Cross Country Voyagers - rear set locked out of use?

[dk1]

This seems like a complete p**s take from XC, many other TOCs are running double, even triple units with no corridor connections between them. If they can, why can't XC?

These things are often governed by local union agreements.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I don’t think there’s any industry wide rules requiring a staff member in every set but as others have said previously on this subject it might’ve become TOC policy at some point as part of a local union agreement.

It's not in the rule book. It's a TOC decision, just like LM/WMT with the double 323s having to have the guard in the rear unit at all times whereas the 170/0 doubles the guard could be anywhere (and had to be for The Lakes)

 

[louis97]

How odd, both posts are from last year so it's hardly a "recent" change.

I don't think either post is relevant to the recent change. The recent change is that the RSMs (Retail Service Managers) no longer staff a set without a train manager on a double. One of the posts refers to caterers (RSMs) so definitely isn't relevant, and not sure the other post is relevant either as its regarding 1M00 which is a late evening train which might not have had catering on it - so if there was only one train manager there would be no one to staff the other set anyway.

 

[YorkshireBear]

It's pathetic frankly. The optics of it are horrendous and it should be a priority for being sorted as it's a quick win!

 

[amahy]

I'd like to see a situation with a double set, rear unit locked out due to "staffing shortages", full and standing. What would happen then? I could definitely see the police being called.

 

[Darandio]

I'd like to see a situation with a double set, rear unit locked out due to "staffing shortages", full and standing. What would happen then? I could definitely see the police being called.

What crime has been committed?

 

[Class 170101]

What crime has been committed?

Public disorder I would expect

 

[fodphil]

Message deleted

 

[JohnRegular]

In other threads it has been suggested that some of the end coaches be sent for scrap and the trains reformed into longer units, given that they make such poor use of space.

I understand that there are a few reasons that's unlikely to happen (leasing companies wanting to make the kost of their assets, depot configurations) but it would certainly fix this issue and has the potential to save some staff costs.

 

[JamesT]

These things are often governed by local union agreements.

Though if that’s the case, the question then becomes what happened that a practice that was accepted no longer is?

 

[dk1]

Though if that’s the case, the question then becomes what happened that a practice that was accepted no longer is?

That’s the million dollar question.

 

[Carlisle]

Though if that’s the case, the question then becomes what happened that a practice that was accepted no longer

Gossip a few years back suggested everything worked well most of the time but occasionally you’d hear a member of staff wasn’t keen on working the set without a TM.

You’d have thought individual support, retraining ,offering an enhanced pay rate or alternative role would’ve been preferable to scrapping the entire system of work for everyone.

 

[Peter0124]

Does feel like a slap in the face to be fair, turning up expecting a 9 car set only for the rear 5 coaches locked out and the front 4 overcrowded, with the fourth being the worst loaded.

 

[irish_rail]

That's not been the case since the timetable change. A different 220/221 comes off the shed at Bristol Temple Meads to form the Manchester. The 06:25 from Plymouth is now a single set throughout.

Seriously???!!! We travel on this one regularly from Plymouth to Bristol as part of a turn, and it's always full by Taunton , usually with standees. That's as a 9 car. What on earth will it be like now as a 5 car (at best, no doubt 4s will show up)....

 

[stadler]

This is utterly bonkers. We have some trains that run fully DOO (and some where two or three units without gangways run fully DOO) and yet Cross Country are demanding two guards when two trains are coupled. This is one of the most ridiculous policies i have heard.

It also seems ridiculous how there is so much variation in policy between different TOCs when dealing with units without gangways being coupled.

So we have some TOCs that allow one guard in formations of multiple trains without gangways and allow the guard to be in whatever portion they choose. Southern on their 171s is an example of this. They run daily 171+171 formation and the guard can choose to be in the front or rear unit and they also run daily 171+171+171 formations and the guard can choose to be in the front or middle or rear unit. So sometimes you can have two units without a staff member in them when both the driver and guard are in the front. But it works perfectly fine here.

Then you have some TOCs that have a more restrictive policy and require the guard to remain in the rear portion when two units without gangways are coupled. LNER and Northern are examples of this. So the train still runs with just one guard but they have to remain in the rear unit to ensure both have one staff member (the front has the driver and the rear has the guard) onboard.

And then we have the even more bonkers recent Cross Country policy on the 220 and 221 where you have to have two guards per train when two units are coupled.

This policy needs to be scrapped immediately. If other TOCs can do with just one guard then Cross Country can on their 220 and 221 too. It has worked safe elsewhere. All this policy does is have a negative impact on passengers as it results in the rear portion being locked out (and therefore overcrowding) whenever they are short of staff.

