Cross Country

[WestCoast]

I guess the same could be said of most stock - standing for your journey is never nice, especially by toilets, regardless of whether its a Voyager or not.

Sort the capacity out and people wouldn't hate them as much.

I agree although, I have actually had reasonable journeys in some vestibules! Although, that was on a train with glass dividers between the seating area and vestibule, with plenty of circulation space (Velaro).

My point about the disabled toilet just shows very poor design. In standard class, a 3-car 185 (with many table seats and aligned seating to windows) has just 21 seats fewer than a 4-car 220.

 

[tbtc]

I agree although, I have actually had reasonable journeys in some vestibules! Although, that was on a train with glass dividers between the seating area and vestibule, with plenty of circulation space (Velaro).

My point about the disabled toilet just shows very poor design. In standard class, a 3-car 185 (with many table seats and aligned seating to windows) has just 21 seats fewer than a 4-car 220.

I agree with you.

A five coach 185 would be a wonderful thing.

Hmm, going off at a tangent here, but how much of the XC map needs 100mph stock?

 

[ainsworth74]

Lovely idea. Shame is, the DFT seem not to want to let Virgin invest in more/longer 390s (or introduce stock straight away), hence the current muddle on the WCML.

Well it's not that the DfT didn't want to just stop Virgin from ordering extra vehicles to extend the 390s it's more that the DfT were unwilling to grant Virgin an extension to their franchise in exchange for lengthening the 390s which is the offer that Virgin made.

But moving back onto Cross Country my main reason for disliking them is simply capacity. If all the 220/221s had been built as (or were lengthened to) 7 or 8 car units then I wouldn't really have much of an issue with them.

Also to those that complain about the lack of ultra cheap advances, surely you can see that services that are already full to beyond capacity do not need ultra cheap advances as this would only worsen the situation?

 

[scotsman]

When CrossCountry can't set its own (expensive) inter-available fare the story is often different.

Glasgow to Edinburgh, Anytime Day Return XC ONLY - £6

Glasgow to Edinburgh, Anytime Day Return (Priced by Scotrail) - £19.80.

:roll:

I don't save more than a few pence with those fares, since I have my own ticketing trick when I head out west - but I tried it on Saturday and it was busy, not only with pax from the NE but also Edinburgh folk. Same on the way back - the price will soon rise and I will soon return to ScotRail!

 

[route:oxford]

Ok, the Voyagers have their problems - but they do have one serious advantage.

They are reliable!

Not once on any Voyager journey that I've made, whether it be Virgin or XC has a service been cancelled, delayed or cut short due to a problem with a Voyager unit. That cannot be said for many other journeys that I've made on the UK network and definitely not for the 47s and Mk2s that they replaced.

Next?

Well, yes. It's doubtful if anyone on these forums would claim that Voyagers are long enough.

Two extra coaches please - ideally with smaller male friendly airline style lavatories. Let me stand safely with my feet braced against either wall on a moving train.

 

[Anvil1984]

I agree although, I have actually had reasonable journeys in some vestibules! Although, that was on a train with glass dividers between the seating area and vestibule, with plenty of circulation space (Velaro).

My point about the disabled toilet just shows very poor design. In standard class, a 3-car 185 (with many table seats and aligned seating to windows) has just 21 seats fewer than a 4-car 220.

However for a 125 mph unit you need to have a third of a coach at either end of the train to act as a crumple zone so in effect you only really 3 and a third coaches legally available compared to a full 3 on a 185. So design flaw or not it doesn't want to make a difference, the main problem as previously mentioned is the SRA /Dft interference

 

[WestCoast]

However for a 125 mph unit you need to have a third of a coach at either end of the train to act as a crumple zone so in effect you only really 3 and a third coaches legally available compared to a full 3 on a 185. So design flaw or not it doesn't want to make a difference, the main problem as previously mentioned is the SRA /Dft interference

Of course, yes, I fully understand that. That still does not make up for the toilets though!

 

[tbtc]

However for a 125 mph unit you need to have a third of a coach at either end of the train to act as a crumple zone so in effect you only really 3 and a third coaches legally available compared to a full 3 on a 185. So design flaw or not it doesn't want to make a difference, the main problem as previously mentioned is the SRA /Dft interference

If XC services could be pathed at 100mph (max) then not only would you not have to worry about crumple zones etc, but you could potentially also get your hands on lots of other stock too (e.g. 170s, 185s)

 

[telstarbox]

Does anyone know what the website address was for Virgin XC?

