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!
The issue is that Bedford is the limit of the outer suburbans from Thameslink. If electrification happened earlier, we might have seen Thameslink end at Corby, and first stop Kettering intercity services wouldn't be so much of an issue.
For the many years Northampton was the outer limit of the suburbans from Euston, doesn't then justify "Inter City" calls. Similarly on GWML, Bedwyn was the limit of the Paddington stoppers.
Just because Bedford is the limit of the Thameslink services doesn't then justify an interchange onto long distance EMR services.
In fact Luton Airport makes more sense because for Luton and Leagrave (which is basically a suburb of Luton) it would be quicker to go to Luton Airport Parkway to head north.
That leaves Harlington (basically a village) and Flitwick (a small town) as the only intermediate stations and their demand is going to be insignificant.
For the many years Northampton was the outer limit of the suburbans from Euston, doesn't then justify "Inter City" calls. Similarly on GWML, Bedwyn was the limit of the Paddington stoppers.
OK, I stand corrected on the WCML. But on the GWML, Bedwyn is on a branch line, is it not? If Thameslink did get extended to Corby, Kettering would be the interchange point between Thameslink and intercity trains, not Corby itself.
If Luton Airport Parkway would be the interchange from local Thameslink services to Nottingham and Sheffield services, that would be fine as well. It is insinuating that passengers from local Thameslink stations need to change three times to get to Sheffield, that is ludicrous IMO. Considering that from Huntingdon, I can get to Leeds, Newcastle or Edinburgh with a single change at Peterborough. Even getting to a more local station like Hadley Wood, has a maximum of 2 changes.
If Thameslink did get extended to Corby, Kettering would be the interchange point between Thameslink and intercity trains, not Corby itself.
If Luton Airport Parkway would be the interchange from local Thameslink services to Nottingham and Sheffield services, that would be fine as well. It is insinuating that passengers from local Thameslink stations need to change three times to get to Sheffield, that is ludicrous IMO. Considering that from Huntingdon, I can get to Leeds, Newcastle or Edinburgh with a single change at Peterborough. Even getting to a more local station like Hadley Wood, has a maximum of 2 changes.
Considering the poor level of service at Bedwyn (currently only between Newbury and Bedwyn) and I don't see any local services to Taunton on NRE now, I thought it was a branch line. I stand corrected.
OK, I stand corrected on the WCML. But on the GWML, Bedwyn is on a branch line, is it not? If Thameslink did get extended to Corby, Kettering would be the interchange point between Thameslink and intercity trains, not Corby itself.
If Luton Airport Parkway would be the interchange from local Thameslink services to Nottingham and Sheffield services, that would be fine as well. It is insinuating that passengers from local Thameslink stations need to change three times to get to Sheffield, that is ludicrous IMO. Considering that from Huntingdon, I can get to Leeds, Newcastle or Edinburgh with a single change at Peterborough. Even getting to a more local station like Hadley Wood, has a maximum of 2 changes.
BIB - doesn't make sense - Kettering *is* the interchange point now, Corby isn't on the direct Kettering - Leicester line. At present all Corby gets is the EMR London - Corby services plus a couple a day which go to Derby via Oakham and Melton Mowbray (missing Leicester) which EMR keep as much as anything for route retention purposes as the line via Melton and Harringworth is the diversion if the Kettering - Leicester line is closed for any reason.
TL stations *don't* need to change 3 times to get to Sheffield - if you're in Luton, Harpenden or St Albans you can do it by going via St Pancras - one change. So once again we're talking about Bedford.
In any case in recent years the Sheffield services *didn't* stop at places like Luton or Bedford - they'd been sped up and were running fast to Leicester. Once the Corby (diesel) services started it was one Nottingham semi-fast which stopped at Luton and Bedford.
