• 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!

Longer XC trains

Status
Not open for further replies.

CC 72100

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2012
Messages
3,852
HST are timed so that at the end of the day, they finish in the North where they are looked after.

Or Scotland, where they will return to South from the following day. They're on a two day diagram - Leeds to Plymouth then Plymouth - Scotland day 1, Scotland - Plymouth then Plymouth - Leeds day 2.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Surely if they run 4 out of 5 HSTs a day XC could then use displaced voyagers to double up other services. Even if you up the HSTs on Scotland-SouthWest that'll displace some voyagers.

I presume no financial motive to do so. It's a laughable situation, but with the HSTs being on such a deal that they have to pay more to use them, little motive exists to provide over and above what they are at the moment.

However, when I asked XC about the 4 a day service, like over the summer, they said that they were pleased with the results and would be looking to continue using their fleet to the best of their ability of key periods of demand, so we can perhaps see the same happening next summer.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
I would hazard a guess when the line is electrified, which won't be for a while yet

Depends on which part of the line being electrified (OHL).

It would be sensible to adjust routes to maximise EMU use in early course. So if that means that Reading-Manchester is electrified first (without the extension to Southampton) then so be it.

People "in the know" will then plan their journeys around 8 car(?) Emu services rather than diesel Voyagers.
 

Rich McLean

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2012
Messages
1,757
Depends on which part of the line being electrified (OHL).

It would be sensible to adjust routes to maximise EMU use in early course. So if that means that Reading-Manchester is electrified first (without the extension to Southampton) then so be it.

People "in the know" will then plan their journeys around 8 car(?) Emu services rather than diesel Voyagers.

If they did that, they could alter the diagrams, i.e.

NOW with Voyagers
Bournemouth - Manchester
Southampton/Reading - Newcastle

With EMU's and Voyagers when Electrification is done to reading
Southampton/Reading - Manchester - EMU operated
Bournemouth - Newcastle - Voyager operated

Of course, these things are never that simple
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,766
Location
Ilfracombe
The reason that XC Voyagers to Reading are not doubled up is so that they can fit into the short bay platforms and so allowing more capacity in the long through platforms for FGW through services.

With 5 new through platforms coming into service at Easter, this problem should no longer exist (apart from the present through platforms needing to be closed while being refurbished). If there is a need for longer XC Voyager services at Reading and the stock is available then we might see doubled up Voyager services during next year (2013) or at the end of next year.

With regards to the XC services after the CP5 electrification, I think that the route via 'East West Rail' (Oxford-Bedford) may well be faster to Derby than the route via Birmingham. Therefore it would make sense to reroute the Southampton/Reading-Newcastle service via 'East West Rail' and run a new service from Reading/Heathrow to the North West via Birmingham (e.g. to Glasgow or Liverpool). A new service would also need to fill the gap left on the Birmingham-Derby route. I think that 390s (or a newer tilting intercity train if developed) would be the obvious stock for Southampton/Reading-Birmingham-NorthWest services because they would be able to tilt on the WCML.
 

Manchester77

Established Member
Joined
4 Jun 2012
Messages
2,628
Location
Manchester
^^^^
The newer IC train for XC could form a follow up order of baby pendos as IMO they'll be a newer tilting train instead of another 390 order
 

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
NOW with Voyagers
Bournemouth - Manchester
Southampton/Reading - Newcastle

With EMU's and Voyagers when Electrification is done to reading
Southampton/Reading - Manchester - EMU operated
Bournemouth - Newcastle - Voyager operated

Should be easily possible.

Being as the EMU from Manchester will have to go via Coventry, the DMU from Newcastle must take the route via Solihull.* So actually the services are the same as today far south as Reading/Southampton, and all that needs doing is switching round which one is extended to Bournemouth. Of course that'll probably involve a repathing of the lower SWML, which might not be quite as simple as it sounds.

*assuming XC haven't found a way of routing both via Coventry, which is very possible due to the proposed doubling of Leamington to Kenilworth.
 

sprinterguy

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,581
Location
Macclesfield
Therefore it would make sense to reroute the Southampton/Reading-Newcastle service via 'East West Rail' and run a new service from Reading/Heathrow to the North West via Birmingham (e.g. to Glasgow or Liverpool).
I don't think that it would. You would be spreading essentially the same passenger loadings as at present across two train services, which hardly makes economic sense for the operator. Plus there is a massive passenger turnover at Birmingham that I do not believe would be repeated at Leicester or Derby by a train service running via East West rail.

