mangyiscute
Established Member
Yeah I am certainly not optimistic
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why are XC allowed to continue?
- Thread starter brompton rail
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
daodao
Established Member
XC could prune their network. Specifically, they could withdraw from running services from Birmingham to Manchester to release Voyagers for use elsewhere. West Midlands Railway could run this service instead using emus similar to those deployed on the equivalent Birmingham to Liverpool route.
A Starmer-led Labour administration is unlikely to assist with improving XC.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,970
Highly unlikely when that is a significant revenue earner.
I suspect Starmer will have more pressing issues than somebody standing on a busy train from Oxford to Birmingham, cross country would not want to surrender the lucrative Manchester to Birmingham revenue and there are plenty of passengers from Manchester wanting to travel beyond Birmingham who you would probably lose if you added inconvenience and extra time to an already expensive journey.
I suspect that will be the line he will take for any railway improvement issue.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,742
Ultimately the Class 220 and (to a lesser extent) Class 221 are albatroses that have been hung around the neck of the Cross Country franchise since Virgin ordered them.
The fact that a 4-car 220 has as many seats as a 3-car Turbostar is ridiculous.
It is unlikely there will be money to fix this, and without scrapping all the Voyagers I don't see how CrossCountry can really improve.
The fact that a 4-car 220 has as many seats as a 3-car Turbostar is ridiculous.
It is unlikely there will be money to fix this, and without scrapping all the Voyagers I don't see how CrossCountry can really improve.
They are actually very reliable trains.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,742
Yes, they are reliable, they are just woefully inadequate in terms of the number of passengers you can fit in them!
778
Member
Birmingham-Stanstead Airport could probably go to EMR.
dk1
Veteran Member
But what good would that do? EMR would still need the same 170s & apart from passing through Leicester & Peterborough-Ely it’s not really on their network.
daodao
Established Member
The DfT could direct them to withdraw from this segment of their network in order to convert it to greener electric traction, rather than accede to any demand for additional trains. As for convenience, this arrangement is deemed to be good enough for Liverpool, so why should Manchester get preferential treatment? Passengers from Manchester for Bristol and SW England could change at Newport if they would prefer not to do so at New Street.
A compromise arrangement would be to run the following hourly service pattern:
- Plymouth-Edinburgh via Bristol/Birmingham/Doncaster (XC)
- Bournemouth-Leeds via Reading/Birmingham (XC)
- Exeter-Manchester via Bristol/Birmingham/Stoke (XC)
- Coventry-Manchester via Birmingham/Stoke (LMR emus)
dk1
Veteran Member
Leeds has now lost all its direct hourly trains to Edinburgh.
It is also important to continue to offer Manchester through services beyond Birmingham and why it was always set up that way and Liverpool catered for by Central Trains. If any EMUs are offered then they should be in addition to the half hourly Exeter/Bournemouth Voyager services.
Last edited:
daodao
Established Member
Avoiding the deviation via Leeds speeds up services from Edinburgh/Newcastle/Darlington/York to Sheffield/Birmingham/Bristol/SW England axis by approximately 25 minutes and will help to compete with air services from Edinburgh/Newcastle to places further south. Passengers from Leeds to Edinburgh can easily change at York or Newcastle. It would also free up 1 Voyager train.
Why? This arrangement is good enough for Manchester's equivalent city of Liverpool. It also reduces diesel "running under the wires" and an 8 coach emu would provide greater capacity than a Voyager from Manchester to Birmingham.
YorkshireBear
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2010
- Messages
- 8,692
XC have repeatedly stated that as Leeds to Scotland and Leeds to the SW are done of their largest markets they don't want to divert it.
I agree there is some logic but I am not sure it would ever happen.
dk1
Veteran Member
I’m afraid I totally disagree with both posts. Manchester deserves the through services and Leeds is a massive revenue generator on that route. There are more than enough direct Edinburgh to Doncaster services. As for air competition the main route would be Birmingham which has faster direct Avanti services. Sheffield really doesn’t have that much competition.
daodao
Established Member
Journey times from Edinburgh/Newcastle/York to Birmingham/Bristol are currently no better than they were in 1982 and only 30 minutes better than in 1973 due to the deviation via Leeds.
dk1
Veteran Member
They most certainly are. Only way that could’ve changed was when TPE planned the hourly Liverpool-Newcastle to be extended to Edinburgh. Now that’s all knocked on the head XC will stay as it is.
Greater Manchester is double the population of Merseyside - they really aren't "equivalent".
