Should Southbound XC services be pick up only at Wakefield?

[TheBigD]

If we were looking at replacment stock, how much would we need?

Assuming the precovid service...

Hourly Edinburgh-Plymouth requires 19 units.
Hourly Manchester-Bournemouth requires 11 units*.
Hourly Manchester-Bristol requires 7 units*
(* units interwork eg Bristol Manchester-Bournemouth and vv)
Hourly Reading-Newcastle requires 11 units**
(** "IF" you could get the faster xx28 path north from Birmingham and risk 20 minute turnarounds at Newcastle you could do it with 10)
2 hourly Glasgow extensions requires 1 unit.
2 hourly Southampton extensions require 1 unit.
Extra Paignton/Exeter services requires 2 units.
Hot Spare at Birmingham requires 1 unit.

So 53 required in traffic, assuming nothing is a double unit and there are no service changes.


For rolling stock comparisons...

Current Fleet...
4 car 220 = 200 seats (26/174)
5 car 221 = 262 seats (26/236)
HST 7 car = not sure, 400+?

Comparison to other fleets...
5 car 222 = 240 seats (50/190)
7 car 222 = 338 seats (106/232)
LNER 5 car Azuma = 302 seats (48/254)
GWR 5 car IET = 326 seats (36/290)
Hull Trains 5 car Paragons 327 seats (43/284)
Lumo's 5 car 803 =394 seats (-/394)
EMR 5 car 810 301 seats (47/255)

 

[Krokodil]

I don't believe a Labour-run government would be forcing XC to give up rolling stock while refusing outright to lease perfectly compatible replacement trains which are sitting in the sidings with no work.

No, I don't believe that they'd reduce the fleet. Neither though do I expect them to increase it.

It would depend on:

• What sort of level of service you wanted to provide (do you want a full pre-Covid timetable, or are you going to reduce frequencies to compensate for higher capacity units)?

The demand is clearly there for the pre-covid timetable. The frequencies helped to drive demand.

• Are you going for the 7+ cars option? Then you need to provide for the services which form off a double unit (e.g. the last up train from Edinburgh).

Recasting the timetable would be needed anyway.

• Going for 4/5 cars? You will need fewer, but not many fewer if you want every passenger to be seated on all but the busiest services as excessive attaching and dividing introduces a performance risk

I think that we've established that 4/5 coach 125mph units are a very inefficient use of space and staff (particularly if you have to resort to doubling them up to provide enough capacity, with two crumple zones in the middle of the train). There is enough demand to be running seven coach trains every half hour in the core sections of XC's Intercity routes (between Birmingham and Manchester/Bristol/Newcastle/Reading). That Greater Manchester (the UK's second most populous urban area) and the West Midlands (the UK's third most populous urban area) only have an hourly service between them for most of the day is appalling. They're not exactly far apart.

• Running as 7+ cars? You will need more units to keep cancellations down as you can't reduce doubles to singles.

TfW defended its procurement of 2 car 197s on the basis that individual units were more flexible and could be paired up. To which the response from many was "if you can couple them up, you can also uncouple them, we see it all the time where 158s are booked to run as pairs 'due to more trains than usual requiring repairs...". Sure enough, last Tuesday a four car 197 arrived in Chester as a peak train to Manchester, was split to cover for the following train which had a full CET tank, and the short-formed train left Chester full and standing. I dread to think what state it was in by the time that it left Runcorn East. Yes, of course running longer fixed-formations means that you will have to lease enough units to reliably do the job, rather than rely on short-forms every time you haven't got enough units to cover the day.

• Are you going to allow for the increase in passengers which will occur once XC stops being rammed all day every day?

Failing to allow for the increase in patronage following better frequencies was precisely the flaw with Operation Pumpkin. A seven car IET would have more seats than an eight car double Voyager, but at least you'd have this every half hour, rather than four/five coaches on most services (pre-covid) or eight coaches only running hourly (now).

You haven't said, bur I assume this relates to the 1810 departure which is 4 cars and perhaps ought to be 5 - but in Leeds that's definitely shoulder-peak. If it's full and standing from Newcastle to Bristol (say) that's another matter.

The original post quotes from a thread that described conditions on 1V64 which on that particular day was short-formed to 4-vice-8. On that day I've little doubt that it was a wedgex from Newcastle to Bristol.

