Various consultations on the May 2022 East Coast Mainline timetable

[Nicholas Lewis]

Modern Railways popped through my door - ECML covered in a superb editorial and Informed Sources, but issues summarised as:

-Traction power supply capacity
-LNER fleet availability (I.e..cracking issues)
-Timetable reliability
-Status of the development of the timetable itself, and
-To some extent, the consultation responses.

As you might expect, lots of nuances in the detail to all of these, the can only be properly justified by reading the article.


I'd guess that, if only one or two of the above were issues, May 2022 may be pressed ahead with suitable mitigations in place, but all five together are sounding the alarm bells, and a deferral to at least May 2023 is recommended to de-risk the above.

All those issues have been there for months especially PSU issues which have been an issue for years so why did the industry promote the May 22 timetable so widely or as per LNER press release

From May 2022, we are looking to make significant improvements to our timetable which will allow us to run up to 39 more train services a day meaning up to 17,000 extra seats across the LNER route.
As a result of over a decade of planning and investment, including our new Azuma trains and Network Rail’s East Coast Upgrade improvements, we are also able to deliver faster journeys.​

So a decade on and we have to wait another 12 months or longer to realise the benefits of all that disruption no wonder the politicians continue to question the industries ability to deliver projects anymore. Covid has saved the day again of course as they can hide behind that.

Separately to be fair to MR they did question in last months edition what had happened to the Haines review into ECML so is this in part an outcome of that.

I also suspect east Coast Trains has taken what spare capacity is left on the power system and won't look good if they were denied access now having spent £40m of their own money on the 803's.

 

[Ianno87]

All those issues have been there for months especially PSU issues which have been an issue for years so why did the industry promote the May 22 timetable so widely or as per LNER press release

Like I say, if it had been only the power supply issues that were the problem, then the recast could probably have been pressed ahead with, but maybe with removal of some trains to be instated at a later date (or some services running on diesel temporarily).

It is the combination of power supply issues and everything else which is leading the industry to recommend the deferral, as "Go" is too risky for May 22.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

MR points out that the current timetable process is trying to satisfy pre-Covid TOC plans and access rights, which at some point will be overtaken by GBR contracts and processes.
If the timetable change is postponed, as seems likely, I suspect it might not see the light of day, at least in its current form.
I find it difficult to reconcile the expected national cut-backs in services (from lower usage post-Covid), with the planned increase in services on the ECML.

Elsewhere we see that Scotrail are proposing service reductions, and that DfT is likely to impose a solution (option B+) on the Castlefield corridor issue.
The MR headline is "Timetabling in Crisis".

 

[Ianno87]

MR points out that the current timetable process is trying to satisfy pre-Covid TOC plans and access rights, which at some point will be overtaken by GBR contracts and processes.
If the timetable change is postponed, as seems likely, I suspect it might not see the light of day, at least in its current form.
I find it difficult to reconcile the expected national cut-backs in services (from lower usage post-Covid), with the planned increase in services on the ECML.

Elsewhere we see that Scotrail are proposing service reductions, and that DfT is likely to impose a solution (option B+) on the Castlefield corridor issue.
The MR headline is "Timetabling in Crisis".

Or at least using what we know about the post-Covid world and prioritise allocation of capacity accordingly. For example, long distance leisure travel is likely to be a key market, moreso than traditional commuting and business travel.

 

[Class 170101]

Or at least using what we know about the post-Covid world and prioritise allocation of capacity accordingly. For example, long distance leisure travel is likely to be a key market, moreso than traditional commuting and business travel.

I'm not even sure we can be certain of that at this stage. Personally i agree that commuting and business travel seems likely to fall but there are also people who are saying they can't wait to get back to the office. I think the next couple of months will be critical assuming we stay on the current path and don't see any return of restrictions or a tightening of advice (like work from home) between mid-September and Spring next year.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Like I say, if it had been only the power supply issues that were the problem, then the recast could probably have been pressed ahead with, but maybe with removal of some trains to be instated at a later date (or some services running on diesel temporarily).

It is the combination of power supply issues and everything else which is leading the industry to recommend the deferral, as "Go" is too risky for May 22.

I don't disagree but these issues have been know about for months so why did LNER goto all that razzmatazz of promoting there May 2022 timetable?

Maybe it was done deliberately to expose the urgency to get GBR put in place so the industry is pulling in the same direction with a coherent approach across the UK.

