Jump to content
 

XC to get cast-off West Midlands Railway units


TravisM
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

The trains that reverse/could reverse at BHM are the ones that occupy a part platform and those don't get anywhere near as busy as the ones I listed (MAN-BMH, EDB-PLY) which have to take full platforms at Birmingham as they are passing through from one end to the other ergo cannot share. There really ought to be enough space for an XC to take a full platform at Reading, the station went through a pretty major capacity uplift and using a higher numbered platform saves a conflicting move anyway.

 

Discussion can be found elsewhere, but the Reading works capacity wasn't for XC but for other uses like Crossrail - so XC is still platform availability constrained at least at Reading and possibly elsewhere.

 

And even a through service at BNS can share - the through service pulls in, then followed by either another through service or a reversing service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

why do they go to the effort of putting 4 cars on the Stansted route on a Sunday now then?

Because a two car doesn't have enough seats and there isn't enough three cars available

Edited by Shropshire Lad
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mdvle said:

Discussion can be found elsewhere, but the Reading works capacity wasn't for XC but for other uses like Crossrail - so XC is still platform availability constrained at least at Reading and possibly elsewhere.

They do often reverse in platforms 7&8 at Reading, which are full length. But the short one there (#3) is also pretty intensively used by XC services.

The XC trains which terminate at Reading usually use the slow line side, where Crossrail will be gumming things up with their overgrown tube trains in the not too distant future, so maybe they'll move over to the 3/ 7/ 8 area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Shropshire Lad said:

Because a two car doesn't have enough seats and there isn't enough three cars available

and there are probably plenty of times when a 3 car would struggle and a 4th car avoids pax having to stand for a long journey. When those convert from 4 to 3 car they may have forgotten about the promise of "more carriages" which XC have made...

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

 

And even a through service at BNS can share - the through service pulls in, then followed by either another through service or a reversing service.

But how often do they do that? I'd say its extremely rare, the southbound Manchester to Bournemouth generally dwells for 6 mins in platform 2 and the chances of anything coming from Monument Lane and wanting to reverse to go back towards Wolvs in that time is non existent. The Bournemouth to Manchester gets 8 mins but again, because hardly anything reverses in New Street these days the "A" end platform behind it is little use, possibly a Rugeley if the timetable change lands one there about the right time. Over on the other side they dare not plan permissive use of 11 for southbound or 9 for northbound Edinburgh-Plymouth and vv as some are HST and others are double Voyagers. To tell XC passengers they must endure another generation of horrific overcrowding just because you may wish to retain some permissive flexibility at BHM for 6/8 mins an hour is a bitter pill to swallow! I'd say the bigger issue is at Manchester Piccadilly anyway...

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

and there are probably plenty of times when a 3 car would struggle and a 4th car avoids pax having to stand for a long journey. When those convert from 4 to 3 car they may have forgotten about the promise of "more carriages" which XC have made...

 

I think you'll find that most of the promises regarding extra seats and capacity are aimed squarely at commuters and season ticket holders, these being the passengers most likely to complain. Have there been any organised protests from weekend leisure travellers? As far as I'm aware, and more than willing to be corrected, most such protests come from commuter groups and such.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Would the limitations at BNS be alleviated by HS2 reducing the number of London trains there?

Wouldn't help with Reading, of course - could always call at Reading West instead, but I doubt that would be popular...

 

Suspect that is part of the plan, given that a reasonable part of the cost of HS2 is the necessity of building new inner city stations in London and Birmingham.

 

Move much of the London trains to the new HS2 station, which creates capacity in BNS - though whether that capacity gets allocated to XC or to some other possible future services like maybe more commuter stuff remains unknown I would guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, great central said:

 

I think you'll find that most of the promises regarding extra seats and capacity are aimed squarely at commuters and season ticket holders, these being the passengers most likely to complain. Have there been any organised protests from weekend leisure travellers? As far as I'm aware, and more than willing to be corrected, most such protests come from commuter groups and such.

So on that basis they may as well reduce all the units to 2 cars and off lease the HSTs to save money!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned above I think, the HSTs are diagrammed to provide a high capacity service into and out of Birmingham in the peaks. 

