AXC or VXC?

[Zoe]

Operation Princess went ahead - an absolute total disaster the likes of which most long term railway staff had never seen. Virgins reaction to that fiasco,and the resulting political fall out have led to the situation that we have today. An absolute shambles.

Virgin did want to do something about it. They wanted to extend their Voyagers but the SRA wouldn't let them.

 

[Oswyntail]

Under Virgin, the staff seemed a lot more enthusiastic and customer focused, and the catering was a lot better. With Arriva, I do feel the company attitude is "sweat the passenger for all you can get".
The Voyagers in themselves are NOT bad trains, and I would rather spend a few hours in one than a Pendo. Operation Princess itself was a bold plan, and the fact that it failed was unfortunate. But what has been the problem in both areas is the number of units available. For Princess to work (amongst other things) needed far more 4-car units than were allowed. And, for the Cross-Country franchise to work properly today needs a steady supply of new units to meet demand.

 

[curly42]

Disregarding the rights and wrongs of various decisions,and whether one company is better than another,what I find most fascinating about the whole Virgin Cross Country episode is how the facts have altered in the intervening years.
My memories (and notes) from various meetings,briefings etc. that took place at the time are quite clear as to Virgins intentions as regards running the service. These memories also tally with colleagues memories of those days.
I find that non-railway people,and also younger people,have rather different views,many of which I strongly suspect,have been influenced by various internet forums such as this.
Absolutely no disrespect to this forum ( or any others ) but as a long standing railway employee a lot of what I read on here is rumour,heresay or just utter twaddle.
Things weren't better in B.R. days,they were just different. The whole privatisation business has been a national disgrace - a lot of people have become very wealthy,but at the expense of the taxpayer. A lot of opportunities wasted,a Hell of a lot,and that's a shame.
We may be all in this together,but a lot of us are more in it than others.

 

[martinsh]

I don't quite see the resemblance between this and this.

I'll give you the fact that they both involve silver/grey.

All they have done is painted the red part brown and changed the color of the doors. Any fool could design a better livery.

 

[bnm]

All they have done is painted the red part brown and changed the color of the doors. Any fool could design a better livery.

The grey is different as well. Virgin's was glossy, Arriva's is matt and the window line is a different shade.

The roofs are also different colours.

The front fairings are also fully coloured on the Arriva sets.

Any fool can spot the differences.

 

[90019]

The roofs are also different colours.

The roof is the same, just dirty, because they're only vinyled into XC livery
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All they have done is painted the red part brown and changed the color of the doors. Any fool could design a better livery.

The only similarities are that they involve silver as a main colour on the body, they have a swoosh near the front (something that's not particularly uncommon anyway) but in different styles, the black around the cab and obviously the yellow.

They have similarities, but aren't the same.

 

[RobShipway]

Disregarding the rights and wrongs of various decisions,and whether one company is better than another,what I find most fascinating about the whole Virgin Cross Country episode is how the facts have altered in the intervening years.
My memories (and notes) from various meetings,briefings etc. that took place at the time are quite clear as to Virgins intentions as regards running the service. These memories also tally with colleagues memories of those days.
I find that non-railway people,and also younger people,have rather different views,many of which I strongly suspect,have been influenced by various internet forums such as this.
Absolutely no disrespect to this forum ( or any others ) but as a long standing railway employee a lot of what I read on here is rumour,heresay or just utter twaddle.
Things weren't better in B.R. days,they were just different. The whole privatisation business has been a national disgrace - a lot of people have become very wealthy,but at the expense of the taxpayer. A lot of opportunities wasted,a Hell of a lot,and that's a shame.
We may be all in this together,but a lot of us are more in it than others.

I am a none railway person, but agree with your comments above curly because when the beginnings of XC was started under BR there was services such as Brighton - Edingburgh/Glasgow and Portsmouth - Blackpool which have long since been dropped due to not enough stock to do the services, but also I suppose not having the paths available to run them either.

For me even though the Voyagers are good trains, the mistake was made in that they where not delivered with the transformer/pantograph coach within the sets when delivered and I think if they had been, then we would not have had the large spend there has been on IEP we have had so far without even having the IEP stock available.

 

[DarloRich]

The Voyagers are not fit for the purpose they are used for! They are not long distance intercity stock. They are regional DMU's at best. I think you need a higher standard of comfort and facilities for a long distance journey. Try Edinburgh - Plymouth and tell me you don’t agree. They are fine for the shorter journeys ie Darlington - York/Leeds or Leeds-Derby or Derby - BHM; anything longer and they really start to grate.

