• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Midland Mainline timetable changes May 2018

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
13,142
Bedford has a population of 80,000. Luton has double that.

Luton has several large employers. Luton has an airport.

That is why it makes complete sense to retain the Luton stops and not Bedford.

Despite your crocodile tears about the few who travel to / from Bedford from the north, the reality is the whinge is about only having TL services. Well, it's no worse than tge situation Northampton, again a town of over 100,000 has - and Northampton - London fares are at least double yet only about 20 miles further.

I've no issue with Bedford only having TL services, the issue is the removal of journey opportunities to/from the north. Not everything revolves around London.

The situation at Northampton is no way comparable. Northampton has northbound services, it would be better if they had more of them and to a wider range of destinations but you don't have to use a rail replacement bus to Rugby if you wish to travel north.

The issue with the Bedford proposal for me is the need to use a replacement bus with a huge time penalty to make a journey to/from the north in the peak. This isn't just an issue for Bedford but for anyone wishing to travel from any intermediate station between Luton and Bedford to any station north of Bedford. It's just not on to make passengers change to a bus between Bedford and Wellingborough.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DaveN

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2009
Messages
131
The more I think about these changes, the more I think they are unnecessary.

Not stopping MML services at Luton doesn't help Thameslink services keep to time because the Thameslink trains that use the fast lines can't keep up with the MML ones either from Bedford or London, because of the extra stops and having a lower top speed.

Not stopping MML services at Bedford northbound does nothing to help the Thameslink services keep to time as the fast Thameslink services switch to the slow lines immediately after Flitwick.

In the AM peak, the "final" Thameslink programme timetable has just 6 Thameslink services using Bedford station per hour and in May 2018 it will be only 5 (as the 2nd Littlehampton train which is fast to Leagrave is delayed until Dec 2018). This compares to the 7/8 tph today. The timetable planners have removed the potential Bedford station bottleneck by having 2 tph avoid the station and go straight to Flitwick.

In the PM peak, the "final" Thameslink programme timetable does call for 8 tph (7 in May 2017) compared with 7 to-day so there might be a case to removing 1 MML call southbound.
The current Bedford station usage has been approximately the same for years.

This sounds like a reaction to people being asked "Is there anything we can be seen to be doing to de-risk the Thameslink timetable introduction?" but it seems to be that it is adding more risk as it will be increasing the usage of St Pancras low level station with the current Luton/Bedford MML passengers in addition to new Great Northern ones.

Is there something I am missing here?

[Initially I thought, hold on, may be this is nothing really to do with the Thameslink programme introduction but about making the electrified Corby service look better in the future, but for Wellingborough to London commuters it gives them temporary total freedom from the Luton & Bedford passengers only to take that away completely afterwards]
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,030
Ironic really, as the TL project south of the river has eaten up capacity too. Full untangling and the new Borough lines, dive-unders, and so on but barely anything new running anywhere, silly conflicts at Blackfriars and LB to come - and less into Cannon Street overall. Worth the billions...?
 

43074

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2012
Messages
2,017
@DaveN I don't think EMT are happy with the changes themselves, which suggests rather than the changes being unnecessary they were unavoidable in the circumstances. I struggle to believe GTR would have developed the timetable without provision for EMT calling at Bedford though - the press releases say that subject to securing additional stock they would consider running a fast service from Bedford, which appears to suggest it's more an issue with there being insufficient stock and the paths available through Bedford platforms 1/2 and 3 being incompatible with the rest of the timetable in the East Midlands, than because anyone (DfT/GTR or EMT) particularly wanted the changes to happen in the first place. This possibly explains why the Corby services can plug the gap in a few years, they are relatively self contained and will need additional stock when they begin anyway.

Having said that, I think pulling the stops at Luton and focussing on the Airport makes reasonably good sense, given there are frequent services between the two.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,030
Is there anyway a service could run as a shuttle - for instance all stations Leicester to Bedford, or some variation? Just to mop up some of the local demand (or see if it exists) - plus provide better connections to the faster trains.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,469
The more I think about these changes, the more I think they are unnecessary.

