Suggestions on how to improve CrossCountry

[swt_passenger]

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.

The way it works out is the Reading to Southampton extension ‘running time’ there and back is approximately two hours, but of course the normal platform layover time at Reading between southbound arrivals and departures northbound is also moved to Southampton, so each extended service effectively has two and a half hours south of Reading altogether. It all fits together quite neatly...

OTOH I think Guildford is just a bit too far to reliably run there and back in one and a half hours, and probably not far enough to justify use of two and a half hours. Assuming times at Reading are roughly as now of course.

 

[The Ham]

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.

The suggestion was that the EMU's would be to go beyond Birmingham New Street, as such it could (subject to space) go to Coventry. That would at least benefit those going that far.

For those going further there could be more double length Voyagers.

Yes there would be quite a few people who would need to change trains, however there would be quite a bit of extra capacity on quite a few services which would benefit a lot more services.

As I've said it would likely be a fairly short term solution, as even doing so wouldn't be enough and so extra stock would be required. Therefore a short, 18-24 month, solution until new trains can start to be delivered.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I am very late to this party but my tuppence on the matter is that the main flaw with CrossCountry's current setup is all the straggly little journeys that occur all over its route. A train can be dead from (originating at) Plymouth to Taunton, then wedged out to Temple Meads, at a comfortable level of capacity from there to New St, busy to Derby, empty to Sheffield, absolutely full and standing to York, and then hardly a soul on it up towards Newcastle and Scotland. Some Manchester to Bournemouths are more than easily covered by 4 cars until Stoke, when it resembles the stereotypical Indian railway as far as Amazingstoke. Half of the Reading-Newcastles are dead until they hit Birmingham. It is exceptionally difficult to win when the cards are dealt like that.

A brand new fleet of 7/8/9-car IEPs is the dream were money no object, but the fact of the matter is that aside from a core around Birmingham (say the Manchester / Sheffield-Leeds / Bristol / Reading polygon) and maybe 20-30 minute legs here and there nationwide, they would be deserted; hemorrhaging money and resource.

The solution isn't adding 'fast' Birmingham-Leeds or Birmingham-Reading, serving only Derby and Sheffield, or just Oxford: the existing infrastructure struggles to cope as it is without wedging in more half-empty 8-car IEPs from Birmingham to [station] onto the graph because someone has to stand from Leamington to Oxford: Bristol to Birmingham averages 60mph and the lines to Derby, Manchester and towards leamington deal with a myriad of local services, freights, depots and flat junctions, there simply isn't the resource to start throwing even more
trains around.
I would err down the side of getting XC down to a core network of Birmingham-Edinburgh (maybe even Newcastle once TPE et al turn up) / Manchester / Bournemouth (Southampton?) / Plymouth, and whether by ticket restrictions or other resource (hell of a lot easier for a 11-car 390 to suck up Coventry commuters for 20 minutes than a 4-car Voyager, or cascade DMUs to the West to aid additional Taunton-Bristol provision etc.) try and keep local hop journeys away and leave the majority of the provision of CrossCountry to those trying to use it to get cross-country.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I will add, I am a big fan of the Manchester-Birmingham using 379 idea, if not as a blanket provision then at least in some capacity. Exactly the kind of approach that need to be taken.

 

[Senex]

If we were starting with a clean sheet I'd like to see an XC network that joined the top-level cities outside London with one another at speeds as close as possible to those on the "London and ..." axes. My candidates would be Bristol, Cardiff (because it's a capital), Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. Obviously those wouldn't be the only stops, but the aim would be (a) high speeds and the shortest possible journey-times between the major centres (basically those large cities that are flourishing in te modern world), and (b) serving the longer-distance passengers, not short-distance commuters/shoppers using quality rolling stock. Only after this was in place would I think of where these trains might be extended to as a secondary (if still important) aspect of the XC service. Our major economic centres outside London are at present very poorly connected with one another, with times like those between Birmingham and Manchester or Liverpool and Leeds being pretty disgraceful for a modern transport system.

 

[HowardGWR]

Regarding the flows just described, XC must have a very good idea about just how disjointed they are. I must say that on my few XC journeys (Exeter to Leeds) The trains have been packed, all the way, whatever the churn at intermediate points.