I don't know if they operate to Newquay in the summer now and if I recall correctly GWR have said there's no room on their services for surfboards and lots of luggage now that the HSTs have gone.

So it seems to me that the weekend market isn't overly important

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

 

The extra seat capacity made possible by the two extra HST power cars remains to be seen, they can only reform the current HSTs into six cars if they get approval from the DfT to take on and convert additional trailers, they also need DfT approval to reduce the seat capacity of certain trains (which are contractually set with fines for short-formed trains) AND if they can get the DfT to sign off on them having the two extra power cars to start with. The HSTs are effectively tied to their existing diagrams because of their superior capacity vs a single Voyager hence the continued use of Edinburgh and Leeds as start/finish points.

 


You can’t reform the XC sets into more shorter sets because as a result of the new accessibility regs, each XC HST set must run with a TGS.

 

Currently, XC runs only two HST sets most mid week days ramping up to four on some days.
 

There is a path in to carry out a set swap at Laira each day with one off maintenance, but you can’t swap power cars on a set over the layover. With additional power cars, you can swap a set out, swap the power cars over night and then send that set back into traffic the day after with two fresh power cars rather than leaving the trailer cars standing idle.

 

HST diagrams make the best use of catering for highest passenger loading whilst allowing for their stabling at HST friendly depots. This ties the hands of a long distance operator like XC.

 

When HSTs fail, the only available replacement is usually the rollover set at New St. Hence the use of four car voyagers. Still better than no train at all.

 

As for new trains. That requires the DfT to pull its finger out and sort out a proper franchise re-let. Personally think that’s 3-5 years away. And any new trains would be 2-3 years after that...

 

Andrew

Edited by Andrew Young
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

But how often do they do that? I'd say its extremely rare, the southbound Manchester to Bournemouth generally dwells for 6 mins in platform 2 and the chances of anything coming from Monument Lane and wanting to reverse to go back towards Wolvs in that time is non existent. The Bournemouth to Manchester gets 8 mins but again, because hardly anything reverses in New Street these days the "A" end platform behind it is little use, possibly a Rugeley if the timetable change lands one there about the right time. Over on the other side they dare not plan permissive use of 11 for southbound or 9 for northbound Edinburgh-Plymouth and vv as some are HST and others are double Voyagers. To tell XC passengers they must endure another generation of horrific overcrowding just because you may wish to retain some permissive flexibility at BHM for 6/8 mins an hour is a bitter pill to swallow! I'd say the bigger issue is at Manchester Piccadilly anyway...


Reversing at New St takes up a huge chunk of capacity both in the station and on the approaches. Hence why most of the Manchester - Bristol services are routed via Camp Hill.

 

the xx:42 to Bristol often platform shares at New St with the TFW service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Andrew Young said:


Reversing at New St takes up a huge chunk of capacity both in the station and on the approaches. Hence why most of the Manchester - Bristol services are routed via Camp Hill.

 

the xx:42 to Bristol often platform shares at New St with the TFW service.

I don't think it uses capacity on the approaches per se as the signalling isn't significantly slower if going into a part loaded platform. And I wasn't suggesting that the Exeter/Bristol to Manchester or Reading to Newcastle should be more than 5 cars, I was saying that the Edinburgh-Plymouth and Manchester-Bournemouth routes ought to be 8 or 9 car bi-mode trains to free up the 5 car Voyagers to work the shorter runs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Andrew Young said:


You can’t reform the XC sets into more shorter sets because as a result of the new accessibility regs, each XC HST set must run with a TGS.

 

Currently, XC runs only two HST sets most mid week days ramping up to four on some days.
 

There is a path in to carry out a set swap at Laira each day with one off maintenance, but you can’t swap power cars on a set over the layover. With additional power cars, you can swap a set out, swap the power cars over night and then send that set back into traffic the day after with two fresh power cars rather than leaving the trailer cars standing idle.

 

HST diagrams make the best use of catering for highest passenger loading whilst allowing for their stabling at HST friendly depots. This ties the hands of a long distance operator like XC.

 

When HSTs fail, the only available replacement is usually the rollover set at New St. Hence the use of four car voyagers. Still better than no train at all.

