Should XC services north of Leeds be scrapped to increase capacity?

[Purple Orange]

This thread is a good example of how complex the XC franchise is.

From my point of view, the whole thing depends on 1x key question

"is there enough demand for a 'fast' service from Newcastle/York to Birmingham/Sheffield/Derby?"

If there is, then 1ph should run via Doncaster and 1ph via Leeds. There is no real need to run the Leeds service onto the ECML, as this is better served by TPE. Similarly, if the purpose of the Doncaster service is be a fast SW/NE link, then it should not be calling at Chesterfield/Tamworth/Burton. The Leeds service could pick up these stops, essentially becoming a 'slow' Leeds-Birmingham.

If the demand isn't there, or the ~20 minutes saving doesn't make enough difference, then you might as well send both XC's via Leeds, which is clearly a bigger market than Doncaster. In this case, they would both run to Newcastle and might as well skip-stop some of the smaller towns.

So you have either:
Birmingham - Derby - Sheffield - Doncaster - York - Newcastle
Birmingham - Tamworth - Burton - Derby - Chesterfield - Sheffield - Wakefield - Leeds

or

Birmingham - Burton - Derby - Sheffield - Wakefield - Leeds - York - Darlington - Newcastle
Birmingham - Tamworth - Derby - Chesterfield - Sheffield - Leeds - York - Durham - Newcastle

I would lean towards the first option, but I change my mind everytime I consider it

So to add complexity to your key question, if demand between Birmingham and Leeds, Newcastle & Edinburgh is taken away by HS2, how does that effect Cross Country?

 

[Glenn1969]

More trains would then serve Burton and Tamworth and Birmingham- Derby- Yorkshire services would still be needed presumably

 

[Purple Orange]

More trains would then serve Burton and Tamworth and Birmingham- Derby- Yorkshire services would still be needed presumably

Of course, but they would not be a principal intercity service.

 

[SoccerHQ]

Don't think any trains that go Brum-Derby-Sheffield-Donny-NE have stopped at any of Tamworth, Burton, Chesterfield in pre covid off peak hours. Could be wrong but that is the express service to North east from West Midlands while via Leeds does stop at Chesterfield and one of Tam/Burton.

Any idea if express Nottingham/Brum via Castle Donnington is likely any time soon before HS2? One idea perhaps as gives three trains per hour to New Street and Derby/Nottingham.

Now the problem is losing any long distance XC to Burton and Tamworth. Tamworth more of an issue being interchange station with Trent Valley whereas to me with Burton it dosen't quite have same demand given Derby station is only another 15 minutes up the road and excellent bus links.

Again just floating the idea but perhaps one of the London/Sheffield could be redirected via Coalville freight route and so that would gain Burton an extra stop but no idea how practical that would be based on current layout.

 

[JonathanH]

Again just floating the idea but perhaps one of the London/Sheffield could be redirected via Coalville freight route and so that would gain Burton an extra stop but no idea how practical that would be based on current layout.

That may look good on a map but a substantial upgrade would be needed to the Coalville line, perhaps a complete rebuild, before that could happen and Leicester is a key calling point that would be missed. I can't imagine that the revenue from Burton would exceed that from Leicester.

 

[YorksLad12]

Some of the services are part of the "proper" XC franchise, some of the services are part of the "ex Central Trains" franchise ( some people don't like to think Nottingham - Cardiff as "real" XC), some of the services are ones which were part of XC at one stage (Liverpool, WCML via Wigan).

What is "InterCity" and what is meant by "cross-country"? Both seem to depend on one's perspective.

If there are going to be five long distance trains per hour from one side of Birmingham to the other then some places are going to miss out entirely (e.g. currently Liverpool) whilst other places are limited to just one destination (e.g. Doncaster only has trains towards Reading, Nottingham only has services towards Cardiff).

