December 2021 Timetable change

[bramling]

Having worked at one of those named stations I can confirm. The biggest flows always seemed to be between the Birmingham and Peterborough portion, I would say. There were always passengers who wanted Cambridge as well, but it did pale in comparison to those who were doing journeys between intermediate stations.

If there was one thing I could wish for, now living myself in Melton Mowbray, was that XC would out the Stanstead portion and terminate at Cambridge. Logic would then dictate more units and crews available to work more services to allow LEI to CBG to have two trains per hour.

The demand for better rail availability in east Leicestershire and Rutland is still there, and if the service was there it would get used more than it does now. Even for Leisure travellers, the logistics of getting a train from Melton or Oakham, to say Birmingham, are a no brainer, plus it's slightly quicker by train than it is car, unless you've got a lead foot.

Now there's alternative services on the Cambridge to Stansted section I must say I agree there seems to be a good case for ditching XC on this section. This service does seem like a throwover from the time when this was the only service to Stansted from the north. Presumably there's space at Cambridge to accommodate the extra terminating services? Fitting in an extra tph to make Birmingham - Cambridge 2tph would seem to be starting to push things though.

 

[dk1]

Having worked at one of those named stations I can confirm. The biggest flows always seemed to be between the Birmingham and Peterborough portion, I would say. There were always passengers who wanted Cambridge as well, but it did pale in comparison to those who were doing journeys between intermediate stations.

If there was one thing I could wish for, now living myself in Melton Mowbray, was that XC would out the Stanstead portion and terminate at Cambridge. Logic would then dictate more units and crews available to work more services to allow LEI to CBG to have two trains per hour.

The demand for better rail availability in east Leicestershire and Rutland is still there, and if the service was there it would get used more than it does now. Even for Leisure travellers, the logistics of getting a train from Melton or Oakham, to say Birmingham, are a no brainer, plus it's slightly quicker by train than it is car, unless you've got a lead foot.

XC have wanted to up the frequency by extending the Leicester terminator through to Cambridge for many years down but has always been refused pending the upgrade of Ely North Jcn. This can eventually operate along with the other service operating through to the airport as now & a win win for all.

 

[bramling]

XC have wanted to up the frequency by extending the Leicester terminator through to Cambridge for many years down but has always been refused pending the upgrade of Ely North Jcn. This can eventually operate along with the other service operating through to the airport as now & a win win for all.

Would extending the second train from Leicester to Peterborough be feasible?

 

[dk1]

Would extending the second train from Leicester to Peterborough be feasible?

I’ve often wondered that but never seems to have been taken forward. I used to wonder if it was a platform capacity issue at Peterborough but that’s not been a problem for many years now.

 

[TheBigD]

Given the current timetable, curtailing the Birmingham-Stansted at Cambridge would save the grand total of 1 unit, with a 50+ minute turnaround time at Cambridge.

To extend the Birmingham-Leicester through to Cambridge requires 4 units, 3 if you're feeling brave and want to go for 20 minute turnarounds at Cambridge alongside the 8 minute turnaround at Birmingham for the current xx14 arrival from Leicester to form the xx22 departure to Anglia.

And good luck getting the extra paths through Ely North Jn, fitting around the existing freight paths, and the mitigating level crossings risks etc etc...

Would extending the second train from Leicester to Peterborough be feasible?

Requires 2 extra units and crews. Leicester XC crews don't sign east of Syston though that could be resolved.
Would be surprised if the (crap) paths that the proposed 2008 bi-hourly extension would have used are still available though Peterbronx has now got 2 extra platforms available.

 

[Toffee Apples]

XC have wanted to up the frequency by extending the Leicester terminator through to Cambridge for many years down but has always been refused pending the upgrade of Ely North Jcn. This can eventually operate along with the other service operating through to the airport as now & a win win for all.

Which is understandable, from my understanding Ely is a bit of a pinch point.

Would extending the second train from Leicester to Peterborough be feasible?

Whether a TOC would view it as feasible remains to be seen, but certainly from a local standpoint it is. Not only that, but if the Leicester terminators were extended through to Peterborough, there could be scope for later services east bound past 2100. Frequency is one thing, the other limiting factor is later trains. If I go to see colleagues in Leicester, or generally go for a social, I have to be on the train at 2115 (ish) or I won't be back home. That has been one of the cases for improvement for years. Many of the regulars I came across and spoke to said later trains would help them immensely.

