XC HSts Wasted in the sidings

[corfield]

So, what can be done to improve XC profitability ?

Modify routes?, prune them?, extend/add to them?


Would it make sense to combine services, to give doubled up Voyagers in the "core" but joining/splitting to/from different locations ?


I see no issue with bringing in more HSTs, after all, Virgin were blocked from extending the voyagers and the growth has been huge so since the HST will remain mainline for some time yet (GW S.West services), and some XC services in fact overlap with those, then no big shakes ?
Certainly has to be better than ordering more DMUs. Although presumably the 180s would be quite suited for XC with their capacity, 125mph capability ?

But XC is a core Intercity franchise and to my mind shouldn't need subsidising in the way that I'd expect some of the more Regional stuff to require. We should therefore expect, and move towards, this being the case.

 

[455driver]

They are all ex Virgin but some were used by MML during operation Rio before going off lease again.

43301 (ex 101) was nothing more than a shell (complete with small tree) before the rebuild, I was quite surprised when I heard it was going to be rebuilt, I was even more surprised that it actually was!

Edit-
Cross Country has always lost money and got second hand trains, the few HSTs ordered fot were the first new trains for it in decades.

 

[ainsworth74]

And weren't they originally destined for the ECML in any case?

 

[leedslad82]

the current XC franchise is just too big i would get rid of certain sections of the route into other franchisees and keep a core XC service only

No XC north of edinburgh : additional scot rail services to replace dundee/aberdeen portion of route

No XC south of bristol- additional SWT rail services to replace the devon/cornwall portion

Manchester- birmingham section to merge into WCML services

Birmingham- stanstead merge into EMT franchise

Birmingham- nottingham merge into EMT franchise

any other suggestions?

 

[455driver]

So you want people to change trains a few times to complete what is currently a through service?
Thats going to be popular, not!

Where are the other operators going to get the trains from to run these extra (for them) services?

 

[leedslad82]

So you want people to change trains a few times to complete what is currently a through service?
Thats going to be popular, not!

Where are the other operators going to get the trains from to run these extra (for them) services?

thats the point though, how many people actual use it as a through service?

someone pointed out earlier if traveling from glasgow that its an hour quicker to go via the WCML and change at birmingham if heading south

 

[455driver]

I am sure a lot of people travel from the South West further than Bristol TM!

 

[tbtc]

There'll be a dozen (or so) Voyagers freed up once the Manchester - Bournemouth service goes over to EMUs, which should allow more services in the "core" to be doubled up in a few years time.

 

[Goatboy]

There'll be a dozen (or so) Voyagers freed up once the Manchester - Bournemouth service goes over to EMUs, which should allow more services in the "core" to be doubled up in a few years time.

Have they even tendered for these EMU's yet?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No XC south of bristol- additional SWT rail services to replace the devon/cornwall portion

Why on earth would SWT be interested in operating Bristol to Plymouth and Penzance services? And with what stock would they do this anyway? Bizarre suggestion.

 

[tbtc]

Have they even tendered for these EMU's yet?

Of course not - there's going to be a lot of TOCs needing EMUs over the next few years, we don't know how the franchise boundaries will look, we don't know a lot of things.

But there will be Voyagers freed up, which would allow other Voyagers to be doubled up in the "core" which means that we probably don't need some of the radical changes that some enthusiasts propose.

 

[Goatboy]

I suppose we should be grateful of the capacity issues the double voyagers would fix but then of course you get the fun of having two totally seperate units which you cannot pass between and of course neither can the train manager nor the catering.

 

[Manchester77]

Post electrification could we hopefully see places like Liverpool and Blackpool put back on the XC map?

Another question after all the electrification, will the possibility of running north - south west electric services come about or are the necessary lines unelectrified?

 

[JamesRowden]

Post electrification could we hopefully see places like Liverpool and Blackpool put back on the XC map?

Another question after all the electrification, will the possibility of running north - south west electric services come about or are the necessary lines unelectrified?

Reading the Network Rail Electrification Strategy RUS published in 2009 I noted that the highest ranked options that have not yet been announced were:

• Bristol - Birmingham - (Derby - Sheffield) - Doncaster/Leeds route
• Preston - Blackpool North
• Crewe - Chester

If these were all done by the end of CP6 (2024) then it could be conceivable to make Crosscountry a fully electric franchise with the infrequent extensions removed (e.g. Aberdeen/Penzance/Guildford), Birmingham-Stansted transferred to another franchise and Bristol-Plymouth also electrified. There would not be the demand across the Network for as many Voyagers as there are presently and the majority might get scrapped after a bit over 20 years of service.

