Why is there no WMT equivalent on the ECML?/How could local stations be better served?

[amahy]

I think most people would agree with me in saying that the service between the local stations north of Peterborough is inadequate.

On the WCML, there are two main operators: WMT operating the slower regional services, and Avanti operating fast Intercity services.

However, the ECML only has one operator: LNER, which is a primarily Intercity operator, so does little to make sure stations like Retford and Grantham have a good service.

For example, Retford currently has just 1tp2h along the ECML (+1tph along the Sheffield-Lincoln line), giving it very poor North-South connections for a town with a population of over 20,000.

For comparison's sake, Hebden Bridge has 4tph with a population of less than 5,000! My understanding is that this will only get worse in the December 2025 timetable recast. So, why is there no regional operator along the central section of the ECML?

There are multiple potential ways of resolving the situation. One way would be to extend Northern's Leeds to Doncaster stopping service to Peterborough, calling at all stations, giving Retford, Grantham, and Newark a consistent, 1tph service to Leeds/Peterborough.

For the local stations between York and Newcastle, Northern's Alnmouth to Newcastle services could be extended to York, calling at all stations, giving Thirsk, Northallerton, and Chester-Le-Street a more reliable, 1tph service, especially Thirsk, which currently lacks any services at all to/from Newcastle.

For the rolling stock, 350/2s being withdrawn by WMT could be used. This would also put an end to the ludicrous running under wires of DMUs between Newcastle and Alnmouth.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you're talking about the WMT Crewe, the LNER York/Lincoln semifast basically is it, just operated by the main intercity operator instead of say GTR.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

To answer the two questions posed:
1. Lack of four-tracking
2. Without spending a fortune on additional capacity, little scope to do better.

Of course HS2 would have generated that capacity by removing most of the long-distance passengers from that part of the route leaving room for regional services. And also the ECML towns (Grantham, Newark, Retford) are very much smaller than those on the Trent Valley section of the WCML (Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield) so arguably much harder to justify spending the money required unless part of a bigger scheme (HS2).

 

[AlastairFraser]

Of course HS2 would have generated that capacity by removing most of the long-distance passengers from that part of the route leaving room for regional services. And also the ECML towns (Grantham, Newark, Retford) are very much smaller than those on the Trent Valley section of the WCML (Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield) so arguably much harder to justify spending the money required unless part of a bigger scheme (HS2).

Indeed, and I think LNER wouldn't necessarily appreciate other people taking revenue away from their operations, given the lesser potential for induced demand on this corridor.

 

[stevieinselby]

I think most people would agree with me in saying that the service between the local stations north of Peterborough is inadequate. On the WCML, there are two main operators: WMT operating the slower regional services, and Avanti operating fast Intercity services. However, the ECML only has one operator: LNER, which is a primarily Intercity operator, so does little to make sure stations like Retford and Grantham have a good service. For example, Retford currently has just 1tp2h along the ECML (+1tph along the Sheffield-Lincoln line), giving it very poor North-South connections for a town with a population of over 20,000. For comparisons sake, Hebden Bridge has 4tph with a population of less than 5,000! My understanding is that this will only get worse in the December 2025 timetable recast. So, why is there no regional operator along the central section of the ECML?

There are multiple potential ways of resolving the situation. One way would be to extend Northern's Leeds to Doncaster stopping service to Peterborough, calling at all stations, giving Retford, Grantham, and Newark a consistent, 1tph service to Leeds/Peterborough. For the local stations between York and Newcastle, Northern's Alnmouth to Newcastle services could be extended to York, calling at all stations, giving Thirsk, Northallerton, and Chester-Le-Street a more reliable, 1tph service, especially Thirsk, which currently lacks any services at all to/from Newcastle. For the rolling stock, 350/2s being withdrawn by WMT could be used. This would also put an end to the ludicrous running under wires of DMUs between Newcastle and Alnmouth.

