Cross Country

[DarloRich]

TBH - whoever ordered those Voyagers wants shooting. He/She clealry never thought about actually having to travel on one.

they are too small, both in physical space AND capacity, for the services they are used for.

I understand that Virgin didnt expect such a rush to use thier services, but perhaps they should have done. To me if you advertise nice new trains and a wonderful new service which is brilliant (!) people are going to be attracted to it. Surely that is the purpose of advertising

To advertise and EXPECT 0 ( or minimal) growth seems pretty stupid - this begs the question why bother?

 

[sulli_os]

Perhaps what needs to be done is reduce the scope of the XC franchise? Run 1tph as an intercity service along the major axes (e.g. Edinburgh-Plymouth) using intercity spec rolling stock.

Then have regional operators run regional semi-fast services to maintain/increase capacity.

So, on the Edinburgh-Plymouth route, XC would run an intercity service making few stops, and, for example
- EMT run services such as Birmingham-Tamworth-Burton-Derby-Chesterfield-Sheffield then on to Leeds/York/Hull
- Northern/TPE run similar connecting services in the North-East
- ATW/LM run Cardiff-Birmingham semi-fast services
- etc

That way, the XC franchise is focussed on intercity services.

EDIT: The XC franchise could then exclusively use proper intercity stock such as HSTs, with Voyagers cascaded to the regional operators.

 

[Zoe]

The XC franchise could then exclusively use proper intercity stock such as HSTs, with Voyagers cascaded to the regional operators.

Where do you plan to get this stock from?

 

[sprinterguy]

Where do you plan to get this stock from?

This is where IEP comes in!

I’m sure once GWML and ECML have had their fill of IEP trains, an additional order could be made for Crosscountry. Though if they were specified as five carriage trains, I’d despair.

 

[Zoe]

I’m sure once GWML and ECML have had their fill of IEP trains, an additional order could be made for Crosscountry. Though if they were specified as five carriage trains, I’d despair.

Would you order bi-mode or would you electrify Plymouth to Bristol (as part of the plan fom HST replacement on the Paddington to Plymouth route), Bristol to Birmingham and Birmingham to Doncaster/York?

 

[LexyBoy]

XC is already heavily reliant on Advance fares. Thus they could relatively easily manage demand between regional operations (as the network is now, possibly a few more stops) and a "proper" IC service (which IMO means not DMU operated, but as it's entirely hypothetical with no stock to operate it anyway it's not really relevant).

The "Cross Country InterCity" would then run a limited stop service with trains hourly or 2-hourly, for example Plymouth-Exeter-Bristol-Birmingham-York-Newcastle-Edinburgh-Aberdeen, or Southampton-Oxford-Birmingham-Manchester.

 

[junglejames]

At the time 7 car Voyagers running at twice the frequency would have been overkill. Remember that at this time there wasn't expected to be the increase in passengers that there was. 7 car Voyagers would also have been more expensive to run due to the fuel they use.

It wouldnt have been overkill. As it is we only have enough voyagers to ensure there is no reduction in capacity. 7 cars were needed to ensure there was spare capacity to cater for the expected increase.
Virgin never allowed for any increase in passenger numbers whatsoever. In fact, if you think of the routes that have had to be scrapped as well, virgin never even ordered enough voyagers to keep capacity similar to pre voyager days. So, 7 car voyagers were needed. But, would have meant using just as much fuel as a HST with Valentas.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would you order bi-mode or would you electrify Plymouth to Bristol (as part of the plan from HST replacement on the Paddington to Plymouth route), Bristol to Birmingham and Birmingham to Doncaster/York?

Id order brand new updated HSTs. None of this IEP rubbish.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would you order bi-mode or would you electrify Plymouth to Bristol (as part of the plan from HST replacement on the Paddington to Plymouth route), Bristol to Birmingham and Birmingham to Doncaster/York?

Id order brand new updated HSTs. None of this IEP rubbish.

 

[Zoe]

7 cars were needed to ensure there was spare capacity to cater for the expected increase.

That's the issue though, there wasn't expected to be the increase that there was. 7 cars running at double the frequency would have been overkill if there had not been this increase.

 

[sprinterguy]

Would you order bi-mode or would you electrify Plymouth to Bristol (as part of the plan from HST replacement on the Paddington to Plymouth route), Bristol to Birmingham and Birmingham to Doncaster/York?

I think they would have to be bi-mode. There's too many unelectrified gaps in the Crosscountry network for them all to be wired within the desired timescale.

I'm generally against the bi-mode IEP concept but if it's suitable for anywhere then it's the Crosscountry operation if there's further electrification around the country in the future (Beyond what has already been announced).

