When MML electrification reaches Leicester, what service patterns could operate?

[tbtc]

I'm struggling to see what this would "solve".

No more platfom capacity at St Pancras. No additional paths through Luton etc.

Cutting Corby back to an hourly service would presumably go down badly - trying to arrange joining/splitting at Kettering is going to make things unreliable for the tight slots through Luton etc (as well as adding several minutes to the journey times for relatively short journeys - given the way that you need to have one service arrive before the other one, schedule in some contingency etc)

It's not as if electrification of the ECML saw lots of Edinburgh/ Leeds services stopping at little places like Welwyn, is it?

 

[21C101]

I'm struggling to see what this would "solve".

No more platfom capacity at St Pancras. No additional paths through Luton etc.

Cutting Corby back to an hourly service would presumably go down badly - trying to arrange joining/splitting at Kettering is going to make things unreliable for the tight slots through Luton etc (as well as adding several minutes to the journey times for relatively short journeys - given the way that you need to have one service arrive before the other one, schedule in some contingency etc)

It's not as if electrification of the ECML saw lots of Edinburgh/ Leeds services stopping at little places like Welwyn, is it?

Maybe run both the electrics to Leicester enabling all four of the intercities to run fast to Leicester.

Use 2*4 car units to give Corby a 15 minute interval "turn up and go" shuttle to Kettering, plus 3 morning through bimode peak hour expresses from Melton to St Pancras via Corby and 3 back in the evening.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Has anyone considered freight in this collection of ideas ? Just wondering.

 

[zwk500]

Maybe run both the electrics to Leicester enabling all four of the intercities to run fast to Leicester.

Use 2*4 car units to give Corby a 15 minute interval "turn up and go" shuttle to Kettering, plus 3 morning through bimode peak hour expresses from Melton to St Pancras via Corby and 3 back in the evening.

This only helps people going between Corby and Kettering, whilst making it much, much worse for People going Corby-Bedford/Luton/London. Which market is bigger?

Also running the EMUs to Leicester brings the elephant of Market Harborough into the room - if you stop there, the intercities will get impacted (or the EMUs have extended journey times looping at kettering), if you don't then what is the point in the stopping service?

The proposed service to Corby is very similar in concept to the service structure on the other main lines - a fast run to the edge of the outer suburban commuter zone, then serves local stations before diving off on a branch to clear the main line. Once the EMU's are clear of the Fast Lines why re-introduce them?

Has anyone considered freight in this collection of ideas ? Just wondering.

Out of interest, how much freight goes via Market Harborough? Leicester-Wigston is proposed for rebuilding in any case, isn't it? (I think independent of electrification).

 

[The Planner]

60 odd paths on a weekday, note the use of the word paths..

 

[Hey 3]

If a Leicester service is needed, it should be extended to Derby (when wires reach it) and should run like this
Incoming pattern to Corby then
Oakham, Melton Mowbray, Loughbrough, Leicester(reverse), East Midlands Parkway and Derby

I'm struggling to see what this would "solve".

No more platfom capacity at St Pancras. No additional paths through Luton etc.

Cutting Corby back to an hourly service would presumably go down badly - trying to arrange joining/splitting at Kettering is going to make things unreliable for the tight slots through Luton etc (as well as adding several minutes to the journey times for relatively short journeys - given the way that you need to have one service arrive before the other one, schedule in some contingency etc)

It's not as if electrification of the ECML saw lots of Edinburgh/ Leeds services stopping at little places like Welwyn, is it?

Welwyn Garden City, despite not having any inter city calls, is "classed" as C2 so is an important feeder, on the other hand Grantham is C1, but only has calls because of operational convenience and its "C1" rating.

 

[JonathanH]

If a Leicester service is needed, it should be extended to Derby (when wires reach it) and should run like this
Incoming pattern to Corby then
Oakham, Melton Mowbray, Loughbrough, Leicester(reverse), East Midlands Parkway and Derby

No it shouldn't. There is no commercial rationale for that service at all, even allowing for the fact that you put Loughborough and Leicester in the wrong order.

 

[A0wen]

If a Leicester service is needed, it should be extended to Derby (when wires reach it) and should run like this
Incoming pattern to Corby then
Oakham, Melton Mowbray, Loughbrough, Leicester(reverse), East Midlands Parkway and Derby


Welwyn Garden City, despite not having any inter city calls, is "classed" as C2 so is an important feeder, on the other hand Grantham is C1, but only has calls because of operational convenience and its "C1" rating.

