Why don't East Midlands Trains stop at St Albans?

[edwin_m]

I think at the very least a Kettering call should be added on to the Sheffield slow service. Right now it's a joke to transfer onto the slower services on the southern MML from Sheffield, having to change at Leicester onto an ex-Nottingham service then again at Kettering onto EMR connect. This would eliminate one of the changes required to get to Derby/Sheffield.

What's constraining removing one of the Kettering stops from a Nottingham service and adding it to a Sheffield one instead? So Kettering would get 1tph to both Sheffield & Nottingham, rather than 2tph to Nottingham and 0tph to Sheffield.

One factor at least is that the Corby is half-hourly and connects with the Nottingham at Kettering, so stopping a Sheffield instead would result in pretty poor connections. One of the mitigations for the multiple changes is that if a connection is missed at Kettering or Leicester, the wait for the next one is no more than 30min, but this change would sometimes make it longer.

 

[duffield]

I think at the very least a Kettering call should be added on to the Sheffield slow service. Right now it's a joke to transfer onto the slower services on the southern MML from Sheffield, having to change at Leicester onto an ex-Nottingham service then again at Kettering onto EMR connect. This would eliminate one of the changes required to get to Derby/Sheffield.

What's constraining removing one of the Kettering stops from a Nottingham service and adding it to a Sheffield one instead? So Kettering would get 1tph to both Sheffield & Nottingham, rather than 2tph to Nottingham and 0tph to Sheffield.

Northbound, for example, you'd need to swap round the order in which the Nottingham and Sheffield services left St. Pancras as they are only three minutes apart, but if you did that with the typical xx32/xx35 services and each of them picked up each other's stops you'd be using the same two paths all the way to Trent South. After that, the Sheffield service would only be three minutes later into Derby, and I can't see any obvious conflicts there. Maybe the path into Sheffield from Dore is the issue? Platform occupation isn't an issue since it would just sit at Sheffield for 15 rather than 18 minutes.

Or - maybe more likely the issue is that to keep close to existing paths the Sheffield service would lose its Loughborough and East Midlands Parkway stops (the xx02 doesn't stop there so that would leave none). I can see that might be considered unacceptable - no service at all from Derby to Loughborough for example. And keeping those stops *would* seriously mess with the timetable.

I'm pretty sure there are good reasons why the service is as it is (although there might be disagreements about the definition of "good"!).

 

[stevieinselby]

One factor at least is that the Corby is half-hourly and connects with the Nottingham at Kettering, so stopping a Sheffield instead would result in pretty poor connections. One of the mitigations for the multiple changes is that if a connection is missed at Kettering or Leicester, the wait for the next one is no more than 30min, but this change would sometimes make it longer.

When the Auroras enter service, will they have better acceleration and braking than the Meridians, potentially allowing an additional call to be slotted in without making a mess of everything?

 

[Bald Rick]

And my destination was Chesterfield, which required me one more change despite also on the MML, so 5 changes travelling from an MML station on the direct route to another MML station. I can't think of any other main lines in the country having a worse connection between two stations on the same line.

St Albans, Luton, Kettering, Leicester is 4. All EMR services from Leicster to Sheffield call at Chesterfield under normal circumstances.

Putting a call at the end of the commuter belt on intercity trains can cater the needs of suburban travellers, to enable them changing to a local train.

You seem to be repeatedly missing the point that the additional custom on offer by inserting such additional stops (if the timetable could accommodate them, which in this case it can’t) is much smaller than the custom that would be lost by extending journey time for all the people who use the train.

Platform occupation isn't an issue since it would just sit at Sheffield for 15 rather than 18 minutes.

Minimum turnround at Sheffield?

When the Auroras enter service, will they have better acceleration and braking than the Meridians, potentially allowing an additional call to be slotted in without making a mess of everything?

Not enough. Braking is the same.

 

[Haywain]

You seem to be repeatedly missing the point that the additional custom on offer by inserting such additional stops (if the timetable could accommodate them, which in this case it can’t) is much smaller than the custom that would be lost by extending journey time for all the people who use the train.

I think that's a rather broad assumption. A few might be discouraged by a journey taking 5 minutes longer, but I'm not sure it would outweigh the number encouraged to travel by removing a change and making their journey as much as 20 minutes shorter (that being the sort of time involved in the additional change at Leicester in the current timetable).

