Crosscountry franchise

[Qwerty133]

Definitely - there are 4 car 171s already - they are basically just 170s with changed couplings.

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


You're having a laugh right? The Waterloo to Salisbury/Exeter/Bristol service needs nearly all the 159s and some of the 158s.

In return for the XC 170s, would only be 13 coaches less, of which at least 5 can easily be replaced (stopping the sub-leases), so a maximum of 8 coaches, which can mainly be taken from 9 coach services.

 

[swt_passenger]

In return for the XC 170s, would only be 13 coaches less, of which at least 5 can easily be replaced (stopping the sub-leases), so a maximum of 8 coaches, which can mainly be taken from 9 coach services.

So you'd be expecting SWT to switch from 9 and 10 car trains using gangway fitted stock to 8 or 10 car trains formed of multiple 2 car 170s?

I don't think that would be sensible. What problem exactly are you trying to solve?

 

[Qwerty133]

So you'd be expecting SWT to switch from 9 and 10 car trains using gangway fitted stock to 8 or 10 car trains formed of multiple 2 car 170s?

I don't think that would be sensible. What problem exactly are you trying to solve?

Overcrowding on Birmingham- Leicester/Stamdsted Airport services which are currently formed of a mix of 2 and 3 coach services but need to be exclusively 3 coaches.
SWT would still have 158s and 3 159s, along with 13 2 coach 170s and 14 3 coach 170s.

 

[The Ham]

It would be better to electrify part of the WofE line to release more DMU's.

For instance wire up Basingstoke to Yeovil (about 80 miles) you could then run most of the services could be run as EMU's with cross platform changes at Yeovil. That would free up a lot of DMU's to be used elsewhere.

 

[Class 170101]

In a word, no.
DfT has yet to negotiate a direct award with Arriva for 2016-2019 as per the announced schedule.
On top of which there is no source of suitable extra rolling stock until the IEP and/or electrification programmes produce some cascades.
The most suitable stock would be Class 180s.

I don't think the 180s would be the most suitable. Its another fleet to maintain and another fleet type for XC to learn.

HSTs displaced from MML, ECML and GWML would be better as XC already know these. Class 222s from MML would also be ideal here being similar to 220s/221s. Also I think we are forgetting that the XC route is likely to change beyond recognition post HS2.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would be surprised if Virgin would go for it.

Personally I think they will but I do fear for the Class 170 routes if they do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Others have pointed out that the HST's can't keep pace with timetables, but given so many XC Voyagers run late would that be noticed by the traveling public

Personally I don't see this as an issue.
Firstly Looking at XC threads on Facebook XC have been reducing the schedules in HSTs.
Secondly I would focus the HSTs solely on the Plymouth to Edinburgh axis and no other route as maintenance and fuelling then become easier - HSTs based at Penzance - Long Rock, Plymouth - Laira, Bristol - St Phillip Marsh, Derby - Etches Park, Leeds - Neville Hill, Newcastle - Heaton, Edinburgh - Craigentinny and Aberdeen - Clayhills. This route could be changed to HST timings and the few Voyagers that remain (mostly terminating at Derby and Birmingham would just be quick on HST timings.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As much as I agree that overcrowding is a problem on the route, where could sufficient 3 car units be released from without causing overcrowding elsewhere? Would a half hourly service, even if some were 2 car sets, alleviate the overcrowding somewhat?

Agreed - it does all seem to finish a bit early east of Leicester.

The early finish east of Leicester is poor. An 00:10 arrival at Cambridge should be easily achievable (so one hour later than present). However Cambridge to Leicester is just as poor. Last train 20:21 Stansted to New Street with no Stansted to Leicester short services after that. Mostly because Leicester Depot doesn't sign east of Leicester to Stansted.

Sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Neither GA nor TPE have traincrew at Nottingham, which is where - inevitably - the majority of traincrew for the route are needed.

Mind you neither do XC. Some of their crew come from Leicester to work these services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Notwithstanding the fact that DfT / XC probably aren't interested, could additional carriages be built to strengthen all XC Turbostars to three coaches? And could (dizzy with excitement) a four car 170 ever work?

