Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[yorksrob]

Are there any examples in recent decades, besides the Elizabeth Line, where a very sizeable increase in capacity was provided to the network that in turn created a significant increase in passenger journeys, thus more revenue? XC feels like somewhere that has significant potential for this if the DfT could be persuaded to look long term at the issue, through a combination of increasing service frequency and the length of most services, including a more capacity-efficient fleet compared to Voyagers.

West London line seems to be doing better than the old Kenny Belle.

Also Oxford to Bicester since they extended it.

 

[HC1998]

Is this a Reading-Newcastle or Newcastle-Reading service? If the former, while the overcrowding on the train is unpleasant, there are many other services between York and Newcastle!

I don’t quite think the suggestion that I should use an alternative TOC is a very glowing endorsement of crosscountry’s services. And unfortunately, I could not change anyway because I was on the direct service from Oxford. I had the forward thought to upgrade myself via Seatfrog otherwise I would’ve been amongst the crowd.

 

[Falcon1200]

I don’t quite think the suggestion that I should use an alternative TOC is a very glowing endorsement of crosscountry’s services.

I did not actually suggest that at all - Merely pointing out that from York (and Leeds) to Newcastle, Crosscountry is not the sole service provider. But I agree that more capacity from passengers travelling longer distances is desperately needed.

 

[NCT]

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.

The 'exact' bit is the key, and is the part Britain often falls down on. Politicians will buckle and demand last-minute changes to service patterns, creating train movements the infrastructure isn't designed to accommodate; then capacity and performance suffer and the full intended scheme benefits can no longer be realised. And because we are too scared to simplify the timetable, rather than proposing specific easy-to-build grade separations, we start off designing everywhere-to-everywhere spaghettis, and such schemes would have terrible value for money, affordability and deliverability so never get past Treasury.

 

[The Ham]

I think that pretty much the only way to get XC to have a new fleet is if it delivers on these points:
- a smaller fleet (in terms of both number of units but also in the number of coaches),
- whilst also increasing capacity across the board
- whist maintaining a 15% of fleet for spares/maintenance
- reduced staffing requirements due to fewer pairs of units in service
- reduces the risk of a rammed unit with an empty unit due to lack of staff
I expect that the initial response would be that it is impossible, however the following might be able to do it all.
So let's start with the factor which might mean that this option might find it harder to be as good as the above, as its not something which is in the public domain. The number of diagrams run by XC by their 22x fleet.

Looking through the timetables, it appears that there's 44, if this is wrong then the capacity increase would be lower.

First up fleet size:
Current 22x fleet is 70 units (312 coaches) formed of:
34 class 220
4 class 221 (4 coaches)
32 class 221 (5 coaches)

Proposed fleet (80x or matching) would be formed of:
12 sets with 9 coaches
40 sets with 5 coaches
That's 52 sets needing 304 coaches

That's 18 fewer sets and 8 fewer coaches, so that meets the smaller fleet size (by units and coaches) claim
85% of 52 is 44.2, (44 of 52 is 84.6%) so that meets that requirement to run 44 diagrams with equal to or less than 85% fleet utilisation.

Seating capacity is going to be the big one. Basically anything which is broadly +18% would be the same sort of capacity uplift which the 80x's delivered vs the HST's. Ideally, better than that would be good.

Current seating (220/221)
34 class 220 - 176 standard class 26 1st class
4 class 221 (4 coaches) - 176 standard class 26 1st class
32 class 221 (5 coaches) - 220 standard class 26 1st class

That's 13,024 standard class seats and 1,820 first class seats, giving a total of 14,844, less 10% for spares and that's 13,360 seats in active use.

Using GWR's 800 fleet seating numbers
12 sets with 9 coaches - 580 standard 70 1st class
40 sets with 5 coaches - 290 standard 36 1st class

That's 18,560 standard class seats and 2,280 first class seats, giving a total of 20,840 less 15% for spares and that's 17,630 seats in active us.
When you compare the two, even allowing for a lower fleet utilisation in the new fleet that's an increase of 31.96%, as such that meets the number of seats in service requirement, and by a little more than the 18% target.

However, even if all the spares were the 9 coach sets (leaving only 4 of the 9 coach sets in service) the in service seat number would be 15,640 seats which is a 17% increase over the current fleet, so even on that basis there's still an increase in seats.

