MML vs ECML some thoughts

[Kite159]

One thing to remember is the Midland Main Line is the main London to East Midlands/Sheffield route.

Generally the East Midlands cities (Derby, Leicester and Nottingham) are very car dependent compared to most cities of a similar size and if you look at usage figures for the stations they are rather low for the size of the cities. This may be a reason why the Midland Main Line is not seen as important compared to other main lines.

Derby & Leicester might be down to the stations not being located in the centre, with both not having the best local rail network connections

 

[thenorthern]

Derby & Leicester might be down to the stations not being located in the centre, with both not having the best local rail network connections

With all three cities the railway's main purpose seems to be to take people in and out of the cities to other places as all three cities seem to have a station in the centre with some small suburban halts dotted around the suburbs served by semi-rural local services at most hourly but normally much less. For example Derby has its main station and Peartree + Spondon both with a very limited service, Leicester has its main station as well as Syston which is served by an hourly Leicester to Lincoln service an South Wigston which is only served 2 hourly.

 

[Kite159]

With all three cities the railway's main purpose seems to be to take people in and out of the cities to other places as all three cities seem to have a station in the centre with some small suburban halts dotted around the suburbs served by semi-rural local services at most hourly but normally much less. For example Derby has its main station and Peartree + Spondon both with a very limited service, Leicester has its main station as well as Syston which is served by an hourly Leicester to Lincoln service an South Wigston which is only served 2 hourly.

Although South Wigston is half hourly in the peaks (towards Leicester AM, towards Nuneaton PM)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

This is it for me, it's the prestige and the most well known history. I know I'm speaking from an enthusiast standpoint, but I don't feel that with the WCML. The West Coast feels like the busy workhorse which happens to use tilt and has an ugly London terminal.

The WCML is the nation's railway backbone just as the M1/M6/A74 is for road (and not the M1/A1).
Its history goes a decade further back than the ECML which didn't have a decent route from London until the GN reached York (via the L&Y) in 1849.
The first route to London from Newcastle and Leeds was via Derby and Rugby over the Midland (NM) and LNWR (L&B) into Euston.

In the course of early railway evolution, the LNWR came close to purchasing the Midland in the 1850s (before the Midland extension to Hitchin and later St Pancras).
If that had happened, the Midland might have remained a largely regional line like the L&Y and MS&L (before its London extension).
The ECML may have the gloss of fastest this and that, but that does not wipe out the WCML's significance in terms of reach and traffic.
Currently the ECML can't even claim superior speed.
Anyway, HS2 will wipe all this out, south of Manchester/Sheffield/Leeds/York, and it will be "Euston only for the north" again.

 

[yorksrob]

I suspect that the ECML might still provide a competitive journey to London in terms of speed from places such as York, as opposed to a massive diversion via Birmingham.

 

[VT 390]

I suspect that the ECML might still provide a competitive journey to London in terms of speed from places such as York, as opposed to a massive diversion via Birmingham.

But ECML services after HS2 may stop at more stops south of York which will slow the services down.

 

[yorksrob]

But ECML services after HS2 may stop at more stops south of York which will slow the services down.

They may do, but that's an operational choice, rather than a physical limitation. HS2 might slice off the Leeds traffic, however I strongly suspect that rumours of the ECML's demise as a long distance InterCity route will prove to have been exaggerated.

Edit: All assuming the self-driving car doesn't screw up the whole show of course.

 

[DanNCL]

The ECML serves many more people than the MML and links up many more communities. It's very easy to say that the MML has higher usage figures in the south, but that's skewed by commuter flows. The ECML also serves smaller stations with a different market further north - Alnmouth and Berwick-upon-Tweed are both mostly served by LNER and have only an infrequent service from other operators.

The ECML is seen as the premier Intercity line, and the MML isn't seen as important.

However the station usage figures(17/18) are quite interesting, actually the MML stations aren't too far off the ECML.
I'm comparing Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham & Newcastle; with Leicester, Loughborough, Nottingham, Derby, Chesterfield & Sheffield.

