Where should XC serve?

[DarloRich]

I suppose it comes down to what one thinks is the purpose of the XC network. Is it a long distance InterCity service which is there to link up distant regions of the country rather than a Birmingham based commuter service.

Perhaps the stock issue might be eased when some HST's become released from other duties.

I doubt XC will take surplus HST. Sadly track access charges make it unattractive

 

[yorksrob]

I doubt XC will take surplus HST. Sadly track access charges make it unattractive

Currently XC doesn't have enough stock to fulfill it's purpose. It's no good complaining that they haven't got enough stock to run the core service whilst at the same time turning down extra trains. If this is the case, either the track access regime or the franchising system needs to be changed.

 

[FQ]

I doubt XC will take surplus HST. Sadly track access charges make it unattractive

I have heard that the rumour is (I don't know how true it is though) that when the IEPs come in on the Great Western and East Coast XC will send there 220s and 221s to Scotrail for working the Edinburgh-Inverness and Aberdeen trains and whatever else SR want them on while XC will take all of the FGW fleet of HSTs and a few EC sets to work all of there trains that are Voyager ran now.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How many of them HSTs are due a major overhaul of the locos (probably not the engines) and the coaches (with possibly conversion of the coach doors to powered plug whilst they're at it)?

 

[DarloRich]

Currently XC doesn't have enough stock to fulfill it's purpose. It's no good complaining that they haven't got enough stock to run the core service whilst at the same time turning down extra trains. If this is the case, either the track access regime or the franchising system needs to be changed.

I am not saying this is the RIGHT thing to do just that it is the thing that will be done unless, as you say, something changes.

 

[The Planner]

I have heard that the rumour is (I don't know how true it is though) that when the IEPs come in on the Great Western and East Coast XC will send there 220s and 221s to Scotrail for working the Edinburgh-Inverness and Aberdeen trains and whatever else SR want them on while XC will take all of the FGW fleet of HSTs and a few EC sets to work all of there trains that are Voyager ran now.

No chance, they couldn't run their timetable if they did that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not a lot you can do about the track access charges, the HST is RA5 whereas a 221 is RA4, the 220 is RA2.

 

[DarloRich]

No chance, they couldn't run their timetable if they did that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not a lot you can do about the track access charges, the HST is RA5 whereas a 221 is RA4, the 220 is RA2.

You could fiddle it a bit

 

[yorksrob]

Quite. We seem to spend too much time trying to design passenger services around the flawed privatisation model these days. "We can't run more of our trains to suit demand because the track access charges are too high on the ones we have available". "we can't run a rural service cheaply because of track access charges and stock leasing costs, therefore we have to consider cutting stations and routes".

It's the tail wagging the dog and there needs to be a bonfire of regulations.

 

[route:oxford]

I have heard that the rumour is (I don't know how true it is though) that when the IEPs come in on the Great Western and East Coast XC will send there 220s and 221s to Scotrail for working the Edinburgh-Inverness and Aberdeen trains and whatever else SR want them on while XC will take all of the FGW fleet of HSTs and a few EC sets to work all of there trains that are Voyager ran now.

Forget 220 & 221 on the Aberdeens or Invernesses

6-car units aren't enough - they need 7-car units.

 

[The Planner]

Why are track access charges to blame, if a train causes more damage to the track which has to be maintained than another then why shouldn't it be charged more?

 

[yorksrob]

Why are track access charges to blame, if a train causes more damage to the track which has to be maintained than another then why shouldn't it be charged more?

These would be the same track access charges which supposedly regard a Pacer as less damaging to the track than a sprinter, even though Pacers had to be removed from the Cornish branches for causing too much damage to the track and had to be replaced by Pacers ?

The same track access charges which don't take account of a lack of signalling and low maintenance regime on the Carnforth - Skipton route for example, and thus inflate the cost of running the service ?

 

[The Planner]

What's the solution then?

 

[yorksrob]

Well, McNulty came up with the idea of chopping off the branch lines and turning them into separate tramways. No one seemed to consider just giving those branch lines lower access charges to reflect the lower level of kit involved.

