Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[Rail2002]

As I said in a speculative thread, seat reservations could become optional instead of mandatory with Advance tickets, meaning less seats being reserved but unused.

I don't think that 2 and 3 coach services are appropriate for the Cardiff-Nottingham services, which is a long distance route that connects multiple cities with England's second largest one. Now that EMR and Northern have mopped up most of the cascaded 170s, are there any intermediate coaches available that could be used to lengthen the XC 170s?

 

[brad465]

As I said in a speculative thread, seat reservations could become optional instead of mandatory with Advance tickets, meaning less seats being reserved but unused.

I don't think that 2 and 3 coach services are appropriate for the Cardiff-Nottingham services, which is a long distance route that connects multiple cities with England's second largest one. Now that EMR and Northern have mopped up most of the cascaded 170s, are there any intermediate coaches available that could be used to lengthen the XC 170s?

A more realistic prospect (but still a long way off if possible), is Southern order some BEMUs to replace all their 171s and these are cascaded to the likes of XC.

 

[quantinghome]

So looking at the available 220 and 221 units, they could be reformed into 50 uniform 6-car trains, ditching some of the highly inefficient end-cars (and keeping some spare).

I believe this more than covers the current XC long distance diagrams. That being the case, to reduce overcrowding they should consider running an additional Leeds-Birmingham (and Birmingham-Leeds) shuttle, at least in peak hours. Use the "Northern Flyer" slot between Leeds and Sheffield and flight the service with the Newcastle-Reading if capacity between Sheffield and Birmingham is constrained.

 

[JonathanH]

I believe this more than covers the current XC long distance diagrams.

I don't think that 50 units is sufficient to provide the current diagrams if allowance is made for Reading to Newcastle to run hourly (although I think some terminating at York is I think expected if an hourly service is to actually be reintroduced).

I think that on a theoretical hourly schedule

Bournemouth - Manchester - Bristol - Manchester - Bournemouth is 17 cycles

Plymouth - Edinburgh - Plymouth is 18 cycles

Reading - Newcastle - Reading is 10 cycles

I make that 45 cycles, which would be tight for 50 6-car units and represent a reduction in capacity on the services which currently run with two units.

As you say, running short workings and missing out some hours on Reading - Newcastle - Reading reduces the requirement a little, although Paignton extensions of the Bristol to Manchester cycles currently adds a unit to that requirement.

 

[sprinterguy]

I don't think that 50 units is sufficient to provide the current diagrams if allowance is made for Reading to Newcastle to run hourly

In addition to that, I'm not certain that 50 x 6-car units could be achieved - I can only get to 49 x 6-car trains: Splitting half of the 38 x 4-car units (including 4 x 221) would create 19 x 6-car trains. Then splitting 10 of the 40 x 5-car units would release 30 intermediate vehicles to insert into the remaining 30 x 5-car sets.

(although I think some terminating at York is I think expected if an hourly service is to actually be reintroduced).

Yeah, that's already currently the case for 4 of the 10 northbound and 2 of the 10 southbound services on that axis.

 

[NCT]

I'd take a mixture of 5, 8 and 9 over a uniform of 6, when the latter involves a significant reduction in overall vehicle numbers. Two thirds of a carriage is still better than zero.

 

[quantinghome]

I'd take a mixture of 5, 8 and 9 over a uniform of 6, when the latter involves a significant reduction in overall vehicle numbers. Two thirds of a carriage is still better than zero.

Not if 4 carriages get locked out of use due to staff shortages.

One of the major problems of XC is its costs. The class 22Xs are horribly inefficient. This has led to it being regarded as a basket case unworthy of investment whereas in reality it's screaming for it. Compared to a reconfigured 6 car train, yes, a 2x4 car formation gives you an additional 2/3 of carriage of standard class, but at the cost of two additional carriages, plus additional staffing costs for both units. So a 6-car arrangement is significantly more economic to run which has to be a consideration on XC.

 

[HSTEd]

Unfortunately the Class 22x are just new enough to have fully TMS controlled multiple working. Otherwise it might have been possible to hack a redundant fleet of EMUs into compatability, which could then be used as reinforcement on electrified service portions without using low capacity 22x carriages.

It might still be possible but only with lots of expensive software work.

