Ideas for fast / slow line utilisation

[Railperf]

Moderator note : posts #1-#7 originally in this thread:

(2) Class 810 (was originally class 804) for East Midlands Railway Construction/Introduction Updates | RailUK Forums (railforums.co.uk)

I think it's been mentioned that some of it will be 125 south of Bedford and will only deliver a minimal reduction in overall journey times. The main difference with all electric traction in TL land is that all trains will have similar acceleration performance and the intensive interleaving of TL and EMR services on the fast lines will be less fragile for both operators' timetables.

More time is likely to be lost for pathing allowances to let TL criss cross to and from the fast lines at various points. For operational and performance reasons It is almost time that TL were confined to the slow lines only to allow EMR dedicated access to the fast lines - especially now that EMR electrics will be operating the fast services to Luton and Bedford

 

[JonathanH]

For operational and performance reasons It is almost time that TL were confined to the slow lines only to allow EMR dedicated access to the fast lines - especially now that EMR electrics will be operating the fast services to Luton and Bedford

There is no way that would work - unless Thameslink also started to run all of its trains as all stations stoppers north of St Pancras or cut back the timetable drastically.

EMR don't stop at St Albans.

The capacity of the fast lines is not just about saving a few minutes on the EMR services because higher performance units have become available.

 

[Bald Rick]

More time is likely to be lost for pathing allowances to let TL criss cross to and from the fast lines at various points. For operational and performance reasons It is almost time that TL were confined to the slow lines only to allow EMR dedicated access to the fast lines - especially now that EMR electrics will be operating the fast services to Luton and Bedford

That would lead to service cuts and significant journey time extensions for the majority of passengers on the south end of the Midland main line. To save a minute or two to Leicester. No chance!

 

[AM9]

More time is likely to be lost for pathing allowances to let TL criss cross to and from the fast lines at various points. For operational and performance reasons It is almost time that TL were confined to the slow lines only to allow EMR dedicated access to the fast lines - especially now that EMR electrics will be operating the fast services to Luton and Bedford

I presume that you've never seen TL services in the peaks, where the fast trains disgorge 500+ passengers every 5 minutes or less. Annual entries and exits at St Albans City station alone (7.37m for 2019-20) are more than Leicester (5.32m for the same period), and unlike Leicester, all trains stopping at St Albans travel on the MML, there aren't any other TOCs like XC.
Add to what as Bald Rick says if TL services were confined to the slow lines every train would need to be slow and given that the capacity of the line would be reduced drastically the peak hours would probably be extended in order to clear the excess passengers.
There still seems to be an opinion here that carrying a few passengers a bit faster at the expense of a much greater number of more local journeys is justified because the fast tracks are somehow for the exclusive use of trains with a higher top speed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The situation is very similar to the south WCML, really - you could cope without local services on the fasts by running Tube-style all (or most) stations services on the slows at high frequencies, but if you did you would have very slow services from the outer reaches because otherwise you wouldn't have enough capacity to deal with the peaks.

 

[AM9]

The situation is very similar to the south WCML, really - you could cope without local services on the fasts by running Tube-style all (or most) stations services on the slows at high frequencies, but if you did you would have very slow services from the outer reaches because otherwise you wouldn't have enough capacity to deal with the peaks.

Posters here don't seem to be so precious about the WCML fast lines being for the exclusive use of inter-city trains as they are about the MML.

 

[fgwrich]

Posters here don't seem to be so precious about the WCML fast lines being for the exclusive use of inter-city trains as they are about the MML.

Welcome to how we are over on the GWML!

 

[Aictos]

That would lead to service cuts and significant journey time extensions for the majority of passengers on the south end of the Midland main line. To save a minute or two to Leicester. No chance!

Not to mention the howls of protest from Angry of Harpenden of their already decent service being reduced or made slower.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not to mention the howls of protest from Angry of Harpenden of their already decent service being reduced or made slower.

Angry of Harpenden is but a soft and fluffy bunny rabbit compared to the St Albans commuters!

