Cross Country - Get Some Extra Carriges

[tbtc]

Look in the back pages of the latest copy of modern railways, Irish rail are asking for offers for their 82 MK3 carriages.

Also in the latest issue of modern railways is a article about traxx loco's and refurbishing the Mk3 stock.

XC have 57 (?) Voyagers, plus the five HSTs.

82 carriages would only mean around a dozen additional trains (since you've got to be talking six coaches minimum), maybe even only ten trains. And then you couldn't be planning to run each set each day. So even those 82 carriages wouldn't mean *that* many longer trains.

It'd be a step in the right direction, sure, but we need a structured far-ranging programme to improve XC capacity

 

[jopsuk]

You have hit upon one of the problems of the XC network. It is a long distance service that is used by a great many short distance travellers, particularly within the central core.

Really what is needed is faster, more frequent, local services in the "core", but designed such that the XC services can run fast with less stops

 

[Failed Unit]

Really what is needed is faster, more frequent, local services in the "core", but designed such that the XC services can run fast with less stops

Problem with that is the "I want to travel from Chesterfield - Cheltenham" on a direct train mob.

It is easy to do a train that has a stopping pattern such as.

Edinburgh, Newcastle, York, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham New Street, Bristol Temple Meads, Exeter St Davids, Plymouth

You could then say passengers for Wakefield change at Leeds or Sheffield (depending on which way your are going), passengers passengers for Cheltenham change at Birmingham or Bristol (Depending on where you are going) but I am sure the Wakefield - Cheltenham passenger would be horrifeid! By stopping at Wakefield you encourage Leeds - Wakefield commutors onto you train. You could do a Virgin and make Wakefield stop to set down only, but that would annoy a York - Wakefield traveller who needs to change at Leeds despite the train stopping at the station they want to get off at.

You are right XC tries to do everything to everyone, at the extremes it is a local train, look at between Edinburgh - Newcastle - but loading as light on this section anyway!

 

[Greenback]

Really what is needed is faster, more frequent, local services in the "core", but designed such that the XC services can run fast with less stops

Agreed.

Problem with that is the "I want to travel from Chesterfield - Cheltenham" on a direct train mob.

It is easy to do a train that has a stopping pattern such as.

Edinburgh, Newcastle, York, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham New Street, Bristol Temple Meads, Exeter St Davids, Plymouth

You could then say passengers for Wakefield change at Leeds or Sheffield (depending on which way your are going), passengers passengers for Cheltenham change at Birmingham or Bristol (Depending on where you are going) but I am sure the Wakefield - Cheltenham passenger would be horrifeid! By stopping at Wakefield you encourage Leeds - Wakefield commutors onto you train. You could do a Virgin and make Wakefield stop to set down only, but that would annoy a York - Wakefield traveller who needs to change at Leeds despite the train stopping at the station they want to get off at.

You are right XC tries to do everything to everyone, at the extremes it is a local train, look at between Edinburgh - Newcastle - but loading as light on this section anyway!

It has to try and be everything to everyone as without XC some stations would have very few trains, or none at all. This is precisely why we need local stopping services interconnecting at hubs.

Ideally, there would be stopping services on each XC route between such places Bristol and Birmingham that would allow fast trains with one or two stops like Bristol Parkway and Cheltenham.

If such services were possible, then it would be a poorer service for those wanting to travel between, say, Chesterfield and Newton Abbot, as they would not have a direct train, but the majority of passengers would benefit from faster and more comfortable journeys.

 

[cuccir]

Deleted; Greenback made the same point as me sooner, and more eloquently!