And I'd like to see you get to Newcastle or Edinburgh from Hadley Wood going north and doing it with less than 3 changes. The current GN timetable means you'll be going to Potters Bar, Hatfield or Welwyn GC to change to an outer suburban BUT those stations only get the Cambridge services now, so either you then change at Stevenage onto an LNER - but during the day those are only the Leeds or Lincoln / York services, meaning you'll have to change again further up OR you'll have to change to a Peterborough GN service at either Stevenage or Hitchin because Peterborough IS the first stop for the LNER Newcastle / Edinburgh services.
Lastly, if you look at a map - Huntingdon is more comparable to Wellingborough or Kettering than Bedford - it's much further north than Bedford is.
I meant without needing to double-back via the terminus. I don't need to get from Huntingdon to St Pancras, to get to any other destination on the ECML. I can go via Peterborough instead.
Hadley Wood is an inner suburban station only. Huntingdon is an outer suburban station and I can get to many places on the ECML with a single change. Even with 2 changes, I can go to Aberdeen, Inverness and so on.
I can understand not being able to go from Elstree and Borehamwood to Sheffield without 3 changes going north. The same can't be said for places like St Albans and Harpenden.
But then again, the MML doesn't have something that the other compared lines do. Length. The ECML can have fast non-stop trains to York, but can serve some more stations after that (a lot more if we're talking about the Aberdeen and Inverness services). The MML cannot have non-stop trains to Sheffield, even if there was pathing, because the revenue would only be from Sheffield passengers. Trying to replicate or even try to get close to ECML journey times on the MML would then mean cutting out local connections altogether, like what happened with EMR Connect.
I meant without needing to double-back via the terminus. I don't need to get from Huntingdon to St Pancras, to get to any other destination on the ECML. I can go via Peterborough instead.
Similarly on the WCML one can change at MKC for the main destinations. Someone in Leighton Buzzard or Bletchley (or even Tring) having to go via Euston is silly, just as Luton to Leicester* via St Pancras is just stupid. For Watford (much closer to London) it is far less of an issue.
The fundamental issue with the MML is the lack of up-fast platform at Bedford - the station really needs a rejig so it has one, then you could viably call (with pick up/set down restrictions) longer distance services there on an infrequent-but-usable basis to provide the same sort of arrangement as MKC has.
* Knowing the demographics of these two areas, this is not at all an unlikely journey, which will all be going by road at present because the railway makes it awkward. It would really help if EMR Connect ran to Leicester for connections once the MML is all electrified, either by way of an additional service or by way of portion-working. Then it'd be one sensible change from the busier stations at least.
Interestingly different comparison with Dr Hoo's assessment.
So the main gripes appear to be focused on the state of the 360s, and few complaints about the lack of direct through services to Leicester and beyond from Bedford and Wellingboro.
I hadn't realised what the 360s are. I mean, I had assumed the new electric service would be allocated new units, and had no idea about all the fuss. It seems very strange to launch a new service with such antiquated stock and with no thorough overhaul, especially given the tendency for TOCs to ease off on maintenance work (at least non-safety work) when they know they are going to be shot of the stock.
(Yes, now I see there is a long thread on the 360s, but I hadn't twigged these were the Corby units.)
Sorry, I thought it was obvious that I meant London to Lutons, Bedford ... etc.
All very interesting comments though, thks to you and everyone.
It's interesting that the 360s are reviled over there whereas the 350s (including even the /2s which have a near-identical layout) are generally liked (and almost never complained about) over here. With the recent tarting-up and replacement of the manky carpets the 350s look new.
It's interesting that the 360s are reviled over there whereas the 350s (including even the /2s which have a near-identical layout) are generally liked (and almost never complained about) over here. With the recent tarting-up and replacement of the manky carpets the 350s look new.
I meant without needing to double-back via the terminus. I don't need to get from Huntingdon to St Pancras, to get to any other destination on the ECML. I can go via Peterborough instead.
And you're not comparing like for like - Huntingdon is about 60 miles north of London, Luton for example is about 30. There's a point at which heading *to* London to go north makes more sense.
