Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think there are any EMUs available. The last thing I could think of would be Mk4s once LNER are done with them, but they are old and increasingly unreliable.

 

[Snow1964]

I don't think there are any EMUs available. The last thing I could think of would be Mk4s once LNER are done with them, but they are old and increasingly unreliable.

Strictly there are some dual voltage EMUs working on dc only lines, and the 458s are available for dc routes

 

[Dr Day]

Yes, to a point, in that there's lots employers who have drivers on roads.

On the point raised by someone, per vehicle milage the railway is worse than roads, however if a car crashes chances are is only around 1.5 people per car (average), although what's worth noting is that the majority of railway deaths are linked to trespassers and so for a user or driver (or other staff) the risk is very much reduced.



A new depot would almost certainly be needed, however, if we assume £200 million a year in TOC costs (about 333 coaches) a one of cost of (say) £75 million (even a 20 year design life would mean a cost of £0.25 million per year) would be fairly limited in the grand scheme

True, but that is still £75m needed up front which would need to be transferred away from another capital project to be spent now, or borrowed in some form and the interest added to the operating costs.

 

[Tetragon213]

Given that more capacity is needed now, what can be done which is better than just the 6 Voyagers?
222s are out of the frame, being a) incompatible for strengthening the XC services, b) different and thus bringing the need for traction training and c) going to Scotland anyway.
To take Voyagers away from Manchester for the XC core we would need something else which is not too strange and ideally is electric. With the 350s now taken too is there another EMU that could fill in until a new build comes - in a decade or so?

If we have to wait for stock cascaded after the introduction of a new fleet it is going to be a lot more than a decade - if XC is third in line then it is 3 sets of crew-training to do after the new stock gets to its owner before any relief arrives for a start!

The 6 Voyagers are a start, certainly. In the short term, I don't think you can do much better. Longer term, though, they need a heck of a lot more coaches than what they already have.
Any idea what other stock may be available in the short term? Off the top of my head I think we have the 180s and a few leftover HST power cars?

I don't think there are any EMUs available. The last thing I could think of would be Mk4s once LNER are done with them, but they are old and increasingly unreliable.

Not to mention that, as alluded to much earlier on in the thread after my initial ideas of 67/Mk4s, there aren't many Mk4s left since a lot of them are now razor blades or girders.

 

[Russel]

The 6 Voyagers are a start, certainly. In the short term, I don't think you can do much better. Longer term, though, they need a heck of a lot more coaches than what they already have.
Any idea what other stock may be available in the short term? Off the top of my head I think we have the 180s and a few leftover HST power cars?

Not to mention that, as alluded to much earlier on in the thread after my initial ideas of 67/Mk4s, there aren't many Mk4s left since a lot of them are now razor blades or girders.

Regarding 180s, I think Crosscountrys passengers have suffered enough already!

 

[Mike Machin]

Cross-Country isn’t in reality needn’t be the cash-strapped, no hope business case that the DfT currently operates. Complete privatisation would be my answer. The business model could include further additions through open access and if First Group were to acquire the business, Lumo and Hull Trains could be integrated into the network.

With commercial freedom, a fully independent Cross-Country would have the financial incentive to improve the customer experience, try new marketing and ticketing initiatives and raise capital on the open market to acquire any suitable present-day rolling stock and instigate a programme of fleet development and replacement.

It could become a very substantial business and could sub-franchise some of its operations to other companies under the Cross-Country brand in a similar way to the National Express coach network.

With any luck, it could be so successful that it would be able to take over the majority of long-distance passenger rail services so that there would be little or no need for state involvement in long distance train travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cross-Country isn’t in reality needn’t be the cash-strapped, no hope business case that the DfT currently operates. Complete privatisation would be my answer. The business model could include further additions through open access and if First Group were to acquire the business, Lumo and Hull Trains could be integrated into the network.

With commercial freedom, a fully independent Cross-Country would have the financial incentive to improve the customer experience, try new marketing and ticketing initiatives and raise capital on the open market to acquire any suitable present-day rolling stock and instigate a programme of fleet development and replacement.

It could become a very substantial business and could sub-franchise some of its operations to other companies under the Cross-Country brand in a similar way to the National Express coach network.

With any luck, it could be so successful that it would be able to take over the majority of long-distance passenger rail services so that there would be little or no need for state involvement in long distance train travel.

I know you're a privatisation fan, but that is beyond fanciful. There is basically no scope for a non-London TOC to make a profit - that's why all the OAOs so far have London at one end. If non-London OAOs had potential to make money on that sort of basis there would already be some.