 

[Waverley125]

only way for me is to treat services between centres as discriminate entities and run LD services as just that, with stops only in those major centres.

i.e.

run Penzance-Bristol with the current calling pattern of:

St Erth, Camborne, Redruth, Truro, St Austell, Par, Lostwithiel, Bodmin, Liskeard, Plymouth, Totnes, Newton Abott, Teignmouth, Dawlish, Exeter st Davids, Tiverton Parkway, Taunton, Bridgewater, Weston super Mare, Yatton, Bristol.

and run an express to Nottingham with:

Truro, Plymouth, Newton Abbott, Exeter, Taunton, Bristol TM, Bristol PW, Cheltenham, Birmingham, Derby, Nottingham

overlap at Bristol with services running to Newcastle, with a similar tiered service.

i.e. stopper to Bham:

Bristol PW, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Ashchurch, Worcester SH, Droitwich Spa, Bromsgrove, Barnt Green, University, Bham NS

fast to Newcastle:

Bristol PW, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Birmingham, Tamworth, Burton, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield, Leeds, Northallerton, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle

overlap again at Birmingham with Edinburgh service

Derby, Sheffield, Wakefield, Leeds, York, Darlington, Newcastle, Berwick, Edinburgh

and further again at Newcastle with Aberdeen service

Berwick, Edinburgh, Inverkeithing, Kirkcaldy, Leuchars, Dundee, Arbroath, Montrose, Stonehaven, Aberdeen

 

[Greenback]

only way for me is to treat services between centres as discriminate entities and run LD services as just that, with stops only in those major centres.

i.e.

run Penzance-Bristol with the current calling pattern of:

St Erth, Camborne, Redruth, Truro, St Austell, Par, Lostwithiel, Bodmin, Liskeard, Plymouth, Totnes, Newton Abott, Teignmouth, Dawlish, Exeter st Davids, Tiverton Parkway, Taunton, Bridgewater, Weston super Mare, Yatton, Bristol.

and run an express to Nottingham with:

Truro, Plymouth, Newton Abbott, Exeter, Taunton, Bristol TM, Bristol PW, Cheltenham, Birmingham, Derby, Nottingham

overlap at Bristol with services running to Newcastle, with a similar tiered service.

i.e. stopper to Bham:

Bristol PW, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Ashchurch, Worcester SH, Droitwich Spa, Bromsgrove, Barnt Green, University, Bham NS

fast to Newcastle:

Bristol PW, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Birmingham, Tamworth, Burton, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield, Leeds, Northallerton, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle

overlap again at Birmingham with Edinburgh service

Derby, Sheffield, Wakefield, Leeds, York, Darlington, Newcastle, Berwick, Edinburgh

and further again at Newcastle with Aberdeen service

Berwick, Edinburgh, Inverkeithing, Kirkcaldy, Leuchars, Dundee, Arbroath, Montrose, Stonehaven, Aberdeen

Just a few observations:

There aren't many XC service to/from Penzance

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

Similarly, there are three trains from Brimingham

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

 

[Class 33]

Indeed they should get some extra carriages. This topic comes up on here very often. It is a complete joke they're running 4-carriages trains(one of the carriages being 1st Class) on long distance cross country routes. Surely things are not going to be like this for the next 30 or so years before the Voyager's are retired from service? Surely they can get at least SOME extra longer trains to run their services within the next 10 or so years?

The Class 67's along with a set of a minimum of 6 carriages would be excellent trains for the long distance services. Are there any spare loco's and carriages about that could be used? And if not, surely it wouldn't be that expensive for some new ones to be built? And I'm not talking immediately, but within the next decade or two.

Come 2016 and the start of electric services on the Great Western Mainline, many of the HST's will be retired from working along those lines. Is it possible some of these could goto work running the Cross Country services? Of course though even if they did, HST's are unlikely to still be operating well into the 2020's.

I also think another thing that would help is if Arriva took a good long study of their timetables and the volume of passengers that boards and departs each station stops, and looked at how things could be realistically improved. For instance I really think some services at certain times of the day at least, could run non-stop between Exeter(or even Plymouth) and Bristol Temple Meads, non-stop Bristol Parkway(or Temple Meads) and Birmingham, and also non-stop between Birmingham and Sheffield.

