Cross Country's capacity issues: how could they be solved?

[si404]

Having the reversers allows one to change branch not at New Street - something they even had posters encouraging.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

By encouraging a half-hourly Reading (Bournemouth, Southampton) to Manchester, you can encourage further the ‘out of Birmingham’ changes at Wolverhampton onto Liverpool trains. It also creates peak capacity on the Birmingham - Liverpool trains as far as Wolves as people naturally gravitate onto faster trains.

A half-hourly Bristol (Exeter, Paignton, Plymouth) to North East also makes it more plausible to encourage out-of-Birmingham changes at Derby onto Nottingham trains. People changing at Birmingham therefore becomes a lot more limited.

 

[takno]

One thing I do hope is that the stuff from the South Coast (the hourly Bournemouth and the hourly Soton / Reading) simply cut across Brum towards Wolverhampton without needing to reverse etc; and that stuff from the South West goes towards Derby. That way, all traffic from the SW-NE and vice-versa can just do a simple driver change and load up before keeping going.

The only route which requires a reversal is SE-NE, otherwise they can just go round the Camp Hill. Obviously the addition of stations and extra local traffic on the Camp Hill may prevent that longer term, and it's entirely possible that

By encouraging a half-hourly Reading (Bournemouth, Southampton) to Manchester, you can encourage further the ‘out of Birmingham’ changes at Wolverhampton onto Liverpool trains. It also creates peak capacity on the Birmingham - Liverpool trains as far as Wolves as people naturally gravitate onto faster trains.

A half-hourly Bristol (Exeter, Paignton, Plymouth) to North East also makes it more plausible to encourage out-of-Birmingham changes at Derby onto Nottingham trains. People changing at Birmingham therefore becomes a lot more limited.

Only if you assume that nobody is trying to go SE-NE or SW-NW since they would all have to change at Birmingham m SW-NW is a change I currently make at Wolverhampton

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The only route which requires a reversal is SE-NE, otherwise they can just go round the Camp Hill. Obviously the addition of stations and extra local traffic on the Camp Hill may prevent that longer term, and it's entirely possible that

Only if you assume that nobody is trying to go SE-NE or SW-NW since they would all have to change at Birmingham m SW-NW is a change I currently make at Wolverhampton

Agreed with the Camp Hill option, but it requires a reasonable level of conflict either at Grand Junction towards Bristol (across the down Stour and everything from International) or at the western end of New Street.

By using just half-hourly corridors you are improving reliability and resources - crew changes only on stuff from the South Coast at Birmingham and then the stuff from the South West to the North East instead crew-changing in Derby.

If we assume an hourly Birmingham - Nottingham with stops at places such as Wilnecote and Willington will go over to West Midlands Trains it will also improve resource provision as you could elect to transfer the fast Nottingham to a Bristol path (with stops at Worcestershire Parkway etc opening up through travel to Bristol and some extensions to Exeter or Paignton) and then switch the Cardiff to a North East (Newcastle most likely) giving faster, higher-capacity journeys from Gloucester as it also becomes a Voyager / Meridian.

In short, drivers and crew based at Derby would have more work and a better crew changeover location for services from / to Nottingham and other places where they do crew swaps (I believe Leeds and Newcastle) as well as working through to Bristol and Cardiff; leaving the Birmingham depot to do Bournemouth / Reading / Southampton / Manchester as well as the stuff to Stansted which could also become a Voyager working.

 

[AndrewE]

Having the reversers allows one to change branch not at New Street - something they even had posters encouraging.

Que? (to quote Manuel)

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Que? (to quote Manuel)

I think what he means to say is that by having trains from Bristol + Cheltenham; Southampton, Reading + Oxford; Derby, Sheffield, York and Newcastle and also Stoke + Manchester each going hourly to one side (e.g. South Coast, North East) you can encourage people not to change at New Street despite the benefit of that releasing capacity there.

 

[si404]

I was thinking more along the lines of this webpage, rather than that you can travel direct Oxford-Sheffield, though that also applies.

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.u...nections/making-your-train-connections-easier

While for some journeys changing trains at Birmingham New Street is unavoidable, for others there are easier, more convenient station options. These are Wolverhampton, Cheltenham Spa, Derby and Leamington Spa. In some cases you will be able to change trains without having to switch platforms, making your journey even smoother

There's also a diagram on that page:

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I was thinking more along the lines of this webpage, rather than that you can travel direct Oxford-Sheffield, though that also applies.

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.u...nections/making-your-train-connections-easier


There's also a diagram on that page:

But what I think is a mockery here is they suggest, for example, changing from Manchester to a Reading train off a Bristol one when you could have just left 30 minutes later on the direct train!