For example, all Leeds services currently go to Plymouth, all Doncaster services go to Reading/ Southampton, no Yorkshire services go to Coventry or Bournemouth - that's just how it is - it's not because Reading people prefer to go to Doncaster than to Leeds, it's just a case of tying up two paths at Birmingham. I think that some people assume that, because a service links two places, there must be significant demand between two places, rather than just operational convenience

Same with TPE - there's no reason why Scarborough trains go to Liverpool rather than Manchester Airport or terminating in Piccadilly, or Middlesbrough trains go to the Airport rather than Liverpool or terminating at Piccadilly, or Hull trains just terminate at Piccadilly rather than extending to the Airport or Liverpool... it's just that there are long distance five trains per hour through the "core" and that's how the cookie crumbled

The difference between the two is that TPE has a core - Leeds-Huddersfield-Stalybridge(-one of the Manchesters) whereas XC is just centred on Birmingham. Which is unavoidable, but also unfortunate; Leeds to Bournemouth was once a through route, now it isn't.

We keep having these threads where people obsess about the links between places hundreds of miles apart, as if there's some huge reason why (e.g.) Leeds needs/ "deserves" a direct hourly service to (e.g.) Plymouth. IMHO the passenger numbers between Edinburgh/ Glasgow/ Newcastle/ Leeds/ Doncaster/ Manchester/ Liverpool etc and Bournemouth/ Plymouth/ Cardiff etc will be so low that it doesn't matter whether the hourly Leeds service ties up with the hourly Bournemouth service or the hourly Plymouth service or the hourly Cardiff service

Long distance journeys are great, but a lot more people do journeys of under ninety minutes - maybe you don't like the idea of an "InterCity" TOC doing something as mundane as Leeds to Sheffield (though these are, erm, cities), and we should skip various intermediate stations, but there's no necessarily going to be additional paths to replace the local links, and you'll just hit the next bottleneck, so your suggestion for avoiding Tamworth/ Burton/ Chesterfield etc will just mean an extra five/ten minutes waiting at Sheffield for the existing path north, whilst inconveniencing people at Tamworth etc.

Historically, everything on the ECML from Leeds called/calls at Westgate. You could argue for a minimum 20 minute journey time between station calls but then there would be places missing out on services (I suspect).

This thread is a good example of how complex the XC franchise is.

From my point of view, the whole thing depends on 1x key question

"is there enough demand for a 'fast' service from Newcastle/York to Birmingham/Sheffield/Derby?"

The mode for Speculative Ideas is "If you build it, they will come"

So you have either:
Birmingham - Derby - Sheffield - Doncaster - York - Newcastle
Birmingham - Tamworth - Burton - Derby - Chesterfield - Sheffield - Wakefield - Leeds

or

Birmingham - Burton - Derby - Sheffield - Wakefield - Leeds - York - Darlington - Newcastle
Birmingham - Tamworth - Derby - Chesterfield - Sheffield - Leeds - York - Durham - Newcastle

I would lean towards the first option, but I change my mind everytime I consider it

Whereas I'd go for the latter so that nothing terminates at Leeds.

We could look at this another way. Should TPE extend to Scotland? Instinctively, no; but then where would the 802s go to bed at night? In a franchise-free world, could you give the 802s to XC as they already run to Scotland, allowing TPE to concentrate on its core?

In the future we could see England's railway divvied up so that there are a few branded routes (LNER, GWR, TPE, even XC) and the rest - plus the edge cases - in a beefed-up Regional Railways-esque contract. Or two over-arching contracts; one running stoppers, one running semi-fasts, with local (CA/PTE) input on both, and the InterCity routes running as just that. Who knows?

 

[Purple Orange]

We could look at this another way. Should TPE extend to Scotland? Instinctively, no; but then where would the 802s go to bed at night? In a franchise-free world, could you give the 802s to XC as they already run to Scotland, allowing TPE to concentrate on its core?

Why should TPE not go to Scotland? To me it makes complete sense. Like XC is the Intercity TOC centred on Birmingham, TPE is the Intercity TOC centred on Manchester, therefore provide Scotland services from Manchester. In both cases, the ECML route to Edinburgh is not the fastest route from Birmingham & Manchester respectively, however they serve the intermediate markets on the route, of which TPE provide a more suitable service from Leeds and points north than XC does.

In the future we could see England's railway divvied up so that there are a few branded routes (LNER, GWR, TPE, even XC)

I agree with this, but that lends itself to the idea that people get hung up on the brand name and ‘Trans Pennine’ should stick to just crossing the Pennines and the north of England. This is wrong in my view, given that loads of TOCs have geographic specific names but they travel miles from that region.

