Integrating the east coast

[Waverley125]

with NXEC in the financial mire, and GC not too brilliant either, is it it time to look at re-franchising the east coast (non including FCC) back to one franchise? Assuming of course, that the deal will involve maintaining present service levels to Hull & Sunderland. In my opinion, this could provide some great opportunities for services to areas that are presently underserved.

For instance, demanding the main operator go to lincoln via Grantham or newark, when it could better be done by FCC via Spalding and Sleaford is stupid. Additionally, a single operator might be able to use paths better, for instance:

-Sunderland services to cease calls at Eaglescliffe & tees area stations to call at Middlesborough and Hartlepool only. (reversing at middlesborough). Or introduce alternating middlesborough/sunderland service which would fulfill requirements for extra train to york.

-Leeds services extended to Skipton, Bradford F. Square & Harrogate, all reversing at leeds. This would free up platform capacity at leeds, as well as providing an hourly service to these destinations from london.

-Alternating Hull service with Sheffield, to provide competition for EMT on MML.

now this would require a good bit of infrastructure spending to work-re quadrupling between Doncaster & Huntingdon plus a second welwyn viaduct and peterborough-doncaster, Doncaster-Hull and Doncaster-Sheffield wires. But it's doable.

1tph Glasgow/Aberdeen (PB, NNG, DON, YK, DL, NC, MP, AN, BR, DB, ED, All)
1tph newcastle (terminating) (ST, PB, GR, NNG, DO, YK, THK, NA, DR, DL, NC)
1tph Sunderland (PB, NNG, DO, YK, THK, NL, MB, HA)
1tph Bradford/Skipton/Harrogate (ST, PB, GR, NNG, RE, DO, WWG, LDS)
1tph Hull/Sheffield (ST, PB, GR, NNG, RE, DO, [RTC, MDH]/[all]

plus

1 FCC tph Nottingham (Grantham-London, GR, PB, HT, STN, HIT, ST)
1 FCC tph Lincoln (Werrington-London, RU, SL, SP, PB, HT, STN, SN, AR, BG, HTC, ST)

 

[Darandio]

So, on the Sunderland service, take the Thirsk stop out and deprive them of the service they have been after for years? Also, is MB Middlesbrough? If so, I presume you a relying on trains reversing.

 

[Waverley125]

sorry, forgot them. And introduced a thirsk stop on the Newcastle services.

 

[Darandio]

Good man!

You still keeping Middlesbrough in though?

 

[GNERman]

and GC not too brilliant either

Excuse me! Evidence...

 

[MCR247]

with NXEC in the financial mire, and GC not too brilliant either, is it it time to look at re-franchising the east coast (non including FCC) back to one franchise? Assuming of course, that the deal will involve maintaining present service levels to Hull & Sunderland. In my opinion, this could provide some great opportunities for services to areas that are presently underserved.

For instance, demanding the main operator go to lincoln via Grantham or newark, when it could better be done by FCC via Spalding and Sleaford is stupid. Additionally, a single operator might be able to use paths better, for instance:

-Sunderland services to cease calls at Eaglescliffe & tees area stations to call at Middlesborough and Hartlepool only. (reversing at middlesborough). Or introduce alternating middlesborough/sunderland service which would fulfill requirements for extra train to york.

-Leeds services extended to Skipton, Bradford F. Square & Harrogate, all reversing at leeds. This would free up platform capacity at leeds, as well as providing an hourly service to these destinations from london.

-Alternating Hull service with Sheffield, to provide competition for EMT on MML.

now this would require a good bit of infrastructure spending to work-re quadrupling between Doncaster & Huntingdon plus a second welwyn viaduct and peterborough-doncaster, Doncaster-Hull and Doncaster-Sheffield wires. But it's doable.

