ECML - keep it simple?

[stevieinselby]

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

The GC West Riding service isn't just for Bradford though – it also calls at Halifax, Brighouse, Mirfield (for Huddersfield) and Pontefract (for Castleford).

 

[Trainbike46]

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.

I don't think there will be any need to force passengers to switch, if HS2 is faster (it will be) and cheaper (it should be). If you're running 3 tph to Newcastle, why not continue all to Edinburgh?

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?

More high capacity trains instead - 5 car trains are a waste of paths on such a constrained railway. Potentially more Edinburgh, Leeds, or Hull trains would be a better use.

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

The GC West Riding service isn't just for Bradford though – it also calls at Halifax, Brighouse, Mirfield (for Huddersfield) and Pontefract (for Castleford).

Do those need their 1 or 2 direct services a day? Would they not be better served with a regular, reliable change between a local and LNER?

 

[A S Leib]

If you're running 3 tph to Newcastle, why not continue all to Edinburgh?

Capacity at Waverley? I think I've asked this before, but I can't remember what the constraints on 2tph to North Berwick or an hourly stopper to Dunbar calling at Drem are. I know that the East Lothian ECML stations aren't in a unique position in having to double-back to go south but it would be nice to avoid that.

Should stopping patterns at the smaller ECML stations north of Newcastle be simplified, so that some lose direct London or Birmingham / Leeds services but at the benefit of having regular hourly provision?

 

[YorksLad12]

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.

I thought it was more a form of compensation for the West Coast upgrade delays?

Not feeling the love for GC in this thread but their Sunderland service, and Hull Trains, seem to be serving specific needs and have passengers to justify running costs. Lumo is an odd one in duplicating an existing route entirely. GC's Bradford service is, I admit, slightly unusual, but they must have the numbers to make it viable.

My slightly random thought was that if the Lincoln service didn't exist, an enterprising OAO would invent it... but they didn't. If LNER said they were going to drop it, would anyone else step in? Perhaps that should be the one of the criteria for inter-city routes?

 

[stevieinselby]

Do those need their 1 or 2 direct services a day? Would they not be better served with a regular, reliable change between a local and LNER?

Potentially – Pontefract is the town that would really lose out, as the connection via Wakefield is slow (not least because it starts by going in the wrong direction). If the local service between Pontefract and Doncaster is reinstated (as has been suggested, although I'm not optimistic) then it would resolve that problem. But we need to make sure those connections are in place and are good enough first!

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

My slightly random thought was that if the Lincoln service didn't exist, an enterprising OAO would invent it... but they didn't. If LNER said they were going to drop it, would anyone else step in? Perhaps that should be the one of the criteria for inter-city routes?

Lincoln definitely benefits from having direct services to London, and if the LNER service was withdrawn then it would need to have a shuttle to Newark North Gate reinstated to allow passengers to make a connection there onto LNER services. It may be that an hourly shuttle would be cheaper to operate and would give passengers more journey opportunities – at 25 minutes each way, it looks theoretically possible to run that with one unit, assuming that pathing and decent connections work out, so that would definitely be an option worth considering, but whether it would be preferred by passengers overall I don't know.

 

[AndrewE]

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

but that's not the case if you are travelling from London out to somewhere in the sticks, when your connecting service might be an hour later - if you are lucky!

Do those need their 1 or 2 direct services a day? Would they not be better served with a regular, reliable change between a local and LNER?

don't confuse regular with frequent. If you miss a 2-hourly local train getting home you might wish you had driven in the first place...

 

[bramling]

but that's not the case if you are travelling from London out to somewhere in the sticks, when your connecting service might be an hour later - if you are lucky!

don't confuse regular with frequent. If you miss a 2-hourly local train getting home you might wish you had driven in the first place...

I can see little reason to drop Lincoln. It’s a natural way of providing services to the likes of Grantham and Newark, and operationally it doesn’t introduce any major issues. My only issue is the 5-car trains don’t make full use of a path, but presumably there’s ways of filling the trains by attempting to direct as much traffic from Peterborough, Grantham and Newark onto them.

In an ideal world you’d want to get as many GTR passengers onto these services as possible, leaving space on GTR services for people travelling to/from Huntingdon inwards.

