Midland Mainline timetable changes May 2018

[Hadders]

The key thing here will be if any Thameslink services can get speeded up. If two of the TL trains have limited stop patterns so that they reach Bedford in a similar time to EMT then it could work. If not then the increase in journey time from c.40 minutes to an hour would be unacceptable.

A replacement bus service for northbound passengers from Bedford is unacceptable.

 

[Kettledrum]

But no different to the situation on the ECML where from Hitchin if you want to go north you either have to go via Stevenage or Peterborough.

MKC and Bedford aren't really comparable. Bedford's a town of 90,000, Milton Keynes is about 2.5 times that.

The problem is the MML has 5 stations in its first 70 or so miles which have connection onto what were Inter City services - Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford and the two Lutons.

In reality only two of them can actually justify it moving forward - Luton Airport - for the connectivity to the airport and Kettering - because it will be the interchange as the northern point of 'outer suburban' electric services and to provide northbound connectivity from Kettering to Harborough and Leicester.

And people travelling from 'north Thameslink stations' to Sheffield have 2 changes most of the time anyway, because it's only the Nottingham services which regularly stop south of Leicester - there are a couple in the peaks which are to / from Sheffield, but they're the exception.

In the medium term, I'm hoping that the new East-West rail link will enable direct trains to connect Bedford to the East Midlands and Sheffield. As these will not go anywhere near London, they won't get full of commuters. Not sure how the platforms at Bedford will cope with this though.

 

[DaveN]

As per the press release the journey time to Bedford on these "new" fast Thameslink services will be "around 45 minutes" compared with 34 minutes for the fastest EMT service to-day.

What they aren't saying is which of the faster Thameslink services from the consulted time table they will in effect be removing. If it is the two remaining faster Flitwick services that means a 6/8 minute longer journey time to St P (on top of the slight increases already since earlier this year).

In any case it will mean a decrease in fast services to/from Harpenden from 7 an hour to 5.

It makes a mockery of the consultation for the new time table.

 

[A0]

In the medium term, I'm hoping that the new East-West rail link will enable direct trains to connect Bedford to the East Midlands and Sheffield. As these will not go anywhere near London, they won't get full of commuters. Not sure how the platforms at Bedford will cope with this though.

I think your hopes are misplaced - not least because the journeys you're talking about can already be achieved with 1 change and EWR isn't about connecting places on its route with the East Midlands.

The key places on EWR are: Oxford, Bicester, MK, Bedford and ultimately Cambridge.

The key places in the East Mids are Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Derby.

Dealing with Cambridge first - because it will be the last bit of EWR - there are already direct services to Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield. Derby needs 1 change at either Leicester or Nottingham.

From MK you can get to any of those with one change (either Nuneaton, Tamworth or Birmingham)
From Oxford, again you can make it with one change - mainly Birmingham.

 

[A0]

As per the press release the journey time to Bedford on these "new" fast Thameslink services will be "around 45 minutes" compared with 34 minutes for the fastest EMT service to-day.

What they aren't saying is which of the faster Thameslink services from the consulted time table they will in effect be removing. If it is the two remaining faster Flitwick services that means a 6/8 minute longer journey time to St P (on top of the slight increases already since earlier this year).

In any case it will mean a decrease in fast services to/from Harpenden from 7 an hour to 5.

It makes a mockery of the consultation for the new time table.

Perhaps the better way would be to introduce some EMT only fares from Bedford and Luton - that way if people want the faster service, they can pay the premium for it - it's the same principle in use at Peterborough.

 

[whhistle]

If not then the increase in journey time from c.40 minutes to an hour would be unacceptable.

A replacement bus service for northbound passengers from Bedford is unacceptable.

Unacceptable? Or just "not ideal"?

I understand what you're saying, completely, but if adding a 40 minute journey is unacceptable, what if there were no trains? Is that unacceptable too? Because that's two completely different scenarios, one that could then be (out of the two options) considered acceptable.

 

[edwin_m]

I think your hopes are misplaced - not least because the journeys you're talking about can already be achieved with 1 change and EWR isn't about connecting places on its route with the East Midlands.

The key places on EWR are: Oxford, Bicester, MK, Bedford and ultimately Cambridge.

The key places in the East Mids are Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Derby.

