Should AT300's be ordered for CrossCountry and East Midlands Trains

[387star]

It is a real shame crosscountry is inthe state it is in

One day we will look back on this and it will all seem funny...

 

[thenorthern]

In my mind there are 2 solution to the CrossCountry overcrowding issues.

The first one is order new trains to introduce additional services but make the new services shorter such as Bristol to Leeds, Manchester to Oxford and Reading to Sheffield. This way the overcrowded parts of the network get more seats and the trains running over the quieter parts of the network aren't carting fresh air about.

The second solution would be very unpopular but effective and its remove some of the intermediate stations so that the trains are utilised for intercity journeys and not for short distance journeys. For example I have many times taken the Edinburgh to Plymouth train just to travel from Derby to Burton-on-Trent which itself is one of many short trips regularly made on that service they all add up.

 

[NSEFAN]

I don't think that we should deliberately discourage travel because of the wrong kind of rolling stock. Cross country serve to provide fast links between towns on lines out of Birmingham, and deliberately worsening the service would probably have an adverse effect on the economy. I don't believe that XC are carting round that much fresh air these days, so trimming the ends of the network seems like penny pinching to me.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

In my mind there are 2 solution to the CrossCountry overcrowding issues.

The first one is order new trains to introduce additional services but make the new services shorter such as Bristol to Leeds, Manchester to Oxford and Reading to Sheffield. This way the overcrowded parts of the network get more seats and the trains running over the quieter parts of the network aren't carting fresh air about.

The second solution would be very unpopular but effective and its remove some of the intermediate stations so that the trains are utilised for intercity journeys and not for short distance journeys. For example I have many times taken the Edinburgh to Plymouth train just to travel from Derby to Burton-on-Trent which itself is one of many short trips regularly made on that service they all add up.

I don't know if either option is viable, terminating services and turning back at Leeds will be difficult at certain times of the day, for instance, a short station stop and then getting out of the platform as quickly as possible is essential at many stations XC serve.

The reason the second option isn't viable also has implications for why the first option isn't viable. XC isn't just an InterCity operation, it's a back-up local/regional service, providing additional capacity uplift during peak periods, it helps GWR, EMT, Northern, TransPennine, EC and ScotRail move passengers that each local franchise would otherwise have to deal with. The two options, either terminating on short journeys, or missing out stops, have serious implications for their impact on capacity on peak time flows on various routes.

To my mind, the XC franchise does a lot of the heavy lifting for several other franchises, and a better or different method of working out the rolling stock requirements and the franchise subsidy/premium is needed.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It would certainly be nice to see XC journeys sped up but unless something else picks up the local calls, it's not going to happen. Even if rolling stock were available it may well not be the case that the capacity exists through key stations and junctions for there to be extra services. Worse, it might not even be feasible to have faster services since there are so few opportunities to overtake on the network. XC is unfortunate in that the parts of the network it serves are those too far from London in most cases for four-tracking to be in place.

 

[edwin_m]

In the long term HS2 will relieve the Birmingham-Leeds/Newcastle and Birmingham-Manchester flows and this suggests the central core of XC will have more stops rather than fewer, to cater better for intermediate journeys and for those travelling beyond the range of the HS2 services. This will probably also help to even out the loadings over the length of the HS2 journeys. But maybe not by very much, and something needs doing before 2033 anyway.

On the question of the 158s, the EMT ones which are pretty nice today (barring the lack of wifi and power sockets) were until refurbishment some of the most run-down in the entire fleet, having been passed on from at least three previous operators who may well each have made sure they kept the best-condition units for themselves. So if the money is spent on them even the Northern ones can be made into decent trains. I read on another thread that the first has gone for refurbishment, so hopefully we will soon find out.

 

[The Ham]

HS2, being 17 years away, may not mean that passenger numbers go down from where they are now. If we assume that in 17 years growth goes up at 2.5% per year we'll see passenger numbers growing by 50%. That means that if 1/3 of passengers go over to HS2 then passenger loadings will be the same as they are now.

 

[47802]

In my mind there are 2 solution to the CrossCountry overcrowding issues.

The first one is order new trains to introduce additional services but make the new services shorter such as Bristol to Leeds, Manchester to Oxford and Reading to Sheffield. This way the overcrowded parts of the network get more seats and the trains running over the quieter parts of the network aren't carting fresh air about.

.

