Where should XC serve?

[Simon11]

Transmanche, without data how are members expected to be able to identify flows which have large journey figures but no direct trains? Thus all they can go on is personal opinion and previous history.

Even if we decided to use LENNON data, we could work out what the largest flows are with a direct service, however this wouldn't be fully represented. There will be underlying demand that is currently being suppressed due to poor rail services and it would be a challenge to calculate the impact of this additional unknown demand.

 

[transmanche]

Thus all they can go on is personal opinion and previous history.

Really, quite a few of the suggestions made here seem to be for services which rambled slowly around the country - and simply nostalgic for a happier youth.

• XC to Dover? Why? There's no need any more, since the arrival of HS1. Take a Javelin to St Pancras; then catch a LDHS service from St Pancras/King's Cross/Euston to the Midlands, the North or Scotland - much faster.
  
• XC to Brighton? Why? There's no need any more, since the arrival of Thameslink - just jump on a train to St Pancras and then as above.
  
• XC to Paddington? Why? Every single XC served station would have a better and faster service direct to a London Terminal already?

Are there any journey opportunities that would be better served by a train from Dover or Brighton, going via Kensington, Reading and Oxford?

Liverpool has been mentioned, but does have some cross-country services, albeit operated by TPE (Manchester/Leeds/York/Newcastle) and EMT (Manchester/Sheffield/Nottingham/Peterborough/Norwich) and not by XC. And I believe that there may be a TPE Liverpool-Scotland service in the future.

I think the only 'no brainer' suggestion I've seen here is the one to extend the Cardiff-Nottingham services to Lincoln - a tourist destination that is currently served rather poorly.

 

[cm39275]

how about xc Nottingham services being extended from Nottingham to Grimsby calling at Newark castle, Lincoln, then every opposite hour to East Midlands service continue on to call at Market Rasen, Barnetby, Haborough and Grimsby town with the last one extended onto Cleethorpes where it could stable until the morning and form the first one back.

 

[JamesRowden]

Really, quite a few of the suggestions made here seem to be for services which rambled slowly around the country - and simply nostalgic for a happier youth.

• XC to Dover? Why? There's no need any more, since the arrival of HS1. Take a Javelin to St Pancras; then catch a LDHS service from St Pancras/King's Cross/Euston to the Midlands, the North or Scotland - much faster.
  
• XC to Brighton? Why? There's no need any more, since the arrival of Thameslink - just jump on a train to St Pancras and then as above.
  
• XC to Paddington? Why? Every single XC served station would have a better and faster service direct to a London Terminal already?

Are there any journey opportunities that would be better served by a train from Dover or Brighton, going via Kensington, Reading and Oxford?

Liverpool has been mentioned, but does have some cross-country services, albeit operated by TPE (Manchester/Leeds/York/Newcastle) and EMT (Manchester/Sheffield/Nottingham/Peterborough/Norwich) and not by XC. And I believe that there may be a TPE Liverpool-Scotland service in the future.

I think the only 'no brainer' suggestion I've seen here is the one to extend the Cardiff-Nottingham services to Lincoln - a tourist destination that is currently served rather poorly.

I suspect that the Brighton/Dover-Oxford routes being suggested were via Dorking Deepdene rather than via Kensington Olympia.

Brighton-Oxford via London under off-peak condtions takes 2h28m using a journey search on Traveline.

The route via Droking Deepdene changing at Gatwick and Reading takes 2h39m with 32m of total connection time. Therefore, it seems that a through service would be faster than travelling via London and far simpler (for the passenger). But, the train would need to cross many paths between Gatwick and Brighton, and therefore might not be the best use of capacity. Hence, my suggestion for running some Cross Country services to Gatwick (once platform 0 is built at Redhill and the required rolling stock is avaialble). Although, I am not saying that this would be the best thing to do since it is only an idea and a detailed analysis would need to take place.

 

[transmanche]

I suspect that the Brighton/Dover-Oxford routes being suggested were via Dorking Deepdene rather than via Kensington Olympia.

Brighton-Oxford via London under off-peak condtions takes 2h28m using a journey search on Traveline.

