Cross Country franchise: should it be more radical?

[ABB125]

Give the voyagers a thorough refurbishment, take all voyagers and meridians as they become available and run double sets at all times. Then get a new fleet of bi-modes once HS2 phase 2 is open and more electrification has happened, with this new fleet coinciding with a major change to the XC operating structure due to the aforementioned opening of HS2.
Is that radical enough?

 

[quantinghome]

The XC network is a concatenation of lots of journeys which are assembled together for operational efficiency. Everything would be a lot more complicated if trains terminated at Birmingham rather than running through. The NE-SW route from Edinburgh to Plymouth has a major city every hour or so (sometimes less) and it's logical to line these up together in a single service, even though most journeys taken on the route are relatively short. This has the happy byproduct of providing direct trains between distant cities.

The problem with XC... ok, ONE of the problems with XC is it has many roles as a commuter, regional and long distance service, none of which it performs very well. It's the jack-of-all-trades route. The HS2 eastern leg will go a long way to solving this by removing most of the long distance intercity passengers (and hopefully shifting a lot more long distance journeys from road to rail) north of Birmingham. Once that's done XC can refocus its role. I think it should turn into a semi-fast route, providing more direct connections to cities and towns currently underserved, or not served at all. All trains would stop at Tamworth, Burton and Chesterfield as well as Derby and Sheffield. North of Sheffield, one arm could serve Leeds via Barnsley and Wakefield; the other would serve Rotherham, Doncaster and Hull.

 

[squizzler]

On Friday, XC announce a "steady-as-she-goes" concession for the next three years, with only incremental improvements in the pipeline.

The following Monday, a proposal to revive Flybe - a largely domestic air carrier linking provincial towns many of which are on the XC network - was announced.

Coincidence? You decide.

Flybe could be flying again next year, after administrators announced a deal had been struck with investors to restart the regional airline.

The Exeter-based Flybe went bust in early March with the loss of more than 2,000 jobs, as the impact of the coronavirus crisis on passenger demand proved the last straw for the struggling airline.

The administrators EY said Flybe’s brand and remaining assets had been sold to Thyme Opco, a company affiliated to Cyrus Capital, which had pumped money into the Virgin Atlantic-led rescue attempt in 2019.

The deal could mean Flybe restarts as a regional airline in the UK in early 2021. Administrators said they would work with the new owners and the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to prepare for its return to the skies.

Article continues...

 

[JonathanH]

On Friday, XC announce a "steady-as-she-goes" concession for the next three years, with only incremental improvements in the pipeline.

The following Monday, a proposal to revive Flybe - a largely domestic air carrier linking provincial towns many of which are on the XC network - was announced.

Coincidence? You decide.

No, absolutely not connected at all, other than neither operation would commit to a major increase in services until there is a sense of normality again.

The revival of Flybe hasn't got anywhere beyond buying the intellectual capital. It certainly doesn't have any planes and is simply a future aspiration to return some of the operations when the time is right.

A better XC will surely happen when the time is right. That is not now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A better XC will surely happen when the time is right.

I'm not convinced; they've had what, 25 years to get it right?

 

[Energy]

On Friday, XC announce a "steady-as-she-goes" concession for the next three years, with only incremental improvements in the pipeline.

The following Monday, a proposal to revive Flybe - a largely domestic air carrier linking provincial towns many of which are on the XC network - was announced.

Coincidence? You decide.

It would take more than 3 days to decide to revive Flybe given their previous financial issues pre covid, which will only be worse now. I doubt Flybe will start again, covid was the thing to finally kill it of, it already had issues before hand and doesn't have much value as all its planes were leased.

 

[class26]

It would take more than 3 days to decide to revive Flybe given their previous financial issues pre covid, which will only be worse now. I doubt Flybe will start again, covid was the thing to finally kill it of, it already had issues before hand and doesn't have much value as all its planes were leased.

Flybe basically died as it was locked into (by the previous management) a disastrous leasing agreement for regional jets which also drank fuel,. The new Flybe will be starting again and we hope with better terms. Some of their routes were basket cases but there were plenty which were viable with the right aircraft on the right terms.

 

[The Ham]

Flybe basically died as it was locked into (by the previous management) a disastrous leasing agreement for regional jets which also drank fuel,. The new Flybe will be starting again and we hope with better terms. Some of their routes were basket cases but there were plenty which were viable with the right aircraft on the right terms.

Many of those routes have since been taken over by other airlines, which then means that Flybe wouldn't have some of the better routes.

Having said that if it restarts just as things start to get better then it wouldn't have the significant losses of trying to stay afloat during the last 7 months and so may be able to start up new routes before others are able to.

However I suspect that they wouldn't have a significant impact on XC passenger numbers.

 

[Bald Rick]

However I suspect that they wouldn't have a significant impact on XC passenger numbers.