ECML:


MML:


Quite interesting that York, Durham and Darlington usages are higher than expected, but I suspect that York's figures are highly skewed towards tourists (like Bath, Oxford etc)

Darlington is an interchange between the ECML and the Tees Valley and therefore is used by most people travelling between London and Teesside (pop 672,500). When you've got that population the usage figures for Darlington are actually a bit low! Durham has a very strong commuter flow to/from Newcastle which explains the high usage numbers there. Your population figures are off too as you're not taking in to account the larger urban areas for some of these stations (for example Newcastle - the population you quote is only for the Newcastle City Council area, and doesn't include North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Gateshead, which to many people are part of Newcastle).

Well the ECML has always got all the investment because it's seen as a 'golden goose'
But looking at those stats the MML isn't very far behind, especially if you consider the inferior service it gets in terms of speed and frequency, to the ECML.

That couldn't be further from the truth. The ECML has had very little investment since the 1990s up until now (even then the only "investment" is the new trains that don't actually work properly without interefering with the signals) and it's definitely showing.

I deliberately missed out Leeds and Edinburgh, because they would skew the usage, as LNER is the minority operator, the usage figures would be heavily skewed towards Non ECML services.

If you're not going to do it properly and include Leeds and Edinburgh then you also have to discount Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield for the same reason. For Edinburgh LNER does actually handle a good share of the demand there thanks to the 4 daily Aberdeen services, and the now 2tph most hours service to London. For Leeds LNER handles a large share of the commuter flow for Wakefield and Doncaster.

But why is the ECML seen as a flagship railway?
It doesn't make any sense, as the MML, and definately the WCML and GWML serve bigger more important settlements!

Because it links London and Edinburgh, two of the four UK capitals. You've also got to look back at it's history - the Flying Scotsman, the A4s, the Deltics, the 91s, it's always been the flagship railway and that's unlikely to change any time soon.
And Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh aren't important? They are, more so than the likes of Nottingham and Leicester as they serve many more people.

I get your point, but the skewing happens to a smaller extent at Sheffield than at Leeds.
Leeds has a dense commuter rail network and obviously has XC and TPE as well, so it's difficult to make a direct comparison.
If you have figures for LNER passengers at Leeds I'll happily include them.
Edinburgh again has a lot of Scotrail services, which makes direct comparisons to the ECML difficult

The skewing happens to a fairly large extent at Nottingham yet you're still happy to include that...

But Bradford, Sunderland, Hull etc aren't anywhere near as important as Leicester, Nottingham, Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol etc.

Bradford (pop 529,879) is actually more important than Nottingham and Leicester if we use your population argument...

The MML serves large cities in the East Midlands, Nottingham is slightly bigger than Newcastle for example.

That's because you aren't making a fair comparision between the two cities. For Nottingham you've used the population for the full urban area, but for Newcastle you've only used the population for one local authority. If you used the population for the full urban area around Newcastle then the actual population is 774,891, so a lot higher than Nottingham's population.

Leeds has a usage of 31 million, which is more than the MML and almost all the rest of the ECML combined!
It's not really helpful to add it as ultimately Leeds is only a part of the ECML service pattern, and we have no idea how many ECML passengers there are, as I suspect most of those are commuters to the rest of West Yorkshire/Manchester.

I'm going to hazard a guess that the real reason you're not including them is because if you did your argument against the ECML would be void...

This argument is statistically ridiculous- you’re not comparing like-to-like. Leeds and Edinburgh may skew the stats wildly, but you can’t just ignore them and say all is fine and dandy whilst you happily include Sheffield (lots of Northern/XC/TPE passengers) and Derby (EMT locals and XC)! There is patently not enough info in the usage stats to gauge this...you would need stats on how much each route is used.

Fully agreed. Same argument could be used for Leicester too with the XC services to Birmingham.

However the usage figures show that apart from Leeds and Edinburgh, the MML is just as important as the ECML in the places it serves, arguably the MML should be higher as Nottingham, Leicester, Derby etc have a much higher population than Peterborough, Doncaster etc.

You can't say somewhere needs a better frequency to London solely based on it's population. In some places (Bradford being a big example here) they might have a large population but they simply don't have much demand to travel to/from London.

