Hourly service from Aberdeen to Leeds

[ainsworth74]

Why is it better to extend XC services? Nobody has every justified this, other than that 'the services exist, ergo they are good'. Given that it reduces service through the core, using poor units, doesn't extend north of Edinburgh (mostly), and creates delay exposure elsewhere it's clearly not.

Why is it better to redeploy EC's stock to work an hourly Leeds - Aberdeen service? Nobody has ever justified this either...

 

[tbtc]

Why is it better to extend XC services? Nobody has every justified this, other than that 'the services exist, ergo they are good'. Given that it reduces service through the core, using poor units, doesn't extend north of Edinburgh (mostly), and creates delay exposure elsewhere it's clearly not

Why is it better to redeploy EC's stock to work an hourly Leeds - Aberdeen service? Nobody has ever justified this either...

True.

There's no real difference in an XC service from Aberdeen "creating delay exposure elsewhere" and an East Coast service from Aberdeen "creating delay exposure elsewhere.

As for the "poor units", maybe XC could get some of these phantom HSTs that appear to be going spare?

(some of the other maths on this thread is interesting - I think Aberdeen would get five trains in every two hour period to Edinburgh, which is a better service than Dunfermline/ Stirling etc get)

 

[LE Greys]

Why is it better to extend XC services? Nobody has every justified this, other than that 'the services exist, ergo they are good'. Given that it reduces service through the core, using poor units, doesn't extend north of Edinburgh (mostly), and creates delay exposure elsewhere it's clearly not.

Well, firstly, there might well be more Voyagers freed up soon from the WCML, meaning more stock to deploy. Secondly, their acceleration is useful for the frequent stops on the Aberdeen Road. Thirdly, does it always justify a full HST for what will be a reduced number of passengers? Fourthly, no need to find extra paths over the congested sections around Newcastle.

As for better connectivity in the south, I refer you to my earlier post-hourly from Stevenage to Newcastle & Edinburgh, hourly from Peterborough to Edinburgh, two-hourly to Aberdeen also calling at Peterborough. This means that no station on the ECML has more than a single change for scottish services, and, of the stations on it, the only ones without direct services (currently served by EC) are Grantham, Newark & Retford (which would be either change Newcastle or Doncaster)

I quite agree. The current timetable only really makes sense from a London-centric view, your ideas seem a lot better from my point of view.

 

[Waverley125]

well given Aberdeen is the third biggest city in Scotland, about 4 times the size of Dunfermline & Stirling combined, and is the fastest-growing city in the UK, that's probably a good thing.

As for saying 'well, running to Leeds creates delay exposure, running to plymouth creates delay exposure'-no, obviously-by running to plymouth you create more delay exposure in more places.

Running that far behind can lead to a 170 being 5 minutes late off Haymarket TMD in the morning delaying the rush-hour trains at Paddington

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm going to keep asking this so at some point will someone please answer it:

Why is it better to redeploy EC's stock to work an hourly Leeds - Aberdeen service? Nobody has ever justified this either...

 

[fhs man 2]

I'm going to keep asking this so at some point will someone please answer it:

I think the service would be used mostly for Edinburgh and Newcastle. Leeds is a good point to change trains for western cities like Manchester and Birmingham.

 

[tbtc]

I thought Inverness was the fastest growing place in Scotland?

Regardless, proximity to the capital is more important - Dunfermline and Stirling are in the prime commuter distance from Edinburgh and much deserving of the increased service (by my reckoning Aberdeen would get around twenty coaches an hour to Edinburgh under your plans).

But even if you do find spare HSTs to give Aberdeen up to three trains an hour to Edinburgh, why extend them to Leeds (creating delay exposure elsewhere)? And why not use any spare HSTs on beefing up the XC core, or (if they are run by EC, on Lincoln services etc)?

Why?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the service would be used mostly for Edinburgh and Newcastle. Leeds is a good point to change trains for western cities like Manchester and Birmingham.

But Waverley125 keeps telling us that its faster to go to Manchester/ Birmingham down the WCML (and wants to cut the Edinburgh - ECML - Birmingham link)?

