December 2025 Timetable Change - Confirmed changes only

[weeklycommuter]

I may be getting my wires crossed here so apologies if I'm wrong, but what happened to the new Northern Leeds-Sheffield fast via Wakefield Westgate?
I thought that was due this TT change?

It's been delayed to start at the beginning of next year. The usual spurious excuses given - reality is probably that they don't have enough crew to run it at the moment.

At least this is only a short delay. The opening of Cambridge South Station has been delayed by six months.

 

[mikestone1952]

Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere but the Sunday Cardiff-Nottingham service reduced to two-hourly from the timetable change appeared to be worse than ever last Sunday, but got off to a better start yesterday, with the only the last two departures from Cardiff running ECS to Cheltenham presumably due to a signalling problem on the Awre route.
The curious thing is that until 8th January the discontinued trains are are shown in RTT and journey planners with replacement buses between Birmingham and Tamworth only which seems a little odd - althought they do at least eliminate a connection offered via Rugeley Trent Valley with a plus 5

 

[GoneSouth]

Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere but the Sunday Cardiff-Nottingham service reduced to two-hourly from the timetable change appeared to be worse than ever last Sunday, but got off to a better start yesterday, with the only the last two departures from Cardiff running ECS to Cheltenham presumably due to a signalling problem on the Awre route.
The curious thing is that until 8th January the discontinued trains are are shown in RTT and journey planners with replacement buses between Birmingham and Tamworth only which seems a little odd - althought they do at least eliminate a connection offered via Rugeley Trent Valley with a plus 5

XC did manage more services yesterday than the previous Sunday (only 1 all day!) on the Cardiff to Birmingham section, but still not good enough.

To compensate they went into meltdown everywhere else yesterday, first 2 southbound departures from Leeds cancelled, first departure from Bristol heading north was cancelled (again!). Numerous cancellations elsewhere including shambles west of Bristol and way too many curtailed journeys.

Travelling with them is utterly depressing at times, although I’m due £100+ delay repay for a shambolic journey last weekend so every cloud…!

 

[Llandudno]

XC did manage more services yesterday than the previous Sunday (only 1 all day!) on the Cardiff to Birmingham section, but still not good enough.

To compensate they went into meltdown everywhere else yesterday, first 2 southbound departures from Leeds cancelled, first departure from Bristol heading north was cancelled (again!). Numerous cancellations elsewhere including shambles west of Bristol and way too many curtailed journeys.

Travelling with them is utterly depressing at times, although I’m due £100+ delay repay for a shambolic journey last weekend so every cloud…!

The Delay Repay is useful - but I just wish they would run the damn trains…!

 

[Bald Rick]

But taking out the Leeds - Sheffield services on one Sunday and two weeks of weekdays does not contribute to the above aim.

Also South Kirby Jn - Leeds is the only area which could benefit from this.

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?

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?

All of my previous posts about the ‘soft launch’ have been regarding all the measures taken, not just the
Sheffield Leeds. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.

I am not going to give full chapter and verse on what happened when, as it is not public and I have no intention of making it so.

But the prime objective of the soft launch was, as I have stated before, to reduce the ‘stress’ on the network, especially and locations that are particularly congested and subject to high levels of reactionary delay. Leeds and Sheffield are two of those locations (as is the Welwyn viaduct). Both Leeds and Sheffield have been quite the challenge to timetable and do a platforming plan. Even taking out one train makes a difference, as it provides a small gap for recovery that otherwise can not be achieved. There has been much assessment and modelling to demonstrate this. Leeds becomes even more important with the Transpennine Upgrade blockade.

There were further objectives, one of which was to reduce the resource requirement (stock snd crew) in the first few weeks. Given that Northern, GTR and XC had the worst rate of crew cancellations when the request was made well over a year ago, and suffered even higher levels of cancellations in December 2024 than the already high level they were then experiencing, you can follow the logic, I hope, of doing something for the first few weeks.

Different operators wanted to reinstate their soft launch services on different times, which is another reason they were (mostly) done through STP. Cross Country’s are waiting until May.

 

[Starmill]

All of my previous posts about the ‘soft launch’ have been regarding all the measures taken, not just the
Sheffield Leeds. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.