I think you're missing the point - think of the EMR connect services as 'outer suburban' services a bit like the GN Kings Lynn ones. So the connection point is at Kettering to services further north. Thameslink is more like the GN 'outer suburban' stoppers - some of which used to terminate at places like Royston or Letchworth, necessitating a change to go further afield. It doesn't equate that there *has* to be an interchange between Thameslink services and EMR 'long distance' services at any point. If the EMR Connect services had been run by Thameslink you'd still have a similar service pattern - additional stops such as the intermediates between Luton and Bedford or St Albans would slow down journey times from Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough unacceptably.
Hadley Wood is an inner suburban station only. Huntingdon is an outer suburban station and I can get to many places on the ECML with a single change. Even with 2 changes, I can go to Aberdeen, Inverness and so on.
You were the one who raised Hadley Wood - all I did was point out you can't make the journey you claimed with 2 changes most of the time unless you go via London.
I can understand not being able to go from Elstree and Borehamwood to Sheffield without 3 changes going north. The same can't be said for places like St Albans and Harpenden.
Why ? St Albans and Harpenden are comparable to Hatfield or Welwyn GC (WGC) - where for some of the ECML destinations you'll be looking at 3 changes. Having lived in WGC, travelling via London wasn't exactly a hardship - and St Albans has a *quicker* service to St Pancras than Welwyn GC does to Kings Cross. I think you're massively over-estimating the demand to travel north from places likes St Albans or Harpenden. Before Covid I had occasion to go into London on business from Wellingborough - if you got a train which stopped at Luton and Bedford it would frequently be full and standing leaving St P, standing at Luton and half-empty after Bedford. The number of people boarding at either Luton or Bedford to head north (bearing in mind such trains were heading to Leicester and beyond) were barely in double figures.
But then again, the MML doesn't have something that the other compared lines do. Length. The ECML can have fast non-stop trains to York, but can serve some more stations after that (a lot more if we're talking about the Aberdeen and Inverness services). The MML cannot have non-stop trains to Sheffield, even if there was pathing, because the revenue would only be from Sheffield passengers. Trying to replicate or even try to get close to ECML journey times on the MML would then mean cutting out local connections altogether, like what happened with EMR Connect.
The MML's *far* bigger problem is linespeed - it's a relatively slow line due to the curvatures built by the Victorians.
To this day the timings show this:
St Pancras - Leicester, 98 miles takes 1h 04m.
Kings Cross - Grantham 105 miles takes 1h 01m - so almost 10% further but 5 mins quicker.
Euston - Nuneaton, 96 miles - a Pendo from Nuneaton to London can do the journey in 55 minutes.
Go further up and it becomes even clearer - the journey time from St Pancras to Nottingham (direct) varies between 1h 33m and 1h 43m. Yet if you go via the ECML to Grantham and then across to Nottingham you can do the journey in 1h 47m with a 7 minute wait at Grantham to change train. And the Grantham - Nottingham train will be a 90 / 100mph DMU.
The point of the current timetable was the point you make which I've put in bold - basically to speed up journey times from South Yorks and East Mids to London - because that's what the demand was for - and the DfT and EMR have, no doubt, calculated that the increase in usage from Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby and Leicester from faster journeys which aren't being crowded out with commuters from Wellingborough, Bedford or Luton is far greater than the demand for travel from places like Bedford or Luton to Nottingham for example.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The fundamental issue with the MML is the lack of up-fast platform at Bedford - the station really needs a rejig so it has one, then you could viably call (with pick up/set down restrictions) longer distance services there on an infrequent-but-usable basis to provide the same sort of arrangement as MKC has.
* Knowing the demographics of these two areas, this is not at all an unlikely journey, which will all be going by road at present because the railway makes it awkward. It would really help if EMR Connect ran to Leicester for connections once the MML is all electrified, either by way of an additional service or by way of portion-working. Then it'd be one sensible change from the busier stations at least.
