Extending Thameslink to Corby

[William3000]

Now that the Midland Mainline has been four tracked past Kettering and Corby is on the network, would there be some benefit in extending Thameslink trains northwards to Corby. Peterborough is further north than Corby and has Thameslink trains.

And new stations at Ampthill and the Wixams, south of Bedford, and then Oakley (for Clapham), Sharnbrook, Irchester (for Rushden), Burton Latimer, and Corby South with stops on the slow lines.

All these settlements are quite sizeable and on other lines heading out of London might otherwise have stations.

May be pie in the sky but I think at the very least new stations at Ampthill and the Wixams, Irchester and Burton Latimer could work.

Looking at comparable stations on the East Coast Mainline like Arlesey, Sandy, Biggleswade etc, with two trains an hour one might expect to see usage figures at the following something in the order of:

Ampthill: 550,000
The Wixams: 750,000
Oakley: 200,000
Sharnbrook: 125,000
Irchester: 450,000
Burton Latimer: 300,000
Corby South: 300,000

 

[brad465]

How fast are the slow lines north of Bedford? I seem to recall 50mph is the top speed for most of it, which if the case would be poor for a regular passenger service. Therefore any new Thameslink extension and/or new station openings would have to come with suitable slow line speed enhancements.

 

[Magdalia]

Now that the Midland Mainline has been four tracked past Kettering and Corby is on the network, would there be some benefit in extending Thameslink trains northwards to Corby

An emphatic no. 50-60 miles from London tests the limit of resilience for Thameslink operation, for example Brighton, Bedford and Cambridge. Peterborough is the only Thameslink destination that goes beyond this.

Peterborough is further north than Corby and has Thameslink trains.

Corby is about 3 miles further from St Pancras than Peterborough.

In retrospect Peterborough is too far from London to be included in Thameslink. It has led to a significant reduction in service quality for Arlesey, Biggleswade, Sandy, St Neots and Huntingdon, with very little alternative when there is disruption.

In an ideal world Peterborough should be taken out of Thameslink, but unfortunately it is too difficult.

And new stations at Ampthill and the Wixams, south of Bedford, and then Oakley (for Clapham), Sharnbrook, Irchester (for Rushden), Burton Latimer, and Corby South with stops on the slow lines.

All these settlements are quite sizeable and on other lines heading out of London might otherwise have stations.

May be pie in the sky but I think at the very least new stations at Ampthill and the Wixams, Irchester and Burton Latimer could work.

Looking at comparable stations on the East Coast Mainline like Arlesey, Sandy, Biggleswade etc, with two trains an hour one might expect to see usage figures at the following something in the order of:

Ampthill: 550,000
The Wixams: 750,000
Oakley: 200,000
Sharnbrook: 125,000
Irchester: 450,000
Burton Latimer: 300,000
Corby South: 300,000

Flitwick is de facto Ampthill Parkway. Wixams is already happening.

North of Bedford the case for new stations is independent of whether the trains only run to St Pancras or go into the Thameslink core.

 

[swt_passenger]

This has been regularly proposed in these forums, and I believe the general consensus has always been ”no”, it doesn’t help.

 

[JonathanH]

North of Bedford the case for new stations is independent of whether the trains only run to St Pancras or go into the Thameslink core.

Putting extra stops in the Corby services would make them somewhat unattractive to existing travellers from Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. I'm not sure there is a coherent answer as to how to serve such stations but it wouldn't make sense to slow down Corby's existing service, or extend the Thameslink trains.

 

[William3000]

Thanks for the comments - at the very least I think an Irchester for Rushden station could have merit and I suspect Ampthill would also be well used.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Thanks for the comments - at the very least I think an Irchester for Rushden station could have merit and I suspect Ampthill would also be well used.

On EMR Connect, from London, it's about 40 minutes to Bedford and 50 to Wellingborough
On Thameslink, it's about 1h to Bedford.

