Could the Cross Country franchise be improved?

[anti-pacer]

What? No love for north of Edinburgh?

Maybe the odd service to/from Aberdeen.

 

[Starmill]

Four posts, that must be a record.

Someone who doesn't need to travel XC Voyager very often right here.

 

[najaB]

Someone who doesn't need to travel XC Voyager very often right here.

It's just been done to death. Can't we just take it as fact that Voyagers smell?

 

[Starmill]

I think the best suggestion for an augmented XC service is to continue trains to Cardiff to Swansea.

 

[Minilad]

I think the best suggestion for an augmented XC service is to continue trains to Cardiff to Swansea.

Has been considered before. I don't think this will ever happen due to cost of training. Add to that lack of available 170s

 

[najaB]

I think the best suggestion for an augmented XC service is to continue trains to Cardiff to Swansea.

It would be good, but does adding two hours to the turn then throw the rest of their schedule through the window? And is there the unmet demand - there's already something like 45 trains a day between Cardiff and Swansea?

 

[NorthernSpirit]

How about a Wick to Penzance XC service?

Whilst we're at it, how about a Scarborough to Yeovil via Westbury service, it'd need to be sent through the Calder Valley to keep me happy though.

 

[najaB]

How about a Wick to Penzance XC service?

Wick to Penzance in a 158... that'll be some people's idea of hell.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Wick to Penzance in a 158... that'll be some people's idea of hell.

Couldn't be much worse on Miseryrail 142!

 

[najaB]

Couldn't be much worse on Miseryrail 142!

No, the UNHCHR would get involved if anyone suggested that.

 

[455driver]

I love these threads.
I have one suggestion to improve XC. Pay their drivers more

Fekorf, you get paid more than enough as it is!

 

[Starmill]

Has been considered before. I don't think this will ever happen due to cost of training. Add to that lack of available 170s

I wasn't suggesting it as a good idea for the current franchise. But both easily solved with a new tender.

It would be good, but does adding two hours to the turn then throw the rest of their schedule through the window? And is there the unmet demand - there's already something like 45 trains a day between Cardiff and Swansea?

I think it would have a practical use. Swansea is 2 changes away from places that can't be easily reached from Cardiff, including some parts of the North East, North West, East Midlands and Scotland. It could increase the competitiveness of Swansea to have direct trains to the West Midlands and put 1 change from most anywhere in the country like Cardiff is. It would require more resources in a new XC tender but I think it has a lot more potential than some other suggestions.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Depends what you define as soon.
October 2019, although it was originally due to end next month.

The current franchise ends in October 2016 (along with Voyager leases).
A Direct Award with Arriva has been signalled to take it to Oct 2019, but there has been total silence about negotiations - during which time many of the dominos of other franchises have fallen (eg TPE, GWR award etc).
Arriva, who repeatedly failed to win other franchise competitions, have now won Northern and are well-placed to keep XC.
I would expect some negotiations between DfT and Arriva are in progress, but the pattern of Direct Awards seems to be steady as you are rather than any big changes.
In particular, there is still no clarity on the future of the 22x fleet nationwide, and this is the most important factor in any XC plans in the medium term.
You can forget about electric spine, TPE and MML electrification affecting the next XC franchise plans in the current Hendy climate.

 

[najaB]

I think it would have a practical use. Swansea is 2 changes away from places that can't be easily reached from Cardiff, including some parts of the North East, North West, East Midlands and Scotland.

I can't speak for the North East, but you can get from the Scottish cities that XC serves to Swansea in one change already.

Edit: Though, thinking about it, Aberdeen to Edinburgh are only by CS.

 

[Mojo]

I think the current "real" (i.e. not the 170 routes) XC network works quite well and can't really think of any other major destinations that could be served, except perhaps reintroduction of services to Glasgow via the West Coast, although I'm not so sure how this could be incorporated into the network of evenly-spaced services.

I would like to see services speeded up though through the removal of stops; I'd start by running all Voyager/HST services as express between Birmingham to Derby, Newcastle to Edinburgh and Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Unbreak the fares by:

* Moving from the blanket 09.30 off-peak start to one attuned to local conditions
* Relinquishing responsibility for flows which do not include majority/significant journeys on an XC service
* Only selling advance tickets for parts of a journey where the train won't be filled by turn-up-and-go passengers. (This means more Super Off-Peaks.)

