Market Harborough Station & Linespeed Improvement

[snowball]

Press release:

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-building-to-be-retained-at-market-harborough

The historic building which has welcomed passengers to Market Harborough for decades will be kept as part of major upgrade work at the station.

Network Rail plans to remodel the station to allow important adjustments to be made to the layout of the track, and can now confirm that the building which current houses the ticket office will be included in the new design.

The announcement comes following overwhelming feedback from members of the public at an information day held at Market Harborough indoor market back in February, when early plans for the station were first revealed to over 400 people who turned up to see them.

Once the track and station have been redesigned, journey times will be improved on the Midland Main Line while the station will also have longer platforms to cater for longer trains with more seats.

Kevin Newman, senior commercial scheme sponsor, said: “The response to the first public information day was absolutely fantastic and we took away two key messages with us; people in Market Harborough want more car parking at the station and to keep the existing station building as part of the new design.

“I’m delighted to confirm that when we submit our plans to the planning authority both of those requests will have been met. The reason we hold public information events is not simply to tell people what we’re planning but to take on their feedback and suggestions too, and while it’s not always feasible to accommodate them all, I’m thrilled that we have been able to on this occasion.”

David Oldershaw, Area Station Manager for East Midlands Trains, said: “This is great news and we know our customers and staff will be very happy to hear that the original station building – which is iconic in Market Harborough – will be included in the new station design.

“This is a really exciting project and we will continue to work with Network Rail on the plans for Market Harborough.”

Cllr Blake Pain, Leader of Harborough District Council, said: “I am pleased to hear that the planned improvement scheme for Market Harborough railway station is progressing well and that the public have been involved in this project through consultation. We look forward to regular updates as things move forward.”

Work on the station and to straighten the track is due to begin in late 2017 and will see:

Longer platforms to handle longer trains with more seats
Improved access to the station, particularly for wheelchair users
An improved access road to the car park to improve traffic flow

The project will straighten the Midland Main Line through Market Harborough allowing trains to travel at higher speeds and forms part of Network Rail’s £40bn Railway Upgrade Plan to provide a bigger, better, more reliable railway for passengers.

The upgrade at Market Harborough is one of the first projects in a comprehensive programme of upgrades to the Midland Main Line, which runs between London St Pancras and Sheffield.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Press release:

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-building-to-be-retained-at-market-harborough

Is it only me that seems to think this press release was written for the Northants Evening News (or whatever the local paper is called) to copy and paste?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the station building was protected anyway - if so, it makes the lead a non-story.

No details on the actual increase in train capacity, no details on the new speed allowed through the station, and no details on the time savings for non-stop trains with the new track layout.

Do they teach PR people to avoid the issues in the UK or what?

 

[InTheEastMids]

Is it only me that seems to think this press release was written for the Northants Evening News (or whatever the local paper is called) to copy and paste?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the station building was protected anyway - if so, it makes the lead a non-story.

No details on the actual increase in train capacity, no details on the new speed allowed through the station, and no details on the time savings for non-stop trains with the new track layout.

Do they teach PR people to avoid the issues in the UK or what?

I believe the main building is Grade II listed, so the question was whether it continued to be used as part of the station, or for something else.

Indicative track plans were displayed at the public info event, and are probably not that different to what you'd draw if you printed a Google map and then got out a red pen.

Time saving might be a delicate topic they want to avoid, because the consensus here was that it was in the region of 30-60 seconds for about £45M, which does look rather expensive. Although it's clear that this will address a number of other issues, and I know we all appreciate that at some statistical level, each minute of journey time reduction brings an economic benefit to the UK. Leicester will benefit in particular (no HS2) - there's that figure of £3k per home per minute floating around?

The train capacity will of course depend on whatever is ordered for electrification. The latest rumour is that MML will get 442s converted for push-pull and bimode diesel operations by Vivarail, top 'n' tailed by surplus 91s...

I fully agree with your point about journalists using copy/paste from PR (churnalism), but that's what happened because people stopped paying for proper journalists to do proper journalism.

 

[Mordac]

The train capacity will of course depend on whatever is ordered for electrification. The latest rumour is that MML will get 442s converted for push-pull and bimode diesel operations by Vivarail, top 'n' tailed by surplus 91s...

 

[cle]

I think they are generally quite coy about journey time savings, because especially if they are just 2-3 mins, they get snaffled in timetable changes for PPM swindles - mostly in between the penultimate and terminus stops.

