Why are XC allowed to continue?

[Energy]

One way would be to extend the LNWR London - Birmingham services to Manchester. No increase in platform space required.

They did this with a London - Birmingham - Liverpool service, it had appalling reliability.

 

[The Planner]

One way would be to extend the LNWR London - Birmingham services to Manchester. No increase in platform space required.

XC could potentially then merge the Bristol and Bournemouth services with the 1/2 hourly Leicester or the Nottingham service. That would free up even more platform space.

I’m not saying that it’s the perfect solution, but neither is continuing to run massively overcrowded DMUs under wires in the vain hope that someone will eventually order more trains and/or electrify the route.

Joining the northbound Bristol and Bournemouths to Leicester and Nottingham services would clog the platforms even more.

 

[irish_rail]

I'd argue that Liverpool has greater pull from areas outside London and Birmingham than Manchester does. Manchester may be bigger, but for me Liverpool has far more visitor potential , and many of these will arrive by rail. I'd guess much of Manchesters visitor potential arrives from London or Birmingham, whereas I reckon for Liverpool, visitors probably come from all parts of the UK to a greater extent. Ask in Plymouth how many people have had a weekend in Liverpool, and plenty will say yes. Far fewer have been to Manchester , unless they have family there. So, I'd change the Manchester service to swap with the LNR Liverpool service. Have Birmingham to Manchester 350 EMUs whizzing between those two cities, and swap the cross country trains to serve Liverpool instead of Manchester from the likes of Bournemouth, Bristol and Plymouth.

 

[Tremzinho]

They did this with a London - Birmingham - Liverpool service, it had appalling reliability.

More unreliable than Bournemouth/Bristol - Birmingham - Manchester? Or Avanti's London - Birmingham - Scotland?

 

[d70g]

Liverpool vs Manchester service provision has already been done to death on this site. Neither cities are all that relevant to XC’s long-standing woes. (Arguably, the most pertinent location is Westminster, where the DfT live).

 

[J-2739]

I'd argue that Liverpool has greater pull from areas outside London and Birmingham than Manchester does. Manchester may be bigger, but for me Liverpool has far more visitor potential , and many of these will arrive by rail. I'd guess much of Manchesters visitor potential arrives from London or Birmingham, whereas I reckon for Liverpool, visitors probably come from all parts of the UK to a greater extent. Ask in Plymouth how many people have had a weekend in Liverpool, and plenty will say yes. Far fewer have been to Manchester , unless they have family there. So, I'd change the Manchester service to swap with the LNR Liverpool service. Have Birmingham to Manchester 350 EMUs whizzing between those two cities, and swap the cross country trains to serve Liverpool instead of Manchester from the likes of Bournemouth, Bristol and Plymouth.

Looking at the latest Origin-Destination matrix figures for 2022-23, it seems that Manchester Piccadilly places 57th for Plymouth, with approximately 2,157 journeys a year. None of the stations in Liverpool make the top 100.

I suppose the vast majority of these people drive instead, as train connections between them are so poor (CrossCountry, anyone?)

Using the excellent tool created by @RealAleFan:

Labs - Flow Statistics

Estimations (symmetrical) of total passenger journeys made between station pairs for the financial year 2022-2023 as published by the Office of Road and Rail

railalefan.co.uk

 

[Tremzinho]

So from Manchester Piccadilly, Birmingham New Street is in 10th place with 188,330 journeys per year, with Wolverhampton 37th and Stafford 38th. Bristol is 65th with 32,482, and Reading 66th with 31,148. Bournemouth doesn't feature in the top 100.

That's a lot of people stuck on overcrowded trains who aren't going past Birmingham. How much suppressed demand is there on this route because of the overcrowding and lack of cheap advance fares, so that a minority of passengers can have a through service?

 

[daodao]

So from Manchester Piccadilly, Birmingham New Street is in 10th place with 188,330 journeys per year, with Wolverhampton 37th and Stafford 38th. Bristol is 65th with 32,482, and Reading 66th with 31,148. Bournemouth doesn't feature in the top 100.

That's a lot of people stuck on overcrowded trains who aren't going past Birmingham. How much suppressed demand is there on this route because of the overcrowding and lack of cheap advance fares, so that a minority of passengers can have a through service?

