Fresh hopes for Bombardier and XC

[HYPODERMIC]

Ok fair enough. I should know better as i drive them on that route...
But i feel we are the lost route of XC.... Since the franchise started we were getting the bay extended at Stansted....

To be honest matey, I agree with you. I'm really not convinced that XC is the right franchise for this route - it's an InterCity operation, but this particular flow sadly isn't 'glam' enough to get InterCity-level investment.

I reckon a Regional TOC would give this route a fairer shake - I bet London Midland or Chiltern Railways would be chuffed to gain an international airport line.

 

[MCR247]

To be honest matey, I agree with you. I'm really not sure that XC is the right operator for the Birmingham-Stansted route.

Arriva seems more preoccupied with promoting its InterCity operation proper, and you can't really begrudge it for that. However, I bet a Regional TOC would give this route a fairer shake; maybe the DfT should transfer it to the next London Midland or Chiltern Railways franchise.

I may be missing something, but if you could tell me one point where this route interacts with Chiltern? They don't even share any trackwork on a normal day?! And wherever this moves, NOT-CDF has to go with it...

 

[Flywaver]

To be honest matey, I agree with you. I'm really not sure that XC is the right operator for the Birmingham-Stansted route.

Arriva seems more preoccupied with promoting its InterCity operation proper, and you can't really begrudge it for that. However, I bet a Regional TOC would give this route a fairer shake; maybe the DfT should transfer it to the next London Midland or Chiltern Railways franchise.

Its definately an Inter City route. Brum Leicester,Peterborough,Cambridge.
It just needs to be recognised as that. Give the intermediate stops to EMT...
Maybe Stansted services should really be going north of Peterborough as well and joining back up with XC at Doncaster...

 

[HYPODERMIC]

I may be missing something, but if you could tell me one point where this route interacts with Chiltern? They don't even share any trackwork on a normal day?! And wherever this moves, NOT-CDF has to go with it...

No idea! I didn't suggest Chiltern on any technical merit; I suggested them purely because of their track record (no pun intended ) for successfully restoring the Moor Street-Marylebone route.

It may be well outside their remit - and maybe that sense of route isolation would only see it further neglected - but speaking strictly as a passenger and not an expert, I'd be happy to see a good operator take the reins on another Birmingham-London (okay, London Stansted) operation.

 

[WatcherZero]

Conservative-Lib Dem Derby Council has voted to give UNITE £250,000 to research grounds for a legal challenge to the contract.

The words; 'Stand on', 'Leg', 'not a' come to mind.

 

[Aictos]

Its definately an Inter City route. Brum Leicester,Peterborough,Cambridge.
It just needs to be recognised as that. Give the intermediate stops to EMT...

Certainly is a Inter City route, if Manchester Airport to Scotland is classed as a Inter City route then Birmingham New Street to Stansted certainly is a Inter City route.

Give the intermediate stops to EMT...

Why not or let EMT handle the intermediate stations west of Peterborough and let NXEA handle the intermediate stations east of Peterborough meaning you now have a faster service calling at Birmingham New Street-Nuneaton-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge-Stansted.

 

[WestCoast]

Certainly is a Inter City route, if Manchester Airport to Scotland is classed as a Inter City route then Birmingham New Street to Stansted certainly is a Inter City route..

In my opinion, InterCity refers to the style of service offered (speed, limited stops, long distance e.t.c) rather than the route. I'd say at the moment both EMT Liverpool to Norwich and XC Birmingham to Stansted Airport were InterRegional, however they could be upgraded to InterCity through fewer stops and different rolling stock.

 

[mallard]

I'd certianly support giving the Leicester-Birmingham "stopper" to London Midland. The full Stanstead-Birmingham route could go to EMT and be interworked with Norwich-Liverpool (as it used to be in Central days), allowing restoration of the Birmingham-Norwich service. The Nottigham-Cardiff route could be "split" between EMT and ATW.

Unfortunately, allocating rolling stock for this would be difficult. EMT need more stock for Norwich-Liverpool anyway, my idea would be a new-build "Voyager Light" design (22x bodyshell with an uprated 17x traction package - 4 car units, 100/110mph top speed, but light enough for "Sprinter" differential speeds). Maybe these could run Birmingham/Liverpool-Stanstead/Norwich, the 158s split between EMT and ATW for Nottingham-Birmingham and Birmingham-Cardiff and the 170s cascaded elsewhere.

 

[tbtc]

Conservative-Lib Dem Derby Council has voted to give UNITE £250,000 to research grounds for a legal challenge to the contract.