Missing the point - Bedford gets the EMR Connect stop so anyone from Bedford wanting to get to Leicester or Nottingham does so with one change at Kettering. Which is comparable with, for example, Northampton to anywhere north except Birmingham and Coventry. (Bedford - Leicester is ~65 miles, a similar distance to Northampton - Lichfield or Northampton - Wolverhampton).
It's interesting that the 360s are reviled over there whereas the 350s (including even the /2s which have a near-identical layout) are generally liked (and almost never complained about) over here. With the recent tarting-up and replacement of the manky carpets the 350s look new.
The point of the current timetable was the point you make which I've put in bold - basically to speed up journey times from South Yorks and East Mids to London - because that's what the demand was for - and the DfT and EMR have, no doubt, calculated that the increase in usage from Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby and Leicester from faster journeys which aren't being crowded out with commuters from Wellingborough, Bedford or Luton is far greater than the demand for travel from places like Bedford or Luton to Nottingham for example.
And thus we come back to the earlier point that whilst this tradeoff may be the right thing to do politically and financially (noting that service changes are never a 'zero sum game'), the very least that St Albans/Luton/Bedford deserve in terms of connectivity is for the cost of via London tickets to be reduced to the same as the fare from London. "But you can just change at London" is not much use if doing so costs twice as much.
And thus we come back to the earlier point that whilst this tradeoff may be the right thing to do politically and financially (noting that service changes are never a 'zero sum game'), the very least that St Albans/Luton/Bedford deserve in terms of connectivity is for the cost of via London tickets to be reduced to the same as the fare from London. "But you can just change at London" is not much use if doing so costs twice as much.
Yes, this is yet another case of charging people for being inconvenienced. See also "per vehicle journey" bus fares.
For all of these cases where a double-back via a large city is required for an Intercity journey, the fare should be the same as from the big city. If it's possible to not double back and double back but the double back would be convenient (e.g. Watford), a routed fare should be provided.
And you're not comparing like for like - Huntingdon is about 60 miles north of London, Luton for example is about 30. There's a point at which heading *to* London to go north makes more sense.
If we're going to compare with Luton, then Stevenage would be a comparison. Luton is 30 miles out, Stevenage is 27 miles out. Stevenage does have some direct services to Doncaster and Leeds, although to get to anywhere north of those, you need to change once. That's not a bad thing. With Luton, it's two changes to Sheffield, one change to Nottingham and no significant population northwards on a direct train.
I think you're missing the point - think of the EMR connect services as 'outer suburban' services a bit like the GN Kings Lynn ones.
I see them more like the GN semi-fasts from Peterborough to Kings Cross, but running all day and being the only service to London from certain stations.
If the EMR Connect services had been run by Thameslink you'd still have a similar service pattern - additional stops such as the intermediates between Luton and Bedford or St Albans would slow down journey times from Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough unacceptably.
Huntingdon's Thameslink services have pretty good timings. On the other side, you said that the MML linespeed is slower, so Wellingborough may not have the same good timings as on the ECML.
You were the one who raised Hadley Wood - all I did was point out you can't make the journey you claimed with 2 changes most of the time unless you go via London.
I only raised it because I do travel from Huntingdon to Hadley Wood sometimes during peak hours. There isn't much demand from the outer suburban stations on the ECML to the inner suburban ones, though I can make the journey in only 2 changes, not 3.
Why ? St Albans and Harpenden are comparable to Hatfield or Welwyn GC (WGC)
I was going with stopping patterns more than distance. Thameslink services on the ECML are first stop Stevenage after Finsbury Park, and then Hitchin. You can easily get to any ECML station from those two. Though, coming to think of it, maybe Luton is a better comparison station to Stevenage.
The MML's *far* bigger problem is linespeed - it's a relatively slow line due to the curvatures built by the Victorians.
Not surprised that this is another factor. One reason why I chose to only consider stations on the ECML, is that journey times are more competitive considering the distance, compared to the MML, even on Thameslink services.
