Proposed CrossCountry December 2017 timetable change consultation

[MarkyT]

First off run a few of the extra Plymouth/Cornish services as 10 coach trains to Totness and then split them to serve Torbay as well.

A bit late to split at Totnes, unless you're planning a Buckfastleigh portion!

 

[MarkyT]

Yesterday's 5-car 10:06 Paignton to Manchester was well loaded from Torquay. By Dawlish there where very few available seats & although some alighted at St.Davids the majority of my coach who boarded at the start of the journey where still there after I left the train at Temple Meads proving the point that these XC services are popular with long distance passengers who prefer them to the often crowded Plymouth/Cornwall starting connections at Newton Abbot.

In my experience that particular train is always very popular all year round, not surprising as it's a convenient time for leisure travellers after 9:30, so off peak tickets are valid. The problem with the only train that XC were originally proposing to retain from Paignton is that it departs at 07:02, so only full price singles and returns are valid unless you can get an AP which is dicey at short notice. Full price anytime XC fares are eyewatering just to look at! Fortunately I can't remember a time I've had to pay them.

 

[ChrisHogan]

Had this from XC's Head of Communications today in an e-mail:

"Last year you responded to our public consultation on possible changes to the national CrossCountry train timetables. In your response you indicated that you would like to be informed when there was further news about these proposals.

Since the end of the consultation, CrossCountry and the Department for Transport have been engaged in discussions on what next steps are possible in light of stakeholder feedback. Unfortunately, we were unable to conclude these discussions in time to meet Network Rail’s deadline for submitting a timetable for this December. Consequently, details included in the next timetable that become available to view on Sunday 10 September do not contain any of the changes that were consulted on.

We continue to discuss these proposals with the Department and other stakeholders in the hope that some may be possible to implement at a future timetable change, and will notify customers and stakeholders if any changes are to be implemented."

 

[sufian123]

Had this from XC's Head of Communications today in an e-mail:

Good news

 

[TheWalrus]

Seems pretty stupid there's only one train per day from Paignton to Manchester at 0702 and nothing in reverse direction. That's too early for a Paignton service should really be later in the day?

 

[crosscity]

Seems pretty stupid there's only one train per day from Paignton to Manchester at 0702 and nothing in reverse direction. That's too early for a Paignton service should really be later in the day?

My wife and I go on the occasional trip to Torquay from Birmingham. I'm not bothered about changing trains, but my wife can get a bit nervous so if there is a through train at a convenient time, then we'll catch that.

The mid-morning train from Torquay has been really useful because, as people have said, you can catch it with off-peak tickets. More importantly it allows us to not have to get up at the crack of dawn, and lets us have a leisurely breakfast at the hotel.

 

[sufian123]

Seems pretty stupid there's only one train per day from Paignton to Manchester at 0702 and nothing in reverse direction. That's too early for a Paignton service should really be later in the day?

its not changing anymore. XC failed to negotiate with network rail and DFT. 0707 Paignton-Man, 1007 Pai-Man, 1404 Pai-Man and 2014 Pai-BHM are still the same.

 

[ashworth]

The mid-morning train from Torquay has been really useful because, as people have said, you can catch it with off-peak tickets. More importantly it allows us to not have to get up at the crack of dawn, and lets us have a leisurely breakfast at the hotel.

I think that's the case with services from most places that have large numbers of passengers travelling for leisure purposes. You don't want to depart at the crack of dawn. Perhaps not always requiring a leisurely breakfast and mid morning departure but at least late enough to be able to have some breakfast at your hotel before what can be a long journey home. I'm pleased that for now Cross Country have to leave the Paignton services as they are.

 

[Busaholic]

I think that's the case with services from most places that have large numbers of passengers travelling for leisure purposes. You don't want to depart at the crack of dawn. Perhaps not always requiring a leisurely breakfast and mid morning departure but at least laste enough to be able to have some breakfast at your hotel before what can be a long journey home. I'm pleased that for now Cross Country have to leave the Paignton services as they are.

I well remember the occasions, often in winter too, of driving my parents-in-law to Penzance Station to get the 06.44 (?) direct service to Preston. Sadly, no need to do that now even if the train still existed.

 

[dk1]

its not changing anymore. XC failed to negotiate with network rail and DFT. 0707 Paignton-Man, 1007 Pai-Man, 1404 Pai-Man and 2014 Pai-BHM are still the same.

Suberb news

 

[mikestone1952]

The "easy" answer was surely to remove the extra Leeds-Derby peak services, a questionable use of crosscountry resources, and use the extra set to extend some of the Exeter services to Paignton. The rest of the proposals could have then gone ahead.

