December 2025 East Coast Timetable

[DarloRich]

Sunak was a weekly traveller to/from Northallerton during his time as PM.

By train ( I didn't live there then)

 

[800001]

By train ( I didn't live there then)

Yes by train. (Occasionally from York if he had to travel south on a Sunday).

 

[D1537]

It is an odd one certainly. I know people DO travel north of Northallerton for commuting but isn't the key flow to York > Middlesbrough?

Looking at the new timetable it would have to be the TPE service at c.0730 had I still needed to get to Darlington/Newcastle for work in the morning. That leaves little contingency for things going wrong!

BTW - I used to live in Northallerton. You have my sympathy

The key flow from NTR is indeed York but the number commuting to Durham and Newcastle is not insignificant. There are also student commuting to Darlo although they tend to get a slightly later train.

I have the same problem with that TPE. It's just about OK if it's on time but there's little room for error which is why I get 1S01. From December I'd possibly be looking at 20 minutes earlier than that which together with the fact that the loss of the shuttle means I'd be 40 minutes later home means I may well be driving.

There's nowt wrong with Northallerton! Although I admit I live a few miles outside it

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's nowt wrong with Northallerton! Although I admit I live a few miles outside it

I think it's quite a pleasant Yorkshire market town to be honest. Would quite happily live there. It's nicer than the Bletch anyway!

 

[DarloRich]

The key flow from NTR is indeed York but the number commuting to Durham and Newcastle is not insignificant.

that is interesting - when I did it in the olden days there were only the same handful of people every day. To the extent you were on nodding terms with them.

There is also no early Leeds > Aberdeen in the new timetable which might have offered a stop option. TBH I think i would just drive if i was in that position today. One train with all the associated TPE nonsense is just too risky.

I think it's quite a pleasant Yorkshire market town to be honest. Would quite happily live there. It's nicer than the Bletch anyway!

At least strangers don't come up to me in Bletchley high street and comment on my personal business!

 

[D1537]

There is also no early Leeds > Aberdeen in the new timetable which might have offered a stop option. TBH I think i would just drive if i was in that position today. One train with all the associated TPE nonsense is just too risky.

There is however an 0640 Doncaster-Edinburgh which would be very useful if it stopped at NTR.

But, yes, I will almost certainly be driving as well come December.

 

[xotGD]

Completely disagree here. December 2025 is the last possible date for the new ECML timetable before Cambridge South opens.

Good luck explaining to folk in the north of England that it is essential that they have a worse rail service because a local station in the south is opening.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good luck explaining to folk in the north of England that it is essential that they have a worse rail service because a local station in the south is opening.

That's hardly the primary reason. The primary reason is Edinburgh capacity.

 

[Starmill]

That's hardly the primary reason. The primary reason is Edinburgh capacity.

Indeed. @Magdalia's attempt to imply that no timetable which keeps the current structure in terms of connectivity, but flexes to accommodate some trains calling at Cambridge South, was ever possible simply doesn't stand up. The primary motivation is going after high yield traffic making long-haul journeys, the timetable was written with this in mind and everything else has been squeezed in around it.

 

[NER1621]

so why would you book a seat unless you have mobility issues?

When I buy an off-peak single (i.e. for any train, not an Advance) to travel 15 mins from DAR to DHM via the LNER app it insists on me choosing a train on which it reserves a seat. If I book the ticket the day before that presumably eliminates a through journey reservation for that search from KGX to NCL/EDB and contributes to flagging an apparent lack of capacity on the ECML for Anglo-Scottish travellers?

The tone you pick up is that the ECML really exists just for important people travelling between London & Edinburgh, and if you have the unfortunate luck that your smaller town’s surviving railway station is also on the ECML then you have to accept the crumbs from the table.

Again, I exaggerate, but that’s the tone. Of course this is the case for HS2 being an Anglo-Scottish railway. Maybe the changes may open some more people’s eyes to why HS2 is needed. That will be interesting in Reform-voting County Durham, given R Tice’s recent opinions on northern rail expenditure!

