East Coast Timetable Dec 24

[dk1]

This could surely be eased a bit by reducing the service at Welwyn North from two trains an hour to one train an hour or fewer. There is a much better service at Welwyn Garden City.

I remember GNER wanting Welwyn North closed such was it a hindrance to them.

 

[Bald Rick]

I remember GNER wanting Welwyn North closed such was it a hindrance to them.

When considerign extra capacity on the south end of the ECML, closing Welwyn North has by far the best socio-economic business case!

 

[BrianW]

This could surely be eased a bit by reducing the service at Welwyn North from two trains an hour to one train an hour or fewer. There is a much better service at Welwyn Garden City.

I remember GNER wanting Welwyn North closed such was it a hindrance to them.

When considerign extra capacity on the south end of the ECML, closing Welwyn North has by far the best socio-economic business case!

Somehow, I don't imagine the users of Welwyn North being ardent supporters of that view- why has it not happened yet,esp as its apparently such a 'no-brainer'; maybe the parking at or bus service to Welwyn Garden City will become more attractive than it is at present.
Welwyn North is, it seems, busier than for instance Thetford, Thatcham or Theale (https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/estimates-of-station-usage)or the majority of stations

 

[CarrotPie]

When considering extra capacity on the south end of the ECML, closing Welwyn North has by far the best socio-economic business case!

Considering the nearest bus stop is a half-mile walk away and it has a roughly half-hourly service to Welwyn GC (only a few buses a day on Sundays), I'd say it's unlikely. It's a 25-30-minute journey to Welwyn GC by bus as opposed to 4 minutes by train.

 

[Magdalia]

This could surely be eased a bit by reducing the service at Welwyn North from two trains an hour to one train an hour or fewer. There is a much better service at Welwyn Garden City.

Somehow, I don't imagine the users of Welwyn North being ardent supporters of that view- why has it not happened yet,esp as its apparently such a 'no-brainer'; maybe the parking at or bus service to Welwyn Garden City will become more attractive than it is at present.
Welwyn North is, it seems, busier than for instance Thetford, Thatcham or Theale (https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/estimates-of-station-usage)or the majority of stations

There are various reasons why Welwyn Garden City is not an alternative for Welwyn North.

For a start there is a 100 feet deep river valley between the two stations, and limited options for crossing the River Mimram nearby.

Welwyn North has a car park with 253 spaces, Welwyn Garden City has no car parking at all, apart from the shopping centre car park.

Welwyn North Station has a very limited bus service and is only served 3 days per week.

The only routes in and out or Welwyn Garden City are on foot, either through a shopping centre or on a footpath that is not step free. In particular this means that the taxi rank and bus stops are a long way from the platforms.

 

[DanNCL]

This could surely be eased a bit by reducing the service at Welwyn North from two trains an hour to one train an hour or fewer. There is a much better service at Welwyn Garden City.

Never going to happen. It’s too well used.

 

[The Middle]

What are the key constraints to solve this puzzle?

Clarence Yard has mentioned providing a fourth track on the up from Woodwalton to Huntingdon.

What else is the minimum necessary?

Extension of the freight loops north of Newcastle for another

 

[The Planner]

Thanks. So ... the kind of considerations that went into the electrification of the GWML, improvements at Castlefield, on Thameslink and the introduction of Crossrail Elizabeth Line (and maybe HS2?) ?
I appreciate the difficulties (well, some of them maybe?) of making plans and changes, and the need for lessons to be learned, and applied ... Not as easy as may be thought/ hoped.

And unless people who are pushing for the introduction of changes, having been made aware of the issues (as they would have been), listen then it normally all goes to pot.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Its a bit more than that, it considers all aspects such as infrastructure readiness (or not), TOC training, timetable change risks, operational readiness, performance, engineering access changes and so on.

And that is where it can go badly wrong. Those issues should never be part of an ESG remit. There are other groups that should consider them. Considering those issues at an ESG turns the ESG process into a bureaucratic nightmare where too many NR departments get involved and think they can decide things.

Some of those limitation issues should be in the overall architecture of the timetabling work, not be changed because of it. Those limitations should be known before any timetabling activity takes place. Otherwise there will be a tendency to wibble away to pointless effect.

