XC desperately needs more rolling stock

[RobShipway]

One way of adding more capacity would be splitting the Manchester services at Birmingham and using 350/2s when LNR have finished with them. They would need to have new seats to be suitable but approximately 16 units rostered each day would enable a half hourly Birmingham to Manchester service with 8 coach sets. The obvious long term solution would be a fleet of bi modes but I can't see DfT paying for that in the short or medium term.

Rather than the class 350/2 units, you could do that now with using the class 379 units, which I believe can be changed to be running 110mph and already have 2+2 seating.

 

[Chester1]

Rather than the class 350/2 units, you could do that now with using the class 379 units, which I believe can be changed to be running 110mph and already have 2+2 seating.

Are they available soon? I don’t know much about rolling stock down south! 2+2 seating in standard class on 110mph EMU would do. Even a mini fleet of 10 units would do. Roster 4 double sets a day for an hourly Manchester Birmingham and make Bristol and Bournemouth every other hour north of Birmingham. That would provide much needed capacity between Manchester and Birmingham and allow more double Voyagers on other routes.

 

[Trainbike46]

Are they available soon? I don’t know much about rolling stock down south! 2+2 seating in standard class on 110mph EMU would do. Even a mini fleet of 10 units would do. Roster 4 double sets a day for an hourly Manchester Birmingham and make Bristol and Bournemouth every other hour north of Birmingham. That would provide much needed capacity between Manchester and Birmingham and allow more double Voyagers on other routes.

Class 379 is currently in storage, so time needed would only depend on crew training and any work that may be needed to the units (they were in good state when they last ran for Greater Anglia a few years ago)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Class 379 is currently in storage, so time needed would only depend on crew training and any work that may be needed to the units (they were in good state when they last ran for Greater Anglia a few years ago)

350/2s are the other option, and are still in service so in running order. You'd want to replace the seats, though.

You could brand it something like "CrossCountry Connect" if you were going to make it Standard only and no on-board service due to the short journey.

 

[Mark J]

Most of the doubling up on Bournemouth services over the last year or two occurred when trains were only running 2 hourly. In normal pre-2000 timetable there was only ever a very few doubled sets, one each way maybe, which didn’t run every weekday either.

Even when XC were running hourly, there were doubled up sets. I was certainly impressed for a while, turning up to be continually greeted with a 8/9/10 car XC service at the platform.

However, with the current state of XC rolling stock deployment, I wouldn't be prepared to use them all the way through to Manchester Piccadilly. I've used them as far as Coventry before, that was bad enough. In particular on the return journey that also had football traffic, resulting in First Class being declassified due to the on-board crush - all seats full and noses pressed to the wall in the vestibule areas.

Quite simply a four carriage train is ridiculous from Bournemouth all the way through to Manchester. As others have stated, the amount of standard class seating is barely more than a local train. In fact, some local services probably now have more seating capacity than XC does.

In 'the old days' of the 1990's, I can certainly remember boarding an Intercity 125 at Reading - destined for Bournemouth - with eight carriages, including a buffet car. Nowadays this is usually four carriages with no full service buffet car. What a huge regression when passenger numbers are higher than what they were back in the 90's.

If some people know a service is likely to be more than full and standing, they'll likely avoid using that service again, which in the long term doesn't help grow passenger numbers.

I also suspect many of the on-board XC staff must get endless complaints about the lack of capacity, for which they can do nothing about. Which is not fair on them, to be honest.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

So, since the C220/221s were all acquired for Operation Princess etc. 20 years ago and were intensively worked at that time, what's changed since? Some of them went to AWC for the non-electric routes. 4 HSTs added under the Arriva plan. One or two Voyagers crash damaged?

The timetable they are running seems to be less than they offered after the Princess rescue job that the SRA organised: fewer double unit trains, less to Reading/Bournemouth (they used to go further to Poole, of course), nothing to Portsmouth (remember that?), nothing west of Plymouth and broadly hourly over the rest of the system. So less than it was.

Does this mean that fleet avaiability is much less than in 2003/04 or so? Are the turnrounds slower (certainly feels more leisurely than it was then)? The waits (ie. New Street, Reading) longer? A larger 'on-the-day' operational reserve? Since XC has practically no interest in revenue, now that it is being padi direct to DfT, feels as though the strategy has been to work the fleet less intensively and just concentrate on performance, not revenue or pax satisfaction. I could continue on the theme of XC's pricing policy trying to jettison passengers but that's enough for now!

