Cross-Country: suggestions to improve things in the short term

[HamworthyGoods]

There is always someone on board to assist people (as I mentioned in a previous post). As long as people can travel, that is what counts.

1 person to help open 7 coaches worth of doors?

That doesn’t meet PRM regulations and would be deemed illegal. There are a number of exemptions for existing operations, but these would not be granted for new operations. Agree with it or not slam door HSTs will be history at the end of this year in line with agreed industry regulations going back circa 15 years (it’s not as if there’s not been time to prepare for this and there’s an awful lot of unhappiness that the industry hasn’t met it).

 

[greatvoyager]

Absolutely meaningless. If there is someone available to assist with opening the doors, which there is on InterCity trains, the problem is alleviated.

Droplights are hazardous to those without common sense, along with everything else on planet earth. I don't see the problem.

You're right, hopefully there's lots of help on board.

 

[greatvoyager]

That doesn’t meet PRM regulations and would be deemed illegal. There are a number of exemptions for existing operations, but these would not be granted for new operations.

HSTs seem to be the overlap of opinion when it comes to being accessible or providing capacity.

 

[elliotjelliot]

I can the 22x trains transferring across as a minimum for a capacity increase, but would merging it be that easy? Surely the better option would be to split the 170 operated routes off and allow XC to focus on the long distance services.

170 routes are hard to put with any other franchise apart from Cross Country. Nottingham - Cardiff and Stansted - Birmingham are cross country services in their nature. The shorter Birmingham - Nottingham/Leicester services are just services waiting for the route capacity increase to allow 2tph to Cardiff and Stansted. The only other solution would be to split these services into two separate services operated by different TOC's, but adding a change to well used routes is hardly popular with passengers.

 

[greatvoyager]

170 routes are hard to put with any other franchise apart from Cross Country. Nottingham - Cardiff and Stansted - Birmingham are cross country services in their nature. The shorter Birmingham - Nottingham/Leicester services are just services waiting for the route capacity increase to allow 2tph to Cardiff and Stansted. The only other solution would be to split these services into two separate services operated by different TOC's, but adding a change to well used routes is hardly popular with passengers.

Couldn't they transfer Cardiff-Nottingham to EMR (or at least the Birmingham-Nottingham hourly service), and then have it run through to Norwich, replacing the Liverpool service?
I see what you mean, but at the same time I don't think it would be implausible.

 

[yorksrob]

1 person to help open 7 coaches worth of doors?

That doesn’t meet PRM regulations and would be deemed illegal. There are a number of exemptions for existing operations, but these would not be granted for new operations. Agree with it or not slam door HSTs will be history at the end of this year in line with agreed industry regulations going back circa 15 years (it’s not as if there’s not been time to prepare for this and there’s an awful lot of unhappiness that the industry hasn’t met it).

No, one person to help the person who actually needs help using the doors.

Whatever arguments you say are meaningless when passengers have to endure overcrowding all the while carriages are available to alleviate the situation.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

No, one person to help the person who actually needs help using the doors.

Whatever arguments you say are meaningless when passengers have to endure overcrowding all the while carriages are available to alleviate the situation.

But the carriages are no longer available to Cross Country to alleviate crowing. As of set XC05 going into works they are no longer permitted by ORR to run slam door stock, thus the stock is no more usable than them trying to bring mk2fs back.

No difference to stock being tight on the Western but they have to make do without slam door HSTs as that is what those in charge of regulation have decided.

I don’t doubt it would be nice to have more HSTs on Cross Country, however with current regulations that won’t be permitted (you only have to look when TPE tried to introduce a mk3 slam door set and were told quite simply ‘NO’) the challenge for the industry is to move forward and find other means to increasing capacity ASAP.

 

[yorksrob]

But the carriages are no longer available to Cross Country to alleviate crowing. As of set XC05 going into works they are no longer permitted by ORR to run slam door stock, thus the stock is no more usable than them trying to bring mk2fs back.

No difference to stock being tight on the Western but they have to make do without slam door HSTs as that is what those in charge of regulation have decided.

That doesn't mean to say that it's a good decision, or that I, or the remainder of the travelling public have to agree with it.

 

[tbtc]

That doesn't mean to say that it's a good decision, or that I, or the remainder of the travelling public have to agree with it.

I don't expect you to agree with things... of course I don't expect you to agree with things... but shrugging your shoulders and saying that "people should just put up with inaccessible trains because the only alternative is busy but accessible trains" isn't going to last two minutes in a four case.

