will happen to SWR, which also seems to be a mystery despite being a matter of days away

 

[Bletchleyite]

we can only make educated guesses from what will happen to SWR, which also seems to be a mystery despite being a matter of days away

What happened to every other TOC that became part of DOR in the short term? Answer: they carried on as before but under DOR. OK, LNER renamed, but that's because they didn't have a generic name.

What reason would there to be to think SWR or GA would be any different to start with? There's a lot to do, this is just a first step. I do hear murmurs that an SWR unit is being done in an alleged GBR livery to be unveiled on Thursday (forget where I heard it now I'm afraid) but that's just publicity stuff and I doubt it will even be the final livery, it'll just be a publicity job in vinyl.

 

[sh24]

I really hope that for GA (and others) time and money is spent on taking advantage of a more unified railway and improving the customer experience, not messing around with new deliveries or brand names.

 

[backontrack]

It does make me wish that they'd begin by taking the failing TOCs in-hand. I mean, GA one of the first and XC dead last to be nationalised?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does make me wish that they'd begin by taking the failing TOCs in-hand. I mean, GA one of the first and XC dead last to be nationalised?

It would cost them a fortune in contract-break compensation if they took TOCs in house whose franchise was still ongoing. No point wasting money.

In any case, XC is only a problem because DfT won't fund enough additional/replacement rolling stock. Much as I dislike Arriva, nationalising it isn't going to change very much.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It does make me wish that they'd begin by taking the failing TOCs in-hand. I mean, GA one of the first and XC dead last to be nationalised?

But what is it about XC you want to be changed? Its normally the short formations. Being taken in house won’t rid them of the Voyagers or gift them extra trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 May 2025 ==

What happened to every other TOC that became part of DOR in the short term? Answer: they carried on as before but under DOR. OK, LNER renamed, but that's because they didn't have a generic name.

What reason would there to be to think SWR or GA would be any different to start with?

The fact that all previous examples were originally intended as temporary stopgaps until the next privatised operator took over. Why would you change it?

This is nationalisation. And having it look like the same private companies as always are continuing to run isn’t ideal for suggesting you’ve nationalised the railways.

 

[43066]

This is nationalisation. And having it look like the same private companies as always are continuing to run isn’t ideal for suggesting you’ve nationalised the railways.

No indeed, however it is ideal for blaming someone else for the failure to sort the issues out. As we all (hopefully) know de facto nationalisation has in effect already happened due to the National Rail Contracts - at least as far as control
of the network is concerned. As we have seen that hasn’t made much difference to the issues (Northern especially), many of which ultimately go back to money.

What might make a difference is GBR having a “guiding mind” and less direct control from the DfT, but it’s by no means certain what form it’s going to take.

 

[lordbusiness]

No indeed, however it is ideal for blaming someone else for the failure to sort the issues out. As we all (hopefully) know de facto nationalisation has in effect already happened due to the National Rail Contracts - at least as far as control
of the network is concerned. As we have seen that hasn’t made much difference to the issues (Northern especially), many of which ultimately go back to money.

What might make a difference is GBR having a “guiding mind” and less direct control from the DfT, but it’s by no means certain what form it’s going to take.

From what I've seen and heard so far it looks like the DfT will have more control rather than less!

 

[Bletchleyite]

From what I've seen and heard so far it looks like the DfT will have more control rather than less!

I've always had the impression that LNER (for instance) had a relatively free rein compared to most franchised TOCs.