spoony
Member
I agree, but maybe there would be intrest from passenger services too. Any reopening would probably involve the metro in some form though.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Integrating the east coast
- Thread starter Waverley125
- Start date
- Status
I agree, but maybe there would be intrest from passenger services too. Any reopening would probably involve the metro in some form though.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
They're actually 2+2 throughout, but you still make a valid point!
flymo
Established Member
Plus new wider Stoke & Peascliffe Tunnels?
If this comes off I think I'll move to Thirsk. Going to be a busy little station. Are there any crossovers between the fast and slow lines other than the ones just south of Northallerton? If not then it would be slow lines all the way from Thirsk to Northallerton. Just out of curiosity what is the speed limit on the slow lines, 90mph?
I'm guessing one is Northallerton, what is the other one?
Failed Unit
Established Member
Fantasy timetables my sort of thing 
I would do - hourly
1. London, York, Newcastle, Edinburgh (with some extended to Aberdeen & Inverness and some stopping at Morpeth, Alnmouth or Dunbar but not all)
2. London, Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Berwick, Edinburgh, Haymarket, Motherwell, Glasgow,
3. London, Peterborough, Newark, Doncaster, Wakefield, Leeds
4. London, Grantham, Newark, Doncaster, Wakefield, Leeds
5. London, Stevenage, Grantham, Retford, Doncaster, Selby, Brough, Leeds
6. London, Grantham, Newark, Retford, York, Thirsk, Northallerton then either alternate hour Sunderland and Middlesbrough.
Then on Thameslink,
London, Huntingdon, Peterborough, Spalding, Sleaford, Lincoln Central.
If you were making a mega east coast franchise, Lincolnshire and Newcastle based Northern services should be added to it, maybe even York - Hull as well.
I would do - hourly
1. London, York, Newcastle, Edinburgh (with some extended to Aberdeen & Inverness and some stopping at Morpeth, Alnmouth or Dunbar but not all)
2. London, Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Berwick, Edinburgh, Haymarket, Motherwell, Glasgow,
3. London, Peterborough, Newark, Doncaster, Wakefield, Leeds
4. London, Grantham, Newark, Doncaster, Wakefield, Leeds
5. London, Stevenage, Grantham, Retford, Doncaster, Selby, Brough, Leeds
6. London, Grantham, Newark, Retford, York, Thirsk, Northallerton then either alternate hour Sunderland and Middlesbrough.
Then on Thameslink,
London, Huntingdon, Peterborough, Spalding, Sleaford, Lincoln Central.
If you were making a mega east coast franchise, Lincolnshire and Newcastle based Northern services should be added to it, maybe even York - Hull as well.
You should get 6tph out of KGX with no problem (except maybe platform space?) How about:
xx00: KGX-EDB, calling York, Newcastle, Edinburgh. Continues north as necessary, and more often than before. Include some stops North of Newcastle and Darlington as needed.
xx03: KGX-LDS, calling all intermediate stations to Leeds
xx20: Open access slot; alternate services to Sunderland and Harrogate via York. Any other open access ideas would be good as well
xx30: KGX-GLC, calling PBO, DON, YRK, Darlington, Durham, NCL, two stations between here and EDB, EDB itself, HYM and MTH
xx35: KGX-LDS, most stops, but slightly quicker. This service may continue beyond Leeds, but I would not suggest allowing reversing.
xx50: To Lincoln (calls PBO only), or open access to Hull. (HT stopping pattern)
The top of the hour departure could be flexible, so the Aberdeen and Inverness runs would only stop York and Newcastle, whereas the Edinburgh terminators could have additional Darlington and Berwick upon Tweed stops.
People may moan about Glasgow getting the slower service, but in reality most Glaswegians will go Virgin to/from London, using NXEC train for the intermediate stations first and foremost. Besides, it's probably no slower than the current services. In reality, not all trains will continue to Glasgow. The fast Edinburgh train would help boost customers at Edinburgh I'd think, and journey times for stations North of Edinburgh would be better.
