Should XC services north of Leeds be scrapped to increase capacity?

[Purple Orange]

Not necessarily any - the previous timetable had 10 Liverpool to Edinburgh and 7 Manchester Airport to Newcastle diagrams which couldn't all be fulfilled with 802s because there are only 19 units. If, and I don't know what is in the consultation, that becomes Liverpool to Newcastle and Manchester Airport to Newcastle with a need to still get 802s to Craigentinny via the West Coast on specific diagrams then there won't be 802s for Scarborough or Middlesbrough. That only comes if York - Newcastle becomes 1tph.

Is there a link to this consultation?

If York-Newcastle becomes 1 tph on TPE and XC have 2 tph with smaller and hugely polluting trains, that will be the wrong signal from the government about it’s intentions to decarbonise the railway.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not necessarily any - the previous timetable had 10 Liverpool to Edinburgh and 7 Manchester Airport to Newcastle diagrams which couldn't all be fulfilled with 802s because there are only 19 units. If, and I don't know what is in the consultation, that becomes Liverpool to Newcastle and Manchester Airport to Newcastle with a need to still get 802s to Craigentinny via the West Coast on specific diagrams then there won't be 802s for Scarborough or Middlesbrough. That only comes if York - Newcastle becomes 1tph.

Is there a link to this consultation?

Would they have to still use Craigentinny? Surely you choose the maintenance/stabling locations to suit the diagrams, rather than the other way round, if it’s at all possible?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2021 ==

If York-Newcastle becomes 1 tph on TPE and XC have 2 tph with smaller and hugely polluting trains, that will be the wrong signal from the government about it’s intentions to decarbonise the railway.

Wasn’t it two TPE at Newcastle for some years before they decided on Edinburgh extensions? Why does ”losing out to XC north of Newcastle” necessarily imply any change to TPE south of Newcastle? IIRC 2 tph to/from Newcastle was in their franchise ITT, Edinburgh was a negotiated extra?

It may just be a recognition that Edinburgh was a step too far for TPE, with no change at all to XC.

 

[JonathanH]

Would they have to still use Craigentinny? Surely you choose the maintenance/stabling locations to suit the diagrams, rather than the other way round, if it’s at all possible?

Yes, although having more units going to Doncaster isn't exactly the best place for them to finish either. It must depend on how much work has to be done at the actual Hitachi depots (ie Doncaster Carr and Craigentinny) and how much can be done at Heaton and Edge Hill.

 

[Purple Orange]

Would they have to still use Craigentinny? Surely you choose the maintenance/stabling locations to suit the diagrams, rather than the other way round, if it’s at all possible?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2021 ==


Wasn’t it two TPE at Newcastle for some years before they decided on Edinburgh extensions? Why does ”losing out to XC north of Newcastle” necessarily imply any change to TPE south of Newcastle? IIRC 2 tph to/from Newcastle was in their franchise ITT, Edinburgh was a negotiated extra?

It may just be a recognition that Edinburgh was a step too far for TPE, with no change at all to XC.

As I understand, there has been chat on the forum about TPE just being 1 tph to Newcastle. Whether that is just speculation on these forums is another matter. The issue/frustration for me comes down to the passenger needs not being met due to operational constraints (capacity) and from an environmental aspect we are seeing a failure to limit emissions.

 

[Killingworth]

Not necessarily any - the previous timetable had 10 Liverpool to Edinburgh and 7 Manchester Airport to Newcastle diagrams which couldn't all be fulfilled with 802s because there are only 19 units. If, and I don't know what is in the consultation, that becomes Liverpool to Newcastle and Manchester Airport to Newcastle with a need to still get 802s to Craigentinny via the West Coast on specific diagrams then there won't be 802s for Scarborough or Middlesbrough. That only comes if York - Newcastle becomes 1tph.

Is there a link to this consultation?

It's in pdf attachments to a Stakeholder briefing from TPE. I've attached the main document here. There are also timetables.

 

[JonathanH]

It's in pdf attachments to a Stakeholder briefing from TPE. I've attached the main document here. There are also timetables.

Thanks - it confirms that TPE are consulting on just 1tph of TPE north of York (plus 1tph to Saltburn), with Manchester Airport to Newcastle cut back to run Manchester Victoria to York and the remaining 1tph being Liverpool to Newcastle.

XC run Plymouth to Edinburgh and Reading to Newcastle.

LNER get 3tph north of York - two Scotland, one Newcastle.

Probably should have its own thread as this seems to contain the full description of the May 2022 service on the whole length of the ECML.

 

[Killingworth]

New thread at; https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rvices-using-the-east-coast-main-line.218555/

Link to consultation at; https://www.tpexpress.co.uk/about-us/our-plan/east-coast-mainline-consultation

 

[swt_passenger]

As I understand, there has been chat on the forum about TPE just being 1 tph to Newcastle. Whether that is just speculation on these forums is another matter. The issue/frustration for me comes down to the passenger needs not being met due to operational constraints (capacity) and from an environmental aspect we are seeing a failure to limit emissions.