Welwyn Garden City is 20 miles from London and is the terminating point for the GN inner suburban.

The "outer London" stop for Inter City services has been Stevenage for the last 50 years.

Comparing Grantham (90 miles further away) is pretty meaningless.

Grantham is to Welwyn GC, what Market Harborough is to St Albans - and St Albans doesn't get any IC calls either.

 

[21C101]

No it shouldn't. There is no commercial rationale for that service at all, even allowing for the fact that you put Loughborough and Leicester in the wrong order.

Would make more sense to reopen the top end of the test track so you can run to Nottingham via Corby and Melton

 

[A0wen]

Would make more sense to reopen the top end of the test track so you can run to Nottingham via Corby and Melton

Good luck with that - the formation through Nottingham is long gone. And I don't mean turned over to NET as the old GC route has been. It's almost completely built over.

 

[JonathanH]

Good luck with that - the formation through Nottingham is long gone. And I don't mean turned over to NET as the old GC route has been. It's almost completely built over.

It doesn't have to use the old formation. A route which ran along the A46, skirting Cotgrave and which approached Nottingham from Netherfield doesn't appear impossible. (Truly fantasy but old formations aren't the be all and end all.)

 

[Merle Haggard]

I'd think Corby could go to hourly,

Making the very recent re-instatement of double track (and electrifying both) a waste of expenditure and resources. These things happen, though.

 

[willgreen]

Welwyn Garden City, despite not having any inter city calls, is "classed" as C2 so is an important feeder, on the other hand Grantham is C1, but only has calls because of operational convenience and its "C1" rating.

I'm not a railway professional but I'm fairly certain that timetable planners don't designate service stops based on stations' respective DfT categories.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

It doesn't have to use the old formation. A route which ran along the A46, skirting Cotgrave and which approached Nottingham from Netherfield doesn't appear impossible. (Truly fantasy but old formations aren't the be all and end all.)

Just ("just" ) head due north after Stanton Tunnel, picking up the old Cotgrave Colliery branch formation by the solar farm.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm not a railway professional but I'm fairly certain that timetable planners don't designate service stops based on stations' respective DfT categories.

They really, really don't. It's based on demand, and actual/forecast/modelled usage and revenue.

The DfT categories are about as much use for timetable planning as whether or not the station has a Costa Coffee nearby.

 

[thatapanydude]

It doesn't have to use the old formation. A route which ran along the A46, skirting Cotgrave and which approached Nottingham from Netherfield doesn't appear impossible. (Truly fantasy but old formations aren't the be all and end all.)

I think this is a great idea and one that I have thought about for a while too and posted about a few years ago !
Will also link Melton to Notts too directly.

I reckon there would be a case for bi-modes to be used along with a 2tph service to Notts via Corby. You could then cut one of the Nottingham services via Leicester to London to 1 tph instead giving that to a path from Manchester.

 

[A0wen]

I think this is a great idea and one that I have thought about for a while too and posted about a few years ago !
Will also link Melton to Notts too directly.

I reckon there would be a case for bi-modes to be used along with a 2tph service to Notts via Corby. You could then cut one of the Nottingham services via Leicester to London to 1 tph instead giving that to a path from Manchester.

You've got half a billion laying around? Because that would probably be the final bill, all to give Nottingham another route to London when it already has two. (Link to Grantham & ECML).

And why a Machester path on the Midland? Manchester already has WCML and will have HS2. Rio proved the demand from Leicester to Manchester was minimal - and you'd also need the paths on the Hope Valley, which is already congested and isn't that quick.

Leeds would possibly make more sense as it could be a simple extension of Sheffield services, but even then it's not clear there is the demand.

 

[Hey 3]

You've got half a billion laying around? Because that would probably be the final bill, all to give Nottingham another route to London when it already has two. (Link to Grantham & ECML).

And why a Manchester path on the Midland? Manchester already has WCML and will have HS2. Rio proved the demand from Leicester to Manchester was minimal - and you'd also need the paths on the Hope Valley, which is already congested and isn't that quick.

Leeds would possibly make more sense as it could be a simple extension of Sheffield services, but even then it's not clear there is the demand.

