Cross Country services - the future?

[Blindtraveler]

well cant see SNCF wanting much to do with them should they win, may be wrong though. i wonder if virgin were replacing 47s and HSTs and 90s now if they would go exclusively pendo? With HSTs on holyheads?

 

[swt_passenger]

11- and 12-car are fine for Basingstoke to Bournemouth too AFAIK, and stations to Manchester should be good in anticipation of 11-car 390s anyway.

Not with 12 x 23m vehicles though. Platform lengths west of Basingstoke are generally good for 10 x 23 m or 12 x 20 m. That extra 72 m on a 12 car Voyager would be well off the platforms nearly everywhere, even at Southampton Central, which Quail reckons has 260m (13 x 20 m) platforms.

 

[The Planner]

Platform lengths we have stated as:-
Basingstoke P1 296m, P2-4 245m, P5 117m
Winchester 247m both ways
Soton Airport 248m both ways
Soton Central P1-4 277m
Brockenhurst P1 262m in the down, 240m in the up, P2 260m, P3 243m, P4 243m in the down, 195m in the up.
Bournemouth P2 247m, P3 263m, P4 206, P3&4 522m

 

[tbtc]

Not strictly so about services only being once an hour in those old days. I've got a copy of the 1990 timetable in front of me, and the old Cross Country timetables are very interesting and varied compared to todays "clock face" like timetable.

Just as a rough guide. On a Saturday back then, there were departures from Bristol Temple Meads to Birmingham and the north at 0312(!!), 0612, 0810, 0832, 0920, 0933, 1045, 1112, 1137, 1146, 1202, 1223, 1237, 1306, 1318, 1335, 1502, 1534, 1616, 1624, 1635, 1701, 1716, 1801, 1816, 1900, 1920, 1935, 2043, and 2203. Notice then that at some points there were services departing just EIGHT minutes after the previous service. And at some parts of the days there were gaps of an hour or so between services. Also some services running non-stop between Bristol and Birmingham too. Would this sort of timetable help ease over-crowding on todays Cross Country services? It could do. Unfortunately I don't think we're ever likely to see such timetables on Cross Country services again. As most train operators nowadays want a "clock face" like timetable to make it easier for passengers. But we managed OK with such timetables as those mentioned above back in those old days didn't we?

Bear in mind that some of those services may have been run by other BR "sectors", maybe DMUs running Bristol - Birmingham via Worcester?

One way to "solve" the XC problems would be for other TOCs to address the capacity they provide on complimentary services (like Northern have with their "fast" Leeds - Sheffield services via Barnsley), which helps take some strain off the Voyagers.

I would be tempted to anger everyone by terminating all XC services at Newcastle (or at a push Edinburgh) rather than sending them off to further destinations. This would then pave the way for Scotrail to provide better services between Aberdeen and Newcastle, as they seem pretty good at getting new stock.

The result should be more spare voyagers to strengthen the existing services

It'd maybe only "save" one Voyager (the bi-hourly Glasgow service) if you chopped at Edinburgh (or four units if you chopped at Newcastle) - the Dundee/ Aberdeen services are generally provided "out of hours", so there'd be little saving on the "core"

*Prepares for another Voyager bashing thread...*

PLEASE STAND BEHIND THE YELLOW LINE - VOYAGER BASHING IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!

How did you guess Matt?

 

[387star]

Can someone explain what's so wrong with voyagers? I'm not here to defend them.
Ive never had a problem on one despite travelling from Oxford to Stockport fairly often,

The main problem is they are too short which presumably could be easily resolved.

They are more crampt and have less space for luggage space than other units which does draw criticism.

The main other issue is the toilets which are known to smell the carriage out because of their design.

 

[Blindtraveler]

wel that may not be the case for too long as although the problems stil there, it has competition - the last 4 380s iv been on really stank!

 

[sprinterguy]

What problem is this at Newcastle? Some of the old 47 workings used to stay in the same platform with the 47 either going out the other way or it running round the train using the loop over the river.

IanXC is referring to the limited length that the Voyagers can be if they are to continue to use the west end bay platforms at Newcastle. As he says though, this has only been a semi-regular practice since after the Voyagers were introduced and had been in service for a little while, prior to that terminating XC services would arrive into platform 3 and then run to Forth sidings ECS to stable in order to keep the platform clear between arrival and departure times. Of course this only concerned the Crosscountry HSTs (And the Voyagers also did it in the early days IIRC), as the 47s + mark 2s would need to perform a propelling move to achieve this so they remained in the platform, and there weren't many 47+mark 2 Crosscountry workings to Newcastle compared to HSTs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But really, were mistakes made before then anyway? Instead of running 47s & carriages - should BR have ordered a fleet of 124s (with buffet) to run on the XC routes in the 60s/70s?

