Cross Country's capacity issues: how could they be solved?

[The Planner]

There is indeed, the 06:27 Manchester Piccadilly - London Euston, which forms the 08:10 departure from Birmingham New Street. There have been others over the past year or so when engineering works have closed Euston, with Pendolinos operating an hourly Birmingham International - Manchester service in the path of the Bournemouth - Manchester XC service: Having quiet 9 or 11 carriage electric trains on the route was pure bliss in place of the usual overcrowded 4 carriage diesels, and it's a pity that's not possible the rest of the time.

That was done so XC could strengthen to accomodate displaced Virgin customers.

 

[AndrewE]

It failed the financial test because it didn't produce enough additional revenue (extra tickets) to cover the extra cost (new vehicles and commissioning). Seating long distance passengers who already have to stand but have paid doesn't make it into such an analysis. And the diesel on electric argument doesn't enter into it either. I understand that because of what NR charge for electricity, it's cheaper to use diesel fuel (bought from the lowest competitive fuel supply bidder) than their current (bought from a monopoly supplier only at full rate). So another downside for the conversion.

XC Manchester services operate through to Bournemouth or Bristol (or further). That’s presumably why they aren’t operated by EMUs. Splitting the service at New St and forcing changes would probably be seen as a serious degradation of the service by many passengers.

Why increase the congestion at Brum? Doing a cross-platform change at Wolves or COV would be much better. Waiting for a bi-mode train to come along do the job is a guarantee of not doing it.
2 more arguments for scrapping the current industry structure! A rational (ised) railway would recognise the national clean air imperatives and do its best to play its part. Like (just one idea, suggested after reading the posts up-thread) putting better seats into the 365s, running electric Manchester to Coventry and making some type of diesel compatible so that it could work a pair of sets in push-pull mode south of there.
I know... there are multiple TOCs involved, they can't make contracts to hire different rolling stock, it's all in the ownership of different RoSCos anyway, Network Rail wouldn't be able to cope with attaching or detaching engines at Coventry...
We must have the most fossilised and initiative-free railway in the world! I would scrap all the contracts, pay off the parasites if necessary and move forward with one railway that had the flexibility to react to emerging needs.

 

[anamyd]

What stock is cleared for the routes the 170s work, other than 170s...? Asking because maybe CrossCountry could form some mini-HSTs of 4 carriages, of sufficient quantity to make sure that 170s never run single unit...?

 

[quantinghome]

Apologies if this has been suggested previously, but... given the number of Mark 4 carriages now coming off LNER, could these be used on cross-country? They would need different traction given the lack of continuous electrification. How about the Class 88s?

 

[sprinterguy]

That was done so XC could strengthen to accomodate displaced Virgin customers.

Yep, I know. 8-car formations Reading - Birmingham and 9 or 11-car formations Birmingham - Manchester made a very pleasant change.

 

[Aictos]

Instead of HSTs, why not operate the MK4s as the UK version of Austrian Federal Railways Railjets?

 

[AndrewE]

What stock is cleared for the routes the 170s work, other than 170s...? Asking because maybe CrossCountry could form some mini-HSTs of 4 carriages, of sufficient quantity to make sure that 170s never run single unit...?

What would be the point of this? Why not just grab all the full-length HSTs available to run on the NE-SW, which would then allow the dispaced voyagers either to run as pairs on that axis or to replace single units on other lines - which would in turn allow the doubling-up of what are currently 2-car units?

 

[Aictos]

What would be the point of this? Why not just grab all the full-length HSTs available to run on the NE-SW, which would then allow the dispaced voyagers either to run as pairs on that axis or to replace single units on other lines - which would in turn allow the doubling-up of what are currently 2-car units?

I agree, running HSTs of less then 7 coaches on this route is a daft idea - mind you Virgin Trains proposed running short formation HSTs a few years ago when they had the XC franchise in the form of Virgin Challengers.

 

[class26]

Instead of HSTs, why not operate the MK4s as the UK version of Austrian Federal Railways Railjets?

Presumably so they can keep up with Voyager timings?

 

[Aictos]

Presumably so they can keep up with Voyager timings?

But HSTs can’t keep to Voyager timings unless they’re short formed which is why they have their own timings.

 

[anamyd]

What would be the point of this? Why not just grab all the full-length HSTs available to run on the NE-SW, which would then allow the dispaced voyagers either to run as pairs on that axis or to replace single units on other lines - which would in turn allow the doubling-up of what are currently 2-car units?

