Possible Solutions to increase capacity between Bedford and St Pancras?

[ChiefPlanner]

Before the rebuild, London Bridge was at 105% in the morning peak.

And in another universe / country - Ystrad Rhondda - Porth is 97% capacity. It does work though ....

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Right, I get you.
Sadly I think that the idea of a northbound fast Thameslink diveunder is a non-starter in engineering terms. While we were looking at slab track for the new fast lines on the old hoods lines through Kentish Town the retaining wall started to give way. It has been dramatically rock anchored. There is no way, short of massive land purchase and demolition, probably with a major blockade at least of St Pancras high level, that you could create an exit for the diveunder.

ok so with that info it's safe to say that the cost would've been prohibitive... however it appears to me that it would be the only solution to the bottleneck caused by the TL/MML junction being at grade.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

What about this for a reorganisation of directions on the MML. Lots of issues with this though, including access to the Cricklewood sidings.

Out of St Pancras High level the two main track directions are reversed so that the up is on the west side.

This way just before the tunnels the two down tracks (one each from High Level and low level) are next to each with possible easy crossing.

From the tunnels up to Hendon there are 5 main tracks (plus one for freight) UF, DF, DS, US, Up Thameslink Fast. There is an extra Up line used for fast Thameslink services. The slow lines are in the centre of the platforms. The UF is using one of the Freight lines without platforms.

The freight flyover is converted to passenger use and the UF joines the UTF. So by Mill Hill you have DDUU (looking north) with the fasts on the outside.

You would need to change the sidings arrangement at St Albans for the centre platforms, and the Radlett freight terminals are problematic.

You would then need to change back to the historic layout after St Albans with a new flyover.

There is probably a sliver of land you could take from about a mile north of West Hampstead towards Cricklewood , then the problematical issues of the recently rebuilt sidings at the latter apply. St Albans in terms of railway footprint is very tight indeed - trust me , I went out there on a freezing December morning to assess it for a possible 5 / 6 tracking project.

I personally do not lose sleep over a "Radlett Railfreight terminal" .....

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

There is probably a sliver of land you could take from about a mile north of West Hampstead towards Cricklewood , then the problematical issues of the recently rebuilt sidings at the latter apply. St Albans in terms of railway footprint is very tight indeed - trust me , I went out there on a freezing December morning to assess it for a possible 5 / 6 tracking project.

I personally do not lose sleep over a "Radlett Railfreight terminal" .....

doesn't St Albans have an extra wide island platform though? would there be a possibility of narrowing the island and adding a 3rd track between the 2 fast lines so that MML services can "overtake" TL trains stopped on the fast line platforms?

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't know the exact names of the locations.. I'm no expert and have never claimed to be... I am relying a lot on my memory of many years of using the line aided by google maps... so here goes... as you come out of the Thameslink tunnels both TL lines run parallel to the 4 MML lines from St Pancras...

I’m not sure how many times many of us have to say this, but there are not 4 MML lines out of St Pancras.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

View attachment 55240

I’m not sure how many times many of us have to say this, but there are not 4 MML lines out of St Pancras.

good grief! there are 4 MML lines at Kentish Town and 2 TL lines... that is a fact that can be verified by looking on Google maps satellite view no matter how much you want to nitpick

 

[Bald Rick]

I give up.

 

[EM2]

good grief! there are 4 MML lines at Kentish Town and 2 TL lines... that is a fact that can be verified by looking on Google maps satellite view no matter how much you want to nitpick

The document that has been posted is the Network Rail Sectional Appendix, which is the official definition of railway infrastructure. As far as the railway goes, apart from the Rule Book, it's pretty much the most important document used.
If you're not willing to believe that document, then there's no point discussing the matter.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

The document that has been posted is the Network Rail Sectional Appendix, which is the official definition of railway infrastructure. As far as the railway goes, apart from the Rule Book, it's pretty much the most important document used.
If you're not willing to believe that document, then there's no point discussing the matter.

I'm not disputing that the MML narrows to 2 tracks between Kentish Town and St Pancras however at Kentish Town station there are 6 tracks and 4 of them do proceed towards St Pancras... and I'm sorry but all these continued attempts to show me up as some sort of ignoramous is ridiculous. Instead of trying to make yourselves look grand and all knowing by bogging down the argument in a minutiae of detail that doesn't really impact on the proposal put forward why not give some valid answers to the questions posed like @Dr Hoo has done?

 

[EM2]

View media item 3265The yellow star shows the four MML platforms.
The blue star shows the lines leading into those platforms.
How many lines are there?

