Should Class 800 be ordered for the Cross Country franchise?

[gg1]

I don’t think the use of bimodes can be used as an excuse. Increasing pressure will be placed on the government to reduce carbon pollution further and further. Diesel usage from Manchester to Birmingham should be a crime.

It shouldn't but I'm convinced it will be used as an excuse.

 

[Purple Orange]

It shouldn't but I'm convinced it will be used as an excuse.

I suppose it depends on how committed the government will really be to getting the U.K. to be carbon neutral.

 

[devonexpress]

This will happen at some point but probably not until 2022/2023, The XC network needs a big overhaul as the Voyagers cannot in normal times cope with busy peak traffic. A mix of 6 and 7 car sets would be a good idea, however, if the next XC franchise wanted to have a standardise fleet, what could replace the 170s? 5 car IETs?

 

[Purple Orange]

This will happen at some point but probably not until 2022/2023, The XC network needs a big overhaul as the Voyagers cannot in normal times cope with busy peak traffic. A mix of 6 and 7 car sets would be a good idea, however, if the next XC franchise wanted to have a standardise fleet, what could replace the 170s? 5 car IETs?

Do the routes the 170s serve need to stay with XC? I think smaller, more homogeneous franchises work best, in terms of a small number of routes and little variation of units, as opposed to the distance a TOC needs to operate over. So I would concentrate XC on its four points of the compass at Manchester, Bristol, Edinburgh, and Reading/Southampton. I’d do something similar with TPE and carve out Manchester-Huddersfield and Huddersfield-Leeds to a carved up Northern (which from the outside also looks a too unwieldy and complex organisation).

 

[devonexpress]

Do the routes the 170s serve need to stay with XC? I think smaller, more homogeneous franchises work best, in terms of a small number of routes and little variation of units, as opposed to the distance a TOC needs to operate over. So I would concentrate XC on its four points of the compass at Manchester, Bristol, Edinburgh, and Reading/Southampton. I’d do something similar with TPE and carve out Manchester-Huddersfield and Huddersfield-Leeds to a carved up Northern (which from the outside also looks a too unwieldy and complex organisation).

As someone who has seen the benefits of the Greater Western franchise with GWR, I disagree, as do the majority of paying passengers, hence why the GWR franchise isn't getting split up.

 

[Purple Orange]

As someone who has seen the benefits of the Greater Western franchise with GWR, I disagree, as do the majority of paying passengers, hence why the GWR franchise isn't getting split up.

Therefore this begs the question as to why GWR appears to be the exception? What do they do differently that works? Plus if GWR is succeeding, would it not be better to have all services south of Bristol to be transferred to GWR and not XC? In my experience, where a service is poor, I’ve preferred to change trains using a more reliable or frequent or more comfortable service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It shouldn't but I'm convinced it will be used as an excuse.

Bimodes of course mean you can use the wires that are there, and the engines can just be removed when no longer needed so then you've got a decent InterCity EMU.

 

[devonexpress]

Therefore this begs the question as to why GWR appears to be the exception? What do they do differently that works? Plus if GWR is succeeding, would it not be better to have all services south of Bristol to be transferred to GWR and not XC? In my experience, where a service is poor, I’ve preferred to change trains using a more reliable or frequent or more comfortable service.

From my experience, XC only do what the franchise requires, i.e the bare minimum, the interiors of the voyagers are exactly the same as Virgin days 20 years later apart from First Class. GWR on the other hand after 2006 has kept it's interiors to a very good standard, I can remember Monday's the train's smelling of lavender or whatever product they use to clean the carpets. First class has been updated twice with the final one on the HST's being one of the best of any toc.

Down in the far Westcountry, GWR really listens to its customers, during the summer smaller local services often got replaced with HST's, when we campaigned for an earlier train from London, the company worked around a tight schedule & fleet constraints to provide us with one. The benefits of having a larger franchise is that you can move or use resources much more efficiently and effectively. Whilst is hasn't always been plain sailing, Bristol & the Thames valley services often getting a bad rep, this has changed with the arrival of the 387s, IET's and 165/166s being transferred.

