Adjournment Debate Tonight: Electrification Of The MML

[Class377/5]

Thameslink won't be going north of Bedford.

Why you say that?

 

[Waverley125]

Wouldn't the obvious part of any infrastructure upgrade be to upgrade Bedford-Leicester, and to introduce more semi-fasts into St Pancras run by FCC? You could then re-open the stations at Wigston, Kibworth, Desborough, Burton Latimer, Irchester, Sharnbrook and Oakley, allowing for a frequent 350-operated service into London, and for a reducing of stops south of Leicester (i.e. Bedford, Kettering, Luton only)

So a calling pattern like: Leicester, Wigston, Kibworth, Market Harborough, Desborough, Kettering, Burton Latimer, Wellingborough, Irchester, Sharnbrook, Oakley, Bedford, Luton, Luton Airport, St Albans City, West Hampstead Thameslink, London St Pancras

 

[Bald Rick]

1) there won't be enough trains (although more could be built, obv)
2) the TL services going to Bedford will be all fixed formation 12 car Class 700s. It would be rather an expensive way to cart a lot of fresh air around off peak up to, say Corby.
3) the high peak TL services to / from Bedford will all be full and standing between St Albans and London (as now) from Day 1 of the Dec 2018 timetable - a 12 car Cl 700 will have fewer seats than an 8 car 319, albeit with a lot more standing room. The 12 cars that run now are already crush loaded. Having them start further north would mean that they were full further north than now, to the extent of leaving people behind.
4) Journey times for passengers north of Bedford would be extended by at least 15-20 mins due to the station stops on the TL route, having to go slow line Bedford - Harpenden for pathing, and the 100mph top speed. Partly offset by direct link for people going to Farringon / City TL / Blackfriars / London Bridge. But not good for anyone going anywhere else.
5) the 100mph top speed would cause pathing issues north of Bedford also.

Having said that, if a prospective franchise bidder thought it would make more cash to do it, DfT would be bound to listen. But I know where my money is!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wouldn't the obvious part of any infrastructure upgrade be to upgrade Bedford-Leicester, and to introduce more semi-fasts into St Pancras run by FCC? You could then re-open the stations at Wigston, Kibworth, Desborough, Burton Latimer, Irchester, Sharnbrook and Oakley, allowing for a frequent 350-operated service into London, and for a reducing of stops south of Leicester (i.e. Bedford, Kettering, Luton only)

So a calling pattern like: Leicester, Wigston, Kibworth, Market Harborough, Desborough, Kettering, Burton Latimer, Wellingborough, Irchester, Sharnbrook, Oakley, Bedford, Luton, Luton Airport, St Albans City, West Hampstead Thameslink, London St Pancras

I think the good folk of Wellingborough would have something to say about a 60% increase in journey times to London....

 

[Waverley125]

Wellingborough was the other place I was considering adding. Still, only on the Derby/Nottingham slows and not the Sheffield expresses. You could probably solve by running Luton Airport, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough/Kettering, Leicester, Loughborough/EMP on them, which, if you assume an hourly slow to both, would give an hourly 'fast' to Wellingborough, Kettering, Bedford & Luton as well as their half-hourly 'stoppers' to London.

Potentially you'd add Luton & Bedford to the Sheffield stopper i.e. Luton, Bedford, Leicester, Loughborough/EMP, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield

 

[Martin222002]

For clarification the current off peak calling patter for the EMT London services from London St Pancras is as follows.

XX:00 - Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby
XX:15 - Market Harborough, Leicester, East Midlands Parkway, Nottingham
XX:25 - Leicester, Loughborough, East Midlands Parkway, Long Eaton, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield
XX:30 - Luton Airport Parkway, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Loughborough, Beeston, Nottingham
XX:55 - Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield

Now the addition of any extra calls south of Leicester to any of these services would reduce the potential benefits of journey time improvements. There is a potential XX:45 path out of St Pancras (which one service uses in the peak) which would be made more viable with the line speed improvements (including 125mph) due to be introduced in 2014, though there would possibly be rolling stock issues with running an XX:45 service unless the HST fleet can be stretched to allow enough trains to run such a service. Of cause when electrification happens any new fleet on intercity type EMU's would be ordered in a sufficient amount to run any potential extra services.

