East Coast Timetable Dec 24

[greyman42]

Informed Sources in Modern Railways June 2024 indicates again that it will be impossible to deliver the abandoned December 2024 East Coast Mainline timetable change unless and until Woodwalton Junction to Huntingdon is made four track reinstating the Up Slow Line.

How easy/difficult/expensive would it be to do this?

 

[weeklycommuter]

How easy/difficult/expensive would it be to do this?

The following Modern Railways article dated February 2018 has some estimates but inflation since 2018 will have increased these.

VTEC highlights ECML upgrades confusion

Roll up the ECML timetable, it will not be wanted in CP6* ...

www.modernrailways.com

Ideally, the reinstated fourth track would run into the existing Conington Loop. This full-house solution was costed at £85 million at GRIP2. Now the scheme has been taken to GRIP3, the cost has become an unaffordable £190 million.
As a result, various cut-down options are being considered. These reduce the length of the four-track section by a small amount, although the option of adding a link into the Conington loop remains. Anticipated Final Cost (AFC) now ranges from £125 to £180 million.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The following Modern Railways article dated February 2018 has some estimates but inflation since 2018 will have increased these.

How hopeless has the industry become where we have a collection of high cost infrastructure interventions in Werrington, Power Supply Upgrades etc yet the key constraint has been ignored so the full benefits from these investments may never be realised now. That four tracking will now be 200-250m i suspect using TRU as the benchmark.

 

[greyman42]

Informed Sources in Modern Railways June 2024 indicates again that it will be impossible to deliver the abandoned December 2024 East Coast Mainline timetable change unless and until Woodwalton Junction to Huntingdon is made four track reinstating the Up Slow Line.

Why and when was the Up Slow removed in the first place?

 

[Bald Rick]

Why and when was the Up Slow removed in the first place?

To keep the costs of the ECML electrification down. This was at a time when there was no realisitic prospect of more than 3-4 intercity trains oer hour on that stretch (vs twice that now).

Besides as I said upthread :

1) The Modern Railways article does not say it will be impossible to deliver the ‘abandoned’ timetable withiut that infrastrucutre

2) The timetable has not been abandoned, but deferred. It is a complex challenge, but I’d have money on a recast being delivered next year.

 

[Magdalia]

Why and when was the Up Slow removed in the first place?

Also, at electrification, the stopping service was only 1tph.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Also, at electrification, the stopping service was only 1tph.

Which does beg the question, is the work justifiable if the desired timetable could be achieved by removing one of the two local services north of Huntingdon (although I guess that would also then add a potential problem at the latter as the terminating service would need to cross both main lines to access the bay).

And speaking of conflicting moves, do those local trains eat up capacity at Peterborough by having to cross the down main to access their platform there? Could that be avoided by running them empty to Glinton Jn and putting a turnback facility there. Getting my crayons out there’s a huge amount of newish development close by, so if there was enough land you could even build a one platform station there off the running line.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Why and when was the Up Slow removed in the first place?

There was damage to the up slow trackbed which required extensive repairs in the early 1980s.

At the time there was no local service north of Huntingdon, intercity trains instead calling there meaning the only use of the track was parcels sector / freight and they declined to fund the repairs.

To keep the costs of the ECML electrification down. This was at a time when there was no realisitic prospect of more than 3-4 intercity trains oer hour on that stretch (vs twice that now).

It was already out of use by then but keeping it out of use and using the formation for the OLE masts (and less line to electrify) did indeed keep the costs down.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Which does beg the question, is the work justifiable if the desired timetable could be achieved by removing one of the two local services north of Huntingdon

Terminating one of the two 12 car Thameslink Horsham-Peterborough trains every hour at Huntingdon to enable a third LNER service from Kings Cross to Newcastle each hour is out of the question.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Terminating one of the two 12 car Thameslink Horsham-Peterborough trains every hour at Huntingdon to enable a third LNER service from Kings Cross to Newcastle each hour is out of the question.