1tph Glasgow/Aberdeen (PB, NNG, DON, YK, DL, NC, MP, AN, BR, DB, ED, All)
1tph newcastle (terminating) (ST, PB, GR, NNG, DO, YK, THK, NA, DR, DL, NC)
1tph Sunderland (PB, NNG, DO, YK, THK, NL, MB, HA)
1tph Bradford/Skipton/Harrogate (ST, PB, GR, NNG, RE, DO, WWG, LDS)
1tph Hull/Sheffield (ST, PB, GR, NNG, RE, DO, [RTC, MDH]/[all]

plus

1 FCC tph Nottingham (Grantham-London, GR, PB, HT, STN, HIT, ST)
1 FCC tph Lincoln (Werrington-London, RU, SL, SP, PB, HT, STN, SN, AR, BG, HTC, ST)

Well Nottingham wouldnt be anygood the speeds are low and would there be platform space, at least the current EMT stoppers from Grantham to Nottingham can use platform 2 or the far ends of platforms.

What stock would be used on Nottingham as FCC on have electric.

Also I dont think there is enough HSTs for a hourly Aberdeen and then hourly Bradford/Leeds/Skipton and a Sheffield. Overall I dont think there would be enough stock. 'Cos when you think about it, HT & GC only run a few trains aday, and I dont think NXEC have enough spare stock.

But if you JUST added current NXEC, GC & HT trains, and they were all almost the same fleet, (eg. just Mallards & HSTs) you might have a few spares because then instead of having a GC waitnig in LKX for ages, it could form a NXEC HST service (if they were all the smae length/formation) and then have a NXEC HST service form the GC service

Sorry if I'm just babbling and going on :roll: and if you cant read my post!

 

[Waverley125]

sorry, didn't make myself clear. 1tph alternating between Aberdeen & glasgow. so 1tp2h to both Glasgow Central & Aberdeen.

And yes, the extended FCC services would require wires. But 365s are only 4 coaches-surely they could fit at Nottingham?

 

[A0]

Oh goody - another 'let's try and bring down NXEC thread' :roll:

 

[MCR247]

sorry, didn't make myself clear. 1tph alternating between Aberdeen & glasgow. so 1tp2h to both Glasgow Central & Aberdeen.

And yes, the extended FCC services would require wires. But 365s are only 4 coaches-surely they could fit at Nottingham?

I dont think that they would wire to Nottingham via Grantham.

 

[yorkie]

1tph Glasgow/Aberdeen (PB, NNG, DON, YK, DL, NC, MP, AN, BR, DB, ED, All)
1tph newcastle (terminating) (ST, PB, GR, NNG, DO, YK, THK, NA, DR, DL, NC)
1tph Sunderland (PB, NNG, DO, YK, THK, NL, MB, HA)
1tph Bradford/Skipton/Harrogate (ST, PB, GR, NNG, RE, DO, WWG, LDS)
1tph Hull/Sheffield (ST, PB, GR, NNG, RE, DO, [RTC, MDH]/[all]

plus

1 FCC tph Nottingham (Grantham-London, GR, PB, HT, STN, HIT, ST)
1 FCC tph Lincoln (Werrington-London, RU, SL, SP, PB, HT, STN, SN, AR, BG, HTC, ST)

I would try to make sense of that IF correct codes are used.

As they're not, I'm not going to try very hard to de-cipher it.

But the whole plan is not workable. HT and GC have access rights for a few years now and Nat Ex have the franchise for a while yet. If DfT took it off them now and attempted to take access rights off HT/GC they'd need to pay £££££s in compensation.

It's a complete non-starter.

As for the re-quadrupling south of Donny, I am pretty sure that there is very little that was quadruple in the first place. The cost would be £billions. Look how much it has cost to quadruple the Trent Valley!

Oh, and making the whole thing a monopoly would just mean the franchise holder putting the fares up even more!

 

[me123]

sorry, didn't make myself clear. 1tph alternating between Aberdeen & glasgow. so 1tp2h to both Glasgow Central & Aberdeen.

