How can Cross country overcrowding be alleviated?

[Bletchleyite]

How specific was the franchise agreement regarding capacity? I get the impression the first-round franchisees had a lot more leeway to alter their plans.

They had a lot of freedom but would have had to pay for it. I'm not sure of the wording, though.

Wasn't VXC's original idea a combination of multiple units and loco-hauled sets?

It was, but they would have been like the TPE Mk5a sets (or the Swiss S-Bahn sets) in basically being single-ended Voyagers with a loco (single ended 67 if I recall) on one end. That would have meant slightly more capacity as one end wouldn't have had a cab but not significantly.

 

[trebor79]

It was, but they would have been like the TPE Mk5a sets (or the Swiss S-Bahn sets) in basically being single-ended Voyagers with a loco (single ended 67 if I recall) on one end. That would have meant slightly more capacity as one end wouldn't have had a cab but not significantly.

A shame they didn't go with that, as then it would have been relatively cheap and simple to add more vehicles, and make a bi-mode by bunging an electric loco on the other end.
But a mixture of MU's and "MU's with a loco on one end" seems a bizarre idea and I'm not surprised it go whittle down to one or the other. What was the thinking behind the original mixed fleet idea?

 

[hexagon789]

A shame they didn't go with that, as then it would have been relatively cheap and simple to add more vehicles, and make a bi-mode by bunging an electric loco on the other end.
But a mixture of MU's and "MU's with a loco on one end" seems a bizarre idea and I'm not surprised it go whittle down to one or the other. What was the thinking behind the original mixed fleet idea?

Iirc the Voyagers were to replace the HSTs, the 67-esque locos+LHCS were ro replace the 47s/Mk2s.

 

[class397tpe]

Iirc the Voyagers were to replace the HSTs, the 67-esque locos+LHCS were ro replace the 47s/Mk2s.

They were also gonna keep some HSTs as Virgin Challengers, but the SRA said no. Seems like the SRA did more harm than good in the early days of franchising, cutting back rolling stock orders that would have provided much-needed capacity, e.g. transpennine express.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A shame they didn't go with that, as then it would have been relatively cheap and simple to add more vehicles, and make a bi-mode by bunging an electric loco on the other end.
But a mixture of MU's and "MU's with a loco on one end" seems a bizarre idea and I'm not surprised it go whittle down to one or the other. What was the thinking behind the original mixed fleet idea?

I'm not quite sure why it was - there were some enthusiasts in VT in the early days so it was probably just that. The MUs would have been tilt, the loco hauled sets non-tilt (so instead of the 220s). The actual vehicles would have been the same other than some not having engines underneath, and would have been "unpowered MU" type setups like the Mk5a sets, not vehicles that would be easy to shuffle round randomly (though reforming Voyagers isn't that hard compared with some other classes).

 

[XC victim]

So here it is, another thread about overcrowding on XC. We all know the solutions are very simple and relatively inexpensive (compared to investment in other areas of the network). So I am sure that this thread will soon be locked (or worse consigned to speculative ideas).

I can kind of understand the lack of political will to do anything about it but what shocks me is the attitude of this forum who tend to view us poor souls who regularly shell out three figure sums to travel a couple of hours on there extremely overcrowded and now infrequent services as victims of our own ridiculous choice of TOC.

 

[trebor79]

I'm not quite sure why it was - there were some enthusiasts in VT in the early days so it was probably just that.

Surprised they didn't end up running train of traditional Mk2/Mk3 carriages hauled by a Deltic! Oh, hang on a minute...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surprised they didn't end up running train of traditional Mk2/Mk3 carriages hauled by a Deltic! Oh, hang on a minute...

Early days VXC was very much someone's personal train set in some regards, while West Coast was seen a bit more seriously. I could well see that this led to some of the poor decisions surrounding the Voyager order. In reality a larger fleet of much cheaper 170s (6-7 car sets could probably have been afforded) would have worked much better.

 

[hexagon789]

Early days VXC was very much someone's personal train set in some regards, while West Coast was seen a bit more seriously. I could well see that this led to some of the poor decisions surrounding the Voyager order. In reality a larger fleet of much cheaper 170s (6-7 car sets could probably have been afforded) would have worked much better.

Except using 170s would've decelerated many services.

Going for 125mph DEMUs allowed accelerations, even where linespeeds were not 125.

I don’t think we need to rediscuss the issues over 170 performance either?

 

[ValleyLines142]

XC have effectively lost a 3 car 170 as one is now on hire to EMR for the summer period (presumably to allow Skeggy trains to be strengthened for the summer).

That is ridiculous! XC don't have the carriages as it is, let alone to send them over to another TOC!