Whilst it might be that a 5+5 train may substitute for a 9 coach unit, the fleet mix is such that this should be fairly rare. As such, there's should be low single digits percentages of services with a member of staff in each unit, compared to the current situation where there's a significant percentages of services being run in pairs.

Given this reduction in staffing, it should be possible to have a member of staff on standby for each spare unit avaliable and still be able to have fewer staff.

Whist the ideal would be to have a unit which could beat the capacity of various of the pairings of the 22x fleet having about 1 in 5 services smashing that in the form of those 9 coach sets is going to help.

The current pairing capacities:
220+220 train 348 standard and 52 1st
220+221 train 394 standard and 52 1st
221+221 train 440 standard and 52 1st

That compares with:
5 coach GWR 290 standard and 36 1st

Although that also needs to be considered against the fact that quite a lot of XC services will be being run providing:
220 standard and 26 1st
Or, worse still:
174 standard and 26 1st

To give XC the best chance of coping if they see significant growth due to the new fleet, I would suggest an option for up to 200 coaches, as that would be enough to lengthen 25 of the 5 coach sets to 9 coaches, provide 15 additional 5 coach sets (so all current diagrams would be 9 or 5+5) and 7 addition 5 coach sets to give scope to strengthen service frequency further out (for example allowing more services to be extended beyond York or Plymouth).

Obviously that would be far more than growth might need, however, if that option could be used for (say) a new order placed up to 3 years after the final unit of the original order enters service, that's going to add a lot of flexibility for GBR.

One thing they could do (I'm mindful that the above only has to match the class 80x's in as many ways as possible, so the follow on order might not be able do directly this, but could still be useful in a sightly less efficient way) is use a follow on order to provide additional capacity for GWR/LNER.

One interesting option could be to create a 9 coach battery enhanced unit for GWR. Such a unit (class 800's, it probably wouldn't work for the 802's) would have 3 diesel coaches and 2 battery coaches (I.e. swapping out two of the diesel engines for a battery pack - or more likely when lengthening the 5 coach sets keeping the engines and adding in 2 battery coaches).

For a lot of the services which branch off from the Paddington Cardiff corridor such a setup could be very useful (electric only mode would likely get to Banbury and back, but able to run as a hybrid for to Swansea or through the Cotswolds).

The reason I mention it here is that by lengthening some GWR sets to 9 coaches it could be that some 5 coach sets could be transferred elsewhere (such as XC) whilst still delivering the same capacity at GWR, just with a sightly lower coach count.



Although that would actually result in

 

[martin butler]

How many routes operated by XC, could be made by other operators scheduled services, by having a change of train en- route, either by travelling via London, or other interchange?

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure a mix of 5 and 9 car sets is more suitable than a simple uniform fleet of 7-car sets.

You'd get 44 sets for 312 vehicles and a 7-car with a high density seating pattern is probably going to meet essentially all XC loading requirements.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure a mix of 5 and 9 car sets is more suitable than a simple uniform fleet of 7-car sets.

You'd get 44 sets for 312 vehicles and a 7-car with a high density seating pattern is probably going to meet essentially all XC loading requirements.

I think there is likely serious suppressed demand so a smaller fleet would not be a good choice. I do however agree with 7 car. The Avanti units but bimode and with only the end vehicle having first class would be ideal. You don't want to turn it into Lumo with very high density layouts with inadequate luggage space.

 

[Topological]

I would have though 5 and 9 would be better because you can interwork with GWR once everything is in the same pool?

 

[jayah]

I would have though 5 and 9 would be better because you can interwork with GWR once everything is in the same pool?

Interesting idea to interwork, but if XC can get all their First Class and the microwave in 1 car, there is no reason to have the GW level of First Class. The TPE format would be better which looks like 318+24.

As most people go to work, or go on day trips at the same time of day, there aren't really a handful of special XC diagrams warranting double the normal capacity and trying to manage such a small fleet of 9 car trains across the length of the country sounds very difficult.

Every attempt at managing deployment of these non-standard formations inevitably becomes subservient to the wants of the production function.

 

[Topological]

Interesting idea to interwork, but if XC can get all their First Class and the microwave in 1 car, there is no reason to have the GW level of First Class. The TPE format would be better which looks like 318+24.

