Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Roade: There was a proposal for this many years ago, with the then County Council talking to Railtrack/Network Rail about it.
One of the sticking points being the size of the station. I believe that The council wanted a small station on the slow lines to provide a suburban station for the Towcester/South Northants catchment area; whereas Network Rail also wanted platforms on the fast lines so that that could be used for rail-replacement buses instead of Milton Keynes Central when the Northampton Loop was closed for engineering work.
Assuming that post HS2 Euston-Birmingham classic service is half hourly, and that non-commuter traffic returns to growth, then the priorities for Northampton would be:
1. to Birmingham half-hourly, fast COV-International-BHM. Possibly form a Wolves or Walsall/Rugeley stopper, no further.
2. To Euston half-hourly, fast MKC-Watford (probably continuation of 1)
3. Two more tph to MKC, continuing to 2 of - Euston semifast; West London Line; Oxford (electrified!)
4. Possibly 1tph via the Trent Valley, but that would depend on there being demand for 2tph there. If not, to Rugby - unless the basic 2tph provides for all the connections at Rugby. (If it's operationally convenient, 4tph to Rugby is fine but extremely generous).
(Long Buckby and Wolverton served by at least 1 fast Euston ph, and at least 2tph overall.)
Well if the classic service remains at 2tph - that's only 1 path freed up between Coventry and Birmingham, so I'd say of your priorities:
1 - There is already a half-hourly service to Birmingham, so are you saying an additional 2 - which would mean 4 tph between Northampton and Birmingham (no chance of there being the demand for that) or are you instead suggesting 2tph, of which 1 would be limited stop ?
2 - There was IIRC, pre Covid, 3tph (almost equally spaced) between Northampton & Euston. 3tph between Northampton and Euston feels about right, what *is* needed is a journey time improvement so that 2 of them cover the journey in 60 minutes or less. *EDIT* the 3rd train is being reintroduced as part of the December timetable change.
3 - No, there doesn't need to be 2 more between Northampton and MK and there's no chance of sending an Oxford service beyond Milton Keynes - capacity is the problem and I suspect will be even more so when the new rail connected distribution park opens (which is currently being built near Roade).
4 - North up the Trent Valley is the only obvious 'gap' for Northampton at present and one which it lost when London Midland decided to send the Crewe services via Weedon.
A better investment might be to get the linespeed on the Northampton loop improved so that sending services that way doesn't incur such a severe time penalty (using LNW currently it's ~23 mins MK - Rugby via Weedon, it's ~40 mins via Northampton).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Roade: There was a proposal for this many years ago, with the then County Council talking to Railtrack/Network Rail about it.
One of the sticking points being the size of the station. I believe that The council wanted a small station on the slow lines to provide a suburban station for the Towcester/South Northants catchment area; whereas Network Rail also wanted platforms on the fast lines so that that could be used for rail-replacement buses instead of Milton Keynes Central when the Northampton Loop was closed for engineering work.
On that one, I'd have been inclined to side with the council - building fast line platforms would have added ££££s to it and the prospect of rail replacement coaches running in and out of Roade en masse would not have been well received. MKC or Northampton are *far* better equipped to handle that.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Hi all. I'm Harry Burr - Chief Executive at Sustainable Transport Midlands. I'm also currently leading Daventry Parkway Project which is a campaign to reopen the railway station in Weedon Bec to serve Daventry post-HS2. You may've read about it in Modern Railways or BBC News.
If anyone is super interested and want to support the proposal and volunteer with my charity, please let me know too!
Also, to be a charity trustee you have to be over 16 - which by your own admission you are not, so you cannot even serve as a trustee at this time.
It would be more honest / accurate to refer to your organisation as a pressure group, community interest group or social enterprise.
If you are referring to your organisation as a charity and have sought or received funding on that basis then you may have done so under false pretences.
Northampton definitely does suffer from geography, and is surely a large town. But population does not have a full bearing on rail use and demand - the network possibilities do but more importantly the economy. See Bradford. But it's somewhat chicken and egg - and TTW paaterns may be based on rail possibilities.
