Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[dk1]

The issue with serving the ‘core’ has cropped up so many times but was fiercely opposed by local authorities in the South West & in NE Scotland which is why the Aberdeen & Paignton services remained after being threatened with withdrawl. Now XC has so many extra Voyagers and potentially more on the way, this problem has now abated somewhat.

 

[AndrewE]

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?

RTT https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...6/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=XC says there is only one XC train (on weds 6/5 picked as a random example) between edinburgh and Aberdeen, so unless this is an abnormal post-bank holiday week I am sure that they can cope!

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.

I specifically said "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..."
What's the problem?

 

[HSTEd]

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).

If we must have 52 sets, I'd suggest 26 5-cars and 26 7-cars.

I'm skeptical you could reliably keep the 9-cars onto busy trains and avoid them running around lightly loaded. If it was possible I'd say our best bet was a uniform fleet of six-cars, but that's not possible due to only odd lengths being available.

Seems to me it would be best to spread out the capacity as far as possible to reduce the risk of very lightly loaded trains running around whilst others are crammed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we must have 52 sets, I'd suggest 26 5-cars and 26 7-cars.

I'm skeptical you could reliably keep the 9-cars onto busy trains and avoid them running around lightly loaded. If it was possible I'd say our best bet was a uniform fleet of six-cars, but that's not possible due to only odd lengths being available

Too long to double up and too short to deal with crowding. No, definitely not. 7 is a genuinely good length. You might be unsurprised to note that it's a length close to a standard European high speed 200m (182m), chosen as the standard because it's remarkably useful.

 

[Killingworth]

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.

TPE work on having 46 out of 51 Class 185 units in service every day but it only needs one to hit an object on the line and damaged parts can keep it out of action for weeks if not months. Apparently Northern still have a 195 out of action 2 years after derailing near Grange-over-Sands.

The older a fleet becomes the harder it gets to keep a 90% in service ratio. If we order what we need today for trains planned to run for 30+ years and then hope to increase passenger numbers we'd better have a plan for adding more compatible capacity before that extra demand is choked off just as it is today.

 

[Stephen42]

RTT https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...6/0200-0159?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt&toc=XC says there is only one XC train (on weds 6/5 picked as a random example) between edinburgh and Aberdeen, so unless this is an abnormal post-bank holiday week I am sure that they can cope!

Similar to the Glasgow services, there's not much you could do if the Aberdeen services were cut back. The train at best could go to Birmingham New Street in the evening arriving past midnight. The morning service couldn't run the full length of the core either and would be a very early start from Birmingham. Outside the start and end of the day the equivalent unit is already on the core services not venturing beyond Edinburgh.

Penzance and Paignton would each save 1 unit. I'm not commenting on whether those extensions are worthwhile or a good use of resources. More that cutting back the extensions will not significantly improve capacity on the core, giving one or two lengthened diagrams only (alternatively could be used for new services).

 

[AndrewE]

Similar to the Glasgow services, there's not much you could do if the Aberdeen services were cut back. The train at best could go to Birmingham New Street in the evening arriving past midnight. The morning service couldn't run the full length of the core either and would be a very early start from Birmingham. Outside the start and end of the day the equivalent unit is already on the core services not venturing beyond Edinburgh.

I think we are agreeing that cutting back these trains (other people's suggestions, not mine) won't help much if they are few in number (like just one to Aberdeen, 1814 off Edinburgh) and near the end of the day.

Penzance and Paignton would each save 1 unit. I'm not commenting on whether those extensions are worthwhile or a good use of resources. More that cutting back the extensions will not significantly improve capacity on the core, giving one or two lengthened diagrams only (alternatively could be used for new services).

If trains west of Exeter are really that poor and overcrowded then the Penzance - again, 1 train a day from N of Bristol! - should be protected, but the Torbay Metro train service was quite good when we used it a couple of years ago, so could provide the connections. I agree though that the passenger demographic might well be such that even a single through train is an important factor, and I can understand the local authorities and the Chambers of Commerce around Torbay fighting tooth and nail to retain them.

