My idea for Cross Country services expansion

[infobleep]

No chance. With joined up BR thinking maybe. Those days are long gone.

Was it joined up BR thinking that introduced the additional routes from Gatwick Airport via Guildford when Cross Country were running the service?

I would like more Cross Country trains via Guildford so that I can buy more advanced purchase tickets to Oxford. They don't seem to like selling them unless the train departs from Guildford. Hence on Sundays with engineering works you can get for more advanced purchase tickets from Guildford, if trains are diverted that way.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Okay, I'll go along with this. If XC ran to Gatwick it'd be 1 change, the same as it is now [emoji14] Although I do appreciate your point: airport pax don't want changes


The lower SWML doesn't have the capacity constraints that the BML has. To me it does look very childish as you seem to be saying that if (I) can't have any, no one else can. What benefit is there to terminating XC at Reading? It doesn't make Brighton services any more beneficial so I don't see any reason why? If anything, surely the Basingstoke - London will have less capacity than Basingstoke - Bournemouth, so if anything XC services to Bournemouth are better than additional Bournemouth - London services?


Taking price out of the equation (by ignoring GatEx) I would change at StP for Thameslink*. As above, I know that airport passengers don't want changes. However, I don't expect the railway to be run purely for my convenience. I think that XC links to Airports is something that is good and should be provided where possible. However, I don't think it should be XC to Airports above anything else.

Its interesting that your argument doesn't seem to be the same for the rest of the airports. XC want to divert their 1tph serving Birmingham Intl away from it via Solihull (doesn't provide any extra links) yet that hasn't got a mention even though keeping this service would be a lot easier than bringing XC back to Gatwick. Why no argument that the XC that currently runs via Solihull to go via Coventry? Why not eliminate the change at Piccadilly and run XC to Manchester Airport? Heathrow only has direct services to Paddington. People seem to manage.

*In reality I probably wouldn't take the train to Gatwick anyway as the people I'd travel with would think that getting any train (changes or not) would be too much hassle [emoji38]

If we want to tempt Gatwick passengers onto the train, I think offering 'Airport advances' and things like that would do a much better job

Could the lower SWML be put to better uses than XC using the paths or is it simply the case that their are no other better uses since there is no demand in any other form than XC using it.

Is their any spare capacity from Portsmouth via Guildford and Reading or is only having two lines a big problem?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely though, the extra capacity at Redhill is already clearly earmarked for the enhanced FGW service? IIRC XC's service to Gatwick/Brighton was a bit of a token gesture, and by no means a regular all day option.

Has anyone got the final timings immediately before they ceased to hand?

Is hindsight making these former XC services seem more regular and more important than they really were?

ISTM that NR and DfT would prefer to see a reliable clock face Brighton to London service through Gatwick, rather than stick a few random XC's into the mix over the course of a day.

Well Guildford's daily service in the morning and evening return is a token gesture. It may be simply rub for route knowledge purposes but it is still only once a day.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But they aren't available. The coastway paths are used by Southern for the Brighton - Southampton service, and the mix of fast and stopping services (and lack of passing facilities) means there are no paths for further services.

Out of interest, is there space to create passing facilities on the coastway? I'm not saying paths exist and it would happen. Purely from a hypothetical stand point.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Out of interest, is there space to create passing facilities on the coastway? I'm not saying paths exist and it would happen. Purely from a hypothetical stand point.

There's the eastbound back platform at Worthing already, only used by 1tpd, but the impact looping or holding certain services would have on the timetable is where the problem would lie.

 

[infobleep]

...and as I keep explaining in the various repeats of this thread, the former GW RUS and the latest Western Route Study both recommend that that second train is also extended to Southampton. That is the same Southampton that they already serve 1.5 tph, the one where the known passenger flows go, i.e. NOT towards Guildford, Gatwick, or Brighton

Out of interest. Why do people want to go to and from Southampton vers other towns XC might like to serve? It is a fairly big area to be fair. Is that the reason?

 

[NSEFAN]

Only one train every two hours terminates at Reading, the other goes to Southampton

I suspect that the only reason we don't have 2tph from Reading-Southampton is because the SWML is also full up.

It would be nice to have an extensive XC network, with trains to Weymouth, Portsmouth, Brighton and Ramsgate, but everything in L&SE is maxed out and adding trains that don't go to London terminals is out of the question in almost all cases. Gatwick might be one of the few exceptions and I suppose you could send XC services that way as extensions to those which terminate at Reading. That said the frequency would have to be at least hourly to have any hope of abstracting passengers who would have otherwise made through journeys via London to Gatwick.

