What interventions do you think would improve reliability along the midland main line - being that the slow to fast line movements frequently seem to impede main line running and create delays?
The crossings slow to fast etc do not
create delays. They (sometimes) amplify delays that have already been created. If the railway ran on time, there would be no delays from the crossing movements. So, to answer your question, to improve reliability you need to do all the things the railway does to do that.
To reduce the reactionary delays, my answer is ETCS (coming in the next decade) and extending the ATO for Thameslink services out to Cricklewood on both Fast and slow lines. Whilst it won’t solve it, it will help enormously. The impact of ATO in the core is very noticeable on punctuality. My train tonight made up 7 minutes between London Bridge and Kentish Town through being in ATO.
Does all this criss-crossing improve capacity?
Yes. It makes best use of fast line capacity, and uses that capacity a) where it is needed (the first 30 miles from London) and b) where it generates a significant amount of revenue.
There are plenty of examples of places that no longer have services using the main lines - but increased frequency along the 'slow' lines has in some way mitigated that and those people accept that a slightly longer journey is needed, but they can turn up and go rather than waiting half an hour.
There are a few examples, but none as severe as what you propose, nor serving stations with the passenger numbers and revenue of the MML commuter belt. Your proposal would not result in increased frequency - quite the opposite in fact - and the journey times would almost double for many passengers.
The stations between Luton and StAlbans already have, essentially, a turn up and go service of between 12-15tph in the peaks and 10tph off peak. If all Thameslinks went slow line it would be a maximum of 12tph peak, 8tph off peak. St Albans would see a near doubling of journey times (northbound) from a typcal 18 minutes to 34 minutes and
fewer services, Harpenden would also see a journey time increase of 16 mins and a reduction in services, Radlett, Elstree and Mill Hill see an increase of 5-6 minutes. Luton Airport would have (at best) the same number of services but 80%+ of them would have much longer journey times. These journey times increases would apply all day.
It would crucify revenue.
How have Bedford and Luton passengers responded to losing the bulk of their direct Intercity services now?
They haven’t lost the bulk of their ‘intercity’ services. They have
gained services for their most importsnt market, ie London. Granted they are not of Intercity stock (although fairly soon it will feel like it), but they have more services, to a more regular clockface timetable. And more seats, meaning they are much more likely to travel incomfort, rather than in the gangway of a Mark 3 coach.
Similarly Watford Junction and Milton Keynes passengers have not deserted the railway due to Avanti stopping fewer services there.
Milton Keynes has more stops in the Long distance services - to a regular pattern - than it ever has had, with 4 an hour. Watford has never had routine stops in long distance services
to London, which is by far its biggest market. The relatively few northbound non-Birmingham services that stopped there before 2008 have largely gone, but frankly that was a minor market.
Personally I'd be tempted to cut the Luton services back to Kentish Town.
And halve the frequency of peak services to Brent Cross, Mill Hill, Elstree and Radlett?