 

[fhs man 2]

But Waverley125 keeps telling us that its faster to go to Manchester/ Birmingham down the WCML (and wants to cut the Edinburgh - ECML - Birmingham link)?

That is if you have a direct train carrying on through Glasgow but Leeds would not only be a change point for those places it could be used for other cities Manchester and Birmingham are examples. I also think York could be a popular stop.

 

[Aictos]

I'm going to keep asking this so at some point will someone please answer it:

Simply because there isn't any point in such a service being used, there are other services managed by East Coast which would far better suit a hourly service.

Extending the existing Newark Northgate terminators though to York stopping at Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark Northgate, Retford, Doncaster would provide better interchange at these stations and would also mean speeding up of other long distance services that East Coast manage.

It's a pity that the idea of using Class 90s fell though as they would have been perfect on these services.

 

[LE Greys]

Simply because there isn't any point in such a service being used, there are other services managed by East Coast which would far better suit a hourly service.

Extending the existing Newark Northgate terminators though to York stopping at Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark Northgate, Retford, Doncaster would provide better interchange at these stations and would also mean speeding up of other long distance services that East Coast manage.

It's a pity that the idea of using Class 90s fell though as they would have been perfect on these services.

I think what they were worried about was having a 90 VICE 91 on an Edinburgh service if things went wrong. Bound to happen, but I don't think it was a sufficient reason to justify cancelling the plan.

Extending the Newark semi-fasts to York sounds like a good idea. Best do something useful with them. It doubles the Retford service for a start.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the service would be used mostly for Edinburgh and Newcastle. Leeds is a good point to change trains for western cities like Manchester and Birmingham.

Aberdeen already has a good service to Edinburgh. At Edinburgh it's easy enough to change onto a direct service to Newcastle or Leeds or York which are all at least served once an hour. Similarly there are direct trains from Edinburgh to Birmingham and Manchester that take the faster route via the WCML (1tp2h to Birmingham and approximately the same to Manchester). All this achieved using existing rolling stock and existing infrastructure. Whilst an hourly Leeds - Aberdeen would need new/more rolling stock and probably improvements in infrastructure at the same time and again for what real substantive benefit?

If the argument is that Edinburgh - Aberdeen needs better rolling stock/more capacity then fair enough but the way to deal with that isn't to redeploy EC's stock onto an hourly Leeds - Aberdeen service.

 

[tbtc]

I think what they were worried about was having a 90 VICE 91 on an Edinburgh service if things went wrong. Bound to happen, but I don't think it was a sufficient reason to justify cancelling the plan.

Extending the Newark semi-fasts to York sounds like a good idea. Best do something useful with them. It doubles the Retford service for a start.

They really ought to simplify the ECML timetable into

• 2x Newcastle/ Scotland services
• 2x Leeds/ Yorkshire services
• 1x York "stopper"
• 1x Open Access path with the same calling points each hour from Doncaster to London

(if the daytime Lincoln services aren't going to happen, that is)

 

[Aictos]

They really ought to simplify the ECML timetable into

• 2x Newcastle/ Scotland services
• 2x Leeds/ Yorkshire services
• 1x York "stopper"
• 1x Open Access path with the same calling points each hour from Doncaster to London

(if the daytime Lincoln services aren't going to happen, that is)

Which is why I hope that come December 2012, the DfT and Network Rail will agree to let East Coast extend the Newark services to York after all it's what they were rumoured to be interested in doing.

At the weekends, I would like to see Grand Central and First Hull Trains from December 2012 allowed only at weekends to pick up and set down more at both Stevenage and Peterborough.

 

[Waverley125]

I thought Inverness was the fastest growing place in Scotland?

Regardless, proximity to the capital is more important - Dunfermline and Stirling are in the prime commuter distance from Edinburgh and much deserving of the increased service (by my reckoning Aberdeen would get around twenty coaches an hour to Edinburgh under your plans).

But even if you do find spare HSTs to give Aberdeen up to three trains an hour to Edinburgh, why extend them to Leeds (creating delay exposure elsewhere)? And why not use any spare HSTs on beefing up the XC core, or (if they are run by EC, on Lincoln services etc)?