Not stopping MML services at Luton doesn't help Thameslink services keep to time because the Thameslink trains that use the fast lines can't keep up with the MML ones either from Bedford or London, because of the extra stops and having a lower top speed.

Not stopping MML services at Bedford northbound does nothing to help the Thameslink services keep to time as the fast Thameslink services switch to the slow lines immediately after Flitwick.

In the AM peak, the "final" Thameslink programme timetable has just 6 Thameslink services using Bedford station per hour and in May 2018 it will be only 5 (as the 2nd Littlehampton train which is fast to Leagrave is delayed until Dec 2018). This compares to the 7/8 tph today. The timetable planners have removed the potential Bedford station bottleneck by having 2 tph avoid the station and go straight to Flitwick.

In the PM peak, the "final" Thameslink programme timetable does call for 8 tph (7 in May 2017) compared with 7 to-day so there might be a case to removing 1 MML call southbound.
The current Bedford station usage has been approximately the same for years.

This sounds like a reaction to people being asked "Is there anything we can be seen to be doing to de-risk the Thameslink timetable introduction?" but it seems to be that it is adding more risk as it will be increasing the usage of St Pancras low level station with the current Luton/Bedford MML passengers in addition to new Great Northern ones.

Is there something I am missing here?

[Initially I thought, hold on, may be this is nothing really to do with the Thameslink programme introduction but about making the electrified Corby service look better in the future, but for Wellingborough to London commuters it gives them temporary total freedom from the Luton & Bedford passengers only to take that away completely afterwards]

I think the main problem at Bedford is Southbound, not northbound.

Northbound EMT have sole use of Platform 4 - it's on the fast lines and is not electrified.

Southbound EMT services have to use Platform 3 - which is on the slow lines. Trains stopping at Bedford have to move over to the slows north of Bedford and then are routed into P3. They have a stretch of slow line running upon departure until they can be pathed back onto the Southbound fast.

The slows to the north of Bedford are to be electrified as part of the Corby work and are subject to other changes - so presumably will have restricted access?

The uplift in TL services means less available platform capacity and less opportunity to move from slows to fasts
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,754
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I think the main problem at Bedford is Southbound, not northbound.

Northbound EMT have sole use of Platform 4 - it's on the fast lines and is not electrified.

Southbound EMT services have to use Platform 3 - which is on the slow lines. Trains stopping at Bedford have to move over to the slows north of Bedford and then are routed into P3. They have a stretch of slow line running upon departure until they can be pathed back onto the Southbound fast.

The slows to the north of Bedford are to be electrified as part of the Corby work and are subject to other changes - so presumably will have restricted access?

The uplift in TL services means less available platform capacity and less opportunity to move from slows to fasts

Is a full remodelling of Bedford on the cards at any stage? The layout screams of being barely fit for purpose nowadays - especially with more commuter services to the likes of Corby.
 

louis97

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
1,894
Location
Derby
Southbound EMT services have to use Platform 3 - which is on the slow lines. Trains stopping at Bedford have to move over to the slows north of Bedford and then are routed into P3. They have a stretch of slow line running upon departure until they can be pathed back onto the Southbound fast.

Note that EMT are not limited to just Platform 3, they can and do use Platforms 1 and 2 too. The routes into Platforms 1-3 from the Up Fast could do with flashing yellows.
 

westcoaster

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2006
Messages
4,231
Location
DTOS A or B
Note that EMT are not limited to just Platform 3, they can and do use Platforms 1 and 2 too. The routes into Platforms 1-3 from the Up Fast could do with flashing yellows.
Flashing yellows are fitted for the above move.

What really needs doing is for the up fast line to gain a platform. Had been suggested to make p4 an island platform by putting the down fast behind the platform.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,469
Note that EMT are not limited to just Platform 3, they can and do use Platforms 1 and 2 too. The routes into Platforms 1-3 from the Up Fast could do with flashing yellows.

True - but most of the time it seems to be P3.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,469
Flashing yellows are fitted for the above move.

What really needs doing is for the up fast line to gain a platform. Had been suggested to make p4 an island platform by putting the down fast behind the platform.

Out of interest - am I imagining things or was P4 a later addition to the station ?

