XC HSts Wasted in the sidings

[HSTEd]

Out of interest, if the Government let the private sector get away with anything, how come XC is a loss making franchise for the TOC?

Surely, if the Government were that bad at things, XC would be a licence to print money?

I don't trust those supposed accounts that show them "losing" money.
Often cross subsidisation in large businesses is absurdly difficult to unpick.

Especially since I doubt the CrossCountry brand is owned by the TOC.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well I've got so fed up with the overcrowding that I've stopped using XC and I am using my car again. I can't be the only one who is making this choice, so XC are losing custom and not maximising income.

Yes, but total income is largely irrelevant.
What matters is the income related to expenses, if the expenses are increased by more than the income then the company is worse off.

Filling scarce network paths up at Birmingham New Street with trains that are too short is not in the public interest, and it's not in the long term financial interest of the Government. XC could be a profitable operator if it had longer trains that were all full.

But they would not be all full....

 

[Simon11]

What a lot of people are forgetting is that they are travelling on the more popular trains, with the a lot of xc services without a high number of passengers.

 

[swt_passenger]

As far as the franchise spec was concerned, XC have to provide X number of seats on specific parts of their network, at certain times of the day, and on certain days of the week. Presumably they are meeting whatever numbers are required by DfT with the current allocations of rolling stock to services?

If they weren't achieving that wouldn't DfT be asking why not?

 

[Kettledrum]

I don't trust those supposed accounts that show them "losing" money.
Often cross subsidisation in large businesses is absurdly difficult to unpick.

Especially since I doubt the CrossCountry brand is owned by the TOC.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Yes, but total income is largely irrelevant.
What matters is the income related to expenses, if the expenses are increased by more than the income then the company is worse off.

But they would not be all full....

The point about the supposed loss making is spot on.

The other points are also correct. Of course, it's about income related to expenses, and of course the trains would never all be full, because it's very unlikely the trains at the extremities of the network would be full, even in peak times.

However, these are really "Sir Humphrey" arguements that encourage the status quo. It's because DfT have poorly specified the XC contract, and because no-one challenges Arriva XC to sort out the overcrowding that there's no incentive for Arriva XC to seek to increase income.

Who knows how much more passengers and income could be achieved if XC had the incentive to use the stock more?

and who knows at what point the additional expenditure by running the HSTs would get recouped?

I doubt that Arriva XC even know, because there's no incentive or pressure for them to change.

The HSTs could even be used for additional services through the Bristol to Newcastle core in peak times, if taking them to the extremities of the routes was not viable.

 

[RobShipway]

So what of the future of XC, if the IEP trains come in would they still be making a loss with these?

I am sure that there is a use that the HST's could be used for when they are not in service so why not sub let them on those days if possible?

Not sure if FGW still run a few times a week through to Fishguard and if there is capacity, but if not that is possibly one use for them?

 

[ainsworth74]

I am sure that there is a use that the HST's could be used for when they are not in service so why not sub let them on those days if possible?

Not sure if FGW still run a few times a week through to Fishguard and if there is capacity, but if not that is possibly one use for them?

The HSTs are based at Craigentinny and Neville Hill and return to those depots every night so that rules out FGW immediately as they are at the wrong end of the country once they're finished with XC. So from those locations that leaves EMT and EC as operators who already sign HSTs. EMT have enough for all their operations and are short of stock on the local and inter-regional services not their intercity services. EC are not short of HSTs (if anything they're short of electric stock) but even if they were they wouldn't want XC HSTs as they're shorter (one/two coaches depending on if you were to stick the XC spare Mk3s into the formation) and also the catering facilities on board are significantly poorer than on EC HSTs (and first class provision is worse as well as being significantly smaller).

So I'd say subleasing to someone is going to be a non-starter.

 

[Simon11]

The point about the supposed loss making is spot on.

The other points are also correct. Of course, it's about income related to expenses, and of course the trains would never all be full, because it's very unlikely the trains at the extremities of the network would be full, even in peak times.

However, these are really "Sir Humphrey" arguements that encourage the status quo. It's because DfT have poorly specified the XC contract, and because no-one challenges Arriva XC to sort out the overcrowding that there's no incentive for Arriva XC to seek to increase income.

Who knows how much more passengers and income could be achieved if XC had the incentive to use the stock more?

and who knows at what point the additional expenditure by running the HSTs would get recouped?

I doubt that Arriva XC even know, because there's no incentive or pressure for them to change.

The HSTs could even be used for additional services through the Bristol to Newcastle core in peak times, if taking them to the extremities of the routes was not viable.

Arriva would have done the calculations, to work out whether the additional revenue from running the hst, would outway the cost. Arriva would be silly, to not take up a business adventure if there was money to be made!

