LNER Capacity Increase options/ideas

[Trainbike46]

Based on the LNER fare increase trial thread, it is clear that LNER is in need of more capacity, especially on the Edinburgh route.

I would suggest a way to provide that extra capacity would be to make some changes to the 897 order, in particular, go for 12-car units instead of 10-car. Assuming cars are the same length as in the 397s, that would give a train of 2x24m end cars + 10x 23.3m intermediate cars, for a total length 281m. This fits in platforms 0-4 and 6-8 at King's cross, and certain platforms at Edinburgh. These trains would be 47m longer than a 9-car azuma so should be used on the busiest Edinburgh diagrams to increase capacity. With ten units, that would likely enable a bit less than half the diagrams to go to these longer trains.

This would also help to reduce per-seat subsidy, as it would have the same staffing requirements* (1x driver, 1x guard, 1x catering staff), but more passengers to pay for them.

Further capacity increases on the route would likely be necessary, and Lumo should be enabled to run 10-car trains to help with that. In the long term, what we need is HS2.

*I'm excluding whatever staff is used for First Class, as they should be entirely paid for by the premium charged for First Class tickets.

 

[A S Leib]

Assuming cars are the same length as in the 397s, that would give a train of 2x24m end cars + 10x 23.3m intermediate cars, for a total length 281m. This fits in platforms 0-4 and 6-8 at King's cross, and certain platforms at Edinburgh.

And, for the sake of (somewhat) completion, would fit in platforms 2 and 3 at Newcastle, the northbound platform at Durham, platform 1 at Darlington (railwaydata.co.uk says only 238m is usable northbound on platform 4), 5, 9 and 11 at York, definitely 8 at Doncaster and possibly 1 and 4 depending on direction, and 1 and 2 at Peterborough.

 

[30907]

An 11-car 897 would be the same length as a 10-car Azumu; that might be a more realistic option - though I suspect the 2025 timetable delivers the immediate uplift in capacity anyway?

 

[Trainbike46]

An 11-car 897 would be the same length as a 10-car Azumu; that might be a more realistic option - though I suspect the 2025 timetable delivers the immediate uplift in capacity anyway?

12-car is the maximum that can be done without platform extension at the key stations on the edinburgh route, so it makes sense to go for that.

The 2025 timetable does increase capacity to Edinburgh, but that trick can't be repeated another time when inevitably more capacity is needed. The 2025 timetable does also make significant trade-offs to achieve that capacity to Edinburgh.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Aug 2025 ==

And, for the sake of (somewhat) completion, would fit in platforms 2 and 3 at Newcastle, the northbound platform at Durham, platform 1 at Darlington (railwaydata.co.uk says only 238m is usable northbound on platform 4), 5, 9 and 11 at York, definitely 8 at Doncaster and possibly 1 and 4 depending on direction, and 1 and 2 at Peterborough.

And to further complete it, at Edinburgh Waverley a 281m train would fit at platforms 8, 9, 7/11, 2/19, and 1/20

 

[whoosh]

Will it fit with sufficient sighting of the signal though?

 

[BerkshireRails]

An 11-car 897 would be the same length as a 10-car Azumu; that might be a more realistic option - though I suspect the 2025 timetable delivers the immediate uplift in capacity anyway?

It is just about possible to fit an 11-car Axuma into Kings Cross, and with the move to ETCS, hopefully, there will no longer be a need to have such good signal sighting, and co-acting marker boards could be installed like what TfL has done with the Elizabeth Line.

 

[Trainbike46]

Will it fit with sufficient sighting of the signal though?

For most of them, definitely. There are a few borderline cases (e.g., platform lengths of ~290 metres), where it will likely depend on the exact signal location. This applies to KGX platforms 2,3,4,6,7,8, Edinburgh platforms 8 and 9. To be sure regarding signal sighting, these would have to be checked.

But platforms 0 and 1 at King's Cross are well over 300 metres, so definitely no issue there
platforms 1/20, 2/19, and 7/11 at Edinburgh are very long (385m, 595m, and 542m respectively)
Newcastle platforms 2 and 3 are well over 300 metres
York platforms 10, 11, 5, and 9 are well over 300 metres, with some restrictions of direction on some of these.

Overall I would conclude that there are enough platforms to enable 281m 897s, which would be slightly shorter than an 11-car 80x at 286m.

 

[London Trains]

The first solution for more capacity should be to ban the use of any units shorter than max length (9-12 coaches).

 

[Trainbike46]

The first solution for more capacity should be to ban the use of any units shorter than max length (9-12 coaches).

Agreed, however, LNER doesn't ever run 5-car trains to Edinburgh (Unless I've missed some?). AIUI, LUMO has requested/is planning to switch to 10-car operation, but this is currently not possible due to electricity supply constraints north of Newcastle. Those issues should be resolved, and LUMO should switch to full 10-car operation.

