Why don't East Midlands Trains stop at St Albans?

[Magdalia]

There's a good argument for stopping the Thameslink Peterborough trains at Welwyn Garden City at least, to improve connectivity between ECML services and the northern suburbs and dormitory towns around London.

And lots of good arguments for not stopping Peterborough trains at Welwyn Garden City. The platforms at Welwyn Garden City are only 8 cars long. A few 12 car trains stop at Welwyn Garden City but not at busy times. On the down road there is no high speed crossover to get off the fast line, and it would require a complete rewrite of the ECML timetable because of the impact on paths through the 2 track section over the viaduct.

 

[stevieinselby]

And lots of good arguments for not stopping Peterborough trains at Welwyn Garden City. The platforms at Welwyn Garden City are only 8 cars long. A few 12 car trains stop at Welwyn Garden City but not at busy times. On the down road there is no high speed crossover to get off the fast line, and it would require a complete rewrite of the ECML timetable because of the impact on paths through the 2 track section over the viaduct.

Oh sure, I'm not saying that it's practical to do it given the current arrangements ... but that doesn't mean that we wouldn't want to do it in principle if the track layout was different ... and that's what is more relevant to the question about stopping patterns on the MML.

 

[BrianW]

Oh sure, I'm not saying that it's practical to do it given the current arrangements ... but that doesn't mean that we wouldn't want to do it in principle if the track layout was different ... and that's what is more relevant to the question about stopping patterns on the MML.

It seems to me that increasingly we are talking about constraints on stopping patterns due to track (and platform?) capacity, and lack of interchangeability across Train Operating Companies. e.g balancing priorities for St Albans against London- Sheffield/ Nottingham/Corby ... Not all 'demands' are reconcilable and choices are having to be made, by 'Planners' let alone DfT, MPs, advocates for this or that place. How much to remove, or ameliorate, 'pinch points' eg four-tracking, Bedford platforms, and their place in the national 'pecking order'?

 

[PTR 444]

It’s a shame HS2 will no longer be serving the East Midlands as the removal of fast Sheffield trains from the southern MML could have freed up two paths each hour to run a semi-fast service. Perhaps something like a 2tph London - Leeds service but calling at St Albans, both Lutons, Bedford, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Nottingham (1tph), Derby (1tph), Chesterfield, Sheffield and then on to Leeds via the Hallam Line. Many towns along the M1 currently have no direct trains between each other, so such a service would encourage modal shift away from the roads.

 

[70014IronDuke]

As others have argued, given the pathing issues and traffic demands at St Albans, there is no way that inserting a stop there could be justified - the Thameslink service is more than adequate for the majority of passenger demands.

Indeed, it should, and probably would, cause an outcry from other stations north were a stop for St Albans inserted into any longer distance Nottingham and Sheffield EMR services.

However, inserting a stop at Bedford into one of the Sheffield services (or, possibly, alternating between Bedford one hour and LAP the other) would help avoid the tiresome and very off-putting three-change solution for anyone from St Albans (and other stations) seeking to go anywhere north of Sheffield, and provide a direct service to Leicester-Derby-Chesterfield-Sheffield from Bedford (and possibly LAP), which I'm sure would be a huge benefit in terms of connectivity.

However, I suspect inserting a stop in the Sheffields would necessitate a stop being inserted in the following Nottingham service - or a delay of 3 minutes in departure from St Pancras - and this would then bugger up the entire clockface timetalbe.

 

[miklcct]

I live in Cricklewood and the lack of a St Alban's stop is also irritating as well. It required me 5 changes to go to Chesterfield.

If a St Alban's call is placed on the Nottingham service, 2 changes can be removed from my journey. Such a call benefits everyone from Kentish Town all the way to St Alban's, at the expense of a longer journey time from London or anywhere south of it.

However, a Luton Airport Parkway call is probably more useful, especially if timed to give a 15-minute headway with the Connect. Is it possible to add the Luton Parkway call to the Sheffield service?

 

[duffield]

I suspect nothing much is going to change until/unless** the Marston Vale line is upgraded and integrated into EWR Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford, (including Bedford remodelling with the extra platform on the fast line).

At that point I'd *guess* at least one 1tph from Sheffield and 1tph from Nottingham would stop at Bedford for EWR interchange, and St. Albans would once again be just one change away from the principle East Midlands stations.

** Of course, no-one really knows how far/fast the EWR project will actually progress in future.

FWIW I was at St. Albans heading for Nottingham just yesterday and had options going both north and south, I decided to double back via St. Pancras rather than rely on two shortish connections. Personally I'd visit St. Albans more frequently if it was just one change at Bedford.