Trains leave KGX for Retford at 0555, 0615, 0706, 0906, 0948, 1106, 1148, 1306, 1506, 1548, 1633, 1748, 1833, 1848, 2030 and 2133 – there are only two 2-hour gaps between trains.
Yes, it would be good to see a more consistent pattern, but it isn't as bad as you make out.
Other smaller towns on the route, Newark and Grantham, have a broadly half-hourly service through the day.

The context on the ECML is quite different from the WCML.
Between Peterborough and Doncaster, the only towns worth serving are Grantham, Newark and Retford - total pop ~122k
Between Rugby and Crewe, you've got Nuneaton, Atherstone, Tamworth, Lichfield, Rugeley and Stafford - total pop ~325k
There is very evidently a much stronger market for local trains on the WCML than on the ECML.
Between York and Newcastle, all stations have at least a 1tph service (although Thirsk only sees trains to Teesside and not continuing up the mainline beyond Northallerton) and most see more than that.
Another part of the problem with putting local services on the ECML, alongside less demand, is that north of Peterborough most of it is only 2-track and so it has more limited capacity, whereas most of the WCML (at least as far as Crewe) is 4-track.

I'm not sure what Alnmouth services you're referring to; Northern run two trains a day to/from Chathill (calling at Alnmouth) but none that start/end there. If you meant the Morpeth services, these run through to Carlisle – I'm sure passengers in Morpeth and Cramlington would be annoyed about losing their direct services to MetroCentre even if not beyond.

 

[JonathanH]

Essentially also, there is no equivalent of Atherstone, Polesworth and Rugeley on the ECML. Without those, the WMR Crewe service calling at Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield and Stafford would be run by Avanti.

 

[A S Leib]

I'm sure passengers in Morpeth and Cramlington would be annoyed about losing their direct services to MetroCentre even if not beyond

I think that's due to happen in this year's December timetable change either way.

 

[stevieinselby]

I think that's due to happen in this year's December timetable change either way.

If it does happen then could the Morpeth shuttle be run with an EMU?
Can Heaton even house an EMU?
(Leaving aside the question of whether it's sensible to have a single diagram use a unique traction type within the depot...)

 

[bramling]

I think most people would agree with me in saying that the service between the local stations north of Peterborough is inadequate. On the WCML, there are two main operators: WMT operating the slower regional services, and Avanti operating fast Intercity services. However, the ECML only has one operator: LNER, which is a primarily Intercity operator, so does little to make sure stations like Retford and Grantham have a good service. For example, Retford currently has just 1tp2h along the ECML (+1tph along the Sheffield-Lincoln line), giving it very poor North-South connections for a town with a population of over 20,000. For comparisons sake, Hebden Bridge has 4tph with a population of less than 5,000! My understanding is that this will only get worse in the December 2025 timetable recast. So, why is there no regional operator along the central section of the ECML?

There are multiple potential ways of resolving the situation. One way would be to extend Northern's Leeds to Doncaster stopping service to Peterborough, calling at all stations, giving Retford, Grantham, and Newark a consistent, 1tph service to Leeds/Peterborough. For the local stations between York and Newcastle, Northern's Alnmouth to Newcastle services could be extended to York, calling at all stations, giving Thirsk, Northallerton, and Chester-Le-Street a more reliable, 1tph service, especially Thirsk, which currently lacks any services at all to/from Newcastle. For the rolling stock, 350/2s being withdrawn by WMT could be used. This would also put an end to the ludicrous running under wires of DMUs between Newcastle and Alnmouth.

Having a different operator wouldn’t really resolve the problem of the infrastructure not being there to support more services.

Personally I wouldn’t want a situation where there’s a “bargain basement” operator introducing artificial demand patterns. It’s already enough of a nuisance with Peterborough/London passengers taking up space on GTR services.