It's never that clearly demonstrated unless a marked change they couldn't bury.

 

[The Planner]

No they don't. Do not get confused between WTT and PTT times. If there are time savings then the running times will reflect it.

 

[edwin_m]

EMT blew their trumpet quite a lot about a few minutes saving from line speed improvements a couple of years back, and are signed up to the "Nottingham in 90" campaign.

 

[QueensCurve]

Indicative track plans were displayed at the public info event, and are probably not that different to what you'd draw if you printed a Google map and then got out a red pen.

Is there anything in the planning portal?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

EMT blew their trumpet quite a lot about a few minutes saving from line speed improvements a couple of years back, and are signed up to the "Nottingham in 90" campaign.

I thought is was Norwich in 90.

 

[LeeLivery]

Indeed, that's the point as well as allowing through trains to pass at a much higher speed

The land has been secured for the Wellingborough Stanton Cross development (3,000 homes). The only way a bypass line could be built is if it was tunnelled which I'm sure would be far too expensive. Better off just re-quadding the track through Welly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

EMT blew their trumpet quite a lot about a few minutes saving from line speed improvements a couple of years back, and are signed up to the "Nottingham in 90" campaign.

When the MML went 125mph I remember quite a few people baffled that millions was spent on a few minutes saving. Probably why they'd rather not bang on about 1 minute being saved!

 

[edwin_m]

When the MML went 125mph I remember quite a few people baffled that millions was spent on a few minutes saving. Probably why they'd rather not bang on about 1 minute being saved!

As I've recently posted in another topic, research by BR concluded that a 10% journey time saving would produce about 9% more passengers. So a 3min saving on London to Leicester could result in 4.5% more revenue for very little extra cost.

The ratio may even be a bit higher for MML because many of their passengers who have to drive to a station probably find it quicker to get to London by driving to an ECML or WCML station for a faster train. So there could be some kind of "tipping point" effect when it is worth some of them switching back to MML.

You might wish to argue that this is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and MML is benefitting from NR spending at the expense of ECML and WCML. However I suggest that transferring shorter-distance passengers off the ECML and WCML frees up scarce seats for longer-distance travellers, as well as reducing the car mileage (congestion, pollution, accidents) of the railheaders. So it is in the interests of the rail network as a whole, and indeed of the country. The MML can accommodate more passengers in the short term by filling the existing trains, and in the longer term with longer and more space-efficient replacement trains as well as putting back removed tracks and re-signalling for higher capacity. Measures such as these have largely been exhausted on the ECML and WCML.

 

[3270]

When the MML went 125mph I remember quite a few people baffled that millions was spent on a few minutes saving. Probably why they'd rather not bang on about 1 minute being saved!

Let's not forget that the ECML got to be the fast route it is today because BR did numerous track realignment schemes from the late 1960s, through the 70s and 80s all the way up to until electrification. Shaving off a minute here and a couple of minutes there eventually added up to a significant time saving. A minute or two at Market Harborough might not seem much but you'll also have a saving at Derby when the present slow layout gets remodelled. Sheffield and Leicester could do with being done too.

 

[LeeLivery]

As I've recently posted in another topic, research by BR concluded that a 10% journey time saving would produce about 9% more passengers. So a 3min saving on London to Leicester could result in 4.5% more revenue for very little extra cost.

The ratio may even be a bit higher for MML because many of their passengers who have to drive to a station probably find it quicker to get to London by driving to an ECML or WCML station for a faster train. So there could be some kind of "tipping point" effect when it is worth some of them switching back to MML.

You might wish to argue that this is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and MML is benefitting from NR spending at the expense of ECML and WCML. However I suggest that transferring shorter-distance passengers off the ECML and WCML frees up scarce seats for longer-distance travellers, as well as reducing the car mileage (congestion, pollution, accidents) of the railheaders. So it is in the interests of the rail network as a whole, and indeed of the country. The MML can accommodate more passengers in the short term by filling the existing trains, and in the longer term with longer and more space-efficient replacement trains as well as putting back removed tracks and re-signalling for higher capacity. Measures such as these have largely been exhausted on the ECML and WCML.

