ECML - keep it simple?

Bletchleyite · 10 Jun 2025

As I alluded to in another thread, the WCML has a relatively simple intercity service with a clockface pattern and aside from North Wales is all operated using long trains. There are other services that use part of it, but this is true of the InterCity type service that uses the core congested section.

The ECML by contrast seems to be turning into a copy of Castlefield, with hourly (or less frequent) trains from everywhere to everywhere, except that one of the everywheres is London.

I'm not sure this is a positive thing.

Would we be better going back to basics and simplifying this to just 4tph Kings Cross to Leeds and 4tph Kings Cross to Edinburgh, all operated using 9 or 10 car 80x formations, and binning off all the random extensions and 5 car sets? I can't help but think we would - this would make it much more similar to the WCML.

I suppose extensions from Leeds and Edinburgh with full length trains aren't particularly harmful unless they're causing disruption, but do we really need the complexity of the Grand Centrals a few times of day to anywhere and everywhere, the LNER Lincoln and Lumo's 5 car service?

I'd note this thread is less about who is operating the random occasional short trains and more the fact that the pattern is complex. If Lumo went to an hourly ten-car as one of the four the objection as far as this thread would thus be removed.

RailUK Forums

yorkie · 10 Jun 2025

Many passengers would be against this; through trains are very popular. GC and HT have grown the market.

There are many reasons why passengers dislike changing; one of them is that connections generally speaking do not wait (though there are some exceptions), along with numerous other reasons.

William3000 · 10 Jun 2025

What about trains to King’s Lynn, Lincoln, Cambridge etc.? I think Cambridge is the biggest flow out of London King’s Cross with over 2 million journeys.

Kite159 · 10 Jun 2025

Get rid of the open access operators and you know LNER will hike the prices as they will have little or no competition.

Although the ECML could be made simpler by doing away with some of those token daily services

Bletchleyite · 10 Jun 2025

William3000 said:
What about trains to King’s Lynn, Lincoln, Cambridge etc.? I think Cambridge is the biggest flow out of London King’s Cross with over 2 million journeys.

This is purely considering the InterCity service, not the regional and London commuter area (former NSE) services, just as the comparison with the WCML doesn't include the West Midlands Trains services.

However I do include in it the occasional LNER Lincoln service which, as it's a 5 car, is a bit of a waste of a path with a half length train. I suppose what one could do is run ten-car as far as the junction station and split 5 off for the extension, provided these extensions don't cause imported delay (which is a fair bit of the Castlefield problem). I can't however help but think going up to Edinburgh would be of more benefit than branching off to Hull or Middlesbrough. BR had the correct idea here in my view.

It's a valid point that people dislike connections because of the risk of missing them, but if you are operating a high frequency service that is much less of an issue. I doubt too many people are worried about missing a London service at Manchester Piccadilly when connecting in by train as there's another in 20 minutes anyway. Grab a coffee and it's time to board the next one (indeed it'll already be there as there are often two boarding at once). Direct Bradfords are a bit like a direct Bolton - it just isn't of great benefit when the connection is easy and just complicates things.

Zomboid · 10 Jun 2025

What are the various random extensions? I haven't looked at the proposed new timetable, but from what I can determine the main part of the LNER service is fundamentally Leeds and Edinburgh, with Bradford, Shipley and Harrogate run as extensions from Leeds, and Aberdeen and Inverness are extensions of Edinburgh trains. That only presently leaves Hull, Middlesbrough and Lincoln, none of which are that frequent.

The fast lines at the south end also need to handle some outer suburban stuff such as Kings Lynn, so I don't know how much scope there is for going extra high frequency on the long distance trains.

Bletchleyite · 10 Jun 2025

Zomboid said:
What are the various random extensions? I haven't looked at the proposed new timetable, but from what I can determine the main part of the LNER service is fundamentally Leeds and Edinburgh, with Bradford, Shipley and Harrogate run as extensions from Leeds, and Aberdeen and Inverness are extensions of Edinburgh trains. That only presently leaves Hull, Middlesbrough and Lincoln, none of which are that frequent.

The fast lines at the south end also need to handle some outer suburban stuff such as Kings Lynn, so I don't know how much scope there is for going extra high frequency on the long distance trains.

So to use the WCML as a comparison, the fasts take the 10* Avanti services per hour (2 Liverpool, 3 Brum, 3 Manc, 1 Glasgow, 1 North Wales) plus three WMT services (2 Birmingham as far as Ledburn, Crewe as far as MKC), plus the hourly peak extra Northampton fast (as far as MKC) in the evening peak.