 

[Magdalia]

Good luck explaining to folk in the north of England that it is essential that they have a worse rail service because a local station in the south is opening.

I don't have to try.

The promised extra services are nowhere to be seen, and many existing services have fewer seats.

Extra services being nowhere to be seen isn't detrimental, it is as you were. Fewer seats is only detrimental if it results in overcrowding. Neither you or I know whether that's doing to happen until the new timetable is in operation, we will have to wait and see.

It is important to remember that the new timetable isn't just about existing traffic, it is making capacity for future traffic growth. New rolling stock coming later will provide that extra capacity as traffic grows, but isn't necessarily needed now.

As for Cambridge South, you can refer to it disparagingly as a local station, but it will serve the Biomedical Campus with more than 20k employees and 3 major hospitals, and is expected to quickly grow to more than 2 million entries and exits per year. In terms of usage it will be comparable with Wakefield Westgate or Durham.

 

[Starmill]

This rather depends. There are plenty of cases where an IC becomes a stopper. It's mainly where you have huge numbers at the London end (e.g. Reading) where it poses an issue; there are quite a few GWR services which could be 5 car were it not for passengers going between Reading and Paddington.

I'm not really sure that holds up these days. The booked 9 and 10 cars are close to capacity on most of the Swansea or Carmarthen and Plymouth or Penzance services. The Bristol and Somerset services are generally close to capacity in and out of London and in and out of Bristol. Now yes there's some gap in between there. The Gloucester service group doesn't really have many 9/10 cars. The Oxford corridor trains and the Cardiff Central terminators have a few, but again, these are usually the main source of capacity for Oxford, Didcot Parkway and Swindon. Reading - London demand gets chopped up and split out across each plus the express train from Newbury and the Didcot Parkway semi-fast, but often it goes into the standing space that's available.

 

[Class15]

Indeed. @Magdalia's attempt to imply that no timetable which keeps the current structure in terms of connectivity, but flexes to accommodate some trains calling at Cambridge South, was ever possible simply doesn't stand up. The primary motivation is going after high yield traffic making long-haul journeys, the timetable was written with this in mind and everything else has been squeezed in around it.

Indeed. A single station is never the reason for a whole timetable stretching the length of a country to be recast.

 

[Starmill]

Fewer seats is only detrimental if it results in overcrowding. Neither you or I know whether that's doing to happen until the new timetable is in operation, we will have to wait and see.

I think this is very naive to be honest.

 

[Magdalia]

Indeed. @Magdalia's attempt to imply that no timetable which keeps the current structure in terms of connectivity, but flexes to accommodate some trains calling at Cambridge South, was ever possible simply doesn't stand up.

It does stand up, because Cambridge South is between Welwyn North and Ely, two of the most critical congestion points on the network, and it isn't possible to flex the timetable to fit in at both.

 

[Starmill]

A slightly downgraded service is nothing on the mass closures of stations (some of which weren't in places that were that tiny) on the mainlines in the 1960s. Or indeed the more recent closures of Barlaston and Wedgwood.

Barlaston or Wedgwood traffic into Stoke-on-Trent is essentially irrelevant to the railway or the economy compared to the importance of a convenient, fast service between Durham and Newcastle...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2025 ==

It does stand up, because Cambridge South is between Welwyn North and Ely, two of the most critical congestion points on the network, and it isn't possible to flex the timetable to fit in at both.

This is complete hyperbole I'm afraid. As is revealed by your allegation that someone is disparaging Cambridge South when they did no such thing.

 

[Class15]

It does stand up, because Cambridge South is between Welwyn North and Ely, two of the most critical congestion points on the network, and it isn't possible to flex the timetable to fit in at both.

It doesn’t explain why the entire ECML has to be rewritten, though.

 

[Magdalia]

I think this is very naive to be honest.

Apart from the small tweak on the class 91 fleet, the ECML still has the same trains with the same number of seats. They are just being deployed in a different way.

 

[Starmill]

It doesn’t explain why the entire ECML has to be rewritten, though.

