Reduced frequency of Cross-Country services from Bournemouth to Manchester?

[Starmill]

Not odd or lazy, it's due to lack of staff, a set can't convey passengers without a staff member on that part of the train, frustrating for passengers though.
You say 'no apparent reason', things aren't done just for the sake of it!

To be fair to them, it's very common, in all parts of the country, for passengers to travel on trains where there are no staff in that part other than the driver, because the guard is in the rear part. It's also common for passengers to travel in parts of the train where there's neither driver nor guard, nor any other member of staff, such as in the centre of a trio of 170s.

 

[Class 170101]

To be fair to them, it's very common, in all parts of the country, for passengers to travel on trains where there are no staff in that part other than the driver, because the guard is in the rear part. It's also common for passengers to travel in parts of the train where there's neither driver nor guard, nor any other member of staff, such as in the centre of a trio of 170s.

317s, 319s, 321s 350s, 360s, 379s amongst others

 

[The Planner]

110 mph EMUs would no doubt keep time.

They would lose a bit between Wolves and Stafford which you would have to steal off a dwell somewhere.

 

[Halish Railway]

They would lose a bit between Wolves and Stafford which you would have to steal off a dwell somewhere.

Or through much improved acceleration. In fact, I would imagine that a LNWR Class 730 for example might not be any slower than a Voyager between Stafford and Wolves (non-stop).

And if it is two or minutes slower, so what? The savings in operational expenditure of a long, dual voltage, 110mph EMU compared to a pair of Voyagers would more than make up for any lost time on this 15 mile stretch.

 

[The Planner]

Or through much improved acceleration. In fact, I would imagine that a LNWR Class 730 for example might not be any slower than a Voyager between Stafford and Wolves (non-stop).

And if it is two or minutes slower, so what? The savings in operational expenditure of a long, dual voltage, 110mph EMU compared to a pair of Voyagers would more than make up for any lost time on this 15 mile stretch.

Depends if you lose the paths, simple as.

 

[OrangeJuice]

They would lose a bit between Wolves and Stafford which you would have to steal off a dwell somewhere.

Don't they often have 4 minute dwells at Stafford so hardly a deal breaker

 

[Watershed]

Don't they often have 4 minute dwells at Stafford so hardly a deal breaker

It doesn't work like that unfortunately. Just because there is some excess dwell at Stafford doesn't mean that the path will necessarily work with a slower timing load elsewhere.

There are many junction conflicts, platform reoccupations etc. that you need to make work, and you're not exactly going to be very popular if you propose rewriting the entire WCML timetable again because you want to retime a few XC services to release a handful of coaches.

 

[class 9]

To be fair to them, it's very common, in all parts of the country, for passengers to travel on trains where there are no staff in that part other than the driver, because the guard is in the rear part. It's also common for passengers to travel in parts of the train where there's neither driver nor guard, nor any other member of staff, such as in the centre of a trio of 170s.

I'm aware there's plenty of other operators that don't have staff in a particularly portion, but XC company policy says that passengers can't travel on one half of a double Voyager if there's no staff in that set.( it doesn't have to be a TM, it can be a caterer.)

 

[Bikeman78]

I'm aware there's plenty of other operators that don't have staff in a particularly portion, but XC company policy says that passengers can't travel on one half of a double Voyager if there's no staff in that set.( it doesn't have to be a TM, it can be a caterer.)

So the question is why? What bad things do they think will happen? As a passenger I couldn't care less if there is a member of staff in my unit or not. I've travelled 10s of thousands of miles here and abroad without incident.

 

[Falcon1200]

It's also common for passengers to travel in parts of the train where there's neither driver nor guard, nor any other member of staff, such as in the centre of a trio of 170s.

317s, 319s, 321s 350s, 360s, 379s amongst others

And on Scotrail, 6-car 318/320/334 formations, which are DOO; There might be a Ticket Examiner on board, but not necessarily in the rear set throughout.

So the question is why? What bad things do they think will happen?

That is indeed the question! XC passengers are not AFAIK more unruly than those of other operators.

 

[43096]

I'm aware there's plenty of other operators that don't have staff in a particularly portion, but XC company policy says that passengers can't travel on one half of a double Voyager if there's no staff in that set.( it doesn't have to be a TM, it can be a caterer.)

What is XC policy on double 170s?

 

[irish_rail]

So the question is why? What bad things do they think will happen? As a passenger I couldn't care less if there is a member of staff in my unit or not. I've travelled 10s of thousands of miles here and abroad without incident.

So when the passenger alarm is activated (not exactly a rarity) who goes to reset it? Train will need to be stopped, driver have to contact signaller and walk back on the cess to the rear unit, gain entry and reset passenger alarm. Its just one of many examples of things that do go wrong on a daily basis but as a passenger you don't realise because they are dealt with quickly by the competent member of staff in the other unit.

 

[Bikeman78]

So when the passenger alarm is activated (not exactly a rarity) who goes to reset it? Train will need to be stopped, driver have to contact signaller and walk back on the cess to the rear unit, gain entry and reset passenger alarm. Its just one of many examples of things that do go wrong on a daily basis but as a passenger you don't realise because they are dealt with quickly by the competent member of staff in the other unit.

