if you personally held the Crosscountry Franchise, what would you do?

[Zoe]

They see the benefits of being able to switch easily between electric and diesel traction

Even easier with bi-mode. For XC I would have thought bi-mode is exactly what you want so you can benefit from the electrified sections.

 

[DarloRich]

Keeping in fantasy land, 50 gives me an idea...

We have eighteen Class 50s (I think). Not sure how many are operational, but they have a decent turn of speed, a reasonable route availability and would probably work well if they were looked after. So we have possibly six operational 50s, plus perhaps two operational Deltics, a few hired 47s and 67s and maybe Western. How's that for covering the summer relief services?

For coaching stock, we have the Irish MkIIIs, which conveniently have generator cars so they can work with Deltics and Westerns without difficulty. The tricky bit is finding enough replacement bogies.

We will find them somewhere! Now THAT sounds like a traction plan! Get a few pairs of 31/37's maybe even a few Zombies and we can be away! Stretch the emergency plan to about 5 years and we could clean up on the basher market alone!

When can you start as "Director of Fleet Services"?

 

[WestCoast]

Even easier with bi-mode. For XC I would have thought bi-mode is exactly what you want so you can benefit from the electrified sections.

Good idea in theory, It doesn't solve all problems.

What I was objecting to is your unjustifiable statements about loco hauled stock being "dead" in the coming years. MUs aren't the answer to everything and many of the European operators do recognise the benefits of a modern push-pull set, and see it as advantageous over an MU in certain circumstances. They will keep ordering new ones as well!

Do you really expect to see MU sleepers in mainland Europe? The answer is it won't be a popular idea and it is very unlikely to happen in the coming years.

 

[Zoe]

What I was objecting to is your unjustifiable statements about loco hauled stock being "dead" in the coming years. MUs aren't the answer to everything.

Do you really expect to see MU sleepers in mainland Europe? The answer is it won't be a popular idea.

Well at least for the GB network I doubt there will ever be a new build of loco hauled stock. There really isn't any situation I can think of other than a sleeper where you'd clearly want to use loco hauled stock when an MU is available. As has been discussed elsewhere it's likely that once the current sleeper stock is life expired it won't be replaced. I doubt there would be justification for a small build just for sleeper services. So in the future I don't think there will be any loco hauled stock on the GB network. In mainland Europe, as high speed rail gets faster it may well negate the need for sleeper services.

 

[WestCoast]

Well at least for the GB network I doubt there will ever be a new build of loco hauled stock. There really isn't any situation I can think of other than a sleeper where you'd clearly want to use loco hauled stock when an MU is available.

Well obviously the DfT aren't that bothered about comfort for long-distance passengers on DEMUs. In the IEP programme, the idea of all this coupling up 2 five car sets will be a real pain with no gangway. It means two buffets (if there is one:roll, reduced facilities, double the staff and could lead to overcrowding issues in one set.

So in the future I don't think there will be any loco hauled stock on the GB network.

Unfortunately, that may well be the case

In mainland Europe, as high speed rail gets faster it may well negate the need for sleeper services.

Possibly, although it will reduce the need and not replace them. There is a distinct market in Europe for overnight travel (even when the day trains are considerably faster!). DB is looking at more push-pull sets for InterCity - in addition to EMUs.

 

[tbtc]

Push-pull allows for flexible rakes, which can offer operational benefits

This is true, but how often are rakes of HST/ 225 stock actually shuffled?

Just trying to play Devils Advocate

 

[WestCoast]

This is true, but how often are rakes of HST/ 225 stock actually shuffled?

Not so much with their UK operators, but elsewhere it does happen regularly.

It also allows defective coaches to be swapped.

 

[tbtc]

Not so much with their UK operators, but elsewhere it does happen regularly.

It also allows defective coaches to be swapped.

True, and its a lot easier than swapping/shuffling coaches in a Voyager/ Meridian formation (which can be done, but is a lot more complicated). Its just that neither happen very often.

