Alternative Destinations for MML Trains in London

[JonathanH]

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.

Given Peterborough is essentially just the natural terminating point of services from Stevenage and Hitchin to London, and the Cambridge and Peterborough services combine to offer four fast trains an hour from this area, how could withdrawal from Peterborough ever be achieved?

I suspect the idea of using Thameslink for these services was so they could be operated DOO instead of requiring OBS.

No, Cambridge / Peterborough is about being able to run 12 car trains from Stevenage to London which can't be accommodated at Kings Cross.

Littlehampton was essentially about pathing, terminal capacity at London Bridge and matching up the number of trains on the MML with trains south of London.

 

[swt_passenger]

Littlehampton was never going to be a regular service, it was a high peak only service with only 3 trains nortbound in the morning and 3 southbound in the evening peak. To describe it as a 2 tph service was stretching things a lot. Never really a key feature of the overall network hence being a dotted line on the route diagram.

 

[Magdalia]

connecting ONLY the MML and Brighton Mainline is the best approach (give or take the Sutton loop).

Prior to 2009 that delivered only 10tph through the core.

The 2009-18 improvements were a package of which the Canal tunnel was an integral part, along with resignalling the core and all of the station and track improvements around Blackfriars and London Bridge. The Canal Tunnel was an essential part of the package for delivering destinations north of the river for 20-24tph capacity in the core, because the MML could not accommodate all of them.

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.

There is always a trade off between connectivity and resilience, but it isn't black and white, it is a set of marginal decisions. I think that the wrong decisions were made about where trains through the Canal Tunnel should go, and fortunately we never had to experience the madness that was Cambridge-Maidstone. Drawing on my half a century of experience of travelling on the GN, I'd say that Cambridge-Brighton is worth the resilience risk, and, given the huge economic growth in and around Cambridge since, there is a much stronger case for Cambridge-Brighton now than there was 15 years ago. But it would be better for resilience if everything else that comes through the Canal Tunnel could stay on the slow lines and not go beyond Welwyn Garden City.

Cambridge / Peterborough is about being able to run 12 car trains from Stevenage to London which can't be accommodated at Kings Cross.

I agree that the Canal Tunnel is also inextricably linked with capacity at Kings Cross.

Given Peterborough is essentially just the natural terminating point of services from Stevenage and Hitchin to London, and the Cambridge and Peterborough services combine to offer four fast trains an hour from this area, how could withdrawal from Peterborough ever be achieved?

Which is what makes a satisfactory answer to your question so hard to find! In that sense, Peterborough and capacity at Kings Cross is similar to Corby and capacity at St Pancras, but starting from the opposite situation.

However, this is supposed to be about the MML not the GN!

 

[stevieinselby]

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.

One of the key points about Thameslink was to increase the capacity of the network by running trains across London rather than terminating on one side of the city – it makes sense to get maximum usage out of the tunnel through the core, which is currently running 14tph off-peak and could easily accommodate more. If you're going to insist that it is only used by trains heading north on MML and south on a couple of specific routes then are you suggesting that we should increase the frequency on those routes, or that we should allow the core to languish under-used while spending billions of pounds building parallel routes? Neither seems like an efficient use of scarce resources.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the key points about Thameslink was to increase the capacity of the network by running trains across London rather than terminating on one side of the city – it makes sense to get maximum usage out of the tunnel through the core, which is currently running 14tph off-peak and could easily accommodate more. If you're going to insist that it is only used by trains heading north on MML and south on a couple of specific routes then are you suggesting that we should increase the frequency on those routes, or that we should allow the core to languish under-used while spending billions of pounds building parallel routes? Neither seems like an efficient use of scarce resources.

Take a look at the London Underground. That's how you keep it simple, avoid knock-on and run high capacity - simple, unconnected single lines with the odd branch or two at most.

If we try to cram stuff in it'll never be punctual nor reliable.

We need to learn in this country that building for resilience is a GOOD use of money, not a waste. A watch-settingly punctual railway is better than a crammed-in one. Indeed, punctuality and capacity are two of the biggest virtues of a well-designed resilient public transport service.

 

[SynthD]

That’s why the Underground reaches 32tph, and Thameslink is settling for 22tph.

 

[stevieinselby]

Take a look at the London Underground. That's how you keep it simple, avoid knock-on and run high capacity - simple, unconnected single lines with the odd branch or two at most.

If we try to cram stuff in it'll never be punctual nor reliable.

We need to learn in this country that building for resilience is a GOOD use of money, not a waste. A watch-settingly punctual railway is better than a crammed-in one. Indeed, punctuality and capacity are two of the biggest virtues of a well-designed resilient public transport service.

That doesn't answer the question.
Do you think we should run the Thameslink core at a third of its potential capacity, or do you think we should be running stopping trains to St Albans every 6 minutes and fast trains to Bedford every 6 minutes?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you think we should run the Thameslink core at a third of its potential capacity

Yes, I'd prefer to do that than to run it in a manner that will result in unreliability. However, what I would add to it is two 8 car fast Corbys per hour, removing them from St Pancras.