 

[Starmill]

As others have argued, given the pathing issues and traffic demands at St Albans, there is no way that inserting a stop there could be justified - the Thameslink service is more than adequate for the majority of passenger demands.

Indeed, it should, and probably would, cause an outcry from other stations north were a stop for St Albans inserted into any longer distance Nottingham and Sheffield EMR services.

However, inserting a stop at Bedford into one of the Sheffield services (or, possibly, alternating between Bedford one hour and LAP the other) would help avoid the tiresome and very off-putting three-change solution for anyone from St Albans (and other stations) seeking to go anywhere north of Sheffield, and provide a direct service to Leicester-Derby-Chesterfield-Sheffield from Bedford (and possibly LAP), which I'm sure would be a huge benefit in terms of connectivity.

However, I suspect inserting a stop in the Sheffields would necessitate a stop being inserted in the following Nottingham service - or a delay of 3 minutes in departure from St Pancras - and this would then bugger up the entire clockface timetalbe.

It would be a bit bizarre to offer direct services from Bedford to Sheffield every hour but no services from Kettering or Market Harborough to Derby.

Having done it several times the changes are fairly straightforward and relatively short connections in the standard hour. Though it would be less easy with a toddler and a buggy, but definitely doable.

With respect the fact that you and I (and of course the OP) are comfortable doing three changes, especially three short ones, means pretty much nothing. The average person who doesn't use the railway much (or ever) has a typical number of acceptable changes of zero, but one could work at the right price. Three is simply hopeless, the railway cannot capture that market. There is, no point in even trying.

or substitute ‘E‘ for ‘W’ which is what I do.

To Sheffield? Boarding a Sheffield-bound train at Stockport is very likely to result in your standing (or seated but nowhere anywhere near other people you're travelling with) currently. Good luck with that for 45 minutes.

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps something like a 2tph London - Leeds service but calling at St Albans, both Lutons, Bedford, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Nottingham (1tph), Derby (1tph), Chesterfield, Sheffield and then on to Leeds via the Hallam Line. Many towns along the M1 currently have no direct trains between each other, so such a service would encourage modal shift away from the roads.

But many of those stations already have direct services, and more with one change. The extra modal shift it would encourage would be tiny.

However, I suspect inserting a stop in the Sheffields would necessitate a stop being inserted in the following Nottingham service - or a delay of 3 minutes in departure from St Pancras - and this would then bugger up the entire clockface timetalbe.

5 minutes, which would indeed screw up the MML south timetable (even 1 minute would)

With respect the fact that you and I (and of course the OP) are comfortable doing three changes, especially three short ones, means pretty much nothing. The average person who doesn't use the railway much (or ever) has a typical number of acceptable changes of zero, but one could work at the right price. Three is simply hopeless, the railway cannot capture that market. There is, no point in even trying.

As we are ‘with respecting’ there are lots of examples out there of infrequent users happily making changes. Almost everyone crossing London makes at least two (and changing to the tube is really no different to changing on the main line in terms of activity). A very specific example - Mrs BR did a three change journey yesterday, and also the day before, and she is a rare user of the railway long distance and being completely frank not very good at doing so when she does. Another example. My parents‘ neighbour makes two changes whe she makes her annual trip from Shropshire down to Devon. She’s 94 (really 94, not Private Eye ‘94’). Another example. My aunt (78) travels a couple of times a year from the West Mids to East Mids. Two changes. Never a problem.

Yes these are anecdotes, and the worst form of evidence. But I don’t think it is right to say that the average infrequent rail user has a ‘typical number of acceptable changes of zero’.

To Sheffield? Boarding a Sheffield-bound train at Stockport is very likely to result in your standing (or seated but nowhere anywhere near other people you're travelling with) currently. Good luck with that for 45 minutes.

No, to Scotland, as per the post I was replying to.

 

[BrianW]

But many of those stations already have direct services, and more with one change. The extra modal shift it would encourage would be tiny.




5 minutes, which would indeed screw up the MML south timetable (even 1 minute would)



As we are ‘with respecting’ there are lots of examples out there of infrequent users happily making changes. Almost everyone crossing London makes at least two (and changing to the tube is really no different to changing on the main line in terms of activity). A very specific example - Mrs BR did a three change journey yesterday, and also the day before, and she is a rare user of the railway long distance and being completely frank not very good at doing so when she does. Another example. My parents‘ neighbour makes two changes whe she makes her annual trip from Shropshire down to Devon. She’s 94 (really 94, not Private Eye ‘94’). Another example. My aunt (78) travels a couple of times a year from the West Mids to East Mids. Two changes. Never a problem.

