Sunday Times article on ECML upgrade & postponed timetable change

[Clarence Yard]

I thought that it was Network Rail that generally ‘agreed’ to sell/give rights that ORR then has to formally ‘approve’ for them to become valid and ‘firm’.
Are we talking about ‘non-agreed’ rights that ORR specifically ‘directed’ NR to accept? These are really quite unusual cases.
There is such a concept as ‘contingent’ rights. Is that what NR has been selling on the ECML for the last few years but is now saying ‘oh sorry, doesn’t work, oops.’?

Non (NR) agreed rights that are subsequently approved by the ORR are not uncommon, chiefly because NR is not that good at knowing what the real capacity of its network is. The NR “sale of access rights” process is, in law, an internal one and can be very long winded. The Act entitles any operator or potential operator to go direct to the ORR.

Private sector operators will not be able to secure rolling stock or other investments on “contingent rights” - they have to be “firm rights” to be able to sign those type of contracts. And they have to be granted a fair way out from the relevant timetable for those contracts to take practical effect.

So when the ORR makes a decision it has to be sure that any key infrastructure investment is going to be there on the due date. If it gets assurances from the infrastructure provider that it will be there, the rights will be granted. If a scheme subsequently gets cancelled such that trains cannot run, the infrastructure provider should then work out what the “best use” of the network should be and invoke Part J of the Network Code to remove the rights of the trains that cannot now run and pay the requisite compensation.

It has, so far, not done this and is still trying to fit everything in.

 

[yorksrob]

There's already an hourly cross country service. That should certainly be doubled in length

Good point.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The problem here is that the required infrastructure improvements were cut back so the proposed timetable could never be implemented. The DfT wants a payback ”on the cheap”, as it were.

The ORR (correctly) gave out rights on the basis of the full work package being completed and now all those rights don’t fit the available infrastructure. NR continue to bang their head against the wall trying to make it all fit, which it can’t do and refuses to do what it should have done, which is to declare what cannot run and let it all be argued out at the ORR.

But to do that successfully NR has to compensate the affected operators and that costs money, so we go round in a big circle again of trying to make it all fit, which it won’t.

Thing is nothing had changed since the previous attempt at introducing the enhanced timetable so why on earth the industry waisted any effort again is beyond me. Now an attempt will be made to try come up with a half way house at the expense of the planning teams working on another routes improved timetable.

 

[The Middle]

Hull to name one.

Really? Hull has regular direct trains to London, Manchester, Leeds, York, Sheffield, Doncaster & Scarborough

 

[The Planner]

Non (NR) agreed rights that are subsequently approved by the ORR are not uncommon, chiefly because NR is not that good at knowing what the real capacity of its network is. The NR “sale of access rights” process is, in law, an internal one and can be very long winded. The Act entitles any operator or potential operator to go direct to the ORR.

Private sector operators will not be able to secure rolling stock or other investments on “contingent rights” - they have to be “firm rights” to be able to sign those type of contracts. And they have to be granted a fair way out from the relevant timetable for those contracts to take practical effect.

So when the ORR makes a decision it has to be sure that any key infrastructure investment is going to be there on the due date. If it gets assurances from the infrastructure provider that it will be there, the rights will be granted. If a scheme subsequently gets cancelled such that trains cannot run, the infrastructure provider should then work out what the “best use” of the network should be and invoke Part J of the Network Code to remove the rights of the trains that cannot now run and pay the requisite compensation.

It has, so far, not done this and is still trying to fit everything in.

NR likely can't afford the compensation. Use of Part J to get rid of stuff that doesn't run is all well and good, but making use of it to pay people off because its a bodge job isn't, especially if the trains in the way are regular runners.

 

[paul1609]

Of course it does but the industry told the govt what was needed to change to improve service provision and it was given taxpayers money to deliver that outcome which it has now twice failed to deliver. Why would any government of whatever colour keep throwing money at enhancements if there is no payback. This isn't the first time we've seen enhancement expenditure failing to deliver an improvement albeit ECML is the biggest so far.

Really? nearly every rail industry project fails to deliver the benefits promised. Off the top of my head WCML, GW Electrification, Thameslink, HS1 etc etc.

 

[CdBrux]

The problem here is that the required infrastructure improvements were cut back so the proposed timetable could never be implemented. The DfT wants a payback ”on the cheap”, as it were.

The ORR (correctly) gave out rights on the basis of the full work package being completed and now all those rights don’t fit the available infrastructure. NR continue to bang their head against the wall trying to make it all fit, which it can’t do and refuses to do what it should have done, which is to declare what cannot run and let it all be argued out at the ORR.

But to do that successfully NR has to compensate the affected operators and that costs money, so we go round in a big circle again of trying to make it all fit, which it won’t.

out of interest what was cut back, there is the 4 tracking north of Huntingdon and what else?

 

[Bald Rick]

Are we talking about ‘non-agreed’ rights that ORR specifically ‘directed’ NR to accept? These are really quite unusual cases.

In this case, NR was directed on some of the rights, and a signficiant number of rights agreed over the past few years have been contingent.

 

[Nottingham59]

So why didn't the infrastructure needed for the new timetable not get built?

(My guess is that other works ended up costing more than expected and there was no budget left. Is that what happened?)

 

[geoffk]

Long distance services everywhere take up paths that could be used by local services. The railway has to decide on what balance to strike. The whole ECML timetable update seems to be about faster services from London to Edinburgh which play a part in preventing local services at various points on the route.