What has the biggest impact is revenue support, which aims to reduce the costs but with little incentive to increase revenue.

With the e-voyager not happening this is due to the government not wishing to make investment in increasing the length of trains due to commercial reasons and the electrifcation projects.

 

[tbtc]

if you have 400 people on a 7 coach train, your income is a lot more than 250 people on a four coach train

Well, yes, but those extra seats cost money to provide - and we are only talking about three days midweek when the XC services are at their quietest.

Where do the extra 150 people come from? By selling lots of cheap advance tickets? There's the "danger" that some of the original 250 people purchase those tickets, so revenue goes down.

The HSTs are based at Craigentinny and Neville Hill and return to those depots every night so that rules out FGW immediately as they are at the wrong end of the country once they're finished with XC. So from those locations that leaves EMT and EC as operators who already sign HSTs. EMT have enough for all their operations and are short of stock on the local and inter-regional services not their intercity services. EC are not short of HSTs (if anything they're short of electric stock) but even if they were they wouldn't want XC HSTs as they're shorter (one/two coaches depending on if you were to stick the XC spare Mk3s into the formation) and also the catering facilities on board are significantly poorer than on EC HSTs (and first class provision is worse as well as being significantly smaller).

So I'd say subleasing to someone is going to be a non-starter.

The only subleasing I could think of would be for EMT/ EC HSTs to be borrowed by XC on Saturday/ Sunday. Obviously the "London" TOCs need HSTs for the weekday peaks, but fewer are needed at the weekend - could they lend one to XC on those days for a return trip from Edinburgh/ Leeds to Bristol/ Plymouth?

(obviously they'll still need maintenance carried out, so using them seven days a week may not be realistic!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Arriva would have done the calculations, to work out whether the additional revenue from running the hst, would outway the cost. Arriva would be silly, to not take up a business adventure if there was money to be made!

Precisely - if Arriva were turning down the chance to make extra profit then questions would be asked at HQ!

 

[FGW_Lad]

Can they not use the spare HSTs on the Bournemouth - Manchester routes now and then? Whenever I use these services they are always rammed solid, the Voyagers just don't suit the route.

 

[tbtc]

Can they not use the spare HSTs on the Bournemouth - Manchester routes now and then? Whenever I use these services they are always rammed solid, the Voyagers just don't suit the route.

The HSTs are based in Edinburgh and Leeds (so not much use for Manchester - Bournemouth) and they are only "spare' on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday - they probably need a day for maintenance each week too.

Manchester - Bournemouth should be EMUs later this decade, which should also mean more capacity

 

[JamesRowden]

Can they not use the spare HSTs on the Bournemouth - Manchester routes now and then? Whenever I use these services they are always rammed solid, the Voyagers just don't suit the route.

The HSTs are based in Edinburgh and Leeds (so not much use for Manchester - Bournemouth) and they are only "spare' on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday - they probably need a day for maintenance each week too.

Manchester - Bournemouth should be EMUs later this decade, which should also mean more capacity

The factor limiting the length of Crosscountry services to/from/via Reading to this point has been the fact that the four platforms that were long enough for HSTs or 8-car Voyagers were also the only through platforms (and services through to Paddington needed priority and so Crosscountry could not be guaranteed a long platform).

From next week this limitation will no longer exist, from what I have looked up, all Crosscountry services will use long through platforms. This will give Crosscountry the option to bring more HSTs into service and subsequently create longer Voyager formations if Crosscountry believe it to be more profitable.

 

[corfield]

"Simple, they extort it through the use of the press, they put out lots of press releases about how they would "love" to run extra services but can't because the nasty DfT "won't let them".

This puts pressure on the government to fund improvements that will never pay for themselves.

And no, the government still can't write a decent contract because they get pilloried by the right wing press if they hire decent lawyers who can compete with the high power lawyers held on retainer by these companies that do nothing but bid for contracts."


Sorry, none of that actually is extortion, or even remotely close to extortion. If you'd ever experienced or witnessed extortion you wouldn't be making an arse of yourself trying to claim it was. Pure meaningless hyperbole.

As for the rant about right wing press and lawyers, please, stop digging. Or at least follow Homer's advice and try to dig upwards.

In my observation, the Government gets it wrong because the people within Govt (public servants) are more interested in their own interests than the interests of the public or the government, and they tend to sideline and ignore advice they do not like or which does not fit with whatever is the dogma of the week, be it politically inspired or a departmental culture.


I have specified, implemented and overseen service contracts for public organisations using private contractors. I am not a lawyer or an accountant, but an engineer - and yet the result was highly satisfactory both in delivery and cost terms. Vastly expensive lawyers (i.e. clever people who know their business and who charge appropriately, perhaps even excessively) are not required unless to hide a basic incompetence.

