East Coast Timetable Dec 24

[Class 170101]

To iron out the issues, or get a kicking by the FOCs if they try and remove their paths via Part J?

Part J, though by the sounds of whats being said here May 25 may also be useful for NR to 'iron out the issues'

 

[The Planner]

Part J, though by the sounds of whats being said here May 25 may also be useful for NR to 'iron out the issues'

Id still expect the FOCs to win that argument as well.

 

[55002]

So there’s only one service an hour using that tablePeterborough to Doncaster?

 

[bramling]

Possibly a wild shot, but does anyone know whether GTR plans to go ahead with the changes as consulted on in the timetable consultation from 2021? More specifically:

• Peterborough - Horsham to gain an extra stop at Knebworth in peaks
• Cambridge stopper to be merged with the Baldock peak service during peak hours (i.e. a new semi fast service and a curtailed stopper) - presumably they would need additional trains and drivers for this?

Cambridge stopper rebranding to GN and Welwyn to Sevenoaks peak service extensions were also part of this and have already been introduced.

When I asked GTR about it I was told the consultation didn't exist...

All very quiet on the GTR front. However I’d be surprised if the bit mentioned about merging the Cambridge and Baldock services goes ahead, as there was considerable local opposition. In essence passengers from the likes of Hitchin, Letchworth and Baldock liked having faster services which commenced their journey close to home, though of course they haven’t had this since Covid.

In terms of rolling stock, there isnt really sufficient stock for any expansion as things are at the moment, potentially something involving the 717s is the most that is viable on paper. However if the 379s come then that changes, as everything would then depend on how many 387s are retained.

 

[deltic08]

I thought that the planned third path each hour for LNER between York and Newcastle for an additional Kings Cross to Newcastle service is at the expense of TPE and XC so there is no increase in the number of paths taken by passenger trains on this section of the East Coast Mainline. I thought that between Peterborough and Doncaster freight trains have paths via Spalding which was the point of the Werrington dive under. Is the lack of available paths between Doncaster and York? If not where on the East Coast Mainline is the lack of paths for the proposed additional third LNER train each hour from Kings Cross to Newcastle? Could the hourly XC Reading to York train (I understand it will be hourly again from May 2025) which currently runs on the ECML between Doncaster and York be diverted via Pontefract Baghill? It would probably be better for this XC train always to terminate at York and leave TPE with two paths an hour between York and Newcastle. As they are saving tens of billions of pounds by not extending HS2 from Birmingham to Leeds they should use some of the money saved to create more capacity on the East Coast Mainline as there is clearly still not enough capacity on the ECML.

I doubt XC would settle for the Pontefract Baghill route instead of via Doncaster. This route is very slow north of Moorthorpe. This highlights the stupidity of spending £millions upgrading the Church Fenton-Normanton-Royston-Swinton route particularly Goosehill Junction-Swinton to 110mph and then two years later closing and lifting track south of Goosehill.
Who makes these attrocious short term decisions?

A fairly regular journey of mine is Northallerton to Curriehill to see family. In the new ECML timetable, there is no through train anymore to Edinburgh. A change at Newcastle is required as well as Edinburgh. I am not prepared to do this, so East Coast have lost my business as I shall go by car which is cheaper anyway for my wife and myself and door to door.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The industry needs to get a grip and

It's not a great reflection on the industry as a whole if a timetable which has been in development for years still has "significant issues", bearing in mind there was a consultation on it in 2021. It goes back even further if you include the wrangling between ORR, NR, DfT and long distance TOCs - note not freight - over East Coast Mainline access getting on for a decade ago!

If I were at the Treasury I think I'd want to get my investment back on Werrington, Kings Cross remodelling and the ECML power supply and connectivity schemes so I can imagine how the conversations between DfT and NR might be going...

Absolutely the taxpayer has invested 1.2B in ECML infrastructure upgrades and has yet to see any payback for that investment. Quite frankly why should any political party of whatever colour want to invest anymore money on enhancements if the benefits aren't going to be realised. So this time for the industry leadership to collectively bang heads together and get it sorted and demonstrate to the DfT it can deliver.

 

[weeklycommuter]

It's not a great reflection on the industry as a whole if a timetable which has been in development for years still has "significant issues", bearing in mind there was a consultation on it in 2021. It goes back even further if you include the wrangling between ORR, NR, DfT and long distance TOCs - note not freight - over East Coast Mainline access getting on for a decade ago!
If I were at the Treasury I think I'd want to get my investment back on Werrington, Kings Cross remodelling and the ECML power supply and connectivity schemes so I can imagine how the conversations between DfT and NR might be going...

