XC in CP 6

[TheKnightWho]

Not a XC route any more, simple as that. Scotland via the WCML is VT and TPE territory now.

Neither of which have any remit in the South West. I think there's definitely room for an OAO to step into the breach if they can find the paths.

 

[swt_passenger]

GO-OP? That one's new on me...

It's an open access proposal from Westbury to Birmingham Moor St. Was initially supposed to be from Yeovil but that was binned. We mentioned it most recently in the context of FGW harming their case by re-starting a proper Westbury - Swindon service in December.

There have been many threads on them in the past, e.g. this recent one:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=88671&highlight=GoOp

...and then post #8 on that page will link you to previous discussions...

 

[The Ham]

To avoid getting tied up in freight paths south of Basingstoke, how viable would running the Reading-Newcastle service as Sailsbury-Newcastle?

It would also provide more capacity between Salisbury and Basingstoke, tap into a new market fro XC (as the changes at Basingstoke aren't well timed for people from Sailsbury). It would also allow people on the Salisbury 6 the option to travel north to chatch a XC service rather than having to go south to go north.

 

[swt_passenger]

If there is a need for more overall capacity between Salisbury and Basingstoke SWT can provide it already, using their existing supply of DMUs.

...and it's happening anyway, a number of services will be strengthened as a result of the EMU cascades following the 458/5 and 456 arrival, as listed in the earlier announcements on SWT's website.

Then if there is a need for more capacity between Basingstoke and Reading, FGW should lengthen their local DMUs.

Only if there is a proven need for a Salisbury to 'Birmingham and the north' flow should XC get involved, otherwise you're just route planning on a whim...

 

[The Ham]

If there is a need for more overall capacity between Salisbury and Basingstoke SWT can provide it already, using their existing supply of DMUs.

...and it's happening anyway, a number of services will be strengthened as a result of the EMU cascades following the 458/5 and 456 arrival, as listed in the earlier announcements on SWT's website.

(Remembering we are talking about 2020 and beyond) I thought many of the Sailsbury-Basignstoke SWT's services were already 9 coach trains (some being 10 coaches long), with no spare capcity for extra services into London. As such I would have thought that there would be not much extra opertunity for further capcity after what has been anounced. Also if SWT's were to run more services which stopped at Basingstoke, which would cause conjestion at Basingstoke.

Then if there is a need for more capacity between Basingstoke and Reading, FGW should lengthen their local DMUs.

By 2020 these services will be EMU's and could well be longer than at present, however we are talking about increasing from 1.5 XC services an hour and 2 GW services an hour to 2 XC services and hour and 2 GW services, so not a massive increase in capacity. However, there are a lot of passengers over this section so a slight increase in frequency would be benefital.

Only if there is a proven need for a Salisbury to 'Birmingham and the north' flow should XC get involved, otherwise you're just route planning on a whim...

There wouldn't even need to be much proof for Sailisbury to 'Birmingham and the north', as there would only need to be enough demand for it to be worth extending from Reading, which given the number of passengers which use the existing Reading to Basingstoke services would likely justify that part. In which case, as discussed above, then it's worth extending beyong Basingstoke so as to not cause conjestion at Basingstoke.

 

[swt_passenger]

(Remembering we are talking about 2020 and beyond) I thought many of the Sailsbury-Basignstoke SWT's services were already 9 coach trains (some being 10 coaches long), with no spare capcity for extra services into London.

There are still plenty of 6 car trains that can be extended to 9, hence mentioning that they are still to strengthen further services. They can also run more 10 car trains from Salisbury - that's why they originally obtained so many more 158s than they actually use on the route.

Most platforms east of Salisbury (inclusive) are already lengthened for 10x23m operation, they just haven't diagrammed more than the single train yet.

 

[tbtc]

By 2020 these services will be EMU's and could well be longer than at present, however we are talking about increasing from 1.5 XC services an hour and 2 GW services an hour to 2 XC services and hour and 2 GW services, so not a massive increase in capacity

Presumably the line will get four coach EMUs to replace the 150s on stopping services, so that'll be an increase in capacity even if the frequency doesn't change.

