St Pancras - MML platforms

[4-SUB 4732]

That’s about £2-3bn with the only benefit apparently being being able to stop an extra 2tph at West Hampstead in the standard hour, compared to the 8 tph today. This is up with Aberystwth to Carmarthen in terms of business cases...

I think that’s obtuse. There’s no doubt we need the extra capacity and the Bedford re-build ready for EWRL; as well as grade separation. Places like Leicester and Nottingham need decent journey times to London even after HS2, and Thameslink passengers need greater punctuality and the removal of flat junctions (which wouldn’t all be so bad if they weren't single lead!).

 

[Bald Rick]

I think that’s obtuse. There’s no doubt we need the extra capacity and the Bedford re-build ready for EWRL; as well as grade separation. Places like Leicester and Nottingham need decent journey times to London even after HS2, and Thameslink passengers need greater punctuality and the removal of flat junctions (which wouldn’t all be so bad if they weren't single lead!).

It’s not obtuse, it’s fact. How would such a proposal improve journey times? It would increase capacity in any meaningful way.

The flat junctions work pretty well all things considered. They are not a significant cause of delay or pathing time. What does cause delay and pathing time (and I see it daily) is the mix of services on the fast lines from Harpenden to West Hampstead, which this would do nothing to solve.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

It’s not obtuse, it’s fact. How would such a proposal improve journey times? It would increase capacity in any meaningful way.

The flat junctions work pretty well all things considered. They are not a significant cause of delay or pathing time. What does cause delay and pathing time (and I see it daily) is the mix of services on the fast lines from Harpenden to West Hampstead, which this would do nothing to solve.

Improved journey times caused by things like slightly shorter junction occupation times, not needing to put as much Thameslink onto the fasts at Harpenden, not needing to wait at Carlton Road (etc.), it's very plausible.

All told, it will improve capacity overall.

 

[Class 170101]

I think that’s obtuse. There’s no doubt we need the extra capacity and the Bedford re-build ready for EWRL; as well as grade separation. Places like Leicester and Nottingham need decent journey times to London even after HS2, and Thameslink passengers need greater punctuality and the removal of flat junctions (which wouldn’t all be so bad if they weren't single lead!).

It’s not obtuse, it’s fact. How would such a proposal improve journey times? It would increase capacity in any meaningful way.

The flat junctions work pretty well all things considered. They are not a significant cause of delay or pathing time. What does cause delay and pathing time (and I see it daily) is the mix of services on the fast lines from Harpenden to West Hampstead, which this would do nothing to solve.

Improved journey times caused by things like slightly shorter junction occupation times, not needing to put as much Thameslink onto the fasts at Harpenden, not needing to wait at Carlton Road (etc.), it's very plausible.
All told, it will improve capacity overall.

There is obviously a benefit in flying Junctions over at grade ones otherwise one wouldn't have been built at Hitchin. Whether the cost can be justified is another matter, but unfortunately the Thameslink timetable seems to have hard wired lots of timing points timetable wise on the MML and possibly elsewhere.

 

[Ianno87]

There is obviously a benefit in flying Junctions over at grade ones otherwise one wouldn't have been built at Hitchin. Whether the cost can be justified is another matter, but unfortunately the Thameslink timetable seems to have hard wired lots of timing points timetable wise on the MML and possibly elsewhere.

OK, so what is the Thameslink timetable *not* achieving that could definitely, absolutely solved by grade separating the MML junctions?

 

[Class 170101]

OK, so what is the Thameslink timetable *not* achieving that could definitely, absolutely solved by grade separating the MML junctions?

One would hope it would loosen the timetable somewhat perhaps and make it more relaible and less reliant on its pinchpoints at junctions in this case.

 

[Ianno87]

One would hope it would loosen the timetable somewhat perhaps and make it more relaible and less reliant on its pinchpoints at junctions in this case.

But the timetable *is* reliable and accounts for the flat junctions alreasy.

 

[Class 170101]

But the timetable *is* reliable and accounts for the flat junctions alreasy.

It does, but its not optimised as you know, given the extended MML journey times what was 2hrs Sheffield to London is now nearer 2hrs 10 mins.

