Future MML services post HS2 and capacity through Trent junctions

[MidlandMainlie]

This IRP seems bad news for Leicester. I expect Services North will be fewer and downgraded with all the HS2 services taking up space from EM Parkway northwards. In terms of the Midland Rail Hub, Leicester seems to have been dropped from this in terms of the text in the IRP. Not surprising as with Birmingham to Nottingham sorted by the new High Speed Line they probably think they no longer need to bother with Leicester. In the future it will take double the time to get to Birmingham from Leicester compared with from Nottingham. Leicester should get electrification but that is something they now need to do anyway with HS2 services planned to join MML at Parkway.

Having said this I absolutely agree that Nottingham in particular should get improved services in the future. When you look at the services they have had in recent years to London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds they have all been too slow and I was never a great fan of the originally proposed HS2 services requiring change at Toton onto other connecting services.

Leicester currently has 4 interccity sevices an hour to London, 2 of which continue to Nottingham and 2 to Derby/Sheffield. The fastest services will transfer to HS2 but I still think there will be at least 1 legacy Intercity service from Nottingham and Derby/Sheffield to Leicester (with a call at Loughborough) then on to St Pancras to maintain connectivity between the East Midlands cities. The other two services from St Pancras could terminate at Leicester Station.

Ideally you would want 2 trains per hour between each of Derby and Nottingham to Leicester (excluding the Ivanhoe stopper) but it all depends on how much capacity through Trent there is for HS2 services and legacy services on the MML.

 

[quantinghome]

Having said this I absolutely agree that Nottingham in particular should get improved services in the future. When you look at the services they have had in recent years to London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds they have all been too slow and I was never a great fan of the originally proposed HS2 services requiring change at Toton onto other connecting services.

IPR has pros and cons for Nottingham

Pro:
Fast direct services from London and Birmingham. By the 2040s.
Significant improvement to the North-West with a change at Birmingham Interchange (assuming services stop there).

Con:
No improvement to Yorkshire and the North-East. Probably worse given the additional fast services planned to run to Sheffield.
HS2 services will be 200m length (confirmed by IRP seating capacity chart), that is LOWER seat capacity than currently planned Aurora services from 2023. Capacity improvement reliant on continuation of current level of conventional intercity services.
No opportunity for east midlands local metro-frequency services.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2021 ==

Leicester currently has 4 interccity sevices an hour to London, 2 of which continue to Nottingham and 2 to Derby/Sheffield. The fastest services will transfer to HS2 but I still think there will be at least 1 legacy Intercity service from Nottingham and Derby/Sheffield to Leicester (with a call at Loughborough) then on to St Pancras to maintain connectivity between the East Midlands cities. The other two services from St Pancras could terminate at Leicester Station.

Ideally you would want 2 trains per hour between each of Derby and Nottingham to Leicester (excluding the Ivanhoe stopper) but it all depends on how much capacity through Trent there is for HS2 services and legacy services on the MML.

Looking at the IRP, conventional seating capacity to the East Midlands is planned to be higher than it is today, so I don't think we'll see a significant reduction at all. But as you point out, quite how this is planned to fit on the existing lines north of EM parkway is anyone's guess.

 

[adamedwards]

Is the lower capacity of a 200m HS2 set a big problem? At the moment a train from Nottingham to St Pancras has to have empty space for Loughborough and Leicester passengers when it departs Nottingham. The HS2 train does not and can be fully booked to Old Oak Common and London only, so capacity is probably broadly the same.

 

[quantinghome]

Is the lower capacity of a 200m HS2 set a big problem? At the moment a train from Nottingham to St Pancras has to have empty space for Loughborough and Leicester passengers when it departs Nottingham. The HS2 train does not and can be fully booked to Old Oak Common and London only, so capacity is probably broadly the same.

Will the Nottingham-London trains stop at Birmingham Interchange? If so the same issue presents itself.

But in essence it depends what we are wanting the railways in general, and HS2 in particular, to achieve. The IRP plan for the East Midlands would see a 65% increase in capacity by the 2040s over the 2023 level (when the Auroras come into service) and having both fast services to London and decent connections along the existing MML is good. But as demand for rail travel is now rebounding from the covid dip, it's increasingly apparent that there will be no permanent drop in rail use and we would expect the long term trend of increasing demand for rail to resume. A 65% increase may represent the general growth in demand for rail over two decades, but it won't be a game changer. It won't allow for a big modal shift to happen.

