Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[Killingworth]

That's great news - I hope it gets approved. It is the only realistic way to add capacity in the short term, as new trains (which I do believe is the ideal solution) would take time.

Who knows, with an enhanced fleet any less serious faults should be fixed without them running until they finally fail.

More importantly there should be enough units to operate everything in the timetable at full length with the ability to strengthen and add a few more trains where the market needs them.

Next issue, fully crewing them all.

Of course tendering, getting approval and actually operating them will take ..... many months. Will it happen and when?

 

[Charlie978]

Who knows, with an enhanced fleet any less serious faults should be fixed without them running until they finally fail.

More importantly there should be enough units to operate everything in the timetable at full length with the ability to strengthen and add a few more trains where the market needs them.

Next issue, fully crewing them all.

Of course tendering, getting approval and actually operating them will take ..... many months. Will it happen and when?

In a joined up world, the approval would only be a formality and so they could start recruitment and training of staff now for them to be ready asap. Of course this will not happen and if they do come along the new sets will be running around locked out on the back of other units

 

[NCT]

One would hope that the very fact that Cross Country has 'gone public' suggests there is a level of blessing from DfT and Treasury, and approval is expected.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One would hope that the very fact that Cross Country has 'gone public' suggests there is a level of blessing from DfT and Treasury, and approval is expected.

That or it's an attempt to embarrass the DfT into saying yes, as if it's fairly public them saying no will be very visible.

 

[Halish Railway]

Am I right in thinking that an extra 6 Voyagers should be enough to end almost all 4 car workings?

I.e. by having Newcastle to Reading be worked by single 221s, Anglo-Scots worked by pairs and the interworking Manchester services worked by a mix of single 221s and pairs.

 

[danshrimp]

That or it's an attempt to embarrass the DfT into saying yes, as if it's fairly public them saying no will be very visible.

I thought this quote in the Modern Railways article was quite an explicit nod to that:

“Putting the whole fleet together in the business would be the best solution,” an insider noted to Modern Railways, and should the proposal be rejected by the Department for Transport then passengers facing overcrowding will know that a solution was available.

Obviously we don't know who their 'insider' is but I wouldn't be surprised if XC are deliberately slipping out this message.

Am I right in thinking that an extra 6 Voyagers should be enough to end almost all 4 car workings?

I.e. by having Newcastle to Reading be worked by single 221s, Anglo-Scots worked by pairs and the interworking Manchester services worked by a mix of single 221s and pairs.

I haven't done the maths but XC seem to think so, per the article:

The aim, according to managers, is to aim for every service to be a minimum of five cars and a single four car set being diagrammed for a Cornwall-North East journey should be an increasingly rare occurrence.

 

[gc4946]

Last week I travelled both ways on Northern's "Yorkshire Flyer" between Leeds-Sheffield. They run between the hourly Cross Country services, forming a combined half-hourly limited stop service. Although my services were only half full off peak I think such a service takes pressure off the corresponding Cross Country service for short distance travellers between Leeds, Wakefield Westgate and Sheffield.

 

[duffield]

...

Next issue, fully crewing them all.
...

Exactly, I don't think there's any reason for celebration (if this is approved) when they can't yet crew the current fleet and seem to spend a lot of time dragging round locked-out second units.

 

[Trainbike46]

Exactly, I don't think there's any reason for celebration (if this is approved) when they can't yet crew the current fleet and seem to spend a lot of time dragging round locked-out second units.

The crew situation could be resolved either by hitting more guards, or by returning to the previous agreement with the catering staff. Alternatively, the agreed working practices could be changed.

This is good news, though more work needs to be done

 

[duffield]

The crew situation could be resolved either by hitting more guards, or by returning to the previous agreement with the catering staff. Alternatively, the agreed working practices could be changed.

This is good news, though more work needs to be done

But presumably the XC management could return to the previous agreement right now. So why don't they? They appear to be entirely relaxed about the current situation of locked-out units continuing indefinitely. This I why I don't have any faith in their ability to properly utilise these extra units in the short term. Maybe nothing will change until the top management at XC are replaced, presumably when the franchise is terminated (October 2027).

Of course, given some of the issues with XC including such things as slashing the previously woeful and pathetic Sunday Nottingham to Cardiff service by half and then still being unable to run it, the government could probably terminate them now for non-performance - but that would require a bit of willpower and guts which they sadly seem to lack.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Am I right in thinking that an extra 6 Voyagers should be enough to end almost all 4 car workings?

I.e. by having Newcastle to Reading be worked by single 221s, Anglo-Scots worked by pairs and the interworking Manchester services worked by a mix of single 221s and pairs.

