My proposal to split up the CrossCountry Network

[philosopher]

There have been quite a few threads here about how CrossCountry does not work well at the moment, with frequently overcrowded trains, low frequencies and poor connections.

My proposal to solve some of these issues is for CrossCountry to solely operate services on the southwest to northeast diagonal route, with all other services transferring to other operators. Therefore the CrossCountry network would operate as follows:

• Plymouth to Newcastle via Leeds: Would remain with Crosscountry and would operate once an hour. Would not call at Worcestershire Parkway, Tamworth, Burton-on-Trent and Chesterfield. It would stop at all other stops that the class 220 and 221 services stop at.
• Bristol to Leeds: Would remain with Crosscountry and would operate once an hour. This would call at Worcestershire Parkway, Tamworth, Burton-on-Trent, Chesterfield, perhaps University and all the other stops that the class 220 and 221 services stop at.
• Nottingham to Birmingham: Would remain with CrossCountry and would be unchanged from how it currently operates
• Nottingham to Cardiff: Would remain with CrossCountry and would be unchanged from how it currently operates
• Birmingham to Stansted Airport: This would be transferred to East Midlands Railway but would otherwise operate how it does currently.
• Coventry to Manchester via Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent: Would be transferred to West Midlands Trains and would operate twice an hour. Services would be operated with four or five carriage EMUs.
• Birmingham Moor Street to Reading: Would be transferred to Chiltern and would operate once an hour calling at Solihull, Warwick Parkway, Leamington Spa, Banbury, Oxford and Didcot Parkway. Services would be operated with four or five carriage DMUs.
• Reading to Bournemouth: The existing GWR Reading to Basingstoke service would be extended to Bournemouth and would operate once or twice an hour.

Overall this would improve frequencies over most of the CrossCountry network and provide a service that is better suited to the many short trips common on CrossCountry trains. It would also allow more suitable rolling stock to be used, for example EMUs on the electrified route between Coventry and Manchester. I know some passengers would lose their direct services and would have to change trains, which would be a particular issue if travelling from Manchester to the south coast. However more frequent services between Bristol and Leeds and Coventry and Manchester should means most passengers have shorter connection times.

 

[Ken H]

There have been quite a few threads here about how CrossCountry does not work well at the moment, with frequently overcrowded trains, low frequencies and poor connections.

My proposal to solve some of these issues is for CrossCountry to solely operate services on the southwest to northeast diagonal route, with all other services transferring to other operators. Therefore the CrossCountry network would operate as follows:

• Plymouth to Newcastle via Leeds: Would remain with Crosscountry and would operate once an hour. Would not call at Worcestershire Parkway, Tamworth, Burton-on-Trent and Chesterfield. It would stop at all other stops that the class 220 and 221 services stop at.
• Bristol to Leeds: Would remain with Crosscountry and would operate once an hour. This would call at Worcestershire Parkway, Tamworth, Burton-on-Trent, Chesterfield, perhaps University and all the other stops that the class 220 and 221 services stop at.
• Nottingham to Birmingham: Would remain with CrossCountry and would be unchanged from how it currently operates
• Nottingham to Cardiff: Would remain with CrossCountry and would be unchanged from how it currently operates
• Birmingham to Stansted Airport: This would be transferred to East Midlands Railway but would otherwise operate how it does currently.
• Coventry to Manchester via Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent: Would be transferred to West Midlands Trains and would operate twice an hour. Services would be operated with four or five carriage EMUs.
• Birmingham Moor Street to Reading: Would be transferred to Chiltern and would operate once an hour calling at Solihull, Warwick Parkway, Leamington Spa, Banbury, Oxford and Didcot Parkway. Services would be operated with four or five carriage DMUs.
• Reading to Bournemouth: The existing GWR Reading to Basingstoke service would be extended to Bournemouth and would operate once or twice an hour.

