December 2025 Timetable Change - Confirmed changes only

[Starmill]

Nothing will be stopping at Cambridge South in the December 2025 timetable period as the opening date for this new station has been delayed to June 2026.

Correct. Indeed there was no chance of it actually being open last Sunday. Which is why I say it's a bit rich to pretend it's being done for the purposes of the "soft launch" or to assist with anyone "getting used to" the new structure.

 

[OneOfThe48]

Nothing will be stopping at Cambridge South in the December 2025 timetable period as the opening date for this new station has been delayed to June 2026.

Indeed, GTR’s ‘soft launch’ changes were to remove one morning service and one evening service.

It’s all explained on the operators website page on the timetable changes

https://www.greatnorthernrail.com/service-updates/service-updates/east-coast-main-line-improvements

We wait to see when they will be introduced.

 

[Starmill]

I think the new services don't run into Leeds platform 17 so might at least be 3 or more cars? But that'll require units being found so I'm not hopeful

A longer train is perfectly possible, but the usual trains will be two car class 158.

 

[HBM]

The withdrawal of the Cosham stop on the Portsmouth / Cardiff service during the middle of the day Mondays to Fridays makes no sense, having been a regular stop for decades. There was no consultation, advance notice or publicity. I have also written to GWR, but waiting a response. It comes when the local council have announced an upgrading of a hub at Cosham integrating bus and train, serving a huge catchment area.

There are no capacity issues East of Southampton on the GWR service, very unusual not to be able to find a seat at any time of day.

The evening stops after 20:00 were omitted from these services around 20 years ago, as a result of anti-social behaviour and ticketless local travel. Cosham is still ungated, with flat access from the local High Street, but since then Portsmouth Harbour, Portsmouth & Southsea and Fratton have all had gate-lines introduced.

The GWR service is also an integral part of the local South Hampshire network clock face timetable, withdrawal of these services leaves 45 minute gaps to and from the main Portsmouth stations.

Cosham also retains a ticket office open from early morning to evening, a SWR platform staff member and in the afternoons and evenings a Trespass / Welfare Officer.

At the very least GWR should explain why these services have been withdrawn, as there seems no logical reason.

 

[Starmill]

The withdrawal of the Cosham stop on the Portsmouth / Cardiff service during the middle of the day Mondays to Fridays makes no sense, having been a regular stop for decades. There was no consultation, advance notice or publicity. I have also written to GWR, but waiting a response. It comes when the local council have announced an upgrading of a hub at Cosham integrating bus and train, serving a huge catchment area.

There are no capacity issues East of Southampton on the GWR service, very unusual not to be able to find a seat at any time of day.

The evening stops after 20:00 were omitted from these services around 20 years ago, as a result of anti-social behaviour and ticketless local travel. Cosham is still ungated, with flat access from the local High Street, but since then Portsmouth Harbour, Portsmouth & Southsea and Fratton have all had gate-lines introduced.

The GWR service is also an integral part of the local South Hampshire network clock face timetable, withdrawal of these services leaves 45 minute gaps to and from the main Portsmouth stations.

Cosham also retains a ticket office open from early morning to evening, a SWR platform staff member and in the afternoons and evenings a Trespass / Welfare Officer.

At the very least GWR should explain why these services have been withdrawn, as there seems no logical reason.

It would be easier for everyone to understand if they just all stopped at Cosham... It makes only a very tiny difference to the timings anyway and it's hardly a little used station. The whole "but the ticketless travel" and "but the yoofs" or whatever makes no sense anyway, as if somehow that's all totally fine on the Southern or the SWR trains but would be a problem on the GWR ones.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Yes. Ask yourself why for example only the Leeds - Sheffield, GTR stops at Cambridge South plus some other minor tweaks, and one and a bit LNER diagrams are what's been taken out? The answer is because it was too late to do anything more invasive. The Leeds - Sheffield diagrams are an easy target as they don't do much else. It's a largely arbitrary choice to hold them back.

I suspect what happened was that Bald Rick or someone in Network Rail lobbied for "soft launch" (which is a misleading name for it) measures in 2024 and nobody else at the table agreed. The idea was then filed, only to be resurrected recently.

All I'm going to say is that unless you were directly involved in the conversations you can't say you know for certain.

 

[Starmill]

All I'm going to say is that unless you were directly involved in the conversations you can't say you know for certain.

