Additional Peterborough stations

[William3000]

For decades there have been tentative proposals (they have even been mentioned in Local Plans and transport plans about two additional stations in Peterborough. One at or around Werrington to the north of the city, and one at Hampton to the south.

Are either of these realistic and/or likely to ever come forward.

It seems to me that the issue with a Peterborough South/Hampton station is the fact it’s on a two track section. How much 4 tracking would be needed to deliver such a station? Two platforms on the new loops or slow lines? It would be an obvious stop on the Thameslink Peterborough to Horsham services and that would give a half hourly service but whether that sort of service would be sufficient to justify the cost I remain sceptical - under such a scenario I would expect a stop to only have about 350,000 Ipassengers a year . That said there is huge house building at Hampton and now Great Haddon that could benefit from access to a closer station but would many people just drive to the central station anywhere for a vastly superior range of destinations as I can’t see LNER ever stopping anywhere this close to Peterborough main, nor would it be desirable to do so.

Turning to a Peterborough North/Werrington station, it also seems problematic. Werrington is about 8 kilometres north of the main station and could probably benefit with better connectivity to the rail network. Locations could be on the mainline but unless Cross Country Birmingham to Stansted or EMR Liverpool to Norwich trains were to stop there (highly unlikely), or LNER trains (impossible), there seems little point in the much greater costs associated with a station on the mainline. So a smaller halt on the Spalding line would probably be more realistic but with an hourly or two hourly service it’s hardly likely that passenger usage would be much more than 40-50,000 a year. And at that level a new station, albeit much cheaper than Peterborough South/Hampton would be equally difficult to justify.

But am I missing something - are there any ways such stations could become more viable or attract much greater passenger numbers?

 

[Magdalia]

I don't understand what these stations would be for.

A new station could be mainly for people getting out (example Beaulieu Park), if so, where are they going?

Or a new station could be mainly for people coming in (example Cambridge South), if so, where are they coming from?

Looking at the existing data for Peterborough, it is unusual that over 40% of journeys are to/from Kings Cross. Unless the new stations offer through trains to/from London at competitive timings, they are not going to change travel habits on London journeys.

Peterborough is also unusual in that it only has one neighbouring station less than 10 miles away, which is Whittlesea. The Whittlesea-Peterborough one way flow is only 7k, are any other local stations going to do much better for local journeys to Peterborough?

The key flows for local journeys are to/from Huntingdon, March, Stamford and Spalding, places 10-20 miles away. The key place that would most like a new station is Wisbech. That isn't going to happen any time soon, and, if it did, they would probably prefer a service to Cambridge. The new station that is probably nearest to viability is a parkway station to serve the Deepings and Bourne.

 

[Brubulus]

I don't understand what these stations would be for.

A new station could be mainly for people getting out (example Beaulieu Park), if so, where are they going?

Or a new station could be mainly for people coming in (example Cambridge South), if so, where are they coming from?

Looking at the existing data for Peterborough, it is unusual that over 40% of journeys are to/from Kings Cross. Unless the new stations offer through trains to/from London at competitive timings, they are not going to change travel habits on London journeys.

Peterborough is also unusual in that it only has one neighbouring station less than 10 miles away, which is Whittlesea. The Whittlesea-Peterborough one way flow is only 7k, are any other local stations going to do much better for local journeys to Peterborough?

The key flows for local journeys are to/from Huntingdon, March, Stamford and Spalding, places 10-20 miles away. The key place that would most like a new station is Wisbech. That isn't going to happen any time soon, and, if it did, they would probably prefer a service to Cambridge. The new station that is probably nearest to viability is a parkway station to serve the Deepings and Bourne.

If Whittlesea had direct services to Cambridge, alongside an hourly frequency, I suspect usage would at least triple, if not more, but the Peterborough flow would increase by a lesser extent due to the ease of accessing Peterborough by road. Peterborough does not generally have disastrous traffic like Cambridge, reducing the appeal of an infrequent rail service for inward commuting. Peterborough station has very good road access, meaning a parkway station would be unnecessary.

