What's the point of the Harrogate-London LNER service?

[InkyScrolls]

Just means if it picks up a delay of up to 10 minutes between London and Leeds it can still depart on time to Skipton. Probably also has to wait for a path. It’s much preferable to sit on a train at Leeds for 15 minutes then have to traipse around the station looking for a connection.

I disagree - I always leg it round for the stopper at 2026!

 

[43066]

The worst thing about the Harrogate - London direct services is that too many of them are only 5 car trains and are not strengthened between Leeds and London (despite there being sufficient time in the schedule to couple another unit at Leeds).

Is there sufficient stock to do this?

 

[duffield]

Just for info. I'm currently on board the 17.36 Harrogate to London King's Cross service. 62 passengers on board departing Harrogate (6 in First Class). About 20-25 were already at Harrogate ahead of the previous Northern departure to Leeds (17.16) and didn't board the Northern service, thus implying they are travelling LNER beyond Leeds). Quite a few passengers with luggage, also suggesting they're travelling beyond Leeds. Unfortunately the electronic seat reservations haven't been switched on. Of course, 62 passengers will fit comfortably into one carriage of a 150, 158 or 170...

The train is also advertised (on the Azuma CIS) to stop at Horsforth, despite It being a "pick up only" stop in the timetable, so in theory, no-one should get off there...3 passengers did!

Another 12 passengers waiting at Horsforth, but I don't think they have all boarded. So probably a total of around 70 passengers on board as the train approaches Leeds.

Would there be more passengers if it were a Bradford - Shipley - Leeds - London service...?

The worst thing about the Harrogate - London direct services is that too many of them are only 5 car trains and are not strengthened between Leeds and London (despite there being sufficient time in the schedule to couple another unit at Leeds). A 5 car train between Leeds and London is usually pretty cosy, no matter what time of day it is, and this train is still a commuter service for passengers travelling back from Leeds (departing 18.15) to Wakefield, Doncaster and possibly even Grantham.

Not sure if my post answers the OP's original question, but adds a bit of context.

"The worst thing about the Harrogate - London direct services is that too many of them are only 5 car trains and are not strengthened between Leeds and London (despite there being sufficient time in the schedule to couple another unit at Leeds). A 5 car train between Leeds and London is usually pretty cosy, no matter what time of day it is, and this train is still a commuter service for passengers travelling back from Leeds (departing 18.15) to Wakefield, Doncaster and possibly even Grantham."

I was travelling back from Leeds to Nottingham on Monday and turned down the 1611 XC service in favour of the 1615 Leeds to Kings Cross (originating at Harrogate), and there were no free seats in 1st (I actually should have taken the XC since it was 4+4 coaches). I did manage to bag a no-show reserved seat once we'd left Leeds but I was surprised to find even a 5 coach to be that full even in 1st at that time.

 

[dk1]

Just for info. I'm currently on board the 17.36 Harrogate to London King's Cross service. 62 passengers on board departing Harrogate (6 in First Class). About 20-25 were already at Harrogate ahead of the previous Northern departure to Leeds (17.16) and didn't board the Northern service, thus implying they are travelling LNER beyond Leeds). Quite a few passengers with luggage, also suggesting they're travelling beyond Leeds. Unfortunately the electronic seat reservations haven't been switched on. Of course, 62 passengers will fit comfortably into one carriage of a 150, 158 or 170...

The train is also advertised (on the Azuma CIS) to stop at Horsforth, despite It being a "pick up only" stop in the timetable, so in theory, no-one should get off there...3 passengers did!

Another 12 passengers waiting at Horsforth, but I don't think they have all boarded. So probably a total of around 70 passengers on board as the train approaches Leeds.

Would there be more passengers if it were a Bradford - Shipley - Leeds - London service...?

The worst thing about the Harrogate - London direct services is that too many of them are only 5 car trains and are not strengthened between Leeds and London (despite there being sufficient time in the schedule to couple another unit at Leeds). A 5 car train between Leeds and London is usually pretty cosy, no matter what time of day it is, and this train is still a commuter service for passengers travelling back from Leeds (departing 18.15) to Wakefield, Doncaster and possibly even Grantham.