The WCML is the nation's railway backbone just as the M1/M6/A74 is for road (and not the M1/A1).
Its history goes a decade further back than the ECML which didn't have a decent route from London until the GN reached York (via the L&Y) in 1849.
The first route to London from Newcastle and Leeds was via Derby and Rugby over the Midland (NM) and LNWR (L&B) into Euston.

I really doubt that the WCML being built 10 years earlier than the ECML makes any difference at all in the grand scheme of things.

 

[cactustwirly]

The ECML serves many more people than the MML and links up many more communities. It's very easy to say that the MML has higher usage figures in the south, but that's skewed by commuter flows. The ECML also serves smaller stations with a different market further north - Alnmouth and Berwick-upon-Tweed are both mostly served by LNER and have only an infrequent service from other operators.


Darlington is an interchange between the ECML and the Tees Valley and therefore is used by most people travelling between London and Teesside (pop 672,500). When you've got that population the usage figures for Darlington are actually a bit low! Durham has a very strong commuter flow to/from Newcastle which explains the high usage numbers there. Your population figures are off too as you're not taking in to account the larger urban areas for some of these stations (for example Newcastle - the population you quote is only for the Newcastle City Council area, and doesn't include North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Gateshead, which to many people are part of Newcastle).


That couldn't be further from the truth. The ECML has had very little investment since the 1990s up until now (even then the only "investment" is the new trains that don't actually work properly without interefering with the signals) and it's definitely showing.


If you're not going to do it properly and include Leeds and Edinburgh then you also have to discount Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield for the same reason. For Edinburgh LNER does actually handle a good share of the demand there thanks to the 4 daily Aberdeen services, and the now 2tph most hours service to London. For Leeds LNER handles a large share of the commuter flow for Wakefield and Doncaster.


Because it links London and Edinburgh, two of the four UK capitals. You've also got to look back at it's history - the Flying Scotsman, the A4s, the Deltics, the 91s, it's always been the flagship railway and that's unlikely to change any time soon.
And Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh aren't important? They are, more so than the likes of Nottingham and Leicester as they serve many more people.


The skewing happens to a fairly large extent at Nottingham yet you're still happy to include that...


Bradford (pop 529,879) is actually more important than Nottingham and Leicester if we use your population argument...


That's because you aren't making a fair comparision between the two cities. For Nottingham you've used the population for the full urban area, but for Newcastle you've only used the population for one local authority. If you used the population for the full urban area around Newcastle then the actual population is 774,891, so a lot higher than Nottingham's population.


I'm going to hazard a guess that the real reason you're not including them is because if you did your argument against the ECML would be void...


Fully agreed. Same argument could be used for Leicester too with the XC services to Birmingham.


You can't say somewhere needs a better frequency to London solely based on it's population. In some places (Bradford being a big example here) they might have a large population but they simply don't have much demand to travel to/from London.


I really doubt that the WCML being built 10 years earlier than the ECML makes any difference at all in the grand scheme of things.

So I must have imagined the full electrification, Leeds station rebuild, resignalling and the Welwyn & Hitchin flyovers then?

Eh? What commuters?
I haven't included Bedford, Luton or Stevenage, for that reason!

I've used the 2012 census for the city populations in Newcastle and Nottingham, I think you'll find thtt Nottingham has a slightly bigger urban area than Newcastle.
I'm happy to add them once I find the time!

No can't, it's not the only factor, but the one that has the biggest effect, and can be easily measured! Bradford has a non existent economy, and one mediocre university.
Nottingham, Leicester and Sheffield both have 2 Universities, including a Russel group university!
Plus they have good local economies, which Bradford doesn't!

 

[atraindriver]

assumed it was also because they were both Stagecoach operated.

There was little or no cooperation between Stagecoach Rail owned TOCs with regard to fares and ticketing, beyond that which is required.

Bradford has a non existent economy, and one mediocre university.

I smell the sweet smell of cow manure, along with some utter desperation to try to force readers to believe your point of view is The Only Truth despite it being repeatedly shown up as not exactly so.

 

[bb21]

The thread has run its course as arguments are simply being repeated.