They vibrate ,they are noisy, they often smell (less than they used to be!) they are always rammed, they are very uncomfortable, the seats appear to be padded by cardboard and manufactured at such an angle as to make it impossible to sit in comfort for more than 10seconds. I simply can’t believe that anyone who decided to buy and commission these "things" has to travel any sort of distance on them. BTW WHY are the MML ones more spacious and more comfortable? I don’t mind travelling on those! Schizophrenic or what!

I am so glad when I regularly had to do Newcastle-Exeter I got LHCS or HST. I would fly if I had to do it today!

 

[185]

Operation Princess ended up rightly nicknamed Operation Cinderella (Not really on the ball and "apologies, you will have to stand, as your carriage has turned into a pumpkin").

The Voyagers only initially coped with passenger numbers in 2001 after huge swaythes of passengers abandoned rail after Great Heck and the speed restrictions.

For the future of CrossCounty, IEP must go ahead, but I think it will become an expensive white elephant, whilst the idea is right that we need bigger trains, the current setup of spending 60% of the budget on idiot £100,000-a-year 'professionals' "talking" about it needs to change. :roll:

 

[Smethwickian]

It was removed as passengers were surveyed by Arriva during the franchise process if they would like at-seat catering, but passengers were not informed about the consequences i.e removal of the shop and possibility of hot drinks.

Must be the case. No-one would have said 'yes' to journeys of up to six, seven or eight hours with nowt but a lukewarm flask of water for tea and to eat, if you're really lucky, a choice of one sandwich which has been riding around on top of the trolley at room temperature all day.

As a general rule of thumb, Cross Country trains are tops for litter in my general experience, especially the Turbothingies on ex-Central trains routes.

And unless you want to travel at 5.30am on a Saturday or occasionally a single mid-day train on Wednesdays in mid-February, you can forget the headline advance fares and at least double the number you first thought of.

 

[Masbroughlad]

Must be the case. No-one would have said 'yes' to journeys of up to six, seven or eight hours with nowt but a lukewarm flask of water for tea and to eat, if you're really lucky, a choice of one sandwich which has been riding around on top of the trolley at room temperature all day.

As a general rule of thumb, Cross Country trains are tops for litter in my general experience, especially the Turbothingies on ex-Central trains routes.

And unless you want to travel at 5.30am on a Saturday or occasionally a single mid-day train on Wednesdays in mid-February, you can forget the headline advance fares and at least double the number you first thought of.

You have hit the nail on the head with all of this!

Question: "Would you like the option of food and drink served at your seat? You will still be able to buy hot food and other items from the bar." sounds brilliant!

Real question: "Would you like the option of food and drink served at your seat? Oh and by the way, there will be no shop on board anymore, there will be no hot food - even if you are on the train for hours, the choice will diminish and the prices go up. Would you like that option?"

Depends how you ask a question!

Bring back the buffet counters/shop and hot food! I still think some XC services warrant a basic meals service. If people knew it was there - I am sure they would use it.

And you are spot on with your advance cheap fares comment - very few at ridiculous times. VXC had them available with a good spread across all days and times - weekends and peaks included. I actually think AXC advertising on advance tickets is very misleading and should be questioned.

And yes, AXC trains are usually rubbish clad. I have got on trains turning at Manchester and been sat amongst old sweet and crisp wrappers, half drunk drinks, scraps of newspapers etc - disgraceful! And have paid a stupid amount for the privilige as no advance cheap fares available. Seat reservations are very hit and miss to.

Arriva XC is a shambolic disgrace - time for them to go!

 

[Zoe]

The Voyagers are not fit for the purpose they are used for! They are not long distance intercity stock. They are regional DMU's at best.

That's exactly the point though. XC is primarily a regional service that also provides some long distance journey opportunities. You can tell this be the am. ount of calls the trains make in the South West and the Midlands. There may well be quite a few people boarding at Plymouth going to Edinburgh but the majority will most likely only be going as far as Bristol or at the most Birmingham.

You may not like the underfloor engines but again I doubt the majority of passengers care and seeing as there are no immediate plans for electrification and locomotive hauled stock is not an option I'm not sure what other options there are.

