I read a claim that London - Newcastle journey longer now than 15 years ago

[pethadine82]

I came across a university prospectus from 1996 and noted journey times from london to Newcastle were 2.5 hours, now they are 3 or even 3.5 hours.
Why is this. Surley we should be aiming at quicker journeys ?

At the risk of being flamed I think it is to do with capacity, paths and the volume of traffic being significantly higher than 20 years ago.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not sure I'd treat a University prospectus as being the most accurate guide for journey times. That sounds to me like they've taken a headline figure and applied it to all journeys rather than what the average journey time is. Does anyone have access to a 1996 (or similar) timetable and is able to comment?

 

[jimm]

I came across a university prospectus from 1996 and noted journey times from london to Newcastle were 2.5 hours, now they are 3 or even 3.5 hours.
Why is this. Surley we should be aiming at quicker journeys ?

At the risk of being flamed I think it is to do with capacity, paths and the volume of traffic being significantly higher than 20 years ago.

As noted above, I think you'll find that is actually a headline time achieved by one or two trains a day which ran non-stop between Newcastle and King's Cross. Stick in the more usual calls by Newcastle services at (at least) York, Darlington and Durham and you weren't going to make it in 150 minutes, even in 1996.

With the increases in passenger traffic seen across the network since then, a grandstanding fast train or two is pretty much a thing of the past. Virgin still run a handful of such trains between Euston and Birmingham and Manchester - so they can stick the timings in promotional material - but they are pretty much extinct elsewhere these days as the seats that would have been left empty on such trains are needed for passengers at intermediate stations.

 

[Darandio]

With the increases in passenger traffic seen across the network since then, a grandstanding fast train or two is pretty much a thing of the past. Virgin still run a handful of such trains between Euston and Birmingham and Manchester - so they can stick the timings in promotional material - but they are pretty much extinct elsewhere these days as the seats that would have been left empty on such trains are needed for passengers at intermediate stations.

Apart from the Flying Scotsman, which is still booked for four hours Edinburgh to Kings Cross. The leg between Newcastle and London is booked or 2hrs 37min.

 

[ainsworth74]

The leg between Newcastle and London is booked or 2hrs 37min.

Booked being the operative word! I once watched it's performance for a couple of weeks in fifteen journeys it only managed to arrive within five minutes of booked time about two or three occasions. Most of the time it was between five and ten minutes late.

 

[Darandio]

Booked being the operative word! I once watched it's performance for a couple of weeks in fifteen journeys it only managed to arrive within five minutes of booked time about two or three occasions. Most of the time it was between five and ten minutes late.

Yeah, I don't look at it as much as I did when it first started.

In terms of the original questions, the closest I have to hand is the Summer 1993 "bible", I'm looking through it now.

 

[ainsworth74]

In terms of the original questions, the closest I have to hand is the Summer 1993 "bible", I'm looking through it now.

That'll do the trick I think, thanks

(That is unless there was a massive recast between 93 and 96!)

 

[Darandio]

Right, what I can find.

Weekdays, 15:00 from London to Glasgow was booked to Newcastle in 2hrs 39 minutes with a stop at York.

Nothing else seems to get close the the one above, the next fastest are 2hr 52min or so and then nearer 3 hours or over. I cannot really see that this was much different even three years later and that the claims were indeed just taken from a headline time.

 

[yorkie]

I came across a university prospectus from 1996 and noted journey times from london to Newcastle were 2.5 hours, now they are 3 or even 3.5 hours.
Why is this. Surley we should be aiming at quicker journeys ?

Are you sure these are facts, are you sure no trains are quicker than 3 hours now, and are you sure trains really used to take 2.5 hours?

At the risk of being flamed I think it is to do with capacity, paths and the volume of traffic being significantly higher than 20 years ago.

You won't be flamed, but you are right, additional calls are to do with the volume of traffic being significantly higher than 20 years ago. And yes, it is also to do with pathing & capacity as we now have a standard pattern timetable.

Fastest train was 1500 from King's Cross - it now takes 11 minutes longer, not 30 minutes longer as claimed in your opening post.

 

[A-driver]

Many journeys are now longer than they were years ago, there was a big news article about 8 years ago on the subject. It seems its mainly (in the London/southeastern commuter areas anyway) down to modern safety standards, increased traffic and lack of slam doors.

The slam door seems to play a big part-years ago most people would have got off the train and many would start getting on before the train had actually stopped. Now the train has to stop (which with modern, almost over cautious, driving techniques preached by management takes longer than in the slam door days where drivers were encouraged to hit platforms much faster than now), the doors must be released, opened, people get in and out, once clear close doors, safety check, start moving takes much longer. I seem to remember the report in the press blamed the lack of slam doors as the biggest factor in slowing down journeys.

Safety standards have certainly slowed things down, companies over-enthusiastic driving policies (many of which I don't agree with-the principle of many is ok but the fact we can't use common sense seems stupid-having to take only half power on a yellow even though the red is on or past the end of the next booked station platform etc).

