Following the XC 'Prior Information notice', what changes could be made to the XC franchise?

[CBlue]

On XC - why the persistent demands for more HSTs ? They're nearing their 50th birthday - half the time people complain about old, clapped out rolling stock - 313s which are the same age as the HSTs, Sprinters which are 10 years younger, then the next second there's a demand for more 50 year old trains.

Sadly the HST on here is some kind of "sacred cow" which cannot be slaughtered, much like Mk3 carriages and all the spurious wibble about "InterCity"

If GWRs are knackered after spending what is effectively a retirement trundling around Devon and Cornwall, then XC's must be even worse given they were still being thrashed across the country until recently.

We've had this before. 220s aren't a big capacity uplift on 170s and can't do Stansted. They could do Cardiff to Nottingham but aren't the ideal rolling stock for the route.

170s are fine for the regional routes like Birmingham-Stansted, disregarding the nonsense on here about door positions. Ideally more 3/4 car units and a heavy refurb for them as the interiors are getting very tired...think thier last refurb was back in 2007 or so?

 

[Snow1964]

Trouble is that on day one, running more services costs more money because the passenger growth doesn't happen overnight, so someone has to bankroll the additional capacity for a period until passenger numbers increase.

Not strictly true, the airlines do this, launch new routes and higher frequencies and fill them from day 1, so railways could.

But the railways have got sloppy at marketing, then there is failing to offer full range of tickets at least 12 weeks out (due to poor staffing and late changes). Not doing basics to increase volume of ticket sales by offering customer sufficient stability to plan longer trips.

However it does seem to be the case that some are misinterpreting a 10% cut as just a cut in costs, rather than net 10% cut in the cost. Thus excluding quick revenue growth if it exceeds costs.

 

[irish_rail]

If GWRs are knackered after spending what is effectively a retirement trundling around Devon and Cornwall, then XC's must be even worse given they were still being thrashed across the country until

Actually, the XC ones are doing what HSTs were built to do, reasonably long periods at speed, whereas the GWR ones stopping every 5 minutes are likely to be far more knackered out. And actually most passengers on XC would prefer a HST turning up compared with a 4 car voyager, why is that difficult to accept?

 

[JonathanH]

However it does seem to be the case that some are misinterpreting a 10% cut as just a cut in costs, rather than net 10% cut in the cost. Thus excluding quick revenue growth if it exceeds costs.

Yes, but a 10% cut in a nominal budget means that even if revenue increases, it needs to result in the same nominal costs.

I dont know the actual figures but let's say revenue support to CrossCountry is £200m and revenue £400m, so costs are £600m. If the business increases by 25% to £500m but support needs to increase by 10% to £220m because costs are 20% higher at £720m that would still appear to be unaffordable. In this example, the support would appear to need to remain at £200m or reduce.

Not strictly true, the airlines do this, launch new routes and higher frequencies and fill them from day 1, so railways could.

A gamble though for the DfT and Treasury who have no funding for it to go wrong.

 

[AL1]

The other factor is the time lag between costs being incurred e.g additional staff, and revenue earnings. This is where funding capacity or cash come into the equation.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

HSTs aren’t impossible to keep after GWR boot them out of Laira as there’s space at Heaton for them, but it would require refreshing staff at Heaton on HST maintenance, as well as a complete rewrite of the HST diagrams.

Sounds very expensive and hardly ticks the value for money option: Training staff on HSTs at Heaton, setting up a new supply chain for spares etc for such a small fleet with only 2 sets diagrammed each day!

 

[lammergeier]

Sorry, do these figures account for the fact that many more trains are now double units, so capacity has increased on those lines? If you double the train formation on the core while cutting at the fringes, but only gain 4% that's not very good?

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that some places have had services completely or nearly completely withdrawn. Capacity has not "increased on those lines," that is simply untrue. I would like to see your figures to back that up.

Some diagrams are double voyager but that is compensating for the fact that the service has been reduced by up to 50% (lack of Bristol/Manchester and Reading/Newcastles.) The connections at New St are poor for many services now which is undoubtedly putting people off. We are consistently showing an increase in passenger numbers at all times of the day with the exception of the morning peak, which is still slightly down.