I am not going to give full chapter and verse on what happened when, as it is not public and I have no intention of making it so.

But the prime objective of the soft launch was, as I have stated before, to reduce the ‘stress’ on the network, especially and locations that are particularly congested and subject to high levels of reactionary delay. Leeds and Sheffield are two of those locations (as is the Welwyn viaduct). Both Leeds and Sheffield have been quite the challenge to timetable and do a platforming plan. Even taking out one train makes a difference, as it provides a small gap for recovery that otherwise can not be achieved. There has been much assessment and modelling to demonstrate this. Leeds becomes even more important with the Transpennine Upgrade blockade.

There were further objectives, one of which was to reduce the resource requirement (stock snd crew) in the first few weeks. Given that Northern, GTR and XC had the worst rate of crew cancellations when the request was made well over a year ago, and suffered even higher levels of cancellations in December 2024 than the already high level they were then experiencing, you can follow the logic, I hope, of doing something for the first few weeks.

Different operators wanted to reinstate their soft launch services on different times, which is another reason they were (mostly) done through STP. Cross Country’s are waiting until May.

If you don't wish to address the point at hand that's totally your call, I'm happy with it. All of the above is common ground.

The original point I was making was pretty clear and easy to understand, and it was that the selection of the Leeds - Sheffield diagrams was because there was not based on the factors you claimed, but based on being the only available option.

 

[Bald Rick]

The original point I was making was pretty clear and easy to understand, and it was that the selection of the Leeds - Sheffield diagrams was because there was not based on the factors you claimed, but based on being the only available option.

I have completely missed your original point then, sorry. Nevertheless, I didn’t pick them! You’ll have to ask Northern about that.

 

[bunnahabhain]

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

An interesting problem that you get with the 170 doors is that people start trying to board whilst people are still a lighting, something you don't really get with 158s because it's obvious you can't fit. In my experience with both 15x and 170s so far I don't think it makes a tangible difference. Certainly the doors on a 170 are much slower than on a 158 as if you're working from a saloon panel it goes through the 3 second hustle alarm purely for the guard.

 

[Mugby]

XC did manage more services yesterday than the previous Sunday (only 1 all day!) on the Cardiff to Birmingham section, but still not good enough.

To compensate they went into meltdown everywhere else yesterday, first 2 southbound departures from Leeds cancelled, first departure from Bristol heading north was cancelled (again!). Numerous cancellations elsewhere including shambles west of Bristol and way too many curtailed journeys.

Travelling with them is utterly depressing at times, although I’m due £100+ delay repay for a shambolic journey last weekend so every cloud…!

Saturday was no better either. I was at Derby station in the afternoon and three consecutive westbound services were cancelled; 1438 Cardiff, 1453 Reading and 1510 Birmingham.
A bus to Birmingham was announced just before 1500 but no one seemed to know anything about it. It wasn't on any screens and any passengers for Brum would probably have got there quicker by waiting for the 1531 Plymouth, - although that was only a single Voyager.




















p

 

[The exile]

Certainly the doors on a 170 are much slower than on a 158 as if you're working from a saloon panel it goes through the 3 second hustle alarm purely for the guard.

Seems an incredible oversight not to have local control of a door override this (by default there is a safety-trained member of staff present throughout the operation).

 

[LowLevel]

Seems an incredible oversight not to have local control of a door override this (by default there is a safety-trained member of staff present throughout the operation).

Depends how the door control units on each door are set up. The 170/4s for example shut as soon as you turn the local door switch by default. Some of those have presumably failed, been repaired and then ended up on random doors on other units, while the odd door on 170/4 units now runs the hustle first!

 

[Watershed]

But the prime objective of the soft launch was, as I have stated before, to reduce the ‘stress’ on the network, especially and locations that are particularly congested and subject to high levels of reactionary delay.

Even taking out one train makes a difference, as it provides a small gap for recovery that otherwise can not be achieved.

That's all well and good - but what use is temporarily taking a train out of the timetable? When it gets reintroduced, that 'stress' will reappear. Again, either the timetable works or it doesn't. If the new trains add too much stress, then that suggests they can't or shouldn't be introduced at all. An honest conversation needs to take place with the public about what is going on rather than the current smoke and mirrors.

