East Coast Timetable Dec 24

[The Planner]

Was there ever an intention to do anything in May 25 anyhow?

I expect it was hoped for, but the clock would have run out.

 

[Manutd1999]

And that is what is happening.

But then why is it deferred until Dec 2025?. It shouldn't take the industry another 15 months to tweak a timetable they have been working on for 5+ years.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Agree the timetable has to work but why would the govt want spend billions again on any rail infrastructure enhancement if it doesn't deliver the outcome promised. The industry has a poor track record of late compared to BR who wired, resignalled and procured brand new trains for ECML and delivered the enhanced timetable when they said they would and within budget.

This is for the industry to collectively resolve and demonstrate to govt it can deliver.

Quite simply, the Government didn’t spend the billions to deliver the outcome promised. They cut the infrastructure improvements needed to deliver the promised outcome. So there were potentially too many trains for the infrastructure supplied.

Since then NR has struggled with the problem. The region has spent ages getting virtually nowhere and created an unworkable timetable which was then handed over to MK earlier this year.

To be fair to NR, MK has spent a lot of time straightening it all out since then but they are not quite there yet.

 

[The Planner]

But then why is it deferred until Dec 2025?. It shouldn't take the industry another 15 months to tweak a timetable they have been working on for 5+ years.

You need to understand the process. Any May or December timetable change clock, when it comes to the lines on the graph, starts 40 weeks out, with the offer back to operators at 26 weeks out. The May 25 timetable starts on the 18th May. The D40 date was 8th August, with the D26 offer on the 15th November. It clearly wasn't considered possible, as @Clarence Yard has posted above, to meet that deadline in just under the 13 weeks we have left.

The dates are all in the public domain here.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Calendar-of-Milestone-dates-Dec-2024-May-2025.pdf

 

[weeklycommuter]

Quite simply, the Government didn’t spend the billions to deliver the outcome promised. They cut the infrastructure improvements needed to deliver the promised outcome. So there were potentially too many trains for the infrastructure supplied.

Since then NR has struggled with the problem. The region has spent ages getting virtually nowhere and created an unworkable timetable which was then handed over to MK earlier this year.

To be fair to NR, MK has spent a lot of time straightening it all out since then but they are not quite there yet.

You need to understand the process. Any May or December timetable change clock, when it comes to the lines on the graph, starts 40 weeks out, with the offer back to operators at 26 weeks out. The May 25 timetable starts on the 18th May. The D40 date was 8th August, with the D26 offer on the 15th November. It clearly wasn't considered possible, as @Clarence Yard has posted above, to meet that deadline in just under the 13 weeks we have left.

The dates are all in the public domain here.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Calendar-of-Milestone-dates-Dec-2024-May-2025.pdf

Looks like there may hopefully be a workable new ECML timetable delivered for December 2025. However I assume there will have to be a timetable in May 2025 that enables Cambridge South Station to open.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Looks like there may hopefully be a workable new ECML timetable delivered for December 2025. However I assume there will have to be a timetable in May 2025 that enables Cambridge South Station to open.

Is that really going to be possible without a rewrite? the 9Sxx would have no margin for any perturbation the 2Hxx would have a few more mins to play with the 2Cxx have time at Cambridge but Southbound departure too close to 9Sxx to allow an earlier departure to accommodate Cambridge Sth stn call. the 1Txx have 5m at Cambridge but don't they change crews here? Of course the planners will now where time might be stuffed in the schedules for pathing/engineering allowance that could help.

 

[Manutd1999]

You need to understand the process. Any May or December timetable change clock, when it comes to the lines on the graph, starts 40 weeks out, with the offer back to operators at 26 weeks out. The May 25 timetable starts on the 18th May. The D40 date was 8th August, with the D26 offer on the 15th November. It clearly wasn't considered possible, as @Clarence Yard has posted above, to meet that deadline in just under the 13 weeks we have left.

The dates are all in the public domain here.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Calendar-of-Milestone-dates-Dec-2024-May-2025.pdf

Ok, but we knew about these timetable issues what, 12 months ago? What have the team been doing in that time?

A lot of the rail industries problems are rightly blamed on government etc but IMO there does need to be more of a "can do" attitude from inside the industry. I appreciate that is easy for me to say from the outside but ultimately the railways rely on public support. Delays like this do nothing to help win hearts and minds.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

My thoughts too, for what it's worth. It will be frustrating for all involved, but it does give 'the new regime' an opportunity to assess opportunities and priorities. My own hope is for a reduction in the narrow TOC-focused approach and better integration overall under GBR.

As the stumbling blocks to this timetable are between nationalised LNER and private freight operators vying for competing access to the network I’m not sure GBR is likely to make any difference.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

As the stumbling blocks to this timetable are between nationalised LNER and private freight operators vying for competing access to the network I’m not sure GBR is likely to make any difference.

At the end of the day freight is subsidised as much as passenger operators in covering the costs of running the network so the govt needs to make a clear policy decision over what its priorities are so the industry can implement them.