 

[Mark J]

So, since the C220/221s were all acquired for Operation Princess etc. 20 years ago and were intensively worked at that time, what's changed since? Some of them went to AWC for the non-electric routes. 4 HSTs added under the Arriva plan. One or two Voyagers crash damaged?

The timetable they are running seems to be less than they offered after the Princess rescue job that the SRA organised: fewer double unit trains, less to Reading/Bournemouth (they used to go further to Poole, of course), nothing to Portsmouth (remember that?), nothing west of Plymouth and broadly hourly over the rest of the system. So less than it was.

Does this mean that fleet avaiability is much less than in 2003/04 or so? Are the turnrounds slower (certainly feels more leisurely than it was then)? The waits (ie. New Street, Reading) longer? A larger 'on-the-day' operational reserve? Since XC has practically no interest in revenue, now that it is being padi direct to DfT, feels as though the strategy has been to work the fleet less intensively and just concentrate on performance, not revenue or pax satisfaction. I could continue on the theme of XC's pricing policy trying to jettison passengers but that's enough for now!

Don't get me started on XC's pricing. It is utterly ridiculous on some fares. A simple split can nearly halve the fare. If their pricing is done to reduce demand, then this is a stupid business practice. The railway needs more traffic long term, not less and suitable rolling stock to match demand.

 

[Snow1964]

So, since the C220/221s were all acquired for Operation Princess etc. 20 years ago and were intensively worked at that time, what's changed since? Some of them went to AWC for the non-electric routes. 4 HSTs added under the Arriva plan. One or two Voyagers crash damaged?

When Operation Princess was first mooted, and trains ordered, which is nearer 25 years ago, many XC services were still class 47 hauled with 8-12 mark 2 (multiple variant) coaches.

The HSTs were only about 20 years old at the time, and no intention of replacing them short term. The voyagers were expected to grow traffic and subsequently be lengthened to 6cars (that's why end cars use letters A and F).

But since then growth seems to have fallen off agenda, and cutbacks have gradually crept in. Now ended up with short overstretched voyager fleet, with some services operated by 170s

No longer a comfortable long distance service, if bit slow, more an overpriced service infilling few gaps in network.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

One way of adding more capacity would be splitting the Manchester services at Birmingham and using 350/2s when LNR have finished with them. They would need to have new seats to be suitable but approximately 16 units rostered each day would enable a half hourly Birmingham to Manchester service with 8 coach sets. The obvious long term solution would be a fleet of bi modes but I can't see DfT paying for that in the short or medium term.

Could they also run to Cov ?

 

[JonathanH]

When Operation Princess was first mooted, and trains ordered, which is nearer 25 years ago, many XC services were still class 47 hauled with 8-12 mark 2 (multiple variant) coaches.

XC trains formed of Mk2 and HST stock only had 7 coaches from 1991 onwards (other than where they were able to use stock from other parts of Intercity on Summer Saturdays and where full brake coaches were used until the BSOs became available in 1992).

The HSTs were only about 20 years old at the time, and no intention of replacing them short term.

Virgin may have wanted to keep HSTs but they got reduced to 5 coaches. The intention was to use many of them on a Paddington to Birmingham via Cheltenham route, on alternate hours to the Great Western services. That never happened but the HSTs were not intended to be retained on the core routes they ran up to 2002.

No longer a comfortable long distance service

Indeed

 

[Dr Day]

If their pricing is done to reduce demand, then this is a stupid business practice.

Not necessarily, if costs are fairly fixed. Businesses - even quasi-businesses like the TOCs - still have objectives to maximise their net revenue (ie revenue less costs), so it *may* make more sense from a 'business' perspective to have high fares and limited capacity, if the incremental cost of increasing that capacity is more than the incremental revenue that would result. And whilst many of us on this forum may not agree with current transport spending priorities , the tax payers' pockets are only so deep.

Pre-Covid, XC still needed some subsidy, despite often over-crowded trains, and probably needs more now if the revenue growth in 'leisure' traffic hasn't offset the revenue loss from commuting/ business-related travel and higher operating costs. Which makes the ask of the DfT/Treasury for yet more ongoing funding for more capacity even harder than it was a few years ago when IIRC, it was rejected.