Who does it on a 12 car 321? Total number of passcom activations I've encountered on such trains? Zero. We used to have 10 car EPB trains without any way of getting from one carriage to the next, never mind the next unit. Never a problem in my experience.

Going back to the Voyager example, put the guard in the back unit. Then you have a member of staff in each unit. That has to be better than ramming everyone into the front unit which would make it very difficult for anyone to locate the offending passcom.

 

[Starmill]

I'm aware there's plenty of other operators that don't have staff in a particularly portion, but XC company policy says that passengers can't travel on one half of a double Voyager if there's no staff in that set.( it doesn't have to be a TM, it can be a caterer.)

Indeed, but given there is a member of staff in both portions at all times anyway, as they only use singles and doubles and one of them always has the driver in it, I don't think that people can really be expected to know that only CrossCountry and nobody else don't permit that. It's not like rolling stock where the driver isn't able to access the saloon.

To put it another way your claim that "it's not just for the sake of it" is actually precisely what people are asserting it is, but about the company policy, rather than the individuals concerned, as you hinted that you had taken it.

And on Scotrail, 6-car 318/320/334 formations, which are DOO; There might be a Ticket Examiner on board, but not necessarily in the rear set throughout.

I was only really basing it on other trains which are actually worked by guards, because that's how CrossCountry work, but yes of course there are an endless list of examples in those not worked by guards.

 

[43096]

So when the passenger alarm is activated (not exactly a rarity) who goes to reset it? Train will need to be stopped, driver have to contact signaller and walk back on the cess to the rear unit, gain entry and reset passenger alarm. Its just one of many examples of things that do go wrong on a daily basis but as a passenger you don't realise because they are dealt with quickly by the competent member of staff in the other unit.

How does that work on the rest of the network? There are lots and lots of examples of pairs (or triple) units running without corridor connections, often DOO worked. It's only a problem if the railway wants to make it so - as with XC - and with no good reason.

 

[Topological]

Replacing with an EMU seems very sensible. If it is a 4 minute dwell at Stafford then do XC not use platforms which are independent of the pair usually used for WCML trains (forget the numbers sorry). In which case any junction conflicts would depend on the departure rather than arrival? If the problem is that the train takes longer from Wolves then there will be no closing in on whatever runs in front from Wolves and likewise because the train already occupies the platform then there is not going to be anything wanting the platform any earlier than it currently does (and unlikely to have run closely behind the Voyager from Wolves anyway).

Going the other way the train is again clear of the junction, but you would need to consider paths into New Street and whether a couple of minutes later at Wolves would create mess there.

There is the other issue that connection time would be needed at Birmingham New Street, as well as the platform to reverse the Voyager from the south as well as the new EMU from Manchester. May be worth considering running the EMUs to Birmingham International in their current paths. Not sure then what can be done about the Voyagers running the southern portions. Be clever if they could run to Wolves (if from Reading) or towards Derby/Nottingham (if from Bristol). The former could help TFW reduce their service into Birmingham, while the latter could replace the short 170 working to Nottingham. The 170 would then have value elsewhere on the network.

Gone a long way into speculative now though.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Who does it on a 12 car 321? Total number of passcom activations I've encountered on such trains?

Yeah, but people do genuinely activate the alarm on Voyagers all the time. I presume it’s because of the location in the toilet and the unintuitive controls or something, but once you recognise the sound, you can’t unhear it.

 

[Starmill]

Replacing with an EMU seems very sensible. If it is a 4 minute dwell at Stafford then do XC not use platforms which are independent of the pair usually used for WCML trains (forget the numbers sorry). In which case any junction conflicts would depend on the departure rather than arrival? If the problem is that the train takes longer from Wolves then there will be no closing in on whatever runs in front from Wolves and likewise because the train already occupies the platform then there is not going to be anything wanting the platform any earlier than it currently does (and unlikely to have run closely behind the Voyager from Wolves anyway).

Going the other way the train is again clear of the junction, but you would need to consider paths into New Street and whether a couple of minutes later at Wolves would create mess there.

There is the other issue that connection time would be needed at Birmingham New Street, as well as the platform to reverse the Voyager from the south as well as the new EMU from Manchester. May be worth considering running the EMUs to Birmingham International in their current paths. Not sure then what can be done about the Voyagers running the southern portions. Be clever if they could run to Wolves (if from Reading) or towards Derby/Nottingham (if from Bristol). The former could help TFW reduce their service into Birmingham, while the latter could replace the short 170 working to Nottingham. The 170 would then have value elsewhere on the network.

Gone a long way into speculative now though.

This is all very nice but unfortunately it's a bit irrelevant if it's feasible, because it would all require lots of training time and an increase in train driver diagrams over the May 2023 plan, both of which are things CrossCountry do not have and are not going to have any time soon.

 

[MCSHF007]

Going back to the Voyager example, put the guard in the back unit. Then you have a member of staff in each unit. That has to be better than ramming everyone into the front unit which would make it very difficult for anyone to locate the offending passcom.

Could someone 'in the know' please explain why this isn't possible (as it seems entirely sensible)?