As most people go to work, or go on day trips at the same time of day, there aren't really a handful of special XC diagrams warranting double the normal capacity and trying to manage such a small fleet of 9 car trains across the length of the country sounds very difficult.

Every attempt at managing deployment of these non-standard formations inevitably becomes subservient to the wants of the production function.

Surely the microfleets are when you are at Laira and need to send only certain units out on GWR services and others on CrossCountry?

In a perfect world any 80x could find itself anywhere in the country. Since it will all be GBR the issue of liveries is less important. We might see an LNER unit become a CrossCountry and then find itself in the South West and running to Paddington.

The only ones that could not interwork would be the electric only ones, since they cannot get onto CrossCountry.

It is right that you would order less first class for CrossCountry, but then maybe a 5-car with less first class could be allowed out on GWR too. Just leave the composite coach first class unreserved. When it was a CrossCountry unit there would be unreserved standard class seats where the first class seats are in a GWR set. This would work without specifying the same set up exactly within the units. The 9-cars can just have 2 first class carriages wherever they are going.

 

[The Ham]

I'm not sure a mix of 5 and 9 car sets is more suitable than a simple uniform fleet of 7-car sets.

You'd get 44 sets for 312 vehicles and a 7-car with a high density seating pattern is probably going to meet essentially all XC loading requirements.

At 44 sets you don't have any spares (assuming the 44 diagrams are acute) even just allowing for 10% you'd need 49 sets and therefore 343 coaches.

You could, however, use a future follow on order to reform to a uniform 7 coach fleet, or to create a mixed 7 and 9 coach fleet (so you don't end up with services used to having 9 coaches feeing like they are seeing a cut in capacity).

 

[The Planner]

How many routes operated by XC, could be made by other operators scheduled services, by having a change of train en- route, either by travelling via London, or other interchange?

You will need to expand on that, as alternatives could add enough journey time that you push people to other modes.

New St to Nuneaton requires either a change at Coventry or Lichfield with a different TOC. New St to Leicester I don't see a decent alternative. New St to Tamworth would require a change at Lichfield for another TOC. New St Coleshil, Derby and further north has no real alternative?

Wolves, Stafford, Stoke and Crewe can all be done with LNWR/Avanti (not Stoke) but slower. Macc, Stockport and Manchester need a change and would be much slower.

International and Coventry are covered. Leamington is either a change or using Moor St. Banbury and Oxford are two changes unless you use Moor St where Oxford is one. New St Reading is four(?) changes or two from Moor St. Cheltenham and further south west /Wales is via Worcester and Bristol. There are a myriad of combinations that aren't simple or relative in journey time.

 

[irish_rail]

Surely the microfleets are when you are at Laira and need to send only certain units out on GWR services and others on CrossCountry?

In a perfect world any 80x could find itself anywhere in the country. Since it will all be GBR the issue of liveries is less important. We might see an LNER unit become a CrossCountry and then find itself in the South West and running to Paddington.

The only ones that could not interwork would be the electric only ones, since they cannot get onto CrossCountry.

It is right that you would order less first class for CrossCountry, but then maybe a 5-car with less first class could be allowed out on GWR too. Just leave the composite coach first class unreserved. When it was a CrossCountry unit there would be unreserved standard class seats where the first class seats are in a GWR set. This would work without specifying the same set up exactly within the units. The 9-cars can just have 2 first class carriages wherever they are going.

I completely agree with you by the way, a proper common fleet would be highly desirable, though I don't think that's the plan. This nationalisation is appearing increasingly pointless and looks likely to keep a fragmented railway as far as I can see. ATP is also an issue fleet wise, as all Western 80x must be ATP fitted to run into Paddington, so sadly borrowing a spare XC set on Laira would be unlikely in practice.

 

[jayah]

Surely the microfleets are when you are at Laira and need to send only certain units out on GWR services and others on CrossCountry?

In a perfect world any 80x could find itself anywhere in the country. Since it will all be GBR the issue of liveries is less important. We might see an LNER unit become a CrossCountry and then find itself in the South West and running to Paddington.

The only ones that could not interwork would be the electric only ones, since they cannot get onto CrossCountry.

