December 2025 East Coast Timetable

[ainsworth74]

Timetabling various requirements on to a congested network always results in compromises.

It has taken scores of experienced timetabling folk about five years to get to this point.

By all means have a go at producign one yourself.

Surely they just wave the magic wand and can meet ever requirement that everyone puts on those teams? Silly of them to forget about the magic wand if they've not used it yet!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Timetabling various requirements on to a congested network always results in compromises.

It has taken scores of experienced timetabling folk about five years to get to this point.

The timetable itself is fine- it is as designed against the objectives.

It’s fair to say the objectives themselves are rubbish, it’s all about LNER focusing on York, Newcastle, and Edinburgh and bugger everybody else.

LUMO’s ORCATS raid vital addition to the market doesn’t help.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2025 ==

They would be xx59 at Birtley Jn, not headway with the Lumo from London

If that’s the case then giving Lumo those paths is the issue. 500,000 passengers are being inconvenienced so Lumo can run five carriage trains in competition with LNER. The whole thing is just a mess.

 

[43074]

Timetabling various requirements on to a congested network always results in compromises.

It has taken scores of experienced timetabling folk about five years to get to this point.

By all means have a go at producign one yourself.

Certainly not taking a pop at the planners themselves.

But,
- the trade offs involved were widely criticised by stakeholders in both the 2021 and 2024 consultations for it yet appeared to be largely ignored
- it is expected to result on an 8% or so drop in performance on an already fragile route
- the issues around freight capacity and scope for freight growth on the route (i.e. there is none) have been widely documented
- the operational nuances of it seem very fragile, e.g. southbound Edinburgh fast services overtake Hull Trains at Retford and LNER Lincoln services at Peterborough, so the whole timetable southbound is dependent on one train being right time after 250/300 miles

 

[weeklycommuter]

Plus the loss of the Edinburgh LNER through services as previously discussed and no improvement to the pretty early last Newcastle to Durham service in the evening (think it's actually a couple of minutes earlier from December).

The hourly XC Plymouth-Edinburgh train provides a direct service between Durham and Edinburgh. The problem is these XC trains do not have enough seats. The solution is to run the XC Plymouth-Edinburgh service with full length trains that have 600 seats.

 

[Siemens Trains]

It’s fair to say the objectives themselves are rubbish, it’s all about LNER focusing on York, Newcastle, and Edinburgh and bugger everybody else.

Surely a clue is in the name London & North Eastern Railway. As a matter of principle serving passengers between minor towns south of Leeds or York is surely rightly a secondary priority. Even the likes of Durham is barely a few minutes from either Newcastle or Darlington.
I can see how creating a timetable for the convenience of these intermediate stops would be viewed as a tail wagging the dog.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I can see how creating a timetable for the convenience of these intermediate stops would be viewed as a tail wagging the dog.

We’re not talking about some village with three men and a dog in it, though, we’re talking about a major university city here and a major traffic flow to and from it.

 

[D1537]

Surely a clue is in the name London & North Eastern Railway. As a matter of principle serving passengers between minor towns south of Leeds or York is surely rightly a secondary priority. Even the likes of Durham is barely a few minutes from either Newcastle or Darlington.

The issue for many people looking at (and who commented in the previous consulations) is that everything apart from passengers travelling from London to Newcastle/Edinburgh (and vice versa) appears to have become a secondary priority.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue for many people looking at (and who commented in the previous consulations) is that everything apart from passengers travelling from London to Newcastle/Edinburgh (and vice versa) appears to have become a secondary priority.

Surely this is not a surprise? Isn't the objection here similar to those made (and long forgotten about*) against the Virgin VHF timetable?

Short of HS2 East, how else do we serve that market? At present all we're doing is pricing people off and the trains are still full.

* Except for that Avanti has added a few stops back in.

 

[mernrith]

The hourly XC Plymouth-Edinburgh train provides a direct service between Durham and Edinburgh. The problem is these XC trains do not have enough seats. The solution is to run the XC Plymouth-Edinburgh service with full length trains that have 600 seats.

Mind you, it is currently served by an XC AND a 9-car LNER that runs to Edinburgh hourly.

Even the likes of Durham is barely a few minutes from either Newcastle or Darlington.

A city with 80k population, the region's largest university and more passenger usage does not need an acceptable train service.
Sounds right innit?

 

[D1537]

Surely this is not a surprise? Isn't the objection here similar to those made (and long forgotten about*) against the Virgin VHF timetable?

Well, to give an example, I'd just say that the most popular ECML destination from Edinburgh after Newcastle and York, is Durham. Meanwhile, KX-Leeds (the 2nd most popular destination after Edinburgh, and there's very little in it) gets a timetable with over a dozen 5-car trains because the 9s are being used for the mainline.

 

[bramling]

Surely a clue is in the name London & North Eastern Railway. As a matter of principle serving passengers between minor towns south of Leeds or York is surely rightly a secondary priority. Even the likes of Durham is barely a few minutes from either Newcastle or Darlington.
I can see how creating a timetable for the convenience of these intermediate stops would be viewed as a tail wagging the dog.