Dealing with Cambridge first - because it will be the last bit of EWR - there are already direct services to Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield. Derby needs 1 change at either Leicester or Nottingham.

From MK you can get to any of those with one change (either Nuneaton, Tamworth or Birmingham)
From Oxford, again you can make it with one change - mainly Birmingham.

I agree there is little scope for through services between the East Midlands and Cambridge via Bedford as (although there are no direct trains to Nottingham or Sheffield as you seem to think) existing routes are far quicker and none of the suggested EWR routeings around Bedford would allow it without at least one reversal. However I'd suggest there is scope for a service linking Oxford to the East Midlands, especially if the final EWR layout leads to trains terminating at Bedford Midland. Going via Birmingham is hopelessly indirect and slow.

 

[A0]

I agree there is little scope for through services between the East Midlands and Cambridge via Bedford as (although there are no direct trains to Nottingham or Sheffield as you seem to think) existing routes are far quicker and none of the suggested EWR routeings around Bedford would allow it without at least one reversal. However I'd suggest there is scope for a service linking Oxford to the East Midlands, especially if the final EWR layout leads to trains terminating at Bedford Midland. Going via Birmingham is hopelessly indirect and slow.

Mea culpa - was thinking of the EMT services, but of course they head off to Norwich. However a single change at Ely covers it.

I agree for Leicester it's slower, but less so for Derby or Sheffield. You've got direct Oxford - Derby / Sheffield services taking about 1h50 to Derby or 2h30 to Sheffield - you'd struggle to make that quicker going via EWR to Bedford (assuming Oxford - Bedford is 1hr), because Bedford - Derby currently is 1h 30m - the increment onto Sheffield will be pretty much the same on either route.

 

[Hadders]

Unacceptable? Or just "not ideal"?

I understand what you're saying, completely, but if adding a 40 minute journey is unacceptable, what if there were no trains? Is that unacceptable too? Because that's two completely different scenarios, one that could then be (out of the two options) considered acceptable.

It's unacceptable. Bedford-Wellingborough takes 12 minutes by train, extending this by 40 minutes is unacceptable. I also doubt whether 40 minutes is achievable in the rush hour, the A6 is single carriageway for much of the way and negotiating the rush hour traffic in Bedford is time consuming.

A better interim solution would be to ditch the Luton Airport calls and call at Bedford instead. Not ideal but there is a 6 minute difference between Thamesink and EMT times. Omitting the Bedford calls by EMT result in a replacement bus taking 40 minutes longer (compared to a 12 minute journey by train).

 

[A0]

It's unacceptable. Bedford-Wellingborough takes 12 minutes by train, extending this by 40 minutes is unacceptable. I also doubt whether 40 minutes is achievable in the rush hour, the A6 is single carriageway for much of the way and negotiating the rush hour traffic in Bedford is time consuming.

A better interim solution would be to ditch the Luton Airport calls and call at Bedford instead. Not ideal but there is a 6 minute difference between Thamesink and EMT times. Omitting the Bedford calls by EMT result in a replacement bus taking 40 minutes longer (compared to a 12 minute journey by train).

It's an interim measure though and probably the least disruptive.

There are very few people who travel from Wellingborough to Bedford. On the times I've used EMT services into London during the peak, you can count the number of people alighting at Bedford on the fingers of both hands - so that includes people travelling from Wellingborough and points north. Luton Airport is far more popular as a stop.

Things will change when the Corby electrification is complete and EMT introduce a half-hourly service from St P to Corby, which will call at Bedford, but in the meantime it's about making a compromise which impacts the fewest number of people and I'm afraid passengers travelling to Bedford from the north in rush hour are that group.

 

[Hadders]

It's an interim measure though and probably the least disruptive.

There are very few people who travel from Wellingborough to Bedford. On the times I've used EMT services into London during the peak, you can count the number of people alighting at Bedford on the fingers of both hands - so that includes people travelling from Wellingborough and points north. Luton Airport is far more popular as a stop.

Things will change when the Corby electrification is complete and EMT introduce a half-hourly service from St P to Corby, which will call at Bedford, but in the meantime it's about making a compromise which impacts the fewest number of people and I'm afraid passengers travelling to Bedford from the north in rush hour are that group.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

What about people travelling from Bedford to the north in the evening Peak? Or passengers from stations between Luton and Bedford. Changing to a bus is not acceptable on an inter-city mainline service.