 

[EM2]

I'm not disputing that the MML narrows to 2 tracks between Kentish Town and St Pancras however at Kentish Town station there are 6 tracks and 4 of them do proceed towards St Pancras...

Towards, but not to. And if they don't go to St Pancras, how can they be used to increase capacity at St Pancras, and thence on to Bedford?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

doesn't St Albans have an extra wide island platform though? would there be a possibility of narrowing the island and adding a 3rd track between the 2 fast lines so that MML services can "overtake" TL trains stopped on the fast line platforms?

One wishes it did -and I am sure the staff who work it did - shall we say he crowding off a very busy peak service - discharging the passengers , waiting to get over the one (substandard) footbridge is a bit of a challenge. Good job the non stop services on the fast , generally "blow up" on the horn and the PA is used to good effect.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I give up.

With you here Guv....

 

[John Webb]

doesn't St Albans have an extra wide island platform though? would there be a possibility of narrowing the island and adding a 3rd track between the 2 fast lines so that MML services can "overtake" TL trains stopped on the fast line platforms?

A bit more history on St Albans City Station - due to the City fathers building a new city jail circa 1863, just as the Midland Railway (MR) was getting its acts sorted out, the City fathers realised that the proposed station would be East of the jail, so that this would be the first thing passengers coming out of the station would have to pass. In discussions with the MR the City fathers persuaded the MR to deviate to the West side of the jail by giving them land (and a corner of the jail yard!). This means that the station is on a curve and on a relatively narrow site. Part of the island platform where it was extended for 12-coach trains is limited to access by down slow trains only due to lack of width.
Thameslink are trying to sort out how to fit in a second footbridge to help cope with the numbers of passengers - this could not be fitted into anything narrower than the existing island platform.
And the suggestion by Verulamius (post #88) that the Up slow become the Up Fast is definitely out of the running - this is the most sharply curved track in the station and would significantly slow the fast trains due to the physics of going round bends safely. Even on the current fast lines the speed limit is around 100mph on the largest radius bend, compared to 125mph running further north and south of St Albans.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

A bit more history on St Albans City Station - due to the City fathers building a new city jail circa 1863, just as the Midland Railway (MR) was getting its acts sorted out, the City fathers realised that the proposed station would be East of the jail, so that this would be the first thing passengers coming out of the station would have to pass. In discussions with the MR the City fathers persuaded the MR to deviate to the West side of the jail by giving them land (and a corner of the jail yard!). This means that the station is on a curve and on a relatively narrow site. Part of the island platform where it was extended for 12-coach trains is limited to access by down slow trains only due to lack of width.
Thameslink are trying to sort out how to fit in a second footbridge to help cope with the numbers of passengers - this could not be fitted into anything narrower than the existing island platform.
And the suggestion by Verulamius (post #88) that the Up slow become the Up Fast is definitely out of the running - this is the most sharply curved track in the station and would significantly slow the fast trains due to the physics of going round bends safely. Even on the current fast lines the speed limit is around 100mph on the largest radius bend, compared to 125mph running further north and south of St Albans.

thankyou for another informed reply

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Is there any solution to this?

The section north of St Pancras towards Bedford is the main reason why only 6tph can go to St Pancras (after Electrification) if it is possible to hold 8tph at St Pancras is there any way of increasing capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One simple way of increasing capacity would be maxing out train lengths, i.e. not running any 8-cars to Bedford on Thameslink, and new EMT stock so all those are maxed out too.

 

[westcoaster]

Is there any solution to this?

The section north of St Pancras towards Bedford is the main reason why only 6tph can go to St Pancras (after Electrification) if it is possible to hold 8tph at St Pancras is there any way of increasing capacity.

As above maxing out the train length,

If you ran a 10 car on the hour fast to Leicester split one to Nottingham and one to Sheffield. Repeat the same at half past the hour.
Then at 15/45 run a 10 car from to Corby, rear to Leicester/derby.

 

[ijmad]

One simple way of increasing capacity would be maxing out train lengths, i.e. not running any 8-cars to Bedford on Thameslink, and new EMT stock so all those are maxed out too.

As there are more 12 car Thameslink routes North of the river than South of it, someone North of the river (Peterborough or Cambridge) is going to lose out in the equation.

 

[whoosh]

Part of the problem at St Pancras turnarounds, is the lack of standardisation of EMTs trains. To get short turnarounds, you might want a train that's come in from one Northern terminus, to go back out to a different Northern terminus.
That's difficult when the trains aren't standard. A five car stopper from Nottingham might not make an attractive unit to work a more heavily loaded Sheffield fast for example - a 7 car would be better.
An HST coming in fast from Nottingham, won't make an attractive slow service to Nottingham with all the stops they make with their poorer acceleration.