 

[Mainline421]

I'd like to see a situation with a double set, rear unit locked out due to "staffing shortages", full and standing. What would happen then? I could definitely see the police being called.

It happens often...

 

[Harpo]

How do passenger alarms work on 221/222? Can they be managed from the ‘other’ set?

 

[Travelmonkey]

As a wheelchair user it does beg the question if station staff put me on the rear set and its locked out of use then its a faff to get me too a space in the useable unit.

I know XC capacity for wheelchair users is strained at times especially if you are chancing TUAG, and that's before you factor in luggage and people in the way.

Thankfully I haven't had a situation where I've been turfed out of a soon to be locked unit. I did see one the other day 4+5 with rear 5 locked out of use.

I lamented "rear train out of use that's just cruel" a staff member in earshot "that's just CrossCountry for you" even the station staff are growing tired of XC.

 

[43066]

This is utterly bonkers. We have some trains that run fully DOO (and some where two or three units without gangways run fully DOO) and yet Cross Country are demanding two guards when two trains are coupled. This is one of the most ridiculous policies i have heard.

It also seems ridiculous how there is so much variation in policy between different TOCs when dealing with units without gangways being coupled.

So we have some TOCs that allow one guard in formations of multiple trains without gangways and allow the guard to be in whatever portion they choose. Southern on their 171s is an example of this. They run daily 171+171 formation and the guard can choose to be in the front or rear unit and they also run daily 171+171+171 formations and the guard can choose to be in the front or middle or rear unit. So sometimes you can have two units without a staff member in them when both the driver and guard are in the front. But it works perfectly fine here.

Then you have some TOCs that have a more restrictive policy and require the guard to remain in the rear portion when two units without gangways are coupled. LNER and Northern are examples of this. So the train still runs with just one guard but they have to remain in the rear unit to ensure both have one staff member (the front has the driver and the rear has the guard) onboard.

And then we have the even more bonkers recent Cross Country policy on the 220 and 221 where you have to have two guards per train when two units are coupled.

This policy needs to be scrapped immediately. If other TOCs can do with just one guard then Cross Country can on their 220 and 221 too. It has worked safe elsewhere. All this policy does is have a negative impact on passengers as it results in the rear portion being locked out (and therefore overcrowding) whenever they are short of staff.

The issue isn’t so much the policy (there are sound reasons for having staff in each unit) as the failure to maintain sufficient staffing numbers or roster them appropriately. The fact some TOCs run fully DOO certainly isn’t something to aspire to as far as the RMT is concerned!

 

[Parallel]

I’ve been on a full and standing XC Voyager with the rear unit locked out of use. The train manager was telling people to either board the front half and stand, or don’t travel at all. To be fair, it was when there were problems with the Severn Tunnel so passengers were being routed to Cheltenham Spa for connections to/from Wales there.

 

[GoneSouth]

Especially so when announcements are made that the train about to arrive is formed of 8/9 coaches, when the rear set has been locked out since at least the previous stop.

Leeds are masters at this tactic which causes delays in departure waiting for those who have spread along the platform to make their way down (many only after much shouting and a good number all trying to get in through the rear door of the front unit)

As far as I am aware Leeds don’t have any XC staff on the platform so you can hardly blame the Leeds staff for the shambolic running of XC.

I’ve also had a single empty unit fly past me on a platform because XC couldn’t even find staff, other than the driver, to run single units. At that point it just looks like a big toy to passengers. Imagine, here’s your train but we’re not letting anybody board it, it’s going to sail past empty just to let you look at what you could have had, oh and by the way, there’s nothing wrong with the train itself, we just thought we’d pick up the staff an hour down the track in Bristol instead! Oh and another thing, the next 4 coach train in an hour is probably going to be crushed and you might not be able to get on it!

What a mess.

Having said all that I’m still pretty uncomfortable about trains bombing around without a competent member of staff onboard half the train, but potentially carrying hundreds of passengers. From my understanding this is the case at some TOCs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2025 ==

As a wheelchair user it does beg the question if station staff put me on the rear set and its locked out of use then its a faff to get me too a space in the useable unit. I know XC capacity for wheelchair users is strained at times especially if you are chancing TUAG, and that's before you factor in luggage and people in the way. Thankfully I haven't had a situation where I've been turfed out of a soon to be locked unit. I did see one the other day 4+5 with rear 5 locked out of use. I lamented "rear train out of use that's just cruel" a staff member in earshot "that's just CrossCountry for you" even the station staff are growing tired of XC.