But I think our problem is financially based - extra staff to cover multiple working is unlikely to be forthcoming. The unions seem unlikely to drop this demand so we are at an impasse

 

[class 9]

Unfortunately the Class 22x are just new enough to have fully TMS controlled multiple working. Otherwise it might have been possible to hack a redundant fleet of EMUs into compatability, which could then be used as reinforcement on electrified service portions without using low capacity 22x carriages.

It might still be possible but only with lots of expensive software work.

But I think our problem is financially based - extra staff to cover multiple working is unlikely to be forthcoming. The unions seem unlikely to drop this demand so we are at an impasse

Well, the extra staff mentioned above certainly is forthcoming, Leeds depot for example when training is completed, will have the most TMs it's ever had.

 

[Class 317]

Longer term replacing space and staff inefficient Voyagers with trains offering a larger seating capacity and requiring only 1 TM would revolutionise the service

 

[Krokodil]

Longer term replacing space and staff inefficient Voyagers with trains offering a larger seating capacity and requiring only 1 TM would revolutionise the service

Not to mention fuel efficiency. I'd like to bet that a five car 80x on diesel consumes less fuel than a Voyager with only a small difference in performance. Once under the wires then you're laughing.

 

[biggerisbetter]

Based on a uniform fleet of 7-car 80xs, assuming capacity of 453 in line with 807s, which would be only a bit less than a 10-car 2 x 221 at 492, are there any Crosscountry diagrams where this would likely be insufficient capacity?

 

[brad465]

Based on a uniform fleet of 7-car 80xs, assuming capacity of 453 in line with 807s, which would be only a bit less than a 10-car 2 x 221 at 492, are there any Crosscountry diagrams where this would likely be insufficient capacity?

How many 10-car 221s actually run with XC where both units are open? I've encountered one or two before in recent years and can't remember if one was locked out or not, but either way a 10-car is rare (although if they can run they will presumably be more common now 8x 5-car are on the way).

A better comparison might be a 7-car of 453 sets adds 53-81 seats compared to an 8-car Voyager (53 seats is vs 2x 220s, while 81 seats is 2x 4-car 221s, though as there's not many of the latter that may not be common). If they do order 7-car it would good for all units to be 7-car, then there is no danger of shorter formations; if these turn out to not be long enough for current work, order enough to raise the frequency on core routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Avanti spec 807s pretty much as they are but with diesel engines would be ideal.

 

[Kite159]

How many 10-car 221s actually run with XC where both units are open? I've encountered one or two before in recent years and can't remember if one was locked out or not, but either way a 10-car is rare (although if they can run they will presumably be more common now 8x 5-car are on the way).

A better comparison might be a 7-car of 453 sets adds 53-81 seats compared to an 8-car Voyager (53 seats is vs 2x 220s, while 81 seats is 2x 4-car 221s, though as there's not many of the latter that may not be common). If they do order 7-car it would good for all units to be 7-car, then there is no danger of shorter formations; if these turn out to not be long enough for current work, order enough to raise the frequency on core routes.

The 09:15 Reading to Manchester service on a Sunday morning is a booked 10 coach set, although the last couple of times I've used it, it's split at Birmingham. Last time was a few weeks ago when the WCML was closed in the Watford area for the short notice works and the 5 coaches for Manchester were truly rammed after Birmingham, even with the benefit of skipping Coventry due to an issue at Kenilworth

 

[Krokodil]

How many 10-car 221s actually run with XC where both units are open?

I'm pretty sure that 10 car 221s are too long for some platforms in the East Midlands. 221s don't have selective doors so any vehicles not platformed need to be empty and deadlocked.

The advantage of a single unit over a pair of non-gangwayed units is that passengers can be balanced along its length. Even if the rear Voyager is open, passengers may still pile onto one unit and the other ends up almost empty. With a gangway they can move down the train after departure. Not that they all will, but at least they have the opportunity.

 

[Kite159]

I'm pretty sure that 10 car 221s are too long for some platforms in the East Midlands. 221s don't have selective doors so any vehicles not platformed need to be empty and deadlocked.

The advantage of a single unit over a pair of non-gangwayed units is that passengers can be balanced along its length. Even if the rear Voyager is open, passengers may still pile onto one unit and the other ends up almost empty. With a gangway they can move down the train after departure. Not that they all will, but at least they have the opportunity.

