Could the Cross Country franchise be improved?

[Starmill]

There are quite a lot of people living in Cheshire. Maxonians and Stopfordians would be angered by such a proposal.

As usual, there's a significant desire for faster Birmingham <> Manchester services. There is also a significant desire for more capacity on commuter services into Manchester from all stations to Crewe and Stoke.

Good luck coming up with the track capacity for all of that without some infrastructure intervention.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In fact I would argue that an order of 20 EMU's (to Run Manchester to Reading) with an option for a further 20 (so they can be delivered when wires allow them to be used) is probably required (assuming all the 221's OR all the 222's end up at XC) to meet the potential future passenger demand (i.e. 65% to 99% extra passenger capacity over what we see today).

Do you have a date for Coventry-Oxford wiring then? Not before 2024 I should think.
Soon after that HS2 will be transforming Birmingham-Manchester services (via Crewe).
The only early fleet upgrade option is for ICWC to get new Pendolinos to allow some (9?) 221s to be cascaded to XC.
Might possibly figure in the ICWC bids next year.

 

[absolutelymilk]

During the next franchise - All of the ICWC 221's joining XC to replace the HST's.

What would the ICWC 221s be replaced by?

 

[The Ham]

Do you have a date for Coventry-Oxford wiring then? Not before 2024 I should think.
Soon after that HS2 will be transforming Birmingham-Manchester services (via Crewe).
The only early fleet upgrade option is for ICWC to get new Pendolinos to allow some (9?) 221s to be cascaded to XC.
Might possibly figure in the ICWC bids next year.

If electrification is much after 2022 then it could well be that XC opt for bimodal units rather than EMU's (or bimodal loco dragging mark 4's), however the point still stands that it is likely that an order of new units will be needed to cope with demand between now and 2025 (28% to 62% growth over the existing on a 2.5% to 5% annual growth rate, however many would argue the existing doesn't meet the current demand in many cases so would need to be higher than this).

Even with HS2 changing Birmingham Manchester services all that will do is remove those who are travelling between those two locations, anyone from Oxford or Exeter going to Manchester would still be using XC (as the penalty for changing trains would be likely be more than the perceived gain by changing to HS2, as shown by the number of people like to use direct services over slightly faster journeys with a change). Therefore although there will be less demand between Birmingham and Manchester the flow of passengers would still be fairly significant. It may well be that some XC services are not as frequent as they are and/or can be run with shorter trains (i.e. doubling up of units south of Birmingham and/or north of Leeds once phase 2 is complete), but there will be a number of places which HS2 will not be serving which will be adding passengers to XC services (i.e. Stockport and Macclesfield).

Of course there is an argument that HS2 would make XC services which don't compete with it busier as they will then be by feeding passengers into HS2 services.

Assuming that ICWC don't release many/any units then either XC would need more bimodal units or would need to rely on the 222's becoming free (which again we'll know at about the same time), however I have stated elsewhere that 9 ICWC 221's would likely be enough to replace XC's HST's even if XC were using 4 of them intensely (i.e. one spare). In fact probably anything more than 7 could mean that XC could provide some extra capacity elsewhere (using doubled up units only over the core and/or using doubled up 220's rather than 221's and using the 221's elsewhere).

 

[JamesRowden]

Perhaps Crosscountry could terminate at Basingstoke rather than Southampton/Bournemouth during the peak to allow longer trains to operate through the Crosscountry core, provide a 2tph service to/from Basingstoke, use the spare capacity on SWT services south of Basingstoke and reduce the amount of crossing paths at Basingstoke?

 

[Ianno87]

Perhaps Crosscountry could terminate at Basingstoke rather than Southampton/Bournemouth during the peak to allow longer trains to operate through the Crosscountry core, provide a 2tph service to/from Basingstoke, use the spare capacity on SWT services south of Basingstoke and reduce the amount of crossing paths at Basingstoke?

