XC HSts Wasted in the sidings

[Goatboy]

Well as XC are the main operator between Taunton and Bristol they are goung to be arent they! :roll:
Between Penzance, Plymouth, Exeter to Taunton your argument falls flat on its face as FGW are the main operator!

What? I was replying to somebody suggested stopping XC going West of Bristol. The fact you've just agreed they are the main operator between Taunton and Bristol supports my point that this isn't particularly clever to stop XC going any further than Bristol. Whats the problem?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You brought up the fact that trains are generally quieter midweek.

No, somebody else did when he said he went on a midweek HST Westbound and it was empty. I was just explaining that whilst its true that they may be quieter on the way down midweek, they are diagrammed in such a way that they'll be pretty busy on the way back up (or, as 455 correctly identifies, through Birmingham on the way down, too).

Since XC already use their HSTs fully at the weekend then the only "wasted in sidings" element (which is what this thread is about" are the three midweek days when XC only use a couple of their HST allocation.

This isn't true - they use only 50% of the fleet on Saturdays .

So why bring midweek up?

Ask the chap who thought the fact he was once on an FGW HST during the day that wasn't busy was some sort of argument for cutting back XC services, rather than me for addressing his points?

 

[bnm]

FGW do run more trains but only a few of these are High Speed Services and the Cardiff services take twice as long as XC and some are even overtaken en route. I'm not exactly sure how lead operator status is decided but I'd almost always use XC for reasons I just stated and I expect most people travelling from Taunton to Bristol would use XC.

I tend to plan my travel around the 11 FGW HST services. If I can't do that and time isn't a concern, I'll go via Westbury. Failing that I'll look to one of the lesser spotted XC HSTs. Then a local DMU. At the bottom of my choices, the Voyager.

 

[455driver]

Main operator? I think not. Taunton<->Bristol weekdays, 48 FGW services, 40 XC services.

And FGW set the fares as lead operator on the flow.

So he even got that bit wrong!

I did think that XC would be slightly ahead of FGW on that bit but forgot about the Cardiff/ Bristol to Tauntons!

Maybe XC are the main "fast" operator between Bristol and Taunton would be more accurate, either way there is no way removal of nearly half the services would be tolerated.

 

[Goatboy]

So he even got that bit wrong!

I did think that XC would be slightly ahead of FGW on that bit but forgot about the Cardiff/ Bristol to Tauntons!

I didn't forget about the Cardiff to Taunton services - I excluded them because people don't use them to travel from Bristol to Taunton unless they hate Voyagers or can't read timetables because the XC services are significantly quicker, given they do not stop or go via Weston Super Mare

Maybe XC are the main "fast" operator between Bristol and Taunton would be more accurate, either way there is no way removal of nearly half the services would be tolerated.

Exactly - it seems we are on the same side of this particular debate so I'm not sure why you keep looking for holes to pick. My point is that ceasing XC at Bristol is not a good idea.

 

[455driver]

Exactly - it seems we are on the same side of this particular debate so I'm not sure why you keep looking for holes to pick. My point is that ceasing XC at Bristol is not a good idea.

Not picking holes, I agree that Cross Country should remain a Cross Country operator.

 

[E16 Cyclist]

I know it wouldn't be popular but given the type of trains they have operating the route running trains from Plymouth to Newcastle for example doesn't seem to be working.

From a pragmatic point of view the obvious solution seems to be have everything terminating at Birmingham so then you have dedicated units operating Plymouth to Birmingham and have a connection onto a Birmingham to Newcastle service for example, and if it was planned well could be as simple as crossing to the adjacent platform. The voyager from Plymouth would then after minimum amount of turnaround time head back to Plymouth having connected with the service arriving from Newcastle. There's going to be the newly expanded New Street opening in the coming years so at least initially while a long term plan is developed there will be capacity to do so.

