How can Cross country overcrowding be alleviated?

[Ken H]

I forget what the service used to be, but half hourly Newcastle-Birmingham with half going to Plymouth/Penzance and half going to Bournemouth would work well. Manchester-Brum would become a half hourly LNR service using 8-car EMU formations; they could perhaps keep the 350/2s to operate it.

Just a couple of through XC trains a day. One to Bournemouth, one to plymouth. and return ones obvs. To cater for those who dont want to change trains. The half hourly EMUs Brum - manc.

 

[The Planner]

What about running Bromsgrove-Manchester trains that can be operated using some of the surfeit of flat front EMUs, and avoid terminating a train in Birmingham New Street?

An 8 car 350 won't fit at Bromsgrove. 150m platforms as that fits a 6 car 323 or 730.

 

[HSTEd]

An 8 car 350 won't fit at Bromsgrove. 150m platforms as that fits a 6 car 323 or 730.

Well since I don't think many people will be actually disembarking, SDO is probably not unacceptable - what are the signal spacings there?

 

[The Planner]

Well since I don't think many people will be actually disembarking, SDO is probably not unacceptable - what are the signal spacings there?

You would have to go off the end of the Gloucester end, the signals are right on the platform end on the Birmingham side unless you used P1. You would get close at the Gloucester end if you extended the platforms too as they are about 25m off the platform ends.

 

[class397tpe]

I forget what the service used to be, but half hourly Newcastle-Birmingham with half going to Plymouth/Penzance and half going to Bournemouth would work well. Manchester-Brum would become a half hourly LNR service using 8-car EMU formations; they could perhaps keep the 350/2s to operate it.

Yeah that's similar to what it used to be - 1tph Edinburgh - Plymouth via Leeds, and 1tph Newcastle to Reading via Doncaster. Combined to give half-hourly Newcastle - Sheffield - Birmingham. Extensions from Edinburgh to Glasgow every 2 hours, and from Reading to Southampton every 2 hours.
Demand for half-hourly Sheffield - Birmingham is definitely there - only one train per hour from Birmingham to Sheffield isn't sufficient.

 

[Ken H]

Yeah that's similar to what it used to be - 1tph Edinburgh - Plymouth via Leeds, and 1tph Newcastle to Reading via Doncaster. Combined to give half-hourly Newcastle - Sheffield - Birmingham. Extensions from Edinburgh to Glasgow every 2 hours, and from Reading to Southampton every 2 hours.
Demand for half-hourly Sheffield - Birmingham is definitely there - only one train per hour from Birmingham to Sheffield isn't sufficient.

not sure a 4 car DMU would not do the job. Stop at Chesterfield, Derby, Tamworth and Brum. Maybe Dronfield also

 

[HSTEd]

You would have to go off the end of the Gloucester end, the signals are right on the platform end on the Birmingham side unless you used P1. You would get close at the Gloucester end if you extended the platforms too as they are about 25m off the platform ends.

If the signal is about 25m off the platform end, would an 8-car 350 fit between the signals?

 

[The Planner]

If the signal is about 25m off the platform end, would an 8-car 350 fit between the signals?

Yes, but not all of the train would be in the platform. Class 350s aren't SDO but UDS unless I am mistaken, so you lose the front 4 cars.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, but not all of the train would be in the platform. Class 350s aren't SDO but UDS unless I am mistaken, so you lose the front 4 cars.

So when terminating the train all remaining passengers would have to traverse the gangway into the rear four cars before they could disembark? I suppose it depends how many passengers would still be aboard at Bromsgrove then?

 

[Snow1964]

It is much, much better to be able to connect from Liverpool to Plymouth/Penzance once an hour all day than it is to have one direct round trip.

Yes, but there are those whose journey is not time critical, and not trying to get back same day.

Your assumption might fit young agile people, but there are a percentage that do not want the hassle of changing trains either because of mobility problems or the railways previous lack of reliability which caused them to miss a connection. If they have a choice of one through train will prefer it (and for purposes of this I will assume it is priced the same)

It is not as if XC automatically rebooks your seats on a later train if it causes you to miss the connection, therefore actively discouraging having a connection.

