Should CrossCountry keep Turbostar fleets and Local services?

[James Kevill]

Should CrossCountry keep Turbostar fleets and Local services, if the franchise changes in 16th October 2027? Considering the Class 170 unit, 170101 have been refurbished and repainted into a new Red and White livery, and more Turbostars will be refurbished this year or next year.

 

[D365]

Why shouldn’t the CrossCountry train operating unit retain said services?

 

[WAB]

Why shouldn’t the CrossCountry train operating unit retain said services?

Quite. In any future operating model, the XC routes will continue to not be a good fit for any single regional unit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite. In any future operating model, the XC routes will continue to not be a good fit for any single regional unit.

The Turbostar services would fit into TfW, WMT and EMR just fine.

 

[WAB]

The Turbostar services would fit into TfW, WMT and EMR just fine.

Hence, "any single regional unit". If the approach is that inter-regional routes will be resourced by multiple operating units, then that's an entirely different story

 

[Snow1964]

DfT clearly see XC as a fairly local operator between West Midlands and East Midlands, and from Cardiff to Midlands.

Personally I can see the debate going one of two ways, that XC should be long distance operator connecting the country (everywhere except to/from London and South East), with locals operated by others.

Alternatively it should continue (but the selection of services to Birmingham, ie why some routes, but not others), does seem rather illogical for 2020s (following some historical selection rather than ideal fit for current passenger levels)

I don't think they should continue the turbostars, but then I am not a fan of long distance trains formed of single 4car voyagers either. Neither is designed for 3+ hour comfortable journeys when busy.

 

[greataj]

They're the best fit I think currently for what they do. Why would EMR for instance run Birmingham to Stansted and Cardiff over XC? Who would really benefit?

Birmingham-Stansted is essentially three or four regional routes tagged onto each other, broadly split as Birmingham-Leicester, Leicester-Cambridge, Cambridge-Stansted.
The Nottingham-Cardiff run perhaps does include some slightly longer journeys, but they're fine and include other stops the voyager's understandably don't.

If anything, it would make more sense to me for XC to operate Birmingham-Norwich, EMR run their Liverpool-Norwich then only as far as Peterborough, and then Greater Anglia takes on Peterborough-Stansted. That way you can tailor calling patterns a little more specifically for those regional sections, subject to pathing, and also take the 170's off the electrified WAML.

 

[anthony263]

The unreliability of the Cardiff to Nottingham route of late i think a lot of people would want tfw to run it between Cardiff and Birmingham

 

[LowLevel]

Hiving off the West Midlands local routes I can understand but they should never have chopped up Central Trains they way they did - they just ended up with East Midlands and the 170 side of Cross Country losing all of their slack and becoming operations that were unable to cope with demand at normal times let alone peaks.

With a basically common fleet (bar the 158s which aren't exactly a huge issue) the 170 side of XC and EMR have always seemed a pretty reasonable shout to combine to me.

 

[Bevan Price]

Hopefully XC , etc. will cease to exist and everything will run as "GBR brand". Whether trains are directly operated by GBR, or provided by "contract operators" are possible future options. The present "TOC routes" should not be regarded as sacrosanct.

 

[William3000]

They're the best fit I think currently for what they do. Why would EMR for instance run Birmingham to Stansted and Cardiff over XC? Who would really benefit?

Birmingham-Stansted is essentially three or four regional routes tagged onto each other, broadly split as Birmingham-Leicester, Leicester-Cambridge, Cambridge-Stansted.
The Nottingham-Cardiff run perhaps does include some slightly longer journeys, but they're fine and include other stops the voyager's understandably don't.

If anything, it would make more sense to me for XC to operate Birmingham-Norwich, EMR run their Liverpool-Norwich then only as far as Peterborough, and then Greater Anglia takes on Peterborough-Stansted. That way you can tailor calling patterns a little more specifically for those regional sections, subject to pathing, and also take the 170's off the electrified WAML.

Cambridge - the busiest station in East Anglia dwarfing all others already only has a 3 carriage train linking it to entire Midlands and North. Eliminating direct trains to Leicester and Birmingham would be insanity given ridership from Cambridge is nearly triple that of Norwich. If anything Cambridge should have direct trains to Leeds and Liverpool.

 

[stevieinselby]

They're the best fit I think currently for what they do. Why would EMR for instance run Birmingham to Stansted and Cardiff over XC? Who would really benefit?

One potential benefit would be that you would have the same company operating the stations as the trains through them – I don't know whether there are any problems, or at least lack of interest, from having EMR running stations that don't see more than one or two EMR services a day, but it's a bit of a crackers situation.

 

[JonathanH]

One potential benefit would be that you would have the same company operating the stations as the trains through them – I don't know whether there are any problems, or at least lack of interest, from having EMR running stations that don't see more than one or two EMR services a day, but it's a bit of a crackers situation.

None of this matters however if everything is run by GBR and apparent to the passenger as a single operation. Once XC, EMR and other operators disappear in favour of what appears to the passenger as a single operation, the location of the traincrew depot and management structure won't matter.