 

[RobShipway]

the current XC franchise is just too big i would get rid of certain sections of the route into other franchisees and keep a core XC service only

No XC north of edinburgh : additional scot rail services to replace dundee/aberdeen portion of route

No XC south of bristol- additional SWT rail services to replace the devon/cornwall portion

Manchester- birmingham section to merge into WCML services

Birmingham- stanstead merge into EMT franchise

Birmingham- nottingham merge into EMT franchise

any other suggestions?

You have not commented on any of the parts of XC south of Bristol or Birmingham.

I agree that the following should be within EMT:

Birmingham- stanstead merge into EMT franchise

Birmingham- nottingham merge into EMT franchise

And yes Birmingham - Manchester should be part of WCML.

However, as has been mentioned before, services like Reading - Manchester should I believe be part of the GWML franchise being terminated at Birmingham New Street.

Services from Bournemouth, should start I believe at Weymouth and go through to Birmingham being run by South West Trains.

 

[TheWalrus]

So, what can be done to improve XC profitability?

Here's what I would do:

Have more splitting like you suggest, eg an 8car Voyager between Plymouth and Edinburgh, 4 cars coming from Penzance joining to another 4 at Plymouth then splitting at Edinburgh with just 4 continuing to Aberdeen.
Cut down the Plymouth-Penzance section from 4 to 2 services per day, one to/from Manchester the other to/from Aberdeen. Also cut down the Edinburgh-Aberdeen section to just one per day operating to Penzance.
Time the Penzance and Aberdeen services to leave at peak times from Plymouth and Edinburgh respectively to both make best use o the capacity of a Voyager at the time it is needed and in turn help fill up the seats.
Increase line speeds to make better use of infrastructure and speed up services, and electrify the entire core XC network in the long term.
Increase fares slightly at busier times and counter with good value advance fares to help fill seats at quieter times. This should help maximise revenue.

These are some of the things I would suggest to make the XC franchise more efficient and return it to profitability. Didn't it turn a profit for Virgin? Like I mentioned earlier, it makes little sense a franchise is making a loss when all we hear is customers complaining services are overcrowded.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I believe Guildford is done to retain diversionary route knowledge.
I would not suggest splitting up services like Manchester-Bournemouth as some suggest. These services are very busy so could be profitable to the operator, an retention of through services encourages passenger usage through more journey opportunities than if they were split up.

 

[tbtc]

Post electrification could we hopefully see places like Liverpool and Blackpool put back on the XC map?

There's potential to give these places a "Cross Country" service, even if not actually part of the XC franchise.

Similarly, we could see EMT (or their sucessor) running Sheffield/ Nottingham - Leicester - Bedford - Bletchley - Oxford - Reading - Southampton with EMUs in a few years time (again, nowt to do with XC itself)

 

[RobShipway]

Here's what I would do:

Have more splitting like you suggest, eg an 8car Voyager between Plymouth and Edinburgh, 4 cars coming from Penzance joining to another 4 at Plymouth then splitting at Edinburgh with just 4 continuing to Aberdeen.
Cut down the Plymouth-Penzance section from 4 to 2 services per day, one to/from Manchester the other to/from Aberdeen. Also cut down the Edinburgh-Aberdeen section to just one per day operating to Penzance.
Time the Penzance and Aberdeen services to leave at peak times from Plymouth and Edinburgh respectively to both make best use o the capacity of a Voyager at the time it is needed and in turn help fill up the seats.
Increase line speeds to make better use of infrastructure and speed up services, and electrify the entire core XC network in the long term.
Increase fares slightly at busier times and counter with good value advance fares to help fill seats at quieter times. This should help maximise revenue.

These are some of the things I would suggest to make the XC franchise more efficient and return it to profitability. Didn't it turn a profit for Virgin? Like I mentioned earlier, it makes little sense a franchise is making a loss when all we hear is customers complaining services are overcrowded.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I believe Guildford is done to retain diversionary route knowledge.
I would not suggest splitting up services like Manchester-Bournemouth as some suggest. These services are very busy so could be profitable to the operator, an retention of through services encourages passenger usage through more journey opportunities than if they were split up.

Times I have been on any XC services from Birmingham - Manchester there has been very few people on that have originated from Stations south of Birmingham. Likewise when travelling from Manchester, most people seem to get off at Birmingham, where a ne lot of people join as far as Reading. After that most trains are less than half full.