The aim would be that all stations South of Doncaster would receive a minimal twice-hourly service. At least hourly York-Newcastle and two-hourly Newcastle-Edinburgh. The plan factors in an hourly GLC-EDB via MTH, but not all services need continue if paths are not available.
xx00: KGX-EDB, calling York, Newcastle, Edinburgh. Continues north as necessary, and more often than before. Include some stops North of Newcastle and Darlington as needed.
xx03: KGX-LDS, calling all intermediate stations to Leeds
xx20: Open access slot; alternate services to Sunderland and Harrogate via York. Any other open access ideas would be good as well
xx30: KGX-GLC, calling PBO, DON, YRK, Darlington, Durham, NCL, two stations between here and EDB, EDB itself, HYM and MTH
xx35: KGX-LDS, most stops, but slightly quicker. This service may continue beyond Leeds, but I would not suggest allowing reversing.
xx50: To Lincoln (calls PBO only), or open access to Hull. (HT stopping pattern)
The top of the hour departure could be flexible, so the Aberdeen and Inverness runs would only stop York and Newcastle, whereas the Edinburgh terminators could have additional Darlington and Berwick upon Tweed stops.
People may moan about Glasgow getting the slower service, but in reality most Glaswegians will go Virgin to/from London, using NXEC train for the intermediate stations first and foremost. Besides, it's probably no slower than the current services. In reality, not all trains will continue to Glasgow. The fast Edinburgh train would help boost customers at Edinburgh I'd think, and journey times for stations North of Edinburgh would be better.
The aim would be that all stations South of Doncaster would receive a minimal twice-hourly service. At least hourly York-Newcastle and two-hourly Newcastle-Edinburgh. The plan factors in an hourly GLC-EDB via MTH, but not all services need continue if paths are not available.
Waverley125
Member
sorry, I'm only just realising how badly written some of the post is. Basically:
xx00-Glasgow (Aberdeen): Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Newcastle, Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick, Dunbar, Haymarket, Motherwell. (Peterborough, York, Newcastle, Waverley, Haymarket, Inverkeithing, Kirkcaldy, Leuchards, Dundee, Arbroath, Montrose, Stonehaven)
xx10-Skipton: Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark North Gate, Retford, Doncaster, Wakefield Westgate, Leeds, Shipley, Keighley.
xx20-Newcastle: Peterborough, Newark North Gate, Doncaster, York, Thirsk, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham
xx30-Bradford F Sq: Peterborough, Doncaster, Wakefield Wesgate, Leeds, Shipley
xx40-Hull (Sunderland): Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark north Gate, Retford, Doncaster, Selby, Howden, Brough. (Peterborough, York, Thirsk, Northallerton, Middlesborough, Hartlepool).
xx50-Harrogate: Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Retford, Doncaster, Leeds, Harrogate
All trains that pass through call peterborough, York & Newcastle. Newark has 7tp2h (Skipton, Newcastle, Harrogate & Hull). Stevenage, Retford & Grantham have 5tp2h (Skipton, Hull, Harrogate) while Thirsk & Northallerton have 3tph2h (Newcastle & Sunderland). Stations Newcastle-Edinburgh have 1tp2h, a Glasgow service. Bradford & Skipton both have an hourly service to london, but interchange is available onto both services at Shipley, which also covers the lower airedale area.
xx00-Glasgow (Aberdeen): Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Newcastle, Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick, Dunbar, Haymarket, Motherwell. (Peterborough, York, Newcastle, Waverley, Haymarket, Inverkeithing, Kirkcaldy, Leuchards, Dundee, Arbroath, Montrose, Stonehaven)
xx10-Skipton: Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark North Gate, Retford, Doncaster, Wakefield Westgate, Leeds, Shipley, Keighley.