It is right that you would order less first class for CrossCountry, but then maybe a 5-car with less first class could be allowed out on GWR too. Just leave the composite coach first class unreserved. When it was a CrossCountry unit there would be unreserved standard class seats where the first class seats are in a GWR set. This would work without specifying the same set up exactly within the units. The 9-cars can just have 2 first class carriages wherever they are going.

Even in Intercity times, you had the XC HSTs with less First Class than the ones that went to London. Ironically it is only the Devon and Cornwall services on GWR that really seem justify the current provision - it is all rather empty on Oxford and Bristol trains, not to mention replicating a floorplan that provides 80 odd kitchens to work about 6 Pullman services a day!

The only XC diagrams likely to be in play are the NE-SW - the ones mainly operated by HSTs before the Voyagers arrived.

That is probably a lot more diagrams than you proposed 9 car units for, but will breakdown something like 4 Laira, 2 Bristol, 4 Birmingham, 2 Leeds, 2 Newcastle, 2 Edinburgh. Already fleet of micro-fleets.

Otherwise you end up with a messy fudge, where randomly the same hourly train service alternates between 50% and full capacity. And a bit like now, with 4,5,8,9 car Voyagers, or when XC ran 2 HSTs on Wednesdays and 3 on Fridays it doesn't really work and the capacity optimisation of a train fleet which is already the wrong fleet to start with, has more to with what works for the production function - in that case almost entirely which depot got to maintain them all.

At the very least, all of the NE-SW diagrams should be the same length and in this case, probably all of the current XC Voyager services should be 1 single fleet of 6-8 cars with no multi-working.

 

[Essex Express]

The whole of Cross County needs a review. Having services start in Glasgow or Aberdeen is a total waste of units. Which could be better used on more busy services in the morning and afternoon peaks. Running to Manxhester which is fully under the wires again is a total waste of diesel units when there are class 350 in store. Which could cover Birmingham to Manchester and operated by West Midland who operate the rest of the class 350.
There are 4 class 180 in store which could cover for the 2 class 221 with Grand Central plus the stored 221 and not running to Manchester will make a number of units available.
Then the Edinburgh to Plymouth services should be run as the class 220 all run with two units together 34 units that is 17 double sets. The class 221 has a few four car units again form in to 8 car double sets. The remaining 5 cars a batch needs to be made 4 cars again making some more 8 car double sets. The spare MS coaches going into another batch to make a number of 6. car units.this should mean they have some flexibility into loadings. On which services have 8 or 6 coaches.
Also a option is first class does a 8 car double unit need 2 first class coaches or only one. Does a 6 car need one first class or 2 first class coaches. Or do you make Cross country standard class only they have removed first class from the class 170 routes already.

 

[AndrewE]

The whole of Cross County needs a review. Having services start in Glasgow or Aberdeen is a total waste of units. Which could be better used on more busy services in the morning and afternoon peaks. Running to Manxhester which is fully under the wires again is a total waste of diesel units when there are class 350 in store. Which could cover Birmingham to Manchester and operated by West Midland who operate the rest of the class 350.
There are 4 class 180 in store which could cover for the 2 class 221 with Grand Central plus the stored 221 and not running to Manchester will make a number of units available.
Then the Edinburgh to Plymouth services should be run as the class 220 all run with two units together 34 units that is 17 double sets. The class 221 has a few four car units again form in to 8 car double sets. The remaining 5 cars a batch needs to be made 4 cars again making some more 8 car double sets. The spare MS coaches going into another batch to make a number of 6. car units.this should mean they have some flexibility into loadings. On which services have 8 or 6 coaches.
Also a option is first class does a 8 car double unit need 2 first class coaches or only one. Does a 6 car need one first class or 2 first class coaches. Or do you make Cross country standard class only they have removed first class from the class 170 routes already.

The 500-odd posts above generally agree with you... Unfortunately GB seems to be a country where any reason for not doing something outweighs any initiative, no mattter how sensible or necessary.

That - and the curse of the Treasury which is stuck on its Thatcherite /monetarist tramlines (and is based in London and doesn't seem to give a toss about the conditions in the rest of the country.)

