• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The impact of the new EMR timetable on journeys from Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough to London

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bob Buckler

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2018
Messages
16
Only obvious way would be to replace the bridge with a double track span. Which means £££ (and a maintenance liability of having a crossover on a bridge deck).

Seems like gold plating for something of relatively limited additional benefit as @Bald Rick spells out above.
Might have been possible to move everything nearer to Wellingborough.
The crossover between the slow lines could have been just to the north of the recently replaced Irthlingborough Road bridge.
It would be on a curve, but not much worse than it is at present.
Too late now!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
The 4th line between Kettering and Sharnbrook was re-instated. All 4 lines North of Bedford have been electrified. These works must have represented a significant element of the costs of 'Electrifying to Corby'.
Down Corby trains could cross to the slow lines at Sharnbrook or even go S/L from bedford - no need for a ladder at Wellingborough S.
But presumably the reason they don't is the linespeed on the slow lines - below 100mph.
So my naive question is - why was all the work done on the slow lines?
Although they do improve freight capacity, there is no improvement North of Glendon (and at Corby we now have a passenger train standing at Corby for much of each half hour) so any bottleneck is just moved Northwards. And electric freight haulage would require bi-modes further North.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Might have been possible to move everything nearer to Wellingborough.
The crossover between the slow lines could have been just to the north of the recently replaced Irthlingborough Road bridge.
It would be on a curve, but not much worse than it is at present.
Too late now!

Suspect the Fasts and Slows have different levels of cant applied to them, so you have to wait until the straight section before you can get a crossover between them (without absolutely hammering the line speed), and that sets the rest.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
So my naive question is - why was all the work done on the slow lines?
One naive answer would be that it allows a greater frequency to run when there is engineering work on the fast lines given the increase in expectations from travellers that the increased frequency engenders. The fast lines potentially need more attention with the increase in service.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
One naive answer would be that it allows a greater frequency to run when there is engineering work on the fast lines given the increase in expectations from travellers that the increased frequency engenders. The fast lines potentially need more attention with the increase in service.

Plus an element of doing such enhancements at the same time as electrification, rather than not doing them and having to change everything later.

Plus, weren't the Slows doubled first and then used to divert trains whilst the Fasts were wired?
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
So why was money spent on restoring Plat 3 if it was only going to see limited service (just the 3 late evening services are booked to use it on RTT unless I missed something) in normal times?
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
So why was money spent on restoring Plat 3 if it was only going to see limited service (just the 3 late evening services are booked to use it on RTT unless I missed something) in normal times?

Because otherwise this forum would be endlessly complaining about how not restoring it was "stupid", "short-sighted" or a "mistake".

Plus the actual timetable was not known at the design stage, and never good to rule out choices when the extra cost is relatively marginal (I.e. the track alignment would have to at least passively provide for the platform, so may as well build it whilst you're at it)
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,910
Location
Hope Valley
Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
The 4th line between Kettering and Sharnbrook was re-instated. All 4 lines North of Bedford have been electrified. These works must have represented a significant element of the costs of 'Electrifying to Corby'.
Down Corby trains could cross to the slow lines at Sharnbrook or even go S/L from bedford - no need for a ladder at Wellingborough S.
But presumably the reason they don't is the linespeed on the slow lines - below 100mph.
So my naive question is - why was all the work done on the slow lines?
Although they do improve freight capacity, there is no improvement North of Glendon (and at Corby we now have a passenger train standing at Corby for much of each half hour) so any bottleneck is just moved Northwards. And electric freight haulage would require bi-modes further North.
I may be missing your point but the Corby line has been doubled north of Glendon. Along with the re-doubling of Manton Junction some while ago there are now continuous Up and Down 'slow lines' all the way from Trent to London. A northbound freight can closely follow a northbound Corby terminator as it switches to the opposite line at Corby.

I thought that there was an electrified turn back siding just north of Corby that a passenger train can be shunted into (ECS) if it is booked to stand for an unduly long time before returning south.
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
Because otherwise this forum would be endlessly complaining about how not restoring it was "stupid", "short-sighted" or a "mistake".

