• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

What's the point of the Harrogate-London LNER service?

jamiearmley

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2017
Messages
362
There's also the question though as to what the reverse flow is like - Harrogate to London in the morning, return in the afternoon or evening, for business meetings or leisure. Maybe that's actually the greater flow and justifies the service?
It might well do.

£196 million pa lease cost Azuma fleet of 487 carriages.

Becomes £402,464 per carriage per year.

Divide by 365 days, 24 hours, results in £46 per carriage per hour lease cost.

(Crude, I know).

9 carriages, just over two hours up and back with layover, so say one hour associated with the one leg. So a crude figure of £414 lease cost for one single Harrogate Leeds journey for LNER.

36 pax in standard at £4.90
6 in first at £13.40

Est fare income at full open single price £256.80.

Does not cover lease costs, let alone track access, fuel, staffing, staff training and management, route retention, etc.

It's easy to argue for and against this one, without accurate figures we will never know. I still reckon, however, that knocking HGT/BDQ/SKI on the head would free up fleet for use elsewhere. Perhaps to strengthen the newly lucrative (stealth fare rises) Edinburgh - Kings Cross route?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
20,510
So a crude figure of £414 lease cost for one single Harrogate Leeds journey for LNER.
One whole Azuma is being leased effectively just to provide Harrogate with its all day service, as it would otherwise go straight back to London, from Leeds, so the cost of extending to Harrogate would appear to be £3.6m a year just for the rolling stock. The peak working is easier to account for, as it has always been in marginal time.

These are the kind of equations that BR used to do, and reallocate stock when something didn't make sense. For example, the cancellation of the Cleethorpes HST in BR days in 1993 allowed one HST to be reallocated to the Western Region, where it could be more gainfully employed.
 
Last edited:

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,311
Well obviously, but there are plenty of other places with far higher populations in Yorkshire (Barnsley, Huddersfield etc) with no such connection. It just seems like an odd service to exist
Apologies if this is repeating any of the above posts.

Aside from Harrogate being a bigger draw for conferences, tourism, work etc. the reason LNER goes there rather than other larger Yorkshire towns is... because it can! The Harrogate line is one of (or if not) the only routes out of Leeds that actually has space for more trains.
 
Last edited:

Notabene

Member
Joined
22 Oct 2023
Messages
24
Location
Selby
BR also cut the off-peak services to/from Hull. It was deeply resented.
Then along came Hull trains.

Good marketing and attractive fares can create new markets and revive old ones.
At one time HT was even considering running a Harrogate service via York.
 

507020

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
1,967
Location
Southport
One whole Azuma is being leased effectively just to provide Harrogate with its all day service, as it would otherwise go straight back to London, from Leeds, so the cost of extending to Harrogate would appear to be £3.6m a year just for the rolling stock. The peak working is easier to account for, as it has always been in marginal time.

These are the kind of equations that BR used to do, and reallocate stock when something didn't make sense. For example, the cancellation of the Cleethorpes HST in BR days in 1993 allowed one HST to be reallocated to the Western Region, where it could be more gainfully employed.
You’re saying these are the kind of equations BR used to do, but for them the rolling stock leasing charge was zero, the HSTs were bought and paid for, track access was zero with vertical integration, oil prices were lower, there was no minimum wage for staff and route retention was theoretically cheaper without fragmentation between multiple operators (Northern and LNER both having to learn Harrogate, rather than just a Leeds depot signing Azumas and 170s)

This would suggest that 1. BR should have been able to run more such services more cheaply, which doesn’t explain why more exist now than did in the past and 2. Most of the costs the LNER service is being criticised for incurring are artificial, do not need to be paid and it has been proved that a train service can be run more efficiently without them. What proposals are there to eliminate these unnecessary costs without imposing a change of trains at Leeds, which due to capacity constraints will always result in missed connections and people driving from Harrogate to London instead?
 

johntea

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2010
Messages
2,685
Something mildly pleasing I noticed this morning is the Azuma seems to actually have a destination of ‘Sidings’ programmed in to the destination screens :D
 

Top