Suggest you come for a ride on XC to see for yourself, don't forget to reserve a seat.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2022 ==

Sadly the HST on here is some kind of "sacred cow" which cannot be slaughtered, much like Mk3 carriages and all the spurious wibble about "InterCity"

If GWRs are knackered after spending what is effectively a retirement trundling around Devon and Cornwall, then XC's must be even worse given they were still being thrashed across the country until recently.



170s are fine for the regional routes like Birmingham-Stansted, disregarding the nonsense on here about door positions. Ideally more 3/4 car units and a heavy refurb for them as the interiors are getting very tired...think thier last refurb was back in 2007 or so?

Not so much that HST's are sacred cows, more like there is a concern they will be withdrawn without a suitable replacement. If like for like capacity was provided instead (ie better than a 1 for 1 Avanti 221 swap), I don't think many people would complain if they went.

 

[Iskra]

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that some places have had services completely or nearly completely withdrawn. Capacity has not "increased on those lines," that is simply untrue. I would like to see your figures to back that up.

Some diagrams are double voyager but that is compensating for the fact that the service has been reduced by up to 50% (lack of Bristol/Manchester and Reading/Newcastles.) The connections at New St are poor for many services now which is undoubtedly putting people off. We are consistently showing an increase in passenger numbers at all times of the day with the exception of the morning peak, which is still slightly down.

Suggest you come for a ride on XC to see for yourself, don't forget to reserve a seat.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2022 ==


Not so much that HST's are sacred cows, more like there is a concern they will be withdrawn without a suitable replacement. If like for like capacity was provided instead (ie better than a 1 for 1 Avanti 221 swap), I don't think many people would complain if they went.

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm asking a simple question about what the statistics I quoted show. No need for the defensive/sarcastic response. I'm not expressing any opinion, just seeking clarification on what the figures quoted really mean in order to deduce the reality of the situation, one way or the other.

 

[Starmill]

Not strictly true, the airlines do this, launch new routes and higher frequencies and fill them from day 1, so railways could.

But the railways have got sloppy at marketing, then there is failing to offer full range of tickets at least 12 weeks out (due to poor staffing and late changes). Not doing basics to increase volume of ticket sales by offering customer sufficient stability to plan longer trips.

However it does seem to be the case that some are misinterpreting a 10% cut as just a cut in costs, rather than net 10% cut in the cost. Thus excluding quick revenue growth if it exceeds costs.

The problem is that CrossCountry is government-run, and the airlines aren't. The airline can accept a reasonable degree of commercial risk in order to grow the railway. The Treasury will not permit anything that meaningfully exposes them to commercial risk, thus creating the current spiral of decline.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2022 ==

Is it even in Arriva's financial interest to come up with costed options that involve more trains?

It probably is because usually the management fee is in proportion with the long term cost base. Yet another reason for heavy focus on cost control and little or no focus on revenue growth.

 

[Nottingham59]

Given the surplus of electric traction we have just now, would it be feasible to run EMUs in the XC paths between Manchester and Birmingham, reversing at Bhm International if there weren't platforms at New Street?

This would release more Voyagers to strengthen the SW-NE route, and keep these expensive and thirsty trains to unelectrified lines.

Are there enough under-utilised 110mph EMUs? Or EMUs which can be re-geared to do this?

It also seems bonkers to use Voyager DMUs to provide connections between Glasgow, Motherwell, Edingburgh and York. LNER trains are lightly loaded north of Newcastle (I understand average loadings are under 30%), and the XC paths are flighted adjacent to LNER paths, so I don't see what purpose they serve.

 

[Starmill]

(*- I don’t know whether all of it literally “rusts”, given that different trains are made from different metals, but you get the metaphor)

It's certainly true to say that they would be corroding if they were out of service for long enough. Rust would only be for iron-containing components, but rust is still corrosion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Dec 2022 ==

With the DfT having a funding squeeze now, and the operator not having any direct interest / involvement in revenue, there is no facility to 'borrow" against a future expectation of growth.

This is a good way to put it - a private company the size of CrossCountry would be able to issue commercial paper to get around this, and borrow against future growth. Government-controlled companies cannot do this, they have their current budget and then that's it.

 

[JonathanH]

It also seems bonkers to use Voyager DMUs to provide connections between Glasgow, Motherwell, Edingburgh and York. LNER trains are lightly loaded north of Newcastle (I understand average loadings are under 30%), and the XC paths are flighted adjacent to LNER paths, so I don't see what purpose they serve.

