Melton to Nottingham using new route at the northern end

[70014IronDuke]

Some years (10? 15?) ago I remember talk of possibly reopening the route north of Melton Mowbray using the former Old Dalby test track. Then, because the old Midland route into the city has been blocked by housing and road development, the proposal was into Nottingham via a new route near Cotgrave onto the Grantham - Nottingham line near Radcliffe. This development would have allowed slower Norwich-Liverpool DMUs to run via Oakham and avoid the GN main line from Peterboro to Grantham.

Was this ever a serious proposal (and if so, what happened) or just crayonista stuff of dreams?

 

[edwin_m]

There was an official-ish strategy published around 2001, local councils I think so not a body with any formal role in the railway. I think the idea was to connect the Great Central to the old Cotgrave Colliery branch to give an alternative route from just south of Loughborough into Nottingham avoiding the congested Trent junctions and the western approach to Midland station.

 

[Western Lord]

Who needs a link to Nottingham Midland? Re-open the Old Dalby line, build a new station at its northern end adjacent to the A52 ("Nottingham South Parkway") and run trains to London via Melton, Oakham and Corby!

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Some years (10? 15?) ago I remember talk of possibly reopening the route north of Melton Mowbray using the former Old Dalby test track. Then, because the old Midland route into the city has been blocked by housing and road development, the proposal was into Nottingham via a new route near Cotgrave onto the Grantham - Nottingham line near Radcliffe. This development would have allowed slower Norwich-Liverpool DMUs to run via Oakham and avoid the GN main line from Peterboro to Grantham.

Was this ever a serious proposal (and if so, what happened) or just crayonista stuff of dreams?

It was proposed again in November 2017, where it was suggested that the line could reopen to a new South Parkway station in Nottingham in Edwalton where a tramway Extension would meet the terminus there.

 

[edwin_m]

People who are driving or willing to spend half an hour on a tram shuttle will have a much quicker London option in 2033. A line terminating at Edwalton would be a solution in need of a problem.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Who needs a link to Nottingham Midland? Re-open the Old Dalby line, build a new station at its northern end adjacent to the A52 ("Nottingham South Parkway") and run trains to London via Melton, Oakham and Corby!

That would be useful to serve the estate south of Nottingham and could give Melton Mowbray and Oakham a regular London service.

 

[edwin_m]

That would be useful to serve the estate south of Nottingham and could give Melton Mowbray and Oakham a regular London service.

With limited paths available south of Bedford it would be a replacement for an existing service, not additional. Unless perhaps it was an extended Corby working, which would be very slow and need a bi-mode instead of an EMU.

 

[70014IronDuke]

There was an official-ish strategy published around 2001, local councils I think so not a body with any formal role in the railway. I think the idea was to connect the Great Central to the old Cotgrave Colliery branch to give an alternative route from just south of Loughborough into Nottingham avoiding the congested Trent junctions and the western approach to Midland station.

So, the idea was to use the Edwalton test track, then onto to the former GC trackbed, then to the Cotgrave Colliery branch, then onto the Grantham - Nottingham line?
(I assume you are not saying they would go via the junction south of Loughborough onto the GC?)

 

[70014IronDuke]

That would be useful to serve the estate south of Nottingham and could give Melton Mowbray and Oakham a regular London service.

Oakham and Melton Mowbray are tiny places (in terms of needing a direct London service). That's why the closed the line to passenger traffic in the first place. In any case, Melton traffic can go to Leicester and change, ditto the (much smaller) Oakham traffic can go via Peterborough. It's a shame, but there it is. Had Oakham been the size of Leicester, or had there been a decent-sized town at Old Dalby (ie on the Melton - Nottingham Midland section) it probably would have survived.

Having said all that, I'm still surprised that they allowed the closure of Corby back in '67. (or 68?). It could have been at least partially integrated into the Bedford - St Pancras DMU service at peak times, and a shuttle to Kettering or Bedford outside the peak. Or some such.

But in any case, this thread is about the seiousness or otherwise of the developments proposed at the northern end of the Old Dalby line to reroute the Norwich-Liverpools off the GN.

 

[70014IronDuke]

With limited paths available south of Bedford it would be a replacement for an existing service, not additional. Unless perhaps it was an extended Corby working, which would be very slow and need a bi-mode instead of an EMU.

And more or less negate the whole point of putting up wires to Corby!

 

[edwin_m]

So, the idea was to use the Edwalton test track, then onto to the former GC trackbed, then to the Cotgrave Colliery branch, then onto the Grantham - Nottingham line?
(I assume you are not saying they would go via the junction south of Loughborough onto the GC?)