I’ve often wondered that but never seems to have been taken forward. I used to wonder if it was a platform capacity issue at Peterborough but that’s not been a problem for many years now.

The only limiting factor one can think of, is potentially pathing issues, especially during the day. The Birmingham - Ely line is a key rail freight container route and one can only imagine many paths are already paid for and reserved in case they are needed.

The other thing is, perhaps XC are just dragging their heels on the issue. If there is one thing I learned when I used to campaign for increased Bus services in Leicester, is that any public service provider will not want to put up expense to add something into their remit, as they always prefer a model, a business case (or some other corporate bovine) to be carried out to show that a move will be profitable. I have a feeling there's a sense of this in the mix, because people are making noise, yet XC are not necessarily seeing the passenger statistics to back up the resident's claim. It does seem companies do not wish to implore the Donkey & Carrot effect. I've always said, put the service on, increase frequency, folks will use it.

 

[Ianno87]

Now there's alternative services on the Cambridge to Stansted section I must say I agree there seems to be a good case for ditching XC on this section. This service does seem like a throwover from the time when this was the only service to Stansted from the north. Presumably there's space at Cambridge to accommodate the extra terminating services?

Platform 5 and 6 are pretty lightly used. XC went in there when they temporarily stopped running to Stansted (save for a few early late marginal time services) during Covid.

In the world of de-carbonisation, sending a diesel service past its key traffic destination duplicating an electric service is questionable at best.

 

[Bald Rick]

The other thing is, perhaps XC are just dragging their heels on the issue. If there is one thing I learned when I used to campaign for increased Bus services in Leicester, is that any public service provider will not want to put up expense to add something into their remit, as they always prefer a model, a business case (or some other corporate bovine) to be carried out to show that a move will be profitable. I have a feeling there's a sense of this in the mix, because people are making noise, yet XC are not necessarily seeing the passenger statistics to back up the resident's claim. It does seem companies do not wish to implore the Donkey & Carrot effect. I've always said, put the service on, increase frequency, folks will use it.

It’s not XC dragging their heels. It’s finding someone to pay for the service. Those services lose money, ergo doubling the service will lose more money. And someone (the taxpayer) will have to pay.

 

[Llandudno]

I'd still be interested to know the proportion of users from these stations on a typical XC train: Percentage just doing a local journey versus percentage doing a genuine XC journey.

In Audley End's case, the percentage going anywhere other than Cambridge or Stansted is probably tiny, and those passengers can easily be accommodated on Greater Anglia.

Not forgetting that more people may actually be attracted to XC for longer distance journeys if the trains are less clogged up with people only doing local journeys.

Passengers to/from Chesterfield use XC for Birmingham, York, Doncaster, Newcastle and Bristol in the main, but now have to change trains at Sheffield or Derby with the exception of a couple of peak hour journeys.

It also means that XC advance fares are no longer available to/from Chesterfield.

 

[Kite159]

Now there's alternative services on the Cambridge to Stansted section I must say I agree there seems to be a good case for ditching XC on this section. This service does seem like a throwover from the time when this was the only service to Stansted from the north. Presumably there's space at Cambridge to accommodate the extra terminating services? Fitting in an extra tph to make Birmingham - Cambridge 2tph would seem to be starting to push things though.

Could use the north facing bay platform which was previously used by the Norwich - Cambridge services before they got extended to Stansted?

----

I wonder how many passengers travelling to the New Forest from the midlands were put off using the train as they would have to change at Southampton to take another train to Brockenhurst, the gateway to the New Forest as the train from Birmingham would have sailed straight through.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Could use the north facing bay platform which was previously used by the Norwich - Cambridge services before they got extended to Stansted?

----

I wonder how many passengers travelling to the New Forest from the midlands were put off using the train as they would have to change at Southampton to take another train to Brockenhurst, the gateway to the New Forest as the train from Birmingham would have sailed straight through.

Agreed re: extending the Leicester services to Peterborough, even if only during “peak” (aka 0500-1000 and approx 1500-2000).