 

[The Ham]

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

You mean like the class 350's which are a similar age?

TPE work on having 46 out of 51 Class 185 units in service every day but it only needs one to hit an object on the line and damaged parts can keep it out of action for weeks if not months. Apparently Northern still have a 195 out of action 2 years after derailing near Grange-over-Sands.

The older a fleet becomes the harder it gets to keep a 90% in service ratio. If we order what we need today for trains planned to run for 30+ years and then hope to increase passenger numbers we'd better have a plan for adding more compatible capacity before that extra demand is choked off just as it is today.

Which was why I initially designed the fleet to be 44 out of 52. The reduction to 90% was a step which could be taken if the Treasury said no to the original specification.

However, I would still require an option for more units so that more could be ordered.

If the option was for up to 5 years from order (or 3 years from last unit delivery the timing of either would be similar) you'd just about have enough time to see if the new trains were likely to result in additional passengers to justify a few more units.

However, even with all the spares units begin the 9 coach sets you'd still see a fleet seating capacity uplift of 17% (so not much different to that seen for the class 800's vs the HST's at GWR).

The other thing that would be worth looking at is those GWR units which are being extended is to keep them with 3 engines but the other two coaches which should have engines under them add in batteries.

That could give GWR (and if replicated for XC) a noticeable fuel bill saving.

It's potentially enough that services to Didcot (definitely Oxford) and Weston-super-Mare could be run as a battery train whist services to Swansea and through the Chilterns could be Hybrid running (batteries used to boost the performance of the remaining engines)

The lack of electrification could currently be a limiting factor in a 2 engine 1 battery 5 coach unit.

However, whilst it means the need for new batteries (across the GWR and XC class 800 fleets) it does mean that rather than having to build lots of new engines you would far fewer.

As the batteries wouldn't be reducing the need for the number of engines across the fleets, the cost of adding the batteries is likely to be less than if the number was reducing the numberof engines.

Previously I'd not considered lengthening the class 802's at GWR, however you could also lengthen some of them too to further maximise the capacity at GWR without increasing the number of coaches.

That could mean the GWR fleet would be (in brackets, current fleet):

5 coach class 800 - 12 (36)
5 coach class 802 - 11 (22)
9 coach class 800 - 30 (21)
9 coach class 802 - 25 (14)

It's not always the easiest to understand the impact, so if we count a 9 coach set as 2 train units and a 5 coach set as 1 train unit:
Currently 128 train units
Future fleet 133 train units

Even though the number of coaches at GWR remains unchanged.

I terms of power pack orders
All diesel
XC fleet 135 diesel
GWR fleet 40 diesel
Total 175 diesel

By going 3 diesel and 2 battery in the 9 coach sets
XC fleet
60 new diesel
24 batteries
see below for transfers from GWR

GWR fleet
45 diesel transfer within their 5 coach sets to XC
70 diesel are extracted for use in new sets
110 batteries

 

[swt_passenger]

You mean like the class 350's which are a similar age?

Not really the same at all, because that decision was made by a TOC competing for a renewed franchise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In any case the oldest 350s are about 5 years newer.

 

[The Ham]

Not really the same at all, because that decision was made by a TOC competing for a renewed franchise.

So a TOC competing for a new franchise can do it (almost regardless of subsidy - as i doubt the do nothing option was put forwards)

Yet GBR, even if they can demonstrate that doing so is no more expensive (or even cheaper), let alone cheaper and generate extra income later, couldn't do something similar.

In any case the oldest 350s are about 5 years newer.

Just to be clear, the 22x fleet is currently too old to be replaced but in 10 years time it'll be OK?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just to be clear, the 22x fleet is currently too old to be replaced but in 10 years time it'll be OK?

I think they should be replaced purely because they are rubbish. They were a first go at a 125mph DMU but while reliable have serious flaws that are largely not fixable, most notably very high fuel consumption and emissions (almost as bad as flying in fact).

 

[HSTEd]

The Class 220s are 25 years old, they are hardly new.