Are the ECML fasts that full on the southern section?

* Not quite every hour yet

bramling · 10 Jun 2025

Bletchleyite said:
As I alluded to in another thread, the WCML has a relatively simple intercity service with a clockface pattern and aside from North Wales is all operated using long trains. There are other services that use part of it, but this is true of the InterCity type service that uses the core congested section.

The ECML by contrast seems to be turning into a copy of Castlefield, with hourly (or less frequent) trains from everywhere to everywhere, except that one of the everywheres is London.

I'm not sure this is a positive thing.

Would we be better going back to basics and simplifying this to just 4tph Kings Cross to Leeds and 4tph Kings Cross to Edinburgh, all operated using 9 or 10 car 80x formations, and binning off all the random extensions and 5 car sets? I can't help but think we would - this would make it much more similar to the WCML.

I suppose extensions from Leeds and Edinburgh with full length trains aren't particularly harmful unless they're causing disruption, but do we really need the complexity of the Grand Centrals a few times of day to anywhere and everywhere, the LNER Lincoln and Lumo's 5 car service?

I'd note this thread is less about who is operating the random occasional short trains and more the fact that the pattern is complex. If Lumo went to an hourly ten-car as one of the four the objection as far as this thread would thus be removed.

I get the feeling that this is probably what will end up happening in the fullness of time, history seems to show that many extensions and odd services don’t survive too long for various reasons.

That said, I suspect an issue would be that the ECML’s odd services are reasonably popular, and once you look at it deciding which ones to trim back isn’t straightforward.

Lincoln I’d say anecdotally probably justifies some form of through service, and these don’t really seem to cause too much trouble - indeed for some time the trains simply terminated at Newark. That said, most of these services are 5-car trains, and we don’t seem to hear too much about overcrowding, so are they actually being used sufficiently to justify their existence?

Same with Hull, pretty popular, and serve a wide area, but still don’t seem to be able to justify 5-cars for most of the time.

I’m less keen on Grand Central. Both their routes duplicate LNER to some extent. Personally I’d prefer to see more capacity on Durham Coast local trains and the ability to make easier connections to the ECML.

Middlesbrough could probably be justified as an extension to any services already terminating at York, but again needs to avoid running 5-car trains down to King’s Cross.

Which leaves Bradford and Harrogate. Bradford has a good local service to Leeds so I can’t really see the need for LNER. Harrogate could probably also be better served by a decent fast Northern service.

I assume that the Harrogate through trains are popular locally because they provide considerable extra capacity between Leeds and Harrogate, more so than through journey opportunities?

Bletchleyite · 10 Jun 2025

bramling said:
Middlesbrough could probably be justified as an extension to any services already terminating at York

The thing is I'm not sure we should be terminating anything at York nor for that matter Newcastle. The demand for Edinburgh is clearly so massive (filling 2tph at ridiculously expensive fares) that I would run anything that doesn't go to Leeds all the way given the option, even if it has to sit somewhere for a bit to make the paths work.

bramling said:
Which leaves Bradford and Harrogate. Bradford has a good local service to Leeds so I can’t really see the need for LNER. Harrogate could probably also be better served by a decent fast Northern service.

I assume that the Harrogate through trains are popular locally because they provide considerable extra capacity between Leeds and Harrogate, more so than through journey opportunities?

It could well be. The three-car York-Leeds service is grossly underspecified at 2tph of 3 car and is often severely overcrowded. You could easily justify 4tph between Harrogate and Leeds, and probably also longer trains (though you would need to use ASDO if they called at the local stations along the way). Would it be feasible to add 2tph of semifast services from Harrogate to Leeds on top of what is there, perhaps with longer trains because they wouldn't need to serve all the intermediates which have 3 car platforms? That would fulfil that need, and again with 4tph a missed connection isn't so problematic.

Where you have a thriving bus service competing with rail (the Transdev 36 in this case) it is clear the rail service is completely inadequate. When you make rail better the bus services tend to die off or become very basic - not a lot between Manchester and Oldham now, for instance, compared to what there was, nor Manchester-Eccles.

Zomboid · 10 Jun 2025

Bletchleyite said:
So to use the WCML as a comparison, the fasts take the 10* Avanti services per hour (2 Liverpool, 3 Brum, 3 Manc, 1 Glasgow, 1 North Wales) plus three WMT services (2 Birmingham as far as Ledburn, Crewe as far as MKC), plus the hourly peak extra Northampton fast (as far as MKC) in the evening peak.

