Midland Main Line Electrification

[RichmondCommu]

G'day everyone,

I'm curious to know when we are likely to see any visible progress with the electrification of the MML from Bedford to Sheffield and Nottingham.

Thanks in advance,

Richmond Commuter!

 

[cogload]

T3 today this weekend from Bedford - Kettering to begin raising/ demolishing bridges for the wires.

 

[TheWalrus]

Any light on what EMUs will operate on the electrified MML? I personally suspect the 225s from EC with 387s for Corbys and possibly a few SET bi-modes?

 

[cle]

They seem to order more and more 377 types, so definitely something similar for Corby.
Can the stations north of Bedford do 12 cars?

 

[AM9]

Any light on what EMUs will operate on the electrified MML? I personally suspect the 225s from EC with 387s for Corbys and possibly a few SET bi-modes?

The line speed from STP north to Luton rises very quickly and enables a very intensive service in the peak (with EMT & Thameslink). This will get even more intensive with MML electrification and with tighter headways when Thameslink core is complete. Key to smooth operation is slotting the Thameslink fast trains in between the EMT services via the crossovers at Kentish Town, West Hampstead South, Radlett and Harpenden junctions. It requires snappy acceleration up to the line limits and if station dwells aren't kept to timetable, the EMT stock needs to respond with unscheduled speed changes.
If the IC225 sets were pushed into use, the 91s would need significant modifications to gearing and braking, whilst dropping the top speed no lower than 125mph to use the linespeed upgrading currently in work.

 

[asylumxl]

They seem to order more and more 377 types, so definitely something similar for Corby.
Can the stations north of Bedford do 12 cars?

Cos 170s worked so well on the route. :roll:

Do you use the route? As a daily commuter I can tell you trains starting from Bedford in peak are already full. By Flitwick they are standing room only and by Luton they are rammed. If you were to extend TL services further north crowding will become even worse. EMT services are already standing room only even between the peaks from Bedford.

St Pancras to Corby is 79 miles. It is by no means a local journey and Corby is only the terminus because it allows the trains to move out the way and allow others past.

The simple fact is that to anyone outside the rail enthusiast community this idea is a total non starter.

 

[edwin_m]

I can't think of anywhere else where an Intercity-type unit regularly runs a service as short as that to Corby. Other destinations at similar distances from London are provided with outer-suburban EMUs, some with 2+3 seating and no aircon.

If the 225 sets end up on the MML they are likely to be on the Nottingham fasts, where acceleration is a bit less critical than on the other services hence the use of HSTs rather than 222s. Possibly the Sheffield fasts too.

 

[asylumxl]

I can't think of anywhere else where an Intercity-type unit regularly runs a service as short as that to Corby. Other destinations at similar distances from London are provided with outer-suburban EMUs, some with 2+3 seating and no aircon.

Which routes would these be?

Honestly, do you think the services would be as short if there were more Meridians available? Essentially, the only people likely to get seats on a 4 carriage 222 will be getting on at Wellingborough and Kettering.

I suggest we axe all intercity calls less than 100 miles from London. Then watch people on these forums complain about the lack of appropriate units for the route.

 

[muddythefish]

The MML from Bedford north has been dreadfully neglected for decades.

The current off peak service north of Bedford is not as good as 5 years ago, when there was a regular 30 minute stopping service to Derby and Nottingham throughout the day, since cut back to hourly.

Ideally, in view of population growth and housing development over the past 20 years the fourth line should be reinstated, stations reopened at Oakley, Sharnbrook and Irchester/Rushden and Thameslink extended to Corby or Leicester.

Back in the 1960s there were also regular trains to Manchester and Leeds (not to mention Glasgow and Edinburgh), and it would be wonderful if those sort of connections could be revived.

The MML has huge potential given the will (and money of course).

 

[Bald Rick]

The MML from Bedford north has been dreadfully neglected for decades.

The current off peak service north of Bedford is not as good as 5 years ago, when there was a regular 30 minute stopping service to Derby and Nottingham throughout the day, since cut back to hourly.

Ideally, in view of population growth and housing development over the past 20 years the fourth line should be reinstated, stations reopened at Oakley, Sharnbrook and Irchester/Rushden and Thameslink extended to Corby or Leicester.

