MML Electrification: progress updates

[Class 170101]

Might it an idea be to have one of the Corby services as a shuttle to Bedford, and connect into a new faster train which calls there, and Thameslink and Marston/future EWR.

And that faster train could come from elsewhere north, such as Manchester.

Or a Corby shuttle interworking/continuing onto Bletchley?

I've suggested the Kettreing to Corby shuttle in the past to allow such a service to Manchester to operate but I imagine it will be scuppered by electric train running on St Pancras to Corby services. However I do like your idea of running it onto the East West Rail route via Bletchley with a St Pancras to Manchester service.

 

[richieb1971]

I like stp to Manchester. Bedford needs to be overhauled it would be better for the station to be in the south of ford end road. You can knock the steam shed jungle down then and have seven or eight platforms.

 

[cle]

Someone shot me down elsewhere, but I’ve always believed in the value of a permanent ‘Rio’ service, and that there would be good demand for a Luton/Bedford, Leicester and Derby service to Stockport and Manchester. These are all well populated, unconnected places.

And it’d provide some London-Manchester competition too, on a genuinely different route. With all these improvements, surely the journey time wouldn’t be that bad, and sub 3 hours comfortably.

 

[AndyW33]

You may believe in the value of a permanent "Rio" service, and maybe if one existed that stopped at Luton or Bedford it would miraculously fill with passengers. The original "Rio" services didn't stop there, and were far from full, in fact virtually empty, and that was with the disruption and extended journey times on the WCML route caused by the upgrade operations.
More to the point, where are the paths to come from on the Hope Valley route, which is full to capacity now with trains thanks to increased services since the original Rio days? Cancelling one of the trains that together provide the Manchester-Sheffield service isn't an option as these are regularly packed to the doors.

 

[AndyW33]

You may believe in the value of a permanent "Rio" service, and maybe if one existed that stopped at Luton or Bedford it would miraculously fill with passengers. The original "Rio" services didn't stop there, and were far from full, in fact virtually empty, and that was with the disruption and extended journey times on the WCML route caused by the upgrade operations.
More to the point, where are the paths to come from on the Hope Valley route, which is full to capacity now with trains thanks to increased services since the original Rio days? Cancelling one of the trains that together provide the Manchester-Sheffield service isn't an option as these are regularly packed to the doors.

 

[edwin_m]

The original Rio service was a semi-fast that was diverted to Manchester so did make several intermediate calls.

 

[AM9]

Or a Corby shuttle interworking/continuing onto Bletchley?

Why would that be better. The trains from Corby would be perfectly OK for running a Bedford/St Pancras leg. Bedford already has platform capacity problems so why waste speace emptying trains there. A better arrangement would be for Corby starters to serve all stations to Bedford running on the slows, then fast to London on the fasts.

 

[Senex]

You may believe in the value of a permanent "Rio" service, and maybe if one existed that stopped at Luton or Bedford it would miraculously fill with passengers. The original "Rio" services didn't stop there, and were far from full, in fact virtually empty, and that was with the disruption and extended journey times on the WCML route caused by the upgrade operations.
More to the point, where are the paths to come from on the Hope Valley route, which is full to capacity now with trains thanks to increased services since the original Rio days? Cancelling one of the trains that together provide the Manchester-Sheffield service isn't an option as these are regularly packed to the doors.

Wasn't that in part because the London-Manchester times were pretty unattractive because of all the stops and the bad paths available north of Trent? I thought the original idea had been to try to get genuinely fast services, but when it came to the detailed planning this proved totally impossible. The services were certainly not well loaded — there were times when you could find that you had the entire first-class acommodation of an HST to yourself.

 

[B&I]

You may believe in the value of a permanent "Rio" service, and maybe if one existed that stopped at Luton or Bedford it would miraculously fill with passengers. The original "Rio" services didn't stop there, and were far from full, in fact virtually empty, and that was with the disruption and extended journey times on the WCML route caused by the upgrade operations.
More to the point, where are the paths to come from on the Hope Valley route, which is full to capacity now with trains thanks to increased services since the original Rio days? Cancelling one of the trains that together provide the Manchester-Sheffield service isn't an option as these are regularly packed to the doors.

It would be useful less as an alternative London service than as a way of connecting the northwest to intermediate MML destinations, perhaps including a rebuilt Dore & Totley to provide additional Sheffield service. But it would depend on something being done about Hope Valley capacity as it should be in addition to, not instead of, the existing Manchester-Sheffield services

 

[deltic08]

It would be useful less as an alternative London service than as a way of connecting the northwest to intermediate MML destinations, perhaps including a rebuilt Dore & Totley to provide additional Sheffield service. But it would depend on something being done about Hope Valley capacity as it should be in addition to, not instead of, the existing Manchester-Sheffield services

With hindsight, a dreadful mistake closing Woodhead. It was by far the fastest route then and could have been made faster. With one stop at Penistone, 50 minutes would have been easily achievable especially by HST. A new chord could have been built connecting Sheffield Midland and Victoria but they were still wedded to Regions when passenger services were withdrawn in 1969 instead of integration.