Not sure if my post answers the OP's original question, but adds a bit of context.

The loadings are very positive and so good to hear. Thanks.

 

[TreacleMiller]

The company wants to run more services to Harrogate I believe.

5 cars are used generally because of rolling stock availability. Annoyingly though that does mean several busy services (A40 springs to mind) end up being 5 cars with 3-400 on board quire frequently.

The original plans were to have one 5 run to Harrogate, another to Huddersfield and couple at leeds before heading south. In reality that plan is unworkably bonkers for a number of reasons. The last time I coupled at leeds it took about 20 minutes.

It's a profitable route I suspect however if I was running the company with absolute free reign, both the Skipton and Harrogate services would go - freeing up assessts or be 2 a day only... Which brings it's own problems.

 

[bramling]

The loadings are very positive and so good to hear. Thanks.

I wouldn’t say that 62 passengers is great for an Intercity-type train. That’s roughly the seating capacity of a class 153, or to put it another way 7 passengers per carriage on a 9-car IET.

Not wishing to put a dampener on the Harrogate services, but with these sorts of numbers it’s hard to make a case to keep them.

 

[dk1]

I wouldn’t say that 62 passengers is great for an Intercity-type train. That’s roughly the seating capacity of a class 153, or to put it another way 7 passengers per carriage on a 9-car IET.

Not wishing to put a dampener on the Harrogate services, but with these sorts of numbers it’s hard to make a case to keep them.

For an up service at that time it seems a very reasonable loading indeed. There are far far worse across the network on the periphery of routes.

I would imagine loadings were greater on the inbound service at that time. Loadings can’t be expected to be particularly high in both directions all day.

 

[Bald Rick]

I wouldn’t say that 62 passengers is great for an Intercity-type train. That’s roughly the seating capacity of a class 153, or to put it another way 7 passengers per carriage on a 9-car IET.

For an up service at that time it seems a very reasonable loading indeed. There are far far worse across the network on the periphery of routes.

The key questions are:

1) how many of those 62 would not have travelled if that particular service wasn’t there. If it is all of them (unlikely) then the service is probably paying its way. If it’s none of them, ie they would. all have travelled on the Northern connecting services, then the LNER is a waste of resources and money.

2) could that unit and crew resource provide a service on another route that attracts more passengers / revenue.

 

[mpthomson]

Menwith Hill is NSA with an RAF label, so perhaps needs a direct service to Washington.

It also has just shy of 500 GCHQ staff working there as well as the GCHQ outposts in Scarborough and their contribution to JFIG based at RAF Digby near Lincoln.

 

[dk1]

The key questions are:

1) how many of those 62 would not have travelled if that particular service wasn’t there. If it is all of them (unlikely) then the service is probably paying its way. If it’s none of them, ie they would. all have travelled on the Northern connecting services, then the LNER is a waste of resources and money.

2) could that unit and crew resource provide a service on another route that attracts more passengers / revenue.

1) it obviously seem worthwhile to the DfT and LNER as it has continued.

2) Apart from the alternative use of one or two units I see no other gain rolling stock wise. LNER do not have permission to run any extra services between York & Newcastle yet and it’s not enough to stand down the 91/MK4 stock. The CAF 897s are already on order as a replacement anyway. Hopefully now LNER management has been shown the error of their ways, crew provision should greatly improve.

 

[800001]

1) it obviously seem worthwhile to the DfT and LNER as it has continued.

2) Apart from the alternative use of one or two units I see no other gain rolling stock wise. LNER do not have permission to run any extra services between York & Newcastle yet and it’s not enough to stand down the 91/MK4 stock. The CAF 897s are already on order as a replacement anyway. Hopefully now LNER management has been shown the error of their ways, crew provision should greatly improve.

I thought they were running additional York to Newcastle shuttles from Dec 25 at request of DFT? I’d seen tweets and timetable posted.

 

[Bald Rick]

1) it obviously seem worthwhile to the DfT and LNER as it has continued.

Whether it’s worthwile or not, politics will be in the way

2) Apart from the alternative use of one or two units I see no other gain rolling stock wise

Thats the point - could those 1 or 2 units be better employed lengthening existing services?