I think it's about 20 minutes from Bedford <-> Wellingborough on the slows (pre-pandemic there was an EMR IC that did this, about 8am from Derby, an ex-GC 2+6 HST with declassified first class)
Irchester might therefore be about 15 minutes from Bedford.

So as a passenger, I can take a Thameslink service and get to London in 1h 15 from Irchester, or I can drive to Wellingborough and potentially save 50 minutes each day on commuting. If I'm price-sensitive, I'm probably already driving to Bedford as it's *much* cheaper, and I am probably going to need a car because not much of Rushden is <1 mile from the probable station site. So for me, the only way this starts to make sense is if you completely infill the area Irchester and Rushden with housing right up to the A45 and Irchester Park.

The only other benefit I could think of is that by not terminating Thameslink services at Bedford, you get a bit more space and flexibility for EWR (either temporary during scheme delivery, or more permanent).

 

[bramling]

Now that the Midland Mainline has been four tracked past Kettering and Corby is on the network, would there be some benefit in extending Thameslink trains northwards to Corby. Peterborough is further north than Corby and has Thameslink trains.

And new stations at Ampthill and the Wixams, south of Bedford, and then Oakley (for Clapham), Sharnbrook, Irchester (for Rushden), Burton Latimer, and Corby South with stops on the slow lines.

All these settlements are quite sizeable and on other lines heading out of London might otherwise have stations.

May be pie in the sky but I think at the very least new stations at Ampthill and the Wixams, Irchester and Burton Latimer could work.

Looking at comparable stations on the East Coast Mainline like Arlesey, Sandy, Biggleswade etc, with two trains an hour one might expect to see usage figures at the following something in the order of:

Ampthill: 550,000
The Wixams: 750,000
Oakley: 200,000
Sharnbrook: 125,000
Irchester: 450,000
Burton Latimer: 300,000
Corby South: 300,000

I’m not sure what benefits you’d be hoping to achieve in practice.

If you’re saying that the existing Corby service will be replaced by TL, then you’re introducing significant unreliability to the service - as users on the Peterborough line have found to their eternal cost. Half-hourly Thameslink services are a disaster during disruption. Unless you’re proposing 4tph north of Bedford, but is there really the demand for that bearing in mind the current 2tph service seems to cope well enough?

Secondly Wellingborough and Kettering are already unhappy at their EMU service, which has generally led to a slower journey to London compared to what they had before - albeit with loads more capacity, though it seems people from these stations preferred what they had before. Further intermediate stations plus even more inferior trains aren’t going to be well received.

Wixams is going to happen anyway, and Ampthill probably could if there was a demand for it, but remember that part of the reason Ampthill closed in the first place is that it was poorly sited and with Flitwick just a stone’s throw away. If both these did happen then it would be logical for the stops to go in the existing Bedford TL services rather than Corby. If extra capacity was needed then I’d be more looking at extending the Luton TL terminators northwards, albeit this would run into issues with platform space at Bedford, which still runs on a layout virtually from the 1980s.

It wouldnt entirely surprise me if one day Corby does end up as part of TL, but I’d definitely be careful what I wished for. The current Corby service really is quite good, just needs longer trains in a few places, refurbish the 360s, and I’d take out the Luton call.

 

[A0]

Thanks for the comments - at the very least I think an Irchester for Rushden station could have merit and I suspect Ampthill would also be well used.

Ampthill no - it's only got a population of under 10k and Flitwick's close by. It's something that is being peddled by the, ahem, campaigners at BRTA/ERTA/ whatever they are calling themselves this week, despite the fact Ampthill Town Council have made it clear they don't support it.

Rushden / Irchester has some merit though - Wellingborough already has a population of 56k and is expanding hugely. Rushden is 32k and expanding and Higham Ferrers which neighbours Rushden is 9k and growing quickly.

 

[stevieinselby]

Now that the Midland Mainline has been four tracked past Kettering and Corby is on the network, would there be some benefit in extending Thameslink trains northwards to Corby. Peterborough is further north than Corby and has Thameslink trains.