Any ideas which unit it is. Judging on the fact that they're not showing on RTT, I'd hazard a guess at either 170109 or 170622.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except using 170s would've decelerated many services.

Some. The Mk2 sets were 100mph anyway (95 with a "duff" on the front). Only the HSTs would have been slowed down, but the vastly improved frequencies would have offset that.

I don’t think we need to rediscuss the issues over 170 performance either?

Poor acceleration isn't a massive issue on limited-stop long-distance services. It's using 170s on local stopping services like Northern do where this becomes an issue.

 

[Martin_1981]

How specific was the franchise agreement regarding capacity? I get the impression the first-round franchisees had a lot more leeway to alter their plans. Wasn't VXC's original idea a combination of multiple units and loco-hauled sets?

I seem to recall the original idea was for Voyagers, loco hauled sets with a single cab class 67/68 and a DVT, plus retaining and refurbishing a small number of short formed HST'S.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I seem to recall the original idea was for Voyagers, loco hauled sets with a single cab class 67/68 and a DVT, plus retaining and refurbishing a small number of short formed HST'S.

Not a DVT, rather a DTSO/DTFO. The coaches were literally going to be a single-ended, unpowered Voyager pretty much identical in concept to the Mk5a sets but mostly 4-car.

 

[hexagon789]

Some. The Mk2 sets were 100mph anyway (95 with a "duff" on the front). Only the HSTs would have been slowed down, but the vastly improved frequencies would have offset that.

I'd hate trying a 170 over Shap and Beattock against an 86 or HST let alone from Edinburgh-York down the ECML vs an HST.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd hate trying a 170 over Shap and Beattock against an 86 or HST let alone from Edinburgh-York down the ECML vs an HST.

170s operate on hilly routes in Scotland, so they'd cope, and TPE later operated 100mph DMUs (albeit more powerful ones) on that section of line for long enough. Plus at the time TPE was operating 90mph 158s on the ECML.

 

[greatvoyager]

That is ridiculous! XC don't have the carriages as it is, let alone to send them over to another TOC!

Any ideas which unit it is. Judging on the fact that they're not showing on RTT, I'd hazard a guess at either 170109 or 170622.

Been reported as 170638.

 

[hexagon789]

170s operate on hilly routes in Scotland, so they'd cope, and TPE later operated 100mph DMUs (albeit more powerful ones) on that section of line for long enough. Plus at the time TPE was operating 90mph 158s on the ECML.

They do, but performance was worse than even the full 2+9 Chieftain HST set.

185s would be better, but why downgrade a fleet with some 125mph trains to all 100mph? AFAIAC Virgin made the right decision to chose an all 125mph fleet - the mistakes were in ordering trains that were too small, not factoring in any capacity for growth and not making step changes in timetable frequency to gain experience of how such changes would be impacted by the infrastructure limitations against making one massive big-bang change in one timetable period.

 

[TheBigD]

That is ridiculous! XC don't have the carriages as it is, let alone to send them over to another TOC!

Any ideas which unit it is. Judging on the fact that they're not showing on RTT, I'd hazard a guess at either 170109 or 170622.

XC are not operating the full service on the 170 routes. There are still a small number of trains missing, like 1739 Birmingham to Derby.
The unit for this service used to be the standby at New Street until 1630, when it then went round the camp hill line to form the Derby service before returning empty back to New Street. Though this diagram was a 2 car.

 

[trebor79]

Early days VXC was very much someone's personal train set in some regards, while West Coast was seen a bit more seriously. I could well see that this led to some of the poor decisions surrounding the Voyager order. In reality a larger fleet of much cheaper 170s (6-7 car sets could probably have been afforded) would have worked much better.

I agree long 170's would have better than the 220/221.
I also think they should have retained more of the HSTs too, and concentrated them on the routes where there is decent potential for 125mph running.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They do, but performance was worse than even the full 2+9 Chieftain HST set.

185s would be better, but why downgrade a fleet with some 125mph trains to all 100mph? AFAIAC Virgin made the right decision to chose an all 125mph fleet - the mistakes were in ordering trains that were too small, not factoring in any capacity for growth and not making step changes in timetable frequency to gain experience of how such changes would be impacted by the infrastructure limitations against making one massive big-bang change in one timetable period.

To be fair 7 or 8-car Voyagers would have been better still. But if money was tight, then 170s would have meant less overcrowding. I would certainly take a slower long distance service if it meant a seat.

 

[hexagon789]

To be fair 7 or 8-car Voyagers would have been better still. But if money was tight, then 170s would have meant less overcrowding. I would certainly take a slower long distance service if it meant a seat.

You end up potentially needing more units to cover slower journeys as well, which will add costs.

