In message <+bholfOEtlCiFAlx@perry.uk>, at 13:38:12 on Mon, 14 Feb 2022,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
>2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>
>>>>>  170s replaced 158s on that route in (I think) the late '90s too,
>>>>>before  reverting to 158s. I preferred the 158s due to the end
>>>>>doors. Presumably  the 170s will be fitted with ETCS?
>>>>
>>>> It was never exclusively 100% Class 170s, and you sometimes got a
>>>>170 + 158 combination. One problem was that 2 coach 170s had fewer
>>>>seats than 158s, so overcrowding could be a problem. Three coach
>>>>170s were better, but there were insufficient to meet a desire for
>>>>every train to be 3 coaches.
>
>>> Back in the day, there were two routes:
>>>Liverpool-Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge-Stansted
>>>and Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Nottingham-Peterborough-Ely-Norwich.
>
>>> They used the same rolling stock and the same crews. To this day
>>>the timetable still has them at Ely at almost the same time, because
>>>the crews would swap from one to other (eg a
>>>Peterborough-Ely-Stansted crew would change at Ely onto
>>>Norwich-Ely-Peterborough train).
>
>>> The Liverpool-Stansted trains were particularly bad at timekeeping,
>>>to the extent they often cancelled the Cambridge-Stansted leg to
>>>recover. And for while that hop was permanently removed from the
>>>timetable.
>
>>> I don't remember if it was done at exactly the same time, but the
>>>route was then split at Birmingham, with the north-facing section
>>>given to the local operator, and the south-east section rather more
>>>bizarrely given to XC.
>
>>South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country
>>services so that wasn't a bizarre decision.
>
>Given that the route handed to XC was the Birmingham-Stansted section
>of Liverpool-Stansted, and XC previously didn't have a presence in that
>geographic sector at all, it was bizarre. South Wales and Gloucster are

not

>on the route at all.
>
>Meanwhile, XC had a presence through Burton on Trent to Derby and
>Sheffield, so were already within 7 miles of Nottingham.
>
>>What was bizarre was diverting them to Nottingham.
>
>My memory is hazy of who previously operated the
>Nottingham-Derby-Birmingham service; MML (as EMT would have been then)
>perhaps?
>
>>> That XC service is to this day a mixture of 2-car and 3-car 170's,
>>>with former as you say having somewhat reduced accommodation
>>>(there's two cabs, two toilets and a First Class cabin abstracting
>>>from the Standard Class seating).
>
>>We've always had four car 170s on some Cardiff services. I've seen
>>five and six as well on rare occasions. You may even hear an apology
>>when a two unit service is reduced to a single unit.
>
>Four car 170's are especially inefficient because you have two sets of
>"wasted" space, and no corridor connection. I think I've only ever seen
>multi-unit 170's to Stansted twice in ten years, and I that's when one
>half was probably rescuing another (locked out, you'd need a second
>guard) one.
>

--
Roland Perry

On 2022-02-14 13:38:12 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>
>>>>>  170s replaced 158s on that route in (I think) the late '90s too,
>>>>> before  reverting to 158s. I preferred the 158s due to the end doors.
>>>>> Presumably  the 170s will be fitted with ETCS?
>>>>
>>>> It was never exclusively 100% Class 170s, and you sometimes got a 170
>>>> + 158 combination. One problem was that 2 coach 170s had fewer seats
>>>> than 158s, so overcrowding could be a problem. Three coach 170s were
>>>> better, but there were insufficient to meet a desire for every train
>>>> to be 3 coaches.
>
>>> Back in the day, there were two routes:
>>> Liverpool-Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge-Stansted and
>>> Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Nottingham-Peterborough-Ely-Norwich.
>
>>> They used the same rolling stock and the same crews. To this day the
>>> timetable still has them at Ely at almost the same time, because the
>>> crews would swap from one to other (eg a Peterborough-Ely-Stansted crew
>>> would change at Ely onto Norwich-Ely-Peterborough train).
>
>>> The Liverpool-Stansted trains were particularly bad at timekeeping, to
>>> the extent they often cancelled the Cambridge-Stansted leg to recover.
>>> And for while that hop was permanently removed from the timetable.
>
>>> I don't remember if it was done at exactly the same time, but the route
>>> was then split at Birmingham, with the north-facing section given to
>>> the local operator, and the south-east section rather more bizarrely
>>> given to XC.
>
>> South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country
>> services so that wasn't a bizarre decision.
>
> Given that the route handed to XC was the Birmingham-Stansted section
> of Liverpool-Stansted, and XC previously didn't have a presence in that
> geographic sector at all, it was bizarre. South Wales and Gloucster are
> on the route at all.

The general thinking at the time was that Central Trains had been a
pretty unsuccessful TOC, with too much variation in service patterns
and geographical scope. The local routes were split between West
Midlands and East Midlands, and the longer distance routes were given
to XC. The alternative might have been some sort of stand-alone TOC
along the lines of Transpennine Express, but the number of appropriate
routes is probably too short to make that a viable alternative. Having
a single long route that crosses all of the natural geographic regions
for allocating services to TOCs makes it an awkward choice however it
is done, and as the concept of XC was to handle longer distance routes
that cross the grographic regions of other TOCs it seems not entirely
illogical for it to end up there.

Robin

On 14/02/2022 13:39, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <sudesr$lde$3@dont-email.me>, at 11:36:59 on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That XC service is to this day a mixture of 2-car and 3-car 170's, with
>>> former as you say having somewhat reduced accommodation (there's two
>>> cabs, two toilets and a First Class cabin abstracting from the Standard
>>> Class seating).
>>
>> XC have ~recently gained around five 170 centre cars, augment their
>> fleet.
>
> That'll help. In fact I don't remember seeing a 2-car one for ages, but
> put that down to a Covid-reduced timetable.

The two car units seem to have been concentrated on the Cardiff services
for sometime to the extent we now have more two car services than
previously.

In message <sudnj8$hn9$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:05:28 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-02-14 13:38:12 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>
>>>>>>  170s replaced 158s on that route in (I think) the late '90s too,
>>>>>>before  reverting to 158s. I preferred the 158s due to the end
>>>>>>doors. Presumably  the 170s will be fitted with ETCS?
>>>>> It was never exclusively 100% Class 170s, and you sometimes got a
>>>>>170 + 158 combination. One problem was that 2 coach 170s had
>>>>>fewer seats than 158s, so overcrowding could be a problem. Three
>>>>>coach 170s were better, but there were insufficient to meet a
>>>>>desire for every train to be 3 coaches.
>>
>>>> Back in the day, there were two routes:
>>>>Liverpool-Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge-Stansted
>>>>and Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Nottingham-Peterborough-Ely-Norwich.
>>
>>>> They used the same rolling stock and the same crews. To this day
>>>>the timetable still has them at Ely at almost the same time,
>>>>because the crews would swap from one to other (eg a
>>>>Peterborough-Ely-Stansted crew would change at Ely onto
>>>>Norwich-Ely-Peterborough train).
>>
>>>> The Liverpool-Stansted trains were particularly bad at timekeeping,
>>>>to the extent they often cancelled the Cambridge-Stansted leg to
>>>>recover. And for while that hop was permanently removed from the
>>>>timetable.
>>
>>>> I don't remember if it was done at exactly the same time, but the
>>>>route was then split at Birmingham, with the north-facing section
>>>>given to the local operator, and the south-east section rather
>>>>more bizarrely given to XC.
>>
>>> South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country
>>>services so that wasn't a bizarre decision.

