East Coast Timetable Dec 24

[YorksLad12]

Poorly loaded? I’ve rarely seen a York - Leeds train, stopping or not that wasn’t busy.

Same with the Harrogate extensions; lightly loaded Azumas, busy (but much shorter) Northern sets.

But we are talking about full length LNER Azumas. They would not be a good use of resources.

Indeed. If they went further than York, possibly. But then they'd be competing with TPE and XC. I'd rather catch an LNER service from Leeds to Edinburgh than the XC one though

 

[dk1]

Indeed. If they went further than York, possibly. But then they'd be competing with TPE and XC. I'd rather catch an LNER service from Leeds to Edinburgh than the XC one though

Very true but why would anyone want to travel unnecessary via the long West Yorkshire detour when they can go direct to York from Doncaster in a speedy 20 minutes?

 

[IslandLine101]

To what extent have all these issues started because the new timetable didn’t start with a clean slate like they were supposed to? Is the approach of bodging the current timetable from day 1 coming back to bite when it all doesn’t quite fit?

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, it’s the opposite. They tried to come up with a new timetable structure that doesn’t exactly fit with the rest of the railway, let alone itself. Trains were missed out.

The key skill here is to take the aspirations, the existing firm rights of all operators and make it all fit with all the key interfaces being fixed so, for example, you don’t do a minor change at Newcastle that ends up with you having to retime Birmingham New Street in it’s entirety!

You do have to work with fixed times for things like EMR running Grantham-Peterborough, so you never have a totally free hand. The ECML can’t just be planned on the basis of LNER and TL/GN getting their paths and everyone else has to fit around them. It’s a far more complicated puzzle to work out, because of the effect on connecting services and also on key off route locations.

 

[Class 800]

As someone who’s not an expert can I ask how / if the timetable will change when ERTMS becomes fully operational on ECML south?
I presume it’ll mean more paths and perhaps higher line speeds?

 

[Bald Rick]

As someone who’s not an expert can I ask how / if the timetable will change when ERTMS becomes fully operational on ECML south?
I presume it’ll mean more paths and perhaps higher line speeds?

Any change will be coincidental.

 

[YorksLad12]

Very true but why would anyone want to travel unnecessary via the long West Yorkshire detour when they can go direct to York from Doncaster in a speedy 20 minutes?

True from Doncaster; from Wakefield and Leeds, quite handy

I suppose it might allow a semi-fast service to be overtaken by one of the London-Edinburgh fasts. No-one would be on it who wanted to travel London-York-Newcastle-Edinburgh.

 

[Bald Rick]

True from Doncaster; from Wakefield and Leeds, quite handy

I suppose it might allow a semi-fast service to be overtaken by one of the London-Edinburgh fasts. No-one would be on it who wanted to travel London-York-Newcastle-Edinburgh.

Not sure theres capacity Leeds to York.

However the pricing would see it used by through passenegrs, in the same way that there are many through passengers for stations Stafford northwards from London on the Euston - West Mids - Scotland trains.

 

[1D53]

Not sure theres capacity Leeds to York.

Probably only one free path (excluding ones that should currently have TPE trains in hit don't!) which probably wouldn't align with the free ECML paths!

 

[ChrisC]

Your missing out flows such as Newark to Scotland then. Newark has a huge catchment area for the East Midlands including Nottingham which is why one Anglo Scot an hour calls at Newark and continues to do so.

Newark does have a huge catchment area but for Nottingham it would be far more useful to have a few more trains calling at Grantham. Except for the 2 hourly train to York there are no trains throughout the main part of the day from Grantham to anywhere north of Doncaster. Unless you travel via Sheffield using overcrowded XC trains, getting from Nottingham to Newcastle or Edinburgh is not currently possible with just one easy change at Grantham.

 

[Class 800]

Any change will be coincidental.

So what’s the point then?

 

[Railperf]

So what’s the point then?

From what I have seen of ERTMS, it relays to the driver the safe speed that he can be driving at any given moment. Rather than driving to 3 or 4 aspect signalling, his speedomete displays the safe maximum speed at anytime based on the proximity of the next train or occupied block ahead. And the beauty of this is that the display reacts in between signal blocks - giving the driver a chance to speed up - where under conventional signalling he would have to wait until he can visually see the signal before speeding up.

This in theory regulates the distance between trains better and improves capacity. ERTMS would be one qualifying factor for allowing speeds of greater than 125mph. Other factors such as increased energy use, increased wear on track and trains create extra cost and can only be justified if a reduction in journey times will increase revenue to cover those extra costs.

