How can CrossCountry realistically be improved?

[Bletchleyite]

Though ROSCOs need to be careful about calling TOCs' bluff, as there is now precedent for them calling it back, as LNR did with the 350/2s. If there is a credible threat to order 80x instead...

 

[irish_rail]

Fair enough.

It should really be analysed by city pairs as I said. If there is a strong flow Bristol to Sheffield, then run a train that covers the whole route between them.

If I'm wrong and the passengers are mostly end-to-end, Aberdeen to Plymouth, then maybe the complete route does make sense, but I'm unconvinced.

Yes the Plymouth to Aberdeen flow is zero, however there are alot of people in Plymouth who for various reasons DO travel to the Central northern belt (Liverpool, Manchester , Leeds etc). This is partly due to the number of ex pats from these locations now living down here, lots of ex service and current services personel and the fact Plymouth is a pretty large city with a big student population. So flows such as Plymouth to Leeds or Liverpool are pretty common. A decent fast service to Scotland would be desirable (preferably up the WCML ) but I can't see that happening.

 

[option]

Cross Country, right back to steam days (yes, the term was in use in the timetables even then!) was, for most of its life, about having a few through trains a day between far flung destinations, stopping at major population centres en route.

Speed and frequency were secondary considerations.

VT tried to incorporate it into their brand as a sister to their Intercity West Coast operation (which was always about speed and frequency).

The two didn’t fit well together, so the network was slashed in order to operate over a core.

I wonder whether a totally new operation is required.

- Trim the existing XC services so that they operate frequent services over the very core of the network (eg just Manchester/Birmingham/Reading, Manchester/Birmingham/Bristol

AND

- Have a totally different operation utilising rolling stock better suited to ultra long distance needs (eg Chiltern style refurbished Mk3’s, refurbed HST’s or IET’s if you want to buy new) with infrequent through trains between far flung destinations eg

Aberdeen-Penzance
Edinburgh-Plymouth
Liverpool-Norwich
Cardiff-Newcastle

but why is that the core?

Why isn't Liverpool core instead of/or with Manchester.
Why Reading & not Southampton or Portsmouth. (If your only going as far as Reading, you don't get much extra by going any further than Didcot)
Plenty of sizeable places beyond Bristol.


I see XC as being predominantly a leisure operator.

I use XC to do Birmingham-Newcastle. That is probably a good end point. Edinburgh will likely be better via HS2 in the future, & those places on the ECML already have an alternative.
Birmingham, in fact anywhere in the Midlands, to the south coast is difficult, as you usually have to go via London. Going east is impossible.


The short-term, realistic, fix/improvement is that XC get all the 221s & use them to lengthen the existing sets & replace the HSTs.

Then, when you know what your capacity is, you can plan the routes. Why not start from scratch & see what works now?

 

[The Ham]

but why is that the core?

Why isn't Liverpool core instead of/or with Manchester.
Why Reading & not Southampton or Portsmouth. (If your only going as far as Reading, you don't get much extra by going any further than Didcot)
Plenty of sizeable places beyond Bristol.


I see XC as being predominantly a leisure operator.

I use XC to do Birmingham-Newcastle. That is probably a good end point. Edinburgh will likely be better via HS2 in the future, & those places on the ECML already have an alternative.
Birmingham, in fact anywhere in the Midlands, to the south coast is difficult, as you usually have to go via London. Going east is impossible.


The short-term, realistic, fix/improvement is that XC get all the 221s & use them to lengthen the existing sets & replace the HSTs.

Then, when you know what your capacity is, you can plan the routes. Why not start from scratch & see what works now?

Whilst I think the idea of cutting to the core, wherever that is, is a bad move; stopping at Didcot would cut a lot of people from the network.

Ideally you'd want to interact with the SWR network by getting to Basingstoke (unless SWR would be running services to Reading to avoid the need for two changes of train, three of you only reach Didcot), however at the very least you'd want to reach Reading.

Reading has a lot of services which connect to it which you'd want to be able access. Whilst from each train there may not be many the fact that you've got services from Waterloo, Guildford and Newbury which puts a lot of people (even if you exclude those now than 30 minutes away) within one change at Reading (including the circa 225,000 people who live in the Aldershot urban area, accessed from Ash, Farnborough North and Blackwater).

