Next priority project: Requadrupling the MML- Wigston to Syston.

[Johnnie2Sheds]

And electrification through to Elmsall junction. The three East Midlands cities on the Midland, along with Sheffield should be electrified as a matter of urgency for the survival of the line. The layout at Leicester needs the Derby treatment to allow higher speeds and greater freight capacity. Trent junction needs remodelling to allow greater speeds if possible.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't see why the extension of electrification all the way to beyond Sheffield would alter the chances of "survival" of the line?

The line is extremely unlikely to close barring some catastrophic natural disaster or similar event.

At this time, electrification through to the Leeds-Doncaster line (but not to Doncaster itself?) doesn't seem to gain the railway very much for the enormous expense.
EMR has its fleet of new electrodiesels either way.

 

[Bald Rick]

Trent junction needs remodelling to allow greater speeds if possible.

It’s been remodelled, and is at maximum speed given the laws of physics

 

[Zomboid]

I don't see why the extension of electrification all the way to beyond Sheffield would alter the chances of "survival" of the line?

The line is extremely unlikely to close barring some catastrophic natural disaster or similar event.

At this time, electrification through to the Leeds-Doncaster line (but not to Doncaster itself?) doesn't seem to gain the railway very much for the enormous expense.
EMR has its fleet of new electrodiesels either way.

Finishing the electrification between Leicester and Nottingham/ Leeds/ Doncaster, along with Birmingham to Derby are the kind of thing which should be tackled in the medium term.

Then a new batch of straight electric trains could allow the 810s to be cascaded to somewhere the bimode design could offer benefits, and we'd have no more requirement for 125 operation away from the wires.

As for 4 tracking through Leicester, if that solves an actual problem then that should be somewhere on the wishlist.

 

[Harpo]

MML priority 1 - Timetable*
Priority 2 - Wires
Priority 3 - London terminal capacity


* Flitwick (for example) to Derby - Four trains!

 

[D365]

MML priority 1 - Timetable*
Priority 2 - Wires
Priority 3 - London terminal capacity


* Flitwick (for example) to Derby - Four trains!

I’m not sure what you mean by four trains between Bedford and Derby. Please elaborate why this is a higher priority than electrification.

 

[Bald Rick]

Flitwick (for example) to Derby - Four trains!

Two at some times of day !

 

[Merle Haggard]

Two at some times of day !

There's the 16.10, change at Bedford - which doesn't appear on NRES as far as I can see.

What's the other one?

 

[JonathanH]

There's the 16.10, change at Bedford - which doesn't appear on NRES as far as I can see.

What's the other one?

Derby / Sheffield trains call at Bedford on Sunday mornings during the two-track railway period.

However, I am not sure that four tracks through south Leicester is the thing that unlocks easier journeys from Flitwick to Derby.

 

[Harpo]

I’m not sure what you mean by four trains between Bedford and Derby. Please elaborate why this is a higher priority than electrification.

The timetable is a higher priority than electrification because it doesn’t need the wires to make it happen.

Currently Bedford or Luton to Derby or Sheffield needs 3 trains changing at Kettering and Leicester at most times of the day. Start from (my example) Flitwick or another intermediate and you add a 3rd change/4th train.

 

[Bald Rick]

There's the 16.10, change at Bedford - which doesn't appear on NRES as far as I can see.

What's the other one?

0639, 0711, 0739 off Bedford to Nottingham each weekday (and similar times Saturday), connections from Flitwick and other stations further south.

 

[Magdalia]

However, I am not sure that four tracks through south Leicester is the thing that unlocks easier journeys from Flitwick to Derby.

What unlocks this is a platform on the up fast line at Bedford.

Hopefully that will come as part of the Bedford rebuild for East West Rail.

The objective will be easier journeys from the north to Wixams/Stewartby for Universal, from which Flitwick will also benefit.

 

[Merle Haggard]

0639, 0711, 0739 off Bedford to Nottingham each weekday (and similar times Saturday), connections from Flitwick and other stations further south.

Sorry confused, thought 2 trains was intended, not 2 changes.

 

[Topological]

Leicester would benefit from 4-tracking, especially from Wigston to Leicester station.

The main beneficiaries of electrification need the Birmingham line to be wired. That seems further down the list. You could have EMUs on the Ivanhoe line, and maybe a local to Derby, but that does not really create the benefits now the 810s exist. This also needs there to be more capacity on Birmingham to Leicester and I am not sure that can be done. Perhaps a local service from Nuneaton to Leicester to give a second train per hour at the stops on that section and extend the current Birmingham to Leicester to Nottingham?