The advantages of doing this would be that you would no longer have long distance services being provided on an at best medium distance train and there shouldn't be the need for as many voyagers running at one time meaning the toc could either double up on busy services or take some voyagers off lease and therefore make a financial saving. Then at busy times they could run their HST's on longer distance services to try and provide a better customer experience.

This way while you wouldn't have through services the majority of the time there would still be a cross country operation.

 

[455driver]

Long distance XC trains are in Birmingham New Street for between 3 and 10 minutes, are you seriously suggesting that it is viable to empty out, turn around and load up a Voyager or HST in that time?

Well actually it would be 2 trains and 2 trainloads of passengers with luggage, buggies, elderly etc all changing trains within that 10 minutes, I see a bit of a problem with that and get the feeling that delays through BHM would be worse than ever.
At Leeds they are trying to extend some of the terminators out to other stations to turn them around there because its more efficient to run through trains (at big stations) than terminators.

 

[Starmill]

XC don't have the London trade (of people travelling on First Class tickets/ expenses - which makes a big difference

Aye, perhaps that's a cause of what I mentioned; it's comparatively simple (and comparatively more lucrative, as you say!) to just go "Our passengers want to go in and out of London, so we will run trains there and sell them tickets entirely to this end."

Why are people seemingly obsessed with taking 158s off Northern and replacing them with older stock, not the first time its been mentionned

Yer! Hands OFF! They are the only decent stock Northern have! (Well, apart from their EMUs, but they're commuters.)

 

[Goatboy]

This way while you wouldn't have through services the majority of the time there would still be a cross country operation.

Customers don't want this. They don't want to change at New Street - XC knows this, even the XC Route map in every Voyager has a special section highlighting places to change trains for people who wish to avoid New Street.

 

[alex17595]

I went on a xc voyager today to Derby. seems to be quite the rarity

 

[The Planner]

From a pragmatic point of view the obvious solution seems to be have everything terminating at Birmingham

No no no no.

The voyager from Plymouth would then after minimum amount of turnaround time head back to Plymouth having connected with the service arriving from Newcastle.

20 minutes turnaround required to do that.

There's going to be the newly expanded New Street opening in the coming years so at least initially while a long term plan is developed there will be capacity to do so.

How, there are no new platforms being built, just the concourse on top. Having yet more trains terminate at New St is not a good idea.

 

[Goatboy]

20 minutes turnaround required to do that.

Exactly. And given you need the same number of units to do Plymouth to Birmingham and Birmingham to Newcastle connecting at Birmingham as you need to do Plymouth to Newcastle and return, one does wonder what the benefit is anyway?

 

[richw]

On the subject of overcrowded voyagers, my wife and I had a carriage to ourselves this evening on one. It was my first ever trip on a voyager, took the 2102 from truro to redruth.

 

[Kettledrum]

Thet are diagrammed to travel through Birmingham during the peak periods (where the capacity is most needed), where they go inbetween XC couldnt really care less about!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Have a look at ones arriving into Birmingham during the morning peak (or leaving in the evening peak) they are hardly "sparsely filled", oh they only run as 2+7 not 2+8 as it is.

People need to look at the overall picture not just the little bit you are interested in!

I've often travelled on the peak ones through Birmingham when it's been standing room only on an HST. Just wondering, if the XC HSTs were to be fitted with Chiltern Style power doors, whether it would be any quicker getting passengers on and off at Birmingham New Street.

 

[The Planner]

You need a 3 minute dwell regardless at New St, which is more than the vast majority of stations anywhere, it should be enough to be honest.

 

[D1009]

I've often travelled on the peak ones through Birmingham when it's been standing room only on an HST.

Are you sure it was standing room only throughout? I've often been on XC HSTs which have been full and standing in the middle of the train but still odd seats available towards the end.

 

[cslusarc]

Despite the XC services being absolutely packed in key locations, in others they can be quite quiet. XC don't really have the knack to get their loadings quite right.

What are those key locations that could benefit from further strengthening?

