XC desperately needs more rolling stock

[PacerTrain142]

The current plan is nothing - simply stretching the existing voyager fleet more thinly

So just making the current overcrowding issues even worse.. Taking trains out of service when there is no replacement available... Makes so much sense! Well done Cross Country.

 

[The Planner]

So just making the current overcrowding issues even worse.. Taking trains out of service when there is no replacement available... Makes so much sense! Well done Cross Country.

Its not their doing.

 

[yorksrob]

So just making the current overcrowding issues even worse.. Taking trains out of service when there is no replacement available... Makes so much sense! Well done Cross Country.

Its not their doing.

Indeed. There's a recurring theme across the country.

 

[12LDA28C]

So just making the current overcrowding issues even worse.. Taking trains out of service when there is no replacement available... Makes so much sense! Well done Cross Country.

This has been discussed repeatedly across various threads. Aim your displeasure at the DfT as it's them dictating the withdrawal of serviceable trains with no replacement.

 

[Snow1964]

So just making the current overcrowding issues even worse.. Taking trains out of service when there is no replacement available... Makes so much sense! Well done Cross Country.

Indeed. There's a recurring theme across the country.

This has been discussed repeatedly across various threads. Aim your displeasure at the DfT as it's them dictating the withdrawal of serviceable trains with no replacement.

The one difference is XC contract expires in a month, and if DfT make it unworkable, or take it to a point where staff are unhappy and become at high risk due to seriously annoyed passengers the current Operator might choose not to take an extension. Of course they might just be commercially greedy and accept a rubbish contract to move crowded passengers if they can make money out of it.

Time will tell sometime within next 4 weeks as to what will actually be happening going forward (will it still be shortened XC network, or back to 2019 frequencies and train lengths), one thing DfT can't do is hide from media comments if they offer a contract for a shrunken overcrowded service

 

[matacaster]

Could cross country use the ex-tpe loco sets?

 

[yorksrob]

The one difference is XC contract expires in a month, and if DfT make it unworkable, or take it to a point where staff are unhappy and become at high risk due to seriously annoyed passengers the current Operator might choose not to take an extension. Of course they might just be commercially greedy and accept a rubbish contract to move crowded passengers if they can make money out of it.

Time will tell sometime within next 4 weeks as to what will actually be happening going forward (will it still be shortened XC network, or back to 2019 frequencies and train lengths), one thing DfT can't do is hide from media comments if they offer a contract for a shrunken overcrowded service

That's a good point. Hopefully an end in contract will ensure some scrutiny of the DfT/Treasury/Gmt etc.

 

[JonathanH]

Could cross country use the ex-tpe loco sets?

No. They can't maintain Voyager schedules.

Of course they might just be commercially greedy and accept a rubbish contract to move crowded passengers if they can make money out of it.

Huh? My reading of posts made by informed posters is that the operator gets paid a fixed amount for running the trains. No revenue interest at all, nor scope for commercial greed, because the service they run is what they are contracted to run.

The operator takes the contract on offer. It can't say that it will make improvements that aren't contracted. If it walks away, the train service will be the same as if it takes the contract.

There is very little media or political pressure to do anything about CrossCountry.

 

[Energy]

Huh? My reading of posts made by informed posters is that the operator gets paid a fixed amount for running the trains. No revenue interest at all, nor scope for commercial greed, because the service they run is what they are contracted to run.

Yes, the current management contracts are as close as it gets to free money. Aside from day-to-day management, the DfT makes the decisions, you're paid to implement them and evaluate options for the DfT.

If the DfT decisions are crap its fine, you still get paid for implementing them.

 

[Snow1964]

Yes, the current management contracts are as close as it gets to free money. Aside from day-to-day management, the DfT makes the decisions, you're paid to implement them and evaluate options for the DfT.

If the DfT decisions are crap its fine, you still get paid for implementing them.

That's true, but the DfT indicated in the Prior Information notice that it would be 4 years, extendable upto 8 years.

It's not clear to me that they would offer free money through to 2027 or 2031 whilst making the contract easy to work for that whole period. I was rather under the impression they wanted to move away from management contracts by early 2025 (at least that was what was said about year ago).