I can't remember the new track layout at Reading, but I can see it being tricky to get more services from the Didcot lines reversed over to the Reading West lines (i.e. extending from Birmingham/ Oxford to Basingstoke/ Southampton)

 

[swt_passenger]

I can't remember the new track layout at Reading, but I can see it being tricky to get more services from the Didcot lines reversed over to the Reading West lines (i.e. extending from Birmingham/ Oxford to Basingstoke/ Southampton)

It won't be tricky at all. XC will be able to do the Didcot to Reading West move without conflicts using any through platform except P9, as well as the bay P3, depending on whether the approach is on mains or reliefs. Same applies in reverse. With bi-directional working even P9 (down main) is practical

They really have covered just about every possibility...

 

[tbtc]

It won't be tricky at all. XC will be able to do the Didcot to Reading West move using any through platform except P9, as well as the bay P3, depending on whether the approach is on mains or reliefs. Same applies in reverse.

They really have covered just about every possibility...

Cheers for confirming

 

[The Ham]

Presumably the line will get four coach EMUs to replace the 150s on stopping services, so that'll be an increase in capacity even if the frequency doesn't change.

However once they are 4 coaches to lengthen them further would be more difficult as you'd need to lengthen platforms.

Also, with the extra stops which are being proposed on this line, the extra capacity provided by longer services is likely to be insufficant.

I can't remember the new track layout at Reading, but I can see it being tricky to get more services from the Didcot lines reversed over to the Reading West lines (i.e. extending from Birmingham/ Oxford to Basingstoke/ Southampton)

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=973557&postcount=3
I thought that one of the main reasons for the changes to Reading was to remove the crossing of the GWML. The above link shows that the XC services no longer need to do this. For the shorter sets XC could still use platform 3, otherwise they are just avoiding the services from London through Reading West towards Westbury. It is therefore unlikely that one extra reversing service every 2 hours is unlikely to cuase problems as it would be in replacement to a terminating service. [EDIT] beaten to it

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought that one of the main reasons for the changes to Reading was to remove the crossing of the GWML. The above link shows that the XC services no longer need to do this. For the shorter sets XC could still use platform 3, otherwise they are just avoiding the services from London through Reading West towards Westbury. It is therefore unlikely that one extra reversing service every 2 hours is unlikely to cuase problems as it would be in replacement to a terminating service. [EDIT] beaten to it

In addition to the obvious info on the diagram, all lines are passenger lines what ever they are called, so reversal in the relief side is also practical. But P3 was already available to both 4 and 5 car trains, it was extended back when Voyagers were introduced, to single 221 length.

 

[The Ham]

One thing that hasn't come up on this thread is possible future services once east west rail has opened, it could well allow extra XC services.

A fully electric Bristol to Sheffield service via Oxford, or with only a short amount of electrification a fully electric Cardiff to Edinburgh service.

 

[anthony263]

How many services per day from Edinburgh, Newcastle etc terminate at Bristol TM?
I wouldn't mind these continuing to Cardiff and Swansea as it would retain a direct link between south wales & Bristol Parkway allowing the Swansea/Cardiff - Londons ervices to skip Bristol Parkway reducing journey times.

 

[Eagle]

Slightly less than one XC train per hour terminates at Bristol (the ones from Manchester, apart from a couple which continue to Paignton or Plymouth). Also a couple from Edinburgh terminate there at the end of the day.

 

[IKBrunel]

Anything which gets extra xc capacity in the midlands can only be a good thing, the 4 car voyagers are frequently overcrowded.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Doing some thinking about future electrification of cross country and what stock could operate it struck me the there could potentially be enough 5 car Bi-mode IEP to operate most of the core XC network.
XC currently operate 34 Class 220 voyagers and 23 Class 221 super voyagers giving a total of 57 trains.

There are currently 46 five car Bi-mode IEP on order for GWML and ECML. Given that the Manchester - Southampton service requires around a dozen units (which could be provided by a small order of 5 car electrics) there could potentially be enough 5 car Bi-modes to free up the entire XC voyager fleet.

Of course this would require a lot of CP6 electrification of Bi-mode routes on top of electrification of the XC network. The 10x Bi-modes on the ECML could be freed up by electrification to Hull, Harrogate etc. The GWML would need to be more ambitious with electrification of Swindon- Stonehouse and the Cotswold line possibly all the way to Hereford to free up the 36x units from GW.

Thoughts? (not saying it should happen just that it may be possible).

 

[SF-02]

A lot of that also depends what colour government we have. Conservatives (despite what a lot of people have you believe (both here and elsewhere)), do spend a lot of money on the railways, where as Labour think the railway network (and everything associated with it) is the devil's playground and should be avoided!