A Peterborough North/ station might get a little bit of local patronage, especially if it has direct services to Cambridge and/or London, but it would mostly be abstraction from Peterborough main station instead of generating new traffic for the railway.

 

[30907]

It is 20 years since I regularly visited my late in-laws in NE Peterborough suburbs so my thoughts may not be up-to-date.
1. Employment in Peterborough is dispersed, with a particular concentration (for historical reasons) East of Frank Perkins Way for which the existing station is on the wrong side of the historic centre. Ideally suited for car (at one time bike!) or bus commuting and with a road network to suit. So basically we are looking at outbound traffic.
2. A Werrington station could either be on the Spalding line, on the far edge of the housing area and currently with a limited service (was there a plan for a turnback for TL, or was that on this forum?). Alternatively a site at Marholm Road/Bretton Way on the ex-MR tracks looks perfectly feasible, but it's a long way from new-town Werrington.
3. A commuter parkway station in the Fletton Parkway/Yaxley area would stand a good chance but would require reinstating quadruple track, so costly (though it would have other benefits).

 

[Railwaysceptic]

. . . . A commuter parkway station in the Fletton Parkway/Yaxley area would stand a good chance but would require reinstating quadruple track, so costly (though it would have other benefits).

Is there enough room both to four-track the route and build a new station?

 

[dosxuk]

I don't understand what these stations would be for.

If, for some reason, you wanted to split the inter-regional services at Peterborough, you could use them to terminate the trains that there isn't capacity in Peterborough station itself to terminate. E.g. Norwich services would pass through Peterborough and terminate at Werrington - allowing them to wait there for their return path; and Liverpool / Birmingham services could terminate at Hampton, again, waiting there for the return path; both without blocking up platforms in the central station.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Is there enough room both to four-track the route and build a new station?

There seems to be room for a station on platformed loops around the Broadway Industrial Estate, north of the B1091 overbridge in Yaxley.

 

[Magdalia]

There seems to be room for a station on platformed loops around the Broadway Industrial Estate, north of the B1091 overbridge in Yaxley.

There was a Yaxley and Farcet station near the Broadway Bridge, which closed in 1959. It had 2 platforms.

The old station, and the Broadway Bridge, are only about half a mile north of the north end of the 100mph speed restriction on Holme Fen.

A station at this location would reduce capacity on Holme Fen, irrespective of whether the platforms were on the fast lines or loops.

But I still don't see what a new station would be for: who is going to be using it and what journeys will they be making?

 

[NorthOxonian]

In a theoretical sense this proposal (especially a southern station) makes a fair amount of sense. Peterborough has expanded rapidly in recent decades and continues to do so; there is essentially an entirely new town been built as an urban extension at Great Haddon (next to Hampton Vale and Yaxley). There will certainly be a market for outward travel from these areas, mostly to London, but I suspect as mentioned above this would largely just abstract from the main Peterborough station - so wouldn't be worth a very costly and difficult construction.

 

[The Foghorn]

I don't think a Werrington station on the Spalding line would be overly problematic to achieve. Using the new dive under for northbound services would remove the conflicting movement of accessing platforms 1&2 as currently happens, so that's a capacity gain. The problem with this is that minimal housing development is happening on the Werrington side of the city right now, so Section 106 monies from builders isn't available to help fund it.

As said previously, there is huge development currently happening on the south side of the city, so funding must be available, however the cost of four tracking and building a station would be fairly monstrous. With the huge increase in railway infrastructure projects of this magnitude I suspect it won't happen.

 

[Magdalia]

In a theoretical sense this proposal (especially a southern station) makes a fair amount of sense. Peterborough has expanded rapidly in recent decades and continues to do so; there is essentially an entirely new town been built as an urban extension at Great Haddon (next to Hampton Vale and Yaxley). There will certainly be a market for outward travel from these areas, mostly to London, but I suspect as mentioned above this would largely just abstract from the main Peterborough station - so wouldn't be worth a very costly and difficult construction.

