• 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!

East Coast Timetable Dec 24

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
7,245
Location
Surrey
The current impasse seems to arise because the various train and freight operating companies have competing rights which are unable to be timetabled given the current infrastructure on the East Coast Main Line. So I thought it might be useful to go back in history to look at the decision to grant those rights.

In 2016 the Office of Rail and Road approved the current track access rights for the East Coast after detailed analysis of the various competing claims.

In a letter of 24 March 2016 ORR set out their understanding of the various capacity constraints existing at that time and the services that could be possibly delivered following an all parties meeting earlier that month.

Looking at this it would appear that the expectations for infrastructure improvements have not been achieved (such as at Woodwalton).




In ORR's decisions letter of 12 May 2016 there was an additional comment about the uncertainty of DfT financing. https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/2016-05-12-ecml-decision-letter.pdf
Given that you have to wonder why there have now been two abortive attempts to revamp the timetable especially the most recent attempt. My guess is the current timetable will now stay until Trans Pennine Upgrade is completed.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
32,785
The current impasse seems to arise because the various train and freight operating companies have competing rights which are unable to be timetabled given the current infrastructure on the East Coast Main Line. So I thought it might be useful to go back in history to look at the decision to grant those rights.

In 2016 the Office of Rail and Road approved the current track access rights for the East Coast after detailed analysis of the various competing claims.

In a letter of 24 March 2016 ORR set out their understanding of the various capacity constraints existing at that time and the services that could be possibly delivered following an all parties meeting earlier that month.

Looking at this it would appear that the expectations for infrastructure improvements have not been achieved (such as at Woodwalton).




In ORR's decisions letter of 12 May 2016 there was an additional comment about the uncertainty of DfT financing. https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/om/2016-05-12-ecml-decision-letter.pdf
I made the very same point last month, post #119, that the 2016 list of infrastructure changes, (including for example at Woodwalton), had not all been completed, but I think it got lost in the general discussion.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
17,543
Given that you have to wonder why there have now been two abortive attempts to revamp the timetable especially the most recent attempt. My guess is the current timetable will now stay until Trans Pennine Upgrade is completed.
Thats a long way away, a solution or variant will be found before then.
 
Joined
2 Feb 2019
Messages
512
Informed Sources in Modern Railways June 2024 indicates again that it will be impossible to deliver the abandoned December 2024 East Coast Mainline timetable change unless and until Woodwalton Junction to Huntingdon is made four track reinstating the Up Slow Line.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
7,245
Location
Surrey
Informed Sources in Modern Railways June 2024 indicates again that it will be impossible to deliver the abandoned December 2024 East Coast Mainline timetable change unless and until Woodwalton Junction to Huntingdon is made four track reinstating the Up Slow Line.
beggars belief why they ever embarked on a 2nd major rewrite then when that is an underlying issue. looks like the current arrangement will be perpetuated for many years yet despite all the hype. Would be better now that LNER give the units they would have used for the third train to Newcastle to Lumo so they can run double sets and increase capacity that way.
 

800001

Established Member
Joined
24 Oct 2015
Messages
5,204
beggars belief why they ever embarked on a 2nd major rewrite then when that is an underlying issue. looks like the current arrangement will be perpetuated for many years yet despite all the hype. Would be better now that LNER give the units they would have used for the third train to Newcastle to Lumo so they can run double sets and increase capacity that way.
Why would LNER give units to a private company?
 

Austriantrain

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2018
Messages
1,441
beggars belief why they ever embarked on a 2nd major rewrite then when that is an underlying issue. looks like the current arrangement will be perpetuated for many years yet despite all the hype. Would be better now that LNER give the units they would have used for the third train to Newcastle to Lumo so they can run double sets and increase capacity that way.

Thumps up for the Swiss approach to first design the timetable to run and then build the requisite infrastructure.
 

