Suggestions on how to improve CrossCountry

[Rich McLean]

I think the most likely scenario is a new fleet of units for the NE/SW Route, with freed up voyagers joined to existing services, with additional New Street to Leeds Queue Busters in the peaks and single 220s taking over the Cardiffs. I think it is unlikely that the 222 fleet will be cascaded, or 221s freed up from WCML services, at least until HS2 is up and running, by which time they will then need replacement. The Dft know a lot of units will either be sat in sidings/exported abroad/sent to Booths. The DfT and ROSCOs will not want more new rolling stock ordered at the expense of retiring the 22x fleet early.

I don't think there will be many changes apart from that, bar removing the Baths, Cardiff's via Temple Meads and Guildfords. I imagine they may thin out XC services to 1tph north of York once the additional TPE services start, and the Leicester/Nottingham services moved to the West Midlands Franchise (possibly also the Stansteads).

 

[The Ham]

I think the most likely scenario is a new fleet of units for the NE/SW Route, with freed up voyagers joined to existing services, with additional New Street to Leeds Queue Busters in the peaks and single 220s taking over the Cardiffs. I think it is unlikely that the 222 fleet will be cascaded, or 221s freed up from WCML services, at least until HS2 is up and running, by which time they will then need replacement. The Dft know a lot of units will either be sat in sidings/exported abroad/sent to Booths. The DfT and ROSCOs will not want more new rolling stock ordered at the expense of retiring the 22x fleet early.

I don't think there will be many changes apart from that, bar removing the Baths, Cardiff's via Temple Meads and Guildfords. I imagine they may thin out XC services to 1tph north of York once the additional TPE services start, and the Leicester/Nottingham services moved to the West Midlands Franchise (possibly also the Stansteads).

DfT don't mind about rolling stock (week they do but more later) as that is down to the TOC's.

DfT don't care about scraping trains early, especially if they can boast about how many extra seats they have made the TOC provide.

As I've said before the Guildford services don't alter fleet availablity and are fairly popular. There would have to be a fairly good reason to remove then, why would you remove them?

 

[cle]

With the dive-under at Reading now, could it ever be worth (in time) starting 1tph back from Guildford instead of terminating at Reading? Enough demand? Stock?

Not going down the Brighton rabbithole (!), but it’s not dissimilar to running to Basingstoke, and it’s a more important rail market.

 

[The Ham]

With the dive-under at Reading now, could it ever be worth (in time) starting 1tph back from Guildford instead of terminating at Reading? Enough demand? Stock?

Not going down the Brighton rabbithole (!), but it’s not dissimilar to running to Basingstoke, and it’s a more important rail market.

It's quite dissimilar to Basingstoke:

- XC would rather go beyond Basingstoke to Winchester and the south coast. There's little or no scope to go south from Guildford
- there's some quite large places which can get to Basingstoke directly which either can't get to Reading or it isn't well served (Andover, Salisbury, Farnborough). For Guildford, although this has Portsmouth, it is often quicker (and a more frequent service) to go into London and back out again.


If you were to serve Guildford (where the whole borough council is circa 100,000) there could be an argument for serving one of Blackwater, Farnborough North or North Camp as they would give access to an urban area of circa 250,000 (some of which includes some of those who live in the Guildford Borough).

 

[nw1]

One thing that would help XC is to make a change which doesn't alter their trains or calling patterns, that being extend more GWR services to Banbury.

By doing so it would give people from Reading, Oxford and the south coast the option of using the Chiltern services to head north from Banbury. This would remove some passengers from the XC services. Although the numbers wouldn't be a lot of would free up some seats.

Something along those lines would be my thought. In an ideal world, run one XC fast from Oxford to Birmingham to speed up long-distance journeys and extend a GWR Oxford terminator in the same part of the hour to Banbury, preserving Reading/Oxford to Banbury frequency.

However I recognise that there might not be a GWR Oxford terminator at the 'right' time in the hour, so a sensible plan given the constraints we have is as you say, to extend the GWR to Banbury (to make the Chiltern option easier) and not alter the XC calling pattern.

