Durham Coast route Saturday 7th March 2026.

[harz99]

Looking at Real Time Trains for today, it appears that Grand Central (GC) have given up most of their paths from York to Sunderland and return, in favour of diverted LNER Anglo Scottish services.

Are they required to do this, or is this some sort of quid pro quo deal between GC and LNER, with GC's intending passengers today being the losers?

 

[TUC]

Looking at Real Time Trains for today, it appears that Grand Central (GC) have given up most of their paths from York to Sunderland and return, in favour of diverted LNER Anglo Scottish services.

Are they required to do this, or is this some sort of quid pro quo deal between GC and LNER, with GC's intending passengers today being the losers?

No mention of it that I can see on GC website or X feed.

 

[harz99]

No mention of it that I can see on GC website or X feed.

GC don't usually mention that sort of pre planned stuff as the trains will not have been bookable anyway, not only that GC are also very poor at acknowledging their own disruptions on the day.

 

[TUC]

GC don't usually mention that sort of pre planned stuff as the trains will not have been bookable anyway, not only that GC are also very poor at acknowledging their own disruptions on the day.

But the webpage covering planned disruption (itself buried within the GC website) doesn't appear to mention 7 March https://www.grandcentralrail.com/east-coast-digital-programme

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2026 ==

But the webpage covering planned disruption (itself buried within the GC website) doesn't appear to mention 7 March https://www.grandcentralrail.com/east-coast-digital-programme

Correction. You have to go to another page on the website, and even then dig below what makes it appear to be a page on Middle East flight disruption, and then enter today's date to get to the details. https://www.grandcentralrail.com/travelling-with-gc/disruptions

Surely TOCs should put the current day disruptions on their front pages?

 

[Haywain]

Are they required to do this, or is this some sort of quid pro quo deal between GC and LNER, with GC's intending passengers today being the losers?

I believe they are required to do it, in the interests of the greater good.

 

[TUC]

I do find it surprising that the Durham Coast line can’t accommodate both GC and a large proportion of LNER traffic.

 

[Segedunum]

I do find it surprising that the Durham Coast line can’t accommodate both GC and a large proportion of LNER traffic.

The issue is really between Pelaw Jn and Sunderland where you have to find a gap between Metro services (5tph Saturday daytimes, 4tph evenings/Sunday). Northern now run 2tph along that section so its very slim pickings to get a path that works the whole way down the coast. You can flex the Metro services to a certain degree but they run with (by mainline standards) tight turnarounds and have to interact with South Shields line services once back on Nexus infrastructure.

Reducing the Metro service for the weekend was previously suggested but never got past the drawing board.

 

[TUC]

The issue is really between Pelaw Jn and Sunderland where you have to find a gap between Metro services (5tph Saturday daytimes, 4tph evenings/Sunday). Northern now run 2tph along that section so its very slim pickings to get a path that works the whole way down the coast. You can flex the Metro services to a certain degree but they run with (by mainline standards) tight turnarounds and have to interact with South Shields line services once back on Nexus infrastructure.

Reducing the Metro service for the weekend was previously suggested but never got past the drawing board.

Isn't that beyond where GC services terminate though? It's an issue for finding LNER paths, but I wouldn't have though it would impinge upon GC's ability to operate.

 

[Haywain]

Isn't that beyond where GC services terminate though? It's an issue for finding LNER paths, but I wouldn't have though it would impinge upon GC's ability to operate!

GC services terminating will (probably) take up paths that are needed for the diversions.

 

[harz99]

GC services terminating will (probably) take up paths that are needed for the diversions.

All 3 GC services from Sunderland in the morning start from Tyne Yard as ECS to Sunderland and continue on as a Passenger Service, so there are no terminating issues, yet none of those have operated this morning.

 

[Haywain]

All 3 GC services from Sunderland in the morning start from Tyne Yard as ECS to Sunderland and continue on as a Passenger Service, so there are no terminating issues, yet none of those have operated this morning.

Do they get from Tyne Yard to Sunderland by magic? No, in doing so they take up available paths which, as detailed above, are very limited.

 

[Ze Random One]

Looking at open train times, there appears to be a T3 possession at King Edward Bridge South Junction, so possibly Tyne Yard is inaccessible today, meaning only units stabled further south are available this weekend?

 

[Haywain]

Looking at open train times, there appears to be a T3 possession at King Edward Bridge South Junction, so possibly Tyne Yard is inaccessible today, meaning only units stabled further south are available this weekend?

Yes, it looks like the possession might be from there right down to Northallerton and Allens West.

 

[harz99]

Do they get from Tyne Yard to Sunderland by magic? No, in doing so they take up available paths which, as detailed above, are very limited.

I'm not sure what your point is, the paths they use are those allocated to them, and which they normally use on a daily basis.

However, if Tyne Yard is indeed not accessible for stock movements in or out, I guess that might explain the situation.

 

[Justin Time]

In response to the original post, I was on the GC 11:00 x The Cross. I boarded at York to Sunderland. It ran on time, only being slightly hindered by a northern service on the last part of the journey on the approach to Hartlepool, and onward.

