East Coast Timetable Dec 24

[The Planner]

All users are not equal.

Very true, in terms of contractural rights, some freight trumps passenger.

There are still of the order of 40 daily flights each way between Edinburgh and London and this is absolutely traffic railway should be competing for. The empty biomass wagons returning to Tyne Dock to collect cargo that has been weeks in transit from North America, can run when the passenger trains have stopped, instead of them waiting for it.

So if nothing can run during the day, when is the maintenance done?

 

[James90012]

All users are not equal.

A timetable that puts 20 minutes of pathing time into an Edinburgh to Kings Cross express, which is suppose to be competing with air, is not sensible or a good use of resources. The public want a regular timetable with good connections and respond where these are provided. Between Edinburgh and London there is enormous pent up demand judging by the fact the trains are often full, and at eye watering prices.

There are still of the order of 40 daily flights each way between Edinburgh and London and this is absolutely traffic railway should be competing for. The empty biomass wagons returning to Tyne Dock to collect cargo that has been weeks in transit from North America, can run when the passenger trains have stopped, instead of them waiting for it.

Agreed, the overall rationale and intention of this paticular timetable change is sound.

I'd like to know how restrictive some of the service specification elements have been to resolving issues. For example, in this new world, I can't see the logic in Edinburgh trains needing to be exactly 30 minutes apart - when the reality is people will be on advance fares and locked onto certain trains. I'm also not convinced services need to be e.g. 4 hours 10 minutes every hour all day and variations of up to 5 minutes would not make a material difference to passenger's choices.

Equally though, it is important to have a consistent hourly pattern for the intermediate flows and half hourly for e.g. Leeds, so either way a standard hourly structure is needed. Never mind trying to tie in connections at Peterborough, Doncaster, etc.

 

[jayah]

Very true, in terms of contractural rights, some freight trumps passenger.

That is why there are still 40 daily flights each way between London and Edinburgh.

So if nothing can run during the day, when is the maintenance done?

The ECML already has scheduled freight and empty stock scheduled to run and actually running 24 hours a day on weekday nights.

The frequency of long distance passenger services has significantly reduced by around 21.30 and south of Peterborough, Thameslink run 24 hours a day too.

 

[Class 170101]

The empty biomass wagons returning to Tyne Dock to collect cargo that has been weeks in transit from North America, can run when the passenger trains have stopped, instead of them waiting for it.

Except the freight operators won't accept that because it reduces the efficiency of their wagon rotations. The more turns a train does in a day the more efficient it is.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I still personally think the delay will be used to find some contractural way or use of the Network Code (Part J) to move freight about, thats cheaper than building stuff.

in terms of contractural rights, some freight trumps passenger.

the freight operators won't accept that because it reduces the efficiency of their wagon rotations. The more turns a train does in a day the more efficient it is.

Will the solution to deliver the East Coast Mainline timetable change be the following?

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/network-code/Network%20Code%20and%20incorporated%20documents/Current%20Network%20Code%20document%20by%20Part/The%20Network%20Code%20-%20Part%20J.pdf

1.1.4 Condition J10 allows Network Rail to amend access rights in order to achieve ‘Better Use’ and subject to certain criteria. An Access Right Change is subject to ORR approval.

 

[Clarence Yard]

This is arguably what NR should have used for the ESG timetable rather than try to squeeze everything and having to use Part D of the Network Code.

With Part D, you still have to work within the hierarchy of rights (firm, contingent, aspirational) where as in Part J, you can use a clean sheet approach, if you can justify the “better use”.

However, if you use J10, you have to give at least 18 months notice and you have to compensate users for their loss of rights. If NR feel that the better use nets more industry value than the existing position, it might pay NR to buy off those rights. OA and freight could be very vulnerable when it comes to J10.

When the Network Code becomes the GBR Code, J10, if retained, will remain a very valuable tool to use on a constrained network.

 

[Manutd1999]

If there is a mechanism for Network Rail to fix this by paying off the freight operators, why on earth hasn't this been done during the last 5 years of standstill? The cost of these endless timetable reviews would have paid for it by now...

 

[507020]

That is why there are still 40 daily flights each way between London and Edinburgh.

Just ban them. Even forcing those people onto the roads would be a vast improvement.

If there is a mechanism for Network Rail to fix this by paying off the freight operators, why on earth hasn't this been done during the last 5 years of standstill? The cost of these endless timetable reviews would have paid for it by now...

