Ideas for creating more capacity on Cross Country & TPE Scotland

[Philip]

What options are potentially available to Cross Country, to boost the number of carriages and prevent single Voyagers turning up and the resulting overcrowding chaos, particularly around Birmingham? Could they take on all remaining Super Voyagers from Avanti once GC have taken their allocation? Alternatively an order for new 397s to run between Manchester-Birmingham (with the existing services splitting at New Street), to free up Voyagers for strengthening other services?

As for TPE Scotland, should TPE bite the bullet and put 185s back on the route, so that the two busiest diagrams are worked by 185s running in either double or triple formation? It wouldn't be ideal running DMUs under a fully electrified route, but it would be a big improvement on capacity if the 16:20 & 17:20 departures from Piccadilly had 6 or 9 coaches, instead of the 5-car 397s which are overcrowded on those services. You'd be taking 4-6 185s per day from the existing allocation to do this, either by reducing a couple of Saltburn & Hull diagrams to single formation, or by squeezing the maintainance regime a little so that more units are running in service (or both). Could TPE manage this?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Regarding XC, I would not order new trains with the intention of using them to introduce any additional need for passengers to change at Birmingham. They should, in my view, have been allowed to retain their 2+7 IC125 formations (and implement the planned increase in the number of diagrams covered by those sets) at least until the entire Voyager fleet (all 78 units) had been transfered to XC, and prefrably some 8/9-car class 802/800 bi-modes cascasded from LNER or GWR following extension of electrification as well. If the suituation with the 180s is so dire that Grand Central cannot wait for the 222s, then XC should have retained the IC125s until GC could swap the 221s for 222s to allow XC to have all the Voyagers.

TPE should, in my view, have kept the mark 5 sets and 68s and redeployed them onto Manchester Piccadilly - Cleethorpes services, thus removing a service that crosses the Piccadilly throat and reducing the number of regional expresses in the Castlefield corridor. I also think they should order a number of additonal class 397s, but these additional units should have proper seat cushions instead of the rock-hard ones seen in modern GB train interiors and be at least 7-cars long. Once the first few of these are delivered, acceptance of new units would be paused and the original Nova trains should be cycled through a programme to replace the rocks with the proper cushions (I believe TPE has at least one WCML diagram covered by an 802, so at least one can be freed up for work by putting a new long 397 on that diagram). Hopefully, by the time that is done the Transpennine Route Upgrade will be nearing completion allowing the rest of the new 7-car (or longer) 397s to be delivered giving a larger EMU fleet (a mix of 5-car and longer class 397 units) across the two fully-wired routes and cascading the class 802s onto the Hull, Scarborough and Saltburn routes (these being the partially wired ones and therefore needing the bi-modes).

However given where we are now, and the apparent difficultly in finding somewhere class 68s can be used without locals complaining they are too noisy, the XC125s have been prematurely dummped and a load of mark 5a coaches is sat around doing not alot. I would still back additional class 397s (7-cars or longer) as the eventual fleet for the TRU, but if the 68s are too noisy the obvious solution to getting the mark 5a fleet back in use is an electric locomotive. Given the similarity between 68s and 88s (they can even work in multiple I think), could the latter be fitted with the necessary equipment to work with the mark 5a driving trailers in a reasonable timeframe? While the loco mods are being done, fix any issues with the coaches and do something about the interior - replace the seats with properly cushioned ones as above and make the table bays line up with the windows. Since there are only ten 88s (although I guess if you were doing this you'd need to order a few more), and 5 coaches is a bit short, I would also suggest reconfiguring the sets into fewer, longer, formations. Unfortunately, I think the coach which couples to the class 68 doesn't have a corridor connection on the loco end, otherwise I would just suggest using them in pairs coupled back-to-back (ie. 10 coach sets with a driving trailer at each end and first class in the middle) which might also allow them to be conventially hauled (with run-round at each end) by alternative locos if no 88s are available. The end coach also has the only PRM toilet, so it can't just be removed to have an all-standard 8-coach set with a driving trailer at each end either, so I guess there would have to coaches swapped between rakes to give something longer than 5 coaches.

