Why are XC allowed to continue?

[The Planner]

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.

Still too short for XC, they become turnarounds between two services.

 

[Mark J]

Currently at Reading.

The 'delayed' 12:15 to Manchester Piccadilly is formed of four carriages and it appears First Class has been declassified already, as people appear to be standing up in there. Needless to say the rest of the train is like that too.

An utterly hopeless service for Easter Bank Holiday!

 

[Metrolink]

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

LNWR to Manchester makes sense but surely AWC can pull some weight here? I am sure they run one early AM service via B’ham to London. I would happily take this as one of the 3tph from MCR - EUS as Stoke/Macc wouldn’t lose out as they would still retain the second train to Stafford and on to B’ham. Then the choice to get rid of XC to MCR doesn’t need to happen.

I think retaining a Reading service is equally as important as a Bristol/Exeter but 1tp2h working alternating is adequate on the hypothetical basis that Avanti runs a somewhat regular, decent service.

Then you have Voyagers freed up (plus a possible cascade from Avanti based on the arrival of the 805/807s) to spread across the Scotland - South West and B’ham - Reading/B’mouth routes to make 8/9 car sets or higher frequencies.

 

[mangyiscute]

Currently at Reading.

The 'delayed' 12:15 to Manchester Piccadilly is formed of four carriages and it appears First Class has been declassified already, as people appear to be standing up in there. Needless to say the rest of the train is like that too.

An utterly hopeless service for Easter Bank Holiday!

I was lucky enough to get the 09:15 which was a 9 car and plenty of space, then my return on the 1813 from Birmingham International was 5 car, fairly busy when boarding with a few standing who could've sat down if they wanted to, since there were plenty of single seats but no double seats

 

[Mark J]

Well it got worse this evening.

Reading was missed out entirely to make up lost time!

 

[py_megapixel]

Well it got worse this evening.

Reading was missed out entirely to make up lost time!

Are you sure that was why? That suggests skipping Reading is predicted to save all of 4 minutes - hardly worth it when we're talking about a delay of well over an hour, surely.

 

[Mark J]

Are you sure that was why? That suggests skipping Reading is predicted to save all of 4 minutes - hardly worth it when we're talking about a delay of well over an hour, surely.

That is what National Rail enquiries is quoting!

 

[JonathanH]

Are you sure that was why? That suggests skipping Reading is predicted to save all of 4 minutes - hardly worth it when we're talking about a delay of well over an hour, surely.

Missing Reading should make up 10 minutes, rather than 4.

 

[Starmill]

Journey times from Edinburgh/Newcastle/York to Birmingham/Bristol are currently no better than they were in 1982 and only 30 minutes better than in 1973 due to the deviation via Leeds.

You're living in a parallel universe if you think direct services between Edinburgh and Leeds are going to be withdrawn. It's of huge commercial and economic importance. The current link is frequent and fast. No matter your claimed benefits from the trade-off, it won't be happening.

 

[daodao]

You're living in a parallel universe if you think direct services between Edinburgh and Leeds are going to be withdrawn. It's of huge commercial and economic importance. The current link is frequent and fast. No matter your claimed benefits from the trade-off, it won't be happening.

Direct services between Edinburgh and Leeds could be provided by extending selected TPE trains terminating at Newcastle, instead of by XC.

 

[Killingworth]

Direct services between Edinburgh and Leeds could be provided by extending selected TPE trains terminating at Newcastle, instead of by XC.

Leaving Birmingham, Sheffield and Doncaster with a faster service to Edinburgh by XC? I'll buy that!

 

[Starmill]

Direct services between Edinburgh and Leeds could be provided by extending selected TPE trains terminating at Newcastle, instead of by XC.

Not after the new ECML recast they won't. They've been split deliberately because they can't run through easily.

Leaving Birmingham, Sheffield and Doncaster with a faster service to Edinburgh by XC? I'll buy that!

Doncaster already has a very fast service to Edinburgh, I'm not sure why it needs another one.

That is what National Rail enquiries is quoting!

Darwin / NRE does not actually "know" how much time skipping a stop will save. It's very "dumb" it just strips out the dwell time and goes from there, similarly to assuming a train needs no allowances. Unless it's actually told what the estimated times are by a human it isn't going to be able to get taking a small diversion right. For bigger diversions it rarely displays useful results either, unless there are new times input by a human.

LNWR to Manchester makes sense but surely AWC can pull some weight here? I am sure they run one early AM service via B’ham to London. I would happily take this as one of the 3tph from MCR - EUS as Stoke/Macc wouldn’t lose out as they would still retain the second train to Stafford and on to B’ham. Then the choice to get rid of XC to MCR doesn’t need to happen.

The 0603 and 0625 from Manchester Piccadilly just run in two slots CrossCountry happen to not use from Stafford to Birmingham New Street though. How are you getting another train through Wolverhampton every hour?

