How can CrossCountry realistically be improved?

[Spaceflower]

Trouble is XC are very much neglecting its CORE leisure market now, with 4 car voyagers routinely replacing 7 coach HSTs.

DfT set the franchise priorities. But tbh even these have gone to pot now.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The Turbostar services just need to go to either WMT, EMT or TfW (depending which one). They are a poor fit for XC.

Why not send Cardiff to Nottingham to TfW once they get their new stock, operate with a 67 and Mk4s for a proper interregional service, maybe extend to Swansea/Pembroke/Fishguard.

Then link a Birmingham to Manchester short to the Stansted service and run with Voyagers if they are forthcoming from AWC, makes general sense to run an intercity service on this corridor.
The other Voyagers could go to doubling up existing XC Intercity service, till the Meridians arrive. At which point, XC start running new services to more isolated locations.

The remaining services should go with the 170s to EMR, with EMR connecting them with their Leicester to Grimsby/Lincoln services and their Nottingham to Skegness service, providing a half decent service spanning most of the Midlands.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Why not send Cardiff to Nottingham to TfW once they get their new stock, operate with a 67 and Mk4s for a proper interregional service, maybe extend to Swansea/Pembroke/Fishguard.

Then link a Birmingham to Manchester short to the Stansted service and run with Voyagers if they are forthcoming from AWC, makes general sense to run an intercity service on this corridor.
The other Voyagers could go to doubling up existing XC Intercity service, till the Meridians arrive. At which point, XC start running new services to more isolated locations.

The remaining services should go with the 170s to EMR, with EMR connecting them with their Leicester to Grimsby/Lincoln services and their Nottingham to Skegness service, providing a half decent service spanning most of the Midlands.

Why not? Because TfW can't run a solid service on the line and the Mk.4s really wouldn't work for the early morning services with all stops between Gloucester and Cardiff.

Plus why would the Welsh government run a service that mainly serves the Birmingham - Nottingham market the other side of New St, it's only a single service to make planning easier.

 

[Wynd]

No doubt this will have already been covered, but the voyagers are horrific. Particularly in the summer. The stench. There is no masking it.

And they are far too short.

 

[MML]

Transfer the Avanti Voyagers and EMR Meridians to XC. One common fleet.

1. All primary InterCity Routes to be operated by fully refurbished 5+4 or 5+5 Voyagers/Meridians. (Plymouth to Edinburgh)
2. Secondary Regional routes to be operated by fully refurbished 4 or 5 car Voyagers/Meridians. (Birmingham to Stansted)
3. Turbostars replaced by Voyagers on regional routes, with displaced Turbostars going to EMR Regional for common fleet.
4. HST sets retained for new Nottingham to Glasgow via S&C.

 

[The Planner]

Transfer the Avanti Voyagers and EMR Meridians to XC. One common fleet.

1. All primary InterCity Routes to be operated by fully refurbished 5+4 or 5+5 Voyagers/Meridians. (Plymouth to Edinburgh)
2. Secondary Regional routes to be operated by fully refurbished 4 or 5 car Voyagers/Meridians. (Birmingham to Stansted)
3. Turbostars replaced by Voyagers on regional routes, with displaced Turbostars going to EMR Regional for common fleet.
4. HST sets retained for new Nottingham to Glasgow via S&C.

4 is wibble. Its not going to happen. Putting Voyagers on the 170 routes isn't a bright idea either.

 

[adrock1976]

Transfer the Avanti Voyagers and EMR Meridians to XC. One common fleet.

1. All primary InterCity Routes to be operated by fully refurbished 5+4 or 5+5 Voyagers/Meridians. (Plymouth to Edinburgh)
2. Secondary Regional routes to be operated by fully refurbished 4 or 5 car Voyagers/Meridians. (Birmingham to Stansted)
3. Turbostars replaced by Voyagers on regional routes, with displaced Turbostars going to EMR Regional for common fleet.
4. HST sets retained for new Nottingham to Glasgow via S&C.

Regarding 2), I believe Voyagers are banned from the Stansted Airport stub. I would curtail Birmingham - Stansted at Cambridge (Main), and let Anglia either double the frequency of the Cambridge - Stansted shuttle, or extend the Norwich - Cambridge there (I believe there are already plans to do that).