 

[The Ham]

The whole of Cross County needs a review. Having services start in Glasgow or Aberdeen is a total waste of units. Which could be better used on more busy services in the morning and afternoon peaks. Running to Manxhester which is fully under the wires again is a total waste of diesel units when there are class 350 in store. Which could cover Birmingham to Manchester and operated by West Midland who operate the rest of the class 350.
There are 4 class 180 in store which could cover for the 2 class 221 with Grand Central plus the stored 221 and not running to Manchester will make a number of units available.
Then the Edinburgh to Plymouth services should be run as the class 220 all run with two units together 34 units that is 17 double sets. The class 221 has a few four car units again form in to 8 car double sets. The remaining 5 cars a batch needs to be made 4 cars again making some more 8 car double sets. The spare MS coaches going into another batch to make a number of 6. car units.this should mean they have some flexibility into loadings. On which services have 8 or 6 coaches.
Also a option is first class does a 8 car double unit need 2 first class coaches or only one. Does a 6 car need one first class or 2 first class coaches. Or do you make Cross country standard class only they have removed first class from the class 170 routes already.

That level of tinkering isn't going to get you level of capacity you'd get from changing to a fleet of class 800 (or comparable).

If you had every 220 and 221 possible you'd have 352 coaches, the suggested 5/9 coach fleet would require 304 coaches.

Now tell me which one the Treasury would sign off on?

Even with the lease costs of the 800's being 15% higher the total cost would be lower (unit rate of 100 for each class 22x coach and 115 for each class 800 coach the total is 35,200 for the 22x's and 34,900 for the 800's).

That's before you factor in lower running costs, higher capacity (so scope to sell more tickets), lower staff costs (limited need for staff in a second unit, as there'll be far fewer pairs of units) and coach count for track access charges.

Putting it simply; it is quite likely it's going to cost more and generate less income to not have a new fleet of class 800 (or comparable) at XC if the option is more 22x units.

It may already be the case that ditching the current fleet isthe cheaper option (even with very limited passenger growth expectations).

If that's the case if we were to ask the person at the Treasury who was to sign this off, "what should we do?" How likely is it that they would opt to keep the existing if the new fleet was actually gong to be cheaper than doing nothing?

As I don't have access to the actual costs, I don't know if that's the case, however it's likely to be worth someone investigating.

At a GBR level of it was a class 800 train we could make it even cheaper.

For example if we lengthen 24 of the 36 class 800's at GWR and transfer 10 five coach sets to XC, then GWR have 12 diagrams of 9 coaches (rather that 12 of 10 coaches) and still have 14 sets with 5 coaches but 2 fewer coaches on lease.

Yes I know that 36-24=12 not 14, but as your only needing 4 coaches to extend to 9 coaches you can order 48 mid coaches for insertion to 12 units to create "full length" trains for GWR, that would normally require 24 units with 5 coaches, so that's 12 units which are now spare. However, with a saving of 1 coach per 9 coach train vs a 10 coach train GWR can retain 2 units of 5 coaches and their fleet would still be smaller than it was by 2 coaches.

It gets complex without prices to set a comparison against.

If we assume that GWR are paying 100 per coach and due to inflation that would be 120 per coach for the new coaches.

The total number of new coaches for the GWR upgrade and XC is 302.

GWR agree to pay 100 per coach for their fleet, only because they have 10 extra coaches that's an increase of 1,000, but they have more capacity without paying the 1,200 which they would otherwise have to pay.

The annual cost of the 302 coaches is 36,240, only 1,000 of that is already being paid by GWR, giving a cost per coach of 116.70.

Doing this and given the other cost savings, XC would likely need to see an around 10% uplift in passengers even with a 20% uplift in lease costs per coach for it to be cost neutral.

Obviously that assumes that GWR can make their extra sets pay, but with cost savingsfor running a 9 coach set over a 5+5 train they're likely to be able to make the maths work too.

 

[35B]

That level of tinkering isn't going to get you level of capacity you'd get from changing to a fleet of class 800 (or comparable).

If you had every 220 and 221 possible you'd have 352 coaches, the suggested 5/9 coach fleet would require 304 coaches.

Now tell me which one the Treasury would sign off on?

Even with the lease costs of the 800's being 15% higher the total cost would be lower (unit rate of 100 for each class 22x coach and 115 for each class 800 coach the total is 35,200 for the 22x's and 34,900 for the 800's).

That's before you factor in lower running costs, higher capacity (so scope to sell more tickets), lower staff costs (limited need for staff in a second unit, as there'll be far fewer pairs of units) and coach count for track access charges.