Are the ECML fasts that full on the southern section?

* Not quite every hour yet

The WCML doesn't have Welwyn to deal with, but there are 5 LNERs departing Kings Cross most hours (00/30 to Edinburgh, 03/33 to Leeds and 06 to York/ Lincoln). From memory there was typically one OA departure per hour.

Middlesbrough's single train is at 1527 (fast to York) and Hull gets the 1718.

Halish Railway · 10 Jun 2025

Bletchleyite said:
I'd be more inclined to say that if it doesn't justify a full length train LNER shouldn't be serving it at all, rather it should be a quality hourly connection. The ECML these days is starting to look like Castlefield with hourly trains from everywhere to everywhere (albeit one of the everywheres near enough always being London). The WCML is much simpler with a simple hourly clockface pattern and really does benefit from that.

The Lincoln service is just an extension of the London to Newark Northgate service, running in the opposite hour to the York service that calls at all LNER served stations, which has been the case since the East Coast Eureka timetable that came into place in 2011 (I believe). It certainly isn’t a service that has added a significant amount of congestion to the East Coast Mainline. I’d attribute that more towards the two extra 100 mph Thameslink/Great Northern paths that have existed since 2018.

Yes the Lincoln services don’t carry as many people as LNER’s West Yorkshire/North East/Scotland services or the Thameslink/Great Northern services on the southern ECML but they are still incredibly important for Lincolnshire, providing a regular direct service to multiple large towns and cities from a region that is fairly isolated from any dense and well served railway system. The issue with a connecting itinerary to London is that it doesn’t induce nearly as much usage as a direct service and EMR will be able to provide a more frequent Lincoln to Nottingham service with the displaced rolling stock that was used on the Newark to Lincoln shuttles.

Trainbike46 · 10 Jun 2025

Bletchleyite said:
As I alluded to in another thread, the WCML has a relatively simple intercity service with a clockface pattern and aside from North Wales is all operated using long trains. There are other services that use part of it, but this is true of the InterCity type service that uses the core congested section.

The ECML by contrast seems to be turning into a copy of Castlefield, with hourly (or less frequent) trains from everywhere to everywhere, except that one of the everywheres is London.

I'm not sure this is a positive thing.

Would we be better going back to basics and simplifying this to just 4tph Kings Cross to Leeds and 4tph Kings Cross to Edinburgh, all operated using 9 or 10 car 80x formations, and binning off all the random extensions and 5 car sets? I can't help but think we would - this would make it much more similar to the WCML.

I suppose extensions from Leeds and Edinburgh with full length trains aren't particularly harmful unless they're causing disruption, but do we really need the complexity of the Grand Centrals a few times of day to anywhere and everywhere, the LNER Lincoln and Lumo's 5 car service?

I'd note this thread is less about who is operating the random occasional short trains and more the fact that the pattern is complex. If Lumo went to an hourly ten-car as one of the four the objection as far as this thread would thus be removed.

The WCML has direct IC trains from London to:
-Glasgow
-Liverpool
-Blackpool
-Manchester
-Birmingham
-Chester/North Wales

The ECML has direct IC trains from London to:
-Edinburgh (including extensions north)
-Leeds (including extensions to Bradford, Skipton, and Harrogate)
-Lincoln
-Hull
-Middelsborough
-GC Bradford
-GC Sunderland

That's really not that different in number of destinations! It would be good if the service was closer to clockface though.

Personally, I wouldn't be a fan of removing direct trains to most destinations, except possibly cancelling GC. For the Lincoln, if anything I would question if it might be worth extending to Grimsby, or maybe running as 2x5 to the junction and splitting there, with one 5 running to Grimsby and the other running to Lincoln.

A S Leib · 10 Jun 2025

Bletchleyite said:
The thing is I'm not sure we should be terminating anything at York nor for that matter Newcastle

It would probably only be an issue during e.g. Fringe Festival weekends, and Edinburgh to Newcastle / York's a large market as well, but wouldn't there be an issue of Newcastle and south passengers to London being crowded off of trains? As problems for the railways go, that probably isn't one of the worst ones given how much intercapital passengers are paying.

As a way of simplification, could anything be done to 'local' provision between Peterborough and Doncaster, with e.g. 2tph calling at all stations between them via the ECML rather than the current mixture of Lincoln / York (Grantham, Newark, Retford), Leeds / Harrogate (Grantham) and Edinburgh (Newark) trains?