 

[Failed Unit]

And, for the sake of (somewhat) completion, would fit in platforms 2 and 3 at Newcastle, the northbound platform at Durham, platform 1 at Darlington (railwaydata.co.uk says only 238m is usable northbound on platform 4), 5, 9 and 11 at York, definitely 8 at Doncaster and possibly 1 and 4 depending on direction, and 1 and 2 at Peterborough.

In normal service, should we only be concerned about London, York and Newcastle and Edinburgh?

 

[Magdalia]

But platforms 0 and 1 at King's Cross are well over 300 metres, so definitely no issue there

There is an issue with platforms 0 and 1 at Kings Cross. They are only accessible from the eastern bore of Gasworks Tunnels. What happens if that is blocked?

 

[Trainbike46]

There is an issue with platforms 0 and 1 at Kings Cross. They are only accessible from the eastern bore of Gasworks Tunnels. What happens if that is blocked?

Is the Eastern bore commonly shut? I can't imagine KGX would fare well with losing its two longest platforms!

That depends on whether there are signal sighting issues at 2,3,4,6,7,8; they are all long enough for a 281m train, but may have signal sighting issues. (platform lengths from railwaydata)

If at least some of those are usuable for 281m trains, use those instead. I think this is the likely situation.

If none are, you'd have to terminate the train early.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2025 ==

Does anyone know if the lengths listed on Railwaydata are the actual length of the platform, or the maximum length of a train that could use the platform? Some specify things in the notes, but not all.

 

[HSTEd]

Is King's Cross currently anticipated to be part of the ECML South switchover to ETCS?

Once that occurs, doesn't signal sighting become moot?

 

[Magdalia]

If none are, you'd have to terminate the train early.

Where?

Edinburgh are very long (385m, 595m, and 542m respectively)
Newcastle platforms 2 and 3 are well over 300 metres
York platforms 10, 11, 5, and 9 are well over 300 metres

These are all a very long way away. What happens if the train is already beyond York?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where?

Anywhere, using ASDO.

Crikey, I've been on a Pendolino which was terminated at Liverpool South Parkway (possibly the only one to ever call there?) and it was done through the staff door in the front coach.

 

[Trainbike46]

Is King's Cross currently anticipated to be part of the ECML South switchover to ETCS?

Once that occurs, doesn't signal sighting become moot?

I think so, but not a signalling expert so I'm not the person to ask.

Where?

These are all a very long way away. What happens if the train is already beyond York?

As stated above, I don't actually think it is an issue to use platforms 2,3,4,6,7,8, I just can't say for 100% that they all have sufficient signal sighting, they are all listed at lengths of 285+ metres on railwaydata. That's before considering the points made by both HSTEd BerkshireRails regarding ETCS.

However, as stated by A S Leib upthread, Peterborough also has long enough platforms (1&2 are well over 300m long), so you could definitely terminate there. If willing to use SDO, even Finsbury park coud work if the train is already that close, or there is a very last minute closure of the tunnel into King's Cross.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2025 ==

Anywhere, using ASDO.

Crikey, I've been on a Pendolino which was terminated at Liverpool South Parkway (possibly the only one to ever call there?) and it was done through the staff door in the front coach.

Definitely not a bar to longer trains then!

 

[London Trains]

Agreed, however, LNER doesn't ever run 5-car trains to Edinburgh (Unless I've missed some?). AIUI, LUMO has requested/is planning to switch to 10-car operation, but this is currently not possible due to electricity supply constraints north of Newcastle. Those issues should be resolved, and LUMO should switch to full 10-car operation.

I meant all services at Kings Cross, not just Edinburgh services - maybe there could be the odd exception but ideally there should be no timetabled services to/from Kings Cross shorter than 8 coaches.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Is King's Cross currently anticipated to be part of the ECML South switchover to ETCS?

Once that occurs, doesn't signal sighting become moot?

ECML South is going to be ETCS between Grantham, Moorgate, Kings Cross and Thameslink Core via both Hertford and Welwyn, so yes Kings Cross is going to be part of ECML South ETCS.

 

[Helvellyn]

An extra coach in all the 9-car Azumas would be a big help if capacity increases are needed.

 

[BerkshireRails]

An extra coach in all the 9-car Azumas would be a big help if capacity increases are needed.

Probably would want to make that have an engine, on both the 800s & 801s, so there is enough traction and auxiliary power.

 

[Trainbike46]

An extra coach in all the 9-car Azumas would be a big help if capacity increases are needed.

That would be an alternative. Reports are that Hitachi has charged a lot for changes to the agility contract; then again, it would be in their interest to make it work as it would mean extra work for their factories.

It would be interesting to request quotes for both options from CAF and Hitachi, and select the one that offers better value. Having two options may discourage price-gouging somewhat.

If extending 80x anyway, it could be worth considering extending some 5-cars as well or instead of 9-cars.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Aug 2025 ==

Probably would want to make that have an engine, on both the 800s & 801s, so there is enough traction and auxiliary power.

Or fit it with a battery, as tried on the TPE 802.

