Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
As an aside, I'm intrigued to know how they are going to deliver an end to end 38 min journey time as well.
Coventry - Nuneaton is 22 mins, Nuneaton - Leicester is 19 mins - that's not allowing *any* reversal time at all and if anything will probably mean missing stops along the way. Surprised they haven't suggested wiring it and running it with 365s TBH.
Only way it can be done is non-stop and with line speed increases between Cov and Nuneaton to get that down to the 13-14 minute mark. 4-5 minute reversal is standard. The run from P2 via the dive under to the Leicester line is going to be slower than the time from P7, so call that part 20 minutes.
I'll cede those - They'll need to do the Wigston to Leicester four-tracking and probably the extra platform at Leicester, before they start to plan many additional services through Leicester.
Not sure if anyone could put a case for doing anything at Trent Junction until it's been definitely decided what is going to happen with HS2 Eastern Leg
I'll cede those - They'll need to do the Wigston to Leicester four-tracking and probably the extra platform at Leicester, before they start to plan many additional services through Leicester.
Not sure if anyone could put a case for doing anything at Trent Junction until it's been definitely decided what is going to happen with HS2 Eastern Leg
You can put a very strong case for sorting trent junctions out today. The difficulty is working out exactly what to do until the HS2 leg is confirmed. But that hasn't stopped people working out some answers:
Thanks for that, @zwk500, I hadn't seen it before. Lots of interesting analysis there. But they don't seem to include any specific recommendations; just lots of questions.
And it still seems to me that everything hangs on what Grant Shapps meant by building HS2 East "in a smarter way". Does that mean keeping the Toton Hub? Or what?
Leicester station usage is about 5.5m / p.a. - so call that 20-25k / day as a average - which means you reckon about 20-25% of the traffic through Leicester station at weekends will be students going home or visiting mates in other cities....... really ?
Erm, no - you said "Although there is a fairly constant 'churn' of students going home for weekends / travelling to other cities to see friends. Obviously the beginning and end of term is the busiest but other travel is not insignificant."
So I actually used stats to demonstrate your claim it "is not insignificant" perhaps isn't accurate.
The student numbers are from Wikipedia, so can be verified. The usage figures for Leicester station are annual and on Wikipedia so can be verified - I averaged them for a day, imperfect, but probably reasonably accurate.
I took a 'finger in air' %age of students that would go home / visit mates at the weekend (your claimed group) of 25%, so feel free to suggest a more accurate figure - and assumed that 50% would use the train, again feel free to suggest a more accurate figure.
Erm, no - you said "Although there is a fairly constant 'churn' of students going home for weekends / travelling to other cities to see friends. Obviously the beginning and end of term is the busiest but other travel is not insignificant."
So I actually used stats to demonstrate your claim it "is not insignificant" perhaps isn't accurate.
The student numbers are from Wikipedia, so can be verified. The usage figures for Leicester station are annual and on Wikipedia so can be verified - I averaged them for a day, imperfect, but probably reasonably accurate.
I took a 'finger in air' %age of students that would go home / visit mates at the weekend (your claimed group) of 25%, so feel free to suggest a more accurate figure - and assumed that 50% would use the train, again feel free to suggest a more accurate figure.
A few things -
Other students visit Leicester, traffic isn't one-way. So you can double your estimates.
That said, most of your stats are also essentially unverifiable since we don't have access to travel data, and there's a lot of guessing to the point where you can't even really claim your argument is more valid than mine. Weekend travel is less than that on weekdays, for a start, and the estimates for student numbers are very broad.
I don't deny that most students don't travel from Leicester on a weekend (and actually agree that your estimates are generous) but you can't just make up a stat of 25%, then have a go at me for suggesting that such a percentage leave Leicester. The issue basically comes down to what we class as 'insignificant'. In my mind insignificant is anything less than 5%. It appears your threshold is more like 25%. This is probably where our disagreement is coming from! But I wouldn't be surprised if 25% of weekend travel into Leicester station was related to the student world - the city isn't exactly a major tourist draw, hasn't got much weekend working, and the football is only fortnightly.
If 1% of those switched to rail over a 15 hour day assuming 1 train in each direction that's 15 cars worth.
Given the average car had 1.2 people we could see 18 people.
Whilst that is very low it does demonstrate that you would only need a fairly small shift from road to rail to make it potentially viable whilst still leaving 95+% of the traffic still using the road.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If we are to get the greatest number of people out of their cars and onto rail then we need to prioritise the schemes that will give the biggest benefit first. Schemes that only give cumulative effect should wait until the critical mass is closer.
Passenger numbers have doubled, but not uniformly across the network. Long-distance interurban flows have shot up, but many regional routes have barely moved. There has to be demand for travel before people will look at using the train.
XC's key hub is Birmingham, they're not going to divert away from it. The solution to XC's capacity issues is to run longer trains.