Manutd1999

Member
Joined
21 Feb 2021
Messages
388
Location
UK
December 2024 East Coast Mainline timetable change unless and until Woodwalton Junction to Huntingdon is made four track reinstating the Up Slow Line.
Was this included in the initial plans to enable 8ph fast services? If it was and DfT just ignored it, then it's not really Network Rail's fault.

But if wasn't included then the entire Kings Cross upgrade programme was 'sold' based on incorrect assumptions and NR should be held to account.

Either way it shows how incompetent the DfT/NR combination has become.....
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
31,986
Informed Sources in Modern Railways June 2024 indicates again that it will be impossible to deliver the abandoned December 2024 East Coast Mainline timetable change unless and until Woodwalton Junction to Huntingdon is made four track reinstating the Up Slow Line.

The article does not say that.

And the timetable is not abandoned. It‘s not happening in December 2024, granted.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
32,785
Was this included in the initial plans to enable 8ph fast services? If it was and DfT just ignored it, then it's not really Network Rail's fault.

But if wasn't included then the entire Kings Cross upgrade programme was 'sold' based on incorrect assumptions and NR should be held to account.

Either way it shows how incompetent the DfT/NR combination has become.....
The Kings Cross station work itself wasn’t part of the original list of required upgrades, oddly enough. I posted the list of pre-requisite projects in post #119:

Huntingdon – Woodwalton 4-tracking
Peterborough Down Slow Upgrade
Werrington Junction Grade Separation
York Station North Throat
Freight Improvements North of York
Doncaster – enhancements
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
7,245
Location
Surrey
Why would LNER give units to a private company?
OK would have to be a sub lease but this is only short term way of boosting demand. It also improves LNERs bottom line although i suspect First dont pay as much per unit as the poor deal that DafT negotiated.
 

TT-ONR-NRN

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
11,499
Location
Salford Quays, Manchester
beggars belief why they ever embarked on a 2nd major rewrite then when that is an underlying issue. looks like the current arrangement will be perpetuated for many years yet despite all the hype. Would be better now that LNER give the units they would have used for the third train to Newcastle to Lumo so they can run double sets and increase capacity that way.
If LNER had a comfortable enough stock situation to do that, they would not still have a small fleet of IC225s.
 

800001

Established Member
Joined
24 Oct 2015
Messages
5,204
OK would have to be a sub lease but this is only short term way of boosting demand. It also improves LNERs bottom line although i suspect First dont pay as much per unit as the poor deal that DafT negotiated.
There is no spare units. The trains they will use to run the additional Newcastle service is by utilising the stand by spares they have now incase of unit fault. They would have been increasing the use of what they have now.

As it is, most days now Hitachi do not deliver the required amount of units to LNER.

If LNER had a comfortable enough stock situation to do that, they would not still have a small fleet of IC225s.
Exactly this^^
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
7,245
Location
Surrey
There is no spare units. The trains they will use to run the additional Newcastle service is by utilising the stand by spares they have now incase of unit fault. They would have been increasing the use of what they have now.

As it is, most days now Hitachi do not deliver the required amount of units to LNER.
So the Dec 24 timetable had another potential flaw in its deliverability!
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
31,986
So the Dec 24 timetable had another potential flaw in its deliverability!

The extra services were to be resourced from teo ‘sources’.

1) with the fast edinburghs running, err, fast, stock was freed up
2) using more of the contracted diagrams available - LNER currently need rather fewer each day than they are contracted to use.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
7,245
Location
Surrey
The extra services were to be resourced from teo ‘sources’.