Whilst i understand that, the average passenger isn't told this. EMTs info was basically thanks to the [multi-million pound figure] investment by Network Rail, our trains now reach their destination 2-5 minutes quicker. If thats what the passenger is told, thats all they will know. Until EMT explain all the upgrades and the benefits coming to the MML like GWR are doing, I suspect EMT would rather not make a big deal out of a minute time saving costing millions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Let's not forget that the ECML got to be the fast route it is today because BR did numerous track realignment schemes from the late 1960s, through the 70s and 80s all the way up to until electrification. Shaving off a minute here and a couple of minutes there eventually added up to a significant time saving. A minute or two at Market Harborough might not seem much but you'll also have a saving at Derby when the present slow layout gets remodelled. Sheffield and Leicester could do with being done too.

Oh I agree, the more upgrades the MML get, the better. It can't come soon enough, however see what I've said above.

 

[ExRes]

The train capacity will of course depend on whatever is ordered for electrification. The latest rumour is that MML will get 442s converted for push-pull and bimode diesel operations by Vivarail, top 'n' tailed by surplus 91s....

Cripes, I wonder if there's a chance I could un-retire so that I could drive these magnificent hybrid beasts

 

[70014IronDuke]

I believe the main building is Grade II listed, so the question was whether it continued to be used as part of the station, or for something else.

Maybe I owe EMT PR dept an apology then. Perhaps this is, indeed, the news.

Time saving might be a delicate topic they want to avoid, because the consensus here was that it was in the region of 30-60 seconds for about £45M, which does look rather expensive. Although it's clear that this will address a number of other issues, and I know we all appreciate that at some statistical level, each minute of journey time reduction brings an economic benefit to the UK. Leicester will benefit in particular (no HS2) - there's that figure of £3k per home per minute floating around?
...

Yes, fair points. Difficult for the public to understand, I guess.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Let's not forget that the ECML got to be the fast route it is today because BR did numerous track realignment schemes from the late 1960s, through the 70s and 80s all the way up to until electrification.

I'd say yes and no. The ECML was already a fast route under steam. Yes, the track improvements helped, of course, but the Midland started out with a disadvantage - it was built in bits, through more difficult terrain, and on a v tight budget. Compare the speed restrictions in 1960 on both routes between Peterborough and KX, and Leicester and St Pancras. The Midland comes off very second best - except, perhaps, for the start out of the London terminus.

And then, in BR modernisation days, the Midland suffered from what might be termed "vicious-circle-investment-priority syndrome" (maybe there is an accepted term amongst academic economists for this? - if not, I've coined it now - VCIP Syndrome! ) - what i mean is, it was always more important to invest in, and shave time off, the WCML. And the more you invested in the WCML, the more traffic it attracted, and the more you needed to invest to keep up the performance, and the more was justified. Meanwhile the Cl 45s soldiered on till the 1980s, and with pretty crap infrastructure.

Shaving off a minute here and a couple of minutes there eventually added up to a significant time saving. A minute or two at Market Harborough might not seem much but you'll also have a saving at Derby when the present slow layout gets remodelled. Sheffield and Leicester could do with being done too.

Let's call M Harborough a minute, at most - unless we hear differently. New layouts at Derby, Leicester and Sheffield - yeah, then you really start to make savings if you can reduce the amount of 10 mph PSRs.

 

[edwin_m]

And then, in BR modernisation days, the Midland suffered from what might be termed "vicious-circle-investment-priority syndrome" (maybe there is an accepted term amongst academic economists for this? - if not, I've coined it now - VCIP Syndrome! ) - what i mean is, it was always more important to invest in, and shave time off, the WCML. And the more you invested in the WCML, the more traffic it attracted, and the more you needed to invest to keep up the performance, and the more was justified. Meanwhile the Cl 45s soldiered on till the 1980s, and with pretty crap infrastructure.

Actually the WCML changed relatively little from electrification until the modernisation in the Railtrack era. In particular track layout rationalisation wasn't really done anywhere until the 1970s. Before then many steam age layouts south of Weaver Junction were simply re-signalled and electrified (or in some cases not even re-signalled), perpetuating the low speeds and costly maintenance for several decades. One of the few WCML schemes during this era was Crewe, which probably made things worse.

By contrast the ECML was upgraded incrementally and the main stations rationalised with re-signalling, in a way that gave faster entry and exit speeds to suit the performance of modern traction. This probably increased capacity even with less track, because trains spent less time occupying the critical junctions. Even with hindsight there are few places where this went too far, Huntingdon to Peterborough perhaps being the most significant.