 

[The Planner]

Could they also run to Cov ?

As part of what service? an existing one or a new one, if its the latter, no. Splitting the service in half based on the current timetable would be a performance nightmare as you couldn't interwork as the gaps are too big and turnarounds would be too small on the Bournemouths.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

As part of what service? an existing one or a new one, if its the latter, no. Splitting the service in half based on the current timetable would be a performance nightmare as you couldn't interwork as the gaps are too big and turnarounds would be too small on the Bournemouths.

It was a question mate not a statement, but you've answered so all good.

Would New St to Man P be possible on electric though to free up units for elsewhere?

 

[Snow1964]

Would New St to Man P be possible on electric though to free up units for elsewhere?

Could operate from Coventry or Bromsgrove northwards on electric, don't need to clog up platforms in New Street with terminating trains.

One caveat I think one part of line between Kings Norton and Barnt Green only has 2 of 4 tracks electrified, not fast tracks usually used by XC

XC Services from Glasgow via Newcastle are on a fully electrified route to Doncaster and Leeds (or York if York-Leeds not yet done)

 

[The Planner]

It was a question mate not a statement, but you've answered so all good.

Would New St to Man P be possible on electric though to free up units for elsewhere?

With a big re-write anything can be done, but based on what is there now you run into the problems of my last post of how you deal with the Bournemouth and Bristol portions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Sep 2023 ==

Could operate from Coventry or Bromsgrove northwards on electric, don't need to clog up platforms in New Street with terminating trains.

One caveat I think one part of line between Kings Norton and Barnt Green only has 2 of 4 tracks electrified, not fast tracks usually used by XC

XC Services from Glasgow via Newcastle are on a fully electrified route to Doncaster and Leeds (or York if York-Leeds not yet done)

Cov isn't flush with capacity, you would likely have to split the Rugeley service and run it to International. Bromsgrove wouldn't work until Midlands Rail Hub sorts out Kings Norton.

 

[Energy]

So, since the C220/221s were all acquired for Operation Princess etc. 20 years ago and were intensively worked at that time, what's changed since? Some of them went to AWC for the non-electric routes. 4 HSTs added under the Arriva plan. One or two Voyagers crash damaged?

The Birmingham to Scotland route got moved to Virgin Trains West Coast and Manchester to Scotland to TPE. TPE got no additional stock (until the 350/4s) but that's why additional voyagers moved to VTWC.

The voyagers were expected to grow traffic and subsequently be lengthened to 6cars (that's why end cars use letters A and F).

The Arriva franchise award was really about reducing subsidy, while the HSTs were a small capacity boost. The Virgin XC operation was not cheap and Arriva were awarded just after the start of the financial crash.

Additional voyager cars wouldn't have been cheap, wouldn't have been built in the UK and wouldn't have been able to use the electrification the UK gov had announced at the time. Meanwhile there were options in IEP planned for XC which could have used the overhead wires and would have been built in the UK.

Ideally the extra pendolino order would have gotten enough in to replace all the voyagers under wires.

 

[nw1]

When Operation Princess was first mooted, and trains ordered, which is nearer 25 years ago, many XC services were still class 47 hauled with 8-12 mark 2 (multiple variant) coaches.

The HSTs were only about 20 years old at the time, and no intention of replacing them short term. The voyagers were expected to grow traffic and subsequently be lengthened to 6cars (that's why end cars use letters A and F).

But since then growth seems to have fallen off agenda, and cutbacks have gradually crept in. Now ended up with short overstretched voyager fleet, with some services operated by 170s

No longer a comfortable long distance service, if bit slow, more an overpriced service infilling few gaps in network.

Though I think @Gerald Fiennes's question was: given the same number of Voyagers at Princess and immediately after, why is the service worse (less frequent, and generally still only single units) than in the 00s?

Presumably there are still the same number of Voyagers, but they are reducing their mileage to cut costs.

What we have at the moment, I guess, is the frequency of "classic" XC but the train lengths of Princess!

 

[JonathanH]

Pre-Covid, XC still needed some subsidy, despite often over-crowded trains, and probably needs more now if the revenue growth in 'leisure' traffic hasn't offset the revenue loss from commuting/ business-related travel and higher operating costs.