Regarding 4), I would concentrate on the Leeds - Carlisle section by getting that a clockface 2 hourly service, with quality connections at Carlisle. Carlisle - Nottingham/East Midlands Region is already covered with a quality connection at Crewe in both directions (Crewe - Stoke - Uttoxeter - Derby - Nottingham), with plans to double the frequency from every 60 minutes to every 30 minutes. The HSTs for the S&C I would concentrate those in the summer as tourist trains (with First Class dining), running from Blackpool via Preston, Blackburn, and Clitheroe to Hellifield and onwards to Carlisle.

 

[Neptune]

4. HST sets retained for new Nottingham to Glasgow via S&C.

Crikey this barmy idea is never going to go away it would seem.

 

[Spaceflower]

Regarding 2), I believe Voyagers are banned from the Stansted Airport stub. I would curtail Birmingham - Stansted at Cambridge (Main), and let Anglia either double the frequency of the Cambridge - Stansted shuttle, or extend the Norwich - Cambridge there (I believe there are already plans to do that).

Regarding 4), I would concentrate on the Leeds - Carlisle section by getting that a clockface 2 hourly service, with quality connections at Carlisle. Carlisle - Nottingham/East Midlands Region is already covered with a quality connection at Crewe in both directions (Crewe - Stoke - Uttoxeter - Derby - Nottingham), with plans to double the frequency from every 60 minutes to every 30 minutes. The HSTs for the S&C I would concentrate those in the summer as tourist trains (with First Class dining), running from Blackpool via Preston, Blackburn, and Clitheroe to Hellifield and onwards to Carlisle.

Run the S & C summer trains from York. Bigger leisure market and errr slightly better connections.

Could even run them from a new platform at NRM.

 

[Neptune]

Run the S & C summer trains from York. Bigger leisure market and errr slightly better connections.

Or run them from Skipton as now so as not to bugger up east Leeds, Leeds west end throat and the Airedale line.

 

[Spaceflower]

Actually I was going to suggest a through service from Whitby via new link..that also serves Flamingo Land

 

[MontyP]

Crikey this barmy idea is never going to go away it would seem.

Let's go the whole hog and run them from St Pancras

 

[cle]

I can't think of a single connection between Nottingham and Glasgow - or a person I know from one who goes to the other. Complete random pairing and crayonisting.

Even Leeds - Glasgow is not a significant flow, and that city is much more important.

 

[JonathanH]

I can't think of a single connection between Nottingham and Glasgow - or a person I know from one who goes to the other. Complete random pairing and crayonisting.

Regular readers know that the reason why there should be a service between Nottingham and Glasgow is because the two cities were once linked by a named train service.

 

[class26]

Let's go the whole hog and run them from St Pancras

I suspect this came from a report in Modern Railways a couple of months ago

 

[swt_passenger]

I suspect this came from a report in Modern Railways a couple of months ago

It was in May or June, I mentioned it yesterday but didn’t bother looking up the exact month. But the article does seem to have launched a few ideas that are being treated more like 100% facts…

 

[ashkeba]

or extend the Norwich - Cambridge there (I believe there are already plans to do that).

Most of the Norwich-Cambridge have already been extended, except I think when the XC get in the way.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I suspect this came from a report in Modern Railways a couple of months ago

I think it did - but considering the work that XC had to do to justify the imposition of HST sets on the main axes of operations , the idea of such trains being used on the S&C is a tad optimistic. As previously discussed in many comments on this , there is already a Leeds to Edinburgh / Glasgow XC , passing through many centers of population via the ECML etc. Yes COVID has knocked things back a bit - but adding such extra costs is going to be very , very challenging .....

First class dining on these , please ......... - an area for high dining on specific , focused Charter and Landcruise sort of trains .........

XC has very many , other things to do.

 

[Spaceflower]

I can't think of a single connection between Nottingham and Glasgow - or a person I know from one who goes to the other. Complete random pairing and crayonisting.

Even Leeds - Glasgow is not a significant flow, and that city is much more important.

Give me a day and I bet I can find a dozen people in Nottingham who have heard of Kilmarnock!

Seriously though, the S & C should be run in a similar fashion to the Mallaig branch (by a charter operator).

And this thread could probably be split.

 

[tbtc]

Putting Voyagers on the 170 routes isn't a bright idea either.

This bears repeating

Why would you want to swap a three coach 170 for a Voyager with fewer seats, narrow doors, unsuited to operating stoppers (which is what the Turbostar services are)?

