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!
Chicken and egg, surely. An hourly all-stops between Peterborough and Doncaster, effectively opens up a large amount of possible traffic. From Sheffield to Newark, Worksop to Peterborough and Anglia, Worksop to London, Gainsborough to London (assuming it is quicker than via Lincoln). Add in your stuff from Sleaford, Skegness and other local stations, and the reality is that the only way to make the overall service attractive to as wide a number of people as possible, is to cautiously thread that needle by having something that offers easy, one change (at Grantham / Newark / Retford) journeys.
The reality is that there seems to be little clear rationale to not provide the stopping service, every hour, and to allow those local and such journeys to be made. Using both Peterborough and Doncaster as key interchanges to the likes of Hull, Leeds, Wakefield, and up towards Scotland and Tyneside, as well as Peterborough for local stations via Stevenage, or the likes of Stamford and Melton, or Ely / Norwich / Cambridge / Stansted, it seems silly not to do it.
The Azuma end to end journey time, even with some additional allowances and 2.5 minute station stops, should be 57-58 minutes from Peterborough to Doncaster. This is really not difficult to flight into the overall timetable, especially if it allows other services to run quicker, and also creates the space for a Class 4 each hour with a possible stop at Carlton or Claypole to keep it out of the way.
Chicken and egg, surely. An hourly all-stops between Peterborough and Doncaster, effectively opens up a large amount of possible traffic. From Sheffield to Newark, Worksop to Peterborough and Anglia, Worksop to London, Gainsborough to London (assuming it is quicker than via Lincoln). Add in your stuff from Sleaford, Skegness and other local stations, and the reality is that the only way to make the overall service attractive to as wide a number of people as possible, is to cautiously thread that needle by having something that offers easy, one change (at Grantham / Newark / Retford) journeys.
The reality is that there seems to be little clear rationale to not provide the stopping service, every hour, and to allow those local and such journeys to be made. Using both Peterborough and Doncaster as key interchanges to the likes of Hull, Leeds, Wakefield, and up towards Scotland and Tyneside, as well as Peterborough for local stations via Stevenage, or the likes of Stamford and Melton, or Ely / Norwich / Cambridge / Stansted, it seems silly not to do it.
The Azuma end to end journey time, even with some additional allowances and 2.5 minute station stops, should be 57-58 minutes from Peterborough to Doncaster. This is really not difficult to flight into the overall timetable, especially if it allows other services to run quicker, and also creates the space for a Class 4 each hour with a possible stop at Carlton or Claypole to keep it out of the way.
Why do you think that people making these journeys will drive to where they need to change? Grantham, Newark Northgate and Retford are railhead stations, where much of the demand comes from people who live in quite a wide catchment area. They will drive to the railhead, but not to the more minor stations and then add a change into their journey. I live within walking distance (1.5 miles) of Grantham station and wouldn't consider using the train to Newark - if planning a journey for myself or others, I'll frequently drive to Newark rather than faff with the change (and for Durham, which is my most common these days, I'll save a packet too).
Thanks to the vagaries of 19th Century railway politics, the odds on wanting to go from an ECML stop to the likes of Stamford or Melton are non-existent - buses exist, and the dogs leg is disproportionately long winded.
Grantham is the place I know best, and already has plenty of interchange traffic for Skegness; there are already through trains or connections for the other ECML towns.
I keep coming back to the point that the ECML was built as a trunk route, and the local services died out many years ago with the remaining stations surviving because they were significant junctions. The populations are small (well under 100k for Grantham, Newark and Retford), and the demand lines lie elsewhere. What is the real demand for travel that justifies using a trunk route for local traffic in this way?