The industry needs to get a grip and
Absolutely the taxpayer has invested 1.2B in ECML infrastructure upgrades and has yet to see any payback for that investment. Quite frankly why should any political party of whatever colour want to invest anymore money on enhancements if the benefits aren't going to be realised. So this time for the industry leadership to collectively bang heads together and get it sorted and demonstrate to the DfT it can deliver.

I assume the ECML timetable change will go ahead in Dec 2024 as the Government wants it to show a result from the investment in infrastructure but I am not sure the travelling public will consider it to be an improvement overall and they may question whether the Government has delivered any net improvement in service from this infrastructure investment. The travelling public will probably consider an improvement in service to be more trains with more seats at affordable fares for the journeys they need to make and it is not clear that this will be delivered in the North of England by this infrastructure investment.
There will still only be six paths an hour for fast passenger services between York and Newcastle so the third LNER train from London Kings Cross to Newcastle is delivered at the expense of reducing the number of Transpennine trains from two to one. As the XC Reading-York service will only be extended to Newcastle every other hour the average number of fast Government controlled passenger services between York and Newcastle each hour is reduced from six in 2019 to five and a half and then only when Cross Country restores all the Reading-York services in May 2025.
DfT and HM Treasury will only have themselves to blame if the travelling public does not consider the Dec 2024 ECML timetable to be an improvement as they have failed to ensure a seventh path each hour for fast passenger trains between York and Newcastle and they refuse to allow Cross Country Trains to have new bimode rolling stock with 600 seats per train like LNER for the Edinburgh-Plymouth and Newcastle-Reading services. The Government must also share the blame with LNER management for a timetable which appears again to attempt to save a few minutes from the London to Newcastle and Edinburgh journey times at the expense of a much poorer service to many of the stations in Yorkshire and the North East of England, which means the users of those stations will definitely not consider the service to be an improvement and many will abandon travelling by train, and for LNER’s crazy removal of the affordable off peak fares of around £170 return London to Newcastle and Edinburgh so passengers are faced with paying nearly £400 for these return journeys which is 80 pence a mile for London to Newcastle.

 

[cle]

So if Reading-Newcastle gets back to hourly, what is the main issue? That TPE is only 1tph?

This doesn't include the Middlesbrough service, does it - so Northallerton is still well enough served.

If all XC could go via Leeds, that might make a difference - it's likely more important than e2e journeys, and folks going Sheffield-Edinburgh, for instance, could be better off changing at Doncaster.

But south from York, 1tph Sheffield / Birmingham / Reading, 1tph Manchester, 2-3tph Leeds, and the rest to London seems right to me.

 

[dk1]

So if Reading-Newcastle gets back to hourly, what is the main issue? That TPE is only 1tph?

This doesn't include the Middlesbrough service, does it - so Northallerton is still well enough served.

If all XC could go via Leeds, that might make a difference - it's likely more important than e2e journeys, and folks going Sheffield-Edinburgh, for instance, could be better off changing at Doncaster.

But south from York, 1tph Sheffield / Birmingham / Reading, 1tph Manchester, 2-3tph Leeds, and the rest to London seems right to me.

Network Rail/DfT have always turned down XC operating all services via Leeds. Think it’s due to capacity issues.

 

[weeklycommuter]

So if Reading-Newcastle gets back to hourly, what is the main issue?

XC Reading-York is planned to be hourly again from May 2025 but this train will only continue from York to Newcastle once every two hours.

https://democracy.transportforthenorth.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=7783

3.8 The main weaknesses of the revised proposal from Transport for the North’s point of view are:
• The current 1.5 trains per hour (i.e. one train in one hour then two trains in the next hour) between Manchester and Newcastle is reduced to hourly, this service having been already reduced from two per hour in 2019. Its path is effectively used to accommodate the additional London service with connections at York to other services pending the provision of additional infrastructure
• Cross Country services would be hourly between Sheffield/Leeds/York/Newcastle and Scotland, as now, with the Sheffield/Doncaster/York/Newcastle service operating every other hour.

But south from York, 1tph Sheffield / Birmingham / Reading, 1tph Manchester, 2-3tph Leeds, and the rest to London seems right to me.

See

Leaders' fury over new rail timetable cutting region's services

A “reprehensible” new train timetable that could see services slashed at smaller stations across the North East looks set to be imposed next…

www.hexham-courant.co.uk

Fewer weekday departures to London and Edinburgh proposed under the new arrangements

Northumberland County Council and a rail group have criticised LNER’s draft plan for a new East Coast Main Line timetable for the impact it would have on passengers using two key stations in the county.

www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk

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

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

BBC

XC Reading-York is planned to be hourly again from May 2025 but this train will only continue from York to Newcastle once every two hours.