 

[tbtc]

The Voyagers are not fit for the purpose they are used for! They are not long distance intercity stock. They are regional DMU's at best. I think you need a higher standard of comfort and facilities for a long distance journey. Try Edinburgh - Plymouth and tell me you don’t agree. They are fine for the shorter journeys ie Darlington - York/Leeds or Leeds-Derby or Derby - BHM; anything longer and they really start to grate

Yes, but the vast majority of passengers are doing shorter journeys of under 90 minues. Is there even one passenger a day who uses the Edinburgh - Plymouth service from end to end? Far more do trips like Sheffield - Leeds or Darlington - Newcastle or Cheltenham - Birmingham or Taunton - Bristol or Exeter - Plymouth...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The only reason people have problem with XC (of any vintage) is due to the chronic overcrowding due to the shortness of the Voyagers. If the Voyagers were all 6 or even 7 or 8 cars long then half the complaints we hear about both XC and the Voyagers themselves would evaporate if not overnight then within a short while

Virgin were brave enough to take big risks, which occasionally back fired spectacularly, whilst Arriva are taking a more measured approach and playing it safe

These are the two best comments on the thread.

People complain about minor things on Voyagers like the windows and seats not lining up - do 158/170s etc get the same complaints? No, but they are generally long enough for the routes they run on.

From some of the comments you get on here you'd think Voyagers lurched noisily around like a ride from Alton Towers

Arriva are reliable, they are solid, there are few delays as a result of their services (XC services get delayed, but by problems on other services). They are doing a great job of concentrating on the basics. Virgin were flash and ambitious, but I'd rather a TOC sticks with doing the simple things right (than one which promises the moon but struggles to deliver anything).

The only other comment I'd make it to point out the contradiction between complaining that XC services are crowded *and* complaining that XC don't offer bargain fares - why should they do £5 tickets when the trains already struggle to cope with demand?

 

[Zoe]

Virgin took a risk with Operation Princess and ultimately it didn't pay off. Another TOC may not have wanted to take the risk and we'd still be stuck with worn out old 47s and mark 2 coaches. We did at least get a fleet of new trains. Had the HST fleet not been replaced then FGW would not have got the extra HSTs and so the outer suburban commuter services would still be run by turbos with unacceptable levels of overcrowding.

 

[sprinterguy]

That's exactly the point though. XC is primarily a regional service that also provides some long distance journey opportunities. You can tell this be the am. ount of calls the trains make in the South West and the Midlands. There may well be quite a few people boarding at Plymouth going to Edinburgh but the majority will most likely only be going as far as Bristol or at the most Birmingham.

A train company shouldn’t base the quality of its’ train interior on the requirements of the passenger making the “average” length of journey with that operator though, but on the needs of the much smaller number of passengers who are making the full end to end journey, or something approaching it, and that way the conditions will be more than adequate for all those on board. This should especially be the case with Crosscountry, where the average journey lengths are, as you rightly say, considerably shorter than even half the length of the full journey that the train is making.

I’d say that I pass for a long distance Crosscountry traveller, as my journeys regularly come to about three hours, sometimes more. Birmingham to Newcastle is my most regular trek, but I also have occasion to make journeys between the likes of Gloucester and Manchester, Cheltenham and Sheffield and Banbury and York. IMO the Voyagers are only suited to the “average” regional journeys made by many of XCs’ passengers and not to the long distance journeys they are allocated to, as where an alternative train option to a Voyager is available over sections of the Crosscountry network I will quite often take it, sometimes even where this requires a train change when the Crosscountry service could get me there direct (Chiltern Clubman Banbury-Birmingham, or XC Turbostar Gloucester/Cheltenham-Derby/Nottingham, or East Coast/Grand Central from York to the north east).

Travelling a long distance on a Voyager is not as horrific an experience as some on this forum make it out to be, it’s completely acceptable for getting from A to B but it is certainly inferior to alternate ways of making the same journey.

 

[Zoe]

Remmber though that XC is a private company and their primary business is regional. Yes people do make long journeys but the Voyagers are more suited to shorter regional journeys and these are the journeys the majority of passengers make. There wouldn't be a business case for providing a separate type of train for longer journeys. Virgin did consider it but in the end decided to go for a uniform fleet of Voyagers.

 

[sprinterguy]

From some of the comments you get on here you'd think Voyagers lurched noisily around like a ride from Alton Towers

Actually, if Crosscountry replaced their trains with a version of Alton Towers' "Air" 'coaster I'd be absolutely ecstatic and would be making completely unneccessary trips with them far more frequently No idea what I'd do with any luggage, but who needs luggage when you can pretend that you're superman...