There's quite a churn of people at Reading on XC services, which would also indicate that there's a fairly good case to keep the XC services running to there.

 

[Mogz]

Whilst I think the idea of cutting to the core, wherever that is, is a bad move; stopping at Didcot would cut a lot of people from the network.

Ideally you'd want to interact with the SWR network by getting to Basingstoke (unless SWR would be running services to Reading to avoid the need for two changes of train, three of you only reach Didcot), however at the very least you'd want to reach Reading.

Reading has a lot of services which connect to it which you'd want to be able access. Whilst from each train there may not be many the fact that you've got services from Waterloo, Guildford and Newbury which puts a lot of people (even if you exclude those now than 30 minutes away) within one change at Reading (including the circa 225,000 people who live in the Aldershot urban area, accessed from Ash, Farnborough North and Blackwater).

There's quite a churn of people at Reading on XC services, which would also indicate that there's a fairly good case to keep the XC services running to there.

Don’t get me wrong- I would
like to see an increase in the number of place served by through trains.

It’s a question of what XC is “for” now.

Formerly it was about far flung places having direct services.

Now it seems to be about high frequency through Birmingham for a few selected routes (the core).

I’d love to see the likes Liverpool restored to some form of XC service (whether a high frequency “core” service to Reading or a just few trains a day serving destinations such as the South Coast or Devon/Cornwall).

 

[Falcon1200]

I’d love to see the likes Liverpool restored to some form of XC service

I would agree with that. One solution could be to provide once again two trains per hour between Liverpool and Birmingham, and between Manchester and Birmingham; One each of these would be an EMU going no further than New St, the other being an XC service through to, at least, Reading, if not beyond. This would restore the services north of Birmingham, and between Birmingham and Reading, to pre-Covid frequency, and give Liverpool XC services, without increasing the number of trains terminating at New St.

 

[JonathanH]

I would agree with that. One solution could be to provide once again two trains per hour between Liverpool and Birmingham, and between Manchester and Birmingham; One each of these would be an EMU going no further than New St, the other being an XC service through to, at least, Reading, if not beyond. This would restore the services north of Birmingham, and between Birmingham and Reading, to pre-Covid frequency, and give Liverpool XC services, without increasing the number of trains terminating at New St.

Yes, but it requires twice the number of traincrew to 'know' the routes to Liverpool and Manchester, it requires a change to stabling arrangements or different empty stock workings, it requires a change in the timetable, it is a nuisance in times of disruption. The inward and outward workings don't match up at either Liverpool or Manchester because of the journey times.

There is a good reason why it is set up like it is. At a time when the railway has to cut costs why would it make things more complicated? It seems highly likely that both routes will stay 1tph in any case for the foreseeable future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In any case, why would Liverpool want XC when it is such an awful TOC?

 

[irish_rail]

In any case, why would Liverpool want XC when it is such an awful TOC?

Because Liverpools connections to anywhere in the south other than London are awful. In an ideal world, GWR would operate a Plymouth to Liverpool service with 802s, but we don't live in such a world!

 

[Gareth]

I would agree with that. One solution could be to provide once again two trains per hour between Liverpool and Birmingham, and between Manchester and Birmingham; One each of these would be an EMU going no further than New St, the other being an XC service through to, at least, Reading, if not beyond. This would restore the services north of Birmingham, and between Birmingham and Reading, to pre-Covid frequency, and give Liverpool XC services, without increasing the number of trains terminating at New St.

It's impractical under current circumstances stances because the separate TOC situation brings up the issues JonathanH describes.

It may be possible with GBR, depending on how it's organised.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because Liverpools connections to anywhere in the south other than London are awful. In an ideal world, GWR would operate a Plymouth to Liverpool service with 802s, but we don't live in such a world!

It would be nice for Liverpool to have better connectivity, but given a choice between West Midlands Trains and 8-car 350 formations (even /2s) and a change, and execrable XC and 4/5-car Voyagers and a through service, I'd take the former every single time.

XC is so bad that I will do everything to avoid them (fortunately, many journeys relevant to them can be done via London instead, often quicker and cheaper, too). TPE used to sit in that bracket but has been pretty comprehensively fixed with the new stock.

