Midlands Connect case for direct trains between Coventry, Leicester and Nottingham

[Nottingham59]

I see Midlands Connect have done their strategic outline business case (SOBC) for reinstating the chord under the WCML at Nuneaton to allow faster services direct between Coventry and Leicester.

Press release: https://www.midlandsconnect.uk/news...ration-opportunity-to-reconnect-the-midlands/

"The improvements would introduce two new trains each hour, also calling at Loughborough and East Midlands Parkway, made possible by a new dive under at Nuneaton, creating space for these services to pass through the area, alongside plans to improve line speed along the route, making journeys faster."

Report: https://www.midlandsconnect.uk/media/1777/coventry-leicester-nottingham-summary-report.pdf

"Midlands Connect has worked alongside Network Rail
to create a Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC)
outlining plans for reconnecting Coventry, Leicester
and Nottingham by rail. The study suggests that
building a dive-under at Nuneaton (a new train route
that runs underneath the West Coast Main Line)
could allow us to achieve this, alongside investment to
increase line speeds between Coventry and Nuneaton
from 45 to 60mph. These interventions would allow
two new direct services to run every hour, removing
the need for passengers to change at Nuneaton."

Site of proposed chord: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Nuneaton/@52.5218869,-1.4586873,17z/

(Edited to add quotes)

 

[The Planner]

Relying on a lot of dependent projects to deliver though, most of which aren't funded either. A lot of the headline benefits seem based on not calling at Nuneaton too. Don't disagree with the premise of it, but there is a bit of spin there.

 

[Nottingham59]

there is a bit of spin there

I think that's true.

What unfunded projects would be needed to support extra trains on the Coventry Nottingham axis? Leicester doesn't seem that crowded. In normal times, Leicester-Nuneaton only has 2 passenger and 4 freight paths per hour; Nuneaton-Coventry only has 1 of each. Would platform occupancy at Coventry be the limiting factor?

But this satellite image shows how close Coventry and Leicester are. There should be a reasonable demand between those population centres, and a direct route bypassing Nuneaton should give a much more attractive service to meet that demand.

 

[Watershed]

It certainly is a sizeable missing link, however as with most of these proposals, it massively underestimates the cost and timescales involved! We're not talking about adding an additional crossover...

 

[Nottingham59]

it massively underestimates the cost and timescales involved

Quite possibly. But they do say they have developed the case "alongside" Network Rail, whatever that means. I'd be interested to see the actual details in the SOBC when/if it gets published in June.

 

[The Planner]

I think that's true.

What unfunded projects would be needed to support extra trains on the Coventry Nottingham axis? Leicester doesn't seem that crowded. In normal times, Leicester-Nuneaton only has 2 passenger and 4 freight paths per hour; Nuneaton-Coventry only has 1 of each. Would platform occupancy at Coventry be the limiting factor?

But this satellite image shows how close Coventry and Leicester are. There should be a reasonable demand between those population centres, and a direct route bypassing Nuneaton should give a much more attractive service to meet that demand.

It depends on what they really go for, if its 2 Cov to Leicester then you are up to 4 passenger and 4 freight, Croft to Hinckley has a 6 minute headway in the down and 5 the other way. You can guarantee that things won't fall perfectly there. It is also another 2 across Wigston. It also doesn't account for any growth from Brum to Leicester from what I can see either. Lots of dependencies depending on a post HS2 timetable too, as the Cov corridor ends up fixed as well as the Leamington Nuneaton and you fit everything else around them. You have to have the bay at Coventry which they already know. I suspect they have already looked at the line speed and that is why 60mph is suggested over 45mph as you won't achieve much more with the station gaps. Spon End viaduct is always going to be 20mph for freight too. Devil is in the detail with this one.

