• 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!

My idea for all diesel MML trains to be non stop London to Leicester

Status
Not open for further replies.

sleeper fan

On Moderation
Joined
5 Jun 2019
Messages
99
Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/mml-electrification.110445/
You'd rather keep having diesels running under wires rather than maximise the use of the wires?
But if the wires are only going a certain way you can run newer local services under the wires making the most of them and keep the current 222s to run the longer distance stuff. So make all MML stuffs first stop Leicester and have a fleet of 'new' trains run all stops to up to the end of the electric cables. Then it saves money on more horrible 800(poor seats) and reduces the need to get rid of stock the have years left in them. TOC are being very unimaginative at the moment just ordering loads of 800s. That's my view anyway: change the service patters to locals on electric to Leicester then have all MML inter-city stuff making their fist stop at Leicester(except certain peak trains of course) using the current stock.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

CdBrux

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2014
Messages
768
Location
Munich
But if the wires are only going a certain way you can run newer local services under the wires making the most of them and keep the current 222s to run the longer distance stuff. So make all MML stuffs first stop Leicester and have a fleet of 'new' trains run all stops to up to the end of the electric cables. Then it saves money on more horrible 800(poor seats) and reduces the need to get rid of stock the have years left in them. TOC are being very unimaginative at the moment just ordering loads of 800s. That's my view anyway: change the service patters to locals on electric to Leicester then have all MML inter-city stuff making their fist stop at Leicester(except certain peak trains of course) using the current stock.

I'm no expert but some key thing that I have gleaned on such forums / own observations:
* Poor seats has nothing to do with 800 trains, can put what you like in them
* 222's expensive to run
* first stop Leicester is reducing connectivity
* running diesel under the wires to end of electric limit seems a bit of a waste of electrification opportunities
* bi-mode, assuming running diesel more expensive vs electricity, allows for progressive electrification and simply more flexibility. Ultimately you can I guess remove (most of) the deisel engines once / if electrification done.
* clearly from an operation cost perspective full electric cheaper (will happen for Corby) but if we go as a country to say a steady xx km of electrification per year would the MML really be high up the priority list? Just because it was already announced does not mean so
* your solution has much less electric running than bi-modes would allow
 

AndyW33

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2013
Messages
534
But if the wires are only going a certain way you can run newer local services under the wires making the most of them and keep the current 222s to run the longer distance stuff. So make all MML stuffs first stop Leicester and have a fleet of 'new' trains run all stops to up to the end of the electric cables.
You seem to assume that everyone wants to travel to London and nowhere else. But in the real world there are lots of people who need to travel from Luton Airport Parkway, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering and Market Harborough to Leicester and points north, or vice versa. Your plan means they have no train service at all, which is of course contrary to both the current and the new franchise agreement. Come and visit the line and travel on your beloved 222s, and you'll see this is not at totally London-focussed route. You'll also see that the 222s are getting tired, including the seats!
 

sleeper fan

On Moderation
Joined
5 Jun 2019
Messages
99
You seem to assume that everyone wants to travel to London and nowhere else. But in the real world there are lots of people who need to travel from Luton Airport Parkway, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering and Market Harborough to Leicester and points north, or vice versa. Your plan means they have no train service at all, which is of course contrary to both the current and the new franchise agreement. Come and visit the line and travel on your beloved 222s, and you'll see this is not at totally London-focussed route. You'll also see that the 222s are getting tired, including the seats!
There was no need to write in a rude tone now was there. Anyway what was saying is that there is a stopping train that uses the electric wires and maybe runs all stops to Leicester then people from the stations you rightly mentioned then change at Leciester for stop on North but this only happens in the peak with one or two long distance services stopping at the other stations at the moment most trains are non-stop to Leicester plus it will speed up journey times everyone is so obsessed with faster journey times but don't like ti when they might have to but some extra effort in to change trains. Faster journeys=less stops=more long distantce commuters trains that call at all stop to serve you stations and then they change for the faster 222. Plus I'm saying how the service can be improved. The new operator will probably reduce the stopping services anyway and put a change in as part of the franchise agreement anyway(Ive read it) to speed up journey times. Anyway Luton,Bedofrd have the TL service anyway whey do they need a MML service t get them to London maybe only stop service in Bedford heading out of London for stations North.
 