 

[edwin_m]

As far as I understand it, the HS2 trains will be either 400m long or 200m long. Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield can take 300m long trains at present but have very limited scope for lengthening platforms.

This raises a significant capacity problem. Assuming EMR will use doubled-up Auroras (Class 810) at peak times, this provides around 600 seats per train to Nottingham and Derby. However HS2 200m trains are spec'd for 550 seats. So we're actually looking at a capacity REDUCTION if HS2 is only running 200m long trains on the eastern spur, when they should be looking to double capacity.

Solutions are: run longer trains up to the current maximum permitted by the existing platforms. This will complicate HS2's strategy of using a common size fleet. Or at great expense increase platform lengths to 400m at Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield. Chesterfield? Who knows. Probably getting skipped anyway to meet the government's commitment to fast Sheffield services.

One of the plethora of other threads suggests that platform 7 at Nottingham could take 400m by making it a dead end, and presumably the provision for a platform 8 alongside it could also, with some land acquisition and demolition of dispensable-looking buildings. But I'm not sure Nottingham really needs 400m provision unless there's some plan to continue the trains onto the ECML by a new curve at Newark - in which case the dead end solution wouldn't work.

Looking at the IRP, conventional seating capacity to the East Midlands is planned to be higher than it is today, so I don't think we'll see a significant reduction at all. But as you point out, quite how this is planned to fit on the existing lines north of EM parkway is anyone's guess.

That may depend on what's meant by "today". Auroras will increase capacity compared to today's mishmash.

 

[quantinghome]

That may depend on what's meant by "today". Auroras will increase capacity compared to today's mishmash.

Squinting at the IRP's seating capacity chart for the East Midlands, it looks to be about 1800 'conventional intercity' seats. That's equivalent to 3 doubled-up Auroras, so possibly a reduction in one train per hour compared to EMR's 2023 plan.

 

[Domh245]

Squinting at the IRP's seating capacity chart for the East Midlands, it looks to be about 1800 'conventional intercity' seats. That's equivalent to 3 doubled-up Auroras, so possibly a reduction in one train per hour compared to EMR's 2023 plan.

It depends on whether that chart is showing peak or average seats per hour. With the fleet size ordered, around half of EMR's intercity service can be run as doubles, with the rest running as singles. Over an average hour* that means 2 doubles and 2 singles (equivalent to 3 doubles) - which implies no change


* timetabling as it is, a service working an AM peak service to London also works a PM peak service away from London, which may lead to the number of seats per hour doubling and halving throughout the day to match peak flows, if they don't try to balance it out in any way

 

[21C101]

It depends on whether that chart is showing peak or average seats per hour. With the fleet size ordered, around half of EMR's intercity service can be run as doubles, with the rest running as singles. Over an average hour* that means 2 doubles and 2 singles (equivalent to 3 doubles) - which implies no change


* timetabling as it is, a service working an AM peak service to London also works a PM peak service away from London, which may lead to the number of seats per hour doubling and halving throughout the day to match peak flows, if they don't try to balance it out in any way

It amuses me that splitting HS2 trains at places like EMP or Carstairs is taken for granted.

Suggest the following and you will hear deafening squealing that it cant be done for a million and one reasons:
- once the MML is electrified and HS2 east is built to Toton that you could recover a couple of MML paths to London by running 12 Car trains from St Pancras to Luton A, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough and Kettering then splitting into four cars to Corby and Eight to Leicester

(plus a couple of fasts to Leicester, then Loughborough and East Midlands Parkway with one each to Beeston and Nott and Long Easton, Derby, Chesterfield and Sheffield).

 

[edwin_m]

It amuses me that splitting HS2 trains at places like EMP or Carstairs is taken for granted.

