Cross Country New Franchise

[Chester1]

Can't really see 350s being fitted with galleys and catering facilities. So the 350s would not really require a Service Manager, First Class Host as well as a Train Manager.
No XC service centre at MAN so you can't do a TPE style of "bring your own trolley" via a ramp on the train.

How about 1 voyager per hour to MAN and 1 voyager per hour to Liverpool all operated by XC then LNWR provide 1 350 per hour to MAN and 1 350 per hour to Liverpool.

That would not allow any Voyagers to be internally cascaded to boost overcrowded services. Although if the Manchester LM service used double 350s it would resolve capacity issues between Manchester and Birmingham.

An 8 car refitted 350 could easily accommodate a trolley and a complementary first class offering be it just a hot drink and cake or whatever.

I understand that standards should not deteriorate but the exact reasons why Birmingham to Manchester would need a far superior standard to Birmingham to Liverpool if the Southern end was split off I don't know?

The spare 350s all have 3+2 seating therefore would need a full internal refit. I would match the setup of the Voyagers by having 1 dedicated first class coach per 4 coach unit.

My reasons:

1. We don't have enough stock to meet current XC demand (need trains capable of meeting current Voyager paths - with their fast acceleration etc - hence the of-discussed idea of eight coach HSTs being a non-starter)
2. We look like we are going to have a surplus of 110mph-capable DMUs (350s, 360s and/or 379s) due to brand new stock in the south east
3. We currently need seven (?) Voyagers to run the half hourly Birmingham - Manchester service
4. Liverpool - Birmingham is run by 350s every half hour
5. Something similar to the 350s has been used on services between Liverpool/ Manchester/ Leeds/ York for a number of years now
6. New Street has a terrible problem with air pollution
7. You could run an eight coach EMU on services from Birmingham to Liverpool and Manchester - with 2+2 seats - that'd free up a number of Voyagers (which are required on the remaining bits of the XC "core") and give Liverpool/ Manchester passengers a better chance of a seat (as well as soaking up more of the Wolverhampton traffic than a Voyager currently can)
8. Controversial idea, but how about giving the WCML franchise the responsibility for Birmingham to Liverpool and Manchester and giving the Birmingham - Oxford - Reading - Southampton - Bournemouth service to GWR (i.e. allowing XC to concentrate on the North East - South West corridor)? That'd mean giving GWR around a dozen Voyagers (puts down his crayon)

Downsides:

1. Platform capacity at New Street. No getting away from it (and I'm not naively hoping that punting everything along the line to terminate at International will be a "magic bullet" to get round things). Interworking the Liverpool and Manchester services at New Street may improve things, but I accept that infrastructure may be the sticking point
2. Through trains from Manchester to Bristol etc. For a while under VTXC there were no services from Manchester to the West Country (there was 3tp2h to the South West from the Yorkshire corridor and a bi-hourly service to the South West from Scotland down the WCML avoiding Manchester). Are the number of people doing through journeys of hundreds of miles worth inconveniencing passengers on the Manchester - Stoke - Wolves - Birmingham corridor?
3. First Class wouldn't be as nice on an EMU like a 350. Maybe not - though I'm guessing a Voyager isn't exactly amazing in FC? But, again, needs of the many and all that. But with modern eight coach EMUs available, you could tart them up quite nicely. There's only around five intermediate stops from Birmingham to Manchester (e.g. Wolves, Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport), so not like the First Class passengers will be inconvenienced by doors opening every five minutes (since I appreciate that some people get quite sniffy about having their journey disrupted by doors opening).

I'm not saying it's perfect, just that it's better than the status-quo (whilst we wait for HS2 to finally arrive).

Good post, there isn't a great interim solution, all have trade offs but the status quo should not continue for another 4-5 years.

 

[nw1]

Why do so many people want to cut back on Manchester's cross-country services (which are presumably provided because a market is believed to exist) and degrade the quality of the Manchester-Birmingham substitute? A 350 with its large two-thirds doors and three small saloons per vehicle can never provide a proper inter-city environment (just as the 185s don't).

Not so sure.. I think using the released Voyagers to double up most trains the Reading-Birmingham section (no need IMX for double Voyagers south of Reading, though) and using EMUs prematurely retired from the southeast to run a higher capacity (8 coach) Birmingham-Manchester would probably be better all round.