Potentially - and I know there are a thousand arguments against this - consider pick-up/set-down restrictions so that (say) West Midlands passengers don't cram onto Voyagers for one-stop journeys when there's an LM train along in a few minutes.

No extensions. Rather, consider retreating from the furthest extents of the network (e.g. Penzance) which can be better served by the local operator, enabling more capacity/doubled-up trains in the core.

Use the HSTs more. For crying out loud, GWR makes more use of its five famously unreliable 180s than XC does of its five time-proven HSTs.

Abandon the idea of making reservations en route. It makes turn-up-and-go travel needlessly stressful.

Free wifi. Charging for wifi is plain customer-hostile. Coffee shops don't, hotels increasingly don't, GWR/Chiltern/etc. don't.

And more than three bike spaces per train. In practice you can get more bikes on a GWR Turbo than you can on a Voyager. Easy way to implement this: allow bikes into the adjacent luggage space (which is tall enough for most bikes) at certain times.

 

[Haydn1971]

Like the idea to bin off the XC Scotland services, chop at Newcastle, there's TPE & VTEC going north, plus opens some paths for open access operations. A big order of bi-modes would be lovely, reform some of the 22x units into longer units and reform some into regional units for cascades onto suitable routes to allow 158/159's to enable these to be cascaded onto routes that only need 2-3 carriages.

 

[Skutter]

For example, frequencies, routes, new destinations, taking routes off the franchise, adding new ones on.

How would you change it or do you think it's fine as it is.

Attract richer passengers.

The various franchise holders have had plenty of time to figure out how to earn the most money from the customers, and it looks like the best return is to cram people into Standard at low prices. First by contrast is civilised but very expensive (is there a comparison of Advance std/1st prices anywhere? I suspect XC would come out bottom.) Without more money from the people they carry, they will always be stuck in subsidy and unable to afford any increase in capacity or service.

How to do it? Massive advertising campaign, selling themselves as the choice of successful business/student/sport/celebrity people. Stop accepting interavailable tickets under £50 but have a loyalty scheme with discounts for repeat travel and signing new passengers. Integrated smart ticketing so people can turn up and travel on account and pay at the end of the month. Speed up the timetables and pay NR and other TOCs for priority treatment to make it reliable.

Other sectors can do this, why not rail?

 

[The Ham]

Like the idea to bin off the XC Scotland services, chop at Newcastle, there's TPE & VTEC going north, plus opens some paths for open access operations. A big order of bi-modes would be lovely, reform some of the 22x units into longer units and reform some into regional units for cascades onto suitable routes to allow 158/159's to enable these to be cascaded onto routes that only need 2-3 carriages.

I suggested elsewhere that by forming a 10 coach 22x it would have broadly the same capacity as a 9 coach train formed of 159's. If these were used on a 0.5tph frequency from Exeter to Waterloo with 1.5tph (rising to 2.5tph post Crossrail 2) run by EMU"s from Salisbury.

By doing so you would just need 6 of them, you would still need a DMU shuttle to run Exeter to Salisbury on the other 0.5tph.

 

[43096]

Where to start with XC? It's really all about undoing the mistakes of the past. So, firstly, bin the Voyagers and get some decent length trains. Then get proper catering (i.e. a buffet car) back.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The current franchise ends in October 2016 (along with Voyager leases).
A Direct Award with Arriva has been signalled to take it to Oct 2019, but there has been total silence about negotiations - during which time many of the dominos of other franchises have fallen (eg TPE, GWR award etc).
Arriva, who repeatedly failed to win other franchise competitions, have now won Northern and are well-placed to keep XC.
I would expect some negotiations between DfT and Arriva are in progress, but the pattern of Direct Awards seems to be steady as you are rather than any big changes.
In particular, there is still no clarity on the future of the 22x fleet nationwide, and this is the most important factor in any XC plans in the medium term.
You can forget about electric spine, TPE and MML electrification affecting the next XC franchise plans in the current Hendy climate.