Chicken and egg, surely. An hourly all-stops between Peterborough and Doncaster, effectively opens up a large amount of possible traffic. From Sheffield to Newark, Worksop to Peterborough and Anglia, Worksop to London, Gainsborough to London (assuming it is quicker than via Lincoln). Add in your stuff from Sleaford, Skegness and other local stations, and the reality is that the only way to make the overall service attractive to as wide a number of people as possible, is to cautiously thread that needle by having something that offers easy, one change (at Grantham / Newark / Retford) journeys.
The reality is that there seems to be little clear rationale to not provide the stopping service, every hour, and to allow those local and such journeys to be made. Using both Peterborough and Doncaster as key interchanges to the likes of Hull, Leeds, Wakefield, and up towards Scotland and Tyneside, as well as Peterborough for local stations via Stevenage, or the likes of Stamford and Melton, or Ely / Norwich / Cambridge / Stansted, it seems silly not to do it.
The Azuma end to end journey time, even with some additional allowances and 2.5 minute station stops, should be 57-58 minutes from Peterborough to Doncaster. This is really not difficult to flight into the overall timetable, especially if it allows other services to run quicker, and also creates the space for a Class 4 each hour with a possible stop at Carlton or Claypole to keep it out of the way.
Sheffield to Newark can be done with a simple change in Nottingham, Worksop to Peterborough via Lincoln and Worksop to London via Nottingham surely?
In answer to the OPs question, the WCML serves population density in the West Midlands, the population density in the East Midlands is served by the Midland Mainline. The ECML is very sparsely populated once you head North of Stevenage until you hit Doncaster.
Peterborough isn't that big, Grantham and Newark are just small towns
Not much use is made of it because as I've stated before, an hourly service can be unreliable, let alone a 2 hourly one. Say, for example, your work finishes at 17:00 and your 2 hourly services are at 16:50 and 18:50, you are bound not to use the train!
Not much use is made of it because as I've stated before, an hourly service can be unreliable, let alone a 2 hourly one. Say, for example, your work finishes at 17:00 and your 2 hourly services are at 16:50 and 18:50, you are bound not to use the train!
Is correct. There is little to no excuse not to provide the all stations service, not least because it is dependable, and has a potential to stimulate traffic. Discussion of "The ECML is a trunk route and we don't need local trains" died when all of the actual intermediate stations closed. We are talking about distances between stations of circa 10 -15 minutes a piece, or longer.
A single train handling most traffic, supplemented by one train that stops at Newark, and one at Grantham, is demand satisfied entirely.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Why do you think that people making these journeys will drive to where they need to change? Grantham, Newark Northgate and Retford are railhead stations, where much of the demand comes from people who live in quite a wide catchment area. They will drive to the railhead, but not to the more minor stations and then add a change into their journey. I live within walking distance (1.5 miles) of Grantham station and wouldn't consider using the train to Newark - if planning a journey for myself or others, I'll frequently drive to Newark rather than faff with the change (and for Durham, which is my most common these days, I'll save a packet too).
Thanks to the vagaries of 19th Century railway politics, the odds on wanting to go from an ECML stop to the likes of Stamford or Melton are non-existent - buses exist, and the dogs leg is disproportionately long winded.
Grantham is the place I know best, and already has plenty of interchange traffic for Skegness; there are already through trains or connections for the other ECML towns.
I keep coming back to the point that the ECML was built as a trunk route, and the local services died out many years ago with the remaining stations surviving because they were significant junctions. The populations are small (well under 100k for Grantham, Newark and Retford), and the demand lines lie elsewhere. What is the real demand for travel that justifies using a trunk route for local traffic in this way?
I can't even begin to understand how one can describe Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford and Doncaster served by a single, flighted hourly service, as a "local traffic". That's an absolute nonsense, and I'm sure even you know that. The new timetable, from December 2025, will be an absolute disaster. It will be back to the worst of the pre-Eureka timetable where stuff stopped at random stations to try to level things out. It's not demand led, it's timetable led, by lazy planning and a lack of any desire to do the job properly.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Sheffield to Newark can be done with a simple change in Nottingham, Worksop to Peterborough via Lincoln and Worksop to London via Nottingham surely?