AndyW33

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2013
Messages
534
There was no need to write in a rude tone now was there. Anyway what was saying is that there is a stopping train that uses the electric wires and maybe runs all stops to Leicester then people from the stations you rightly mentioned then change at Leciester for stop on North but this only happens in the peak with one or two long distance services stopping at the other stations at the moment most trains are non-stop to Leicester plus it will speed up journey times everyone is so obsessed with faster journey times but don't like ti when they might have to but some extra effort in to change trains. Faster journeys=less stops=more long distantce commuters trains that call at all stop to serve you stations and then they change for the faster 222. Plus I'm saying how the service can be improved. The new operator will probably reduce the stopping services anyway and put a change in as part of the franchise agreement anyway(Ive read it) to speed up journey times. Anyway Luton,Bedofrd have the TL service anyway whey do they need a MML service t get them to London maybe only stop service in Bedford heading out of London for stations North.
Sorry you're offended, I actually live in a town served by the MML (north of Leicester) so feel strongly about how the line is timetabled and people who don't understand the traffic flows, and your plan still doesn't work. The electric wires will run as far north as Kettering for sure, or Market Harborough, with a bit of luck - and that part will only be used electrically if there are bi-modes as there isn't even a turnback siding there. Chris Grayling has cancelled wires to Leicester so there will be no all-electric trains there in the foreseeable future. As a result there have to be stops south of Leicester or there is no way of getting from Leicester to Market Harborough, Kettering and points between there and London. Currently there are 4 trains an hour between Leicester and London on the standard pattern. Two of these are non stop (one originating at Nottingham and one at Sheffield), two do stop (again one from Nottingham and one from Sheffield), though not all the stoppers call at every one of the 6 possible EMT-served intermediate stations south of Leicester so some people already have to change. You could certainly force everyone wanting intermediate stations south of Kettering onto the electric Corby services if the DfT will permit this but stops at Kettering would be inevitable (and Market Harborough which has no alternative service) on at least one of the four Leicester trains per hour. Whether the DfT would permit it is debatable - apart from Luton these are mainstream Conservative constituencies with very vocal MPs.
 

duffield

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2013
Messages
1,301
Location
East Midlands
...
Anyway what was saying is that there is a stopping train that uses the electric wires and maybe runs all stops to Leicester then people from the stations you rightly mentioned then change at Leciester for stop on North...
Unless I'm missing something you seem to be assuming electrification to Leicester is happening. There are no plans to electrify beyond Market Harborough through to Leicester, and it would make no sense for all-electric services to terminate at Market Harborough (relatively minor station, only two platforms, one stop short of Leicester), hence the bi-mode plan.
In my opinion stopping eletrification at Market Harborough is stupid and short-sighted, but given that's what's happening at present, bi-modes make sense because they make the best of the wires that *are* happening and allow for future progressive electrification.
 

sleeper fan

On Moderation
Joined
5 Jun 2019
Messages
99
Sorry you're offended, I actually live in a town served by the MML (north of Leicester) so feel strongly about how the line is timetabled and people who don't understand the traffic flows, and your plan still doesn't work. The electric wires will run as far north as Kettering for sure, or Market Harborough, with a bit of luck - and that part will only be used electrically if there are bi-modes as there isn't even a turnback siding there. Chris Grayling has cancelled wires to Leicester so there will be no all-electric trains there in the foreseeable future. As a result there have to be stops south of Leicester or there is no way of getting from Leicester to Market Harborough, Kettering and points between there and London. Currently there are 4 trains an hour between Leicester and London on the standard pattern. Two of these are non stop (one originating at Nottingham and one at Sheffield), two do stop (again one from Nottingham and one from Sheffield), though not all the stoppers call at every one of the 6 possible EMT-served intermediate stations south of Leicester so some people already have to change. You could certainly force everyone wanting intermediate stations south of Kettering onto the electric Corby services if the DfT will permit this but stops at Kettering would be inevitable (and Market Harborough which has no alternative service) on at least one of the four Leicester trains per hour. Whether the DfT would permit it is debatable - apart from Luton these are mainstream Conservative constituencies with very vocal MPs.
True might need to return to the drawing board with this one!
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,476
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
I'm no expert but some key thing that I have gleaned on such forums / own observations:
* Poor seats has nothing to do with 800 trains, can put what you like in them
* 222's expensive to run
* first stop Leicester is reducing connectivity
* running diesel under the wires to end of electric limit seems a bit of a waste of electrification opportunities
* bi-mode, assuming running diesel more expensive vs electricity, allows for progressive electrification and simply more flexibility. Ultimately you can I guess remove (most of) the deisel engines once / if electrification done.
* clearly from an operation cost perspective full electric cheaper (will happen for Corby) but if we go as a country to say a steady xx km of electrification per year would the MML really be high up the priority list? Just because it was already announced does not mean so
* your solution has much less electric running than bi-modes would allow
To add to point 1) - the 800s/801s/GWR 802s are only equipped with 'terrible' seats because the DfT specified the interior as part of the Intercity Express Programme (IEP); the GWR 802s only have the same seat design as the 800s for fleet uniformity. Again, the seat is a subjective design, but one that frequently gets panned on here - no need to discuss it further!
And to add to point 6) - there are indeed routes with higher priority for wiring than the MML, as more services will benefit. *cough* Manchester Victoria to Leeds via Huddersfield, in full *cough*.
 