 

[daodao]

Not after the new ECML recast they won't. They've been split deliberately because they can't run through easily.

Where there's a will, there's a way. The lengthy detour of XC services via Leeds to the North-East and Edinburgh really needs to be eliminated. Leeds doesn't seem to merit regular direct services to Glasgow, Scotland's largest city, so why is it so vital that it has an hourly direct service to Edinburgh?

 

[Richard Scott]

Where there's a will, there's a way. The lengthy detour of XC services via Leeds to the North-East and Edinburgh really needs to be eliminated. Leeds doesn't seem to merit regular direct services to Glasgow, Scotland's largest city, so why is it so vital that it has an hourly direct service to Edinburgh?

Maybe it's not just Edinburgh that people from Leeds want to go to? Also those going to Leeds aren't just from Edinburgh?

 

[Neptune]

Bournemouth-Leeds via Reading/Birmingham (XC)

Let me ask the age old questions which I always ask when this comes up every so often and never get a suitable answer for when I ask it as it is always seemingly ill thought out.

Where are you magicking up the sparse capacity at Leeds from for a XC terminator.

Answers normally include shunting (no capacity), layover in terminal platform for 63 minutes (no capacity) or turn them around in 3 minutes (not possible if you want to run a reliable railway).

Also why do you think West Yorkshire should lose its busy hourly direct Scotland service or indeed Scotland losing its busy direct hourly West Yorkshire service? TPE will not be filling that gap either before anyone suggests it.

 

[Iskra]

Leaving Birmingham, Sheffield and Doncaster with a faster service to Edinburgh by XC? I'll buy that!

You're up for losing the XC Sheffield-Leeds service for that?

 

[daodao]

Let me ask the age old questions which I always ask when this comes up every so often and never get a suitable answer for when I ask it as it is always seemingly ill thought out.

Where are you magicking up the sparse capacity at Leeds from for a XC terminator.

Answers normally include shunting (no capacity), layover in terminal platform for 63 minutes (no capacity) or turn them around in 3 minutes (not possible if you want to run a reliable railway).

Capacity is not set in stone in most cases; it can and should be created if the service need exists, or freed up by altering other services. There are sidings suitable for layover at Neville Hill Depot.

One way to increase capacity at Leeds would to run 1 of the 2 tph from London King's Cross as bimodes via Hambleton junction and then continue alternately to Harrogate and Bradford.

 

[Neptune]

Capacity is not set in stone in most cases; it can and should be created if the service need exists, or freed up by altering other services. There are sidings suitable for layover at Neville Hill Depot.

And how do you release capacity for crossing over the constrained Leeds east area twice an hour?

One way to increase capacity at Leeds would to run 1 of the 2 tph from London King's Cross as bimodes via Hambleton junction and then continue alternately to Harrogate and Bradford.

Again where are you releasing the capacity from for this section? You’re already losing some capacity by shunting a XC service twice an hour so something has to give here. Less stoppers? Less TPE services? Unfunded capacity enhancements such as loops?

No solution offered for the busy West Yorkshire to Scotland market either?

Nothing new here from previous ‘solutions’ to shaving a few minutes off the south west - Scotland service which always seems to lose capacity and connectivity for a slight timing game.

This all seems to be a good way of losing people to other modes.

 

[The Planner]

Where there's a will, there's a way. The lengthy detour of XC services via Leeds to the North-East and Edinburgh really needs to be eliminated. Leeds doesn't seem to merit regular direct services to Glasgow, Scotland's largest city, so why is it so vital that it has an hourly direct service to Edinburgh?

XC would send the Doncaster service via Leeds if they could, much like wanting the Reading Newcastle via Coventry.

 

[Iskra]

Where there's a will, there's a way. The lengthy detour of XC services via Leeds to the North-East and Edinburgh really needs to be eliminated. Leeds doesn't seem to merit regular direct services to Glasgow, Scotland's largest city, so why is it so vital that it has an hourly direct service to Edinburgh?

Leeds used to have direct Glasgow services but these were reduced after Covid. Edinburgh-Glasgow electrification did make them somewhat less relevant.

 

[daodao]

XC would send the Doncaster service via Leeds if they could, much like wanting the Reading Newcastle via Coventry.

The whole point of this thread is to explore ways of reducing the problems that XC faces by having insufficient rolling stock. I have just been proposing possible options to achieve this, by removing services that are not a core part of XC's network, namely those serving the cross-country ex-Midland main line from Bristol to Derby/Sheffield via Birmingham, so that remaining rolling stock can be freed up to strengthen capacity on this key route. The Leeds-Edinburgh flow is not a core part of XC's remit.

