HS2 and the ECML major stops

Status
Not open for further replies.

Envy123

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2015
Messages
501
Location
Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire
Will HS2, in any shape or form, improve links and journey times to Manchester/Birmingham from ECML stops like Grantham or Newark? If so, how?

Just wondering, as HS2 seems to benefit the London area and the WCML (among others) but I haven't seen much about the ECML.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
21,542
Location
Nottingham
Will HS2, in any shape or form, improve links and journey times to Manchester/Birmingham from ECML stops like Grantham or Newark? If so, how?

Just wondering, as HS2 seems to benefit the London area and the WCML (among others) but I haven't seen much about the ECML.

There should be some benefit from more intermediate stops on trains via the existing ECML, as the fast London to Leeds/York/Newcastle trains will be running via HS2 instead.

Grantham/Newark to Birmingham may improve if they get decent connecting trains to the Toton interchange, from where it's only 20min to Birmingham compared with an hour or so by the existing route (from its closest approach at Trent). But as far as I know there has been no planning yet on what these connecting services might look like. Something similar may apply to Sheffield but I think Leeds and beyond would still be quicker via the existing route.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,573
I would expect the standard ICEC stopping pattern to become something like the 1tph train to Newark/York stopping all ICEC stations.

So journey times from Grantham and the like might get a tad bit slower (for the fastest journey) but this would be made up for by drastically increasing the number of stops.
A clockface quarter hourly service below grantham doesn't seem unreasonable, especially if DfT pushes forward with that idea of a service from Nottingham to King's Cross to serve Bingham etc. Anyone know what the post IEP journey time to Grantham from KGX would be?
It might just be competitive with the current MML route.
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
929
I would expect the standard ICEC stopping pattern to become something like the 1tph train to Newark/York stopping all ICEC stations.

So journey times from Grantham and the like might get a tad bit slower (for the fastest journey) but this would be made up for by drastically increasing the number of stops.
A clockface quarter hourly service below grantham doesn't seem unreasonable, especially if DfT pushes forward with that idea of a service from Nottingham to King's Cross to serve Bingham etc. Anyone know what the post IEP journey time to Grantham from KGX would be?
It might just be competitive with the current MML route.

Well Peterborough as a first stop under IEP is quoted as 42 minutes and presently Peterborough - Grantham is presently an average of 19 minutes although one train is timed for 18 minutes so with faster acceleration the IEP ought to manage it in 17 minutes ? That looks like about one hour dead Kings x - Grantham with one stop.

If there is to be a train off the ECML to Nottingham via Grantham the line from Grantham will need some work. Currently the speed profile is so wasteful. Top speed is 75 but there are so many restrictions down to 50 / 55 or 60 that the fuel used over the years accelerating would surely pay for the line to be sorted out? Also I am not sure why the departure our of Grantham has to be so slow, almost a mile at 25 mph before reaching the Nottingham line proper. if this could be raised to say 40 it would help. .
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,573
That leaves Nottingham via Grantham at something like 90 minutes, even with no speed improvements from IEPs which should accelerate more rapidly than rather anemic Express Sprinters thanks to an electric transmission.

That is comparable or superior to existing MML journey times I understand.
 

Grimsby town

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2011
Messages
230
With ERTMS being installed on the ECML with an upgrade to the OHLE then 140 mph could easily be possible between Peterborough and Grantham which will offer further journey time reductions. There are a fair few places between Newark and Doncaster which are big enough for stations, Bawtry, Ranskill, Tuxford etc. Bulding stations here could benefit Newark and Doncaster by getting people into there town centres.

There are also fairly large places which will use the ECML as there main link to London still. Doncaster, Grimsby, Lincoln, Hull all need to have fairly quick services to London.

There is also a desire for Leeds, Newcastle etc. to have a direct service to Cambridge so that takes up paths.

