Suggestions for improving MML services

[21C101]

Moderator note: Split from

MML Electrification updates

I imagine that wiring North of Glendon Junction will be planned for completion after the introduction of the Midland Bi-modes and will depend on the long-lead item of Braybrooke GSP/Feeder Station. This will need cutting into a NG 400kV overhead line and one or two (large) SGT's (supergrid...

www.railforums.co.uk

Good to know, makes MH turnbacks from the south much more viable.

Possibpe thing might be to divide the Corby trains at Kettering with MH/Corby portions, then the "semifast" intercities could run fast from MH and call at Luton Airport instead of Kettering.

Would be more logical if they were St Pancras to Leicester services with a Corby portion that split off at Kettering, leaving the semifast intercities to all run fast from Luton Airport to Leicester.

That needs a few more miles of wiring though.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Good to know, makes MH turnbacks from the south much more viable.

Probably the reason why it's being used more now when there's engineering work is (at a guess) less to do with rolling stock or the relocated crossing, and as more to do with the fact that since its rebuild, MH offers
- modern levels of accessibility, step-free access from bus to train
- spaces for buses to wait by the new car park
- shorter journey times down the A6 to Kettering, Wellingborough and Bedford, reduces number of buses to hire and end-end journey times

The choice of whether to use 360 vs 810s for this will depend on what is going on in terms of diversions etc.

Possibpe thing might be to divide the Corby trains at Kettering with MH/Corby portions.

Would be more logical if they were St Pancras to Leicester services with a Corby portion that split off at Kettering, leaving the intercities to all run fast to Leicester.

Extending journey times from MH to STP from about 1h (new timetable) to >1h20 to split/join with the all-shacks Corby stopper doesn't seem like kind of customer centric thinking we need to get people using the trains again in a post-Covid world.

Sorry... sarcasm, however given the 'putting customers first' mantra that Network Rail have adopted in CP6, the industry really shouldn't fall into the trap of doing what might look operationally convenient, and expect passengers to accept it.

That being said, having services split/join at Kettering, and trains crossing/reversing on the two-line section at Harborough looks pretty operationally inconvenient to me... would make the timetable much more fragile.

If there was any semblance of a business case for turning services at MH in a regular timetabled way, then NR would surely have installed a turnback siding between up & down tracks North of the station, where there is no shortage of space.

 

[21C101]

Probably the reason why it's being used more now when there's engineering work is (at a guess) less to do with rolling stock or the relocated crossing, and as more to do with the fact that since its rebuild, MH offers
- modern levels of accessibility, step-free access from bus to train
- spaces for buses to wait by the new car park
- shorter journey times down the A6 to Kettering, Wellingborough and Bedford, reduces number of buses to hire and end-end journey times

The choice of whether to use 360 vs 810s for this will depend on what is going on in terms of diversions etc.



Extending journey times from MH to STP from about 1h (new timetable) to >1h20 to split/join with the all-shacks Corby stopper doesn't seem like kind of customer centric thinking we need to get people using the trains again in a post-Covid world.

Sorry... sarcasm, however given the 'putting customers first' mantra that Network Rail have adopted in CP6, the industry really shouldn't fall into the trap of doing what might look operationally convenient, and expect passengers to accept it.

That being said, having services split/join at Kettering, and trains crossing/reversing on the two-line section at Harborough looks pretty operationally inconvenient to me... would make the timetable much more fragile.

If there was any semblance of a business case for turning services at MH in a regular timetabled way, then NR would surely have installed a turnback siding between up & down tracks North of the station, where there is no shortage of space.

It will make more sense when the wires reach leicester.

At which point all the intercities can run fast south of Leicester and places like Bedford would get direct trains to leicester.

Another option would be to run one an hour from St Pan to Corby and an hour "all stations" to leicester.

Market Harborough dosent justify offpeak stops on the intercities, it only gets them as that, currently, is what suits operational convenience.

 

[cle]

I agree. I could see a semi-fast electric to Leicester and the same to Corby, both hourly.