Routing the down fast behind an island would have had quite a speed restriction on it - the problem would have been its situation between Bromham Road bridge and Ford End Road bridge.

Basically, Bedford station's a bit of a mess - because the original trajectory for the through lines was south-east, towards Hitchin, rather than south towards Luton..... even the current station didn't fully fix that issue.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,050
Location
UK
This idea of bus services at Peak times seems to have come all too frequently when it comes to the GTR franchise area. Watton at Stone to Stevenage as well. This seems like the thin end of a very dangerous wedge.

I'm not sure the Stevenage capacity issue is down to GTR, rather the ridiculous (and more importantly, not happening) plans from the local council.
 

louis97

Established Member
Joined
14 May 2008
Messages
1,894
Location
Derby
Flashing yellows are fitted for the above move.

The only flashing yellows approaching Bedford are for crossing Down Fast to Down Slow at Bedford South Junction. Signal WH162 protecting Bedford North Junction on the Up Fast is approach controlled at Red for the routes to Platforms 1-3.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,884
Location
Nottingham
Out of interest - am I imagining things or was P4 a later addition to the station ?
It went in about 1998 when the frequent Turbostar stoppers came in. Most of the rest of the station dates from around the time of MML electrification in the early 80s, although I think the previous station was on the same site.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,469
It went in about 1998 when the frequent Turbostar stoppers came in. Most of the rest of the station dates from around the time of MML electrification in the early 80s, although I think the previous station was on the same site.

AIUI the old station was further south near Ford End Road bridge.
 

SPADTrap

Established Member
Joined
15 Oct 2012
Messages
2,352
Flashing yellows are fitted for the above move.

What really needs doing is for the up fast line to gain a platform. Had been suggested to make p4 an island platform by putting the down fast behind the platform.
There are no flashing aspects. I've never seen them if there is! It's a frustrating move to make especially when 'double blocked'. It is approach controlled.
 
Last edited:

DaveN

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2009
Messages
131
I think the main problem at Bedford is Southbound, not northbound.
The uplift in TL services means less available platform capacity and less opportunity to move from slows to fasts

But my point was that the new timetable decreases the number of southbound TL trains using Bedford station in the morning peak.
However I missed the fact that the number of northbound TL trains terminating at Bedford increases after 07:44 so that might explain why taking out the EM southbound stops after that might be necessary.
But instead they are removing the earlier Bedford EM calls and TL are (presumably) removing the Flitwick and Harpenden stops from the 06:34, 07:04, 07:34 when if they left the earlier EMT stops they would only need to remove the Flitwick and Harpenden stops from the 08:04 from Bedford.

And of course, they could leave the evening peaks as in the consultation...
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,754
Location
York
The only flashing yellows approaching Bedford are for crossing Down Fast to Down Slow at Bedford South Junction. Signal WH162 protecting Bedford North Junction on the Up Fast is approach controlled at Red for the routes to Platforms 1-3.
And because of the relative positions of signals, points, platform etc is an unusually restrictive example of approach control involving a long distance at low speed — as it has done for more than 30 years! It's not helped by the use of platform 3 with its slow approach and slow exit.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,754
Location
York
Out of interest - am I imagining things or was P4 a later addition to the station ?

Routing the down fast behind an island would have had quite a speed restriction on it - the problem would have been its situation between Bromham Road bridge and Ford End Road bridge.

Basically, Bedford station's a bit of a mess - because the original trajectory for the through lines was south-east, towards Hitchin, rather than south towards Luton..... even the current station didn't fully fix that issue.
A total mess. As you note, the original alignment was towards Hitchin, and if you look from the fast lines north of the station southwards you can still make out how that alignment ran dead straight towards the river-bridge. The London & Bedford line came in on a sharp curve at the south end of the old platforms, and then a quarter of a century later the avoiding line was built to allow full speeds on the fasts. When the new station was built the assumption seems to have been that few long-distance trains would be calling, the principal service being the new electric one to and from London, so the junctions north and (well) south of the station were put in with no approach control, etc, and platform 3 seems to have been thought of more as a space for terminating EMUs than the principal platforms for those long-distance trains that did call.