One could also argue that if XC didn’t go to Stansted, you’d have an opportunity to do Norwich to Stansted every 30 minutes as compensation.

 

[Bald Rick]

One could also argue that if XC didn’t go to Stansted, you’d have an opportunity to do Norwich to Stansted every 30 minutes as compensation.

You could argue that, but there isn’t capacity for them.

 

[dk1]

Best to leave things as they are & offer different destinations direct links to Stansted. It works well.

 

[Ianno87]

Passengers to/from Chesterfield use XC for Birmingham, York, Doncaster, Newcastle and Bristol in the main, but now have to change trains at Sheffield or Derby with the exception of a couple of peak hour journeys.

Can you express "in the main" as a quantity? How does that compare as a % to passengers boarding a typical XC service just to hop to Sheffield or Derby? What % of that % does not find changing at Derby or Sheffield an acceptable alternative so consequently does not travel at all?

It also means that XC advance fares are no longer available to/from Chesterfield.

Which ought to be addressed if this were to be a long term situation.

Best to leave things as they are & offer different destinations direct links to Stansted. It works well.

"Works well" on what definition?

But is it serving the market well relative to the cost (and carbon impact) of doing so? Or is it just a hangover from when it was the only Cambridge-Stansted service?

Plenty of XC services at Cambridge havd (pre-Covid) a significant passenger turnover during their call there.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Best to leave things as they are & offer different destinations direct links to Stansted. It works well.

But does it? They regularly get turned round due to late running and there’s barely any demand for Stansted at the best of times compared to your better airports.

Can you express "in the main" as a quantity? How does that compare as a % to passengers boarding a typical XC service just to hop to Sheffeild and Derby? What % of that % does not find changing at Derby or Sheffield an acceptable alternative so consequently does not travel at all?



Which ought to be addressed if this were to be a long term situation.




"Works well" on what definition?

But is it serving the market well relative to the cost (and carbon impact) of doing so? Or is it just a hangover from when it was the only Cambridge-Stansted service?

Plenty of XC services at Cambridge havd (pre-Covid) a significant passenger turnover during their call there.

I used to watch them load / unload at Cambridge. You’d be lucky to have 5-10 people even at the busiest times staying on and not having ‘churned’ at Cambridge. They 170s are not suitable for the work and importing delays from as far as Birmingham to the London commuter network (as Cambridge to Bishops Stortford is) is unhelpful.

 

[Ianno87]

There certainly is a market for a 2tph Cambridge-Stansted service (which is what is really being served, but that is of course never as sexy as a long distance through train basically inherited from Regional Railways).

But having one of these originate from New Street and the other from Norwich just results in the service being uneven for Cambridge passengers. I'd argue that does not "work well".

 

[4-SUB 4732]

There certainly is a market for a 2tph Cambridge-Stansted service (which is what is really being served, but that is of course never as sexy as a long distance through train basically inherited from Regional Railways).

But having one of these originate from New Street and the other from Norwich just results in the service being uneven for Cambridge passengers. I'd argue that does not "work well".

Quite. A regular frequency with a slightly more responsive calling pattern would be better for the public. And, it would allow the ‘Regional’ train to be serviced at Cambridge, where the drivers are anyway.

 

[Ianno87]

Quite. A regular frequency with a slightly more responsive calling pattern would be better for the public. And, it would allow the ‘Regional’ train to be serviced at Cambridge, where the drivers are anyway.

Plus the odd situation at Stansted where XC drivers have to use the train for their rest breaks (as they don't have actual facilities there), so locking the train out for passengers during its turnround time.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Would extending the second train from Leicester to Peterborough be feasible?

It does surprise me that the Melton/Oakham/Stamford service has remained essentially unchanged for 30 years. 170s have replaced 158s and they have a newer logo on the side, but otherwise it's very little different.

 

[dk1]

Can you express "in the main" as a quantity? How does that compare as a % to passengers boarding a typical XC service just to hop to Sheffield or Derby? What % of that % does not find changing at Derby or Sheffield an acceptable alternative so consequently does not travel at all?



Which ought to be addressed if this were to be a long term situation.




"Works well" on what definition?

But is it serving the market well relative to the cost (and carbon impact) of doing so? Or is it just a hangover from when it was the only Cambridge-Stansted service?