 

[Railperf]

Actually, I do.

One of the key constraints on the ECML is the ability to present at various junctions at the right time. So you need infrastructure in the right place to allow you to do so. Even infrastructure miles away from the crucial interface. Huntingdon to Peterborough unlocks so much on the ECML because you lose that constraint that pins down the times further north.

Can you articulate further .. explaining how the improvements unlock that potential?

Considering the nearest bus stop is a half-mile walk away and it has a roughly half-hourly service to Welwyn GC (only a few buses a day on Sundays), I'd say it's unlikely. It's a 25-30-minute journey to Welwyn GC by bus as opposed to 4 minutes by train.

come on - cancellation of HS2 simply requires 4-tracking Welwyn Viaduct!

 

[ASX_Terranova]

Can you articulate further .. explaining how the improvements unlock that potential?


come on - cancellation of HS2 simply requires 4-tracking Welwyn Viaduct!

Is Wikipedia correct when it says that Welwyn Viadcut, Welwyn North & The tunnels are Grade 2 or 2* listed. if so would you need to build a second viaduct and drill more tunnels.

 

[Magdalia]

Is Wikipedia correct when it says that Welwyn Viadcut, Welwyn North & The tunnels are Grade 2 or 2* listed. if so would you need to build a second viaduct and drill more tunnels.

Yes, see here. The viaduct is grade 2*, the others are grade 2.

WELWYN RAILWAY VIADUCT, Welwyn - 1348122 | Historic England

List entry 1348122. Grade II* Listed Building: Welwyn Railway Viaduct. May include summary, reasons for designation and history.

historicengland.org.uk

WELWYN RAILWAY VIADUCT​

WELWYN NORTH RAILWAY STATION AND FOOTBRIDGE, Welwyn - 1385391 | Historic England

List entry 1385391. Grade II Listed Building: Welwyn North Railway Station And Footbridge. May include summary, reasons for designation and history.

historicengland.org.uk

WELWYN NORTH RAILWAY STATION AND FOOTBRIDGE​

SOUTH PORTAL OF WELWYN TUNNEL 300 METRES NORTH OF WELWYN NORTH STATION, Welwyn - 1385392 | Historic England

List entry 1385392. Grade II Listed Building: South Portal Of Welwyn Tunnel 300 Metres North Of Welwyn North Station. May include summary, reasons for designation and history.

historicengland.org.uk

SOUTH PORTAL OF WELWYN TUNNEL 300 METRES NORTH OF WELWYN NORTH STATION​

 

[Clarence Yard]

Can you articulate further .. explaining how the improvements unlock that potential?

Timetabling the ECML is all about hitting various locations at precisely the right time. You have various crossing moves that you have to time before or after, various connections to make and various slower trains you have to share your lines with.

The more infrastructure you have at your disposal, the more options you have in the basic structure of your timetable because your presentation time at x location is not such a constraint when your spec is a journey time of y hours z minutes max stopping at a, b & c along the way.

So, without that small infrastructure improvement, having to present at Peterborough at a fixed time so you can cleanly path into the Cross, avoiding a fixed TL service from Peterborough (amongst others) means you will be potentially back timing all the way north and then that potentially screws up other services further north.

An infrastructure improvement miles away from a piece of line may well unlock a key timetabling issue. An alternative to that is you don’t specify services that can’t be delivered without infrastructure improvements which then cannot be funded.

 

[weeklycommuter]

There are various reasons why Welwyn Garden City is not an alternative for Welwyn North.
For a start there is a 100 feet deep river valley between the two stations, and limited options for crossing the River Mimram nearby.
Welwyn North has a car park with 253 spaces, Welwyn Garden City has no car parking at all, apart from the shopping centre car park.
Welwyn North Station has a very limited bus service and is only served 3 days per week.
The only routes in and out or Welwyn Garden City are on foot, either through a shopping centre or on a footpath that is not step free. In particular this means that the taxi rank and bus stops are a long way from the platforms.