Due to Britain's lamentable progress on electrification, I don't think there's a fully-wired route where they would be a good fit, so for want of a better solution and with regret, perhaps making XC passengers to/from Manchester change at Birmingham is the only way to make the best of a bad suituation. If DRS can commit to providing four class 88 diagrams, I think that would cover an hourly Manchester-Birmingham shuttle, roughly half XC's services and perhaps four Voyager diagrams freed up. That's alot of ifs and challanges for a relatively small benefit - unless they are double Voyagers it wouldn't even replace the lost XC125 capacity (which I think was planned to go up to four diagrams wasn't it, and 7 coaches rather than 4 or 5 for a single Voyager).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Best thing for Manchester to Scotland would be to transfer it to Avanti for it to be worked by the 7 car 807s.

 

[A S Leib]

Best thing for Manchester to Scotland would be to transfer it to Avanti for it to be worked by the 7 car 807s.

How many would be needed for Manchester (+ Liverpool) – Carlisle – Edinburgh / Glasgow? What are Avanti's current plans for seating on 807s – 2 1st class, 1 standard premium, 4 standard class carriages for a seven-car train?

 

[Topological]

I still think Cross Country should use EMU on Manchester to Birmingham (possibly International or some other short electric extension, maybe even Bromsgrove, to avoid terminating in New Street), there seem to be plenty of EMU off lease. I think EMU rather than some elaborate plan involving the exTPE Mk5.

The problem then is everyone wants direct journeys and there would be changes required from the EMU service to voyagers on the other 3 legs of the X.

However, I think the extra capacity between Birmingham and Manchester, plus the redeployment of the voyagers to make extra capacity elsewhere on the XC network would more than cover the cost from direct journeys.

 

[JonathanH]

How many would be needed for Manchester (+ Liverpool) – Carlisle – Edinburgh / Glasgow? What are Avanti's current plans for seating on 807s – 2 1st class, 1 standard premium, 4 standard class carriages for a seven-car train?

Eight units are needed for an hourly service from Manchester Airport to Scotland, not that it seems likely this will ever be restored in full.

The current provision appears to require 8 397s and a 802.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I still think Cross Country should use EMU on Manchester to Birmingham (possibly International or some other short electric extension, maybe even Bromsgrove, to avoid terminating in New Street), there seem to be plenty of EMU off lease. I think EMU rather than some elaborate plan involving the exTPE Mk5.

The problem then is everyone wants direct journeys and there would be changes required from the EMU service to voyagers on the other 3 legs of the X.

However, I think the extra capacity between Birmingham and Manchester, plus the redeployment of the voyagers to make extra capacity elsewhere on the XC network would more than cover the cost from direct journeys.

Yes EMUs are available, but not Intercity EMUs. The best solution for XC would have been to keep the IC125s in the short-term, until they could get ALL the Voyagers, and then cascade 800/802 and new IC EMUs (with electrification, not making passengers change) in the longer term. The only way I'd support the idea of making XC passengers change in Birmingham is if there was IC-standard electric stock doing nothing and the closest we have to that is the mark 5s but there aren't enough 88s for that to make a big enough difference on XC to make that worth the hassle.

 

[Topological]

Yes EMUs are available, but not Intercity EMUs. The best solution for XC would have been to keep the IC125s in the short-term, until they could get ALL the Voyagers, and then cascade 800/802 and new IC EMUs (with electrification, not making passengers change) in the longer term. The only way I'd support the idea of making XC passengers change in Birmingham is if there was IC-standard electric stock doing nothing and the closest we have to that is the mark 5s but there aren't enough 88s for that to make a big enough difference on XC to make that worth the hassle.

There is plenty of stock which ran journeys longer than Manchester to Birmingham available (or becoming available), such as the 350s and 379s.

I appreciate some people obsess with doors at the end of carriages, but again I think most regular travellers will just be happy with something which provides a much higher capacity than they currently have. In the case of replacing a voyager with only 3 standard class carriages almost every EMU meets the extra capacity test.

If we had to wait for new "Intercity" stock for every journey over an hour then we would be waiting a very long time.

 

[Failed Unit]

Best thing for Manchester to Scotland would be to transfer it to Avanti for it to be worked by the 7 car 807s.