 

[3RDGEN]

Compared to the pre COVID timetable the XC May core timetable has the following cuts,

Glasgow - Edinburgh from 2 hourly to one per day.
Newcastle - Reading from hourly to a two/three hourly interval and one cut back to York .
Bristol TM - Exeter & Reading - Southampton two hourly extensions cut out. (Paignton remains)

Giving these cuts there must have been a significant drop in 22x diagrams from the historical service level that the current 22x fleet ran unless XC have doubled up a number of the remaining services? I have read that some of these cuts provide the units required to replace the two HST diagrams but where have the units released by the cuts above gone, can anyone who knows the XC 22x diagramming advise?

 

[Rhydgaled]

The HSTs and their shortened derivatives are on the way out soon and this decision is irrevocable.

Shame on the DfT/Treasury.

They are ready for the scrapyard.

They would have been if they hadn't had millions spent on them a few years ago for life-extension works to get them past 2020. If it was known they would be withdrawn in 2023, they should have been given a dispensation to continue running with slam doors rather than spending all that money on them.

I did not suggest building more diesel trains, but that other TOCs should provide alternative electric services on certain routes to reduce diesel running under the wires, so that existing XC Voyager trains can be deployed on routes where diesel traction is currently essential. The key electrified routes where XC run extensive services are:

• Manchester Piccadilly-Coventry
• Edinburgh-Doncaster
• Bournemouth-Basingstoke

Yes, but none of those constitute a full service on any of XC's route; even the part-routes of Manchester-Bristol and Newcastle-Reading are not fully wired, meaning you cannot currently use EMUs on XC without making lots more passengers change trains.

South of Birmingham, the wires continue to both Coventry and Bromsgrove.

You can also add Severn Tunnel Junction-Cardiff, the section through Bristol Parkway, Didcot-Reading West (first part of Basingstoke line), Ely-Stansted as AC electrified plus the third rail section Bournemouth-Basingstoke (and map also shows the part electrified Reading-Guildford route, although services not going there currently).

So around 60-65% of the routes XC use has electrification. Even if out by few percentage points (and I have estimated from a map), it is easily over 50% of the XC network

It's all useless to XC (until some more electrification is done elsewhere to cascade some bi-modes to XC) without splitting services and making lots of passengers change trains (see also the proposal to split Liverpool-Norwich at Nottingham). If you were to do this, why does XC exist at all? Manchester-Birmingham could move to Avanti, Birmingham-Bristol/Plymouth/Penzance to GWR, Coventry-Didcot to Chiltern etc.

Why? The 170s work well on these routes.

They don't work that well. My knees were crushed to pulp once long before Cheltenham due to lack of legroom (I'd got on at Newport I think, but it was a long time ago and I can't remember for sure), my mother and grandmother don't like the toilets in passenger saloons, the lack of internal doors seperating the saloons from the vestibles is an issue and when we sent my brother to Nottingham (even more years ago than my knee-crushing trip) on his return he told me 'the doors were in the wrong place' (again it was a long time ago so my memory is fuzzy but I think those were his words not mine).

That said, I'm not suggesting 222s (5-car and with first class converted to standard) work all the Turbostar routes, just Cardiff-Nottingham. I would say Birmingham-Stansted as well but I understand that has issues with differential linespeeds, so the 170s have to stay there for now, while Birmingham-Leicester/Nottingham are just local stoppers so the 170s (or maybe cascaded 172s or 196s in future) are ok.

How are they getting these? There are only a few 7 car 222s.

I think I first suggested this when Stagecoach still ran EMT (before it passed to Abellio as EMR). Back then, there were six 7-car sets and four 4-car sets, and my suggestion included dumping the driving cars from the 4-car units (as was done with a 221 for a while to give Virgin West Coast an all 5-car Voyager fleet) to lengthen other sets to 7-car, which could have given ten 7-car sets. That could still be done. Reforming the 222s is clearly acheivable since it has already been done a few times - the exact mix of 7-car and 5-car sets would depend on how many 5-cars are needed for Cardiff-Nottingham - the rest I would reform into 7-car sets to supplement the Voyagers.

XC doesn't need the 222s, the 220s and 221s can give 20 6 car 221s and 58 4 car 220/221s to run as 4+4. That should be enough.