Look at the bus industry - they dealt with the accessibility regulations - they sometimes chopped services to ensure that they were only going to run as many diagrams as they had accessible vehicles for - they didn't try to replace accessible single deckers with high floor double deckers on the grounds that disabled people would have struggled to board a busy single decker, so at least a step entrance double decker benefits most people

If/When the Government finally get round to sorting out capacity increases for XC, I suspect it'll come down to:

1. Get Wabtec to convert pad JSTs and patch them up for another five years or so
2. Wait for Hitatchi to build new stock for Avanti/EMR and then wait for Avanti/EMR to cascade the current 22x stock to XC

At the moment, I genuinely don't know which would be quicker! But I do know that (even if there were sufficient HSTs today) you'd have to rip up the timetable to squeeze long HSTs into the timetable (given Voyager acceleration), or maybe just take out a number of intermediate stations - maybe hat'd mean turning the Edinburgh to Plymouth into a proper "InterCity" service that omits smaller places like Berwick/ Alnmouth/ Durham/ Darlington/ Wakefield/ Chesterfields;d/ Burton/ Tamworth... maybe that'd be a price worth paying (?) but at least let's be honest about that "cost".

 

[Anonymous10]

I would say if tfw didn't have such a issue with stock they took on Cardiff to Nottingham or could run from Swansea to Nottingham however this couldn't be considered till 2024 when the new trains come and even then I doubt they would have the stock

 

[Jozhua]

What I hate about the way the DfT handles rail is that it mandates accessibility, yet is not willing to make available the correct level of funding to make it happen. Short forms be dammed. Anyways, back to XC fun!

Firstly, HSTs are not as fast as Voyagers so the timetables will need much rearranging; and secondly, have you seen how slow Wabtec are turning refurbishment units out, despite their best efforts.

I've not been keeping up with Wabtec refurbishment, honestly thought of it more as a depot job. Timetables may need rearranging, yes, but most XC services are late anyway.

I'm afraid the usual things will continue to crop up because they are the sensible course of action. You cannot ignore the elephant in the room !

True, to be honest the DfT should have acted when GWR and now LNER begun to get rid of their HSTs.

I am including the less able because overcrowding will have a greater impact on them.

All HST's have an accessible toilet, and certainly the space to install one of the modular examples, all HST's require staff, who can provide assistance to those that need it.

Anyone who has difficulty using an HST will certainly be put off using regularly overcrowded services.

Yeah, I can't see how overcrowding is good for wheelchair users. In fact, I've witnessed a woman in a wheelchair get stuck on a train before now!

The problem is that with Crosscountry franchise there has been almost no change since 2007 and absolutely no prospect of any improvements for several years at least.

The problems on the the CrossCountry network are very real (no one has ever argued that 4 coach services on services between the biggest cities and populations is acceptable), and the solutions to these problems are very simple but due to the stagnant nature of this franchise nothing is ever done.

virtually every other franchise in this country has seen improvements or at least promised improvements, so please let the unfortunate victims of the XC services at least a few meagre posts on these forums to vent their frustrations

Yeah, I don't use XC that often, generally once a year for long distance. Short distance hops usually quite a few times. When I make my long distance trips, I'm always dissapiointed to find things are just as bad, if not worse than they were before.

 

[Jozhua]

Thinking of the issues relating to HSTs, would Mark 4's not have been a sensible option? I believe TFW is using these with a diesel locomotive.

They're 125 (arguably 140)mph capable, have sliding doors and I'm pretty sure acessable toilets.

In fact, I'll go full speculative crazy and say they could run a Manchester - Birmingham shuttle with the class 91's, should sourcing a loco be an issue. I'll show myself to the door!

 

[JonathanH]

I would say if tfw didn't have such a issue with stock they took on Cardiff to Nottingham or could run from Swansea to Nottingham however this couldn't be considered till 2024 when the new trains come and even then I doubt they would have the stock

If you transfer a route from one operator to another the stock is transferred too so their perceived stock issues are irrelevant to your idea. However, TfW are never going to be the operator of a service from Cardiff to Nottingham.

 

[JonathanH]

In fact, I'll go full speculative crazy and say they could run a Manchester - Birmingham shuttle with the class 91's, should sourcing a loco be an issue.

