Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[AndrewE]

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

What's that got to do with it? If they get TUPE'd with the work (XC aren't going to need the people to drive EMUs Brum to Manc) and are treated fairly what is the problem? If you have a shocking reputation for double-crossing (as the LM senior management did when I first started) or reneging on promises then you will reap what you have sowed.

 

[dk1]

What's that got to do with it? If they get TUPE'd with the work (XC aren't going to need the people to drive EMUs Brum to Manc) and are treated fairly what is the problem? If you have a shocking reputation for double-crossing (as the LM senior management did when I first started) or reneging on promises then you will reap what you have sowed.

Yes which is why I said lots of negotiations will need to take place. No members of ASLEF or RMT will lose out through this but agreements need to be put in place which are normally quite complex. That’s before we even start crew training on different traction.

 

[AndrewE]

Yes which is why I said lots of negotiations will need to take place. No members of ASLEF or RMT will lose out through this but agreements need to be put in place which are normally quite complex.

you obviously are assuming (or you know) that there is no trust around, or that goodwill has already been exhausted.

That’s before we even start crew training on different traction.

People come to work, they then either work their shift driving a train or they (initially) go to school to learn EMUs or then go out with a driver trainer. They get paid their wage and any bonus they would have got and get an easy time without having to work the full time range of shifts. What's the problem?

 

[dk1]

you obviously are assuming (or you know) that there is no trust around, or that goodwill has already been exhausted.

People come to work, they then either work their shift driving a train or they (initially) go to school to learn EMUs or then go out with a driver trainer. They get paid their wage and any bonus they would have got and get an easy time without having to work the full time range of shifts. What's the problem?

Trust me as someone with 40 years railway experience, 27 of them as a driver and many before that in rostering involved with union meetings on the other side, that these things take months if not years of negotiations and restructuring depot establishments. Why are you coming across so aggressive on the subject?

 

[AndrewE]

Trust me as someone with 40 years railway experience, 27 of them as a driver and many before that in rostering involved with union meetings on the other side, that these things take months if not years of negotiations and restructuring depot establishments. Why are you coming across so aggressive on the subject?

because people are saying nothing can change without grief or major expense or disruption and we are stuck where we are. It doesn't have to be like that.

 

[dk1]

because people are saying nothing can change without grief or major expense or disruption and we are stuck where we are. It doesn't have to be like that.

The unions are here to protect their members so it does have to be like that else we are in stalemate.

 

[AndrewE]

The unions are here to protect their members so it does have to be like that else we are in stalemate.

Of course they are, but that doesn't mean obstructing any change or seeking to make more money out of it - or maybe you think it does?

"A fair day's pay for a fair day's work" doesn't mean ruthless exploitation of any situation - or blackmail.

 

[dk1]

Of course they are, but that doesn't mean obstructing any change or seeking to make more money out of it - or maybe you think it does?

"A fair day's pay for a fair day's work" doesn't mean ruthless exploitation of any situation - or blackmail.

You don’t seem to understand how it works at all.

 

[Russel]

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.

See Birmingham - Wolverhampton, Leeds - Wakefield, Leeds - York etc as prime examples of this.

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

Do a couple of long distance journeys on XC and it soon becomes obvious that this very much is the case, it's certainly a good percentage of passengers doing short to medium journeys.

XC Isn't really a long distance Intercity operator in the traditional sense, they are more of a long distance regional operator these days.

 

[35B]

You don’t seem to understand how it works at all.

Nor do you. I suggest you look up TUPE, and specifically the bits that relate to corporate restructuring. This is a situation where, the employer having made a decision (or had one made for it), the transfer process happens. Where individuals cannot be brought across on identical terms, there is consultation (not negotiation) on how the necessary adjustments are handled, but the basic T&Cs (including salary) are frozen.

There would be questions about who would be in scope, which would typically be addressed based on the individual depot workloads. Where a depot is solely working on one duty, then they'd move lock stock and barrel; possibly the same if there were dedicated link(s). If it involved a split of work within a depot or link (as might be the case in this scenario), then the rule will be that the number of job roles are assessed, and then that assessment will be applied to potentially in scope staff.