I realise this is supposed to be an interim measure but we’re talking about the railway here. 3 years could well become 5 or even indefinite - we’ve got an interim solution involving buses between Stevenage and Hertford with no line of sight on when the train service will resume.

 

[A0]

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

What about people travelling from Bedford to the north in the evening Peak? Or passengers from stations between Luton and Bedford. Changing to a bus is not acceptable on an inter-city mainline service.

I realise this is supposed to be an interim measure but we’re talking about the railway here. 3 years could well become 5 or even indefinite - we’ve got an interim solution involving buses between Stevenage and Hertford with no line of sight on when the train service will resume.

Well the evening travellers are just the reverse flow of the morning ones. Again countable on the fingers of two hands.

It is acceptable when there is no practical alternative. And the alternatives would negatively impact far more people.

Stevenage to Hertford is another where the alternatives would impact many more people. If you're travelling from Stevenage to Moorgate, there's no way you do that on the hourly Hertford service when you have half a dozen fasts to Finsbury Pk and cross platform interchange to Moorgate.

The numbers travelling between Stevenage and Hertford will be penny figures.

 

[voyager1]

Perhaps the better way would be to introduce some EMT only fares from Bedford and Luton - that way if people want the faster service, they can pay the premium for it - it's the same principle in use at Peterborough.

I don't think an EMT only fare is a good idea as this would limit one to EMT trains. The beauty of the current arrangement is you can use both EMT and TL. Some of us travel in on TL and back home on EMT - and people who work flexi time may find it better travelling on TL or EMT depending on what time they leave London.

If a premium is necessary then the best model would be the high speed premium used on South East Trains where you pay a small extra to use the fast trains.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think an EMT only fare is a good idea as this would limit one to EMT trains. The beauty of the current arrangement is you can use both EMT and TL. Some of us travel in on TL and back home on EMT - and people who work flexi time may find it better travelling on TL or EMT depending on what time they leave London.

If a premium is necessary then the best model would be the high speed premium used on South East Trains where you pay a small extra to use the fast trains.

The obvious answer to that is a cheaper Thameslink-only fare alongside the inter-available one.

 

[A0]

I don't think an EMT only fare is a good idea as this would limit one to EMT trains. The beauty of the current arrangement is you can use both EMT and TL. Some of us travel in on TL and back home on EMT - and people who work flexi time may find it better travelling on TL or EMT depending on what time they leave London.

If a premium is necessary then the best model would be the high speed premium used on South East Trains where you pay a small extra to use the fast trains.

What's the difference between Bedford and Peterborough?

Peterborough has inc VTEC not inc VTEC tickets. So why not excl EMT for Bedford?

 

[Hadders]

What's the difference between Bedford and Peterborough?

Peterborough has inc VTEC not inc VTEC tickets. So why not excl EMT for Bedford?

Peterborough has 'Any Permitted' and cheaper 'Great Northern only' tickets.

 

[Jnismith]

The other issue (and the bigger one for me and other passengers from Harpenden, Leagrave, Harlington and Flitwick) is losing two fast trains an hour in the rush hour. This will not be at all popular.

 

[A0]

The other issue (and the bigger one for me and other passengers from Harpenden, Leagrave, Harlington and Flitwick) is losing two fast trains an hour in the rush hour. This will not be at all popular.

Now this is a much bigger issue than the bustitution of Bedford - Wellingborough links. It will affect *far* more people and potentially make some other already crowded trains even more crowded.

This is what I mean about trying to minimise impact - a change like this one will have a much greater impact on more people.

 

[KatieLouLou]

What's the difference between Bedford and Peterborough?

Peterborough has inc VTEC not inc VTEC tickets. So why not excl EMT for Bedford?

Presumably because from Bedford GTR are the "flow owner" so are unable to ordinarily set their own operator specific fares, whereas at Peterborough VTEC are the flow owner, therefore GTR can set their own operator specific fare but VTEC can't. There are a few places (such as Milton Keynes) whereby the flow owner has a derogation from this but generally the flow owner can't set an operator specific walk up fare.