I along with many others really would like to see the situation improve before too long. Within just the next few years it is highly unlikely there will be any improvements. But surely within the next decade or so?

 

[The Planner]

I also think another thing that would help is if Arriva took a good long study of their timetables and the volume of passengers that boards and departs each station stops, and looked at how things could be realistically improved.

Of course they do that.

 

[LE Greys]

I'm sure this has been mentioned further up the thread, but one priority has to be getting the remaining 21 Super Voyagers from Virgin. Best done by replacing them with more Pendys and wiring to Chester, from where 57s can haul them to Holyhead or Llandudno. 21 more trains means more doubling-up on the core routes, and perhaps a few Voyagers on what are currently 170-operated services. That might be worth looking into, especially Nottingham-Cardiff. Birmingham-Stansted has too many SP speed limits to make it worthwhile.

I also like the idea of cutting stops on longer-distance routes and phasing main-line stopping service back in. That would be a good use for any displaced 170s. Bristol-Penzance all-shacks is one option (although that is really an FGW job, since they could pull a few stops on Paddington-Penzance expresses). Birmingham-Bristol all-shacks could be XC, York-Newcastle is effectively TPX already, Birmingham-Sheffield all-shacks is really an EMT job (pity they can't take that in exchange for giving XC Liverpool-Norwich), and Birmingham-Oxford all-shacks really ought to be Chiltern.

 

[Failed Unit]

Problem is 4 car voyager replacing 3 car turbo = less seats. I think the passengers on the turbo routes want to keep them!

Again it was a pity CT didn't order all the Turbos as 3 cars! I remember when they were new them saying the had an option to expand to either 3 or 4 cars but alas.....

 

[sprinterguy]

Problem is 4 car voyager replacing 3 car turbo = less seats. I think the passengers on the turbo routes want to keep them!

Again it was a pity CT didn't order all the Turbos as 3 cars! I remember when they were new them saying the had an option to expand to either 3 or 4 cars but alas.....

If I'm travelling solely within the Derby to Cheltenham section, which I frequent fairly regularly, I'll often aim for the 170 operated services over the Voyager ones if I know that there aren't any HSTs in the vicinity. I prefer the interior arrangement, and the seating, of the 170s on a medium distance journey.

It is a shame that all Centrals' 170s, and for that matter MMLs' 170/1s, weren't all ordered as three car trains, but even stranger IMO is the split of both the 170/5s and 170/6s between LM and XC: It is my opinion that LM have enough slack in their 170 fleet to allow more doubling up of two car units, so I think it would have made far more sense for LM to get all of the two car 170/5s and XC all of the three car 170/6s. Still, at least having a few two car 170s knocking around at Crosscountry allows for a few four car formations on the Turbostar operated routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sure this has been mentioned further up the thread, but one priority has to be getting the remaining 21 Super Voyagers from Virgin. Best done by replacing them with more Pendys and wiring to Chester, from where 57s can haul them to Holyhead or Llandudno. 21 more trains means more doubling-up on the core routes, and perhaps a few Voyagers on what are currently 170-operated services. That might be worth looking into, especially Nottingham-Cardiff. Birmingham-Stansted has too many SP speed limits to make it worthwhile.

I also like the idea of cutting stops on longer-distance routes and phasing main-line stopping service back in. That would be a good use for any displaced 170s. Bristol-Penzance all-shacks is one option (although that is really an FGW job, since they could pull a few stops on Paddington-Penzance expresses). Birmingham-Bristol all-shacks could be XC, York-Newcastle is effectively TPX already, Birmingham-Sheffield all-shacks is really an EMT job (pity they can't take that in exchange for giving XC Liverpool-Norwich), and Birmingham-Oxford all-shacks really ought to be Chiltern.

I agree that it is a top priority that Crosscountry gets hold of the twenty one 221s from Virgin when they are predominantly used on fully or nearly fully electrified routes.