A better idea may be to have more trains to Glasgow and leave the Aberdeen services as they are. And, of course, run the Highland Chieftain. Glasgow can run with Electric trains, whereas the other two need HSTs. Furthermore, a good service to Aberdeen and Inverness should work with Scotrail. For example, Scotrail have a gap in their Aberdeen service into which an NXEC HST operates instead. Quite simple.

I'd actually be more tempted to run:

1tph KGX-Scotland. Calls Peterborough, York, Darlington, Newcastle and intermediate stations thereafter.
2tph KGX-Leeds, calling at nost/all intermediate stations. Extends more frequently.
1tph KGX-Newcastle. Calls most intermediates south of Doncaster, Doncaster itself, and all stations thereafter. May continue to Edinburgh from time to time if demand and resources are available.
1tph to Hull/Lincoln/Sunderland. Open access/franchised as needed.

The aim would be to give most places in England an hourly service, if not better.

As for Sheffield and Nottingham, EMT do a decent job and provide lots of seats (although a better allocation of resources could easily see more seats!). Competition is not needed, and not good use of resources in my opinion.

 

[yorkie]

And yes, the extended FCC services would require wires. But 365s are only 4 coaches-surely they could fit at Nottingham?

Why would anyone take a 2+3 seated class 365 with no window view calling at places like Hitchin and Biggleswade taking ages instead of taking a fast HST from St Pancras which is just next door to King's Cross?

 

[spoony]

Just a thought but why not have a service starting at Newcastle, going via the Durham coast line? Pity it would never happen though with the various politics of it.

 

[will1337]

I don't see why it'd be necessary for every Edinburgh train to stop at Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick upon Tweed and Dunbar and every train to stop at Newark North Gate. It'll all add to journey times and there wouldn't be any first stop York trains anymore.

Lincoln wouldn't really be that happy having commuter trains on a long distance journey over a much slower route.

I think it'd be more useful to build a proper sized station at Dunbar and put in more passing opportunities north of Newcastle instead of electrifying bits of Lincolnshire. Then a new semi fast Newcastle/Sunderland to Edinburgh service could be started and if it were hourly or so it would provide the places along the coast a good service in either direction without slowing down the expresses.

Edit:

Why would anyone take a 2+3 seated class 365 with no window view calling at places like Hitchin and Biggleswade taking ages instead of taking a fast HST from St Pancras which is just next door to King's Cross?

Agreed and as I said above ditto for Lincoln.

Just a thought but why not have a service starting at Newcastle, going via the Durham coast line? Pity it would never happen though with the various politics of it.

Wow I was slow!

 

[yorkie]

Just a thought but why not have a service starting at Newcastle, going via the Durham coast line? Pity it would never happen though with the various politics of it.

GC should be allowed to do that. There is no reason for NXEC to object. We are told that trains that are overtaken get no ORCATS revenue. As these trains would be overtaken by at least two or three as they meander around the coast in around 2 hours instead of 1 hour direct to York, so gain no revenue from Newcastle-York/London tickets. I guess the reason is that it would not open up any new journey opportunities (unless Eaglescliffe to Newcastle counts!), it would however increase frequency from places like Hartlepool to Newcastle.

 

[LilLoaf]

There is no way you can do a reversal at Middlesbourgh its bad enough the performance TPE have just to go into a siding adding Grand Central in there just makes the situation worse. Be a lot easier and logical to have the Grand Central go through to Saltburn than turnback and the bourgh.

Grand Central is a joke, you should see the performance they have a Heaton on a regular basis, coupling / uncoupling just to find a set where everything works. The ones that don't work just lying around Heaton looking rather lost usually lying 1 coach one end the depot another couch somewhere completly differant. Madness. NXEA should take the Sunderland and my proposed Saltburn service.

 

[spoony]

GC should be allowed to do that. There is no reason for NXEC to object. We are told that trains that are overtaken get no ORCATS revenue. As these trains would be overtaken by at least two or three as they meander around the coast in around 2 hours instead of 1 hour direct to York, so gain no revenue from Newcastle-York/London tickets. I guess the reason is that it would not open up any new journey opportunities (unless Eaglescliffe to Newcastle counts!), it would however increase frequency from places like Hartlepool to Newcastle.

