Additional Peterborough stations

[William3000]

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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


Sorry, no platforms at Kings Cross for that.

I would imagine that Hampton and Werrington would have similar numbers of people within a 2km radius as New Barnet and New Southgate and if not those probably more than Hadley Wood,
Brookman’s Park, Welham Green etc

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

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.

Nothing to do with fare evasion. I see huge numbers on trains between Cambridge and Cambridge North every day!

 

[NorthOxonian]

I would imagine that Hampton and Werrington would have similar numbers of people within a 2km radius as New Barnet and New Southgate and if not those probably more than Hadley Wood,
Brookman’s Park, Welham Green etc

While I couldn't get a 2km figure, an online calculator I found (and trust, as I'm aware of the guy who creates it and he's generally reliable) gave these as 3km figures - which I've rounded to the nearest thousand:

Hampton 36,000 (but varies from 30,000 ish to 50,000 ish depending on exact site)
Werrington 59,000 (but as above, varies from around 53,000 to 77,000)

New Barnet 104,000
New Southgate 210,000
Hadley Wood 53,000 (artificially inflated as some of High Barnet sneaks in)
Brookmans Park 21,000
Welham Green 25,000

I also looked at some other smaller stops on the line:
Welwyn North 29,000
Knebworth 27,000
Arlesey 19,000

And finally - just for comparison with Cambridge North (though admittedly as has been said, this has far more non residential development) - that's 65,000. The proposed Cambridge South is 43,000. So even just factoring in residential population both are probably slightly bigger than their Peterborough equivalents.

 

[AlastairFraser]

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.

How far north is the old Yaxley site from the edge of Holme Fen?

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

Thameslink's occasional issues pale in comparison to the misery faced by users of Northern and GWR quite frequently.

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

It's a useful addition to a potential user group that mainly consists of the 100k plus in south Peterborough suburbs and exurban villages.

 

[Magdalia]

How far north is the old Yaxley site from the edge of Holme Fen?

Only 49 chains. The old station location isn't far enough north to fit in 70 mph turnouts north of the edge of the Fen and enough track to accelerate 0-70 mph or decelerate 70-0 mph.

Thameslink's occasional issues pale in comparison to the misery faced by users of Northern and GWR quite frequently.

Experience on Northern and GWR are irrelevant, they are not going to be calling at Yaxley. What matters for this discussion is the specific experience of the Thameslink Peterborough service.

It's a useful addition to a potential user group that mainly consists of the 100k plus in south Peterborough suburbs and exurban villages.

A not very useful addition, and one that can only be added at great expense without disrupting traffic on the railway's most busy and lucrative main line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jun 2025 ==

Hampton 36,000 (but varies from 30,000 ish to 50,000 ish depending on exact site)

The area around Hampton, Yaxley and the ECML has a lot of lakes, some of them rather large.

The proposed Cambridge South is 43,000.

There are about 30000 workers on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, plus about 2000 Long Road College students.

Nothing to do with fare evasion. I see huge numbers on trains between Cambridge and Cambridge North every day!

But how many are doing one stop journeys?

Regarding short faring at Cambridge, I'm more suspicious of Shelford than Cambridge North.

I do expect there to be a lot of Cambridge North-Cambridge South journeys starting next year.

 

[Mgameing123]

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.

Peterborough is the not too far anyways. Journey times on fast trains won't increase that much. You can get away with a 3 track station with a loop platform towards Peterborough.

 

[Magdalia]

Journey times on fast trains won't increase that much.

The reduction in capacity because the trains are running more slowly is what matters.

 

[William3000]

Only 49 chains. The old station location isn't far enough north to fit in 70 mph turnouts north of the edge of the Fen and enough track to accelerate 0-70 mph or decelerate 70-0 mph.

Experience on Northern and GWR are irrelevant, they are not going to be calling at Yaxley. What matters for this discussion is the specific experience of the Thameslink Peterborough service.

A not very useful addition, and one that can only be added at great expense without disrupting traffic on the railway's most busy and lucrative main line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jun 2025 ==


The area around Hampton, Yaxley and the ECML has a lot of lakes, some of them rather large.


There are about 30000 workers on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, plus about 2000 Long Road College students.


But how many are doing one stop journeys?

Regarding short faring at Cambridge, I'm more suspicious of Shelford than Cambridge North.

I do expect there to be a lot of Cambridge North-Cambridge South journeys starting next year.

Huge numbers - it’s a journey I regularly do. The alternative takes much longer on a bus or car. It’s only 4 minutes by train - the bus takes about 40 minutes.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Only 49 chains. The old station location isn't far enough north to fit in 70 mph turnouts north of the edge of the Fen and enough track to accelerate 0-70 mph or decelerate 70-0 mph.

Fair enough

Experience on Northern and GWR are irrelevant, they are not going to be calling at Yaxley. What matters for this discussion is the specific experience of the Thameslink Peterborough service.

My point is that the frequency of disruption to Thameslink services isn't enough to deter a more significant bloc of travellers from using them.