They all need to be standardised really, so anything coming in can make anything going out - then you've got free reign on turnaround time.

Unfortunately, the Corby service will be electric in the future, and it's path in and out will have be matched up to the same unit. Although having them increase to twice an hour effectively gives it a maximum turnaround of less than half an hour.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Grade Separation could be part of the solution.

 

[edwin_m]

If the Nottingham fast journey time can be reduced to around 90min, it may be possible to re-jig the timetable so there are four trains working that service and there is a total of 1hr of layover at the two ends. Sheffield fasts with a 2hr journey time could have five trains working the service with a similar amount of layover. This would reduce platform occupancy at St Pancras and also keep a train on the same service all day, which is better than having trains interworking between routes as it makes it less likely that disruption on one route will affect the other.

This is only possible if the timetables for Thameslink and other services further north allow paths for MML trains at suitable times.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

St Pancras could accommodate 8 trains per hour I would have thought but the problem is that Thameslink cannot be separated from EMT services. Otherwise you could have used ETCS. 16 trains per hour are planned as part of Thameslink Programme on the MML.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Would suggest that GTR only runs on slows, with use of fasts restricted to off-peak times. Furthermore, 10 minute layovers at STP would allow for 3 trains per hour per platform, if 5 minutes between each train was permitted. Thus the entire current service could be fitted into half the platforms, essentially freeing up a further 6tph. Between the hours of 20:00 and 21:00 there are: 2x Nottingham, 1x Leeds, 1x Derby, 1x Sheffield. The two routes I would add are Liverpool and Edinburgh/Glasgow trains from STP. Perhaps A train could run from STP up the Settle-Carlisle line to Glasgow?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Would suggest that GTR only runs on slows, with use of fasts restricted to off-peak times. Furthermore, 10 minute layovers at STP would allow for 3 trains per hour per platform, if 5 minutes between each train was permitted. Thus the entire current service could be fitted into half the platforms, essentially freeing up a further 6tph. Between the hours of 20:00 and 21:00 there are: 2x Nottingham, 1x Leeds, 1x Derby, 1x Sheffield. The two routes I would add are Liverpool and Edinburgh/Glasgow trains from STP. Perhaps A train could run from STP up the Settle-Carlisle line to Glasgow?

Manchester instead of Liverpool. Can they run 3 trains per hour per platform on Long Distance?

 

[Peter Kelford]

Manchester instead of Liverpool. Can they run 3 trains per hour per platform on Long Distance?

Liverpool trains could serve both, but Manchester ones would only be able to serve Manchester. I've seen 3tph in other countries, namely at Lille Europe. Trains come in from Brussels and reverse out to the rest of France.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Liverpool trains could serve both, but Manchester ones would only be able to serve Manchester. I've seen 3tph in other countries, namely at Lille Europe. Trains come in from Brussels and reverse out to the rest of France.

I suppose but I can see 8tph being possible that could permit 1xLeeds, 1xSheffield, 2xNottingham, 2x Corby 1xDerby and 1xManchester but that can only happen if all Thameslink could go via slow which I am not sure they can

 

[AM9]

Would suggest that GTR only runs on slows, with use of fasts restricted to off-peak times. Furthermore, 10 minute layovers at STP would allow for 3 trains per hour per platform, if 5 minutes between each train was permitted. Thus the entire current service could be fitted into half the platforms, essentially freeing up a further 6tph. Between the hours of 20:00 and 21:00 there are: 2x Nottingham, 1x Leeds, 1x Derby, 1x Sheffield. The two routes I would add are Liverpool and Edinburgh/Glasgow trains from STP. Perhaps A train could run from STP up the Settle-Carlisle line to Glasgow?

Thameslink carries about twice as many passengers as East Midlands trains. The tracks are there to be used as required. If EM needs to create capacity, it should use the paths available to it more efficiently by running full length trains as does Thameslink.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Thameslink carries about twice as many passengers as East Midlands trains. The tracks are there to be used as required. If EM needs to create capacity, it should use the paths available to it more efficiently by running full length trains as does Thameslink.

Aren’t MML platforms at St Pancras 260 meteres long. That could lead to 9 car InterCity trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aren’t MML platforms at St Pancras 260 meteres long. That could lead to 9 car InterCity trains.

I was going to say, maxing out train lengths would be a big help.