Various consultations on the May 2022 East Coast Mainline timetable

[swt_passenger]

How many services a day were there from Southampton/ Reading/ Oxford to Leeds though?

(I know that one southbound service from Newcastle to the Thames Valley was diverted away from Doncaster to serve Leeds instead, but that was more about giving a 16:40ish departure towards Sheffield - in between the two busy services at around 16:10/ 17:10)

I’m fairly sure it’s the same, just the one. It’s explained as affecting one service each way in the XC consultation, northbound it’s the 1346 off Southampton, but of course the route doesn’t run in the COVID reduced timetable so it’s hard to check.

 

[43055]

That's very interesting, thanks

So York has six trains to Newcastle in an hour within thirty one minutes, then a twenty nine minute gap for the next one.

xx:05 (LNER: London - Scotland)
xx:18 (LNER: London - Scotland)
xx:22 (TPE Liverpool - Newcastle)
xx:26 (XC: Southampton - Newcastle)
xx:30 (LNER: London - Newcastle)
xx:36 (XC: Plymouth - Scotland)

...some of those services are going to get a lot busier than others at York - the xx:05 from Kings Cross is going to get significantly more passengers than the ones around the half hour mark.

I know it's pretty hard to get lots of long distance services from different parts of the country to all be well co-ordinated (a balanced ten minute service would be great, but not realistic) - however it'd be nice if the timetable meant that York - Newcastle saw a Newcastle terminator running shortly before each Scottish service (so that the shorter distance passengers loaded onto the trains terminating on Tyneside, keeping the Scottish trains emptier for the longer distance passengers)... instead, we'll probably see lots of shorter distance passengers using the London - Aberdeen train because there's been nothing for around half an hour before it.

And, to repeat myself, that's two XC services running within less than fifteen minutes of each other, since the time penalty for going via Leeds is so much - yet there seems no end to the practice of XC running around ten Voyagers north of Leeds during the daytime... grr!

No problem. Most hours the Southampton - Reading - Newcastle actually departs around 45 so the largest gap northbound will be 20 mins.

 

[ryan125hst]

Three possible solutions.
1) add a Newark call into Hull Trains services which would immediately restore a reasonable service between Retford, Newark and Grantham.
2) Run a Newark-Sheffield service possibly EMR or Northern calling only at Retford and Worksop. This could be two-hourly to connect with Lincoln services, and could possibly work in tandem with Northern’s Sheffield-Gainsborough Central service.
3) if no suitable path for 2 above, run a RRB express coach from Newark to Retford - this could also serve the two town centres, since both stations are a bit of a route march. Could it also extend to Doncaster, serving the sizeable communities of Bawtry and Rossington?

All valid but I doubt any would ever happen in reality for the following reasons:

1) Hull Trains have never stopped at Newark so I doubt they will have any rights to stop there.
2) I very much doubt there would be a path for a Newark to Sheffield via Retford Northern or EMR service.
3) That's not really an RRB you're suggesting (as it's still possible to travel between Newark and Retford, just on very few services per day or by travelling via Doncaster).

The problem is though that functionally no-one is doing these journeys. LNER provided a bar chart in their consultation (reproduced below from page 30) which suggests that there are only 13 LNER return journeys per day between Newark and Retford. Compare this to the 1,000s for Newark - London and the hundreds for Retford - London. Obviously there can be an element of "if you build it they will come" and improving the connectivity between Newark and Retford would no doubt stimulate demand. But the choice has to be made. Do you serve (and probably stimulate more demand from) the existing London based market or do you speculative try and increase the market between two small(ish) market towns in Nottinghamshire? I think the answer is, sadly, quite obvious which is the best use of finite resources.

The reality is that connections like this will always end up playing second fiddle. Well, at least until HS2 Phase 2b arrives (if it does...).