 

[edwin_m]

Presumably because from Bedford GTR are the "flow owner" so are unable to ordinarily set their own operator specific fares, whereas at Peterborough VTEC are the flow owner, therefore GTR can set their own operator specific fare but VTEC can't. There are a few places (such as Milton Keynes) whereby the flow owner has a derogation from this but generally the flow owner can't set an operator specific walk up fare.

If there's a derogation for MK then it would be within the power of DfT to grant one for Bedford too, or to transfer the flow to the successor EMT franchise.

 

[westcoaster]

I travel daily into work at Bedford on EMT as do a ot of fellow railway staff from the north. A local councillor posted that there are 500 season ticket holders on the wellingborough to Bedford flow.
A peak time journey from wellingborough to Bedford will take 60 minutes plus. If traveling from stations north this will extend the journey massively.
Kettering for example train to Bedford takes 21 minutes currently. Now under the bus replacement train to wellingborough 6 minutes, 10-15 minutes change to the bus, 60 minute journey to Bedford. Possibly adding 60 minutes to the journey, not acceptable at all.

 

[whhistle]

It's unacceptable. Bedford-Wellingborough takes 12 minutes by train, extending this by 40 minutes is unacceptable.

I understand, but you've not really offered anything new.
What I'm getting at is you call what they're doing "unacceptable", but would you also call no trains at all unacceptable? There's no level of unacceptable-ness in that case. That's like calling anyone who drinks an alcoholic - you're using an extreme term that doesn't quite match what's happening.

I guess you're affected by these changes and that's why, to you they're unacceptable. If it's going to cuase you so much hardship - drive/catch bus.
Not saying that you're one of them, but there's too many these days that thnk just because they[/i] want something, then it should be done.

It's unacceptable to me that I have to wait in rush hour traffic.
It's unacceptable to me that ALL roads aren't gritted and clear of snow.
It's unacceptable to me that my local garden centre sells hose pipes at a higher cost than Amazon.
But it IS acceptable, as I accept the fact that I have to wait in rush hour, that all roads can't be gritted and my local garden centre will usually always be more expensive.

It just grates on me when people band around the term "unacceptable" when that's not actually what they mean.

 

[A0]

I travel daily into work at Bedford on EMT as do a ot of fellow railway staff from the north. A local councillor posted that there are 500 season ticket holders on the wellingborough to Bedford flow.
A peak time journey from wellingborough to Bedford will take 60 minutes plus. If traveling from stations north this will extend the journey massively.
Kettering for example train to Bedford takes 21 minutes currently. Now under the bus replacement train to wellingborough 6 minutes, 10-15 minutes change to the bus, 60 minute journey to Bedford. Possibly adding 60 minutes to the journey, not acceptable at all.

I'm sceptical about those numbers.

Over the course of a day you have roughly 2 tph between Wellingborough and Bedford, so about 30 trains (give or take) - 500 would mean an average of c 17 on each train. You rarely see more than a handful getting on (northbound) or off (southbound) trains from the north and that includes people from points beyond Wellingborough.

There are off peak services at Wellinborough which have a dozen people getting on southbound.

Also consider affected season ticket holders have been told they're going to be receiving a 50% discount on their ticket for the duration of the disruption.

The real whine seems to be about Bedford losing nice, fast EMT services to London, yet people on that flow already have a pretty good TL service. The very small number of people who travel into Bedford from the north will be affected, but they are very much in a minority and frankly given the work which needs to be done, somebody's journey is going to be disrupted and they are the unlucky ones on this occasion.

 

[Robertj21a]

I travel daily into work at Bedford on EMT as do a ot of fellow railway staff from the north. A local councillor posted that there are 500 season ticket holders on the wellingborough to Bedford flow.
A peak time journey from wellingborough to Bedford will take 60 minutes plus. If traveling from stations north this will extend the journey massively.
Kettering for example train to Bedford takes 21 minutes currently. Now under the bus replacement train to wellingborough 6 minutes, 10-15 minutes change to the bus, 60 minute journey to Bedford. Possibly adding 60 minutes to the journey, not acceptable at all.

I reckon that local councillor needs to provide some firm evidence.

 

[MichaelAMW]

I reckon that local councillor needs to provide some firm evidence.

