When will someone do something about CrossCountry

[Jorge Da Silva]

But the three stages of increased capacity are not news, they were announced by DfT in February and discussed in detail in a different thread in this forum:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...at-improvements-would-you-like-to-see.200953/
1. Increased diagramming of existing 170 fleet. As little as one unit per day can provide the number of ”seats per week” mentioned...
2. Increased diagramming of existing HST fleet, which should have started in 2017...
3. Increased capacity for 170 fleet consisting of a few additional centre cars.

Anything else is still completely undecided, AFAICT.

then there are two additional HSTs being brought in taking the total to 17 so in a way the plan is

1. Increased diagramming of existing 170 fleet from May 2020
   
2. Increased diagramming of existing HST fleet from December 2020 enabling lengthening of other services
3. Two Additional HSTs will be used on CrossCountry from December 2020 enabling lengthening of other services
4. Increased capacity for 170 fleet by extending 2-car units to 3-cars
5. From 2022, additional 221's from Avanti OR 222's from EMR will be transferred to CrossCountry

 

[JonathanH]

there are two additional HSTs being brought in taking the total to 17 so in a way the plan is

Er, two additional power cars taking the total to 12, not two additional HSTs. The result of these is to allow four full HST sets to be diagrammed on more days of the week but no additional coaches are due.

Two Additional HSTs will be used on CrossCountry from December 2020 enabling lengthening of other services

Not sure where this has been picked up from. Your own post 230 does not include this.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Er, two additional power cars taking the total to 12, not two additional HSTs. The result of these is to allow four full HST sets to be diagrammed on more days of the week but no additional coaches are due.



Not sure where this has been picked up from. Your own post 230 does not include this.

ok my bad

 

[Iskra]

then there are two additional HSTs being brought in taking the total to 17 so in a way the plan is

1. Increased diagramming of existing 170 fleet from May 2020
   
2. Increased diagramming of existing HST fleet from December 2020 enabling lengthening of other services
3. Two Additional HSTs will be used on CrossCountry from December 2020 enabling lengthening of other services
4. Increased capacity for 170 fleet by extending 2-car units to 3-cars
5. From 2022, additional 221's from Avanti OR 222's from EMR will be transferred to CrossCountry

From 2022, couldn't XC re-instate something like Swansea-York/Middlesbrough to provide additional capacity on the core network, relieving both the core and Cardiff-Nottingham routes at the same time (to an extent).

 

[VT 390]

From 2022, couldn't XC re-instate something like Swansea-York/Middlesbrough to provide additional capacity on the core network, relieving both the core and Cardiff-Nottingham routes at the same time (to an extent).

Would there be the capacity between Bridgend and Cardiff as well as east of Newport for a Swansea service and platform capacity at Middlesbrough?
I think it is more likely that they (at least to start with) just attach a second unit at Bristol/Exeter in the south and York/Newcastle in the North to provide a capacity boost in the core section. Although some services further out could do with more capacity as well such as the 08:20 from Aberdeen but I don't know if there would be enougth units to double every service for the full journey.

 

[Iskra]

Would there be the capacity between Bridgend and Cardiff as well as east of Newport for a Swansea service and platform capacity at Middlesbrough?
I think it is more likely that they (at least to start with) just attach a second unit at Bristol/Exeter in the south and York/Newcastle in the North to provide a capacity boost in the core section. Although some services further out could do with more capacity as well such as the 08:20 from Aberdeen but I don't know if there would be enougth units to double every service for the full journey.

I agree that's a sensible proposition, it will be interesting to see what they prioritise as these small capacity increases arrive. I just thought that doing Swansea-York/Middlesbrough relieves two routes for the price of one and adds journey opportunities at the same time. The Birmingham-Exeter route has already had a increase in frequency recently I believe?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

From 2022, couldn't XC re-instate something like Swansea-York/Middlesbrough to provide additional capacity on the core network, relieving both the core and Cardiff-Nottingham routes at the same time (to an extent).

A few issues. One Track Capacity at Middlesborough and York and two track capacity at New Street (which is full in terms of train services).

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I agree that's a sensible proposition, it will be interesting to see what they prioritise as these small capacity increases arrive. I just thought that doing Swansea-York/Middlesbrough relieves two routes for the price of one and the Birmingham-Exeter route has already had a increase in frequency recently I believe?

Only a few extra services. I can see all Bristol services from Manchester going to Exeter

 

[JonathanH]

From 2022, couldn't XC re-instate something like Swansea-York/Middlesbrough to provide additional capacity on the core network, relieving both the core and Cardiff-Nottingham routes at the same time (to an extent).