Project Rio has not proved the demand from Leicester to Manchester/Stockport is mininmal, given that there is no direct service and plus neither is Sheffield-Leeds proven. You are just another one of those people who think cars and HGV's are the future and public transport is bad. It is though the opposite.
Edit:
You can reopen the Monsal Dale route to avoid Hope Valley.

 

[A0wen]

Project Rio has not proved the demand from Leicester to Manchester/Stockport is mininmal, given that there is no direct service and plus neither is Sheffield-Leeds proven. You are just another one of those people who think cars and HGV's are the future and public transport is bad. It is though the opposite.
Edit:
You can reopen the Monsal Dale route to avoid Hope Valley.

Rio ran for over 12 months, loadings north of Leicester were minimal. That suggests demand between Leicester & Manchester is minimal. Whereas at least one of the franchisees for the Midland Mainline proposed regular services to Leeds, which the DfT over-ruled.

The Monsal Dale route is being debated on another thread, suffice to say it would not significantly accelerate journey times between Leicester or Derby and Manchester - it was a slow formation (like so much of the Midland Railway) - if you wanted a fast route to the NW from Leicester it would be more sensible to look for a new formation via Burton, Uttoxeter and Stoke.

And what freight do you think is heading to Leicester you could put on the rail network ?

 

[43096]

Rio ran for over 12 months, loadings north of Leicester were minimal. That suggests demand between Leicester & Manchester is minimal.

Agreed. Other than the days when the West Coast was shut, they were empty north of Leicester.

 

[tbtc]

I reckon there would be a case for bi-modes to be used along with a 2tph service to Notts via Corby. You could then cut one of the Nottingham services via Leicester to London to 1 tph instead

What would the time penalty be for a London - Corby - Nottingham service, compared to the current London - Leicester - Nottingham service?

(bearing in mind that you also reduce the Leicester - Nottingham frequency by doing that)

Leeds would possibly make more sense as it could be a simple extension of Sheffield services, but even then it's not clear there is the demand.

An extension to Leeds would make sense - I'd rather that one of the St Pancras services was extended to Leeds rather than the proposed Northern "fast" service via Wakefield Westgate to Leeds (and on to Bradford) - in fact, if it weren't for the short platforms at Meadowhall I might argue for the half hourly London - Sheffield service to be extended to Meadowhall - Barnsley - Wakefield Kirkgate - Leeds, replacing the Northern services that way

Project Rio has not proved the demand from Leicester to Manchester/Stockport is mininmal, given that there is no direct service

Project Rio was a direct London - Leicester - Stockport - Manchester service though - north of Leicester there were a few dozen passengers spread out across a full length HST - waste of resources

neither is Sheffield-Leeds proven

Demand on the busiest section of the XC network, according to Arriva, not proven?

You can reopen the Monsal Dale route to avoid Hope Valley.

Well, you could, at the cost of a few hundred million pounds and destroying the long established Monsall Trail, assuming that there are spare paths and platform capacity at the Manchester end too (for a journey time that'll be no faster than running via Sheffield)

 

[thatapanydude]

What would the time penalty be for a London - Corby - Nottingham service, compared to the current London - Leicester - Nottingham service?

I am not sure - no rail expert but a service via Melton and a new link to Cotgrave I would guess would range between 1hr50 to 2hr10 depending on the quality of track. While the times might seem a bit high, once HS2 is up and running the need for sub 2x sub 2 hour services from Notts to London via Leicester reduces. Moreover, the opportunities to link Corby, Oakham, Melton to a fast Notts and London service respectively would be very attractive along with giving the southern EMR station a proper link up North.

An extension to Leeds would make sense - I'd rather that one of the St Pancras services was extended to Leeds rather than the proposed Northern "fast" service via Wakefield Westgate to Leeds (and on to Bradford) - in fact, if it weren't for the short platforms at Meadowhall I might argue for the half hourly London - Sheffield service to be extended to Meadowhall - Barnsley - Wakefield Kirkgate - Leeds, replacing the Northern services that way

I agree this is a good idea too. I would even extend both services, one to Rotherham Masborough and the other to Leeds via Masborough to Wakefield.

 

[A0wen]

I am not sure - no rail expert but a service via Melton and a new link to Cotgrave I would guess would range between 1hr50 to 2hr10 depending on the quality of track. While the times might seem a bit high, once HS2 is up and running the need for sub 2x sub 2 hour services from Notts to London via Leicester reduces. Moreover, the opportunities to link Corby, Oakham, Melton to a fast Notts and London service respectively would be very attractive along with giving the southern EMR station a proper link up North.