Perhaps 6 Car 158s in the 80s?

A mix of five carriage and seven carriage diesel class 442s (Class 244?) would have been my favoured fantasy option for a standard Crosscountry train fleet if the route had seen modernisation in the late eighties. *drools*

Prior to the delivery HSTs for Crosscountry operations, the Crosscountry network wasn't nearly as structured or frequent as it is now, or even as it was in the early days of privatisation. In fact, I don't think that the North East - South West Crosscountry axis was recognised by BR as a key rail artery until the early seventies at least, so I think it's unlikely that a larger fleet of 124s would have been procured for XC services in the sixties. I think that they would have been a bit gutless and under-specified compared to the Peak hauled LHCS formations that reigned at the time on what we now know as Crosscountry services.

As for the current Crosscountry Intercity operation, then I think the most we can hope for in the near future is the extension of the Voyagers by a carriage each through the eVoyager/Project Thor scheme, which would at least go some way towards adding extra capacity to the trains.

In the medium term, electrification between Birmingham and Oxford as part of a Chiltern electrification scheme is a possibility, in combination with the mooted withdrawal date of the 165s in the CP6 period, which with some infill third rail electrification south of Reading would, as others have said, allow the Manchester to Bournemouth XC service to be operated by dual voltage electric stock. I'm with Blindtraveler in thinking that a dual voltage class 444 derivative would be suitable for the route.

In the long term, the potential opening of HS2 through to Leeds and Manchester is likely to have some pretty major repercussions for the Crosscountry "X" network as a whole that IMO could well see it being broken down into a number of regional services. Although by that point the Voyagers will be due for withdrawal anyway.

 

[Eagle]

The main other issue is the toilets which are known to smell the carriage out because of their design.

You know something? I've been on XC Voyagers quite a lot, and I have never, ever noticed this. Even when I've been deliberately trying to sniff it out to see what all the fuss is about. I'm beginning to wonder if it's all in the minds of some people...

 

[sprinterguy]

You know something? I've been on XC Voyagers quite a lot, and I have never, ever noticed this. Even when I've been deliberately trying to sniff it out to see what all the fuss is about. I'm beginning to wonder if it's all in the minds of some people...

It's definitely there. Unless it's some sort of mass delusion. It's a conspiracy I tell you...

 

[Eagle]

It's definitely there. Unless it's some sort of mass delusion. It's a conspiracy I tell you...

A conspiracy brought on by hallucinations caused by airborne malodorous molecules?

 

[stut]

I'd understood that the smell was there as the intake for the aircon was too close to the vent for the toilets, but that this had been gradually modified.

Could be complete bow lakes, though.

 

[Wolfie]

I'd understood that the smell was there as the intake for the aircon was too close to the vent for the toilets, but that this had been gradually modified.

Could be complete bow lakes, though.

Some lessons are never learned.

Remember travelling on Mk4s in the early days and the stink when the brakes were applied hard - similar reason.....

 

[Zoe]

well cant see SNCF wanting much to do with them should they win, may be wrong though. i wonder if virgin were replacing 47s and HSTs and 90s now if they would go exclusively pendo? With HSTs on holyheads?

Considering that the Class 47s were used on Cross Country and that a lot of this network is not electrified then 390s would not be useful here.

 

[tbtc]

You know something? I've been on XC Voyagers quite a lot, and I have never, ever noticed this. Even when I've been deliberately trying to sniff it out to see what all the fuss is about. I'm beginning to wonder if it's all in the minds of some people...

IIRC Cross Country's toilets were voted the best in a passenger satisfaction survey - I used to have the quote in my signature on here... can't find a link now though.

Maybe part of the dislike is that:

1. Busy XC trains mean passengers end up standing in the vestibule areas, so when you are stood by the toilets for a long period you are more likely to notice the smell?
2. People complain a fair bit about the Voyager toilets because of their *size* (are so many "disabled" loos required on a four/five coach train, etc), which maybe makes the toilets more of a "hot potato"?

 

[142094]

IIRC Cross Country's toilets were voted the best in a passenger satisfaction survey - I used to have the quote in my signature on here... can't find a link now though.