Granted it needs more changes for through passengers, but at least we get rid of the overcrowding from Reading-Birmingham and Birmingham-Manchester. The overcrowding is really intolerable on many XC services at the moment and I think we should be considering any plan which will get rid of it, even if it means more changes.

I always have to change going Southampton-Crewe while a few through services a day would be nice, changing at New St isn't the end of the world. Also I generally find the 350s to Liverpool quite nice really. For one thing they're rarely overcrowded. It's always a relief to get off an overcrowded XC service at New St and transfer to a moderately-loaded 350 doing a Liverpool: the only thing I would do is drop the smaller stops from the Liverpool (e.g. Coseley and Penkridge) and transfer them to a Wolverhampton local extended to Stafford.

Likewise 185s, would consider them one of the better new trains.

 

[XC victim]

As a regular traveller on CrossCountry Manchester Pic to Bournemouth services, something struck me a few months ago. These services are not really predominantly used as a Manchester to Birmingham service as I would have imagined.

There may be a couple of reasons for this. Firstly the Bristol train leaves Manchester only 20mins before the Bournemouth train, so maybe that is more heavily used by passengers to Birmingham. Secondly passengers from the North West & Scotland have to change from virgin trains onto the Bournemouth train at Wolverhampton.

But for what ever reason not many people alight the Manchester to Bournemouth services at Birmingham (not very helpful when you naively imagine you could possibly finally get a seat at Birmingham). The vast majority of passengers are travelling to Coventry, Leamington, Oxford or Reading.

Whilst I can see the sense in the class 350 suggest there are a few downsides.

1. More trains terminating at Birmingham New St. I am not sure it has the capacity.

2. It doesn’t reduce the number of diesel trains at Birmingham New St, so no reduction in pollution.

3. It doesn’t really help as it only releases about 3 or 4 voyagers to double up, still meaning the vast majority are 4 coach services.

4 and most importantly it means it have change trains more than I do now

 

[Chester1]

As a regular traveller on CrossCountry Manchester Pic to Bournemouth services, something struck me a few months ago. These services are not really predominantly used as a Manchester to Birmingham service as I would have imagined.

There may be a couple of reasons for this. Firstly the Bristol train leaves Manchester only 20mins before the Bournemouth train, so maybe that is more heavily used by passengers to Birmingham. Secondly passengers from the North West & Scotland have to change from virgin trains onto the Bournemouth train at Wolverhampton.

But for what ever reason not many people alight the Manchester to Bournemouth services at Birmingham (not very helpful when you naively imagine you could possibly finally get a seat at Birmingham). The vast majority of passengers are travelling to Coventry, Leamington, Oxford or Reading.

Whilst I can see the sense in the class 350 suggest there are a few downsides.

1. More trains terminating at Birmingham New St. I am not sure it has the capacity.

2. It doesn’t reduce the number of diesel trains at Birmingham New St, so no reduction in pollution.

3. It doesn’t really help as it only releases about 3 or 4 voyagers to double up, still meaning the vast majority are 4 coach services.

4 and most importantly it means it have change trains more than I do now

3 or 4 extra double sets would still be very welcome on top of 8 coach EMUs running Manchester-Birmingham. Why can't VT Scotland passengers change at Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International or Coventry instead of Wolverhampton? How many of the XC journeys through Birmingham start at Wolverhampton?

Extending a LNWR service from London to Birmingham New Street to Manchester to replace the Bournmouth service (with it instead splitting and joining with Newcastle-Southampton service at Reading) would resolve the issue of terminating capacity at Birmingham New Street and free up 1 path into New Street from the south but would limit the rolling stock quality and provision. Manchester-Birmingham-London. It would provide interchange options with CrossCountry services at Birmingham New Street and Birmingham International.

 

[Senex]

And they tick a very important box, they don't kick out diesel fumes under the wires for 100 miles each way.

If that's what matters, then why should any XC services run north of York — thta's very much more than 100 miles under the wires?

 

[swt_passenger]

3 or 4 extra double sets would still be very welcome on top of 8 coach EMUs running Manchester-Birmingham. Why can't VT Scotland passengers change at Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International or Coventry instead of Wolverhampton? How many of the XC journeys through Birmingham start at Wolverhampton?

