Potential Future services on the MML

[Jorge Da Silva]

Is it possible in the future that more MML services could run out of St Pancras. I know the biggest issue with this is platform capacity as there are now only 4 platforms there but there was at one point 7. I also know that there will be:

TIMETABLE FROM DECEMBER 2019

• 2tph between London and Sheffield (fast and semi-fast)
  • 3tpd to Leeds
  • 1tpd to Scarborough (Summers Only)
  • 1tpd to York (Weekend Returns Only)
• 2tph between London and Nottingham (fast and semi-fast)
  • 1tpd runs to Lincoln
• 2tph between London and Corby (Stopping)
  • 1tpd to Melton Mowbray
  • 1tpd to Derby

There were plans by EMT for 2tpd between Skegness to London via Derby in the summer but these terminate at Derby instead.

What services could be added in the future beyond this particularly after HS2 Phase 2b or other enhancement? ETCS?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That's an interesting question. How many trains could you realistically run from 4 platforms, allowing for cleaning etc. and delay recovery - which would imply each train occupying a platform for a relatively long time?

I suspect St Pancras EMT is one of the few routes out of London where much higher frequencies would be hard to justify in terms of demand. HS2 2b will probably remove most of the traffic headed North of Derby/Nottingham from St Pancras, but will leave all Leicester and (because of the location of Toton) a large part of Nottingham/Derby demand in place. Even so, I'm not convinced demand would justify more than the existing 2tph to each destination. I do though wonder whether an hourly train directly to Toton provide interchange with HS2 would be useful (assuming the track layout around Toton would allow such a service?)

One change I would like to see post-HS2 2b is for all EMT trains to stop at Bedford, to ensure adequate connectivity from the North to Thameslink destinations. It might also be nice to see at least one of the 2tph Corby services extended to Leicester, but demand for that might be iffy.

Another possibility might be some semi-fast EMT trains to serve St. Albans, Luton and Bedford, to take some pressure off Thameslink. But that obviously brings in issues of sharing the track with faster trains.

Beyond that, I'd be looking at infrastructure North of Bedford. In particular, the MML passes a number of settlements between Bedford and Leicester that have no stations, and which would probably attract a reasonable number of new passengers if they did have stations. If stations were built at some of those, that would presumably allow for at least an hourly St Pancras-Leicester that stops everywhere north of Bedford (though timetabling may be tight in the absence of anywhere for faster trains to overtake).

 

[edwin_m]

The need to give Leicester a fast service (it will be less time from London to Toton than Leicester) really means that the fasts should not be stopping at Bedford or anywhere else. There's also the problem that the trains would be full between London and Bedford to the exclusion of longer-distance passengers. I'd actually argue for the semi-fasts to be first stop Luton Airport Parkway then Kettering, with the Corby trains providing connections to Leicester from intermediate stations.

As well as the platforms at St Pancras, capacity south of Bedford probably isn't going to allow more than four East Midlands per hour plus the two Corby trains. It's a good idea to send one of the semi-fasts to Toton to provide connections between intermediate stations and HS2 northwards, but this would probably be at the expense of Nottingham and Derby. Sheffield probably also needs only a semi-fast service after HS2, as London-Chesterfield/Sheffield passengers won't be going via Leicester.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There's also the problem that the trains would be full between London and Bedford to the exclusion of longer-distance passengers.

That's easy to prevent. Make the trains to London set down only at Bedford (and pick-up only for trains from London). Since no Thameslink trains run to St. Pancras, that rule will be easily enforceable at St. Pancras by the simple device of the St. Pancras barriers only allowing tickets that are to/from Wellingborough or further.

I'd actually argue for the semi-fasts to be first stop Luton Airport Parkway then Kettering, with the Corby trains providing connections to Leicester from intermediate stations.

Doesn't that mean people from Market Harborough and further north would have to change twice to get to most intermediate stations between Bedford and London?