I think a lot of the problem is that the prominent "next train to" departure board will show the xx:11 Cross Country for Wakefield Westgate as people enter through the barriers after the departure of the xx:48 stopper (only Outwood as far as Wakefield is concerned).

So everyone (not just the clued up regulars) looking at that departure board ignores the generally longer (and usually available for boarding) LNER xx:15 trains at the adjacent platforms 6 and 8 to trek over the footbridge to Platform 12 and wait to crowd onto the Cross Country service. Only to find in many cases that the xx:15 LNER actually departs first!!

Note all the valid points about suppressing open stops but it's still a shame that the software boffins can't find a way of displaying the xx:15 LNER as the next Wakefield Westgate service on the "next departure" screens as opposed to the xx:11 Cross Country.

It shouldn't be impossible to stop the departure screens at Leeds advertising Wakefield as a stop. I don't buy either that it's impossible to program journey planners to consider Wakefield to be set-down only as far as Leeds passengers are concerned. Nothing is impossible if the willpower is there. If the rules forbid it, the rules can be changed - the DfT/RDG change the rules when it suits them, just look at P-coding.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Apr 2023 ==

Well right now the capacity of a double unit varies from 400 seats (2 4-car voyagers) through 524 seats (2 5-cars)

By comparison a 5-car Class 802/2 has 342 seats, so approaches the capacity of a Double (short) Voyager in a single unit configuration. Lumo's single-class configuration of the IEP even exceeds 400 seats

A seven car 807 has 453 seats for comparison.

 

[Starmill]

TfW defended its procurement of 2 car 197s on the basis that individual units were more flexible and could be paired up. To which the response from many was "if you can couple them up, you can also uncouple them, we see it all the time where 158s are booked to run as pairs 'due to more trains than usual requiring repairs...". Sure enough, last Tuesday a four car 197 arrived in Chester as a peak train to Manchester, was split to cover for the following train which had a full CET tank, and the short-formed train left Chester full and standing. I dread to think what state it was in by the time that it left Runcorn East. Yes, of course running longer fixed-formations means that you will have to lease enough units to reliably do the job, rather than rely on short-forms every time you haven't got enough units to cover the day.

This thread isn't about TfW or 197s. However, what you're saying above is fundamentally wrong. XC are diagramming four and five car sets to these services for the foreseeable future. That's not going to change. Indeed, as the Voyager and Turbostar fleets age, their availability will slowly reduce over the next decade, so the work they can do is going to have to be cut eventually. TfW are suffering from acute shortages because of serious mechanical issues on some of their fleet, and other short-term factors. However, they have a fleet which is much, much larger in relation to the demand they're planning for. The number of vehicles in each unit really doesn't come into it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Apr 2023 ==

Neither though do I expect them to increase it.

The trains are literally sat idle, doing nothing. CrossCountry have made the case to take them on and been told no. I think it's pretty darn obvious that a government that were actually pro public transport would lease them and get them working again, don't you?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Apr 2023 ==

If the rules forbid it, the rules can be changed - the DfT/RDG change the rules when it suits them, just look at P-coding.

Would probably cost more than just leasing the trains to revise the licenses. You're asking for something that nobody has ever asked for before, to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.

 

[Krokodil]

The trains are literally sat idle, doing nothing. CrossCountry have made the case to take them on and been told no. I think it's pretty darn obvious that a government that were actually pro public transport would lease them and get them working again, don't you?

If Labour really were pro-public transport and able to do something about it when in power, the SRA wouldn't have blocked Virgin from lengthening the Voyagers when they were first on order. It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.

However, what you're saying above is fundamentally wrong. XC are diagramming four and five car sets to these services for the foreseeable future. That's not going to change. Indeed, as the Voyager and Turbostar fleets age, their availability will slowly reduce over the next decade, so the work they can do is going to have to be cut eventually. TfW are suffering from acute shortages because of serious mechanical issues on some of their fleet, and other short-term factors. However, they have a fleet which is much, much larger in relation to the demand they're planning for. The number of vehicles in each unit really doesn't come into it.

TfW's plan for the Manchester - North Wales services is that they will be predominantly be worked by three car 197s, with a few peak trains strengthened to five (but only east of Chester). In short, for this particular flow there is no increase in capacity at all. Have you ever seen the scenes at Warrington when a Llandudno service arrives from Manchester during the summer?