The perennial "Do Not Travel" warnings from Northern during periods of entirely predictable staff shortages and the low frequencies on rural GWR routes making cancellations due to stock shortages significantly worse really do make a big permanent impact on people's travel decisions.

Delays aren't ideal, but the ECML is a railway with a relatively broad and diverse range of services, so delays to one service aren't insurmountable.

A not very useful addition, and one that can only be added at great expense without disrupting traffic on the railway's most busy and lucrative main line.

I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion, of course.

 

[Mgameing123]

The reduction in capacity because the trains are running more slowly is what matters.

Though if trains are anyways are on the approach to stop at Peterborough it doesn't impact the timetable too much since they would need to pass by slow anyways.

 

[Magdalia]

The perennial "Do Not Travel" warnings from Northern during periods of entirely predictable staff shortages and the low frequencies on rural GWR routes making cancellations due to stock shortages significantly worse really do make a big permanent impact on people's travel decisions.

Northern are not relevant here. Thameslink are what matters, and let's take last Saturday afternoon as an example. Here are what's on RTT at Huntingdon 1530-2330:

Realtime Trains | Departures from Huntingdon between 1530 and 2330 on 14/06/2025

Train information at Huntingdon between 1530 and 2330 on 14/06/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Up trains 6 ran 10 cancelled, including nothing after 1810 until 2240.
Down trains 7 ran 9 cancelled, including nothing after 1852 until 2151.

And that's while LNER were running a virtually on time service.

Delays aren't ideal, but the ECML is a railway with a relatively broad and diverse range of services, so delays to one service aren't insurmountable.

The ECML is a congested railway with a broad and diverse range of services where delays are usually not confined to single services. Delays have knock on effects on other trains, as I know from 25 years experience of GN commuting. A delay quickly turns into a queue for 100+mph trains.

Though if trains are anyways are on the approach to stop at Peterborough it doesn't impact the timetable too much since they would need to pass by slow anyways.

Roughly half of LNER services pass through Peterborough non-stop, plus almost all of Open Access Operator services. Their schedules require them to run through the Holme to Peterborough section at speeds of 100-115 mph. It impacts the timetable significantly.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Up trains 6 ran 10 cancelled, including nothing after 1810 until 2240.
Down trains 7 ran 9 cancelled, including nothing after 1852 until 2151.

And that's while LNER were running a virtually on time service.

Precisely my point - with additional TOCs running on the ECML, there is the potential for special stop orders to be made to accommodate passengers who experience significant delays after a period of extended disruption. There isn't that facility on many routes.

The ECML is a congested railway with a broad and diverse range of services where delays are usually not confined to single services. Delays have knock on effects on other trains, as I know from 25 years experience of GN commuting. A delay quickly turns into a queue for 100+mph trains.

Surely the most vulnerable section is Digswell Viaduct and the adjacent 2 track sections, as that has the highest scheduled service frequency of any 2 track section of the ECML I believe.

While I do believe you would need to build the station on loops to avoid obstructing intercity trains during normal operations, this section of the ECML is not super congested and hopefully reliability will improve as all trains gradually switch to ETCS operation.

 

[Starmill]

Werrington is far away enough from Peterborough city centre that it should work OK. There should be just enough time to squeeze it onto the Spalding route services.

Unfortunately the pretty rubbish walking route between Peterborough and the city centre and the very low frequency at Werrington would be major downsides.

London connections and to a lesser extent Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh ones would probably be OK, but these come with a huge risk of missing the connection and knowing of course that it's very unlikely indeed that it'll be held. Birmingham, Leicester, Cambridge, Nottingham and Norwich connections are woeful because they have such low capacity at present.

 

[bspahh]

My daughter used to live in Hampton. She didn't have a car, but the bus service was good enough. Pedestrian access to the Serpentine shopping centre with Tesco wasn't great.

The problem for building a station South of Peterborough is that there is a lot of low density housing nearby. Ideally you would plan the area with the station in mind. If you put the station further away from the existing housing, so you can build lots of high density housing near the station, then it will be a long way from the rest of Peterborough to walk. If you build the station closer to Peterborough, then you limit the area for new high density housing. The suburbs of Peterborough, where a lot of the jobs will be, has been designed around the car.

 

[AlastairFraser]

My daughter used to live in Hampton. She didn't have a car, but the bus service was good enough. Pedestrian access to the Serpentine shopping centre with Tesco wasn't great.

The problem for building a station South of Peterborough is that there is a lot of low density housing nearby. Ideally you would plan the area with the station in mind. If you put the station further away from the existing housing, so you can build lots of high density housing near the station, then it will be a long way from the rest of Peterborough to walk. If you build the station closer to Peterborough, then you limit the area for new high density housing. The suburbs of Peterborough, where a lot of the jobs will be, has been designed around the car.

Although a station with a large car park between Hampton and Yaxley would be walkable for some and acccessible for those who have little choice but to drive.

 

[Magdalia]

Precisely my point - with additional TOCs running on the ECML, there is the potential for special stop orders to be made to accommodate passengers who experience significant delays after a period of extended disruption.