If you do this you end up with more trains terminating in Birmingham for which there isn't capacity and lose the through services to Bournemouth, Bristol and beyond which would themselves have to terminate in Birmingham. Unfortunately the timings don't match up to run South West to Bournemouth via Birmingham and vice versa.

 

[JonathanH]

The shorter Birmingham - Nottingham/Leicester services are just services waiting for the route capacity increase to allow 2tph to Cardiff and Stansted.

Not really, the paths are essentially occupied on the other side of the hour by a range of other services along each route.

In any case, expanding either of these services is not a 'short-term' improvement.

 

[krus_aragon]

I would say if tfw didn't have such a issue with stock they took on Cardiff to Nottingham or could run from Swansea to Nottingham however this couldn't be considered till 2024 when the new trains come and even then I doubt they would have the stock

TfW have ordered enough stock for the services they intend to run. If you give them an additional route like this, you'll also need to give them stock to run it, or time to add to their existing stock order.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't expect you to agree with things... of course I don't expect you to agree with things... but shrugging your shoulders and saying that "people should just put up with inaccessible trains because the only alternative is busy but accessible trains" isn't going to last two minutes in a four case.

Look at the bus industry - they dealt with the accessibility regulations - they sometimes chopped services to ensure that they were only going to run as many diagrams as they had accessible vehicles for - they didn't try to replace accessible single deckers with high floor double deckers on the grounds that disabled people would have struggled to board a busy single decker, so at least a step entrance double decker benefits most people

If/When the Government finally get round to sorting out capacity increases for XC, I suspect it'll come down to:

1. Get Wabtec to convert pad JSTs and patch them up for another five years or so
2. Wait for Hitatchi to build new stock for Avanti/EMR and then wait for Avanti/EMR to cascade the current 22x stock to XC

At the moment, I genuinely don't know which would be quicker! But I do know that (even if there were sufficient HSTs today) you'd have to rip up the timetable to squeeze long HSTs into the timetable (given Voyager acceleration), or maybe just take out a number of intermediate stations - maybe hat'd mean turning the Edinburgh to Plymouth into a proper "InterCity" service that omits smaller places like Berwick/ Alnmouth/ Durham/ Darlington/ Wakefield/ Chesterfields;d/ Burton/ Tamworth... maybe that'd be a price worth paying (?) but at least let's be honest about that "cost".

As you say, the problem will probably dissappear in two years when 222's become available. But that still leaves two years of a service not operating to a standard that's acceptable to passengers. People shouldn't "just put up with" inaccessible trains. The assistance should be provided to ensure that everybody can use those trains, and train companies should be held accountable if they fail to do so. Alternatively put on inaccessible trains but ensure that at least one carriage is accessible. There are potentially good work-arounds if anyone was prepared to consider them, but no one wants to pay for them and as usual the default position is "let the passenger put up with overcrowded trains".

Buses are very different. They don't cost as much as train carriages, they have a shorter service life and bus companies aren't beholden to Government as to when they buy new stock.

Whilst I appreciate that it may not be easy retiming Voyager paths for non-voyager paths, I strongly suspect that the majority of passengers are more interested in getting a seat than keeping to Voyager speeds.

Thinking of the issues relating to HSTs, would Mark 4's not have been a sensible option? I believe TFW is using these with a diesel locomotive.

They're 125 (arguably 140)mph capable, have sliding doors and I'm pretty sure acessable toilets.

In fact, I'll go full speculative crazy and say they could run a Manchester - Birmingham shuttle with the class 91's, should sourcing a loco be an issue. I'll show myself to the door!

Not a bad idea. We'll have a lot of mk4's available soon, so they could provide capacity.

 

[Anonymous10]

If you transfer a route from one operator to another the stock is transferred too so their perceived stock issues are irrelevant to your idea. However, TfW are never going to be the operator of a service from Cardiff to Nottingham.

I know I was stating it as Cardiff is tfws base and so it to me is a plausibility

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Alternatively put on inaccessible trains but ensure that at least one carriage is accessible. There are potentially good work-arounds if anyone was prepared to consider them

HSTs are unable to work in mixed formation (ie some sliding door vehicles and some slam door), this is because door interlock is now fitted.

Buses are very different. They don't cost as much as train carriages, they have a shorter service life and bus companies aren't beholden to Government as to when they buy new stock.

Whilst buses and trains may be very different they both come under the same accessibility laws and regulations.

Not a bad idea. We'll have a lot of mk4's available soon, so they could provide capacity.

