• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Department for Transport launches CrossCountry franchise consultation

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
Would passengers rather have a 2 hour journey standing up or a two-and-a-half hour journey sitting down? I suspect the latter, and strengthening trains should be a priority over increasing speed.

Although I agree, is there a reason why this would need to be the case?

Unless you had a train that wasn't as fast off the mark and had a lower top speed you are unlikely to be in the position where the average speed of a service was 80% slower.

The simple reason being that even if you desired 125mph trains for 100mph trains wouldn't reduce the average speed by 80% as the trains spend very little of their time at 125mph.

I would guess, unless it meant missing a path and having to wait that it may only add 5-10 minutes over a 2 hour journey.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,121
Location
Cambridge, UK
The 'Voyagerisation' of CrossCountry was all about providing a more frequent service of fast-accelerating trains (that's why they have high installed power and AC-traction drives). Higher frequencies make the service more commercially attractive, and faster acceleration (potentially) allows more stops without badly affecting the longer journey times, which should also generate more passenger journeys/a larger share of ORCATS revenue.

If you halved the frequency so you could double the length of each train (and then stopped more frequently to provide a sensible service to the smaller stations) you would probably end up with less revenue (due to the less attractive service).

I think that for most of the CrossCountry network 125 mph top speed is almost irrelevant - a fast accelerating/braking 110 mph bi-mode with a good 'regional express' interior would fit the bill and avoid the wasted space at the unit ends required to meet 125 mph crash-worthiness requirements.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
If you halved the frequency so you could double the length of each train (and then stopped more frequently to provide a sensible service to the smaller stations) you would probably end up with less revenue (due to the less attractive service)

Nobody would suggest doing that. The amount of carriages and trains isn't fixed, the tracks are, so you lengthen them.

I think that for most of the CrossCountry network 125 mph top speed is almost irrelevant - a fast accelerating/braking 110 mph bi-mode with a good 'regional express' interior would fit the bill and avoid the wasted space at the unit ends required to meet 125 mph crash-worthiness requirements.

Newcastle to Bristol, for example, is hardly "regional express". It's been shown time and time again that saving nominal amounts by having a "that'll do" attitude costs more in the long term. If it hadn't, people wouldn't be complaining about short trains!
 

Jonfun

Established Member
Joined
16 Mar 2007
Messages
1,254
Location
North West
I think that for most of the CrossCountry network 125 mph top speed is almost irrelevant - a fast accelerating/braking 110 mph bi-mode with a good 'regional express' interior would fit the bill and avoid the wasted space at the unit ends required to meet 125 mph crash-worthiness requirements.

It's hardly wasted space - you'd still need to put the Guard and Catering Staff plus equipment somewhere in the train if you didn't have space at the ends.
 

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
That's a rather sweeping generalisation, there are plenty of services where 2 cars are perfectly adequate: if ordering a new fleet you'd hope there were enough of them to run 4 car trains (and longer) to cope with peaks in demand.
But once again, this whole coupling up units in the peak is just rubbish.

Means two Train Managers or potential no revenue for one train. Faffing about coupling, then uncoupling with extra drivers to do this here there and everywhere.

I'd suggest if someone really crunched numbers, it wouldn't be worth it and you may as well run 4-coach trains and be ready for the increased growth.

The biggest question really is how long will the 2-car trains Northern have ordered run as 2-cars? I doubt that long.
 

43074

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2012
Messages
2,003
But once again, this whole coupling up units in the peak is just rubbish.

Means two Train Managers or potential no revenue for one train. Faffing about coupling, then uncoupling with extra drivers to do this here there and everywhere.

I'd suggest if someone really crunched numbers, it wouldn't be worth it and you may as well run 4-coach trains and be ready for the increased growth.

The biggest question really is how long will the 2-car trains Northern have ordered run as 2-cars? I doubt that long.

Well many London & South East and Regional TOCs have been doing that for years - OK the 456 and 466 units are primarily used for strengthening, but 165s and 168s work on their own and in pairs/trios where required. On longer distance routes the argument isn't so strong, particularly when requiring two sets of catering staff etc, but as far as routes like Birmingham to Stansted are concerned ordering units with gangways throughout would be a realistic workaround for this (less so for the former InterCity routes but you wouldn't consider 2 car units for those anyway...)
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I've often wondered, and the chat here makes me ask this, which people see as preferable? Would you prefer short trains with a lack of capacity but were fast, or longer slower trains, on the same route?

Or how about a longer train with more capacity on a slightly longer route, and a shorter one on the quick route (say 2h30 vs 1h 50)?


How about longer, faster trains ?
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,868
Nobody would suggest doing that. The amount of carriages and trains isn't fixed, the tracks are, so you lengthen them.