Yes, any new direct award would need to deal with the HSTs. Either they will commit to upgrading them as with ScotRail, or they will commit to replacing them with some other rolling stock. Even if some of the changes happen after the end of the direct award, it will be necessary for them to sort them out.

Since the only trains in a position to be sent to XC are the ICWC Super Voyagers, that does put quite a limit on what movements would be possible before the 2020 accessibility deadline. Either Alstom or CAF could deliver new electric trains to free up Voyagers on the under-the-wires Scotland-Birmingham runs, but if they go for CAF I can't see them being able to free up every 221 as some would still be needed to tilt on the southern WCML on their way to Chester and North Wales. If more Pendolinos were ordered, then the entire fleet of 20x5 would be able to go to XC, which should then be able to release the HSTs but it wouldn't stretch too far.

If more capacity is needed on the core then the only solution really would be to start cutting services back, but I don't see this being the end of the world. If ScotRail are going to run HSTs north of Edinburgh then I don't see the XC offering being able to compete, and cutting back to Newcastle would be reasonable if instead their path were used by a 125mph TPE service from Liverpool which would take advantage of the wires. That service would preserve the Edinburgh-Leeds link as well, so it shouldn't cause a massive amount of harm. I think that there is a lot of suppressed demand on the XC core at the moment as a result of the overcrowding on services, so just providing enough capacity to then give every current passenger a seat might not end up lasting very long.

 

[XC victim]

I live in Banbury ad remember through services to Leeds, Liverpool, the North West and Brighton (yeah I said it) on proper trains ( HSTs and loco hauled mk2).

These days I am a regular traveller on XC services and usually have to endure a 4 coach voyager. A 4 coach voyager has just over 2 1/2 standard class coaches which is patently not enough capacity for the long distance services they provide. I really don't mind the voyagers they are fast and reliable and for those lucky few who manage to get a seat they comfortable enough. And I am pretty sure the only reason the toilet smells are noticed so much is due to the large proportion of people who end up stood in the vestibule areas. My only complaint about the voyagers is the lack of capacity.

The 5 car supervoyagers have about 40% more standard class seats and are noticeably less crowded. If all services were 5 car trains then although services would be crowded the serious over crowding problem would be alleviated.

But I cannot see anyway that XC services are going to improve within the next 10years. For a start XC is the forgotten franchise. They don't serve London or are seen as part of the Northern powerhouse so there is simply no political desire to improve services.

I don't see where they are going to get any extra trains in the next few years. The only trains I can see being released are a few HSTs being available but given that XC don't seem to like using the HSTs they have at the moment I can't see them wanting more HSTs. I don't think the class 222 will be a available for many years. Maybe a few virgin class 221 will be available but not for a few years and I think virgin will want to keep hold of some of them. And due to the lack of political desire I can't see any new trains for XC which is a shame because given the nature of the XC network, the new Bi-mode trains would be ideal.

Oh well it looks like us XC passengers will have to suffer in silence, thank god we can come on here to moan

 

[The Ham]

I think that the combination of:

Some EMU's to run Manchester to Reading (frees up 7 Voyagers) which are 7 coaches long will provide quite an uplift in capacity, even over a 5 coach Voyager.
AND
More use of HST/getting the ICWC's 221's to replace the HST's

If we assume that each of the 7 units freed up by the new EMU's are 220's that will allow a 221 to swap duties with another 220 to pair up with one of the 220's released by the EMU's.

That will mean that:
- 7 diagrams currently run by 220's will be run by 221's
- 7 diagrams currently run by a 221 will be run by a pair of 220's

That would mean (excluding any services which are currently run doubled up) about 40% of the 220's would be permanently doubled up.

Add to that some extra running if the HST's/ICWC's 221's and with some relatively small extra costs (9 new 7 coach EMU's, or more likely 17 EMU sets of 4 coaches capable of 110 mph) it would make a noticeable difference. That small cost increase would be offset by the extra passengers that could be carried.

 

[The Planner]

But I cannot see anyway that XC services are going to improve within the next 10years. For a start XC is the forgotten franchise. They don't serve London or are seen as part of the Northern powerhouse so there is simply no political desire to improve services.

Probably one of the better points made about XC instead of the constantly repeated scrap Voyagers and bring back HSTs.