Whilst something like 67 and mk4s would require a lot of training and some electrical conversion etc, in terms of regulatory approval they would satisfy all the necessary regulatory requirements.

With the amount of time it’s taking to overhaul the XC HST sets (I don’t think anyone anticipated the amount of corrosion on mk3s) you do wonder would this have actually been a better option instead!

 

[yorksrob]

HSTs are unable to work in mixed formation (ie some sliding door vehicles and some slam door), this is because door interlock is now fitted.

As it stands maybe, but it can't be beyond the capabilities of our mechanical and electrical engineers to wire up a system that works for both.

 

[JonathanH]

I know I was stating it as Cardiff is tfws base and so it to me is a plausibility

How do you propose they run the early morning / late evening trains at the Nottingham end? It isn't plausible.

 

[Aictos]

I can the 22x trains transferring across as a minimum for a capacity increase, but would merging it be that easy? Surely the better option would be to split the 170 operated routes off and allow XC to focus on the long distance services.

That wouldn’t do anything to resolve overcrowding which doesn’t just happen on the Class 22X routes but also on the Class 170 routes which some here seem to have forgotten....

 

[greatvoyager]

That wouldn’t do anything to resolve overcrowding which doesn’t just happen on the Class 22X routes but also on the Class 170 routes which some here seem to have forgotten....

Trust me, I know how overcrowded those routes get. I was mearly stating that because maybe another franchise might be permitted to order new stock, seeing as XC seems to not be able to do much in that regard.

 

[Aictos]

Trust me, I know how overcrowded those routes get. I was mearly stating that because maybe another franchise might be permitted to order new stock, seeing as XC seems to not be able to do much in that regard.

I believe XC could order new trains tomorrow but there would still be a lead time from signing the contract to the first train running in passenger service which may well be under the next franchise.

That said, don’t forget the Class 700s were ordered under First Capital Connect’s watch but entered service under Govia Thameslink.

I just can’t see why it should be just the next franchise who has to get new/cascaded trains when the existing operator could get the ball rolling.

 

[greatvoyager]

I believe XC could order new trains tomorrow but there would still be a lead time from signing the contract to the first train running in passenger service which may well be under the next franchise.

That said, don’t forget the Class 700s were ordered under First Capital Connect’s watch but entered service under Govia Thameslink.

I just can’t see why it should be just the next franchise who has to get new/cascaded trains when the existing operator could get the ball rolling.

That's what I meant, the direct award XC have leaves a lot of things unanswered, whereas if they were awarded the franchise in a competition, they could specify ordering new stock.

 

[Aictos]

That's what I meant, the direct award XC have leaves a lot of things unanswered, whereas if they were awarded the franchise in a competition, they could specify ordering new stock.

However that would depend on there being more then one bidder... Having just two bidders doesn’t really encourage competition now does it?

 

[JonathanH]

That said, don’t forget the Class 700s were ordered under First Capital Connect’s watch but entered service under Govia Thameslink.

DfT project and specification. I think the point is that the DfT will have a plan for Cross Country regardless of the operator. Whether people like it or not, it may be to leave the rolling stock exactly as it is now.

I just can’t see why it should be just the next franchise who has to get new/cascaded trains when the existing operator could get the ball rolling.

The existing operator can't sign long term leases for new rolling stock - either they get something short term that is available (like the six 170 centre cars that aren't going to EMR) or they need the DfT to ensure that the additional stock will continue to be used after the end of the franchise / direct award.

 

[Speed43125]

Can class 43s TnT Mk4s? 91 + 43 has run so is the system compatible? or compatible with minor work?

 

[greatvoyager]

Can class 43s TnT Mk4s? 91 + 43 has run so is the system compatible? or compatible with minor work?

No, the wiring is different. The 43s were specially modified to work with the 91s, and HST trailers were used.

 

[Aictos]

DfT project and specification. I think the point is that the DfT will have a plan for Cross Country regardless of the operator. Whether people like it or not, it may be to leave the rolling stock exactly as it is now.



The existing operator can't sign long term leases for new rolling stock - either they get something short term that is available (like the six 170 centre cars that aren't going to EMR) or they need the DfT to ensure that the additional stock will continue to be used after the end of the franchise / direct award.

Noted however the DfT could order additional stock, I’m sure that the 700s were ordered while First had the Thameslink franchise but didn’t actually operate any as they entered service under Govia Thameslink.