Melton - St Pancras via Corby takes 1h 50m. It's possible to do Melton - Kings Cross in 1h 45m changing at Peterborough and Melton to St Pancras in 1h 40m changing at Leicester.

So I think the BIB is wrong for a couple of reasons - firstly it would be a slower journey to London for Melton or Oakham than can be currently achieved, secondly it doesn't actually offer the "Southern EMR stations a proper link up North" (by which I assume you're referring to Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford and Luton(s)) for the simple reason the only significant place it would go to is Nottingham, a single change at Kettering will already achieve that along with stops at Leicester and Loughborough - Leicester being somewhat more important that Oakham or Melton. It also completely screws up the Corby timetable which has been crafted to be self contained and run by EMUs which are suited for the stop-start nature of the service.

 

[Ianno87]

Melton - St Pancras via Corby takes 1h 50m. It's possible to do Melton - Kings Cross in 1h 45m changing at Peterborough and Melton to St Pancras in 1h 40m changing at Leicester.

So I think the BIB is wrong for a couple of reasons - firstly it would be a slower journey to London for Melton or Oakham than can be currently achieved, secondly it doesn't actually offer the "Southern EMR stations a proper link up North" (by which I assume you're referring to Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford and Luton(s)) for the simple reason the only significant place it would go to is Nottingham, a single change at Kettering will already achieve that along with stops at Leicester and Loughborough - Leicester being somewhat more important that Oakham or Melton. It also completely screws up the Corby timetable which has been crafted to be self contained and run by EMUs which are suited for the stop-start nature of the service.

You'd probably get better return on money by re-modelling Kettering station so that there was same or cross-platform interchange for Luton/Bedford/Wellingborough for onward travel via Leicester.

 

[DJ_K666]

Going a little OT, however:

Depends on the journey - but taking 3 of the main places on the northern bit of the MML (Leicester, Derby, Nottingham) and the key destinations on EWR (Cambridge, MK, Oxford)

Leicester - Cambridge (direct now)
Leicester - MK (change at Nuneaton)
Leicester - Oxford (change at Birmingham)

Nottingham - Cambridge (change at Ely)
Nottingham - MK (change at Tamworth)
Nottingham - Oxford (change at Birmingham)

Derby - Cambridge (change at Leicester)
Derby - MK (change at Tamworth)
Derby - Oxford (change at Birmingham)

Regarding Leicester to MK if you're doing it the other way round the wait at Nuneaton is 58 minutes.

I'll admit that's on the Covid timetable. Hopefully once things return to something near normal* hopefully there'll be a second train per hour. Nuneaton is a place to escape from in my view. This would be my reason for reopening the Rugby to Leicester ex Midland line via Ullesthorpe. Allows passengers to jump across without too much doubling back. At the moment it's far quicker to drive to Leicester than getting the train (95 minutes due to the wait time at Nuneaton) or the bus (X84 2 hours via every hamlet in between)

*Not that there's much I'd call 'normal' on the post privytisation railway.

 

[A0wen]

You'd probably get better return on money by re-modelling Kettering station so that there was same or cross-platform interchange for Luton/Bedford/Wellingborough for onward travel via Leicester.

If it was that much of a problem, then you could do it at zero cost by simply shifting the interchange point to Wellingborough - the electrics are going to be running fast line to Wellingborough and only crossing to slows after leaving to head to Kettering.

Regarding Leicester to MK if you're doing it the other way round the wait at Nuneaton is 58 minutes.

I'll admit that's on the Covid timetable. Hopefully once things return to something near normal* hopefully there'll be a second train per hour. Nuneaton is a place to escape from in my view. This would be my reason for reopening the Rugby to Leicester ex Midland line via Ullesthorpe. Allows passengers to jump across without too much doubling back. At the moment it's far quicker to drive to Leicester than getting the train (95 minutes due to the wait time at Nuneaton) or the bus (X84 2 hours via every hamlet in between)

*Not that there's much I'd call 'normal' on the post privytisation railway.

Brilliant - genuis. Let's suggest the way to fix a problem for a *very small* number of people currently being caused by a reduced timetable due to the pandemic is to rebuild a line which closed before Beeching at a cost of (wet finger in air) £ 1bn. And what makes you think you'd get a "perfect" connection at Rugby even if that line did exist ? It wouldn't be cross platform unless you undid a load of the improvements put in place at Rugby as part of the WCML modernisation i.e. crossings from the north bays and then you'd be blocking the WCML to make those moves - again something the Rugby re-build sought to avoid.

