Chiltern v Cross Country why the difference

[ainsworth74]

Leeds is 3+ hours from Edinburgh..

So why cut Leeds from the network? Your complaining about the journey time to Edinburgh from Leeds yet it would increase if Leeds lost it's direct services to Edinburgh (and Scotland). There would only be one train per day if you did that (leaving and returning at fairly anti-social hours).

 

[sheff1]

I accept that few people travel Penzance to Aberdeen but many people travel Penzance to Birmingham or Bristol to Newcastle and Edinburgh or Exeter to Leeds

.... but nowhere near as many as make the journey between Leeds and Birmingham which would require two changes (or one at York if you told people to head north to go south ) under the 'speeding up' proposal put forward.

and, of course, the Edinburgh/Exeter - Leeds direct service would no longer exist anyway under the proposal.

 

[Kettledrum]

Some really important points have been lost in this thread, so I'll recap what for me the most significant points are:

1. How come such as busy franchise as XC with packed trains apparently makes a loss?
2. XC trains are frequently packed, yet they have HSTs lying un-used.
3. Chiltern trains has been innovative in adding making extra trains available by re-furbishing MK3 coaches and adding sliding doors.
4. XC trains are more likely to be late or disrupted because of the length of the route. This upsets the passengers affected.

I would suggest the answer to the question why XC is so unpopular compared with Chiltern is possibly to do with points 2, 3 and 4 above.

When you think it's the same parent company, it is shockingly bad that that Chiltern have taken action to improve the rolling stock on their services and XC deliberately make their services more over-crowded by refusing to use all their HSTs.

 

[tbtc]

Some really important points have been lost in this thread, so I'll recap what for me the most significant points are:

1. How come such as busy franchise as XC with packed trains apparently makes a loss?
2. XC trains are frequently packed, yet they have HSTs lying un-used...

...XC deliberately make their services more over-crowded by refusing to use all their HSTs.

XC's leasing arrangements mean that they can use the Voyagers as much as they want, but the HSTs are on a "pay as you go" basis.

As you've said, the franchise runs at a loss (no idea why this is, considering how busy the trains are), so there's little incentive for them to use every HST in service every day.

Maybe they should be forced to use longer trains more often, but if the services are loss making then I can understand why they are reluctant to. I just can't understand why the busy TOC loses so much money.

 

[Goatboy]

1. How come such as busy franchise as XC with packed trains apparently makes a loss?

Because they are packed not because it's so popular but because the trains are so small.

A Class 220 for example seats 174 people in standard.. Whereas an XC HST seats 389 people in standard. The standard class capacity of a Voyager is just 2 passengers more than a 3 car Class 159.

If you put 200 people on a 220 then its 'packed' but if you fit those same 200 people on an HST it's half empty, yet the 'popularity' of the service is the same in both scenarios. The Voyager is, despite how much we hate it, an 'Intercity' train and carries operating costs commensurate with this sort of train but simply doesn't carry enough passengers to generate significant contribution to running costs.

XC is busy because it has pathetic capacity levels per train not because it's got so many fare paying passengers. The same passenger loadings on properly lengthed IC trains would feel empty even at peak times..

It's a bit of a vicious circle, XC fares are notoriously high, even many of the Advances on offer are often barely cheaper than a walkon, as a result of the limited capacity. They can't cut fares because there is no capacity for the extra passengers they'd get. But if they were to increase capacity it would take a long time for consumer confidence to return to a level whereby they could increase passenger volume to fill the larger trains by enough to generate significantly more revenue.

Putting an extra HST on sadly doesn't generate more cash - most people who don't travel XC but might if they didnt expect a Voyager crush still wouldnt want to risk it.

Therefore the HST's are seen purely as a cost to the business, hence being used spareingly.

 

[Kettledrum]

Because they are packed not because it's so popular but because the trains are so small.

A Class 220 for example seats 174 people in standard.. Whereas an XC HST seats 389 people in standard. The standard class capacity of a Voyager is just 2 passengers more than a 3 car Class 159.

If you put 200 people on a 220 then its 'packed' but if you fit those same 200 people on an HST it's half empty, yet the 'popularity' of the service is the same in both scenarios.