Despite being mechanically reliable, I don't think they really appear attractive in economic and operational terms.
They're a non-gangway, four car train with only 200 seats,. My view is that they are simply not suitable and the soon we are shot of them the better.

The Class 221s are barely any better in that regard.

The savings in staff and the increase number of seats to sell from replacements could easily make up for replacing trains a handful of years "early".

 

[AndrewJM70]

Could the 22x units be turned into 7 or 8 car single units by discarding 2 end cars? If so they could transform the operation with a mere 15 7-car 807s or similar.

 

[Bayum]

Could the 22x units be turned into 7 or 8 car single units by discarding 2 end cars? If so they could transform the operation with a mere 15 7-car 807s or similar.

I asked a similar question a few pages back. Some answers nearby.

Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

That's great news - I hope it gets approved. It is the only realistic way to add capacity in the short term, as new trains (which I do believe is the ideal solution) would take time. Who knows, with an enhanced fleet any less serious faults should be fixed without them running until they...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[The Ham]

Could the 22x units be turned into 7 or 8 car single units by discarding 2 end cars? If so they could transform the operation with a mere 15 7-car 807s or similar.

In the 220 fleet there's 68 middle coaches, the optimal length of train is 6 coaches as that would give you exactly 17 sets, the next best size (with the fewest excess coaches) is 8 coaches which gets you 11 sets and 2 left over.

The 221's have, if we only count those at XC, 104 coaches That's more flexible with optionsfor 6 coaches (26) or 10 coaches (13).

If we extend to the full 221 first the options are still 6 coaches (32) or 10 coaches (16) from the 128 coaches acrossthe fleet.

A combined fleet of 17 sets of 6 coaches and 13 or 16 sets of 10 coaches could be useful. Other than there's nowhere reasonable for them to go other than maybe OAO.

In an alternative universe, where they had been extended under project Thor there may have been a different outcome.

in that universe someone realised that the solution to the existing 5 coach sets wasn't to add 2 new coaches due to needing 2 pantograph when a set reached 6 or more coaches, but was rather to remove a coach to create a mixed length fleet of 5 and 10 coach sets.

The 220's would have been 34 sets of 5 coaches, the 221's would have been 32 sets of 5 coaches and 12 sets of 10 coach (all 10 coach sets would be at Virgin/Avanti). The 10 coach sets would require the 28 coaches released form the 5 coach sets which are replaced with pantograph coaches, 2 new pantograph coaches and 8 new diesel coaches (although there could be a case made for the 10 coach sets to have 1 unpowered coach).

At the time XC would have had 20 class 221's so that being boosted to 35 in addition to the 34 would be a significant boost to capacity.

In fact, where they need 44 diagrams those 69 sets would have been 61 sets in service and so 17 out of the 44 diagrams (1 in 3 services, but likely more if the pairs were used mainly in the core) would have been pairs of units and no need to use the HST's

 

[martin butler]

Take say, Aberdeen to Penzance, Whats the journey time of the XC service compared to using LNER, then GWR? Where there are other routes that duplicate it, why run it?

If the voyagers can't run with enough seats, that means doubling up, then the answer is quite obvious, reform the sets into longer single formations, by removal of some end vehicles, and using some units to make permanent 8 car sets, then use the redundant driving cars as spares or rebuild them with corridor connections, and then use then as trailers, or if refurbishment is planned, rebuild units with inner unit connections,

If the entire class had been built with corridor connections in the first place, then the staffing issues would have no arisen, as a single staff member could have worked the entire train, excluding the driver of course,

 

[JonathanH]

If the entire class had been built with corridor connections in the first place, then the staffing issues would have no arisen, as a single staff member could have worked the entire train, excluding the driver of course,

They wouldn't have been able to run at 125 mph if they had been built with corridor connections, and the concept was for short single units in any case, so a pointy end was certain.

 

[stevieinselby]

Take say, Aberdeen to Penzance, Whats the journey time of the XC service compared to using LNER, then GWR? Where there are other routes that duplicate it, why run it?