In the context of this thread, higher speeds have an impact on the train paths, so no point in saving a few minutes getting to York -for example - if you cannot get a path there that does not conflict with other trains.

Getting back to what's possible for December 2024, what do those 'in the know' believe is possible with regard to implementing the aspirational faster services between London and Edinburgh while fitting everyone else's rights and working around their timings? So what sort of timetable is possible?
Surely frequency and capacity are the drivers here. From my own experience trying to book a ticket (with a weeks notice) from Scotland to London was a nightmare because services were either full (no seats available) or ridiculously priced. Trying to get from Inverbess to Kings Cross, I actually was able to get a seat (well 2 seats) from Inverness to Edinburgh, but had to change and wait at Edinburgh because the 'Chieftain' could not offer me the same seats all the way through to the cross' . So that tells me more train services are needed.
Lumo seemed to ease the situation at first, but these are busy services now.
Should we be looking - and is it possible to think about every 20 minutes to Edinburgh - even at the expense of slightly slower journey times? After all greater frequency is a time saver in itself.

 

[dk1]

True from Doncaster; from Wakefield and Leeds, quite handy

Handy but a wasteful duplication of what is already offered hourly by XC.

 

[Bald Rick]

So what’s the point then?

Safer and cheaper.

 

[Austriantrain]

Newark does have a huge catchment area but for Nottingham it would be far more useful to have a few more trains calling at Grantham. Except for the 2 hourly train to York there are no trains throughout the main part of the day from Grantham to anywhere north of Doncaster. Unless you travel via Sheffield using overcrowded XC trains, getting from Nottingham to Newcastle or Edinburgh is not currently possible with just one easy change at Grantham.

If the ambition is to have direct trains from everywhere to anywhere, it is no wonder that it is difficult to come up with a workable timetable - and I note that the WCML is structured entirely differently.

Really, both Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire should connect into Scotland flows via a change in Doncaster (the latter via an improved joint line service, the former via a XC service that forms an X with the Birmingham - Leeds/Doncaster flow, with a hub at Sheffield), as should local traffic from Grantham/Newark/Retford. But the disjointed railway precludes it.

And don’t get me started on the lunacy to have Lumo 5-car-trains on what is an overcrowded railway.

But I am OT - sorry!

 

[CarrotPie]

From what I have seen of ERTMS, it relays to the driver the safe speed that he can be driving at any given moment. Rather than driving to 3 or 4 aspect signalling, his speedometer displays the safe maximum speed at anytime based on the proximity of the next train or occupied block ahead. And the beauty of this is that the display reacts in between signal blocks - giving the driver a chance to speed up - where under conventional signalling he would have to wait until he can visually see the signal before speeding up.

And what does it display if the driver is female?

 

[xotGD]

To provide more capacity on the ECML then paths shouldn't be used by 5 coach trains.

Sort that out first.

 

[Class 800]

To provide more capacity on the ECML then paths shouldn't be used by 5 coach trains.

Sort that out first.

Do you think the solution is eg more 10 coach trains (2x5), which divide during the journey?

Doncaster would probably be the main place where a lot of this would be happening

 

[CarrotPie]

Do you think the solution is eg more 10 coach trains (2x5), which divide during the journey?

Doncaster would probably be the main place where a lot of this would be happening

Nope, because the same people that are triggered by single 5-car trains also make a fuss about dividing 2×5-cars!

 

[Bald Rick]

If the ambition is to have direct trains from everywhere to anywhere, it is no wonder that it is difficult to come up with a workable timetable - and I note that the WCML is structured entirely differently.

Really, both Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire should connect into Scotland flows via a change in Doncaster (the latter via an improved joint line service, the former via a XC service that forms an X with the Birmingham - Leeds/Doncaster flow, with a hub at Sheffield), as should local traffic from Grantham/Newark/Retford. But the disjointed railway precludes it.

And don’t get me started on the lunacy to have Lumo 5-car-trains on what is an overcrowded railway.

But I am OT - sorry!

Not OT at all, and bang on.

 

[Railperf]

Very true but why would anyone want to travel unnecessary via the long West Yorkshire detour when they can go direct to York from Doncaster in a speedy 20 minutes?

I once took VT Glasgow to London via Birmingham, simply because it was a lot more affordable for 3 people and the additional journey time was not critical for me.

 

[dk1]

I once took VT Glasgow to London via Birmingham, simply because it was a lot more affordable for 3 people and the additional journey time was not critical for me.

