Chiltern v Cross Country why the difference

[Cherry_Picker]

The order of profitability (to Arriva) of their 3 franchises (from the latest accounts, March Modern Railways p29) is:
ATW £20.5m
XC -£30.0m
Chiltern -£57.1m

So at Arriva HQ, Chiltern's is not a model to replicate.
In DB's opaque annual report, XC and Chiltern have improved on this performance in 2012, but ATW is still the star - consistent profits.
It's also one reason why no-one wants to throw more money at XC rolling stock.

I don't really follow the finances, but how much of that loss for Chiltern was due to one off costs? Evergreen 3 and plug door fitting of Mk3 coaches (word around the campfire was £750k a coach) happened in the the last 18 months. I'm sure there will be repayments for Evergreen 3 for a while yet because that money didn't come from the government, but the big loss for Chiltern appears to be due to the large investments made in the company recently.

 

[Goatboy]

How many more HSTs or Voyagers are readily available?

There are spare XC HST's for much of the week which they choose not to operate.

 

[tbtc]

The order of profitability (to Arriva) of their 3 franchises (from the latest accounts, March Modern Railways p29) is:
ATW £20.5m
XC -£30.0m
Chiltern -£57.1m

So at Arriva HQ, Chiltern's is not a model to replicate.
In DB's opaque annual report, XC and Chiltern have improved on this performance in 2012, but ATW is still the star - consistent profits.
It's also one reason why no-one wants to throw more money at XC rolling stock.

ATW requires the biggest subsidy (per passenger mile), yet there's still room for a good profit - would hate to see the subsidies!

Get some more trains on XC (HST, Voyagers, Olympic Mk2 rakes, whatever) And the overcrowding will reduce, in turn allowing competitive advance fares. Solving 90% of the problems with the XC franchise.

It's a loss making franchise (with no incentive to improve capacity). Adding thousands of extra seats and hiring extra trains is only going to make that worse.

The question that nobody's answered for me is "why is such a busy franchise loss making" - how can anyone solve that?

I'm of the belief people on this forum approve of Chiltern because they run loco hauled services. This is then coupled with an anti-Virgin bias, which leads to people claiming it's the best thing since sliced bread

Sadly I think you are right

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Always easier to have good passenger opinions when the passengers have chosen to travel with you (see also WSMR's high passenger satisfaction rating etc) than those who have little alternative (i.e. XC).

I have a choice of two operators from Banbury to Birmingham: Chiltern and XC. I always choose Chiltern. I have a choice of two operators from Banbury to Oxford, XC and FGW, and I pretty much always choose FGW.

Why? Firstly, cycle provision: XC's is lamentable, and did, of course, get significantly worse when Arriva took over the franchise and refitted the Voyagers.

Secondly, fares: XC's blanket "no off-peak before 9.30" is insane and results in half-empty trains from 9.00, then crammed ones at 9.30. (Yes, I know that the restriction is in theory set by the company owning the flow and that it applies to all operators, but in practice FGW don't enforce XC's restrictions between Banbury and Oxford.)

Thirdly, wifi. Free working wifi on Chiltern vs paid-for broken wifi on XC.

And finally, a general impression of giving a stuff about the customers. Chiltern have brought in a whole bunch more trains (as have FGW, albeit not on Banbury and Oxford). XC refurbished some HSTs but, as Goatboy says, aren't actually using most of them - I think just two out of five (compare to FGW's four Adelante diagrams from a five-strong fleet).

There is one operator who I avoid even more than XC... and that's ATW. Too many Sunday afternoons in sardine-can conditions on the North & West.

 

[Goatboy]

I doubt peoples fond-ness for Chiltern has anything to do with loco hauled services (Though the additional comfort such a thing provides on longer journeys might be perhaps related) but more the fact that they offer a product people like - it's not fast, but it trades speed for value.

Whereas XC is pretty much the opposite. It's constrained by massive capacity issues which lead to comparatively high fares on unsuitable rolling stock and the nature of many of the services mean that it's not that fast either - it's often quicker to go via London.

You can imagine, therefore, why people might speak positively about what they experience on Chiltern but not XC.

You could write a book, well, perhaps a pamphlet, on the reasons behind the current state of XC, many of which are not Arriva's fault but instead a mixture of Virgin's delusions of grandeur and the DFT's failure to really do anything about it. But then we shouldn't offer Arriva too much sympathy as unless they've never heard of due diligence they knew all this before they took the franchise on. And they made a laudable start with the re-introduction of the HST's, which should never have been withdrawn in the first place.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't really follow the finances, but how much of that loss for Chiltern was due to one off costs? Evergreen 3 and plug door fitting of Mk3 coaches (word around the campfire was £750k a coach) happened in the the last 18 months. I'm sure there will be repayments for Evergreen 3 for a while yet because that money didn't come from the government, but the big loss for Chiltern appears to be due to the large investments made in the company recently.