 

[YorksLad12]

Why should TPE not go to Scotland? To me it makes complete sense. Like XC is the Intercity TOC centred on Birmingham, TPE is the Intercity TOC centred on Manchester, therefore provide Scotland services from Manchester. In both cases, the ECML route to Edinburgh is not the fastest route from Birmingham & Manchester respectively, however they serve the intermediate markets on the route, of which TPE provide a more suitable service from Leeds and points north than XC does.

Manchester to Scotland via the west coast is understandable (although that is wholly on the WCML so...) but the via York route is a duplication, and only really serves passengers from Huddersfield as every other major stop has an alternative service to Scotland. There are three competing routes York-Edinburgh; come GBR there will not be the same sort of competition, so I could see one or the other losing out. I don't see how TPE provides a more suitable service from Leeds when it provides exactly the same service; 1tph.

I agree with this, but that lends itself to the idea that people get hung up on the brand name and ‘Trans Pennine’ should stick to just crossing the Pennines and the north of England. This is wrong in my view, given that loads of TOCs have geographic specific names but they travel miles from that region.

What I called the edge cases; things such as Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham/Lincoln, or Liverpool-Norwich (now that *is* cross-country!) would be the routes I'd lump into the Regional Railways-esque super-contract. You could break them down more locally or by service type but Northern, Southern, South Eastern as sprawling franchise areas would go, so we wouldn't have the arguments about certain services being out of area. Admittendly, I have no more idea what the future holds here than the DfT...

 

[SoccerHQ]

That may look good on a map but a substantial upgrade would be needed to the Coalville line, perhaps a complete rebuild, before that could happen and Leicester is a key calling point that would be missed. I can't imagine that the revenue from Burton would exceed that from Leicester.

Ah yeah you're right on that, thought for some reason you could join the Coalville line just north of Leicester station.

Yes non starter that idea!

Fast Brum-Notts service needs to happen anyway. Was at New street a few hours ago and looking at the board and seeing it take over an hour (and that's without stops at Willington or Long Eaton). Three an hour and you have potential to omit Derby and save 20 minutes or so.

 

[Purple Orange]

Manchester to Scotland via the west coast is understandable (although that is wholly on the WCML so...) but the via York route is a duplication, and only really serves passengers from Huddersfield as every other major stop has an alternative service to Scotland. There are three competing routes York-Edinburgh; come GBR there will not be the same sort of competition, so I could see one or the other losing out. I don't see how TPE provides a more suitable service from Leeds when it provides exactly the same service; 1tph.

XC run smaller and more polluting trains than TPE between Leeds & York and Edinburgh. The fact is that TPE have morphed in to a service that provides a far better Intercity service than XC and therefore it seems like XC should be the one to cease serving the Edinburgh market, if indeed it does need to stop.

As for duplication, 6 tph between York & Newcastle with 3 going to Edinburgh seems suitable. 2 from London, 2 from Manchester & Leeds, 2 from Birmingham, with 1 of each going to Edinburgh.

As you say, GBR changes all of this and HS2 changes it again.

 

[cle]

1tph London to Edinburgh?

I think there is a total over-index on York-Newcastle frequency. It's like saying Carlisle to Preston is over-served, or Swindon to Didcot. It's a trunk route - not designed to be a shuttle between those two places.

I think 3tph from London to Newcastle is fine - given one can terminate to provide slower calls, 1 Edinburgh headline fast and 1 beyond Edinburgh offering P'boro and Doncaster fast services north, and Berwick/other Northumberland call). This can increase Dundee/Aberdeen service to drop XC from that. A shame, but fine really.

XC can terminate 1tph at Leeds if 2tph TPE are running through Leeds towards Newcastle.

