MML Services following electrification to Nottingham

[absolutelymilk]

According to the MML electrification thread, there were surveys done of Nottingham station in preparation for possible electrification. If this was done, what improvements could be made to MML services? Could we see the extension of the Connect services up to Nottingham, or at least Leicester? Or could they even keep the current Connect services and add a new service running semi-fast to Nottingham using new stock?

 

[edwin_m]

I very much doubt there will be much change from the current service pattern. There's no capacity for any extra MML services south of Bedford.

 

[Nottingham59]

In the short term, EMR currently has 6tph out of St Pancras. That's unlikely to change unless there is a wholesale reconfiguration of destinations between EMR and Thameslink.

With current stock, each of those EMR paths could be

• 3x4-car 360 (840 seats with 3+2 seating, around 700 seats with 2+2. I think: someone may know better)
• 2x5-car 810 (602 seats)

There are a number of calling patterns which would be marginally more efficient than the current timetable, but I don't see that EMR would find any of them commercially attractive. If they wanted to run EMUs to Leicester, then they would need more 360-like stock, and these would be unable to divert via Manton if the line between Kettering and Leicester were ever blocked. And what would they do with the spare 810s?

== == == ==

In the longer term, when the ToCs are taken back into public control under GBR, I can see there might be scope to reconfigure the MML.

I can see scope perhaps for peak services as follows:

• first stop Luton Airport Parkway, then all stations to Bedford. This would go through the Thameslink core, and be the main service to Luton Airport. There is no need for short-distance airport traffic to use up capacity from St Pancras high level.
• First stop Bedford, then all stations to Corby
• First stop Bedford, then all stations to Leicester. (If Wigston-Leicester were ever to be three-tracked, this could keep to the easternmost track, and avoid crossing Nuneaton-Peterborough flows)
• First stop Leicester, then major stations to Nottingham
• First stop Leicester, then major stations to Sheffield (or maybe only to Derby. I'm not convinced that Sheffield or Nottingham need more than 1tph to London)
• First stop Derby, then major stations to Sheffield.

This stopping pattern would be more "efficient" in the peaks, as it means that longer distance trains wouldn't empty out of commuters at Luton or Kettering, to run half-empty further north. But it would mean more changes for passengers not going to or from London. In the off-peaks, I'd call at more intermediate stations and accept the cost of Thameslink trains transporting air all day through the Bedfordshire countryside; and empty EMR services north of Leicester.

There may also be scope to increase non-London services on the MML, such as direct Nottingham-Leicester-Birmingham, as advocated by Midlands Connect, or extending East-West Rail services north of Bedford to provide a Leicester-Oxford service.

If they ever electrify the MML all the way to Sheffield, there will also be political pressure to convert the MML to wholly electric operation, and cascade the bimode 810s to a diesel operator, like Cross-Country. Other wise, what is the point of MML electrification?

 

[absolutelymilk]

Thanks both! I was assuming the 810 services would stay the same, just potentially extending/adding to the Connect services. I wonder if then the Connect services could be extended to Leicester without requiring a new fleet (and using the same platform space at St P)?

 

[Nottingham59]

Thanks both! I was assuming the 810 services would stay the same, just potentially extending/adding to the Connect services. I wonder if then the Connect services could be extended to Leicester without requiring a new fleet (and using the same platform space at St P)?

Sure. You could swap one of the 2tph to Corby to provide Connect service to Leicester. But EMR would need more stock. Already they are unable to provide 12-car Connect trains in the peaks, which is disgracefully poor service.

 

[WAO]

If the wires ever did get to Leicester then a 110mph EMU semi-fast to Leicester and Corby, splitting/combining at Kettering might save a path out of St Pancras and allow fewer stops on fasts.

 

[43074]

• First stop Leicester, then major stations to Nottingham
• First stop Leicester, then major stations to Sheffield (or maybe only to Derby. I'm not convinced that Sheffield or Nottingham need more than 1tph to London)

Based on what? EMR seems to think it's worthwhile running 2tph, as did East Midlands Trains and Midland Mainline before them.

 

[A S Leib]

First stop Leicester, then major stations to Sheffield (or maybe only to Derby. I'm not convinced that Sheffield or Nottingham need more than 1tph to London)

I'd find that argument more convincing if EMR advance fares weren't generally so much more expensive than WCML / ECML equivalents, at least when I've looked.