While you could argue that reactivation of Llandore might be useful as a base for servicing extra rolling stock, there are unlikely to be paths between Swansea and Cardiff for this service. Even if they were to exist they would need to be flighted pretty close to the GWR services (which run frequently at peak times).

I don't see Cross Country leasing what would effectively be two extra units to spend their time in South Wales. It just isn't part of their core offering. In kind of goes to the argument some have put on here about 10 Voyagers being tied up north of York at any one time. There is no point Cross Country leasing stock to duplicate what is already on offer from other operators.

I agree that's a sensible proposition

It is a ridiculous proposition. They need to concentrate on their core routes before reaching out to duplicate those of other operators.

 

[Iskra]

While you could argue that reactivation of Llandore might be useful as a base for servicing extra rolling stock, there are unlikely to be paths between Swansea and Cardiff for this service. Even if they were to exist they would need to be flighted pretty close to the GWR services (which run frequently at peak times).

I don't see Cross Country leasing what would effectively be two extra units to spend their time in South Wales. It just isn't part of their core offering. In kind of goes to the argument some have put on here about 10 Voyagers being tied up north of York at any one time. There is no point Cross Country leasing stock to duplicate what is already on offer from other operators.



It is a ridiculous proposition. They need to concentrate on their core routes before reaching out to duplicate those of other operators.

They are getting extra units anyway. And Swansea-Cardiff is a short round trip compared to York/Newcastle-Aberdeen/Dundee/Glasgow.

That's what I was saying was a sensible proposition, perhaps read carefully before resorting to ridicule. This is the speculative ideas forum after all.

 

[JonathanH]

They are getting extra units anyway. And Swansea-Cardiff is a short round trip compared to York/Newcastle-Aberdeen/Dundee/Glasgow.

That's what I was saying was a sensible proposition, perhaps read carefully before resorting to ridicule. This is the speculative ideas forum after all.

Swansea has its merits - there is an empty maintenance depot there - but is a service running all the way from Newport to Swansea right up behind (or ahead of) another operator's service the best use of any additional units Cross Country can get its hands on? (I recognise that this happens between York and Edinburgh but a lot more people live in Yorkshire and Scotland than in Swansea.) Even Cheltenham to Cardiff has Transport for Wales running a local service on the opposite side of the hour to the Cross Country service (which is now the 'fast' on this corridor).

Realistically, 2022 seems too soon to start extending Cross Country services beyond their existing network. Extra units should be about lengthening the existing services - maybe even those running Cardiff to Nottingham. Get that right and then think about extending to other destinations.

 

[Iskra]

Swansea has its merits - there is an empty maintenance depot there - but is a service running all the way from Newport to Swansea right up behind (or ahead of) another operator's service the best use of any additional units Cross Country can get its hands on? (I recognise that this happens between York and Edinburgh but a lot more people live in Yorkshire and Scotland than in Swansea.) Even Cheltenham to Cardiff has Transport for Wales running a local service on the opposite side of the hour to the Cross Country service (which is now the 'fast' on this corridor).

Realistically, 2022 seems too soon to start extending Cross Country services beyond their existing network. Extra units should be about lengthening the existing services - maybe even those running Cardiff to Nottingham. Get that right and then think about extending to other destinations.

I understand what you’re saying and my idea was mainly about adding capacity on the core while extending to a couple of ‘new’ destinations to reach new markets and not clogging up Cardiff and York stations.

That is true.

 

[VT 390]

I agree that's a sensible proposition, it will be interesting to see what they prioritise as these small capacity increases arrive. I just thought that doing Swansea-York/Middlesbrough relieves two routes for the price of one and adds journey opportunities at the same time. The Birmingham-Exeter route has already had a increase in frequency recently I believe?

Eventually if capacity can be found I do agree that a dircet service from Swansea to Birmingham would be a good idea as it would also help tackle overcrowding on other XC routes in to Birmingham with less people from South Wales changing on to them.
The Bristol to Exeter section has had a few extra trains each day and eventually I think the plan is for it to become half hourly but this may mean reducing XC Paignton services.