The last three years (2009-11) for Chiltern were -4.3m, -16.4m and -57.1m.
The DB reports do mention high capital costs in 2011 which are now much reduced.
XC was -8.4m, -12.9m and then -30.0m, but capital costs are not mentioned (no obvious investment).

Arriva also make something from LO and Tyne & Wear Metro, which are also included in the Trains business although they are not franchises (nor is GC).
They are probably more like ATW with regular profits, but I don't know the details.

Arriva UK Trains made an overall small loss of £11m in 2011 with the following comments (click on the links and then click on UK Trains):
http://www1.deutschebahn.com/ecm2-db-en/ar_2011/gmp/units/passenger_transport/dbarriva.html
There were a number of different developments in the UK Trains line of business. In total, the year under review was satisfactory for our franchise in Wales, while the development of our CrossCountry franchise and of Chiltern Railways was weak. The expected improvements in earnings could not be achieved due, in particular, to a decline in the number of passengers. We reacted to this with additional cost-cutting measures and improved offers

In the first half of 2012 they posted a £30m profit.
http://www1.deutschebahn.com/ecm2-db-en/zb_2012/igmp/units/passenger/dbarriva.html

Edit - afterthought:
but the c£10m they blew in GW bid costs will make a big hole in that.

 

[sheff1]

I'm of the belief people on this forum approve of Chiltern because they run loco hauled services.

I couldn't care less.

What I do know is that if I am travelling to Banbury I will always take Chiltern from Birmingham rather than XC - far more comfortable stock (not loco hauled !) and free wi-fi.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I'm of the belief people on this forum approve of Chiltern because they run loco hauled services. This is then coupled with an anti-Virgin bias, which leads to people claiming it's the best thing since sliced bread.

In reality the majority of fast services will be 168s and their journey times longer than the headline figures Chiltern advertise.

Personally I'd rather pay the "premium" and have better frequency and journey times on the WC. I don't know if anyone will agree, but I'd say the loadings on VT services to Birmingham tell their own story.

Spot on! Turn up at Euston and you are guaranteed a fast and comfortable train. And Euston has much better connections.

 

[AlexS]

There exists a lot of rose tinted spectacles with Cross Country for some reason - maybe it's because the Voyager fleet are particularly nasty little trains. The loco hauled rakes and HSTs didn't storm majestically around the country as I recall, they had a propensity for sitting down in one part of it in a heap waiting for assistance to arrive at some point in the future, often without heating in winter or air con in summer (1998 was particularly bad I seem to recall?).

It's always been particularly prone to poor performance and the trains have been crap for decades - I include the Mk2 rakes etc in this as by the 1990s they'd had it.

I think it is missing a lot of the 'Virgin Sparkle' in the eyes of the public, perhaps - XC just isn't memorable. Coupled with the fact that 5.5 years after coming into being their main fleet of 220/1s are still Virgin units internally, just in much poorer condition than their West Coast sisters, doesn't create a particularly strong brand.

'The Shop' and 'Audio Entertainment', even though they were style without substance mostly are gone, and they kicked and screamed about paying out for WiFi.

There's nothing at all endearing about Cross Country Trains, there's no Dickie Pickle, there's no cutting edge, there's no new technology (playing up the tiny bit of tilt near Banbury which has been taken out of use now). The West Coast interworking and connections, and therefore direct journey opportunities, have gone, with the catering cut back to the core route as well. They just run very busy little trains over a very large network which if you're lucky you'll get an airline seat in, or if you're unlucky you'll be stood outside a smelly bog. The HSTs are fine for what they are but you still get the huffs of disgust that you have to hang out the window for a filthy door handle to get out of the things. If you end up on the local routes they run a ropey set of 170s in varying states of mechanical and cosmetic disrepair, which they get other people to maintain for them so are likely to be playing second fiddle in that regard as well.

The other side of the coin is Chiltern whereby they're effectively playing on the brand image of the GWR and have perhaps invested in too much substance to be immediately sustainable, with very flashy and comfortable, but probably inefficient trains, and infrastructure works that despite millions in investment, still don't hold a candle to the West Coast for timings. Popular in some areas, but their inner suburban service in London seems to leave much to be desired.