 

[irish_rail]

Could someone 'in the know' please explain why this isn't possible (as it seems entirely sensible)?

Because quite simply, you cannot have a situation where passengers are banging on the drivers door, because they want to know if their connection will be held at XYZ. Also, if the front portion became a staff free zone, fare dodgers and the like would know exactly where to sit. Its a completely undesirable situation. Lots of infrequent passengers on XC too who welcome a staff member passing through to assist with queries etc.

 

[Watershed]

Because quite simply, you cannot have a situation where passengers are banging on the drivers door, because they want to know if their connection will be held at XYZ. Also, if the front portion became a staff free zone, fare dodgers and the like would know exactly where to sit. Its a completely undesirable situation. Lots of infrequent passengers on XC too who welcome a staff member passing through to assist with queries etc.

And yet it happens all the time on other TOCs without the world imploding. I'd suggest it's just one of those things that's "always been done this way" and so in time-bound railway tradition, people claim it can't possibly be changed.

 

[Starmill]

Lots of infrequent passengers on XC too who welcome a staff member passing through to assist with queries etc.

The standard class carriages would be too busy for the train manager to pass through in the quoted example so this probably isn't relevant.

Because quite simply, you cannot have a situation where passengers are banging on the drivers door, because they want to know if their connection will be held at XYZ.

How often does that ever happen? Why can't it be dealt with in the same way it would be at any other operator i.e. the driver simply ignores it until there's an opportunity for them to make a public address asking them to stop? On a Voyager the cab is far enough away from the door that you may not even be able to hear it. The train manager generally isn't very visible on CrossCountry because they don't have an office or point of contact, so they're just in First Class most of the time.

 

[irish_rail]

How often does that ever happen? Why can't it be dealt with in the same way it would be at any other operator i.e. the driver simply ignores it until there's an opportunity for them to make a public address asking them to stop? On a Voyager the cab is far enough away from the door that you may not even be able to hear it. The train manager generally isn't very visible on CrossCountry because they don't have an office or point of contact, so they're just in First Class most of the titim

Distraction. Why should the driver be distracted approaching a red signal or a station by some muppet who thinks the world revolves around their connection. I for one wouldn't be comfortable travelling on a train set knowing I was alone on there , and many people feel the same.

 

[Starmill]

Distraction. Why should the driver be distracted approaching a red signal or a station by some muppet who thinks the world revolves around their connection.

OK but this is something which happens almost never and isn't meaningfully prevented by this policy. In the quoted case the train manager wouldn't be moving through Standard, as they don't do so when trains are full and standing. Even if they could, the train manager doesn't spend time checking the driver's door isn't being disturbed?

I for one wouldn't be comfortable travelling on a train set knowing I was alone on there , and many people feel the same.

So you presumably hardly ever travel by train in this country then as that's how most passengers travel?

 

[virgintrain1]

Can anyone name any other InterCity 125mph stock that can have significant time between stops that doesn't have crew in each portion.

AWC, LNER, GWR, EMT 222s all require a member of traincrew in each portion.

A unit that stops frequency is a different matter. As the guard can constantly move between portions.

 

[irish_rail]

Can anyone name any other InterCity 125mph stock that can have significant time between stops that doesn't have crew in each portion.

AWC, LNER, GWR, EMT 222s all require a member of traincrew in each portion.

A unit that stops frequency is a different matter. As the guard can constantly move between portions.

Indeed. Intercity travel is very different from Metro etc.

 

[43074]

OK but this is something which happens almost never and isn't meaningfully prevented by this policy. In the quoted case the train manager wouldn't be moving through Standard, as they don't do so when trains are full and standing. Even if they could, the train manager doesn't spend time checking the driver's door isn't being disturbed?

Funny to think this is the sort of bizarre reasoning behind a lot of the strange or downright inefficient methods of working on the railway isn't it.

 

[Starmill]

Funny to think this is the sort of bizarre reasoning behind a lot of the strange or downright inefficient methods of working on the railway isn't it.

Unfortunately I guess it is commonly the way in industries like railways where processes are very set and historic.

 

[Snow1964]

Because quite simply, you cannot have a situation where passengers are banging on the drivers door, because they want to know if their connection will be held at XYZ. Also, if the front portion became a staff free zone, fare dodgers and the like would know exactly where to sit. Its a completely undesirable situation. Lots of infrequent passengers on XC too who welcome a staff member passing through to assist with queries etc.

But is the policy supposed to work on the basis that double crew members will be provided, otherwise no point in coupling the second unit on.

presumably the guard (and catering trolley) are expected to swap units during station stops, multiple times during a journey. How would fare dodgers know which part they would be in. Also if regularly walking through train why is anyone going to seek the driver. The policy seems it was written for lazy Train managers so they can become half of a train managers.

 

[Starmill]

Also if regularly walking through train why is anyone going to seek the driver.

Why would anyone do that anyway? Even people who travel by rail rarely or never wouldn't imagine they could talk to the driver on a train because you don't have access to their cab and there's a sign on the door that specifically says no entrance. The only time I've ever known it happen is because people think that the guard is in there.