XC is busy because it has pathetic capacity levels per train not because it's got so many fare paying passengers. The same passenger loadings on properly lengthed IC trains would feel empty even at peak times..

It's a bit of a vicious circle, XC fares are notoriously high, even many of the Advances on offer are often barely cheaper than a walkon, as a result of the limited capacity. They can't cut fares because there is no capacity for the extra passengers they'd get. But if they were to increase capacity it would take a long time for consumer confidence to return to a level whereby they could increase passenger volume to fill the larger trains by enough to generate significantly more revenue.

Putting an extra HST on sadly doesn't generate more cash - most people who don't travel XC but might if they didnt expect a Voyager crush still wouldnt want to risk it.

Therefore the HST's are seen purely as a cost to the business, hence being used spareingly.

I agree with your analysis here.

It does contrast hugely with Chiltern though who have attracted more and more passengers, and added extra coaching stock to grow the business.

Sadly the way the franchising system works allows Arriva XC to get away with this approach, and it will not count against them at all when the franchise is re-let.

 

[Goatboy]

To be fair to Arriva they are a private company with a duty to its shareholders. The blame for the XC situation must surely lie with whoever came up with the terms of the franchise or whoever was taken in by the great idea of Operation Princess and the theory that you can significantly reduce capacity per service and make up for it by running additional serviecs.

 

[barrykas]

It does contrast hugely with Chiltern though who have attracted more and more passengers, and added extra coaching stock to grow the business.

Also Chiltern holds a 20 year franchise, so has more of an incentive to invest in additional capacity than CrossCountry (9 years and 4 months), and generally does a fairly good job of matching capacity with demand.

 

[RPM]

The difference between Chiltern and Cross Country (aside from the longer franchise length, which is a very valid point), is that Chiltern is still quasi-independant from Arriva management, although as time passes this is becoming less and less true. The Chiltern ethos was very much investment driven and customer focussed, whilst Arriva tended to win franchises by putting in plain vanilla bids that undercut the competition in cost terms.

 

[jimm]

Some really important points have been lost in this thread, so I'll recap what for me the most significant points are:

1. How come such as busy franchise as XC with packed trains apparently makes a loss?
2. XC trains are frequently packed, yet they have HSTs lying un-used.
3. Chiltern trains has been innovative in adding making extra trains available by re-furbishing MK3 coaches and adding sliding doors.
4. XC trains are more likely to be late or disrupted because of the length of the route. This upsets the passengers affected.

I would suggest the answer to the question why XC is so unpopular compared with Chiltern is possibly to do with points 2, 3 and 4 above.

When you think it's the same parent company, it is shockingly bad that that Chiltern have taken action to improve the rolling stock on their services and XC deliberately make their services more over-crowded by refusing to use all their HSTs.

1. As was pointed out back up the thread Chiltern also loses money

2. In the context of the number of services XC operates each day, an extra HST or two out there is going to make next to no difference to the general overcrowding, especially when they are only ever used on the SW-NE axis, so I really wouldn't get too hung up about this.

Nor would I get too hung up about XC and Chiltern having the same parent company - the Chiltern way of doing things dates back all the way to the start of privatisation and many of the staff and managers have been there since the beginning. DB/Arriva hasn't felt the need to intervene because it's a well run operation - though it's a sight easier to manage when much of its operations are on its own 'private' bit of railway south of Aynho junction and it runs the major stations all the way to Birmingham. By contrast, as you note, XC operates over a straggling network, at the mercy of everything else running, and doesn't run a single station, even where it is the only operator serving them - a heck of a challenge for any management team.

 

[tsr]

Perhaps if XC worked out a way to serve a few more bits of the South-East, they might attract passengers who don't want to change in London or at Reading/Southampton Central/etc. to get to their destinations in the North, West or Midlands.

It's ironic that in some parts of Kent it's easier to catch a direct train to Paris or Brussels than get one to Birmingham, Manchester or Newcastle (for example).

Faffing around with paths would be needed, but I'm sure the revenues and full trains would reimburse those who have made the effort.

 

[Simon11]

Xc should focus on serving passengers who are unable or would have an increase in journeytime traveling via london to the north.

They only have limited capacity, so they shouldn't provide extra services for customers who already have a good travel option.