I wondered if 500 was the total number of seasons, at any one time, that *include* Wellingborough - Bedford in their journey; or, if it's the total number of Wellingborough - Bedford seasons sold in one year, which will obviously include double (and more) counting of all but the annual-season holders.

 

[Hadders]

I'm quite clear that the proposal is unacceptable (although I'm not personally impacted by it).

As an alternative I suggested that the call at Luton Airport Parkway be removed in favour of Bedford. I don't know if this is feasible from a timetabling point of view but the increase in time for Luton Airport - St Pancras on Thameslink v EMT is only 6 minutes compared to 24 minutes from Bedford.

Alternatively don't introduce the fully upgraded Thameslink timetable improvement works are complete in 2020. For example one path could be switched to EMT to serve Bedford.

My worry is that 3 years becomes 5... and then forever....

Also, a 50% discount is welcome for season ticket holders but what about passengers buying walk on tickets? These are generally extortionately priced from Bedford to the north for what is already a generally poor frequency, and that's before we consider the effect of replacement buses.

 

[70014IronDuke]

It's an interim measure though and probably the least disruptive.

There are very few people who travel from Wellingborough to Bedford. On the times I've used EMT services into London during the peak, you can count the number of people alighting at Bedford on the fingers of both hands - so that includes people travelling from Wellingborough and points north. Luton Airport is far more popular as a stop.

Things will change when the Corby electrification is complete and EMT introduce a half-hourly service from St P to Corby, which will call at Bedford, but in the meantime it's about making a compromise which impacts the fewest number of people and I'm afraid passengers travelling to Bedford from the north in rush hour are that group.

This argumentation appears logical, probably mathematically correct, or at least justifiable - but I would argue is deceptive. The the best way I can think to describe it for now is "mechanistic".

Let's be clear: there are two problems here. One is getting the huge number of Bedford commuters from London back to their 'home' station in reasonable comfort and asap. The other is the practical difficulty (ie pathing) and economic cost in stopping - or not - EMT trains in the peaks at Bedford.

The planners have taken your approach. Let's say they can get an extra Thameslink train or two in to help solve problem 1 while eliminating EMT stops. Maybe 4,000 MML commuters between Bedford and key stops to London get more seats and more trains, even if some of them are a bit slower. That sounds like a deal. Can argue about the details, but there are advantages.

Meanwhile EMT fasts no longer stop at Bedford, and pax north thereof enjoy 2-3 minute faster journey times in the peaks. That also sounds good for a good few folks on board. A lot of people-minutes to add up over a year's travel.

And at what cost? Maybe 'just' 150-300 customers in each peak - each three-hour peak according to the press release - are to be "inconvenienced" a bit by having to catch buses. (The numbers are my guess, from what I read here - I'd assume fewertowards the lower end in the up peak, and more who'd like to join at Bedford in the evening peak. We don't know the times yet, but I'd assume a gap in departures north from Bedford from something like 16.30 to 19.30.)

That is the sort of logic you and the planners are using here - and put that way, the whole deal sounds reasonable, or at least, not too bad - certainly not from the numbers point of view.

But Hadders damns this deal - the bus deal - as "unacceptable". And I can see why. The problem is that while a lot of people (commuters from Bedford, and EMT passengers frodm the north) arguably get a marginally better deal - the services between Bedford and Wellingborough are - in terms of modern travel conditions - destroyed in the peaks. These passengers are to make their ways (with luggage?) out of the stations to buses (will there be staff to help direct them?) - endure a vastly slow road journey - and - if they are to continue their journeys further - back into the station. This is not a one-off pain because of some emergency, it's not for a week, nor even a month - but for something approaching 2 years.

I'm sure a few regulars will just grin and bear it, and some who can will adjust their journey times to avoid the bus - but for many this chop-change-slow bus will simply be unacceptable. This will surely be true for a good chunk of those who already have to change at least once - eg coming from Flitwick, Harlington or the Bletchley line and wanting to head north to Leicester and beyond. (It would be interesting to know what percentage of passengers heading north from Bedford actually originate from elsewhere - my guess is about 35%?)

Yes, the numbers that 'suffer' from all this may be low compared to the Bedford-London commuters and the compromise looks good on paper, but passengers between the north and the Bedford area will see their services devastated in the peaks - and my guess is most will find other ways of making the journey. Because, as Hadders says - it is not acceptable.