Once upon a time there were proposals for WAGN, as it was then, to extend north of Peterborough. Had this happened then we may very well have ended up with a situation like is found on the WCML today, albeit I’m not sure where WAGN were thinking the rolling stock was going to come from, no doubt sweating the 365 fleet to the likely detriment of their core market further in. I’m really glad this never happened, the current situation with LNER operating an hourly stopping service is IMO adequate, although I do take your point that Retford is a bit of a poor relation in this, albeit a 9-car train every 2 hours isn’t too bad a service for a relatively small town.

 

[YorksLad12]

The context on the ECML is quite different from the WCML.
Between Peterborough and Doncaster, the only towns worth serving are Grantham, Newark and Retford - total pop ~122k
Between Rugby and Crewe, you've got Nuneaton, Atherstone, Tamworth, Lichfield, Rugeley and Stafford - total pop ~325k
There is very evidently a much stronger market for local trains on the WCML than on the ECML.
Between York and Newcastle, all stations have at least a 1tph service (although Thirsk only sees trains to Teesside and not continuing up the mainline beyond Northallerton) and most see more than that.
Another part of the problem with putting local services on the ECML, alongside less demand, is that north of Peterborough most of it is only 2-track and so it has more limited capacity, whereas most of the WCML (at least as far as Crewe) is 4-track.

Have to disagree with this line. There being no such services on the east coast line, how can we be sure that there's no demand? Fewer residents, yes, but that doesn't translate into less demand.

Apart from the recent 'innovations' of services between Newcastle and Edinburgh and the new shuttle being introduced, the ECML is predicated on long distance, high speed services from/to London. An all-stops Doncaster to Peterborough via Retford would be an interesting experiment... though we do have the EMR service via Lincoln as well.

 

[yorksrob]

We could certainly do with the affordable walk-on fares on the ECML. I expect that these would be very popular.

 

[Kite159]

An 'East Coast Connect' service run with pairs of 110mph EMUs calling at all the InterCity stations (even if it means a longer dwell at Retford for a fast service to overtake) running to say York (which has South facing bays) would do well for connecting the smaller stations with direct trains plus would allow the longer distance trains to run a bit faster (ie having an hourly London to Leeds* being nonstop London to Doncaster with the 2nd Leeds train calling at Peterborough or Grantham depending on paths.

Would also give Doncaster - York another train service. Although knowing LNER, they will probably limit any cheap advance tickets to the stopper and charge a premium for the semifast/fast service.

(*Or beyond Leeds)

 

[YorksLad12]

An 'East Coast Connect' service run with pairs of 110mph EMUs calling at all the InterCity stations (even if it means a longer dwell at Retford for a fast service to overtake) running to say York (which has South facing bays) would do well for connecting the smaller stations with direct trains plus would allow the longer distance trains to run a bit faster (ie having an hourly London to Leeds* being nonstop London to Doncaster with the 2nd Leeds train calling at Peterborough or Grantham depending on paths.

Would also give Doncaster - York another train service. Although knowing LNER, they will probably limit any cheap advance tickets to the stopper and charge a premium for the semifast/fast service.

(*Or beyond Leeds)

If you were doing that, and the production line was still open, I'd use a single class 805 bi-mode so that we're not introducing a new train type. Or a class 803, if we can get away with no diesel for emergencies (807s might be too long for the passenger levels).

 

[Zomboid]

An 'East Coast Connect' service run with pairs of 110mph EMUs calling at all the InterCity stations (even if it means a longer dwell at Retford for a fast service to overtake) running to say York (which has South facing bays) would do well for connecting the smaller stations with direct trains plus would allow the longer distance trains to run a bit faster (ie having an hourly London to Leeds* being nonstop London to Doncaster with the 2nd Leeds train calling at Peterborough or Grantham depending on paths.

Would also give Doncaster - York another train service. Although knowing LNER, they will probably limit any cheap advance tickets to the stopper and charge a premium for the semifast/fast service.

(*Or beyond Leeds)

There's already such a train running hourly south of Newark. Maybe there's space for another one that stops short of London (and. maybe it could go to Cambridge and give some more direct connectivity up the ECML).

