Sunday Times article on ECML upgrade & postponed timetable change

[Gerald Fiennes]

So, as per above:

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.

a number of East Coast towns and cities eg. Bradford, Halifax, Harrogate, Middlesbrough & Teeside, Grimsby, Pontefract, Lincoln and Cleethorpes would benefit from better connections and places to wait (warm waiting rooms) at the hubs. Please see Switzerland and the Netherlands for insight on how to do this!

But the idea that more and more places should be served directly from London is a non-runner these days. When we were all much younger, the trunk service was much less frequent (eg. 7 trains/day to Edinburgh when the Deltics ruled the earth) there was more capacity and, in principle, this allowed for many more direct services. As the trunk frequency has improved, more emphasis should have been placed on better connections. Given that post-1994 TOC boundaries were largely set by rolling stock types (eg. GNER/LNER, Anglia pre 2005), not geography (Eastern Region), and TOCs were defined by the ticketing and track access system as essentially competitors to each other, the importance of connections sadly got lost.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

The problem arises if this is allowed to feed into an anti-rail investment narrative which has a negative impact on policy.

It's easy for the public to overlook the fact that the ECML already carries a lot of trains.

 

[FGWHST43009]

So, as per above:


a number of East Coast towns and cities eg. Bradford, Halifax, Harrogate, Middlesbrough & Teeside, Grimsby, Pontefract, Lincoln and Cleethorpes would benefit from better connections and places to wait (warm waiting rooms) at the hubs. Please see Switzerland and the Netherlands for insight on how to do this!

But the idea that more and more places should be served directly from London is a non-runner these days. When we were all much younger, the trunk service was much less frequent (eg. 7 trains/day to Edinburgh when the Deltics ruled the earth) there was more capacity and, in principle, this allowed for many more direct services. As the trunk frequency has improved, more emphasis should have been placed on better connections. Given that post-1994 TOC boundaries were largely set by rolling stock types (eg. GNER/LNER, Anglia pre 2005), not geography (Eastern Region), and TOCs were defined by the ticketing and track access system as essentially competitors to each other, the importance of connections sadly got lost.

Would you keep the Aberdeen and Inverness services? I guess they're a bit different as they're much further compared to places such as Harrogate and Bradford. Apparently the Harrogate services take up paths that could be used by local services. For Bradford, maybe a fast Bradford-Leeds-Hull service could run? If stopped adjacent to a London service at Leeds then you could have a cross-platform interchange?

 

[Senex]

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/)

And in the 2022/3 ORR statistics York's total number of entrances and exits at 8,862,978 (ranking it 42) exceeds Newcastle's 8,402,926 (46) (https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/passenger-rail-usage), and the relative psotiion has not changed over a number of years. In railway terms York punches well above the weight its population might suggest and is probably not the only place so to do.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The problem arises if this is allowed to feed into an anti-rail investment narrative which has a negative impact on policy.

This is what could happen if the industry doesn't come up with a solution. So the industry ie NR, TOCs and FOCs need to bang their heads together to find a solution not keep chucking it back onto DfT.

It's easy for the public to overlook the fact that the ECML already carries a lot of trains.

Of course it does but the industry told the govt what was needed to change to improve service provision and it was given taxpayers money to deliver that outcome which it has now twice failed to deliver. Why would any government of whatever colour keep throwing money at enhancements if there is no payback. This isn't the first time we've seen enhancement expenditure failing to deliver an improvement albeit ECML is the biggest so far.

 

[JonathanH]

Apparently the Harrogate services take up paths that could be used by local services.

Long distance services everywhere take up paths that could be used by local services. The railway has to decide on what balance to strike. The whole ECML timetable update seems to be about faster services from London to Edinburgh which play a part in preventing local services at various points on the route.

 

[Ianigsy]

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.

I’m not sure that many Olicanians wouldn’t prefer to take the Skipton-London train as their first choice.

I have a feeling that just before the pandemic, Northern were trying to run some semi-fasts on the Harrogate line as well- the capacity should be there in the slots that the Horsforth evening peak stoppers take. GNER of blessed memory were also looking at running directly from Harrogate to York, which would avoid the reversal at Leeds and probably speed the end to end time up considerably, but Knaresborough to Skelton Junction is a very rural railway with all the single track, level crossings and passing loops that involves.