How do you define the 'peak' for CrossCountry at Basingstoke?

Given its 2-3 hours round trip, how do you get all the units to the Birmingham area without any sat round at Bournemouth twiddling their thumbs until the end of the peak (or without creating a several hour gap in service south of Basingstoke?)

 

[Class 170101]

The HSTs are not a permanent solution, but there's no need for EMUs to increase capacity just yet. Maybe getting XC to use the HST rakes they do have- rather than leaving half of them parked in Craigentinny all week- might be a good start.

EMUs are of no use to Cross Country yet. No routes are fully wired

With the Direct Award only running until 2019 (3 years away) I see only HSTs being a viable solution in the short term otherwise capacity issues will remain as there is no other stock available.

Cross Country is also likely to change as a route from 2032/2033 due to HS2. Given a Direct Award to 2019 - a new ten year franchise takes us to 2029 (maybe 2030 depending on the structure of the Direct Award Contract), new trains if ordered in 2019/2020 will not be in service until 2022 and probably 2023 thats only 10 years use before the map potentially changes.

The HSTs may be expensive but I can see them coming down in price if a ROSCO thinks it can get viable use of an asset for 10 years rather than see them languish in sidings or scrapped.

As I have said before I think the HSTs will see their days out between Plymouth and Scotland on the route they are used today with paired Voyagers operating other routes as appropriate.

I would like to see a third train per hour between Birmingham and York via Derby, Sheffield and Leeds and the return of XC to the West Coast Main Line but as has been noted whether there is the capacity for this is a different matter.

 

[Kettledrum]

I would like to see services speeded up though through the removal of stops; I'd start by running all Voyager/HST services as express between Birmingham to Derby, Newcastle to Edinburgh and Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester.

........but apparently XC have been making a loss in recent years so haven't been paying much I premiums under the contract, and some of the stops you want to remove are very busy with commuters. i.e. packed trains with big amounts of income for relatively short journeys. If you just stand on the platform in rush hour at Burton, Tamworth, Macclesfield or Stockport, you will see how many passengers you would be leaving stranded by this plan.

I use XC quite a lot, going up and down the country, and it desperately needs more capacity in the form of longer trains. It would be good to have more through trains again from the North East to Bournemouth as well.

Demand and suppressed demand is definitely there, despite the problems of overcrowding, toilet smells, punctuality and cleanliness.

 

[life210]

Cross country definitely needs an extra train per hour between Leeds and B'ham.
- We are currently lacking a rail operator that connects the north east and west Yorkshire to the east midlands. Cross Country should fulfil this and apply for track access for a new Newcastle to B'ham (via Leeds, and Via Leicester).
Essentially Newcastle - Durham - Darlington - York - Leeds - Wakefield - Sheffield - Derby - EM stops (Long eaton, EM parkway, Loughborough, Leicester) - then direct to B'ham.

 

[Kettledrum]

Attract richer passengers.

The various franchise holders have had plenty of time to figure out how to earn the most money from the customers, and it looks like the best return is to cram people into Standard at low prices. First by contrast is civilised but very expensive (is there a comparison of Advance std/1st prices anywhere? I suspect XC would come out bottom.) Without more money from the people they carry, they will always be stuck in subsidy and unable to afford any increase in capacity or service.
?

XC don't cram people into Standard at low prices....they cram people into Standard at HIGH prices, and First class by contrast is empty as it is very, very expensive.

Why they have been stuck in subsidy could be due to a range of factors:

- short trains limiting the number of passengers they can carry in total (and therefore income),
- expensive track charges for the HSTs,
- no additional income from car parking or station shops, as XC don't have any,
- allocation of overheads or a large management charges from the parent company

 

[Martin_1981]

EMUs are of no use to Cross Country yet. No routes are fully wired

With the Direct Award only running until 2019 (3 years away) I see only HSTs being a viable solution in the short term otherwise capacity issues will remain as there is no other stock available.