I agree with what you are saying, but the other argument is where do you draw a line? Do we shut stations that have few passengers because there's no need to serve them? Surely a railway should provide a good service at all stations on the network - hourly ideally, although I appretiate this won't be possible or viable in many cases. It doesn't matter if Retford isn't connected to Newcastle, Edinburgh or even Leeds by a direct train in my option as long as there's a good connection within 10-15 mins at key stations such as Doncaster or York. But to not be able to reach the next station just 15 mins along the line seems as though operation conveninence is being put before providing a service to all potential users.

Your point about "at least until HS2 Phase 2b arrives (if it does...)" is very valid - if it does get built then long distance services can be slowed down and more Retford calls can be added. I don't feel confident that it will go ahead, especially now with the financial effects of the pandemic.

The local journeys have always caused issues for as long as I can remember.

BR used to have London - Leeds stopping Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford (alternate hours) and Doncaster.

GNER mixed things up a little, probably to spread the load. Retford would appear in a service such as the 0650 Glasgow - London, were the service would not stop after Retford until Peterborough. It was very difficult to travel between adjacent station pairs until the timetable we have now was introduced.

However,
Car Parking (off-peak) at Newark is £5
Day return - £13

For a service that is essentially every 2 hours. If you have car you will drive.

If you don't have a car you will probably go to Lincoln / Nottingham (if you live in Newark) or Lincoln / Sheffield (if you live in Retford)

It is a chicken and egg, the service isn't going to entice anyone to use it. Newark - Grantham may do better because it is more frequent, but the A1 isn't really that congested in the area.

Interesting to see Newark - Lincoln on the charts. I wonder if that is combined EMR or LNER only passenger counts. A reasonable number of people join / alight at Newark on the LNERs but I think Newark Castle still gets the majority of traffic. those joining at Northgate it is impossible to tell if they started their journey there or have used it to change from the North.

It looks like the BR stopping service is similar to what we have now and that works fairly well (although it would be great if Retford got an hourly service). You are right about driving though, but if the service was more frequenct than it may tip the balance somewhat (especially when the cost of fuel and maintenance is added and if the passenger had a Railcard).

This is precisely the point; the "local" journeys have basically had a regular hourly/two-hourly connections for a decade (May 2011), via the King's Cross-Newark/Lincoln/York service. And demand is still minuscule.

How much longer must the "tail wag the dog" for by designing in for these tiny flows in the timetable, when (in passenger demand terms), far greater prizes lie elsewhere? Can't say that East Coast/VTEC/LNER haven't tried....

But a two hourly connection isn't the most convenient. If it was hourly and the demand was still low than that would be different.

Even the flow between Newark and Grantham is only served every two hours and that is the largest of the flows between the stations between Peterborough and Doncaster according to the charts showing the demand (interestingly it seems the flow between Newark and Grantham is marginally bigger than the flows from either station to Peterborough or Doncaster where hourly trains are retained!)

I don't think providing, say, an hourly stopping path is too much to ask? Aside from the obvious benefit of allowing faster journey times to the likes of Leeds/Newcastle and Edinburgh by not having Inverness trains calling at Newark.

Clearly all moot points as the timetable is obviously already at an advanced stage of development, this is merely another justification for decisions already taken dressed up as a consultation.

Even a stopper between Peterborough and Doncaster per hour, with wait for a path at Retford, would hugely improve connections if the service could connect into a London train at Peterborough and into a Leeds/Edinburgh train at Doncaster. I doubt it will ever happen though.

Sadly I agree that it's almost certainly too far down the line (No pun intended!) to make any significant changes.

