As a matter of interest who actually gains anything from the proposed changes in May 2018?
My view is the changes should not take place until the Corby electrification works are done.
Everyone travelling through, but not to/from, the GTR region with the peak flows (with Luton Airport Parkway connectivity maintained).As a matter of interest who actually gains anything from the proposed changes in May 2018?
The 2nd track will be 're'-commissioned soon, ahead of the timetable change.My view is the changes should not take place until the Corby electrification works are done.
HST formations are already 8 coaches.Will EMT take the opportunity to utilise MK3 stock now stored at Ely to extend HST formations to 8 carriages ?
Surplus coaches which are not destined for ScotRail could be used to alleviate overcrowding until 2020.
HST formations are already 8 coaches.
Indeed, I agree, In fact, why is the timetable needing to be recast at all? Unless I've missed something in this thread, the prime issue is removing London area stops on EMT services in the peak so why not do just that and otherwise leave the timetable the same, apart perhaps from some padding to allow for those missed stops?
Exactly. And letting the London commuter timetable dictate the pathing of the long-distance inter-city services seems to me quite the wrong way round. In particular, this seems to be another example of Sheffield getting shafted by DfT, following hard on the heels of Grayling's cancellation of the electrification. And as I wrote above, the minutes to be expensively saved by infrastructure improvements are squandered by additional pathing allowances to suit Thameslink. Or maybe these extra pathing allowances are just to prepare for no upgrade to 125 to the wires south of Bedford so there will be no decelerations when Graying's beloved bi-modes come on the scene.The timetable is being recast to fit around the new Thameslink timetable, of which the first phase begins in May.
As a matter of interest who actually gains anything from the proposed changes in May 2018?
My view is the changes should not take place until the Corby electrification works are done.
Exactly. And letting the London commuter timetable dictate the pathing of the long-distance inter-city services seems to me quite the wrong way round. In particular, this seems to be another example of Sheffield getting shafted by DfT, following hard on the heels of Grayling's cancellation of the electrification. And as I wrote above, the minutes to be expensively saved by infrastructure improvements are squandered by additional pathing allowances to suit Thameslink. Or maybe these extra pathing allowances are just to prepare for no upgrade to 125 to the wires south of Bedford so there will be no decelerations when Graying's beloved bi-modes come on the scene.
Given the use of those commuter services is *much* higher than the Inter City services, it makes perfect sense. The rail network is about moving as many people as possible as efficiently as possible. And to be brutally honest if adding 5 minutes to a Sheffield service allows another 12 car train to leave Bedford for the south then that's going to benefit far more people.
And, indeed, benefit those on that Sheffield train if they are more likely to get a seat out of St Pancras in the evening rush hour.
The 2nd track will be 're'-commissioned soon, ahead of the timetable change.
I guess the changes to infrastructure can't be made with the existing timetable in place - hence these changes. For example the work at Market Harborough is going to lead to speed restrictions given the nature of the work. The electrification of the slow lines between Kettering & Bedford may also lead to speed restrictions - it also may mean the freights which are currently routed via the slow lines will have to use the fasts and need a path for those.
It was exactly the same on the WCML during that modernisation - several places saw a degraded service for a period of time until the works were complete.
Given the use of those commuter services is *much* higher than the Inter City services, it makes perfect sense. The rail network is about moving as many people as possible as efficiently as possible. And to be brutally honest if adding 5 minutes to a Sheffield service allows another 12 car train to leave Bedford for the south then that's going to benefit far more people.
Competitive journey times for Nottingham, Derby or Sheffield are important where demand is more responsive to this sort of thing and the revenue per passenger is much higher than that of commuters using season tickets.
Yes I quite agree - given that the 2018 Thameslink timetable has been known about for quite some time and it has been clear that there were significant conflicts between the slow diesel fast line trains and the 700s using the fast lines it's astonishing something wasn't done sooner to sort out the problem... Fundamentally the ongoing use of HSTs (at least, 2+8 ones for sure) is not really compatible with the high-intensity Thameslink timetable, so a fudge is needed. What's more the DfT's idea of how to solve the problem using bi-modes seems to have been to request a train with performance and technical characteristics that don't exist.Exactly. And letting the London commuter timetable dictate the pathing of the long-distance inter-city services seems to me quite the wrong way round.
This, with no new (faster!) rolling stock would have resulted in fewer Thameslink services than promised. What was the point of the billions spent on rebuilding London Bridge, and Blackfriars, ATO, Canal Tunnels, etc etc if the benefits were not to be realised because too many of the fast line trains on the MML are too slow?it surely makes more sense to plan TL around East Midlands services than the other way around
Its basic economics. People aren't going to quit their jobs en masse if the train becomes slower but longer distance passengers with other options for their journey may be more inclined to take the coach or drive if the time differential doesn't make up for the price differential. Or in this particular case it can be simplified further to that people aren't going to stop travelling because journey times are staying the same but may if journey times lengthen.Do you have any statistics to back that statement up?
If you mean the second track between Kettering & Corby, you may be right. But there's still quite alot of single track between Kettering and Bedford on the slows - that all needs doing as well and I suspect that might take a bit more than 5 months.