Suggest the following and you will hear deafening squealing that it cant be done for a million and one reasons:
- once the MML is electrified and HS2 east is built to Toton that you could recover a couple of MML paths to London by running 12 Car trains from St Pancras to Luton A, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough and Kettering then splitting into four cars to Corby and Eight to Leicester

(plus a couple of fasts to Leicester, then Loughborough and East Midlands Parkway with one each to Beeston and Nott and Long Easton, Derby, Chesterfield and Sheffield).

But if the MML capacity is limited to 6TPH and the train length is limited to 12 cars, you don't get any extra capacity by splitting one of the trains.

I'd guess the MML south of Leicester would look very much as it does now, but the slow paths would probably be the ones continuing beyond Loughborough, to provide connectivity to intermediate stations. Quite likely these would make at least one stop south of Wellingborough too. That would provide most of the direct connections that require a change in the current timetable, without the bother of splitting and joining.

 

[Western Sunset]

I can't see how the MML wouldn't still continue to provide direct fast services from Loughborough (expanding town with a well-regarded university) and Leicester (with its large hinterland) both south to London and north to Sheffield

 

[Nottingham59]

I'm not sure Nottingham really needs 400m provision

Though if it is feasible, then it would make sense to safeguard the really small area of non-railway land that would be needed. Otherwise the Nottingham HS2 service will always under-utilise Euston capacity, or always have to split and join somewhere.

I understand platforms 1 and 3 at Nottingham were 409m long before the latest remodelling.

 

[Western Sunset]

But now that more of the "classic" network will be traversed by HS2 trains, does the 400m train length (or x2 200m) have to be set in stone? Granted you could just about get 400m with new platforms on the south side of Nottm station, and the east side of Derby (don't know about Sheffield though). Just as Thameslink has long and short units, might it be better to go with 300m units rather than mess around with dividing trains or having two 200m units with no connection between them?

 

[Nottingham59]

might it be better to go with 300m units

It probably would, but that would be an inefficient use of the capacity at Old Oak Common and Euston that has been/is being built. Far better to plan - or at least make passive provision for - 400m trains throughout the HS2 network.

 

[Ken H]

This is all very well. But what about the local journeys? Leicester - long eaton, Derby - loughborough etc. These are important to many people and should not be ignored. Not everyone goes to London a lot.

 

[edwin_m]

This is all very well. But what about the local journeys? Leicester - long eaton, Derby - loughborough etc. These are important to many people and should not be ignored. Not everyone goes to London a lot.

I think most on this thread agree some level of service will remain on the MML to provide for those intermediate journeys. Certainly south of Derby and Nottingham it won't be much short of what is is today.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I'm going to stick my neck out here and suggest that a lot more thinking about the implications for Trent Junction & surrounding area has happened here since the announcement of cancellation than happened at DfT beforehand.

Whilst HS2 services into the centre of Nottingham & Derby seems better for those travellers, agree with the idea that few of the current paths around Trent will be freed up.

For this reason, I'm assuming that HS2 will have its own platforms at East Mids Parkway to the West of the current station and presumably further grade separation to help services cross the junction complex.

If thew new Toton station is to have any service at all, that would only further stretch capacity, whether these trains are going to East Mids Parkway, or where passengers actually want (Nottingham/Derby). The basic 2 platforms and a bus shelter that they'll get is also unlikely to drive the business relocations and regeneration that the Toton plan envisaged. Of course the you could imagine a huge amount of new development around East Mids parkway, but to the West of current parkway, it is very low-lying and close to the River Soar, so hopefully the drainage engineers know what they're doing.

I do wonder if the IRP is being a bit disingenuous with passenger capacities. After all the classic 'London-East Mids' capacity, which is unaffected by HS2, could allow London trains to start/terminate at Leicester, because Leicester is still in the East Midlands...

 

[PTR 444]

For HS2, I would have 2tph between London Euston and East Midlands Parkway splitting into two 200m portions to Nottingham and Sheffield. The Sheffield portion would skip Derby and run via the Erewash Valley but still call at Chesterfield.

For the classic MML, I would have a 2tph express between St Pancras and Derby* calling only at Leicester, Loughborough and East Midlands Parkway. This would be followed by a 2tph semi-fast to Nottingham calling at Luton Airport, Bedford, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, EMD and Beeston. I would also run an extra Ivanhoe Line stopper to Derby in addition to the one which currently goes to Nottingham and Lincoln.