As long as the seating capacity was matched or bettered, I think that deploying Voyagers on the Cardiff to Nottingham services would be perfectly acceptable, but only once the existing Voyager operated trains had been suitably stengthened to double units on a greater number of services.

This thread is becoming akin to the fairly recent "What would you do with Crosscountry" thread, where it was voiced by several posters, myself included that XC should be broken down into a limited stop "Intercity" service and a regular stop "Regional" one.

The regional services could very easily be worked by the dominant TOC in the area, potentially by Voyagers no longer needed on the less frequent Intercity service in the short to medium term and by other, better suited rolling stock longer term. My line of attack was:
Penzance to Plymouth, Bristol & Cardiff
First Great Western. When a number of 165s are released by the Oxford and Newbury electrification they would be ably suited to such a service, and even assuming a small loss of stock from FGWs' West Country operations (The eight 143s for a start) there should be no shortage of stock to work these trains, and I think the 165s would be ably suited to such duties.
Reading to Southampton & Bournemouth
South West Trains. Taking over either from the bi-hourly Newcastle train. For gods' sake get the gaps in the third rail electrification south of Reading filled in so that it can be operated by standard electric stock.
Birmingham to Oxford
Chiltern Railways, quite obviously. Could probably operate out of Moor Street/Snow Hill to reduce the pressures on New Street.
Manchester to Bristol
Either First Great Western extending its' reach northwards, or retained as a Crosscountry route, given that XC already operate a very similar service to this one.
York to Doncaster, Sheffield and Birmingham
East Midlands Trains, or retained by XC, given that it is an actual cross-country route.
Leeds to York, Newcastle, Berwick, Edinburgh & Glasgow.
East Coast. With just a little infill electrification between Leeds and York, or starting the service at York, this service could use new Desiro units.

 

[Masbroughlad]

Just a thought. Have any of the big franchise owners (or anyone else who could bid for that matter) ever said what they would like to do to increase capacity (and service and comfort) on XC. Or are they gagged by DfT?

 

[WestCoast]

Totally spot on.

Why is that when I go to Germany, I enjoy huge IC trains, loco-hauled, using ageing but well-maintained and comfortable stock that has all been retained rather than chucking it on the scrapheap?

They have local/Regional Express trains mirroring the long-distance service during each part of the route, stopping at more stations. XC is trying to be all things to all people and failing with the stock they have. Will anything change in the near future? I don't think so.

This thread is becoming akin to the fairly recent "What would you do with Crosscountry" thread, where it was voiced by several posters, myself included that XC should be broken down into a limited stop "Intercity" service and a regular stop "Regional" one.

I completely agree. That is a proven service concept.

 

[Drsatan]

Reading to Southampton & Bournemouth
South West Trains. Taking over either from the bi-hourly Newcastle train. For gods' sake get the gaps in the third rail electrification south of Reading filled in so that it can be operated by standard electric stock.

I believe that the Reading to Brighton service should also be reinstated since that provided a very useful link to anyone wanting to travel to intermediate destinations such as Reading to Cosham, Brighton to Eastleigh and so forth.

 

[tbtc]

I believe that the Reading to Brighton service should also be reinstated since that provided a very useful link to anyone wanting to travel to intermediate destinations such as Reading to Cosham, Brighton to Eastleigh and so forth.

Reading - Brighton sounds like a service which there's justification for, but should this be for XC to do? Or could FGW/ SWT provide it?

