• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Department for Transport launches CrossCountry franchise consultation

Status
Not open for further replies.

XCTurbostar

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2014
Messages
1,877
There are already at least three cases of where Turbostars run in 4 and 5 carriage formations without SDO:

1P04 - LEI to BHM - SSuX is 4 Carriages
1P24 - LEI to BHM - SSuX is 5 Carriages
1P34 - BHM to LEI - F is 4 Carriages
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
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


Even if you had a 7 coach unit with the same sort of capacity per central coach then it would be of a similar capacity as a pair of 4 coach units (both circa 400 seats).


A 9 coach 80x has circa 600 seats, so would be comparable to three 4 coach Voyagers, so a very significant increase in capacity compared to what already exists.


I've previously looked at the capacities and likely costs before:



Currently there 252 coaches across 58 units. Assuming £110,000 per coach in lease costs that's just shy of £28 million a year.

Now if you assume a whole new fleet formed of:
- 32 * 7 coach units
- 30 * 5 coach units
That's 374 coaches over 62 units, assuming the same lease costs per coach that's £41 million (an increase of 48%). However, compared to getting the 222's which would give a total of about £43.5 million over 395 coaches (an increase of 55%).

If we assume similar capacities then it should be possible to have 400 seats in the 7 coach units and 250 seats in the 5 coach units. This would mean a total number of seats across the fleet of 20,300 compared with 12,600 (an increase of 61.1%). Whilst adding the 222's would provide a total number of seats of 19,650 (an increase of 55.9%).

Assuming that if you retained all the 22x fleet that you would end up with the 4 coach units always running in pairs you end up with effectively 64 trains:
- 21 pairs of 4 coach units
- 6 * 7 coach units
- 37 * 5 coach units

Which would mean that you could have a more flexible fleet (in that you have more scope for more pairs of 5 coach units) I don't think that it would make up for the extra lease costs (about 6%) for fewer seats.

Then in a mismatch in staffing numbers,
assuming that you provide a guard in the other unit to the driver and then a trolley in each unit, using the 22x's would require (in very simple terms):
- 64 drivers
- 64 guards
- 85 trolly staff

This compares with (again in very simple terms):
- 62 drivers
- 62 guards
- 62 trolly staff

That's not even allowing for some extra guards to protect revenue on the pairs of units when people realise that they could get a free trip if they travel in the front unit as the guard stays in the rear unit (although they would have know to switch units when the train reverses direction like it does at Reading).

Based on the above, and the lower fuel costs for the bimodals as they can use the cheaper costs of running on electricity than diesel and the units are likely to be lighter (even if only due to needing to carry less fuel on most routes, but probably certainly lighter than the 221's), I would opt for a whole new fleet.

I can't think of a single reason that the new fleet would be more costly, other than if the lease costs were higher and even then the lease costs would probably have to be about 10% (maybe even 15%) higher per coach before the other factors made me change my mind (just on the cost factor).

As such I wouldn't be surprised if we did see a total fleet replacement.

Following on from the last paragraph, there's the chance that if there's not a total fleet replacement there could be scope to retain the 5 coach units and just have bimodal units for the 7 coach units. Possibly still costing less than if XC gained the 222's and gaining more seats. Although possibly with less flexibility.
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
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.

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.

You are correct that there isn't pathing for a third passenger train each way in the hour. However, what was being suggested was that the local unit does not go to Leamington and instead goes back to a Coventry - Nuneaton shuttle. Let us be clear: Kenilworth has a much bigger population than Brockenhurst, Alnmouth/Alnwick, Morpeth, Berwick or Dunbar and with no demonstrable tourist industry, it serves to reason that a number of Kenilworth residents would be both leisure or commuter passengers into Birmingham. With this in mind, it would be the case that provision of a longer and perhaps more important direct train to Birmingham than the 'Dogbox' that currently operates to Coventry and forces a change of journey.

Also, given the need for capacity between Birmingham and Coventry and between Brum Airport / Cov and the likes of Leamington, Banbury and further down places like Oxford and Reading makes the need for a better Cross Country service greater.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,836
If that was the case for Kenilworth, why didn't XC demand a 5 car platform they can use during its development? They weren't bothered in the slightest.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
If that was the case for Kenilworth, why didn't XC demand a 5 car platform they can use during its development? They weren't bothered in the slightest.

I can suggest why, most of the places listed as having a smaller population (but presumably similar) add upto 235,000 passengers a year to the XC network (mostly less).

Compare that to Coventry and Leamington Spa which are both about 1.2 million passengers each and you can see why they may not be that bothered.

Add in that it would allow down services between two of their busiest stations (Reading and Birmingham) and it probably isn't worth it.