 

As for new trains. That requires the DfT to pull its finger out and sort out a proper franchise re-let. Personally think that’s 3-5 years away. And any new trains would be 2-3 years after that...

 

Andrew

Hence why I said "take on and convert additional trailers", I presume you refer to the logic box for the passenger information system that requires a TGS to be in the rake as the physical disabled facilities are elsewhere in the train- the TCC is another extra vehicle you'd certainly need to create a sixth rake. The power cars do need more attention than the trailers but I don't think the anticipation was ever to regularly swap rakes over mid-diagram so unless there happens to be a failure at a convenient moment (ie well before the set reaches Plymouth and whilst a spare set is formed up, prepped and ready to roll) I think those 5E63/5V50 ECS paths will remain unused- they are pretty pointless anyway as short notice moves were easier just arranged with Plymouth panel anyway! They have managed not noticeably more badly with 100% trailer rake utilisation since the start of the sliding door conversion program, so have been living with 10 power cars for 4 trailer rakes for the last three years now anyway.

 

We are many years overdue refranchising, the existing short-sighted sticking plaster arrangement was due to expire four years ago this month. The lack of action exposes the fact that politically nobody gives a toss about the regions, as XC doesn't go into London the DfT have been happy to let things get worse and worse with no meaningful capacity enhancements in a decade and none on the horizon- in all that time total standard class passenger accommodation has increased by one single extra Voyager coach (and that was a shorter driving car at that!) and total planned future increase amounts to a handful of extra centre coaches for the 170's which won't make them all three car and, as discussed above, will actually reduce capacity on some of the busiest trains. If refranchising is to be that long down the road then something radical needs to be done to cover over the cracks in the meantime, be that 222's from EMR, more HSTs, a new build of IEPs- something really must be done!

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, fiftyfour fiftyfour said:

Hence why I said "take on and convert additional trailers", I presume you refer to the logic box for the passenger information system that requires a TGS to be in the rake as the physical disabled facilities are elsewhere in the train- the TCC is another extra vehicle you'd certainly need to create a sixth rake. The power cars do need more attention than the trailers but I don't think the anticipation was ever to regularly swap rakes over mid-diagram so unless there happens to be a failure at a convenient moment (ie well before the set reaches Plymouth and whilst a spare set is formed up, prepped and ready to roll) I think those 5E63/5V50 ECS paths will remain unused- they are pretty pointless anyway as short notice moves were easier just arranged with Plymouth panel anyway! They have managed not noticeably more badly with 100% trailer rake utilisation since the start of the sliding door conversion program, so have been living with 10 power cars for 4 trailer rakes for the last three years now anyway.

 

We are many years overdue refranchising, the existing short-sighted sticking plaster arrangement was due to expire four years ago this month. The lack of action exposes the fact that politically nobody gives a toss about the regions, as XC doesn't go into London the DfT have been happy to let things get worse and worse with no meaningful capacity enhancements in a decade and none on the horizon- in all that time total standard class passenger accommodation has increased by one single extra Voyager coach (and that was a shorter driving car at that!) and total planned future increase amounts to a handful of extra centre coaches for the 170's which won't make them all three car and, as discussed above, will actually reduce capacity on some of the busiest trains. If refranchising is to be that long down the road then something radical needs to be done to cover over the cracks in the meantime, be that 222's from EMR, more HSTs, a new build of IEPs- something really must be done!


XC is far more likely to get the 221s off West Coast when they come off lease than anything else. I don’t expect XC to get any more HST trailer cars due to the cost of fitting the sliding doors and fixing the corrosion that the stored trailer cars apparently have.

 

The intention with the XC HST fleet was to have them maintained at a depot where they would visit at night. With the changes at Craigentinny and Neville Hill, this is no longer possible. The swap over diagram will I believe remain for the foreseeable future, far more robust than relying on an ad hoc move with the box!

 

Yes, 100% trailer utilisation has just about worked, but is it sustainable longer term? I don’t think so as sooner or later they’ll be due heavier exams. Two additional power cars and sending four sets out each day makes far more operational and capacity sense.

