Cross Country New Franchise

[Jorge Da Silva]

There should be some 110mph capable EMUs (350/4s, 350/2s, 379s, 360s) free before long - we've had a lot of complaints about the evils of privatisation meaning that these trains are being discarded.



Ideal world, you could extend the two Euston - New Street terminators so that Manchester and Liverpool both get an hourly "London via Birmingham" service (plus an hourly EMU operated by some 110mph stock, covering the local stops).

That'd bring Manchester and Liverpool in line with Glasgow (where there's a fast service up the Trent Valley or a slower service via Birmingham, which you can dump the cheaper tickets onto). Rugby - Coventry - Birmingham - Wolverhampton - Stafford becomes every twenty minutes!

Problem is, there aren't any spare 390s, so it'd be a non-starter.

Wouldn't the new Liverpool-London (via Birmingham) and Manchester-London via Birmingham use the existing stock for the London-Birmingham service (i.e 390 or 221's).

 

[Along the bay]

Wouldn't the new Liverpool-London (via Birmingham) and Manchester-London via Birmingham use the existing stock for the London-Birmingham service (i.e 390 or 221's).

I think it's an LNWR service there referring to so 350s and aventras

 

[B&I]

Good Point! Don’t Virgin terminate one service (twice an hour) at Birmingham from London? Could one of these extend to Manchester to replace Manchester-Bournemouth?

How would it benefit Manchester to have yet another London service, but nothing direct to anywhere between Brum and Bournemouth ?

The hoops we are making ourselves jump through because a. government bottled the 'electric spine' b. the DfT won't let anyone order the new trains XC so desperately needs, are genuinely depressing

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Why doesn’t CrossCountry purchase new bi-mode stock to reduce journey times and increase capacity as it could make trains longer with formations of 5 or 9 car.

 

[swt_passenger]

Wouldn't the new Liverpool-London (via Birmingham) and Manchester-London via Birmingham use the existing stock for the London-Birmingham service (i.e 390 or 221's).

Not if that stock is required for VTWC to run its existing timetable. This ‘proposal’ is about now, when there’s no spare capacity in the fleet.

Why doesn’t CrossCountry purchase new bi-mode stock to reduce journey times and increase capacity as it could make trains longer with formations of 5 or 9 car.

Normal franchise lengths don’t allow a TOC to justify buying its own stock. DfT would normally have to give guarantees that a replacement franchise would carry on using the stock.

 

[Chester1]

How would it benefit Manchester to have yet another London service, but nothing direct to anywhere between Brum and Bournemouth ?

The hoops we are making ourselves jump through because a. government bottled the 'electric spine' b. the DfT won't let anyone order the new trains XC so desperately needs, are genuinely depressing

I agree on the causes of the problem but a solution prior to 2022-23 would be extremely helpful. Manchester doesn' need another London service. The suggestion would be to extend the London - Birmingham service to prevent extra trains terminating at Birmingham New Street. 110mph 8 coach EMU sets are available and in sufficient numbers to run such a service in the near future. The 319s could be kept for longer to cover a short term shortfall to send ~8 x 350/2s for upgrade to 110mph and 3+2 seating.

Why doesn’t CrossCountry purchase new bi-mode stock to reduce journey times and increase capacity as it could make trains longer with formations of 5 or 9 car.

The franchise keeps getting short term extensions meaning there is no incentive for Arriva to order new stock for a franchise that they may not be running for long. The franchise may be broken up by the latest review. The likihood is that XC will receive no new stock until the current franchise has been extended, a new franchise awarded and then a 2 year wait for either new stock to arrive or Meridans to be cascaded when EM franchise recieves new stock in 2022-23.

 

[tbtc]

350/4 are not spare, they will be going to LNR to allow them to get rid of the 319s

Fair enough - I forget what is confirmed and what is just Forum speculation (sometimes based on things looking fairly obvious)

Wouldn't the new Liverpool-London (via Birmingham) and Manchester-London via Birmingham use the existing stock for the London-Birmingham service (i.e 390 or 221's).