Liverpool-North Wales is a new flow of course but with only two carriages planned per unit, this still isn't enough to deal with overcrowding on the coast. Worse, VXC (see, this discussion does tie in to XC) learned the hard way that if you increase frequency you will dramatically boost demand, which if you have only increased capacity slightly (effectively 100ish extra seats per hour) will mean continued overcrowding.

TfW and ATW have had a massive overcrowding problem for 15 years, for far longer than when the 175s started combusting. An extra 2-car unit per hour will not scratch the surface of this. TfW are repeating the mistakes of Operation Princess.

 

[Starmill]

It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.

Maybe if you're a nihilist about it then yes. But I believe in agitation for positive change and it's pretty darn obvious that some sensible changes could be made here at low cost, relatively speaking.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Apr 2023 ==

TfW's plan for the Manchester - North Wales services is that they will be predominantly be worked by three car 197s, with a few peak trains strengthened to five (but only east of Chester). In short, for this particular flow there is no increase in capacity at all. Have you ever seen the scenes at Warrington when a Llandudno service arrives from Manchester during the summer?

Liverpool-North Wales is a new flow of course but with only two carriages planned per unit, this still isn't enough to deal with overcrowding on the coast. Worse, VXC (see, this discussion does tie in to XC) learned the hard way that if you increase frequency you will dramatically boost demand, which if you have only increased capacity slightly (effectively 100ish extra seats per hour) will mean continued overcrowding.

TfW and ATW have had a massive overcrowding problem for 15 years, for far longer than when the 175s started combusting. An extra 2-car unit per hour will not scratch the surface of this. TfW are repeating the mistakes of Operation Princess.

I'm sorry, but this is all wrong. I'm afraid you've quite misunderstood what is going on. If you want to discuss it further you'll have to create a new thread though because it's really not relevant here.

 

[Krokodil]

You can deny it all you like, but we'll see who's right in 2025 when Operation Tywysoges is complete and trains remain wedged. Until then...

 

[Starmill]

You can deny it all you like, but we'll see who's right in 2025 when Operation Tywysoges is complete and trains remain wedged. Until then...

I think everyone involved is confident they will be in far and away a better position than CrossCountry in two years time. The fact that they're not even really related, and you just brought them up to have a moan, is quite telling.

 

[Krokodil]

The parallels with Op Princess are quite clear, it's relevant to the XC discussion. Providing a more frequent service with direct trains to Liverpool will attract more passengers. If you don't order enough coaches to accommodate these extra passengers (never mind the current ones) then you will still have overcrowding. The existing offering in North Wales routinely leaves passengers behind on platforms (on some days even trains strengthened to four cars leave pax behind). The new fleet provides 50% extra seats per hour. This will mop up the passengers currently left behind but it won't get them all a seat, let alone extra passengers attracted by the direct Liverpool service. On top of which, where capacity does get freed up it will quickly be filled because there is a large amount of suppressed demand.

By "everyone involved" you clearly aren't including the frontline staff who will actually be providing the service on the coasts, none of whom share the optimism of the Cardiff bubble. I suppose that as long as the Marches/SWML/CVL will be getting longer trains, that is all that matters, stuff the north.

TfW may well end up in a better position than XC, but that's not exactly a high bar to set. I'll see you in 2025.

 

[Nottingham59]

My idea to help with this would be for southbound XC services at Wakefield to be made pick up only.

It seems to me that one (partial) solution for capacity south of Leeds would be for the Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham service to run fast from Leeds to Sheffield, flighted just ahead of the southbound XC service, and then revert to its current calling pattern from Sheffield to Nottingham. This would need another service to run from Leeds to Sheffield via Barnsley, and I don't know if paths and platforms at Leeds (and at Sheffield) could be found to handle this.

Alternatively, could the XC service be timed to depart Leeds just after the LNER rather than just before it? So commuters heading to Wakefield catch that train instead?

 

[Neptune]

It seems to me that one (partial) solution for capacity south of Leeds would be for the Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham service to run fast from Leeds to Sheffield, flighted just ahead of the southbound XC service, and then revert to its current calling pattern from Sheffield to Nottingham. This would need another service to run from Leeds to Sheffield via Barnsley, and I don't know if paths and platforms at Leeds (and at Sheffield) could be found to handle this.

Alternatively, could the XC service be timed to depart Leeds just after the LNER rather than just before it? So commuters heading to Wakefield catch that train instead?