 

[mrd269697]

Northern have just released the timetable for Sunday’s on the Tyne Valley Line from May 2022 in connection with the ECML consultation.

A far later last train than present, and far better than the current Mon to Fri one, which doesn’t appear to be changing much next year. One day we’ll have a late midweek westbound service through to Carlisle, maybe!

https://d11vpqhghel6qd.cloudfront.net/images/may22draft/N4_Sun_Sunderland__Newcastle_to_Carlisle1.pdf

That is a beautifully clockface timetable

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

That is a beautifully clockface timetable

Be interesting to see if other operators are permitted to continue with there changes for May 22 or is everything off the table.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't disagree but these issues have been know about for months so why did LNER goto all that razzmatazz of promoting there May 2022 timetable?

Maybe it was done deliberately to expose the urgency to get GBR put in place so the industry is pulling in the same direction with a coherent approach across the UK.

It was a consultation...the responses to which remains equally valid regardless of when it is actually implemented. And some of the issues, such as the fleet problems, have only really materialised since then.

I guess alsp the "razzmatazz" is selling the headline benefits so it doesn't get stuck in the usual place of very minority issues dominating the debate (e.g. Newark-Retford connectivity).

 

[Deerfold]

It was a consultation...the responses to which remains equally valid regardless of when it is actually implemented. And some of the issues, such as the fleet problems, have only really materialised since then.

The problems with the fleet started 8 May this year.

The consultations didn't start until over a month later.

 

[tbtc]

Be interesting to see if other operators are permitted to continue with there changes for May 22 or is everything off the table.

That's what I'm wondering - some of the negatives from the ECML timetable seemed a price worth paying for some of the positives (e.g. removing half of the Newcastle TPE services means that there's space for a third Newcastle - London service per hour), so it needs to be seen how many of the other changes were "only because they had to accommodate LNER's changes" and how many of the other changes were "going to happen anyway, and LNER's changes were just a smokescreen that we used as justification"

Given the well documented problems at Castlefield over the past three years, and the fact that the electricity supplies beyond Chathill aren't able to cope with TPE's services, I can appreciate the reluctance to commit to a "big bang" timetable upgrade, and general unease in terms of committing to increases whilst we wait to see how post-Covid demand will go (and whether Open Access will stick around), but it'd feel like a shame to miss out on this opportunity. That said, I guess there'll be some people who were complaining about the proposed timetables who will also be complaining that the new timetables won't be happening

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

That's what I'm wondering - some of the negatives from the ECML timetable seemed a price worth paying for some of the positives (e.g. removing half of the Newcastle TPE services means that there's space for a third Newcastle - London service per hour), so it needs to be seen how many of the other changes were "only because they had to accommodate LNER's changes" and how many of the other changes were "going to happen anyway, and LNER's changes were just a smokescreen that we used as justification"

Given the well documented problems at Castlefield over the past three years, and the fact that the electricity supplies beyond Chathill aren't able to cope with TPE's services, I can appreciate the reluctance to commit to a "big bang" timetable upgrade, and general unease in terms of committing to increases whilst we wait to see how post-Covid demand will go (and whether Open Access will stick around), but it'd feel like a shame to miss out on this opportunity. That said, I guess there'll be some people who were complaining about the proposed timetables who will also be complaining that the new timetables won't be happening

They've already committed £200+m to upgrading power supplies at North end of ECML but none of this was going to deliver any earlier than Dec22 and final commissioning is Dec 24 so one has to wonder how this was needed given what is proposed for May 22 was supposed to be end game for many years although at least should they ever get around to electrifying XC the capacity will there.

Note the issues impeding May 22 are quoted as Retford FS which given NR has spent 230m on the power system south of Doncaster and told us it was upgraded for future service levels how this is now an issue is pretty poor.

 

[Glenn1969]

They've already committed £200+m to upgrading power supplies at North end of ECML but none of this was going to deliver any earlier than Dec22 and final commissioning is Dec 24 so one has to wonder how this was needed given what is proposed for May 22 was supposed to be end game for many years although at least should they ever get around to electrifying XC the capacity will there.

Note the issues impeding May 22 are quoted as Retford FS which given NR has spent 230m on the power system south of Doncaster and told us it was upgraded for future service levels how this is now an issue is pretty poor.