The point of the current timetable was the point you make which I've put in bold - basically to speed up journey times from South Yorks and East Mids to London - because that's what the demand was for - and the DfT and EMR have, no doubt, calculated that the increase in usage from Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby and Leicester from faster journeys which aren't being crowded out with commuters from Wellingborough, Bedford or Luton is far greater than the demand for travel from places like Bedford or Luton to Nottingham for example.
On the one hand, I had casual looks through NRE how the journey is from Derby, and the biggest issue was the wildly inconsistent timings. ~1hr30min is a good journey, but almost 2 hours is not.
On the other hand, being able to go north relatively easily encourages me to use the train instead of driving all the way. It's easy to say that in the worst case, you could double-back via London, but NRE says that you need multiple tickets for that journey.
If we're going to compare with Luton, then Stevenage would be a comparison. Luton is 30 miles out, Stevenage is 27 miles out. Stevenage does have some direct services to Doncaster and Leeds, although to get to anywhere north of those, you need to change once. That's not a bad thing. With Luton, it's two changes to Sheffield, one change to Nottingham and no significant population northwards on a direct train.
And didn't Peterborough intercity services used to be more frequent than the level of service offered today? I read a thread of commuting from Peterborough and apparently it was 3tph at least? I could be wrong, though.
And didn't Peterborough intercity services used to be more frequent than the level of service offered today? I read a thread of commuting from Peterborough and apparently it was 3tph at least? I could be wrong, though.
A mixed bag.
Peterborough would have around the same number overall, but less morning peak services to London.
It would also have gained Aberdeen and Inverness services which were lost when the Eureka timetable started in 2005(?).
There are 20 TPH through the Thameslink Core in this new timetable, same as in 2019. The peak extras to East Grinstead and Littlehampton aren't are all restored but the Sevenoaks Service going through makes the difference. Off Peak there are 14 TPH compared to 16 TPH. The Orpington's not running off peak is the difference there.
In terms of Class 700s what would happen if you extended north ofBedford to Corby as discussed but removed the Class 700s from the Wimbledon loop and providing either new or different stock to run between Blackfriars bays and the Wimbledon loop?
I think that long term the best solution is for 360s to work to Leicester, although it'd be better if they were given an interior similar to the 350/4 for such work. They would also be very good for providing a service to new stations at Desborough and Kibworth. However all of this is quite unlikely. It's also unclear if there are enough of them, although it may be possible to lease more from ROG. It also depends on on whether there's enough platform capacity at Leicester after whatever works end up being done between Wigston and Leicester in the next decade.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The point of the current timetable was the point you make which I've put in bold - basically to speed up journey times from South Yorks and East Mids to London - because that's what the demand was for - and the DfT and EMR have, no doubt, calculated that the increase in usage from Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby and Leicester from faster journeys which aren't being crowded out with commuters from Wellingborough, Bedford or Luton is far greater than the demand for travel from places like Bedford or Luton to Nottingham for example.
This timetable hasn't offered improved journey times for Sheffield to London trains, it has just improved some of the peak and Sunday times over the pre 2018 service. Nottingham fast services are slower, Nottingham slow services are faster. The generalised journey time improvements are very small, and pretty much all attributable to the other infrastructure improvements since 2017, not the timetable structure changes.
I think that long term the best solution is for 360s to work to Leicester, although it'd be better if they were given an interior similar to the 350/4 for such work. They would also be very good for providing a service to new stations at Desborough and Kibworth.
I *very* mich doubt Desborough and Kibworth will happen. The only place on the MML in Northants which would justify a new station is Rushden & Irchester.
Desborough's population is ~10,000, Kibworth is ~5,500.
Whereas Rushden is ~30,000, Irchester ~5,800 and Higham Ferrers is ~7,000.
And you're not comparing like for like - Huntingdon is about 60 miles north of London, Luton for example is about 30. There's a point at which heading *to* London to go north makes more sense.
