Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[brad465]

What does serving Plymouth actually provide? Looking at the passenger flow numbers for Plymouth, the only station in the top 25 destinations which is only connected to Plymouth by XC is Birmingham New Street, with around 15,000 passengers per year. That's about 40 passengers a day travelling from Plymouth to anywhere north of Bristol (maybe 50 maximum as there's a few for Cheltenham etc).

Likewise, it's only around 10 passengers a day going north of Bristol from both Totnes and Newton Abbot. Even at the top end of that, 80-odd journeys per day doesn't really warrant 1tph between Exeter and Plymouth. That's like running a train just for 10 people who can just as well change at Exeter.

The services are well-used from Plymouth, but for very few actual through journeys. If it was a 5 car GWR IET running in its place, it would have the same passenger numbers.

Plymouth provides a prominent depot nearby and lots of platforms to terminate in. Exeter is very constrained in terminating capacity, especially since GWR split the Cardiff-Penzance service at Exeter. I can understand the handful of Penzance extensions being unnecessary, but there is huge merit in XC running to Plymouth, especially, as being discussed in another thread, given the town is growing in relation to a defence industry revival.

 

[Tetragon213]

Who is going to run more trains along the ECML? LNER can't run any more trains into London, and TPX can't run any more trains into Manchester – I can't see either of them being particularly interested in running a new service "short" service from Leeds/York to Edinburgh just to make up the shortfall from XC being cut – and the reduction or loss of through services between Sheffield/Leeds and Newcastle/Edinburgh would have a detrimental effect on ridership.

TPE runs Newcastle-Edinburgh services which don't go through Manchester, iirc.

 

[The Ham]

The services are well-used from Plymouth, but for very few actual through journeys. If it was a 5 car GWR IET running in its place, it would have the same passenger numbers

Arguably more, as there would be more seats.

If there was suitable capacity you'd want the XC service to start south of Exeter and/or the GWR service to overlap to the north by at least to limit infrastructure issues at Exeter (generally trains which terminate at a station use up far more platform capacity than through trains) and to reduce the number of passengers who would have to change trains.

This hourly XC service is Manchester Piccadilly - Stockport - Macclesfield - Stoke-on-Trent - Stafford - Wolverhampton - Birmingham New Street - Birmingham International (Airport) - Coventry - Leamington Spa - Banbury - Oxford - Reading - Basingstoke - Winchester - Southampton Airport Parkway - Southampton Central - Brockenhurst New Forest also for Lymington and the Isle of Wight - Bournemouth
so this needs to continue to run with this list of station calls for all these connections.

This hourly XC service connects Oxford and Reading, not just Southampton and Bournemouth, with Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester. It provides very useful connections from both North and South to Coventry and Birmingham Airport.

Rail passengers using these train services will not want to change at Birmingham New Street.

Birmingham New Street is a very busy station and may not have the platform capacity to split either the XC Manchester-Bournemouth or Manchester-Bristol service into two separate services at Birmingham New Street

It's a shame that not more electrification has been delivered between Birmingham and Basingstoke, as with it there that could then allow an 8 coach 350 with batteries to run the service between Manchester and Reading comfortably (rather than it being rather tight with the current extent of electrification).

At Reading:
Voyager arrives from Bournemouth xx:06 (platform 1, 2 or 3) goes onto form
Voyager departure to Oxford xx:26 (arriving Oxford xx:50)
Pair of Voyagers arrives from Newcastle xx:09 (not platforms 1, 2, 3 or 7) 0.5tph frequency,(in the other hours it heads to sidings) where it goes on to form:
Voyager Departs Reading 00:15 to Southampton
350 Departs Reading xx:16 (platform 7) to Manchester

350 arrives from Manchester xx:40 (platform 7)
Voyager arrives from Southampton xx:45 (0.5tph, in the other hours it's from sidings) which then becomes:
Voyager Departs Reading xx:51 for Newcastle
Voyager arrives from Oxford 11:44 (having left Oxford xx:19) goes on to form:
Voyager Departs Reading xx:52 (platforms 1, 2 or 3) for Bournemouth (5 coach 221)

By running to Oxford you maintain the direct service for those who wish to use it (and a guaranteed connection to Oxford if the train is late) however you also give those willing to change the same journey time.