You can’t just take freight off the ECML and we shouldn’t be wanting to. Rather than paying off freight operators, the money should be spent by Network Rail on the requadrupling at Huntingdon that would allow the timetable to run.

Is there anyone at all who knows what the current status of the recast is, or is it in permanent limbo?

 

[weeklycommuter]

I remember reading that the last infrastructure obstacle to be overcome was the requadrupling at Huntingdon, deferred from subsidence in the 1990s. When is this work scheduled to be completed so the timetable can be introduced?

It isnt required for the new timetable

The new timetable could not be delivered for December 2024 or for May 2025. What is required for the new timetable?

 

[Bikeman78]

Just ban them. Even forcing those people onto the roads would be a vast improvement.

You can’t just take freight off the ECML and we shouldn’t be wanting to. Rather than paying off freight operators, the money should be spent by Network Rail on the requadrupling at Huntingdon that would allow the timetable to run.

Is there anyone at all who knows what the current status of the recast is, or is it in permanent limbo?

Or follow the Dutch example and build a freight line from Felixstowe towards wherever the biggest freight flow is.

 

[Nottingham59]

Or follow the Dutch example and build a freight line from Felixstowe towards wherever the biggest freight flow is.

All the freight out of Felixstowe is currently carried on a single track bidirectional railway with all freight interleaved between an hourly passenger service. It's at most two trains per hour.

 

[Bald Rick]

The new timetable could not be delivered for December 2024 or for May 2025. What is required for the new timetable?

Lots of timetable work and compromise!

 

[jayah]

You can’t just take freight off the ECML and we shouldn’t be wanting to. Rather than paying off freight operators, the money should be spent by Network Rail on the requadrupling at Huntingdon that would allow the timetable to run.

It doesn't sounds like a great use of resources quadrupling this line or that so that a 60mph freight running with a diesel engine under the wires can be accommodated.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Point 4.6 of the report of the Rail North Committee meeting on 3 September 2024 also mentions infrastructure enhancements to create an additional hourly path between York and Newcastle to enable the TPE service between Manchester and Newcastle to return to 2 trains per hour

Do we know what these enhancements are?

Page 27 of the following House of Commons Research Briefing on the East Coast Mainline Timetable Changes lists the following enhancements. I assume the additional through platform and bays at Darlington Station are being delivered by the current upgrade due for completion by the end of 2025.

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10073/CBP-10073.pdf

• Tackling bottlenecks at York Station.
• Extending the four-track section of the ECML so that it ends just north of Northallerton, rather than just south of the station.
• Constructing an additional through platform and bays at Darlington Station, to reduce conflicts between local and fast services.
• Upgrading the existing freight-only route via Stillington, to allow more freight to use this.
• Restoring a third track north of Chester-Le-Street and a former chord at Bensham (Gateshead) to enable a greater degree of segregation between freight and fast passenger trains.
• Lengthening some of the bay platforms at Newcastle Station, to enable NPR trains to terminate here.

The original source for this is listed as page 114 of the following document which makes clear this is to deliver 7 or 8 tph between York and Newcastle

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62389f1ae90e07799cd3de47/integrated-rail-plan-for-the-north-and-midlands-web-version.pdf

3.104 Standard industry analysis suggests that extending the 8th and 9th services per hour beyond York towards Newcastle (from Liverpool) would generate insufficient revenue to cover the incremental operating costs and could increase overall performance risk. Analysis has also identified two packages of works required north of York: a package of interventions to support 7 or 8 tph to Newcastle, and a further package to support 9 tph to Newcastle. However, the 9th train in particular is unlikely to be needed to cater for overall demand. As set out at paragraph 3.43 above, the Government is therefore asking Network Rail to develop a package of interventions on the East Coast Main Line from London to Newcastle to deliver benefits earlier to the North East, and support 7 or 8 tph to Newcastle. This will involve assessing the case for:
• improvements at York, discussed at paragraph 3.43 above;
• extending the current 4-track railway so it ends just north of Northallerton, rather than just south of the station;
• an additional through platform on the eastern side of Darlington station, with bays to reduce the number of local services that cross in front of fast trains. This is consistent with the existing proposals being developed by Network Rail with Tees Valley Combined Authority;
• upgrading the Stillington route, to allow more freight to use it, and restoring a 3rd track north of ChesterLe-Street and a former chord at Bensham to enable a greater degree of segregation between freight and fast passenger trains; and
• lengthening some of the bay platforms at Newcastle to enable NPR trains to terminate in the station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Four-tracking through Northallerton looks extraordinarily expensive - the station is immediately after a road bridge and on an embankment.

