Should there be a London - Leicester semi fast service when electrification is completed?

[Bletchleyite]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/emr-class-360s.205226

Completely understandable - Bedford has re-gained it's 2 fast TPH from London which it had lost for a time.

Kettering has now got a *much* better service of 4 TPH all day, two of which are fast from St Pancras.

Wellingborough has lost its northbound connectivity and has a fractionally slower southbound journey.

Northbound connectivity on the MML from the southern stations has long been an issue. Ideally when more electrification is completed, there can be a semifast service to Leicester which will provide this.

 

[A0]

Northbound connectivity on the MML from the southern stations has long been an issue. Ideally when more electrification is completed, there can be a semifast service to Leicester which will provide this.

It hasn't - pre Corby there were 2 tph which ran onto Leicester / Nottingham / Sheffield. It was adding the Corby's in which disrupted this. The arrangement now actually is fine - Luton, Bedford and Wellingborough have a simple 1 change at Kettering and access to Leicester and Nottingham. The stations between Luton and Bedford aren't serving major towns and most of their traffic is London bound. South of St Albans it was just as easy / quick to travel via St Pancras as it was via Luton.

But then again, there really *isn't* the demand for such travel. If you stand at Bedford at ~17.30 when the northbound EMR arrives you'll see there are penny numbers waiting to board it and that's always been the case. Before the latest changes if you got on an EMR stopper from St Pancras between 17.00 - 18.30 it would be full and standing when it left, full when it left Luton and half empty when it left Bedford and the numbers boarding at the latter were minimal.

 

[cle]

In an ideal world, if a path could be unlocked (tricky) and wires to Leicester, possibly including the works there to deliver a new platform - then an EMU there would seem a logical step. It would allow certain services to drop Market Harborough calls too.

If a path couldn't be found but these works happened, possibly 1tph of Corby is diverted to Leicester. If Corby needs 2tph, a connecting shuttle might suffice. Possibly said shuttle is a DMU and goes onwards? Or there is a splitting approach - but less desirable.

Or it extends and takes the place of a slower Nottingham...

 

[Ianno87]

Not sure that electrification will enable more than 6tph "long distance" on the southern MML. All it does is make the already fastest trains on the route south of Bedford slightly faster; that doesn't add capacity.

 

[A0]

Not sure that electrification will enable more than 6tph "long distance" on the southern MML. All it does is make the already fastest trains on the route south of Bedford slightly faster; that doesn't add capacity.

Correct. In fact this was discussed at length previously and it was determined there aren't any free paths between Kettering & Leicester - bearing in mind at that point it's a 2 track railway and has to accomodate 2 services / hour which stop at Market Harborough as well as freight, in addition to the 2 fasts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Oct 2021 ==

If a path couldn't be found but these works happened, possibly 1tph of Corby is diverted to Leicester. If Corby needs 2tph, a connecting shuttle might suffice. Possibly said shuttle is a DMU and goes onwards? Or there is a splitting approach - but less desirable.

Yes, because running a DMU shuttle to a freshly electrified Corby is really going to attract usage

 

[Ianno87]

It would also be interesting to know, once the May 2021 timetable pattern settles down, how much demand is satisfied by changing trains at Kettering. i.e. does the standard grumbling about losing a direct train actually translate into a reduction in demand, or does a regular, half-hourly connection actually stimulate demand compared to the previous through train that was only once per hour?

 

[cle]

Yes, because running a DMU shuttle to a freshly electrified Corby is really going to attract usage

Not ideal I know, but if Corby doesn't need the full 2tph (vs a wired Leicester competing for that path) - and it was a shuttle, it could be just the EMU back and forth from Kettering, or a DMU which might be useful for other journeys like a regular link to/from Oakham and Melton, and frequencies from those to wherever it ends north. Maybe there is no need, but this might be a scenario an EMU to Leicester could come about, and it is a discussion forum after all.

 

[HST43257]

I think it was wrong to give Corby 2tph.

Keeping it at 1tph would’ve been fine in my view. The other would have terminated at Kettering or Market Harborough, with the view to getting to Leicester ASAP.

Now, I feel they can’t undo their changes. If they did, it would be like having a 1tph London to York LNER HST/91 stopper, then taking 1tp2h away and sending that to Lincoln post-800.