I think you're missing the point - think of the EMR connect services as 'outer suburban' services a bit like the GN Kings Lynn ones. So the connection point is at Kettering to services further north. Thameslink is more like the GN 'outer suburban' stoppers - some of which used to terminate at places like Royston or Letchworth, necessitating a change to go further afield. It doesn't equate that there *has* to be an interchange between Thameslink services and EMR 'long distance' services at any point. If the EMR Connect services had been run by Thameslink you'd still have a similar service pattern - additional stops such as the intermediates between Luton and Bedford or St Albans would slow down journey times from Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough unacceptably.
You were the one who raised Hadley Wood - all I did was point out you can't make the journey you claimed with 2 changes most of the time unless you go via London.
Why ? St Albans and Harpenden are comparable to Hatfield or Welwyn GC (WGC) - where for some of the ECML destinations you'll be looking at 3 changes. Having lived in WGC, travelling via London wasn't exactly a hardship - and St Albans has a *quicker* service to St Pancras than Welwyn GC does to Kings Cross. I think you're massively over-estimating the demand to travel north from places likes St Albans or Harpenden. Before Covid I had occasion to go into London on business from Wellingborough - if you got a train which stopped at Luton and Bedford it would frequently be full and standing leaving St P, standing at Luton and half-empty after Bedford. The number of people boarding at either Luton or Bedford to head north (bearing in mind such trains were heading to Leicester and beyond) were barely in double figures.
The MML's *far* bigger problem is linespeed - it's a relatively slow line due to the curvatures built by the Victorians.
To this day the timings show this:
St Pancras - Leicester, 98 miles takes 1h 04m.
Kings Cross - Grantham 105 miles takes 1h 01m - so almost 10% further but 5 mins quicker.
Euston - Nuneaton, 96 miles - a Pendo from Nuneaton to London can do the journey in 55 minutes.
Go further up and it becomes even clearer - the journey time from St Pancras to Nottingham (direct) varies between 1h 33m and 1h 43m. Yet if you go via the ECML to Grantham and then across to Nottingham you can do the journey in 1h 47m with a 7 minute wait at Grantham to change train. And the Grantham - Nottingham train will be a 90 / 100mph DMU.
The point of the current timetable was the point you make which I've put in bold - basically to speed up journey times from South Yorks and East Mids to London - because that's what the demand was for - and the DfT and EMR have, no doubt, calculated that the increase in usage from Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby and Leicester from faster journeys which aren't being crowded out with commuters from Wellingborough, Bedford or Luton is far greater than the demand for travel from places like Bedford or Luton to Nottingham for example.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Missing the point - Bedford gets the EMR Connect stop so anyone from Bedford wanting to get to Leicester or Nottingham does so with one change at Kettering. Which is comparable with, for example, Northampton to anywhere north except Birmingham and Coventry. (Bedford - Leicester is ~65 miles, a similar distance to Northampton - Lichfield or Northampton - Wolverhampton).
Probably for a separate topic, but I wonder if there could ever be a strong case for using capacity on the East Coast Main Line to provide faster trains to Nottinghan and/or Sheffield at the expense of (say) some trains to Cambridge or (wait for it), Hull or Sunderland. Perhaps worth a debate?
I *very* mich doubt Desborough and Kibworth will happen. The only place on the MML in Northants which would justify a new station is Rushden & Irchester.
Desborough's population is ~10,000, Kibworth is ~5,500.
Whereas Rushden is ~30,000, Irchester ~5,800 and Higham Ferrers is ~7,000.
The station would be within three miles of Wellingborough. While this alone doesn't discount it, it does effectively rule out any significant park and ride demand from the forecast because it will already all be going to Wellingborough. Essentially none of Rushden would be within the catchment, even if you used the site at Wymington. At Kibworth and Desborough, pretty much the entire towns would be within the catchment, and they're far enough from other railheads. Finally, stopping at Irchester would disbenefit Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough to London traffic, while stopping at Desborough and Kibworth would disbenefit nobody because the service doesn't currently exist.
