Newer, longer trains - hopefully 7 car 80x or maybe extending some of the 222s back to 7 cars if they come off lease at some point. I don’t think there’s anything else realistically to be done. If you reduce the timetable, you force the same number of passengers onto another train but increasing the frequency means shorter trains and still running the risk of being too popular.
-
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
I'm getting the 1325 from Coventry to Reading in a bit (origin Manchester; destination Bournemouth). Five car set only. Guessing that'll be nice and cosy..
Seatfrog appears to be turned off for XC journeys on that corridor today as well, unless I've missed something.
Seatfrog appears to be turned off for XC journeys on that corridor today as well, unless I've missed something.
Ideally, and l have real doubts that HMT would fund it, XC would end up with all of the 22xs with them all in 7 car format. That would appear to make best use of the extant stock. In an ideal world they would all be modified to a common format but l appreciate that would likely be too complex and expensive.
I would also move the XC services operated by 170s to other TOCs then do a complete review of where XC should serve and at what frequency.
I don’t know the maths but you’d have to ensure that they wouldn’t have less stock to play with if they were all converted to 7 car lengths. I’d assume you would still want a few to run as a double consist for some of the longer routes that are extensions of others.
I would suspect that 2x7 22xs wouldn't work at rather too many stations. Perhaps the review might allow greater frequency on some routes or parts thereof?
No, I mean you’d still want some in multiple consists of 4+5, 4+4 etc rather than only having 7 car consists.
Thing is whilst WFH sometimes reduces the need to go into the office there's still a need to provide some rail services, anyway last time I looked we were at about 80% rail use - meaning that whilst it's going to be less important is still going to be an issue.
Also it should be noted that people are also used to a more reliable service and so if more capacity is needed they're less likely to be happy with the old pattern of more trains with a worse reliability.
Which is one of the reasons that 9 would be better, also a 9 coach unit trends to be able to provide same capacity as a pair of 5's.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Thing is whilst WFH sometimes reduces the need to go into the office there's still a need to provide some rail services, anyway last time I looked we were at about 80% rail use - meaning that whilst it's going to be less important is still going to be an issue.
Also it should be noted that people are also used to a more reliable service and so if more capacity is needed they're less likely to be happy with the old pattern of more trains with a worse reliability.
Which is one of the reasons that 9 would be better, also a 9 coach unit trends to be able to provide same capacity as a pair of 5's.
Perm your numbers and formations of 22X units if all of them ended up with XC:
Cross Country - 34 x 4-car 220s, 4 x 4-car and 20 x 5-car 221s
East Midlands Railway - 23 x 5-car and 4 x 7-car 222s
Avanti West Coast - 20 x 5-car 221s
(I don't know if there are any maintenance spares - details from Wikipedia)
Cross Country - 34 x 4-car 220s, 4 x 4-car and 20 x 5-car 221s
East Midlands Railway - 23 x 5-car and 4 x 7-car 222s
Avanti West Coast - 20 x 5-car 221s
(I don't know if there are any maintenance spares - details from Wikipedia)
This point gets made over and over again but it is very desirable to have one operator on the Cheltenham to Derby corridor because the last time that wasn't the case it didn't work well.
Does CrossCountry running services with a few more stops really matter that much?
I know there is some rose-tinted view that people will only use CrossCountry for 100+ mile journeys like they used to in the 1980s if only the trains were longer and didn't carry passengers making shorter journeys but that is never going to be the reality now.
The only problem is some peak hours when people use XC to commute, causing overloading on part of a route. How you cope with that is difficult. Running reliefs in front of the long distance working would be good but where so the resources for that come from?
TheBigD
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 2,043
That's the current line up.
Though in the past the 222s have been various combinations...
As built...
7 x 9 car, 16 x 4 car,and 4 x 4 car (Hull Trains)
Then...
7 x 8 car, 7 x 5 car, 9 x 4 car, and 4 x 4 car (Hull Trains)
Then...
6 x 7 car, 17 x 5 car, and 4 x 4 car.
Voyagers have had pretty consistent formations.
The main change being 3 x 221 4 car with Virgin West Coast being reformed to 2 x 5 car with the 2 driving cars being spare. The driving cars then went to XC where 2 x 5 car were reduced to 2 x 4 car and an additional 4 car set formed.
