MML Services following electrification to Nottingham

[Nottingham59]

I've long advocated for a hourly EWR to Nottingham stopper
....
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.

I would propose that these two could combine. With a short S-E chord at Manton, you could extend the EWR service to Peterborough. That would make a huge difference to East-West connectivity at just a few percent of the cost of building a new line from Bedford to Cambridge.

 

[A S Leib]

I would propose that these two could combine. With a short S-E chord at Manton, you could extend the EWR service to Peterborough. That would make a huge difference to East-West connectivity at just a few percent of the cost of building a new line from Bedford to Cambridge.

On current times that would take around an hour for Bedford to Peterborough and close to two hours for Bedford to Cambridge. The expected EWR journey time's 35 minutes, and going via St. Pancras / King's Cross can be done within twenty minutes more than that route.

 

[cle]

On current times that would take around an hour for Bedford to Peterborough and close to two hours for Bedford to Cambridge. The expected EWR journey time's 35 minutes, and going via St. Pancras / King's Cross can be done within twenty minutes more than that route.

Bedford-St P - KX - Cambridge would be longer than 55 mins, if that is what you are saying. The fastest services are 35 and 45 ish.

I agree the Manton route isn't a great Cambridge substitute, but it's not a bad idea in itself. Stamford and Oakham are very underserved overall.

 

[LLivery]

I would propose that these two could combine. With a short S-E chord at Manton, you could extend the EWR service to Peterborough. That would make a huge difference to East-West connectivity at just a few percent of the cost of building a new line from Bedford to Cambridge.

I've thought about this as well, but the journey times would be pretty bad and it goes out of the way of Cambridge. Rutland and Melton also wouldn't get a London service. I would say just send a EWR service via Corby to Leicester, but I can't see it being as useful. Or maybe it would be? Or Nottingham via Corby bypassing Leicester. But having taken a diversion EMT via Corby from Nottingham before, it's certainly not quick...

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.

I was proposing more of a Regional Express connecting towns together. Adding an extra hour or two north of Trent Jun would surely need it to be a faster Intercity as proposed when they wanted 125mph on EWR? Not opposed in principle, but would serve a different purpose?

 

[Halish Railway]

I was proposing more of a Regional Express connecting towns together. Adding an extra hour or two north of Trent Jun would surely need it to be a faster Intercity as proposed when they wanted 125mph on EWR? Not opposed in principle, but would serve a different purpose?

Theres nothing preventing you from running 125mph rolling stock on EWR, especially if it makes it easier to path such a service along and share rolling stock with the MML.

Such a service would perform a similar role to CrossCountry’s Voyagers and TPE’s 802s which travel along long stretches of unelectrified track where the linespeed doesn’t exceed 100mph and where the service characteristics blur the boundary of ‘Intercity’ and ‘Regional Express’. Manchester Piccadilly to Bournemouth services for example stop roughly every 15 minutes and have few long stretches of 100mph+ running.

The objective of going to Sheffield and beyond is to avoid duplication of stopping patterns where an adequate service already exists (Kettering and Market Harborough to Nottingham) and to serve as many markets as possible as possible, i.e. MML stations south of Leicester to Derby and Sheffield and new connectivity from the South Midland interchange stations of Bletchley and Bedford to more places in the north of England that can’t be reached from Nottingham and reduce the reliance that South Midland passengers have on travelling via Birmingham.

 

[A S Leib]

Bedford-St P - KX - Cambridge would be longer than 55 mins, if that is what you are saying. The fastest services are 35 and 45 ish.

I wasn't clear; I meant 20 minutes longer than Bedford – Corby – Peterborough – Cambridge.

 

[swt_passenger]

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.

EWR to MML or any sort of XC service on EWR was explicitly ruled out by DfT prior to the TWA application, it was mentioned in the inspectors report. No doubt it will be proposed in speculation for years, but I wouldn’t hold out much hope.

 

[miklcct]

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?

