XC in CP 6

[The Ham]

As to Cross Country, I just want to see the existing Leicester terminators extended to Cambridge with option of being extended to Stansted so it's a half hourly between Leicester and Stansted instead of a hourly service which can be very busy.

That and just run 3 car DMUs on the route and displace the 2 car 170s elsewhere as 2 car DMUs aren't good for a Inter Regional Airport Service.

To increase the all the Birmingham to Leicester/Stansted routes to run to Stansted would require 15 units, which would mean if the Cardiff services were all EMU's then there would be enough (with two spares) to run all of them with 3 coach units (as they have 17 3 coach 170's) on a half hour frequancey. If XC also retained 6 of their 2 coach sets to allow all the trains to run as 5 coach trains between Birmingham and Leicester (where the largest passenger loadings are likely to be, given the current timetable) and then run as 3 coach trains onto Stansted, that would still free up 6 two coach sets to be used by anouther TOC.*

* Although I'm a bit confused (so I'm not sure I've worked out the number of units required correctly), as looking at the timetables it looks like that (with no spares and no doubling up) XC only requires 7 class 170's for the Cardiff Route and 10 for the Leicester/Stansted routes. However they have 29 units, meaning that there are either a lot of doubled up units and/or a lot of spares and/or they are used on routes which Voyagers should run to allow more Voyagers to be run doubled up.

 

[Kettledrum]

as has been said, wiring the XC network has a very high CBR, and both routes between Leeds & Sheffield, as well as Sheffield-Doncaster, seem likely to get done in CP6. Plus Hull Trains' desire to wire from Temple Hirst Junction to Hull, even Hull could end up back on the XC network.

That said, the whole XC network could do with rationalising. There is no point whatsoever in running SW - Scotland services via the ECML, as it imposes a huge time penalty for doing so, and is already deeply uncompetitive with air services on that journey. Therefore, services from the South West should terminate at Newcastle.

I really don't agree. Having long cross country journey possibilities is good because journeys are available without having to change trains. I'm a big believer in making it as easy as possible for people to make their journey by train. These long XC routes connect many provincial towns in the Midlands with the South West and Scotland. These towns are no-where near the ECML and air travel is not always convenient for their home address or the address they are visiting.

There are 100s of kids in Derby who go on school trips to Scotland using XC for example. If the train route wasn't so convenient, I'm 100% sure they'd go by coach, and so would thousands of other passengers.

1tph Manchester Piccadilly - Bournemouth
1tph Newcastle - Southampton (via Doncaster)

Why stop at Southampton? Why can't people from the North East travel direct to Bournemouth in the way that people from Manchester can?

 

[AndyLandy]

Why stop at Southampton? Why can't people from the North East travel direct to Bournemouth in the way that people from Manchester can?

I've often wondered that myself. The next question is why don't they just go all the way to Weymouth and be done with it?

 

[The Ham]

I really don't agree. Having long cross country journey possibilities is good because journeys are available without having to change trains. I'm a big believer in making it as easy as possible for people to make their journey by train. These long XC routes connect many provincial towns in the Midlands with the South West and Scotland. These towns are no-where near the ECML and air travel is not always convenient for their home address or the address they are visiting.

There are 100s of kids in Derby who go on school trips to Scotland using XC for example. If the train route wasn't so convenient, I'm 100% sure they'd go by coach, and so would thousands of other passengers.

I agree, if you didn't have long services, then there would either have to be a lot more services terminating at Birmingham or mor services going through Birmingham (to reduce the number of changes) either way there just isn't the spare capacity.

Why stop at Southampton? Why can't people from the North East travel direct to Bournemouth in the way that people from Manchester can?

The short answer is lack of stock. The slightly longer answer is that there proberbly wasn't the demand when the Voyagers were brought in and so it wasn't allowed for, however now that there is more likely to be demand there is too much demand on the existing routes to be able to use the trains that they have to extend services due to a lack of stock.

Of course that does lead to an intresting question; where else could XC serve if they had extra stock (due to more routes being electrified and therefore Voyagers and class 170's becoming freed up)?

The obvious one (using EMU's) is new routes along the East West route (Oxford-Bletchley).