 

[GNER 91128]

There were a couple more questions to the transport minister this morning regarding upgrades to the MML as well as the electrification. They don't seem in favour of the former but reiterated that they would like to see the latter as part as their 800 mile electrification programme and the TP electrification. Also the Northern Hub was mentioned.

I believe 2019 is around when any of this work can potentially start. Does this sound right?

 

[sprinterguy]

I believe 2019 is around when any of this work can potentially start. Does this sound right?

The start of Control Period 6, yeah that would sound about right.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

1) there won't be enough trains (although more could be built, obv)
2) the TL services going to Bedford will be all fixed formation 12 car Class 700s. It would be rather an expensive way to cart a lot of fresh air around off peak up to, say Corby.
3) the high peak TL services to / from Bedford will all be full and standing between St Albans and London (as now) from Day 1 of the Dec 2018 timetable - a 12 car Cl 700 will have fewer seats than an 8 car 319, albeit with a lot more standing room. The 12 cars that run now are already crush loaded. Having them start further north would mean that they were full further north than now, to the extent of leaving people behind.
4) Journey times for passengers north of Bedford would be extended by at least 15-20 mins due to the station stops on the TL route, having to go slow line Bedford - Harpenden for pathing, and the 100mph top speed. Partly offset by direct link for people going to Farringon / City TL / Blackfriars / London Bridge. But not good for anyone going anywhere else.
5) the 100mph top speed would cause pathing issues north of Bedford also.

Having said that, if a prospective franchise bidder thought it would make more cash to do it, DfT would be bound to listen. But I know where my money is!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I think the good folk of Wellingborough would have something to say about a 60% increase in journey times to London....

I dont see how adding in a host of new station calls south of Leicester add value to the route , personally. Pathing is very hard now for certain times of day north of W/boro to Leicester , and more east - west flows across LCSRT will complicate pathing opportunities north / south.

The MML future ought to about getting the fastest possible longer haul journey opportunities for the "IC" operations and managing the exceptionally heavy commuter flows south of Bedford with Thameslink. (and a bit of freight)

 

[DXMachina]

Does the MML get a lot of freight?

I do wonder to what extent passenger-oriented electrification projects neglect the possibility of electrifying freight, speeding it up and creating more paths.

I also wonder if wires north of Bedford would give a good reason to electrify to Bletchley (Marston Vale line) and give a cut-off route onto the WCML or vice-versa for electric services.

 

[Class377/5]

1) there won't be enough trains (although more could be built, obv)
2) the TL services going to Bedford will be all fixed formation 12 car Class 700s. It would be rather an expensive way to cart a lot of fresh air around off peak up to, say Corby.
3) the high peak TL services to / from Bedford will all be full and standing between St Albans and London (as now) from Day 1 of the Dec 2018 timetable - a 12 car Cl 700 will have fewer seats than an 8 car 319, albeit with a lot more standing room. The 12 cars that run now are already crush loaded. Having them start further north would mean that they were full further north than now, to the extent of leaving people behind.
4) Journey times for passengers north of Bedford would be extended by at least 15-20 mins due to the station stops on the TL route, having to go slow line Bedford - Harpenden for pathing, and the 100mph top speed. Partly offset by direct link for people going to Farringon / City TL / Blackfriars / London Bridge. But not good for anyone going anywhere else.
5) the 100mph top speed would cause pathing issues north of Bedford also.

Have say I agree most of this despite my question.

However as for the fleet number, 700? I can see the sense in new higher especially as these are fixed formation but I thought we were heading for a 3xx series fleet number. Especially as Crossrail has already confirmed it's 10 car (initially with ability to handle an additional 2 cars in the future) fixed formation EMU's will be class 345.

However, are you sure a 12 car Desiro City will have less seats than an 8 car 319? Going off ball park figures, the lack of inner cabs and gangwayed connections generates around about 100 extra seats on a 12 car. Unless of course your comparing a 3+2 seating arrangement with an order for 2+2 train, which is unfair for the 12 car version.

As for not enough trains, well that's an issue especially when they have worked out ways to save money with the order for Desiro Cities.

 

[Waverley125]

I should point out that with the introduction of HS2 the only need for an 'express' calling pattern will be Leicester-London, which can be done if you run services from North of Sheffield (i.e. Leeds, Huddersfield) fast south of there while maintaining calling patterns in the midlands.