Ideally as you say something along those lines needs doing, I would certainly look at introducing an additional York to Bristol service routed via Leeds possibly with a couple of workings extended to Exeter or Plymouth. Re route the Newcastle - Reading via Leeds, and reroute the Edinburgh - Plymouth via Doncaster as its quicker and splits off the Leeds traffic and between York and Bristol call only at Doncaster, Sheffield, Derby, Birmingham.

 

[jimm]

As I am sure other readers will agree, jimm is one of the most informative but also amusing contributors on this forum. Always worth a read every day, but just to clarify, when I said 'proposed' I mean a bidder will put forward an option for reduced journey times on the Reading - Manchester axis. Everyone in the industry knows there is scope for improved XC journey times. DfT approving such a proposal or any new XC stock will be another thing, but surely we're allowed to suggest such ideas on this forum?!

We aim to entertain... and inform.

How is an XC bidder going to put forward an option for reduced journey times when the prospect of any significant infrastructure upgrades on that axis is rather distant? Perhaps you could define the scope for improved journey times.

Norton Bridge will shave a few minutes off by easing passage through the Stafford area, irrespective of tilt, but how do you propose to squeeze any time out through the congested West Midlands or south from there to Oxford, ahead of substantial upgrades like Oxford-Didcot capacity enhancement, which is still not much more than an idea right now? The Coventry-Leamington improvements are about reopening Kenilworth station and addressing existing capacity issues, not speeding up services.

The only bits of current XC routes where tilt balises have ever been fitted are south of Manchester into Staffordshire and Oxford to Banbury, where the time savings were pretty modest (and still are if you compare XC and Virgin running times between Manchester and Stone on services calling at Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke) - it was a different matter when XC SuperVoyagers were running long distances up the WCML to and from Scotland every day.

The modesty of those time savings and preponderance of non-tilt 220s on Manchester services were why XC decided not to pay for the tilt gear on its 221s to be maintained in the first place. Even if more 221s were to arrive, the place they would be most likely to be deployed would be the North East-South West axis, to deliver more seating capacity where it is most needed, so nowhere near a tilt balise.

As for the exact date that Doncaster to Derby will be wired, who cares?! That's the whole point of bi-mode - use the diesel until the wires are in. Glasgow / Edinburgh to York / Wakefield (with TP wiring) / Doncaster is still a long way under the wires.

Yes, they are long distances but they are also places where XC currently provides one train per hour each way.

As I said yesterday, if there was wiring on more of the core area, where there are 2tph, other than just Manchester-Birmingham, there may well be a case for some bi-modes, but as things stand, if you are going to order some, it makes far more sense to send them to the MML, to follow the wires as they spread north and displace diesel-powered 222s to XC, where there will still be a need for diesel running on a lot of services a lot of the time and no firm plans in place for a single mile more of electrification, except for where there is overlap with MML and TPE wires, plus Barnt Green to Bromsgrove.

Only when the gaps in Yorkshire are infilled and Derby-Birmingham gets wires would XC start to see substantial benefit from having bi-mode traction - and any work beyond Derby would surely be linked with a Bromsgrove-Bristol/South Wales wiring scheme as well, so you are then looking at a situation where a lot of XC services that turn back at Bristol could switch straight to an electric train anyway, without any need for a bi-mode.

As for whether it's Oxford to Banbury or Leamington that previously had the tilt, again who cares? I don't go researching the exact detail. The principal of using tilting stock where it can tilt (it can on WCML) is the important part of the suggestion along with one possible means of providing badly needed increased capacity on XC.

So having some basic facts right is irrelevant to helping people understand things, is it? You were suggesting that when tilt was available south of Birmingham, it was for the 43 miles from Oxford to Leamington, rather than just the 23 miles to Banbury that was actually the case, saving a couple of minutes, where one might expect a more significant differential were almost twice that distance tilt-enabled, though tilt would be pointless north of Banbury anyway.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You were suggesting that when tilt was available south of Birmingham, it was for the 43 miles from Oxford to Leamington, rather than just the 23 miles to Banbury that was actually the case, saving a couple of minutes, where one might expect a more significant differential were almost twice that distance tilt-enabled, though tilt would be pointless north of Banbury anyway.