And new stations at Ampthill and the Wixams, south of Bedford, and then Oakley (for Clapham), Sharnbrook, Irchester (for Rushden), Burton Latimer, and Corby South with stops on the slow lines.

All these settlements are quite sizeable and on other lines heading out of London might otherwise have stations.

May be pie in the sky but I think at the very least new stations at Ampthill and the Wixams, Irchester and Burton Latimer could work.

There are a number of downsides to extending existing Thameslink services from Bedford to Corby. I'm not sure what the upsides are supposed to be...

• Increased risk of disruption and poor reliability across a wide network
• Longer journey times for passengers from Corby and Kettering to London
• Overcrowding on services extended to Corby as they would be replacing 2 trains with 1
• You would need a minimum of 1 extra trainset for every 1tph extended to Corby and probably another 1 or 2 beyond that if you are adding more station stops – but the class 700 is no longer in production

I could certainly see potential for stations at Irchester & Rushden and Burton Latimer – and we know Wixams is likely to be going ahead in some form or other – but the other stations you suggest are only serving villages and realistically they are unlikely to attract enough passengers to justify the cost of building the station and the time penalty for the much greater number of passengers travelling from bigger towns, especially with other railheads nearby that are reasonably easily accessible.

 

[flitwickbeds]

we know Wixams is likely to be going ahead in some form or other

Construction has started.

 

[A S Leib]

The other Thameslink services which didn't regularly go through the core from the north (King's Cross – Cambridge services) were recently handed over to Great Northern, and I don't think the Littlehampton services (about as far from central London as Peterborough in rail mileage) have returned post-pandemic, so Thameslink to Corby would be going against the trend.

If the plan's having Thameslink regularly serving St. Pancras high level, what's the benefit; if through the core, is there the capacity, and where to? I know that Orpington Thameslink services have been cut back to a few peak Kentish Town and Luton services, but Corby – Orpington doesn't seem like a particularly good fit.

 

[AlastairFraser]

There are a number of downsides to extending existing Thameslink services from Bedford to Corby. I'm not sure what the upsides are supposed to be...

• Increased risk of disruption and poor reliability across a wide network
• Longer journey times for passengers from Corby and Kettering to London
• Overcrowding on services extended to Corby as they would be replacing 2 trains with 1
• You would need a minimum of 1 extra trainset for every 1tph extended to Corby and probably another 1 or 2 beyond that if you are adding more station stops – but the class 700 is no longer in production

I could certainly see potential for stations at Irchester & Rushden and Burton Latimer – and we know Wixams is likely to be going ahead in some form or other – but the other stations you suggest are only serving villages and realistically they are unlikely to attract enough passengers to justify the cost of building the station and the time penalty for the much greater number of passengers travelling from bigger towns, especially with other railheads nearby that are reasonably easily accessible.

I agree with you about the Corby extension including building the Irchester for Rushden/Burton Latimer stations, but maybe reviving the proposal to get Thameslink to Olney may be more feasible as well. Most of the trackbed is intact, only a few hundred metres of realignment needed around Turvey, plus a half mile stretch at the Olney end.

 

[A0]

I agree with you about the Corby extension including building the Irchester for Rushton/Burton Latimer stations, but maybe reviving the proposal to get Thameslink to Olney may be more feasible as well. Most of the trackbed is intact, only a few hundred metres of realignment needed around Turvey, plus a half mile stretch at the Olney end.

Rushton is a small village between Kettering & Corby and Burton Latimer is a village on the edge of Kettering - neither would benefit from an Irchester station. Can I suggest you consult a map?

In terms of Olney - no chance - and it's another of the ridiculous idiotic ERTA / BRTA campaigns though they want reinstatement of Bedford - Northampton, overlooking the fact that a Northampton - St P journey time would be absurdly slow and, Luton aside, doesn't provide any new links which are actually worthwhile. Plus despite your claim the track bed is "intact" the truth is not so simple. There is a bridge missing on the A428 at Turvey, the station area at Turvey has been built on, the trackbed from the edgde if Olney has gone with development all over it.