These are issues that can be fixed if there is the political will to do so. Dedicated parking could be built near Welwyn Garden City Station and a bus service could be run between Welwyn North Station and Welwyn Garden City Station to enable users of Welwyn North Station to use Welwyn Garden City Station instead as a cost effective way to increase capacity on the East Coast Mainline.

The online Modern Railways article states that some elements of the December 2024 East Coast Mainline timetable change will still proceed but it remains to be seen which changes will go ahead. Clearly not the headline long-distance changes with LNER services though I expect the announced dropping of the Stirling and Glasgow extensions will go ahead.

ECML December 2024 timetable deferred

Major changes postponed due to outstanding issues

www.modernrailways.com

While some elements of the change will still proceed, the headline long-distance changes with LNER services, which would deliver the biggest revenue benefit, will not take place.

Consultation to remove Direct Glasgow and Stirling services

We are proposing changes to our timetable to offer a more sustainable and reliable service. The consultation has ended, read the report here.

www.lner.co.uk

Glasgow Central and Stirling proposals
London North Eastern Railway (LNER) ran an 8-week consultation from 22 January 2024 to 18 March 2024 on proposals to remove its Glasgow and Stirling extensions. The responses to LNER’s consultation on proposals to remove Glasgow and Stirling extensions demonstrated the importance that rail has to many. However, after careful consideration of the consultation responses, LNER has decided that it will proceed with proposals to remove the Glasgow and Stirling extensions from the December 2024 timetable.

 

[The Planner]

And that is where it can go badly wrong. Those issues should never be part of an ESG remit. There are other groups that should consider them. Considering those issues at an ESG turns the ESG process into a bureaucratic nightmare where too many NR departments get involved and think they can decide things.

Some of those limitation issues should be in the overall architecture of the timetabling work, not be changed because of it. Those limitations should be known before any timetabling activity takes place. Otherwise there will be a tendency to wibble away to pointless effect.

If that is the case then someone should be telling system operator to back off and leave it alone then, the general concensus is that everyone seems happy to let them lead it.

 

[james_the_xv]

Its a bit more than that, it considers all aspects such as infrastructure readiness (or not), TOC training, timetable change risks, operational readiness, performance, engineering access changes and so on.

And that is where it can go badly wrong. Those issues should never be part of an ESG remit. There are other groups that should consider them. Considering those issues at an ESG turns the ESG process into a bureaucratic nightmare where too many NR departments get involved and think they can decide things.

Some of those limitation issues should be in the overall architecture of the timetabling work, not be changed because of it. Those limitations should be known before any timetabling activity takes place. Otherwise there will be a tendency to wibble away to pointless effect.

So tell us what should be part of an ESG remit? If you don't take all of those issues described by @The Planner (quoted) into account when making these decisions you'll end up with a timetable change that TOCs may not be ready for, a timetable with (potentially) major unknown performance risks and infrastructure that may or may not be ready...

 

[notverydeep]

Never going to happen. It’s too well used.

And by many of the sort of people who know very well how to influence the outcome effectively…

More likely is that the pre pandemic four peak trains per hour (including two nonstop to King’s Cross) will be reinstated.

 

[bramling]

When considerign extra capacity on the south end of the ECML, closing Welwyn North has by far the best socio-economic business case!

Very vociferous locals, or at least they were at the time this was raised in the 1990s!

 

[Starmill]

Somehow, I don't imagine the users of Welwyn North being ardent supporters of that view- why has it not happened yet,esp as its apparently such a 'no-brainer'; maybe the parking at or bus service to Welwyn Garden City will become more attractive than it is at present.
Welwyn North is, it seems, busier than for instance Thetford, Thatcham or Theale (https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/estimates-of-station-usage)or the majority of stations

Most things that would be good value for money don't happen.

 

[Magdalia]

These are issues that can be fixed if there is the political will to do so.

"Political will" is a slippery and elusive commodity. It can't be found to close stations with fewer than 1000 users per year, so it won't be found to close a station used by more than 1000 people every working day.

The political reality is that those people are voters, mostly in the Welwyn Hatfield constituency, where Grant Schapps has been MP since 2005.

"Political will" is not a magic wand.