 

[harz99]

In response to the original post, I was on the GC 11:00 x The Cross. I boarded at York to Sunderland. It ran on time, only being slightly hindered by a northern service on the last part of the journey on the approach to Hartlepool, and onward.

Well yes, but that working is normally formed from the first southbound train from Sunderland which arrives at King's Cross around 1010 hrs, that and the next two southbound workings did not run as they were removed from the days timetable, hence my original posted query.

 

[TUC]

Well yes, but that working is normally formed from the first southbound train from Sunderland which arrives at King's Cross around 1010 hrs, that and the next two southbound workings did not run as they were removed from the days timetable, hence my original posted query.

It looks like the Southbound services from 1233 onwards operated, so I'm not sure what had happened in the morning vs the afternoon to result in the difference.

 

[harz99]

That is the return working of the 0800 Kings Cross to Sunderland

It looks like the Southbound services from 1233 onwards operated, so I'm not sure what had happened in the morning vs the afternoon to result in the difference.

 

[Haywain]

I'm not sure what your point is, the paths they use are those allocated to them, and which they normally use on a daily basis.

My point is that paths normally available may not be available when longer distance services are diverted via the coast.

 

[harz99]

My point is that paths normally available may not be available when longer distance services are diverted via the coast.

Surely, the diverted services have to fit in paths around the services already allocated paths using the route, not just barge them out as you seem to be suggesting, otherwise LNER/Cross Country/Lumo could just all divert and take all available paths from GC and Northern as they are all longer distance services than GC or Northern operate.

 

[D1537]

Surely, the diverted services have to fit in paths around the services already allocated paths using the route, not just barge them out as you seem to be suggesting, otherwise LNER/Cross Country/Lumo could just all divert and take all available paths from GC and Northern as they are all longer distance services than GC or Northern operate.

Yes, which is why there are so few of them (effectively 1tph for LNER). Having said that, I don't believe XC have route knowledge around the coast and Lumo can't divert anyway due to the lack of wires.

I'm still not entirely sure why GC can't run to Sunderland, though, as mentioned above the real pinch point is north of there.

 

[The Planner]

Surely, the diverted services have to fit in paths around the services already allocated paths using the route, not just barge them out as you seem to be suggesting, otherwise LNER/Cross Country/Lumo could just all divert and take all available paths from GC and Northern as they are all longer distance services than GC or Northern operate.

Its not quite as simple as that. GC would have agreed to it first. You also look at passenger numbers, revenue loss etc

 

[harz99]

I'm still not entirely sure why GC can't run to Sunderland, though, as mentioned above the real pinch point is north of there.

They can, but looks like only from the South, and as a poster explained above it's probably due to Tyne Yard being inaccessible as a result of a possession.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2026 ==

Its not quite as simple as that. GC would have agreed to it first. You also look at passenger numbers, revenue loss etc

Thank you, that makes more sense.

Are you able to say if GC can be required to give up their paths even if they don't wish to, or does there always have to be a negotiated agreement with GC for that to happen, please?

 

[Haywain]

Are you able to say if GC can be required to give up their paths even if they don't wish to, or does there always have to be a negotiated agreement with GC for that to happen, please?

That would depend on the terms of their track access agreement.

 

[D1537]

They can, but looks like only from the South, and as a poster explained above it's probably due to Tyne Yard being inaccessible as a result of a possession.

Ah, I missed that; yes, that would certainly knock their first three southbound services out and then of course that would rebound onto the return northbounds.

 

[The Planner]

They can, but looks like only from the South, and as a poster explained above it's probably due to Tyne Yard being inaccessible as a result of a possession.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2026 ==


Thank you, that makes more sense.

Are you able to say if GC can be required to give up their paths even if they don't wish to, or does there always have to be a negotiated agreement with GC for that to happen, please?

You can use the decision criteria in Part D of the Network Code. You go for negotiation first. Then you can supply a decision crtieria to them with all the relevant evidence and why you have reached the decision that their paths should be rejected, which they will either accept or discuss further. If that doesn't get anywhere you end up at a dispute committee and its decided there whether NR have reached the correct decision or not. That could decide that GC keep their paths, or even that the engineering work just isn't compatible and NR remove it. That last one tends to be a bit nuclear as if you lose the work, its a lot of money down the drain and you still need to find a home for it.

 

[TUC]

Whatever the explanation, it is curious that there was no reference to the disruption on GC's website (although there is for other weeks).

 

[harz99]

You can use the decision criteria in Part D of the Network Code. You go for negotiation first. Then you can supply a decision crtieria to them with all the relevant evidence and why you have reached the decision that their paths should be rejected, which they will either accept or discuss further. If that doesn't get anywhere you end up at a dispute committee and its decided there whether NR have reached the correct decision or not. That could decide that GC keep their paths, or even that the engineering work just isn't compatible and NR remove it. That last one tends to be a bit nuclear as if you lose the work, its a lot of money down the drain and you still need to find a home for it.

Thank you again, that answers my original question fully.