December 2025 East Coast Timetable

[800001]

But badly spaced out - not much good saying 3.5 an hour is good when there are more than 30 minute gaps in there.

Exactly this! And with such a frequent/decent bus service into the centre of Newcastle. Many people will transfer to the bus.

Maybe that's what LNER want, get rid of short distance customers so more space for long distance.

 

[3RDGEN]

But badly spaced out - not much good saying 3.5 an hour is good when there are more than 30 minute gaps in there.

The current daytime northbound service has 30 minute gaps in the second half of the hour, 0932 - 0955, 1024 - 1103, 1128 - 1157, 1222 - 1303. RTT shows freight paths in the second half of the hour so that limits what you can run, similar to the bunching of passenger services north of Preston.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe that's what LNER want, get rid of short distance customers so more space for long distance.

I think that's exactly what they want, yes. Filling a long distance service up with short distance travellers isn't an efficient way to use capacity. In many other countries the IC service wouldn't carry local passengers or would only do so at a hefty extra cost for those who really insisted.

This is all the more important when you have fake compulsory reservations as selling a seat from Kings X to Stevenage prevents you selling it from KX to Edinburgh. Though I think the reservations system is these days intelligent enough to allow LNER to sell only counted places for the former and keep the actual seat reservations for the latter?

They also I guess want to reduce the ability to split.

 

[takno]

Exactly this! And with such a frequent/decent bus service into the centre of Newcastle. Many people will transfer to the bus.

Maybe that's what LNER want, get rid of short distance customers so more space for long distance.

Is that a particular problem? In an ideal world there would be more railway between the two and the ability to run local services, but we just have the constrained double track that we do. Letting people on shorter journeys spill onto the next-most-efficient form of transport so that it's possible to transport more long-distance passengers makes perfect sense.

 

[800001]

Is that a particular problem? In an ideal world there would be more railway between the two and the ability to run local services, but we just have the constrained double track that we do. Letting people on shorter journeys spill onto the next-most-efficient form of transport so that it's possible to transport more long-distance passengers makes perfect sense.

Yes for the people of Durham where a 10 minute train journey becomes a 30-40 minute bus ride.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

LNER withdrawing its services from London - Stevenage journeys is confirmed but relatively hidden on the Stevenage specific page.

Can’t see it mentioned anywhere else, or any explanation for why they are doing it

Common sense here from LNER!

 

[mernrith]

Is that a particular problem? In an ideal world there would be more railway between the two and the ability to run local services, but we just have the constrained double track that we do. Letting people on shorter journeys spill onto the next-most-efficient form of transport so that it's possible to transport more long-distance passengers makes perfect sense.

People really think that removing 557k trips (or 1528 people daily) from rail and trains that ain't full towards roads where the A1(M) between Durham and Newcastle is constantly congested is a good move. Interesting especially when the country yaps about decarbonization and promotes rail usage.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Is that a particular problem? In an ideal world there would be more railway between the two and the ability to run local services, but we just have the constrained double track that we do.

The railway isn't constrained, though, it is simply that LNER have made the decision to not stop the trains which leave Kings Cross at xx03 at Durham, where they pass at xx48. There is no good reason for this, as even with the stop they would stay in front of the trains which leave Kings Cross at xx30 and only stop at York.

The standard northbound pattern will be xx07, xx20, xx24, then nothing till xx07. a 43-minute gap between trains simply isn't good enough.

But, as always, the brains trust at LNER know best.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is the reason for not doing so one of capacity rather than speed?

 

[mernrith]

Yes for the people of Durham where a 10 minute train journey becomes a 30-40 minute bus ride.

18 mins at most by rail vs at least 50mins on X21. But I do think a lot of people will move towards bus should they not drive.

 

[Class15]

So now services are going to be cancelled to avoid the 225 set doing the Newcastle service. I wonder why the 225 set can’t simply go to Newcastle?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Is the reason for not doing so one of capacity rather than speed?

Rail capacity? There's nothing between the KGX-EDB semi-fast at xx48 and the KGX-EDB fast at xx56. Plenty of space to put the Durham call in, especially as in the down direction Durham is on a loop.

The LNER changes are, in general, imbecilic though. XC suffer from chronic overcrowding yet they will be the main long-distance operator at both Durham and Berwick, meanwhile LNER's high capacity Azumas fly through without stopping.

The changes make absolutely zero sense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Rail capacity?

No, passenger capacity. The main aim of this timetable is to increase passenger capacity for the underserved London-Edinburgh market without requiring HS2.