Perhaps a better idea

 

[TheBigD]

Luxury compared to the Leicester side, which is frequently a 2 car 170

Most services are booked 3 cars SX. Just 9 out of the 35 Birmingham-Leicester(-Stansted) services are 2 cars.

1052, 1152, 1322, 1422, 1609, 1709, 1922, 2025, & 2052 are the services booked for 2 cars. All the remaining services are booked 3 cars (or more).

The 0622, 1352, & 1622 are often short formed of 2 vice 3 though.

 

[pt_mad]

Perhaps the poster was suggesting short HSTs could run on Turbo routes? Could MK4s and HST power cars run on those with say 4 coaches?

 

[cactustwirly]

Most services are booked 3 cars SX. Just 9 out of the 35 Birmingham-Leicester(-Stansted) services are 2 cars.

1052, 1152, 1322, 1422, 1609, 1709, 1922, 2025, & 2052 are the services booked for 2 cars. All the remaining services are booked 3 cars (or more).

The 0622, 1352, & 1622 are often short formed of 2 vice 3 though.

Must be coincidental, all the Stansted - Brum trains I've taken have been 2 carriages.

 

[Ianno87]

Most services are booked 3 cars SX. Just 9 out of the 35 Birmingham-Leicester(-Stansted) services are 2 cars.

1052, 1152, 1322, 1422, 1609, 1709, 1922, 2025, & 2052 are the services booked for 2 cars. All the remaining services are booked 3 cars (or more).

The 0622, 1352, & 1622 are often short formed of 2 vice 3 though.

Must be coincidental, all the Stansted - Brum trains I've taken have been 2 carriages.

The 3 cars are quite well diagrammed for the Birmingham peak. E.g. At New St the 0758, 0845, 0938 arrivals from Cambridge/Stansted and the 1622, 1652, 1722 and 1822 to Stansted are.

So if you're not in this 'wave' its more likely to get a 2 car (e.g. the 1038/1138 New St arrivals and 1322/1422/1922/2025 New St departures are all 2 car I think)

At least 2 car allocations don't have to be diagrammed around Manea calls any more...

 

[anamyd]

Perhaps the poster was suggesting short HSTs could run on Turbo routes? Could MK4s and HST power cars run on those with say 4 coaches?

yes, that is what I meant

 

[pt_mad]

There is suggestion going on in the East Midlands Franchise thread that WMR 170s ought to go to EMR. Would these not be more suitable being taken on by XC?

Also how viable would it be to run double sets to Cambridge and divide there, running the front set to Stansted and then the incoming set from Stansted then couples up to the rear and a double works back to Birmingham?

 

[Ianno87]

There is suggestion going on in the East Midlands Franchise thread that WMR 170s ought to go to EMR. Would these not be more suitable being taken on by XC?

Also how viable would it be to run double sets to Cambridge and divide there, running the front set to Stansted and then the incoming set from Stansted then couples up to the rear and a double works back to Birmingham?

Good luck getting through platform capacity for that at Cambridge. The dropped unit would have to hang around Cambridge for 50 minutes every hour. Never mind the confusion for people boarding with suitcases bound for the Airport.

It only saves one unit anyway compared to just running everything doubled up throughout, and the Stansted leg can have a reasonably healthy load on just by itself.

 

[anamyd]

There is suggestion going on in the East Midlands Franchise thread that WMR 170s ought to go to EMR. Would these not be more suitable being taken on by XC?

I think the outgoing West Midlands 170s are going to East Midlands once the 196s are in service, and they'll be joined by the small handful of "ScotRail / Southern" 170s (/171s). Maybe XC could take the 175s after TfW are done with them to supplement their 170s...? and form more HSTs from ex-GWR vehicles to allow more doubled up 220s...?

 

[pt_mad]

Good luck getting through platform capacity for that at Cambridge. The dropped unit would have to hang around Cambridge for 50 minutes every hour. Never mind the confusion for people boarding with suitcases bound for the Airport.

It only saves one unit anyway compared to just running everything doubled up throughout, and the Stansted leg can have a reasonably healthy load on just by itself.

A double set can't work into Stansted that's the only reason a divide at Cambridge was suggested.

 

[Ianno87]

A double set can't work into Stansted that's the only reason a divide at Cambridge was suggested.

Can it not? I thought Platform 2 was 4 car...

 

[pt_mad]

Can it not? I thought Platform 2 was 4 car...

We need an expert to verify if poss but I think if it's a double set it can't?

The other issue being with all the 3 car 170 sets you'd do well to only book 2+2 on that route all the time.