See

BBC now covering story

Levelling Down fears over new timetable

Although largely a recycle of above stories. Will suit NR if they say it doesn't work but it puts the industry in a bad light given how much time has elapsed from previous planned implementation date. Mind you with the fragility of the trains, infrastructure and driver industrial relations its sadly most sensible outcome.

 

[Gwr12345]

I notice in the BBC article Darlington is not mentioned on the list of stations with service cuts. Are the London to Edinburgh fast now going to stop or is it simply an omission?

 

[800001]

I notice in the BBC article Darlington is not mentioned on the list of stations with service cuts. Are the London to Edinburgh fast now going to stop or is it simply an omission?

The new London - Newcastle would call there.

 

[Swanley 59]

If the Northern service from Morpeth is being cut back to Newcastle rather than Hexham/Carlisle, as suggested in the press, does this mean that this might, one day, become an electric service? Or is this too fanciful a notion and 75 mph DMUs will continue to clog up the this busy stretch of the ECML for years to come?

 

[Class 466]

If the Northern service from Morpeth is being cut back to Newcastle rather than Hexham/Carlisle, as suggested in the press, does this mean that this might, one day, become an electric service? Or is this too fanciful a notion and 75 mph DMUs will continue to clog up the this busy stretch of the ECML for years to come?

The siding they shunt to in order to turnback isn't electrified I believe

 

[class 9]

I doubt XC would settle for the Pontefract Baghill route instead of via Doncaster. This route is very slow north of Moorthorpe. This highlights the stupidity of spending £millions upgrading the Church Fenton-Normanton-Royston-Swinton route particularly Goosehill Junction-Swinton to 110mph and then two years later closing and lifting track south of Goosehill.
Who makes these attrocious short term decisions?

A fairly regular journey of mine is Northallerton to Curriehill to see family. In the new ECML timetable, there is no through train anymore to Edinburgh. A change at Newcastle is required as well as Edinburgh. I am not prepared to do this, so East Coast have lost my business as I shall go by car which is cheaper anyway for my wife and myself and door to door.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, the line from Goosehill closed 30 odd years ago, the railway was very different from today.
Wasn't all the work on that line to combat mining subsidence ?

 

[Swanley 59]

The siding they shunt to in order to turnback isn't electrified I believe

That is true - the shunt would need to be wired. In spite of the nonsense, to me at least, of running a 75 mph diesel service on an 110 mph electrified line, I don't think an electric service will happen in my lifetime.

 

[Senex]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, the line from Goosehill closed 30 odd years ago, the railway was very different from today.
Wasn't all the work on that line to combat mining subsidence ?

No, it was believed that the mining subsidence was done with on that line (and had moved eastwards), so the decision had been to develop Sheffield–Cudworth–Leeds as a fast route and massively upgrade Altofts to Chaloners Whin (as it then still was) as the fast Sheffield–York route — thus the 60-mph junction at Altofts, when the time came the 125-mph split at Colton, the plans for putting in the fast lines that had first been designed for Normanton before WW1 to avoid the slow speeds through the platforms, and (I think) to get back to the old alignment at Castleford. At the end the route was entirely free of subsidence problems save for the one bad one at Royston, and all the works to remedy that were already planned and on the verge of being done.

 

[Manutd1999]

It's not a great reflection on the industry as a whole if a timetable which has been in development for years still has "significant issues", bearing in mind there was a consultation on it in 2021.

100% agree

Yes there are difficult choices, yes it is impossible to please everyone, but for it to still have significant issues after 4+ years of work at this stage should be unacceptable. What is the point of infrastruture investment if it takes the industry X years to work out how to use it?

Maybe this is done internally and we don't get to hear about it in the public-domain, but where is the accountability? If the current organisations cannot work effectively then they need to be reformed, or responsibility taken away from them and moved elsewhere.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The problem is that the Region has handled the process ineptly. There has been a lot of chat about the structure (far too much, in fact) and when the hard timetabling finally started it revealed a number of issues, with some operators with firm rights completely disadvantaged or just left out. Some operators have been in total despair about the whole thing. But the DfT have been pushing for it coming in regardless of the fact it clearly doesn’t work and this has caused considerable friction. They have been an absolute nuisance.