There are plans for a 1Nxx Leeds - Sheffield via Dearne fast (calling at WKF & MHS) using a path in the opposite half hour to the XC service. Deferred from the May 23 tt but not to be ruled out in future. Absolutely no need to mess around with the Nottingham service and certainly no need to run it so close to the XC service on the same route.

 

[YorksLad12]

There are plans for a 1Nxx Leeds - Sheffield via Dearne fast (calling at WKF & MHS) using a path in the opposite half hour to the XC service. Deferred from the May 23 tt but not to be ruled out in future. Absolutely no need to mess around with the Nottingham service and certainly no need to run it so close to the XC service on the same route.

Isn't that the one that was then supposed to run on to Nottingham, bringing Leeds-Nottingham down by 20 minutes or so? Part of the Northern Connect (RIP) plan, and extended back to Bradford. Could really do with that service now I'm commuting again!

 

[Neptune]

Isn't that the one that was then supposed to run on to Nottingham, bringing Leeds-Nottingham down by 20 minutes or so? Part of the Northern Connect (RIP) plan, and extended back to Bradford. Could really do with that service now I'm commuting again!

We’ll never know to be honest as Northern Connect died a quiet death in 2020.

What we do know about the Nottingham’s is that the Sheffield - Nottingham path would have to remain the same (both due to pathing and the half hourly service pattern alongside EMR) so the newly proposed 1Nxx LDS - SHF & return timings would not match up with them whatsoever and it’s therefore unlikely to extend these paths beyond Sheffield.

 

[YorksLad12]

We’ll never know to be honest as Northern Connect died a quiet death in 2020.

What we do know about the Nottingham’s is that the Sheffield - Nottingham path would have to remain the same (both due to pathing and the half hourly service pattern alongside EMR) so the newly proposed 1Nxx LDS - SHF & return timings would not match up with them whatsoever and it’s therefore unlikely to extend these paths beyond Sheffield.

Indeed. The plan (if, indeed, there was a plan rather than a vague, speculative idea to try and impress the judges at the bid scoring sessions) was to speed up the Leeds-Sheffield bit, which would also speed up Leeds-Nottingham. Trains would have to leave Leeds around xx20 after the LNER service at xx15 so that they hit Sheffield 40-ish minutes later and their path to Nottingham, but the stopper to Doncaster leaves Leeds at xx22. Then again, I can't find enough time to speed up the service to 40 minutes anyway - the XC service is nearer 45 minutes. So it would have to leave after the XC and before the LNER, which is impossible - or change the departure time towards Nottingham. And since that can't happen, we get yet another pie-in-the-sky franchise committment that wasn't picked up. But if we get a second fast Leeds-Sheffield service I'll not be complaining

 

[Peterthegreat]

Indeed. The plan (if, indeed, there was a plan rather than a vague, speculative idea to try and impress the judges at the bid scoring sessions) was to speed up the Leeds-Sheffield bit, which would also speed up Leeds-Nottingham. Trains would have to leave Leeds around xx20 after the LNER service at xx15 so that they hit Sheffield 40-ish minutes later and their path to Nottingham, but the stopper to Doncaster leaves Leeds at xx22. Then again, I can't find enough time to speed up the service to 40 minutes anyway - the XC service is nearer 45 minutes. So it would have to leave after the XC and before the LNER, which is impossible - or change the departure time towards Nottingham. And since that can't happen, we get yet another pie-in-the-sky franchise committment that wasn't picked up. But if we get a second fast Leeds-Sheffield service I'll not be complaining

In the northbound direction the Nottingham to Leeds services leave at xx.18, 3 minutes after the Dearne Valley stopper and 3 minutes before the cross country. Running via Moorthorpe wouldn't work without major changes to other services.

 

[YorksLad12]

In the northbound direction the Nottingham to Leeds services leave at xx.18, 3 minutes after the Dearne Valley stopper and 3 minutes before the cross country. Running via Moorthorpe wouldn't work without major changes to other services.

We're heading off topic, but: the northbound service has a five-minute wait at Sheffield. It could go out before the Dearne Valley stopper, you'd just have to get the XC service ahead of both - which would be a bit pointless. So I'd agree with Neptune that the existing semi-fasts remain as they are but the new Northern fast is separate. If you ran them exactly on the opposite half hour to the XC services in both directions, a unit leaving Leeds at 0941 would have to wait for 20-ish minutes to form the 1051 departure from Sheffield but under 5 minutes to form the 1141 from Leeds, assuming a 45- to 50-minute journey time. If my maths is correct.