Im sure if GC made it worth someoenes while for it to take an hour longer, most passengers would jump at the chance. If NEXC started to object, run the service from Manors

 

[whoshotjimmi]

1tph Glasgow/Aberdeen (PB, NNG, DON, YK, DL, NC, MP, AN, BR, DB, ED, All)
1tph newcastle (terminating) (ST, PB, GR, NNG, DO, YK, THK, NA, DR, DL, NC)
1tph Sunderland (PB, NNG, DO, YK, THK, NL, MB, HA)
1tph Bradford/Skipton/Harrogate (ST, PB, GR, NNG, RE, DO, WWG, LDS)
1tph Hull/Sheffield (ST, PB, GR, NNG, RE, DO, [RTC, MDH]/[all]

plus

1 FCC tph Nottingham (Grantham-London, GR, PB, HT, STN, HIT, ST)
1 FCC tph Lincoln (Werrington-London, RU, SL, SP, PB, HT, STN, SN, AR, BG, HTC, ST)

One train an hour to Edinburgh and one train an hour to Leeds? Are you daft?

Two an hour to Leeds currently isn't enough, hence two hourly trains to Harrogate via Leeds. Why would you replace well patriated services such as those to Leeds and Edinburgh with one to Sheffield that reverses at Doncaster??? Lack of common sense there methinks. What is the point of FCC going to Nottingham via Grantham? Neither of these places needs extra London services - especially slow trains.

I still think better use of the ECML can be made by having a good look at the timetable. Surely more than 6 paths an hour are available from KX. Seems to work out of Euston. Obviously, Welwyn Viaduct produces a capacity issue, but I still think ECML is poorly diagrammed.

Finally, what you are basically suggesting is that all services should be taken away from the Open Access Operators and re-franchised. In this instance, Grand Central and FHT are showing NXEC how things can and should be done. GC have had many problems with their stock, but at least they appear to be trying to give the passenger what they want. I do not think this re-franchising idea is an option - especially given the ludicrous suggestions about where the trains should go.

 

[Darandio]

Be a lot easier and logical to have the Grand Central go through to Saltburn than turnback and the bourgh.

Then we can have the ridiculous situation of no more than 3 carriages on a platform! Thats a good plan!

 

[Spaceflower]

A better idea may be to have more trains to Glasgow and leave the Aberdeen services as they are. And, of course, run the Highland Chieftain. Glasgow can run with Electric trains, whereas the other two need HSTs. Furthermore, a good service to Aberdeen and Inverness should work with Scotrail. For example, Scotrail have a gap in their Aberdeen service into which an NXEC HST operates instead. Quite simple.

I'd actually be more tempted to run:

1tph KGX-Scotland. Calls Peterborough, York, Darlington, Newcastle and intermediate stations thereafter.
2tph KGX-Leeds, calling at nost/all intermediate stations. Extends more frequently.
1tph KGX-Newcastle. Calls most intermediates south of Doncaster, Doncaster itself, and all stations thereafter. May continue to Edinburgh from time to time if demand and resources are available.
1tph to Hull/Lincoln/Sunderland. Open access/franchised as needed.

The aim would be to give most places in England an hourly service, if not better.

As for Sheffield and Nottingham, EMT do a decent job and provide lots of seats (although a better allocation of resources could easily see more seats!). Competition is not needed, and not good use of resources in my opinion.

What about Durham! no service to Scotland?

 

[43106]

Some of the suggestions for services for a combined ECML franchise mirror some ideas I've had for about 8 years! If I had my way....