125mph stock on a service that takes 1h15 to do the fifty seven miles from Nottingham to Birmingham might be fun for the Wilnecote passengers but a waste for everyone else. Plus the Stansted platform problems, of course.

Crikey this barmy idea is never going to go away it would seem.

Sadly not.

But it's a handy way of telling how serious a poster is - if they are the kind of person who can only make suggestions based upon whether there was a through train with a designated "name" in the black and white days then it's safe to ignore other proposals that they make (which are generally rehashed from the Big Book Of Things That Failed In The 1960s)

I said at the time, and I still feel that the "HSTs from Leeds to Carlisle via Ribblehead" was the kind of Grant Shapps PR stunt that generates lots of excitement amongst a certain nostalgic demographic - just like the "reverse Beeching" announcement that the Government manage to get on the front pages every three months - it sounds nice for members of the Rose Tinted Spectacle community even if it never actually happens - a total waste of resources but it's not about passenger numbers, it's about being seen to tick a few boxes for people who'd rather the railways were stuck in the past.

 

[ashkeba]

This bears repeating

Why would you want to swap a three coach 170 for a Voyager with fewer seats, narrow doors, unsuited to operating stoppers (which is what the Turbostar services are)?

125mph stock on a service that takes 1h15 to do the fifty seven miles from Nottingham to Birmingham might be fun for the Wilnecote passengers but a waste for everyone else. Plus the Stansted platform problems, of course.

Why do you think people might want to replace a cramped regional-railways-style train with an InterCity-style train on routes of 3 hours and more, some of which are more than 5 hours long? Comfort, luggage space and buffet to name but three.

125mph Voyagers would probably be wasted on many of the routes, plus Stansted is a problem, but Turbostars are not ideal suits for the service either.

 

[EastisECML]

I've always wondered why XC have services which seem to reverse at New Street? Newcastle to Reading and Manchester to Bristol specifically. Wouldn't it make more sense to just have 2 tph from Manchester to Reading and 2 tph from Newcastle to Bristol?

 

[JonathanH]

I've always wondered why XC have services which seem to reverse at New Street? Newcastle to Reading and Manchester to Bristol specifically. Wouldn't it make more sense to just have 2 tph from Manchester to Reading and 2 tph from Newcastle to Bristol?

Manchester to Bristol generally used the Camp Hill line so didn't have to reverse. Clearly the Newcastle to Reading service reversed but it is only one service each hour and maintains the links on both sides of the X.

 

[tbtc]

Why do you think people might want to replace a cramped regional-railways-style train with an InterCity-style train on routes of 3 hours and more, some of which are more than 5 hours long? Comfort, luggage space and buffet to name but three.

125mph Voyagers would probably be wasted on many of the routes, plus Stansted is a problem, but Turbostars are not ideal suits for the service either.

I'm not sure what journeys the Turbostars do that are "more than five hours long" (?) but don't think that the luggage capacity on Voyagers is one of their main selling points - I don't mind them for comfort but some of our more "sensitive" members seem to hate Voyagers for comfort

I've always wondered why XC have services which seem to reverse at New Street? Newcastle to Reading and Manchester to Bristol specifically. Wouldn't it make more sense to just have 2 tph from Manchester to Reading and 2 tph from Newcastle to Bristol?

I think that XC would have been a lot better if that was how things operated (back in Virgin days, it was 3tp2h from Newcastle to Bristol and 3tp2h from Manchester to Reading with each "core" section being half hourly when combined with a bi-hourly Newcastle - Reading, bi-hourly Scotland - Wigan - Bristol and bi-hourly Manchester - Birmingham terminator)

If the two "sides" were split like this (to give a half hourly York - Bristol corridor and half hourly Manchester - Reading corridor, with various extensions beyond etc) then you could make improvements to each section without the mess of everything being linked (e.g. pre-Covid the Bournemouth - Manchester services ran onto Manchester - Bristol services and vice versa, so everything was tied together) - if they were separate then you could dedicate the EMR 222s to one "side", or have a better business case for something like an 802 on the Manchester - Reading corridor (since it'd spent a large proportion of its time under the wires - whereas if you continue to interwork them with Bristol services plus run Newcastle - Reading trains too then you'd need to order a lot more bi-mode trains which makes the whole thing unaffordable)

You could also look at speeding up one "side" of XC, since the York - Bristol corridor could be sped up without being tied to paths from Birmingham to Manchester/Reading

Obviously it'll annoy people wanting direct links between various cities hundreds of miles apart but I honestly don't think that there are a lot of long distance links that need direct trains (other than ones involving London/ Birmingham) - e.g. Sheffield's long established links to places like Plymouth are nice to have but not essential, it'd be no skin off my nose if Sheffield services went to Cardiff or somewhere else instead

 

[davetheguard]

4. HST sets retained for new Nottingham to Glasgow via S&C.

4 is wibble. Its not going to happen.