Back in the 1960s there were also regular trains to Manchester and Leeds (not to mention Glasgow and Edinburgh), and it would be wonderful if those sort of connections could be revived.

The MML has huge potential given the will (and money of course).

Sorry but this is absolute tosh.

The MML currently has the best service it has ever had.

30 years ago there were 3 intercity trains every 2 hours, alternately to Sheffiled and Nottingham. Now there are 10.

Many of the stations north of Bedford had a service less than hourly. The service was generally slow, certainly in comparison to the ECML and WCML.

Since the late 90s, service frequency has more than doubled, journey times have been progressively reduced, capacity has been increased (new platform at Bedford, Wigston Jn redoubling, Clay cross Jn remodelling, Corby line reopened, Kettering - Harrowden third line reinstatement, 4th line and electrification on the way. Plus 2 new fleets of trains.

Hardly decades of neglect.

 

[W230]

Sorry but this is absolute tosh.

The MML currently has the best service it has ever had.

I'd have to agree. When I lived in Sheffield around a decade ago you could not get to St Pancras in 2hr 1min and I don't think Sheffield had two trains to London an hour either...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Sorry but this is absolute tosh.

The MML currently has the best service it has ever had.

Hardly decades of neglect.

I love straight talk

 

[A0]

Any light on what EMUs will operate on the electrified MML? I personally suspect the 225s from EC with 387s for Corbys and possibly a few SET bi-modes?

I agree that it's likely to be something like a Desiro or Electrostar with 2+2 seating for Corby services - look at the GN line - Huntingdon which is a similar distance to Corby gets 317s and 365s - Northampton and Rugby (again similar distance) get 350s.

I very much doubt the 225s will move from EC to MML though - their acceleration isn't good enough. The MML isn't as straight as the ECML.

I reckon it's more likely to be a Cl 395 type unit or whatever the new IEP is.

 

[asylumxl]

I agree that it's likely to be something like a Desiro or Electrostar with 2+2 seating for Corby services - look at the GN line - Huntingdon which is a similar distance to Corby gets 317s and 365s - Northampton and Rugby (again similar distance) get 350s.

I very much doubt the 225s will move from EC to MML though - their acceleration isn't good enough. The MML isn't as straight as the ECML.

I reckon it's more likely to be a Cl 395 type unit or whatever the new IEP is.

<pedant> Huntingdon is 58mi 70ch from KGX. Corby is 79mi 28ch from STP.</pedant>

 

[cjmillsnun]

Knowing DaFT often live up to their name, I would expect the 225s on the MML.

 

[Tomnick]

St Pancras to Corby is 79 miles. It is by no means a local journey and Corby is only the terminus because it allows the trains to move out the way and allow others past.

Really? Surely Corby is the terminus because that's the town that the service was intended to serve, and there's very little worth serving north of there (it's quicker to change at Leicester for Oakham and especially Melton than, I think, any of the two through services each way). For most of the day, turnarounds at Corby are too short (seven minutes) for the unit to shunt to allow other traffic past, tying up the single line for the best part of half of each hour.

Extending the Thameslink operation beyond Bedford would ease the pressure on the long-distance services, further improving the service for stations north of Leicester (one stopping service hasn't been 'cut back' - instead, it has been made much faster by shifting many of its calls onto the Corby service, benefitting Loughborough and Long Eaton in particular) - that's not to say that they can't call within 100 miles of London, but it'd avoid the need for one train per hour (the Nottingham slow) to stop almost everywhere, making it a very unattractive option to or from anywhere north of Leicester.

 

[joeykins82]

Being realistic we won't find out what stock will operate on the MML until June 2017 because that's when the next EMT franchise is awarded. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._data/file/301976/rail-franchise-schedule.pdf

 

[Western Lord]

I suggest we axe all intercity calls less than 100 miles from London. Then watch people on these forums complain about the lack of appropriate units for the route.

Well, that's stuffed Reading, Swindon, Bath and Coventry then! And last time I checked Leicester was 99 miles from St. Pancras.