 

[Ianno87]

It does, but its not optimised as you know, given the extended MML journey times what was 2hrs Sheffield to London is now nearer 2hrs 10 mins.

EMR's timetable recast of the north end of the route will recify that. It's like an elastic band. May 2018 twisted the southern end, Dec 2020 (or whenever it happens post-Covid) will untwist it from the northern end.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is obviously a benefit in flying Junctions over at grade ones otherwise one wouldn't have been built at Hitchin. Whether the cost can be justified is another matter, but unfortunately the Thameslink timetable seems to have hard wired lots of timing points timetable wise on the MML and possibly elsewhere.

Hitchin was different. A train on the down slow heading to Cambridge on the flat needs a path across 3 lines, two of which are up lines which makes it harder.

On the MML, any flat crossing needs a path across only 2 lines, only one of which is the opposite direction. And because the people who designed the MML junctions knew what they were doing, most of them operate in parallel with the adjacent junction, (eg Radlett up, Harpenden Down; WH South, Carlton Rd Down), and/or are adjacent to stations so the junction margin is partly covered by a station call.

The MML timetable for 2018 was a rush job and bodged a bit, for reasons that will eventually be told. (Possibly in my book, if I ever write it). The “Dec 20” timetable is much better.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

OK, so what is the Thameslink timetable *not* achieving that could definitely, absolutely solved by grade separating the MML junctions?

I think it’s more the obvious north of St Pancras which is single-lead crossovers on routes that are Down/Up/Down/Up, whereas the much more sensibly configured GN is Down/Down/Up/Up.

Double lead crossovers, even, would at least mean a slightly late up service not detaining a down service on the Down Fast at Harpenden or Radlett as an Intercity comes screaming down behind it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Double lead crossovers, even, would at least mean a slightly late up service not detaining a down service on the Down Fast at Harpenden or Radlett as an Intercity comes screaming down behind it.

Not sure I understand how a double junction would solve that.

As an aside I personally looked into the provision of double junctions at Radlett when they were up for renewal a decade ago, and it is simply not possible st Radlett - the junction would have to move (which makes it less useful).

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Not sure I understand how a double junction would solve that.

As an aside I personally looked into the provision of double junctions at Radlett when they were up for renewal a decade ago, and it is simply not possible st Radlett - the junction would have to move (which makes it less useful).

In theory the MML south will need hefty investment in any event, including for example a bay platform at St Albans, and with far more platforms at Bedford for a combination of Thameslink punctuality and EWRL (and freight).

Grade separation, whilst supposedly unnecessary, is important not least for not needing to hold something up when the timetable slips slightly but also in the context of potentially being able to use a flyover as a ‘regulating point‘ is equally good.

 

[43096]

EMR's timetable recast of the north end of the route will recify that. It's like an elastic band. May 2018 twisted the southern end, Dec 2020 (or whenever it happens post-Covid) will untwist it from the northern end.

It’s still going to be slower than it would have been if the timetable hadn’t been sacrificed to the great god Thameslink. Personally, I’d just tell Thameslink they can only use the slow lines (“local lines for local people”) and have proper fast services on the fast lines.

 

[London Trains]

It’s still going to be slower than it would have been if the timetable hadn’t been sacrificed to the great god Thameslink. Personally, I’d just tell Thameslink they can only use the slow lines (“local lines for local people”) and have proper fast services on the fast lines.

Really. So you want to completely ruin services at Bedford, Flitwick, Harlington, Leagrave, Luton, Luton Airport Parkway, Harpenden and St Albans (one of the biggest commuter flows into London) for a relatively small amount of long distance passengers. Dont get me wrong, faster EMR services would be very beneficial, but Thameslink trains on the fast lines carry a lot more passengers than EMR services.

 

[RT4038]

Really. So you want to completely ruin services at Bedford, Flitwick, Harlington, Leagrave, Luton, Luton Airport Parkway, Harpenden and St Albans (one of the biggest commuter flows into London) for a relatively small amount of long distance passengers. Dont get me wrong, faster EMR services would be very beneficial, but Thameslink trains on the fast lines carry a lot more passengers than EMR services.