Hopefully we'll end up with a couple of fast services an hour serving Hull, Grimsby, Nottingham and Lincoln and then a clockface semifast service serving all stations North of Peterborough and maybe the odd station south to.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
21,542
Location
Nottingham
I'm not sure what reason there is to run Nottingham to Kings Cross via Grantham, when there will still be a need for fast London-Leicester and Leicester-Nottingham journeys and it is logical to continue to combine the two. With electric operation and the elimination of stops at Market Harbrough (transferred to likely extra London-Leicester semi-fast) and EM Parkway (Park and Ride will move to Toton leaving little remaining usage) the fastest time via the MML should be down to under 90min.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,573
I'm not sure what reason there is to run Nottingham to Kings Cross via Grantham, when there will still be a need for fast London-Leicester and Leicester-Nottingham journeys and it is logical to continue to combine the two. With electric operation and the elimination of stops at Market Harbrough (transferred to likely extra London-Leicester semi-fast) and EM Parkway (Park and Ride will move to Toton leaving little remaining usage) the fastest time via the MML should be down to under 90min.

Why would you axe stops at Market Harborough to speed up the London-Nottingham journey time when we can accelerate the Nottingham-London journey time via Grantham using paths made available by HS2?
We don't really know what the London-Grnatham-Nottingham journey time will be but it seems likely it could be put under 90 minutes with modest linespeed improvements coupled with the rapid acceleration of the IEP.
Surely additional speed improvements should be directed towards the Derby side as it has no other fast route to London revealed by the HS2 programme.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
21,542
Location
Nottingham
Why would you axe stops at Market Harborough to speed up the London-Nottingham journey time when we can accelerate the Nottingham-London journey time via Grantham using paths made available by HS2?
We don't really know what the London-Grnatham-Nottingham journey time will be but it seems likely it could be put under 90 minutes with modest linespeed improvements coupled with the rapid acceleration of the IEP.
Surely additional speed improvements should be directed towards the Derby side as it has no other fast route to London revealed by the HS2 programme.

Because, as I posted above, accelerating the MML helps London-Leicester as well as London-Nottingham, and could also benefit London-Derby, all without using any extra paths out of London because they are needed for Leicester trains in any case. London-Nottingham via the ECML doesn't provide any significant benefit elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

Martin222002

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2011
Messages
241
Location
Chesterfield, Derbyshire
There's also the fact that you will have the HS2 station at Toton, with a 51 minute quoted journey time to London. So any additional demand towards London above the present level of service on the MML will be covered by HS2, and their will be no need to for a service via the ECML.

Returning to the ECML, improving connectivity between destinations along the ECML should be considered as well as any improvements to the level of service to London. I would imagine their will still be a need to services from London to Leeds and Edinburgh but to service the intermediate stations rather than being fast of cause.
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
21,542
Location
Nottingham
Returning to the ECML, improving connectivity between destinations along the ECML should be considered as well as any improvements to the level of service to London. I would imagine their will still be a need to services from London to Leeds and Edinburgh but to service the intermediate stations rather than being fast of cause.

However there are no plans to run classic compatibles north of Edinburgh. Unless that changes, either passengers to/from the north will have to change at Edinburgh, or there will still be through trains via the classic route which will presumably still have limited stops south of Edinburgh.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,391
Location
Salt & Vinegar
However there are no plans to run classic compatibles north of Edinburgh. Unless that changes, either passengers to/from the north will have to change at Edinburgh, or there will still be through trains via the classic route which will presumably still have limited stops south of Edinburgh.

HS2 have a consistent policy of not planning to run any classic compatible services on routes not currently electrified or commited to be so.

This is to ensure that electrification of those routes is not added to the HS2 bill.
Sheffield - Leeds
Crewe - Chester
Edinburgh - Aberdeen

Are all examples of this. Yet if and when these routes are electrified then it seems clear that classic compatible trains can and will run to them.

I'm fairly sure once HS2 phase 2b opens it will include through running to Aberdeen.
 

MCR247

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2008
Messages
9,166
With the Welywn bottleneck being as it is, doesn't it seem a bit wasteful to give paths to Nottingham when it doesn't really need them?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,573
Well HS2 destroys any traffic for ECML beyond York and removes the bulk of the traffic on the Leeds branch.
The welwyn bottleneck becomes something of an irrelevance in the face of that.

Because, as I posted above, accelerating the MML helps London-Leicester as well as London-Nottingham, and could also benefit London-Derby, all without using any extra paths out of London because they are needed for Leicester trains in any case. London-Nottingham via the ECML doesn't provide any significant benefit elsewhere.