Where are the spare 221s/390s to permit such services to be extended to Manchester though? That's one of the biggest sticking points.

How would it benefit Manchester to have yet another London service, but nothing direct to anywhere between Brum and Bournemouth ?

The hoops we are making ourselves jump through because a. government bottled the 'electric spine' b. the DfT won't let anyone order the new trains XC so desperately needs, are genuinely depressing

I guess the question (for me) is what is more important to Manchester/ Stockport/ Macclesfield/ Stoke - significantly longer trains to Wolverhampton/ Birmingham/ Coventry or a through service to places a couple of hundred miles away (which may be nice to have but are of less importance for the majority of daily passengers).

For me, I'd rather Manchester (and Liverpool) had something like an eight coach 350 or a nine/eleven coach 390 for the vast majority of their Birmingham services (than a Voyager with just a couple of hundred seats that would provide a useful through journey to somewhere on the coast for a summer holiday, but was of less use the rest of the year). Just a personal opinion though - I suspect that a proportion of people on here prefer long distance complicated quirky services to shorter clock face/ metro ones.

 

[Kite159]

Short term measure, but isn't there some 365s being stored at Crewe which could probably be used for Birmingham - Manchester EMU services?

 

[Class 170101]

Short term measure, but isn't there some 365s being stored at Crewe which could probably be used for Birmingham - Manchester EMU services?

Class 365s would be a pain to route clear. Class 350/2s would be more likely as an extension of an LM Euston to Birmingham terminator.

However whilst it would increase capacity between Birmingham and Manchester and release some Class 220s / Class 221s for strengthening on the remianing Cross Country routes it would break cross Birmingham connectivity.

On balance I think I would prefer HSTs to operate with (or without in the short term) PRM modifications on Plymouth to Scotland services and release Voyagers this way for strengthening of existing services rather than breaking up services. In the medium term Class 802s or better would seem a good idea along with more electrification Kettering to Doncaster / Wakefield Westgate / York. Also to Nottingham. Plus between Derby and Bristol via Birmingham.

 

[Chester1]

Class 365s would be a pain to route clear. Class 350/2s would be more likely as an extension of an LM Euston to Birmingham terminator.

However whilst it would increase capacity between Birmingham and Manchester and release some Class 220s / Class 221s for strengthening on the remianing Cross Country routes it would break cross Birmingham connectivity.

On balance I think I would prefer HSTs to operate with (or without in the short term) PRM modifications on Plymouth to Scotland services and release Voyagers this way for strengthening of existing services rather than breaking up services. In the medium term Class 802s or better would seem a good idea along with more electrification Kettering to Doncaster / Wakefield Westgate / York. Also to Nottingham. Plus between Derby and Bristol via Birmingham.

Can HSTs match Voyager timings? Plymouth to Scotland cannot realistically be retimed due to its length and complexity. Any change to XC would need timetabling changes but preferably limited to one region.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would it benefit Manchester to have yet another London service, but nothing direct to anywhere between Brum and Bournemouth ?

Like many people you're making the assumption that the end destination is everything...

 

[Class 170101]

Can HSTs match Voyager timings? Plymouth to Scotland cannot realistically be retimed due to its length and complexity. Any change to XC would need timetabling changes but preferably limited to one region.

Not entirely, however not all HST timed runs are currently covered by HSTs. Of course there isn't any other stock available in the short term so maybe some re-timings may be needed and stops changed to maintain times at key junctions.

 

[MAV39]

...

I guess the question (for me) is what is more important to Manchester/ Stockport/ Macclesfield/ Stoke - significantly longer trains to Wolverhampton/ Birmingham/ Coventry or a through service to places a couple of hundred miles away (which may be nice to have but are of less importance for the majority of daily passengers).

