Grand Central apply for Newcastle - Brighton direct

[NEDdrv]

Newcastle - Sheffield has fewer than 100 passengers per day. How does that justify a 1/2 hourly service?

As someone who works these services your figures are totally wrong, most if not all Newcastle starters are well loaded beyond Derby and have seen last one north 1E64 heavily loaded from Derby all the way back to Newcastle with more than a hundred still on when terminated.

 

[Farigiraf]

Newcastle - Sheffield has fewer than 100 passengers per day. How does that justify a 1/2 hourly service?

Not sure where you're getting these figures from, but I'd have to assume that split ticketing along the route hides the actual amount, which is likely far more.
Additionally, traffic between e.g. Newark and Morpeth isn't very high either, but they are intermediate stations on a cross-country mainline, like many stations (such as Burton) which are located on the actual 'Cross Country Main Line', and as a result have a great intercity service to many places.

 

[Snex]

Whilst each person don't it isn't going to be generating much income, trains which cross towns where currently a change is likely to generate a reasonable number of passengers.

For example being able to do Guildford to Oxford in 60 minutes (or slightly less) rather than 75 to 90 minutes will be quite attractive.

Likewise, being able to do North Downs line to Brighton without a change is likely to be attractive to some.

Obviously 5tpd isn't going to make a significant difference, and north of Reading there's already services which go across the places it will serve.

To be honest, I don't really think anyone is questioning the Birmingham to Brighton section, if that was proposed by itself then I think it would be a very different discussion. It's the Birmingham to Newcastle part which is the problem as it does nothing unique and by the time it does go unique, then you'd be quicker connecting via London.

 

[Bertie the bus]

As someone who works these services your figures are totally wrong, most if not all Newcastle starters are well loaded beyond Derby and have seen last one north 1E64 heavily loaded from Derby all the way back to Newcastle with more than a hundred still on when terminated.

If you are going to argue at least make an attempt to understand the post you are arguing with. I said the Newcastle - Sheffield flow, i.e. passengers specifically travelling between those two stations, as linking Newcastle and Sheffield was used as a key reason for why the service should be reintroduced. BTW the figures I used were 100% correct.

 

[Iskra]

To be honest, I don't really think anyone is questioning the Birmingham to Brighton section, if that was proposed by itself then I think it would be a very different discussion. It's the Birmingham to Newcastle part which is the problem as it does nothing unique and by the time it does go unique, then you'd be quicker connecting via London.

Birmingham to Sheffield is a very busy corridor that needs more than 1tph or 4 carriages per hour (sometimes)!

I can understand the criticism of this proposed train running North of York, but between Reading and York at least, any additional capacity would be a great help!

 

[Snex]

Birmingham to Sheffield is a very busy corridor that needs more than 1tph or 4 carriages per hour (sometimes)!

I can understand the criticism of this proposed train running North of York, but between Reading and York at least, any additional capacity would be a great help!

No arguments on capacity but not sure a private operator is the right answer taking fares from the tax payer which is ultimately what will end up happening because of ORCATS.

XC should be 2 TPH though from Leeds/Doncaster to Birmingham though, at least, tbf.

 

[Iskra]

No arguments on capacity but not sure a private operator is the right answer taking fares from the tax payer which is ultimately what will end up happening because of ORCATS.

XC should be 2 TPH though from Leeds/Doncaster to Birmingham though, at least, tbf.

It’s not taking from the taxpayer, it’s saving the taxpayer money by meaning the DFT can continue to avoid investing in XC and meanwhile growing the overall railway. XC is brand-damaging and can’t cope.

 

[whoosh]

You would probably skip some stops. Probably at the very least City Thameslink and probably also Farringdon.

But you'd still need to stop the train for a voltage change!
Farringdon station has one of the highest number of trains per hour serving it (London Underground, Elizabeth Line, Thameslink). You'd be mad to avoid that connectivity.

 

[mrmartin]

I assume they are proposing to run this with far less stops (from the BBC news article) than the current GWR reading to Gatwick train?

I was really surprised how busy that train was with a lot of people using it the whole length (including myself).

