Cross Country - Get Some Extra Carriges

[Masbroughlad]

If you are suggesting buying new trains to use one day a week then that obviously pushes the cots up significantly - the trains would need to cover their weekly "rental" costs in one day of operation, which would mean higher fares - got to be paid for somehow...

Just highlights (again) the fundamental flaws in the way our railways were privatised

 

[tbtc]

Just highlights (again) the fundamental flaws in the way our railways were privatised

It'd have been the same for BR - anyone buying an expensive train and only using it one day a week is going to have to load all those costs onto one day's services.

BR only had "relief" trains because they had a lot of older trains sitting around idle - the equivalent older trains in 2011 are still used on daily service (e.g. you'd expect at least some HSTs to be life expired by now but they are still needed each day, so not sitting idle).

 

[tom1649]

The situation may have been eased slightly had the TOCs owned all the stock rather than it being leased.

If privatisation was inevitable we should either have had a BR plc (providing vertical integration) or a return to the big four (would also have provided vertical integration on their own patch)! The 13.28 LMS service to Manchester Airport anyone?

 

[tbtc]

The situation may have been eased slightly had the TOCs owned all the stock rather than it being leased.

If privatisation was inevitable we should either have had a BR plc (providing vertical integration) or a return to the big four (would also have provided vertical integration on their own patch)! The 13.28 LMS service to Manchester Piccadilly anyone?

How would XC fit into the "big four" though? Thats the problem with it as a franchise, its too messy to fit into anything else.

 

[tom1649]

How would XC fit into the "big four" though? Thats the problem with it as a franchise, its too messy to fit into anything else.

Would have to be some sort of joint committee there I think, sharing stock and resources, I agree it would be a bit of a mess though.

 

[tbtc]

Would have to be some sort of joint committee there I think, sharing stock and resources, I agree it would be a bit of a mess though.

Its awkward. Whenever I try to work out how to rationalise franchises I end up with something approaching the "big four", and it'd make sense for them to take responsibility for track etc too. However, getting XC to fit around those "borders" has stumped me!

 

[87015]

Its awkward. Whenever I try to work out how to rationalise franchises I end up with something approaching the "big four", and it'd make sense for them to take responsibility for track etc too. However, getting XC to fit around those "borders" has stumped me!

Does it need to fit neatly? The 'big four' and early days heavily regionalised BR managed to run lots of inter-regional services, a lot more varied in scope and destination than what XC do today. Shouldn't be too hard for a pool of 'XC' stock shared owned and have it crewed by relevant operators. Says it all that we flap over getting a train from Reading to Manchester when a lot of the EC International stuff in Europe goes through three or more countries. Not much of it uses glorified spinters with a trolley either.

 

[button_boxer]

I'm never sure why there is such a rush for XC services between Sheffield and Leeds - the half hourly Sheffield - Barnsley - Kirkgate - Leeds service that Northern runs only takes 3 minutes longer than the hourly XC service.

Not sure where you get that 3 minutes from, it's more like 15 minutes difference (45 mins for the XC vs. 1 hour for the Northern via Barnsley, i.e. a third as long again). And of course it depends what you're connecting with at the other end too.

 

[junglejames]

Also there is the issue that the engines used on the Voyagers are no longer in production

According to Cummins they are. Apparently comply with tier iiiB emission regs.

 

[Zoe]

According to Cummins they are. Apparently comply with tier iiiB emission regs.

It seems to be a new QSK19 engine though. Would it be compatible with the old engines?

 

[sulli_os]

A thought: At the moment the ECML is effectively nationalised, but is unlikely to remain so for too much longer. Would the XC benefit from nationalisation?

If I recall correctly, the franchise typically requires subsidy as opposed to making a profit, and the issues about it crossing franchise areas then disappear.

So first we would decide which services cross areas in such a way that they ought to be part of a nationalised service (for example, Birmingham - Standsted could be given to the East Midlands franchise).

Then, at franchise renewal time, nationalise the rest. There is the option of having the staff be part "XC National" or have the regional operators provide staff, so South-West to Birmingham, say, the staff are FGW, from Leeds/York the staff are EC etc.

Edit: You could then have "the big 4" or similar for the other franchise areas.


In general I'm not huge fan of "renationalisation", but for the XC franchise I think it could be the best option.

 

[Failed Unit]

I think Cross Country shows part of the problems with the privatised railway money go round.

