December 2025 East Coast Timetable

[mernrith]

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

But it can be timed way better than it currently would be - which is unacceptable from local perspective.

 

[Starmill]

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.

Let's move the Bletchley to London trains around then so they're all within 17 minutes. It would do wonders for the freight capacity we can take off the roads...

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

I'm not sure that finding the longest possible BeNeLux journey regardless of likely demand for it is really arguing in good faith. You could as well say "try saying that to someone travelling from Banbury to Dover Priory" or any other very long distance journey across the corners of the South East - they're still not intercity trains.

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

Let's move the Bletchley to London trains around then so they're all within 17 minutes. It would do wonders for the freight capacity we can take off the roads...

Bletchley-Euston off peak used to be one fast (I think it was xx46), two slows, and so almost everyone would go for the fast. It was fine, though the present timetable is better.

MKC-Euston on Avanti used to all be within 20 minutes in each hour, though I think it's a bit more spread now since the stop in the North Wales was swapped for one in the "second" Liverpool.

These are the compromises you have to have when you live on an intercity mainline. You gain in other ways, like MKC-Euston being 30-35 minutes rather than an hour from Aylesbury to Marylebone which is about two thirds of the distance.

 

[Starmill]

You could as well say "try saying that to someone travelling from Banbury to Dover Priory" or any other very long distance journey across the corners of the South East - they're still not intercity trains.

How many people do you think travel between Banbury and Dover vs between Luxembourg and Brussels or Maastricht and Amsterdam?

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

Bletchley-Euston off peak used to be one fast (I think it was xx46), two slows, and so almost everyone would go for the fast. It was fine, though the present timetable is better.

MKC-Euston on Avanti used to all be within 20 minutes in each hour, though I think it's a bit more spread now.

So nothing even remotely like a 43 minute gap then. Got it.

 

[mernrith]

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).

I would argue, that if the stopping pattern is reversed between the Edinburgh and Newcastle semi-fasts then it could save us a bit of argue - but I guess people at Donny won't be happy then...

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many people do you think travel between Banbury and Dover vs between Luxembourg and Brussels or Maastricht and Amsterdam?

Not many travel between either of those end to end. The service that runs between them is used by lots of overlapping intermediate journeys. It's more like Liverpool-Norwich (which is a string of linked regional services that is handy for a few people making through journeys) than London-Edinburgh; in the latter case a very large proportion of people are travelling end to end - so many that an entire timetable has been planned to increase capacity for them, which has led to compromises elsewhere.

So nothing even remotely like a 43 minute gap then. Got it.

The gap between Avanti services southbound from MKC was I think 41 minutes in the last timetable. There was a bit of moaning but people coped.

Bletchley-Euston was in any meaningful sense hourly because the slows took twice as long as the fasts. That's a 60 minute gap.

 

[Starmill]

The gap between Avanti services southbound from MKC was I think 41 minutes in the last timetable. There was a bit of moaning but people coped.

Bletchley-Euston was in any meaningful sense hourly because the slows took twice as long as the fasts. That's a 60 minute gap.

You're making this up now, by ignoring things that undermine your perspective. Even if you weren't, the current timetable is nothing like this.

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

Not many travel between either of those end to end. The service that runs between them is used by lots of overlapping intermediate journeys. It's more like Liverpool-Norwich (which is a string of linked regional services that is handy for a few people making through journeys) than London-Edinburgh; in the latter case a very large proportion of people are travelling end to end - so many that an entire timetable has been planned to increase capacity for them, which has led to compromises elsewhere.

It's nothing the first bit like Liverpool - Norwich. Don't be so daft. Maastricht - Enkhuizen is like that but not Maastricht - Amsterdam.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're making this up now, by ignoring things that undermine your perspective.

Nope.

Even if you weren't, the current timetable is nothing like this.

The current timetable is indeed better, yes (reflecting Bletchley's increased importance as the junction for East West Rail). But when it wasn't, people coped.

The priority on the ECML is more KX-Edinburgh capacity, and for that some others need to lose out. The one thing I think IS a problem is the Newark local connectivity (because that's making a commuting journey near enough impossible, not just making it a bit less convenient), and I think once that gets flagged up by media it will have to be dealt with in some way by tweaking with what stops where or fiddling with permitted routes to allow a double back.

Crikey, you'd think people were proposing closing stations as per the West Coast Route Modernisation*, not just fiddling with their service a bit.

* Barlaston, Wedgwood, Etruria and to all intents and purposes Polesworth. Plus of course the huge number Beeching took out that would still be open now if they weren't on a mainline like Garstang and Catteral.

 

[Starmill]

Nope.



The current timetable is indeed better, yes (reflecting Bletchley's increased importance as the junction for East West Rail). But when it wasn't, people coped.