In the period 2006-2019, I made approximately 1 rail trip per year from Cheshire to Birmingham, with just 2 journeys to points further south (Cardiff on 1 occasion, Bristol Parkway on another). [Since Covid in 2020, many of these meetings have been on line, using MS Teams or Zoom.] Initially, I used Macclesfield (and on 1 occasion Congleton when XC served it), but in latter years switched to using Hartford, with ticket splitting at Stafford. The class 350/2 emus were far pleasanter (less cramped, quieter, smoother ride and no unpleasant odours) than the Voyagers.

 

[irish_rail]

So from Manchester Piccadilly, Birmingham New Street is in 10th place with 188,330 journeys per year, with Wolverhampton 37th and Stafford 38th. Bristol is 65th with 32,482, and Reading 66th with 31,148. Bournemouth doesn't feature in the top 100.

That's a lot of people stuck on overcrowded trains who aren't going past Birmingham. How much suppressed demand is there on this route because of the overcrowding and lack of cheap advance fares, so that a minority of passengers can have a through service?

Trouble is split ticketing makes these kind of statistics on longer distance journeys utterly pointless. I don't think I've ever purchased a Plymouth to North west fare. I would always break the journey at various points on route as it saves a big chunk.

 

[Killingworth]

Trouble is split ticketing makes these kind of statistics on longer distance journeys utterly pointless. I don't think I've ever purchased a Plymouth to North west fare. I would always break the journey at various points on route as it saves a big chunk.

Indeed. Ticket sales are a guide to demand but need deeper understanding.

My latest XC journeys have been Chesterfield - Cheltenham. Roughly half the price to book in 3 stages, Chesterfield- Derby - Birmingham - Cheltenham. CHD is my easiest station to reach when going south.

My nearest XC station is Sheffield. My last trip to Newcastle was from Doncaster by LNER after comparing ticket price, time (including home to station) and car parking cost!

 

[Snow1964]

Trouble is split ticketing makes these kind of statistics on longer distance journeys utterly pointless. I don't think I've ever purchased a Plymouth to North west fare. I would always break the journey at various points on route as it saves a big chunk.

Exactly, my daughter uses XC for most of the journey to/from University, nearly always 4 legs on split tickets.

I recently did a single journey on an advance to my Aunts to collect a car as she had stopped driving, not on XC but the credit card size ticket was printed on 4 tickets plus a receipt, 2 of which simply gave part of itinerary saying no allocated seats.

Maybe the stats are now meaningless.

 

[The Ham]

So Liverpool should have more services because Exeter is well connected?

I'm not arguing Liverpool *shouldn't* be well connected. I'm arguing that if you are choosing between serving one city or the other, you're normally going to get better results serving Manchester.

The point in making is that arguing about which city should be better connected is pointless, as it's clear there should be far more capacity.

A lot of effort is made arguing about should one or the other be lucky enough to be thrown a crumb (an extra service or two) when they effort should be put into arguing for more investment.

Even in a post HS2 world, the London/Manchester capacity would only just be on a par with Exeter/London by population size.

 

[mangyiscute]

One way would be to extend the LNWR London - Birmingham services to Manchester. No increase in platform space required.

I think this would actually work well, since towards Manchester you'd have a 15 minute wait to align to paths, and towards London you'd have a 10 minute wait, both of which are completely reasonable and allow recovery time in case of delays.
Plus, if there are delays on either half of the route, since both sides are running alongside services on the wcml, it's likely imported delays would be along the whole route anyway.
Finally, the cheap lnwr fares from Manchester to London would have a better route to use rather than the often 2 coach tfw service to Crewe.

If you just terminated the Bournemouth services at Birmingham, you'd have a 12 minute turnaround, which would most likely be fine and not taken up much platform space - I think the Leicester services have a similar turnaround? (And similarly the Bristol services would have 18-24 mins of turnaround in Birmingham)

 

[The Planner]

More unreliable than Bournemouth/Bristol - Birmingham - Manchester? Or Avanti's London - Birmingham - Scotland?

Yes, they were absolutely woeful.

 

[JonathanH]

Finally, the cheap lnwr fares from Manchester to London would have a better route to use rather than the often 2 coach tfw service to Crewe.