Staff have very little say in TUPE; the process is designed to protect existing jobs and isn't great at handling "but I want to stay where I am" - where I've encountered it, the choice has been transfer, find a new job with the existing employer, or be considered to have resigned without notice.

This is not a negotiation process, and it's timebound based on whatever the timings of the employee transfer are.

As we've seen with other post-privatisation franchise restructures, the hard negotiations will be over what follows if/when the new employer wishes to harmonise conditions.

 

[The exile]

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

In Cross-Country terms I would count the following as medium distance (about the max limit thereof)
Bristol - Derby
Birmingham - Leeds
Birmingham- Manchester
Exeter - cheltenham

Not just things like Derby - Sheffield.

Possibly coloured by being a veteran of the days when Edinburgh - Exeter took about 9 hours with a following wind.

 

[AndrewE]

See Birmingham - Wolverhampton, Leeds - Wakefield, Leeds - York etc as prime examples of this.

and most of those pax shouldn't really be taking up seats on a longer distance train...

Do a couple of long distance journeys on XC and it soon becomes obvious that this very much is the case, it's certainly a good percentage of passengers doing short to medium journeys.

XC Isn't really a long distance Intercity operator in the traditional sense, they are more of a long distance regional operator these days.

In Cross-Country terms I would count the following as medium distance (about the max limit thereof)
Bristol - Derby
Birmingham - Leeds
Birmingham- Manchester
Exeter - cheltenham

Not just things like Derby - Sheffield.

Possibly coloured by being a veteran of the days when Edinburgh - Exeter took about 9 hours with a following wind.

Agreed. As said up-thread, XC has the problem of serving 3 markets. We need the infrastructure (upgrades) and the rolling stock to allow proper inter-city services on top of what we have now. I'm afraid that clever timetabling won't do it alone, but just imagine if we could fit in 2-hourly Bristol - Brum- Derby(?) -Sheffield - York trains on the core... The traffic on those would soon show whether XC is mainly serving a succession of local journeys or not!

I don't imagine that we can hope for Swiss-style network upgrades for these lines not serving London, but I live in hope of something...

 

[The exile]

and most of those pax shouldn't really be taking up seats on a longer distance train...

Shouldn’t have to be taking up seats on a long distance train. While that long-distance train forms an essential part of a usable service between two places it’s going to happen.

 

[dk1]

Nor do you. I suggest you look up TUPE, and specifically the bits that relate to corporate restructuring. This is a situation where, the employer having made a decision (or had one made for it), the transfer process happens. Where individuals cannot be brought across on identical terms, there is consultation (not negotiation) on how the necessary adjustments are handled, but the basic T&Cs (including salary) are frozen.

There would be questions about who would be in scope, which would typically be addressed based on the individual depot workloads. Where a depot is solely working on one duty, then they'd move lock stock and barrel; possibly the same if there were dedicated link(s). If it involved a split of work within a depot or link (as might be the case in this scenario), then the rule will be that the number of job roles are assessed, and then that assessment will be applied to potentially in scope staff.

Staff have very little say in TUPE; the process is designed to protect existing jobs and isn't great at handling "but I want to stay where I am" - where I've encountered it, the choice has been transfer, find a new job with the existing employer, or be considered to have resigned without notice.

This is not a negotiation process, and it's timebound based on whatever the timings of the employee transfer are.

As we've seen with other post-privatisation franchise restructures, the hard negotiations will be over what follows if/when the new employer wishes to harmonise conditions.

You are quoting general TUPE within an organisation rather than within a heavily unionised railway organisation. That sort of thing never happens within traincrew overseen by the two main unions ASLEF & RMT. Why would you think it would be anything but?