There have certainly been various proposals for platforms on the fast lines. The problem with what was done on the down fast is that it now imposes as 110 restriction in the middle of what would otherwise be a good long section of 125 route — no similar restriction of the up line.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,884
Location
Nottingham
There have certainly been various proposals for platforms on the fast lines. The problem with what was done on the down fast is that it now imposes as 110 restriction in the middle of what would otherwise be a good long section of 125 route — no similar restriction of the up line.
And no doubt a platform on the Up Fast would do the same (and there's no room anyway) - or worse if it was decided to build crossovers on the curve from the UF into P3 and back out again.
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,693
AIUI the old station was further south near Ford End Road bridge.

Correct. The ramps for platform 1 (originally platform 3 before the closure of the Hitchin branch bay, which was platform 1) for up stoppers and platform 2 (was 4) for down stoppers ended a little short of the bridge. If you were tall enough, or stood on a bike, you could watch Scots and Jubilees take water on up semi-fasts at platform 3 from the footpath on the bridge back in the day.
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,693
And because of the relative positions of signals, points, platform etc is an unusually restrictive example of approach control involving a long distance at low speed — as it has done for more than 30 years! It's not helped by the use of platform 3 with its slow approach and slow exit.

Isn't it more like 45 years? I think they moved the crossover from south to north of Bromham Rd bridge in about 1971 or 72. But without a doubt it added a good 90-120 seconds I should think to stopping an up fast at Bedford. It must be near the MP 50 1/4 mark, as opposed to a chain or so north of MP 50 for the old crossover.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,754
Location
York
Isn't it more like 45 years? I think they moved the crossover from south to north of Bromham Rd bridge in about 1971 or 72. But without a doubt it added a good 90-120 seconds I should think to stopping an up fast at Bedford. It must be near the MP 50 1/4 mark, as opposed to a chain or so north of MP 50 for the old crossover.
Bedford North Jn UFL>USL came out on 26 November 1978, with DSL>DFL two years later, on 1 November 1980. The relevant replacement part of the new Bromham ladder came into use on the same day. The entire job was completed with the provision of the slows crossover at the south end of the layout on 29 November 1981.

At the south end of the station the double junction close to the platforms, at Bedford South SB, had gone much earlier, t.o.u. on 12 March 1967, so that from then on trains calling at Bedford from the fasts had to cross at Kempston Road.

I seem to remember that in the up direction the UFL signal that would be shewing YY for the move into the station is pretty well at the 52¼ milepost, with Y at about 51½ and R at about 50¾, well away from the points. I think when I was travelling over that route regularly I agreed with your estimate that it was taking 90-120 seconds extra to stop at Bedford as opposed to passing on the UFL at line-speed. And then there was overtime in the platform, and then the very slow start from 3 back to the UFL ..... Ultra-tedious station to stop at!
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,783
Location
Herts
Despite the complextities of Bedford -which is much busier operationally than it ever was - the whole Leicester resignalling was basically a triumph of frugality (over cost reduction).....

As a good operator said , the MML is the A5 of the railway - not the M1....
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,754
Location
York
Despite the complextities of Bedford -which is much busier operationally than it ever was - the whole Leicester resignalling was basically a triumph of frugality (over cost reduction).....

As a good operator said , the MML is the A5 of the railway - not the M1....
It's very interesting to compare the earlier schemes for Leicester MAS with what was actually done—and even what was finally approved saw the Market Harborough re-alignment cut out at the very last minute (and think how much cheaper it would have been if it had been done in the 80s rather than now!).
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,884
Location
Nottingham
Despite the complextities of Bedford -which is much busier operationally than it ever was - the whole Leicester resignalling was basically a triumph of frugality (over cost reduction).....

As a good operator said , the MML is the A5 of the railway - not the M1....

But the railway that the MML follows most closely is not the ECML or the WCML but the MML. If our railways had been centrally planned as the motorway network was later, then the MML would probably have been the main route to the north.