I know this doesn't specifically relate to east coast as their stock hasn't changed but it will have an effect with regional traffic which intercity trains are timed around.

 

[Oscar]

Whereas one train took 2 h 39 in 1993, the vast majority of others took around 3 h and non-stop runs from London to York were rare before the recent timetable recast. Nowadays there is an hourly service which runs non-stop to York and which is booked between 2 h 47 and 2 h 52 for London to Newcastle, meaning that nowadays the journey can be made more quickly in most cases while additional trains cater for the intermediate stops. Unfortunately however, the low booked times between stations and irregularity of the working timetable and other train movements mean that new timetable is not particularly reliable. Since it was accepted that other movements on the East Coast Mainline could not be moved for the timetable recast, it also cannot provide optimal use of capacity or connections. The timetable before May 2011 was also planned to provide good (if irregular) journey opportunities between all intermediate stops which the new standard pattern timetable often fails to do due to poor connections.

 

[Aldaniti]

Many journeys are now longer than they were years ago, there was a big news article about 8 years ago on the subject. It seems its mainly (in the London/southeastern commuter areas anyway) down to modern safety standards, increased traffic and lack of slam doors.

....and more timetable padding, sorry, recovery time, so that late running figures can be fiddled, sorry, better managed. I understand Virgin, as just one example, have become quite good at it!

 

[Greenback]

Recent research has suggested that journey time is not the greatest concern these days, especially with younger travellers, who see time on the train as productive, as long as they can use their laptops and mobile devices to work or surf.

 

[A-driver]

....and more timetable padding, sorry, recovery time, so that late running figures can be fiddled, sorry, better managed. I understand Virgin, as just one example, have become quite good at it!

Indeed. East coast are also guilty of that as are FCC often-it doesn't take 8mins to get from finsbury park to kings x! You can leave the park 3-4 late and arrive at the x on time.

 

[yorksrob]

Many journeys are now longer than they were years ago, there was a big news article about 8 years ago on the subject. It seems its mainly (in the London/southeastern commuter areas anyway) down to modern safety standards, increased traffic and lack of slam doors.

The slam door seems to play a big part-years ago most people would have got off the train and many would start getting on before the train had actually stopped. Now the train has to stop (which with modern, almost over cautious, driving techniques preached by management takes longer than in the slam door days where drivers were encouraged to hit platforms much faster than now), the doors must be released, opened, people get in and out, once clear close doors, safety check, start moving takes much longer. I seem to remember the report in the press blamed the lack of slam doors as the biggest factor in slowing down journeys.

Safety standards have certainly slowed things down, companies over-enthusiastic driving policies (many of which I don't agree with-the principle of many is ok but the fact we can't use common sense seems stupid-having to take only half power on a yellow even though the red is on or past the end of the next booked station platform etc).

I know this doesn't specifically relate to east coast as their stock hasn't changed but it will have an effect with regional traffic which intercity trains are timed around.

I remember being on an electrostar out of London Bridge years ago sitting across the aisle from a young man 'explaining' to his girlfriend how it was much quicker getting people on and off of trains now that they had got rid of slam doors. It took a lot of reserve not to butt into that particular conversation.

 

[A-driver]

It would be interesting (well interesting may not be the right word exactly but bare with me!) to see how slam doors worked now adays though-one of the reasons for their success was that people knew it was quicker if they closed doors themselves and most did-I could see people not being so helpful nowadays and walking off leaving doors wide open so the guard has to walk the length of the train at every single station and in the rush hour at certain 'way over capacity' stations where the only way to move the train is to close doors on people who are still trying to board slam door trains may never move.

 

[yorksrob]

This is true. I think as well as familiarity with slam doors, having the door next to the seat would have prompted people to close doors behind them - certainly on high density stock.

 

[Darren R]

Does anyone have access to a 1996 (or similar) timetable and is able to comment?

I do indeed - despite several attempts over the years to make me get rid of my old BR timetables! Departure times from King's Cross are listed below, along with time taken to Newcastle alongside (easier me doin' that than trying to remember which was the fastest!)

0610 - 3hrs 26
0730 - 2hrs 59
0800 - 2hrs 50 (Scottish Pullman)
0900 - 2hrs 59
0930 - 3hrs 07
1000 - 2hrs 46 (Flying Scotsman)
1030 - 2hrs 49 (Northern Lights)
1100 - 2hrs 59
1130 - 3hrs 06
1200 - 2hrs 50 (Highland Chieftan)
1230 - 3hrs 07
1300 - 2hrs 45
1330 - 3hrs 05
1400 - 2hrs 48
1430 - 3hrs 00
1500 - 2hrs 40 (Scottish Pullman)
1530 - 3hrs 07
1600 - 2hrs 50
1630 - 3hrs 08
1700 - 2hrs 44 (Scottish Pullman)
1730 - 2hrs 55 (Tees-Tyne Pullman)
1800 - 2hrs 52
1830 - 3hrs 24
1900 - 3 hrs 02
2000 - 2hrs 35
2200 - 3hrs 24
(June - September 1996, although the September 95 - June 96 times appear to be the same)

Actually, it was a much better service than I expected! All in all in many respects it's a better timetable than today. No sign of their claim being true though.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

When did the East Coast have flashing greens? I work with a couple of ex Kings Cross men who told me they would go faster than 125mph back then (they would reach the fabled 140mph) and while I believe that I do wonder if anyone would build a timetable around it.