 

[Philip Elliott]

The difference between Chiltern and Cross Country (aside from the longer franchise length, which is a very valid point), is that Chiltern is still quasi-independant from Arriva management, although as time passes this is becoming less and less true. The Chiltern ethos was very much investment driven and customer focussed, whilst Arriva tended to win franchises by putting in plain vanilla bids that undercut the competition in cost terms.

Arriva's bid for TPE had them re-opening Woodhead and using 125mph trains. A lot of XC's problems is due to the franchise specification and that Arriva's bid was done by an external consultancy.

 

[Amy Worrall]

Please don't say it's all down to Rolling Stock

For me, Cross Country is always late and overcrowded.

To unpack that a bit… the one Cross Country service I get fairly regularly, the Manchester to Bournmouth via Coventry, is fairly often late and often I have to stand. It's hourly, so that doesn't help, whereas Chiltern from Leamington are at least twice hourly, so missing one is not so inconvenient.

Cross Country also tends to mess up seat reservations, with the little screens displaying incorrect information. That means I spend the entire journey being unsure whether I'll be turfed out of my seat. (Whatever the rules are, I don't want the argument that goes with refusing someone who has a reservation card in their hand.)

If Cross Country could add another two carriages to every Voyager (making them 6 or 7 rather than 4 or 5 carriage trains), that would make the world of difference IMO. If it's not their decision, then letting the customers know "This is what we're doing to try to get more carriages" (e.g. petitioning the DfT or whatever) would help. As it is, it seems like they don't care about the issue.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

For many of (EFA) Gricers and bashers , XC is about making long journeys. It is therefore hardly surprising that our opinions are shaped as a result of our experiences.

here in lays the issue

for most 'normal' people except the very elderly or the terminally nervous XC is not about the end to end journey it's about the none radial routes that need reasonably quick services ( arguably TPE is a TOC based entirely in this market with it's core routes)

 

[Goatboy]

here in lays the issue

Well no, it doesn't - I am neither a 'gricer' nor a 'basher' and use XC only when making a journey I need to make.

 

[MichaelAMW]

Perhaps if XC worked out a way to serve a few more bits of the South-East, they might attract passengers who don't want to change in London or at Reading/Southampton Central/etc. to get to their destinations in the North, West or Midlands.

It's ironic that in some parts of Kent it's easier to catch a direct train to Paris or Brussels than get one to Birmingham, Manchester or Newcastle (for example).

Paris and Brussels are somewhat nearer than Manchester and Newcastle... but I take your point!

 

[gogogoadam]

My contributions:

Chiltern:
Perfectly reasonable way to get to Brum from London, but personally would go with LM as the advance fares are cheaper and prefer WCML! However, walk up fares I would probably go with Chilt. My overall impression is that CR is a company that 'cares' although having said that last time I went with them (London-Aylesbury) there were a load of gateline staff all talking to each other at Marylebone and ignoring customers.

XC:
Hmmm, well I have nothing against Voyagers per se, but I live in Bristol and am annoyed at how expensive it is to get up North. So, I basically use megabus from Bristol-Brum and then get XC from there (to Leeds, Bradford etc) and normally this is much cheaper! That is a source of frustration for me.

(Little word on pendos)
Prefer them to Voyagers, but the lack of windows is a pain!



Adam

 

[Clip]

Perhaps if XC worked out a way to serve a few more bits of the South-East, they might attract passengers who don't want to change in London or at Reading/Southampton Central/etc. to get to their destinations in the North, West or Midlands.

It's ironic that in some parts of Kent it's easier to catch a direct train to Paris or Brussels than get one to Birmingham, Manchester or Newcastle (for example).

Faffing around with paths would be needed, but I'm sure the revenues and full trains would reimburse those who have made the effort.

I did ask a while back whether voyagers could be cleared to go through the Thameslink tunnel in town. Whilst yes, that is going through London it doesn't have to stop anywhere but London bridge and pancakes maybe before heading off north again.

Can't remember if anyone said it was possible mind.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Perhaps if XC worked out a way to serve a few more bits of the South-East, they might attract passengers who don't want to change in London or at Reading/Southampton Central/etc. to get to their destinations in the North, West or Midlands.

