Market Harborough Station & Linespeed Improvement

[Hairy Bear]

Before this "30 seconds" becomes 'the truth' (or I get accused of spreading falsehood) may I just say this was just my guestimate. (actually, originally, it was "barely 30 seconds" - I suspect it may be even less - though this is not to belittle the saving. )
[

w /QUOTE]

I am actually quoting Network Rails own prediction from their roadshow last year. I had worked it out at 45 secs saving but hey its all in vain when their too slow setting the route or cross yet a nother thameslink across our path.

The Midland Main Line is The Midland Main Line.

 

[Senex]

I am actually quoting Network Rails own prediction from their roadshow last year. I had worked it out at 45 secs saving but hey its all in vain when their too slow setting the route or cross yet a nother thameslink across our path.

The Midland Main Line is The Midland Main Line.

At the East Midlands Rail Summit on 10 October 2014 Phil Verster, speaking for Network Rail, gave it as "30-60 seconds". But there must also be benefits from the smoother speed-profile, getting the station on to the straight, etc.

Thameslink still blocking you? So nothing has changed since I was a regular user of the route more than ten years ago. The most regular occurrence in my travels was to leave St Pancras on time, pass St Albans on time, and then come down to no more than about 20 behind a late-running Thameslink crossing DF>DS at Harpenden -- and often passing said Thameslink still stopped in Harpenden station.

 

[Grumpy]

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

 

[InTheEastMids]

I managed to make a brief visit to the NR exhibition in Market Harborough last Saturday - unfortunately time pressure meant I couldn't hang around to wait for an NR person to become available.

In short, there is little to add to what has been discussed upthread - i.e. basically a reversion to the original Midland alignment North of Great Bowden and a comprehensive re-build around the station. There's a bit more in the linked story below.

Only a couple of line drawings were available to look at, and just showed the approximate locations of 2 long, straight platforms stretching across what is now the car park - it's clear they don't have a firm concept for station buildings, access, car parking etc... so far.

Harborough Mail

 

[mr_jrt]

Seems like it would be a good opportunity to build a couple of extra platforms, if for nothing else then it will enable more services to serve MH without blocking the lines for express services to Leicester. Who knows, given the various musings over the years (for more frequent services such as Thameslink being extended) we might even get 4 tracks extended from Kettering to Leicester one day, so it would make sense to build platforms now, given they'll be useful long before any wider scheme.

 

[43074]

Seems like it would be a good opportunity to build a couple of extra platforms, if for nothing else then it will enable more services to serve MH without blocking the lines for express services to Leicester. Who knows, given the various musings over the years (for more frequent services such as Thameslink being extended) we might even get 4 tracks extended from Kettering to Leicester one day, so it would make sense to build platforms now, given they'll be useful long before any wider scheme.

You're right that if we are going to do that it makes sense to future proof for it now, but the main capacity constraints on the section of the MML between Kettering and Leicester involves flighting freight between the passenger services, a better short/medium term option would arguably be to construct a new (or alternatively, longer) freight loop somewhere on the two track section between Kilby Bridge (just South of Leicester) and Kettering.

 

[Bald Rick]

Seems like it would be a good opportunity to build a couple of extra platforms, if for nothing else then it will enable more services to serve MH without blocking the lines for express services to Leicester. Who knows, given the various musings over the years (for more frequent services such as Thameslink being extended) we might even get 4 tracks extended from Kettering to Leicester one day, so it would make sense to build platforms now, given they'll be useful long before any wider scheme.

a) there is no plan for Thameslink services to go north of Bedford
b) overtaking train at Markey Harborough would add at least 6 minutes journey time into the train that stops. With Leicester the next station down the line, this would just make the timetable unbalanced for passengers
c) why spend significantly more cash now for something that is unlikely to happen?

 

[InTheEastMids]

a) there is no plan for Thameslink services to go north of Bedford
b) overtaking train at Markey Harborough would add at least 6 minutes journey time into the train that stops. With Leicester the next station down the line, this would just make the timetable unbalanced for passengers
c) why spend significantly more cash now for something that is unlikely to happen?

Agree with all this, and with the other comment about slow freight being the main cause of congestion in anything I've seen.

I did try to play Devil's Advocate:

The only argument in favour of Thameslink is competition leading to cheaper tickets - Rugby to London has much cheaper tickets than e.g. EMT's monopoly from Harborough. However, there should be easier ways to address a market failure than this.