 

[JonathanH]

There still seems to be an opinion here that carrying a few passengers a bit faster at the expense of a much greater number of more local journeys is justified because the fast tracks are somehow for the exclusive use of trains with a higher top speed.

I don't think the view is so much about exclusive use of trains with a high speed. It is more about eliminating crossing moves at flat junctions and finding acceptable ways to do that.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't think the view is so much about exclusive use of trains with a high speed. It is more about eliminating crossing moves at flat junctions and finding acceptable ways to do that.

Surely it’s actually about eliminating pathing time - one cause of which is crossing moves at flat junctions. Another cause is having fast non stop trains right behind trains that stop. To solve that, you just stop the fast train too

 

[Aictos]

Angry of Harpenden is but a soft and fluffy bunny rabbit compared to the St Albans commuters!

I was referring to the Harpenden MP who believes the current service levels at Harpenden are not good enough and want more trains to call at expense of other more well used stations.

 

[HSTEd]

To go full blown devil's advocate - would running two stopping patterns on a tube style high intensity format be so bad?

You would have easy interchange at all stations where the "fast" pattern stops.

People have to change, but at high intensity does that even matter?

For example, the fast trains could run out of St Pancras, first stop St Albans.

 

[AM9]

Surely it’s actually about eliminating pathing time - one cause of which is crossing moves at flat junctions. Another cause is having fast non stop trains right behind trains that stop. To solve that, you just stop the fast train too

The pathing issue has been partly dealt with since the 700s were introduced, - their acceleration is such that their stops need less headway by running at 100mph for most of the dash from Carlton Road junction to hitting the brakes near Sopwell. The 319s didn't hit the nineties until Silkstream 'ish and although the /4s were fitted with 12% brakes, they seemed to start slowing down near Radlett Aerodrome. Similarly, the real issues for the EMT services were those diagrammed as HST sets. They seemed to struggle to get up to speed.

I was referring to the Harpenden MP who believes the current service levels at Harpenden are not good enough and want more trains to call at expense of other more well used stations.

Well not much happened on that. St Albans has over twice Harpenden's number of passengers so It gets the service that they warrant.

To go full blown devil's advocate - would running two stopping patterns on a tube style high intensity format be so bad?

You could arrange stations for cross platform interchange at all stations where the "fast" stopping pattern stops.

People have to change, but at high intensity does that even matter?

As in Wembley Park and Finchley Road? The problem on the MML* is that the tracks are paired by speed, not by direction. If there is a need for all station stoppers, intermediates and through non-stoppers, the optimum layout is a SWML or GN/ECML arrangement with either island platforms at the inter stops or fast crossovers to minimise the disruption to following fast trains.
The GEML also had this problem before TfL took over the Electric (slow) lines for Crossrail. This thread discusses the issues:https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rwich-and-class-86.216047/page-2#post-5081628

 

[HSTEd]

As in Wembley Park and Finchley Road? The problem on the MML* is that the tracks are paired by speed, not by direction. If there is a need for all station stoppers, intermediates and through non-stoppers, the optimum layout is a SWML or GN/ECML arrangement with either island platforms at the inter stops or fast crossovers to minimise the disruption to following fast trains.

Yes, like that although the example that most comes to mind is the New York suibway.

I suppose cross platform interchange is problematic - even if the lines were paired by direction, most of the stations have been built as one island rather than twin island stations.

Either way, I think it is still potentially a useful option.

 

[Bald Rick]

I was referring to the Harpenden MP who believes the current service levels at Harpenden are not good enough and want more trains to call at expense of other more well used stations.

As per previous. The Harpenden MP (who also has Hitchin in his constituency, so plenty of stuff that side to think about) is but a fluffy bunny compared to the St Albans MP, who led a commuter group and made a lot of noise before she was elected - even when there was nothing to make a noise about!

The pathing issue has been partly dealt with since the 700s were introduced, - their acceleration is such that their stops need less headway by running at 100mph for most of the dash from Carlton Road junction to hitting the brakes near Sopwell. The 319s didn't hit the nineties until Silkstream 'ish and although the /4s were fitted with 12% brakes, they seemed to start slowing down near Radlett Aerodrome. Similarly, the real issues for the EMT services were those diagrammed as HST sets. They seemed to struggle to get up to speed.