Extending a LNWR service from London to Birmingham New Street to Manchester to replace the Bournmouth service (with it instead splitting and joining with Newcastle-Southampton service at Reading) would resolve the issue of terminating capacity at Birmingham New Street and free up 1 path into New Street from the south but would limit the rolling stock quality and provision. Manchester-Birmingham-London. It would provide interchange options with CrossCountry services at Birmingham New Street and Birmingham International.

What happens to the alternate hour Southampton extensions of the Newcastle services?

 

[The Planner]

The Newcastle services go via Solihull, how are you serving Coventry and International?

 

[Chester1]

What happens to the alternate hour Southampton extensions of the Newcastle services?

They continue. Double Voyagers splitting and joining at Reading, so 4 coaches go to Bournemouth and 4 stay to form part of the return service or go to Southampton.

The Newcastle services go via Solihull, how are you serving Coventry and International?

By going via Coventry and International. It would need significant timetable alterations to work and would stretch the fleet. CrossCountry capacity upgrades either require waiting for the Meridians to become available (2022?) or a major recast of services. One Manchester to Birmingham will be switched to HS2 in 2026 or 2027 therefore it should not be a huge problem to break up a through service earlier. Transfering a service to LNWR would retain some links and mean replacing a 4 coach Voyagers with 8 coach 350s.

 

[The Planner]

So operationally a nightmare. No one will consider a recast of that magnitude before HS2 as it would be too extensive and of no benefit to anyone else.

 

[Chester1]

So operationally a nightmare. No one will consider a recast of that magnitude before HS2 as it would be too extensive and of no benefit to anyone else.

Do you think there is any chance of XC boosting intercity capacity prior to availability of the Meridians or new stock?

 

[swt_passenger]

They continue. Double Voyagers splitting and joining at Reading, so 4 coaches go to Bournemouth and 4 stay to form part of the return service or go to Southampton...

What would be the point of splitting a double service into two at Reading so that half went to Bournemouth and half only to Southampton? It’s the same route, I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

 

[Chester1]

What would be the point of splitting a double service into two at Reading so that half went to Bournemouth and half only to Southampton? It’s the same route, I don’t think you’ve thought this through.

Only 4 units would be freed up by transferring 1tph of Manchester to Birmingham, XC would not have sufficient units to double up units for the whole run. Depending on the pathing options you could have a layover and run it as a separate service to maintain the current frequency between Reading and Southampton. Admittedly, thinking about it is not a good idea! However, the current situation of having XC desperately short of capacity but running 2tph between Manchester and Birmingham under the wires for 90 minutes each is a complete waste. Half of Macclesfield's 4tph are provided by XC despite being on a branch of the WCML!

 

[pt_mad]

Not so sure.. I think using the released Voyagers to double up most trains the Reading-Birmingham section (no need IMX for double Voyagers south of Reading, though) and using EMUs prematurely retired from the southeast to run a higher capacity (8 coach) Birmingham-Manchester would probably be better all round.

Granted it needs more changes for through passengers, but at least we get rid of the overcrowding from Reading-Birmingham and Birmingham-Manchester. The overcrowding is really intolerable on many XC services at the moment and I think we should be considering any plan which will get rid of it, even if it means more changes.

I always have to change going Southampton-Crewe while a few through services a day would be nice, changing at New St isn't the end of the world. Also I generally find the 350s to Liverpool quite nice really. For one thing they're rarely overcrowded. It's always a relief to get off an overcrowded XC service at New St and transfer to a moderately-loaded 350 doing a Liverpool: the only thing I would do is drop the smaller stops from the Liverpool (e.g. Coseley and Penkridge) and transfer them to a Wolverhampton local extended to Stafford.

Likewise 185s, would consider them one of the better new trains.

So a poster suggested using 8 car 350s on the half hourly Birmingham to Manchester would free up (7) sets. Could 7 Voyagers be used to double everything between Birmingham and Sheffield/Derby and/or Birmingham to Reading?

I'm also going to go all out here. If we're saying using EMUs on electrified sections is a quick fix, how about using released 225s North of Doncaster and York on the ECML? They can even run to Glasgow. Yes that would involve splitting up existing through trains, potentially with the Northbound voyager terminating at York. But in principal?

Cant help thinking at the same time remapping is very unlikely to be part of any direct award, as good an idea as 350s on Manchesters is.