I do know for certain. However even if you don't choose to believe that, which is your right, then the available public evidence clearly supports the point I'm making.

 

[eastwestdivide]

Today's Northern Sheffield/Leeds fasts seem to be off to a good start, all running OK, 2-car 158s, platforms 11 or 12 at Leeds

 

[GhostManDN91]

Today's Northern Sheffield/Leeds fasts seem to be off to a good start, all running OK, 2-car 158s, platforms 11 or 12 at Leeds

I'm gonna have to go for a ride out to Leeds in January to have a go on that one. Shame it's not booked as a 170 but a 158 at 90mph most the way is still good.

 

[1D53]

Today's Northern Sheffield/Leeds fasts seem to be off to a good start, all running OK, 2-car 158s, platforms 11 or 12 at Leeds

They didn't look too busy today, and pretty punctual as well.

 

[Peterthegreat]

There have been numerous cancellations in South Yorkshire this afternoon/evening due to crew shortages. I'm not sure how much of this is linked to the extra Sheffield to Leeds trains.

 

[Kite159]

There have been numerous cancellations in South Yorkshire this afternoon/evening due to crew shortages. I'm not sure how much of this is linked to the extra Sheffield to Leeds trains.

Probably down to a lack of rest day working volunteers (it is the Last Saturday before Christmas after-all where all the idiots come out drinking far too much) and potentially sickness levels

 

[Liverpool 507]

Skegness is 2 car 158s with the odd exception with the plan to be 4 car 158s in summer as appropriate.

Liverpool Norwich is indeed a 50/50 split more or less.

Certainly needed and a welcome change which will make a big difference on these services.

4 coach 158s on Skegness line, trains which have rubbish luggage space being used on services where passengers will likely be carrying luggage (including the kitchen sink).

(And I bet some guards are not looking forward to working potentially overcrowded Skeggy services when formed of a 158 if they have got used to a 170 with the cab doors)

x2 158s have more seats than x2 170 2 car units or a single 3 car 170.

 

[LowLevel]

Certainly needed and a welcome change which will make a big difference on these services.


x2 158s have more seats than x2 170 2 car units or a single 3 car 170.

Seats are irrelevant when each 158 has storage space for less than 10 full size suitcases in it's racks for all those passengers. The 3 car 170s have the best luggage provision in the fleet. Unless something changes expect trains to be sat around whilst everything is organised.

 

[dk1]

Seats are irrelevant when each 158 has storage space for less than 10 full size suitcases in it's racks for all those passengers. The 3 car 170s have the best luggage provision in the fleet. Unless something changes expect trains to be sat around whilst everything is organised.

Agreed, and with 1/3 & 2/3 doors station dwell times can be reduced with a 170 compared to a 158.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well this all escalated.

The request for additional "soft launch" measures which saw this service being taken out on some weekdays prior to the start of Church Fenton works was made about four months before the start of the timetable.

I do know for certain. However even if you don't choose to believe that, which is your right, then the available public evidence clearly supports the point I'm making.

The request for soft launch measures was made to operators back in 2024. There was much debate. Any such measures were never intended to be part of the LTP - being temporary measures the services affected would have been in the LTP and removed by STP or supressed in the data. For one reason or another, that I shan’t explain here, the changes were not published until after the full timetable was published. And that’s it.

 

[Starmill]

For one reason or another, that I shan’t explain here, the changes were not published until after the full timetable was published. And that’s it.

Correct. Which is why they are so ineffectual at their stated aim. Frankly it's disappointing that you're peddling the Network Rail line here, you know taking out the Leeds - Sheffield diagrams and leaving everything else almost completely unchanged was a waste of effort.

 

[Bald Rick]

Correct. Which is why they are so ineffectual at their stated aim. Frankly it's disappointing that you're peddling the Network Rail line here, you know taking out the Leeds - Sheffield diagrams and leaving everything else almost completely unchanged was a waste of effort.

Ouch!

I’m not going to say what I want to. But I fundamentally disagree.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Probably down to a lack of rest day working volunteers (it is the Last Saturday before Christmas after-all where all the idiots come out drinking far too much) and potentially sickness levels

I suspect that is the crux of the matter but I can't help thinking the two sets of crew would have significantly reduced the number of cancellations.

 

[Starmill]

Ouch!

I’m not going to say what I want to. But I fundamentally disagree.

