Could the Cross Country franchise be improved?

[Bevan Price]

Living in dreamland of course, but my personal preference would be for a single national franchise - we could perhaps call it British Railways. All that market forces cr*p about necessary competition between TOCs is nonsense. The major competitor is the car. It would also enable innovation, instead of having a service pattern fixed for all time by the shower in DfT.

Accepting that is unlikely to happen, several of my points have been made by others. Also, accepting fhat for several years, there is likely to be a shortage of stock, so that some suggestions will be unworkable until then.

As others comment, the major problem is totally inadequate amount of standard class seating. Another snag is the principle that almost all services serve exactly the same routes & stations, depriving some major centres of through services.

So, my dreamland suggestions.

1. Birmingham to Leicester / East Anglia, and Cardiff - Birmingham - Derby /Nottingham to be transferred to LM (or to the suggested new "West Midland/Birmingham operator). A fleet of around 20 4 car Class 172 dmus** to be built to supplement the existing Class 170 fleet. All trains to be standard class only (trains are too small to waste valuable space on first class).
(** - Or an add-on to the Northern dmu orders)

2. Manchester - Birmingham hourly semi-fast service to be transferred to LM and operated initially by Class 350 emu (maybe linked for operational convenience to the LM Birmingham - Northampton / Euston services)

3. Bristol - Manchester services to be revised, with alternate trains going instead to Liverpool or Preston. Likewise, Bournemouth - Manhester split similarly. Eventually to be worked by bimodal trains with at least 6 standard class coaches. So, this would give:
Plymouth / Bristol - Manchester, every 2 hours
Plymouth / Bristol - Liverpool, every 4 hours
Plymouth / Bristol - Preston, every 4 hours.
Bournemouth - Manchester, every 2 hours.
Bournemouth - Liverpool, every 4 hours
Bournemouth - Preston, every 4 hours.
A few of the "Preston" services might be extended to Glasgow or Edinburgh.
North of Birmingham, these would only call at the larger stations, e.g. just Wolverhampton, Stoke, Stockport to Manchester. -

4. Birmingham - North East section of services to be revised, with some faster timings where feasible (South of Birmingham, would be hourly to Bristol & Devon, hourly to Reading with some extended to either Poole or Portsmouth.)
Hourly semi-fast to Leeds, with some possibly extended to Bradford.
Hourly fast to Newcastle, calling only at Derby, Sheffield, York, Darlington & Durham. Most extended to Edinburgh, non-stop. (Newcastle - Edinburgh emu semi-fast to serve other stations)
If paths can be found,
Hourly semi-fast to Doncaster, continuing in alternate hours to either Hull or York.

5. Reduce Voyager 1st class to half of one coach, allowing increase in number of standard class seats.

 

[The Ham]

5. Reduce Voyager 1st class to half of one coach, allowing increase in number of standard class seats.

I don't think that it would gain you much, probably the total number of seats would stay the same, maybe an extra 10 standard seats.

However it would mean that standard ticket holders could walk through the coach to try and find a seat in the other part of the train. Bit that is a problem in itself (I.e. I don't care about the feelings of First Class ticket holders) rather it makes it less clear cut if there happens to be a standard class ticket holder in that area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A further thought on the use of HST's and how to maximise the benefit of the released Voyagers.

Rather than just using the 220's released from using HST's as they are (it would always be 220's as if 221's were released then they would be swapped with 220's to increase the capacity on those services), there is another option which would bring a bigger increase in standard class seats.

If you were to take the 4 sets of 220's and remove their central coaches and put them into 8 other sets of 220's and then use the remaining 4 pairs of end coaches as core capacity busters. You would concert then to standard only units with 84 seats which would give a total increase in capacity of units they were paired with of between 33% and 42% (5 coach units and 4 coach units) or an increase of between 37% and 48% of standard class seating.

As they will only ever be used on the core they could shuttle back and fourth over a short distance and so could be run over a lot of services. For instance it they were used for a 45 minutes journey (to allow some turn around time) each way then with 4 of them you could use them on two services which have an hourly frequency.

However you have also improved some services end to end by making 8 of the 220's into 5 coach units.

If there were enough units which spent their time running in pairs you could even create a few more capacity busters and lengthen a few more units to 5 coaches long. By my reckoning to run every service over the core by HST's or with a 2 coach crowd buster for upto an hour would require 8 of the 2 coach units (1 spare, possiblely including the use of unit 221144). That would also mean that 14 of the remaining 26 class 220's would be 5 coach units. Meaning just 12 of XC's fleet of 22x's were 4 coach units and 39 were 5 coach units.