Yes these are anecdotes, and the worst form of ebidence. But I don’t think it is right to say that the average infrequent rail user has a ‘typical number of acceptable changes of zero’.



No, to Scotland, as per the post I was replying to.

Are the Rail Utilisation Studies of 2004- 20 years ago- of any relevance now? How is capacity now versus then and where are the 'pinch points'?

I take the point about changing trains- it does help if there are 5-10 minute connections rather than 59 mins, and same or cross-platform.

 

[zwk500]

Are the Rail Utilisation Studies of 2004- 20 years ago- of any relevance now? How is capacity now versus then and where are the 'pinch points'?

They're of some relevance but a lot will have changed - not least the infrastructure!

 

[BrianW]

They're of some relevance but a lot will have changed - not least the infrastructure!

OK- so where should the priorities for infrastructure investment be (recognising the current government's antipathy toward 'gradiose/ vaniity projects) ? Best bang-for-buck/ quick wins or 'no-brainer vote-winners'?

 

[zwk500]

With respect the fact that you and I (and of course the OP) are comfortable doing three changes, especially three short ones, means pretty much nothing. The average person who doesn't use the railway much (or ever) has a typical number of acceptable changes of zero, but one could work at the right price. Three is simply hopeless, the railway cannot capture that market. There is, no point in even trying.

The overwhelming evidence suggests that journeys of two changes are absolutely fine, as that's how many changes you make crossing London unless you're rather lucky. It's also quite common to need to make 2 changes if your journey begins and ends at stations not served by IC trains. The majority of non-commuting journeys (which will, on average, be made by less-familiar users) will involve at least one change. Three is not hopeless, although certainly off-putting as the interchange journey penalties rapidly stack up.
The key point is that one change is not equal to another - changes involving the tube, or any metro-type 4+ tph operation, will not be particularly off-putting. However changes onto hourly or less will be far more of a disincentive as the risk of missing the connection is much higher.

OK- so where should the priorities for infrastructure investment be (recognising the current government's antipathy toward 'gradiose/ vaniity projects) ? Best bang-for-buck/ quick wins or 'no-brainer vote-winners'?

Difficult to say without doing some studies, especially as I haven't timetabled the MML for a few years now. In terms of 'bang-for-buck' it's extremely difficult to say as all the low-hanging fruit has already largely been snaffled, precisely because it was obvious. South of Bedford there's very little opportunity for low-hanging fruit as it's all been done already.

 

[BrianW]

The overwhelming evidence suggests that journeys of two changes are absolutely fine, as that's how many changes you make crossing London unless you're rather lucky. It's also quite common to need to make 2 changes if your journey begins and ends at stations not served by IC trains. The majority of non-commuting journeys (which will, on average, be made by less-familiar users) will involve at least one change. Three is not hopeless, although certainly off-putting as the interchange journey penalties rapidly stack up.
The key point is that one change is not equal to another - changes involving the tube, or any metro-type 4+ tph operation, will not be particularly off-putting. However changes onto hourly or less will be far more of a disincentive as the risk of missing the connection is much higher.


Difficult to say without doing some studies, especially as I haven't timetabled the MML for a few years now. In terms of 'bang-for-buck' it's extremely difficult to say as all the low-hanging fruit has already largely been snaffled, precisely because it was obvious. South of Bedford there's very little opportunity for low-hanging fruit as it's all been done already.

Indeed. And bearing in mind the 'astronomical' costs/ poor BCR of such improvements, maybe we have reached/ are now approaching peak/ optimum capacity?
Perhaps the most that can be achieved (without targeted/ expensive studies to support or deny) will be found by iterative (market testing) introduction and removal of additional/ alternative stopping patterns. I imagine it is the case now that pressure is off for 'fastest train of the day for a 10a.m meeting', in favour of reliable regular interval services. I note that St Albans appears to be quite 'busy' in terms of useage, but then maybe these 2015/16 figures are very out of date: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_Main_Line ? 'Best of luck' to all Planners ...

 

[Starmill]

The majority of non-commuting journeys (which will, on average, be made by less-familiar users) will involve at least one change. Three is not hopeless, although certainly off-putting as the interchange journey penalties rapidly stack up.
The key point is that one change is not equal to another - changes involving the tube, or any metro-type 4+ tph operation, will not be particularly off-putting. However changes onto hourly or less will be far more of a disincentive as the risk of missing the connection is much higher.

