Leicester to Rugby Link

[CMS1]

It's been a while with no crayon..... so here's a proposal:



Build a link alongside the M1 (i.e. mainly on the old GCR) between Leicester & Rugby.
Purpose:
Provide a fast direct service from Nottingham/Leicester to Coventry (currently 117 & 56 minutes respectively!) and Birmingham International for the NEC & Airport (then continuing to Birmingham NS), via Rugby.
Provide access to DIRFT (shown in black) from the north, taking FLX trains off the GEML,NLL & WCML, and a new access from other North East ports/destinations. And other new freight opportunities e.g. accessing Northampton Gateway from the North East, or cross country freight.
Provide a fast link from Northampton/Milton Keynes/Bletchley to the East Midlands (change at Rugby).

 

[30907]

Why not use the route of the old Midland line which seems to be less obstructed?

 

[CMS1]

Mainly because to get northern access to DIRFT the M1 route seems easier, e.g. below in red:

 

[The Planner]

It's been a while with no crayon..... so here's a proposal:

View attachment 188910

Build a link alongside the M1 (i.e. mainly on the old GCR) between Leicester & Rugby.
Purpose:
Provide a fast direct service from Nottingham/Leicester to Coventry (currently 117 & 56 minutes respectively!) and Birmingham International for the NEC & Airport (then continuing to Birmingham NS), via Rugby.
Provide access to DIRFT (shown in black) from the north, taking FLX trains off the GEML,NLL & WCML, and a new access from other North East ports/destinations. And other new freight opportunities e.g. accessing Northampton Gateway from the North East, or cross country freight.
Provide a fast link from Northampton/Milton Keynes/Bletchley to the East Midlands (change at Rugby).

Building the dive under at Nuneaton would be cheaper, quicker too for Leicester Cov. Leicester to New St isn't going to be any quicker either, you would have to beat 48 minutes.
You still need to sort the cross country route if you wanted Intermodal off the WCML (bearing in mind that more trains using London Gateway wouldn't reduce it). Freight from the NE would just use Castle Donnington etc.
Why would you double back at Rugby, thats going to add a significant amount of time to a Northampton Leicester journey to the point that it still won't compete with road.

 

[CMS1]

Nuneaton would be cheaper but misses Birmingham International. Leicester to Cov on its own won't have great traffic, whereas including Birmingham Int then Birmingham should justify the service
Agree there are more things to sort to redirect freight. If a curve is added as per above then Northampton to East Midlands could run direct without which could be a Euston to Nottingham to include Watford/MK/EWR traffic also

 

[Bald Rick]

The freight angle in terms of relieving the GEML / NLL / WCML is somewhat overstated. There is currently one return trip a day between Felixstowe and DIRFT.

Which existing passenger trains on the Coventry corridor are being removed to make way for these trains to / from Leicester?

 

[RT4038]

Why not use the route of the old Midland line which seems to be less obstructed?

I think that either route would present some pretty serious challenges:
(a) the Midland route is obstructed where the M6 has been built over it; where the level crossing across the A5 was and to the north (extension of Magna Park); in the villages of Broughton Astley and Countesthorpe, and the entry into Wigston is built over. A bridge would have to be constructed under the M1 in a place where there never was one. The route leaving from Rugby Midland station means that only trains from Platforms 4, 5 & 6 (the up platforms) could be used for departure of down trains towards Leicester, which I would think would be a major capacity and operational constraint. [This was a major reason for the line becoming a backwater prior to 1962, and the railway layout and line capacity is more problemmatic now]
(b) using the former GC route - building a connection to the WCML (presumably from the Northampton loop) from somewhere near Dirft is quite obstructed by Dirft and the new town of Houlton (certainly as a triangular junction) - again the M6 would have to crossed by Catthorpe interchange and the A4303 at Lutterworth. The trackbed around the former Lutterworth Station is also encroached upon.
On both routes various villages would suddenly have quiet disused formations very near houses becoming an operational railway again, which would inevitably provoke plenty of objection.

Obviously if money was no object one of the lines could be rebuilt (or a line across farmland a la HS2).

 

[Magdalia]

Provide access to DIRFT (shown in black) from the north, taking FLX trains off the GEML,NLL & WCML

Most containers going between Felixstowe and the Northamptonshire Distribution Centres are on articulated lorries on the A14, not on trains. This is what was in the East West Rail non statutory consultation technical report:

Currently, thousands of lorries drive each day from the major ports at Felixstowe or Southampton to distribution centres around Northampton and Daventry. While these locations are served by rail, the route is indirect and rail freight services find it hard to compete on price, therefore these flows are dominated by road haulage.

Providing access to Daventry from Leicester is no benefit because it is still a very indirect route from Felixstowe, even if it were possible to run more trains between Felixstowe and Leicester.