I would still be in favour, whatever the case, of XC taking over the Birmingham-WCML-Scotland route to allow through fast journeys to WCML stations and Scotland from the south and SW (maybe alternating Bournemouth and Plymouth as the southern destination); however. This route, rather than predominantly-diesel routes, could be a priority for new stock to allow electric running north of Birmingham: it could use 800/802 or something similar.

 

[ScotTrains]

The last time I was on a XC train, it was standing only as we left Glasgow. The guard refused to let people board at Motherwell as the train was so crammed.

How about having the XC trains from Glasgow go down the WCML to Carlisle then over to Leeds, Sheffield etc via the s&c? This would allow longer LNER trains to be extended to Glasgow thus easing congestion on the Glasgow to Edinburgh and the North East routes, whilst maintaining all previous direct links.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The answer is to stop pretending that XC is an "Inter-city" service in the way that East Coast, West Coast, Great Western, and, to some extent, East Midlands are.

XC proper is, but "XC lite" isn't (the former Central Trains routes operated using Class 170s). Those need to be moved to another TOC.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People do get upset about the strangest things. Spend some time in the Snowdon summit cafe to hear all the moans under the sun when people go to the summit of a mountain and find they can’t get the usual range of things they expect in a normal place...

To be fair there are some incredibly good restaurants at the top of mountains in Italy...different mountain ethic there, though (and bigger mountains that necessitate somewhere to stay).

 

[Bletchleyite]

350s is not a terrible shout, they manage Birmingham-Liverpool just fine, and with a shorter stopping pattern to Manchester, passenger amenities wouldn't be such a concern. A service with one stop (Crewe or Stoke) would do the run so quickly, that commuter stock is fine as a PIXC-type capacity buster. If it was 1h20 mins, I could probably even handle a 319. And at 8 cars, it'd be way more useful than the Voyagers.

It would be a good use for the spare 350/2s with the seats swapped to 2+2 with tables (2+1 in 1st). They could be maintained at the Siemens shop in Manchester, too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. There'll be someone who thinks its a good idea though !

I'd withdraw freebies altogether other than maybe tea/coffee/water and make the First Class fare more affordable. Just serve the general buffet menu on proper crockery/cutlery, or if that's not feasible use the heavy grade recyclable wood-fibre plates and wooden cutlery.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd withdraw freebies altogether other than maybe tea/coffee/water and make the First Class fare more affordable. Just serve the general buffet menu on proper crockery/cutlery, or if that's not feasible use the heavy grade recyclable wood-fibre plates and wooden cutlery.

Yes, there's an argument for that approach as well. Infact, I tend to use those products which have a more reasonable headline price and few freebies anyway.

 

[Butts]

I'd withdraw freebies altogether other than maybe tea/coffee/water and make the First Class fare more affordable. Just serve the general buffet menu on proper crockery/cutlery, or if that's not feasible use the heavy grade recyclable wood-fibre plates and wooden cutlery.

1st Class Advance Fares are often Very Affordable - hands off the Free Scotch !!!

 

[swt_passenger]

XC proper is, but "XC lite" isn't (the former Central Trains routes operated using Class 170s). Those need to be moved to another TOC.

I used the main NE to SW route a great deal in the 70s, and wouldn’t say it ever really had the same inter city look and feel as the main London routes.

Definitely agree the ex Central routes are not equivalent to main XC at all.

 

[swt_passenger]

With the dive-under at Reading now, could it ever be worth (in time) starting 1tph back from Guildford instead of terminating at Reading? Enough demand? Stock?

Not going down the Brighton rabbithole (!), but it’s not dissimilar to running to Basingstoke, and it’s a more important rail market.

It isn’t pathable as a fast service on top of the 3 tph GWR service.
The 4 tph SWR service to Reading makes it even less likely.
XC would rather extend to Southampton if they could.

 

[cle]

My suggestion of Guildford was thinking as a quick turn, if stock wasn’t available to go all the way to Southampton. Hence using Basingstoke as a a comparison, which is about 30 mins away from Reading too (which a non-stop Guildford might be).