xx20-Newcastle: Peterborough, Newark North Gate, Doncaster, York, Thirsk, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham
xx30-Bradford F Sq: Peterborough, Doncaster, Wakefield Wesgate, Leeds, Shipley
xx40-Hull (Sunderland): Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark north Gate, Retford, Doncaster, Selby, Howden, Brough. (Peterborough, York, Thirsk, Northallerton, Middlesborough, Hartlepool).
xx50-Harrogate: Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Retford, Doncaster, Leeds, Harrogate
All trains that pass through call peterborough, York & Newcastle. Newark has 7tp2h (Skipton, Newcastle, Harrogate & Hull). Stevenage, Retford & Grantham have 5tp2h (Skipton, Hull, Harrogate) while Thirsk & Northallerton have 3tph2h (Newcastle & Sunderland). Stations Newcastle-Edinburgh have 1tp2h, a Glasgow service. Bradford & Skipton both have an hourly service to london, but interchange is available onto both services at Shipley, which also covers the lower airedale area.
charley_17/7
Member
I would like to see a return to IC/IR/SE split-style operation.
IEP sets to split/join at various locations to give wider choice of journey opportunities/population coverage, stopping people 'railheading' by car, and supporting the local services.
For example, you could have:
Lincoln/Nottingham (or Derby?) combine at Newark (new curve?) or Grantham.
Hull/Sheffield (or M/cr?) combine at Doncaster.
Bradford/Halifax/Leeds services combine at Wakefield.
Scotland/Tees Valley services combine at York.
You could design slab ends between the sets, as high speed running isn't essential off the main line.
If WCML can have local 'regional stopping' services, why can't the ECML, to speed up the longer distance trains? WAGN planned to extend to Doncaster in the early days of privatisation. You could then open up wider areas, like Peterborough - Doncaster, Nottingham - Doncaster, rather than continually widening/upgrading the M1/A1/A1(M) routes.
IEP sets to split/join at various locations to give wider choice of journey opportunities/population coverage, stopping people 'railheading' by car, and supporting the local services.
For example, you could have:
Lincoln/Nottingham (or Derby?) combine at Newark (new curve?) or Grantham.
Hull/Sheffield (or M/cr?) combine at Doncaster.
Bradford/Halifax/Leeds services combine at Wakefield.
Scotland/Tees Valley services combine at York.
You could design slab ends between the sets, as high speed running isn't essential off the main line.
If WCML can have local 'regional stopping' services, why can't the ECML, to speed up the longer distance trains? WAGN planned to extend to Doncaster in the early days of privatisation. You could then open up wider areas, like Peterborough - Doncaster, Nottingham - Doncaster, rather than continually widening/upgrading the M1/A1/A1(M) routes.
spoony
Member
It is encoraging to see people still thinking its worth retaining services along the Durham Coast Line.
MCR247
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 10,292
Why include nottingham. There would probably not be room. Derby? Thats pointless! Why? You have a perfectly good EMT service! Thats probably quicker. I dont think they would create a new curve at Newark just for a service to a station with 2tph to London already!
You cant have scotland services splitting, unless you have 2x 8 coaches. The scotland services are already busy! I dont think there is enough platform space at those staionsm like Grantham/Newark, it would distrupt express services if there was a delay./
Last edited:
charley_17/7
Member
Shouldn't the Durham Coast line get better services? Other modes (like the A19/A66) has had hundreds of millions spent on them.
I am thinking Nottingham (or East Midlands Parkway/Derby), because it isn't exactly easy for pax from East Anglia or Essex to get there easily/quickly. Not as competition for London-bound traffic.
I am also thinking diversionary routes for when the MML is upgraded.
People want clockface, reliable timetables, with cross-platform interchange.
Its relatively simple to get from say, Chester to Milton Keynes via the WCML, but try the same for Cambridge or Stevenage to Nottingham via the ECML. I'm thinking just as much XC as IC.
With regards to the Scotland services, introducing an InterRegional/XC between PBO and DON would allow stations like Newark/Grantham to be skipped. Like how Hartford or Congleton pax on the WCML use the Regional to connect into the IC/XC.