Three changes is definitely hopeless when the default choice is a car, as it is for nearly everyone in this country. As it happens I don't have a car and never have, but then such changes wouldn't put me off. Maybe to other people who use the train every week it could be seen as viable, though certainly not attractive. But the OP is clearly talking about taking a nice day out for a person who lives in South Yorkshire, and three changes definitely is hopeless for that. Realistically the current service is terrible for this kind of journey, and there isn't a hope of making it better any time soon. So we should focus on serving markets where rail is more competitive instead, which is largely what has happened.

Yes these are anecdotes, and the worst form of ebidence. But I don’t think it is right to say that the average infrequent rail user has a ‘typical number of acceptable changes of zero’.

People who aren't negatively affected never do! The fact that your examples are your partner, who no doubt has your able assistance as in all things, and someone making a repeat journey say a lot.

 

[cle]

I live in Cricklewood and the lack of a St Alban's stop is also irritating as well. It required me 5 changes to go to Chesterfield.

I'm sorry but Cricklewood is 10 mins to St Pancras. And longer to St Albans. This is double-back territory, and you have one change. Fair enough if you are starting in Harpenden or something - but Cricklewood! - that is an issue of your own making / selection.

It would be a bit bizarre to offer direct services from Bedford to Sheffield every hour but no services from Kettering or Market Harborough to Derby.

I don't see why. Bedford will become far more important on the network in time. Even now, it is a far bigger place than either of those - and Sheffield is bigger than Derby (although really, an MML service to one is likely to service both). And it has the direct to Corby so Kettering has a lesser role there.

 

[miklcct]

I'm sorry but Cricklewood is 10 mins to St Pancras. And longer to St Albans. This is double-back territory, and you have one change. Fair enough if you are starting in Harpenden or something - but Cricklewood! - that is an issue of your own making / selection.

A well designed rail network, or any public transport network, should never require circuitous routing for an optimal route. The reason is because circuitous routing will put it at a disadvantage compared to the motor car, and people will tend to drive instead.

Public transport not going where people want to go is the major reason why people don't use public transport. Cricklewood is so close to the M1 entrance that if I have to waste half an hour for a double back to go to Sheffield (I tried to do such double back once in the past. It took me half an hour from the Intercity train passing through to alighting the Thameslink. If the Intercity train called at St Alban's, I would no doubt alight there), or even more if I go the right way, I will use a car if I can afford to.

I can't imagine how much business EMR has lost between St Alban's / Luton / Bedford and Sheffield because of the multiple changes required, and the amount of traffic induced on the motorways because of the poor EMR service.

 

[Starmill]

I don't see why. Bedford will become far more important on the network in time. Even now, it is a far bigger place than either of those -

That's very theoretical and depends on big uptake from EWR. Unless you were implying pick up and set down restrictions it would be very poor capacity utilisation to go back to offering non-stop trains between Bedford and London frequently as well. Sheffield services calling at Kettering however would still remove one of the changes and be less unbalanced for capacity.

and Sheffield is bigger than Derby (although really, an MML service to one is likely to service both). And it has the direct to Corby so Kettering has a lesser role there.

But EWR stage 1/2 is pretty much irrelevant to Sheffield because Milton Keynes and Oxford already have fast journeys to Sheffield. So only Winslow - Sheffield would benefit, or some doing Bicester - Sheffield who didn't want to walk from Birmingham Moor Street to Birmingham New Street.

 

[Bald Rick]

I live in Cricklewood and the lack of a St Alban's stop is also irritating as well. It required me 5 changes to go to Chesterfield.

No it doesn‘t.

Even if you pathologically refuse to go via St Pancras (1 change) - which is of course much quicker and what almost everyone making that journey would do - or walk to Brent Cross West (which you have said before is close to you and that you would use) for a train to Luton (3 changes: Luton, Kettering, Leicester); then it is four changes. But not 5.


A similar journey: it is 3 changes from New Southgate to Darlington, if you are really unable to go via Kings Cross or Finsbury Park.

People who aren't negatively affected never do! The fact that your examples are your partner, who no doubt has your able assistance as in all things, and someone making a repeat journey say a lot.

I‘m sorry but that‘s not the point. The point is that some people who make infrequent journeys are more than happy to change. If a 94 year old is happy to do it (once a year), then I’m sure almost anyone has a similar. capability.