*1tph of these could continue to Sheffield and Leeds, and the other to Manchester via Uttoxeter and Macclesfield.

 

[Peterthegreat]

For HS2, I would have 2tph between London Euston and East Midlands Parkway splitting into two 200m portions to Nottingham and Sheffield. The Sheffield portion would skip Derby and run via the Erewash Valley but still call at Chesterfield.

For the classic MML, I would have a 2tph express between St Pancras and Derby* calling only at Leicester, Loughborough and East Midlands Parkway. This would be followed by a 2tph semi-fast to Nottingham calling at Luton Airport, Bedford, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, EMD and Beeston. I would also run an extra Ivanhoe Line stopper to Derby in addition to the one which currently goes to Nottingham and Lincoln.

*1tph of these could continue to Sheffield and Leeds, and the other to Manchester via Uttoxeter and Macclesfield.

So Derby would get a slower service to London than now? You also assume the Erewash would be electrified.

 

[edwin_m]

I repeat, there's no reason to split at East Midlands Parkway, probably not even if London-Leeds trains somehow still use HS2. The absence of York/Newcastle trains will free up paths out of Euston.

Sheffield trains will go via Derby and those paths are already in the service plan. Out of London it's only the Nottingham trains that will be added.

 

[PTR 444]

I repeat, there's no reason to split at East Midlands Parkway, probably not even if London-Leeds trains somehow still use HS2. The absence of York/Newcastle trains will free up paths out of Euston.

Sheffield trains will go via Derby and those paths are already in the service plan. Out of London it's only the Nottingham trains that will be added.

In that case maybe it would be better to send the classic MML expresses to Nottingham (they could still be faster than now by skipping Kettering and Market Harborough), then have my proposed St Pancras - Leicester semi-fasts continue to Derby.

That way it would be feasible to run all HS2 Sheffield trains via Derby without splitting

 

[edwin_m]

In that case maybe it would be better to send the classic MML expresses to Nottingham (they could still be faster than now by skipping Kettering and Market Harborough), then have my proposed St Pancras - Leicester semi-fasts continue to Derby.

That way it would be feasible to run all HS2 Sheffield trains via Derby without splitting

I think the remaining St Pancras to Nottingham and Derby/Sheffield service makes more sense as an extension of the semi-fasts, because passengers using these trains north of Loughborough will be making intermediate journeys not travelling to London. We might even see the fasts turning back at Leicester and Loughborough.

 

[21C101]

Separate HS2 platforms (with through lines) at EMP and quite complex grade separated interface at Trent with HS2 has to be a given to make it work.

As to Toton, I imagine it would be served by rerouting Notts to Sheffield stoppers via Toton instead of the more direct route to Trowell. Remember when BR wanted to route all Notts Sheff that way and shut the dircect route to Nottingham from Trowell.

I would imagine that on day 1, 200m trains would be used, possibly running as 2x200m to EMP and splitting into Nott and Sheff via Derby sections. Apart from anything else I doubt there will be more than 2 paths per hour for such services over HS2, so 400m trains would mean only one per hour to each.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2021 ==

I think the remaining St Pancras to Nottingham and Derby/Sheffield service makes more sense as an extension of the semi-fasts, because passengers using these trains north of Loughborough will be making intermediate journeys not travelling to London. We might even see the fasts turning back at Leicester and Loughborough.

I disagree. You still need two fast trains an hour from London to Leicester and fast trains one an hour from Nott and Sheff via Derby to LeicesteSo I imagine half hourly fast services from St Pancras to Leicester, with one each onto Nott and Sheffield will continue, probably with all trains calling at Loughborough, EMP, and Long Eaton or Beeston/Attenborough.

Post electricication, the current Corby services could run as 12 car to Kettering then split into Leicester via Market Harborough (8 car) and Corby (4car) portions giving much the same level of service as now to Leicester but with two less paths to London an hour. (which will probably get me flamed while people happily accept splitting HS2 trains at EMP).

Whether such semifast trains would continue north of Leicester is a moot point given the extra trains to be accomodated on HS2 north of Trent, but ideally they would go as far as East Midlands Parkway which will become a latter day Trent Junction station. I doubt that anyone will fund extending the platforms at Sileby/Syston etc to eight cars allowing them to run up the slow lines and call there though.