Crikey this barmy idea is never going to go away it would seem.

I blame a respected magazine like Modern Railways for reporting this sort of tabloid drivel. I'd of thought them more authoritative than this.

 

[Bald Rick]

I blame a respected magazine like Modern Railways for reporting this sort of tabloid drivel. I'd of thought them more authoritative than this.

Agreed. I was very surprised to see this story. Modern Railways has tended to lean more towards the ‘enthusiastic’ style of reporting recently.

 

[O L Leigh]

I've always wondered why XC have services which seem to reverse at New Street? Newcastle to Reading and Manchester to Bristol specifically. Wouldn't it make more sense to just have 2 tph from Manchester to Reading and 2 tph from Newcastle to Bristol?

Actually, not that many do. The Manchester-Bristol service would go out the south end of New Street and around Camp Hill to regain the Gloucester line at Kings Norton whereas the NE-SW would go out via Selly Oak. Neither of these require a reversal. It's only the Newcastle-Reading service that needs to reverse, but given that there will be a crew change and the train resupplied at New Street, the reversal doesn't really make a huge difference. It's only really if it's been delayed on it's way south that there could be a problem.

I'm not sure what journeys the Turbostars do that are "more than five hours long" (?) but don't think that the luggage capacity on Voyagers is one of their main selling points - I don't mind them for comfort but some of our more "sensitive" members seem to hate Voyagers for comfort

I can only assume it's a reference to the early morning Bristol-Stansted service, but then no-one is realistically going to use that end-to-end.

125mph Voyagers would probably be wasted on many of the routes, plus Stansted is a problem

Agreed, especially as there are quite a lot of SP differential speeds across the Stansted route that Voyagers/Meridians cannot take advantage of.

Turbostars are not ideal suits for the service either.

What's the alternative? Any other traction for these routes would need to be capable of 100mph, have SDO and able to use the SP speed differentials. Apart from new-build I can't think of anything else that currently matches that profile that does not share the same weaknesses as the Cl170 design.

 

[redengine]

I'd semi-seriously advocate abolishing the Cross-Country Franchise altogether. Its routes are far too long and can result in delays propagating across the country. Let's break it up at Birmingham:

• South Wales/South West to Birmingham – covered by ordering extra vehicles to strengthen GWR's 5-car IETs to form a uniform 9-car fleet (maybe with a few extra sets to make the numbers work), with sets interchangeable between Paddington and Birmingham services (this common fleet should also cover the Cardiff-Bristol-Westbury-Southampton route, either transferring the section on to Portsmouth/Brighton to another operator, or single-tracking that bridge on a curve that causes all the present issues)
• Reading to Birmingham – ditto, extend some Paddington-Oxford services to Birmingham (and look at the frequency required Reading-Oxford)
• Birmingham to Manchester – incorporate into the West Coast franchise (along with Birmingham to Liverpool, which is a bit of an anomaly at the moment), with some Euston to Birmingham services continuing to Manchester
• Birmingham to Leeds/York/Nottingham/Cambridge – incorporate into the East Midland franchise, and use Cross Country's 22x's to supplement the existing fleet of 222s and address that franchise's massive unit shortage. Transfer anything beyond York to another franchise.
• South of Reading – look into diverting London-Weymouth trains (and hopefully London-Exeter via Salisbury ones too) into Paddington to enable them to call at Reading. If necessary, move all Heathrow trains onto the Relief Lines (or cancel them altogether: aviation isn't what it used to be in the old normal). In the longer term, sextuple some of the London end to separate Elizabeth Line trains entirely from the Relief Lines.

