December 2025 East Coast Timetable

[Kite159]

What a load of nonsense. The idea that LUMOs existence affects KX to Leeds fares is laughable. In fact I'd argue it doesn't even affect their Anglo-Scottish fares, as LUMO quite clearly undercuts LNER thanks to it's significantly lower OpEx due to running DCO, amongst other things.

The fares system is broken, don't get me wrong. But a handful of extra five car services are not going to change that. If we want improved fares on the railway, we need increased capacity (supply) to match the already high demand. For the York & Newcastle, this is one of the things the ESG timetable does well. Hopefully, 2.5tph to Leeds can be achieved next.

Lumo doesn't, but Grand Central does. And LNER would love to get rid of all the open access operators which offers competition to lower prices.

 

[cuccir]

For us poor unfortunates from Northallerton, though, we're now dependent on that flaky TPE as the first LNER service to Newcastle is at 8.49. It surely wouldn't have broken the timetable to stop 1S02 at Northallerton (as its equivalent 1S01 does now), it starts at Doncaster and there's literally sod all going north at that time.

I'd say get your local MP on it like people in Durham did, but, err....

 

[43 302]

Lumo doesn't, but Grand Central does. And LNER would love to get rid of all the open access operators which offers competition to lower prices.

The idea that Grand Centrals existence affects KX to Leeds fares is laughable. Four five car trains that, oh wait, do not call at Leeds, which is by far the most popular destination.

 

[D1537]

I'd say get your local MP on it like people in Durham did, but, err....

"So, it's about as quick as one of your helicopters, except it doesn't fly and you can fit lots of people on it..." *blank stare*

 

[YorksLad12]

Ah brilliant, thanks. That's definitely better for WYorks then it sounded - thought I had it wrong!

• 225s - 15 services
• 10-car Azuma - 4 services
• 9-car Azuma 800/1 - 13 services
• 9-car Azuma 801/2 - 19 services
• 5-car Azuma - 15 services

All of the Harrogates are 9-car 800/1s, because they interwork with KGX-ABD/INV diagrams, except 1D11/1A25 which is definitely a 5-car 800/2 (it forms half of a 10-car later on in the diagram).

The temporarily "missing" Harrogate diagram is also a 9-car.

It's fine, unless the train you want is now 5 instead of 7, 9 or 10. I remember the 1803 London to Leeds being 5 cars as it came off a Lincoln turn. It was... busy. Pre-pandemic you'd get standing passengers as for as Peterborough when it was a 9-car 225.

 

[Kite159]

The idea that Grand Centrals existence affects KX to Leeds fares is laughable. Four five car trains that, oh wait, do not call at Leeds, which is by far the most popular destination.

Where they don't call at Leeds they call at Doncaster & Wakefield.

When it can be cheaper to split a London to Leeds journey at Wakefield with an advance London to/from Wakefield with a regular offpeak single between Wakefield & Leeds as LNER have charged a £10 premium for London to Leeds (compared to London to Wakefield because that Leeds train has run close to the departure time of a Grand Central service). Now if that GC service didn't exist then London to Wakefield would likely be the same price as London to Leeds (which knowing LNER would probably be a higher price overall)

Similar with Doncaster having competition with Hull Trains, similar London to Grantham, not so much with Retford owing to the more limited timetable.

But according to yourself open access operators can all just disappear as they don't add anything to the railway, and fares increased for the general public.

 

[43 302]

Where they don't call at Leeds they call at Doncaster & Wakefield.

When it can be cheaper to split a London to Leeds journey at Wakefield with an advance London to/from Wakefield with a regular offpeak single between Wakefield & Leeds as LNER have charged a £10 premium for London to Leeds (compared to London to Wakefield because that Leeds train has run close to the departure time of a Grand Central service). Now if that GC service didn't exist then London to Wakefield would likely be the same price as London to Leeds (which knowing LNER would probably be a higher price overall)

Similar with Doncaster having competition with Hull Trains, similar London to Grantham, not so much with Retford owing to the more limited timetable.