 

[lammergeier]

We need an expert to verify if poss but I think if it's a double set it can't?

The other issue being with all the 3 car 170 sets you'd do well to only book 2+2 on that route all the time.

There is a 2+2 Stansted diagram on a Sunday, so it's fine. Only station which is an issue is Manea as it's 2 car only, all other stations are at least 3 car which the SDO can handle.

 

[VT 390]

I think the outgoing West Midlands 170s are going to East Midlands once the 196s are in service, and they'll be joined by the small handful of "ScotRail / Southern" 170s (/171s). Maybe XC could take the 175s after TfW are done with them to supplement their 170s...? and form more HSTs from ex-GWR vehicles to allow more doubled up 220s...?

Would it not make more sense to have the 175's go to EMR and the 170's to XC this would keep all the same class together which would be better for switching stock round when there are delays and having more opportunities to have double sets running.

 

[anamyd]

Would it not make more sense to have the 175's go to EMR and the 170's to XC this would keep all the same class together which would be better for switching stock round when there are delays and having more opportunities to have double sets running.

the 175s won't be off TfW until 2022

 

[Rhydgaled]

I could suggest tri-mode stock for Manchester-Bournemouth - but will steer clear of that for the moment! The very idea of suitably modified Class 373 power cars at either end of 7 Mk 5 trailer cars would be really daft.

Well yes, it would be really daft. Slightly less daft if the electric spine had gone ahead would have been taking a bunch of coaches out of some 373s to make them about the length of an IC125 (2+8 or 2+9 formation) for Manchester-Bournemouth, but the current requirement for diesel south of Birmingham kills alot of ideas.

We obviously know that Hitachi, CAF & Stadler can produce new Bi-Mode trains with a minimum of 110mph, can any of the others compete and have capacity to produce a product at short notice without a 3 year lead time when the franchise is re-let in late 2019, early 2020? Bombardier, Siemens & Alstrom what do they have available, do they have many large orders, could they fit in a fairly small XC order in?

CAF? Have they offered a bi-mode for the UK? I understood that it was Bombardier, Hitachi and Stadler offering bi-modes for the Midland Main Line (MML).

Water under the bridge now, but I do sometimes wonder whether XC would have been better as a 100mph railway - too late now I appreciate but IMHO the benefits of brief sections of 125mph running are outweighed by the price that you pay for that (the "crumple zones" that take a chunk out of capacity, the requirement for specialist stock).

The "crumple zones" are why I wonder how similar the class 220s are to 222s... If the entire MML intercity fleet is to be replaced by new bi-modes and all 27 class 222s go to XC could the intermediate class 220 vehicles be inserted into 222s? Most of the leftover class 220 driving vehicles would then be scrapped; less "crumple zones" = more passengers carried per unit of diesel burnt.

If you were to disband 27 class 220s in that way (so no change in the number of units at XC) you could reform the class 222s into 8x 8-car sets and 19x 7-car sets. Refurbish the lot while you're at it, putting a (small) toilet in the former shop from the XC sets and ensuring seats line up with the windows and the seat pitch is reasonable and you might actually end up with some reasonable intercity trains. That'd be phase 1 of my proposal for XC's intercity network. For phase 2, complete GW electrification to Cardiff, Bristol (both routes) and Oxford. I'm assuming that Paddington-Cardiff/Bristol/Oxford would provide sufficient work for GWR to have a fleet of 14 straight EMUs. To provide these, procure 98 new class 80x MS/TSO vehicles from Hitachi; no driving vehicles (we don't want anymore "crumple zones" and GWR also have rather a lot due to all those 5-car sets) and no new diesel engines.

What you do then is take 28 of GWR's 5-car class 800s, remove the three intermediate (MeS) vehicles with diesel engines from half of them and stick them in the other 14 effected GWR 800s. Result: 14x 8-car class 800s with six diesel engines, a reasonable power to weight ratio. The other 14x class 800s (now reduced to useless 2-car sets) would then have the new MS/TSO vehicles added to make them into 9-car class 803 units (not 801, as they wouldn't have a diesel engine for limp-home mode; fit batteries instead) for the GWR electrified routes.

