Does HS2 benefit Northamptonshire?

[A0]

The same could be said about places like Castlethorpe and Roade, which suffer from the noise and inconvenience of having the WCML splitting their villages in two, but no station to benefit from it.

Yet I'm sure you quite enjoy making use of the WCML...

If you look at Roade (which I do know) you'll see the railway didn't "split" the village. The bits of the village which predate the railway are to the east of it. Pretty much all of what's been built to the west of the railway has been built in the last 100 years. That said Roade is one of the few new station proposals in Northants I think might be viable.

So Roade's situation is quite different to West Northants and HS2.

 

[Starmill]

Definitely work being done at what can be enhanced on the Northampton loop, whether that gets anywhere I can't say.

The thing that would irk me if I used Northampton would be the annoying wait and crossing move on the down fast trains. The most useful improvement would be for the fast Northampton service to consistently make 52-53 minutes on the down as it can on the up.

That may well not be realistic today given the compromises in play but if it's not post HS2 as a very minimum I will eat a (freshly laundered) sock.

 

[NoRoute]

It's been done to death on other threads why other destinations aren't what Northampton needs - but improved London and Birmingham journey times are.

Northampton already has good services to London and Birmingham so the passenger and economic benefits of further improvements is diminishing, you add an extra service, you shave a few minutes of the journey, it's all marginal stuff, it is not going to attract lots more rail passengers or create additional journeys, it doesn't unlock any more opportunities, the economic impact is marginal. It doesn't matter what is done with the WCML services from Northampton, it won't have a major impact.

Being able to get a train to Leicester, to Nottingham or Derby, or destinations currently inaccessible by rail would by definition open up more opportunities for rail journeys which are currently being made using other modes of transport, and if faster, would unlock some new economic opportunities.

 

[Horizon22]

Well, you haven't changed my mind.

I maintain Northamptonshire is being dug up for no benefit to the area.

And you've only focused on Norhampton. No improvements for King Sutton and West Northants which is being dug up for this.

And whether the capacity increase will be needed, given the drop in commuting and increase in remote working means that speed of journey is in many ways more important.

Northampton is about as far away from London as Ipswich, Winchester, Portsmouth are (about 60 miles as the crow flies using Charing Cross as "London"). Fastest (direct trains)

Northampton - fastest train to Euston is 59 mins (and normally around 65)
Ipswich - fastest train to Liverpool St is 57 mins (but normally more like 70)
Winchester - fastest train to Waterloo is 61 mins (and normally around 65)

Wellingborough's fastest train is about the same (although more often the average train is as "fast" the fastest journey). Northampton is not abnormal. Yes, towns have a better service by being directly on a mainline yet further away (Peterborough & Swindon come to mind), but these benefits from railway routing decisions made over a century again and long sustained stretches of 125mph & the capacity and reliability issues.

 

[Watershed]

If you look at Roade (which I do know) you'll see the railway didn't "split" the village. The bits of the village which predate the railway are to the east of it. Pretty much all of what's been built to the west of the railway has been built in the last 100 years. That said Roade is one of the few new station proposals in Northants I think might be viable.

So Roade's situation is quite different to West Northants and HS2.

It's still split in two, and it still sees no benefit from the WCML. Reopening the station is a very unlikely prospect. And yet I don't see you campaigning to close the WCML out of solidarity. Similarly with the M1 - should that be shut because it doesn't have a junction for every village it bypasses?

HS2 clearly doesn't benefit Northampton or Northamptonshire in a massive way. But you are being wilfully ignorant if you refuse to accept that there are some benefits, and refuse to accept that new transport infrastructure will invariably impose a modicum of inconvenience on people who live along its path.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Hmmm - after the PUG2 agreement and trying to convert promises to reality on an yet unmodernised WCML - there were some serious starting points on non Virgin WC service patterns. They were.......

(a) Reasonable journey times all day for Northampton.

(b) Freight capacity - via Northampton.

So - the 1994 timetable and further increments have not (IMHO) "stuffed" Northampton , and in view of the many years since then , one could assume HS2 would provide Ntn , if not a cornucopia of delights , but some more flexibilty - some quicker journeys , capacity and so on.

I am sort of reminded of the film "Life of Brian" and a discussion on Roman policy. Northampton has not been ignored.