The coaches would all have to be unpowered to meet the latest 3B EU emissions standards as a 3B suitable engine wouldn't fit under the floor. 170s are under powered at the best of times. More likely the two car 170s would be joined together to operate as 2x2 Class 170s. Most likely these would come from Scotrail - as has been discussed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When many passengers have to stand, extra capacity would be much higher up their priority list than sockets and wi fi.

But the latter would probably be easier to implement on a short franchise within an existing fleet. The former requires extra trains and as has been noted above aren't exactly available currently.

 

[43074]

As much as I agree that overcrowding is a problem on the route, where could sufficient 3 car units be released from without causing overcrowding elsewhere? Would a half hourly service, even if some were 2 car sets, alleviate the overcrowding somewhat?

From casual observation it seems that off-peak, most of the traffic is focussed between Birmingham, Nuneaton, Leicester, Peterborough, Ely and Cambridge. With this in mind, I proposed an additional off peak service to serve these stations exclusively a few months back. The existing Stansted - Birmingham services would remain. At peak hours, the focus changes and most of the traffic is from intermediate stations to the larger centres (e.g. in the morning peak Melton Mowbray to Leicester, or March to Cambridge, vice versa in the evening). The additional services would run at half hourly intervals to the existing ones at peak times with the same calling pattern to spread demand.

That is how I would try and solve the crowding on the Birmingham to Stansted route, however it depends on stock and crew avaliability; neither of which they have in plentiful supply to begin with.

Are later services using Cambridge crew possible exclusively between Stansted and Peterborough? It would help if Leicester crew learned the route to at least Cambridge, if not Stansted though.

 

[Tomnick]

The early finish east of Leicester is poor. An 00:10 arrival at Cambridge should be easily achievable (so one hour later than present). However Cambridge to Leicester is just as poor. Last train 20:21 Stansted to New Street with no Stansted to Leicester short services after that. Mostly because Leicester Depot doesn't sign east of Leicester to Stansted.

Agreed, and with an even earlier finish on a Saturday evening (not sure whether that's to do with stock balancing - the 1652 ex New St doesn't run through to Cambridge on Saturdays - or because P'boro to Leicester shuts after 1L56/1N69 on a Saturday). Would Leicester learn to Cambridge if the service, as proposed, went to 2tph for at least alternate hours? That might make it easier to arrange a later finish. At least the first Norwich fills the early gap on the Up at Melton, Oakham and Stamford.

Mind you neither do XC. Some of their crew come from Leicester to work these services.

That was with reference to Liverpool - Norwich, not XC's services into Notts. I don't know how many XC crews pass to/from Leicester in the daytime (as opposed to working in or out via Brum), but certainly a few do at either end of the service, along with ECS units. Having to do the same for Liverpool - Norwich would be terribly inefficient compared to the only real downside of EMT's current arrangement, that being the ECS moves to and from Liverpool.

From casual observation it seems that off-peak, most of the traffic is focussed between Birmingham, Nuneaton, Leicester, Peterborough, Ely and Cambridge. With this in mind, I proposed an additional off peak service to serve these stations exclusively a few months back. The existing Stansted - Birmingham services would remain. At peak hours, the focus changes and most of the traffic is from intermediate stations to the larger centres (e.g. in the morning peak Melton Mowbray to Leicester, or March to Cambridge, vice versa in the evening). The additional services would run at half hourly intervals to the existing ones at peak times with the same calling pattern to spread demand.

That is how I would try and solve the crowding on the Birmingham to Stansted route, however it depends on stock and crew avaliability; neither of which they have in plentiful supply to begin with.

Are later services using Cambridge crew possible exclusively between Stansted and Peterborough? It would help if Leicester crew learned the route to at least Cambridge, if not Stansted though.

All sounds sensible to me. I'm not sure whether the additional services were proposed to run fast between Peterborough and Leicester, but the existing hourly passenger would probably suffice (for most of the day) if some of the through passengers were enticed onto new faster services. Would it make sense also, on that basis, to form fast services out of the existing through services at Leicester and extend the terminating stoppers to serve intermediate stations to the east?

 

[HowardGWR]

Improvements doesn't have to be more or longer services. For example it could be sorting out the smell on voyagers; .

I thought it had?

 

[bb21]

Overcrowding on Birmingham- Leicester/Stamdsted Airport services which are currently formed of a mix of 2 and 3 coach services but need to be exclusively 3 coaches.
SWT would still have 158s and 3 159s, along with 13 2 coach 170s and 14 3 coach 170s.