Why?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But Waverley125 keeps telling us that its faster to go to Manchester/ Birmingham down the WCML (and wants to cut the Edinburgh - ECML - Birmingham link)?

No, both economically and in terms of population it's Aberdeen.

As for what Aberdeen is getting, in terms of it being one 9-coach HST per hour, one 9-coach HST every other hour (i.e. 4.5 ph) and some form of DMU (two 170s?) per hour, it probably works out at about 20, yes.

I would also support Stirling and Dunfermline getting more services, the two are not mutually exclusive in any way.

As for 'why Leeds', because it's the UK's 4th biggest city, and besides being a destination in its own right (as you agree when you say XC should serve it), terminating at Leeds reduces delay exposure by reducing the distance the service travels and its potential to cause conflict.

You then don't need the HSTs, as you can use the spare Voyagers to beef up the XC core (fwiw I'd also support cutting XC services in the southwest back to Plymouth). This means you can double up more services and provide a higher frequency, so all-round win for the midlands.

And yes, it's much faster to go down the WCML-so an hourly 350 on Manchester-Edinburgh & Manchester Glasgow, and an hourly Pendolino on Birmingham-Glasgow & Birmingham-Edinburgh, means you increase capacity down there and can actually speed up London-Glasgow trains as, post-Blackpool wiring (I'm assuming an hourly Blackpool-London train) all Euston-Glasgow services can be first stop Preston.

Altogether, I think it's much better to run overlapping service patterns for specific areas rather than run one long service, as you get more efficient use of units, and create higher frequencies along the 'core' sections, while preserving the fast calling patterns in the extremities.

Another example would be Penzance, e.g.

1tph Penzance-Paddington (semi fast to Plymouth, Newton Abbot, Exeter, Paddington)

1tph Penzance-Plymouth (all stops)

1tph Penzance-Bristol (semi fast to Plymouth, Totnes, Newton Abbot, Teignmouth, Exeter, Taunton, Weston super Mare)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

You'd cut Taunton and Reading from Penzance trains, cutting off connections to Bristol and Somerset and Oxford, Hampshire and Surrey respectively?

 

[LE Greys]

You'd cut Taunton and Reading from Penzance trains, cutting off connections to Bristol and Somerset and Oxford, Hampshire and Surrey respectively?

Taunton maybe, since Exeter and Plymouth see regular Cross-Country services from Bristol, but not Reading (except perhaps for the Limited). Far too many connections from there. I'd also look at running more stoppers from Plymouth to Penzance, or perhaps some of the branches, and cutting out stops on some (but not all) of the expresses. The eventual target would be a 4-hour schedule, but that might require tilt and engineering work to achieve.

 

[Zoe]

Taunton maybe, since Exeter and Plymouth see regular Cross-Country services from Bristol

I don't think denying Taunton a direct fast service to London and forcing everyone to pack onto a Voyager to Bristol is going to be a popular idea.

 

[LE Greys]

I don't think denying Taunton a direct fast service to London and forcing everyone to pack onto a Voyager to Bristol is going to be a popular idea.

I did say "maybe". Nevertheless, Taunton should still get stops on every Plymouth or Paignton service, plus the hourly Exeter semi-fasts that I would introduce. These would ideally be worked by 180s.
Paddington-Slough-Reading-Theale-Thatcham-Newbury-Kintbury-Hungerford-Bedwyn-Pewsey-Westbury-Frome-Castle Cary-Taunton-Tiverton Parkway-Exeter St David's
Although I think we're a long way from Aberdeen here.

 

[Waverley125]

again, the London-Penzance service is not the only one, Taunton would still get served on the hourly Paddington-Plymouth & Paddington-Exeter runs, and Penzance does have a Taunton service (it's Bristol express, as I put in there for that reason)

And Reading was my bad, obviously should have been in.

But the principle is the same.

 

[tbtc]

I thought Inverness was the fastest growing place in Scotland?