 

[1e10]

Forgive me if this has been already covered. Will the Voyagers remain as DMUs or be converted to EMUs once electrification has been completed on some routes?

 

[ainsworth74]

Project Thor is dead so they will remain DEMUs for the foreseeable future and in all likelihood the rest of their careers.

 

[route:oxford]

Why stop at Southampton? Why can't people from the North East travel direct to Bournemouth in the way that people from Manchester can?

Once the MML and the infill XC electrification is complete...

Perhaps people in the North East would be interested in travelling:-

Newcastle-York-Sheffield-Chesterfield-Bedford-Luton-St Pancras-City-Gatwick-Brighton?

 

[swt_passenger]

Perhaps people in the North East would be interested in travelling:-

Newcastle-York-Sheffield-Chesterfield-Bedford-Luton-St Pancras-City-Gatwick-Brighton?

Why bother with the diversion, if it were possible you could just run down the ECML into St Pancras anyway...

But it's total fantasy. Thameslink will be completely full as a commuter route using dedicated 20m stock with ATO. If there was a capacity increase it would be taken up with additional similar services.

Next you'll be suggesting inter city services run via Crossrail from Bristol to Norwich, which would be equally ridiculous...

 

[route:oxford]

Why bother with the diversion, if it were possible you could just run down the ECML into St Pancras anyway...

Wouldn't that be a bit of a timewaster with a reversal to go back to Luton Airport and back again towards Gatwick?

But it's total fantasy. Thameslink will be completely full as a commuter route using dedicated 20m stock with ATO. If there was a capacity increase it would be taken up with additional similar services.

I didn't realise that 23 metre stock was out of gauge for Thameslink

Next you'll be suggesting inter city services run via Crossrail from Bristol to Norwich, which would be equally ridiculous...

Wouldn't it be more direct to go from Bristol via Didcot and Milton Keynes once E-W opens?

 

[Eagle]

That's assuming that a route between Bedford and Cambridge will be possible.

 

[IanXC]

* Although I'm a bit confused (so I'm not sure I've worked out the number of units required correctly), as looking at the timetables it looks like that (with no spares and no doubling up) XC only requires 7 class 170's for the Cardiff Route and 10 for the Leicester/Stansted routes. However they have 29 units, meaning that there are either a lot of doubled up units and/or a lot of spares and/or they are used on routes which Voyagers should run to allow more Voyagers to be run doubled up.

Have you remembered Nottingham and Derby in your calculations?

 

[Eagle]

Evidently not, he's forgotten the Birmingham to Nottingham stoppers.

 

[tbtc]

Once the MML and the infill XC electrification is complete...

Perhaps people in the North East would be interested in travelling:-

Newcastle-York-Sheffield-Chesterfield-Bedford-Luton-St Pancras-City-Gatwick-Brighton?

Another airport for those Geordies and their regular long haul flights?

 

[Kettledrum]

Once the MML and the infill XC electrification is complete...

Perhaps people in the North East would be interested in travelling:-

Newcastle-York-Sheffield-Chesterfield-Bedford-Luton-St Pancras-City-Gatwick-Brighton?

Prior to December 2008 some CrossCountry services did connect the North East to Brighton via Reading, Kensington Olympia, East Croydon, Redhill, Gatwick Airport and Haywards Heath as well as the usual XC stations.

The DFT claimed at the time that they couldn't make a commercial case to retain these services. I will be good if the electric spine allows these to re-start, but I can't see there being the paths to go through St Pancras, which might be more direct.

 

[Eagle]

Prior to December 2008 some CrossCountry services did connect the North East to Brighton via Reading, Kensington Olympia, East Croydon, Redhill, Gatwick Airport and Haywards Heath as well as the usual XC stations.

Only one a day each way though. There was also one a day that went via Guildford and Redhill.

The service was so sporadic it's no wonder no one was using it.

(Also I don't think they went to the North East; for their last few years Brighton XC services usually wet to Manchester, as extensions of the Manchester to Reading route.)

 

[59CosG95]

I'm joining a little late here, but the reason why there is so little capacity west of Poole is because there is a short stretch of single track. There are also a lot of LCs in the area, so not many more paths can be accomodated. But I think if the LCs were removed, the wires could be strung, Weymouth could be expanded to accomodate XC trains and then XC could run!