 

[222001]

Being realistic we won't find out what stock will operate on the MML until June 2017 because that's when the next EMT franchise is awarded. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._data/file/301976/rail-franchise-schedule.pdf

Yes, it's completely down to what's in the bids. No doubt a bid using MK4 stock would be cheaper... 91s are almost out the question though, from what I've read it seem more likely they'd be replaced.
EMT management have seemingly said they would rather have new-build SET sets... So who knows, that could form a base for the Stagecoach bid.
In the end you'll never know until the franchise is awarded in 3 years time!
The stock for the Corby services will be secured before that date (I imagine EMT will be in charge of this) as electric services are due to start in December 2017 to Corby.

 

[cle]

Cos 170s worked so well on the route. :roll:

Do you use the route? As a daily commuter I can tell you trains starting from Bedford in peak are already full. By Flitwick they are standing room only and by Luton they are rammed. If you were to extend TL services further north crowding will become even worse. EMT services are already standing room only even between the peaks from Bedford.

St Pancras to Corby is 79 miles. It is by no means a local journey and Corby is only the terminus because it allows the trains to move out the way and allow others past.

The simple fact is that to anyone outside the rail enthusiast community this idea is a total non starter.

What would be the problem with 2x2 seating Electrostars or Desiros for the Corby route? 8-12 cars would be far more capacity than currently - as you see on Bedford TLs.

I don't think people on a 79 mile, 1 hour journey need tables for example. Yes, a toilet but it's not as if we're proposing 378s!

And as I understand it, Corby will be going to 2tph. I don't see anything to moan about.

 

[222001]

What would be the problem with 2x2 seating Electrostars or Desiros for the Corby route? 8-12 cars would be far more capacity than currently - as you see on Bedford TLs.

I don't think people on a 79 mile, 1 hour journey need tables for example. Yes, a toilet but it's not as if we're proposing 378s!

And as I understand it, Corby will be going to 2tph. I don't see anything to moan about.

387s will be fine on this route. Just add a bit more padding to the seats before :P. I'm not sure how 110 vice 125 would effect the timetable however.

 

[adrock1976]

I may have mentioned this a while ago in another thread.

With the associated works of electrification, there may be the possibility of recasting the timetable. The Sheffield route could remain at the present 2tph calling at Leicester London Road, Loughborough (alternate), East Midlands Parkway (alternate), Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield. The Nottingham 2tph could call at Market Harborough, Leicester London Road, Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Beeston, and Nottingham.

There could be 2tph between St Pancras and Kettering calling at St Albans City (alternate), Luton Airport, Luton Town (alternate), Bedford, Wellingborough, and Kettering

Then

1tph continues to Market Harborough, Leicester London Road (layover for say 8 minutes? so as to connect cross platform into a Sheffield service), Melton Mowbray, Oakham, Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford, either Luton Town or St Albans City whichever was skipped northbound, Luton Airport, and St Pancras.

1tph continuing to Corby, Oakham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester London Road (a layover of 8 minutes? for cross-platform connection into the non-stop service from Sheffield), Market Harborough, Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford, either Luton Town or St Albans City whichever was skipped northbound, Luton Airport, and St Pancras.

In effect, this would create a loop service via Corby in both directions. I do not know how feasible this would be due to flat junctions and slower moving freight trains maybe getting in the way.

Any thoughts?

In peace

Adam

 

[cle]

St Albans would be an interesting battle - possible pick up/set down only.

I like the idea of serving Oakham and Melton - better to Leicester, proper service to London, Luton Airport and locally to Corby. Loops can be dodgy for delays though, so the layover at Leicester is definitely a good shout. But platform-wise, Leicester is pretty tight.

 

[joeykins82]

The "St Albans issue" will have been effectively solved by 2017 as there'll be 4tph off-peak and probably 10tph peak 12-car class 700s running fast from SAC to the Thameslink core; a further 2tph that only goes to St Pancras high level is not going to pull massive numbers of passengers off the Thameslink services which by then should be operating with sufficient capacity to carry the passengers instead of turning up short formed and already loaded to capacity.

My understanding is that the planned 2tph Corby service will call at St Albans, Luton Airport Pkwy, Luton, Bedford, W'boro and Kettering

 

[Tomnick]

I'm still not convinced by the occasional proposal for 1tph between Corby and Leicester in each direction - that'll require two additional diagrams through the day (whereas the existing service is provided partly by a unit in the marginal time between the peaks, and partly by peak workings effectively extended back from Kettering or Corby), for trains that have to have sufficient capacity to cope with demand south of Kettering (and will therefore be carrying a lot of fresh air along the very rural section north of Corby). Far better, in my opinion, to improve the Leicester - Peterborough to deal with the common overcrowding, and focus on decent connections into fast trains at Leicester (which, as I said, is usually quicker than the through trains anyway).