Can Derby – Sheffield get by with 2 tph (3 tph once Reading – Newcastle's back to hourly), and what provides capacity there if not the second London service if it's not enough?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2024 ==

The potential Universal Studios site (for which there's already a post) could be another reason to change service patterns if / when built.

 

[cle]

If the wires ever did get to Leicester then a 110mph EMU semi-fast to Leicester and Corby, splitting/combining at Kettering might save a path out of St Pancras and allow fewer stops on fasts.

I don't think splitting is a good idea.

Corby could easily have 1tph London, 1tph Kettering shuttle (connecting into a fast) - or a EWR service to Oxford - which again could connect into fast services at Kettering, or Bedford. Corby itself doesn't need 2tph to London, but it's a good spur for frequency elsewhere.

And the other one goes to Leicester, which makes perfect sense and enables way more connections. Everything should (still) therefore call at Leicester.

 

[A S Leib]

Corby itself doesn't need 2tph to London, but it's a good spur for frequency elsewhere.

Whether or not large towns in the South Midlands need frequent London services for capacity reasons is a topic done in the recent thread on Northampton, but I think cutting it down from 2 tph to 1 tph would be enough to severely impact demand; 4+ tph is turn up and go, 2 tph is 'get a tea if you just miss a train', hourly is infrequent enough to switch modes if you keep barely missing a train.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Nottingham will get electrified. Too many important seats including Lilian Greenwood.

 

[Bald Rick]

In the longer term, when the ToCs are taken back into public control under GBR, I can see there might be scope to reconfigure the MML.

I can see scope perhaps for peak services as follows:

• first stop Luton Airport Parkway, then all stations to Bedford. This would go through the Thameslink core, and be the main service to Luton Airport. There is no need for short-distance airport traffic to use up capacity from St Pancras high level.
• First stop Bedford, then all stations to Corby
• First stop Bedford, then all stations to Leicester. (If Wigston-Leicester were ever to be three-tracked, this could keep to the easternmost track, and avoid crossing Nuneaton-Peterborough flows)
• First stop Leicester, then major stations to Nottingham
• First stop Leicester, then major stations to Sheffield (or maybe only to Derby. I'm not convinced that Sheffield or Nottingham need more than 1tph to London)
• First stop Derby, then major stations to Sheffield.

The TOCs have been under public control for 4.5 years now.

That stopping pattern has 5 issues:

1) halving the ‘quick’ service to Luton Airport to hourly
2) no service at all to Luton airport from north of Bedford
3) halving the intercity service from Leicester, including running a service non-stop through Leicester, by far the largest generator of MML revenue north of Luton
4) halving the London service to Nottingham
5) Kettering / Harboro lose service to north of Leicester
6) unbalanced pattern on the capacity crucial part - MML south of Bedford. At first glance I don’t think you can fit in 5 non-stop paths St P to Bedford with the Thameslink pattern. It’s a stretch now with 4.

It would cause significant revenue loss for no obvious gain.

Personally I cant see any of the Corby services splitting or swapping to Leicester. It would have to wait at Kettering for the Sheffield and Nottingham to pass, then lands at Wigston right on the XC service. It would also take the place of the standard freight path (which won’t be agreed to by the Freight companies). That’s just northbound. Southbound is much the same - needs to depart Leicester in the XC path, hits some freight, and then has a tight joining at Kettering where it arrives right in front of the Sheffield and departs right behind. And all it does is provide direct Luton / Bedford / Wellingboro services to Harboro and Leicester, at a slower journey time than would be possible than by changing at Kettering.

 

[Halish Railway]

Had EWR been electrified it would have been much easier to preserve present frequencies and journey times from MML stations to St Pancras and create new direct connections, by way of a new service originating from somewhere served by EWR (E.G. Oxford) to either Nottingham or Sheffield, calling at all principle stations. Alternatively the 810s could be displaced off of their intended work by EMUs.