1) with the fast edinburghs running, err, fast, stock was freed up
2) using more of the contracted diagrams available - LNER currently need rather fewer each day than they are contracted to use.
So LNER are presumably having to pay for those units, as long as Hitachi deliver them, so if the enhanced timetable is now parked for sometime they ought sub-lease them to the other operators on the route so they can lengthen trains and increase capacity that way. Of course they wont i know because they don't want more competition as it risks revenue abstraction but that doesn't help the passenger.
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
2,200
Location
Leeds
So LNER are presumably having to pay for those units, as long as Hitachi deliver them, so if the enhanced timetable is now parked for sometime they ought sub-lease them to the other operators on the route so they can lengthen trains and increase capacity that way. Of course they wont i know because they don't want more competition as it risks revenue abstraction but that doesn't help the passenger.
Wouldn't sub-leasing require an amendment to the IEP contract?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
31,986
So LNER are presumably having to pay for those units, as long as Hitachi deliver them, so if the enhanced timetable is now parked for sometime they ought sub-lease them to the other operators on the route so they can lengthen trains and increase capacity that way. Of course they wont i know because they don't want more competition as it risks revenue abstraction but that doesn't help the passenger.

Sorry i didn’t make myself clear. LNER don’t need that many more units in service each day (only 1 AIUI). It is the better efficiency of the new timetbale that frees up most of them. But as that new timetable isn’t happening (yet), then the units arent spare.
 

Clarence Yard

Established Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
2,909
So LNER are presumably having to pay for those units, as long as Hitachi deliver them, so if the enhanced timetable is now parked for sometime they ought sub-lease them to the other operators on the route so they can lengthen trains and increase capacity that way. Of course they wont i know because they don't want more competition as it risks revenue abstraction but that doesn't help the passenger.

They can’t as they are not their units to sub-lease. They are on a daily train supply agreement from Agility, based on diagrams - all framed in a very restrictive contract over their use.

There is no lease - the TOC just collects them daily off Agility, uses them and then hands them back to Agility at the end of the diagram. It pays for the diagrams used and any units that are diagrammed spare. LNER has, hitherto, been diagramming several units spare, unlike GWR which has been compelled to use in service as many as the contract allows.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
7,245
Location
Surrey
They can’t as they are not their units to sub-lease. They are on a daily train supply agreement from Agility, based on diagrams - all framed in a very restrictive contract over their use.

There is no lease - the TOC just collects them daily off Agility, uses them and then hands them back to Agility at the end of the diagram. It pays for the diagrams used and any units that are diagrammed spare. LNER has, hitherto, been diagramming several units spare, unlike GWR which has been compelled to use in service as many as the contract allows.
OK thanks for the clarity mind you for that privilege LNER paid Agility Trains East Ltd 185m last year must make them the most expensive fleet in the UK by train although probably not when equated to vehicle miles run.
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
4,246
OK thanks for the clarity mind you for that privilege LNER paid Agility Trains East Ltd 185m last year must make them the most expensive fleet in the UK by train although probably not when equated to vehicle miles run.

The GWR and LNER 800s procured by the DfT via Agility Trains are indeed the most expensive UK fleet.
 

John R

Established Member
Joined
1 Jul 2013
Messages
4,453
Was this included in the initial plans to enable 8ph fast services? If it was and DfT just ignored it, then it's not really Network Rail's fault.

But if wasn't included then the entire Kings Cross upgrade programme was 'sold' based on incorrect assumptions and NR should be held to account.

Either way it shows how incompetent the DfT/NR combination has become.....
As I understand it, the requirement to run the required timetable was clearly set out and DfT just ignored it and made it clear that the four tracking would not go ahead.
 

rheingold103

Member
Joined
24 Apr 2022
Messages
41
Location
L&SE
LNER has, hitherto, been diagramming several units spare
Does this mean that LNER's diagramming of sets (especially single 5car) is meeting demand? When looking to reserve seats I see trains on eg the Leeds-London route where reservations are 'not available'.
 

takethegame

Member
Joined
20 Feb 2024
Messages
50
Location
Lincolnshire
As I understand it, the requirement to run the required timetable was clearly set out and DfT just ignored it and made it clear that the four tracking would not go ahead.

Would a high(er) speed turnout before Huntingdon help at all or be cheaper a compromise for now (a bit like they did at Fletton Junction from the Down Main to Down Slow)? Currently all trains stopping at Huntingdon and/or crossing to the Up Slow are approach controlled to 40 mph or less
 

Top