MML Electrification: progress updates

[MarkRedon]

Two incorrect assumptions there.

You are in a better position than I to know... Please correct them.

 

[A0]

You are in a better position than I to know... Please correct them.

I'm going to guess:

1 - EWR is not going on a new route south of Bedford.

2 - There are no plans for another Bedford station where EWR and MML intersect.

Either EWR is going to run via St John's which means no direct MML connection or they will reverse at Bedford Midland.

 

[Verulamius]

So there has been some movement over the past year since the technical report suggested that a south of Bedford route (C2-2) was preferable:

http://archive.nr.co.uk/East-West-Rail-Engineering-Summary-Report.pdf

 

[tbtc]

Bedford will remain (or become more) important as a stop especially once East West Rail Opens.

Insofar as Luton is concerned that will depend on how big Luton Airport and its surrounding catchment become.

I would be tempted to concentrate services at Luton (Central) station however I can understand the advantages of the Parkway Station.

So working on 6tph I would could consider:-

xx:00 Fast Sheffield unchanged
xx:04 'slow' Nottingham calling at Bedford then all to Nottingham
xx:08 Corby calling Luton, Bedford and all to Corby
xx:30 Fast Nottingham calling at Leicester and Nottingham
xx:34 Manchester calling at Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Leicester, EM Parkway, Derby, Chesterfield, Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly
xx:38 Sheffield calling Bedford then all to Derby, Chesterfield and Sheffield. Connecting Shuttle to Corby off this service at Kettering.

Others have picked up on some of the difficulties with this timetable, but one point not picked up on is the difference between "fast" and "slow" here.

Your "slow" Nottingham service calls at eight intermediate stations, leaving just twenty six minutes before the "fast" service with just one intermediate stop. Call it two and a half minutes per stop (braking, dwell time, accelerating back to line speed) and your 10:04 to Nottingham will have the 10:30 breathing down its neck before it gets to Beeston.

Same goes for the "slow" Sheffield service which makes it's ninth stop at Derby, compared to the "fast" Sheffield service that leaves London only twenty two minutes later (with only one stop before Derby). So they'll be two trains within a minute or two north of Derby.

Ideally you'd have something approximating a fifteen minute frequency for Leicester - London.

Ideally you'd have something approximating a half hourly service for the stations south of Leicester.

Ideally you'd have fairly balanced times for the two services per hour from London to Nottingham and London to Sheffield (to avoid one service being overloaded, or two trains within ten minutes of each other). Maybe that means having skewed times at Leicester (e.g. one runs "fast" north of Leicester, one runs "fast" south of Leicester, so the overall journey times are comparable)?

Ideally you'd give all three of the "Thameslink" stations a decent link to Leicester and beyond. Bedford has the Marston Vale connections. Luton is the biggest station. As I am regularly reminded on here, Airports need direct services (because people with luggage won't change trains). Maybe that means different stops in different hours?

Ideally you'd give Nottingham and Sheffield comparable "London" times to equivalent stations on the ECML (Newark and Doncaster). But that's not going to happen if you have to worry about stops south of Leicester.

It's "quart into a pint pot" stuff. There aren't enough paths, there isn't enough four tracking, the "Network South East" services don't solve the problem of "local" travel (in the way that there's no need for VTEC to provide local services south of Peterborough or VT to provide local services south of Rugby).

The National Express service worked in the days of 170s because demand grew from a low base (and low frequencies under BR), but I don't think you could get away with dwell times at Leicester of at least ten minutes nowadays.

As for a Manchester service... any mention of VHF or HS2 brings out enthusiasts complaining about how Manchester doesn't need three trains per hour to London and how all of these quiet services waste vital space on the WCML (I've even seen it suggests that one per hour to Manchester would be sufficient)... yet there's continually suggestion of slow services from St Pancras to Manchester - even the idea that London to Manchester needs a diversionary route through Bakewell. What can you do?

If you want a Manchester service then I'd suggest running one of the two Sheffield services via the Erewash instead to give a faster journey time and to give Alfreton and north Nottinghamshire a long distance service southwards (with enough other services linking Sheffield/ Chesterfield to Derby). Let the new Manchester service pick up the London - Derby market instead. But I'm far from convinced about a Manchester service!

