ECML ITT issued today 21 Mar 14

[swt_passenger]

ECML ITT issued today.

Key features of the ITT include:

supporting the roll out of a new fleet of state-of-the-art intercity express trains
continuation of services to all current destinations
faster and more frequent services to and from King’s Cross by May 2020
faster average journey times to Leeds and Edinburgh from May 2020
the potential for improved services to destinations such as Lincoln
an opportunity for bidders to serve five new routes including Huddersfield, Scarborough, Harrogate (via York), Middlesbrough and Sunderland (via Newcastle)
a fund that will drive innovation and deliver long-term benefits for the franchise and wider rail industry
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/east-coast-on-course-for-improved-rail-services

The most surprising omission seems to be that there is still no requirement for a regular Lincoln service, despite all the previous false starts for that route?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Great. Only 3 weeks late.
Most of the interesting options are left to the bidders to propose.
8 years (optionally plus 1) is not a long time for bidders to get their return.
They've left scope for the Alliance OA proposal (1tph London-Edinburgh, non-tilting stock) from 2020, and current OA operators (ITT p58).
There is reference to an illustrative Northern service pattern post-2018 but it's on the data site and only visible to the bidders (p55).

 

[YorkshireBear]

Why only 8 years i thought we were now having longer franchises?

 

[Manchester77]

Just beginning to look through it; interesting that there are two possible future destinations (Harrogate and Sunderland) are both already operated by Grand Central. Perhaps trying to get rid of the open access operations?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
York is due to transfer over to network rail management
As is Newcastle

 

[BantamMenace]

Any scope for 3tph Kings Cross to Leeds with one approaching Leeds from the East and continuing to Skipton/Bradford/Huddersfield without reversing.
This would omit Wakefield Westgate but im not sure Wakefield can justify 3tph to London aswell as it's GC services

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Does it say anything about more regular services to/from Lincoln to London? Thought the only thing stoping it at the minute was a lack of stock?

 

[swt_passenger]

Does it say anything about more regular services to/from Lincoln to London? Thought the only thing stoping it at the minute was a lack of stock?

Not explicitly - there are tables of train service requirements, but as I tacked on the end of the first post, nothing firm about increased frequency to Lincoln.

A search of the ITT for 'Lincoln' just finds it on a map. In the 'stakeholder briefing', you'll find this:

The TSR specifies continuation of the current one direct service per day between London and Lincoln in each direction. Bidders may put forward proposals for enhanced services between London and Lincoln.

 

[Welshman]

Just beginning to look through it; interesting that there are two possible future destinations (Harrogate and Sunderland) are both already operated by Grand Central. Perhaps trying to get rid of the open access operations?

Harrogate is not at present served by Grand Central.

 

[swt_passenger]

An interesting set of trains service requirement tables, comparing those for TSR1 and TSR2 indicates how overall frequency increases, e.g. on a weekday the first table has Kings Cross with 75 total departures of which Newcastle gets 31 arrivals, and Edinburgh 19. In TSR2 there are 93 departures, of which Newcastle gets 44, and Edinburgh 27. Of the 44 Newcastle trains, they are then suggesting that up to 7 of them may be diverted to Middlesbrough instead, with corresponding reduction at Darlington...

 

[Manchester77]

Harrogate is not at present served by Grand Central.

Quite right, don't know where I got Harrogate from!

 

[WatcherZero]

Why only 8 years i thought we were now having longer franchises?

Is the plan but the Government doesnt seem to be putting it into practise, always having an excuse why some other event impacts the franchise and so it must be a shorter duration.

 

[ainsworth74]

Is the plan but the Government doesnt seem to be putting it into practise, always having an excuse why some other event impacts the franchise and so it must be a shorter duration.

I believe the intention has always been for a short franchise this time and then a long franchise to take ICEC up to the arrival of HS2. Why, however, they are doing it this way round (long this time followed by short always seemed more sensible to me!) is anyone's guess...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is the plan but the Government doesnt seem to be putting it into practise, always having an excuse why some other event impacts the franchise and so it must be a shorter duration.

The Brown recommendations were 7-10 years with contracted conditional extensions for up to 5 years.
They've gone for the shorter end of that range.
They will also have an eye on the franchise renewal rate at expiry (ie don't want another log-jam).