Sounds good, although I personally believe Manchester Bournemouth is equally deserving of pairs as Anglo Scots, not less so.

 

[FGWHST43009]

The first question has to be, what alternatives are there to reduce overcrowding, can it be quicker to go via London, using other operators? so to reduce the number of people using Cross-country services?

That's more complicated than it seems at first. I travel from Newcastle to South Wales on a seasonal basis, usually on XC from Newcastle to either Bristol Parkway or Cardiff Central. While not as many people make journeys of that length, taking XC is usually considerably cheaper than going via London, and that's an important consideration, especially for students. I, for one, would ideally like a faster service, but more coaches would be decent in the meantime

 

[Bayum]

Are there enough XC voyagers and 222s to:
A) Increase voyager sets to seven cars by having 2 driving cars and 5 intermediate vehicles
B) Using 222s as 4 and 5 car vehicles for the services that need to couple/uncouple?

 

[brad465]

Am I right in thinking that an extra 6 Voyagers should be enough to end almost all 4 car workings?

I.e. by having Newcastle to Reading be worked by single 221s, Anglo-Scots worked by pairs and the interworking Manchester services worked by a mix of single 221s and pairs.

Increasing 4-car to 5-car will add an additional standard carriage with 46 extra seats (or 34 if a 4-car 221). Any 5-car services that increase to 8-car add an extra 102 standard class seats and another 26 first class seats. This is assuming they all go to lengthening existing services rather than some creating additional services. I could see 4-car operation remaining where an 8-9 car detaches a 4-car unit for the last leg at an extreme end of a route, such as Plymouth-Penzance or Edinburgh-Dundee/Aberdeen.

 

[JonathanH]

Are there enough XC voyagers and 222s to:
A) Increase voyager sets to seven cars by having 2 driving cars and 5 intermediate vehicles

Well you would only get 39 7-car Voyagers, so no.

 

[Killingworth]

Last week I travelled both ways on Northern's "Yorkshire Flyer" between Leeds-Sheffield. They run between the hourly Cross Country services, forming a combined half-hourly limited stop service. Although my services were only half full off peak I think such a service takes pressure off the corresponding Cross Country service for short distance travellers between Leeds, Wakefield Westgate and Sheffield.

It will do and at peak times I suspect the 2 car trains will be full. The ones I've seen have all been very well loaded.

 

[Bikeman78]

A depressingly Network Rail - esque answer. Network Rail has become this incredibly defensive organisation that spends most of its time defending the status quo. There are a small number of good people but they are operating against a torrent of institutional inertia.

Your last two sentences reveal a basic lack of understanding. British infrastructure utilisation rates - tph on plain line sections with mixed stopping patterns, and platform utilisation rates are incredibly similar to Dutch ones. The Dutch network isn't awash with fancy grade separations either (theirs is somewhat better than ours, but not wildly so). What the Dutch are good at are operating services in ways the infrastructure is designed to, and recognising that passengers changing trains is more efficient than trains changing tracks, as long as you make make changes simple, predictable and reliable. At New Street that means splitting it into two independent parts, and operating each part as outer roads for through and inner roads for terminating.

Rotterdam - Arneham requires a change. Eindhoven - Amersfoort requires a change. These cross-Utrecht journeys are incredibly similar to cross-Birmingham ones.

I've witnessed the way that the Dutch network has progressed over the past 40 years. There has been lots of four tracking, and extra flyovers and diveunders at key junctions, e.g. Amersfoort, Arnhem, Utrecht, and Woerden. The upgrades have all been tailored to the exact service that they plan to run. Many routes have increased from two per hour to four per hour. So it doesn't really matter if a connection is missed any more because there will be another train in 15 minutes.

 

[Starmill]

As much as I'd break out the champers the second I saw a gas axe approach a Voyager, another 8 would be a lot of help. It is a shame ScotRail need the 222s, as much as I think 22x are a bit rubbish if they got all of them the overcrowding problem would at least be resolved.

Yes, it's rather a lot of posts buried above now where this was previously discussed, but it's definitely the best realistic outcome by far.

 

[Charlie978]

Am I right in thinking that an extra 6 Voyagers should be enough to end almost all 4 car workings?

I.e. by having Newcastle to Reading be worked by single 221s, Anglo-Scots worked by pairs and the interworking Manchester services worked by a mix of single 221s and pairs.

On their core sections it should mathematically be able to. Obviously I am not sure of the diagramming and stabling restrictions that could impact it from working in practice.

Things like the Cardiff to Edinburgh unit may still remain as a single 4 car due to multiple working with a Plymouth unit. As might the extensions beyond Plymouth and Edinburgh.