 

[Trainbike46]

but that's not the case if you are travelling from London out to somewhere in the sticks, when your connecting service might be an hour later - if you are lucky!

don't confuse regular with frequent. If you miss a 2-hourly local train getting home you might wish you had driven in the first place...

That sounds like the local train frequency should be increased!

 

[The Middle]

I still never understand where those that make the argument about 5 car operation on the ECML believe the additional Kings Cross platform capacity or additional power supply is going to come from to allow the operators to eliminate 5 car operation.

 

[Brubulus]

I still never understand where those that make the argument about 5 car operation on the ECML believe the additional Kings Cross platform capacity or additional power supply is going to come from to allow the operators to eliminate 5 car operation.

How is Kings cross platform capacity linked to 5 car operation? I know OA use the suburban platforms sometimes, but I've never seen double platforming at Kings Cross.

Power supply is fine on the south ECML, though there are issues north of Newcastle.

 

[The Middle]

How is Kings cross platform capacity linked to 5 car operation? I know OA use the suburban platforms sometimes, but I've never seen double platforming at Kings Cross.

Power supply is fine on the south ECML, though there are issues north of Newcastle.

You are categorically wrong on both accounts.

Platform sharing does happen today and vastly increases in the December 25 timetable.

Power supply issues on the ECML are by no means isolated to just north of Newcastle.

 

[Trainbike46]

I still never understand where those that make the argument about 5 car operation on the ECML believe the additional Kings Cross platform capacity or additional power supply is going to come from to allow the operators to eliminate 5 car operation.

Power supplies can be upgraded. Platforms may be a harder challenge, but then again eliminating GC, who at least in the current timetable have VERY long turn-arounds at KGX, should ease that a bit.

It's a waste of paths to run 5-car trains, especially on a route like London-Edinburgh, where demand outstrips capacity significantly. Paths are by far the hardest thing to increase the supply for, and if you did, you would also have to upgrade the power supply and platform capacity anyway.

 

[JonathanH]

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.

Moderation of Competition clauses in Virgin's contract also helped with keeping potential OA operators away. Witness the contortions that Wrexham & Shropshire had to go to to run to Marylebone. GNER didn't have such protections because it was just running the legacy rolling stock on the recently upgraded infrastructure.

 

[The Planner]

Power supplies can be upgraded. Platforms may be a harder challenge, but then again eliminating GC, who at least in the current timetable have VERY long turn-arounds at KGX, should ease that a bit.

Power supplies take an age as you are beholden to third parties.

 

[Hadders]

I still never understand where those that make the argument about 5 car operation on the ECML believe the additional Kings Cross platform capacity or additional power supply is going to come from to allow the operators to eliminate 5 car operation.

Wasn't some platform capacity coming from diverting the Cambridge stopping services into the core and thence to Maidstone?

 

[bramling]

Wasn't some platform capacity coming from diverting the Cambridge stopping services into the core and thence to Maidstone?

Presumably the fact that this (thankfully) hasn’t happened means that there isn’t quite as much platform capacity as was once envisaged, not helped by the loss of one platform during the remodelling.

A good reason not to have 5-car trains making inefficient use of paths. Off-peak GTR effectively speak for platforms 9 and 10, and with all-day 8-car services make efficient use of them. That leaves 9 other platforms, so off-peak shouldn’t be a massive problem. Guess peaks are more tricky with 4tph additional GTR.

 

[YorkshireBear]

This is the key part.

I think the benefits to the ECML of the full Y network were never really ever explained wider than the industry. Being able to effectively remove all limited stop services south of Leeds/York.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2025 ==

Power supplies take an age as you are beholden to third parties.

And age probably undersells it! They are notoriously long and complex, lead times in some cases are measured in decades from what I understand from colleagues.

 

[Zomboid]

So one of the biggest limiting factors in the Southern ECML is reputedly the Welwyn viaduct area.

Looking at 0830-0930 today, there were 14 scheduled trains passing Welwyn North, of which 2 called and the rest passed through: 2 GN to Kings Lynn/ Ely, 4 Thameslink to Cambridge/ Peterborough, 1 GC to Sunderland and 5 LNER (2 Edinburgh, 2 Leeds and 1 York stopper). Based on the repeating pattern there was probably two spare paths in there (there was nothing half an hour after the GC or half an hour before the York stopper).

