Potential East Coast main line (ECML) infrastructure improvements

[Verulamius]

Network Rail published last month a detailed report on the congested parts of the ECML as a result of the new timetable.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Congested-Infrastructure-Capacity-Analysis-1.1.pdf

The study focussed on three specific corridors: from Huntingdon North Junction to New England North Junction (Peterborough); from Northallerton Longlands Junction to King Edward Bridge South Junction (Newcastle) and from Doncaster Marshgate Junction to Copley Hill West Junction (Leeds).

The additional difficulties around Peterborough appear to arise from the increased freight use of the Peterborough yards north of the station on the Up side and the corresponding increase in the ladder junctions.

Huntingdon North Jn to New England North Jn
• Options for diverting services from the area to relieve congestion are limited either by gauge or limited capacity on alternative routes.
• A consequence of the implementation of the W10 Strategic Freight Network is to concentrate gauge constrained services into the Peterborough area.
• The development of the Freight facilities on the up side at Peterborough in recent years creates a requirement for capacity use that was not part of the assumption set when the additional access rights were approved in 2016; paths to access the yards were contained in the original specification for the ESG that developed the Dec-25 timetable structure.
• The structure of the Dec-25 ECML passenger service does not naturally contain capacity for services using the two ladder junctions at Peterborough, options for adjusting the passenger service are very limited.
• Whilst four tracking south of Peterborough creates additional capacity it does not directly alleviate the congested infrastructure as this capacity can only be released as part of a wider recast over a much larger geographical area.
• The application of multiple timetable planning rules sets in the Peterborough area minimises congestion but only as a trade off against timetable performance.
• Infrastructure interventions to deconflict movements on the core ECML from movements crossing the ECML at Peterborough are unlikely to be feasible

Northallerton Longlands Jn to King Edward Bridge South Jn
• The mix of services and stopping patterns on this section, complicated by the directionally inconsistent nature of the timetable and passenger service intervals (resulting from the service specification), leads to inefficient capacity usage.
• The configuration and location of loops (including entry and exit speeds) is not compatible with the requirements of longer and higher speed freight services
• A proposition exists to create a gauge cleared alternative route between Northallerton and Ferryhill (including enhancements in the Newcastle area) however this is not funded; it is also unclear as to whether this option would be commercially effective for freight operators.
• A re-opened Leamside line offers the possibility of decongesting the route north of Tursdale Junction, however capacity and operational considerations between Pelaw and Newcastle East Jn reduce its feasibility.
• Electrically hauled freight offers capacity benefits taken either as improved journey time or greater trailing load, additional paths can be found. The implication on Traction Power would need to be considered.
• There is potential that a revision to the passenger service specification on this section of line could alleviate congestion.

Doncaster Marshgate Jn to Copley Hill West Jn
• This is a heavily used mixed traffic section of line, trains operate with a very wide range of service speeds on the two routes (which converge half way along its length); this reduces the effective capacity of the section.
• The route has been provided with W10 gauge clearance as part of the Strategic Freight Network, there are no gauge cleared alternative routes to the terminals served.
• Some potential options exist for interventions to allow W10 freight services to be diverted from this route
• The grade separation of South Kirkby Jn could alleviate some congestion on this route by removing the conflict between southbound services towards Sheffield and Northbound services towards Wakefield
• Whilst the operation of electrically hauled freight trains (subject to sufficient traction power) is beneficial in terms of running time, the structure of the Dec-25 timetable does not easily allow these benefits to be converted into additional paths.
• There is potential that a revision to the passenger service specification on this section of line would alleviate congestion.

 

[John R]

That NR report is a fascinating read as to how difficult it is to schedule additional trains, and the amount of work that is needed to look at potential infrastucture changes and how beneficial they will be.

Having said that, I do wonder whether some relatively simple interventions, such as increasing turn out speeds, (which are discussed), would generally be beneficial in terms of improving reliability.

The 25mph restriction on the up slow to fast connection at Fletton Junction would seem an obvious one. If nothing else it would mean a faster getaway for Thameslink trains which can only reduce any delays to following trains. And similarly, the 40mph turnout at Huntingdon North could be replaced by a higher speed crossing slightly further north, so that Thameslink trains exit the down up fast at a much higher speed, thus clearing the line to following traffic earlier and faster.