Someone suggested that the only reason drastic improvements wernt included as part of the West Coast direct award was due to lack of existing tilting stock. Fair point. However their direct award didn't even include an interior refurb. These direct awards can have a tendency of being very basic and just business as usual with a few token improvements, especially with the DFT now being very cautious it seems.

 

[pt_mad]

3 or 4 extra double sets would still be very welcome on top of 8 coach EMUs running Manchester-Birmingham. Why can't VT Scotland passengers change at Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International or Coventry instead of Wolverhampton? How many of the XC journeys through Birmingham start at Wolverhampton?

Extending a LNWR service from London to Birmingham New Street to Manchester to replace the Bournmouth service (with it instead splitting and joining with Newcastle-Southampton service at Reading) would resolve the issue of terminating capacity at Birmingham New Street and free up 1 path into New Street from the south but would limit the rolling stock quality and provision. Manchester-Birmingham-London. It would provide interchange options with CrossCountry services at Birmingham New Street and Birmingham International.

Great suggestion. Run one of the existing London Northampton Birmingham LNR services in to Manchester vice the existing Voyager. Must be an 8 car.

 

[Aictos]

Great suggestion. Run one of the existing London Northampton Birmingham LNR services in to Manchester vice the existing Voyager. Must be an 8 car.

Or extend the LNR London to Crewe service to Manchester as it removes the time penalty of running via Northampton.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Or extend the LNR London to Crewe service to Manchester as it removes the time penalty of running via Northampton.

Aren’t these already planned to go to Liverpool and Preston? At least wiki thinks so?

EDIT:

I think WMT is planning one Crewe-Birmingham-Northampton-London service which would serve Stone, Alsager and Kingsgrove. The other is the current service which will run non-stop (12 cars) to Crewe from Stafford. This will happen in December 2019.

 

[Bletchleyite]

8 car, not 12 car.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

8 car, not 12 car.

Aren’t WMT extending trains to 12 car and that’s the reason why Stone, Alsager, Stoke-on-Trent and Kidsgrove aren’t going to be on the Crewe-London service. That’s why it was planned a Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham service but WMT planned this to extend to London via Northampton after local opposition to the loss of a London service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aren’t WMT extending trains to 12 car and that’s the reason why Stone, Alsager, Stoke-on-Trent and Kidsgrove aren’t going to be on the Crewe-London service. That’s why it was planned a Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham service but WMT planned this to extend to London via Northampton after local opposition to the loss of a London service.

No, the extension (and the rerouteing for the above reason) is from the present 4 coaches up to 8.

 

[OrangeJuice]

Aren’t WMT extending trains to 12 car and that’s the reason why Stone, Alsager, Stoke-on-Trent and Kidsgrove aren’t going to be on the Crewe-London service. That’s why it was planned a Crewe-Stoke-Birmingham service but WMT planned this to extend to London via Northampton after local opposition to the loss of a London service.

Currently most trains are 4 car, but when 8 car trains run they can't call at Stone, Kidsgrove or Alsager because of platform length and level crossings or the fact they'd block flat junctions I believe. The trains still call at Stoke though.

The plan would be to run all 8 cars direct from Stafford to Crewe, hence why an alternative 4 car service was required to call at Alsager, Kidsgrove and Stone

 

[OrangeJuice]

Or extend the LNR London to Crewe service to Manchester as it removes the time penalty of running via Northampton.

But currently the Crewe service runs via the Trent Valley not via Birmingham so would not add a service between Birmingham and Manchester

 

[43074]

I think people need a reality check on the timescales involved in these things - the need is for extra capacity now, not in 2/3 years time. The 222s aren't due to be released until 2022 at the earliest, if the West Coast Partnership replace their 221s the earliest that might happen is 2021, but that is far from guaranteed, and the 350/2 idea on here might provide more capacity but by the time they've been replaced and refit with a more appropriate interior for XC it will probably be not far off May 2021 anyway.

Extra HSTs would be a logical short term solution which could offer more capacity in the next few months if the will was there - say by May 2019 - there will be both power cars and trailers available, traincrew who sign them and depots both equipped to maintain them and will have space for them, the difficulty is getting them through PRM mods before 1st January 2020. Whilst this is ongoing procure a fleet of 60 7-car 125mph bi-mode sets to replace the 22x and HST fleets for introduction 2022 and with that there's a semi-coherent short term and long term plan which provides extra capacity. The only other issue is that of HST timings vs 22x timings but I reckon a 2+6 HST (high capacity GWR set) has a comparable amount of capacity to an 8-car 220 anyway.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

No, the extension (and the rerouteing for the above reason) is from the present 4 coaches up to 8.

