Sunday Times article on ECML upgrade & postponed timetable change

[Watershed]

The Sunday Times has published an article regarding the ECML upgrade and timetable fiasco:

They finished the fast train line 2 years ago. You still can’t ride it

It was meant to slash London-Edinburgh journey times, but officials are still squabbling about the timetable on the improved east coast mainline

www.thetimes.com

They finished the fast train line 2 years ago. You still can’t ride it
It was meant to slash London-Edinburgh journey times, but they’re still squabbling about the timetable on the improved east coast mainline

Nicholas Hellen, Transport Editor
Saturday June 08 2024, 6.00pm, The Sunday Times

The completion of a £1.2 billion upgrade of the east coast main line was supposed to slash journey times from London to Edinburgh to four hours, add an extra hourly train to Newcastle, and provide direct links to the capital from “left behind” cities, such as Bradford.

But, more than two years after the engineering works were finished, there is no confirmed date for the start of improved services.

Introduction of a new timetable for intercity and long-distance services has been postponed from December to June 2025 and may be further delayed.....

It's good that the issues are being brought to public attention, but the article is rather misleading and inaccurate in several respects. In all honesty, I'd expect better given that the author is a 30-year veteran journalist.

They finished the fast train line 2 years ago. You still can’t ride it

The "fast train line" - the ECML - is no faster now than it was before when it was "finished". And you absolutely can "ride" it now, it's just the new timetable that is delayed.

The completion of a £1.2 billion upgrade of the east coast main line was supposed to slash journey times from London to Edinburgh to four hours, add an extra hourly train to Newcastle, and provide direct links to the capital from “left behind” cities, such as Bradford.

Mr Hellen seems to have overlooked the fact that there are already 5 direct trains a day between Bradford and London.

To complete the programme, the taxpayer funded a fleet of Azuma trains, costing £2.7 billion.

They aren't taxpayer funded; they were taxpayer specified but - unfortunately - privately funded and owned.

The 331-mile journey from London to Edinburgh...

News to me that the "new line" has cut 60 miles off the route!

...was to be cut to four hours and five minutes, with the hope that the change would encourage people to stop taking short-haul flights. It presently takes up to four hours and 46 minutes.

Comparing the fastest planned time with the slowest current time - apples and oranges come to mind. The fastest current time (4h) already beats 4h5m.

...the journey time from London to Leeds was to be cut by half an hour to little more than two hours.

The current typical journey time is approx 2h15m, so again this is misleading.

New slots were promised for direct routes to the capital from Bradford, which has the worst rail connections of any big city...

Mr Hellen must be talking about a different city than the Bradford in West Yorkshire benefitting from two stations with a combined annual usage of 3.6 million passengers...

Network Rail said in a statement that there had been “significant investment to enable better and more frequent services to run” but conceded that the industry had fallen short in delivering the expected benefits, albeit it has found room for more services for commuters travelling from Peterborough to London from December.

Unless I'm much mistaken, those are merely withdrawn pre-Covid peak trains that are being reintroduced...

 

[43074]

For the average Times reader, despite the factual inaccuracies, it's enough of a background to highlight some of the aims of what the industry has tried and failed to implement three times and counting now.

But I think the real "story" that the Times are trying to put across is in the quotes from the Chief Executives of both Freightliner and GBRf who are unhappy about the impact of the timetable on them:

John Smith, chief executive of GB Railfreight, said: “They tried to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. We started to object, saying: ‘You can’t do this because we are going to lose these trains’, and that seems to have been almost ignored.

“Around six months ago they said: ‘We are going to have to knock some trains off the timetable,’ and that’s the point at which we started to object and go to the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) and say they can’t do this to us.”

Tim Shoveller, chief executive of Freightliner Group and previously a senior executive at Network Rail, said: “There is not sufficient capacity. The line is full up before it even starts.”
...
“We need to run our freight trains when customers need them, not to suit the railway. We can’t take loads off the roads and onto rail if there is no capacity.”

