At the moment those three services are direct from Saltburn, except the first one which is so early it originates at Middlesbrough. Accordingly I don't think many people board at Durham as they're almost full anyway. When too many people do join at Durham that just means people at Chester-le-Street can't board.
Have any of them ever been booked more than a two car?
To be fair the same is true of VTEC, EC, NXEC, GNER and quite probably BR (at least by it's later years in the 80s and 90s as Intercity)! There's always been issues with some of those obvious local links. That being said the changes at Durham are a new wrinkle and do definitely need some attention to ensure that there either is sufficent capacity on the remaining trains or that an extra service is introduced to replace the existing 0820.
Outside of special events (which I'm not sure there have been any which would warrant strengthening at that time) or the occasional unit fault requiring one unit to rescue another (but still serviceable enough to limp back in service to Heaton) I don't think those serivices have ever been booked more than a 2-car DMU. The service axis Saltburn - Darlington (which those trains via Durham come from) is basically uniformly 2-car.
New timetable proposes an 05.50 from Middlesbrough and an 06.11 from Saltburn.
This is what I'm particularly curious about: "provision to call" as it currently is stated on https://www.greatnorthernrail.com/service-updates/service-updates/east-coast-main-line-improvements doesn't sound like _all_ trains will call there; so if someone still has the relevant section from the proposed timetables that would be fantastic
All on this folder https://1drv.ms/f/s!Atbbbc8b-MOhlMIFgxTwsdklmoibjQ
Provision to call means the station won't be opening on timetable change date, but all trains will call there and they have the time built in from the start.
Passenger operators: general representations | Office of Rail and Road
All documents related to competing applications received from passenger operators.www.orr.gov.uk
The letter applies to the following applications
The 17:21 seems to be a retimed 17:34, which currently does East Linton, Dunbar and Reston.
Cardiff to Edinburgh - Grand Union Trains Ltd
Grand Union (Alliance Trains) has withdrawn its plans to introduce a new direct service between Cardiff and Edinburgh.While the service would offer almost two million additional seats annually on this important cross-country route, linking Wales, England and Scotland with a regular daily service...www.granduniontrains.co.uk
Waterside Line - Grand Union Trains Ltd
Under the 'Alliance' banner, we are also planning to introduce a new service between Marchwood and Southampton and London Waterloo during 2027. Marchwood is currently a closed station and has not seen regular passenger trains since 1966. This service would build on a recent comprehensive study...
Network Rail state in their letter to ORR dated 11 April 2025 that they cannot support this.
The Government owned train operator LNER's letter of response to ORR dated 24 April 2025 asserts that development work to identify options to facilitate the 6.5TPH has recently been re-started, that the Government Department for Transport supports LNER's plan to deliver this 6.5TPH (to and from London Kings Cross on the East Coast Mainline) and that the Government has directed Network Rail to offer this 6.5TPH so Network Rail should not be stating that they cannot support 6.5TPH.
Clearly an additional train between London King's Cross and Leeds every two hours will not happen in the December 2025 East Coast Mainline Timetable. It is agreed that additional infrastructure is required to deliver it. Clearly it would be very useful for rail passengers. It does not look good that instead of all Government branches and agencies working together to deliver it, two Government owned companies are arguing with each other on this issue by sending letters to the Office of Rail and Road.
Is that Middlesbrough line referring to it not being extended beyond York meaning until the station upgrades at Middlesbrough are done as always planned ? Obviously aside from the current one a day
There was an LNER track access application that said they expected the 2-hourly Middlesbrough service to start with the Dec 2027 timetable, I remember reading it a few months back. Certainly looks as though the timescales are to allow for the delayed platform work.
There is politics in the NR view as well as they are declining to support any applications made outside the ESG process, even where in some cases they will improve performance.
Makes perfect sense as in the TVCA document the platform as things stand will be open for March 2027 so they’ve given a bit of wiggle room by not opting for May it looks like as you say
In which case it wasn't a flaw but an error.
The above is a more long winded way of agreeing with this.
It's also not as black and white as this, e.g. the peak GTR pattern applies until around 0930 in the recast which is well into the long distance peak - not long before the first fast arrival from Edinburgh, the non stop Wakefield to London service arrives 0859, there's a Hull Trains arrival before 0930 and Lumo are proposing one at this time and so on.
Also not forgetting that Thameslink now make a number of services and late presentation at the core soon cascades out South of the river. Equally though the South side can easily inject delays into ECML.
Commuting from Grantham and Newark is not a new thing, it has existed for at least 30 years.
Not a new thing but perhaps, post covid, more common as people have moved further away from London seeking cheaper living costs and perhaps only doing it a couple of days a week.
