East Midlands - Midland Mainline Calling Points post East West Rail

[William3000]

Would be interested to gauge other’s views as to the merits of some additional stops (shown with green circles on the service plan attached). Don’t shoot me down - it may be a naive idea but just interested in pros and cons.

When EWR is completed it will give direct access to Bedford from a large number of new stations not currently well linked well to the Midland Mainline such as Oxford, Bicester, St Neots/Tempsford, and Cambridge.

It therefore strikes me that providing some additional stops at Bedford to provide better interchange could be beneficial. Obviously the downside would be small time penalties for those heading to London.

Would be interested to know what others think.

I’ve suggested that the semi-fast London St Pancras to Sheffield would stop additionally at Bedford, and the semi-fast London St Pancras to Nottingham would stop additionally at Luton Airport and Bedford.

The advantages as I see it are as follows:
Direct link from Luton Airport to the East Midlands including Leicester, Loughborough, and Nottingham - Luton has a larger range of flights than East Midlands airport and with relatively quick journey times of an hour from Leicester and 90 mins from Nottingham could be useful.

Would mean Luton Airport could reach Derby and Sheffield and vice versa with just one change at Leicester.

Would mean St Albans City and Luton could reach Leicester, Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield and vice versa with just one change at Bedford

Would give Bedford a direct service to Leicester, Derby, and Sheffield.

Would give East West Rail travellers from places like Cambridge and Oxford more northbound services from Bedford to not just Wellingborough, Kettering, and Corby but also to Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, and Sheffield, which in the case of Cambridge may provide a quicker alternative than travelling via Ely and Peterborough and given Cambridge has more passengers using it than Newcastle, Sheffield, York, Bristol Temple Meads etc - there is clearly likely to be demand given the life sciences boom there.

On the downside the semi-fast services to Sheffield and Nottingham would be a few minutes longer but with better acceleration on newer trains the difference might be negligible.

Timetabling and pathing could be an issue

The fast services to Nottingham and Sheffield would be unaffected.

 

[Iskra]

I think this would be sensible and improve the currently ridiculous situation of flying through Luton et al, to get a train back out to them again.

 

[Magdalia]

Would be interested to gauge other’s views as to the merits of some additional stops (shown with green circles on the service plan attached).

From the Cambridge end I'd say no merit at all.

Cambridge already has direct access to Leicester and direct trains to Nottingham and Sheffield at Ely. The solution to any capacity issues here is longer trains on the current routes, and that can happen far more quickly than EWR.

Where Bedford post EWR will provide better connectivity is to/from Luton and Wellingborough/Kettering, and this will be provided by the existing Thameslink and Corby trains, it doesn't need more EMR stops.

he advantages as I see it are as follows:
Direct link from Luton Airport to the East Midlands including Leicester, Loughborough, and Nottingham - Luton has a larger range of flights than East Midlands airport and with relatively quick journey times of an hour from Leicester and 90 mins from Nottingham could be useful.

Would mean Luton Airport could reach Derby and Sheffield and vice versa with just one change at Leicester.

Would mean St Albans City and Luton could reach Leicester, Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield and vice versa with just one change at Bedford

Would give Bedford a direct service to Leicester, Derby, and Sheffield.

All of these are independent of EWR, and have been discussed here before. They might come into play if EWR leads to a lot of economic growth in the Bedford area. I hope that will be one of the consequences of EWR, but it is a long time into the future.

 

[The Planner]

I don't think its unreasonable to expect some extra stops in select EMR services.

 

[edwin_m]

One issue to be considered is that EMR trains stopping at Bedford or either Luton station tend to get crowded out with passengers between those stations and London. It's difficult to manage this through differential fares, because the intent would be to direct those passengers to the Corby trains which are the same operator and use the same barriers at St Pancras - and the journey is too short to check tickets on the train.

 

[cle]

Makes sense to me to switch the (Notts) connecting spot to Bedford from Kettering - but even it to include the slower Sheffield as OP has mentioned.