Plenty of XC services at Cambridge havd (pre-Covid) a significant passenger turnover during their call there.

I dont recall it ever being just a Cambridge to Stansted service. Central Trains ran in from several destinations before concentrating on Birmingham which XC inherited.

But does it? They regularly get turned round due to late running and there’s barely any demand for Stansted at the best of times compared to your better airports.

Loagings on many XC services where very healthy south of Cambridge before Covid.

Plus the odd situation at Stansted where XC drivers have to use the train for their rest breaks (as they don't have actual facilities there), so locking the train out for passengers during its turnround time.

That’s very odd. I didn’t think ‘official’ PNBs where permitted onboard. Could it just be for cleaning purposes & to give the driver/guard some peace & quiet?

It does surprise me that the Melton/Oakham/Stamford service has remained essentially unchanged for 30 years. 170s have replaced 158s and they have a newer logo on the side, but otherwise it's very little different.

When the initial ‘EXPRESS’ services where launched in 1988 the alternate Norwich-Birmingham ran fast Peterborough to Leicester giving the intermediates a two-hourly off peak frequency. It is, as you say pretty much unchanged for the last 30 years.

 

[JonathanH]

I dont recall it ever being just a Cambridge to Stansted service. Central Trains ran in from several destinations before concentrating on Birmingham which XC inherited

That isn't what the OP wrote - they said that the XC service from Birmingham was for a time the only Cambridge to Stansted service, which it was until Greater Anglia started running the route.

Given the availability of a spare bay platform at both ends of Cambridge Station, it really ought to be chopped at Cambridge with Greater Anglia running an electric shuttle service from Cambridge to Stansted if one is even needed, particularly given the 'one operator' mantra that should be influencing these decisions.

The resulting spare 170 could be much better utilised somewhere else.

It does surprise me that the Melton/Oakham/Stamford service has remained essentially unchanged for 30 years. 170s have replaced 158s and they have a newer logo on the side, but otherwise it's very little different.

I'm not sure why it should be surprising - a simple hourly service is easily understood and has natural end points as a regional service from Birmingham and Cambridge - presumably demand hasn't increased enough to justify more.

 

[Horizon22]

Doesn't look like they're bringing back the additional GWR Bristol-London express services even from the December 2021 timetable. A great shame. I waited over 20 years for these services to be introduced/re-introduced. They were finally introduced in December 2019, but barely for only a few months!

This is partly due to IET shortages. Frankly they're probably one of the lowest priorities to bring back.

 

[Class 466]

The Southeastern HS service from December is odd at best with trains extended beyond Dover to Ramsgate again until 1437 when they revert to terminating at Dover and the Charing X service goes back through for the rest of the day. Saturdays & Sundays they terminate at Dover all day.

Many other services are still cut back on weekends which seems counter intuitive given how busy they're getting already.

 

[Horizon22]

The Southeastern HS service from December is odd at best with trains extended beyond Dover to Ramsgate again until 1437 when they revert to terminating at Dover and the Charing X service goes back through for the rest of the day. Saturdays & Sundays they terminate at Dover all day.

Many other services are still cut back on weekends which seems counter intuitive given how busy they're getting already.

Maybe it isn't updated yet but it's also disappointing as currently its still only showing 1tph HS via the Medway Towns from December as the line is getting rather busy.

 

[TheBigD]

That isn't what the OP wrote - they said that the XC service from Birmingham was for a time the only Cambridge to Stansted service, which it was until Greater Anglia started running the route.

Given the availability of a spare bay platform at both ends of Cambridge Station, it really ought to be chopped at Cambridge with Greater Anglia running an electric shuttle service from Cambridge to Stansted if one is even needed, particularly given the 'one operator' mantra that should be influencing these decisions.

The resulting spare 170 could be much better utilised somewhere else.


I'm not sure why it should be surprising - a simple hourly service is easily understood and has natural end points as a regional service from Birmingham and Cambridge - presumably demand hasn't increased enough to justify more.

With regard to the Stamford/Oakham/Melton question, there has been a couple of proposals to enhance their service.