Yes I agree, and am not a tory! It looks like Ed Balls is itching to scrap HS2. When he was in the treasury the labour government did little for railways in a time of economic boom. It'a a real shame to think what might have been if labour did more in 13 years of power instead of no electrification, very few new lines and stations, and cancelling tram schemes.

 

[tbtc]

The 10x Bi-modes on the ECML could be freed up by electrification to Hull, Harrogate etc. The GWML would need to be more ambitious with electrification of Swindon- Stonehouse and the Cotswold line possibly all the way to Hereford to free up the 36x units from GW.

Thoughts? (not saying it should happen just that it may be possible)

Hull and Harrogate should be okay for CP6.

Inverness and Aberdeen, on the other hand, less likely.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes I agree, and am not a tory! It looks like Ed Balls is itching to scrap HS2

My optimistic side thinks that Balls is trying to find an issue to look "tough" on, to counter the Tory accusations that he's too much of a big spender - so he's not come out against HS2 but is doing a lot of posturing about keeping control on costs, to try to look hard.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Doing some thinking about future electrification of cross country and what stock could operate it struck me the there could potentially be enough 5 car Bi-mode IEP to operate most of the core XC network.
XC currently operate 34 Class 220 voyagers and 23 Class 221 super voyagers giving a total of 57 trains.

There are currently 46 five car Bi-mode IEP on order for GWML and ECML. Given that the Manchester - Southampton service requires around a dozen units (which could be provided by a small order of 5 car electrics) there could potentially be enough 5 car Bi-modes to free up the entire XC voyager fleet.

Of course this would require a lot of CP6 electrification of Bi-mode routes on top of electrification of the XC network. The 10x Bi-modes on the ECML could be freed up by electrification to Hull, Harrogate etc. The GWML would need to be more ambitious with electrification of Swindon- Stonehouse and the Cotswold line possibly all the way to Hereford to free up the 36x units from GW.

Thoughts? (not saying it should happen just that it may be possible).

Would it not be easier (in the short-term) to just build more bi-mode vehicles? If they were cascaded from the ECML/GWML due to future electrification programmes they'd need to build more electrics to replace them anyway.

 

[The Ham]

Doing some thinking about future electrification of cross country and what stock could operate it struck me the there could potentially be enough 5 car Bi-mode IEP to operate most of the core XC network.
XC currently operate 34 Class 220 voyagers and 23 Class 221 super voyagers giving a total of 57 trains.

There are currently 46 five car Bi-mode IEP on order for GWML and ECML. Given that the Manchester - Southampton service requires around a dozen units (which could be provided by a small order of 5 car electrics) there could potentially be enough 5 car Bi-modes to free up the entire XC voyager fleet.

Of course this would require a lot of CP6 electrification of Bi-mode routes on top of electrification of the XC network. The 10x Bi-modes on the ECML could be freed up by electrification to Hull, Harrogate etc. The GWML would need to be more ambitious with electrification of Swindon- Stonehouse and the Cotswold line possibly all the way to Hereford to free up the 36x units from GW.

Thoughts? (not saying it should happen just that it may be possible).

It seams a reasonable suggestion, I do have a few comments.

Depending on how much of the XC network is wired up (see opeing post for suggestions), there could be a lot of other routes which wouldn't need to be bi-modal. This would mean that a number of the bi-modal's could stay on the GWML & ECML (as needed) which could save the need to wire up quite so much of the GWML branches.

Also, some of the routes which were deigned for the bimodals will be done by the end of CP5 (i.e. Swansea) which means that some of the GWML bimodals are efectivly not needed (although the number of sets are) so can be switched with some electric trains. This would be enhanced by schemes such as wiring up the about 20 miles to Weston-super-Mare freeing up a few more units.

In addition, if some of the XC services are run as EMU's which are 7 or more coaches long that can then free up 2 units (7=2x4 coach 220's through to 9=2x5 coach 221's) which means that there may not be the need as many units to provide the same number of services whilst stillpossibly providing better capacity. This would be furrther to the 5 coach IEP's would have more seats than the 220/221's anyway.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

It seems a reasonable suggestion, I do have a few comments.

Depending on how much of the XC network is wired up (see opening post for suggestions), there could be a lot of other routes which wouldn't need to be bi-modal. This would mean that a number of the bi-modal's could stay on the GWML & ECML (as needed) which could save the need to wire up quite so much of the GWML branches.