Also with regard to rolling stock, how about investing in a state owned fleet of DMU's which could be used specifically for rural and local lines which, once paid for, wouldn't accrue any leasing charges. Of course, this wouldn't fit the shibboleth of our "free" rolling stock market, so the regional railway has to suffer.

As for main line trains, have the charge per passenger carriage, or even per passenger. What possible good does it do to differentiate on the basis of different types of rolling stock ? Theoretically I suppose this would eventually encourage rolling stock companies to develop trains that have less wear and tear on the track, but given the entirely perverse consequences the current situation has on the operational running of the day to day railway, is there not a better mechanism for ensuring an adequate improvement in rolling stock development over a forty year cycle ?

 

[David Goddard]

I have heard that the rumour is (I don't know how true it is though) that when the IEPs come in on the Great Western and East Coast XC will send there 220s and 221s to Scotrail for working the Edinburgh-Inverness and Aberdeen trains and whatever else SR want them on while XC will take all of the FGW fleet of HSTs and a few EC sets to work all of there trains that are Voyager ran now.

Most logical move for capacity enhancements. There will be enough HSTs for XC and likewise enough 220s/221s for Scottish regional, each providing an increase in capacity.
People said ten years ago that XC would never use HST again and look where we are now.

 

[route:oxford]

Most logical move for capacity enhancements. There will be enough HSTs for XC and likewise enough 220s/221s for Scottish regional, each providing an increase in capacity.

Class 220 have 174 Standard & 26 First Class seats
Class 221 have 226 Standard & 26 First Class seats

The Inverness & Aberdeen services operate as a pair of 3 car Class 170s. There is a wide variety of Class 170 specifications, but on average they have around 150 seats.

220s & 221s could not run as doubles from Queen Street due to platform lengths.

So...

How would switching from 300 seat units to 174/252 seat units offer an increase in capacity?

 

[Haydn1971]

HST's won't go to XC, what I can see happening is the 220/221 stock being reordered into 7-8 car units, with the VT voyagers being displaced by new stock on unwired WCML routes and the the EMT 222 fleet cascaded into XC once they go under wires again reorganising the new fleet into longer units - leaving several 22x driving cars back in the depot and the entire 22x fleet with XC

HST's are done, some may end up with minor operators as a stop gap, but generally they are heading to the scrapyard.

 

[JamesRowden]

I have been wondering if Birmingham-Manchester should be run using 110mph EMUs to allow the lengthening of other Cross Country services during the peak. Is there enough capacity at New Street station for 2tph from Manchester to terminate and for 1tph from each of Bristol and Reading/Southmapton to terminate?

 

[The Planner]

No and you would be forcing people to change at New St when they currently don't have to. The last thing New St needs is more trains terminating there.

 

[backontrack]

Once thoroughly doubled, Inverness-Brum International, or Norwich via MML and Peterborough.

 

[David Goddard]

Class 220 have 174 Standard & 26 First Class seats
Class 221 have 226 Standard & 26 First Class seats

The Inverness & Aberdeen services operate as a pair of 3 car Class 170s. There is a wide variety of Class 170 specifications, but on average they have around 150 seats.

220s & 221s could not run as doubles from Queen Street due to platform lengths.

So...

How would switching from 300 seat units to 174/252 seat units offer an increase in capacity?

I understood that the platforms at GLQ were being lengthened as part of EGIP scheme, to take 2x4car EMUs. I clearly must be wrong so I retract my suggestion and will go back to my fantasy world.

 

[FQ]

Class 220 have 174 Standard & 26 First Class seats
Class 221 have 226 Standard & 26 First Class seats

The Inverness & Aberdeen services operate as a pair of 3 car Class 170s. There is a wide variety of Class 170 specifications, but on average they have around 150 seats.

220s & 221s could not run as doubles from Queen Street due to platform lengths.

So...

How would switching from 300 seat units to 174/252 seat units offer an increase in capacity?

They run them as single 170s.

 

[route:oxford]

They run them as single 170s.

There is bound to be the occasional single diagrammed 170 - but the vast majority are run as 2x170s

Prior to that they were run as 2x158s

 

[Class 170101]

Given what is being discussed elsewhere in the respect of DMUs and the low probability of new ones being built I would suggest the following (I have said this before but just my views)

HSTs will end their days between Plymouth and Edinburgh via the East Coast, on diagrams that don't start or finish at New Street unless they can reach Derby or Bristol around midnight.