 

[Bald Rick]

I think that's a rather broad assumption. A few might be discouraged by a journey taking 5 minutes longer, but I'm not sure it would outweigh the number encouraged to travel by removing a change and making their journey as much as 20 minutes shorter (that being the sort of time involved in the additional change at Leicester in the current timetable).

Its necessarily a broad assumption, as it’s a broad subject.

Sorry not sure what happened with the formatting there.

The numbers travelling London - Derby / Sheffield far, far outweigh any numbers from St Albans to those two places, for obvious reasons.

And even if EMR stopped the connect services at St Albans, that wouldnt change the connection time at Leicester.

It very much is the point. An existing user might stick with something they're familiar with. But trying to attract someone from their car by offering three changes is of very little value.

We might be at cross purposes here. My point is changing trains more than once is not the barrier that many people perceive - it’s something that many people do every day, including many infrequent and ‘unfamiliar with the system’ users.

I do agree that three changes is pushing it - albeit in this case it does seem to work well. However in this example the market for the journeys that require three changes (for those where going via London isn’t significantly quicker) is essentially Thameslink stations north of Radlett to Derby and Sheffield. And that really isnt a big market, even if direct trains were to be provided.

 

[Starmill]

We might be at cross purposes here. My point is changing trains more than once is not the barrier that many people perceive - it’s something that many people do every day, including many infrequent and ‘unfamiliar with the system’ users.

I do agree that three changes is pushing it - albeit in this case it does seem to work well. However in this example the market for the journeys that require three changes (for those where going via London isn’t significantly quicker) is essentially Thameslink stations north of Radlett to Derby and Sheffield. And that really isnt a big market, even if direct trains were to be provided.

I agree strongly that it's not in truth the barrier that it's perceived to be. Or maybe more accurately, it certainly needn't be, if the industry made some small, inexpensive changes and communicated with the consumer. In exactly the same way that passenger rail travel is often not as expensive in truth as it's perceived to be.

But at the end of the day, that is how it's perceived by people who don't use it, or barely use it at all, which is most people, and a big majority in a place like South Yorkshire. Complaining about being treated unfairly by the press and the public's perception has thus far achieved absolutely nothing whatsoever. A corporate trying to shift the public perception is a near impossible task, given that consumers are largely wise to attempts at spin. The only ways to handle a perception like that are to either just accept them and do your best business despute them, or to consistently prove them wrong over many years.

The market, as you point out, is tiny. Better to just accept almost nobody will be making this journey by train, and let them make it another way.

 

[43066]

At the time I made the journey, Brent Cross West hadn't opened yet and I used a combination of tickets which would save me more than £10 compared to travelling via London. Tickets via London are usually priced on a premium compared to non-London tickets.

And my destination was Chesterfield, which required me one more change despite also on the MML, so 5 changes travelling from an MML station on the direct route to another MML station. I can't think of any other main lines in the country having a worse connection between two stations on the same line.

To be fair this is down to the decision you’ve made to save a few quid, rather than any fault with timetabling and connections. You could have much more easily and speedily made the journey with only one change, by travelling direct to Chesterfield from St. Pancras.

It’s also unrepresentative of the travelling public; hardly anybody living in Cricklewood would choose such a slow journey with several changes over circling back, and presumably journey planners used by the general public wouldn’t suggest it, so it’s something only an enthusiast is ever going to do.

 

[miklcct]

What's constraining removing one of the Kettering stops from a Nottingham service and adding it to a Sheffield one instead? So Kettering would get 1tph to both Sheffield & Nottingham, rather than 2tph to Nottingham and 0tph to Sheffield.

Having alternative calling patterns is bad for timetabling and resilience. The West Coastway will get away with the outdated practice of having direct trains for all combinations, by running both half-hourly Victoria - Barnham to Portsmouth and both half-hourly Brighton - Barnham to Southampton, although by popular demand a Brighton - Littlehampton - Chichester is sacrificed to keep a Brighton - Portsmouth direct.

St Albans, Luton, Kettering, Leicester is 4. All EMR services from Leicster to Sheffield call at Chesterfield under normal circumstances.

I'm really sorry. I just checked my journey history again and my journey ended at Dronfield, that's why the additional change was needed.

You seem to be repeatedly missing the point that the additional custom on offer by inserting such additional stops (if the timetable could accommodate them, which in this case it can’t) is much smaller than the custom that would be lost by extending journey time for all the people who use the train.

