December 2025 East Coast Timetable

[eastcoast77]

Believe the plan is for Azumas to run 1N09 and 1Y20 while the 91s are being shortened (not much time to do it given capacity constraints at Neville Hill) and they'll switch over before May 2026.

To free up the Azumas for those headcodes they'll need to cancel/terminate other services short until the 91s can go to Newcastle - so that's why some of the trains in the timetable aren't confirmed so far in RTT.

Someone up thread said it was the same case in previous timetable changes when 1S17 and 1S19 were extended to Edinburgh

 

[43 302]

What do you mean by not enough time to shorten the Mk4 sets?

 

[BrianW]

It's a tradition on the East Coast Mainline which is being maintained, rather than anything new.

For example, in the current timetable I have got the 2100 from Cambridge which isn't a valid connection into the 2100 from King's Cross at Peterborough. On many continental railways, a way would be found for the train from Cambridge to arrive at PBO earlier, and have a wait there to allow connections both ways. However, we do not do that sort of thing here, and that is unlikely to ever change. I did once make the connection, by being at the optimal door and dashing up and down the stairs, saving over an hour off the journey time.

There are many more examples of connections being poor on the ECML; I suspect that where connections are made, it is more by accident than design (or some diligent planners being able to implement such connections, despite their being no apparent industry-wide commitment or desire to do so).

I know of a former planner who left Network Rail as he didn't want to move to Milton Keynes, who has been very scathing of various aspects of recent ECML timetables and the lack of connections.

So it's nothing materially different to what has gone on before. It would take a national policy change for such connections to be maintained, which is beyond the scope of this thread.

I do wonder about how conflicting 'priorities' are balanced, and happy that timetable planners do their best within these parameters. Stops to make connections slow trains and extend journey times for others. I imagine that consideration of origin-destination data has been complicated by split ticketing, which has been beneficial in other important ways. IIRC there's way that journeys between palces can be predicted by town (or catchment area) population- can someone help on that- maybe on another thread?

 

[800001]

Believe the plan is for Azumas to run 1N09 and 1Y20 while the 91s are being shortened (not much time to do it given capacity constraints at Neville Hill) and they'll switch over before May 2026.

To free up the Azumas for those headcodes they'll need to cancel/terminate other services short until the 91s can go to Newcastle - so that's why some of the trains in the timetable aren't confirmed so far in RTT.

Someone up thread said it was the same case in previous timetable changes when 1S17 and 1S19 were extended to Edinburgh

I thought it was more or less confirmed that 91s are not going to Newcastle?

 

[43 302]

I do wonder about how conflicting 'priorities' are balanced, and happy that timetable planners do their best within these parameters.

Extremely poorly. Expert railway managers are increasingly being given less control and fewer decisions. The decision making is increasingly done by Whitehall, or by Project Managers who couldn't tell you where Shaftholme Jn is.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought it was more or less confirmed that 91s are not going to Newcastle?

It’s only a few days ago that the diagrams, (which include Newcastle), were posted in the dedicated thread about the short sets here:

LNER 225 Shortening/Overnight Testing

There is an OHLE issue around Greensfield which has meant a trip via the bridges isn't possible. Is there? As I’ve literally just seen an 802 there with pantograph raised which would suggest that the OHLE is useable

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[800001]

It’s only a few days ago that the diagrams, (which include Newcastle), were posted in the dedicated thread about the short sets here:

LNER 225 Shortening/Overnight Testing

There is an OHLE issue around Greensfield which has meant a trip via the bridges isn't possible. Is there? As I’ve literally just seen an 802 there with pantograph raised which would suggest that the OHLE is useable

www.railforums.co.uk

Yes. I know. But also since stated that the only 91 to York is the set that stables over night.
Newcastle is still not confirmed.

 

[Bald Rick]

Extremely poorly. Expert railway managers are increasingly being given less control and fewer decisions. The decision making is increasingly done by Whitehall, or by Project Managers who couldn't tell you where Shaftholme Jn is.