The priority on the ECML is more KX-Edinburgh capacity, and for that some others need to lose out. The one thing I think IS a problem is the Newark local connectivity (because that's making a commuting journey near enough impossible, not just making it a bit less convenient), and I think once that gets flagged up by media it will have to be dealt with in some way by tweaking with what stops where or fiddling with permitted routes to allow a double back.

Crikey, you'd think people were proposing closing stations as per the West Coast Route Modernisation, not just fiddling with their service a bit.

I was pointing out that your comparison is entirely flawed. I'm afraid it still is. Newark local connectivity is indeed useless, however, it's so bad for public transport around there anyway that 99% of people will have car access. Car access into Newcastle city centre is much, much more important to prevent than car access into Grantham town centre from Newark.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was pointing out that your comparison is entirely flawed. I'm afraid it still is. Newark local connectivity is indeed useless, however, it's so bad for public transport around there anyway that 99% of people will have car access. Car access into Newcastle city centre is much, much more important to prevent than car access into Grantham town centre from Newark.

I would agree with that, but nothing in the new timetable is preventing people from travelling between Durham and Newcastle. It's a bit less convenient in terms of timings, that's all, but only a bit. It's probably no more significant than the drop to hourly on Aylesbury-Marylebone during the day and on weekends, which has by and large been a non-event and not caused a huge number of people to drive to London.

 

[mityellow]

It's 47 minutes between arrivals into Newcastle compared to what is normally around 31 minutes now (varies throughout the day, noted that some hours are longer - people have been complaining about those gaps for far longer than just this consultation period). That's a reasonably big difference. Will people who have to cope survive - obviously yes, but there will be many who just use their cars on already congested roads or choose to live elsewhere (already know of people who've chosen not to live in Durham because of the gaps in the train times for commuting to Newcastle). People who know more about timetabling than me have suggested that the decision is not due to infrastructure but due to a commercial decision - that is what is particularly frustrating, surely we should be trying to support the North East working as an economic unit rather than just enhancing Newcastle to London?

Also, if the trains are often 5 carriages I really can't see there being more seats available than now when boarding at Durham for Newcastle even with it not continuing to Edinburgh.

 

[Starmill]

I would agree with that, but nothing in the new timetable is preventing people from travelling between Durham and Newcastle.

Then I am afraid you entirely misunderstand human psychology. If you get to the station in Durham at the time your local bus arrives, or when you need need to around your other non-negotiable life commitments like school or family life etc and it's 5 minutes too late for the last fast train in the flight, are you going to think "Oh well, I don't mind so much a 38 minute wait on this platform doing nothing while I watch all the other people get their faster services because that's what's more convenient for the Treasury and the company." or are you going to think "bloody railway, why is it so rubbish? I wish I didn't have to use the trains, they charge me all this money for tickets then can't be bothered to provide frequent service". Rinse and repeat for the inverse e.g. if your boss scolds you for being late and you know you need to be in for a particular time in the city centre, are you going to leave over half an hour earlier? There's absolutely no way I'd wait 38 minutes for a train for that journey frankly, I'd switch to driving, as car parking costs about the same as a train ticket anyway.

 

[mernrith]

It's 47 minutes between arrivals into Newcastle compared to what is normally around 31 minutes now (varies throughout the day, noted that some hours are longer - people have been complaining about those gaps for far longer than just this consultation period). That's a reasonably big difference. Will people who have to cope survive - obviously yes, but there will be many who just use their cars on already congested roads or choose to live elsewhere (already know of people who've chosen not to live in Durham because of the gaps in the train times for commuting to Newcastle). People who know more about timetabling than me have suggested that the decision is not due to infrastructure but due to a commercial decision - that is what is particularly frustrating, surely we should be trying to support the North East working as an economic unit rather than just enhancing Newcastle to London?

Also, if the trains are often 5 carriages I really can't see there being more seats available than now when boarding at Durham for Newcastle even with it not continuing to Edinburgh.

The current semi-fasts aren't that fully loaded and a lot of traffic do carry on towards Edinburgh. The largest flow for Newcastle is indeed Darlington and Durham - I do think it's appropriate for a 5 car, just the timings are trash.

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

I would agree with that, but nothing in the new timetable is preventing people from travelling between Durham and Newcastle. It's a bit less convenient in terms of timings, that's all, but only a bit. It's probably no more significant than the drop to hourly on Aylesbury-Marylebone during the day and on weekends, which has by and large been a non-event and not caused a huge number of people to drive to London.