 

[RichmondCommu]

There exists a lot of rose tinted spectacles with Cross Country for some reason - maybe it's because the Voyager fleet are particularly nasty little trains. The loco hauled rakes and HSTs didn't storm majestically around the country as I recall, they had a propensity for sitting down in one part of it in a heap waiting for assistance to arrive at some point in the future, often without heating in winter or air con in summer (1998 was particularly bad I seem to recall?).

It's always been particularly prone to poor performance and the trains have been crap for decades - I include the Mk2 rakes etc in this as by the 1990s they'd had it.

Whilst the Voyagers certainly have capacity problems they are at least very reliable and much quicker than the trains that they replaced.

 

[jimm]

I have a choice of two operators from Banbury to Birmingham: Chiltern and XC. I always choose Chiltern. I have a choice of two operators from Banbury to Oxford, XC and FGW, and I pretty much always choose FGW.

Why? Firstly, cycle provision: XC's is lamentable, and did, of course, get significantly worse when Arriva took over the franchise and refitted the Voyagers.

Secondly, fares: XC's blanket "no off-peak before 9.30" is insane and results in half-empty trains from 9.00, then crammed ones at 9.30. (Yes, I know that the restriction is in theory set by the company owning the flow and that it applies to all operators, but in practice FGW don't enforce XC's restrictions between Banbury and Oxford.)

Thirdly, wifi. Free working wifi on Chiltern vs paid-for broken wifi on XC.

And finally, a general impression of giving a stuff about the customers. Chiltern have brought in a whole bunch more trains (as have FGW, albeit not on Banbury and Oxford). XC refurbished some HSTs but, as Goatboy says, aren't actually using most of them - I think just two out of five (compare to FGW's four Adelante diagrams from a five-strong fleet).

There is one operator who I avoid even more than XC... and that's ATW. Too many Sunday afternoons in sardine-can conditions on the North & West.

I'm not sure I'd describe FGW's erratic service, with gaps of two or three hours at times between Banbury and Oxford as an alternative to a half-hourly XC frequency. You're lucky if your travelling habits fit in with FGW's trains but most of the day, for most passengers doing that trip, there is no alternative to XC.

At the moment FGW are actually running four 180 diagrams with four sets - managing about 90 per cent coverage of diagrams each week - 180106 hasn't turned a wheel for about a month now - seems to be the runt of the litter. One trusts it is getting some serious remedial work.

 

[Morden Via CHX]

Brand reputation also tarnishes a franchise aswell, after all Arriva are not particularly well known for providing a good bus service and as it is well known that arriva own CrossCountry franchise.

There's still quite a few people that think Virgin run CrossCountry!!

 

[Requeststop]

I look at Cross Country like this.

Imagine you are standing on Platform 2 at Truro at 7 a.m. on a weekday, and you see about 75-100 people standing on the platform opposite, Platform 3, and the announcer calls out the arrival of the 06:28 (1S43) XC Penzance-Glasgow service and calls out all of the 30 stations from Truro to Glasgow and the 220/221 Voyager rumbles out of Highertown tunnel onto the platforn and you count 4 carriages to make the journey to Scotland which are already 2/3 full of passengers. Would you want to decide to make a journey from the South West to The West (Bristol) The Midlands, The North East or Scotland on such a train?

Again imagine you are standing at Montrose on a Saturday Morning and again the station announcer calles the arrival in 5 minutes of the 08:20 (1V80) XC Aberdeen - Penzance service and calls out all 44 stations to be called at from Montrose to Penzance and you think to yourself when you see the 220/221 Voyager trundle past Montrose North Signal Box, who would want to take a journey from North East Scotland even to North East England on a train on which there is limited space and next to no legroom?

Lets face it, all XC services are now a mix of local services and regional inter-city services cobbled together to show a service from one end of the country to the other, avoiding London. There are too many stops. The number of stops within Cornwall can be drastically cut, After Penzance, I'd suggest, Truro, St. Austell, Liskeard, Plymouth. Then, travelling up country. Exeter St Davids, Bristol TM, Bristol Parkway, Birmingham New Street, Derby, York, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, or if heading towards Aberdeen, Dundee and Aberdeen. Surely this routing would speed up journey times. If passengers need to connect to other stations now called at it wouldn't be too difficult to use connecting trains. I am always amazed that XC call at Chesterfield, Sheffield, then Wakefield and Leeds before heading to York. It seems to me that XC tries to be all things to all people, and bows to any winger who wants a service from their town/city to everywhere else on the network.

The other thing that is needed on XC services are more carriages and better traction.

 

[AlexS]

Sheffield is a major regional hub? You have to have the connectivity there or it won't work.