Going back to pricing if one through train per day is priced higher that suggests demand is higher for the service, and if anything a second through train is needed, rather than No through train.

 

[The Planner]

So when terminating the train all remaining passengers would have to traverse the gangway into the rear four cars before they could disembark? I suppose it depends how many passengers would still be aboard at Bromsgrove then?

Its a solution looking for a problem, you would timetable it out at New St. Depending on diagramming you would eat up a platform for around 15 minutes. With this solution you will likely need 6-7 minutes for the reversal anyway unless we are now wiring the Camp Hills as well. Birmingham Liverpool services are on 14 minutes now.

 

[class397tpe]

not sure a 4 car DMU would not do the job. Stop at Chesterfield, Derby, Tamworth and Brum. Maybe Dronfield also

To be honest you could even extend it to terminate at Doncaster to provide ECML connections.

 

[Jozhua]

A lot of this conversation centres around 'tempting' people out of their cars, but honestly, most regular users of XC probably don't drive anyway.

Journey times are some of the *least* competitive on the network, plus they are expensive and often overcrowded.

I'm someone who uses XC because they have to, not because I perticularly want to. I have avoided making trips to see friends/family as frequently as I'd of liked, because the whole thing typically ended up being a bit of a traumatic experience!

My friend in Bristol chooses the coach, because he can't afford to use the train due to it's price. A journey that would have taken ~3hrs takes 5-8, due to needing to change in London/Birmingham.

The thing that's so frustrating about XC, is just how cheap the issues are to resolve! Anyone with any sense will hand over spare WCML voyagers to XC to bolster capacity.

Plus, they don't have to use all the units all the time, to allow for extra capacity to be deployed on bank holidays, football matches, etc.

 

[Wolfie]

A lot of this conversation centres around 'tempting' people out of their cars, but honestly, most regular users of XC probably don't drive anyway.

Journey times are some of the *least* competitive on the network, plus they are expensive and often overcrowded.

I'm someone who uses XC because they have to, not because I perticularly want to. I have avoided making trips to see friends/family as frequently as I'd of liked, because the whole thing typically ended up being a bit of a traumatic experience!

My friend in Bristol chooses the coach, because he can't afford to use the train due to it's price. A journey that would have taken ~3hrs takes 5-8, due to needing to change in London/Birmingham.

The thing that's so frustrating about XC, is just how cheap the issues are to resolve! Anyone with any sense will hand over spare WCML voyagers to XC to bolster capacity.

Plus, they don't have to use all the units all the time, to allow for extra capacity to be deployed on bank holidays, football matches, etc.

Re your last para they would, however, have to pay for them all of the time.

Re your penultimate para there are currently no spare "WMCL Voyagers" as replacement stock has yet to arrive. Your assertion that sending them to XC, once those replacements have arrived, will be cheap appears to have no evidential basis whatsoever.

 

[dk1]

But if the longer trains are merely to solve the overcrowding issue the fares revenue remains the same ! (or less, if fares are reduced, so is revenue). And if they generate extra traffic..... we are back to overcrowding again.

It’s a vicious circle

 

[Trainbike46]

Re your last para they would, however, have to pay for them all of the time.

Re your penultimate para there are currently no spare "WMCL Voyagers" as replacement stock has yet to arrive. Your assertion that sending them to XC, once those replacements have arrived, will be cheap appears to have no evidential basis whatsoever.

I believe the first of the avanti voyagers is going off-lease this summer, and the rest will follow over the next 2 years at most, so yes, there are spare WCML voyagers in the short term

 

[JonathanH]

The thing that's so frustrating about XC, is just how cheap the issues are to resolve! Anyone with any sense will hand over spare WCML voyagers to XC to bolster capacity.

The issues aren't necessarily cheap to resolve.

Additional units require additional staff, maintenance, fuel, access charges, timetable changes, stabling, planning, cleaning, all of which costs money.

About the only cost which doesn't increase is the driver and even then some additional drivers would be needed to make extra depot moves at the start and end of service.

 

[6Gman]

Everyone wants longer trains and cheaper fares, however bigger trains = more expenditure while cheaper fares = less income. Not sure now the two can be reconciled.