I am thinking Nottingham (or East Midlands Parkway/Derby), because it isn't exactly easy for pax from East Anglia or Essex to get there easily/quickly. Not as competition for London-bound traffic.
I am also thinking diversionary routes for when the MML is upgraded.
People want clockface, reliable timetables, with cross-platform interchange.
Its relatively simple to get from say, Chester to Milton Keynes via the WCML, but try the same for Cambridge or Stevenage to Nottingham via the ECML. I'm thinking just as much XC as IC.
With regards to the Scotland services, introducing an InterRegional/XC between PBO and DON would allow stations like Newark/Grantham to be skipped. Like how Hartford or Congleton pax on the WCML use the Regional to connect into the IC/XC.
About 60mph! Hence why trains booked slow line YRK-NTR take ages compared to trains booked fast line.
MCR247
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 10,292
I say grantham and newark need more scotland trains as any one in Nottingham/Derby/Loughborough etc doesnt have a connection to either the ECML or WCML. Birimgham/Crewe are the closest places for thw WCML and Grantham/Newark are the closest places for ECML. Those are the only ways to get to Scotland avoiding XC **** service.
Last edited:
Failed Unit
Established Member
Sorry mate, I can't agree with adding more stops into the London - Newcastle / Scotland route. Thirsk on a Newcastle train! All stations north of Newcastle on what should be a fast train! We should be trying to speed up this journey not slow it down. Leave Thirsk to TPE and GC. Give Morpeth, Alnmouth and Dunbar some direct trains per day, but leave the bulk of the service to XC. London - Edinburgh used to be 3:59 on the fastest journey, I think it is now 4:13. Not much difference you may say but someone seeing sub 4 hours is more likely to use the train over a plane! It is interesting that Virgin have gone for 1 fast train per day to most places they serve but East Coast are not. Saying that 4:20 proposed is a lot better than 4:45 on a lot of services at the moment!
BTW I would love to see Newark served by more trains to Scotland on a selfish point of view but would equally be happy if it was only one per day ie 0737 as long as many of others offered good connections at York. Shame the stopper is planning on hitting Leeds rather than York!
43106
Member
Some of what you're saying is spot on, but some of it is a bit wide of the mark.
I agree about less stops on KX-Scotland services, particularly SOUTH of Newcastle. Trains stopping at Thirsk should be confined to Sunderland services, but I'd not stop there at all, except for TPE and local stuff. There's too much hassle in switching between slow & fast lines.
Stations between Newcastle and Edinburgh deserve direct services. Morpeth warrants 3 or 6 trains per day in each direction. Alnmouth and Dunbar should get 1tph each. Berwick deserves 3 trains every 2 hours, which is fractionally better that it's getting now. However, I wouldn't leave these stations to XC, as I'd transfer most Edinburgh - Newcastle XC services to the EC, so that there is a consistent 2tph service between London and Edinburgh.
(Further example - at present, there's an NXEC train leaving Edinburgh at XX00. There's an XC service to York & beyond leaving Edinburgh at XX05 or XX10 - and that's it. This is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!!!!)
I don't give a damn about a super-fast service between Scotland and KX. I'd sacrifice that for a frequent, consistant, clockfaced service.
I'd like to see NO Scotland trains stop at Stevenage, Grantham, Newark or Retford. I'd have Leeds, Hull, Lincoln and Sunderland services stopping here, with a proper plan of interchanging at Doncaster.
A couple of points I'd like to clarify. Why are a couple of people so against the Sunderland service reversing at Middlesborough? Also, reference has been made to the "Durham Coast" service. I take it this is jargon for the present GCR service?
Can I thank everyone who's contributed to this thread - As far as I'm concerned, it been one of the most thought-provoking I've ever seen on ANY Railway forum. Keep it up!
Although I take your comments on board which are fair enough, some of it I don't agree with. You wouldn't stop at Thirsk at all, except for TPE and local stuff (of there being none) and the reason stated is "too much hassle in switching between the slow and fast lines", yet Dunbar deserve a service? If you reasoning for no Thirsk service applies, then why not for Dunbar?