The station would be within three miles of Wellingborough. While this alone doesn't discount it, it does effectively rule out any significant park and ride demand from the forecast because it will already all be going to Wellingborough. Essentially none of Rushden would be within the catchment, even if you used the site at Wymington. At Kibworth and Desborough, pretty much the entire towns would be within the catchment, and they're far enough from other railheads. Finally, stopping at Irchester would disbenefit Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough to London traffic, while stopping at Desborough and Kibworth would disbenefit nobody because the service doesn't currently exist.
Desborough would disbenefit Kettering and possibly Market Harboro'.
Nobody would use Rushden instead of Corby or Kettering - it would take at least 30 mins to drive from Kettering, more for Corby.
Wellingborough is seeing *massive* amounts of development - look up Stanton Cross - and nowhere near enough additional parking. Rushden, Higham and Irchester are also seeing huge amounts of development.
Desborough would disbenefit Kettering and possibly Market Harboro'.
Nobody would use Rushden instead of Corby or Kettering - it would take at least 30 mins to drive from Kettering, more for Corby.
Wellingborough is seeing *massive* amounts of development - look up Stanton Cross - and nowhere near enough additional parking. Rushden, Higham and Irchester are also seeing huge amounts of development.
I think that you've misunderstood where Desborough is, and there's although there's a possibility that Market Harborough would have fewer fast services depending on where trains from north of Leicester stopped this wouldn't be in consequence of building the station so wouldn't need to be modelled against it. However this is very off topic so I'd suggest creating a thread in the Speculative Discussion forum for further conversation.
I wonder if there could ever be a strong case for using capacity on the East Coast Main Line to provide faster trains to Nottinghan and/or Sheffield at the expense of (say) some trains to Cambridge or (wait for it), Hull or Sunderland. Perhaps worth a debate?
There might have been if the HS2 Eastern leg had not been cut. But there will be so many paths needed on the ECML for Leeds and Newcastle that I don't think this will work.
The issue is that Bedford is the limit of the outer suburbans from Thameslink. If electrification happened earlier, we might have seen Thameslink end at Corby, and first stop Kettering intercity services wouldn't be so much of an issue.
Sadly, even if there were paths to do so and the rolling stock, Wellingborough commuters would be fuming at having to ride the class 700s and pay intercity fares for doing so.
I think that you've misunderstood where Desborough is, and there's although there's a possibility that Market Harborough would have fewer fast services depending on where trains from north of Leicester stopped this wouldn't be in consequence of building the station so wouldn't need to be modelled against it. However this is very off topic so I'd suggest creating a thread in the Speculative Discussion forum for further conversation.
Not at all - I know the area very well and Desborough is pretty much half way between Kettering and Mkt Harborough, so putting a station at Desborough would directly impact the use of Kettering and Market Harborough. It would also slow down their respective services all to serve a town which is a fraction the size of either of them.
Not at all - I know the area very well and Desborough is pretty much half way between Kettering and Mkt Harborough, so putting a station at Desborough would directly impact the use of Kettering and Market Harborough. It would also slow down their respective services all to serve a town which is a fraction the size of either of them.
OK, but the point I was making and have clearly explained already is that if you're putting together a business case for a new station or novel service, you don't need to account for disbenefits you haven't caused. Given that existing services between Kettering and Market Harborough wouldn't stop at Desborough there's no effect. You would be required to take account of this effect if you wanted to build a station between Wellingborough and Bedford because you wouldn't be able to serve it without slowing down existing passengers.
OK, but the point I was making and have clearly explained already is that if you're putting together a business case for a new station or novel service, you don't need to account for disbenefits you haven't caused. Given that existing services between Kettering and Market Harborough wouldn't stop at Desborough there's no effect. You would be required to take account of this effect if you wanted to build a station between Wellingborough and Bedford because you wouldn't be able to serve it without slowing down existing passengers.
Erm, so what are you suggesting? Services which currently run fast to Leicester start stopping at a new station for Desborough (population 10,000) but *not* at either Market Harborough or Kettering ? (The latter being a town of over 60,000)
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
