Kings Cross to Nottingham and Sheffield

[PTR 444]

Also if LNER would had a service to Sheffield or Nottingham then EMR would be finished and Bedford will not have a service to Nottingham

But what about Leicester and Derby?

 

[Trainician]

But what about Leicester and Derby?

the same will happen as well

 

[PTR 444]

the same will happen as well

I mean how will Leicester and Derby be served if you say “EMR will be finished”? That statement implies that the Midland Main Line will be closed in favour of the ECML.

 

[London Trains]

I mean how will Leicester and Derby be served if you say “EMR will be finished”? That statement implies that the Midland Main Line will be closed in favour of the ECML.

I dont know what @Trainician is saying but the MML wont actually lose any services - Leicester still needs 4tph so services cant be reduced. Additionally the LNER service will be only 1tph, and is not a direct replacement of EMR, so realistically Sheffield and Nottingham wont lose services. HS2 is much more likely to remove tonnes of demand from the MML.

 

[edwin_m]

But would it be THAT much slower? The timetable for the existing 156 service hasn`t really fully taken effect of the higher line speeds and of course makes extra stops which a London service would not. The present service often has a wait for a path at Newark for several minutes anyway which lengthens the time by that route.

I don't know if much of it is over 75mph these days, but this is primarily a freight route so anything going much faster than that will soon start seeing yellow signals.

Is there a market for Nottingham?

Definitely.

Is there a market for Sheffield?

Definitely.

Why?

Consider: when their direct services to East Anglia are gone / reduced, frequency and connectivity through Peterborough will be pivotal. In Sheffield’s case, a fast service to Peterborough and improved connectivity at Retford will be great news. If you assume the Norwich service starts at Nottingham, you connect there; but Ipswich and Cambridge you will want trains within 20 minutes.

As for Nottingham to Peterborough and Kings Cross, assuming the service takes in Grantham, Peterborough and Stevenage you open up very solid connectivity via Peterborough and Stevenage to lots of areas; and of course you can accelerate the Lincoln / other services accordingly.

Indeed, post-HS2 (assuming there is a modal shift and you only need 1tph to Leeds via the ECML and 1tph to Newcastle / Scotland, actually unlocking connectivity and finding use for IEP is entirely correct. Someone suggested using IEP on a Leeds to Cambridge or Ipswich - great idea. Fantastic for people who can then connect at Doncaster or Leeds with a huge array of other Northern cities and destinations.

Only Sheffield will lose its direct service to East Anglia. It's quicker via Doncaster already so I don't see why a change at Nottingham and Peterborough is any worse than Doncaster and Peterborough or indeed one change at Nottingham which will still be possible.

Only Stevenage would gain a service to Nottingham and Sheffield, compared to good connections at Grantham today.

It's not going to happen.

 

[London Trains]

I've taken on some advice (mainly the Norwich to Leeds idea) and changed my plan:

Post HS2, Leeds will not need 2tph LNER to Kings Cross, so I would switch the Kings Cross to Leeds and Norwich to Nottingham services to have the Leeds service run to Norwich and have one of the Kings Cross to Leeds service run to Sheffield via Nottingham. It could actually potentially be extended to Leeds connecting Nottingham with Leeds without using a slow Northern DMU.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I've taken on some advice (mainly the Norwich to Leeds idea) and changed my plan:

Post HS2, Leeds will not need 2tph LNER to Kings Cross, so I would switch the Kings Cross to Leeds and Norwich to Nottingham services to have the Leeds service run to Norwich and have one of the Kings Cross to Leeds service run to Sheffield via Nottingham. It could actually potentially be extended to Leeds connecting Nottingham with Leeds without using a slow Northern DMU.

Not too sure about that.

Also, as much as I love ideas, don’t take it too seriously.

 

[Bald Rick]

I've taken on some advice (mainly the Norwich to Leeds idea) and changed my plan:

Post HS2, Leeds will not need 2tph LNER to Kings Cross, so I would switch the Kings Cross to Leeds and Norwich to Nottingham services to have the Leeds service run to Norwich and have one of the Kings Cross to Leeds service run to Sheffield via Nottingham. It could actually potentially be extended to Leeds connecting Nottingham with Leeds without using a slow Northern DMU.

What about the good folk of Newark, Retford and Doncaster who might want to get to London?

 

[London Trains]

What about the good folk of Newark! Retford and Concaster who might want to get to London?

Well currently Newark and Retford arent served by Leeds trains. Doncaster wont lose any service, since there wont need to be a fast Edinburgh once HS2 opens, so that service can call at Doncaster and go somewhere else.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well currently Newark and Retford arent served by Leeds trains. Doncaster wont lose any service, since there wont need to be a fast Edinburgh once HS2 opens, so that service can call at Doncaster and go somewhere else.