>> Given that the route handed to XC was the Birmingham-Stansted
>>section of Liverpool-Stansted, and XC previously didn't have a
>>presence in that geographic sector at all, it was bizarre. South
>>Wales and Gloucster are on the route at all.
>
>The general thinking at the time was that Central Trains had been a
>pretty unsuccessful TOC, with too much variation in service patterns
>and geographical scope. The local routes were split between West
>Midlands and East Midlands, and the longer distance routes were given
>to XC.

Erm, Liverpool to Norwich is a pretty long route! Significantly longer
than Birmingham-Stansted.

>The alternative might have been some sort of stand-alone TOC along the
>lines of Transpennine Express, but the number of appropriate routes is
>probably too short to make that a viable alternative. Having a single
>long route that crosses all of the natural geographic regions for
>allocating services to TOCs makes it an awkward choice however it is
>done, and as the concept of XC was to handle longer distance routes
>that cross the grographic regions of other TOCs it seems not entirely
>illogical for it to end up there.

It makes more logic to me to have TOCs given routes which are already at
least a little bit within the corridors they already operate. Which
means Cardiff-Nottingham and XC are a reasonable match.
--
Roland Perry

On 2022-02-14 14:36:14 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <sudnj8$hn9$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:05:28 on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 2022-02-14 13:38:12 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>
>>>>>>>  170s replaced 158s on that route in (I think) the late '90s too,
>>>>>>> before  reverting to 158s. I preferred the 158s due to the end doors.
>>>>>>> Presumably  the 170s will be fitted with ETCS?
>>>>>> It was never exclusively 100% Class 170s, and you sometimes got a 170
>>>>>> + 158 combination. One problem was that 2 coach 170s had fewer seats
>>>>>> than 158s, so overcrowding could be a problem. Three coach 170s were
>>>>>> better, but there were insufficient to meet a desire for every train
>>>>>> to be 3 coaches.
>>>
>>>>> Back in the day, there were two routes:
>>>>> Liverpool-Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge-Stansted and
>>>>> Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Nottingham-Peterborough-Ely-Norwich.
>>>
>>>>> They used the same rolling stock and the same crews. To this day the
>>>>> timetable still has them at Ely at almost the same time, because the
>>>>> crews would swap from one to other (eg a Peterborough-Ely-Stansted crew
>>>>> would change at Ely onto Norwich-Ely-Peterborough train).
>>>
>>>>> The Liverpool-Stansted trains were particularly bad at timekeeping, to
>>>>> the extent they often cancelled the Cambridge-Stansted leg to recover.
>>>>> And for while that hop was permanently removed from the timetable.
>>>
>>>>> I don't remember if it was done at exactly the same time, but the route
>>>>> was then split at Birmingham, with the north-facing section given to
>>>>> the local operator, and the south-east section rather more bizarrely
>>>>> given to XC.
>>>
>>>> South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country
>>>> services so that wasn't a bizarre decision.
>
>>> Given that the route handed to XC was the Birmingham-Stansted section
>>> of Liverpool-Stansted, and XC previously didn't have a presence in that
>>> geographic sector at all, it was bizarre. South Wales and Gloucster
>>> are on the route at all.
>>
>> The general thinking at the time was that Central Trains had been a
>> pretty unsuccessful TOC, with too much variation in service patterns
>> and geographical scope. The local routes were split between West
>> Midlands and East Midlands, and the longer distance routes were given
>> to XC.
>
> Erm, Liverpool to Norwich is a pretty long route! Significantly longer
> than Birmingham-Stansted.
>
>> The alternative might have been some sort of stand-alone TOC along the
>> lines of Transpennine Express, but the number of appropriate routes is
>> probably too short to make that a viable alternative. Having a single
>> long route that crosses all of the natural geographic regions for
>> allocating services to TOCs makes it an awkward choice however it is
>> done, and as the concept of XC was to handle longer distance routes
>> that cross the grographic regions of other TOCs it seems not entirely
>> illogical for it to end up there.
>
> It makes more logic to me to have TOCs given routes which are already
> at least a little bit within the corridors they already operate. Which
> means Cardiff-Nottingham and XC are a reasonable match.

The decision to split Liverpool-Brum-Stansted into two at Birmingham
and include neither as part of the successor-to-Central trains was made
because of the very poor performance on this specific route under
Central, the majority of whose routes were more of local stopping
trains rather than inter-regional or Regional Express type services.
If the decision is to remove it from the rest of formerly-Central
franchise, that doesn't leave a lot of options. In terms of TOCs that
had any presence anywhere on the route, the options were WMCL, XC, MML,
ECML, GN or Anglia. Every one of those options involves a route being
operated well away from the main territory of the TOC in question. The
fact that the Cardiff-Nottingham services had been operated with a
shared pool of units with the Brum-Stansted means it made sense to keep
the two together, whoever those rotues went to.

Robin

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>
>>>>>  170s replaced 158s on that route in (I think) the late '90s too,
>>>>> before  reverting to 158s. I preferred the 158s due to the end
>>>>> doors. Presumably  the 170s will be fitted with ETCS?
>>>>
>>>> It was never exclusively 100% Class 170s, and you sometimes got a
>>>> 170 + 158 combination. One problem was that 2 coach 170s had fewer
>>>> seats than 158s, so overcrowding could be a problem. Three coach
>>>> 170s were better, but there were insufficient to meet a desire for
>>>> every train to be 3 coaches.
>
>>> Back in the day, there were two routes:
>>> Liverpool-Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge-Stansted and
>>> Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Nottingham-Peterborough-Ely-Norwich.
>
>>> They used the same rolling stock and the same crews. To this day the
>>> timetable still has them at Ely at almost the same time, because the
>>> crews would swap from one to other (eg a Peterborough-Ely-Stansted
>>> crew would change at Ely onto Norwich-Ely-Peterborough train).
>
>>> The Liverpool-Stansted trains were particularly bad at timekeeping,
>>> to the extent they often cancelled the Cambridge-Stansted leg to
>>> recover. And for while that hop was permanently removed from the
>>> timetable.
>
>>> I don't remember if it was done at exactly the same time, but the
>>> route was then split at Birmingham, with the north-facing section
>>> given to the local operator, and the south-east section rather more
>>> bizarrely given to XC.
>
>> South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country
>> services so that wasn't a bizarre decision.
>
> Given that the route handed to XC was the Birmingham-Stansted section of
> Liverpool-Stansted, and XC previously didn't have a presence in that
> geographic sector at all, it was bizarre. South Wales and Gloucster are
> on the route at all.
>
> Meanwhile, XC had a presence through Burton on Trent to Derby and
> Sheffield, so were already within 7 miles of Nottingham.
>
>> What was bizarre was diverting them to Nottingham.
>
> My memory is hazy of who previously operated the
> Nottingham-Derby-Birmingham service; MML (as EMT would have been then)
> perhaps?
>

Central Trains, I would guess; MML didn't originally operate anything
non-InterCity (until they introduced 170s in addition to their HST
services, IIRC).