Other than the Exeter semi fasts (which only run every other hour) there no other trains between the arrival of the class 350's and their departure on platform 7, so you'd only either need to find another platform for the Exeter semi fasts or send the 350's to a siding every other hour.

The long time that the Newcastle service is at Reading (because it's not going to Southampton is no different to now where it sits in platform 3 - however that could be an issue if by using the 350's to release extra sets it could be regularly run as a pair of units, especially as the Bournemouth to Oxford service (5 coach set) would be a good fit for using platform 3.

 

[Falcon1200]

The XC Edinburgh-Glasgow and Edinburgh-Aberdeen services should be operated by ScotRail. XC should not run beyond Edinburgh to Glasgow or Aberdeen.

Aberdeen is another matter, but as stated in previous posts, axing the XC Glasgow trains would have absolutely no effect on increasing capacity elsewhere, given how few there are and the times at which they operate.

 

[weeklycommuter]

What does serving Plymouth actually provide? Looking at the passenger flow numbers for Plymouth, the only station in the top 25 destinations which is only connected to Plymouth by XC is Birmingham New Street, with around 15,000 passengers per year. That's about 40 passengers a day travelling from Plymouth to anywhere north of Bristol (maybe 50 maximum as there's a few for Cheltenham etc).

Likewise, it's only around 10 passengers a day going north of Bristol from both Totnes and Newton Abbot. Even at the top end of that, 80-odd journeys per day doesn't really warrant 1tph between Exeter and Plymouth. That's like running a train just for 10 people who can just as well change at Exeter.

The services are well-used from Plymouth, but for very few actual through journeys. If it was a 5 car GWR IET running in its place, it would have the same passenger numbers.

Even if few passengers travel the entire journey between Edinburgh and Plymouth this hourly XC Edinburgh to and from Plymouth train service enables important direct train services between many pairs of stations on the route such as Durham to and from Edinburgh and Leeds to and from many important stations to the South of Leeds.

The Government has clearly decided to use this train service to provide those connections, for instance by withdrawing regular direct LNER trains between Durham and Edinburgh in the December 2025 East Coast Main Line timetable change. The Government should therefore ensure that this service is always operated by full length trains with at least 500 seats. The decision is fine from the point of connectivity but it is not fine to then run the service with trains that have a seriously inadequate number of seats. I say this as a taxpayer as well as a rail passenger as the Government could clearly get a lot more fare revenue by running these trains with a lot more seats. A double five carriage Voyager is just about adequate but new full length bimode trains with at least 600 seats would be better.

The XC regional services operated with Class 170 are now all standard class only. My view is that the Voyager XC services should also be made standard class only and the kitchen and first class areas should be replaced with standard class two plus two seating to maximise the number of seats. There also needs to be enough train managers to ensure that no Voyager sets are locked out of use on double set trains. As few people travel the full length of the longest services there is no point in having any catering, they should just concentrate on running the train service reliably and getting all the passengers from their origin to their destination on time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The XC regional services operated with Class 170 are now all standard class only. My view is that the Voyager XC services should also be made standard class only and the kitchen and first class areas should be replaced with standard class two plus two seating to maximise the number of seats.

The kitchen (like the former bike area) is a "crumple zone" and so is non-public and cannot be converted to seating.

 

[duffield]

Even if few passengers travel the entire journey between Edinburgh and Plymouth this hourly XC Edinburgh to and from Plymouth train service enables important direct train services between many pairs of stations on the route such as Durham to and from Edinburgh and Leeds to and from many important stations to the South of Leeds.

The Government has clearly decided to use this train service to provide those connections, for instance by withdrawing regular direct LNER trains between Durham and Edinburgh in the December 2025 East Coast Main Line timetable change. The Government should therefore ensure that this service is always operated by full length trains with at least 500 seats. The decision is fine from the point of connectivity but it is not fine to then run the service with trains that have a seriously inadequate number of seats. I say this as a taxpayer as well as a rail passenger as the Government could clearly get a lot more fare revenue by running these trains with a lot more seats. A double five carriage Voyager is just about adequate but new full length bimode trains with at least 600 seats would be better.