The point is, they’ve created a better service for Corby and they’ve left the Mainline people unhappy in the process.

The only other option I see is splitting at Kettering, but that just feels like a pain.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure that electrification will enable more than 6tph "long distance" on the southern MML. All it does is make the already fastest trains on the route south of Bedford slightly faster; that doesn't add capacity.

It doesn't add capacity but it does allow 360s to reach Leicester.

 

[Ianno87]

I think it was wrong to give Corby 2tph.

Keeping it at 1tph would’ve been fine in my view. The other would have terminated at Kettering or Market Harborough, with the view to getting to Leicester ASAP.

And you'd have an expensive unit and cree sat around at Kettering for 35 minutes every hour, when it could make some marginal revenue serving Corby.

And capacity to get to Leicester isn't magically going to appear, as explained upthread.

Now, I feel they can’t undo their changes. If they did, it would be like having a 1tph London to York LNER HST/91 stopper, then taking 1tp2h away and sending that to Lincoln post-800.

Why couldn't they be undone? Because Corby might become popular? If so, surely giving it 2tph is the right thing to do.

The point is, they’ve created a better service for Corby and they’ve left the Mainline people unhappy in the process.

If you ignore all the people from Kettering northwards who suddenly have much faster journeys to London, more times per hour.

And again, perhaps as things settle down, the folks of Wellingborough (as opposed to a handful of grumbling noise-makers) might actually prefer an even 2tph with a good connection northwards rather than 1tph direct

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Oct 2021 ==

It doesn't add capacity but it does allow 360s to reach Leicester.

In a technical sense yes.

 

[A0]

The point is, they’ve created a better service for Corby and they’ve left the Mainline people unhappy in the process.

Eh? How do you work that out?

Leicester, Sheffield and Nottingham now have faster journeys to London. Kettering has 4tph - something it's never had before. Both Kettering & Wellingborough users have a better chance of their London trains 1 - being on time because they've only come from Corby and 2 - gettimg a seat for the same reason.

The only "unhappy" people are the penny numbers who were travelling from Luton, Bedford or Wellingborough to Leicester who have a *slightly* slower journey and have to change at Kettering.

There are far more winners than losers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Oct 2021 ==

It doesn't add capacity but it does allow 360s to reach Leicester.

Which would need a path which doesn't exist - so either you can a Nottingham service a Sheffield service or the freight paths - so which is it?

 

[Bald Rick]

Post Leicester remodelling (if it happens), then it might be possible to have the Corby trains split at Kettering with a portion for Leicester. However I think that is more likely post HS2 arriving at East Mids.

Also, given the uncertainty about Leicester (Grade separation at Wigston or not, extra tracks /platforms or not, timing), I’d guess that Leicester will be the last part of the MML to be wired.

 

[HST43257]

Eh? How do you work that out?

Leicester, Sheffield and Nottingham now have faster journeys to London. Kettering has 4tph - something it's never had before. Both Kettering & Wellingborough users have a better chance of their London trains 1 - being on time because they've only come from Corby and 2 - gettimg a seat for the same reason.

The only "unhappy" people are the penny numbers who were travelling from Luton, Bedford or Wellingborough to Leicester who have a *slightly* slower journey and have to change at Kettering.

There are far more winners than losers.

There are more winners than losers, but there could be more even more winners, if a direct train from EMR Connect to Intercity stations can be provided

 

[A0]

There are more winners than losers, but there could be more even more winners, if a direct train from EMR Connect to Intercity stations can be provided

But at a cost to others. As has been explained, there's a lack of paths north of Kettering. I fail to see why there *has* to be a direct train from Luton or Bedford to Leicester, when there is a simple 1 change available.

You can't get from either of those places to any number of other places without a single change and anyone who thinks there is this massive untapped demand for travel from Luton or Bedford to Leicester and Nottingham is deluded.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One other thing to throw into the mix is that, at some point in the next 5-10 years, East-West trains will start serving Bedford, making Bedford into a rather more significant interchange than it is at present. At that point, it might start to look odd that none of the London-Leicester/etc. trains stop at Bedford, thereby denying interchange options to people travelling from quite a lot of stations South and West of Bedford (and eventually East of Bedford, but that's further into the future).