XC no longer does the full Aberdeen to Penzance run, but looking at both Edinburgh to Penzance and Aberdeen to Plymouth, the end-to-end journey times are comparable with travelling via London – sometimes a bit quicker, sometimes a bit slower.

But XC don't run those services for people travelling from Aberdeen to Plymouth or from Edinburgh to Penzance, because apart from a handful of bloggers and vloggers virtually no-one makes that journey by train. They run those services for a series of overlapping journeys, Edinburgh to Sheffield, Newcastle to Birmingham, Leeds to Bristol and so on. The fact that travelling between some points on the route has an alternative doesn't take away from the demand for the service.

 

[FGWHST43009]

XC no longer does the full Aberdeen to Penzance run, but looking at both Edinburgh to Penzance and Aberdeen to Plymouth, the end-to-end journey times are comparable with travelling via London – sometimes a bit quicker, sometimes a bit slower.

But XC don't run those services for people travelling from Aberdeen to Plymouth or from Edinburgh to Penzance, because apart from a handful of bloggers and vloggers virtually no-one makes that journey by train. They run those services for a series of overlapping journeys, Edinburgh to Sheffield, Newcastle to Birmingham, Leeds to Bristol and so on. The fact that travelling between some points on the route has an alternative doesn't take away from the demand for the service.

Some people may use it between Aberdeen and other ECML stations although they're more likely to use LNER for Aberdeen to Newcastle etc.

From Penzance I reckon most will probably be heading to Birmingham New St.

Nevertheless, whenever I get the Cardiff-Edinburgh service or the southbound equivalent, there tends to be a decent handful making long journeys like Newcastle to Cardiff etc. I reckon a decent amount are using it for stations north of Derby to Cardiff, such as Leeds and Sheffield.

 

[NCT]

very high fuel consumption and emissions (almost as bad as flying in fact).

Do you have figures for that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you have figures for that?

Took a bit of a hunt but this Modern Railways article refers:

https://www.modernrailways.com/article/wcp-award-victory-dft-reactionaries#:~:text=DfT%20claims%20that%20replacing%20the,timings%20with%20the%20same%20operator.

Based on that 2022 forecast the Class 390, with regenerative braking, would ‘produce’ 14g of CO2 per seat kilometre compared with 35g/seat km for the Class 221. But when I checked the CO2 emissions for the current electricity generation mix, it was down to 180g CO2/kWh in 2018.

With regard to the A320 family of aircraft (though seat layouts vary):

A320 NEO Reduces Carbon Emissions by 18% on EasyJet Gatwick to Tenerife Route

Using unique data from IBA’s InsightIQ Carbon Emissions Calculator, we analysed EasyJet flights between London Gatwick Airport and Tenerife South...

www.iba.aero

The A320 NEO family averaged 89.9 grams of Carbon per seat mile between March 2018 and March 2021, compared to 109.7g per seat mile from the A320 CEO in the same period. This represents an 18% reduction in overall emissions.

89.9g per mile is about 55.9g per kilometre. This is a bit higher than I thought to be fair but is in the same ballpark, and is an average so would take into account aircraft with business class cabins and the likes, so an easyJet high density A321 would likely be a fair bit lower (despite having similar space for the passenger as a Voyager). But as a train isn't expending energy to keep itself in the air as well as move forward, this means the Voyager's figure is truly appalling. And you've also got the downside of the particulate emissions which must surely be a serious health concern in the likes of New St.

 

[The Ham]

Took a bit of a hunt but this Modern Railways article refers:

https://www.modernrailways.com/article/wcp-award-victory-dft-reactionaries#:~:text=DfT%20claims%20that%20replacing%20the,timings%20with%20the%20same%20operator.