And just to add to that, Olney Town Council aren't supportive of a rail reinstatement, nor are Milton Keynes council (Olney's under MK Council), not least because the main travel fliw from Olney is to / from MK, not Bedford or Northampton.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Overcrowding on services extended to Corby as they would be replacing 2 trains with 1

To be fair, the original post talked about extending Thameslink (so I assumed as well as, not instead of EMR Connect). Maybe the idea is up to 4tph to Corby, although no idea who'd catch these additional and very slow services to London. Corby is one of the really bright spots in post-pandemic rail use as it's way above 2019 (see recent thread on ORR station usage stats), so I do hope we've seen the last of threads/posts that propose to mess it up.

reviving the proposal to get Thameslink to Olney may be more feasible

Olney has a population of about 12k so am interested to know if this idea to serve it with 8-12 Cl700s involves them weaving across the fast lines at Bedford North, or building a grade-separated junction.
At least given the current way we are doing things, all the current occupants of Elderswell Retirement Village will have passed on and won't need to be relocated.

 

[JonathanH]

Maybe the idea is up to 4tph to Corby, although no idea who'd catch these additional and very slow services to London.

Another platform would no doubt be needed to have 4tph to Corby. As it is, the current arrangements appear to cause an obstruction to through southbound trains.

 

[BankQuayLowLvl]

Rushton is a small village between Kettering & Corby and Burton Latimer is a village on the edge of Kettering - neither would benefit from an Irchester station. Can I suggest you consult a map?

Can I suggest that you give people the benefit of the doubt, rather than offering needlessly condescending corrections? It's perfectly clear to me that the above person was suggesting "Irchester for Rushden" & "Burton Latimer" as two separate stations.

 

[cle]

I read this as in addition to the EMR service, or potentially it drops to 1tph, the other to a wired Leicester.

I would say that if you had:
1tph TL - Corby
1tph TL - Kettering
1tph EMR Corby (drop Luton call)

you'd have a good mix of a fast service and connectivity. That said, I suspect everyone just wants to get to London quicker. Bedford might see more action after EWR. Luton AP always some demand.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Can I suggest that you give people the benefit of the doubt, rather than offering needlessly condescending corrections? It's perfectly clear to me that the above person was suggesting "Irchester for Rushden" & "Burton Latimer" as two separate stations.

Indeed, and thank you for correcting me.

 

[miklcct]

Now that the Midland Mainline has been four tracked past Kettering and Corby is on the network, would there be some benefit in extending Thameslink trains northwards to Corby. Peterborough is further north than Corby and has Thameslink trains.

And new stations at Ampthill and the Wixams, south of Bedford, and then Oakley (for Clapham), Sharnbrook, Irchester (for Rushden), Burton Latimer, and Corby South with stops on the slow lines.

All these settlements are quite sizeable and on other lines heading out of London might otherwise have stations.

May be pie in the sky but I think at the very least new stations at Ampthill and the Wixams, Irchester and Burton Latimer could work.

Looking at comparable stations on the East Coast Mainline like Arlesey, Sandy, Biggleswade etc, with two trains an hour one might expect to see usage figures at the following something in the order of:

Ampthill: 550,000
The Wixams: 750,000
Oakley: 200,000
Sharnbrook: 125,000
Irchester: 450,000
Burton Latimer: 300,000
Corby South: 300,000

Those closed stations should reopen, however, should be served by EMR Connect instead as a regional service.

 

[Bald Rick]

Now that the Midland Mainline has been four tracked past Kettering and Corby is on the network, would there be some benefit in extending Thameslink trains northwards to Corby. Peterborough is further north than Corby and has Thameslink trains.

It’s been looked at several times, and the answer is no, the disbenefits are quite significant, and the beenfits relatively minor.

Thanks for the comments - at the very least I think an Irchester for Rushden station could have merit and I suspect Ampthill would also be well used.

