Coventry to Leicester direct - but how?

[swt_passenger]

If they get the bay in at Coventry I believe it will make Leamington to Nuneaton 2tph, I have not heard plans for Coventry to Nuneaton to run as well as Leamington to Nuneaton.

What is the point of the bay at Coventry if not for a Nuneaton service? Isn’t it a connection off the Nuneaton line?

 

[The Planner]

If they get the bay in at Coventry I believe it will make Leamington to Nuneaton 2tph, I have not heard plans for Coventry to Nuneaton to run as well as Leamington to Nuneaton.

How? the bay on the up side is for terminating trains from Nuneaton.

 

[Energy]

How? the bay on the up side is for terminating trains from Nuneaton.

This says phase 2 will allow 2tph on Leamington to Nuneaton, then an extra tph from Coventry to Nuneaton later on.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

If they get the bay in at Coventry I believe it will make Leamington to Nuneaton 2tph, I have not heard plans for Coventry to Nuneaton to run as well as Leamington to Nuneaton.

The bay platform is to terminate trains at Coventry from Nuneaton

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

For anyone who can't see Energy's link, the part in question says:

The report states that the north-south corridor between Leamington and Nuneaton is one of the main corridors for movement within Warwickshire.

Through the the Nuneaton - Coventry- Kenilworth – Leamington, known as (NUCKLE) project, there has been a new station provided at Bermuda and also at the Ricoh Arena with the platform at Bedworth being extended.

Through NUCKLE phase 2, there will be a new platform at Coventry station, allowing the rail service to increase the frequency from one train per hour to two trains per hour.

There are also proposals that three trains per hour will run on the Coventry to Nuneaton line to cater for Ricoh Arena passengers, once the new Coventry bay platform is complete.

The bay platform is for a shuttle between Coventry to Nuneaton but NUCKLE Phase 2 will provide 2tph.

 

[edwin_m]

If they get the bay in at Coventry I believe it will make Leamington to Nuneaton 2tph, I have not heard plans for Coventry to Nuneaton to run as well as Leamington to Nuneaton.

If they could get 2TPH from Nuneaton to Leamington they wouldn't need the bay (or at least not until they tried to add a Leicester service). The need to cross the main line at Coventry and the single line towards Leamington severely restricts capacity on this section, along with the rather random timings of freight trains.

 

[CW2]

I'm really not getting this. Where is the sudden demand for through services Coventry to Leicester coming from? Why not have through services from Swindon to Oxford and reopen some intermediate stations eg. Challow, Wantage? Why stop at Leicester - there must be somewhere else we can link this no-hope hypothetical service to further east? How about hourly Swindon - Oxford - Leamington - Coventry - Leicester - Peterborough - Ely?
(If your irony detector is fluctuating, I am NOT being serious here ...)

 

[Energy]

I'm really not getting this. Where is the sudden demand for through services Coventry to Leicester coming from? Why not have through services from Swindon to Oxford and reopen some intermediate stations eg. Challow, Wantage? Why stop at Leicester - there must be somewhere else we can link this no-hope hypothetical service to further east? How about hourly Swindon - Oxford - Leamington - Coventry - Leicester - Peterborough - Ely?
(If your irony detector is fluctuating, I am NOT being serious here ...)

There used to be a Coventry to Nottingham service before WCML upgrades, the upgrades to Leamington/Coventry to Nuneaton are being done partly under the West Midlands Authority Government thing (whatever it is called), Swindon to Oxford could be done if the local government thing in that area wanted it done.

 

[CW2]

There used to be a Coventry to Nottingham service before WCML upgrades, the upgrades to Leamington/Coventry to Nuneaton are being done partly under the West Midlands Authority Government thing (whatever it is called), Swindon to Oxford could be done if the local government thing in that area wanted it done.

I understand all of that. What I don't see is the overwhelming need to spend money on additional infrstructure in order to provide a direct service Coventry to Leicester. "We used to have one so we want it back again regardless of common sense and economics" is not a convincing argument.

 

[alistairlees]

I understand all of that. What I don't see is the overwhelming need to spend money on additional infrstructure in order to provide a direct service Coventry to Leicester. "We used to have one so we want it back again regardless of common sense and economics" is not a convincing argument.

300,000 plus people in each city, approx 25 miles apart seems like a good argument for a train service.

 

[Rob F]

300,000 plus people in each city, approx 25 miles apart seems like a good argument for a train service.