From May, in the peaks, fitting in 8 Thameslinks and 6 EMRs on the fast lines is only possible with the liberal application of pathing time on the latter south of Luton. There’s not many trains without at least 3 minutes of it. That 6th EMR path and the extra 2 Thameslinks (PM peak) added in since the 700s came in make a big difference.

To go full blown devil's advocate - would running two stopping patterns on a tube style high intensity format be so bad?

You would have easy interchange at all stations where the "fast" pattern stops.

People have to change, but at high intensity does that even matter?

For example, the fast trains could run out of St Pancras, first stop St Albans.

If you mean having the EMR services call at St Albans as well, that wouldn’t actually help. In fact it would probably make things worse due to the necessary dwell times of the EMR services.

 

[HSTEd]

If you mean having the EMR services call at St Albans as well, that wouldn’t actually help. In fact it would probably make things worse due to the necessary dwell times of the EMR services.

Why would EMR services have longer dwells in this future?

In the future it is unlikely there will be any significant London passengers going north of Nottingham/Toton/East Midlands Parkway.

We would have two stopping patterns, one would run all stations, probably into Thameslink.

The other stopping pattern would run a single set stopping pattern running into St Pancras.

 

[JonathanH]

We would have two stopping patterns, one would run all stations, probably into Thameslink.

The other stopping pattern would run a single set stopping pattern running into St Pancras.

How do you keep St Albans passengers off the trains intended for long distance passengers?

What benefit would there be stopping the long distance trains at St Albans if no one could use them?

How far out would the high frequency fast line service run? Running 12tph to Leicester might be overkill but would be needed (or more) to provide enough capacity further in.

 

[HSTEd]

How do you keep St Albans passengers off the trains intended for long distance passengers?

Why would you want to?

What benefit would there be stopping the long distance trains at St Albans if no one could use them?

I'm not sure I follow?

How far out would the high frequency fast line service run? Running 12tph to Leicester might be overkill but would be needed (or more) to provide enough capacity further in.

Probably split up in vinicity of East Midlands Parkway, some to Nottingham, some to Toton, some to Derby etc.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Sigh - a simple calculation of the revenue per journey / mile /km for every trip south of Bedford compared to that of Leicester would soon indicate the madness of an idea like this. Bit like dumbing down the outer Met Line to all stations from Amersham / Chesham all day (yes - I know there are some peak "fasts" on there)

Just look at the pre COVID passenger numbers on the route and aggregate them.

Oh - and a minor issue on freight pathing also. Mentioned before BTW.

 

[Aictos]

How do you keep St Albans passengers off the trains intended for long distance passengers?

What benefit would there be stopping the long distance trains at St Albans if no one could use them?

How far out would the high frequency fast line service run? Running 12tph to Leicester might be overkill but would be needed (or more) to provide enough capacity further in.

Pardon me for asking but wasn't the point of the Corby electrification done to provide a fast service for Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford, Luton and Luton Airport Parkway so to provide more seats for stations further north on the Sheffield and Nottingham services? Corby is just a convenient place to terminate the service.

As to stopping IC services at St Alban's, why do that because you might as well bin the EMR Connect service and just continue to stop the existing IC service at Luton and Bedford at the expense of passengers travelling further afield.

There simply isn't any need for St Alban's to have EMR services stopping there as it's akin to stopping LNER at Welwyn Garden City or Hatfield neither is attractive not when they already have 4tph fast to London even if 2tph call at West Hampstead TL, 2tph semi fast to Rainham and 4tph all stations to Sutton via Wimbledon or Wimbledon via Sutton which is plenty.

Stopping EMR at St Alban's will also make the service slower for those travelling to Nottingham and Sheffield which was another reason why they went ahead with the EMR Connect services as passengers for intermediate stations could get the Connect service and change at Kettering meaning a faster service for the Sheffield passenger as a example specifically as the time penalty for Bedford won't exist as the long distance services can now run non stop between Kettering and London.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why would EMR services have longer dwells in this future?