 

[The Fox 4846]

If there was to be a change of services I would do the following:
* Transfer a path between LNWR so that Liverpool receive a Cross country service again.
* Extend the Reading train to Brighton via Kensington Olympia calling At Hayes for Heathrow & Gatwick
* Introduce an extra service from New Street to Leeds either extending to Bradford or Newcastle via Sunderland

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

If there was to be a change of services I would do the following:
* Transfer a path between LNWR so that Liverpool receive a Cross country service again.
* Extend the Reading train to Brighton via Kensington Olympia calling At Hayes for Heathrow & Gatwick
* Introduce an extra service from New Street to Leeds either extending to Bradford or Newcastle via Sunderland

1) maybe a good idea. Though good look finding a path at New Street.
2) Good luck finding paths at Brighton.
3) Again no capacity at New Street.

though they are good ideas, they suffer from lack of paths. Maybe post-hs2. Could extend the latter to Newcastle or Bradford but there are capacity issues there too

 

[VT 390]

* Extend the Reading train to Brighton via Kensington Olympia calling At Hayes for Heathrow & Gatwick

I don't ever see this service ever happening as not only there would be no paths on the Great Western main line east of Reading but also having end door stock on the Brighton Main Line is not a good idea for reliability, especially as it would involve a lot of conflicting movements.

 

[Stephen Lee]

then there are two additional HSTs being brought in taking the total to 17 so in a way the plan is

1. Increased diagramming of existing 170 fleet from May 2020
   
2. Increased diagramming of existing HST fleet from December 2020 enabling lengthening of other services
3. Two Additional HSTs will be used on CrossCountry from December 2020 enabling lengthening of other services
4. Increased capacity for 170 fleet by extending 2-car units to 3-cars
5. From 2022, additional 221's from Avanti OR 222's from EMR will be transferred to CrossCountry

For Intercity Routes, i would prefer HSTs as Stopgap, then replace it by extra 221s from Avanti and 222s from EMR PS amongst the 222s, i would reckon the 7 car units to replace the HSTs in the XC fleet, then the 4/5-car units for extra capacity in both Regional/Intercity Routes.
For Regional Routes, i would divide it into 2 stages
First stage, after the 170/5s are being lengthened to 3-cars using centre cars from WMR 170630-635 when the driving vehicle pairs of 170630-635 move to EMR, lengthen 170111-117 into 3-car using centre cars from GTRSN 171s(subjected to what will replace them but we knew there will be 12 GTRSN 171s which include the 4 Scottish 170 examples and possibly 170392 due to move to EMR and convert to 170s)
Second stage, deploy some voyagers into some regional routes and free up 170s for some extra capacity.

Last but not least, if services are still crowded, consider for 180s.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

For Intercity Routes, i would prefer HSTs as Stopgap, then replace it by extra 221s from Avanti and 222s from EMR
For Regional Routes, i would divide it into 2 stages
First stage, after the 170/5s are being lengthened to 3-cars using centre cars from WMR 170630-635 when the driving vehicle pairs of 170630-635 move to EMR, lengthen 170111-117 into 3-car using centre cars from GTRSN 171s(subjected to what will replace them but we knew there will be 12 GTRSN 171s which include the 4 Scottish 170 examples and possibly 170392 due to move to EMR and convert to 170s)
Second stage, deploy some voyagers into some regional routes and free up 170s for some extra capacity.

I like using HSTs as a stop-gap solution.

 

[Stephen Lee]

I like using HSTs as a stop-gap solution.

Also for long term would Class 180s be a good idea. PS I heard that the 180s due to transfer to EMR are just only stopgaps for HST replacements, alongside with 222s displaced from Corby when Kettering-Corby is electrified with 360s running between London SP-Corby until they are replaced by 810s.

 

[Domh245]

No, 180s wouldn't be a good idea for XC. There's only 4 of them available and are notoriously unreliable, so you'd probably only plan for two diagrams from them which won't get you much capacity at all, and definitely not worth the hassle. And that's not to mention that at roughly the same time that they'll become available, so will the 222s, which is a much larger fleet, more reliable and more similar to the existing stock (although granted, not interworkable)

 

[Stephen Lee]

No, 180s wouldn't be a good idea for XC. There's only 4 of them available and are notoriously unreliable, so you'd probably only plan for two diagrams from them which won't get you much capacity at all, and definitely not worth the hassle. And that's not to mention that at roughly the same time that they'll become available, so will the 222s, which is a much larger fleet, more reliable and more similar to the existing stock (although granted, not interworkable)

Actually we don’t know if Grand central are planning to order IETs from Hitachi to replace the 180s......

 

[Domh245]

Hull Trains ordered the 802s because their 180s were so unbelievably unreliable and they had the 'might' of First Group behind them (who had open options from existing 802 orders) - neither of which is the case for Grand Central, so it's hard to see them placing such an order. But even if they did place such an order, they wouldn't be available until after the 222s become available (and 221s come to think of it)

If it got to the point of throwing anything-that'll-do-125mph-on-diesel at XC to boost capacity then sure, moving all 14 180s (70 vehicles) would make sense, but it should be a last step after moving 100 interworkable vehicles, plus a standalone sister fleet of 143 vehicles to XC first.