An ECML equivalent of the Kodama Shinkansen service, if you like.

 

[InTheEastMids]

The context on the ECML is quite different from the WCML.
Between Peterborough and Doncaster, the only towns worth serving are Grantham, Newark and Retford - total pop ~122k
Between Rugby and Crewe, you've got Nuneaton, Atherstone, Tamworth, Lichfield, Rugeley and Stafford - total pop ~325k

Or to put it another way, the best way to make the case for it is as part of a programme of house-building to drive demand. Obviously this will be opposed locally.
And obviously housing needs jobs, so would expect this kind of growth to be on areas south of Peterborough (more commutable to both London and Cambridge) - further expansion at Alconbury, and a new station there is the sort of thing I had in mind.

There was also some vocal opposition to the EMR timetable that had exactly this impact on Wellingborough, because it led to slower journey times, loss of connectivity, and loss of on-train comfort/facilities. So all of that will create opposition to be overcome.

And historically, HS2 was seen to be a better value of achieving the same end, by removing all the non-stop services.

 

[35B]

Let's also not forget that the remaining stations on the "Towns" line between Peterborough and Doncaster survived as junctions. The other, smaller, stops all went long before Dr Beeching found his axe.

I live in Grantham; I can think of no good reason why I would go into Grantham (min 10 mins), catch a train to Newark Northgate (15 mins), then go into the centre of Newark (10 min walk) rather than just drive to central Newark (20 minutes).

 

[stevieinselby]

Have to disagree with this line. There being no such services on the east coast line, how can we be sure that there's no demand? Fewer residents, yes, but that doesn't translate into less demand.

When you have a third of the population, you would expect a third of the demand. Or do you think people in Retford, Newark and Grantham are going to travel 3 times as much as people in Tamworth, Lichfield and Rugeley?

 

[The exile]

When you have a third of the population, you would expect a third of the demand.

Not necessarily - smaller places are less likely to be self-sufficient and therefore generate more travel demand per head. Unfortunately- most of that is likely to be satisfied by the car.

 

[renegademaster]

What barriers would there be to extending the Horsham-Peterbrough to Grantham?

 

[stevieinselby]

Not necessarily - smaller places are less likely to be self-sufficient and therefore generate more travel demand per head. Unfortunately- most of that is likely to be satisfied by the car.

All the stats, all the research, all the evidence across different transport modes disproves that. Small places with few people see little traffic compared to big places with lots of people – unless they have a particular draw that makes them a destination. People don't remain in isolated communities like they did a hundred years ago, that kind of thinking gave us the mess that is Harlow, which was intended to be a self-sufficient town and so transport in and out of the town was woefully underpowered to cope with the actual amount of travel that resulted.

 

[Zomboid]

What barriers would there be to extending the Horsham-Peterbrough to Grantham?

If it can run on the slow lines then a path shouldn't be impossible to find. Whether there'd be any rolling stock or demand for the service is another question.

 

[stevieinselby]

What barriers would there be to extending the Horsham-Peterbrough to Grantham?

You would need another two TL 700s in service, do they have enough spare and is this the best use for them?
They can't keep up with IC trains at 125mph so they would be relegated to the slow lines, which mostly have a linespeed of 80mph.
The EMR trains that also use the slow lines take 27-28 minutes for the journey between Peterborough and Grantham, compared with 19-21 minutes for intercity trains.
You would want to use platform 4 at Grantham (on the western side) so that northbound intercity services had a clear run through on the mainline – there's a 25mph limit through platform 4 so you're not putting non-stop trains onto that loop, and then you've got to make sure it doesn't clash with the up and down EMR services. And when heading back south, it has to cross over the northbound line to access the southbound line.

And for what? Passengers from Grantham are not going to want to sit on a commuter train for 1h50 to St Pancras when they can get an intercity train to Kings Cross in 1h15.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And for what? Passengers from Grantham are not going to want to sit on a commuter train for 1h50 to St Pancras when they can get an intercity train to Kings Cross in 1h15.