Hopefully now LNER management has been shown the error of their ways, crew provision should greatly improve.

The first part is amatter of debate about whether LNER management had erred. The second point - I would bet a significant sum that LNERs service to passengers. will be worse from a train crew availability position after that settlement.

 

[Class 170101]

Why have Harrogate and Lincoln ended up with bihourly LNER services whilst Hull, Bradford, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Inverness and Glasgow only have / had token services? My guesses:

Hull and Sunderland haved more frequent services provided by Open Access Operators

Glasgow on the ECML was never about London but links from Yorkshire but the withdrawal of XC services is very disappointing for those journeys. However I don't think using a Voyager under the wires from Glasgow to Edinburgh was a best use of XC's limited stock given the discussions we see elsewhere about this operator's overcrowding problems.

Inverness was a BR scheme to use a HST in marginal time. It should also be pointed out that there was a train from the WCML called the Clansman which changed locomotives (electric to diesel or vv) at Mossend (or Coatbridge).

As far as Middlesbrough and Bradford are concerned you could extend the York and one of the Leeds services respectively in a similar way to the current Harrogate services are concerned.

 

[JRT]

The company wants to run more services to Harrogate I believe.

5 cars are used generally because of rolling stock availability. Annoyingly though that does mean several busy services (A40 springs to mind) end up being 5 cars with 3-400 on board quire frequently.

The original plans were to have one 5 run to Harrogate, another to Huddersfield and couple at leeds before heading south. In reality that plan is unworkably bonkers for a number of reasons. The last time I coupled at leeds it took about 20 minutes.

It's a profitable route I suspect however if I was running the company with absolute free reign, both the Skipton and Harrogate services would go - freeing up assessts or be 2 a day only... Which brings it's own problems.

Can't remember what the plan was for the Huddersfield –> Leeds –> London 1tpd was, but in the return direction the plan for the London–>Leeds–>Huddersfield 1tpd was to carry a portion off the London –> Skipton train, so that may explain the longer stop at Leeds

 

[Starmill]

The first part is amatter of debate about whether LNER management had erred. The second point - I would bet a significant sum that LNERs service to passengers. will be worse from a train crew availability position after that settlement.

Now that is a hot take. I've heard the argument that it wouldn't beget any improvement and am very sympathetic to that point. But worse? Goodness.

 

[bramling]

1) it obviously seem worthwhile to the DfT and LNER as it has continued.

2) Apart from the alternative use of one or two units I see no other gain rolling stock wise. LNER do not have permission to run any extra services between York & Newcastle yet and it’s not enough to stand down the 91/MK4 stock. The CAF 897s are already on order as a replacement anyway. Hopefully now LNER management has been shown the error of their ways, crew provision should greatly improve.

It is difficult to reconcile the value of running LNER services carrying tens of people, when round here we still haven’t had some pre-Covid peak services reinstated that would potentially be carrying rather more people, and with fewer staff required to run them as well.

As I said, I don’t object to Harrogate and wouldn’t necessarily want to see them withdrawn, but at the same time from an economic point of view I find it hard to see how they can wash their face.

*If* it’s the case that Harrogate is causing some Leeds-London services to run with 5-car trains then I’d find that undesirable, though to be fair I’m not sure it’s the case.

 

[TreacleMiller]

It is difficult to reconcile the value of running LNER services carrying tens of people, when round here we still haven’t had some pre-Covid peak services reinstated that would potentially be carrying rather more people, and with fewer staff required to run them as well.

As I said, I don’t object to Harrogate and wouldn’t necessarily want to see them withdrawn, but at the same time from an economic point of view I find it hard to see how they can wash their face.

*If* it’s the case that Harrogate is causing some Leeds-London services to run with 5-car trains then I’d find that undesirable, though to be fair I’m not sure it’s the case.

It is the case. The flexibility of coupling and uncoupling was a good part of why they were ordered in the first place I believe. In reality it doesn't work. Arranging it is a nightmare and it only takes one crew member or one portion of the train to be delayed and suddenly the service can't run.

Dwell time at Leeds in both directions is due to pathing and end changing constraints. Same is the case for Skipton.