Overall this would improve frequencies over most of the CrossCountry network and provide a service that is better suited to the many short trips common on CrossCountry trains. It would also allow more suitable rolling stock to be used, for example EMUs on the electrified route between Coventry and Manchester. I know some passengers would lose their direct services and would have to change trains, which would be a particular issue if travelling from Manchester to the south coast. However more frequent services between Bristol and Leeds and Coventry and Manchester should means most passengers have shorter connection times.

Sort of OK. But operating 2 or 3 services a day from the south through to Manc would probably keep many of the scared to change brigade using the teain.

 

[Brubulus]

There have been quite a few threads here about how CrossCountry does not work well at the moment, with frequently overcrowded trains, low frequencies and poor connections.

My proposal to solve some of these issues is for CrossCountry to solely operate services on the southwest to northeast diagonal route, with all other services transferring to other operators. Therefore the CrossCountry network would operate as follows:

• Plymouth to Newcastle via Leeds: Would remain with Crosscountry and would operate once an hour. Would not call at Worcestershire Parkway, Tamworth, Burton-on-Trent and Chesterfield. It would stop at all other stops that the class 220 and 221 services stop at.
• Bristol to Leeds: Would remain with Crosscountry and would operate once an hour. This would call at Worcestershire Parkway, Tamworth, Burton-on-Trent, Chesterfield, perhaps University and all the other stops that the class 220 and 221 services stop at.
• Nottingham to Birmingham: Would remain with CrossCountry and would be unchanged from how it currently operates
• Nottingham to Cardiff: Would remain with CrossCountry and would be unchanged from how it currently operates
• Birmingham to Stansted Airport: This would be transferred to East Midlands Railway but would otherwise operate how it does currently.
• Coventry to Manchester via Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent: Would be transferred to West Midlands Trains and would operate twice an hour. Services would be operated with four or five carriage EMUs.
• Birmingham Moor Street to Reading: Would be transferred to Chiltern and would operate once an hour calling at Solihull, Warwick Parkway, Leamington Spa, Banbury, Oxford and Didcot Parkway. Services would be operated with four or five carriage DMUs.
• Reading to Bournemouth: The existing GWR Reading to Basingstoke service would be extended to Bournemouth and would operate once or twice an hour.

Overall this would improve frequencies over most of the CrossCountry network and provide a service that is better suited to the many short trips common on CrossCountry trains. It would also allow more suitable rolling stock to be used, for example EMUs on the electrified route between Coventry and Manchester. I know some passengers would lose their direct services and would have to change trains, which would be a particular issue if travelling from Manchester to the south coast. However more frequent services between Bristol and Leeds and Coventry and Manchester should means most passengers have shorter connection times.

What about giving Stansted-Birmingham to GA and having them run a 4 coach 755 on the route? There's about 40 miles under the wires and it might even allow Cambridge TMD to be closed, a useful cost saving. GA has quite a few spare units, especially if they stopped using 755s on London-Norwich peak extras.

 

[The Planner]

Its been a couple of months since we have done one of these. Cutting off Coventry and Birmingham International from the southern part of the Network will never fly. Are these two EMUs from Coventry extensions of other trains? Otherwise it won't work as there is no capacity and having a XC service extended from the International stoppers isn't going to work either. If you were going to do this, it would be at New St. Splitting the South Coast to Brum in three is also not a clever thing to do with journey times increasing dramatically to the point of reducing passenger numbers. Don't understand the Moor St train as the proposal for when the second XC goes via Cov is to back fill with a Moor St to Oxford.

The fast train on the SW NE axis would be hopelessly overloaded as it would catch up the preceeding one you have stopped everywhere. Suggest the fast path stops at Tamworth, Burton and Chesterfield in the peaks.

The Stansted route would need extra stock as they interwork with the other 170 routes which are now split.

 

[A0wen]

There have been quite a few threads here about how CrossCountry does not work well at the moment, with frequently overcrowded trains, low frequencies and poor connections.

