Future MML services post HS2 and capacity through Trent junctions

[Nottingham59]

I think your plan shows the potential for radical changes on classic mainline timetables when HS2 takes the long-distance traffic. The question is whether there will be the passenger numbers to justify these services and/or public subsidy to support them.

One minor point: you'll need calls at East Midland Parkway.

 

[Roast Veg]

This is what I’d do for EMR Intercity post HS2

• 1tph London to Corby calling at Luton Airport Parkway, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby.
• 1tph London to Leeds calling at Luton Airport Parkway, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield Wakefield Westgate and Leeds.
• 1tph London to Nottingham calling at Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Beeston and Nottingham.
• 1tph London to Matlock calling at Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Long Eaton, Derby and Matlock.
• 1tph London to Mansfield calling at Leicester, Loughborough, Toton and Mansfield.
• 1tph London to Leicester calling at Leicester only.

Why call at both Luton and Airport Parkway? Far better to call at one or the other. As mentioned, you need to add calls to East Midlands Parkway on the majority of services (if not all), likely at the sacrifice of Beeston/Long Eaton/Loughborough. Terminating at Mansfield is presently impossible, and Woodhouse is too small (physically and economically).

The Matlock service would require an upgrade of that branch which, I think, is needed.

That would be one hell of an upgrade. Complete resignalling, platform alterations, likely some major earthworks. It would never pass a BCR test.

I don’t believe Corby justifies 2tph, so I decided to divert one to Leeds to cater for the Bedford to Leeds proposal, plus the keeping of the Leicester to Derby+Sheffield proper fast service.

Corby deifnitely justifies it - hence all the work to make the current pattern feasible.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Why call at both Luton and Airport Parkway? Far better to call at one or the other. As mentioned, you need to add calls to East Midlands Parkway on the majority of services (if not all), likely at the sacrifice of Beeston/Long Eaton/Loughborough. Terminating at Mansfield is presently impossible, and Woodhouse is too small (physically and economically).

I think, post-HS2, every EMR IC service might as well call at Loughborough as well as EMP. Anyone from further North would normally be on the HS2 service, surely so speed is probably less important than frequency.

1tph London to Leeds calling at Luton Airport Parkway, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield Wakefield Westgate and Leeds.

I think this train might be difficult to path. The basic issue is that a Connect-style service would be about 1h 25 mins to Leicester, and the non-stop is 1h3 min. The Connect service currently has a 17 minute head start on the following non-stop, so gets caught up around Kettering, so would need to omit stops as you can work out it'd need to be more like 1h15, which means perhaps 1, or at most 2 stops between London & Kettering.

The basic issue that this keeps coming back to (and where there is decidedly *not* a consensus on here) is the potential for - post-HS2 - to grow a meaningful market of Herts/Beds/Wellingborough to the East Mids.
Remembering that with the cancellation of HS2 East, the idea that customers will be able to access high speed services to Leeds and points North from Toton has gone out the window.

I agree that 2tph non-stop London-Leicester is likely to remain - given HS2 gives no benefit to Leicester, it'll be a tough sell to reduce the London service.

What I haven't seen given much coverage beyond a few rail specialist journos is the extent to which the local connectivity could be compromised in order to make space for HS2 London services, this will act as drag on the economic growth on Leics/Notts/Derby - e.g. the service pattern proposed by @HST43257 has only 1tph fast train between Nottingham and Leicester. This will be a step back.

 

[cle]

I broadly agree with those. I do think Kettering at 4tph and Market H at 3tph might be a little high, but perhaps not in time. And Bedford could take on another call once EWR is open to Cambridge.

I'd add a single call to the Leicester 'non-stop' - if EMUs can run at 125mph by then, it should be able to keep the same journey time as today. Maybe if we add Kettering - and have a linked Corby shuttle which gives Corby folks a non-stop 5 min connection - giving a better journey time and non-stop experience from Corby to London than their hourly stopping pattern.

Corby could alternatively trial a 1tph to Oxford. Corby not being the demand hub, but it's a terminus, providing a second tph for Corby if London is 1tph, and some EWR connectivity for Kettering and Wellingborough. I can't see tons of demand there, but who knows - the trains have to go somewhere and MML south of Bedford is finite.

 

[Western Sunset]

I think that two fast trains an hour to Leicester, has to be a given.

 

[Nottingham59]

The basic issue that this keeps coming back to (and where there is decidedly *not* a consensus on here) is the potential for - post-HS2 - to grow a meaningful market of Herts/Beds/Wellingborough to the East Mids.