In whose mind? Are they particularly well loaded between those two stations?

 

[30907]

In whose mind? Are they particularly well loaded between those two stations?

Maybe not, but terminating anything at Huntingdon is problematic, as it would involve a reversal on the Down Fast.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Maybe not, but terminating anything at Huntingdon is problematic, as it would involve a reversal on the Down Fast.

Yes, I did note that there might create other conflicts (although I assumed they would terminate in the bay). I assumed your comment was more commercial in nature.

 

[Robski_]

Yes, I did note that there might create other conflicts (although I assumed they would terminate in the bay). I assumed your comment was more commercial in nature.

Down trains cannot access the bay platform (or P2), and the bay platform is only 8 coaches long - Thameslink services on this route are 12 coaches.

 

[Magdalia]

Maybe not, but terminating anything at Huntingdon is problematic, as it would involve a reversal on the Down Fast.

Prior to electrification the 2 car DMUs reversed on the down fast then again on the up slow to get from the down side to the up bay. With a 2 car DMU the driver didn't take long to get from one end of the train to the other.

But I can't recall that being done after electrification. For a long time the 1622 from Kings Cross terminated at Huntingdon, but it went to Conington to reverse on the down slow.

Various timetables had morning starters from Huntingdon that used the up bay, but coming empty from Nene sidings.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Which does beg the question, is the work justifiable if the desired timetable could be achieved by removing one of the two local services north of Huntingdon

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.

The December 2024 ECML proposed timetable is not going ahead in December 2024 because there are still 42 unresolved conflicts between proposed passenger and fixed freight paths and the freight operators do not want to give up their paths. Why would Govia Thameslink Railway agree to give up any paths between Huntingdon and Peterborough for their Thameslink passenger services to fix this even if it solved the problem? Why would their passengers travelling on these train services to and from Peterborough agree to accept the loss of any of their train services to fix this?

 

[Brissle Girl]

. Why would Govia Thameslink Railway agree to give up any paths between Huntingdon and Peterborough for their Thameslink passenger services to fix this even if it solved the problem? Why would their passengers travelling on these train services to and from Peterborough agree to accept the loss of any of their train services to fix this?

Because GTR will do whatever the government tells them to do as part of their management contract. So if the govt thinks it’s a good idea, neither GTR nor the passengers will have any say in the matter.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Because GTR will do whatever the government tells them to do as part of their management contract. So if the govt thinks it’s a good idea, neither GTR nor the passengers will have any say in the matter.

For a long list of reasons rail passengers using the service and therefore the government that depends on their votes will never consider it to be a good idea to terminate one of the two Thameslink Horsham-Peterborough services each hour at Huntingdon. Peterborough is a high footfall station providing train services not only for people who live in Peterborough but also many other rail passengers making connections including to and from East Coast Mainline services run by GTR to stations South on the Kings Cross and Thameslink route, the EMR Norwich to Liverpool service and LNER services to all the East Coast Mainline destinations in the East Midlands, Yorkshire, North East England and Scotland. The 12 car Thameslink trains each with 666 seats and room for hundreds more to stand provide a very large amount of capacity on train services to and from stations towards, through and beyond London, far more than is provided by the LNER and other long distance trains that call at Peterborough. Train tickets including season tickets on LNER services between Peterborough and London are also a lot more expensive than tickets only valid on GTR train services. This would amount to a huge reduction in capacity on trains between London and Peterborough and makes no sense whatsoever. GTR are adding more services between London and Peterborough to meet demand from rail passengers with the new timetable starting on 2 June. Clearly if they absolutely must enable a third LNER service each hour to Newcastle without four tracking Huntingdon to Woodwalton they will just have find a way to move or cancel the affected freight paths.