But according to yourself open access operators can all just disappear as they don't add anything to the railway, and fares increased for the general public.

Quite correct on that last point. Open access should be done away with on any stretch of railway that is above 70% capacity.

Open access only provides benefits to the general public where services are massively below the possible capacity, for example through the channel tunnel.

Thankfully Whitehall has seen sense and has blocked all applications for the WCML.

 

[D1537]

It's fine, unless the train you want is now 5 instead of 7, 9 or 10. I remember the 1803 London to Leeds being 5 cars as it came off a Lincoln turn. It was... busy. Pre-pandemic you'd get standing passengers as for as Peterborough when it was a 9-car 225.

This timetable does pretty much avoid 5-cars on peak time Leeds trains. 1D24 (1708 KGX-LDS) is the only one I can see around the peak times (morning and afternoon).

 

[Bletchleyite]

This timetable does pretty much avoid 5-cars on peak time Leeds trains. 1D24 (1708 KGX-LDS) is the only one I can see around the peak times (morning and afternoon).

And even without the fares trial it'll be easy to price people off in the peaks as there is no Super Off Peak at that time anyway.

 

[H F Stephens]

On the Durham issue, worth noting that LNER have reinstated the 08:22 (now at 08:24) which makes a huge difference for commuters (such as me!).

Except that it's not at 08:24, despite what it says in the press release, on the timetable microsite narrative and repeated verbatim by news outlets.

Credit to LNER for actually doing that. When I saw the gap in the draft timetable I had a horrible feeling that either the gap would remain or that the gap would be filled with a 2-carriage Northern service (as many of the other early trains are).

The actual 'replacement' service, per the actual timetable, linked to from the timetable microsite with the erroneous narrative, is at 08:27 from Durham.

So, it's not departing two minutes later than the current service; it's going to depart five minutes later:



The above extract from the now-published timetable shows timings of the service, departing Darlington at 08:08 and Durham at 08:27, not 08:24 from the latter.

Quite why Network Rail should claim 08:24 so boldly is open to speculation.

So, three minutes or five minutes may seem pretty marginal, especially to the remote commentators, however the current 08:22 from Durham arrives at 08:36 into Newcastle.

The 'replacement' will arrive at 08:44, so that's now eight minutes later on the critical arrival timing - for some of those with work and study commitments commencing at 09:00, this will be compromising and will do little to maintain passenger numbers, let alone drive modal shift from the A1 road corridor.

The fact that the stock for this service will run ECS from Heaton to form the Northbound service does not inspire confidence that it will not also be a prime candidate for cancellation during disruption.

The above should take nothing away from the hard work undertaken by local campaigners and the Durham City MP to get something salvaged from the mess.

Meanwhile, the whole timetable relies on 90 second dwells for LNER services.

Empirically, the fastest achieved is about 67 seconds when lightly loaded, but as soon as a bike or wheelchair boarding or alighting has to be accommodated, the dwell sails well over 90 seconds.

The particularly heavy luggage loads on the route add further time pressure - again especially at Durham at the country end of the down platform, which is extremely narrow.

Meanwhile, the assertion that CrossCountry will provide a meaningful alternative for Durham to Edinburgh flows is specious at best.

Quite apart from (although directly connected to) physical capacity, CrossCountry Advance fares are generally, in practice, in the region of double those of LNER between Durham and Edinburgh, which will not go unnoticed.

Slightly OT, but undoubtedly part of the underlying problem is actually CrossCountry, but at places like Northallerton, Durham and Berwick, it's LNER that's actively complicit in making things worse.

The closeness to Darlington and Newcastle would be okay if there was something like a half-hourly EMU service connecting them all, but there isn’t. Relying on XC is problematic as they don’t provide much capacity, what capacity they do have is shared with the longer distance passengers, their services can’t readily be lengthened just to cater for specific short-distance flows, and being long-distance their timekeeping is always going to be risky.

The above is key, but one of the reasons that a frequent EMU service isn't possible is because of the line between York and Newcastle being cluttered up with short, low-capacity diesel Voyagers which are subject to high levels of late running, running end to end routes which have next to no end to end customers.