 

[TheBigD]

With regard to the original Project Rio services, the service stopped as follows...

St Pancras
Luton
Bedford
Wellingborough
Kettering
Market Harborough
Leicester
Stockport
Manchester Piccadily

Journey time was around 3hr20min leaving St Pancras on the hour and 47 past the hour from Manchester.

 

[tbtc]

As someone who lives on the MML, but doesn't get to London on a regular basis, can I give my thanks to those chronicling the progress of electrification north of Bedford - it's great to see.

The hard work in (both) taking pictures and explaining progress is much appreciated.

With hindsight, a dreadful mistake closing Woodhead. It was by far the fastest route then and could have been made faster. With one stop at Penistone, 50 minutes would have been easily achievable especially by HST

When the freight (from Wath/ Tinsley) started drying up, the justification for Woodhead dried up.

It currently takes a 323 (EMUs that are generally seen as fairly fast accelerators) around half an hour to do the dozen miles from Piccadilly to Dinting, so I'm not convinced that there are going to be a lot of fast paths getting out of Manchester, given how busy the line is.

The problem between Sheffield and Manchester is as much about the length of trains as it is about frequency - we could have a huge increase in seats if we insisted on a six-coach-minimum on every departure (ignoring the "stoppers").

With regard to the original Project Rio services, the service stopped as follows...

St Pancras
Luton
Bedford
Wellingborough
Kettering
Market Harborough
Leicester
Stockport
Manchester Piccadily

Journey time was around 3hr20min leaving St Pancras on the hour and 47 past the hour from Manchester.

That sounds about right (to my memories) - it was the London - Nottingham path that the Midland Mainline 170s ran (as far as Leicester), so had to take on all of the "local" stops from that service - back in the days of the "two fast, two slow" timetable, when Turbostars would wait at Leicester a good ten minutes to give connections to the HST-operated services.

The problem with arguments for a modern day Rio on here are that they seem to contradict each other. Some people want a fast service to provide a competitive alternative to the Euston - Piccadilly service - fair enough (although HS2 will blow that market open in a few years time). But others are trying to provide a direct Manchester/ Stockport link to as many places as possible (Loughborough, Bedford, Luton), which doesn't need to be an ex-London service. Plus then there's the "let's use this as an excuse to re-open the Bakewell line" brigade And the problem that geography means that one train can't easily serve Leicester, Nottingham *and* Derby on it's way to Manchester.

Plus, given the finite paths out of St Pancras, you're looking at a future timetable with four services an hour to Leicester, so does a proposed Manchester service replace one of these?

Do Sheffield/ Nottingham go down to just one train per hour (and potentially have to pick up stops at Market Harborough/ Kettering etc, slowing them down further) so that Manchester can have an alternative to the thirty-ish carriages that the current VT service provides?

If you want to fixate on "Leicester needs a direct hourly service to Manchester" (given that it's about a hundred miles away, so of limited use for daily commuters etc, whilst places like Wakefield/ Birkenhead/ Rotherham - which are in the potential commuter belt - have no service) then the best answer may be the two carriages of the Liverpool - Norwich service that detach at Nottingham - e.g. running them through to Leicester in place of the current "Ivanhoe" service. That wouldn't require any additional paths through the Hope Valley or over the Stockport Viaduct (since those carriages are attached to the Norwich carriages on that bit).

 

[deltic08]

It currently takes a 323 (EMUs that are generally seen as fairly fast accelerators) around half an hour to do the dozen miles from Piccadilly to Dinting, so I'm not convinced that there are going to be a lot of fast paths getting out of Manchester, given how busy the line is..

The problem with arguments for a modern day Rio on here are that they seem to contradict each other. Some people want a fast service to provide a competitive alternative to the Euston - Piccadilly service - fair enough (although HS2 will blow that market open in a few years time). But others are trying to provide a direct Manchester/ Stockport link to as many places as possible (Loughborough, Bedford, Luton), which doesn't need to be an ex-London service. Plus then there's the "let's use this as an excuse to re-open the Bakewell line" brigade And the problem that geography means that one train can't easily serve Leicester, Nottingham *and* Derby on it's way to Manchester.

Plus, given the finite paths out of St Pancras, you're looking at a future timetable with four services an hour to Leicester, so does a proposed Manchester service replace one of these?

Do Sheffield/ Nottingham go down to just one train per hour (and potentially have to pick up stops at Market Harborough/ Kettering etc, slowing them down further) so that Manchester can have an alternative to the thirty-ish carriages that the current VT service provides?