 

[43074]

Agreed in theory, but the problem with the new timetables is that the need for fast long distance services mean that there's not much time to do two stops in a particular area - i.e. some only have time to make one stop between Peterborough and Doncaster (because they'd be caught up by the next train - but if many trains make one stop in that section then they aren't going to catch each other up)... same has applied for some time between Newcastle and Edinburgh - so Morpeth/ Alnmouth/ Berwick/ Dunbar all have a reasonable enough service to Edinburgh/ Newcastle (and London) but there aren't a lot of opportunities to go between two of Morpeth/ Alnmouth/ Berwick/ Dunbar

If you can serve the "Retford to Newark" market or the "Dunbar to Berwick" market with a long distance service that stops at both then that's great, but you're then potentially inconveniencing long distance passengers for the sake of the "n" people travelling between Retford and Newark/ Dunbar and Berwick... tricky balance

If all of the ECML services were London - Edinburgh then you could have some that made several stops south of York (e.g. pick four from Stevenage/ Peterborough/ Grantham/ Newark/ Retford/ Doncaster) and then only stopped at Newcastle on the way to Edinburgh and some that ran non-stop to York and made several stops north of there (e.g. pick four from Northallerton/ Thirsk/ Darlington/ Durham/ Morpeth/ Alnmouth/ Berwick/ Dunbar - plus Newcastle), so the two would have a similar duration. But most of the Stevenage/ Peterborough/ Grantham/ Newark/ Retford stops are going to be on the shorter distance services (and the Scottish trains running fairly fast south of York)

Yes I was more responding to your comment about the amount of subsidy per passenger required, but I do agree. It does feel like the stations on the route south of Doncaster have been allocated to each path with something of a scattergun approach though, e.g. one will be able to travel between Stevenage and either Grantham or Newark every hour yet according to LNERs own data the busier flow by volume between Grantham and Newark is only served every two hours, Newark is served by north of Edinburgh trains, Grantham to York is non stop every hour yet it is impossible to travel direct between Newark and Retford... I can see the constraints there, and recognise it isn't possible to run an all stations service, but if a skip stopping pattern is required it would be nice if at the very least it resembled the demand.

As for north of Newcastle, it wouldn't be half as bad if new stations weren't being built in the middle of nowhere where there isn't capacity to provide an adequate service to the stations already open...

 

[Ianno87]

I agree with what you are saying, but the other argument is where do you draw a line? Do we shut stations that have few passengers because there's no need to serve them? Surely a railway should provide a good service at all stations on the network - hourly ideally, although I appretiate this won't be possible or viable in many cases. It doesn't matter if Retford isn't connected to Newcastle, Edinburgh or even Leeds by a direct train in my option as long as there's a good connection within 10-15 mins at key stations such as Doncaster or York. But to not be able to reach the next station just 15 mins along the line seems as though operation conveninence is being put before providing a service to all potential users.

But in this case, the vast, vast majority of users of these stations (96+%) are still catered for by direct services. That's what I would call a "good" service - serving the needs of the significant majority.

There are plenty of precents for adjacent stations on the same line not having regular direct services between them.

But a two hourly connection isn't the most convenient. If it was hourly and the demand was still low than that would be different.

Would it? Lets say its 20 journeys (or whatever) per day currently - does making it hourly increase this significantly...or just increase it to 25? Is making it hourly just flogging a dead horse when demand isn't there?

 

[Failed Unit]

Would it? Lets say its 20 journeys (or whatever) per day currently - does making it hourly increase this significantly...or just increase it to 25? Is making it hourly just flogging a dead horse when demand isn't there?

it has made a significant difference in the past when services have gone from every 2 hours to hourly. Passengers numbers have increased. Retford to Lincoln was good example.

I know we need to strike a balance. Retford - Newark isn’t going to have a huge flow even at hourly.

But then we increase Leeds - Manchester to 5tph from 4tph when a train every 15 minutes is more than enough for most people. (although that is a good example why we shouldn’t do it)

 

[Ianno87]

it has made a significant difference in the past when services have gone from every 2 hours to hourly. Passengers numbers have increased. Retford to Lincoln was good example.

I know we need to strike a balance. Retford - Newark isn’t going to have a huge flow even at hourly.