 

[Starmill]

So - the 1994 timetable and further increments have not (IMHO) "stuffed" Northampton , and in view of the many years since then , one could assume HS2 would provide Ntn , if not a cornucopia of delights , but some more flexibilty - some quicker journeys , capacity and so on.

Precisely.

 

[A0]

So - the 1994 timetable and further increments have not (IMHO) "stuffed" Northampton , and in view of the many years since then , one could assume HS2 would provide Ntn , if not a cornucopia of delights , but some more flexibilty - some quicker journeys , capacity and so on.

I didn't say Northampton had been "stuffed" by the timetables of the last 20 years, though things were a bit lean during the WCRM when the Birmingham service was dropped to hourly.

But will Northampton gain from HS2? My view is no - there is increased capacity but with no discernible journey time improvememts because of the stopping patterns. And the question is whether there will be demand for 6tph - even in 20 years time. Whereas getting a 45 minute journey time to London compared to the current 60-90 minutes would be a selling point.

Northampton is about as far away from London as Ipswich, Winchester, Portsmouth are (about 60 miles as the crow flies using Charing Cross as "London"). Fastest (direct trains)

Northampton - fastest train to Euston is 59 mins (and normally around 65)
Ipswich - fastest train to Liverpool St is 57 mins (but normally more like 70)
Winchester - fastest train to Waterloo is 61 mins (and normally around 65)

Wellingborough's fastest train is about the same (although more often the average train is as "fast" the fastest journey). Northampton is not abnormal. Yes, towns have a better service by being directly on a mainline yet further away (Peterborough & Swindon come to mind), but these benefits from railway routing decisions made over a century again and long sustained stretches of 125mph & the capacity and reliability issues.

Now, lets take a look at Kettering, compared to Northampton - 4tph to London, journey time either 49 mins or 1h 02m. Kettering is half the size of Northampton and about 8 miles further north.

Being able to get a train to Leicester, to Nottingham or Derby, or destinations currently inaccessible by rail would by definition open up more opportunities for rail journeys which are currently being made using other modes of transport, and if faster, would unlock some new economic opportunities.

A much easier way to achieve these would be to restore Northampton's direct connection to the Trent Valley which would put Leicester, Nottingham and Derby in reach of one sensible change (Nuneaton or Tamworth) which currently needs a trip to Birmingham for a single change. But that's not sexy and doesn't mean building new lines.

 

[Starmill]

Worth noting that a return ticket at peak times from Kettering to London costs almost double from Northampton also.

 

[MontyP]

Good to see that @A0wen has his own thread!

 

[NoRoute]

A much easier way to achieve these would be to restore Northampton's direct connection to the Trent Valley which would put Leicester, Nottingham and Derby in reach of one sensible change (Nuneaton or Tamworth) which currently needs a trip to Birmingham for a single change. But that's not sexy and doesn't mean building new lines.

More a question of whether it provides a journey time remotely competitive with the M1, last time I checked Northampton to Leicester, 40 Miles on the M1, took around 1hr 30 min on the train, Nottingham at 60 miles was over 2 hours on the train. So equivalent to under 30mph on the motorway.

It needs a lot of improvement to get anywhere near competitive.

 

[A0]

More a question of whether it provides a journey time remotely competitive with the M1, last time I checked Northampton to Leicester, 40 Miles on the M1, took around 1hr 30 min on the train, Nottingham at 60 miles was over 2 hours on the train. So equivalent to under 30mph on the motorway.

It needs a lot of improvement to get anywhere near competitive.

Northampton - Nuneaton could be 35 mins.

Nuneaton - Leicester is 20 mins currently.

That's ~ 1hour allowing for connection at Nuneaton.

Google maps reckons to drive Northampton station to Leicester station leaving now (10:30 at night) will take 56 minutes.

Nottingham's a further 20 mins from Leicester - allow connection and you're looking at 90 mins.

Google Maps reckons that journey now to drive is 1h 15 mins.

So the train can be competitive with the car on existing infrastructure, but better timetabling.

 

[NoRoute]

So the train can be competitive with the car on existing infrastructure, but better timetabling.

Possibly. With the train, in addition to the train travel time, there's also the extra travel at each end getting to and from the station. Whereas if the road journey time is city centre to city centre, within that same time its likely to be possible to get from the door of your starting point to the door of your destination.