 

[YorksLad12]

I’m not sure that many Olicanians wouldn’t prefer to take the Skipton-London train as their first choice.

I have a feeling that just before the pandemic, Northern were trying to run some semi-fasts on the Harrogate line as well- the capacity should be there in the slots that the Horsforth evening peak stoppers take. GNER of blessed memory were also looking at running directly from Harrogate to York, which would avoid the reversal at Leeds and probably speed the end to end time up considerably, but Knaresborough to Skelton Junction is a very rural railway with all the single track, level crossings and passing loops that involves.

I thought Northern were still running them! It was 7 Northern services every two hours, with the 8th being the LNER trip, before the pandemic anyway. London-York-Harrogate would the way I'd do it, but as you say, the infrastructure doesn't permit that to happen sensibly.

 

[Kite159]

I have a feeling that just before the pandemic, Northern were trying to run some semi-fasts on the Harrogate line as well- the capacity should be there in the slots that the Horsforth evening peak stoppers take. GNER of blessed memory were also looking at running directly from Harrogate to York, which would avoid the reversal at Leeds and probably speed the end to end time up considerably, but Knaresborough to Skelton Junction is a very rural railway with all the single track, level crossings and passing loops that involves.

And weren't Virgin East Coast looking into serving Harrogate/Bradford by running extra Leeds services going Doncaster - Micklefield - Leeds - Harrogate/Bradford avoiding Wakefield & the reversal at Leeds?

 

[Peterthegreat]

And weren't Virgin East Coast looking into serving Harrogate/Bradford by running extra Leeds services going Doncaster - Micklefield - Leeds - Harrogate/Bradford avoiding Wakefield & the reversal at Leeds?

It pre dates Virgin. It was a GNER idea. The "horseshoe".

 

[Bald Rick]

So the industry ie NR, TOCs and FOCs need to bang their heads together to find a solution not keep chucking it back onto DfT.

That’s exactly what is happening.

 

[IanXC]

I thought Northern were still running them! It was 7 Northern services every two hours, with the 8th being the LNER trip, before the pandemic anyway. London-York-Harrogate would the way I'd do it, but as you say, the infrastructure doesn't permit that to happen sensibly.

Its never quite got to that, and the Northern expresses didn't make it out the other side of the pandemic

I can't recall whether it was 1tph Northern express or only opposite the LNER, but there certainly weren't 2 Northern expresses in any hour.

They were built around a 15 minute gap, but the 4th was never filled through the whole day.

 

[yorksrob]

This is what could happen if the industry doesn't come up with a solution. So the industry ie NR, TOCs and FOCs need to bang their heads together to find a solution not keep chucking it back onto DfT.

Of course it does but the industry told the govt what was needed to change to improve service provision and it was given taxpayers money to deliver that outcome which it has now twice failed to deliver. Why would any government of whatever colour keep throwing money at enhancements if there is no payback. This isn't the first time we've seen enhancement expenditure failing to deliver an improvement albeit ECML is the biggest so far.

There's certainly a lot of new infrastructure on the ECML. Perhaps the experience of 2018 has made the industry go too far the other way and become a bit too timid in using it.

Perhaps the industry should respond to the article stating the advances they have been able to implement using the new infrastructure.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2024 ==

Long distance services everywhere take up paths that could be used by local services. The railway has to decide on what balance to strike. The whole ECML timetable update seems to be about faster services from London to Edinburgh which play a part in preventing local services at various points on the route.

Indeed. The proposal to remove a TPE -Scotland service for another London train was probably not that good an idea to begin with.

Doubling the length of the Lumo services would be a better use of capacity.

 

[Clarence Yard]

This is what could happen if the industry doesn't come up with a solution. So the industry ie NR, TOCs and FOCs need to bang their heads together to find a solution not keep chucking it back onto DfT.