How quick do people think this would be timetabled? If they could get it sub 1hour I think it would add a lot of passengers. At that point it's faster than Heathrow for Reading people (given you probably need to allow an hour for that with a coach given M4 traffic, and by the time you go to Paddington and back or change on the Elizabeth line). Plus people much prefer trains to buses as you don't have to be separated from your luggage.

 

[class26]

Correct. Vueling probably? (They only serve Gatwick IIRC)

Incorrect. Vueling fly from BHX

https://www.vueling.com/en-gb/flights-from-birmingham

 

[The Ham]

I assume they are proposing to run this with far less stops (from the BBC news article) than the current GWR reading to Gatwick train?

I was really surprised how busy that train was with a lot of people using it the whole length (including myself).

How quick do people think this would be timetabled? If they could get it sub 1hour I think it would add a lot of passengers. At that point it's faster than Heathrow for Reading people (given you probably need to allow an hour for that with a coach given M4 traffic, and by the time you go to Paddington and back or change on the Elizabeth line). Plus people much prefer trains to buses as you don't have to be separated from your luggage.

Current fastest GWR service is about 90 minutes, cutting 6 stops is likely to save something like 10-15 minutes.

Even if you could get it down to 60 minutes, there's nowhere to overtake so you couldn't get ahead of the preceding train so sub 60 minutes is unlikely to be possible even if the speed could be made much faster.

 

[Zomboid]

There are enough platforms at Guildford and Redhill for overtaking. You'd probably need to do some major timetable surgery to achieve it, but in isolation at least it could be possible.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Current fastest GWR service is about 90 minutes, cutting 6 stops is likely to save something like 10-15 minutes.
Even if you could get it down to 60 minutes, there's nowhere to overtake so you couldn't get ahead of the preceding train so sub 60 minutes is unlikely to be possible even if the speed could be made much faster.

The travel time between Reading and Gatwick Airport shown on the following proposed timetable varies between 85 minutes and 97 minutes.

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sale-of-access-rights/Consultations/Current%20Track%20Access%20Consultations/25.04.2025%20-%20Grand%20Central%20Railway%20Company%20Limited%20-%20Section%2017%20-%20Closes%2025.05.2025/Newcastle-Brighton%20-%20Application%20Timetable.pdf

 

[MatthewHutton]

Current fastest GWR service is about 90 minutes, cutting 6 stops is likely to save something like 10-15 minutes.

Even if you could get it down to 60 minutes, there's nowhere to overtake so you couldn't get ahead of the preceding train so sub 60 minutes is unlikely to be possible even if the speed could be made much faster.

Just over 60 minutes would still be pretty good with a through train. Roughly half the time from Oxford to Gatwick that the bus typically takes.

If you stopped at Guildford and Redhill only and stopped for 2 minutes and 4 minutes respectively then you would reduce the raw stop time by 8 minutes? Plus obviously let’s say 90 seconds per missed stop for acceleration and deceleration? Gives a time saving of 15.5 minutes overall - with the current journey time of 1h23 it would be something like 67.5 minutes of journey time.

The travel time between Reading and Gatwick Airport shown on the following proposed timetable varies between 85 minutes and 97 minutes.

Huge service gaps and a 2 hour Oxford-Gatwick journey time is disappointing.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Just over 60 minutes would still be pretty good with a through train. Roughly half the time from Oxford to Gatwick that the bus typically takes.
If you stopped at Guildford and Redhill only and stopped for 2 minutes and 4 minutes respectively then you would reduce the raw stop time by 8 minutes? Plus obviously let’s say 90 seconds per missed stop for acceleration and deceleration? Gives a time saving of 15.5 minutes overall - with the current journey time of 1h23 it would be something like 67.5 minutes of journey time.

The proposed Grand Central service would only call at Wokingham, Guildford and Redhill between Reading and Gatwick Airport but the times taken between stations on the proposed timetable are about the same as the existing half hourly GWR service between Reading and Gatwick Airport. I assume the proposed Grand Central services have to fit in with the existing GWR services so the times taken between station calls have to be about the same.

 

[Class15]

The proposed Grand Central service would only call at Wokingham, Guildford and Redhill between Reading and Gatwick Airport but the times taken between stations on the proposed timetable are about the same as the existing half hourly GWR service between Reading and Gatwick Airport. I assume the proposed Grand Central services have to fit in with the existing GWR services so the times taken between station calls have to be about the same.

