Future of Cross Country Services?

[Bletchleyite]

Sounds like another TOC whose name is made up of a very large UK city and a region a bit further north-west of it.

I agree in principle - Advances should not be sold at all on any train where there will be PIXC (passengers in excess of capacity) from walk-up fares.

However, we also need to pack in wasting capacity by running stupid short trains. No service running on the WCML for any significant distance[1] should be shorter than 140m or thereabouts, and timetables should be planned accordingly.

[1] I could cope with the Windermere and Barrow running together to split at Lancaster.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Assuming that the Portsmouth Harbour-Weymouth is an additional service to what is run now, would that leave enough paths free to allow all the XC trains to terminate at Southampton to be extended to Bournemouth?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Deleted

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

However, we also need to pack in wasting capacity by running stupid short trains. No service running on the WCML for any significant distance[1] should be shorter than 140m or thereabouts, and timetables should be planned accordingly.

[1] I could cope with the Windermere and Barrow running together to split at Lancaster.

In practice I think there is a balance to be had between frequency amd individual train capacity. But yes, the balance is missing on some parts of the network. Operation Princess was a particularly bad example of this.

Assuming that the Portsmouth Harbour-Weymouth is an additional service to what is run now, would that leave enough paths free to allow all the XC trains to terminate at Southampton to be extended to Bournemouth?

ISTR the extensions of some Reading terminators through to/from Southampton were achieved by stretching unit diagrams close to the limit. Sending them to Bournemouth is likely much more limited by rolling stock availability than pathing ATM. Yet another example of how much Cross Country is being pushed to the limits of what is possible with its current fleet.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

For their busier routes, would a new order of 800s that would be 10/11 cars long be viable, freeing up their Voyagers for either routes that have portion working or don't get the passenger traffic to justify 10/11 car long trains?

 

[Bletchleyite]

10-11 is probably a bit big, but 7x26m or 8x23m is probably about where XC should be, with a bit of frequency thinning at times when that isn't the right length.

 

[swt_passenger]

Assuming that the Portsmouth Harbour-Weymouth is an additional service to what is run now...

There is no justification to make that assumption. The franchise spec is still only for 3 "SW" services beyond Southampton, variations on the two Weymouth's and the one Poole. However the calling patterns may be different, and the stopping service doesn't have to run through from Waterloo.

...would that leave enough paths free to allow all the XC trains to terminate at Southampton to be extended to Bournemouth?

The proposed Portsmouth to Weymouth service may not affect path numbers at all for the reasons given. The current Reading to Southampton extensions are the maximum that can be achieved by XC with one additional unit per day equivalent. Extending that train to Bournemouth would need either another unit, or lowering of the frequency.

Network Rail have previously stated that the second hourly train can not be extended from Reading to Southampton as the paths are needed for freight.

Given the demands on XC's finite capacity all across the country, why is it so important to increase services at the periphery rather than in the central core?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I agree in principle - Advances should not be sold at all on any train where there will be PIXC (passengers in excess of capacity) from walk-up fares.

The overcrowding on TPE is mostly between Preston and Manchester Piccadilly, which is prime commuter territory and has a wide selection of alternative train services. Advance ticket holders to Scotland aren't the problem.

2x350 is perfectly sufficient for Manchester-Scotland, and is more capacity than it was when VTWC used a 4-car 221 on the route.

XC has exactly the same issue- overcrowding is on the commuter stretches, e.g. York-Leeds-Sheffield and Derby-Birmingham-Cheltenham/Oxford. Getting commuters off Intercity trains should be the aim.

 

[The Ham]

10-11 is probably a bit big, but 7x26m or 8x23m is probably about where XC should be, with a bit of frequency thinning at times when that isn't the right length.

I agree that a 10 coach 80x would be a bit big. A 10 coach train formed of a pair of 221's would have something like 500 seats, a 9 coach 80x would have (including a buffet) something like 630 seats.

Based on the draft layouts (again allowing for a buffet area in the end coach by first class) a 7 coach 80x would have 470 seats. That would be a significant step up from any of the single length Voyager (which run the majority of services) and still a reasonable increase over a pair of 220's. It would be small decrease over a pair of 221's but services run by them are rare.