I believe the TASS balises between Oxford and Banbury were only through the Heyford area (the windy bit of the Cherwell Valley line), so didn't amount to anything significant.
I think it was for testing purposes more than anything, and to keep the kit active.
Tilt would be valuable on all the bends around Leamington, Coventry and New St, but NR doesn't seem to like TASS on complicated track layouts, even on the WCML.

 

[swt_passenger]

The reason the second option isn't viable also has implications for why the first option isn't viable. XC isn't just an InterCity operation, it's a back-up local/regional service, providing additional capacity uplift during peak periods, it helps GWR, EMT, Northern, TransPennine, EC and ScotRail move passengers that each local franchise would otherwise have to deal with.

I'd agree and also add SWT to your list. XC must make a significant contribution to fast services between Basingstoke and the Southampton/Bournemouth areas, given that about half the SWT fasts are non stop through Basingstoke.

 

[47802]

We aim to entertain... and inform.


As I said yesterday, if there was wiring on more of the core area, where there are 2tph, other than just Manchester-Birmingham, there may well be a case for some bi-modes, but as things stand, if you are going to order some, it makes far more sense to send them to the MML, to follow the wires as they spread north and displace diesel-powered 222s to XC, where there will still be a need for diesel running on a lot of services a lot of the time and no firm plans in place for a single mile more of electrification, except for where there is overlap with MML and TPE wires, plus Barnt Green to Bromsgrove.

Only when the gaps in Yorkshire are infilled and Derby-Birmingham gets wires would XC start to see substantial benefit from having bi-mode traction - and any work beyond Derby would surely be linked with a Bromsgrove-Bristol/South Wales wiring scheme as well, so you are then looking at a situation where a lot of XC services that turn back at Bristol could switch straight to an electric train anyway, without any need for a bi-mode.

.

I think there is still enough present/current planned and projected electrification to justify some XC Bi-modes with a significant saving on fuel costs and maintenance. While oil maybe very cheap at the moment with the Saudi's trying to put the frackers out of business sooner or later it going to go up. Lets put it this way it would not make sense in my view to buy new diesel only trains for XC, yes potentially they may take Diesel cascades but anything new needs to be Bi-mode.

 

[edwin_m]

How is an XC bidder going to put forward an option for reduced journey times when the prospect of any significant infrastructure upgrades on that axis is rather distant? Perhaps you could define the scope for improved journey times.

How much padding remains in XC timetables?

As I said yesterday, if there was wiring on more of the core area, where there are 2tph, other than just Manchester-Birmingham, there may well be a case for some bi-modes, but as things stand, if you are going to order some, it makes far more sense to send them to the MML, to follow the wires as they spread north and displace diesel-powered 222s to XC, where there will still be a need for diesel running on a lot of services a lot of the time and no firm plans in place for a single mile more of electrification, except for where there is overlap with MML and TPE wires, plus Barnt Green to Bromsgrove.

Bi-modes for MML make very little sense. The electrification is planned to have three stages: Corby, Nottingham (including Derby but very little terminates there) and Sheffield. Each is essentially a distinct route in the present service pattern and simply a question of substituting electric for diesel units. Neither the period of a few years when these core routes have significant running under the wires, nor the existence of a few services via Melton or Alfreton or to Leeds, justifies buying bi-modes instead of straight electrics.

By contrast many of the XC routes run significant distances under the wires: more than half for Bristol-Edinburgh for example, but as it will be many years before these are wired end to end it makes perfect sense to deploy bi-modes which will have a long and useful life on these routes.

 

[Xavi]

Well said 47802 and edwin_m on anything new for XC being bi-mode and the padding in existing XC timetables.

It may well be cascaded extra 221/222s for XC in the future - anything will be an improvement on the current situation - but no harm in suggesting other possibilities. After all who'd have thought 12 months ago that Northern and TPE would end up with the future rolling stock plans now in place?

 

[Class 170101]

Ideally as you say something along those lines needs doing, I would certainly look at introducing an additional York to Bristol service routed via Leeds possibly with a couple of workings extended to Exeter or Plymouth. Re route the Newcastle - Reading via Leeds, and reroute the Edinburgh - Plymouth via Doncaster as its quicker and splits off the Leeds traffic and between York and Bristol call only at Doncaster, Sheffield, Derby, Birmingham.

No, the Plymouth to Scotland via ECML needs to stay via Leeds otherwise it duplicates ECML services between Doncaster and Edinburgh. However a 3rd service between York and Birmingham via Derby, Sheffield and Leeds is something that I have been advocating for a long time. (Destinations north and south open to discussion).