In answer to the OPs question, the WCML serves population density in the West Midlands, the population density in the East Midlands is served by the Midland Mainline. The ECML is very sparsely populated once you head North of Stevenage until you hit Doncaster.
Peterborough isn't that big, Grantham and Newark are just small towns
So because an alternative exists, you shouldn't do something that has equal or greater benefit? That's a reductive and non-argument in itself. So I can do Sheffield to Newark via Nottingham (!), and on that basis I shouldn't hope to do it much quicker via Retford.
"Peterborough isn't that big" - no, of course it isn't. Neither are a stack of American airports, which serve as hubs for connecting traffic, but a lot more people use the airport than go to the city it is in. Peterborough is arguably the single most important example on the ECML, for its links to Anglia and the university city of Cambridge. It will also act as a staging post to change trains for that weird station near St Neots, for EWRL too.
Quite apart from everything should stop at Peterborough (I will die on that hill), it is obvious that an all-day, hourly, clockface service between all intermediate stations Peterborough - Doncaster should be done. None of this one KGX, GRA, DON; one KGX, SVG, NNG, DON or whatever fresh hell the December 2025 proposal suggests.
One could reasonably argue that a deliberately decelerated, all stations service, would be able to act as the vehicle for yield management on low fares. Trains used to leave York, every 2 hours, on that stopper quite well-loaded and that was with stacks of stations yet to call at. Add to that, a lot of the traffic was for London. People didn't mind the slower speed for cheaper tickets. Same applies with the sheer amount of cheap ticket types on LNWR to Crewe to then connect onto Manchester or Liverpool.
But if its a single operator, its a bit tough, and nobody is advocating a second operator just to operate a cheap train.
One could reasonably argue that a deliberately decelerated, all stations service, would be able to act as the vehicle for yield management on low fares. Trains used to leave York, every 2 hours, on that stopper quite well-loaded and that was with stacks of stations yet to call at. Add to that, a lot of the traffic was for London. People didn't mind the slower speed for cheaper tickets. Same applies with the sheer amount of cheap ticket types on LNWR to Crewe to then connect onto Manchester or Liverpool.
But if its a single operator, its a bit tough, and nobody is advocating a second operator just to operate a cheap train.
If the various TOCs could agree, would there be anything stopping the creation of a "not LNER" flexible fare for e.g. London to Doncaster, allowing travel on Grand Central, Hull Trains or EMR and Thameslink via Lincoln and Peterborough? Just having a regular budget option would still be better, and I can't see Northern or TPE being involved in a new scheme to undercut another TOC under government control, which effectively rules out doing something similar for e.g. London to Leeds or York.
Very different markets.
For a start, Thameslink trains are not designed for typical journeys of more than an hour, and would not be comfortable or pleasant on a stopping service from Yorkshire to London – they are not up to the same standard as the interurban spec 350s or 730s.
It would also be too slow a service to attract passengers travelling from further afield. The Midland service from Euston has first stops at Milton Keynes (50miles), Rugby (82miles) and Nuneaton (97miles), it isn't providing a local service on the WCML, whereas Thameslink is providing the local service calling at all stops between Stevenage and Peterborough.
If the various TOCs could agree, would there be anything stopping the creation of a "not LNER" flexible fare for e.g. London to Doncaster, allowing travel on Grand Central, Hull Trains or EMR and Thameslink via Lincoln and Peterborough? Just having a regular budget option would still be better, and I can't see Northern or TPE being involved in a new scheme to undercut another TOC under government control, which effectively rules out doing something similar for e.g. London to Leeds or York.
I can't even begin to understand how one can describe Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford and Doncaster served by a single, flighted hourly service, as a "local traffic". That's an absolute nonsense, and I'm sure even you know that. The new timetable, from December 2025, will be an absolute disaster. It will be back to the worst of the pre-Eureka timetable where stuff stopped at random stations to try to level things out. It's not demand led, it's timetable led, by lazy planning and a lack of any desire to do the job properly.