 

[Iskra]

The whole point of this thread is to explore ways of reducing the problems that XC faces by having insufficient rolling stock. I have just been proposing possible options to achieve this, by removing services that are not a core part of XC's network, namely those serving the cross-country ex-Midland main line from Bristol to Derby/Sheffield via Birmingham, so that remaining rolling stock can be freed up to strengthen capacity on this key route. The Leeds-Edinburgh flow is not a core part of XC's remit.

I think XC would argue differently and it’s probably far more important to them in terms of revenue than the lofty idealism associated with sticking closely to the metals of a railway route from 150 years ago.

 

[The Planner]

The Leeds-Edinburgh flow is not a core part of XC's remit.

Says who?

 

[Mark J]

I think XC would argue differently and it’s probably far more important to them in terms of revenue than the lofty idealism associated with sticking closely to the metals of a railway route from 150 years ago.

Do XC really need to serve Cardiff Central, an overcrowded station with only four main platforms.

Surely the gap could be filled by TfW creating a Cardiff to Bristol service.

TfW serve Cheltenham, Shrewsbury and Birmingham New St, however not Bristol TM.

 

[daodao]

I think XC would argue differently and it’s probably far more important to them in terms of revenue than the lofty idealism of sticking to the metals of a railway route from 150 years ago.

Says who?

It's not about idealism, it is the fact that XC is the only operator of services from Birmingham to Derby and Birmingham direct to Cheltenham Spa, and it is the services using this corridor that should be its primary remit. Other operators are better placed to serve flows such as Leeds-York-Darlington-Newcastle-Edinburgh and already provide most of the services on this axis.

 

[The Planner]

Do XC really need to serve Cardiff Central, an overcrowded station with only four main platforms.

Surely the gap could be filled by TfW creating a Cardiff to Bristol service.

TfW serve Cheltenham, Shrewsbury and Birmingham New St, however not Bristol TM.

What do you do with the Cardiff service?

It's not about idealism, it is the fact that XC is the only operator of services from Birmingham to Derby and Birmingham direct to Cheltenham Spa, and it is the services using this corridor that should be its primary remit. Other operators are better placed to serve flows such as Leeds-York-Darlington-Newcastle-Edinburgh and already provide most of the services on this axis.

Which other operators routes are you curtailing as well then on that basis? Presumably as WMT serve Birmingham and Shrewsbury, there is no need for TfW to do so? GWR serve Oxford, Reading and Basingstoke, so XC doesn't need to serve Reading, make people change?

 

[Killingworth]

You're up for losing the XC Sheffield-Leeds service for that?

Exactly. Thats the problem with every 'solution'. A new problem, or two. Sheffield already needs a better fast connection than a single hourly overcrowded XC to Leeds. A fast shuttle, but the half hourly Northern semi-fast is limited to 2 car by platform capacity in Leeds!

 

[Neptune]

The Leeds-Edinburgh flow is not a core part of XC's remit.

But it is a core part of XC’s remit hence the fact it has an all day hourly service.

It is a well used flow. I commute with XC daily and the reservations suggest that there is heavy usage between Edinburgh and Leeds.

So if it’s about releasing capacity on Scotland - West Mids (for instance) then it is still a flow that needs filling.

If it about speeding the service up slightly (as it always seems to be despite all the smoke screening regarding capacity) then yet again it is a flow needs filling.

Just a shame nobody who seems to think West Yorkshire doesn't need a direct Scotland flow seems prepared to come up with an actually workable plan and seem to be happy (probably unconsciously to be fair) to reduce other services/capacity in the meantime just to save 15 minutes or so on XC services.

The bigger picture never seems to be a consideration.

 

[GoneSouth]

L

Leaving Birmingham, Sheffield and Doncaster with a faster service to Edinburgh by XC? I'll buy that!

Doncaster to Edinburgh is already well served.

Birmingham to Edinburgh already has a faster service

Leeds (and the rest of the West Yorkshire conurbation) is a bigger commercial centre than Sheffield and South Yorkshire.

It’s fine how it is

The whole point of this thread is to explore ways of reducing the problems that XC faces by having insufficient rolling stock. I have just been proposing possible options to achieve this, by removing services that are not a core part of XC's network, namely those serving the cross-country ex-Midland main line from Bristol to Derby/Sheffield via Birmingham, so that remaining rolling stock can be freed up to strengthen capacity on this key route. The Leeds-Edinburgh flow is not a core part of XC's remit.

Bristol to Derby and Sheffield is the definition of cross country services. How else can you get from Bristol or Cheltenham to Birmingham? You can’t!

You can’t just say we’ll free up stock by not running any services, I’m going to assume that was a joke because if it wasn’t then there’s no point continuing with this conversation.

You also just seem to have this fixation with Leeds and trashing the service there for some reason.

 

[dk1]

XC would send the Doncaster service via Leeds if they could, much like wanting the Reading Newcastle via Coventry.

As they have tried many times. Leeds is far to lucrative to ignore and requires more XC calls rather than less.