GWR would then be left with:

• 22x 5-car class 802 bi-mode
• 21x 9-car class 800 bi-mode
• 14x 9-car class 802 bi-mode
• 14x 9-car class 803 EMU
• 8x 5-car class 800 bi-mode
• Total 79 units (compared to 93 today, a loss of 14 units but with the capacity doubled on 14 of the remaining units)

And XC would have the following intercity fleet:

• 5x 2+7 IC125
• 14x 8-car class 800
• 8x 8-car class 222
• 19x 7-car class 222
• 20x 5-car class 221
• 4x 4-car class 221
• 7x 4-car class 220

 

[Bletchleyite]

Water under the bridge now, but I do sometimes wonder whether XC would have been better as a 100mph railway

That's very much my inclination. Class 170 vehicles are a lot cheaper than Class 22x, and so XC could have ordered, for the same money, a larger set of longer (say 6 or 7-car) Class 170 sets, or 3s and 4s to form those lengths a la Chiltern. Added to the fact that the 170 makes better use of space and so each vehicle has a far higher capacity than a 22x at the same comfort level, this would have produced a far better, if slightly slower, franchise (who might well have been able to add a few more 17x due to their low cost and long-running production line) which would almost certainly not have had anything like the capacity issues it has had.

I think TPE could be viewed similarly - the 185s were highly expensive, and while 170s would not have been so quick over the Pennine hills they might have been able to afford 4-car to start with and so avoided the major capacity issues caused by 3-car 185s with lower capacity than the 3-car 158s they replaced.

Obviously Virgin won't have been the only bidder, though I can't recall who else would have bidded back in 1995 - possibly Stagecoach and First? (VTXC was wholly Virgin Group at the time, Stagecoach joined in later). I wonder did anyone bid Class 170s instead?

 

[JonathanH]

The "crumple zones" are why I wonder how similar the class 220s are to 222s... If the entire MML intercity fleet is to be replaced by new bi-modes and all 27 class 222s go to XC could the intermediate class 220 vehicles be inserted into 222s? Most of the leftover class 220 driving vehicles would then be scrapped; less "crumple zones" = more passengers carried per unit of diesel burnt.

And XC would have the following intercity fleet:

• 5x 2+7 IC125
• 14x 8-car class 800
• 8x 8-car class 222
• 19x 7-car class 222
• 20x 5-car class 221
• 4x 4-car class 221
• 7x 4-car class 220

Why destroy driving cars - an easier reformation is to simply double up units - no 800 conversion needed (which would be impossible anyway because of the IET contract).

Cross Country have 5 7-car HSTs, 20 5-car 221s and 38 4-car 220/221s. There are 6 7-car 222s, 17 5-car 222s and 4 4-car 222s.

Reduce one of the 7-car 222s to 5-car to make 2 7-car 222s. You then have
5 7-car units
39 5-car units
40 4-car units

The 5 7-car units replace the HSTs, the 39 5-car units replace the 4-car workings and the 40 4-car units are paired up to replace the 5-car workings.

Dedicate 220/221 and 222 fleets to different routes to avoid having to worry about coupling issues. Indeed you could possibly get away without any unit reforms in practice.

Whatever is going to happen to Cross Country isn't going to happen until 222s are available.

 

[The Ham]

Why destroy driving cars - an easier reformation is to simply double up units - no 800 conversion needed (which would be impossible anyway because of the IET contract).

Cross Country have 5 7-car HSTs, 20 5-car 221s and 37 4-car 220/221s. There are 6 7-car 222s, 17 5-car 222s and 4 4-car 222s.

Reduce one of the 7-car 222s to 5-car to make 2 7-car 222s. You then have
5 7-car units
39 5-car units
39 4-car units

The 5 7-car units replace the HSTs, the 39 5-car units replace the 4-car workings and the 39 4-car units are paired up to replace the 5-car workings.

Dedicate 220/221 and 222 fleets to different routes to avoid having to worry about coupling issues. Indeed you could possibly get away without any unit reforms in practice.

Whatever is going to happen to Cross Country isn't going to happen until 222s are available.

Although the problem with keeping end coaches is that you are paying lease charges on units which as little to the capacity of the network, you also end up needing more staff with pairs of units.

As such the scraping of end coaches to form longer units could be something that happens, especially given that after HS2 opens some of the XC network is likely to see significant capacity released.

 

[Laketop]

Where the MM shortening of the Class 222 9-car units to 7-cars to facilitate 4-cars to become 5-cars, perhaps this could be reversed were they to be allocated to XC - should EMR be prompt to make an order to replace the current MM stock?

Should there be a requirement for longer trains with higher capacity, which seems to be the current issue with timetabled trains, then the 9 car trains can run where 4-5 car trains currently run, leaving the remaining 22Xs to be doubled up, or cascaded to replace 170s, which could too then be doubled up for their other routes - resulting in more capacity.