As we see with withdrawal of the HSTs. Their purpose was essentially to provide additional peak capacity into and out of Birmingham and Leeds at key business and commuting times. The fact that they provided more capacity on other services was a nice-to-have by product.

Though I think @Gerald Fiennes's question was: given the same number of Voyagers at Princess and immediately after, why is the service worse (less frequent, and generally still only single units) than in the 00s?

66 from 74 would have been needed to run the Winter 2002-2003 timetable. Pre-Covid was 53 from 58 plus 2 HSTs.

The Avanti fleet was latterly 20 Voyagers.

 

[nw1]

As we see with withdrawal of the HSTs. Their purpose was essentially to provide additional peak capacity into and out of Birmingham and Leeds at key business and commuting times. The fact that they provided more capacity on other services was a nice-to-have by product.


66 from 74 would have been needed to run the Winter 2002-2003 timetable. Pre-Covid was 53 from 58 plus 2 HSTs.

The Avanti fleet was latterly 20 Voyagers.

That was perhaps the source of the problem - was it a good idea to send so many Voyagers away from XC onto the predominantly-electrified WCML network (North Wales is the only place they're really needed) or would it have been better to order more Pendolinos?

 

[JonathanH]

That was perhaps the source of the problem - was it a good idea to send so many Voyagers away from XC onto the predominantly-electrified WCML network (North Wales is the only place they're really needed) or would it have been better to order more Pendolinos?

North Wales had Voyagers allocated from the start, and the ones running Birmingham to Scotland were just services that CrossCountry no longer had to run.

It isn't clear that CrossCountry had a claim to those Voyagers. In part, the HSTs reintroduced from 2008, allowed five Voyagers to go to the West Coast operation.

 

[nw1]

North Wales had Voyagers allocated from the start, and the ones running Birmingham to Scotland were just services that CrossCountry no longer had to run.

It isn't clear that CrossCountry had a claim to those Voyagers. In part, the HSTs reintroduced from 2008, allowed five Voyagers to go to the West Coast operation.

Though 74 to 58 is quite a serious reduction, and surely does not help XC's overcrowding problems.

 

[JonathanH]

Though 74 to 58 is quite a serious reduction, and surely does not help XC's overcrowding problems.

Yes, but at the same time, the last remaining services to Brighton were cut from the network which saved a unit, and other refinements were made. The core service remained half hourly on both axes. Birmingham to Scotland required 9 units and XC took on 5 HSTs to replace 5 Voyagers.

74 - 9 - 1 - 5 - 1 = 58 (where the final reduction is the loss of one spare unit).

 

[YorksLad12]

If XC no longer runs on the west coast... should it be cut back to Newcastle (or York!), and not run on the east coast? That, too, would free up units for more doubled-up services. The "c" in "XC" would then become "England", I suppose...

 

[JonathanH]

If XC no longer runs on the west coast... should it be cut back to Newcastle (or York!), and not run on the east coast?

That doesn't really follow. There are still trains from Birmingham to Scotland via the West Coast. They just aren't run by CrossCountry.

Removing the service from Sheffield or Leeds to Scotland completely is different to it continuing to run, but with a different operator.

However, people have made the observation before that at any one time, in the pre-2020 timetable, as many as 10 of XC's 58 Voyagers would be north of York on a route served by another operator, whilst people are crowded into short trains on routes that effectively only CrossCountry serve.

'tbtc' used to write excellent posts on the issues with XC, such as this one https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ically-be-improved.224769/page-4#post-5399447

 

[MML]

XC would definitely benefit from getting the 221s and 222s as they are freed up, however the rest of your suggestions are somewhat more confusing:

- Firstly, why shorten trains to 4-cars?
- Secondly, the stansted airport route requires units that can use sprinter differentials, such as the current 170s, 755s or obviously sprinters, so you would have to retain 170s for that

4-cars on their own would only be of use if they could displace some Class 170 3-car units on other routes.
But rather than have lots of 5-car units operating with insufficient seating or have 80% of trains formed of 4+4 or 4+5 formations, it would be better to have 40% running as 8-car to reduce crew costs and 40% to still operate in 4+4 formation with these units only used on routes where service may split such as Plymouth and Newquay perhaps.
The class 222 used to operate as 9-car units at one time, so standing on 8-car or 4+4 should be possible with existing stock.