There were further objectives, one of which was to reduce the resource requirement (stock snd crew) in the first few weeks.

Right, so we are back to crew, which is what I suspected all along as the real cause. Again, how is a reduction for few weeks going to help? If it's Christmas related then what is the plan for next December - are these services going to be stripped out again?

If the argument is "ah yes, we'll have recruited more drivers/conductors by then" - pull the other one. That refrain is given every time crew shortages happen and nothing ever changes. The DfT is unwilling to pay for sufficient establishments to prevent shortages from causing disruption, it's as simple as that. They never will be, it's "wasteful" when things work well after all.

Sorry if I seem a tad cynical but the industry is really not covering itself in glory with the way it's handing these things.

 

[driverd]

Thank you @Bald Rick for taking the time to give a thorough explaination there. I can see both sides to this arguement and can appreciate the benefits to reducing capacity at key choke points. I do, however, feel that the industry should be capable or slightly more ambitious about successfully meeting its objectives.

On a personal level, I have found the new timetable very underwhelming, sadly it feels like a retrograde step, making the service worse for many with few improvements seen across the board.

As a regular user in Yorkshire, my main experience has been overcrowding, poorer connections and very little evidence of tangible improvements.

Can anyone enlighten us as to what the objective of this timetable change is - on a commercial or customer service level? All I'm seeing is more overcrowding, poorer connections and increased dwell time consuming units that should be out moving people and locking up platforms at busy stations.

Its a pretty substantial failure for me - feels like a solution in need of a problem, or perhaps more accurately, an ambition that has been so watered down it cannot possibly be what it once sought to be, yet has become such an ingrained objective in so many managers minds, that nobody has bothered to step back and think about the bigger picture.

 

[3RDGEN]

Thank you @Bald Rick for taking the time to give a thorough explaination there. I can see both sides to this arguement and can appreciate the benefits to reducing capacity at key choke points. I do, however, feel that the industry should be capable or slightly more ambitious about successfully meeting its objectives.

On a personal level, I have found the new timetable very underwhelming, sadly it feels like a retrograde step, making the service worse for many with few improvements seen across the board.

As a regular user in Yorkshire, my main experience has been overcrowding, poorer connections and very little evidence of tangible improvements.

Can anyone enlighten us as to what the objective of this timetable change is - on a commercial or customer service level? All I'm seeing is more overcrowding, poorer connections and increased dwell time consuming units that should be out moving people and locking up platforms at busy stations.

Its a pretty substantial failure for me - feels like a solution in need of a problem, or perhaps more accurately, an ambition that has been so watered down it cannot possibly be what it once sought to be, yet has become such an ingrained objective in so many managers minds, that nobody has bothered to step back and think about the bigger picture.

You would need to detail particular routes to answer that but the ECML changes specifically are about exploiting the massive investment in the ECML over the last decade which has finally delivered more trains, seats and faster journey times which it is claimed will generated £40-60 Million of extra annual revenue off ECML services.

The recast ECML timetable allows the extra Leeds - Sheffield path for example which has been a long held aspiration. For each "poorer connection" there is likely a better one, Hull to Edinburgh is 30 mins quicker than before for example, no good for West Yorkshire but then the ECML timetable isn't written around Leeds, Durham or even Hull. It's not perfect and no doubt minor changes will be made in future, hopefully from 2028 the new LNER units will be available to boost capacity and maybe LNER will get the extra Leeds service each two hours it was planning to run.

 

[YorkshireBear]

It has increased capacity at most of the big revenue generating stations.

 

[87015]

It has increased capacity at most of the big revenue generating stations.

On a nice management spreadsheet or where the capacity is actually needed? Is Peterbough not high revenue enough for the morning peak to now have a 40m gap, and shorter sets, let alone abandoning Stevenage?

 

[benk1342]

On a nice management spreadsheet or where the capacity is actually needed? Is Peterbough not high revenue enough for the morning peak to now have a 40m gap, and shorter sets, let alone abandoning Stevenage?

I get your point but Stevenage is hardly abandoned. It has an enviable 4tph fast into the Thameslink core, even off peak, plus an additional hourly (?) peak non stop Great Northern to King’s Cross, plus 2tph stoppers into King’s Cross (not to mention the Hertford Loop services and pretty quick, convenient trains to Cambridge).