As well as the platforms at St Pancras, capacity south of Bedford probably isn't going to allow more than four East Midlands per hour plus the two Corby trains.

How come? 6 trains per hour seems a very low capacity limit for a double track line - especially if (assuming you don't start stopping some trains at places like Luton Airport), all trains would be running at exactly the same speed at least as far as Bedford.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

The need to give Leicester a fast service (it will be less time from London to Toton than Leicester) really means that the fasts should not be stopping at Bedford or anywhere else. There's also the problem that the trains would be full between London and Bedford to the exclusion of longer-distance passengers. I'd actually argue for the semi-fasts to be first stop Luton Airport Parkway then Kettering, with the Corby trains providing connections to Leicester from intermediate stations.

I think the biggest problem is Sheffield services not stopping at Bedford regularly, surely at least one service in the peak could stop? I heard a guy who used to use that service on my train between Cleethorpes and Sheffield saying he used the service between Sheffield-Bedford regularly but was fustrated that from the May 2018 timetable there would be no peak services stopping at Bedford, from London to Sheffield.

As well as the platforms at St Pancras, capacity south of Bedford probably isn't going to allow more than four East Midlands per hour plus the two Corby trains.

That is the biggest problem with any new services into London as London to Bedford is pretty much full in terms of train paths. A couple of trains per day maybe at a stretch but no more, I agree. It is a shame that they didn’t have 6 platforms at St Pancras’s MML as it originally had before HS1 rebuild, although back when it was planned there weren’t many MML services. Solutions are limited.

It's a good idea to send one of the semi-fasts to Toton to provide connections between intermediate stations and HS2 northwards, but this would probably be at the expense of Nottingham and Derby. Sheffield probably also needs only a semi-fast service after HS2, as London-Chesterfield/Sheffield passengers won't be going via Leicester.

Would be a good idea to send one of the Nottingham services to Toton instead or possibly divert the Sheffield fast to run via Toton instead. I suspect less demand between Sheffield and Chesterfield to London Post HS2. This could mean services may be able to be allocated to other destinations instead. Derby and Nottingham may have a reduced service compared to now as one of each service may end up via Toton. Nottingham and Toton as well as Derby to Toton shuttles may help provide better links to the new station.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

How come? 6 trains per hour seems a very low capacity limit for a double track line - especially if (assuming you don't start stopping some trains at places like Luton Airport), all trains would be running at exactly the same speed at least as far as Bedford.

Lack of platforms at St Pancras there is only 4 available and thanks to uprgading between Bedford and London OLE and electrification between Bedford and Corby it will go up from a max of 5 per hour to 6 per hour as the maximum capacity so there will be no more capacity left.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Lack of platforms at St Pancras there is only 4 available and thanks to uprgading between Bedford and London OLE and electrification between Bedford and Corby it will go up from a max of 5 per hour to 6 per hour as the maximum capacity so there will be no more capacity left.

That still doesn't make sense to me. We're talking an alleged maximum capacity of 6tph. That would be 1-and-a-half trains per hour per platform, which seems absurdly low. Let's say you want to be generous and give each train 20 minutes to wait at St. Pancras to be cleaned and recover from minor delays to incoming trains. That still means you could get 2tph per platform with a 10 minute gap between trains in each platform, total 8tph along the track. In practice, I'm sure you could squeeze a few more trains in by being flexible about which platforms trains use. Wouldn't that imply that you ought to be able to support about 10tph - on what look to me like quite reasonable margins between trains at St Pancras.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

That still doesn't make sense to me. We're talking an alleged maximum capacity of 6tph. That would be 1-and-a-half trains per hour per platform, which seems absurdly low. Let's say you want to be generous and give each train 20 minutes to wait at St. Pancras to be cleaned and recover from minor delays to incoming trains. That still means you could get 2tph per platform with a 10 minute gap between trains in each platform, total 8tph along the track. In practice, I'm sure you could squeeze a few more trains in by being flexible about which platforms trains use. Wouldn't that imply that you ought to be able to support about 10tph - on what look to me like quite reasonable margins between trains at St Pancras.

