That is probably unlikely, at least in the short term as there are clearly places in the catchment area of the London airports, and indeed the Scottish ones that are a fair distance from Kings Cross and Edinburgh Waverley.The skies might empty.
That is probably unlikely, at least in the short term as there are clearly places in the catchment area of the London airports, and indeed the Scottish ones that are a fair distance from Kings Cross and Edinburgh Waverley.The skies might empty.
Pushing passengers onto petrol cars / coaches / flights when there's engineering works, such as through Darlington this and next weekend, is probably less environmentally friendly than being able to divert via the Durham coast would be as well (ignoring that I don't think the Durham coast has enough space for more than 1 extra tph, with that taken by LNER).instance Lumo's lack of a backup diesel engine isn't on environmental grounds, it was just cost.
You have a point with cars and flights, but depending on the numbers of passengers being moved, a fully loaded diesel coach is more environmentally friendly than a lightly loaded diesel train. As you say, the capacity to divert via the Durham coast is limited, and Lumo aren't going to be able to divert in any case.Pushing passengers onto petrol cars / coaches / flights when there's engineering works, such as through Darlington this and next weekend, is probably less environmentally friendly than being able to divert via the Durham coast would be as well (ignoring that I don't think the Durham coast has enough space for more than 1 extra tph, with that taken by LNER).
My hostility towards it is based on wasting paths with short trains (Lumo and GC)
It's only a waste if there's another operator wanting to use it. And is it more of a waste to run a half-length train that's full or a full-length train that's half-empty. (Hint, it's the latter one).My hostility towards it is based on wasting paths with short trains (Lumo and GC) and on things like non standard luggage allowances (Lumo) and unreliability (GC).
It's only a waste if there's another operator wanting to use it. And is it more of a waste to run a half-length train that's full or a full-length train that's half-empty. (Hint, it's the latter one).
That's a very small market though because anybody north of the Clyde already goes to Queen Street or directly to Edinburgh as does anybody on the Shotts line. Even Motherwell it's as easy to go to Newcastle via Carlisle, what's left is crumbs.Passengers arriving into Glasgow Central do like having a train in that station to take them to their east coast destinations though. The alternative is a ten minute walk, with luggage, to Queen Street to board a ScotRail shuttle to Waverley only to charge trains and platform yet again.
It's only a waste if there's another operator wanting to use it. .
Unless there is another operator wishing to run full length trains in the paths 'wasted' by Lumo and GC, which I don't believe is the case, I don't see the problem. The only TOC currently using full length (ie longer than 5 coaches) on the ECML is LNER, and they already run half hourly services between both Edinburgh and Leeds, and Kings Cross - Just how many more paths do they need! (and LNER run 5-car trains as well, of course....)
ORR judged it would be possible to operate eight long-distance trains per hour to and from London. It decided that six should be allocated to the franchise operator (then VTEC, now LNER), with a further one in every other hour, and that the remaining paths would be allocated to the incumbent open access operators Hull Trains and Grand Central and to a new open access company, First East Coast Trains.
That's a really interesting insight, thanks.They weren’t deliberately kept open for OA because paths cannot legally be reserved for types of operator. The argument at the ORR hearing was over how many paths would fit on the ECML. The DfT and LNER argued that there wasn’t 8 but NR and the OA operators said there was. The ORR, after doing their own analysis, favoured the latter view. The DfT were well hacked off because it meant there was room for the OA applications and the ORR could approve them.
Just a comment on the post about not fitting diesel engines because of cost. It was actually a decision made by Leo Goodwin (who put this together before he went to be TPE MD) on environmental grounds. I actually pushed for full bi-mode but he was (is) quite anti-diesel when you don’t need to run diesel. He thought that the NR work on the ECML would be mostly done by introduction so he didn’t really need a ECML diesel diversionary strategy. I begged to differ but my overtures were not well received. Ironically the extra cost of diesel would have meant a slightly longer TAA, which I always see as a good thing, but he wanted to be seen to be “Green”.
The problem for Lumo at the moment is capacity. Getting Hitachi interested in providing extra cars is proving difficult and obtaining new trains is now looking like 2028 at the earliest.
That's a really interesting insight, thanks.
Track access agreementIndeed, thanks. What's TAA?
Track Access Agreement.Indeed, thanks. What's TAA?
I dunno, £46 to travel 400 miles isn't really that bad value for money. You'd likely spend about that much on petrol if you were to drive it.Neither seem particularly good value, but at least Avanti drop their prices further in advance.
Is this down to Hitachi not wanting to supply more units or something else?They weren’t deliberately kept open for OA because paths cannot legally be reserved for types of operator. The argument at the ORR hearing was over how many paths would fit on the ECML. The DfT and LNER argued that there wasn’t 8 but NR and the OA operators said there was. The ORR, after doing their own analysis, favoured the latter view. The DfT were well hacked off because it meant there was room for the OA applications and the ORR could approve them.
Just a comment on the post about not fitting diesel engines because of cost. It was actually a decision made by Leo Goodwin (who put this together before he went to be TPE MD) on environmental grounds. I actually pushed for full bi-mode but he was (is) quite anti-diesel when you don’t need to run diesel. He thought that the NR work on the ECML would be mostly done by introduction so he didn’t really need a ECML diesel diversionary strategy. I begged to differ but my overtures were not well received. Ironically the extra cost of diesel would have meant a slightly longer TAA, which I always see as a good thing, but he wanted to be seen to be “Green”.
The problem for Lumo at the moment is capacity. Getting Hitachi interested in providing extra cars is proving difficult and obtaining new trains is now looking like 2028 at the earliest.
I guess there's more profit in complete trains than intermediate cars?Is this down to Hitachi not wanting to supply more units or something else?
it would be generally preferred to run fewer trains at much greater capacity
what happens when the Hull portion gets to Doncaster and the Edinburgh portion isn't there?
OTOH?Although OTOH better frequency gives passengers greater choice and therefore attracts more of them?
On the other hand.OTOH?
Ignoring the small problem of different operators and competing timings, does anyone know if any consideration has been given to for example combining paths out of KGX, so for example a 10 car train would leave KGX (maybe even double crewed) with a split at Doncaster and a portion to Hull and a portion to Edinburgh ?
OTOH?
Open Access growth
On 5 January 2024, the Group submitted to the Office of Rail and Road (‘ORR’), the first phase of an application for a new Open Access rail service between London and Sheffield. The proposed service would be part of the Group’s Hull Trains business and comprises two return journeys a day from London King’s Cross calling at Retford, Worksop, Woodhouse and Sheffield. A sizeable number of rail passengers currently drive to Doncaster station to pick up faster services to London rather than travelling via Sheffield; a new, convenient rail service from these local stations could help reduce the number of car journeys.
The ORR consultation with industry partners has concluded. Capacity and performance modelling is now underway. The Group is also working on the fleet strategy and is in discussions with rolling stock companies. It is anticipated that services could begin in the second half of the 2025 calendar year.
In addition, Lumo has identified opportunities to extend a number of its daily London to Edinburghjourneys to Glasgow. Discussions are in progress with Transport Scotland and Network Rail with regards to the final route options and timings, ahead of an application to the ORR for access rights. If successful, the new services will be operated with the existing Lumo fleet of all-electric trains and it is anticipated that they could begin in the second half of the 2025 calendar year.
Am I reading it correctly that on Saturdays they plan to operate services that only run between Queen Street and Edinburgh Waverley?It is under the 12th SA for ECTL (Lumo) in the current track access consultations. Looks like they are aiming for Queen Street. Only 3 Northbounds Monday to Friday versus 5 Southbounds.