Putting it simply; it is quite likely it's going to cost more and generate less income to not have a new fleet of class 800 (or comparable) at XC if the option is more 22x units.

It may already be the case that ditching the current fleet isthe cheaper option (even with very limited passenger growth expectations).

If that's the case if we were to ask the person at the Treasury who was to sign this off, "what should we do?" How likely is it that they would opt to keep the existing if the new fleet was actually gong to be cheaper than doing nothing?

As I don't have access to the actual costs, I don't know if that's the case, however it's likely to be worth someone investigating.

At a GBR level of it was a class 800 train we could make it even cheaper.

For example if we lengthen 24 of the 36 class 800's at GWR and transfer 10 five coach sets to XC, then GWR have 12 diagrams of 9 coaches (rather that 12 of 10 coaches) and still have 14 sets with 5 coaches but 2 fewer coaches on lease.

Yes I know that 36-24=12 not 14, but as your only needing 4 coaches to extend to 9 coaches you can order 48 mid coaches for insertion to 12 units to create "full length" trains for GWR, that would normally require 24 units with 5 coaches, so that's 12 units which are now spare. However, with a saving of 1 coach per 9 coach train vs a 10 coach train GWR can retain 2 units of 5 coaches and their fleet would still be smaller than it was by 2 coaches.

It gets complex without prices to set a comparison against.

If we assume that GWR are paying 100 per coach and due to inflation that would be 120 per coach for the new coaches.

The total number of new coaches for the GWR upgrade and XC is 302.

GWR agree to pay 100 per coach for their fleet, only because they have 10 extra coaches that's an increase of 1,000, but they have more capacity without paying the 1,200 which they would otherwise have to pay.

The annual cost of the 302 coaches is 36,240, only 1,000 of that is already being paid by GWR, giving a cost per coach of 116.70.

Doing this and given the other cost savings, XC would likely need to see an around 10% uplift in passengers even with a 20% uplift in lease costs per coach for it to be cost neutral.

Obviously that assumes that GWR can make their extra sets pay, but with cost savingsfor running a 9 coach set over a 5+5 train they're likely to be able to make the maths work too.

You ignore the minor issue that the Treasury measure expenditure now, but pay far less attention to income later. Using your numbers, the new trains are a 20% cost increase baked in for 25-30 years, but the extra income is speculative. Rejected.

 

[brad465]

I think that pretty much the only way to get XC to have a new fleet is if it delivers on these points:
- a smaller fleet (in terms of both number of units but also in the number of coaches),
- whilst also increasing capacity across the board
- whist maintaining a 15% of fleet for spares/maintenance
- reduced staffing requirements due to fewer pairs of units in service
- reduces the risk of a rammed unit with an empty unit due to lack of staff
I expect that the initial response would be that it is impossible, however the following might be able to do it all.
So let's start with the factor which might mean that this option might find it harder to be as good as the above, as its not something which is in the public domain. The number of diagrams run by XC by their 22x fleet.

Looking through the timetables, it appears that there's 44, if this is wrong then the capacity increase would be lower.

First up fleet size:
Current 22x fleet is 70 units (312 coaches) formed of:
34 class 220
4 class 221 (4 coaches)
32 class 221 (5 coaches)

Proposed fleet (80x or matching) would be formed of:
12 sets with 9 coaches
40 sets with 5 coaches
That's 52 sets needing 304 coaches

That's 18 fewer sets and 8 fewer coaches, so that meets the smaller fleet size (by units and coaches) claim
85% of 52 is 44.2, (44 of 52 is 84.6%) so that meets that requirement to run 44 diagrams with equal to or less than 85% fleet utilisation.

Seating capacity is going to be the big one. Basically anything which is broadly +18% would be the same sort of capacity uplift which the 80x's delivered vs the HST's. Ideally, better than that would be good.

Current seating (220/221)
34 class 220 - 176 standard class 26 1st class
4 class 221 (4 coaches) - 176 standard class 26 1st class
32 class 221 (5 coaches) - 220 standard class 26 1st class

That's 13,024 standard class seats and 1,820 first class seats, giving a total of 14,844, less 10% for spares and that's 13,360 seats in active use.