Except they are. All but one of the 5 key commuter trains from Newark to London (arriving KX between 0730 and 0900) originate or run via Leeds.

 

[London Trains]

Except they are. All but one of the 5 key commuter trains from Newark to London (arriving KX between 0730 and 0900) originate or run via Leeds.

Honestly, post HS2, Newark and Retford will benefit greatly. Since Leeds and Edinburgh both dont need 2tph fast trains. I would have Hull Trains and Grand Central have the fastest paths with Hull Trains becoming hourly and providing the Doncaster fast service. Other than Hull Trains, Grand Central and potentially 1tph LNER, every service can call at Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, and Doncaster. Retford does not warrant such a service but 2tph would suffice.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

You can't force Hull Trains to be hourly, and I massively doubt they work without extra stops like Grantham and Retford (the latter originally put in because the service was so poor).

Retford doesn't seriously warrant more than 1tph on the London - Doncaster (and beyond) route; but an additional overlay service such as a Leeds - Ipswich or Leeds - Cambridge could work.

 

[cle]

Ok, I walked into that, apologies.

Nevertheless, I would argue that this is simply some work done by steers to look at options, and is by no means a serious proposal.

No worries, that's what the forum's for. And whether it's serious or not, it's there in an official document, and so definitely fair game in the speculative section!

If a single hourly fast to Nottingham became the premier/fast service, then both St Pancras services could take on more stops. Nottingham and Leicester services could return to Luton and/or Bedford. Or one Nottingham service could be sent elsewhere. But there isn't tons and tons of demand for extra at Derby or Chesterfield, both have a good service today. Sheffield would be on HS2. So I think the service may as well remain to Nottingham.

Crazy thought - if dwells and platforms were a problem at Nottingham itself, and the railway was 'nationalized' in the medium term, maybe a loop service would be better. Doesn't offer many interesting new pair possibilities though. Grantham is no draw, and Peterborough is better via Leicester.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

No worries, that's what the forum's for. And whether it's serious or not, it's there in an official document, and so definitely fair game in the speculative section!

If a single hourly fast to Nottingham became the premier/fast service, then both St Pancras services could take on more stops. Nottingham and Leicester services could return to Luton and/or Bedford. Or one Nottingham service could be sent elsewhere. But there isn't tons and tons of demand for extra at Derby or Chesterfield, both have a good service today. Sheffield would be on HS2. So I think the service may as well remain to Nottingham.

Crazy thought - if dwells and platforms were a problem at Nottingham itself, and the railway was 'nationalized' in the medium term, maybe a loop service would be better. Doesn't offer many interesting new pair possibilities though. Grantham is no draw, and Peterborough is better via Leicester.

Agreed re: Sheffield and Nottingham ‘Premier’ services (faster, better First Class product, less stops) via the ECML causing the existing services on the MML to decelerate.

When the EWRL opens, Bedford will be somewhere you want to stop almost everything at; and one could even argue in favour of West Hampstead for some Intercity stops due to the possibility of fast connections to Old Oak (Heathrow, West of England) via Overground; as well as the East, Docklands (Jubilee), so connectivity should be the winner. Sheffield and Nottingham may not need, therefore, a half-hourly service via Leicester; but redistribution of paths works.

See the desire to reopen the Maid Marian line, meaning a Nottingham path could be re-used as a St Pancras - Leicester - Toton Hub - Mansfield service; and one service from Sheffield could divert south of Bedford as an express service to Oxford (accordingly from Leeds or wherever in the North).

There’s a lot of options by opening Nottingham and Sheffield up via the ECML; the main one is in respect of decelerating the MML to give more credence to house-building between Bedford and Loughborough and treating it as a ‘Fast commuter railway’, especially if more of it is wired.

 

[HSTEd]

Well you could run an ECML to Toton train via Nottingham, to connect with HS2.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Well you could run an ECML to Toton train via Nottingham, to connect with HS2.

You could indeed. Peterborough to Toton linkage could cause some modal shift.

 

[edwin_m]

If a single hourly fast to Nottingham became the premier/fast service, then both St Pancras services could take on more stops. Nottingham and Leicester services could return to Luton and/or Bedford. Or one Nottingham service could be sent elsewhere. But there isn't tons and tons of demand for extra at Derby or Chesterfield, both have a good service today. Sheffield would be on HS2. So I think the service may as well remain to Nottingham.