This would restore the link from Bedford (Which would hugely increase in significance with EWR and the Universal Theme Park) and Wellingborough to further north without impacting St Pancras to Nottingham/Sheffield services and requiring any more paths south of Bedford.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Personally I cant see any of the Corby services splitting or swapping to Leicester. It would have to wait at Kettering for the Sheffield and Nottingham to pass, then lands at Wigston right on the XC service. It would also take the place of the standard freight path (which won’t be agreed to by the Freight companies). That’s just northbound. Southbound is much the same - needs to depart Leicester in the XC path, hits some freight, and then has a tight joining at Kettering where it arrives right in front of the Sheffield and departs right behind. And all it does is provide direct Luton / Bedford / Wellingboro services to Harboro and Leicester, at a slower journey time than would be possible than by changing at Kettering.

100% agree with this.

Feels like every few months, somebody proposes trying to contort a service pattern based on the twin beliefs that firstly, there is significant pent-up demand for travel from places like Bedford or St Albans to Sheffield, and secondly that Harboro doesn't need more than an actual or effective 1tph (by making the other one much slower).

On the second point, the country is awash with rural, country town stations that are served by regular, fast/intercity trains, and perhaps the point is that Harboro might be the closest one to London. I haven't seen many people calling for service reductions at Oxenholme.

Or perhaps there is an entrenched belief that it's comparable to - for example - Pewsey and rather quiet.
So, here's a challenge: Harboro is busier than Pewsey (112k entries/exits in 22/23) but it is not as busy as Newark Northgate (885k in 22/23).
Write down what you instinctively think the number was for 2022/23 (before looking it up on the ORR data portal). How close were you to the right answer?

 

[cle]

Pewsey barely has 1tph - MH has 2tph. Even if a stopper was added, so it was 1 fast, 1 slow (connecting into Luton/airport, EWR, not entirely useless) - I am sure that in the peaks there would be extras. It's like a Diss - which is a far more expansive/important railhead for an unserviced hinterland. MH is close to plenty of other options.

Sub 1m stations don't really need 2tph fast to London every hour of the day. It's not actually very busy in the grand scheme of things. Peak extras will scratch the itch.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Pewsey barely has 1tph - MH has 2tph. Even if a stopper was added, so it was 1 fast, 1 slow (connecting into Luton/airport, EWR, not entirely useless) - I am sure that in the peaks there would be extras. It's like a Diss - which is a far more expansive/important railhead for an unserviced hinterland. MH is close to plenty of other options.

Sub 1m stations don't really need 2tph fast to London every hour of the day. It's not actually very busy in the grand scheme of things. Peak extras will scratch the itch.

I think you're basically proving my point as you've decide to bite on comparing MH with Pewsey and then added in Diss.

By your rule, I guess you are however in favour of cutting LNER calls at Newark Northgate
Bletchley has 2 fast LNWR (and 2 slower) tph to Euston.
Oxenholme gets 3tph of which 2 are intercity (TPE and Avanti)

 

[43074]

• first stop Luton Airport Parkway, then all stations to Bedford. This would go through the Thameslink core, and be the main service to Luton Airport. There is no need for short-distance airport traffic to use up capacity from St Pancras high level.
• First stop Bedford, then all stations to Corby
• First stop Bedford, then all stations to Leicester. (If Wigston-Leicester were ever to be three-tracked, this could keep to the easternmost track, and avoid crossing Nuneaton-Peterborough flows)
• First stop Leicester, then major stations to Nottingham
• First stop Leicester, then major stations to Sheffield (or maybe only to Derby. I'm not convinced that Sheffield or Nottingham need more than 1tph to London)
• First stop Derby, then major stations to Sheffield.

Pewsey barely has 1tph - MH has 2tph. Even if a stopper was added, so it was 1 fast, 1 slow (connecting into Luton/airport, EWR, not entirely useless) - I am sure that in the peaks there would be extras. It's like a Diss - which is a far more expansive/important railhead for an unserviced hinterland. MH is close to plenty of other options.

Sub 1m stations don't really need 2tph fast to London every hour of the day. It's not actually very busy in the grand scheme of things. Peak extras will scratch the itch.

The whole service on the MML south of Leicester works on a (simple) half hourly pattern, either non-stop Leicester to London, half hourly calling at Market Harborough, Kettering and London, and half hourly Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford, Luton and Luton Airport.