 

[Masbroughlad]

To me, the top and bottom of it is Arriva don't give two monkeys about XC, its passengers or tremendous potential. To them its staying as is or dumbed down, assets sweated, little investment to improve service. They just see it as a cash cow. I gave them a chance, but now I think they do not deserve a place running XC (or other franchises).

 

[sulli_os]

My problems with XC echo those already stated. My biggest irritation though is the loss of the shop.

A couple of years ago (end of the VT franchise), my girlfriend and I travelled from Sheffield to Cornwall (all the way to Newquay). On this 8(ish) hour trip, we were able to purchase hot food - something approaching a proper meal - colds drinks, snacks and magazines etc when we wanted. Not unreasonable for an 8hr journey.

Next week when we return to Cornwall, we will only be able to purchase rubbish pre-packed sandwiches, no hot food, and lukewarm soft drinks, and only when the catering trolley comes by (it is, of course, not available for large stretches of the journey because of the prep time for changeovers).

XC trips are long, and so it is not unreasonable to expect that you can purchase a meal of some sort. The company, however, seems to think it's a provider of long-distance cattle-trucks.

 

[OMGitsDAVE]

Does anyone know what the website address was for Virgin XC?

http://www.virgincrosscountry.co.uk/

Now just a homepage for Virgin, giving links to others.

 

[junglejames]

Because Virgin wanted longer trains and the DfT said NO. They did it with TPE as well. Are the DfT actaully bothered about XC? It wouldn't surprise me if they aren't, since XC doesn't serve their beloved London. Same goes for Northern, TPE, ATW e.t.c.

Virgin replaced HSTs with 4/5 car voyagers. Whose fault was that? Virgins.
I never heard virgin complain about the voyagers being introduced. They loved them, thought they were the bees knees.
Any company that can replace a HST with a voyager, obviously has something severely wrong with it.

Virgin went and ordered just about enough to cover a timetable that never even doubled the numbers of services. So you have trains half the size, but not twice the number of services. Whose fault was that? Id guess it was virgins.
They never anticipated that a faster, more clockface timetable may attract more passengers. They never anticipated that passenger numbers may go up anyway.
Whose fault was this? Virgins.
The DFT and SRA were not perfect, but id hazard a guess that they were pee'd off at having to sort out virgins mess. Both are to blame, but its mainly virgins fault. They were the ones that originally ordered not enough trains, that didnt have enough seats, that were extremely poorly designed (didnt even think about prototypes), and that were basically horrible uncomfortable (albeit plastic and shiney) regional DMUs on an Intercity service.

 

[Zoe]

As I have said before, the decision to order 4/5 coach Voyagers was likely sound at the time. The idea was to run trains half the length but at double the frequency and so no reduction in capacity. When Operation Princess went ahead and there was an unexpected increase in demand then Virgin did want to order more coaches but the SRA blocked it. The SRA also forced Virgin to stop using HSTs in 2003.

 

[DarloRich]

For me using XC is a horrible experiance unless you can get an HST.

Good Points:

1) Staff - decent people who seem to take a pride in thier job and have to deal with the poor conditions thier employers leave them in. I have seen them take terrible abuse.
2) Getting some HST back. SOOOOOOOOOO much better than a Voyager
3) Their network. I see this as a big selling point, they offer such good links between major UK cities, yet Arriva seem not to care in exploiting or enhanceing this, merely creaming off as much cash as they can

Bad points:

1) Voyagers - They are sh*t. They are not suitable for long distance intercity services. They are regional DMU at best. Try Edinburgh-Plymouth on one. Uncomfortable,cramped,vibrating,crowded, horrible pices of plastic crap which will soon start to fall apart. Torture. Compare and contrast with a 222.
2) Voyagers - Lack of decent/any catering facilities I know XC did a bent survey which gave them the result they wanted ie passengers want at seat service.Fine, but your survey didnt say at seat service = cart with nowt left by York (on a train from Newcastle) IF we put on one your train.
3) Voyagers - food offered by the cart is total crap. Tea, luke warm at best, sandwiches, non existant unless you are in the first 10 people to be served rest of the stuff very over priced
4) Voyagers - Stink of pooh - if you are unlucky enougth to travel stood in the vestibule. Why can Virgin sort this out, at least so it is reduced?
5) Voyagers - too much first class provision - there are often two people sat in first class. ONE coach is enougth. Sort this out NOW to increase capacity for us in cattle class
6) Prices - WAY WAY to high foir the standard of service offered.
7) Prices - Poor advance fare options ( apart for msay Glasgow-Edinburgh) Why? Sort it out now.It is easy to do. But you wont becuase you have a captive market.
8)A perception that Arriva dont really give a toss about the franchise other than as a way to make money. I would love the chief executive and senior management to come for a journey on a friday night out of Birmingham with us mere mortals in cattle class. Come and see how we live. I bet you havent had to stand next to a toilet and breathe someone elses pooh fumes have you. Fancy swapping your first class pass? No - wonder why.
9) Lack of inovation - Arriva just dont seem to care. Things have got worse since they took over, which was hard becuase Virgin XC was poor but Arriva XC is terrible. They have done NOTHING to make the journey better for thier passengers, other than bring back some HST on some routes. Why?

 

[Zoe]

They are regional DMU at best. Try Edinburgh-Plymouth on one.

That's exactly what XC's primary business is these days though, regional travel. Very few people use XC for Edinburgh to Plymouth.

 

[Masbroughlad]

This none long distance journey one is not the case. There are plenty of people do longer distance journeys. Dumbing down like XC have done only encourages longer distance travellers to leave for other modes. A clever way of running down the service. There is lots of scope for through INTERCITY standard journeys between major, non-London cities.

 

[Zoe]

There is lots of scope for through INTERCITY standard journeys between major, non-London cities.

Indeed there is but remember the railways are run for profit. The XC service from Plymouth to Edinburgh is effectively a regional service and stops at many stations as this is where the business is. I think that there should be an intercity standard service on this route but I'm not sure there is a business case for it.

 

[junglejames]

As I have said before, the decision to order 4/5 coach Voyagers was likely sound at the time. The idea was to run trains half the length but at double the frequency and so no reduction in capacity. When Operation Princess went ahead and there was an unexpected increase in demand then Virgin did want to order more coaches but the SRA blocked it. The SRA also forced Virgin to stop using HSTs in 2003.

The trouble is, they never ordered enough to run double the number of trains.
Virgin at the time believed this new clock face timetable would prove popular, so why didnt they order enough trains to cover an increase in passengers? Its alright saying the new timetable would be brilliant. Good, so order enough trains to cover the extra passengers you anticipate.

The SRA were stupid to take the HSTs off of virgin, but im guessing it was partly annoyance at the way virgin were going about things.

 

[Zoe]

Virgin at the time believed this new clock face timetable would prove popular

That's the point though, Virgin didn't expect it to be as popular as it was. On the core section of the route twice as many trains were run so there was no reduction in capacity. Outside of the core section it was rare to see the trains busy so had the introduction of the Voygares not been so popular then 4/5 coaches would have been all that was needed. Had there not been the increase in demand at the start of Operation Princess then in general the introduction of the Voyagers would likely have been a success.

 

[sprinterguy]

A lot of the problems with Crosscountry do boil down the poor design of the Voyagers:
The first class offering is shockingly poor for an Intercity operator, especially when you consider the extent of the XC network. This is no doubt due to the lack of facilities on a Voyager for preparing proper meals, or for storing any reasonable amount of food or drink.

The shop has been removed since Virgin days because the space is desperately needed for storing luggage, relieving the well recognised issue on Voyagers of passengers and luggage alike sharing saloon space. This has removed what should be an important feature on an Intercity train, the ability to purchase drinks and snacks during a long journey.

The Voyagers are far too short for the service they operate which previously witnessed seven carriage trains (On a good day when there weren’t stock issues admittedly). Yes the service frequency has been dramatically increased, but it should have been easily recognised that increasing the frequency would lead to increased passenger numbers at a time when the railways should be planning for growth at any rate.

There’s surely no need for that many disabled toilets when there’s so few carriages in each train to fit seats into. Plus, through a bit of catastrophically bad design, the toilets stink.

So yes, unfortunately, a lot of Crosscountrys’ perceived woes boil down to the inadequacies of the trains they operate.