But if one path from the ECML, which seems likely to be going surplus if the NR ICEC RUS studies on number of paths projected are accurate - is used to give a fast train to Nottingham that path is no longer required to route from Nottingham to Leicester and can be given to Derby.

A semi fast London-Nottingham would pick up all the Leicester-Nottingham traffic and could easily run fast to Leicester as required.

HS2 will result in the complete retasking of the bulk of the traffic on all three main lines, trying to keep the MML as it is now seems rather counterproductive.
We should start from a (nearly) blank sheet.
 
Last edited:

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,455
Location
Southampton
HSTEd said:
Well HS2 destroys any traffic for ECML beyond York and removes the bulk of the traffic on the Leeds branch.
The welwyn bottleneck becomes something of an irrelevance in the face of that.
Surely you'd still be running "intercity" trains on the ECML post HS2, the only difference being more calls at some stations like Peterborough and Doncaster? It would be better to keep the through services as this involves less turning round of trains, hence probably more efficient in terms of staffing and rolling stock.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
21,542
Location
Nottingham
HS2 have a consistent policy of not planning to run any classic compatible services on routes not currently electrified or commited to be so.

This is to ensure that electrification of those routes is not added to the HS2 bill.
Sheffield - Leeds
Crewe - Chester
Edinburgh - Aberdeen

Are all examples of this. Yet if and when these routes are electrified then it seems clear that classic compatible trains can and will run to them.

I'm fairly sure once HS2 phase 2b opens it will include through running to Aberdeen.

That is entirely possible, but I guess they might ask the Scots to fund the extra CC sets needed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But if one path from the ECML, which seems likely to be going surplus if the NR ICEC RUS studies on number of paths projected are accurate - is used to give a fast train to Nottingham that path is no longer required to route from Nottingham to Leicester and can be given to Derby.

A semi fast London-Nottingham would pick up all the Leicester-Nottingham traffic and could easily run fast to Leicester as required.

HS2 will result in the complete retasking of the bulk of the traffic on all three main lines, trying to keep the MML as it is now seems rather counterproductive.
We should start from a (nearly) blank sheet.

Leicester-Nottingham has two fastish trains per hour at present, which is probably less than the ideal number for two major cities less than 30min apart. I really don't see your reason to divert Nottingham trains to Derby, a city of around half the size when out-of-boundary suburbs are taken into account, and which has a better service than Nottingham today.

And I still don't see any reason to run Nottingham trains via Grantham - it's a solution in search of a problem. Any ECML paths would be better used providing through London service to Lincolnshire.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,573
Surely you'd still be running "intercity" trains on the ECML post HS2, the only difference being more calls at some stations like Peterborough and Doncaster? It would be better to keep the through services as this involves less turning round of trains, hence probably more efficient in terms of staffing and rolling stock.

But they would stop at York and at Leeds.
Certainly all the fast trains would be eliminated - you would get something resembling the current alternating York/Newark stoppers as the baseline service.

And you certainly don't need as many paths an hour to give everyone a good service as you have now.

Leicester-Nottingham has two fastish trains per hour at present, which is probably less than the ideal number for two major cities less than 30min apart. I really don't see your reason to divert Nottingham trains to Derby, a city of around half the size when out-of-boundary suburbs are taken into account, and which has a better service than Nottingham today.
Well with the recent modification to HS2 the only three significant population areas in central-England without HS2 access are Leicester, Nottingham and Derby.
Total reconstruction of the ECML and MML timetable will be required to deal with the new reality, and if you want to provide fast trains between those destinations and other destinations and between those destinations and London does not necessarily divert everything to Nottingham.

For some reason you are arguing for massive expenditure and cutting services to Market Harborough to improve Nottingham's service - when I can improve Nottinghams service using paths which are surplus to requirements by HS2 if I go by Grantham.
Why should Market Harborough suffer just to allow the MML to retain its historical fast train "turf"?