Or they would be increased or withdrawn to reflect the fact that the journey has been made easier.

 

[The Planner]

I think this would actually work well, since towards Manchester you'd have a 15 minute wait to align to paths, and towards London you'd have a 10 minute wait, both of which are completely reasonable and allow recovery time in case of delays.
Plus, if there are delays on either half of the route, since both sides are running alongside services on the wcml, it's likely imported delays would be along the whole route anyway.
Finally, the cheap lnwr fares from Manchester to London would have a better route to use rather than the often 2 coach tfw service to Crewe.

If you just terminated the Bournemouth services at Birmingham, you'd have a 12 minute turnaround, which would most likely be fine and not taken up much platform space - I think the Leicester services have a similar turnaround? (And similarly the Bristol services would have 18-24 mins of turnaround in Birmingham)

12 minutes is not enough for XC and your clogging platforms again.

 

[mangyiscute]

12 minutes is not enough for XC and your clogging platforms again.

I don't understand where the clogging platforms is coming from, this would actually prevent the lnwr London services from sitting on platforms for ages as they do currently so I'd argue it would take less platform space.
Even just looking at yesterday, I can find a train that turned around in 10 minutes at Manchester and that involved splitting the 8 car arriving service into 2 4 cars and then the from one leaving 10 mins after it had arrived.

 

[I'm here now]

Is there any idea of the cost to electrify Bristol Temple Meads to Bromsgrove compared to new bi-modes for crosscountry? Could class88s or 93s be used on some services from Bristol to the North West with mark 5s from TPE? That could significantly increase capacity and reduce the running under the wires.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Can we please leave the LNW Liverpool-Birmingham services alone!

 

[The Planner]

I don't understand where the clogging platforms is coming from, this would actually prevent the lnwr London services from sitting on platforms for ages as they do currently so I'd argue it would take less platform space.
Even just looking at yesterday, I can find a train that turned around in 10 minutes at Manchester and that involved splitting the 8 car arriving service into 2 4 cars and then the from one leaving 10 mins after it had arrived.

That isn't planned, XC will not allow a Voyager to turn around in that timescale on a planned basis.

Presumably the LNWR services you are looking at are the xx.45 arrivals forming the xx.01 XC? so a 16 minute dwell. The xx.51 XC low side arrival forms the Nottingham at xx.09, which goes from the high side at 18 minutes? The Bristol arrives at xx.24 and forms the the xx.52 Leicester (ignoring the fact 221s would be awful on a stopper) at 28 minutes? The LNWR xx.14 arrival forms the xx.30 Manchester at 16 minutes?

Going the other way, the xx.57 XC arrival from Manchester forming the xx.06 LNWR departure? The xx.33 XC arrival forming the xx.36 LNWR departure (which is risky at best as that is a minimum dwell at New St and everybody is leaving and joining the service)? The xx.38 arrival from Stansted forms the xx.42 Bristol? again risky with the dwell time. The xx.55 Nottingham forms the xx.03 Bournemouth?

The LNWR currently sits in one platform (normally 4) for 22 minutes, xx.44 forming the xx.06 and xx.14 forming the xx.36. This proposal is altering many more platforms and the LNWR dwells are not vastly more than what you are proposing.

 

[zwk500]

Is there any idea of the cost to electrify Bristol Temple Meads to Bromsgrove compared to new bi-modes for crosscountry?

Depends how many trains you're buying for XC, and how much other stuff you do while electrifying. It also depends on your operational strategy if you did split XC into an all-electric arm (i.e. would you have pure EMU units or just go with all Bi-Modes.

For a rough number EMR's 33x 5-car 810 order cost £400m in 2019. But your electrification number would need to take into account the new EMUs and so on...

Could class88s or 93s be used on some services from Bristol to the North West with mark 5s from TPE? That could significantly increase capacity and reduce the running under the wires.

Not sensibly. And 5 Cars isn't long enough for Bristol-Birmingham.

 

[Snow1964]

Is there any idea of the cost to electrify Bristol Temple Meads to Bromsgrove compared to new bi-modes for crosscountry? Could class88s or 93s be used on some services from Bristol to the North West with mark 5s from TPE? That could significantly increase capacity and reduce the running under the wires.