 

[stevieinselby]

The key point is that one change is not equal to another - changes involving the tube, or any metro-type 4+ tph operation, will not be particularly off-putting. However changes onto hourly or less will be far more of a disincentive as the risk of missing the connection is much higher.

A case in point – when I get the train down to see my parents in London, the journey is about half an hour quicker going than coming back.
On the way there, I know how long it takes me to walk to my local station, so I know what time I need to set off to catch the train. Then when I arrive into Kings Cross, there are frequent services to their nearest station, so I just jump on the first one.
On the way back, I have to allow for traffic getting to their local station, and then for potential delays en route to Kings Cross, so in order to be sure of catching my once-every-2-hours train I need to allow plenty of extra time.
For an occasional journey, that isn't too bad, but if it's one that I was making every week then I would soon start to resent the amount of time I was spending hanging around at Kings Cross.

 

[778]

I live in Cricklewood and the lack of a St Alban's stop is also irritating as well. It required me 5 changes to go to Chesterfield.

If a St Alban's call is placed on the Nottingham service, 2 changes can be removed from my journey. Such a call benefits everyone from Kentish Town all the way to St Alban's, at the expense of a longer journey time from London or anywhere south of it.

However, a Luton Airport Parkway call is probably more useful, especially if timed to give a 15-minute headway with the Connect. Is it possible to add the Luton Parkway call to the Sheffield service?

Does Thameslink have any plans to extend some services north of Bedford to Corby or even Leicester (when electrification finally reaches there)?

 

[JonathanH]

Does Thameslink have any plans to extend some services north of Bedford to Corby or even Leicester (when electrification finally reaches there)?

No. Bedford is very much the natural end of their operation.

 

[TomH1994]

I guess this is similar to the fact most intercity services no longer stop at Luton or airport parkway or do they? I remember pre EMR Connect you’d be able to get direct trains to Nottingham / derby / Sheffield from these stations. Now anytime I’m there they all wizz past. Used to sometimes get the train to Nottingham to see my brother in Mansfield but with the change required now it’s quicker to drive it

 

[miklcct]

No it doesn‘t.

Even if you pathologically refuse to go via St Pancras (1 change) - which is of course much quicker and what almost everyone making that journey would do - or walk to Brent Cross West (which you have said before is close to you and that you would use) for a train to Luton (3 changes: Luton, Kettering, Leicester); then it is four changes. But not 5.

At the time I made the journey, Brent Cross West hadn't opened yet and I used a combination of tickets which would save me more than £10 compared to travelling via London. Tickets via London are usually priced on a premium compared to non-London tickets.

And my destination was Chesterfield, which required me one more change despite also on the MML, so 5 changes travelling from an MML station on the direct route to another MML station. I can't think of any other main lines in the country having a worse connection between two stations on the same line.

I guess this is similar to the fact most intercity services no longer stop at Luton or airport parkway or do they? I remember pre EMR Connect you’d be able to get direct trains to Nottingham / derby / Sheffield from these stations. Now anytime I’m there they all wizz past. Used to sometimes get the train to Nottingham to see my brother in Mansfield but with the change required now it’s quicker to drive it

Honestly I hope to see more calls in general. The Sheffield Intercity should add a Bedford call, the Nottingham Intercity should add a Luton Airport Parkway call, the Connects should add a St Albans call and the Three Bridges - Bedford Thameslink should add a West Hampstead call, such that changes between local trains and Intercity trains can be done at once.

From St Pancras the Intercity trains need to be retimed to leave earlier for the calls to be added.

 

[cle]

Yes. After EW opens, but its going in.

A well designed rail network, or any public transport network, should never require circuitous routing for an optimal route. The reason is because circuitous routing will put it at a disadvantage compared to the motor car, and people will tend to drive instead.

A short double back (in this case) is not circuitous - it is quickest.

I lived in Queens Park for years and travelled every other week to Manchester. Via Euston, happily. Even the few Watford calls would see me sitting on a stopper forever, and joining a slower pattern.

Anything calling St Albans wouldn’t be next stop Leicester - so again, I’d think it would be slow to Sheffield or wherever. Clearly this is your personal preference - your choice - but it’s nose to spite face. The M1 will always be a spectre for the MML.

But EWR stage 1/2 is pretty much irrelevant to Sheffield because Milton Keynes and Oxford already have fast journeys to Sheffield. So only Winslow - Sheffield would benefit, or some doing Bicester - Sheffield who didn't want to walk from Birmingham Moor Street to Birmingham New Street.