The "extra platforms" argument only makes sense if you believe that the section North through Great Bowden is the best place to add passing loops to deal with slow freight. If the extra platforms do not add loads of cost, then you might be able to buy resilience/flexibility at relatively low marginal capex. This doesn't feel terribly convincing, but may be an argument to look at passive provision.

 

[mr_jrt]

a) there is no plan for Thameslink services to go north of Bedford
b) overtaking train at Markey Harborough would add at least 6 minutes journey time into the train that stops. With Leicester the next station down the line, this would just make the timetable unbalanced for passengers
c) why spend significantly more cash now for something that is unlikely to happen?

Fair enough. I based a) on something I read about Thameslink being extended to Leicester (and Corby), presumably in much the same way it already serves Peterborough, and LM already serves Birmingham.

b) 6 minutes seems like very long time. I'm presuming that is due to acceleration performance and the lengths of the platform loop lines that would be required to get them up/down to/from line speed combined with the length of a long freight working? Surely a service speeding through at 100mph wouldn't impact a service accelerating from a standing start much, though? It would very quickly find a great deal of clear route in front of it, and there's plenty of room to elongate the loops to give it even more time to get up to speed.

c) My point was that creating overtaking loops in a busy station means you reduce the pressures on service levels over the wider network's demands (i.e. capacity to Leicester, freight, etc) - just look at the furore (reasonably) recently when it was proposed to cut back MH's service levels to provide capacity for other services. Putting them all on platform loops just provides flexibility, really. If the costs of an extra pair of platforms are so abhorrent to you, then fine, just lay 4 tracks with an empty space where the central island would go and build the new platforms as flanking side platforms. It's important to provision it out now as any works to create new station buildings and car parking on the east side on the engineer's sidings could prevent this being dealt with in the future, depending on how aggressive the plans are with the use of land.

Any other grander future proposals (unlikely to happen any time soon) were entirely separate, I merely mentioned them as they would benefit from the platforms were they in place.

The question is not whether platforms (or loops) should be built, it's how acceptable it is to cut MH's services when demand for capacity increases. Given that it has already almost happened, I suspect it will happen again soon enough (and probably more severely) to warrant being actioned as part of these works, whatever form the solution might take.

 

[38Cto15E]

It would be good to have a 'Totnes' type layout, stoppers could be platformed whilst an express overtook on the centre roads, likewise a freight could be stopped in the centre road to let a stopper overtake.

 

[Bald Rick]

It would be good to have a 'Totnes' type layout, stoppers could be platformed whilst an express overtook on the centre roads, likewise a freight could be stopped in the centre road to let a stopper overtake.

But that's my point; even on the very tightest of timetables, the stopper would have to sit for 6 minutes for the overtake to happen. Spending extra cash to extend journey times doesn't seem like a sensible use of taxpayers money.

 

[MarkyT]

It would be good to have a 'Totnes' type layout, stoppers could be platformed whilst an express overtook on the centre roads, likewise a freight could be stopped in the centre road to let a stopper overtake.

But that's my point; even on the very tightest of timetables, the stopper would have to sit for 6 minutes for the overtake to happen. Spending extra cash to extend journey times doesn't seem like a sensible use of taxpayers money.

Totnes through lines don't get used very much at all becasue most express trains stop. The very few expresses that don't stop only use the throughs because the turnouts to the platforms would impose a low speed restriction. Dawlish Warren through lines on the other hand are used much more frequently for expresses to pass locals, but as Bald Rick says they are timed to stand a fair time in the platform loops, which makes the local service quite a time consuming (albeit pretty) plod. The locals can pull out very quickly on a yellow after the express has passed, but you can't realistically time them closer or the tiniest delay on the local is guaranteed to impact the express. passing moves like this really need at least two stations on the slow loops to work reliably without affecting running times too much.

 

[The Planner]

b) 6 minutes seems like very long time. I'm presuming that is due to acceleration performance and the lengths of the platform loop lines that would be required to get them up/down to/from line speed combined with the length of a long freight working? Surely a service speeding through at 100mph wouldn't impact a service accelerating from a standing start much, though? It would very quickly find a great deal of clear route in front of it, and there's plenty of room to elongate the loops to give it even more time to get up to speed.