A new service would also need to fill the gap left on the Birmingham-Derby route. I think that 390s (or a newer tilting intercity train if developed) would be the obvious stock for Southampton/Reading-Birmingham-NorthWest services because they would be able to tilt on the WCML.
Despite the fact that Crosscountry have disabled the tilt on their Voyagers as it has been deemed an unnecessary expense and that there are few sections of route that are faster than 100mph (Perhaps 110mph at a push with some line upgrades) south of Birmingham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Depends on which part of the line being electrified (OHL).

It would be sensible to adjust routes to maximise EMU use in early course. So if that means that Reading-Manchester is electrified first (without the extension to Southampton) then so be it.
But the entire Coventry to Southampton/Bournemouth section is intended to be electrified as part of the same scheme, at the same time presumably (Though I'll believe it when I see it). Rather than one section being carried out first.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,758
*assuming XC haven't found a way of routing both via Coventry, which is very possible due to the proposed doubling of Leamington to Kenilworth.

Doesn't unlock it, New St to International is the bit that constrains that aspiration.
 

Rich McLean

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2012
Messages
1,757
The only places south of Birmingham where XC go over 100mph is the Man - Bournemouth Trains, which used the fasts from Didcot to Reading at 125mph (the Newcastle - Readings use the reliefs) and a short section of 110mph past Weston until shortly before Bridgewater
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,065
Location
Reston City Centre
The only places south of Birmingham where XC go over 100mph is the Man - Bournemouth Trains, which used the fasts from Didcot to Reading at 125mph (the Newcastle - Readings use the reliefs) and a short section of 110mph past Weston until shortly before Bridgewater

The GWML plans suggest upgrading the "slow" lines to over 100 (hence getting 110mph EMUs to replace Turbos, rather than "spare" 319s)
 

RobShipway

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
3,337
Back in the 1990's when I lived in Bournemouth the XC services where a lot better as they were being run using HST's, although admittedly there was less XC trains running from Bourneouth in those days so the HST's where needed.

To me the most sensible answer to new trains for XC even if Southampton to Reading is changed to OHLE, is to provide XC with IEP Hybrid trains with 5 cars in length. Before anyone says that is too short, bear in mind that the Voyager coaches are 23M and IEP are 26M coaches which as been posted in other threads before you word have the equivalent of a 7 coach 23M train in the 5 coach IEP Hybrid set.

I would then have the 4 car XC Voyagers replace the class 159/158's on the Waterloo - Salisbury - Exter route. The 5 car Voyagers I would pass on to the franchise holder ICWC to make more space available on the Euston - Holyhead service.

The SWT 158/159's would then go on to services to replace the class 142/150 with both FGW & Arriva.
 

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,766
Location
Ilfracombe
JamesRowden said:
With regards to the XC services after the CP5 electrification, I think that the route via 'East West Rail' (Oxford-Bedford) may well be faster to Derby than the route via Birmingham. Therefore it would make sense to reroute the Southampton/Reading-Newcastle service via 'East West Rail' and run a new service from Reading/Heathrow to the North West via Birmingham (e.g. to Glasgow or Liverpool). A new service would also need to fill the gap left on the Birmingham-Derby route. I think that 390s (or a newer tilting intercity train if developed) would be the obvious stock for Southampton/Reading-Birmingham-NorthWest services because they would be able to tilt on the WCML

I don't think that it would. You would be spreading essentially the same passenger loadings as at present across two train services, which hardly makes economic sense for the operator. Plus there is a massive passenger turnover at Birmingham that I do not believe would be repeated at Leicester or Derby by a train service running via East West rail.

Since there should be a semi-fast service between Reading and Bedford via East West Rail anyway (and the Birmingham-NorthWest parts of my service idea would absorb either the present Birmingham-Liverpool LM service or the present Birmingham-Glasgow VT service), the section that would have extra trains running under my plan would be Bedford-Derby(1tph) (~69 minutes [at the momment there is not an intercity train between these stations]). This would not require a large investment to run on a set of services that the author of the thread said were full and these services should have the additional attraction to passengers of:

- Leicester/Bedford to Great Western without needing to change at London and use the Underground

- Diverting passengers from the south of the XC network who are heading to the North East away from Birmingham to reduce capacity problems (I also think that this might save such passengers some time)

- Direct services between more stations

- Only needs Sheffield-Leeds/Doncaster to be electrified to make all Reading XC routes fully electrified (since all Reading-Birmingham services are planned to go via Coventry once the line has been double tracked)

Despite the fact that Crosscountry have disabled the tilt on their Voyagers as it has been deemed an unnecessary expense and that there are few sections of route that are faster than 100mph (Perhaps 110mph at a push with some line upgrades) south of Birmingham.

Basingstoke to Southampton is 3rd rail and has a maximum line speed of 100 mph which is the maximum allowed for 3rd rail systems. Considering how straight the line is and how well used it is I can see this increasing to 125 mph once OHLE is installed (something similar to the 395s could be ordered for the SWML fast services).