I think (it was a while ago) Edwalton was not involved or was secondary. The main proposal was to run via the GC connection at Loughborough (or perhaps a faster realigned version) then build new from somewhere south of Ruddington across to somewhere north of Cotgrave.

 

[Rob F]

I don’t think the GC was involved at all. The speculative plan was a new line to link the ex MR Melton to Nottingham line to the remains of the Cotgrave Colliery branch and then into Nottingham via Netherfield.

 

[30907]

Having said all that, I'm still surprised that they allowed the closure of Corby back in '67. (or 68?)

Corby was a self contained steelworks town, and in the 1958 timetable its only weekday express passenger in the down direction was a Friday night service to Glasgow (with no balancing working apparently, though I might have missed it). Oddly enough there were a couple of decent up trains!

 

[Merthyr Imp]

I don’t think the GC was involved at all. The speculative plan was a new line to link the ex MR Melton to Nottingham line to the remains of the Cotgrave Colliery branch and then into Nottingham via Netherfield.

Yes, according to the book 'Rail Centres: Nottingham' by Michael A. Vanns, published by Ian Allan in 1993:

'The most ambitious local Regional Railways project for the next century...is to link the Cotgrave Colliery branch with the former Midland Railway's Nottingham - Melton Mowbray line just north of Stanton Tunnel south of Normanton-on-the-Wolds.'

A quick glance at as basic map suggests around five miles of new line would have been necessary.

 

[MarkyT]

Yes, according to the book 'Rail Centres: Nottingham' by Michael A. Vanns, published by Ian Allan in 1993:

'The most ambitious local Regional Railways project for the next century...is to link the Cotgrave Colliery branch with the former Midland Railway's Nottingham - Melton Mowbray line just north of Stanton Tunnel south of Normanton-on-the-Wolds.'

A quick glance at as basic map suggests around five miles of new line would have been necessary.

Something like this perhaps:

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Something like this perhaps:
View attachment 52343

This would mean if it ever did reopen it would still be possible to link it with Nottingham allowing a second London-Nottingham Route with the possibility of extending it to the East Midlands Hub (and beyond to Chesterfield and Sheffield).

 

[70014IronDuke]

I think (it was a while ago) Edwalton was not involved or was secondary. The main proposal was to run via the GC connection at Loughborough (or perhaps a faster realigned version) then build new from somewhere south of Ruddington across to somewhere north of Cotgrave.

Honestly, I think that's a non-starter - combining the worst of all (relevant) worlds. It would mean a long, time-consuming deviation, expensive new track at the northern end, and no stopping at Loughborough - the one place which would generate some extra traffic.

If you have to take these trains off the GN, the easiest and by far the cheapest way (in terms of avoiding earthworks) would be to take the journey-time hit and divert via Loughboro, stopping there.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Something like this perhaps:
View attachment 52343

Thanks for the map. Nothing like as fast as the old route through Edwalton, but still much faster than going via Syston and Loughborough, and avoiding the reversal at Nottingham. You would lose the Grantham stop, of course, which must generate some passengers. You could introduce a stop at Melton, which might attract a some new passengers to partially compensate.
Anyway, I suppose they've managed to find paths for these trains on the GN and/or the cost of installing a Cotgrave diversion is astronomical compared to the returns - so the idea has died a death.

 

[edwin_m]

Honestly, I think that's a non-starter - combining the worst of all (relevant) worlds. It would mean a long, time-consuming deviation, expensive new track at the northern end, and no stopping at Loughborough - the one place which would generate some extra traffic.

If you have to take these trains off the GN, the easiest and by far the cheapest way (in terms of avoiding earthworks) would be to take the journey-time hit and divert via Loughboro, stopping there.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. The proposal I described was primarily to provide an alternative route for London-Nottingham trains. With HS2 planned to carry many of the London-Nottingham passengers (though not, I contend, all of them) there is little need for such a route now.

I agree several miles of new route from the Melton line would be a sledgehammer to crack the nut of getting the Norwich trains off the Peterborough-Grantham section. This is any any case four-tracked south of Stoke Tunnel. HS2 will remove the fast Leeds trains in 2033 so ECML capacity may be less under pressure. If extra capacity is still needed, measures such as making better use of the three-track layout north of Stoke and provide grade separation south of Grantham and north of Peterborough would be far cheaper than building several miles of new line which would only benefit an hourly service.

 

[70014IronDuke]

This would mean if it ever did reopen it would still be possible to link it with Nottingham allowing a second London-Nottingham Route with the possibility of extending it to the East Midlands Hub (and beyond to Chesterfield and Sheffield).