My proposal to solve some of these issues is for CrossCountry to solely operate services on the southwest to northeast diagonal route, with all other services transferring to other operators. Therefore the CrossCountry network would operate as follows:

• Plymouth to Newcastle via Leeds: Would remain with Crosscountry and would operate once an hour. Would not call at Worcestershire Parkway, Tamworth, Burton-on-Trent and Chesterfield. It would stop at all other stops that the class 220 and 221 services stop at.
• Bristol to Leeds: Would remain with Crosscountry and would operate once an hour. This would call at Worcestershire Parkway, Tamworth, Burton-on-Trent, Chesterfield, perhaps University and all the other stops that the class 220 and 221 services stop at.
• Nottingham to Birmingham: Would remain with CrossCountry and would be unchanged from how it currently operates
• Nottingham to Cardiff: Would remain with CrossCountry and would be unchanged from how it currently operates
• Birmingham to Stansted Airport: This would be transferred to East Midlands Railway but would otherwise operate how it does currently.
• Coventry to Manchester via Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent: Would be transferred to West Midlands Trains and would operate twice an hour. Services would be operated with four or five carriage EMUs.
• Birmingham Moor Street to Reading: Would be transferred to Chiltern and would operate once an hour calling at Solihull, Warwick Parkway, Leamington Spa, Banbury, Oxford and Didcot Parkway. Services would be operated with four or five carriage DMUs.
• Reading to Bournemouth: The existing GWR Reading to Basingstoke service would be extended to Bournemouth and would operate once or twice an hour.

Overall this would improve frequencies over most of the CrossCountry network and provide a service that is better suited to the many short trips common on CrossCountry trains. It would also allow more suitable rolling stock to be used, for example EMUs on the electrified route between Coventry and Manchester. I know some passengers would lose their direct services and would have to change trains, which would be a particular issue if travelling from Manchester to the south coast. However more frequent services between Bristol and Leeds and Coventry and Manchester should means most passengers have shorter connection times.

So Bournemouth and Southampton would require 1 change just to get to Birmingham and 2 plus a long walk from Moor Street (which is very much a commuter station in terms of facilities) to New Street for anywhere north of Birmingham and all because you don't want diesels under the wires.

If you don't like diesels under the wires, why not curtail the Newcastle services at York and replace York - Newcastle with a Northern EMU service ?

And whilst you don't like "diesels under the wires", you don't seem to have a problem with diesels alongside the 3rd rail from Basingstoke - Bournemouth.

 

[philosopher]

And whilst you don't like "diesels under the wires", you don't seem to have a problem with diesels alongside the 3rd rail from Basingstoke - Bournemouth.

Ideally there would no diesels under the wires. However diesels under wires is a particularly issue at Birmingham New Street due to the semi underground nature of Birmingham New Street which leads to more pollution issues at this station.

Its been a couple of months since we have done one of these. Cutting off Coventry and Birmingham International from the southern part of the Network will never fly. Are these two EMUs from Coventry extensions of other trains? Otherwise it won't work as there is no capacity and having a XC service extended from the International stoppers isn't going to work either. If you were going to do this, it would be at New St. Splitting the South Coast to Brum in three is also not a clever thing to do with journey times increasing dramatically to the point of reducing passenger numbers. Don't understand the Moor St train as the proposal for when the second XC goes via Cov is to back fill with a Moor St to Oxford.

I agree north of Birmingham to south of Birmingham is the biggest issue with this proposal. East West Rail should help to some extent as Manchester to Oxford passengers could change at Milton Keynes if travelling to Oxford. Extending the Manchester to Coventry service to Leamington Spa could also be done to allow for a more convenient interchange. This would either require Coventry to Leamington Spa to be electrified or bimode trains.

 

[Peter0124]

Surely the Plymouth to Newcastle services would run up to Edinburgh?

 

[dk1]

What about giving Stansted-Birmingham to GA and having them run a 4 coach 755 on the route? There's about 40 miles under the wires and it might even allow Cambridge TMD to be closed, a useful cost saving. GA has quite a few spare units, especially if they stopped using 755s on London-Norwich peak extras.

Extra trains would need to be ordered from Stadler. Even more 755 combinations are to be operated on the Norwich-London route from May & GA have also hinted that the Ni90 services may return. It is also still an aspiration to get the Ipswich-Peterborough route doubled to hourly.