I agree there is potential to use the capacity released by HS2 to grow the rail market from Nottingham to places other than London and Birmingham. But I'm not sure the greatest opportunity is towards Herts/Beds/Wellingborough.

I think that two fast trains an hour to Leicester, has to be a given.

Yes, but in the first instance I would send one of those towards Coventry as suggested by the Midlands Connect people. (EDIT: That is, if you mean 2tph from the North?)

The main constraint to growing the market from Nottingham will be the level crossings and just two-tracks between Trent Junction and Nottingham Station (That is assuming they do in fact grade separatwe Trent Junction East. I think there is a risk they will drop even that on the grounds of cost, in which case local traffic across the Trent Triangle will be limited to what it was in 2019.)

 

[adrock1976]

I think that two fast trains an hour to Leicester, has to be a given.

Maybe I am overthinking things too much, but would there be the capacity for terminating trains at Leicester (assuming four tracks and platforms, and Syston Wigston grade separation if that is still on the books)?

Could terminating trains be sent northbound to Humberstone Road out of the way?

I am aware of years of aspirations for the present day Birmingham New Street - Leicester short workings to be extended through to at leat Melton Mowbray and/or Peterborough/somewhere in Anglia Region, so would at least free up the left hand track of the present day northbound platform.

 

[cle]

Maybe I am overthinking things too much, but would there be the capacity for terminating trains at Leicester (assuming four tracks and platforms, and Syston grade separation if that is still on the books)?

Syston I don't think is happening, but Wigston four tracking is likely - and an additional platform at Leicester a part of that. Both sides have been mentioned (so in theory, could be two side platforms). More likely to be on the left, where a shorter platform is fine for the more local services on the Brum side (vs MML).

 

[adrock1976]

Syston I don't think is happening, but Wigston four tracking is likely - and an additional platform at Leicester a part of that. Both sides have been mentioned (so in theory, could be two side platforms). More likely to be on the left, where a shorter platform is fine for the more local services on the Brum side (vs MML).

Many thanks.

In my previous post, I was meant to refer to Wigston, which I have fixed.

 

[Greybeard33]

The government has published "Strategic Alternatives to High Speed 2 Phase 2b: MML, ECML and Eastern Leg Combined Options". It's dated 13th October 2021, but I think it's only just been made public.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...gic-alternatives-to-high-speed-2-phase-2b.pdf

Fig.8 of the above Strategic Alternatives document includes an indicative Train Service Specification for the "First Phase to Sheffield" option as chosen for the IRP. This shows the MML Long Distance High Speed services as well as the HS2 East services.

The quantum of MML services to and from London St Pancras would remain broadly as per the Do-Minimum scenario with four trains per hour serving Leicester (with at least one extending to/from each of Sheffield and Nottingham). Under our TSS, stopping patterns would be adjusted to provide better connectivity to and from smaller locations, taking advantage of the capacity released by serving Derby, Sheffield and Nottingham principally via HS2. However, downstream choices exist on the quantum and stopping pattern of trains north of Leicester providing different trade-offs between journey times, capacity, and punctuality.

Two London St Pancras – Corby services are assumed, although for simplicity have not been shown in our TSS, in the way that we have not shown other trains on the route.
The quantum of other services has been agreed with DfT and is consistent with current rail industry planning assumptions.
Figure 8 below sets provides an illustration of the standard hour TSS, inclusive of the optional services described above.

The new Toton station shown on the diagram was in a variant of this option and has not been included in the IRP.

 

[adrock1976]

Looking at the London Kings Cross routes, I am surprised with the Harrogate/Bradford/Huddersfield on the right hand side having no dot for Leeds City as a calling point, unless it is intended for the ex Huddersfield to run via Wakefield Kirkgate to Hare Park Junction?

Also, I cannot see how trains from Harrogate could avoid passing through Leeds, unless it is intended to route via York and pass through non stop? With the Bradford (Forster Square I believe) trains, it is possible to avoid passing through Leeds station by using the left hand side of the triangle at Whitehall Junction.

Personally, I would not bother with the Huddersfield and Harrogate trains as they would get in the way of the local trains (Harrogate) and the Transpennine Regional Express trains. I would retain the Bradford Forster Square and Skipton workings as those are long standing possibly since from the first day (or not long after) the Mk IVs +91s were introduced. I have mentioned in a couple of other threads previously how to develop the Harrogate loop line.