I do agree that the XC franchise needs some reorganisation, possibly merging it's operations with the West Coast franchise might have been a good idea, given how both franchises are closely interworked anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do agree that the XC franchise needs some reorganisation, possibly merging it's operations with the West Coast franchise might have been a good idea, given how both franchises are closely interworked anyway.

Er how? XC and WC only overlap on short sections south of Manchester and between Wolves and Coventry.

 

[devonexpress]

Er how? XC and WC only overlap on short sections south of Manchester and between Wolves and Coventry.

Hmm Birmingham New Street to Manchester both run roughly the same route, Your also forgetting Glasgow and the parts of the Highlands. Both toc's run the same diesel fleet.

 

[Purple Orange]

From my experience, XC only do what the franchise requires, i.e the bare minimum, the interiors of the voyagers are exactly the same as Virgin days 20 years later apart from First Class. GWR on the other hand after 2006 has kept it's interiors to a very good standard, I can remember Monday's the train's smelling of lavender or whatever product they use to clean the carpets. First class has been updated twice with the final one on the HST's being one of the best of any toc.

Down in the far Westcountry, GWR really listens to its customers, during the summer smaller local services often got replaced with HST's, when we campaigned for an earlier train from London, the company worked around a tight schedule & fleet constraints to provide us with one. The benefits of having a larger franchise is that you can move or use resources much more efficiently and effectively. Whilst is hasn't always been plain sailing, Bristol & the Thames valley services often getting a bad rep, this has changed with the arrival of the 387s, IET's and 165/166s being transferred.

I do agree that the XC franchise needs some reorganisation, possibly merging it's operations with the West Coast franchise might have been a good idea, given how both franchises are closely interworked anyway.

In essence it is about a customer focus in that case. I felt GNER had that ethos back in the day, TPE give me that impression too these days.

Although I do recall an awful experience with both GNER and first great western years ago, where at Kings Cross a member of the ticket office made me purchase a new ticket to Newcastle because I had received a new debit card and could not collect my ticket from the machine, despite having the paper trail to prove I had purchased a valid ticket for the service. Then at Paddington, a member of staff at the ticket office refused to issue my ticket to Bristol when the machines were not working (over an hour prior to departure), despite having all the evidence to show I had purchased a ticket online. I have since not been able to trust railway staff to do a good enough job, but it is also fair to recognise that some people do appear to have the right ethos when it comes to working with the public.

Back to XC, perhaps this debate will become redundant in years to come, once HS2 is established. We will all be changing between Curzon Street and New Street!

 

[Domh245]

Therefore this begs the question as to why GWR appears to be the exception?

EMR are also a 'combined' franchise.

Do the routes the 170s serve need to stay with XC? I think smaller, more homogeneous franchises work best, in terms of a small number of routes and little variation of units, as opposed to the distance a TOC needs to operate over. So I would concentrate XC on its four points of the compass at Manchester, Bristol, Edinburgh, and Reading/Southampton. I’d do something similar with TPE and carve out Manchester-Huddersfield and Huddersfield-Leeds to a carved up Northern (which from the outside also looks a too unwieldy and complex organisation).

The issue with the XC 170 routes is that they don't really fit neatly with either of the other ex-central TOCs from whence they came (EMR and WMR). EMR are a match in terms of stock and the eastern end, WMR are a match in terms of being Birmingham-centred. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with them being with XC as a 2-tier franchise, it's just that said franchise (or at least, the contract) is rubbish. Not dissimilar to Serco-Abellio Northern or ATW

 

[Neptune]

Hmm Birmingham New Street to Manchester both run roughly the same route, Your also forgetting Glasgow and the parts of the Highlands. Both toc's run the same diesel fleet.

The only overlap in Scotland is Carstairs to Glasgow. WC don’t go anywhere north of Glasgow. Also WC don’t run direct from BHM - MAN.

 

[quantinghome]

This is my view. It's based on a long term commitment to a rolling electrification programme (which may be coming, there seems to be an impetus now to do it) and in my view a realistic assessment of the XC franchise that it's not viable to run it with brand new trains.