Using GWR's 800 fleet seating numbers
12 sets with 9 coaches - 580 standard 70 1st class
40 sets with 5 coaches - 290 standard 36 1st class

That's 18,560 standard class seats and 2,280 first class seats, giving a total of 20,840 less 15% for spares and that's 17,630 seats in active us.
When you compare the two, even allowing for a lower fleet utilisation in the new fleet that's an increase of 31.96%, as such that meets the number of seats in service requirement, and by a little more than the 18% target.

However, even if all the spares were the 9 coach sets (leaving only 4 of the 9 coach sets in service) the in service seat number would be 15,640 seats which is a 17% increase over the current fleet, so even on that basis there's still an increase in seats.

Whilst it might be that a 5+5 train may substitute for a 9 coach unit, the fleet mix is such that this should be fairly rare. As such, there's should be low single digits percentages of services with a member of staff in each unit, compared to the current situation where there's a significant percentages of services being run in pairs.

Given this reduction in staffing, it should be possible to have a member of staff on standby for each spare unit avaliable and still be able to have fewer staff.

Whist the ideal would be to have a unit which could beat the capacity of various of the pairings of the 22x fleet having about 1 in 5 services smashing that in the form of those 9 coach sets is going to help.

The current pairing capacities:
220+220 train 348 standard and 52 1st
220+221 train 394 standard and 52 1st
221+221 train 440 standard and 52 1st

That compares with:
5 coach GWR 290 standard and 36 1st

Although that also needs to be considered against the fact that quite a lot of XC services will be being run providing:
220 standard and 26 1st
Or, worse still:
174 standard and 26 1st

To give XC the best chance of coping if they see significant growth due to the new fleet, I would suggest an option for up to 200 coaches, as that would be enough to lengthen 25 of the 5 coach sets to 9 coaches, provide 15 additional 5 coach sets (so all current diagrams would be 9 or 5+5) and 7 addition 5 coach sets to give scope to strengthen service frequency further out (for example allowing more services to be extended beyond York or Plymouth).

Obviously that would be far more than growth might need, however, if that option could be used for (say) a new order placed up to 3 years after the final unit of the original order enters service, that's going to add a lot of flexibility for GBR.

One thing they could do (I'm mindful that the above only has to match the class 80x's in as many ways as possible, so the follow on order might not be able do directly this, but could still be useful in a sightly less efficient way) is use a follow on order to provide additional capacity for GWR/LNER.

One interesting option could be to create a 9 coach battery enhanced unit for GWR. Such a unit (class 800's, it probably wouldn't work for the 802's) would have 3 diesel coaches and 2 battery coaches (I.e. swapping out two of the diesel engines for a battery pack - or more likely when lengthening the 5 coach sets keeping the engines and adding in 2 battery coaches).

For a lot of the services which branch off from the Paddington Cardiff corridor such a setup could be very useful (electric only mode would likely get to Banbury and back, but able to run as a hybrid for to Swansea or through the Cotswolds).

The reason I mention it here is that by lengthening some GWR sets to 9 coaches it could be that some 5 coach sets could be transferred elsewhere (such as XC) whilst still delivering the same capacity at GWR, just with a sightly lower coach count.



Although that would actually result in

Thank you for calculating this, if only the DfT would listen to you/equivalent advice.

 

[Russel]

The 500-odd posts above generally agree with you... Unfortunately GB seems to be a country where any reason for not doing something outweighs any initiative, no mattter how sensible or necessary.

As a country the UK is a champion of putting more effort into finding reasons, no matter how small, for not doing something, that and our total incapability of long term thinking.

 

[The Ham]

You ignore the minor issue that the Treasury measure expenditure now, but pay far less attention to income later. Using your numbers, the new trains are a 20% cost increase baked in for 25-30 years, but the extra income is speculative. Rejected.

The 20% figure is an estimated value used to stress test the option on the unit price, as I've explained there are fewer units so this reduces the actual cost for the fleet below that value.

Then there's other savings which I've not tried to establish, however staff costs, track access charges, energy costs, and maintenance costs are all likely to be lower, which again reduces the overall value of the project.

If we worked on a 90% fleet utilisation we could reduce the fleet by 3 sets (15 coaches) that's a 5% reduction in fleet size.

Oh, and one final point, there's 30% more capacity. It is entirely possible to reduce the number of 9 coach sets by 4 to still have some capacity uplift and added to the above gets us to cost parity for the fleet.