It's ironic that in some parts of Kent it's easier to catch a direct train to Paris or Brussels than get one to Birmingham, Manchester or Newcastle (for example).

Faffing around with paths would be needed, but I'm sure the revenues and full trains would reimburse those who have made the effort.

There are Southern and Thameslink services which go through or round the core, and therefore could be useful for those coming from the south and wanting to go north, but the reality is they are so slow and dont really connect with anything so there is no point.

 

[A0]

Perhaps if XC worked out a way to serve a few more bits of the South-East, they might attract passengers who don't want to change in London or at Reading/Southampton Central/etc. to get to their destinations in the North, West or Midlands.

It's ironic that in some parts of Kent it's easier to catch a direct train to Paris or Brussels than get one to Birmingham, Manchester or Newcastle (for example).

Faffing around with paths would be needed, but I'm sure the revenues and full trains would reimburse those who have made the effort.

Most of the routes into London - both from the southern and northern Home Counties - are close to capacity. To start removing capacity from places like Dover, Brighton or Hastings to London, to allow services - which presumably would also need to run via the already congested West London Line and up the equally congested WCML - just to provide a handful of passengers a change-free route to Manchester at the same time as inconveniencing the many thousands who are travelling into London every day seems a completely daft idea.

I don't recall the old Cross Country services to places like Brighton or Dover ever being close to capacity on the occasions I saw them leaving Kensington Olympia - even in the evening peak - whereas a similar service from Victoria or London Bridge would be standing room only.

 

[Kettledrum]

In the context of the number of services XC operates each day, an extra HST or two out there is going to make next to no difference to the general overcrowding, especially when they are only ever used on the SW-NE axis, so I really wouldn't get too hung up about this.

I do get hung up on this because I'm in that crowd at Birmingham New Street in the evening rush hour when you have to fight your way onto an overcrowded 2 coach train because the 4 coach train that should be running that service is operating elsewhere instead of a 7 coach HST.

 

[A0]

I do get hung up on this because I'm in that crowd at Birmingham New Street in the evening rush hour when you have to fight your way onto an overcrowded 2 coach train because the 4 coach train that should be running that service is operating elsewhere instead of a 7 coach HST.

Not sure how that's happening to be honest?

XC's only 2 car units are the 170s and they're kept on Cardiff - Nottingham and Birmingham - Stansted services - so are unlikely to deputise for a Voyager.

It's more likely that you're only getting a 2 car unit (if it is usually 2 x 2 car units) because one unit has failed.

 

[jimm]

I do get hung up on this because I'm in that crowd at Birmingham New Street in the evening rush hour when you have to fight your way onto an overcrowded 2 coach train because the 4 coach train that should be running that service is operating elsewhere instead of a 7 coach HST.

And if they did put an extra HST out and it ran through New Street at a different time from your journey, it makes no difference whatever to overcrowding at that point you're travelling, does it? Same as another HST out on NE-SW services does nothing at all for overcrowding between Manchester, Birmingham, Oxford and Reading, which can be just as bad as the other axis, especially so between Birmingham, Coventry and Leamington, and not an HST in sight... ever.

 

[Hyphen]

Not sure how that's happening to be honest?

XC's only 2 car units are the 170s and they're kept on Cardiff - Nottingham and Birmingham - Stansted services - so are unlikely to deputise for a Voyager.

If your journey is BHM to TAM/BUT/DBY and your northbound Voyager is running late, the first available service often becomes the 170. Likewise southbound to CNM.

Obviously this will depend on how late the Voyager is - if there's only a few minutes in it they'll usually hold the 170 at Gloucester northbound or Derby southbound to keep the more capacious train in front.

 

[A0]

If your journey is BHM to TAM/BUT/DBY and your northbound Voyager is running late, the first available service often becomes the 170. Likewise southbound to CNM.

Obviously this will depend on how late the Voyager is - if there's only a few minutes in it they'll usually hold the 170 at Gloucester northbound or Derby southbound to keep the more capacious train in front.

Thanks for clarifying - so it's not a case as the OP intimated that a 170 is subbing for an HST, it's simply that one train is running a bit late - which is the biggest hazard on the XC network.