>>> That XC service is to this day a mixture of 2-car and 3-car 170's,
>>> with former as you say having somewhat reduced accommodation (there's
>>> two cabs, two toilets and a First Class cabin abstracting from the
>>> Standard Class seating).
>
>> We've always had four car 170s on some Cardiff services. I've seen
>> five and six as well on rare occasions. You may even hear an apology
>> when a two unit service is reduced to a single unit.
>
> Four car 170's are especially inefficient because you have two sets of
> "wasted" space, and no corridor connection. I think I've only ever seen
> multi-unit 170's to Stansted twice in ten years, and I that's when one
> half was probably rescuing another (locked out, you'd need a second
> guard) one.
>

I'm not sure that XC require a second Train Manager in the 'other half' of
their Class 170 services. Next time I chat to an XC TM I'll ask.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <+bholfOEtlCiFAlx@perry.uk>, at 13:38:12 on Mon, 14 Feb 2022,
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>
>>
>>> South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country
>>> services so that wasn't a bizarre decision.
>>
>> Given that the route handed to XC was the Birmingham-Stansted section
>> of Liverpool-Stansted, and XC previously didn't have a presence in that
>> geographic sector at all, it was bizarre. South Wales and Gloucster are
>
> not
>
>> on the route at all.
>>
>>

South Wales and Gloucester have always had (sporadic) XC services.

Given that there was a desire to split the long-distance services from the
local services within the Central Trains franchise (which at one time
served Aberystwyth, Pwllheli, Chester and Cardiff in the west), what would
your preferred solution have been? To create an *additional* franchise to
put them into, rather than to combine them into an existing long-distance
franchise? Or to have what because EMT serving Cardiff?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 14/02/2022 15:20, Bob wrote:
> On 2022-02-14 14:36:14 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <sudnj8$hn9$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:05:28 on Mon, 14 Feb
>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 2022-02-14 13:38:12 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>
>>>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>

>
> The decision to split Liverpool-Brum-Stansted into two at Birmingham and
> include neither as part of the successor-to-Central trains was made
> because of the very poor performance on this specific route under
> Central, the majority of whose routes were more of local stopping trains
> rather than inter-regional or Regional Express type services. If the
> decision is to remove it from the rest of formerly-Central franchise,
> that doesn't leave a lot of options.  In terms of TOCs that had any
> presence anywhere on the route, the options were WMCL, XC, MML, ECML, GN
> or Anglia.  Every one of those options involves a route being operated
> well away from the main territory of the TOC in question.  The fact that
> the Cardiff-Nottingham services had been operated with a shared pool of
> units with the Brum-Stansted means it made sense to keep the two
> together, whoever those rotues went to.
>
> Robin
>

The problem was created by DfT, in that the all-diesel Birmingham /
Stansted section should never have been linked to the long-electrified
Liverpool / Birmingham route. Running dmus under the wires for almost
100 miles was an incredibly stupid idea -- but do we ever expect
sensible railway ideas from Whitehall ?

As the Liverpool / Birmingham trains provide some local services at each
end of the route, there could have been two sensible solutions - First
North Western (as it then was), which operated other local services
around Liverpool - or Central, which operated Birmingham area services.

Although partly OT, I do wonder if Cross Country ever really needed to
exist, or could its services have been split between other operators,
with some degree of joint operation.

In message <sudv0b$975$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:11:55 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <+bholfOEtlCiFAlx@perry.uk>, at 13:38:12 on Mon, 14 Feb 2022,
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>
>>>
>>>> South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country
>>>> services so that wasn't a bizarre decision.
>>>
>>> Given that the route handed to XC was the Birmingham-Stansted section
>>> of Liverpool-Stansted, and XC previously didn't have a presence in that
>>> geographic sector at all, it was bizarre. South Wales and Gloucster are
>>
>> not
>>
>>> on the route at all.
>
>South Wales and Gloucester have always had (sporadic) XC services.
>
>Given that there was a desire to split the long-distance services from the
>local services within the Central Trains franchise (which at one time
>served Aberystwyth, Pwllheli, Chester and Cardiff in the west), what would
>your preferred solution have been? To create an *additional* franchise to
>put them into, rather than to combine them into an existing long-distance
>franchise? Or to have what because EMT serving Cardiff?

I have no dog in the fight for the Nottingham-Cardiff service, although
I thought I'd made it clear that XC was probably the corrct ehome for
it.

The bizarre award was XC getting the Birmingham-Stansted service, into
previously completely uncharted territory.

Who would I have given it to instead, I hear you asking? Well it would
be a toss-up between the East Midlands franchise holder and the Anglia
region one.

Given that stations en-route like Stamford and Oakham are operated by
EMR (despite getting only one train a day at 5am/9pm doing route
knowledge for diversions away from the Grantham route for the
Liverpool-Norwich services), I think that means they are probably the
leading contender.

--
Roland Perry

On 2022-02-14 16:37:18 +0000, Bevan Price said:

> On 14/02/2022 15:20, Bob wrote:
>> On 2022-02-14 14:36:14 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <sudnj8$hn9$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:05:28 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 2022-02-14 13:38:12 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>
>
>>
>> The decision to split Liverpool-Brum-Stansted into two at Birmingham
>> and include neither as part of the successor-to-Central trains was made
>> because of the very poor performance on this specific route under
>> Central, the majority of whose routes were more of local stopping
>> trains rather than inter-regional or Regional Express type services. If
>> the decision is to remove it from the rest of formerly-Central
>> franchise, that doesn't leave a lot of options.  In terms of TOCs that
>> had any presence anywhere on the route, the options were WMCL, XC, MML,
>> ECML, GN or Anglia.  Every one of those options involves a route being
>> operated well away from the main territory of the TOC in question.  The
>> fact that the Cardiff-Nottingham services had been operated with a
>> shared pool of units with the Brum-Stansted means it made sense to keep
>> the two together, whoever those rotues went to.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>
> The problem was created by DfT, in that the all-diesel Birmingham /
> Stansted section should never have been linked to the long-electrified
> Liverpool / Birmingham route. Running dmus under the wires for almost
> 100 miles was an incredibly stupid idea -- but do we ever expect
> sensible railway ideas from Whitehall ?

My memory is that combining the Stansted-Brum and Brum-Liverpool into a
single service was a decision by Central rather than by HMG per se. It
was a stupid idea both in terms of importing delays from one part of
the network to another, and because of all the diesel-under-the-wires.

> As the Liverpool / Birmingham trains provide some local services at
> each end of the route, there could have been two sensible solutions -
> First North Western (as it then was), which operated other local
> services around Liverpool - or Central, which operated Birmingham area
> services.
>
> Although partly OT, I do wonder if Cross Country ever really needed to
> exist, or could its services have been split between other operators,
> with some degree of joint operation.

XC came about because the old BR Intercity sector was simply split up
into TOCs based on its organisational structure, with the no-London IC
services, centered on Birmingham, having their own sets of rolling
stock and organisation. It's easy to forget that at the time these
decisions were being made, the government was still operating under the
delusion that franchised TOCs would be a short term transitional
feature that would wither away as purely commercial services on an open
access model took over, so the thoughts as to how the long term future
of the different TOCs was likely not given too much consideration back
in 1993.