Temporarily transfer the Newcastle - Edinburgh and Edinburgh - Aberdeen XC services to the EC. This then lets you have...
A 2tph service between Kings Cross and Edinburgh, 0.5tph to Glasgow, 0.5tph to Aberdeen and 1tpd (train per day) to Inverness. To maintain the present level of service, have an XC train every 6 hours from Edinburgh - Newcastle and beyond. (To compensate for the loss of the XC services to Aberdeen/Dundee, I'd run a single daily service from Aberdeen to Birmingham via Dundee, Perth, Stirling, Cumbernauld, Coatbridge and the WCML.)
A 1tph Kings Cross - Leeds service PLUS another 1tph service from Kings Cross that alternates between Leeds and Hull. I would NOT have extensions to Skipton, Harrogate or Bradford, as I don't like reversing at Leeds (or anywhere else, for that matter - it wastes time). IF I was forced to serve Skipton, etc, then I'd run these services via Hambleton Junctions.
I'd run the present GC service via Middlesborough, removing the stop at Eaglescliffe but introducing a stop at Stockton. I'd also extend this service from Sunderland to Newcastle. I'd run it every 6 hours.
A Kings Cross - Lincoln service is a damned good idea, but I'd extend this to CLEETHORPES, as used to happen about 25-odd years ago. Again, a train every 6 hours should suffice.
I'd like everything to stop at Doncaster, for the same reason everything stops at York.
The big problem is establishing stopping patterns, as there is a tendancy for a Newcastle service to hit the back end of a slow Leeds service!

 

[me123]

What about Durham! no service to Scotland?

An odd service, but probably not a lot. I see your point, though. I've always wanted to visit Durham myself. Seeing as how XC and TPE would be stopping there anyways, surely it wouldn't be a big loss? XC would still be hourly to Scotland and there'd probably be reasonable connections at Newcastle.

 

[Darandio]

I'd run the present GC service via Middlesborough, removing the stop at Eaglescliffe but introducing a stop at Stockton.

Another request to turn at Middlesbrough!

You do all know that you cannot run through Middlesbrough and onwards to Sunderland don't you? And why Stockton, when based on your Middlesbrough stop would make it more viable to stop at Thornaby which is a more primary station in Stockton with a passenger count 6 times that of Stockton.

 

[yorkie]

What about Durham! no service to Scotland?

The only journey people from Durham seems to make is to Newcastle!

 

[Darandio]

The only journey people from Durham seems to make is to Newcastle!

Northbound yes, Southbound no, plenty of southbound student types heading to Kings Cross and therefore, the market is there northbound too!

 

[me123]

Northbound yes, Southbound no, plenty of southbound student types heading to Kings Cross and therefore, the market is there northbound too!

My proposed hourly Durham-King's Cross service would cover that This is in addition to the hourly service to Scotland that would bypass Durham most of the time.

 

[spoony]

Unfortuently for Middlesborough its a pain for GC to get to and would probably mean increasing journey times by another 20 minutes. Correct me if Im wrong but the boro already has decent links to Eaglescliffe, Darlington and York where long distance southbound services can be picked up. Not ideal I know that a direct service is not there but at least travellers are not forced up the country for 10 miles in order to start travelling southbound.

 

[Darandio]

Unfortuently for Middlesborough its a pain for GC to get to and would probably mean increasing journey times by another 20 minutes. Correct me if Im wrong but the boro already has decent links to Eaglescliffe, Darlington and York where long distance southbound services can be picked up. Not ideal I know that a direct service is not there but at least travellers are not forced up the country for 10 miles in order to start travelling southbound.

They do have a perfectly good service, very true. I still would like to see them get a direct path to Kings Cross though, just like the good old days.

 

[spoony]

My proposed hourly Durham-King's Cross service would cover that This is in addition to the hourly service to Scotland that would bypass Durham most of the time.

What we need is the Leamside line opening.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They do have a perfectly good service, very true. I still would like to see them get a direct path to Kings Cross though, just like the good old days.

Im all for as many services as possible to the North East

 

[Darandio]

I reckon that is a matter of time, sooner rather than later. A reopening will probably be intended for freight though.