Short term (next few years): Class 221s and 222s committed to be replaced by West Coast and EMR are added to the XC fleet. This gives a big increase in capacity.
Medium term: Cascade existing bi-modes from other routes to XC as they are freed up by ongoing electrification projects.
Long term: Depends on what XC looks like after HS2.

 

[Purple Orange]

This is my view. It's based on a long term commitment to a rolling electrification programme (which may be coming, there seems to be an impetus now to do it) and in my view a realistic assessment of the XC franchise that it's not viable to run it with brand new trains.

Short term (next few years): Class 221s and 222s committed to be replaced by West Coast and EMR are added to the XC fleet. This gives a big increase in capacity.
Medium term: Cascade existing bi-modes from other routes to XC as they are freed up by ongoing electrification projects.
Long term: Depends on what XC looks like after HS2.

XC won’t exist after HS2, or it will only as far as Birmingham. Anyone travelling from north of Birmingham to Reading and beyond will have a faster journey going through London or OOC. Anyone travelling from north of Birmingham to Cheltenham and beyond will have a faster journey changing from a HS2 service at Curzon Street on to service at New Street, than if they caught a direct train on the old XC route. For that reason, the service between Bristol and Manchester/Leeds/Scotland will wither and die.

 

[quantinghome]

XC won’t exist after HS2, or it will only as far as Birmingham. Anyone travelling from north of Birmingham to Reading and beyond will have a faster journey going through London or OOC. Anyone travelling from north of Birmingham to Cheltenham and beyond will have a faster journey changing from a HS2 service at Curzon Street on to service at New Street, than if they caught a direct train on the old XC route. For that reason, the service between Bristol and Manchester/Leeds/Scotland will wither and die.

XC is an accretion of services stuck together for operational efficiency which gives the added bonus of serving long distance origin/destination pairs which would not merit a direct service otherwise. HS2 will of course change this and I agree we are unlikely to see XC going north of the M62 corridor. But even post-HS2 the operational logic of accreting services will still hold and there will be a need for services on routes north of Birmingham which aren't served by HS2. So we could well see the Plymouth-Bristol-Birmingham train continuing on to Derby-Sheffield-Doncaster-Hull (for example). Likewise from Birmingham to the North-west there are a whole host of large-ish towns - Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke and Crewe which would still need a service to Birmingham and Manchester. XC will therefore likely continue in curtailed form after HS2, but as more of a regional service north of Birmingham.

 

[Purple Orange]

XC is an accretion of services stuck together for operational efficiency which gives the added bonus of serving long distance origin/destination pairs which would not merit a direct service otherwise. HS2 will of course change this and I agree we are unlikely to see XC going north of the M62 corridor. But even post-HS2 the operational logic of accreting services will still hold and there will be a need for services on routes north of Birmingham which aren't served by HS2. So we could well see the Plymouth-Bristol-Birmingham train continuing on to Derby-Sheffield-Doncaster-Hull (for example). Likewise from Birmingham to the North-west there are a whole host of large-ish towns - Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke and Crewe which would still need a service to Birmingham and Manchester. XC will therefore likely continue in curtailed form after HS2, but as more of a regional service north of Birmingham.

But that wouldn’t be XC as it is today. Take Brum-Manc. Yes there will be services on the WCML between the two, but I’d expect more a London Midland type operation to take place, with stops such as Smethwick, Sandwell & Dudley, Cheadle Hulme, added in to the mix.

Crewe will have trains to both Brum and Manc post HS2. And if I was wanting to go to Wolverhampton from Manchester, I’d likely go to Curzon Street first. If I was going to Stafford from Manchester, I’d probably change at Crewe having started on an HS2 or NPR service. Most likely these will all be faster than the direct service.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

I might be a bit mad on that, but I think every single railway line should be electrified if possible lol, if we want to have a zero emission railway by something like 2030-2040.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

In prior generations I’d agree with you on a 35-40 year life span. But times are changing fast and I don’t think diesel trains will be tolerated where there does not need to be any diesel trains.