Would either of these enable additional services to run? Probably not, but if it improved timekeeping, particularly for southbound express services which have a particular slot to hit further down, then that can only be a good thing surely?

 

[bramling]

That NR report is a fascinating read as to how difficult it is to schedule additional trains, and the amount of work that is needed to look at potential infrastucture changes and how beneficial they will be.

Having said that, I do wonder whether some relatively simple interventions, such as increasing turn out speeds, (which are discussed), would generally be beneficial in terms of improving reliability.

The 25mph restriction on the up slow to fast connection at Fletton Junction would seem an obvious one. If nothing else it would mean a faster getaway for Thameslink trains which can only reduce any delays to following trains. And similarly, the 40mph turnout at Huntingdon North could be replaced by a higher speed crossing slightly further north, so that Thameslink trains exit the down fast at a much higher speed, thus clearing the line to following traffic earlier and faster.

Would either of these enable additional services to run? Probably not, but if it improved timekeeping, particularly for southbound express services which have a particular slot to hit further down, then that can only be a good thing surely?

One thing which would really help during disruption is some additional crossovers south of Finsbury Park on the down lines, to avoid the situation where if a platform is blocked for whatever reason the next train cannot run round.

 

[Bald Rick]

One thing which would really help during disruption is some additional crossovers south of Finsbury Park on the down lines, to avoid the situation where if a platform is blocked for whatever reason the next train cannot run round.

That’s what Holloway is for - it’s only 2 signals in rear. Any further north and there are canted curves and bridges in the way.

 

[bramling]

That’s what Holloway is for - it’s only 2 signals in rear. Any further north and there are canted curves and bridges in the way.

The problem is … it doesn’t work when the next train is already past Holloway, as seems to happen very often - including to my train tonight which lost 12 minutes on its journey in consequence. Another element of the post-2018 setup which just doesn’t work well. Point taken about the physical constraints though.

 

[Magdalia]

Having said that, I do wonder whether some relatively simple interventions, such as increasing turn out speeds, (which are discussed), would generally be beneficial in terms of improving reliability.

The 25mph restriction on the up slow to fast connection at Fletton Junction would seem an obvious one. If nothing else it would mean a faster getaway for Thameslink trains which can only reduce any delays to following trains.

Most Thameslink trains starting from Peterborough go straight out onto the fast line. Using the slow line to Fletton is to clear the platform while waiting to follow something coming up from beyond Peterborough. This means that anything turning onto the fast line at Fletton is either starting from a red light or moving slowly.

similarly, the 40mph turnout at Huntingdon North could be replaced by a higher speed crossing slightly further north, so that Thameslink trains exit the down fast at a much higher speed, thus clearing the line to following traffic earlier and faster.

Do you mean exiting the up fast here? Thameslink down trains are already on the slow line when they approach Huntingdon.

 

[John R]

Most Thameslink trains starting from Peterborough go straight out onto the fast line. Using the slow line to Fletton is to clear the platform while waiting to follow something coming up from beyond Peterborough. This means that anything turning onto the fast line at Fletton is either starting from a red light or moving slowly.

Do you mean exiting the up fast here? Thameslink down trains are already on the slow line when they approach Huntingdon.

Yep, good spot. I've edited it so that it's clearer to other readers.

 

[Halish Railway]

Wasn’t their an idea or plan to install 100mph turnouts at Fletton Junction to reduce the time penalty for trains calling at Peterborough and allow northbound stopping services to undertake any Thameslink service held outside the station waiting for a platform?

Regarding the gauge cleared route from Northallerton to Ferryhill via Stockton, is there any possibility of combining the necessary upgrade works with the idea of introducing a passenger service from Middlesbrough to Newcastle via Durham? Or would this just dump an unsustainable amount of traffic onto the ECML north of Ferryhill?

Reopening the Leamside line is a complete non-starter for me given that it takes a winding route immediately south of Washington and approaches Newcastle from the wrong side. I’d imagine that building a new fast line from north of Darlington to the Team Valley area following the A1 would be much more likely to get off the ground.

 

[JonathanH]

Reopening the Leamside line is a complete non-starter for me given that it takes a winding route immediately south of Washington and approaches Newcastle from the wrong side.

Is this now so much of a problem with a variety of services terminating at Newcastle from the south? (I recognise a problem with the positioning of the bay platforms.)