The XC regional services operated with Class 170 are now all standard class only. My view is that the Voyager XC services should also be made standard class only and the kitchen and first class areas should be replaced with standard class two plus two seating to maximise the number of seats. There also needs to be enough train managers to ensure that no Voyager sets are locked out of use on double set trains. As few people travel the full length of the longest services there is no point in having any catering, they should just concentrate on running the train service reliably and getting all the passengers from their origin to their destination on time.

We've been through this "remove 1st on XC voyagers" discussion a number of times. First class on the Voyagers is pretty popular and profitable, effectively subsidising standard, whilst removing it would add a trivial number of seats (about ten, as above the kitchen can't be converted) which would make no effective impact on capacity (apart from driving away the people who currently use 1st, I suppose). It also seems to be part of the general London-centric ethos that only intercity services that serve London "deserve" 1st, and never major city pairs like Birmingham/Leeds etc.

 

[Tetragon213]

The kitchen (like the former bike area) is a "crumple zone" and so is non-public and cannot be converted to seating.

Perhaps they should move the luggage racks to that area, and free up prime space in the cabin for more seats. Wonder if the toilets could be moved to the crumple zone as well?

It does irk me to be crammed into a Voyager at standing room only, to then find myself staring straight at perfectly good ex-Chiltern Mk3s in the Nemesis Rail yard as we pass Burton; to say nothing of the perfectly good Voyagers in storage as well as the Adelante fleet which could (and should) be running about on the line.

 

[RT4038]

Perhaps they should move the luggage racks to that area, and free up prime space in the cabin for more seats. Wonder if the toilets could be moved to the crumple zone as well?

It does irk me to be crammed into a Voyager at standing room only, to then find myself staring straight at perfectly good ex-Chiltern Mk3s in the Nemesis Rail yard as we pass Burton; to say nothing of the perfectly good Voyagers in storage as well as the Adelante fleet which could (and should) be running about on the line.

I think 'perfectly good' Mk3s is doing a bit of heavy lifting, as it understand that these have some serious corrosion issues.....

 

[swt_passenger]

Would a loco hauled set be able to keep up with voyager timings? Probably could be fine on electric, but at 750hp per vehicle (I think?) they're very highly powered for diesel trains.
.

It would also have platform issues at places like Reading and Newcastle where XC use 5 car bays. Of course this would also affect the standardised 7 or 8 car units people push in these threads…

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think 'perfectly good' Mk3s is doing a bit of heavy lifting, as it understand that these have some serious corrosion issues.....

Mk3s and Mk4s are well into "old tat" territory now. New build is appropriate here, even if you only build enough to allow all Voyagers to double up initially.

Indeed someone mentioned a gangwayed 110mph option - perhaps you could order something like that for the services without ECML running and double up Voyagers on the ECML stuff? That would be a TPE like solution - the 397s* and 802s were added to the existing 185 fleet, they didn't replace it.

* These are hopelessly inadequate too - a 7 car unit would work better here too - chance for a follow on?

 

[stevieinselby]

It would also have platform issues at places like Reading and Newcastle where XC use 5 car bays. Of course this would also affect the standardised 7 or 8 car units people push in these threads…

How big a deal is that really? Most XC services use platforms 7, 8 and 12 at Reading, which are full length – it's only a handful of trains (mostly terminators) that use platform 3, which is a 120m bay.
I can understand wanting terminators using the bay if they are laying over for a long period, so as to avoid clogging up a through platform for that amount of time, could those trains go into the sidings for the layover instead? Certainly shouldn't be a problem to have the Bournemouth services using the main through platforms to reverse.

 

[JamesT]

Mk3s and Mk4s are well into "old tat" territory now. New build is appropriate here, even if you only build enough to allow all Voyagers to double up initially.

Indeed someone mentioned a gangwayed 110mph option - perhaps you could order something like that for the services without ECML running and double up Voyagers on the ECML stuff? That would be a TPE like solution - the 397s* and 802s were added to the existing 185 fleet, they didn't replace it.

* These are hopelessly inadequate too - a 7 car unit would work better here too - chance for a follow on?

Do the Voyagers not do any 125mph running on the WCML? I'm aware the HSTs had to be diagrammed separately, but it seems a retrograde step to go from a position where XC's fleet all have the same performance characteristics so can be put on any service, to one where only some units can fufill the timetable.