 

[tbtc]

Whilst the lease costs may not be smaller you still haven't got to pay maintenance and track access charges for those vehicles. Nor do you have to store those extra 30 vehicles (which comes at a cost in the form of extra sidings).

Whilst those costs may not be very high it should also be noted that the number of passengers in those end coaches would be fairly limited. Overall the benefit of keeping those end coaches is going to be tiny compared to lengthening some trains (most likely 14 long 222's and a universal 5 coach fleet for the 220/221's).

That's enough for nearly every service to be 5+5 or 9 coaches (even allowing for the removal of the Host's), with most of the shortfall being made up by single unit running beyond the core.

So essentially you'll come up with a reason to suggest scrapping the end vehicles, get rebuffed, then try to come up with new reasons to scrap the end vehicles?

They're not great - the use of space is terrible - but if feels like you're more interested in the "solution" (scrap end coaches) than any actual "problem"

I like the idea of having a simple fleet of only two lengths but has anyone done the maths to see how the 220/221/222s could be split into either five or nine coach rakes, so that we could have a franchise run with trains of common capacity (5+5 being the same as 9, in the way that it effectively is with 800/801s)? Would that be enough full length trains to run all current XC services (ignoring the Turbostar routes)? How many end carriages would need scrapped? Given that the 222s were originally intended as four/nine caches long, would there be enough intermediate carriages to match up, or would you need to muck about "converting" Voyager carriages into Meridian carriages (given the completely different technical set up that they have?

but why is that the core?

Why isn't Liverpool core instead of/or with Manchester.
Why Reading & not Southampton or Portsmouth. (If your only going as far as Reading, you don't get much extra by going any further than Didcot)

Realistically, there are only five paths per hour through New Street in each direction - those paths could be used by:

Liverpool (x2)
Carlisle via Wigan
Manchester (x2)
Newcastle via Leeds
Newcastle via Doncaster
Nottingham (x2)
Leicester (x2)

...to...

Reading (x2)
Bristol (x2)
Cardiff (x1)

(based on places that currently have at least an hourly service to Birmingham)

Some of those services currently extend further (e.g. Edinburgh, Glasgow, Bournemouth, Plymouth), some could be extended further (e.g. Cardiff trains running through to Swansea, Reading terminators running on to Gatwick), but that's the gist of it. You could add new destinations for Birmingham trains (e.g. Hull, Bradford, Blackpool, Swindon, Portsmouth, Brighton, Ramsgate) but at the cost of something else (e.g. a Hull - Doncaster - Birmingham service would mean replacing the current Newcastle - Doncaster - Birmingham service).

Any cross-Birmingham service for somewhere like Liverpool or Portsmouth would come at the expense of Manchester or Southampton.

Given the move to simple clock face timetables, where people know that they are getting a consistent daytime level of service on most lines, how much do you rob Peter to pay Paul?

Would it be worth the retraining/ interworking/ complications of "putting Liverpool on the map" for the sake of a few trains a day?

And even if you did run some token service to (e.g.) Liverpool, you'd only get complaints that it was "only" to Bristol and why aren't we getting direct trains to Gatwick/ Portsmouth etc

We'd be a lot better "fixing" the main problems (capacity through the core) rather than trying to tick as many boxes as possibly by dishing out cross-Birmingham services to dozens more places IMHO

 

[Gareth]

Because Liverpools connections to anywhere in the south other than London are awful. In an ideal world, GWR would operate a Plymouth to Liverpool service with 802s, but we don't live in such a world!

They are poor indeed. Thinking about this recently, I have started to wonder if better connections to the southern part of the WCML might be more practical and maybe even as desirable as XC, even if the destinations are less exotic.

What's screwed Liverpool in the last couple of decades is that its WCML services to both London & Birmingham cater for very few intermediate flows. The single London and two Birminghams all serve Crewe and Stafford. The London service has no other intermediate flows than Stafford-London/Liverpool. Compare with all the intermediate journeys that can be done on the London/Manchester 3tph, which help justify the frequency.

Indeed, I'd happily trade the Chester service the Stafford stop in return for Milton Keynes. Liverpool would still have 2tph Stafford, whilst Chester's current connection to that town is poor.

