Is that reflected in the total amount of track access charges for GTR vs EM?
Interesting.
So you're saying what they did was the only way of re-building?
No :P Not as a serious contender. I got the feeling it was all about Eurostar and giving Eurostar what they wanted at the detriment to the MML, which was effectively turfed out of it's home and stuck in a side shed.
The layout of tracks, at least south of Bedford, is the result of some 150 years of history. When the 'London Extension' was first built the Midland Railway could afford the land for 4 tracks but had insufficient money to build all four tracks, so they built the existing 'Fast' lines on the west side of the line. As traffic developed they first started adding an 'Up slow' line at least as far as St Albans; goods trains, especially coal trains, were queued up on this line and fed onto the up fast as other passenger traffic permitted. By 1892 they had started expanding to four tracks, and as soon as the second Elstree tunnel was opened and track laid through it from St Albans southwards these became the 'Slow' lines in 1894. (Hence the building of the present St Albans South box in 1892 in anticipation of the new lines.) In 1906 the goods lines northwards to just north of Harpenden were converted to slow passenger lines with extra platforms built at St Albans and Harpenden. Only around 1960, with the introduction of the then new DMUs, did the goods lines become the slow passenger lines all the way to Bedford.
thankyou for that detailed history of the track layout... as a Lutonian born and bred I'm shocked that it was as late as 1960 that all 4 lines were brought into full use for passengers!
I suspected that TL would be the major payee of access charges on the first 50 miles of the MML and for the benefit of those who think that users of EM services are treated unfairly, they should just look at the numbers of TL passengers that are carried south of Bedford. As many trains as possible are run at maximum length and at times carry well over 1000 passengers each. Four-car class222s are quite wasteful of precious paths and despite the multiplicity of destinations at the country ends of their travels, there must be some opportunities to consolidate similar requirements into longer trains running on the limited paths available.
So where would you put it?
Part of the Grade I listing means that views of the building have to be unobstructed from places like Primrose Hill.
Except they're not... south of Kentish Town there are 6 tracks... 4 for St Pancras and 2 leading down to the Thameslink tunnels. However a train travelling north and running fast to St Albans will more than likely be put onto the fast tracks resulting in the train crossing 3 tracks {2 of which are of a conflicting flow -are for travelling in opposite direction.} As there are up to 6 trains an hr in each direction making this manouvre this must represent a significant impact on the effeciency and therefore capacity of the line.
And leave Midland Mainline services rattling around in an empty cavern that was falling down around their ears?
That's how it still works. What other support is there?
But it doesn't, because its flat.
It would also need many track realignments at stations and platform rebuildings to avoid a speed restriction for Up fast trains on what is now the Down Slow. Most of the stations are designed so the Fast lines are straight and the slows dogleg to make room for the central platform. It might even be necesssary to change some stations to having two islands instead of two side platforms and a central island.
I think you need to have a look at google maps and check the track layout... as you head south on MML there are the fast tracks on the right and the slows on the left... as you approach Kentish Town Stn the slow lines open out to 4 tracks making a total of 6 tracks... 4 slow and 2 fast.... once past the Stn the tracks split... the 2 slow lines on the left go down to Thameslink whilst the other 4 tracks continue to St Pancras Terminal.
hmm... well the 4 lines originally went all the way to St Pancras, so if the slow lines now merge into the fast lines south of Kentish Town then that is just another failing of HS1/ Thameslink programmes in that instead of alleviating bottlenecks they have increased the number by 1! As to your assertion that the conflict is only on one line.... well it's still a conflict isn't it? ok so the current is 4tph/ off peak 8 tph peak... but it is envisaged once the Thameslink programme is completed there will be at least 6 tph fast off peak, with, I presume, a corresponding increase in the peak service.. however, even going with 8tph that is, on average, a conflict every 7.5 minutes.... how long must the conflicted line be blockaded before and after the Thameslink train has manouvred a minute before and 30 secs after passing? so for every 7.5 mins the route south into St Pancras is unavailable for 1.5 mins or to put it another way the up fast is unavailable for use for 20% of the time.. that must impact on the number of trains EMT can run into St Pancras!
simple maths really... if there are 2 lines into/ out of St Pancras that means 2 trains can operate at the same time... by forcing all trains leaving St Pancras to use one line until they get to Kentish Town automatically reduces the potential capacity between KT and StP by half!
you're wrong... north of KT there are 2 lines available in each direction... fast and slow... just because trains to St P don't use the slow lines doesn't mean that they aren't able to!