Joined
24 Jun 2014
Messages
432
Location
Derby
Currently there are 4 trains an hour between Leicester and London on the standard pattern. Two of these are non stop (one originating at Nottingham and one at Sheffield), two do stop (again one from Nottingham and one from Sheffield), though not all the stoppers call at every one of the 6 possible EMT-served intermediate stations south of Leicester so some people already have to change.

On the standard pattern, both of the Leicester - London fasts are Sheffield services.
 

AndyW33

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2013
Messages
534
You're right, the fast Nottingham is non-stop from Market Harborough to London, both the Sheffields are non stop from Leicester.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
This is the most idiotic plan I've heard for a while.
1. the 222s do not have enough capacity, so they need replacing anyway
2. It removes important links from Northants to Leicester and beyond.
3. Makes the train service less attractive

Just keep the current timetable, it works well for the most part.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
This is the most idiotic plan I've heard for a while.
1. the 222s do not have enough capacity, so they need replacing anyway
2. It removes important links from Northants to Leicester and beyond.
3. Makes the train service less attractive

Just keep the current timetable, it works well for the most part.

However the current timetable can always be improved either one way or another....
 

flitwickbeds

Member
Joined
19 Apr 2017
Messages
515
Anyway Luton,Bedofrd have the TL service anyway whey do they need a MML service to get them to London maybe only stop service in Bedford heading out of London for stations North.

What about people travelling from Wellingborough (where my family are) to Flitwick (where I am)?
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,476
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
Why only peak?
Assuming the Corby services use the Fast Line platforms (3 & 4), it would (at least initially) be more likely to adversely affect the performance of the intercity services. The HSTs aren't exactly renowned for acceleration in a 2+8 formation.
Of course, Flitwick to Wellingborough may become a more viable passenger flow once the new stock comes on stream - I wouldn't put it past every other Corby train to call at Flitwick at that point.
 

flitwickbeds

Member
Joined
19 Apr 2017
Messages
515
Assuming the Corby services use the Fast Line platforms (3 & 4), it would (at least initially) be more likely to adversely affect the performance of the intercity services. The HSTs aren't exactly renowned for acceleration in a 2+8 formation.
Of course, Flitwick to Wellingborough may become a more viable passenger flow once the new stock comes on stream - I wouldn't put it past every other Corby train to call at Flitwick at that point.
Have I missed something? Why would EMT call at Flitwick?
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
Have I missed something? Why would EMT call at Flitwick?

Indeed, that would be like LNER stopping at St Neots - no point in it when it's served by a frequent GTR service...

In any case, the original idea proposed is unworkable as it wrecks what is at the moment a workable timetable with connections between stations south and north of Bedford and also takes into account infrastructure limitations both current and future.

If anything I can see the existing Corby services calling at St Pancras International, Luton Airport Parkway, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough,
Kettering, Corby which means Luton Airport gets a half hourly non stop service between London and Luton Airport plus the 12tph both directions off peak (there are more services during the peak) that TL operate which I think is plenty.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
What about people travelling from Wellingborough (where my family are) to Flitwick (where I am)?
What about people travelling from Diss to Stourbridge or Llandudno to Dover?

You can't expect a direct service between every pair of stations, but if the timetable is well structured there should be direct journeys on the main flows (hugely dominated by London) and reasonable connections where the main flow doesn't provide a direct service. I would expect the future Corby trains to call at Bedford at least once per hour and Wellingborough every 30min and with multiple trains per hour between Flitwick and Bedford there should be good opportunities.
 

VT 390

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2018
Messages
1,366
I don't see why there can't be some peak hour services calling at certain intermediate stations between Bedford & London...the platforms are there, after all.

Why only peak?

