XC trains behing heavily used by Wolverhampton to Birmingham commuters: how could this be resolved?

[The Planner]

The big advantage of moving the Manchester service to use 350s (perhaps just give it to WMT instead and have them keep some or all of the 350/2s refurbished to 2+2 for it?) is that it would free up Voyagers to strengthen other problem services.

Are there enough paths to run them to Coventry instead and terminate there? There was talk at one point of the TfW doing that so there must be at least one hourly path.

I suspect the vast majority of passengers from Manchester are going to Birmingham anyway, not the Westcountry nor Reading (though there is a reasonable flow to Bristol). One option would be for one of the trains to be a 350 worked WMT service and the other to be XC, doubled up with the freed up Voyagers, so retaining a Bristol through service but not a Reading one?

Of course that doesn't fully address the other XC leg which also passes through that corridor with short trains.

How are you going to factor in that if you terminate them at New St, you have immediately added a minimum of 12 minutes on for the connection to the journey time? You would have to do it at International or Coventry with a 5 minute connection at the minimum if the paths aligned. Coventry is a terrible place to terminate a train operationally.

Fag packet wise the Bournemouth arrives New St at xx.57 currently, so with a 12 minute connection the earliest the XC south could go is xx.09 which runs down the xx.06 WMR Euston as it stops at the shacks between International at Cov and has the Avanti Scotland right behind it, so no joy (it would be broken further south anyway). If you kept the Manchester 350 running and went at xx.00, which is the earliest you can go, the XC still runs right behind at xx.03 and just about works if you add a minute into the XC and have it depart International at xx.14, but you cannot add any resilience in or you break the XC path. All that goes down the pan though as the Wolves Walsall leaves New St at xx.00 from the low side, and cannot go at xx.03 at the XC is in that path. It can't go at xx.06 as the aforementioned WMR Euston goes in that path and there is a northbound Cross City from the high side at xx.06 which it would clash with at Duddeston/Aston. You have broken its turnaround at Walsall by then anyway.

Even if the above worked, Northbound the XC leaves International at xx.41 so the earliest the Manchester 350 can go is xx.46 which doesn't work due to the xx.45 arrival of the WMR Euston and the Avanti New St which goes at xx.46. You cannot go then until xx.49 and flex the TfW arrival at xx.50 out which would consequentially knock the xx.52 Rugeley departure. If you are bang on time, you get to New St at xx.58 and keep the required 3 minute dwell for the xx.01 northbound path.

That doesn't factor in trying to find a layover platform(s) in New St for the XC either as they interwork the Bristol. It all looks as robust as a chocolate tea pot though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's all assuming you do seek to line them up. Extending Manchester to Reading by 30 minutes could be acceptable collateral damage compared to providing added capacity to Birmingham.

 

[HSTEd]

Well once HS2 Phase 1 opens you will likely have plenty of spare capacity into Curzon Street, so could you do something with that to get a capacity release from Manchester to Birmingham?

 

[JonathanH]

What about 810s? They have the capacity of a 7 carriage 222.

They have the standard class capacity of a 7 carriage 222, and fewer first class seats, although that would appear to be in line with the traditional view of the requirement for first class travel on CrossCountry.

A bit shorter as a pair, and more diesel power, but still unlikely to happen.

 

[The Planner]

That's all assuming you do seek to line them up. Extending Manchester to Reading by 30 minutes could be acceptable collateral damage compared to providing added capacity to Birmingham.

Not a chance would that be swallowed unless the view was you shunt people to OOC to go north from there. Its not just Reading you are extending though, its Leamington, Banbury and Oxford.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not a chance would that be swallowed unless the view was you shunt people to OOC to go north from there. Its not just Reading you are extending though, its Leamington, Banbury and Oxford.

Is there a significant Manchester <-> Leamington/Banbury demand?

Post HS2 I could see people choosing to go via OOC and HS2 for Manchester <-> Oxford. It's likely to be both cheaper and more capacious. TBH I dislike XC and its overcrowding sufficiently that I'd do it now even with a cross London transfer. If HS2 was built in full I'd question if Manchester-Reading is needed *at all* as most of the journeys will be preferable via either Moor St-Curzon St (effectively one station like Kings X and St P are) or via Old Oak, indeed even for Bristol via OOC might be preferable then.