Furthermore, the Open Access operators appear to be missing from the diagram, or is it intended for those to eventually be subsumed into the main InterCity East Coast operation when the licences/track access rights expire?

 

[HSTEd]

Looking at the London Kings Cross routes, I am surprised with the Harrogate/Bradford/Huddersfield on the right hand side having no dot for Leeds City as a calling point, unless it is intended for the ex Huddersfield to run via Wakefield Kirkgate to Hare Park Junction?

Given that there are one and a half paths per hour listed and three destinations in the group, I would assume that each group only gets one train per two hours, and the one not stopping at Leeds doesn't go to Huddersfield.

 

[Roast Veg]

It's a clear evolution of the existing GC service via Kirkgate. The document identifies that all rolling stock is the same and no services are operated open access.

 

[adamedwards]

Why does Edinburgh need three or four trains per hour to London when there will be a much faster and high capaciy HS2 service via Carlisle?
And given that fast train via the WCML and HS2, Edinburgh doesn't then need the fast trains to London vai the ECML. Reducing these trains then ought to be able to free up space for something stopping at all stations south of Doncaster. Possibly I am missing some subtley.

 

[adrock1976]

Why does Edinburgh need three or four trains per hour to London when there will be a much faster and high capaciy HS2 service via Carlisle?
And given that fast train via the WCML and HS2, Edinburgh doesn't then need the fast trains to London vai the ECML. Reducing these trains then ought to be able to free up space for something stopping at all stations south of Doncaster. Possibly I am missing some subtley.

Although Edinburgh would not require fast/express trains to London via York (as the HS2 trains will be going via Preston), Edinburgh would still need a traditional InterCity to Kings Cross so as to provide for Edinburgh - York/Doncaster/points south that will not be served by HS2.

However, Newcastle may still require limited stop/express to Kings Cross (2tph, calling alternately Durham/Darlington, and York only?), until as such if the eastern arm of HS2 is ever built north of East Mids Parkway/Trent Junctions.

 

[cle]

Many thanks.

In my previous post, I was meant to refer to Wigston, which I have fixed.

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/regional-long-term-planning/Eastern/Leicester%20Area%20Strategic%20Advice%202021.pdf

Check this out...

That ECML pattern looks an absolute mess. So much for giving a decent service to the intermediate stations. And the lack of Leeds and 'optional' York calls are curious. London - Edinburgh users will be encouraged to go via HS2. So why so stingy on the calls. Just for Newcastle? They can handle 1-2 calls prior on a fast - and they go to other places too!

The MML one I would change to give Loughborough the fast (optional) calls on the Leicesters. If EM Parkway has additional platforms, it could turn 1tph if it had to. They'd better build a lot of homes there! Toton won't exist. But otherwise, may as well send a slow to Nottingham for connectivity. Not that many other options.

XC - send both via Leeds and curtail at York. Use those paths for TPE/NPR.

 

[HST43257]

That ECML pattern looks an absolute mess. So much for giving a decent service to the intermediate stations. And the lack of Leeds and 'optional' York calls are curious. London - Edinburgh users will be encouraged to go via HS2. So why so stingy on the calls. Just for Newcastle? They can handle 1-2 calls prior on a fast - and they go to other places too!

So true. York is offered a maximum of 5.5tph which is way too many. The intermediate stations south of York get absolutely shocking services.

The Newcastle services should be

1tph London to Edinburgh calling at York, Newcastle and Edinburgh.

1tph London to Newcastle calling at York (maybe), Darlington and Newcastle.

1tph London to Edinburgh calling at Peterborough, Newark, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Alnmouth (1tp2h), Berwick (1tp2h) and Edinburgh.

And other services to York would be 1tp2h from London to each of Harrogate, Middlesbrough and Sunderland.

In my idea Leeds would get 2tph fast (Donny or Peterborough stop) then 1tph slow.

With the Lincoln, this gets us to 8tph, which I’m pretty sure is the Welwyn limit.

XC - send both via Leeds and curtail at York. Use those paths for TPE/NPR.

I’d want to send one north of York

 

[adamedwards]

In order to get a fast train past an all the stations slower train, where on the ECML south of York might we need extra loops, ideally long enough for some dynamic (not stopping) passing. Are there places where there used to be 4 tracks which could now go back in or loops at say Retford or Newark which might be extended to provide this? I am sure ECML civil engineers probably have a list, not needed due to HS2, which might be dusted off.