Yes, it was previously unclear whether that was just forum speculation, but this subject is really overtaken by today’s published consultation. Does now look as though XC stays broadly the same as now…

 

[ainsworth74]

Please use the existing thread here for any discussion of the consultation. This thread should only be used for speculation or "what I think they should do is" type discussion of XC services north of Leeds.

 

[47827]

Not got the time to read the whole debate right now but I would look at chopping down the frequency of XC between Edinburgh and York which simply has too many passenger services to run smoothly (cutting down to say 4 or 5 services each way north of Newcastle, all proper length, and maybe look to see if a few of the Newcastle starters can be run only south of York. Essentially only allowing XC a single hourly path north of York with a more limited service to Edinburgh. Something resembling the 2002 service levels perhaps but reflecting the current rolling stock availability. You could potentially run more services at proper length then too.

As part of my own review of ECML XC traffic, the Edinburgh and Glasgow to Birmingham WCML route should also give all or part of its services back to XC as its the more natural route to extend some of the services to the South Coast or South West. It just hasn't worked well making them ECML only. In the shorter term there wouldn't be able to be as many through trains as per the old days as many of the trains are 390 diagrams with more limited voyager use. Perhaps with delivery of the new stock to replace WCML voyagers a XC service via Carlisle with more through links could then be a goer. There would be implications to staff in terms of crew utilisation and whether anyone needed to be moved between operators too, but essentially this was all the same situation when XC was broken up in past decades.

 

[JonathanH]

As part of my own review of ECML XC traffic, the Edinburgh and Glasgow to Birmingham WCML route should also give all or part of its services back to XC as its the more natural route to extend some of the services to the South Coast or South West. It just hasn't worked well making them ECML only.

It has worked well on the West Coast though for the services to come from London instead of the South. It has enabled long trains to be run and integration of the two Virgin / Avanti services on the route.

Perhaps with delivery of the new stock to replace WCML voyagers a XC service via Carlisle with more through links could then be a goer.

Avanti are getting new stock which will enable Pendolinos on all Anglo-Scottish services - there is really very little chance of XC going back on the West Coast.

From a whole network point of view, it does make sense for the XC service to go via the East Coast, even though it is not the fastest possible route. The trains going via Leeds adds to that slower journey but means that the key destinations on that side of the country all have a link to the South West.

 

[47827]

It has worked well on the West Coast though for the services to come from London instead of the South. It has enabled long trains to be run and integration of the two Virgin / Avanti services on the route.


Avanti are getting new stock which will enable Pendolinos on all Anglo-Scottish services - there is really very little chance of XC going back on the West Coast.

From a whole network point of view, it does make sense for the XC service to go via the East Coast, even though it is not the fastest possible route. The trains going via Leeds adds to that slower journey but means that the key destinations on that side of the country all have a link to the South West.

I get all that. My thoughts are just how I'd like to see it play out (apart from Voyagers being in the equation full stop-ever which is a different debate). I'd say though the current timetable is still more use to the railway operators than offering what was once a proper balanced XC service to both sides. The ECML North of York is simply over-served by XC now and aside from operational uniformity, there was never any case for losing XC services between Preston and Scotland, much as it may be nice that 390s can cover a "round the houses" Euston to Scotland via Wolverhampton service that is a merger of 2 routes. You could perhaps leave things as they are and indeed keep all those services but through XC traffic wasn't unpopular enough in 2007 ish to be axed completely and it became a decision to suit the railway/government thinking for railways. Admittedly I realise that it's pie in the sky to expect this situation to reverse now and that's why I keep the view as a speculative, what would I do regarding XC services North of Leeds. The over served ECML XC circuit North of York would essentially be offset by giving some of the Avanti paths back to XC to create through trains from both sides again in an ideal world. You only had to look at the card seat reservations on trains 20 years ago to see plenty of people boarded at the likes of Carlisle, Lancaster, Preston and Warrington plus others to go to the South West or stations via Oxford and Reading. Like the ECML few passengers caught the trains throughout but those people making a variety of journeys en route were not particularly less deserving of several services a day south of New Street than the North East which under my pie in the sky speculative ideas post would still be better served albeit with frequency reductions North of York due to the high volumes of other services and the fact there would still be adequate long distance through trains for those on trains throughout or much of the way.

 

[option]

5. HS2 will make journeys that are currently about equal timing and frequency by east and west coast much quicker by one or the other. For example, Edinburgh gains a fast train via the WCML to Curzon Street, and suddenly you don't need to serve Edinburgh to Birmingham journeys via the ECML.