As for wiring - there's a few bits where masts are in place between Kettering & Corby, but again very little between Bedford and Kettering.
That doesn't answer my question at all - please show me figures which show revenue per passenger is higher for long-distance journeys versus commuters using season tickets.Its basic economics. People aren't going to quit their jobs en masse if the train becomes slower but longer distance passengers with other options for their journey may be more inclined to take the coach or drive if the time differential doesn't make up for the price differential. Or in this particular case it can be simplified further to that people aren't going to stop travelling because journey times are staying the same but may if journey times lengthen.
Perhaps some confusion between revenue per passenger and revenue per journey. Long-distance passengers will pay more per trip but most season ticket holders will contribute more revenue.That doesn't answer my question at all - please show me figures which show revenue per passenger is higher for long-distance journeys versus commuters using season tickets.
ORR's data portal says something quite different.
Here's my viewpoint on everything.
Since Bedford's express TL services apparently will only stop at one additional station compared to the slowest EMT services, I think it would be a viable stopgap measure until the Corby section is fully electrified. This is coming from someone who inherently dislikes the seats in the 700s.
The bigger problem is that eventually, Bedford will lose all direct services to Nottingham, Leicester and Sheffield (please correct me if I'm wrong - I read it as only the Corby EMT services will serve Bedford). A part of me hopes that once HS2 goes up to Sheffield, then maybe these services would be restored due to more available paths. But that's a long way away, and compared to MK and Stevenage, Bedford is really getting a raw deal.
Part of the problem is demonstrated by the 17.30 St P - Nottingham service.
This runs first stop Bedford and is full to standing - it goes from being overcrowded to fairly busy after the Bedford stop.
So why should people travelling to Leicester or Nottingham have to put up with an overcrowded train for the first 30 mins of their journey, when there are many, many more seats being provided by Thameslink on services to Bedford.
If Bedford fares charged a premium to use EMT then fine, but they don't - the commuters who are overcrowding the EMT services are to Bedford are getting much cheaper fares - take a look at the price difference for a travelcard from Bedford compared to Wellingborough for example.
This is the same debate as is going on the thread about WCML stoppers - people in relatively insignificant places (Bedford, Nuneaton, Tamworth) thinking they ought to have Inter City standard services rather than travel on commuter EMUs.
Part of the problem is demonstrated by the 17.30 St P - Nottingham service.
This runs first stop Bedford and is full to standing - it goes from being overcrowded to fairly busy after the Bedford stop.
So why should people travelling to Leicester or Nottingham have to put up with an overcrowded train for the first 30 mins of their journey, when there are many, many more seats being provided by Thameslink on services to Bedford.
If Bedford fares charged a premium to use EMT then fine, but they don't - the commuters who are overcrowding the EMT services are to Bedford are getting much cheaper fares - take a look at the price difference for a travelcard from Bedford compared to Wellingborough for example.
This is the same debate as is going on the thread about WCML stoppers - people in relatively insignificant places (Bedford, Nuneaton, Tamworth) thinking they ought to have Inter City standard services rather than travel on commuter EMUs.
Firstly, don't both Leicester and Nottingham passengers have the option of services which do not stop at Luton Airport Parkway, Luton or Bedford? For example, would it not make more sense for passengers to Leicester to wait for the 1757 which is first stop Leicester? While it departs later, it only arrives 10 minutes later than the train you mentioned and would not pick up any TL passengers. Currently the EMT long distance trains supplement TL services and provide much needed capacity for the southern end of the MML.
In the current timetable no weekday service from St Pancras has a first stop north of Bedford between 1657 and 1757 and no Nottingham service does so for two hours between 1615 and 1815. This means that the Nottingham trains in particular are slower when most people want to use them. Thameslink provides a massive boost in capacity to Bedford and the provision of fast Thameslink services, and later fast Corby trains, mean that if lack of capacity or journey time on Thameslink is a reason for EMT trains carrying shorter distance commuters today then it won't be for much longer.
Part of the problem is demonstrated by the 17.30 St P - Nottingham service.
This runs first stop Bedford and is full to standing - it goes from being overcrowded to fairly busy after the Bedford stop.
So why should people travelling to Leicester or Nottingham have to put up with an overcrowded train for the first 30 mins of their journey, when there are many, many more seats being provided by Thameslink on services to Bedford.
If Bedford fares charged a premium to use EMT then fine, but they don't - the commuters who are overcrowding the EMT services are to Bedford are getting much cheaper fares - take a look at the price difference for a travelcard from Bedford compared to Wellingborough for example.
This is the same debate as is going on the thread about WCML stoppers - people in relatively insignificant places (Bedford, Nuneaton, Tamworth) thinking they ought to have Inter City standard services rather than travel on commuter EMUs.
Your point in #146 was also about the current timetable so I have quoted the current times in the first part of my post to indicate it's not as clear-cut as you suggest. And then got back on topic by pointing out that this changes in May 2018!But A0wen is talking about his views on the current situation, not the future (May 2018 or 2020) timetable.