I think, upon electrification, some electric intercity services should be made first stop Bedford, while the connect services can be extended to Leicester calling at all stations from Bedford. Corby will then be served by extending Thameslink Bedford services (this was an early ambition - the announcements on Class 700 contains Corby).

So, that means:
Intercity - Sheffield: St Pancras, Leicester, current pattern (no change)
Intercity - Nottingham: St Pancras, Bedford, Kettering, Leicester, current pattern
Connect - Leicester: St Pancras, St Albans, Luton Airport PW, Luton, Bedford, all stations to Leicester

 

[Dr Hoo]

I think, upon electrification, some electric intercity services should be made first stop Bedford, while the connect services can be extended to Leicester calling at all stations from Bedford. Corby will then be served by extending Thameslink Bedford services (this was an early ambition - the announcements on Class 700 contains Corby).

So, that means:
Intercity - Sheffield: St Pancras, Leicester, current pattern (no change)
Intercity - Nottingham: St Pancras, Bedford, Kettering, Leicester, current pattern
Connect - Leicester: St Pancras, St Albans, Luton Airport PW, Luton, Bedford, all stations to Leicester

How many Corby passengers do you think will bother with Thameslink all the way, rather than trying to change to/from either of the Nottingham or Leicester Connect services at Kettering (4tph)?
Are you aware that Corby is one of the fastest growing towns in the UK having gained around 1,000 population per year for the past 20 years?

 

[miklcct]

How many Corby passengers do you think will bother with Thameslink all the way, rather than trying to change to/from either of the Nottingham or Leicester Connect services at Kettering (4tph)?
Are you aware that Corby is one of the fastest growing towns in the UK having gained around 1,000 population per year for the past 20 years?

I am expecting that they change at Kettering. I just want to make local travel between intermediate stations easier, like Market Harborough - Luton Airport Parkway. Corby is currently just a branch line terminus which doesn't deserve an underused fast train to London, unless the service is extended northwards through Oakham.

The lack of stopping service between Luton Airport Parkway and East Midlands is very inconvenient for airport travellers. By terminating the Connect service at Leicester, the whole network can save one change to travel to the airport. And Bedford deserves an intercity service as well.

 

[SynthD]

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.

Would you expect any pushback from moving the airport express downstairs. Is that less prestigious? Would it be there all day long?

 

[miklcct]

Would you expect any pushback from moving the airport express downstairs. Is that less prestigious? Would it be there all day long?

This is the exact opposite of what TfL has done to the Elizabeth line compared to the past.

In the past, there was a number of stopping patterns with skip stopping between Liverpool and Shenfield during peak hours, but after COVID TfL made it run in the same way as a tube line, with frequent all-stop service where everyone just board the first train.

I think that Thameslink should also learn from TfL as well, reducing the number of stopping patterns and make it run like a tube line, such that passenger throughput at the core stations can be maximised (like the platform at Farringdon).

Maybe not the main thing of this topic but Thameslink should be simplified to just 4 patterns, running every 15 minutes each:

• Bedford - Brighton (with peak extras)
• Luton - Orpington / Sevenoaks
• St Albans - Sutton
• Cambridge / Peterborough - Three Bridges / Horsham (with peak extras)

with the aim that most passengers can board a train within 10 minutes during peak hours.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Sorry @miklcct , can you clarify how your ‘only four patterns’ Thameslink service, not mentioning Corby, fits with your earlier suggestions?

 

[InTheEastMids]

I think, upon electrification, some electric intercity services should be made first stop Bedford

Serious question: Why do you think this?

Electrification allows 360s to get to Leicester, and because that possibility exists, you've actually proposed completely rethinking the EMR timetable.

My issue there is that this alone would be controversial (see below) so you must have a very clear idea of a big problem that is being solved?
And given that to make it work, there might be a big programme of capacity enhancements (see below), then surely there's a massive problem widely acknowledged across the industry?