Definitely not, as a very significant majority of Cross Country passengers are travelling less than 100 miles. The number of Cross Country passengers making journeys that actually compete with airlines is rather small, and almost all of them are on Bristol / Birmingham to Scotland.

 

[class26]

Many of those routes have since been taken over by other airlines, which then means that Flybe wouldn't have some of the better routes.

Having said that if it restarts just as things start to get better then it wouldn't have the significant losses of trying to stay afloat during the last 7 months and so may be able to start up new routes before others are able to.

However I suspect that they wouldn't have a significant impact on XC passenger numbers.

Perhaps but the frequency is not there, even before C 19 and it is frequency that business pax need.
Birmingham to Glasgow / Edinburgh was 7 or 8 a day with Flybe. Easy jet have come in with 2 a day.

 

[JonathanH]

Perhaps but the frequency is not there, even before C 19 and it is frequency that business pax need.
Birmingham to Glasgow / Edinburgh was 7 or 8 a day with Flybe. Easy jet have come in with 2 a day.

That is a Covid-19 effect though isn't it. How many daily flights were there from Gatwick to Scotland in early March and how many now? The railway, including XC, are being paid to run a frequent service, perhaps more than the demand currently requires. Airlines don't have that support and can only run what can make money.

As pointed out in this thread, and previous ones, airline schedules are not what is going to drive the XC timetable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Modern Railways is reporting that they are considering taking the ex-Grand Central 90+Mk4 sets for Birmingham-Manchester shuttles.

Never say never...

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps but the frequency is not there, even before C 19 and it is frequency that business pax need.
Birmingham to Glasgow / Edinburgh was 7 or 8 a day with Flybe. Easy jet have come in with 2 a day.

But time sensitive business travel is only a small part of the market (from observation).

 

[Energy]

Modern Railways is reporting that they are considering taking the ex-Grand Central 90+Mk4 sets for Birmingham-Manchester shuttles.

Never say never...

I'm guessing they can use the ex GC paths.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm guessing they can use the ex GC paths.

I doubt it - they don't overlap in any way with a Birmingham to Manchester service other than a very short section around Stafford.

 

[class26]

But time sensitive business travel is only a small part of the market (from observation).

Maybe but business pax tend to book late and so pay much higher fares than occasional travellers so contribute much more to bottom line and make the higher frequency more viable. I have known people (including myself) to book returns on several separate flights in case meeting finished early or extended beyond the expected

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Radical definitely. Not least, in the short term, because there must surely be efficiencies and improvements to be made by simplifying the network.

Simply, as the Derby drivers sign Bristol and vice versa, you may as well just do Bristol - Newcastle and Plymouth - Edinburgh. On the flip side, Manchester - Bournemouth and Reading/Soton.

Cut off the nonsensical stuff like the Guildford, the Voyager that goes into Bristol just to go to Cardiff etc.; and the Bath.

Just have a few ECS moves over the route refresher bits like Taunton - Westbury - Bristol, Eastleigh - Havant - Guildford - Reading.

And of course improve, where we can, the capacity on the Turbo network. Even (god forbid, can't believe I'm saying this) swapping some Turbos for 158s on EMR to give that franchise a single fleet and then have loads of 158s running about in 4 and 6 car formation if needed on the Cardiff - Notts, Birmingham - Stansted, Birmingham - Leicester and Brum - Notts for a short period until 222s / 221s come on line.

 

[The Planner]

6 car won't work on a lot of services, can't stop at Water Orton, Coleshill, Wilnecote, Ashchurch, Chepstow, Lydney, Willington, Hinckley, Stamford, Oakham, Melton Mowbray etc etc...

 

[Kilopylae]

6 car won't work on a lot of services, can't stop at Water Orton, Coleshill, Wilnecote, Ashchurch, Chepstow, Lydney, Willington, Hinckley, Stamford, Oakham, Melton Mowbray etc etc...

"Passengers for Water Orton/wherever, please travel in the rear portion of the train only... as only the doors in coaches X, Y and Z will open, and it is not possible to walk through to those coaches from the front portion of the train..." Short platforms are hardly insurmountable.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

6 car won't work on a lot of services, can't stop at Water Orton, Coleshill, Wilnecote, Ashchurch, Chepstow, Lydney, Willington, Hinckley, Stamford, Oakham, Melton Mowbray etc etc...

Well in theory even use of 4s is an uplift.

 

[The Planner]

"Passengers for Water Orton/wherever, please travel in the rear portion of the train only... as only the doors in coaches X, Y and Z will open, and it is not possible to walk through to those coaches from the front portion of the train..." Short platforms are hardly insurmountable.

On the odd station no, on pretty much every station they would call at?