It'll be interesting to see the proposed stopping pattern for the second Liverpool-London Avanti. All I see mentioned is that it'll stop at Liverpool South Parkway but that can't be its only stop.

There's also the London-Crewe service. Extending this to Liverpool could give the city a whole host of direct connections in the west and south midlands, even if the Liverpool-London journey time was poor compared to Avanti.

 

[coppercapped]

Whilst I think the idea of cutting to the core, wherever that is, is a bad move; stopping at Didcot would cut a lot of people from the network.

Ideally you'd want to interact with the SWR network by getting to Basingstoke (unless SWR would be running services to Reading to avoid the need for two changes of train, three of you only reach Didcot), however at the very least you'd want to reach Reading.

Reading has a lot of services which connect to it which you'd want to be able access. Whilst from each train there may not be many the fact that you've got services from Waterloo, Guildford and Newbury which puts a lot of people (even if you exclude those now than 30 minutes away) within one change at Reading (including the circa 225,000 people who live in the Aldershot urban area, accessed from Ash, Farnborough North and Blackwater).

There's quite a churn of people at Reading on XC services, which would also indicate that there's a fairly good case to keep the XC services running to there.

Just to underline the significance of Reading as an interchange station, just pre-Covid the ORR's figures showed just over 4 million passengers a year changed trains there. As a comparison Birmingham New Street had nearly 7 million.

 

[option]

Whilst I think the idea of cutting to the core, wherever that is, is a bad move; stopping at Didcot would cut a lot of people from the network.

Ideally you'd want to interact with the SWR network by getting to Basingstoke (unless SWR would be running services to Reading to avoid the need for two changes of train, three of you only reach Didcot), however at the very least you'd want to reach Reading.

Reading has a lot of services which connect to it which you'd want to be able access. Whilst from each train there may not be many the fact that you've got services from Waterloo, Guildford and Newbury which puts a lot of people (even if you exclude those now than 30 minutes away) within one change at Reading (including the circa 225,000 people who live in the Aldershot urban area, accessed from Ash, Farnborough North and Blackwater).

There's quite a churn of people at Reading on XC services, which would also indicate that there's a fairly good case to keep the XC services running to there.

Which again shows that a decision as to 'what' XC is supposed to do needs to be made.

Is it there to provide connections between different mainlines/hubs (so end at Bristol, Reading, Doncaster)
or is it there to enable/make easier long-distance journeys between places that aren't on the same mainlines (so go past Reading, Bristol, etc)

Realistically, there are only five paths per hour through New Street in each direction - those paths could be used by:

Any cross-Birmingham service for somewhere like Liverpool or Portsmouth would come at the expense of Manchester or Southampton.

Given the move to simple clock face timetables, where people know that they are getting a consistent daytime level of service on most lines, how much do you rob Peter to pay Paul?

Would it be worth the retraining/ interworking/ complications of "putting Liverpool on the map" for the sake of a few trains a day?

And even if you did run some token service to (e.g.) Liverpool, you'd only get complaints that it was "only" to Bristol and why aren't we getting direct trains to Gatwick/ Portsmouth etc

We'd be a lot better "fixing" the main problems (capacity through the core) rather than trying to tick as many boxes as possibly by dishing out cross-Birmingham services to dozens more places IMHO

I suggested Liverpool, because Manchester is going to be better served from Birmingham by HS2. So that will take a lot of the passengers that are doing Birmingham-Manchester. If your in Reading, & possibly Oxford, likely to use HS2 from OOC as well.
So a lot of the Manchester customers are gone, which means looking for a new market. (is there a big enough market without them?)



It's going to be a very very long time before 'through New St' gets fixed, because everything is short-term.

 

[The Fox 4846]

As I stated on the Manchester - Birmingham thread I believe that a following recast would be best suited to XC with other intercity operators stepping up in order to improve XC.

I would have the following:
1tph Liverpool - Southampton
(Marginal time extensions to Portsmouth)
1tph Manchester - Bristol
1tph Cardiff - Edinburgh
(Marginal time extensions in scotland)
1tph Newcastle - Plymouth
(Marginal time extensions to Penzance)

GWR to extend the Oxford - London to Moor St via Banbury and Solihull to provide more capacity and competition.

LNER to provide the Glasgow Central extensions using IETs so that it can be operated by larger capacity electric stock.