On signalling it's probably true to say that the late 80s schemes such as Leicester and Crewe were the nadir when the Sectors added extra push to BR's tradition of "rationalisation" and the result was a cut too far. Not helped by their being on the transition from relay-based to processor-based technology, with the unmodifiability of the one and the obsolescence of the other. The ECML schemes a few years later also got it about right in layout and capacity. The "enhancements" currently under way on the MML are largely about restoring the cuts made during Leicester re-signalling.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,754
Location
York
But the railway that the MML follows most closely is not the ECML or the WCML but the MML. If our railways had been centrally planned as the motorway network was later, then the MML would probably have been the main route to the north.

On signalling it's probably true to say that the late 80s schemes such as Leicester and Crewe were the nadir when the Sectors added extra push to BR's tradition of "rationalisation" and the result was a cut too far. Not helped by their being on the transition from relay-based to processor-based technology, with the unmodifiability of the one and the obsolescence of the other. The ECML schemes a few years later also got it about right in layout and capacity. The "enhancements" currently under way on the MML are largely about restoring the cuts made during Leicester re-signalling.
For a brief period it was Euston for everywhere to the north, with the split at Rugby for Birmingham and the North-West on the one hand and Leicester to Derby, Normanton, and the North-East one the other. It couldn't last — other towns and cities wanted to be served by the railways, and lack of capacity as traffic-growth really took off. France (and on a much smaller scale, Belgium) are examples of a system initially planned. In France it was the state that decided where the main lines should go, even it did not build them itself. And remember that there were voices raised early in this country in favour of a more rational system — and that it was parliament itself that actually prevented some sensible amalgamations that might have avoided the constuction of the duplicate routes that in due course Beeching took so much against.

The early-80s version of the Leicester MAS scheme would have had 4-aspect signalling throughout, would have kept four tracks all through to Glendon, would have had better and faster junction layouts, a re-aligned Market Harborough, a better Leicester layout, etc. In other words all the things that were taken out as the scheme was de-specced to cut costs to get BRB authorisation and which as you note have gradually been shewn to be necessary and have been going back in ever since.

I don't know anything like as much detail about Crewe as I know about Leicester, but I think as you say it was the same story. There were certainly plans for a much better Manchester junction (I think 40/45) rather than the aberration which was put in, which not only extends the 20 restriction further to the north than it went before the modernisation work began but also has signalling that enforces very slow running indeed over a lengthy distance for a train in the up direction from Manchester. The PSR through the station was originally intended to be 100 rather than the 80 it came down to late on in the scheme (because of the roof pillars). And the signalling for down fast line trains using the principal down platform has always been unnecessarily restrictive, with no flashing yellows provided (and they can't be, because the rarer route to the up fast is for 60 whereas the turnout to platform 60 is only 50).

On the whole I'm a big fan of sector management, and the Midland did well out of it, because there was a sector civil engineer in Nottingham who had a budget and could take decisions for the benefit of the Midland line, instead of that line being the responsibility of the CCE of the LMR, which region was always much more concerned with its London-Carlisle route. And it was sector management that brought HSTs to the Midland, with a very deliberate choice by Cyril Bleasdale. But these early-80s resignallings, right at the beginning of sectorisation, were not good, with far too much eagerness to chop to the bone. (Though there is an argument that says better to have the chopped-back scheme that could be got rather than soldier on with what was there before.)
 

70014IronDuke

Established Member
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Messages
3,693
Bedford North Jn UFL>USL came out on 26 November 1978, with DSL>DFL two years later, on 1 November 1980. The relevant replacement part of the new Bromham ladder came into use on the same day. The entire job was completed with the provision of the slows crossover at the south end of the layout on 29 November 1981.

At the south end of the station the double junction close to the platforms, at Bedford South SB, had gone much earlier, t.o.u. on 12 March 1967, so that from then on trains calling at Bedford from the fasts had to cross at Kempston Road.

I seem to remember that in the up direction the UFL signal that would be shewing YY for the move into the station is pretty well at the 52¼ milepost, with Y at about 51½ and R at about 50¾, well away from the points. I think when I was travelling over that route regularly I agreed with your estimate that it was taking 90-120 seconds extra to stop at Bedford as opposed to passing on the UFL at line-speed. And then there was overtime in the platform, and then the very slow start from 3 back to the UFL ..... Ultra-tedious station to stop at!