Out of interest. Why do people want to go to and from Southampton vers other towns XC might like to serve? It is a fairly big area to be fair. Is that the reason?

It's also well connected with the region. Because of all the capacity constraints it's better overall to have hubs like Reading and Southampton, rather than an extensive XC network as we once had!

 

[Anvil1984]

I suspect that the only reason we don't have 2tph from Reading-Southampton is because the SWML is also full up.

!

Possibly but the only reason I commented was that the person prior to me said Reading had hourly XC terminators which is not the case

 

[MCR247]

I suspect that the only reason we don't have 2tph from Reading-Southampton is because the SWML is also full up.

I'd put it more down to a lack of stock surely? The SWML has an hourly timetable so if paths are there in one hour they will surely be there in most other hours?

 

[NSEFAN]

I'd put it more down to a lack of stock surely? The SWML has an hourly timetable so if paths are there in one hour they will surely be there in most other hours?

Lack of stock could also be a reason, but I was thinking about total capacity, including freight.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Didn't there used to be some weird and wonderful variations on the extensions? Seem to remember one service terminated at Eastleigh, and I'm sure one of the service ran via the Laverstock Curve. That would imply some issues with timetabling, alas it's fairly straightforward now I think.

 

[swt_passenger]

Didn't there used to be some weird and wonderful variations on the extensions? Seem to remember one service terminated at Eastleigh, and I'm sure one of the service ran via the Laverstock Curve. That would imply some issues with timetabling, alas it's fairly straightforward now I think.

That's right, the one that ran via Laverstock initially was altered after a couple of timetable periods to run as far as Eastleigh down the main line.

In the initial timetables there were a few of the XC extras that skipped places like Parkway and Winchester as well to avoid freights, the afternoon Edinburgh train ran non stop Southampton to Basingstoke for that reason. All the normal calls have been gradually added.

However that Eastleigh terminator was itself caused by the impossibility of pathing beyond Eastleigh, but that problem was solved by a fairly simple swap of services, by making the southbound extension to Guildford run much earlier from Reading, and at a much more useful time during the evening peak. The previous Guildford train now extends to Southampton arriving at 2222.

There are similar pathing reasons in the am peak in the Southampton area that mean the first northbound Newcastle train starts in service at Winchester rather than Southampton.

The GW RUS, (now superseded) was quite explicit in its explanation that the alternate XC services were not being extended past Reading for pathing reasons beyond Basingstoke. After all, XC would only need one extra unit to run the service, and they could get that just by using an extra HST during the week. Rolling stock wise it would be a darn site easier than most other regular extension proposals, e.g. to Weymouth or half way round Kent...

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is a XC track access application on Network Rail's website at the moment.

What they are asking for is to maintain the current timetable until May 2020.

 

[RobShipway]

That's right, the one that ran via Laverstock initially was altered after a couple of timetable periods to run as far as Eastleigh down the main line.

In the initial timetables there were a few of the XC extras that skipped places like Parkway and Winchester as well to avoid freights, the afternoon Edinburgh train ran non stop Southampton to Basingstoke for that reason. All the normal calls have been gradually added.

However that Eastleigh terminator was itself caused by the impossibility of pathing beyond Eastleigh, but that problem was solved by a fairly simple swap of services, by making the southbound extension to Guildford run much earlier from Reading, and at a much more useful time during the evening peak. The previous Guildford train now extends to Southampton arriving at 2222.

There are similar pathing reasons in the am peak in the Southampton area that mean the first northbound Newcastle train starts in service at Winchester rather than Southampton.

The GW RUS, (now superseded) was quite explicit in its explanation that the alternate XC services were not being extended past Reading for pathing reasons beyond Basingstoke. After all, XC would only need one extra unit to run the service, and they could get that just by using an extra HST during the week. Rolling stock wise it would be a darn site easier than most other regular extension proposals, e.g. to Weymouth or half way round Kent...

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is a XC track access application on Network Rail's website at the moment.

What they are asking for is to maintain the current timetable until May 2020.

What makes XC think that they will not be able to maintain the current timetable?

 

[swt_passenger]

What makes XC think that they will not be able to maintain the current timetable?

Nothing at all - just that their current track access runs out shortly (i.e. next year), in accordance with the original length of their present 2007 - 2016 franchise.

So they have to re-apply for the period of the direct award, Oct 2016 - 2019, and then up to the end of the following timetable period. The latter allows the 2019 franchisee to operate the service for the initial period up til May 2020, by which time it will make a new track access application to deal with whatever it needs at that time.