Plus the actual timetable was not known at the design stage, and never good to rule out choices when the extra cost is relatively marginal (I.e. the track alignment would have to at least passively provide for the platform, so may as well build it whilst you're at it)
Platform 3 already existed, and was use once daily for an up peak service, and also during engineering work. It was very short (ca 5 cars) because of the intrusion of the Northampton bay at the S end (lifted ca 1965). Platform 4 still existed, too, (although with no track alongside it) but was completely removed and replaced.
But platform 3 (extended to 12 cars, like the others) can only be used by a down train that has run on the slow lines from Sharnbrook.

Plus, weren't the Slows doubled first and then used to divert trains whilst the Fasts were wired?

Didn't see that; the Up Slow only came into use very recently.
The slow lines have always been used during Sunday engineering work.

One naive answer would be that it allows a greater frequency to run when there is engineering work on the fast lines given the increase in expectations from travellers that the increased frequency engenders. The fast lines potentially need more attention with the increase in service.

But the low line speed on the slow line Bedford-Wellingborough (at least) would handicap frequency when trains are diverted from the fast lines.

I don't criticise the rebuilding of Wellingborough with 12 car platforms on all lines. My point really was; the slows were re-instated and electrified but did not have an increase in line speed, seems to be only 2 out of the 3 essentials Isn't increasing the line speed after all this work has been done quite difficult? Of course, depends how much 'future-proofing' was built in, but if the line speed is limited by alignment that would be better corrected as part of the re-opening of the line, surely.

I may be missing your point but the Corby line has been doubled north of Glendon. Along with. the re-doubling of Manton Junction some while ago there are now continuous Up and Down 'slow lines' all the way from Trent to London. A northbound freight can closely follow a northbound Corby terminator as it switches to the opposite line at Corby.

I thought that there was an electrified turn back siding just north of Corby that a passenger train can be shunted into (ECS) if it is booked to stand for an unduly long time before returning south.

I was mainly referring to the direct route to Leicester. The Manton line does indeed provide a slow line Glendon to Syston, but it's a bit of a long way round for poor old freight, and might transfer occupancy problems to Manton - Syston - which has freight to the E Coast ports and XC coming in/out at Manton from Peterborough
.
I thought there was a policy to have the passenger service in the platform while it was at Corby; there's such an arrangement at St Pancras but there's a lot more passengers there!. Sometimes using the ex GC HST from Corby in the evenings, this certainly did scuttle off to the turn back siding if there was a freight about.
As an aside, there used to be a long low speed slack North of Harringworth viaduct (I suspect embankment slip). Is this still there?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Because the slows are predominantly used by freight, it’s entirely possible that the alignment is designed to suit freight speeds - other wise yu D be replacing the low rail very frequently!
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
There is the option of swapping to slows at various places to enable the faster train to overtake - I have seen this done between in the last few days.
Pleased to hear that this is an actively pursued option. It's easy to think that the MML has just become the Thameslink main line sometimes.
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
3,223
Problem there is that the route carries 4 trains per hour via Leicester (in normal time) plus two to Corby in the new timetable. It's unlikely it could run any more due to capacity issues on Thameslink, so 2TPH London-Leicester would mean halving the service to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield.
And also lack of platforms at St. Pancras, see thread "St. Pancras, no room at the Inn".
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
If they wired to Leicester could they have 2tph EMU stopper to Corby and Leicester splitting at Kettering with the fasts going non stop to Leicester?
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
If they wired to Leicester could they have 2tph EMU stopper to Corby and Leicester splitting at Kettering with the fasts going non stop to Leicester?
There has been comprehensive discussion on that point recently in the speculative ideas forum - the broad answer is no, even after electrification.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/emr-bedford-to-leeds.217252/page-2#post-5134930
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/suggestions-for-improving-mml-services.213894/#post-4980590
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
Thank you for the replies to my question, I understand now.

