Kings Cross for Nottingham?

[LE Greys]

Though, if it did ever happen, and became anything more than an aspiration, which I quite doubt anyway, and it went to a franchised operator, I would imagine it would go to East Coast, not EMT. No chance of Grantham to Nottingham being electrified, the service would undoubtedly use HSTs: Assuming a two hourly service frequency, coinciding with the London-Newark path of the pruned KX-Lincoln service proposed under Eureka, the service could just about be run with two HSTs, assuming a journey time each way of around 1hr 45mins, which with some fiddling of East Coasts’ HST “fill in” diagrams to Leeds and Newcastle during the day might be plausible with their current fleet.

Like ajax103, I tend to think 180s rather than HSTs. However, I have to agree that it is much more likely to work that way for now. Electrification will only come once they have done the MML, as part of a plan to electrify from Manchester to Norwich (South Trans-Pennine, Chesterfield/Derby-Nottingham-Grantham and Peterborough-Ely-Norwich), thus linking up all the current schemes

If using 180s or 222s then splitting or joining at Grantham would be a better use of existing resources however obviously if HSTs were used then this would go out of the window.

I agree with you there. If, for instance, EMT somehow managed to get a few more Meridians, and transferred some of the remaining HSTs to Grand Central, that would free up sufficient 180s for the service (if there aren't sufficient 180s already).

If longer franchises became the norm and operators given much more freedom with regards to rolling stock, then Grand Central, EMT or East Coast could easily put in a order for more rolling stock which ought to be approved if there's little to no cost to the taxpayer ie if Stagecoach said they wanted to expand their 222 fleet they would be free to do so.

That sounds like a sensible idea, which is why it will probably never make it past the DfT. :roll:

Interesting isnt it how decisions made years ago have repercussions to today.

In the early nineteenth century Nottingham had good access to canals and the River Trent. Few of its citizens saw any great need for a railway.

Meanwhile Derby was stuck with the River Derwent and a rather expensive canal. So when people in Yorkshire were looking for a route south, while Birmingham was looking to extend its network, Derby was full of enthusiasm. So Nottingham finished up with what is still really a branch line.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the fastest Nottingham Victoria-Marylebone time was faster than the comparative Nottingham Midland-St Pancras?

 

[MCR247]

Oooh, this inspires me with an idea...
Almost certainly in the realms of absolute fantasy but hey.

How about a service:
Kings X - Grantham (Non-stop). 2x Class 180 (or equivalent) units
Split at Grantham
Front portion to Nottingham
Rear Portion to Lincoln

Anybody lend me a few million quid and at least 4 sets for me to start an open access service?

Seriously though, why aren't splitting / joining services considered? They work very effectively (apart from passengers getting in the wrong bit) on Southern. Have you seen how slick the operation is to split & join trains at Haywards Heath?
Something like this would surely add capacity on the very crowded southern stretches of the ECML? Surely Grantham isn't the only place this could occur? What about Doncaster for Grand Central's Bradford and Sunderland services?

Cheers,
Jason
Jason

That may not work because P4 isn't always available at Grantham, it is often used for EMT skegness services as well as the Norwich - Liverpool. Otherwise it would take up space. Same with Donny, P8 isn't always availible

 

[Kneedown]

If, for instance, EMT somehow managed to get a few more Meridians, and transferred some of the remaining HSTs to Grand Central, that would free up sufficient 180s for the service (if there aren't sufficient 180s already)

I very much doubt there will be any more Meridians unless a new "greener" engine can be developed for them. I don't think the Cummins QSK's are being produced anymore. Even so, there is a great reluctance to build more diesel units at the moment, and there always will be unless it's finally decided where and how electrification will progress in the next 40 years.
I'm afraid i can't see the project getting the go ahead, but if it did and EMT ran it i'd be delighted as us Nottingham bod's would finally get to London!

If it happened there are 5 180's going spare i believe? which should be sufficient.

 

[Wyvern]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the fastest Nottingham Victoria-Marylebone time was faster than the comparative Nottingham Midland-St Pancras?

In those days Nottingham-St Pancras expresses went via the Old Dalby line through Manton and Corby. There was I believe a train called the Waverley that went on to Edinburgh. I wonder how those timings compared.


POSTSCRIPT: I've just found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waverley_(passenger_train)
In 1962, the train left London at 09:15. . . . ..stopped first at Nottingham Midland at 11:13 - that's two hours, which those days was the time from Derby to Lunnon as I remember, but that was with several stops.

 

[shinkansen1966]

it's a bit windy in places

To avoid abiguity, use the word sinuous.