Even National Express struggles to make money on cross country coach services which are wildly cheaper to operate, with their network now hugely pruned in favour of services with London at one end.

 

[Russel]

I know you're a privatisation fan, but that is beyond fanciful. There is basically no scope for a non-London TOC to make a profit - that's why all the OAOs so far have London at one end. If non-London OAOs had potential to make money on that sort of basis there would already be some.

The various Go-Op plans over the years that have never come to fruition back this up!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The various Go-Op plans over the years that have never come to fruition back this up!

Lumo seem to be poking around the possibility of one once the 222s are freed up by BEMUs (was it Scotland-Bristol? I forget), but that's a way off and my personal bet is that it won't happen and the freed up 222s will just head north of the border to join the others. If it is feasible it'll only be feasible by operating used rolling stock (like those) and as an infrequent service with high load factors. But I'm really not convinced it is at all.

While I do think there is some suppressed demand by the rubbishness of the present XC, I think the idea that you could operate anything profitably like the present service levels and with high quality new rolling stock is beyond fantasy.

 

[JamesT]

Lumo seem to be poking around the possibility of one once the 222s are freed up by BEMUs (was it Scotland-Bristol? I forget), but that's a way off and my personal bet is that it won't happen and the freed up 222s will just head north of the border to join the others. If it is feasible it'll only be feasible by operating used rolling stock (like those) and as an infrequent service with high load factors. But I'm really not convinced it is at all.

While I do think there is some suppressed demand by the rubbishness of the present XC, I think the idea that you could operate anything profitably like the present service levels and with high quality new rolling stock is beyond fantasy.

Didn’t @Snow1964 in post #888 show the current XC is profitable, why wouldn’t it be with so with better rolling stock?

 

[Russel]

Lumo seem to be poking around the possibility of one once the 222s are freed up by BEMUs (was it Scotland-Bristol? I forget), but that's a way off and my personal bet is that it won't happen and the freed up 222s will just head north of the border to join the others. If it is feasible it'll only be feasible by operating used rolling stock (like those) and as an infrequent service with high load factors. But I'm really not convinced it is at all.

While I do think there is some suppressed demand by the rubbishness of the present XC, I think the idea that you could operate anything profitably like the present service levels and with high quality new rolling stock is beyond fantasy.

Agreed, I'd also suggest that some of the extremities of the XC network would soon be pruned back under an OAO model, outside of the core parts of the XC network, capacity isn't actually that much of an issue most of the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Didn’t @Snow1964 in post #888 show the current XC is profitable, why wouldn’t it be with so with better rolling stock?

Because twice as much* better rolling stock would cost a lot more than too few ageing Voyagers.

* That being roughly what would be needed to totally eliminate overcrowding and give room for growth from suppressed demand, I reckon.

 

[35B]

Because twice as much* better rolling stock would cost a lot more than too few ageing Voyagers.

* That being roughly what would be needed to totally eliminate overcrowding and give room for growth from suppressed demand, I reckon.

I think that assumption is overly simplistic - as is that of "just privatise it". I think there is plausibly a scenario in which more, better, rolling stock leads to both reduced operational costs and eases the lease cost bill.

 

[The exile]

Cross-Country isn’t in reality needn’t be the cash-strapped, no hope business case that the DfT currently operates. Complete privatisation would be my answer. The business model could include further additions through open access and if First Group were to acquire the business, Lumo and Hull Trains could be integrated into the network.

With commercial freedom, a fully independent Cross-Country would have the financial incentive to improve the customer experience, try new marketing and ticketing initiatives and raise capital on the open market to acquire any suitable present-day rolling stock and instigate a programme of fleet development and replacement.

It could become a very substantial business and could sub-franchise some of its operations to other companies under the Cross-Country brand in a similar way to the National Express coach network.

With any luck, it could be so successful that it would be able to take over the majority of long-distance passenger rail services so that there would be little or no need for state involvement in long distance train travel.

The other issue that this does not address is that most of Cross-Country’s passengers are not doing “long distance rail travel”. They are doing short or medium distance travel and Cross Country is either the only option or the one at the most suitable time. That has always been XC’s (and its predecessor operations’) big problem. Just as an example- I very rarely use an XC train on my daily commute, but if they weren’t there as the back-up (because I’d need a special ticket) I’d be driving every day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that assumption is overly simplistic - as is that of "just privatise it". I think there is plausibly a scenario in which more, better, rolling stock leads to both reduced operational costs and eases the lease cost bill.