 

[800001]

As the stumbling blocks to this timetable are between nationalised LNER and private freight operators vying for competing access to the network I’m not sure GBR is likely to make any difference.

The stumbling block is not between LNER and the freight companies, the stumbling block is between Network Rail and the operators!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

The stumbling block is not between LNER and the freight companies, the stumbling block is between Network Rail and the operators!

Yes it’s between the operators and NR (and in part because the additional infrastructure has not been built), but the fact remains that it’s the additional LNER paths alongside against existing freight paths that’s not currently able to be accommodated.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The stumbling block is not between LNER and the freight companies, the stumbling block is between Network Rail and the operators!

So if GBR had existed the problem would be internal and have to be resolved

 

[800001]

So if GBR had existed the problem would be internal and have to be resolved

Exactly

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2024 ==

Yes it’s between the operators and NR (and in part because the additional infrastructure has not been built), but the fact remains that it’s the additional LNER paths alongside against existing freight paths that’s not currently able to be accommodated.

Then who ever authorised LNER additional services should not of done so until
It was certain the paths were available.

As I say. It isn’t LNER causing the issue. It’s NWR unable to path all services which want to run.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Exactly

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2024 ==


Then who ever authorised LNER additional services should not of done so until
It was certain the paths were available.

As I say. It isn’t LNER causing the issue. It’s NWR unable to path all services which want to run.

Yes, Network Rail are unable to path all the services which want to run.

However, the additional paths compared to today’s timetable are the LNER enhancements (which clash with existing freight operations).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2024 ==

So if GBR had existed the problem would be internal and have to be resolved

It would be no more internal than it is today. Not all the operators on the ECML (including freight) are planned to be bought into GBR.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Ultimately, the 3tph to Newcastle aspiration and the faster journey times to Edinburgh that the IEP order was based on require major changes to XC and TPE between York and Newcastle, ie. dropping calls or not running at all. The pressure between Newcastle and Edinburgh is not at all easy to schedule as well, but has been partially solved by creating a standalone TPE 'shuttle' betweeen these two stations (cost = reduced direct connections from Berwick and Morpeth to South and West Yorkshire).

But it is not at all self-evident that the various East Coast upgrade packages that have been considered, some of which have been built (mostly to support more electrics along the route) would ever have provided the original IEP aspiration. It was an idea, not a fully worked through plan. Much larger scale work at Durham and Darlington would have been needed (some of the latter is now going in). Retiming of XC, which would affect timetables across the country, would also have helped by allowing more even service patterns on this section. Even now, TSGN trains to Cambridge/Peterborough have to be given several minutes' holding time at Finsbury Park to allow them to slot into the fasts that start from King's Cross.

The IEP aspiration has to change, but the stumbling block has been getting DfT/Ministers to accept this formally and invite LNER to rethink. Until that happens, the new East Coast timetable will always be about 18 months off.

GBR may or may not help, this in theory depends on what ability (if any) it might be given to alter freight timings/capacity. Hopefully, this will be mega-heavily proscribed. If not, freight operators won't have much in terms of a service offer to put before their customers! The temptation just to support passenger will be too great.

 

[The Planner]

Ok, but we knew about these timetable issues what, 12 months ago? What have the team been doing in that time?

A lot of the rail industries problems are rightly blamed on government etc but IMO there does need to be more of a "can do" attitude from inside the industry. I appreciate that is easy for me to say from the outside but ultimately the railways rely on public support. Delays like this do nothing to help win hearts and minds.

Trying to remove the clashes! You cannot just move freight and flex other paths in minutes. It can be literally a case of putting a minute in one schedule affects 20-30 others consequentially. All those need to be checked, flexed and agreed with operators. You could break a platform end margin at Kings Cross, break a terminal time for a freight service somewhere etc etc.. To say there needs to be a "can do" attitude is insulting.

 

[Manutd1999]

Trying to remove the clashes! You cannot just move freight and flex other paths in minutes. It can be literally a case of putting a minute in one schedule affects 20-30 others consequentially. All those need to be checked, flexed and agreed with operators. You could break a platform end margin at Kings Cross, break a terminal time for a freight service somewhere etc etc.. To say there needs to be a "can do" attitude is insulting.

I wasn't intending to insult individuals - apologies if that was the case. I stand by criticism of the system and processes though. If it takes 2+ years to develop a timetable then something is badly wrong. Appreciate it's complex but it should be possible to do things faster than that. If it's not, then the processes have to change. Maybe a more agile system, where a "near ready" version of the timetable is maintained and edited in short sprints?

 

[The Planner]

I wasn't intending to insult individuals - apologies if that was the case. I stand by criticism of the system and processes though. If it takes 2+ years to develop a timetable then something is badly wrong. Appreciate it's complex but it should be possible to do things faster than that. If it's not, then the processes have to change. Maybe a more agile system, where a "near ready" version of the timetable is maintained and edited in short sprints?