 

[tbtc]

The difference between the two is that TPE has a core - Leeds-Huddersfield-Stalybridge(-one of the Manchesters) whereas XC is just centred on Birmingham

TPE includes Cleethorpes - Manchester Airport and also the WCML services (plus, previously Barrow/ Windermere) - so saying there's a "core" to TPE is a bit like saying Derby - Cheltenham is the XC "core"

TPE is just a collection of routes - e.g. Manchester - Preston - Blackpool was TPE, then Manchester - Preston - Glasgow became TPE (ex VT), then Manchester - Preston - Blackpool was given to Northern - there was talk of giving Liverpool - Nottingham to TPE too - at least all the XC daytime services run to/through/from Birmingham, whilst TPE's services have included Liverpool - Preston - Glasgow

At the moment there are the following long distance services north of Birmingham each hour

• Nottingham
• Nottingham
• ECML via Doncaster
• ECML via Leeds
• Manchester
• Manchester
• WCML via Wigan
• Liverpool
• Liverpool

...so that's nine trains per hour to the north

At the moment there are the following long distance services south of Birmingham each hour (excluding London services):

• Bournemouth
• Reading (bi-hourly to Southampton)
• Plymouth
• Exeter
• Cardiff

...so that's five trains per hour to the south

Fast Brum-Notts service needs to happen anyway. Was at New street a few hours ago and looking at the board and seeing it take over an hour (and that's without stops at Willington or Long Eaton). Three an hour and you have potential to omit Derby and save 20 minutes or so.

Ideally, Birmingham to Nottingham would be a lot faster.

But, given the limited paths at New Street, I think that any "fast" Nottingham service would come at the expense of an existing "Nottingham via Derby" service - which may mean giving additional Tamworth/ Burton stops to the "via Leeds" or "via Doncaster" services (e.g. Burton to Derby needs to be more than once per hour), which would slow the long distance services down even further

Plus an additional Derby - Nottingham service, which will put more pressure on the western end of Nottingham station

If I were from Nottingham, I'd be demanding a faster/ better service - I'd think it was a nonsense that Nottingham's journey times to/from Birmingham were in the same ball park as Sheffield - Birmingham (1h15m) - but there's a finite number of paths out of Birmingham so I don't know how we resolve things until the eastern side of HS2 is built (and, even then, it may require an additional Burton - Derby service and an additional Derby - Nottingham service - especially given how poor the frequency is from Derby to Nottingham)

I think there is a total over-index on York-Newcastle frequency. It's like saying Carlisle to Preston is over-served, or Swindon to Didcot. It's a trunk route - not designed to be a shuttle between those two places

The difference is that roughly half the York - Newcastle trains terminate at Newcastle, whereas very little on the routes you've mentioned terminate at Swindon or Carlisle

I appreciate that sometimes there are bits of line that see more trains per hour than they "deserve" (because they have long distance services in each direction) but the GWML branches out west of Swindon, the WCML services from Preston to Carlisle are spread between London/ Birmingham/ Manchester to Glasgow/ Edinburgh, so lots of variety in each direction - whereas practically nothing running on the ECML through Darlington is going to anywhere other than Newcastle/ Edinburgh/ beyond - e.g. there are a token number of Sunderland services a day but nothing like the complex variety of services that these other routes have

Plus, the frequency on the line between Didcot and Swindon is a fair reflection of demand (under one TOC), whereas my suspicion is that the increase between York and Newcastle is at least partly due to three TOCs competing for leisure fares (hence I expect it'l be cut under our munificent nationalised railway)

 

[Purple Orange]

1tph London to Edinburgh?

I think there is a total over-index on York-Newcastle frequency. It's like saying Carlisle to Preston is over-served, or Swindon to Didcot. It's a trunk route - not designed to be a shuttle between those two places.

I think 3tph from London to Newcastle is fine - given one can terminate to provide slower calls, 1 Edinburgh headline fast and 1 beyond Edinburgh offering P'boro and Doncaster fast services north, and Berwick/other Northumberland call). This can increase Dundee/Aberdeen service to drop XC from that. A shame, but fine really.

XC can terminate 1tph at Leeds if 2tph TPE are running through Leeds towards Newcastle.

Then make it 2 tph with LNER and 1 tph with TPE to Edinburgh. In any event, unless XC change their fleet, it is inappropriate for 4-car diesel trains to be going all that way under wires.

 

[cle]

Then make it 2 tph with LNER and 1 tph with TPE to Edinburgh. In any event, unless XC change their fleet, it is inappropriate for 4-car diesel trains to be going all that way under wires.

I agree entirely. Hence the slower ex-London services being best placed to serve local ECML pairs and Northumberland calls - long and electric, with fasts for the biggest cities.

Also, Leeds + Manchester = more demand than Birmingham. I would wager those markets are larger to Newcastle / Edinburgh. B’ham also has the WCML service, plus a more viable distance for historical air competition (RIP Flybe).