They do run faster services, just for whatever reason it's the shorter distance ones.

Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Leamington - Birmingham - Derby - Sheffield - Doncaster - York - Darlington - Durham - Newcastle for example. And yet the marathon trips pick up the more local shacks.

 

[Goatboy]

There exists a lot of rose tinted spectacles with Cross Country for some reason - maybe it's because the Voyager fleet are particularly nasty little trains. The loco hauled rakes and HSTs didn't storm majestically around the country as I recall, they had a propensity for sitting down in one part of it in a heap waiting for assistance to arrive at some point in the future, often without heating in winter or air con in summer (1998 was particularly bad I seem to recall?).

The Locos and Mk2's - absolutely. They made great photographs and a good noise but for the travelling public were, without a significant amount of money spending on a thorough refurbishment which was likely false economy, no longer fit for purpose.

The HST's? FGW, East Coast and now once again XC don't have constant problems with HST's. So you have to ask what was going on with the maintenance in the late 90's if the HST's were so troublesome for XC. Remember, it was pre-engine-replacement for a start.

I think it is missing a lot of the 'Virgin Sparkle' in the eyes of the public, perhaps - XC just isn't memorable. Coupled with the fact that 5.5 years after coming into being their main fleet of 220/1s are still Virgin units internally, just in much poorer condition than their West Coast sisters, doesn't create a particularly strong brand.

It's nothing to do with having a 'strong brand' - its about being able to get a comfortable seat on a train after having paid a reasonable fare. Virgin Trains have this absolutely nailed. Cross Country are so far off it's amusing to even think about it. Nobody bemoans the Pendo's and suggests it was genuinely better when it was all Mk3's and 87's because it wasn't. With XC though, its different. Too much focus on frequency - other than when they are pretending to be a regional operator frequency is less important than people think on long distance routes. I can travel to Edinburgh from the Westcountry every hour. Wow! How great is that? Am I going to turn up and go whenever without looking at a timetable? Of course not, I'm going to pick my train in advance and once I've picked it it makes no odds whether it runs every 5 minutes or every 2 hours!

The HSTs are fine for what they are but you still get the huffs of disgust that you have to hang out the window for a filthy door handle to get out of the things.

What you actually tend to get is a sigh of relief that they've not diagrammed 'one of the little trains'. I can't recall ever noticing a huff of disgust operating a door, certainly nothing like the huffs of disgust you get standing beside a toilet for 2 hours, anyway.

If you end up on the local routes they run a ropey set of 170s in varying states of mechanical and cosmetic disrepair, which they get other people to maintain for them so are likely to be playing second fiddle in that regard as well.

The other side of the coin is Chiltern whereby they're effectively playing on the brand image of the GWR and have perhaps invested in too much substance to be immediately sustainable, with very flashy and comfortable, but probably inefficient trains

XC's 170's and Chilterns 168's are fundamentally the same - infact XC's 170's are largely newer, are they not? So exactly whose fault is it that XC have tatty badly maintained and unreliable 170's and Chiltern have 'flashy and comfortable' 168's?

 

[martinsh]

Turn up at Euston and you are guaranteed a fast and comfortable train.

Pendolinos - Comforable ??!!:hock: You must be joking ! They are worse than Voyagers - and that's saying a lot.

Or perhaps you were referring to LM's 110mph class 350s ?

 

[island]

Brand reputation also tarnishes a franchise aswell, after all Arriva are not particularly well known for providing a good bus service and as it is well known that arriva own CrossCountry franchise.

No it isn't!

There's still quite a few people that think Virgin run CrossCountry!!

And I might be bold enough to say that this suits DB...

 

[Goatboy]

No it isn't!

Quite. There is absolutely zero Arriva branding anywhere on an XC train. I'd be surprised if more than 1% of customers knew who owned XC. Probably less than that, even.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I'm not sure I'd describe FGW's erratic service, with gaps of two or three hours at times between Banbury and Oxford as an alternative to a half-hourly XC frequency. You're lucky if your travelling habits fit in with FGW's trains but most of the day, for most passengers doing that trip, there is no alternative to XC.

Oh, indeed. One FGW train I regularly catch is just fortuitously timed, but otherwise, when I've got the bike with me, I plan my journeys around getting the FGW service. Turning up on time for a two-hourly FGW is vastly preferable to waiting at Banbury for 1hr+ because the bike spaces on the refitted Voyagers are full...

 

[Goatboy]

Oh, indeed. One FGW train I regularly catch is just fortuitously timed, but otherwise, when I've got the bike with me, I plan my journeys around getting the FGW service. Turning up on time for a two-hourly FGW is vastly preferable to waiting at Banbury for 1hr+ because the bike spaces on the refitted Voyagers are full...