It reads as more of a lobbying piece from the freight operators to the DfT and Treasury as much as anything else.

As it stands and as has been reported in Modern Railways and elsewhere there isn't capacity e.g. between Peterborough and Huntingdon to run the increased number of long distance services and to provide enough freight paths for what runs now, nevermind allowing provision for growth into the future.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Certainly not the Street of Shame's finest but a passable hatchet job. The P'boro trains are, of course, reinstatements of Covid thinning so not much to do with the upgrade.

Did NR advise -- in plain language -- that there would, in practice, be 'insufficient capacity' when it was taking £1.2bn off DfT to upgrade the route?

The most damaging thing in this case study seems to be that the FOCs seem to have been advised that their trains must be dropped to allow the rest to get through. If that's true, you can hardly expect them to be that keen on GBR which, as per current plans, would be largely formed from NR staff and be subject to a not particularly clear formal remit on freight.... A bit of reset required?

 

[Backroom_boy]

They aren't taxpayer funded; they were taxpayer specified but - unfortunately - privately funded and owned.

Pedant mode; I'd argue they are privately financed but publicly funded.

 

[bcarmicle]

Perhaps it is worth making an editorial complaint to the Times?

 

[Watershed]

It reads as more of a lobbying piece from the freight operators to the DfT and Treasury as much as anything else.

Quite, although I can't exactly imagine their arguments getting much traction given the current environment of straitened public finances.

Perhaps it is worth making an editorial complaint to the Times?

I don't think it's quite that bad - it's more disappointing that they're publishing articles with levels of factual accuracy I'd expect of a local Reach rag.

 

[185]

Sadly the once great Times in recent years has lowered to the editorial standards of The Beano, and this weeks political coverage has been rather telling. Nicholas Hellen's articles over the last couple of years have resembled a passenger who posts the same complaint onto a train company's twitter account every day and not a professional with an understanding or an interest in how the transport industry works (or doesn't).

 

[Ben427]

To be fair Bradford is Id argue has the worst rail connectivity of any of the UK's big cities.

I can't think of a comparable one to be honest?

Regarding the possibility of taking more freight off the railway to facilitate more open access services is not great at all

 

[philosopher]

For the average Times reader, despite the factual inaccuracies, it's enough of a background to highlight some of the aims of what the industry has tried and failed to implement three times and counting now.

But I think the real "story" that the Times are trying to put across is in the quotes from the Chief Executives of both Freightliner and GBRf who are unhappy about the impact of the timetable on them:



It reads as more of a lobbying piece from the freight operators to the DfT and Treasury as much as anything else.

As it stands and as has been reported in Modern Railways and elsewhere there isn't capacity e.g. between Peterborough and Huntingdon to run the increased number of long distance services and to provide enough freight paths for what runs now, nevermind allowing provision for growth into the future.

This is why the northern legs of HS2 would be so useful as it would allow some passenger services to be taken off the southern end of the ECML, which would provide more freight paths here.

However it does not like look that will be happening anymore.

 

[deltic]

Isnt one of the issues a failure to upgrade power supply north of Newcastle which means limits on the number of electric train services.

One of the problems that journalists face is the huge restrictions on staff being allowed to talk to the press.

 

[Taunton]

To be fair Bradford is Id argue has the worst rail connectivity of any of the UK's big cities.

Bradford is however effectively a suburb of Leeds, which has a service wholly suited to the overall conurbation. It may excite the local politicians to think of themselves as a separate city, but they are not in reality. Those in the likes of Ilkley, which is actually in Bradford council area and thus counted in its population but quite separated by open country, would never dream of wanting a London train service from a Bradford station, and would always go to Leeds.

Similar comments can be made about Gateshead, Birkenhead, Salford, or wherever.

 

[CdBrux]

Did NR advise -- in plain language -- that there would, in practice, be 'insufficient capacity' when it was taking £1.2bn off DfT to upgrade the route?

A pertinent question. What improvements are already in place, or will be put in place, as a result of this investment and how does that compare vs the business case?