Surely the Plymouth to Newcastle services would run up to Edinburgh?

My sentiments exactly.

 

[A0wen]

Ideally there would no diesels under the wires. However diesels under wires is a particularly issue at Birmingham New Street due to the semi underground nature of Birmingham New Street which leads to more pollution issues at this station.

That's as maybe - but why are you OK with keeping diesels under the wires between Leeds / York and Newcastle, but not Birmingham - Manchester ?

Or alongside the 3rd rail between Bournemouth and Basingstoke ?

 

[The Planner]

I agree north of Birmingham to south of Birmingham is the biggest issue with this proposal. East West Rail should help to some extent as Manchester to Oxford passengers could change at Milton Keynes if travelling to Oxford. Extending the Manchester to Coventry service to Leamington Spa could also be done to allow for a more convenient interchange. This would either require Coventry to Leamington Spa to be electrified or bimode trains.

This is where it unravels more though. Going via E-W now means you change at Oxford and MK as well as the connections having to be spot on or the journey time becomes inflated again and you are better off with the existing service and changing at New St for an EMU. You are also now suggesting that we have to electrify and redouble Leamington to Coventry to make your proposal work (I'll ignore that you can't terminate more than four cars in the bay at Leamington) or the Manchester to Leamington needs new stock. If both XCs could go via Cov now then they would be. If the scenario of making Manchester to the West Mids EMU based then it can only really be split at New St.

 

[PTR 444]

There have been quite a few threads here about how CrossCountry does not work well at the moment, with frequently overcrowded trains, low frequencies and poor connections.

My proposal to solve some of these issues is for CrossCountry to solely operate services on the southwest to northeast diagonal route, with all other services transferring to other operators. Therefore the CrossCountry network would operate as follows:

• Plymouth to Newcastle via Leeds: Would remain with Crosscountry and would operate once an hour. Would not call at Worcestershire Parkway, Tamworth, Burton-on-Trent and Chesterfield. It would stop at all other stops that the class 220 and 221 services stop at.

This should still be extended to Glasgow until HS2 to Manchester comes along.

• Bristol to Leeds: Would remain with Crosscountry and would operate once an hour. This would call at Worcestershire Parkway, Tamworth, Burton-on-Trent, Chesterfield, perhaps University and all the other stops that the class 220 and 221 services stop at.

I wouldn’t object to the additional calls on the Cross Country Route, but surely Manchester would still be a bigger priority over a second train to Leeds.

• Nottingham to Birmingham: Would remain with CrossCountry and would be unchanged from how it currently operates

Agree

• Nottingham to Cardiff: Would remain with CrossCountry and would be unchanged from how it currently operates

Agree

• Birmingham to Stansted Airport: This would be transferred to East Midlands Railway but would otherwise operate how it does currently.

As another poster mentioned, transferring to Greater Anglia would be a much better idea as using 755 FLIRTS would remove a significant amount of diesel running under wires on the ECML and WAML. I would argue that the EMR Norwich - Nottingham portion should also be transferred to GA for the same reason.

• Coventry to Manchester via Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent: Would be transferred to West Midlands Trains and would operate twice an hour. Services would be operated with four or five carriage EMUs.

No chance. The intermediate flows between Manchester and Reading are too significant to carve up. There should be 2tph between Birmingham and Reading via Coventry at the very least.

• Birmingham Moor Street to Reading: Would be transferred to Chiltern and would operate once an hour calling at Solihull, Warwick Parkway, Leamington Spa, Banbury, Oxford and Didcot Parkway. Services would be operated with four or five carriage DMUs.

This would be better off as a standalone Moor Street - Oxford service without any prerequisite XC changes to allow this.

• Reading to Bournemouth: The existing GWR Reading to Basingstoke service would be extended to Bournemouth and would operate once or twice an hour.

This might be tolerable if such a service were extended to Old Oak Common post-HS2, but before then there absolutely needs to be direct trains from the South Coast to the Midlands.