Robin

In message <sudrvl$bq3$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:21 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-02-14 14:36:14 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <sudnj8$hn9$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:05:28 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 2022-02-14 13:38:12 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>
>>>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>>>2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>  170s replaced 158s on that route in (I think) the late '90s
>>>>>>>>too, before  reverting to 158s. I preferred the 158s due to the
>>>>>>>>end doors. Presumably  the 170s will be fitted with ETCS?
>>>>>>> It was never exclusively 100% Class 170s, and you sometimes got
>>>>>>>a 170 + 158 combination. One problem was that 2 coach 170s had
>>>>>>>fewer seats than 158s, so overcrowding could be a problem.
>>>>>>>Three coach 170s were better, but there were insufficient to
>>>>>>>meet a desire for every train to be 3 coaches.
>>>>
>>>>>> Back in the day, there were two routes:
>>>>>>Liverpool-Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge-Stansted
>>>>>>and Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Nottingham-Peterborough-Ely-Norwich.
>>>>
>>>>>> They used the same rolling stock and the same crews. To this day
>>>>>>the timetable still has them at Ely at almost the same time,
>>>>>>because the crews would swap from one to other (eg a
>>>>>>Peterborough-Ely-Stansted crew would change at Ely onto
>>>>>>Norwich-Ely-Peterborough train).
>>>>
>>>>>> The Liverpool-Stansted trains were particularly bad at
>>>>>>timekeeping, to the extent they often cancelled the
>>>>>>Cambridge-Stansted leg to recover. And for while that hop was
>>>>>>permanently removed from the timetable.
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't remember if it was done at exactly the same time, but the
>>>>>>route was then split at Birmingham, with the north-facing
>>>>>>section given to the local operator, and the south-east section
>>>>>>rather more bizarrely given to XC.
>>>>
>>>>> South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country
>>>>>services so that wasn't a bizarre decision.
>>
>>>> Given that the route handed to XC was the Birmingham-Stansted
>>>>section of Liverpool-Stansted, and XC previously didn't have a
>>>>presence in that geographic sector at all, it was bizarre. South
>>>>Wales and Gloucster are on the route at all.
>>> The general thinking at the time was that Central Trains had been a
>>>pretty unsuccessful TOC, with too much variation in service patterns
>>>and geographical scope. The local routes were split between West
>>>Midlands and East Midlands, and the longer distance routes were given >>>to XC.
>> Erm, Liverpool to Norwich is a pretty long route! Significantly
>>longer than Birmingham-Stansted.
>>
>>> The alternative might have been some sort of stand-alone TOC along
>>>the lines of Transpennine Express, but the number of appropriate
>>>routes is probably too short to make that a viable alternative.
>>>Having a single long route that crosses all of the natural
>>>geographic regions for allocating services to TOCs makes it an
>>>awkward choice however it is done, and as the concept of XC was to
>>>handle longer distance routes that cross the grographic regions of
>>>other TOCs it seems not entirely illogical for it to end up there.
>> It makes more logic to me to have TOCs given routes which are
>>already at least a little bit within the corridors they already
>>operate. Which means Cardiff-Nottingham and XC are a reasonable match.
>
>The decision to split Liverpool-Brum-Stansted into two at Birmingham
>and include neither as part of the successor-to-Central trains was made
>because of the very poor performance on this specific route under
>Central, the majority of whose routes were more of local stopping
>trains rather than inter-regional or Regional Express type services.

I'm not against the split, rather who the southern leg was given to.

>If the decision is to remove it from the rest of formerly-Central
>franchise, that doesn't leave a lot of options. In terms of TOCs that
>had any presence anywhere on the route, the options were WMCL, XC, MML,
>ECML, GN or Anglia. Every one of those options involves a route being
>operated well away from the main territory of the TOC in question.

ECML and GN are non-starters because the former shares only a couple of
miles and one station, and the latter hasn't had any DMUs for a very
long time.

I've given my views on the others in another posting.

>The fact that the Cardiff-Nottingham services had been operated with a
>shared pool of units with the Brum-Stansted means it made sense to keep
>the two together, whoever those rotues went to.

No more sense than splitting the other shared pool (getting back to the
original discussion about fleet types) at the Cambridgeshire end.
--
Roland Perry

On 2022-02-14 17:00:31 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <sudv0b$975$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:11:55 on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <+bholfOEtlCiFAlx@perry.uk>, at 13:38:12 on Mon, 14 Feb 2022,
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country
>>>>> services so that wasn't a bizarre decision.
>>>>
>>>> Given that the route handed to XC was the Birmingham-Stansted section
>>>> of Liverpool-Stansted, and XC previously didn't have a presence in that
>>>> geographic sector at all, it was bizarre. South Wales and Gloucster are
>>>
>>> not
>>>
>>>> on the route at all.
>>
>> South Wales and Gloucester have always had (sporadic) XC services.
>>
>> Given that there was a desire to split the long-distance services from the
>> local services within the Central Trains franchise (which at one time
>> served Aberystwyth, Pwllheli, Chester and Cardiff in the west), what would
>> your preferred solution have been? To create an *additional* franchise to
>> put them into, rather than to combine them into an existing long-distance
>> franchise? Or to have what because EMT serving Cardiff?
>
> I have no dog in the fight for the Nottingham-Cardiff service, although
> I thought I'd made it clear that XC was probably the corrct ehome for
> it.
>
> The bizarre award was XC getting the Birmingham-Stansted service, into
> previously completely uncharted territory.
>
> Who would I have given it to instead, I hear you asking? Well it would
> be a toss-up between the East Midlands franchise holder and the Anglia
> region one.
>
> Given that stations en-route like Stamford and Oakham are operated by
> EMR (despite getting only one train a day at 5am/9pm doing route
> knowledge for diversions away from the Grantham route for the
> Liverpool-Norwich services), I think that means they are probably the
> leading contender.

The problem with East Midlands is that the whole decision to split the
route out of Central Trains was based on a desire to keep these two
sets of services apart. Anglia is the only other real choice, but it's
not really any more suited to the route in a geographic sense than XC
is.

Robin

In message <sue0fu$6ja$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:37:18 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>On 14/02/2022 15:20, Bob wrote:
>> On 2022-02-14 14:36:14 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <sudnj8$hn9$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:05:28 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>>2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 2022-02-14 13:38:12 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14
>>>>>Feb 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>
>
>> The decision to split Liverpool-Brum-Stansted into two at Birmingham
>>and include neither as part of the successor-to-Central trains was
>>made because of the very poor performance on this specific route
>>under Central, the majority of whose routes were more of local
>>stopping trains rather than inter-regional or Regional Express type
>>services. If the decision is to remove it from the rest of
>>formerly-Central franchise, that doesn't leave a lot of options.  In
>>terms of TOCs that had any presence anywhere on the route, the
>>options were WMCL, XC, MML, ECML, GN or Anglia.  Every one of those
>>options involves a route being operated well away from the main
>>territory of the TOC in question.  The fact that the
>>Cardiff-Nottingham services had been operated with a shared pool of
>>units with the Brum-Stansted means it made sense to keep the two
>>together, whoever those rotues went to.
>
>The problem was created by DfT, in that the all-diesel Birmingham /
>Stansted section

Actually, it's electric from Ely to Stansted.

>should never have been linked to the long-electrified Liverpool /
>Birmingham route.