There will also be the theme park, so it feels reasonable to add calls. And relief of the Ely route is welcome in any way. As is having people not route via London (eg Oxford to Loughborough)

 

[A0]

I've posted on this before but EWR makes no justification for more EMR stops at Bedford

East West Rail project [to be] examined by Transport Committee [on March 6th 2024 from 09:30]

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/20663 There's a link to watch online, and instructions on how to attend in person, on that web page. The East West Rail project will be scrutinised by the Transport Committee in an evidence session with Rail Minister Huw Merriman, DfT officials and the...

www.railforums.co.uk

EMR to EWR interchange is, apart from for Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough and Luton, an irrelevance.

Leicester to Cambridge can be done already via Peterborough, Leicester to MK can be done with a simple change at Nuneaton, Leicester to Oxford can be done via Birmingham or MK very soon.

Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield are similar, albeit with interchange at Tamworth for MK and via Grantham / Newark / Peterborough for Cambridge.

Even with EWR there will be precisely no justification for more EMR stops at Bedford.

The only place EMR services from Leicester and beyond could have added south of Kettering would be Luton Airport Parkway. Nine of the others make any sense.

 

[JonathanH]

Makes sense to me to switch the (Notts) connecting spot to Bedford from Kettering - but even it to include the slower Sheffield as OP has mentioned.

As far as trains between London and Leicester are concerned there isn't a slower Sheffield. The slower bit all happens north of Leicester.

As mentioned above, there would need to be boarding controls if the longer distance services started calling at Bedford. Is the proposal to remove Kettering stops to allow calls at Bedford instead?

 

[Helvellyn]

Makes sense to me to switch the (Notts) connecting spot to Bedford from Kettering - but even it to include the slower Sheffield as OP has mentioned.

There will also be the theme park, so it feels reasonable to add calls. And relief of the Ely route is welcome in any way. As is having people not route via London (eg Oxford to Loughborough)

So you want to remove any possibility of Northward travel from Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby on the Midland Mainline? Because if the Nottinghams stop at Beford vice Kettering there is no way North by train from North Northamptonshire.


As for those saying stick extra stops in the InterCity services at Bedford that will overcrowd those services with commuters. The EMR Connect services are popular as it is due to only two stops to St Pancras - a non-stop even more so. The slow Sheffiled is also just ahead of the fast Nottingham - if the former has stops added before Leicester then it'll delay the latter. The two InterCity services are routinely checked at Wellingborough anyway having caught up the Down EMR Connect services that are still on the Down Fast and don't cross to the Slows until Kettering.

A better option, that preserves the current EMR clockface, would be:

• Remove Luton stop from EMR Connect services (to get them further ahead of the InterCity services by Wellingborough on the Down).
• Stop the semi-fast Sheffield at Kettering vice the fast Nottingham. That could probably be done without delaying the Fast Nottingham behind it if the Sheffield hasn't been checked at Wellingborough (hence proposal in first point).

Downsides:

• Luton loses the EMR Connect service, but I'd argue the main market for these services is Luton Airport (hence the dual branding as Luton Airport Express) and giving Bedford a fast London service.
• Kettering - Market Harborough becomes an hourly service, unless the Fast Nottingham kept stops at Kettering and Market Harborough and the semi-fast Sheffield was an extra. (Could be set down only in the Up, pick-up only in the Down, so wouldn't be advertised as an St Pancras - Kettering service).

 

[Topological]

Sensible proposal post EWR.

In terms of preventing passengers from St Pancras going to Luton Airport on a longer distance train, that is a difficult one. Obviously the boards would say first stop Bedford, but people get wise. The fact that the Connect trains leave from the MML platforms means that it is hard to set gates at St Pancras to deny platform access.

Assuming that we are only seeing the Nottingham calling at Luton Airport Parkway then it is only one train per hour. It would not be the end of the world if people did use it to get to Luton Airport quicker than the Connect train. However, most of the time it would be better to take the next Connect rather than wait for the fast.

Bedford having a Nottingham AND a Sheffield makes sense.