(All numbers taken from the last few pages of the consultation document which is available from the website linked to in the OP.
 

SeanM1997

Member
Joined
2 Feb 2016
Messages
369
What about a CrossCountry service which avoids Birmingham. Manchester could then operate 2 trains an hour and Liverpool 1 an hour:
1 - Liverpool Lime Street, Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Crewe, Stafford, Nuneaton, Coventry, Kenilworth, Leamington Spa, Banbury, Oxford, Reading, Winchester, Southampton Airport Parkway, Southampton Central, Brockenhurst and Bournemouth
2- Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke On Trent, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham NS, Cheltenham Spa, Bristol Parkway, Bristol Temple Meads, Taunton, Tiverton Parkway and Exeter St Davids
3 - Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke On Trent, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham NS, Birmingham International, Coventry, Leamington Spa, Banbury, Oxford and Reading
 

DenmarkRail

Member
Joined
13 Jun 2016
Messages
665
Perhaps some of this conversation should be moved to the “What should happen in the next Cross Country franchise”... I feel this has gone a fair bit away from the survey
 

s'land

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2007
Messages
61
The consultation seems to be almost written to direct you to, what do we do North of Northallerton. I simply said surely one of these long distance services could go to Sunderland/Middlesbrough. They are areas with limited connectivity which could really do with it. Appreciate there are infrastructure concerns but imagine what an improvement it would be for Middlesbrough to suddenly have 1tph to Manchester, Birmingham and the South Coast and with 1tp2h to London Kings Cross too. Be a game changer for the town certainly.
I know local MP's and various political parties are campaigning for better inter-city type services from/to Sunderland, so there may be something to this. Also there appears to be some movement on the improvement of Sunderland Train Station.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
There are already at least three cases of where Turbostars run in 4 and 5 carriage formations without SDO:

1P04 - LEI to BHM - SSuX is 4 Carriages
1P24 - LEI to BHM - SSuX is 5 Carriages
1P34 - BHM to LEI - F is 4 Carriages

How many coaches do South Wigston and Narborough accommodate? I'd be surprised if they can take five without SDO or UDS?
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
What about a CrossCountry service which avoids Birmingham. Manchester could then operate 2 trains an hour and Liverpool 1 an hour:
1 - Liverpool Lime Street, Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Crewe, Stafford, Nuneaton, Coventry, Kenilworth, Leamington Spa, Banbury, Oxford, Reading, Winchester, Southampton Airport Parkway, Southampton Central, Brockenhurst and Bournemouth
2- Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke On Trent, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham NS, Cheltenham Spa, Bristol Parkway, Bristol Temple Meads, Taunton, Tiverton Parkway and Exeter St Davids
3 - Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke On Trent, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham NS, Birmingham International, Coventry, Leamington Spa, Banbury, Oxford and Reading

The service avoiding Birmingham would have been useful for several journeys I've made over the last few years. Even for those going to Birmingham it would be easy enough to change at Banbury or Coventry to another service. It would also be good if there's actually two XC trains an hour between Basingstoke and Reading (it would be better with 3, but that's not likely anytime soon) rather than the 1.5tph that there is now.
 

XCTurbostar

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2014
Messages
1,877
From the Sectional Appendix, along the Birmingham to Leicester route the platform Lengths are;
South Wigston - P1/P2 both 100m
Narborough - P1/P2 both 100m
Hinckley - P1/P2 both 104m
Nuneaton - P6/P7 both 149m
Coleshill Parkway - P1/P2 both 125m
Water Orton - P1/P2 both 104m
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
The north of Northallerton conundrum is definitely the most interesting part of the consultation document.

I suppose the question is that if there is only capacity for 6tph between Northallerton & Darlington (in theory) and TPE get 2 paths, ICEC get 3 paths and XC gets 1, is that the best use of capacity.

The answer would be no purely from the perspective of 4 coaches instead of 9 (maybe) is no good; but do Newcastle, Durham and Darlington need a third train an hour to London if it’s an extension of the York slow services? Or is that even the service that would be offered?

Surely if the capacity doesn’t exist for the use of the flat junction at Northallerton, then the ICEC Middlesbrough service should go slow lines from Longlands or Thirsk and avoid Northallerton?

I don’t find the use of Stillington or the Durham Coast at all likely to be honest; nor even a Sunderland or Middlesbrough connection. Suspect DfT will lazily chuck one train an hour into the bay at York. Question is: should they send it via Leeds; and the Anglo-Scot via Doncaster to save time and prevent overcrowding or do they send both via Leeds?
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
From the Sectional Appendix, along the Birmingham to Leicester route the platform Lengths are;
South Wigston - P1/P2 both 100m
Narborough - P1/P2 both 100m
Hinckley - P1/P2 both 104m
Nuneaton - P6/P7 both 149m
Coleshill Parkway - P1/P2 both 125m
Water Orton - P1/P2 both 104m

Ok and how does that translate with regards maximum number of cars?
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I can suggest why, most of the places listed as having a smaller population (but presumably similar) add upto 235,000 passengers a year to the XC network (mostly less).