 

[Darandio]

When did the East Coast have flashing greens? I work with a couple of ex Kings Cross men who told me they would go faster than 125mph back then (they would reach the fabled 140mph) and while I believe that I do wonder if anyone would build a timetable around it.

AFAIK they are still there, just not adhered to for 140mph running. As recent as the Grand Central cabride dvd, they were still active and flashing.

 

[ainsworth74]

When did the East Coast have flashing greens?

They were last used, officially, in the early 1990s. However they were never disabled and still show a flashing fifth aspect assuming there is enough clear track in front. So whilst the timetable has never been developed around them (as they were only used for testing/proof of concept purposes) it's perfectly possible some of your colleagues could have taken advantage of them, on the quiet, to get up to 140mph after the testing was complete.

 

[455driver]

140mph using flashing greens was never signed off, didnt mean some drivers didnt use it though!

There are still flashing greens on the ECML as its cheaper to just leave them in rather than redo all the wiring/relays but 125mph is now the maximum and it would be a brave/stupid driver that exceeded it now with all the data recorders around and people posting "I was on 1Z99 and the driver did 140mph between here and there" on forums.

 

[Squaddie]

....and more timetable padding, sorry, recovery time, so that late running figures can be fiddled, sorry, better managed. I understand Virgin, as just one example, have become quite good at it!

In the mid- to late-1970s, the standard journey time between Swansea and London was 2 hours 43 minutes; nowadays it is 3 hours or even a little more. Some of this is probably due to increased congestion between Reading and London, but a lot of it is padding to ensure that the train arrives "on time" and makes the TOC's statistics look better.

 

[Oscar]

Actually, it was a much better service than I expected! All in all in many respects it's a better timetable than today. No sign of their claim being true though.

Interestingly there are 11 trains with times of 2 h 40 to 2 h 55, so journey times for fast trains were broadly similar to those today.

 

[The Planner]

In the mid- to late-1970s, the standard journey time between Swansea and London was 2 hours 43 minutes; nowadays it is 3 hours or even a little more. Some of this is probably due to increased congestion between Reading and London, but a lot of it is padding to ensure that the train arrives "on time" and makes the TOC's statistics look better.

A vast amount of that is down to FGW and their "professional and eco driving policy", whereas before drivers would open up on departure and arrive into stations quicker than they do now. Id bet dwell times are increased slightly too. They also make use of the engineering recovery time in the schedules for economy aswell. Odd, as there is chunks of time to be had if they wanted good headline times.

 

[43167]

Those claims are some way off mark I think. The Anglo-Scots just calling at York could do it in under 3 hours. With the extra station stops (anything between 2 & 10 stops.) it will take longer.

In the days before everything stopped at Darlington, a service that was non-stop York-Newcastle could do it in around 50mins.

 

[D1009]

In the mid- to late-1970s, the standard journey time between Swansea and London was 2 hours 43 minutes; nowadays it is 3 hours or even a little more. Some of this is probably due to increased congestion between Reading and London, but a lot of it is padding to ensure that the train arrives "on time" and makes the TOC's statistics look better.

That was when they were non stop or one stop from Newport to London. Intermediate stations have become much more important since then, which means there are now no comparable services. Generally speaking trains are now slower than in BR days for the reasons stated in previous posts.

 

[edwin_m]

I have a suspicion that padding timetables and thinking in terms of passengers charter are actually counter-productive in achieving good timekeeping. People assume the train is still OK if it is a few minutes late whereas it may by then have lost its path and will be further delayed or delay something else. Also trains often approach their final station early and if no platform is available they sit outside blocking the path of other trains that might be due in earlier but have been delayed.

Research suggests that a 10% cut in journey time will result in a 9% increase in passenger numbers - so taking 10min of padding out of a 2hr journey might result in more than 5% more revenue!

 

[The Planner]

You'll gain 5 minutes in most long distance schedules by persuading the TOCs to remove the public differential on arrival. Not sure where you are going to find the other 5 in the WTT....

 

[D1009]

Research suggests that a 10% cut in journey time will result in a 9% increase in passenger numbers - so taking 10min of padding out of a 2hr journey might result in more than 5% more revenue!

That was what BR took on board to a large degree. I'm not sure it's as true nowadays as it was then. In BR days many schedules were very tight, and the recovery time which was supposed to allow for any temporary speed restrictions was in fact used to recover from other delays. Once driving and other safety standards became an issue it became virtually impossible for trains to keep time, which was what led to journey times being increased.