There’s plenty to criticise in the 2025 timetable, but lazy is not one of them. Those trains you wish to add need to go somewhere, and come from somewhere. That means finding paths for them out of Kings Criss, through Welwyn, at Peterborough, and again at Doncaster.
I use the term “local” to differentiate between traffic between the three towns of Grantham, Newark and Retford, and the other flows on the ECML.
Quite apart from everything should stop at Peterborough (I will die on that hill), it is obvious that an all-day, hourly, clockface service between all intermediate stations Peterborough - Doncaster should be done. None of this one KGX, GRA, DON; one KGX, SVG, NNG, DON or whatever fresh hell the December 2025 proposal suggests.
It’s not obvious either that everything should stop at Peterborough, or that there should be a regular hourly service joining the intermediate stations. For the former, I suggest rereading Gerard Fiennes on the value of speed in attracting traffic. For the latter, I suggest actually thinking about what the demand might be from people living in these places, and why; then combining that with a reflection on what it means for the ECML to be a trunk main line.
One could reasonably argue that a deliberately decelerated, all stations service, would be able to act as the vehicle for yield management on low fares. Trains used to leave York, every 2 hours, on that stopper quite well-loaded and that was with stacks of stations yet to call at. Add to that, a lot of the traffic was for London. People didn't mind the slower speed for cheaper tickets. Same applies with the sheer amount of cheap ticket types on LNWR to Crewe to then connect onto Manchester or Liverpool.
But if its a single operator, its a bit tough, and nobody is advocating a second operator just to operate a cheap train.
Post Mallard, I used to use the “fast” from Newcastle to York, connecting into the “slow” from York. It served well to sweep up demand, provided a wide range of connections at places like Peterborough, and the slower speeds were reflected in lower fares by NX and ECT (I stopped doing that journey before the Virgin era). It would have been nice if it had run hourly, but the 2 hourly pattern was plenty enough.
There’s plenty to criticise in the 2025 timetable, but lazy is not one of them. Those trains you wish to add need to go somewhere, and come from somewhere. That means finding paths for them out of Kings Criss, through Welwyn, at Peterborough, and again at Doncaster.
I use the term “local” to differentiate between traffic between the three towns of Grantham, Newark and Retford, and the other flows on the ECML.
It’s not obvious either that everything should stop at Peterborough, or that there should be a regular hourly service joining the intermediate stations. For the former, I suggest rereading Gerard Fiennes on the value of speed in attracting traffic. For the latter, I suggest actually thinking about what the demand might be from people living in these places, and why; then combining that with a reflection on what it means for the ECML to be a trunk main line.
Post Mallard, I used to use the “fast” from Newcastle to York, connecting into the “slow” from York. It served well to sweep up demand, provided a wide range of connections at places like Peterborough, and the slower speeds were reflected in lower fares by NX and ECT (I stopped doing that journey before the Virgin era). It would have been nice if it had run hourly, but the 2 hourly pattern was plenty enough.
Very different markets.
For a start, Thameslink trains are not designed for typical journeys of more than an hour, and would not be comfortable or pleasant on a stopping service from Yorkshire to London – they are not up to the same standard as the interurban spec 350s or 730s.
It would also be too slow a service to attract passengers travelling from further afield. The Midland service from Euston has first stops at Milton Keynes (50miles), Rugby (82miles) and Nuneaton (97miles), it isn't providing a local service on the WCML, whereas Thameslink is providing the local service calling at all stops between Stevenage and Peterborough.
I can't even begin to understand how one can describe Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford and Doncaster served by a single, flighted hourly service, as a "local traffic". That's an absolute nonsense, and I'm sure even you know that. The new timetable, from December 2025, will be an absolute disaster. It will be back to the worst of the pre-Eureka timetable where stuff stopped at random stations to try to level things out. It's not demand led, it's timetable led, by lazy planning and a lack of any desire to do the job properly.