Cross Country is also likely to change as a route from 2032/2033 due to HS2. Given a Direct Award to 2019 - a new ten year franchise takes us to 2029 (maybe 2030 depending on the structure of the Direct Award Contract), new trains if ordered in 2019/2020 will not be in service until 2022 and probably 2023 thats only 10 years use before the map potentially changes.

The HSTs may be expensive but I can see them coming down in price if a ROSCO thinks it can get viable use of an asset for 10 years rather than see them languish in sidings or scrapped.

As I have said before I think the HSTs will see their days out between Plymouth and Scotland on the route they are used today with paired Voyagers operating other routes as appropriate.

I would like to see a third train per hour between Birmingham and York via Derby, Sheffield and Leeds and the return of XC to the West Coast Main Line but as has been noted whether there is the capacity for this is a different matter.

My dad was talking to a CrossCountry train driver a few months ago whilst on an XC HST from Exeter to Birmingham (43207 and 303) and was advised that the XC HST's will continue until 2020, by which time it is hoped that some Voyagers/Meridians will become available from an electrification cascade. I doubt the HST's will be in much of a fit state to run much beyond then without further major expenditure. They are increasingly showing their age now, with lots of rattles and squeaks, although the ride is still generally smooth and quiet for a 40 year old train.

 

[JamesRowden]

How do you define the 'peak' for CrossCountry at Basingstoke?

Given its 2-3 hours round trip, how do you get all the units to the Birmingham area without any sat round at Bournemouth twiddling their thumbs until the end of the peak (or without creating a several hour gap in service south of Basingstoke?)

At Basingstoke, at the start of the peak combine 4-car north and south bound services to create an 8-car north bound service. At the end of the peak split 8-car south bound services to create a 4-car north bound service and a 4-car south bound service.

 

[swt_passenger]

At Basingstoke, at the start of the peak combine 4-car north and south bound services to create an 8-car north bound service. At the end of the peak split 8-car south bound services to create a 4-car north bound service and a 4-car south bound service.

There aren't any southbound services through Basingstoke to combine until the first one arrives at 0810. The next northbound from Bournemouth would be about half an hour later, so by the time it got back to Reading the morning peak would be over.

 

[JamesRowden]

There aren't any southbound services through Basingstoke to combine until the first one arrives at 0810. The next northbound from Bournemouth would be about half an hour later, so by the time it got back to Reading the morning peak would be over.

Therefore it would seem although something similar to my suggestion is already implemented during the morning peak. What about also implementing it during the evening peak?

 

[NotATrainspott]

What would the ICWC 221s be replaced by?

More Pendolinos from Alstom. Back in the refranchising debacle First had planned to replace the 221s used under the wires on Birmingham-Scotland with non-tilt CAF EMUs, but these would have been unable to continue to London. If the Birmingham-Scotland and Wolverhampton-Euston services are to remain combined then more tilting stock would be needed and the only manufacturer in a position to deliver that in the short term is Alstom. Even if Hitachi could come up with a tilting AT300, they wouldn't have much production capacity left to get them built for when they're needed.

The remaining 221s needed for runs to Chester and North Wales would have to be replaced by Pendolinos dragged north of Crewe. The 57s weren't great at dragging Pendolinos day in, day out, but a new order could be designed from scratch to do that job and so wouldn't have the same problems. Even if that meant Alstom would be fitting their kit to a competing manufacturer's locomotive design it could well happen, just as how the Bombardier Super Voyagers can talk to the Pendolinos.

 

[The Ham]

My dad was talking to a CrossCountry train driver a few months ago whilst on an XC HST from Exeter to Birmingham (43207 and 303) and was advised that the XC HST's will continue until 2020, by which time it is hoped that some Voyagers/Meridians will become available from an electrification cascade. I doubt the HST's will be in much of a fit state to run much beyond then without further major expenditure. They are increasingly showing their age now, with lots of rattles and squeaks, although the ride is still generally smooth and quiet for a 40 year old train.