 

[Class83]

Doesn't appear to be any indication of an increase in Aberdeen services, 8tpd (roughly 2 hourly) would have been positive. More difficult to increase Inverness services as the current time slot is about the best available so a second train would have to be within a couple of hours.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . More difficult to increase Inverness services as the current time slot is about the best available so a second train would have to be within a couple of hours.

Difficult, but by exchanging a ScotRail path for a long distance service, it becomes much simpler.

I've argued before now for a second long-distance service between London and Inverness, one which would have to be towards the opposite end of the day from the Chieftan to provide useful alternatives to an overnight stay or changing from a ScotRail unit.
e.g. (approximate times) arrive Inverness 13:30 and depart 15:30.
This compliments the existing arrival at 20:00 and departure at 08:00.

With stops at Peterborough and York on these 2 Inverness services each day, there would be the potential for a range of simplified long distance return journeys to and from Inverness, Perth etc.

 

[TheWalrus]

I think the idea of London-Lincoln via Sleaford is a good idea. Although it takes 20 minutes longer it serves an additional 4 communities. However with IEP this could be reduced and further with line speed increases.

My idea would be for Alliance to take over Inverness and Aberdeen in the path of the current fast EC path, and have an hourly Ec service calling at Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle and Berwick if possible.
I would also support services to additional destinations, even the possibility of Bradford as the EC service is much faster than the GC. Although the GC serves places like Halifax so this would need to be retained, but could be a problem if Bradford revenue is lost to EC.

 

[transmanche]

My idea would be for Alliance to take over Inverness and Aberdeen in the path of the current fast EC path, and have an hourly Ec service calling at Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle and Berwick if possible.

I'm not sure why you'd want an open access operator to take over routes from East Coast. And don't East Coast already have an hourly train for most of the day which has that calling pattern (or something very close to it)?

 

[Aictos]

Difficult, but by exchanging a ScotRail path for a long distance service, it becomes much simpler.

I've argued before now for a second long-distance service between London and Inverness, one which would have to be towards the opposite end of the day from the Chieftan to provide useful alternatives to an overnight stay or changing from a ScotRail unit.
e.g. (approximate times) arrive Inverness 13:30 and depart 15:30.
This compliments the existing arrival at 20:00 and departure at 08:00.

With stops at Peterborough and York on these 2 Inverness services each day, there would be the potential for a range of simplified long distance return journeys to and from Inverness, Perth etc.

Quite agree with your idea after all the Inverness/Aberdeen services used to call at Peterborough and they should do so again by right

 

[Class 170101]

I've argued before now for a second long-distance service between London and Inverness, one which would have to be towards the opposite end of the day from the Chieftan to provide useful alternatives to an overnight stay or changing from a ScotRail unit.
e.g. (approximate times) arrive Inverness 13:30 and depart 15:30.
This compliments the existing arrival at 20:00 and departure at 08:00.

There used to be a second train called the Clansman. This ran via the West Coast Main Line. This was actually the first train and was succeeded eventually by the Highland Chieftain on the East Coast Main Line.
I don't consider there is the need for a second train from Kings Cross to Inverness. However I think there would be better demand if there was a train from Plymouth to Inverness via the West Coast Main Line, perhaps splitting at Carlisle with a portion for Glasgow Central. Departing Inverness and Plymouth around 09:00 in both drections.

 

[northwichcat]

With the increased North TPE frequency would a suggested new service to Huddersfield have to go via Mirfield opposed to Leeds and then on to Huddersfield via Dewsbury?

Quite right, don't know where I got Harrogate from!

Hull Trains did apply to run services to Harrogate but didn't succeed, maybe that's where you got Harrogate from?

 

[TheWalrus]

My idea would be for Alliance to take over Inverness and Aberdeen in the path of the current fast EC path, and have an hourly Ec service calling at Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle and Berwick if possible.

I'm not sure why you'd want an open access operator to take over routes from East Coast. And don't East Coast already have an hourly train for most of the day which has that calling pattern (or something very close to it)?

Yes but I think one hour only goes to Newcastle and alternate hours it goes to Edinburgh, or did this change with Eureka?

With Alliance's proposal to run hourly to Edinburgh it would seem pointless to have two Edinburgh fasts. However I'm not convinced Alliance's proposals are likely to go ahead, and the EC franchise could cater for their proposed Edinburgh service quite easily.