 

[quantinghome]

Radical definitely. Not least, in the short term, because there must surely be efficiencies and improvements to be made by simplifying the network.

Simply, as the Derby drivers sign Bristol and vice versa, you may as well just do Bristol - Newcastle and Plymouth - Edinburgh. On the flip side, Manchester - Bournemouth and Reading/Soton.

Meaning no services from the SW to NW, or South to NE. I'm for simplification but only if it has actual benefits.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Meaning no services from the SW to NW, or South to NE. I'm for simplification but only if it has actual benefits.

Well the operational benefits lie in the drivers working through, the crew being better utilised and a half-hourly frequency on the corridors instead (Reading - Manchester, Bristol - Newcastle). People changing should be expected, especially as passenger numbers fall. It’s not like it’s a huge hardship.

 

[quantinghome]

Well the operational benefits lie in the drivers working through, the crew being better utilised and a half-hourly frequency on the corridors instead (Reading - Manchester, Bristol - Newcastle). People changing should be expected, especially as passenger numbers fall. It’s not like it’s a huge hardship.

Yes, you would get some operational benefit, put surely it's pretty minor? Not sure how the crew would be better utilised. Each of the four XC 'legs' already sees a half-hour frequency (apart from Leeds) so by simplifying the routes down to two you'd increase the frequency for some longer distance journeys (where frequency is less of an issue) while cutting other direct journeys and forcing a lot of through passengers to change at New Street, which is not a good idea. The core network timetable as currently set up is the least problematic part of the XC service.

 

[tbtc]

Does seem a bit odd that, a couple of days after a "steady as she goes for the next three years" extension was agreed, we are now seeng suggestion of loco hauled service and an increase in capacity... maybe Marcus Rashford has been lobbying the Government and they've capitulated again?

Radical definitely. Not least, in the short term, because there must surely be efficiencies and improvements to be made by simplifying the network.

Simply, as the Derby drivers sign Bristol and vice versa, you may as well just do Bristol - Newcastle and Plymouth - Edinburgh. On the flip side, Manchester - Bournemouth and Reading/Soton.

Cut off the nonsensical stuff like the Guildford, the Voyager that goes into Bristol just to go to Cardiff etc.; and the Bath.

Just have a few ECS moves over the route refresher bits like Taunton - Westbury - Bristol, Eastleigh - Havant - Guildford - Reading

That'd be a big improvement and make the services much more resilient than they have been.

Talking pre-Covid, the Bournemouth - Manchester - Bristol - Manchester - Bournemouth interworking meant that any problems on one bit of the "X" quickly cross-contaminated onto the others.

If you simplify things to a Manchester - Reading corridor and a Newcastle - Bristol corridor (with through services to/from Edinburgh/ Bournemouth/ Plymouth etc) then in the event of something going wrong it'll be a lot easier to drop everything back by half an hour (since, ig everything from Reading to Manchester is running half an hour late then effectively nothing is running late). Much more resilient.

Easier to train staff and maintain route knowledge, gives scope to split the two bits of the franchise up in future, makes it easier to justify bi-mode stock (e.g. if it was going to be focussed on the Manchester - Reading corridor).

Whereas, at the moment, XC are trapped in a situation where they don't have the flexibility to tweak their services - everything is locked in together in a gordian knot of a timetable that suits the small number of people doing journeys like Bristol to Manchester.

 

[ABB125]

Does seem a bit odd that, a couple of days after a "steady as she goes for the next three years" extension was agreed, we are now seeng suggestion of loco hauled service and an increase in capacity... maybe Marcus Rashford has been lobbying the Government and they've capitulated again?



That'd be a big improvement and make the services much more resilient than they have been.

Talking pre-Covid, the Bournemouth - Manchester - Bristol - Manchester - Bournemouth interworking meant that any problems on one bit of the "X" quickly cross-contaminated onto the others.

If you simplify things to a Manchester - Reading corridor and a Newcastle - Bristol corridor (with through services to/from Edinburgh/ Bournemouth/ Plymouth etc) then in the event of something going wrong it'll be a lot easier to drop everything back by half an hour (since, ig everything from Reading to Manchester is running half an hour late then effectively nothing is running late). Much more resilient.

Easier to train staff and maintain route knowledge, gives scope to split the two bits of the franchise up in future, makes it easier to justify bi-mode stock (e.g. if it was going to be focussed on the Manchester - Reading corridor).

Whereas, at the moment, XC are trapped in a situation where they don't have the flexibility to tweak their services - everything is locked in together in a gordian knot of a timetable that suits the small number of people doing journeys like Bristol to Manchester.

