Cross country - Long Distance, or providing full line service?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

The Cross Country franchise consultation is well under way. So what is the Cross Country franchise and its purpose - longer distance travel, linking all the places along the way, or both?   Let's take the part of the route that's in GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) territory.    2 trains an hour (at present) off Birmingham as far as Bristol; final destinations Bristol, Exeter, Paignton, Plymouth, Newquay and Penzance.  And one the other way starts at Bath.  What  do you think the future route should be?   

Options suggested in this poll to be the framework ...

1. Major interchanges ... Birmingham New Street, Cheltenham Spa, Bristol Parkway, Bristol Temple Meads, Taunton, Exeter St. David's, Newton Abbott, Plymouth

2. Major stations ... Birmingham New Street, University, Bromsgrove, Worcester Parkway, Tewkesbury, Cheltenham Spa, Gloucester, Bristol Parkway, Filton Abbey Wood, Bristol Temple Meads, Worle (for Lulsgate), Weston-super-Mare, Bridgwater, Taunton, Tiverton Parkway, Exeter St. David's, Dawlish, Teignmouth, Newton Abbott, Totnes, Ivybridge, Plymouth

3. (Almost) everywhere ... Birmingham New Street, University, Barnt Green, Bromsgrove, Worcester Parkway, Tewkesbury, Cheltenham Spa, Gloucester, Yate, Bristol Parkway, Filton Abbey Wood, Bristol Temple Meads, Nailsea and Backwell, Yatton, Worle (for Lulsgate), Weston-super-Mare, Highbridge, Bridgwater, Taunton, Tiverton Parkway, Exeter St. David's, Exeter St Thomas, Dawlish, Teignmouth, Newton Abbott, Totnes, Ivybridge, Plymouth.

4. Alternate trains - option 1 and one of options 2 or 3

5. Another mixture

6. No separate franchise.  Example of alternative - GWR to run trains as far as Birmingham - perhaps extend the alternate Penzance to Plymouth half hourly services up to Birmingham, with the other train from Cornwall headed for London.  2+6 HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) to add capacity ("elongated castles")  in the short term.   Not sure that Birmingham is best location to change everyone, so through run alternate trains to Manchester and to York; Voyagers to run Bournemouth to Manchester and Bournemouth / Reading to Newcastle.   Virgin West Coast already know Voyagers and could logically take the Manchester service at least ...

7. "I don't like any of the above and would like to suggest another constructive alternative"

Notes
... poll running for 14 days
... you can see the results after you have voted (guests need to join the coffee shop - (click on this text) to vote)
... you can change your vote if you change your mind
... this is a secret ballot, though if you go for option 7 and make a comment on the thread, your forum name will be shown.
 

[trainer]

The biggest improvement would be upgrading both overall capacity and ambience of the trains (and I don't mean squeezing more sets into the current stock), but I suspect that's not possible/economically sound within the limits of funding.

[ellendune]

For me its major interchanges.  XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) is an intercity service. The local TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) should provide interchange with local stations. 

[ChrisB]

And DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) needs to find the stock for them to run these locals. Agree

[eightf48544]

The problem is that XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) is all things to all men. It tries to provide long distance IC^▸ (Inter City) trains e.g. Aberdeen Penzance. RE^▸ (Religious Education) (Reginal Express services  like Birmingham Bristol and even straying into RB Region Bus (stoppers) in some places.

One solution would be 3tph on it's routes one IC, one RE with Regional Bus services provided by the local franchise. The RB to also provide connecting services to places not served by XC. Say Stratford on Avon from Birmingham New street and or Leamington Spa.

The RE could be overtaken at suitable places to provide connections into the IC and speed up the ICs times. The problem is it would need more infra structure to provide such connections preferable cross platform.

[ChrisB]

If you read the consultation, this is the least welcome option

[grahame]

If you read the consultation, this is the least welcome option

Chris - can you clarify "this" - we're talking lots of options.   

It could be that the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) would rather consultation inputs agreed with their views and thoughts.  But then one of the points of a consultation is to find out what the consultees really think so that you can better take account of their views.

[ChrisB]

the suggestion in the thread above mine?.....isn't that the usual convention if posting without a quote?

One solution would be 3tph on it's routes one IC^▸ (Inter City), one RE^▸ (Religious Education) with Regional Bus services provided by the local franchise. The RB to also provide connecting services to places not served by XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)). Say Stratford on Avon from Birmingham New street and or Leamington Spa.

[JayMac]

Regarding service pattern, CrossCountry should largely do what it does now.