 

[JonathanH]

Actually we don’t know if Grand central are planning to order IETs from Hitachi to replace the 180s......

I think it is pretty certain that they aren't, particularly in the current circumstances.

 

[swt_passenger]

Actually we don’t know if Grand central are planning to order IETs from Hitachi to replace the 180s......

We can probably make an educated guess that they definitely won’t be. I doubt a realistic business case could be made.

 

[Stephen Lee]

What do you think about my idea in the Regional Routes(2nd stage proposal)?

For Intercity Routes, i would prefer HSTs as Stopgap, then replace it by extra 221s from Avanti and 222s from EMR PS amongst the 222s, i would reckon the 7 car units to replace the HSTs in the XC fleet, then the 4/5-car units for extra capacity in both Regional/Intercity Routes.
For Regional Routes, i would divide it into 2 stages
First stage, after the 170/5s are being lengthened to 3-cars using centre cars from WMR 170630-635 when the driving vehicle pairs of 170630-635 move to EMR, lengthen 170111-117 into 3-car using centre cars from GTRSN 171s(subjected to what will replace them but we knew there will be 12 GTRSN 171s which include the 4 Scottish 170 examples and possibly 170392 due to move to EMR and convert to 170s)
Second stage, deploy some voyagers into some regional routes and free up 170s for some extra capacity.

Last but not least, if services are still crowded, consider for 180s.

I would reckon the 20 Avanti 221s
1/2 of them move to Grand Central so as to free up 180s for XC extra capacity, together with the EMR Stopgap 180s when they got replaced by 810s in 2022.
The rest half move to XC with the 180s from GC/EMR.

Hull Trains ordered the 802s because their 180s were so unbelievably unreliable and they had the 'might' of First Group behind them (who had open options from existing 802 orders) - neither of which is the case for Grand Central, so it's hard to see them placing such an order. But even if they did place such an order, they wouldn't be available until after the 222s become available (and 221s come to think of it)

If it got to the point of throwing anything-that'll-do-125mph-on-diesel at XC to boost capacity then sure, moving all 14 180s (70 vehicles) would make sense, but it should be a last step after moving 100 interworkable vehicles, plus a standalone sister fleet of 143 vehicles to XC first.

 

[squizzler]

I would reckon the 20 Avanti 221s

With a sort of 'soft nationalisation' having just occurred and 'franchise commitments' no longer a thing, I suggest XC is allocated the units faster than they would when stock allocation was determined by such. Those of the 221s which I understand work entirely 'under the wires' could be transferred across straight away. The WCML route might have fewer services for a bit till their new fleet comes on stream or they find some decent EMUs, but I suspect their loss is made up for by the greater utility that XC could deliver with the units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With a sort of 'soft nationalisation' having just occurred and 'franchise commitments' no longer a thing, I suggest XC is allocated the units faster than they would when stock allocation was determined by such. Those of the 221s which I understand work entirely 'under the wires' could be transferred across straight away. The WCML route might have fewer services for a bit till their new fleet comes on stream or they find some decent EMUs, but I suspect their loss is made up for by the greater utility that XC could deliver with the units.

That would cause severe overcrowding on the WCML and would not be a good idea.

 

[squizzler]

Would it have to? Might there be some opportunity to juggle the Pendolino diagrams and augment with currently available 100-110 mph EMUs? I feel it would be easier for Avanti to recast an equally useful service without these units than it would be for XC to continue managing without. It would force the issue of reasonable DMU's running full-time under the wires, and Avanti might benefit from being ridded of this practice, even at the cost of the Virgin Trains new-model 200kph railway with nose cones. The main barrier, it seems to me, is the psychological condition that makes people more resentful of having stuff taken away from them than they would be if they never had that something in the first place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would it have to? Might there be some opportunity to juggle the Pendolino diagrams and augment with currently available 100-110 mph EMUs?

If you were going to use EMUs it'd be better to use them between Birmingham and Manchester on XC than slowing down the WCML proper.

 

[squizzler]

But your username does rather suggest certain a personal interest in WCML over XC, LOL . I still maintain that Avanti could satisfactorily serve their customers without the 221s that spend their life under wires. XC needs them for the governments so-called 'levelling-up' agenda, and this could be made to happen right away now that all parties are out the legal and financial straitjackets of 'franchise commitments' and 'premium payments'.