The problem would be with replacing HST's with a 7 coach 80x as you'd ideally need an 8 coach to replace capacity on a like for like basis. However, if there were enough 7 coach 80x's to allow a significant number of Voyagers to run in pairs it could well be that although there could be a few services where there was a small reduction in capacity over the day there could still be a significant increase in seats.

As an example if there are three services a 221, a HST and a 221 (circa 1035 seats) which were replaced with a pair of 220's, a 7 coach 80x and a pair of 220's (circa 1,270 seats) over those three services there would be a 22% increase in capacity even though on one service capacity has seen a 12% fall.

Something like 24 x 7 coach 80x's would be enough to allow the replacement of the HST's and every 220/ 4 coach 221 to always run as a pair in service. That would mean that:
- every HST service is run by a 80x (12% reduction)
- most 221 services are run by 80x's (88% increase)
- the remaining 221 services are run by a pair of 220's (60% increase)
- most 220 services are run by a 221 (25% increase*)
- the remaining 220 services are run by a pair of 220's or the 4 coach 221's (100% increase)

* Based on the assumption that each 221 used is 5 coaches

That could allow some places to potentially rejoin the XC network by running some 220's on their own and joining them with another unit in towards the core.

 

[vicbury]

I travel fairly regularly with CrossCountry between Bristol and Exeter / Birmingham. I don't particularly mind the Voyagers.

However, it is quite obvious that 4/5 coach trains are far too small on the Exeter - Bristol - Birmingham stretch (and beyond, from reading this thread) and they should be more like 7/8 coaches. In fact, I was lucky enough to travel on a 9 coach Voyager last week and it was bliss!

It seems like nothing is going to happen about this until at least the next franchise, so December 2019.

Is it too early to tell if longer trains will be a requirement of the next franchise? It would be nice to know that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

I also travelled Birmingham - Nottingham on CrossCountry recently and could not believe that it was a TWO coach train! Two coaches connecting the UK's second city with one of the UK's top ten metropolitan areas (Nottingham-Derby)!!

How did we ever get to this situation and why is it seemingly so difficult for the government to force the train operators to order more trains to relieve the absurd overcrowding we face on a daily basis?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

...
However, it is quite obvious that 4/5 coach trains are far too small on the Exeter - Bristol - Birmingham stretch ...
It seems like nothing is going to happen about this until at least the next franchise, so December 2019.

Isn't Exeter-Bristol going half-hourly under XC due this December?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

How did we ever get to this situation and why is it seemingly so difficult for the government to force the train operators to order more trains to relieve the absurd overcrowding we face on a daily basis?

It's difficult for government because the only way for the DfT to force TOCs to acquire additional rolling stock is by specifying it in the franchise which would inevitably lead to reduced premia/increased subsidies. Effectively the solving, or not, of overcrowding is a matter of government policy. Fortunately more recent franchise awards have been more pro-active regarding the matter so that ought to bode well for Cross Country. But not until 2019 and that would only be the point at which any new trains are ordered. Such is the "efficiency" of the way our railways are privatised.

 

[Bantamzen]

The overcrowding on TPE is mostly between Preston and Manchester Piccadilly, which is prime commuter territory and has a wide selection of alternative train services. Advance ticket holders to Scotland aren't the problem.

2x350 is perfectly sufficient for Manchester-Scotland, and is more capacity than it was when VTWC used a 4-car 221 on the route.

XC has exactly the same issue- overcrowding is on the commuter stretches, e.g. York-Leeds-Sheffield and Derby-Birmingham-Cheltenham/Oxford. Getting commuters off Intercity trains should be the aim.

Indeed, I use the Leeds-Birmingham section quite a lot through work and often the services are heavily reserved, with a lot of regular commuters only traveling short sections where alternatives exist. This is what commuters tend to do, if there is a faster train along their commute they invariably aim for those, even if it saves only a few minutes and means shoehorning themselves in. Perhaps on certain routes like these, season tickets should only be able to be used with an excess fare, meaning that the commuters would be less inclined to use longer distance services?