If more capacity busters were needed (say up to 1.5 hours each way, which would need 12 units) that could mean that it could be better to create some 6 coach 221's rather than convert all the 4 coach units to 5 coaches.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Manchester-Edinburgh transferred back from TPE to XC and for it to be Bournemouth-Edinburgh again, maybe with some tweaking of timetables extend to Poole (at least in the Summer). Would Bournemouth/Poole-Manchester need two Voyagers? If it doesn't maybe it could join another Voyager and do Manchester-Edinburgh as a 10 car (with 5 cars having arrived at Manchester Pic from somewhere else - Plymouth or Penzance?)

 

[najaB]

...and then use the remaining 4 pairs of end coaches as core capacity busters...

ISTR that end coaches can't run paired up like that. Not sure why, but that is why Virgin has a pair of end coaches that are out of service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They don't have air compressors, I believe.

 

[Barclay]

Probably one for SWT or GW rather than XC, but a direct service from Southampton to Plymouth via Bournemouth, Dorchester, Yeovil and Exeter would really improve connectivity along the south coast. I appreciate it would need a reinstated chord at Yeovil Junction unless there was a reversal at Pen Mill, and a turnback at Dorchester. I wonder what the realistic times could be for such a service? Going via Yeovil could it realistically compete with the A35?

 

[najaB]

They don't have air compressors, I believe.

That sounds very familiar - 99.9% sure that you've nailed it. Thanks.

 

[Class 170101]

Probably one for SWT or GW rather than XC, but a direct service from Southampton to Plymouth via Bournemouth, Dorchester, Yeovil and Exeter would really improve connectivity along the south coast. I appreciate it would need a reinstated chord at Yeovil Junction unless there was a reversal at Pen Mill, and a turnback at Dorchester. I wonder what the realistic times could be for such a service? Going via Yeovil could it realistically compete with the A35?

SWT used to run a service direct betwen Plymouth and Exeter thence to Waterloo it was handed over to FGW years ago and SWT ran no further than Exeter from London.

 

[XC victim]

Whilst everyone has been some very ideas of how to improve the XC franchise can any realistically see any improvements to this franchise in the next few years, say within the first 2 years of the next franchise award?

 

[Kettledrum]

Whilst everyone has been some very ideas of how to improve the XC franchise can any realistically see any improvements to this franchise in the next few years, say within the first 2 years of the next franchise award?

Unfortunately not - I raised issues about XC with my MP about 4 months ago - issues relating to capacity, punctuality and cleanliness - which I highlighted needing to be improved. I persevered when the initial response was "have you complained to XC?" as I highlighted the influence the MPs could theoretically have in future franchise specifications etc. My MP passed my correspondence to the rail minister - but I have not received any further response.

I assume it's just not that easy to deal with in the short term, hence no response. The issue regarding the inadequate capacity in the core is well documented, but there's no quick fix.

 

[Whistler40145]

Are there any stations not currently served by CrossCountry trains which would be extremely useful?

 

[Domh245]

Are there any stations not currently served by CrossCountry trains which would be extremely useful?

I can think of one that starts with a B...

:P

 

[najaB]

I can think of one that starts with a B...

But there isn't a station in Bodmin any more...:-?

 

[swt_passenger]

But there isn't a station in Bodmin any more...:-?

He probably meant Blyth then...

 

[The Ham]

Whilst everyone has been some very ideas of how to improve the XC franchise can any realistically see any improvements to this franchise in the next few years, say within the first 2 years of the next franchise award?

During the direct award (upto 2019 if it happens) more use of HST's, they could be run on all the services which only run between Manchester and Bristol TM, that then gives 4 units to strengthen other services. Possiblely a split of the Manchester to South Coast services at Coventry to enable EMU running on the Northern section.

Then during the first year of the next franchise there's a good chance that some more 22x's could come along. However I would probably expect to see a bi-modal or EMU with batteries delivered to enable services to bridge gaps in the wires. Possiblely with enough being ordered to reform Voyagers to be 7 coaches long.

7 coaches units would likely have a similar capacity as a pair of 220's. Whilst the 3 coach units would have 146 seats compared to the current 220's which have 200 seats (although 26 are first class seats).

I would expect it to be something like:
6*7 coach 220's
9*3 coach 220's
19*4 coach 220's
9*5 coach (former ICWC) 221's
23 existing XC 221's
12*4 coach 110mph capable EMU's to run in pairs

The shortened 220's would be directly replaced by the ICWC units, the HST's would be replaced by the Voyagers that the EMU's replace and paired with some of the shortened 220's.