 

[Class 170101]

It depends on what they really go for, if its 2 Cov to Leicester then you are up to 4 passenger and 4 freight, Croft to Hinckley has a 6 minute headway in the down and 5 the other way. You can guarantee that things won't fall perfectly there. It is also another 2 across Wigston. It also doesn't account for any growth from Brum to Leicester from what I can see either. Lots of dependencies depending on a post HS2 timetable too, as the Cov corridor ends up fixed as well as the Leamington Nuneaton and you fit everything else around them. You have to have the bay at Coventry which they already know. I suspect they have already looked at the line speed and that is why 60mph is suggested over 45mph as you won't achieve much more with the station gaps. Spon End viaduct is always going to be 20mph for freight too. Devil is in the detail with this one.

Leicester to New Street could have greater capacity by longer trains rather than extra ones relieving the pressure for more trains on this corridor and hence pressure on the Headway issue you highlight above.

Is the bay absolutely needed - I note on Open Train Times Map for Coventry that it shows four sidings (two OOU) could the trains run empty to there instead?

 

[jfowkes]

High time they took grade separation of Wigston Junction beyond the "vaguely thinking about it" stage. It's not the only bottleneck on the route but it would help a lot.

 

[edwin_m]

Leicester to New Street could have greater capacity by longer trains rather than extra ones relieving the pressure for more trains on this corridor and hence pressure on the Headway issue you highlight above.

Is the bay absolutely needed - I note on Open Train Times Map for Coventry that it shows four sidings (two OOU) could the trains run empty to there instead?

The problem is that they have to occupy a through platform during their turnaround. The turnaround time probably wouldn't be long enough to be able to do any shunting.

 

[The Planner]

Leicester to New Street could have greater capacity by longer trains rather than extra ones relieving the pressure for more trains on this corridor and hence pressure on the Headway issue you highlight above.

Is the bay absolutely needed - I note on Open Train Times Map for Coventry that it shows four sidings (two OOU) could the trains run empty to there instead?

Yes it is, due to the signaling and platform occupation. WMT need a 5 minute turnaround and you have 3½ minute margin before anything can reoccupy P1 or 2 in the up direction. So two trains are taking up 17 minutes an hour. Shunt into the yard and you are doubling that occupation. The yard gets reconfigured for the bay platform as well. Add the Leamington to Nuneaton shuttle and the hourly freight path and you are running out of capacity.

 

[A0]

But this satellite image shows how close Coventry and Leicester are. There should be a reasonable demand between those population centres, and a direct route bypassing Nuneaton should give a much more attractive service to meet that demand.

Why ? Just because they're close doesn't mean there's demand for travel between them. There need to be attractions or services for people to want to travel to them - Coventry's got Birmingham close at hand which is far bigger than Leicester or Nottingham.

And why "should" there be demand for travel between Nottingham and Coventry? What's Nottingham got that would make people from Coventry want or need to travel there are vice versa ? And more to the point make enough people want to travel that makes a direct rail link viable?

 

[Ianno87]

Why ? Just because they're close doesn't mean there's demand for travel between them. There need to be attractions or services for people to want to travel to them - Coventry's got Birmingham close at hand which is far bigger than Leicester or Nottingham.

And why "should" there be demand for travel between Nottingham and Coventry? What's Nottingham got that would make people from Coventry want or need to travel there are vice versa ? And more to the point make enough people want to travel that makes a direct rail link viable?

The Generalised Journey Time between Two places stimulates propensity to travel between them. Coventry and Leicester/Nottingham are in the "sweet spot" of 30-90 minutes where reductions in GJT are generally the most effective.

 

[A0]

The Generalised Journey Time between Two places stimulates propensity to travel between them. Coventry and Leicester/Nottingham are in the "sweet spot" of 30-90 minutes where reductions in GJT are generally the most effective.

But that's only true IF there's a reason to travel to begin with. So what has Cov got that Leicester / Nottingham (or vice versa) haven't that would lead to the demand for travel that makes it viable for a train .

 

[Ianno87]

But that's only true IF there's a reason to travel to begin with. So what has Cov got that Leicester / Nottingham (or vice versa) haven't that would lead to the demand for travel that makes it viable for a train .

Employment in one, supply of housing in the other (works both ways around in this case). It's not about current demand, it's about stimulating future demand through transport provision.