A 6-car 221 would still be a fairly big reduction in seats compared to the outgoing 2+7 IC125s. Even a 7-car 222 with first class reduced to 50 seats (22 in the driving car and 28 in a composite coach with 22 standard class seats) falls quite a bit short. In terms of seats, the XC125s are roughly equivalent to a 9-car (5+4) Voyager formation. And I'd really rather we got rid of as many 4-car 22X as possible (all those cabs and accessible toilets) - I've suggested scrapping half the class 220 driving cars and reforming the entire 220 fleet as 6-cars before now (long before the XC125s were chopped) with the small pool of 4-car 221s being semi-permanently coupled to a 5-car set as four 9-car units (I don't mean any physical mods, just keeping them running in multiple all day every day with no splitting and joining).

Why would they spend tax payer money on HSTs when 221s would become available?

I don't know, but they did. The money has already been spent on the life-extension works - the plan to increase utilisation of the XC125s from 2 diagrams to 4 from May 2023 was official policy - right up until it wasn't. Yes, there would be leasing costs to keep the XC125s on but the same would apply to additional Voyagers and the big capital work on the IC125s has already been done (I believe at tax payer's expense).

I see no reason why XC shouldn't operate a two tier service as per GWR or East Midlands Railway.

Two possible reasons:

• XC doesn't manage any stations. The stopping services sit better with more-local TOCs who do manage the stations
• the Stansted and Cardiff services would benefit from higher-tier stock (ie. regional express rather than outer-suburban) but this would result in micro fleets if XC also kept the local stoppers between Birmingham and Leicester/Nottingham which presumably do need the outer-suburban stock

 

[RobShipway]

They don't work that well. My knees were crushed to pulp once long before Cheltenham due to lack of legroom (I'd got on at Newport I think, but it was a long time ago and I can't remember for sure), my mother and grandmother don't like the toilets in passenger saloons, the lack of internal doors seperating the saloons from the vestibles is an issue and when we sent my brother to Nottingham (even more years ago than my knee-crushing trip) on his return he told me 'the doors were in the wrong place' (again it was a long time ago so my memory is fuzzy but I think those were his words not mine).

That said, I'm not suggesting 222s (5-car and with first class converted to standard) work all the Turbostar routes, just Cardiff-Nottingham. I would say Birmingham-Stansted as well but I understand that has issues with differential linespeeds, so the 170s have to stay there for now, while Birmingham-Leicester/Nottingham are just local stoppers so the 170s (or maybe cascaded 172s or 196s in future) are ok.

As has been said many times in many threads, the likes of class 220, 221 and 222 are too heavier train for doing Cardiff - Nottingham or Birmingham - Stansted Airport.

I will stand corrected, but I don't believe that either class 172 or 196 have had approval given to run into Stansted Airport Station? You really need something like class 755/756 Flirt bi-mode to be operating into Stansted Airport and it probably would be a better train to operate on the Cardiff - Nottingham services as well.

Yes, XC don't manage any stations, but they are the only operator to stop at some stations which is managed by other TOC's as per the following from the Cross Country Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CrossCountry

"CrossCountry does not manage any stations, although there are stations managed by other train operating companies at which it is the only operator: five stations (Burton-on-Trent, Hinckley, Narborough, South Wigston and Willington) are managed by East Midlands Railway, while three stations (Coleshill Parkway, Water Orton and Wilnecote) are managed by West Midlands Trains. At Tamworth station, which has tracks and platforms at two levels, the high-level platforms are served only by CrossCountry, but the entire station is managed by West Midlands Trains, which serves the low-level platforms. Similarly, at Worcestershire Parkway, the low-level platforms are served only by CrossCountry, but the station is managed by Great Western Railway, which serves only the high-level platforms.[citation needed]

Manea was served only by CrossCountry until 2013, when Abellio Greater Anglia started running one train every two hours at the station in addition to the CrossCountry services there."

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

CrossCountry have used Voyagers from Cardiff to Nottingham before. So if they did get all the Avanti West Coast ones or the other 18 then there would be enough to have 8 on the Cardiff to Nottingham without these interlocking with the local Nottinghams.

If the Avanti ones can be diagrammed separately on the Nottinghams then that please a lot of passengers in that these have recently been refurbished and would mean more First and Standard Class seats in 5 coaches plus power sockets!