Currently most trains are 4 car, but when 8 car trains run they can't call at Stone, Kidsgrove or Alsager because of platform length and level crossings or the fact they'd block flat junctions I believe.

The plan would be to run all 8 cars direct from Stafford to Crewe, hence why an alternative 4 car service was required to call at Alsager, Kidsgrove and Stone

Thanks for the Information.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

But currently the Crewe service runs via the Trent Valley not via Birmingham so would not add a service between Birmingham and Manchester

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?

 

[Kite159]

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?

And the good folk of Liverpool will be up in arms with Manchester gaining what would be a 4th train an hour from London

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

And the good folk of Liverpool will be up in arms with Manchester gaining what would be a 4th train an hour from London

I was just think that afterwards. Is it just best to leave it how it is then? Liverpool will get a twice an hour service to London with HS2.

 

[HowardGWR]

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?

Well, one factor in all XC discussions (just as relevant if travelling across London or Brum), is 'why should pax have to change' and 'how easy is it to change'. I am sure this may affect choices as to whether the car is used or otherwise. If one has to change ,it's much easier to change when one can stay on the same platform, that has a bright waiting room and buffet, than to be deposited in the dungeon of New St, or be faced with a trek through the London underground. This, in my view, is why services that avoid these unpleasant places, while remaining in one's comfortable seat, are so popular. I am sure Crossrail will have a big impact in that way.

I am not a timetable expert, but getting most XC services through New St without most pax having to change there, must be a commercial goal, as opposed to operating convenience of changing crews, (if that is so).

 

[tbtc]

I think people need a reality check on the timescales involved in these things - the need is for extra capacity now, not in 2/3 years time. The 222s aren't due to be released until 2022 at the earliest, if the West Coast Partnership replace their 221s the earliest that might happen is 2021, but that is far from guaranteed, and the 350/2 idea on here might provide more capacity but by the time they've been replaced and refit with a more appropriate interior for XC it will probably be not far off May 2021 anyway.

Extra HSTs would be a logical short term solution which could offer more capacity in the next few months if the will was there - say by May 2019 - there will be both power cars and trailers available, traincrew who sign them and depots both equipped to maintain them and will have space for them, the difficulty is getting them through PRM mods before 1st January 2020. Whilst this is ongoing procure a fleet of 60 7-car 125mph bi-mode sets to replace the 22x and HST fleets for introduction 2022 and with that there's a semi-coherent short term and long term plan which provides extra capacity. The only other issue is that of HST timings vs 22x timings but I reckon a 2+6 HST (high capacity GWR set) has a comparable amount of capacity to an 8-car 220 anyway.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

350/4 are not spare, they will be going to LNR to allow them to get rid of the 319s (or possibly, if they change their minds, to extend more trains to 12-car). Otherwise they'd be ideal as they are (give or take new seat covers and pairing up) for XC Manc-Brum being 2+2 with 2+1 in 1st.

If the owners of the /2s could give LNR a better deal, those could perhaps remain there, where they probably make more sense. Indeed, arguably you could then send some of the /1s to SWR to use instead of the 442s, where their third rail capability would be ideal for the Pompey Direct as 12-car formations - more capacity than 442s, newer, more reliable and actually sending them to the TOC for whom they were originally ordered!

 

[Mollman]

3 or 4 extra double sets would still be very welcome on top of 8 coach EMUs running Manchester-Birmingham. Why can't VT Scotland passengers change at Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International or Coventry instead of Wolverhampton? How many of the XC journeys through Birmingham start at Wolverhampton?

Because the VT Scotland train arrives at Wolverhampton ahead of the XC service, it then sits there for around 10 - 15 minutes to take the path of the old Wolverhampton - Euston service. During it's wait it is overtaken by the XC service along with the Shrewsbury - Birmingham stopper. If VT passengers were forced to change at New Street not only would they have to change at New Street (not as easy as cross platform at Wolverhampton) they would have to wait nearly 30 minutes for the Reading / Southampton train or an hour for the next Bournemouth service - and yes I did regularly travel from Preston to Bournemouth a couple of years ago.