At the moment, cancelling Grand Central Sunderland services would mean hour-longer journeys for Hartlepool to London with two changes in some cases (Thornaby and Northallerton / York), although having more LNER services to Middlesbrough instead would cut that to one change.

43096 · 10 Jun 2025

Zomboid said:
The WCML doesn't have Welwyn to deal with, but there are 5 LNERs departing Kings Cross most hours (00/30 to Edinburgh, 03/33 to Leeds and 06 to York/ Lincoln). From memory there was typically one OA departure per hour.

It's not that different to the West Coast being two track Hanslope to Rugby via Weedon. West Coast has the Northampton loop to give four tracks, East Coast has the Hertford loop to give four tracks (indeed 6-track much of the way).

Zomboid · 10 Jun 2025

Trainbike46 said:
For the Lincoln, if anything I would question if it might be worth extending to Grimsby

Is that what the LNER Cleethorpes proposal does, or is that going to run via Doncaster?

bramling · 10 Jun 2025

U

Bletchleyite said:
The thing is I'm not sure we should be terminating anything at York nor for that matter Newcastle. The demand for Edinburgh is clearly so massive (filling 2tph at ridiculously expensive fares) that I would run anything that doesn't go to Leeds all the way given the option, even if it has to sit somewhere for a bit to make the paths work.

The problem with running everything to Edinburgh is it makes life hard for people making other journeys, and whilst there’s undoubtedly considerable Edinburgh demand, that demand can be quite unpredictable - there’s plenty of trains between Newcastle and Edinburgh that run quite empty. I can certainly see the case for a semi-fast London to Newcastle path.

Bletchleyite said:
It could well be. The three-car York-Leeds service is grossly underspecified at 2tph of 3 car and is often severely overcrowded. You could easily justify 4tph between Harrogate and Leeds, and probably also longer trains

1 or 2tph fast Leeds to Harrogate using longer trains would probably serve Harrogate better. As well as providing more capacity for the considerable number of Harrogate-Leeds journeys, it would also mean less risk of these journeys being delayed if the through London service picks up a delay whilst on route from King’s Cross, as often happens.

One wonders if a 5-car IET service every half hour (or even every hour) would be more beneficial than the current London extensions.

Shaw S Hunter · 10 Jun 2025

The two routes are simply not comparable. The relative lack of 4-tracking on the ECML means it's very difficult to do things much differently to today. A comparison would only stand up if there was the capacity for Great Northern to run to Doncaster serving all the intermediate towns leaving LNER to run mostly non-stop to at least Doncaster save a couple of services calling at Stevenage and/or Peterborough.

HS2 would make a huge difference here.

And also a reminder that Hull has a larger population than Derby but nobody suggests MML services should concentrate solely on Nottingham and Sheffield.

bramling · 10 Jun 2025

43096 said:
It's not that different to the West Coast being two track Hanslope to Rugby via Weedon. West Coast has the Northampton loop to give four tracks, East Coast has the Hertford loop to give four tracks (indeed 6-track much of the way).

Hertford isn’t massively useful to the ECML. Whilst it carries some (not all) freights, no through passenger service use it, nor have done so for many years except during disruption or engineering work. It also doesn’t really help with relieving capacity between Stevenage and Hitchin, which is nowadays quite a severe bottleneck.

Zomboid · 10 Jun 2025

43096 said:
It's not that different to the West Coast being two track Hanslope to Rugby via Weedon. West Coast has the Northampton loop to give four tracks, East Coast has the Hertford loop to give four tracks (indeed 6-track much of the way).

There aren't really any slow trains running that way. All the stoppers have either stopped or go to Northampton, and there's no equivalent of Welwyn North. Plus I think even the WMT fasts are doing 110.

stevieinselby · 10 Jun 2025

It's questionable to describe the West Coast timetable as "simplified" – there are generally 9 hourly departures, and no two of them have the same calling pattern – 1 of them alternates between different end points from one hour to the next and doesn't always call at the same intermediate stops – 1 of them has various different endpoints – and Blackpool has two trains a day plus a few random extras to Liverpool. Arguably we should include the LNWR service to Crewe as well, as that is an intercity length journey even if not calling pattern, but there's no ECML analogue with an all-stations to Doncaster, maybe the 2-hourly to Lincoln is the closest fit?