As long as the connections at New Street are decent, I don't see any major issues with going for a half hourly NE-SW and NW-SE service pattern; as you say, it should be more reliable and resilient. It would probably make diagramming easier as well, with no interworking between routes.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Yes, you would get some operational benefit, put surely it's pretty minor? Not sure how the crew would be better utilised. Each of the four XC 'legs' already sees a half-hour frequency (apart from Leeds) so by simplifying the routes down to two you'd increase the frequency for some longer distance journeys (where frequency is less of an issue) while cutting other direct journeys and forcing a lot of through passengers to change at New Street, which is not a good idea. The core network timetable as currently set up is the least problematic part of the XC service.

I'd say this much: If you assume you have a half-hourly service from Sheffield to Brum, but only hourly to each of the Reading and Bristol directions, then you can have your train caped and gain nothing. You will get the next one, but be stuck at New Street for 30 minutes. On the flip side, if you have a half-hourly standardised service to Reading, with a requisite connection to Bristol on each one (working also Manchester - Reading) then at least if you get one train cancelled, you'll only be 30 minutes later than you expected.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Oct 2020 ==

Does seem a bit odd that, a couple of days after a "steady as she goes for the next three years" extension was agreed, we are now seeng suggestion of loco hauled service and an increase in capacity... maybe Marcus Rashford has been lobbying the Government and they've capitulated again?



That'd be a big improvement and make the services much more resilient than they have been.

Talking pre-Covid, the Bournemouth - Manchester - Bristol - Manchester - Bournemouth interworking meant that any problems on one bit of the "X" quickly cross-contaminated onto the others.

If you simplify things to a Manchester - Reading corridor and a Newcastle - Bristol corridor (with through services to/from Edinburgh/ Bournemouth/ Plymouth etc) then in the event of something going wrong it'll be a lot easier to drop everything back by half an hour (since, ig everything from Reading to Manchester is running half an hour late then effectively nothing is running late). Much more resilient.

Easier to train staff and maintain route knowledge, gives scope to split the two bits of the franchise up in future, makes it easier to justify bi-mode stock (e.g. if it was going to be focussed on the Manchester - Reading corridor).

Whereas, at the moment, XC are trapped in a situation where they don't have the flexibility to tweak their services - everything is locked in together in a gordian knot of a timetable that suits the small number of people doing journeys like Bristol to Manchester.

The thread on driver route knowledge is interesting. Manchester go to Reading but not towards Bristol; Bournemouth go to Birmingham.

Bristol go to Birmingham, but Derby go to Bristol. You've also got Leeds going to Birmingham, Newcastle to Derby and Plymouth going to Birmingham.

With that in mind, you have efficiencies on the NE-SW and NW-SC by having a much higher chance of drivers going cross-Birmingham; as well as having an option to get Bournemouth to sign north of Brum to Manchester. The same applies to Bristol signing Derby.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Oct 2020 ==

As long as the connections at New Street are decent, I don't see any major issues with going for a half hourly NE-SW and NW-SE service pattern; as you say, it should be more reliable and resilient. It would probably make diagramming easier as well, with no interworking between routes.

And, he says preparing for a big old inbound of other stuff, if you're going to have 222s out and about, it would mean diagramming them solely on one of those two sectors (probably the North East to South West), if you can reform to 7 x 9 car and 20 x 4 car. That way, you've got loads of big old 9 cars dashing about on key flows and able to pick up shed loads of bodies.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The basic problem with “Operation Pumpkin” (as it became known) was ordering a train fleet that was essentially the same size as the one it replaced. When success of the plan was predicated on growing passenger numbers, it was a fatally flawed decision. Add in to the mix the badly specified, badly designed and badly built Voyager fleet and you have the ingredients for the fiasco it was.

What I fear is that East Midlands Railway will realise they’ve made this mistake too.

 

[The Ham]

What I fear is that East Midlands Railway will realise they’ve made this mistake too.

How's it the same?

Yes they've not ordered a lot of the 810's when compared to the 180's, 222's and HST's that they've got but then with the electrification being extended to Corby there's some of those services being replaced with the 360's.

Also, as others have pointed out, by having a uniform fleet there's scope to reduce some of the long (i.e. hour long) turn around times, which gains a few extra units.

Anyway, even if there's more demand and there's need for extra units by the 810's being a sub fleet of a type of train with one of the largest fleets of trains ever ordered then the risk of not being able to order more is significantly reduced. However even if that's not possible with the need for more electrification to meet our net zero emissions target and that the MML electrification was near the top of the pile for being done previously there's a good chance that this would be done within the next 15 years (i.e. by 2035, which is half way to 2050 from now). That would allow extra electric units to be ordered to increase capacity further if needed.

As such there's likely to be two options for more units, depending of if there's need for it quickly (in which case more units are likely to be able to be produced) or longer term (in which case electrification would allow supplementation/replacement with/by EMU's).

 

[Doctor Fegg]

On the odd station no, on pretty much every station they would call at?

Worked ok on the Cotswold Line!