Cross Country overcrowding - shortage of rolling stock

[Norm_D_Ploom]

Indeed there is an element of "you get what you pay for" with this one.

The problem is that people want investment in, in no particular order, public transport, public services, the arts, education, health, defence all whilst wanting their tax burden to come down.

As you pointed out......

 

[Trainbike46]

The problem is that people want investment in, in no particular order, public transport, public services, the arts, education, health, defence all whilst wanting their tax burden to come down.

As you pointed out......

This isn't actually true, according to polling most people support increasing taxes to pay for improved services (preferred by ~55%), with the second most popular option being to keep tax and services more or less where they are now (preferred by ~35%). The least popular option is reducing tax, and consequently spending on government services (preferred by just under 10%).

Interestingly, at no point since 1983 has more than 10% of the population wanted a reduction in tax and service. Every year the most popular option has been either to increase tax or to keep it where it was.

Source: https://natcen.ac.uk/publications/bsa-40-role-and-responsibilities-government

 

[deltic]

This isn't actually true, according to polling most people support increasing taxes to pay for improved services (preferred by ~55%), with the second most popular option being to keep tax and services more or less where they are now (preferred by ~35%). The least popular option is reducing tax, and consequently spending on government services (preferred by just under 10%).

Interestingly, at no point since 1983 has more than 10% of the population wanted a reduction in tax and service. Every year the most popular option has been either to increase tax or to keep it where it was.

Source: https://natcen.ac.uk/publications/bsa-40-role-and-responsibilities-government

what people say what they want and what they vote for tends to be very different

 

[Trainbike46]

what people say what they want and what they vote for tends to be very different

true, in part due to our electoral system being set up in a way where in most constituencies you can choose between 2 parties, who may well be promising very similar things on various issues. Choosing who to vote for can therefore very much be a game of choosing "least bad option" for many people, not what they actually want.

Case in point, at the moment:
Conservatives are effectively promising lower taxes, and are willing to cut services to pay for that at least in theory (least popular option in the survey)
Labour are promising to keep taxes the same, but are promising to somehow improve services (through magic maybe?) (2nd most popular option in the survey if we assume they keep services the same rather than improving them)
But, who should people who want higher taxes for improved services vote for? In some constituencies there will be independents or smaller parties that hold that view, but not everywhere, and even where it is an option, in our first past the post voting system voters will need to balance the risk of the conservatives winning with the benefits of voting independent/for a minor party.

However, stating that most people want massive investment in services AND lower tax, as the poster I was replying to stated, is untrue

 

[Senex]

The problem is that people want investment in, in no particular order, public transport, public services, the arts, education, health, defence all whilst wanting their tax burden to come down.

As you pointed out......

Would people want their tax burden to come down if they actually received quality public services, including (in this context) comfortable and fast train services between major cities rather than just to and from London? Thanks to government policies it seems that as road rolling stock (both cars and coaches — though not buses) has been getting more comfortable over the years trains have been throwing away the comfort advantage they once had in favour of more people stuffed into fewer coaches.

 

[Falcon1200]

what people say what they want and what they vote for tends to be very different

Indeed, and of course anyone who does believe that taxes should be increased to pay for better public services is free to donate money to top up the Government's coffers; I wonder how many do.....

What about Manchester's direct service to Bournemouth and Bristol? That service isn't only a Birmingham-Manchester service.

I agree, of course, but the point is that the current XC service is both inadequate, in capacity terms, and wasteful and environmentally damaging in running diesels under the wires for a long distance; At the moment that TOC has no alternative stock available, although I hope that will change, eventually.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

This isn't actually true, according to polling most people support increasing taxes to pay for improved services (preferred by ~55%), with the second most popular option being to keep tax and services more or less where they are now (preferred by ~35%). The least popular option is reducing tax, and consequently spending on government services (preferred by just under 10%).

Interestingly, at no point since 1983 has more than 10% of the population wanted a reduction in tax and service. Every year the most popular option has been either to increase tax or to keep it where it was.

Source: https://natcen.ac.uk/publications/bsa-40-role-and-responsibilities-government

I would imagine that that is primarily a case of preaching to the converted.