Get real! There is no potential for special stop orders. Each special stop will add 5 minutes to an ECML schedule, and there are already 5 stations between Hitchin and Peterborough.

Surely the most vulnerable section is Digswell Viaduct and the adjacent 2 track sections

You are right, and there are 2 important lessons from Digswell that you are persistently ignoring.

One is that managing Digswell includes managing the adjacent congestion points too. One of them is Holme Fen. What happens at Holme Fen has knock on effects for Digswell (and vice versa).

The other is the relationship that Welwyn Garden City and Knebworth stations have with the Digswell 2 track section. Both have 70 mph turnouts to/from the 2 track section, 4 tracks through the station and out the other side, and a full signal section on the 4 tracks between the 70mph turnouts and the platforms, which thus have to be about a mile away minimum. That's what a Peterborough South station would need too.

The problem for building a station South of Peterborough is that there is a lot of low density housing nearby. Ideally you would plan the area with the station in mind. If you put the station further away from the existing housing, so you can build lots of high density housing near the station, then it will be a long way from the rest of Peterborough to walk. If you build the station closer to Peterborough, then you limit the area for new high density housing.

Hampton is more than a mile away from the ECML. In between are lots of lakes.

Unfortunately the pretty rubbish walking route between Peterborough and the city centre and the very low frequency at Werrington would be major downsides.

Peterborough station is being addressed see here:

Peterborough's Station Quarter: what does £65m project involve?

It is hoped works on the railway station and surrounding area will begin this year.

www.bbc.co.uk

With promises it will transform a city centre and unlock regeneration in the area, plans for a new "Station Quarter" in Peterborough have been endorsed by the government.

But five years since a bid for funding towards the £65m project was submitted, works have yet to begin. What does the project involve and why is it taking so long?

A Peterborough North station could have more trains with a revised timetable that actually delivered on 21st century priorities.

 

[Zomboid]

One is that managing Digswell includes managing the adjacent congestion points too. One of them is Holme Fen. What happens at Holme Fen has knock on effects for Digswell (and vice versa).

Also of note is that Digswell is a considerably shorter section of 2 track than Holme Fen.

But on the other hand, LNERs are unlikely to be catching up the TLs on Holme because the line speed is 100, so 700s will be running at the same speed as 800s.

 

[DaleCooper]

Hampton is more than a mile away from the ECML. In between are lots of lakes.

Parts of Hampton are right next to the ECML, in between there's a few trees.

 

[Magdalia]

Parts of Hampton are right next to the ECML, in between there's a few trees.

Most of Hampton is the other side of the A15 to the ECML, more than a mile away.

 

[bspahh]

Most of Hampton is the other side of the A15 to the ECML, more than a mile away.

Yes. My daughter's house was about 3/4 of a mile from the footbridge, to Crown Lakes Country Park, and a mile to where Broadway crosses the railway.

Given sufficient concrete, you can build anything, anywhere. However, a lot of the land there is recovered from brick works. I don't think you would choose it for enough high density density housing, to justify the expense of building a station.

BTW, https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/cambridge-meal.287617/ has a a poll for who wants to go to a forum meal in Cambridge.

 

[DaleCooper]

Most of Hampton is the other side of the A15 to the ECML, more than a mile away.

The new parts, Hampton Gardens, Hampton Beach and Hampton Lakes, are east of the A15 close to the ECML.

 

[Magdalia]

The new parts, Hampton Gardens, Hampton Beach and Hampton Lakes, are east of the A15 close to the ECML.

Those names tell you all you need to know about population density!

 

[The exile]

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.

This sounds dangerously close to Soviet era style planning- all based on figures in paper with no recognition of realities on the ground. Size alone is a very poor indicator of how many stations an area needs - what matters are existing and potential travel patterns.

 

[Magdalia]

However, a lot of the land there is recovered from brick works. I don't think you would choose it for enough high density density housing, to justify the expense of building a station.

I am old enough to remember the brickworks, which were extensive (and smelly). The area gives its name to a particular type of house brick.

Our Heritage - The Original London Brick | LBC Brick Makers

In continuous production since 1877, the iconic London Brick has been used in almost a quarter of England's housing stock.

londonbrick.co.uk

An icon on the British landscape​

From its origins as a simple utility brick, London Brick – also known as 
a Fletton brick after its original place of manufacture – is one of the few building products whose fame has reached into the mainstream.

It is recognised by its iconic ‘frog’ feature, an indentation in the top of the brick that ensures quick and even heat distribution in the firing process and makes the brick easier to cut, handle and lay.

Brick manufacture involved extensive excavation of clay which left lots of large deep holes. Some of these now form the lakes, others were reclaimed by infill. Lots of the infill was flyash from base load coal fired power stations, especially Radcliffe and West Burton, brought in by train, and distributed around the area on conveyor belts.

 

[whoosh]

Though if trains are anyways are on the approach to stop at Peterborough it doesn't impact the timetable too much since they would need to pass by slow anyways.

Northbound Thameslink trains are still doing 100mph past the footbridge circled in red on this map, and southbound have just reached 100mph by this point.
Full speed for Thameslink trains in other words!