The reality is that with decent timetabling, good allowances (not excessive, but about 2 minutes between some stops and the odd 3-4 minute dwell) and therefore a good likelihood of making your connection, you would find the New Street issue disappears. Instead of having 2/2.5 minute dwells at stations en-route where people are mostly boarding or alighting (depending where and which direction), and a 5-8 minute dwell at New Street to do catering and ‘people’ logistics (buggies, wheelchairs, suitcases), you’re now going to have performance hampered as people struggle at Wolverhampton or Leamington to do their changing.

 

[tbtc]

One thing I do hope is that the stuff from the South Coast (the hourly Bournemouth and the hourly Soton / Reading) simply cut across Brum towards Wolverhampton without needing to reverse etc; and that stuff from the South West goes towards Derby. That way, all traffic from the SW-NE and vice-versa can just do a simple driver change and load up before keeping going.

I'd be happy with that, make XC a much more simple service operationally, split up the mess of services into two distinct ones, would make it easier to amend them (since, at the moment, everything is tied up together) - e.g. you could run the Derby - Cheltenham service ten minutes later or earlier if that meant better paths, without having to worry about the Wolverhampton - Oxford service... you could give the Wolverhampton - Oxford services to the West Coast franchise (or the Derby - Cheltenham services to the East Midlands franchise)... you could get better bang for your buck with bi-modes on the Wolverhampton - Oxford services (since that runs under the wires for a much longer proportion than a Manchester - Plymouth service would)... you could cope with disruption much better (e.g. engineering works only affecting one half of things)... you could make it a much simpler better franchise (but the howls from people doing long distance journeys once a year will drown out the people who would benefit from things).

Instead, we are stuck with an operationally messy franchise where trains are stuck waiting at New Street for a path in a different direction because everything is tied together. Not that long ago (under Virgin) when Manchester had no service to Bristol/ Exeter/ Plymouth - when three quarters of "South West" services were Newcastle ones and the other was a bi-hourly one up the WCML through Wigan.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I'd be happy with that, make XC a much more simple service operationally, split up the mess of services into two distinct ones, would make it easier to amend them (since, at the moment, everything is tied up together) - e.g. you could run the Derby - Cheltenham service ten minutes later or earlier if that meant better paths, without having to worry about the Wolverhampton - Oxford service... you could give the Wolverhampton - Oxford services to the West Coast franchise (or the Derby - Cheltenham services to the East Midlands franchise)... you could get better bang for your buck with bi-modes on the Wolverhampton - Oxford services (since that runs under the wires for a much longer proportion than a Manchester - Plymouth service would)... you could cope with disruption much better (e.g. engineering works only affecting one half of things)... you could make it a much simpler better franchise (but the howls from people doing long distance journeys once a year will drown out the people who would benefit from things).

Instead, we are stuck with an operationally messy franchise where trains are stuck waiting at New Street for a path in a different direction because everything is tied together. Not that long ago (under Virgin) when Manchester had no service to Bristol/ Exeter/ Plymouth - when three quarters of "South West" services were Newcastle ones and the other was a bi-hourly one up the WCML through Wigan.

Realistically it’s not a Wolves - Oxford or a Derby - Cheltenham; it would be hourly each for:
- Plymouth to Edinburgh
- Cardiff/Bristol to Nottingham
- Cardiff/Bristol to Newcastle
- Bournemouth to Manchester
- Southampton/Reading to Manchester
- Birmingham to Stansted

 

[tbtc]

Realistically it’s not a Wolves - Oxford or a Derby - Cheltenham; it would be hourly each for:
- Plymouth to Edinburgh
- Cardiff/Bristol to Nottingham
- Cardiff/Bristol to Newcastle
- Bournemouth to Manchester
- Southampton/Reading to Manchester
- Birmingham to Stansted

Yes, understood, I was just using those stations as shorthand for all of the various northern/southern termini that each route has. No plans to change the frequencies etc at the far ends, just trying to keep the argument simple (by avoiding having to list out the various permutations of route/termini further north/south)

 

[JonathanH]

If we assume an hourly Birmingham - Nottingham with stops at places such as Wilnecote and Willington will go over to West Midlands Trains

What exactly necessitates this service being transferred to West Midlands Trains?

Not that long ago (under Virgin) when Manchester had no service to Bristol/ Exeter/ Plymouth - when three quarters of "South West" services were Newcastle ones and the other was a bi-hourly one up the WCML through Wigan.

It was that service pattern (prior to the simpler post-2008 timetable) which most necessitated encouraging people to consider changing at stations other than Birmingham New Street.

One of the problems of just running NE-SW and NW-SC is that it requires a lot more churn of passengers changing between the two routes at New Street.