 

[Eagle]

I wouldn't call six miles short.

And level crossings have no impact on capacity, look at the ones on the ECML for instance. Not that you could remove most of them anyway (Wool LC would be completely impossible to replace as it's on the main road in the built-up village centre).

 

[swt_passenger]

They can path additional trains on the current infrastructure. We know that already because XC extended a few services to Weymouth during the Olympics, and SWT also ran some extra DMUs.

We also know, with hindsight, that most of the Olympic extras weren't ever needed, so before we start planning services by joining the dots on the rail map because it looks neat, how about some hard evidence that such extensions are actually needed?

 

[59CosG95]

I wouldn't call six miles short.

And level crossings have no impact on capacity, look at the ones on the ECML for instance. Not that you could remove most of them anyway (Wool LC would be completely impossible to replace as it's on the main road in the built-up village centre).

Fair point, but most ECML crossings are where it's in the middle of nowhere with room for 4 tracks, or where line speeds are high so trains are through faster. The SWML is essentially going at Cornish Main line speed west of Poole, due to all the bends.

 

[Tomnick]

Fair point, but most ECML crossings are where it's in the middle of nowhere with room for 4 tracks, or where line speeds are high so trains are through faster.

Higher speeds mean that the barriers need to be down with the train further away (as the first restrictive aspects will be further away), ultimately leading to a similar closure time. Indeed, some of the LCs west of Poole are AHBs, aren't they? Much shorter closure time with those.

 

[The Ham]

They can path additional trains on the current infrastructure. We know that already because XC extended a few services to Weymouth during the Olympics, and SWT also ran some extra DMUs.

We also know, with hindsight, that most of the Olympic extras weren't ever needed, so before we start planning services by joining the dots on the rail map because it looks neat, how about some hard evidence that such extensions are actually needed?

Although the extra services weren't heaverly used; I can confirm that the Voyergers were quite nice running doubled up, as it was possible to get a seat!

However, with extra regular services, it is more likely to see passenger growth than services which are only around for a short time.

 

[Surreyman]

As previous posters have commented, (Most) of the XC network has a good CBR for electrification and the 2009 NR Electrification document shows the core Yorkshire/Derbyshire/Birmingham/Bristol/Plymouth route as a high priority for this.
As it appears that project 'Thor' is a no-goer that raises 2 issues.
1. If some or all of the Voyagers could have been converted to Electro Diesels then electrification would be a much cheaper option than with new EMUs.
2. As new EMUs will be needed for any future XC electrification, where will some or all of the Voyagers end up?
It's been discussed in these columns before but what do you do with 125 mph capable stock, usually described as 'overpowered and fuel thirsty'? (the Meridians will also be available for cascade sometime around 2019/20).
It's been suggested they could replace: -
XC 170s on Cardiff & Stansted.
In Scotland 170s - Edinburgh/Glasgow to Perth/Dundee, Aberdeen/Inverness.
EMT 158s - Manchester - Nottingham - Norwich.
GW 158s - Cardiff - Bristol - Portsmouth.
SWT 159s - Waterloo - Salisbury - Exeter (also on Electrification list).
GW 125s Paddington - Penzance (125 mph retained maybe short term).
Formations could be changed, seating layouts amended - 125mph crash zones/Buffets abolished & extra seating fitted.
It seems to me that to make a case for electrification, a pragmatic and economical case has to be made for the eventual end use of the 220/221/222 classes which has to include speed & power de-rating or possibly removal of some engines.

 

[The Ham]