ECML trains are not going to be stopping at a new Yaxley station, so there won't even be much abstraction from Peterborough-London. Yaxley-London passengers would be on all stations to Stevenage trains, with much longer journey times than from Peterborough, and hoping that Thameslink hasn't collapsed by the time they want to come home.

 

[William3000]

There was a Yaxley and Farcet station near the Broadway Bridge, which closed in 1959. It had 2 platforms.

The old station, and the Broadway Bridge, are only about half a mile north of the north end of the 100mph speed restriction on Holme Fen.

A station at this location would reduce capacity on Holme Fen, irrespective of whether the platforms were on the fast lines or loops.

But I still don't see what a new station would be for: who is going to be using it and what journeys will they be making?

Well the new station has appeared in planning documents in the past but I agree that it’s probably difficult to justify. That said, Peterborough is a large and growing city so I presume having a station to the south would be closer to the huge Hampton and Great Haddon developments. It would likely pick up a reasonable number of travellers on the Thameslink trains as well as providing a quicker public transport route into Peterborough city centre.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jun 2025 ==

ECML trains are not going to be stopping at a new Yaxley station, so there won't even be much abstraction from Peterborough-London. Yaxley-London passengers would be on all stations to Stevenage trains, with much longer journey times than from Peterborough, and hoping that Thameslink hasn't collapsed by the time they want to come home.

In practice abstraction is often for neutral, as for every person that would have travelled to Peterborough to catch a train, there is another who starts using the train because it’s more convenient and of course it leads to new journey opportunities into central Peterborough, which will take about 4 minutes rather than much longer by bus. Cambridge North’s opening didn’t result in much net abstraction from Cambridge when it opened and now there are hundreds of thousands of journeys between the two stations.

 

[Magdalia]

Cambridge North’s opening didn’t result in much net abstraction from Cambridge when it opened and now there are hundreds of thousands of journeys between the two stations.

You are right about Cambridge North, but not comparing like with like. Cambridge North has significant employment and student traffic using the station as a destination, local residents using the station as a starting point are a much smaller proportion of station usage than would be the case at Yaxley.

In practice abstraction is often for neutral

No, abstraction is almost always one way or the other, mathematically it is rarely neutral, and circumstances alter cases. In the case of Peterborough-London journeys, there will be little incentive to change to Yaxley because the fast trains will not be stopping, unlike at Cambridge North.

of course it leads to new journey opportunities into central Peterborough, which will take about 4 minutes rather than much longer by bus.

Yes, but how many? It isn't that much longer by bus: route 6 is every 20 minutes during the day, takes 20-30 minutes, and goes to/from Queensgate which is much better located than the railway station.

It is hard to justify a case for a new railway station for a few 4 mile journeys.

 

[William3000]

You are right about Cambridge North, but not comparing like with like. Cambridge North has significant employment and student traffic using the station as a destination, local residents using the station as a starting point are a much smaller proportion of station usage than would be the case at Yaxley.


No, abstraction is almost always one way or the other, mathematically it is rarely neutral, and circumstances alter cases. In the case of Peterborough-London journeys, there will be little incentive to change to Yaxley because the fast trains will not be stopping, unlike at Cambridge North.


Yes, but how many? It isn't that much longer by bus: route 6 is every 20 minutes during the day, takes 20-30 minutes, and goes to/from Queensgate which is much better located than the railway station.

It is hard to justify a case for a new railway station for a few 4 mile journeys.

Not sure I agree - if you’re living in Hampton, you’re going 20-30 minutes in the opposite direction by car or cycle or bus to get to the main Peterborough station. And already many people choose to travel on Thameslink because it’s significantly cheaper than via LNER. Coupled with the fact that Peterborough to London on LNER takes about 45-50 minutes but 1hr 25 on Thameslink and you’re 5 minutes further down the line, it’s probably going to get a fair few. Also provides direct links to Huntingdon and St Neots and soon via Tempsford to Bedford and Bletchley.

