lrbvoyager
Member
Exactly, all of avanti staff at Preston will be trained on the 221s
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
XC WCML
- Thread starter lrbvoyager
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Hairyspotter
Member
And what, exactly do you propose that the displaced XC staff do? Palming them off to West Midlands isn't an answer either. Many moved to XC by choice to be away from intensive suburban work which is exactly where they'd end up because of the politics.
it would be better to train them on 93/99s (or insert your own preferred electric loco) and go back to some loco-hauled Bristol to Liverpool and Glasgow and Edinburgh trains... A bimode could go through Brum head-on (but have we got an electro-diesel powerful enough yet?) or we could go back to re-engining at Brum.
Last edited:
dk1
Veteran Member
Why would they be if no 221 operated services are planned?
irish_rail
On Moderation
And? Sadly, traincrew drive the routes and traction we are told to drive. I didn't exactly want to sign off Taunton to Bristol a few years back, but my employer decreed it advantageous (extremely questionable). If in the new world of GBR , XC drivers can be more usefully deployed on local services then that's what will happen. Drivers are paid to drive trains, end of. And ironically this is the great advantage of GBR, that the idealogical idea that XC can only serve a particular route due to that route being the most convenient for the railway, will hopefully be gone. Staff and traction could (in theory anyway) be deployed where of best use to the end user, NOT the railway operators.
lrbvoyager
Member
I meant they are all currently trained on 221s as all Preston and Scotland on board Crewe used to operate them for avanti.
hexagon789
Veteran Member
That'll surely have lapsed by now?
dk1
Veteran Member
Not anymore. That will only last 6 months and no further driver or guards will have been even trained on them. That ship has now sailed.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Most definitely.
irish_rail
On Moderation
Yes but a traction refresher would be all that is required at this stage, probably a day or two handling at most per driver.
dk1
Veteran Member
At this stage possibly but even that is debatable. We are looking at years down the line before anything could change on the WCML involving XC however.
Hairyspotter
Member
No, it will be a full traction course of two weeks. So at that point, XC drivers may as well relearn Crewe - Preston....which, by the way, we weren't given a choice in having it taken away from us, same as Liverpool, Portsmouth, Brighton, Paddington, Euston and many many others.
irish_rail
On Moderation
I appreciate your predicament. I too have had routes forcibly taken away from me, for "business reasons".
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
While I sympathise with the negative feeling that particular change can create ultimately no member of train crew actually has any rights to specific route knowledge.
From a management POV the answer is none of these. More valuable considerations are things like the facilitation of efficient diagramming and a degree of resilience weighed against the costs, which may be minimal or not, of maintaining extensive route cards. And while variety may provide a degree of satisfaction to staff it's also necessary to share out the less desirable work. The solutions vary quite a lot not just between TOCs but also between depots within a TOC.
irish_rail
On Moderation
If you read my previous posts, that's the point I'm making. We will lose certain routes whether we want to or not. Often it will bite the TOC on the bum (like Plymouth crews losing Bristol to Taunton which regularly now causes delays when diversions are required). One can only hope that the "strategic" descion making in the world of GBR will be more effective than the strategies we have seen in recent years traincrew route knowledge wise.....
Shaw S Hunter
Established Member
Of course there is also the issue of traction knowledge. Even if current TOC boundaries were eliminated as regards route coverage the fact that many TOCs have their own specialised traction would still be a barrier to homogonising crew depot territories. And the standards applied to both route and traction knowledge are somewhat higher than was the case in BR days.
The potential for increased resilience through more flexible use of train crews is something GBR ought to pursue but I suspect that other issues will take precedence for quite some time.
BlueLeanie
Member
Having an hourly "crowdbuster" service at xx:45ish (run by any suitable operator) between Manchester and Birmingham would probably be helpful to the overall XC experience.
Perhaps best terminating beyond Birmingham keep those platforms clear.
Perhaps best terminating beyond Birmingham keep those platforms clear.
the obvious (so probably wrong) answer is to put on 8-car 350s currently going off-lease and run them from Picc to International or Coventry as both seem to have turnback facilities. LNR crews know the traction already. Recruitment would be needed, but additional route learning is what it is. I guess finding paths in the west midlands will be the problem.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 17,925
Yes, and a big one at that.
They would be very good for the Curzon St -> Stoke stopper idea, which would no longer have to fit into a bay and could be a crowd buster along its route being 8 cars minimum.
Not a fast pattern, but regionally very useful at each end. And an existing path into Manc.
Not sure where the Macclesfield bay local is there days - or what uses that path. But could this be 2tph? And maybe with a faster and slower pattern - and become the Brum/Manc alt service.
Places like Stone and Congleton would have a better journey to Birmingham than ever. And a nice change onto HS2.
Neither International nor Coventry has the capacity to turn back new services. If Coventry could take more, they wouldn't be planning a bay platform (if that ever happens...).
If you could get through the Cov corridor, you'd probably be able to get a path down to Northampton, which is right next to the 350s depot and has bay platforms.
I did wonder about the (one-time) N-facing bay platforms at Rugby. Wouldn't they be useful for this, and/or for starting a Trent Valley stopper there? It could connect out of semi-fasts from Euston to wherever...
They aren't very usefully located for trains from the West Midlands though.
Sonik
Member
I recall watching a recent video of the WM mayor at KN (but perhaps that was just lobbying).
Fair points, albeit I'd say it must be mainly platforms that are the issue (because proof house etc. is quite flexible, certainly compared to the other side of NS)
I just wasn't sure they'd do Bordersly & Moor street just for three Camp Hill stations; that seems a tad extravagant. But I guess like HS2 that's perhaps where we end up when things get truncated.
Last edited:
if you were digging the bay platforms out again I'm sure you could reinstate a bit more track and a few sets of points to get into them from Coventry. Traksy makes it look easy off the Trent valley...
But maybe running through to Northampton is the easy (and more useful?) answer.
In an ideal world there would be a restoration of direct services between Glasgow/Carlisle/Lancaster/Preston/Wigan/Warrington/Crewe and Cheltenham/Bristol/Taunton/Exeter/Plymouth, BUT ...
1. There is the issue of diesels under the wires (though clearly bi-modes could be a future option).
2. Introducing disruption from delays elsewhere on such lengthy and complex journeys.
1. There is the issue of diesels under the wires (though clearly bi-modes could be a future option).
2. Introducing disruption from delays elsewhere on such lengthy and complex journeys.
Sonik
Member
I'd add that branching direct services always sterilise capacity, vs an equivalent with connections.
These days with ubiquitous app based journey planning, I think direct services (albeit attractive to passengers) are a bit less important.
Last edited:
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 17,925
You wouldnt do it though as access would have to be via the Up Fast and crossing the Down Fast and Slow to get back to Coventry. That starts eating capacity.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Macclesfield doesn't have a terminating service apart from the last train of the day. You'll also need to extend platforms at Kidsgrove, Congleton, Prestbury and Cheadle Hulme to run 8 cars services. Stone has no platforms on the Hixon side.
Last edited:
It was definitely useful yesterday that Avanti are running in the paths, when the 1538 Glasgow to Euston was canned due to some serious late running, and the 11 car 390 was used for the 1557 Euston via everywhere, which turned a nightmare into an irritatingly long journey, but one that was actually possible.
If that had been an XC then it wouldn't have been either available or big enough to handle two trains worth of passengers.
If that had been an XC then it wouldn't have been either available or big enough to handle two trains worth of passengers.