If you want to fixate on "Leicester needs a direct hourly service to Manchester" (given that it's about a hundred miles away, so of limited use for daily commuters etc, whilst places like Wakefield/ Birkenhead/ Rotherham - which are in the potential commuter belt - have no service) then the best answer may be the two carriages of the Liverpool - Norwich service that detach at Nottingham - e.g. running them through to Leicester in place of the current "Ivanhoe" service. That wouldn't require any additional paths through the Hope Valley or over the Stockport Viaduct (since those carriages are attached to the Norwich carriages on that bit).

I was really discussing what should have been done in 1969 instead of removing passenger services from Woodhead. Then there was quadruple track out of Manchester to beyond Guide Bridge where fast services could overtake stoppers. An electrified chord from Victoria to Midland would have given greater connectivity.

And what is wrong with wanting to reopen the Bakewell line especially if you live in Bakewell and are without a rail connection? Alright for you living in rail served Sheffield. The rest of non rail served Britain is subsidising your facility.

I think that extending one half of the Liverpool-Norwich from Nottingham to Leicester is a very sensible and logical idea as is extending some of the slower St Pancras-Nottinghams to Glasgow via Settle for the benefit of intermediate traffic at Luton, Bedford, Leicester, Loughborough, Nottingham, Chesterfield, Sheffield, Rotherham, Wakefield, Leeds, Keighley, Skipton, Settle, Appleby, Carlisle, Lockerbie, Motherwell and Glasgow. Surely enough passengers to fill a short formed HST 2 or 3 times a day. There is a case building for an increase in linespeed between Skipton and Carlisle. 90mph would reduce time on the Settle-Carlisle by 40 minutes compared to-day.

 

[Journeyman]

With hindsight, a dreadful mistake closing Woodhead. It was by far the fastest route then and could have been made faster. With one stop at Penistone, 50 minutes would have been easily achievable especially by HST. A new chord could have been built connecting Sheffield Midland and Victoria but they were still wedded to Regions when passenger services were withdrawn in 1969 instead of integration.

Nah. The business case for keeping Woodhead was very poor.

 

[deltic08]

Nah. The business case for keeping Woodhead was very poor.

Was it any worse than the Hope Valley route in 1969?

 

[cle]

I think the Rio would have to be faster to compete on the London-Manchester journey. Clearly it would make less stops than previously.

If we are saying that there can only ever be 4tph to Leicester - even with all these improvements in terms of tracking, wires, junctions and signalling... then that's pretty depressing. We should be somewhat aspirational - 5tph to Leicester shouldn't be that outlandish to hope for!

And if it was London - Leicester - Derby - Stockport - Manchester, it could act like the second 'fast' for Derby, and allow the semi to stop more. There would still be 2tph to Sheffield and Chesterfield (which has a Manchester service) - so it's all additional. I'd like a southern stop too though, alternate Luton/Bedford but that would be difficult to path.

Also, the Hope Valley is due to see improvements too in time. Again, this is clearly thinking for the future, not 'start the service tomorrow' - people are so quick to shoot things down based on today's limitations, when better capacity might be available. HS2 could also free things up.

 

[Journeyman]

Was it any worse than the Hope Valley route in 1969?

Yes. There were far fewer intermediate stations of any significance on Woodhead, whereas Hope Valley served more local communities and had a fair bit of hiking traffic in summer. There was also the problem of the isolated Sheffield Victoria station, which was due to close having lost all its other services, and providing an electrified diversion into Midland was difficult and expensive.

Eventually, of course, the obsolete electrification system and nosediving freight traffic was Woodhead's final undoing.

 

[Dr Hoo]

We are getting rather off the theme of MML electrification.

Whilst I find these comparisons between Bakewell (population around 4,000 with an awfully located former station) and Sheffield (population around 500,000) very interesting none of the services being discussed - Peak Rail, Hope Valley, S&C or even via the Erewash Valley - seem likely to be electrified in the foreseeable future.

(This is not intended to initiate another discussion about bi-modes either.)

 

[Robertj21a]

I think the Rio would have to be faster to compete on the London-Manchester journey. Clearly it would make less stops than previously.

If we are saying that there can only ever be 4tph to Leicester - even with all these improvements in terms of tracking, wires, junctions and signalling... then that's pretty depressing. We should be somewhat aspirational - 5tph to Leicester shouldn't be that outlandish to hope for!

And if it was London - Leicester - Derby - Stockport - Manchester, it could act like the second 'fast' for Derby, and allow the semi to stop more. There would still be 2tph to Sheffield and Chesterfield (which has a Manchester service) - so it's all additional. I'd like a southern stop too though, alternate Luton/Bedford but that would be difficult to path.

Also, the Hope Valley is due to see improvements too in time. Again, this is clearly thinking for the future, not 'start the service tomorrow' - people are so quick to shoot things down based on today's limitations, when better capacity might be available. HS2 could also free things up.

