LNER proposal to withdraw Stirling and Glasgow Central direct services: what do you think should happen?

[ainsworth74]

This is the message the RMT suggest sending (if you click through the "take part" link on the RMT page):

I am responding to this consultation to oppose proposals to reduce LNER services to/from Stirling, Falkirk Grahamston, Glasgow Central and Motherwell, and to urge LNER to withdraw the proposals.

At a time when urgent action is needed to reduce carbon emissions and shift passengers from road and domestic flights to rail, it seems counterproductive for LNER to propose cutting vital rail services.

Undoubtedly, passengers prefer direct services, and the planned service reductions could disincentivise rail travel by requiring passengers to make connections and lead people to choose domestic flights over rail. Research has found that travel by rail is seven times more environmentally friendly than flying and Glasgow is Britain’s third most used city by domestic flyers (after London and Edinburgh). Cuts to rail services risk exacerbating this domestic flight usage. Disabled and older passengers who may find connections more problematic could be particularly impacted by the proposed service cuts.

Glasgow Central is Scotland’s busiest rail station and cutting its direct access to the East Coast Main Line seems counterproductive. There are already limited direct trains between Motherwell and Edinburgh, and these cuts would reduce that further. There will be many people who rely on the LNER services for commuting purposes and cutting the LNER services risks increasing overcrowding on services provided by other operators.

The consultation document states that passengers travelling from Glasgow will still be served by Avanti West Coast services, and whilst that is of course true, it is also the case that Avanti services have been beset by problems, including delays, disruption and cancellations, for a prolonged period of time and passengers may prefer to utilise LNER services. Furthermore, removing these services means that passengers travelling from Glasgow and Motherwell would have no direct services to other parts of the ECML such as stations in Lincolnshire and East Anglia.

Given the fragmented nature of the railway, there is, of course, no guarantee that the other TOCs would respond to LNER’s service cuts by increasing their own services, and indeed ScotRail is also operating a c10% reduced timetable compared to pre-Covid levels.

With regards the planned service reductions for Stirling and Falkirk Grahamston, the remaining daily service, the ‘Highland Chieftain’ service is often very busy and the timings of this service mean it is unlikely to meet the requirements of passengers that chose to travel on the alternative service.

LNER has seen a strong post-Covid recovery, with passenger numbers now exceeding pre-Covid levels, it is therefore, of significant concern, that rather than responding to this trend by expanding services, it is seeking to reduce them. It is also of concern that these cuts could set a precedent and that further services may be at risk in the future.

Ultimately, I believe that as a sustainable transport operator, LNER should be making rail travel as easy and accessible as possible, but these planned cuts do the converse.
I strongly urge LNER to revisit these proposals and permanently withdraw the planned service cuts.

 

[YorkRailFan]

I received an email from the consultation with an 8 page PDF, the conclusion section reads:

The response to LNER's consultation to remove Glasgow and Stirling extension demonstrates the important that rail has to many.

However, after careful consideration of the consultation responses, LNER has decided that it will proceed with the proposals to remove the Glasgow and Stirling extensions from the December 2024 timetable.

It then goes on to give a reasoning for this decision:

LNER services to Glasgow and Stirling extensions are not well utilised, and there remains alternative rail options for those wishing to travel to/from London. The proposals are aimed to create a more efficient and reliable railway, and therefore aim to support modal shift to long distance rail.

The number of services between Edinburgh and London will not decrease because of the proposals. Glasgow and Edinburgh will remain well connected by regular Scotrail services providing connections to regular LNER Anglo-Scot East Coast services. The removal of LNER Glasgow and Stirling services will not have a significant impact to customers traveling to the East Coast from Glasgow/Motherwell given the frequency of available connections.

LNER recognises that the removal of the Glasgow and Stirling extensions will impact rail travel for customers who use this rail services, be it for leisure, business or commuting. The impact will be felt through increased journey times, in some instances, and having to change trains at Edinburgh Waverley to connecting services. However, it remains the case that LNER services for these portions of the journey were not well utilised and their removal would support LNER to run more reliable services by being able to operate limited resources more efficiently.

Passenger Assist is available at Glasgow Central, Stirling, Motherwell and Falkirk Grahamston and at Edinburgh Waverley, to ensure assistance is available for customers who require it, including for connecting services - available as "turn up and go" and/or book in advance. There will be no impact to the availability of Passenger Assist.

LNER is responsible for Passenger Assist and ticket retailing at Edinburgh Waverley. LNER colleagues support customers throughout the day, from first to last train.