Which makes the route they are using even more bizarre. That’s a long time to be behind a stopper.

 

[JonathanH]

Which makes the route they are using even more bizarre. That’s a long time to be behind a stopper.

If I recall correctly, one of the problems with the Operation Princess introduction on the route was the tightness of slotting in before the stopping services. Once the path was missed, the VXC services basically ended up 30 minutes late because of the long headways on the North Downs Line. Just too risky to schedule them tightly in front of a stopping service.

 

[Zomboid]

I guess it's a consequence of when that path arrives at Reading. You might be able to speed up Reading to Brighton times by waiting a bit longer, but that won't help for anyone from further north.

 

[daodao]

One of the issues that this proposed open access (OA) timetable exposes is the massive delay to through journeys on XC from Sheffield and further south to York and further north due to running via Leeds. For example the current XC service departing Birmingham New Street at 1803 arrives at York at 2030 and Newcastle-upon-Tyne at 2130. The proposed OA timetable shows a service departing Birmingham New Street at 1828, which arrives at York at 2016 and Newcastle-upon-Tyne at 2115. The journey time from Birmingham to Newcastle by the XC train is 207 minutes compared to 167 minutes by the proposed OA service.

The current XC service is clearly suboptimal due to poor speed as well as limited capacity. Instead of a new OA "abstractive" service, would not the best option be for XC to run 2 tph from Birmingham to Sheffield, with 1 tph from Reading to Leeds (at least 5 carriages) and 1 tph from Plymouth to Edinburgh bypassing Leeds (at least 8 carriages)? The Nottingham to Leeds service could be timed to arrive at Sheffield on an adjacent platform 5 minutes before the Plymouth service is due and to leave 5 minutes after it departs, to provide good connections from Nottingham to York and points north and from Bristol/SW England to Leeds.

 

[JonathanH]

There are enough platforms at Guildford and Redhill for overtaking. You'd probably need to do some major timetable surgery to achieve it, but in isolation at least it could be possible.

Highly undesirable though, because of the impact it has on the service being overtaken, and the headway on the route.

 

[FlyingPotato]

Current fastest GWR service is about 90 minutes, cutting 6 stops is likely to save something like 10-15 minutes.

Even if you could get it down to 60 minutes, there's nowhere to overtake so you couldn't get ahead of the preceding train so sub 60 minutes is unlikely to be possible even if the speed could be made much faster.

It used to be around 80 mins before they changed the stopping patterns and added more stops, this Patten included the Likes of blackwater and Dorking Etc, so in theory Grand Central could do it in around 70-75 mins depending on dwell times at places like Redhill and Guildford

 

[Driver068]

Speculation I know however, could you cover this with lodge working with a similar approach they currently adopt with London work or even a similar approach LUMO Adopt with their diagrams.

Just wondering if this would require a depot at Birmingham

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the timetable within the Network Rail consultation site rather indicates the issue this one is going to run into (quite apart from the pathing issues north of York, at Sheffield and Birmingham and on the Brighton Main Line) is revenue abstraction.

It completely parallels the existing XC service between Newcastle and Reading (yes service doesn't run as frequently as it should be there's at least hourly between Newcastle - Birmingham and Birmingham - Reading), as well LNER between Newcastle and Doncaster, TPE between Newcastle and York, GTR between Redhill and Brighton and GWR from Reading to Gatwick Airport.

Okay it sort of provides some new direct services but it's not all that much in the grand scheme compared to the massive amount of duplication that it represents and I don't see how it brings enough new revenue to offset that which it will be abstracting.

I'm sure Arriva and GC think they're onto something but add in the abstraction and pathing issues? This feels like a dead duck to me.

Huge service gaps and a 2 hour Oxford-Gatwick journey time is disappointing.

Surely service gaps are to be expected with only five trains per day proposed? They were never likely to achieve a nice clock face set of departures with that sort of service level!

 

[gerryuk]

Just extend the MML from Sheffield to Brighton via London Bridge, when the wires reach Sheffield. The fast Sheffield service goes as far as Brighton and the hourly slow service goes as far as Gatwick. Some of the Thameslink services terminate at St Pancras.
If the wires go as far as Doncaster, then the trains can extend to York either direct from Sheffield or via Leeds.