The company was very vocal about not running 5s to london. Yet it's now a diagrammed occurrence.

I think my record on a 5 car was 500ish people on a Harrogate bound service.

Those sets aren't typically put on Edinburgh - London services due to overcrowding and they "attempt" to avoid loading them during disruption for that very reason.

 

[MontyP]

It is the case. The flexibility of coupling and uncoupling was a good part of why they were ordered in the first place I believe. In reality it doesn't work. Arranging it is a nightmare and it only takes one crew member or one portion of the train to be delayed and suddenly the service can't run.

Dwell time at Leeds in both directions is due to pathing and end changing constraints. Same is the case for Skipton.

The company was very vocal about not running 5s to london. Yet it's now a diagrammed occurrence.

I think my record on a 5 car was 500ish people on a Harrogate bound service.

Those sets aren't typically put on Edinburgh - London services due to overcrowding and they "attempt" to avoid loading them during disruption for that very reason.

It's absolutely crazy (if true) that these extensions to Harrogate, which are of limited benefit to a few passengers, are causing 1 in every 4 Leeds-Lobdon services to be limited to 5 car units

 

[reecestrains]

Oh yeah there's also Horsforth station too... The 5 and 9 coach Azumas can't all fit onto the platform with Horsforth only been able to support 3/4 coaches maximum.

Plus services going out of Leeds towards Horsforth and Harrogate are not majorly busy although does ease some Leeds-York via Harrogate services.

 

[800001]

It is the case. The flexibility of coupling and uncoupling was a good part of why they were ordered in the first place I believe. In reality it doesn't work. Arranging it is a nightmare and it only takes one crew member or one portion of the train to be delayed and suddenly the service can't run.

Dwell time at Leeds in both directions is due to pathing and end changing constraints. Same is the case for Skipton.

The company was very vocal about not running 5s to london. Yet it's now a diagrammed occurrence.

I think my record on a 5 car was 500ish people on a Harrogate bound service.

Those sets aren't typically put on Edinburgh - London services due to overcrowding and they "attempt" to avoid loading them during disruption for that very reason.

Maybe if they coupled/uncoupled like German ICE trains they doing so at Leeds would massively speed up the process.
Ie to uncouple, as the service is ready to depart, press uncouple and the train departs, coupler doors closing as the train is moving down the platform.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Hopefully now LNER management has been shown the error of their ways, crew provision should greatly improve.

The first part is amatter of debate about whether LNER management had erred. The second point - I would bet a significant sum that LNERs service to passengers. will be worse from a train crew availability position after that settlement.

AIUI the cause of the dispute between ASLEF and LNER was that LNER do not have enough train drivers to deliver the full timetable so LNER are dependent on overtime and rest day working to deliver the full timetable and it is therefore this shortage of train drivers that adversely affects the reliability of LNER's train service to passengers. LNER are ending the daily extensions to Glasgow, Stirling and Sunderland in the December 2024 timetable. It could be argued that LNER should also end this extension every two hours Leeds to Harrogate and the extensions to Bradford, Skipton, Hull and Middlesbrough as this would ease LNER's shortage of train drivers and therefore improve the reliability of LNER's train services to passengers. It is also clearly unacceptable that any train service between London and Leeds is operated with a 5 car unit and the inevitable overcrowding is not a good service to passengers.

 

[dk1]

I thought they were running additional York to Newcastle shuttles from Dec 25 at request of DFT? I’d seen tweets and timetable posted.

Yes that’s a very strange one considering all that went on before.

AIUI the cause of the dispute between ASLEF and LNER was that LNER do not have enough train drivers to deliver the full timetable so LNER are dependent on overtime and rest day working to deliver the full timetable and it is therefore this shortage of train drivers that adversely affects the reliability of LNER's train service to passengers. LNER are ending the daily extensions to Glasgow, Stirling and Sunderland in the December 2024 timetable. It could be argued that LNER should also end this extension every two hours Leeds to Harrogate and the extensions to Bradford, Skipton, Hull and Middlesbrough as this would ease LNER's shortage of train drivers and therefore improve the reliability of LNER's train services to passengers. It is also clearly unacceptable that any train service between London and Leeds is operated with a 5 car unit and the inevitable overcrowding is not a good service to passengers.