Anyhow, back to talking about electrification...

 

[Class 170101]

The Manchester service wasn't aimed at the London market specifically rather the East Midlands Market hence the slower path from London with more intermediate stops.

The reference to the Parkway Station as to Luton Airport Parkway. I cannot see Bedford Parkway opening for many years if at all as there would be no reason until the East West Rail from Bedford to Cambridge is built. MML Wiring will happen long before then and the sooner the better given how busy the 5 car Meridian I was on recently when I used it around lunchtime from London.

 

[MarkRedon]

So there has been some movement over the past year since the technical report suggested that a south of Bedford route (C2-2) was preferable:

http://archive.nr.co.uk/East-West-Rail-Engineering-Summary-Report.pdf

Thanks for finding that report again - it has become well-hidden on the NR website. Perhaps that's unsurprising given that NR will no longer be the principle delivery agency for East West.

This report suggests that neither Bedford Midland nor St. Johns will be served by through trains running west of Cambridge.

And if it be objected that this is all 15 to 20 years away? People, such as dual income households, make long-term decisions based upon railway timetables. So if one year northbound morning trains stop at Bedford Midland then a few years later they no longer do, that has consequences. Probably not for many people, but for some it will.

 

[Senex]

Same goes for the "slow" Sheffield service which makes it's ninth stop at Derby, compared to the "fast" Sheffield service that leaves London only twenty two minutes later (with only one stop before Derby). So they'll be two trains within a minute or two north of Derby.

Exactly. So how many people in the large to/x London market would use the slow services, and would the Sheffield market to/x Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Loughborough, and EM Parkway be large enough to justify the second hourly service?

 

[LLivery]

Would you extend Thameslink core services up to Corby? Even the fastest TL services are ~15 mins slower from St Pancras to Bedford than EMT, so I reckon you've got 3 options:
1- Try to sell the electrification and consequent major deceleration to the provinces, resulting in howls of protest from Disgusted of East Northants, who's also perhaps losing most/all of their Sheffield/Nottingham services which doesn't seem terribly customer-centric
2- Accelerate the Thameslink services by reducing stops south of Bedford and resulting in howls of protest from Disgusted of St Albans, who still doesn't get the compensation of a twice hourly service to Sheffield/Nottingham
3- Try and stuff the extra Corby services through the Thameslink core,
resulting in howls of protest from *everybody*

However, there hasn't been a suggestion that the Nottingham semi-fast would be axed. Too many people travel north. Therefore whilst Corby services to London would be slower, Kettering and Wellingborough on EMTs would probably be faster than today due to electrification. Corby services would just be comparable to GN Peterborough services. North Northamptonshire would end up with more services and I can't see people being too annoyed.

 

[edwin_m]

As far as I can tell there is no official suggestion of extending Thameslink to Corby. As suggested they would be significantly slower than the existing service as well as being formed of Metro-style stock which is not really appropriate for a journey of that length. A service from St Pancras, formed of more suitable "outer-suburban" EMU stock, would have maybe one extra stop compared with the existing diesel and journey times would be little different. Combined with a doubling of the frequency that seems a reasonable deal.

In the current off-peak pattern both Sheffield trains are non-stop between London and Leicester so Northamptonshire has lost its direct Derby/Sheffield service already. I think it's reasonable to take the Bedford and Wellingborough services out of the Nottingham semi-fast to replace them with the second Corby service, as long as decent connections are provided at Kettering between trains to/from the North and trains to/from Corby, and that along with fitting with Thameslink should be the starting point for planning future MML timetables.