You can't do that because Leicester, not benefitting from HS2, still needs a good fast service to London. And indeed also a good fast service to Nottingham, so you might as well run them through.

Well you could run an ECML to Toton train via Nottingham, to connect with HS2.

You could do that with the Norwich if there was a good enough reason. But Peterborough to the North East will still be quicker via the existing route than via Toton and HS2, and Peterborough to London obviously would, so it's only really Peterborough to Birmingham and maybe Sheffield that would benefit. And connecting into the proposed Midlands Connect Nottingham-HS2-Birmingham service would offer the same benefits for the former without having to re-hash most of the service pattern in the East Midlands.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

You can't do that because Leicester, not benefitting from HS2, still needs a good fast service to London. And indeed also a good fast service to Nottingham, so you might as well run them through.

You could do that with the Norwich if there was a good enough reason. But Peterborough to the North East will still be quicker via the existing route than via Toton and HS2, and Peterborough to London obviously would, so it's only really Peterborough to Birmingham and maybe Sheffield that would benefit. And connecting into the proposed Midlands Connect Nottingham-HS2-Birmingham service would offer the same benefits for the former without having to re-hash most of the service pattern in the East Midlands.

Even if there's a half-hourly "fast" service, only stopping at, say, Kettering and Bedford, that's more than sufficient. Leicester folk will hardly be worried about a fast train to London when they're stuck with some dross hourly service to Bedford or even having to change to get to Bedford (e.g. Kettering) to get onto East West.

 

[Bald Rick]

Leicester folk will hardly be worried about a fast train to London when they're stuck with some dross hourly service to Bedford or even having to change to get to Bedford (e.g. Kettering) to get onto East West.

I’m not sure I understand

Are you suggesting that the good folk of Leicester woudl prefer to have service that is around 15% slower to London but calls at Bedford / Kettering for connections that few will use?

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I’m not sure I understand

Are you suggesting that the good folk of Leicester woudl prefer to have service that is around 15% slower to London but calls at Bedford / Kettering for connections that few will use?

I think the suggestion is that with all factors combined, Leicester is "on an Island" and is on its own. It's passengers will have an inferior service to London anyway compared to its local neighbours; but equally will have inferior connections to various other places (Oxford, MK, Cambridge) so my supposition is that people will want connectivity over a fast London train. You may as well accept Sheffield, Nottingham and such will switch to other faster modes and focus on wider connectivity including Midlands Hub and East West, and just decelerate the MML's services deliberately and make house-building greater between Leicester and Bedford.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the suggestion is that with all factors combined, Leicester is "on an Island" and is on its own. It's passengers will have an inferior service to London anyway compared to its local neighbours; but equally will have inferior connections to various other places (Oxford, MK, Cambridge) so my supposition is that people will want connectivity over a fast London train. You may as well accept Sheffield, Nottingham and such will switch to other faster modes and focus on wider connectivity including Midlands Hub and East West, and just decelerate the MML's services deliberately and make house-building greater between Leicester and Bedford.

The opposite is more likely to be true. Leicester will want to continue to have a fast London service in order to compete with its local neighbours. EWR won’t be offering direct services from Leicester to any of those places (Leicester already has direct links to Cambridge of course) and the market will not be big. It is likely that there will be services from Leicester and further north calling at Bedford, but there will definitely still be more non stopping.

 

[BJames]

To be honest. Although I tend not to travel London to Nottingham when there's works going on on the MML, going via Grantham is still a very valuable and useful alternative, and I can't see the value or need of introducing a direct service from King's Cross to Nottingham or Sheffield. You can get to both from the station across the road in a very respectable time, and if you really want to use King's Cross, it's an easy change at Grantham. If you're in Stevenage or Peterborough you can continue to change at Grantham, getting rid of that one change isn't worth a new service and I'm not convinced it would attract significantly more passengers.

And also, the fact that King's Cross doesn't exactly have the space.

I think the suggestion is that with all factors combined, Leicester is "on an Island" and is on its own. It's passengers will have an inferior service to London anyway compared to its local neighbours; but equally will have inferior connections to various other places (Oxford, MK, Cambridge) so my supposition is that people will want connectivity over a fast London train. You may as well accept Sheffield, Nottingham and such will switch to other faster modes and focus on wider connectivity including Midlands Hub and East West, and just decelerate the MML's services deliberately and make house-building greater between Leicester and Bedford.

Services from London currently either run non-stop to Leicester or stop just at Market Harborough. Can't imagine people at Leicester would be happy to only have slow services. It'd probably work out better to have a quicker service to London and get connectivity there - or use the Cambridge service and change at Peterborough for other connections. Granted it's not the quickest but maybe that's where improvements should take place?