 

[zwk500]

How big a deal is that really? Most XC services use platforms 7, 8 and 12 at Reading, which are full length – it's only a handful of trains (mostly terminators) that use platform 3, which is a 120m bay.
I can understand wanting terminators using the bay if they are laying over for a long period, so as to avoid clogging up a through platform for that amount of time, could those trains go into the sidings for the layover instead? Certainly shouldn't be a problem to have the Bournemouth services using the main through platforms to reverse.

It would be a big deal at Newcastle, at least.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do the Voyagers not do any 125mph running on the WCML?

They might do, but they do it amongst 110mph, 100mph and 90mph units so it wouldn't be as hard to path.

 

[weeklycommuter]

We've been through this "remove 1st on XC voyagers" discussion a number of times. First class on the Voyagers is pretty popular and profitable, effectively subsidising standard, whilst removing it would add a trivial number of seats (about ten, as above the kitchen can't be converted) which would make no effective impact on capacity (apart from driving away the people who currently use 1st, I suppose). It also seems to be part of the general London-centric ethos that only intercity services that serve London "deserve" 1st, and never major city pairs like Birmingham/Leeds etc.

XC have already abolished first class on their regional Birmingham-Stansted and Nottingham-Cardiff services. The fares freeze shows the Government knows that the move to full public ownership of Government controlled passenger train services has created an expectation of more affordable fares.

The current public subsidy for the railway is around twelve billion pounds a year and only Avanti and Greater Anglia have an operational surplus. This public expectation of more affordable fares can only be delivered by greatly increasing the number of people paying fares to make journeys by train. To deliver this there needs to be a big increase in the number of seats on XC services and the overcrowding problem must be solved. A policy of seeking to use first class fare revenue to subsidise standard class fares will not work, especially as it inevitably reduces the number of standard class seats. The same space can be used for a far greater number of standard class seats which can be taken by a far greater number of passengers paying standard class fares.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The same space can be used for a far greater number of standard class seats which can be taken by a far greater number of passengers paying standard class fares.

By which you mean "about 7 or 8"?

Lengthening trains to allow the suppressed demand to travel is the only way to do what you say.

 

[weeklycommuter]

By which you mean "about 7 or 8"?

Lengthening trains to allow the suppressed demand to travel is the only way to do what you say.

On the Voyager sets the first class end carriage has 26 seats and the standard class end carriage has 42 seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the Voyager sets the first class end carriage has 26 seats and the standard class end carriage has 42 seats.

OK, 16. It's still not many.

 

[zwk500]

A policy of seeking to use first class fare revenue to subsidise standard class fares will not work, especially as it inevitably reduces the number of standard class seats. The same space can be used for a far greater number of standard class seats which can be taken by a far greater number of passengers paying standard class fares.

If you can charge a higher ratio for the 1st : standard fares than there are 1st : standard seats then abolishing first class would not return more revenue overall to the railway.

To take an LNER Azuma as an example, it has c.55 Seats in First Class, and c.85 seats in Standard for a ratio of 1:1.5

So if first class if more than 50% more expensive than Standard Class, it's better for revenue to have as much first class as will pay 1.5* the standard fare.

 

[duffield]

XC have already abolished first class on their regional Birmingham-Stansted and Nottingham-Cardiff services. The fares freeze shows the Government knows that the move to full public ownership of Government controlled passenger train services has created an expectation of more affordable fares.

The current public subsidy for the railway is around twelve billion pounds a year and only Avanti and Greater Anglia have an operational surplus. This public expectation of more affordable fares can only be delivered by greatly increasing the number of people paying fares to make journeys by train. To deliver this there needs to be a big increase in the number of seats on XC services and the overcrowding problem must be solved. A policy of seeking to use first class fare revenue to subsidise standard class fares will not work, especially as it inevitably reduces the number of standard class seats. The same space can be used for a far greater number of standard class seats which can be taken by a far greater number of passengers paying standard class fares.

The regional services were class 170s with a tiny 1st class which was mostly not policed and probably made near zero revenue (and removing it added about four whole standard class seats!)

Abolishing 1st on the Voyagers will - as already stated - absolutely not deliver "a big increase in the number of seats", it will add around *ten* standard class seats to a four or five coach Voyager and is a total irrelevance.

It's just completely false to say

The same space can be used for a far greater number of standard class seats which can be taken by a far greater number of passengers paying standard class fares.