 

[The Ham]

Indeed, I use the Leeds-Birmingham section quite a lot through work and often the services are heavily reserved, with a lot of regular commuters only traveling short sections where alternatives exist. This is what commuters tend to do, if there is a faster train along their commute they invariably aim for those, even if it saves only a few minutes and means shoehorning themselves in. Perhaps on certain routes like these, season tickets should only be able to be used with an excess fare, meaning that the commuters would be less inclined to use longer distance services?

It could be that the journey time is only a few minutes, but by being able to use that service could make a significant difference to when they can arrive/leave work. For instance of the slow train after gets then to work just on time then people may be inclined to use the fast train so that if there is a delay or a cancellation they can normally still get to work on time.

Likewise if it is a car of the slow train before gets then to work an hour before they need to be there (and although more companies are allowing flexible working there are still a lot that even within that have limitations, such as having to work set shifts or between certain hours) then they are not going to want to use such a service.

If however there was a show service which arrived 10 minutes before the fast service but left 15 minutes before you could find that more people would opt for the slower service (but not all, as there would still be those who would like the extra 15 minutes at home).

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Do any XC services currently have over 75% of their route duplicated by another TOC's service?

 

[Roast Veg]

Plenty of 100% duplicated services at the start and end of the day between Bristol Plymouth and Penzance by GWR, between Birmingham and Manchester by VTWC, and between Aberdeen Glasgow and Edinburgh by VTEC. In terms of services in the middle of the day, I think the answer is no.

 

[Senex]

The overcrowding on TPE is mostly between Preston and Manchester Piccadilly, which is prime commuter territory and has a wide selection of alternative train services. Advance ticket holders to Scotland aren't the problem.

2x350 is perfectly sufficient for Manchester-Scotland, and is more capacity than it was when VTWC used a 4-car 221 on the route.

XC has exactly the same issue- overcrowding is on the commuter stretches, e.g. York-Leeds-Sheffield and Derby-Birmingham-Cheltenham/Oxford. Getting commuters off Intercity trains should be the aim [Senex's emphasis].

But how? We do not have Verkehrsverbund-type ticketing policies, which make it easy to say "Those tickets are valid on those trains but not these" and which offer local passengers a clear pricing advantage to stick to local trains. Yet to make sure there is proper space for the longer-distance passengers and to give them decent travelling conditions the segregation you refer to is long overdue on significant sections of both the XC and the TPE networks. The problem seems to be that the franchising system we have aims to let each TOC try to get every last penny in revenue, even when doing so sacrifices the attractiveness of its services to its key customers, so it's much more important to get a share of the revenue for, say, Leeds-Huddersfield local passengers than to look after the longer-distance passengers, even when this means possibly denying the latter access at times and certainly when it means offering them lousy comfort standards for a section of their journey.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The problem seems to be that the franchising system we have aims to let each TOC try to get every last penny in revenue, even when doing so sacrifices the attractiveness of its services to its key customers, so it's much more important to get a share of the revenue for, say, Leeds-Huddersfield local passengers than to look after the longer-distance passengers

Where the long-distance train and the commuter train are run by the same TOC it is easier.

An example used to be the last Leeds-Carlisle run. It regularly used to leave people behind at Leeds and Shipley who were wanting stations beyond Skipton, because it was full of commuters on their Metrocards heading home to Bingley and Keighley. They retimed it so that a Skipton stopper runs just before it and the commuters now all pile on to that stopper instead, meaning people for Gargrave and beyond don't get left behind. GWR do something similar where you can use off-peak tickets on the Turbo stoppers but not on the expresses in the evening peak.

But as you say, it gets harder where there's a financial incentive to run a train that is attractive to the commuters, so you can get a slice of the season ticket pie under ORCATS. XC do well out of Leeds-Sheffield because of this, to the extent that they diverted the Newcastle-Reading peak trains through Leeds to pick up more passengers; even though a Northern express for Sheffield leaves at the same time, the XC is marginally quicker.