Buttom line, ask for the proposal as written and reduce if the costs don't match current values close enough for the Treasury.

 

[35B]

The 20% figure is an estimated value used to stress test the option on the unit price, as I've explained there are fewer units so this reduces the actual cost for the fleet below that value.

Then there's other savings which I've not tried to establish, however staff costs, track access charges, energy costs, and maintenance costs are all likely to be lower, which again reduces the overall value of the project.

If we worked on a 90% fleet utilisation we could reduce the fleet by 3 sets (15 coaches) that's a 5% reduction in fleet size.

Oh, and one final point, there's 30% more capacity. It is entirely possible to reduce the number of 9 coach sets by 4 to still have some capacity uplift and added to the above gets us to cost parity for the fleet.

Buttom line, ask for the proposal as written and reduce if the costs don't match current values close enough for the Treasury.

I get it, but my point is that HMT are very focused on the numbers that they can lock in, but MUCH more cautious about those they can't. And that's the difficult bit.

You mention staff costs. I agree, because of the nonsense that is double crewing of any Voyager now. But that staff reduction will involve up front restructuring costs - and HMT will be deeply sceptical about the gains, while costing in the upfront programme costs.

I'm not arguing with the core proposition (I believe that XC is massively under-resourced and therefore earning far less than it might), but highlighting just how difficult it is to get something through Treasury review.

 

[Falcon1200]

Having services start in Glasgow or Aberdeen is a total waste of units. Which could be better used on more busy services in the morning and afternoon peaks.

The two morning services from Glasgow Central depart there at 0648 and 0748, and continue south to Plymouth. The two evening services to Glasgow Central arrive there at 2122 and 2215, having come from Plymouth. Curtailing these extremely limited services at Edinburgh would be of no benefit.

 

[dk1]

The two morning services from Glasgow Central depart there at 0648 and 0748, and continue south to Plymouth. The two evening services to Glasgow Central arrive there at 2122 and 2215, having come from Plymouth. Curtailing these extremely limited services at Edinburgh would be of no benefit.

You beat me to it. They only operate in marginal time so don’t understand the issue with those services. Not much else those units could be doing anyway.

 

[AndrewE]

The two morning services from Glasgow Central depart there at 0648 and 0748, and continue south to Plymouth. The two evening services to Glasgow Central arrive there at 2122 and 2215, having come from Plymouth. Curtailing these extremely limited services at Edinburgh would be of no benefit.

that sounds like 2 special cases at each end of the day when failed connecting trains could well be catastrophic for the customer. If route knowledge retention could be justified I would keep those, although terminating other services at Edinburgh to maximise the train lengths on the core (maybe Newcastle - Plymouth?) is a good idea.

 

[Hadders]

terminating other services at Edinburgh to maximise the train lengths on the core (maybe Newcastle - Plymouth?) is a good idea.

Do Scotrail and GWR have sufficient capacity to carry the displaced XC passengers on their services? Or is the crowding just being shifted from one set of services to another?

 

[AndrewE]

Do Scotrail and GWR have sufficient capacity to carry the displaced XC passengers on their services? Or is the crowding just being shifted from one set of services to another?

with 7 trains an hour between Edinburgh and Glasgow (some taking people directly to where they might actually want to go) I would have thought Scotrail could cope...
Re Plymouth, I meant that maybe north of there could be defined as "the core," (with double voyagers or whatever) not that no services at all should continue or come from further west...

 

[Hadders]

with 7 trains an hour between Edinburgh and Glasgow (some taking people directly to where they might actually

Edinburgh and Glasgow aren’t the issue, there are only two CrossCountry services per day between them at the extremes of the day.

What about between Edinburgh and Aberdeen? If CrossCountry don’t go north of Aberdeen does Scotrail have sufficient capacity to cope?

Re Plymouth, I meant that maybe north of there could be defined as "the core," (with double voyagers or whatever) not that no services at all should continue or come from further west...

Again, if CrossCountry doesn’t operate between Plymouth and Penzance does GWR have sufficient capacity? My (albeit limited) experience of travelling with GWR west of Plymouth in the summer is that the trains aren’t exactly carting fresh air around.

 

[swt_passenger]

Q. We’d like to replace the XC fleet.
A. Come back in 10 years when they’re due replacing.