 

[hux385]

I think XC need to resolve their identity crisis before they order any new stock, otherwise they risk being stuck with something that doesn't fit their operation. Their current offering is an overpriced, cramped, fairly slow experience (which is not entirely their fault i.e. timetabling/DfT constraints) - personally I try and avoid any sort of long distance leg on their trains. For example, if I travel Edinburgh-Taunton, I will use Avanti to Birmingham and then change to XC (or even go via London!). If we get some high quality new rolling stock for XC, they could really come into their own and provide a high quality long distance service.

I think it's worth acknowledging that XC are never going to be the fastest operator; their paths are not always optimal and they are often squeezed in around London trains which have priority. With HS2/ECML upgrades on the horizon, this might become even more apparent? However, extra carriages and cheaper fares would go a long way to keeping passengers happy. Personally, if it took an hour longer to use a direct XC train for my Edinburgh-Taunton journey but it was half the price, I would choose XC.

Any future rolling stock for XC needs to be the longest possible formation (would 10 cars fit into most stations on the route? 11? 12?!), and needs to have COMFY seats, good window alignment, fast wifi, an oversized luggage storage compartment and a cafe-bar. It should be bi-mode and capable of 125mph running. I would propose having it as standard class throughout to maximise capacity and creating cheap fares at the extremities of the network to avoid carriages full of fresh air. They could have a couple of premium 'pods' for business passengers who are spending the day travelling and need a small office space to work from.

I think we are unlikely to see proper infrastructure investment on lots of the cross country network and so I think investing in the rolling stock is the best way to proceed. It would also keep the south west and north east happy due to their lack of HS2 services

 

[Rhydgaled]

As has been said many times in many threads, the likes of class 220, 221 and 222 are too heavier train for doing Cardiff - Nottingham or Birmingham - Stansted Airport.

I will stand corrected, but I don't believe that either class 172 or 196 have had approval given to run into Stansted Airport Station?

As my post above said, the 170s would have to stay on Birmingham-Stansted for now - I was only suggesting 172/196 on the Birmingham-Leciester and Birmingham-Nottingham locals (and this would be subject to more West Midlands electrification to release 172s and/or 196s) and 222s for Cardiff-Nottingham (I thought it was only Birmingham-Stansted that had issues with weight (differential linespeeds) since most of the Cardiff-Nottingham route is also traversed by XC Voyagers or EMT/EMR 222s on other routes).

Yes, XC don't manage any stations, but they are the only operator to stop at some stations which is managed by other TOC's

I know, but I think it's been discussed elsewhere that this is not an ideal suituation and it would be better for services to be operated by a TOC that actually manages the stations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2023 ==

I think it's worth acknowledging that XC are never going to be the fastest operator; their paths are not always optimal and they are often squeezed in around London trains which have priority. With HS2/ECML upgrades on the horizon, this might become even more apparent? However, extra carriages and cheaper fares would go a long way to keeping passengers happy. Personally, if it took an hour longer to use a direct XC train for my Edinburgh-Taunton journey but it was half the price, I would choose XC.

I think we are unlikely to see proper infrastructure investment on lots of the cross country network and so I think investing in the rolling stock is the best way to proceed. It would also keep the south west and north east happy due to their lack of HS2 services

The lack of attention given to XC routes is one of the reasons I think the HS2 plans are flawed. There is the eastern arm of HS2 taking services from Sheffield/Derby/Nottingham to Birmingham and phase 2b from Manchester to Birmingham but the current services on these routes are mostly XC services which continue south beyond Birmingham, meaning HS2 will not allow these XC services to be removed from Birmingham New Street without making everyone change train (and station!) in Birmingham from HS2 (Curzon Street) to XC (New Street, or possibly Moor Street in future?). As a result, HS2 does little or nothing to make rail more competitive on the SW-NE axis and doesn't free up nearly as much capacity at New Street as it should. Of course, for HS2 services to replace XC we would need electrification south from Coventry/Birmingham to Bristol/Plymouth/Didcot etc. (which should have been done long ago, but is resolvable in future) and a through station at Curzon Street rather than the planned terminus (which really needs at least passive provision built in now - the lack of which is probably the biggest reason I'm not pro-HS2 at the moment).