Now LNER management have been told to stop upsetting their drivers and ASLEF they can rebuild the relationship and hopefully things can return to normal.

As long as a solid Rest Day working agreement is in place then a happy medium returns.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes that’s a very strange one considering all that went on before.

It was the only option to keep a reasonable service at Northallerton.

Now LNER management have been told to stop upsetting their drivers and ASLEF they can rebuild the relationship and hopefully things can return to normal.

Corrected for you.

As long as a solid Rest Day working agreement is in place then a happy medium returns.

There already was a RDW agreement in place. Just no one wanted to work it.

 

[dk1]

It was the only option to keep a reasonable service at Northallerton.




Corrected for you.



There already was a RDW agreement in place. Just no one wanted to work it.

Oh, I’m sure some did. We’ll have to see how things progress in the coming weeks.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I thought they were running additional York to Newcastle shuttles from Dec 25 at request of DFT? I’d seen tweets and timetable posted.

It was the only option to keep a reasonable service at Northallerton.

It is explained in point 3.3 of the report of the Rail North Committee meeting on 3 September 2024. In the current timetable Northallerton is served by two TPE trains an hour Liverpool-Newcastle and Manchester Airport-Saltburn but in the December 2024 timetable the Liverpool-Newcastle trains will not stop at Northallerton.

https://democracy.transportforthenorth.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=9894

December 2024 will, however, see restoration of the TransPennine Express (TPE) services that were temporarily withdrawn in December 2023. A consequence of this is that the timings of the Liverpool – Newcastle service will change as this service needs to operate in its original path in order to pass through Manchester with no conflicts with the other services that will be restored. This path does not include a call at Northallerton. In the previously planned new timetable, Northallerton would have an additional LNER Newcastle – London service calling each hour. This train will not operate until that new timetable is introduced, leading to a temporary reduction of service at Northallerton. The rail industry has worked extensively with Transport for the North and York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority to address this. As a result, LNER will operate additional Newcastle – York “shuttle” services from December 2024 to ensure connectivity is maintained, up to the point that the planned timetable is introduced.

 

[TrainTraveler]

As a minor observation, I've travelled on the 18:15 from Leeds to London which has started in Harrogate a few times as it tends to have the best price for a train around that time. However, the Seatfrog upgrades always seem expensive so I guess first class is fairly well used.

 

[Johnny Lewis]

Some further counts for afternoon Harrogate to London services:

Tuesday 24th September - 17.36 from Harrogate departed with 45 on board, 4 in First Class. A handful joined at Horsforth.

Wednesday 25th September - 15.36 from Harrogate departed with 36 on board, 6 in First Class. 12 passengers waiting at Horsforth.

So in both cases, all passengers could have fitted easily into a single coach of a DMU.

 

[800001]

Some further counts for afternoon Harrogate to London services:

Tuesday 24th September - 17.36 from Harrogate departed with 45 on board, 4 in First Class. A handful joined at Horsforth.

Wednesday 25th September - 15.36 from Harrogate departed with 36 on board, 6 in First Class. 12 passengers waiting at Horsforth.

So in both cases, all passengers could have fitted easily into a single coach of a DMU.

And all may never have travelled if they had to change trains at Leeds.

 

[jamiearmley]

And all may never have travelled if they had to change trains at Leeds.

We will never know.

Although, it's highly unlikely that would be the case.

The argument remains that the cost of running up and back : leasing, track access, crew, fuel, (which will come in at least at 5 figures) would not seem to be justified by such low passenger numbers.

There has to be a limit, where one says: resource is finite, needs are many - is this justifiable?

 

[duffield]

We will never know.

Although, it's highly unlikely that would be the case.

The argument remains that the cost of running up and back : leasing, track access, crew, fuel, (which will come in at least at 5 figures) would not seem to be justified by such low passenger numbers.

There has to be a limit, where one says: resource is finite, needs are many - is this justifiable?

There's also the question though as to what the reverse flow is like - Harrogate to London in the morning, return in the afternoon or evening, for business meetings or leisure. Maybe that's actually the greater flow and justifies the service?