• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Alternative Destinations for MML Trains in London

T

Topological

Member
Joined
20 Feb 2023
Messages
769
Location
Swansea
Seeing the discussion about the limitations placed upon the Midland Mainline (MML) in London by the lack of platform capacity at St Pancras, are there other destinations that trains could run to instead? (I am thinking more of the Corby EMUs rather than the longer distance stock)

From the WCML there is the option to run through to Clapham Junction via Kensington Olympia (for example), but are there any sensible destinations that could create connectivity for the MML?

Appreciably Thameslink trains go into the core, but presumably this would be too much for the Corby terminators to be added to Thameslink.

If 4 platforms at St Pancras only needed to handle 4 trains per hour from the MML longer distance services then there would be more options open to East Midlands Railway when reaching London.

So is there somewhere for the Corby trains to go to instead?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Helvellyn

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
2,016
Short answer is no.

King's Cross is keeping some Great Northern/Thameslink services that should have gone into the core as Thameslink (which is why some Thameslink services terminate at Blackfriars still as well).

You would also have longer journey times if you tried diverting the Corby services elsewhere.

I'm not really sure what the issue with MML services is though. The Corby Service is timed to effectively have exclusive use of Platform 1 at St Pancras, which is two trains per hour. The remaining four trains per hour have three platforms to use.
 
E

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,932
Location
Nottingham
With a bit of extra electrification they could wander off eastwards on the North London Line or towards Barking, getting in the way of the Overground, but there's not really any point. Even if there was a way of terminating more MML trains in London, there's no capacity to run any more on the route shared with Thameslink.
 
J

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,859
Topological said:
Seeing the discussion about the limitations placed upon the Midland Mainline (MML) in London by the lack of platform capacity at St Pancras, are there other destinations that trains could run to instead? (I am thinking more of the Corby EMUs rather than the longer distance stock)
Click to expand...
The specific issue discussed in the other thread concerns two track railway on Sunday mornings.

St Pancras has ample space to turn round six trains an hour in four platforms. There are concerns about passenger space, but with all the long distance services running with 810s it should be straightforward to manage turnarounds sensibly within the available capacity.

If another destination is needed, the middle platforms at Kentish Town aren't heavily used.
 
T

Topological

Member
Joined
20 Feb 2023
Messages
769
Location
Swansea
Helvellyn said:
Short answer is no.

King's Cross is keeping some Great Northern/Thameslink services that should have gone into the core as Thameslink (which is why some Thameslink services terminate at Blackfriars still as well).

You would also have longer journey times if you tried diverting the Corby services elsewhere.

I'm not really sure what the issue with MML services is though. The Corby Service is timed to effectively have exclusive use of Platform 1 at St Pancras, which is two trains per hour. The remaining four trains per hour have three platforms to use.
Click to expand...
I agree that on paper there should not be any issue.

However, whenever there is a discussion of running longer trains on the MML (e.g. 10 car 810s) the answer is always that they need to share platforms at St Pancras. As an outsider it would seem 3 platforms for 4 trains per hour would work, but...

Hence looking if there was anything that could create a 4th platform without any major issues.

Not suggesting a need for more trains on the route shared with Thameslink, just making it possible to have longer trains on the MML again.
 
Nottingham59

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,658
Location
Nottingham
Topological said:
Seeing the discussion about the limitations placed upon the Midland Mainline (MML) in London by the lack of platform capacity at St Pancras, are there other destinations that trains could run to instead? (I am thinking more of the Corby EMUs rather than the longer distance stock)
Click to expand...
No. But Thameslink could provide a service with 700s to Kettering and Corby using the EMR paths. If they ever get throughput up to the 24tph that was promised for the Thameslink core.
 
Starmill

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,396
Location
Bolton
Topological said:
I agree that on paper there should not be any issue.

However, whenever there is a discussion of running longer trains on the MML (e.g. 10 car 810s) the answer is always that they need to share platforms at St Pancras. As an outsider it would seem 3 platforms for 4 trains per hour would work, but...

Hence looking if there was anything that could create a 4th platform without any major issues.

Not suggesting a need for more trains on the route shared with Thameslink, just making it possible to have longer trains on the MML again.
Click to expand...
In reality it's not difficult to turn around four services per hour without sharing at all. The only real issue is how punctually trains can arrive and how long of a turnaround time there is available at the other end of the route. Speeding up cleaning isn't really that difficult as it's already done quite fast.
 
B

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,222
The myth that St Pancras is short of platforms is like a whack-a-mole; it keeps popping back up.