I think 5 was a push 6 is only possible with electrification and upgrades.

 

[Esker-pades]

That still doesn't make sense to me. We're talking an alleged maximum capacity of 6tph. That would be 1-and-a-half trains per hour per platform, which seems absurdly low. Let's say you want to be generous and give each train 20 minutes to wait at St. Pancras to be cleaned and recover from minor delays to incoming trains. That still means you could get 2tph per platform with a 10 minute gap between trains in each platform, total 8tph along the track. In practice, I'm sure you could squeeze a few more trains in by being flexible about which platforms trains use. Wouldn't that imply that you ought to be able to support about 10tph - on what look to me like quite reasonable margins between trains at St Pancras.

20 minutes is not generous for a long distance service.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Quiet Interesting:

http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/47

Mentions why there is only 4 platforms.

The provision of just 4 platforms for MML has provoked some criticism. When this allocation was originally agreed, MML was operating just two services per hour from St Pancras; since then, the number of services has increased significantly, but the plans were too far-advanced to be altered.

How could you increase the amount of services? An additional platform or ETCS signalling to increase frequency?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

20 minutes is not generous for a long distance service.

Interesting. Perhaps a better way of putting it is... Is 20 minutes dwell time + 10 minutes gap before the next train reasonably doable for these services. If it's doable, that immediately gives you the potential for 8tph

Also may be worth considering that these are not really all long distance services. Once Corby has its 2tph, the 6tph will consist of...

• 2tph to Corby, taking just over an hour
• 2tph to Nottingham, one takes an hour 40 mins, one takes 2 hours
• 2tph to Sheffield, taking 2 hours

In terms of distance, the two Sheffield ones are the only two that reasonably could be described as 'long distance', and in terms of journey time, even those are very comparable to some of the services from - say - Waterloo and Charing Cross - from platforms which I'm guessing see much more intensive use.

 

[Esker-pades]

Consider LNER services on London to Leeds services (arrival times at Kings Cross):
07:28 arrival next departs at 08:03 (45 minutes)
07:49 arrival next departs at 08:33 (44 minutes)
08:31 arrival next departs at 09:06 (35 minutes)
08:51 arrival next departs at 09:33 (42 minutes)
09:31 arrival next departs at 10:03 (32 minutes)
11:01 arrival next departs at 11:33 (32 minutes)

That ~30 minutes turnaround time (no more) is the bare minimum. So really, one needs ~40 minutes between arrivals at a platform.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Is a Platform 0 Possible? This would mean you could have 1.5 extra trains per hour (3 trains every two hours). There is very little alternatives to provide additional trains to London St Pancras.

• 1tph: London St Pancras-Leeds
  • Calling at: Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield, Wakefield Westgate and Leeds
• 1tph: London St Pancras-Sheffield
  • Calling at: Bedford, Leicester, East Midlands Parkway, Derby, Chesterfield and Sheffield
• 1tpd: London St Pancras-York
  • Calling at: Leicester, Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Long Eaton, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield, Doncaster and York
• 2tph: London St Pancras-Nottingham
  • 1tph: Calling at: Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Beeston and Nottingham
    
    
  • 1tph: Calling at: Market Harborough, Leicester, East Midlands Parkway and Nottingham
• 2tph: London St Pancras-Corby
  • Calling at: Luton Airport Parkway, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby
• 1tpd: London St Pancras-Derby (via Corby)
  • Calling at: Luton Airport Parkway, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby, Oakham, Melton Mowbray, East Midlands Parkway and Derby
• 1tpd: London St Pancras-Melton Mowbray (via Corby)
  • Calling at: Luton Airport Parkway, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby, Oakham and Melton Mowbray
• 1tpd: London St Pancras-Lincoln
  • 1tph: Calling at: Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Beeston, Nottingham, Lowdham, Newark Castle, Cottingham and Lincoln
• 1tpd: London St Pancras-Barnsley
  • Calling at: Leicester, Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Long Eaton, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield, Meadowhall and Barnsley

 

[edwin_m]

That's easy to prevent. Make the trains to London set down only at Bedford (and pick-up only for trains from London). Since no Thameslink trains run to St. Pancras, that rule will be easily enforceable at St. Pancras by the simple device of the St. Pancras barriers only allowing tickets that are to/from Wellingborough or further.