Even if no extra 22x's are forth coming or XC don't take up the extension to 2019 then some new bi-modal trains could be the order of the day.

Otherwise, the other option could be EMU's with batteries to bridge the gaps in the wires. As the batteries would only need to last a fairly short time (say 5 years).

Manchester to Reading would require about 60 miles of battery running (assuming zero use of wires between Oxford and Coventry). However I would expect that distance to be reduced fairly quickly after 2020.

That would compared with 130 miles of running under the wires between Manchester and Reading, with the possibility of reasonable layovers at each end.

Even if the trains couldn't run as fast over the non electrified section, they are unlikely to get in the way of much else as those sections of lines are relatively quiet. There is also the advantage that there are few station stops.

 

[Senex]

Perhaps Crosscountry could terminate at Basingstoke rather than Southampton/Bournemouth during the peak to allow longer trains to operate through the Crosscountry core, provide a 2tph service to/from Basingstoke, use the spare capacity on SWT services south of Basingstoke and reduce the amount of crossing paths at Basingstoke?

How busy as an XC destination/origin is Basingstoke? This idea looks like putting the convenience of the operators ahead of the needs of the market by forcing a change of trains on XC passengers to and from the much more significant centres further south.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

For example, frequencies, routes, new destinations, taking routes off the franchise, adding new ones on.

How would you change it or do you think it's fine as it is.

I think a Birmingham to Cleethorpes via Lincoln / Market Rasen would be a good shout.

Connecting Northern / Central Lincolnshire with the Midlands.

 

[centraltrains]

I'm guessing it is too late now to just order additional coaches for voyagers?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm guessing it is too late now to just order additional coaches for voyagers?

I believe the line is no longer active so you couldn't order *Voyager coaches* but I see no particular reason why something else couldn't be modified to fit (albeit looking odd). But it's probably easier and almost as good to double them up and order a load of 8-car units instead, as the additional capacity needed is far in excess of just sticking a coach in the 4-cars.

 

[PHILIPE]

As a negative point, Cross Country not to work beyond Exeter until Voyagers are replaced. Canned again along the sea wall at Dawlish this morning due to possibility of water putting the electrical equipment located on the roof out of action and disabling the train..

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Perhaps Crosscountry could terminate at Basingstoke rather than Southampton/Bournemouth during the peak to allow longer trains to operate through the Crosscountry core, provide a 2tph service to/from Basingstoke, use the spare capacity on SWT services south of Basingstoke and reduce the amount of crossing paths at Basingstoke?

Could Basingstoke handle having XC trains terminating there anyway - does it have a siding which cleaners can gain access to the unit for cleaning and with access to water for topping up the water tanks?

As a negative point, Cross Country not to work beyond Exeter until Voyagers are replaced. Canned again along the sea wall at Dawlish this morning due to possibility of water putting the electrical equipment located on the roof out of action and disabling the train..

If some sort of cover was to be added that could be remotely closed from the cab, how long could it stay shut before the resistors cooked? long enough to get past the waterside section?

 

[swt_passenger]

Therefore it would seem although something similar to my suggestion is already implemented during the morning peak. What about also implementing it during the evening peak?

What happens in the morning is that trains start at New St and work South, and that's how long it happens to take. There are also northbound trains that start empty at Reading, having run up from Eastleigh. Seems to me that they already deal with the morning peak towards New St.

My experience at Basingstoke in the afternoon and towards the evening peak is that southbound XC trains are pretty full to Southampton and beyond, as are SWT - some of whose trains are non stop through Basingstoke in the peak. Turfing out a Voyager load at Basingstoke would seem to cause problems where non currently exist.

I think someone suggested earlier that the XC 'peaks' are widespread across their network, someone's gain would invariably be someone else's loss. Wasn't the whole point of the 2007 franchise to give a consistent hourly clock face timetable? Is that not what most passengers actually want?

