125mph trains lined up for Cambridge travellers

[Suzy Scott]

125mph trains lined up for Cambridge travellers

 
 
Rail travellers from Cambridge will get faster trains to King’s Cross, it has been announced.

Chancellor George Osborne revealed in his autumn statement yesterday that 125mph Intercity Express trains will be operational on the King’s Cross – Cambridge – King’s Lynn line, as part of plans to boost rail infrastructure in the region.

North East Cambridgeshire MP Steve Barclay said the quicker trains would be in service by 2018.

He said: “This will be great news for both commuters using the line and for residents who make less frequent journeys.  There will also be a spin-off for Cambridgeshire County Council as a major landowner, as any infrastructure improvement has a positive impact on land prices generally.

“I very much welcome the Chancellor’s confirmation that funding will be made available for faster trains.  Improving transport infrastructure has been one of my top priorities since becoming a Member of Parliament and I am pleased to see this is paying off.”

[Streetdeck]

125mph trains lined up for Cambridge travellers

 
 
Rail travellers from Cambridge will get faster trains to King’s Cross, it has been announced.

Chancellor George Osborne revealed in his autumn statement yesterday that 125mph Intercity Express trains will be operational on the King’s Cross – Cambridge – King’s Lynn line, as part of plans to boost rail infrastructure in the region.

North East Cambridgeshire MP Steve Barclay said the quicker trains would be in service by 2018.

He said: “This will be great news for both commuters using the line and for residents who make less frequent journeys.  There will also be a spin-off for Cambridgeshire County Council as a major landowner, as any infrastructure improvement has a positive impact on land prices generally.

“I very much welcome the Chancellor’s confirmation that funding will be made available for faster trains.  Improving transport infrastructure has been one of my top priorities since becoming a Member of Parliament and I am pleased to see this is paying off.”

125mph to Kings Lynn on several single line sections...... I cant wait to see that..... Two words..."PIPE DREAMS"...!!!

[David Goddard]

This is good news.  It was not that long ago that the Fen Line was listed as being included in Thameslink.
This announcement at least assures us that services will continue to serve the main station at Kings Cross, and be speeded up as well!
I hope that there will be enough of the new trains to improve the fast peak Peterborough - Huntingdon - St Neots - London services as well

[grandad]

Is that a pig I just saw fly over

[Andrew Morgan]

This is good news.  It was not that long ago that the Fen Line was listed as being included in Thameslink.
This announcement at least assures us that services will continue to serve the main station at Kings Cross, and be speeded up as well!
I hope that there will be enough of the new trains to improve the fast peak Peterborough - Huntingdon - St Neots - London services as well

i do not see it ever happening but new trains it would probably end up being class 180s or HSTs !

[Suzy Scott]

Apparently the current trains can go this fast BUT they'd need to replace all the level crossings from Kings Lynn to Hitchin... how much would that cost, for the sake of 15 minutes???

[bristolsrus]

This is good news.  It was not that long ago that the Fen Line was listed as being included in Thameslink.
This announcement at least assures us that services will continue to serve the main station at Kings Cross, and be speeded up as well!
I hope that there will be enough of the new trains to improve the fast peak Peterborough - Huntingdon - St Neots - London services as well

Now that's something I'd love to see !  + a few for off peak services too, would be rather nice !   Now I don't know much about trains, but I do believe we don't exactly have the best stock on Peterborough - Huntingdon - London route.  Some look like the sort that have been refurbished time & time again to be honest !

[Julia_Hayward]

Apparently the current trains can go this fast BUT they'd need to replace all the level crossings from Kings Lynn to Hitchin... how much would that cost, for the sake of 15 minutes???

365s are 100mph on overhead and 90mph on 3rd rail, in theory at least. IEPs would be welcome to release the 365s to slower services and send the 321s off elsewhere - that generation of unit is really not pleasant at high speed (particularly passing other trains, with doors banging) and by 2018 there will be a big demand for electric units to finally kill off the Pacer!