If Corby needed a second service, it could be a slow Thameslink extension - or a EWR/Marston - or just a shuttle to Kettering. But I suspect one good hourly service would do nicely.

Market Harborough could also have a fast call, offpeak up for debate as I don't know the market too well. I don't think all 4tph would need to run non-stop to Leicester. If anything, a Bedford call would be a good longer term aim for EWR connectivity.

 

[A0wen]

For a line block between MH and Leicester it makes sense to put the Corby stops into the bi-modes running via Harringworth, and run EMUs from St Pancras to MH instead.

It doesn't - because you'll end up with the worst of all worlds - Harringworth adds a *huge* time penalty - the current timetable shows that, the 16.40 from East Mids Parkway via Oakham gets to Kettering at 17.58 whereas the 16.45 going via Leicester gets to Kettering at 17.23, you've then got to interwork any such services among the regular traffic between Manton Junction and Syston Junction - and between Corby and Manton Junc.

Whilst RRB's aren't always popular - a coach between Kettering and Leicester should be able to cover that in an hour - and will cause far less disruption overall.

 

[Brissle Girl]

It doesn't - because you'll end up with the worst of all worlds - Harringworth adds a *huge* time penalty - the current timetable shows that, the 16.40 from East Mids Parkway via Oakham gets to Kettering at 17.58 whereas the 16.45 going via Leicester gets to Kettering at 17.23, you've then got to interwork any such services among the regular traffic between Manton Junction and Syston Junction - and between Corby and Manton Junc.

Whilst RRB's aren't always popular - a coach between Kettering and Leicester should be able to cover that in an hour - and will cause far less disruption overall.

Is your hour allowing for time for everyone in the train to offload, queue for lifts where needed, get shown to the bus, board etc. And then the same at the other end. I'd imagine you'd allow around 10-15 mins at each end, and then some additional margin for traffic delays so the bus doesn't delay the train at the other end.

You've soon eroded much of the time benefit, to the extent that most passengers would just prefer to stay on board in the warm, especially those with any element of mobility impairment.

 

[paul1609]

For a line block between MH and Leicester it makes sense to put the Corby stops into the bi-modes running via Harringworth, and run EMUs from St Pancras to MH instead.

It would make more sense especially with the reduction in commuting to hand Corby over Thameslink permantly.

 

[A0wen]

It would make more sense especially with the reduction in commuting to hand Corby over Thameslink permantly.

Not with the fares being charged from Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby it wouldn't. It's been done to death on these forums, but you only need to compare Wellingborough or Kettering with Northampton or St Neots / Huntingdon to see that - indeed it's *far* cheaper for a Travelcard to buy a return from Wellingborough to Bedford and buy a Bedford travelcard than it is to buy the Wellingborough one (I've done it myself, several times).

Add in you'd almost certainly end up interworking it by extending some Bedford services and that would lead to extended journey times from beyond Bedford.

 

[cle]

Not with the fares being charged from Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby it wouldn't. It's been done to death on these forums, but you only need to compare Wellingborough or Kettering with Northampton or St Neots / Huntingdon to see that - indeed it's *far* cheaper for a Travelcard to buy a return from Wellingborough to Bedford and buy a Bedford travelcard than it is to buy the Wellingborough one (I've done it myself, several times).

Add in you'd almost certainly end up interworking it by extending some Bedford services and that would lead to extended journey times from beyond Bedford.

Wouldn't you fold in the Corby paths to Thameslink instead - so no additional calls south of Bedford, just the same new outer pattern at 2tph.

Send them to somewhere (at 12 cars, not 8) using the unused Maidstone core frequencies. Reigate sounds like it's approaching, which isn't too far out of London.

Bedford would still have the regular 4tph. Fares at Wellingborough and Corby would have to come down. Kettering may have two sets.

 

[A0wen]

Wouldn't you fold in the Corby paths to Thameslink instead - so no additional calls south of Bedford, just the same new outer pattern at 2tph.

Send them to somewhere (at 12 cars, not 8) using the unused Maidstone core frequencies. Reigate sounds like it's approaching, which isn't too far out of London.