 

[AndrewE]

Shouldn’t have to be taking up seats on a long distance train. While that long-distance train forms an essential part of a usable service between two places it’s going to happen.

true. We really need the resources and infrastructure to run fast intra-urban trains ahead of XC-type services (including in that category the Avanti EUS- W Midlands- Crewe-Scotland trains)

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

true. We really need the resources and infrastructure to run fast intra-urban trains ahead of XC-type services (including in that category the Avanti EUS- W Midlands- Crewe-Scotland trains)

What that needs then is for a lot of four-tracking of existing two-track lines. And not just on XC routes, there are other routes that could benefit from such an upgrade. Given the huge cost, not to mention the disruption caused, of doing this it's likely that new HS lines should be part of the solution. But we seemingly can't afford it.

 

[35B]

You are quoting general TUPE within an organisation rather than within a heavily unionised railway organisation. That sort of thing never happens within traincrew overseen by the two main unions ASLEF & RMT. Why would you think it would be anything but?

I’m quoting TUPE between employers, which is the definition of TUPE. If the government decided to do that kind of a transfer, then that would be the flow of events - as has happened with other TOC restructurings.

As it happens, I think the chances of that happening are negligible for many reasons. But, were it to, the existing agreements would transfer - as shown by the many years that Northern have failed to harmonise T&Cs

 

[Russel]

and most of those pax shouldn't really be taking up seats on a longer distance train...

There are lots of things that shouldn't happen, but reality is very different.

 

[dk1]

I’m quoting TUPE between employers, which is the definition of TUPE. If the government decided to do that kind of a transfer, then that would be the flow of events - as has happened with other TOC restructurings.

As it happens, I think the chances of that happening are negligible for many reasons. But, were it to, the existing agreements would transfer - as shown by the many years that Northern have failed to harmonise T&Cs

Yes exactly as I have said. As has happened to me on three occasions I was TUPE‘d over on transfer & nothing whatsoever can change with my T&Cs when another company takes over. What was proposed here is LNWR taking over XC operations. That is a whole different can of worms that would need extensive negotiation.

In 2004 we got taken over by National Express to become NXEA(one). To this day 22 years on and four company changes including renationalision later, nobody has managed to harmonise Anglia, Great Eastern & West Anglia. We all operate on our own separate T&Cs as we did back in the day as no deal has been totally in each set of drivers interest.

 

[The exile]

There are lots of things that shouldn't happen, but reality is very different.

And the other thing is that people getting off make room for people getting on. It only becomes a problem when there is a complete imbalance and the volume of local travellers mean that long distance travellers can't travel (hence the "pick up only" on down trains at Reading, Watford Junction etc).
As an example, if I board an XC Bristol starter to travel the marathon distance of 5 point something miles to Bristol Parkway and sit in an unreserved seat, I may in theory be depriving a longer distance traveller from Temple Meads of a seat; however, my getting off then leaves a seat available for someone getting on at Bristol Parkway. If the train were so completely packed with long distance travellers from Temple Meads that I couldn't get on - then neither could any of those long-distance travellers from Bristol Parkway.

 

[35B]

Yes exactly as I have said. As has happened to me on three occasions I was TUPE‘d over on transfer & nothing whatsoever can change with my T&Cs when another company takes over. What was proposed here is LNWR taking over XC operations. That is a whole different can of worms that would need extensive negotiation.

In 2004 we got taken over by National Express to become NXEA(one). To this day 22 years on and four company changes including renationalision later, nobody has managed to harmonise Anglia, Great Eastern & West Anglia. We all operate on our own separate T&Cs as we did back in the day as no deal has been totally in each set of drivers interest.

Except that, when Central was broken up and parts moved into other TOCs, that protracted negotiation didn’t happen. In just the same way, a part of XC being transferred to LNW would be treated as a TUPE transfer exactly as happens anywhere else under a partial transfer, with conditions protected by TUPE

 

[Krokodil]

So you are saying that, when GWR started using 80x on regional routes, the contacts with Hitachi had to be changed, even if the GWR returns the unit to the depot at the same location and time?

That sounds insane, to say the least. By which I don't mean to say that you're wrong, insane contracts get written all the time.

On the Cardiff-Southwest route you're still keeping the units fairly local. The original IET contract was insanely prescriptive to the benefit of Agility, not GWR. 802s have looser terms.