MML speed upgrade here. Go to p130 for details of exact speed upgrades and distances from London. Excellent information.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/6182_Enhancements Document Dec 2009.pdf

 

[gordonthemoron]

To avoid abiguity, use the word sinuous.

good point

 

[LE Greys]

In those days Nottingham-St Pancras expresses went via the Old Dalby line through Manton and Corby. There was I believe a train called the Waverley that went on to Edinburgh. I wonder how those timings compared.


POSTSCRIPT: I've just found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waverley_(passenger_train)
In 1962, the train left London at 09:15. . . . ..stopped first at Nottingham Midland at 11:13 - that's two hours, which those days was the time from Derby to Lunnon as I remember, but that was with several stops.

According to this page, the 1957 South Yorkshireman used to take 2 hrs 42 mins to reach Victoria with stop at Aylesbury and Leicester, while the Master Cutler used to take 2 hrs 46 with stops at Leicester and Rugby. Looks like it wasn't quite as quick as I thought, even with the usual V2 at the head. Perhaps a non-stop run could have got it down to 2 hrs 30, but I'm not sure.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

MML speed upgrade here. Go to p130 for details of exact speed upgrades and distances from London. Excellent information.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/6182_Enhancements Document Dec 2009.pdf

Interesting, I'll have to have a read through that.

 

[swt_passenger]

To avoid abiguity, use the word sinuous.

MML speed upgrade here. Go to p130 for details of exact speed upgrades and distances from London. Excellent information.
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/6182_Enhancements Document Dec 2009.pdf

Not actually relevant to the MML section, but if you didn't already realise there have been two updates to that CP4 plan since, in March and June this year. It is a constantly evolving plan, and stuff can and does disappear between editions...

 

[tbtc]

Bizarre use of scarce paths on the ECML.

The fascination with offering "new" places direct links to London seems to be for political reasons rather than passenger demand.

Look at the WCML where Virgin have tripled the Manchester service since taking the franchise on, with no competition. Then compare it to the ECML service to Yorkshire, which have to compete with Open Access operators for scarce paths and now we're looking at giving other random cities London trips. Worrying.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Not actually relevant to the MML section, but if you didn't already realise there have been two updates to that CP4 plan since, in March and June this year. It is a constantly evolving plan, and stuff can and does disappear between editions...

Oh, what's the latest ?

 

[swt_passenger]

Oh, what's the latest ?

June 2010. If you look at this page on NR's site, you'll see it is basically the issue of this years version, but in the table of supporting documents below there is a March version, and a June update version to the actual enhancement plan shown as well.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/6648.aspx

It's worth checking every few months. 2009 saw March, June and December versions.

Hope this of use to you...

 

[Greenback]

Bizarre use of scarce paths on the ECML.

The fascination with offering "new" places direct links to London seems to be for political reasons rather than passenger demand.

Look at the WCML where Virgin have tripled the Manchester service since taking the franchise on, with no competition. Then compare it to the ECML service to Yorkshire, which have to compete with Open Access operators for scarce paths and now we're looking at giving other random cities London trips. Worrying.

I can't understand the proposals to link Nottingham with king's Cross at all. Nottingham already has a direct link to London, so why use up very scarce paths on a new service? One minute the ECML is supposed to be choked at the London end, the next this! I'm bemused!

 

[sprinterguy]

Quite peculiarly, the idea of having occasional trains serving a vast number of varied destinations, and combining the frequency together on core sections of route whilst being largely seperate from each other operationally seems to be in vogue at the moment: It's the sort of attitude that the pre-nationalisation and pre-grouping companies of the 1920s and 30s had.

Now that Britain's railways are once again fragmented into myriad different operators, in virtually exactly the same way as things were before 1923 (except track and infrastructure ownership), the same way of thinking seems to be manifesting itself as it did one hundred years ago: Train operators who are vaguley geographically seperate from each other, but offer poor interchange arrangements between each other; and where overlaps do occur there is the duplication of the better used services by multiple operators; and opportunistic business ventures (Which we now call "open access") attempt to cherry-pick custom from existing markets on the most successful corridors.

British Rail got it right in the late eighties and early nineties, by supporting frequent services to a limited range of destinations on core routes, allowing for easy connections into other services arranged in a similar fashion.

Like Greenback says, I cannot see why on earth it is being proposed that there should be Kings Cross to Nottingham services, when there is already a half hourly service to the capital from Nottingham, which is shortly to be accelerated through MML improvements, the south end of the ECML is apparently choked to capacity, and there is very little extra rolling stock going round for such a service. It seems like a bizarre idea.