And I still don't see any reason to run Nottingham trains via Grantham - it's a solution in search of a problem. Any ECML paths would be better used providing through London service to Lincolnshire.
.... to where exactly?
There is literally one polity in Lincolnshire that could support direct trains to London that doesn't already have a regular one - and that is Lincoln.
At best you can dispose of one path per hour to Lincoln, by extending the existing Newark Terminator, which is what it was originally for.

ECML has paths spare and MML is still capacity constrained at it's southern end.
 
Last edited:

Martin222002

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2011
Messages
241
Location
Chesterfield, Derbyshire
Well with the recent modification to HS2 the only three significant population areas in central-England without HS2 access are Leicester, Nottingham and Derby.
What modifications? If you are referring to the changes to the location of the Sheffield station, I wasn't aware that this also involved the axing of the HS2 station at Toton?

Toton will provide fast links (while not direct to the city centres) north to Leeds, West Yorkshire, York and the North East for Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, and faster links south to London, Birmingham and the West Midlands from Nottingham and Derby. So I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say in that the "three significant population areas in central-England without HS2 access are Leicester, Nottingham and Derby".

For some reason you are arguing for massive expenditure and cutting services to Market Harborough to improve Nottingham's service - when I can improve Nottinghams service using paths which are surplus to requirements by HS2 if I go by Grantham.
Why should Market Harborough suffer just to allow the MML to retain its historical fast train "turf"?
What massive expenditure? This is only changes to the service pattern on the MML. I can't see what massive expenditure that would involve, so I would be very interested in hearing you elaborate what you meant here?

Also, I'm not sure anyone exactly has said that Market Harborough should have a cut in service, so not sure where you have got that from. All people have said is that Nottingham and Leicester need to retain and have improvements to fast services between the two cities, and that Leicester will need to retain at least it's current level of fast services to and from London, given it doesn't benefit from HS2 towards London.

I think what has been said is if their were a need to more fast service between Nottingham and London then putting these two requirements together makes more sense then using up paths on the ECML, which could be better used to improve connectivity to ECML destinations on and off the main line.

.... to where exactly?
There is literally one polity in Lincolnshire that could support direct trains to London that doesn't already have a regular one - and that is Lincoln.
At best you can dispose of one path per hour to Lincoln, by extending the existing Newark Terminator, which is what it was originally for.

ECML has paths spare and MML is still capacity constrained at it's southern end.
Maybe now, but who's to say what future demand might be. Take Middlesborough. Who would have said 5-10 years ago that from 2020 it would have a two hourly fast service to London throughout the day.

But they would stop at York and at Leeds.
Certainly all the fast trains would be eliminated - you would get something resembling the current alternating York/Newark stoppers as the baseline service.
Maybe because people want to travel by train to Leeds and York that live on the ECML, and that it's not just all about London. Though of cause London is the primary flow, but that's what HS2 is for.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
21,542
Location
Nottingham
Well with the recent modification to HS2 the only three significant population areas in central-England without HS2 access are Leicester, Nottingham and Derby.
Total reconstruction of the ECML and MML timetable will be required to deal with the new reality, and if you want to provide fast trains between those destinations and other destinations and between those destinations and London does not necessarily divert everything to Nottingham.

For some reason you are arguing for massive expenditure and cutting services to Market Harborough to improve Nottingham's service - when I can improve Nottinghams service using paths which are surplus to requirements by HS2 if I go by Grantham.
Why should Market Harborough suffer just to allow the MML to retain its historical fast train "turf"?

MML has four trains per hour to Leicester at present. That could easily increase to six in future to be comparable with, say, the ECML service to Peterborough, which is the sort of service Leicester deserves as it doesn't benefit from HS2. The bulk of any expenditure, probably not much beyond the electrification already committed, will be to support this.

With this many coming into Leicester I see no problem in continuing them as, for example, two Nottingham fasts, one fast and one semi-fast to Derby and possibly beyond, and two semi-fasts to Toton providing northward connections from intermediate MML stations. Capacity is much less constrained on the four-track north of Leicester, especially once this is restored south of Syston as is proposed as a freight enhancement. Turning more back at Leicester instead would probably involve extra spend on more platform capacity there.

A fast Nottingham train via Peterborough is an entirely new service only really serving London and Nottingham, since anywhere in between probably has all the service it needs to both places.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What modifications? If you are referring to the changes to the location of the Sheffield station, I wasn't aware that this also involved the axing of the HS2 station at Toton?