 

[The Planner]

I think it's worth acknowledging that XC are never going to be the fastest operator; their paths are not always optimal and they are often squeezed in around London trains which have priority. With HS2/ECML upgrades on the horizon, this might become even more apparent? However, extra carriages and cheaper fares would go a long way to keeping passengers happy. Personally, if it took an hour longer to use a direct XC train for my Edinburgh-Taunton journey but it was half the price, I would choose XC.

Not sure I'd agree with that, the have pretty decent paths in the main.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2023 ==

a through station at Curzon Street rather than the planned terminus (which really needs at least passive provision built in now - the lack of which is probably the biggest reason I'm not pro-HS2 at the moment).

Absolutely no chance of that.

 

[Energy]

Back then, there were six 7-car sets and four 4-car sets, and my suggestion included dumping the driving cars from the 4-car units (as was done with a 221 for a while to give Virgin West Coast an all 5-car Voyager fleet) to lengthen other sets to 7-car, which could have given ten 7-car sets. That could still be done.

Virgin still had those 221 end cars on lease, they sat around Central Rivers before being reformed and sent to XC.

A 6-car 221 would still be a fairly big reduction in seats compared to the outgoing 2+7 IC125s. Even a 7-car 222 with first class reduced to 50 seats (22 in the driving car and 28 in a composite coach with 22 standard class seats) falls quite a bit short. In terms of seats, the XC125s are roughly equivalent to a 9-car (5+4) Voyager formation. And I'd really rather we got rid of as many 4-car 22X as possible (all those cabs and accessible toilets) - I've suggested scrapping half the class 220 driving cars and reforming the entire 220 fleet as 6-cars before now (long before the XC125s were chopped) with the small pool of 4-car 221s being semi-permanently coupled to a 5-car set as four 9-car units (I don't mean any physical mods, just keeping them running in multiple all day every day with no splitting and joining).

Well you'd put 8 cars on the routes which need them and 6 cars on the ones which don't? The plan I detailed above would have 60% of services be 8 cars.

Scrapping the 220 end cars would be wasteful while the 222s have demand elsewhere (Scotrail). Id expect Beacon Rail to not give a brilliant price on just some of the vehicles.

 

[Snow1964]

Virgin still had those 221 end cars on lease, they sat around Central Rivers before being reformed and sent to XC.

Well you'd put 8 cars on the routes which need them and 6 cars on the ones which don't? The plan I detailed above would have 60% of services be 8 cars.

Scrapping the 220 end cars would be wasteful while the 222s have demand elsewhere (Scotrail). Id expect Beacon Rail to not give a brilliant price on just some of the vehicles.

The problem is the 220s and 221s are 21-23 years old, so adding complete new vehicles is never going to make sense if they only end up being used 10-15 years, to when existing vehicles are life expired.

However you are correct there are too many driving cars, not enough intermediate cars. Far too many short units. What I do not know is if could make some new bodyshells economically, then transfer all the attached parts (bogies, engines, doors, seats etc). Alternatively could some be rebuilt as intermediate cars (I am wary of alterations knowing how long rebuilding 458s took).

Not exactly a loss if you end off with few sets of cab equipment in spares cupboard at Three Rivers Depot. Similarly if a few units were dispanded, and reformed others as lengthened sets wouldn't be scrapping whole driving vehicle. As I said earlier most parts (bogies, engines, seats, doors etc can be unbolted and kept as spares for remainder).

Actually not that uncommon for a small number of sets to be withdrawn in second half of their lifespan, to provide spare parts to keep the remainder going. If there is already a situation where some sets are not available, can't go into service tomorrow because they are awaiting parts, then might actually get a net of more vehicles in service by reforming and scrapping some vehicles.

Perhaps someone knows if all 220s and 221s are available for use, or if some are out of use awaiting parts. Unless there is a plan to buy loads of spares then might as well reform some. Because effectively accepting some of the fleet are parked up out of use anyway, so stripping some for parting out (Christmas tree mode) means get more in service

 

[Energy]

The problem is the 220s and 221s are 21-23 years old, so adding complete new vehicles is never going to make sense if they only end up being used 10-15 years, to when existing vehicles are life expired.

I haven't proposed new vehicles, you can rejig the existing 220&221s into 29x 4+4 and 20x 6 car without any new vehicles.