In that case you'd perhaps consider withdrawing the Manchester XC service entirely (replace with a Manchester-Birmingham Curzon St on HS2 and an enhanced stopping service on the classic route using 350s or similar, probably both at 2tph) and just turning XC into a single north east to south west route, which would have plenty enough Voyagers to run everything as double sets. Or alternatively retain one of the West Coast XCs (probably Manchester-Bristol) but send it to Liverpool instead.

 

[rapmastaj]

There's a very simple solution. Use higher capacity rolling stock on CrossCountry. Of course, persuading the Treasury to fund this is where the problems start.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's a very simple solution. Use higher capacity rolling stock on CrossCountry. Of course, persuading the Treasury to fund this is where the problems start.

I think it's a given that a fleet of full length IETs would solve XC's problems entirely, but I think it's also a given that that's not happening.

 

[py_megapixel]

I think it's a given that a fleet of full length IETs would solve XC's problems entirely, but I think it's also a given that that's not happening.

Every one of XC's problems except people going on Railforums and whinging about it

 

[Bletchleyite]

Every one of XC's problems except people going on Railforums and whinging about it

We'd just moan about the seats

 

[py_megapixel]

We'd just moan about the seats

I bet we'd moan about the seats on Voyagers if there was ever enough capacity that any were actually free...

 

[Rich McLean]

XC revenue could check some trains, but most Friday afternoon, Saturday daytime and Tuesday - Thursday office commuter peak flow trains they simply cannot check Standard. It's just not going to happen. There are too many people standing to do a check.

Now they could work around this with two checks i.e. gateline and approaching the platform but that's strongly discouraged because it's so customer-unfriendly ane creates extra congestion on platforms. Frequently it's also very ineffective because the platform will be used by another service two minutes before or afterwards.

XC know all this, and even if they could do something about it, they'd be diverting RPI resources away from the need to focus on ticketless travel and detection of fraud (fake tickets, re-use etc etc). Spending loads of time just checking Coventry - Wolverhampton would really undermine their ability to do that, which is more important in a business sense.

Then the only option is longer trains

 

[Starmill]

Then the only option is longer trains

I agree, sadly nothing else will cut it.

That's all assuming you do seek to line them up. Extending Manchester to Reading by 30 minutes could be acceptable collateral damage compared to providing added capacity to Birmingham.

In practical terms, it'd probably be quite justifiable to cannibalise what long-distance market is left on the Manchester - Reading axis, in the name of commuter capacity into Oxford, Birmingham and Manchester. You could feasibly carry double the number of people without using any more track capacity and only a very small increase in platform occupation.

However, splitting it all up would be politically toxic, and would result in such an enormous drop in average yield, while significantly increasing operating costs, so it's a terrible idea. XC would of course far, far rather carry a Manchester to Reading passenger than a Stockport - Macclesfield passenger, a Wolverhampton - Birmingham passenger, a Birmingham - Coventry passenger and a Banbury - Oxford passenger.

Finally, you'd be extending the time by 60 minutes every other hour as there's no second service to Reading most hours.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In practical terms, it'd probably be quite justifiable to cannibalise what long-distance market is left on the Manchester - Reading axis, in the name of commuter capacity into Oxford, Birmingham and Manchester. You could feasibly carry double the number of people without using any more track capacity and only a very small increase in platform occupation.

However, splitting it all up would be politically toxic, and would result in such an enormous drop in average yield, while significantly increasing operating costs, so it's a terrible idea. XC would of course far, far rather carry a Manchester to Reading passenger than a Stockport - Macclesfield passenger, a Wolverhampton - Birmingham passenger, a Birmingham - Coventry passenger and a Banbury - Oxford passenger.

Finally, you'd be extending the time by 60 minutes every other hour as there's no second service to Reading most hours.