 

[Manchester77]

With Alliance's proposal to run hourly to Edinburgh it would seem pointless to have two Edinburgh fasts. However I'm not convinced Alliance's proposals are likely to go ahead, and the EC franchise could cater for their proposed Edinburgh service quite easily.

Leaving out the fact East Coast could do it (well do it) without expensive TASS equipment etc. would the ORR really let an OAO take revenue from a profitable TOC, I mean look at all of the controversy around Grand Central stopping at York so imagine it if a service which duplicates a franchised one operated?

 

[TheWalrus]

I can't see the Edinburgh service passing the primarily abstractive test. Some of the other proposals may stand a chance and would like to see these happen.

 

[IanXC]

I think the list of destinations is interesting for those left out rather than those included. It includes:
Sunderland (via Newcastle)
Middlesbrough
Scarborough
Huddersfield
Harrogate (via York)

Which leaves out:
Ilkley
Nottingham
Cleethorpes
(Was there another Scottish destination mooted for ICEC?)

Another related throught, does that leave the franchise holder with rights to Doncaster to Leeds via Hambleton?

 

[transmanche]

Yes but I think one hour only goes to Newcastle and alternate hours it goes to Edinburgh, or did this change with Eureka?

No; since the Eureka timetable was introduced, there's pretty much a half-hourly London-Edinburgh service all day. The xx:00 departure from King's Cross is the fast service (calling at York-Darlington-Newcastle-Berwick) and the xx:30 service is the slower train (which previously terminated at Newcastle).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

With the increased North TPE frequency would a suggested new service to Huddersfield have to go via Mirfield opposed to Leeds and then on to Huddersfield via Dewsbury?

I'm not sure how that would work... Anything to Huddersfield via Dewsbury would also pass through Mirfield, and not in that order!

Also, here's The Huddersfield Daily Examiner's take on the proposal, with a glaringly comical error...
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-london-direct-rail-link-6870546

 

[34D]

I'm not sure how that would work... Anything to Huddersfield via Dewsbury would also pass through Mirfield, and not in that order!

Also, here's The Huddersfield Daily Examiner's take on the proposal, with a glaringly comical error...
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-london-direct-rail-link-6870546

Me neither.

Surely via Stalybridge and Stockport would be quickest though?

The ECML choices are:

Huddersfield Mirfield dewsbury Leeds (then either reverse to westgate, or carry on via Garforth to Doncaster)

Huddersfield Mirfield wakefield kirkgate hare park doncaster
Huddersfield barnsley sheffield reverse (or reverse in Attercliffe loop - most unlikely) then Mexborough then either reverse Doncaster or take the St James avoiding curve

As above but avoid all reversals by going sheffield chesterfield Nottingham grantham.

I suspect only the first has a realistic chance. I do hope however that they don't reverse at Leeds and furthermore give consideration to serving Garforth (HST's have previously stopped at Cross Gates and Garforth, though doubtless nowadays all sorts of issues would be thrown up at the idea).

 

[northwichcat]

Surely via Stalybridge and Stockport would be quickest though?

Alliance (who had an open access application to do Huddersfield-Stockport-London) said their plans wouldn't work if 6tph on North TPE got the go ahead without capacity improvements. While Network Rail said capacity improvements aren't required (despite previously proposing them before the electrification annoucement) but said electrification will allow faster acceleration meaning a path for a stopping service between Manchester and Huddersfield can be made available alongside 6tph on North TPE.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not sure how that would work... Anything to Huddersfield via Dewsbury would also pass through Mirfield, and not in that order!

I meant directly to Mirfield from the ECML opposed to via Leeds

 

[IanXC]

Via Garforth would seem to be the logical choice. Network Rail are moving to provide an electrified route, so I suppose the frequency of service to Leeds comes info it.

I can imagine 3 trains per hour to Leeds, 2 via Wakefield, one via Garforth (potentially dividing) to serve variously Huddersfield, Bradford Forster Square, Skipton and Harrogate.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I think it has previously been discussed that one Leeds service every two hours if routed via Garforth as some may be planned in future should continue to Huddersfield. Maybe have it as a 10 car to Leeds then 5 car to Huddersfield. Certainly see it as very likely as a peak time service ala Bradford Forster Square and Harrogate (and the rest) at the moment.