Of course it does but the industry told the govt what was needed to change to improve service provision and it was given taxpayers money to deliver that outcome which it has now twice failed to deliver. Why would any government of whatever colour keep throwing money at enhancements if there is no payback. This isn't the first time we've seen enhancement expenditure failing to deliver an improvement albeit ECML is the biggest so far.

The problem here is that the required infrastructure improvements were cut back so the proposed timetable could never be implemented. The DfT wants a payback ”on the cheap”, as it were.

The ORR (correctly) gave out rights on the basis of the full work package being completed and now all those rights don’t fit the available infrastructure. NR continue to bang their head against the wall trying to make it all fit, which it can’t do and refuses to do what it should have done, which is to declare what cannot run and let it all be argued out at the ORR.

But to do that successfully NR has to compensate the affected operators and that costs money, so we go round in a big circle again of trying to make it all fit, which it won’t.

 

[takno]

Indeed. The proposal to remove a TPE -Scotland service for another London train was probably not that good an idea to begin with.

Doubling the length of the Lumo services would be a better use of capacity.

Doubling the length of the Lumo services probably needs to happen in addition to another hourly LNER. The TPEs to Scotland are important, but there aren't exactly masses of passengers for destinations past Leeds, and those journeys could be completed with a simple change at York

 

[Nottingham59]

The ORR (correctly) gave out rights on the basis of the full work package being completed

Well, perhaps the ORR should have given out rights conditional on the full work package being completed

 

[Dr Hoo]

Well, perhaps the ORR should have given out rights conditional on the full work package being completed

I thought that it was Network Rail that generally ‘agreed’ to sell/give rights that ORR then has to formally ‘approve’ for them to become valid and ‘firm’.
Are we talking about ‘non-agreed’ rights that ORR specifically ‘directed’ NR to accept? These are really quite unusual cases.
There is such a concept as ‘contingent’ rights. Is that what NR has been selling on the ECML for the last few years but is now saying ‘oh sorry, doesn’t work, oops.’?

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

Strange because as a Bradford resident I'm pretty certain that I pay council tax to Bradford MDC, similarly when I vote in the local elections I vote for Bradford councillors. So it really isn't effectively a suburb of Leeds, no matter how often some people try to talk it into being the case. And whilst it is true that Wharfe Valley residents would not use a Bradford based London service, there are plenty along the Aire Valley that would, indeed some do on the two services currently available through Shipley.

There are perfectly good reasons not to dismiss more LNER services from Bradford in the future, I'm sure there would be take-up for more, it might help the profile of Bradford as finally the council is diverging from the Leeds business model, and you could have the added bonus of not locking up P6 or P8 for at least some bits of the day, something that would be invaluable with Leeds being pretty much at capacity. And it might attract a bit more investment in stations like Forster Square and Shipley, both of which as desperate for it to try and grow rail travel in the area. Having a London train every couple of hours might just bring in benefits beyond just a bit more connectivity.

 

[Taunton]

The fact is that commercially the most appropriate service is a high frequency one from the principal metropolitan node. It may stop at a secondary point on its actual route, which is what gives Runcorn, Stockport and Wakefield such good services to London, but that is it. The largest commercial centre adjacent to Manchester is actually Bolton, not Stockport, but that has no trains to London at all - in fact when travelling London to Bolton I find it quickest to go via Stockport and then with a colleague along the motorway rather than Manchester. The key is high frequency. Trains even every two hours are not competitive with those every 30 minutes plus a connection. You would find such a service mainly empty stock on the last leg.

 

[yorksrob]

Doubling the length of the Lumo services probably needs to happen in addition to another hourly LNER. The TPEs to Scotland are important, but there aren't exactly masses of passengers for destinations past Leeds, and those journeys could be completed with a simple change at York

Perhaps the extra London service should go via Leeds in that case.

 

[Ben427]

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

And that's the point.

It is massively underserved by rail. People seem to be labouring under the impression that Bradford is a small city; it is not by any stretch.

Rail is there to serve populations and economies; the existing rail network unfortunately does not as it is based on a layout essentially unchanged for 150 years

 

[alistairlees]

And that's the point.

It is massively underserved by rail. People seem to be labouring under the impression that Bradford is a small city; it is not by any stretch.

