• 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!

XC desperately needs more rolling stock

Status
Not open for further replies.

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,267
[…]
I don’t know as I don’t know those routes, but surely there must be a local stopping service. Would it really be that hard to just plonk a 150 or a 319 on those routes?
A number of XC routes were previously operated by Central Trains, and they really are the local stopping service on some route sections. They probably should never have been included in 2007 XC in the first place, and it seems there are again recent DFT suggestions to transfer them back to local operators.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

hux385

Member
Joined
25 Apr 2023
Messages
178
Location
Edinburgh
Would the Avanti Voyagers be an issue for XC if they stil have tilt enabled? Would they keep the tilt or would it have to be turned off?
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,299
They probably should never have been included in 2007 XC in the first place, and it seems there are again recent DFT suggestions to transfer them back to local operators.
Why is XC considered incapable of running local services?

There are some very good reasons why XC got the local services, one of which was the mess that had occurred around the launch of Operation Princess when Central Trains ran separate services between Derby and Birmingham, another is a common operator for services between Cheltenham and Derby, another is critical mass of the traincrew depot at Leicester. It is also possible that running all trains between Derby and Birmingham helps with revenue apportionment.

It seems to be accepted that other operators can run both regional and express services.
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
2,703
Location
Leeds
Why is XC considered incapable of running local services?

There are some very good reasons why XC got the local services, one of which was the mess that had occurred around the launch of Operation Princess when Central Trains ran separate services between Derby and Birmingham, another is a common operator for services between Cheltenham and Derby, another is critical mass of the traincrew depot at Leicester. It is also possible that running all trains between Derby and Birmingham helps with revenue apportionment.

It seems to be accepted that other operators can run both regional and express services.
I wouldn't saythey were incapable, I'd say it's a question of whether those services would be better elsewhere, especially if it frees up stock. LNER and Avanti don't run 'local' services but do carry local traffic; East Midland and GWR do both. There's no right or wrong, but XC at the moment is too mixed a bag. And thus very short on seats at busy times, despite the prices.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,225
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I wouldn't saythey were incapable, I'd say it's a question of whether those services would be better elsewhere, especially if it frees up stock. LNER and Avanti don't run 'local' services but do carry local traffic; East Midland and GWR do both. There's no right or wrong, but XC at the moment is too mixed a bag. And thus very short on seats at busy times, despite the prices.

One reason to put those locals with other TOCs is that they may have more flexibility of fleet to be able to run longer trains at busier times.

Most of the time when TOCs run regional and long distance services it's about feeding the long distance service (e.g. the Cornish branches primarily exist to get people to/from the mainline) - Greater Anglia and EMR are probably the only exceptions to that. XC don't, they just have two quite disparate service groups that basically stand alone.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,299
I'd say it's a question of whether those services would be better elsewhere, especially if it frees up stock.
The stock and staff would almost certainly transfer with the services. The net gain to the railway would be nothing.
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
2,703
Location
Leeds
The stock and staff would almost certainly transfer with the services. The net gain to the railway would be nothing.
Not always. All of those 185s running up the west coast when TPE took over the route, for example, when we could have used them on home turf. That wasn't rectified until electrification and the 350s.
 

PacerTrain142

On Moderation
Joined
23 Aug 2016
Messages
211
Location
Next to the Railway
The routes that XC could dispense with or reduce frequencies are those that can be operated by other operators using electric traction, which XC do not possess, in particular Manchester-Birmingham. Services north of York could be reduced to no more than hourly, with Newcastle served hourly and Edinburgh served 2 hourly. Bournemouth services could also be reduced to 2 hourly, with alternate trains terminating at Southampton. This would free up existing diesel trains for operating over the core non-electrified part of the current XC network. XC are clearly not going to be able to acquire additional trains, and are also about to withdraw from service their ancient, decrepit and clapped out HSTs.
The routes that XC could dispense with or reduce frequencies are those that can be operated by other operators using electric traction, which XC do not possess, in particular Manchester-Birmingham. Services north of York could be reduced to no more than hourly, with Newcastle served hourly and Edinburgh served 2 hourly. Bournemouth services could also be reduced to 2 hourly, with alternate trains terminating at Southampton. This would free up existing diesel trains for operating over the core non-electrified part of the current XC network. XC are clearly not going to be able to acquire additional trains, and are also about to withdraw from service their ancient, decrepit and clapped out HSTs.
I thought HST’s were considered really good trains among most rail enthusiasts and often considered better than more modern stock like Pendleinos, voyagers and IET’s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I’m currently on holiday in the Cotswolds and going on a day trip to Weston Super Mare. Will be getting the much respected Cross Country Voyager from Cheltenham to Weston. The weather is going to be sunny and about 25 degrees. Wish me luck!
 
