Department for Transport launches CrossCountry franchise consultation

[infobleep]

In the overall scheme of things your cheap fares are inconsequential. If XC wanted they could offer advance plus connections from Guildford via Reading anyway. As has been discussed in previous threads there might soon be 4 tph SWR and 3 tph GWR as far as Wokingham, the XC southbound fast path may not be possible by then anyway...

Three trains to Reading would be welcomed but I'm not sure, guven the issues east of Guilldford, how they could do it.

 

[Class 170101]

Tamworth is a key connection with WCML semifast services. That one should not be removed. It should probably get an "u" and "s" to stop it being used as a Birmingham commuter service, though.

Impossible to make work what happens to those stations further south or north. It would potentially enforce a change of train on people say from Tamworth to Scotland (u) or Tamworth to Bristol (s)

 

[Class 170101]

Kenilworth is highly unlikely to get anything, and it can only be served by 4 car trains anyway unless someone forks out to sort the platform out. Same goes for Worcestershire Parkway, will be surprised if any of the long distance stuff ever stops.

SDO? However I think the second platform and the loop at Kenilworth will be needed first anyway.

 

[Class 170101]

FWIW, there is another solution to this "churn" problem - doors at thirds.

But these trains can be very cold in winter unless internal doors are fitted. Some 170s have these others don't.

 

[Kettledrum]

Tamworth is a key connection with WCML semifast services. That one should not be removed. It should probably get an "u" and "s" to stop it being used as a Birmingham commuter service, though.

Impossible to make work what happens to those stations further south or north. It would potentially enforce a change of train on people say from Tamworth to Scotland (u) or Tamworth to Bristol (s)

Impossible to enforce at Tamworth where there are no alternative platforms to use for different types of train, very narrow platforms, really large numbers of commuters. and no alternative services for the hundreds and displaced passengers.

Make the commuter trains so good, with lots of seats, quick boarding and regular services, and no-one will want to squeeze into the vestibules and aisles of the long distance HST anyway.

Problem is the 2 or 3 car class 170 service is so slow, so over crowded and downright lousy that passengers prefer to take their chances and stand on the HST. At least they don't have to stand for quite as long as the HST services are quicker.

 

[jagardner1984]

My experience of XC has been generally good - but with severe overcrowding for large portions of the core.

Platform lengthening and additional (old ?) stock, with some services splitting / joining at Newcastle, would seem to be very sensible.

The appeal of XC has always been direct routing, and I wouldn't sacrifice that for some of the extremities of the route, on the basis that it is far more lightly loaded than in the core.

 

[The Ham]

My general response in the consultation was that if stations were removed from XC network then these would need to be replaced by more capacity on the alternative services by other providers.

That there should be a fleet of 7 coach bimodal trains to allow the removal of the 4 coach Voyager units, resulting in a fleet of 5 or 7 coach units.

That to solve the churn problem that there's a need for more capacity.

That there's been little capacity improvements since the Voyagers started, yet demand has increased significantly in that time.

Generally "capacity, capacity, capacity".

 

[XCTurbostar]

My general response in the consultation was that if stations were removed from XC network then these would need to be replaced by more capacity on the alternative services by other providers.

That there should be a fleet of 7 coach bimodal trains to allow the removal of the 4 coach Voyager units, resulting in a fleet of 5 or 7 coach units.

That to solve the churn problem that there's a need for more capacity.

That there's been little capacity improvements since the Voyagers started, yet demand has increased significantly in that time.

Generally "capacity, capacity, capacity".

Which is significant because the consultation appears to have this “We don’t have capacity, let’s remove some stops and palm the commuters off to someone else” sort of attitude.

The only other thing I’ve done which you’ve mentioned is critisise the move to change the BHM to LEI and NOT to WMT which I think should be EMT. But I think I’m in the minority there.

 

[The Ham]

Which is significant because the consultation appears to have this “We don’t have capacity, let’s remove some stops and palm the commuters off to someone else” sort of attitude.

The only other thing I’ve done which you’ve mentioned is critisise the move to change the BHM to LEI and NOT to WMT which I think should be EMT. But I think I’m in the minority there.

I have no problem with those services staying with XC, however I have no problem with them moving to another operator. If however they are moved and they take onboard my comment about needing to be provide extra capacity if they move then no-one should be too upset.

Although I do hope that they don't decide that by leaving then with XC that they then don't need to increase capacity.

 

[The Planner]

SDO? However I think the second platform and the loop at Kenilworth will be needed first anyway.