 

[tbtc]

Put it another way, the current London Underground trains are unsuitable to anyone travelling from Cockfosters to Heathrow. However, these are suitable for people making trips of under twenty minutes. How do you create a train capable of dealing with two different markets? The Voyagers really aren't as bad as some people suggest.

 

[sprinterguy]

Remmber though that XC is a private company and their primary business is regional. Yes people do make long journeys but the Voyagers are more suited to shorter regional journeys and these are the journeys the majority of passengers make. There wouldn't be a business case for providing a separate type of train for longer journeys. Virgin did consider it but in the end decided to go for a uniform fleet of Voyagers.

Indeed. I can't deny that matching a trains' level of comfort to the average journey length is the most sensible business decision that will ensure the highest rate of return on the cost of building/refurbing the trains. It's just a shame that profiteering takes precedence over comfort for passengers making longer journeys. It's reducing each passenger to an optimum monetary value, sensible in economic terms admittedly, rather than designing a train interior to cover all bases comfort wise.

 

[Zoe]

How do you create a train capable of dealing with two different markets? The Voyagers really aren't as bad as some people suggest.

FGW seem to have done a good job with their high density HSTs.

 

[tbtc]

Actually, if Crosscountry replaced their trains with a version of Alton Towers' "Air" 'coaster I'd be absolutely ecstatic and would be making completely unneccessary trips with them far more frequently No idea what I'd do with any luggage, but who needs luggage when you can pretend that you're superman...

You'd get people complaining on here about the restricted view from any seats (apart from the front row) though (and there's no trolley service)

 

[sprinterguy]

Put it another way, the current London Underground trains are unsuitable to anyone travelling from Cockfosters to Heathrow. However, these are suitable for people making trips of under twenty minutes. How do you create a train capable of dealing with two different markets? The Voyagers really aren't as bad as some people suggest.

Crosscountry was heavily developed by BR in the early eighties as a long distance, leisure travel Intercity operation though, rather than a mass people mover between intermediate points, which is what it is being reduced to. It’s thanks to the unfortunate situation of having short trains that the XC operation is having to be dealt with as a basic, no frills mass people mover as there isn’t the space available to do anything else when the service is so popular (I’m not denying that XC is very well used). Crosscountry is moving away from BRs’ reasoning for joining up regional routes to form the XC network with several timetabled through trains a day to cater for the few passengers making the longer distance journeys.

 

[Zoe]

Crosscountry was heavily developed by BR in the early eighties as a long distance, leisure travel Intercity operation though, rather than a mass people mover between intermediate points, which is what it is being reduced to. It’s thanks to the unfortunate situation of having short trains that the XC operation is having to be dealt with as a basic, no frills mass people mover as there isn’t the space available to do anything else when the service is so popular (I’m not denying that XC is very well used). Crosscountry is moving away from BRs’ reasoning for joining up regional routes to form the XC network with several timetabled through trains a day to cater for the few passengers making the longer distance journeys.

It's quite simple though. XC think they can make more money by focussing on their primary customers. If the railways were run as a public service and not as a business then maybe things like passenger comfort could be considered more but the fact is they are not and private companies will always want to make as much money as possible for their shareholders.

The opposite applies for Virgin West Coast, they focus on intercity travel and neglect places like Nuneaton and Tamworth.

 

[sprinterguy]

It's quite simple though. XC think they can make more money by focussing on their primary customers. If the railways were run as a public service and not as a business then maybe things like passenger comfort could be considered more but the fact is they are not and private companies will always want to make as much money as possible for their shareholders.

Yep, I agree, which is why several of the good folks on here, such as DarloRich overleaf and, to an extent, myself, feel cheesed off by the "Voyagerised" Crosscountry. In my case, not because I feel that everything is absolutely awful, just that it isn't as good as it could be.

The opposite applies for Virgin West Coast, they focus on intercity travel and neglect places like Nuneaton and Tamworth.

Indeed, the concept of "everything in moderation" applies. Virgin West Coast may have gone too far in the opposite direction to XC. Even if VT don't call at the likes of Nuneaton and Tamworth, they could at least call more frequently at major "hubs" (Stafford, Rugby, Milton Keynes) to better connect into the slower LM services and give passengers from Nuneaton, Tamworth, etc, faster journey times via a train change.