In _some_ cases, I am not so sure. One of the problems (IMO) of the current railway is how a peak frequency is run all day, rather than the traditional (BR and early privatisation) pattern of a standard interval during the day and extras at peak times, which in XC's case would include summer weekends, Saturdays most of the day, Fridays after about 3pm, and Sunday afternoons/evenings as well as the traditional Mon-Fri peak. One could argue that filling the railway with huge numbers of trains all day every day is a problem in that it creates congestion and thus delay, and actually slows down journey times - as well as reducing capacity for where there is real peak need (could they fit more trains _out_ of say New Street or Piccadilly between 5 and 6pm if there were not so many contra-peak trains coming in?)

I'm not for a minute suggesting reducing frequency at any time of day or week which has any pretension to being peak, nor reducing the total amount of seats (rather, the same or more), but there might be places were a half-hourly 4 coach service could be replaced by an hourly 12 coach service with more seats and less congestion. Less overcrowding _and_ faster journey times.

Might be in the minority, but I know I for one would find XC travel more attractive on a less congested railway with longer trains which didn't spend significant time sitting at signals waiting for another train to clear a junction, and could quite easily fit my plans around a reliable, non-overcrowded, two hourly, twelve-coach service from Southampton to Birmingham, to take an example of a journey I do regularly. The service would of course increase to hourly at busy times, and there would be extra trains north of Reading.
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
In _some_ cases, I am not so sure. One of the problems (IMO) of the current railway is how a peak frequency is run all day, rather than the traditional (BR and early privatisation) pattern of a standard interval during the day and extras at peak times, which in XC's case would include summer weekends, Saturdays most of the day, Fridays after about 3pm, and Sunday afternoons/evenings as well as the traditional Mon-Fri peak. One could argue that filling the railway with huge numbers of trains all day every day is a problem in that it creates congestion and thus delay, and actually slows down journey times - as well as reducing capacity for where there is real peak need (could they fit more trains _out_ of say New Street or Piccadilly between 5 and 6pm if there were not so many contra-peak trains coming in?)

I'm not for a minute suggesting reducing frequency at any time of day or week which has any pretension to being peak, nor reducing the total amount of seats (rather, the same or more), but there might be places were a half-hourly 4 coach service could be replaced by an hourly 12 coach service with more seats and less congestion. Less overcrowding _and_ faster journey times.

Might be in the minority, but I know I for one would find XC travel more attractive on a less congested railway with longer trains which didn't spend significant time sitting at signals waiting for another train to clear a junction, and could quite easily fit my plans around a reliable, non-overcrowded, two hourly, twelve-coach service from Southampton to Birmingham, to take an example of a journey I do regularly. The service would of course increase to hourly at busy times, and there would be extra trains north of Reading.
I don't think XC really has peaks, except where short-distance commuters crowd out a journey such as Birmingham to Burton (and even then there seem to be nearly as many on the way back from the shops at other times of day). Unlike London commuter routes, XC and the former Regional Express routes generally have their capacity set to meet the off-peak demand with an acceptance of overcrowding in the peak. Combined with traffic growth, a good proportion of long-distance journeys that span both peak and off-peak periods, and successful pricing of people off relatively busy onto relatively quiet trains, this means trains are pretty full most of the time and over most of the network.

If you removed the contra-peak services coming into New Street in the evening peak, the peak direction services would stop pretty quickly too as the station runs out of trains - it doesn't have enough platforms to build up a reserve of trains before the start of the peak (and similarly but vice versa in the morning). Most of them are through trains anyway.
 

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
There was the Great Western route, that went through Stratford, gave Worcester an even wider berth than the Midland and joined the current route at Cheltenham. Part now a steam railway, might be a small advantage to serving Stratford but nowhere else on the route would be worth stopping Cross Country.
The GW route via Stratford was apparently almost entirely a freight route. Passenger traffic went via Kidderminster, Worcester and Hereford, which might be vaguely useful if CrossCountry were to serve Cardiff but isn't really a good route for Bristol and south-west England.
I think that for most of the CrossCountry network 125 mph top speed is almost irrelevant - a fast accelerating/braking 110 mph bi-mode with a good 'regional express' interior would fit the bill and avoid the wasted space at the unit ends required to meet 125 mph crash-worthiness requirements.
110mph speed adequate for inter-city journeys. That's good to know, it will save a lot of money for new stock on the other inter-city franchises too, and we can cancel HS2 to boot. We need get out of the mindset that because a journey isn't to or via London, it's 'regional' and the passengers should count their blessings that they're being given a train at all.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
(Numbers are my calculations, I could be a little off, but generally the numbers are likely to be there or there about)

Currently XC has 252 coaches across their 220/221 fleet.

If XC gained the whole 222 fleet they would have 395 coaches. However there would be a lot of wasted space due to the numbers of end coaches.

However if XC were to change from 38*4 and 20*5 coach units to 37*5 and 27*7 coach units then the total number of coaches would be 374 (21 less than if gaining the 222 fleet).