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

Manchester to Reading would require about 60 miles of battery running (assuming zero use of wires between Oxford and Coventry). However I would expect that distance to be reduced fairly quickly after 2020.

Will 60 miles of high speed running actually be possible? I thought proposed distances were significantly less than that.

Where are the Bournemouth trains going in this scenario? If you swap them with the Newcastles, they are much less use than the current service, because the south coast to the NE is well served via London and the ECML.

Surely Bournemouth to Manchester was chosen as the main flow on that axis because that is where passengers want to go?

 

[JamesRowden]

Which is why I have also been wondering if Crosscountry should terminate at Basingstoke all-day, with a 2tph rather than a 3tp2h service, and the SWT Basingstoke to Waterloo stoppers extended south as limited stop services. How important in comparison is passengers getting seats, a more frequent service, passengers needing to make an additional change, and minimising the operating costs? Also, this suggestion would provide those between Basingstoke and Woking a better service to the Hampshire coast. I'm not saying that this is a good idea. Just an idea that I can't definatively prove is inferior to another option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think someone suggested earlier that the XC 'peaks' are widespread across their network

One of the problems of XC is that it is used as a commuter service in places. Where capacity exists, it might well be better to look to provide that commuter capacity separately, and to add "u"s, "s"s and miss stops from the timetable to keep XC purely as a long distance service.

5 or 6-car units may well be sufficient if that were to be done.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Which is why I have also been wondering if Crosscountry should terminate at Basingstoke all-day, with a 2tph rather than a 3tp2h service, and the SWT Basingstoke to Waterloo stoppers extended south as limited stop services. How important in comparison is passengers getting seats, a more frequent service, passengers needing to make an additional change, and minimising the operating costs? Also, this suggestion would provide those between Basingstoke and Woking a better service to the Hampshire coast. I'm not saying that this is a good idea. Just an idea that I can't definatively prove is inferior to another option.

For that to work you'd probably need a lot more trains to call at Basingstoke for people to be able to change from/to XC services, would that even be viable?

 

[swt_passenger]

For that to work you'd probably need a lot more trains to call at Basingstoke for people to be able to change from/to XC services, would that even be viable?

His suggestion above was to extend the existing SWT services that currently terminate at Basingstoke to destinations further west. On the face of it SWT would just require a few more EMUs, but no more fast services would necessarily need to call.

XC could then use SWT's freed up turnback sidings, or preferably the country end up siding reached through the up slow platform. You mentioned about cleaning and tanking earlier, but AIUI XC do not tank trains at Bournemouth (and they definitely don't at Southampton) during existing turnarounds.

 

[JamesRowden]

For that to work you'd probably need a lot more trains to call at Basingstoke for people to be able to change from/to XC services, would that even be viable?

I do not think that it would. Just extend the Basingstoke-Waterloo stoppers to Portsmouth/Southampton/Bournemouth as limited stop services and redo the timings of the line for the new service pattern. The Wessex route study stated that the reason that Cross Country can't run 2tph to Southampton is not because of line or platform capacity but because of the flat junctions at Basingstoke. Stopping the Cross Country services running through would remove a number of conflicts.

 

[Jonfun]

The trains are stabled overnight at Eastleigh and the crews come from Bournemouth. If they didn't run further south than Basingstoke (Why Basingstoke and not Reading? Very, very random choice) then you'd need to do a big rethink on the logistics, which would need a massive expansion of Reading depot, which is very hard to retain crew at anyway.

 

[43074]

If we're looking to free some Voyagers from somewhere could a case be made for terminating Reading to Newcastle services at York? It would remove the duplication of having 2 XC services running 10 minutes apart North of York, and would prevent having an over provision of 4tph between Leeds and Newcastle (2 TPE and 2 XC) if the Reading services are diverted to Leeds in the future.