The route via Droking Deepdene changing at Gatwick and Reading takes 2h39m with 32m of total connection time. Therefore, it seems that a through service would be faster than travelling via London and far simpler (for the passenger). But, the train would need to cross many paths between Gatwick and Brighton, and therefore might not be the best use of capacity. Hence, my suggestion for running some Cross Country services to Gatwick (once platform 0 is built at Redhill and the required rolling stock is avaialble). Although, I am not saying that this would be the best thing to do since it is only an idea and a detailed analysis would need to take place.

I suggested that extending the current Gatwick/Redhill-Reading service to Oxford might be a better way of meeting that need. I'm sure that a regular FGW Turbo service will provide a better service than a once or twice daily Voyager.

Crossrail is going to make changes to the service patterns around Reading, so this may be the ideal opportunity identify paths on the Reading-Oxford section.

 

[JamesRowden]

I suggested that extending the current Gatwick/Redhill-Reading service to Oxford might be a better way of meeting that need. I'm sure that a regular FGW Turbo service will provide a better service than a once or twice daily Voyager.

Crossrail is going to make changes to the service patterns around Reading, so this may be the ideal opportunity identify paths on the Reading-Oxford section.

I was suggesting a regular service Crosscountry service to Gatwick of every 1 or 2 hours. An earlier post of mine showed a link to a recent Network Rail publication that expects there to be an additional hourly Cross Country service between Oxford and Reading in 2019. I think that this is a more useful use of the limited capacity between Oxford and Didcot (than your turbo service idea) since the addtional Cross Country service would run beyond Oxford.

 

[transmanche]

I was suggesting a regular service Crosscountry service to Gatwick of every 1 or 2 hours. An earlier post of mine showed a link to a recent Network Rail publication that expects there to be an additional hourly Cross Country service between Oxford and Reading in 2019. I think that this is a more useful use of the limited capacity between Oxford and Didcot (than your turbo service idea) since the addtional Cross Country service would run beyond Oxford.

Obviously there will be different ways of meeting that need - and we'll all have different opinions on how best to fit them. I think to be useful, a service between Gatwick and Oxford would have to be hourly to be of use - I don't think a two-hourly service will make much difference. And personally I think a Voyager would be overkill in terms of capacity - as traffic between from the stations between, say, Gatwick-Guildford and points north of Oxford will be negligible - as it's likely passengers from those stations would still travel via London.

Portion working between Oxford and Reading may be one way of saving paths.

 

[fowler9]

Here is why XC should serve Liverpool. Lots of people are terrified of changing trains at somewhere like Birmingham New Street. They will pay more money and travel at whatever time not to do so. Take Auckland, I'm not bothered about sorting myself out, I saved about a tenner getting the train to Papatoetoe and a bus from there to the airport. Most people spend twice the price getting the airport express bus direct from Auckland to the airport.

 

[JamesRowden]

Obviously there will be different ways of meeting that need - and we'll all have different opinions on how best to fit them. I think to be useful, a service between Gatwick and Oxford would have to be hourly to be of use - I don't think a two-hourly service will make much difference. And personally I think a Voyager would be overkill in terms of capacity - as traffic between from the stations between, say, Gatwick-Guildford and points north of Oxford will be negligible - as it's likely passengers from those stations would still travel via London.

A 4-car Voyager only has 200 seats and the 3-car Turbos that presently opreate Reading-Gatwick have all of their seats being used during the peak (from my memory of using the service in 2009). Add new through journies from Birmingham-Oxford to Wokingham-Gatwick and I can see the route becoming more popular.

 

[bunnahabhain]

How about Norwich and Manchester?

XC also have a depot at Derby

I disagree with the comment about Nottingham in the sense that yes it is the mid-point of the route BUT it leaves the west end of the route difficult to cover. There are earlier trains from Norwich and Nottingham than there are from Liverpool on the EMT network.

The only reason for the pre-0600 services from Nottingham and Norwich is to get the trains into position for peak time services into Manchester & Liverpool, and Nottingham. The only possible benefit to be gained would be running an 0642 Manchester to Norwich service, but I'm not really sure there would be any demand for the service which would cover the financial cost of running it bearing in mind that more than three quarters travellers at that time of day are going to be commuters who are already sorted through using Transpennine services to Sheffield. From Sheffield services are covered by using the London services which has been a situation since before that line was privatised.

