ECML - keep it simple?

[Tetchytyke]

Open access came to the ECML because LNER's predecessors didn't order more trains and add more services to places like Hull.

No, open access came to the ECML because it was, and still is, the most lucrative rail market in the entire country. For all the gloss of Virgin they were, for many years, being paid a subsidy to operate the WCML. The ECML operator has never been paid a subsidy.

Hull Trains genuinely created a new market but the same really cannot be said for Grand Central, whose initial business model from Sunderland relied very heavily on revenue abstraction from York to London. It still does, to more of an extent than they would care to admit; the Sunderland trains, even now, are not exactly packed to the rafters north of York. In fairness the Bradford services created more of a market, especially the calls at Halifax and Mirfield.

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

Although the Manchester and Birmingham to Scotland via WCML is not XC anymore, the services were there when it was XC and are still there now. VWC combined the Birmingham-Scotland and Wolverhampton-London services for operational convenience; largely it was the easiest way of increasing capacity north of Birmingham as the 5-car 221s were overrun. TPE have the same issue with chronic overcrowding on Manchester-Scotland.

Leeds to Edinburgh is a very busy flow- easily as busy as Manchester to Edinburgh/Glasgow. So you would need to have something to replace XC on the Leeds to Edinburgh flow.

TPE have ended up with the (roughly) 2-hourly semi-fast Newcastle to Edinburgh because the original plan was for them to operate a second train per hour from Leeds to Edinburgh as an extension of the existing Liverpool to Newcastle train. This only fell apart because of their staffing issues. But the demand was, and still is, there for a second train from Leeds to Edinburgh.

If you were to terminate XC anywhere south of Newcastle, the sensible place would be Leeds. This would keep the Leeds-York path free for a train to run from (somewhere) to Leeds to Edinburgh.

ETA: it is also worth nothing that the power supply north of Newcastle is an issue. TPE's semi-fast is pathed for diesel between Chathill and Reston; I don't know if TPE still need to switch between electric and diesel for this section, but until recently they did. XC's path isn't an issue because they operate with diesel trains, but it wouldn't be straightforward to simply give this path to LNER.

 

[Technologist]

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

Hence why "battery trains" will eventually just become "trains".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hence why "battery trains" will eventually just become "trains".

There are many advantages of batteries on trains, improved depot safety is another one, partly because you can have less of that fizzy knitting knocking about where people are working and partly because it means you don't need to shunt things round with diesel shunters, the coupling up of which poses another unnecessary accident risk. Another is that you can near enough always get a train, even a damaged one, to the nearest station for a safer and quicker evacuation than doing so onto the track. But yes, this is a further one - if the supply can't cope, transparently switch to battery for that bit.

 

[Topological]

No, open access came to the ECML because it was, and still is, the most lucrative rail market in the entire country. For all the gloss of Virgin they were, for many years, being paid a subsidy to operate the WCML. The ECML operator has never been paid a subsidy.

Hull Trains genuinely created a new market but the same really cannot be said for Grand Central, whose initial business model from Sunderland relied very heavily on revenue abstraction from York to London. It still does, to more of an extent than they would care to admit; the Sunderland trains, even now, are not exactly packed to the rafters north of York. In fairness the Bradford services created more of a market, especially the calls at Halifax and Mirfield.


Although the Manchester and Birmingham to Scotland via WCML is not XC anymore, the services were there when it was XC and are still there now. VWC combined the Birmingham-Scotland and Wolverhampton-London services for operational convenience; largely it was the easiest way of increasing capacity north of Birmingham as the 5-car 221s were overrun. TPE have the same issue with chronic overcrowding on Manchester-Scotland.

Leeds to Edinburgh is a very busy flow- easily as busy as Manchester to Edinburgh/Glasgow. So you would need to have something to replace XC on the Leeds to Edinburgh flow.

TPE have ended up with the (roughly) 2-hourly semi-fast Newcastle to Edinburgh because the original plan was for them to operate a second train per hour from Leeds to Edinburgh as an extension of the existing Liverpool to Newcastle train. This only fell apart because of their staffing issues. But the demand was, and still is, there for a second train from Leeds to Edinburgh.