Toton will provide fast links (while not direct to the city centres) north to Leeds, West Yorkshire, York and the North East for Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, and faster links south to London, Birmingham and the West Midlands from Nottingham and Derby. So I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say in that the "three significant population areas in central-England without HS2 access are Leicester, Nottingham and Derby".

While it has its benefits and the geography makes it difficult to see how a better solution could have been found, Toton is far from ideal for city centre access.

The time from London is about 53min and the tram into Nottingham would take somewhere around 30min with around 17 stops. The few fast Nottingham Meridian trains today are only just over 90min. With electric operation plus the transfer of Parkway and Market Harborough stops to other services as I suggested above, this could be equalled or slightly bettered at least every hour. So it is likely that HS2 plus tram, while good for the western suburbs, would be no quicker and a lot more hassle than the existing rail route for centre-to-centre journeys. A connecting train service via Beeston might be 10min or so quicker, but only if the station layout and the timetable allow really slick connections. With all the other regional links using the same infrastructure - not least the Nottingham and Derby connecting trains probably having to share the same tracks from Toton - this will be very difficult to achieve satisfactorily.

The same applies to a large degree to Derby, except that it doesn't have the tram and probably never will - Nottingham to Toton is almost continuously built up but Derby to Toton is mostly rural so a service with low top speeds and frequent stops isn't appropriate.

In both cases I contend that good access to city centres is essential to the success of rail. An out-of-town station allow the local affluent population to drive there and travel to London, whereas strong links to centres encourage inward visitors by train and tends to spread prosperity to the cities of the Midlands and North. HS2 doesn't and probably can't deliver this for Nottingham and Derby so it is important to maintain good links via classic rail.
 
Last edited:

LeeLivery

Established Member
Joined
13 Jul 2014
Messages
1,176
Location
London
While it has its benefits and the geography makes it difficult to see how a better solution could have been found, Toton is far from ideal for city centre access.

The time from London is about 53min and the tram into Nottingham would take somewhere around 30min with around 17 stops. The few fast Nottingham Meridian trains today are only just over 90min. With electric operation plus the transfer of Parkway and Market Harborough stops to other services as I suggested above, this could be equalled or slightly bettered at least every hour. So it is likely that HS2 plus tram, while good for the western suburbs, would be no quicker and a lot more hassle than the existing rail route for centre-to-centre journeys. A connecting train service via Beeston might be 10min or so quicker, but only if the station layout and the timetable allow really slick connections. With all the other regional links using the same infrastructure - not least the Nottingham and Derby connecting trains probably having to share the same tracks from Toton - this will be very difficult to achieve satisfactorily.

The same applies to a large degree to Derby, except that it doesn't have the tram and probably never will - Nottingham to Toton is almost continuously built up but Derby to Toton is mostly rural so a service with low top speeds and frequent stops isn't appropriate.

In both cases I contend that good access to city centres is essential to the success of rail. An out-of-town station allow the local affluent population to drive there and travel to London, whereas strong links to centres encourage inward visitors by train and tends to spread prosperity to the cities of the Midlands and North. HS2 doesn't and probably can't deliver this for Nottingham and Derby so it is important to maintain good links via classic rail.

Couldn't of said that any better. The tram from the City to Toton takes far too long and we all know prices on HS2 will be more expensive. Toton will be another Stratford International: hardly used and everyone uses the main station instead.
 

Martin222002

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2011
Messages
241
Location
Chesterfield, Derbyshire
While it has its benefits and the geography makes it difficult to see how a better solution could have been found, Toton is far from ideal for city centre access.

The time from London is about 53min and the tram into Nottingham would take somewhere around 30min with around 17 stops. The few fast Nottingham Meridian trains today are only just over 90min. With electric operation plus the transfer of Parkway and Market Harborough stops to other services as I suggested above, this could be equalled or slightly bettered at least every hour. So it is likely that HS2 plus tram, while good for the western suburbs, would be no quicker and a lot more hassle than the existing rail route for centre-to-centre journeys. A connecting train service via Beeston might be 10min or so quicker, but only if the station layout and the timetable allow really slick connections. With all the other regional links using the same infrastructure - not least the Nottingham and Derby connecting trains probably having to share the same tracks from Toton - this will be very difficult to achieve satisfactorily.