No, both economically and in terms of population it's Aberdeen

You'd better tell Inverness - they seem to think that they are the fastest growing city in Western Europe (according to some websites)...

Regardless, proximity to the capital is more important - Dunfermline and Stirling are in the prime commuter distance from Edinburgh and much deserving of the increased service (by my reckoning Aberdeen would get around twenty coaches an hour to Edinburgh under your plans)

I would also support Stirling and Dunfermline getting more services, the two are not mutually exclusive in any way

There are only so many paths over the Forth Bridge and at the west end of Haymarket station. By increasing the Aberdeen service from roughly hourly to five trains every two hours, you take away scope for other services.

 

[Aictos]

I think what they were worried about was having a 90 VICE 91 on an Edinburgh service if things went wrong. Bound to happen, but I don't think it was a sufficient reason to justify cancelling the plan.

Extending the Newark semi-fasts to York sounds like a good idea. Best do something useful with them. It doubles the Retford service for a start.

It's a pity East Coast hasn't got round to hiring Virgin Trains WB64 set as that is only used as required and only used on Fridays to work the 18:43 Euston to Crewe - that would have been ideal on both the York and Newark terminators freeing up a 125mph set to be used elsewhere.

East Coast would only need to loan it for Mondays to Thursdays which would certainly ease pressure on the home fleets, allowing Virgin Trains to use it on Fridays with any maintainence being done at weekends.

Question is what could East Coast do with the spare HST/91 set?

 

[tbtc]

what could East Coast do with the spare HST/91 set?

A quick look at the Departure Boards shows that the bi-hourly extension from Newark to York would take an hour, so it would only take one additional unit to extend the London - Newark services to York

• 13:08 London Kings Cross
• 13:28 Stevenage
• 14:00 Peterborough
• 14:20 Grantham
  [*]14:32 Newark North Gate
• 14:48 Retford
• 15:02 Doncaster
  [*]15:31 York

I guess that the problem is what this interworks with, and what runs the Lincoln service. East Coast have a number of diesel duties at rush hour (Harrogate/ Hull, Lincoln, plus Skipton before the "juice" was improved on the Airedale line) but don't need the diesels during the daytime (other than a token Aberdeen/ Inverness service). So can they diagram the 125s so that they can still meet these requirements (without accidently rostering a 225 on a Lincoln/ Harrogate/ Hull duty)?

 

[Waverley125]

so you assume 2tph Fife Circle, going either way, so 4tph on the Fife Circle. Then 1tph Dundee, 1tph Aberdeen (slow), 1tph Aberdeen (fast), 1tp2h Aberdeen (super fast) and 1tph Inverness (fast) and 1tph Perth (slow)

which works out at 9.5 tph, or a headway of about 8 minutes.

Breaking that down further, you have calling patterns of

Fife Circle: All stations
Dundee stopper: All stations
Aberdeen stopper: Inverkeithing, Kirkcaldy, Markinch, Ladybank, Cupar, Leuchars
Perth stopper: Inverkeithing, Kirkcaldy, Markinch, Ladybank, Newburgh, Bridge of Earn
Aberdeen fast: Inverkeithing, Kirkcaldy, Leuchars
Inverness fast: Kirkcaldy only
Aberdeen superfast: Kirkcaldy only

so if you schedule the FC/Dundee trains to depart immediately after the Inverness/Aberdeen fasts, you should be able to get them along before they are caught up, especially as half your stoppers disappear at Inverkeithing.

so something like

xx00-Inverness
xx03-Fife Circle (Kirkcaldy)
xx10-Aberdeen (SR)
xx18-Fife Circle (Dunfermline)
xx23-Perth
xx30-Aberdeen (EC)
xx33-Fife Circle (Kirkcaldy)
xx40-Dundee (SR)
xx48-Fife Circle (Dunfermline)
xx55-Aberdeen (EC, ex KX)

 

[tbtc]

...and the freight paths?

...and the inevitable delays now that there are so many trains from south of Edinburgh heading over the Forth Bridge?