If you were to terminate XC anywhere south of Newcastle, the sensible place would be Leeds. This would keep the Leeds-York path free for a train to run from (somewhere) to Leeds to Edinburgh.

Although the XC discussion is mildly tangential, it does relate to the consideration of how many LNER to run on the northern sections of the ECML.

I can see that cutting one XC at Leeds (the via Leeds) and one at York (the via Doncaster) would also have rationale.

It would be good to see an LNER Leeds to Edinburgh (though whether that would be like the WCML Scotland via Birmingham is up for discussion)

(Yes, other operators replaced XC, but then that would be true on the ECML too as the extra LNER Edinburgh replaces an XC service)

 

[Zomboid]

would be good to see an LNER Leeds to Edinburgh (though whether that would be like the WCML Scotland via Birmingham is up for discussion)

I'd say possibly not - there's a lot more other places to serve on the Birmingham loop then there would be on a Leeds loop (just Wakefield), so the operationally simpler version of not combining the services is probably preferable. And then it could potentially be Bradford - Edinburgh, which would go some way to resolving the general under serving of Bradford.

 

[YorksLad12]

Leeds to Edinburgh is a very busy flow- easily as busy as Manchester to Edinburgh/Glasgow. So you would need to have something to replace XC on the Leeds to Edinburgh flow.

That's interesting. I wouldn't have assumed lots of people making that journey every hour or even on a direct train (I either did the LNER Aberdeen service first thing or changed at York to an LNER service).

Although the XC discussion is mildly tangential, it does relate to the consideration of how many LNER to run on the northern sections of the ECML.

I can see that cutting one XC at Leeds (the via Leeds) and one at York (the via Doncaster) would also have rationale.

It would be good to see an LNER Leeds to Edinburgh (though whether that would be like the WCML Scotland via Birmingham is up for discussion)

(Yes, other operators replaced XC, but then that would be true on the ECML too as the extra LNER Edinburgh replaces an XC service)

Question (probably leading to a separate thread): should the "country" in "CrossCountry" only be England? North of York XC trains go to Scarborough, or Middlesbrough, or Sunderland if they can't easily terminate there or Newcastle.

I've always been in favour of a regular Leeds-Edinburgh service, wherever it starts from. But we need to decide what XC is for, and what the ECML is for, first.

 

[Zomboid]

Hence why "battery trains" will eventually just become "trains".

They'll still need charging infrastructure, energy doesn't come from nowhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They'll still need charging infrastructure, energy doesn't come from nowhere.

It comes from the OHLE (and/or third rail*) while they are running under it and in areas where power is not constrained.

* The only UK mainline battery train running as such in daily passenger service, the Class 777/1, charges from third rail. The other case is the Birmingham tram which charges from DC overhead. Both of these nicely prove the concept.

 

[35B]

It comes from the OHLE (and/or third rail*) while they are running under it and in areas where power is not constrained.

* The only UK mainline battery train running as such in daily passenger service, the Class 777/1, charges from third rail. The other case is the Birmingham tram which charges from DC overhead. Both of these nicely prove the concept.

On extremely different use cases. I'd be very reluctant to take the experience of low speed DC operations covering very short distances and presuming that this proves the concept for high speed long distance intercity duties.

However, I believe that Lumo have proved the concept - and it's limitations when the main line is shut.

 

[Mike Machin]

I generally only use direct through services. If I have to vacate a comfortable seat, scramble onto a cold and draughty platform, hang around for even a few minutes and then face a second scrum in the hope of securing another seat that's not appealing at all when I have a beautiful, clean, fast electric car plugged-in and ready to go door-to-door at a moment's notice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, I believe that Lumo have proved the concept - and it's limitations when the main line is shut.

Lumo's units do not have traction batteries.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I can see that cutting one XC at Leeds (the via Leeds) and one at York (the via Doncaster) would also have rationale.

Except it would remove all direct trains from Newcastle to Sheffield/Derby/Birmingham and would cut the number of direct trains from Edinburgh to Birmingham by about two-thirds. These are popular flows

XC is busy north of York, especially on the trains which go via Leeds.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except it would remove all direct trains from Newcastle to Sheffield/Derby/Birmingham and would cut the number of direct trains from Edinburgh to Birmingham by about two-thirds. These are popular flows

Do many people use them for Brum-Edinburgh? The experience is incredibly poor and Avanti is generally cheaper.