XC won't SDO apparently, you don't need the loop and second platform until both trains go that way and that is still a long way off.

 

[whhistle]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the simple geography of the odd-ball routes (Nottingham-Birmingham, Stansted/Leicester - Birmingham).

It would be better to give Burton station to WMR and give them the Notts - BHM route.

With the Stansted - Leicester - Birmingham, there's one of two options that could be explored.

1) Give South Wigston / Narborough / Hinckley to EMT had allow them to run the services.

2) Allow WMT to run the Leicester to Birmingham route, but allow EMT to run the Stansted to Birmingham route. Could this create competition between Leicester and Birmingham and lower fares?

Whatever happens, the stations that are run by EMT that have no EMT services should transfer as it creates awkward situations with passengers asking if they can/can't do that and the staff not being able to answer.

I can't see the Stansted route being a West Midlands Trains line as the majority of the route is in the East Midlands - espeicially if they're trying to regionalise franchise names. The Notts - Birmingham is perhaps so.

Do you think the department's minimum specification should preserve exactly the existing pattern of services and station calls rather than offer an opportunity to change?

Well, yes the department should state the minimum should be whatever is current, but it should offer an opportunity to change/more services/whatever. So the answer is both yes and no. Badly worded question is worded badly.

 

[XCTurbostar]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the simple geography of the odd-ball routes (Nottingham-Birmingham, Stansted/Leicester - Birmingham).

It would be better to give Burton station to WMR and give them the Notts - BHM route.

With the Stansted - Leicester - Birmingham, there's one of two options that could be explored.

1) Give South Wigston / Narborough / Hinckley to EMT had allow them to run the services.

2) Allow WMT to run the Leicester to Birmingham route, but allow EMT to run the Stansted to Birmingham route. Could this create competition between Leicester and Birmingham and lower fares?

Whatever happens, the stations that are run by EMT that have no EMT services should transfer as it creates awkward situations with passengers asking if they can/can't do that and the staff not being able to answer.

I can't see the Stansted route being a West Midlands Trains line as the majority of the route is in the East Midlands - espeicially if they're trying to regionalise franchise names. The Notts - Birmingham is perhaps so.



Well, yes the department should state the minimum should be whatever is current, but it should offer an opportunity to change/more services/whatever. So the answer is both yes and no. Badly worded question is worded badly.

Remember that as stated in the consultation the CDF-NOT and BHM-SSD are not proposed to move franchises. South Wigston, Narborough & Hinckley are already EMT operated stations. I still think EMT should run the service but then again that means another operator with another staff sign on point at New Street.

 

[cuccir]

What to do in and north of Yorkshire is a real conundrum in my opinion.

It was interesting completing this as a commuter from the North-East of England: couldn't help but feel that the questions were along the lines of "shouldn't you be getting a different train?".

However, there are currently 6 tph on the ECML between York and Newcastle: 2 VTEC/LNER, 2 TPE and 2 XC, and three proposed services - 1 the ECML operator, 1 Northern Connect service (on the ECML from Ferryhill to Newcastle), and the Open Access service from Edinburgh. In that context, it's hard to see how it all really fits together: something probably has to give and 1 of the XC services would be a good option for that. CrossCountry north of York are not exactly lightly loaded but they rarely have the congestion problems of further down the line.

In an ideal world the diversion option outlined in the consultation sounds interesting - sending 1tph to Newcastle via Sunderland and Hartlepool for example would open up areas with few long distance trains. While that'd be nice, it wouldn't do anything to help the problem of overcrowding in the core whereas terminating at York, could either facilitate 3tph York-Birmingham or more doubling-up of Voyagers to increase capacity, and is probably the better option.

 

[The Ham]

Thinking about it more, the plan should be to have enough trains to run the services now, or better still including a number of the services previously cut, so that if needed cuts could be made at a later date to further increase capacity.

As there comes a point where there's no services outside of the core left to cut to increase capacity in the core, meaning that services through the core would be to be cut, i.e. no XC services south of Bristol and Oxford?!?

 

[B&I]

Thinking about it more, the plan should be to have enough trains to run the services now, or better still including a number of the services previously cut, so that if needed cuts could be made at a later date to further increase capacity.

As there comes a point where there's no services outside of the core left to cut to increase capacity in the core, meaning that services through the core would be to be cut, i.e. no XC services south of Bristol and Oxford?!?