It is correct though. The current headway for following a non stop passenger train at Market Harborough is 3½ minutes. The stopping train arrives at the station, the fast train behind it cannot pass the station until 3½ minutes after and stopped train won't be able to depart the station until a good 3 minutes after to get a green aspect. If the loops were significantly long enough before the station then you could reduce it but not by much as you would still have to plan to a green aspect at the end of the platform loop.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The locals can pull out very quickly on a yellow after the express has passed, but you can't realistically time them closer or the tiniest delay on the local is guaranteed to impact the express. passing moves like this really need at least two stations on the slow loops to work reliably without affecting running times too much.

They do that in reality but we cannot plan them to depart on a yellow.

 

[Senex]

It is correct though. The current headway for following a non stop passenger train at Market Harborough is 3½ minutes. The stopping train arrives at the station, the fast train behind it cannot pass the station until 3½ minutes after and stopped train won't be able to depart the station until a good 3 minutes after to get a green aspect. If the loops were significantly long enough before the station then you could reduce it but not by much as you would still have to plan to a green aspect at the end of the platform loop.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


They do that in reality but we cannot plan them to depart on a yellow.

And remember that the Leicester MAS scheme is three-aspect signalling with long sections.

Whilst the scheme proposed involves putting the new railway alignment on levelled land that has already carried railway tracks and is in railway ownership, any idea of extending a new down loop southwards for a full signal-section (c.f. Milton Keynes) would involve land acquisition, earthworks, and bridgeworks, shoving up the costs considerably.

 

[mr_jrt]

I'm not able to determine how long such a loop would need to be, but there are already 3 lines south for some distance (~300m) over Rockingham Road to the Kettering Road bridge. As implied, to the north there's all the space in the world to play with though.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm not able to determine how long such a loop would need to be, but there are already 3 lines south for some distance (~300m) over Rockingham Road to the Kettering Road bridge. As implied, to the north there's all the space in the world to play with though.

Well, as an example, for a dynamic loop that would enable a freight at 60mph to be overtaken by a passenger at 125mph, with neither being stopped or slowed, and assuming 3 minute headways (which it isn't), and it all working to the second (which it won't), you need a loop that is around 12 miles long.

For a dynamic loop where a passenger train stops at a station, completes station duties, and then accelerates away without hindering a following non stop train, l depends on acceleration rates of the rolling stock, position of the station along the loop, linespeed a, and the station dwell time. However, using:
3 minute headways
125 line speed and loop entry
a station positioned on the loop such that trains enter the loop at linespeed and then immediately start braking
a 1 minute station dwell
accelerating away on the loop...

the non stop train will only overtake the stopping train when it is about half way through its acceleration away from the station call. This means that the stopping train must be slowed (or delayed with an extended dwell at the station) in order to get the three minute headway behind the fast train. Or the loop needs to continue until the point where either the stopping train stops again where the fast train doesn't, or the two trains take different routes.

 

[mr_jrt]

Thanks for that, very informative, and useful.

 

[edwin_m]

Presumably if the line is going to be busy enough to consider overtaking, the signalling would also be upgraded to 4-aspect and this would reduce the 3min headway somewhat. However even a reduced wait of 4min would probably drive most passengers off the stopping train to use the following through train, unless there was a fare difference to penalise this.

In time at least one more passenger train per hour will be needed through Market Harborough. This should allow the stop to be taken out of at least one of the Nottingham trains, which would then also benefit from the speed increase.

 

[The Planner]

3 minutes is the lowest we tend to go on high speed lines, ETCS might drive it a bit lower to 2½ but I would doubt you will get lower than that. Lower than 3 minute headways tends to be on the lower speed inner city lines.

 

[mr_jrt]

IIRC the line speed is intended to be 100mph through MH, so 12miles is probably unnecessary, but going with it basically gets you to Wigston South Junction. Heading south it's only 8 miles or so to Kettering Junction, so I guess you'd have to triple-track the whole section for things to be viable.