There are 2 main intermodal freight flows through Nuneaton, neither of which are helped by this proposal. Felixstowe-Midlands traffic will continue to run via Water Orton for Lawley Street, and WCML/Southampton-Manchester traffic will stay on the Trent Valley. Aggregates traffic will almost certainly stay on their own lines to London, because it's the fastest way to where the stone is needed.
I know that rail growth isn't universal, which is why I looked at what a 50% growth rate would have done to rail use.
Whilst I agree that XC needs longer trains, the point that I was making (and it may not be XC, but rather I used XC as shorthand for an intercity train which doesn't serve London) was that there could be scope to increase frequencies, and reduce journey times by not needing to double back through Birmingham, for semi fast services from the South East to the East Midlands.
Whilst it may not generate lots of traffic end to end, significant . An extra XC service from Reading to Coventry would likely be well used, even with longer trains on the existing services.
That's in part to go into London from South West of London (Guildford, Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton, etc.) involves quite a long delay getting across London after you've got to Waterloo, which is why XC services are fairly busy on this axis.
Ideally you'd run the service South of Reading, however there just isn't the space. However even then it's likely that this extra service could connect better with some of the other services into Reading (maybe the SWR services and services to Newbury and Guildford). That could make it more attractive to get a train to Banbury or Coventry for onwards travel.
The problem is that you then have nowhere for that train to go, which could cause capacity issues, in which case of there was somewhere for it to go that could be useful, even if doing so was a bit of a loss leader.
As to funding, the likely carbon reductions from more rail travel instead of road travel would likely be worth the investment, given that surface travel is now a significant percentage of our total carbon emissions and the cost of carbon capture for the extra by continuing to use and invest in roads could make it worthwhile considering.
As railways per mile on their maintenance is easily half that of the strategic road network whilst the average per person per km emissions from moving people is broadly comparable between rail and EV's.
However rail is still using a lot of diesel and quite a few km's traveled by those who use rail is by walking/cycling (typically more than car users do) and so rail is likely to be better overall.
That's before you consider any further electrification or even the use of bimodals on the MML and as replacements for the ICWC Voyagers. All of which will reduce diesel use by rail.
That's before you look at the significant issues which battery production could have (including the harm that they are already causing), especially given that there's currently more cars in the UK than there are tax payers (few of which are EV's).
Whilst I agree that XC needs longer trains, the point that I was making (and it may not be XC, but rather I used XC as shorthand for an intercity train which doesn't serve London) was that there could be scope to increase frequencies, and reduce journey times by not needing to double back through Birmingham, for semi fast services from the South East to the East Midlands.
Whilst it may not generate lots of traffic end to end, significant . An extra XC service from Reading to Coventry would likely be well used, even with longer trains on the existing services.
That's in part to go into London from South West of London (Guildford, Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton, etc.) involves quite a long delay getting across London after you've got to Waterloo, which is why XC services are fairly busy on this axis.
Ideally you'd run the service South of Reading, however there just isn't the space. However even then it's likely that this extra service could connect better with some of the other services into Reading (maybe the SWR services and services to Newbury and Guildford). That could make it more attractive to get a train to Banbury or Coventry for onwards travel.
The problem is that you then have nowhere for that train to go, which could cause capacity issues, in which case of there was somewhere for it to go that could be useful, even if doing so was a bit of a loss leader.
If 1% of those switched to rail over a 15 hour day assuming 1 train in each direction that's 15 cars worth.
Given the average car had 1.2 people we could see 18 people.
Whilst that is very low it does demonstrate that you would only need a fairly small shift from road to rail to make it potentially viable whilst still leaving 95+% of the traffic still using the road.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That was a count at a single point, so won't include vehicles making journeys which leave the M69 before reaching either end, nor does it account for those which don't end at either end but continue elsewhere.
So I think your base of 44,000 is too high - the data doesn't tell you, but you need to know how many of those are travelling between Coventry & Leicester.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
A few things -
Other students visit Leicester, traffic isn't one-way. So you can double your estimates.
That said, most of your stats are also essentially unverifiable since we don't have access to travel data, and there's a lot of guessing to the point where you can't even really claim your argument is more valid than mine. Weekend travel is less than that on weekdays, for a start, and the estimates for student numbers are very broad.
I don't deny that most students don't travel from Leicester on a weekend (and actually agree that your estimates are generous) but you can't just make up a stat of 25%, then have a go at me for suggesting that such a percentage leave Leicester. The issue basically comes down to what we class as 'insignificant'. In my mind insignificant is anything less than 5%. It appears your threshold is more like 25%. This is probably where our disagreement is coming from! But I wouldn't be surprised if 25% of weekend travel into Leicester station was related to the student world - the city isn't exactly a major tourist draw, hasn't got much weekend working, and the football is only fortnightly.