Agreed. There is a good level of service and patronage from Leicester to Nottingham, Derby and Peterborough all of which are in the same ballpark for distance from Leicester as Coventry. You will always get naysayers here who think that if the railway is not currently providing a particular service then there must be no demand for it, as if the industry is already perfect in every way.

 

[CW2]

Geographical proximity and population density aren't the only considerations. What are the regional hubs? What are the regional centres of employment? What is the local motorway network like? Local buses? Is there a strong history of commuting to work or not? Leisure? Shopping?
In the case of Leicester, it lies between London and Nottingham/Derby. The existence of the good service levels is primarily because of through services to/from London, rather than specifically meeting any local traffic needs. Leicester to Peterborough may be slightly different, but it is still piggybacking on through traffic on a Birmingham - Norwich service.
Where is the evidence for suppressed demand for travel between Coventry and Leicester? At Coventry you have many services per hour with a choice of 3 different operators direct to Birmingham, which has many more facilities than Leicester. Failing that, London is only an hour away. You would need to have some very specific reason for wanting to go to Leicester to overcome the gravitational attraction of Birmingham and London. Sorry, but I simply don't see it. Apart from a very low number of people commuting to / from work, there's very low demand.
If you think differently, please prove me wrong with some facts and figures.

 

[edwin_m]

There's enough desire for travel between Coventry and Leicester that a 3-lane motorway was built to connect them (admittedly a less busy one than those that duplicate the WCML etc). This obviously includes people travelling beyond at one or both ends, but in principle so could the railway. There's no very good route between Coventry and Nottingham and even Derby and Sheffield only have a rather slow train every 2hr plus changes at Birmingham.

 

[CW2]

There's enough desire for travel between Coventry and Leicester that a 3-lane motorway was built to connect them (admittedly a less busy one than those that duplicate the WCML etc). This obviously includes people travelling beyond at one or both ends, but in principle so could the railway. There's no very good route between Coventry and Nottingham and even Derby and Sheffield only have a rather slow train every 2hr plus changes at Birmingham.

So a lot of public money has gone into building a motorway which is still underutilised, and you want more public money to build / upgrade the parallel railway? That's not a compelling argument.
Is there any evidence of suppressed demand for travel from Coventry towards Leicester? I've found none so far, but am happy to be proved wrong.

 

[si404]

Is there any evidence of suppressed demand for travel from Coventry towards Leicester?

Why does a railway have to be based on suppressed demand? The case Midlands Connect is pushing to justify a Nuneaton avoiding curve and direct service is about modal shift - getting people out of cars and increasing the single-digit market share that rail has due to the service being so terrible.

Also, just because the motorway isn't congested, doesn't mean that the bits into the cities aren't.

 

[CW2]

Why does a railway have to be based on suppressed demand? The case Midlands Connect is pushing to justify a Nuneaton avoiding curve and direct service is about modal shift - getting people out of cars and increasing the single-digit market share that rail has due to the service being so terrible.
Also, just because the motorway isn't congested, doesn't mean that the bits into the cities aren't.

OK, I understand that. Consider also that there is a (presumably publicly funded) direct bus service X6 whcih runs 9 times per day Mon - Fri, and serves the local hospital en route. Also National Express offer direct express services which take less than an hour (although their timings are irregular, being part of longer through services).
It's not like there is a lot of competing bus bandits hoovering up the travelling hordes because the train service is so poor.
It strikes me that the proposed rail "solution" is an idea that is looking for a problem to solve.
I'll treat myself to a longer invstigation into the Midlands Connect case for this, to see if it sways my opinion.

 

[Energy]

OK, I understand that. Consider also that there is a (presumably publicly funded) direct bus service X6 whcih runs 9 times per day Mon - Fri, and serves the local hospital en route. Also National Express offer direct express services which take less than an hour (although their timings are irregular, being part of longer through services).
It's not like there is a lot of competing bus bandits hoovering up the travelling hordes because the train service is so poor.
It strikes me that the proposed rail "solution" is an idea that is looking for a problem to solve.
I'll treat myself to a longer invstigation into the Midlands Connect case for this, to see if it sways my opinion.

Many people would be happy to take a train but don't really want to take a bus for a long time.

