Coleshill Parkway

[greataj]

Does anybody know why Coleshill Parkway gets a 2tph service on both the Leicester and Cambridge/Stansted routes during off-peak whilst Hinckley and Narborough along the same route do not?

Coleshill Parkway was used by 187k passengers in the 2023/4 period, whilst Hinckley and Narborough were 302k and 240k respectively despite having half the service provision, at least during off-peak times.

Surely they should both be higher priorty over Coleshill. Are the calls there on the Cambride/Stansted services purely for pathing between Birmingham and Nuneaton, or was there perhaps some kind of obligation for a 2tph commitment to the station when it opened in 2007 that has never been re-evaluted?

 

[1D54]

A question many in the areas of Leics mentioned have been asking for a long time. I don't expect anything to change anytime soon but look forward to reading what others have to say on the matter.

 

[The Planner]

Does anybody know why Coleshill Parkway gets a 2tph service on both the Leicester and Cambridge/Stansted routes during off-peak whilst Hinckley and Narborough along the same route do not?

Coleshill Parkway was used by 187k passengers in the 2023/4 period, whilst Hinckley and Narborough were 302k and 240k respectively despite having half the service provision, at least during off-peak times.

Surely they should both be higher priorty over Coleshill. Are the calls there on the Cambride/Stansted services purely for pathing between Birmingham and Nuneaton, or was there perhaps some kind of obligation for a 2tph commitment to the station when it opened in 2007 that has never been re-evaluted?

If you put stops at Hinckley and Narborough in, you break Leicester. Even if you replaced Coleshill (unlikely) it still causes clashes.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Presumably the frequency is an attempt to encourage people to park there and get the train into Birmingham, so it’s a wider policy decision rather than just based on passenger numbers

 

[Kite159]

Presumably the frequency is an attempt to encourage people to park there and get the train into Birmingham, so it’s a wider policy decision rather than just based on passenger numbers

Maybe at first when I believe parking was free, but since car parking charges were introduced it's probably less of a draw. Especially when you factor in the only fare available to Birmingham is £7.40 anytime single or £8.10 anytime return with no cheaper off-peak tickets available with the real risk of having to stand when a 2 coach special rolls in from Stansted.

 

[The Planner]

Maybe at first when I believe parking was free, but since car parking charges were introduced it's probably less of a draw. Especially when you factor in the only fare available to Birmingham is £7.40 anytime single or £8.10 anytime return with no cheaper off-peak tickets available with the real risk of having to stand when a 2 coach special rolls in from Stansted.

£3.50 a day for car parking now. £13.30 a week.

 

[1D54]

Would it really cause that much hardship for a Stanstead / Cambridge to call additionally at Narborough and Hinckley if it is running on time. Many of these services have enough dwell time at New Street to avoid it leaving on the return to Leicester late and it has to be a better option than just leaving passengers having to wait an hour for the next train.

I've personally never seen the point of Coleshill Parkway and if people aren't using it to park or only during peak hours then there has to be valid argument to have non peak hour services not stopping at the place.

 

[The Planner]

Would it really cause that much hardship for a Stanstead / Cambridge to call additionally at Narborough and Hinckley if it is running on time. Many of these services have enough dwell time at New Street to avoid it leaving on the return to Leicester late and it has to be a better option than just leaving passengers having to wait an hour for the next train.

I've personally never seen the point of Coleshill Parkway and if people aren't using it to park or only during peak hours then there has to be valid argument to have non peak hour services not stopping at the place.

Err, of course it does, as the timetable doesnt work. Nuneaton to Wigston North is 15½ minutes, add in Hinckley and Narborough and that is increased to 21 minutes. That makes it clash with the St Pancras Nottingham at Wigston North Jn. So it is either retiming the EMR, or waiting for it, if it waits for it then it clashes with the Leicester New St coming back the other way at Leicester itself. Then it clashes with a Sheffield St Pancras at Syston South. It can't depart more than 3 minutes earlier at New St, which isn't enough, as there is a Cross City train in the way. In the reverse direction it would drop the turnaround for the Leicester service at New St down to 8 minutes which adds a performance risk after a journey from Stanstead.

 

[1D54]

I didn't really understand what you meant by 'clashes' in #3 but it all makes sense now. I still think the two Leics stations deserve more than one train an hour regardless of the thread title but that is for another day.

Thanks for explaining timings with EMR etc.

 

[greataj]

It's an interesting discussion but I am aware the more I read these topics why Narborough and Hinckley don't see the Cambridge services stopping. It was more a question why Coleshill, given it's lower usage, does?

To be fair, both Hinckley and Narborough see a reasonable service provision all round. Whilst it may be only 1tph off-peak calling, there are a few peak serives on Birmingham-Cambridge/Stansted that do call plus a couple of additional runs to Leicester during the evening peak. One of those (the 17:09 from New Street) bizarely calls at Hinckley and South Wigston, but skips Narborough, again I assume because of pathing constraints.

All this does raise a general question for me on the overall success of "Parkway" stations. Take East Midlands Parkway for instance which has well lower usage than it was perhaps hoped to have. There definitely are some success stories, but my personal view is unless there is a significant rail provision (minimum 4tph) to a key city flow, adjacent to a major road interchange that delivers a notable cost saving and time benefit, people won't use it. East Midlands Parkway semi ticks those boxes but it's by no means a gamechanger, but Coleshill, even at 2tph, I really struggle to see the advantage of as a Parkway interchange.

 

[tram21]

All this does raise a general question for me on the overall success of "Parkway" stations. Take East Midlands Parkway for instance which has well lower usage than it was perhaps hoped to have. There definitely are some success stories, but my personal view is unless there is a significant rail provision (minimum 4tph) to a key city flow, adjacent to a major road interchange that delivers a notable cost saving and time benefit, people won't use it. East Midlands Parkway semi ticks those boxes but it's by no means a gamechanger, but Coleshill, even at 2tph, I really struggle to see the advantage of as a Parkway interchange.

There's a good discussion here about East Midlands Parkway: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/east-midlands-parkway-failure.277291/

 

[Meerkat]

Err, of course it does, as the timetable doesnt work. Nuneaton to Wigston North is 15½ minutes, add in Hinckley and Narborough and that is increased to 21 minutes. That makes it clash with the St Pancras Nottingham at Wigston North Jn. So it is either retiming the EMR, or waiting for it, if it waits for it then it clashes with the Leicester New St coming back the other way at Leicester itself. Then it clashes with a Sheffield St Pancras at Syston South. It can't depart more than 3 minutes earlier at New St, which isn't enough, as there is a Cross City train in the way. In the reverse direction it would drop the turnaround for the Leicester service at New St down to 8 minutes which adds a performance risk after a journey from Stanstead.

Need that once planned flyover at Wigston……
Or was it a flyunder?

 

[1D54]

Need that once planned flyover at Wigston……
Or was it a flyunder?

Similar to Nuneaton but the infrastructure was already in place.

 

[The Planner]

Need that once planned flyover at Wigston……
Or was it a flyunder?

A flyover doesn't help in this case as its the same direction move.

 

[Meerkat]

A flyover doesn't help in this case as its the same direction move.

IIRC the plan was to take both Nuneaton lines over/under and quadruple so that XC and EMR had separate dual track lines and no conflicts with each other.

 

[nigelsporne]

One reason for the 2tph was because it was advertised as having a connection to Birmingham Airport. This bus service though has been withdrawn however there is a W Mids bus service, but with a change, still operating. The direct connection saw very little usage.