When the final timetable was handed to MK a couple of months ago, they took one look at it and gulped. It is woefully underdeveloped for this stage of the timetable cycle and the interfaces with the rest of the railway are not exactly great. MK have tried to make something of it but now the effort is seemingly switching to trying to build on the June 24 timetable structure (i.e. the current one) and operators (the timetabling experts, not the wafflers) are meeting next week to try and sort out what can be rescued for December.

Compared to how the industry brought in Eureka nearly 15 years ago, this has been an appalling mess. I could go on detailing some of the many basic errors but that would be pointless. It’s now time for working up the solution!

 

[Senex]

Why can't we do what the Swiss and the Dutch have done for years — decide what timetable you want, and then make sure that in time for its introduction you have the necessary infrastructure to be able to deliver it reliably? (In a much more long-winded and argumentative way this is also the process behind the development of the proposed Taktfahrplan for Germany.) The whole ECML business seems to be another example of Britain trying to squeeze a quart out of a pint pot. Where's the boundray between the efficient use of assets and expecting the absurd?

 

[The Planner]

The problem is that the Region has handled the process ineptly. There has been a lot of chat about the structure (far too much, in fact) and when the hard timetabling finally started it revealed a number of issues, with some operators with firm rights completely disadvantaged or just left out. Some operators have been in total despair about the whole thing. But the DfT have been pushing for it coming in regardless of the fact it clearly doesn’t work and this has caused considerable friction. They have been an absolute nuisance.

When the final timetable was handed to MK a couple of months ago, they took one look at it and gulped. It is woefully underdeveloped for this stage of the timetable cycle and the interfaces with the rest of the railway are not exactly great. MK have tried to make something of it but now the effort is seemingly switching to trying to build on the June 24 timetable structure (i.e. the current one) and operators (the timetabling experts, not the wafflers) are meeting next week to try and sort out what can be rescued for December.

Compared to how the industry brought in Eureka nearly 15 years ago, this has been an appalling mess. I could go on detailing some of the many basic errors but that would be pointless. It’s now time for working up the solution!

Superb post.

 

[hux385]

The whole thing seems sort of corrupt from the DfT I can't lie. They are the ones who run LNER and so they want better paths for them, and so they force Network Rail's hand to rejig the timetable to suit them? The main losers from the new timetable are the freight operators, who will lose confidence in the current system. This is a really worrying route to go down since rail freight is so so crucial.

I am actually in favour of greater nationalisation and would like to see better journey times for express passenger trains on the East Coast, but I don't think the way it's being gone about is right or fair. If we were in GBR- world where everything is run differently, then this new timetable might be more feasible, but under the current setup, I don't see how they can get away with this?

 

[CarrotPie]

The problem is that the Region has handled the process ineptly. There has been a lot of chat about the structure (far too much, in fact) and when the hard timetabling finally started it revealed a number of issues, with some operators with firm rights completely disadvantaged or just left out. Some operators have been in total despair about the whole thing. But the DfT have been pushing for it coming in regardless of the fact it clearly doesn’t work and this has caused considerable friction. They have been an absolute nuisance.

When the final timetable was handed to MK a couple of months ago, they took one look at it and gulped. It is woefully underdeveloped for this stage of the timetable cycle and the interfaces with the rest of the railway are not exactly great. MK have tried to make something of it but now the effort is seemingly switching to trying to build on the June 24 timetable structure (i.e. the current one) and operators (the timetabling experts, not the wafflers) are meeting next week to try and sort out what can be rescued for December.

Compared to how the industry brought in Eureka nearly 15 years ago, this has been an appalling mess. I could go on detailing some of the many basic errors but that would be pointless. It’s now time for working up the solution!

MK?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Milton Keynes (Network Rail HQ and where the timetable planners work).

 

[OneOfThe48]

The problem is that the Region has handled the process ineptly. There has been a lot of chat about the structure (far too much, in fact) and when the hard timetabling finally started it revealed a number of issues, with some operators with firm rights completely disadvantaged or just left out. Some operators have been in total despair about the whole thing. But the DfT have been pushing for it coming in regardless of the fact it clearly doesn’t work and this has caused considerable friction. They have been an absolute nuisance.

When the final timetable was handed to MK a couple of months ago, they took one look at it and gulped. It is woefully underdeveloped for this stage of the timetable cycle and the interfaces with the rest of the railway are not exactly great. MK have tried to make something of it but now the effort is seemingly switching to trying to build on the June 24 timetable structure (i.e. the current one) and operators (the timetabling experts, not the wafflers) are meeting next week to try and sort out what can be rescued for December.