I would have thought that if they were to call there at all (which is unlikely the demand would be there) then the peak time is the worst time to call as the MML services are already busy and you would just get commuters filling up the train when they can use one of the many Thameslink services. IF they were to call there then it should be to pick up northbound and set down southbound only, especially in the peaks, but it would be better to improve connections at Bedford as you could say that all of the Thameslink stations between Bedford and Luton should have EMT calls which would slow them down to much for long distance passengers.
 

flitwickbeds

Member
Joined
19 Apr 2017
Messages
515
I can actually envisage the following in the future:

- Existing Thameslink service from London <> Bedford

- New electrified EMT "suburban" service London <> Luton/Parkway <> Flitwick/Wixams/Bedford South <> Bedford <> Wellingborough <> Kettering <> Corby

- Slightly changed diesel EMT "intercity" service London <> Wellingborough <> Kettering <> Market Harborough <> Leicester and onto destination
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I can actually envisage the following in the future:

- Existing Thameslink service from London <> Bedford

- New electrified EMT "suburban" service London <> Luton/Parkway <> Flitwick/Wixams/Bedford South <> Bedford <> Wellingborough <> Kettering <> Corby

- Slightly changed diesel EMT "intercity" service London <> Wellingborough <> Kettering <> Market Harborough <> Leicester and onto destination
I'd say a stop between Luton and Bedford is unlikely unless - possibly - it's the interchange to East West Rail. There's also no real reason for any of the longer-distance trains to call at either Wellingborough or Bedford as the Corby will stop there. The way the timetable works, with four paths out of St Pancras at 15min intervals two of which are followed by another path 3min after, means it should be fairly easy to provide good connections between the Corby train and the following semi-fast at Kettering in both directions for journeys such as Bedford-Leicester.
 

flitwickbeds

Member
Joined
19 Apr 2017
Messages
515
There's also no real reason for any of the longer-distance trains to call at either Wellingborough or Bedford as the Corby will stop there.
Again, people are considering ONLY London <> Destination.
Under your proposal to get from Flitwick to Market Harborough, just 4 stops apart on the same line, you'd need to use 3 different trains (Flitwick<>Bedford on Thameslink, Bedford<>Kettering on the Corby service, Kettering<>Market Harborough on the long-distance service) or go into London and back out (minimum journey time 90 minutes)
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Again, people are considering ONLY London <> Destination.
Under your proposal to get from Flitwick to Market Harborough, just 4 stops apart on the same line, you'd need to use 3 different trains (Flitwick<>Bedford on Thameslink, Bedford<>Kettering on the Corby service, Kettering<>Market Harborough on the long-distance service) or go into London and back out (minimum journey time 90 minutes)
As I already pointed out, a flow such as Flitwick to Market Harborough is likely to have a tiny number of passengers compared to either place to London, and if the timetable is properly worked out it will provide connections at Bedford and Kettering. Still much better than say Flitwick to Royston or Flitwick to Rugby!

The southbound Bedford call costs a lot of time because the train has to cross from the Fast lines well north of the station and back again well to the south, as well as having to use one of the three east side through platforms which also terminate the Thameslink service. And not surprisingly a lot of people want to use the more comfortable and quicker train to London so semi-fasts that stop there tend to be packed out with Bedford-London passengers (vastly more than the number of people using the same seats between Bedford and the north). A stop on the semi-fasts at Luton Airport Parkway is probably justifiable as a good number of people use it to access the airport from further north, but in my view this is the only worthwhile stop south of Kettering for the bi-modes once the electric Corby service starts. The Corby trains should have plenty of capacity to mop up the Bedford, Wellingborough and Kettering passengers.

With the bi-modes being no faster that 222s and those north of Market Harborough having to put up with diesel operation for the foreseeable future, just about the only benefit of the electrification for people to/from Leicester and further north is the acceleration of the semi-fasts by removing the Bedford and Wellingborough stops. Your proposal would remove even that.
 

flitwickbeds

Member
Joined
19 Apr 2017
Messages
515
As I already pointed out, a flow such as Flitwick to Market Harborough is likely to have a tiny number of passengers compared to either place to London, and if the timetable is properly worked out it will provide connections at Bedford and Kettering.
But it's not *just* Flitwick passengers trying to get north. It would be any station on the northern Thameslink line trying to get further north. Say, St Albans <> Leicester. Under my proposal it would still be 1 change as it is now (St Albans <> Luton/Parkway/Bedford South/Bedford on Thameslink, then Luton/Parkway/Bedford South/Bedford to Leicester on the "intercity" EMT); under yours it would be 3 (St Albans <> Luton/Parkway/Bedford South/Bedford on Thameslink, Luton/Parkway/Bedford South/Bedford <> Kettering on EMT "suburban", then Kettering <> Leicester on EMT "intercity")

I take what you're saying about commuters filling up space on the EMT Luton and Bedford calls, but if you don't provide an easy way to change between networks then less people will use the train for long-distance journeys, as for some the easiest alternative would be a more expensive route into London then back out again, probably on exactly the same train line.