 

[YorkRailFan]

I agree, of course, but the point is that the current XC service is both inadequate, in capacity terms, and wasteful and environmentally damaging in running diesels under the wires for a long distance; At the moment that TOC has no alternative stock available, although I hope that will change, eventually.

They need tri-mode (OLE, diesel and third rail) trains and cut back on some routes like Penzance, Guildford and perhaps Aberdeen and Glasgow.

 

[Killingworth]

This isn't actually true, according to polling most people support increasing taxes to pay for improved services (preferred by ~55%), with the second most popular option being to keep tax and services more or less where they are now (preferred by ~35%). The least popular option is reducing tax, and consequently spending on government services (preferred by just under 10%).

Interestingly, at no point since 1983 has more than 10% of the population wanted a reduction in tax and service. Every year the most popular option has been either to increase tax or to keep it where it was.

Source: https://natcen.ac.uk/publications/bsa-40-role-and-responsibilities-government

The difficulty about such polls is that it depends upon who you poll, where , when and how the questions are phrased.

Market researchers may suggest demand for a product, but when provided it doesn't sell. Among the most successful shops today are good, well sited charity shops - stock costs nothing so avoiding losses should be easy. Food banks have seen the biggest growth of any - giving things away is a sure fire winner.

Suggest more specifically for education and the health service and most will say they'd pay higher taxes without questioning exactly what the extra funds would go towards. Suggesting more to be spent on sleeper services used by very few to the Scottish Highlands and it would certainly get the thumbs down. Too few benefitting, too many thinking they'd be paying.

.

 

[virgintrain1]

If they require double crewing with guards (i.e. the driver can't count as a member of staff in the second unit, nor can the trolley person as they can on GWR) they could just change their stupid rule. They'd have kittens at Chiltern - often there are formations of several non-gangwayed units with only the driver.

Double Voyager minimum crewing level is 1 Train Manager and 1 Retail Service Manager or 1st class host.

Similar to Avanti, LNER and GWR. Is it just Meridians and Adelantes that require two guards?

 

[Mag_seven]

If anyone wants to discuss the funding of public services in general then they are of course welcome to start a new thread in General Discussion. Going forward can we stick to discussing solutions for Cross Country overcrowding.

thanks

 

[YorksLad12]

I agree voyagers aren't good trains, and XC definitely needs something better in the long term. In the short term though, XC should get all the voyagers freed up from XC to attract more passengers onto the railway, which will still reduce emissions in comparison to them going by car or plane.

In the long term, it needs bimodes or BEMUs. Me and others in previous XC threads have proposed things like new trains for LNER & GWR, with the 5-car 80x bimodes moving to XC (staying at their current depots).

And I'm sure I somewhere suggested something along the lines of GWR ordering new 125mph EMUs at maximum length (260m or longer), and use those on the Oxford, Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea services after the relevant lines have been electrified. Then the spare 5-car 80x would be used by XC instead, and the 9-cars would all be used for Southwest services (and Carmarthen services if they continue)

Similarly, I remember suggesting on another thread for LNER to order more of their new CAF units (possibly in longer layouts of approximately 280-285m long), and passing all their 5-car 800 bimodes on to XC. Once again can't find the thread though.

GWR's and LNER's class 800s (and 801s)can't be used elsewhere without variation of the IET contract - they're not done the same way as the 802s onwards. I'd wondered about LNER buying more of the new CAF stock than originally requested to supply XC with some bimodes but came up against the contract issue. And the fact that the wires north of Newcastle might not be able to cope with more electric units, so you'd still have diesel under wires.

 

[WF4HA5HE]

XC rips a massive hole in the railways green credentials. Running gas guzzling voyagers 100s of miles under the wires is just daft. Get a few bimodes for Edinburgh - Exeter, and EMUs fror Brum - Manchester (cl 350?) so Voyager workings can be 8 car.
And spark the fast lines Kings Norton - Longbridge.

Thats not a bad idea but I don't think it would solve the overcrowding issue with new trains? They need longer formations but that's not as easy as it sounds.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

Would mk 4 coaches and a loco be an option?

 

[Snow1964]

Would mk 4 coaches and a loco be an option?