The same applies to a large degree to Derby, except that it doesn't have the tram and probably never will - Nottingham to Toton is almost continuously built up but Derby to Toton is mostly rural so a service with low top speeds and frequent stops isn't appropriate.

In both cases I contend that good access to city centres is essential to the success of rail. An out-of-town station allow the local affluent population to drive there and travel to London, whereas strong links to centres encourage inward visitors by train and tends to spread prosperity to the cities of the Midlands and North. HS2 doesn't and probably can't deliver this for Nottingham and Derby so it is important to maintain good links via classic rail.

I completely agree with you there. Toton and any parkway stations in general are never going to be the solution for city centre to city centre travel, as the time taken to get from Toton into Nottingham and Derby city centres, whether by train or tram, are going to negate the time saved on the journey on HS2 to Toton. However, what Toton will be able to do is help cater for any extra demand from the Nottingham and Derby cities and surrounding areas towards London, Leeds, York, Newcastle, and in Nottingham's case Birmingham, above that and faster than on the classic lines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Couldn't of said that any better. The tram from the City to Toton takes far too long and we all know prices on HS2 will be more expensive. Toton will be another Stratford International: hardly used and everyone uses the main station instead.

But the tram doesn't just sever the city centre of Nottingham now does it. As I have said above Toton will link London, Leeds, York, Newcastle, and in Nottingham's case Birmingham as well, to the frequently served tram stops on the Toton Lane branch of the NET. Stratford International is a very bad example to use, given that the main traffic flow is towards central London, and the fact that really it was built to be served by Eurostar, just Eurostar doesn't want to stop there. You might not be aware but their is a fair amount of people that currently drive from the Nottingham are to Grantham to catch (the faster in their minds) services to London on the ECML. Who's to say these people wouldn't prefer a shorter drive and catch the London bound services from Toton?
 

Envy123

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2015
Messages
501
Location
Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire
It's interesting that services from Newark and Grantham would be a bit slower after HS2. A higher frequency would be most welcome - Retford, for example, really does have a poor service compared to its neighbors.

As an aside, what would happen to Grand Central and First Hull services post-HS2? They don't stop at every ECML Intercity stop now, so would they be abolished, would they stay as they are or would they stop at every major stop?

Regarding my OP, I do hope that Toton would serve its purpose as an East Midlands hub and have local services from places like Newark and Nottingham. That way, it would improve links with Birmingham from Newark or Grantham but sadly not Manchester (unless HS3 would have a fast link between Manchester and Birmingham?).
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
5,086
Location
Torbay
I completely agree with you there. Toton and any parkway stations in general are never going to be the solution for city centre to city centre travel, as the time taken to get from Toton into Nottingham and Derby city centres, whether by train or tram, are going to negate the time saved on the journey on HS2 to Toton . . .

But the tram doesn't just sever the city centre of Nottingham now does it. As I have said above Toton will link London, Leeds, York, Newcastle, and in Nottingham's case Birmingham as well, to the frequently served tram stops on the Toton Lane branch of the NET. Stratford International is a very bad example to use, given that the main traffic flow is towards central London, and the fact that really it was built to be served by Eurostar, just Eurostar doesn't want to stop there. You might not be aware but their is a fair amount of people that currently drive from the Nottingham are to Grantham to catch (the faster in their minds) services to London on the ECML. Who's to say these people wouldn't prefer a shorter drive and catch the London bound services from Toton?