Brum-Newcastle I get. Or e.g. Derby-Edinburgh.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Do many people use them for Brum-Edinburgh? The experience is incredibly poor and Avanti is generally cheaper.

I think it depends on timing, as although Avanti are quicker and cheaper they do only go to Edinburgh once every two hours.

I'm always surprised at how many seat reservations I see from Edinburgh to places like Bristol. Clearly the direct train has an attraction.

 

[Brubulus]

I think it depends on timing, as although Avanti are quicker and cheaper they do only go to Edinburgh once every two hours.

I'm always surprised at how many seat reservations I see from Edinburgh to places like Bristol. Clearly the direct train has an attraction.

Long term, I can see the argument to move the Plymouth-Edinburgh service onto the WCML, with 9 car bi-modes.
However there will always need to be a direct and frequent service from Leeds to Edinburgh.

 

[Topological]

Long term, I can see the argument to move the Plymouth-Edinburgh service onto the WCML, with 9 car bi-modes.
However there will always need to be a direct and frequent service from Leeds to Edinburgh.

A strong case can be made post HS2 since the current Avanti via the West Midlands would not need to serve the Birmingham to London market.

More generally, it is possible to find arguments for direct flows, but those direct flows should not impede the provision of a better service for the majority (ie the need for directs should not lead to shorter trains running in paths that could run with bigger trains)

 

[JamesT]

Do many people use them for Brum-Edinburgh? The experience is incredibly poor and Avanti is generally cheaper.

Brum-Newcastle I get. Or e.g. Derby-Edinburgh.

I'm doing a trip to Scotland next month that ends up using Avanti outbound but XC return. Trying to force using Avanti both ways ended up with either ridiculous changes or being even more expensive than XC.

 

[35B]

Do many people use them for Brum-Edinburgh? The experience is incredibly poor and Avanti is generally cheaper.

Brum-Newcastle I get. Or e.g. Derby-Edinburgh.

The question betrays a fallacy at the heart of this thread - that the correct assessment for a route's value is end to end traffic, between arbitrarily defined end points. There is material traffic on XC from the northern ECML onto the corridor towards Birmingham; this is not simply traffic to say "must go via WCML". DfT did that in 2007 with the XC franchise, and broke a number of routes on the basis that people could change at New St, seemingly just because it made the map neater.

These services are an overlay, and should be treated as being of value - not inconveniences in a system that treats paying passengers as a self loading cargo.

 

[Tetchytyke]

More generally, it is possible to find arguments for direct flows, but those direct flows should not impede the provision of a better service for the majority (ie the need for directs should not lead to shorter trains running in paths that could run with bigger trains)

There's already 2tph LNER from London to Edinburgh, plus the Lumo extras, plus a third LNER per hour from London to Newcastle from December. It is busy but, outside of Edinburgh Festival and Fringe, they are busy but not ludicrously so. I don't think that removing Birmingham-Leeds-Newcastle-Edinburgh links and replacing them with yet another train to London would be a better service overall.

Of course the XC trains are generally not big enough, but that's a different issue altogether.

The intermediate stations on the ECML remain much more of an issue, the proposed December 2025 changes really do screw over Durham in particular.

 

[The Planner]

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?

Yes

 

[Brubulus]

Would it be possible to fit batteries on trains or at feeder stations to smooth out peaks in power demand and enable more trains on the same power supply?

 

[Zomboid]

Would it be possible to fit batteries on trains or at feeder stations to smooth out peaks in power demand and enable more trains on the same power supply?

The laws of physics would permit that, but I'd want to see how well it'd work in practice before nailing my colours to that particular mast.

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

The limit over Welwyn viaduct is 18tph per direction, and that will happen in both peaks from December. Albeit ot hapoens in both peaks today too.

 

[Brubulus]

The limit over Welwyn viaduct is 18tph per direction, and that will happen in both peaks from December. Albeit ot hapoens in both peaks today too.