Well said 47802 and edwin_m on anything new for XC being bi-mode and the padding in existing XC timetables.

It may well be cascaded extra 221/222s for XC in the future - anything will be an improvement on the current situation - but no harm in suggesting other possibilities. After all who'd have thought 12 months ago that Northern and TPE would end up with the future rolling stock plans now in place?

Derby remodelling may assist with removal of some of the journey time padding.

 

[47802]

No, the Plymouth to Scotland via ECML needs to stay via Leeds otherwise it duplicates ECML services between Doncaster and Edinburgh. However a 3rd service between York and Birmingham via Derby, Sheffield and Leeds is something that I have been advocating for a long time. (Destinations north and south open to discussion).


Derby remodelling may assist with removal of some of the journey time padding.

So what taking Leeds traffic out of the Scottish services would likely help with loadings and speed it up via Doncaster, while Leeds will get an alternate service to Edinburgh in a few years time with TPE, so either route will potentially have a duplicate service to Edinburgh anyway.

 

[Class 170101]

Similar number of seats TPE when compared to XC so where is the growth in capacity between Leeds and Edinburgh? I would have thought the two cities would warrant trains twice an hour relatively evenly spaced.

 

[47802]

Similar number of seats TPE when compared to XC so where is the growth in capacity between Leeds and Edinburgh? I would have thought the two cities would warrant trains twice an hour relatively evenly spaced.

I would think 3 trains an hour to Newcastle with 1 train an hour to Edinburgh with the option to change onto other Edinburgh services at York or Newcastle would be perfectly satisfactory for Leeds.

You seem to be focusing on Leeds- Edinburgh when surely the focus on should be on traffic to/from Birmingham and beyond. If you did run 3 trains per hour north of Birmingham then you probably do want to run two of those via Leeds, and one via Doncaster, to me it makes sense to run Scottish service via Doncaster as it speeds up the train with the longest journey time and also omit stations like Chesterfield and Burton which can be covered by the other 2 trains, but XC might not see it that way wanting a slice Leeds - Scottish revenue.

In any case we are arguing about a theoretical third train per hour which isn't happening at present and may not happen for some time.

 

[tbtc]

I know that the IEP set up means it'll be fairly easy to remove engines from bi-modes, so that 800s can become 801s, but...

...I'm wondering whether future electrification off the ECML/GWML (e.g. Teesside) will encourage more 800s to be available for franchises like XC (either with VTEC/GWR cascading their 800s and buying new longer 801s or the spare engines in VTEC/GWR trains being donated to new build XC IEPs)?

i.e. "IEP for XC" could be part of the same jigsaw as "VTEC want longer trains" and "VTEC need fewer bi-modes due to further electrification?

An extremely elegant solution would be to introduce some bi-modes on the XC service allowing Voyagers to be cascaded to fill the gap at EMT. However this would require some very optimistic assumptions on build dates, as well as a level of forward planning that, shall we say, hasn't been a feature of recent franchising.

I don't think I've ever seen this suggestion before, but I'm interested...

I've certainly seen the "cascaded 222s to XC" idea suggested on these kind of threads, but hadn't considered the other way round.

It would allow the EMT HSTs to be withdrawn, it may even allow sufficient units to permit extra capacity on Nottingham - Liverpool... I think I like it!

The second solution would be very unpopular but effective and its remove some of the intermediate stations so that the trains are utilised for intercity journeys and not for short distance journeys. For example I have many times taken the Edinburgh to Plymouth train just to travel from Derby to Burton-on-Trent which itself is one of many short trips regularly made on that service they all add up.

I used to commute to Leeds daily - you'd join a scrum of seemingly hundreds trying to board the teatime departure to Sheffield, only to find at least half of them getting off at Wakefield Westgate (which had several alternative services from Leeds).

So, the Voyager got horribly busy, but XC will only have had pennies from the WY Metro season ticket holders only going one stop - long distance passengers inconvenienced but the TOC won't have made a lot of money from it.

Other examples exist, of course (and I'm sure there will have been some people travelling to Birmingham etc bemoaning the commuters getting off at just Sheffield!).

Would XC (i.e. the traditional "InterCity" bit of the current franchise - not the ex-Central Trains bit) be better to avoid stopping at Burton/ Tamworth? Maybe stopping at either Durham *or* Darlington (but not for local journeys between the two)? I suppose the question is where you draw the line.