If they did that, I wonder if it would be worth running a London - Manchester - Scotland service in the same way as they do with the Birmingham one. Not sure if that would create more problems then it would solve or if any demand exists to London - Bolton and Stoke-on-Trent - Scotland flows. Compared to the performance risk.

 

[JonathanH]

If they did that, I wonder if it would be worth running a London - Manchester - Scotland service in the same way as they do with the Birmingham one. Not sure if that would create more problems then it would solve or if any demand exists to London - Bolton and Stoke-on-Trent - Scotland flows. Compared to the performance risk.

The performance risk of sending it through Manchester is too great. There is no justification for both London - Birmingham - Scotland and London - Manchester - Scotland.

 

[Topological]

If they did that, I wonder if it would be worth running a London - Manchester - Scotland service in the same way as they do with the Birmingham one. Not sure if that would create more problems then it would solve or if any demand exists to London - Bolton and Stoke-on-Trent - Scotland flows. Compared to the performance risk.

The problem is typically that it puts a London train onto 13/14 at Piccadilly. Even combining Manchester to Scotland and Manchester to Birmingham can be problematic.

Currently there are no long-distance trains across Manchester from South to North (I think the closest we get is if a Northern from Stoke goes to Blackpool)

 

[Failed Unit]

The problem is typically that it puts a London train onto 13/14 at Piccadilly. Even combining Manchester to Scotland and Manchester to Birmingham can be problematic.

Currently there are no long-distance trains across Manchester from South to North (I think the closest we get is if a Northern from Stoke goes to Blackpool)

They all seem to have gone over the years when I think about it (but the number of trains on the network has increased of course). I know Cross-Country used to have a couple of trains that went via Manchester and regional railways used to operate East Midlands - Blackpool North on alternate hours before they focused on Liverpool.

But 13/14 is a problem, it just can't cope. But as you have highlighted it, I can see the dwell times on 2 high demand long dwell time services could easily cause mega delays.

 

[A S Leib]

If they did that, I wonder if it would be worth running a London - Manchester - Scotland service in the same way as they do with the Birmingham one. Not sure if that would create more problems then it would solve or if any demand exists to London - Bolton and Stoke-on-Trent - Scotland flows. Compared to the performance risk.

From the ORR origin-destination matrix:

Bolton – London Euston 11,746

Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield, Crewe + Wilmslow – Bolton = 1,384 + 1,043 + 2,239 + 757 = 5,423

Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield + Wilmslow – Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle, Lockerbie, Motherwell, Glasgow Central, Haymarket and Edinburgh = 9,548

Manchester Airport – London Euston 5,828

Manchester Airport – Edinburgh 6,987, Haymarket 790, Glasgow Central 4,411, Carlisle 4,417, Penrith 3,195 = 19,800 (excluding Oxenholme, Lancaster and Preston because of the Barrow, Windermere and Blackpool services)

Some people might be closer to Stockport and drive to Manchester Airport for the direct services; Stockport – Preston, Edinburgh, Lancaster, Glasgow Central, Oxenholme, Carlisle, Penrith, Haymarket, Motherwell + Lockerbie = 6,987, of which almost half (3,131) is to Preston.

Of course, some people might be counted as making separate Bolton – Manchester and Manchester – London services (advance Avanti or TfW + LNR and a Northern single or return on the day), but Manchester Airport – Scotland seems to be a considerably bigger flow than Stoke – Scotland or Bolton – London.

 

[Philip]

The performance risk of sending it through Manchester is too great. There is no justification for both London - Birmingham - Scotland and London - Manchester - Scotland.

It seemed to run reasonably well when Cross Country operated a South Coast to Scotland service via B'ham & Manchester up until about 20 years ago. If they used double 350s to make 8-coach trains, I think an hourly Birmingham-Manchester-Scotland service would work quite well. The direct Man Airport-Scotland connection would be lost but there'd be plenty of easy connections available by changing in Preston, Bolton or Manchester.
It would free up 397s which could possibly be used by Avanti to supplement the Pendolinos, ie. introducing a second Liverpool service, half-hourly fast service to Preston etc.

 

[A S Leib]

It seemed to run reasonably well when Cross Country operated a South Coast to Scotland service via B'ham & Manchester up until about 20 years ago

How frequent were other Stoke / Crewe – Manchester and Manchester – Bolton services then?