Maybe part of the dislike is that:

1. Busy XC trains mean passengers end up standing in the vestibule areas, so when you are stood by the toilets for a long period you are more likely to notice the smell?
2. People complain a fair bit about the Voyager toilets because of their *size* (are so many "disabled" loos required on a four/five coach train, etc), which maybe makes the toilets more of a "hot potato"?

Isn't that the same satisfaction survey where some people gave marks for toilets on trains where a toilet might not exist?

 

[DarloRich]

@tbtc - Well the Voyagers ARE the main problem with the XC franchise. Replace them for a decent train and you will have a very nice operation!

And as for the toilets - people complain becuase they STINK! The outflow pipe and tank sit next to a hot exhaust pipe thus meaning the faeces cooks! Hence the smell. I havea very poor sense of smell so good knwos what they must really be like!

 

[Class 33]

Nice idea but where is the extra unit going to come from to cover the service both in terms of finding a spare unit (XC have a very high proportion of their units in diagrammed every day meaning little or no spares) and also in terms of diagramming (where is the unit physically coming from to run the service it can't just be magicked out of the air at Derby and then where does it go back to?).

Well one would hope that surely within the next decade or so either a few new trains can be brought in to work on Cross Country services. Or within this time suitable trains cascaded from other operators which have acquired new trains.

Are there certain Cross Country services during the day which are not very busy atall? An option may be to cut a few(or more) of these services each day, so that these train sets can work additional peak time services to ease over-crowding. For instance maybe scrap the 1100 and 1300 Bristol-Manchester services IF these services aren't very busy.

With the way things are now though, I can't see Arriva or any future operators of these services introducing additional services or cutting some services from the clock face timetable. So we have to hope that in the coming years we do start to see these services strengthened with extra carriages and over-crowding is eased.

In terms of travelling comfort the Voyagers are nowhere near as comfortable as the old HST's and Class 47. Horrible hard seats, cramped, a number of seats not lining up with the windows, etc, etc. As a fan of trains, the Voyagers 220's and 221's are the ONLY class of train which I really dislike. But it's the problem of over-crowding on these trains which really annoys me. It's gone on for too long now, and it appears nothing is being done about it. If that problem was eased, I would go back to travelling on these services rather than seeking alternative means of getting to my destinations. If for example I wanted to travel from Bristol-Manchester nowadays, I would go via Newport and get on a Class 175 via Shrewsbury through to Manchester. Rather than get a direct Voyager there. About an hour extra travelling time going via Newport and Shrewsbury, but a much more pleasant travelling experience.

 

[Eagle]

And as for the toilets - people complain becuase they STINK! The outflow pipe and tank sit next to a hot exhaust pipe thus meaning the faeces cooks! Hence the smell. I havea very poor sense of smell so good knwos what they must really be like!

Sometimes I wonder if you're just exaggerating for comic effect. I have a reasonably good sense of smell (I can smell sweat on people across the room, for instance) and I have never noticed it. And I've been on quite a few long Voyager journeys in my time.

 

[MCR247]

I've also never noticed this smell, and I've traveled on what I'd say is quite a few voyagers

 

[Eagle]

Might be a psychological effect going on here: Rich is expecting a stench so he notices it more readily.

 

[142094]

Sometimes I wonder if you're just exaggerating for comic effect. I have a reasonably good sense of smell (I can smell sweat on people across the room, for instance) and I have never noticed it. And I've been on quite a few long Voyager journeys in my time.

It very much depends on what time of day. I've been on a few early out of York which haven't been a problem but some of the ones northbound from the SW are in a state by the time they get to Sheffield. Longest trip I've made on a Voayger was BHM - PNZ and funnily enough the toilets were OK on that one.

 

[tbtc]

A mix of five carriage and seven carriage diesel class 442s (Class 244?) would have been my favoured fantasy option for a standard Crosscountry train fleet if the route had seen modernisation in the late eighties. *drools*

I honestly wonder whether we'll ever see EMU operation of XC services (I mean *pure* EMU, not bi-mode diesels).

The services in 2012 have a few trips on "quiet" routes that would struggle to justify electrification even in the medium term (Newquay etc), and under BR they were even more "diverse" in terms of the random routes they served.

Prior to the delivery HSTs for Crosscountry operations, the Crosscountry network wasn't nearly as structured or frequent as it is now, or even as it was in the early days of privatisation

I wonder whether privatisation has forced XC to become the awkward set of services that it is?

Back in BR days they could get away with using some spare stock on these "raggle taggle" routes, there was no investment required (they could stick to coaches/ engines which became cast off other routes - e.g. when HSTs cane along there became some loco hauled coaches free on main lines).