At what locations are XC services dismally loaded?

 

[The Ham]

On the subject of overcrowded voyagers, my wife and I had a carriage to ourselves this evening on one. It was my first ever trip on a voyager, took the 2102 from truro to redruth.

The problem with overcrowding tends not to be a problem towards the end of the more rural routes, so its not overly surprising that it was so empty.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What are those key locations that could benefit from further strengthening?

At what locations are XC services dismally loaded?

Basicly any part of the XC network which is fairly urban and/or within an hour of Birmingham needs more capacity. Whilst anywhere towards the end of routes (Cornwall and Scotland) can be more lightly loaded although it does depend on what other services are running the route and the time of year.

For instance XC trains which run through Reading tend to be fairly busy as they run at a time when the alternatives are not due to run for some time and/or take longer. This means that they get filled up with non XC passengers which is less profitable for XC. However over the last bit of the route there are noticeable more seats available.

If there where longer trains running XC would not be making as much money from each passenger on board and would be running fairly empty trains towards the end of the routes. In which case there is little point (in financial terms) for them to run longer trains.

It does boil down to the fact that the XC Voyagers are now too short for many of the services that they run and as they are mostly 4 coach trains (35 vs 22 x 5 coach trains) there is little chance of messing around with the lengths to be able to run a better mix of lengths.

If/when the services between Manchester and the South Coast become run by EMU's and/or if the ICWC franchise (whenever that finally starts) gets replacements for its Voyagers, then there maybe some possibility of storing some of the leading/trailing vehicles to provide a better length of train. Alternately (or in addition) when they go for a major overhaul it may be possible to create some 3 coach versions (with no first class) which could be run paired up with other length sets over the busier sections to enable longer sets to be created.

For instance if 7 coach voyagers could be created it could have a comparable number of seats as 2x4 coach voyagers but without the need for extra staff. These new longer sets could still run paired up with a 3 coach voyager if needed, as it would be the same length and capacity (possibly slightly higher if there was no first class in the three coach sets) as 2x5 coach voyagers.

 

[Simon11]

”For instance XC trains which run through Reading tend to be fairly busy as they run at a time when the alternatives are not due to run for some time and/or take longer. This means that they get filled up with non XC passengers which is less profitable for XC. However over the last bit of the route there are noticeable more seats available.”

I'm not sure what you mean by non xc passengers? Orcats will give a fair share after looking at the demand for services over each route. If anything, longer stock doesn't result in a higher orcat share as orcats doesn't include analysis of stock.

I don't understand why you propose 7 coach voyagers? I think it would be far better to use the voyagers replaced by emu to be used to double up busy services on other xc routes. This is far cheaper than modifying the sets and on the quieter services you can run a single 4/5 voyager set rather than a 6-7 voyager set. It does mean carrying around an additional engine when doubled up, but it does provide more seats

 

[Manchester77]

A double voyager requires more staff as you need two train crews for both vehicles. A seven / eight coach voyager only requires one train crew. Also you'd probably have to pay access for two trains whereas a seven coach train is just one train which only requires track access for one train

 

[Simon11]

Doesn't a double voyager on xc currently have a TM in one voyager and the RSM in the other. Therefore, they won't require any additional staff?
I'm not an expert on track access, but it would be based on the damage it does to the track, ie the weight rather than because there are two trains. A 5 car voyager should pay a slightly higher track access than a 4 car voyager?

 

[RobShipway]

It is a shame that the Class 222 Meridians from the Midland Mainline in their current lengths I think would be ideal for the XC routes.

 

[tom1649]

It is a shame that the Class 222 Meridians from the Midland Mainline in their current lengths as they would be ideal I think for the XC routes.

Well there may be an opportunity to cascade some after electrification of the MML, although it's still a while off yet.

 

[MCR247]

It is a shame that the Class 222 Meridians from the Midland Mainline in their current lengths as they would be ideal I think for the XC routes.

