Possible Solutions to increase capacity between Bedford and St Pancras?

[Jorge Da Silva]

Its been mentioned a few times that the section between Bedford to St Pancras (including platform space at St Pancras) are the main reason why there are currently only 5 tph to St Pancras from MML (6 from 2020) but how would you increase capacity. HS2 will have some impact but that’s not until 2033 so how else could you increase capacity?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Its been mentioned a few times that the section between Bedford to St Pancras (including platform space at St Pancras) are the main reason why there are currently only 5 tph to St Pancras from MML (6 from 2020) but how would you increase capacity. HS2 will have some impact but that’s not until 2033 so how else could you increase capacity?

IIRC there are 4 "domestic" platforms at St P {I might be wrong as I've only ever visited once when the stn was rebuilt... if the current capacity is only 5 tph that suggests that MML trains have very long layovers at St P so I would suggest the simple solution would be to halve the layover time at St P... doubling capacity at a single stroke!

edit... vividly remember the old St Pancras.. 7 platforms for:

1x Derby and Sheffield
1x Nottingham
1x Bedford semi-fast
1x Bedford all stns

IIRC that was the basic pattern until BedPan was electrified.. how times change...

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

IIRC there are 4 "domestic" platforms at St P {I might be wrong as I've only ever visited once when the stn was rebuilt... if the current capacity is only 5 tph that suggests that MML trains have very long layovers at St P so I would suggest the simple solution would be to halve the layover time at St P... doubling capacity at a single stroke!

edit... vividly remember the old St Pancras.. 7 platforms for:

1x Derby and Sheffield
1x Nottingham
1x Bedford semi-fast
1x Bedford all stns

IIRC that was the basic pattern until BedPan was electrified.. how times change...

Yes it’s 4. It was 7 but when they planned the rebuild only 2tph were using St Pancras so it was reduced to 4 platforms which was a huge mistake. Part of the reason why there is only 5 (soon 6 after upgrade) is because Thameslink use the fast lines along with EMT which is why Capacity is limited, so I hear.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Yes it’s 4. It was 7 but when they planned the rebuild only 2tph were using St Pancras so it was reduced to 4 platforms which was a huge mistake. Part of the reason why there is only 5 (soon 6 after upgrade) is because Thameslink use the fast lines along with EMT which is why Capacity is limited, so I hear.

IIRC Thameslink trains only use the fast lines only when they are running non-stop {eg Bedford trains on fast line to St Albans and then cross over onto the slows for the rest of the journey}

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

IIRC Thameslink trains only use the fast lines only when they are running non-stop {eg Bedford trains on fast line to St Albans and then cross over onto the slows for the rest of the journey}

Surely that limits capacity particularly a stop at St Albans City.

 

[Ianno87]

IIRC Thameslink trains only use the fast lines only when they are running non-stop {eg Bedford trains on fast line to St Albans and then cross over onto the slows for the rest of the journey}

The busiest part of the fasts have 8tph each way in the peak. Add in 5tph and that's 13tph. Plus crossing moves and St Albans stops and there's very little space left.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

The busiest part of the fasts have 8tph each way in the peak. Add in 5tph and that's 13tph. Plus crossing moves and St Albans stops and there's very little space left.

or to put it another way a train every 4.5 mins.. do they really have to be spaced out that far apart?

 

[Ianno87]

or to put it another way a train every 4.5 mins.. do they really have to be spaced out that far apart?

Thameslinks typically merge onto the fasts 2.5 or 3 mimutes behind an EMT, need time to accelerate up to line speed, then brake down for an approach control/lower speed turnout before diverging again, which eats up the 'spare' time in the 4/4.5 minute average spacing.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Thameslinks typically merge onto the fasts 2.5 or 3 mimutes behind an EMT, need time to accelerate up to line speed, then brake down for an approach control/lower speed turnout before diverging again, which eats up the 'spare' time in the 4/4.5 minute average spacing.

then out of interest what would be the cost of upgrading the slows so that all lines can be used for all types of train? and how much capacity would it likely free up?

 

[Ianno87]

then out of interest what would be the cost of upgrading the slows so that all lines can be used for all types of train? and how much capacity would it likely free up?

No amount of upgrade on the slows can change the laws of physics. A train calling all station to St Albans will always be about 15 minutes slower than a train running non-stop, with no ability to overtake.

Best shot in my view might be to have 6 reconfigured tracks West Hampstead to Silksteam with the slows being effectively 4 tracked to allow semi-fasts to overtake stoppers through Cricklewood/Hendon.

 

[Bald Rick]

No amount of upgrade on the slows can change the laws of physics.

where’s that like button

 

[AM9]

If the MML is supposed to have a capacity issue, why are there still quite a few services running four or five car Meridians? If there really is a capacity shortfall, would that include the Bedford to London passengers?

 

[whhistle]

If the MML is supposed to have a capacity issue, why are there still quite a few services running four or five car Meridians?

Perhaps it's more frequency than size of train.
However, allocating 4 platforms at St Pancras with next to no space to increase that was a stupid move.