I obviously realise, Dunbar and Thirsk cannot be compared by passenger numbers per annum, but this probably has something to do with Thirsk having an extremely poor service for many years. Therefore, I reckon your plan is a bit short sighted.
tbtc
Veteran Member
So you'd take Edinburgh's only service to Leeds/ Sheffield/ East Midlands/ Bristol etc away?
The reason for the poorly pathed services is that the Scotrail service to North Berwick and the freight "path" are both so slow (with no passing places) that they take about 20 minutes longer to get from Waverley to Drem compared to an Intercity service - so the NXEC/ XC trains only have two short "windows" each hour. They should have built stations like Wallyford with a passing place (or four platforms) to allow these slower services to be overtaken, as it's a major bottleneck - and I've been caught on many northbound Intercity services that were late by the time they got to Drem and therefore took an extra 15 minutes (plus!) to crawl through East Lothian into Edinburgh because there was nowhere to overtake the North Berwick "stopper"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well, the XC service is a half hourly link from Derby to York and Newcastle on the ECML (plus an hourly service to Doncaster, Edinburgh etc), that's the best service the East Midlands has had to the ECML that I can remember... What more should they be doing?
Also, it should be said that this thread shows the big contradiction that rail enthusiasts have. The ECML could be much more efficiently run if the NXEC/ HT/ GC/ TPX/ XC (etc) services were co-ordinated centrally (e.g. a half hourly service from York to Yarm/ Eaglescliffe, a co-ordinated four trains an hour from York to Newcastle, shorter units like 180s being allocated to quieter services)...
...however, at the same time, whilst we want such improvements, we also want the variety of TOCs/ liveries and "competition"...
43106
Member
IF I understand your post correctly....
1) I'd have Thirsk served by TPE only - at present it's about a 1tph service. The "...local service..." I banged on about was a Pacer I saw between Northallerton and Thirsk. This was 5 years ago, so I'm probably out of date. (I am - I've just looked at the current Table 26 of the PTT. I therefore stand corrected.)
2) Thirsk have NXEC, XC, TPE and GCR 'available'. Dunbar has NXEC and XC only, and very few XC stop there. (Note - Scotrail does not serve Dunbar either - never has done!) So Dunbar depends on NXEC. Irrespective of who stops at Dunbar, stopping there is not much of a logistic problem. Correspondents to this thread seem to think that swopping between slow and fast lines on the south side of Thirsk is not a problem, but, apparently, it is North of Thirsk. I can't see it myself, although the northbound slow-to-fast switch is at Avenue Junction, a little over a mile and a half north of Thirsk.
Yep, it probably is. It depends on how you define a "...poor service..." Thirsk has had a 1tph service for the last few years. I presume this has sufficed, therefore I haven't touched it. Would it take much to reopen the fast platforms at Thirsk?
Scotrail aspire to serve Dunbar with a local service. Probably alternating with the North Berwick service. As of yet, this has not come to fruition. The Airdrie-Bathgate opening will result in a cascade of rolling stock which could potentially see stock become available for this, but I doubt it will happen. This would of course be good for resident, who finally have a frequent service to the Capital, but I would hope that it does not result in the loss of Southbound trains.
I'm also surprised that you say Dunbar is "not much of a logistic problem"!. I think it's pretty bad, as the Northbound services need to cross in from of Southbound services both arriving and departing from the station! This means coordinating trains so as not to cause a conflict at the station; ie, a stopping service needs the Southbound line to be clear for about 5 minutes or so. And this doesn't account for delays in both directions!
Dunbar is an important town, and to deprive it of a service to Edinburgh would be barmy. However, improving services to Edinburgh could come at a loss of direct services to the South, and this would be equally barmy.
43106
Member
Yep. IF there's a 2tph service to London, there would still be a requirement for an additional train between Edinburgh and Newcastle every 6 hours to MAINTAIN the present level of service. This would be an XC service.