I don't think it's just about commuters. Manchester-Birmingham traffic (and potential traffic on the M6) will massively outnumber Manchester-Reading traffic, and some of that will just go via London anyway due to the quicker and superior (and often cheaper) service.

 

[Energy]

Is there a significant Manchester <-> Leamington/Banbury demand?

Rank	From	To	Total
1	Birmingham New Street	Coventry	846358
2	Birmingham New Street	London Euston	707923
3	Birmingham New Street	Wolverhampton	649476
6	Birmingham New Street	Birmingham International	336585
9	Birmingham New Street	Derby	230256
41	Birmingham New Street	Banbury	91020
51	Birmingham New Street	Manchester Piccadilly	61550

Rank	From	To	Total
1	Leamington Spa	London Marylebone	150496
2	Leamington Spa	Birmingham Moor Street	114380
5	Leamington Spa	Banbury	52603
6	Leamington Spa	Oxford	41387
8	Leamington Spa	Birmingham New Street	22283
11	Leamington Spa	Birmingham International	16706
12	Leamington Spa	Manchester Piccadilly	12339
28	Leamington Spa	Wolverhampton	2438

Rank	From	To	TOTAL
1	Banbury	Oxford	250143
3	Banbury	Birmingham New Street	91020
5	Banbury	Reading	55715
7	Banbury	Coventry	43089
8	Banbury	Birmingham Moor Street	17853
9	Banbury	Birmingham International	14341
10	Banbury	Manchester Piccadilly	12742
11	Banbury	Basingstoke	12320
15	Banbury	Wolverhampton	7333

Here's some data from the ORR destination matrix 2021-2022, my selection methodology isn't brilliant with some being excluded (like Banbury - Leamington Spa) as it is difficult to know how many are done via XC and how many are done by a different operator. New St - Euston has been left in as a comparison and while XC serves New St to Coventry they only run 1tph while Avanti and LNWR run 2tph each.

New St - Banbury is an important flow with more people choosing New St and Moor St at Banbury. New St - Manchester is very minor so isn't worth splitting the service for. Split ticketing breaks the statistics a little but Banbury - Wolverhampton shows that many stay on the train, and Leamington Spa - Wolverhampton is likely higher but it's significantly cheaper to split tickets via Coventry.

XC also matters on Banbury to Oxford, Reading, and (somewhat) Basingstoke. Chiltern previously served Banbury - Oxford but no longer seems to leaving XC, a slow GWR stopper from Banbury - Reading and a once-a-day GWR London Paddington - Banbury on weekdays.

Splitting it at Coventry would be a pain with only its 4 through platforms, especially if Manchester - Bournemouth goes 2tph. It also has to allow the Leamington Spa - Nuneaton stopper through so blocking platforms for a long time will be a pain. Birmingham Intl isn't brilliant to split either and splitting at New St would just end up with more platforms used (and more people moving around).

TLDR don't split it.

I think it's a given that a fleet of full length IETs would solve XC's problems entirely, but I think it's also a given that that's not happening.

The Lumo 803s show that a 5-car IET could manage a high-density layout of ~320 standard seats (4 cars) and 1 car of first in a 5-car unit. Which would be significantly better than the 174 standard in a 4-car 220.

While an 807-type layout would be better XC has been stuck with minimal investment for a while so a higher density 5 car 80X seems more reasonable.

 

[Starmill]

I don't think it's just about commuters. Manchester-Birmingham traffic (and potential traffic on the M6) will massively outnumber Manchester-Reading traffic, and some of that will just go via London anyway due to the quicker and superior (and often cheaper) service.

If you kept it all together as Bournemouth - Birmingham and Birmingham - Manchester then yes. But that'd probably never pan out, as you'd go from finding a platform for one four/five car to finding one for two eight/nine/ten cars at Birmingham New Street. If it were that easy, it would probably have already been done.

 

[6Gman]

Whenever I have done that trip northbound, it clears out at Wolves, I don't believe its leisure related.

I used to travel Brum to Crewe quite a lot around peak times (LNR, Avanti and - less often - XC). Yes, they can be packed leaving New Street but there are usually seats from Wolverhampton, and plenty from Stafford.