 

[RobShipway]

As my post above said, the 170s would have to stay on Birmingham-Stansted for now - I was only suggesting 172/196 on the Birmingham-Leciester and Birmingham-Nottingham locals (and this would be subject to more West Midlands electrification to release 172s and/or 196s) and 222s for Cardiff-Nottingham (I thought it was only Birmingham-Stansted that had issues with weight (differential linespeeds) since most of the Cardiff-Nottingham route is also traversed by XC Voyagers or EMT/EMR 222s on other routes).

You would be better of with having brand new bi-mode 3 & 5 carriage Flirt trains with the 3 carriage flirt trains doing Birmingham - Leicester and Birmingham - Nottingham. The 5 carriage will do Nottingham - Stansted and Nottingham - Cardiff services.

The problem is the 220s and 221s are 21-23 years old, so adding complete new vehicles is never going to make sense if they only end up being used 10-15 years, to when existing vehicles are life expired.

However you are correct there are too many driving cars, not enough intermediate cars. Far too many short units. What I do not know is if could make some new bodyshells economically, then transfer all the attached parts (bogies, engines, doors, seats etc). Alternatively could some be rebuilt as intermediate cars (I am wary of alterations knowing how long rebuilding 458s took).

Not exactly a loss if you end off with few sets of cab equipment in spares cupboard at Three Rivers Depot. Similarly if a few units were dispanded, and reformed others as lengthened sets wouldn't be scrapping whole driving vehicle. As I said earlier most parts (bogies, engines, seats, doors etc can be unbolted and kept as spares for remainder).

Actually not that uncommon for a small number of sets to be withdrawn in second half of their lifespan, to provide spare parts to keep the remainder going. If there is already a situation where some sets are not available, can't go into service tomorrow because they are awaiting parts, then might actually get a net of more vehicles in service by reforming and scrapping some vehicles.

Perhaps someone knows if all 220s and 221s are available for use, or if some are out of use awaiting parts. Unless there is a plan to buy loads of spares then might as well reform some. Because effectively accepting some of the fleet are parked up out of use anyway, so stripping some for parting out (Christmas tree mode) means get more in service

It would be wasteful to be buying new carriages for the class 220/221/22 units, if the ability exists for them to be built.

 

[Trainbike46]

You would be better of with having brand new bi-mode 3 & 5 carriage Flirt trains with the 3 carriage flirt trains doing Birmingham - Leicester and Birmingham - Nottingham. The 5 carriage will do Nottingham - Stansted and Nottingham - Cardiff services.


It would be wasteful to be buying new carriages for the class 220/221/22 units, if the ability exists for them to be built.

Why 3-car rather than 4-car FLIRTS?
Also why are you rejigging the existing Birmingham-Stansted services to go to Nottingham instead.
Importantly, where are you fitting 5-car FLIRTS at Stansted? As I understand it, the bay platform can't fit more than 4 carriages, and if you want to platform-share with the stansted express services you are limited to 4-cars as well

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2023 ==

Another question, but why do bimodes rather than BEMUs (probably with extra electrification islands) or trimodes (2 battery packs, 2 diesel genset)?

 

[RobShipway]

Why 3-car rather than 4-car FLIRTS?
Also why are you rejigging the existing Birmingham-Stansted services to go to Nottingham instead.
Importantly, where are you fitting 5-car FLIRTS at Stansted? As I understand it, the bay platform can't fit more than 4 carriages, and if you want to platform-share with the stansted express services you are limited to 4-cars as well

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2023 ==

Another question, but why do bimodes rather than BEMUs (probably with extra electrification islands) or trimodes (2 battery packs, 2 diesel genset)?

The platforms have fitted 5 car class 720 units within them at Stansted Airport.

It makes more sense for the Birmingham - Stansted to be going to Nottingham, if capacity.

From what I have seen there has been at times a three class 170, with a two class 170 couple to it regularly at times on the service from Stansted Airport. Hence, why 5 car flirts.

The reason for bi-mode rather than BEMU's, is the distance that the flirts would have to travel on battery power, you would need longer stops at a few places for the batteries to recharge with current battery technology. But like the class 755/756 units, I would have the trains built as bi-modes or possibly tri-modes, with the ability to remove the main diesel power packs later to be replaced by batteries. The longer the stops so that the trains could recharge their batteries the less likely that you will get more people from cars and on to trains.