The reduction of trains at Darlington may also be an issue. Especially given the high profile announcement that Treasury North is going there. Surely a cut in London trains in those circumstances makes zero sense ?

 

[takno]

The reduction of trains at Darlington may also be an issue. Especially given the high profile announcement that Treasury North is going there. Surely a cut in London trains in those circumstances makes zero sense ?

The current situation where almost everything stops at Darlington is a bit strange and historically pretty unusual. With all due respect to the token treasury outpost, I've wasted literally hours getting dragged off the mainline to stop in a poorly configured station with too few platforms and too little business to justify the attention it gets.

 

[bramling]

The current situation where almost everything stops at Darlington is a bit strange and historically pretty unusual. With all due respect to the token treasury outpost, I've wasted literally hours getting dragged off the mainline to stop in a poorly configured station with too few platforms and too little business to justify the attention it gets.

Darlington is a bit of a railhead for some quite well-heeled parts of North Yorkshire and Durham, though saying that some of these places could just as easily be reached from Northallerton.

The north-east market is rather different to the London-York-Newcastle-Edinburgh one for sure. In GNER days was the second hourly service something along the lines of hourly London to Newcastle, picking up the stops at places such as Durham and Darlington? A Newcastle terminator would seem to work out better for the north-east IMO.

 

[Killingworth]

The current situation where almost everything stops at Darlington is a bit strange and historically pretty unusual. With all due respect to the token treasury outpost, I've wasted literally hours getting dragged off the mainline to stop in a poorly configured station with too few platforms and too little business to justify the attention it gets.

Back in the days when troops largely moved by train it was very common to see many khaki uniforms on trains stopping at Darlington, returning to Catterick or Barnard Castle. They may still travel by rail but no longer in uniform.

 

[IanXC]

MR points out that the current timetable process is trying to satisfy pre-Covid TOC plans and access rights, which at some point will be overtaken by GBR contracts and processes.
If the timetable change is postponed, as seems likely, I suspect it might not see the light of day, at least in its current form.
I find it difficult to reconcile the expected national cut-backs in services (from lower usage post-Covid), with the planned increase in services on the ECML.

Elsewhere we see that Scotrail are proposing service reductions, and that DfT is likely to impose a solution (option B+) on the Castlefield corridor issue.
The MR headline is "Timetabling in Crisis".

our passenger numbers over the past three weeks have been back up to 94 per cent of pre-Covid levels

Opinion: David Horne, LNER – Business Traveller

David Horne, Managing Director of LNER, on the strong return for rail travel…

www.businesstraveller.com

 

[Ianno87]

The problems with the fleet started 8 May this year.

The consultations didn't start until over a month later.

The prep for the consultations would have started well before then, and the fleet issues (and the time needed to resolve them) took several weeks beyond 8th May to understand.

The consultation feedback remains equally valid regardless - no point holding it up.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The current situation where almost everything stops at Darlington is a bit strange and historically pretty unusual. With all due respect to the token treasury outpost, I've wasted literally hours getting dragged off the mainline to stop in a poorly configured station with too few platforms and too little business to justify the attention it gets.

Totally agree but the solution now seems to be to chuck 100m at building new platforms on the fast lines.

 

[Deerfold]

The prep for the consultations would have started well before then, and the fleet issues (and the time needed to resolve them) took several weeks beyond 8th May to understand.

The consultation feedback remains equally valid regardless - no point holding it up.

Except that if delayed people would have a better idea of post-Covid travel requirements.

 

[Ianno87]

Except that if delayed people would have a better idea of post-Covid travel requirements.

That might not truly be known for months or even years yet.

 

[Class 170101]

That might not truly be known for months or even years yet.

And frankly a reason why I wouldn't be changing timetables massively, at the moment, beyond what was published in Decembner 2019 to be honest.

 

[Deerfold]

The prep for the consultations would have started well before then, and the fleet issues (and the time needed to resolve them) took several weeks beyond 8th May to understand.

The consultation feedback remains equally valid regardless - no point holding it up.

Modern Railways popped through my door - ECML covered in a superb editorial and Informed Sources, but issues summarised as:

-Traction power supply capacity
-LNER fleet availability (I.e..cracking issues)
-Timetable reliability
-Status of the development of the timetable itself

I'd guess that, if only one or two of the above were issues, May 2022 may be pressed ahead with suitable mitigations in place, but all five together are sounding the alarm bells, and a deferral to at least May 2023 is recommended to de-risk the above.