It will encourage rail usage and growth at Bedford overall. MK has one hourly connection to Sheffield. Oxford has a slow XC coming back. This may be preferable. The other places you mentioned are dormitories and unimportant - other than London service.

 

[Starmill]

I‘m sorry but that‘s not the point. The point is that some people who make infrequent journeys are more than happy to change. If a 94 year old is happy to do it (once a year), then I’m sure almost anyone has a similar. capability.

It very much is the point. An existing user might stick with something they're familiar with. But trying to attract someone from their car by offering three changes is of very little value.

 

[MontyP]

The danger with using ticketing data for planning is that it doesn't reflect the effect service provision has on ticket sales - it's possible (though I can't speak to whether it's true in this case) that plenty of passengers have looked at the rail route from St Albans to Sheffield, and balked at the complexity, either deciding to drive or not travel.

Anecdotally, I've made this journey (well, Harpenden, not St Albans) once myself, and know someone else who lives there and goes to uni in Sheffield. Obviously it's hard to draw any meaningful sense of demand from a couple anecdotes, but obviously it's not out of the question.

Another consideration would be connectivity to points further north - could a well-timed connection onto CrossCountry at Sheffield provide a more attractive journey to Scotland (and elsewhere on the northern ECML)? Currently the realistic options are to change in London for the ECML, or drive to an ECML station.

St Albans to Sheffield via London is no more complex than St Albans to Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol etc - all of which are via London. Ok so it's galling to backtrack but this happens all over the network - living in SW London, I often have to travel "wrong direction" via Clapham Junction to get to the likes of Woking, Southampton, Portsmouth etc.

There are hundreds of journey combinations from the London suburbs and home counties towns that require a journey into and out of London and this isn't going to change when the priority is the long-distance flows.

 

[miklcct]

St Albans to Sheffield via London is no more complex than St Albans to Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol etc - all of which are via London.

Going via Watford Junction is more direct for Manchester and Birmingham, with cheaper "not via London" fares. Leicester is also a possible change point for Birmingham, with a via Chesterfield fare, while Sheffield is also a possible change point for Manchester.
Sheffield is in between St Albans and Leeds, therefore all the problems mentioned for Sheffield is equally applicable to Leeds. In fact, there is a "via Sheffield" fare for St Albans - Leeds.
Going via London is only good for places west, south and east of London, e.g. Bristol, Brighton or Southend.

Ok so it's galling to backtrack but this happens all over the network - living in SW London, I often have to travel "wrong direction" via Clapham Junction to get to the likes of Woking, Southampton, Portsmouth etc.

Why do you have to travel in the wrong direction? Can't you change at Woking / Guildford? There is a stopping service between Woking / Guildford and Clapham Junction. Woking is the end of the inner commuter belt, a perfect place to change to suburban trains.

There are hundreds of journey combinations from the London suburbs and home counties towns that require a journey into and out of London and this isn't going to change when the priority is the long-distance flows.

Putting a call at the end of the commuter belt on intercity trains can cater the needs of suburban travellers, to enable them changing to a local train. For example, the Avanti call at Watford Junction, the LNER call at Stevenage, the GWR call at Reading all perform this function. EMR should do the same as well by putting a call at Luton Airport Parkway.

 

[Starmill]

Oxford has a slow XC coming back. This may be preferable.

Sheffield - Oxford isn't slow. 2h 15m is very quick compared with what you could achieve in a car (without breaking the speed limit). You may be referring to the fact that northbound trains, except for the 1744 from Reading, are still stuck being the London - Sheffield at Derby, which results in around 25 minutes of pathing allowance and waits at stations. This is being corrected from 2 June onwards however.

 

[class397tpe]

Bedford is the northern most station on Thameslink, so certainly needs EMR north in a way St Albans doesn't. I'm off to Sheffield next week from St Albans and it is much easier to go via St Pancras which doesn't seem right in some way, but it is the stopping patterns of the EMR further north of St Albans, rather than St Albans itself, that causes the issue.

I think at the very least a Kettering call should be added on to the Sheffield slow service. Right now it's a joke to transfer onto the slower services on the southern MML from Sheffield, having to change at Leicester onto an ex-Nottingham service then again at Kettering onto EMR connect. This would eliminate one of the changes required to get to Derby/Sheffield.

What's constraining removing one of the Kettering stops from a Nottingham service and adding it to a Sheffield one instead? So Kettering would get 1tph to both Sheffield & Nottingham, rather than 2tph to Nottingham and 0tph to Sheffield.