 

[Energy]

• Coventry to Manchester via Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent: Would be transferred to West Midlands Trains and would operate twice an hour. Services would be operated with four or five carriage EMUs.
• Birmingham Moor Street to Reading: Would be transferred to Chiltern and would operate once an hour calling at Solihull, Warwick Parkway, Leamington Spa, Banbury, Oxford and Didcot Parkway. Services would be operated with four or five carriage DMUs.
• Reading to Bournemouth: The existing GWR Reading to Basingstoke service would be extended to Bournemouth and would operate once or twice an hour.

So a journey from Bournemouth to Manchester has gone from 1tp2h direct to Bournemouth - Reading, Reading to Leamington, Leamington to Coventry, Coventry to Manchester or Reading to Moor Street and New Street to Manchester. That's going from a direct service to 3/4 trains.

You'd also be changing Reading to Basingstoke from 1tph GWR and 1tp2h XC to just the GWR service. Any more than the current 1tph GWR will require GWR to get more stock from somewhere which won't be soon.

Where is the stock for Chiltern coming from? Chiltern already needs to cope with potentially losing its loco hauled stock.

What are you trying to solve with the rearranging? For overcrowded trains giving XC more rolling stock would be the simplest (and likely one of the lower cost) solutions. If you're trying to fix reliability then I'd look where trains are delayed, in my experience its typically issues around the Didcot area.

I wouldn’t object to the additional calls on the Cross Country Route, but surely Manchester would still be a bigger priority over a second train to Leeds.

Additional stops will also slow down the journey...

No chance. The intermediate flows between Manchester and Reading are too significant to carve up. There should be 2tph between Birmingham and Reading via Coventry at the very least.

I believe that is the plan once Kenilworth Jcn to Milverton has been redoubled.

Ideally there would no diesels under the wires. However diesels under wires is a particularly issue at Birmingham New Street due to the semi underground nature of Birmingham New Street which leads to more pollution issues at this station.

Shrewsbury... Hereford...

Extending the Manchester to Coventry service to Leamington Spa could also be done to allow for a more convenient interchange.

Ignoring the work which would be needed, is Leamington that much more convenient?

 

[philosopher]

Based on the various comments above, here is my revised CrossCountry plan

• Plymouth to Edinburgh via Leeds: Would remain with CrossCountry and would operate once an hour. This could be operated with 2x class 220 units.
• Bristol to Leeds: Would remain with Crosscountry and would operate once an hour. This could be operated with 4 or 5 cars class 220 or 221 units.
• Nottingham to Birmingham: Would remain with CrossCountry and would be unchanged from how it currently operates.
• Nottingham to Cardiff: Would remain with CrossCountry and would be unchanged from how it currently operates
• Birmingham to Stansted Airport: This would be transferred to Greater Anglia and would be operated with class 755 units but would otherwise operate how it does currently.
• Manchester to Reading via Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent: Would be transferred to West Midlands Trains and would operate twice an hour. Services would be operated with bimode units, perhaps similar to the class 755 but with more carriages.
• Reading to Bournemouth: The existing GWR Reading to Basingstoke service would be extended to Bournemouth and would operate once or twice an hour.

Obviously some additional rolling stock would be required for the above. Manchester to the south coast I admit would still require a change at Reading, but with two Manchester to Reading services per hour, the interchange time at Reading would not be too long. Terminating at Reading I assume would improve reliability, at the expense of some direct services being lost.

 

[WizCastro197]

I assume Birmingham-Leicester would transfer to EMR rather than Great Anglia in your idea?

 

[Brubulus]

The Stansted route would need extra stock as they interwork with the other 170 routes which are now split.

A good way to deal with that would be to resurrect an old service from Central trains days, Birmingham-Peterborough via Nottingham and Lincoln, incorporating Lincoln Peterborough, Birmingham-Leicester and Leicster-Lincoln, though I do admit some padding around Newark would be required. Another advantage of the 755s would be the ability to incorporate a stop at Hinkley to give it 2tph between Leicster and Birmingham without impacting the timings.