 

[DarloRich]

On a serious point I think I would look at the timetable and see if it actually meets the needs of the passengers. I would look at the services we run and whether or not we could include more oft he bigger cities, like Liverpool, into the service. I would also look at the routing of certain services to see if we could speed them up. I would also like to TRY and get access to the WCML for XC services form Manchester and restore some links.

I would also look at the Voyagers and see what we could do to make them better. Disposing of the Voyagers or ordering x number of cars isn’t going to happen so it will have to be an internal refurb, sort out as many of the little problems as possible. Perhaps we could fit some anechoic padding to dampen the noise/vibration from the engines.

I might also be tempted to look at the resonance frequency of certain cabin items and see if we can change them or damp them in some way to reduce the vibration and noise

 

[A0]

I like the idea of this on principle, although practice might be a bit different. From Luton, you can continue to Welwyn without too much difficulty,

No you can't - the old Welwyn - Luton line formation has been built on in several places including the carriage sidings and housing at the WGC end. You also have the A1M in the way as well.....

or reverse and follow a new route to Langley Junction, accross the ECML at Hitchin and on to Cambridge and Norwich, or maybe Cambridge, Stansted, Braintree and Colchester.

A new line between Langley and Luton would mean building straight across green-belt land where there's been no previous development. It's not even a case of restoring a previously closed line. It will also be highly costly as it isn't very flat - the MML is at the bottom of a valley when it leaves Luton for Harpenden.

Also, I can't see there being too many takers for a Luton - Norwich service...

Another option would be to bypass Luton and go direct from Bedford to Hitchin.

Again, nice idea, but the formation of the old Bedford - Hitchin line has disappeared in many parts. The only possible line which could be restored is the Bedford - Sandy (which also happens to be the shortest link between the MML and ECML) but you'll have to be quick, because I believe parts of that will be lost for an Olympic rowing lake.....

The lack of a westward route from the ECML is seriously annoying, especially when heading to somewhere in the Midlands. Going into London adds to the cost and leads to the risk of missing connections. I also reckon that a Hitchin-Oxford journey (30 mins + 20 mins + 45 mins + 10 mins for connections = 1 hr 45) would be quicker without the delay of going into London.

To be fair, from Hitchin, you're about half-way between Peterboro and KX. From Peterboro you have a decent onward service to Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield. So you don't need to go into London to get to a number of key destinations in the Midlands.

I don't imagine the volume of custom from Hitchin - Oxford even comes close to warranting a restoration of the east-west services. That it's inconvenient for one person occasionally doesn't justify it.

And I very much doubt it would be quicker with a "semi direct" route.

Bedford - Bletchley at present is timed for 45mins, even with investment, you're unlikely to get that below 30 mins.

Bicester - Oxford is currently timed as 25 mins, again investment might get that down to 20 mins.

So you're at an hour just to do Bedford - Bletchley and Bicester - Oxford.

Bletchley - Bicester is approx 20 miles, let's assume an average speed of 60mph, there's another 20 mins.

That's before you've either done Hitchin - Bedford - Sandy or Hitchin - Bedford direct.

I really doubt the time savings are there to be had on this one, and even less the likely passenger flows.

 

[Alan508]

Get rid of all the voyagers !!

 

[LE Greys]

No you can't - the old Welwyn - Luton line formation has been built on in several places including the carriage sidings and housing at the WGC end. You also have the A1M in the way as well.....

A new line between Langley and Luton would mean building straight across green-belt land where there's been no previous development. It's not even a case of restoring a previously closed line. It will also be highly costly as it isn't very flat - the MML is at the bottom of a valley when it leaves Luton for Harpenden.

Also, I can't see there being too many takers for a Luton - Norwich service...

Neither one of these proposals is mine. They are both versions of the East-West link, or at least as seen in the Cambridge Evening News once. Personally, I don't think either would work, although they might suit an extension of the St Albans Abbey line. Not just for the reasons you mention, lack of capacity through Luton would be a major problem.

Again, nice idea, but the formation of the old Bedford - Hitchin line has disappeared in many parts. The only possible line which could be restored is the Bedford - Sandy (which also happens to be the shortest link between the MML and ECML) but you'll have to be quick, because I believe parts of that will be lost for an Olympic rowing lake.....