The Decemver 2008 proposal to extend nearly every other Birmingham-Leicester service to/from Camvridge. This got as far as the services appearing in the timetable before the financial 2008 crisis fully hit.

The December(?) 2018 proposal that would have seen the 0818 Leicester-Birmingham start from Cambridge and the 1752 Birmingham-Leicester extended to Cambridge, along with them being 2 x170.
The proposal would have seen 26/29 170s diagrammed each weekday, which given the current 170 availability, was certainly ambitious!

Mods... maybe split the threads off as this has bugger all to do with the Dec 21 timetable change?

 

[dk1]

That isn't what the OP wrote - they said that the XC service from Birmingham was for a time the only Cambridge to Stansted service, which it was until Greater Anglia started running the route.

Given the availability of a spare bay platform at both ends of Cambridge Station, it really ought to be chopped at Cambridge with Greater Anglia running an electric shuttle service from Cambridge to Stansted if one is even needed, particularly given the 'one operator' mantra that should be influencing these decisions.

The resulting spare 170 could be much better utilised somewhere else.


I'm not sure why it should be surprising - a simple hourly service is easily understood and has natural end points as a regional service from Birmingham and Cambridge - presumably demand hasn't increased enough to justify more.

Oh yes if I read it like that I see what they meant. Still don’t agree with it terminating at Cambridge. Needs to continue to the Airport which is what it’s going to do. For an enhanced service over the core route it needs to wait for more units, increase traincrew establishments &/or hand over the Leicester terminators to WMR.

 

[47421]

That isn't what the OP wrote - they said that the XC service from Birmingham was for a time the only Cambridge to Stansted service, which it was until Greater Anglia started running the route.

Given the availability of a spare bay platform at both ends of Cambridge Station, it really ought to be chopped at Cambridge with Greater Anglia running an electric shuttle service from Cambridge to Stansted if one is even needed, particularly given the 'one operator' mantra that should be influencing these decisions.

The resulting spare 170 could be much better utilised somewhere else.


I'm not sure why it should be surprising - a simple hourly service is easily understood and has natural end points as a regional service from Birmingham and Cambridge - presumably demand hasn't increased enough to justify more.

In the coming Great British Railways era you could justify a complete re-think of the Anglia inter-regional services. Why should Norwich have direct services to Stansted and Manchester and Liverpool but not Birmingham? Why should Ipswich have direct services to Peterborough but not Stansted Birmingham Manchester or Liverpool? And why should Stansted have direct services to Birmingham and Norwich but not Manchester or Liverpool or Ipswich? If you can break out of franchise-map/historic service pattern silos you could open up loads of new direct journey opportunities. Yes i know there are all kinds of resourcing and timetabling issues, but the general point remains. Anyway off topic, one for speculative ideas.

 

[dk1]

Stansted has recently had some good news in that after spending £2.6m Uttlesford council will no longer contest a high court decision allowing further expansion. This is another hurdle cleared in getting the airport up to 43 million passengers annually.

 

[cle]

Stansted has been a declining airport though. It's not that important, nationally - certainly it doesn't need services to Manchester or Liverpool. And there are way more employees who use public transport to airport, than travellers. Let's put them first, and have 2tph to Cambridge and maybe Norwich, as has been mentioned already as going to 2tph to Cambridge at least. But something useful for the actual hinterland and travel to work area. Flights tend to leave at horrible o'clock too.

Cambridge is the real draw in the region. Additional services to Peterborough (for ECML) and then frequencies for the Stamfords of this world going both ways are of far more use.

 

[dk1]

Stansted has been a declining airport though. It's not that important, nationally - certainly it doesn't need services to Manchester or Liverpool. And there are way more employees who use public transport to airport, than travellers. Let's put them first, and have 2tph to Cambridge and maybe Norwich, as has been mentioned already as going to 2tph to Cambridge at least. But something useful for the actual hinterland and travel to work area. Flights tend to leave at horrible o'clock too.

Cambridge is the real draw in the region. Additional services to Peterborough (for ECML) and then frequencies for the Stamfords of this world going both ways are of far more use.

After some decline it has done very well since being taken over by the Manchester Airport Group. Rail passenger use had grown from six to over 9.5 million between 2015 & 2019. The airport has plans to grow its passenger numbers up to 43 million annually too.