 

[HowardGWR]

If we were starting with a clean sheet I'd like to see an XC network that joined the top-level cities outside London with one another at speeds as close as possible to those on the "London and ..." axes. My candidates would be Bristol, Cardiff (because it's a capital), Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. Obviously those wouldn't be the only stops, but the aim would be (a) high speeds and the shortest possible journey-times between the major centres (basically those large cities that are flourishing in te modern world), and (b) serving the longer-distance passengers, not short-distance commuters/shoppers using quality rolling stock. Only after this was in place would I think of where these trains might be extended to as a secondary (if still important) aspect of the XC service. Our major economic centres outside London are at present very poorly connected with one another, with times like those between Birmingham and Manchester or Liverpool and Leeds being pretty disgraceful for a modern transport system.

I agree totally. Keep the intermediate and extraneous stops for regional services.

 

[The Ham]

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.

I reckon that if you added wires (or third rail) on the WofE line and reversed any services which terminate at Basingstoke by running through the station and back you could remove some of the flat crossings.

By removing those flat crossings you free up capacity, add that to the junction works which will also increase capacity and you may have enough scope to have 2tph for XC as well as the potential 4tph for Heathrow services (2 via the Western Approach and 2 via the Southern Approach).

You also gain a more frequent service to stations along the WofE line. Probably the Basingstoke Stoppers calling all stations to Salisbury whilst the Southern Approach services turn around at (say) a reopened Oakley station.

Even allowing for 2tph for freight that's 8tph on a two line track, which should be possible.

 

[AndrewE]

I personally would much prefer to see a semi-fast ("InterRegio") service, and also a genuinely fast service between the major centres. But I wouldn't be happy about seeing Manchester-Birmingham, for example, provided by 350-type emus with their 2/3 doors etc. 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.

Absolutely agree.

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?

Why on earth not? We don't pay a lower rate of income tax to compensate us because we get poorer provision of almost everything!

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.

Why should the people that live and work (and pay their taxes) in "the provinces" automatically accept a lower standard of provision? It's the sort of thing that leads businesses and other "opinion-formers" to always look for a base in the south-east and forget that there is a whole country to be considered.

 

[swt_passenger]

If we were starting with a clean sheet I'd like to see an XC network that joined the top-level cities outside London with one another at speeds as close as possible to those on the "London and ..." axes. My candidates would be Bristol, Cardiff (because it's a capital), Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. Obviously those wouldn't be the only stops, but the aim would be (a) high speeds and the shortest possible journey-times between the major centres (basically those large cities that are flourishing in te modern world), and (b) serving the longer-distance passengers, not short-distance commuters/shoppers using quality rolling stock. Only after this was in place would I think of where these trains might be extended to as a secondary (if still important) aspect of the XC service. Our major economic centres outside London are at present very poorly connected with one another, with times like those between Birmingham and Manchester or Liverpool and Leeds being pretty disgraceful for a modern transport system.

Will save a whole load of rolling stock by ignoring SE of New St? Are all those passengers screwed?

 

[HowardGWR]

Will save a whole load of rolling stock by ignoring SE of New St? Are all those passengers screwed?

I certainly think that starting with the core NE to SW link and then seeing what can be done thereafter, is the sensible approach. Joining and splitting at Brum could be considered.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

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.

Totally and utterly agree - that would make a great competitor to the M/way (which is what it is all about really) - and a volume train of EMU's could attract some decent priced ticket strategy. I sense the West Midlands market to the Thames Valley / West Country is fairly self contained. (and can be interworked to the Derby corridor)

 

[Senex]

Will save a whole load of rolling stock by ignoring SE of New St? Are all those passengers screwed?

Not at all — they should get served by a proper semi-fast quality service linking secondary centres — the job that Germany's InterRegio (IR) trains were beginning to do very well before Hartmut Mehdorn's rule-the-world railway ambitions led to a loss of interest.

 

[Senex]

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.

Totally and utterly agree - that would make a great competitor to the M/way (which is what it is all about really) - and a volume train of EMU's could attract some decent priced ticket strategy. I sense the West Midlands market to the Thames Valley / West Country is fairly self contained. (and can be interworked to the Derby corridor)

It was speeds in competition with the motorways (properly seen as the real competition) that Operation Princess wanted to deliver, and that was the reason for the very important component of the programme that was the route upgrading element — which was not done (save for tilt between Oxford and Banbury and 125 between Bushbury Jn and Stafford). But a major part of the aim there was to attract business traffic, and I don't think you get that with a volume train of EMUs. I wonder if West Midlands to Thames Valley is indeed largely self-contained. That is what was done, IIRC, with the 1967 timetable, though keeping one from Manchester and one from Newcastle through. As for the West Country, do you include Bristol or do you mean places beyond Bristol? I'd see Bristol as one of the successful major cities that should be generating a decent flow of traffic to and from the other successful major cities.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well as long as Liverpool gets added, we can drop everything south east of New St.

Yep, that’ll fly with DfT.