 

[cle]

The Leicester fasts are the main issue in the 'MML becoming outer suburban/regional' discussion, if Nottingham had this service, and Sheffield has HS2. Some combining/splitting at Kettering, even once per hour, might enable calls and connections north - but preserve 1-2tph fast to Leicester per hour.

I think Kings Cross to Sheffield is pointless.

But the Toton idea upthread, might make sense for Nottingham station limitations and some connectivity (adding Stevenage/Peterborough to Toton links, if useful? - but most destinations are already served on the ECML which will also have more calls)

 

[TheWalrus]

I’m sure KGX-Nottingham was proposed some years ago as something the EC operator was going to do?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I’m sure KGX-Nottingham was proposed some years ago as something the EC operator was going to do?

GNER (Alliance Rail Holdings) i think proposed a Sheffield-London services from Kings Cross along with Skegness, Grimsby, Scarborough etc all rejected in 2010

 

[cle]

I missed 4-SUBs post on West Hampstead and Bedford. I'm not sure the former would be possible, but might be interesting. Even if for more Bedford calls, or the Corbys.

St Albans is another option, in theory (it used to be an intercity stop) - and there are a fair few jobs based there, although I suspect the demand is 95% for more fasts into Thameslink. Having two Lutons vying for calls too, makes that stretch very tricky - without massive works (a dive under fasts to slows north of Radlett?)

 

[London Trains]

Post HS2, a potential idea could be to open a new (not on the old alignment) dead straight, 125mph line from the WCML south of Rugby to the MML south of where the line from Nuneaton joins. The fast services from London to Leicester and Loughborough would then be provided via the WCML, and additionally these places would be connected to Milton Keynes (I would have everything on the WCML fasts stop at MK post HS2). I would anticipate journey times to Leicester being roughly the same as MML timings - between 1h and 1h10m.

The MML service would be reduced to 2tph Corby (Luton Airport, Luton, Bedford, Rushden, Wellingborough, Kettering) and 2tph Leicester (Luton Airport, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough). The only loser with the scheme would be Market Harborough, losing its 1tph nonstop to London.

The junction with the WCML could be a triangle junction, with the XC Birmingham to Leicester / Peterborough / Cambridge fasts being provided via Rugby (additionally connecting these places to HS2 via Bham Int, providing connectivity from these stations to Manchester, Liverpool, Preston, Glasgow etc, and reconnecting Leicester with Coventry, a link often suggested to be reinstated due to high demand) and the line via Nuneaton could be transferred to WMT and become a commuter line with lots of new stations and no services past Leicester.

 

[TheWalrus]

GNER (Alliance Rail Holdings) i think proposed a Sheffield-London services from Kings Cross along with Skegness, Grimsby, Scarborough etc all rejected in 2010

Could be that I’m thinking of, although I thought it was the EC franchise.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Could be that I’m thinking of, although I thought it was the EC franchise.

It used the former east coast franchise name GNER

 

[JonathanH]

Post HS2, a potential idea could be to open a new (not on the old alignment) dead straight, 125mph line from the WCML south of Rugby to the MML south of where the line from Nuneaton joins. The fast services from London to Leicester and Loughborough would then be provided via the WCML, and additionally these places would be connected to Milton Keynes (I would have everything on the WCML fasts stop at MK post HS2). I would anticipate journey times to Leicester being roughly the same as MML timings - between 1h and 1h10m.

Why would you divert services to a new build line which doesn't offer any improvement in journey times over the existing route? This seems to be spending money on something with very little benefit.

A dead straight new line isn't going to gain much favour - can you plot it on a map and avoid all houses, farms, fields, woods etc?

The junction with the WCML could be a triangle junction, with the XC Birmingham to Leicester / Peterborough / Cambridge fasts being provided via Rugby (additionally connecting these places to HS2 via Bham Int, providing connectivity from these stations to Manchester, Liverpool, Preston, Glasgow etc, and reconnecting Leicester with Coventry, a link often suggested to be reinstated due to high demand) and the line via Nuneaton could be transferred to WMT and become a commuter line with lots of new stations and no services past Leicester.

Huh? Where are the 'lots of new stations" between Nuneaton and Leicester going to be located? Hinckley and Narborough are the only settlements of any size.

In terms of the context of this thread, which is about running services to Nottingham and Sheffield on the ECML, I don't really see why the MML service to Leicester necessarily needs to be downgraded if ECML services run to Sheffield and Nottingham. It certainly wouldn't automatically justify running Leicester trains via the WCML.