As it stands right now, peak-time travellers needing to connect from Thameslink to East Midlands Trains at Bedford (for a journey from anywhere north of London on Thameslink to anywhere north of Bedford on East Midlands Trains, or the reverse journey) have to take a Thameslink train all the way to Bedford, then get a bus to Wellingborough, where they can then pick up the EMT service - on a train which passed through Luton Airport Parkway, Luton and Bedford anyway en route to Wellingborough.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
But it's not *just* Flitwick passengers trying to get north. It would be any station on the northern Thameslink line trying to get further north. Say, St Albans <> Leicester. Under my proposal it would still be 1 change as it is now (St Albans <> Luton/Parkway/Bedford South/Bedford on Thameslink, then Luton/Parkway/Bedford South/Bedford to Leicester on the "intercity" EMT); under yours it would be 3 (St Albans <> Luton/Parkway/Bedford South/Bedford on Thameslink, Luton/Parkway/Bedford South/Bedford <> Kettering on EMT "suburban", then Kettering <> Leicester on EMT "intercity")
If you read my post again you will note my suggestion that stops for the semi-fasts at Luton Airport Parkway would continue. I've suggested on previous threads that a free double-back there should be allowed for anyone wanting the Luton town station. So all the stations between Kentish Town and Luton would have one change there to get to Market Harborough and beyond. It's only the three stations between Luton and Bedford that would need an extra change. If you make the call at Bedford instead of Parkway then all the stations from Kentish Town to Elstree would need two changes.
I take what you're saying about commuters filling up space on the EMT Luton and Bedford calls, but if you don't provide an easy way to change between networks then less people will use the train for long-distance journeys, as for some the easiest alternative would be a more expensive route into London then back out again, probably on exactly the same train line.
Fewer people will also use the train for long-distance journeys if you make them slower by inserting extra stops, or if the long-distance passengers departing London find all the seats are taken by Bedford commuters.
As it stands right now, peak-time travellers needing to connect from Thameslink to East Midlands Trains at Bedford (for a journey from anywhere north of London on Thameslink to anywhere north of Bedford on East Midlands Trains, or the reverse journey) have to take a Thameslink train all the way to Bedford, then get a bus to Wellingborough, where they can then pick up the EMT service - on a train which passed through Luton Airport Parkway, Luton and Bedford anyway en route to Wellingborough.
Right now is a temporary kludge timetable due to the need to accommodate Thameslink before the completion of Corby electrification. This is unfortunate and could probably have been done better with a bit more time and thought, but will be remedied in a couple of years. And the Luton Airport Parkway stops are still there so the number needing to use the bus is less than you suggest.
 

WideRanger

Member
Joined
15 Jun 2016
Messages
325
Would there be a benefit / potential to introduce a 'stopping' service north from Kettering, up to Leicester, connecting with the Corby trains and allowing other trains to run through non-stop?
 

Corncob

Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
7
Would there be a benefit / potential to introduce a 'stopping' service north from Kettering, up to Leicester, connecting with the Corby trains and allowing other trains to run through non-stop?

That is one Station, Market Harborough. I can't see that happening. The MH commuters would have you strung up.
 

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
Just keep the current timetable, it works well for the most part.
Does it?
Don't trains (for destinations North) leave within 10 mins of each other, then nothing for 40 mins?

I always liked the old timetable of fast services interweaved with slower services, where fast services overtook the slower ones at two points. One was Leicester.
I'm sure the fast Nottingham arrived and met with the slow Derby. Then it happened the other way round, Fast Sheffield met with the slow Nottingham.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
Does it?
Don't trains (for destinations North) leave within 10 mins of each other, then nothing for 40 mins?

I always liked the old timetable of fast services interweaved with slower services, where fast services overtook the slower ones at two points. One was Leicester.
I'm sure the fast Nottingham arrived and met with the slow Derby. Then it happened the other way round, Fast Sheffield met with the slow Nottingham.

Well the previous timetable before the May 2018 was best, but the service pattern is probably the best you can get.

The main problem with the current timetable is the bunching of services, this was more spread out in the 2013- May 2018 timetable
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top