WMT did manage that, but it was because of unusually low interest rates at the time, something that is no longer the case.

And if they can do it, why could it not be done for the XC franchise? The answer is that I suspect it couldn't, probably because 125mph diesel capable stock is a heck of a lot more expensive than slightly fancy suburban EMUs.

The other issue that this does not address is that most of Cross-Country’s passengers are not doing “long distance rail travel”. They are doing short or medium distance travel and Cross Country is either the only option or the one at the most suitable time. That has always been XC’s (and its predecessor operations’) big problem. Just as an example- I very rarely use an XC train on my daily commute, but if they weren’t there as the back-up (because I’d need a special ticket) I’d be driving every day.

It'd be interesting to see which bits of XC turn a profit and which don't. I'd guess Birmingham-Manchester and Birmingham-Bristol might work as OAOs, perhaps? But into Cornwall and Scotland other than in July and August? I doubt it.

 

[The exile]

It'd be interesting to see which bits of XC turn a profit and which don't. I'd guess Birmingham-Manchester and Birmingham-Bristol might work as OAOs, perhaps? But into Cornwall and Scotland other than in July and August? I doubt it.

If they became an OAO then an entirely new non - OAO service would have to be established between Birmingham and Bristol or they’d have to be forced to accept all open tickets without reservations as there would be otherwise no practical link between the two.

 

[Tetragon213]

The other issue that this does not address is that most of Cross-Country’s passengers are not doing “long distance rail travel”. They are doing short or medium distance travel and Cross Country is either the only option or the one at the most suitable time. That has always been XC’s (and its predecessor operations’) big problem. Just as an example- I very rarely use an XC train on my daily commute, but if they weren’t there as the back-up (because I’d need a special ticket) I’d be driving every day.

That is indeed the case for a lot of business travellers in the Midlands.

From my company's "central" office in Birmingham, XC is typically the only option available for travelling to the Manchester, Leeds, York, or Cardiff offices; that is, unless one wants to spend even more money and wake up at stupid-o-clock to catch the red-eye services into those cities. And with the typical 12-hours-door-to-door policy, it often precludes going to Manchester via unusual routing points.

In a perfect world, the majority of the XC route would be OLE electrified from Plymouth to the ECML, and from Basingstoke to Coventry; but we don't live in such a world. If GBR wants a high-risk-high-reward option, they could consider electrification to allow longer, faster, and theoretically cheaper per km trains to run through the busy core sections.

 

[cle]

Also this is what cross-country should be for. Bristol - Birmingham, Birminhgam-Derby - Sheffield - Leeds, Leeds-Edinburgh - this could be a single seat sold 4-5 times.

Trying to push people off of the services which make this operator profitable - for a few people doing Truro - Darlington once a year, is bonkers.

 

[Tetragon213]

Also this is what cross-country should be for. Bristol - Birmingham, Birminhgam-Derby - Sheffield - Leeds, Leeds-Edinburgh - this could be a single seat sold 4-5 times.

Trying to push people off of the services which make this operator profitable - for a few people doing Truro - Darlington once a year, is bonkers.

Imo the Penzance portion could probably be chopped beyond Plymouth. While I've always been of the opinion that the Edinburgh portion could be chopped past Doncaster and York seeing as there is already plentiful service on the ECML, I can see why that opinion is not one shared by others.

I wonder if the outgoing 323s could be used on Birmingham-Manchester? You'd be able to free up a few Voyagers that way from needing to go to Manchester.

 

[AndrewE]

The other issue that this does not address is that most of Cross-Country’s passengers are not doing “long distance rail travel”. They are doing short or medium distance travel and Cross Country is either the only option or the one at the most suitable time. That has always been XC’s (and its predecessor operations’) big problem. Just as an example- I very rarely use an XC train on my daily commute, but if they weren’t there as the back-up (because I’d need a special ticket) I’d be driving every day.

I am not convinced of this. Do we have figures which pre-date the widespread adoption of split ticketing?

There are undoubtedly people travelling (commuting) between towns and cities on the XC axis or forced onto the current trains because of the lack of faster services(*), but I would bet that a proper limited-stop inter-city XC offering would fill a Voyager every hour if priced fairly, in addition to the people who would use a reliable service of somewhat slower and then local trains.

The trouble is that they can't (currently) be fitted in or financed...

* - I think all current XC trains are actually semi-fasts!if you consider their stopping patterns

 

[35B]

I am not convinced of this. Do we have figures which pre-date the widespread adoption of split ticketing?

