Manchester – Wakefield – Newcastle services

[A S Leib]

The East Coast Main Line recast website currently lists a second hourly Manchester to Newcastle service as an aspiration which can't be met in the December 2025 timetable.

Timetable development is evolutionary and where feedback has not been able to be taken into the final timetable to start in December 2025, specifically two trains per hour between Newcastle and Manchester, the industry is working with Funders (e.g. Department for Transport) to increase further capacity on the ECML in the future to enable such services to operate.

It wouldn't be an ideal solution, but how feasible would it be to extend the current Manchester to York via Wakefield services to Newcastle? I haven't checked all times and I don't know if the Wakefield services are staying in the same path, but I think the current services would be ahead of any following services in the December 2025 timetable by at least ten minutes going from York to Newcastle.

Current times for York to Manchester are 1:17 for Newcastle services and 1:42 via Wakefield, so services would be noticeably slower for passengers to Manchester in general, but more or less the same time for those going to Manchester Piccadilly. The time difference is also half that of London to Crewe via the Trent Valley vs Birmingham.

The main issues I can think of are the rolling stock, Leeds, and places other than Leeds. Looking at RTT, I think the services are run by stock limited to 100 mph; if TPE don't have any other rolling stock they could use, I'd guess that that wouldn't be fast enough for Northallerton to Newcastle without delaying other services.

Getting Newcastle to Leeds to 3 tph is probably a more useful service than hourly services from Huddersfield to Thirsk or Newcastle to Marsden, so I don't think a through service should be kept if / once a second Newcastle – Leeds – Manchester could be restored. A through service also has the risk of making the service too unreliable and too busy for routes like Slaithwaite to Manchester / Leeds or Wakefield (Kirkgate) to York with fewer alternatives.

 

[BranstonJnc]

The East Coast Main Line recast website currently lists a second hourly Manchester to Newcastle service as an aspiration which can't be met in the December 2025 timetable.

It wouldn't be an ideal solution, but how feasible would it be to extend the current Manchester to York via Wakefield services to Newcastle? I haven't checked all times and I don't know if the Wakefield services are staying in the same path, but I think the current services would be ahead of any following services in the December 2025 timetable by at least ten minutes going from York to Newcastle.

Current times for York to Manchester are 1:17 for Newcastle services and 1:42 via Wakefield, so services would be noticeably slower for passengers to Manchester in general, but more or less the same time for those going to Manchester Piccadilly. The time difference is also half that of London to Crewe via the Trent Valley vs Birmingham.

The main issues I can think of are the rolling stock, Leeds, and places other than Leeds. Looking at RTT, I think the services are run by stock limited to 100 mph; if TPE don't have any other rolling stock they could use, I'd guess that that wouldn't be fast enough for Northallerton to Newcastle without delaying other services.

Getting Newcastle to Leeds to 3 tph is probably a more useful service than hourly services from Huddersfield to Thirsk or Newcastle to Marsden, so I don't think a through service should be kept if / once a second Newcastle – Leeds – Manchester could be restored. A through service also has the risk of making the service too unreliable and too busy for routes like Slaithwaite to Manchester / Leeds or Wakefield (Kirkgate) to York with fewer alternatives.

The York to Manchester via Wakefield is all stops isn't it? Or many stops south of Huddersfield. It isn't designed to be competitive, but it did bring back the hourly service from Huddersfield to Wakefield, and finally gave a direct service between York and Castleford when the second platform reopened.

You won't want to run a service that way to get between Newcastle and Manchester, not least because the limited O+D traffic between Wakefield and Newcastle can go on the direct XC, or just change at Newcastle. If anything, you would need to decide if one of the TPE destinations would be able to be decoupled from the 'fast' route via Dewsbury, and assume the stopping service via Wakefield Kirkgate. Considering the side of the track layout you appear at from Milford Jn and Castleford near Ulleskelf and Colton, the logical place would be Scarborough.

 

[cle]

The York to Manchester via Wakefield is all stops isn't it? Or many stops south of Huddersfield. It isn't designed to be competitive, but it did bring back the hourly service from Huddersfield to Wakefield, and finally gave a direct service between York and Castleford when the second platform reopened.

Yep, it's one of those services which is a few locals stitched together.

If there is a Leeds or York to Newcastle spare path, it should probably go on something longer and electric! But if it's a ECML issue, then a shuttle to Leeds/York is always welcome.

 

[dodecahedron67]

Nope. 185s are barred from operating Newcastle services now for TPE, 802s only north of Darlington.

185s only allowed to Darlington for route retention (1x evening, 1P91) or when Teeside is shut with engineering work/emergency contigency.

Also combining the least reliable TPE north service (as someone who signs and works the routes) with the ECML is asking for disaster

 

[Class 466]

The problem is capacity between York & Newcastle, not Manchester to York. In the Dec 25 timetable there isn't the capacity for another York to Newcastle Path for most of the day.

 

[mike57]

it should probably go on something longer and electric!