I don't see why people are so obsessed with coming up with more complicated options as it the connections at Kettering do work quite well, and it balances some of the local connectivity with faster journey times over longer distances, with compromises on some of the smaller flows. There are some performance issues with it as it's very tight in places, but it's nothing that couldn't be solved by some minor tweaking of sectional running times and potentially stopping patterns north of Leicester.

 

[Trainbike46]

• First stop Leicester, then major stations to Sheffield (or maybe only to Derby. I'm not convinced that Sheffield or Nottingham need more than 1tph to London)

Why do so many proposals to "improve" service start by reducing the the amount of services running?

 

[Helvellyn]

It would need more units, some timetable tweaks, and a new platform at Leicester but an improved service could be:

Corby switches to a 2tph St Pancras to Leicester - Luton Airport, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester.

• Keeps the Luton Airport Express service and means from North of Leicester it's a one-stop connection (Leicester) to get to Luton Aiport, Bedford or Wellingborough (currently two changes)

Nottingham services become first stop Leicester then

• 1tph Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Nottingham
• 1tph Alfreton, Beeston, Nottingham

Sheffield services remain first stop Leicester then

• 1tph Long Eaton, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield
• 1tph Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield

Fastest Brighton-Bedford service (2tph) extended North to serve Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby, possibly with a new Irchester and Rushden Parkway station on the Slow Lines on the old Irchester station site.

I know extremely unlikely to happen and the biggest "loser" would be Market Harborough switching to connect. But if you had 12-car EMUs, 2+2 seating and First Class is it any worse off really?

 

[Bald Rick]

It would need more units, some timetable tweaks, and a new platform at Leicester but an improved service could be:

Corby switches to a 2tph St Pancras to Leicester - Luton Airport, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester.

• Keeps the Luton Airport Express service and means from North of Leicester it's a one-stop connection (Leicester) to get to Luton Aiport, Bedford or Wellingborough (currently two changes)

Nottingham services become first stop Leicester then

• 1tph Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Nottingham
• 1tph Alfreton, Beeston, Nottingham

Sheffield services remain first stop Leicester then

• 1tph Long Eaton, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield
• 1tph Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield

Fastest Brighton-Bedford service (2tph) extended North to serve Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby, possibly with a new Irchester and Rushden Parkway station on the Slow Lines on the old Irchester station site.

I know extremely unlikely to happen and the biggest "loser" would be Market Harborough switching to connect. But if you had 12-car EMUs, 2+2 seating and First Class is it any worse off really?

For Harboro - London passengers, extending journey time from under an hour to 1h20 would be a slight disappointment, to put it mildly.

Also, “timetable tweaks” rather undersells it. It would be a complete recast of the MML north of Bedford and many interconnecting lines.

 

[A S Leib]

Would there be either the demand or the capacity for a Leicester – Derby – Sheffield or Derby – Sheffield (– Doncaster / Adwick / Leeds?) stopping service?

 

[JonathanH]

Would there be either the demand or the capacity for a Leicester – Derby – Sheffield or Derby – Sheffield (– Doncaster / Adwick / Leeds?) stopping service?

Which stations would this be connecting? Syston, Sileby, Barrow-upon-Soar, Spondon, Duffield, Belper and Dronfield?

 

[duffield]

It would need more units, some timetable tweaks, and a new platform at Leicester but an improved service could be:

Corby switches to a 2tph St Pancras to Leicester - Luton Airport, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester.

• Keeps the Luton Airport Express service and means from North of Leicester it's a one-stop connection (Leicester) to get to Luton Aiport, Bedford or Wellingborough (currently two changes)

Nottingham services become first stop Leicester then

• 1tph Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Nottingham
• 1tph Alfreton, Beeston, Nottingham

Sheffield services remain first stop Leicester then

• 1tph Long Eaton, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield
• 1tph Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield

Fastest Brighton-Bedford service (2tph) extended North to serve Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby, possibly with a new Irchester and Rushden Parkway station on the Slow Lines on the old Irchester station site.

I know extremely unlikely to happen and the biggest "loser" would be Market Harborough switching to connect. But if you had 12-car EMUs, 2+2 seating and First Class is it any worse off really?

I don't think you really meant Alfreton. It's not on the route to Nottingham and would involve going up toward Sheffield and then reversing.