But then we increase Leeds - Manchester to 5tph from 4tph when a train every 15 minutes is more than enough for most people. (although that is a good example why we shouldn’t do it)

It's all relative. Making Retford-Lincoln hourly doesn't come with an opportunity cost of serving something else better, whereas doing the same for Retford-Newark would.

(Plus the fact that Lincoln is a somewhat better demand driver than Newark!)

 

[43074]

But in this case, the vast, vast majority of users of these stations (96+%) are still catered for by direct services. That's what I would call a "good" service - serving the needs of the significant majority.

There are plenty of precents for adjacent stations on the same line not having regular direct services between them

I think the point is though that the service at these stations duplicates over some flows (e.g. EMR run hourly between Peterborough and Grantham and so will LNER), whilst telling Retford to Newark customers to travel via Doncaster (which they won't) and running every two hours between Grantham and Newark. Doesn't strike me as a particularly efficient distribution of those stops.

Whilst this is more of a speculative idea therefore probably for that section of the forum, something like the following from Kings Cross would in my opinion be a better balance (roughly in the order I would arrange them from Kings Cross):
1tph calling Grantham and Doncaster then Wakefield and Leeds
1tph calling Peterborough, Newark, Doncaster then stations to Newcastle with alternate trains calling Retford
Then on the opposite half hour;
1tph calling Grantham, Newark then alternating either towards Doncaster or Lincoln
1tph calling Stevenage, Peterborough, Doncaster then Wakefield and Leeds

 

[Ianno87]

I think the point is though that the service at these stations duplicates over some flows (e.g. EMR run hourly between Peterborough and Grantham and so will LNER), whilst telling Retford to Newark customers to travel via Doncaster (which they won't) and running every two hours between Grantham and Newark. Doesn't strike me as a particularly efficient distribution of those stops.

Whilst this is more of a speculative idea therefore probably for that section of the forum, something like the following from Kings Cross would in my opinion be a better balance (roughly in the order I would arrange them from Kings Cross):
1tph calling Grantham and Doncaster then Wakefield and Leeds
1tph calling Peterborough, Newark, Doncaster then stations to Newcastle with alternate trains calling Retford
Then on the opposite half hour;
1tph calling Grantham, Newark then alternating either towards Doncaster or Lincoln
1tph calling Stevenage, Peterborough, Doncaster then Wakefield and Leeds

But then to get that to work, you'll have to structure the whole Peterborough-Doncaster timetable in a particular way. When then becomes incompatible with constraints elsewhere; e.g. around Thameslink paths across Welwyn Viaduct (which basically determines the possible Long Distance slots out of King's Cross)

 

[Failed Unit]

That is the issue. Which problem do you solve. You can make everything perfect at Northallerton and impossible at Welwyn North as a result.

It would be interesting to know what Retford would prefer - LNER services to London / North every 2 hours or an EMU service between Doncaster and Peterborough. I suspect the former even if Hull trains continue to server Retford.

As for the best way to make everyone happy I am sure we have multiple ideas threads.

2 things we do know,

1. 3 car EMU will carry a lot of fresh air.
2. Whatever is fed back in the consultation is unlikely to change the proposed timetable.

We may end up with some odd extra stops, but from the GTR (Thameslink) - most of the feedback goes directly in the bin

 

[BrianW]

That is the issue. Which problem do you solve. You can make everything perfect at Northallerton and impossible at Welwyn North as a result.

It would be interesting to know what Retford would prefer - LNER services to London / North every 2 hours or an EMU service between Doncaster and Peterborough. I suspect the former even if Hull trains continue to server Retford.

As for the best way to make everyone happy I am sure we have multiple ideas threads.

2 things we do know,

1. 3 car EMU will carry a lot of fresh air.
2. Whatever is fed back in the consultation is unlikely to change the proposed timetable.