My misconception was because I envisaged, when electrification and re-doubling of the slow lines North of Bedford was announced, that the Corby services would run on them - basically, an extension of Thameslink.
I'm not sure whether this was the original intention, but it's not how it worked out but it's provided an increase in capacity for freight, with the Corbys remaining on the fasts over Sharnbrook.
Because the slows are predominantly used by freight, it’s entirely possible that the alignment is designed to suit freight speeds - other wise yu D be replacing the low rail very frequently!

This clearly explains why increasing the line speed would actually be counter-productive, thank you.

I also think that the slow line electrification was a stroke of good luck - don't know how it got past the 'razor gang'. The former goods lines follow the 'Wymington diversion' and are some distance from the fast lines there, and where the two lines are close together there is a height difference *(apart from at Sharnbrook Jct). This means that the overhead line infrastructure for that line is completely independent of that on the fast and so there is no economy from doing the two together (though I realise power supply is a different matter) - it's not a case of a 2 track gantry vs a 4 track one.
With Didcot - Oxford and to Bristol T.M. electrification being postponed (after considerable work had been done), to me it's amazing that a route is electrified for flexibility alone - it could have been 'binned' without direct downside. Phew!
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The former goods lines follow the 'Wymington diversion' and are some distance from the fast lines there, and where the two lines are close together there is a height difference *(apart from at Sharnbrook Jct). This means that the overhead line infrastructure for that line is completely independent of that on the fast and so there is no economy from doing the two together (though I realise power supply is a different matter) - it's not a case of a 2 track gantry vs a 4 track one.
Normal practice these days is to electrify four-track routes with twin-track cantilevers from either side - most of GWML did this and the new MML electrification does it too, only much more elegantly.
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
Because the slows are predominantly used by freight, it’s entirely possible that the alignment is designed to suit freight speeds - other wise yu D be replacing the low rail very frequently!

But they are predominantly used by freight because the Corbies are run fast line! (There must be a Greek word for this type of argument.)

If the Corbies were routed over the slows, we'd have a different case.

I agree with Merle - I was indeed pondering this just the other day - it's amazing slectrification of the slows, and indeed four-track replacement, got past the bean counters, although I'm glad it did.

I predict in any case that within 20 years there will be two, possibly three new stations opened up between Bedford and Wellingboro, and the Corbies will split at Bedford, with the rear four cars running Slow lines to Wellingboro and stopping at Bedford North-Oakley and Irchester.

And before some Mod comes along with red ink, this is a prediction, not speculation. :)
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
But they are predominantly used by freight because the Corbies are run fast line! (There must be a Greek word for this type of argument.)

If the Corbies were routed over the slows, we'd have a different case.

Why would you run the Corbies on the Slows when they fit in a structured timetable on the Fasts?

I agree with Merle - I was indeed pondering this just the other day - it's amazing slectrification of the slows, and indeed four-track replacement, got past the bean counters, although I'm glad it did.

I predict in any case that within 20 years there will be two, possibly three new stations opened up between Bedford and Wellingboro, and the Corbies will split at Bedford, with the rear four cars running Slow lines to Wellingboro and stopping at Bedford North-Oakley and Irchester.

If those stations do materialise, then it's a chance to review the Slow Line speed and re-temp/re-cant accordingly. That's not the biggest deal to change over a span of 20 years.

What you don't do is compromise the railway speed and maintainablity today for stations that may or may not see the light of day.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
But they are predominantly used by freight because the Corbies are run fast line! (There must be a Greek word for this type of argument.)

The freight was there already (and, possibly, the track aligned to suit), the Corbys weren’t.
 

gaillark

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2013
Messages
212
A colleague of mine lives in Wellingborough.
The new service has been terrible from day 1, Very frequent cancellations, short forms, gaps in service for 1.5 hours. Not the reliable service it once was nor is it what was promised.


Dreadful service from East Midlands Railway.

He regrets moving to Wellingborough.
 