What are you going to do about the loss of 4-car services then when you get rid of the 2-cars?

 

[Qwerty133]

What are you going to do about the loss of 4-car services then when you get rid of the 2-cars?

6 coach services, the platforms may only be 4 coaches but 6 coach services are possible and do happen.
But seriously for one service on a Sunday morning, and one in one direction only, it's acceptable.

 

[bb21]

6 coach services, the platforms may only be 4 coaches but 6 coach services are possible and do happen.
But seriously for one service on a Sunday morning, and one in one direction only, it's acceptable.

Do 170s have SDO? Last time I used a six-car service everyone had to be shepherded into the front unit.

I thought there were more 4-car services than that.

 

[hassaanhc]

Do 170s have SDO? Last time I used a six-car service everyone had to be shepherded into the front unit.

I thought there were more 4-car services than that.

Prior special dispensation needs to be gained from the RSSB if the SDO system is worked manually by the guard or driver, rather than automatically using GPS or trackside balise. Otherwise you can't stop at a short platform according to the rules, so you'd have to ensure the rear unit is empty of passengers in order to remain compliant. I'd imagine we'd already know if an automatic SDO system is fitted.

 

[Qwerty133]

Do 170s have SDO? Last time I used a six-car service everyone had to be shepherded into the front unit.

I thought there were more 4-car services than that.

XC 170s definitely do, used everyday on the 17:18 from Leicester, should be easy enough to fit to others.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Prior special dispensation needs to be gained from the RSSB if the SDO system is worked manually by the guard or driver, rather than automatically using GPS or trackside balise. Otherwise you can't stop at a short platform according to the rules, so you'd have to ensure the rear unit is empty of passengers in order to remain compliant. I'd imagine we'd already know if an automatic SDO system is fitted.

it's a manual system, but dispensation is already in place.

 

[Class 170101]

Some 170s can de-select a single carriage. GA units do this at Manea and Whittlesea for 3 car versions.

 

[Qwerty133]

Earlier service westbound from Leicester on Sundays from December, starting a few weeks after the start of busiest time of the year, but at least it's coming even if it's taken 7 years including complaints for the last 3 (from me).

 

[edwin_m]

Most realistic long-term prospect for XC in my view is either new long-distance EMUs to take over Manchester-Reading or 222s displaced from MML - both of these obviously require completion of electrification schemes which are committed but some years from completion. These would possibly replace 170s on Nottingham-Birmingham/Cardiff where much of the route is cleared for 100mph+, leaving the 170s to provide more or longer trains on Birmingham-Leicester/Cambridge/Stansted. Refitting the 220/221s with interiors similar to the 222s would be a big step forward too.

I don't think increased use of HSTs is a big problem operationally in the short term, as the timetable moreorless approximately repeats every hour so they could probably keep to time on any Plymouth-Edinburgh working with perhaps some minor adjustments. However I guess they must think they won't recover their costs, otherwise they would have done this already.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Does anyone know what should be rostered for the Nottm - Cardiff service?

Is it 2car or 3car 170s? Very often a 2car turns up and proves to be totally inadequate.

Seems to be a mixture of 2-car, 3-car and 4-car (the 4-car may only be on the Nottingham-Birminghams). These are probably diagrammed to try to get longer sets on the peak-direction workings at Birmingham, as this is the busiest section for commuters, and that inevitably means some short sets at busy times on other parts of the route. These are also full and standing a lot of the time between Birmingham and Tamworth, but I don't think any of the various Centro schemes to provide extra commuter services on this route will happen anytime soon.

 

[route:oxford]

Most realistic long-term prospect for XC in my view is either new long-distance EMUs to take over Manchester-Reading or 222s displaced from MML - both of these obviously require completion of electrification schemes which are committed but some years from completion.

The best option here would probably be to subcontract the operation of the Manchester-Reading-South Coast services to the Greater Western franchise holder.

Then run the services with either IEP units or similar.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't see why a future XC franchise shouldn't operate its own fleet, especially as Birmingham and Manchester are main bases for XC but a long way from GW territory.

That does raise another point - within a few years XC will be running under the wires between Derby and Glasgow (excepting a bit north of Sheffield) as well as Mancheseter and Southampton. Perhaps we will see the e-Voyager project being revived, this time as an attempt by the ROSCO to avoid their units being replaced by new bi-modes?