Need the "Like" button!

Threads of this nature (any operator) basically end up as spending more money.

Given the way things are already heading extra funding is very, very unlikely.

So what are needed are low (or ideally nil-) cost suggestions.

 

[HSTEd]

The railway is a bulk passenger transport system - it should at all times attempt to increase it's volume.

Even if it is somewhat worse off in financial terms it will gain substantial political capital from greater volumes of traffic.

The more people use the railway the more often the more political capital is available to use to obtain railway funding in future years.

 

[gc4946]

Need the "Like" button!

Threads of this nature (any operator) basically end up as spending more money.

Given the way things are already heading extra funding is very, very unlikely.

So what are needed are low (or ideally nil-) cost suggestions.

Low cost suggestions:
Designate core route specification for XC.
Following on from that,
change validity of singles and returns on parallel operators' routes (eg cheaper operator-specific fares) to exclude XC services;
change stopping patterns so XC services only call at principal stations

Hand over XC's Turbostar services to other operators

 

[irish_rail]

It really doesn't.



With suitable luggage, i.e. a large wheeled case, this is not the hassle it once was. If anything breaking up a very long trip like that can be pleasant.

I need to call this out. Have you ever actually been west of Bristol? There are a lot of ex pats from the north west in the south west and a lot of people travelling down here for leisure from that part of the world. Similarly, its amazing how many Plymouth folk you speak to have had a weekend away in Liverpool. The Crewe stop would also be useful for quicker journies to Scotland than the current via ECML offering.
For what would be a predominantly leisure route, Liverpool would be far better than Manchester as a destination from Plymouth. But at present we have nothing at all to the north west. Some people just don't seem to be able to grasp that there are many people out there who are not prepared to change trains , no matter what. And thats where XC is now failing compared to say 20 years ago.

 

[The Ham]

The issues aren't necessarily cheap to resolve.

Additional units require additional staff, maintenance, fuel, access charges, timetable changes, stabling, planning, cleaning, all of which costs money.

About the only cost which doesn't increase is the driver and even then some additional drivers would be needed to make extra depot moves at the start and end of service.

Indeed however I did cover that further up thread, although I didn't show the maths behind the numbers:

Historically it used to be that the lease on a coach of a DMU was £110,000 and least costs being about 1/3 of the cost of running the services.

With seating for 70 people a standard coach would need to generate about £16/day to cover those costs (assuming in service for 300 days a year).

Now to allow for inflation it may be double that now. However given that a seat even on a train only ever half full can be used by multiple different passengers it shouldn't be that hard to build for 7 coach services but with an option for 9 coach services if the demand required it within (say) 5 years.

With HS2 being (at best) paused for the Eastern Leg a lot of the risk for XC having too much rolling stock has reduced for the next 15 years, however would be clearer within the above assumed 5 years window for train lengthening. As such it should be possible to plan for something like this.

Given the number of places which XC serves it would clearly fit within the leveling up agenda and would be a fairly cheap win for the government, especially if it also allowed for the delivery of more jobs if the trains were built (OK, assembled) in the UK and the increased jobs associated with maintaining them (good honest engineering jobs... complete using whatever other political rhetoric you wish).

£110,000 x 3 (to cover all costs) = £330,000

(Based on the historic £110,000 per DMU coach and least costs being about 1/3 of a TOC's costs).

£330,000 / 70 seats = £4,715 (revenue per seat per year)

£4,715 / 300 days = £15.72 (per seat per day income required)

Now price are likely to have risen, however given that some of those costs will already be within the XC costs (for example you don't need to double up on drivers in units running in pairs, even though there maybe some increase). Likewise some costs will increase due to the extra rolling stock, however not proportionally (for example if the extra units are being used to only double up services you don't need to increase the number of spare units by the same number, as whilst not ideal, it is possible to run the service with just one unit. However most of these time there would, even with no increase in spare units, be enough to run the full service).

 

[The Planner]

I believe the first of the avanti voyagers is going off-lease this summer, and the rest will follow over the next 2 years at most, so yes, there are spare WCML voyagers in the short term

They will be doing a Chiltern then and running short sets as the 800s are still a way off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They will be doing a Chiltern then and running short sets as the 800s are still a way off.