What do you mean? What is a shame?

 

[The Ham]

”For instance XC trains which run through Reading tend to be fairly busy as they run at a time when the alternatives are not due to run for some time and/or take longer. This means that they get filled up with non XC passengers which is less profitable for XC. However over the last bit of the route there are noticeable more seats available.”

I'm not sure what you mean by non xc passengers? Orcats will give a fair share after looking at the demand for services over each route. If anything, longer stock doesn't result in a higher orcat share as orcats doesn't include analysis of stock.

I don't understand why you propose 7 coach voyagers? I think it would be far better to use the voyagers replaced by emu to be used to double up busy services on other xc routes. This is far cheaper than modifying the sets and on the quieter services you can run a single 4/5 voyager set rather than a 6-7 voyager set. It does mean carrying around an additional engine when doubled up, but it does provide more seats

If I go to the XC website a buy a ticket for one of their trains (XC customer) they get a higher portion of my money than if I turn up at a station and just buy a ticket for any train along a route (non XC customer). As ORCATS doesn't increase the share to XC if they run longer trains then it is not in their interest to do so over such sections (which was my point).

I propose a 7 coach voyager because

1. Track access charges are based on the number of coaches so a 7 coach voyager is cheaper then a 2x4 coach voyager
2. Likewise the track access charges for a 7+3 coach configuration would have the same track access charge as 2x5 coaches
3. A 7 coach voyager would provide almost the same number of seats as 2x4 coaches
4. There would still be plenty of 4 and 5 coach voyagers for the quieter parts of the network
5. There are routes where a 7 coach voyagers would be useful all the way along.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Doesn't a double voyager on xc currently have a TM in one voyager and the RSM in the other. Therefore, they won't require any additional staff?
I'm not an expert on track access, but it would be based on the damage it does to the track, ie the weight rather than because there are two trains. A 5 car voyager should pay a slightly higher track access than a 4 car voyager?

The track access charges (pence per mile) for the class 22x's are:
220/M Dies MU 8.72
221/M Dies MU 12.09
222/M Dies MU 10.55

from http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/cp4-pl-track_usage_181208.pdf

Therefore a 4 coach voyager is 34.88 ppm, while a 5 coach is 43.60ppm and a 5 coach super voyager is 60.45ppm.

A 7 coach super voyager is 84.63ppm whilst an 8 coach supper voyager is 96.72ppm compared with an 8 coach voyager which is 69.76ppm.

Compare these charges to a 7 coach IC125 which is 102.07ppm and you can see another reason why it is better to leave the IC125's sat in the sidings rather than out. As for every mile they run it is cheaper to run 2x4 coach voyagers than it is to run an IC125 with only slightly fewer seats and the option to be able to leave half behind once the route quietens down.

 

[43074]

The track access charges (pence per mile) for the class 22x's are:
220/M Dies MU 8.72
221/M Dies MU 12.09
222/M Dies MU 10.55

from http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/cp4-pl-track_usage_181208.pdf

Therefore a 4 coach voyager is 34.88 ppm, while a 5 coach is 43.60ppm and a 5 coach super voyager is 60.45ppm.

A 7 coach super voyager is 84.63ppm whilst an 8 coach supper voyager is 96.72ppm compared with an 8 coach voyager which is 69.76ppm.

Compare these charges to a 7 coach IC125 which is 102.07ppm and you can see another reason why it is better to leave the IC125's sat in the sidings rather than out. As for every mile they run it is cheaper to run 2x4 coach voyagers than it is to run an IC125 with only slightly fewer seats and the option to be able to leave half behind once the route quietens down.

An excellent explanation. Thank you for this.

 

[MCR247]

If I go to the XC website a buy a ticket for one of their trains (XC customer) they get a higher portion of my money than if I turn up at a station and just buy a ticket for any train along a route (non XC customer). As ORCATS doesn't increase the share to XC if they run longer trains then it is not in their interest to do so over such sections (which was my point).