Plus Guildford has a very healthy economy (population figures, as ever on this board, are only one element of demand and usage), with inbound commuting and good jobs, more so than Basingstoke, and is not as well served to places other than the mainline route (and North Downs).

 

[tbtc]

But if the Swiss decided that they needed to add in a set of genuinely fast services they would first of all decided what additional infrastructure they would need to provide the service reliably, then build it, then introduce the service. That's the way their planning is done. No way would a Manchester situation have been allowed to develop in Switzerland

The Swiss railway is pretty small compared to the complex/ large UK network. It's about the size of one UK TOC.

As I see it, the medium/long term for XC is going to be taking a lot of the biggest flows north of Birmingham off it when HS2 opens (e.g. Birmingham to Leeds will come down to an hour, one train Manchester to Birmingham will have significantly more seats than an hour's worth of current trains). That's the infrastructure required. It's coming (but it won't be fast).

So, for me, the question is how we treat XC over the next ten/fifteen years, before HS2 - it's not realistic to start four tracking all of the network so that we can have some German/Swiss wonder-timetable with several different tiers of services - how do we balance the short/longer flows on XC over the next ten/fifteen years, how do we balance the needs of regular commuters with the nebulous wishes of people who might want a direct service to places like Paignton for a holiday every few years. That kind of thing.

Services between cities like Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, and Edinburgh should be every bit as high quality (if that's what modern stock is supposed to be) as services between those cities and London.

Really?

Should Edinburgh - Glasgow (on ScotRail) be as high quality as services from London to those places?

Should Leeds - Manchester (on TPE) be as high quality as services from London to those places?

Should Bristol - Cardiff (on GWR) be as high quality as services from London to those places?

Where do you draw the line?

However , Manchester - Birmingham - connecting 2 vibrant and flourishing economies is not best served by "expensive" Voyagers. A stand alone operation - electrically powered - makes (to me) considerable sense. The SRA at the time had too many complex issues to deal with , and it was more or less left alone. Ideal turf for a 379 or similar package. More affordable IMHO.

Makes sense to me.

Run it as part of a common pool of EMUs designed for longer distance travel with the Liverpool - Birmingham service too.

Half hourly eight/ten coach EMUs from Manchester to Birmingham is more important than the preservation of through services to Bournemouth/ Penzance.

Not going down the Brighton rabbithole (!), but it’s not dissimilar to running to Basingstoke, and it’s a more important rail market.

The difference (in my eyes) is that Brighton is on a horribly busy "metro" railway where everything is crammed in to clockface timetables - there seems to be no room for a few randomly timed XC services. You could run one-a-day things like the Kensington Olympia - Brighton route twenty years ago, but the railway is too busy for them now.

The only option to link Brighton to Birmingham (for me) would be either to run Brighton - Clapham Junction - Westfield - Watford - Birmingham services (replacing existing Southern services from Brighton to Clapham Junction and existing LNW services from Watford to Birmingham) or give XC responsibility for the North Downs line to Gatwick and then terminate some London - Brighton services at Gatwick to free up regular paths for XC to the coast.

Both of those seem to cause more problems than they solve, and both seem unnecessarily complicated ways of linking Birmingham with the seaside, but that's the only way I could see it working. There's no room for us to accommodate the kind of esoteric services XC used to run in Network South East days.

I would still be in favour, whatever the case, of XC taking over the Birmingham-WCML-Scotland route to allow through fast journeys to WCML stations and Scotland from the south and SW (maybe alternating Bournemouth and Plymouth as the southern destination); however. This route, rather than predominantly-diesel routes, could be a priority for new stock to allow electric running north of Birmingham: it could use 800/802 or something similar.

Those are busy services north of Birmingham (busier nowadays than they were when VTXC ran), and cutting them would cause capacity issues on "fast" London - Glasgow services (since the 9XXX through the West Midlands can be a dumping ground for cheaper tickets).

Then there's the issue that the stock presumably wouldn't have tilt enabled, meaning it'd be limited to 110mph on the WCML (rather than the 125mph tilting trains currently used).