Indeed. Changing the structure north of York to three LNER trains most hours rather than two has next to nothing to do with the well-known constraints at Welwyn North or Ely.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2025 ==

Apart from the small tweak on the class 91 fleet, the ECML still has the same trains with the same number of seats. They are just being deployed in a different way.

The post you're responding to is addressing precisely that point though isn't it? The capacity is needed for journeys like Leeds - Doncaster and Leeds - Peterborough / London, where it's being reallocated away to serve London - Edinburgh.

 

[Magdalia]

This is complete hyperbole I'm afraid.

It isn't hyperbole, it has always been made clear that Cambridge South can't open without the ECML timetable recast.

Indeed. Changing the structure north of York to three LNER trains most hours rather than two has next to nothing to do with the well-known constraints at Welwyn North or Ely.

And, although Ely doesn't affect the capability of running 3tph LNER north of York, Welwyn North clearly does.

 

[Starmill]

It isn't hyperbole, it has always been made clear that Cambridge South can't open without the ECML timetable recast.

Correct. Prioritising all trains to call at Cambridge South required a significant recast of the London - Welwyn North area.

It did not require, as you are implying, the other structural objectives, especially the changes north of York.

And, although Ely doesn't affect the capability of running 3tph LNER north of York, Welwyn North clearly does.

How does the constraint at Welwyn North mean the LNER express can't serve Darlington and Berwick-upon-Tweed, say? Or require an additional slot to serve Northallerton and Durham?

Those things have only been put in because they are required to provide the virtual capacity increases on Edinburgh - London. They don't have any special relationship with Cambridge South.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Correct. Prioritising all trains to call at Cambridge South required a significant recast of the London - Welwyn North area.

It did not require, as you are implying, the other structural objectives, especially the changes north of York.

How does the constraint at Welwyn North mean the LNER express can't serve Darlington and Berwick-upon-Tweed, say? Or require an additional slot to serve Northallerton and Durham?

Those things have only been put in because they are required to provide the virtual capacity increases on Edinburgh - London. They don't have any special relationship with Cambridge South.

The welwyn viaduct 100% effects that. Paths over the viaduct practically build the rest of the timetable and what can/can't elsewhere will be influenced by that. It's all interlinked.

There will be many other factors of course but Welwyn North is a massive one.

 

[Starmill]

The welwyn viaduct 100% effects that. Paths over the viaduct practically build the rest of the timetable and what can/can't elsewhere will be influenced by that. It's all interlinked.

There will be many other factors of course but Welwyn North is a massive one.

It doesn't. It gives a baseline of constraints around which to build the rest of the timetable. It absolutely does not determine the quantum.

That, and the choice of the allocation of rolling stock, are the things that are subject of the shopping list of complaints above. Not the fact that a recast was needed.

 

[43074]

The welwyn viaduct 100% effects that. Paths over the viaduct practically build the rest of the timetable and what can/can't elsewhere will be influenced by that. It's all interlinked.

There will be many other factors of course but Welwyn North is a massive one.

If paths over the viaduct were the starting point for the rest of the timetable you wouldn't end up with trains with 8 minutes pathing approaching Woolmer Green Jn, such as this one: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C40884/2025-12-17/detailed

As Starmill says it is one constraint but there are others

Would actually suggest the paths of GTR services to/from the Thameslink core (itself driven by Blackfriars Junction) are the starting point at Welwyn viaduct - in between those there are 10 different options for paths from further north to "slot" into over the viaduct each hour.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

It doesn't. It gives a baseline of constraints around which to build the rest of the timetable. It absolutely does not determine the quantum.

That, and the choice of the allocation of rolling stock, are the things that are subject of the shopping list of complaints above. Not the fact that a recast was needed.

I think you've misunderstood what I was saying.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2025 ==

If paths over the viaduct were the starting point for the rest of the timetable you wouldn't end up with trains with 8 minutes pathing approaching Woolmer Green Jn, such as this one: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:C40884/2025-12-17/detailed

As Starmill says it is one constraint but there are others

Would actually suggest the paths of GTR services to/from the Thameslink core (itself driven by Blackfriars Junction) are the starting point at Welwyn viaduct - in between those there are 10 different options for paths from further north to "slot" into over the viaduct each hour.