Why can't it be 5tph or even 6tph to Leicester. Is the problem just at the southern end ?

 

[jyte]

Why can't it be 5tph or even 6tph to Leicester. Is the problem just at the southern end ?

Begins with T, ends in link and is the cause of misery for thousands of commuters.

 

[Kneedown]

Begins with T, ends in link and is the cause of misery for thousands of commuters.

6tph to Leicester would be possible if the Corby's were to become a shuttle service to Kettering. Won't happen though, too much money, time and effort has been spent wiring to Corby.

 

[AM9]

Why can't it be 5tph or even 6tph to Leicester. Is the problem just at the southern end ?

Is there a demand for 6 full length trainloads of passengers per hour to Leicester?

 

[Robertj21a]

Is there a demand for 6 full length trainloads of passengers per hour to Leicester?

No idea, but that wasn't the question !

 

[cle]

Is there a demand for 6 full length trainloads of passengers per hour to Leicester?

They don’t have to terminate there! It’s the trunk route...like using Rugby as an example. I think it’s a shame we can’t get to 2 Corby and 5/6 via Leicester- especially after all the new tracks, wires and so forth. It’s hardly a huge amount.

Perhaps more could be made of the additional running lines from West Hampstead up to Hendon, or by pathing at the Brent Cross station (use it like OOC for short turns and for overtaking.

 

[43074]

They don’t have to terminate there! It’s the trunk route...like using Rugby as an example. I think it’s a shame we can’t get to 2 Corby and 5/6 via Leicester- especially after all the new tracks, wires and so forth. It’s hardly a huge amount.

Perhaps more could be made of the additional running lines from West Hampstead up to Hendon, or by pathing at the Brent Cross station (use it like OOC for short turns and for overtaking.

I'm very sceptical of the need for 6tph to Leicester: 5tph would be nice, perhaps by diverting one Corby service to Leicester as that would allow the retention of direct services to destinations South of Kettering whilst still having 2tph fast to both Nottingham and Derby/Sheffield, but realistically that isn't going to happen and 4tph (especially if all are formed of 8/9 car trains in the future) is perfectly adequate to cope with the demand anyway.

The problem with the 6tph proposal comes not with what happens South of Bedford but with the Kettering to Wigston (Leicester) stretch of the mainline: you have the problem of pathing a relatively frequent high speed service with freight on a fairly lengthy 2 track section (effectively Braybrooke/Kettering North to Kilby Bridge, about 20 miles) so I'd think running more than 2tph freight and 4tph high speed passenger would be difficult/impossible to achieve without installing some fairly lengthy 3 track sections. Then there's the issue of conflicting moves at Wigston Jn, capacity through the Leicester area and the long headways and suddenly 6tph to Leicester all looks a bit of a pipe dream, either now or in the future.

 

[38Cto15E]

I think there is room for loops at Desborough North and Kibworth North, whether there is money for them I doubt it, but they should be easier to construct than the Sundon loop.

 

[cle]

Is there no plan for more track north of Kettering?

In any event, it’s 6tph through Leicester and beyond we’re hypothesising about, not 6tph pinned to the demand of Leicester itself.

I’d extend the fastest Sheffield service to Leeds once per hour, and run a Manchester service as described. That’s five. If there was ever a sixth, I’d think that stops for connectivity at Bedford and Kettering would be ideal. Not sure where that service would run to, possibly Toton by then. Or hourly to Newark and Lincoln (extending the fastest Nottingham and adding a semi).

 

[AM9]

In any event, it’s 6tph through Leicester and beyond we’re hypothesising about, not 6tph pinned to the demand of Leicester itself.

So OK, is there demand for 6 full length trains* per hour from St Pancras to Leicester and beyond?
* as in the maximum length that can be accommodated at each station that they would call.

 

[43074]

Is there no plan for more track north of Kettering?

No, although there are plans to 4 track through the Leicester area it doesn't solve the Kettering to Wigston problem.

In any event, it’s 6tph through Leicester and beyond we’re hypothesising about, not 6tph pinned to the demand of Leicester itself.

I’d extend the fastest Sheffield service to Leeds once per hour, and run a Manchester service as described. That’s five. If there was ever a sixth, I’d think that stops for connectivity at Bedford and Kettering would be ideal. Not sure where that service would run to, possibly Toton by then. Or hourly to Newark and Lincoln (extending the fastest Nottingham and adding a semi).

Yes but as mentioned the problem is getting them to Leicester, it doesn't matter what the 6tph may or may not do afterwards you still have to get them to Leicester first. In any case if there was a Manchester or Leeds service much of the demand would be from Leicester and places North anyway.

 

[richieb1971]

If the 2 track section is such a bottle neck some of the paths should go via Corby. Its a wasted line.