Compare that to Coventry and Leamington Spa which are both about 1.2 million passengers each and you can see why they may not be that bothered.

Add in that it would allow down services between two of their busiest stations (Reading and Birmingham) and it probably isn't worth it.

(All numbers taken from the last few pages of the consultation document which is available from the website linked to in the OP.

Plus Morpeth, Brockenhurst, et al are more towards the fringes of the XC network (albeit still on the hourly bits). Kenilworth is nigh on at its heart.
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
7,785
Location
West Riding
The north of Northallerton conundrum is definitely the most interesting part of the consultation document.

I suppose the question is that if there is only capacity for 6tph between Northallerton & Darlington (in theory) and TPE get 2 paths, ICEC get 3 paths and XC gets 1, is that the best use of capacity.

The answer would be no purely from the perspective of 4 coaches instead of 9 (maybe) is no good; but do Newcastle, Durham and Darlington need a third train an hour to London if it’s an extension of the York slow services? Or is that even the service that would be offered?

Surely if the capacity doesn’t exist for the use of the flat junction at Northallerton, then the ICEC Middlesbrough service should go slow lines from Longlands or Thirsk and avoid Northallerton?

I don’t find the use of Stillington or the Durham Coast at all likely to be honest; nor even a Sunderland or Middlesbrough connection. Suspect DfT will lazily chuck one train an hour into the bay at York. Question is: should they send it via Leeds; and the Anglo-Scot via Doncaster to save time and prevent overcrowding or do they send both via Leeds?

Perhaps XC could use one path by splitting and joining at York. If one portion set off via Leeds and the second followed via Doncaster running X minutes behind it could run on to the back of the Leeds service at York and then use one path northwards. It could then split again at Newcastle or Edinburgh. XC trains already have long dwells so it shouldn’t affect reliability too much.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Perhaps XC could use one path by splitting and joining at York. If one portion set off via Leeds and the second followed via Doncaster running X minutes behind it could run on to the back of the Leeds service at York and then use one path northwards. It could then split again at Newcastle or Edinburgh. XC trains already have long dwells so it shouldn’t affect reliability too much.

You'd be adding a heck of alot of operational complexity for not much benefit. In your proposal, you'd still only have one effective train per hour from north of York to Sheffield and beyond - nobody would get on the via Leeds portion to travel south of Wakefield from north of York.

TPE would still link Leeds to Newcastle etc (capacity provided through train lengthening) - and you're better just adding all the capacity onto the via Donny XC services rather than forcing it to be 'short' south of York.
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
7,785
Location
West Riding
You'd be adding a heck of alot of operational complexity for not much benefit. In your proposal, you'd still only have one effective train per hour from north of York to Sheffield and beyond - nobody would get on the via Leeds portion to travel south of Wakefield from north of York.

TPE would still link Leeds to Newcastle etc (capacity provided through train lengthening) - and you're better just adding all the capacity onto the via Donny XC services rather than forcing it to be 'short' south of York.

Perhaps that’s what’s needed as the Leeds services are busier than the via Doncaster ones, it could balance the loading better, but yes it’s far from a perfect solution. I don’t see how it’s that operationally complex, even TPE have mastered splitting and joining services!
 

XCTurbostar

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2014
Messages
1,877
There aren't any diagramed 6 car workings although I know that it does tend to happen about once every two weeks with 1P24 (LEI to BHM).
In this situation, the first unit which runs from BHM to LEI is a SSD terminator and goes back to LEI as 1K21. The second unit which runs ECS from Tyseley depot to BHM and should be a 2 coach unit (although it isnt always) this then leaves BHM as 1K23 when it arrives at LEI both units join and form 1P24 back to BHM.