 

[swt_passenger]

The "easy" answer was surely to remove the extra Leeds-Derby peak services, a questionable use of crosscountry resources, and use the extra set to extend some of the Exeter services to Paignton. The rest of the proposals could have then gone ahead.

There were apparently significant criticisms of the proposals within Scotland too.

 

[MCR247]

The "easy" answer was surely to remove the extra Leeds-Derby peak services, a questionable use of crosscountry resources, and use the extra set to extend some of the Exeter services to Paignton. The rest of the proposals could have then gone ahead.

Interesting, whilst I don't necessarily disagree I think it's fair to say the exact opposite could be argued, that XC should focus on the core

 

[mikestone1952]

The trains cut in Scotland appeared to have only been removed to avoid increasing train crew requirements and its difficult to see what prevented the extensions to/from Cambridge from going ahead.

 

[Chrism20]

The trains cut in Scotland appeared to have only been removed to avoid increasing train crew requirements and its difficult to see what prevented the extensions to/from Cambridge from going ahead.

I think the Scottish proposals were to prevent a train running ECS from craigentinny to Dundee and then in service with a small number of passengers to Aberdeen when the unit could be better utilised elsewhere on the network at what is effectively peak time.

Likewise the southbound Aberdeen to Edinburgh late in the evening is another pointless run where the train carries fresh air more than 90% of the time.

By running the Aberdeen service so it arrives in Aberdeen during the day and returns mid/late afternoon rather than a morning departure from Aberdeen it cuts out the ECS workings and removes the services that are lightly used.

What was proposed for the Aberdeen workings was a better proposal for capacity.

 

[Woody]

Regarding XCs proposed cuts to its Torbay services a DevonLive campaign to save direct train services linking the north and the Midlands to Devon's holiday resorts has succeeded in saving the trains - for now. httpww.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/weve-won-fight-save-train-462051

 

[tbtc]

The "easy" answer was surely to remove the extra Leeds-Derby peak services, a questionable use of crosscountry resources, and use the extra set to extend some of the Exeter services to Paignton. The rest of the proposals could have then gone ahead.

Interesting, whilst I don't necessarily disagree I think it's fair to say the exact opposite could be argued, that XC should focus on the core

I'm with MCR247 here.

XC need to deal with the "bread and butter" of the York/ Manchester to Reading/ Bristol flows before they worry about the fringes.

Maybe, if there's resources that "core" should be extended to Newcastle/Manchester - Southampton/ Exeter, but I don't think that local flows beyond these stations should be XC's problem (nice if they can serve further out, but the burden shouldn't be theirs to deal with).

GWR provide a regular service from Exeter to Paignton but nobody else provides a fast service from Sheffield to Leeds (the best Northern times are around sixty minutes to cover the forty miles, which is not remotely "fast").

Rather than "a questionable use of resources", I'd see the peak Derby - Leeds service as a good use of spare stock to provide a capacity increase between two of England's biggest cities (which otherwise have just one "fast" service per hour).

Poggling along between Exeter and Paignton seems a waste of a Voyager, especially when there are local DMUs that can do the journey just as fast.

I think the Scottish proposals were to prevent a train running ECS from craigentinny to Dundee and then in service with a small number of passengers to Aberdeen when the unit could be better utilised elsewhere on the network at what is effectively peak time.

Likewise the southbound Aberdeen to Edinburgh late in the evening is another pointless run where the train carries fresh air more than 90% of the time.

By running the Aberdeen service so it arrives in Aberdeen during the day and returns mid/late afternoon rather than a morning departure from Aberdeen it cuts out the ECS workings and removes the services that are lightly used.

What was proposed for the Aberdeen workings was a better proposal for capacity.

I agree - it's not worth XC having a base in Aberdeen but it's also a lot of dead mileage (whether ECS or just carrying one man and his dog) to get from Craigentinny to Aberdeen early in the morning to provide stock for the first southbound service and then running essentially empty southbound late in the evening.

ScotRail will be getting five coach HSTs to use on the Edinburgh - Aberdeen corridor, so it's not as essential for XC to shoulder the rush hour burden on that corridor.

Much better to use stock spare off-peak to do the Edinburgh - Aberdeen - Edinburgh round trip in the middle of the day - apparently more suitable for oil shifts too - then XC can use the Voyager to double up a busy flow (somewhere further south) during the two rush hours instead.

But a lot of enthusiasts seem more interested in the quirky potential of an Aberdeen - Penzance service than providing something that's of more practical use to everyday passengers.