 

[brad465]

The issue with 170s on XC services isn't so much that they operate them, it's that there's not enough of them.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

One potential benefit would be that you would have the same company operating the stations as the trains through them – I don't know whether there are any problems, or at least lack of interest, from having EMR running stations that don't see more than one or two EMR services a day, but it's a bit of a crackers situation.

If it comes to that, is there any reason why stations should be operated by the same companies who run the trains?

 

[Bald Rick]

I think the concept of different train operators will be a thing if the past within a few years (in England, outside London and Liverpool).

 

[mrcheek]

The main issue is that XC dont have enough units, which isnt really down to them.

I still think XC are the best fit. People complain about cancellations, and trains being stopped short, but do you really think that would change under another operator?
Surely EMT or WMR would be just as likely to stop services at Birmingham, and leave out Wales if there were any issues.
And TfW would be more likely to stop at Birmingham the other way if they had problems!

 

[RailWonderer]

I think the concept of different train operators will be a thing if the past within a few years (in England, outside London and Liverpool).

And Newcastle. TfW, Scotrail and local metros will be seperate from GBR I'd guess. Wales and Scotland are Great Britain though so English railways in my mind should be Regional Railways again with a Regional Express sub brand (like Alphaline was). Anyway a lot of rolling stock will interwork so distinct branding on the trains might be pointless. Anyway this forum has discussed branding endlessly in the past so I don't want to start another.

 

[duffield]

...
Surely EMT or WMR would be just as likely to stop services at Birmingham, and leave out Wales if there were any issues.
And TfW would be more likely to stop at Birmingham the other way if they had problems!

So split the service, TfW runs Cardiff to Birmingham and EMR Birmingham to Nottingham, where the respective operators have more of an interest in their part of the route. TfW already run other services into Birmingham, and it's not too much of a stretch for EMR to cover to Birmingham given they already run services to Crewe, Manchester and Liverpool. Although WMR might want Birmingham to Nottingham, I think EMR is a better fit.

Of course this is all subject to how GBR shakes down in the future with the end of the franchises, but there will probably still be regions, and splitting this service like this would still make sense to me.

Of course, that's not great for through journeys (which I actually use, so this wouldn't really be in my interests), but it does feel like two routes stitched together, especially with half the services just doing Nottingham to Birmingham anyhow. However, I expect it might cause problems with platform occupancy at New Street, although perhaps the services for the two legs could use the same platform with a dwell time of 5 minutes to allow easy both ways connections, save platform space, and keep their respective current pathing, or some such arrangement?

 

[JonathanH]

So split the service, TfW runs Cardiff to Birmingham and EMR Birmingham to Nottingham, where the respective operators have more of an interest in their part of the route. TfW already run other services into Birmingham, and it's not too much of a stretch for EMR to cover to Birmingham given they already run services to Crewe, Manchester and Liverpool. Although WMR might want Birmingham to Nottingham, I think EMR is a better fit.

How are you proposing this works, and what is the point? The 170s operate out of Barton Hill, Tyseley and Leicester, with traincrew from Birmingham, Leicester and Bristol. Do the staff transfer across to EMR and TfW? Will TfW and EMR have traincrew in Birmingham or do the staff have to relocate to Cardiff and Derby? Do the 170s simply transfer across? How does that change the operation?

Is the suggestion that XC management don't have the capacity to manage the operations on the Cardiff to Nottingham axis?

What is the key thing that says that TfW and EMR have "more of an interest in their part of the route"?

 

[duffield]

How are you proposing this works, and what is the point? The 170s operate out of Barton Hill, Tyseley and Leicester, with traincrew from Birmingham, Leicester and Bristol. Do the staff transfer across to EMR and TfW? Will TfW and EMR have traincrew in Birmingham or do the staff have to relocate to Cardiff and Derby? Do the 170s simply transfer across? How does that change the operation?

Is the suggestion that XC management don't have the capacity to manage the operations on the Cardiff to Nottingham axis?

What is the key thing that says that TfW and EMR have "more of an interest in their part of the route"?

The point is that this service seems like two services stitched together and as a result reliability suffers. The problems have been going on for years without resolution. I'd turn it round and ask if these services were currently split, why should they be joined together? It's always seemed a bit random to me.

Both TfW and EMR already operate 170s so that would be helpful. Tfw already operate as far as Cheltenham, and have other services into Birmingham. There would be some staff transfers, some rejigging of depots potentially.

TfW and EMR would have more interest in their parts of the route in the sense that operators tend to abandon the parts of a route furthest from their bases first (for understandable reasons) and the longer the route the more often this will occur.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The logic of XC's current routes was to keep them tied to one TOC if possible, so XC got the Birmingham-Leicester and Birmingham-Cardiff services, as well as the existing Bristol/Derby/Reading/Manchester legs (they lost Birmingham-WCML-Scotland to VT).
Once GBR has a regional structure (whatever it is), I expect all services will migrate to the new model.

