Cross country new traction

[Bigman]

Coventry to Manchester Piccadillly - 101 miles. York - Edinburgh - 205 miles. Crying out for electric traction of whatever description.

 

[Wolfie]

I suspect GBR will be following a "simplest pictures are best" approach to XC and opt for the least disturbance possible. Hence EMR and Avanti 221s and 222s all go to XC. There may be some benefit in rejigging the fleet into 2x4-car and 7-car formations, which would give a uniform capacity.

The interesting thing will be what comes next and when. Assuming a rolling programme of electrification the 810s could cascade by 2030, followed by other Hitachi hybrids as the main lines become electric-only. The 22Xs will be over 30 years old by that point and ready for the chop. Once XC is electrified the diesel power trains could be removed from the 8XXs to save maintenance and lighten up the units.

There is a lot of logic to that.

 

[daodao]

Coventry to Manchester Piccadillly - 101 miles. York - Edinburgh - 205 miles. Crying out for electric traction of whatever description.

XC operation by diesel traction should be curtailed along these routes.

XC should only operate 1 tph Birmingham-Doncaster-Newcastle, with 1tp2h extending to Edinburgh. The other 1 tph for XC north of Birmingham should terminate at Leeds.

1 of the 2 fast tph from Manchester to Birmingham should be operated using electric traction by LNWR.

 

[JonathanH]

Would not the Nottingham/Leicester to Birmingham services be better operated by EMT, and the Cardiff-Birmingham service by TfW, as used to be the case? All to be standard class only.

Cardiff to Birmingham was a joint route - every two hours from the Canton allocation of 158s and every two hours from the Tyseley allocation of 158s through to Nottingham. It could equally be run by GWR but whether it is TfW or GWR you introduce unnecessary duplication on the Cheltenham to Derby flow which GBR is seeking to eliminate - routes with one operator are much more appropriate for planning purposes.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Why is the Birmingham/Stansted service not transferred to the logical operator for the area, namely the East Midlands franchise?

Historically there's been an (understandable) reluctance to have yet more operators working into New Street.

 

[Meerkat]

Historically there's been an (understandable) reluctance to have yet more operators working into New Street.

Guess that changes if they build the chords to send such services into Moor Street?

 

[DB]

Guess that changes if they build the chords to send such services into Moor Street?

Does that have sufficient capacity?

 

[Meerkat]

Does that have sufficient capacity?

Pretty sure the plan was for services from the Nuneaton/Tamworth direction to be going in there??
They are putting more platforms in and possibly sending more stuff through to Snow Hill (with fourth platform reactivated) IIRC

 

[YorksLad12]

Historically there's been an (understandable) reluctance to have yet more operators working into New Street.

So... could it be 'given' to WMT?

 

[Domh245]

Historically there's been an (understandable) reluctance to have yet more operators working into New Street.

I'm curious why this reluctance is understandable? To avoid even more traincrew facilities?

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm curious why this reluctance is understandable? To avoid even more traincrew facilities?

I thought there was a greater reluctance to have through services split into two terminating services. That’s the greater obstacle I can think of to making Manchester to Birmingham into a self contained EMU service…

 

[Domh245]

I thought there was a greater reluctance to have through services split into two terminating services. That’s the greater obstacle I can think of to making Manchester to Birmingham into a self contained EMU service…

There's a reluctance to split a through service into two terminators (though they have done it for the LNWR services, to the relief of some) but the Stansted trains already terminate at Birmingham, you're 'only' 'changing the paint'

 

[The Planner]

There's a reluctance to split a through service into two terminators (though they have done it for the LNWR services, to the relief of some) but the Stansted trains already terminate at Birmingham, you're 'only' 'changing the paint'

Goes back to the diagramming though, unless the Leicester locals also switch over it causes you problems.

 

[HST43257]

Merge the 2nd Nottingham service with the Hereford service, creating 2tph from Nottingham all the way to Bromsgrove (add this stop to existing CDF service). The WMR Hereford 170s go to XC.

 

[JonathanH]

The WMR Hereford 170s go to XC.

Those are already spoken for and are transferring to EMR. If there was any point running Nottingham to Hereford services it would have continued beyond the 2007 changes.