And from an economic point of view, Manchester is much more important - according to Wiki GDP per capita for Manchester is £ 51,330 for Liverpool £ 32,841.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,970
You would be re-writing the vast majority of the West Midlands amd further afield to achieve that for no real gain. Likely to the detriment of XC or to other TOCs.
Despite what local politics might force people to say, Liverpool is not Manchester's Equivalent. Manchester is twice the size, far more economically valuable, and far better connected as a travel hub.
Manchester "deserves" to keep through services past Birmingham, just as Liverpool didn't deserve to lose its through services. However whenever I've been on these services far more people get off at Birmingham than stay on to travel further south.
Ideally we would have 7 car bi-modes on these routes (as a prelude to full electrification) but it doesn't look like a government of any colour is going to pay for this. What we have instead are opportunities for easy quick wins which, let's face it, politicians like. Split Manchester - Birmingham, run 8 car 350s on the route and use the extra 220/221s to increase capacity on the southern routes.
Yes it will annoy and inconvenience some passengers who now have to change. But on the plus side, they'll no longer be spending several hours travelling with someone's armpit in their face, and the extra capacity will make it easier to get lower priced advance tickets. This will help release suppressed demand and more than offset those who are put off by having to change trains.
Ideally we would have 7 car bi-modes on these routes (as a prelude to full electrification) but it doesn't look like a government of any colour is going to pay for this. What we have instead are opportunities for easy quick wins which, let's face it, politicians like. Split Manchester - Birmingham, run 8 car 350s on the route and use the extra 220/221s to increase capacity on the southern routes.
Yes it will annoy and inconvenience some passengers who now have to change. But on the plus side, they'll no longer be spending several hours travelling with someone's armpit in their face, and the extra capacity will make it easier to get lower priced advance tickets. This will help release suppressed demand and more than offset those who are put off by having to change trains.
Deepgreen
Established Member
Yes, one of the many, many farcical elements of the so-called rail privatisation - introducing expensive-to-regulate TOCS while not allowing them to provide what they deem to be required to run their services.
mangyiscute
Established Member
and where is the platform space at Birmingham suddenly popping up from?
py_megapixel
Established Member
I'm generally opposed to splitting Manchester-Birmingham out of XC but that's solely because I dislike New Street station. If the timetable could be set up so that the EMU from Manchester pulls in and the train heading south is already sat at the opposite side of the same island, ready for passengers to simply walk across the platform and get straight on, I wouldn't mind it. I doubt that would happen though.
The current arrangement with 4-car DMUs running packed to the rafters down an electrified mainline when those same DMUs are desperately needed to add capacity elsewhere on the network is, I agree, infuriating. But I can't help but feel that, in the current political climate, any dedicated EMU fleet for MAN-BHM would have to come with a commensurate reduction in the number of DMUs in the XC fleet.
The current arrangement with 4-car DMUs running packed to the rafters down an electrified mainline when those same DMUs are desperately needed to add capacity elsewhere on the network is, I agree, infuriating. But I can't help but feel that, in the current political climate, any dedicated EMU fleet for MAN-BHM would have to come with a commensurate reduction in the number of DMUs in the XC fleet.
Last edited:
Every time this comes up, it misses the point, both need more services. Why you may well ask.
Well if you look at the number of services which Exeter gets it, for its size, has far better rail connectivity. It's not like it's much closer to London by train, or that it has significant markets which is the hub for.
(By the way I'm not saying that Exeter should have fewer services, rather punting out that comparing Liverpool vs Manchester isn't actually all that helpful).
So Liverpool should have more services because Exeter is well connected?
I'm not arguing Liverpool *shouldn't* be well connected. I'm arguing that if you are choosing between serving one city or the other, you're normally going to get better results serving Manchester.
py_megapixel
Established Member
What about sending XC through Castlefield to serve both?
[ducks for cover]
[ducks for cover]
mangyiscute
Established Member
Just run 2x4 coach voyagers to Crewe and then split them there - no doubt the Mancunians and Liverpudlians would have to have an argument over which city is more important determining whose train gets to leave first.
One way would be to extend the LNWR London - Birmingham services to Manchester. No increase in platform space required.
XC could potentially then merge the Bristol and Bournemouth services with the 1/2 hourly Leicester or the Nottingham service. That would free up even more platform space.
I’m not saying that it’s the perfect solution, but neither is continuing to run massively overcrowded DMUs under wires in the vain hope that someone will eventually order more trains and/or electrify the route.