The words; 'Stand on', 'Leg', 'not a' come to mind.

I can see the headlines now about a waste of taxpayers money at a time when the Government is meant to be making cutbacks - "looney councillors subsidising a Trades Union" etc...

...oh, wait, its a donation from a Tory council? Ah, suddenly the Tax Payers Alliance/ Daily Mail may not want to scream about this quite as much :roll:

What a shocking waste of our money.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd certianly support giving the Leicester-Birmingham "stopper" to London Midland. The full Stanstead-Birmingham route could go to EMT and be interworked with Norwich-Liverpool (as it used to be in Central days), allowing restoration of the Birmingham-Norwich service. The Nottigham-Cardiff route could be "split" between EMT and ATW.

Unfortunately, allocating rolling stock for this would be difficult. EMT need more stock for Norwich-Liverpool anyway, my idea would be a new-build "Voyager Light" design (22x bodyshell with an uprated 17x traction package - 4 car units, 100/110mph top speed, but light enough for "Sprinter" differential speeds). Maybe these could run Birmingham/Liverpool-Stanstead/Norwich, the 158s split between EMT and ATW for Nottingham-Birmingham and Birmingham-Cardiff and the 170s cascaded elsewhere.

Well, if XC and EMT are merged, as has been suggested, then who knows?

One problem that the Stansted - Birmingham service has is that it is of low importance to its TOC - compared to Central days when it was a prestige route and was allocated new 170s. Now that it is part of an "Intercity" TOC its a small fish in a big pond.

 

[swt_passenger]

In my opinion, InterCity refers to the style of service offered (speed, limited stops, long distance e.t.c) rather than the route. I'd say at the moment both EMT Liverpool to Norwich and XC Birmingham to Stansted Airport were InterRegional, however they could be upgraded to InterCity through fewer stops and different rolling stock.

I don't think anybody would suggest Portsmouth Cardiff was an 'Intercity' service either, and it always seems to be of a very similar nature to the Liverpool - Norwich run.

Personally I'd go further and suggest much of the Voyager operated XC route map isn't true 'Intercity' either...

 

[tbtc]

I don't think anybody would suggest Portsmouth Cardiff was an 'Intercity' service either, and it always seems to be of a very similar nature to the Liverpool - Norwich run.

Personally I'd go further and suggest much of the Voyager operated XC route map isn't true 'Intercity' either...

I've argued in the past that "Intercity" isn't a black/white issue.

There are cities which have no "Intercity" level of service between them (Newcastle to Sunderland? Worcester to Bristol?), and some towns/ villages which have Intercity service between them just because they are on the same direct line out of London.

 

[HYPODERMIC]

One problem that the Stansted - Birmingham service has is that it is of low importance to its TOC - compared to Central days when it was a prestige route and was allocated new 170s. Now that it is part of an "Intercity" TOC its a small fish in a big pond.

This is *exactly* the point I was getting at. I don't mean to stir a debate on the definition of "InterCity" (which has been rather blurred by privatisation) but simply that this route isn't given the attention it deserves because it's in a franchise that tends to give priority to its eponymous intercity operations.

 

[MCR247]

I'd certianly support giving the Leicester-Birmingham "stopper" to London Midland. The full Stanstead-Birmingham route could go to EMT and be interworked with Norwich-Liverpool (as it used to be in Central days), allowing restoration of the Birmingham-Norwich service. The Nottigham-Cardiff route could be "split" between EMT and ATW.

Unfortunately, allocating rolling stock for this would be difficult. EMT need more stock for Norwich-Liverpool anyway, my idea would be a new-build "Voyager Light" design (22x bodyshell with an uprated 17x traction package - 4 car units, 100/110mph top speed, but light enough for "Sprinter" differential speeds). Maybe these could run Birmingham/Liverpool-Stanstead/Norwich, the 158s split between EMT and ATW for Nottingham-Birmingham and Birmingham-Cardiff and the 170s cascaded elsewhere.

Birmingham - Leicester & Birmingham - Stansted are interworked, and splitting them is just pointless.

 

[HSTEd]

If you wanted to make a bi mode Turbostar type set, you would surely fit an engine to an Electrostar family train in the style of the Class 210?

 

[OxtedL]

Now that's an idea that no-one has suggested yet. I'm struggling to picture it without feeling queasy inside...

It's an interesting one, could work but would almost certainly have to be new builds. Making it very unlikely.

 

[SteveP29]

how would this affect running in multiple? 6+6 would be extremely difficult due to current infrastructure limitations, 5+5 would be OK as now, but what about 5+6?