I still don’t think it stacks up but I reckon if it was up and operating today as a two platform station with half hourly service it would probably have 350,000 annual passenger use - which isn’t enough to justify opening but isn’t insignificant.

 

[DaleCooper]

Yes, but how many? It isn't that much longer by bus: route 6 is every 20 minutes during the day, takes 20-30 minutes, and goes to/from Queensgate which is much better located than the railway station.

The No.6 also stops at the railway station.

 

[William3000]

You are right about Cambridge North, but not comparing like with like. Cambridge North has significant employment and student traffic using the station as a destination, local residents using the station as a starting point are a much smaller proportion of station usage than would be the case at Yaxley.


No, abstraction is almost always one way or the other, mathematically it is rarely neutral, and circumstances alter cases. In the case of Peterborough-London journeys, there will be little incentive to change to Yaxley because the fast trains will not be stopping, unlike at Cambridge North.


Yes, but how many? It isn't that much longer by bus: route 6 is every 20 minutes during the day, takes 20-30 minutes, and goes to/from Queensgate which is much better located than the railway station.

It is hard to justify a case for a new railway station for a few 4 mile journeys.

If it was in London there would be stations every 3 or 4 miles - there are in inner London - New Barnet, New Southgate etc. There is no reason outer stations in Peterborough couldn’t have more patronage - people there need to travel just as much as they do in London.

In the longer term if there are stations at Tempsford, Alconbury Weald, and Hampton, journey times may be increased by several minutes - it would be helpful if class 700s could be reengineered for 110mph running on the southern part of the ECML between Finsbury Park and Stevenage where it’s non stop

 

[AlastairFraser]

There was a Yaxley and Farcet station near the Broadway Bridge, which closed in 1959. It had 2 platforms.

The old station, and the Broadway Bridge, are only about half a mile north of the north end of the 100mph speed restriction on Holme Fen.

A station at this location would reduce capacity on Holme Fen, irrespective of whether the platforms were on the fast lines or loops.

But I still don't see what a new station would be for: who is going to be using it and what journeys will they be making?

A marginal reduction in capacity? Would it matter if any trains stopping there would be existing service e.g. Horsham Thameslink services?
The station would be for central London and intermediate stop commuters (Finsbury Park/Stevenage etc.), with a secondary goal of connecting those in the southern Peterborough suburbs into central Peterborough.

 

[Zomboid]

marginal reduction in capacity? Would it matter if any trains stopping there would be existing service e.g. Horsham Thameslink services

If they're stopping on the main lines in front of a fast train then yes. Presumably the TL trains don't stop on the main lines at Peterborough.

Any such station would most likely need enough 4 tracking and suitable switches that the acceleration and deceleration would be done away from the fast lines. Which would be expensive.

 

[D365]

In the longer term if there are stations at Tempsford, Alconbury Weald, and Hampton, journey times may be increased by several minutes - it would be helpful if class 700s could be reengineered for 110mph running on the southern part of the ECML between Finsbury Park and Stevenage where it’s non stop

What would be more beneficial would be an all-day Great Northern ’fast’ between Kings Cross and, erm, Biggleswade

 

[Magdalia]

If it was in London there would be stations every 3 or 4 miles - there are in inner London - New Barnet, New Southgate etc. There is no reason outer stations in Peterborough couldn’t have more patronage - people there need to travel just as much as they do in London.

There is a very simple reason why Peterborough does not have stations like New Barnet or New Southgate, it is weight of population numbers.

it would be helpful if class 700s could be reengineered for 110mph running on the southern part of the ECML between Finsbury Park and Stevenage where it’s non stop

This would make very little difference, it saves 3 seconds per mile, 1 minute in total, and is swamped by the additional time of more stops.