At the moment though, XC serves a lot (probably a majority of journeys not via London) of journeys from Scotland, the North East and Yorkshire to Birmingham and the south west.

If you cut these back to York, suddenly you force people into changing at York. Those journeys that were direct now require a change, so you lose passengers. Yes, on paper your XC services are now less busy and have more space, but you're just replacing long distance passengers with shorter hops, and your train may as well be a semi-fast. That's not a great use for voyagers.

6. In addition, as well as forcing people to change, you force people into other trains. That's not terrible for Edinburgh, but pretty terrible for Newcastle. The Avanti west coast service suddenly becomes the only Scotland to Birmingham service, and becomes exponentially busier. Leeds passengers are forced onto the 1tph TPE service, which looks ready to be binned anyway. Newcastle loses all of its Birmingham services, although still keeps 2tph to Leeds.

All those passengers that previously had direct journeys are now making the change at York, or flying. Not a great look, but also bad for operational reasons. Lots of churn at York means greater dwell times, and the LNER services get much busier with intermediate passengers rather than premium paying London passengers.

As someone who's done/does Birmingham-Newcastle a few times a year-

If it ended up involving a change anywhere along the route;

1) The overall price would have to be cheaper than what's now available
2) The connection/change & reservations MUST be guaranteed.
If that means holding the train, then tough, you'll have to hold the train. If you won't do that, then I expect the reservations to be carried over.
If that's not possible, then i'll take a full refund of that portion of the journey. (because it's highly likely that you end up standing)
(If it keeps happening, then more people will switch to cars)

There's quite a few passengers on the longer XC services with luggage, so if you split the routes then there's going to be more moving of luggage. That means more time spent at the changeover station, & staff MUST be available to assist those that require it.


It's a lot easier, & cheaper, to retain existing customers than trying to get new customers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think Birmingham-Newcastle is an important enough pair of cities to have a direct link. What you don't need is Birmingham-Scotland via the ECML, as you already have it via the WCML (and in future HS2).

 

[waverley47]

I think Birmingham-Newcastle is an important enough pair of cities to have a direct link. What you don't need is Birmingham-Scotland via the ECML, as you already have it via the WCML (and in future HS2).

Once HS2 is done, sure. Until that point, you still need the XC to serve both end to end and intermediate journeys.

You might be able to fit every Edinburgh to Birmingham passenger on the 1tp2h west coast. You'd probably be able to fit them all on an hourly service post HS2.

But all the Edinburgh to Sheffield journeys, or Edinburgh to Leeds, or Edinburgh to Derby. All those journeys still need catered for, and it makes sense to roll all these up into a single service. Sure, by all means have a root and branch cutting exercise to XC after HS2. But that's years away, and for what is needed here, today, XC serves it reasonably well.

My main problem with this entire thread is that people seem to think serving destinations north of York and serving Leeds are mutually exclusive. They aren't.

You need to serve both, and XC does that. Not well, but by cutting services you don't gain anything, you just elect to stop serving certain flows. Leeds to Birmingham needs a better services, that is undeniable, but that isn't really a thing that can be solved by cutting anywhere north of York. Instead you need to wait and get longer or just more space efficient units.

If you had infinite money and paths, go for 3tph between Leeds and Birmingham. But, it is not mutually exclusive. You can't chose to just not serve the north east and Scotland for the benefits of Leeds.

As someone who's done/does Birmingham-Newcastle a few times a year-

If it ended up involving a change anywhere along the route;

1) The overall price would have to be cheaper than what's now available
2) The connection/change & reservations MUST be guaranteed.
If that means holding the train, then tough, you'll have to hold the train. If you won't do that, then I expect the reservations to be carried over.
If that's not possible, then i'll take a full refund of that portion of the journey. (because it's highly likely that you end up standing)
(If it keeps happening, then more people will switch to cars)

There's quite a few passengers on the longer XC services with luggage, so if you split the routes then there's going to be more moving of luggage. That means more time spent at the changeover station, & staff MUST be available to assist those that require it.


It's a lot easier, & cheaper, to retain existing customers than trying to get new customers.

Exactly.

 

[30907]

I think Birmingham-Newcastle is an important enough pair of cities to have a direct link.

I thought the premise was 1tph XC N of York, not nothing at all - academic now.

 

[daodao]

My main problem with this entire thread is that people seem to think serving destinations north of York and serving Leeds are mutually exclusive. They aren't.

They are not mutually exclusive, but the detour via Leeds for trains to York and points north adds significantly to the journey time (by 20-25 minutes) and thus makes the service less attractive. For Leeds itself, there is already a direct TPE service to Newcastle, that has recently been extended partly to Edinburgh. Therefore, it makes sense to run 1 tph from Birmingham to Leeds, and 1 tph from Birmingham to York and beyond via the fastest route from Sheffield to York, with a fast connection to Leeds provided at Sheffield.