I can understand that logic being applied to the likes of Grantham, Newark, Retford and Northallerton. However Durham is a significant location, both in its own right and as a railhead.

 

[YorksLad12]

Well, to give an example, I'd just say that the most popular ECML destination from Edinburgh after Newcastle and York, is Durham. Meanwhile, KX-Leeds (the 2nd most popular destination after Edinburgh, and there's very little in it) gets a timetable with over a dozen 5-car trains because the 9s are being used for the mainline.

Yes. We seem to have moved from "Leeds is the biggest growth market, let's cut the journey time and add an additional train every two hours" (2019) to "Let's give Leeds shorter trains."

I know there are reasons for all of the decisions, and I'm certainly no planner, but: is there a definitive (so probably enthusiast/RailUK Forums rather than industry) list of winner and losers north of Doncaster?

 

[Clarence Yard]

The timetable itself is fine- it is as designed against the objectives.

It’s fair to say the objectives themselves are rubbish, it’s all about LNER focusing on York, Newcastle, and Edinburgh and bugger everybody else.

LUMO’s ORCATS raid vital addition to the market doesn’t help.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2025 ==


If that’s the case then giving Lumo those paths is the issue. 500,000 passengers are being inconvenienced so Lumo can run five carriage trains in competition with LNER. The whole thing is just a mess.

The timetable isn’t fine - there has been too much “forcing” to make the paths work so it will be vary difficult to run in times of perturbation. It doesn’t as “flow” as well as Eureka has done.

There is naff all ORCATS for anyone to raid anymore. Dedicated is the name of the game now, inter-available, which is what ORCATS allocates, is down to very low single percentage figures on the major ECML flows.

For hopefully the last time, Lumo isn’t primarily competing with LNER. What LNER does in terms of fares isn’t really their worry - they look at what the airlines are doing. If LNER are pricing pointing against Lumo, they are idiots. They will just be lowering their yield for no good reason.

I’ve never been one to worry about how long a train is. It’s what it carries and at what total train yield that concerns me. That’s something that the industry has largely forgotten to take real notice of.

 

[hexagon789]

Well, to give an example, I'd just say that the most popular ECML destination from Edinburgh after Newcastle and York, is Durham.

It's actually Berwick-upon-Tweed next after York, with almost double the passengers as Edinburgh-Durham (100.4k vs 55.9k).

 

[InOban]

And the most popular destination from Berwick-upon-Tweed is Edinburgh, which is much closer than Newcastle

 

[D1537]

It's actually Berwick-upon-Tweed next after York, with almost double the passengers as Edinburgh-Durham (100.4k vs 55.9k).

OK, I meant to say "in England". But BWK is losing LNER trains as well, I believe?

 

[mangyiscute]

OK, I meant to say "in England". But BWK is losing LNER trains as well, I believe?

Berwick is (just about) in England. It is losing LNER trains (they're doing to 1tp2h) but the TPE trains ensure its still 2tph to both Edinburgh and Newcastle

 

[D1537]

I know there are reasons for all of the decisions, and I'm certainly no planner, but: is there a definitive (so probably enthusiast/RailUK Forums rather than industry) list of winner and losers north of Doncaster?

Obvious Losers: Northallerton*, Durham, Morpeth.
Minor Losers: Berwick**
Winners: Edinburgh (but not if you wanted to travel to some intermediate stations such as Durham and Northallerton) and Newcastle if you're travelling to Kings Cross; there were already York non-stoppers.

*depending on where you're travelling to
** unless you're travelling to Newcastle or Edinburgh

 

[hexagon789]

Obvious Losers: Northallerton*, Durham, Morpeth.

Northallerton isn't in the Top 100 flows from Edinburgh so thats less than 15k journeys per year; Morpeth is 61st but is quite adequately served with only 2 fewer LNER calls from December but a improved TPE (increased to 8 trains and all extend to Newcastle now, so that's 3 more at Morpeth) service and XC.

 

[D1537]

Northallerton isn't in the Top 100 flows from Edinburgh so thats less than 15k journeys per year; Morpeth is 61st but is quite adequately served with only 2 fewer LNER calls from December but a improved TPE (increased to 8 trains and all extend to Newcastle now, so that's 3 more at Morpeth) service and XC.

Well, indeed, but the question was who are the winners and losers from the timetable as a whole. I think we can agree that Durham is the worst affected and that Northallerton is hit by losing all of its Edinburgh services (including a well-used LNER to Newcastle in the early mornings) - and both are getting a significant amount of 5-car trains as well. I might be complaining more than others because I use LNER to commute at the moment and the December timetable is going to add an hour to my day (well, it isn't, because I'll probably drive instead) but it does appear that some issues have been overriden by the apparent "necessity" to have a fast KGX-EDB every hour.

 

[43 302]

For hopefully the last time, Lumo isn’t primarily competing with LNER.