Ten seats is "a handful" not "a far greater number".

It's pointless tinkering, the real solutions have all been set out - more trains, longer trains, new trains designed with more compact layouts throughout.

 

[Tetragon213]

Mk3s and Mk4s are well into "old tat" territory now. New build is appropriate here, even if you only build enough to allow all Voyagers to double up initially.

My own personal thoughts regarding using Mk3/4 coaches (as well as the stored 221s and even the 180s) is based on the (irritatingly on the nose) assumption that the DafT and XC will not open up the purse strings for new trains. I think XC would benefit from bimodes like the 8xx series.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My own personal thoughts regarding using Mk3/4 coaches (as well as the stored 221s and even the 180s) is based on the (irritatingly on the nose) assumption that the DafT and XC will not open up the purse strings for new trains. I think XC would benefit from bimodes like the 8xx series.

I'd say the only thing stored that is new enough to be worth using is the Class 350/2 fleet.

 

[NCT]

I'd say the only thing stored that is new enough to be worth using is the Class 350/2 fleet.

Manchester - Northampton then

 

[Tetragon213]

I'd say the only thing stored that is new enough to be worth using is the Class 350/2 fleet.

The only issue there is, with the huge gaps in electrification, you couldn't use the 350/2s without some form of mega-battery or a diesel locomotive. And I'm not entirely sure the MU arrangements will allow you to drive the train like that.

 

[Krokodil]

* Given that the Scousers seem to want an XC back, giving them one at 5-car and redirecting one of the WMT services to Manchester instead (and running that as a 12-car) really isn't a terrible idea, to be fair.

Of all of the service alteration ideas that have come up on this thread, this is the only one that has some merit.

Otherwise it's 25 pages of people trying to come up with increasingly wacky ways in which to avoid grasping the nettle and providing XC with adequate rolling stock.

It would also have platform issues at places like Reading and Newcastle where XC use 5 car bays. Of course this would also affect the standardised 7 or 8 car units people push in these threads…

We're talking about a handful of trains per day, the Reading-Newcastles. If it really matters that much then you might have to send them somewhere other than Newcastle at the north end (many destinations to choose from after York) or run them through the station to another turnback to reduce platform occupancy time.

the (irritatingly on the nose) assumption that the DafT and XC will not open up the purse strings for new trains.

It's absurd when XC demands less subsidy per passenger km than LNER does. Obviously new trains are usually more expensive to lease than old ones but the fuel and crewing savings of running single 7-car bimodes instead of pairs of Voyagers as well as the capacity boost should cover that.

 

[weeklycommuter]

We're talking about a handful of trains per day, the Reading-Newcastles. If it really matters that much then you might have to send them somewhere other than Newcastle at the north end (many destinations to choose from after York) or run them through the station to another turnback to reduce platform occupancy time.

Some of the XC Reading-Newcastle train services start and end at York. May as well make them all start and end at York and restore two TPE trains per hour between Manchester and Newcastle. This would also enable XC to run more double set Voyagers on the rest of their services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Manchester - Northampton then

Not again

To me the most sensible option is to use the /2s to extend the Birmingham-Liverpools to 12 car and swap one to Manchester (via Stoke) in return for the Bournemouth at 5 car. No extra paths needed then and a significant increase in Manchester-Birmingham capacity.

 

[Topological]

Not again

To me the most sensible option is to use the /2s to extend the Birmingham-Liverpools to 12 car and swap one to Manchester (via Stoke) in return for the Bournemouth at 5 car. No extra paths needed then and a significant increase in Manchester-Birmingham capacity.

The problem with that is the Voyager would only have a 4 minute turn around at Manchester Piccadilly before going back down to the South West. Currently, the arrival from Bournemouth at xx29 forms the xx03 and then the arrival from the South West at xx59 forms the xx27 to Bournemouth. The 350* would also then be in Manchester for almost an hour.

 

[Krokodil]

The problem with that is the Voyager would only have a 4 minute turn around at Manchester Piccadilly before going back down to the South West. Currently, the arrival from Bournemouth at xx29 forms the xx03 and then the arrival from the South West at xx59 forms the xx27 to Bournemouth. The 350* would also then be in Manchester for almost an hour.

And unfortunately you can't undo the interworking without the whole lot unravelling.