Cross Country

[Zoe]

Serious question: Who else would take Voyagers?

FGW for the Paddington to Plymouth/Penzance route? Remember these days it's not a question of if the TOC want them, the dft can decide they are going to be used on that route.

 

[OxtedL]

I have wondered whether Scotland could use some on Central Belt - Aberdeen/Inverness services? If fast services are introduced in line with some kind of line upgrade they could be useful..?

Then again, Scotland would probably ruin that plan by insisting on electrifying everything!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I've always thought 4-car Voyagers would be perfect for the Glasgow/Edinburgh-Aberdeen/Inverness runs...

 

[tbtc]

I have wondered whether Scotland could use some on Central Belt - Aberdeen/Inverness services? If fast services are introduced in line with some kind of line upgrade they could be useful..?

Then again, Scotland would probably ruin that plan by insisting on electrifying everything!

No 125mph running (is there anything 100mph north of Edinburgh?), and a four car Voyager would have fewer seats than a single three car Turbostar (bearing in mind that FSR do use 128 + 170 combinations on these routes too).

They'd be more suited if they had more coaches, but then if they had more coaches then they should stay on XC services I guess...

 

[ainsworth74]

(bearing in mind that FSR do use 128 + 170 combinations on these routes too).

Now I know we're in the middle of a serious DMU shortage but is it really so bad that TOCs are resorting to re-activating units that didn't even make it into preservation hock:

 

[tbtc]

Now I know we're in the middle of a serious DMU shortage but is it really so bad that TOCs are resorting to re-activating units that didn't even make it into preservation hock:

Erm, yes, although there are clearly some who'd prefer a 128 to a Pacer...

(my mistake)

 

[Woody]

I am going to be controversial here and suggest something much more radical needs to be done with XC.Great Western electrification with 4 electric trains an hour from Bristol to Paddington(2 via Parkway/2 via Bath) presents an opportunity for both FGW and XC I believe. The Penzance/Plymouth/Bristol/Birmingham leg of the current XC franchise should ultimately be transferred to a new Great Western franchise using spare re-engineered HSTs released by FGW electrification so releasing Voyagers for more suitable routes elsewhere and so provide improved London connections from the south west/Gloucester/Cheltenham at Bristol.This is course would be dependent on major improvements at New street for onward connections.
Given that some people already prefer to travel via London from the southwest to the North it does not take a major leap foreward to comprehend that if HS2 is built that will be the prefered North/Southwest route for many via the proposed new interchange station between Great Western and HS2 at Old Oak common.The present XC franchise is simply too slow and complicated over the longer haul and needs reforming for the 21st century.

 

[tbtc]

I am going to be controversial here and suggest something much more radical needs to be done with XC.Great Western electrification with 4 electric trains an hour from Bristol to Paddington(2 via Parkway/2 via Bath) presents an opportunity for both FGW and XC I believe. The Penzance/Plymouth/Bristol/Birmingham leg of the current XC franchise should ultimately be transferred to a new Great Western franchise using spare re-engineered HSTs released by FGW electrification so releasing Voyagers for more suitable routes elsewhere and so provide improved London connections from the south west/Gloucester/Cheltenham at Bristol.This is course would be dependent on major improvements at New street for onward connections.
Given that some people already prefer to travel via London from the southwest to the North it does not take a major leap foreward to comprehend that if HS2 is built that will be the prefered North/Southwest route for many via the proposed new interchange station between Great Western and HS2 at Old Oak common.The present XC franchise is simply too slow and complicated over the longer haul and needs reforming for the 21st century.

Interesting idea

 

[sprinterguy]

Interesting idea

It’s an idea that has merit and it is similar to what I would be looking to do once/if HS2 is open to Leeds & Manchester, with a Manchester to Penzance service which could be run as part of the Great Western franchise just as easily as it could be by Crosscountry. Because of the timescales I have in mind, I hadn't considered the use of refurbished HSTs, but if such a service was put in place earlier than the opening of HS2 then it's a decent concept.

For the time being though I think that Crosscountry needs to retain its' long distance links for as long as those longest journeys are only a bit slower than the alternatives with train changes en route.

 

[Gmac]

Which Voyagers were delivered in 6 car formation and when were they changed to 5/4 car formations because this is the first I'm hearing of it...

Several 221 arrived at Crofton as 6 cars with the 608 vehicle being removed and added to 4 cars

 

[burty76]

Any big changes to places served would involve radical re-casting of timetables. Edinburgh - Plymouth trains stop at Tamworth/Burton because there is slack in the timetable to let them. If they didnt they'd just spend a few minutes more at New Street hanging around for a path towards Longbridge.

I do think certain improvements could be made to the current timetable.

I'm convinced that XC could get hold of some more HST's. Apparently EMT have 13, I'm sure only about half of those are used in regular diagrams. Also get the 3 or 4 that Grand Central have, and let them and First Hull trains have the 180's exclusively.