In theory all sorts of options, mk4, mk5 plus loco
Spare 350s on the Electric services from Midlands to Manchester etc

There are also theoretical options where could reform voyager fleet and make 5 or 6car units for trunk services, and 3car all standard seat units which are coupled as extra seats on busy trains (not to run on their own), rather than the usually inadequate 4car version

But at moment it seems to be use fleet in formation it currently is, with few extra ex-Avanti units.

Longer term some bimode IETs lease end in 4 years (although existing operator of them might have first refusal), but that would depend on electric express train cascade (which won't really happen until HS2 stock releases some 390s)

 

[Dr Day]

Would mk 4 coaches and a loco be an option?

Only if all the additional costs of running it - including those created by different timings wherever it ran - could be offset by the additional benefits it would bring in.

 

[irish_rail]

GWR's and LNER's class 800s (and 801s)can't be used elsewhere without variation of the IET contract - they're not done the same way as the 802s onwards. I'd wondered about LNER buying more of the new CAF stock than originally requested to supply XC with some bimodes but came up against the contract issue. And the fact that the wires north of Newcastle might not be able to cope with more electric units, so you'd still have diesel under wires.

Nothing stopping the GWR 5 car 802s being sent to XC. They don't come under the same contract as the 800 801 fleets.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Would people want their tax burden to come down if they actually received quality public services, including (in this context) comfortable and fast train services between major cities rather than just to and from London?

That’s pretty much it. If people are getting what they pay for then they don’t paying for it.

The trouble with the railways is the amount of waste and the amount of short-termism. XC is probably the biggest example of this. Small trains cost more to run per seat than bigger trains. Most leisure travel is on advance tickets which, by their very nature, are limited by the number of seats on a train. Everything about it becomes less attractive to customers and more expensive to operate. XC have tried to combat this with eye-watering fares, but the rise of split ticketing prevents the worst of this. It’s no wonder that XC struggle.

XC should have been included in one of the IET orders, either the original IEP or the later commercial agreements with Hitachi.

 

[Krokodil]

XC have tried to combat this with eye-watering fares, but the rise of split ticketing prevents the worst of this

And results in a smaller ORCATS share.

 

[Snow1964]

With the new quarterly (Oct-Dec) figures due to be published by ORR tomorrow, thought I would go back 5 years (pre pandemic) and 10 years (as its a round number) so a comparison can be made

Cross Country (Oct-Dec)
Passenger journeys (table 1223) million 2014 :9.432m 2019 : 10.760m
Passenger km distance travelled (table 1233) 2014 : 870.6m : 2019 : 961.7m
Passenger Train km (table 1243) million 2014 : 8.124m 2019 : 8.126m
Passenger vehicle km (table 1253) million 2014 : 35.289m 2019 : 35.164m

Obviously can divide journey km by vehicle km to see if busier
and can look at average journey length changes,
and check average vehicles per train etc

New figures Oct-Dec 2023 now published so can do 5 year ago and 10 year ago comparison

Journeys (table 1223) 8.982m
Km travelled (table 1233) 745.1m
Train km (table 1243) 5.863m
Vehicle km (table 1253) 27.955m

So passengers travelling 85.56% of 10 years ago, but vehicle km is 79.22% of 10 years ago, so trains 8% more crowded on average

 

[uglymonkey]

And they are scared to run past Dawlish if its a bit wet !

 

[Trainbike46]

GWR's and LNER's class 800s (and 801s)can't be used elsewhere without variation of the IET contract - they're not done the same way as the 802s onwards. I'd wondered about LNER buying more of the new CAF stock than originally requested to supply XC with some bimodes but came up against the contract issue. And the fact that the wires north of Newcastle might not be able to cope with more electric units, so you'd still have diesel under wires.

What in the contract is the issue? does the contract specify what routes they can be used on, or just that the units have to start and end at certain specific depots? Or something else? I know the contracts are very restrictive, but noone seems to be able what part of the contract is the issue.