In the long term the London to Chesterfield/Sheffield market will go over to HS2 and MML will then focus on fast services between London and Leicester (probably continuing to Derby/Nottingham) and serving the intermediate stations. This will probably continue to be a mix of fast and slower trains, otherwise Leicester loses out compared to cities served by HS2, ECML or WCML. I expect the fasts will continue to Nottingham or Derby and the slower trains will provide links to Toton and Sheffield, but EM Parkway would become a local station as Toton takes over the London park and ride role. So a post-2032 hourly pattern could be something like:

0000 London-Leicester-Nottingham
0003 London-LA Parkway-Luton-Bedford-Wellingborough-Kettering-Corby
0015 London-LA Parkway-Kettering (connection from above)-Mkt Harborough-Leicester-Loughborough-Beeston-Nottingham
0030 London-Leicester (connection from above)-Loughborough-Derby
0033 London-LA Parkway-Luton-Bedford-Wellingborough-Kettering-Corby
0045 London-LA Parkway-Kettering (connection from above)-Mkt Harborough-Leicester-Loughborough-Toton-Chesterfield-Sheffield
plus a Leicester-Nottingham slow about 30min apart from the 0015.

 

[Robertj21a]

As far as I can tell there is no official suggestion of extending Thameslink to Corby. As suggested they would be significantly slower than the existing service as well as being formed of Metro-style stock which is not really appropriate for a journey of that length. A service from St Pancras, formed of more suitable "outer-suburban" EMU stock, would have maybe one extra stop compared with the existing diesel and journey times would be little different. Combined with a doubling of the frequency that seems a reasonable deal.

In the current off-peak pattern both Sheffield trains are non-stop between London and Leicester so Northamptonshire has lost its direct Derby/Sheffield service already. I think it's reasonable to take the Bedford and Wellingborough services out of the Nottingham semi-fast to replace them with the second Corby service, as long as decent connections are provided at Kettering between trains to/from the North and trains to/from Corby, and that along with fitting with Thameslink should be the starting point for planning future MML timetables.

In the long term the London to Chesterfield/Sheffield market will go over to HS2 and MML will then focus on fast services between London and Leicester (probably continuing to Derby/Nottingham) and serving the intermediate stations. This will probably continue to be a mix of fast and slower trains, otherwise Leicester loses out compared to cities served by HS2, ECML or WCML. I expect the fasts will continue to Nottingham or Derby and the slower trains will provide links to Toton and Sheffield, but EM Parkway would become a local station as Toton takes over the London park and ride role. So a post-2032 hourly pattern could be something like:

0000 London-Leicester-Nottingham
0003 London-LA Parkway-Luton-Bedford-Wellingborough-Kettering-Corby
0015 London-LA Parkway-Kettering (connection from above)-Mkt Harborough-Leicester-Loughborough-Beeston-Nottingham
0030 London-Leicester (connection from above)-Loughborough-Derby
0033 London-LA Parkway-Luton-Bedford-Wellingborough-Kettering-Corby
0045 London-LA Parkway-Kettering (connection from above)-Mkt Harborough-Leicester-Loughborough-Toton-Chesterfield-Sheffield
plus a Leicester-Nottingham slow about 30min apart from the 0015.

EM Parkway might as well be closed down if it's only going to end up as a local station, it's quiet enough as it is.

 

[richieb1971]

I heard verbally from a Network rail person that EMT will not stop south of Kettering after the wires go up. If thats true and Thameslink doesn't go to Corby that means EMT services from Corby will be Corby, Kettering, STP.

 

[Class 170101]

That doesn't sound right. What about Wellingborough? As well as intermediate flows from Thameslink stations to north of Bedford?

 

[A0]

I heard verbally from a Network rail person that EMT will not stop south of Kettering after the wires go up. If thats true and Thameslink doesn't go to Corby that means EMT services from Corby will be Corby, Kettering, STP.

On what you've just said, Wellingborough wouldn't get any services......

There is an aspiration no doubt for Corby to go half hourly.

The Corby's are the most sensible to have as stoppers.

There needs to be some northbound connectivity, probably at Kettering for people wishing to get to Leicester and beyond from Wellingborough, Bedford etc.

 

[Bald Rick]

I heard verbally from a Network rail person that EMT will not stop south of Kettering after the wires go up. If thats true and Thameslink doesn't go to Corby that means EMT services from Corby will be Corby, Kettering, STP.