I would be inclined to run London to Sheffield like London to Norwich. That might not be "InterCity", but it would be suitable for the line length and offer the requisite shorter dwells and acceleration to allow more stops south of Leicester. That would need electrification.

So the priority to me would be getting the layout at Leicester sorted and laying tracks in a way that would accommodate electrification at a later stage.

 

[William3000]

I’ve always felt the multiple changes from St Albans City northwards is unhelpful particular when one compares to the ECML where most people can travel north with a change at Stevenage (it’s two changes from Brookmans Park/Welham Green), and Milton Keynes Central on the WCML, and Reading on the GWML. Would adding additional stops at Luton Airport Parkway and Bedford for Nottingham semi fasts and Bedford for Sheffield semi-fasts as shown in green on the service diagram below help. I certainly think when EWR comes along Bedford should have more trains stopping and Luton Airport could do with more trains to and from the East Midlands

 

[Johnnie2Sheds]

I'm interested to know how " the timetable" is deemed more important than unblocking the horrendous 1980s bodge layout that is Syston-Leicester-Wigston. Derby has been sorted, as has Nottingham, so why not Leicester? Of course it was managed decline, or death by a thousand cuts at the time, but now? Freightliners trundling round the single track station goods line at 10 mph? Single track Syston east to Syston south? Down to two tracks through Knighton tunnel? Really?

I'd also be interested in when Trent was modernised, I must have missed that. Was it done when the box was decommissioned?

Timetable improvements would come when there are more paths due to four tracking and passenger trains not hauling dead diesel engines about for nearly 200 miles on a trip to Pancras and back. Just another bodge on a 40+ year bodge. Mind, I suppose we should be grateful, at least some clown hasn't suggested re introducing class 170 on the line.

 

[Harpo]

I'm interested to know how " the timetable" is deemed more important than unblocking the horrendous 1980s bodge layout that is Syston-Leicester-Wigston.

Priority and importance are different things. To me, electrification is probably the single most important issue for England and Wales but it would still be programmed by priority driven by many factors.

I would make the MML timetable a high priority simply because it doesn’t need huge expenditure and would probably drive growth. Whether that growth would be problematic itself though, is another question.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'd also be interested in when Trent was modernised, I must have missed that. Was it done when the box was decommissioned?

Yes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2026 ==

I'm interested to know how " the timetable" is deemed more important than unblocking the horrendous 1980s bodge layout that is Syston-Leicester-Wigston.

When making proposals for improvement, you must always start with the timetable.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Presumably a new timetable and layout would not change the present arrangement where, for travellers from stations North of St Pancras, a change from the Nottingham train to the Sheffield one is required for destinations Derby and further North.

What it might break, however, is the present near-certainty of making the connection because the forward connecting train cannot overtake the arriving one if the trains leave Kettering - and Bedford most likely - in the correct order. And, if they are out of order, it's likely that there's disruption anyway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably a new timetable and layout would not change the present arrangement where, for travellers from stations North of St Pancras, a change from the Nottingham train to the Sheffield one is required for destinations Derby and further North.

Depends how far north of St Pancras you mean. For passengers from stations Kentish Town - St Albans to Leicester and north thereof, journey times are comparable via St P with only one change.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Depends how far north of St Pancras you mean. For passengers from stations Kentish Town - St Albans to Leicester and north thereof, journey times are comparable via St P with only one change.

That's similar to Northampton > the North tickets being valid for a less slow journey via Milton Keynes after the WC Route Modernisation. Although it sounded like a great favour by the railways (after Rugby stops in West Coast IC had been removed) the snag was that the Northampton Anytime fare to, say, Manchester, was increased to be the same as from Milton Keynes .

But, curiously, looking at National Rail Enquiries the fare for the journey via St Pancras from, for example, St Albans to Sheffield is cheaper than the shorter one with 3 changes. Difficult to pin down the 'Anytime' fare from NRES, though.
.

 

[Harpo]

When making proposals for improvement, you must always start with the timetable.

And make sure that bean counter parsimony value management exercises don’t deliver a scheme that sets the new timetable in concrete.

 

[The Planner]

And make sure that bean counter parsimony value management exercises don’t deliver a scheme that sets the new timetable in concrete.

Or even stops it being delivered at all, it has been known....