I would expect the Corby trains to stop at Bedford and run into the upper level at St Pancras. These trains should have enough capacity to provide a fast London service from one or other of the Luton stations plus Bedford and Wellingborough, or if they are overcrowded they could become a premium service with higher fares enforced by those separate barriers as per Gatwick Express.

Doesn't that mean people from Market Harborough and further north would have to change twice to get to most intermediate stations between Bedford and London?

People complain about that on here a lot but the number of passengers doing that is quite small with the exception of Luton Airport Parkway, as the airport has quite good catchment in the East Midlands. Stopping one or both of the semi-fasts at the Parkway would mean the only people having to change twice would be those to/from Flitwick, Harlington and Leagrave, plus Luton town if double-back via Parkway isn't allowed.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the biggest problem is Sheffield services not stopping at Bedford regularly, surely at least one service in the peak could stop? I heard a guy who used to use that service on my train between Cleethorpes and Sheffield saying he used the service between Sheffield-Bedford regularly but was fustrated that from the May 2018 timetable there would be no peak services stopping at Bedford, from London to Sheffield.

I travel regularly to Wiltshire and have to change at least once, and often twice. You can't provide through services from everywhere to everywhere and any peak hour stop today will be about providing enough capacity between Bedford and London not the occasional Sheffield-Bedford passenger. If the demand justified it a remaining Sheffield train could stop after HS2, when the main reason for that train is no longer to provide a fast Sheffield-London service.

Would be a good idea to send one of the Nottingham services to Toton instead or possibly divert the Sheffield fast to run via Toton instead. I suspect less demand between Sheffield and Chesterfield to London Post HS2. This could mean services may be able to be allocated to other destinations instead. Derby and Nottingham may have a reduced service compared to now as one of each service may end up via Toton. Nottingham and Toton as well as Derby to Toton shuttles may help provide better links to the new station.

There will certainly be less demand between Sheffield/Chesterfield and London via Leicester, considering HS2 will serve that route possibly twice every hour and will be a great deal faster. Hence my suggestion that the remaining Sheffield train should be semi-fast, so as to provide better links to intermediate stations. It could perhaps go via Toton but with Nottingham and Derby as alternative destinations and probably only two semi-fast paths somewhere is likely to lose out. The other option might be a semi-fast as far as Bedford that then heads for Oxford on EWR.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253467/possible-enhancements-to-rail-network.pdf#page60
Onwards

Package H is with HS2

Alternatives to HS2 May provide possible infrastructure options

Personally I still think a new platform will one day happen at St Pancras as limited options are available

 

[Esker-pades]

Is a Platform 0 Possible? This would mean you could have 1.5 extra trains per hour (3 trains every two hours). There is very little alternatives to provide additional trains to London St Pancras.

Simply, no.
The platforms are currently in this configuration:
1 PLATFORM 2 3 PLATFORM 4

In order to build a platform 0, one would need an additional platform face. That wouldn't work within the constraints of the space.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Simply, no.
The platforms are currently in this configuration:
1 PLATFORM 2 3 PLATFORM 4

In order to build a platform 0, one would need an additional platform face. That wouldn't work within the constraints of the space.

How else could you increase train paths?

 

[edwin_m]

How else could you increase train paths?