 

[route:oxford]

From next week this limitation will no longer exist, from what I have looked up, all Crosscountry services will use long through platforms. This will give Crosscountry the option to bring more HSTs into service and subsequently create longer Voyager formations if Crosscountry believe it to be more profitable.

Post Electrification, I could see the sense in the Manchester-South Coast and Manchester-Scotland services being operated as a "shared" franchise.

50%:50% split between the West Coast franchise holder and the Greater Western Franchise holder.

Staff being seconded from the two companies.

 

[34D]

The HSTs are based in Edinburgh and Leeds (so not much use for Manchester - Bournemouth) and they are only "spare' on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday - they probably need a day for maintenance each week too.

Neville Hill - Manchester Piccadilly is about 40 miles (and could even run in service non stop Leeds to Piccadilly) so hardly unrealistic.

Presumably a voyager does the work of a HST on tue wed thu, so presumably on fri-mon a voyager service is doubled up?

 

[DarloRich]

so much for putting the customers first then!

The customer never comes first. The shareholders come first.

 

[tbtc]

Neville Hill - Manchester Piccadilly is about 40 miles (and could even run in service non stop Leeds to Piccadilly) so hardly unrealistic.

Presumably a voyager does the work of a HST on tue wed thu, so presumably on fri-mon a voyager service is doubled up?

It's not impossible, but is it worth the effort on the quietest day of the year?

And, yes, the HSTs allow Voyagers to be doubled up at the weekend

 

[Haydn1971]

I've often wondered if breaking the voyagers up into larger 7-10 car units running the busiest sections less frequently, then adding in some cheap to run units to fill the ends to Penzance and Inverness and boost the peak use into the major cities to fill inbetween the less frequent but longer voyagers would be sensible

 

[DarloRich]

I've often wondered if breaking the voyagers up would be sensible

I have changed it for you! I do tend to avoid XC if i can for anything other than the shortest journeys as i find the Voyager to be a trial.

 

[Goatboy]

How are they making a loss? Isn't it one of the busiest franchises?

No, it's not. It simply looks busy because the trains are so small that even an average number of people cram a Voyager.

Funny how a half empty FGW HST would be considered 'quiet' yet the same number of people on a Class 220 would be considered 'really busy'.

I travelled by XC on Friday and the service didn't feel busy - yet becuase it was an HST it actually contained more passengers than a 'packed' Voyager service that would generate 'Sorry but this service is very busy today' announcements from the train manager...

 

[corfield]

So if the XC network isn't profitable then what should be done to it to improve that ?

How can the route be pruned/expanded/changed to improve passenger numbers ?

Short term there doesn't seem a rolling stock solution until a) IEP arrives and HSTs are available (but that assumes XC can generate the numbers to justify an HST in lieu of Voyagers on more services), b) Electrification is more advanced and EMUs for South Coast to Manchester are acquired (has that actually been mentioned anywhere but on this forum?).

If a packed (but still clearly workable) Voyager = quiet HST, then assuming a Voyager is cheaper to run (iirc this is the case?), the profitability of XC isn't going to get better with greater HST usage is it unless there is a statistically important number of people who would suddenly travel on the same services they currently dont use (rather than the statistically insignificant number of enthusiasts who claim they personally don't). Which kind of makes all the "I love HSTs. I hate Voyagers" comments kind of irrelevant.

Assuming that if XC loses money it requires subsidy, then it must be in everyones interest to address that (except perhaps the TOC as the small returns they make even now might be preferable to the massive losses they might make depending how the risks of doing anything about it pan out).

I'm sure Virgin did want to extend them, and I assume XC would also, but between DfT/Bombardier, this clearly isn't going to happen.

Given there seem to be no shortage of Dft/TOC related schemes to lengthen trains all over the network, then I can't see that the meme of "well, we've got X00 travellers per train, it's more profitable for us for 80% of them to stand than pay for more coaches for the same number of tickets to then sit" is actually true.

So, what can be done with XC routes if, whilst busy in parts, they are "too" quiet in others ?

 

[Goatboy]

If a packed (but still clearly workable) Voyager = quiet HST, then assuming a Voyager is cheaper to run (iirc this is the case?), the profitability of XC isn't going to get better with greater HST usage is it unless there is a statistically important number of people who would suddenly travel on the same services they currently dont use (rather than the statistically insignificant number of enthusiasts who claim they personally don't). Which kind of makes all the "I love HSTs. I hate Voyagers" comments kind of irrelevant.

Anecdotal evidence tells me the 'General Public' prefer the HST's as well but I agree that simply adding more HST's alone probably won't do enough to make a noticeable difference at XC.