Now that I'm at a computer. From the Sectional Appendix, along the Birmingham to Leicester and Nottingham routes the platform Lengths are;

Stansted Airport - P2 106m
Audley End - P1/P2 both 248m
Ely - P1/P2/P3 all 256m
March - P1/P2 both 114m
Stamford - P1/P2 both 92m
Oakham - P1 132m, P2 101m
Melton Mowbray - P1/P2 both 85m
South Wigston - P1/P2 both 100m
Narborough - P1/P2 both 100m
Hinckley - P1/P2 both 104m
Nuneaton - P6/P7 both 149m
Coleshill Parkway - P1/P2 both 125m
Water Orton - P1/P2 both 104m
Wilnecote - P1/P2 both 89m
Tamworth (High Level) - P3/P4 both 245m
Burton-on-trent - P1/P2 both 217m
Willington - P1/P2 both 81m
Spondon - P1/P2 both 72m
Long Eaton - P1/P2 both 110m
Attenborough - P1 99m, P2 97m
Beeston - P1/P2 both 142m
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
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

Starting and terminating all these services at B'ham New Street is very tricky. Platforms are already very crowded, and you risk making the station very dangerous with all the passengers on these trains needing to get on or off. You also have the problem of increased time that units will spend in the platforms - taking up space and capacity that just isn't there.
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
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.

I thought it was a missed opportunity, when some of the HST trains became available and went to Scot Rail. They were designed for long distance routes like XC and are route cleared already.

Sure the're not ideal in terms of high track access charges, poor door layout for the commuters using XC, and not as good at accellerating away from the frequent XC service stops, but they are so much better than anything suggested in the consultation about capacity.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I thought it was a missed opportunity, when some of the HST trains became available and went to Scot Rail. They were designed for long distance routes like XC and are route cleared already.

Sure the're not ideal in terms of high track access charges, poor door layout for the commuters using XC, and not as good at accellerating away from the frequent XC service stops, but they are so much better than anything suggested in the consultation about capacity.

Indeed. What it boils down to is that they have lots of capacity and a high quality interior. Given the journey times on Cross Country, this is far more important than a slight increase in journey times associated with poorer acceleration.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,531
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Indeed. What it boils down to is that they have lots of capacity and a high quality interior. Given the journey times on Cross Country, this is far more important than a slight increase in journey times associated with poorer acceleration.

Or even a lower top speed. It occurred to me while making a journey on a Chiltern Class 168 (with an interior designed to look and feel of very high quality) that that kind of setup would suit XC much better than the Voyagers - and as Turbostars are much cheaper, they could probably have had 7 or even 8-car formations for the price of a 5-car Voyager.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
Or even a lower top speed. It occurred to me while making a journey on a Chiltern Class 168 (with an interior designed to look and feel of very high quality) that that kind of setup would suit XC much better than the Voyagers - and as Turbostars are much cheaper, they could probably have had 7 or even 8-car formations for the price of a 5-car Voyager.
Indeed, I recently went on a 168 for the first time and was very surprised at how well equipped/designed it was. Puts the alternative of Virgin Pendolinos or WMT Desiros to shame!
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,836
Considering they are still looking at reducing journey times on all their routes, I doubt that will be an option.
 

XCTurbostar

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2014
Messages
1,877
I think there’s a fairly good chance that all 222s will end up with XC and that the HSTs will be planned to leave pretty early during the new franchise. There should then be an opportunity to put 4 car Voyagers onto CDF-NOT and BHM-SSD and make all others 5 car or more.

It will be interesting to see how bidders propose to get around the ‘sea water’ issue mentioned in the consultation.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Or even a lower top speed. It occurred to me while making a journey on a Chiltern Class 168 (with an interior designed to look and feel of very high quality) that that kind of setup would suit XC much better than the Voyagers - and as Turbostars are much cheaper, they could probably have had 7 or even 8-car formations for the price of a 5-car Voyager.

Thats true. I suppose it depends on whether farepayers are prepared to cough up for another new fleet.
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
You'd be adding a heck of alot of operational complexity for not much benefit. In your proposal, you'd still only have one effective train per hour from north of York to Sheffield and beyond - nobody would get on the via Leeds portion to travel south of Wakefield from north of York.

TPE would still link Leeds to Newcastle etc (capacity provided through train lengthening) - and you're better just adding all the capacity onto the via Donny XC services rather than forcing it to be 'short' south of York.

The alternative is to terminate the ‘via Leeds’ at Leeds; and then run the ‘via Doncaster’ to Scotland. The only problem is the TransPennine Edinburgh is going to be just 5 coaches - an XC service could be 4/5/8/9/10 if required.

Has any consideration been given to TransPennine not running to Edinburgh and their running somewhere else?
 

4-SUB 4732

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2018
Messages
2,150
Starting and terminating all these services at B'ham New Street is very tricky. Platforms are already very crowded, and you risk making the station very dangerous with all the passengers on these trains needing to get on or off. You also have the problem of increased time that units will spend in the platforms - taking up space and capacity that just isn't there.

No. No. No. It’s not about trains starting/terminating at New Street...

It’s about imagining the trains as ‘bits’ and then building the routes based on the times the paths are in and out of New Street; aka don’t assume it has to be Plymouth to Edinburgh, but instead could be Plymouth to Manchester or even Plymouth to Nottingham.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top