Stirling will still retain connectivity to the East Coast Main Line, achieved by both Stirling and Falkirk Grahamston being served by LNER's daily Inverness service, which currently calls at Stirling at 10:34 Southbound and 17:19 Northbound, and at Falkirk Grahamston at 10:48 Southbound and at 17:03 Northbound.

There will be no job losses as a result of these proposals.

A shame, but ultimately expected.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I received an email from the consultation with an 8 page PDF, the conclusion section reads:

It then goes on to give a reasoning for this decision:

A shame, but ultimately expected.

If LNER are deferring the Dec 24 timetable then the extra stock won't be needed so perhaps these service groups will remain although i expect not as DafT will expect savings.

 

[sannox]

The key issue for me is that the paths that transferred from LNER to Crosscountry haven't been reintroduced. I still maintain that connections, no matter how frequent the Scotrail service, is unattractive and there should be a Glasgow-North East direct service.

 

[Falcon1200]

The key issue for me is that the paths that transferred from LNER to Crosscountry haven't been reintroduced.

I agree, absolutely; When the East Coast operator withdrew, almost, from serving Glasgow, it was widely publicised that Cross Country would provide an alternative, which they now hardly do.

 

[jagardner1984]

I agree, absolutely; When the East Coast operator withdrew, almost, from serving Glasgow, it was widely publicised that Cross Country would provide an alternative, which they now hardly do.

It also seems fairly obvious that for either LNER and Cross Country, via some Advance Purchase Tickets aimed squarely at Scotrail (which run with reasonable loadings at this time (albeit a few minutes quicker), there would be some travellers to absorb.

There must be so many examples like this around the country where there is basically a lack of interest in finding the business which exists.

If there genuinely was an improvement in service elsewhere, it might be easier to follow the logic, but it is hard to understand why flows such as Glasgow - Newcastle are not worthy of any direct train past 0748. Particularly as I'd imagine a good an amount of the flow is leisure.

Situations such as yesterdays flooding on the north WCML should lead us, IMHO, to more route resilience - e.g. the previously offered 8 daily trains Glasgow - KGX, rather than eliminating all but the core routes. Part of me wonders whether the increase in Delay Repay has built something of a "there's your refund, your problem now" attitude at senior level.

There are so many issues for an incoming government to solve, but it would be interesting to see if there was any interest in the £100m + of annual delay repay claims and what disincentive that proved to further travel - both forming loss of revenue to the treasury. Had LNER run those 8 daily trains from Glasgow yesterday, there is no doubt they would have been full and standing, given the many 11 coach Pendolinos and TPE services cancelled on the other route ....

 

[800001]

It also seems fairly obvious that for either LNER and Cross Country, via some Advance Purchase Tickets aimed squarely at Scotrail (which run with reasonable loadings at this time (albeit a few minutes quicker), there would be some travellers to absorb.

There must be so many examples like this around the country where there is basically a lack of interest in finding the business which exists.

If there genuinely was an improvement in service elsewhere, it might be easier to follow the logic, but it is hard to understand why flows such as Glasgow - Newcastle are not worthy of any direct train past 0748. Particularly as I'd imagine a good an amount of the flow is leisure.

Situations such as yesterdays flooding on the north WCML should lead us, IMHO, to more route resilience - e.g. the previously offered 8 daily trains Glasgow - KGX, rather than eliminating all but the core routes. Part of me wonders whether the increase in Delay Repay has built something of a "there's your refund, your problem now" attitude at senior level.

There are so many issues for an incoming government to solve, but it would be interesting to see if there was any interest in the £100m + of annual delay repay claims and what disincentive that proved to further travel - both forming loss of revenue to the treasury. Had LNER run those 8 daily trains from Glasgow yesterday, there is no doubt they would have been full and standing, given the many 11 coach Pendolinos and TPE services cancelled on the other route ....

If LNER had ran those 8 daily Glasgow trains yesterday, they would have been several other service they would not of being able to run, due to stock being tied up heading to/from Glasgow.

 

[ainsworth74]

If LNER had ran those 8 daily Glasgow trains yesterday, they would have been several other service they would not of being able to run, due to stock being tied up heading to/from Glasgow.

Though presumably, in this alternate universe where the Eureka timetable didn't axe the Glasgow services down to one per day, there would have been more stock ordered in the first place to account for that when the IETs were finally ordered in mid-2012?

 

[800001]

Though presumably, in this alternate universe where the Eureka timetable didn't axe the Glasgow services down to one per day, there would have been more stock ordered in the first place to account for that when the IETs were finally ordered in mid-2012?

Absolutely at many more hundreds of millions of pounds.

 

[ainsworth74]

Absolutely at many more hundreds of millions of pounds.

Oh yes, wasn't trying to suggest it would have been a good idea/use of money