 

[JonathanH]

The platforms have fitted 5 car class 720 units within them at Stansted Airport.

They fit 12 car 745s as well. The issue is that there isn't space for a 745 and a train longer than 4 coaches at the same time, and both long platforms are needed for trains to London. The bay platform used by CrossCountry can't fit a long train.

From what I have seen there has been at times a three class 170, with a two class 170 couple to it regularly at times on the service from Stansted Airport.

You won't have seen that. It doesn't happen as the platform is too short. There are lots of postings about the platforms at Stansted on this forum as it often comes up.

 

[Trainbike46]

The platforms have fitted 5 car class 720 units within them at Stansted Airport.

It makes more sense for the Birmingham - Stansted to be going to Nottingham, if capacity.

From what I have seen there has been at times a three class 170, with a two class 170 couple to it regularly at times on the service from Stansted Airport. Hence, why 5 car flirts.

The reason for bi-mode rather than BEMU's, is the distance that the flirts would have to travel on battery power, you would need longer stops at a few places for the batteries to recharge with current battery technology. But like the class 755/756 units, I would have the trains built as bi-modes or possibly tri-modes, with the ability to remove the main diesel power packs later to be replaced by batteries. The longer the stops so that the trains could recharge their batteries the less likely that you will get more people from cars and on to trains.

Stansted can fit long trains (theoretically, even a 16-car flirt would fit in one of the platforms), however:
- platform 2, which is usually used by XC services, is limited to 4 cars due to length.
- Platform 1&3 are needed for the stansted express services to london using 12-car flirts / 10 car 720s

Platform sharing is possible, but once again you are limited to 4-cars as that is all that fits next to a 12-car stansted express train.

Have you actually seen a 5-car xc train at Stansted airport? I think it would usually leave one unit behind at cambridge when it is longer than 4-cars.

The aim with BEMUs is usually to charge the batteries while running, but you would likely require extra wiring.

Why is Nottingham a better destination? Currently, Nottingham can be reached with a single change at Ely or peterborough, but if you sent both the EMR and the XC train to Nottingham, you would reduce overall connectivity, as you'd only be serving one direction rather than 2

 

[hux385]

Not sure I'd agree with that, the have pretty decent paths in the main.

Sometimes there are quite long dwells at Bristol, Birmingham and Derby

 

[The Planner]

Sometimes there are quite long dwells at Bristol, Birmingham and Derby

Thats deliberate. XC interact with several other routes and suffer from reactionary delay that isnt the timetables fault. New St needs the dwell anyway due to the amount of passengers joining and leaving.

 

[hux385]

Thats deliberate. XC interact with several other routes and suffer from reactionary delay that isnt the timetables fault. New St needs the dwell anyway due to the amount of passengers joining and leaving.

Well then that explains how their routes often take a while and how they won't be able to shave loads off their current timings. Hence my suggestion that for the XC route, the main investment should be in high quality rolling stock since speeding up journeys (i.e. reducing dwells) is not going to be possible.

 

[The Planner]

Well then that explains how their routes often take a while and how they won't be able to shave loads off their current timings. Hence my suggestion that for the XC route, the main investment should be in high quality rolling stock since speeding up journeys (i.e. reducing dwells) is not going to be possible.

You could reduce them but its just importing risk.

 

[daodao]

Shame on the DfT/Treasury.

They would have been if they hadn't had millions spent on them a few years ago for life-extension works to get them past 2020. If it was known they would be withdrawn in 2023, they should have been given a dispensation to continue running with slam doors rather than spending all that money on them.

The DfT should be applauded for making a wise decision to dispense with expensive-to-run relics from the past.

Shame on the DfT/Treasury.

Yes, but none of those constitute a full service on any of XC's route; even the part-routes of Manchester-Bristol and Newcastle-Reading are not fully wired, meaning you cannot currently use EMUs on XC without making lots more passengers change trains.

There are plenty of available emus off lease and a shortage of diesel trains, which are no longer being built in significant numbers because the plan is to phase them out long-term. Therefore it makes sense to reduce diesel "running under the wires" even if the consequence is that some more passengers need to change trains.