The last time I was on a XC train, it was standing only as we left Glasgow. The guard refused to let people board at Motherwell as the train was so crammed

Given the high frequency of ScotRail services from Glasgow to Edinburgh, I'd be interested in the circumstances of an XC service being so busy that people couldn't board - normally they are so quiet that they can dump cheap tickets on it to undercut ScotRail.

Glasgow to Edinburgh isn't XC's problem to solve.

How about having the XC trains from Glasgow go down the WCML to Carlisle then over to Leeds, Sheffield etc via the s&c? This would allow longer LNER trains to be extended to Glasgow thus easing congestion on the Glasgow to Edinburgh and the North East routes, whilst maintaining all previous direct links.

The S&C is only set up for 75mph operation and fairly busy south of Shipley, as well as not serving anywhere large until it gets to Leeds (compared to the current route via Edinburgh/ Newcastle).

XC proper is, but "XC lite" isn't (the former Central Trains routes operated using Class 170s). Those need to be moved to another TOC.

Why though?

Nobody is suggesting that ScotRail can't operate InterCity services with HSTs as well as the common-or-garden Glasgow commuter services.

GWR seem to manage branch lines as well as main line trains.

Taking the Central Citylink services away from XC leaves a fairly small franchise, as well as creating more mess of the franchise map (depending on who you give them to).

I used the main NE to SW route a great deal in the 70s, and wouldn’t say it ever really had the same inter city look and feel as the main London routes

I don't remember the services now defined as "Cross Country" being on a par with the proper InterCity (i.e. London) services - they always seemed to be getting cascaded trains (hence the marketing people suggesting that the "Cinderella" operation would be transformed into a "Princess") - which is why I don't buy the idea that XC must provide the same speeds/ quality as the "London" InterCity TOCs.

Maybe XC and TPE should be on the same benchmark, that sounds reasonable, but the business market and 125mph stretches of track are fairly insignificant on XC.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Swiss railway is pretty small compared to the complex/ large UK network. It's about the size of one UK TOC.

It is, and roughly the size of Northern and TPE with a similar mix and layout of urban and rural, too. So it's actually a very good comparison.

But the Manchester debacle has its own thread

 

[swt_passenger]

My suggestion of Guildford was thinking as a quick turn, if stock wasn’t available to go all the way to Southampton. Hence using Basingstoke as a a comparison, which is about 30 mins away from Reading too (which a non-stop Guildford might be).

Plus Guildford has a very healthy economy (population figures, as ever on this board, are only one element of demand and usage), with inbound commuting and good jobs, more so than Basingstoke, and is not as well served to places other than the mainline route (and North Downs).

To go to Basingstoke or Guildford every two hours (assuming you retain the existing Southampton extension) would require one extra unit available per day, if sticking to whole numbers. But one train per day would also allow an extension to Southampton every two hours.

 

[nw1]

To go to Basingstoke or Guildford every two hours (assuming you retain the existing Southampton extension) would require one extra unit available per day, if sticking to whole numbers. But one train per day would also allow an extension to Southampton every two hours.

It isn’t pathable as a fast service on top of the 3 tph GWR service.
The 4 tph SWR service to Reading makes it even less likely.
XC would rather extend to Southampton if they could.

The interesting question (to which I don't know the answer) would be, is there more demand for increasing the frequency of the GWR service to three an hour, or to deal with capacity problems on the GWR by doubling up the units and introducing a new two-hourly XC from Guildford? Or even just have one every four hours or so, at key times of day?

I don't know, but I can imagine there would be demand for the latter particularly if it stopped at somewhere like North Camp also as suggested above; you'd be offering links to the Midlands and possibly the North for quite a lot of that part of Surrey and Hampshire.

I would argue (as a Southampton resident) that we already have enough XC services from here and I'd be quite happy to share them out a bit as long as we get good links to Reading (e.g. an hourly Southampton to Reading shuttle run by SWR or GWR together with the Bournemouth XC); the only problem is that they are too short. The Bournemouth-Manchesters really need to be 10-12 coaches.

 

[DanTrain]

The last time I was on a XC train, it was standing only as we left Glasgow. The guard refused to let people board at Motherwell as the train was so crammed.

