-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
How can Cross country overcrowding be alleviated?
- Thread starter aoa123
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
dk1
Veteran Member
That plan was scrapped many years ago. You’ll need more crew & more units & why a depot was set up at Three Bridges. XC aren’t particularly good at running with what they’ve got now unfortunately.
Very difficult situation for XC.
There's a market for long-distance not via London leisure train travel but XC's not doing well at the moment.
The vultures are circling, will XC be broken up or at the very least ordered to divest some of its operations?
Portsmouth is already one change from XC services at Southampton (or indeed Basingstoke or Winchester).
The signalling arrangements on the Reading to Guildford line are not suitable for reliable operation of through trains.
No, as above. There is no depot suitable for stabling or giving light servicing the XC units in the area. There is no capacity for CrossCounty to run reliably over the route and the journey times simply aren't competitive to make sense.
It really couldn't. GWR to Gatwick already has reliability concerns that see trains terminated at Redhill if they present there late. Given the paucity of signalling on the line and the way it interacts with other services on the radial lines from London, Reading to Gatwick needs to be run as a self contained service to have any hope of being reliable.
I'm not sure XC empire building helps alleviate its overcrowding issues either. Cutting it back to a core operation might.
hexagon789
Veteran Member
I was thinking along those lines, a EMR Derby-Birmingham for one. The paths freed from the ECML and from the WoE would go to LNER and GWR respectively.
It certainly feels that way.
It should really offer regular and convenient cross-country services that effectively link vastly opposing areas of the country with grid connections at key hub stations en route. It just fails to do that anymore. It really needs a new, better composed, Operation Princess timetable without some of the extraneous services that were questionable at best. The first recast under Arriva broke a lot of connections, especially at Birmingham.
Agree re GWR Birmingham-Penzance, if not that a Birmingham-Bristol.
Potentially, but at the same time if parts of the routes were taken over by other operators and good connections offered the service for passengers might actually be better. The only issue would be the need to change, but as I mentioned above many journeys are quicker changing already.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think fundamentally, if we are going to have it, it needs to go back to its roots and design for being a slower, more direct service where on board comfort, the ability to work etc are provided for properly. That would mean units of sufficient length with an interior much more like the 397 than the Voyager, i.e. low density and lots of tables.
In many ways, "new TPE" is what XC should be like.
In many ways, "new TPE" is what XC should be like.
If XC was split up the new incumbents may decide to use different trains. So if LNER get Newcastle -Brum they may think a bimode IEP is better for some services and voyagers better for Harrogate and Hull at quieter times. Just an idea.
There's certainly a market for long distance travel for leisure purposes without changing trains which deserves better service than today's XC setup.
Offer low density seats, plenty of tables, luggage space including room for bikes, and restaurant with trolley service, customers will prefer a longer, less stressful journey rather than a short haul flight to Newquay or Bournemouth.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think if you look at IC (rather than ICE) services in Germany (a very distributed country) that should give an idea of what things should look like. Fine for it to be MUs rather than LHCS, but it needs to be designed around enjoying and making best use of a long direct journey, not "cram 'em in".
You could of course reseat Voyagers to that sort of spec, look at the Avanti "Coach D" which is like a totally different train, but you would need more of them.
There is certainly a market, but the problem is that a large proportion of XC travellers are only going a few stations. The customers might prefer such spacious and luxurious trains, but are they economical to cater for these (probably majority) short distance commuter flows, where high density seating is much more appropriate. Even if every short haul flight passenger that could travel XC actually did (and that is unlikely because most will appreciate the much shorter journey time rather) this would be a tiny, tiny proportion of XCs passengers. Tail wagging the dog.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Really, XC shouldn't (other than XC-Lite*) be dealing with those short-distance passengers other than incidentally - it didn't in BR days. Perhaps the answer is to keep XC at the lower frequency and add local services on those routes in the old paths. Manchester to Bristol for instance should be a fairly prime business and leisure long distance traveller route - and it doesn't even exist at the moment!
If there are large urban/commuter flows there should be long, high density commuter trains serving them.
* The 170 services should really be split between EMR, WMT and TfW as appropriate to the route, they are a poor fit in XC and always were.
Doctor Fegg
Established Member
It would be interesting to consider what a "core CrossCountry" might comprise.
Define it as InterCity-standard services that connect main routes, via Birmingham New Street, without duplicating the principal operator in the final section of any route.
That potentially leaves you with:
- Birmingham–Manchester
- Birmingham–Bristol [because Bristol–Penzance is served by GWR]
- Birmingham–Leeds/York [because York–Newcastle/Scotland is served by LNER and TPE]
- Birmingham–Reading/Basingstoke/Southampton
hexagon789
Veteran Member
Something like that, but each of those 4 routes could be handed to other operators.