 

[edwin_m]

If the MML is supposed to have a capacity issue, why are there still quite a few services running four or five car Meridians? If there really is a capacity shortfall, would that include the Bedford to London passengers?

At present a single unit is adequate for most off-peak workings of the slower Sheffield and the Nottingham semi-fast, at least if Bedford-London is taken out of the equation (the Corby trains will replace these). These can't be combined with the fasts because of the need to keep a fast service for Leicester and beyond as well as a reasonable service to the stations south of Leicester. In any case the capacity issue arises in the peak, when few if any services run as four or five car.

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps it's more frequency than size of train.
However, allocating 4 platforms at St Pancras with next to no space to increase that was a stupid move.

What would you have done in the circumstances? Especially given that:

1) at the time the design was settled, 4 platforms was more than enough to accommodate demand forecast for the foreseeable future (it can easily accommodate 8 arrivals and 8 departures an hour with shorter turn rounds - Southeastern manages 9 arrivals and 9 departures an hour off 3 platforms).
2) it was known that operating more than 6 long distance services per hour on the MML is not practical with the Thameslink service spec (the current and that proposed for the Thameslink Programme)
3) building additional platforms would have meant residential land take and also encroaching on the grounds of St Pancras church.

 

[AM9]

At present a single unit is adequate for most off-peak workings of the slower Sheffield and the Nottingham semi-fast, at least if Bedford-London is taken out of the equation (the Corby trains will replace these). These can't be combined with the fasts because of the need to keep a fast service for Leicester and beyond as well as a reasonable service to the stations south of Leicester. In any case the capacity issue arises in the peak, when few if any services run as four or five car.

My thoughts about Bedford - London (outer suburban) passengers was that they have mostly 12-car Thameslink trains which in capacity terms can hold more seated passengers than a class222 of any length (even 2x5-car units), so there is untapped capacity inbound and outbound with some standing as far as St Albans (20 mins.). Even if it was necessary to make a few 8-car units up to additional 12-car sets, the cost, time and disruption to deliver extra capacity would be much less than massive land-take and civil costs of either additional platforms or lines.

 

[whhistle]

What would you have done in the circumstances?

I would have found a way.
While the platform use before was underused, giving MML just 4 firmly put it in the relms of Chiltern or the Norwich routes rather than the East or West coast it's trying to be.
Turning things quicker can be done but it's not an ultimate answer to capacity.

Just like a new bridge they've built over a motorway near me.
They've built it with no opportunity to expand the motorway lanes.
Short-sightedness/doing it on the cheap/not thinking about the future, take your pick :P

 

[Ianno87]

I would have found a way.

Fair enough I suppose, if you've got a totally blank, bottomless chequebook and free reign over land aquisition... <eye roll emoticon>

Meanwhile, on planet reality....

 

[Bald Rick]

I would have found a way.

Yes, but how? Do you not think this was looked at?

 

[EM2]

Turning things quicker can be done but it's not an ultimate answer to capacity.

When the core is closed, and GTR runs from upstairs, those four platforms have nine tph without any real issues. How much more space is really needed?

 

[AM9]

When the core is closed, and GTR runs from upstairs, those four platforms have nine tph without any real issues. How much more space is really needed?

It's not quite without any real issues although the biggest problem is with waiting passengers rather than trains. The EM turnround times aren't very slick though and there is also a trade off with train length that should be made if absolute capacity is an issue.

 

[westcoaster]

Would a way to increase capacity, not be to run 10 car units south of leicester. And have the trains split and couple at leicester.5 to sheffield and 5 to nottingham off peak.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Would a way to increase capacity, not be to run 10 car units south of leicester. And have the trains split and couple at leicester.5 to sheffield and 5 to nottingham off peak.

Might be a solution. Serving more destinations by doubling up units. However I read somewhere than after the upgrades trains will be 240m long so that might not be possible.

 

[Gareth]

Maverick idea time:

Once HS2 happens (or at least Phase 1) and if BedPan really is full, how about a stretch of new line linking Northampton to Market Harborough? This idea came to me when looking at a map which shows how the MML through Market Harborough points towards Northampton before veering off eastwards. I soon discovered that there did actually used to be a line linking these two lines; perhaps not surprisingly.

Could such a link give a competitive journey time to London from the East Midlands, compared with via Bedford? I was thinking of the 4tph through Leicester/Market Harborough, keeping their standard stopping pattern, then through the new link to Northampton and then London Euston, stopping only at Milton Keynes Central. This would leave only the Corby services doing BedPan

Looking at National Rail Enquiries, it seems to take 56m from Northampton to Euston, with calls at Milton Keynes Central & Watford Junction. Somewhat bizarrely, it takes only 55m when changing at Milton Keynes Central. The onward Virgin service misses out Watford Junction, but this is offset by the connecting LNW service calling at Wolverton (unlike the direct service) and the 6m wait at MKC. I estimate that a fast Northampton service to Euston only stopping at Milton Keynes would take about 47m; whilst Market Harborough to St Pancras with no intermediate stations is 58m. So the golden question is: could a new alignment get from Market Harborough to Northampton in less than 11 minutes?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Maverick idea time:

Once HS2 happens (or at least Phase 1) and if BedPan really is full, how about a stretch of new line linking Northampton to Market Harborough? This idea came to me when looking at a map which shows how the MML through Market Harborough points towards Northampton before veering off eastwards. I soon discovered that there did actually used to be a line linking these two lines; perhaps not surprisingly.