 

[The Ham]

It was speeds in competition with the motorways (properly seen as the real competition) that Operation Princess wanted to deliver, and that was the reason for the very important component of the programme that was the route upgrading element — which was not done (save for tilt between Oxford and Banbury and 125 between Bushbury Jn and Stafford). But a major part of the aim there was to attract business traffic, and I don't think you get that with a volume train of EMUs. I wonder if West Midlands to Thames Valley is indeed largely self-contained. That is what was done, IIRC, with the 1967 timetable, though keeping one from Manchester and one from Newcastle through. As for the West Country, do you include Bristol or do you mean places beyond Bristol? I'd see Bristol as one of the successful major cities that should be generating a decent flow of traffic to and from the other successful major cities.

You certainly aren't going to attract business passengers if they can't get a seat.

Most business passengers have to travel by the cheapest method, so if that means that they go by the (basically) same type of train they get to get to the office over part of the leg of the journey from Basingstoke to Manchester it's not going to make much difference to them.

Also with 430 seats XC could afford to offer reduced ticket prices to compensate for the need to change, say, 10% off for those who book direct with them a journey starting south of Oxford and Cheltenham which used an EMU for part of their journey.

As well as, say, 5% off all tickets which are only on the EMU's (again booked direct) That would attract people from some of the other services who then may not switch back once new longer trains come along.

The discounts would make a big difference to XC, but all those direct tickets and extra ticket sales would.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

You certainly aren't going to attract business passengers if they can't get a seat.

Most business passengers have to travel by the cheapest method, so if that means that they go by the (basically) same type of train they get to get to the office over part of the leg of the journey from Basingstoke to Manchester it's not going to make much difference to them.

Also with 430 seats XC could afford to offer reduced ticket prices to compensate for the need to change, say, 10% off for those who book direct with them a journey starting south of Oxford and Cheltenham which used an EMU for part of their journey.

As well as, say, 5% off all tickets which are only on the EMU's (again booked direct) That would attract people from some of the other services who then may not switch back once new longer trains come along.

The discounts would make a big difference to XC, but all those direct tickets and extra ticket sales would.

Exactly what I was thinking - XC's "business" travel is fairly low in any case , around 8% or so - nice big trains with air con and seats a plenty in say a 379 / 350 would be a winner IMHO.

(we can argue /debate Cross Brum links later . - but as a volume flow - hard to beat Brum to Manchester or Liverpool , not to say that the LNW offer is all bad at the moment) ...

 

[cle]

Does anyone have stats on flows from Birmingham to the main XC stations? I’d be curious to see how Manchester and Liverpool compare with Sheffield and Leeds, and Bristol/Reading - and also the outer metro calls like Stockport too.

 

[B&I]

Absolutely agree.
Why on earth not? We don't pay a lower rate of income tax to compensate us because we get poorer provision of almost everything!Why should the people that live and work (and pay their taxes) in "the provinces" automatically accept a lower standard of provision? It's the sort of thing that leads businesses and other "opinion-formers" to always look for a base in the south-east and forget that there is a whole country to be considered.

Quite. The inferiority complex among some dwellers in 'the provinces' (as if the south-east wasn't just another province) is stunning.

In the context of this particular debate, I'd like to see Liverpool's services upgraded to the standard of Manchester's (by portion-working a 5 car inter-city standard bi-mode from each city, joining at Crewe or Stafford, and heading for the south west or south coast), not Manchester's services downgraded to the glorified outer-suburban service which currently links Liverpool to most points south. The suburban EMUs should be running on suburban services out of the major cities, not plugging the gaps between them

 

[TheWalrus]

Surely the easiest way to improve CrossCountry is to take on the remaining redundant HSTs for 5-10 years until 802s can be built and delivered, and double up 220s for the busy sections? And if there’s enough maybe replace some 170s?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the context of this particular debate, I'd like to see Liverpool's services upgraded to the standard of Manchester's (by portion-working a 5 car inter-city standard bi-mode from each city, joining at Crewe or Stafford, and heading for the south west or south coast), not Manchester's services downgraded to the glorified outer-suburban service which currently links Liverpool to most points south. The suburban EMUs should be running on suburban services out of the major cities, not plugging the gaps between them

This is just door-position prejudice. A 350 is a decent 110mph unit, whether it's InterCity or not just depends on what seats you put in it. I find a 350/1 more comfortable than a Pendolino.

 

[6Gman]

Quite. The inferiority complex among some dwellers in 'the provinces' (as if the south-east wasn't just another province) is stunning.

