Cross Country services - the future?

[Class 33]

By Cross Country services, I do refer to the North West/North East/Scotland-South West England services, also including the services to Reading, Southampton and Bournemouth.. Since the Voyagers took over the HST's and Class 47's on these services, things have gone downhill with many services suffering from overcrowding. Most services are formed of just 4-5 carriages(that's only 3 or 4 standard class carriages), which is just sheer ridiculous! And with the increase of rail use expected this decade, things are only going to get worst with the way things are.

I used to enjoy getting an HST or Class 47 to travel up north back in the day. Nowadays if I'm heading to Birmingham or the North I have to travel by alternative trains/routes instead. In the most case, meaning getting two or three trains with longer journey times. But I'd rather have that than travel in one of those crappy overcrowded Voyagers! I know other people on here feel the same too!

Are we likely to be stuck with these Voyager things on these services for the next 30 years or so? Or are things likely to improve in the next few years or the next decade or so, with longer trains replacing the 4/5 carriage Voyagers? Perhaps when the GWML electrication is (hopefully) complete and the new trains introduced by 2017, a number of the HST's could goto the Cross Country services whilst some of the Voyagers could be cascaded to work on the shorter services(i.e Bristol-Plymouth, Bristol-Birmingham New Street). Whilst the HST's will be over 40 years old by then, I think they could go on working for a few more years at least. Even just a few additional HST's(or longer trains) on Cross Country services would be a help!

What are your predictions on the future of these Cross Country services, and the rolling stock used?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

*Prepares for another Voyager bashing thread...*

 

[swt_passenger]

Had me worried for a moment, but obviously in this parallel universe XC must no longer serve Reading, Southampton or Bournemouth. We must still get HSTs and 47s...

 

[Class 33]

*Prepares for another Voyager bashing thread...*

Not intended as a Voyager bashing thread. But looking for comments on whether the situation with these services are ever likely to improve.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Had me worried for a moment, but obviously in this parallel universe XC must no longer serve Reading, Southampton or Bournemouth. We must still get HSTs and 47s...

Yes, the thread can include discussion on those services too.

 

[ValleyLines142]

Are we likely to be stuck with these Voyager things on these services for the next 30 years or so? Or are things likely to improve in the next few years or the next decade or so, with longer trains replacing the 4/5 carriage Voyagers?

I think we can safely say the answer is no. The Voyagers are only about ten years old, some of the HSTs are over 30!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps a number of the HST's could go to the Cross Country services whilst some of the Voyagers could be cascaded to work on the shorter services(i.e Bristol-Plymouth, Bristol-Birmingham New Street). Whilst the HST's will be over 40 years old by then, I think they could go on working for a few more years at least. Even just a few additional HST's(or longer trains) on Cross Country services would be a help!

I don't think that'll be the case, as HSTs are a lot older than Voyagers.

 

[IanXC]

I think we'll see a few incremental steps on Cross Country services.

Project Thor/eVoyager - important capacity increase from 4/5 car operation to 5/6 car operation, plus usage of OHLE where available.

Electrification, separate to whether the "main" Cross Country route is electrified, there are other schemes which will impact the operation, eg Chiltern electrification makes most of the Manchester-Bournemouth route either AC or DC electrified, MML electrification makes a case for an additional northbound service from Derby.

These kind of schemes then allow for the existing rolling stock to be deployed in different ways allowing for more doubled up services during peak hours.

North TPE electrification and the Northern Hub have the opportunity to change services between Leeds and Newcastle somewhat. If TPE North gets 6 car EMUs, and XCs Newcastle terminators are diverted to replace TPE to Middlesbrough then there are 12 cars/hour Leeds-Newcastle rather than the current 7 or 8.

The ultimate new stock for Manchester-Scotland, and the operator of the service, have a bearing too. I think as Birmingham-Derby is a pinch point which it is relatively hard to overcome, there could be an argument for, rather than extending an LM service to Manchester, extending the Manchester-Scotland service south to Birmingham, giving an alternative to the "via Newcastle" route to Scotland.

 

[ValleyLines142]

What are your predictions on the future of these Cross Country services, and the rolling stock used?

The Voyagers have much higher acceleration from stations I feel and they are quite stylish, although a little crammed. They're too young to be replaced by stock three times as old as them and physically there is nothing wrong with them. The issue is overcrowding, but the way to combat that is to either double-form Voyagers or insert extra carriages so that they're essentially 7 or 8 car Voyagers like the East Midlands 222s.

 

[laird]

I was of the understanding the 4/5 car Voyager length was a result of the need to use the bay platforms at Reading. The old bay platforms at Reading (Platforms 3 and 7 (pre-2012 platform numbers) being capable of holding at most a 5 car Super Voyager).