As far as the rest is concerned I would be looking at
Reading to Newcastle extended south to Heathrow / Gatwick and north to Edinburgh / Sunderland.
Paignton / Plymouth to Scotland via WCML (withdrawal of the current Bristol to Manchester service).
Bournemouth to Manchester / Liverpool / Blackpool - I might consider making this Class 91 operation if NR get on with the electric spine and the 91s aren't wanted on the MML.

A third path per hour between Birmingham and York via Derby, Sheffield and Leeds probably extended to Middlesborough / Scarborough / Hull to the north and to the south to Cardiff / Swansea.

 

[The Planner]

Doubt if XC would see it that way, Bristol Manchester is one of their biggest earners. They would rather have an extra Brum Manchester if anything.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

One route that might be handy would be a west-to-east route, starting in Penzance and ending in Kent, maybe at Dover, even if it only runs once a day in each direction, via Bristol, Weymouth, Southampton, Brighton and then whatever route would get it to Dover.

If the section between Poole and Basingstoke (junction where XC trains head north) is converted to overhead, could a Pendolino theoretically operate down to Poole?

 

[backontrack]

One route that might be handy would be a west-to-east route, starting in Penzance and ending in Kent, maybe at Dover, even if it only runs once a day in each direction, via Bristol, Weymouth, Southampton, Brighton and then whatever route would get it to Dover.

That's an interesting proposal. However, I'm not sure it would work. The only real Dover route is the Marshlink - not gonna happen, they haven't even electrified it yet! With the line Redhill to Reading line not fully electrified either, the only way to get the train to Dover would be via a lengthy diversion, via the BML (overcrowded enough already), and the line via Headcorn. Either that or a reversal at Warrior Square/Hastings and another at Tonbridge. So no link to the Eurostar.*
The basic idea is good enough.† Trains from Brighton-Plymouth could work, but it seems like an elongated West Coastway service. Thing is, divert it away and it seems too long.

How about:

Brighton-Worthing-Chichester-Havant-Fratton-P'mouth & Southsea-Petersfield/Haslemere-Guildford-Reading-Didcot-Swindon-Wooton Bassett-Chippenham-Melksham-Trowbridge-Westbury-Taunton-Tiverton-Exeter?

Or some sort of thing where a link to Southampton is provided, such as from Westbury to Southampton via Salisbury.

My route may sound long, but at least it helps stations in Wessex, with services to Wooton Bassett and more to Melksham. Although, unlike yours it doesn't serve Weymouth.

*And that, my friends, is why we need the Marshlink doubled fully and electrified. With longer trains, a service connecting Brighton and Portsmouth with the Channel Tunnel could be a goer. And more 171s (they could go back to being 170s again) for wherever needs them.

†Of course, it would be a whole lot better if there was a link from Weymouth to Exeter via Bridport, Blandford and Sidmouth. Not that it'll ever happen.

 

[FQ]

Maybe extend the current Cardiff-Nottingham and vice versa trains to Lincoln and Swansea.

 

[LLivery]

I don't know if its been said before but what about Galsgow Central - Gatwick Airport? Calling at Motherwell, Lockerbie, Carlisle, Settle, Skipton, Shipley (for Bradford), Leeds City, Wakefield Westgate, Rotherham Cen, Sheffield, Chesterfield, Derby Midland, East Mids Pkwy, Loughborough, Leicester, Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford Midland, Bletchley, Biecester Town, Oxford, Reading, Wokingham, Farnborough North, Guildford, Redhill.

Not all stations all the time but you get the idea. With people wanting InterCity services on the Varsity, this might work well.

I'd extend Cardiff - Nottingham to Lincoln (or the fast Nottingham - London service)
I'm someone who thinks Norwich to Liverpool would work with XC

 

[MCR247]

I'm someone who thinks Norwich to Liverpool would work with XC

Can I ask why?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Can I ask why?

Because obviously if they were with XC then the route would be run with Voyagers