Did you mean Attenborough? No intercity service at the moment, and very unlikely to merit one, but at least it's on the right line.

 

[A S Leib]

Which stations would this be connecting? Syston, Sileby, Barrow-upon-Soar, Spondon, Duffield, Belper and Dronfield?

And Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway and Chesterfield, yes.

 

[Bald Rick]

Would there be either the demand or the capacity for a Leicester – Derby – Sheffield or Derby – Sheffield (– Doncaster / Adwick / Leeds?) stopping service?

Certainly not the capacity, and i doubt there woudl be any meaningful demand.

 

[LLivery]

With electrification only as far as Nottingham, I would keep the London services basically the same.

I've long advocated for a hourly EWR to Nottingham stopper (Reading/Oxford, Bicester Town, Bletchley, Kempston (if theme park), Bedford Midland, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Beeston).

The 'South Midlands' is becoming more of a thing, with a new push for devolution, intra regional connectivity across this region and with the East Midlands and Western Region would be a very good thing. And with that, you could consider removing the Market Harborough call from the fast Intercity Nottingham service.

I also wouldn't bother with a Rushden Parkway. Wellingborough would be a perfectly good railhead if it had a decent bus service to Rushden, Higham, etc. but that's another topic...

It feels wrong to me that there isn't a service north of Corby, but how you fix that with no OHLE and is beyond me. Ideally though, I'd extend it to Nottingham via Melton or Derby if needs must.

 

[cle]

I think you're basically proving my point as you've decide to bite on comparing MH with Pewsey and then added in Diss.

By your rule, I guess you are however in favour of cutting LNER calls at Newark Northgate
Bletchley has 2 fast LNWR (and 2 slower) tph to Euston.
Oxenholme gets 3tph of which 2 are intercity (TPE and Avanti)

Ok so you raise Pewsey and then comparing them is biting? I think that's a strawman / gaslight aactually.

My point was that Pewsey is far more rural, which is reflecting in its usage and service. That's all. Diss is another Pewsey, MH I consider different. So you've misunderstood, or are misrepresenting on purpose.

 

[Halish Railway]

With electrification only as far as Nottingham, I would keep the London services basically the same.

I've long advocated for a hourly EWR to Nottingham stopper (Reading/Oxford, Bicester Town, Bletchley, Kempston (if theme park), Bedford Midland, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Beeston).

The 'South Midlands' is becoming more of a thing, with a new push for devolution, intra regional connectivity across this region and with the East Midlands and Western Region would be a very good thing. And with that, you could consider removing the Market Harborough call from the fast Intercity Nottingham service.

I also wouldn't bother with a Rushden Parkway. Wellingborough would be a perfectly good railhead if it had a decent bus service to Rushden, Higham, etc. but that's another topic...

It feels wrong to me that there isn't a service north of Corby, but how you fix that with no OHLE and is beyond me. Ideally though, I'd extend it to Nottingham via Melton or Derby if needs must.

I’d say that any EWR-MML principle stations is better off going to Sheffield and maybe beyond to Leeds or York provided the current St Pancras EMR offering remains the same, given that the Nottingham services already provide an interchange with the Corby ‘Connect’ services at Kettering.

Regarding going north of Corby, there just isn’t much north of Corby, just Oakham and Melton Mowbray before the line loops round to the Midland Mainline, which is already served by a change at Kettering. The only other destination of use would be an extension of the Connect services to Peterborough, but it’d be fairly difficult to build a chord from the Manton line towards the route to Peterborough given the local topography.

 

[Farigiraf]

I always thought of (post-electrification) extending maybe 2tph of the 4tph London to Kettering/Corby (Luton airport Express) to Melton Mowbray (1tph via Market Harborough and Leicester, 1tph via Corby and Oakham). Very crayonista, but would give 2 towns a new, frequent London service and save some units...

 

[Bald Rick]

I always thought of (post-electrification) extending maybe 2tph of the 4tph London to Kettering/Corby (Luton airport Express) to Melton Mowbray (1tph via Market H'borough and Leicester, 1tph via Corby and Oakham). Very crayonista, but would give 2 towns a new, frequent London service and save some units...

That would cost a lot of units and crew, not save them.