 

[tbtc]

I can't understand the proposals to link Nottingham with king's Cross at all. Nottingham already has a direct link to London, so why use up very scarce paths on a new service? One minute the ECML is supposed to be choked at the London end, the next this! I'm bemused!

It's confusing.

The GEML/ GWML have all got one operator for London services*, with the franchises being tweaked around to get one operator controlling everything. The MML has similarly got one operator into London. All of these franchises seem to work pretty well.

The ECML has now got four operators between London and Peterborough (not all stopping there, admittedly), now we're going to complicate things further?

The stories coming out about direct trains to Saltburn/ Harrogate etc (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34972&page=2) make me more confused.

It seems to be for political reasons (every town on the ECML needing a direct link to London).

On the MML (my line - where the London - Nottingham service was doubled a few years ago), we have Mansfield/ Rotherham/ Barnsley/ Burton (etc) without a direct London train, but that seems okay as there are regular connections at Nottingham/ Derby/ Sheffield.

Same with Blackburn/ Blackpool/ Bolton/ Walsall etc on the WCML. In Wales passengers going from the Valleys to London are expected to change at Cardiff. That's the way it works.

(* - ignoring Heathrow Express and the evening C2C services)

 

[jon0844]

It's even more ridiculous given that the time to walk from (worst case) platform 0 to the furthest platform at St Pancras is 5-10 minutes at most. If you were arguing for trains from Nottingham to come into a totally different part of London then maybe there's a point, but for an onward journey by tube you'd be using the same bloody station!!

What would make far more sense would be outer tracks that connect the major lines, sort of like a spiders web, so that people living a bit further out would not have to go into London, go around and back out.

Having a link that connects the WCML to the MML and ECML (and even over to the East Anglia line) would allow people to travel far easier, while connecting towns and communities that are close by but only accessible by car, or somewhat suspect bus services.

That would also mean less congestion in London, and even better use of trains if a lot of people, say, got off an EMT train at Luton - and leave a seat empty that could be taken by someone who has come over from Welwyn Garden City or Hemel Hempstead or something.

In times of disruption, where people could travel from one mainline to another, it could also save on the need for rail replacement buses. I will always go to St Albans and take a bus/taxi to Hatfield when things go tits up, and it could work just as well for people to get back over to the WCML if that goes down (or any combination).

 

[YorkshireBear]

as said its a poor use of capacity and i cant see it being worth it. I've never been to london (well very young) how close are STP and KX ?

is there no plans to link the main lines up in a more efficent way?

 

[jon0844]

They're next door to each other, with a simple crossing of one road or the use of a subway (and a nice, clean, bright subway with good lighting, CCTV and escalators and lifts).

The tube station is called Kings Cross St Pancras for that very reason. You could very easily class the two stations as one and the same despite being two separate buildings.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Thanks didnt realise that! well yeah definitely pointless...

 

[ainsworth74]

Just so you've got the visual jimmy:

Map

 

[philjo]

In the Eureka ECML timetable there will be 2 East coast services per hour to Grantham from Kings cross anyway at roughly half-hourly intervals. (plus hull trains services if they still call there)
1 is a Leeds service calling Stevenage, Grantham.
The other is the new Newark/York stoppers calling Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham.

So why not just improve the Grantham-Nottingham connections around the new EC timetable? (some of the present connections are not very good)
Maybe extend the existing Matlock-Nottingham service to Grantham as that would give a direct service to Derby from Grantham as well (last time I went that way you had to change again at Nottingham), though more than 1 coach on the train, please!

That would eliminate the need to run scarce 125mph diesels to KX for the Nottingham service, but still provide decent connections from EC stations such as Stevenage & Peterborough.

 

[tbtc]

In the Eureka ECML timetable there will be 2 East coast services per hour to Grantham from Kings cross anyway at roughly half-hourly intervals. (plus hull trains services if they still call there)
1 is a Leeds service calling Stevenage, Grantham.
The other is the new Newark/York stoppers calling Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham.

So why not just improve the Grantham-Nottingham connections around the new EC timetable? (some of the present connections are not very good)
Maybe extend the existing Matlock-Nottingham service to Grantham as that would give a direct service to Derby from Grantham as well (last time I went that way you had to change again at Nottingham), though more than 1 coach on the train, please!

That would eliminate the need to run scarce 125mph diesels to KX for the Nottingham service.

If London to Grantham is half hourly and Grantham to Nottingham is half hourly (Norwich - Liverpool + Skegness - Nottingham) then a good connection should be possible on "joined up" railway.

Trouble is, the operators are different, so there's not the same incentive to co-ordinate. In fact, you could argue that EMT have little incentive to time their trains to meet ECML ones as it will hurt their "via Leicester" trade.