How about having the XC trains from Glasgow go down the WCML to Carlisle then over to Leeds, Sheffield etc via the s&c? This would allow longer LNER trains to be extended to Glasgow thus easing congestion on the Glasgow to Edinburgh and the North East routes, whilst maintaining all previous direct links.

That's quite a nice idea, but would require a) more stock (as I think it would have to be additional to the current route) and b) capacity/speed upgrades on the S&C.

The other issue is whether it would ever be quicker than a change at Manchester/Preston/Wigan/Warrington onto the WCML. Given XC already have a painstakingly slow train to Glasgow from Leeds, do they really need another? I'm not sure that the market is so great that another service is needed.

Out of interest, do you know where all the people on that train were going? Commuters to Edinburgh, travelling to Newcastle/Durham/York or going all the way down to Leeds/Sheffield/Derby? I'd be suprised personally if many travelled beyond York, as it is twice the price from Leeds (compared to S&C then VT) and it is both over 3 times the price and slightly longer from Sheffield (compared to EMT to Warrington then VT from there). I'm comparing advances here for the record.

Perhaps if XC lowered there prices a bit, they might become more competetive and things like this would work. Perhaps an emulation of the Ouigo service that SCNF run would work, running a slower route for a large discount? In which case the S&C would be the optimal route (if you're really trying, perhaps the line via Dunfries too!).

 

[ScotTrains]

Out of interest, do you know where all the people on that train were going? Commuters to Edinburgh, travelling to Newcastle/Durham/York or going all the way down to Leeds/Sheffield/Derby? I'd be suprised personally if many travelled beyond York

The XC trains are regularly packed, I can't remember the last time I didn't see people standing. I often get the 1100 departure but the 0900 can be just as busy. At a guess I would say about 1/3 get off at Edinburgh. I often have a quick glance at the seat reservations and would say most (going beyond Edinburgh) are to the North East (England), I don't usually see any beyond York, though there have been some. I think extending the LNER trains to Glasgow would help. Perhaps alternate LNER/XC every hour, rather than the current 1 train per 2hr.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

With the dive-under at Reading now, could it ever be worth (in time) starting 1tph back from Guildford instead of terminating at Reading? Enough demand? Stock?

Not going down the Brighton rabbithole (!), but it’s not dissimilar to running to Basingstoke, and it’s a more important rail market.

The key issue with Guildford, at least during the day, is the impact on pathing for the new 3rd train per hour that GWR want to run / are being made to run which will be an 'Express'.

Whilst it would be grand to have said Express run with a Voyager every hour and connecting Guildford up, it would be at the expense of a much faster Reading to Gatwick and it's not overly crew efficient as the crew that sign the route are based down in Bournemouth.

The Southampton service going hourly might be quite the improvement; although pathing is a bit difficult down that way. The only alternative would be for some freight to go via Laverstock once an hour?

 

[3141]

I used the main NE to SW route a great deal in the 70s, and wouldn’t say it ever really had the same inter city look and feel as the main London routes.

Definitely agree the ex Central routes are not equivalent to main XC at all.

It lacks the genuine inter-city feel today, too. I've used XC from Overton (change to XC at Basingstoke) several times to get to Birmingham or Manchester. The journey to Manchester takes pretty much the same time as going via London and Virgin West Coast, and that includes the hour allowed by the journey planner between Waterloo and departure from Euston. There are twelve station calls before Manchester. That's the same as the number going via London, but that figure includes the tube. Then there's the particularly slow and often crowded section from Leamington Spa through Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street and Wolverhampton. Those are the reasons why I said we should stop thinking of it as an inter-city operation.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Southampton service going hourly might be quite the improvement; although pathing is a bit difficult down that way. The only alternative would be for some freight to go via Laverstock once an hour?

Which is exactly the point made in the two applicable route studies. I think this endless debate about Guildford and XC is a waste of time. It has been rehashed at least once a year since I joined the forum, and it is obviously on its way out, as per the last XC consultation for Dec 2017, and the route studies. All the options are about supporting XC to the South Coast via Basingstoke, and not to Guildford.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Which is exactly the point made in the two applicable route studies. I think this endless debate about Guildford and XC is a waste of time. It has been rehashed at least once a year since I joined the forum, and it is obviously on its way out, as per the last XC consultation for Dec 2017, and the route studies. All the options are about supporting XC to the South Coast via Basingstoke, and not to Guildford.