Quite. The whole concept of 'cutting your way to capacity' seems to me to.be a way of concealing a desire to drive inconvenient passengers off the railways. However, the disparate nature of destinations served by XC means that it ia unlikely anyone with aby political influence will stand up for its users

 

[squizzler]

Is there merit in breaking up the cross country operation into its constituent route axis and letting these as separate franchises?

I envision such small franchises could provide new-to-UK operators with something manageable to cut their teeth on, unlike the very big franchises we have seen lately.

 

[lammergeier]

Remember that as stated in the consultation the CDF-NOT and BHM-SSD are not proposed to move franchises. South Wigston, Narborough & Hinckley are already EMT operated stations. I still think EMT should run the service but then again that means another operator with another staff sign on point at New Street.

The main issue I can think of which may arise from swapping the operator on the services to Nottingham and Leicester is that due to the scarcity of paths across Proof House it may make previously mooted extensions impossible to deliver.

Lincolnshire Council and others have often expressed a desire for the Nottingham stopper to be extended to Lincoln and a second train East from Leicester to Peterborough and possibly beyond has been discussed many times as being desirable. If EMT are unable to work into New St then unless WMT significantly extend their reach into Lincolnshire and duplicate the XC Stansted service then these extensions become unlikely.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Reading again what the DfT are discussing/asking, and the best way to describe it is to place them into routes that start/terminate in Birmingham. E.g.:

1tph Plymouth to Birmingham
1tph Bristol Temple Meads to Birmingham
1tph Cardiff Central to Birmingham
1tph Bournemouth (? (I find it highly unlikely they will get rid)) to Birmingham
1tph Reading / Southampton to Birmingham

2tph Birmingham to Manchester Piccadilly
1tph Birmingham to York (?) or Newcastle (?)
1tph Birmingham to Edinburgh via York
1tph Birmingham to Nottingham via Derby

1tph Birmingham to Cambridge

Of course, you also have the possibility of new services / new routes and destinations. You also have the complexity of Birmingham New Street: any trains coming from the University direction are best going either towards Water Orton or, if capacity exists (it should do) then they could run trains out via Aston to Wolverhampton mostly to avoid reversals but also to create capacity via Sandwell & Dudley.

You could also argue, perhaps to the disgust of the West Midlands authorities, in favour of the Nuneaton to Coventry shuttle staying as exactly that and routing both services from the South Coast via Coventry with one train stopping in at Kenilworth per hour so as to provide both through trains to Birmingham (surely the real desire of Kenilworth passengers) and to free up more freight capacity via Solihull.

There is also going to the possibility of a significant capacity uplift caused by the availability of the Class 222 fleet (or at least a large amount of it); meaning that you could expect new destinations would be easily added and still being able to gain more stock for longer trains across the network.

You've also got the conundrum of Tamworth and Burton and how to deal with capacity issues on these routes, assuming continued growth. Some form of fare supplement for Tamworth, Burton and Derby on any CrossCountry trains that stop there may help but even more so if you cause the West Midlands service to Nottingham to depart from Birmingham a couple of minutes behind an Edinburgh / Leeds / York / Newcastle that stops at those stations. You could mark them as "Cross Country Express" as opposed to just "Cross Country" and those services attract fare premiums between Birmingham, Tamworth and Derby; between Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester; between Sheffield, Wakefield and Leeds and any other chronic routes.

You would hope that Cambridge to Birmingham would gain 4/222 or 4/220 stock so as to become a proper Intercity service; and leaving Anglia's franchisee to deal with the Stansted - Cambridge route half-hourly where both would logically extend to Norwich should not be a problem and a change of trains in Cambridge is hardly a major task.

What's the best plan? As far as I can see, it would be to make the Cardiff service a Voyager/Meridian route as well and extend that through to somewhere like Leeds / York; whilst then getting the Bristol 'relief' hourly service to route to Nottingham. The Cardiff service would have less calls (e.g. Newport, Chepstow, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Birmingham New Street); whilst the Bristol - Nottingham would be 5 minutes behind it at Cheltenham and stop at Worcester Parkway, Bromsgrove (outer Birmingham connections), University (if needed) and New Street before then stopping at Tamworth, Burton, Derby, Long Eaton and Nottingham. The West Midlands franchisee would be given an hourly all-stations path for places like Wilnecote, Attenborough and Beeston.