 

[paul1609]

For a very long list of reasons rail passengers using the service and therefore the government that depends on their votes will never consider it to be a good idea to terminate one of the two Thameslink Horsham-Peterborough services each hour at Huntingdon. Peterborough is a high footfall station providing train services not only for people who live in Peterborough but also many other rail passengers making connections including to and from East Coast Mainline services run by GTR to stations South on the Kings Cross and Thameslink route, the EMR Norwich to Liverpool service and LNER services to all the East Coast Mainline destinations in the East Midlands, Yorkshire, North East England and Scotland. The 12 car Thameslink trains each with 666 seats and room for hundreds more to stand provide a very large amount of capacity on train services to and from stations towards, through and beyond London, far more than is provided by the LNER and other long distance trains that call at Peterborough. Train tickets including season tickets on LNER services between Peterborough and London are also a lot more expensive than tickets only valid on GTR train services. This would amount to a huge reduction in capacity on trains between London and Peterborough and makes no sense whatsoever. GTR are adding more services between London and Peterborough to meet demand from rail passengers with the new timetable starting on 2 June. Clearly if they absolutely must enable a third LNER service each hour to Newcastle without four tracking Huntingdon to Woodwalton they would just have find a way to move or cancel the affected freight paths.

Isnt this the same route that has 4 and 5 car D/EMUs running to and from the backend of no-where wasting capacity? GC/LUMO/HULL/LNER to Lincoln.

 

[xotGD]

Isnt this the same route that has 4 and 5 car D/EMUs running to and from the backend of no-where wasting capacity? GC/LUMO/HULL/LNER to Lincoln.

Indeed. The easiest way to increase capacity is to make every service 9 or 10 carriages.

 

[harz99]

Isnt this the route that has 4 and 5 car D/EMUs running to and from the backend of no-where wasting capacity? GC/LUMO/HULL/LNER to Lincoln.

Wasting capacity, the first three of those run their services pretty much 100% of passenger capacity when operating single units, and those of us that live in your so called "backend of no-where" places need to travel as much as anyone else!

 

[Austriantrain]

Wasting capacity, the first three of those run their services pretty much 100% of passenger capacity when operating single units, and those of us that live in your so called "backend of no-where" places need to travel as much as anyone else!

It *is* wasting capacity if you run 5 car units when you could run 10.

 

[DanNCL]

Isnt this the same route that has 4 and 5 car D/EMUs running to and from the backend of no-where wasting capacity? GC/LUMO/HULL/LNER to Lincoln.

The shortest formation you’ll find is 5 car. And by ‘the backend of nowhere’ what you’re actually referring to are cities with over 150k inhabitants each that the main ECML operator inadequately serves. And those trains are pretty much always full.

If you want an example of a train on the ECML that arrives in London with plenty of empty seats, look at the pre-10am LNER arrivals from Newcastle that hardly anyone is prepared to pay £100+ for a single on.

It *is* wasting capacity if you run 5 car units when you could run 10.

Lumo granted but it simply isn’t possible for Grand Central, you’ll not get anything near a 10 car train pathed into Sunderland during the day.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

It *is* wasting capacity if you run 5 car units when you could run 10.

Not possible for Lumo, there's not enough power North of Newcastle.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The ECML has never been and is still not just for running long trains between the big cities that sit directly on it. It is a complex mix of direct services, through services to or from significant off route destinations, connecting and crossing local services, commuting services, together with several key freight flows, each meeting individual commercial and social objectives.

The value here is in the total mix and whether that particular service meets the objective set for it. A path is not a wasted if it is a 5 car or 9 car - the only waste is if no one is travelling on the train, whatever length it is. Running long emptyish trains just for the heck of it is the real waste of money.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

In the longer term, how practical would it be for the open access operators only able to run 5-car trains to couple them together between London and Doncaster/York/Newcastle?

 

[Porty]

Not possible for Lumo, there's not enough power North of Newcastle.

But aren't they running north of Newcastle on diesel anyway with 5 cars.