With a bus that could take people to Newcastle faster than the next train could, I think a lot of people wouldn't bother chosing the train anymore - not everyone remembers the timetable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then I am afraid you entirely misunderstand human psychology. If you get to the station in Durham at the time your local bus arrives, or when you need need to around your other non-negotiable life commitments like school or family life etc and it's 5 minutes too late for the last fast train in the flight, are you going to think "Oh well, I don't mind so much a 38 minute wait on this platform doing nothing while I watch all the other people get their faster services because that's what's more convenient for the Treasury and the company." or are you going to think "bloody railway, why is it so rubbish? I wish I didn't have to use the trains, they charge me all this money for tickets then can't be bothered to provide frequent service". Rinse and repeat for the inverse e.g. if your boss scolds you for being late and you know you need to be in for a particular time in the city centre, are you going to leave over half an hour earlier? There's absolutely no way I'd wait 38 minutes for a train for that journey frankly, I'd switch to driving, as car parking costs about the same as a train ticket anyway.

Nobody in their right mind goes to the station randomly for a train service that is less frequent than every 15 minutes or so. They use a timetable (on their phone most likely).

If bus services are primarily about going to catch trains, they should be revised when the train timetable changes. It works that way round in most civilised countries with properly integrated transport networks. But that would be an issue even if you just shifted the present times by say 15 minutes.

In the end IC mainline timetables are a compromise, and this isn't the only one (see also for instance Wigan-Warrington being only hourly when it could do with being better). The IC passengers, greater in number and revenue, take precedence.

 

[Starmill]

Nobody in their right mind goes to the station randomly for a train service that is less frequent than every 15 minutes or so. They use a timetable (on their phone most likely).

If bus services are primarily about going to catch trains, they should be revised when the train timetable changes. It works that way round in most civilised countries with properly integrated transport networks. But that would be an issue even if you just shifted the present times by say 15 minutes.

You just can't accept that the UK fits the traditional Irish / British / Benelux approach well can you? It fits the French / German approaches rather poorly. It must be so frustrating for you to see everything through that lens, when it's very rarely applied.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You just can't accept that the UK fits the traditional Irish / British / Benelux approach well can you? It fits the French / German approaches rather poorly.

The place where it largely does fit the French/German approach is the WCML and ECML main services, though, and this timetable is no exception. We're talking about the ECML, and specifically about LNER services which are primarily for long distance passengers. We're not talking about TPE or the GW Bristols or the Norwich ICs where things are more blurred.

 

[mernrith]

The place where it largely does fit the French/German approach is the WCML and ECML main services, though, and this timetable is no exception. We're talking about the ECML, and specifically about LNER services which are primarily for long distance passengers. We're not talking about TPE or the GW Bristols or the Norwich ICs where things are more blurred.

But LNER has to deal with local passengers as well, at least for Durham-Newcastle where it provides the largest capacity (and the most reliable service)...

 

[Starmill]

The place where it largely does fit the French/German approach is the WCML and ECML main services, though, and this timetable is no exception. We're talking about the ECML, and specifically about LNER services which are primarily for long distance passengers. We're not talking about TPE or the GW Bristols or the Norwich ICs where things are more blurred.

But the difference is that the French built different lines for this. The Germans built some new lines and four tracked others.

I always see you arguing for this kind of restriction. I note you're not arguing for a high-speed bypass of Durham, nor four tracking. And you outright rejected a suggestion for the Metro to run to Durham. Any of which would give you what you want.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But LNER has to deal with local passengers as well, at least for Durham-Newcastle where it provides the largest capacity (and the most reliable service)...

And it still will. Just a little bit less conveniently in terms of the timetable.

But the difference is that the French built different lines for this. The Germans built some new lines and four tracked others.

I always see you arguing for this kind of restriction. I note you're not arguing for a high-speed bypass of Durham, nor four tracking. And you outright rejected a suggestion for the Metro to run to Durham. Any of which would give you what you want.

I'm not arguing for LNER to stop carrying Durham-Newcastle passengers, I'm just saying the planned timetable is probably the best use of resources.

I am in favour of LNER stopping carrying London-Stevenage passengers, as they plan to do, because there is an alternative there as per the German model - GTR.

 

[Twingo37175]

But LNER has to deal with local passengers as well, at least for Durham-Newcastle where it provides the largest capacity (and the most reliable service)...

I would add that Doncaster to Leeds will also be impacted, not to the same extent, but will also have fewer "big" trains. Currently I think there are 5 services planned to operate through day as 5 carriage being 4 of the Harrogate workings plus an early morning out of KGX and 19.16 back from Leeds. This changes much more in the new timetable being that the class 91 operated services will drop 2 carriages and also more 5 carriage services than now. I note the LNER announcement of more services, which is good, but it feels at the expense of capacity (outside of London to Edinburgh)

 

[Starmill]

And it still will. Just a little bit less conveniently in terms of the timetable.



