• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Ideas for improving the CrossCountry timetable

Status
Not open for further replies.

greataj

Member
Joined
22 Jul 2024
Messages
53
Location
Essex
Not sure a semi-fast/stopper combination is preferable, maybe it's best to share the stops between both services, allowing some intermediate calls to get 2ph and providing a similar journey time every 30 mins?
I get the logic with that and would help keep the timetable more balanced and provide Birmingham with a more consistent 2tph run to Peterborough. That could arguably be better from purely a Birmingham-Peterborough frequency perspective, but not much else.

With a 1x stopper/1x semi-fast approach you still at least add both capacity and frequency but also a small journey time benefit for one hourly Birmingham-Peterborough. That would come close to an intercity service that could almost warrant a Voyager (though unlikely that would be). The stopper would then improve regional connectivity whereas if you spread the intermediate stops across two services there's no such benefit, which I think would be a lost opportunity.

Agree with later comments on current service reliability but this is obviously just speculative longer-term discussion besides current day-to-day issues. In the first instance they need to extend all hourly services from Cambridge to Stansted, but I understand now that's possibly coming from the May 2025 timetable. Whether or not that will include Audley End again I'm not sure.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Doctor Fegg

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2010
Messages
2,135
Location
Charlbury
- Better regional connectivity across the East Midlands with Melton Mowbray, Oakham and Stamford as direct links from Hinckley, Narborough and South Wigston without the need to change at Leicester. Will also give the latter three stations a regular, faster direct link to the ECML.
I'm not convinced anyone from Melton, Oakham or Stamford has ever wanted to travel to Hinckley, Narborough or South Wigston, or vice versa!

Just extend the Leicester terminators to Peterborough and keep the Melton/Oakham/Stamford stops in both. They're all significant enough towns (and rural railheads) to merit 2tph and there's a real opportunity to grow rail patronage there.
 

A S Leib

Established Member
Joined
9 Sep 2018
Messages
3,289
I'm not convinced anyone from Melton, Oakham or Stamford has ever wanted to travel to Hinckley, Narborough or South Wigston, or vice versa!
South Wigston is the 16th most common destination from Melton Mowbray, with slightly over one journey per day. Coleshill Parkway is the 23rd most common destination from Oakham, with slightly under one journey per day. There's a massive 982 journeys per year between Stamford and Narborough, South Wigston, Coleshill Parkway and Hinckley.
 

greataj

Member
Joined
22 Jul 2024
Messages
53
Location
Essex
Well if Melton, Oakham and Stamford were to see 2tph they'd by default get links on one of those with Hinckley, Narborough and South Wigston anyway. The real question in this case would be do you favour 2tph to the intermediate stops between Leicester-Peterborough or a faster journey time? I'm not so convinced those towns really do have the justification for an all-day 2tph to be honest and if they do, then the same should be said for Hinckley and Narborough (not South Wigston admittedly) but then you end up with two services that become a complete crawl. You could maintain the split of intermediate stops either side of Leicester as is on separate services but if you're running two trains along that length anyway why wouldn't you want to maximise service provision along that route? The other question is how many more people would travel between say Oakham and Narborough if they didn't require a 30 minute interchange at Leicester?
 

Doctor Fegg

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2010
Messages
2,135
Location
Charlbury
Given that it's XC, one can guess the answer to the latter is "no" without even looking ;)

Very roughly Birmingham-Leicester is one hour, and Leicester-Peterborough is another hour. So assuming you keep the same turnback times at Peterborough as currently exist at Leicester, that would need two extra 170s, I guess; and whether any 170s are available depends on what happens with the Northern tender.

But given that rolling stock strategy in a nationalised railway is a big "who knows" right now, consider this firmly Speculative Discussion crayonista territory...
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,218
Location
Bolton
2ph to Peterborough seems like an obvious extension, not sure why it's not been done tbh.
It hasn't been done because it needs money to subsidise it. Proving a driver and guard plus a two or three car DMU costs a huge amount and transports few people. I still think the subsidy should be put into place for it but realistically with the new government they want cuts to operating costs not increases.
 

Mark J

Member
Joined
12 May 2018
Messages
655
Ideas for improving the XC timetable?

The timetable is about to get worse.

A discussion with some people I know who work for XC last weekend, has revealed that XC are about to move over to an emergency timetable very soon.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
9,358
Location
Somerset
Ideas for improving the XC timetable?

The timetable is about to get worse.

A discussion with some people I know who work for XC last weekend, has revealed that XC are about to move over to an emergency timetable very soon.
There are posters up about it at XC-served stations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top