Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Allocations, Diagrams & Timetables' started by David Turner, 28 Feb 2019.
It's simple, Norwich passengers make up a small % of the overall ridership. Why should they be singled out for special treatment whilst a greater volume of passengers, who provide a far greater % of income, are given less capacity?
The GE is not the EC, don't compare them, that's completely inappropriate. The GE is a commuter route, no different to the SWML. That is a better comparison.
SWML has plenty of four tracking & flying junctions whereas the GEML doesn't & something has to give. Unfortunately a few commuter services will suffer to start with. People soon adjust.
It’s not simple. Why does Chelmsford and so on need another stopper service? These towns are already served by a few trains hour.
And Norwich is not being singled out. Cambridge itself has a NONSTOP service every hour, that does not stop anywhere.
Retford and Newark are also afforded similar services. Are you now suggesting that they should become stopper services?
SWML is a better comparison in terms of distance and utilisation, I grant you the infrastructure is more friendly in places.
As for people adjusting, I think that completely misses the point. Tell that to the 1000s of folk who have to suffer the daily grind of the GE and a timetable that fails to deliver frequently. That has just been further stressed. People shouldn't have to adjust for a minority. It's poor use of capacity and rolling stock.
Aw poor you adding a few minutes on to your already short journey.
Say what? Why are you comparing apples and pears. Go read the NR route strategies and learn.
By your reckoning I should be moaning about the timings not being the same as on HS1.
Ok then just give Norwich a 130 minute service to suit the moaners down south. That’s a great idea!
That's not what is being said. There has to be a balance, and frankly this is a vanity project based upon some misguided idea of delivering a franchise commitment. Despite that fact that numerous other commitments have been missed.
If you can improve journey times for any group whilst not degrading those for anyone else then that's all good. This adds risk to the ability to deliver the timetable whilst permanently retiming some services for the worse, for a minority. It doesn't make sense other than for political appeasement.
Being extremely cynical this is an attempt to divert attention from the pile of misses.
I'm against because it's unreliable, no point reducing journey times if you can't maintain them most of the time.
Now if they ran a 90 min scheduled service every hour along with two other through services to Norwich AND could alter the timetable on the whole network to greatly improve resilience of such timings then I would support it whole-heartedly.
I travelled on the 11.00am Liverpool Street-Norwich and 17.00pm Norwich-Liverpool Street on their first Norwich in 90 min runs on Monday 20th May.
When the first Norwich in 90 service arrived Liverpool Street, there were a lot of Greater Anglia top brass about, then there was posing for pics with some Norwich in 90 and Ipswich in 60 signs.
I got some photos, there was a head board on the 90 which looked nice, it was a Mk3 set with Buffet and first class, I travelled in declassified first and both ways got complimentary drink and snacks though standard ticket, which was really nice, I stated was standard ticket when offered complimentary stuff and they still happily served it to me.
The 11.00am left about 15 seconds early and gained time to Ipswich, didn’t time it though, arriving Ipswich in 52 mins approx, some very snappy station work saw us away slightly early, onto Norwich the proceeding 10.30am Liverpool Street-Norwich caused us signals at Diss, we stooped Norwich 10 secs late so a very good first run, then went back on the 17.00 Norwich-Liverpool in 90 mins service, the head board was no more and no fan fare, set off few secs to the good, very good run to Ipswich, arrival early, very snappy station work again, leaving few secs early again, start of run to London was good and started gaining time, and thought we may arrive early but a Kelvedon we nearly stopped, red signal which cleared straight to green, we ran well again but after Stratford we hit delays with trains stacked up, arrival approx 7 mins late, a bit of a shame.
I think from trying the Norwich in 90 service that it may well be a bit like the Flying Scotsman 05.40 Edinburgh-Kings Cross service, which struggles to be on time consistently.
I think the morning runs will have the best time keeping, but the evening runs will struggle, because they are running into London at tail end of the peak, so like my run will get caught up in late running services or congestion, the new units when they finally start running will help with better acceleration so will mitigate signal checks better, and keep to time better.
I think they are a good service, and should keep just the Ipswich stop as it helps it stand out from all the other services, helps it feel like a proper headline service, I will keep an eye on the running of these, and be interested to see if they have reasonable time keeping.
Two totally irrelevant arguments.