The fact is that those making journeys from Edinburgh to Bristol, or Newcastle to Plymouth, or Dundee to Penzance do not require or desire hourly service; three nine-coach high-quality trains a day in each direction would probably do it as a baseline for those customers (and might even grow the market slightly given the significant upgrade that an IET could be from a Voyager).

That could free paths to start making York > Northallerton > Darlington > [Ferryhill] > Durham > Chester-le-Street > Newcastle (and potentially even beyond towards the likes of Hexham or Morpeth, or from Teesside) a meaningful contributor to intra North East connectivity.

That's before even thinking about what the Leamside could offer in terms of diverting some services, the potential for Consett and even reinstating the Seahouses branch as, effectively, a remunerative turn back siding to further increase the opportunity to increase low-carbon service regularity and frequency to growing areas North of Newcastle and relieving the (still single-carriageway in parts, and repeatedly spurned for investment) A1.

Slightly OT, but the clear obsession with London to Edinburgh flows also seems to persistently ignore just how many passengers on the busiest services are travelling on Eurail/BritRail passes, while domestic passengers are being increasingly punitively charged.

Indeed, it may well even be argued that the implications of the current East Coast strategy are just small further nudges that some feel towards being marginalised or ignored by national politicians and institutions.

And we can see where that's leading in places like Durham.....

 

[A S Leib]

Slightly OT, but the clear obsession with London to Edinburgh flows also seems to persistently ignore just how many passengers on the busiest services are travelling on Eurail/BritRail passes, while domestic passengers are being increasingly punitively charged.

I wonder how BritRail / one-country GB Eu/Interrail pass sales compare with global Interrail passes used in the UK. At £1068 for a three month first class global pass, I can't imagine National Rail getting more than ~£100 at the absolute most per pass sold, which is considerably less for the whole of GB (or more) than what is often paid just for London to Edinburgh and back.

 

[800001]

Though the arrival of the CAF stock (which is both longer than and able to be diagrammed more intensively than the Mk4s remaining) will solve this, no? Indeed presumably that's why this was ordered?

Yes, in 2-3 years time. But that is still a determination in capacity until that time

 

[Allwinter_Kit]

Aware that we're veering unto speculative territory but is the eventual plan (roughly) that Azumas would do Edinburgh - Newcastle - York - London runs and CAFs do Leeds - London (in general) or will they all be intermixing and intermingled throughout? Or do we just not know that yet?

 

[Tetchytyke]

But according to yourself open access operators can all just disappear as they don't add anything to the railway, and fares increased for the general public.

I don't think the OA operators have a significant impact on the fares that LNER charge, other than LNER perhaps putting a larger quota of advance tickets on the trains either side of an OA departure.

But the revenue abstraction impact is disproportionate, because that is revenue that would otherwise be going to LNER. Not to mention the timetabling impact.

I'm not against OA per se, my issue with OA is that the entire timetable seems to be being built around accommodating the limited OA paths. I have no issue with OA where genuine new journey opportunities are being created, as with Hull Trains. Lumo doesn't create anything new (unless you consider a blue IET to be materially different to a red IET), yet the Lumo paths have cited in this thread as the reason why Durham-Newcastle now has an utterly useless 5/5/5/45 frequency.

 

[43 302]

Aware that we're veering unto speculative territory but is the eventual plan (roughly) that Azumas would do Edinburgh - Newcastle - York - London runs and CAFs do Leeds - London (in general) or will they all be intermixing and intermingled throughout? Or do we just not know that yet?

No one knows. I expect them to be prioritised on Harrogate, and Scottish services beyond Edinburgh, to make the most of the diesel and battery capability.

 

[35B]

I don't think the OA operators have a significant impact on the fares that LNER charge, other than LNER perhaps putting a larger quota of advance tickets on the trains either side of an OA departure.

But the revenue abstraction impact is disproportionate, because that is revenue that would otherwise be going to LNER. Not to mention the timetabling impact.