The last time the Liverpool-Norwich would have had an early start from Liverpool would have been around 1994 when Liverpool depot still signed down to Nottingham.

Perhaps the solution isn't that Crosscountry should operate these services, but perhaps East Midlands Trains should operate the Nottingham to Cardiff and Birmingham to Stansted operations. They're a perfect fit for EMT more than they are XC.

 

[CP165]

I think a 'no brainer' would be switching the Southampton terminators to Portsmouth via Havant. Southampton already has an hourly XC service in each direction and switching to Portsmouth should be relatively simple (in my mind).

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I think a 'no brainer' would be switching the Southampton terminators to Portsmouth via Havant. Southampton already has an hourly XC service in each direction and switching to Portsmouth should be relatively simple (in my mind).

If Portsmouth Harbour station can handle them, if they don't already, they could be extended into Portsmouth Harbour station in the summer, especially when there's any events going on round there

 

[TheGrew]

I think a 'no brainer' would be switching the Southampton terminators to Portsmouth via Havant. Southampton already has an hourly XC service in each direction and switching to Portsmouth should be relatively simple (in my mind).

I think that pathing issues on the Portsmouth direct might prohibit this. If you were going to do it I think it would be easier to go via Eastleigh (again assuming paths through Winchester)

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Tomnick]

how about xc Nottingham services being extended from Nottingham to Grimsby calling at Newark castle, Lincoln, then every opposite hour to East Midlands service continue on to call at Market Rasen, Barnetby, Haborough and Grimsby town with the last one extended onto Cleethorpes where it could stable until the morning and form the first one back.

Extending a few through to Lincoln during the day seems practical if a couple of extra units and the additional traincrew can be found, but stabling overnight at Lincoln or Cleethorpes introduces all sorts of problems - who works the last one to Cleethorpes and the first one back? Even services in the daytime through to Cleethorpes would be a stretch - it's a long way from either Birmingham or Leicester traincrew depots!

 

[swt_passenger]

The 'Route Specification 2014 Western' document shows a Cross-country service of 3tph between Reading and Oxford in 2019.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/route-specifications/2014/western.pdf

By searching for that in the other route sections around Reading, Didcot, and in the neighbouring route specification up around Banbury etc it should be possible to work out where that 3rd XC path is coming from or going to. I'll have a look later - and it turns out that the immediately neighbouring plan doesn't provide the same details.

However there is one 'cross country' service showing on the Bicester branch by 2019 (with the expected 2 tph to Marylebone and 2 tph EWR). So perhaps what you've found is the notional extra 'cross country' service via the WCML, Bletchley and East West Rail, rather than a traditional 'CrossCountry' franchised service? No sign of it south or east of Reading either...

(Interesting that the same route spec section shows LDHS services from Oxford being reduced from 2 to 1 tph at the same time though. That must imply something run by HST/180 at the moment is changing to EMU? - but that's probably off topic for this thread...)

 

[The Planner]

I'd concur that its likely to be the E-W, considering the aspiration to run 2 via Cov.

 

[bunnahabhain]

Extending a few through to Lincoln during the day seems practical if a couple of extra units and the additional traincrew can be found, but stabling overnight at Lincoln or Cleethorpes introduces all sorts of problems - who works the last one to Cleethorpes and the first one back? Even services in the daytime through to Cleethorpes would be a stretch - it's a long way from either Birmingham or Leicester traincrew depots!

There are unlikely to be enough paths through to Lincoln when the Matlock-Nottingham is extended through to Newark.

 

[Qwerty133]

Perhaps the solution isn't that Crosscountry should operate these services, but perhaps East Midlands Trains should operate the Nottingham to Cardiff and Birmingham to Stansted operations. They're a perfect fit for EMT more than they are XC.

No thank you, I don't want a repeat of my first on train memory, of a 153 from NBR to Birmingham on the first off peak service during school holidays and if EMT get the services I can see class 170 coaches being used on Skegness/Matlock/Norwich/Lincoln/Crewe services in the summer/ on Saturdays/ when there's racing at Uttoxeter, in return for 156s and 153s.