The route was in the Western decarbonisation strategy 2 or 3 years back. From memory was initial phase (restarting the 2017 cutback to Temple Meads, a phase adding Bathampton to Warminster/Frome and to Gloucester, then phase Severn Tunnel - Gloucester - Bromsgrove.

I cannot remember if it allowed the Nottingham trains to become battery EMUs in theory, or if distance was too far (I think the round trip off wires was generally regarded as about 60 miles (or 100km) max in practice, even if theoretical battery range was about 1.5 times that

 

[HSTEd]

Is there any idea of the cost to electrify Bristol Temple Meads to Bromsgrove compared to new bi-modes for crosscountry? Could class88s or 93s be used on some services from Bristol to the North West with mark 5s from TPE? That could significantly increase capacity and reduce the running under the wires.

A bi-mode unit will get you a handful of track kilometres of electrification.

Until Hitachi apparently priced themselves far too high the only plausible solution was an order for 5-car IEPs to send the Voyagers to the scrapline.

 

[Wolfie]

The DfT could direct them to withdraw from this segment of their network in order to convert it to greener electric traction, rather than accede to any demand for additional trains. As for convenience, this arrangement is deemed to be good enough for Liverpool, so why should Manchester get preferential treatment? Passengers from Manchester for Bristol and SW England could change at Newport if they would prefer not to do so at New Street.

A compromise arrangement would be to run the following hourly service pattern:

• Plymouth-Edinburgh via Bristol/Birmingham/Doncaster (XC)
• Bournemouth-Leeds via Reading/Birmingham (XC)
• Exeter-Manchester via Bristol/Birmingham/Stoke (XC)
• Coventry-Manchester via Birmingham/Stoke (LMR emus)

The GW fast Oxford terminator from Paddington could be extended to Banbury to connect with Chiltern Railways services to Birmingham via Solihull to provide more capacity on the Reading-Birmingham segment.

Manchester is Britain's third city. In terms of population and economic importance Liverpool comes nowhere near it.

One way would be to extend the LNWR London - Birmingham services to Manchester. No increase in platform space required.

XC could potentially then merge the Bristol and Bournemouth services with the 1/2 hourly Leicester or the Nottingham service. That would free up even more platform space.

I’m not saying that it’s the perfect solution, but neither is continuing to run massively overcrowded DMUs under wires in the vain hope that someone will eventually order more trains and/or electrify the route.

Re your first para because of course linking the LNWR Euston to Birmingham and Birmingham to Liverpool services worked so well.....

 

[cle]

I'd argue that Liverpool has greater pull from areas outside London and Birmingham than Manchester does. Manchester may be bigger, but for me Liverpool has far more visitor potential , and many of these will arrive by rail. I'd guess much of Manchesters visitor potential arrives from London or Birmingham, whereas I reckon for Liverpool, visitors probably come from all parts of the UK to a greater extent. Ask in Plymouth how many people have had a weekend in Liverpool, and plenty will say yes. Far fewer have been to Manchester , unless they have family there. So, I'd change the Manchester service to swap with the LNR Liverpool service. Have Birmingham to Manchester 350 EMUs whizzing between those two cities, and swap the cross country trains to serve Liverpool instead of Manchester from the likes of Bournemouth, Bristol and Plymouth.

Other than London, and a few other exceptions - general rail demand is far more outbound than inbound. ie from the place to other places. Far more people in Greater Manchester, much more travel to London, etc etc - people visiting is way less significant.

And visiting includes business travel. London-Manchester business travel is one of the busiest ex-London business flows. Liverpool does not come close. Football is probably about equal, probably a little more to Manchester these days with City, but healthy for both. Gigs, Manchester.

Nobody at scale is travelling to the Tate Liverpool or Fred's Weather map to make a dent in railway usage figures, really. Even if Liverpool does have nicer older buildings, I don't think it moves the needle.

 

[irish_rail]

Other than London, and a few other exceptions - general rail demand is far more outbound than inbound. ie from the place to other places. Far more people in Greater Manchester, much more travel to London, etc etc - people visiting is way less significant.