For me, I'd rather Manchester (and Liverpool) had something like an eight coach 350 or a nine/eleven coach 390 for the vast majority of their Birmingham services (than a Voyager with just a couple of hundred seats that would provide a useful through journey to somewhere on the coast for a summer holiday, but was of less use the rest of the year). Just a personal opinion though - I suspect that a proportion of people on here prefer long distance complicated quirky services to shorter clock face/ metro ones.

I thought one of the raison d'etres for XC was to enable middle aged and elderly folk living in southern counties to make VFR journeys to northern areas and vice versa. Your suggestions of enforcing a change in Birmingham (or London) instead of a through journey or the relatively convenient Wolverhampton change would most likely see the end of this all year round market.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought one of the raison d'etres for XC was to enable middle aged and elderly folk living in southern counties to make VFR journeys to northern areas and vice versa. Your suggestions of enforcing a change in Birmingham (or London) instead of a through journey or the relatively convenient Wolverhampton change would most likely see the end of this all year round market.

Originally it was, but that doesn't require a frequent service - the original concept just had a few train pairs for each set of places. Removing one of the Manchester through services doesn't prevent the other one being used.

 

[XC victim]

The CrossCountry franchise is a very successful and well used operator, as the overcrowding issues prove. Solving the capacity issues should be a very simple fix. An order for about 15 5-car class 802 units, would pretty much solve the problem. They would quite cheap and could be delivered relatively quickly, as a follow on order to current production.

It is only because of the current set up of the franchise system preventing this from happening. As it is there is pretty much zero chance of any new or additional rolling stock in the next 5 years.

 

[Edders23]

The CrossCountry franchise is a very successful and well used operator, as the overcrowding issues prove. Solving the capacity issues should be a very simple fix. An order for about 15 5-car class 802 units, would pretty much solve the problem. They would quite cheap and could be delivered relatively quickly, as a follow on order to current production.

It is only because of the current set up of the franchise system preventing this from happening. As it is there is pretty much zero chance of any new or additional rolling stock in the next 5 years.

how would that solve the problem with the Stansted trains which sometimes operate with about 300 to 350 people crammed into a 2 car set between Peterborough and Stamford in peak periods on that line the overcrowding is on certain sections not the full length it's the 170's that need increasing what about building centre trailers to extend all the 2 car to 3 cars would that not be a partial solution ?

 

[XC victim]

how would that solve the problem with the Stansted trains which sometimes operate with about 300 to 350 people crammed into a 2 car set between Peterborough and Stamford in peak periods on that line the overcrowding is on certain sections not the full length it's the 170's that need increasing what about building centre trailers to extend all the 2 car to 3 cars would that not be a partial solution ?

I completely agree. I never travel on that line myself, but many times I have seen CroosCountry Class 170 services from Birmingham New Street so over crowded they leave dozens of people behind on the platform. Given the number of Turbostar units being cascaded at the moment why have none gone to CrossCountry? Why were the Scotrail 170’s not cascaded to CrossCountry and let Northern get some extra Class 195? Surely that would have made more sense.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The CrossCountry franchise is a very successful and well used operator, as the overcrowding issues prove. Solving the capacity issues should be a very simple fix. An order for about 15 5-car class 802 units, would pretty much solve the problem. They would quite cheap and could be delivered relatively quickly, as a follow on order to current production.

It is only because of the current set up of the franchise system preventing this from happening. As it is there is pretty much zero chance of any new or additional rolling stock in the next 5 years.

In terms of summing the up the main issues with the XC main X network not a bad precis.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I completely agree. I never travel on that line myself, but many times I have seen CroosCountry Class 170 services from Birmingham New Street so over crowded they leave dozens of people behind on the platform. Given the number of Turbostar units being cascaded at the moment why have none gone to CrossCountry? Why were the Scotrail 170’s not cascaded to CrossCountry and let Northern get some extra Class 195? Surely that would have made more sense.

Theirs a whole fleet of 170's coming off lease from WMT- that seems to be the answer for BHM to Stanstead.

 

[whhistle]

how would that solve the problem with the Stansted trains which sometimes operate with about 300 to 350 people crammed into a 2 car set between Peterborough and Stamford in peak periods on that line the overcrowding is on certain sections not the full length it's the 170's that need increasing what about building centre trailers to extend all the 2 car to 3 cars would that not be a partial solution ?