I think that XC services did cater for these flows in BR days - it is just that (after the frequency improvements of Operation Princess particularly) more and more people have started commuting longer and longer distances [in the provinces this generally was limited to the affluent, and railway staff ], coupled with economies from the 80s to eliminate uneconomic local train service (often peak hours only) to minor and intermediate stations outwith the conurbations, rather than just dispensing with them. Putting on a shed load of peak period locals doesn't sound very cost effective
Not sure how, under the current ticketing system, commuters/ short distance passengers would be discouraged from using (and overcrowding) these proposed luxurious trains aimed at the long distance market ?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think we're thinking about it totally the wrong way. There is absolutely a benefit of direct Birmingham to Penzance - it's a great holiday option, and with a family you won't want lots of changes. If it's hard to path, link it to the Exeter stopper.
"X* may change, but he/she/they won't change trains" was the last publicity campaign for ICXC before Virgin took it over. It summed up the network and its purpose absolutely spot-on.
* I can't remember them all, but there were a few different ones like this (made up rather than definitely from memory but they were very much like this):
"Sarah loves shopping, but she can't quite decide what look she wants. Her tastes may change, but she won't change trains. InterCity CrossCountry." (with a load of pictures of the same girl dressed in hugely different ways)
"Bob seems to get a new job every couple of weeks. His work may change, but he won't change trains. InterCity CrossCountry." (with a bloke dressed in lots of diffferent types of work clothes)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That depends where this overcrowding is happening. If it's on the likes of the Cov-Brum-Wolves corridor, there should be (and I believe is) an adequate local service at least half hourly along that line using high capacity EMUs. People might cram onto XC to save 2 minutes but they don't need to.
One option is compulsory reservations and simply not offering any reservations for short journeys on those trains so you can't. That's how PKP IC do it.
Another option is that the majority ticketing in urban areas where this is a problem and there are alternatives moves to being PTE ticketing, with a considerable price premium to travel on non-local services except where there's no parallel local service. That's how Germany does it. You can go from say Hamburg to Harburg on an ICE (a bit like going from Manchester to Stockport) but it'll cost you.
"X* may change, but he/she/they won't change trains" was the last publicity campaign for ICXC before Virgin took it over. It summed up the network and its purpose absolutely spot-on.
* I can't remember them all, but there were a few different ones like this (made up rather than definitely from memory but they were very much like this):
"Sarah loves shopping, but she can't quite decide what look she wants. Her tastes may change, but she won't change trains. InterCity CrossCountry." (with a load of pictures of the same girl dressed in hugely different ways)
"Bob seems to get a new job every couple of weeks. His work may change, but he won't change trains. InterCity CrossCountry." (with a bloke dressed in lots of diffferent types of work clothes)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That depends where this overcrowding is happening. If it's on the likes of the Cov-Brum-Wolves corridor, there should be (and I believe is) an adequate local service at least half hourly along that line using high capacity EMUs. People might cram onto XC to save 2 minutes but they don't need to.
One option is compulsory reservations and simply not offering any reservations for short journeys on those trains so you can't. That's how PKP IC do it.
Another option is that the majority ticketing in urban areas where this is a problem and there are alternatives moves to being PTE ticketing, with a considerable price premium to travel on non-local services except where there's no parallel local service. That's how Germany does it. You can go from say Hamburg to Harburg on an ICE (a bit like going from Manchester to Stockport) but it'll cost you.
Last edited:
CrossCountry definitely did deal with short distance passengers in BR days. Some idea that their trains were full of people only ever making long distance journeys is rather taking rose tinted spectacles to what actually happened.
I grant you that the balance may have shifted since BR days but the short distance journeys like Reading to Oxford were always there.
I wouldn't call a single 323 or 350 an especially high capacity service for the stopping train between Birmingham and Wolverhampton. Certainly not given it has to serve all of the intermediate stations. Note that the fast service between Birmingham and Coseley has been withdrawn so the stoppers have to accommodate everyone from Tipton and Coseley now. They're rather busy.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Most services that go through to/from Euston are double 350s these days, though sometimes a third is added/removed at Northampton. I'd say a double 350 (or 323) would be a sensible standard length for such commuter services, and it's a heck of a lot cheaper to do that for a short journey (requiring maybe 2-3 more units) than to send 10 cars to Cornwall because the middle bit is a bit busy (requiring lots).
Oxford-Reading often uses 9 or 10-car 80x formations half hourly these days, anyone using XC for that journey is just a fool. The days of overcrowded short DMUs on those GWR services is long gone other than in disruption.
Hopefully post-HS2 it will be possible to add at least one more local train per hour to that corridor, again reducing the need for XC to carry those passengers.
The problem is, 'X' doesn't travel very often at all - even all of the 'X''s are crowded into a small part of the year and mostly on a few days, in any number.
Sarah and Bob will both complain that the two through trains between their Origin and Destination are not timed to their convenience; someone on this forum will then suggest that every train is formed of through cars to every other (because they saw such a thing at Basel in the 1950s).
I am not doubting that some seemingly major flows, (like Manchester-Bristol) are not served directly, but it strikes me that the major problem is that each train is not comprised of sufficient carriages. This still wouldn't solve every gripe (the fact that the same rolling stock has to serve both large numbers of commuters at one hour/day and large numbers numbers of holidaymakers with luggage at another is always going to be a compromise). Short of compulsory reservation a la airlines, and trains capable of easy reconfiguration (or different sets of rolling stock, which is just too expensive nowadays), I don't see how everyone can be happy. Cue comments on how this was so easily done in 1950.