Perhaps the best analogy here is provided by Paddington to Reading, where there is the danger of Reading passengers crowding out. It happens to an extent, but then Reading provides a big group of passengers joining the Westbounds who can then get seats vacated by the Paddington to Reading passengers. Similar could be built at Bedford when the interchange opportunities appear (thinking here of Oxford/Bletchley to Bedford to the East Mids).

 

[cle]

I don’t have a very strong feeling on the Kettering calls, I would say one is fine. Two aren’t essential and folks changing to go north are minimal, let’s be real.

Bedford - I can imagine a fair bit of new development: the Universal Stufios, suburbs (Wixams), Marston Vale demand/devts will grow too… but also plenty of apt building in Bedford itself - as well as hopefully employment growth.

As such I think EWR may not give a million connections through Bedford (although it will add some, including to LAP) - but may be the catalyst for a broader change. I think predicated on the Cambridge build tho. Not just 1tph to Oxford.

 

[Helvellyn]

I don’t have a very strong feeling on the Kettering calls, I would say one is fine. Two aren’t essential and folks changing to go north are minimal, let’s be real.

Have you sent time at Kettering and seen how many people board the Northbound services? So EMR should just abandon that market on the chance East-West will create some demand at Bedford?

 

[edwin_m]

As such I think EWR may not give a million connections through Bedford (although it will add some, including to LAP) - but may be the catalyst for a broader change. I think predicated on the Cambridge build tho. Not just 1tph to Oxford.

I'm not sure Cambridge makes much difference, unless it triggers a Bedford re-modelling that makes it easier for Up EMR trains to call (I'm not sure what stage that happens). Cambridge already has service to Leicester and (with one change) to Nottingham, and Peterborough has service to both. So the only existing stations with significant new connectivity arising from east-south changes at Bedford are Wellingborough, Kettering and Market Harborough. By contrast much of the East Midlands would benefit from better connections to Oxford and beyond.

I'm actually thinking that slowing down one of the Nottingham trains with an extra stop at Parkway or Bedford could improve the timetable, by reducing the speed differential with the Corby trains. On the other hand there is the extra time on London journeys which probably dominate the passenger numbers and revenue, and 110mph running for the 360s south of Bedford might be enough to address the current problems with longer distance trains catching up with them.

 

[D365]

By contrast much of the East Midlands would benefit from better connections to Oxford and beyond.

Is this not a market that would be better served by restoring the Newcastle - Reading via Derby service to 1tph?

 

[Topological]

Is this not a market that would be better served by restoring the Newcastle - Reading via Derby service to 1tph?

Yes and No

The problem is those are already very busy CrossCountry services that have limited capacity. IF an alternative was to open up via Bedford then that would be a good thing to have.

It is also worth saying that the Bedford connection would give options for Leicester to Bletchley/Bicester that do not easily exist at the moment (I am referring to a longer term EWR, rather than 1 train per hour serving all stations between Bedford and Bletchley, which could be connected to with Bedford calls in current services)

 

[edwin_m]

Is this not a market that would be better served by restoring the Newcastle - Reading via Derby service to 1tph?

To some extent, but it's a long way round via Birmingham. Derby and Sheffield might be about the same either way, but an easy connection to/from Nottingham and Leicester ought to be able to do better than changing at Derby.

 

[Skymonster]

MML services from / to the Midlands and South Yorkshire used to stop at Luton, Luton Airport Parkway and Bedford (and even St Albans way back) much more than they do now. Honestly, coming out of London on a weekday evening was a nightmare, with aggressive commuters taking the seats while longer distance passengers had to stand for the first 30-45 minutes of their journey. Now things are usually a little easier.

In terms of preventing passengers from St Pancras going to Luton Airport on a longer distance train, that is a difficult one. Obviously the boards would say first stop Bedford, but people get wise. The fact that the Connect trains leave from the MML platforms means that it is hard to set gates at St Pancras to deny platform access.