 

[RobShipway]

Nothing at all - just that their current track access runs out shortly (i.e. next year), in accordance with the original length of their present 2007 - 2016 franchise.

So they have to re-apply for the period of the direct award, Oct 2016 - 2019, and then up to the end of the following timetable period. The latter allows the 2019 franchisee to operate the service for the initial period up til May 2020, by which time it will make a new track access application to deal with whatever it needs at that time.

Ah, okay. Thank you for the details.

 

[infobleep]

That's right, the one that ran via Laverstock initially was altered after a couple of timetable periods to run as far as Eastleigh down the main line.

In the initial timetables there were a few of the XC extras that skipped places like Parkway and Winchester as well to avoid freights, the afternoon Edinburgh train ran non stop Southampton to Basingstoke for that reason. All the normal calls have been gradually added.

However that Eastleigh terminator was itself caused by the impossibility of pathing beyond Eastleigh, but that problem was solved by a fairly simple swap of services, by making the southbound extension to Guildford run much earlier from Reading, and at a much more useful time during the evening peak. The previous Guildford train now extends to Southampton arriving at 2222.

There are similar pathing reasons in the am peak in the Southampton area that mean the first northbound Newcastle train starts in service at Winchester rather than Southampton.

The GW RUS, (now superseded) was quite explicit in its explanation that the alternate XC services were not being extended past Reading for pathing reasons beyond Basingstoke. After all, XC would only need one extra unit to run the service, and they could get that just by using an extra HST during the week. Rolling stock wise it would be a darn site easier than most other regular extension proposals, e.g. to Weymouth or half way round Kent...

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is a XC track access application on Network Rail's website at the moment.

What they are asking for is to maintain the current timetable until May 2020.

On Sundays the train to Guildford still arrives at 22.42.

Selfishly I'd rather have more trains to Guildford because unless one books up the moment tickets go on sale, the prices become rather expensive when travelling from Guildford via Reading to anywhere north with Cross County Trains. It's cheaper when trains are diverted via Guildford when there is engineering works.

Also it means getting up before 6am if one is heading out north.

 

[dk1]

Was it joined up BR thinking that introduced the additional routes from Gatwick Airport via Guildford when Cross Country were running the service?

I was referring more to inter-use of crews under BR for destinations across the network. In reguard to Guildford/Gatwick, that was already established as part of the Brighton services. Now lost I very much doubt it will ever get resurrected.

 

[johnnychips]

Is running to Guildford part of XC's contractual requirement when they won the franchise? It just seems strange for them to run a couple of trains there a day at funny times.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is running to Guildford part of XC's contractual requirement when they won the franchise? It just seems strange for them to run a couple of trains there a day at funny times.

Yes it was a specific requirement in the ITT. I'll try and find a quote and link in the morning.

Updated to add: It was the stakeholder briefing (based on the ITT) that I had copied to local drive:

Other Locations

• There is a requirement to provide at least one train to and from Guildford each day.
• There is a requirement to provide three trains each day to and from Paignton.
• There is a requirement to provide at least one train each day to and from Weston Super Mare.
• Above and beyond those services outlined in route 5 there is a requirement to provide at least one train each day to and from Gloucester running to a destination north of Birmingham.
• There is no requirement for bidders to operate services to Gatwick Airport or Brighton in the ITT; however if a bidder identifies a business case for operation to either of these locations which is complementary to the rest of the New Cross Country operation this may be included in their proposals.

The ITT version is here:

3.2.5.2 Guildford, Gatwick Airport and Brighton
Within the Base Service Specification for SLC2, at least one train per day is required to serve Guildford providing a direct journey opportunity to and from Birmingham which may, if necessary, operate in marginal time.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....vitationtotender/integratednewcrosscounty.pdf

 

[infobleep]

Yes it was a specific requirement in the ITT. I'll try and find a quote and link in the morning.

Updated to add: It was the stakeholder briefing (based on the ITT) that I had copied to local drive:



The ITT version is here:

Interesting. Ever hopeful their might be the business case for more than 1 train a day from Guildford. Surprised they still include requirements for single trains a day. I wouldn't have thought it's as if they need to run over a certain section of line from Guildford to Reading.

 

[PHILIPE]

Interesting. Ever hopeful their might be the business case for more than 1 train a day from Guildford. Surprised they still include requirements for single trains a day. I wouldn't have thought it's as if they need to run over a certain section of line from Guildford to Reading.

Business cases don't come into the equation of specs in this day and age. More bean counting.
Usually somebody has to come up with funding for anything extra.

 

[swt_passenger]

I wouldn't have thought it's as if they need to run over a certain section of line from Guildford to Reading.