Maybe cascading some 185s would be in order?

I get they're stupidly over weight but if it means all services are 3-car guaranteed then it's a slight improvement. I guess even the 3-car 175s.

Wonder if either class could be re-formed into 4 car units and cover the fleet requirements on that line. The 2 car driving cars left can replace any line that operates with a 153.

Haven't run seat numbers though.

Shame there's no 4-car DMUs spare.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

WMR (West Midlands Railway) will lease/store 23 of the 170’s and so this may allow them to join and form a 4 car 170 (2 2-car 170) which would be an improvement to Birmingham to Stansted services.

 

[sprinterguy]

Given the number of Turbostar units being cascaded at the moment why have none gone to CrossCountry?

Because at the time that Northern would have been signing the lease for the Scotrail 170s, the XC direct award to 2019 hadn't even been announced, so they were of no relevance to Crosscountry.

In fact the only 170s that are becoming available even before the planned end of the Crosscountry direct award are the Scotrail ones, all the rest were outside the consideration of the Arriva XC franchise until now.

Theirs a whole fleet of 170's coming off lease from WMT- that seems to be the answer for BHM to Stanstead.

Though there's also a requirement for 18 x 2-car Class 170 equivalents to enter service with Northern by end 2022. Admittedly there'll be a lot of other suitable 100mph regional stock to choose from by then, but I'm just saying that it's not clear cut that the ex-WMT 170s will go to the next Crosscountry franchise.

Northern are in a much stronger position to agree a lease with whomever they choose, while the current uncertainty with the XC franchise puts them even more on the back foot than they already were, at a time when the bid team(s) for the new franchise would otherwise have begun shopping around for a deal had the competition not been deferred.

 

[Aictos]

Part of the problem with Cross Country's Birmingham to Stansted Airport route is the fact is not only that 2 cars are used when they need to be a minimum of 3 cars but also because of the Leicester stoppers.

Because they only go as far as Leicester, you get people for Leicester also filling up the Stansted services as it's a half hourly service between Leicester and Birmingham meaning these who travel further often struggle for seats.

The easiest solution in lieu of more 170s is simply to extend the Leicester stoppers to Stansted thus spreading the load equally and therefore least giving people the chance of a seat especially these who travel pass Leicester.

Even if these stoppers only got extended to Peterborough as you now have platforms 6 and 7, it should be possible to extend the service there especially as Birmingham only has a 10 to 15 minute turnaround so no reason why Peterborough can't do it especially as they already have a catering base at Peterborough.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Part of the problem with Cross Country's Birmingham to Stansted Airport route is the fact is not only that 2 cars are used when they need to be a minimum of 3 cars but also because of the Leicester stoppers.

Because they only go as far as Leicester, you get people for Leicester also filling up the Stansted services as it's a half hourly service between Leicester and Birmingham meaning these who travel further often struggle for seats.

The easiest solution in lieu of more 170s is simply to extend the Leicester stoppers to Stansted thus spreading the load equally and therefore least giving people the chance of a seat especially these who travel pass Leicester.

Even if these stoppers only got extended to Peterborough as you now have platforms 6 and 7, it should be possible to extend the service there especially as Birmingham only has a 10 to 15 minute turnaround so no reason why Peterborough can't do it especially as they already have a catering base at Peterborough.

Didn’t Liverpool to Birmingham used to be part of the Stansted service. As there are 2tph between Liverpool and Birmingham and 2tph between Birmingham and Leicester and one to Stansted, was there 2tph between Liverpool and Stansted via Birmingham.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Didn’t Liverpool to Birmingham used to be part of the Stansted service.

Yes.

As there are 2tph between Liverpool and Birmingham and 2tph between Birmingham and Leicester and one to Stansted, was there 2tph between Liverpool and Stansted via Birmingham.