Designate Bedford, Luton and Luton Airport Parkway set down only southbound, pick up only northbound for EMR Intercity (a bit like Avanti Watford). Implement regular on-train ticket checks between Luton Airport Parkway both southbound and northbound, and penalty fare or report for prosecution anyone holding a ticket that only allowed travel on that section of the line.

 

[William3000]

Sensible proposal post EWR.

In terms of preventing passengers from St Pancras going to Luton Airport on a longer distance train, that is a difficult one. Obviously the boards would say first stop Bedford, but people get wise. The fact that the Connect trains leave from the MML platforms means that it is hard to set gates at St Pancras to deny platform access.

Assuming that we are only seeing the Nottingham calling at Luton Airport Parkway then it is only one train per hour. It would not be the end of the world if people did use it to get to Luton Airport quicker than the Connect train. However, most of the time it would be better to take the next Connect rather than wait for the fast.

Bedford having a Nottingham AND a Sheffield makes sense.

Perhaps the best analogy here is provided by Paddington to Reading, where there is the danger of Reading passengers crowding out. It happens to an extent, but then Reading provides a big group of passengers joining the Westbounds who can then get seats vacated by the Paddington to Reading passengers. Similar could be built at Bedford when the interchange opportunities appear (thinking here of Oxford/Bletchley to Bedford to the East Mids).

Excellent informed post. Stevenage is also comparable albeit slightly closer to London. There are relatively few intercity trains to London compared to Thameslink ones so for much of the time the Thameslink ones are quicker - I expect a similar situation at Bedford. So probably not the end of the world if a few people use it. If the trains are that busy many may prefer to get an emptier Thameslink. In my experience getting on at Stevenage southbound isn’t usually that packed in any case.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2024 ==

Sensible proposal post EWR.

In terms of preventing passengers from St Pancras going to Luton Airport on a longer distance train, that is a difficult one. Obviously the boards would say first stop Bedford, but people get wise. The fact that the Connect trains leave from the MML platforms means that it is hard to set gates at St Pancras to deny platform access.

Assuming that we are only seeing the Nottingham calling at Luton Airport Parkway then it is only one train per hour. It would not be the end of the world if people did use it to get to Luton Airport quicker than the Connect train. However, most of the time it would be better to take the next Connect rather than wait for the fast.

Bedford having a Nottingham AND a Sheffield makes sense.

Perhaps the best analogy here is provided by Paddington to Reading, where there is the danger of Reading passengers crowding out. It happens to an extent, but then Reading provides a big group of passengers joining the Westbounds who can then get seats vacated by the Paddington to Reading passengers. Similar could be built at Bedford when the interchange opportunities appear (thinking here of Oxford/Bletchley to Bedford to the East Mids).

Great point as well is that passengers north of Bedford may be more likely to get off there with an intercity stop to go to places like Flitwick and Harpenden or EWR services to Tempsford/St Neots or MK

 

[duffield]

To some extent, but it's a long way round via Birmingham. Derby and Sheffield might be about the same either way, but an easy connection to/from Nottingham and Leicester ought to be able to do better than changing at Derby.

My estimates are that even making optimistic assumptions, Nottingham to Oxford via EWR, changing once at Bedford, would be unlikely to be significantly quicker than via Derby/Birmingham, changing once at Derby. In both cases it heavily depends on how good the connections are, but the 4tph from Nottingham to Derby tends to make that change more likely to be favourable.

I think Leicester would be more likely to benefit though.

 

[flitwickbeds]

There will also be the theme park,

Unfortunately, as time goes on, it becomes more "there MIGHT also be the theme park".

 

[bramling]

So you want to remove any possibility of Northward travel from Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby on the Midland Mainline? Because if the Nottinghams stop at Beford vice Kettering there is no way North by train from North Northamptonshire.


As for those saying stick extra stops in the InterCity services at Bedford that will overcrowd those services with commuters. The EMR Connect services are popular as it is due to only two stops to St Pancras - a non-stop even more so. The slow Sheffiled is also just ahead of the fast Nottingham - if the former has stops added before Leicester then it'll delay the latter. The two InterCity services are routinely checked at Wellingborough anyway having caught up the Down EMR Connect services that are still on the Down Fast and don't cross to the Slows until Kettering.