Extra trains would need to be ordered from Stadler. Even more 755 combinations are to be operated on the Norwich-London route from May & GA have also hinted that the Ni90 services may return. It is also still an aspiration to get the Ipswich-Peterborough route doubled to hourly.

Aren't there 20 spare 720s?
These could be used on Stansted so Norwich could have the entire 745 fleet.
Ely is unlikely to be sorted this decade so there won't be the paths to make hourly on Peterborough-Ipswich possible.
Even if there 2tph on the Wherry lines, there would still be enough units for Stansted-Peterborough so long as the 755s can maintain a semblance of reliability.

 

[irish_rail]

Based on the various comments above, here is my revised CrossCountry plan

• Plymouth to Edinburgh via Leeds: Would remain with CrossCountry and would operate once an hour. This could be operated with 2x class 220 units.
• Bristol to Leeds: Would remain with Crosscountry and would operate once an hour. This could be operated with 4 or 5 cars class 220 or 221 units.
• Nottingham to Birmingham: Would remain with CrossCountry and would be unchanged from how it currently operates.
• Nottingham to Cardiff: Would remain with CrossCountry and would be unchanged from how it currently operates
• Birmingham to Stansted Airport: This would be transferred to Greater Anglia and would be operated with class 755 units but would otherwise operate how it does currently.
• Manchester to Reading via Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent: Would be transferred to West Midlands Trains and would operate twice an hour. Services would be operated with bimode units, perhaps similar to the class 755 but with more carriages.
• Reading to Bournemouth: The existing GWR Reading to Basingstoke service would be extended to Bournemouth and would operate once or twice an hour.

Obviously some additional rolling stock would be required for the above. Manchester to the south coast I admit would still require a change at Reading, but with two Manchester to Reading services per hour, the interchange time at Reading would not be too long. Terminating at Reading I assume would improve reliability, at the expense of some direct services being lost.

Surely one of the ex south west trains should go to Manchester and the Reading go to Leeds. The current connections at New St are very poor for NW to SW, a few direct trains would be far better than more trains from the SW to Yorkshire.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Surely one of the ex south west trains should go to Manchester and the Reading go to Leeds. The current connections at New St are very poor for NW to SW, a few direct trains would be far better than more trains from the SW to Yorkshire.

Indeed.

 

[The Planner]

. Another advantage of the 755s would be the ability to incorporate a stop at Hinkley to give it 2tph between Leicster and Birmingham without impacting the timings.

You need to find 2½ minutes to do that.

Obviously some additional rolling stock would be required for the above. Manchester to the south coast I admit would still require a change at Reading, but with two Manchester to Reading services per hour, the interchange time at Reading would not be too long. Terminating at Reading I assume would improve reliability, at the expense of some direct services being lost.

Or just split it at New St and minimise the requirement for a new fleet.

 

[Energy]

• Manchester to Reading via Birmingham and Stoke-on-Trent: Would be transferred to West Midlands Trains and would operate twice an hour. Services would be operated with bimode units, perhaps similar to the class 755 but with more carriages.
• Reading to Bournemouth: The existing GWR Reading to Basingstoke service would be extended to Bournemouth and would operate once or twice an hour.

Again what are you trying to solve? Reliability issues are generally around the Didcot area and the train struggles to make up time on the WCML. If you are trying to split it do what The Planner says and split at New St.

2x4 car 755 would be a good amount of capacity though where would it be maintained?

 

[dk1]

Aren't there 20 spare 720s?
These could be used on Stansted so Norwich could have the entire 745 fleet.
Ely is unlikely to be sorted this decade so there won't be the paths to make hourly on Peterborough-Ipswich possible.
Even if there 2tph on the Wherry lines, there would still be enough units for Stansted-Peterborough so long as the 755s can maintain a semblance of reliability.

The 755 reliability has gone through the roof with Golden Spanner’s already awarded for which I can more than vouch. Not sure if you were being sarcastic or just not knowing about that fact.

I am unsure if it’s 10 or 20 surplus 720s although London commuting appears to be climbing again if car parking along the route is anything to go by.