You really are fascinated by the idea of a second route to Nottingham and Sheffield, aren't you? But look at the map and route shown by MarkyT. If this Cotgrave connection were to be made, it looks to be a very slow approach to Nottingham, giving a time penalty versus the Derby route. You would also have the horrible expense of making Corby- to near Colwick 125 mph where possible. And for what? Yes, you could drum up a bit of traffic with a good service from Corby/Oakham/Melton, but this would make schedules totally uncompetitive vis-a-vis the Derby (or Erewash Valley) routes - AND you would lose serving the city of Leicester into the bargain.

On top of all this, as others have pointed out, there are no paths south of Bedford for a new EMT service.

The back road via Melton was lovely to go on - still is over Harringworth wth diversions - but, alas, it was closed for a reason: viz, the Leicester-Derby route serves far more people, for far less infrastructure, and Nottingham can still be served to boot.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. The proposal I described was primarily to provide an alternative route for London-Nottingham trains. With HS2 planned to carry many of the London-Nottingham passengers (though not, I contend, all of them) there is little need for such a route now. ....

Yes. Understood now. Agree almost 100% (especially assuming HS2 is built with Toton station) - I do wonder, if another service could have been made to help justify the costs, whether a new link via Cotgrave could have ever been justified. With HS2 and improvements to the GN, it's a dead duck now.

 

[MarkyT]

I agree several miles of new route from the Melton line would be a sledgehammer to crack the nut of getting the Norwich trains off the Peterborough-Grantham section. This is any any case four-tracked south of Stoke Tunnel. HS2 will remove the fast Leeds trains in 2033 so ECML capacity may be less under pressure. If extra capacity is still needed, measures such as making better use of the three-track layout north of Stoke and provide grade separation south of Grantham and north of Peterborough would be far cheaper than building several miles of new line which would only benefit an hourly service.

Via Melton Mowbray would also be slower than Grantham, and miss Grantham itself. The junction conflicts at each end of the ECML sprint are not ideal, but I agree could probably be improved to a degree at much smaller cost. One very useful measure would be an additional platform at Grantham, so a Peterborough bound train could wait in the station for a path without blocking the way for a Nottingham bound train. With no intermediate stations on the ECML section, performance relative to London expresses is not a big problem and might be improved with more modern stock.

A Grantham suggestion:

 

[70014IronDuke]

Corby was a self contained steelworks town, and in the 1958 timetable its only weekday express passenger in the down direction was a Friday night service to Glasgow (with no balancing working apparently, though I might have missed it). Oddly enough there were a couple of decent up trains!

Quite shocking when you think of it! What was the population in 58, I wonder? 20,000 or so? Not huge, but not tiny either.

 

[thatapanydude]

I'm not quite sure why this has received a negative response, a link to the cotgrave branch from the old Melton line would massively reduce journey times from Melton and Oakham to Nottingham (around 50 mins currently). Demand from Melton is there for a direct Nottingham service and would certainly increase if a reliable service was introduced taking traffic from congested roads (e.g. A606 and A52) onto trains.

Furthermore, the Peterborough to Nottingham service could use this line, releasing additional paths on the ECML and serving more local flows such as Stamford to Peterborough. (Grantham to Notts would still be served by the Notts to Skegness also P'boro to Grantham would be served by the faster LNER services)

I also think a Kettering to Nottingham service could be created, calling at Corby, Oakham, Melton, Cotgrave, Neverfield and Nottingham. Giving the MML and Corby additional connectivity to the Midlands, even if slower.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not quite sure why this has received a negative response, a link to the cotgrave branch from the old Melton line would massively reduce journey times from Melton and Oakham to Nottingham (around 50 mins currently). Demand from Melton is there for a direct Nottingham service and would certainly increase if a reliable service was introduced taking traffic from congested roads (e.g. A606 and A52) onto trains.

Furthermore, the Peterborough to Nottingham service could use this line, releasing additional paths on the ECML and serving more local flows such as Stamford to Peterborough. (Grantham to Notts would still be served by the Notts to Skegness also P'boro to Grantham would be served by the faster LNER services)

I also think a Kettering to Nottingham service could be created, calling at Corby, Oakham, Melton, Cotgrave, Neverfield and Nottingham. Giving the MML and Corby additional connectivity to the Midlands, even if slower.

There is one direct train from Melton to Nottingham (the Sleaford-Peterborough shuttle returning to depot at night) that takes 46min, so not much quicker than the bus service which takes between 45min and 55min depending on time of day. The bus service has recently been reduced and is now six one way daily and five the other. It's one of the few places where a normal stage bus is time-competitive with a train, probably because the train takes such an indirect route and the road is relatively uncongested. But driving is likely to be quicker still.