If the latter, it would be possible to write new diagrams that meet that requirement (e.g. Edinburgh start and end, Doncaster start and end, or diagrams starting at one and ending at the other, for ex-LNER units. Same thing with Bristol (stoke Gifford), Reading (North Pole), and Potentially Swansea (would require extending some services to/from Swansea)

Nothing stopping the GWR 5 car 802s being sent to XC. They don't come under the same contract as the 800 801 fleets.

And of course, this is also an option, and GWR probably couldn't miss all their 5-cars anyway so GWR keeping the 5-car 800s would be a solution

 

[Mike Machin]

As so much of Cross-Country's business is leisure/social travelling, would it perhaps be better if XC services were opened-up to competition and/or replacement by Open Access operators. This would ensure that ticketing would need to be online or via an app meaning that all passengers would have a seat as well as precluding the use of these services by 'locals' hopping between various local sections. On my part of the XC network many people were using the trains to just transit between say Bournemouth and Winchester, or Southampton to Basingstoke or Oxford to Reading. If one removes these people from the equation much of the overcrowding would largely disappear.

Open Access operators have to at least cover their costs and preferably make a profit, so there would definitely be a much bigger incentive for them to try and ensure passenger satisfaction and meet capacity demands. Some services would thrive and expand, some would just about turn a profit and merely continue and others would probably make a loss and would be have to be revised or discontinued.

It's obvious the DfT either isn't interested or doesn't have the resources to make improvements, so free up the Cross-Country services and let the market decide how the services develop going forward.

 

[Energy]

that all passengers would have a seat as well as precluding the use of these services by 'locals' hopping between various local sections.

XC services are important for many 'local' routes like Oxford-Banbury. Despite its stock XC isn't really a true intercity operator, most of its traffic isn't end-to-end but intermediate services.

If one removes these people from the equation much of the overcrowding would largely disappear.

I'm doubtful. Even if you forced Oxford - Reading back onto GWR you'd still have trains packed between Oxford/Banbury area and Wolverhampton.

Besides, regulars on Oxford - Reading know that XC services are packed and are likely to deliberately aim for GWR services.

some would just about turn a profit and merely continue and others would probably make a loss and would be have to be revised or discontinued.

I can't think of any XC services which aren't useful and should be cut. Reading - Newcastle should be delayed till more stock is sorted but it's still a useful and well-used route.

XC's issue isn't the route but the poor capacity trains.

If the latter, it would be possible to write new diagrams that meet that requirement (e.g. Edinburgh start and end, Doncaster start and end, or diagrams starting at one and ending at the other, for ex-LNER units. Same thing with Bristol (stoke Gifford), Reading (North Pole), and Potentially Swansea (would require extending some services to/from Swansea)

The contract with Hitachi specifies the number of trains supplied per day, with the number reduced when a train has been in an accident.

The trains need to visit a home depot every so often. On GWR this is Stoke Gifford (Bristol), Swansea Maliphant and North Pole (London), Laira (Plymouth) handles more than 802 work nowadays but it's still a GWR depot.

Manchester - Bristol interworks with Manchester - Bournemouth so getting the 800s back to Bristol at the required frequency could require operational changes. If the 175s turn up at GWR it should have 14x5 car 802s free again with maintenance handled at Plymouth, assuming the Bristol superfasts do not return and Hitachi's maintenance doesn't drop off again then some of these 802s could be put on Plymouth - Edinburgh runs.

LNER's Hitachi depots are at Doncaster Carr, Bounds Green (London), and Craigentinny (Edinburgh). LNER isn't fully utilising their Hitachi fleet, Craigentinny could also be used for Plymouth - Exeter though it's pretty much full now.

XC should have been included in one of the IET orders, either the original IEP or the later commercial agreements with Hitachi.

They were. It got cut when IEP was reviewed in 2010. The 91/Mk4 replacements were also cut but later reinstated, using up all the order options.

 

[Trainbike46]

XC services are important for many 'local' routes like Oxford-Banbury. Despite its stock XC isn't really a true intercity operator, most of its traffic isn't end-to-end but intermediate services.

I'm doubtful. Even if you forced Oxford - Reading back onto GWR you'd still have trains packed between Oxford/Banbury area and Wolverhampton.

Besides, regulars on Oxford - Reading know that XC services are packed and are likely to deliberately aim for GWR services.

