Kings Lynn line peak time trains split at Cambridge

[Richard Ingram]

I was on a peak time train from Kings Cross to Ely yesterday, and I had expected the train to split at Cambridge, as it mostly does at the times I usually travel, so I went straight for the front half. However once on board it became apparent that the back half was also going to Ely, after the split. I talked to someone who has been on the back half previously, and they said that was quite empty and quiet, compared to the crowded carriages we were on. I understand why this happens, and that once the upgrades to the King's Lynn line are done it wont happen anymore, but I got to thinking about the current setup, and wondered if it could be improved.
As I can see it the reason the front half gets so crowded is because it arrives at Ely 5 minutes earlier, and stops at platform 1, so has an easier exit, while the back half arrives afterwards and terminates on platform 3, through the underpass. I wondered if the train could be split the other way round, and the front half goes to Ely to terminate in 3, while the back half runs a few minutes later through 1. Possibly run the first half fast through the intermediate stations. Then the load might be spread, as some people would go for the faster option, and others would go for the easier exit. Obviously this would put a short delay on stations further North, but are there other reasons this can't work?

 

[MikeWM]

The 1739 ex-KGX does this, if this is the one you're referring to. Prior to May the back 8 ran ECS to Ely, which was much more frustrating given how busy the front 4 are! Changing this to run them in service was a simple change that didn't involve thinking things through much, and is very convenient (for me at least, I'm currently catching this service most days from Cambridge North).

But the 1857 Ely-KGX occupies platform 3, plus the 1858 from Ipswich to Peterborough needs to cross over everything. As it is, the back 8 of the split usually gets held outside Ely awaiting platform 3 to become free and/or other delayed trains. If it got there earlier, it would probably still be held up until the same time (and would then be blocking the KLN portion, too, if that was now behind).

Also the passengers for stations north of Ely are already quite (understandably) vocal about the fact that their services take longer and longer with each new timetable. This would add even more minutes to their journey, which they really wouldn't like. (Personally I prefer the comfort of a quieter service and take a few more minutes, but as you can see from what people do now, seems most people prefer to be packed in tight as long as they get where they're going slightly quicker).

 

[Richard Ingram]

It was the 1639 I was on. I did plan the journey to be through London before 5, but I am obviously not experienced with rush hour. In the future (if I ever travel at this time again), I will aim for the back half, a few minutes on a 3 hr journey doesn't matter much to me. But that requires checking whether the back half continues or terminates.

Thank you, I guessed there was more to it, it was just speculation on my part to try and understand what was going on.

 

[MikeWM]

It was the 1639 I was on. I did plan the journey to be through London before 5, but I am obviously not experienced with rush hour. In the future (if I ever travel at this time again), I will aim for the back half, a few minutes on a 3 hr journey doesn't matter much to me. But that requires checking whether the back half continues or terminates.

Thank you, I guessed there was more to it, it was just speculation on my part to try and understand what was going on.

The 1639 has been doing this split-but-both-halves-go-to-Ely for rather longer than the 1739, but I'm much less familiar with it than the 1739. Ely seems rather less congested just before 1800 than it does just before 1900, so what you suggest seems more likely to be feasible for that one.

I guess the other point is that people are used to the front part of the train being the part that goes furthest, as that's what normally happens. It may be confusing to reverse this standard approach for a handful of trains. (Though reversing it has the advantage that if you get on the wrong part, you could pick up the right bit again later on, which doesn't happen if the part going furthest leaves first