You must have missed the regular explanations that part of the reason for running that way is to maintain route knowledge for diversions, when the line between Reading and Basingstoke is closed.

That's basically what they mean by saying the service can operate in 'marginal time' - when it would be travelling ECS from the depot anyway.

 

[infobleep]

You must have missed the regular explanations that part of the reason for running that way is to maintain route knowledge for diversions, when the line between Reading and Basingstoke is closed.

That's basically what they mean by saying the service can operate in 'marginal time' - when it would be travelling ECS from the depot anyway.

I thought that was the case but I wouldn't have thought that would be in an ITT document but just something the rail company would do. Thinking again perhaps not. After all the document specifies all the main services so why wouldn't that be included. Makes sense now.

 

[gerryuk]

What about a new cross country route between Sheffield and Southampton via Bedford? Is this still in the pipeline or has the electric spine already hit the buffers?

 

[PHILIPE]

What about a new cross country route between Sheffield and Southampton via Bedford? Is this still in the pipeline or has the electric spine already hit the buffers?

Not another one. I thought all routes had been exhausted on the numerous "idea for Cross Country" fantasy threads. If it doesn't go via Birmingham it wouldn't happen. There are already through XC trains between Sheffield and Southampton and anybody travelling from Sheffield to Bedford, there are through EMT services.

 

[backontrack]

How about 1tp3h Inverness-Aviemore-Kingussie-Pitlochry-Perth-Stirling-Motherwell-Carlisle-Penrith/Oxenholme-Lancaster-Preston-Manchester Piccadilly-Stockport/Macclesfield-Stoke on Trent-Walsall/Lichfield TV-Birmingham New Street?

A bit circuitous, but would provide Inverness with a direct link to Manchester/the West Midlands and link the Lake District with Walsall and Stoke on Trent among other places.

 

[The Planner]

Arrrggggggh! :cry::cry:

 

[PHILIPE]

How about 1tp3h Inverness-Aviemore-Kingussie-Pitlochry-Perth-Stirling-Motherwell-Carlisle-Penrith/Oxenholme-Lancaster-Preston-Manchester Piccadilly-Stockport/Macclesfield-Stoke on Trent-Walsall/Lichfield TV-Birmingham New Street?

A bit circuitous, but would provide Inverness with a direct link to Manchester/the West Midlands and link the Lake District with Walsall and Stoke on Trent among other places.

Most of this is via VT routes and passengers wouldn't want a circuitous tour anyway.

 

[MCR247]

How about 1tp3h Inverness-Aviemore-Kingussie-Pitlochry-Perth-Stirling-Motherwell-Carlisle-Penrith/Oxenholme-Lancaster-Preston-Manchester Piccadilly-Stockport/Macclesfield-Stoke on Trent-Walsall/Lichfield TV-Birmingham New Street?

A bit circuitous, but would provide Inverness with a direct link to Manchester/the West Midlands and link the Lake District with Walsall and Stoke on Trent among other places.

So were just linking places on a map and saying a train service should be provided between them?

 

[backontrack]

So were just linking places on a map and saying a train service should be provided between them?

No.

 

[MCR247]

No.

I can't see a genuine need for this train? Passengers from Inverness to Manchester can change at Edinburgh or Glasgow. The Lake District with Walsall?? Is a change at New Street that bad? The Lake District to Stoke can be done with a change at Piccadilly/Crewe/Stafford(?) (cant remember if Virgin London-Brum-Scotlands call at Stafford or not).

 

[route:oxford]

Not another one. I thought all routes had been exhausted on the numerous "idea for Cross Country" fantasy threads. If it doesn't go via Birmingham it wouldn't happen. There are already through XC trains between Sheffield and Southampton and anybody travelling from Sheffield to Bedford, there are through EMT services.

Although there is one path an hour specified for XC services on the East-West link isn't there?

Network Rail have also confirmed the potential for a link between Gatwick Airport and Oxford...

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11275305.Gatwick_link_confirmed_in_Network_Rail_report/

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Since everyone else seems to be doing it I've devised a new game whereby I open my Baker to three random pages and choose the first names I see so as to form new services. Consequentially I now want a service from Moston to Portlaoise via Atherstone. Twice daily with single 220s. Ta.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I will say however, in defence of part of the above Inverness-Birmi suggestion, I honestly think Stirling-Cumbernauld-Motherwell-Carlisle has some scope for development, alas I have no idea exactly what. A bit like the Durham Coast in that regard, always seems to be overlooked in the grand scheme of things.

And a little tip, if suggesting something like that, don't use Walsall-Lake District as an exemplar flow...