 

[The Ham]

Or longer trains, which is what will happen.

I like the simplicity of this idea.

If we were to cut survives from XC that's likely to be the December 2021 timetable.

IIRC the ICWC Voyagers due to be replaced during 2022, as such any timetable change is likely to be for fairly short term benefits. Probably only for about 12 months.

As such my answer to the question posed at the start of the thread is no, not for such a short term benefit.

 

[The Planner]

I like the simplicity of this idea.

If we were to cut survives from XC that's likely to be the December 2021 timetable.

IIRC the ICWC Voyagers due to be replaced during 2022, as such any timetable change is likely to be for fairly short term benefits. Probably only for about 12 months.

As such my answer to the question posed at the start of the thread is no, not for such a short term benefit.

Too late for Dec 21, May 22 would be more likely if it was to happen and that is tight. Remember LTP timetables are bid at 40 weeks and offered at 26.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I like the simplicity of this idea.

If we were to cut survives from XC that's likely to be the December 2021 timetable.

IIRC the ICWC Voyagers due to be replaced during 2022, as such any timetable change is likely to be for fairly short term benefits. Probably only for about 12 months.

As such my answer to the question posed at the start of the thread is no, not for such a short term benefit.

Longer trains are needed everywhere, near enough - we should be looking to about 200m as the minimum standard length for anything that isn't a 2-car DMU type branch line and doing the appropriate station work.

The 26m coaches in the 80x are awkward for this - 200m is nicely 8 x 25m, and the longer coaches DB has used to allow a 7-car 200m unit (28.6m) aren't viable here.

 

[Bald Rick]

If we were to cut survives from XC that's likely to be the December 2021 timetable.

I’m not sure there will be any cuts compared to today. But don’t bank on many services being reinstated!

 

[The Ham]

Too late for Dec 21, May 22 would be more likely if it was to happen and that is tight. Remember LTP timetables are bid at 40 weeks and offered at 26.

Thanks I knew there was a notice period, but couldn't remember what it was, May 2022 makes it even shorter.

I’m not sure there will be any cuts compared to today. But don’t bank on many services being reinstated!

Indeed, although I would imagine that depends on what rail usage looks like going forwards. Given XC is a mixed picture (in terms of why people are traveling) it may do better than the SE commuter services on that front.

 

[YorksLad12]

XC run smaller and more polluting trains than TPE between Leeds & York and Edinburgh. The fact is that TPE have morphed in to a service that provides a far better Intercity service than XC and therefore it seems like XC should be the one to cease serving the Edinburgh market, if indeed it does need to stop.

As for duplication, 6 tph between York & Newcastle with 3 going to Edinburgh seems suitable. 2 from London, 2 from Manchester & Leeds, 2 from Birmingham, with 1 of each going to Edinburgh.

As you say, GBR changes all of this and HS2 changes it again.

See, I think it only needs to be 2tph York-Edinburgh. But we really don't know how GBR is going to operate in terms of how routes are divvied up; I do think we need to do *some*thing before HS2, which is decades away. First leases the 802s but if they don't run TPE would they stay or would they go? Questions for a different thread.

TPE includes Cleethorpes - Manchester Airport and also the WCML services (plus, previously Barrow/ Windermere) - so saying there's a "core" to TPE is a bit like saying Derby - Cheltenham is the XC "core"

TPE is just a collection of routes - e.g. Manchester - Preston - Blackpool was TPE, then Manchester - Preston - Glasgow became TPE (ex VT), then Manchester - Preston - Blackpool was given to Northern - there was talk of giving Liverpool - Nottingham to TPE too - at least all the XC daytime services run to/through/from Birmingham, whilst TPE's services have included Liverpool - Preston - Glasgow

I disagree here, in the extent that Sheffield-Manchester could be considered the South TPE "core" but it only sees 1 tph, the other being with EMR. (Norwich-)Nottingham-Liverpool should be TPE IMO. There's a definite north TPE core operated only by TPE with five fast services per hour. But I think we're agreeing that it's messy.

Longer trains are needed everywhere, near enough - we should be looking to about 200m as the minimum standard length for anything that isn't a 2-car DMU type branch line and doing the appropriate station work.