Presumably this technical requirement added to the cost saving by specifying only 4 or 5 car units might have been the deciding factor in train length.

With the changes at Reading underway are there any other train length restricted stations on the current Cross Country Voyager network?

 

[IanXC]

With the changes at Reading underway are there any other train length restricted stations on the current Cross Country Voyager network?

I understand theres an issue at Newcastle, however prior to Voyagers the XC services used different platforms and then went off to a nearby siding before returning to the station proper to form a southbound service.

 

[Grimsby town]

In the next franchise I'd like to see voyagers extended 6/7 car and refurbished upto the standard off 222s.

 

[142094]

I understand theres an issue at Newcastle, however prior to Voyagers the XC services used different platforms and then went off to a nearby siding before returning to the station proper to form a southbound service.

What problem is this at Newcastle? Some of the old 47 workings used to stay in the same platform with the 47 either going out the other way or it running round the train using the loop over the river.

 

[route:oxford]

I was of the understanding the 4/5 car Voyager length was a result of the need to use the bay platforms at Reading. The old bay platforms at Reading (Platforms 3 and 7 (pre-2012 platform numbers) being capable of holding at most a 5 car Super Voyager).

Presumably this technical requirement added to the cost saving by specifying only 4 or 5 car units might have been the deciding factor in train length.

With the changes at Reading underway are there any other train length restricted stations on the current Cross Country Voyager network?

Prior to Voyagers, XC services tended to use platform 8 at Reading where the 47 would be run-around. From memory, they were very prompt at Reading with the turn-arounds. The Central track there (now removed) probably helped.

Mistakes were made and Voyagers are too short.

But really, were mistakes made before then anyway? Instead of running 47s & carriages - should BR have ordered a fleet of 124s (with buffet) to run on the XC routes in the 60s/70s?

Perhaps 6 Car 158s in the 80s?

You can be sure that if BR had ordered 20 6-Car 158s back in the 80s for XC services back then they'd still be in intensive use on the network now.

 

[IanXC]

What problem is this at Newcastle? Some of the old 47 workings used to stay in the same platform with the 47 either going out the other way or it running round the train using the loop over the river.

I seem to recall reading some problem with short bay platforms, problem to the extent that things would have to be rearranged from how they currently work rather than an insurmountable problem.

 

[swt_passenger]

I was of the understanding the 4/5 car Voyager length was a result of the need to use the bay platforms at Reading. The old bay platforms at Reading (Platforms 3 and 7 (pre-2012 platform numbers) being capable of holding at most a 5 car Super Voyager).

Presumably this technical requirement added to the cost saving by specifying only 4 or 5 car units might have been the deciding factor in train length.

With the changes at Reading underway are there any other train length restricted stations on the current Cross Country Voyager network?

You've got a 'chicken and egg' situation here I think...

The XC services became able to use the bay platforms 3 and 7 (now closed)once the trains were shortened to 4 or 5 car, but to do this I think the two platforms were also extended. That allowed them to operate the way they do at the moment, with the Bournemouth trains reversing in the down relief platform 9 (previously 8), and the Reading terminators and Southampton extensions using P3.

I think it happened the other way around to what you think. Virgin decided on short trains, so NR decided to stick them in short platforms because they could, not the other way around.

 

[Eagle]

Presumably this technical requirement added to the cost saving by specifying only 4 or 5 car units might have been the deciding factor in train length.

Not really; XC services still quite often use the through platforms to reverse, and there are quite a few 8-car services running to Bournemouth anyway.

 

[ValleyLines142]

In the next franchise I'd like to see voyagers extended 6/7 car and refurbished upto the standard off 222s.

That's exactly what I feel, because the Voyagers are quite nice trains anyway and that would easily resolve the issue of overcrowding.

 

[IanXC]

In the next franchise I'd like to see voyagers extended 6/7 car and refurbished upto the standard off 222s.

Remember that it would be particularly hard and expensive to replicate the interior space of 222s in the 220 and especially 221 fleets due to the arrangement of equipment above the sole bar. The 221 tilting equipment dictated this layout, and so even though XCs 221s have it isolated the costs of a wholesale rearrangement of many systems would probably be prohibitive.

 

[Bald Rick]

Let's not forget that in the happy days of 47s + Mk IIs (20 metres long) the formation (from memory, happy to be corrected) was 7 coaches, 1 x first class / buffet, 1 x half and half guards van / standard class, and 5 standard coaches. Once an hour.

 

[Eagle]

Let's not forget that in the happy days of 47s + Mk IIs (20 metres long) the formation (from memory, happy to be corrected) was 7 coaches, 1 x first class / buffet, 1 x half and half guards van / standard class, and 5 standard coaches. Once an hour.

So it's gone from 7 coaches an hour to 9 or 10, which is an increase...