GWR to fill the Penzance shortfall

SWR to fill the Bournemouth shortfall

AWC to extend to Manchester using the 1 diagram saved off Glasgow by cutting short to Blackpool 1p4h and through reduction in Blackpool direct and North Wales diagrams

The Nottinghams would be covered by recast turbo star diagrams to create a fast to Nottingham and a slow stopper although this could be extended through to Oxford failing GWR not being able to provide the Moor St extension.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Turbostar services just need to go to either WMT, EMT or TfW (depending which one). They are a poor fit for XC.

 

[JonathanH]

The Turbostar services just need to go to either WMT, EMT or TfW (depending which one). They are a poor fit for XC.

They don't and are not a poor fit for XC. They ensure that one operator works the critical Birmingham to Derby corridor (and indeed Cheltenham to Birmingham). When Birmingham to Derby was worked by Central Trains and CrossCountry it resulted in a poorly timetabled and unreliable service, which is probably a good reason why all services via Water Orton are in one franchise. One operator on this corridor is good for the long distance services and therefore passengers.

If they used the same rolling stock as the rest of the CrossCountry network in the future, no one would be calling for them to move.

On Liverpool, one option might be the following:
* Transfer the Crewe traincrew depot of LNR to XC and some traincrew at Birmingham.
* Transfer the LNR Trent Valley service to Avanti to run with slack in their fleet.
* XC could then run the residual Birmingham to Crewe / Liverpool services using a small 350 fleet.

This would reduce the number of operators through both Stoke and Crewe, give Avanti the full service on the Trent Valley and return XC to Liverpool without needing to change the timetable in the short term. Late services from Liverpool could run to Coventry and go empty to the depot at Northampton from there.

 

[tbtc]

I suggested Liverpool, because Manchester is going to be better served from Birmingham by HS2. So that will take a lot of the passengers that are doing Birmingham-Manchester. If your in Reading, & possibly Oxford, likely to use HS2 from OOC as well.
So a lot of the Manchester customers are gone, which means looking for a new market. (is there a big enough market without them?)

It's going to be a very very long time before 'through New St' gets fixed, because everything is short-term.

Agreed re post-HS2 - I think that the whole thing will et remapped (e.g. there's not going to be as much demand from Southampton/ Reading to get to Birmingham/ Manchester/ Leeds since you can go via Old Oak Common - maybe we'll see the "via Oxford" bit of XC truncated at Moor Street as part of an expanded GWR?)

The Turbostar services just need to go to either WMT, EMT or TfW (depending which one). They are a poor fit for XC.

I don't know why people keep saying this

Lots of franchises have very different routes and a wide variety of stock (e.g. ScotRail operate "InterCity" services as well as the Far North and the Cathcart Circle... GWR operate "InterCity" services as well as the Thames Valley branches and the rural stuff in Devon/Cornwall) - only Merseyrail/ C2C/ Caledonian Sleeper fit neatly into pigeon holes

The original Virgin XC franchise was a lot bigger than the current Voyager operated routes (e.g. no more Birmingham/ Manchester - Carlisle - Edinburgh/ Glasgow, as well as the removal of fringes like Brighton/ Ramsgate/ Liverpool/ Swindon/ Paddington), so it got given the makeweight of "Central Citylink" services - these Turbostar services would be a "poor fit" for any franchise if you want everything to neatly tie up but here we are regardless.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

As I stated on the Manchester - Birmingham thread I believe that a following recast would be best suited to XC with other intercity operators stepping up in order to improve XC.

I would have the following:
1tph Liverpool - Southampton
(Marginal time extensions to Portsmouth)
1tph Manchester - Bristol
1tph Cardiff - Edinburgh
(Marginal time extensions in scotland)
1tph Newcastle - Plymouth
(Marginal time extensions to Penzance)

GWR to extend the Oxford - London to Moor St via Banbury and Solihull to provide more capacity and competition.

LNER to provide the Glasgow Central extensions using IETs so that it can be operated by larger capacity electric stock.

GWR to fill the Penzance shortfall

SWR to fill the Bournemouth shortfall

AWC to extend to Manchester using the 1 diagram saved off Glasgow by cutting short to Blackpool 1p4h and through reduction in Blackpool direct and North Wales diagrams

The Nottinghams would be covered by recast turbo star diagrams to create a fast to Nottingham and a slow stopper although this could be extended through to Oxford failing GWR not being able to provide the Moor St extension.