Possibly the idea is for EMR trains from Sheffield, Nottingham etc to stop at and provide the express services from the stations you mention? I thought not! Of course, it could be that the poster lives in one of these far away places and has no thought or concern for the numerically much greater local trade?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The reality is that due the exceptional emphasis on Midland Main Line ’commuter‘ traffic having to use the Core only (ECML has Moorgate and Kings Cross so can spread about with plenty of terminal capacity), you’re always going to be stuck needing to prioritise punctuality of Thameslink trains. That doesn’t mean to say, however, you couldn’t add recovery time in and extend journey times by 2-3 minutes at peak from St Albans to St Pancras if it means being able to improve pathing for East Midlands stuff with some trains staying on the slows for a bit longer.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

It’s still going to be slower than it would have been if the timetable hadn’t been sacrificed to the great god Thameslink. Personally, I’d just tell Thameslink they can only use the slow lines (“local lines for local people”) and have proper fast services on the fast lines.

Not possible without slowing the fast services significantly. Thameslink Fast services are very popular!

 

[Ianno87]

The reality is that due the exceptional emphasis on Midland Main Line ’commuter‘ traffic having to use the Core only (ECML has Moorgate and Kings Cross so can spread about with plenty of terminal capacity), you’re always going to be stuck needing to prioritise punctuality of Thameslink trains. That doesn’t mean to say, however, you couldn’t add recovery time in and extend journey times by 2-3 minutes at peak from St Albans to St Pancras if it means being able to improve pathing for East Midlands stuff with some trains staying on the slows for a bit longer.

'Staying on the slows a bit longer' means getting stuck behind a stopper and adding 10 minutes at least.

 

[Bald Rick]

In theory the MML south will need hefty investment in any event, including for example a bay platform at St Albans, and with far more platforms at Bedford for a combination of Thameslink punctuality and EWRL (and freight).

Grade separation, whilst supposedly unnecessary, is important not least for not needing to hold something up when the timetable slips slightly but also in the context of potentially being able to use a flyover as a ‘regulating point‘ is equally good.

Firstly, there will never be a bay platfrom at St Albans. It would be ridiculously expensive for next to no benefit.

Secondly, I still don’t understand why you think grade separation is necessary, let alone justified. In your estimation, how much would performance improve if grade separation was introduced?

It’s still going to be slower than it would have been if the timetable hadn’t been sacrificed to the great god Thameslink. Personally, I’d just tell Thameslink they can only use the slow lines (“local lines for local people”) and have proper fast services on the fast lines.

Given that under normal circumstances at peak times there are, roughly, 6 times as many Thameslink passengers on the fast lines than EMR passengers, and the Thameslink passengers contribute considerably more financially than EMR passengers, you’re wrong. Besides, there isn’t sufficient capacity on the slow lines.

That doesn’t mean to say, however, you couldn’t add recovery time in and extend journey times by 2-3 minutes at peak from St Albans to St Pancras if it means being able to improve pathing for East Midlands stuff ...

Precisely what was done for TL services in the May18 rewrite.

 

[43096]

Not possible without slowing the fast services significantly. Thameslink Fast services are very popular!

The proper fast services - those run by EMR - were slowed significantly to run Thameslink. How's that any different?

 

[43096]

Really. So you want to completely ruin services at Bedford, Flitwick, Harlington, Leagrave, Luton, Luton Airport Parkway, Harpenden and St Albans (one of the biggest commuter flows into London) for a relatively small amount of long distance passengers. Dont get me wrong, faster EMR services would be very beneficial, but Thameslink trains on the fast lines carry a lot more passengers than EMR services.

Possibly the idea is for EMR trains from Sheffield, Nottingham etc to stop at and provide the express services from the stations you mention? I thought not! Of course, it could be that the poster lives in one of these far away places and has no thought or concern for the numerically much greater local trade?

I don't live anywhere near the route, so that detonates your theory for a start!