Whether a service extends beyond Leeds to Harrogate or Bradford is irrelevant to usage of the ECML – it's the equivalent of worrying about whether WCML trains terminate at Chester one hour and Holyhead another – as long as it doesn't result in 5-car trains running to London, but there's no reason why it should.

Hull, with a population for the city and surrounding area of 400k, definitely merits regular services.
Teesside, Wearside and the Durham Coast is even more populous – probably if the WC service pattern was translated, one of the Manchester trains would become an hourly London to Newcastle calling at York, Northallerton, Eaglescliffe, Hartlepool and Sunderland.

I agree that the one-off LNER trains like Hull and Middlesbrough are questionable, Lumo isn't adding anything useful to the timetable, and the less said about the new speculative services the better. But I don't see any issue with having hourly paths that alternate between, eg, Hull and Lincoln, or West Yorkshire and Sunderland, alongside the regular services running 2 or 3 trains per hour to Leeds and Newcastle/Edinburgh – but yes, I would like to see them running more consistently and more regularly through the day (especially GC).

Bletchleyite · 10 Jun 2025

bramling said:
One wonders if a 5-car IET service every half hour (or even every hour) would be more beneficial than the current London extensions.

Not sure I'd be wasting IETs on Harrogate-Leeds semifasts, much as I'm sure their classic snootiness likes it. A 5-car 195 formation is what should probably be used here. You could possibly be really clever and make the York service the one that runs fast between Harrogate and Leeds and make the stopper start at Harrogate, thus benefitting passengers at local stations closer to York?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2025 ==

stevieinselby said:
It's questionable to describe the West Coast timetable as "simplified" – there are generally 9 hourly departures, and no two of them have the same calling pattern – 1 of them alternates between different end points from one hour to the next and doesn't always call at the same intermediate stops – 1 of them has various different endpoints – and Blackpool has two trains a day plus a few random extras to Liverpool. Arguably we should include the LNWR service to Crewe as well, as that is an intercity length journey even if not calling pattern, but there's no ECML analogue with an all-stations to Doncaster, maybe the 2-hourly to Lincoln is the closest fit?

The 0.5tph York semifast is it, isn't it? Sure, it's a LNER service, but it does tend to have lower fares than the faster services, albeit as Advances rather than cheap walk-ups.

stevieinselby · 10 Jun 2025

Bletchleyite said:
The 0.5tph York semifast is it, isn't it?

I guess the xx06, running to alternately Lincoln or York, probably does the job and means we were both right :lol:

swt_passenger · 10 Jun 2025

Bletchleyite said:
[…]
Would we be better going back to basics and simplifying this to just 4tph Kings Cross to Leeds and 4tph Kings Cross to Edinburgh, all operated using 9 or 10 car 80x formations, and binning off all the random extensions and 5 car sets? I can't help but think we would - this would make it much more similar to the WCML.

You know in the upcoming timetable there’s only 6 paths available to the ECML intercity operator? They can only fit in 2 to Leeds and 2 to Edinburgh (3 to Newcastle) with the current infrastructure limitations. There is an objective of 6.5 ‘LNER’ paths, but 1.5 are allocated to others such as HT, GC and LUMO. Unless you remove all open access and add infrastructure your proposal seems doomed.

NCT · 10 Jun 2025

Shaw S Hunter said:
HS2 would make a huge difference here.

This is the key part.

A S Leib · 10 Jun 2025

For comparison's sake, the Midland Main Line has 6tph medium / long-distance services at St. Pancras (2 each for Corby, Nottingham and Sheffield), which two early-morning trains per day from Lincoln to St. Pancras being the only exception that I can find.

Paddington has ~8.5tph (2 each via Oxford, Cardiff and Bristol Temple Meads, ~1.5 via Exeter, 1 Cheltenham). I think the difference is that as so many services split off after forty or fifty miles at Reading or Didcot rather than a hundred and fifty miles from London at Doncaster or Crewe, there's less of a need to have a perfectly uniform service (but with Paignton and Hereford rather than Exeter / Plymouth or Great Malvern being the only services which aren't currently at least 1tp2h there anyway).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2025 ==

Shaw S Hunter said:
And also a reminder that Hull has a larger population than Derby but nobody suggests MML services should concentrate solely on Nottingham and Sheffield

The difference being that Derby's on the quickest route from Leicester to Sheffield; Selby, Goole, Bridlington and Beverley might have 100,000 people combined in addition to Hull itself, but it's still fifty miles from Doncaster.

stevieinselby said:
plus a few random extras to Liverpool

I think they're part of the services meant to form a standard 2tph.