 

[mernrith]

The railway isn't constrained, though, it is simply that LNER have made the decision to not stop the trains which leave Kings Cross at xx03 at Durham, where they pass at xx48. There is no good reason for this, as even with the stop they would stay in front of the trains which leave Kings Cross at xx30 and only stop at York.

The standard northbound pattern will be xx07, xx20, xx24, then nothing till xx07. a 43-minute gap between trains simply isn't good enough.

But, as always, the brains trust at LNER know best.

I guess the choice for where the semi-express calls at is made between Darlo and Durham - only in terms of rail connectivity towards the Tees valley and time loss due to accelerate and decelerate, Darlington might be a better option.

 

[Starmill]

Probably because they have LNER only tickets for the journey. Which won’t be available in future.

I don't know. There were a lot of people who used East Coast when those weren't available. Especially for the 1733 from London.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No, passenger capacity. The main aim of this timetable is to increase passenger capacity for the underserved London-Edinburgh market without requiring HS2.

The Durham call makes absolutely no difference to that. It's 12 minutes, in my experience most people don't even bother taking a seat for that journey. I often didn't.

And if it was passenger capacity, dumping more local passengers on the chronically overcrowded XC seems a particulary dumb thing to do.

I guess the choice for where the semi-express calls at is made between Darlo and Durham - only in terms of rail connectivity towards the Tees valley and time loss due to accelerate and decelerate, Darlington might be a better option.

There's time for both calls to happen- the time loss for a call at Durham is about five minutes, and there is 8-10 minutes between the semi-fast and the fast. The decision has clearly been made that LNER don't want to serve Durham.

The same issue seems to be affecting Berwick, where having had 2tph to Edinburgh and Newcastle for as long as anyone can remember, suddenly there is now an hour-long gap in the middle of the afternoon heading north.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Durham call makes absolutely no difference to that. It's 12 minutes, in my experience most people don't even bother taking a seat for that journey. I often didn't.

Is it more not wanting it to carry London-Durham passengers on those specific services? Though they could control that to a fair extent by not offering any Advances for that journey on those trains, particularly once the "trial" rolls out to that journey - who's going to pay £200 to go to Durham on that train when it's £100 on the Newcastle semifast? But someone who REALLY wants to has the option to.

My impression is that LNER very much want intermediate passengers to use the Newcastle and York semi fasts and keep the faster services free for lucrative and numerous KX-Edinburgh passengers.

 

[Starmill]

In many other countries the IC service wouldn't carry local passengers or would only do so at a hefty extra cost for those who really insisted.

Maybe. But long-distance domestic trains in Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, UK, Ireland (you get the picture...) are mainly about carrying medium and short distance passengers. This one fast LNER service is an unusual outlier.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Is it more not wanting it to carry London-Durham passengers on those specific services?

The KGX-EDB semi-fast isn't going to be as attractive to London-Edinburgh passengers though, as it is nearly half an hour slower than the following fast train which only calls at York. So it comes down to pricing- people will only take the semi-fast if it is cheaper. And if needs to be cheaper to get people on to it then there's no need to shaft Durham passengers.

The semi-fast calls at all the major intermediate stations- Durham is the only one it doesn't call at.

As you say, with no off-peak tickets it's much easier to manage with Advance pricing.

 

[Starmill]

Filling a long distance service up with short distance travellers isn't an efficient way to use capacity.

Actually, it is very, very efficient. It's purely not to your liking.

It's vastly more efficient than, say, extending the Tyne & Wear Metro to Durham. That'd be several tens of billions of pounds of capital expenditure. Stopping more long-distance trains at Durham only risks trivial revenue per year on the long-distance market by comparison with that cost.

 

[Bald Rick]

Durham - Newcastle. I must be missing something.

In the current timetable there are 69 trains/day on weekdays, 31 of which go beyond Newcastle and are therefore busy. In the new timetable 64 trains/day, of which only 18 go beyond Newcastle and therefore likely to be less busy. In the other direction it is 67 today, 64 in future.

In the current timetable the pattern to Newcastle off peak is typically
Even hours: 3 trains in 17 mins then a 41 minute gap
Odd hours: 4 trains in 25 mins then a 29 minute gap.
(Some variations)

In the new timetable the pattern to Newcastle off peak will be typically
Every hour: 3 or 4 trains in 17 minutes, then a 43 minute gap.

How is this a significant worsening of service to Newcastle?

It seems to me that most people travelling Durham to Newcastle, simply won’t notice, except they will be more likely to get a seat, which is surely a good thing?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As you say, with no off-peak tickets it's much easier to manage with Advance pricing.