I'm not against OA per se, my issue with OA is that the entire timetable seems to be being built around accommodating the limited OA paths. I have no issue with OA where genuine new journey opportunities are being created, as with Hull Trains. Lumo doesn't create anything new (unless you consider a blue IET to be materially different to a red IET), yet the Lumo paths have cited in this thread as the reason why Durham-Newcastle now has an utterly useless 5/5/5/45 frequency.

There are three separate questions here, and the OA haters do themselves no favours by mixing them.

One is the question of abstraction of revenue, where the case against relies on the assumption that any revenue earned by the OA would otherwise have "belonged" to the incumbent TOC.

Second is the question of paths, where the legal structure of privatisation does mean that the rights of OA operators (in particular) are privileged in a way that limits timetabling flexibility on the whole line

Third is the question of fares (and I'd suggest service quality), where the existence of a benchmark comparison does limit the amount that can be charged. That doesn't just affect the shared stops, but also the region because a) not everyone travels to the "main" station and b) differential pricing opens up space for splitting.

 

[cuccir]

Quite why Network Rail should claim 08:24 so boldly is open to speculation.

So, three minutes or five minutes may seem pretty marginal, especially to the remote commentators, however the current 08:22 from Durham arrives at 08:36 into Newcastle.

The 'replacement' will arrive at 08:44, so that's now eight minutes later on the critical arrival timing - for some of those with work and study commitments commencing at 09:00, this will be compromising and will do little to maintain passenger numbers, let alone drive modal shift from the A1 road corridor.

Oh interesting - yes it is a bit odd in the reporting. It arrives into Durham at 08:24 and has a 3-minute dwell time.

I think it is a bit of a fantasy though to say that an 8-minute delay in advertised arrival times is going to create a significant modal shift. From memory, the same service has moved around a bit in the timetable over the years... yes, I've checked and it was an 08:24 departure arriving at 08:37 in 2018, and the new Working Timetable shows the current planned arrival into Newcastle at 08:41. The number of commuters who both (1) have without any flexibility to be into their place of work for 09:00 and (2) can only get the 08:2x service will be very small: most either have some flexibiltiy in start time, or the ability to get an earlier service on days when punctuality matters. People expect services to bump around the timetable a little bit, just not for them to completely disappear. Overall the new pattern of 07:32, 07:48, 08:08, 08:27, 08:39 is essentially a rejigging of 07:27, 07:41, 08:02, 08:22, 08:40.

The fact that the stock for this service will run ECS from Heaton to form the Northbound service does not inspire confidence that it will not also be a prime candidate for cancellation during disruption.

I suppose the big thing is that it won't be affected by disruption south of Darlington. If the line is down between Darlington and Newcastle then there's disruption anyway, what's frustrating is when something near York causes a bunch of delays at Durham.

 

[D1537]

I think it is a bit of a fantasy though to say that an 8-minute delay in advertised arrival times is going to create a significant modal shift. From memory, the same service has moved around a bit in the timetable over the years... yes, I've checked and it was an 08:24 departure arriving at 08:37 in 2018, and the new Working Timetable shows the current planned arrival into Newcastle at 08:41. The number of commuters who both (1) have without any flexibility to be into their place of work for 09:00 and (2) can only get the 08:2x service will be very small: most either have some flexibiltiy in start time, or the ability to get an earlier service on days when punctuality matters. People expect services to bump around the timetable a little bit, just not for them to completely disappear. Overall the new pattern of 07:32, 07:48, 08:08, 08:27, 08:39 is essentially a rejigging of 07:27, 07:41, 08:02, 08:22, 08:40.

Some interesting data (from 23/24 admittedly) which shows the number of people boarding at Durham

• 06:41 (Carlisle, NT) 15
• 07:06 (Newcastle, TP) 29
• 07:12 (Edinburgh, XC) 61
• 07:27 (Edinburgh, GR) 79
• 07:41 (Carlisle, NT) 26
• 08:02 (Newcastle, TP) 41
• 08:22 (Aberdeen, GR) 115
• 08:40 (Newcastle, NT) 16
• 08:55 (Newcastle, TP) 33

The things that is noticeable is that there's a significant flow between 07:00 and 07:30; the 07:12 departs at 07:26 after December and the 07:27 will be 07:48, how that will affect people is uncertain. The "additional" at 08:27 effectively replaces the 08:22. On average, 205 people used to get off the 08:22 at Newcastle in that timetable.