 

[Donny Dave]

definitely 8 at Doncaster and possibly 1 and 4 depending on direction, and 1 and 2 at Peterborough.

10 car Azuma's fit on all through platforms at Doncaster.

 

[A S Leib]

10 car Azuma's fit on all through platforms at Doncaster.

With twenty metres to spare, for this proposal?

 

[mike57]

The same mistakes seem to be made time after time, new rolling stock orders are always 'just enough', or maybe even 'not quite enough' and then capacity increases are delivered by increasing frequency. It happened at TPE north and look where that ended.

I would build the new ECML units at maximum length that the major stops and termination stations can support with possibly some SDO at intermediate stops. Then look to extend existing units to the same length. For a route that is supposedly at capacity there are still far too many short units in use.

To my simple non bean counter mind running longer/longest possible trains at the same frequency rather than the current length trains at an increased frequency has to be better. Staffing requirements are lowered, timetables are more robust.

I am not sure how power supply capacity works on the railways but in other industries there is usually an absolute maximum load and a '1 hour' rating which is lower. Simplistic thinking is 2 x 5 car units per hour would be pretty much the same as 1 x 10 car per hour as long as the peak rating wasn't exceeded.

Having got to a situation where nearly all trains are max length that the current network can support I would also look at 'low hanging fruit' in term of platform length increases, and then see where that left me.

There seems to be an obsession with frequency, for long distance services I dont think frequency is important once you reach 1tph as long as there is enough capacity. A different country and different conditions maybe, but SNCF tend to run a lot of the major routes less frequently, but with a double length double decker TGV sets (yes I know double deck isnt an option here)

 

[A S Leib]

for long distance services I dont think frequency is important once you reach 1tph as long as there is enough capacity.

That depends on how many short-distance journeys the long-distance ones are the main or only option for; cases like Doncaster to York should be more than hourly.

Would only having 1tph rather than two or three on some routes cause capacity issues at stations, if e.g. the average wait for a London service at Manchester Piccadilly were thirty minutes rather than ten?

 

[BerkshireRails]

Or fit it with a battery, as tried on the TPE 802.

Batteries come with the issue of load shedding over time. For example I have been told a 387 will completely auxiliary off after 90 minutes of no external power. It starts off with the toilet heater turning off after 30 seconds.

 

[Trainbike46]

Batteries come with the issue of load shedding over time. For example I have been told a 387 will completely auxiliary off after 90 minutes of no external power. It starts off with the toilet heater turning off after 30 seconds.

I was talking about a traction battery, which has way more capacity than anything you'd find on a 387.

 

[HSTEd]

To my simple non bean counter mind running longer/longest possible trains at the same frequency rather than the current length trains at an increased frequency has to be better. Staffing requirements are lowered, timetables are more robust.

I think this comes out of the BR era lesson that frequency drives traffic and thus revenue.

Especially if more traffic leads to overcrowding and allows price increases.

There seems to be an obsession with frequency, for long distance services I dont think frequency is important once you reach 1tph as long as there is enough capacity. A different country and different conditions maybe, but SNCF tend to run a lot of the major routes less frequently, but with a double length double decker TGV sets (yes I know double deck isnt an option here)

France is a very different place though.
Paris-Lyon is London-Newcastle. Paris-Marseille gets you London-Dundee.

Long distance as it exists in much of Europe doesn't really exist in the UK.
The majority of rail journeys in the UK are short enough where frequency materially effects the attractiveness of the service.

 

[mike57]

hat depends on how many short-distance journeys the long-distance ones are the main or only option for; cases like Doncaster to York should be more than hourly.

I think that comes back to another problem, Inter City services also performing a Regional service role. In the case of the Anglo Scottish ECML route I would run London > York > Newcastle > Edinburgh hourly with a good path to keep journey time down. Then run a semi-fast which would add Peterborough, Doncaster, Darlington, Durham Berwick and maybe Dunbar, and then a 'stopper' which would be Stevenage, Peterborough, all stops to York then Northallerton Darlington Durham and Newcastle.

There has been a creeping increase in stops on a lot of routes over the years, so that improvements have ended up being eroded by increasing stops. As well as longer end to end journeys stops increase passenger churn which leads to a less pleasant journey for the long distance passenger.

 

[A S Leib]

In the case of the Anglo Scottish ECML route I would run London > York > Newcastle > Edinburgh hourly with a good path to keep journey time down. Then run a semi-fast which would add Peterborough, Doncaster, Darlington, Durham Berwick and maybe Dunbar, and then a 'stopper' which would be Stevenage, Peterborough, all stops to York then Northallerton Darlington Durham and Newcastle

That is effectively what the December 2025 timetable will look like, apart from the Edinburgh semifast also calling at Newark but not Durham and alternating Berwick and Alnmouth, and the Newcastle terminator not calling at Peterborough, Newark, Retford or Doncaster (so not calling at the stations which have the Edinburgh service, or Retford).