I can't think of any XC services which aren't useful and should be cut. Reading - Newcastle should be delayed till more stock is sorted but it's still a useful and well-used route.

XC's issue isn't the route but the poor capacity trains.

Agreed with all of the above

The contract with Hitachi specifies the number of trains supplied per day, with the number reduced when a train has been in an accident.

The trains need to visit a home depot every so often. On GWR this is Stoke Gifford (Bristol), Swansea Maliphant and North Pole (London), Laira (Plymouth) handles more than 802 work nowadays but it's still a GWR depot.

Manchester - Bristol interworks with Manchester - Bournemouth so getting the 800s back to Bristol at the required frequency could require operational changes. If the 175s turn up at GWR it should have 14x5 car 802s free again with maintenance handled at Plymouth, assuming the Bristol superfasts do not return and Hitachi's maintenance doesn't drop off again then some of these 802s could be put on Plymouth - Edinburgh runs.

LNER's Hitachi depots are at Doncaster Carr, Bounds Green (London), and Craigentinny (Edinburgh). LNER isn't fully utilising their Hitachi fleet, Craigentinny could also be used for Plymouth - Exeter though it's pretty much full now.

If I remember correctly, the timeframe for return to a Hitachi depot is 36 hours. If that's wrong, please correct me.

So, with a rewrite of diagrams it would be possible to use GWR and LNER 5s for XC, with more trains starting at Reading and Bristol (using units from North Pole and Stoke Gifford respectively), and those diagrams also ending at one of those, bringing all units back to a home depot the same day. It may be a good idea to start and end some diagrams at Swansea as well.

For the LNER ones, you would have to write some diagrams that start at Edinburgh (from Craigentinny) and Doncaster (from Doncaster Carr), with the diagrams also ending at those places.

In case it isn't obvious, I am suggesting a complete rewrite of XC diagrams to enable this. If there is more time allowed under the contract, obviously use that time to write more flexible diagrams (e.g. units overnighting elsewhere, returning to a home depot the next day)

They were. It got cut when IEP was reviewed in 2010. The 91/Mk4 replacements were also cut but later reinstated, using up all the order options.

 

[Energy]

If I remember correctly, the timeframe for return to a Hitachi depot is 36 hours. If that's wrong, please correct me.

Correct, from East Coast IEP Agreement Page 166

(i) a Maintenance Window shall be provided at the end of each Diagram at one of the locations identified in the Rules of the Depot, in compliance with the requirements of Table 1 (Minimum Maintenance Window Requirements) of Appendix B (Rules of the Fleet: Requirements) to this Part A (Dispatch Requirements) of Schedule 2 (Availability) and no Diagram shall exceed thirty-six (36) hours in duration, unless otherwise agreed at the TSP's sole discretion;

So, with a rewrite of diagrams it would be possible to use GWR and LNER 5s for XC, with more trains starting at Reading and Bristol (using units from North Pole and Stoke Gifford respectively), and those diagrams also ending at one of those, bringing all units back to a home depot the same day. It may be a good idea to start and end some diagrams at Swansea as well.

Reading isn't ideal as the staff base is guards, TMs and catering staff, no drivers. Full list of XC driver depots here.

Out of the 14 'spare' (if 175s come) 802s, about 10 in service would be reasonable, assuming GWR don't need any additional 802s. That isn't enough for Plymouth - Edinburgh, and that route has a few driver changes so quite a lot of staff would need training.

Bristol - Manchester 1tph is doable and would only need staff training for Bristol (Birmingham can do Birmingham - Bristol but moving units out of the depot would be difficult without a nearby driver depot) and either Birmingham or Manchester. But its currently set up to interwork with the Manchester - Bournemouth...

 

[Mark J]

The issue with XC is there are two or three flows which they are very busy on, but that doesn't justify huge increases in rolling stock or even more services.

A number of posters have commented that from York to Newcastle, XC can be overcrowded but LNER seems not to be - so the actual answer is to identify the worst overcrowding and address those flows, not to increase set length or order new stock only to cart around fresh air for more than 50% of the time - and if that means putting in place pick up only / set down only restrictions at certain points unless on a pre-booked ticket, then so be it.