 

[JamesRowden]

I think that's the case with services from most places that have large numbers of passengers travelling for leisure purposes. You don't want to depart at the crack of dawn. Perhaps not always requiring a leisurely breakfast and mid morning departure but at least late enough to be able to have some breakfast at your hotel before what can be a long journey home. I'm pleased that for now Cross Country have to leave the Paignton services as they are.

The changes would have reduced journey times between North Devon and Birmingham by 25-32 minutes by reducing the connection time at Exeter.

 

[sufian123]

Timetable may change in May 2018. I tweeted xc. It's likely to happen in May next year.

 

[michael74]

I'm with MCR247 here.

XC need to deal with the "bread and butter" of the York/ Manchester to Reading/ Bristol flows before they worry about the fringes.

Maybe, if there's resources that "core" should be extended to Newcastle/Manchester - Southampton/ Exeter, but I don't think that local flows beyond these stations should be XC's problem (nice if they can serve further out, but the burden shouldn't be theirs to deal with).

GWR provide a regular service from Exeter to Paignton but nobody else provides a fast service from Sheffield to Leeds (the best Northern times are around sixty minutes to cover the forty miles, which is not remotely "fast").

Rather than "a questionable use of resources", I'd see the peak Derby - Leeds service as a good use of spare stock to provide a capacity increase between two of England's biggest cities (which otherwise have just one "fast" service per hour).

Poggling along between Exeter and Paignton seems a waste of a Voyager, especially when there are local DMUs that can do the journey just as fast.



I agree - it's not worth XC having a base in Aberdeen but it's also a lot of dead mileage (whether ECS or just carrying one man and his dog) to get from Craigentinny to Aberdeen early in the morning to provide stock for the first southbound service and then running essentially empty southbound late in the evening.

ScotRail will be getting five coach HSTs to use on the Edinburgh - Aberdeen corridor, so it's not as essential for XC to shoulder the rush hour burden on that corridor.

Much better to use stock spare off-peak to do the Edinburgh - Aberdeen - Edinburgh round trip in the middle of the day - apparently more suitable for oil shifts too - then XC can use the Voyager to double up a busy flow (somewhere further south) during the two rush hours instead.

But a lot of enthusiasts seem more interested in the quirky potential of an Aberdeen - Penzance service than providing something that's of more practical use to everyday passengers.

Clearly you do not live in South Devon. The XC services are well used, yes more so in the Summer, but the winter will still see plenty of full services. As for frequent GWR services between Paignton and Exeter, if you like 143's so much, you welcome to ours

 

[ABB125]

its not changing anymore. XC failed to negotiate with network rail and DFT. 0707 Paignton-Man, 1007 Pai-Man, 1404 Pai-Man and 2014 Pai-BHM are still the same.

Does this mean that there won't be half hourly to Exeter then?

 

[sufian123]

Does this mean that there won't be half hourly to Exeter then?

No. It will be the same timetable. Timetable not
changing. XC failed to negotiate.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

So if Aberdeen and Paignton (by and large) have been kept as now, what changes are actually going to be possible? All I can think of is the Guildford and Bath Spa legs being caped, but I cannot imagine that offers enough relief to cover a lot of the proposed enhancements!

 

[tbtc]

Clearly you do not live in South Devon

You guessed correctly.

I live in one of the big cities on the XC “core” and used to commute daily by XC to one of the other big cities on the XC “core”.

That’s the kind of market that I think XC should be focussing on, rather than supplementing local services on the fringes of the UK.

That’s why I think that the Derby – Leeds service would be a good idea, given demand on that corridor (Manchester and Liverpool have half hourly services to Birmingham but Leeds only has one train per hour).

And when I say “demand” I mean the kind of boring everyday demand that fills seats day-in-day-out, rather than the suggestion on this thread that the Manchester to Paignton market is significant enough to need regular services.

The XC services are well used, yes more so in the Summer, but the winter will still see plenty of full services. As for frequent GWR services between Paignton and Exeter, if you like 143's so much, you welcome to ours

Well, we have plenty of the inferior 142s around here (you know, the ones you got rid of a while ago?), but thanks.

Seriously though, Thames Valley electrification and the 800/801/802s mean that GWR are able to cascade 165/166s further west and put "GTi" HSTs on some services currently run by Sprinters, which frees up a number of units to enhance other "ex-Wessex" services, like providing a proper service on the Paignton branch (instead of relying on XC to plug the gaps).

Enhancing a Devon branch line isn't XC's problem - they should focus their limited resources in their own "core".