What's needed more urgently than changes to the timetable or calling pattern is increased capacity. Which I'd suggest should come from new build. There's suitable products on the market. For their north/south-south west services I'd suggest Class 800 derivatives from Hitachi, and for their east/west services (Cardiff-Nottingham Birmingham-Cambridge) I'd suggest Class 755 derivatives from Stadler.

Classes 22x and 170 to be cascaded elsewhere.

[ChrisB]

The consultation doesn't mention any new build, so unlikely on their radar.
However, surely there will be HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train)/Mk3/4 coaches available very soon which would suit the long distance market, and they already have some being maintained at Craigentinny depot.

[grahame]

the suggestion in the thread above mine?.....isn't that the usual convention if posting without a quote?

One solution would be 3tph on it's routes one IC^▸ (Inter City), one RE^▸ (Religious Education) with Regional Bus services provided by the local franchise. The RB to also provide connecting services to places not served by XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)). Say Stratford on Avon from Birmingham New street and or Leamington Spa.

Yes - it is the usual convention, but it's been know to go awry on a  busy thread where multiple people are posting at the same time, and it helps people looking at recent posts if they have an indication.

Many thanks for the clarification.

[IndustryInsider]

What's needed more urgently than changes to the timetable or calling pattern is increased capacity. Which I'd suggest should come from new build. There's suitable products on the market. For their north/south-south west services I'd suggest Class 800 derivatives from Hitachi, and for their east/west services (Cardiff-Nottingham Birmingham-Cambridge) I'd suggest Class 755 derivatives from Stadler.

Classes 22x and 170 to be cascaded elsewhere.

Quite agree regarding capacity.  Might the 22x trains be suitable for use on the Cardiff-Nottingham trains though?  An increase in capacity over the 2 and 3-car 170s used currently (especially if the 221 fleet is retained for them), but also an increase in top speed over a route with some 125mph sections (and the potential for more) and also very little electrification?

[JayMac]

The consultation doesn't mention any new build, so unlikely on their radar.
However, surely there will be HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train)/Mk3/4 coaches available very soon which would suit the long distance market, and they already have some being maintained at Craigentinny depot.

If you read the consultation...

...you will see that new build is mentioned. Part 7 of the consultation.

What I'm strongly against is introducing more 30+ year old stock to the franchise. New build is a far better long term solution. Modern technology, bi-mode capability, no paucity of spares, cheaper to operate and maintain.

As for maintenance, Craigentinny is to become a predominantly Hitachi depot for Scotrail's Class 385s and LNERs^» (London North Eastern Railway - about) Class 80x, so could be handy for CrossCountry should they go for a Hitachi product too.

CrossCountry's existing HSTs are strongly rumoured to be switching to Plymouth Laira as their home base. And no, I don't believe that is reason enough to countenance adding to that fleet with more HSTs.

[eightonedee]

Whoa there Grahame!

The XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) network crosses the GW^▸ (Great Western) network on two routes. The eastern "leg" of the X shaped network described previously in relevant posts runs through Banbury-Oxford-Reading-Basingstoke (and also one a day each way to Guildford).

If we are going to vote on a GW network-wide basis we would need the eastern equivalents too, although I think only Didcot might qualify as a "major" outside the current stops. I think the "leave it as it is" alternative should be included too.

Readers of the previous XC thread will already be aware of my views - this is an "Inter-City" service, and the fact that from time to time commuters use it at peak times when it passes through commuter belts no more makes this a local service than a GW expresses packed with Reading commuters (or one calling at Newbury being used by commuters to Reading) does.

The real issues are capacity (longer trains please!) and finding a way to avoid musical chairs as seat reservations arrive and depart.

[JayMac]

Yes, I've changed my vote to 'other'.

The options and the OP^▸ (Original Poster / topic starter) make no reference to the existing calling pattern and timetable. That is what I'd like to see - keep the existing.

The focus needs to be on increasing capacity across the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) network with longer trains on all existing services. Once that is done then the calling patterns and timetables can be looked at.

Sadly, the consultation, like this poll, doesn't give enough weight to the need to increase capacity with longer trains. In fact the consultation questions appear to be written such that they predetermine no rolling stock capacity increase. There are no direct questions on this important aspect of the franchise, leaving respondents to put these across in text boxes as comments. When the consultation responses come to be collated I fear it'll be only the tick box answers that are considered for the draft ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender).

The franchise and its purpose is largely okay. The rolling stock is the only inadequacy that needs addressing at the moment.