Those don't work to Wolverhampton, and the bay at Wolverhampton is only just long enough for a single 350. As usual your bias to the LNR side is showing
I'm sure your next suggestion will be demolish that part of Wolverhampton station and rebuild the bay on the other side in order to make it longer enough for an 8 car 350. While that's certainly a good idea, it's plain that it would be highly disruptive work and cost rather a lot. The point being that your ideas while not unsound are still going to require lots of capex. Same as people suggesting other ideas.
A lot of full 5-car 80x formations on the GWR services between Paddington and Oxford now. It might be time for passengers to switch back to the CrossCountry services for travelling between Reading and Oxford. Standing passengers of the 5-car 80x I travelled on yesterday between Slough and Paddington that had come from Worcester (although there was admittedly disruption involved).
Note that the full CrossCountry service constituted half of a fairly well spaced 4tph Reading to Oxford service
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
X, however, is the leisure/business traveller, and not the commuter. X is the future of the railway, because the commuter flows are drying up. When will the railway realise and accept this?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Or it might be time to get the wires up to Oxford (long overdue) and extend the Didcot stoppers back up. Then that's two 8-car EMU formations per hour, aka "all the capacity you will ever need", and shove a u/s on the XC services.
Very rarely is cramming local passengers on IC trains the right approach. Sometimes it's unavoidable (see Reading commuters) but it almost never works particularly well, and most countries seem to realise that except us.
Those countries have committed the necessary billions to building "S bahn" and "U bahn" infrastructure that supports such services. We have chosen no to do so. Places like Oxford have no dedicated local rail infrastructure whatsoever. Birmingham obviously has some but nowhere near enough for a city of such size.
One of the main cross city lines in W mids (Cov - Wolverhampton) is also a very busy main line. One other (Brum - Longbridge also has quite a few long distance trains. Separating the locals from the longer distance trains would be quite disruptive.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Sometimes they have, but not always. There are comparable German routes with exactly the same sort of mixed traffic double track lines we have on that sort of route. The Rhein-Ruhr S-Bahn is much more like Castlefield than it is Merseyrail, for instance.
But we have daft stuff. Like Longbridge - Barnt Green. The outside rails should be the 'slows' and the inside ones the 'fasts'. But you would need an awkward junction at Barnt Green tho.
Cross Country should really seek the target customers for their trains using some of these scenarios:
1. A family travelling from Manchester to stay at St Austell (for the Eden Project). Less hassle than flying to Newquay and saving the environment.
2. A school pupil reunion. Neil travels from Bournemouth, Glen travels from Leeds. Both meet up at Birmingham New Street for the first time in years.
3. Travelling to a sports event. A grainy still of the "Devonian" leaving Leeds for Taunton with an image of Johnny Lawrence (former Somerset cricketer who was born in Yorkshire). Cue a few seconds later his son Steve boards the XC service travelling from Leeds to see Somerset Cricket Club play at Taunton. Message emphasises hourly service, journey time four hours to Taunton.
IMO present day XC should have something like
1tph Edinburgh to Plymouth via Doncaster (1tp2h Penzance extension)
1tph York to Reading via Leeds (1tp2h Southampton extension)
1tph Manchester to Bristol (1tp2h Paignton extension + 1-2tpd Newquay in the summer)
1tph Manchester to Bournemouth via Coventry (Any Weymouth extension?)
So more or less pre-covid, but add capacity using new stock as mentioned in my previous post.
Going further into the future, I’d wonder about separating short and long distance flows with more services and varied calling patterns. Potentially also things like connecting Cardiff to the XC IC network rather than the 170 stuff.
1tph Edinburgh to Plymouth via Doncaster (1tp2h Penzance extension)
1tph York to Reading via Leeds (1tp2h Southampton extension)
1tph Manchester to Bristol (1tp2h Paignton extension + 1-2tpd Newquay in the summer)
1tph Manchester to Bournemouth via Coventry (Any Weymouth extension?)
So more or less pre-covid, but add capacity using new stock as mentioned in my previous post.
Going further into the future, I’d wonder about separating short and long distance flows with more services and varied calling patterns. Potentially also things like connecting Cardiff to the XC IC network rather than the 170 stuff.
The quality of the infrastructure on the Dusseldorf - Duisburg - Essen - Dortmund axis isn't remotely comparable with what is happening in Manchester.
miklcct
Established Member
Here now comes the question of if we should have non-XC services which runs from Reading to the South Coast, which is time-competitive compared to travelling into Waterloo. However, electrification is a main issue here.
I'm thinking if SWR can take over the XC services between Bournemouth and Reading, and GWR between Basingstoke and Reading using diesel trains at the moment until the line is electrified with the following pattern:
1 tph Bournemouth - Reading (fast between Bournemouth and Basingstoke)
1 tph Southampton - Reading (stopper - replacing the current Bournemouth - Winchester / Basingstoke service between Southampton and Basingstoke)
and both services will be stoppers between Basingstoke and Reading.
In such case all XC can terminate at Reading with a single change to the South Coast.
- Status