 

[Magdalia]

Or follow the Dutch example and build a freight line from Felixstowe towards wherever the biggest freight flow is.

All the freight out of Felixstowe is currently carried on a single track bidirectional railway with all freight interleaved between an hourly passenger service. It's at most two trains per hour.

All of the rail freight out of Felixstowe. Most traffic goes by road and there were huge investments in the A14 as Felixstowe expanded, most notably the Orwell Bridge and a completely new road from Kettering to the M1/M6. Recently there has been further big improvements around Huntingdon, which led to the demolition of the flyover at the north end of Huntingdon station.

Rail freight out of Felixstowe has limited impact on the ECML, especially since the construction of the Werrington diveunder. For the ECML London Gateway and Tilbury are more significant than Felixstowe, as flows to and from those ports want paths south of Peterborough.

 

[43074]

Rail freight out of Felixstowe has limited impact on the ECML, especially since the construction of the Werrington diveunder. For the ECML London Gateway and Tilbury are more significant than Felixstowe, as flows to and from those ports want paths south of Peterborough.

To an extent yes as most of them use the Stamford lines north of Peterborough, however there still quite a few services from Felixstowe which use the yard at Peterborough and therefore cross the ECML on the level at Spital and/or New England Junctions.

This and freight paths on the Peterborough - Huntingdon section are among the issues with the timetable which are still being worked through. Quadrupling from Woodwalton to Huntingdon doesn't necessarily solve the issue as part of the problem is weaving conflicting freight moves (of all commodities, not just intermodal) to/from the yard among the more frequent long distance services in the Peterborough area.

The target is now December 2025, but really it needs putting out of its misery. Sorting the ECML timetable out could be a good test case for the new GBR structure, politically it would win a few brownie points with some of the stakeholders on the route.

 

[Ianigsy]

Four-tracking through Northallerton looks extraordinarily expensive - the station is immediately after a road bridge and on an embankment.

With a burrowing junction for Teesside freight as well.

 

[VauxhallNova]

Quite simply, the Government didn’t spend the billions to deliver the outcome promised. They cut the infrastructure improvements needed to deliver the promised outcome. So there were potentially too many trains for the infrastructure supplied.

Since then NR has struggled with the problem. The region has spent ages getting virtually nowhere and created an unworkable timetable which was then handed over to MK earlier this year.

To be fair to NR, MK has spent a lot of time straightening it all out since then but they are not quite there yet.

Do you know what schemes comprise the billions of investment needed, and on which sections this non-delivery applies to?

Just to follow up on this one, do you know what schemes comprise the billions of investment needed, and on which sections this non-delivery applies to?

 

[greyman42]

Does the tackling of bottlenecks at York station include sorting out the York to Harrogate trains crossing the ECML, as this seems to have gone quiet?

 

[Bikeman78]

It doesn't sounds like a great use of resources quadrupling this line or that so that a 60mph freight running with a diesel engine under the wires can be accommodated.

That raises another point. We need more freight to be hauled by electric locos. If I go to the Netherlands or Belgium, I'll see the odd class 66 but nearly all freight is hauled by electric locos. That has been the case for as long as I can remember. In the 1990s they were hauled by all manner of older locos, with loco changes at the borders. Now they are mainly hauled by multi voltage Bombardier Traxx.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Oct 2024 ==

All the freight out of Felixstowe is currently carried on a single track bidirectional railway with all freight interleaved between an hourly passenger service. It's at most two trains per hour.

I think the problem is that there are no more paths, rather than no more demand. The single line through Soham can't manage an hourly passenger service between the freights.

 

[Nottingham59]

I think the problem is that there are no more paths, rather than no more demand. The single line through Soham can't manage an hourly passenger service between the freights.

Sure, more paths would help a bit. But 50% of all traffic out of Felixstowe to the West Midlands and the North already goes by rail. So it can at most double from current levels.

See https://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/services/rail/

 

[swt_passenger]

Does the tackling of bottlenecks at York station include sorting out the York to Harrogate trains crossing the ECML, as this seems to have gone quiet?