In the context of this particular debate, I'd like to see Liverpool's services upgraded to the standard of Manchester's (by portion-working a 5 car inter-city standard bi-mode from each city, joining at Crewe or Stafford, and heading for the south west or south coast), not Manchester's services downgraded to the glorified outer-suburban service which currently links Liverpool to most points south. The suburban EMUs should be running on suburban services out of the major cities, not plugging the gaps between them

Please don't start splitting and (more importantly) joining at Crewe. The potential for disruption would be huge.

 

[6Gman]

This is just door-position prejudice. A 350 is a decent 110mph unit, whether it's InterCity or not just depends on what seats you put in it. I find a 350/1 more comfortable than a Pendolino.

I've done Crewe - Euston on a 350/1. It was fine.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Surely the easiest way to improve CrossCountry is to take on the remaining redundant HSTs for 5-10 years until 802s can be built and delivered, and double up 220s for the busy sections? And if there’s enough maybe replace some 170s?

No offence - but that might sort some of today's issues out - but what is needed is a good hard look at the flows , what XC does well , and what it does not - and put resources and train service plans accordingly.

Let us not forget , that the original XC franchise as planned by Virgin was a huge leap of faith , in what was basically a loss making franchise / operation - even in BR days. Whatever one says about Arriva , they have kept up a challenging operation and delivered a "premium" to the DfT . No mean task.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I've done Crewe - Euston on a 350/1. It was fine.

Me too - plan to just do Crewe - RY , but was happy to stay on and observe "operations" - decent enough units to be fair. Bread and butter .....etc.

 

[cle]

Splitting and joining is pointless for Brum - Liverpool/Manchester journeys. I don't mind the newest EMUs. The fact is that on sub-2 hour journeys, they're pretty standard.

Liverpool's stopping pattern to Birmingham is quite pitiful for an ex-inter city route, I do agree. It's an important service for the intermediate places, but again perhaps a fast each hour would be useful too. Not sure on volumes.

 

[The Ham]

Surely the easiest way to improve CrossCountry is to take on the remaining redundant HSTs for 5-10 years until 802s can be built and delivered, and double up 220s for the busy sections? And if there’s enough maybe replace some 170s?

The problem is that the HST's need works doing to then to be used post 2019, the 350's or any other spare EMU could be used "out of the box".

Chances are by the time many HST's could be brought into service new trains could have been delivered, and certainly in significant numbers quite quickly after an initial period.

 

[B&I]

This is just door-position prejudice. A 350 is a decent 110mph unit, whether it's InterCity or not just depends on what seats you put in it. I find a 350/1 more comfortable than a Pendolino.

I find Chinese water torture more comfortable than a Pendolino.

I'm fine with 350s as long as they're 2+2 seating, but 3+2 for a 1 hr 45 min journey is inadequate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm fine with 350s as long as they're 2+2 seating, but 3+2 for a 1 hr 45 min journey is inadequate.

I do agree; I'd propose them to be reseated to 2+2 with roughly half tables and half airline using the Class 350/1 style seats (Grammer E3000) and 2+1 First Class using whatever the seats are that TPE have used in the 185s. They would also do well to add a half-bay luggage rack per section i.e. 3 per coach. It might also make sense to move the 1st into the coach with the accessible toilet (the other middle coach from where it is now) so wheelchair spaces can be provided in both classes.

That would create a perfectly good InterCity train for a journey of under two hours. Run in pairs and that's tons of capacity - it would be popular.

There is really no need to get hung up on door positions.

 

[B&I]

Splitting and joining is pointless for Brum - Liverpool/Manchester journeys. I don't mind the newest EMUs. The fact is that on sub-2 hour journeys, they're pretty standard.

Liverpool's stopping pattern to Birmingham is quite pitiful for an ex-inter city route, I do agree. It's an important service for the intermediate places, but again perhaps a fast each hour would be useful too. Not sure on volumes.

Which is why I was suggesting splitting and joining a longer-distance service, as an alternative to downgrading Manchester's XC services to a slow shuttle, Liverpool-style. I am.conscious of the disadvantages of aplitting and joining, but I'm conscious as well of the limited paths through Brum, the difficulties that creates for restoring Liverpool-only through services, and the extreme overcrowding which can arise through both axes of the XC core, to which an application of 10 coach services could prove useful.

I would envisage the Liverpool XC portions replacing the half-hourly LNWR service as the through Liverpool-Brum train (continuing to the south coast and south west each hour with the Manchester portions. These would then be supplemented, as capacity allows, with Liverpool-Crewe-Stoke and Brum-Crewe stoppers, the latter perhaps proceeding escoterically via Walsall or Stoke.