Harborough Rail Users Response to the draft East Midlands Route Utilisation Strategy November 2009 Introduction This document has been prepared in response to Network Rail’s invitation to comment on the draft East Midlands RUS. It sets out comments from the Harborough Rail Users group. By way of introduction, Harborough Rail Users (HRU) is an independent voluntary rail user group that seeks to represent the interests of all users of Market Harborough station. Though commuters from Market Harborough to London are the most significant single group within HRU’s remit, we endeavour to promote the interests of all users of the station, irrespective of destination, purpose of journey or frequency of travel. The comments that follow are presented in that context. They consider briefly the generalities of the RUS and its scope and then focus on the needs of rail users travelling to or from Market Harborough. General Comments Overall, we welcome the positive tone of the draft RUS. The recurring theme is of growth and how best to accommodate forecast future trends. Though the draft RUS recognises the reality of the current economic recession, it is pleasing that this is treated as something that may delay rather than prevent proposed enhancements in rail infrastructure. It is also apparent from the document that much analysis and thought has gone into identifying present traffic patterns and pressures and cost-effective ways of addressing them. On the other hand, the RUS essentially confines itself to the existing rail network. Apart from a reference under the 30-year vision to a new northsouth high-speed line, there is virtually no mention of expansion beyond the current network. Though of limited relevance to Market Harborough, it is a pity that the potential for reopening the Leicester to Burton-on-Trent line for passengers, for example, is not explored. Similarly, a reopened east-west route between Oxford and Cambridge via Bedford would fill a major gap in the rail network and be of potentially significant benefit to East Midlands rail users. We accept, however, that this may be covered in other RUS areas. Specific to Market Harborough It is chiefly HRU’s purpose to refer to the aspirations for users of Market Harborough station. Though listed as bullet-points below, most of the items below are inter-linked and should be read in conjunction with each other. •

Line-speed improvements We note the intentions in CP4 to improve journey times on the Midland Main Line (MML) between St Pancras and Sheffield. As the MML is relatively slow compared with the East and West Coast main lines, this improvement is welcomed. It is acknowledged that Market Harborough enjoys relatively fast journeys to and from London, chiefly by virtue of the regular non-stop trains. However, peak journeys to and from London are currently slower, partly because some trains are looped to allow faster

Harborough Rail Users Group.doc

Page 1 of 5

Harborough Rail Users Response to the draft East Midlands Route Utilisation Strategy November 2009 services to overtake. There are also gaps in the evening peak departure pattern from London to Market Harborough. We look forward to line-speed and capacity improvements enabling peak journeys to and from London to be accelerated, reinstated and more regularly spaced (and recognise that in the short term the recent reinstatement of a third track between Kettering South Junction and Harrowden Junction should allow some improvement). In addition, in recent timetable consultations, HRU has noted the deterioration in direct peak services between Market Harborough and Bedford. This adversely affects a number of people who commute from Market Harborough to Bedford, especially the evening peak return journey. We have called for improvements but recognise that pathing makes additional stops difficult. The line-speed improvement provides an obvious potential solution and we reiterate our support for it. Connected with this is the long-proposed realignment through Market Harborough. This may already be provisionally scheduled for completion during the earlier part of the period covered in the draft RUS but it is worth noting here that we look forward to this scheme as it gives the opportunity to bring about much needed improvements to the station at platform level. The combination of the short southbound platform, the large gap between each platform and the trains on account of the curved alignment and the lack of step-free access to the southbound platform is of concern to HRU. The realignment gives the opportunity to address all of this. We therefore trust that the opportunity will be taken to rebuild the platforms on a straight alignment, as has been anticipated for over 30 years, with full length, full height and fully accessible platforms on both sides. Though the main station building is an architectural gem and deserving of careful preservation, there is nothing of any such merit at track or platform level, especially given the paucity of canopies and shelters. We fear that if this rebuilding is not done by the end of the period covered by RUS, or is only done in part, the opportunity could be lost for many years to come. In the meantime, we trust that the station will not suffer from planning blight and will be maintained in at least a satisfactory condition, though we acknowledge that this is as much a matter for EMT as operator as it is for Network Rail. HRU has made previous representations in support of the remodelling and enhancement at Nottingham station and approaches. Though not local to Market Harborough, most of our trains travel to or from Nottingham so the infrastructure there has much relevance to the reliability of trains at Market Harborough. We therefore welcome the Nottingham improvements. •

Timetable and capacity improvements Closely linked to the above is the opportunity for timetable improvements. In our regular liaison with the train operating company (TOC), we have regularly called for later evening trains particularly

Harborough Rail Users Group.doc

Page 2 of 5

Harborough Rail Users Response to the draft East Midlands Route Utilisation Strategy November 2009 southbound during the week and back from London on Saturdays. The ‘seven-day railway’ would be a major step forward and the proposals to improve the main line south of Bedford and at St Pancras are welcomed. In addition, we welcome enhancements aimed at reducing reactionary delays caused by freight, Thameslink (as we all continue to call it!) and long-distance high-speed (LDHS) services to each other. In particular, we support the options for reinstating track between Bedford and Kettering and Corby. In principle, we support the intention to provide for longer, heavier and faster freight trains on the MML. We note the suggestion of a freight loop between Leicester and Kettering and would support this in principle on the grounds of improving the reliability of the passenger service. We await developments on where this loop might be. As the draft RUS acknowledges, there is some overcrowding on LDHS services, especially south of Bedford. The lengthening of trains to 11 cars is supported though this adds impetus to the comments above about the platforms at Market Harborough despite the use of selective door opening. Electrification of the MML has long been considered desirable. Prompted no doubt by concerns about climate change, there is evidence of greater support for electrification on the part of the DfT. It is interesting to see electrification mentioned at Option 1.4 in the draft RUS, in the context of possible new rolling stock for the MML under the Inter-City Express Programme (IEP). However, we feel that electrification should be more strongly presented as the primary means of developing the main line. In addition, we are aware that IEP is politically contentious. Whether or not it goes ahead is beyond HRU’s remit but we feel that were Option 1.4 to be progressed, it should be as part of a scheme of electrification. However, we would hope that the higher capacity referred to would not be at the expense of passenger comfort and luggage space. There is mention of increased freight traffic, both on the MML and on the East – West axis between Peterborough and Nuneaton via Leicester. In the latter case, the past reductions in track provision between Syston and Wigston junctions are a constraint and even now northbound EMT services are often held at Wigston North Junction awaiting paths to Leicester. We would therefore want to see improvements on this busy section involving either or both additional track capacity and gradeseparation. •