 

[Tomnick]

There are unlikely to be enough paths through to Lincoln when the Matlock-Nottingham is extended through to Newark.

Probably not - but would it need to be extended through to Newark if there was an extra fast train each hour, allowing the Leicester train to pick up the local traffic more effectively? I certainly agree that it'd be a better fit with EMT than XC, especially as they're still resourced largely independently of the rest of XC's work (though I believe there's a bit of an overlap at a couple of the depots?).

Being able to pinch stock to provide extra capacity for Uttoxeter races or summer Saturdays to Skegvegas surely means that it's about making the best use of a larger pool of units? It might mean a Leicester - Birmingham being a bit less comfortable (hopefully not to extremes), but it's worth it as part of the bigger picture if it means that passengers aren't being left behind by the dozen elsewhere on the network. The influx of suburban units from the West Midlands at weekends, when they weren't needed so much there, to strengthen the service out to Skeg always seemed like a sensible approach to me!

 

[dannypye9999]

One suggestion for XC are direct trains from Gatwick to Leicester via Reading, Oxford, Coventry & Nuneaton, making three hourly between Leamington Spa and Reading each way. Then the trains London Midland uses for their Cove to Nuneaton services can be used elsewhere.

 

[The Planner]

So you are suggesting XC take on the Ricoh Arena, Bedworth and Bermuda Park calls and then do a nightmare of a reverse to get to Leicester? No.... any third XC will go via E-W.

 

[swt_passenger]

One suggestion for XC are direct trains from Gatwick to Leicester via Reading, Oxford, Coventry & Nuneaton, making three hourly between Leamington Spa and Reading each way. Then the trains London Midland uses for their Cove to Nuneaton services can be used elsewhere.

How many times now has it been explained that trains from Leamington to Nuneaton across Coventry are not practical - which is why they are planning on building a new bay platform so the Nuneaton shuttle service can run independently of the main route?

 

[bunnahabhain]

Probably not - but would it need to be extended through to Newark if there was an extra fast train each hour, allowing the Leicester train to pick up the local traffic more effectively? I certainly agree that it'd be a better fit with EMT than XC, especially as they're still resourced largely independently of the rest of XC's work (though I believe there's a bit of an overlap at a couple of the depots?).

The best option would be a reinstated Lincoln-Birmingham via Leicester fast service. A lot of traffic travels through from Lincoln and Newark to Loughborough and Leicester, and a significant amount change at Beeston for Derby and Birmingham. The problem with the Leicester traffic is that its far quicker to use the A46 than catch and all stations stopper service. Hence the idea to provide a stopper to Newark Castle by extending the Matlock service. The current service would then be Lincoln-Collingham-Newark Castle-Lowdham-Nottingham, with stops between Collingham and Lincoln being served by the North Gate shuttle, and Newark and Nottingham by an extended Matlock stopper. At present regardless of whether the train stops at all stations or not it has the same path over the flat crossing and so its almost irrelevant if it stops everywhere or not, it'll still take the same amount of time, hence the departures for Lincoln from Nottingham varying by just under 15 minutes on a standard hourly "clockface" pattern.

Perhaps the ideal situation would be an hourly Birmingham to Cleethorpes via Leicester, taking the place of the current Leicester stopper, introducing a new service Leicester to Lincoln, and then onwards to Cleethorpes. Like it used to be in the good old days of Central Trains!

 

[Martin_1981]

The best option would be a reinstated Lincoln-Birmingham via Leicester fast service. A lot of traffic travels through from Lincoln and Newark to Loughborough and Leicester, and a significant amount change at Beeston for Derby and Birmingham. The problem with the Leicester traffic is that its far quicker to use the A46 than catch and all stations stopper service. Hence the idea to provide a stopper to Newark Castle by extending the Matlock service. The current service would then be Lincoln-Collingham-Newark Castle-Lowdham-Nottingham, with stops between Collingham and Lincoln being served by the North Gate shuttle, and Newark and Nottingham by an extended Matlock stopper. At present regardless of whether the train stops at all stations or not it has the same path over the flat crossing and so its almost irrelevant if it stops everywhere or not, it'll still take the same amount of time, hence the departures for Lincoln from Nottingham varying by just under 15 minutes on a standard hourly "clockface" pattern.