Would there be any need for multiple running if an extra carriage or two were added to each train?

Why do they run in multiple anyway? is it to increase capacity or is it to enable XC to shift units around to other depots etc?

 

[sprinterguy]

Would there be any need for multiple running if an extra carriage or two were added to each train?

Why do they run in multiple anyway? is it to increase capacity or is it to enable XC to shift units around to other depots etc?

To increase capacity: AFAIK, the additional units run back and forth doubling up trains within the "core" section of the XC network only: Mostly between Bristol and York/Newcastle.

I'd only rule out the need for doubling up XC services if all the trains were six or more carriages long.

 

[DarloRich]

I would rule out the need to double up if they had enougth, decent stock. Sticking a pantograph car in wont sort this out.

 

[Nym]

If you wanted to make a bi mode Turbostar type set, you would surely fit an engine to an Electrostar family train in the style of the Class 210?

Yep, is what I was thinking as somthing that would work...

Take a 4 car electrostar and shoehorn an MTU power unit into half of one of the carrages (end carrages), or a 1000hp unit at each end of a 4 car unit, by my reconing it would take up about 1/3rd of the end of the unit.

 

[DDB]

I think this will happen.

Although this has been mentioned before I believe it has always been up to this point Bombardier saying "we've had this idea would you like to buy some" and this time it is the government asking "we are interested in this, how much will it cost?".

It makes sense to the government.

They are not going to reverse the Thameslink decision because it would be a U-turn and politicians and journalist think that changing your mind is a bad thing. I also suspect they are right that having put something out to tender you can't change then rules later and they will get sued by all the losing bidders.

We also know that it wouldn't save many jobs anyway. There has been a temporary peak in the number of staff required. Bombardier knew it was temporary which is why they brought in agency staff rather than expanding their permanent staff.

From a UK rather than Derby perspective people will still be involved in the final assembly of trains in this country and the government can't afford to prop up every company that gets in trouble.

The government do want to be seen to do something though.

I think it is significant that the press stories about this all mention the design team. I think the Government knows it is the design team that is the strategic important bit.

Assembling trains in the UK will not earn many exports for the UK because of the loading gauge. But a design team might well work on contracts from other European contracts. I believe I read that Bombardier had or were planning to use the design team on part of some of its mainland Europe contracts and there are no gauge issues exporting CAD drawings.

If you have a design team and a ticking over factory than you can bid for work in the future. If the work is won then it can temporarily expand as it did for this current peak of work. If we lose the design team then we will never get it back.

I am not surprised it is cross country only at this stage. Given this is will be a contract awarded without competition it needs an incentive for company to keep the price low and deliver on time. The unspoken incentive is that if it is done well and for a reasonable price there is the possibility of ordering more for Virgin and possibly EMT

DDB

 

[Yew]

And the possibility of more standard and pantograph coaches for xc too

 

[tbtc]

I think this will happen.

Although this has been mentioned before I believe it has always been up to this point Bombardier saying "we've had this idea would you like to buy some" and this time it is the government asking "we are interested in this, how much will it cost?".

It makes sense to the government.

They are not going to reverse the Thameslink decision because it would be a U-turn and politicians and journalist think that changing your mind is a bad thing. I also suspect they are right that having put something out to tender you can't change then rules later and they will get sued by all the losing bidders.

We also know that it wouldn't save many jobs anyway. There has been a temporary peak in the number of staff required. Bombardier knew it was temporary which is why they brought in agency staff rather than expanding their permanent staff.

From a UK rather than Derby perspective people will still be involved in the final assembly of trains in this country and the government can't afford to prop up every company that gets in trouble.

The government do want to be seen to do something though.

I think it is significant that the press stories about this all mention the design team. I think the Government knows it is the design team that is the strategic important bit.

Assembling trains in the UK will not earn many exports for the UK because of the loading gauge. But a design team might well work on contracts from other European contracts. I believe I read that Bombardier had or were planning to use the design team on part of some of its mainland Europe contracts and there are no gauge issues exporting CAD drawings.

If you have a design team and a ticking over factory than you can bid for work in the future. If the work is won then it can temporarily expand as it did for this current peak of work. If we lose the design team then we will never get it back.