In an ideal world you'd time the connections so that the London - Retford trains gave good connections to Worksop/ Kiveton Park (etc), the London - Newark trains gave good connections with the 153 for Lincoln etc etc. BUT, you don't need a direct train from everywhere.

 

[shinkansen1966]

They're next door to each other, with a simple crossing of one road or the use of a subway (and a nice, clean, bright subway with good lighting, CCTV and escalators and lifts).

The tube station is called Kings Cross St Pancras for that very reason. You could very easily class the two stations as one and the same despite being two separate buildings.

I've wondered about combining the names of the two stations by having a single platform numbering system. You'd have consistent destination boards right the away across the Kings X/St Pancras complex.

1-4 EMT trains
6-10 Eurostar
11-13 South Eastern
14-16 Local FCC
17-24 FCC/East Coast
A-B FCC Thameslink

It's a thought...

 

[jon0844]

I could even see how you might actually join up the stations, by getting rid of the road (redirect it along either side of King's Cross and St Pancras) and put over a roof over part, or all, with more shops and leisure facilities in the middle.

You might then in another 10-20 years look to having an underground subway to link you to Euston (with travelators) to save you from using the tube.

You then have three major stations on the ECML, MML and WCML effectively linked up.

 

[shinkansen1966]

You then have three major stations on the ECML, MML and WCML effectively linked up.

No reason why not. What a amazing station complex that would be. And the endless interchange possibilities.

 

[jon0844]

Linking the first two is easy, but Euston may cost a bit. Of course we all know it is close, and indeed on a good day quite quick to walk, but a proper link up would make it more viable for tourists and leisure travellers.

Of course, you'd need to allow for a pretty decent connection time although I did notice on a route planner that it considered the time to cross from St Pancras to King's Cross to be around 25 minutes! Walking or taking the tube to Euston would probably take a few hours.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Thanks for map, ainsworth, yeah thats a bit strange that that's even being considered...

as for linking them up that looks like it could be very good but expensive?

 

[jon0844]

You wouldn't need to actually join them physically, but the road is a problem (and part of it is quite busy, before a lot of vehicles turn off/around). The subway is fine, but obviously fixed to getting you to only one part of each station. Most people prefer to be on street level.

Get rid of the road, pedestrianise the whole thing and have covered sections with the option of more shops and leisure facilities, and it's job done. At the far end of the road, you could perhaps have a bit of road accessible for taxis only, while there's a bus route that would need diverting (but there's another road going parallel with it so it's not much of a detour).

Yes, it would be quite a walk from platform 0 at King's Cross to platform 1 at St Pancras in terms of what you'd expect from a single station, but it still isn't far and there probably won't be many instances where you need to do that. When the new entrance is opened to King's Cross, it will be even closer for walking from one station to another, especially King's Cross to Eurostar (and hopefully other international services).

 

[stut]

Perhaps something like the (former) express travelator at Montparnasse-Bienvenüe would be ideal for a transfer from Euston? Perhaps not - London's not renowned for having loads of spare underground space.

More realistically, non-step access to Euston's concourse opposite Phoenix Rd, and a covered, level walkway along there and Brill Place to St Pancras, would improve connections no end. Euston Road is a grim place to walk along, and the traffic light timings seem to be designed to actively discourage walking.

 

[philjo]

I think a travelator to Euston was proposed some years ago when it was first planned to put Eurostar into St Pancras - I'm sure it was mentioned in an article in either Modern Railways or Rail at the time.
The main issue is that the British Library is in the way for a direct route & their storage vaults go deep under the building, so you would have to go round the back (the Circle line is not that far under Euston Road so probably can't go round the front) - but at least that would mean they come out at a convenient point for the FCC & SE platforms at St Pancras & near where the escalators to the nothern ticket hall go under the road. (you can use this escalator currently to get from KX main concourse via northen ticket hall to the SE/FCC platfroms at StP in the dry). Maybe a covered area over the road by the St P entrance near the Eurostar entry point would allow you to cross the road in the dry with a suitable crossing.
I believe it was also planned to put a station on the NLL with a travelator link to St Pancras but that got dropped due to cost.

I'm think it was planned eventually to have unified departure screens so that you could see the KX trains in St Pancras & vice-versa once the new Kngs Cross concourse was opened. Then all FCC services to say Cambrdge could be seen on the same departure board irrespective of whether it was from the Thameslink platforms or KX platforms 0-11.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I remember plans for a tunnel Euston-St P/Kings Cross, but obviously the British Library got in the way. I still dream of one London terminus for all trains from the South, combining Waterloo, Cannon St, Charing X, London Bridge, Victoria etc, having about 60 platforms and 300 destinations