When was it linked in that way. I don't have either personal experience
or sufficient old timetables to hand. Although I do have a 1975 which
has just Norwich-Ely-Pbo-Birmingham, and no through services from
Cambridge to Nottingham (let alone beyond).

>Running dmus under the wires for almost 100 miles was an incredibly
>stupid idea -- but do we ever expect sensible railway ideas from
>Whitehall ?

Worst examples? Maybe Hull trains.

>As the Liverpool / Birmingham trains provide some local services at
>each end of the route, there could have been two sensible solutions -
>First North Western (as it then was), which operated other local
>services around Liverpool - or Central, which operated Birmingham area
>services.
>
>Although partly OT, I do wonder if Cross Country ever really needed to
>exist, or could its services have been split between other operators,
>with some degree of joint operation.

One of the features of XC is it's parasitic upon other TOCs to run the
stations it calls at. Almost a kind of v0.5 open access operator.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sue334$j9l$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:21:40 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>On 2022-02-14 17:00:31 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> In message <sudv0b$975$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:11:55 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <+bholfOEtlCiFAlx@perry.uk>, at 13:38:12 on Mon, 14 Feb 2022,
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country
>>>>>> services so that wasn't a bizarre decision.
>>>>> Given that the route handed to XC was the Birmingham-Stansted
>>>>>section
>>>>> of Liverpool-Stansted, and XC previously didn't have a presence in that
>>>>> geographic sector at all, it was bizarre. South Wales and Gloucster are
>>>> not
>>>>
>>>>> on the route at all.
>>> South Wales and Gloucester have always had (sporadic) XC services.
>>> Given that there was a desire to split the long-distance services
>>>from the
>>> local services within the Central Trains franchise (which at one time
>>> served Aberystwyth, Pwllheli, Chester and Cardiff in the west), what would
>>> your preferred solution have been? To create an *additional* franchise to
>>> put them into, rather than to combine them into an existing long-distance
>>> franchise? Or to have what because EMT serving Cardiff?

>> I have no dog in the fight for the Nottingham-Cardiff service,
>>although I thought I'd made it clear that XC was probably the corrct
>>ehome for it.

>> The bizarre award was XC getting the Birmingham-Stansted service,
>>into previously completely uncharted territory.

>> Who would I have given it to instead, I hear you asking? Well it
>>would be a toss-up between the East Midlands franchise holder and the
>>Anglia region one.

>> Given that stations en-route like Stamford and Oakham are operated
>>by EMR (despite getting only one train a day at 5am/9pm doing route
>>knowledge for diversions away from the Grantham route for the
>>Liverpool-Norwich services), I think that means they are probably the
>>leading contender.
>
>The problem with East Midlands is that the whole decision to split the
>route out of Central Trains was based on a desire to keep these two
>sets of services apart.

How did that desire arise, given the CT drivers appeared to be split
between east-of-PBO to both destinations, and west-of-PBO. The lack of
sharing east-of-PBO must create logistical issues.

>Anglia is the only other real choice, but it's not really any more
>suited to the route in a geographic sense than XC is.

Apart from already running as far west as PBO. And having drivers
familiar with Stansted-Ely as well.
--
Roland Perry

On 14/02/2022 16:11, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>
>>>>>>  170s replaced 158s on that route in (I think) the late '90s too,
>>>>>> before  reverting to 158s. I preferred the 158s due to the end
>>>>>> doors. Presumably  the 170s will be fitted with ETCS?
>>>>>
>>>>> It was never exclusively 100% Class 170s, and you sometimes got a
>>>>> 170 + 158 combination. One problem was that 2 coach 170s had fewer
>>>>> seats than 158s, so overcrowding could be a problem. Three coach
>>>>> 170s were better, but there were insufficient to meet a desire for
>>>>> every train to be 3 coaches.
>>
>>>> Back in the day, there were two routes:
>>>> Liverpool-Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge-Stansted and
>>>> Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Nottingham-Peterborough-Ely-Norwich.
>>
>>>> They used the same rolling stock and the same crews. To this day the
>>>> timetable still has them at Ely at almost the same time, because the
>>>> crews would swap from one to other (eg a Peterborough-Ely-Stansted
>>>> crew would change at Ely onto Norwich-Ely-Peterborough train).
>>
>>>> The Liverpool-Stansted trains were particularly bad at timekeeping,
>>>> to the extent they often cancelled the Cambridge-Stansted leg to
>>>> recover. And for while that hop was permanently removed from the
>>>> timetable.
>>
>>>> I don't remember if it was done at exactly the same time, but the
>>>> route was then split at Birmingham, with the north-facing section
>>>> given to the local operator, and the south-east section rather more
>>>> bizarrely given to XC.
>>
>>> South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country
>>> services so that wasn't a bizarre decision.
>>
>> Given that the route handed to XC was the Birmingham-Stansted section of
>> Liverpool-Stansted, and XC previously didn't have a presence in that
>> geographic sector at all, it was bizarre. South Wales and Gloucster are
>> on the route at all.
>>
>> Meanwhile, XC had a presence through Burton on Trent to Derby and
>> Sheffield, so were already within 7 miles of Nottingham.
>>
>>> What was bizarre was diverting them to Nottingham.
>>
>> My memory is hazy of who previously operated the
>> Nottingham-Derby-Birmingham service; MML (as EMT would have been then)
>> perhaps?
>>
>
> Central Trains, I would guess; MML didn't originally operate anything
> non-InterCity (until they introduced 170s in addition to their HST
> services, IIRC).
>
>>>> That XC service is to this day a mixture of 2-car and 3-car 170's,
>>>> with former as you say having somewhat reduced accommodation (there's
>>>> two cabs, two toilets and a First Class cabin abstracting from the
>>>> Standard Class seating).
>>
>>> We've always had four car 170s on some Cardiff services. I've seen
>>> five and six as well on rare occasions. You may even hear an apology
>>> when a two unit service is reduced to a single unit.
>>
>> Four car 170's are especially inefficient because you have two sets of
>> "wasted" space, and no corridor connection. I think I've only ever seen
>> multi-unit 170's to Stansted twice in ten years, and I that's when one
>> half was probably rescuing another (locked out, you'd need a second
>> guard) one.
>>
>
> I'm not sure that XC require a second Train Manager in the 'other half' of
> their Class 170 services. Next time I chat to an XC TM I'll ask.
>
>

I don't think I've see a Train Manager in the front unit.

On 14/02/2022 16:37, Bevan Price wrote:
> On 14/02/2022 15:20, Bob wrote:
>> On 2022-02-14 14:36:14 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>
>>> In message <sudnj8$hn9$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:05:28 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 2022-02-14 13:38:12 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>
>
>>
>> The decision to split Liverpool-Brum-Stansted into two at Birmingham
>> and include neither as part of the successor-to-Central trains was
>> made because of the very poor performance on this specific route under
>> Central, the majority of whose routes were more of local stopping
>> trains rather than inter-regional or Regional Express type services.
>> If the decision is to remove it from the rest of formerly-Central
>> franchise, that doesn't leave a lot of options.  In terms of TOCs that
>> had any presence anywhere on the route, the options were WMCL, XC,
>> MML, ECML, GN or Anglia.  Every one of those options involves a route
>> being operated well away from the main territory of the TOC in
>> question.  The fact that the Cardiff-Nottingham services had been
>> operated with a shared pool of units with the Brum-Stansted means it
>> made sense to keep the two together, whoever those rotues went to.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>
> The problem was created by DfT, in that the all-diesel Birmingham /
> Stansted section should never have been linked to the long-electrified
> Liverpool / Birmingham route. Running dmus under the wires for almost
> 100 miles was an incredibly stupid idea -- but do we ever expect
> sensible railway ideas from Whitehall ?
>
> As the Liverpool / Birmingham trains provide some local services at each
> end of the route, there could have been two sensible solutions - First
> North Western (as it then was), which operated other local services
> around Liverpool - or Central, which operated Birmingham area services.
>
> Although partly OT, I do wonder if Cross Country ever really needed to
> exist, or could its services have been split between other operators,
> with some degree of joint operation.