They don't need them all as the full Chester service hasn't been reinstated, and I guess won't be now until the 80x arrive.

 

[gc4946]

I need to call this out. Have you ever actually been west of Bristol? There are a lot of ex pats from the north west in the south west and a lot of people travelling down here for leisure from that part of the world. Similarly, its amazing how many Plymouth folk you speak to have had a weekend away in Liverpool. The Crewe stop would also be useful for quicker journies to Scotland than the current via ECML offering.
For what would be a predominantly leisure route, Liverpool would be far better than Manchester as a destination from Plymouth. But at present we have nothing at all to the north west. Some people just don't seem to be able to grasp that there are many people out there who are not prepared to change trains , no matter what. And thats where XC is now failing compared to say 20 years ago.

In a nutshell, what is XC's mission?
I would define XC's role facilitating long-distance through journeys between city pairs over 80 miles apart avoiding London, but with extensions serving seaside resorts and popular tourist areas where required.
Although the current network's centred on Birmingham there are other routes where similar standards should be set eg Norwich-Liverpool
Unfortunately, the way that the current railway's setup means that through inter-regional services have their costs highlighted in this scenario it's a case of "the cost of everything and the value of nothing"

 

[trebor79]

Hand over XC's Turbostar services to other operators

I don't disagree. But that wouldn't solve the overcrowding on XCs core routes, not for that matter on the Turbostar operated routes.

 

[Wolfie]

The railway is a bulk passenger transport system - it should at all times attempt to increase it's volume.

Even if it is somewhat worse off in financial terms it will gain substantial political capital from greater volumes of traffic.

The more people use the railway the more often the more political capital is available to use to obtain railway funding in future years.

Good luck on trying to get HMT to agree expenditure for "political capital"....

 

[The Ham]

Good luck on trying to get HMT to agree expenditure for "political capital"....

You mean like the £400 to every household to help with energy bills?!?!?

As I said before, lengthening of XC services wouldn't actually cost the government all that much money, as at least some of the costs would be funded by the TOC's (and ultimately those who buy tickets).

However many MP's would be able to point to it as a way that the government was improving rail services in their area (we've had lots of complaints about short overcrowd trains on our rail network and we've been instrumental in securing £X million in nearly doubling the length of some of the worst, with the added bonus of securing trains from British factories benefiting the economy of the country).

It would be something that could be an easy win on the leveling up agenda in terms of being seen to do something. It's also something that can be announced several times; we want someone to provide these trains, here's who's going to provide the trains, here's the first train built and here's the first train in service. With much about reducing diesel use across the rail network (& whilst relevant; reducing the need for Russian oil and in turn helping with the war in Ukraine).

 

[Jozhua]

XC needs to get rid of HSTs eventually, plus I think everyone working there knows about the overcrowding issues. Getting extra units should be pretty uncontroversial.

Whilst the ROSCOs should go, I'm sure they will be happy to agree to lower rates rather than sending units to scrap!

The railway is a bulk passenger transport system - it should at all times attempt to increase it's volume.

Even if it is somewhat worse off in financial terms it will gain substantial political capital from greater volumes of traffic.

The more people use the railway the more often the more political capital is available to use to obtain railway funding in future years.

This is a very good point - I'm sure in the present political landscape HMT would love nothing more than to gut the railways, but they are used by enough people that doing so is politically difficult.

Indeed, I tend to vote based on who will provide the best public transportation, as it impacts my life so significantly.

 

[Ken H]

XC needs to get rid of HSTs eventually, plus I think everyone working there knows about the overcrowding issues. Getting extra units should be pretty uncontroversial.

Whilst the ROSCOs should go, I'm sure they will be happy to agree to lower rates rather than sending units to scrap!

This is a very good point - I'm sure in the present political landscape HMT would love nothing more than to gut the railways, but they are used by enough people that doing so is politically difficult.

Indeed, I tend to vote based on who will provide the best public transportation, as it impacts my life so significantly.

The railways are political in the SE, less so elsewhere. And with WFH, a lot less SE people will care.