Compared to how the industry brought in Eureka nearly 15 years ago, this has been an appalling mess. I could go on detailing some of the many basic errors but that would be pointless. It’s now time for working up the solution!

So who wrote/fumbled this timetable?

Was it the operators not working together properly or the NR region?

 

[weeklycommuter]

The problem is that the Region has handled the process ineptly. There has been a lot of chat about the structure (far too much, in fact) and when the hard timetabling finally started it revealed a number of issues, with some operators with firm rights completely disadvantaged or just left out. Some operators have been in total despair about the whole thing. But the DfT have been pushing for it coming in regardless of the fact it clearly doesn’t work and this has caused considerable friction. They have been an absolute nuisance.

When the final timetable was handed to MK a couple of months ago, they took one look at it and gulped. It is woefully underdeveloped for this stage of the timetable cycle and the interfaces with the rest of the railway are not exactly great. MK have tried to make something of it but now the effort is seemingly switching to trying to build on the June 24 timetable structure (i.e. the current one) and operators (the timetabling experts, not the wafflers) are meeting next week to try and sort out what can be rescued for December.

Compared to how the industry brought in Eureka nearly 15 years ago, this has been an appalling mess. I could go on detailing some of the many basic errors but that would be pointless. It’s now time for working up the solution!

Does switching to trying to build on the June 24 timetable structure affect the opening of Cambridge South Station? I thought the new December 2024 East Coast Mainline timetable was needed for Cambridge South Station.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The whole thing seems sort of corrupt from the DfT I can't lie. They are the ones who run LNER and so they want better paths for them, and so they force Network Rail's hand to rejig the timetable to suit them? The main losers from the new timetable are the freight operators, who will lose confidence in the current system. This is a really worrying route to go down since rail freight is so so crucial.

I am actually in favour of greater nationalisation and would like to see better journey times for express passenger trains on the East Coast, but I don't think the way it's being gone about is right or fair. If we were in GBR- world where everything is run differently, then this new timetable might be more feasible, but under the current setup, I don't see how they can get away with this?

The taxpayer invested 1.2B in various enhancements along the route as developed by NR to realise the faster journey times and run more trains on electric traction. The timetable should have been ready to go in May 22 on a project that was initiated back in 2015 yet that timetable change was deferred as it wasn't properly developed. So to then roll on another two and half years and its still not deliverable is a pretty poor show by the industry. If i was a politician of any hue why would you ever agree to anymore enhancements when this is the outcome. This isn't on DafT and its incumbent on the rail industries players involved here to demonstrate they can deliver.

 

[HST43257]

If the recast timetable is anything like the previously proposed, I’m worried.

IIRC, some stations had terrible imbalances of like 50/10 minute gaps to/from London, Newark comes to mind?

I can’t remember exacts but I remember thinking that the timetable had such a small eye for the customer’s needs, perhaps like an even frequency service (30/30ish rather than 50/10). Not to mention idiotic decreases in services. Darlington with a quarter of its current Edinburgh services (2tph to 1tp2h).

Worse still, the London to Edinburgh express (York and Newcastle) took an extra 10 minutes, mainly between Newcastle and Edinburgh I think, which I find counterintuitive as it’s the headline service with the headline speeding up, but of course we just do some ineffective halfway job - the service doesn’t need recovery time if it’s the headline priority service imo, the timetable is being built around it and trains can be flighted.

I’m not necessarily suggesting a Takt solution, but surely there’s more sensible or slightly more grounded ways to make positive changes.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

If the recast timetable is anything like the previously proposed, I’m worried.

IIRC, some stations had terrible imbalances of like 50/10 minute gaps to/from London, Newark comes to mind?

I can’t remember exacts but I remember thinking that the timetable had such a small eye for the customer’s needs, perhaps like an even frequency service (30/30ish rather than 50/10). Not to mention idiotic decreases in services. Darlington with a quarter of its current Edinburgh services (2tph to 1tp2h).

Worse still, the London to Edinburgh express (York and Newcastle) took an extra 10 minutes, mainly between Newcastle and Edinburgh I think, which I find counterintuitive as it’s the headline service with the headline speeding up, but of course we just do some ineffective halfway job - the service doesn’t need recovery time if it’s the headline priority service imo, the timetable is being built around it and trains can be flighted.

I’m not necessarily suggesting a Takt solution, but surely there’s more sensible or slightly more grounded ways to make positive changes.

Surely after the previous timetable iteration was aborted and put out to consultation again this sort of nonsense was identified as needing to be eradicated.