Did the Aberdeen service used to stable in Aberdeen rather than ECS back to Edinburgh back in BR days?

At the moment XC pay other operators to stable trains at the extremes of the network, East Coast at Edinburgh and Great Western at Plymouth are two that spring to mind. Under BR it was just a train. Likewise the staff, each having their own depots makes things that more complex, under BR it was easy to merge it into the main operation.

Edinburgh - Aberdeen need XC staff with route knowledge, back in BR days a "Scotrail" driver would have done the work, I know that is more traction knowledge for the Scotrail crews but they would have also operated East Coast HSTs (which is currently a Newcastle driver lodging rather than an Aberdeen driver)

Maybe off topic but the way the privatisation works makes XC more expensive than it needs to be. In BR they did try to keep the sets dedicated to the route, but it was still just a HST to the crew!

 

[jopsuk]

Was that still the case post sectorisation?

 

[Failed Unit]

Was that still the case post sectorisation?

It was upto about 1992 when they started trying to split up the areas for privatisation. Route cut backs took place then and re-organisation of routes to keep units within the same area etc.

 

[Greenback]

Maybe off topic but the way the privatisation works makes XC more expensive than it needs to be.

The way privatisation works makes a lot of things more expensive than they need to be. Clearly, rostering is one of them.

 

[Failed Unit]

The way privatisation works makes a lot of things more expensive than they need to be. Clearly, rostering is one of them.

Yep when they played with Northern and TPE from the North East / North West the needed more trains, more staff and more depots!

But look at some of the ECS runs that privatisation has created for EMT towards Liverpool and Manchester. Even rural and subsidy eating routes like Lincoln - Grimsby have wasted journeys, when unit previously stabled at Cleethorpes!

 

[Waverley125]

Just a few observations:

There aren't many XC service to/from Penzance

There are three levels of service north from Bristol, express to Nottingham, stopper to Birmingham and fast to Newcastle. How often would these run?

Similarly, there are three trains from Brimingham

Why Nottingham? Would the current Cardiff - Notingham trains be discontinued?

the overlap keeps long-distance connections running, and speeds them up, while incrasing point to point frequency between nearer centres.

i.e. Birmingham to Bristol

overall: 3tph
slow: 1tph (semi, maybe 2 with a real 'all shacks' via Worcester)
fast: 2tph (Cheltenham & Parkway only, through to Newcastle & Nottingham)

2nd example-Leeds to Newcastle

overall: 3tph
slow: 1tph-Terminates-TPE (Garforth, York, Thirsk, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham, Chester le Street)

semi fast: 1tph-Terminates-XC (York, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham)

fast: 1tph-Edinburgh-XC (York, Darlington)

this could be augmented (as has been said) with wiring through to Leeds from York, allowing EC services north of york from Leeds, so maybe giving an hourly service York-Aberdeen with alternation of Leeds & London as destinations. This in addition to a Newcastle-Aberdeen semi fast and a Newcastle-Edinburgh stopper.

As for Nottingham-Cardiff, I'd imagine this would continue to run, and possibly be extended to Lincoln & Cleethorpes. Giving 2tph Nottingham-Birmingham, and allowing the Scotland services to skip Burton & Tamworth.

 

[Greenback]

I am all for the extra services, the question is whether there are suitable paths for them all to fit in!

 

[mralexn]

Yes but Mark 2s would never be able to match the timings of the Voyagers. Trains are faster and run more frequently now.

even though XC give longer timings than some HST sets, and they have a ridiculous amount of make up time upto around 1 hour 20 mins on a weekday ABD - PNZ ^^

 

[ainsworth74]

they have a ridiculous amount of make up time upto around 1 hour 20 mins on a weekday ABD - PNZ

Because a service that runs once per day is representative of XC's services as a whole...

But anyway the reason for having so much slack in their timetable is that they need it. A few minutes delay at Bristol can be half an hour (or more) by the time you get to Newcastle and that's with slack time can you imagine what the delay would be like if there was little or no slack time?

 

[Failed Unit]

Because a service that runs once per day is representative of XC's services as a whole...

But anyway the reason for having so much slack in their timetable is that they need it. A few minutes delay at Bristol can be half an hour (or more) by the time you get to Newcastle and that's with slack time can you imagine what the delay would be like if there was little or no slack time?