Last edited:

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,601
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
I thought HST’s were considered really good trains
"Were" is true, but they are now obsolescent and ready for the scrapyard. They were built from 1975 to 1982, so the newest is over 40 years old, and as the mainstay of the long-distance non-electrified main line passenger services for many years, they are now worn out. Every dog has its day.

The current issue is that the remaining HSTs (and their recently shortened versions in Scotland and the West Country) cannot afford to be replaced as such, so there is a need to make better use of the remaining XC diesel trains. My suggestion to help with the problem is to reduce diesel "running under the wires" by making use of redundant, but still serviceable, more modern emus, that are currently stored "out of use". The most obvious route for changing traction (and ToC) is on the Manchester-Birmingham sector; there is no fundamental reason why this service cannot be run in the same way as that from Liverpool to Birmingham.
 
Last edited:

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,515
Location
Plymouth
The most obvious route for changing traction (and ToC) is on the Manchester-Birmingham sector; there is no fundamental reason why this service cannot be run in the same way as that from Liverpool to Birmingham.
Trouble is you then condemn Manchester to the same fate that befell Liverpool, ie cutting it off from direct trains to the south. The railway should be run for the needs of the passenger, not what suits the railway. What is needed is bi modes , to allow more not less direct trains from places like Bournemouth, Reading Bristol and Plymouth to Manchester, Liverpool and other northern destinations.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,318
Location
Yorks
"Were" is true, but they are now obsolescent and ready for the scrapyard. They were built from 1975 to 1982, so the newest is over 40 years old, and as the mainstay of the long-distance non-electrified main line passenger services for many years, they are now worn out. Every dog has its day.

The current issue is that the remaining HSTs (and their recently shortened versions in Scotland and the West Country) cannot afford to be replaced as such, so there is a need to make better use of the remaining XC diesel trains. My suggestion to help with the problem is to reduce diesel "running under the wires" by making use of redundant, but still serviceable, more modern emus, that are currently stored "out of use". The most obvious route for changing traction (and ToC) is on the Manchester-Birmingham sector; there is no fundamental reason why this service cannot be run in the same way as that from Liverpool to Birmingham.

In the absence of replacement rolling stock from somewhere, the HST's need to be kept on.

Unfortunately "making better use of existing diesel trains" will really be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Using electric trains to bulk out Manchester - Birmingham services is a good one, however Manchester residents will still require some through services to the South West, so there's a limit to how far this approach can go.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,226
Location
Bolton
Unfortunately "making better use of existing diesel trains" will really be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The Voyager trains from Avanti West Coast will be sitting unused to be fair so it's not that, it's just usual Tory parsimony.
 

RobShipway

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
3,337
Trouble is you then condemn Manchester to the same fate that befell Liverpool, ie cutting it off from direct trains to the south. The railway should be run for the needs of the passenger, not what suits the railway. What is needed is bi modes , to allow more not less direct trains from places like Bournemouth, Reading Bristol and Plymouth to Manchester, Liverpool and other northern destinations.
But as I said earlier, you should have 1 train every two hours going on to Manchester etc..., but with the trains in between terminating in Birmingham with passengers having to change on to the Birmingham International to Manchester EMU service. Otherwise, you need to certainly change the services from Bournemouth which only go as far as Manchester Piccadilly, where people travelling from there to Glasgow/Edingburgh/Aberdeen for instance, would need to be changing at Birmingham New Street anyway to continue journey.
 

Manutd1999

Member
Joined
21 Feb 2021
Messages
547
Location
UK
What about if you restricted the Voyager operation to 2x services per hour along the core 'X' network.

Each branch into New Street would have a consistent hourly service, but the destination beyond Birmingham would alternate so that the full network is accessible 1p2h: For example:

1p2h: Edinburgh - Birmingham NS - Plymouth
1p2h: Edinburgh - Birmingham NS - Southampton

1p2h: Manchester - Birmingham NS - Bournemouth
1p2h: Manchester - Birmingham NS - Plymouth

The paths line up at New Street to allow such a service.

Would this be enough of a cutback to enable all Voyagers to be either 5-car or 8-car (double 4 car) sets?

Longer term, additional services from e.g. Manchester-Birmingham could be added by other TOCs using more suitable rolling stock (EMUs)
 
Last edited:

RobShipway

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
3,337
What about if you restricted the Voyager operation to 2x services per hour along the core 'X' network.

Each branch into New Street would have a consistent hourly service, but the destination beyond Birmingham would alternate so that the full network is accessible 1p2h: For example:

1p2h: Edinburgh - Birmingham NS - Plymouth
1p2h: Edinburgh - Birmingham NS - Southampton

1p2h: Manchester NS - Birmingham NS - Bournemouth
1p2h: Manchester NS - Birmingham NS - Plymouth

The paths line up at New Street to allow such a service.