The XC services literally serve the purpose of not requiring passengers from Birmingham, Sheffield and Leeds to have to change trains at York or Newcastle. (They also allow the intermediate stops to be spread across different services.) As you say, there are more trains over the York to Newcastle or Edinburgh route than (year-round) demand justifies. It is just that they come from different places south of York. (I appreciate there are times of year when there may be enough demand to justify the level of service but it is also fact that there are empty seats between Newcastle and Edinburgh on most trains.)

Given the surplus of electric traction we have just now, would it be feasible to run EMUs in the XC paths between Manchester and Birmingham, reversing at Bhm International if there weren't platforms at New Street?

It would need a timetable rewrite to make it work. There have been previous threads discussing the idea.

 

[Stephen42]

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm asking a simple question about what the statistics I quoted show. No need for the defensive/sarcastic response. I'm not expressing any opinion, just seeking clarification on what the figures quoted really mean in order to deduce the reality of the situation, one way or the other.

In terms of the numbers, on the Q3 2019 to 2022 comparison:

• Passenger journeys (measured by ticket sales) was 68% of 2019
• Passenger km (distanced travelled based on tickets bought) was 64%
• Passenger service km (distance for operated passenger schedules) was 64%
• Passenger vehicle km (distance operated by each vehicle aggregated) was 81% - note locomotives count as passenger vehicles for this figure

 

[Brubulus]

Given the surplus of electric traction we have just now, would it be feasible to run EMUs in the XC paths between Manchester and Birmingham, reversing at Bhm International if there weren't platforms at New Street?

This would release more Voyagers to strengthen the SW-NE route, and keep these expensive and thirsty trains to unelectrified lines.

Are there enough under-utilised 110mph EMUs? Or EMUs which can be re-geared to do this?

The 350/2s are coming off lease soon. While their interior is not as good as the 379s, the maintainance and staff situation would be better for those. They are also 110 mph already, unlike the 379s.

 

[Iskra]

In terms of the numbers, on the Q3 2019 to 2022 comparison:

• Passenger journeys (measured by ticket sales) was 68% of 2019
• Passenger km (distanced travelled based on tickets bought) was 64%
• Passenger service km (distance for operated passenger schedules) was 64%
• Passenger vehicle km (distance operated by each vehicle aggregated) was 81% - note locomotives count as passenger vehicles for this figure

Thank you

 

[lammergeier]

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm asking a simple question about what the statistics I quoted show. No need for the defensive/sarcastic response. I'm not expressing any opinion, just seeking clarification on what the figures quoted really mean in order to deduce the reality of the situation, one way or the other.

My apologies if I came across as sarcastic, that wasn't my intention. I was working a train only recently that left people behind again so it's frustrating to read comments on here about how passenger numbers are down etc without any acknowledgement of the severely reduced timetable and, yes, overall capacity.

Outside of the morning peak XC is absolutely rammed and I am genuinely fearful for what will happen in May, particularly if the HST's go without replacement.

 

[Starmill]

The XC services literally serve the purpose of not requiring passengers from Birmingham, Sheffield and Leeds to have to change trains at York or Newcastle. (They also allow the intermediate stops to be spread across different services.) As you say, there are more trains over the York to Newcastle or Edinburgh route than (year-round) demand justifies. It is just that they come from different places south of York. (I appreciate there are times of year when there may be enough demand to justify the level of service but it is also fact that there are empty seats between Newcastle and Edinburgh on most trains.)

Long-term it wouldn't even be that difficult to merge the Edinburgh, Newcastle and Leeds train crew depots with the LNER ones at the same locations respectively, to achieve a much neater balance, probably involving only a small handful of CrossCountry services north of York, with demand. But of course such things aren't realistically possible because even where they would be proven to save money long term they won't push the button.

 

[Iskra]

My apologies if I came across as sarcastic, that wasn't my intention. I was working a train only recently that left people behind again so it's frustrating to read comments on here about how passenger numbers are down etc without any acknowledgement of the severely reduced timetable and, yes, overall capacity.

Outside of the morning peak XC is absolutely rammed and I am genuinely fearful for what will happen in May, particularly if the HST's go without replacement.

No problem, I can absolutely understand (and even share) your frustration. What the figures probably also don't show is that XC trains are probably absorbing a large number of non-XC passengers currently in certain areas too, due to other operators trains not running as often as they theoretically should.