Also, with regards to my idea to extend a Glasgow-Birmingham services to Reading (fully electrified), most of the route would make use of tilting capability.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,072
I would then have the 4 car XC Voyagers replace the class 159/158's on the Waterloo - Salisbury - Exter route. The 5 car Voyagers I would pass on to the franchise holder ICWC to make more space available on the Euston - Holyhead service.

The SWT 158/159's would then go on to services to replace the class 142/150 with both FGW & Arriva.

The 158/159's can not be replaced with Voyagers, as there's not enough seating in a Voyager. Unless you are going to lengthen the stations between Salisbury & Basingstoke & Waterloo to take 12x23m coaches. As a 4 coach voyager has the same seating capacity as a 3 coach 159.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,416
It is highly doubtful you could assemble a business case for upgrading the SWML above 100mph upon conversion to OHLE.

You have to specify better overhead equipment, likely have to relay the entire line and order new stock from scratch.

We need new EMUs but not enough to jettison a significant fraction of the 444 fleet (there are very few electric routes that would suit them since they aren't conventional commuter trains)
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,280
Back in the 1990's when I lived in Bournemouth the XC services where a lot better as they were being run using HST's, although admittedly there was less XC trains running from Bourneouth in those days so the HST's where needed.

To me the most sensible answer to new trains for XC even if Southampton to Reading is changed to OHLE, is to provide XC with IEP Hybrid trains with 5 cars in length. Before anyone says that is too short, bear in mind that the Voyager coaches are 23M and IEP are 26M coaches which as been posted in other threads before you word have the equivalent of a 7 coach 23M train in the 5 coach IEP Hybrid set.

I would then have the 4 car XC Voyagers replace the class 159/158's on the Waterloo - Salisbury - Exter route. The 5 car Voyagers I would pass on to the franchise holder ICWC to make more space available on the Euston - Holyhead service.

The SWT 158/159's would then go on to services to replace the class 142/150 with both FGW & Arriva.

I think you may be misconstruing something I said when people kept saying how wonderful 22xs would be on the Cotswold Line. Agreed, they have pitiful carrying capacity for a 23m coach, set against either Mk3s or Class 180 coaches, but I went on to say that you would need very long formations of 22x vehicles to even match current capacity available on the Cotswold Line, never mind handle likely future growth - the same goes for the XC routes.

If XC was using 180s, I'm confident they would be full pretty much all day now. If they had five-car IEPs, any spare capacity would fill up fast (the proposed 'normal-density' five-car IEP layout is not much of an advance on a 180's capacity), so if you were to go for a five-car IEP, or something similar, you could be perpetuating the 'trains are too small on XC' problem for many more years, when all the forecasts suggest growth will continue, so five cars may not be enough - even with 100 or so more seats than a 221 has.

In this regard, Mark Hopwood spoke the other day about 180s on some eastbound off-peak Cotswold Line services being full before they reach Oxford at present and whether a 5-car IEP was actually going to offer enough capacity for the route in the long run, so the mention of possibly altering IEP formations which appears in the GW franchise invitation to tender could come into play before they even leave the factory.


It is highly doubtful you could assemble a business case for upgrading the SWML above 100mph upon conversion to OHLE.

You have to specify better overhead equipment, likely have to relay the entire line and order new stock from scratch.

We need new EMUs but not enough to jettison a significant fraction of the 444 fleet (there are very few electric routes that would suit them since they aren't conventional commuter trains)

And your basis for saying it would be hard to make a business case is what? I'm hardly an expert but I can see that:

Overhead equipment will be brand new, presumably to the same design as the GWML, which will be suitable for running up to 140mph.

So the track may need work, doesn't mean there aren't ways to do it, or at least get up to 110-115mph.

New stock? The LM 350 fleet has been adapted to run at 110mph without too much pain, so who's to say that their cousins the 444s can't be adapted to run at at least that speed in 25kv mode - and the conversion of the Siemens dc-only sets to work on ac as well is reported to be reasonably straightforward.
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,072
And your basis for saying it would be hard to make a business case is what? I'm hardly an expert but I can see that:

Overhead equipment will be brand new, presumably to the same design as the GWML, which will be suitable for running up to 140mph.

So the track may need work, doesn't mean there aren't ways to do it, or at least get up to 110-115mph.

New stock? The LM 350 fleet has been adapted to run at 110mph without too much pain, so who's to say that their cousins the 444s can't be adapted to run at at least that speed in 25kv mode - and the conversion of the Siemens dc-only sets to work on ac as well is reported to be reasonably straightforward.

Not forgetting that the XC trains (voyagers or any new EMU's they get) will be able to run faster, which could enable them to run further (ie reinstated to Poole) in addition to having a faster journey time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top