XC staff are also growing tired of XC! I was on a train recently where manager was desperately pleading with customers to write to company managers to complain about overcrowding. The gist was that we (the staff) have been complaining to them for years and explaining the problems, but they just don’t do anything about it so please help us out by complaining with us. Quite a brave stance to openly criticise your employer in public I though so I helped out!

 

[ValentaFan1974]

Gossip a few years back suggested everything worked well most of the time but occasionally you’d hear a member of staff wasn’t keen on working the set without a TM.

You’d have thought individual support, retraining ,offering an enhanced pay rate or alternative role would’ve been preferable to scrapping the entire system of work for everyone.

There was an agreement made with the union and XC about a year ago for RSM’s to be in the front set as a “competent person” for which a premium would be paid for that whole shift (even if you were only covering for a few hours), however the agreement clearly stated on numerous occasions that “lone working” for RSM’s would end on 31st March this year. We were expecting it to get extended but alas no. I was always happy to do it when offered (and my wallet was equally happy!) - one of the reasons why there is industrial action starting tomorrow….

 

[GoneSouth]

There was an agreement made with the union and XC about a year ago for RSM’s to be in the front set as a “competent person” for which a premium would be paid for that whole shift (even if you were only covering for a few hours), however the agreement clearly stated on numerous occasions that “lone working” for RSM’s would end on 31st March this year. We were expecting it to get extended but alas no. I was always happy to do it when offered (and my wallet was equally happy!) - one of the reasons why there is industrial action starting tomorrow….

This just gets more and more frustrating for passengers. The increase in stock to double up when there’s no agreement with the unions on how they could or should be staffed makes the whole exercise ridiculous. I’m so angry as I don’t have a choice of TOC other than this shower of ****

Shame on the management and possibly DfT for allowing this to happen!

 

[Snow1964]

These things are often governed by local union agreements.

But you do wonder what bright spark arranges an agreement that says rear units of trains timetabled and requiring (due to being busy) 8 or 9 car trains can be locked out. Someone thought up and this idea, then both sides (union and XC) approved it, otherwise it would never have been signed off.

I remember travelling in 10car EPB formations, with 3-5 units including some semi-open and some non gangwayed compartment vehicles in 1980s, just driver and guard, no train managers, and no one ever locked out units. Staff have gone soft.

 

[Navajo8686]

Another example of the fact that there is the Right Way, the Wrong Way and the Rail Way!

 

[sheff1]

As far as I am aware Leeds don’t have any XC staff on the platform so you can hardly blame the Leeds staff for the shambolic running of XC.

This issue I was talking about is trains on which the rear set is locked out being announced as having 8/9 coaches multiple times prior to arrival at Leeds. Whoever is responsible for the announcements at Leeds* should (i) be told when a train is only partially available to customers; and then (ii) make appropriate announcements advising people which section of the platform they should wait on.

Running an overcrowded train with half or more of the accommodation locked out of use is bad enough, making misleading (at best) announcements prior to the train's arrival in the platform only compounds matters.

* and any other stations affected

 

[Carlisle]

There was an agreement made with the union and XC about a year ago for RSM’s to be in the front set as a “competent person” for which a premium would be paid for that whole shift

Thanks for the information.

 

[Mainline421]

Another example of the fact that there is the Right Way, the Wrong Way and the Rail Way!

I think this is just an example of the wrong way

 

[Spartacus]

There was an agreement made with the union and XC about a year ago for RSM’s to be in the front set as a “competent person” for which a premium would be paid for that whole shift (even if you were only covering for a few hours), however the agreement clearly stated on numerous occasions that “lone working” for RSM’s would end on 31st March this year. We were expecting it to get extended but alas no. I was always happy to do it when offered (and my wallet was equally happy!) - one of the reasons why there is industrial action starting tomorrow….

It seems strange that in this situation the driver wouldn't be considered the second "competent person" given they're considered the sole competent person with operators where the RSM isn't considered one at all, it's just one member of staff per unit. I'm not even going to go down the unstaffed unit debate as I don't think it's relevant given there'd still be the driver in the front and the guard in the back in XC's case.

 

[dk1]

But you do wonder what bright spark arranges an agreement that says rear units of trains timetabled and requiring (due to being busy) 8 or 9 car trains can be locked out. Someone thought up and this idea, then both sides (union and XC) approved it, otherwise it would never have been signed off.

I remember travelling in 10car EPB formations, with 3-5 units including some semi-open and some non gangwayed compartment vehicles in 1980s, just driver and guard, no train managers, and no one ever locked out units. Staff have gone soft.

Im with you on that but once these agreements are made they are very very difficult to reverse. It’s like voluntary Sundays. Why on earth did that ever get through with some operators after privatisation? It was always going to be a recipe for disaster and something that us traincrew could always hold management over a barrell with.