Bedford would still have the regular 4tph. Fares at Wellingborough and Corby would have to come down. Kettering may have two sets.

You'd need a bunch of 700s to cover those extra diagrams - where would you propose they come from ? And if anything sneezed in the core, you'd be extending the effects beyond Bedford. At least at present the effects beyond Bedford of problems in the core are minimised.

And as for fare price reductions - you really think that's going to happen ?

 

[flitwickbeds]

At least at present the effects beyond Bedford of problems in the core are minimised.

Minimised to "just" Bedford, Luton, St Albans, Brighton, Littlehampton, Sutton, Rainham, Peterborough, Cambridge, Orpington, Sevenoaks, Horsham, and Gatwick Airport? (Plus potentially Maidstone in the future)

I don't like the idea of "everywhere to everywhere" as per the current Thameslink routes, but if it's here to stay anyway then adding Corby via Kettering makes no odds.

 

[A0wen]

Minimised to "just" Bedford, Luton, St Albans, Brighton, Littlehampton, Sutton, Rainham, Peterborough, Cambridge, Orpington, Sevenoaks, Horsham, and Gatwick Airport? (Plus potentially Maidstone in the future)

I don't like the idea of "everywhere to everywhere" as per the current Thameslink routes, but if it's here to stay anyway then adding Corby via Kettering makes no odds.

Well, no. Because it then means they might start tripping up the EMR express services so basically the main East Mids services. Either way, it's not going to happen and would need stock that isn't available.

 

[flitwickbeds]

Well, no. Because it then means they might start tripping up the EMR express services so basically the main East Mids services. Either way, it's not going to happen and would need stock that isn't available.

Just like it trips up the Gatwick Express, East Coast Mainline, Brighton mainline and Southeastern network (and, of course, the Midland Mainline) services now?

 

[paul1609]

Well, no. Because it then means they might start tripping up the EMR express services so basically the main East Mids services. Either way, it's not going to happen and would need stock that isn't available.

EMR regional expresses shouldnt have priority on the Thameslink Main Lines anymore if Corby was brought in to Thameslink they could be turned back at Kettering in times of disruption.

 

[MissPWay]

Excited for this forums vision for 2040 and catching the Thameslink from Carlisle to Brighton...

 

[flitwickbeds]

EMR regional expresses shouldnt have priority on the Thameslink Main Lines anymore if Corby was brought in to Thameslink they could be turned back at Kettering in times of disruption.

Or anywhere else along the route, or made skip-stop to catch up time.

Excited for this forums vision for 2040 and catching the Thameslink from Carlisle to Brighton...

Ha!

As I said above, I hate the "everywhere to everywhere" approach of Thameslink. But, if it's here to stay anyway and with the upcoming changes to Wellingborough/Kettering service patterns, AND with a long term eye on changes caused by EWR coming to Bedford, it makes a lot of sense to extend Thameslink to Corby.

 

[paul1609]

Excited for this forums vision for 2040 and catching the Thameslink from Carlisle to Brighton...

Corby is hardly Carlisle, its less than 3 miles further from St Pancras than Peterborough.

 

[zwk500]

Just like it trips up the Gatwick Express, East Coast Mainline, Brighton mainline and Southeastern network (and, of course, the Midland Mainline) services now?

The BML regularly falls down if TL has problems, and ECML long-distance trains get regulated in front of TL in the event of delay.

Corby is hardly Carlisle, its less than 3 miles further from St Pancras than Peterborough.

The only route from St P to Peterbrough is via Leicester, so I think it might be more than 3 miles further (I'm aware you mean 'than P'bro is from KX'). The Peterborough service starts from Horsham, so you'd need to start a Corby service from Reigate/Redhill but there's no platform turnround capacity for that (Reigate platform is for Southern terminators). It's also worth pointing out that every TL terminus offers interchange for further journeys, Corby does not.

 

[21C101]

Well, no. Because it then means they might start tripping up the EMR express services so basically the main East Mids services. Either way, it's not going to happen and would need stock that isn't available.