That leaves the remaining shortened units, the lengthened units (including the pairs of EMU's) to provide extra capacity (on top of the small increase from the ICWC units which have replaced 4 coach units).

There will also be a follow on option for EMU's to provide more services to be run by EMU if the wires are extended during the franchise.

 

[The Ham]

He probably meant Blyth then...

...or Bath...

 

[Kettledrum]

I can think of one that starts with a B...

:P

Birmingham Moor Street

Cardiff to Nottingham XC trains could run into Moor Street, then reverse out again for the Birmingham to Nottingham stretch.

Of course it would require the Camp Hill chords to be built but would free up space at Birmingham New Street for some of the other service developments talked about on this thread (e.g. Portsmouth to Liverpool, Brighton to Manchester etc)

 

[The Planner]

That is the plan for the Camp Hill Chords, though it wouldn't allow any extra services into New St for XC if they magically appeared today.

 

[Kettledrum]

That is the plan for the Camp Hill Chords, though it wouldn't allow any extra services into New St for XC if they magically appeared today.

Is that because one platform at New Street is still occupied by engineering trains, or is there some other limiting factor you had in mind?

 

[Mojo]

........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.

Burton and Tamworth are already served by a halfhourly service between Birmingham and Derby (onwards to Nottingham) and I am not sure of the benefit in stopping services there all day, with the possible exception of services to relieve crowding at busy times of the day, if it is really that bad.

Stockport is to all intents and purposes a suburb of Manchester, and Macclesfield is already served by the Virgin service which for many hours runs at 2tph, as well as the 1tph Northern stopping train (which to be fair, is quite a bit slower in one direction, but the journey time isn't that long).

 

[Martin_1981]

Basically, as the existing XC Franchise is until 2019, there are unlikely to be any changes to existing services for the remaining duration of this franchise. We have had the same timetable now since December 2008, with very few changes other than a few tweaks here and there, the main changes being the extension of some Newcastle-Reading services to Southampton.

 

[daodao]

Stockport is to all intents and purposes a suburb of Manchester, and Macclesfield is already served by the Virgin service which for many hours runs at 2tph, as well as the 1tph Northern stopping train (which to be fair, is quite a bit slower in one direction, but the journey time isn't that long).

The Virgin service from a Macclesfield perspective is only 1 tph, as is the XC service, with alternate trains passing through non-stop. It is a sizeable town with an urban population alone of 50,000 and it was bad enough when the Macclesfield stop was cut from alternate XC trains in 2007. Removal of any through services to Birmingham and beyond would be completely unacceptable. The timing of remaining connections at Stoke would also reduce the residual "connecting" service to 1 tph.

 

[Esker-pades]

I'd add more HSTs once they become available - yes, they'd have to go through a major refurbishment programme, but that would increase capacity and release other Voyagers to double up.

Then, curtailing the Southampton/Reading to Newcastle service at Leeds. That would mean a couple fewer Voyagers would be needed to run that, more released to double up. Depending on how well-used the Southampton to Reading part of this service is, maybe put it back to starting from Reading only?

Birmingham to Stanstead services should really be EMT. I'd say give EMT a chunk of the Turbostars and that route, then they can play around with their routes.

As there'll be a new TransPennine service between Newcastle and Edinburgh, I'd say every Cross Country service between those two should be non-stop.

No trains other than Cardiff to Nottingham services should serve any station between Birmingham and Derby. Except at the odd times of major demand.

 

[daodao]

@ FelixtheCat

Sensible practical suggestions.

 

[Mojo]

The Virgin service from a Macclesfield perspective is only 1 tph, as is the XC service, with alternate trains passing through non-stop. It is a sizeable town with an urban population alone of 50,000 and it was bad enough when the Macclesfield stop was cut from alternate XC trains in 2007. Removal of any through services to Birmingham and beyond would be completely unacceptable. The timing of remaining connections at Stoke would also reduce the residual "connecting" service to 1 tph.

I did think that alternate Virgin services did miss Macclesfield, but checked journey planners and live departure boards and it seems that, for some reason, for at least this week, it is 2tph for most of the day. Would be interesting to know why.

In my experience of using the service, it is only really used for people travelling to or from Manchester. What is special about Macclesfield that makes this fairly insignificant town worthy of being served by direct long distance services not serving London all day, when there are other Intercity services available?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Then, curtailing the Southampton/Reading to Newcastle service at Leeds. That would mean a couple fewer Voyagers would be needed to run that, more released to double up. Depending on how well-used the Southampton to Reading part of this service is, maybe put it back to starting from Reading only?