This does all seem a complex way to avoid some people standing for 20 minutes.

 

[Lewisham2221]

This does all seem a complex way to avoid some people standing for 20 minutes.

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this.

There are no intermediate stops on the XC, so I'm not entirely sure who's supposed to benefit here? The people who are already onboard, who already have a seat? The people who are travelling BHM-WVH only?

 

[Cambrian359]

This does all seem a complex way to avoid some people standing for 20 minutes.

I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this.

Isnt it more about ensuring longer distance travellers can actually get on XC & TFW trains when very busy or short formed rather than being left behind so a short hopper traveller can save a couple of minutes?

 

[sprinterguy]

There are no intermediate stops on the XC, so I'm not entirely sure who's supposed to benefit here? The people who are already onboard, who already have a seat? The people who are travelling BHM-WVH only?

The people travelling from Birmingham to stations beyond Wolverhampton, particularly those stations that are specific to the Crosscountry service.

 

[Krokodil]

If HS2 was built in full I'd question if Manchester-Reading is needed *at all* as most of the journeys will be preferable via either Moor St-Curzon St

Personally I would have wired Birmingham - Reading and put a chord in around the International/Interchange area so that classic compatible HS2 services between Manchester and Birmingham (not forgetting Leeds-Birmingham) can reverse at Curzon St and continue to Reading.

For that matter I'd also be looking at ways of getting the Bristol trains into Curzon St. As someone said above, XC is more a Regional Express service than Intercity, but it should be Intercity (we're talking of journeys like Bristol to Edinburgh here) and integration into HS2 (particularly the Eastern Leg) would have cut journey times by more than an hour in many cases. That then frees up paths for 350s (or similar) to work Regional Express services calling at a few more stations than XC currently do.

I think it's a given that a fleet of full length IETs would solve XC's problems entirely, but I think it's also a given that that's not happening.

What would help is if twenty class 221 sets were cascaded to XC as Avanti finished with them. Two of them could have been in service some time ago if the DfT wasn't run by dithering incompetents. New trains are very unlikely, and definitely would not be built by Hitachi if they were ordered.

 

[GoneSouth]

I bet we'd moan about the seats on Voyagers if there was ever enough capacity that any were actually free...

I wouldn’t, much more comfortable than any other I’ve used in the past couple Of years!

 

[cle]

Which would be the easiest line to thread into Curzon St, if there is a platform or two spare?

And yes, if Didcot-Coventry was wired, you could have a 8 car 350 type set up, for the Manchester. And Liverpool should be 2tph @ 8 cars also. These should provide a lot more capacity to those shorter journeys. You could arguably speed some others up - for example cut Stafford calls from the Bristol-Manc or the Euston-Wolves-Scotland.

Or start some back from International.

Or re-route some more services into the expanded Moor St (e.g. an Oxford TPH, as planned - which could indeed come from Reading and maintain Solihull connections if XC switch all via Cov)

 

[Topological]

I have long advocated creating capacity on CrossCountry by using EMU between Birmingham and Manchester. It really is only the issue of platforms to maintain connections that keeps coming back.

Given the southbound EMU in the present Manchester to Reading path offers connections to the xx12 West Country it seems that works ok without there being a Manchester to Bristol. Were flexing possible to put an EMU in Manchester to Birmingham* that worked with connections onto the second Reading then that would be perfect. As there is not a half-hour gap between departures from Manchester a new path may be tough though.

Space wise, potentially the arrival at Birmingham New Street from Reading could form the train to Bristol and the arrival from Bristol could then form the train to Reading (Note using Reading here, it would be Bournemouth most hours).

The Manchester terminator would need somewhere to go, but as already said an option is to find a path to Birmingham International.

Advantage is a lot more capacity between Manchester and Birmingham, achieved by a greening of the fleet (no diesel under wires Manchester to Birmingham).

Disadvantage is the loss of direct services, which ticket sales show are used.

Failing spending on new stock, the use of spare EMU on Manchester Birmingham seems the easiest fix for capacity.