 

[The exile]

Increasing 4-car to 5-car will add an additional standard carriage with 46 extra seats (or 34 if a 4-car 221).

And to think 3-a-side Mk.1 corridor coaches were considered to have poor capacity at 48 seats!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't know where this 46 is coming from - is the poster thinking of an end vehicle? Voyagers are space inefficient, but Coach B manages 66 seats which is poor for a 23m vehicle of that high density (it should really be able to get to 72, Mk3s in BR days had 76 on a much lower density* layout) but it isn't anywhere near 46.

* But worse legroom purely because of the thick seat backs.

 

[The exile]

Voyagers are space inefficient, but Coach B manages 66 seats which is poor for a 23m vehicle of that high density (it should really be able to get to 72, Mk3s in BR days had 76 on a much lower density* layout) but it isn't anywhere near 46.

* But worse legroom purely because of the thick seat backs.

Having said that, cramming in seats into trains that inevitably will have a high(er) proportion of people with large luggage is not a good idea. Only thing is that Voyagers not only have low seating capacity, but also limited luggage capacity where people actually want it.

 

[quantinghome]

Last week I travelled both ways on Northern's "Yorkshire Flyer" between Leeds-Sheffield. They run between the hourly Cross Country services, forming a combined half-hourly limited stop service. Although my services were only half full off peak I think such a service takes pressure off the corresponding Cross Country service for short distance travellers between Leeds, Wakefield Westgate and Sheffield.

It's very early days for the service as well. They had a soft launch - the recent publicity launching the service comes a month or so after it actually started. So I would expect to see significant further growth.

While very welcome it does seem to be a waste of scarce capacity. Having gone to all the effort of adding a service to such a heavily congested route, it should be a longer train and it really should extend further south, preferably all the way to Birmingham.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having said that, cramming in seats into trains that inevitably will have a high(er) proportion of people with large luggage is not a good idea. Only thing is that Voyagers not only have low seating capacity, but also limited luggage capacity where people actually want it.

The small overheads will be a problem until the welcome day when the things are scrapped. Overheads on a train really do as a minimum need to fit a standard 56x45x25 hard sided airline carryon. At least the CAFs and Hitachis do. It will be interesting to see how Lumo (who very much rely on the smallish bag they permit being mostly in the overheads) are going to cope with 222s which share this problem with Voyagers.

 

[The exile]

MkIi and original layout MkIII had it nailed - bays of four ( so not too dense) with luggage space behind the seats.

 

[JamesT]

MkIi and original layout MkIII had it nailed - bays of four ( so not too dense) with luggage space behind the seats.

So playing footsy with a stranger and hoping your case isn't wider than the gap between two seats? A mix of airline and tables with some proper luggage racks is far better.

 

[The exile]

So playing footsy with a stranger and hoping your case isn't wider than the gap between two seats? A mix of airline and tables with some proper luggage racks is far better.

A mix - fair enough. 50/50 rather than the grudging placing of a table so that the seat direction can change. If luggage racks then at 1/3 and 2/3 down the carriage where the stuff is in view.
Incidentally - in the light of where the thread is heading, I’m not advocating this for the current fleet!

 

[35B]

No, I go with the all table layout. The space behind the seats catered for most bags, and reduced the amount of space needed in the end stacks by spreading the load through the carriage. Once you start putting airline seats in, the luggage capacity falls exponentially.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, I go with the all table layout. The space behind the seats catered for most bags, and reduced the amount of space needed in the end stacks by spreading the load through the carriage. Once you start putting airline seats in, the luggage capacity falls exponentially.

But then if you did that to Voyagers you'd only get 58 seats per coach (per Avanti Coach D) and the overcrowding problem would be even worse than it is now.

It's a shame it was not seen as economic/necessary to replace the overhead racks with ones capable of taking a standard airline carryon bag, as aside from the useless overheads Voyagers don't have less luggage storage than a 5 car 80x, especially in the case of the converted shop area. Trouble is it would require rerouteing a load of electrics and air ducts and moving the reservation displays.

 

[35B]

But then if you did that to Voyagers you'd only get 58 seats per coach (per Avanti Coach D) and the overcrowding problem would be even worse than it is now.

It's a shame it was not seen as economic/necessary to replace the overhead racks with ones capable of taking a standard airline carryon bag, as aside from the useless overheads Voyagers don't have less luggage storage than a 5 car 80x, especially in the case of the converted shop area. Trouble is it would require rerouteing a load of electrics and air ducts and moving the reservation displays.

The shame is that this aspect of the design wasn't properly checked out in the first place, as it compounds all of the other weaknesses. For XC, I agree that reducing seat density within the existing fleet would just exacerbate the existing overcrowding.