In any case, it does seem to me that three things are true:
- Northampton could/should in time have services up the Trent Valley
- Northampton could work as an extension to Oxford-MKC services, even 1tph. Would give good connectivity. Or if Bedford-Bletchley ever reaches MKC. Conversely, I believe Southern should terminate at Watford Junction and be run by London Overground - so possibly workable.
- Rugby in the post HS2 WCML will have more terminators, as I recall - which would bode well for infill stations.
Post HS2 I think it might make sense to go back to running the Trent Valley local via Northampton and Stone/Stoke (and add Polesworth calls), but then to have the Manchester call at the main Trent Valley stations providing a faster replacement.
Post HS2 I think it might make sense to go back to running the Trent Valley local via Northampton and Stone/Stoke (and add Polesworth calls), but then to have the Manchester call at the main Trent Valley stations providing a faster replacement.
Not sure it does, not least because for Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield they will almost certainly get a quicker journey via a change to HS2 in the Birmingham area.
Not sure it does, not least because for Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield they will almost certainly get a quicker journey via a change to HS2 in the Birmingham area.
Well if the classic service remains at 2tph - that's only 1 path freed up between Coventry and Birmingham, so I'd say of your priorities:
1 - There is already a half-hourly service to Birmingham, so are you saying an additional 2 - which would mean 4 tph between Northampton and Birmingham (no chance of there being the demand for that) or are you instead suggesting 2tph, of which 1 would be limited stop ?
Neither. I am suggesting a much simpler pattern than today, with a half-hourly "fast" Birmingham instead of 3 slower ones.
The local service between Coventry and Birmingham could be the straightforward 2tph as it used to be, or 4tph of which 2 semi-fast.
That doesn't concern this thread directly, but if there is demand from Northampton/Rugby to the intermediate stations, then by all means extend one of the Coventry slows to Northampton.
Similarly, half-hourly fast plus one semi-fast Euston (as pre covid) plus one other - I don't think 4tph Northampton-MKC is excessive, but I may well be wrong...
Not when there is a significant journey time disadvantage. And the reality is if you run the TV services via Northampton even from Nuneaton that journey is getting on for 1 3/4 hours, and it's worse the further out you go.
Actually, even then. Nobody would use the through Euston-Brum-Scotland services from MK if that wasn't the case, as you can save half an hour by changing at Crewe (and the Advances are often cheaper with the change). People do use them.
There will be a tipping point, of course, but given how short Trent Valley-London is I can't imagine many going via Brum other than the novelty "let's go on HS2 once" factor.
Not when there is a significant journey time disadvantage. And the reality is if you run the TV services via Northampton even from Nuneaton that journey is getting on for 1 3/4 hours, and it's worse the further out you go.
I think the point being made though is that Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield would have stops in an hourly London to Manchester service that didn't go via Northampton and there would be a Northampton to Stafford local for the other stations, a bit like the old days when a 153 provided an infrequent service on the Trent Valley, but hourly instead.
I think the point being made though is that Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield would have stops in a London to Manchester service and there would be a Northampton to Stafford local
Yes, the suggestion is that the Euston-Manchester could do the main TV stations i.e. Lichfield, Tamworth and Nuneaton, and possibly Rugeley.
There is nothing* to be gained by having a Northampton to Stafford local as a standalone service when you could join it to a Northampton-Euston. Which is where most of these proposals fall down - if you have England's first and second cities at each end of a route, why on earth would you do short workings that didn't involve either?
* OK, at the moment only one service is joined across Northampton per hour, but that is to reduce knock-on due to COVID short staffing, not a long term thing.
Yes, the suggestion is that the Euston-Manchester could do the main TV stations i.e. Lichfield, Tamworth and Nuneaton, and possibly Rugeley.
There is nothing to be gained by having a Northampton to Stafford local as a standalone service when you could join it to a Northampton-Euston. Which is where most of these proposals fall down - if you have England's first and second cities at each end of a route, why on earth would you do short workings that didn't involve either?
Bay platforms at Northampton exist which are perfect for such a service. Otherwise you have to mess around with joining and dividing trains which confuses occasional travellers no end and creates a performance risk
Just because you have a piece of infrastructure doesn't mean it makes sense to use it!