 

[A0]

Employment in one, supply of housing in the other (works both ways around in this case). It's not about current demand, it's about stimulating future demand through transport provision.

But "stimulating demand" flies in the face of the environmental demands to "travel less" - so encouraging travel in this way is contrary to the prevailing wisdom. Add in post Covid the demand for travel is likely to remain suppressed as new work patterns bed in.

 

[ChrisC]

Why ? Just because they're close doesn't mean there's demand for travel between them. There need to be attractions or services for people to want to travel to them - Coventry's got Birmingham close at hand which is far bigger than Leicester or Nottingham.

And why "should" there be demand for travel between Nottingham and Coventry? What's Nottingham got that would make people from Coventry want or need to travel there are vice versa ? And more to the point make enough people want to travel that makes a direct rail link viable?

Many years ago, when there was for few years an hourly train from Nottingham to Coventry, I used it quite regularly to connect with Cross Country trains to the South Coast. Quite a few people from Nottingham and Leicester used to change at Coventry for Oxford, Reading, Southampton etc as if there was a good connection it saved quite a bit of time compared to via Birmingham. In those days, of course, there were only about 3 through trains a day from Derby to the South Coast so changing at Coventry also enabled travel on trains originating from Birmingham and Manchester.

 

[A0]

Many years ago, when there was for few years an hourly train from Nottingham to Coventry, I used it quite regularly to connect with Cross Country trains to the South Coast. Quite a few people from Nottingham and Leicester used to change at Coventry for Oxford, Reading, Southampton etc as if there was a good connection it saved quite a bit of time compared to via Birmingham. In those days, of course, there were only about 3 through trains a day from Derby to the South Coast so changing at Coventry also enabled travel on trains originating from Birmingham and Manchester.

All of which is fine, but doesn't demonstrate a regular demand for travel between Nottingham / Leicester and Coventry - you were simply using that as the connection point for a much longer journey in preference to travelling via Birmingham. If that connection had been elsewhere you would have used that, it wasn't about Coventry as a destination.

It also depends *where* on the south coast you're heading to - it does, after all include Kent and Sussex as well as Hampshire & Dorset - and the East Mids now has *far* better connectivity to those the first two by virtue of changing at St Pancras to either HS1 or Thameslink (TL) - which since the rebuild of St P is no distance at all because the TL platforms are right below the East Mids ones.

 

[stuu]

But that's only true IF there's a reason to travel to begin with. So what has Cov got that Leicester / Nottingham (or vice versa) haven't that would lead to the demand for travel that makes it viable for a train .

The existence of a 3 lane motorway between Coventry and Leicester would suggest there is some demand along that corridor.

 

[A0]

The existence of a 3 lane motorway between Coventry and Leicester would suggest there is some demand along that corridor.

Which was built to link traffic from the north on the M1 to get to/from the Coventry area because there aren't north to west junctions from the M1 to the A45 at Jnc 17 (M45) or at Jnc 19 (M6).

The M69 as motorways go isn't that busy and the traffic often starts / finishes its journey from much further afield.

 

[Qwerty133]

It depends on what they really go for, if its 2 Cov to Leicester then you are up to 4 passenger and 4 freight, Croft to Hinckley has a 6 minute headway in the down and 5 the other way. You can guarantee that things won't fall perfectly there. It is also another 2 across Wigston. It also doesn't account for any growth from Brum to Leicester from what I can see either. Lots of dependencies depending on a post HS2 timetable too, as the Cov corridor ends up fixed as well as the Leamington Nuneaton and you fit everything else around them. You have to have the bay at Coventry which they already know. I suspect they have already looked at the line speed and that is why 60mph is suggested over 45mph as you won't achieve much more with the station gaps. Spon End viaduct is always going to be 20mph for freight too. Devil is in the detail with this one.

Also need to consider the impact on local residents near to the level crossing at Narborough. Adding more paths on a route with a level crossing that separates housing from all local facilities isn't really acceptable beyond a certain point as it effectively prevents access to such facilities as the barriers would never be up.