Even a "semi-fast" service is going to catch up a stopper fairly quickly, given the need to stop at

• South Gyle
• Dalmeny
• North Queensferry
• Dalgety Bay
• Aberdour
• Burntisland
• Kinghorn

...do you still fancy your semi-fast service not to catch it up (despite a seven minute head start)?

And Dunfermline gets stuck with two (short) services an hour, compared to Aberdeen's twenty coaches per hour, despite the much bigger numbers of daily commuters from Fife?

(plus there's the two new stations that you appear to have opened between Ladybank and Perth in this "fantasy" world)

 

[ainsworth74]

...and the freight paths?

A very good point. The EC timetable has been massively recast and introduced a fair few new services (or speeded existing services up) but has any thought been given to how freight is going to be accommodated with this revised timetable? After all the ECML is one of the major freight arteries of the railway network so you can just say 'remove it from the ECML entirely'.

 

[tbtc]

A very good point. The EC timetable has been massively recast and introduced a fair few new services (or speeded existing services up) but has any thought been given to how freight is going to be accommodated with this revised timetable? After all the ECML is one of the major freight arteries of the railway network so you can just say 'remove it from the ECML entirely'.

This is the problem, and there's no easy diversion when it comes to bottlenecks like the Forth Bridge (the route via Stirling is a lot longer, and comes with its own problems).

Take freight out of the equation and a lot of lines could have improved services (the Hope Valley line between Sheffield and Manchester is clogged up by freight paths, stopping any easy improvement for passenger services).

 

[ainsworth74]

Take freight out of the equation and a lot of lines could have improved services (the Hope Valley line between Sheffield and Manchester is clogged up by freight paths, stopping any easy improvement for passenger services).

Quite, imagine what you could do with the WCML or the GEML if they didn't have to deal with heavy freight traffic. But then imagine the sate of the roads if they were trying to deal with all that extra traffic...

 

[LE Greys]

A very good point. The EC timetable has been massively recast and introduced a fair few new services (or speeded existing services up) but has any thought been given to how freight is going to be accommodated with this revised timetable? After all the ECML is one of the major freight arteries of the railway network so you can just say 'remove it from the ECML entirely'.

South of Doncaster, that requires a few things.

1. Major upgrade of the Hertford Loop
2. Grade separation at Newark
3. Upgrade the GN/GE Joint via Lincoln
4. New flyover at Werrington and reinstate the down slow from Peterborough. Give it access from the up slow to avoid crossing moves
5. Electrify from Peterborough to Ely and upgrade the wires from Ely to Hitchin to cope with Class 92s
6. Also do Ely-Needham Market
7. Completely rebuild Doncaster, Rugby style, to add more platforms on the west side for Leeds and Sheffield trains, with flyovers north and south to accommodate crossing moves for Hull-Sheffield and up Leeds expresses

And north of Donny

• Grade separation at Poppleton Junction to allow crossing moves from the up slow to access the avoiding line, also squeeze in a new approach line between the fasts and the depot for TPX and Harrogate trains
• New platforms on the freight lines at Northallerton
• New platform on the up goods loop at Darlington
• Completely relay and reopen the Leamisde Line
• Work on a new freight loop around Edinburgh, preferably on the Leith side using old alignments
• Convert the suburban line to tram operation

Considering all that, you're now getting towards WCML upgrade levels of spending. A complete track relay to add tilt and 140 mph running would probably push it to over £10bn! Is that worth it with HS2 coming up?

 

[bluenoxid]

And north of Donny

[*]Grade separation at Poppleton Junction to allow crossing moves from the up slow to access the avoiding line, also squeeze in a new approach line between the fasts and the depot for TPX and Harrogate trains

I hate to say they were right but surely the proposal to take Harrogate trains to a separate station in York on the avoiders would be a better option if it allowed for an increase in services. It could sit on the triangle site.

 

[Zoe]

again, the London-Penzance service is not the only one, Taunton would still get served on the hourly Paddington-Plymouth & Paddington-Exeter runs, and Penzance does have a Taunton service (it's Bristol express, as I put in there for that reason)

There quite simply isn't demand for all these services you want to run.