We may end up with some odd extra stops, but from the GTR (Thameslink) - most of the feedback goes directly in the bin

A good dose of reality I think. I really feel for the planners trying as best they can to balance all the needs let alone satisfy the political demands. I hope some punters will recognise the near impossibility.
BTW- what is Reston for? Is it a kind of Berwick-on-Tweed overspill, or Eyemouth Parkway, or Eyewatering Garden City ...? Can anyone help please?
And ... was there ever a West Retford?

 

[Killingworth]

A good dose of reality I think. I really feel for the planners trying as best they can to balance all the needs let alone satisfy the political demands. I hope some punters will recognise the near impossibility.
BTW- what is Reston for? Is it a kind of Berwick-on-Tweed overspill, or Eyemouth Parkway, or Eyewatering Garden City ...? Can anyone help please?
And ... was there ever a West Retford?

Retford is a strange town. If you look on the map you'll see the centre to the west of the River Idle is called West Retford, there's Ordsall to the west and South Retford to the south. However when reaching Ordsall by road from the west you'll find this sign that says you're entering the historic Borough of East Retford, founded about 1105, first charter 1259. A little confusing? Go google that!

 

[30907]

But then to get that to work, you'll have to structure the whole Peterborough-Doncaster timetable in a particular way. When then becomes incompatible with constraints elsewhere; e.g. around Thameslink paths across Welwyn Viaduct (which basically determines the possible Long Distance slots out of King's Cross)

A simpler solution would be to give one or other of the trains that serve Retford a Newark stop as well:
either the York semifast (in place of Peterborough) or the Hull (replacing Grantham) - there isn't space in the timetable simply to add a stop.
Grantham would require amending the OA rules under which HT operate (as well as HT agreeing!), Peterborough probably is a reduction too far....

 

[Jordan1296]

There is a cross country sheet as well with the same sort of information in a different view: https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/travel-updates-information/consultation-may-2022

One thing I note is that there is no mention of the existing Leeds to Aberdeen LNER service. Other once a day ones are described, wonder if other operators will shortly show their timetables?

In the main, this service will still run but will start from London at 0548 instead and no longer call at Leeds. Similarly, the current 1818 Aberdeen to Leeds will be extended to Doncaster (leaving at 1816 instead).

 

[Ianno87]

A simpler solution would be to give one or other of the trains that serve Retford a Newark stop as well:
either the York semifast (in place of Peterborough) or the Hull (replacing Grantham) - there isn't space in the timetable simply to add a stop.
Grantham would require amending the OA rules under which HT operate (as well as HT agreeing!), Peterborough probably is a reduction too far....

But then you are removing calls from busier stations to serve a quieter station instead.

 

[stounloon]

BTW- what is Reston for? Is it a kind of Berwick-on-Tweed overspill, or Eyemouth Parkway, or Eyewatering Garden City ...? Can anyone help please?

I live near Reston and I have no intention of ever using the station. It's going to be an unstaffed halt with no facilities whatsoever, and at the moment no bus service to speak of ( the local bus operator is slashing every local service they can, acting as though life operates on a nine to five basis).
If I use Berwick station I can use the coffee shop, toilets, waiting room, nip up 100m to the pub if a delay is announced for my train, and catch a bus to/from the station to home (for now, anyway).

I think the idea is that Reston will take passengers from the Duns area away from Berwick, as it will be slightly closer for them. Reston will only work if it is part of a bigger picture with East Linton, Dunbar, and some of the north Northumberland stations in the mix.

As things go in 2022, Reston has been allocated trains three mid-afternoon trains in each direction (all XC services with their Dunbar stop transferred to Reston), with a 21:xx northbound train which does not call at Berwick - hardly an auspicious start.

The consultation documents from LNER and XC state that some options are being investigated ( TPE to run a NCL/BWK-EDB shuttle to serve Reston & Dunbar being one of them) but nothing has been decided so far.

Berwick losing more than 50% of its 600 seat LNER services, in return for a few more XC 200 seat Voyagers, is a disaster for SE Scotland & N Northumberland. We are taxpayers, we paid for these Azumas every bit as as much as the folk who wiil get between EDB to NCL a few minutes quicker.