One of the reasons Merseyrail tends to run reliably is that its underground cores are run well below their potential capacity. Resilience is a virtue.

 

[JonathanH]

Yes, I'd prefer to do that than to run it in a manner that will result in unreliability. However, what I would add to it is two 8 car fast Corbys per hour, removing them from St Pancras.

One of the reasons Merseyrail tends to run reliably is that its underground cores are run well below their potential capacity. Resilience is a virtue.

How much under theoretical capacity should the MML operate, in particular with regard to the way that three service groups fit on two sets of lines?

 

[Magdalia]

Take a look at the London Underground. That's how you keep it simple, avoid knock-on and run high capacity - simple, unconnected single lines with the odd branch or two at most.

Let's do that. The Underground is almost entirely all stations services over short distances of less than 20 miles from the centre, and where there are no other trains. It would be possible to run Thameslink like that, with 10tph to St Albans and 10tph to Welwyn Garden City all stations on the northern side. Everything else would have to be kicked off the MML and ECML slow lines, meaning that all Bedford and Cambridge trains would have to share the fast lines with the long distance services.

There's no way that the all stations approach can work for places more than 20 miles away from the centre, such as Bedford or Corby, Gatwick Airport or Brighton. Once the all stations feature is lost then making good use of capacity, while maintaining resilience, becomes a tricky balancing act.

Thameslink has operated long distance services, primarily Bedford-Brighton, since its inception. As has already been indicated, running long distance services via Thameslink has a key function of relieving platform capacity pressures at Victoria, St Pancras, and now also Kings Cross, on top of its huge commercial benefits.

Resilience is a virtue.

Yes it is, but making effective use of capacity is a virtue too. What you are proposing is very wasteful for capacity.

 

[Bald Rick]

Take a look at the London Underground. That's how you keep it simple, avoid knock-on and run high capacity - simple, unconnected single lines with the odd branch or two at most.

Let's do that.

Or the Met line. 4 branches, with a mix of fast and semi fast services, two terminating points, direct interaction with two other tube lines and Chilterns… up to 32 tph on some sections of track … seems to work ok.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or the Met line. 4 branches, with a mix of fast and semi fast services, two terminating points, direct interaction with two other tube lines and Chilterns… up to 32 tph on some sections of track … seems to work ok.

The Met is a lot simpler than Thameslink. Yes, there are 4 branches on one side but only one on the other (that you terminate some part way along isn't that important, it's only like having the Luton and the Bedford).

 

[HSTEd]

One reason you might want to move the MML long distance services out of St Pancras would be to allow the MML platforms to be rebuilt to serve HS1 instead. That would allow for a major expansion of HS1 domestic services.

But doesn't solve the problem of where the displaced trains should go.
If HS2 had been built in full there might have been room on the classic side of Euston to absorb them with a relatively short length of tunnel, but I doubt that will happen now.

 

[JonathanH]

That would allow for a major expansion of HS1 domestic services.

Is there call for a major expansion of HS1 domestic services?

But doesn't solve the problem of where the displaced trains should go.

Marylebone via a burrowed connection at West Hampstead. The Chiltern trains can go in a tunnel some place else.

 

[NoRoute]

If HS2 frees up capacity on the WCML and at Euston, then I think there's a decent argument for directing at least a few MML services heading south from Leicester down the WCML to Euston, picking up Northampton, Milton Keynes and Watford en-route.

The railways cannot be a 1960s museum piece, most of the economic and commuting flows in the East Midlands are going up and down the M1 motorway corridor, at some point the railway network needs to be dragged into the 21st century to serve the major towns and cities as they are today, rather than a network shaped by Beeching's pruning efforts over 60 years ago.

 

[Bald Rick]

If HS2 frees up capacity on the WCML and at Euston, then I think there's a decent argument for directing at least a few MML services heading south from Leicester down the WCML to Euston, picking up Northampton, Milton Keynes and Watford en-route.

The railways cannot be a 1960s museum piece, most of the economic and commuting flows in the East Midlands are going up and down the M1 motorway corridor, at some point the railway network needs to be dragged into the 21st century to serve the major towns and cities as they are today, rather than a network shaped by Beeching's pruning efforts over 60 years ago.

I’ll bite.

How would they do that route?

What would be the journey time?

Which paths would they be using on the WCML?

 

[A0wen]

I’ll bite.

How would they do that route?

What would be the journey time?

Which paths would they be using on the WCML?

I'll nibble - presumably through the madcap idea that ERTA / BRTA are busy peddling of reinstating the Northampton - Market Harboro' line...... Ignoring the fact that the latest developments on the NW side of Northampton make it almost impossible to achieve without huge disruption.

 

[Topological]

I must confess the more outlandish plan in my mind did involve using some of the paths freed by HS2 on the WCML to allow an MML connection. The old route is built on in a few places, but a connection from Leicester to Rugby should not be impossible. I did not put that in here as I was looking at whether additional St Pancras space could help the MML.