 

[The Ham]

But I cannot see anyway that XC services are going to improve within the next 10years. For a start XC is the forgotten franchise. They don't serve London or are seen as part of the Northern powerhouse so there is simply no political desire to improve services.

Probably one of the better points made about XC instead of the constantly repeated scrap Voyagers and bring back HSTs.

There may not be significant improvements, but there is likely to be some.

Although XC doesn't serve London it does serve a LOT of places, as such there would be a LOT of political benefit to be seen to improving it. As a lot of MP's will be wanting to be seen as improving rail for their constituencies.

It should also be noted that last year (excluding NR funding) it paid a premium to DfT, as such it is more likely to see improvements than it was when it wasn't. Especially if the improvements are running EMU's - which reduces running costs, which would mean the franchise was more likely to return a premium. A good possible candidate could be the 387's which would allow people to walk through the trains (i.e. less staff than a pair of Voyagers), with probably about 235 seats per unit (i.e. an 8 coach train would have getting on for the same capacity as a pair of 221's) and has the option of running them as single or double units as the need arises.

Given the amount of work required to allow HST's to be used past 2020 I would suggest that it is unlikely that they will see much of a longer term comeback. If they do then it is likely to be a stop gap measure (i.e. upto 2019) or they will follow Scotrail's plan and be 2+5 or 2+6 (and in relatively few numbers) and be used until the start of the following franchise when more services can be run with EMU's.

At present, allowing for one HST being a spare, I would suggest that if just 9 of ICWC's 221's were released (1 of those being for a spare) that would be enough to replace the 5 HST's which Crosscountry have. Although there could be scope for less, as the 221's may not need to run in pairs the whole time (i.e. the whole length of a route) and/or could be used to allow 220's to run in pairs.

Voyagers are here to stay, and even my suggestion of scrapping end coaches to form longer units would only start to happen once there were significant numbers of routes being run by EMU's and/or significant numbers of 222's added into the mix. As such probably circa 2025 (i.e. beyond the 10 years suggested above). However even then there could be a case made for having some 2 coach, standard class only, units (circa 84 seats) to act as crowd busters through the cores (i.e. having a 9 coach train formed of a 7 coach unit and a 2 coach unit with a total of 446 seats - 362 + 84).

 

[daodao]

I would like to see services speeded up though through the removal of stops; I'd start by running all Voyager/HST services as express between Birmingham to Derby, Newcastle to Edinburgh and Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester.

There are quite a lot of people living in Cheshire. Maxonians and Stopfordians would be angered by such a proposal.

 

[misterredmist]

I want rid of the horrible voyagers and would be more happy with HST I detest voyagers. Seriously more capacity is the key.

Spot on , whoever allowed such short formed and smelly stock on our railway for such long distance journeys should have their b*lls placed upon the rails...

 

[Tetchytyke]

That would mean (excluding any services which are currently run doubled up) about 40% of the 220's would be permanently doubled up.

The HSTs are not a permanent solution, but there's no need for EMUs to increase capacity just yet. Maybe getting XC to use the HST rakes they do have- rather than leaving half of them parked in Craigentinny all week- might be a good start.

 

[adrock1976]

My view of the present XC franchise is that it is half man, half biscuit caused as a result of the former Regional Railways Central/Central Trains carve-up in 2007.

If it is going to be a mix of both traditional Intercity services and regional services, it should be done properly first time round without fail.

As XC do not have stations of their own, or many sections of route that are unique to XC, perhaps we should look at it as being complementary with other operators that are shared with the common sections of route. For example, the Derby - Sheffield Midland common section sees 4 tph, but northbound, there are three departures in the space of 20 minutes, then a huge gap for the fourth departure. Ideally, this should be every 15 minutes, and would involve the London SP - Sheffield Midland IC services to be tweaked slightly so as each operator would have a departure every 30 minutes, combining to give a frequency of every 15 minutes along that common section of route.

Another tweak for the IC services would be to extend the Bristol TM - Manchester Pic short workings to Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley, taking over the TP service (which was previously XC). This would reinstate direct IC services from Birmingham, Stafford, and Stoke-on-Trent to Bolton TS, and from Stafford and Stoke to Preston, the North West, and Scotland. Furthermore, direct services would be restored between Preston and the South West via Birmingham. Bi-mode stock could be used as a temporary measure until Bristol - Birmingham (and the remainder of Midland Railway IC (except Skipton - Carlisle Citadel) receives wires.