Thanks I'll ask the forum, if supposing XC owns all the 22X units, how would you form them to cater for the demands placed on XC?
my suggestions below:
220s - 34 x 4-car
221s - 40 x 5-car and 4 x 4-car
222s - 6 x 7-car, 17 x 5-car and 4 x 4-car. Assigned solely on NE-SW services.
class397tpe
Member
Does anyone have any idea how many diagrams the pre-covid crosscountry intercity timetable required? If the unit formations were to remain as-is, how many extra units would crosscountry require to reinstate the full pre-covid timetable with every single service doubled up to 9 or 10 cars (except extensions to penzance and aberdeen). Would this require them to take all the 221s and 222s?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
7 cars have about the same capacity as 2x4 car voyagers right? Anyway, if XC were to take the 222s, they should cut down on the ridiculous amount of first class.
Yep, the 222s should have separate diagrams. XC already do this for HSTs, so the argument "taking 222s would be difficult cause they can't couple to 221s" is very very weak because you can just put them on different diagrams so they never interwork.
53 depending on the day of the week and whether all diagrammed double Voyagers ran as such. One of these was the hot spare at Birmingham New Street.
Overnight locations as follows
| Long Rock | 2 |
| Laira | 5 |
| Barton Hill | 4 |
| Eastleigh | 8 |
| Central Rivers | 16 |
| Longsight | 4 |
| Crofton | 4 |
| Tyne SS | 4 |
| Craigentinny | 6 |
| Total | 53 |
class397tpe
Member
Thankyou so much! Interesting to know - does this list include the (I think 3) HST diagrams or is it just the voyager ones? That's pretty tight unit utilisation of 53/58 units total, moreso as there were a few (rare) double voyagers.
So if XC took all the 221s and 222s that would give a total fleet of 105 units (including 4 7-car class 222s, which probably couldn't be run doubled up). This might be enough to run the vast majority of these diagrams as double units - especially if splitting was done with only single units heading south of plymouth/exeter or north of newcastle/edinburgh.
Perhaps to give broadly comparable capacities, you could reform the 7-car 222s into 8 car, meaning some 9-car 222 configurations could be run (and the 8-cars would be comparable capacity-wise).
So you'd have
34 4-car 220s
4 4-car 221s
40 5-car 221s
4 4-car 222s
17 5-car 222s
4 8-car 222s
Which they could aim to run as
Around 35 diagrams of 9-car 220/221
Around 2 diagrams of 10-car 221
Around 4 diagrams of 9-car 222
Around 5 diagrams of 10-car 222
Around 3 diagrams of 8-car 222 (single units)
So around 49 diagrams of full doubled-up units total.
This gives 4 spare 220/221s (similar to before) and 4 spare 222s (one of which is 8-car). Could be flexible with how many diagrams of how many carriages depending on demand and what needs maintenance. E.g. could run some 8-car 220/221 diagrams, and more 10 car.
So would be a little less diagrams than the pre-covid timetable requires, but could probably get extra diagrams by running extensions as single units and could also not reinstate a couple diagrams.
Also could reform another 222 into an 8-car, so you'd have
7 4-car 222s
13 5-car 222s
5 8-car 222s
So could run
Around 7 diagrams 9-car 222
Around 2 diagrams 10-car 222
Around 4 diagrams 8-car 222
So 1 extra diagram and 3 222s spare (one of which is an 8-car). Obviously could rotate to more 10-car diagrams when 4-car 222s need work.
Although, sadly XC likely won't go back to the pre-covid timetable. We can dream...
Just one example of how through services drive demand -- the 2113 from Reading to New Street used to be dead, and five cars only. It started at Reading. Now it originates from Bournemouth and is a doubled up unit, it's been noticably busy. Not massively so, but not many seats going spare, compared to the five car / private carriage I used to have to myself on this final train north! Good to see.
One day they'll go back to running from Brighton, I'm sure
One day they'll go back to running from Brighton, I'm sure
class397tpe
Member
Haha, I don't even want to imagine what a nightmare it would be pathing crosscountry down the west london line and through clapham junction. So strange to think they ran through kensington olympia! (There's no reason for brighton to return imho).Just one example of how through services drive demand -- the 2113 from Reading to New Street used to be dead, and five cars only. It started at Reading. Now it originates from Bournemouth and is a doubled up unit, it's been noticably busy. Not massively so, but not many seats going spare, compared to the five car / private carriage I used to have to myself on this final train north! Good to see.