What perhaps it might allow is greater numbers of lower priced advance tickets to be offered - which probably would have the effect of bolstering passenger numbers especially when the word got out that no longer was XC an odds on chance of standing in a vestibule.

Whether it would be enough to make it profitable or not is anyones guess. Perhaps its an operation that requires more subsidy? After all, it provides a vital public service to various cities across the network.

 

[ash39]

I cant see any cascaded HST sets going to XC as they don't fully utilise their current ones hence this thread. Not to mention the peculiar irony of the train the voyagers were meant to replace re-replacing the voyagers!

Are the XC hsts ex-Virgin ones? Presumably they were stored for a while before being refurbished. I wasn't following the industry for a few years so not entirely sure of their history.

 

[455driver]

The power cars and all of the coaches are ex Virgin, some of the coaches are ex West Coast loco hauled mark 3As rather than original HST ones, you can tell these as they have 3 small vents on the roof above the doors rather than 1 big square one, FGW and East Coast have a few conversions as well.

 

[CC 72100]

The power cars and all of the coaches are ex Virgin, some of the coaches are ex West Coast loco hauled mark 3As rather than original HST ones, you can tell these as they have 3 small vents on the roof above the doors rather than 1 big square one, FGW and East Coast have a few conversions as well.

Yep, all with Virgin around the turn of the century, but some passed on to what was then Midland Mainline (378 + 366 in the former 1xx guises come to mind), although not 301 (ex-101), which if you type in on google, comes up with a rather forlorn image of it. No wonder it seems to have the lightest workload thse days!

 

[Goatboy]

I cant see any cascaded HST sets going to XC as they don't fully utilise their current ones hence this thread.

They don't use the current ones because the way the industry is structured is such that with the current franchise agreement addnig more trains to XC or using HST's more heavily, although being of great benefit to the travelling public, resoundly fails a cost benefit analysis - it simply introduces further cost to XC without offsetting it with further revenue.

Therefore increasing HST utilisation is therefore down to the DFT to write into the franchise, sadly. As annoyed as I get every time I use XC from a business perspective you cannot blame Arriva, IMHO. I guess its a case of don't hate the players, hate the game.

Not to mention the peculiar irony of the train the voyagers were meant to replace re-replacing the voyagers!

The Voyagers arguably should have replaced the 47's and Mk2's and supplemented the HST's rather than ever been intended to replace them. At the time of Operation Princess the majority of the XC HST fleet was perhaps 50% of the way through it's expected working life at the very most whereas the 47's and Mk2's were life expired. I do have to wonder how much of the decision was based on Virgin's wish to present the right 'image' rather than provide the best service. Not using flash new trains didn't fit the Virgin image however appropriate it might have been to retain the HST's.

 

[Zoe]

The Voyagers arguably should have replaced the 47's and Mk2's and supplemented the HST's rather than ever been intended to replace them.

As I've said before, if Virgin Cross Country had retained their HST fleet then the trains wouldn't have been available for FGW to use on the Kennet/Thames commuter services and these would still be stuck with overcrowded turbos or at best 180s.

 

[Goatboy]

As I've said before, if Virgin Cross Country had retained their HST fleet then the trains wouldn't have been available for FGW to use on the Kennet/Thames commuter services and these would still be stuck with overcrowded turbos or at best 180s.

I don't think it's possible to say this at all. Without the available HST transfer who is to say new stock wouldn't have been ordered for this route given such a clear need?

Perhaps stock thats more suited to high capacity sub 1 hour commuter runs than the HST's are.

 

[Zoe]

I don't think it's possible to say this at all. Without the available HST transfer who is to say new stock wouldn't have been ordered for this route given such a clear need?

Would a new DMU order have been justified though if it would only have gotten about 10 - 12 years of use on the route before electrification.

 

[Goatboy]

Would a new DMU order have been justified though if it would only have gotten about 10 - 12 years of use on the route before electrification.

Electrification wasn't on the cards 10 years ago, so probably, yes. Though all we can do is speculate.

However beneficial the HST's were to that line it doesn't change the fact it wasn't the best thing for the XC network.

 

[Martin_1981]

Yep, all with Virgin around the turn of the century, but some passed on to what was then Midland Mainline (378 + 366 in the former 1xx guises come to mind), although not 301 (ex-101), which if you type in on google, comes up with a rather forlorn image of it. No wonder it seems to have the lightest workload thse days!

I believe 43285, (43085) used to be MML rather than Virgin. 43207 (43007) was ex Virgin, but it spent a bit of time on the MML between 2003 and 2008 (remember seeing it at Leicester a few times), as were 43384 and 43304 I think. 303, 321 and 357 are all ex Virgin and, like 301, spent several years in store.