 

[Bald Rick]

So it's gone from 7 coaches an hour to 9 or 10, which is an increase...

Leaving aside buffets, shops, guards vans & driving cabs, it's gone from 7 x 20m to 9-10 x 23 m.

Having said that, the current trains are generally full.

 

[markydh]

I seem to recall reading some problem with short bay platforms, problem to the extent that things would have to be rearranged from how they currently work rather than an insurmountable problem.

There aren't that many XC services that run from bay platforms at Newcastle, though. From memory, the 17xx service to Guildford used to run from platform 12 on occasion, but I've no idea if it still does.

 

[ValleyLines142]

There aren't that many XC services that run from bay platforms at Newcastle, though. From memory, the 17xx service to Guildford used to run from platform 12 on occasion, but I've no idea if it still does.

The 1732 to Guildford departs from platform 11 I think.

 

[Eagle]

The 1732 to Guildford departs from platform 11 I think.

Booked for 11, yes.

 

[ValleyLines142]

Booked for 11, yes.

Thought so, haven't seen it for ages though.

 

[Class 33]

Let's not forget that in the happy days of 47s + Mk IIs (20 metres long) the formation (from memory, happy to be corrected) was 7 coaches, 1 x first class / buffet, 1 x half and half guards van / standard class, and 5 standard coaches. Once an hour.

Not strictly so about services only being once an hour in those old days. I've got a copy of the 1990 timetable in front of me, and the old Cross Country timetables are very interesting and varied compared to todays "clock face" like timetable.

Just as a rough guide. On a Saturday back then, there were departures from Bristol Temple Meads to Birmingham and the north at 0312(!!), 0612, 0810, 0832, 0920, 0933, 1045, 1112, 1137, 1146, 1202, 1223, 1237, 1306, 1318, 1335, 1502, 1534, 1616, 1624, 1635, 1701, 1716, 1801, 1816, 1900, 1920, 1935, 2043, and 2203. Notice then that at some points there were services departing just EIGHT minutes after the previous service. And at some parts of the days there were gaps of an hour or so between services. Also some services running non-stop between Bristol and Birmingham too. Would this sort of timetable help ease over-crowding on todays Cross Country services? It could do. Unfortunately I don't think we're ever likely to see such timetables on Cross Country services again. As most train operators nowadays want a "clock face" like timetable to make it easier for passengers. But we managed OK with such timetables as those mentioned above back in those old days didn't we?

 

[ainsworth74]

Would this sort of timetable help ease over-crowding on todays Cross Country services? It could do.

Doubt it, most people would still get on the first train they could find going to where they wanted to go to (the only time they wouldn't is if they physically couldn't get on the train) so you would probably find the first train is rammed and the second is fairly quiet.

But we managed OK with such timetables as those mentioned above back in those old days didn't we?

Perhaps but passengers like clock face timetables it means they can quickly learn the timetable and know when there train will be always and anything that makes life easier for the passenger is worthwhile in my book. Also it seems to me that clock face timetables are efficient, why would we want two trains within minutes of each other and then nothing for an hour or more? Surely it's a better use of resources to have two trains every half hour (or roughly that anyway)? To me honest clock face seems to be something of a win win.

The modern timetable has departures from Bristol Temple Meads to Birmingham at xx:00 and xx:30 every hour from 07:00 until 20:30 (with one early morning at 06:15). Surely that's better than the old timetable?

 

[Eagle]

...the old Cross Country timetables are very interesting and varied...

That's something of a disadvantage when it comes to pathing and diagramming, and also crew route knowledge. For instance, at the moment if a Voyager is running Bristol–Manchester it'll likely be running that route all day, and can be worked by the same crew.

The randomness of the old timetables made a mess of diagrams, and meant that the services had low priority when it came to paths.

 

[CompactDstrxion]

I don't think the timetable is a problem. The facilities on Voyagers are just not up to the standard for long-distance services. However, it's difficult to lengthen them by 1 or 2 cars because it would prevent them running in double formation and possibly worsen overcrowding as a result. I would like to see a uniform fleet of 5 car Voyagers including pantograph cars and better catering. Replacing a car from each 221 with a pantograph car would provide coaches towards new formations.

 

[Eagle]

Actually that's a good point I'd not realized.

If you lengthen Voyagers to 6-7 cars, then the services that are today worked by 8-10 car double sets would have to lose carriages, as 12-14 cars wouldn't fit the platforms in many places...

 

[RichmondCommu]

Perhaps 6 Car 158s in the 80s?

You can be sure that if BR had ordered 20 6-Car 158s back in the 80s for XC services back then they'd still be in intensive use on the network now.

The thing is though Voyagers can travel at 125mph, 158's can only reach 90mph.