Presumably a Euston - MK - Leicester would be competitive with the MML. If Northampton were served as well then it would be providing midlands connectivity that currently exists in bus form only, but it would slow the trains down.

 

[Mikw]

The 360's aren't the problem regarding St Pancras. When they're running late they can be turned round in 5 minutes and vacate the station. Yet to see the 222's do this.

 

[SynthD]

If HS2 frees up capacity on the WCML and at Euston, then I think there's a decent argument for directing at least a few MML services heading south from Leicester down the WCML to Euston, picking up Northampton, Milton Keynes and Watford en-route.

The HS2 eastern leg solves a similar problem by connecting the MML a bit further north to a line with more spare capacity and higher speed. The land has already been bought.

 

[edwin_m]

The HS2 eastern leg solves a similar problem by connecting the MML a bit further north to a line with more spare capacity and higher speed. The land has already been bought.

Actually it didn't (past tense as it's cancelled). The need to provide Leicester and the other stations south of East Midlands Parkway with a good frequency to London and further north almost certainly means that the MML classic services would have had to remain similar to today's, with the possible exception of north of Derby. That would actually increase the pressure on busy sections such as Trent junctions.

 

[A0wen]

I must confess the more outlandish plan in my mind did involve using some of the paths freed by HS2 on the WCML to allow an MML connection. The old route is built on in a few places, but a connection from Leicester to Rugby should not be impossible. I did not put that in here as I was looking at whether additional St Pancras space could help the MML.

Presumably a Euston - MK - Leicester would be competitive with the MML. If Northampton were served as well then it would be providing midlands connectivity that currently exists in bus form only, but it would slow the trains down.

Doubt it, unless you can do Rugby - Leicester in 10 mins. Current Euston - Rugby Avanti is ~1h 25m, fastest EMR Leicester - St P 1h 36m.

 

[Nottingham59]

Doubt it, unless you can do Rugby - Leicester in 10 mins. Current Euston - Rugby Avanti is ~1h 25m, fastest EMR Leicester - St P 1h 36m.

Those timings seem a bit slow. ...

 

[Topological]

Doubt it, unless you can do Rugby - Leicester in 10 mins. Current Euston - Rugby Avanti is ~1h 25m, fastest EMR Leicester - St P 1h 36m.

Rugby to London is not that long, but then nor is Leicester to St Pancras.

Rugby to London on this evening's 17:56 Avanti is timed at 58 minutes with stops at Milton Keynes and Watford Junction (Set Down Only): https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C88477/2024-04-13

Leicester to London on this evening's non-stop 17:33 is timed at 1 hour 3 minutes: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C54687/2024-04-13/detailed#allox_id=0

So, taking out the Watford stop and leaving only Milton Keynes, you would have about 10 minutes for the Leicester to Rugby section. The distance is given as 20 miles, so the 10 minutes is not achievable. However, the point was about being competitive not faster.

My hypothesised route would look to stay closer to the M1 and pick up the Great Central trackbed rather than the old Midland route (which has been built on). It may be better to branch off from Northampton to provide better connectivity between Northampton and Leicester.

This is speculative after all.

 

[jagardner1984]

If we try to cram stuff in it'll never be punctual nor reliable.

I was thinking about this the other morning when heading north from STP - early peak so about 0700. A 700 sat down (no idea what, a lot of pantograph clattering). Then it got on its way 10 mins later. No big deal for me, but made me think about how widespread the delays could be across not only TL but GN if it went on too much longer

It seems to me the Thameslink 2000 project was essentially a response to the chronic, dangerous overcrowding at times on Thameslink 319 services, so “something had to be done”. The costs of making it 12 car operation and increasing frequency at all through the core (removing the Moorgate section for example) were so eye watering that it became logical (at least to politicians) to cherry pick other overcrowded services and route them into the core, albeit with the additional cost of the canal tunnel (which I’d assume was fairly trivial in the scale of the overall redesign of the core). A “Thameslink 2” of a second through London segregated railway would obviously be better, but presumably not possible to justify on cost for just ECML services.

In many senses, speaking not about railway engineering logic but geographical logic, using places out in the sticks to turn and clean trains makes so much more sense than doing that in your high pressure, high cost, high volume termini. One wonders how much of the Euston problem could be solved by trains arriving empty into the platform to a waiting group of people, ready to pickup and go, rather than trying to meet the crazy tight turnarounds the WCML timetable requires. Maybe the tatters remaining of HS2 will resolve some of it, but one wonders what is next on the 2100 ideas pad for adding capacity onto or beyond the Euston Road.

 

[JonathanH]

In many senses, speaking not about railway engineering logic but geographical logic, using places out in the sticks to turn and clean trains makes so much more sense than doing that in your high pressure, high cost, high volume termini. One wonders how much of the Euston problem could be solved by trains arriving empty into the platform to a waiting group of people, ready to pickup and go, rather than trying to meet the crazy tight turnarounds the WCML timetable requires.

If people could wait in locations distributed along the length of the train, rather than all at one end, those problems might not exist, but for that to work, you really need a concourse above or below the platforms, and not all of the interchange facilities in one location.