 

[Peterthegreat]

I'd semi-seriously advocate abolishing the Cross-Country Franchise altogether. Its routes are far too long and can result in delays propagating across the country. Let's break it up at Birmingham:

• South Wales/South West to Birmingham – covered by ordering extra vehicles to strengthen GWR's 5-car IETs to form a uniform 9-car fleet (maybe with a few extra sets to make the numbers work), with sets interchangeable between Paddington and Birmingham services (this common fleet should also cover the Cardiff-Bristol-Westbury-Southampton route, either transferring the section on to Portsmouth/Brighton to another operator, or single-tracking that bridge on a curve that causes all the present issues)
• Reading to Birmingham – ditto, extend some Paddington-Oxford services to Birmingham (and look at the frequency required Reading-Oxford)
• Birmingham to Manchester – incorporate into the West Coast franchise (along with Birmingham to Liverpool, which is a bit of an anomaly at the moment), with some Euston to Birmingham services continuing to Manchester
• Birmingham to Leeds/York/Nottingham/Cambridge – incorporate into the East Midland franchise, and use Cross Country's 22x's to supplement the existing fleet of 222s and address that franchise's massive unit shortage. Transfer anything beyond York to another franchise.
• South of Reading – look into diverting London-Weymouth trains (and hopefully London-Exeter via Salisbury ones too) into Paddington to enable them to call at Reading. If necessary, move all Heathrow trains onto the Relief Lines (or cancel them altogether: aviation isn't what it used to be in the old normal). In the longer term, sextuple some of the London end to separate Elizabeth Line trains entirely from the Relief Lines.

Most of those ideas seem to be a sure way to lose passengers.

 

[adrock1976]

I'd semi-seriously advocate abolishing the Cross-Country Franchise altogether. Its routes are far too long and can result in delays propagating across the country. Let's break it up at Birmingham:

• South Wales/South West to Birmingham – covered by ordering extra vehicles to strengthen GWR's 5-car IETs to form a uniform 9-car fleet (maybe with a few extra sets to make the numbers work), with sets interchangeable between Paddington and Birmingham services (this common fleet should also cover the Cardiff-Bristol-Westbury-Southampton route, either transferring the section on to Portsmouth/Brighton to another operator, or single-tracking that bridge on a curve that causes all the present issues)
• Reading to Birmingham – ditto, extend some Paddington-Oxford services to Birmingham (and look at the frequency required Reading-Oxford)
• Birmingham to Manchester – incorporate into the West Coast franchise (along with Birmingham to Liverpool, which is a bit of an anomaly at the moment), with some Euston to Birmingham services continuing to Manchester
• Birmingham to Leeds/York/Nottingham/Cambridge – incorporate into the East Midland franchise, and use Cross Country's 22x's to supplement the existing fleet of 222s and address that franchise's massive unit shortage. Transfer anything beyond York to another franchise.
• South of Reading – look into diverting London-Weymouth trains (and hopefully London-Exeter via Salisbury ones too) into Paddington to enable them to call at Reading. If necessary, move all Heathrow trains onto the Relief Lines (or cancel them altogether: aviation isn't what it used to be in the old normal). In the longer term, sextuple some of the London end to separate Elizabeth Line trains entirely from the Relief Lines.

Apart from the Manchester trains, splitting everything else at Birmingham would involve more diesel trains terminating at New Street, which should be banned as it is an enclosed station.

The London Pad - Oxford (I am assuming it is the InterCity trains you are referring to, and not the present day truncated two sections of Paddington - Didcot and Didcot - Oxford trains that run on the Relief Lines) presently (pre covid) runs every 30 minutes, with alternate trains running through the North Cotswolds to Worcester/Great Malvern/Hereford. It is anticipated some time in the future that the current InterCity that terminates Oxford is extended to Moreton-in-Marsh (according to the North Cotswolds Rail User Group, which is also an aspiration). Furthermore, there is potential to either continue it to Worcester Shrub Hill, or via a reinstated right hand curve just before Honeybourne to allow the train to run to Stratford-upon-Avon (also depends I believe on a residential housing development at Long Marston). Unless these trains run as 2x 5 car IETs coupled together, this would rule out the Paddington - Oxford being extended to Birmingham (assuming nothing coupled/uncoupled at Oxford General).

South of the Thames routes is totally a foreign country to me, so cannot comment except that Reading - Basingstoke is busy with freight trains too as well as the local shuttle service.

I do agree with the suggestion that London Crossrail should ideally have its own pair of tracks so as not to clog up the Relief Lines, but there is most likely next to no land nearby for that to happen.