However, after many years here, the only ones I ever see talked about are
- reduced train changes for intermediate journeys, such as St Albans-Chesterfield or Flitwick to Beeston
- Small journey time reductions (~4 mins) for Nottingham-London, by eliminating calls at Market Harborough

However, I wonder if you're fully consider potential downsides that include:

1. Extending a TL Brighton/3 Bridges service to Corby will put Corby 1h30 from London vs 1h10 today (and noting Corby's growth)
2. Connect service with a St Albans call will be 1h20-1h25 to Market Harboro vs 1h today
3. Connect service with a St Albans call also take 1h35 to Leicester - i.e a rolling roadblock as at least two IC trains will need to overtake it, so
   • £££ to upgrade slow lines Bedford-Wellingborough to 90/100 to allow TL/Connect to use them
   • £££ spend on another platform at Leicester to turn it around
   • £££ Wigston junction remodelling (to reduce conflict with XC/intermodals)
   • £££ Wigston-Leicester 4-tracking
   • £££ possibly to reduce signal spacing/headways on the two line section from Kettering to Wigston
   • For a train that hardly anybody would use without
4. £££ possibly to provide extra platform capacity at Bedford

 

[43074]

There is no reason to run 360s to Leicester whilst there are reasonable connections at Kettering between Nottingham and Corby services every half hour. The EMR timetable south of Leicester is very simple because of the way it is designed around this interchange, there is no reason why electrification north of Leicester should change that.

 

[Bartsimho]

And Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway and Chesterfield, yes.

Already on the Intercity services so already have connections.

If I'd say anything it'd be run some more services from Doncaster/Leeds to Birmingham through Sheffield and Derby through Chesterfield but that's beyond the main scope of this thread

 

[miklcct]

Sorry @miklcct , can you clarify how your ‘only four patterns’ Thameslink service, not mentioning Corby, fits with your earlier suggestions?

Two of the four Bedford - Brighton trains per hour will extend to Corby.

 

[deltic08]

Aren't we jumping the gun here? EMUs to Leicester could be at least 10 years away, particularly with Labour cancelling infrastructure projects to fill their so called Black Hole. With Syston-Derby/Nottingham electrification next in line taking 2-3 years to construct whenever it starts, who knows when Wigston-Leicester is energised. Bimode EMUs are not even on the horizon let alone under construction.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Aren't we jumping the gun here? EMUs to Leicester could be at least 10 years away, particularly with Labour cancelling infrastructure projects to fill their so called Black Hole. With Syston-Derby/Nottingham electrification next in line taking 2-3 years to construct whenever it starts, who knows when Wigston-Leicester is energised. Bimode EMUs are not even on the horizon let alone under construction.

That's why it's in the speculative discussion part of the forum!

 

[Bald Rick]

Two of the four Bedford - Brighton trains per hour will extend to Corby.

How?

There would be several hundred drivers to train, and then there’s the small matter of there not being enough 700s to do it.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Aren't we jumping the gun here? EMUs to Leicester could be at least 10 years away, particularly with Labour cancelling infrastructure projects to fill their so called Black Hole. With Syston-Derby/Nottingham electrification next in line taking 2-3 years to construct whenever it starts, who knows when Wigston-Leicester is energised. Bimode EMUs are not even on the horizon let alone under construction.

There certainly was talk of rebuilding the B582 overline bridge at Wigston in the summer of 2025 to facilitate Wigston to Syston electrification (with the basic point being that locals were understandably nervous about months of closure). Based on what I've seen about procurement for the future phases, it would suggest the intention is to accelerate the rate of progress, which is welcome. Kettering to Wigston has taken longer to deliver than Weaver Junction to Glasgow.

Edit: There is a story on the Independent's website about 36 rail projects considered to be at risk from cancellation by Rachel Reeves. MMLE isn't one of them.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I would propose that these two could combine. With a short S-E chord at Manton, you could extend the EWR service to Peterborough. That would make a huge difference to East-West connectivity at just a few percent of the cost of building a new line from Bedford to Cambridge.