Could such a link give a competitive journey time to London from the East Midlands, compared with via Bedford? I was thinking of the 4tph through Leicester/Market Harborough, keeping their standard stopping pattern, then through the new link to Northampton and then London Euston, stopping only at Milton Keynes Central. This would leave only the Corby services doing BedPan

Looking at National Rail Enquiries, it seems to take 56m from Northampton to Euston, with calls at Milton Keynes Central & Watford Junction. Somewhat bizarrely, it takes only 55m when changing at Milton Keynes Central. The onward Virgin service misses out Watford Junction, but this is offset by the LNW service calling at Wolverton (unlike to direct service) and the 6m wait at MKC. I estimate that a fast Northampton service to Euston only stopping at Milton Keynes would take about 47m; whilst Market Harborough to St Pancras with not intermediate stations is 58m. So the golden question is: could a new alignment get from Market Harborough to Northampton in less than 11 minutes?

Using the old Market Harborough to Northampton alignment is it built on?

Could be interesting? I would think the other WCML stations may get priority instead and new destinations such as Windermere or enhanced Shrewsbury and Blackpool to London services would be the main ones. It is probably an alternative.

 

[Bevan Price]

Maverick idea time:

Looking at National Rail Enquiries, it seems to take 56m from Northampton to Euston, with calls at Milton Keynes Central & Watford Junction. Somewhat bizarrely, it takes only 55m when changing at Milton Keynes Central. The onward Virgin service misses out Watford Junction, but this is offset by the LNW service calling at Wolverton (unlike to direct service) and the 6m wait at MKC. I estimate that a fast Northampton service to Euston only stopping at Milton Keynes would take about 47m; whilst Market Harborough to St Pancras with not intermediate stations is 58m. So the golden question is: could a new alignment get from Market Harborough to Northampton in less than 11 minutes?

The old line was about 17 miles long, so even with some realignments, I suspect that Northampton to Market Harborough would need about 14 to 15 minutes (unless rebuilt tp HS2 specifications) - and would also need to be electrified. Also, unless a lot more capacity is released on WCML, the service might have to be provided by extending some of the current Euston - Northampton services to Market Harborough.

 

[EM2]

Maverick idea time:

Once HS2 happens (or at least Phase 1) and if BedPan really is full, how about a stretch of new line linking Northampton to Market Harborough?

But East-West Rail is already planned to link Bletchley and Bedford, so why pretty much duplicate it? And yes, I know they're already connected...

 

[edwin_m]

Using the old Market Harborough to Northampton alignment is it built on?

Built on immediately it diverges from the Midland line at Market Harborough, as can be seen from the train, and for several hundred metres beyond that. It's remotely possible a new connection could be made south of the town where they run fairly close together.

 

[Gareth]

Using the old Market Harborough to Northampton alignment is it built on?

Could be interesting? I would think the other WCML stations may get priority instead and new destinations such as Windermere or enhanced Shrewsbury and Blackpool to London services would be the main ones. It is probably an alternative.

From a casual look on a map, it seems largely intact, although there is a heritage railway at the far south end of it. As I don't envision any intermediate stations, the alignment wouldn't have to be identical anyway.

The old line was about 17 miles long, so even with some realignments, I suspect that Northampton to Market Harborough would need about 14 to 15 minutes (unless rebuilt tp HS2 specifications) - and would also need to be electrified. Also, unless a lot more capacity is released on WCML, the service might have to be provided by extending some of the current Euston - Northampton services to Market Harborough.

Yes, I suspect it would be touching go. Northampton seems to be about equidistant between Market Harborough and Milton Keynes, with MK being about 14 minutes on the fastest trains. Obviously, I'm assuming electrification perhaps bi modes north of Leicester but preferably electrified throughout. The classic service pattern on the WCML would need to be rejigged (though it will need to anyway with HS2).

Built on immediately it diverges from the Midland line at Market Harborough, as can be seen from the train, and for several hundred metres beyond that. It's remotely possible a new connection could be made south of the town where they run fairly close together.

Yes, I was assuming joining the MML just south of Market Harborough. It would become the 'through' line, with the southern MML diverting off eastwards.

 

[Gareth]

But East-West Rail is already planned to link Bletchley and Bedford, so why pretty much duplicate it? And yes, I know they're already connected...

It's not really the same proposition though, unless Bedford-Euston via Bletchley could compete journey time-wise with the Midland Mainline. Even then, you're talking fitting 4tph intercity with the Marston Vale stoppers, plus whatever East-West journeys are proposed. Additionally, it'd use up paths on the WCML without the added usefulness of serving Milton Keynes Central & Northampton, plus linking these places with the East Midlands.