The current XC timetable is only temporary and Leicester - Birmingham will be back to 2tph as Covid restrictions lift and that reduces the "wait" by 50% at a stroke.

 

[DJ_K666]

If it was that much of a problem, then you could do it at zero cost by simply shifting the interchange point to Wellingborough - the electrics are going to be running fast line to Wellingborough and only crossing to slows after leaving to head to Kettering.



Brilliant - genuis. Let's suggest the way to fix a problem for a *very small* number of people currently being caused by a reduced timetable due to the pandemic is to rebuild a line which closed before Beeching at a cost of (wet finger in air) £ 1bn. And what makes you think you'd get a "perfect" connection at Rugby even if that line did exist ? It wouldn't be cross platform unless you undid a load of the improvements put in place at Rugby as part of the WCML modernisation i.e. crossings from the north bays and then you'd be blocking the WCML to make those moves - again something the Rugby re-build sought to avoid.

The current XC timetable is only temporary and Leicester - Birmingham will be back to 2tph as Covid restrictions lift and that reduces the "wait" by 50% at a stroke.

We'll I did put that as a disclaimer. I'm guessing you skimmed the post.

But yes I do think the focus is too much on going North or South, not enough means to go Across without going miles out of my way. Hardly getting me out of my car, really. I do think removing the west end bays at Rugby ought not to have happened too. Plus I'd say more like £10bn

Like I said also. Nuneaton is a dump and I'd like to spend as little time there as possible.

 

[evergreenadam]

The Corby service would be a better utilisation of track capacity if it was extended to Stamford and Peterborough. The lack of a through service from Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby to Peterborough is a real missed opportunity to create better rail links in the East Midlands. A new curve would be required at Wing along with an extension of electrification and potential double tracking.

 

[JonathanH]

The Corby service would be a better utilisation of track capacity if it was extended to Stamford and Peterborough. The lack of a through service from Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby to Peterborough is a real missed opportunity to create better rail links in the East Midlands. A new curve would be required at Wing along with an extension of electrification and potential double tracking.

Where are you hoping people will connect to when they get to Peterborough? Isn't the eastern leg of EWR going to create many of the better rail links that extension of Corby trains (via a very indirect route) would offer?

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/proposed-extension-of-emr-electrics-beyond-corby.193813

 

[thatapanydude]

The Corby service would be a better utilisation of track capacity if it was extended to Stamford and Peterborough. The lack of a through service from Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby to Peterborough is a real missed opportunity to create better rail links in the East Midlands. A new curve would be required at Wing along with an extension of electrification and potential double tracking.

1) Northamptonshire Powerhouse Railway

Would there be merit and a sufficient case in reopening/building a line from Northampton to just south of Wellingborough station on the MML to create a route linking Northampton, Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby, Stamford and Peterborough following the line of the A43 roughly. I would call this line the "Northamptonshire Powerhouse".

For context there is already a X4 Stagecoach Gold bus linking Northampton and Peterborough together along with a well patronised and often congested route along the A43 from Kettering and A45 from Wellingborough both to Northampton, suggesting there may well be demand for a railway service. In addition there does seem a historic route from Northampton to Wellingborough which could be used as a base line or even some of the Northampton end of the former Bedford line.

As well as linking the Northamptonshire end of the MML to the WCML it does provide new links from the MML to the ECML at Peterborough via a Wing or through a new curve at South Luffenham.

A service such as Northampton - Cotton End/University - Wellingborough - Isham and Burton Latimer - Kettering - Corby - Stamford - Peterborough - March - Wisbech via reversal, I think would be achievable and well patronised for 1 train per hour and possibly 2 with smaller trains.

A few weeks back I mentioned this as a credible idea, detailed above. While the leg to Northampton is difficult due to the terrain being rather wet, the leg from Corby to Peterboro' is easily doable.

Isn't the eastern leg of EWR going to create many of the better rail links that extension of Corby trains (via a very indirect route) would offer?

Stations north of Bedford would be better situated via Corby to Peterborough on a single train rather than reversal (if serving Bedford) or a change. Also easier to get funding and local support if billed as a "Northamptonshire Powerhouse Railway" linking Wellingboro', Kettering and Corby (3 towns in need of TLC) to Peterborough.