That would allow every 4 coach train to be replaced by a 5 coach unit, with a few being 7 coaches. With the current 5 coach units then all being able to be replaced with 7 coach units. However with still about 6 spare units.

It would result in a near 50% capacity increase in the number of coaches in the fleet.
 

RupertW

Member
Joined
27 Nov 2017
Messages
11
That would allow every 4 coach train to be replaced by a 5 coach unit, with a few being 7 coaches. With the current 5 coach units then all being able to be replaced with 7 coach units. However with still about 6 spare units.

It would result in a near 50% capacity increase in the number of coaches in the fleet.
One concern here is the formation of the 222s. A 7 car 222 only has 4 coaches of standard class (the same as a 221). Yes some could be converted but by providing more first class there is the potential to make more money from Birmingham commuters who may opt to pay more to travel Fist Class if standard is always overcrowded and there is plenty of space in First. I think I have read before that this is the reason there is so much First Class on the 222s and the 390s in the first place.
 

Harbornite

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2016
Messages
3,634
The GW route via Stratford was apparently almost entirely a freight route. Passenger traffic went via Kidderminster, Worcester and Hereford, which might be vaguely useful if CrossCountry were to serve Cardiff but isn't really a good route for Bristol and south-west England.

There was some local passenger traffic but the line was fairly well used by summer services to and from the West country. The most famous service to use the line was the Cornishman.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
One concern here is the formation of the 222s. A 7 car 222 only has 4 coaches of standard class (the same as a 221). Yes some could be converted but by providing more first class there is the potential to make more money from Birmingham commuters who may opt to pay more to travel Fist Class if standard is always overcrowded and there is plenty of space in First. I think I have read before that this is the reason there is so much First Class on the 222s and the 390s in the first place.
I don't see why the ratio of first/standard couldn't be the same as they use in the HSTs - 1.5 coaches of first, then 5.5 coaches of standard. That was the way CrossCountry refurbished them to, so clearly they're happy with it. That alone would represent a significant increase of capacity.

I think it's obvious that, if they can't get new stock, CrossCountry should at least get all the Meridians. Noone would ever double up 7-car trains anyway (nor a 5-car Voyager with a 7-car Meridian), so the fact that the two are electrically/physically incompatible doesn't matter much.
 

DenmarkRail

Member
Joined
13 Jun 2016
Messages
665
Could the Cardiff to Birmingham be replaced by GWR?

Here is a rapid thought idea, but how plausible would partnership services be? A service could be operated by LNER from Edinburgh to New Street, and from New Street to Penzance, operated as GWR. Obviously, all under a unified brand, but this would allow great ideas from more than one company to be used. Crew could be absorbed into the companies. If If If XC order 80X trains, then the crews could easily interline with GWR staff, and LNER staff.

Bournemouth to Manchester trains could be SWR until Birmingham, and then VTWC up to Manchester, again under a single brand, but streamlining staffing... VTWC already operate voyagers, therefore they're drivers can run the service north of BHM... SWR already have staff capable of operating voyagers with training.

It is a really long shot idea, but it works on many EuroCity services in Europe.
 

Harbornite

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2016
Messages
3,634
Could the Cardiff to Birmingham be replaced by GWR?

Here is a rapid thought idea, but how plausible would partnership services be? A service could be operated by LNER from Edinburgh to New Street, and from New Street to Penzance, operated as GWR. Obviously, all under a unified brand, but this would allow great ideas from more than one company to be used. Crew could be absorbed into the companies. If If If XC order 80X trains, then the crews could easily interline with GWR staff, and LNER staff.

Bournemouth to Manchester trains could be SWR until Birmingham, and then VTWC up to Manchester, again under a single brand, but streamlining staffing... VTWC already operate voyagers, therefore they're drivers can run the service north of BHM... SWR already have staff capable of operating voyagers with training.

It is a really long shot idea, but it works on many EuroCity services in Europe.

Or just keep it as XC... what benefit would you gain from all this?
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,840
You are bidding for a franchise to deliver services, not for someone else to do it in a partnership. Chiltern tried to circumvent that with WSMR and got a slapped wrist for it.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
But once again, this whole coupling up units in the peak is just rubbish.

Means two Train Managers or potential no revenue for one train. Faffing about coupling, then uncoupling with extra drivers to do this here there and everywhere.

I'd suggest if someone really crunched numbers, it wouldn't be worth it and you may as well run 4-coach trains and be ready for the increased growth.

The biggest question really is how long will the 2-car trains Northern have ordered run as 2-cars? I doubt that long.

They could hire some more R.P.I.s and roster one to as many front sets as possible in the peaks?

Also what about the EMT 7 car class 222s? They will be prime candidates for XC when EMT get bi-mode.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
You are bidding for a franchise to deliver services, not for someone else to do it in a partnership. Chiltern tried to circumvent that with WSMR and got a slapped wrist for it.

And Silverlink and Central used to do it didn't they?

Not sure how it worked in practice though, with regards controls and staffing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top