Actually that is exactly what they are doing. Jacobs did a report showing that LUMO have simply abstracted LNER passengers and that modal share between rail and the airlines has remained consistent. Simply put, the customers who choose LUMO were already going to travel by train, and the taxpayer ends up paying for it in the form of a subsidy to LNER. Wiithout LUMO, LNER would be able to return a premium (profit) that could be reinvested into rail, or subsidise Northern for e.g.

 

[weeklycommuter]

You could say that LNER stands for the London to Newcastle and Edinburgh Railway though Leeds and York are also very important. The top stations for number of journeys from Kings Cross 2023-24 reference the link below are as follows (double these numbers to get number of journeys both ways to and from these stations). GTR provide Cambridge-Kings Cross services and some Peterborough-Kings Cross services.
Cambridge 1,419,804
Peterborough 1,029,367
Edinburgh 999,376
Leeds 913,218
York 748,290
Newcastle 723,884
Doncaster 414,951
Darlington is 230,804 and Durham is 199,209.

https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/odm/gbr/?dest=all&string_out=London+Kings+Cross+%5B6121%5D

 

[43 302]

The biggest flaw of this timetable is the loss of capacity on Leeds trains. Shortening the 225s to save what is effectively an unnoticeable difference in journey time is totally unacceptable imo.

 

[Gwr12345]

I just wonder whether the timetable will last, or be confined to the dustbin of history like Operation Princess. I feel there's a lot that could go wrong.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Actually that is exactly what they are doing. Jacobs did a report showing that LUMO have simply abstracted LNER passengers and that modal share between rail and the airlines has remained consistent. Simply put, the customers who choose LUMO were already going to travel by train, and the taxpayer ends up paying for it in the form of a subsidy to LNER. Wiithout LUMO, LNER would be able to return a premium (profit) that could be reinvested into rail, or subsidise Northern for e.g.

This Jacobs report is disputed by open access operators. There are conflicting claims about the extent to which open access train operators extract revenue from Government controlled train operators. The reality is that it is impossible to say for certain how much revenue is extracted, all numbers will be estimates making various assumptions as it is impossible to determine real revenues in the alternative scenario in which the open access services do not run.

FirstGroup disputes £1bn open access abstraction claim on ECML

Report commissioned by public sector said open access could abstract more than £1bn in revenue over next decade.

www.railmagazine.com

FirstGroup disputes £1bn open access abstraction claim on ECML
By David Stubbings 28 May 2025

 

[D1537]

The biggest flaw of this timetable is the loss of capacity on Leeds trains. Shortening the 225s to save what is effectively an unnoticeable difference in journey time is totally unacceptable imo.

Unless LNER are using a greater number of 5-car units in this timetable, the number of 5-car services on the Leeds route also rises from 9 to 13. There's also the cancellation of one return journey to provide a unit for the Newcastle train that was planned to be a 225.

 

[35B]

This Jacobs report is disputed by open access operators. There are conflicting claims about the extent to which open access train operators extract revenue from Government controlled train operators. The reality is that it is impossible to say for certain how much revenue is extracted, all numbers will be estimates making various assumptions as it is impossible to determine real revenues in the alternative scenario in which the open access services do not run.

To which, one would also add, that every protagonist in this debate is a case of "they would say that, wouldn't they".

 

[Starmill]

Surely a clue is in the name London & North Eastern Railway. As a matter of principle serving passengers between minor towns south of Leeds or York is surely rightly a secondary priority. Even the likes of Durham is barely a few minutes from either Newcastle or Darlington.
I can see how creating a timetable for the convenience of these intermediate stops would be viewed as a tail wagging the dog.

Is Durham not somewhere you're familiar with?

It's one of the busiest stations in the North East of England...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2025 ==

This Jacobs report is disputed by open access operators. There are conflicting claims about the extent to which open access train operators extract revenue from Government controlled train operators. The reality is that it is impossible to say for certain how much revenue is extracted, all numbers will be estimates making various assumptions as it is impossible to determine real revenues in the alternative scenario in which the open access services do not run.

The difference, and this really matters, is that Jacobs provided some evidence.

Certainly their evidence is indeed flawed. Most is. Few things are absolutely certain in this world after all. But it's vastly more convincing than anything Lumo have provided, which we can summarise as "we don't agree" - or to put it another way no evidence at all.

 

[Magdalia]

Cambridge-Kings Cross services are Thameslink and Great Northern which also provide a lot of the Peterborough-Kings Cross journeys:
Cambridge 1,419,804
Peterborough 1,029,367

This does not include Cambridge North-Kings Cross (251,241) or Cambridge-St Pancras (321,828).

 

[weeklycommuter]

The biggest flaw of this timetable is the loss of capacity on Leeds trains. Shortening the 225s to save what is effectively an unnoticeable difference in journey time is totally unacceptable imo.

Unless LNER are using a greater number of 5-car units in this timetable, the number of 5-car services on the Leeds route also rises from 9 to 13. There's also the cancellation of one return journey to provide a unit for the Newcastle train that was planned to be a 225.

I have to agree that all Kings Cross-Leeds services really should be full length trains with the maximum possible numbers of seats.