 

[zwk500]

In order to get a fast train past an all the stations slower train, where on the ECML south of York might we need extra loops, ideally long enough for some dynamic (not stopping) passing. Are there places where there used to be 4 tracks which could now go back in or loops at say Retford or Newark which might be extended to provide this? I am sure ECML civil engineers probably have a list, not needed due to HS2, which might be dusted off.

For a full dynamic pass, the trains need to make up 6 minutes normally. A train at 140mph covers 1 mile in 25 seconds. If you get the passenger train to slow to 100mph while being overtaken (it's still a passenger train after alll) it will cover a mile in 36 seconds.

360 seconds/11 = 32.72, so you'd need a dynamic run of c.33 miles to allow passenger trains to overtake each other.

Obviously if the passenger train stops in that time you'd need less space, but you're still looking at properly 4-tracking from Retford to Newark to allow a dynamic passenger overtake, unless you wish to put a substantial speed penalty on the slower passenger. With ETCS you may also be able to reduce the headways so that the train needs to make up 4-5 minutes rather than six, which again would reduce the distance of 4-tracking required.

 

[adamedwards]

Thank you for the calculations. 33 miles is just over a third of the distance from East Midlands Parkway to Leeds (roughly) so this really shows how cancelling HS2E is a false economy.

 

[zwk500]

Thank you for the calculations. 33 miles is just over a third of the distance from East Midlands Parkway to Leeds (roughly) so this really shows how cancelling HS2E is a false economy.

In the interest of balance, I'll point out 33 miles is very much at the extreme end. A train dwelling in a station for 2 minutes would probably need "only" 5-8 miles of 4-track either side of the station where it stops.

 

[Nottingham59]

I'm also interested in the impact on freight on the MML, after HS2. The IRP plans for HS2 to merge 6tph onto the MML slows south of East Midlands Parkway (EMD). What does this mean for freight capacity?

East-West rail say they need 6 tracks north of Bedford to accommodate existing MML freight plus 4tph on EWR. How come the IRP can manage with only 4 tracks through EMD?

 

[zwk500]

I'm also interested in the impact on freight on the MML, after HS2. The IRP plans for HS2 to merge 6tph onto the MML slows south of East Midlands Parkway (EMD). What does this mean for freight capacity?

East-West rail say they need 6 tracks north of Bedford to accommodate existing MML freight plus 4tph on EWR. How come the IRP can manage with only 4 tracks through EMD?

I expect there are already people looking at just such a question. ISTR Trent Jns was looked at when HS2 was assumed to go to a Toton Interchange and even then was found to need grade-separation.

 

[Nottingham59]

Trent Jns was looked at when HS2 was assumed to go to a Toton Interchange and even then was found to need grade-separation.

The IRD states that grade separation will be needed at Trent East to separate Nottingham to Derby traffic from HS2 to Nottingham.

My question here is not about Trent. It is how much freight can be carried on the MML between Trent and Leicester. I am trying to understand how much MML freight growth is likely at Bedford where it could conflict with East West Rail.

I can't see where any such freight growth will come from. It can't come through Melton, because that will be full of F2N traffic. It can't come through EMD because HS2 traffic will get in the way. And it won't come from Nuneaton, because the WCML will have capacity after HS2 starts. Or am I missing something?

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm also interested in the impact on freight on the MML, after HS2. The IRP plans for HS2 to merge 6tph onto the MML slows south of East Midlands Parkway (EMD). What does this mean for freight capacity?

East-West rail say they need 6 tracks north of Bedford to accommodate existing MML freight plus 4tph on EWR. How come the IRP can manage with only 4 tracks through EMD?

don’t forget that in EWRs proposal, there’s up to 8 Thameslink trains an hour terminating at, and thus occupying the Slow Line platforms, plus freight. That’s not an issue at EMP.

 

[Nottingham59]

there’s up to 8 Thameslink trains an hour terminating at, and thus occupying the Slow Line platforms,

I hadn't appreciated that; for some reason I had thought Thameslink had 4tph terminating at Bedford. That makes a bg difference to the capacity of the system to absorb southbound freights. Though I'm surprised that there's the passenger numbers to justify 8tph that far from London.

 

[Bald Rick]

I hadn't appreciated that; for some reason I had thought Thameslink had 4tph terminating at Bedford. That makes a bg difference to the capacity of the system to absorb southbound freights. Though I'm surprised that there's the passenger numbers to justify 8tph that far from London.

in Pre covid times, peak hours, most definitely there were - perhaps not at Bedford itself, but the stations further south for which turn backs are more limited (being already taken up with other trains).