The issue with this is that whilst such new stations would generate traffic, they would also abstract passenegrs from existing stations. This is why you can not compare them to similar, existing stations on the ECML. As it happens I know someone from Irchester who commutes to London already, and they know many others who already do the same.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Rushton is a small village between Kettering & Corby and Burton Latimer is a village on the edge of Kettering - neither would benefit from an Irchester station. Can I suggest you consult a map?

In terms of Olney - no chance - and it's another of the ridiculous idiotic ERTA / BRTA campaigns though they want reinstatement of Bedford - Northampton, overlooking the fact that a Northampton - St P journey time would be absurdly slow and, Luton aside, doesn't provide any new links which are actually worthwhile. Plus despite your claim the track bed is "intact" the truth is not so simple. There is a bridge missing on the A428 at Turvey, the station area at Turvey has been built on, the trackbed from the edgde if Olney has gone with development all over it.

And just to add to that, Olney Town Council aren't supportive of a rail reinstatement, nor are Milton Keynes council (Olney's under MK Council), not least because the main travel fliw from Olney is to / from MK, not Bedford or Northampton.

1.) Mistake corrected.
2.) I recognise Bedford to Northampton isn't feasible sadly due to the disposal of the trackbed in the Northampton area. Olney is however a sizeable town of its own, with a large prosperous commuting population heading into London. If you wish to nitpick, yes there is a missing bridge at Turvey, a slight diversion would be needed around the retirement home that I already mentioned, and you'd need to build half a mile of new alignment to a parkway station further out of Olney (which again I mentioned.) That is not really a major issue.
3.) If Olney doesn't want a link towards Luton, London and the multitude of connections at St Pancras, fair enough.
Yes, links into MK are more dominant, but you're going to be forever stuck with the bus unless interurban light rail systems ever become properly popular again in this country. There's no real room for a heavy rail line east from MK (you could convert the path to Newport Pagnell, but you're not going to get further east easily).
And the bus can't sustain more than an hourly frequency into MK either, so clearly isn't a particularly favourable option for the locals.

Olney has a population of about 12k so am interested to know if this idea to serve it with 8-12 Cl700s involves them weaving across the fast lines at Bedford North, or building a grade-separated junction.
At least given the current way we are doing things, all the current occupants of Elderswell Retirement Village will have passed on and won't need to be relocated.

Thank you for highlighting the junction issues, this issue is something that definitely requires more thought. Although Olney could easily additionally serve as a parkway station for those heading to Luton Airport from Northampton/MK and further afield, who want to avoid the congested M1 and expensive parking charges at the airport itself + nearby stations.
As for the retirement village, it doesn't need a huge diversion to route around it (you'd move the line about 50 metres east for around 500m max), so it's not a huge issue. Many of the railway reopenings we are exploring

 

[InTheEastMids]

Although Olney could easily additionally serve as a parkway station for those heading to Luton Airport from Northampton/MK and further afield, who want to avoid the congested M1 and expensive parking charges at the airport itself + nearby stations.

Forgetting about the economics of it all I think if people were absolutely determined to get Olney onto the rail network, surely you'd build a branch line off the WCML north of Wolverton.
MK is the centre of gravity of the region and has much better rail connections to London than Bedford.

MK did not exist when these railways were closed, let along when the routes were planned (and were in a lot of cases planned for agricultural/mineral goods)
So, ignoring MK's existence and letting Victorians decide where new railways should go in the 21st century doesn't make sense to me.

 

[William3000]

It’s been looked at several times, and the answer is no, the disbenefits are quite significant, and the beenfits relatively minor.



The issue with this is that whilst such new stations would generate traffic, they would also abstract passenegrs from existing stations. This is why you can not compare them to similar, existing stations on the ECML. As it happens I know someone from Irchester who commutes to London already, and they know many others who already do the same.

Elsewhere the extraction is usually minor and actually encourages rail use between the new station and the station that one might have expected abstraction to have taken place. Cambridge North may have taken some traffic from Cambridge but also enabled additional travel between Cambridge and Cambridge North

 

[A0]

Forgetting about the economics of it all I think if people were absolutely determined to get Olney onto the rail network, surely you'd build a branch line off the WCML north of Wolverton.
MK is the centre of gravity of the region and has much better rail connections to London than Bedford.