 

[Bald Rick]

That's all well and good - but what use is temporarily taking a train out of the timetable? When it gets reintroduced, centhat 'stress' will reappear.

I’m clearly not explaining it right.
With a new timetable many things have been revised - diagrams, rosters, regulation statements, contingency plans etc. It takes those running the service in control and signalling centres a little time to get the hang of it, especially when almost everything changes as in this case in some locations. Taking a little bit out of the service for the first few weeks enables them to get up to speed, such that when there are major incidents (as we saw on Tuesday and again today) the service is a little easier to recover while controllers are using the new contingency plans in anger for the first time.

It has been done several times before on timetable introductions, and will be done again.

Right, so we are back to crew, which is what I suspected all along as the real cause. Again, how is a reduction for few weeks going to help? If it's Christmas related then what is the plan for next December - are these services going to be stripped out again?

Crew was a reason, but not the primary reason as I said above.

If the argument is "ah yes, we'll have recruited more drivers/conductors by then"

Correct

The DfT is unwilling to pay for sufficient establishments to prevent shortages from causing disruption, it's as simple as that. They never will be, it's "wasteful" when things work well after all.

Incorrect. As has been proved at multiple operators in the last two years. But it does take time to build establishments. Several years in fact. The operators most affected by crew issues are well into that journey now.

 

[driverd]

You would need to detail particular routes to answer that but the ECML changes specifically are about exploiting the massive investment in the ECML over the last decade which has finally delivered more trains, seats and faster journey times which it is claimed will generated £40-60 Million of extra annual revenue off ECML services.

If I'm not mistaken, you've broadly quoted the benefits highlighted here:

East Coast Main Line December 2025 Timetable

East Coast Main Line December 2025 Timetable

ecmltimetable.info

Most of which, I'm fairly confident, were achievable with tweaks to the previous timetable, rather than a complete re-write.

To explain:

The recast ECML timetable allows the extra Leeds - Sheffield path for example which has been a long held aspiration.

These were already achievable, requiring only minor tweaks around Sheffield as the path on the opposite side of the hour to the existing XC service has long been available and indeed was loosely utilised by the PM peak Reading that historically diverted via Leeds. To claim a seismic recast of services was needed to enable this is disingenuous.

For each "poorer connection" there is likely a better one, Hull to Edinburgh is 30 mins quicker than before for example, no good for West Yorkshire but then the ECML timetable isn't written around Leeds, Durham or even Hull. It's not perfect and no doubt minor changes will be made in future, hopefully from 2028 the new LNER units will be available to boost capacity and maybe LNER will get the extra Leeds service each two hours it was planning to run.

Hull to Edinburgh accounts for 4800 journeys a year; I'm sure those 13 people per day will appreciate the improved connections. Meanwhile, the 13 or so people standing on every Leeds service won't appreciate the shortened trains.

If I'm not mistaken, haven't LNER acheived a lot of the additional seats quoted by simply utilising more of the fleet and holding Hitachi to the contractual number of units per day, rather than leaving a few on depot? (I could be entirely wrong here as I'm not totally familiar with the fleet situation)

 

[Bald Rick]

If I'm not mistaken, haven't LNER acheived a lot of the additional seats quoted by simply utilising more of the fleet and holding Hitachi to the contractual number of units per day, rather than leaving a few on depot? (I could be entirely wrong here as I'm not totally familiar with the fleet situation)

The daily requirement is one extra unit.

 

[Starmill]

I have completely missed your original point then, sorry. Nevertheless, I didn’t pick them! You’ll have to ask Northern about that.

I can't keep going around in circles with you I'm afraid. While the aims you set out are noble, and I believe common ground across the industry, the measures as they stand right now are ineffectual at achieving them. Other forum members clearly suspect they aren't likely to achieve any of the goals you mentioned, and they're quite right to do so. If more time had been available they would look very different. If you disagree about the facts then that's your right to do so but I can't really make it any clearer.

 

[Mag_seven]

As all the confirmed changes are now in (so to speak) we shall leave it there.

thanks everyone