Given the choice and if there was slots I would have XC do the following routes:

Weymouth - Blackpool
Bournemouth - Holyhead
Weymouth - Skegness
Brighton - (Via Guildford) Glasgow
Weymouth - Cleethorpes
Holyhead - Cleethorpes
Skegness - Brighton
Blackpool - Edingburgh

I would also include the existing Penzance - Aberdeen service as well.

 

[43074]

If I were going to cut down XC I would do something like this:-

Give Glasgow Central and Aberdeen to Edinburgh to Scotrail, perhaps extending these to Newcastle at ideal times of day.

Currently, the Newcastle to Reading service runs 10 mins ahead of the Edinburgh to Plymouth service between Newcastle and York - so I would start the service in York to retain Doncaster's Cross Country links to Derby, Birmingham and the South. This has a bonus benefit of freeing up capacity on the ECML North of York.

Remove everything west of Plymouth and give this to First Great Western - to replace these a Cardiff - Bristol - Plymouth - Penzance service could operate using 158s (at key times of day - not in the current XC paths), to retain through services from Bristol to the Far South West (these would have good connections avaliable at Bristol from Birmingham). Yes I know there are no spare 158s but I would swap FGW 150/2s used on the Cornish Main Line for some 158s from Northern.

Withdraw from Guildford because it is a pretty useless service anyway, even more so with a half hourly connecting First Great Western service to Reading. This would save money because you would not be running an ECS every morning from Eastleigh to Guildford, nor would you be paying track access between Guildford and Reading.

I would withdraw from Stockport - Crewe - Stafford because, like Guildford, it is only a token 1tpd service and there are 3tph to Birmingham anyway off peak.

I would give Birmingham - Leicester & Stansted and Nottingham - Birmingham - Cardiff to EMT (or possibly Nottingham to Cardiff to London Midland?)


Doing all of this would free XC of 29 Turbostars and I estimate would free up 5 Voyagers to strengthen services on the core route.
This is fairly unlikely to happen, but any ideas on this??

 

[TheWalrus]

It would free up 29 170s but then how do you resource units to replace them for the other operators to operate those routes?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Given the choice and if there was slots I would have XC do the following routes:

Weymouth - Blackpool
Bournemouth - Holyhead
Weymouth - Skegness
Brighton - (Via Guildford) Glasgow
Weymouth - Cleethorpes
Holyhead - Cleethorpes
Skegness - Brighton
Blackpool - Edingburgh

I would also include the existing Penzance - Aberdeen service as well.

Can you expand on those services a bit please? I'm confused as to why you state that there's very little custom from, say, Manchester-Reading or Birmingham-Devon and Cornwall, yet then propose services direct between the Lincolnshire Coast and Dorset! I would also hope the above was in addition to the existing Bristol-Newcastle etc services? Also, wouldn't Blackpool-Edinburgh (which I presume you mean via the WCML and not the ECML!) be better in the hands of the ICWC franchise?

 

[43074]

It would free up 29 170s but then how do you resource units to replace them for the other operators to operate those routes?

Sorry, didn't make myself clear - I would cascade them to EMT to use on the routes they would get from XC.

 

[Anvil1984]

Yes I know there are no spare 158s but I would swap FGW 150/2s used on the Cornish Main Line for some 158s from Northern.

Why are people seemingly obsessed with taking 158s off Northern and replacing them with older stock, not the first time its been mentionned

 

[The Planner]

However, as has been mentioned before, services like Reading - Manchester should I believe be part of the GWML franchise being terminated at Birmingham New Street.

Services from Bournemouth, should start I believe at Weymouth and go through to Birmingham being run by South West Trains.

So you are replacing services provided by one operator from the south into two and suggesting that they terminate at New St. That means they hog platform space as they require longer to turnround than a through service. The same applies to trains you have shifted Mancheste to Brum to the WCML franchisee. In a word, no....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would withdraw from Stockport - Crewe - Stafford because, like Guildford, it is only a token 1tpd service and there are 3tph to Birmingham anyway off peak.

And where do XC go when they require diversionary knowledge?

 

[43074]

And where do XC go when they require diversionary knowledge?

Can't drivers be route directed by other TOCs drivers?

 

[NSEFAN]

Can't drivers be route directed by other TOCs drivers?

You make it sound so easy, as if the railway was a united industry!

Seriously though, it's not so easy at short notice. For example, the recent Reading diversions have been planned well in advance, but if the normal drivers don't sign the route then you have to terminate services short and put people on buses/other TOCs.

Perhaps some routes could be maintained for ECS moves only in this hypothetical scenatio? That's what happens with the Guildford services (the head down to Eastleigh via the Portsmouth direct line).