If you look at ECML capacity there are still a lot of services that are less than maximum length, I fail to see the reason for trying to cram ever more trains in, rather than ensuring that every train is at or close to maximum length. The trend over the past 30 years to downsize rolling stock orders has resulted in overcrowding and/or more trains using a given route, resulting in longer journey times and a less reliable timetable. The Voyagers and 185s were the start of this trend, and it still seems to be alive and well.

 

[A S Leib]

I fail to see the reason for trying to cram ever more trains in

I thought the only new services on the ECML compared to the May 2019 timetable have been Lumo (should be longer trains), LNER to Middlesbrough (1.5 tph for Middlesbrough – York, if it becomes more regular, doesn't seem excessive), Manchester Airport to Newcastle (not currently running) and, from this December, the third London to Newcastle (already trains at or near maximum length and on a route where flying is or has been a clear competitor)

 

[cle]

If you look at ECML capacity there are still a lot of services that are less than maximum length, I fail to see the reason for trying to cram ever more trains in, rather than ensuring that every train is at or close to maximum length. The trend over the past 30 years to downsize rolling stock orders has resulted in overcrowding and/or more trains using a given route, resulting in longer journey times and a less reliable timetable. The Voyagers and 185s were the start of this trend, and it still seems to be alive and well.

I agree hugely. We have underestimated both XC and TPE (ie our main cross country routes!) a lot.

The 185s would be useful on other routes, and the original 80x/Nova orders were a bit better in this regard.

If XC remains a generalized 2tph X through Birmingham - Manchester / Yorkshire to SW / Reading... then the next gen of stock should really be bi-mode AND much longer. Also more efficient with the actual carriage space/seating - but I would think a minimum of 6 cars would be needed, possibly 7-8. Not sure on if that messes with any platform lengths (bays especially?) but I think not.

This could run wired Birmingham-Manchester at least. Doncaster-Newcastle/Edinburgh too. Not sure if Didcot-Reading is really worthwhile - and I think that's it - other than Bristol Parkway?

London-Birmingham-Scotland should remain as long as it can, and Pendo.

 

[Zomboid]

If XC remains a generalized 2tph X through Birmingham - Manchester / Yorkshire to SW / Reading... then the next gen of stock should really be bi-mode AND much longer. Also more efficient with the actual carriage space/seating - but I would think a minimum of 6 cars would be needed, possibly 7-8. Not sure on if that messes with any platform lengths (bays especially?) but I think not.

XC often reverse in platform 3 at Reading, which is only 5 x 23m long. And I think the bay platform they use at Newcastle is why trains that terminate there can only be 4 car.
Obviously there are through platforms which could handle a lot more at both stations, but that would create other issues.

There's also New Street where they often use half a platform, not sure how long a train would have to be before that becomes impossible.

Spoiler: Way off topic

But saying that, a 110mph bi mode or dual voltage BEMU version of a 444 would probably be adequate for the Bournemouth - Manchester runs, and as built they had 299 standard seats, 35 first and a buffet counter, whilst a 5 car 221 has 220 standard and 25 first. So the 444 has 89 more seats in the same length of train, and they weren't pack-em-in ironing boards either.. I'm not sure how essential it is to get 125, the only places I know of that the Bournemouth - Manchester run can do so are Reading - Didcot and Wolverhampton - Stafford, so the speed penalty might be a price worth paying.

 

[BranstonJnc]

XC often reverse in platform 3 at Reading, which is only 5 x 23m long. And I think the bay platform they use at Newcastle is why trains that terminate there can only be 4 car.
Obviously there are through platforms which could handle a lot more at both stations, but that would create other issues.

There's also New Street where they often use half a platform, not sure how long a train would have to be before that becomes impossible.

Spoiler: Way off topic

But saying that, a 110mph bi mode or dual voltage BEMU version of a 444 would probably be adequate for the Bournemouth - Manchester runs, and as built they had 299 standard seats, 35 first and a buffet counter, whilst a 5 car 221 has 220 standard and 25 first. So the 444 has 89 more seats in the same length of train, and they weren't pack-em-in ironing boards either.. I'm not sure how essential it is to get 125, the only places I know of that the Bournemouth - Manchester run can do so are Reading - Didcot and Wolverhampton - Stafford, so the speed penalty might be a price worth paying.

Running the 'stopper' from London to York, through to Newcastle, would be a better use of capacity and free up the long bay at York for as many Voyager coaches as you probably need to terminate trains there.

 

[Zomboid]

Running the 'stopper' from London to York, through to Newcastle, would be a better use of capacity and free up the long bay at York for as many Voyager coaches as you probably need to terminate trains there.

Though that would also be too long for the bay at Newcastle.

 

[BranstonJnc]

Though that would also be too long for the bay at Newcastle.

Can't be any worse than the existing York - Newcastle stopper that LNER are running anyway...

 

[Zomboid]

Can't be any worse than the existing York - Newcastle stopper that LNER are running anyway...

I guess not