 

[Bletchleyite]

One other thing to throw into the mix is that, at some point in the next 5-10 years, East-West trains will start serving Bedford, making Bedford into a rather more significant interchange than it is at present. At that point, it might start to look odd that none of the London-Leicester/etc. trains stop at Bedford, thereby denying interchange options to people travelling from quite a lot of stations South and West of Bedford (and eventually East of Bedford, but that's further into the future).

To be fair the same can be said of Bletchley, which is why I've long suggested that EWR services should, at least post-HS2, all serve MKC rather than run through over the bridge at Bletchley or terminate there. I do agree that connectivity is important. You could I suppose similarly enter a debate as to whether EWR should actually be Oxford-Leicester rather than Oxford-Cambridge.

To be fair, though, rebuilding Bedford station to have platforms on both fast lines and stopping an additional EMR long distance service there (ideally a Sheffield) would also be a solution. One key reason stopping fasts at Bedford is a problem is that unlike MKC it does not have a platform on the up fast.

 

[A0]

One other thing to throw into the mix is that, at some point in the next 5-10 years, East-West trains will start serving Bedford, making Bedford into a rather more significant interchange than it is at present. At that point, it might start to look odd that none of the London-Leicester/etc. trains stop at Bedford, thereby denying interchange options to people travelling from quite a lot of stations South and West of Bedford (and eventually East of Bedford, but that's further into the future).

This keeps getting peddled and doesn't stand scrutiny.

If you're coming from east of Bedford - so Sandy or Cambridge, at worst you're already only 1 change away from Leicester, Nottingham or Sheffield (Leicester is direct from Cambridge), Nottingham & Sheffield are 1 change at either Ely or Peterborough.

If you're coming from the west, so WCML, then you're better off heading to Nuneaton or Tamworth, using the Crewe stoppers.

If you're coming from further west than the WCML, so Oxford, then there's no logical reason to head to Bedford to access the East Mids cities on the MML - it'll be quicker to travel via Birmingham.

 

[zwk500]

To be fair the same can be said of Bletchley, which is why I've long suggested that EWR services should, at least post-HS2, all serve MKC rather than run through over the bridge at Bletchley or terminate there. I do agree that connectivity is important. You could I suppose similarly enter a debate as to whether EWR should actually be Oxford-Leicester rather than Oxford-Cambridge.

To be fair, though, rebuilding Bedford station to have platforms on both fast lines and stopping an additional EMR long distance service there (ideally a Sheffield) would also be a solution. One key reason stopping fasts at Bedford is a problem is that unlike MKC it does not have a platform on the up fast.

EWR services not going on to Bedford should run to MK (personally I'd prefer them to go through to Wolverton but there's no infrastructure to allow it and the cost would be completely disproportionate) to give the access into Central MK from Oxford.
However, from a connectivity point of view who would be changing at MKC that is not already on a train that also stops at Bletchley?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This keeps getting peddled and doesn't stand scrutiny.

If you're coming from east of Bedford - so Sandy or Cambridge, at worst you're already only 1 change away from Leicester, Nottingham or Sheffield (Leicester is direct from Cambridge), Nottingham & Sheffield are 1 change at either Ely or Peterborough.

If you're coming from the west, so WCML, then you're better off heading to Nuneaton or Tamworth, using the Crewe stoppers.

If you're coming from further west than the WCML, so Oxford, then there's no logical reason to head to Bedford to access the East Mids cities on the MML - it'll be quicker to travel via Birmingham.

I would disagree. The problem is that you're mostly citing routes that have at best hourly frequencies (too infrequent to be attractive to many people, especially when combined with a change), and also only considering travel to the biggest cities (Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield). While I'd agree that those cities account for a high proportion of demand on the MML, rail also works by aggregating flows from a large number of different destinations, none of which individually bring in lots of passengers. There are/will be a lot of smaller stations between London and Leicester, and between Oxford and Bedford (probably less so between Bedford and Cambridge). I'd agree with you that, individually, the flow between - say - Bletchley and Market Harborough, or between Leagrave and Leicester, would be very small. But add all the combinations of flows from all the stations along those lines together, and you have a pretty sizable number of passengers that you'll probably lose by not having anything running directly between Bedford and stations to Leicester.