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
1,369
A colleague of mine lives in Wellingborough.
The new service has been terrible from day 1, Very frequent cancellations, short forms, gaps in service for 1.5 hours. Not the reliable service it once was nor is it what was promised.


Dreadful service from East Midlands Railway.

He regrets moving to Wellingborough.
I haven't been reading this religiously, but other postings don't seem to be saying this- nothing in the last two months. Anyone else?
And is Wellingborough such a bad place to move to?
 

Djgr

Established Member
Joined
30 Jul 2018
Messages
1,638
I haven't been reading this religiously, but other postings don't seem to be saying this- nothing in the last two months. Anyone else?
And is Wellingborough such a bad place to move to?
Beach isn't up to much.
 

spotify95

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
220
Location
Northamptonshire
A colleague of mine lives in Wellingborough.
The new service has been terrible from day 1, Very frequent cancellations, short forms, gaps in service for 1.5 hours. Not the reliable service it once was nor is it what was promised.


Dreadful service from East Midlands Railway.

g to Wellingborough.
Well, at least they can drive to/get the taxi to/get the bus to Kettering, and then get the Intercity service from Kettering. Or get the EMR Connect up to Kettering, followed by the Intercity to wherever you want to go to.

I haven't been on the trains since the new timetable, but on paper it looked like a downgrade for Wellingborough customers, and it seems like the implementation was a downgrade, also!
 
Last edited:

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,007
Well, at least he can drive to/get the taxi to/get the bus to Kettering, and then get the Intercity service from Kettering. Or get the EMR Connect up to Kettering, followed by the Intercity to wherever you want to go to.

I haven't been on the trains since the new timetable, but on paper it looked like a downgrade for Wellingborough customers, and it seems like the implementation was a downgrade, also!
It's fine for them if the trains actually run. Maybe once things are normal again (!) - a few random peak Thameslinks could be sent there. If they ever have those fast to Leagrave and Flitwick categories again. But otherwise it's pretty much an outer suburban service now.
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,686
Well, at least they can drive to/get the taxi to/get the bus to Kettering, and then get the Intercity service from Kettering. Or get the EMR Connect up to Kettering, followed by the Intercity to wherever you want to go to.

I haven't been on the trains since the new timetable, but on paper it looked like a downgrade for Wellingborough customers, and it seems like the implementation was a downgrade, also!

Sure. I agree.

Let's close all inter-city stations between Leicester and St Pancras while we're at it, or perhaps just give them a 1TP 2 hour stopping service. Ditto Manchester Picc, Stockport, Stoke and London Euston. Make by Beggars drive or take a taxi who live in between. Should not have chosen to live in such stupid little places as Wellingboro, Nuneaton or Tamworth. Must be idiots.

That'll produce the kind of service that might make money. Qute a lot of it, in fact. And S*d climate change.
 

MML

Member
Joined
25 Oct 2015
Messages
587
With Thameslink reducing Bedford to London express services by half due to the pingdemic, I wonder whether a little joined up thinking could provide more 12 car formations to serve the depleted service from Bedford, Luton and Luton Airport to London.
Travelled on my first EMR 360 yesterday having arrived at Luton to find Thameslink service in meltdown with numerous cancellations due to staff sickness and an unacceptable hour long wait for the next train to London. Thankfully the wait was reduced to 5 minutes due to the imminent arrival of the Corby to St Pancras service. Only for the EMR service to be formed of a 4 car unit and the interior looking decidedly tired.
Surely if you've got a driver, it would be better to maximize remaining capacity by operating longer trains.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Ha...your assuming we've got got enough spare units to do that...err not at the moment !
Saw one the other day with it's pantograph in the down position being dragged northwards by another Class 360, any idea why?
 

MML

Member
Joined
25 Oct 2015
Messages
587
If I remember correctly, GA didn't use Siemens for maintenance in the latter years of the contract and maintenance appeared to degrade whether as a direct consequence or in part due to lack of attention with the impending end of lease. You would have hoped serviceability would improve again with Siemens in charge again. Perhaps the work required is significant, costly and limited by staff availability?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top