CrossCountry post-Arriva

[cactustwirly]

Agreed. The regional express services are a poor fit in XC - let it do its core job, it's bad enough at that without worrying about other stuff.

But then there isn't the platform capacity at New Street to Split the Cardiff to Nottingham service. I believe it is timed to interwork with the Nottingham to Birmingham stopper too

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Birmignham to Bristol is of higher value than Cardiff so it should stay as it is.

Yes definitely. Capacity needs to be preserved on that stretch as it's already heaving, not reduced.

 

[Halish Railway]

Definitely agree on TfW operating Cardiff to Birmingham. XC appears to see it as its lowest priority whereas it would be far more significant to TfW.

It might also usefully mop up the truncated Cardiff to West Wales services to make a useful through West Wales to Brum service, possibly alternating with the Manchesters?

I think the best scenario would be to keep the Nottingham to Cardiff service as is and have TfW operate the planned additional service from Cardiff (Ideally Swansea) to Birmingham Moor Street via the Bordesley chord and GWR operate the planned Bristol to Moor Street service, acting as more of a semi-fast service also calling at Bromsgrove, Worcestershire Parkway and Ashchurch for Tewkesbury.

I don't see much point in messing around with the pre-Covid long-distance XC setup, asides from having longer trains as it provided a pretty good balance of frequency, journey opportunities and speed. I think it is more important to have local operators providing services to boost capacity and frequency between major cities, rather than having XC being the sole provider of fast services between two city pairs. The fast Leeds to Sheffield service that will operate in the opposite half hour to XC from December will be a good example of this and will go a long way to decrease overcrowding on XC's services and Northern's services via Barnsley.

 

[Russel]

As I said, here:

You listed a couple of Scottish stations, how much are they contributing to XC's overcrowding really?

 

[cle]

I think the best scenario would be to keep the Nottingham to Cardiff service as is and have TfW operate the planned additional service from Cardiff (Ideally Swansea) to Birmingham Moor Street via the Bordesley chord and GWR operate the planned Bristol to Moor Street service, acting as more of a semi-fast service also calling at Bromsgrove, Worcestershire Parkway and Ashchurch for Tewkesbury.

Agree with these service patterns, but the TOCs (if such exist after Midlands Hub) are a little bit disparate.

I do think the Nottingham-Cardiff, if remains as is, should be sped up in terms of stopping pattern, in case the Cardiff-Moor St materializes and is more semi-fast. And the former might be a better candidate for the Swansea extension, and adding a little frequency on that mainline.

The Bristol XC is already fast, and of course from Cheltenham-Brum these two services will provide even more of a trunk route, for W Parkway etc.

 

[ChrisC]

But then there isn't the platform capacity at New Street to Split the Cardiff to Nottingham service. I believe it is timed to interwork with the Nottingham to Birmingham stopper too

The Cardiff to Nottingham trains actually stop at far more stations between Birmingham and Nottingham than the Birmingham to Nottingham trains.

 

[Halish Railway]

Agree with these service patterns, but the TOCs (if such exist after Midlands Hub) are a little bit disparate.

I do think the Nottingham-Cardiff, if remains as is, should be sped up in terms of stopping pattern, in case the Cardiff-Moor St materializes and is more semi-fast. And the former might be a better candidate for the Swansea extension, and adding a little frequency on that mainline.

The Bristol XC is already fast, and of course from Cheltenham-Brum these two services will provide even more of a trunk route, for W Parkway etc.

Although it will likely be a different story with the devolved TfW, whose bread and butter should be the Wales and Border region, so calling at both Chepstow and Lydney but running non-stop from Cheltenham to Moor Street. I think the call at Worcestershire Parkway should remain on the Cardiff to Nottingham service as it is well timed for connections onto the Cotswolds line. Anecdotally a lot of people change from the Cotswolds line to travel to both University and New Street - A fair number of students use that connection to travel between home and the University. The additional Bristol to Moor Street can cover connectivity from Worcestershire Parkway to Bristol and Moor Street and provide local connections for Bromsgrove and Ashcurch for Tewkesbury.

I think the Cardiff to Nottingham service should skip Chepstow, Lydney, Wilnecoate and Willington at all but marginal times though.

 

[cle]

It's also a good service for the Cardiff East/Parkway station, if that is happening.

I agree that Cardiff-Nottingham should be fast Newport-Gloucester.

Another approach might be that if 2tph is enough for Bristol TM, another service could run to Parkway and then across to Newport/Cardiff instead.

 

[Express380]

Apologies if this is the wrong thread

Cross Country continue to cancel their trains beyond Plymouth into Cornwall with no sign of improvement.