Perhaps the ideal situation would be an hourly Birmingham to Cleethorpes via Leicester, taking the place of the current Leicester stopper, introducing a new service Leicester to Lincoln, and then onwards to Cleethorpes. Like it used to be in the good old days of Central Trains!

When it was decided back in 2007 that the Central Trains franchise would be broken up, it was first suggested that the Birmingham-Nottingham and Birmingham-Leicester local services would be operated by London Midland and the Notts-Cardiff and Brum-Stansted would be operated by XC.

Maybe this idea should be re-explored, but with the Brum-Notts and Brum-Leicester local services being operated by EMT, with the Brum-Leicester service being extended to run to and from Lincoln or Cleethorpes. The Stansteds and the Cardiffs could then remain with XC, although a bit of timetable re-jigging might be needed to enable the diagrams to work.

 

[Tomnick]

Would that work in practice though, given how much the routes interwork - presumably to make the most efficient use of stock and crew?

 

[Qwerty133]

When it was decided back in 2007 that the Central Trains franchise would be broken up, it was first suggested that the Birmingham-Nottingham and Birmingham-Leicester local services would be operated by London Midland and the Notts-Cardiff and Brum-Stansted would be operated by XC.

Maybe this idea should be re-explored, but with the Brum-Notts and Brum-Leicester local services being operated by EMT, with the Brum-Leicester service being extended to run to and from Lincoln or Cleethorpes. The Stansteds and the Cardiffs could then remain with XC, although a bit of timetable re-jigging might be needed to enable the diagrams to work.

I'd much prefer Leicester to Birmingham to go to LM than EMT, but then my reasons are primarily selfish, rather than for the benefit of passengers from anywhere other than that line.
It would also make more sense as the units are maintained with the LM ones at Tyldesley and there is even a LM fitter at Leicester most mornings.
As for stock I would propose that the 4? XC /6s were transferred to LM along with the 397 and 398 and 1/2 /5s if needed to make diagrams work.
I'd also like to see some through Birmingham working, for example with the Hereford services, as long as the last remaining 150 was relocated onto other services.

 

[ATW Alex 101]

I think XC should do services from Holyhead to Ipswich

 

[Qwerty133]

Would that work in practice though, given how much the routes interwork - presumably to make the most efficient use of stock and crew?

If the timetable is tightened to the very extreme Leicester to Birmingham may just about get away with 2 units, as long as a spare was maintained at New St to swap in if either of the units had slight faults.
Does anyone know if the 172s are quicker accelerating that the 170s, if so it may be beneficial to use 172s if possible.
Punctuality on these services could be much improved if signallers were reminded that it would cause a knock on disruption for the whole day, so not to hold these services at Wigston South, for late running London trains, or let freight trains out in front in the Birmingham area. (thanks to the signaller who let 2 trains out in front of the 6:52 from Birmingham last Wednesday)

 

[43074]

Does anyone know if the 172s are quicker accelerating that the 170s, if so it may be beneficial to use 172s if possible.
Punctuality on these services could be much improved if signallers were reminded that it would cause a knock on disruption for the whole day, so not to hold these services at Wigston South, for late running London trains, or let freight trains out in front in the Birmingham area. (thanks to the signaller who let 2 trains out in front of the 6:52 from Birmingham last Wednesday)

172s are quicker off the mark than 170s, infact the 153s and 156s you seem to hate are actually quicker accelerating than the 170s which are extremely slow in comparison.

There is a lot of padding in the XC Birmingham to Leicester timetable, not only for the Stansted services but also the Leicesters, and if this was removed then I would think ~ 50 - 55 minutes would be possible, so with tight 5 minute turn arounds at each ends you could work it with 2 units, but punctuality may be an issue at Wigston (as you say) and Water Orton/Proof House Junction on the approaches to Birmingham. Alternatively, remove the padding and add an extra service every hour, so Narborough, Hinkley etc. get 2 services every hour, which would require only 1 more unit.

 

[Tomnick]

Given the choice between holding a train that's a couple of miles from its destination and knocking one that's potentially going to cause problems around Trent and/or Derby, I know which one I'd choose! It does highlight the folly of potentially relying on successive turnarounds of five minutes or less too.