 

[lammergeier]

No problem, I can absolutely understand (and even share) your frustration. What the figures probably also don't show is that XC trains are probably absorbing a large number of non-XC passengers currently in certain areas too, due to other operators trains not running as often as they theoretically should.

Anecdotally this is certainly true north of Leeds where we are frequently picking up passengers for cancelled TPE services. I understand that blanket ticket acceptance has been withdrawn on certain days due to capacity constraints but that often doesn't filter through to station staff and TPE TM's. It's difficult though - if their train has been cancelled yet again then why shouldn't they be able to travel on the next available service? I can certainly understand passengers frustrations right now.

 

[Nottingham59]

The XC services literally serve the purpose of not requiring passengers from Birmingham, Sheffield and Leeds to have to change trains at York or Newcastle.

That's a really expensive luxury.

There's not enough road traffic between Newcastle and Edinburgh to even justify to have justified a dual carriageway to date. It's bonkers to duplicate train services over that route. Are there any statistics on how loaded XC trains are North of Newcastle?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The XC services literally serve the purpose of not requiring passengers from Birmingham, Sheffield and Leeds to have to change trains at York or Newcastle.

I think what would help with XC (and thus its rolling stock choice) is defining what it actually is for. It was for infrequent direct journeys for people not wanting to change at Birmingham or London (a bit like a rail-borne National Express as-was), but I'm not sure it is now - the increased frequency of service has turned it into something much more like TPE or the Liverpool-Norwich, of basically being a (very) long distance regional express with lots of overlapping short journeys.

Thus regarding stock I think I'd go with reforming Voyagers as suggested, into 7 or 8-car single sets, and where this would cause capacity problems overlay a local service on the top using cheap unwanted EMUs e.g. 350/2s changed to 2+2 seating or Voyagers where there are no wires. The proposed Birmingham Moor St-Oxford service is one such overlay though not likely to be operated by XC. Another would be a second Manchester to Birmingham with an EMU.

But in the land of the realistic, I think it may just be the Voyagers and 170s, possibly adding some of the Avanti ones. Assuming nobody else bids for them so they can be cheap, I'd still do the reforming to 7-8 car, scrapping end cars, because that would save money, allowing one guard and one steward to operate the whole thing, and just the guard and no catering at off peak times. I suspect the 222s are quite likely to go to Scotland, so they probably aren't relevant.

If we're having to accept lots of standing due to the money not being there for longer units overall, it may be worth considering changing to a more open interior (assuming the partitions aren't structural) and adding standbacks to allow more comfortable standing. Perhaps even consider following the 196 and removing the armrests - it doesn't impact comfort like you'd think (as the seats are still spaced) and does make it easier to walk down the narrow aisle without whacking things and to stand there.

Perhaps also consider reducing 1st to 2+2 and so reducing the size of it to add capacity. I'm no fan of 2+2 1st myself, but it would allow an increase in seats, and if done right may still sell.

 

[Starmill]

…And still people think that ROSCOs will bend over backwards to ensure they get at least some “peppercorn” leading fees (and that there’s going to be big explanations of operations)

I don't really think anyone is saying this though.

I think that the comments I've seen are just people saying that the bank has made a bad bet and they'll have to pay for it somehow, just the same as where they make very good bets and are then duly entitled to the large returns on their investments.

Whether the bank will succeed in leasing them out at cheaper rates than they'd like, or simply dispose of them and take the scrap money is a matter entirely for them - nobody is disputing that!

 

[Snow1964]

The problem is that CrossCountry is government-run, and the airlines aren't. The airline can accept a reasonable degree of commercial risk in order to grow the railway. The Treasury will not permit anything that meaningfully exposes them to commercial risk, thus creating the current spiral of decline.

So a direct award is basically stagnation or decline, as not allowed to try anything to grow.

Presumably get demotivated staff too.

 

[Starmill]

So a direct award is basically stagnation or decline, as not allowed to try anything to grow.

Presumably get demotivated staff too.

Unfortunately this is the problem with all types of gross cost contracting yes. There is very limited room for growth.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So a direct award is basically stagnation or decline, as not allowed to try anything to grow.

The whole railway is at the moment. I don't hold out any hope of that changing any time soon.

 

[Starmill]

The whole railway is at the moment. I don't hold out any hope of that changing any time soon.