 

[The Planner]

I have long advocated creating capacity on CrossCountry by using EMU between Birmingham and Manchester. It really is only the issue of platforms to maintain connections that keeps coming back.

Given the southbound EMU in the present Manchester to Reading path offers connections to the xx12 West Country it seems that works ok without there being a Manchester to Bristol. Were flexing possible to put an EMU in Manchester to Birmingham* that worked with connections onto the second Reading then that would be perfect. As there is not a half-hour gap between departures from Manchester a new path may be tough though.

Space wise, potentially the arrival at Birmingham New Street from Reading could form the train to Bristol and the arrival from Bristol could then form the train to Reading (Note using Reading here, it would be Bournemouth most hours).

The Manchester terminator would need somewhere to go, but as already said an option is to find a path to Birmingham International.

Advantage is a lot more capacity between Manchester and Birmingham, achieved by a greening of the fleet (no diesel under wires Manchester to Birmingham).

Disadvantage is the loss of direct services, which ticket sales show are used.

Failing spending on new stock, the use of spare EMU on Manchester Birmingham seems the easiest fix for capacity.

Its not a connection XC are massively bothered about, its more luck than anything. The important one is the Bournemouth arrival at New St into the xx.03 NE train. As I explained above, if you dont keep XC in their current southbound path, it unravels very quickly for them.

 

[Philip]

How about running the ex-Bristol Cross Country to Liverpool instead of Manchester in place of the LNR, picking up Penkridge & Crewe-Weaver Jn Stations as LNR currently does? LNR could then run a fast Manchester-Birmingham EMU 8-coach service in the xx:03 path from Manchester Pic (the current Cross Country path & stopping pattern). If terminating at New Street would be problematic, could this EMU service extend to Rugby or even Northampton/Milton Keynes?

 

[Cambrian359]

Does anyone know if the reason West Midlands trains between Birmingham and Shrewsbury state ‘via Wolverhampton & Telford central’ to encourage people to use that service over TFW/XC?

 

[EllieAquitrain]

Birmingham—Manchester trains via HS2 have been suggested multiple times on this thread but is there capacity for them through Colwich now that phase 2a has been cancelled? I thought there were no spare paths and that therefore all HS2 trains through there would have to substitute existing services on the northern side.

 

[Energy]

Birmingham—Manchester trains via HS2 have been suggested multiple times on this thread but is there capacity for them through Colwich now that phase 2a has been cancelled? I thought there were no spare paths and that therefore all HS2 trains through there would have to substitute existing services on the northern side.

Colwich is realistically 7tph HS2.

3tph Manchester
2tph Liverpool (1tph split at Crewe with Lancaster)
1tph Macclesfield
1tph Lancaster (split at Crewe with a Liverpool)
1tph Glasgow

At most you could get 1tph by combining the Glasgow with the other Liverpool service and splitting at Crewe.

XC is currently 2tph (3tph if Manchester - Bournemouth ever goes 2tph), HS2 wouldn't have a particularly big journey time advantage only avoiding the slow bit at Wolverhampton and Curzon St isn't as well connected as New St.

Birmingham - Manchester revenue is far, far less than London - Manchester. The latter will have priority.

If only for a couple billion there was a solution which would have solved Colwich and wouldn't have needed Handsacre...

 

[The Prisoner]

Having just done Chester to Bristol last week with XC I’d have it as the worst operator in the country by an absolute mile. Makes Avanti look good.

Trying to cram too many into 4 car voyagers we had people from standard in first and refusing to move between Birmingham and Cheltenham on the way down and Birmingham and wolves on the way back (i was on Seatfrog)

To have just two services an hour from Birmingham to Manchester with 4 or 5 car XC is an absolute disgrace.

You can’t make wolves pick up only or you penalise customers from other places who want to travel there.

I’d actually convert one of the Avanti Manchester services to travel via Birmingham, or add a Birmingham to Manchester extension to a Birmingham terminator to add capacity. There can’t be any issue with abstraction as they already have the same principle and routes on the London - west mids - Scotland service.

Shocking as it is, and yes I get the dft are to blame