Isn't there more bike space on a Voyager now than pre Arriva?

Personally given the amount of passenger space providing adequate bike storage takes up I cannot understand why people are allowed to carry them free of charge.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Isn't there more bike space on a Voyager now than pre Arriva?

No. The bike space has been moved into the centre of the train and reduced. Compare with a Virgin 221 if you like.

Personally given the amount of passenger space providing adequate bike storage takes up I cannot understand why people are allowed to carry them free of charge.

Good luck charging people for their suitcases too (mind you, I suppose Ryanair do...).

 

[island]

Oh, indeed. One FGW train I regularly catch is just fortuitously timed, but otherwise, when I've got the bike with me, I plan my journeys around getting the FGW service. Turning up on time for a two-hourly FGW is vastly preferable to waiting at Banbury for 1hr+ because the bike spaces on the refitted Voyagers are full...

Maybe it's an opportunity for them to introduce a GREAT WESTN ONLY fare!

 

[Goatboy]

Good luck charging people for their suitcases too (mind you, I suppose Ryanair do...).

Good idea if they are as long as your average bicycle!

 

[sheff1]

There are too many stops. The number of stops within Cornwall can be drastically cut, After Penzance, I'd suggest, Truro, St. Austell, Liskeard, Plymouth. Then, travelling up country. Exeter St Davids, Bristol TM, Bristol Parkway, Birmingham New Street, Derby, York, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, or if heading towards Aberdeen, Dundee and Aberdeen. Surely this routing would speed up journey times. If passengers need to connect to other stations now called at it wouldn't be too difficult to use connecting trains. I am always amazed that XC call at Chesterfield, Sheffield, then Wakefield and Leeds before heading to York.

There must be a reason why you think the trains should call at small towns and cities (and one Parkway) but omit the major cities and railway hubs of Sheffield and Leeds ?

 

[howittpie]

One of the main difference to me between Chiltern and XC is the customer service and staff. I have always found Chiltern staff to be fantastic but have had no end of problems with XC who seem unfriendly and only interested in catching people out with ticket issues even when it is not there fault.

 

[Goatboy]

There must be a reason why you think the trains should call at small towns and cities (and one Parkway) but omit the major cities and railway hubs of Sheffield and Leeds ?

Presumably because Leeds already has significant services whereas XC provide much of the service to some of the other places listed. I question the omission of Cheltenham Spa mind, given that most of the service to Bristol and all service to Birmingham is XC. There are no alternatives.

 

[brompton rail]

Presumably because Leeds already has significant services whereas XC provide much of the service to some of the other places listed. I question the omission of Cheltenham Spa mind, given that most of the service to Bristol and all service to Birmingham is XC. There are no alternatives.

Should a passenger wish to travel from Leeds to the East Midlands, Birmingham, Edinburgh etc which services should they use?

If XC services are too slow, why are they frequently well ( or over!) filled?

 

[ainsworth74]

Presumably because Leeds already has significant services

It does but if you axed the XC services then you'd reduce Leeds - Newcastle to hourly, Leeds - Scotland would be one train per day, Leeds - Birmingham and the South West would require a change and Leeds - Sheffield would lose it's express service. Those would be some pretty significant cut backs for the benefit of some smaller towns and cities.

Unfortunately there are no easy answers when it comes to cutting stations out of XC calling patterns. Get rid of the small stops and some stations lose their main service. Get rid of larger stops and you curtail the major flows. Introduce local stopping services and you need to find stock and paths (for services that probably will require significant subsidy).

 

[Goatboy]

If XC services are too slow, why are they frequently well ( or over!) filled?

It's not particularly difficult to fill a very small train, is it? After First Class, driving cabs and huge bike stores there is about 2.5 coaches of standard class accommodation on many XC services.

Always makes me chuckle when the Train Manager announces that the service is 'very busy today, so apologies for the lack of seating'. It is, of course, only busy because its so small. The last service out of Paddington to the Westcountry on a Wednesday evening is quiet - if you diagrammed it for a 153 it'd be standing room only, using XC logic you could then declare it a really busy train and up the fares to manage capacity

A totally wedged HST set on an XC service is rare. It's purely capacity constrained not hugely 'popular' (I'm not sure that's the right word) - many of the discretional travellers have already been priced into cars or for longer distances into other operators services via London anyway.

 

[Zoe]

The last service out of Paddington to the Westcountry on a Wednesday evening is quiet

Is the 2145 quiet even east of Bristol?