People on the Trent Valley do not give a monkey's about Northampton. They want to go to London (or Birmingham, but that's different routes or the bus). So give them a direct service to it, even if it runs via Northampton because an "Avanti" has picked up some of the major stops.
Northampton has a large population, but it is not an important traffic sink, it is primarily a traffic source. So Northampton-Brum makes sense, but Northampton-Trent Valley doesn't - you're joining traffic sources without linking them to a traffic sink. That's why the old Trent Valley 153 was a one man, dog and bicycle service, and why the replacement is an 8-car 350 often very heavily loaded.
No - the old Trent Valley 153 service was an extension to the Coventry - Nuneaton service which I don't even think ran hourly, IIRC it was 2 hourly and had lousy connections - that's why it wasn't well used. But then again the "Inter City" services which stopped at Nuneaton, Tamworth and Lichfield weren't exactly well used either, which does rather put pay to your argument that it needs an Avanti style of service. The LM / LNW 350 service has been *far* more popular and *far* more successful.
No point in running it to Manchester - that's just using up capacity unnecessarily, particularly on the East Cheshire line where any removal of Avanti services *will* be met with the demand for more services between Stoke and Manchester, which is currently hourly. Keep it with LNW and run it to / from Stafford would make far more sense.
As ever, you're "narrow focused" on a specific problem, in this case the TV stations, without looking more widely on the end to end route you're conjuring up.
No point in running it to Manchester - that's just using up capacity unnecessarily, particularly on the East Cheshire line where any removal of Avanti services *will* be met with the demand for more services between Stoke and Manchester, which is currently hourly. Keep it with LNW and run it to / from Stafford would make far more sense.
As ever, you're "narrow focused" on a specific problem, in this case the TV stations, without looking more widely on the end to end route you're conjuring up.
Also, to be a charity trustee you have to be over 16 - which by your own admission you are not, so you cannot even serve as a trustee at this time.
It would be more honest / accurate to refer to your organisation as a pressure group, community interest group or social enterprise.
If you are referring to your organisation as a charity and have sought or received funding on that basis then you may have done so under false pretences.
No disrespect to the OP but what we have here appears to be a teenager very skilled at creating a website. A very good, striking website. But nothing more than that - I note that the "Our People" section lists around 70 positions within the organisation of which only one is filled.
It barely seems to qualify as an organisation; I don't see any way it can be described as a charity.
I'm working on a new proposal called "ConnectNorthampton", with the main concept being to build up new services through Northampton, mainly on the Rugby - Northampton - Milton Keynes Central - Bletchley corridor, with certain regional services being introduced too.
But looking at Northampton's existing rail services it already has reasonable services along the WCML, connecting it to the towns you mention and the main rail hubs of London and Birmingham. While it may lack direct services to some of the towns and cities further north along the WCML, with connections at Rugby and Birmingham, these are still easily reachable with competitive journey times. Sure you could add some services or make some changes, but it's all pretty marginal stuff because anyone want to travel along the WCML, to the North West, West Midlands, or West from Birmingham is already well served.
Where rail connections are lacking and in dire need of improvement is for journeys heading north or east, there is no remotely competitive rail option for travel along the M1 corridor to Leicester, Loughborough, Nottingham, Derby, or east over to Peterborough, or the other Northamptonshire county towns and of course, all the potential destinations from connections at these towns are ruled out. Sure you may be able to get a train to some of these but the routes are so round about and the journey times so long that they're hopelessly uncompetitive compared to jumping in the car and taking the M1 north, or A-roads east.
Something that hasn't really been addressed is what happens to freight? They've got to meet various times at Manchester, Willesden, Shap etc so being forced through Northampton in whatever space is left over is unlikely to be popular.
On a note to the OP - it's useful to include your proposed frequencies rather than 'metro', because that could mean a whole range of things. From what you've put, I just can't see the economic case stacking up given the increase in stock and crew you'd need, even before the infrastructure changes to accommodate your proposed service level (especially at terminating points). New Stations cost tens of millions of pounds even for simple two-platform affairs, so you'll need to have a large source of untapped business before anybody's going to start chipping in with money.
Also forget any suggestion of Marylebone trains going onto EWR. It doesn't make operational, public service, or financial sense.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