MK did not exist when these railways were closed, let along when the routes were planned (and were in a lot of cases planned for agricultural/mineral goods)
So, ignoring MK's existence and letting Victorians decide where new railways should go in the 21st century doesn't make sense to me.

Correct on Olney - but the terrain is not exactly sympathetic for such a line.

On MK - absolutely - which is why I fail to understand so many of the reopening "campaigns" - we see it on so many, where the answer seems to be "but there used to be a railway there ergo put one there today and it will be used" - but often the Victorian alignments were sub optimal and relatively slow - Bedford - Northampton is a case in point as is Buxton - Matlock. If people really want to build new railways, they should start by looking at current maps and traffic flows, nor railway atlases of 100 years ago.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Can anyone clarify what is meant by by Corby South? The development in the area is low-density suburban housing around cul-de-sacs and so on. The rail line and A43 Corby Bypass form a significant barrier to further development to one side.
The residential road network is hardly suitable for access from wider Corby, potential large scale car parking, etc. The car parking issue is a pity because the existing Corby station is grossly under-provided and probably acting as a significant suppressant to some rail journeys. Fortunately Corby has lots of taxis.
With the current Corby having around 500,000 trips per year, 300,000 additional from a ‘South’ in one corner, not next to employment or retail, is a high expectation.

 

[Magdalia]

Elsewhere the extraction is usually minor and actually encourages rail use between the new station and the station that one might have expected abstraction to have taken place. Cambridge North may have taken some traffic from Cambridge but also enabled additional travel between Cambridge and Cambridge North

The Cambridge North example is very different from your Midland Main Line suggestions.

Cambridge North is a destination station with large employment and education establishments nearby, and Cambridge is a City with major road congestion issues.

Neither of those factors apply for your Midland Main Line suggestions, though one might apply at Wixams in future.

Elsewhere abstraction is usually minor because, at locations where abstraction would be significant, new stations usually don't get built.

A more relevant comparison is going to be what happens when Beaulieu Park is opened and how much traffic it abstracts from Chelmsford.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Forgetting about the economics of it all I think if people were absolutely determined to get Olney onto the rail network, surely you'd build a branch line off the WCML north of Wolverton.
MK is the centre of gravity of the region and has much better rail connections to London than Bedford.

MK did not exist when these railways were closed, let along when the routes were planned (and were in a lot of cases planned for agricultural/mineral goods)
So, ignoring MK's existence and letting Victorians decide where new railways should go in the 21st century doesn't make sense to me.

The problem is that we can't forget about the economics, and even if you momentarily did, which service would you extend off the WCML (because it will always be very congested).
If MK ever gets a light rail system, Olney may be a decent terminus, but that's probably decades away (and you'd need to double density in a lot of areas to make it viable).

 

[InTheEastMids]

The problem is that we can't forget about the economics,

Exactly. I perhaps I wasn't direct enough but I'm sure economics has to absolutely go out of the window to build any rail link, of any kind to Olney from any direction, including the MML as posts #13 and #22 seemed to propose.

The residential road network is hardly suitable for access from wider Corby, potential large scale car parking, etc. The car parking issue is a pity because the existing Corby station is grossly under-provided and probably acting as a significant suppressant to some rail journeys

Agree, I think if residential development of Corby continues then it will continue to catch up the Wel/Key/MH. I think the access from the A427 is ok but agree the car park will need expansion, hopefully the empty land immediately North of the station building could be/has been acquired for this purpose

 

[AlastairFraser]

Exactly. I perhaps I wasn't direct enough but I'm sure economics has to absolutely go out of the window to build any rail link, of any kind to Olney from any direction, including the MML as posts #13 and #22 seemed to propose.

I don't know that it has to. You could take Community Infrastructure Levy contributions to build a station in the Bromham area if that improved patronage projections, there's a **** load of housing going up in the western part of Bedford and congestion is hell.