Is Bristol Parkway a short commuter journey that a supposedly InterCity service shouldn't cater for, or an important hub that long distance passengers require (e.g. its often easier to change there for journeys to south Wales than take the direct 170 via Gloucester).

To my mind, the XC franchise does a lot of the heavy lifting for several other franchises, and a better or different method of working out the rolling stock requirements and the franchise subsidy/premium is needed.

Agreed - seems strange that it's not profitable, given the passenger volumes (and fares!) - but I don't know how the ticket revenues are divvied up.

Re route the Newcastle - Reading via Leeds, and reroute the Edinburgh - Plymouth via Doncaster as its quicker and splits off the Leeds traffic and between York and Bristol call only at Doncaster, Sheffield, Derby, Birmingham.

If you're going to do that then I'd cut the service north of Leeds to save three Voyagers.

TPE will be running two services/hour from Leeds to Newcastle - one of which will run to Edinburgh AIUI (and there'll be plenty of TPE/VTEC services from Leeds to York and York to Newcastle/ Edinburgh)

How much padding remains in XC timetables?

The impression I've got from this forum is that XC want to use any "spare" time between stations to have nice healthy dwell times, so speeding up services between stations may not mean faster overall journeys. I could be wrong though.

No, the Plymouth to Scotland via ECML needs to stay via Leeds otherwise it duplicates ECML services between Doncaster and Edinburgh

It already duplicates VTEC for over two hundred miles from York to Edinburgh, so running via Doncaster won't make a huge difference.

Worth also mentioning that Leeds will have regular services (hourly?) to Edinburgh (on top of an hourly service to Newcastle), whereas the speeding up of long distance ECML services means that Doncaster has fewer services to Newcastle/Edinburgh (most VTEC services that stop at Doncaster go no further than Leeds/ York).

Running the Scottish XC services via Doncaster would mean journeys like Edinburgh - Sheffield/ Derby/ Bristol will be twenty/thirty minutes faster - what's not to like?

 

[edwin_m]

I used to commute to Leeds daily - you'd join a scrum of seemingly hundreds trying to board the teatime departure to Sheffield, only to find at least half of them getting off at Wakefield Westgate (which had several alternative services from Leeds).

So, the Voyager got horribly busy, but XC will only have had pennies from the WY Metro season ticket holders only going one stop - long distance passengers inconvenienced but the TOC won't have made a lot of money from it.

Part of the problem is that the Voyager overtakes the "fast" Northern service that goes via Barnsley, so travellers from Sheffield to Wakefield or Leeds will probably go for the faster train despite it being crowded and less comfortable (Northern 158s may not be great but in my view they still beat Voyagers hands down). If they get the timings right Northern Connect may help on that one.

On the Leeds/Doncaster issue, it mustn't be forgotten that Doncaster deserves some decent connectivity towards Birmingham, both in its own right and in providing connections eastwards (which may also be possible at Sheffield but there could be crowding issues). It is also much easier to path an extra service on the 125mph ECML between Doncaster and York than trying to thread it through Wakefield and Leeds.

 

[swt_passenger]

Derby remodelling may assist with removal of some of the journey time padding.

On the other hand the fairly massive Reading re-modelling has simply resulted in longer XC turnarounds at Reading, both earlier arrivals and later departures. It would seem that to take advantage of the time that could be made available they'd have to completely re-write the SWT overall mainline timetable.

If XC remains constrained similarly by fixed slots on the ECML, and at New St, then you might see no change to overall end to end timings on services across Derby.

 

[brompton rail]

All services between Leeds and Wakefield Westgate at peak times, in both directions, get very busy with local journeys. I very much doubt that XC Peak services call for the revenue share from WYPTE!

A few years ago XC tried making the tea time southbound stop at Wakefield a pick up only one. It didn't work as passengers ignored it, and was a great inconvenience to passengers from north of Leeds.

The busiest train southbound is 1645 from York (ex Edinburgh) which is normally a double set, having worked north as 0703 from New Street. However today it will only be a single set as the 0703 BHM -EDB seems to have split at York northbound in order to provide a set to replaced the failed Edinburgh to Reading.

 

[Hairy Bear]

How much padding remains in XC timetables?