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.

As has been discussed on here though, you could substantially increase XC's capacity without increasing the number of vehicles.

 

[Falcon1200]

Surely any suggestion of splitting services at Birmingham New Street would cause platforming issues, with more trains terminating there? And if XC was to cease running say north of Newcastle, would the existing services be able to accommodate the extra passengers? In my experience they would not.

 

[dk1]

Except that, when Central was broken up and parts moved into other TOCs, that protracted negotiation didn’t happen. In just the same way, a part of XC being transferred to LNW would be treated as a TUPE transfer exactly as happens anywhere else under a partial transfer, with conditions protected by TUPE

I recall a fair bit of negotiations going on behind the scenes and those that went to EMT being ultimately very jealous of their counterparts that joined XC and eventually ended up on similar pay to those ex-Virgin Voyager drivers.

 

[Snow1964]

Surely any suggestion of splitting services at Birmingham New Street would cause platforming issues, with more trains terminating there? And if XC was to cease running say north of Newcastle, would the existing services be able to accommodate the extra passengers? In my experience they would not.

A quick look at RealTime Trains for somewhere like Berwick on Tweed, shows that about half the trains are only 5car (or just 4car) and other half are 9 car (or 8 or 10car)

So capacity is more limited by Operators not running longer formations (although I am aware for years had been power supply limitations pending supply upgrades, which I think is still not fully unrestricted)

 

[The Ham]

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.

There's currently 312 coaches at XC, if we double that to 600 coaches then XC could have 60 units with 10 coaches of 26m (similar to class 80x) with over 600 seats per unit.

Given that there's 44 diagrams, XC could add a further 7 diagrams (which would likely mean longer routes).

Even on the 4+4 services (400 seats) that's at least a 50% uplift in capacity, for the services which are currently 4 coaches (200 seats) that's at least a 200% uplift in capacity.

As has been highlighted before, not all 5 coach trains are created equally.

In fact a 304 coach fleet with a mix of 5 and 9 coach sets would give an in service seat capacity uplift of 30% over the current fleet.

It's also worth noting that even just adding the 6 sets currently in storage (assuming 85% usable fleet) could result in:
12 diagrams of 4+4
8 diagrams of 4+5
24 diagrams of 5

Note that this is at any given time and so some of the 5 coach diagrams could be run as 5+4 in the core as some ofthe 4+5 diagrams become 5 coach diagrams beyond the core.

Either way, having the potential to eradicate the use of 4 coach units as single sets and 45% of diagrams being pairs of units is likely to help with capacity issues (as long as all the pairs of units don't have a rear unit out of service).

As to costs, with lower track access charges, far fewer pairs of units, lower fuel costs and slightly fewer coaches a mixed 5/9 coach fleet of 80x or similar units wouldn't necessarily need much of an uplift in passenger numbers to justify the new build cost.

 

[BrianW]

Elephant in the room. I can't see DfT or HMTreasury approving expenditure of cash that doesn't exist while XC are carrying around air in locked out units.
Similarly East West Rail with no trains running to Bedford.

Cash may well be needed to 'buy off' folk 'transferring' to once Great British Railways.
Rachel Reeves, currently Chancellor of the Exchequer, was 'very clear'- 'we can't spend what we haven't got'.
Is XC serving Manchester?

 

[Snow1964]

There's currently 312 coaches at XC, if we double that to 600 coaches then XC could have 60 units with 10 coaches of 26m (similar to class 80x) with over 600 seats per unit.

Its nearer 400 coaches, I think you forgot the 170s

 

[Tetragon213]

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

IIRC, LNR has had their "Destination Manchester" scheme in the works for dog's years now, but nothing has come of it yet.

A shame, really. I think there is a huge missed opportunity to link up the 2nd and 3rd (I'll leave it up to you as to which order they go in) cities of the UK via electric traction without using ClownC*ntry.

 

[The Ham]

Its nearer 400 coaches, I think you forgot the 170s

Yes sorry, I was only looking at the 22x fleet.

Obviously, the 170's also need some extra capacity.