 

[800001]

No one knows. I expect them to be prioritised on Harrogate, and Scottish services beyond Edinburgh, to make the most of the diesel and battery capability.

I'm 99% sure they will do London - Leeds/Harrogate and were meant to do the Middlesbrough services.

Azumas will continue to do the Scottish services.

Edited to correct destinations

 

[43 302]

I'm 99% sure they will do London - Leeds//Lincolns and were meant to do the Middlesbrough services.

Azumas will continue to do the Scottish services.

Lincolns? Give over.

 

[IslandLine101]

All this chatter amongst short trains. Wasn't the Azuma order supposed to be designed around the new timetable; indeed at that time the new timetable + an extra Leeds train every 2 hours? So how come they are short? Did they always plan for so many trains to be 5 cars? Appalling if so

 

[43 302]

All this chatter amongst short trains. Wasn't the Azuma order supposed to be designed around the new timetable; indeed at that time the new timetable + an extra Leeds train every 2 hours? So how come they are short? Did they always plan for so many trains to be 5 cars? Appalling if so

I too would like to know why anyone thought ordering any 5 car electrics was a good idea.

 

[800001]

Lincolns? Give over.

Meant to say Harrogate.

 

[Starmill]

Hopefully, 2.5tph to Leeds can be achieved next.

That's an incredibly ambitious idea. It's very unlikely that this timetable will go without serious questions being asked after it makes first contact with reality.

 

[D1537]

All this chatter amongst short trains. Wasn't the Azuma order supposed to be designed around the new timetable; indeed at that time the new timetable + an extra Leeds train every 2 hours? So how come they are short? Did they always plan for so many trains to be 5 cars? Appalling if so

Well clearly the December timetable - which only works if there are at least eight 5-car diagrams not including the Lincoln, Hull and Middlesborough turns - was not one that was envisaged eight years ago.

I too would like to know why anyone thought ordering any 5 car electrics was a good idea.

I can understand wanting the flexibility but in that case why not build 22 bi-modes instead of 10? Yes, a strange decision.

 

[Starmill]

Monday to Saturday Peterborough also has the half hourly Thameslink service to Horsham operated with 12-car Thameslink Class 700 trains.

This runs non stop Stevenage to Finsbury Park then also calls at St Pancras, Farringdon, City Thameslink, Blackfriars, London Bridge, East Croydon then several more stations including Gatwick Airport.

It's not non-stop between Stevenage and Finsbury Park. A lot of them call at Knebworth.

 

[swt_passenger]

All this chatter amongst short trains. Wasn't the Azuma order supposed to be designed around the new timetable; indeed at that time the new timetable + an extra Leeds train every 2 hours? So how come they are short? Did they always plan for so many trains to be 5 cars? Appalling if so

Back in 2016 the proposal was for the 6 retained 225 short sets to be used on “Edinburgh fasts”. I suspect that route has now become 100% 9car Azuma instead?

 

[Magdalia]

It's not non-stop between Stevenage and Finsbury Park. A lot of them call at Knebworth.

In the December 2025 timetable the only Peterborough-Horsham trains that call at Knebworth are 8 morning peak services.

In the Horsham-Peterborough direction none call at Knebworth.

 

[43 302]

Back in 2016 the proposal was for the 6 retained 225 short sets to be used on “Edinburgh fasts”. I suspect that route has now become 100% 9car Azuma instead?

They should have been. The luggage area in the DVTs would be much more useful, not to mention the fewer stops being beneficial to the SRTs and journey times with 91s acceleration being quite poor.

 

[The Middle]

Thankfully Whitehall has seen sense and has blocked all applications for the WCML.

I think you mean the independent regulator?