The 26m coaches in the 80x are awkward for this - 200m is nicely 8 x 25m, and the longer coaches DB has used to allow a 7-car 200m unit (28.6m) aren't viable here.

Slightly disagree, in that 200m platforms can't always be delivered. Extending the 5-car 800s or 801s to 6 cars would mean that the doubled sets could only use platforms 8, 11 or 12 at Leeds as they're the only ones longer than 300m. But that's a problem caused by specifying 26m coaches. A follow-on order for more of the shorter 810s for XC would be useful though. And less polluting, if the power is there for them to run on the wires.

 

[Clansman]

This is entirely the wrong mindset to have.

2tph from Newcastle to Leeds is about right. 2tph from Newcastle to Birmingham is also about right.

The problem is not the service patterns of the services that start or call at Newcastle. Instead the problem is what does Newcastle need.

Newcastle needs (and disserves) 2tph to Leeds AND 2tph to Birmingham. It's the biggest station serving a metropolis of over 1m people (Tyne and Wear is genuinely that important) and the logical 'biggest station' at the end of several routes. It's both important from a train planning point of view and a geographical point of view.

To curtail services at York for convenience entirely misses the importance of anywhere north of York.



Quicker does not equal better. Via Leeds may be slower
but it serves about fifteen times as many people (number of people living within 30 minutes of Leeds station as living within 30inuges of Doncaster). That is incredibly important, and Leeds will continue to be the most important station in Yorkshire from a passenger number perspective long after we are all gone.



Great. Now you have 2tph each way crossing the throat and stopping in a through platform for ten minutes each hour.

Say something goes wrong. Which Northern service do you bin to make the XC service work? Who loses? Which platform do you vacate for that time at Leeds and which town loses half of its service provision? These questions are vital, you can't make a new service at Leeds without binning something else.


Great. You serve Leeds to Birmingham with 8tph of 10 car trains. Noone gets a train from north of Leeds to the South West ever again, because all direct trains have gone.

This is obviously hyperbole, but it's not unrealistic. Everything north of Leeds to everything south of Birmingham serves a similar number of pax to intermediate journeys. You can't bin one to concentrate on the other. Both are very important.


Great. You now have 10tph of Birmingham to Leeds.

You also have 0tph of Birmingham to Exeter. And 0tph from Birmingham to Newcastle. And 0tph from Sheffield to Newcastle. And 0tph from Edinburgh to Bristol.

You see the problem.

Serving exclusively 'the core' of Birmingham to Leeds doesn't do anything to help Newcastle, Bristol, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Southampton, Plymouth, or Reading. All those places are on the NE to SW axis as well as Birmingham and Leeds,but they've all lost their (not via London) intercity service. Is that a worthwhile trade?



More people live in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle than live in Manchester or Leeds. Is one worth more than the other?

You can't abandon one for the benefit of the other. You'd lose half of the existing custom, and although in number of passengers you'd lose would be replaced comfortably withl local journeys, you'd lose half the reason for XC existing in the first place.

XC doesn't exist to serve local journeys from Leeds to Sheffield. That's a stupid raison d'etre for an intercity TOC. Great, you've cut all provision of XC north of Leeds, and you've turned XC into a local TOC, akin to Northern or WMT.

XC is an intercity TOC at its heart. All I see from this proposal is an application to turn it into a local TOC, serving Leeds to Sheffield and Birmingham to Derby journeys with intercity stock. Everywhere on the NE-SW axis outside of Leeds to Birmingham loses their intercity (not via London) service, for very little benefit, outside of making things prettier on a map.

This 100%

You have pretty much destroyed every argument in favour of the thread proposal.

It feels like those who want XC cut north of Leeds only do so for a few reasons;

> To speed journey times (members who are proposing this do not realise that journey time savings are 10 mins max)
> To 'make XC an Intercity TOC because stopping at Tamworth, Ladybank et al 'isn't what Intercity TOCs do' (Ridiculous assertion - TOCs don't work like that).
> To save capacity, because somehow the Bristol to Leeds corridor is more important just because it's a XC service bottleneck (XC doesn't prioritise any 'core', but serves to connect locations that aren't conneceted by other TOCs).