A better option, that preserves the current EMR clockface, would be:

• Remove Luton stop from EMR Connect services (to get them further ahead of the InterCity services by Wellingborough on the Down).
• Stop the semi-fast Sheffield at Kettering vice the fast Nottingham. That could probably be done without delaying the Fast Nottingham behind it if the Sheffield hasn't been checked at Wellingborough (hence proposal in first point).

Downsides:

• Luton loses the EMR Connect service, but I'd argue the main market for these services is Luton Airport (hence the dual branding as Luton Airport Express) and giving Bedford a fast London service.
• Kettering - Market Harborough becomes an hourly service, unless the Fast Nottingham kept stops at Kettering and Market Harborough and the semi-fast Sheffield was an extra. (Could be set down only in the Up, pick-up only in the Down, so wouldn't be advertised as an St Pancras - Kettering service).

I can’t see a problem with removing the Luton call from the Corby services.

There’s 6tph Thameslink between Luton and Luton Airport and 4tph between Luton Airport and Bedford. Whilst Luton to London has 4tph fast Thameslink services. It would merely put Luton in the same position at St Albans, who seem to cope fine.

 

[Bald Rick]

A better option, that preserves the current EMR clockface, would be:

• Remove Luton stop from EMR Connect services (to get them further ahead of the InterCity services by Wellingborough on the Down).
• Stop the semi-fast Sheffield at Kettering vice the fast Nottingham. That could probably be done without delaying the Fast Nottingham behind it if the Sheffield hasn't been checked at Wellingborough (hence proposal in first point).

I can’t see a problem with removing the Luton call from the Corby services.

The problem is that because the two Luton stations are so close together, calling at both loses less time would normally be the case for calling at two stations further apart. You get two calls for the price of one and a half, effectively. Therefore removing the Luton call in the Corby is unlikely to provide enough headway behind to enable it to be far enough shead of the Sheffield st Wellingboro’ without the addition of more pathing time in the latter.

It really is quite a conundrum.

Personally I would like to see some Bedford stops in the MML semi fasts, but then personally I don’t see EWR happening between Bedford and Cambridge.

 

[A0]

I don’t have a very strong feeling on the Kettering calls, I would say one is fine. Two aren’t essential and folks changing to go north are minimal, let’s be real.

Bedford - I can imagine a fair bit of new development: the Universal Stufios, suburbs (Wixams), Marston Vale demand/devts will grow too… but also plenty of apt building in Bedford itself - as well as hopefully employment growth.

As such I think EWR may not give a million connections through Bedford (although it will add some, including to LAP) - but may be the catalyst for a broader change. I think predicated on the Cambridge build tho. Not just 1tph to Oxford.

I suspect there is more demand from Kettering to Leicester / Nottingham than there is Bedford, mainly due to distance. That alone ought to be the reason not to add calls at Bedford at the expense of Kettering.

Luton Airport, fine. That makes sense and is a traffic destination. Bedford isn't and I don't believe the Universal development will materially chamge that if you look at other such attractions around the UK.

 

[A0]

Personally I would like to see some Bedford stops in the MML semi fasts, but then personally I don’t see EWR happening between Bedford and Cambridge.

But to achieve what?

The oft peddled argument of "interchange with EWR" doesn't stack up for Leicester and beyond as they already have connections to Cambridge, Oxford or MK with 1 change.

 

[stevieinselby]

Have you sent time at Kettering and seen how many people board the Northbound services? So EMR should just abandon that market on the chance East-West will create some demand at Bedford?

I had always assumed that the main travel pattern from Corby would be heading south, but looking at the stats for 2022/23, I was surprised just how many people do change at Kettering and head north.
In fact, Leicester is the second most popular destination from Corby – even ahead of Kettering – with Nottingham, Market Harborough, Sheffield and Derby all in the top 12.