I'm not arguing for LNER to stop carrying Durham-Newcastle passengers, I'm just saying the planned timetable is probably the best use of resources.

I am in favour of LNER stopping carrying London-Stevenage passengers, because there is an alternative there as per the German model - GTR.

Most of the commuting goes on the two other operators anyway. The problem isn't LNER, the problem is that LNER has pushed out the possibility for any other stopping trains. See also the long-promised service to Middlesbrough and the freight.

 

[D6130]

I would add that Doncaster to Leeds will also be impacted, not to the same extent, but will also have fewer "big" trains. Currently I think there are 5 services planned to operate through day as 5 carriage being 4 of the Harrogate workings plus an early morning out of KGX and 19.16 back from Leeds. This changes much more in the new timetable being that the class 91 operated services will drop 2 carriages and also more 5 carriage services than now. I note the LNER announcement of more services, which is good, but it feels at the expense of capacity (outside of London to Edinburgh)

One beneficiary of the new timetable could be the micropub on the Northbound platform at Durham. I believe they already open in the morning for teas, coffees and snacks. Full English anyone?

 

[800001]

Most of the commuting goes on the two other operators anyway. The problem isn't LNER, the problem is that LNER has pushed out the possibility for any other stopping trains. See also the long-promised service to Middlesbrough and the freight.

Thought Middlesbrough extra services can not happen until the new platform 3 is built, and also the extra CAF units are here?

 

[Starmill]

Thought Middlesbrough extra services can not happen until the new platform 3 is built, and also the extra CAF units are here?

I was referring to the previously promised service from Newcastle and Durham. This has been abandoned and the new timetable would make it all but impossible to offer.

 

[800001]

I was referring to the previously promised service from Newcastle and Durham. This has been abandoned and the new timetable would make it all but impossible to offer.

And I was referring to your comment about Middlesbrough.

 

[mernrith]

I would add that Doncaster to Leeds will also be impacted, not to the same extent, but will also have fewer "big" trains. Currently I think there are 5 services planned to operate through day as 5 carriage being 4 of the Harrogate workings plus an early morning out of KGX and 19.16 back from Leeds. This changes much more in the new timetable being that the class 91 operated services will drop 2 carriages and also more 5 carriage services than now. I note the LNER announcement of more services, which is good, but it feels at the expense of capacity (outside of London to Edinburgh)

As someone from Durham, I'd say that going to London seems better : quicker service and supposedly emptier trains.
Yet everything else, regarding intercity or local is in shambles - poor timing northbound, reduction of service to Edinburgh, just to name two major ones.

Newcastle would also get two Edinburgh LNERs within 8 minutes (stopper at sharp and flights at XX:09)

I do insist that if the proposed Newcastle semi-fast to be extended to Berwick and Edinburgh, while the Edinburgh stopper terminates at Newcastle it could be less controversial though...

 

[Starmill]

And I was referring to your comment about Middlesbrough.

Yes nothing has changed since then. It's still a service from Newcastle via Durham to Middlesbrough (or rather the absence of it).

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

I'd say that going to London seems better : quicker service and supposedly emptier trains.

I wouldn't count on the latter until you see the formation in person. Obviously it will be meaningful improvement on the 9/10 car services, as you say.

 

[800001]

Yes nothing has changed since then. It's still a service from Newcastle via Durham to Middlesbrough (or rather the absence of it).

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


I wouldn't count on the latter until you see the formation in person. Obviously it will be meaningful improvement on the 9/10 car services, as you say.

I think there is crossed wires, as your comment about Middlesbrough was in with your comment about LNER services, I thought you were referring to Middlesbrough to KGX, apologies.

 

[Starmill]

I think there is crossed wires, as your comment about Middlesbrough was in with your comment about LNER services, I thought you were referring to Middlesbrough to KGX, apologies.

No problem. It is still relevant. What I mean is that the new timetable enables the London - Edinburgh services to get slightly faster, and therefore this would make any future introduction of the long-promised direct services between Durham and Middlesbrough all but impossible. However, the latter have been in effect abandoned for a while now.

 

[Peterthegreat]

As someone from Durham, I'd say that going to London seems better : quicker service and supposedly emptier trains.
Yet everything else, regarding intercity or local is in shambles - poor timing northbound, reduction of service to Edinburgh, just to name two major ones.

Newcastle would also get two Edinburgh LNERs within 8 minutes (stopper at sharp and flights at XX:09)

I do insist that if the proposed Newcastle semi-fast to be extended to Berwick and Edinburgh, while the Edinburgh stopper terminates at Newcastle it could be less controversial though...

That would leave no services from Peterbrough, Newark and Doncaster to Scotland!