That route makes perfect sense as joins up to existing services plus adds some additional through opportunities.

 

[xotGD]

Do you think the solution is eg more 10 coach trains (2x5), which divide during the journey?

Doncaster would probably be the main place where a lot of this would be happening

I was primarily thinking of the 5-car sets that run all the way from King's Cross to Waverley.

Plus those services to/from Leeds that are only 5.

 

[weeklycommuter]

And don’t get me started on the lunacy to have Lumo 5-car-trains on what is an overcrowded railway.

Looks like Lumo want to run some double sets but cannot do so because of Government cuts to the power supply upgrades between Newcastle and Edinburgh. The Cross Country trains are also too short and do not have enough seats, they need new bimode trains like the 9 car GWR class 800s.

Northumberland MP brands rail change ‘disastrous’

A Northumberland MP has called for the Government to put a stop to “disastrous” plans that could slash the number of trains stopping in the…

www.hexham-courant.co.uk

In his letter to the transport secretary, Mr Lavery wrote: “Morpeth Station, which is in my constituency, will lose LNER off peak services to London. Whilst Lumo provides additional stops, their lack of capacity means they are not always available for people booking last minute. Lumo have wanted to lengthen their trains to increase supply but this has been thwarted by Network Rail cancelling the power supply upgrade at Chathill and decoping the one at Marshall Meadows (near Berwick).

 

[swt_passenger]

Looks like Lumo want to run some double sets but cannot do so because of Government cuts to the power supply upgrades between Newcastle and Edinburgh. The Cross Country trains are also too short and do not have enough seats, they need new bimode trains like the 9 car GWR class 800s.

The MP is probably right to give a shout out about Marshall Meadows, (something that’s been mentioned a lot recently in the ECML power upgrade thread), but he’s wrong - there never was going to to be a supply upgrade AT Chathill, only Marshall Meadows. Chathill is a sectioning site, and normally the southern end of the section fed from Marshall Meadows.

 

[Class 170101]

That route makes perfect sense as joins up to existing services plus adds some additional through opportunities.

Perhaps, but don't forget it broke up othr sensible routes like Plymouth / Bristol to Scotland via WCML.

 

[dk1]

Perhaps, but don't forget it broke up othr sensible routes like Plymouth / Bristol to Scotland via WCML.

Yes that all went in 2007. It was several years later before Virgin merged the two routes we see today.

 

[Railperf]

Modern Railways latest edition covers this. In summary Network Rail are warning the proposed timetable still has 42 (down from 90) unresolved conflicts (exceptionally difficult to resolve) between proposed passenger and fixed freight paths. LNER have a driver shortfall that would mean crewing difficulties for new services in the early months which could lean to cancellations and delays. Part of the problem being blamed on descoping of slow line extension between Woodwalton and Huntingdon. Sounds like NR want to defer the change until June 2025 to give more time to sort some of these issues out. Freight operators not happy at being asked to reroute their trains extending journey times.

 

[swt_passenger]

Modern Railways latest edition covers this. In summary Network Rail are warning the proposed timetable still has 42 (down from 90) unresolved conflicts (exceptionally difficult to resolve) between proposed passenger and fixed freight paths. LNER have a driver shortfall that would mean crewing difficulties for new services in the early months which could lean to cancellations and delays. Part of the problem being blamed on descoping of slow line extension between Woodwalton and Huntingdon. Sounds like NR want to defer the change until June 2025 to give more time to sort some of these issues out. Freight operators not happy at being asked to reroute their trains extending journey times.

In the 2016 track access application that all these proposed timetable changes descend from, (ie the 8 tph total LDHS paths), they had a list of infrastructure interventions required to make it all work:

The following CP5 funded enhancements have been assumed and are required for this proposal:
1. Huntingdon – Woodwalton 4-tracking
2. Peterborough Down Slow Upgrade
3. Werrington Junction Grade Separation
4. York Station North Throat
5. Freight Improvements North of York
6. Doncaster – enhancements

Is it correct to say only items 2 and 3 of those 6 are complete and in use? Apologies if anything else has sneaked in while I wasn’t looking.

Did the Kings Cross throat remodelling effectively become one of the pre-requisites for the 8 tph timetable, as it doesn’t seem to have been mentioned in 2015/16…

 

[The Planner]

Sounds like NR want to defer the change until June 2025 to give more time to sort some of these issues out. Freight operators not happy at being asked to reroute their trains extending journey times.

Too right they aren't, they have the firm rights so to be told to move isn't going to go down well.