Not for detail on timetables it isn’t. DfT would not want to be involved on the detail of timetables in terms of connections etc. That’s unless their was a LOT of noise from a consultation or MPs regarding an existing flow that is being changed.

 

[xotGD]

Yes. I know. But also since stated that the only 91 to York is the set that stables over night.
Newcastle is still not confirmed.

I think this is just someone interpreting "to York" as "terminating at York", and not considering the Newcastle service as a train that goes to York.

 

[800001]

I think this is just someone interpreting "to York" as "terminating at York", and not considering the Newcastle service as a train that goes to York.

The diagram to/from Newcastle is not confirmed, the one service to York to stable over night is.

LNER top brass are still undecided on sending one to Newcastle due to various reasons.

There is a copy of set diagrams floating around on here on a different thread I believe, but as I say, to/from Newcastle is not a definite.

 

[43 302]

Not for detail on timetables it isn’t. DfT would not want to be involved on the detail of timetables in terms of connections etc. That’s unless their was a LOT of noise from a consultation or MPs regarding an existing flow that is being changed.

Read my entire post.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Read my entire post.

I'm going to chime in and say after having read the entire post it's still not true when it comes to the detail on timetables.

 

[43074]

I'm going to chime in and say after having read the entire post it's still not true when it comes to the detail on timetables.

The bit about Project Managers not knowing where Shaftholme is was spot on, and the whole timetable change process is far too bureaucratic. The timetable itself isn't great across the board either, to be honest.

 

[Bikeman78]

I did see the 1N09 14:33 KGX-NCL service has been VAR'd on 17th December to be an Azuma as it forms off 1E09 from Edinburgh, does that mean the plan for 91s to Newcastle is over or is it just that week?

I've seen on various forums that it has been deemed a performance risk. Not really sure why. 91s rarely fail between stations to the extent that they are unmovable. I'm not clear why such a failure north of Doncaster would be any worse than south of Doncaster on a two track section.

 

[hexagon789]

I've seen on various forums that it has been deemed a performance risk. Not really sure why. 91s rarely fail between stations to the extent that they are unmovable. I'm not clear why such a failure north of Doncaster would be any worse than south of Doncaster on a two track section.

I thought it was down to the crewing arrangements, not perceived reliability of the 91s.

 

[800001]

I thought it was down to the crewing arrangements, not perceived reliability of the 91s.

Crewing arrangements, where to put set at Newcastle if issues. The fact it's another hour north of York for the Newark thunderbird to travel if failure etc, etc etc

 

[Class15]

Crewing arrangements, where to put set at Newcastle if issues. The fact it's another hour north of York for the Newark thunderbird to travel if failure etc, etc etc

Why is the failure an issue, isn’t that an issue for all trains, not just IC225s?

 

[800001]

Why is the failure an issue, isn’t that an issue for all trains, not just IC225s?

An Azuma can rescue another Azuma if required. They also have there 'Donkey' engine.

Other multiple units can also rescue each other.

If a 225 fails, or has an issue, the thunderbird is needed. Currently based at Newark. So yes, no different to failing between York/Leeds and Kings Cross, but it increases the performance risk north of York.

Also. As others have said, if there is an issue between Newcastle and York. Currently you could shove Azumas onto Heaton, but as the 225 would be crewed by Leeds/Doncaster/London crews, there would be no one to move the 225 onto Heaton.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

The bit about Project Managers not knowing where Shaftholme is was spot on, and the whole timetable change process is far too bureaucratic. The timetable itself isn't great across the board either, to be honest.

I think your being quite unfair with that first point.

 

[ainsworth74]

Am I the only person that thinks it's pretty good on the whole this timetable...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Am I the only person that thinks it's pretty good on the whole this timetable...