How wide is an Olympic rowing lake? It's not beyond the bounds of possibility to bridge it, even if they spaced out the lanes a bit and had one passing through each arch. I mentioned the direct Hitchin route to avoid the need to cross the rowing lake, run along the ECML between Sandy and Hitchin or rebuild the Hitchin-Cambridge section. Personally, I can't see why they don't just do the rowing at Henley-on-Thames.

To be fair, from Hitchin, you're about half-way between Peterboro and KX. From Peterboro you have a decent onward service to Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham and Sheffield. So you don't need to go into London to get to a number of key destinations in the Midlands.

I don't imagine the volume of custom from Hitchin - Oxford even comes close to warranting a restoration of the east-west services. That it's inconvenient for one person occasionally doesn't justify it.

And I very much doubt it would be quicker with a "semi direct" route.

Bedford - Bletchley at present is timed for 45mins, even with investment, you're unlikely to get that below 30 mins.

Bicester - Oxford is currently timed as 25 mins, again investment might get that down to 20 mins.

So you're at an hour just to do Bedford - Bletchley and Bicester - Oxford.

Bletchley - Bicester is approx 20 miles, let's assume an average speed of 60mph, there's another 20 mins.

That's before you've either done Hitchin - Bedford - Sandy or Hitchin - Bedford direct.

I really doubt the time savings are there to be had on this one, and even less the likely passenger flows.

The problem is that it is not all that close. There is a 76-mile gap between King's Cross and Peterborough, through which passes the M25, the A414, the A421, the A14 and parts of the A47. Now that's a significant untapped market being channelled two ways, the slow Peterborough route or the expensive London route. On the Southern, the South Downs Line does exactly the same thing. Basically, we need a mirror for that. I would also expect heavy freight traffic, mostly diverted from the NLL/GOBLIN routes.

Still, seeing as we are a bit far from XC on this, I think we need a new thread.

 

[strange6]

Oi

I was going to suggest more pay, fewer hours and more holidays !!

lol You get enough, mate!

 

[Minilad]

I just can't stop thinking about XC going bi mode
They will definitely has to give me a pay rise for that !!

 

[ainsworth74]

I just can't stop thinking about XC going bi mode
They will definitely has to give me a pay rise for that !!

Indeed you're going to have push a pan up and pan down button. I mean two entirely new buttons to be pushed that's got to be worth a pay rise of some sort!

 

[Minilad]

Indeed you're going to have push a pan up and pan down button. I mean two entirely new buttons to be pushed that's got to be worth a pay rise of some sort!

Pan...Pan..what's a bloody Pan. I'm not a cook you know

 

[The Planner]

Bedford - Bletchley at present is timed for 45mins, even with investment, you're unlikely to get that below 30 mins.

You could take the stops out and up it to 75mph and you would easily do it in 20 minutes.

Bicester - Oxford is currently timed as 25 mins, again investment might get that down to 20 mins.

EG3 takes it up to 100mph in places, again, Bicester to Oxford in 13 or 14 minutes is possible. Chuck in Water Eaton and probably 16.

Bletchley - Bicester is approx 20 miles, let's assume an average speed of 60mph, there's another 20 mins.

Again, thats too conservative. To make E-W beneficial it will be higher, around 75mph to make it viable for Class 4 freight, I wouldn't be suprised if it got up to 90mph. At 75mph including stops at Bletchley and Bicester, Id expect 18 minutes tops.

Bedford to Oxford is conceivable at an hour if done properly.

 

[tbtc]

Indeed you're going to have push a pan up and pan down button. I mean two entirely new buttons to be pushed that's got to be worth a pay rise of some sort!

Now this button opens the doors and this button shoots the sewage out...

 

[Minilad]

Now this button opens the doors and this button shoots the sewage out...

Now now, don't talk about the passengers like that

 

[A0]

Neither one of these proposals is mine. They are both versions of the East-West link, or at least as seen in the Cambridge Evening News once. Personally, I don't think either would work, although they might suit an extension of the St Albans Abbey line. Not just for the reasons you mention, lack of capacity through Luton would be a major problem.