 

[PGAT]

Pathing sure is going to be interesting. I’ve only had a quick glance but Brighton to Gatwick appears slower than a few of the Thameslink services and there’s a conflict with Gatwick Express in both directions

 

[NEDdrv]

If you are going to argue at least make an attempt to understand the post you are arguing with. I said the Newcastle - Sheffield flow, i.e. passengers specifically travelling between those two stations, as linking Newcastle and Sheffield was used as a key reason for why the service should be reintroduced. BTW the figures I used were 100% correct.

Your on about Newcastle - Sheffield but people use those services because they are quicker for travel towards Birmingham, I know from actually seeing the numbers that travel on these services.

 

[The Planner]

One of the issues that this proposed open access (OA) timetable exposes is the massive delay to through journeys on XC from Sheffield and further south to York and further north due to running via Leeds. For example the current XC service departing Birmingham New Street at 1803 arrives at York at 2030 and Newcastle-upon-Tyne at 2130. The proposed OA timetable shows a service departing Birmingham New Street at 1828, which arrives at York at 2016 and Newcastle-upon-Tyne at 2115. The journey time from Birmingham to Newcastle by the XC train is 207 minutes compared to 167 minutes by the proposed OA service.

The current XC service is clearly suboptimal due to poor speed as well as limited capacity. Instead of a new OA "abstractive" service, would not the best option be for XC to run 2 tph from Birmingham to Sheffield, with 1 tph from Reading to Leeds (at least 5 carriages) and 1 tph from Plymouth to Edinburgh bypassing Leeds (at least 8 carriages)? The Nottingham to Leeds service could be timed to arrive at Sheffield on an adjacent platform 5 minutes before the Plymouth service is due and to leave 5 minutes after it departs, to provide good connections from Nottingham to York and points north and from Bristol/SW England to Leeds.

Again, XC would rather both via Leeds as that is where the demand is.

 

[tbtc]

To be honest, I don't really think anyone is questioning the Birmingham to Brighton section, if that was proposed by itself then I think it would be a very different discussion. It's the Birmingham to Newcastle part which is the problem as it does nothing unique and by the time it does go unique, then you'd be quicker connecting via London.

That was my first thought (Birmingham to Brighton had some merit but not the northern section). The Newcastle bit felt like a token side-salad, only included to generate a bit of publicity in the North East (headlines in the local press there like "Sunderland train operator seeks new Gatwick link", that kind of thing)

But, London to Newcastle seems a lucrative market.

If you were an OAO with several services a day from London to Doncaster (the Bradford service, maybe one day a Cleethorpes service), and from London to York (the Sunderland service), maybe there would be potential for GC- specific tickets from Tyne to Thames (changing in Yorkshire), maybe even some demand for GC-specific Sunderland/Bradford to Birmingham etc tickets

Pure speculation, of course, but (AFAICS) this would be the first chance for an OAO to offer through tickets between their services

(that's assuming that it has any likelihood of happening whatsoever, and that anyone would risk connections between long distance services when one of the trains involved is an unreliable 180)

 

[jayah]

In which case XC will find a way of running them and its dead in the water (even though some freight paths have flexed into them I believe). I expect they will try and get NR on not using Part J again.

In which case the paths do exist- even if they don't!

Nothing like a bit of competition to stimulate dynamism.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

That was my first thought (Birmingham to Brighton had some merit but not the northern section). The Newcastle bit felt like a token side-salad, only included to generate a bit of publicity in the North East (headlines in the local press there like "Sunderland train operator seeks new Gatwick link", that kind of thing)

But, London to Newcastle seems a lucrative market.

If you were an OAO with several services a day from London to Doncaster (the Bradford service, maybe one day a Cleethorpes service), and from London to York (the Sunderland service), maybe there would be potential for GC- specific tickets from Tyne to Thames (changing in Yorkshire), maybe even some demand for GC-specific Sunderland/Bradford to Birmingham etc tickets

Pure speculation, of course, but (AFAICS) this would be the first chance for an OAO to offer through tickets between their services

(that's assuming that it has any likelihood of happening whatsoever, and that anyone would risk connections between long distance services when one of the trains involved is an unreliable 180)

Welcome back.