 

[stuu]

Which was built to link traffic from the north on the M1 to get to/from the Coventry area because there aren't north to west junctions from the M1 to the A45 at Jnc 17 (M45) or at Jnc 19 (M6).

Are you seriously suggesting that 16 miles of 6 lane motorway was built instead of a couple of slip roads at Catthorpe?

And besides, if there is demand from Coventry to places further north, it would seem entirely plausible that rail could take some of that market

 

[edwin_m]

Which was built to link traffic from the north on the M1 to get to/from the Coventry area because there aren't north to west junctions from the M1 to the A45 at Jnc 17 (M45) or at Jnc 19 (M6).

Which just goes to show that the M69 is relevant only to traffic between Coventry and places north-east, paralleling this train service, as the A45 and M6 take the traffic in other directions.

 

[Ianno87]

But "stimulating demand" flies in the face of the environmental demands to "travel less" - so encouraging travel in this way is contrary to the prevailing wisdom. Add in post Covid the demand for travel is likely to remain suppressed as new work patterns bed in.

Or stimulate demand for the most environmental form of transport there is. Make growth sustainable 'n' all that.

 

[P Binnersley]

The M69 predates the M42/A42 and used to handle all the traffic from the Birmingham and the M5, to the North East. Most of the traffic now uses the M42/A42.

The report states that only 3% of current trips between Coventry and Leicester are made by rail.

Despite having a motorway between them, the journey from the M69 to Coventry and Leicester city centres can be painfully slow.

 

[RyanOPlasty]

I'd be interested to know why the chord UNDER the WCML is being reinstated. Lines from both Leicester and Coventry descend into Nuneaton station, so would it not make more sense to have a bridge over the WCML

 

[A0]

The M69 predates the M42/A42 and used to handle all the traffic from the Birmingham and the M5, to the North East. Most of the traffic now uses the M42/A42.

The report states that only 3% of current trips between Coventry and Leicester are made by rail.

Despite having a motorway between them, the journey from the M69 to Coventry and Leicester city centres can be painfully slow.

But how many are going city centre to city centre? Probably not that many.

If you live on the edge of Coventry and need to get to Wigston or Beaumont Leys then City centre to City centre is useless.

 

[The Planner]

Also worth remembering that it has unfinished pieces at the north end and the south end was built to be extended, eventually ending up as the Cov bypass. Whether it was part of a bigger strategic route that never actually materialised is unclear.

 

[alistairlees]

The two biggest close by cities in Britain that don’t have a direct rail service between then, and people are still arguing that there is no point having a train service because not enough people want to travel between them. And that despite the fact that there is a busy motorway between the two. This is the perfect market for rail: city centre to city centre high volume transit.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The two biggest close by cities in Britain that don’t have a direct rail service between then, and people are still arguing that there is no point having a train service because not enough people want to travel between them. And that despite the fact that there is a busy motorway between the two. This is the perfect market for rail: city centre to city centre high volume transit.

Interesting point but was there 'ever' (in the heyday of railways) a direct service between the two to build a market? (I am not talking about the short-lived through service via a Nuneaton more recently.)

I have connections in both Leicester and Coventry and frequently visit(ed) both cities but they never seem to have much to do with each other. Both are of the awkward size that hasn't justified suburban rail networks or metros with indifferently positioned main stations.

Not quite 'perfect' really.

 

[Bald Rick]

The existence of a 3 lane motorway between Coventry and Leicester would suggest there is some demand along that corridor.

Whether it was part of a bigger strategic route that never actually materialised is unclear.

One of the best Motorways in the land, as it is rarely anything other than empty. But it was part of a bigger plan, effectively extended north and south as the A46.

In terms of rail commuting - as one of the few people on this thread who has commuted Leicester - Coventry (albeit as part of a longer commute) ... I never failed to get a seat at peak time, and the train was only ever approaching full on Friday evenings at holiday times. There just isn’t the market.