Apologies if this is off topic but I’ve had a peruse of the proposed LNER timetable and it seems that the trains are timetabled to be slightly faster or similar to now. Are major improvements to the regulation of trains by signallers or infrastructure reliability improvements to be implemented before December 2025? If anything trains needed to timed to be slower so they are more realistic.
-
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!
December 2025 East Coast Timetable
- Thread starter 47421
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
hexagon789
Veteran Member
I thought it was more that sectional running times will now be tightened to reflect Azuma performance than HST 2+9 performance, as current timings are mostly as they were in 2019 on the wired sections? (The unwired routes do have modified timings to reflect lesser Azuma performance on diesel compared to HSTs.)
They never have, even in HST days.
Halish Railway
Established Member
All I can think of is the additional platforms at Darlington, which will finally make it practical to run non-stop trains going northbound by removing the conflict with southbound and Saltburn trains, as well as creating a passing point in both directions.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Like to know what the Agility Trains contract deliverables were as this is barely 80% overall.
Still have the conflict with the Bishop to Saltburn trains each hour, still crossing the south junction each hour throughout the day.
It’s only the Darlington - Saltburn service (one per hour) using the new bay platform.
Although the times of the Saltburn services have been swapped, so that the Bishop to Saltburn are now trough Darlington at xx22 vice xx55.
weeklycommuter
Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 1,039
Transport for the North wants a seventh long distance high speed path between York and Newcastle each hour and removing conflicts at Darlington is clearly necessary to deliver this. If this conflict is an obstacle to delivering a seventh long distance high speed path between York and Newcastle each hour should the Bishop Auckland to Saltburn hourly trains be terminated at Darlington and the Darlington to Saltburn trains be half hourly instead so people travelling from Bishop Auckland to stations beyond Darlington change at Darlington? I note on the annual station usage data to March 2024 that Darlington is the most popular destination for Bishop Auckland with 44,582 out of 156,458 journeys. This would be a case of some rail passengers having to change at Darlington to enable a better service for a far greater number of rail passengers, a trade off that often has to be made on train services.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,227
It’s the exact same fleet utilisation as shown in the 2016 track access application. 54 from 65 totalled, 83% but I think back when it was news it was compared to other intercity fleets and 85% was fairly typical. It’s only the relatively huge fleets of modern commuter EMUs that seem to get well up into the 90s. I expect managing them (ie the ECML) as four sub-fleets leads to low utilisation. If they had gone 100% bimode like the GW would it be different?
Last edited:
Obviously from December 2025 it must still have been possible to timetable the through Bishop Auckland to Saltburn service, perhaps aided by the increased platform capacity at Darlington. It was always stated originally that the additional platforms would enable the Bishop Auckland to Saltburn service to be split at Darlington removing the crossing the ECML conflict. Presumably for the time being removing one conflict per hour on Darlo terminator is sufficient to deliver the timetable.
Once the other ECML issues are resolved, I assume the Bishop Auckland service will end up being split to enable the additional Newcastle to York path to be added. If other issues make that path non-deliverable, then it makes sense to keep the Bishop Auckland to Saltburn a through service for the time-being till such a time when it needs to be severed.
Does it have us demand for through journeys? I appreciate it may have symmetry in traction, power, service type etc.
If not then general best practice is to split these services at the mainline they cross across, and compensate with a higher service for the connections. Same as the Scarborough debate.
Manchester - Wales is another but seen as a sacred cow. A Warrington/Vic routing might be better and allow a longer electric service into Stockport and Picc instead. Eg a Curzon St starter
If not then general best practice is to split these services at the mainline they cross across, and compensate with a higher service for the connections. Same as the Scarborough debate.
Manchester - Wales is another but seen as a sacred cow. A Warrington/Vic routing might be better and allow a longer electric service into Stockport and Picc instead. Eg a Curzon St starter
Intercity_225
Member
Will the daily Flying Scotsman service be canned? It looks like the 5.40am EDB - KGX is being given an additional stop at York, departing Edinburgh at 05:37 and arrive at London at 09:50. Will there be any Edinburgh to London services that are planned to be done in 4 hours?
hexagon789
Veteran Member
4h04 is the best, several northbound services will take this but mostly 4h08.
Southbound is a bit longer.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 34,227
Post #231 a couple of weeks ago linked to an article in the Standard, with LNER explaining that the 0537 would keep the name.
Manutd1999
Member
I really struggle to see the need for more services tbh. The proposed timetable between York and Newcastle is something like this:
2ph LNER to Edinburgh one non-stop, one Darlington only
1ph XC to Edinburgh via Darlington and Durham
1ph LNER to Newcastle via Northallerton, Darlington, Durham
1p2h XC to Newcastle via Darlington and Durham (questionable if this is required....)
1ph TPE to Newcastle via Darlington, Durham, Chester-Le-Street.
plus 1ph TPE to Middlesborough via Thirsk, Northallerton
plus LNER extensions to Middlesborough.
plus Open Access
The above seems fine to me, with all the main flows covered. If demand from Manchester-Newcastle is really that high, TPE should focus on how to increase capacity (and reliability!) of the existing service before adding more (maybe double 803s?).