At least one offpeak path per hour could be squeezed out of the four platforms if necessary. The Nottingham fast is the only working formed of a 2+8 HST in the off-peak pattern and at present these wait for more than an hour at St Pancras before returning to Nottingham. Shortening that by an hour would make the turnaround too short, so at any offpeak moment Nottingham fasts are always occupying either one or two of the platforms. These turnarounds could be reduced to an ideal of 30min or so by either adjusting the timetable in one direction or having interchangeable stock "interworking" so it goes on to a different destination from the one it arrived from.

The problem is more the line capacity south of Bedford. Even if it runs to time, Thameslink has four trains per hour on the fast lines but they are slower than EMT. This tends to mean that EMT trains run every 15min or so, or in pairs about 3min apart with the second one making more stops. So currently out of St Pancras there is xx02 fast to Leicester, xx05 semi, xx31 fast to Leicester, xx34 fast to Market Harborough, xx47 Corby. There is nothing at xx17 but I assume that would have been the second Corby if electrification had been completed. I'm not sure if it's possible to run two paths close together around xx17 and xx47.

Digital Railway (ERTMS) might help a little but the main constraint is the different average speed of the trains trying to use the same track. More paths might be possible if the MML trains were slowed down to match the Thameslinks!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The problem is more the line capacity south of Bedford. Even if it runs to time, Thameslink has four trains per hour on the fast lines but they are slower than EMT.

Ah, thanks! I think that would be the explanation of the apparently very low capacity on the fast lines for EMT trains that I had been querying.

 

[Bald Rick]

That still doesn't make sense to me. We're talking an alleged maximum capacity of 6tph. That would be 1-and-a-half trains per hour per platform, which seems absurdly low. Let's say you want to be generous and give each train 20 minutes to wait at St. Pancras to be cleaned and recover from minor delays to incoming trains. That still means you could get 2tph per platform with a 10 minute gap between trains in each platform, total 8tph along the track. In practice, I'm sure you could squeeze a few more trains in by being flexible about which platforms trains use. Wouldn't that imply that you ought to be able to support about 10tph - on what look to me like quite reasonable margins between trains at St Pancras.

St Pancras isn’t the problem. However the fast lines between Radlett and West Hampstead South Jn will soon have 14tph in the peak (13 now) and between Harpenden and Radlett it will also be 14tph (down PM peak), with all the attendant slow - fast - slow crossing moves and the St Albans calls in the Thameslinks. The fast lines are absolutely full on this section. Even further north, the mix of traffic (ie differing stopping patterns), and the need to accommodate 2 freight paths an hour eats up line capacity. Essentially the MML is at capacity for the whole day.

How else could you increase train paths?

Build a new pair of tracks from the Euston Rd to Sheffield via the East Midlands.

 

[WideRanger]

If you want to get more stopping services north of Bedford, but capacity south of Bedford is the constraint, could a slow service start from Bedford (or from EWR eventually as suggested upthread, or from Luton Airport if the infrastructure allows it). Not sure how far it would get up the line before messing with following fast train paths.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

If you want to get more stopping services north of Bedford, but capacity south of Bedford is the constraint, could a slow service start from Bedford (or from EWR eventually as suggested upthread, or from Luton Airport if the infrastructure allows it). Not sure how far it would get up the line before messing with following fast train paths.

You could run an Oxford-Bedford-Nottingham or Sheffield services.

• 1tph: Bristol to Nottingham via Swindon, Bletchley, Bedford and Leicester
• 1tph: Reading to Sheffield via Bletchley, Bedford, Leicester and Derby

 

[tbtc]

I'm not going to argue about scope for additional platforms, the awkwardness of stopping south of Leicester (it's impossible to suit every market without the need to change) or how long dwell times should be (and certainly not discussing fantasy destinations for services to run to!) - all I will say is that the current timetable seems to be constrained by the different types of trains on the MML - you've got HST and four/five/seven/longer 222s.