But the they never catch up again as the get stuck behind other trains. An example used to be if the 0750 Glasgow - London via Edinburgh was late and got stuck behind the XC (10 late) it was stuck behind it until York. As the XC stopped more often it was now later. Then it got stick behind a Leeds - London service.

Any what I am saying is a lost path = late arrival on a busy line as the stoppers get out ahead of you.

 

[tbtc]

I am all for the extra services, the question is whether there are suitable paths for them all to fit in!

The other question is that some of these suggested "new" services would overtake others - would a service from Leeds to Newcastle which stops at Garforth, Chester le Street etc not get overtaken by another one? In which case, does this need to be a through service?

Same with Bristol - Worcester - Birmingham... that'd be so slow that it'd easily be overtaken, so why would you run this as a through service (and not just Bristol - Worcester + Worcester - Birmingham)?

 

[The Planner]

even though XC give longer timings than some HST sets, and they have a ridiculous amount of make up time upto around 1 hour 20 mins on a weekday ABD - PNZ ^^

80 minutes in adjustment time ?? ok....

 

[jones_bangor]

They were going to have 3rd class hence the number off accessible toilets. Not sure what that would have been 2+3? Never got off the ground.

3+2 seating could be the answer!! Or maybe not......

 

[MCR247]

It would be Standard (as is now), Club Class (as is now I think) and first class
??
Virgin marketed 220/221 FC as club class due to it being inferior to 390s IIRC, or I could be imagining it?

 

[Greenback]

The other question is that some of these suggested "new" services would overtake others - would a service from Leeds to Newcastle which stops at Garforth, Chester le Street etc not get overtaken by another one? In which case, does this need to be a through service?

Same with Bristol - Worcester - Birmingham... that'd be so slow that it'd easily be overtaken, so why would you run this as a through service (and not just Bristol - Worcester + Worcester - Birmingham)?

Exactly, that is part of what I meant about pathing. As to the Worcester train, there would be few through passengers, presumably, but the main objective driving this suggestion seems to be providing through services between one amall place and another, like Ashchurch/Yate and Droitwich Spa/Kidderrminster.

I'm not too sure myself that the volume of demand between these places, or Chesterfield and Cheltenham, justifies the additional resources and upgrading of infrastructure required to run the new services.

 

[LE Greys]

Exactly, that is part of what I meant about pathing. As to the Worcester train, there would be few through passengers, presumably, but the main objective driving this suggestion seems to be providing through services between one amall place and another, like Ashchurch/Yate and Droitwich Spa/Kidderrminster.

I'm not too sure myself that the volume of demand between these places, or Chesterfield and Cheltenham, justifies the additional resources and upgrading of infrastructure required to run the new services.

It would be more about FGW competing with XC, presumably on price. I don't usually like that kind of competition, but if it allowed XC to provide a more efficient service, it would help. Probably run it with 158s, and ideally stop about 5/10/15 minutes in front of the XC at stations where it does stop, to act as an advertised relief.

 

[IanXC]

How can a ROSCO be sure that stock they buy is going to be used though without the DfT giving this guarantee?

That would be their commercial risk. Its not like currently where if ROSCOs procure new stock off their own back it could end up having no use, as the DfT wouldn't be guaranteeing any stock usage. There wouldn't be that "odd one out" problem. The ROSCOs would know what franchise requirements exist, and that TOCs would have to lease stock to operate them.

You seem to be rather attached to the concept of DfT stock planning and guarantees. Rather reminds me of a Yes Prime Minister scene, which seems to be even more relevant now I've found it!

Humphrey: Who would asses forward planning and staffing variations, variation in pupil population, density of schooling required? Who would make sure everything ran properly?
Dorothy: 2500 private schools seem to solve these planning problems every day of the week Humphrey, without any help from the DES. They simply respond to changing circumstances, supply and demand, its easy.
Humphrey: Who would plan for the future?
Jim: Are you saying that education in Britain today is what the Department planned?
Humphrey: Well of course not!

 

[Zoe]

You seem to be rather attached to the concept of DfT stock planning and guarantees. Rather reminds me of a Yes Prime Minister scene, which seems to be even more relevant now I've found it!

The ROSCOs could buy stock now but they won't do without the guarnatee from the DfT that it will be used. The franchises only last 15 years so even if a TOC contracted to lease the stock for the entire term of the franchise this does not guarantee that the stock will be used for its entire life.

 

[WillPS]

So much for entrepreneurship on the railways, as privatisation promised.

Instead, we have a select few with a license to print money.