The quicker the journey the more productive a unit could be, it could depending on the route/journey length, do an extra trip or part-trip.

 

[irish_rail]

The problem are those of us in the North West wanting to get to the South West.
We had all those services removed, forcing at least one change at Birmingham.
There is now a sporadic service to Bristol, which is at least a start.

This. The north west and south west desperately need better connections. Not everyone wants to go to London and there are big tourism links between the two areas plus lots of ex pats from the north west living in the south west. I hate that all XC stuff from Plymouth goes the wrong side of the pennines!

 

[GoneSouth]

I think the only time that service has been a HST was on summer Fridays or Saturday. At the moment it seems to be 2 HST's out a day with weekdays being the 0611 and 0911 off Leeds southbound.

Well that sadly makes them pretty much unaffordable to use for many heading south as they are peak times with XC’s wallet busting peak fares!

 

[gc4946]

Until Cross Country receives ex-Avanti's 221s and ex-EMR's 222s little can be done to increase capacity or frequency on their services.
Their HSTs should also be fully reactivated.
It won't be popular, but could a combination of supplementary fares and compulsory reservations make things a little easier, with pick-up/set-down only stops on certain routes (e.g. Reading-Bournemouth) work?

 

[JonathanH]

It won't be popular, but could a combination of supplementary fares and compulsory reservations make things a little easier, with pick-up/set-down only stops on certain routes (e.g. Reading-Bournemouth) work?

Too complicated and CrossCountry probably can't manage without the income.

 

[trebor79]

Too complicated and CrossCountry probably can't manage without the income.

I often see comments that CrossCountry are strapped for cashm which seems strange when so many of their services are full and standing.
Are the Voyagers expensive to operate? I suspect they guzzle diesel like no tomorrow, another reason to get shot of them.

 

[JohnRegular]

I often see comments that CrossCountry are strapped for cashm which seems strange when so many of their services are full and standing.
Are the Voyagers expensive to operate? I suspect they guzzle diesel like no tomorrow, another reason to get shot of them.

It can't help that doubled up voyagers require two guards and members of catering staff.
I've said it elsewhere, but if XC get their hands on enough 22x trains, they should be reformed into longer fixed units with some end vehicles scrapped.

 

[gc4946]

It can't help that doubled up voyagers require two guards and members of catering staff.
I've said it elsewhere, but if XC get their hands on enough 22x trains, they should be reformed into longer fixed units with some end vehicles scrapped.

Maybe make all 22X trains 7 car, however this'll mean a reduced fleet meeting present needs with difficulty without service cuts, unless Cross Country secures ex-GWR HSTs once they become available.
Ultimately the DfT will have to sanction purchase of new bimode units, because of the Voyagers' age and events have moved on since their original purchase

 

[Snow1964]

They were also gonna keep some HSTs as Virgin Challengers, but the SRA said no. Seems like the SRA did more harm than good in the early days of franchising, cutting back rolling stock orders that would have provided much-needed capacity, e.g. transpennine express.

If I remember correctly the voyagers were to be ordered in 2 stages, the first part basically as delivered to enable the higher frequency operation Princess and retire the aging class 47s with mk2 carriages.

But the second part the growth was not done due to SRA (or DfT). This would have been lengthening many sets to 6car (even today coach E doesn’t exist). The reason for doing it this way was that if they had been built as 6car, wouldn’t have delivered enough by the proposed timetable change date, and couldn’t operate the old trains under the new timetable.

I am guessing Virgin trains had options to extend the sets at the time of ordering (but can’t find any details) as they probably kept it quiet for commercial reasons), and these subsequently lapsed

What happened 20-25 years ago doesn’t help current problems of crowding, and shamefully there is no decisive plan. Seems to be somewhere between utilise someone else’s cast offs (222s); build some bi-modes; and do nothing. Short term do nothing seems to be winning

 

[patrick.hearn3]

From memory, Stagecoach tendered for the XC franchise with a 411hp option (Class 170s equivalent power, though I don't know whether it was a Class 170 vehicle or another), but VXC won the franchise.

The question 'How can Cross country overcrowding be alleviated?' can be a combination of increasing capacity and managing demand. The former could/would involve redeployed 221/2s and doubling up, if affordable. The latter might involve further restrictions on advance and off peak travel. Example: Sheffield to Leeds is certainly a pinch point. Last September (a Sunday) I passed up the chance of a four deep queue of passengers waiting for a XC and took the semi-fast via Kirkgate and Barnsley instead on a CDR. A small time penalty but it was a lightly loaded 195 and a much nicer experience. Why sell discounted tickets for full trains? Could/should those tickets be 'not XC' or limited to quieter periods?