Long Distance trains tend to, for all the normal reasons.

Oh - and a minor issue on freight pathing also. Mentioned before BTW.

Yeah but it’s only another 2 tph of 3000t stone trains, and various shunts at Elstree, Luton, Radlett Etc to fit into the 10tph off peak service guv. You bell it through and I won’t tell control

 

[AM9]

Yes, like that although the example that most comes to mind is the New York suibway.

I suppose cross platform interchange is problematic - even if the lines were paired by direction, most of the stations have been built as one island rather than twin island stations.

Either way, I think it is still potentially a useful option.

Well the alternative is to keep a paired by speed configuration and invest in grade separation crossovers both side of each inter stop. Might be more expensive though.

 

[bramling]

The pathing issue has been partly dealt with since the 700s were introduced, - their acceleration is such that their stops need less headway by running at 100mph for most of the dash from Carlton Road junction to hitting the brakes near Sopwell. The 319s didn't hit the nineties until Silkstream 'ish and although the /4s were fitted with 12% brakes, they seemed to start slowing down near Radlett Aerodrome. Similarly, the real issues for the EMT services were those diagrammed as HST sets. They seemed to struggle to get up to speed.

Well not much happened on that. St Albans has over twice Harpenden's number of passengers so It gets the service that they warrant.

As in Wembley Park and Finchley Road? The problem on the MML* is that the tracks are paired by speed, not by direction. If there is a need for all station stoppers, intermediates and through non-stoppers, the optimum layout is a SWML or GN/ECML arrangement with either island platforms at the inter stops or fast crossovers to minimise the disruption to following fast trains.
The GEML also had this problem before TfL took over the Electric (slow) lines for Crossrail. This thread discusses the issues:https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rwich-and-class-86.216047/page-2#post-5081628

I’ve always wondered if any thought had ever been given to changing the Midland to being paired by direction, as on the ECML. With the massive number of crossing movements scheduled nowadays it would certainly make life a lot easier. I guess the logistics of changing it over and maintaining a service during the works would be absolutely massive.

6 tracks inwards of St Albans would also be good, but that’s never going to happen!

 

[AM9]

I’ve always wondered if any thought had ever been given to changing the Midland to being paired by direction, as on the ECML. With the massive number of crossing movements scheduled nowadays it would certainly make life a lot easier. I guess the logistics of changing it over and maintaining a service during the works would be absolutely massive.

6 tracks inwards of St Albans would also be good, but that’s never going to happen!

I think that Bald Rick has indicated the issue in terms of almost every station having the wrong configuration for paired by direction as well as St Albans being a turn-round point for slows. It would need grade separation there to maintain reversals - no chance of extra land anywhere near St Albans. Of course the whole timetable could be altered to change that. It will be interesting to see what the new station at Brent Cross does to the TL fasts. I think that there will be passing loops there so maybe it will ease the problems of stopping trains on the fast tracks.
Coincidentally, I was at St Albans city this evening. The peak trains were coming in just like normal but there were few passengers alighting from them. It looks like the new footbridge is being started,which will ease the dwells and platform clearance issues if the passenger numbers ever return to pre COVID-19 levels there.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’ve always wondered if any thought had ever been given to changing the Midland to being paired by direction, as on the ECML. With the massive number of crossing movements scheduled nowadays it would certainly make life a lot easier. I guess the logistics of changing it over and maintaining a service during the works would be absolutely massive.

6 tracks inwards of St Albans would also be good, but that’s never going to happen!

I think that Bald Rick has indicated the issue in terms of almost every station having the wrong configuration for paired by direction as well as St Albans being a turn-round point for slows. It would need grade separation there to maintain reversals - no chance of extra land anywhere near St Albans. Of course the whole timetable could be altered to change that. It will be interesting to see what the new station at Brent Cross does to the TL fasts. I think that there will be passing loops there so maybe it will ease the problems of stopping trains on the fast tracks.
Coincidentally, I was at St Albans city this evening. The peak trains were coming in just like normal but there were few passengers alighting from them. It looks like the new footbridge is being started,which will ease the dwells and platform clearance issues if the passenger numbers ever return to pre COVID-19 levels there.