 

[D1009]

As a retired train planner, the application of the Train Planning Rules are of great interest to me, and if I get time I may start a new thread on it in the appropriate forum, but is there a definite prospect of overtaking moves at Market Harborough influencing the plans there?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm going to play Devil's advocate on this... I'm find myself somewhat puzzled by this scheme:

Straightening the tracks would appear to be a hugely disruptive operation. I can't imagine how it could be done without closing the station for a considerable period, and/or quite a few weekend closures on the entire line. The stated benefit - a localized increase in linespeeds from 65mph to 100mph will presumably shave a minute or so off non-stopping journeys, but make no difference to trains that stop at Market Harborough. That seems an awful lot of disruption for relatively little benefit. Other claimed benefits (longer platforms, more car parking spaces) could presumably be built without straightening the tracks.

It's always nice to hear of improvements to railways, but there must be many other places on the network where you could spend the claimed cost of £46M and get massively more benefit/less disruption. Or is there some other advantage of this scheme I'm not aware of?

 

[The Planner]

Depends how you look at it, if it is a minute saved then that minute has a monetary value to the DfT and the franchise (and it is more than you think) Multiply that minute up by x trains a day by x years and someone somewhere will see that as either value for money or they wont. If it tips it over a psychological value from say 61 to 60 minutes and you can make a bold claim such as x to y in an hour then even more so.

 

[edwin_m]

Also the minute each way might make a short turnaround somewhere just about viable and therefore save a train.

Market Harborough is at the foot of Desborough Bank, five miles climbing at 1 in 132 or thereabouts in the up direction, so the time saving might be greater as Up trains can take more of a run at the gradient.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Market Harborough is at the foot of Desborough Bank, five miles climbing at 1 in 132 or thereabouts in the up direction, so the time saving might be greater as Up trains can take more of a run at the gradient.

As noted earlier, I guesstimated at "barely 30 seconds" was not far from the 30 seconds that turned out to be the NR estimate. (see Hairy post . I can't see his name now). EDIT Hairy Bear - post 31.

If they had made it 100 (or, more likley, 90) mph in the 1960s, with a Class 45s, then yes, attacking the bank at full speed would have made a significant difference (my guess, for the whole M H section and to Desboro would be more like 1.5 minutes).

But with modern traction, the power/weight ratio makes mincemeat of Desboro bank.

As for freight loops, IF NEEDED surely there is ample space between about Mp 80 - MP 83 -ish, it used to be four tracked for goodness sake. The disadvantage, on the up, would be having to start heavy freights on Desborough bank itself - that could be problematic, I agree.

 

[Hairy Bear]

IIRC the line speed is intended to be 100mph through MH, so 12miles is probably unnecessary, but going with it basically gets you to Wigston South Junction. Heading south it's only 8 miles or so to Kettering Junction, so I guess you'd have to triple-track the whole section for things to be viable.

Very unlikely to be that high. 85 would be the more likely the limit as its quite a curve south of the station over the south jct. And as the 60 starts over the Rockingham road on a viaduct dont see it rising that much.

 

[Bald Rick]

IIRC the line speed is intended to be 100mph through MH, so 12miles is probably unnecessary, but going with it basically gets you to Wigston South Junction. Heading south it's only 8 miles or so to Kettering Junction, so I guess you'd have to triple-track the whole section for things to be viable.

If the through linespeed is lower, then the loop needs to be longer, as the fast train takes longer to clear the section and get ahead....

 

[Class 170101]

Also the minute each way might make a short turnaround somewhere just about viable and therefore save a train.

Market Harborough is at the foot of Desborough Bank, five miles climbing at 1 in 132 or thereabouts in the up direction, so the time saving might be greater as Up trains can take more of a run at the gradient.

Conversely less braking in the opposite direction. So less brake pad wear etc.

 

[Senex]

Conversely less braking in the opposite direction. So less brake pad wear etc.

And in both directions less fuel (liquid or from the OLE) used for acceleration back up to line-speed.

Incidentally, that long curve from the south has a radius of 59 chains (figure from a report for the APT, but that curve hasn't been changed), but it tightens to 29 chains into the station itself. The maximum speed attainable will depend on what can be done with that bit.

 

[DarloRich]

Depends how you look at it, if it is a minute saved then that minute has a monetary value to the DfT and the franchise (and it is more than you think) Multiply that minute up by x trains a day by x years and someone somewhere will see that as either value for money or they wont. If it tips it over a psychological value from say 61 to 60 minutes and you can make a bold claim such as x to y in an hour then even more so.

and of course and saving in infrastructure maintenance costs by removing unnecessary/non standard/intensively maintained kit