 

[59CosG95]

Isnt one of the issues a failure to upgrade power supply north of Newcastle which means limits on the number of electric train services.

One of the problems that journalists face is the huge restrictions on staff being allowed to talk to the press.

Correct - the effective mothballing of Marshall Meadows SFC following ridership plummeting during Covid is the main issue here. I suppose we'll have to wait until after GE day to find out what's happening with that.

As it stands and as has been reported in Modern Railways and elsewhere there isn't capacity e.g. between Peterborough and Huntingdon to run the increased number of long distance services and to provide enough freight paths for what runs now, nevermind allowing provision for growth into the future.

I remember only 6 years ago there were plans to 4-track Huntingdon to Woodwalton (plus necessary upgrades to Conington Loop) to increase resilience and allow that timetable to be fitted in and then some.
Again, post-Covid, that's been effectively shelved; however, the Peterborough Area Strategic Advice (2022) report calls for it "on a no-regrets basis".

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/regional-long-term-planning/Eastern/Peterborough%20Area%20Strategic%20Advice%202022.pdf

(the whole doc is worth a read, but Huntingdon-Woodwalton is mentioned from Page 16 onwards)

 

[paul1609]

Bradford is however effectively a suburb of Leeds, which has a service wholly suited to the overall conurbation. It may excite the local politicians to think of themselves as a separate city, but they are not in reality. Those in the likes of Ilkley, which is actually in Bradford council area and thus counted in its population but quite separated by open country, would never dream of wanting a London train service from a Bradford station, and would always go to Leeds.

Similar comments can be made about Gateshead, Birkenhead, Salford, or wherever.

Indeed in fact the whole Manchester to Leeds line 42 miles would fit within the M25. The north needs a maximum of 2 Intercity hubs not trying to provide direct London trains to every suburb.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Bradford is however effectively a suburb of Leeds, which has a service wholly suited to the overall conurbation. It may excite the local politicians to think of themselves as a separate city, but they are not in reality. Those in the likes of Ilkley, which is actually in Bradford council area and thus counted in its population but quite separated by open country, would never dream of wanting a London train service from a Bradford station, and would always go to Leeds.

Similar comments can be made about Gateshead, Birkenhead, Salford, or wherever.

Absolutely.

 

[alistairlees]

Bradford is however effectively a suburb of Leeds, which has a service wholly suited to the overall conurbation. It may excite the local politicians to think of themselves as a separate city, but they are not in reality. Those in the likes of Ilkley, which is actually in Bradford council area and thus counted in its population but quite separated by open country, would never dream of wanting a London train service from a Bradford station, and would always go to Leeds.

Similar comments can be made about Gateshead, Birkenhead, Salford, or wherever.

No, Bradford is not a 'suburb' of Leeds.

 

[Peterthegreat]

No, Bradford is not a 'suburb' of Leeds.

It is effectively a suburb of Leeds from a rail point of view.

 

[alistairlees]

It is effectively a suburb of Leeds from a rail point of view.

Indeed, the geographical view of rail people tends to be biased towards the rail geography of the UK, rather than reflecting the actual geography, resulting in a poor appreciation of customer needs (and opportunities).

 

[Noddy]

It is effectively a suburb of Leeds from a rail point of view.

Indeed, the geographical view of rail people tends to be biased towards the rail geography of the UK, rather than reflecting the actual geography, resulting in a poor appreciation of customer needs (and opportunities).

Yep. Its why folk in Bradford just get in their cars and drive to wherever they’re going rather than catch the train to Leeds and the additional 30-60 mins this would add on depending on connections.

Regarding the population, wven if you exclude the outlying towns and villages the cities population would be in excess of 300 000 which would still take it above many other cities with vastly superior rail services.

 

[modernrail]

Indeed in fact the whole Manchester to Leeds line 42 miles would fit within the M25. The north needs a maximum of 2 Intercity hubs not trying to provide direct London trains to every suburb.