It’s not so much the stations that are the wrong configuration (although some are) as the tracks. The fast lines are carefully aligned to get the best speed out of them, whereas the slows are aligned to accommodate the station. If the down slow become the Up Fast, it would need wholesale realignment and rebuilding of many stations.

And, as you say, the turn backs at St Albans, Luton and Bedford would be in the wrong place. Oh and the Thameslink tunnels.

But other than that.....

 

[Ianno87]

You'd probably get proportionately more performance benefit for your buck by doubling one or two more of the Fast-Slow line junctions.

e.g. Harpenden seen quite alot of Fast-Slow crossing movements in each direction but is only a single ladder each way.

Edit: Or make a few more of the higher speed (e.g. with flashing yellows etc).

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I think that Bald Rick has indicated the issue in terms of almost every station having the wrong configuration for paired by direction as well as St Albans being a turn-round point for slows. It would need grade separation there to maintain reversals - no chance of extra land anywhere near St Albans. Of course the whole timetable could be altered to change that. It will be interesting to see what the new station at Brent Cross does to the TL fasts. I think that there will be passing loops there so maybe it will ease the problems of stopping trains on the fast tracks.
Coincidentally, I was at St Albans city this evening. The peak trains were coming in just like normal but there were few passengers alighting from them. It looks like the new footbridge is being started,which will ease the dwells and platform clearance issues if the passenger numbers ever return to pre COVID-19 levels there.

St Albans being on a fairly obvious curve , with cuttings to the north and a substantial bridge and embankments to the south is a bit of a pinch point. Land prices are a tad above rural Lincolnshire.

Yes - the new footbridge is planned for year end and contractors are on site. Yes , loadings are clearly repressed for obvious reasons - but the all stations terminator I was on yesterday pm around 4pm had about 30 off it at destination which is not much worse than usual.

Finally - Brent (new) station is to be served by slow and semi-fast services , no plans or intention to do anything on the fast lines.Heaven forbid - but maybe someone will suggest -"my idea for stopping the fast Leicesters there"

I am quite familiar with the 3 and 4 track sections on the NY subway and how it operates, there is a significant difference in that the original IRT / BMT and later IND were designed and built accordingly with local and key express interchange stations. The Midland railway was built on endless coal , beer and a few lightly loaded express services in the 19thC.

"Luton Through Express" - "Mill Hill Broadway Local" anyone ? (don't think so)

 

[Aictos]

You'd probably get proportionately more performance benefit for your buck by doubling one or two more of the Fast-Slow line junctions.

e.g. Harpenden seen quite alot of Fast-Slow crossing movements in each direction but is only a single ladder each way.

Edit: Or make a few more of the higher speed (e.g. with flashing yellows etc).

The main conflict at Harpenden junction is between EMR and TL as that's the usual junction that TL services use to go from Up Slow to Up Fast or Down Fast to Down Slow, I'm not sure how much of a improvement can be done there other then faster approaches?

Speaking of the junctions between Bedford and St Pancras Int, can anything be done to improve them?

As to Brent Cross, it will be 2 island platforms both 12 cars capable so same layout as St Alban's.

 

[AM9]

The main conflict at Harpenden junction is between EMR and TL as that's the usual junction that TL services use to go from Up Slow to Up Fast or Down Fast to Down Slow, I'm not sure how much of a improvement can be done there other then faster approaches?

Speaking of the junctions between Bedford and St Pancras Int, can anything be done to improve them?

As to Brent Cross, it will be 2 island platforms both 12 cars capable so same layout as St Alban's.

The complementary crossover of Harpenden South where down/up TL trains take up/leave the path on the fast lines is in effect a dual lead crossover made from two single lead crossovers. Down TL fast trains cross over on the single lead ladder at Carlton Road, and up TL trains leave the fasts via the West Hampstead South single lead, so the Belsize Tunnel separates the two. I's some time since I was on a train that didn't take one of thaose paths, but I suppose that is still available to allow a late down EMR train to loop the TL rather than delay everything.
St Albans only has one island platform and two single faced ones.