Great Western Coffee Shop

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 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 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) (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?action=register) 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.
 

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.

For me its major interchanges.  XC is an intercity service. The local TOC should provide interchange with local stations. 

And DfT needs to find the stock for them to run these locals. Agree

The problem is that XC is all things to all men. It tries to provide long distance IC trains e.g. Aberdeen Penzance. RE (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.

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

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

It could be that the DfT 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

...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 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.

Whoa there Grahame!

The XC network crosses the GW 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.

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

The options and the OP 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 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.

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

My daily commute uses a (an?) XC class 170 for the 7 miles between Willington & Derby.
Willington has a basic 2-hourly service, doubling to hourly(!) in the peaks.
I realise that a 170 stopping all stations between Derby and Birmingham has a huge impact on capacity for pathing Voyagers on that 2-track section.  But I wish the gap between the 1517 and 1717 Willington arrivals could be filled.
Branston 4-track, anyone?

Some very good points.

As I set up the poll and question, I did consider including example of stopping patterns for the Bournemouth trains as well as for the Plymouth ones, but decided that would make for a very long post even by my standards.  But the Bournemouth service crosses over the GW area from north Oxfordshire to north Hampshire - a fleeting visit compared to the near-Worcester to Penzance run of the other leg.     Agreed there is a useful discussion to be had around a Didcot stop - Swindon to Birmingham and beyond is truly awful at present via either leg!

"As we are" is, maybe, an option I should have provided.  It can't be 100% followed unless you want to have a station with no trains calling at Worcester Parkway on the Birmingham to the South West line. 

I totally agree that capacity is the biggest issue. And the other two big issues are decent connections - noting that 1 in 2 cross-country journeys at present involvs a change to and/or from another operator - and customer service sorting out the obnoxious reservation system, some of the ludicrous elements of fares, getting the trains to smell a bit better and actually providing the free WiFi which is in the current operator's contract but hasn't come in due to "technical issues".

I don't agree that the reservation system is 'obnoxious'. It is a largely positive innovation, despite the negativity toward it from rail forums.

It works for the new customer, not for those already sitting in any seat that might be reserved further into the journey. If these are the only empty seats available, why should one get chucked out of a seat that was empty and available when boarding?

If there was a way for the seat to be marked reserved by those taking them on boarding, then yes, I completely agree with you. But not everyone can access their 10 minute boarding webpage to book.

There is somewhat more to this seat reservation business that just Advanced Purchase on Day, which I think is only a small proportion of seats at yet.

Seat reservations are no extra charge on top of train fares, and booking engines encourage (or even force?) you to make them on tickets which are transferrable between trains. The net result is a "sea" of unoccupied reserved seats, which people without reservations, or with a reservation on a different train, will take rather than standing up - with the more knowledgeable people looking for a reserve seat that's reserved from a starting station that's already been passed.

On GWR HST services (and on IET services using paper tags, and on 158s on the  Cardiff to Portsmouth run), if seats are reserved for two none-overlapping sections of the journey, the paper tag shows each section - I have seen up to three reservations on the same seat - and a judgement can be made before sitting down.

XC is different.   Take Saturday.  I joined the pretty heavily packed train southbound at Wolverhampton, and managed to find myself a seat reserved from Stafford to Birmingham International.   That's all it said.  But then when the train got to Coventry, up had popped a reservation for the next part of the journey ... and it's a case of shuffle around and find another seat.   With a system such as the GWR one I described above, I could have checked / known ahead / perhaps seated myself all the way to Reading.  But XC didn't give me the data I needed.

You may ask why - if I'm fussed - I hadn't reserved a seat ahead?   Because I was only on that train at the last minute, having had the train I was supposed to be using cancelled.   So it's double ironic that having been mucked about by a cancellation, I'm the one who gets mucked about again by a reservation system which - sorry - was not fit for my purpose.

No comment on reservations using the electronic system on GWR IETs yet - not seen enough of them in proper action to give an opinion.

Ahhh, tha\t's a different part of their system to the one usually seen....which is the 10 minute (ahead) ability took a seat just 10 minutes before boarding your train.

There are many 'This seat may be reserved en route' seats on XC - more %-wise on Voyagers than HSTs. Until reserved, they show that message. People do know to avoid them, so they are the last seats free on any full journey. But they can be reserved at any stage in that journey, after it has begun. People find an empty seat on busy trains and will sit in it - and which stage, it is 'reserved' generally until you leave it, unless already reserved when you sit down.

XC say 'b*ll*cks to you, we'll give the seat to someone else yet to board, and kick you out (to probably stand). That is far inequitable than not being able to see a reservation beyond a current one frankly

In truth, both situations make travelling on many XC services without a reservation a very poor customer experience.