 

[The Planner]

Nuneaton would be cheaper but misses Birmingham International. Leicester to Cov on its own won't have great traffic, whereas including Birmingham Int then Birmingham should justify the service

It wouldn't though, you just change at Cov. A Leicester to Coventry link is what has been proposed for many years, and would likely just end up as an extension of an existing Leamington Nuneaton, or new Leamington to Leicester service.

Midlands Connect - Coventry – Leicester – Nottingham

www.midlandsconnect.uk

 

[Palmerston]

Here's my crayon suggestion. If HS2 has a link to Derby, that becomes quicker than the existing route. At the same time, there should be more capacity on the WCML as more trains are on HS2. At that point reopen the line from Northampton to Market Harborough and use this for fast services 2tph Nott-Leicester-Northampton-London. Maybe stop at Milton Keynes.

The existing line could still have 2tph to Corby, 2tph stopping to Nottingham and 1-2 tph stopping to Derby/Sheffield (with everything stopping at Bedford once Universal opens). My theory is only having stopping services on the St Pancras route is simpler and fast trains don't catch up slower ones, nowhere has a reduction in overall service, additional route Northampton to East Midlands.

I'm sure there's some good reasons why it's a terrible idea, but I'm not aware of what they are.

 

[zwk500]

Alternative Crayon suggestion, giving more benefits to more people while requiring a lot less new/reclaimed alignment:

Yellow - upgrade of WCML from 3 to 4 tracks (9km from Brinklow to new connection then 2km from new Jn to Attleborough)
Pink - New Connection from WCML to Nuneaton-Leicester Line (6km)

The Down Slow would stay between the Fast Lines to avoid needing to modifiy Rugby until the junction where the branch swings east, where a grade-separated connection would allow the Down Fast and Down Slow to switch places to connect into the existing arrangement at Attleborough South Jn.

It'd be pricey as there's a fair few bridges to modify for the 4th track (especially where the flyover would be) but probably comparable in cost to trying to reopen the length of line alternatively proposed and almost certainly giving greater overall benefits as this new 4th track would be of benefit to all northbound Trent Valley traffic.

 

[CMS1]

If that was the plan you might as well do a (tight) curve at Nuneaton

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm sure there's some good reasons why it's a terrible idea, but I'm not aware of what they are.

Aside from a billion quid or so to build it, how are you fitting all these extra trains across Trent Junction, into Derby, and into Sheffield? And the journey time to Leicester would, I think, be slower than now.

 

[zwk500]

If that was the plan you might as well do a (tight) curve at Nuneaton

It wouldn't fit a flyover in and adding a flat crossing across the fasts is not an improvement (especially as the curvature would mean a very slow speed on approach). Not to mention the River Anker sits in that v, so it would be a nightmare managing the drainage.

 

[greataj]

Rather than mass scale construction, couldn't a future Coventry-Leicester service just rely on some kind of reconfiguration at Nuneaton to allow a continuation of the Leamington Spa-Nuneaton service to Leicester and potentially Nottingham? That way you could essentially up capacity between Nuneaton and Leicester, possibly providing some extra morning/evening peak calls for Hinckley and Narborough as these are notoriously overcrowded currently, and then incorporate the existing EMR Ivanhoe line service onto this (which come December will be simply a Leicester-Nottingham local run anyway).

Then, by taking local EMR terminators out of Leicester (usually Platform 4) since this new through service would provide that connection, could then allow that platform capacity to be safeguarded in future for the long-awaited Leicester-Burton service through Coalville. That would seem a far more logical, holistic approach to me, without any major construction of entirely new lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

Rather than mass scale construction, couldn't a future Coventry-Leicester service just rely on some kind of reconfiguration at Nuneaton to allow a continuation of the Leamington Spa-Nuneaton service to Leicester and potentially Nottingham? That way you could essentially up capacity between Nuneaton and Leicester, possibly providing some extra morning/evening peak calls for Hinckley and Narborough as these are notoriously overcrowded currently, and then incorporate the existing EMR Ivanhoe line service onto this (which come December will be simply a Leicester-Nottingham local run anyway).

Then, by taking local EMR terminators out of Leicester (usually Platform 4) since this new through service would provide that connection, could then allow that platform capacity to be safeguarded in future for the long-awaited Leicester-Burton service through Coalville. That would seem a far more logical, holistic approach to me, without any major construction of entirely new lines.

The WCML service at Nuneaton does not have sufficient gaps in it to permit a flat crossing of Coventry - Nuneaton servcies on a regular (say hourly) basis.

The only way to do it is to either build a new line (specifically a dive under or flyover at the south end, with trains reversing in the platfroms), or to have services reverse on the Birmingham lines NW of the station and use the existing flyover.

This has been studied extensively.