The Birmingham - Cambridge would need only call at Coleshill, Nuneaton and Leicester before continuing off to Peterborough; whilst the Manchester services would be amended. I'd be inclined to suggest that one Liverpool service operated by West Midlands be diverted to Preston (creating a link for stations such as Hartford to Warrington and also including stations such as Leyland); whilst one Cross Country service operates to Liverpool. This would leave a Manchester gap but could be filled by an additional service.

Consider:
1tph 5/221 Cardiff Central to York (Newport, Chepstow, Gloucester, Cheltenham Spa, Birmingham New St, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield, Doncaster, York.)

1tph 4/222 Bristol Temple Meads to Nottingham (Bristol Parkway, Cheltenham Spa, Worcester Parkway, Bromsgrove, University, Birmingham New St, Tamworth, Burton upon Trent, Derby, Long Eaton, Nottingham.)

1tph 8/220 Plymouth to Manchester Piccadilly (Totnes, Newton Abbot, Exeter St Davids, Tiverton, Taunton, Bristol Temple, Bristol Parkway, Cheltenham Spa, Birmingham New St, route via Aston to Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke on Trent, Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly.)

1tph 8/220 Bournemouth to Edinburgh Waverley (Brockenhurst, Southampton Ctl, Southampton Airport, Winchester, Basingstoke, Reading, Oxford, Banbury, Leamington Spa, Coventry, Birmingham Intl, Birmingham New St, Tamworth, Derby, Sheffield, Wakefield Westgate, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Berwick, Edinburgh Waverley.)

1tph 5/221 Southampton Central to Liverpool Lime Street (Southampton Airport, Winchester, Basingstoke, Reading, Didcot Parkway, Oxford, Banbury, Leamington Spa, Kenilworth, Coventry, Birmingham Intl, Birmingham New St, Smethwick Galton Bridge, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn, Liverpool South Parkway, Liverpool Lime St.)

1tph 4/220 Cambridge to Manchester Piccadilly (Cambridge North, Ely, March, Peterborough, Stamford, Oakham, Melton Mowbray, Leicester, Nuneaton, Coleshill Parkway, Birmingham New St, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke on Trent, Macclesfield, Stockport, Manchester Piccadilly.)

It takes now around 3h45 to do Ely to Manchester on East Midlands Trains; if you were smart with pathing a Cambridge to Manchester via New Street on a proper Intercity train could take as little as 4 hours; or just a couple of minutes over the existing Ely to Manchester journey time.

Consequential alterations:
1tph vice 2tph Birmingham New St to Liverpool Lime St operated by West Midlands
1tph new Birmingham New St to Preston operated by West Midlands
1tph new Birmingham New St to Leicester stopper operated by West Midlands
1tph new Birmingham New St to Nottingham stopper operated by West Midlands

 

[bussnapperwm]

If EMT are unable to work into New St then unless WMT significantly extend their reach into Lincolnshire and duplicate the XC Stansted service then these extensions become unlikely.

What's to stop (once the requisite works have been done) EMT to take over the Leicester/Notts work but running to Moor Street/Snow Hill instead?

 

[43074]

170s are the ideal trains on Birmingham to Stansted though: much of the demand is Leicester to Birmingham, Peterborough to Cambridge, Cambridge to Stansted meaning the larger intermediate stations have quite high passenger turnover which suits the 1/3 2/3 door arrangement. At the same time they're reasonably comfortable for longer distances and offer good space economy, e.g. A 3 car 170 offers more seats than a 4 car 220... Run more than 4 cars and you end up with SDO issues everywhere etc.

 

[TheDavibob]

I can't see the Stansted route being a West Midlands Trains line as the majority of the route is in the East Midlands - espeicially if they're trying to regionalise franchise names. The Notts - Birmingham is perhaps so.

To be honest, even that's not entirely true: just shy of half the journey is in East Anglia (with the East Mids making up most of the rest, but certainly not all). Trying to shove it into any franchise is square peg/round holing, and merely playing around with it to make it seem like something is happening is not really worthwhile.

I agree with 43074 that Turbostars are an appropriate train for the route, there is high turnover at all intermediate stops and very high (as in trainload off, trainload on) at Peterborough and Leicester (and Cambridge to a slightly lesser extent, though more travel through to Stansted than other stops). I don't know what the solution is (other than the obvious, double the frequency, but then you end up with Ely issues). A service skipping Melton/Oakham/Stamford could run as a longer train to at least Cambridge, but those three stations get an abysmal service as it stands anyway.