I said this some years ago in another thread, and got shot down for it.
Of course, it would make a mockery of E-W Rail serving Cambridge, far too slow a journey.

I still believe it will happen, because, unfortunately, Bedford-Cambridge will never get built on cost grounds and NIMBYism (not least because of this six-track business north of Bedford).

Don't get me wrong, it's not what I want to see happen, but extending E-W rail to Peterborough would be a sort of sop to show something was done to improve E-W connectivity, but at a price way below that of a new line from Bedford.

 

[miklcct]

How?

There would be several hundred drivers to train, and then there’s the small matter of there not being enough 700s to do it.

Wasn't it the original plan anyway, given that the announcement system of the 700 has Corby already loaded into it?

 

[Verulamius]

If EW rail is extended to Cambridge then this will make Bedford an important interchange station.

In addition the universal theme park if built will also increase Bedford's importance (albeit the theme park would have its own stations).

This might indicate that stops at Bedford for the EMR intercities could in the future be worthwhile.

 

[Bald Rick]

No, it was never the plan for the Thameslink programme.

It was the plan when Thameslink was conceived around 40 years ago, and the 319s had Corby on their destination blinds.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Wasn't it the original plan anyway, given that the announcement system of the 700 has Corby already loaded into it?

I wouldn't attach too much importance to that; the original Bedford - St Pancras cl. 317s had "Dunstable' on the blinds ...

 

[Magdalia]

With a short S-E chord at Manton, you could extend the EWR service to Peterborough. That would make a huge difference to East-West connectivity

A Manton curve would not make much difference to East-West connectivity. It could provide a local service Wellingborough-Kettering-Corby-Peterborough but that's all, and would have to be justifiable on that basis.

Bedford-Peterborough is about 35 miles on the A421/A1, but more than 60 miles by rail with a curve at Manton. The way to link Bedford with Peterborough by rail is at a Tempsford New Town ECML/EWR interchange.

A Manton curve would have no impact on what needs to be run on the Midland Main Line.

Bedford-Cambridge will never get built

The New Towns Taskforce first meeting was in Milton Keynes, the second was in Cambridge. They will be reporting next year. I shall be waiting to see what they recommend.

extending E-W rail to Peterborough would be a sort of sop to show something was done to improve E-W connectivity

There are no funds for sops, only for infrastructure that facilitates new housebuilding and economic growth.

 

[Trainbike46]

A Manton curve would not make much difference to East-West connectivity. It could provide a local service Wellingborough-Kettering-Corby-Peterborough but that's all, and would have to be justifiable on that basis.

If you extended EWR services terminating at Bedford, wouldn't it be useful for Milton Keynes-Bedford-Kettering-Corby-Peterborough connectivity as well? I can't think of any other route that would make sense.

Not to say that I think that makes it a good idea, I no little about the area surrounding Bedford&Peterborough, so couldn't comment

There are no funds for sops, only for infrastructure that facilitates new housebuilding and economic growth.

You have more faith in our politicians than I do, that's for sure. There have been quite a few cases of politicians making decisions that decrease usefulness and increase costs at the same time

 

[Magdalia]

If you extended EWR services terminating at Bedford, wouldn't it be useful for Milton Keynes-Bedford-Kettering-Corby-Peterborough connectivity as well?

Milton Keynes-Bedford-Kettering-Corby is already possible by rail with a change at Bedford (when the Marston Vale trains are running).

Milton Keynes-Peterborough has the same issue as Bedford-Peterborough: via Manton is significantly further and slower than the A421/A1 route or an EWR/ECML interchange.

 

[LLivery]

How?

There would be several hundred drivers to train, and then there’s the small matter of there not being enough 700s to do it.

Genuine question, if there's not enough to get to Corby, how was there enough to get to Maidstone/Ashford?