I'm pretty sure it was split into an hourly Liverpool-Birmingham-Stansted fast and an hourly Liverpool-Crewe all stations stopper rather than the present two regional expresses.

 

[sprinterguy]

The easiest solution in lieu of more 170s is simply to extend the Leicester stoppers to Stansted thus spreading the load equally and therefore least giving people the chance of a seat especially these who travel pass Leicester.

Even if these stoppers only got extended to Peterborough as you now have platforms 6 and 7, it should be possible to extend the service there especially as Birmingham only has a 10 to 15 minute turnaround so no reason why Peterborough can't do it especially as they already have a catering base at Peterborough.

You'd still need extra 170s to extend the Leicester stoppers: It's only a 25/27 minute turnaround at Leicester, while even just Leicester - Peterborough is essentially an hour each way. That's going to require a minimum of two extra units for an hourly Leicester - Peterborough extension.

To extend them all the way to Stansted (A 5 hour round trip from Leicester, excluding turnaround) would require almost as many extra units as would otherwise be needed to allow all current XC 170 services to operate as 3 or 4-car.

WMR (West Midlands Railway) will lease/store 23 of the 170’s and so this may allow them to join and form a 4 car 170 (2 2-car 170) which would be an improvement to Birmingham to Stansted services.

Six or seven additional 3-car class 170s would be enough to allow all Crosscountry 170 services to operate as either 3 or 4-car trains. This could be a possibility for the next Crosscountry franchise even if Northern were to take their fill of 18 2-car units from the ex-WMT fleet (Which requires a centre car of a 3-car unit to be moved around).

An order for about 15 5-car class 802 units, would pretty much solve the problem. They would quite cheap and could be delivered relatively quickly, as a follow on order to current production.

Definitely (and sadly) a consideration for the next franchise, but while I appreciate the desire to keep lease and maintenance costs to a minimum by ordering the minimum number of new carriages, based on current diagrams 22 daily diagrams formed of 7-car class 802s (Other bi-mode alternatives may be available) would allow:

All North East - South West services to be formed as such,
The HSTs to be withdrawn from Crosscountry service
A significant boost in capacity on this regularly overcrowded corridor
All Crosscountry inter-city services to be formed of a minimum of 5 carriages (Diagrams become either 7-car Class 802, 5-car class 221, or 8-car pairs of 220s)

I feel sure that agreement could be reached with Hitachi to allow maintenance of the trains to take place at existing IET depots conveniently located along the line of route at Craigentinny (Edinburgh), Doncaster and Stoke Gifford (Bristol), with stabling in addition at Laira (Plymouth).

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Yes.



I'm pretty sure it was split into an hourly Liverpool-Birmingham-Stansted fast and an hourly Liverpool-Crewe all stations stopper rather than the present two regional expresses.

Thanks for the information.

Could this ever be reinstated and put Liverpool back on the CrossCountry network. Because would at least one train per hour between Liverpool and Stansted via Birmingham free up space as trains aren’t shuttling in and out of the station. Or have I got that wrong?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks for the information.

Could this ever be reinstated and put Liverpool back on the CrossCountry network. Because would at least one train per hour between Liverpool and Stansted via Birmingham free up space as trains aren’t shuttling in and out of the station. Or have I got that wrong?

That is I *think* being solved by connecting one to a London-Brum, isn't it?

XC can't take on any more services unless they get more rolling stock. But a disadvantage would be that it would result in DMUs under the wires which is as a whole a bad idea. It's only really sensible if XC got some bi-modes.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

That is I *think* being solved by connecting one to a London-Brum, isn't it?

But that still leaves one Liverpool to Birmingham service available.

XC can't take on any more services unless they get more rolling stock. But a disadvantage would be that it would result in DMUs under the wires which is as a whole a bad idea. It's only really sensible if XC got some bi-modes.

Could Class 802 be the answer as suggested previously?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that still leaves one Liverpool to Birmingham service available.

If XC took one over no doubt it would return to a fast/slow split and thus the slow being a Crewe stopper.