 

[zwk500]

I would disagree. The problem is that you're mostly citing routes that have at best hourly frequencies (too infrequent to be attractive to many people, especially when combined with a change), and also only considering travel to the biggest cities (Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield). While I'd agree that those cities account for a high proportion of demand on the MML, rail also works by aggregating flows from a large number of different destinations, none of which individually bring in lots of passengers. There are/will be a lot of smaller stations between London and Leicester, and between Oxford and Bedford (probably less so between Bedford and Cambridge). I'd agree with you that, individually, the flow between - say - Bletchley and Market Harborough, or between Leagrave and Leicester, would be very small. But add all the combinations of flows from all the stations along those lines together, and you have a pretty sizable number of passengers that you'll probably lose by not having anything running directly between Bedford and stations to Leicester.

Are you saying every station needs a connection to Bedford or that we should be running Stoppers from St Albans to Leicester?

 

[A0]

I would disagree. The problem is that you're mostly citing routes that have at best hourly frequencies (too infrequent to be attractive to many people, especially when combined with a change), and also only considering travel to the biggest cities (Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield). While I'd agree that those cities account for a high proportion of demand on the MML, rail also works by aggregating flows from a large number of different destinations, none of which individually bring in lots of passengers. There are/will be a lot of smaller stations between London and Leicester, and between Oxford and Bedford (probably less so between Bedford and Cambridge). I'd agree with you that, individually, the flow between - say - Bletchley and Market Harborough, or between Leagrave and Leicester, would be very small. But add all the combinations of flows from all the stations along those lines together, and you have a pretty sizable number of passengers that you'll probably lose by not having anything running directly between Bedford and stations to Leicester.

There really isn't the demand - as I've pointed out several times before, the numbers boarding the EMR northbound services from Bedford were at penny numbers pretty much at any time of the day.

If you got something like the 17.30 (or thereabouts) from St Pancras, it was full and standing to Luton, full to Bedford and at best half full thereafter. And the numbers boarding at Luton or Bedford were small.

As for this "There are/will be a lot of smaller stations between London and Leicester, and between Oxford and Bedford " - there really aren't. After Bedford it's 3 stops to Leicester. South of Bedford the demand is overwhelming for London bound services. Between Bedford and Bletchley currently none of the Marston Vale stations are particularly busy except for schools services and they aren't looking to "interchange" at Bedford to Leicester and beyond. And the EWR services are not planning to stop at all the Marston Vale stations, instead they're proposing a "limited stop".

Between Oxford and Bletchley there will be only 3 stations - Winslow plus the current ones of Bicester and Islip.

The demand you're trying to claim exists is miniscule at best, if indeed it even exists.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2021 ==

Are you saying every station needs a connection to Bedford or that we should be running Stoppers from St Albans to Leicester?

It would probably be easier to simply extend 2 Thameslink an hour to Kettering if allowing 1 change was key. Though for St Albans I think it was Bald Rick who pointed out it was just as quick to go to St Pancras and back out as to head north.

 

[Bletchleyite]

EWR services not going on to Bedford should run to MK (personally I'd prefer them to go through to Wolverton but there's no infrastructure to allow it and the cost would be completely disproportionate) to give the access into Central MK from Oxford.
However, from a connectivity point of view who would be changing at MKC that is not already on a train that also stops at Bletchley?

Curiously the plan is for Oxford-MKC but only Bedford/Cambridge-Bletchley and Oxford.

This is a bit backwards in a way, because Oxford has direct services to Birmingham and Manchester (with XC), but Cambridge and Bedford don't, and so a change at MKC to go north is more useful from the east than the west. Bedford-Manchester would be easily done with a change at Sheffield, but there's no direct Bedford-Sheffield so that becomes 2 changes. You have got Nottingham-Manchester but that's quite slow and only hourly.

 

[zwk500]

Curiously the plan is for Oxford-MKC but only Bedford/Cambridge-Bletchley and Oxford.

This is a bit backwards in a way, because Oxford has direct services to Birmingham and Manchester (with XC), but Cambridge and Bedford don't, and so a change at MKC to go north is more useful from the east than the west. Bedford-Manchester would be easily done with a change at Sheffield, but there's no direct Bedford-Sheffield so that becomes 2 changes. You have got Nottingham-Manchester but that's quite slow and only hourly.