 

[Clarence Yard]

So tell us what should be part of an ESG remit? If you don't take all of those issues described by @The Planner (quoted) into account when making these decisions you'll end up with a timetable change that TOCs may not be ready for, a timetable with (potentially) major unknown performance risks and infrastructure that may or may not be ready...

Quite simply, timetabling only, based on series of assumptions and constraints.

An ESG should report about two years from a timetable introduction (in tune with how Part J works) and from about a year out you are only fettling a known outcome because all the Rights issues should have been sorted via the ORR.

The PMO SG at System Operator level deals with the system wide risks, including Infrastructure and Operator readiness. A couple of years out these issues will not be apparent and an ESG is not an implementation monitoring body - its function should be about timetabling, informing other bodies such as the PMO and the ORR in a timely fashion.

Trying to run it as an all-encompassing regional timetable authority still dealing with key issues less than a year out is absolute folly. The architecture of the both the Regs and the Code won’t really allow it.

 

[weeklycommuter]

"Political will" is a slippery and elusive commodity. It can't be found to close stations with fewer than 1000 users per year, so it won't be found to close a station used by more than 1000 people every working day.

The political reality is that those people are voters, mostly in the Welwyn Hatfield constituency, where Grant Schapps has been MP since 2005.

"Political will" is not a magic wand.

Would they oppose building dedicated parking for Welwyn Garden City Station and a bus service between Welwyn North Station and Welwyn Garden City Station? If passengers who drive to Welwyn North Station were provided with dedicated parking at Welwyn Garden City Station instead would they not use this to travel from Welwyn Garden City Station which has a much better service? It is very difficult to close a station but the service at Welwyn North Station could be reduced from two trains and hour to one train an hour if this is needed to provide an additional train service from London Kings Cross to the North of England. There are millions of voters in the North of England who would benefit from more train services to London Kings Cross and this has to be weighed against the unhappiness of a relatively small number of people about reducing the service at Welwyn North Station from two trains an hour to one train an hour each way. The two infrastructure solutions are building a railway bypass of this 4km long two track section of the East Coast Mainline or reinstating the High Speed Two extension from Birmingham to Leeds but both would presumably cost many billions of pounds so it does not seem likely that either would be funded for the foreseeable future. Reducing the service at Welwyn North may therefore be the only realistic way of enabling an additional service such as a third train each hour from London Kings Cross to Leeds.

I assume from the Modern Railways article that the third train each hour from London Kings Cross to Newcastle will not go ahead in December 2024 and this is not good news as regardless of the disputes about stopping patterns it would be a big benefit to have the extra seats provided by this additional train each hour from London Kings Cross to Newcastle.

 

[The Planner]

Quite simply, timetabling only, based on series of assumptions and constraints.

An ESG should report about two years from a timetable introduction (in tune with how Part J works) and from about a year out you are only fettling a known outcome because all the Rights issues should have been sorted via the ORR.

The PMO SG at System Operator level deals with the system wide risks, including Infrastructure and Operator readiness. A couple of years out these issues will not be apparent and an ESG is not an implementation monitoring body - its function should be about timetabling, informing other bodies such as the PMO and the ORR in a timely fashion.

Trying to run it as an all-encompassing regional timetable authority still dealing with key issues less than a year out is absolute folly. The architecture of the both the Regs and the Code won’t really allow it.

I dont believe that is happening in my opinion, the PMO only appears to worry about whether a timetable can be delivered by system operator.

 

[43074]

Closing Welwyn North achieves nothing because there's still a need for connectivity between the likes of Hatfield/Welwyn and Stevenage/Hitchin etc as they are important places in their own right, running a half hourly service between them doesn't seem unreasonable. If there's a need for a "local" service between those places it may as well stop at Welwyn North...

There's also no guarantee the path you free up by removing the stopper at Welwyn North will work further north, or indeed that there would be capacity at Kings Cross for it.

 

[Magdalia]

Would they oppose building dedicated parking for Welwyn Garden City Station and a bus service between Welwyn North Station and Welwyn Garden City Station?