[Adam Dowling]

I don't think it would take much to "soup up" Class 365's so they could manage 125mph....just ask the FCC driver who allegedly got caught doing a fair bit over 100 down the ECML in an empty 365 one night... 

[Steves]

The main rationale behind IEP for the fast Cambridge services is to allow them to keep up with the IEPs on the East Coast on the common section to Hitchin.

I agree that this is a much better offer than Thameslink which is likely to end up with very high density units ie small numbers of seats and lots of standing space to achieve the dwell times necessary in the central section for 20-24 trains per hour.

A couple of years ago, I went to a lecture about Crossrail.  The person giving the lecture, I think Rob Holden, said that Colchester to Oxford gave better financial results for Crossrail than the option chosen of terminating in the east at Shenfield.  However, the mix of trains and trying to run an outer suburban service through the central section mixed in with the inner suburbans made it operationally impractical in their opinion and the idea was dropped.

[Stonechat]

Andrew Morgan, do you not realise that the HST, now nearly forty years old, has never been surpassed in terms of suspension and potential passenger comfort.

The break-up of the BR technical expertise following privatisation was a tragedy. for which we are still all paying.

Just hope that you might be lucky enough to have HSTs on that route one day

Tony

[SURREYMAN]

The main rationale behind IEP for the fast Cambridge services is to allow them to keep up with the IEPs on the East Coast on the common section to Hitchin.

I agree that this is a much better offer than Thameslink which is likely to end up with very high density units ie small numbers of seats and lots of standing space to achieve the dwell times necessary in the central section for 20-24 trains per hour.

A couple of years ago, I went to a lecture about Crossrail.  The person giving the lecture, I think Rob Holden, said that Colchester to Oxford gave better financial results for Crossrail than the option chosen of terminating in the east at Shenfield.  However, the mix of trains and trying to run an outer suburban service through the central section mixed in with the inner suburbans made it operationally impractical in their opinion and the idea was dropped.

This is typical Political 'Spin' which a local MP has 'run with'. As someone has pointed out, some of the Kings Cross - Hitchin new flyover part of the ECML, can utilise 125mph running, the rest of the route - think again, so comments about speeding up the service are just B******t.
The IEP is being forced onto TOCs and ROSCOs by the government when cheaper and more practical alternatives are available.

[Andrew Morgan]

to me there is no think wrong with HST to me they are the best trains on the railways i just can not see anything new being built for this services !

[Julia_Hayward]

The main rationale behind IEP for the fast Cambridge services is to allow them to keep up with the IEPs on the East Coast on the common section to Hitchin.

That's not a great rationale - the 365s may be slower (I know all units can push beyond their rated maximum - I timed a pair of 317/2s at 109 through Potters Bar soon after the Cambridge line was electrified) but there's not that much of the route passed for 125. South of Finsbury Park is slow, some of the two-track section around Welwyn is 110, and of course any train will have to slow for the junction at Hitchin.

It would be a welcome improvement, don't get me wrong, but it strikes me one could make much bigger improvements elsewhere for the same cost. Replacing the 180s that run under the ECML wires, for example.

[X314NNO]

First of all to clear up these RUMOURS. There is no thameslink going to lynn.
This means FCC will have no services to kings Lynn or a driver depot.
East coast are 90% going to take over fast services from cambs & services to Lynn.
The 365s are to be upgraded inside (FCC want to do this now but network rail are preventing this) & and the motors to easily cope with 125mph. I'm aware of a driver Doing 115 through Stevenage on the way to lynn, and this is all uphill from kx!


465s are limited to 75 not 90!

[Barry]

I'm not sure I like the idea of a York based franchise running commuter services in Cambridgeshire, or the idea of a three way split in operators of the services between Cambridge and London.  I'd rather see them done a bit more locally, by someone with the flexibility and incentive to build the right mix of stopping, semi fast and fast services into the timetable without having to worry about revenue extraction issues, and by someone for whom the route is possibly the second jewel in their crown after Thameslink rather than a mere distraction and sideshow.

I also wonder if the layout of the IEP carriages is going to be suitable for a short distance high capacity commuter route.  If no then dwell times are going to be too high.  If yes then either the number of IEP variants is going to be *really* scary or else IEP isn't going to be suitable for it's core market.