And local services from Sheffield to East Yorkshire/North Lincolnshire have been split at Doncaster, to remove trains crossing the ECML, meaning a long walk for those making though journeys. How money was spent on platform 0 to make local trains less convenient?

 

[Donny Dave]

As far as I can remember, the local service from Hull used to terminate at Doncaster anyway, usually in P1 or P7, creating either a conflict, or blocking a through platform. However the local from Scunthorpe used to go through to Sheffield (and Lincoln), but has been cut back to Doncaster. Yes, it is inconvenient for local passengers, but how much of this is down to the tram-train at Rotherham taking up that path?

 

[Peterthegreat]

As far as I can remember, the local service from Hull used to terminate at Doncaster anyway, usually in P1 or P7, creating either a conflict, or blocking a through platform. However the local from Scunthorpe used to go through to Sheffield (and Lincoln), but has been cut back to Doncaster. Yes, it is inconvenient for local passengers, but how much of this is down to the tram-train at Rotherham taking up that path?

Nothing to do with tram train.

 

[Dr Hoo]

In this case, NR was directed on some of the rights, and a signficiant number of rights agreed over the past few years have been contingent.

Thanks for clarifying that. (So for some wise people it's been known for some time that this lot might not 'work'.)

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks for clarifying that. (So for some wise people it's been known for some time that this lot might not 'work'.)

Well the main issue - as far as I can tell - is that the services that have been expected to work keep, err, shifting around.

 

[johntea]

Its never quite got to that, and the Northern expresses didn't make it out the other side of the pandemic

I can't recall whether it was 1tph Northern express or only opposite the LNER, but there certainly weren't 2 Northern expresses in any hour.

They were built around a 15 minute gap, but the 4th was never filled through the whole day.

xx:15 from Leeds I seem to remember, was actually quite useful when connecting from/to the Hallam line!

I often wonder how well the LNER services do passenger wise to Harrogate as the 09:53 from Leeds is often more carriages than actual passengers it seems but presumably they're doing something right as they keep hinting at extra services, presumably the Convention Centre trade has started recovering a bit again post pandemic which is probably quite a big draw

One slight 'oddity' I've always noticed about these LNER branch lines is I don't think I've ever seen a ticket inspection occur on one!

 

[Roast Veg]

Does NR not have recourse to claim any compensation it owes for missed upgrades back to the DfT? If it can't afford the compensation to e.g. the FOCs then it's stuck with an undeliverable timetable until such a time as the DfT bless it with what was always promised. It all seems unnecessarily unfair to NR.

 

[swt_passenger]

out of interest what was cut back, there is the 4 tracking north of Huntingdon and what else?

I listed the prerequisites from the 2016 track access application, (that this is all based on), in the earlier ECML Dec 2024 timetable thread:
1. Huntingdon – Woodwalton 4-tracking
2. Peterborough Down Slow Upgrade
3. Werrington Junction Grade Separation
4. York Station North Throat
5. Freight Improvements North of York
6. Doncaster – enhancements

East Coast Timetable Dec 24

Poorly loaded? I’ve rarely seen a York - Leeds train, stopping or not that wasn’t busy. Same with the Harrogate extensions; lightly loaded Azumas, busy (but much shorter) Northern sets. But we are talking about full length LNER Azumas. They would not be a good use of resources. Indeed. If...

www.railforums.co.uk

If you follow the discussion in the earlier thread it was quickly highlighted in reply that the power supply upgrade was not one of the listed requirements, indeed the Kings Cross station throat work wasn’t listed either.

 

[paul1609]

I listed the prerequisites from the 2016 track access application, (that this is all based on), in the earlier ECML Dec 2024 timetable thread:
1. Huntingdon – Woodwalton 4-tracking
2. Peterborough Down Slow Upgrade
3. Werrington Junction Grade Separation
4. York Station North Throat
5. Freight Improvements North of York
6. Doncaster – enhancements

East Coast Timetable Dec 24

Poorly loaded? I’ve rarely seen a York - Leeds train, stopping or not that wasn’t busy. Same with the Harrogate extensions; lightly loaded Azumas, busy (but much shorter) Northern sets. But we are talking about full length LNER Azumas. They would not be a good use of resources. Indeed. If...

www.railforums.co.uk

If you follow the discussion in the earlier thread it was quickly highlighted in reply that the power supply upgrade was not one of the listed requirements, indeed the Kings Cross station throat work wasn’t listed either.

Or you could provide even more capacity by reducing the speed limit to 100 mph max south of Werrington, closing up the signal spacing and running all the trains as 12 Car EDMUs splitting at Doncaster to serve all the small destinations.

 

[Magdalia]

Or you could provide even more capacity by reducing the speed limit to 100 mph max south of Werrington, closing up the signal spacing and running all the trains as 12 Car EDMUs splitting at Doncaster to serve all the small destinations.

How does this help when the fast lines are already only 100mph south of New Barnet(down)/Potters Bar(up), and on the 2 track Holme Fen section, plus only 115mph New Barnet(down)/Potters Bar(up)-Woolmer Green?

What does it gain to reduce the line speed on the fast lines between Woolmer Green and Huntingdon where the sub 125mph trains are all running on the slow lines?

 

[Ben427]

Well thus Bradford has had 150 years to link its two long branches together to form various more useful through routes, but has never taken any opportunity to do so.

Bradford doesn't have the power to do so; part of the issue is that local government doesn't have the power to finance nor deliver major infrastructure projects.