 

[Carlisle]

Perhaps we will see the e-Voyager project being revived, this time as an attempt by the ROSCO to avoid their units being replaced by new bi-modes?

If e Voyager is possible , why is it not happening now or in the near future ?

 

[class26]

I don't see why a future XC franchise shouldn't operate its own fleet, especially as Birmingham and Manchester are main bases for XC but a long way from GW territory.

That does raise another point - within a few years XC will be running under the wires between Derby and Glasgow (excepting a bit north of Sheffield) as well as Mancheseter and Southampton. Perhaps we will see the e-Voyager project being revived, this time as an attempt by the ROSCO to avoid their units being replaced by new bi-modes?

It has been ruled out as too expensive. If it hasn`t happened by now it will never happen in the future as there will be less years to recoup the cost of conversion

 

[najaB]

If e Voyager is possible , why is it not happening now or in the near future ?

Because Virgin is apparently aiming to get six-car Pendolinos to replace the majority of their fleet, and CrossCountry don't run under the wires enough for it to make sense (yet).

 

[Carlisle]

Ok thanks guys for clearing that one up ,a few years back I recall the e voyager project was strongly touted as a chance to bring more badly needed work to Bombardier Derby

 

[route:oxford]

I don't see why a future XC franchise shouldn't operate its own fleet, especially as Birmingham and Manchester are main bases for XC but a long way from GW territory.

They aren't that far away. I'm sure in the olden days that Great Western ran services from Paddington to Birmingham.

Personally, I'd rather that the XC franchise was jointly owned franchise between East Coast & Great Western. One that was designed for growth.

 

[The Ham]

The best option here would probably be to subcontract the operation of the Manchester-Reading-South Coast services to the Greater Western franchise holder.

Then run the services with either IEP units or similar.

If XC were to have dual voltage EMU's then they could run the Manchester to South Coast services.

That could then mean that with future electrification Newcastle to Reading/South coast could then also follow to being run by EMU's, if this electrification included the gaps between Reading and Guildford even the diversion routes could be run by EMU's.

 

[starrymarkb]

Ok thanks guys for clearing that one up ,a few years back I recall the e voyager project was strongly touted as a chance to bring more badly needed work to Bombardier Derby

Bombardier didn't help themselves by insisting that the trains were retractioned with Bombardier Traction Packs (made in Sweden). The DfT wanted Alstom gear (made in the UK) which would match the existing Alstom traction gear fitted to the 22x

 

[edwin_m]

They aren't that far away. I'm sure in the olden days that Great Western ran services from Paddington to Birmingham.

That was true up until the 1960s, and to a limited extent after that, but what happened 50 years ago is hardly relevant to a current or future franchise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If XC were to have dual voltage EMU's then they could run the Manchester to South Coast services.

Depending on whether AC conversion of "electric spine" happens and how far it extends, single voltage EMUs may be possible. All the other routes that might be looking for a 110mph+ high-quality EMU (GW outer suburban, Transpennine, Scotrail, MML) would only be wanting an AC version but adding a DC capability might not add too much to the cost.

 

[Class 170101]

Bombardier didn't help themselves by insisting that the trains were retractioned with Bombardier Traction Packs (made in Sweden). The DfT wanted Alstom gear (made in the UK) which would match the existing Alstom traction gear fitted to the 22x

I think the bodyshells for the carriages were also to be made in Bruges Belgium - so again no benfit to the UK in terms of employment.

Only final component assembly was likely to take place at Derby.

 

[Julian Hornby]

All I've seen are de - provements (If that's a word or, whatever). They've got rid of the quiet coach, cut services, made trains shorter, and so on. The trains are always untidy, overcrowded and smelly. It's time the crosscountry franchise was given more trains and longer ones.

 

[43074]

All I've seen are de - provements (If that's a word or, whatever). They've got rid of the quiet coach, cut services, made trains shorter, and so on. The trains are always untidy, overcrowded and smelly. It's time the crosscountry franchise was given more trains and longer ones.

Where have they made these service cuts? Which trains have they made shorter? The trains are the same length as in 2007 when the franchise started.

The loss of the WCML was not initiated by XC as those services went to Virgin West Coast on the DfT's orders if that's what you're thinking of.