With a little additional infrastructure and some rearragement of local flows around Derby and Nottingham it should be possible to arrange for a fairly high frequency of relatively fast heavy rail trains to shuttle people between Toton and both Nottingham and Derby as the primary means of city centre access in addition to the tram. In particular trains between Derby and Nottingham could be rerouted via Toton and a a new south - east curve at Trowell, then entering Nottingham via Radford. Trains between Nottingham and Chesterfield could be rerouted via Beeston and Toton. Even the slower MML trains from London could be rerouted to call at Toton then go via the curve at Trowell, and if we're being really adventurous a track connection from HS2 branching north facing or even south from Toton could allow a classic compatible HS portion (perhaps the other half of a Chesterfield - Sheffield - Rotherham - Wakefield train) to peel off into Nottingham city centre either via the new Trowell curve or via Beeston as well!
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
21,542
Location
Nottingham
With a little additional infrastructure and some rearragement of local flows around Derby and Nottingham it should be possible to arrange for a fairly high frequency of relatively fast heavy rail trains to shuttle people between Toton and both Nottingham and Derby as the primary means of city centre access in addition to the tram. In particular trains between Derby and Nottingham could be rerouted via Toton and a a new south - east curve at Trowell, then entering Nottingham via Radford. Trains between Nottingham and Chesterfield could be rerouted via Beeston and Toton. Even the slower MML trains from London could be rerouted to call at Toton then go via the curve at Trowell, and if we're being really adventurous a track connection from HS2 branching north facing or even south from Toton could allow a classic compatible HS portion (perhaps the other half of a Chesterfield - Sheffield - Rotherham - Wakefield train) to peel off into Nottingham city centre either via the new Trowell curve or via Beeston as well!

This is all possible but I do question whether it will actually happen. There seems to be no interest locally in pushing for it - even though East Midlands local authorities finally agreed on Toton they don't seem to be awake to the risks and opportunities in the way Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire are.

There is also the risk of slowing down journeys such as Nottingham-Chesterfield that don't benefit from HS2, especially if Chesterfield gets its own HS2 service so has little need to connect at Toton. A connecting service from Toton to Nottingham and Derby really needs to be additional to existing trains, which pushes capacity on the routes in between. Even then it will struggle to be competitive with the existing route because of the hassle factor of changing trains. In that respect at least, the alternative location at Breaston would have been much better, assuming its southern end was adjacent to the Trent-Derby line where a new station could have been built allowing passing trains to provide the connections.

To get back on topic, the Toton-Nottingham connecting trains could usefully continue to Grantham and Lincoln, although they wouldn't compete with the ECML for London journeys.
 

Grimsby town

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2011
Messages
230
It is important to remember to that the vast majority of journeys don't begin and end in the city centre. Toton will be incredibly easy to drive and park compared to see central Nottingham so even if the public transport connections aren't as good I predict we will still see a good shift from classic services to HS2 services. It may well be more convenient for people from the Northern surburbs and Mansfield to take the car to Toton instead of going into central Nottingham on public transport. Therefore Nottingham classic passengers will benefit from less people using the trains.

The Sheffield changes mean that the ECML will be quicker for Doncaster and the South Humberside to London. It will also be quicker for Lincoln via the ECML. It could also potentially be quicker to go to London via the ECML from Hull than changing at York or Leeds for a HS2 service. All these places warrant a direct London service so it makes sense post HS2 to serve them.

It is likely that there will also be an hourly London service to Leeds to serve Wakefield and perhaps one to Edinburgh to provide Scottish connections south of York.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
6,867
In my view Leicester needs good services both north and south. Direct fast services to Nottingham, London, Manchester and Sheffield thence to the ECML ought to be seen as important.

Therefore in my view I don't think the service provision of the MML needs to change too much.

If the MML remains at 5tph then I would probably divert the slower Sheffield to Manchester and extend one of the Nottingham's to Sheffield.

If the MML was to increase to 6tph then I would have a semi fast Manchester calling at Bedford, Kettering, Leicester, Derby, Chesterfield, Stockport and Manchester.
 