 

[Brubulus]

The 755 reliability has gone through the roof with Golden Spanner’s already awarded for which I can more than vouch. Not sure if you were being sarcastic or just not knowing about that fact.

I am unsure if it’s 10 or 20 surplus 720s although London commuting appears to be climbing again if car parking along the route is anything to go by.

I knew that the 745s may not have especially reliable given the number of 720 substitutions on the SX when it was 2tph, even though that might have been for other reasons, then further assuming that the 755s would have a similar problem but if they don't they most likely have the slack to run Birmingham-Stansted.

SX is pretty well patronised but assuming it gets 9 million passengers a year at 4tph, you are unlikely to see more than 400 passengers per train, even at peak times unless you start adding stops as GA is doing, which is almost certainly a cheaper alternative to running peak extras. I'd say you'll need at least 12 diagrams (4 5 car, 4 10 car) but no more than 16 to move SX over to a fully 720 operation, and I'd even remove the third seat in a subfleet made up of the 20 supposedly spare units and run them on SX and given there'll be at least 2 spares, they can be put on one of the inner suburban WA services.

What I'd do with the 745 fleet is move 9 of the SX units over to GN (yes, a lot of SDO will be needed), along with modifying them for 115mph as that is around the max before large crumple zones are needed, along with being the max for a significant portion of the south ECML and run 11 from Norwich, with 8 needed for the regular service and 1 for a NiN peak extra

A 700 can act as an extra spare for the peak service on GN, along with putting 3 of them on the Peterborough peak services. This means that the 387s could go to Southern, allowing them a bit more breathing space with regards to their fleet.

 

[David Goddard]

As a user of the XC service from Reading the thought of the Birmingham train having three more stops and then landing at Moor Street is not attractive at all.

Instead of carving the Bournemouth to Manchester route into bits the solution to satisfy your wishes (which seem to be driven by diesel under wires) is just the procurement of new stock, which is covered to death on another thread at the moment.

I do agree that the Leicester/Stansted service could probably be hived off, and EMR would be a good fit for that.

 

[philosopher]

Again what are you trying to solve? Reliability issues are generally around the Didcot area and the train struggles to make up time on the WCML. If you are trying to split it do what The Planner says and split at New St.

I also thought the issue with having trains starting or terminating at New Street was that it used it too much platform capacity that New Street is short of.

 

[dk1]

I knew that the 745s may not have especially reliable given the number of 720 substitutions on the SX when it was 2tph, even though that might have been for other reasons, then further assuming that the 755s would have a similar problem but if they don't they most likely have the slack to run Birmingham-Stansted.

SX is pretty well patronised but assuming it gets 9 million passengers a year at 4tph, you are unlikely to see more than 400 passengers per train, even at peak times unless you start adding stops as GA is doing, which is almost certainly a cheaper alternative to running peak extras. I'd say you'll need at least 12 diagrams (4 5 car, 4 10 car) but no more than 16 to move SX over to a fully 720 operation, and I'd even remove the third seat in a subfleet made up of the 20 supposedly spare units and run them on SX and given there'll be at least 2 spares, they can be put on one of the inner suburban WA services.

What I'd do with the 745 fleet is move 9 of the SX units over to GN (yes, a lot of SDO will be needed), along with modifying them for 115mph as that is around the max before large crumple zones are needed, along with being the max for a significant portion of the south ECML and run 11 from Norwich, with 8 needed for the regular service and 1 for a NiN peak extra

A 700 can act as an extra spare for the peak service on GN, along with putting 3 of them on the Peterborough peak services. This means that the 387s could go to Southern, allowing them a bit more breathing space with regards to their fleet.

Ten are currently required for the half-hourly Norwich service. Using them on GN services would cause even more problems should set swaps need to take place as they would never cross paths with a Norwich service to get them back to their only maintenance depot at Crown Point.

You are never going to have enough spare 755s to operate the Stansted-Birmingham run and just imagine the staff training costs that would be associated with it and again would need to get back to/from Crown Point & have limited fuel tank capacity.