Surely just introducing rolling stock with a more efficient capacity density would kill all of these issues stone dead. Assuming the replacement rolling stock is a new build bi-mode, XC will be guaranteed to end up with 100 seats more in a similar length to a 5-car Voyager with a better layout, and hypothetically save the same amount of time in acceleration than what cutting station stops anywhere on the network would offset.

I have yet to see an argument in favour of cutting XC to 'the core' that stands up to basic scruitiny.

 

[Bigman]

This 100%

You have pretty much destroyed every argument in favour of the thread proposal.

It feels like those who want XC cut north of Leeds only do so for a few reasons;

> To speed journey times (members who are proposing this do not realise that journey time savings are 10 mins max)
> To 'make XC an Intercity TOC because stopping at Tamworth, Ladybank et al 'isn't what Intercity TOCs do' (Ridiculous assertion - TOCs don't work like that).
> To save capacity, because somehow the Bristol to Leeds corridor is more important just because it's a XC service bottleneck (XC doesn't prioritise any 'core', but serves to connect locations that aren't conneceted by other TOCs).

Surely just introducing rolling stock with a more efficient capacity density would kill all of these issues stone dead. Assuming the replacement rolling stock is a new build bi-mode, XC will be guaranteed to end up with 100 seats more in a similar length to a 5-car Voyager with a better layout, and hypothetically save the same amount of time in acceleration than what cutting station stops anywhere on the network would offset.

I have yet to see an argument in favour of cutting XC to 'the core' that stands up to basic scruitiny.

Couldn't agree more re capacity. Makes me laugh when I see a 4 car 220 turn up at Leeds working to Penzance. Madness!! Get some 9 car Azuma's!!!

 

[Purple Orange]

This 100%

You have pretty much destroyed every argument in favour of the thread proposal.

It feels like those who want XC cut north of Leeds only do so for a few reasons;

> To speed journey times (members who are proposing this do not realise that journey time savings are 10 mins max)
> To 'make XC an Intercity TOC because stopping at Tamworth, Ladybank et al 'isn't what Intercity TOCs do' (Ridiculous assertion - TOCs don't work like that).
> To save capacity, because somehow the Bristol to Leeds corridor is more important just because it's a XC service bottleneck (XC doesn't prioritise any 'core', but serves to connect locations that aren't conneceted by other TOCs).

Surely just introducing rolling stock with a more efficient capacity density would kill all of these issues stone dead. Assuming the replacement rolling stock is a new build bi-mode, XC will be guaranteed to end up with 100 seats more in a similar length to a 5-car Voyager with a better layout, and hypothetically save the same amount of time in acceleration than what cutting station stops anywhere on the network would offset.

I have yet to see an argument in favour of cutting XC to 'the core' that stands up to basic scruitiny.

That doesn’t destroy the argument at all...

Should Newcastle have 2 tph to Manchester (via Leeds)? Yes. Should Newcastle have 2 tph to Birmingham? Yes (although I don’t think it needs 2 tph to Birmingham as much as it does to Manchester). However that doesn’t mean it should be XC that heads north of Leeds, whereby XC services north of York could all go via Doncaster. Yet it seems that we can’t have 3 tph from Sheffield to Birmingham, so this comes down to a priority. Keep things as they are and maintain the irregular XC service pattern from Newcastle, or prioritise all XC services from Newcastle to Birmingham to go via either Leeds or Doncaster.

 

[tbtc]

> To speed journey times (members who are proposing this do not realise that journey time savings are 10 mins max)

The time penalty for running via Leeds is around twenty minutes (so running Edinburgh - Doncaster - Birmingham would save around twenty minutes, compared to the current route via Leeds)

> To save capacity, because somehow the Bristol to Leeds corridor is more important just because it's a XC service bottleneck (XC doesn't prioritise any 'core', but serves to connect locations that aren't conneceted by other TOCs)

Pretty much all TOCs have some kind of "core" area (where they dominate) and some other "fringes" where they interact with other TOCs

In XC's case, I think they have ten trains north of York during daytimes, which means thousands of seats north of York at any one point, at the same time that passengers are struggling on packed Voyagers through Birmingham etc - it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that XC should focus more of their resources where they are needed and let other TOCs pick up the slack elsewhere (e.g. someone probably needs to run a Motherwell to Edinburgh service but is it really XC's priority, especially when ScotRail have so many EMUs?)