So I can't see there being huge demand between Melton and Nottingham. Maybe enough to stop an hourly train if a suitable service existed already, but not enough to justify building several miles of new line.

 

[thatapanydude]

There is one direct train from Melton to Nottingham (the Sleaford-Peterborough shuttle returning to depot at night) that takes 46min, so not much quicker than the bus service which takes between 45min and 55min depending on time of day. The bus service has recently been reduced and is now six one way daily and five the other. It's one of the few places where a normal stage bus is time-competitive with a train, probably because the train takes such an indirect route and the road is relatively uncongested. But driving is likely to be quicker still.

I disagree with your point that using the car would be quicker, considering the fact that it takes circa 25 mins from Melton to Stamford covering 24 miles and considering the distance from Melton to Notts via Cotgrave would be just over 20 miles, I cant see how we wouldn't have a Melton to Notts service at max 30 mins and under (that's optimistic it could easily be 25 mins even pushing to 20 mins). Certainly faster than the 45 mins or so taking the car.

A fast service like that would definitely increase demand to at least hourly. I get that the prohivative part is the Cotgrave link but at only 5 miles or so (even if single line), I can't see why this hasn't been looked into more.

 

[edwin_m]

I disagree with your point that using the car would be quicker, considering the fact that it takes circa 25 mins from Melton to Stamford covering 24 miles and considering the distance from Melton to Notts via Cotgrave would be just over 20 miles, I cant see how we wouldn't have a Melton to Notts service at max 30 mins and under (that's optimistic it could easily be 25 mins even pushing to 20 mins). Certainly faster than the 45 mins or so taking the car.

A fast service like that would definitely increase demand to at least hourly. I get that the prohivative part is the Cotgrave link but at only 5 miles or so (even if single line), I can't see why this hasn't been looked into more.

I think I'm now the one getting mixed up between the different proposals on here - yes via Cotgrave would be quicker than via Syston. But a flow that only justifies six single-deck buses per day is still going to struggle to justify a major piece of construction work to support an hourly train.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm not quite sure why this has received a negative response, a link to the cotgrave branch from the old Melton line would massively reduce journey times from Melton and Oakham to Nottingham (around 50 mins currently). Demand from Melton is there for a direct Nottingham service and would certainly increase if a reliable service was introduced taking traffic from congested roads (e.g. A606 and A52) onto trains.

If the aim is to provide better journey opportunities from Melton to Nottingham, you could do that by going to half-hourly between Melton and Leicester and making sure there are good connections at Leicester. Or if you want to be more ambitious, sort out linespeeds on the Leicester-Nottingham stoppers (not sure why they currently have such long journey times?), increase those to half hourly, and provide good connections to/from Melton Mowbray at Syston. Those improvements would benefit many times as many people for - I'm guessing - a fairly similar or even smaller cost than opening a direct Melton-Nottingham line.

 

[MarkyT]

If the aim is to provide better journey opportunities from Melton to Nottingham, you could do that by going to half-hourly between Melton and Leicester and making sure there are good connections at Leicester. Or if you want to be more ambitious, sort out linespeeds on the Leicester-Nottingham stoppers (not sure why they currently have such long journey times?), increase those to half hourly, and provide good connections to/from Melton Mowbray at Syston. Those improvements would benefit many times as many people for - I'm guessing - a fairly similar or even smaller cost than opening a direct Melton-Nottingham line.

Syston might be developed as a Leicester North parkway and interchange station, with new access from the A46 roundabout via Glebe Way. It might then justify the XC calls on the Melton line and perhaps even some London services. A new island platform arrangement on the relief side might be considered to facilitate interchange, if the existing single bidirectional platform couldn't cope. I understand the area is intended to be remodelled at some point for freight capacity.

 

[edwin_m]

Syston might be developed as a Leicester North parkway and interchange station, with new access from the A46 roundabout via Glebe Way. It might then justify the XC calls on the Melton line and perhaps even some London services. A new island platform arrangement on the relief side might be considered to facilitate interchange, if the existing single bidirectional platform couldn't cope. I understand the area is intended to be remodelled at some point for freight capacity.

Restoration of the fourth track is on the cards at some point. The current platform was built on its formation so will have to be replaced when that happens, and the bridge to the south means a side platform in the existing car park and the Down Slow platform between it and the Up Fast. Platforms on the Fast would require moving of the crossover that currently occupies the site. There's a bit of land to extend the car park northwards but the site is otherwise surrounded by housing. For those reasons and because of the relatively poor performance of the nearby East Midlands Parkway I think it's unlikely Syston would get anything more than the minimum to accommodate layout changes.