 

[Zoe]

I remember around 2004 the SRA decided that Virgin Cross Country did not offer value for money. There was even talk of scrapping Cross Country services completely. In this case I expect the South West to Birmingham would have gone to FGW with Birmingham to York and the North East going over to GNER. In the end the decision to axe the Central franchise gave Cross Country services a lifeline and some of these services were taken over. I would expect running services from the South West to Scotland would still be seen as poor value for money so if you are going to run things as a business you really should focus where the money is.

 

[Liam]

I don't mind the Voyagers. I had a lovely trip on a VWC Voyager a few weeks ago form Edinburgh to Preston. It was the Frst of the day, 0656 from Haymarket I think, so it was really quiet. Got a seat at a one of the slidy table things and even had a nice panini for breakfast from the shop. Didn't think the vobrations were to bad, no worse really than on a 170. Had a far less enjoyable time on the 185 back up from Manchester, just far too busy, there was standing passengers the whole way.

 

[Clip]

Put it another way, the current London Underground trains are unsuitable to anyone travelling from Cockfosters to Heathrow. However, these are suitable for people making trips of under twenty minutes. How do you create a train capable of dealing with two different markets? The Voyagers really aren't as bad as some people suggest.

but you still get vast swathes of people on the picc line who do travel at least an hour or so on it to heathrow from KX.. its not that bad to be honest..

 

[curly42]

I remember around 2004 the SRA decided that Virgin Cross Country did not offer value for money. There was even talk of scrapping Cross Country services completely. In this case I expect the South West to Birmingham would have gone to FGW with Birmingham to York and the North East going over to GNER. In the end the decision to axe the Central franchise gave Cross Country services a lifeline and some of these services were taken over. I would expect running services from the South West to Scotland would still be seen as poor value for money so if you are going to run things as a business you really should focus where the money is.

Quite right - the plan proposed was for Virgin Cross Country (as it was then) to terminate at Bristol Temple Meads. All trains beyond Bristol to the West Country would have been provided by First Great Western. I'm not too sure on the Northern end of this proposal,as the meetings I attended only dealt with the West.
Bristol would then have become an interchange station. Many many factors came into play,but it was obvious to most people at the meetings that Virgin were desperate to keep the franchise at all costs,and were prepared to "bite the bullet" if necessary.
One of the problems was Virgins timekeeping,which at that time was atrocious. To remedy that,a plan was agreed between Virgin and the DofT to cut out several station stops (Taunton/Gloucester/Tamworth etc) but to leave the running times as were,providing the trains with ample recovery time. It wasn't unusual to stand at Bristol for almost 15 minutes,and to then spend 6 or 7 minutes waiting time at Cheltenham.
Cross Country no longer provides the service that Inter-City did for B.R. - which was its original intention. Perhaps it's time for a re-think.

 

[Zoe]

Quite right - the plan proposed was for Virgin Cross Country (as it was then) to terminate at Bristol Temple Meads. All trains beyond Bristol to the West Country would have been provided by First Great Western. I'm not too sure on the Northern end of this proposal,as the meetings I attended only dealt with the West.

So the franchise was going to be retained then? I was under the impression that it could they were considering completelys crapping with FGW running through to Birmingham. Was this not the case? If the franchise was to remain then Virgin Cross Country could have termiante at York with extra GNER services running through to Edinburgh.

 

[curly42]

I'm not aware of any intention ever of FGW running up to Birmingham,it was certainly never mentioned at any of the meetings I attended. Said meetings were always given a fancy name but the intention was the same - to get Virgin out of the mess they'd created.
Maybe the DofT were worried that no-one else would touch the Cross Country franchise after the Virgin fiasco,I'm not sure.
It actually made a very good case for Virgin to terminate at Bristol,as they had a large amount of staff there. Running trains through to Penzance had always been a problem,due to the hours involved for staff.
One of the main arguments against was the worry of West Country holidaymakers having to change into other services at Bristol. They would either be cramming into already packed Sprinters,or else FGW would have had to get hold of more H.S.T.s. Not to forget that the local sprinter services at the time were in the hands of Wessex (who,technically bankrupt,were being "minded" by National Express).
With no stock being available,Wessex unwilling to play ball,and the government reluctant to hand a blank cheque to FGW,another way had to be found.

Privatisation - the reality !!