Possible Solutions to increase capacity between Bedford and St Pancras?

[Peter Kelford]

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

Removing a certain champagne bar could allow the trains to be the same length as HS1 ones, 500m.

 

[Aictos]

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?

Not sure if you're being serious with your suggestion of IC services having a 10 minute turnaround but that doesn't give any time for any turnaround cleaning or tanking the toilets if need be to name just two duties that happen during a train's turnaround.

It simply isn't feasible to do it, commuter services though yes it is possible but not IC services!

As to GTR only being restricted to the slows, why? If EMT wants more capacity then they ought to have longer trains at a standard length not at 4, 5, 7, 9 etc, standardise at one length and leave it at that.

As to St Pancras to Glasgow trains, this is fantasy as the MML is full enough south of Bedford, Sheffield and the Dore/Hope Valley plus Leeds is full enough so no I rather EMT didn't launch a Anglo-Scottish service, far better to improve the services they have at the moment rather then worry about new services.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Removing a certain champagne bar could allow the trains to be the same length as HS1 ones, 500m.

Can the rest of the platforms on the MML cope with that? Or could they be used for more than one service i.e 250m per train so it would effectively make it work like 8 platforms.

 

[edwin_m]

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

The semi-fasts are maxed out to a pair of 5-car units in the peaks but only warrant one 5-car off-peak. The fasts are mostly 7-car Meridans or HSTs all day.

 

[edwin_m]

Removing a certain champagne bar could allow the trains to be the same length as HS1 ones, 500m.

HS1 trains are 400m long, which is longer than the maximum platform length at some other MML stations but not as long as two maximum-length MML trains. Getting rid of the champagne bar and roofing over the downstairs shopping aisle would allow one, possibly two, platforms of this length (which was one of earlier designs for St Pancras) but would make the walking routes even more awkward.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

8tph can be accommodated at St Pancras:

2x Corby (12-car Suburban: EMU)
2x Nottingham (9-car InterCity: BMU)
1x Leeds (9-car InterCity: BMU)
1x Sheffield (9-car InterCity: BMU)
2x Manchester Piccadilly (9-car InterCity BMU)

This would increase capacity dramatically but beyond this platforms could be extended to accommodate more services or maybe splitting services instead.

 

[EM2]

Removing a certain champagne bar could allow the trains to be the same length as HS1 ones, 500m.

Apart from the massive holes in the concourse floor...

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Apart from the massive holes in the concourse floor...

Wouldn’t it be better just to add an additional platform instead of extending existing ones?

 

[EM2]

Wouldn’t it be better just to add an additional platform instead of extending existing ones?

Where?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Where?

Next to platform 1?

 

[Bald Rick]

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?

Err, what? Why would you want to significantly reduce capacity for Thameslink services and significantly extend journey times, by putting them all on the slows? And why trains to Liverpool, and Scotland from St Pancras? There’s a station half a mile to the east that has a pretty good service to those places already....

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.

A correction: on the MML south of Bedford, Thameslink carries nearly ten times as many passengers than EMT.

 

[Bald Rick]

Next to platform 1?

How and why?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

How and why?

Well it would be easier than extending platforms 3 and 4 into the concourse.

There is a problem still has not been tackled which is the Kentish Town to Bedford section. How much help would ETCS Level 3 be?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Well it would be easier than extending platforms 3 and 4 into the concourse.

There is a problem still has not been tackled which is the Kentish Town to Bedford section. How much help would ETCS Level 3 be?

I think various of us here , with just a bit of experience of operating or using this service , have explained the complex interactions on this very busy , mixed traffic railway. Particularly the competing issues of IC / TLK and freight. The use of the 4 tracks is heavily optimised by the junction weaving strategies , the need to serve all locations with a comprehensive "as fit for purpose" service - particularly for the dominant commuter flows. An other factor is the challenge of terminating services at Kentish Town , West Hampstead (for Cricklewood) , St Albans City, Luton and Bedford. Not easy, and no easy "Jack and the Beanstalk magic beans" solution. Certainly not from ETCS Level 3 , this is not (say) the Victoria line.

Maybe we should blame the Midland Railway for not being dynamic enough before 1914 , when, before too much urbanisation developed , that a 6 track railway vice the 4 track railway was laid out south of Bedford. Mind you then , the entire Midland London suburban business was less than the numbers carried annually on the Swansea Vale Railway , which they also operated as a single track and poorly resourced for the passenger.

Mind you the core traffics was endless hauls of coal and beer for the great Metropolis , (as well as competing for longer distance flows with better placed competitors along the Euston Road) , so we can hardly blame them.Worth making these comments , as despite today's challenges , in the 1960's - there were serious thoughts on culling much of the MML and diverting the residual services into Moorgate , with St Pancras reduced to either rubble or an NCP car park or similar.

 

[EM2]

Next to platform 1?

Good luck selling that to a) the residents of the flats on the other side of Midland Road, b) the Francis Crick Institute and c) English Heritage (or whatever they're called this week).

 

[ijmad]

Good luck selling that to a) the residents of the flats on the other side of Midland Road, b) the Francis Crick Institute and c) English Heritage (or whatever they're called this week).

Anyway, I thought that space was theoretically earmarked for the Euston-St Pancras people mover they're planning to build for HS2.

This thing:

 

[EM2]

I don't know when that idea was mooted, but the Crick is slap bang in the way now.

 

[ijmad]

I don't know when that idea was mooted, but the Crick is slap bang in the way now.