 

[lammergeier]

What's to stop (once the requisite works have been done) EMT to take over the Leicester/Notts work but running to Moor Street/Snow Hill instead?

To be honest, even that's not entirely true: just shy of half the journey is in East Anglia (with the East Mids making up most of the rest, but certainly not all). Trying to shove it into any franchise is square peg/round holing, and merely playing around with it to make it seem like something is happening is not really worthwhile.

I agree with 43074 that Turbostars are an appropriate train for the route, there is high turnover at all intermediate stops and very high (as in trainload off, trainload on) at Peterborough and Leicester (and Cambridge to a slightly lesser extent, though more travel through to Stansted than other stops). I don't know what the solution is (other than the obvious, double the frequency, but then you end up with Ely issues). A service skipping Melton/Oakham/Stamford could run as a longer train to at least Cambridge, but those three stations get an abysmal service as it stands anyway.

Four car 170s are able to call at all stations as they have SDO. There is one four car diagram on a Sunday so there's no need to skip Melton/Oakham/Stamford.

A half hourly service with three or four car 170s would probably be sufficient, even if one turned back at Cambridge.

 

[yorksrob]

From what others have said on here, this consultation sounds very much to be a case of fiddling with the deckchairs while Rome burns.

What is needed very simply is more capacity in the core. This can be provided by doubling up voyagers and providing extra trains.

We are soon, within the next couple of years about to have a load of InterCity standard diesel trains become available.

 

[The Planner]

Of course, you also have the possibility of new services / new routes and destinations. You also have the complexity of Birmingham New Street: any trains coming from the University direction are best going either towards Water Orton or, if capacity exists (it should do) then they could run trains out via Aston to Wolverhampton mostly to avoid reversals but also to create capacity via Sandwell & Dudley.

That is providing everything goes via Selly Oak, it doesn't. I also don't understand the notion of sending trains via Aston, it isn't awash with capacity and doesn't release any capacity along the New St Wolves corridor as you have to cross the southern throat at Wolves as well as being slower.

You could also argue, perhaps to the disgust of the West Midlands authorities, in favour of the Nuneaton to Coventry shuttle staying as exactly that and routing both services from the South Coast via Coventry with one train stopping in at Kenilworth per hour so as to provide both through trains to Birmingham (surely the real desire of Kenilworth passengers) and to free up more freight capacity via Solihull.

Without sounding like a broken record, you cannot send 2 XC per hour via Coventry, they don't fit and are unlikely to until HS2 opens or we redouble Milverton to Kenilworth, neither are happening by the re-franchise.

 

[cle]

How about a ‘mini’ XC relief service for Kenilworth - 2x XC as per today, but then 1tph Oxford - Coventry in addition, which could replace the shuttle and be more useful along that corridor. Local stops up for debate. Could be run by LM, Chiltern, WM or XC...

 

[The Planner]

Or just leave it as it is with Kenilworth as a local stop and let XC be a long distance operator.

 

[6Gman]

Personally i feel this whole franchise has been a mess! overcrowded cramped the current turbostar routes are riduculously cramped uncomfy and always end up beiing 2 cars cant believe Stansted to Bham is staying with xc . this route badly needs 4 car higher capacity trains and platform upgrades to accomodate them the service is always full and standing at Cambridge and Leicester esp when 2 cars turn up the seats are awful too

That is demonstrably impossible.

 

[Class 170101]

XC won't SDO apparently, you don't need the loop and second platform until both trains go that way and that is still a long way off.

Don't both go that way on Sunday hence why Kenilworth is closed?

 

[6Gman]

From what others have said on here, this consultation sounds very much to be a case of fiddling with the deckchairs while Rome burns.

What is needed very simply is more capacity in the core. This can be provided by doubling up voyagers and providing extra trains.

We are soon, within the next couple of years about to have a load of InterCity standard diesel trains become available.

This. Just this. Might be a case for some minor tweaking of services, station operators, timings and calling patterns but the fundamental issue is that XC - like many other operators - is being forced to do too much with too little resource.

More resource please, even at the price of increased subsidy.

 

[Kite159]

Don't both go that way on Sunday hence why Kenilworth is closed?

Don't they both go that way on Sundays as the frequency of the local services on the Coventry - New Street corridor is reduced?

Something like 9-coach 802s focused on the Manchester - South Coast services would release voyagers for the North East/South West services, using SDO for any stations where 9-coaches don't fit (if any), a good fit as those services run under the wires from Manchester to Coventry and also from Didcot to Reading