If the EMR franchise only operates two types of train (EMUs for Corby, maybe some 125mph bi-modes for everything else?) then that'd make it much easier to turn things around at St P - currently a Nottingham arrival generally has to sit there to become a Nottingham departure but if all Long Distance High Speed trains were the same type then you'd have a much more fluid arrangement when it comes to platform dwells.

Uniform stock, uniform acceleration characteristics, no need for a "Derby"/"Nottingham" split in terms of staffing.

Build a new pair of tracks from the Euston Rd to Sheffield via the East Midlands.

Sounds good to me - presumably you'd want to build this to permit a relatively large velocity too?

 

[edwin_m]

If the EMR franchise only operates two types of train (EMUs for Corby, maybe some 125mph bi-modes for everything else?) then that'd make it much easier to turn things around at St P - currently a Nottingham arrival generally has to sit there to become a Nottingham departure but if all Long Distance High Speed trains were the same type then you'd have a much more fluid arrangement when it comes to platform dwells.

Yes indeed, although complicated by the mix of train lengths at present. A 125mph bi-mode would either have to be "full length" with lots of empty space on some workings, or "half length" with extra staffing costs and inconvenience to passengers who can't get between coupled units. A 110mph EMU, on the other hand, could probably get pretty close to existing schedules. Until it fell off the end of the wire somewhere beyond Kettering.

 

[Bald Rick]

Sounds good to me - presumably you'd want to build this to permit a relatively large velocity too?

Well, seeing as it would be effectively a new line, it may as well be quick. That would also give the opportunity to go via, say, another large metropolitan conurbation en route to the East Midlands and Yorkshire, to open up some new quick links between the regions.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

If you want to get more stopping services north of Bedford, but capacity south of Bedford is the constraint, could a slow service start from Bedford (or from EWR eventually as suggested upthread, or from Luton Airport if the infrastructure allows it). Not sure how far it would get up the line before messing with following fast train paths.

Much aired in the past , - but the layout and platform contraints and working at Bedford are challenging (and always have been) , a major rebuild to give another pair of platforms would be ideal , but challenging and the direct costs incurred would probably come knowhere near enough to cove the revenues of a northbound local starting service on the MML. (and please do not suggest a service serving the traffic desert north of Corby to Melton Mowbray) .....

On a more positive note - a center turnback between Bedford and Flitwick - somewhere around the moonscape of the ex clay pits would probably be do-able from a functionality point of view , but see point above regarding traffic objectives and possible revenues.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Much aired in the past , - but the layout and platform contraints and working at Bedford are challenging (and always have been) , a major rebuild to give another pair of platforms would be ideal , but challenging and the direct costs incurred would probably come knowhere near enough to cove the revenues of a northbound local starting service on the MML. (and please do not suggest a service serving the traffic desert north of Corby to Melton Mowbray) .....

On a more positive note - a center turnback between Bedford and Flitwick - somewhere around the moonscape of the ex clay pits would probably be do-able from a functionality point of view , but see point above regarding traffic objectives and possible revenues.

And possibly even more positive... If - as seems very plausible, a new Bedford Parkway station gets built south of Bedford to provide interchange with East-West rail, then you'd have the perfect opportunity to provide a turnback platform there as you build the station from scratch. And realistically, with East-West rail, that would be more logical place than the current Bedford station to terminate a Northbound local-ish service anyway.

Point taken about revenues, though from the POV of the Government, there are social and environmental objectives too. After all, I very much doubt the current Market Harborough rebuild stands any chance of repaying itself in revenue terms.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

One does wonder about the value of the Sundon Up freight loop - installed at considerable cost , and on a (rare) jaunt to Derby today observed it - in it's glory - looking rather rusty.

 

[edwin_m]

One does wonder about the value of the Sundon Up freight loop - installed at considerable cost , and on a (rare) jaunt to Derby today observed it - in it's glory - looking rather rusty.

And only half electrified, presumably as an overrun, so it can't even be used for overtaking a Thameslink.