I'd almost go as far as to say* that this timetable with its disparate calling patterns and 5 car sets would only work properly with the "trial" fully in place. If a lot of people were travelling walk-up (which on LNER they're not, even pre-"trial") it would result in overcrowding on quite a number of services and would call for a rather different timetabling and diagramming approach not in scope of this thread.

* Without supporting the scheme of course.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Sep 2025 ==

Actually, it is very, very efficient. It's purely not to your liking.

It's vastly more efficient than, say, extending the Tyne & Wear Metro to Durham. That'd be several tens of billions of pounds of capital expenditure. Stopping more long-distance trains at Durham only risks trivial revenue per year on the long-distance market by comparison with that cost.

Who's proposing doing that? I'm certainly not (and it's not a speculative thread even if I was!)

 

[Tetchytyke]

How is this a significant worsening of service to Newcastle?

How else would you describe increasing the gap in trains from 29 minutes to 43 minutes? (There is currently only the difference between odd hours and even hours because XC still can't/won't go back to hourly for Newcastle-Reading).

At least LNER saw sense and put the morning peak train back in. The original plan was a 43-minute gap right in the morning peak!

 

[mernrith]

Is it more not wanting it to carry London-Durham passengers on those specific services? Though they could control that to a fair extent by not offering any Advances for that journey on those trains, particularly once the "trial" rolls out to that journey - who's going to pay £200 to go to Durham on that train when it's £100 on the Newcastle semifast? But someone who REALLY wants to has the option to.

My impression is that LNER very much want intermediate passengers to use the Newcastle and York semi fasts and keep the faster services free for lucrative and numerous KX-Edinburgh passengers.

The current semi-fasts are less loaded before they call at Durham than it would be afterwards. Edinburgh is a rather popular destination (which frequency would be halved unfortunately), and, be aware - the semi-fasts aren't attractive for KGX-EDI when fasts exist.

 

[Bletchleyite]

be aware - the semi-fasts aren't attractive for KGX-EDI when fasts exist.

They aren't, but they're key to the extra capacity, with Advances used to price people onto them. (If you look at LNER's pricing now, the faster Edinburgh is typically about £20 more expensive than the slower one).

 

[Starmill]

Who's proposing doing that? I'm certainly not (and it's not a speculative thread even if I was!)

So your solution is what? All passengers between Durham and Newcastle use long-distance services, except for the two Northern two cars per day, which can be ignored as a rounding error for the capacity they offer. Essentially by your attempt to apply German or French practice you're implying that we'd build a tramway or u-bahn parallel to the mainline. But if that's not on the table the only option is to continue to accept the usual Belgian/Dutch/Irish/British practice of commuters on the same trains as long-haulers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So your solution is what?

The one LNER are actually doing - put them on the Newcastle semifast rather than either Edinburgh.

All passengers between Durham and Newcastle use long-distance services, except for the two Northern two cars per day, which can be ignored as a rounding error for the capacity they offer. Essentially by your attempt to apply German or French practice you're implying that we'd build a tramway or u-bahn parallel to the mainline. But if that's not on the table the only option is to continue to accept the usual Belgian/Dutch/Irish/British practice of commuters on the same trains as long-haulers.

That comment was referring to Stevenage to be fair, not Durham. The answer there is, again as LNER are doing, to put them on GTR services.

Belgium and the Netherlands are not, by the way, a valid comparison, because their networks are the size of the South East of England and don't really have long distance trains bar a few into Germany and France. A Belgian or Dutch IC is really no different from a fast Northampton or the Brighton Express, neither of which are intercity trains.

 

[Starmill]

How else would you describe increasing the gap in trains from 29 minutes to 43 minutes? (There is currently only the difference between odd hours and even hours because XC still can't/won't go back to hourly for Newcastle-Reading).

At least LNER saw sense and put the morning peak train back in. The original plan was a 43-minute gap right in the morning peak!

Indeed. Entirely agreed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Sep 2025 ==

The one LNER are actually doing - put them on the Newcastle semifast rather than either Edinburgh.

The 43 minute gap is clearly entirely unacceptable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 43 minute gap is clearly entirely unacceptable.

It might be a bit annoying or a bit of unfortunate collateral damage, but I think calling it entirely unacceptable is a bit much. Though I suppose there are options like adding the stop but not offering any Advances between London and Durham on those trains at all, so you can do that journey but it will be swingeingly expensive.

 

[Starmill]

Belgium and the Netherlands are not, by the way, a valid comparison, because their networks are the size of the South East of England and don't really have long distance trains bar a few into Germany and France. A Belgian or Dutch IC is really no different from a fast Northampton or the Brighton Express, neither of which are intercity trains.

Try saying that to someone travelling between Masstricht and Amsterdam and we'll see how you get on.