Where should XC serve?

[Qwerty133]

172s are quicker off the mark than 170s, infact the 153s and 156s you seem to hate are actually quicker accelerating than the 170s which are extremely slow in comparison.

There is a lot of padding in the XC Birmingham to Leicester timetable, not only for the Stansted services but also the Leicesters, and if this was removed then I would think ~ 50 - 55 minutes would be possible, so with tight 5 minute turn arounds at each ends you could work it with 2 units, but punctuality may be an issue at Wigston (as you say) and Water Orton/Proof House Junction on the approaches to Birmingham. Alternatively, remove the padding and add an extra service every hour, so Narborough, Hinkley etc. get 2 services every hour, which would require only 1 more unit.

I don't hate 156s, but I don't really want 3 coach trains being replaced with 2 coach trains ... let's be honest nobody wants shorter trains on their line!
And as for 153s, first impression of one was on the first off peak service from Narborough to Birmingham during half term when I was about 6, not particularly hard to imagine what that was like (4 sitting on the luggage rack and about 3 standing in the toilet if I remember correct and yes we left people behind and the guard didn't even bother opening the doors at Hinckley). Never liked them since that day!

 

[The Planner]

There is a lot of padding in the XC Birmingham to Leicester timetable, not only for the Stansted services but also the Leicesters, and if this was removed then I would think ~ 50 - 55 minutes would be possible, so with tight 5 minute turn arounds at each ends you could work it with 2 units, but punctuality may be an issue at Wigston (as you say) and Water Orton/Proof House Junction on the approaches to Birmingham. Alternatively, remove the padding and add an extra service every hour, so Narborough, Hinkley etc. get 2 services every hour, which would require only 1 more unit.

Where is the padding unless you are talking about station dwell times? And on services of that length 5 minute turnarounds are a massive risk, you'll be cancelling services left right and centre.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How many times now has it been explained that trains from Leamington to Nuneaton across Coventry are not practical - which is why they are planning on building a new bay platform so the Nuneaton shuttle service can run independently of the main route?

This is one of the reasons I don't get the electric spine proposals for Nuneaton-Leamington-Oxford electrification.
If this is to provide a through electric route for freight from the WCML it will inevitably lead to more conflicts at Coventry.
The new east-west alternative via Bletchley avoids all that and seems to nullify the proposals via Leamington.

 

[The Planner]

I suspect they assume a West Coast/Cov corridor re-cast by the time the knitting gets put up.

 

[FQ]

I think XC should have class 67s or some new class 68s to do the Bournemouth-Manchester Piccadilly trains freeing up some of the class 220s and 221s to double up a few of the XC services in the South west.
Also it would be much nicer than class 220s or 221s on that route. Another possible idea is that they could use 67s or 68s on services from Blackpool North-Weymouth calling at Blackpool North, Preston, Bolton, Salford Crescent, Manchester Oxford Road, Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Stoke-On-Trent, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham New Street, Leamington Spa, Banbury, Oxford, Reading, Basingstoke, Southampton Central, Bournemouth, Poole and Weymouth.
Also it could be alternate services some going the route shown above and some going Blackpool North, Preston, Wigan North Western, Warrington Bank Quay, Crewe, Stafford, Tamworth, Coventry, Leamington Spa, Banbury, Oxford, Reading, Basingstoke, Southampton Central, Bournemouth, Poole and Weymouth.

I think that would be really good.

 

[transmanche]

I think XC should have class 67s or some new class 68s to do the Bournemouth-Manchester Piccadilly trains

But what would they pull?

 

[FQ]

But what would they pull?

I think XC should buy a load of MK3s and about 10 DVTs and 5 67s and 5 68s.

 

[transmanche]

I think XC should buy a load of MK3s and about 10 DVTs and 5 67s and 5 68s.

Are there "a load of MK3s" and DVTs available?

 

[FQ]

Are there "a load of MK3s" and DVTs available?

No but since Chiltern have managed to get a few more DVTs I think CrossCountry could easily order a few MK3s and DVTs.

 

[sprinterguy]

No but since Chiltern have managed to get a few more DVTs I think CrossCountry could easily order a few MK3s and DVTs.

Chiltern's mark 3s aren't new stock, just refurbished. The last loco-hauled mark 3s (excluding the Irish fleet) were built in 1985, and the DVTs in 1988...

 

[dannypye9999]

Are there "a load of MK3s" and DVTs available?

Where have all the MK1, 2 & 3s gone that were used on XC/VT before voyagers and pendos?

 

[Anvil1984]

Just checking we aren't seriously suggesting mark1s and 2s on XC services??

Is it just me who thinks the XC network is just about right? It is no longer about random leisure journeys but a network of important commuter links around the country and is better because of that

 

[swt_passenger]

This is one of the reasons I don't get the electric spine proposals for Nuneaton-Leamington-Oxford electrification.
If this is to provide a through electric route for freight from the WCML it will inevitably lead to more conflicts at Coventry.
The new east-west alternative via Bletchley avoids all that and seems to nullify the proposals via Leamington.

NR have suggested somewhere that they'd be running extra trains via EWR, especially southbound, but this isn't a new route, freight from the south to the NW already gets routed through Coventry towards Nuneaton and the WCML, so running it under wires doesn't on its own worsen congestion, or put another way electric spine doesn't provide any extra capacity across Coventry.

 

[sprinterguy]

Where have all the MK1, 2 & 3s gone that were used on XC/VT before voyagers and pendos?