The 2 hourly Pymouth - Edinburghs that are extended to Glasgow could all be worked with 2x4car voyagers, splitting at Edinburgh with only one going to Glasgow.

Basically looking to increase capacity wherever possible. All Leeds trains should be at least 5 car, with many being 2x4 or HST.

 

[MCR247]

EMT have 10 IIRC

 

[ivanhoe]

I do not see the need to speed up XC as some of you suggest. XC needs more capacity ( longer trains) more than anything else. When comparing journey times you should be comparing with Coach travel as opposed to North South London Inter City times. XC needs a wider audience, not less stops, as very few people travel all the way. Bit like Liverpool Norwich. The current concept is fine; just needs extra carriages, but so do many other routes. Nothing new there then!

 

[The Planner]

XC certainly don't see it that way and are determined to speed up their services.

 

[Bristol Rover]

Fair play to XC. After my third complaint about the paucity of their first class service on their HSTs, they have offered me a free first class return journey. A generous gesture.

 

[burty76]

XC certainly don't see it that way and are determined to speed up their services.

Really? Why then were they keen to divert all Doncaster trains to Leeds, adding 15/20 mins onto the journey? Surely that shows their focus is revenue/capacity, not speed.

 

[Butts]

Fair play to XC. After my third complaint about the paucity of their first class service on their HSTs, they have offered me a free first class return journey. A generous gesture.

What aspect of the First Class Service did you complain about?

Is it a free ride to anywhere or the journey you complained about?

 

[The Planner]

Really? Why then were they keen to divert all Doncaster trains to Leeds, adding 15/20 mins onto the journey? Surely that shows their focus is revenue/capacity, not speed.

Try moving one of their existing trains by more than a couple of minutes and the shutters come down, believe me.

 

[burty76]

Try moving one of their existing trains by more than a couple of minutes and the shutters come down, believe me.

How are they planning to speed up services then?

 

[The Planner]

Reduce the time and they are fine, try and add anything to a schedule so you can get a margin somewhere for something else and the bun fight begins.

 

[burty76]

Reduce the time and they are fine, try and add anything to a schedule so you can get a margin somewhere for something else and the bun fight begins.

Im sure you know more about this than me, but surely speeding up services impacts upon paths and other services just as much as adding extra stops?

For example XC trains are timetabled for 15 mins between Bristol Parkway and Temple Meads (9 mins in the opposite direction), but they cant speed this up as it runs just behind the Malvern/Gloucester - Bristol stopper. So to improve speeds Birmingham - Bristol would also require FGW to recast their timetable.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Im sure you know more about this than me, but surely speeding up services impacts upon paths and other services just as much as adding extra stops?

For example XC trains are timetabled for 15 mins between Bristol Parkway and Temple Meads (9 mins in the opposite direction), but they cant speed this up as it runs just behind the Malvern/Gloucester - Bristol stopper. So to improve speeds Birmingham - Bristol would also require FGW to recast their timetable.

If the 15 min figure is on a terminating train, I suspect its slack, not being caught behing other trains.

I think your first statement is correct, but adding extra stops makes journey times longer, and we have established that AXC don't like that!

 

[burty76]

If the 15 min figure is on a terminating train, I suspect its slack, not being caught behing other trains.

I think your first statement is correct, but adding extra stops makes journey times longer, and we have established that AXC don't like that!

No its the Plymouth trains. The stoppers leave Parkway about 7 mins in front of them and call at Filton, Lawrence Hill and Stapleton Road, so they cant be speeded up.

As for the second point, XC have introduced stops at Lydney and Chepstow on some of their NOT-CAR trains, simply because they have enough slack in the timetable to do so.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

As for the second point, XC have introduced stops at Lydney and Chepstow on some of their NOT-CAR trains, simply because they have enough slack in the timetable to do so.

So it wasn't the pressure from local RUGs then? There were quite a few campaigns going on, I don't think AXC did it out of their own wish.

 

[burty76]

So it wasn't the pressure from local RUGs then? There were quite a few campaigns going on, I don't think AXC did it out of their own wish.

You may well be right Matt. I suppose my point was, extra stops can be found in a timetable, whether the TOC want it or not, due to the slack thats built in and pathing issues.
For instance, XC could stop those Plymouth trains at Filton Abbey Wood with no impact to their timetable should they, or the good citizens of Filton wish !

 

[The Planner]

Yes it does, changing a train schedule is often like throwing a stone into a pond, the ripples move a fair way. Some paths can be speeded up because something else has moved for whatever reason eg: a freight path or other passenger train, or there is an infrastructure intervention.

The intermediate flows, often short, benefit from quicker times, not just end to end which is what I think a lot of people overlook. If the forward path can't be improved then these mainly get soaked up with longer dwells at major points with New St being the favourite.

Your Parkway Temple Meads example blatently shows why Filton bank needs the old lines putting back, hopefully it will get past the BCR barrier.