They would if it was cheaper. They do in droves on the WCML for that reason.

 

[A S Leib]

They would if it was cheaper. They do in droves on the WCML for that reason.

There'd also be the higher chance of a seat (but most people probably have seat reservations for Grantham to London anyway) and not having to change trains for Farringdon, Blackfriars and London Bridge.

 

[The exile]

All the stats, all the research, all the evidence across different transport modes disproves that. Small places with few people see little traffic compared to big places with lots of people – unless they have a particular draw that makes them a destination.

With respect - that’s not the point I was making. The point is journeys per head of population (if you’ve got a third of the population you’ll get a third of the journeys). At certain “critical mass” points this is not going to be true. If small town A (pop 21000) and small town B (same population) both have primary schools there are going to be far fewer school runs between A and B than if A has only 7K but no school. (I’m simplifying, of course). Apply that to doctors, hospital, supermarket, leisure centre etc.

 

[stevieinselby]

With respect - that’s not the point I was making. The point is journeys per head of population (if you’ve got a third of the population you’ll get a third of the journeys). At certain “critical mass” points this is not going to be true. If small town A (pop 21000) and small town B (same population) both have primary schools there are going to be far fewer school runs between A and B than if A has only 7K but no school. (I’m simplifying, of course). Apply that to doctors, hospital, supermarket, leisure centre etc.

None of the towns in question, on either line, are so small that they don't have those basic facilities like schools, doctors and supermarkets.

 

[HSTEd]

On a broadly two track railway, running slower multiple units will just kill capacity.

There is little point introducing an artificial dichotomy in service just so you can try to segment the market.
The fact that this does not happen is one of the best things about the ECML north of Peterborough in my view.

On such a railway stopping patterns can vary, but I don't think trains should.

 

[35B]

There'd also be the higher chance of a seat (but most people probably have seat reservations for Grantham to London anyway) and not having to change trains for Farringdon, Blackfriars and London Bridge.

Part of the justification for the price Grantham commuters pay for the 105 mile commute is travelling on an intercity grade train, with reservation. Converting the journey from a 70 minute IC journey to a 100 minute commuter journey will deter demand - especially if the stretch north of Peterborough becomes the "stretch" that gets dropped when things go haywire. And, trust me, the advantages of the through journey are not great.

None of the towns in question, on either line, are so small that they don't have those basic facilities like schools, doctors and supermarkets.

Quite. You may also want to think about the journeys people in those towns make. Here in Grantham, we are relatively self-sufficient in day to day shops, but look to a mixture of Lincoln, Nottingham, Leicester and Peterborough when going to a city. Newark is roughly halfway between Lincoln and Nottingham. I don't know Retford, but at just over 20 miles from Sheffield, I imagine it's strongly in that catchment.

The ECML works quite well as a trunk route - which is bluntly what it was built to do.

 

[A S Leib]

Part of the justification for the price Grantham commuters pay for the 105 mile commute is travelling on an intercity grade train, with reservation.

The post I replied to specified that Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield and Stafford to London LNR passengers get lower fares in exchange for slower journeys, no seat reservations and no (proper) first class options.

 

[30907]

Have to disagree with this line. There being no such services on the east coast line, how can we be sure that there's no demand?

The WCML stopper is hourly and from 2008 until very recently was the only offpeak service at stations south of Stafford.
The ECML stopper is hourly to Newark, 2-hourly to Doncaster, but is certainly not the only service at those stations. Newark to Retford is the only purely 2-hourly flow, so the difference isn’t huge - and the potential won't be huge anyway.
Apart from Retford the local service is more than adequate.

The largest community on the route with no station is Tuxford pop k whose service back in 1950-55 before closure was precisely 2tpd - I suspect it had been that since the 30s. The station isn't well sited for the town, and I don't think I've every seen a suggestion that it be reopened.

As for the spin-off of low fares from Crewe and Stafford - the ECML has two relevant open-access operators who could offer them if they come to do so.