Mark 1s? Not on XC for a good, long while before Voyagers and Pendos came in: The last must have the catering vehicles that were used in Crosscountry rakes prior to the conversion of the mark 2 micro-buffets at the very end of the eighties.

Around half of the West Coast mark 3s went to the Greater Anglia franchise. A number of the remainder are now in service with Chiltern and Arriva Trains Wales. A few more have been scrapped. A good proportion of what remains off lease is now owned by Arriva UK, it is true, but even this doesn't equate to much more than a couple of handfuls of vehicles: Most of those are RFMs or the remnants of DRS' former charter rake.

 

[DarloRich]

I think XC should buy a load of MK3s and about 10 DVTs and 5 67s and 5 68s.

Where have all the MK1, 2 & 3s gone that were used on XC/VT before voyagers and pendos?

Are you having a laugh? I love this site sometimes :roll:

From where should XC extract these mythical MKIII vehicles? Those that aren't already in use with other operators are ethier scraped or rotting away, shortly to be destroyed.

As for the MK1/II - if that isn't a wind up- they are LONG gone, turned into razor blades or forks or whatever they get recycled into

 

[dannypye9999]

Are you having a laugh? I love this site sometimes :roll:

From where should XC extract these mythical MKIII vehicles? Those that aren't already in use with other operators are ethier scraped or rotting away, shortly to be destroyed.

As for the MK1/II - if that isn't a wind up- they are LONG gone, turned into razor blades or forks or whatever they get recycled into

And they couldn't have been refurbed, new wheels, new brakes etc rather than dump them especially when this rail network is crying out for new trains.

 

[Manchester77]

And they couldn't have been refurbed, new wheels, new brakes etc rather than dump them especially when this rail network is crying out for new trains.

Well no because the mark Is aren't compliment with modern safety standards hence why all mark I derived stock has been withdrawn from the main line. At the time of the mark IIs being withdrawn they were already 40ish years old and there wasn't really any need for them with the advent of modern long distance multiple units. What were the leasing companies supposed to do, keep them in working condition on the off chance that a few of them might be needed in 10 years time?

 

[DarloRich]

And they couldn't have been refurbed, new wheels, new brakes etc rather than dump them especially when this rail network is crying out for new trains.

no - not in any meaningful economic sense! :roll:

EDIT - Manchester77 has beaten me to it!

 

[ffm]

Nowhere at all, the most expensive Inter City operator and the one with the least generous First Class offer.

 

[Class 170101]

According to rail spotter books there are about 40 Mark III coaches in storage, mostly at Long Marston.

 

[Minilad]

As a member of XC staff I find this thread a laugh a minute

 

[FQ]

As a member of XC staff I find this thread a laugh a minute

Hope you enjoy your job and maybe consider a few of the ideas.

 

[Minilad]

I love my job. But I think planning routes is a bit above my payscale!!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

According to rail spotter books there are about 40 Mark III coaches in storage, mostly at Long Marston.

How long would it take to convert a single Mark III to use plug doors instead of the "slam doors" and a complete refurb (from pics I've seen it looks like they have to be striped down to the bare shell anyway).

With Mark II coaches, can they be converted and if they can would it really be financially viable for any TOC to have them converted?

 

[Martin_1981]

I think most of us can assume that bringing loco hauled MK2's and MK3's back into use on XC services is highly unlikely. I suppose it's possible that XC could gain a few HST's from GW when the London-Bristol line electrification is complete in 2017, but the HST's will be 40 years old by then! Some of them are starting to show their age as it is and as they age further, they are only going to require more maintenance.

 

[Oswyntail]

As a member of XC staff I find this thread a laugh a minute

Perhaps you might like to explain why? Or do you believe that XC is now written in stone, cannot be improved? That people's arguments for and against changes and retentions are worthless?:roll:

 

[FQ]

How long would it take to convert a single Mark III to use plug doors instead of the "slam doors" and a complete refurb (from pics I've seen it looks like they have to be striped down to the bare shell anyway).

With Mark II coaches, can they be converted and if they can would it really be financially viable for any TOC to have them converted?

Don't lake them plug door.
Keep them slam door like the current HSTs.

 

[Minilad]

Perhaps you might like to explain why? Or do you believe that XC is now written in stone, cannot be improved? That people's arguments for and against changes and retentions are worthless?:roll:

Of course not. It's just a lot of suggestions are just people playing fantasy trains. There have been some decent suggestions as well but even the decent ones hark back to another time that will, in all honesty, be unlikely to be revisited

 

[Class172]

Don't lake them plug door.
Keep them slam door like the current HSTs.

Converting them to plug door operation gives a number of operational and reliability advantages - there may be a nostalgic effect with having slam doors - but if there is an offer to improve current stock, why ignore it? Chiltern's Silver sets are an excellent example of the improvements that can be made.

 

[FQ]

When the Pennines are electrified there will be a load of 185s sat doing nothing as First Transpennine Express would have no need for them.
Cross Country could take about 35-40 of them and make about 3/4 of them 4 car. Then they could run the Nottingham-Cardiff trains as 4 car and the Stanstead Airport-Birmingham New Street 4 car. Also XC could buy a lot of DMUs like 180s but more modern to replace the class 220s and 221s so they can go to Booths. That way XC could order about 10 5 car ones and about 50 6 car ones.
It would really improve the amount of passengers who would like to travel as it would have much more room and less noise.