LesF

Member
Joined
25 Mar 2014
Messages
98
Location
Coventry
With a little additional infrastructure and some rearragement of local flows around Derby and Nottingham it should be possible....
Goodness, all these extra trains to make up for the fact that Toton is absolutely the wrong place to put a station.
There are no passenger services through Toton so you have to either add them or divert existing services to connect to it.
Out-of-town parkways steal commerce from the towns they're supposed to serve by making it easier to get out of town by car to the parkway than it is to get into the town to do business.
The time from Toton Lane to Market Square is 34mins. Add 2 mins to get to Toton yard = 36 mins. Add 15mins average wait assuming 2tph from Toton and a 51min HS2 journey = 102 mins Nott'm-London by HS2. The current fastest Nottm-St P train is 100min and that will become faster with the planned track works and electrification before HS2 gets anywhere near Nottingham - if ever. Why change trains and pay a premium fare just to go slower?
"While it has its benefits and the geography makes it difficult to see how a better solution could have been found, Toton is far from ideal for city centre access." Edwin - the better solution is to scrap Toton and run HS trains off a sensibly routed HS line through Derby station to Sheffield Midland and through Nottingham station to Doncaster/Hull/Grimsby. Connectivity is more useful than speed when speed means by-passing whole cities just to go faster.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
21,542
Location
Nottingham
It is important to remember to that the vast majority of journeys don't begin and end in the city centre. Toton will be incredibly easy to drive and park compared to see central Nottingham so even if the public transport connections aren't as good I predict we will still see a good shift from classic services to HS2 services. It may well be more convenient for people from the Northern surburbs and Mansfield to take the car to Toton instead of going into central Nottingham on public transport. Therefore Nottingham classic passengers will benefit from less people using the trains.

That is exactly the risk. As I posted above out-of-town stops have their place, but city centre stops are key to producing a sustainable public transport network which is also accessible by people who can't or don't wish to drive, as well as maximising the benefit to cities outside London.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
the better solution is to scrap Toton and run HS trains off a sensibly routed HS line through Derby station to Sheffield Midland and through Nottingham station to Doncaster/Hull/Grimsby. Connectivity is more useful than speed when speed means by-passing whole cities just to go faster.

Are you suggesting HS2 is not built north of, probably, East Midlands Parkway and all trains use the MML northwards? That isn't really much use for Leeds or beyond, and there's no sensible route from Nottingham to Doncaster at present.
 
Last edited:

Grimsby town

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2011
Messages
230
That is exactly the risk. As I posted above out-of-town stops have their place, but city centre stops are key to producing a sustainable public transport network which is also accessible by people who can't or don't wish to drive, as well as maximising the benefit to cities outside London.

While I completely agree city centre links are important for HS2, I don't think they are the based idea for the nottingham and derby area. They simply don't have the connectivity to the local area that Manchester and Leeds have. I'm a non driver myself but to be honest I think if I could afford a car in the vast majority of cases I'd choose that over the bus. Trains and trams offer a certain level of comfort which buses don't. The problem is if I was to travel from a Nottingham suburb to Birmingham, I'm not going to drive to the city centre to catch the train. I'd just drive the fully journey. Toton means that I only have to drive 25% of the way. I don't think parkway solutions are perfect especially for those who don't drive but I think it is the best solution in this case.

Back to the original topic. The ECML will need to continue to provide peripheral with fairly fast direct links to London simply because providing these services with 500 capacity 200 metre high speed trains is to expensive. As much as I'd love Grimsby or hull on the HS2 network as the French of learnt providing every city and large town with direct high speed services is just to expensive.
 
Last edited:

LesF

Member
Joined
25 Mar 2014
Messages
98
Location
Coventry
Are you suggesting HS2 is not built north of, probably, East Midlands Parkway and all trains use the MML northwards? That isn't really much use for Leeds or beyond, and there's no sensible route from Nottingham to Doncaster at present.[/QUOTE]
No Edwyn, I should have made it clearer. Obviously the HS line must progress northwards and it has a much better chance of reaching Scotland via the easier terrain east of the Pennines, apart from the fact there is more population there.
Derby and Nottingham need both northwards and southwards connections to the HS line to get the optimum connectivity. Re the merit of a parkway station, put forward by another commentator, yes, parkways have their uses, but if the city is ONLY served at HS by a parkway, the city's economy will suffer as business is drawn away to the bigger city. In the case of Derby and Nottingham, EM parkway will continue to serve that function.
Nottingham to Doncaster can use the Grantham line (electrified for those Nottingham to ECML services that some commentators question) and a restored Bottesford to Newark line. It's all about connectivity. Once you get ALL cities and large towns connected, it isn't difficult to get a large reduction in average journey time. We see the network as it is, built piecemeal and fragmented by closures. We should see it should be, a railway for all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top