 

[edwin_m]

Separate HS2 platforms (with through lines) at EMP and quite complex grade separated interface at Trent with HS2 has to be a given to make it work.

As to Toton, I imagine it would be served by rerouting Notts to Sheffield stoppers via Toton instead of the more direct route to Trowell. Remember when BR wanted to route all Notts Sheff that way and shut the dircect route to Nottingham from Trowell.

I would imagine that on day 1, 200m trains would be used, possibly running as 2x200m to EMP and splitting into Nott and Sheff via Derby sections. Apart from anything else I doubt there will be more than 2 paths per hour for such services over HS2, so 400m trains would mean only one per hour to each.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2021 ==


I disagree. You still need two fast trains an hour from London to Leicester and fast trains one an hour from Nott and Sheff via Derby to LeicesteSo I imagine half hourly fast services from St Pancras to Leicester, with one each onto Nott and Sheffield will continue, probably with all trains calling at Loughborough, EMP, and Long Eaton or Beeston/Attenborough.

Post electricication, the current Corby services could run as 12 car to Kettering then split into Leicester via Market Harborough (8 car) and Corby (4car) portions giving much the same level of service as now to Leicester but with two less paths to London an hour. (which will probably get me flamed while people happily accept splitting HS2 trains at EMP).

Whether such semifast trains would continue north of Leicester is a moot point given the extra trains to be accomodated on HS2 north of Trent, but ideally they would go as far as East Midlands Parkway which will become a latter day Trent Junction station. I doubt that anyone will fund extending the platforms at Sileby/Syston etc to eight cars allowing them to run up the slow lines and call there though.

Toton doesn't need a link to Nottingham so much, as the tram can be extended instead. It's slower but the frequency and the wider range of destinations will make up for that.

Also if a train via Toton goes to Parkway and possibly on to Leicester, it can use the high level lines and thereby avoid nearly all conflicts at Trent. This provides a HS2 connection for Toton and could continue to Mansfield via Pinxton.

I've pointed out several times that the removal of York/Newcastle and probably Leeds services from HS2 means there are paths for Nottingham trains to run without splitting/joining.

The residual MML service could run semi-fast from St Pancras to Leicester then one each fast to Nottingham and to Derby/Sheffield, so as to provide the fast links within the Midlands but also cater for journeys to intermediate stations further south. Of the two fasts from St Pancras to Leicester, one could terminate there and the other run as far as Loughborough, removing two paths from Trent. The other Leicester-Nottingham could be the existing stopper with stops south of Loughborough transferred to the Mansfield train. I think that leaves all existing links with current through frequency except Leicester to Derby and Sheffield and Ivanhoe stations to Nottingham, which could be done by changing at Parkway.

 

[21C101]

Toton doesn't need a link to Nottingham so much, as the tram can be extended instead. It's slower but the frequency and the wider range of destinations will make up for that.

Also if a train via Toton goes to Parkway and possibly on to Leicester, it can use the high level lines and thereby avoid nearly all conflicts at Trent. This provides a HS2 connection for Toton and could continue to Mansfield via Pinxton.

I've pointed out several times that the removal of York/Newcastle and probably Leeds services from HS2 means there are paths for Nottingham trains to run without splitting/joining.

The residual MML service could run semi-fast from St Pancras to Leicester then one each fast to Nottingham and to Derby/Sheffield, so as to provide the fast links within the Midlands but also cater for journeys to intermediate stations further south. Of the two fasts from St Pancras to Leicester, one could terminate there and the other run as far as Loughborough, removing two paths from Trent. The other Leicester-Nottingham could be the existing stopper with stops south of Loughborough transferred to the Mansfield train. I think that leaves all existing links with current through frequency except Leicester to Derby and Sheffield and Ivanhoe stations to Nottingham, which could be done by changing at Parkway.

But Leicester still needs its two fasts an hour?

As to paths, I will believe that Leeds won't be served by HS2 from Euston when I see it.