From Cambridge is there not the Stansted-Birmingham (or at least change at Ely)? From Bedford to Manchester surely the majority would go into London and out again, as you have 3tph from Euston but only 1tph from MKC to Manchester.

 

[A0]

From Cambridge is there not the Stansted-Birmingham (or at least change at Ely)? From Bedford to Manchester surely the majority would go into London and out again, as you have 3tph from Euston but only 1tph from MKC to Manchester.

Like button needed !

 

[Bletchleyite]

From Cambridge is there not the Stansted-Birmingham (or at least change at Ely)? From Bedford to Manchester surely the majority would go into London and out again, as you have 3tph from Euston but only 1tph from MKC to Manchester.

Going via London is a faff and via MKC would be faster. However, I suppose HS2 changes all that.

 

[A0]

Going via London is a faff and via MKC would be faster. However, I suppose HS2 changes all that.

I would *love* to know what the demand for travel between Bedford and Manchester is on an average week.

I strongly suspect it's such that if you took the number, doubled it and added a zero it would still fill less than 1/3rd of a Pendolino 1st class coach.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Are you saying every station needs a connection to Bedford or that we should be running Stoppers from St Albans to Leicester?

No, I'm saying that, since basically every station on the lines East/South/West of Bedford will have direct services to Bedford anyway, therefore making Bedford a significant interchange station, it would make a lot of sense if some trains to Leicester also stopped at Bedford, to allow Northward connections. The implication is that may add weight to any arguments for future London-Leicester semi-fasts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would *love* to know what the demand for travel between Bedford and Manchester is on an average week.

I strongly suspect it's such that if you took the number, doubled it and added a zero it would still fill less than 1/3rd of a Pendolino 1st class coach.

I think we might as well agree to disagree before going any further on this one, to be honest, as I'm well aware your view of public transport is that things should only be provided if remunerative, and so that connectivity isn't a priority. Whereas my view is that if we want to move away from cars as the majority mode of transport, you have to provide the quality connectivity to provide for a far greater range of journeys even if few people make them.

See also: low-use evening bus services.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Going via London is a faff and via MKC would be faster. However, I suppose HS2 changes all that.

I suspect (though haven't checked) that the other problem with going via London is that it means you have to pay a fare that is at least as high as the London-to-your-destination fare, even if where you're travelling from is a lot nearer to your destination than London is, and that will make the fares uneconomic for a lot of journeys.

Plus London is one place where trains are (outside Covid times) so busy with people actually travelling to/from London that the last thing you want is to force people who don't actually want to go near London onto those trains too, if you can provide them with a more direct route.

 

[A0]

I think we might as well agree to disagree before going any further on this one, to be honest, as I'm well aware your view of public transport is that things should only be provided if remunerative, and so that connectivity isn't a priority.

Connectivity is only worth having if a *sensible* number of people are going to use it. Connectivity for the sake of it isn't, because it just diverts resources away from other services which would be better used.

Whereas my view is that if we want to move away from cars as the majority mode of transport, you have to provide the quality connectivity to provide for a far greater range of journeys even if few people make them.

That aim (bit in bold) is completely and utterly unrealistic. Even if you doubled the capacity of the rail network it would still be a completely and utterly unrealistic aim.

Perhaps it would be better to start with a more realistic target and work from there ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2021 ==

I suspect (though haven't checked) that the other problem with going via London is that it means you have to pay a fare that is at least as high as the London-to-your-destination fare, even if where you're travelling from is a lot nearer to your destination than London is, and that will make the fares uneconomic for a lot of journeys.

Plus London is one place where trains are (outside Covid times) so busy with people actually travelling to/from London that the last thing you want is to force people who don't actually want to go near London onto those trains too, if you can provide them with a more direct route.

The correct answer for Bedford to Manchester is do what alot of people will do - drive to MK, park the car and then take the train. It's exactly the function of 'railheads' such as Milton Keynes. And for any non-drivers the X5 coach makes far more sense being fairly quick, regular and stopping right outside MK station, rather than spending almost an hour sitting on the Marston Vale whilst you have the pleasure of stopping at such meccas as Kempston Hardwick, Stewartby, Ridgmont, Aspley Guise and Fenny Stratford.