How would YOU solve CrossCountry ?

[whole diary]

[Richard Fairhurst]

If I had a spare day or two (spoiler: I don't) I'd be very tempted to take the Origin/Destination Matrix data and map it onto CrossCountry route patterns.

In other words, of the journeys starting in (say) Reading, how many are heading for a destination that is best served by a CrossCountry service across Birmingham? I genuinely don't know the answer - I'm intrigued to see that there are more Reading–Banbury passengers than Reading–Manchester Piccadilly, for example, but then when you add Stockport…

I suspect you could get some interesting answers simply by matching up origins/destinations within certain polygons (e.g. the North-West to the South-West).

[lbraine]

I wish I had the spare time - and know how - to do such an analysis as I think it would be very revealing.

I understand the distaste for having to ‘make a connection’ when going by train (or any public transports for that matter) especially when the connection is not guaranteed - long gone are those days. And this maybe doubly so for the business traveller trying to maximise the company value from the time and expense, and minimise the impact of travelling on their personal lives.

But I think this raises the issue of what market is CC trying to serve. Is it a business market or is leisure market service ? If the former, then it’s more likely that the destination station (or the city business district it serves) is the actual final destination. But if its leisure it maybe more likely that the final destination is further afield than a city business district, and most likely necessitating a change of transport (mode) anyway ?

And, if the latter is valid, then surely an efficient inter-regional service running between regional ‘hubs’ would work well?

My own personal experience - admittedly limited to the south of Birmingham portion of the network - and based on the copious amounts of luggage seen being manhandled into every nock and cranny - I would argue CC is a leisure market service. Yes - I am sure there are folks reliant on the CC service to get to work every day - but this has to be a smaller number of people than those trying to get to or back from non-work related activities ? Otherwise why run a Reading to Manchester service - for example - that can’t be a commuter/business  service surely ?

[grahame]

If I had a spare day or two (spoiler: I don't) I'd be very tempted to take the Origin/Destination Matrix data and map it onto CrossCountry route patterns.

In other words, of the journeys starting in (say) Reading, how many are heading for a destination that is best served by a CrossCountry service across Birmingham? I genuinely don't know the answer - I'm intrigued to see that there are more Reading–Banbury passengers than Reading–Manchester Piccadilly, for example, but then when you add Stockport…

I suspect you could get some interesting answers simply by matching up origins/destinations within certain polygons (e.g. the North-West to the South-West).

The ticket sales data is interesting - it tells a story of where people have travelled and not what the potential for travel is were it to be easier.    We have a Complete matrix for Reading in the Coffee Shop - showing 2400 different sources/destinations for tickets sold. 

It is instructive to look at the history and see changing patterns with the arrival of the Elizabeth line - ticket sales to place like Stratford.    And, yes, re-analysing (I don't have the spare time either) the data in zones is interesting; I have in the past done that to look at Swindon / Chippenham to the Solent area ...

[eightonedee]

But I think this raises the issue of what market is CC trying to serve. Is it a business market or is leisure market service ? If the former, then it’s more likely that the destination station (or the city business district it serves) is the actual final destination. But if its leisure it maybe more likely that the final destination is further afield than a city business district, and most likely necessitating a change of transport (mode) anyway ?

I don't think any such analysis will help. The current Cross Country set-up is used for a variety reasons. Personally, I have used it for holidays (Reading-Newcastle as part of a Scottish trip, to get to Southampton Airport for a flights, and in my youth, before it was a thing, equivalent services for holidays in Scotland and Dorset starting from Reading), business (mostly to get to Birmingham, Wolverhampton or Manchester for meetings), family visits when my in-laws lived in North Yorkshire, and commuting, when Cross Country still ran to Gatwick and Portsmouth and sometimes it was a convenient (and much more comfortable) way to do the Reading-Guildford part of my commute.

I think that this misses the point. It's not just an end-to-end service for grannies in Manchester or Newcastle to go the seaside at Bournemouth or Torquay. It is a very useful service for all kinds of travellers using various parts and various lengths of its network. The main cause of complaint repeated on this forum (over-crowding) shows that there is more demand for its services than can be coped with by its current capacity. Small fixed-formation 4- or 5-car trains are no longer sufficient.

You may also call the Swansea -> Portsmouth and Brighton service (as it was) Cross County, and Liverpool - Newcastle ... under GBR^▸ (Great British Railways)▸ there is some logic to move things between logical divisions for today rather than for the last 30 years.  Might add the Marches line too.

This highlights a confusion. Are we talking about the current Cross Country franchise operation, based on long-distance services running largely on an X-shaped network linking Scotland, the North-east, Yorkshire and the East Midlands (on one arm), Manchester, Cheshire/Staffs and Wolverhampton (on the second), the Thames Valley and the Solent/Greater Bournemouth area (on the third) and Bristol and the South-west on the fourth, and a "tail" to Stanstead, all radiating out of Birmingham? I can see the sense of these remaining as a single business unit, with a common core fleet of trains and staff, into which the other routes you mention do not seem to fit well.

Or do you mean that under a new unified GBR, they ought to be promoted together as part of a strategy to encourage more rail use by long-distance travellers not intending to travel via London? I can support this, as over many years I've been surprised by how few potential passengers are surprised to learn (for example) that there are direct trains from Reading to Gatwick or Manchester. But I cannot see any advantage or possible improvement to the trains on the current Cross Country routes from lumping them into the same operating division or business unit.

[John D]

The biggest problem is short sets, and consequent crowding, too many trains just 4car or 5car at busy times (and there is a reason why end cars are labled A and F, because made provision to extend to 6car, but never did).

It doesn't help that XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) cancels so many trains, that passengers get doubled up on next service.  Their latest performance figures show 9.6% are cancelled, and 3.4% are shortformed (which I think they define as single set that should be double, rather than including 4car that should be 5car)

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/about-us/key-business-performance-indicators

Basically it is a network stuck with using 25 old diesel trains, that were designed for a high frequency service, in 3 classes (the premier standard never happened), so badly laid out for today's passenger flow.  And of course operate huge mileages on diesel whilst on electrified lines.

I understand the units being refurbished have done about 5.5 million miles, and they do around 220,000 miles per year.   Although for such intensive use are actually in fairly good condition, if not the correct product for today's (and going into 2030s) railway.

[Electric train]

X-country or formally known in BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) days as inter-regional have always been a bit of Cinderella service.  In BR days there was a large dwell time at places like Reading, 15 plus mins.

X-country did have 125's (HST^▸ (High Speed Train (Inter City class 43 125 units))'s) which could be argued were over spec as most of the routes operated were 90 mph, but the 125's were at the time BR's standard intercity passenger train stock thereby reducing Driver training on different traction units also for maintenance spares and staff training.

There is no simple fix, as some parts of the x-country routes are heavy commuter use for example Reading - Basingstoke, Reading - Oxford, Coventry - Birmingham; just to name a few.  So do you size the train set to suit these hot spots or for the cross country connectivity?

Perhaps in the new GBR^▸ (Great British Railways) world X-country should revert to inter- regional