 

[ivorytoast28]

I live near Reston and I have no intention of ever using the station. It's going to be an unstaffed halt with no facilities whatsoever, and at the moment no bus service to speak of ( the local bus operator is slashing every local service they can, acting as though life operates on a nine to five basis).
If I use Berwick station I can use the coffee shop, toilets, waiting room, nip up 100m to the pub if a delay is announced for my train, and catch a bus to/from the station to home (for now, anyway).

I think the idea is that Reston will take passengers from the Duns area away from Berwick, as it will be slightly closer for them. Reston will only work if it is part of a bigger picture with East Linton, Dunbar, and some of the north Northumberland stations in the mix.

As things go in 2022, Reston has been allocated trains three mid-afternoon trains in each direction (all XC services with their Dunbar stop transferred to Reston), with a 21:xx northbound train which does not call at Berwick - hardly an auspicious start.

The consultation documents from LNER and XC state that some options are being investigated ( TPE to run a NCL/BWK-EDB shuttle to serve Reston & Dunbar being one of them) but nothing has been decided so far.

Berwick losing more than 50% of its 600 seat LNER services, in return for a few more XC 200 seat Voyagers, is a disaster for SE Scotland & N Northumberland. We are taxpayers, we paid for these Azumas every bit as as much as the folk who wiil get between EDB to NCL a few minutes quicker.

I just don't understand why it was built. The line (Newcastle to Edinburgh) is already at capacity, and if you're going to find space for local service Pegswood and Widdrington have 3000 people each within commutable distance of Newcastle yet still get 1 train a day each way -Reston has 450 people. East Linton is a bit better as it's closer to Edinburgh and has 1000 people but I've never understood Reston. My hope (though it will never happen) is that a local service runs after the fast LNER leaving Newcastle (xx:10) each hour calling att Morpeth and Dunbar and every other hour calling at Pegswood and Widdrington and the other hour Reston and East linton with services timed for rushhour services to meet demand at either end

 

[stounloon]

I just don't understand why it was built. .....

The full story of Reston station can be found here https://www.rages.org.uk/CampaignStory.html
East Linton and Dunbar both have some massive house building developments underway, to cope with Edinburgh commuter overspill, the hope is that Reston station will trigger similar developments in East Berwickshire.

I would certainly welcome a NCL-EDB service along the lines you are suggesting. There are a few loops along the line between NCL and EDB, but I do not know if they are suitable for passenger train use to allow leapfrogging of the local services by the fast trains.

 

[Senex]

The big loser rather seems to be TPE, North of Newcastle is lost (except perhaps for the limited number of shuttles mentioned — and leaving aside the debates here about whether it was ever justified), Liverpool-Newcastle remains hourly and is decelerated to pick up the local stop at Chester-le-Street, Manchester loses its second Newcastle service, with "compensation" mentioned as connections at York — and that's going to be pretty slow if you're going to need to allow quarter of an hour for a reasonably safe connection there (presumably British fasion with no promises that it will actually work). How is it that Birmingham and Sheffield merit a half-hourly service to Nedwcastle but Liverpool and Manchester are only worth an hourly one? Or is some of this planning based on the thought that there's likely to be a decade of chaos, diversions, and decelerations on the trans-Pennine line whilst the modernisation and electrification works proceed in small bites?

 

[30907]

But then you are removing calls from busier stations to serve a quieter station instead.

Agree for Peterborough. But is Grantham significantly busier than Newark

The big loser rather seems to be TPE, ... Liverpool-Newcastle remains hourly and is decelerated to pick up the local stop at Chester-le-Street, Manchester loses its second Newcastle service, with "compensation" mentioned as connections at York — and that's going to be pretty slow if you're going to need to allow quarter of an hour for a reasonably safe connection there (presumably British fasion with no promises that it will actually work). How is it that Birmingham and Sheffield merit a half-hourly service to Nedwcastle but Liverpool and Manchester are only worth an hourly one?