I propose a 7 coach voyager because

1. Track access charges are based on the number of coaches so a 7 coach voyager is cheaper then a 2x4 coach voyager
2. Likewise the track access charges for a 7+3 coach configuration would have the same track access charge as 2x5 coaches
3. A 7 coach voyager would provide almost the same number of seats as 2x4 coaches
4. There would still be plenty of 4 and 5 coach voyagers for the quieter parts of the network
5. There are routes where a 7 coach voyagers would be useful all the way along

1. 
   
   So how exactly are we going to 'make' this 7 coach voyager?

 

[The Ham]

So how exactly are we going to 'make' this 7 coach voyager?

There are three ways of doing it, firstly take 2x5 coach voyagers shorten one to a 3 coach (with no first class) and lengthen the other to a 7 coach with each end coach being first class (or take 3x5 coach voyagers shorten two to 4 coach trains and lengthen the third to 7 coaches).

The second way, if the new ICWC franchise do away with the need for their Voyagers and/or XC get electric trains, is then for every two pairs of end coaches from a 5 coach train you put into store from a you can lengthen three 5 coach trains to 7 coaches long.

The final way is like the sencond way, but takes 5x4 coach voyagers and put three pairs of end coaches into store to create 2x7 coach trains.

Unfortunately it is only likely to happen once there are extra trains to reduce the total number of voyagers that are needed.

 

[tbtc]

The track access charges (pence per mile) for the class 22x's are:
220/M Dies MU 8.72
221/M Dies MU 12.09
222/M Dies MU 10.55

from http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/cp4-pl-track_usage_181208.pdf

Therefore a 4 coach voyager is 34.88 ppm, while a 5 coach is 43.60ppm and a 5 coach super voyager is 60.45ppm.

A 7 coach super voyager is 84.63ppm whilst an 8 coach supper voyager is 96.72ppm compared with an 8 coach voyager which is 69.76ppm.

Compare these charges to a 7 coach IC125 which is 102.07ppm and you can see another reason why it is better to leave the IC125's sat in the sidings rather than out. As for every mile they run it is cheaper to run 2x4 coach voyagers than it is to run an IC125 with only slightly fewer seats and the option to be able to leave half behind once the route quietens down.

That, added to the fact that the lease of the HSTs is on a "pay as you go" useage, whereas the Voyager lease is an "all you can eat" one (i.e. it costs nothing to leave an HST in the sidings, whilst XC are paying for the Voyagers whether they use them or not).

It is a shame that the Class 222 Meridians from the Midland Mainline in their current lengths as they would be ideal I think for the XC routes.

They can be rejigged - the MM ones were delivered as four and nine coach - no reason why they can't all be either five or six coaches long (once you've fiddled with the computers).

 

[MCR247]

There are three ways of doing it, firstly take 2x5 coach voyagers shorten one to a 3 coach (with no first class) and lengthen the other to a 7 coach with each end coach being first class (or take 3x5 coach voyagers shorten two to 4 coach trains and lengthen the third to 7 coaches).

But surely 3x5 coach trains is better than 1x7 and 2x4 overall?

The second way, if the new ICWC franchise do away with the need for their Voyagers and/or XC get electric trains, is then for every two pairs of end coaches from a 5 coach train you put into store from a you can lengthen three 5 coach trains to 7 coaches long.

Oh ok, so as a solution to overcrowding on one of the constantly busiest routes in the UK, when additional carriages come available for it, were just not going to use all of them? Makes sense.

The final way is like the sencond way, but takes 5x4 coach voyagers and put three pairs of end coaches into store to create 2x7 coach trains.

Same as above

Unfortunately it is only likely to happen once there are extra trains to reduce the total number of voyagers that are needed.

So we want extra trains, so that we can put a load of carriages unnecessarily into store because we want these "ideal" 7 coach voyagers?