Doubt it. Any Thameslink going north of Bedford would be on the slows, with EMR on the fasts.


Yes stock is an issue theoretically, but given that the full 24 an hour service is likely never going to happen and existing services may be cut in May to match post Corona service levels you could switch the 360s to the "Thameslink" services that start at Kings Cross and would have plenty of stock.

Two an hour St Albans, Luton, Luton A, Bedford, Wellibgborough, Kettering, with one to Market Harborough

Plus the Brighton to Bedfords extended one an hour to each of Corby and Market Harborough.

With the Market Harborough trains extended to Leicester once the wires are up.

 

[Verulamius]

The BML regularly falls down if TL has problems, and ECML long-distance trains get regulated in front of TL in the event of delay.

The only route from St P to Peterbrough is via Leicester, so I think it might be more than 3 miles further (I'm aware you mean 'than P'bro is from KX'). The Peterborough service starts from Horsham, so you'd need to start a Corby service from Reigate/Redhill but there's no platform turnround capacity for that (Reigate platform is for Southern terminators). It's also worth pointing out that every TL terminus offers interchange for further journeys, Corby does not.

I think that you have missed the connection between St P Thameslink platforms to the ECML - so there is a direct route from St P to Peterborough!

According to RTT Peterborough is 76:23 (Miles:Chains) from StP whilst Corby is 79:28, so just over 3 miles further.

 

[zwk500]

I think that you have missed the connection between St P Thameslink platforms to the ECML - so there is a direct route from St P to Peterborough!

According to RTT Peterborough is 76:23 (Miles:Chains) from StP whilst Corby is 79:28, so just over 3 miles further.

Fair enough! I still think of St P MML and St P TL as separate stations to trains, my oversight

 

[A0wen]

Doubt it. Any Thameslink going north of Bedford would be on the slows, with EMR on the fasts.


Yes stock is an issue theoretically, but given that the full 24 an hour service is likely never going to happen and existing services may be cut in May to match post Corona service levels you could switch the 360s to the "Thameslink" services that start at Kings Cross and would have plenty of stock.

Two an hour St Albans, Luton, Luton A, Bedford, Wellibgborough, Kettering, with one to Market Harborough

Plus the Brighton to Bedfords extended one an hour to each of Corby and Market Harborough.

With the Market Harborough trains extended to Leicester once the wires are up.

None of the above will happen.

And why do you think that Thameslink would (a) want to give up their new services on the GN lines and (b) take on the 360s - given there are only 21 of the 360s, whereas even FCC needed 57 x 4 car units for the old outer suburban timetable (317, 321 and 365).

 

[edwin_m]

Doubt it. Any Thameslink going north of Bedford would be on the slows, with EMR on the fasts.

The EMR Corby service is planned to use the Fasts south of Wellingborough, being overtaken by another EMR between Wellingborough and Kettering.

This means if it is slightly delayed northbound it's probably going to be switched onto the Down Slow at Sharnbrook or even Bedford, with a longer journey time especially if stuck behind a freight. If the resulting delay can't be absorbed in the turnaround at Corby, then running out of path southwards will affect numerous other trains. So there is a significant risk of Corby trains being very un-punctual or frequently turned back short.

A Class 700 with a 100mph maximum speed might end up having to be timetabled on the Slows south of Wellinborough in normal operation.

 

[A0wen]

Excited for this forums vision for 2040 and catching the Thameslink from Carlisle to Brighton...

Absolutely - run with 700s via the Settle and Carlisle - can hardly wait

[This forum SO needs a 'like' button]

 

[cle]

The 700s should probably come from Rainham. A wasteful trundle at stupid speeds, which SE have stock for. If not, then hand Sutton over to Southern. Both are well-trodden topics, but correct.

If you look at the Tokyo network, and it's through running from the likes of Atami to Utsonomiya - via both Tokyo and Shinjuku - their equivalent to a Thameslink network is even more expansive. Let alone where they take it through the subway lines!