A marginal reduction in capacity? Would it matter if any trains stopping there would be existing service e.g. Horsham Thameslink services?

Yes it would still matter, the trains stopping have a bigger time footprint on the two track Holme Fen section.

The station would be for central London and intermediate stop commuters (Finsbury Park/Stevenage etc.)

Peterborough-Stevenage and Finsbury Park one way flows are about 30k, less than 100 journeys a day. The numbers of people travelling Yaxley-Stevenage or Finsbury Park would be tiny.

Central London passengers would still go to Peterborough and get the train to Kings Cross, especially once they have experienced Thameslink collapse on the way home.

Presumably the TL trains don't stop on the main lines at Peterborough.

That's right, Thameslink mostly use platforms 1 and 2 at Peterborough, down arrivals having to cross over the up fast line.

Any such station would most likely need enough 4 tracking and suitable switches that the acceleration and deceleration would be done away from the fast lines. Which would be expensive.

This is key. Good examples are Welwyn Garden City and Knebworth, either side of the 2 track section over Digswell Viaduct. Both have slow line acceleration/deceleration space about a mile long combined with 70 mph turnouts. A Yaxley station would need the same.

What would be more beneficial would be an all-day Great Northern ’fast’ between Kings Cross and, erm, Biggleswade

Sorry, no platforms at Kings Cross for that.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Yes it would still matter, the trains stopping have a bigger time footprint on the two track Holme Fen section.

Hence why I suggested platform loops for this section, perhaps you would have to make them longer than normal but it isn't a major obstacle.

If they're stopping on the main lines in front of a fast train then yes. Presumably the TL trains don't stop on the main lines at Peterborough.

Any such station would most likely need enough 4 tracking and suitable switches that the acceleration and deceleration would be done away from the fast lines. Which would be expensive.

I wasn't proposing stopping them on the main line, it would have to be on platform loops definitely.

Peterborough-Stevenage and Finsbury Park one way flows are about 30k, less than 100 journeys a day. The numbers of people travelling Yaxley-Stevenage or Finsbury Park would be tiny.

Central London passengers would still go to Peterborough and get the train to Kings Cross, especially once they have experienced Thameslink collapse on the way home.

Thameslink isn't all that unreliable. As other people have pointed out, the price differential makes using it into central London quite attractive for price conscious commuters, plus the station site is only 20 mins drive away from places like Oundle.

 

[Magdalia]

Hence why I suggested platform loops for this section, perhaps you would have to make them longer than normal but it isn't a major obstacle.

It is a major obstacle. The loops would have to be 2 miles long for it not to be an obstacle, so that stopping trains could exit and enter the fast lines at 70mph. The station would also have to be at least 1 mile north of the edge of Holme Fen, because that's as far south as you can go with the loops.

Thameslink isn't all that unreliable.

Try telling that to the regular travellers at stations Arlesey-Huntingdon.

the station site is only 20 mins drive away from places like Oundle.

Oundle has a population of just over 6000. it is a drop in the bucket.

 

[Zomboid]

is a major obstacle. The loops would have to be 2 miles long for it not to be an obstacle, so that stopping trains could exit and enter the fast lines at 70mph. The station would also have to be at least 1 mile north of the edge of Holme Fen, because that's as far south as you can go with the loops.

In reality it would be a southwards extension of the existing 4 tracking, so that you don't need two paths for each stopping train.

Which is actually a sort of justification for Werrington station; TL trains could use the grade separation to reverse via the Spalding line and stay out of the way of fast trains.

 

[davews]

Peterborough-Stevenage and Finsbury Park one way flows are about 30k, less than 100 journeys a day. The numbers of people travelling Yaxley-Stevenage or Finsbury Park would be tiny.

Central London passengers would still go to Peterborough and get the train to Kings Cross, especially once they have experienced Thameslink collapse on the way home.