How wide is an Olympic rowing lake? It's not beyond the bounds of possibility to bridge it, even if they spaced out the lanes a bit and had one passing through each arch. I mentioned the direct Hitchin route to avoid the need to cross the rowing lake, run along the ECML between Sandy and Hitchin or rebuild the Hitchin-Cambridge section. Personally, I can't see why they don't just do the rowing at Henley-on-Thames.


The problem is that it is not all that close. There is a 76-mile gap between King's Cross and Peterborough, through which passes the M25, the A414, the A421, the A14 and parts of the A47. Now that's a significant untapped market being channelled two ways, the slow Peterborough route or the expensive London route. On the Southern, the South Downs Line does exactly the same thing. Basically, we need a mirror for that. I would also expect heavy freight traffic, mostly diverted from the NLL/GOBLIN routes.

Still, seeing as we are a bit far from XC on this, I think we need a new thread.

Whilst I appreciate we've gone a bit off-topic a couple of points:

1- the St Albans abbey line will never be restored as heavy rail to Hatfield - the formation has gone once you're east of Smallford with the A1M, Galleria and various bits of development in Hatfield.

2- Puzzled by your Hitchin - Sandy - Cambridge suggestion.

3- Don't agree you need a northern version of 'North Downs line'.

Firstly with freight - look at where it's coming from and where it's going to.

It's either coming out of Felixstowe or Tilbury.

If it's Felixstowe and it's headed for the Midlands it goes via Bury St Edmunds.
If it's Felixstowe and it's headed south, then it goes straight down the GEML and then round the NLL and probably onto the WLL. A 'northern' orbital probably wouldn't change that.

If it's Tilbury then the NLL is fine as it links to each of the main routes north and Tilbury - NLL is a minimal distance.

In terms of passenger flows, this always gets raised, but there's no evidence of demand. In fact whenever such services have been tried on the existing infrastructure they've failed - e.g. Anglia Railway's Ipswich - Basingstoke service. In many cases the East-West bus and coach services have disappeared through lack of patronage. The two exceptions are the X5 between Cambridge and Oxford (though how many make the full journey is unknown), and the 724 between Harlow and Heathrow, though again, how many make the full journey is a moot point. Certainly when I used to use it it was seen as a quicker, more comfortable alternative to some of the other services between WGC and St Albans or Watford

Within 50 miles of London the overwhelming demand is for a service into and out of London and that's where the resources need to go. Interestingly Chiltern Railways agree and their use of the Oxford - Bicester line is to the provide an alternative London - Oxford service.

 

[LE Greys]

Whilst I appreciate we've gone a bit off-topic a couple of points:

1- the St Albans abbey line will never be restored as heavy rail to Hatfield - the formation has gone once you're east of Smallford with the A1M, Galleria and various bits of development in Hatfield.

2- Puzzled by your Hitchin - Sandy - Cambridge suggestion.

3- Don't agree you need a northern version of 'North Downs line'.

Firstly with freight - look at where it's coming from and where it's going to.

It's either coming out of Felixstowe or Tilbury.

If it's Felixstowe and it's headed for the Midlands it goes via Bury St Edmunds.
If it's Felixstowe and it's headed south, then it goes straight down the GEML and then round the NLL and probably onto the WLL. A 'northern' orbital probably wouldn't change that.

If it's Tilbury then the NLL is fine as it links to each of the main routes north and Tilbury - NLL is a minimal distance.

In terms of passenger flows, this always gets raised, but there's no evidence of demand. In fact whenever such services have been tried on the existing infrastructure they've failed - e.g. Anglia Railway's Ipswich - Basingstoke service. In many cases the East-West bus and coach services have disappeared through lack of patronage. The two exceptions are the X5 between Cambridge and Oxford (though how many make the full journey is unknown), and the 724 between Harlow and Heathrow, though again, how many make the full journey is a moot point. Certainly when I used to use it it was seen as a quicker, more comfortable alternative to some of the other services between WGC and St Albans or Watford

Within 50 miles of London the overwhelming demand is for a service into and out of London and that's where the resources need to go. Interestingly Chiltern Railways agree and their use of the Oxford - Bicester line is to the provide an alternative London - Oxford service.