Corby and the MML as a whole is a lot more simplified and self-contained than adding South Eastern routes, for example - and those moves at London Bridge. It's an extension on the core route, vs bringing in the risks of a whole new 'region' or network. So I think that is slightly shrill.

 

[paul1609]

I think that you have missed the connection between St P Thameslink platforms to the ECML - so there is a direct route from St P to Peterborough!

According to RTT Peterborough is 76:23 (Miles:Chains) from StP whilst Corby is 79:28, so just over 3 miles further.

Indeed and Peterborough really provides the answer to the MML fares. Give the Corby service to Thameslink. Any Permited (EMR) fares stay the same, Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby also get Thameslink Only fares pro-rata to the Peterborough ones. These three stations only have a footfall of around 2.2 million in total not a huge amount in the Thameslink scheme of things.
Once HS2 is open WCML fares follow the precedent in Kent where all fares increased by 5% over inflation for 5 years to pay for HS1. Northampton Fares would then increase by25 plus inflation over 5 years.

 

[InTheEastMids]

None of the above will happen.

And why do you think that Thameslink would (a) want to give up their new services on the GN lines and (b) take on the 360s - given there are only 21 of the 360s, whereas even FCC needed 57 x 4 car units for the old outer suburban timetable (317, 321 and 365).

<Like Button Pressed>

There are Speculative Ideas that keep emerging in MML threads, which appear to be articles of faith for some on here:

- Thameslink Cl700s must be extended to Corby instead of EMR Cl360 services (sometimes as well as)
- At least 1 MML tph to Leicester must be a semi-fast to facilitate journeys from places like Bedford and St Albans to the North
- Market Harborough does not merit the service that it gets

In general, these options lead to one or more of:

1. Worse outcomes for a significant group of passengers
2. Increased operational complexity and/or timetable fragility
3. Changed/increased utilisation of fleets that (at least pre-Covid) were set up for a specific demand and service spec
4. Need for infrastructure that is yet to be delivered (and in some cases isn't yet being seriously talked about)

Crayonistas with timetables.

It can be fun sometimes, I'm guilty of it on occasions.

However, it also ends up feeling like Whack-a-mole.

An idea like the 3 above is proposed.
A user like AOwen Whacks it with his mallet of reality.
Weeks or months later, it reappears, with rarely any attempt to address the issues that were pointed out
Whack!
The cycle continues.

The new EMR timetable may not be perfect, but has been based on actual ticketing sales, surveys and a consultation.
It is very clear on the problems it is trying to solve.
It prioritises serving London ahead of other journeys like St Albans to Derby.
People might not like that choice and it may be proven wrong, but that is what has been chosen.

Perhaps experience of the May 21 timetable or a post-Covid world will require more changes.
Relevant infrastructure developments (Electrification, Leicester Capacity, Midlands Connect, EWR) could be based on, or allow change.
If/When HS2 Ph2b is delivered, then of course we should completely rethink what the MML is for.

But how and what to change is a Speculative Idea.
If only there was a forum for that type of thing...

 

[Hadders]

Indeed and Peterborough really provides the answer to the MML fares. Give the Corby service to Thameslink. Any Permited (EMR) fares stay the same, Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby also get Thameslink Only fares pro-rata to the Peterborough ones. These three stations only have a footfall of around 2.2 million in total not a huge amount in the Thameslink scheme of things.
Once HS2 is open WCML fares follow the precedent in Kent where all fares increased by 5% over inflation for 5 years to pay for HS1. Northampton Fares would then increase by25 plus inflation over 5 years.

I don't think increasing Northampton to the extend you propose is feasible. £64.10 for an Anytime Day Return isn't exactly a good value fare.

 

[b0b]

Absolutely - run with 700s via the Settle and Carlisle - can hardly wait

[This forum SO needs a 'like' button]

Thameslink should bring back the Thames-Clyde Express!

 

[A0wen]

Thameslink should bring back the Thames-Clyde Express!

Perhaps it could be re-named the 'Thameslink-Clyde Express'...... [gets coat...]