mangyiscute
Established Member
Yeah I am certainly not optimisticNot exactly top of the list though for them is it, and any policy still needs to go through the DfT and Treasury for implementation.
Yeah I am certainly not optimisticNot exactly top of the list though for them is it, and any policy still needs to go through the DfT and Treasury for implementation.
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.The only feasible way to hope XC may improve is through a change in government, which should happen soon.
Highly unlikely when that is a significant revenue earner.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.
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.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.
I suspect that will be the line he will take for any railway improvement issue.I suspect Starmer will have more pressing issues than somebody standing on a busy train from Oxford to Birmingham,
They are actually very reliable trains.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.
Yes, they are reliable, they are just woefully inadequate in terms of the number of passengers you can fit in them!They are actually very reliable trains.
Birmingham-Stanstead Airport could probably go to EMR.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.
Birmingham-Stanstead Airport could probably go to EMR.
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.
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.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.
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)
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.Leeds has now lost all its direct hourly trains to Edinburgh.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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:
The GW fast Oxford terminator from Paddington could be extended to Banbury to connect with Chiltern Railways services to Birmingham via Solihull to provide more capacity on the Reading-Birmingham segment.
- 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)
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.Why? This arrangement is good enough for Manchester's equivalent city of Liverpool.
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.Because everything - staff numbers, fleet size, service specification - is set by the DfT. Changing the company that operates the trains will have little effect on the day-to-day operations.
and where is the platform space at Birmingham suddenly popping up from?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.
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.
So Liverpool should have more services because Exeter is well connected?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).
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.What about sending XC through Castlefield to serve both?
[ducks for cover]
One way would be to extend the LNWR London - Birmingham services to Manchester. No increase in platform space required.and where is the platform space at Birmingham suddenly popping up from?