I don't think that adding 10 minutes to a London - Sheffield journey will put people off from the train. Although journey time is one of the reason why people take trains, adding 10 minutes to a 2-hour or more journey is just a minor change, but if we can take away two changes for people boarding at St Albans / Luton Airport Parkway / Luton, many can be attracted onto the train.

To be fair this is down to the decision you’ve made to save a few quid, rather than any fault with timetabling and connections. You could have much more easily and speedily made the journey with only one change, by travelling direct to Chesterfield from St. Pancras.

It’s also unrepresentative of the travelling public; hardly anybody living in Cricklewood would choose such a slow journey with several changes over circling back, and presumably journey planners used by the general public wouldn’t suggest it, so it’s something only an enthusiast is ever going to do.

If I put in St Albans to Sheffield, it will show that the fastest way to make the journey is to make 3 changes on the direct route, which saves 2 minutes (!) compared to a lengthy doubleback via St Pancras. A prospective passenger will likely be scared away and close the booking site, starting to look for alternative travel options. If it becomes just one change at Bedford, it will be much more attractive.

 

[Haywain]

The numbers travelling London - Derby / Sheffield far, gar outweigh any numbers from St Albans to those two places, for obvious reasons.

I'm referring to a stop on the Sheffield service at Bedford, which would be beneficial to many more people than just those at St Albans.

 

[43096]

I'm referring to a stop on the Sheffield service at Bedford, which would be beneficial to many more people than just those at St Albans.

The more pragmatic option would be for a change in what calls at Kettering. Currently it's the two Nottinghams that call for connections with the Corby service; making this one of the Nottinghams and the Sheffield semi-fast would open up a whole load more journeys with fewer changes of train needed.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm referring to a stop on the Sheffield service at Bedford, which would be beneficial to many more people than just those at St Albans.

Fair enough - even so its still not many!

 

[edwin_m]

I'm referring to a stop on the Sheffield service at Bedford, which would be beneficial to many more people than just those at St Albans.

Currently a southbound stop at Bedford costs a lot more time than any other stop on the route, because of the need to cross to and from the slow lines well north and south of the station. This also creates a risk of delays to the service itself or to others, if none of the three possible platforms is available. That might change if Bedford gets the sort of re-modelling EWR is talking about as part of the Cambridge extension, which would also create more reasons for EMR to stop their faster services there. But it's a long way off.

 

[Haywain]

Currently a southbound stop at Bedford costs a lot more time than any other stop on the route, because of the need to cross to and from the slow lines well north and south of the station. This also creates a risk of delays to the service itself or to others, if none of the three possible platforms is available. That might change if Bedford gets the sort of re-modelling EWR is talking about as part of the Cambridge extension, which would also create more reasons for EMR to stop their faster services there. But it's a long way off.

I do appreciate the difficulty of calling at Bedford in the up direction, but even a call at Kettering would be an improvement on the current situation.

Fair enough - even so its still not many!

But with the towns from St Albans to Bedford having a combined population of around half a million people, it has a lot of potential and shouldn't be so easily dismissed.

 

[RT4038]

And my destination was Chesterfield, which required me one more change despite also on the MML, so 5 changes travelling from an MML station on the direct route to another MML station. I can't think of any other main lines in the country having a worse connection between two stations on the same line.

Harringay West to Prestonpans, or Wembley Central to Carluke ?

 

[MCR247]

Currently a southbound stop at Bedford costs a lot more time than any other stop on the route, because of the need to cross to and from the slow lines well north and south of the station. This also creates a risk of delays to the service itself or to others, if none of the three possible platforms is available. That might change if Bedford gets the sort of re-modelling EWR is talking about as part of the Cambridge extension, which would also create more reasons for EMR to stop their faster services there. But it's a long way off.

And northbound, whilst there is a platform, stopping the Sheffield at Bedford would impact the Nottingham which isn’t far behind it

 

[miklcct]

Harringay West to Prestonpans

This journey seems impossible without double backing / using alternative transport - after East Linton there are no more stopping trains to the next station Drem to continue the journey.

Wembley Central to Carluke ?

4 changes over a much longer distance, not as worse as Cricklewood to Dronfield.

 

[miklcct]

And northbound, whilst there is a platform, stopping the Sheffield at Bedford would impact the Nottingham which isn’t far behind it

Then add a Luton Parkway call for the Nottingham service, for an increased "Luton Airport Express" service running every 15 minutes.

