ECML Timetable post GBR

[Manutd1999]

The recent discussions re. the mess that is the ECML re-cast got me thinking, what might be possible in a GBR world where the rights/wishes of individual TOCs don't have to be considered? Some thoughts and a sketch of a timetable below. Note I am referring to the TOCs below to make it simpler to understand but I assume they don't compete with each other.

South EMCL
If you ignore the open-access operators it's actually quite easy to create a reasonable stopping pattern out of London. Destinations would remain similar to today, with the addition of a 1p2h service to Hull and a few trains per day to Middlesborough. Bradford would be served as a 1p2h extension from Leeds but the Grand Central services would be dropped. A 6ph flighted service could look like this:

xx00 Edinburgh via York, Newcastle only.
xx03 Leeds via Grantham/Newark, Retford, Doncaster
xx06 Newcastle or Midds. (1p2h each) via Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham/Newark, Doncaster, York, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham
xx30 Edinburgh via Peterborough, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Berwick
xx33 Leeds via Peterborough, Doncaster
xx36 Lincoln or Hull (1p2h each) via Stevenage, Grantham, Newark

This gives a half-hourly service to Grantham and Newark as well as a reasonable set of connection northwards (eg, Newark gets 1p2h to Hull, Lincoln, Leeds, Newcastle). Edinburgh gets one express and one semi-fast. Leeds gets a clockface half-hourly service with journey times similar to today and a good mix of connections.

There would still be some capacity for open-access operators but the paths would be sub-optimal.

York to Newcastle
North of York, I would start by re-assessing the XC services, which currently comprise of 1x service from Birmingham to Edinburgh via Leeds and one (often spare) fast path to Newcastle via Doncaster. I would split the Leeds flows across 3x different services:

• Leeds to Newcastle/Edinburgh can be served by TPE, with Manchester-Newcastle running half-hourly and one extended to Edinburgh.
• The XC service could then be cut-back at York, focusing on the Leeds-Birmingham flows.
• The XC service via Doncaster could run hourly, providing a faster Birmingham-Newcastle connection. Ad-hoc services could extend to provide connections from Sheffield/Doncaster to Edinburgh.

This gives a maximum of 6ph York-Newcastle (3x London, 1x XC, 2x TPE), plus 1x TPE service to Middlesborough. This should be do-able but the freight services may have to be re-timed. I am assuming that this is possible in a post-GBR re-cast.

Newcastle to Edinburgh
There would be up to 4ph long-distance services north of Newcastle (2x London, 1x TPE, 1x less frequent XC). The TPE service could call hourly at Morpeth and Berwick to provide a clockface service to Newcastle/Edinburgh, with the London semi-fast and XC then making ad-hoc calls at Berwick/Alnmouth/Dunbar to provide infrequent long-distance connections.

Finally, I would increase the TPE stopper to 1p2h if possible and extend it to Glasgow QS (replacing a Scotrail service), thus boosting local connectivity and giving a direct North-East to Glasgow connection.

The indicative stopping pattern would look something like this (/ indicates a 1p2h service). Local services are not shown.

 

[30907]

You're assuming Hull Trains will play ball

A couple of detail points:
1. Stevenage - using the 06 and 36 ex KGX means you can't stop a Leeds service there as at present.
2. Peterborough - if the 30 and 33 stop you have to use 2 platforms (not impossible but adds complication
3. Leeds - IMO much better to even out the journey time to fit into the repeating patterns of local services.

Have you read the proposals in MR this month, which are on similar lines?

 

[Donny Dave]

Seems strange to omit Scotland services from Doncaster completely, as it quite a busy interchange station.

 

[swt_passenger]

You cannot simply ‘ignore the open access operators’ as every announcement so far has them continuing as now.

 

[En]

You cannot simply ‘ignore the open access operators’ as every announcement so far has them continuing as now.

exactly, and any future regime that aims towards EU closer relationship if not rejoin will need OA

 

[JonathanH]

You cannot simply ‘ignore the open access operators’ as every announcement so far has them continuing as now.

They only have an access contract until December 2032. It would be sensible not to renew the open access contracts when their time is up and subsume them into the GBR operation.

 

[En]

They only have an access contract until December 2032. It would be sensible not to renew the open access contracts when their time is up and subsume them into the GBR operation.

if the UK harbours any ambition to ever return to the EU OA is the none negotiable part of the railway stuff, all the other stuff is disaster capitalism promoted by Selfservatives

 

[Manutd1999]

You cannot simply ‘ignore the open access operators’ as every announcement so far has them continuing as now.

I'm not saying there won't be any OA. There is still space for 1-2ph in my timetable but they would have to be re-cast compared to today, potentially with worse paths. I'm not sure how much re-casting is allowed in the contracts, but it could be possible.

Seems strange to omit Scotland services from Doncaster completely, as it quite a busy interchange station.

A few Doncaster-Scotland services would be provided by XC. I did think about stopping the xx30 at Doncaster but the journey time starts to become very slow compared to the xx00. In any case, I am not sure how big the market northwards from Doncaster actually is? A lot of the connections can also be made at Leeds/York.

A couple of detail points:
1. Stevenage - using the 06 and 36 ex KGX means you can't stop a Leeds service there as at present.
2. Peterborough - if the 30 and 33 stop you have to use 2 platforms (not impossible but adds complication
3. Leeds - IMO much better to even out the journey time to fit into the repeating patterns of local services.