 

[CW2]

I've had a delve through the Midlands Connect press releses and brochures. To me it has the feeling of a loose collection of councils and regional bodies, plus other interested parties, who have come up with an agreed strategy for transport improvements in the area. In order to get that pan-regional agreement, every area has to have something they can announce in the local press. Later, when reality bites or people ask where the money is coming from, some elements will be quietly sacrificed.
So if faster journeys Coventry - Leicester can really be justified, then I'd concentrate first on linespeed improvements (which may also involve improved signalling) rather than the big-ticket infrastructure alterations at Nuneaton. Run through trains by means of a reversal on the flyover, with a second driver involved to speed up the reversal. Only once that has been done - and the market tested to see how it responds to through train reinstatement - should any attempt at building curves, additional chords, diveunders, flyovers, or new stations at Nuneaton be considered.
I note that Lindsey Durham of Freightliner is quoted as being all in favour of the proposed schemes which will deliver a humongous number of additional freight paths. Did anybody ask if Freightliner were willing to finance any of the schemes? No? Thought not.
Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age ... If so, I apologise.

 

[MarkRedon]

A lot of people prefer a train to a bus. To the point where they will take a train, but not a bus. They drive (if they can't take a train).

This is an extension of the much more common argument, I'll drive because I wouldn't be seen dead using public transport.

Covid-19 not withstanding: I hope that most forum users actually want to see more rail journeys?

And yes, I'm thoroughly aware that rail in the UK - taken overall - is massively subsidised. This is a social / political choice that I greatly admire (in Britain as elsewhere in Europe).

City-pairs such as Coventry - Leicester deserve (socio-political choice) to be better served by rail. As might Manchester - Derby, and many others.

Where is the strategic transport planning in the UK? please?

 

[tbtc]

300,000 plus people in each city, approx 25 miles apart seems like a good argument for a train service.

Absolutely.

I think there'd be more demand on the Forum for a train service linking two villages in the Highlands/ Dartmoor/ rural Norfolk (or linking places hundreds of miles apart like Brighton - Liverpool) than the clear need to link two decent sized cities that are relatively close to each other.

And it's not only Leicester - Coventry passengers but also a much better connectivity beyond them (and more services from Leicester/ Coventry to the WCML at Nuneaton).

I appreciate that the layout at Nuneaton doesn't suit a Leicester - Coventry service but I think that this seems a fairly obvious pair of cities to try to link if feasible.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Absolutely.

I think there'd be more demand on the Forum for a train service linking two villages in the Highlands/ Dartmoor/ rural Norfolk (or linking places hundreds of miles apart like Brighton - Liverpool) than the clear need to link two decent sized cities that are relatively close to each other.

And it's not only Leicester - Coventry passengers but also a much better connectivity beyond them (and more services from Leicester/ Coventry to the WCML at Nuneaton).

I appreciate that the layout at Nuneaton doesn't suit a Leicester - Coventry service but I think that this seems a fairly obvious pair of cities to try to link if feasible.

One potentially unfair thing being suggested here is that the enthusiasm for a branch is more than the enthusiasm for a service from Leicester to Coventry (potentially also encompassing the likes of Nottingham and Leamington and therefore obviously being extremely beneficial).

Some ‘old branch’ is probably easy to do. It’s got to go from an existing major rail junction or station to a town of reasonable size.

This scheme however is obviously difficult.

1) Should it serve Nuneaton ‘proper’ or avoid it.
2) If it avoids Nuneaton, does it warrant a new station or to just use Bermuda as a Park & Ride.
3) Should it be hourly or half-hourly, and what impact does that have on capacity and BCR.
4) Where should it stop, giving due consideration to the main Leicester <> Coventry journey time and also local journey opportunities.
5) To what extent does it then ‘shaft’ Leicester, capacity-wise, and how can you potentially integrate a northbound extension and what impact does that have on capacity again.
6) Can the service be effectively patched through Coventry to Leamington.
7) Can the service use the existing infrastructure to reverse at Abbey Jn, therefore reducing cost but adding journey time and opportunities. How acceptable is this?
8) Should the route be electrified
9) Is it worth giving an opportunity for cross-country freight from container ports etc in the South to get to Yorkshire and the East Midlands via an ‘avoiding curve’ and therefore adding value to the whole lot.

Theres probably more questions.

The reality is that this country does new infrastructure badly, but envisioning daft new ideas well. As a result, we end up with stuff like Ordsall Lane that most predicted as a disaster from the start.

There is clearly a need for this service to commence, but it would be much more ideal for improved planning etc. And a clear desire to establish the priorities to come first, therefore negating most discussion as certain things take total precedence.

 

[didcotdean]

So a lot of public money has gone into building a motorway which is still underutilised, and you want more public money to build / upgrade the parallel railway? That's not a compelling argument.
Is there any evidence of suppressed demand for travel from Coventry towards Leicester? I've found none so far, but am happy to be proved wrong.

The M69 is not really under-utilised. It has an annual average daily traffic of 65,000 vehicles.