Privatisation meant either giving up on such routes, running routes well beyond a TOC's "core" (with a variety of TOCs doing longer distance routes) or actually creating a specific TOC to deal with these routes.

This is probably as good as its ever been, realistically.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Isn't that the same satisfaction survey where some people gave marks for toilets on trains where a toilet might not exist?

Could be, I can't find it now though

 

[Greenback]

Are there certain Cross Country services during the day which are not very busy atall? An option may be to cut a few(or more) of these services each day, so that these train sets can work additional peak time services to ease over-crowding. For instance maybe scrap the 1100 and 1300 Bristol-Manchester services IF these services aren't very busy.

The problem with trying to cut quieter services is that the return working may be extremely busy, and there would be no stock to form that service if there is no incoming train!

That is assuming that a service is quiet throughout it's journey. It may meet local peaks of demand at intermediate statiosn, maybe school or college traffic flows or shoopers returning home early.mid afternoon, for example. Maybe a Bristol - Manchester train at 1300 is (relatively) quieter than others services between Bristol and Cheltenham, but is pretty busy later on.

 

[IanXC]

You know something? I've been on XC Voyagers quite a lot, and I have never, ever noticed this. Even when I've been deliberately trying to sniff it out to see what all the fuss is about. I'm beginning to wonder if it's all in the minds of some people...

This exactly matches my experience. Even on my Aberdeen-Penzance the toilet I used at about Exeter was reasonably presentable.

 

[tbtc]

@tbtc - Well the Voyagers ARE the main problem with the XC franchise. Replace them for a decent train and you will have a very nice operation

There are a few other problems - how you run a long distance set of hourly routes (co-ordinated to give half hourly services on a "core") with little scope to get away with any delays, and force all these services through Birmingham New Street?

How do you deal with the nine hour Edinburgh - Plymouth service each hour (ignoring extensions to/from Aberdeen/ Penzance etc) without getting a chance to clean the trains properly (because there's not the "terminus time" that most Intercity trains get every two/three hours)?

How do you cater to both the long distance and short distance demands (especially on sections where there's no "local" equivalent)?

What size of train do you use on a duty which is a morning rush hour service at one end of the UK and a rush hour service at the other end of the UK (but quieter at other times)?

How do you co-ordinate your services with a dozen other TOCs (and freight operators)?

How do you deal with all the bottle necks up/down the country?

Where is the extra stock for summer holiday services to Cornwall etc/ those busy weekends when university terms start/end around the UK?

The Voyagers are only part of it.

 

[142094]

I would say that some of the XC services shouldn't go as far as Aberdeen or Glasgow Central. Concentrating on the core routes from Newcastle down to Birmingham and the SW would be better - with a handful of trains going as far as Edinburgh. East Coast and Scotrail could cater for everything north of Edinburgh without too much hardship. As a consequence, you'd free up units to work the core route and this would go somewhat to reducing the overcrowding.

 

[Eagle]

I would say that some of the XC services shouldn't go as far as Aberdeen or Glasgow Central. Concentrating on the core routes from Newcastle down to Birmingham and the SW would be better - with a handful of trains going as far as Edinburgh. East Coast and Scotrail could cater for everything north of Edinburgh without too much hardship. As a consequence, you'd free up units to work the core route and this would go somewhat to reducing the overcrowding.

I'd say the same about Penzance too.

Bearing in mind this is the reason why Brighton got the can...

 

[tbtc]

I would say that some of the XC services shouldn't go as far as Aberdeen or Glasgow Central. Concentrating on the core routes from Newcastle down to Birmingham and the SW would be better - with a handful of trains going as far as Edinburgh. East Coast and Scotrail could cater for everything north of Edinburgh without too much hardship. As a consequence, you'd free up units to work the core route and this would go somewhat to reducing the overcrowding.

To be Devil's Advocate for a moment, you could say the same about cutting services to a York/Manchester - Bristol/Reading "core" (fairly frequent connections to Edinburgh/Newcastle/ Plymouth etc)

 

[Eagle]

To be Devil's Advocate for a moment, you could say the same about cutting services to a York/Manchester - Bristol/Reading "core" (fairly frequent connections to Edinburgh/Newcastle/ Plymouth etc)

And leave Southampton and Bournemouth two changes away from XC?

 

[MCR247]

I personally think a core service with extensions pretty often is good! But thats just me.

I'm not on about places like Penzance, more like Aberdeen, Glasgow and other places