The people mover station is largely over the top of the road and corner of the rear car park of the British Library. The route of the actual people mover line would be in front of or behind the Francis Crick Institute. It would still fit.

 

[EM2]

The perspective is all wrong on that rendering. The Crick is directly opposite the Midland Road entrance from St P.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.531...4!1sLW9-dkKqhNJtn8e9kWH_ig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

[AM9]

Err, what? Why would you want to significantly reduce capacity for Thameslink services and significantly extend journey times, by putting them all on the slows? And why trains to Liverpool, and Scotland from St Pancras? There’s a station half a mile to the east that has a pretty good service to those places already....



A correction: on the MML south of Bedford, Thameslink carries nearly ten times as many passengers than EMT.

I'm happy to be corrected as I couldn't see any way of finding out just what it was. I went for a conservative guess because EM sends just 5 trains northbound between 17:30 and 18:39 whereas Thameslink sends 16 trains north in the same period. Assuming that TL's 8 that take the fast line from West Hampstead are all 12-car, thats a capacity of over 18000 passengers which will soon be needed for the peak load. EM's trains would be a mixed bag of 4, 5 ,7 & 8-car sets, admittedly all 23m per car but assuming that is say 32 cars, their paths are providing say 1575 seats and 480 standing, totalling 2055,* yet use 5 paths up doing it. If in the peak all EM trains were 8-car, they could carry 550-600 per path which would increase capacity to around 300.

* For simplicity, that's assuming 2x8-car HST + 1x7car + 1x5car + 1x4car class 222, - 32-cars in all with say, 20 standing in 24 of them. I know that long distance trains have lower capacity than outer suburban ones of equivalent length, but TL gets up to 1500 (1760 max) per path whereas EM squanders a path to carry just over 400.

 

[ijmad]

The perspective is all wrong on that rendering. The Crick is directly opposite the Midland Road entrance from St P.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.531...4!1sLW9-dkKqhNJtn8e9kWH_ig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Perhaps you're right, I assume it could still go here though:

This is getting off topic. Either way I agree that it's highly unlikely the St Pancras train shed could be extended West.

 

[edwin_m]

The perspective is all wrong on that rendering. The Crick is directly opposite the Midland Road entrance from St P.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.531...4!1sLW9-dkKqhNJtn8e9kWH_ig!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

The picture shows the peoplemover going north for a short distance then turning left. There is an open area west of Pancras Road which might be big enough to accommodate the terminus with the route turning left along Brill Place, although I agree it's nowhere near as spacious as that visualisation suggests.

 

[Bald Rick]

That ‘spare’ land is being developed, and will have a deep basement for Crossrail2.

 

[Peter Kelford]

If no one will give MML services priority, we may need the assistance of a 21st century Sir John Betjemen, especially post-brexit...

 

[Peter Kelford]

What I think we've all overlooked is that 700s and 707s are equipped with the latest signalling technology. If we could add moving/dynamic blocks, we would only need to resolve capacity issues at STP.

 

[Aictos]

What has Brexit got to do with the Midland Mainline? One way EMT could improve it's own capacity issues is follow in the steps of GWR and have a fleet formed of 5 and 9 carriages as there is no doubt some services which are fine with 5 carriages, while there are some which need 9 or 10 carriages least this way the operator would be able to make the best use of the capacity more then a mix of 4, 5, 7 and 9 carriage length trains.

It would also make fleet diagramming much easier and more reliable.

If digital signalling really was going to make such a difference surely it would have been used by now or least discussed in the industry?

 

[westcoaster]

An outlandish idea, if you could close and flatten church yard sidings. Could you do one of two things.
1. Build an island platform, in the space vacated by the shunt neck and siding. Have this connect to p1-2 by an up and over walkway. Giving 2 extra 220m platforms.
2. Use the space vacated by the siding to alter the tracks out of the station. Extending the current platform to fit 2 X long bi-mode trains, (you could then run these coupled to Leicester where they could split, 1 to Sheffield and 1 to Nottingham.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

An outlandish idea, if you could close and flatten church yard sidings. Could you do one of two things.
1. Build an island platform, in the space vacated by the shunt neck and siding. Have this connect to p1-2 by an up and over walkway. Giving 2 extra 220m platforms.
2. Use the space vacated by the siding to alter the tracks out of the station. Extending the current platform to fit 2 X long bi-mode trains, (you could then run these coupled to Leicester where they could split, 1 to Sheffield and 1 to Nottingham.

1. Is there enough room for two platforms, would it be too long of a walk for people? However this would provide upto 3 extra trains per hour (taking total to 9tph, but if 2tph per platform could be accommodate in current layout then the capacity is increased 12tph (up from 8tph))
2. Might be better as this option could double capacity by providing two trains at one time in the platform effectively providing upto 12 trains per hour (Double the currently planned 6 tph)

 

[talltim]

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

3) building additional platforms would have meant residential land take and also encroaching on the grounds of St Pancras church.

An extra platform or two could have been fitted in on the east side of the station extension either by building above Pancras Road or moving it over. Only the buildings at the south end of Pancras road are old and I believe it was all railway land

 

[EM2]

An extra platform or two could have been fitted in on the east side of the station extension either by building above Pancras Road or moving it over. Only the buildings at the south end of Pancras road are old and I believe it was all railway land

Except the east side connects to HS1, not the MML, so not a lot of use for EMT. Yes, I know it was used as an interim station during the rebuilding, but HS1 wasn't complete then.