 

[Zoe]

Plymouth-Exeter-Bristol-Birmingham-York-Newcastle-Edinburgh

I think that would be a too non-stop. I would go for Plymouth - Newton Abbot - Exeter - Taunton - Bristol - Cheltenham - Birmingham - Derby - Sheffield - Doncaster - York - Darlington - Newcastle - Berwick - Edinburgh.

 

[sprinterguy]

I think that when HS2 becomes operational, we will witness many changes to the Crosscountry network as it stands at the moment that will, truly, downgrade it to an inter-regional operation, as XC will be unable to compete against HS2 times between Birmingham, Leeds, North East England and Scotland.

In the meantime though, I too am keen on the idea of an hourly “Express” Crosscountry service with a limited number of stops, running alongside an hourly regional service picking up the intermediate stations.

 

[Zoe]

I think that when HS2 becomes operational, we will witness many changes to the Crosscountry network as it stands at the moment that will, truly, downgrade it to an inter-regional operation, as XC will be unable to compete against HS2 times between Birmingham, Leeds, North East England and Scotland.

In the meantime though, I too am keen on the idea of an hourly “Express” Crosscountry service with a limited number of stops, running alongside an hourly regional service picking up the intermediate stations.

This assumes HS2 is actually built and that isn't a certainty. As for an hourly XC express service, the issue is likely to be that the business case would be poor.

 

[Invincibles]

With all this talk of on hourly express is that not what we have now?

Southampton - Newcastle
Plymouth - Newcastle
Bristol - Manchester
Bournemouth - Manchester

(accepting that some journeys run beyond these stations)

As I remember it the old timetable did not afford such regularity with hourly trains alternating where they went after Birmingham.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I think its the stops at places like Morpeth, Tamworth, Burton and Totnes that don't make it seem like an 'express'

 

[Zoe]

With all this talk of on hourly express is that not what we have now?

I wouldn't exactly call the Plymouth to Edinburgh service an express service. With a few exceptions, it stops every 20 - 30 minutes.

 

[Invincibles]

I think its the stops at places like Morpeth, Tamworth, Burton and Totnes that don't make it seem like an 'express'

True

So how would it become more express?

Remove stops, then there is no replacement service without adding extra trains to serve the stops removed from the others?

Make Bournemouth - Manchester and Plymouth - Newcastle the express routes and Bristol - Manchester and Southampton - Newcastle more stopper like?

Personally I would increase frequency between Manchester and Birmingham using EMUs (when Norton Bridge is done then 3tph + the XC "stopper" is not unreasonable if some route via Crewe*) and then make the Southampton - Birmingham (now stops shorter) a stopping service. If I am right that would also allow a slower train from Plymouth - Birmingham - Manchester* and allow the Plymouth - North East to go fast as suggested.

I just see little freedom in the current X to create particularly fast trains without then loading the other one too much. Deciding which one to cut then adds to the problems.

* Indeed Birmingham - Stafford - Crewe - Manchester Airport - Manchester Piccadilly could run half hourly

 

[tbtc]

A couple of points.

Firstly, even if Arriva wanted to do anything significant (order new trains, order additional coaches, revamp the service), can anyone see the DFT agreeing?

Secondly, some TOCs have stepped in to work alongside XC, some have made the problem worse. For example, in recent years Northern have introduced a half hourly "semi fast" Sheffield - Leeds service. Not as fast as the XC service, but designed to take some of the pressure off it (Sheffield to Leeds being one of the busiest points on the XC network). However, some other TOCs have withdrawn journeys/services that ran alongside the XC service (e.g. SWT used to run services from the south coast to Reading, Northern Spirit used to serve Chester le Street and Dronfield but gave both of these up meaning busy Voyagers had to stop there to compensate).

Since a ten coach train is going to be wasted on parts of its journey (given the different rush hours on a 300/400/500 mile journey), I think the best solution would be to have portion working on the core and to work alongside other TOCs to co-ordinate services.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Everyone has differing opinions on this, I would personally:

Route the Manchester-Bournemouths via Crewe,
Route the Reading-Newcastles via Coventry,
Run an hourly Birmingham New St-Tamworth-Burton-Derby-Chesterfield-Sheffield,
Run an hourly Birmingham-Wolves-Stafford-Stoke-Macclesfield-Stockport-Manchester.

With this, you could remove Tamworth and Burton from the SW-NE axis, and maybe even Chesterfield, and remove Macclesfield from the SW-NW axis (and maybe Stafford too), and speed up Manchester-Bournemouth and Reading-Newcastle.

 

[Zoe]

you could remove Tamworth and Burton from the SW-NE axis, and maybe even Chesterfield, and remove Macclesfield from the SW-NW axis (and maybe Stafford too).