1. Ignoring Bradford as you suggest, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York and Newcastle are all cities. Which 3 should have ‘intercity’ services removed?
2. I assume, by intercity you mean services that start or finish in London? A service that travels between the cities above is very much intercity itself, taking in as they do most of the largest cities outside London. They (and Bradford) are the hub cities for a population of approx 15 million people compared to 9 million in London.
3. I agree the focus on London express services from all locations is often overplayed. Direct services in general would be less called for if the connecting regional and local services were better quality with integrated timetables. We are really bad at that.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Certainly not the Street of Shame's finest but a passable hatchet job. The P'boro trains are, of course, reinstatements of Covid thinning so not much to do with the upgrade.

Did NR advise -- in plain language -- that there would, in practice, be 'insufficient capacity' when it was taking £1.2bn off DfT to upgrade the route?

The most damaging thing in this case study seems to be that the FOCs seem to have been advised that their trains must be dropped to allow the rest to get through. If that's true, you can hardly expect them to be that keen on GBR which, as per current plans, would be largely formed from NR staff and be subject to a not particularly clear formal remit on freight.... A bit of reset required?

It isn't only The Times that seems to be suffering a fall-off in journalistic competence and integrity. I was disappointed to see that in the current Modern Railways even Roger Ford seems to be jumping on the bandwagon that GBR should be left to organise its 'own' services, particularly long distance high speed, without any ORR oversight. And sorry about the effect on open access passenger, freight, charters and all sorts of ancillary stuff like inspection trains, engineering trains, railhead treatment (in season), on-track plant positioning moves and so on; let along things like safe 'green zone' access to the track for infrastructure maintenance staff.

One might have thought that open access units capable of 125mph would generally be well able to use capacity alongside LNER, CrossCountry and Transpennine fairly efficiently (albeit with some overtaking during station calls at York, Doncaster, Retford and Peterborough or wherever).

I was under the impression that it was Network Rail that usually 'agreed' to sell paths to everyone and also write the timetable. These are then presented to ORR for formal 'approval' under s18 and s22 of the relevant Railways Act. I know that it is also possible for Network Rail to be 'directed' to sell access by the ORR under s17 but this used to be very rarely used in practice. Is it the case that Network Rail has in effect been 'selling' (or at least promising the DfT that it will sell) additional paths that don't exist alongside 'established' paths that have already been approved and operating, such as freight?

 

[paul1609]

I'm only including the Leeds to Manchester line but I think when looking at rail services you should look at conurbations rather than historical city centres like Bradford. On this basis Greater Manchester is 2nd by pop. and West Yorkshire 4th. Liverpool is 6th so clearly deserves it's own terminal although will most likely be relegated to 7th by South Hampshire in the next census. York doesn't appear in the top 50 so is clearly over served at present perhaps a hs avoiding line to speed up London to Tyneside and Edinburgh services?

 

[43074]

York doesn't appear in the top 50 so is clearly over served at present perhaps a hs avoiding line to speed up London to Tyneside and Edinburgh services?

York has a massive catchment area extending out to Whitby, Scarborough and parts of the West Yorkshire conurbation.
It also serves a relatively wealthy area (e.g. as a railhead for places like Harrogate) so even though the population of its catchment area doesn't come close to the conurbations you list, demand for London to York is only marginally behind London to Newcastle (source: ORR 2022/23 flow data from https://railalefan.co.uk/labs/flowstats/KGX/)

 

[BlueLeanie]

Last weekend we were delayed at Waverley, due to a suspect fatality in the Berwick area, by approximately 90 minutes. (Downgraded to trespass and vandalism). Whilst we were waiting, the unit switched from electric to diesel power. Would this relate to power supply limitations in the Edinburgh area due to too many units waiting to depart?

 

[MontyP]

It is effectively a suburb of Leeds from a rail point of view.

The main problem for Bradford in my view is that there isn't a good enough metro service to Leeds. It should be a metro service (tram? underground?) every 3 mins and maybe some sort of non-stop regional express every 15 mins. Look at the Ruhr for inspiration. No service to Bradford is ever going to bypass Leeds.

