My proposal to split up the CrossCountry Network

[cle]

Im all for it as it simplifies crew aswell. Avanti won't need an Edinburgh base, nor will TPE need a Glasgow base. Plus TPE already operate ECML services out of Edinburgh.

However I think most TPE services in Scotland are crewed by Glasgow, even the ECML ones as I don't think Edinburgh has a crew base.

Yep this is what I was thinking (re Preston) also - Manchester to Edinburgh would be hourly.

Another solve for the Glasgow, if paths were tight - could be a split at Oxenholme with an hourly Windermere (wired). Which then also runs to on Glasgow.

I'd cut the Barrow back to either Lancaster or Preston - or maybe to Liverpool instead and create another regional service.

Or the Liverpool-Glasgow paths have Manchester sections join them, and Manchester-Glasgow is only those. Something has to give. Liverpool has no Edinburgh really (the TPE routing is absurd for that journey) - so it's not all loss.

 

[InkyScrolls]

You are also crucially losing an hourly direct service between West Yorkshire and Scotland. What is your solution to all this without fantasies of magic extra platforms or sidings that ain’t happening.

Come on Neptune, everyone knows the answer is Nottingham to Glasgow via Settle...

 

[Neptune]

Come on Neptune, everyone knows the answer is Nottingham to Glasgow via Settle...

Oh crikey don’t encourage people to restart that one

 

[HST43257]

Come on Neptune, everyone knows the answer is Nottingham to Glasgow via Settle...

Oh crikey don’t encourage people to restart that one

If this forum had a bingo sheet this’d be straight on there!

 

[A0wen]

Oh crikey don’t encourage people to restart that one

Run with Scotrail's HSTs which should be up for replacement, so will be free to run such a service........ And that's only because the 442s have gone for scrap so can't be converted to loco hauled push-pull sets....

 

[RobShipway]

Run with Scotrail's HSTs which should be up for replacement, so will be free to run such a service........ And that's only because the 442s have gone for scrap so can't be converted to loco hauled push-pull sets....

If SWR convert the 350/2 units to be third rail instead of using the class 458 units, then you could always convert the class 458 units into being Inter-City loco hauled coaches, he says with tongue very much in cheek.

 

[p.d87]

Im all for it as it simplifies crew aswell. Avanti won't need an Edinburgh base, nor will TPE need a Glasgow base. Plus TPE already operate ECML services out of Edinburgh.

However I think most TPE services in Scotland are crewed by Glasgow, even the ECML ones as I don't think Edinburgh has a crew base.

What would happen to the Edinburgh Avanti crew? Redundancy?? TPE do not have a crew depot in Edinburgh it's been Glasgow since start of their Scottish operations.

Edinburgh Avanti services can and do get extremely busy so reducing from 9 and 11 car Pendolino every 2 hours plus a 5 car 397 down to just 1x 5 car 397 each hour is a massive capacity reduction. Not to mention that TPE offer a much inferior onboard experience to Avanti.

 

[Peter0124]

What would happen to the Edinburgh Avanti crew? Redundancy?? TPE do not have a crew depot in Edinburgh it's been Glasgow since start of their Scottish operations.

Edinburgh Avanti services can and do get extremely busy so reducing from 9 and 11 car Pendolino every 2 hours plus a 5 car 397 down to just 1x 5 car 397 each hour is a massive capacity reduction. Not to mention that TPE offer a much inferior onboard experience to Avanti.

Suppose they could make the TPEs 10 car, reroute via Wigan and terminate at Manchester Piccadilly rather than the airport. There might not be enough stock for that though.

As for the Avanti staff, maybe they could just work the Glasgow services. Or their job be relocated there.

It would therefore give Glasgow 2tph London service, and an hourly Birmingham. Matching Edinburgh. They just need to make the 9Mxx run fast from Coventry again like planned.

 

[p.d87]

Suppose they could make the TPEs 10 car, reroute via Wigan and terminate at Manchester Piccadilly rather than the airport. There might not be enough stock for that though.