 

[HST43257]

Those are already spoken for and are transferring to EMR. If there was any point running Nottingham to Hereford services it would have continued beyond the 2007 changes.

Surely it makes sense from a view of reducing dwells in BHM without the Moor Street works?

 

[JonathanH]

Surely it makes sense from a view of reducing dwells in BHM without the Moor Street works?

I think the issue with linking Hereford services to other routes through New Street is the various single line sections on the route. They constrain the timetable and the paths available between Birmingham and Derby may well not match up once you take account of the other services on that route.

 

[37424]

XC operation by diesel traction should be curtailed along these routes.

XC should only operate 1 tph Birmingham-Doncaster-Newcastle, with 1tp2h extending to Edinburgh. The other 1 tph for XC north of Birmingham should terminate at Leeds.

1 of the 2 fast tph from Manchester to Birmingham should be operated using electric traction by LNWR.

Is that on the basis of looking at XC traffic flows and revenue and producing a strong business case for it?

 

[JonathanH]

Is that on the basis of looking at XC traffic flows and revenue and producing a strong business case for it?

I doubt it but essentially the point being made is that the network could be revised to ensure that diesel trains are only used where there is no choice - eg primarily on the sections of route from Birmingham to Plymouth / Birmingham to Doncaster / Coventry to Reading with other electric services providing connections at those locations.

As the poster suggests, a future where Cross Country runs 2tph Birmingham to Reading and 2tph Leeds / Doncaster to the West Country would concentrate diesel use on the stretches where it is a necessary evil and allow alternative electric services to run the rest of the way - eg 2tph electric between Birmingham and Manchester - which is long overdue.

 

[37424]

I doubt it but essentially the point being made is that the network could be revised to ensure that diesel trains are only used where there is no choice - eg primarily on the sections of route from Birmingham to Plymouth / Birmingham to Doncaster / Coventry to Reading with other electric services providing connections at those locations.

As the poster suggests, a future where Cross Country runs 2tph Birmingham to Reading and 2tph Leeds / Doncaster to the West Country would concentrate diesel use on the stretches where it is a necessary evil and allow alternative electric services to run the rest of the way - eg 2tph electric between Birmingham and Manchester - which is long overdue.

But the Railway is meant to offer a variety of suitable Journey's to the customer and generate as much revenue as possible or is it just going to run a railway designed to minimise Diesel usage rather than address customer demand, and if people go back to other transport types because the train no longer meets their needs then that reduced Diesel usage may be of less benefit.

If you want to specifically address XC Diesel usage under the wires then the quick fix would to buy Bi-Modes but obviously that will need to look at the benefits and cost and whether you should include environmental benefits and how much weight you should give it is an interesting point as the railway is there mainly to run a railway and not necessarily be an Eco warrior. The alternative is to put up with 22x for another 10 or so years pending further electrification and the effective transfer of some of XC demand to HS2.

 

[daodao]

Is that on the basis of looking at XC traffic flows and revenue and producing a strong business case for it?

It's a balance between maintaining some through connectivity and reducing unnecessary diesel running under the wires.

 

[SteelWeelApeal]

Presumably if bi-modes were ordered they'd order ones that could also run off the third rail. This would mean a significant majority of Bournemouth to Manchester would be electric.

 

[JamesT]

Presumably if bi-modes were ordered they'd order ones that could also run off the third rail. This would mean a significant majority of Bournemouth to Manchester would be electric.

How much of the current XC network is third rail? I suspect it’s sufficiently small that third rail capability in the fleet wouldn’t be worthwhile.

 

[HST43257]

How much of the current XC network is third rail? I suspect it’s sufficiently small that third rail capability in the fleet wouldn’t be worthwhile.

Basingstoke to Bournemouth, a 60+ mile stretch in 1 direction (120 round trip).

 

[skyhigh]

How much of the current XC network is third rail? I suspect it’s sufficiently small that third rail capability in the fleet wouldn’t be worthwhile.

And does that third rail have capacity for additional services?

 

[Meerkat]

And does that third rail have capacity for additional services?

In the longer run it will have to have the capacity or be replaced by AC.

 

[quantinghome]

Presumably if bi-modes were ordered they'd order ones that could also run off the third rail. This would mean a significant majority of Bournemouth to Manchester would be electric.

"Simple Pictures Are Best"