Would this be enough of a cutback to enable all Voyagers to be either 5-car or 8-car (double 4 car) sets?

Longer term, additional services from e.g. Manchester-Birmingham could be added by other TOCs using more suitable rolling stock (EMUs)
The above would be good, but I believe it should be 10-car (double class 221) and possibly if needed be using the soon to be redundant Avanti class 221 units.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,669
What about if you restricted the Voyager operation to 2x services per hour along the core 'X' network.

Each branch into New Street would have a consistent hourly service, but the destination beyond Birmingham would alternate so that the full network is accessible 1p2h: For example:

1p2h: Edinburgh - Birmingham NS - Plymouth
1p2h: Edinburgh - Birmingham NS - Southampton

1p2h: Manchester NS - Birmingham NS - Bournemouth
1p2h: Manchester NS - Birmingham NS - Plymouth

The paths line up at New Street to allow such a service.

Would this be enough of a cutback to enable all Voyagers to be either 5-car or 8-car (double 4 car) sets?

Longer term, additional services from e.g. Manchester-Birmingham could be added by other TOCs using more suitable rolling stock (EMUs)
Don't see how it can reduce the diagrams as you are extending the Bristol and Newcastle legs.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,318
Location
Yorks
The Voyager trains from Avanti West Coast will be sitting unused to be fair so it's not that, it's just usual Tory parsimony.

Indeed. By the "existing diesel fleet" I'd assumed that @daodao meant the existing XC fleet, however additional units would alleviate the problem.
 

YorksLad12

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2020
Messages
2,703
Location
Leeds
Currently on a Cross Country Voyager travelling between Cheltenham Spa and Bristol Temple Meads, it’s actually quite quiet. Most seats are empty.
Today, Coach C was the one with no comfort cooling. Time to retire the HSTs...?

Am looking forward to Tuesday 19th, when I can catch the train home without being surrounded by photographers getting their final HST shots! Trains might be less busy as well; yesterday and today had several people doing final-ish HST runs. You can tell by the conversations ;) Were any (other) forum members on 1S51?
 

Flinn Reed

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2017
Messages
218
Not sure if this is the place place to put this as more of a speculative post. But I think there may be a case to fully split up the CrossCountry franchise - so that services can operate more reliably and better scheduled with connecting local routes. One of the main problems is that given the length of many services, disruptions can sometimes cause delays in a completely different part of the country. While the current services can cover longer journeys on one train between a range of destinations, it will always be impossible to satisfy everyone, with the timetable having been scaled back in recent years to some destinations. In my opinion, having to change once or twice would be far preferable if it meant a more reliable service, and possibly more frequent services on each section too (plus trains longer than 4-cars on busier services).

Operationally it could help too, making better use of resources such as rolling stock, including using electric or bi-mode trains where possible. Plus as has been mentioned previously here, better integrate with other services on the same tracks or within the same region - which would be simpler from a passenger's perspective in terms of timetables, ticketing, promotions etc. The core long distance north-south sections might be a better fit as part of the east and west cost franchises, while the remaining XC sections could be better integrated into the relevant mixed-service TOCs.

The main obstacle is where to terminate trains if services are split up. Birmingham is clearly the most logical place, served by all XC services, and with plenty of other interchange possibilities to a range of destinations. There's no capacity available at New Street, however if/when Moor Street Station gets redeveloped, this could be a good opportunity to assess the XC network, with new curves of track allowing services from the SW and NE of Birmingham to divert into Moor Street.

So my suggestion would be:

GWR to take over Birmingham to Bristol and the South West. Possibly Birmingham-Cardiff too, though that could go to Transport for Wales instead? XC's Voyager fleet would move to GWR, also taking over their existing services between Cardiff and Penzance. 800s/802s would therefore only remain on routes to/from Paddington.

GWR's spare 80Xs would then transfer to LNER, who would take over the Birmingham-Leeds-Edinburgh services. And EMR would take XC's 170s, covering the services from Birmingham to Leicester, Nottingham and Stansted.

I think the remaining sections would be best covered by Avanti, who could introduce a half-hourly standardised service between Manchester and Reading. This would require some additional bi-mode Hitachis to be added to the order, making use of Coventry-Manchester being electrified. Terminating at Reading would simplify the service pattern, allowing interchange to many non-London destinations in the South. SWR would need to introduce a Reading-Southampton/Bournemouth service alongside, these could use some 158s displaced from another TOC, maybe also incorporating GWR's Reading-Basingstoke stoppers?
 

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
5,058
Not sure if this is the place place to put this as more of a speculative post. But I think there may be a case to fully split up the CrossCountry franchise - so that services can operate more reliably and better scheduled with connecting local routes. One of the main problems is that given the length of many services, disruptions can sometimes cause delays in a completely different part of the country. While the current services can cover longer journeys on one train between a range of destinations, it will always be impossible to satisfy everyone, with the timetable having been scaled back in recent years to some destinations. In my opinion, having to change once or twice would be far preferable if it meant a more reliable service, and possibly more frequent services on each section too (plus trains longer than 4-cars on busier services).