Same goes for other XC routes (e.g. should Scotrail be providing Motherwell - Edinburgh? should Northern be providing more capacity between Sheffield and Leeds? they used to run a "fast" service only stopping at Wakefield Westgate and Meadowhall, but cancelled it when Operation Princess came along)

 

[TheMysticEgg]

When the IEP program begins to oust HSTs from the GWML in 2015/2016 (perhaps half the fleet?), is there a possibility of GWML HSTs being cascaded to the XC network to increase capacity in the core areas? The core of XC's network isn't electrified and doesn't have comparatively high line speed between Derby and the West Country compared to the GWML/ECML, so won't recieve priority for the new generation of trains. If the retired GWML HST fleet were transferred to XC, class 220s could be cascaded to fast interregional services that they are more suited to (in terms of capacity!) currently operated by something like sprinters that maybe don't offer the comfort for longer distances. Does any of this seem plausible?

 

[Zoe]

The issue here is the cost of life extending the trains. In the case of the Paddington to Plymouth/Penzance route and the Midland Main Line there isn't an alternative at this time but it may well be judged that the cost of life extending the trains for use on XC is too high.

 

[Eric]

Does anyone know just how many HST sets Cross Country have and what the daily diagrams for the HST's are?

I have an afternoon appointment in Bristol so the latest I can arrive is 13:30.

Cheers.

 

[Masbroughlad]

Makes me chuckle. The more I read threads like this one... just goes to show the farce that privatisation of BR as it was done.

BR had the capacity to stick on extra trains/carriages to meet demand. If it was that bad a business, privatising it would have failed - nobody would have bought it. Private companies have milked it and got us into this mess!

 

[Zoe]

BR had the capacity to stick on extra trains/carriages to meet demand. If it was that bad a business, privatising it would have failed - nobody would have bought it. Private companies have milked it and got us into this mess!

That may well have been the case but what would they have done when the stock became life expired? BR would most likely still have been run as a business and I doubt they would have ordered new stock that was going to spend most of its time sitting around in sidings.

 

[swt_passenger]

Reading - Brighton sounds like a service which there's justification for...

There wasn't the justification though, was there.

As I've mentioned before it only ran 3 hourly to Reading. What was actually wanted, based on survey evidence, was a Brighton - Southampton service running every hour, which is why they changed it. There are far more passengers on the through SN trains now than when SWT ran the service.

AIUI AXC have recently pointed out that the Southampton extensions are doing exactly what they expected, evening out loadings between Reading and Birmingham, and attracting new passengers, presumably because people want through services across Reading, not changes.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Does anyone know just how many HST sets Cross Country have and what the daily diagrams for the HST's are?

You're in luck. There are 5 sets, normally four used on weekdays.

People usually only ask this question about every three or four weeks, but fortunately there is a live thread - and this is the latest info:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=745733&postcount=17

 

[Eric]

There wasn't the justification though, was there.

As I've mentioned before it only ran 3 hourly to Reading. What was actually wanted, based on survey evidence, was a Brighton - Southampton service running every hour, which is why they changed it. There are far more passengers on the through SN trains now than when SWT ran the service.

AIUI AXC have recently pointed out that the Southampton extensions are doing exactly what they expected, evening out loadings between Reading and Birmingham, and attracting new passengers, presumably because people want through services across Reading, not changes.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




You're in luck. There are 5 sets, normally four used on weekdays.

People usually only ask this question about every three or four weeks, but fortunately there is a live thread - and this is the latest info:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=745733&postcount=17

That's me booked on the 09:11 out of Leeds

Cheers mate.

 

[Masbroughlad]

That may well have been the case but what would they have done when the stock became life expired? BR would most likely still have been run as a business and I doubt they would have ordered new stock that was going to spend most of its time sitting around in sidings.

Guess you nor I know that! Governments have acted with what they had - nobody can say really say 'what if it had been different?' - because it wasn't!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I doubt they would have ordered new stock that was going to spend most of its time sitting around in sidings.

The whole stock must be used all of the time argument is a shallow one really.

My car sits on the drive un-used quite a lot, as I bet others do. I am sure lorries and trailers sit out of action sometimes. Rest time is not necessarily a bad thing!

If a train cuts the mustard one day a week, what is the issue with it doing nothing the other 6 days?!