I think it does what is direly needed when you see all the high fares and the "sold out"s on London-Edinburgh, namely increasing capacity for Edinburgh passengers significantly. The one thing it doesn't do is a later last train to Edinburgh which also seems to be direly needed when you look at loadings via the Advance fare prices (not just the Sleeper) but you can't have everything.

It would have been even more ideal if there had been three trains per hour to Edinburgh but I get that rolling stock may make that impossible. However LNER can price people around by making Newcastle and York cheaper on the terminating service which should deal with that. Obviously you can "70 minute flex" onto the one you want, but most people won't think to do that.

It does have a bit of "collateral damage" but so did the WCML PUG (Passenger UpGrade) timetable south of Rugby, but that has overall been very good for everyone bar those who live in Watford.

 

[duffield]

Am I the only person that thinks it's pretty good on the whole this timetable...

Nope, personally I like the extra connections at Grantham (coming from Nottingham)

 

[takno]

Am I the only person that thinks it's pretty good on the whole this timetable...

I think you might be the first person I've read on the forum posting a positive sentiment about anything at all so far this week! Personally I'd say the new timetable looks pretty good.

There will inevitably be problems when it's put live, and there will be some specific users who lose out. The press will inevitably paint those problems as catastrophic, and those users as the majority even if they aren't. It can't all be modelled out of the timetable in advance, and spending any more fruitless years trying to do so while not using the capacity we have carries its own costs.

 

[D1537]

There will inevitably be problems when it's put live, and there will be some specific users who lose out.

I think the problem is that those users who lose out badly will simply not use them (see, for example, Durham/Scotland). Even as a rail supporter, I'm going to have to consider whether commuting by rail is worth getting up 20 minutes earlier (and being presented with a 5-coach TPE instead of a 9-coach LNER on a busy service) .

One thing I've noticed, which I might have missed - the connections at Newcastle from the Newcastle "stoppers" to the Edinburgh service behind (and vice versa) are 5 minutes northbound and 6 minutes southbound. Are fares even going to be offered for those given that Newcastle's connection time is 8 minutes? Or are people going to be offered itineraries which involve standing around at Newcastle for 35 minutes?

 

[Twingo37175]

Am I the only person that thinks it's pretty good on the whole this timetable...

As a commuter between Doncaster and Leeds, nope. Whilst I think the overall changes are good, it feels in part at the expense of capacity. Looks like there will be more 5 carriage services post December on Leeds services, even at peak times, to which I assume pricing will kick in.

 

[xotGD]

One thing I've noticed, which I might have missed - the connections at Newcastle from the Newcastle "stoppers" to the Edinburgh service behind (and vice versa) are 5 minutes northbound and 6 minutes southbound. Are fares even going to be offered for those given that Newcastle's connection time is 8 minutes? Or are people going to be offered itineraries which involve standing around at Newcastle for 35 minutes?

That really is ridiculous.

 

[Class 170101]

The one thing it doesn't do is a later last train to Edinburgh

Perhaps not a later last train but more departures between 19:00 and 20:30 will help spread the load.
(One on Friday and two extra departures Monday to Thursday).

 

[Siemens Trains]

Perhaps not a later last train but more departures between 19:00 and 20:30 will help spread the load.
(One on Friday and two extra departures Monday to Thursday).

Just a bit annoying for me that these half hourly departures from Kings Cross effectively arrive in Edinburgh as pairs (two around 11.35pm and another two around 12.35am), in each case a few minutes after my hourly bus connection. But can't have everything and in general the new service seems to complement the sleeper pretty well.
Last time I used the Friday extended 7.30pm departure from Kings Cross, it was very quiet on the stretch from Newcastle to Edinburgh. Not sure about Lumo but that's a slightly different clientele. I'm not convinced there's healthy year-round demand to travel on LNER beyond 7pm.

 

[D1537]

That really is ridiculous.

Actually, forget half of what I said - it's the XC that's 5 minutes behind the northbound stopper. It's still the case coming south, though.

 

[800001]

That really is ridiculous.

If they made them booked connections, how many other services across the country would have to be retimed?