The service from Southampton/Reading to Newcastle is currently the one that runs "fast" and also via Doncaster. Are you proposing sending all CrossCountry services via Leeds, thus slowing down journeys from the Midlands or South Yorkshire to York and the North East, or would these services be diverted to avoid Leeds, requiring a change for customers from Leeds to Edinburgh for most of the day?

 

[The Ham]

I'd add more HSTs once they become available - yes, they'd have to go through a major refurbishment programme, but that would increase capacity and release other Voyagers to double up.

The problem is that the HST's may only be needed for 10 years from now either due to electrification and/or more 222's becoming available. Given that the HST's are probably only going to be free from 2018 and the possible extension will run to 2019, I fear that XC are unlikely to take on more before. If for no other reason than it would be risky with trying to replace too many before the end of 2019.

Then, curtailing the Southampton/Reading to Newcastle service at Leeds. That would mean a couple fewer Voyagers would be needed to run that, more released to double up. Depending on how well-used the Southampton to Reading part of this service is, maybe put it back to starting from Reading only?

If you did what you suggest you may save 2 units, even if you also cut off the services which run Edinburgh to York (but not those that go beyond) you would save at most 4 units. Yes it would help, but you could just get EMU's to run Manchester to Coventry and that would give you more capacity on that axis AND free up 5 units.

Birmingham to Stanstead services should really be EMT. I'd say give EMT a chunk of the Turbostars and that route, then they can play around with their routes.

I'm not sure how much this will help, sounds more like shuffling deckchairs, as you will still have the same number of units running broadly the same number of services.

As there'll be a new TransPennine service between Newcastle and Edinburgh, I'd say every Cross Country service between those two should be non-stop.

Running non stop isn't going to create extra units and could just lead to the XC services being busier as people going between the two opting for the faster service.

No trains other than Cardiff to Nottingham services should serve any station between Birmingham and Derby. Except at the odd times of major demand.

I'm not sure what this will gain, again you could just be seen as shuffling deck chairs, it could mean that the services that do call at those stations are even busier than now.

 

[daodao]

I did think that alternate Virgin services did miss Macclesfield, but checked journey planners and live departure boards and it seems that, for some reason, for at least this week, it is 2tph for most of the day. Would be interesting to know why.

In my experience of using the service, it is only really used for people travelling to or from Manchester. What is special about Macclesfield that makes this fairly insignificant town worthy of being served by direct long distance services not serving London all day, when there are other Intercity services available?

The service from Southampton/Reading to Newcastle is currently the one that runs "fast" and also via Doncaster. Are you proposing sending all CrossCountry services via Leeds, thus slowing down journeys from the Midlands or South Yorkshire to York and the North East, or would these services be diverted to avoid Leeds, requiring a change for customers from Leeds to Edinburgh for most of the day?

The Virgin calls at Macclesfield are only 2 tph this week, while the line via Holmes Chapel is closed for (recurrent) repairs to the Dane viaduct there, so as to provide bus connections for Wilmslow from the London trains.

I would dispute your statement that Macclesfield is a fairly insignificant town. Removing any XC calls there would make travel to Birmingham and points served via this important junction quite difficult. Whenever I have boarded an express southbound train at Macclesfield, well over 50 people have boarded at the same time, and the converse has applied when alighting.

The service from the Midlands to the North-East via Leeds is a slower roundabout route than that via Doncaster and is duplicated from Leeds to Newcastle by TPE services. Once these are extended to Edinburgh under the new TPE franchise, XC trains to Leeds could terminate there without any significant impact on connectivity. Newcastle-Leeds by XC is one example (there are others) of duplicate services on outer sections of certain networks which seem to exist primarily for one TOC to try to extract revenue from another.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Depending on how well-used the Southampton to Reading part of this service is, maybe put it back to starting from Reading only?

That probably wouldn't be very popular as it would add between 30-40 mins to people's journeys, ontop of whatever time it takes to Southampton Central from wherever they start from and would mean people having to change trains twice just to reach the start of a XC route and I think the GWR trains that go from Southampton Central-Reading are only every 2hrs

 

[daodao]

That probably wouldn't be very popular as it would add between 30-40 mins to people's journeys, ontop of whatever time it takes to Southampton Central from wherever they start from and would mean people having to change trains twice just to reach the start of a XC route and I think the GWR trains that go from Southampton Central-Reading are only every 2hrs

There would still be 1 tph Bournemouth-Southampton-Reading-Birmingham-Macclesfield-Manchester.

 

[Whistler40145]

Further to my recent post, I should like to make it clear that what I meant is, where on the current CrossCountry network that isn't currently served would be very useful.