1) it has plenty of capacity for the EMR services that use it in normal running.
2) when the 810s arrive, it gets easier, even wiht 10 cars
3) There is no capacity on the MML south of Leicester for more London EMR services anyway, at least not without removing Thameslink services and doign one of i) removing frieght ii) extending journey times for Sheffield / Nottingham services or iii) taking out some calls south of Leicester from some existing EMR London services.
 
C

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,035
The glib answer here is EWR - a Corby could take a Bedford-Oxford frequency once that goes live. And maybe allow another slower service, often mentioned as a Leicetser EMU (might time up with that fifth platform... inshallah...)

TL - I could see the odd Wellingboro' extension - plenty of capacity on those slow slows now quadded. Beyond that, journey is getting far too long for the current stock allocation.

Or a situation where Nottingham had an hourly KX, and dropped to hourly MML. Funnily enough, similar (but OA) was suggested for Sheffield.

Finally, if HS2 could get up toward Burton, that might also be able to free up another thing.

But these don't quite answer the question of an alt terminus - Kentish Town is the boring, most likely answer - maybe with a West Hampstead call also (could the Corby-s do that)- plenty of connectivity.
 
S

stevieinselby

Member
Joined
26 May 2023
Messages
191
Location
Selby
The only realistic alternative to EMR running Corby to St Pancras would be to extend every other Bedford TL train to Corby.
It's half an hour each way, so you would need an extra two 700s in the rota.
And then you have to extend the platforms at those stations to 12-car length.
And passengers from Corby and Wellingborough have a slower and less comfortable journey, albeit potentially more convenient if the increased range of destinations helps them.
But potentially capacity issues – I don't know how busy the Thameslink Flyers are and whether they could accommodate the extra passengers.
 
B

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,222
stevieinselby said:
But potentially capacity issues – I don't know how busy the Thameslink Flyers are and whether they could accommodate the extra passengers.
Click to expand...

About 600 people standing on each one in the peaks between St Pancras and St Albans.
 
V

Vexed

Member
Joined
12 Jan 2020
Messages
47
Location
Herts
This is stretching my memory but can I just check the Thameslink Flyers are the extra peak services that go straight onto the fast lines at Bedford, skipping some of the normal stops?
 
Starmill

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,396
Location
Bolton
Vexed said:
This is stretching my memory but can I just check the Thameslink Flyers are the extra peak services that go straight onto the fast lines at Bedford, skipping some of the normal stops?
Click to expand...
I think you're thinking of what was running before the 2tph Corby services started.
 
Halish Railway

Halish Railway

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2017
Messages
1,713
Location
West Yorkshire / Birmingham
I don’t think there’s much of a need for more frequent trains from St Pancras to the East Midlands, more a need for longer trains all throughout the day.

If there were to be any new destinations they should be extensions of the existing Nottingham and Sheffield services to provide better northbound connectivity from the East Midlands.
 
J

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,859
Bletchleyite said:
Cambridge for instance has never made *any* sense.
Click to expand...
Cambridge to Brighton, offering a direct link to Gatwick Airport is, by all accounts, a successful extension of Thameslink. Kings Cross doesn't have the platform space for 12-car semi-fast trains to serve Stevenage and the stations to Cambridge.

If the argument was that Corby trains need to go to Thameslink to free up platforms at St Pancras, running semi-fast services from Cambridge into Kings Cross would be moving the problem next door.

How are you drawing the conclusion that running Thameslink to Cambridge has never made *any* sense? It can very easily be said that running Thameslink to Corby could never make any sense.
 
H

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
13,224
Running Cambridge to Brighton makes a huge amount of sense.

Direct service to Gatwick Airport
Conections to the Elizabeth Line (and Heathrow) via a simple single change at Farringdon
Simpler journeys to the City from places like Royston, Hitchin and Stevenage
Judging by the number of people boarding southbound Thameslink services (or alighting northbound) at Finsbury Park the services provide good connections from the Hertford Loop into the core (I know family members living in Enfield regularly make use of this connection). Before TL services went through the core no-one ever got on a Finsbury Park going southbound or got off travelling northbound.
 
B

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,222
Vexed said:
This is stretching my memory but can I just check the Thameslink Flyers are the extra peak services that go straight onto the fast lines at Bedford, skipping some of the normal stops?
Click to expand...

Starmill said:
I think you're thinking of what was running before the 2tph Corby services started.
Click to expand...

the TL ‘express’ servcies still run, but not advertised as ‘express’.
 