Discussion continued here

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=47409

Hitchin-Cambridge was a slip, I meant Sandy-Cambridge.

 

[Blindtraveler]

giving it some thought bassed on my own
recent journey experiences and comments made by others elsewhere, how about turning XC into a standard only service? Fantacy aside, if I were in charge today and could obviously do sweet nothing about the voyagers, I'd quit attempting to offer a first class service and refit the coaches with standard seating whilst at the same time subdeviding with a door coach F so only half was designated quiet. A few less standies anyway.

 

[sulli_os]

I don't think the DfT would ever agree to it, but here goes:

i) 1 tph Edinburgh - Plymouth via Leeds
ii) 1 tph Scotland - Reading via West Coast and Birmingham (current service by Virgin)
iii) 1 tph on a third route to/from Wales

All of these would run using HST style stock (or something equipped to deal with long distance travel), and would run limited stop between only the principal stations.

The remaining services would become inter-urban services run by the regional operators. So

i) EMT (say) would run 2tph semi-fast Birmingham - Tamworth - Burton - Derby - Chesterfield - Sheffield, then onto either Leeds/York via Barnsley, Wakefield or Hull via Doncaster, Beverly.
ii) TPE/Northern would run additional semi-fast services York - Edinburgh & Glasgow via Newcastle etc.
iii) London Midland (say) would run semi-fast Cardiff - Stansted
iv) First Great Western would run additional Birmingham - Reading and Birmingham - Plymouth services.

etc

Alternatively the semi-fast services could be kept in house and run under this proposed franchise. Whichever way, I would separate the intercity and interurban services.

 

[route:oxford]

Introduce an extra cross-country service shuttling between Oxford & York, to improve E-W flows.

Perhaps routing via Moor Street to avoid congestion in the Birmingham area.

 

[Boppawombat]

I would get rid of them godawfully overdesigned and inadequate(ex-Virgin) Voyager trains and replace with the old HST sets which were FAR superior - subject to a little bit of reconditioning and refurbishment, of course.

That would be the very first thing I would do if I was the owner of XC.

IT's obviously not escaped anybody that the Voyagers have a pitifully low seating capacity in their principal four car formations - most of the carriage lengths are made up of the bloody vestibules and corridors aren't they? Who bloomin' designs modern trains these days? They're mostly so dreadfully cramped ...with the sole exception of the lovely spacious MKIII-alike class 175s, which are amongst the very best of the recent long-distance stock - be they operating in 2, 3 or more carriage formations.

 

[whhistle]

If money was no object:

I'd put an extra couple of coaches in the Voyagers.
Have a lot more of them.
Run them a little like the underground with trains every half an hour running to and from the last station on the line, on the hour and at XX:30. Simple timetable.

The problem with a lot of people here, they are very much still attached to the old stock.
Yes, while I like the HST's too, it's obvious the Voyagers with their quick speeds and high numbers of seats are suitable for the job. They just need a bit of tweaking. Having a large loco with a DVT is very 1980's / 1990's, and not suited to the line. Just because you like the train, doesn't mean it's suitable for the line or timetable. Accept the facts, locos are out, multiple units are in and that's the way it will be for intercity trains.

 

[Blindtraveler]

urm, high numbers of seats? Which voyager would be being referred to here?

 

[150222]

I would get more HSTs(if there are any spare) and put pantograph coaches in the voyagers oh and the northern/east coast 180s (run doubled up) also i would put the buffets/shops back in (when/if more carriges are put in).

 

[sprinterguy]

urm, high numbers of seats? Which voyager would be being referred to here?

Seconded: The poor seating capacity of Voyagers compared to other train types has been mentioned several times on this thread alone!

 

[Blindtraveler]

think we should get go compare man to do his stuff on voyagers versis, say, 323s or even 180s and then send, sorry sing his results to DFT.