So based on the current arrangements, 8 fasts per hour from Kings Cross would be possible on paper but would be liable to collapse in a heap of anything arrived out of place.

 

[mike57]

I do think the ECML is a different case to the WCML, I agree London - Leeds and Edinburgh are the main flows, but the eastern legs, Lincoln, Hull, Teesside/Sunderland add between them roughly 18 services per day each way. Some Hull Trains services are already 10 car.

People dont like changing because they have learnt that any journey that involves a change of operator comes with a increased risk of problems magnified by the silo mentality that inhabits the current system. Other countries seem to manage connections much better than we do. To me it is one of the simple things that GBR could address quickly without spending loads of money.

However if you removed these Eastern end points and replaced it with 18 services to Edinburgh calling at the southern end at Newark (for Lincoln), Doncaster for Hull, and York for Teesside and Newcastle for Sunderland and Hartlepool (or maybe Darlington?) then normal main stops northwards you waould create other problems. Hull Doncaster services are already busy, and dont ever call at Howden or Selby (OK maybe one a day for route knowledge, not sure). York - Tesside and Sunderland, Teesside means TPE which are already overcrowded and 3 car, Sunderland and Hartlepool will mean changes at Darlington or Newcastle.

So these services are useful, and I think the places served would be worse off if they were removed. As with anything like this you will not get extra local services to compensate, and some places will lose connectivity completely.

The only question mark would be GC West Riding services, and there are alternatives, but they do provide a lower cost route for price sensitive customers in the same way that Lumo do. I do wonder why LNER continue to serve Hull when Hull trains offer a better and cheaper service most of the time, but thats one return journey every day.

 

[Zomboid]

I do wonder why LNER continue to serve Hull when Hull trains offer a better and cheaper service most of the time, but thats one return journey every day.

There's nothing guaranteeing the continued operation of the HT service. The original WSMR went under, and the same fate could befall any OAO, and maybe not for reasons relating to that specific operation.

If HT were to cease operating then it seems that they've proven the market enough that someone else would step in.

LNER as a continuation of the ICEC operator are contracted to provide a certain minimum service, so they do.

 

[swt_passenger]

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.

I think for a long time open access was basically impossible on the WCML because there was a ‘moderation of competition’ clause in Virgin‘s contract, agreed with DfT, something to do with the west coast route moderation. At one time it even prevented some of Southern’s services running to Watford and Milton Keynes.

 

[mike57]

LNER as a continuation of the ICEC operator are contracted to provide a certain minimum service, so they do.

Yes I know why they do, but in the current situation, where LNER are no longer a commercial undertaking, it does seem somewhat pointless, as the service on the occasions I have seen it is not well used. I suppose its all part of trying to unravel the mess that was privatisation, but the pragmatic view would be "Its not needed at the moment, let deploy the unit somewhere more useful". Hull trains have operated for 25 years, and have been able to invest in new stock, and whilst I am not privy to any inside details the operation must be profitable or it would not have survived into its current form. So even if they did fail someone else would probably take over. To me it becomes one of those situations where you deal with any failure if it happens.

My only concern would be that if HT did fail and LNER took over the units the Hull service would quickly get axed, no doubt a combination of price increases, and making the service less convenient would be employed to ensure that it failed.

 

[Zomboid]

LNER aren't privatised any longer, but until GBR actually happens the only instructions they have are the ICEC franchise specification.

Let's not catastrophise about HT going under, that doesn't seem to be on the horizon right now...

 

[Trainbike46]

Power supplies take an age as you are beholden to third parties.

I'm aware of the long lead times for improved power supplies, but both points I was trying to made stand.

The first point was that, in response to their being insufficient power available, the response should be to upgrade the power supply, not to throw up our hands and do nothing. This may of course take a significant amount of time depending on the situation with the grid in that locality. This is all assuming that changing a few 5-car departures for 9-car departures requires an upgraded supply at all, of course.

The second point was that upgrading the power supply to run longer trains is easier than the alternative way of increasing capacity, which would be to increase line capacity to increase the number of available paths. This would require works at multiple locations, likely including Welwyn. If you did this, you would then still need to upgrade the power supply anyway to make use of the increased number of paths. So doing this is strictly more work, as it requires both the work for a power upgrade and whatever is needed for the extra paths. Extra trains always means more power, after all!