My "threshold" for significant isn't just a %age, it's also absolute numbers - and those numbers are relatively insignificant against wider use of the station. Add in that's all before you look where people are travelling and if the numbers of your group are low to begin with that suggests adding another route - in this case Leicester - Coventry - won't change that.
Yet there are frequent direct XC, TPE and Northern trains between the two places (with people travelling from Sheffield to Doncaster), the combined population of which is less than the combined population of Leicester and Coventry.
But we already know what the total travel between Coventry and Leicester is. It's about 33 x the rail usage on that corridor, given that rail takes a 3% market share, according to Midlands Connect.
The question is what market share will go by rail if there were faster and more frequent direct services? And whether that increase would justify the investment required? I guess that will be answered in the SOBC when/if we ever get to see it.
Road usage spot data is next to useless for trying to establish demand between two points. It will have more people doing other journeys included, than the ones you are trying to count
Road usage spot data is next to useless for trying to establish demand between two points. It will have more people doing other journeys included, than the ones you are trying to count
Indeed, and getting back on topic, I’d wager that the number of people driving on the M69 that have a journey that starts and finishes within a 20 minute walk of each of Leicester and Coventry stations is minute.
Indeed, and getting back on topic, I’d wager that the number of people driving on the M69 that have a journey that starts and finishes within a 20 minute walk of each of Leicester and Coventry stations is minute.
For Leicester and Coventry both, minute. For one or the other, where the destination is <20 minutes from another railhead, an order of magnitude less minute.
My "threshold" for significant isn't just a %age, it's also absolute numbers - and those numbers are relatively insignificant against wider use of the station. Add in that's all before you look where people are travelling and if the numbers of your group are low to begin with that suggests adding another route - in this case Leicester - Coventry - won't change that.
Indeed, and no one is suggesting that the project which is the subject of this thread is a higher priority than those, however it's useful for such schemes to be developed as otherwise the shopping list could look less good if the question was asked in 5 years time.
Clearly if it's found that the scheme isn't viable when it's developed further then it'll never make the list.
Easiest solution is to build that bay platform at Coventry to allow 2tph (maybe even 3tph in the peak) to run between Coventry & Nuneaton where any passengers for Leicester can change onto XC.
At least with 2tph if a XC is late and misses a connection, it will only be a 30 minute wait rather than an hour wait. Spend the money on putting wires up instead of building a new dive under
Easiest solution is to build that bay platform at Coventry to allow 2tph (maybe even 3tph in the peak) to run between Coventry & Nuneaton where any passengers for Leicester can change onto XC.
At least with 2tph if a XC is late and misses a connection, it will only be a 30 minute wait rather than an hour wait. Spend the money on putting wires up instead of building a new dive under
Indeed, however if that shows that there's good usage it's good to have a scheme which had started development of the proposal being more ready to go (the cost of the development of the proposals would unlikely make much difference to what could/couldn't be provided)
Easiest solution is to build that bay platform at Coventry to allow 2tph (maybe even 3tph in the peak) to run between Coventry & Nuneaton where any passengers for Leicester can change onto XC.
At least with 2tph if a XC is late and misses a connection, it will only be a 30 minute wait rather than an hour wait. Spend the money on putting wires up instead of building a new dive under
The XC between Birmingham and Leicester is only hourly at present due to Covid - usually it's half hourly so the wait would actually be < 30 mins, so no need to make Cov - Nuneaton 3tph.
The XC between Birmingham and Leicester is only hourly at present due to Covid - usually it's half hourly so the wait would actually be < 30 mins, so no need to make Cov - Nuneaton 3tph.
This week the 0020 South Bank Tees Dock - Daventry ( Tesco ) has been routed via Leicester - Nuneaton ( Due 0450 ) Water Orton - Walsall - Stetchford - Coventry ( Due 0635 ) , if the Dive under had been in place the arrival time at Coventry would have been about 0520 , this would have resulted in an earlier arrival time into Daventry
This week the 0020 South Bank Tees Dock - Daventry ( Tesco ) has been routed via Leicester - Nuneaton ( Due 0450 ) Water Orton - Walsall - Stetchford - Coventry ( Due 0635 ) , if the Dive under had been in place the arrival time at Coventry would have been about 0520 , this would have resulted in an earlier arrival time into Daventry
Agreed , weather this service runs via Tamworth or Nuneaton it runs via Water Orton - Walsall - Stetchford to get the train facing South with out having to run the Loco Round . If the Nuneaton conection was in place this lengthy detour would be avoided
Agreed , weather this service runs via Tamworth or Nuneaton it runs via Water Orton - Walsall - Stetchford to get the train facing South with out having to run the Loco Round . If the Nuneaton conection was in place this lengthy detour would be avoided
The Nuneaton connection is no help at all for trains via Tamworth, which is this trains regularly booked route. Leicester has enough freight through it from Felixstowe without forcing North East flows through it.
roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk
