Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[Jimini]

Interesting one today. Currently travelling from Coventry to Reading. 1626 was cancelled south of Birmingham, so the 1726 was suitably rammed. Declassified first, people wedged up against doors etc. Managed to squeeze into carriage A.

Then lo’! The train manager piped up after leaving Coventry to let everyone know that because it was so crowded, we’d be running non-stop from Leamington to Reading, and passengers for Banbury and Oxford would need to get off at Leamington and catch the ex. Leeds service that was ten mins behind our train.

I now have a (free / declassified) first class seat, and an express journey to Reading!

 

[class 9]

Internal email from the MD confirms that XC will get 8 221 units from early next year in a rolling introduction over the year.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Internal email from the MD confirms that XC will get 8 221 units from early next year in a rolling introduction over the year.

Is that the balance of the Avanti units? I've lost track which are where.

 

[class 9]

6 ex Avanti units currently in store and the 2 that GC are currently using.

 

[Tetragon213]

Well, that's a good start at least.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It’s public knowledge they sent out a press release

Thread is here:

As we expected: Remaining eight 221s for XC

CrossCountry have today confirmed acquisition of the eight remaining Class 221 - that’s six currently off lease and two on short-term loan to Grand Central. As I’m sure we all expected...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Tetragon213]

If the staffing remains an issue, is there any scope for cutting out the middle 3 coaches from each, and popping them into an existing 4-coach set to create some horrifying franken-train of 7 coaches that will only need one guard still? At least that will act as a temporary plaster over the worst of the problem until the staffing issues are more firmly resolved?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If the staffing remains an issue, is there any scope for cutting out the middle 3 coaches from each, and popping them into an existing 4-coach set to create some horrifying franken-train of 7 coaches that will only need one guard still? At least that will act as a temporary plaster over the worst of the problem until the staffing issues are more firmly resolved?

Well I like what LUMO have done and made 6 cars by rejiggering. I don’t mind a 7 coach Frankenstein train. Clearly something has to be done.

 

[HSTEd]

The three centre vehicles of a five car XC Class 221 have 188 of the 256 seats aboard, according to the XC seating plan on the internet.

Including the six stored sets, there are 38 5-car and 4 4-car sets available to XC. That's 84 end vehicles and 122 middle vehicles available. Unfortunately the only factors of 122 are 61 and 2, so you cannot make a uniform fleet by this method. However if you stack them into 30 sets of 4 and 1 of 2, you could make a nearly uniform fleet of 30 6-car and 1 4-car train for 31 units.

Given that the XC timetable currently only has 36 units available to run it, it could probably cover the diagrams.... or at least nearly.

The fleet of 62 end vehicles and 122 middle vehicles would represent a seat loss of 748 total seats, or around 7% of the 10,736 total available. This makes the assumption that all sets reformed would have one of each of the two kinds of end vehicle in use.

31 sets might not be ideal, because with the exception of coupling the 4-car to a 6-car, you would probably lose the ability to double them. I'd have to know how many diagrams (not including reinforcing units) there were to come up with a better solution. But losing ~7% of the seats for removing just over 10% of the vehicles ain't bad considering it would eliminate the need to couple them regularly and the associated staffing issues of having units in multiple. It would still result in significantly more seats than without the 6 additional trainsets.

 

[The Ham]

The three centre vehicles of a five car XC Class 221 have 188 of the 256 seats aboard, according to the XC seating plan on the internet.

Including the six stored sets, there are 38 5-car and 4 4-car sets available to XC. That's 84 end vehicles and 122 middle vehicles available. Unfortunately the only factors of 122 are 61 and 2, so you cannot make a uniform fleet by this method. However if you stack them into 30 sets of 4 and 1 of 2, you could make a nearly uniform fleet of 30 6-car and 1 4-car train for 31 units.

Given that the XC timetable currently only has 36 units available to run it, it could probably cover the diagrams.... or at least nearly.

The fleet of 62 end vehicles and 122 middle vehicles would represent a seat loss of 748 total seats, or around 7% of the 10,736 total available. This makes the assumption that all sets reformed would have one of each of the two kinds of end vehicle in use.

31 sets might not be ideal, because with the exception of coupling the 4-car to a 6-car, you would probably lose the ability to double them. I'd have to know how many diagrams (not including reinforcing units) there were to come up with a better solution. But losing ~7% of the seats for removing just over 10% of the vehicles ain't bad considering it would eliminate the need to couple them regularly and the associated staffing issues of having units in multiple. It would still result in significantly more seats than without the 6 additional trainsets.

I believe that (including the 220's) there's 44 diagrams which need to be run.

I believe that you need to have a minimum of 3 coaches in a set, so it "could" be possible to split that 4 coach unit to retain a couple of end units to create 2 sets with 3 coaches so XC could strengthen a few extra diagrams as 9 coach sets.

Although, arguably having the 221's as a near universal 6 coach fleet and all 220's (plus 1 set of a 221) as 4 coaches isn't a bad option.

30 sets with 6 coaches would likely be 25 (maybe 26) units in traffic (assuming 85% fleet utilisation).

That leaves 19 diagrams to be run by the 30 sets of 220's in traffic at any time, which would be enough to run 50% of the time as 8 coach sets, that's potentially just enough to cover much of the core.

The one thing which is worth bearing in mind is just how few seats the end coaches carry, yet have full lease costs, as such a small reduction in capacity might actually make XC more financial viable and so mean a replacement fleet is more likely.

Especially, if XC can show that, yes there's scope for a tiny uplift in capacity but at a significant cost vs a significant uplift in capacity for a slightly smaller cost uplift by getting a new fleet.

 

[brad465]

Could XC pursue a follow-up order of the TPE BEMUs to replace their 170s? An order of 16x would be enough to replace the 80 carriages like-for-like, with maybe an increase to 20 units to allow for passenger growth, and would guarantee 5-car length on all services instead of 2-4 car. They would probably need to come with electrification at least partially between Birmingham and Derby, but otherwise there are plenty of OHLE stretches across the Cardiff-Nottingham and Birmingham-Stansted* corridors to keep batteries topped up.

*Will probably need bay platform lengthening, but should be done with growth provision anyway.

 

[WestCountry]

The one thing which is worth bearing in mind is just how few seats the end coaches carry, yet have full lease costs, as such a small reduction in capacity might actually make XC more financial viable and so mean a replacement fleet is more likely.

My pet idea is to ditch half the end cars from the entire fleet, giving 17x 6-car sets and 22x 8-car sets that would be much more economical to run without low-capacity vehicles and duplicate crewing. An single 8-car set without end cars would have more capacity than the 9-car doubles. Then order a relatively small number of 80x or similar to make up the remaining diagrams.

 

[DarloRich]

We all know the answer. It is easy: Order a standard fleet of 9 car class 800 type trains with bi mode facilities!

( I am available to offer consultancy services with very reasonable rates!)

 

[Tetragon213]

We all know the answer. It is easy: Order a standard fleet of 9 car class 800 type trains with bi mode facilities!

( I am available to offer consultancy services with very reasonable rates!)

I would continue advocating for a fleet of 5 & 7 coach units.

Lower shock horror cost to the DafT/Treasury, still massively increases the number of seats, provides flexibility for running smaller units/splits along certain branches etc, and can be run in formations of 12 for particularly busy services.

 

[35B]

I would continue advocating for a fleet of 5 & 7 coach units.

Lower shock horror cost to the DafT/Treasury, still massively increases the number of seats, provides flexibility for running smaller units/splits along certain branches etc, and can be run in formations of 12 for particularly busy services.

At the cost of reduced service reliability (where will the joins/splits take place? - New St?), significant platform lengthenings where capacity is constrained to shorter trains, and a higher cost per seat because of all the duplicated equipment.

However, I would not suggest purchasing cl. 80x - the issues with the 810s confirm if any doubt was required that Hitachi are not a good industry partner.

 

[mmh]

Splitting and joining trains on a network which is likely to always struggle with punctuality just from its distances and interactions with other more self contained networks seems like something to be avoided.

 

[DarloRich]

I would continue advocating for a fleet of 5 & 7 coach units.

I wouldn't - one standard length train is needed and it needs to be as long as possible. I would go for 11 cars if possible as this is a one of purchase for the next generation or 2!

However, I would not suggest purchasing cl. 80x - the issues with the 810s confirm if any doubt was required that Hitachi are not a good industry partner.

The 800 family is the standard IC train now. Why create extra requirements for maintenance locations, equipment and competence and new spares and consumables flows?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 800 family is the standard IC train now. Why create extra requirements for maintenance locations, equipment and competence and new spares and consumables flows?

The big reason not to buy any more AT300 units as they are is that they aren't level boarding. However if we want to stick with that family I'm sure Hitachi could manage to do a version with a drop between the bogies of the vehicles without engines (the two end vehicles on the regular 80x which have a lower floor already and contain the wheelchair accommodation and accessible toilets in both classes) to provide that. It would require some measure of redesign to move the transformer, though that could possibly be achieved by replacing the engine and associated gubbins on one vehicle (the middle maybe?) with the transformer and some batteries, meaning you could get the same acceleration with two engines as three but taking up less space.

 

[DarloRich]

The big reason not to buy any more AT300 units as they are is that they aren't level boarding. However if we want to stick with that family I'm sure Hitachi could manage to do a version with a drop between the bogies of the vehicles without engines (the two end vehicles on the regular 80x which have a lower floor already and contain the wheelchair accommodation and accessible toilets in both classes) to provide that.

I thought they were level boarding in those 2 vehicles? that comes as a surprise!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought they were level boarding in those 2 vehicles? that comes as a surprise!

No, just a lower floor. Those vehicles are level from the doorstep to inside, but the doorstep is a step up from the platform, whereas the other vehicles have both a step up to the doorstep and again into the vehicle as e.g. Voyagers do.

 

[DarloRich]

No, just a lower floor. Those vehicles are level from the doorstep to inside, but the doorstep is a step up from the platform, whereas the other vehicles have both a step up to the doorstep and again into the vehicle as e.g. Voyagers do.

thanks! that will be designed out in my hypothetical XC order

 

[zwk500]

The 800 family is the standard IC train now. Why create extra requirements for maintenance locations, equipment and competence and new spares and consumables flows?

Can Hitachi (be bothered to) redesign the 80x concept for effective level boarding at 915mm? The GBR Rolling Stock strategy was very clear that all new stock would be, unless on a captive network.

Stadler FLIRTS are also fairly standard, have a 125mph variant (not that XC actually need more than 110mph), are effective level boarding at 915mm, and can be designed around modular power solutions to assist in XC's transition from all-diesel to an eventual BEMU fleet. I'll trade doors at thirds for the dwell times at XC's busy stations.

 

[quantinghome]

My pet idea is to ditch half the end cars from the entire fleet, giving 17x 6-car sets and 22x 8-car sets that would be much more economical to run without low-capacity vehicles and duplicate crewing. An single 8-car set without end cars would have more capacity than the 9-car doubles. Then order a relatively small number of 80x or similar to make up the remaining diagrams.

I like that plan. The end cars have extremely poor capacity and clearly cause all sorts of problems trying to run an economic service. However, I doubt that a new 80X order would be forthcoming so it would more realistic to leave a sufficient number of 221s as 5-car sets to fill the required number of diagrams. Or, reform them into enough 6/7 car units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can Hitachi (be bothered to) redesign the 80x concept for effective level boarding at 915mm? The GBR Rolling Stock strategy was very clear that all new stock would be, unless on a captive network.

Stadler FLIRTS are also fairly standard, have a 125mph variant (not that XC actually need more than 110mph), are effective level boarding at 915mm, and can be designed around modular power solutions to assist in XC's transition from all-diesel to an eventual BEMU fleet. I'll trade doors at thirds for the dwell times at XC's busy stations.

To be honest I'd probably favour the Avelia (based on generally positive experiences of the Aventra, of which it's basically a low floor version). The FLIRT has too many awkward design compromises.

Low floor means the end of end doors anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Today at 10:56 ==

I like that plan. The end cars have extremely poor capacity and clearly cause all sorts of problems trying to run an economic service. However, I doubt that a new 80X order would be forthcoming so it would more realistic to leave a sufficient number of 221s as 5-car sets to fill the required number of diagrams.

I thought that made sense before ScotRail wanted the 222s - give XC all the 22x and form them into longer single unit trains, with the spare end vehicles dismantled for parts (and a few kept intact in case of cabs getting collision damage). 6 and 8 car would indeed seem sensible lengths to provide for demand on all services, or just a uniform 7 car fleet with the timetable and Advance fare levels used to spread demand.

 

[mmh]

Mixed length fleets cause problems on at least these operators:

Avanti
LNER
GWR
TFW
Northern
as well as the current XC fleet, so I never understand when mixed length fleets are suggested.

 

[The exile]

Advance fare levels used to spread demand.

The idea that you can spread demand enough to counter overcrowding by advance pricing just doesn’t cut it while XC trains are the prime mover for so many short and medium distance flows.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Mixed length fleets cause problems on at least these operators:

Avanti
LNER
GWR
TFW
Northern
as well as the current XC fleet, so I never understand when mixed length fleets are suggested.

Avanti's mixed length fleet doesn't cause problems as such. They diagram it very effectively to manage demand pretty well alongside Advance fare levels. They could probably do with a few more 11 cars so all Scottish services could be 11 as they're the busiest, but mixing 7, 9 and 11 on the Liverpools does allow effective tailoring to demand. The one other thing I'd probably have done with Avanti would be not ordering the 805s, instead I'd have gone for all the Hitachis being 7 car and all bimode for added flexibility, as for most of the day a 5 on its own is just too short and doubling them up affects crewing costs.

Mixed length fleets involving units that are way too short for anything (i.e. 2 car on regional and 4 car Voyagers*) are where you get a problem. Yes, you get the occasional short form, but a short form is better than an outright cancellation, but the problem occurs when you deliberately run 2 car on services where that won't work.

* They are so inefficiently laid out that they are in effect 2-3 car in a meaningful sense. Were they 4-car 170s the problem wouldn't be anything like what it is. Similarly if you imagine a bimode 730/2 with 2+1 in first and 4 seats removed from each middle section so they aren't so awfully tight** that would be super capacious compared to a 5 car 221.

** The TPE Avelias basically are that, but low floor, of course.

The idea that you can spread demand enough to counter overcrowding by advance pricing just doesn’t cut it while XC trains are the prime mover for so many short and medium distance flows.

You still can to an extent. It might be easier for GBR to do it as they will control fares for both WMT and XC, so they can make WMT services at key times cheaper to price people off XC, for instance.

 

[35B]

The 800 family is the standard IC train now. Why create extra requirements for maintenance locations, equipment and competence and new spares and consumables flows?

Because the 800 family is no longer standardised (the 810 is a new design which is why it's so poor), and standardisation based on mediocrity is a poor policy. Entrenching Hitachi's monopoly in this type of train is bad policy, and will result in higher costs and worse performance.

Given the usage they get, assuming an existing design is to be used, I'm with those who suggest using the Flirt as the platform, and agree with stretching them to the limit of practical station working. And, as others, I also note the specific requirement in the rolling stock strategy for level boarding - that needs to be front and centre of procurement, not ditched because its inconvenient (and, again, look at the 810s for an example of what happens when Hitachi are asked to tweak a standard design).

 

[HSTEd]

Because the 800 family is no longer standardised (the 810 is a new design which is why it's so poor), and standardisation based on mediocrity is a poor policy. Entrenching Hitachi's monopoly in this type of train is bad policy, and will result in higher costs and worse performance.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure quality matters that much in train orders any more.
The government, given it's rhetoric over reindustrialisation, will be forced to order trains from Hitachi to avoid an embarrassing plant closure, almost regardless of whether they are needed or desired.

We already have governments placing orders for trains to stop plant closures after all.

Same as for the other plants previous governments have saddled us with.
All that is left is the advantages of standardisation.

We should write off the 810 as an awkward step child and build more 80x series trains

 

[35B]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure quality matters that much in train orders any more.
The government, given it's rhetoric over reindustrialisation, will be forced to order trains from Hitachi to avoid an embarrassing plant closure, almost regardless of whether they are needed or desired.

We already have governments placing orders for trains to stop plant closures after all.

Same as for the other plants previous governments have saddled us with.
All that is left is the advantages of standardisation.

We should write off the 810 as an awkward step child and build more 80x series trains

I recognise that as a statement of potential fact. It is also the worst possible reason to buy something, and guarantees that the economics of that factory will decline as it gets used to winning orders not on quality but on the basis of industrial policy.

As for standardisation, it's an argument for standardising on Soviet era Ladas sold at Rolls Royce prices - any advantage from standardisation will be lost in the extra costs of manufacture and Hitachi's demonstrated inability to meet the required service levels (not to mention that the XC network is almost the worst possible one to pick for their type of "return to base" service contract).