I don't think it's lazy planning although agree it will be a disaster - NR were looking for a Comms director for Eastern Region for "reputation management" recently so read into that what you will.
Grantham and Newark actually get an increase in trains calling overall, but they are arguably far less useful as the balance of stops is wrong south of Doncaster. LNER will serve Peterborough to Grantham hourly which duplicates EMR, yet you'll have to wait 2 hours to travel from Grantham to Newark? Newark to Retford is near impossible, yet there will be a non-stop service from Newark to Stevenage every hour (who asked for that??).
Even at Peterborough/Stevenage where the flows in both directions are greater than at Grantham or Newark, the LNER calls are poorly spaced and not even standard hour to hour.
I don't think it's lazy planning although agree it will be a disaster - NR were looking for a Comms director for Eastern Region for "reputation management" recently so read into that what you will.
To be fair, as a public relations practitioner, it's all about reputation. That doesn't mean things are going to go down the pan (or up the bi-mode), but equally doesn't mean all will be fine either. I didn't read the advert because I wasn't going to apply, so I don't know what else they were after, but it probably also mentioned media, political and stakeholder engagement. All normal stuff.
It's effectively the minimum that could be done to say that Newark to London links have been improved (two trains per hour with one stop each, rather than one with one stop and one with three stops now).
Not much use is made of it because as I've stated before, an hourly service can be unreliable, let alone a 2 hourly one. Say, for example, your work finishes at 17:00 and your 2 hourly services are at 16:50 and 18:50, you are bound not to use the train!
Quite so, but it is quite possible to estimate the growth that would arise from increasing the service. Or even to compare the demand either side of Newark.
What Grantham Station desperately needs is high-quality sightline pedestrian / cycle routes towards Railway Terrace and Fletcher Street. The pedestrian severance effect caused by the car park is simply unacceptable. This relatively simple intervention would take away a good chunk of unnecessary car trips.
...
Until I looked at a map recently, I didn't realise there were *any* pedestrian routes from Grantham station apart from down the hill towards Morrisons. I'd thought it was all just dead ends leading to more car parking and motor businesses. Now I know, I've cut through via Launder Terrace and Oxford Street to the quite attractive River Witham a couple of times.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Sheffield to Newark can be done with a simple change in Nottingham, Worksop to Peterborough via Lincoln and Worksop to London via Nottingham surely?
In answer to the OPs question, the WCML serves population density in the West Midlands, the population density in the East Midlands is served by the Midland Mainline. The ECML is very sparsely populated once you head North of Stevenage until you hit Doncaster.
Peterborough isn't that big, Grantham and Newark are just small towns
Worksop to London via Nottingham takes around 3h15m, via Retford it's around 2 hours. Worksop to Nottingham alone takes 1h10m, with an average speed of about 25mph.
If you were looking for an alternative to Retford, via Sheffield is better with 3 hour journeys available, but it's still not competitive with Retford.
It's effectively the minimum that could be done to say that Newark to London links have been improved (two trains per hour with one stop each, rather than one with one stop and one with three stops now).
But given that there's currently an hourly all stations service south of Newark, the demand for journeys between the various possible station pairings ought to be well enough understood by now, and will surely have informed the design of the new timetable. I don't know, but I would bet that the London demand knocks the local demand into a cocked hat.
In an ideal world an hourly stopper all the way to Doncaster would be possible, but that's probably a problem which will only be solved by HS2.
You might be able to shake free paths for a Thameslink extension as far as Grantham, but north of there the lack of additional tracks is going to destroy the timetable.
You'd almost certainly need a new platform for the train to terminate in too.
I can't see why this is preferable to the status quo.
The new timetable is probably not a great advancement on what came before, but trying to mix in slow trains is just going to make it worse.