 

[daodao]

With a big re-write anything can be done, but based on what is there now you run into the problems of my last post of how you deal with the Bournemouth and Bristol portions.

There are other trains terminating at Birmingham New Street run by XC with which the Bournemouth and Bristol portions could be joined.

A possible service pattern for XC could be (each 1 tph):

• Edinburgh-Doncaster-Birmingham-Bristol-Plymouth
• Leeds-Birmingham-Reading-Bournemouth
• Nottingham-Birmingham-Cardiff
• Nottingham-Birmingham-Reading
• Stansted Airport-Peterborough-Leicester-Birmingham
• Leicester-Birmingham-Bristol

The Manchester-Birmingham service would be run by LNWR using emus, e.g. redundant class 350/2s or 379s.

If there is concern about platform capacity at New Street to terminate trains from Manchester, they could be extended to Coventry/Northampton in lieu of the existing service, with the service from London Euston split at Northampton.

 

[The Planner]

There are other trains terminating at Birmingham New Street run by XC with which the Bournemouth and Bristol portions could be joined.

A possible service pattern for XC could be (each 1 tph):

• Edinburgh-Doncaster-Birmingham-Bristol-Plymouth
• Leeds-Birmingham-Reading-Bournemouth
• Nottingham-Birmingham-Cardiff
• Nottingham-Birmingham-Reading
• Stansted Airport-Peterborough-Leicester-Birmingham
• Leicester-Birmingham-Bristol

The Manchester-Birmingham service would be run by LNWR using emus, e.g. redundant class 350/2s or 379s.

If there is concern about platform capacity at New Street to terminate trains from Manchester, they could be extended to Coventry/Northampton in lieu of the existing service, with the service from London Euston split at Northampton.

The original suggestion was about the current Manchester services, not rejigging the whole lot. I have already said Coventry won't work.

 

[Snow1964]

There are other trains terminating at Birmingham New Street run by XC with which the Bournemouth and Bristol portions could be joined.

A possible service pattern for XC could be (each 1 tph):

• Edinburgh-Doncaster-Birmingham-Bristol-Plymouth
• Leeds-Birmingham-Reading-Bournemouth
• Nottingham-Birmingham-Cardiff
• Nottingham-Birmingham-Reading
• Stansted Airport-Peterborough-Leicester-Birmingham
• Leicester-Birmingham-Bristol

The Manchester-Birmingham service would be run by LNWR using emus, e.g. redundant class 350/2s or 379s.

If there is concern about platform capacity at New Street to terminate trains from Manchester, they could be extended to Coventry/Northampton in lieu of the existing service, with the service from London Euston split at Northampton.

When you look at the Cross country map, current one linked, it does appear it ought to be relatively easy to swap Manchester and Cardiff trains from the easterly destinations (Nottingham, Stansted etc).

The other thing will notice from the map is about 60% of XC routes are electrified, and it really ought to be possible to operate parts by EMUs if change service patterns

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/media/4027/crosscountry-route-map.pdf

 

[PacerTrain142]

When you look at the Cross country map, current one linked, it does appear it ought to be relatively easy to swap Manchester and Cardiff trains from the easterly destinations (Nottingham, Stansted etc).

The other thing will notice from the map is about 60% of XC routes are electrified, and it really ought to be possible to operate parts by EMUs if change service patterns

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/media/4027/crosscountry-route-map.pdf

Im surprised they don’t operate any routes to London (Didn’t they used to do Edinburgh to London?) Interesting that it says, “change here to avoid changing at Birmingham New Street”. Is Birmingham New Street a dodgy station or something?

Cross Country Voyagers have always been overcrowded, I remember going on holiday with family in 2004 to Looe in Cornwall on a four carriage train that was full and standing and we had to sit/stand in the vestibule for most of the journey.

 

[JonathanH]

Im surprised they don’t operate any routes to London (Didn’t they used to do Edinburgh to London?)

Prior to 2003 a limited number of services ran to London Paddington via Oxford and Reading, but solely because it was a convenient place to turn them round or end their journey at the start or end of the day.

That stabling now happens at Eastleigh, so trains terminate at Reading or Southampton at the ends of the day.

They really aren't about journeys to London though.

Is Birmingham New Street a dodgy station or something?

Birmingham New Street is effectively an underground station with diesel operations, and can be busy, which doesn't make it a nice place to spend time.