Operationally it could help too, making better use of resources such as rolling stock, including using electric or bi-mode trains where possible. Plus as has been mentioned previously here, better integrate with other services on the same tracks or within the same region - which would be simpler from a passenger's perspective in terms of timetables, ticketing, promotions etc. The core long distance north-south sections might be a better fit as part of the east and west cost franchises, while the remaining XC sections could be better integrated into the relevant mixed-service TOCs.

The main obstacle is where to terminate trains if services are split up. Birmingham is clearly the most logical place, served by all XC services, and with plenty of other interchange possibilities to a range of destinations. There's no capacity available at New Street, however if/when Moor Street Station gets redeveloped, this could be a good opportunity to assess the XC network, with new curves of track allowing services from the SW and NE of Birmingham to divert into Moor Street.

So my suggestion would be:

GWR to take over Birmingham to Bristol and the South West. Possibly Birmingham-Cardiff too, though that could go to Transport for Wales instead? XC's Voyager fleet would move to GWR, also taking over their existing services between Cardiff and Penzance. 800s/802s would therefore only remain on routes to/from Paddington.

GWR's spare 80Xs would then transfer to LNER, who would take over the Birmingham-Leeds-Edinburgh services. And EMR would take XC's 170s, covering the services from Birmingham to Leicester, Nottingham and Stansted.

I think the remaining sections would be best covered by Avanti, who could introduce a half-hourly standardised service between Manchester and Reading. This would require some additional bi-mode Hitachis to be added to the order, making use of Coventry-Manchester being electrified. Terminating at Reading would simplify the service pattern, allowing interchange to many non-London destinations in the South. SWR would need to introduce a Reading-Southampton/Bournemouth service alongside, these could use some 158s displaced from another TOC, maybe also incorporating GWR's Reading-Basingstoke stoppers?

This is pure speculation and potentially worthy of its own thread. I'd be interested to know how and why you think there would be scope to build new chords to link Moor Street to the XC network, this would be a major undertaking. Is there any proposal to do this in the future?
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,669
This is pure speculation and potentially worthy of its own thread. I'd be interested to know how and why you think there would be scope to build new chords to link Moor Street to the XC network, this would be a major undertaking. Is there any proposal to do this in the future?
Yes, under Midlands Rail Hub there are chords to the Camp Hill line in both directions. They are pretty advanced. The south facing chord has more chance though.
 

172007

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2021
Messages
1,147
Location
West Mids
Yes, under Midlands Rail Hub there are chords to the Camp Hill line in both directions. They are pretty advanced. The south facing chord has more chance though.
Camphill Chords, Moor Street with platforms A,B, 5&6 opening in that order plus platform 4 at Sbow Hill with additional cross overs Jewellery Quarter end to facilitate access to all platforms plus Snow Hill sill have mid platform signals is already well in the planning and from all the briefings that have beem given to WMR staff in the Snow Hill Lines it's a fine deal. Spades in ground by 2025. Land already purchased for the Chords.
 

Flinn Reed

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2017
Messages
218
This is pure speculation and potentially worthy of its own thread. I'd be interested to know how and why you think there would be scope to build new chords to link Moor Street to the XC network, this would be a major undertaking. Is there any proposal to do this in the future?

This is an active proposal, not my own suggestion. I think it's part of the reopening of the Camp Hill Line.
 

12LDA28C

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2022
Messages
5,058
Yes, under Midlands Rail Hub there are chords to the Camp Hill line in both directions. They are pretty advanced. The south facing chord has more chance though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Camphill Chords, Moor Street with platforms A,B, 5&6 opening in that order plus platform 4 at Sbow Hill with additional cross overs Jewellery Quarter end to facilitate access to all platforms plus Snow Hill sill have mid platform signals is already well in the planning and from all the briefings that have beem given to WMR staff in the Snow Hill Lines it's a fine deal. Spades in ground by 2025. Land already purchased for the Chords.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

This is an active proposal, not my own suggestion. I think it's part of the reopening of the Camp Hill Line.

Interesting. What services are planned to use these new chords?
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,669
Camphill Chords, Moor Street with platforms A,B, 5&6 opening in that order plus platform 4 at Sbow Hill with additional cross overs Jewellery Quarter end to facilitate access to all platforms plus Snow Hill sill have mid platform signals is already well in the planning and from all the briefings that have beem given to WMR staff in the Snow Hill Lines it's a fine deal. Spades in ground by 2025. Land already purchased for the Chords.
I'll put serious money on nothing starting by 2025.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top