 

[The Ham]

It was that service pattern (prior to the simpler post-2008 timetable) which most necessitated encouraging people to consider changing at stations other than Birmingham New Street.

One of the problems of just running NE-SW and NW-SC is that it requires a lot more churn of passengers changing between the two routes at New Street.

Although we are starting to get to a point where you need to consider what would be better in a post HS2/East West world.

South Coast to the Midlands would likely be better served by having GWR services to Stratford upon Avon (changing at either Banbury for Birmingham Moor Street) or using one or both XC paths paired with the Didcot services (so Didcot loses out a bit) to provide a faster service to Old Oak Common for interchange to HS2. (Hopefully by then Reading Basingstoke would be wired up so could be run by EMU).

Then use a (or again both) XC path(s) North of Reading to run via East West Rail to Manchester (so that Oxford doesn't lose its Manchester service).

That could allow more local focused services along the current XC paths in the Midlands, which could still run down to Oxford if there's the demand.

That would leave the SW and NW services as a fairly logical pairing, neither having an obvious HS2 connection point, but still needing to be served. Likely to have gaps in the wires, so needing to be DMU/bimodal.

It could result in an hourly Paignton/Leeds service and an hourly Penzance/Scotland service. Yes there'd be a lot of churn in Birmingham, but that would be more diminished than currently.

Manchester to Exeter currently is 4 hours on XC. HS2 to Old Oak Common would be 1 hour (3tph) Old Oak Common to Exeter would be 2:15 on the fast and up to 2:45 on the semi fast (1tph each service), even on the semi fast with a 15 minute change it'll be no slower than XC and probably faster by 30 minutes on the express, but with the added benefit of those services continuing to at least Plymouth.

It is likely that there would be a need to do something to fix the capacity constraint around Reading West & on the WofE line which could lead to extra services to Exeter (as the WofE line is an obvious route for some of the paths created by Crossrail 2, as it is fairly underused & avoids the need to turn more services on the flat at Basingstoke. OK is likely to need wires and redoubling but that would likely still be cheaper and need doing anyway, at least to Salisbury where most of the services would be running to, than trying to gain capacity through Winchester/Petersfield to Southampton/Portsmouth).

A new fast Waterloo, Woking, Basingstoke, Salisbury, Yeovil, Exeter service could (without any line speed improvements, which could get it even closer) be about 30 minutes faster than the current services putting it not much slower (at just under 3 hours) than the Exeter semi fasts via Westbury (likely up to 2:45, so about 15-20 minutes slower). Depending on where in London you are starting from that could be close enough for more people to use it, especially given the lower ticket price (freeing up space on the GWR services for more people to use HS2 rather than XC services to get to Manchester).

 

[4-SUB 4732]

What exactly necessitates this service being transferred to West Midlands Trains?



It was that service pattern (prior to the simpler post-2008 timetable) which most necessitated encouraging people to consider changing at stations other than Birmingham New Street.

One of the problems of just running NE-SW and NW-SC is that it requires a lot more churn of passengers changing between the two routes at New Street.

As I think many of us have understood from the now defunct (?) Cross Country franchise prospectus, there are some routes that the DfT have elected should no longer be under Intercity Cross Country franchise control. Two of them are the hourly Birmingham - Nottingham ‘stopper’ and the hourly Birmingham - Leicester ‘stopper’. Given West Midlands Trains already manage some of the stations (despite no WMT trains calling) and assuming this will bring about a step change in rolling stock strategy, it seems most likely these two services will transfer to WMT.

That way, the Nottingham ‘stopper’ (Wilnecote, Tamworth, Burton, Willington, Derby, Long Eaton, Attenborough, Beeston, Nottingham) and the Leicester ‘stopper’ (Water Orton, Coleshill, Nuneaton, Hinckley, Narborough, South Wigston, Leicester) transfer in to WMT allowing the Cardiff - Nottingham and Birmingham - Stansted to ‘properly’ accelerate only calling at the bigger stations (Tamworth, Burton, Coleshill, Nuneaton).

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

As I think many of us have understood from the now defunct (?) Cross Country franchise prospectus, there are some routes that the DfT have elected should no longer be under Intercity Cross Country franchise control. Two of them are the hourly Birmingham - Nottingham ‘stopper’ and the hourly Birmingham - Leicester ‘stopper’. Given West Midlands Trains already manage some of the stations (despite no WMT trains calling) and assuming this will bring about a step change in rolling stock strategy, it seems most likely these two services will transfer to WMT.

That way, the Nottingham ‘stopper’ (Wilnecote, Tamworth, Burton, Willington, Derby, Long Eaton, Attenborough, Beeston, Nottingham) and the Leicester ‘stopper’ (Water Orton, Coleshill, Nuneaton, Hinckley, Narborough, South Wigston, Leicester) transfer in to WMT allowing the Cardiff - Nottingham and Birmingham - Stansted to ‘properly’ accelerate only calling at the bigger stations (Tamworth, Burton, Coleshill, Nuneaton).