 

[Snex]

I'm only including the Leeds to Manchester line but I think when looking at rail services you should look at conurbations rather than historical city centres like Bradford. On this basis Greater Manchester is 2nd by pop. and West Yorkshire 4th. Liverpool is 6th so clearly deserves it's own terminal although will most likely be relegated to 7th by South Hampshire in the next census. York doesn't appear in the top 50 so is clearly over served at present perhaps a hs avoiding line to speed up London to Tyneside and Edinburgh services?

That would be a terrible idea imo. York is a good interchange station for changing to other places like others have said.

Personally, I might be in the minority here but I'd like to see the station utilised more. The ECML North of York has serious capacity problems yet we have a number of 4/5 car trains heading up to Edinburgh duplicating each other. I'd much rather see some services terminating short with better interchanging and utilise the line North of York for more longer trains, not 4/5 car Class 220/221 trains.

Britain has an obsession of serving everywhere direct with infrequent timetables rather than frequent service with a change.

 

[modernrail]

I'm only including the Leeds to Manchester line but I think when looking at rail services you should look at conurbations rather than historical city centres like Bradford. On this basis Greater Manchester is 2nd by pop. and West Yorkshire 4th. Liverpool is 6th so clearly deserves it's own terminal although will most likely be relegated to 7th by South Hampshire in the next census. York doesn't appear in the top 50 so is clearly over served at present perhaps a hs avoiding line to speed up London to Tyneside and Edinburgh services?

Grantham, Stafford, lots of places are overserved if you look at like that.

Hubs only work if the spokes work.

 

[MichaelTrains]

The Sunday Times has published an article regarding the ECML upgrade and timetable fiasco:

They finished the fast train line 2 years ago. You still can’t ride it

It was meant to slash London-Edinburgh journey times, but officials are still squabbling about the timetable on the improved east coast mainline

www.thetimes.com

It's good that the issues are being brought to public attention, but the article is rather misleading and inaccurate in several respects. In all honesty, I'd expect better given that the author is a 30-year veteran journalist.


The "fast train line" - the ECML - is no faster now than it was before when it was "finished". And you absolutely can "ride" it now, it's just the new timetable that is delayed.


Mr Hellen seems to have overlooked the fact that there are already 5 direct trains a day between Bradford and London.


They aren't taxpayer funded; they were taxpayer specified but - unfortunately - privately funded and owned.


News to me that the "new line" has cut 60 miles off the route!


Comparing the fastest planned time with the slowest current time - apples and oranges come to mind. The fastest current time (4h) already beats 4h5m.


The current typical journey time is approx 2h15m, so again this is misleading.


Mr Hellen must be talking about a different city than the Bradford in West Yorkshire benefitting from two stations with a combined annual usage of 3.6 million passengers...


Unless I'm much mistaken, those are merely withdrawn pre-Covid peak trains that are being reintroduced...

Bradford does have the worst connections of any major UK city.

The article is spot on.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Certainly not the Street of Shame's finest but a passable hatchet job. The P'boro trains are, of course, reinstatements of Covid thinning so not much to do with the upgrade.

Did NR advise -- in plain language -- that there would, in practice, be 'insufficient capacity' when it was taking £1.2bn off DfT to upgrade the route?

The most damaging thing in this case study seems to be that the FOCs seem to have been advised that their trains must be dropped to allow the rest to get through. If that's true, you can hardly expect them to be that keen on GBR which, as per current plans, would be largely formed from NR staff and be subject to a not particularly clear formal remit on freight.... A bit of reset required?

At least they are exposing what a mess the wider industry has made of this and shining a light on some of the issues as well get some feedback out of those involved which the railway press doesn't seem keen to do.

 

[paul1609]

At least they are exposing what a mess the wider industry has made of this and shining a light on some of the issues as well get some feedback out of those involved which the railway press doesn't seem keen to do.

Exposing the continuing mess of practically every project in the rail industry?