 

I agree that something needs to be done. The franchise was a minimum growth one when it was let and would barely cope with passenger numbers for the intended length of the franchise let alone extensions that will nearly double its length. Whilst bi-mode IET style trains would be the logical replacement for Voyagers (similar to those EMR are getting) and would resolve the fume issues at New St for a start they’ll not be along any time soon. The first step would be to re-start the franchise letting process.

 

The other aspect to consider with lengthening XC services is where to put them platform wise. You can only get four car sets in the 9-12 bays at Newcastle. As a result, the new TPE sets are having to run through to Edinburgh.
 

As for the 170 fleet, not sure there’s anything out there currently that would be suitable to replace them in terms of speed, weight and comfort level.

 

The infrastructure needs to be put in place first and none of it is cheap or easy. It all comes back to the DfT deciding what they want to actually do!

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think heavy exam dates are the key behind XC's desire for two more power cars, as all the power cars went through Brush for the repower in a limited timeframe they have all become due heavy exams at about the same time, even given their very low mileage they cannot spread that out much better. Add into the mix the fact that nobody turns an E, F or G exam on a power car around in a sensible timeframe anymore everyone suddenly needs bigger fleets- GWR have taken four more vs original plan for example, a huge cost to run zero extra trains. It was only the looming PRM compliance that drove the sliding door conversions on the HST trailers, if they had crystal balls and the ability to gain derogations the better plan would have been to have held out until the WCML Class 221's were released but then rumour has it that they are spoken for anyway.

 

They needn't wait for refranchising for fleet renewal, DfT imposed IEPs on GWR and what we now know as LNER despite them not having control over their own destinies at the time- it's just that DfT don't care about the problems that the lack of capacity causes across much of XC. Agree, infrastructure work is needed- I don't believe that the Edinburgh extensions on the TPE runs are down to lack of space at Newcastle Central; Heaton is a lot closer than Edinburgh and spinning them around the bridges during the turn arounds is even closer, also TPE has "form" for running silly extra trains and trying to squeeze more and more through already crowded areas, the Castlefield saga is a case in point.

 

I must take issue with the 170's, I agree they are slightly less rubbish than the Voyager family for axle loadings but apart from that I'm not seeing any advantage to them, the door layout is only suitable for local stopping trains, the seat pitch must be the worst anywhere in the industry, the acceleration is only at Sprinter levels, the reliability isn't much to write home about. Sooner they get displaced the better in all honestly...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Zomboid said:

Would the limitations at BNS be alleviated by HS2 reducing the number of London trains there?

 

17 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

Suspect that is part of the plan, given that a reasonable part of the cost of HS2 is the necessity of building new inner city stations in London and Birmingham.

 

Move much of the London trains to the new HS2 station, which creates capacity in BNS - though whether that capacity gets allocated to XC or to some other possible future services like maybe more commuter stuff remains unknown I would guess.


There's also plans to move more services from BNS to the Moor St bay platforms which will both help free up BNS capacity and improve HS2 connectivity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The AWC 221s wouldn't be available until December 2022 at the earliest. If the XC franchise is awarded in or before October, new trains could (in theory) be ordered before the end of this year and be operational before the 221s are available.

 

Cheers

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 03/03/2020 at 12:21, Glorious NSE said:

 


There's also plans to move more services from BNS to the Moor St bay platforms which will both help free up BNS capacity and improve HS2 connectivity.

 

With the proposed links between the Moor St and Camp Hill lines, the Reading/Newcastle services could divert via Moor St with a reversal there; Giving a much quicker entry to Birmingham, better connections with HS2, and no train length constraint (although Reading and Newcastle would still be an issue), at the expense of less convenient connections to New St services.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of possibilities, though the capacity to do that is not going to be massive as it's only a couple of extra platforms from memory!

In the (very) long term I think we could do with Moor St/Curzon St becoming a Berlin style Birmingham HbF - with New St becoming just a stop for the suburban electric services.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also a desire to send the Reading - Newcastle service via Coventry and (more importantly) Birmingham International, which would then make getting to Moor St a bit more challenging. But with the many lines around Birmingham there are still a lot of options available, especially if the idea that everything must stop at New Street could be dropped.

 

Though concentrating as many suburban services as possible on Moor St would seem like a good way to free up some capacity at New Street as well as improving HS2 connectivity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...