The MML, as usual, got the worst of both worlds. The East Midlands re-signalling in the 60s left the old slow layouts mostly untouched, and the BedPan scheme drastically improved the suburban service but did nothing for the long distance. And then there was Leicester re-signalling, perhaps the ultimate in rationalisation to the bone. Most of the track taken out has been, or is planned to be, expensively reinstated. By the time focus moved back to the ECML with York and Newcastle either a better balance had been struck, or the traditional attitudes prevailed and what was done to the MML wasn't done to the ECML.

Eeek - I think I've just concluded that BR was at its best in the 1970s!

 

[Senex]

Actually the WCML changed relatively little from electrification until the modernisation in the Railtrack era. In particular track layout rationalisation wasn't really done anywhere until the 1970s. Before then many steam age layouts south of Weaver Junction were simply re-signalled and electrified (or in some cases not even re-signalled), perpetuating the low speeds and costly maintenance for several decades. One of the few WCML schemes during this era was Crewe, which probably made things worse.

By contrast the ECML was upgraded incrementally and the main stations rationalised with re-signalling, in a way that gave faster entry and exit speeds to suit the performance of modern traction. This probably increased capacity even with less track, because trains spent less time occupying the critical junctions. Even with hindsight there are few places where this went too far, Huntingdon to Peterborough perhaps being the most significant.

The MML, as usual, got the worst of both worlds. The East Midlands re-signalling in the 60s left the old slow layouts mostly untouched, and the BedPan scheme drastically improved the suburban service but did nothing for the long distance. And then there was Leicester re-signalling, perhaps the ultimate in rationalisation to the bone. Most of the track taken out has been, or is planned to be, expensively reinstated. By the time focus moved back to the ECML with York and Newcastle either a better balance had been struck, or the traditional attitudes prevailed and what was done to the MML wasn't done to the ECML.

Eeek - I think I've just concluded that BR was at its best in the 1970s!

The LM seems to have been the last resort of, shall we say, a highly conservative approach to changing the layout. As you say, the EML electrification changed relatively little in the way of layouts and realignments (and indeed it was a joke right from the very start that sidings etc that had already not been used for years were wired right up to the buffer-stops). Some things were done later, like Hanslope for example, but it was very, very little in comparison with what the WR and the ER were managing. Particularly in the north-west the result was a railway still in many ways as it had been inherited from the LMS. There must be many of us who remember the sharp transition on the Trans-Pennine route on going from the unimproved LMR section to an ER section where quite a lot of modernisation had been done.

What the ER did on the ECML by its small, incremental changes over many years is now well known, but what is not so well known is the way in which later ER CCEs did begin to extend the same policy to the other main routes under their control.

The MML did indeed find itself in the worst of all possible worlds -- the LM saw its southern section as very much a secondary interest, and its principal destination (Sheffield) was in another region; the ER had only a very small section of it once all real interest in Leeds had been switched to the GN (ECML) route. However, when layouts were simplified, at least curves were re-canted for higher speeds where possible -- although only one or two places received the realignments that might have made more significant improments. As for Leicester MAS, that unfortunately happened at the very worst of times, when the pressures were on to save every last penny. Earlier plans were much more sensible -- but in the end it was a question of old kit desperately needing replacement and either getting what was got or getting nothing at all. Things didn't really begin to look up for the Midland until the Sectors got into the driving seat and ICMXC staff really began to control budgets and decide how they wanted to spend their money on their infrastructure. But that period (of the best InterCity organisation BR ever had) was all too short until privatisation and the Railtrack takeover.

 

[edwin_m]

I believe it was actually the Intercity sector employing the sharp pencil that resulted in a lot of the removal of tracks at Leicester. There is an interesting Modern Railways article which I will dig out when I get time.

 

[coppercapped]

The LM seems to have been the last resort of, shall we say, a highly conservative approach to changing the layout. As you say, the EML electrification changed relatively little in the way of layouts and realignments

I agree with 'conservative' but more of the layouts were changed than you suggest. O.S. Nock's book Britain's New Railway (ian Allan 1966) included many before and after track diagrams which show considerable simplification and re-organisation. However in many cases when the LMR laid new, or re-laid older, turnouts for fast/slow line crossings or leads into loops it used 25mph kit at a time when the Western was already using 40mph double junctions. This may have given the impression that not a lot was changed.

I agree with the snipped part of your post, by the way! Well summed up.

 

[HowardGWR]

I presume that there will also be energy savings with the smoothed layout at MH. I suppose higher speed may use slightly more energy, but there will be less braking and subsequent re-acceleration for non-stop services.