Eh-up, there's summat queer here. I wonder if we're talking about the same modification to the trackwork. As I remember, all the 60s and into the very early 70s, the crossover UF>US and DS>DF was south of Bromham Rd Bridge, perhaps a chain or two north of Bedford North Box. The semaphores controlling the approach from the north had a fixed distant for any up express stopping at Bedford MR - the equivalent in those days for an approach control release with colour lights.

This crossover definitely came out before I left Derby in late 1974, well before the changes for the rebuilding of Bedford station. I remember it was moved north of Bromham Rd bridge - and was replaced by an approach controlled (I think single lead ladder, but not sure on that) because I can remember looking out on up semi-fasts with Cl 45s slowing to a trundle for 200-250 meters with the UF signal at red until about 40m from the signal, when he would get a single yellow (I think) and the feather indicating the switch to the slow line.

As I remember it, this new crossover was around MP 50 1/4. I think it was a 20 mph restriction, so with a Cl 45 and 8-9 Mk1s on the drivers usually had to apply a bit of power to get the train into the station after the crossover - making the new layout a right waste of time and power compared to the old one - although I assume it was safer and cheaper to install and maintain.

I took note of this because I wondered if, after it had been installed for a month or two (and crews were familiar with it) they would relax the conditions in some way to reduce the time lost. And IMX, they never did.

This had to have happened before 1974, because I never went on the up to London again until 1990. I would have guessed probably 1973. If you say it didn't happen until 1978, I'd better call the men in white coats asap.

Could it be there was another modification introduced in 1978 that you are thinking of?

I confess that though I must have used the new crossing in the down direction, I can't remember that. Probably because the additional time lost by the new arrangement was not so damaging as on the up.

I can't argue with your dates for the removal of the crossover to the south - as I remember it, the old crossover was north of the bridges over the Great Ouse, and must have been on the curve of the avoiding fasts - meaning a non-standard design that was surely expensive to build and maintain. Hence the move 1/4 m or more to the south, on straight track, at Kempston Rd. But of course, this change also added to the 'trundle time' for any Class 1 train stopping at Bedford, both on the up and down. On up stopping trains, they definitely had to give a burst of power between the crossover and Bedford Sth Box.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,754
Location
York
Bedford Station was at 49m68ch, Bedford North Jn SB at 49m77ch, Bromham SB at 50m57ch, and Bromham Viaduct at 50m76ch. Bedford North controlled a double junction DSL>DFL and UFL>USL, and Bromham controlled a double junction DML>DGL and UGL>UML. The third and fourth lines were goods lines from Bedford North Jn northwards and remained so right up to the Sectional Appendix of 1980. Bromham SB was closed on 19 February 1967, and I assume in the absence of other evidence that the two crossovers it controlled came out at the same time. The dates I gave above came from the weekly engineering notices at the time, and I have just looked back at Branch Line News where contemporary observation confirms them. The Sectional Appendix for 1980 shews at Bedford North a speed of 40 for up main to up slow, which is the speed of the new ladder as expected, but still the old speed of 10 for U/DSL and USL to DFL, which is right if the appendix issue was before the November commissioning of the other part of the ladder.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
7,783
Location
Herts
But the railway that the MML follows most closely is not the ECML or the WCML but the MML. If our railways had been centrally planned as the motorway network was later, then the MML would probably have been the main route to the north.

On signalling it's probably true to say that the late 80s schemes such as Leicester and Crewe were the nadir when the Sectors added extra push to BR's tradition of "rationalisation" and the result was a cut too far. Not helped by their being on the transition from relay-based to processor-based technology, with the unmodifiability of the one and the obsolescence of the other. The ECML schemes a few years later also got it about right in layout and capacity. The "enhancements" currently under way on the MML are largely about restoring the cuts made during Leicester re-signalling.


Good summary - no one guessed the increases in passenger and dare I say it aggregates. MML was a bit of a backwater which narrowly escaped severe surgery in the mid to late 1960's . so we ought to be a bit grateful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top