Also, some of the routes which were designed for the bimodals will be done by the end of CP5 (i.e. Swansea) which means that some of the GWML bimodals are effectively not needed (although the number of sets are) so can be switched with some electric trains. This would be enhanced by schemes such as wiring up the about 20 miles to Weston-super-Mare freeing up a few more units.

My thoughts were that in terms of electrification are the core cross country route would be wired from Derby - Birmingham - Bristol - Exeter (at least) plus the loop around Weston Super Mare and the infill's north of Sheffield to Doncaster/Leeds. As extras I can see being added to the scheme are Severn tunnel junction to Gloucester as that removes a obvious diesel island* and Swindon to Stonehouse as that allows the Gloucester/Cheltenham to London services to go fully electric. This should free up a number of bi-modes (not sure how many). AS tbtc points out the 10x 5 car bi-modes on the ECML could be freed up by CP6 electrification of Hull/Harrogate quite easily, while Inverness/Aberdeen will remain diesel for a long time yet hence the use of bi-modes on XC.

*this also allows XC Cardiff to Nottingham service to go electric freeing up 170's for use elsewhere

In addition, if some of the XC services are run as EMU's which are 7 or more coaches long that can then free up 2 units (7=2x4 coach 220's through to 9=2x5 coach 221's) which means that there may not be the need as many units to provide the same number of services whilst still possibly providing better capacity. This would be further to the 5 coach IEP's would have more seats than the 220/221's anyway.

I'll admit I am not sure how many bi-modes vs electrics would be need to cover all the 220 and 221 diagrams on XC if electrification were given the go ahead it may not require all 46 5 car units currently on order. The only concern I have about using seven coach units is that it stops services being run as doubled up which could split/ join to boost capacity on the core while maintaining smaller services at the periphery of the network

Would it not be easier (in the short-term) to just build more bi-mode vehicles? If they were cascaded from the ECML/GWML due to future electrification programmes they'd need to build more electrics to replace them anyway.

The engines in Bi-modes will last what 30 years? If there is to be rolling programme of electrification then it is sensible to limit the number of bi-modes to the minimum otherwise the diesel engines risk becoming redundant after a few years or a brake on electrification if there a too many to cascade onto other routes. And yes I think there should be a further order of electric IEP in XP6 to replace bi-modes cascaded elsewhere on GW and ECML.

 

[JamesRowden]

What do people think should be done with the (Southampton/Guildford-)Reading-Birmingham-Doncaster-Newcastle(-Edinburgh(-Glasgow)) service in terms of electrification/stock/rerouting?

 

[tbtc]

What do people think should be done with the (Southampton/Guildford-)Reading-Birmingham-Doncaster-Newcastle(-Edinburgh(-Glasgow)) service in terms of electrification/stock/rerouting?

Firstly, I'm not too fussed about the far termini (whether Southampton services to go Newcastle or Aberdeen or Manchester) - there's such a tiny market for "end to end" journeys.

Secondly, if there's to be a service from Reading/ Oxford (etc) to Sheffield (etc) then it could go via Bletchley/ Bedford/ Leicester

Thirdly, I've argued in the past about splitting the "X" - so that the current XC franchise becomes split into a "North West - Thames Valley" corridor and an "Yorkshire/East Midlands - South West/ Cardiff" corridor - would make things a lot more operationally simple (esp with the former corridor being mainly electrified post CP5), and better to integrate with other TOCs.

 

[AndyLandy]

It still irks me that Project Thor never got off the ground. That really would have been the silver bullet for CrossCountry.

As it is, I'd be looking at Crewe-Chester electrification (via whichever route makes most sense) and enough Pendolinos to free up the entire WCML 221 fleet (diesel dragging the handful of 390s that go beyond Chester) and MML electrification with a new fleet of EMUs (probably IEPs) to free up the entire Meridian fleet.

I'd hand over the whole 22x fleet to XC to run decent-length trains through the core, possibly splitting to serve the extremities. To my mind, there are far bigger electrification wins to be had than XC. The Voyagers have another 20-odd years of life in them and few useful cascade opportunities, so I don't think it's worth getting too worked up over electrification of XC yet. I think it makes more sense to run 22x largely under the wires than to pension them off prematurely.

Once we've done CP5 and CP6 electrification, we'll have a much clearer view of what's left for XC wiring. Hopefully by that time we'll be a long way into replacing 3rd rail and seriously looking at wires to Penzance and Aberdeen (maybe even Inverness) and when the Voyagers come of age, we'd be able to replace them entirely with EMUs, and continue to provide the bulk of through journeys currently on offer.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

It still irks me that Project Thor never got off the ground. That really would have been the silver bullet for CrossCountry.