The Airport-Newcastle was 15min apart from the Liverpool, and with the decision to cut the Airport extension because of Castlefield it isn't that useful any more. XC do at least serve a slew of different destinations beyond Birmingham.
I'm among those who would have terminated the XC via Leeds service at York and rejigged the XC timetable but I can see why that option wasn't taken.

 

[BrianW]

I just don't understand why it was built. The line (Newcastle to Edinburgh) is already at capacity, and if you're going to find space for local service Pegswood and Widdrington have 3000 people each within commutable distance of Newcastle yet still get 1 train a day each way -Reston has 450 people. East Linton is a bit better as it's closer to Edinburgh and has 1000 people but I've never understood Reston. My hope (though it will never happen) is that a local service runs after the fast LNER leaving Newcastle (xx:10) each hour calling att Morpeth and Dunbar and every other hour calling at Pegswood and Widdrington and the other hour Reston and East linton with services timed for rushhour services to meet demand at either end

Retford is a strange town. If you look on the map you'll see the centre to the west of the River Idle is called West Retford, there's Ordsall to the west and South Retford to the south. However when reaching Ordsall by road from the west you'll find this sign that says you're entering the historic Borough of East Retford, founded about 1105, first charter 1259. A little confusing? Go google that!

View attachment 98266

Thank you- I'm learning things about geography and politics...

A long time since I travelled through Retford (east, west or any) or Reston ... best to those who do, esp 'stoppers'. Thank you.

 

[Kieran1990]

Could the TPE cuts north of York be more in preparation for the TRU which “should” start in the next few years. By simplifying and cutting back it gives some more resilience during the long blockades/ diversions that the North TPE route will see?

 

[BrianW]

Could the TPE cuts north of York be more in preparation for the TRU which “should” start in the next few years. By simplifying and cutting back it gives some more resilience during the long blockades/ diversions that the North TPE route will see?

This is the 'direction of travel'. Noting the projected reduction in number of services through Castlefield and the current Secretary of State's emphasis on reliability I think we can see more 'broken' journeys to enable more 'on time' running, eg Liverpool-Norwich broken in two
Interesting when set aside 'the railway's' emphasis on time to draw back custom as evidenced by today's record Euston-Glasgow attempt 'publicity stunt'?
I think more people would be drawn by (at least) 1tph regular clockface regular stopping pattern linking the 'top 10 or 20' cities with max 10 min connections at eg York, Doncaster, Peterboro- but that's me. Is there 'evidence'?

 

[Failed Unit]

This is the 'direction of travel'. Noting the projected reduction in number of services through Castlefield and the current Secretary of State's emphasis on reliability I think we can see more 'broken' journeys to enable more 'on time' running, eg Liverpool-Norwich broken in two

I have never liked that solution, Central trains did that with Birmingham - Lincoln. The Birmingham - Nottingham portion was still never on time, the Lincoln portion left without the passengers that wanted to make the connection from Birmingham. Yes - Nottingham (Leicester - Lincoln) time keeping was improved, but passengers who did the Birmingham - Lincoln journey had a significant extension in their journey time as a result. Breaking journeys is good for statistics but solving the problem is better. In the case of Liverpool - Nottingham - Norwich, unless they fix Manchester the service will always be late. However in this case I think it is as much to do with uneven loadings either side of Nottingham.

 

[BrianW]

I have never liked that solution, Central trains did that with Birmingham - Lincoln. The Birmingham - Nottingham portion was still never on time, the Lincoln portion left without the passengers that wanted to make the connection from Birmingham. Yes - Nottingham (Leicester - Lincoln) time keeping was improved, but passengers who did the Birmingham - Lincoln journey had a significant extension in their journey time as a result. Breaking journeys is good for statistics but solving the problem is better. In the case of Liverpool - Nottingham - Norwich, unless they fix Manchester the service will always be late. However in this case I think it is as much to do with uneven loadings either side of Nottingham.