Yes, because the only way of achieving that is to close and demolish the shopping centre next to Welwyn Garden City station.

there's still a need for connectivity between the likes of Hatfield/Welwyn and Stevenage/Hitchin etc as they are important places in their own right, running a half hourly service between them doesn't seem unreasonable.

This is an important point. Between Potters Bar and Royston the stopping service is a de facto Hertfordshire Metro with lots of intermediate journeys, especially students going to and from college/university at Hatfield and Hitchin. The Kings Cross-Cambridge service is not just about journeys to and from the end points.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I dont believe that is happening in my opinion, the PMO only appears to worry about whether a timetable can be delivered by system operator.

No, the PMO Steering Group meet monthly and all aspects are gone into. For each timetable period there is a dashboard by operator with all the key NR and Operator elements listed, specific reports on major recasts and forward looks on such matters as cascades. They usually look two timetables ahead and there is a forward look past them on future service or significant infrastructure changes.

If the PMO has concerns with something it can initiate a separate session with the operators and NR region/routes concerned. These are known as “deep dives”.

The PMO SG is the main industry assurance forum, one of the things that has come out of the 2018 debacle. The PMO SG has been a major force in telling the PMO that the ECML ESG timetable isn’t workable, despite the efforts of others to say that it is. The PMO SG is only advisory (legally it can be nothing but) and the PMO itself is the decision body. It is they who have been talking formally to the DfT.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Closing Welwyn North achieves nothing because there's still a need for connectivity between the likes of Hatfield/Welwyn and Stevenage/Hitchin etc as they are important places in their own right, running a half hourly service between them doesn't seem unreasonable. If there's a need for a "local" service between those places it may as well stop at Welwyn North...

The only change I suggested to the Thameslink and Great Northern services on the East Coast Mainline is that no more than one of the two Great Northern London Kings Cross to Cambridge stopping trains (some of which terminate at Letchworth) each hour (Monday to Saturday) should stop at Welwyn North and the others should pass through Welwyn North without stopping. AIUI each train that stops at Welwyn North takes two paths on the East Coast Mainline instead of the one path each taken by all the trains that do not stop at Welwyn North.

 

[43074]

AIUI each train that stops at Welwyn North takes two paths on the East Coast Mainline instead of the one path each taken by all the trains that do not stop at Welwyn North.

It's only one path - if you look at Digswell or Woolmer Green on Real Time Trains the trains from the slow line which call at Welwyn North can follow 1.5 mins behind a non-stop on the fasts so it's timetabled as efficiently as possible.

Hence why I pointed out if you need connectivity Welwyn etc to Stevenage whether or not you stop at Welwyn North makes no difference.

 

[Starmill]

The only change I suggested to the Thameslink and Great Northern services on the East Coast Mainline is that no more than one of the two Great Northern London Kings Cross to Cambridge stopping trains (some of which terminate at Letchworth) each hour (Monday to Saturday) should stop at Welwyn North and the others should pass through Welwyn North without stopping. AIUI each train that stops at Welwyn North takes two paths on the East Coast Mainline instead of the one path each taken by all the trains that do not stop at Welwyn North.

You can't necessarily run more fast services by cutting stops at Welwyn North, as people keep pouting out, because you don't necessarily have a suitable platform at London Kings Cross or a suitable slot at Hitchin, Peterborough, Newark and so on and so forth. Instead what this achieves is removing a fixed constraint which may offer better gains elsewhere from either speed increases or more efficient running at other key conflict points.

If you shut Welwyn North it may be that only some pathing time coming out of some schedules is the benefit.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

You can't necessarily run more fast services by cutting stops at Welwyn North, as people keep pouting out, because you don't necessarily have a suitable platform at London Kings Cross or a suitable slot at Hitchin, Peterborough, Newark and so on and so forth. Instead what this achieves is removing a fixed constraint which may offer better gains elsewhere from either speed increases or more efficient running at other key conflict points.

If you shut Welwyn North it may be that only some pathing time coming out of some schedules is the benefit.

Well given the variety of infrastructure issues mentioned above that remain a constraint sounds like leaving the current timetable in force is the most likely outcome for the foreseeable future and probably do a replan when they finally complete TRU.