As it is, I'd be looking at Crewe-Chester electrification (via whichever route makes most sense) and enough Pendolinos to free up the entire WCML 221 fleet (diesel dragging the handful of 390s that go beyond Chester) and MML electrification with a new fleet of EMUs (probably IEPs) to free up the entire Meridian fleet.

I'd hand over the whole 22x fleet to XC to run decent-length trains through the core, possibly splitting to serve the extremities. To my mind, there are far bigger electrification wins to be had than XC. The Voyagers have another 20-odd years of life in them and few useful cascade opportunities, so I don't think it's worth getting too worked up over electrification of XC yet. I think it makes more sense to run 22x largely under the wires than to pension them off prematurely.

Once we've done CP5 and CP6 electrification, we'll have a much clearer view of what's left for XC wiring. Hopefully by that time we'll be a long way into replacing 3rd rail and seriously looking at wires to Penzance and Aberdeen (maybe even Inverness) and when the Voyagers come of age, we'd be able to replace them entirely with EMUs, and continue to provide the bulk of through journeys currently on offer.

XC electrification wont start till 2020 at the earliest and by time its completed the 220's and 221's will be nearly 25 years old, I don't see any reason why they couldn't spend their remaining years on other parts of the network. It's not like the electrification of the MML has been stopped because the 222's are less than 10 years old.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Firstly, I'm not too fussed about the far termini (whether Southampton services to go Newcastle or Aberdeen or Manchester) - there's such a tiny market for "end to end" journeys.

Secondly, if there's to be a service from Reading/ Oxford (etc) to Sheffield (etc) then it could go via Bletchley/ Bedford/ Leicester

Thirdly, I've argued in the past about splitting the "X" - so that the current XC franchise becomes split into a "North West - Thames Valley" corridor and an "Yorkshire/East Midlands - South West/ Cardiff" corridor - would make things a lot more operationally simple (esp with the former corridor being mainly electrified post CP5), and better to integrate with other TOCs.

I suppose that makes operational sense and would reduce the need for bi-mode units vs pure electrics.

 

[AndyLandy]

XC electrification wont start till 2020 at the earliest and by time its completed the 220's and 221's will be nearly 25 years old, I don't see any reason why they couldn't spend their remaining years on other parts of the network. It's not like the electrification of the MML has been stopped because the 222's are less than 10 years old.

True, but where would you cascade them to? I personally think that XC should be providing decent through-journey opportunities, it's certainly a key reason it was created in the first place. Chopping it to bits, just so we can put EMUs on it a few years sooner just doesn't seen sensible to me.

 

[Masbroughlad]

What was Operation Thor please?

 

[AndyLandy]

What was Operation Thor please?

It was a proposal to hybrid-ise the Voyager fleet by fitting them with a pantograph and transformer, making them into bi-modal trains.

 

[IanXC]

What do people think should be done with the (Southampton/Guildford-)Reading-Birmingham-Doncaster-Newcastle(-Edinburgh(-Glasgow)) service in terms of electrification/stock/rerouting?

This is an odd one. CrossCountry are reportedly keen for both of their Sheffield-York services to go via Leeds, rather than one via Doncaster. In the past one of the key reasons for XC going via Doncaster has been to provide a reasonable service between Doncaster and York, however this isn't won't be so much of a concern if East Coast provide an hourly service with the KGX-YRK stoppers.

As far as I can see the area that would be disadvantaged by such a change would be passengers travelling from/via Hull, Goole, Cleethorpes, Grimsby and Scunthorpe. The impact of other electrification could be to enable a third XC Birmingham to Sheffield, then proceeding to Humberside - I don't believe its strictly necessary for XC to operate between Doncaster and York any more.

 

[ainsworth74]

What was Operation Thor please?

A plan to insert an extra vehicle into Voyagers which would include a pantograph. This would have enabled them to run off the wires when available and use their diesel engines elsewhere. It would also, of course, have increased capacity of the units.

It was killed (or rather everything went quiet) when the costs started to mount and Bombardier decided to use overseas suppliers for the equipment rather than UK based companies (the Government had wanted it to be used as a boost to UK manufacturing). So it's pretty much as dead as a dodo at this point. Which is a shame really as it would have been quite an improvement (if it worked as advertised!).