Todays service of choice being the midday train from Birmingham a common choice on a Sunday, the fact that they can't run the minimal trains timetabled to Penzance is laughable with units often going empty between the two due to lack of train manager.
It's a shock when all services run in a day!

 

[TheGuy77]

Updated plan (fitting in with your comments) - inspired by the pre-covid timetable:
1tph Edinburgh to Plymouth (1tp2h extended to Glasgow) - using paired-up voyagers or other new fleet to provide extra capacity.
1tph Manchester to Bournemouth - using paired-up voyagers or other new fleet to provide extra capacity.
1tph Manchester to Bristol (1tp2h extended to Plymouth) - using 5-coach voyagers (4-coach 220s would be coupled for the services above).
1tph Newcastle to Reading (1tp2h extended to Bournemouth) - using 5-coach voyagers. I do appreciate that LNER and TPE want to run extra services, but 5-coach voyagers would be much better than 3-coach 185s.
1tph Cardiff to Nottingham - using 3-coach turbostars.
1tph Birmingham to Nottingham - using 2-coach turbostars.
1tph Birmingham to Stansted Airport - using 3-coach turbostars.
1tph Birmingham to Leicester - using 2-coach turbostars.

 

[JonathanH]

1tph Newcastle to Reading (1tp2h extended to Bournemouth) - using 5-coach voyagers. I do appreciate that LNER and TPE want to run extra services, but 5-coach voyagers would be much better than 3-coach 185s.

185s don't work to Newcastle now. The TPE 802s have more capacity than a 5-coach 221.

1tph Cardiff to Nottingham - using 3-coach turbostars.
1tph Birmingham to Nottingham - using 2-coach turbostars.
1tph Birmingham to Stansted Airport - using 3-coach turbostars.
1tph Birmingham to Leicester - using 2-coach turbostars.

Fortunately, XC only have 7 2-coach turbostars, so the Leicester and Nottingham services generally run with 3-coach units.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Unlikely there will be new trains - the Voyagers are mid-life, so unless there was somewhere they could be cascaded to, which is unlikely, I think they'll be the mainstay of the XC network until the early 2030s.

No chance on taking over Liverpool - Norwich. It would mean TUPEing staff over and probably some depot reallocation, as well as adding another DMU type to XC's allocation.

Or they could take the remaining voyagers and 222s on as part of a general service lengthening programme, then run the Liverpool to Norwich with some of the 5 car 222s.

The additional stock left over for service lengthening (even after taking on Liverpool to Norwich) would solve most of XC's biggest problem, the 222s are far more suited to operate a journey of that length (comparable to most of TPE's 802 operated routes - a higher standard of service on major city pairs like Manchester to Sheffield would be good too), and EMR might be able to cascade some 158s to enable timely withdrawal of 150s at GWR.

 

[Halish Railway]

Or they could take the remaining voyagers and 222s on as part of a general service lengthening programme, then run the Liverpool to Norwich with some of the 5 car 222s.

Thats not possible as there are many parts of the route where the Meridians would be restricted to a lower linespeed than the existing Turbostars and Sprinters, e.g. 70mph instead of 90mph along the Hope Valley. For me a 6 carriage Turbostar formation is the most appropriate traction for that route.

Meridians could make sense on Nottingham to Birmingham/Cardiff services though to release sufficient 170s to ensure that three carriages is the minimum length for the remaining Turbostar routes. Although I don’t see any of that happening as Meridians have fairly high running costs and we are living in a cost-conscious age.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Thats not possible as there are many parts of the route where the Meridians would be restricted to a lower linespeed than the existing Turbostars and Sprinters, e.g. 70mph instead of 90mph along the Hope Valley. For me a 6 carriage Turbostar formation is the most appropriate traction for that route.

Meridians could make sense on Nottingham to Birmingham/Cardiff services though to release sufficient 170s to ensure that three carriages is the minimum length for the remaining Turbostar routes. Although I don’t see any of that happening as Meridians have fairly high running costs and we are living in a cost-conscious age.

Could the SP speeds be updated to accommodate the 222s?

 

[The Planner]

Updated plan (fitting in with your comments) - inspired by the pre-covid timetable:
1tph Edinburgh to Plymouth (1tp2h extended to Glasgow) - using paired-up voyagers or other new fleet to provide extra capacity.
1tph Manchester to Bournemouth - using paired-up voyagers or other new fleet to provide extra capacity.
1tph Manchester to Bristol (1tp2h extended to Plymouth) - using 5-coach voyagers (4-coach 220s would be coupled for the services above).
1tph Newcastle to Reading (1tp2h extended to Bournemouth) - using 5-coach voyagers. I do appreciate that LNER and TPE want to run extra services, but 5-coach voyagers would be much better than 3-coach 185s.
1tph Cardiff to Nottingham - using 3-coach turbostars.
1tph Birmingham to Nottingham - using 2-coach turbostars.
1tph Birmingham to Stansted Airport - using 3-coach turbostars.
1tph Birmingham to Leicester - using 2-coach turbostars.