Bit surprised it is as low as that. I have used Peterborough-Finsbury Park TL when travelling back from Melton Mowbray - depending on train connections this is sometimes quicker than going via Leicester EMR. Cross London travellers may like me prefer changing at Finsbury Park to the Victoria line to the bustle of Kings Cross. Plenty of people get off at Finsbury Park. Each time I have used it it has been pretty reliable. And of course you don't have to worry about LNER fares and seat reservation.

 

[158756]

Peterborough must be one of the largest urban areas with only one station (urban area, not getting into arguments over city boundaries). York, also on the ECML, will be another, though you could count Poppleton, plus Haxby if that ever happens. So in that way a new station would make a lot of sense.

The biggest problem as already discussed is the best location in the south of the city would need expensive infrastructure works, and at the other extreme any station on the Spalding line would suffer from poor service frequency. And the attraction of London services would be lessened by the non-stop LNER trains from PBO - though personally I still think a Peterborough South station would do very decent business on Thameslink, the problem is would it be enough to justify the very large costs.

It's a shame the Cambridge line doesn't pass through more populated areas, if it did that might be a good bet for a new station. I'm guessing the Fens prevent expansion of Peterborough in that direction?

 

[Magdalia]

In reality it would be a southwards extension of the existing 4 tracking, so that you don't need two paths for each stopping train.

I was thinking about this while eating my dinner, and came to the same conclusion.

Which is actually a sort of justification for Werrington station; TL trains could use the grade separation to reverse via the Spalding line and stay out of the way of fast trains.

Peterborough is already too far from the Thameslink core, but the grade separated reversal does have an attraction.

I do think that a Peterborough North is a much nearer to being a viable proposition than Yaxley. And Bourne and the Deepings are both more than twice as big as Oundle.

It's a shame the Cambridge line doesn't pass through more populated areas, if it did that might be a good bet for a new station.

My preference would be a Stansted-Nottingham service calling at platforms on the ECML slow lines, and using battery bimodes.

I'm guessing the Fens prevent expansion of Peterborough in that direction?

Yes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jun 2025 ==

Peterborough must be one of the largest urban areas with only one station

Northampton and Norwich are both bigger than Peterborough, and only have one station.

 

[stevieinselby]

It is hard to justify a case for a new railway station for a few 4 mile journeys.

If you have a city where you can build a suburban network with dedicated local trains running a frequent service into the city centre then you can certainly justify a station less than 4 miles out ... but that isn't going to happen with a low-density city like Peterborough. Adding a suburban stop onto a regional service is rarely a beneficial plan.

 

[Brubulus]

Well the new station has appeared in planning documents in the past but I agree that it’s probably difficult to justify. That said, Peterborough is a large and growing city so I presume having a station to the south would be closer to the huge Hampton and Great Haddon developments. It would likely pick up a reasonable number of travellers on the Thameslink trains as well as providing a quicker public transport route into Peterborough city centre.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jun 2025 ==


In practice abstraction is often for neutral, as for every person that would have travelled to Peterborough to catch a train, there is another who starts using the train because it’s more convenient and of course it leads to new journey opportunities into central Peterborough, which will take about 4 minutes rather than much longer by bus. Cambridge North’s opening didn’t result in much net abstraction from Cambridge when it opened and now there are hundreds of thousands of journeys between the two stations.

Cambridge North has a much higher frequency to Cambridge than a Peterborough station would to Peterborough alongside Cambridge's traffic. Secondly I would guess a substantial portion of Cambridge-Cambridge North journeys are linked to fare evasion.

It's more likely that a new Peterborough station ends up like Peartree, useful for fare evasion but little else.

 

[Zomboid]

Peterborough is already too far from the Thameslink core, but the grade separated reversal does have an attraction.

Not bothering with the station and just having a reversing sidings up they branch without probably be a more useful thing for eliminating crossings of the up fast.

 

[D365]

It's more likely that a new Peterborough station ends up like Peartree, useful for fare evasion but little else.

Or Spondon, if you’re feeling slightly less pessimistic