As for the Avanti staff, maybe they could just work the Glasgow services. Or their job be relocated there.

It would therefore give Glasgow 2tph London service, and an hourly Birmingham. Matching Edinburgh. They just need to make the 9Mxx run fast from Coventry again like planned.

You'd need twice as many 397s to double them up. So not enough stock for that.

Avanti staff being moved to glasgow may not suit those at Edinburgh who perhaps live east lothian/ Fife or further afield who may not be able to commute to Glasgow every day. Therefore the only option is redundancy. Why should those people lose their jobs?

If they keep Avanti staff at Edinburgh and have them pass to/from Glasgow just to work trains. You'd be extending their diagrams by a considerable amount of time therefore being less productive. This would never get approved by the decision makers.

I think you're looking for solutions to problems that just don't exist or need to exist. The current set up works well. Albeit I'd have TPE running longer trains.

Edinburgh has a massive tourist market and reducing the direct services from different areas of the Uk is just a non starter for me. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Manutd1999]

I think you're looking for solutions to problems that just don't exist or need to exist. The current set up works well.

It works ok, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better option

An alternative where Avanti only serves Glasgow is worth considering IMO. There are disadvantages, notably Preston/Lancaster/Carlisle moving from an (uneven) hourly to 1p2h direct service to Edinburgh. But there are also advantages, such as an increased service from Glasgow to Birmingham/London and opportunities for more efficient use of crew and rolling stock.

Ideally, there would be an extra path to enable 2ph TPE, one Manchester-Edinburgh and one Manchester/Liverpool-Glasgow, but that isn't easy with current infrastructure.

Avanti staff being moved to glasgow may not suit those at Edinburgh who perhaps live east lothian/ Fife or further afield who may not be able to commute to Glasgow every day. Therefore the only option is redundancy. Why should those people lose their jobs?

Removal of an Avanti crew base at Edinburgh could be managed in various ways (transfer to Glasgow, transfer to other TOCs etc). Solutions could be offered so that nobody is forced to lose their job. If the barrier for accepting changes is that the status quo is maintained for railway staff, we will never change anything...

 

[cle]

Ideally, there would be an extra path to enable 2ph TPE, one Manchester-Edinburgh and one Manchester/Liverpool-Glasgow, but that isn't easy with current infrastructure.

This is what I would advocate for. It is seemingly possible in some hours.

And maybe that does run via Wigan (could even do joining/splitting there, if better than Preston?)

It would also enable more station to station service, possibly allowing some of the Avanti services to drop a few calls - or alternate more (e.g. Oxenholme and Penrith needn't ever be on the same Avanti services) - and if so, could Wigan drop from a few London fast calls too, it would be very well-served north anyway. Some hours it could be via Brum (or a Crewe change) - which is fast Coventry-Euston wouldn't be as bad a solve.

There is also the Windermere/Barrow path and pattern to consider. Those might be a Liverpool option if one went for a solid hourly Manchester-Glasgow.

And the function of the Euston-Blackpools, and a future hourly version of that (which is often noted as going to Lancaster more so) - which again can function for some of the Lancs London calls, and intra-WCML service too - main goal here of speeding up the London-Glasgow direct, to compete better with flying.

 

[InkyScrolls]

This is what I would advocate for. It is seemingly possible in some hours.

And maybe that does run via Wigan (could even do joining/splitting there, if better than Preston?)

It would also enable more station to station service, possibly allowing some of the Avanti services to drop a few calls - or alternate more (e.g. Oxenholme and Penrith needn't ever be on the same Avanti services) - and if so, could Wigan drop from a few London fast calls too, it would be very well-served north anyway. Some hours it could be via Brum (or a Crewe change) - which is fast Coventry-Euston wouldn't be as bad a solve.

There is also the Windermere/Barrow path and pattern to consider. Those might be a Liverpool option if one went for a solid hourly Manchester-Glasgow.