Tons...watch them sit at derby for 6 to 10 mind each day

Bi-modes for MML make very little sense. The electrification is planned to have three stages: Corby, Nottingham (including Derby but very little terminates there) and Sheffield. Each is essentially a distinct route in the present service pattern and simply a question of substituting electric for diesel units. Neither the period of a few years when these core routes have significant running under the wires, nor the existence of a few services via Melton or Alfreton or to Leeds, justifies buying bi-modes instead of straight electrics.
wired end to end it makes perfect sense to deploy bi-modes which will have a long and useful life on these routes.

No bi-modes makes perfect sense so we can use them off wire routes for diversions.
You are obviously not aware of the amount of diversions that that take place early morning ,late at night and weekends when we can maintain the service and positioning moves for ecs. Also the ability to drop the pan,start the diesel and carry on with the service when the wires come down.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Also the ability to drop the pan,start the diesel and carry on with the service when the wires come down.

You get a single diesel engine for this eventuality on the pure electric sets.

 

[jimm]

I believe the TASS balises between Oxford and Banbury were only through the Heyford area (the windy bit of the Cherwell Valley line), so didn't amount to anything significant.
I think it was for testing purposes more than anything, and to keep the kit active.
Tilt would be valuable on all the bends around Leamington, Coventry and New St, but NR doesn't seem to like TASS on complicated track layouts, even on the WCML.

It was in use until XC decided they didn't want to use tilt any more but given that so many of their services there were and still are 220s it was no use at all much of the time, even in the glory days of Operation Princess...

How would tilt be of any use at Leamington, Coventry or New Street? The trains are at low speeds at those places - and will continue to be - because they are arriving at or leaving stations, not running fast, which is where tilt counts, by smoothing out the speed profile.

Well said 47802 and edwin_m on anything new for XC being bi-mode and the padding in existing XC timetables.

It may well be cascaded extra 221/222s for XC in the future - anything will be an improvement on the current situation - but no harm in suggesting other possibilities. After all who'd have thought 12 months ago that Northern and TPE would end up with the future rolling stock plans now in place?

You can take out all the padding you like - if you can find it - but it isn't going to cure things like being stuck up the backside of a stopper between Leamington and Bordesley because of the sheer number of trains trying to use the tracks around Birmingham. Which is why some of the padding is there in the first place.

I see no prospect whatever of XC getting anything new any time soon, because there is no prospect whatever of widespread extension of electrification over XC routes until the mid-2020s and when this happens it would justify buying a lot of straight electric trains. And why on earth would you buy bi-modes when MML wiring is going to steadily free up a whole lot of 125mph-capable diesel units of a similar design to those XC already uses, which can perfectly well do the job until electrification? And a type of train which, as we know from assorted other threads, are a problem in search of a solution... well here is one.

I think anyone reading the ITTs for TPE and Northern 12 months ago would have been able to pick up on all the heavy hints about what sort of future rolling stock fleets DfT was encouraging bidders to propose.

I know that the IEP set up means it'll be fairly easy to remove engines from bi-modes, so that 800s can become 801s, but...

...I'm wondering whether future electrification off the ECML/GWML (e.g. Teesside) will encourage more 800s to be available for franchises like XC (either with VTEC/GWR cascading their 800s and buying new longer 801s or the spare engines in VTEC/GWR trains being donated to new build XC IEPs)?

The odds of any reduction in GWR's need for bi-modes is a very long way off - and would most likely be inextricably linked with electrification of the XC axis to Bristol/South Wales and hopefully deeper into the south west - which may well bring Swindon-Gloucester and Cotswold Line wires with it (though the latter may depend on timing of a drive to wire up the rest of the West Midlands local routes, including Worcester, to free up the LM 172s for places needing newer trains but with very slim prospects of electrification).

Is Bristol Parkway a short commuter journey that a supposedly InterCity service shouldn't cater for, or an important hub that long distance passengers require (e.g. its often easier to change there for journeys to south Wales than take the direct 170 via Gloucester).

It's key connection point, plus is the long-distance station of choice for people living in north Bristol and South Gloucestershire, who will never ever travel via Temple Meads, or change to or from an infrequent GWR stopper at Cheltenham, so Parkway can't be missed out.

On the other hand the fairly massive Reading re-modelling has simply resulted in longer XC turnarounds at Reading, both earlier arrivals and later departures. It would seem that to take advantage of the time that could be made available they'd have to completely re-write the SWT overall mainline timetable.