I am not surprised it is cross country only at this stage. Given this is will be a contract awarded without competition it needs an incentive for company to keep the price low and deliver on time. The unspoken incentive is that if it is done well and for a reasonable price there is the possibility of ordering more for Virgin and possibly EMT

DDB

Very good points made there

 

[jones_bangor]

I am not surprised it is cross country only at this stage. Given this is will be a contract awarded without competition it needs an incentive for company to keep the price low and deliver on time. The unspoken incentive is that if it is done well and for a reasonable price there is the possibility of ordering more for Virgin and possibly EMT

Surely it has to be Virgin as well.....it would make absolutely no sense for South West - Birmingham and Birmingham - Reading XC services to be pulling pantograph coaches with no wires, and Birmingham - Glasgow VT services burning diesel under wires. Then again, this is the DfT we're talking about!

It would make more sense to pull a intermediate out of a VT unit, and replace it with a pantograph unit, with the spare diesel coach going to XC.

 

[Eagle]

... South West - Birmingham and Birmingham - Reading XC services to be pulling pantograph coaches with no wires...

Remember of course that while the SW and SE branches are unwired, all XC services using them end up using a considerable amount of wires on the northern half of their journey, either on the WCML or the ECML. All XC Voyager services are a significant percentage under the wires.

(And of course Reading–Oxford is getting wires in the near future.)

 

[tbtc]

Surely it has to be Virgin as well.....it would make absolutely no sense for South West - Birmingham and Birmingham - Reading XC services to be pulling pantograph coaches with no wires, and Birmingham - Glasgow VT services burning diesel under wires

...but then if the Crewe - Chester line is getting electrified (and Holyhead becomes a few "drags") then there's no need for Virgin to have any diesels, they might as well have one big fleet of 390s, much simpler operationally, rather than the two tier service they currently provide.

Just a thought...

 

[cle]

...but then if the Crewe - Chester line is getting electrified (and Holyhead becomes a few "drags") then there's no need for Virgin to have any diesels, they might as well have one big fleet of 390s, much simpler operationally, rather than the two tier service they currently provide.

Just a thought...

But then Birmingham - Scotland would need to go all Pendo as well?

I tihnk having two types of fleet would be fine. Pendos might be too much train for Chester/North Wales, but the 6-car panned Voyagers are just about right.

Same for Birmingham - Scotland too, although the odd Pendo helps out too obviously.

Better Manchester - Scotland stock will help relieve the B'ham - Scotland trains between Crewe and Carlisle/Scotland also.

 

[87015]

...but then if the Crewe - Chester line is getting electrified (and Holyhead becomes a few "drags") then there's no need for Virgin to have any diesels, they might as well have one big fleet of 390s, much simpler operationally, rather than the two tier service they currently provide.

Just a thought...

I'm hearing mutterings that XC are strongly pushing for this which is why it is their fleet is at the forefront.

 

[northwichcat]

...but then if the Crewe - Chester line is getting electrified (and Holyhead becomes a few "drags") then there's no need for Virgin to have any diesels, they might as well have one big fleet of 390s, much simpler operationally, rather than the two tier service they currently provide.

Pendolino drags are much more complex operationally than paired up Voyagers being split part way along a journey. Firstly, a drag requires one driver to be in the loco and another to be in the Pendolino, doubling the driver costs as well as more expensive leasing costs to have the locos. Secondly, the current split at Chester doesn't require any extra paths, whereas using a loco requires a path to get the loco out of the way, then another path to send the train down.

But then Birmingham - Scotland would need to go all Pendo as well?

Once the North West electrification is done Virgin should be using EMUs on Birmingham-Scotland (unless the services aren't still operated by Virgin by then) as there isn't an excuse of saying there aren't any alternative electric routes to use during engineering works.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

for the 222s too? Would that mean every MML service had to stop at Luton/Bedford to change "power" types?

The article sounds like 222s are a lot less likely to receive a Pantograph vehicle compared to the XC Voyagers, even though the option for a Pantograph vehicle on a 222 is available.

Maybe just give 222s working Corby services, which stop at Bedford, a Pantograph vehicle and maybe use them to replace existing vehicles to allow a few of the 222s on other services to be lengthened opposed to giving Corby services the extra capacity.

 

[swt_passenger]

And the possibility of more standard and pantograph coaches for xc too

Confused? The whole basis for this report is that it is only about XC's trains...

 

[sprinterguy]

Same for Birmingham - Scotland too, although the odd Pendo helps out too obviously.

Having trains that run completely under the wires hauling around heavy diesel engines even when they are running on electric doesn't seem right to me, especially when there are primarily diesel routes that could benefit from the additional trains. Brmingham to Scotland should be Pendolino operated. On quite a number of services there is demand for more than a five carriage Voyager, and I don't think that the electrification of the TPE Manchester to Scotland services will affect many peoples' journey decisions between the two routes where they duplicate each other.