Great, even more trains terminating at Southampton Central: a station with very limited turn back facilities to accommodate them within a steady flow of liner trains.

Timetables need to be based around infrastructure constraints a couple of extra sets to run the service to Bournemouth and use the existing turnback facilities there is more likely to be cheaper / deliverable than some expensive interventions at Southampton.

 

[swt_passenger]

Great, even more trains terminating at Southampton Central: a station with very limited turn back facilities to accommodate them within a steady flow of liner trains.

Timetables need to be based around infrastructure constraints a couple of extra sets to run the service to Bournemouth and use the existing turnback facilities there is more likely to be cheaper / deliverable than some expensive interventions at Southampton.

Only one set/day isn’t it?

I don’t understand the almost constant proposals to remove the well established Bournemouth service, but then we also get almost as many proposals to extend to Poole, like in the Princess timetable that had no turnback time.

But then we also get the argument that SWR should cover Basingstoke to Bournemouth, and let’s go to Portsmouth instead. But SWR already cover Basingstoke to Portsmouth. I’m confused.com…

 

[HSTEd]

How much of the Manchester-South coast service actually operates at more than 100mph?

Why couldn't you use something like a 196 or 197 on that service?

 

[The Planner]

Great, even more trains terminating at Southampton Central: a station with very limited turn back facilities to accommodate them within a steady flow of liner trains.

Timetables need to be based around infrastructure constraints a couple of extra sets to run the service to Bournemouth and use the existing turnback facilities there is more likely to be cheaper / deliverable than some expensive interventions at Southampton.

If you did that you're effectively fixed and cannot grow. If you need an intervention to deliver a train spec reliably you build it or you get to the point where you hit the glass ceiling.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Nov 2021 ==

How much of the Manchester-South coast service actually operates at more than 100mph?

Why couldn't you use something like a 196 or 197 on that service?

Very little.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

If you did that you're effectively fixed and cannot grow. If you need an intervention to deliver a train spec reliably you build it or you get to the point where you hit the glass ceiling.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Nov 2021 ==


Very little.

Apologies I didn’t mean you would never do that, fully agree about hitting the ceiling. In this case I was trying to explain that there’s no point cutting back a route to save money when the infrastructure needed to sustain that will cost more than the status quo, ie running to Bournemouth.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Very little.

indeed, I've said many times it is a shame Virgin didn't order a much larger number of longer (say 6-7 car) Class 170s instead of the Voyagers. We wouldn't be in anything like the same mess if they had.

 

[swt_passenger]

Apologies I didn’t mean you would never do that, fully agree about hitting the ceiling. In this case I was trying to explain that there’s no point cutting back a route to save money when the infrastructure needed to sustain that will cost more than the status quo, ie running to Bournemouth.

There’s also the significant plus point that Bournemouth already has the dedicated (and operationally efficient) centre turnback sidings, with staff platforms etc…

 

[The Planner]

indeed, I've said many times it is a shame Virgin didn't order a much larger number of longer (say 6-7 car) Class 170s instead of the Voyagers. We wouldn't be in anything like the same mess if they had.

Only if they added a few more turbos to the 170s, they are like running through treacle accelerating.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

There’s also the significant plus point that Bournemouth already has the dedicated (and operationally efficient) centre turnback sidings, with staff platforms etc…

Indeed I’m all for investment but investing in new facilities at Southampton to leave existing facilities idle at Bournemouth and in doing so remove a long standing direct train service would seem to create a very poor business case - I’m lost at what is trying to be achieved in cutting these trains back from Bournemouth to Southampton!?

 

[py_megapixel]

indeed, I've said many times it is a shame Virgin didn't order a much larger number of longer (say 6-7 car) Class 170s instead of the Voyagers.

I think they basically wanted as close to a diesel Pendolino as they could get. Which makes sense, considering what their "brand image" was trying to be.

 

[Roast Veg]

Only if they added a few more turbos to the 170s, they are like running through treacle accelerating.

Sounds like the 755-esque solution would be a pretty smashing fit for this route some day.