Chesterfield springs to mind as a problem station not being able to hold 10 coaches, although that can be resolved by removing Chesterfield from a call.

Even with a fully gangway unit, you will get the issue of everybody wanting to board via one set of doors and crowd in one particular area of the train

 

[LowLevel]

Chesterfield springs to mind as a problem station not being able to hold 10 coaches, although that can be resolved by removing Chesterfield from a call.

Even with a fully gangway unit, you will get the issue of everybody wanting to board via one set of doors and crowd in one particular area of the train

If you use platform 3 Chesterfield can do 10.

 

[Krokodil]

Even with a fully gangway unit, you will get the issue of everybody wanting to board via one set of doors and crowd in one particular area of the train

Indeed, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. A non-gangwayed unit has no water at all though!

 

[Trainman40083]

Longer term replacing space and staff inefficient Voyagers with trains offering a larger seating capacity and requiring only 1 TM would revolutionise the service

Indeed.

 

[The Ham]

Not to mention fuel efficiency. I'd like to bet that a five car 80x on diesel consumes less fuel than a Voyager with only a small difference in performance. Once under the wires then you're laughing.

I also ran the numbers on track access charges which are different enough to cover the cost of a few units even without any other benefits.

On the track access charges, assuming that the 7 coach sets don't count as full length the cost would be 280.46ppm for 2 services, whist a 9 coach and a 5 coach set would be 253.12 for two services.

For 5 million miles (and XC is likely to be double maybe even triple that) that's an extra £2,233,000 in track access charges. To put that into context that's 10 coaches equivalent of lease charges which would mean that the business case for the mixed fleet would be easier to justify whilst still giving the same hourly capacity in the core.

Now, it's worth bearing in mind that for the 80x's they have a lower still track access charge if they are "full length".

If comparing 2 sets which are 7 coaches vs 1 set of each of 5 and 9 coaches (i.e. if we are comparing a universal 7 coach fleet vs a 50:50 split 5 and 9 coach fleet - so the same number of coaches) and at 5 million miles the track access costs for the mixed fleet would be £1.35 million less in costs (or about the same as the lease costs for 6 coaches).

However, as previously highlighted, the capacity uplift of a universal 7 coach 80x fleet would be significantly more than is needed (read would cost a lot more and so significantly reduces the probability of the business case staking up - or to pit it another way leaving us with the 20x's and no capacity uplift).

The below details the number of coaches needed and then the fleet capacities:

The thing is to deliver a universal 7 coach fleet would require more coaches, and so would be the more expensive option, the whole point of the mixed 5/9 coach fleet was that it was a similar sized fleet in terms of coaches:
312 - current fleet
342 - current fleet plus the 6 in storage
304 - mixed 5/9 class 800 similar fleet (12×9 and 40x5)
332 - upgraded mixed 5/9 class 800 similar fleet (19×9 and 33x5)
364 - universal 7 coach class 800 similar fleet

If lease costs are comparable per coach the in service fleet seat count could rise:
13,024 - current 22x fleet
14,331 - current 22x fleet + the spares
17,630 - original 5/9 coach option
19,528 - upgraded 5/9 coach option

That means that compared to the agreed fleet (i.e. the spares) the upgraded 5+9 fleet option provides a 36% uplift in capacity (+50% vs the original fleet) whist needing 9% fewer coaches and paying less in track access charges.

As such, anyone putting forward the universal 7 coach fleet option, would need to explain how that would meet a better business case than a mixed 5/9 coach fleet.

Obviously, the best case would be to order a mixed 5/9 coach fleet but with an option to order the extra (and probably enough to have a mixed 7/9 coach fleet) to create the universal 7 coach fleet if passenger growth is higher than 50% (i.e. I'm not suggesting that we block having a universal 7 coach fleet, by not having the option to deliver it if needed, just that it's going to be very hard to justify it as the starting point for the new fleet order).

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. A non-gangwayed unit has no water at all though!

Indeed.

Which is good because then discerning passengers can board the quieter part of the train.

Works every time on six carriage TPE's at Sheffield Midland !

 

[Trainman40083]

Which is good because then discerning passengers can board the quieter part of the train.

Works every time on six carriage TPE's at Sheffield Midland !

Well IF both sets are in use, one finds the higher numbered coaches tend to have the unreserved seats