 

[The Planner]

I also thought the issue with having trains starting or terminating at New Street was that it used it too much platform capacity that New Street is short of.

You can juggle that though, and finding other random stations such as Coventry and Leamington to terminate at still clogs up a through platform where there are less of them to use. Its also depends on how long the train is and the turnaround time. You can turn around a 4 or 5 car in half a platform at New St even if it isn't optimal.

 

[TheBigD]

The XC service needs extra capacity, not restructuring.
The only thing I would like to see altered is when (if?) the full Reading to Newcastle returns, it manages to get all the services in the faster* xx28 path north of Birmingham as a handful of them used to.
As for capacity, take your pick from extra Voyagers or Meridians, but it needs to be funded, which is unlikely at the present time.

 

[Energy]

I also thought the issue with having trains starting or terminating at New Street was that it used it too much platform capacity that New Street is short of.

Coventry only has 4 platforms, all through. It already needs a 5th platform for 2tph Leamington to Nuneaton so loosing a capacity on the through platforms to terminate XC isn't ideal. Platform 1 and 4 at Leamington are less bad but aren't that long.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

• Birmingham to Stansted Airport: This would be transferred to Greater Anglia and would be operated with class 755 units but would otherwise operate how it does currently.

I assume Birmingham-Leicester would transfer to EMR rather than Great Anglia in your idea?

I don’t see the advantage in transferring Birmingham to Stansted Airport to Grater Anglia, the route is currently run by 170’s which EMR operate could so they could take on XC 170’s, also the route overlaps with EMR’s Liverpool Norwich where as it would be a significant diversion away from the Greater Anglia area to Birmingham.

 

[Brubulus]

Ten are currently required for the half-hourly Norwich service. Using them on GN services would cause even more problems should set swaps need to take place as they would never cross paths with a Norwich service to get them back to their only maintenance depot at Crown Point.

There's only a need for 8 given that the slow is around 1h55 and the fast being around 1h45 though the current peak stopping pattern is not especially conducive to running 8 units plus a NiN peak extra. Given GN is a separate franchise, GA would just have to use 720s if more than 2 745s were out of service. Getting any GN units to Crown Point for maintenance would be a bit of a problem, but by no means insurmountable compared to some other depot trips and there are the 700s to stand in.

You are never going to have enough spare 755s to operate the Stansted-Birmingham run and just imagine the staff training costs that would be associated with it and again would need to get back to/from Crown Point & have limited fuel tank capacity.

Are 755 fuel tanks really that small?
Regarding staff Leicester-Stansted is further than Peterborough-Birmingham so a massive outcrop of XC could shut down, including Coldhams Lane TMD, unless it becomes a 755 fueling point.

 

[dk1]

There's only a need for 8 given that the slow is around 1h55 and the fast being around 1h45 though the current peak stopping pattern is not especially conducive to running 8 units plus a NiN peak extra. Given GN is a separate franchise, GA would just have to use 720s if more than 2 745s were out of service. Getting any GN units to Crown Point for maintenance would be a bit of a problem, but by no means insurmountable compared to some other depot trips and there are the 700s to stand in.

Are 755 fuel tanks really that small?
Regarding staff Leicester-Stansted is further than Peterborough-Birmingham so a massive outcrop of XC could shut down, including Coldhams Lane TMD, unless it becomes a 755 fueling point.

745s with issues swap with Norwich units at Liverpool Street on a regular basis & there are several booked to do this every day so wouldn’t be possible.

The 755s have small fuel tanks otherwise weight issues do not allow them to operate at Sprinter speeds which is a must on some of the routes they operate. They are fuelled during the day not just at night. There would be no chance 8 can be reliably spared for that XC route and more would be needed for any fuelling swaps. I’m at a loss on what or why you would want to shut down so much of XC. Where would all these traincrew come from & Coldham Lane already fuels 755s.

All those traincrew would have to be trained on Stadler units and you’ve lost any flexibility with the XC 170s from Nottingham/Cardiff at the Tyseley end. I just don’t understand if you really want to hive that route off you wouldn’t do so with EMR.