Bletchleyite · 10 Jun 2025

A S Leib said:
I think they're part of the services meant to form a standard 2tph.

They are yes and will in due course following power supply upgrades.

RailWonderer · 10 Jun 2025

Bletchleyite said:
I suppose extensions from Leeds and Edinburgh with full length trains aren't particularly harmful unless they're causing disruption, but do we really need the complexity of the Grand Centrals a few times of day to anywhere and everywhere, the LNER Lincoln and Lumo's 5 car service?

Open access came to the ECML because LNER's predecessors didn't order more trains and add more services to places like Hull. Virgin on the WCML with its high frequency timetable satisfied demand and kept potential OA operators away.

Bletchleyite said:
It could well be. The three-car York-Leeds service is grossly underspecified at 2tph of 3 car and is often severely overcrowded. You could easily justify 4tph between Harrogate and Leeds, and probably also longer trains (though you would need to use ASDO if they called at the local stations along the way). Would it be feasible to add 2tph of semifast services from Harrogate to Leeds on top of what is there, perhaps with longer trains because they wouldn't need to serve all the intermediates which have 3 car platforms? That would fulfil that need, and again with 4tph a missed connection isn't so problematic.

A fast in the peaks calling at Knaresborough, Harrogate, Horsforth and Leeds might work, but does it really need more than 2tph outside the peaks and Saturdays? It's not my part of the country but I've seen loadings for this line at York and Leeds a few times and it's never so full except at busy hours.

Brubulus · 10 Jun 2025

RailWonderer said:
Open access came to the ECML because LNER's predecessors didn't order more trains and add more services to places like Hull. Virgin on the WCML with its high frequency timetable satisfied demand and kept potential OA operators away.

A fast in the peaks calling at Knaresborough, Harrogate, Horsforth and Leeds might work, but does it really need more than 2tph outside the peaks and Saturdays? It's not my part of the country but I've seen loadings for this line at York and Leeds a few times and it's never so full except at busy hours.

The trains are usually almost empty at York, and very full at Leeds. Given the need to minimise subsidy, what could be done is to run trains to Knaresbrough every 20 mins, with 1tph continuing to York. I don't think LNER extensions to Bradford or Harrogate are necessary and they are generally just a waste of 125mph trains, for political reasons.

The 6.5tph LNER service enables a WCML style 3tph to Newcastle and Leeds, and 0.5tph to Cleethorpes via Lincoln (this enables the withdrawal of EMR services between Lincoln and Grimsby)
Then there's 1.5 for OA, of which 0.5 is Hull, which needs a direct service. 0.5 can run as a splitter for the North East(Sunderland+Middlesbrough). Then there's 0.5 tph for Lumo and GC to Bradford.

Trainbike46 · 10 Jun 2025

Brubulus said:
The trains are usually almost empty at York, and very full at Leeds. Given the need to minimise subsidy, what could be done is to run trains to Knaresbrough every 20 mins, with 1tph continuing to York. I don't think LNER extensions to Bradford or Harrogate are necessary and they are generally just a waste of 125mph trains, for political reasons.

The 6.5tph LNER service enables a WCML style 3tph to Newcastle and Leeds, and 0.5tph to Cleethorpes via Lincoln (this enables the withdrawal of EMR services between Lincoln and Grimsby)

Are you proposing a withdrawal of services to Edinburgh, or do you mean Edinburgh when you say Newcastle?

Brubulus said:
Then there's 1.5 for OA, of which 0.5 is Hull, which needs a direct service. 0.5 can run as a splitter for the North East(Sunderland+Middlesbrough). Then there's 0.5 tph for Lumo and GC to Bradford.

I agree Hull should be served, however GC Bradford? Just extend more LNER Leeds services instead. Lumo similarly could be replaced by LNER service.

Brubulus · 10 Jun 2025

Trainbike46 said:
Are you proposing a withdrawal of services to Edinburgh, or do you mean Edinburgh when you say Newcastle?

I agree Hull should be served, however GC Bradford? Just extend more LNER Leeds services instead. Lumo similarly could be replaced by LNER service.

No, 2tph would continue to Edinburgh, until HS2, at which point the objective changes to forcing London-Edinburgh passengers to travel via HS2 instead of ECML.

Lumo keeps the DfT in check on London-Edinburgh, while taking direct trains from Halifax and Dewsbury would be interesting politically. What else would that path go on, running more 5 car trains?

ECML - keep it simple?

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Forum Staff

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member