If XC remains constrained similarly by fixed slots on the ECML, and at New St, then you might see no change to overall end to end timings on services across Derby.

You're quite right about all those pathing issues and while the reversals at Reading can seem to be very generous on days when everything is running at or near time, as soon as there is disruption, often nowhere near southern England, then those generous margins and the new layout can be a godsend when it comes to service recovery - a quick turnaround can claw back several minutes at one fell swoop and the new layout means signallers find it a lot easier to weave a delayed service in and out of Reading station than used to be the case, when the delay could get even worse.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I see no prospect whatever of XC getting anything new any time soon, because there is no prospect whatever of widespread extension of electrification over XC routes until the mid-2020s and when this happens it would justify buying a lot of straight electric trains. And why on earth would you buy bi-modes when MML wiring is going to steadily free up a whole lot of 125mph-capable diesel units of a similar design to those XC already uses, which can perfectly well do the job until electrification? And a type of train which, as we know from assorted other threads, are a problem in search of a solution... well here is one.

Dumping the entire 22x fleet on XC might appear to make sense but the economics of running those trains isn't going to be ideal. DMUs make sense when trains are short, since the extra running costs compared to electric are low enough to not justify the capital expenditure of electrification. Satisfying XC's capacity demands for the future would mean running 22x rakes as long as the infrastructure would allow (e.g. 4+5 or 5+5) but then the extra operational cost of diesel is significantly higher than before. Since the number of seats on board a 22x set is also lower than it should be (a 4 car 220 has the seating capacity of a 3 car 158) the ability to earn ticket revenue to pay off these higher running costs is also limited.

An AT300 fleet would be able to use the overhead electric wires that already exist between Glasgow and Doncaster, while being able to carry more passengers. The MML electrification will add Derby to Sheffield, TP will add Leeds to York and another thread here says that a parliamentary answer suggests that Sheffield to Leeds and Doncaster will likely be the only extra wiring scheme approved for CP6. Therefore, there will be wires for a considerable proportion of the entire XC route, and importantly these wires would be there where the trains have the highest power requirements. The remaining unelectrified parts of the route would be areas where diesel is less inefficient. As an added bonus, there would be no problem of having more diesel engines rumbling away while in major stations where NOx emissions are a key problem. If every XC service had 9 or 10 engines running it would cause emissions to go up massively at key stations, which would be somewhat problematic.

 

[jopsuk]

You get a single diesel engine for this eventuality on the pure electric sets.

Once, of course, that any affected trains are disentangled, the remaining knitting assessed as safe etc. OHL down rather affects HST/180 services on the ECML.

 

[Xavi]

Sounds as though it's a done deal, so 222s will augment XC after release from MML and journey times will remain the same as present (unchanged since after Operation Princess). The completed Reading and Norton Bridge schemes plus Filton Bank and Derby in the pipeline will help the time-keeping statistics.

I'll take that if it means I can get a seat and just a chance of paying something less than the most extortionately expensive long-distance fares on the whole network. Bring it on.

 

[edwin_m]

No bi-modes makes perfect sense so we can use them off wire routes for diversions.
You are obviously not aware of the amount of diversions that that take place early morning ,late at night and weekends when we can maintain the service and positioning moves for ecs. Also the ability to drop the pan,start the diesel and carry on with the service when the wires come down.

Alternatives to bi-modes include bi-directional signalling, locomotive dragging, borrowing diesel units from the operator's other routes, temporary out-basing of trains during engineering work, or ultimately buses. Prior to the advent of the bi-mode, the operators of electrified routes have managed by using one or more of these.

MML is different from GWML and ECML in that bi-modes aren't essential to maintain the core service, and my belief is that this means MML will have straight electrics and use some combination of the above alternatives to manage diversions. However, we shall find out when the new franchise bidders do the maths!

 

[Kneedown]

As regards the MML, unless there is a commitment to wire Corby to Syston via Manton, Trent to Chesterfield, Trowell to Mansfield Jct, Toton to Attenborough Jct, Sheet Stores to Stenson and back to Derby, and finally Chesterfield North to Sheffield via Beighton, then Bi-mode is the only option unless you go down the thunderbird route.
Remember that emergency diversions may be required at any time, and Bi-mode is the best option to get trains running again with the least disruption.