One day they'll go back to running from Brighton, I'm sure
I wonder how much this is also due to XC running at half the frequency so many of the passengers you’re seeing now would have been on the other XC services?
Selfishly I’d like Oxford to get its XC frequency back, but splitting up the currently doubled up units isn’t going to be pleasant for the busier parts of the network.
Thanks for providing XC's pre-Covid diagrams and suggested 22X unit allocations and reformations.
I can't see the DfT authorising new cross-country trains for a long time so XC will have to make do with doubled-up units in the meantime.
At the very least XC's Voyager fleet must go through heavy refurbishment.
If they take over the 222s one first class carriage per unit should suffice for their needs.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It departs Bournemouth 1945, its last direct train of the day to Birmingham New St, arriving 2248 in good time to make late evening connections to West Midlands destinations.
I can't see the DfT authorising new cross-country trains for a long time so XC will have to make do with doubled-up units in the meantime.
At the very least XC's Voyager fleet must go through heavy refurbishment.
If they take over the 222s one first class carriage per unit should suffice for their needs.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Just one example of how through services drive demand -- the 2113 from Reading to New Street used to be dead, and five cars only. It started at Reading. Now it originates from Bournemouth and is a doubled up unit, it's been noticably busy. Not massively so, but not many seats going spare, compared to the five car / private carriage I used to have to myself on this final train north! Good to see.
One day they'll go back to running from Brighton, I'm sure
It departs Bournemouth 1945, its last direct train of the day to Birmingham New St, arriving 2248 in good time to make late evening connections to West Midlands destinations.
Last edited:
Trainbike46
Established Member
An idea for XC:
In the short term, take the Avanti 221s and the 222s as soon as available to allow more doubling up, don't bother with refurbishement or anything like that. Go for short leases that end at the same time as the leases on the current stock. When enough stock is available, let the HSTs go to save money.
In the slightly longer term XC needs rolling stock which is cheaper to operate, while providing more capacity. As far as I can see, there is two ways to achieve this:
-Reform the existing rolling stock into longer formations to save on staffing cost and negotiate a cheaper lease
By my count, XC currently has 58 220/221s and about 5 HSTs, so 63 sets. Depending on how many diagrams XC needs to fill when there's no need to double up, the 220/221/222 fleets could be reformed into:
If the lease price can be negotiated down enough, plus the lack of need for double staffing, this could be cheaper per seat than the current arrangement. It won't fix the high fuel use though. It wouldn't solve the low number of seat per carriage either. While reforming, a refurbishment should also be undertaken.
The main advantage is that this would use existing stock, so if the lease price can be dropped enough this might be cheaper than the alternative below.
-Buy new bimode rolling stock
The obvious option would be some sort of FLIRT/SMILE derivative or an 80x. you would probably go for a 7-car fleet, with options to extend to 8 or 9 car if passenger numbers grow (as I suspect they would).
This would reduce fuel use by allowing the wires to be used wherever they are available. It would also increase the number of seats per carriage, and would eliminate the need for double staffing, so should be cheaper (particularly on a per-seat basis) while increasing capacity.
I think the best idea would be to go with whichever of these options is cheapest, taking into account leasing, fuel and staffing costs.
In the short term, take the Avanti 221s and the 222s as soon as available to allow more doubling up, don't bother with refurbishement or anything like that. Go for short leases that end at the same time as the leases on the current stock. When enough stock is available, let the HSTs go to save money.
In the slightly longer term XC needs rolling stock which is cheaper to operate, while providing more capacity. As far as I can see, there is two ways to achieve this:
-Reform the existing rolling stock into longer formations to save on staffing cost and negotiate a cheaper lease
By my count, XC currently has 58 220/221s and about 5 HSTs, so 63 sets. Depending on how many diagrams XC needs to fill when there's no need to double up, the 220/221/222 fleets could be reformed into:
| 9-car option | 8-car option | 7-car option | |
| 28 9-car 220/221 | 32 8-car 220/221 | 39 7-car 220/221 | |
| 12 9-car 222 | 1 6-car 220/221 | 17 7-car 222 | |
| 1 7 car 222 | 14 8-car 222 | 1 6-car 222 | |
| 1 7-car 222 | |||
| 40 9-car plus one 7-car total | 46 8-car plus one 7-car and one 6-car | 56 7-car plus one 6-car and one spare 220/221 centre carriage |
If the lease price can be negotiated down enough, plus the lack of need for double staffing, this could be cheaper per seat than the current arrangement. It won't fix the high fuel use though. It wouldn't solve the low number of seat per carriage either. While reforming, a refurbishment should also be undertaken.