Looking off-peak, there are currently 5 (to be 6) EMR services, with 10 Thameslink that I can see. Of those 10 TL, 4 run fast line, so there are currently 9 fast line (to be 10) and 6 slow line. In any case the fast service to Luton and Bedford is EMR, and will go up to 2 trains per hour with the new timetable using 12-car trains. It has to be the wrong way round to fit 10tph on the fasts and 6tph on the slows. Worse, two of the fast Thameslinks call at West Hampstead TL - there really should be nothing calling there on the fast line, it just kills performance. If there is to be anything TL fast line it really ought to be fast St Pancras to St Albans.

 

[Bald Rick]

The proper fast services - those run by EMR - were slowed significantly to run Thameslink. How's that any different?

Define ‘significant’. Most EMR services were not slowed by Thameslink services at all. A handful in the peak had a few minutes added.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't live anywhere near the route, so that detonates your theory for a start!

Off to a good start. I’ve used the line for the best part of 2 decades, and live within sight of it. And had involvement in the timetable on and off for nearly half of it.

Looking off-peak, there are currently 5 (to be 6) EMR services, with 10 Thameslink that I can see. Of those 10 TL, 4 run fast line, so there are currently 9 fast line (to be 10) and 6 slow line. In any case the fast service to Luton and Bedford is EMR, and will go up to 2 trains per hour with the new timetable using 12-car trains. It has to be the wrong way round to fit 10tph on the fasts and 6tph on the slows.

Presumably your view is the same of the WCML, ECML, GWML and GEML, all of which have more trains on their ‘Fast’ lines than their ‘Slow’ lines? Spot the trend?

 

[43096]

Define ‘significant’. Most EMR services were not slowed by Thameslink services at all. A handful in the peak had a few minutes added.

Slowed enough that it needed EMT to lease extra trains. I'm not sure why it is seen as acceptable to slow long distance trains down? It's a backwards step.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't live anywhere near the route, so that detonates your theory for a start!

Looking off-peak, there are currently 5 (to be 6) EMR services, with 10 Thameslink that I can see. Of those 10 TL, 4 run fast line, so there are currently 9 fast line (to be 10) and 6 slow line. In any case the fast service to Luton and Bedford is EMR, and will go up to 2 trains per hour with the new timetable using 12-car trains. It has to be the wrong way round to fit 10tph on the fasts and 6tph on the slows. Worse, two of the fast Thameslinks call at West Hampstead TL - there really should be nothing calling there on the fast line, it just kills performance. If there is to be anything TL fast line it really ought to be fast St Pancras to St Albans.

Off to a good start. I’ve used the line for the best part of 2 decades, and live within sight of it.




Presumably your view is the same of the WCML, ECML, GWML and GEML, all of which have more trains on their ‘Fast’ lines than their ‘Slow’ lines? Spot the trend?

Of course, a simple explanation for that. Trains on the Slow Lines stop and thus have dwell times, so consume more capacity than trains flying along at line speed. So 6tph stopping probably balances out with 10tph in the overal level of capacity used.

Therefore it makes sense to keep all the non-stopping trains together on the Fast Lines as the most economical use of capacity.

 

[Bald Rick]

Slowed enough that it needed EMT to lease extra trains. I'm not sure why it is seen as acceptable to slow long distance trains down? It's a backwards step.

Extra trains that were paid for by DfT, because that’s what they wanted. It’s a short term measure, as has been explained upthread. And, significantly, it resulted in an overall benefit to passengers on the route as a whole.

 

[43096]

Therefore it makes sense to keep all the non-stopping trains together on the Fast Lines as the most economical use of capacity.

A train that stops at West Hampstead TL on the fast lines is not "non-stopping".

 

[43096]

Extra trains that were paid for by DfT, because that’s what they wanted. It’s a short term measure, as has been explained upthread. And, significantly, it resulted in an overall benefit to passengers on the route as a whole.

Ah, that's OK then. The magic money tree pays.

Overall benefit? I seem to remember there were some rather unhappy Bedford passengers at losing their fast trains to London as a result.

 

[Ianno87]

A train that stops at West Hampstead TL on the fast lines is not "non-stopping".

All of, what, two trains an hour? Still consumes less capacity than the 6-8 stopping on the Slows.