You've unintentionally contradicted yourself! I couldn't agree more, re co-ordinating everything, but if the services are to be "...co-ordinated centrally..." then competition is inherently done away with. I don't want competition - it's wasteful and expensive. Bring back BR!
Thats fine, no problems.
Not necessarily, NXEC dont feature in the 'available' TOC's for Thirsk. There are plans for Thirsk in the Network Rail ECML proposals. This involves platform lengthening, but NXEC cannot be considered for this until this is completed. In fact, IIRC, it was one of the stipulations of future franchises, that Thirsk could be served by the East Coast franchise upon considerable infrastructure improvements.
WillPS
Established Member
With the Midland Main Line the way it is, going via the East Coast isn't totally stupid - at least in theory anyway. BR used to run London King's Cross - Grantham at 55 minutes, with a good connection you could be into Nottingham in another half hour.
Shame about the wires and that though.
Shame about the wires and that though.
Failed Unit
Established Member
Thinking out the box a little, along with the IEP's desire to have portion working (ignoring the fact NR don't want it) maybe we could have.
London services
London, York, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Haymarket stations to Aberdeen / Inverness replacing the Scotrail services.
London, Stevenage, Peterborough, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Berwick, Edinburgh, Haymarket, Motherwell, Glasgow
London, Grantham, Newark, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Newcastle, one of {Morpeth, Alnmouth, Dunbar}, Edinburgh
London, Peterborough, Newark, Retford, Wakefield, Leeds
London, Stevenage, Grantham, Doncaster, Wakefield, Leeds & Selby, Brough, Hull,
London, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster then onwards to Sunderland/Bradford/Middlesbrough using Grand whatevers paths.
XC would have.
Sheffield, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle
Sheffield, Wakefield, Leeds, York, Darlington or Durham on alternate hour not both, Newcastle, good spacing of {Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick, Dunbar}
TPE would have
Leeds, York, Thirsk, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham, Chester-Le-Street, Newcastle
Down South and extra service.
London, Huntington, Peterborough, Spalding, Sleaford, Lincoln,
I know it is impossible to cover every journey..
London services
London, York, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Haymarket stations to Aberdeen / Inverness replacing the Scotrail services.
London, Stevenage, Peterborough, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Berwick, Edinburgh, Haymarket, Motherwell, Glasgow
London, Grantham, Newark, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Newcastle, one of {Morpeth, Alnmouth, Dunbar}, Edinburgh
London, Peterborough, Newark, Retford, Wakefield, Leeds
London, Stevenage, Grantham, Doncaster, Wakefield, Leeds & Selby, Brough, Hull,
London, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster then onwards to Sunderland/Bradford/Middlesbrough using Grand whatevers paths.
XC would have.
Sheffield, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle
Sheffield, Wakefield, Leeds, York, Darlington or Durham on alternate hour not both, Newcastle, good spacing of {Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick, Dunbar}
TPE would have
Leeds, York, Thirsk, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham, Chester-Le-Street, Newcastle
Down South and extra service.
London, Huntington, Peterborough, Spalding, Sleaford, Lincoln,
I know it is impossible to cover every journey..
Sir_Clagalot
Member
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2007
- Messages
- 853
I'm actually quite surprised that Scotrail doesn't serve Berwick upn Tweed, calling at all stations. Obviously they would need stock capably of keeping up with the linespeed (anyone know the average linespeed north of Berwick? My sectional appendix only goes to the border). it's electrified, so 365s would be up to the job, and with some mods they can run at 110 instead of 100.
How are things faring on the WC with the 100mph 185s vs the pendos?
How are things faring on the WC with the 100mph 185s vs the pendos?
Failed Unit
Established Member
I 185's seem to keep up time no problem on the WC,
As for the east coast you have some sections between Berwick and Dunbar which are as low as 75mph. There are some areas at 125mph (Prestonpans). I don't recall to be honests seeing many areas above 110mph to be honest so in theory a 100mph EMU could cut the mustard.