And if you're in Guildford and will have access to one fast and one semi-fast per hour to Reading, there's a good chance of some decent connections onto stuff coming up from the South Coast to take you to anywhere like Brum, Manchester and Newcastle. If I lived in Guildford, however, I'd probably go via London!

 

[XC victim]

It is very interesting to note that the Manchester to Bournemouth services are not particularly used as a Manchester to Birmingham service. This may well be because the Manchester to Bristol service leaves Manchester only 20 mins before the Bournemouth service.

But the Bournemouth service often leaves Manchester a little over half full and yet is full with standing passengers by the time the train gets to Stafford and Wolverhampton. I have also noticed that the majority of passengers do not alight
at Birmingham but go on to Coventry, Leamington, Oxford, Reading and even Southampton.

This is compounded by passengers from the NorthWest having to change at Wolverhampton from virgin service onto CrossCountry services. I have often travelled from Lancaster on a half empty 11 coach pendolino service down to Wolverhampton then changed at Wolverhampton along with about 50 others piling on to an already overcrowded 4 coach voyager for the South Coast.

There is obviously a market for travel along CrossCountry services from & to intermediate stations, a market that is not going to be served by operating 8 coach EMUs just between Manchester and Birmingham.

 

[DanTrain]

The XC trains are regularly packed, I can't remember the last time I didn't see people standing. I often get the 1100 departure but the 0900 can be just as busy. At a guess I would say about 1/3 get off at Edinburgh. I often have a quick glance at the seat reservations and would say most (going beyond Edinburgh) are to the North East (England), I don't usually see any beyond York, though there have been some. I think extending the LNER trains to Glasgow would help. Perhaps alternate LNER/XC every hour, rather than the current 1 train per 2hr.

+1 sounds like a good idea to me! Also provides competition to VTWC from Glasgow

 

[DanTrain]

It is very interesting to note that the Manchester to Bournemouth services are not particularly used as a Manchester to Birmingham service. This may well be because the Manchester to Bristol service leaves Manchester only 20 mins before the Bournemouth service.

But the Bournemouth service often leaves Manchester a little over half full and yet is full with standing passengers by the time the train gets to Stafford and Wolverhampton. I have also noticed that the majority of passengers do not alight
at Birmingham but go on to Coventry, Leamington, Oxford, Reading and even Southampton.

This is compounded by passengers from the NorthWest having to change at Wolverhampton from virgin service onto CrossCountry services. I have often travelled from Lancaster on a half empty 11 coach pendolino service down to Wolverhampton then changed at Wolverhampton along with about 50 others piling on to an already overcrowded 4 coach voyager for the South Coast.

There is obviously a market for travel along CrossCountry services from & to intermediate stations, a market that is not going to be served by operating 8 coach EMUs just between Manchester and Birmingham.

Is there room to run a Wolves - South Coast service? This would at least be a half-way house, allowing a simpler connection at Wolves onto a waiting train and freeing up space at New Street. It is hard to get it right though, as really both Mancehster and Liverpool should have direct services to the South Coast and South West, but that isn't possible at the moment!

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The fact is, as it stands, that given LNER have more stock than necessary at this stage (if you take away the Middlesbrough and what not), then you probably have the ability to extend the semi-fast Edinburghs to Glasgow every hour. Good for connectivity, allows the XC services to short to Edinburgh only. Aberdeen also doesn't need any XC services, if we're blunt. The key user of Aberdeen - Edinburgh is passengers going to Edinburgh who could use the new HSTs and connect onto XC at Waverley...

 

[cle]

One reason why more via Basingstoke (which I support too) may be difficult is that it crops up a lot in Heathrow future discussions. Guildford does too, not not via the North Downs.

Guildford trumps Basingstoke alone (which was what I was saying, as an alt option) but not when adding Winchester, Parkway and Soton Central, of course. But that’s a two hour return journey from Basingstoke ostensibly.