I mean those trains go over Welwyn Viaduct so....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apart from the small tweak on the class 91 fleet, the ECML still has the same trains with the same number of seats. They are just being deployed in a different way.

Indeed. With the aim of increasing Edinburgh capacity.

 

[Starmill]

I think you've misunderstood what I was saying.

What I was saying was that it was pretty clear that, while nobody disagrees some trade-offs were necessary to give time to add some stops at Cambridge South, the majority of the complaints in this thread are over issues which have been caused by changes made to enable the expansion of capacity, and slight journey time improvements, on Edinburgh - London trains. I don't think you can dispute that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2025 ==

I mean those trains go over Welwyn Viaduct so....

They sure do. The post you're quoting is explaining that they're generally not the trains that have taken the pathing time, where that's been necessary, it's the long-haul ones that have.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

What I was saying was that it was pretty clear that, while nobody disagrees some trade-offs were necessary to give time to add some stops at Cambridge South, the majority of the complaints in this thread are over issues which have been caused by changes made to enable the expansion of capacity, and slight journey time improvements, on Edinburgh - London trains. I don't think you can dispute that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2025 ==


They sure do. The post you're quoting is explaining that they're generally not the trains that have taken the pathing time, where that's been necessary, it's the long-haul ones that have.

That is something I am well well aware of...

 

[Magdalia]

It did not require, as you are implying, the other structural objectives, especially the changes north of York.

You are right that Cambridge South and the changes north of York are separate objectives. The difficulty is that we have to start from a point where the constraints from congestion at key points on the network, combined with the constraints of the franchise model, mean that the railway has evolved into a mode of a small number of "big bang" timetable changes, replacing a long history of the sort of flexible marginal timetable changes that were possible up to about 30 years ago. Cambridge South and the changes north of York get wrapped up in the same timetable change because the railway has lost the capacity and capability to do them separately.

The capacity is needed for journeys like Leeds - Doncaster and Leeds - Peterborough / London, where it's being reallocated away to serve London - Edinburgh.

Where demand is growing on the ECML is London-Edinburgh and London-York. It particularly reflects increased demand for leisure travel since the pandemic, and reduced demand for business travel and commuting. Up to about 30 years ago the timetable would have been able to adjust gradually, with marginal changes. A big disadvantage of infrequent "big bang" timetable changes is that adjusting supply to demand is slower and more clunky. Less responsive adjustments of supply to demand is one of the reasons why the railway is a bigger financial burden on the government finances than it used to be. It also means that timetable design has to look ahead to anticipate what will be required in the future, not just what is required now. Most people expect the tend towards more leisure travel and less business/commuting travel to continue, so the new timetable builds that in.

Where there is some flexibility is train lengths. If you are right that the December 2025 timetable has too much capacity for London-York-Edinburgh and not enough for London-West Yorkshire, then this can be addressed by adjusting fleet use.

And, as someone who has been travelling on the GN for more than half a century, I'd hope that within a few years the fleet will be big enough so that all long distance trains will be 9-10 cars. The problem with that is platform capacity at Kings Cross.

 

[D1537]

Where there is some flexibility is train lengths. If you are right that the December 2025 timetable has too much capacity for London-York-Edinburgh and not enough for London-West Yorkshire, then this can be addressed by adjusting fleet use.

On the latest figures (2023/24), if you count Wakefield, Leeds and Harrogate as a single destination from King's Cross (not unreasonable, since they're the same trains), it was easily the largest figure, exceeding Edinburgh by 25% and York by 40%.

So how are you going to adjust fleet use? The 800/1 diagrams interwork, as they have for a while, covering services that require bi-modes between KX-Harrogate and KX-North of Edinburgh, whilst if you take 801/2s off the ECML to increase capacity to West Yorkshire, what are you replacing them with?