Couldn't agree more with you! Especially with the Climate Change emergency, the UK government really needs to electrify more railway lines. Not only electric trains are better for the environment, they also apparently have more seats, and are also way faster, reducing journey times a lot!

 

[quantinghome]

I might be a bit mad on that, but I think every single railway line should be electrified if possible lol, if we want to have a zero emission railway by something like 2030-2040.

Not quite every one, but we should be thinking more along the lines of which routes it wouldn't make sense to electrify, then electrify everything else. 2040 is doable with a rolling programme. 2030 is no longer achievable.

 

[Purple Orange]

Not quite every one, but we should be thinking more along the lines of which routes it wouldn't make sense to electrify, then electrify everything else. 2040 is doable with a rolling programme. 2030 is no longer achievable.

That is what we have to aspire to. Not all in one go, but continuous electrification of lines must be a priority.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Sorry, I'm going to spoil everyone's fun and pour some ice cold water over this idea. What XC needs is more capacity. In the next two years more than enough suitable stock will be released by Avanti - completely compatible, and EMR - pretty damn close. It's the ideal home for that stock - most other routes won't benefit from the 125mph capability, and if it goes anywhere else will probably be an OTT costly solution. So XC has to be the logical home for as much of it as is needed.

The idea of bi-mode stock is great until you remember the additional costs. For the GW and EC routes the diesel performance is a step down from the HST (and presumably 220). The DfT found itself in a bit of a pickle with the MML, in that having cancelled electrification north of Kettering, that would mean increases in journey times with the same 800 spec, which would have caused an uproar, as it promised that cancellation would have no impact on passengers. So it's had to overspecify the diesel capability (=more cost) to ensure that didn't happen.

The same would be needed on XC, given the high proportion of diesel working. So the benefit on the electrified sections will be diminished by lugging all those diesel engines and fuel around, and on diesel, you'll have a slight inefficiency against pure diesel with weight of the ac kit, but obviously for a much greater proportion of the journey than the majority of routes that the bi-modes are currently expected to work.

So given there's an obvious solution staring the DfT in the face, why would it spend a load of money building a fleet of units and having one if not two fleets of units with at least a decade of life left in them with no appropriate home to go to? (The only possible answer would be to admit that the interior of the voyagers is pretty poor and justify replacement on those grounds, but it would be a first for the DfT to consider passenger comfort and ambience important, so I wouldn't hold my breath on that front.)

 

[Speed43125]

Sorry, I'm going to spoil everyone's fun and pour some ice cold water over this idea. What XC needs is more capacity. In the next two years more than enough suitable stock will be released by Avanti - completely compatible, and EMR - pretty damn close. It's the ideal home for that stock - most other routes won't benefit from the 125mph capability, and if it goes anywhere else will probably be an OTT costly solution. So XC has to be the logical home for as much of it as is needed.

The idea of bi-mode stock is great until you remember the additional costs. For the GW and EC routes the diesel performance is a step down from the HST (and presumably 220). The DfT found itself in a bit of a pickle with the MML, in that having cancelled electrification north of Kettering, that would mean increases in journey times with the same 800 spec, which would have caused an uproar, as it promised that cancellation would have no impact on passengers. So it's had to overspecify the diesel capability (=more cost) to ensure that didn't happen.

The same would be needed on XC, given the high proportion of diesel working. So the benefit on the electrified sections will be diminished by lugging all those diesel engines and fuel around, and on diesel, you'll have a slight inefficiency against pure diesel with weight of the ac kit, but obviously for a much greater proportion of the journey than the majority of routes that the bi-modes are currently expected to work.

So given there's an obvious solution staring the DfT in the face, why would it spend a load of money building a fleet of units and having one if not two fleets of units with at least a decade of life left in them with no appropriate home to go to? (The only possible answer would be to admit that the interior of the voyagers is pretty poor and justify replacement on those grounds, but it would be a first for the DfT to consider passenger comfort and ambience important, so I wouldn't hold my breath on that front.)