 

[Topological]

Having said that Manchester is working with 3tph, then Leeds presumably would too. I would extend one to Bradford/Harrogate alternating and have the other 2 terminate at Leeds. All would serve Doncaster and one other stop south.

Lincoln/Middlesbrough could share a train. These would serve Newark and Peterborough

That gives up to 4 paths to run to Newcastle/Edinburgh. (Or allow for 3 and a spare path for peak only). An option for exploration may be a Sunderland extension for some services.

As I would remove CrossCountry north of York (as it is removed north of Manchester) those 4 would help with the replacement.

I do not see the issue with using 2x5 on the Leeds extension service so that only 5 cars extend, but that might create constraints. All other services would not split/join (with the possible exception of if Sunderland portions were added into a Newcastle)

 

[The Planner]

I'm aware of the long lead times for improved power supplies, but both points I was trying to made stand.

The first point was that, in response to their being insufficient power available, the response should be to upgrade the power supply, not to throw up our hands and do nothing. This may of course take a significant amount of time depending on the situation with the grid in that locality. This is all assuming that changing a few 5-car departures for 9-car departures requires an upgraded supply at all, of course.

The second point was that upgrading the power supply to run longer trains is easier than the alternative way of increasing capacity, which would be to increase line capacity to increase the number of available paths. This would require works at multiple locations, likely including Welwyn. If you did this, you would then still need to upgrade the power supply anyway to make use of the increased number of paths. So doing this is strictly more work, as it requires both the work for a power upgrade and whatever is needed for the extra paths. Extra trains always means more power, after all!

Its even more nuanced than that. Depending on how close you are to power thresholds, altering the existing timetable can cause you problems.

 

[A S Leib]

As I would remove CrossCountry north of York (as it is removed north of Manchester)

Apart from Preston, there aren't really any settlements with over 100,000 people until near Glasgow, which isn't the case on the ECML, and the WCML does still have Birmingham services; it's just that it's provided by Avanti rather than CrossCountry when TPE or LNER to Birmingham are non-starters.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I would remove CrossCountry north of York (as it is removed north of Manchester) those 4 would help with the replacement.

XC wasn't removed north of Manchester, the service has in fact been increased from a few a day to two hourly (via a brief spell with West Coast I think) to now hourly in the form of the Manchester Airport to Scotland service (formerly somewhere down South via Birmingham and Manchester to Scotland). It's just not operated by XC any more, rather TPE.

I could see a case to remove XC north of York* if it allowed paths for LNER to extend the post-December Newcastle semifast to Edinburgh, though the Newcastle will in and of itself improve crowding on the Edinburgh services. One advantage of LNER's fare increase trial is that it will allow them to price people onto that service far more effectively than they could if an Off Peak Single remained, because they can make London-Newcastle journeys on the fasts cost almost as much as to Edinburgh because anyone taking it to Newcastle is blocking a seat that could go to an Edinburgh passenger, and make them more affordable on the slower service. But the option can remain for someone who doesn't care what it costs and is very time pressured to take the faster train.

* Or Newcastle. As an aside, though, lopping it at York would allow trains like 110mph bimode Aventras to be considered for any replacement fleet, which would have the considerable advantage of gangways and thus removing the double-crewing and catering issue caused by running double Voyagers. Nobody at present makes a gangwayed 125mph unit.

 

[Trainbike46]

Its even more nuanced than that. Depending on how close you are to power thresholds, altering the existing timetable can cause you problems.

Clearly there is more nuance, and I don't have the inside or specialist knowledge to know how close to an issue we are anywhere south of Newcastle.

However, would you agree that as a general rule, if you are close enough that turning a small number of 5-car services into 9/10-car services requires a power upgrade, it's pretty safe to assume you can't just add 1 or 2 extra paths an hour without requiring such a power upgrade?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Clearly there is more nuance, and I don't have the inside or specialist knowledge to know how close to an issue we are anywhere south of Newcastle.

However, would you agree that as a general rule, if you are close enough that turning a small number of 5-car services into 9/10-car services requires a power upgrade, it's pretty safe to assume you can't just add 1 or 2 extra paths an hour without requiring such a power upgrade?

Presumably, though, as LNER has a lot of bi-mode units, you could run on diesel to mitigate power issues, though presumably the inferior performance would mean pathing was more difficult?