 

[asylumxl]

What would be the problem with 2x2 seating Electrostars or Desiros for the Corby route? 8-12 cars would be far more capacity than currently - as you see on Bedford TLs.

I don't think people on a 79 mile, 1 hour journey need tables for example. Yes, a toilet but it's not as if we're proposing 378s!

And as I understand it, Corby will be going to 2tph. I don't see anything to moan about.

12 carriages, as you see on Bedford TLs? Which as I said are already full from Flitwick at peak time, from experience of using them. Just like the EMT services from Corby at the same times. Adding yet more strain to already heavily loaded trains makes great sense from every stand point.

Like I said, let's scrap Intercity services from all similar distance stations. And while we are at it, let's get rid of the444s that people on this forum seem to think should operate "long distance" services out of Waterloo and 442s on Brighton runs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Really? Surely Corby is the terminus because that's the town that the service was intended to serve, and there's very little worth serving north of there (it's quicker to change at Leicester for Oakham and especially Melton than, I think, any of the two through services each way). For most of the day, turnarounds at Corby are too short (seven minutes) for the unit to shunt to allow other traffic past, tying up the single line for the best part of half of each hour.

Really? The predicted passenger numbers at Corby were so astronomical that it warranted a service and new station on that alone.

There used to be services to Kettering which the Corby services I seem to remember replaced. By extending those services to Corby it freed up capacity there and allowed the train to move out the way of other services.

 

[Tomnick]

There weren't any regular services terminating at Kettering prior to the Corby reopening - the intermediate calls south of Kettering were picked up by what was then the stopping service to Derby. As well as serving Corby (which probably doesn't justify a service alone!), taking on the intermediate stops eased demand for that Derby service (which was often busy) and allowed it to be sped up.

Whether the Kettering - Corby section has proved to be the success that they hoped, I'm not sure - but the intention (and franchise commitment?) was certainly to serve Corby rather than for any operational benefits. It's easier to get a unit out of the way at Kettering than it is at Corby (especially with those short turnarounds), and in any case many services - some still do - had greatly extended dwell times at Kettering anyway.

 

[John Webb]

It would be pleasing to some people if St Albans City was to become 'Intercity' again. Currently to get North of Bedford you are compelled to change at Luton or Bedford. In 1975 there were some 12 Intercity connections from St Albans to Sheffield, Derby, Nottingham etc. and 12 in the reverse direction.

 

[asylumxl]

There weren't any regular services terminating at Kettering prior to the Corby reopening - the intermediate calls south of Kettering were picked up by what was then the stopping service to Derby. As well as serving Corby (which probably doesn't justify a service alone!), taking on the intermediate stops eased demand for that Derby service (which was often busy) and allowed it to be sped up.

Whether the Kettering - Corby section has proved to be the success that they hoped, I'm not sure - but the intention (and franchise commitment?) was certainly to serve Corby rather than for any operational benefits. It's easier to get a unit out of the way at Kettering than it is at Corby (especially with those short turnarounds), and in any case many services - some still do - had greatly extended dwell times at Kettering anyway.

I definitely remember some Kettering services. Perhaps back in the Midland Mainline days, around 1800. Perhaps I just happened to use them more often but without a timetable for reference hard to say whether I remember rightly.

Either way I don't think extending FCC trains with their existing calls is a workable idea. If TL were to provide extra services with some calling points omitted, that would be workable, but you'd essentially end up with what the Corby services already provide but under another operator.

It's hardly as if EMT serve stations on the southern half of the MML for free. They get their share of ticket revenue via ORCATS and via their own AP fares. It makes good economic sense for them to serve where there is demand and they have to maintain a minimum level of service.

 

[edwin_m]

Another problem is that all the Bedford services will be worked by 700s which won't be ideal interiors for a 50 mile journey. A service of more comfortable EMUs calling a principal stations to Corby is at risk of being overwhelmed by shorter-distance commuters, very much as the stopping EMT services are today.

Perhaps the time has come for a differential fare, at least on seasons, as I believe happens at Peterborough.