To be competitive I'd suggest the train needs to get people between two city centres more quickly than is possible with a car, to absorb the extra travel at each end.

 

[A0]

Possibly. With the train, in addition to the train travel time, there's also the extra travel at each end getting to and from the station. Whereas if the road journey time is city centre to city centre, within that same time its likely to be possible to get from the door of your starting point to the door of your destination.

To be competitive I'd suggest the train needs to get people between two city centres more quickly than is possible with a car, to absorb the extra travel at each end.

Flip side is that getting to the city centres from the motorway is the slowest part of the journey particularly in places like Nottingham that have gone out of their way to make such journeys difficult.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I'm not sure that Kings Sutton warrants much more than an hourly stopping service to London, but Chiltern will no longer need to be oriented as strongly towards the Birmingham market as the WCML "classic" trains will serve the budget market instead.

I don't understand this. Chiltern's intermediate market between London and Birmingham is not served by the WCML. Changes on the WCML will not affect demand between Birmingham and places like Solihull, Leamington, Banbury and Bicester.

 

[Watershed]

I don't understand this. Chiltern's intermediate market between London and Birmingham is not served by the WCML. Changes on the WCML will not affect demand between Birmingham and places like Solihull, Leamington, Banbury and Bicester.

Indeed, but it will mean that the journey from London to Birmingham can afford to be slower and hence stop at more places.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't understand this. Chiltern's intermediate market between London and Birmingham is not served by the WCML. Changes on the WCML will not affect demand between Birmingham and places like Solihull, Leamington, Banbury and Bicester.

Chiltern presently orients a key part of its service to being a through London-Birmingham budget-but-not-as-budget-as-LNR service. That will no longer be required, and it will be able to revert to being solely a regional commuter type operation, which will allow a timetable recast for more stopping services.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

A much easier way to achieve these would be to restore Northampton's direct connection to the Trent Valley which would put Leicester, Nottingham and Derby in reach of one sensible change (Nuneaton or Tamworth) which currently needs a trip to Birmingham for a single change. But that's not sexy and doesn't mean building new lines.

It's unusual for you to suggest re-opening a line in Northamptonshire! Which line are you thinking of and is it still intact?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's unusual for you to suggest re-opening a line in Northamptonshire! Which line are you thinking of and is it still intact?

That wouldn't be a reopening, it would just mean making the Trent Valley local service run via Northampton rather than Weedon.

I think the probability of such a service post-HS2 is very high, myself.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

That wouldn't be a reopening, it would just mean making the Trent Valley local service run via Northampton rather than Weedon.

I think the probability of such a service post-HS2 is very high, myself.

Oh yeah, via Rugby. My mistake, my apologies. I was thinking of the long closed routes from Northampton to the Midland Main Line.

 

[A0]

It's unusual for you to suggest re-opening a line in Northamptonshire! Which line are you thinking of and is it still intact?

I'm not - you clearly didn't read my post properly.....

Chiltern presently orients a key part of its service to being a through London-Birmingham budget-but-not-as-budget-as-LNR service. That will no longer be required, and it will be able to revert to being solely a regional commuter type operation, which will allow a timetable recast for more stopping services.

I'm not so sure - with the WCML there is a known problem of long-distance services which don't stop between Rugby and London taking up paths, that's not the case with Chiltern.

So whilst Chiltern do run a London - Birmingham service (2tph) it's worth pointing out that these all have multiple stops: Wycombe (1tph) Bicester (1tph), Banbury, Warwick / Parkway. It's as much about providing those places with a service to London and to Birmingham as it is about providing an end to end service.

If you start inserting stops you'll slow down those journeys - so let's say, for the sake of argument, you insert Haddenham and Princes Risborough into those services - try telling the good people of Banbury that their dividend from HS2 is that their journey to London will be 10 minutes slower. Or Wycombe passengers that their Birmingham journey will be 10 minutes longer.

The alternative is you break the service and don't run through Marylebone to Birmingham services - OK, so where do you break it ? Banbury ? Leamington ? So Bicester and Wycombe lose their direct link to Birmingham - and people go back to using the M40 instead.