Different thinking needed!!!!

 

[Zoe]

The whole stock must be used all of the time argument is a shallow one really.

If you used it all the time then you'd have some trains carrying around a lot of air and not many passengers, this is not good business.

 

[Via Bank]

The whole stock must be used all of the time argument is a shallow one really.

My car sits on the drive un-used quite a lot, as I bet others do. I am sure lorries and trailers sit out of action sometimes. Rest time is not necessarily a bad thing!

If a train cuts the mustard one day a week, what is the issue with it doing nothing the other 6 days?!

Different thinking needed!!!!

Unlike your driveway, however, if a train is kept standing in a siding, track access charges still need to be paid (unless it's in a depot owned by that specific TOC, at which point you still have to factor in the costs of an ECS move.)

 

[ainsworth74]

My car sits on the drive un-used quite a lot, as I bet others do.

Unlike you car however with rolling stock on the railway you're paying for track access or for storage space on a depot (unless it's on a TOC depot) as well as leasing costs to the ROSCO so that you can use it. So if it isn't in revenue service it's costing money whilst your car doesn't cost you anything for just sitting there on your drive way.

 

[sulli_os]

Reading - Brighton sounds like a service which there's justification for, but should this be for XC to do? Or could FGW/ SWT provide it?

Same goes for other XC routes (e.g. should Scotrail be providing Motherwell - Edinburgh? should Northern be providing more capacity between Sheffield and Leeds? they used to run a "fast" service only stopping at Wakefield Westgate and Meadowhall, but cancelled it when Operation Princess came along)

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

It's a shame more cross franchise co-operation isn't possible, since then we could have, say, an additional peak service of York - Leeds - Barnsley - Sheffield - Chesterfield - Tamworth - Birmingham to boost capacity.

I guess this comes back to an argument that XC should be broken up into pieces, perhaps with all long distance services terminating at Birmingham.

 

[Masbroughlad]

Unlike your driveway, however, if a train is kept standing in a siding, track access charges still need to be paid (unless it's in a depot owned by that specific TOC, at which point you still have to factor in the costs of an ECS move.)

I still have to pay insurance, tax maintenance expenses - whether I am using it or not!

 

[tbtc]

There wasn't the justification though, was there.

As I've mentioned before it only ran 3 hourly to Reading. What was actually wanted, based on survey evidence, was a Brighton - Southampton service running every hour, which is why they changed it. There are far more passengers on the through SN trains now than when SWT ran the service.

AIUI AXC have recently pointed out that the Southampton extensions are doing exactly what they expected, evening out loadings between Reading and Birmingham, and attracting new passengers, presumably because people want through services across Reading, not changes

The hourly Brighton - Southampton service is obviously doing a lot better than the three-hourly Brighton - Reading service, but then a three-hourly service isn't very passenger friendly.

Since it looks like XC won't run to Brighton (or Portsmouth etc), instead of people on here blaming them for the lost links I thought it worth pointing out that the local TOCs could fill the gap (which they don't).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

I don't know. Personally I'd rather have a seat on the 158 which starts at Sheffield/ Leeds (rather than fight for a seat on a train which has travelled for hundreds of miles and has a lot of passengers on it), but people in Sheffield still seem to aim for the "fastest" train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The whole stock must be used all of the time argument is a shallow one really.

My car sits on the drive un-used quite a lot, as I bet others do. I am sure lorries and trailers sit out of action sometimes. Rest time is not necessarily a bad thing!

If a train cuts the mustard one day a week, what is the issue with it doing nothing the other 6 days?!

Different thinking needed!!!!

One of the reasons for no "spare" stock is the general growth in train travel. At privatisation I'd have expected that in fifteen years time (i.e. now) there'd have been lots of HST sets idle, which could be used for something like you suggest. However the only stock withdrawn have either been due to accident/ failure/ slam doors; there isn't anything spare that is suitable.

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