Indeed - although the same economic conditions face Wales, and similar ones Northern Ireland, but because of the very different attitudes of their respective governments growth is much more likely.

 

[RobShipway]

I think what would help with XC (and thus its rolling stock choice) is defining what it actually is for. It was for infrequent direct journeys for people not wanting to change at Birmingham or London (a bit like a rail-borne National Express as-was), but I'm not sure it is now - the increased frequency of service has turned it into something much more like TPE or the Liverpool-Norwich, of basically being a (very) long distance regional express with lots of overlapping short journeys.

Thus regarding stock I think I'd go with reforming Voyagers as suggested, into 7 or 8-car single sets, and where this would cause capacity problems overlay a local service on the top using cheap unwanted EMUs e.g. 350/2s changed to 2+2 seating or Voyagers where there are no wires. The proposed Birmingham Moor St-Oxford service is one such overlay though not likely to be operated by XC. Another would be a second Manchester to Birmingham with an EMU.

But in the land of the realistic, I think it may just be the Voyagers and 170s, possibly adding some of the Avanti ones. Assuming nobody else bids for them so they can be cheap, I'd still do the reforming to 7-8 car, scrapping end cars, because that would save money, allowing one guard and one steward to operate the whole thing, and just the guard and no catering at off peak times. I suspect the 222s are quite likely to go to Scotland, so they probably aren't relevant.

If we're having to accept lots of standing due to the money not being there for longer units overall, it may be worth considering changing to a more open interior (assuming the partitions aren't structural) and adding standbacks to allow more comfortable standing. Perhaps even consider following the 196 and removing the armrests - it doesn't impact comfort like you'd think (as the seats are still spaced) and does make it easier to walk down the narrow aisle without whacking things and to stand there.

Perhaps also consider reducing 1st to 2+2 and so reducing the size of it to add capacity. I'm no fan of 2+2 1st myself, but it would allow an increase in seats, and if done right may still sell.

Whilst I agree 100% with what has been said above, I cannot see XC local service being done by class 350/2's. I think this would be better with being class 379's at the right price, as they are already 2+2 seating if I am correct even in 1st class? So would be the ideal trains to be using, ass you could convert some of that first class to standard.

The 350/2's personally if electrification ever gets to Oxford would be better on London Paddington - Oxford services, than using class 387 units. This could still be done even without electrification, if Porterbrook does convert the 350/2's to be Battery/electric trains. The 350/s's could also replace class 165/166, if third rail shoes could be justified to be added on Reading - Redhill/Gatwick services.

In an ideal world, the XC class 170 units would be replaced by similar class 755/756 flirt units with four coaches and the power unit. As many have said the Voyagers are not able to run to Stansted Airport, but the extra units From AWC could be made into 7 or 8 car single sets.

 

[A0]

Actually, the XC ones are doing what HSTs were built to do, reasonably long periods at speed, whereas the GWR ones stopping every 5 minutes are likely to be far more knackered out. And actually most passengers on XC would prefer a HST turning up compared with a 4 car voyager, why is that difficult to accept?

Bit in bold - your evidence for that statement is? i.e. beyond your personal opinion.

If there are 2 TPH of 4 car rather than 1 TPH of 7, some passengers may prefer the higher frequency service.

 

[A0]

Whilst I agree 100% with what has been said above, I cannot see XC local service being done by class 350/2's. I think this would be better with being class 379's at the right price, as they are already 2+2 seating if I am correct even in 1st class? So would be the ideal trains to be using, ass you could convert some of that first class to standard.

The 350/2's personally if electrification ever gets to Oxford would be better on London Paddington - Oxford services, than using class 387 units. This could still be done even without electrification, if Porterbrook does convert the 350/2's to be Battery/electric trains. The 350/s's could also replace class 165/166, if third rail shoes could be justified to be added on Reading - Redhill/Gatwick services.

In an ideal world, the XC class 170 units would be replaced by similar class 755/756 flirt units with four coaches and the power unit. As many have said the Voyagers are not able to run to Stansted Airport, but the extra units From AWC could be made into 7 or 8 car single sets.

Bit in bold - Eh? Why ? What practical improvement would the 350/2s be over 387s?

It would create a headache for GWR in terms of maintenance and crew training among other things.

 

[GoneSouth]

...think thier last refurb was back in 2007 or so

More recent than their voyagers then