That said, I do understand the frustration with a network that potentially requires passengers to change 3 times (eg from Thameslink stations to Derby/Sheffield, change at Luton/Bedford, then Kettering, then Leicester) onto a train that goes through the station you're travelling from – it does feel like there ought to be a more efficient way of organising that!

 

[Nottingham59]

I had always assumed that the main travel pattern from Corby would be heading south, but looking at the stats for 2022/23, I was surprised just how many people do change at Kettering and head north.
In fact, Leicester is the second most popular destination from Corby – even ahead of Kettering – with Nottingham, Market Harborough, Sheffield and Derby all in the top 12.

But flows from Corby heading north are still just one quarter of those heading south

 

[baz962]

So you want to remove any possibility of Northward travel from Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby on the Midland Mainline? Because if the Nottinghams stop at Beford vice Kettering there is no way North by train from North Northamptonshire.


As for those saying stick extra stops in the InterCity services at Bedford that will overcrowd those services with commuters. The EMR Connect services are popular as it is due to only two stops to St Pancras - a non-stop even more so. The slow Sheffiled is also just ahead of the fast Nottingham - if the former has stops added before Leicester then it'll delay the latter. The two InterCity services are routinely checked at Wellingborough anyway having caught up the Down EMR Connect services that are still on the Down Fast and don't cross to the Slows until Kettering.

A better option, that preserves the current EMR clockface, would be:

• Remove Luton stop from EMR Connect services (to get them further ahead of the InterCity services by Wellingborough on the Down).
• Stop the semi-fast Sheffield at Kettering vice the fast Nottingham. That could probably be done without delaying the Fast Nottingham behind it if the Sheffield hasn't been checked at Wellingborough (hence proposal in first point).

Downsides:

• Luton loses the EMR Connect service, but I'd argue the main market for these services is Luton Airport (hence the dual branding as Luton Airport Express) and giving Bedford a fast London service.
• Kettering - Market Harborough becomes an hourly service, unless the Fast Nottingham kept stops at Kettering and Market Harborough and the semi-fast Sheffield was an extra. (Could be set down only in the Up, pick-up only in the Down, so wouldn't be advertised as an St Pancras - Kettering service).

Stopping the Sheffield at Kettering absolutely would hamper the Nottingham , even without a Corby in front.

 

[stevieinselby]

But flows from Corby heading north are still just one quarter of those heading south

Given that heading north (a) involves a change, and (2) is Not London™, that's still a decent flow of traffic ... and a hefty number of passengers making those connections at Kettering who would be disadvantaged if that was dropped from 2tph to 1tph.

Bedford is significantly bigger than Corby and has a long-established rail service, yet still only sees a similar number of passengers changing at Kettering to head further north.
Luton, despite being twice is big again as Bedford, only sees about 50% more people heading north (including LAP).

Looking at passenger numbers to Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield combined, they make up about 16% of traffic from Corby, compared with just 2% of traffic from Bedford and 1.4% of traffic from Luton. Obviously service patterns will play some role in that, but it shows that the market for north-facing connections at Kettering to/from Corby is important.

 

[A0]

I had always assumed that the main travel pattern from Corby would be heading south, but looking at the stats for 2022/23, I was surprised just how many people do change at Kettering and head north.
In fact, Leicester is the second most popular destination from Corby – even ahead of Kettering – with Nottingham, Market Harborough, Sheffield and Derby all in the top 12.

That said, I do understand the frustration with a network that potentially requires passengers to change 3 times (eg from Thameslink stations to Derby/Sheffield, change at Luton/Bedford, then Kettering, then Leicester) onto a train that goes through the station you're travelling from – it does feel like there ought to be a more efficient way of organising that!

Bit in bold - most "north of the river" Thameslink stations are south of St Albans, where travelling via St Pancras would be more obvious.

There are 8 stations between St Albans and St Pancras, there are 7 between St Albans and Bedford including Bedford.

 

[Bald Rick]

But to achieve what?

Purely selfishly, to get to Derby / Nottingham half an hour quicker.