 

[Pumbaa]

Northbound, for example, you'd need to swap round the order in which the Nottingham and Sheffield services left St. Pancras as they are only three minutes apart, but if you did that with the typical xx32/xx35 services and each of them picked up each other's stops you'd be using the same two paths all the way to Trent South. After that, the Sheffield service would only be three minutes later into Derby, and I can't see any obvious conflicts there. Maybe the path into Sheffield from Dore is the issue? Platform occupation isn't an issue since it would just sit at Sheffield for 15 rather than 18 minutes.

Or - maybe more likely the issue is that to keep close to existing paths the Sheffield service would lose its Loughborough and East Midlands Parkway stops (the xx02 doesn't stop there so that would leave none). I can see that might be considered unacceptable - no service at all from Derby to Loughborough for example. And keeping those stops *would* seriously mess with the timetable.

I'm pretty sure there are good reasons why the service is as it is (although there might be disagreements about the definition of "good"!).

The concept of a Kettering call was assessed in great detail as part of the MML 6tph LDHS.

Ultimately, the core timetable we have now is the one that generates the most new passenger journeys, delivers the greatest commercial return and is, in my view, therefore the most optimum to the railway and wider society at large.

Any timetable is a trade off ultimately. Add a Kettering call in one of the Sheffields, knacker your slot at Dore and you’ve now got 1 effective tph to Sheffield.

Both Sheffield and Nottingham are similar size markets but with very different characteristics - Sheffield with years of incremental business and point to point growth is sensitive to journey time, and gains are easily lost if you slow trains down. Nottingham has a much broader customer base, and gains are far more easily made increasing connectivity to the wider region.

Put that together, plus power constraints at Corby before KO1a online, and you have yourself the timetable you see today.

When the Auroras enter service, will they have better acceleration and braking than the Meridians, potentially allowing an additional call to be slotted in without making a mess of everything?

No. It’s different but not helpfully so. As BR alludes above, there are some areas where 30s could be shaved off, but core timetable interactions prevent those incremental savings being banked (ie other trains get in the way).

Notably there are places where the 810s will be deficient, such as the Leicester - Trent corridor on all stops service under diesel mode compared to a 222. That can largely be accommodated though with 30s nabbed here and there to make it still work.

 

[Bald Rick]

But with the towns from St Albans to Bedford having a combined population of around half a million people, it has a lot of potential and shouldn't be so easily dismissed.

The London Metropolitan area has a combined population of around 15 million, ie 30 times as much.

 

[43066]

If I put in St Albans to Sheffield, it will show that the fastest way to make the journey is to make 3 changes on the direct route, which saves 2 minutes (!) compared to a lengthy doubleback via St Pancras.

But St Albans is further north and for the journey you made from Cricklewood, which I thought we were discussing, National Rail Enquiries clearly shows it’s quicker to circulate via London!

 

[edwin_m]

Both Sheffield and Nottingham are similar size markets but with very different characteristics - Sheffield with years of incremental business and point to point growth is sensitive to journey time, and gains are easily lost if you slow trains down. Nottingham has a much broader customer base, and gains are far more easily made increasing connectivity to the wider region.

Interesting you imply Nottingham is not sensitive to journey time. Many Nottingham-London passengers currently drive to Grantham for the quicker journey, and even the train with a change at Grantham isn't much longer than the time via Leicester. Does this mean that time-sensitive travellers are off the route already and a variation of plus or minus few minutes won't make much difference?

 

[dosxuk]

When the Auroras enter service, will they have better acceleration and braking than the Meridians, potentially allowing an additional call to be slotted in without making a mess of everything?

Remember the 810's are specified to match the existing timings in diesel mode - while there may be improvements available when they eventually get to run the whole route on electric, just matching the existing 222's seems to have been a stretch for Hitachi so I wouldn't expect there to be any usable improvements available.

I don't think that adding 10 minutes to a London - Sheffield journey will put people off from the train. Although journey time is one of the reason why people take trains, adding 10 minutes to a 2-hour or more journey is just a minor change, but if we can take away two changes for people boarding at St Albans / Luton Airport Parkway / Luton, many can be attracted onto the train

While that extra 10 minutes might not put people off using the train, it will put them off using the MML - they'll switch to using the ECML via Doncaster / Retford - it currently only takes 10 minutes longer than the slow direct train (including time to change trains), and is often cheaper. Much more chance of a seat going that way too... None of which is good for ECML capacity or EMR's finances.