In regards to the regional services, the present Birmingham - Leicester LR short workings to transfer to EMT, and extended to Lincoln Central via Nottingham. The present Birmingham - Stansted Airport service to be extended to Chester via Shrewsbury and Wrexham, taking over the present service. Also, an additional XC service to be introduced running from Holyhead or Llandudno (alternating every 2 hours) - Ipswich via the proper route of Stafford to Birmingham, then onwards calling at (perhaps) Coleshill Parkway, Nuneaton, Leicester LR, Melton Mowbray, Oakham, Stamford, Peterborough, March, Ely, Bury St Edmunds, Stowmarket, and Ipswich. This would give a combined frequency together with the Stansted Airport service of every 30 minutes between Wolverhampton and Ely via Birmingham and Peterborough, and would restore the links that were lost in the 2007 carve-up.

The above are just a couple of things that could be done to improve the present services, both Intercity and the regional services. As I have focused on bringing back regional links that were lost in the 2007 carve-up, thinking about it, the BBC brought back Doctor Who, Cadbury's brought back Wispa bars, and Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Croydon, and Nottingham have in recent years brought back trams.

 

[The Ham]

Spot on , whoever allowed such short formed and smelly stock on our railway for such long distance journeys should have their b*lls placed upon the rails...

The Mark 2's wouldn't have lasted much longer and the HST's are now in use elsewhere. Something had to be done, however the solution that was gone with isn't now ideal - even though at the time it appeared a good idea.

If it was suggested then that in just 20 years we would see a doubling of passenger numbers up to now, other than most people thinking that were mad, it could have been planned better.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The HSTs are not a permanent solution, but there's no need for EMUs to increase capacity just yet. Maybe getting XC to use the HST rakes they do have- rather than leaving half of them parked in Craigentinny all week- might be a good start.

HST's are likely to be fine upto the early part of the next franchise (assuming the current one is extended to 2019), however unless XC are willing to invest in making the HST's compliant for use after the start of 2020 EMU's maybe a better solution at that point in time (they are no good until about then anyway as the wires will not enable a complete route to be run).

Assuming 2.5% growth over the next 5 years will put us at about 13% more passengers on the XC network by 2021, if we hit 5% then it would be over 27% more passengers. 27% growth would mean that each 220 would have to be replaced by a 221 AND overcrowding would get worse.

I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a significant amount of suppressed demand that would mean that any small improvements to capacity was used almost as fast as it was provided.

Running 3 of the HSTS on a daily basis (leaving two as spares) would be a good first step (i.e. probably would be part of the announcement if the extension to current franchise is given the go ahead), but more than that would be needed for during the next franchise. As by 2028 (9 years after the assumed start of 2019 for the next franchise) we could be looking at needing to cope with between 37% and 89% (2.5% to 5% growth per year) more passengers than now.

Just providing an extra 33% more capacity would mean the requirement of about 8 more 221's and 14 more 220's (or equivalent). As such 20 EMU's with the same capacity as a 221 probably isn't too far off that level. Add in the 20 sets of 221's which ICWC has and you are getting to about 65% increase in capacity. As such during the next franchise EMU's would likely be a good idea.

In fact I would argue that an order of 20 EMU's (to Run Manchester to Reading) with an option for a further 20 (so they can be delivered when wires allow them to be used) is probably required (assuming all the 221's OR all the 222's end up at XC) to meet the potential future passenger demand (i.e. 65% to 99% extra passenger capacity over what we see today).

One of the problems with assuming that XC can have all the 22x fleets by 2025 is that if XC sees high levels of passenger growth then they will have no mechanism to place a small order of extra units to cope with demand. One other is that some of the 22x's could be retained where they are currently run, although that should be known by the time the ITT comes out (assuming a 2019 start date for the franchise).

If XC do what SWT's have done and not get/want an extension to the existing franchise to 2019 then there could be all sorts of problems with working out what stock they can access and so I would expect an order for bimodal units with an option for lots more (which would possibly only get taken up if 22x's aren't forthcoming from their existing TOC's).