The reality is, there are plenty of 22x available in the short-medium term. XC are not yet at a level where enough of their routes are electrified to pour all that money into new trains. once we get some more infill hopefully done we'll be able to have trains in the 802 power range and not need to try and cram gensets in the pantograph vehicle.
I agree that the DfT are unlikely to support a wholesale replacement of the 22x family. I think we are realistically looking at 2025-2030 for replacements to ordered, hopefully there will be more electrification and no longer a requirement for >110 running on diesel. Though, given the state of electrification, especially in England, I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[quantinghome]

That is what we have to aspire to. Not all in one go, but continuous electrification of lines must be a priority.

I agree. We need to stop the famine-feast approach to electrification and commit to a 20-30 year continuous programme. This allow lessons to be learned, efficiency gains, continuous improvement etc.

However, where lines have a relatively low service, battery or hydrogen-powered operation will be the obvious economic choice ahead of electrification. Batteries for short branch lines, Hydrogen for longer rural lines.

Some work has already been done on this:

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2020/03/13/getting-electrification-done-the-net-zero-imperative/

 

[Purple Orange]

Also there is a question of how much of the XC route should be among the first to be electrified and which bits. North of Birmingham HS2 ph2b will mean electrification of the MML to Sheffield and Leeds-York should be a priority. I’m assuming that the CC units on HS2 will be pure EMU units as opposed to bi-modes. Then we also have the question of NPR between Manchester & Leeds, which could be either a new line or just an upgrade of the current line.

This would leave the lines south of Birmingham. Would the Chiltern Line be a priority over the Bristol-Birmingham line? What about Reading-Oxford-Birmingham?

Would there be a stronger case for electrifying ‘non-mainline’ routes but have a bigger flow of traffic? What about East-West rail, the Windermere branch, Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester?

To me this all points towards XC as we know it better not split up.

 

[gg1]

Also there is a question of how much of the XC route should be among the first to be electrified and which bits. North of Birmingham HS2 ph2b will mean electrification of the MML to Sheffield and Leeds-York should be a priority. I’m assuming that the CC units on HS2 will be pure EMU units as opposed to bi-modes. Then we also have the question of NPR between Manchester & Leeds, which could be either a new line or just an upgrade of the current line.

This would leave the lines south of Birmingham. Would the Chiltern Line be a priority over the Bristol-Birmingham line? What about Reading-Oxford-Birmingham?

Would there be a stronger case for electrifying ‘non-mainline’ routes but have a bigger flow of traffic? What about East-West rail, the Windermere branch, Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester?

To me this all points towards XC as we know it better not split up.

The nature of the XC routes means there isn't a strong enough business case to electrify any of the gaps based purely on XC service provision currently, as more of the network becomes electrified that will of course change. For example if the Chiltern and Snow Hill lines were to be electrified as a single major project with Didcot to Oxford being electrified as a separate much smaller project (both of which are IMO likely to happen in the next 10-15 years), you're then just left with 2 small infill projects required (Oxford to Kings Sutton and Leamington - Coventry) to allow the Manchester to Reading services to be taken over by EMUs.

 

[BigCj34]

Surely in the time it would take XC to order a new fleet of Class 8xx', the Class 22x's would already be available? It does not seem that ordering a new fleet will add any additional capacity sooner henceforth, so would the capacity available from the cascaded fleet of 47 Close 22x's be enough to solve XC's capacity issues?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely in the time it would take XC to order a new fleet of Class 8xx', the Class 22x's would already be available? It does not seem that ordering a new fleet will add any additional capacity sooner henceforth, so would the capacity available from the cascaded fleet of 47 Close 22x's be enough to solve XC's capacity issues?

If you're purely talking capacity, yes, but the 80x has a far higher quality travelling environment.

 

[BigCj34]

If you're purely talking capacity, yes, but the 80x has a far higher quality travelling environment.

Can't imagine the DfT taking that into account, as much as Voyagers divide opinion here!

 

[quantinghome]

Can't imagine the DfT taking that into account, as much as Voyagers divide opinion here!

If the internal quality is the concern, surely refurbishing the Voyagers would be significantly cheaper than new build?