Helvellyn

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
2,016
Anything slows down Corby to St Pancras services, whether extra stops or a change of London terminal will do several things:
  • Drive more Kettering-London passengers onto the Nottinghams, which are non-stop to/from St Pancras.
  • Potentially encourage Corby passengers to change at Kettering for London if a quicker journey is available.
  • Encourage Wellingborough passengers to drive to other railhead (e.g. Northampton) where the fares are cheaper. West of Wellingborough anecdotal evidence people do that and if you live toward the East with easy access to the A6 Bedford is just as good an option (and fares are substantially lower).

Next year the 360s are being refurbished with 2+2 seating and more luggage space to more match the new 810s. So they are a key component of the EMR service offering.
 
M

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
3,043
Location
The Fens
Bletchleyite said:
Or by removing something else from Thameslink and simplifying its operation as a result. Cambridge for instance has never made *any* sense.
Click to expand...

JonathanH said:
Cambridge to Brighton, offering a direct link to Gatwick Airport is, by all accounts, a successful extension of Thameslink. Kings Cross doesn't have the platform space for 12-car semi-fast trains to serve Stevenage and the stations to Cambridge.
Click to expand...

Hadders said:
Running Cambridge to Brighton makes a huge amount of sense.

Direct service to Gatwick Airport
Conections to the Elizabeth Line (and Heathrow) via a simple single change at Farringdon
Simpler journeys to the City from places like Royston, Hitchin and Stevenage
Judging by the number of people boarding southbound Thameslink services (or alighting northbound) at Finsbury Park the services provide good connections from the Hertford Loop into the core (I know family members living in Enfield regularly make use of this connection). Before TL services went through the core no-one ever got on a Finsbury Park going southbound or got off travelling northbound.
Click to expand...
Cambridge-Brighton is by far the most sensible Thameslink addition associated with the Canal Tunnel. Most of my southwards journeys from the Fens are on the Brighton service. In addition to the above Thameslink offers good connections at London Bridge and East Croydon to most of Surrey, Sussex and Kent.

The route that was moved onto Thameslink that makes far less sense is Peterborough, and it is a warning of what would happen if Corby was incorporated into Thameslink. Many discussions here document the difficulties with the Peterborough service and the knock on impact, particularly for the Redhill loop. There is a distance from London limit for Thameslink beyond which lack of resilience gets too big. That appears to be about 50-60 miles, for example Brighton, Bedford and Cambridge. Furthermore, too much mixing of long distance "Inter City" operations with Thameslink is bad for the resilience of both.

Thameslink has already dropped through running to Littlehampton, another long distance route. My preference would be for a way to be found to get Peterborough off Thameslink too, and it is definitely not a good idea to add Corby. Thameslink needs to be made more simple, not more complicated.
 
B

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,952
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Magdalia said:
Thameslink has already dropped through running to Littlehampton, another long distance route. My preference would be for a way to be found to get Peterborough off Thameslink too, and it is definitely not a good idea to add Corby. Thameslink needs to be made more simple, not more complicated.
Click to expand...

Simple in resilience terms is to connect as few lines as possible. Thus, connecting ONLY the MML and Brighton Mainline is the best approach (give or take the Sutton loop). It should never have gone beyond that, not to Cambridge, not to Peterborough, not to Littlehampton, none of them. Corby is still MML. If we wanted to take Cambridge services across London to somewhere else, it should have been on a totally separate, new "Thameslink 2" line.

The key is not connecting multiple lines, because that way you get cross-pollination of delays and you can't easily swap destinations of a delayed train. That has destroyed any punctuality it had.

Compare Merseyrail and Castlefield and note why one of them is (broken 777s aside) considerably more punctual than the other.
 
J

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,859
Magdalia said:
Thameslink has already dropped through running to Littlehampton, another long distance route.
Click to expand...
That is more about saving costs than it being a bad idea to have a few peak trains through from London Bridge to Littlehampton. The Southern peak services from London Bridge to Bognor Regis and Eastbourne have been withdrawn as well.
 
B

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,952
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
JonathanH said:
That is more about saving costs than it being a bad idea to have a few peak trains through from London Bridge to Littlehampton.
Click to expand...

TBH Littlehampton is less of an issue than Cambridge/Peterborough because it's still a line off the BML-ish so there's less cross-pollination, just as Corby is off the MML. But I'd prefer to follow S-Bahn logic and *keep it really simple* - frequent, capacious, one or at most two destinations at each end. More like the Lizzie than what was attempted.

I suspect the idea of using Thameslink for these services was so they could be operated DOO instead of requiring OBS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top