And the function of the Euston-Blackpools, and a future hourly version of that (which is often noted as going to Lancaster more so) - which again can function for some of the Lancs London calls, and intra-WCML service too - main goal here of speeding up the London-Glasgow direct, to compete better with flying.

I'm a little confused by your reference to Barrow and Windermere, which are operated by Northern and don't go near Liverpool - perhaps you could explain?

 

[Peter0124]

**Would like to hear peoples opinions on this**

Aren't there freed up 802s from the scrapped Edinburgh to Liverpool ECML? Could run some of those as 10 car on the Manchester-Edinburgh route alongside 10 car 397s, hourly. Just scrap the Airport call and reinstate Wigan and you're set. There are already plenty of Manchester Airport to Piccadilly/Preston services to change onto for the Airport. Though TPE would need to be reliable and quite responsible for catering for the WCML-Edinburgh flow!

As for the TPE Glasgow base, it would relocate to Edinburgh and arrangements could be made for staff. I think Glasgow crew currently work the ECML TPEs from Edinburgh to Newcastle even though they don't serve Glasgow.

And for Glasgow to Manchester, the connections at Preston are decent, though more-so Southbound than Northbound. Though the Manchester-Barrow train (mostly arriving into Preston at xx:32) can connect well into the xx:53 from Preston (but only if the xx:53 always goes to Glasgow rather than Edinburgh)

Then move the Avanti Edinburgh's to Glasgow. Then you have 2tph Glasgow to London and with a sped up service south of Birmingham (ie fast from Coventry) it would be somewhat similar to the semi-fast KGX to Edinburgh's. With the Trent Valley being the fast. Could cut Warrington/Wigan/Oxenholme/Penrith from the fasts in that case but that is going deep into another controversial topic. A Blackpool - Euston Trent Valley train would take the Wigan/Warrington stops aswell as the via Birmingham's. However Penrith/Oxenholme would be stuck with the hourly via BHMs for London travel.


XC will already serve BHM to EDB.

You'd need twice as many 397s to double them up. So not enough stock for that.

 

[Falcon1200]

I very much disagree with the proposal to run Avanti only to Glasgow and TPE only to Edinburgh. The current service provides through services from multiple WCML stations to both Scottish cities, and Birmingham-Edinburgh via the ECML takes around an hour longer than via the WCML. BR knew 40 years that ordinary passengers (as opposed to us enthusiasts) much prefer through services to having to change, and while XC is very far from perfect, that should still be a major principle of their timetable.

 

[cle]

I'm a little confused by your reference to Barrow and Windermere, which are operated by Northern and don't go near Liverpool - perhaps you could explain?

Sure thing. I was thinking in terms of finite WCML paths - what else runs there. And these services are relevant in terms of thinking about local journeys (e.g. Preston-Lancaster or Oxenholme) - and their role in linking WCML stops which might enable others to speed up or skip stop.

Also Manchester - XXX - Preston services too, they're in the pool for those frequencies.

Liverpool. Basically thinking that if Barrow/Windermere were curtailed somewhere to enable a second Manchester-Scotland (so both could be hourly) - rather than terminating at Lancaster or Preston, they could instead run to Liverpool, keeping at least one big city connected to them as well as the WCML hubs.

Then move the Avanti Edinburgh's to Glasgow. Then you have 2tph Glasgow to London and with a sped up service south of Birmingham (ie fast from Coventry) it would be somewhat similar to the semi-fast KGX to Edinburgh's. With the Trent Valley being the fast. Could cut Warrington/Wigan/Oxenholme/Penrith from the fasts in that case but that is going deep into another controversial topic. A Blackpool - Euston Trent Valley train would take the Wigan/Warrington stops aswell as the via Birmingham's. However Penrith/Oxenholme would be stuck with the hourly via BHMs for London travel.