HS2 doesn't offer Chiltern any real opportunity for capacity gain - the issue with Chiltern is it's a 2 track railway with relatively slow linespeeds, on the Aylesbury side interactions with LUL. Currently it's sending (off peak) 7 tph out from Marylebone, which is the same as Fenchurch St - another line with limited capacity.

 

[Geezertronic]

Why don't you advocate to route the LNWR Crewe-Euston via Northampton then that can take up the fast path south of Hanslope Junction (crossing from slow to fast permitting) and give Northampton a quicker non-stopping service to Euston. The LNWR Crewe to Euston takes 58 (ish) minutes from Rugby to Euston non-stop - so what if Crewe gets a slower service from LNWR...

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you start inserting stops you'll slow down those journeys - so let's say, for the sake of argument, you insert Haddenham and Princes Risborough into those services - try telling the good people of Banbury that their dividend from HS2 is that their journey to London will be 10 minutes slower. Or Wycombe passengers that their Birmingham journey will be 10 minutes longer.

Of course, if you insert more stops the services get more frequent. Frequency is more valuable than raw speed (ask any user of Merseyrail or London Underground).

The alternative is you break the service and don't run through Marylebone to Birmingham services - OK, so where do you break it ? Banbury ? Leamington ? So Bicester and Wycombe lose their direct link to Birmingham - and people go back to using the M40 instead.

I can see nothing to gain by doing that.

Why don't you advocate to route the LNWR Crewe-Euston via Northampton then that can take up the fast path south of Hanslope Junction (crossing from slow to fast permitting) and give Northampton a quicker non-stopping service to Euston. The LNWR Crewe to Euston takes 58 (ish) minutes from Rugby to Euston non-stop - so what if Crewe gets a slower service from LNWR...

Post HS2 I would expect the Trent Valley local service to increase from 1 to 2tph. If it does, then sending one via Northampton probably makes sense (though does mean off-pattern at Euston). There is no scope to be doing anything that would be of real benefit pre-HS2.

LNR services from the TV to Euston call at MKC, they are not fast from Rugby.

 

[Geezertronic]

LNR services from the TV to Euston call at MKC, they are not fast from Rugby.

For example, the LNWR 0710 from Rugby to Euston is non-stop between Rugby and Euston, is 58 minutes, and is the one I usually catch when coming from Birmingham on LNWR (if my company is not willing to pay AWC prices) as it's offered as a change to a faster service. I presume the ones that do stop at MKC are similar to the AWC trains where they stop "off peak" at MKC (or Watford Junction) if you like to stop commuting

 

[Bletchleyite]

For example, the LNWR 0710 from Rugby to Euston is non-stop between Rugby and Euston, is 58 minutes, and is the one I usually catch when coming from Birmingham on LNWR (if my company is not willing to pay AWC prices) as it's offered as a change to a faster service. I presume the ones that do stop at MKC are similar to the AWC trains where they stop "off peak" at MKC (or Watford Junction) if you like to stop commuting

I just checked and that is the only one that does not. I don't know why, I guess it is pathing related. It can't be commuting related as the northbound evening ones do stop.

Presently Avanti are serving MKC all day with no pick up/set down restrictions.

 

[Starmill]

Indeed, but it will mean that the journey from London to Birmingham can afford to be slower and hence stop at more places.

We could of course achieve that on the current infrastructure, but it would require acceptance that some of Avanti's prices have historically been too high, and that they should come down slightly. This would cut the Chiltern London to Birmingham market and Chiltern should then reorganise their timetable based around the quantum from Leamington Spa and Banbury, and south thereof, to London instead. It would probably only be a small shift because at least 1tph from Leamington Spa and Banbury should still have a reasonably good journey time to London.

I just checked and that is the only one that does not. I don't know why, I guess it is pathing related. It can't be commuting related as the northbound evening ones do stop.

Presently Avanti are serving MKC all day with no pick up/set down restrictions.

It's the service which used to run non-stop from Northampton to London, so it has never called at Milton Keynes Central. It's probably just that. On Sundays there's a down service that doesn't call at Milton Keynes Central also.

 

[nw1]

At best it will go from 3 to 4 tph. But the journey time won't improve - at best it'll still be circa an hour which is getting on for what London - Manchester will be on HS2.

In my experience the service is generally pretty reliable and punctual now. The bigger problem will be freight will eat up many of the spare paths - and the Northampton loop is still slow and won't be upgraded under any of these plans for a higher line speed.