It’s believed to be the “third line” north of York, the subject of this thread I think:

York 3rd Line Works

A lot of incremental changes to the OLE (Overhead Line Equipment) are currently being made in the York area - mainly from Holgate up to about Skelton Jn, but also increasingly from Holgate towards the station itself, and now inside the station proper! On the two-track section immediately north...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[weeklycommuter]

Quite simply, the Government didn’t spend the billions to deliver the outcome promised. They cut the infrastructure improvements needed to deliver the promised outcome. So there were potentially too many trains for the infrastructure supplied.
Since then NR has struggled with the problem. The region has spent ages getting virtually nowhere and created an unworkable timetable which was then handed over to MK earlier this year.
To be fair to NR, MK has spent a lot of time straightening it all out since then but they are not quite there yet.

You need to understand the process. Any May or December timetable change clock, when it comes to the lines on the graph, starts 40 weeks out, with the offer back to operators at 26 weeks out. The May 25 timetable starts on the 18th May. The D40 date was 8th August, with the D26 offer on the 15th November. It clearly wasn't considered possible, as @Clarence Yard has posted above, to meet that deadline in just under the 13 weeks we have left.
The dates are all in the public domain here.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Calendar-of-Milestone-dates-Dec-2024-May-2025.pdf

The D40 date for the 14th December 2025 timetable change is 7th March 2025. See the following document. I hope this new East Coast Mainline timetable is delivered for the December 2025 timetable change. The Darlington Station improvements should also be completed for the December 2025 timetable change.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Calendar-of-Milestone-dates-Dec-2025-May-2026.pdf

 

[Manutd1999]

Sorting the ECML timetable out could be a good test case for the new GBR structure, politically it would win a few brownie points with some of the stakeholders on the route.

I agree. The various stakeholders have shown themselves to be incapable of delivering this timetable over the last 5 years, so it could be a test case for GBR to start afresh, "bang some heads together" and see what happens.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I agree. The various stakeholders have shown themselves to be incapable of delivering this timetable over the last 5 years, so it could be a test case for GBR to start afresh, "bang some heads together" and see what happens.

It could also be a case where SoS direct GBR that access needs to be more equitable for the whole country not just one specific passenger flow.

 

[Nottingham59]

It could also be a case where SoS direct GBR that access needs to be more equitable for the whole country not just one specific passenger flow.

Time for the SoS to tell GBR to declare it "congested infrastructure" under Management of Congested Infrastructure: Network Rail’s Code of Practice and introduce a supplementary Access Charge alongside a Capacity Enhancement Plan.

I really don't understand why this hasn't been done.

EDIT: I see they have issued a notice of Early Indicator of Likely Congested Infrastructure: East Coast Main Line.
This claims that the route is not congested. Or at least not formally. Which is bollocks

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/East-Coast-Mainline-Early-Indicator-of-Congested-Infrastructure.pdf

 

[The Planner]

Time for the SoS to tell GBR to declare it "congested infrastructure" under Management of Congested Infrastructure: Network Rail’s Code of Practice and introduce a supplementary Access Charge alongside a Capacity Enhancement Plan.

I really don't understand why this hasn't been done.

EDIT: I see they have issued a notice of Early Indicator of Likely Congested Infrastructure: East Coast Main Line.
This claims that the route is not congested. Or at least not formally. Which is bollocks

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/East-Coast-Mainline-Early-Indicator-of-Congested-Infrastructure.pdf

Because it needs a plan to solve it with a route to funding. If there is no cash immediately available, what can NR do?

 

[jayah]

I think the problem is that there are no more paths, rather than no more demand. The single line through Soham can't manage an hourly passenger service between the freights.

Half of the freight paths through Soham during the hours you might run passenger trains, aren't used.

You could double the number of freight trains without any more paths.

Same everywhere including ECML.

 

[Bald Rick]

Time for the SoS to tell GBR to declare it "congested infrastructure" under Management of Congested Infrastructure: Network Rail’s Code of Practice and introduce a supplementary Access Charge alongside a Capacity Enhancement Plan.

I really don't understand why this hasn't been done.

EDIT: I see they have issued a notice of Early Indicator of Likely Congested Infrastructure: East Coast Main Line.
This claims that the route is not congested. Or at least not formally. Which is bollocks

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/East-Coast-Mainline-Early-Indicator-of-Congested-Infrastructure.pdf

The SoS can’t ‘tell’ GBR to declare congested infrastructure, not least as GBR doesn’t exist.

Also interested to see what reports and documents you are using to imply that the route does merit declaration of congested infrastructure.