 

[800001]

But aren't they running north of Newcastle on diesel anyway with 5 cars.

Not Lumo no as they are electric.

Certain LNER services on a Sunday, in the hours where they run 3 services per hour, then one of this will operate in diesel mode from Longniddry to Chathill.

 

[Magdalia]

The ECML has never been and is still not just for running long trains between the big cities that sit directly on it. It is a complex mix of direct services, through services to or from significant off route destinations, connecting and crossing local services, commuting services, together with several key freight flows, each meeting individual commercial and social objectives.

The value here is in the total mix and whether that particular service meets the objective set for it. A path is not a wasted if it is a 5 car or 9 car - the only waste is if no one is travelling on the train, whatever length it is. Running long emptyish trains just for the heck of it is the real waste of money.

I commuted on the GN for 25 years. In that time I always regarded train paths through the Welwyn 2 track section as the critical resource. In that time it was always the case that, when the Welwyn 2 track section was required to operate at full capacity, all trains were full length 8-12 cars, with the objective that those trains would be full, except for the 2tph that called at Welwyn North. That was the way to get the maximum number of people over the Welwyn Viaduct at peak times.

In my commuting days that was only for 2 short periods covering 0730-0930 arrivals at Kings Cross and 1700-1900 departures on Mondays to Fridays. Other traffic, such as open access operators and freight, only got paths at other times. What has changed is that there is now peak demand for train paths through the Welwyn 2 track section that extends all the way from 0730 to 1900.

In the longer term, how practical would it be for the open access operators only able to run 5-car trains to couple them together between London and Doncaster/York/Newcastle?

In those days GN, and its predecessors, needed to run short 4 car trains to serve stations north of Royston. But it still only ran 8 car trains through the Welwyn 2 track section at peak times, by doing splitting/joining at Letchworth, Royston and Cambridge. This is the approach that should now be adopted with the open access operators. For example, in today's timetable, the 1023/1213 Lumo departures from Kings Cross could run 10 cars to Newcastle and split, with the rear units then joining at Newcastle onto the 1356/1550 departures from Edinburgh. The GN services to/from Kings Lynn operated like this for years with splitting and joining at Cambridge. Suboptimal use of the Welwyn 2 track section should not result from operational constraints hundreds of miles away.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Suboptimal use of the Welwyn 2 track section should not result from operational constraints hundreds of miles away.

The capacity over the 2 track section at Welwyn is not the critical problem with the planned ESG timetable it’s between Woodwalton and Huntingdon on the up where the timetable structure means it’s challenging to path freight trains alongside the long distance services.

 

[Magdalia]

The capacity over the 2 track section at Welwyn is not the critical problem with the planned ESG timetable it’s between Woodwalton and Huntingdon on the up where the timetable structure means it’s challenging to path freight trains alongside the long distance services.

Holme (down)/Huntingdon (up)-Fletton is a different 2 track constraint, but the principle is the same.

Would a high(er) speed turnout before Huntingdon help at all or be cheaper a compromise for now (a bit like they did at Fletton Junction from the Down Main to Down Slow)? Currently all trains stopping at Huntingdon and/or crossing to the Up Slow are approach controlled to 40 mph or less

I'm a bit disappointed that there hasn't been an answer to this. All of the entrances/exits from the Welwyn 2 track section have 70mph turnouts. My experience of travelling up from Peterborough, on trains calling at Huntingdon, is not recent, but I recall a very slow approach to the 40 mph turnout.

In my commuting days there were a few trains that were fast to Knebworth, about a mile north of the end of the Welwyn 2 track section at Woolmer Green. These were able to turn off the down fast at 70 mph for the Knebworth stop. There were also trains that ran fast to Hitchin, turning out at Hitchin South, about a mile before the station, also at 70mph. These experiences suggest to me that a 70 mph turnout from the up line about a mile north of Huntingdon would make a significant difference.