If I was in charge, I'd continue/restart the GWML electrification programme (at a much slower rate over 10 to 15 years which the funders and engineers could cope with better) to Swansea first then, W-S-M, then Taunton, then Exeter.

During that time I'd use some off-lease HSTs to boost capacity and comfort on XC.

In 10 years time, I'd start replacing some of our 5-car IEP trains with 9 car all electric models capable of 135/140 mph under new signalling on the basis that 5 car trains are and always have been stupid on main line trunk services, and cascade the 5 car IEPs to cross country where their bimode capabilities could be used and they would be a step up in terms of capacity and quality (and maybe speed on the electric bits) from the Voyagers.  The Voyagers could live out their final days before scrapping on secondary XC routes (Cardiff-Derby) and on interregional services like the Welsh marches lines.  Once GWML electrification had been completed at least to Swansea and Exeter (both ways), I would start picking off gaps in the wires on XC routes  starting with Cardiff-Derby (allowing Voyagers to be scrapped), and finishing up with Birmingham to Plymouth and Edinburgh to Aberdeen getting wires in 30 years time in time for the IEPs to be retired. 

Maybe there needs to be a pressure sensor in the seat ...

Maybe they just need to stop offering advanced fares once the journey has begun just like better-run franchises do. 

I

I think rower's commute makes my point about XC being all things to all men. Surely Willington should  be served by an hourly Birmingham Derby/ Nottingham RB service provided by whoever happens to be running the Birmingham suburban service at the time.

XC should not stop at Burton but maybe occasionally Tamworth for WCML connections.

It is sometimes quicker to do Euston Tamworth for Burton rather than changing at Derby.

Hmmm. No one else stops at Burton....but yes, far better that the local Birmingham franchise did. They run the station, but don't serve it!

The local Birmingham franchise, West Midlands Trains, doesn't operate Burton-on-Trent Station.

East Midlands Trains do.

Water Orton and Coleshill and both served by Cross Country only, but operated by West Midlands Trains.

There is a question or two in the franchise about whether the Cross Country franchise is really the right place for the services that call at these stations, which are distinctly local in nature.    I haven't stirred any pots on this subject on the forum - it's out of area and may only be of marginal interest to members - but then Willington has cropped up, so it may be rather more than marginal.   Interesting to hear views.

My view is that one of the problems with the railways, and in my view the failing of the Beeching report, is that we are still talking about individual stations, and services rather than looking at Network and working out the optimum routes and stopping patterns.

Rail freight was much better at rationalising routes by building spurs to connect different lines. May of which were still had their original pre grouping pattern of traffic. The East to North  Spur at Shirebrook enabled a number of collieries to be single served from the LDEC  via Toton or Worksop to the various power stations.

BR also built several spurs in South Wales which enabled lengths of duplicate lines and  engineering structures, including in one instance, a tunnel and viaduct to be lifted.

There was even a spur in Poplar which enabled most of the London and Blackwell railway to be closed. The viaduct from Limehouse to West India Dock become part of the DLR.

If you look at many services they are still pregrouping eg GWR to Portsmouth

I voted for option 4, alternate services serving all major stations and main interchanges only.

However I agree strongly with those who state that the lack of capacity is by far the greatest problem, full length trains are needed before any tinkering with calling patterns.
And yes LONGER trains, NOT squeezing a few more seats into the existing trains.

Fixed formation at least 8 car, with provision for lengthening to at least 10 car. NOT flexible length. Whilst I don't think much of voyagers, I cant support scrapping them, they should be retained for lightly used services.

Nothing about full length buffets broadgage?  :o         ;)


I agree, capacity is the number one issue before anything else.

Being a little picky though, and actually a disadvantage to longer train lengths is the situation at Reading. With full length crossrail trains, services are more restricted for the use of common platforms 13 & 14 whilst anything longer than a 5 car voyager rules out the other common Platform 3, which is the perfect platform for XC services at the moment and therefore would make that platform pretty much redundant. More careful planning will be required.

Alternate longer trains call Didcot and skip Reading?  :P

And carry on to Poole which along with Middlesborough, Liverpool, Swindon, Hull, Bradford, Northampton, Norwich , Sunderland and Preston is one of the ten largest urban connurbations outside the South East which is not served by Cross Country. 

Why not just skip Didcot, Reading and go beyond Poole to Weymouth, calling at Swindon and Melksham along the way   ;)

I can remember going from Weymouth to Leicester without changing one summer Saturday in the mid 1980s, avoiding Reading, going via Bedworth.