The main advantage is that this would use existing stock, so if the lease price can be dropped enough this might be cheaper than the alternative below.
-Buy new bimode rolling stock
The obvious option would be some sort of FLIRT/SMILE derivative or an 80x. you would probably go for a 7-car fleet, with options to extend to 8 or 9 car if passenger numbers grow (as I suspect they would).
This would reduce fuel use by allowing the wires to be used wherever they are available. It would also increase the number of seats per carriage, and would eliminate the need for double staffing, so should be cheaper (particularly on a per-seat basis) while increasing capacity.
I think the best idea would be to go with whichever of these options is cheapest, taking into account leasing, fuel and staffing costs.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I suspect that too. XC is so utterly awful that there must be considerable suppressed demand, currently going by car or air. (It doesn't overly matter if people are switching to coach or to rail via London, as that's still public transport).
Cater well for business travellers and families and you'll see patronage grow. This means an interior more like the 397 or Avanti "Coach D" with lots of tables (for laptop use and for families). And affordable First Class for very long trips.
To be fair even the standard 80x layout would be fine. The Highland Chieftain is probably a service to look at for what is needed - while it has London at one end it's very much like XC in nature, used for short and very long journeys. Or Deutsche Bahn's IC (rather than ICE) services. Or even, to some extent, TPE - the longest journeys are shorter, but the mixed long distance and commuter use is near enough the same.
davetheguard
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 1,939
Agreed. There's also trips that aren't made at all, not just losing the railway revenue, but also any money that would have been spent at the destination.
Would a new fleet of trains with more than sufficient capacity grow the business and pay for itself? I'd like to think so, but since when has anyone at the Treasury shown any entrepreneurial spirit? Hang on a second, wasn't one of the reasons given for rail privitisation that it would free up management from the dead hand of the Treasury........?
I may have said this before, but an 80x would be an ideal off the shelf solution for XC.
Preferably in 7 and/or 9 car bi-mode formations.
No more diesel under the wires.
Sensible table/airline seat ratio.
Better leg-room.
More seats per coach.
Interoperability with other operators’ stock if necessary.
A more universal standard for long distance journeys.
That said, I’d be pleased with a FLIRT option too. The power pack car rather than under-floor engines make for a quiet and smooth ride, and they’re very accessible.
Preferably in 7 and/or 9 car bi-mode formations.
No more diesel under the wires.
Sensible table/airline seat ratio.
Better leg-room.
More seats per coach.
Interoperability with other operators’ stock if necessary.
A more universal standard for long distance journeys.
That said, I’d be pleased with a FLIRT option too. The power pack car rather than under-floor engines make for a quiet and smooth ride, and they’re very accessible.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,365
Of the Manchester-South Coast services, how much of it is above 100mph?
How much time would a Turbostar lose?
A three coach Turbostar has as many seats as a 4-car 220
How much time would a Turbostar lose?
A three coach Turbostar has as many seats as a 4-car 220
Re your last para the GA experience thus far tends to suggest that they should be avoided like the plague.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If you mean reliability, then you could say the 80x are cracking in that regard.
(No new trains are really shining in terms of not having teething issues)
Fair comment
Trainbike46
Established Member
Having used the 755 on GA on some occasions, and from what I heard from other people they are fantastic. Though any reliability issues may be masked from passengers because of how they have slightly more than they strictly need, allowing for easy swapping. The big advantage they have is the level boarding, which should probably be a requirement for all new stock orders from now
All very well having grandiose plans but no one will want to pay for depot capacity associated with significantly longer trains or significantly more trains. Take a look at Central Rivers next time you are passing and consider how it could be developed to accommodate longer trains. It just isn't happening
Mitchell Hurd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,762
What about taking the 9 Voyagers sent off lease from Avanti West Coast to Beacon Rail? CrossCountry need as much capacity as possible for the Commonwealth games!
They said something like 'We want customers to have access to our services'.
2 extra HST diagrams would be helpful.
They said something like 'We want customers to have access to our services'.
2 extra HST diagrams would be helpful.
- Status