Even if the Fleet issues weren't known about (though it must have been clear there would be some impact), surely all the others should have been.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2021 ==

That might not truly be known for months or even years yet.

Though we'll have some indication as time progresses.

 

[Ianno87]

Even if the Fleet issues weren't known about, surely all the others should have been

You can't test the performance of the timetable until you've developed it.... And development of the timetable so far has only relatively recently been completed.

From MR, sounds like the remaining issues are fitting in the last few freight paths in some areas.

 

[swt_passenger]

You can't test the performance of the timetable until you've developed it.... And development of the timetable so far has only relatively recently been completed.

Which is remarkable in itself given the ORR ECML study of about 2015, which originally approved the 8 tph total long distance services into Kings Cross, and led to the very similar 2016 track access application…

 

[Ianno87]

Which is remarkable in itself given the ORR ECML study of about 2015, which originally approved the 8 tph total long distance services into Kings Cross, and led to the very similar 2016 track access application…

At the time, the uncertainty around the 8tph was noted by Network Rail in https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/13214/download

Further clarification of Network Rail’s level of confidence of being able to path 8 LDHS services per hour has been requested.

10. The following statement is included in paragraph 2 on page 3 “Since the capacity gain given by these enhancements, and their journey time and performance
implications, is to some degree dependent on the pattern and routing of services, it is not possible at this time to definitively confirm whether it is possible to run 8 LDHS
services once the Connectivity outputs have been delivered.” This has led to applicants and ORR raising concerns that Network Rail’s position in relation to capacity being available to path 8 LDHS service per hour has changed between our letter of 15 May 2015 and our letter of 2 October 2015.

11. To confirm, nothing has changed and our view remains the same as that expressed in previous correspondence – that our development of a standard hour pattern has demonstrated that it will be possible to path 8 LDHS services an hour once the Connectivity outputs have been delivered. However, at this stage we are not able to definitively confirm whether the final timetable structure will be able to accommodate
all specifically desired features (e.g. timetable pattern, journey time, performance outputs). This is consistent with the conclusion of our Capacity Report from 17/12/2014 which states:

12. “The central finding is that, in accordance with the previous report, any of these service scenarios could operate alongside the potential TSGN service structure
(including 8 LDHS and 10 TSGN in the evening peak), but there are a number of choices to be made regarding performance, connectivity, service structure and impact on other services.”

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

At the time, the uncertainty around the 8tph was noted by Network Rail in https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/13214/download

Useful link to how long this has been going on and that this was working towards a Dec 2020 timetable revamp which became May 2022 and now May 2023 or never.

Anyhow I see ORR setup a separate page containing many supporting documents from NR, consultants and operators that underpinned the consultation on capacity available and who was going to have it if anyone wants to right an essay on how we got here.

One of the downsides of the EMAs is commercial pressure from operators is no longer there as TOCs just have to respond to DofT instructions. So Marsham St just sends them all letters saying stop work on any changes for 2022 we will be in touch when we've worked out what we want to do. TOCs say no worries and continue to send in their monthly bills for costs incurred.

 

[philosopher]

Or at least using what we know about the post-Covid world and prioritise allocation of capacity accordingly. For example, long distance leisure travel is likely to be a key market, moreso than traditional commuting and business travel.

The London to Edinburgh market I think is still dominated by air. Therefore speeding up London to Edinburgh services to take off market share away from air travel is one way to increase the number of passengers using the railways. The same could apply to other long distance routes.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The London to Edinburgh market I think is still dominated by air. Therefore speeding up London to Edinburgh services to take off market share away from air travel is one way to increase the number of passengers using the railways. The same could apply to other long distance routes.

The May 22 proposal knocked about 10 mins off the fast timings so that in itself wasn't a material change to challenge air travel end to end times and even the now doomed HS2 Eastern leg was only going to gain another 30mins. Nothing short of high speed from North of England into central Scotland is going to make a material change to end to end times. That said East Coast had been reported to have had 35-40% of the market a few years back and the airports on the East side of England are too far North to merit a service.

Personally unless you live close to an airport im not sure how much advantage is gained over air on timings so competitive pricing is probably main route to shifting more traffic.

 

[Killingworth]

Newcastle has had regular air services to London since the 50s, if not 40s. Much reduced services at present mean rail competes very well on frequency. Air is best used for connections out of Heathrow.