And visiting includes business travel. London-Manchester business travel is one of the busiest ex-London business flows. Liverpool does not come close. Football is probably about equal, probably a little more to Manchester these days with City, but healthy for both. Gigs, Manchester.

Nobody at scale is travelling to the Tate Liverpool or Fred's Weather map to make a dent in railway usage figures, really. Even if Liverpool does have nicer older buildings, I don't think it moves the needle.

You haven't been to Liverpool for a while have you...... Tourism is a major part of Liverpool's economy. The Beatles thing alone is an enormous brand for the city that brings in countless visitors. Most visitors , will arrive by train if possible, especially when staying at a city centre hotel. It is therefore crucial to the Liverpool economy that it has decent rail links. It needs better links with almost all of the south of England and South Wales.

 

[Topological]

That isn't planned, XC will not allow a Voyager to turn around in that timescale on a planned basis.

Presumably the LNWR services you are looking at are the xx.45 arrivals forming the xx.01 XC? so a 16 minute dwell. The xx.51 XC low side arrival forms the Nottingham at xx.09, which goes from the high side at 18 minutes? The Bristol arrives at xx.24 and forms the the xx.52 Leicester (ignoring the fact 221s would be awful on a stopper) at 28 minutes? The LNWR xx.14 arrival forms the xx.30 Manchester at 16 minutes?

Going the other way, the xx.57 XC arrival from Manchester forming the xx.06 LNWR departure? The xx.33 XC arrival forming the xx.36 LNWR departure (which is risky at best as that is a minimum dwell at New St and everybody is leaving and joining the service)? The xx.38 arrival from Stansted forms the xx.42 Bristol? again risky with the dwell time. The xx.55 Nottingham forms the xx.03 Bournemouth?

The LNWR currently sits in one platform (normally 4) for 22 minutes, xx.44 forming the xx.06 and xx.14 forming the xx.36. This proposal is altering many more platforms and the LNWR dwells are not vastly more than what you are proposing.

The LNWR departures almost make sense, though that southbound 3 minutes is not ideal.

For the CrossCountry the missing trains which originally came from Manchester are to Bournemouth at xx.03 and Bristol at xx.42. So ignoring dragging any other destinations into the mix, there are arrivals at xx.51 and xx.24. Turning the xx.51 from Bournemouth into the xx.03 Bournemouth is presumably workable. However, that leaves the xx.24 arrival from Bristol to be the xx.42 to Bristol which is 18 minutes and therefore presumably a little too long. That does not seem like the end of the world though.

Now going into a bit more speculative discussion, could there be a way to get WMT or whoever to run Birmingham to Bristol and therefore save even more Voyagers? If indeed the xx.24 from Bristol does form the xx.42 to Bristol then that diagram is not exactly long distance. Since these journeys are nominally Camp Hill as well, the ability to run them with stock suited to stopping at the new Camp Hill stations would also work well.

Leicester and Nottingham trains carry on being 170s and doing exactly what they are doing at the moment.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The class 350/2 emus were far pleasanter (less cramped, quieter, smoother ride and no unpleasant odours) than the Voyagers.

That just shows how subjective preferences are among different opinions. I think the 350/2s are shabby, uncomfortable, cramped and hopelessly devoid of amenities such as tables, armrests and personal space, with irritating announcements and loud doors, whereas I find Voyagers very comfortable (and people GREATLY exaggerate about the smell too; it's the 390s that always used to stink in the vestibules, much as they are my favourite class. The refurbishment seems to have curbed that.)

 

[I'm here now]

Depends how many trains you're buying for XC, and how much other stuff you do while electrifying. It also depends on your operational strategy if you did split XC into an all-electric arm (i.e. would you have pure EMU units or just go with all Bi-Modes.

For a rough number EMR's 33x 5-car 810 order cost £400m in 2019. But your electrification number would need to take into account the new EMUs and so on...

Not sensibly. And 5 Cars isn't long enough for Bristol-Birmingham.

Hmm… Could you do over 5 coach workings for the Mark 5As?

 

[JonathanH]

Hmm… Could you do over 5 coach workings for the Mark 5As?

Only by reducing the number of trainsets and having spare end coaches. The likelihood of any further coaches being built is tiny.