 

[Goatboy]

Times I have been on any XC services from Birmingham - Manchester there has been very few people on that have originated from Stations south of Birmingham. Likewise when travelling from Manchester, most people seem to get off at Birmingham, where a ne lot of people join as far as Reading. After that most trains are less than half full.

Whereas almost all my XC journeys are South of Birmingham and unless it's an obviously quiet time of the day Voyagers are never 'less than half full'. They are often standing room only when boarding a Southbound service at, say, Cheltenham Spa. It was so bad on one occasion that the train manager kindly upgraded me to First for free as it was physically impossible to board the coach where my reserved seat was!

Bristol is a particularly popular point for the train to get even busier, for example.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Like I mentioned earlier, it makes little sense a franchise is making a loss when all we hear is customers complaining services are overcrowded.

It does when the reason the trains are overcrowded is because they cannot carry very many people, not because the service is massively popular.

XC isn't super popular, it runs very small trains. Not many people into not much capacity = busy. Loads of people into loads of capacity = less busy despite being far more popular.

Would you call the local knitting club meeting 'packed out' if 6 people a week attend? No. But it would feel pretty busy if you held it in the back of a Mini Cooper.

XC are runnig the equivilent of a 3 car 158 on most of the services they operate. No wonder it feels busy!

 

[Kettledrum]

There's potential to give these places a "Cross Country" service, even if not actually part of the XC franchise.

Similarly, we could see EMT (or their sucessor) running Sheffield/ Nottingham - Leicester - Bedford - Bletchley - Oxford - Reading - Southampton with EMUs in a few years time (again, nowt to do with XC itself)

Why stop at Southampton? I'm hoping some of these trains will continue to Bournemouth. I'm also not clear whether it will be EMT successor, XC successor or Chiltern's successor - or none of the above.

And getting back on topic, as this route will be electrified, it will need new rolling stock and won't use the HSTs.

 

[Goatboy]

Why stop at Southampton? I'm hoping some of these trains will continue to Bournemouth.

Whilst I am usually arguing in favour of direct trains as they are much more appealing to passengers, at least Bournemouth has a very frequent service from Southampton anyway which XC barely scratches.

It's not like say Bristol to Exeter where XC pretty much is the majority of the service.

 

[corfield]

I think from observation, some parts of the XC system are quite popular, however, I'd agree that the popularity is perhaps more apparent than real due to the poor capacity of the Voyagers.

It seems one main argument is to use the HSTs more (and by extension, acquire additional HSTs and/or double up Voyagers).

However, unless there is suppressed demand, this will simply increase costs for no tangible extra revenue. Granted comfort will improve but losses and government subsidy will increase.


There are two key concepts to XC that I understand:

1) Providing through journeys in directions other than the main radial routes.

2) Providing an enhanced service level along sections of a common route also shared with other operators (e.g. Banbury-Birmingham, Birmingham-Manchester, Leeds/York-Edinburgh and beyond).

For (1), it would be interesting to see data on how many travellers are actually undertaking long distance through journeys (e.g. SW/S.Coast to NW/NE/Scotland) as to whether this is in fact, a market "worth serving". If not and if elements were cut (e.g. West of Bristol for instance), would the additional change would drive away a significant part of the market.

I know from where I live, that to go anywhere (that I've wanted to) other than destinations on the line I live on requires at least 2 changes. Even destinations on the same line actually often require a change due to stopping patterns. Thus it strikes me that unless travellers on the long distance services are really arriving/departing at the XC stop, they are almost certainly making additional changes anyway.

I know it would really annoy those using the longer services (and I'd be affected on occasion too), but how many of them are there, and do we actually need to subsidise this specific group of travellers over others ?

Looking at replies, anecdotally I'd have to agree that fairly major changes of passenger fill happen at New Street, implying many are terminating there or changing to another service anyway and similarly at Reading (less so though).

But really, I'd like to see data.

For (2), this could be met simply by increased services from the other operator(s).

 

[Goatboy]

For (1), it would be interesting to see data on how many travellers are actually undertaking long distance through journeys (e.g. SW/S.Coast to NW/NE/Scotland) as to whether this is in fact, a market "worth serving". If not and if elements were cut (e.g. West of Bristol for instance), would the additional change would drive away a significant part of the market.

XC offer pretty much the only service from Cornwall and Devon to Bristol and beyond. FGW have merely a token service between Bristol and Exeter made up of mostly local all-shacks stoppers via Weston Super Mare most of which only go as far as Taunton anyway and the very occasional Paddington HST service.

The service XC provides is absolutely vital for this corridor.