[Steves]

I also wonder if the layout of the IEP carriages is going to be suitable for a short distance high capacity commuter route.  If no then dwell times are going to be too high.  If yes then either the number of IEP variants is going to be *really* scary or else IEP isn't going to be suitable for it's core market.

I agree that the dwell times will suffer somewhat and it is certainly going to curtail the carriage of bikes between Kings Lynn and Cambridge.  It is not really a short distance commuter route - more a long distance commuter route with a non-stop run of 50+ miles and total distance of 98 miles.  This makes it comparable to Portsmouth and Bournemouth from London which have 444 stock of broadly similar internal design.  It is also similar to the Bristol main line which now has several stops and very heavy commuter flows from as far out as Swindon.

I would say that the alternative of Thameslink stock (even if the service did not go through Thameslink central section) would be less attractive with fewer seats and more standing room.

[TCD813]

Before we all become too cynical, I have a couple of quotes below:

The Future Rail document of 1991 was clear that King’s Cross International would become the nation’s rail hub and that the Fen Line would be connected directly to it with Thameslink 2000.
Connectivity is what it’s all about. King’s Lynn-King’s Cross has become a very well-connected route (even more so if we had two trains an hour!). No surprise that longer trains are on the menu.
...
Minister Geoff Hoon says Intercity Express (“expected” for the Fen Line) is “well advanced.” Thameslink to
Lynn is “Key Output 2.” That’s ‘yes!’

CP4 Delivery Plan
June 2011 Update
12.02 IEP East Coast Main Line Core routes ... London to Cambridge/Kings Lynn
Station capability (platform extensions/SDO/attaching/detaching) - chosen option developed by April 2012
Overhead line alterations- -chosen option developed by August 2012 Gauge clearance - chosen option developed by October 2013
12.03 IEP East Coast Main Line - Traction power supply upgrade
Classic power system reinforcement, Ardsley Feeder station and Hitchin-Cambridge/Kings Lynn - chosen option developed by March 2012
All works ready for IEP operation - August 2017.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/10755_EnhancementsDocumentJune2011.pdf

Many of The Fenman's active members are:

• local councillors
• journalists
• others with reliable sources

(ie they're not folks given to publishing rumour and idle speculation)

I think we can take what they publish as pretty reliable.

Including Cambridge/King's Lynn in the IEP project has been worked on for some long while.

[Adam Dowling]

I also wonder if the layout of the IEP carriages is going to be suitable for a short distance high capacity commuter route.  If no then dwell times are going to be too high.  If yes then either the number of IEP variants is going to be *really* scary or else IEP isn't going to be suitable for it's core market.

Seems there is going to be around six variants of the IEP as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercity_Express_Programme#Agility_Trains

I'd imagine we would get "Type 5's" on the Kings Lynn services...

[Streetdeck]

Apparently the current trains can go this fast BUT they'd need to replace all the level crossings from Kings Lynn to Hitchin... how much would that cost, for the sake of 15 minutes???

365s are 100mph on overhead and 90mph on 3rd rail, in theory at least. IEPs would be welcome to release the 365s to slower services and send the 321s off elsewhere - that generation of unit is really not pleasant at high speed (particularly passing other trains, with doors banging) and by 2018 there will be a big demand for electric units to finally kill off the Pacer!

Long live the Pacer....!!!!!

[Streetdeck]

I don't think it would take much to "soup up" Class 365's so they could manage 125mph....just ask the FCC driver who allegedly got caught doing a fair bit over 100 down the ECML in an empty 365 one night... 

Class 365's will NEVER be passed for 125mph running....and i would stake a years wages on it.....

Anything running over 100mph has to have a crumple zone to the rear of the drivers cab to protect the passengers.... as per Class 180, 220, 221, 222, 390, 395 etc, and partly the reason that a HST has a power car at each end...

For 365's it would mean losing seats, which is at least the first class area and possibly more or a total rebuild.....and that on cost would probably be thrown out.