I don't think anyone is saying that XC should run *no* trains north of Leeds/ York, just that they have bigger problems to deal with in their own back yard, so maybe fewer units north of York would be better (especially given the way that TPE and LNER have both increased the number of seats that they provide in that neck of the woods)

Same argument applies to other TOCs that focus too many resources out of their "core" patch

Surely just introducing rolling stock with a more efficient capacity density would kill all of these issues stone dead

Sure, if that's an option - but I can't see XC getting the "magic money tree" treatment any time soon

In theory, they'll hopefully get some capacity increase once Avanti get their 805s and EMR get their 810s, but the franchise could do with some surgery before then - we have lots of people standing in the York/ Manchester - Bristol/ Reading "core" in the meantime - how long do we wait for the extra seats?

 

[JonathanH]

Sure, if that's an option - but I can't see XC getting the "magic money tree" treatment any time soon

In theory, they'll hopefully get some capacity increase once Avanti get their 805s and EMR get their 810s, but the franchise could do with some surgery before then - we have lots of people standing in the York/ Manchester - Bristol/ Reading "core" in the meantime - how long do we wait for the extra seats?

This one is interesting. If XC did stop running north of Leeds to concentrate resources on their "core" routes, then maybe they wouldn't even get the additional stock when it becomes available as it it wouldn't necessarily be easy to restore the longer routes. Why would it take on the extra 221s just to extend back onto routes that had been culled.

 

[Purple Orange]

This one is interesting. If XC did stop running north of Leeds to concentrate resources on their "core" routes, then maybe they wouldn't even get the additional stock when it becomes available as it it wouldn't necessarily be easy to restore the longer routes. Why would it take on the extra 221s just to extend back onto routes that had been culled.

To take on extra capacity on the core routes south of Leefd

 

[The Ham]

In theory, they'll hopefully get some capacity increase once Avanti get their 805s and EMR get their 810s, but the franchise could do with some surgery before then - we have lots of people standing in the York/ Manchester - Bristol/ Reading "core" in the meantime - how long do we wait for the extra seats?

it'sAssuming that any timetable change is likely to be May 2022 and Avanti would be getting their new trains during 2022, the delay is likely to be small compared to when extra seats would be available anyway.

Also, within the up to May 2022 timetable change timeframe, there's likely to be some reduced loadings for at least some of that time due to Covid.

As such, unless there's no need for a XC service to run (and those existing passengers can easily be accommodated in other services) for several years on any given bit which is being proposed to be cut, then I suggest that it's worth waiting for the extra trains. Unless someone can give a good justification as to why this shouldn't be the case (this would need to include why now and not, say, 5 years ago).

 

[Killingworth]

TransPennine Express consultation opens today on their proposed North route timetable for May 2022. Can't link all details here but seems they've lost out to Crosscountry on the ECML North of Newcastle.

 

[Purple Orange]

TransPennine Express consultation opens today on their proposed North route timetable for May 2022. Can't link all details here but seems they've lost out to Crosscountry on the ECML North of Newcastle.

Personally I think that is completely the wrong decision north of Newcastle. Diesels usage should sought to be severely limited, let alone the fact that TPE Nova 1 has 72% more capacity than XC trains have on a 4-car Voyager and 37% more than a 5-car Voyager.

The upshot will be more Nova 1 units to run through the TPE core meaning:

• How many TPE Nova 1 trains will be available for Liverpool-Scarborough or Manchester Airport - Middlesbrough?
• Will XC be in a position to run 8-car trains more frequently?

 

[JonathanH]

The upshot will be more Nova 1 units to run through the TPE core meaning:

• How many TPE Nova 1 trains will be available for Liverpool-Scarborough or Manchester Airport - Middlesbrough?

Not necessarily any - the previous timetable had 10 Liverpool to Edinburgh and 7 Manchester Airport to Newcastle diagrams which couldn't all be fulfilled with 802s because there are only 19 units. If, and I don't know what is in the consultation, that becomes Liverpool to Newcastle and Manchester Airport to Newcastle with a need to still get 802s to Craigentinny via the West Coast on specific diagrams then there won't be 802s for Scarborough or Middlesbrough. That only comes if York - Newcastle becomes 1tph.

Is there a link to this consultation?