I'm mostly aligned with this. Only build would be the Blackpool TV would ideally be hourly - but mostly to Lancaster. Maybe even sometimes to Carlisle for a few peak services. Then that would enable a fuller cut of Lancs calls on the Glasgow fasts. I don't think the via B'ham, even fats to Cov, is a good enough substitute. Warrington currently has an amazing non-stop, that would be hard fought.

 

[Tayway]

Normally I'm in favour of simplifying service patterns, but I think the Edinburgh/Glasgow split is fine as it is, and means everywhere on the North WCML gets a direct connection to both Scottish cities.

I would also favour moving the Scotland - North West - West Midlands route back over to CrossCountry once suitable bi-mode rolling stock can be found, and extending these through to Bristol Temple Meads in place of the Manchester service to give a faster journey time from the West Country to Scotland.

The current Edinburgh XC service can then be curtailed at York, with the Scotland - West Yorkshire - East Midlands route being served by a separate TPE Edinburgh to Nottingham service, with either all or half of these extended back to Glasgow Central. The second Manchester service can then be transferred to LNR using EMUs.

The Newcastle to Reading would be made hourly again, and extended either to Southampton or to Portsmouth.

The InterCity XC network would then look something like this:

1tph Edinburgh/Glasgow Central to Bristol Temple Meads
1tph Manchester Piccadilly to Bournemouth
1tph Newcastle to Southampton Central/Portsmouth Harbour (via Doncaster)
1tph York to Plymouth (via Leeds)

 

[py_megapixel]

I would also favour moving the Scotland - North West - West Midlands route back over to CrossCountry once suitable bi-mode rolling stock can be found, and extending these through to Bristol Temple Meads in place of the Manchester service to give a faster journey time from the West Country to Scotland.

The journey time is quicker via the west coast, but is it enough to properly compete with flying from Scotland to the South West? It might be a case of losing more passengers from cutting off the Manchester connection than you gain by speeding up journeys from Scotland.

The second Manchester service can then be transferred to LNR using EMUs.

That does seem sensible on paper, but does LNR have enough EMUs to reliably run that? There's no way only 1tph from Manchester to Birmingham would be enough - even with 2tph they can be crush-loaded at the busiest times, especially if there has been disruption earlier.

 

[Tayway]

The journey time is quicker via the west coast, but is it enough to properly compete with flying from Scotland to the South West? It might be a case of losing more passengers from cutting off the Manchester connection than you gain by speeding up journeys from Scotland.

If the Manchester flow is seen as more important then I suppose there would be the option of linking the Glasgow/Edinburgh service to the Bournemouth portion instead – albeit severing the direct Bristol link altogether.

That does seem sensible on paper, but does LNR have enough EMUs to reliably run that? There's no way only 1tph from Manchester to Birmingham would be enough - even with 2tph they can be crush-loaded at the busiest times, especially if there has been disruption earlier.

With only 1tph Liverpool service at the moment would the surplus units not be able to cover this? Or alternatively it might require taking back some or all of the off-lease 350s.

Moving forward I could see the case for having 1tph XC and 1tph LNR from both Liverpool and Manchester, with an additional service south of Birmingham provided too. Maybe a faster Cardiff service, with the current semi-fast Nottingham curtailed at Gloucester?

 

[cle]

Manchester-Birmingham-Cardiff you mean? It's not lined up well at New St for that, in terms of crossings.

I've always thought a useful service would be an addl Birmingham-Manchester via Wilmslow. The Stoke route is pretty frequent - or should be. 4tph in normal times. But then that is the Manchester-Cardiff path, if there aren't more. Now that is going to 5 cars, it's less of a waste.

 

[Tayway]

Manchester-Birmingham-Cardiff you mean? It's not lined up well at New St for that, in terms of crossings.

The Cardiff one could link to the Edinburgh/Glasgow one I suppose if that works better – meaning the Bristol to Manchester can be left alone, and the Bournemouth to Manchester can either stay as it is or be diverted to Liverpool.