I agree with you but 'what gets measured gets done' is the mantra
Is there a 'ready reference' of some kind that 'measures' these important journeys?
What will Grant Shapps see and hear when asking 'how's it going?'
I would expect him to have some 'focus' on Darlington (HMRC HQ?) and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak MP); and Welwyn (Grant Shapps MP) of course will be well in.

 

[Senex]

This is the 'direction of travel'. Noting the projected reduction in number of services through Castlefield and the current Secretary of State's emphasis on reliability I think we can see more 'broken' journeys to enable more 'on time' running, eg Liverpool-Norwich broken in two
Interesting when set aside 'the railway's' emphasis on time to draw back custom as evidenced by today's record Euston-Glasgow attempt 'publicity stunt'?
I think more people would be drawn by (at least) 1tph regular clockface regular stopping pattern linking the 'top 10 or 20' cities with max 10 min connections at eg York, Doncaster, Peterboro- but that's me. Is there 'evidence'?

That would be bringing a Taktfahrplan to this country. The classic model is Switzerland, and a number of other countries have moved at least in part in the same direction. The big system planning to go down that road on a national basis is Germany, where there's very interesting ongoing work — see https://www.deutschlandtakt.de. As for trying to do it here, Jonathan Tyler has over the years written quite extensively about the idea in the railway press, and wasn't there a proposal two or three years ago for a Taktfahrplan for East Anglia?

 

[ryan125hst]

I've seen a couple of Taktfahrplan timetables for the ECML. I think one was written in 2008 and there was a more recent one from about 2013 ish. It's all about maximising connectivity, whether that's at stations where faster and slower services both call, junctions or even with bus services. I'll post a link if they're still online and I can find them.

The website is still live (Passenger Transport Networks) however it doesn't seem to have links to the reports from the home page anymore. Luckily I can locate them using Web Archive.

Here is a link to the page containing the reports.

The original report, dating from 2009, can be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20161113041632/http://www.passengertransportnetworks.co.uk/ECML_ORR.pdf

There's also a ZIP folder containing diagrams and timetables to be read with it: http://web.archive.org/web/20161113...sengertransportnetworks.co.uk/ECML_Takt_2.zip

The more recent one was produced in 2014: http://web.archive.org/web/20161113...engertransportnetworks.co.uk/SPIRIT--ECML.pdf

I found these very interesting when I first found them and it's a shame it hasn't been explored on the national network.

I note that the most recent version says "This paper is published for discussion and may be freely circulated. Comments are welcome."

 

[Jonny]

Talking of major works, are there any planned between York and Newcastle over the next few years?

 

[cuccir]

Just picking this up.

As an ECML commuter Durham - Newcastle, this isn't as bad as I'd first feared from reporting and headlines. Seems like Durham goes from 5-6 trains an hour to 4-5, but to be honest the previous provision was probably an over-provision: there was a fair amount of fresh air carried about on trains north of York. Surprised its the TPE rather than XC services which are being cut back, but there you go.

As always, my main gripe is that services in Durham are oriented entirely around long-distance rather than short-distance travel. So there's three northbound services between 07:50-08:08, and then only one planned (~08:35 - it's a Northern service from Darlington that's tucked away on their website) until 09:07 (after which there are three in 16 minutes). I might have hoped that a return to some level of national control would help improve coordination for commuting services, but at least the one service in that gap is just about half-way through it. Still, my response to all companies will be to look to find ways to try and spread commuting services a little better (ideal would be for the passing LNER which arrives into Newcastle at 09:00 to stop at Durham - there's good reasons such trains usually pass the city but if this one a day could call it would fill a huge commuting gap).

 

[Kieran1990]

Talking of major works, are there any planned between York and Newcastle over the next few years?

The Darlington station re-build- or is that just out for consultation?