Cross Country was a reasonable operation when BR ceased to exist which
provided useful, er, cross country services. There were still useful
oddball services including some summer Saturday services none of which
survived the disaster that was Operation Princess. Operation Princess
also saw the demise of other cross country services such as NE / SW.
The XC 170 routes do not replace any traditional cross country routes
except Cardiff / Gloucester to and from Birmingham with the new
requirement to change at Birmingham.

On 14/02/2022 17:00, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <sudv0b$975$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:11:55 on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <+bholfOEtlCiFAlx@perry.uk>, at 13:38:12 on Mon, 14 Feb 2022,
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country
>>>>> services so that wasn't a bizarre decision.
>>>>
>>>> Given that the route handed to XC was the Birmingham-Stansted section
>>>> of Liverpool-Stansted, and XC previously didn't have a presence in that
>>>> geographic sector at all, it was bizarre. South Wales and Gloucster are
>>>
>>> not
>>>
>>>> on the route at all.
>>
>> South Wales and Gloucester have always had (sporadic) XC services.
>>
>> Given that there was a desire to split the long-distance services from
>> the
>> local services within the Central Trains franchise (which at one time
>> served Aberystwyth, Pwllheli, Chester and Cardiff in the west), what
>> would
>> your preferred solution have been? To create an *additional* franchise to
>> put them into, rather than to combine them into an existing long-distance
>> franchise? Or to have what because EMT serving Cardiff?
>
> I have no dog in the fight for the Nottingham-Cardiff service, although
> I thought I'd made it clear that XC was probably the corrct ehome for it.
>
> The bizarre award was XC getting the Birmingham-Stansted service, into
> previously completely uncharted territory.
>
> Who would I have given it to instead, I hear you asking? Well it would
> be a toss-up between the East Midlands franchise holder and the Anglia
> region one.
The Birmingham to Cambridge and Norwich services were nominally under
the control of the Norwich Area Manager at one time.
>
> Given that stations en-route like Stamford and Oakham are operated by
> EMR (despite getting only one train a day at 5am/9pm doing route
> knowledge for diversions away from the Grantham route for the
> Liverpool-Norwich services), I think that means they are probably the
> leading contender.
>

On 14/02/2022 17:42, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <sue0fu$6ja$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:37:18 on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On 14/02/2022 15:20, Bob wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-14 14:36:14 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>
>>>> In message <sudnj8$hn9$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:05:28 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 2022-02-14 13:38:12 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14
>>>>>> Feb  2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>>
>>
>>>  The decision to split Liverpool-Brum-Stansted into two at Birmingham
>>> and  include neither as part of the successor-to-Central trains was
>>> made  because of the very poor performance on this specific route
>>> under  Central, the majority of whose routes were more of local
>>> stopping trains  rather than inter-regional or Regional Express type
>>> services. If the  decision is to remove it from the rest of
>>> formerly-Central franchise,  that doesn't leave a lot of options.  In
>>> terms of TOCs that had any  presence anywhere on the route, the
>>> options were WMCL, XC, MML, ECML, GN  or Anglia.  Every one of those
>>> options involves a route being operated  well away from the main
>>> territory of the TOC in question.  The fact that  the
>>> Cardiff-Nottingham services had been operated with a shared pool of
>>> units with the Brum-Stansted means it made sense to keep the two
>>> together, whoever those rotues went to.
>>
>> The problem was created by DfT, in that the all-diesel Birmingham /
>> Stansted section
>
> Actually, it's electric from Ely to Stansted.
>
>> should never have been linked to the long-electrified Liverpool /
>> Birmingham route.
>
> When was it linked in that way. I don't have either personal experience
> or sufficient old timetables to hand.  Although I do have a 1975 which
> has just Norwich-Ely-Pbo-Birmingham, and no through services from
> Cambridge to Nottingham (let alone beyond).
There was no through service to Nottingham in those days. There was
some Cambridge to Birmingham services. One was 0722 from Cambridge if I
remember correctly which was famous as its next turn was to Paddington.
>
>> Running dmus under the wires for almost 100 miles was an incredibly
>> stupid idea -- but do we ever expect sensible railway ideas from
>> Whitehall ?
>
> Worst examples? Maybe Hull trains.
>
>> As the Liverpool / Birmingham trains provide some local services at
>> each end of the route, there could have been two sensible solutions -
>> First North Western (as it then was), which operated other local
>> services around Liverpool - or Central, which operated Birmingham area
>> services.
>>
>> Although partly OT, I do wonder if Cross Country ever really needed to
>> exist, or could its services have been split between other operators,
>> with some degree of joint operation.
>
> One of the features of XC is it's parasitic upon other TOCs to run the
> stations it calls at. Almost a kind of v0.5 open access operator.

Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/02/2022 15:20, Bob wrote:
>>
>> The decision to split Liverpool-Brum-Stansted into two at Birmingham and
>> include neither as part of the successor-to-Central trains was made
>> because of the very poor performance on this specific route under
>> Central, the majority of whose routes were more of local stopping trains
>> rather than inter-regional or Regional Express type services. If the
>> decision is to remove it from the rest of formerly-Central franchise,
>> that doesn't leave a lot of options.  In terms of TOCs that had any
>> presence anywhere on the route, the options were WMCL, XC, MML, ECML, GN
>> or Anglia.  Every one of those options involves a route being operated
>> well away from the main territory of the TOC in question.  The fact that
>> the Cardiff-Nottingham services had been operated with a shared pool of
>> units with the Brum-Stansted means it made sense to keep the two
>> together, whoever those rotues went to.
>>
>
> The problem was created by DfT, in that the all-diesel Birmingham /
> Stansted section should never have been linked to the long-electrified
> Liverpool / Birmingham route. Running dmus under the wires for almost
> 100 miles was an incredibly stupid idea -- but do we ever expect
> sensible railway ideas from Whitehall ?
>