How long should it take? the December 2008 VHF timetable and Dec 22 rewrite of the WCML all took as long as that, as do most other re-writes. What processes need to change? You still have to build a compliant timetable from scratch taking into account multiple stakeholder requirements, and no one has come up with an automated way of doing it yet anywhere.

 

[Bikeman78]

Agree the timetable has to work but why would the govt want spend billions again on any rail infrastructure enhancement if it doesn't deliver the outcome promised. The industry has a poor track record of late compared to BR who wired, resignalled and procured brand new trains for ECML and delivered the enhanced timetable when they said they would and within budget.

This is for the industry to collectively resolve and demonstrate to govt it can deliver.

If I recall correctly, there were other projects mooted that never happened, e.g. extending the up slow north of Huntingdon.

 

[swt_passenger]

If I recall correctly, there were other projects mooted that never happened, e.g. extending the up slow north of Huntingdon.

I attempted to list them a few months back in post #119, I copied the list from the 2016 TAA:

East Coast Timetable Dec 24

Poorly loaded? I’ve rarely seen a York - Leeds train, stopping or not that wasn’t busy. Same with the Harrogate extensions; lightly loaded Azumas, busy (but much shorter) Northern sets. But we are talking about full length LNER Azumas. They would not be a good use of resources. Indeed. If...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[VauxhallNova]

Quite simply, the Government didn’t spend the billions to deliver the outcome promised. They cut the infrastructure improvements needed to deliver the promised outcome. So there were potentially too many trains for the infrastructure supplied.

Since then NR has struggled with the problem. The region has spent ages getting virtually nowhere and created an unworkable timetable which was then handed over to MK earlier this year.

To be fair to NR, MK has spent a lot of time straightening it all out since then but they are not quite there yet.

Do you know what schemes comprise the billions of investment needed, and on which sections this non-delivery applies to?

 

[The exile]

and no one has come up with an automated way of doing it yet anywhere.

… and I bet if they did it would be a disaster. It would probably look fine to the computer programme, with the maximum number of wishes fulfilled, but the computer programmes have no experience of travelling 400 miles with a child and elderly mother, or needing to stop occasionally for a PNB etc

 

[Julia]

Prior to electrification the 2 car DMUs reversed on the down fast then again on the up slow to get from the down side to the up bay. With a 2 car DMU the driver didn't take long to get from one end of the train to the other.

But I can't recall that being done after electrification. For a long time the 1622 from Kings Cross terminated at Huntingdon, but it went to Conington to reverse on the down slow.

Various timetables had morning starters from Huntingdon that used the up bay, but coming empty from Nene sidings.

In around 1992, when I had a flat on Ermine St, EMUs reversed on the down fast right outside my window.

 

[Magdalia]

no one has come up with an automated way of doing it yet anywhere.

Not yet, but its time will come.

Recent advances in big data and machine learning probably mean that it is already feasible, the difficulty is the cost of development, which can't be shared amongst lots of customers.

It would probably look fine to the computer programme, with the maximum number of wishes fulfilled, but the computer programmes have no experience of travelling 400 miles with a child and elderly mother, or needing to stop occasionally for a PNB etc

Actually a machine would do that far better than a human. A big data model would include sensitivity analysis, for example on station dwell overtime, and its impacts further down the line, in a way that a human system never could.

 

[The Planner]

Not yet, but its time will come.

Recent advances in big data and machine learning probably mean that it is already feasible, the difficulty is the cost of development, which can't be shared amongst lots of customers.


Actually a machine would do that far better than a human. A big data model would include sensitivity analysis, for example on station dwell overtime, and its impacts further down the line, in a way that a human system never could.

I expect it will, but not in the short term. Every new train planning system promises the world, with TPS being the last one in 2010, it never seems to pan out that way though.

 

[Magdalia]

I expect it will, but not in the short term. Every new train planning system promises the world, with TPS being the last one in 2010, it never seems to pan out that way though.

The big data and machine learning capabilities available now didn't exist in 2010.

 

[The Planner]

The big data and machine learning capabilities available now didn't exist in 2010.

Maybe not, but nothing is going to change in the next 10-15 years on this front. If anything, more people will get taken on.

 

[BrianW]

Maybe not, but nothing is going to change in the next 10-15 years on this front. If anything, more people will get taken on.

Nothing? No drones, no driverless vehicles, no EVs, no WFH, no AI, no need to travel, no trains, no jobs for timetable planners ...?

 

[The Planner]

Nothing? No drones, no driverless vehicles, no EVs, no WFH, no AI, no need to travel, no trains, no jobs for timetable planners ...?

You have lost me there, clearly you knew I was talking about changes in the way timetables are built.

 

[CapabilityB]

… and I bet if they did it would be a disaster. It would probably look fine to the computer programme, with the maximum number of wishes fulfilled, but the computer programmes have no experience of travelling 400 miles with a child and elderly mother, or needing to stop occasionally for a PNB etc

Add in the complications of the web of TOC contracts, FOC contracts, access rights, Network Code; the views of important stakeholders along the route; stock and crew resources; the different timescales all of the previous work to. Plus many other factors that need to be considered.