We note the comments about the Milton Keynes South Midlands development sub-region. Though Market Harborough is just outside this area, nearby Kettering and Corby are within it and we are aware of concerns about northbound connectivity especially from Kettering station. We would support improvements to this and note that the proposed solution, via an additional stop on the Derby (Sheffield) semi-fast trains, would provide the improvement without directly affecting Market Harborough. Providing a fast service between Kettering and London in this way potentially also reduces crowding for those using Market Harborough station. Furthermore, we note that any time delay added to

Harborough Rail Users Group.doc

Page 3 of 5

Harborough Rail Users Response to the draft East Midlands Route Utilisation Strategy November 2009 these services by the Kettering stop should be offset by line-speed improvements. •

Reference is made in the RUS to car parking provision at stations and we note further research work to be undertaken in conjunction with Passenger Focus. Car parking has in the past been a constraint at Market Harborough though the station car park was significantly expanded at the start of the East Midlands Trains franchise. This and, presumably, the recession mean that car parking capacity is usually more than adequate at present. However, we anticipate that growth will resume and welcome moves to increase car parking at railway stations generally. Though not part of the RUS, it is worthy of comment that road access at Market Harborough station is awkward and we would respectfully call upon Network Rail to work with the local authorities and others to bring about improvements. In saying this, we recognise that there are various other factors to consider, including land use and planning and, of course, funding.

•

Connectivity. Market Harborough enjoys a very high standard of service on the direct line of route and most of its passengers can make straightforward journeys particularly to London and Leicester. However, there is a wide range of usage to destinations off the main line and the improved connectivity via the low-level Thameslink platforms at St Pancras is a great improvement. The comments in the draft RUS about connectivity are important and we feel that connections north of Market Harborough could be improved. In particular: o The east – west Cross-Country service between Birmingham and Stansted Airport. We would welcome the suggested improvements on this corridor and better connections at Leicester. Though we do not have up-to-date figures, it is likely that few journeys are made to Stansted from Market Harborough, given that the rail journey via Leicester is such a long way round. Birmingham, however, is an important destination and the route from Leicester offers great potential for development. o Travel to the north-west, especially Manchester. We note with disappointment that there is not seen to be a case for through services between the East Midlands (south of Nottingham) and Manchester. We therefore look instead to an improved Norwich – Liverpool service, in terms of speed, capacity and the standard of rolling stock, combined with good connections. For Market Harborough, this will largely mean via Nottingham as relatively few of our trains run to or from Sheffield. Though the suggested improved connections at Sheffield are welcomed, the fact that getting to Sheffield from Market Harborough usually involves a change of trains may itself be a deterrent. This is especially so because the passengers making such journeys will tend to be staying away from home overnight and therefore carrying luggage.

Harborough Rail Users Group.doc

Page 4 of 5

Harborough Rail Users Response to the draft East Midlands Route Utilisation Strategy November 2009 o Similarly, connectional opportunities to Leeds and the north-east are limited from Market Harborough. The new service between Nottingham and Leeds is an improvement though journey times could be accelerated. Again, journeys to other destinations north of Sheffield tend to involve at least two changes of train. Though for most people such journeys are relatively infrequent, we would welcome infrastructure and service enhancements for such journeys. o In addition, though most of Market Harborough’s trains travel to or from Nottingham, there is no longer a direct train to Nottingham in the morning peak. This is a matter of concern as it is a commuter destination and we have called for a direct Nottingham service to be reinstated in future timetable changes. Though chiefly a matter for EMT as the train operator, we would hope the infrastructure provision would not be a constraint to this. Summary In summary, Harborough Rail Users: •

Support the generally positive tone of the draft RUS and the proposals within it, though we note that the RUS confines itself to developing the existing network rather than expanding it.

•

Look forward to the enhancements to the Midland Main Line, including line-speeds and train-lengthening. We look forward to the improvements in journey times, capacity and connectivity that should result. However, we express caution about the potential implications for passenger comfort and luggage capacity should the IEP or other high-capacity trains be introduced to replace the existing fleet.

•

Support the possibility of MML electrification and urge Network Rail and partner organisations to develop this further.

•

Call for a full rebuild of Market Harborough station at track and platform level both to enhance the amenity of the station and to make it fully accessible and compliant with associated statutory requirements.

•

Welcome the opportunity that capacity improvements bring to accommodate increased freight traffic, Thameslink and long-distance highspeed services while reducing reactionary delays. We would support the reinstatement of track capacity between Bedford and Kettering and Corby and north from the Wigston junctions.

•

Call for improved connectivity with other services, particularly to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds and points beyond.

•

Look forward to the ‘seven-day railway’ and greater resilience to necessary engineering works and a reduced need to close the line and substitute buses, as well as later evening weekday and Saturday trains.

Harborough Rail Users November 2009 Harborough Rail Users Group.doc

Page 5 of 5