GA (Greater Anglia) and GW (Greater Western) were also formed on the "one TOC per London terminal" model desired by the SRA.
But that was never applied to Euston or King's Cross, nor in the north where multiple TOCs generally continued.

 

[WAB]

Is the suggestion that XC management don't have the capacity to manage the operations on the Cardiff to Nottingham axis?

In theory, an operating unit designed around a very dispersed network should be able to deal with this quite easily, and it makes sense to group inter-regional (in a railway-sense) services together under such a unit.

However, the consistent failure to provide XC with sufficient resource capacity has killed morale (not helped by not having a local identity) and management has been very poor, with some 'interesting' recruitment choices over the years. It doesn't surprise me therefore that XC is struggling to gain traction and improve performance. Recent profile and morale boosters such as a refurbished fleet and a once a day Scotland to Wales service have fallen a little flat as the fundamentals of the operation have simply not changed.

What is the key thing that says that TfW and EMR have "more of an interest in their part of the route"?

For TfW, Cardiff to Brum would be one of their most important routes and could, with a bit of care and attention, turn a profit. This is opposed to XC who consider it peripheral.

 

[stadler]

As others have suggested i would split up the routes and give both Birmingham to Stansted and Birmingham to Nottingham to EMR. Then i would give Birmingham to Cardiff to TFW. This seems to make more logical sense. Then it allows XC to concentrate solely on intercity routes like in VTXC days rather than being a mixed intercity and regional operator.

EMR already operate many similar services such as the Liverpool / Manchester to Cambridge / Norwich route. Plus lots of other services in that area. So it would fit in nicely with their operation. They also already use 170s so the fleet fits in nicely too.

TFW already operate many similar services such as the Aberystwyth / Pwllheli / Shrewsbury / Holyhead to Birmingham route and also the Cardiff / Swansea / Shrewsbury / Holyhead to Manchester route. So it would fit in nicely. The could probably easily order some additional 197s to work the Cardiff to Manchester service. This in turn would mean EMR could take all of the XC operated 170s to increase capacity.

There is no need for a direct Cardiff to Nottingham service. The amount of people travelling the full route must be quite small. Splitting it at Birmingham would also improve reliability.

 

[dk1]

As others have suggested i would split up the routes and give both Birmingham to Stansted and Birmingham to Nottingham to EMR. Then i would give Birmingham to Cardiff to TFW. This seems to make more logical sense. Then it allows XC to concentrate solely on intercity routes like in VTXC days rather than being a mixed intercity and regional operator.

EMR already operate many similar services such as the Liverpool / Manchester to Cambridge / Norwich route. Plus lots of other services in that area. So it would fit in nicely with their operation. They also already use 170s so the fleet fits in nicely too.

TFW already operate many similar services such as the Aberystwyth / Pwllheli / Shrewsbury / Holyhead to Birmingham route and also the Cardiff / Swansea / Shrewsbury / Holyhead to Manchester route. So it would fit in nicely. The could probably easily order some additional 197s to work the Cardiff to Manchester service. This in turn would mean EMR could take all of the XC operated 170s to increase capacity.

There is no need for a direct Cardiff to Nottingham service. The amount of people travelling the full route must be quite small. Splitting it at Birmingham would also improve reliability.

Doesn’t terminating more trains at New Street create a platform capacity issue?

There is also quite a bit of difference salary wise between EMR & XC traincrew.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Doesn’t terminating more trains at New Street create a platform capacity issue?

There might be some platforms freed up at New Street from 2029-2033 onwards...

 

[stadler]

If platform capacity is an issue then they could always send some to Birmingham Airport to reverse. TFW currently send their hourly Aberystwyth / Pwllheli / Holyhead / Shrewsbury to Birmingham service to Birmingham Airport to reverse. So i am sure the Birmingham to Cardiff service could be sent there too if it was split and TFW took over. Birmingham Airport could easily handle a second hourly service terminating there.

 

[dk1]

There might be some platforms freed up at New Street from 2029-2033 onwards...

Good while yet then.

 

[Harpo]

For TfW, Cardiff to Brum would be one of their most important routes and could, with a bit of care and attention, turn a profit. This is opposed to XC who consider it peripheral.

Totally agree.

On alternate hours use the West Wales to Cardiff terminators to go to Brum and give Cardiff westwards an hourly service alternating between Manchester & Brum.

 

[The Planner]

There might be some platforms freed up at New Street from 2029-2033 onwards...

Not on that side of the station there won't.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Mar 2025 ==

If platform capacity is an issue then they could always send some to Birmingham Airport to reverse. TFW currently send their hourly Aberystwyth / Pwllheli / Holyhead / Shrewsbury to Birmingham service to Birmingham Airport to reverse. So i am sure the Birmingham to Cardiff service could be sent there too if it was split and TFW took over. Birmingham Airport could easily handle a second hourly service terminating there.

No room to do that either.