I have heard this limit will increase slightly once ETCS is fully operational. Secondly does this mean there will only be 6 fast paths in the peak, instead of the full 8tph, given how there are 8tph off peak Thameslink+GN plus 4tph of GN peak extras.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have heard this limit will increase slightly once ETCS is fully operational.

I’m afraid you heard wrong.

Secondly does this mean there will only be 6 fast paths in the peak, instead of the full 8tph, given how there are 8tph off peak Thameslink+GN plus 4tph of GN peak extras.

It means there will be 18tph. The split between the services ‘depends’, not least when you start the hour!

 

[bramling]

The limit over Welwyn viaduct is 18tph per direction, and that will happen in both peaks from December. Albeit ot hapoens in both peaks today too.

Does the 18tph include allowance for a given number of services calling at Welwyn North?

ISTR it was stated somewhere that a Welwyn North call essentially costs one extra path. In the peaks presumably there’s going to be 4tph calling at Welwyn North in the peak flow direction, as today, made up of 2tph KX to Cambridge stopping service and 2tph KX to Letchworth, Baldock or wherever they end up.

4tph is somewhat lavish for Welwyn North IMO, especially considering the potential impact it has on other services, particularly during disruption. 2tph non-stop to London is pretty lavish for a small station, and TBH I’d support removing this *if* it would allow paths to be used more beneficially elsewhere. It seems to be a political throwback to the fact that Welwyn North has had 4tph in the past, which it didn’t really need then, and still doesn’t need.

 

[mike57]

the need for directs should not lead to shorter trains running in paths that could run with bigger trains

I think the ECML North of York to Newcastle is a good example of this, Grand Central all 5 car, TPE 5 car even 3 car as far as Northallerton, XC many 5 car slots. Lumo 5 car.

My view is we have capacity, but because there are so many less than optimum length units running around that capacity is being wasted. On long distance services (100 miles +, probably with the majority of travellers using advance tickets) 2tph at 5 car or 1tph at 10 car makes little difference to the passenger, but makes a difference to the network.

Another thought, we seem to have pretty much given up on the idea of trains dividing en-route to serve to different end points on a common spine, although we do drop off half the train en-route, as with Harrogate sending just 5 cars onwards and leaving 5 at Leeds. I know the issue is through gangways, which are pretty much a no at speeds greater than 100/110, but if a 10 car 125/140mph unit could divide and carry on limited to 100/110mph to its end point in a lot of cases that would work as the last bit is usually on lower speed lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

Does the 18tph include allowance for a given number of services calling at Welwyn North?

Yes

 

[Topological]

I think the ECML North of York to Newcastle is a good example of this, Grand Central all 5 car, TPE 5 car even 3 car as far as Northallerton, XC many 5 car slots. Lumo 5 car.

My view is we have capacity, but because there are so many less than optimum length units running around that capacity is being wasted. On long distance services (100 miles +, probably with the majority of travellers using advance tickets) 2tph at 5 car or 1tph at 10 car makes little difference to the passenger, but makes a difference to the network.

Another thought, we seem to have pretty much given up on the idea of trains dividing en-route to serve to different end points on a common spine, although we do drop off half the train en-route, as with Harrogate sending just 5 cars onwards and leaving 5 at Leeds. I know the issue is through gangways, which are pretty much a no at speeds greater than 100/110, but if a 10 car 125/140mph unit could divide and carry on limited to 100/110mph to its end point in a lot of cases that would work as the last bit is usually on lower speed lines.

Relatedly

Could we have 10 car 80x running Edinburgh to Leeds that then split for Manchester*/Birmingham*?

* This is a future in which 80x can run on CrossCountry trains, couple to the TPE to Manchester/Liverpool, and Birmingham is used here as the indicator for trains beyond Birmingham as now.

 

[A S Leib]

Could we have 10 car 80x running Edinburgh to Leeds that then split for Manchester*/Birmingham*?

Edinburgh to Manchester Victoria's 4:15 via the once-daily current service via Newcastle compared to 3:15 via Preston, and Birmingham's around 45 minutes quicker via the WCML. As demand for Newcastle to Leeds, Manchester (Liverpool?), Birmingham and beyond goes and capacity between Leeds and Edinburgh it probably would still be well-used.