You said:

So that signallers, controllers, etc can get used to the new structure of the timetable and new regulation policies, contingency plans etc with a few less services in the busiest parts of the network.

But taking out the Leeds - Sheffield services on one Sunday and two weeks of weekdays does not contribute to the above aim. It may actually hinder their roles as it creates an illogical on again off again set of days when the service runs. Also South Kirby Jn - Leeds is the only area which could benefit from this. There are certain changes elsewhere, though the post you quoted focuses on Leeds - Sheffield services, and in any case the others are things that couldn't have happened anyway (such as stopping for passengers at Cambridge South) or are rounding errors.

I have advanced the actual explanation for these services being taken out, which is that they are a discrete set of diagrams. It is not the one you've given here. If you don't believe that, that's fine, I suppose readers will need to make up their own minds.

 

[Iskra]

Yesterday morning the new Leeds-Sheffield service sailed through Sandal & Agbrigg with a light load. However, I’ve just seen one go through with a very healthy loading.

Although a 4 carriage Sheffield-Leeds just went through and was fairly quiet. …Although that may be related to another 2-car following shortly behind it that was better loaded, so I’m not sure what’s going on there!

 

[GoneSouth]

Agreed, and with 1/3 & 2/3 doors station dwell times can be reduced with a 170 compared to a 158.

But it’sa fast service so there aren’t any dwell times to reduce

 

[Bayum]

But it’sa fast service so there aren’t any dwell times to reduce

I think this quote was referring to a Norwich/Skegness to Liverpool service rather than the new Sheffield fast.

 

[driverd]

Ouch!

I’m not going to say what I want to. But I fundamentally disagree.

But I honestly think @Starmill has a point. You've argued your position quite forcefully so far so why not explain why you think removing the Sheffield service helps boost resilience?

I'm not trying to agitate or make things personal here, I do see where you're coming from with the "ouch" comment as I think this conversation may well have ventured into territory that is a touch on the personal side. I don't intend to further that line.

From an operational perspective, however, I'm intrigued to hear more about the rationale behind the decision making. As I posted previously, we're talking about a service that shares, at most, 15 miles with the key services that have been recast - these trains now benefit from hugely improved turn around times so any delay from the northern services is highly unlikely to cascade onto the broader ECML beyond a service in isolation. The northern service in itself seems of reasonably low risk if things go wrong, other than its 6 minute turn around at Leeds, it appears to be generously timed with quite a lot of scope for recovery en-route (notably yesterdays 1N11 was 5 minutes late at Masborough but managed a right time arrival at Leeds).

Surely northern, if they were in a position to fully resource this service without significant operator attributable risk, would be highly invested in seeing this service introduced from a commercial perspective?

 

[Starmill]

I apologise for my word choice, my intention was to stick to the facts not to imply a personal criticism of anyone at Network Rail or elsewhere.

 

[dk1]

I think this quote was referring to a Norwich/Skegness to Liverpool service rather than the new Sheffield fast.

That I was. The Castlefield Corridor springs to mind my friend.

 

[GoneSouth]

That I was. The Castlefield Corridor springs to mind my friend.

Apologies, crossed wires, I thought the dwell time comment was about the new Leeds-Sheffield Northern service.

 

[dk1]

Apologies, crossed wires, I thought the dwell time comment was about the new Leeds-Sheffield Northern service.

No problem mate. As always it’s a junction of railway conversations that all get signalled on to differing routes

 

[Peregrine 4903]

You said:

But taking out the Leeds - Sheffield services on one Sunday and two weeks of weekdays does not contribute to the above aim. It may actually hinder their roles as it creates an illogical on again off again set of days when the service runs. Also South Kirby Jn - Leeds is the only area which could benefit from this. There are certain changes elsewhere, though the post you quoted focuses on Leeds - Sheffield services, and in any case the others are things that couldn't have happened anyway (such as stopping for passengers at Cambridge South) or are rounding errors.

I have advanced the actual explanation for these services being taken out, which is that they are a discrete set of diagrams. It is not the one you've given here. If you don't believe that, that's fine, I suppose readers will need to make up their own minds.

Have you actually spoken to any signallers or controllers about this?

 

[43074]

Have you actually spoken to any signallers or controllers about this?

Do you actually have anything useful to contribute to the discussion about the phased introduction of the timetable?