Cambridge is less than half the distance from London than Norwich (from either London terminal serving it), and about 3 miles more than Colchester is from Liverpool St.
The Cambridge fasts from Kings Cross travel over 100-125mph tracks from Finsbury Park to Hitchin that are quadrupled for over half of the total distance.
Retford and Newark Northgate are stops on a 125mph railway, (which the GEML will never be) so comparisons in times are meaningless. There is no intermediate/slow service from London to those two stations so some of the fasts have to serve them.
1. I dont think we can judge reliability on the basis of 3 return trips.
2. I thought the plan was for Norwich to go to 3tph once the new trains are fully in service.
2. - that's what I thought as well, but what will the calling pattern be?
Was it not just extending the Ipswich semi-fast to Norwich? I'd assume all stops north of Ipswich - perhaps not Needham Market as it's too short.
No one is talking about taking your lovely new service away, so what difference does it make to you if it’s 3-4 minutes longer....particularly if with an added stop it still achieves 90 minutes?
That sounds right, I'd forgotten. Were they proposing keeping the existing Norwich services as is or altering the service patterns?
So today's run times - 84, 88, 94, 97. The third run was held up outside Liv St due to re-platforming, the last was again delayed by late running 1P56 ahead of it. Interesting they didn't decide to loop 1P56 at Diss like last night. Slightly.
They are probably applying a bit of trial and error to see what works. On such a tightly timed piece of railway as the GEML, I guess even the best of forward planning isn't going to take into account every real world scenario.
Indeed. And they're also largely full, with the stoppers also busy throughout the day.
So it looks like once the media and politicians have gone home, they've dropped the idea that this flagship train will be given priority at the expense of all others. It's back to business as usual.
Nothing changes. Back in 1987 BBC Look East where up front on the 'East Anglian' for the first 100min electric run from London (relegated to first class in 2019) & striking a bird near Manningtree delayed the train after it hit the air cock on the 86.
Next day, nothing, nobody cared & business as usual.
From a Chelmsford point of view, stopping a Norwich train there every hour allows the locals to reach Norwich & the connections to the rural branches. Watching the Norwich fasts ignoring the Essex City has always been annoying. Personally I'd prefer to drive to Norwich, but the A140 is a very slow road.
If you feel that Norwich deserves a faster rail connection to London, then you would need to fund a brand-new hi-speed railway, non-stop & avoiding all the population centres. I wonder how long such a dedicated hi-speed train might be, maybe 4 / 5 coaches?
Did they actually say that?
Or perhaps the morning trains have just been lucky in that they get a clearer run? Getting a clear run on the evening trains is difficult as it essentially relies on the peak running smoothly, and virtually nothing else. The 90 minute timings seem achievable though.
N in 90 is all a certain MP has, suspect she will keep on top of it unless she thinks her constituents are too stupid to fact check and uses the tagline as an achievement anyway.
Your statement is patently not true.
The lady is into roads too, especially the Norwich Northern Distributor Road (now built) [albeit with roundabouts that had to be subsequently re-mediated as too many drivers failed to spot them].
And is still into further lobbying for the western extension of that road as part of her current transport priorities.
It is important to remember that the roads will be a daily part of her constituents lives, far more so than any rail upgrade.
But she is not finished with rail just yet. This piece was written in February 2019:
I doubt if 'they' (as in GA) would say that but from the first couple of days it seems that other travellers are fair game to be delayed in order to keep an unreliable timetable through the peaks for the sake of one flagship train. It will change when:
the leaves start falling
there's ice around
other passengers start complaining that 'their' train keeps getting looped and delayed beyond any allowance in the timetable.
The 90 minute timings are only achievable on the GEML if all trains run 'Right Time'.
9P91. 09.00 ex Norwich:
Yesterday - arrived Liverpool Street 4E facilitated by 1K45 ex Southend V. being 4L approaching Shenfield enabling the Norwich to go ahead.
Today- arrived LST 1E having been behind IK45 which ran right time.
9P92. 19.00 ex LST:
Yesterday - arrived Norwich 7l having followed the late running preceding service. The run is noteworthy in that it was the 3rd of 4 trains over Trowse Swing Bridge in a period of just 7 minutes. V smart work by @swills and colleagues. Chapeau.