Even with a reversal at Piccadilly and 5 minute call there, Euston to Leeds via Manchester will be 4 minutes faster than the governments promised post ECML upgrade timings to Leeds,

Furthermore,if a triangle is built south of Piccadilly, allowing direct Euston to Leeds trains not calling at Picc you are looking at 1h 40 from Euston to Leeds, only 19 minutes slower than if HS2 east had been built in full; in which case those two HS2 paths would be needed for Leeds to London via Manchester Airport trains.

 

[Nottingham59]

what about the local journeys? Leicester - long eaton, Derby - loughborough etc

They're very important, agreed, but isn't that the main point of this thread?

The cheapest approach would be a simple at-grade merge of HS2 into the 4-track MML just South of EMD. Without extra capacity around Trent Triangle, this would reduce existing connectivity, such as Long Eaton to Leicester, and preclude future local aspirations such as Nottingham to Coventry, or Mansfield to EMD.

 

[tbtc]

The wisdom seems to be that we'll have...

• Euston - Derby (Sheffield)
• Euston - Nottingham
• St Pancras - Derby (Sheffield)
• St Pancras - Nottingham

Would it work better overall if we focussed all Euston services on Derby (Sheffield) and all St Pancras services on Nottingham? Or vice versa?

That way you could run four/hour from St Pancras to Nottingham (with the two semi-fasts picking up "Ivanhoe" stops north of EMP) and divert the "Ivanhoe" services to Derby (instead of Nottingham, to retain through Leicester/ Loughborough - Derby services)?

Otherwise we are going to see "two trains within five minutes of each other, and then nothing for fifty five minutes" between some stations, as well as causing confusion in terms of which London station to head to for your trip back to the East Midlands

(obviously everyone wants "some" HS2 at their station, but trying to please everyone is going to create some rather unbalanced services - please let's not create another Castlefield situation!)

 

[Peterthegreat]

The wisdom seems to be that we'll have...

• Euston - Derby (Sheffield)
• Euston - Nottingham
• St Pancras - Derby (Sheffield)
• St Pancras - Nottingham

Would it work better overall if we focussed all Euston services on Derby (Sheffield) and all St Pancras services on Nottingham? Or vice versa?

That way you could run four/hour from St Pancras to Nottingham (with the two semi-fasts picking up "Ivanhoe" stops north of EMP) and divert the "Ivanhoe" services to Derby (instead of Nottingham, to retain through Leicester/ Loughborough - Derby services)?

Otherwise we are going to see "two trains within five minutes of each other, and then nothing for fifty five minutes" between some stations, as well as causing confusion in terms of which London station to head to for your trip back to the East Midlands

(obviously everyone wants "some" HS2 at their station, but trying to please everyone is going to create some rather unbalanced services - please let's not create another Castlefield situation!)

In a word "no". One of the (reduced) benefits of the current plan is to get Nottingham trains on to HS2 for a much quicker journey time. You are proposing to scrap that.

 

[tbtc]

In a word "no". One of the (reduced) benefits of the current plan is to get Nottingham trains on to HS2 for a much quicker journey time. You are proposing to scrap that.

Oh, there'd certainly be losers

I just thought I'd raise it as we seem to be heading to a situation where the need to filter a combination of different service patterns through a bottleneck will create a timetable like the old (National Express) Midland Mainline one in the Turbostar era, where there were two trains per hour from Derby to London and two trains per hour from Nottingham to London but within five minutes of each other

It's always going to be hard to serve Nottingham and Derby (given both the geography and the politics), but I worry that trying to please everyone by giving everywhere HS2 services is going to snarl up some junctions and cause some rather lopsided timetables - there's no "perfect" solution though

 

[HSTEd]

I repeat, there's no reason to split at East Midlands Parkway, probably not even if London-Leeds trains somehow still use HS2. The absence of York/Newcastle trains will free up paths out of Euston.

Sheffield trains will go via Derby and those paths are already in the service plan. Out of London it's only the Nottingham trains that will be added.

Those paths are likely to get appropriated for the benefit of areas that have rather more political pull than Nottingham though.

If Manchester-London or Birmingham-London traffic explodes as expected giving them 4tph is much more politically valuable than a less.complex Nottingham service.

 

[Nottingham59]

trying to please everyone is going to create some rather unbalanced services

Only if they fail to ensure that Trent triangle can handle the traffic.