Yes, Leeds loses Stevenage but most of the same onward connections are available via Peterborough. Re. point 3), the small difference in journey time could be compensated by a longer dwell at Doncaster to fit back into a clockface pattern. Alternatively, the faster service could run via Hambleton, continuing to Bradford without reversing.

 

[Donny Dave]

A few Doncaster-Scotland services would be provided by XC. I did think about stopping the xx30 at Doncaster but the journey time starts to become very slow compared to the xx00. In any case, I am not sure how big the market northwards from Doncaster actually is? A lot of the connections can also be made at Leeds/York.

Northbound services do see quite good usage, as you have passengers interchanging from Grimsby, Scunthorpe Goole, plus local stations nearby. For some of these passengers, it isn't the quickest journey already, as the TPE from Scunthorpe arrives around xx37 with the next northbound departure at xx10. By saying they have to take a slower train to Newcastle, and a potential 20 minute change there, could dissuade passengers from using rail.

 

[Dr Hoo]

They only have an access contract until December 2032. It would be sensible not to renew the open access contracts when their time is up and subsume them into the GBR operation.

Can you explain what ‘subsume’ actually involves. At the moment we can only see a six TPH pattern from King’s Cross with no extra seats but the seventh or even eighth (open access) services gone.
Presumably locations like Brighouse, Halifax, Hartlepool, Morpeth and so on will just have to change into relatively slow and infrequent (hourly) local services, possibly with longish waits.
Besides losing the (modest) open access uplift on purely variable/marginal track access charges what precisely is being gained by these changes?

 

[JonathanH]

Can you explain what ‘subsume’ actually involves. At the moment we can only see a six TPH pattern from King’s Cross with no extra seats but the seventh or even eighth (open access) services gone.

If the open access operators are successfully operating as commercial enterprises, then bringing those services into GBR won't cost the exchequer anything, and the paths can be made part of a centrally planned timetable. I'm not suggesting that the seventh and eighth paths are lost, just that they should all be with one operator.

In the ideal of a single nationalised passenger operator, where people don't need to worry about whether they are on the wrong operator's trains and they can catch the next train when there is disruption, having open access operators just confuses matters.

I concede that this can't happen until the current track access agreements expire.

Presumably locations like Brighouse, Halifax, Hartlepool, Morpeth and so on will just have to change into relatively slow and infrequent (hourly) local services, possibly with longish waits.

Why can't the GBR operator serve these places once the open access operator's track access agreement ends?

 

[Manutd1999]

Besides losing the (modest) open access uplift on purely variable/marginal track access charges what precisely is being gained by these changes?

I think my proposal offers some benefits over the current timetable:
- Establishment of the long sought after 'fast' path to Edinburgh, with a journey time ~4h
- Better balance south of Doncaster, with a close-to clockface service to Newark, Grantham etc.
- Re-think of XC's role, balancing the different flows and reducing the use of Voyagers under wires.
- Faster connections between Newcastle and Birmingham.
- Hull is brought back into the "national" network, ending the anomally of a large city being served only by open access to London.

I think my timetbale provides a good level of connectivity between all the major towns and cities along the route, give or take a few tweaks. IMO that is what GBR should be aiming for.

The 1-2ph spare paths would then enable open access to be added on top. If Hull Trains want to continue to compete on the Hull route, they will be free to do so. Likewise Grand Central could continue to serve West Yorkshire etc.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They only have an access contract until December 2032. It would be sensible not to renew the open access contracts when their time is up and subsume them into the GBR operation.

The government has said it supports OA if they add value (and it's how freight, Eurostar and Heathrow Express operate).
At the moment, it's ORR which allows OA operators, based on capacity available and level of abstraction, not the DfT.

 

[Donny Dave]

Having just searched through my previous postings, I've noticed that this proposal is basically a rehash of the Eureka timetable first put forward in 2008, and discussed in depth back in 2009. The main difference in this proposal is that all East Coast Anglo-Scottish passengers from Doncaster would have to get multiple trains, or use a train not provided by the main operator on the route. Not even NXEC were that heartless or brutal back then.

Anyway, I don't know how to link an individual post, but my take on the Euraka timetable is in post 38 of the attached thread.

ECML Dec 2010 Timetable

Interesting Paul. I thought it would be well used by Edin-Glas traffic, by traffic from the NE as well as the eastern counties? Obviously not! I was on it and it was empty, considering it takes an extra half hour than the Queen St service, it would probably only be use by passengers arriving...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Bald Rick]

The premise of this thread is neatly covered by pages 26-34 of the latest Modern Railways. This work was done 3-4 years ago.

I think my proposal offers some benefits over the current timetable:
- Establishment of the long sought after 'fast' path to Edinburgh, with a journey time ~4h

A clockface 4h journey time to Edinburgh is near impossible unless lots of existing connectivity is dropped and/or freight paths compromised.

 

[signed]

They only have an access contract until December 2032. It would be sensible not to renew the open access contracts when their time is up and subsume them into the GBR operation.

New ones are still to come on and before 2027, will they have only a 5 year track access contract?

 

[Bald Rick]

New ones are still to come on and before 2027, will they have only a 5 year track access contract?

On the ECML… its going to be interesting to see if any more access rights are granted to OA, given that as has been well publicised, its not at all easy to accommodate the access rights that already exist!

 

[cslusarc]

Before any additional Open Access access rights are granted more track capacity and resilience needs to be added to the ECML.