I'd remove Tamworth, Burton and Chesterfield and also run via Doncaster. The service from Reading can run via Leeds.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I'm not sure between Sheffield and York. I would say run non-stop and remove Doncaster too, but you would pass so close to the second largest city and busiest station in the North without calling. I'm not sure if Durham warrants nearly every train calling too.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I travelled newcastle sheffield the other day and this included non stop york sheffield via pontefract and rotheram which at best was tedious. I had no problems, the train was almost full at seating but it didnt bother me one bit. And i do travel regularly on them between leeds/sheffield and everywhere.

My plan would be to transfer FGW HST's over to the XC franchise as IEP is introduced to allow HST's and doubled up voyagers across majority of network. Then a follow on order of 7/8 car IEP to allow all voyagers to be doubled up and HST's to be removed by the 2020 deadline.

 

[Invincibles]

Everyone has differing opinions on this, I would personally:

Route the Manchester-Bournemouths via Crewe,
Route the Reading-Newcastles via Coventry,
Run an hourly Birmingham New St-Tamworth-Burton-Derby-Chesterfield-Sheffield,
Run an hourly Birmingham-Wolves-Stafford-Stoke-Macclesfield-Stockport-Manchester.

With this, you could remove Tamworth and Burton from the SW-NE axis, and maybe even Chesterfield, and remove Macclesfield from the SW-NW axis (and maybe Stafford too), and speed up Manchester-Bournemouth and Reading-Newcastle.

I think the problem with Crewe routing is that it cuts Stoke off the network, which I think is a mistake because a lot of people seem to board at Stoke for XC trains (would not know if they only go to Birmingham though - as it is the only real way someone from Stoke can get to Birmingham).

In a perfect world the Manchesters would all be run by bi-mode and that would free some voyagers to provide a half hourly Leeds - Birmingham - Bristol/Reading. These additional trains then fill the gaps between the expresses and provide capacity on the core.

Of course the main problem remains for now, my experience of travelling cross country has been diminished by the loss of the nice coffee machine. However, as I often do Manchester - Cheltenham I do quite like the current service pattern

 

[Zoe]

I'm not sure between Sheffield and York. I would say run non-stop and remove Doncaster too

You'd still run via Doncaster though and Doncaster itself isn't exactly small, running via Leeds results in a time penalty.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'm not sure between Sheffield and York. I would say run non-stop and remove Doncaster too, but you would pass so close to the second largest city and busiest station in the North without calling. I'm not sure if Durham warrants nearly every train calling too.

Newcastle durham was standing room only then all the vesitbules empitied onto durham id say it needed to be kept

 

[MidnightFlyer]

XC wanted to run everything from Reading via Coventry and everything from Sheffield via Leeds, I don't think they were successful though.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Newcastle durham was standing room only then all the vesitbules empitied onto durham id say it needed to be kept

Or the passengers who travel only between Newcastle and Durham need to be "encouraged" to catch local services instead.

 

[Gareth]

Liverpool's ommission from the XC network is often viewed as an anomaly and often with some distain locally. Indeed, it must be by far the largest city without an XC service, bar London.

At the same time though, Liverpool has an half hourly London Midland conenction to Birmingham, using nice, modern trains. I seem to have read somewhere that the Birmingham-Leicester XC route was a continuation of the Liverpool-Birmingham route and that they were split due to operational constraints. What sort of operational constrants were these?

I actually did part of the Leicester to Birmingham stretch a couple of months ago. I was coming back to Liverpool and planned to change at Birmingham. However, the train was that packed and boiling hot, that we couldn't stand it, so changed an Nuneaton for the London Midland Crewe service instead. Less packed and much nicer trains.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

You'd still run via Doncaster though and Doncaster itself isn't exactly small, running via Leeds results in a time penalty.

Hmmm, as with many places though, is the time taken stopping worth the extra custom? I know it is a hub for South Yorks, East Yorks and North Lincs though.

Newcastle durham was standing room only then all the vesitbules empitied onto durham id say it needed to be kept

Could be covered by the hourly EC and TPE services, as well the one XC that would remain...

 

[Zoe]

This is where the ability of a train to split en route is a good idea. An XC service could split at Crewe with half running to Manchester and the other half to Liverpool. If you are going to split en route then a multipile unit is the best option.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

What sort of operational constrants were these?

I actually did part of the Leicester to Birmingham stretch a couple of months ago. I was coming back to Liverpool and planned to change at Birmingham. However, the train was that packed and boiling hot, that we couldn't stand it, so changed an Nuneaton for the London Midland Crewe service instead. Less packed and much nicer trains.

Maybe because Liverpool-New St is 100% OHLE and almost all of New St-Leicester is 100% non-OHLE?

Leicester-Birmingham is a busy corridor (by passenger numbers), I'll give you that.