Is it conceivable though that Northampton will get Pendolinos on 'classic route' inter-city services, and direct links to Manchester, Liverpool etc? Is it conceivable that most of these will then be fast to MKC, Watford and London, giving Northampton perhaps a frequent fast London service?

That would seem the most obvious use of the classic WCML after HS2: run 'stopping' inter-city services which serve all the intermediate major towns between Manchester/Liverpool and London. Seeing as the fast Manchester/Liverpool services would be routed via HS2, there would be no real penalty running whatever services remain on the WCML via Northampton.

Likewise, the existing Birmingham-Northampton-London service would presumably be upgraded to Pendolino and fast running, too. Can envisage four fast services per hour potentially at Northampton: two from Birmingham, one from Manchester or Liverpool, and one starting at Northampton, perhaps. This is just guess work: I have not seen any discussion on proposed timetables. I'd also assume there would be no need for Northampton-avoiders on the WCML after HS2 as all the fasts would go via HS2.

 

[BayPaul]

I'm not so sure - with the WCML there is a known problem of long-distance services which don't stop between Rugby and London taking up paths, that's not the case with Chiltern.

So whilst Chiltern do run a London - Birmingham service (2tph) it's worth pointing out that these all have multiple stops: Wycombe (1tph) Bicester (1tph), Banbury, Warwick / Parkway. It's as much about providing those places with a service to London and to Birmingham as it is about providing an end to end service.

If you start inserting stops you'll slow down those journeys - so let's say, for the sake of argument, you insert Haddenham and Princes Risborough into those services - try telling the good people of Banbury that their dividend from HS2 is that their journey to London will be 10 minutes slower. Or Wycombe passengers that their Birmingham journey will be 10 minutes longer.

The alternative is you break the service and don't run through Marylebone to Birmingham services - OK, so where do you break it ? Banbury ? Leamington ? So Bicester and Wycombe lose their direct link to Birmingham - and people go back to using the M40 instead.

HS2 doesn't offer Chiltern any real opportunity for capacity gain - the issue with Chiltern is it's a 2 track railway with relatively slow linespeeds, on the Aylesbury side interactions with LUL. Currently it's sending (off peak) 7 tph out from Marylebone, which is the same as Fenchurch St - another line with limited capacity.

Even if HS2 doesn't provide additional frequency update on the Chiltern Mainline, but it will certainly free up seats on the line - seats not being used from Birmingham - London will become available for shorter journeys. However, I would expect to see a few additional stops added into fast Chiltern services anyway, as the focus changes, which provides a definite benefit to the Chiltern region

 

[Bletchleyite]

On Sundays there's a down service that doesn't call at Milton Keynes Central also.

So there is, missed that one. That is probably the Sunday evening two-track timetable, which causes all manners of oddities, such as all-stations MKC-Euston services...except Bletchley!

 

[Watershed]

If you start inserting stops you'll slow down those journeys - so let's say, for the sake of argument, you insert Haddenham and Princes Risborough into those services - try telling the good people of Banbury that their dividend from HS2 is that their journey to London will be 10 minutes slower. Or Wycombe passengers that their Birmingham journey will be 10 minutes longer.

The absolute journey time is less important than the Generalised Journey Time.

If the journey is 10 minutes longer but you end up with 4tph (for the sake of argument) rather than a previously unbalanced 2tph, the GJT is shorter than before.

The alternative is you break the service and don't run through Marylebone to Birmingham services - OK, so where do you break it ? Banbury ? Leamington ? So Bicester and Wycombe lose their direct link to Birmingham - and people go back to using the M40 instead.

I don't see why the services need to be split at all. As you say, keeping the connectivity is valuable and it would actually cost you units to split it in all likelihood.

For example, the LNWR 0710 from Rugby to Euston is non-stop between Rugby and Euston, is 58 minutes, and is the one I usually catch when coming from Birmingham on LNWR (if my company is not willing to pay AWC prices) as it's offered as a change to a faster service. I presume the ones that do stop at MKC are similar to the AWC trains where they stop "off peak" at MKC (or Watford Junction) if you like to stop commuting

That's the only train of the day which runs non-stop. All other WMT trains, including north out of London in the evening peak, call at MKC.