With regard to the A320 family of aircraft (though seat layouts vary):

A320 NEO Reduces Carbon Emissions by 18% on EasyJet Gatwick to Tenerife Route

Using unique data from IBA’s InsightIQ Carbon Emissions Calculator, we analysed EasyJet flights between London Gatwick Airport and Tenerife South...

www.iba.aero

89.9g per mile is about 55.9g per kilometre. This is a bit higher than I thought to be fair but is in the same ballpark, and is an average so would take into account aircraft with business class cabins and the likes, so an easyJet high density A321 would likely be a fair bit lower (despite having similar space for the passenger as a Voyager). But as a train isn't expending energy to keep itself in the air as well as move forward, this means the Voyager's figure is truly appalling. And you've also got the downside of the particulate emissions which must surely be a serious health concern in the likes of New St.

I assume that the 55.9g has been factored for seat occupancy rates for the trains as the article lists 35g for the trains on a per seat basis.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I assume that the 55.9g has been factored for seat occupancy rates for the trains as the article lists 35g for the trains on a per seat basis.

The 55.9g is for the aircraft (the 89.9 is per mile, I had to convert it), the 35g is for the Voyager. If I'm reading it correctly both are per seat, not per occupied seat. It's a valid comparison between the two to compare all seats taken, to be honest, given that both low-cost airline flights and Voyagers tend to be full.

The Voyager isn't quite as bad as I thought, but it is still utterly appalling for a train and doesn't in any way change my view that the things need to be scrapped ASAP and replaced with battery tri-modes to minimise diesel running.

 

[zwk500]

The 55.9g is for the aircraft (the 89.9 is per mile, I had to convert it), the 35g is for the Voyager. If I'm reading it correctly both are per seat, not per occupied seat. It's a valid comparison between the two to compare all seats taken, to be honest, given that both low-cost airline flights and Voyagers tend to be full.

The Voyager isn't quite as bad as I thought, but it is still utterly appalling for a train and doesn't in any way change my view that the things need to be scrapped ASAP and replaced with battery tri-modes to minimise diesel running.

What if you factor in the fact that a plane will never have standing passengers but a Voyager can often have a rather high proprortion of it's overall load on their feet?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What if you factor in the fact that a plane will never have standing passengers but a Voyager can often have a rather high proprortion of it's overall load on their feet?

That should not be factored in because standees on intercity services are undesirable - indeed this whole thread is premised on increasing capacity to get rid of them.

(That you would still get them between Wolves and Cov regardless of what you did with capacity is moot as it's a very short section of the XC network).

 

[Tetragon213]

The Voyager isn't quite as bad as I thought, but it is still utterly appalling for a train and doesn't in any way change my view that the things need to be scrapped ASAP and replaced with battery tri-modes to minimise diesel running.

That's a big ask for batteries.
Off of a quick scan of openrailwaymap, you'd be looking at a lot of unelectrified track, much of which makes little sense to electrify in the first place.

Penzance - Stoke Gifford Jn (Bristol Parkway)
Extremely short section of electrified line
Yate Jn - Bromsgrove
Relatively short section of electrified line
Grand Jn - South Yorks. Jn

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a big ask for batteries.

Tri mode. That means 25kV, battery and diesel.

However, it would significantly reduce the use of diesel, particularly in urban areas and stations where the effects are at their worst. But the batteries would reduce diesel burn anyway, by allowing the use of regenerative braking when not on 25kV and when there's nothing else on the wires wanting to consume the input.

 

[martin butler]

Trouble is though, we are stuck with what's available, and there's nothing to replace the voyager fleet with, so any improvements have to be by juggling what can be achieved with what there is, and that has to be by rationing the Cross country service, and reforming the fleet into a small hub of routes, where other TOC's dont offer the same route, so that would mean cutting all routes in scotland, that Scotrail already does, and same on all the other routes, south- north routes do they still need to run to Southampton brighton etc, if they can terminate somewhere where connections can be made?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Trouble is though, we are stuck with what's available, and there's nothing to replace the voyager fleet with, so any improvements have to be by juggling what can be achieved with what there is

That's simply not true. New build can be - and should be - ordered. Ideally with enhancements such as level boarding in one vehicle (large engines and level boarding in all vehicles is probably too hard to achieve), but aside from that 7-car tri-mode 80x are perfect.

It's been done for near enough every other TOC. It's inexcusable that it isn't for XC.