However I will also say that Arrivas’ approach to the Crosscountry franchise appears to be very lacklustre, with no interest in providing a good quality service or doing anything above the bare minimum required of them. Virgin were always going to be a tough act to follow in terms of service presentation thanks in no small part to their highly developed talents with PR and spin, but Arriva have done themselves no favours by letting the franchise “go stale” as it were.

On the other hand, as I do not wish to be all negative overall despite that being the nature of the thread, I do like the fact that Crosscountry are generally very reliable, with the trains presented tidily and that I can expect a consistent service every time I board an XC train. I’d rather XC concentrated on the day job as they are doing than focus on providing flashy gimmicks but failing to provide a consistently acceptable service. My top priority when travelling by rail is that my train will depart when it is meant to and get to my destination when it says it will, which XC achieve with ease despite the complexity of their network (Copper fairies in Yorkshire seem to be a recurring headache).

Additionally, I like the trolley service that's offered. There's some very nice sandwiches on there

 

[DarloRich]

That's exactly what XC's primary business is these days though, regional travel. Very few people use XC for Edinburgh to Plymouth.

But there is! What is regional? What is Intercity?

That is like saying that every service run by every company is a regional service. It doesnt stand up.

Take the journey i often do which is Birmingham to York. Where does that fall? Regional or Intercity? it is a c.2 hour journey. Even that is to far on a Voyager.

 

[Zoe]

Take the journey i often do which is Birmingham to York. Where does that fall? Regional or Intercity? it is a c.2 hour journey. Even that is to far on a Voyager.

Would you still call it intercity if the train started at Birmingham and only ran to York?

 

[junglejames]

That's the point though, Virgin didn't expect it to be as popular as it was. On the core section of the route twice as many trains were run so there was no reduction in capacity. Outside of the core section it was rare to see the trains busy so had the introduction of the Voygares not been so popular then 4/5 coaches would have been all that was needed. Had there not been the increase in demand at the start of Operation Princess then in general the introduction of the Voyagers would likely have been a success.

4/5 coaches would only have been enough on the routes that have subsequently been dropped. Plenty of non core routes got busy even with 7 coaches. Are we counting Bournemouth to Reading as a core route? Frequently this stretch was fairly busy on a 7 coach HST or LHCS.
The problem is, virgin never ordered enough trains to cater for any increase in passengers at all. Despite expecting an increase, they never ordered enough stock for it.
You say on the core section there has been no reduction in capacity. But where is the increase in capacity? There isnt any, and this is after numerous routes have had to be scrapped. Imagine if the small routes like Brighton and Liverpool had been kept. Then you wouldnt have even had enough stock for double frequency on the core sections.
The only way the change in timetable could have been succesful, was if all voyagers had been ordered as 7 coaches. But then of course they end up being more inefficient than HSTs!

 

[Zoe]

At the time 7 car Voyagers running at twice the frequency would have been overkill. Remember that at this time there wasn't expected to be the increase in passengers that there was. 7 car Voyagers would also have been more expensive to run due to the fuel they use.

 

[AeroSpace]

Would you still call it intercity if the train started at Birmingham and only ran to York?

London - Bristol, London - Birmingham are intercity routes. Birmingham - Leeds (say) is not really any different.

 

[Zoe]

London - Bristol, London - Birmingham are intercity routes. Birmingham - Leeds (say) is not really any different.

Edinburgh to Aberdeen though is not. This route is primarily served by DMUs other than the HSTs to King's Cross.

 

[DarloRich]

Would you still call it intercity if the train started at Birmingham and only ran to York?

Yes I would. Would you not?

I would class Birmingham to Derby or Bristol as inter regional

See i would class Edinbugrh/Glasgow to Aberdeen/ Inverness intercity routes

 

[Zoe]

Yes I would. Would you not?

I would like to think of a journey like this as intercity but I'm not sure everyone sees it that way. The A42(T) road which forms part of the route from Birmingham to Leeds is only regarded as a road of regional importance.

 

[sprinterguy]

See i would class Edinbugrh/Glasgow to Aberdeen/ Inverness intercity routes

So would I. Those routes used to have such luxuries as loco hauled mark 2 and mark 3 rakes, in lengths of five carriages upwards, in BR days. And that was when the railways were in decline!