An alternative would be to send the 'stoppers' to Corby, to take over that service, and reduce calls south of Kettering.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Does the MML get a lot of freight?

I do wonder to what extent passenger-oriented electrification projects neglect the possibility of electrifying freight, speeding it up and creating more paths.

I also wonder if wires north of Bedford would give a good reason to electrify to Bletchley (Marston Vale line) and give a cut-off route onto the WCML or vice-versa for electric services.

Reasonable amount of freight , much of it being aggregate / cement etc southbound , waste traffic , fuel to Colnbrook - around one averag path per hour in reality.

The electric haulage is a fair point , but the issues of non wired terminals and loading points works against this (unfortunatly) - dont see much prospet of Bedford - BY getting wired .........

 

[daniel3982]

I should point out that with the introduction of HS2 the only need for an 'express' calling pattern will be Leicester-London, which can be done if you run services from North of Sheffield (i.e. Leeds, Huddersfield) fast south of there while maintaining calling patterns in the midlands.

An alternative would be to send the 'stoppers' to Corby, to take over that service, and reduce calls south of Kettering.

I really don't think Nottingham, Derby or Sheffield will appreciate the loss of downgrading of their intercity links to the capital if as expected the stops on HS2 are out of the cities.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I really don't think Nottingham, Derby or Sheffield will appreciate the loss of downgrading of their intercity links to the capital if as expected the stops on HS2 are out of the cities.

Yeah i must agree if like is suggested there is not city centre stations.

 

[Yew]

With regards to freight, could some dorm of link to east midlands airport cultivate more freight growth here. Donnington racetrack and EMA both hope for a light rail link, so maybe a few PPM's and a small freight yard (maybe even one siding) could be interesting

 

[Bald Rick]

Have say I agree most of this despite my question.

However as for the fleet number, 700? I can see the sense in new higher especially as these are fixed formation but I thought we were heading for a 3xx series fleet number. Especially as Crossrail has already confirmed it's 10 car (initially with ability to handle an additional 2 cars in the future) fixed formation EMU's will be class 345.

However, are you sure a 12 car Desiro City will have less seats than an 8 car 319? Going off ball park figures, the lack of inner cabs and gangwayed connections generates around about 100 extra seats on a 12 car. Unless of course your comparing a 3+2 seating arrangement with an order for 2+2 train, which is unfair for the 12 car version.

As for not enough trains, well that's an issue especially when they have worked out ways to save money with the order for Desiro Cities.

700-yes, don't know why though.

seats-well it depends what you count. A 12x700 will seat about 600 people, I'll get the exact number tomorrow. Depending on the sub class, 8x319 will seat anywhere between c550-650. There was an article in Modern Railways a couple of years back that had the exact numbers for the new train. The change from 3+2 to 2+2 does matter to the punters (like me) who will be standing!

The new trains will have 2m wide doors for quick boarding, big standbacks in the vestibules, luggage space etc. So fewer seats. In layout terms it will be similar to the SET 376s, just with better environment (and hopefully better seats).

 

[YorkshireBear]

the change from 3+2 to 2+2 matter to me too. I love it, i dont have to watch half the train not be able to fit on the seats and make standing uncomfortable due to smaller corridors.

I worte to my local MP in sheffield and she replied within 2 days saying she fully supports it and has been campaigning.

 

[Class377/5]

700-yes, don't know why though.

seats-well it depends what you count. A 12x700 will seat about 600 people, I'll get the exact number tomorrow. Depending on the sub class, 8x319 will seat anywhere between c550-650. There was an article in Modern Railways a couple of years back that had the exact numbers for the new train. The change from 3+2 to 2+2 does matter to the punters (like me) who will be standing!

The new trains will have 2m wide doors for quick boarding, big standbacks in the vestibules, luggage space etc. So fewer seats. In layout terms it will be similar to the SET 376s, just with better environment (and hopefully better seats).

Actually the back of fag packet maths didn't account for the large stand backs.

This is going to be a repeat of the Network vs Electorstar seating where an 8 car 377/5 has similar seating levels to an 6 car Networker.

700, very strange. I had heard other numbers......