Apart from some minor tinkering, how is that different to now?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2025 ==

Could the SP speeds be updated to accommodate the 222s?

They would have to become HST speeds.

 

[TheGuy77]

Apart from some minor tinkering, how is that different to now?

Manchester-Plymouth, Newcastle-Bournemouth and Plymouth-Glasgow.

 

[swt_passenger]

Manchester-Plymouth, Newcastle-Bournemouth and Plymouth-Glasgow.

The previous Newcastle - Reading train that was extended to Southampton every 2 hours was achievable with one additional unit, but extending it all the way to Bournemouth would either require another extra unit in the circuit, or a reduction in frequency to extend the service only every third hour.

Taken across the country, all the extensions will start adding up to require more extra units in the fleet than there are available. So you’re back to choosing to prioritise either extra capacity in the core of the ‘X’ network, or have existing capacity running beyond current extremities, but you’re unlikely to achieve both.

 

[AlastairFraser]

They would have to become HST speeds.

And how much would this cost? Surely the MML/ECML sections already meet this requirement (and perhaps the CLC too).

 

[The Planner]

And how much would this cost? Surely the MML/ECML sections already meet this requirement (and perhaps the CLC too).

No idea. Differentials are braking related in the main. Depends on the appetite to do it.

 

[Trainbike46]

No idea. Differentials are braking related in the main. Depends on the appetite to do it.

Sprinter differentials are usually based on line stability, are they not? That's why light trains, such as sprinters, can use them, but not heavier trains. This is why I suspect changing Sprinter differentials into HST differentials is unlikely

 

[The Planner]

Sprinter differentials are usually based on line stability, are they not? That's why light trains, such as sprinters, can use them, but not heavier trains. This is why I suspect changing Sprinter differentials into HST differentials is unlikely

On a line like the Hope Valley, I doubt it considering the tonnage out of the quarries.

 

[Trainbike46]

On a line like the Hope Valley, I doubt it considering the tonnage out of the quarries.

On the Hope Valley, I agree. On Peterborough-Ely-Stansted, not so much

 

[AlastairFraser]

No idea. Differentials are braking related in the main. Depends on the appetite to do it.

It makes sense to upgrade at least the Hope Valley to allow higher speeds for both, given the relative likelihood of TPE using heavier stock on their lines.

On the Hope Valley, I agree. On Peterborough-Ely-Stansted, not so much

Although I'm not sure the overall impact of a slight speed restriction on the Peterborough to Norwich would be that significant.

 

[The Planner]

It makes sense to upgrade at least the Hope Valley to allow higher speeds for both, given the relative likelihood of TPE using heavier stock on their lines.

185s aren't allowed to use any differential though, as they are bloated.

 

[AlastairFraser]

185s aren't allowed to use any differential though, as they are bloated.

Even the HST ones? I was more thinking about the possibility of some sort of 80x derivative on the TPE South Route in future.

 

[The Planner]

Even the HST ones? I was more thinking about the possibility of some sort of 80x derivative on the TPE South Route in future.

Nope. line speed only.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Nope. line speed only.

Let's hope they get cascaded (perhaps to replace 158s/159s) in the future and TPE gets something that can make use of the limits.

 

[dk1]

Although I'm not sure the overall impact of a slight speed restriction on the Peterborough to Norwich would be that significant.

On some sections it’s quite substantial. For example Ely to Lakenheath is quite a distance and 75SP compared to 45mph for all other traction. This is the reason NXEA/GA couldn’t use the short hauled loco-hauled top/tail sets on the Norwich-Cambridge route and EMT couldn’t use 222s.

 

[AlastairFraser]

On some sections it’s quite substantial. For example Ely to Lakenheath is quite a distance and 75SP compared to 45mph for all other traction. This is the reason NXEA/GA couldn’t use the short hauled loco-hauled top/tail sets on the Norwich-Cambridge route and EMT couldn’t use 222s.

How could you fix that? I see it's about 12 miles, and I know the Fens is treacherous conditions for railway building, but could you upgrade it?

 

[dk1]

How could you fix that? I see it's about 12 miles, and I know the Fens is treacherous conditions for railway building, but could you upgrade it?

From what I was always told much of this route ‘floats’ so is always going to be an issue.