Could you extend the Stansted Airport service to somewhere else and run it as a proper InterCity service.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Could you extend the Stansted Airport service to somewhere else and run it as a proper InterCity service.

Unlikely. There isn’t a ‘corresponding end’ at Birmingham to run through. This service can important somewhat significant delays as well so to terminate it at Brum and give it a 40-odd minute dwell and use the opposite end of the platform (e.g. 10B) for the Hereford or Worcester service would be a sensible use of capacity.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Unlikely. There isn’t a ‘corresponding end’ at Birmingham to run through. This service can important somewhat significant delays as well so to terminate it at Brum and give it a 40-odd minute dwell and use the opposite end of the platform (e.g. 10B) for the Hereford or Worcester service would be a sensible use of capacity.

Fair enough, I mean if CrossCountry franchise is re-tendered what services could even be added? I can't see much without splitting services or diverting others seen as there is no capacity at New Street.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The Cross Country franchise looks set to slightly shrink in overall services operated (no Birmingham - Nottingham or Leicester), but hopefully with much more stock.

 

[6Gman]

Unlikely. There isn’t a ‘corresponding end’ at Birmingham to run through. This service can important somewhat significant delays as well so to terminate it at Brum and give it a 40-odd minute dwell and use the opposite end of the platform (e.g. 10B) for the Hereford or Worcester service would be a sensible use of capacity.

At one time, of course, it ran to Liverpool.

 

[adamedwards]

A simple extension for the Stansteds would be to Wolverhampton turning round in platform 2 which reduces conflicts. Stops at Sandwell and Dudley and Smethick (for the Kidderminster line) only. Of course this does then add to the turnround time, but does alow interchange away from New St. But does this then risk delays on that bit of line?

 

[The Planner]

A simple extension for the Stansteds would be to Wolverhampton turning round in platform 2 which reduces conflicts. Stops at Sandwell and Dudley and Smethick (for the Kidderminster line) only. Of course this does then add to the turnround time, but does alow interchange away from New St. But does this then risk delays on that bit of line?

Sounds like a solution looking for a problem, you can't timetable it anyway.

 

[Aictos]

As I think many of us have understood from the now defunct (?) Cross Country franchise prospectus, there are some routes that the DfT have elected should no longer be under Intercity Cross Country franchise control. Two of them are the hourly Birmingham - Nottingham ‘stopper’ and the hourly Birmingham - Leicester ‘stopper’. Given West Midlands Trains already manage some of the stations (despite no WMT trains calling) and assuming this will bring about a step change in rolling stock strategy, it seems most likely these two services will transfer to WMT.

That way, the Nottingham ‘stopper’ (Wilnecote, Tamworth, Burton, Willington, Derby, Long Eaton, Attenborough, Beeston, Nottingham) and the Leicester ‘stopper’ (Water Orton, Coleshill, Nuneaton, Hinckley, Narborough, South Wigston, Leicester) transfer in to WMT allowing the Cardiff - Nottingham and Birmingham - Stansted to ‘properly’ accelerate only calling at the bigger stations (Tamworth, Burton, Coleshill, Nuneaton).

To be fair, XC already have speed up the Birmingham to Stansted services which call Coleshill and Nuneaton then Leicester - it’s the stopper that provides the extra stops so you’re suggesting something that already happens!

It is simply a solution looking for a problem!

 

[Sweetjesus]

Is it allowed for two services from either end arrive into the same platform simultaneously at New St? Are there other examples of this being the case at other stations?

Stockport to Piccadilly is your issue.

Can you explain more please? I don't think replacing one of Northern stoppers with a LNWR stopper would pose a problem?

 

[The Planner]

Can you explain more please? I don't think replacing one of Northern stoppers with a LNWR stopper would pose a problem?

It wouldn't, but unless you can get the LNWR to slot into that path south of Stoke then its a brand new path.

 

[Bikeman78]

At one time, of course, it ran to Liverpool.

Indeed but a combination of poor timekeeping and lack of DMUs meant the service was often split at New St with a class 310 working the electrified section.

 

[HSTEd]

Slightly tongue in cheek suggestion, retrofit Class 91s with BSI couplers and multiple working equipment for Sprinters/Turbostars. There are enough spare train lines for the necessary electric only control signals (pan up/down etc).

You would only have to modify the cabs vehicles of the Sprinters with the extra controls, but otherwise you can then turn Sprinters/Turbostars into Bi-mode units.

Hauling a 70t locomotive would not badly hurt their performance if its a full sized formation.