There's an awful lot of people in Network Rail, and very few of them are actually involved with the timetables post electrification. Indeed, those timetables are subject to the refranchising process for the East Midlands franchise.

I wouldn't believe what you hear behind the bike sheds.

 

[Hairy Bear]

EM Parkway might as well be closed down if it's only going to end up as a local station, it's quiet enough as it is.

Has more passengers than Melton Mowbray but I don't hear you calling for that to be closed.
Have a look at the car park by 10. There is over 300 cars parked up, and they haven,t all come to look at the power station. Leave it alone is doing OK.

 

[Robertj21a]

Has more passengers than Melton Mowbray but I don't hear you calling for that to be closed.
Have a look at the car park by 10. There is over 300 cars parked up, and they haven,t all come to look at the power station. Leave it alone is doing OK.

But the key point being made was that the cars are likely to go to Toton, leaving EMP for just the local population.

Not sure what Melton Mowbray has to do with it. There's a town there to be served, it's not being threatened by Toton, and it isn't a designated Parkway station.

 

[mr_jrt]

Depending on the demand for fast line paths south of Bedford, would it not make some sense to extend some a couple of Bedford Thameslink services per hour to Corby and let passengers change to EMT services at Kettering to make their journeys quicker? If there were a freight path though Market Harborough that would switch to the slows at Kettering that's a different matter naturally though, as the Corby could slot into the fasts there, but otherwise you're just wasting capacity further north as I doubt the Corby services will fill the train enough to warrant an express run to London.

 

[edwin_m]

Depending on the demand for fast line paths south of Bedford, would it not make some sense to extend some a couple of Bedford Thameslink services per hour to Corby and let passengers change to EMT services at Kettering to make their journeys quicker? If there were a freight path though Market Harborough that would switch to the slows at Kettering that's a different matter naturally though, as the Corby could slot into the fasts there, but otherwise you're just wasting capacity further north as I doubt the Corby services will fill the train enough to warrant an express run to London.

I don't really see the point of that if there is a semi-fast service every 30min from St Pancras to Corby. All it does is saves one change of train for a very small number of people.

 

[edwin_m]

But the key point being made was that the cars are likely to go to Toton, leaving EMP for just the local population.

That was indeed my point, though I was thinking post-2032 (assuming HS2 built as proposed) and until then the Parkway needs a service similar to today's. It's also possible that the power station site will be re-developed in the meantime into something that generates (no pun intended) more demand at the station.

 

[A0]

Depending on the demand for fast line paths south of Bedford, would it not make some sense to extend some a couple of Bedford Thameslink services per hour to Corby and let passengers change to EMT services at Kettering to make their journeys quicker? If there were a freight path though Market Harborough that would switch to the slows at Kettering that's a different matter naturally though, as the Corby could slot into the fasts there, but otherwise you're just wasting capacity further north as I doubt the Corby services will fill the train enough to warrant an express run to London.

Journey time would deteriorate by at least 20 mins. The problem being the TL stopping pattern - the current Corby's have 4 stops en route. Extending a TL Bedford would mean 10 stops en route.

 

[ashworth]

But the key point being made was that the cars are likely to go to Toton, leaving EMP for just the local population.

A lot could happen between now and 2032. I don't know where most of the people who currently drive to EMP, park there and use the station come from. Toton is quite a bit further north and we do not know what traffic congestion may be like getting to Toton in another 15 years time. People from south of the A52, and southern suberbs of Nottingham and Derby, may still find it easier driving to EMP than diving north to reach Toton. Also we don't know what parking charges will be at Toton in comaprisom to EMP or train fares on HS2. Most fares on HS1 are a few pounds more expensive than the classic routes. The journey time from Toton will not be that much quicker than from EMP and so it may not be worth people from for example the Clifton area of Nottingham negotiating traffic driving north to Toton.

 

[richieb1971]

Same network rail guy told me a thameslink depot would exist at corby. Makes total sense to me if its the end of the wires for something like years and years. I mean thats what bedford is now.