When did it become a through route? Only with the creation of Central
Trains, or was it also so under Regional Railways?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <sue8ql$r7o$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:59:33 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>On 14/02/2022 16:11, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>
>>>>>>>  170s replaced 158s on that route in (I think) the late '90s too,
>>>>>>> before  reverting to 158s. I preferred the 158s due to the end
>>>>>>> doors. Presumably  the 170s will be fitted with ETCS?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was never exclusively 100% Class 170s, and you sometimes got a
>>>>>> 170 + 158 combination. One problem was that 2 coach 170s had fewer
>>>>>> seats than 158s, so overcrowding could be a problem. Three coach
>>>>>> 170s were better, but there were insufficient to meet a desire for
>>>>>> every train to be 3 coaches.
>>>
>>>>> Back in the day, there were two routes:
>>>>> Liverpool-Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge-Stansted and
>>>>> Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Nottingham-Peterborough-Ely-Norwich.
>>>
>>>>> They used the same rolling stock and the same crews. To this day the
>>>>> timetable still has them at Ely at almost the same time, because the
>>>>> crews would swap from one to other (eg a Peterborough-Ely-Stansted
>>>>> crew would change at Ely onto Norwich-Ely-Peterborough train).
>>>
>>>>> The Liverpool-Stansted trains were particularly bad at timekeeping,
>>>>> to the extent they often cancelled the Cambridge-Stansted leg to
>>>>> recover. And for while that hop was permanently removed from the
>>>>> timetable.
>>>
>>>>> I don't remember if it was done at exactly the same time, but the
>>>>> route was then split at Birmingham, with the north-facing section
>>>>> given to the local operator, and the south-east section rather more
>>>>> bizarrely given to XC.
>>>
>>>> South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country
>>>> services so that wasn't a bizarre decision.
>>>
>>> Given that the route handed to XC was the Birmingham-Stansted section of
>>> Liverpool-Stansted, and XC previously didn't have a presence in that
>>> geographic sector at all, it was bizarre. South Wales and Gloucster are
>>> on the route at all.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, XC had a presence through Burton on Trent to Derby and
>>> Sheffield, so were already within 7 miles of Nottingham.
>>>
>>>> What was bizarre was diverting them to Nottingham.
>>>
>>> My memory is hazy of who previously operated the
>>> Nottingham-Derby-Birmingham service; MML (as EMT would have been then)
>>> perhaps?
>>>
>> Central Trains, I would guess; MML didn't originally operate
>>anything non-InterCity (until they introduced 170s in addition to
>>their HST services, IIRC).
>>
>>>>> That XC service is to this day a mixture of 2-car and 3-car 170's,
>>>>> with former as you say having somewhat reduced accommodation (there's
>>>>> two cabs, two toilets and a First Class cabin abstracting from the
>>>>> Standard Class seating).
>>>
>>>> We've always had four car 170s on some Cardiff services. I've seen
>>>> five and six as well on rare occasions. You may even hear an apology
>>>> when a two unit service is reduced to a single unit.
>>>
>>> Four car 170's are especially inefficient because you have two sets of
>>> "wasted" space, and no corridor connection. I think I've only ever seen
>>> multi-unit 170's to Stansted twice in ten years, and I that's when one
>>> half was probably rescuing another (locked out, you'd need a second
>>> guard) one.
>>>
>> I'm not sure that XC require a second Train Manager in the 'other
>>half' of their Class 170 services. Next time I chat to an XC TM I'll
>>ask.
>
>I don't think I've see a Train Manager in the front unit.

That's possible if the minimum safety requirement is a driver in the
front and a Train Manager in the rear. But the former can't check/sell
tickets, and I'm pretty sure I was told that the reason one of the
twin-unit rakes I saw was running with half of it locked out, was
because they only had one TM available. That would have been on the
Cambridge-Peterborough part of the route.

--
Roland Perry

On 15/02/2022 10:16, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <sue8ql$r7o$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:59:33 on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>> On 14/02/2022 16:11, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>>> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>   170s replaced 158s on that route in (I think) the late '90s too,
>>>>>>>> before  reverting to 158s. I preferred the 158s due to the end
>>>>>>>> doors.  Presumably  the 170s will be fitted with ETCS?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was never exclusively 100% Class 170s, and you sometimes got a
>>>>>>> 170  + 158 combination. One problem was that 2 coach 170s had fewer
>>>>>>> seats  than 158s, so overcrowding could be a problem. Three coach
>>>>>>> 170s were  better, but there were insufficient to meet a desire for
>>>>>>> every train  to be 3 coaches.
>>>>
>>>>>> Back in the day, there were two routes:
>>>>>> Liverpool-Birmingham-Leicester-Peterborough-Ely-Cambridge-Stansted
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Nottingham-Peterborough-Ely-Norwich.
>>>>
>>>>>> They used the same rolling stock and the same crews. To this day the
>>>>>> timetable still has them at Ely at almost the same time, because the
>>>>>> crews would swap from one to other (eg a Peterborough-Ely-Stansted
>>>>>> crew  would change at Ely onto Norwich-Ely-Peterborough train).
>>>>
>>>>>> The Liverpool-Stansted trains were particularly bad at timekeeping,
>>>>>> to  the extent they often cancelled the Cambridge-Stansted leg to
>>>>>> recover.  And for while that hop was permanently removed from the
>>>>>> timetable.
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't remember if it was done at exactly the same time, but the
>>>>>> route  was then split at Birmingham, with the north-facing section
>>>>>> given to the  local operator, and the south-east section rather more
>>>>>> bizarrely given  to XC.
>>>>
>>>>> South Wales and Gloucester have traditionally had cross country
>>>>> services so that wasn't a bizarre decision.
>>>>
>>>> Given that the route handed to XC was the Birmingham-Stansted
>>>> section of
>>>> Liverpool-Stansted, and XC previously didn't have a presence in that
>>>> geographic sector at all, it was bizarre. South Wales and Gloucster are
>>>> on the route at all.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, XC had a presence through Burton on Trent to Derby and
>>>> Sheffield, so were already within 7 miles of Nottingham.
>>>>
>>>>> What was bizarre was diverting them to Nottingham.
>>>>
>>>> My memory is hazy of who previously operated the
>>>> Nottingham-Derby-Birmingham service; MML (as EMT would have been then)
>>>> perhaps?
>>>>
>>>  Central Trains, I would guess; MML didn't originally operate
>>> anything  non-InterCity (until they introduced 170s in addition to
>>> their HST  services, IIRC).
>>>
>>>>>> That XC service is to this day a mixture of 2-car and 3-car 170's,
>>>>>> with  former as you say having somewhat reduced accommodation
>>>>>> (there's
>>>>>> two  cabs, two toilets and a First Class cabin abstracting from the
>>>>>> Standard  Class seating).
>>>>
>>>>> We've always had four car 170s on some Cardiff services.  I've seen
>>>>> five and six as well on rare occasions.  You may even hear an apology
>>>>> when a two unit service is reduced to a single unit.
>>>>
>>>> Four car 170's are especially inefficient because you have two sets of
>>>> "wasted" space, and no corridor connection. I think I've only ever seen
>>>> multi-unit 170's to Stansted twice in ten years, and I that's when one
>>>> half was probably rescuing another (locked out, you'd need a second
>>>> guard) one.
>>>>
>>>  I'm not sure that XC require a second Train Manager in the 'other
>>> half' of  their Class 170 services. Next time I chat to an XC TM I'll
>>> ask.
>>
>> I don't think I've see a Train Manager in the front unit.
>
> That's possible if the minimum safety requirement is a driver in the
> front and a Train Manager in the rear. But the former can't check/sell
> tickets, and I'm pretty sure I was told that the reason one of the
> twin-unit rakes I saw was running with half of it locked out, was
> because they only had one TM available. That would have been on the
> Cambridge-Peterborough part of the route.
>

It could also be for operational convenience.