Disagree.

Better to have spare capacity than not enough.

As others have stated, it actually costs more to run shorter formations.

Plus if people know they won't be travelling on excessively overcrowded XC service, due to a large increase in capacity, it might help draw back some lost custom over the years.

I suspect there are a great many out there who do their best to avoid XC, due to the unpleasant experiences they've had.

That's mad. I assume they need to depart at the same time due to needing to be clear of platforms or junctions so that other trains are not impacted. They can't both arrive at Oxford at the same time as its one platform.

The GWR service stops at Didcot, to allow the XC service time to arrive unload/load at Oxford.

Although on Sunday just gone, the XC service arrived afterwards and pulled into the Up platform as I was crossing over the footbridge.

 

[A0wen]

Disagree.

Better to have spare capacity than not enough.

As others have stated, it actually costs more to run shorter formations.

Plus if people know they won't be travelling on excessively overcrowded XC service, due to a large increase in capacity, it might help draw back some lost custom over the years.

Running empty or underutilised sets around is *hugely* costly - don't forget the diatribe against motorists when there's only one person in the car is how inefficient it is, same is true of the railways.

But you've missed the point - XC's overcrowding is on a few specific flows, some where they are replicated by other operators. Example, I've been at Birmingham New Street more than enough times to see an XC (or Avanti Pendo) leave full and standing only to offload many of those at Birmingham International (8 miles) or Coventry (18 miles), yet the next WMR leaves half empty.

If it were London, it would be akin to having EMR services call at Mill Hill Broadway and Elstree or on the GN LNER calling at Finsbury Park and Potters Bar.

It's not the purpose of XC to be providing a glorified commuter service through the West Mids - at least not on the Cov - Birmingham - Wolves corridor.

XC in itself doesn't really attract custom per se - the numbers travelling from Plymouth to Newcastle or Manchester to Bournemouth are miniscule - XC captures mainly shorter flows on long distance services, but there should be a way to throttle the usage of their services by open ticket holders where there is replication by other operators - BR did just this with Inter City through the use of pick up / set down only restrictions (ISTR Stevenage - Kings Cross was one such case many years ago).

 

[Trainbike46]

Correct, from East Coast IEP Agreement Page 166




Reading isn't ideal as the staff base is guards, TMs and catering staff, no drivers. Full list of XC driver depots here.

Out of the 14 'spare' (if 175s come) 802s, about 10 in service would be reasonable, assuming GWR don't need any additional 802s. That isn't enough for Plymouth - Edinburgh, and that route has a few driver changes so quite a lot of staff would need training.

Bristol - Manchester 1tph is doable and would only need staff training for Bristol (Birmingham can do Birmingham - Bristol but moving units out of the depot would be difficult without a nearby driver depot) and either Birmingham or Manchester. But its currently set up to interwork with the Manchester - Bournemouth...

Bristol-Manchester may a decent one to start with anyway as a lot of it is under wires, so would have more benefit from bimodes than some other routes. Clearly Bristol drivers would have to be trained on them.

As you point out, it would either require a diagram rewrite to separate Bristol-Manchester from Manchester-Bournemouth, or staff training to enable them being used on Manchester-Bournemouth as well.

LNER has 10 5-car bimodes (all IEP contract)
GWR has 36 5-car IEP contract bimodes and 22 non-IEP bimodes
Total 68

XC currently has 58 voyagers (increasing to 65 soon), so if sufficient replacements were sourced (so more CAF units for LNER, and a new, 125mph 9+ car EMU for GWR after electrification of key lines (at least Bristol both ways, Oxford and Swansea)), so XC would likely be a few units short after the 5-cars that GWR would likely want to retain for the services where they are needed (mostly services beyond oxford)

 

[class397tpe]

Running empty or underutilised sets around is *hugely* costly - don't forget the diatribe against motorists when there's only one person in the car is how inefficient it is, same is true of the railways.

Seems to happen at a lot of other operators though - SWR trains between the peaks for example are extremely quiet in my experience! And been on many a lightly loaded LNER service on a weekday late morning/early afternoon.