As previous posters have commented, (Most) of the XC network has a good CBR for electrification and the 2009 NR Electrification document shows the core Yorkshire/Derbyshire/Birmingham/Bristol/Plymouth route as a high priority for this.
As it appears that project 'Thor' is a no-goer that raises 2 issues.
1. If some or all of the Voyagers could have been converted to Electro Diesels then electrification would be a much cheaper option than with new EMUs.
2. As new EMUs will be needed for any future XC electrification, where will some or all of the Voyagers end up?
It's been discussed in these columns before but what do you do with 125 mph capable stock, usually described as 'overpowered and fuel thirsty'? (the Meridians will also be available for cascade sometime around 2019/20).
It's been suggested they could replace: -
XC 170s on Cardiff & Stansted.
In Scotland 170s - Edinburgh/Glasgow to Perth/Dundee, Aberdeen/Inverness.
EMT 158s - Manchester - Nottingham - Norwich.
GW 158s - Cardiff - Bristol - Portsmouth.
SWT 159s - Waterloo - Salisbury - Exeter (also on Electrification list).
GW 125s Paddington - Penzance (125 mph retained maybe short term).
Formations could be changed, seating layouts amended - 125mph crash zones/Buffets abolished & extra seating fitted.
It seems to me that to make a case for electrification, a pragmatic and economical case has to be made for the eventual end use of the 220/221/222 classes which has to include speed & power de-rating or possibly removal of some engines.

I would expect that some fo the 220's would be perminantly merged to form 6 coach sets (taking the two middle coachs out of one set and merging them with another and storing the end coaches) which could still then run with any remaing 4 coach sets to increase capacity over the core without running 3 sets joined up.

Likewise some of the 221's would then be reformed to make 9 coach sets (taking the middle 3 coaches out of 4 sets and adding these into another set and storing the end coaches). As these 9 coach sets would have a comparable number of seats to a paired up 221's.

SWT's 158/159's have a higher capacity than the 22x (even if you could form a 9 coach set), so that is a bit of a non starter.
GW could likely be a good place for them, as they would be able weave in and out of the IEP's at a reasonale speed maximising the number of paths that are free.

 

[Muzer]

I'll say one thing - you don't quite realise how good the ride is in a 158/159 until you've been over a familiar section of track (between Andover and Laverstock North Junction) in a Voyager for the first time... not saying Voyagers have a BAD ride, just that the one in a 158/159 is SO much better

 

[Aictos]

To increase the all the Birmingham to Leicester/Stansted routes to run to Stansted would require 15 units, which would mean if the Cardiff services were all EMU's then there would be enough (with two spares) to run all of them with 3 coach units (as they have 17 3 coach 170's) on a half hour frequancey. If XC also retained 6 of their 2 coach sets to allow all the trains to run as 5 coach trains between Birmingham and Leicester (where the largest passenger loadings are likely to be, given the current timetable) and then run as 3 coach trains onto Stansted, that would still free up 6 two coach sets to be used by anouther TOC.*

* Although I'm a bit confused (so I'm not sure I've worked out the number of units required correctly), as looking at the timetables it looks like that (with no spares and no doubling up) XC only requires 7 class 170's for the Cardiff Route and 10 for the Leicester/Stansted routes. However they have 29 units, meaning that there are either a lot of doubled up units and/or a lot of spares and/or they are used on routes which Voyagers should run to allow more Voyagers to be run doubled up.

It's a goal of Network Rail and Cross Country to do this though, the sooner the better - shame no Open Access Operator has thought about giving Cross Country some competition on their routes....

 

[AndyLandy]

shame no Open Access Operator has thought about giving Cross Country some competition on their routes....

Could one do so without failing the "Not primarily abstractive" test, though?

 

[swt_passenger]

Could one do so without failing the "Not primarily abstractive" test, though?

There's not much to cherry pick on XC, and OA operators always seem to concentrate on the London market so far don't they?

No doubt someone will eventually claim GO-OP, or some other pie in the sky route (such as the oft mentioned Nottingham - Glasgow) disproves the above, but I think they'll never happen...

 

[AndyLandy]

No doubt someone will eventually claim GO-OP, or some other pie in the sky route (such as the oft mentioned Nottingham - Glasgow) disproves the above, but I think they'll never happen...

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

 

[TheKnightWho]

There's not much to cherry pick on XC, and OA operators always seem to concentrate on the London market so far don't they?

No doubt someone will eventually claim GO-OP, or some other pie in the sky route (such as the oft mentioned Nottingham - Glasgow) disproves the above, but I think they'll never happen...

I still don't understand why there aren't the occasional services from the South West to Glasgow via the WCML. No paths?

 

[Eagle]

I still don't understand why there aren't the occasional services from the South West to Glasgow via the WCML. No paths?

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