And, as he also underlines - once these things go for a "temporary" period - all too often the operators find it convenient to keep it that way.

 

[Hadders]

This argumentation appears logical, probably mathematically correct, or at least justifiable - but I would argue is deceptive. The the best way I can think to describe it for now is "mechanistic".

Let's be clear: there are two problems here. One is getting the huge number of Bedford commuters from London back to their 'home' station in reasonable comfort and asap. The other is the practical difficulty (ie pathing) and economic cost in stopping - or not - EMT trains in the peaks at Bedford.

The planners have taken your approach. Let's say they can get an extra Thameslink train or two in to help solve problem 1 while eliminating EMT stops. Maybe 4,000 MML commuters between Bedford and key stops to London get more seats and more trains, even if some of them are a bit slower. That sounds like a deal. Can argue about the details, but there are advantages.

Meanwhile EMT fasts no longer stop at Bedford, and pax north thereof enjoy 2-3 minute faster journey times in the peaks. That also sounds good for a good few folks on board. A lot of people-minutes to add up over a year's travel.

And at what cost? Maybe 'just' 150-300 customers in each peak - each three-hour peak according to the press release - are to be "inconvenienced" a bit by having to catch buses. (The numbers are my guess, from what I read here - I'd assume fewertowards the lower end in the up peak, and more who'd like to join at Bedford in the evening peak. We don't know the times yet, but I'd assume a gap in departures north from Bedford from something like 16.30 to 19.30.)

That is the sort of logic you and the planners are using here - and put that way, the whole deal sounds reasonable, or at least, not too bad - certainly not from the numbers point of view.

But Hadders damns this deal - the bus deal - as "unacceptable". And I can see why. The problem is that while a lot of people (commuters from Bedford, and EMT passengers frodm the north) arguably get a marginally better deal - the services between Bedford and Wellingborough are - in terms of modern travel conditions - destroyed in the peaks. These passengers are to make their ways (with luggage?) out of the stations to buses (will there be staff to help direct them?) - endure a vastly slow road journey - and - if they are to continue their journeys further - back into the station. This is not a one-off pain because of some emergency, it's not for a week, nor even a month - but for something approaching 2 years.

I'm sure a few regulars will just grin and bear it, and some who can will adjust their journey times to avoid the bus - but for many this chop-change-slow bus will simply be unacceptable. This will surely be true for a good chunk of those who already have to change at least once - eg coming from Flitwick, Harlington or the Bletchley line and wanting to head north to Leicester and beyond. (It would be interesting to know what percentage of passengers heading north from Bedford actually originate from elsewhere - my guess is about 35%?)

Yes, the numbers that 'suffer' from all this may be low compared to the Bedford-London commuters and the compromise looks good on paper, but passengers between the north and the Bedford area will see their services devastated in the peaks - and my guess is most will find other ways of making the journey. Because, as Hadders says - it is not acceptable.

And, as he also underlines - once these things go for a "temporary" period - all too often the operators find it convenient to keep it that way.

What an excellent post which sums up the position most excellently

Let's not forget that Bedford already has a poor service to/from the north. Two trains an hour became one when the Corby service started. We also need to remember that we're talking about a mainline inter-city service from a significant town, not a random shack on a branch line in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Class 170101]

This idea of bus services at Peak times seems to have come all too frequently when it comes to the GTR franchise area. Watton at Stone to Stevenage as well. This seems like the thin end of a very dangerous wedge.

Its a shame Thameslink couldn't have kept some of its 319s and extended them on Diesel power to Kettering in the interim.

 

[A0]

What an excellent post which sums up the position most excellently

Let's not forget that Bedford already has a poor service to/from the north. Two trains an hour became one when the Corby service started. We also need to remember that we're talking about a mainline inter-city service from a significant town, not a random shack on a branch line in the middle of nowhere.

Bedford has a population of 80,000. Luton has double that.

Luton has several large employers. Luton has an airport.

That is why it makes complete sense to retain the Luton stops and not Bedford.

Despite your crocodile tears about the few who travel to / from Bedford from the north, the reality is the whinge is about only having TL services. Well, it's no worse than tge situation Northampton, again a town of over 100,000 has - and Northampton - London fares are at least double yet only about 20 miles further.