In message <sue9ue$q5m$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:18:38 on Mon, 14 Feb
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>On 14/02/2022 17:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <sue0fu$6ja$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:37:18 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On 14/02/2022 15:20, Bob wrote:
>>>> On 2022-02-14 14:36:14 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <sudnj8$hn9$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:05:28 on Mon, 14
>>>>>Feb 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 2022-02-14 13:38:12 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14
>>>>>>>Feb  2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>  The decision to split Liverpool-Brum-Stansted into two at
>>>>Birmingham and  include neither as part of the successor-to-Central
>>>>trains was made  because of the very poor performance on this
>>>>specific route under  Central, the majority of whose routes were
>>>>more of local stopping trains  rather than inter-regional or
>>>>Regional Express type services. If the  decision is to remove it
>>>>from the rest of formerly-Central franchise,  that doesn't leave a
>>>>lot of options.  In terms of TOCs that had any  presence anywhere
>>>>on the route, the options were WMCL, XC, MML, ECML, GN  or Anglia. 
>>>>Every one of those options involves a route being operated  well
>>>>away from the main territory of the TOC in question.  The fact
>>>>that  the Cardiff-Nottingham services had been operated with a
>>>>shared pool of units with the Brum-Stansted means it made sense to
>>>>keep the two together, whoever those rotues went to.
>>>
>>> The problem was created by DfT, in that the all-diesel Birmingham /
>>>Stansted section

>> Actually, it's electric from Ely to Stansted.
>>
>>> should never have been linked to the long-electrified Liverpool /
>>>Birmingham route.

>> When was it linked in that way. I don't have either personal
>>experience or sufficient old timetables to hand.  Although I do have
>>a 1975 which has just Norwich-Ely-Pbo-Birmingham, and no through
>>services from Cambridge to Nottingham (let alone beyond).

>There was no through service to Nottingham in those days.

The best I can find is the daily Manchester-Harwich boat train, but not
sure if that stopped at Ely (to change to a local service to Cambridge).

>There was some Cambridge to Birmingham services. One was 0722 from
>Cambridge if I remember correctly which was famous as its next turn was
>to Paddington.

Perhaps it was also famous for being the only such Cambridge-Birmingham
service each day? At 07:10 in my 1975 timetable, three and a half hours
(like today, via Leicester).

Birmingham/Liverpool was 0.5tph through trains, and on alternate hours
change at Crewe.
--
Roland Perry

On 15/02/2022 13:53, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <sue9ue$q5m$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:18:38 on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>> On 14/02/2022 17:42, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <sue0fu$6ja$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:37:18 on Mon, 14 Feb
>>> 2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On 14/02/2022 15:20, Bob wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-14 14:36:14 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <sudnj8$hn9$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:05:28 on Mon, 14
>>>>>> Feb  2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-14 13:38:12 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <sud2qu$7j1$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:11:08 on Mon, 14
>>>>>>>> Feb  2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  The decision to split Liverpool-Brum-Stansted into two at
>>>>> Birmingham  and  include neither as part of the
>>>>> successor-to-Central trains was  made  because of the very poor
>>>>> performance on this specific route  under  Central, the majority of
>>>>> whose routes were more of local  stopping trains  rather than
>>>>> inter-regional or Regional Express type  services. If the  decision
>>>>> is to remove it from the rest of  formerly-Central franchise,  that
>>>>> doesn't leave a lot of options.  In  terms of TOCs that had any
>>>>> presence anywhere on the route, the  options were WMCL, XC, MML,
>>>>> ECML, GN  or Anglia. Every one of those  options involves a route
>>>>> being operated  well away from the main  territory of the TOC in
>>>>> question.  The fact that  the  Cardiff-Nottingham services had been
>>>>> operated with a shared pool of  units with the Brum-Stansted means
>>>>> it made sense to keep the two  together, whoever those rotues went to.
>>>>
>>>> The problem was created by DfT, in that the all-diesel Birmingham /
>>>> Stansted section
>
>>>  Actually, it's electric from Ely to Stansted.
>>>
>>>> should never have been linked to the long-electrified Liverpool /
>>>> Birmingham route.
>
>>>  When was it linked in that way. I don't have either personal
>>> experience  or sufficient old timetables to hand.  Although I do have
>>> a 1975 which  has just Norwich-Ely-Pbo-Birmingham, and no through
>>> services from  Cambridge to Nottingham (let alone beyond).

I'd forgotten about that one. Did it by any chance pass March without a
station stop?

>
>> There was no through service to Nottingham in those days.
>
> The best I can find is the daily Manchester-Harwich boat train, but not
> sure if that stopped at Ely (to change to a local service to Cambridge).
>
>> There was some Cambridge to Birmingham services.  One was 0722 from
>> Cambridge if I remember correctly which was famous as its next turn
>> was to Paddington.
>
> Perhaps it was also famous for being the only such Cambridge-Birmingham
> service each day? At 07:10 in my 1975 timetable, three and a half hours
> (like today, via Leicester).
>
> Birmingham/Liverpool was 0.5tph through trains, and on alternate hours
> change at Crewe.

In message <sugd82$i6b$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:27:14 on Tue, 15 Feb
2022, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:

>>>>I do have a 1975

[Invisible word alert: *Timetable*]

>>>>which  has just Norwich-Ely-Pbo-Birmingham, and no through services
>>>>from  Cambridge to Nottingham (let alone beyond).
>
>I'd forgotten about that one. Did it by any chance pass March without
>a station stop?

Looking at that timetable, the individual services left Norwich
[invisible words alert *for Birmingham*] at approx 8am, 10am, 1pm,
3.30pm and 6.30pm.

Stopping[1] at Ely for 11 mins (to run around the loco [invisible words
alert: *would have been a diesel by then, running around a kettle and
tender wouldn't work so well*]) and March.

That table also answers the Boat Train question from earlier, it stopped
at Ely (no need to reverse because it had come from Ipswich) and also at
March.

[1] Do I need to say it reversed at Ely *station*, rather than the
reception siding, where the aggregates trains reverse nowadays?
Perhaps not.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sue0fu$6ja$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:37:18 on Mon, 14 Feb
> 2022, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>
>> Running dmus under the wires for almost 100 miles was an incredibly
>> stupid idea -- but do we ever expect sensible railway ideas from
>> Whitehall ?
>
> Worst examples? Maybe Hull trains.
>

Always a shoestring operator, initially with whatever stock was available
as a follow-on to other orders, later with… whatever stock was available as
a follow-on to other orders, then some cast-offs nobody else wanted which
were foisted upon them, and finally… some stock which was available as a
follow-on to other orders, but in the meantime someone else had had bi-mode
trains approved for the UK.

I'm not sure how you would expect them to not operate long distance diesel
under the wires, as serving Hull is their USP; LHCS with a loco change
perhaps?

>>
>> Although partly OT, I do wonder if Cross Country ever really needed to
>> exist, or could its services have been split between other operators,
>> with some degree of joint operation.
>
> One of the features of XC is it's parasitic upon other TOCs to run the
> stations it calls at. Almost a kind of v0.5 open access operator.
>

It's the major operator at so few stations that a deliberate franchise
decision was made to not give XC any stations, so a couple of XC-only
stations ended up managed by TOCs which didn't serve them.

See also Gatwick Express, Caledonian Sleeper.

Anna Noyd-Dryver