So if Aberdeen and Paignton (by and large) have been kept as now, what changes are actually going to be possible? All I can think of is the Guildford and Bath Spa legs being caped, but I cannot imagine that offers enough relief to cover a lot of the proposed enhancements!

That's my understanding - the need to attend to fringes seems more important than focussing on the "core".

Maybe the Virgin cabs (giving XC 3x4 coach instead of 2x 5 coach) will allow a very minor increase somewhere, but it's going to be trivially marginal.

FWIW I thought that the XC plans were very sensible and well argued but "politics" seems to have stopped them from dealing with well documented problems in the middle of their franchise and they must instead waste Voyager time at the extremes.

 

[swt_passenger]

So if Aberdeen and Paignton (by and large) have been kept as now, what changes are actually going to be possible? All I can think of is the Guildford and Bath Spa legs being caped, but I cannot imagine that offers enough relief to cover a lot of the proposed enhancements!

Guildford and Bath between them don't really allow for anything extra in the mornings as they are both formed by stock doing early trips off the depots and entering the standard pattern northbound from Bristol and Reading respectively. The pm southbound Guildford service currently goes to depot mid evening, but there is no gap in the northbound service from Reading to fill at that time of day. It could do another Reading to Southampton or perhaps Bournemouth leg if it is pathable - which is unlikely, as it is basically why it runs to Guildford in the mid evening at the moment.

 

[swt_passenger]

...XC failed to negotiate.

Or is it that DfT and XC had effectively done the negotiation already but hadn't appreciated the resulting fallout from the proposals?

 

[takno]

And when I say “demand” I mean the kind of boring everyday demand that fills seats day-in-day-out, rather than the suggestion on this thread that the Manchester to Paignton market is significant enough to need regular services.

...

Enhancing a Devon branch line isn't XC's problem - they should focus their limited resources in their own "core".

Manchester to Paignton trains do fill and they run hourly. It seems odd to just assume that all the XC services you don't travel on are empty.

As to to the question of enhancing a Devon branch line, the XC services are a key part of the service to Paignton, and provide a significant percentage of the seats going there during a day. It might operationally be more convenient for GWR to provide more and longer trains instead, but that wasn't actually part of the proposals - the proposal was just to cut out a big proportion of the capacity on a route where for large parts of the year the trains run absolutely rammed.

I can't see any really good reason why you would specify the middle bit of the route as somehow the "core" either. Sheffield to Leeds is a woefully underserved market, but it's a short 40 mile trip slap bang in the middle of Northern territory. As the main remit of XC is proper Intercity traffic there would probably be an argument for cutting out the Leeds or Sheffield stop to prevent their trains from filling up with this commuter traffic. I'm not saying they should do that, but it's pretty much exactly the same as your reasoning for not running to Paignton.

 

[tbtc]

It seems odd to just assume that all the XC services you don't travel on are empty

I'm not claiming any XC services are empty - you are putting words into my mouth.

I'm claiming that providing a regular service on a Devon branch line (like the suggestion on this thread that Paignton be bi-hourly) shouldn't be a priority for XC - they should focus more resources on the York/ Manchester - Bristol/ Reading "core" and let local TOCs deal with capacity problems at the fringes.

I can't see any really good reason why you would specify the middle bit of the route as somehow the "core" either. Sheffield to Leeds is a woefully underserved market, but it's a short 40 mile trip slap bang in the middle of Northern territory. As the main remit of XC is proper Intercity traffic there would probably be an argument for cutting out the Leeds or Sheffield stop to prevent their trains from filling up with this commuter traffic

Exactly!

The main remit of XC is proper Intercity traffic.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

That's why I think that XC should focus more resources on providing more seats between big cities (rather than plugging gaps in the local service to Paignton or Aberdeen or wherever).

I'm not against some through services to the fringes, but these should be run with marginal stock (e.g. in the way that Penzance gets early morning departures and late evening arrivals) rather than serving them through the day, whilst people are standing on corridors like Bristol to Birmingham that have no "local" TOC providing other services.

 

[swt_passenger]

Manchester to Paignton trains do fill and they run hourly.

I only see 6 or 7 per day (both directions combined) Mon - Sat in the current timetables. Sundays half that.

 

[PHILIPE]

With the withdrawal of most of the XC Paignton sevices, not hourly at present as Takno said and has already been corrected on this issue, I'm wondering if and how GWR can fill the gaps. When SWT ceased to run to Plymouth and Paignton some few years ago, DFT suddenly authorised LHCS to help out FGW and funded them because they realised they'd done nothing to plug the gaps.