 

[edwin_m]

A lot could happen between now and 2032. I don't know where most of the people who currently drive to EMP, park there and use the station come from. Toton is quite a bit further north and we do not know what traffic congestion may be like getting to Toton in another 15 years time. People from south of the A52, and southern suberbs of Nottingham and Derby, may still find it easier driving to EMP than diving north to reach Toton. Also we don't know what parking charges will be at Toton in comaprisom to EMP or train fares on HS2. Most fares on HS1 are a few pounds more expensive than the classic routes. The journey time from Toton will not be that much quicker than from EMP and so it may not be worth people from for example the Clifton area of Nottingham negotiating traffic driving north to Toton.

Toton will be about 53 minutes from London, EM Parkway is about 85min by the faster train at present, so unless the M1 is absolutely solid I think even someone living right next to the Parkway would get to London sooner by driving to Toton. No doubt some people would continue to want to use the Parkway, but would that be enough people to justify stopping the fast trains? And I don't think it's justifiable to extend everyone else's journey by 3min or so just because the parking is a bit cheaper. If that's the case then people who want to save money can get a slower train instead.

The HS2 business case is based on fares being broadly the same as today's in real terms.

 

[kevjs]

Toton will be about 53 minutes from London, EM Parkway is about 85min by the faster train at present, so unless the M1 is absolutely solid I think even someone living right next to the Parkway would get to London sooner by driving to Toton.

It's not just the M1 that's problematic - it can take an absolute age to get towards Long Eaton in the middle of the day. If any of the proposed housing south of Clifton gets built (about the size of Clifton again) there will be an increasing number of people living nearer to the Parkway too. Obviously would benefit more if the tram extends out that way, and will also depend on what happens with the power station when it's decommissioned.

 

[A0]

Same network rail guy told me a thameslink depot would exist at corby. Makes total sense to me if its the end of the wires for something like years and years. I mean thats what bedford is now.

Makes no sense whatsoever. It would result in a huge amount of 'dead' mileage compared to now. Don't forget not all TL services terminate at Bedford.

And it STILL doesn't address the fundamental problem that it would increase journey times from Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough by at least 20 mins - which is anything from a 15% - 25% increase depending on the station.

That's simply not going to be acceptable.

And before anyone starts going 'look at Peterborough' - the fastest Peterboro to London services are circa 50 mins for the VTEC ones. The fastest GN services are about 1h 10. The current Corby's (EMT) are 1h 10 - you'd make that closer to 1h 30 if they were tagged onto TL's Bedford services with the existing stopping pattern.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Same network rail guy told me a thameslink depot would exist at corby. Makes total sense to me if its the end of the wires for something like years and years. I mean thats what bedford is now.

Network Rail are proposing a stabling/servicing facility at Kettering, for whatever EMUs are used on the 2tph Corby services. I don't think anything is proposed for Corby.

 

[A0]

Network Rail are proposing a stabling/servicing facility at Kettering, for whatever EMUs are used on the 2tph Corby services. I don't think anything is proposed for Corby.

That would make sense - given the Corby's are meant to be staying with EMT, who currently don't have any electric stabling or maintenance facilities.

And I'm guessing Bedford and Cricklewood are pretty full with existing TL requirements.

 

[richieb1971]

Is there any documented date for the switch of the Bromham road bridge in Bedford?

The bypass bridge has been up for ages now meaning Bromham road can be done at anytime. The reason I'm asking is that I want to see it happen and i'm wondering how its going to be done, given that its so near residential areas on both sides and already has a steepish slope. The fast lines are on a curve going under it so dropping the track with a 110mph speed probably won't work.

 

[Flying Phil]

Surely the Bromham bypass bridge was built with sufficient clearance?
On the BBC news today there was an item again questioning whether the MML was going to be electrified, in view of the cost overuns on the GWML(?) This might be a media spin though?

 

[hwl]

Surely the Bromham bypass bridge was built with sufficient clearance?
On the BBC news today there was an item again questioning whether the MML was going to be electrified, in view of the cost overuns on the GWML(?) This might be a media spin though?

Public Account Committee report recommendation to make sure MML and Transpennine are properly spec and planned etc. and lesson learned fron GWML experience.