 

[43066]

While that extra 10 minutes might not put people off using the train, it will put them off using the MML - they'll switch to using the ECML via Doncaster / Retford - it currently only takes 10 minutes longer than the slow direct train (including time to change trains), and is often cheaper. Much more chance of a seat going that way too... None of which is good for ECML capacity or EMR's finances.

Plenty of people use the EMR option - hence the issues getting seat! Until the new fleet arrives it’s a good thing that people use the ECML option (both from Sheffield and Nottingham).

The catchment area to the east of Sheffield generally doesn’t use either option and (supposedly) contains a fair bit of pent up demand for a direct service, hence why there’s a new open access operation planned to run from Kings + to Sheffield via Woodhouse.

 

[miklcct]

While that extra 10 minutes might not put people off using the train, it will put them off using the MML - they'll switch to using the ECML via Doncaster / Retford - it currently only takes 10 minutes longer than the slow direct train (including time to change trains), and is often cheaper. Much more chance of a seat going that way too... None of which is good for ECML capacity or EMR's finances.

Maybe just send these passengers to the ECML then for the greater good of reducing motorway traffic from St Alban's / Luton.

And require all open access operators to run longer train sets on the ECML as well. Having a 5-coach Lumo on the line is a massive waste of capacity.

 

[baz962]

But the St Albans is further north and for the journey you made from Cricklewood, which I thought we were discussing, National Rail Enquiries clearly shows it’s quicker to circulate via London!

You know I have generally just kept an eye on this thread but not commented.
I wish people would stop wishing more stops on us poor drivers .
I would however reluctantly accept the ic calling at Bedford , but only going North.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would however reluctantly accept the ic calling at Bedford , but only going North.

Calling in one direction doesn't make a lot of sense. Would be handy to do the necessary work at Bedford to give it an up fast platform then that would be a sensible connectional point. You don't need everything calling just as you don't have at Milton Keynes Central, but there's significant potential custom around the Home Counties (to and from) that the present approach throws away.

 

[ChrisC]

Would it be a possible compromise to stop the EMR Connect Corby services at St. Albans? Are there any reasons why these trains couldn’t depart 2 or 3 minutes earlier from St. Pancras to include a St Albans stop and then regain their current timings from there northwards. This would then remove the need for one of the changes of train to destinations further north without disrupting the current fairly successful inter city timetable and calling patterns.

 

[baz962]

Calling in one direction doesn't make a lot of sense. Would be handy to do the necessary work at Bedford to give it an up fast platform then that would be a sensible connectional point. You don't need everything calling just as you don't have at Milton Keynes Central, but there's significant potential custom around the Home Counties (to and from) that the present approach throws away.

Well I was just being mischievous.
Apart from having a fast platform northbound but not southbound , it absolutely had nothing to do with me living near Bedford

 

[BrianW]

The concept of a Kettering call was assessed in great detail as part of the MML 6tph LDHS.

Ultimately, the core timetable we have now is the one that generates the most new passenger journeys, delivers the greatest commercial return and is, in my view, therefore the most optimum to the railway and wider society at large.

Any timetable is a trade off ultimately. Add a Kettering call in one of the Sheffields, knacker your slot at Dore and you’ve now got 1 effective tph to Sheffield.

Both Sheffield and Nottingham are similar size markets but with very different characteristics - Sheffield with years of incremental business and point to point growth is sensitive to journey time, and gains are easily lost if you slow trains down. Nottingham has a much broader customer base, and gains are far more easily made increasing connectivity to the wider region.

Put that together, plus power constraints at Corby before KO1a online, and you have yourself the timetable you see today.



No. It’s different but not helpfully so. As BR alludes above, there are some areas where 30s could be shaved off, but core timetable interactions prevent those incremental savings being banked (ie other trains get in the way).

Notably there are places where the 810s will be deficient, such as the Leicester - Trent corridor on all stops service under diesel mode compared to a 222. That can largely be accommodated though with 30s nabbed here and there to make it still work.

Thank you for this. I don't envy the timetable planners, seeking to balance conflicting calls for more calls and connections, faster services, more seats, cheaper fares, more trains, greater reliability; and the calls for more capital spending for more and longer platforms, trains, stations and cuts ....
Everyone wants what they want!
'Googling' (other search engines available) on <LDHS> took me to 'Layered Double Hydroxides'

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4352/12/4/490​