Couple of bits of infrastructure I would suggest should this ever happen, Dunbar should really get a Northbound platform, off the mainline would be even better so IC's can overtake locals. Berwick could use a bay so the unit isn't blocking the mainline while it turns around.
Don't know if a more local Newcastle - Edinburgh service would have demand from local stations, but again a passing loop at a station must be in place first so IC's can overtake. The 0625 Newcastle - Edinburgh is about 20 minutes slower than a service which only stops once, so maybe that isn't such a problem unless chathill or some of the other smaller stations between Morpeth and Alnmouth are served.
As I've already said, Scotrail have had a long aspiration to serve Dunbar; probably by alternating services to Dunbar and North Berwick. As of yet, however, this has not come to fruition. I've wondered if there's demand for services to continue all stops to Newcastle, jointly operated by Scotrail and Northern. Either that or run fast to Dunbar then all stops. They would probably need to be overtaken at some point, though.
Failed Unit
Established Member
I always thought Scotrail plan to run a service at x07 to Dunbar and x37 to North Berwick. Not sure if that is what you meant. Don't know how this will affect frieght but North Berwick is half-hourly on Saturday?
Yeah, that happens on Saturday. Acquiring the stock could be a problem because the 322s are annoyingly based at Glasgow! Hopefully with Airdrie-Bathgate we can get electrics based at Edinburgh which should solve that problem.
The other thing is paths; if they can run half hourly to Berwick that shouldn't be a problem.
Finally, if North Berwick wants a half hourly service (and on Saturdays, tourists could provide enough demand for it), there's nothing stop them running a connecting service between Drem and North Berwick.
The other thing is paths; if they can run half hourly to Berwick that shouldn't be a problem.
Finally, if North Berwick wants a half hourly service (and on Saturdays, tourists could provide enough demand for it), there's nothing stop them running a connecting service between Drem and North Berwick.
MCR247
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 10,292
I might have: (for NXEC)
London - Glasgow: Peterborough, Doncaster (sometimes), York, Darlington (sometimes), Newcastle, Berwick, Edinburgh, Haymarket, Motherwell
London Edinburgh: Stevenage (odd times), Peterborough, either Grantham or Newark or both, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, maybe Morpeth, Alnmouth or Berwick (sometimes terminates at Newcaster
London - Leeds: Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster
The ones I havent done I dont really know anything about.
London - Glasgow: Peterborough, Doncaster (sometimes), York, Darlington (sometimes), Newcastle, Berwick, Edinburgh, Haymarket, Motherwell
London Edinburgh: Stevenage (odd times), Peterborough, either Grantham or Newark or both, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, maybe Morpeth, Alnmouth or Berwick (sometimes terminates at Newcaster
London - Leeds: Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster
The ones I havent done I dont really know anything about.
Waverley125
Member
me123-would scotrail operate a cross-service do you reckon? I.E. stations to Drem, Dunbar, Berwick, Alnmouth, Morpeth, Cramlinton Newcastle? Obviously this would require either a set of coaches hauled by a 90, a 322 or some other emu. Would it float?
Secondly, I'd imagine that most journeys along the ECML are not london-Scotland journeys. This said, keeping times down is important. If the aberdeen HST calls only Peterborough, York & Newcastle then the London-Edinburgh time should be somehwhere in the vicinity of 3hr 45.
Secondly, I'd imagine that most journeys along the ECML are not london-Scotland journeys. This said, keeping times down is important. If the aberdeen HST calls only Peterborough, York & Newcastle then the London-Edinburgh time should be somehwhere in the vicinity of 3hr 45.
I think if the two companies acquired a fleet of trains (380s come to mind!) that it would be possible. Northern are operating diesels under the wires, and the intermediate stations get a good service in both directions, meaning that NXEC and XC don't need to call as often.
I don't know if it's financially viable, but it would make sense in my opinion.
- Status