Halish Railway
Established Member
I’d say that running an hourly Newcastle to Reading service is definitely necessary, given that it gives a journey time from the North East and York to Sheffield and the Midlands that is about 20 minutes quicker than going via Leeds. The existing roughly once per two hours service is quite well used.
Providing the Newcastle to Reading services are all ran by five car Voyagers and the Edinburgh to Plymouth services are worked by pairs of Voyagers there should be enough capacity going about.
D6130
Established Member
802s....the 803s are the standard class only 'Lumo' units.
Killingworth
Established Member
I was about to write exactly the same!
In the HS2 proposals I was intrigued to note there was expected to be an increased minimum journey time between Sheffield and Newcastle - due to elimination of this train, which used to be hourly.
Halish Railway
Established Member
It seems like since with the removal of most Newcastle to Reading services we’ve lost track of what a useful service it can be. Having them permanently reduced to once per two hours to Newcastle would be a poor outcome of this timetable change. Should the service had more capacious rolling stock and better pathing more of its potential can be realised.
Take a station like Darlington for instance, the demand for Manchester is double that of Birmingham or Sheffield (source: railwaydata.co.uk), in which case if there is demand for 3 trains per 2 hours on XC then I would argue the demand is there for a similar frequency to Manchester.
In a previous iteration of the ECML timetable there was an additional TPE service to Newcastle every 2 hours making use of the path not used by the XC Newcastle to Reading in the hours where this terminated at York. In the hours where the Reading service ran through to Newcastle, the TPE service ran to Scarborough with a Scarborough to York shuttle in the hours where the TPE ran to Newcastle. For whatever reason this arrangement is no longer being pursued but I'd argue could have been a happy medium without the need for an hourly path.
Halish Railway
Established Member
They would use the slow lines between York and Thirsk unlike Grand Central, thus there’s generally a consistent flow throughout the day, although the pathing of such services is dependent on getting a path through the flat junctions to the north and south of York station.
The contract is the other way around as I understand it. The contract requires X units of each type provided each day, and Agility/Hitachi have decided that Y units are required in the fleet to achieve that.
That is correct.
Apologies if this has already been mentioned but I've just read a BBC News report on the draft December 2025 timetable.
In it they state the following
I was surprised to find a link to the published timetable was included in the report.
So I went to it and saw the PDF. No where on the PDF does it state it is a draft timetable. Now maybe it states this on an LNER web page that links to the timetable, vut the BBC linked directly to the PDF.
If it's a draft timetable it should state this in the PDF.
It does however state the following on the first page.
In it they state the following
I was surprised to find a link to the published timetable was included in the report.
So I went to it and saw the PDF. No where on the PDF does it state it is a draft timetable. Now maybe it states this on an LNER web page that links to the timetable, vut the BBC linked directly to the PDF.
If it's a draft timetable it should state this in the PDF.
It does however state the following on the first page.
The first sentence on the page that contains links to all the timetables on the website says:
”Complete draft timetables can be access through the below links”
The second sentence says:
”The final timetable for December 2025 will be available in late summer 2025”
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
They have a lot of PDF timetables on their website: https://ecmltimetable.info/timetables. The website indicates the timetables are draft.
Unless I'm missing something (and apologies if this has already been discussed) Durham seems to be a very big loser from all of this. Northbound there's 3-4tph but all within a 15-minute spell then nothing for 45 minutes. Southbound is a bit better.
Unless I'm missing something (and apologies if this has already been discussed) Durham seems to be a very big loser from all of this. Northbound there's 3-4tph but all within a 15-minute spell then nothing for 45 minutes. Southbound is a bit better.
mm333
Member
If it’s a 225, then only one door is open as they don’t have selective door-opening. If it’s an Azuma, then the appropriate doors along the platform are unlocked so you don’t have to just enter through the one door.
Unfortunately they have no control over how other people, in this case the BBC, link to the timetables. So I think putting draft on the timetables might have been helpful as I hadn't seen that page. The news report did state they were draft timetables so I just expected to see it in the PDF. A watermark perhaps.
Of course, I might have taken the same course of action and put all timings correct as of date and subject to change if I was them. So I'm suggesting something whilst thinking I might also have done what they did. And if I did, I think I would consider adding draft to my next revised edition.
Killingworth
Established Member
Can anyone explain how the Sheffield-Huddersfield timetable is caught up in the December 2025 review when it doesn't go near the ECML?
On the other hand I can't see a timetable for Norwich-Livrrpool which uses the ECML hourly between Grantham and Peterbrough.
On the other hand I can't see a timetable for Norwich-Livrrpool which uses the ECML hourly between Grantham and Peterbrough.
I would assume that changes being made to services around it mean that the Penistone line service also has to be flexed. After all there are changes at both the Huddersfield and Sheffield ends being made!
It could be clearer but Table 1 contains EMR between Grantham and Peterborough, which is titled as ECML LDHS timetable on the website.
- Status