Rail is there to serve populations and economies; the existing rail network unfortunately does not as it is based on a layout essentially unchanged for 150 years

Indeed. A rail point of view is not a customer point of view.

 

[Taunton]

And that's the point.

It is massively underserved by rail. People seem to be labouring under the impression that Bradford is a small city; it is not by any stretch.

Rail is there to serve populations and economies; the existing rail network unfortunately does not as it is based on a layout essentially unchanged for 150 years

Well thus Bradford has had 150 years to link its two long branches together to form various more useful through routes, but has never taken any opportunity to do so.

 

[MontyP]

Strange because as a Bradford resident I'm pretty certain that I pay council tax to Bradford MDC, similarly when I vote in the local elections I vote for Bradford councillors. So it really isn't effectively a suburb of Leeds, no matter how often some people try to talk it into being the case. And whilst it is true that Wharfe Valley residents would not use a Bradford based London service, there are plenty along the Aire Valley that would, indeed some do on the two services currently available through Shipley.

There are perfectly good reasons not to dismiss more LNER services from Bradford in the future, I'm sure there would be take-up for more, it might help the profile of Bradford as finally the council is diverging from the Leeds business model, and you could have the added bonus of not locking up P6 or P8 for at least some bits of the day, something that would be invaluable with Leeds being pretty much at capacity. And it might attract a bit more investment in stations like Forster Square and Shipley, both of which as desperate for it to try and grow rail travel in the area. Having a London train every couple of hours might just bring in benefits beyond just a bit more connectivity.

The only time I ever caught a direct LNER service to Bradford (in 2016), I was one of 8 passengers who got off at Forster Sq. Not great use of a train that can carry 500+.

 

[Donny Dave]

The question is, where are the main rail flows for Bradford? I would imagine it would be to places such as Manchester, Leeds, Huddersfield and Sheffield. Would it not make more sense to prioritise upgrades and improvements to these links first before arguing for increased services to London?

 

[Bantamzen]

The only time I ever caught a direct LNER service to Bradford (in 2016), I was one of 8 passengers who got off at Forster Sq. Not great use of a train that can carry 500+.

We probably need more than the passenger numbers of one service almost a decade a go to work on. But for reference I often catch the 06:30 from Forster Square, picking it up at Shipley, and there often plenty of reserved seats at Shipley. By no means full, but its clear than people are starting at Bradford as well as people changing at Shipley from the Aire Valley. Its also worth remembering that sometimes more capacity can build new demand, having only two services in each direction a day doesn't necessarily meet all demand. After all Grand Cnetral seem to be making a go of it from the Interchange.

The question is, where are the main rail flows for Bradford? I would imagine it would be to places such as Manchester, Leeds, Huddersfield and Sheffield. Would it not make more sense to prioritise upgrades and improvements to these links first before arguing for increased services to London?

Leeds and Manchester are probably the most, but people from Bradford do occasionally travel beyond the North of England. And extensions of some of the LNER services, using the extra capacity offered by the new platform currently being built, as well as releasing capacity at Leeds seems to be a fairly easy win. Plus LNER don't operate to Manchester, so it doesn't impact on those services.

 

[davidknibb]

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

Hull to name one.

 

[Topological]

I made a separate thread to discuss the Bradford-Leeds situation since it extends well beyond the ECML: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/could-bradford-interchange-to-leeds-be-metroised.269192/

On the broader principle, extending trains to destinations beyond the key termini (e.g. Aberdeen) makes more sense than adding new branches further down, especially when the path further north does not have a balancing demand further up the line (We could argue two trains turn off to Leeds but are then replaced on the northern section by Cross Country / TPE)

 

[takno]

Perhaps the extra London service should go via Leeds in that case.

There's already an hourly cross country service. That should certainly be doubled in length

 

[KGX]

And in the 2022/3 ORR statistics York's total number of entrances and exits at 8,862,978 (ranking it 42) exceeds Newcastle's 8,402,926 (46) (https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/passenger-rail-usage), and the relative psotiion has not changed over a number of years.

Although Newcastle numbers don’t include the local service entry/exits via Central Station (metro).