There are undoubtedly people travelling (commuting) between towns and cities on the XC axis or forced onto the current trains because of the lack of faster services(*), but I would bet that a proper limited-stop inter-city XC offering would fill a Voyager every hour if priced fairly, in addition to the people who would use a reliable service of somewhat slower and then local trains.

The trouble is that they can't (currently) be fitted in or financed...

* - I think all current XC trains are actually semi-fasts!if you consider their stopping patterns

I remember travelling on XC 15 years ago on an early York - Plymouth; the churn at intermediate stations was considerable and the whole service felt as much like a stringing together of short services as a true long distance service. The same was true travelling Penzance - Glasgow 35 years ago.

 

[Zomboid]

Anecdotally, there's a huge turnover at New Street (I'd guess 80%) on Bournemouth/ Manchester trains, and another almost everybody off at Reading (not as much, but lots).

 

[Snow1964]

Didn’t @Snow1964 in post #888 show the current XC is profitable, why wouldn’t it be with so with better rolling stock?

I did, but currently that is due to relativity cheap leasing of aging fleet, around £110k per year. The leasing is currently about 8% of XC costs

Realistically if a modern rail vehicle is nearer £3m to build a work on a 30 year life, then averaging that it is clearly £100k per year average.

When interest rates were low few years ago, adding financing (loan interest etc) would be about 160% of build cost. So if XC had financed new trains 7 years ago would be paying nearer £160k per vehicle per year

Using current 30 year swap rates as a guide to interest, interest rate is now around 4.85%, and compounding that means new vehicles would now be nearer £400k each to lease. A huge private operator that can afford to buy the trains and front load any loan repayments might be able to avoid spreading the interest over just a few years and depreciate at nearer £200-250k per year.

So depending on how you look at it, new trains could push up leasing costs from about 8% of costs (about £44m per year) to nearer 25-30% of costs (£120-150k).

If think outside the box, if XC wanted to be a longer distance operator and avoid busy core, leaving that bit to West and East Midlands commuter operators, then it could run more like open access operators, with pricing to put bums on seats without overcrowding on tickets where has no control over capacity. But really that means being controversial and skipping from say Cheltenham or Banbury through to about Stafford or Chesterfield or Nottingham. Basically not serving Birmingham to get out of the short and mid distance Birmingham commuter market. Alternatively it could run as a mixed operation (bit like GWR) and have separate trains that cover the stations in this area, rather than stop the long distance ones at multiple stations within few miles of Birmingham. At moment XC is a muddle of long distance and commuter services generally using one type of train.

 

[Darren Hayward]

The Manchester-Birimingham routes could easily be transferred to London Northwestern

 

[dk1]

The Manchester-Birimingham routes could easily be transferred to London Northwestern

Would need to be lots and lots of lengthy negotiations with the trade unions before it could even be considered.

 

[cle]

It's both - that is the crux of the whole issue. Local short & medium distance journeys (Birmingham-Wolves/Derby), and non-London big city X to medium sized Y place in another part of the country (eg Birmingham to Durham, Manchester to Oxford).

Random Y to Y (Newton Abbot to Darlington) travel is minimal, skews leisure/off peak, and less often but still adds to the mix.

 

[35B]

Would need to be lots and lots of lengthy negotiations with the trade unions before it could even be considered.

Not necessarily - under the current structure, those negotiations would be post-transfer, if and when NW wanted to consolidate staff on a common set of conditions.

The Manchester-Birimingham routes could easily be transferred to London Northwestern

What would you do with the parts of the duties that run south of Brum?

 

[dk1]

Not necessarily - under the current structure, those negotiations would be post-transfer, if and when NW wanted to consolidate staff on a common set of conditions.

What about the XC crews though? That’s their work.

 

[AndrewE]

Would need to be lots and lots of lengthy negotiations with the trade unions before it could even be considered.

why? If you have any credibility or history of honest dealing then an explanation of the position and a promises that the position won't be exploited to their disadvantage and it shouldn't be a problem.
If you have a history of the opposite then you deserve what you get!

A close friend now (presumably Senior Officer grade back then) took over BR (LMR) dealings with Sectional Council "A" (I think it was.) At his initial meeting he was told semi-informally "You deal straight with us and we'll have no problems. You try to screw us and we'll oppose you all the way!" He said he never had any problems at all - including the closure of 3 traincrew depots...

 

[dk1]

why? If you have any credibility or history of honest dealing then

You’ve lost me. They are all on very different T&Cs. The unions are not going to allow transfer of work easily.