 

[D1009]

Isn't Exeter-Bristol going half-hourly under XC due this December?

Yes.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=137857

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=137857

I'm glad someone found and posted the link to the more recent "what's happening in the XC real world" thread, it would be a bit worrying if people confused some of the ideas and personal preferences in this thread with the TOC (as agreed with DfT) actual plans that are already known about.

In hindsight, this was not the best thread to restart...

 

[All Line Rover]

Cheltenham to Birmingham is not a "short distance" route. Stopping services for commuters are out of the question and anything less than a Voyager (decent EMUs not being possible) would not be acceptable given the fares charged.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

For their busier routes, would a new order of 800s that would be 10/11 cars long be viable, freeing up their Voyagers for either routes that have portion working or don't get the passenger traffic to justify 10/11 car long trains?

I think it's more likely XC will get the 222s from EMT when the MML is electrified c2022.
Nothing much is going to happen until the XC franchise rebid in 2019.

 

[dk1]

The latest ASLEF Journal hints that the proposed December cull of Aberdeen XC services from 2 to 1 train per day may not now happen.

 

[The Ham]

I think it's more likely XC will get the 222s from EMT when the MML is electrified c2022.
Nothing much is going to happen until the XC franchise rebid in 2019.

Of course we could have a better idea of what could happen in about 12 months time once the EMT franchise is announced.

As if the 222's are released before 2022 (thinking 80x's) then they could start to move across to XC fairly soon after the start of the XC franchise (possibly sooner than new units).

If 222's end up at XC I wouldn't be surprised if we see them reformed into longer sets.

 

[Kettledrum]

Indeed, I use the Leeds-Birmingham section quite a lot through work and often the services are heavily reserved, with a lot of regular commuters only traveling short sections where alternatives exist. This is what commuters tend to do, if there is a faster train along their commute they invariably aim for those, even if it saves only a few minutes and means shoehorning themselves in. Perhaps on certain routes like these, season tickets should only be able to be used with an excess fare, meaning that the commuters would be less inclined to use longer distance services?

I travel on the Leeds to Birmingham section as a passenger too. My observations based on using the "fast" and the "slow" trains are that:

- If the "fast" train is a HST, it has much more space, and I appear much more likely to get a seat.
- The "slow" train could be a 2 or 3 car class 170. These are really unpleasant and cramped so I only catch one of these as a last resort.
- The fast trains always get priority in times of delays, so if you have a choice, you get on the "fast" train as it increases your chances of getting to work on time.
- If I am travelling between Derby and Chesterfield, I will always choose EMT over XC, as the trains are normally much cleaner with more seat availability.

It's really not down to saving a few minutes - it's the XC "slow" trains are such a lousy experience.

 

[D1009]

I'm glad someone found and posted the link to the more recent "what's happening in the XC real world" thread, it would be a bit worrying if people confused some of the ideas and personal preferences in this thread with the TOC (as agreed with DfT) actual plans that are already known about.

In hindsight, this was not the best thread to restart...

Yes, searching for previous threads in this forum can be, shall we say challenging?

 

[221129]

Isn't Exeter-Bristol going half-hourly under XC due this December?

Potentially.

 

[Class 170101]

Plenty of 100% duplicated services at the start and end of the day between Bristol Plymouth and Penzance by GWR, between Birmingham and Manchester by VTWC, and between Aberdeen Glasgow and Edinburgh by VTEC. In terms of services in the middle of the day, I think the answer is no.

York to Scotland is duplicated by VTEC throughout the day?
And
Leeds to York by TPE?
Sheffield to Leeds / Wakefield and Wakefield to Leeds by Northern?
Sheffield to Derby by EMT?

 

[hello]

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...y-trains-to-aberdeen-to-be-scrapped-1-4417141

 

[Ianno87]

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...y-trains-to-aberdeen-to-be-scrapped-1-4417141

Love the classic journalism double negative in the headline... the 'cuts' have been 'scrapped'.

In other words, services to be retained - hooray! (But that doesn't create clickbait, I suppose...)