Grand Central apply for Newcastle - Brighton direct

[NCT]

Do Cross Country still hold the rights to the paths they are not operating?

 

[duffield]

Because they’re not run by a Managing Director who learned all she knew about the railway by mangling the Royal Mail before going off to run an Amazon prison fulfilment centre?

If XC can’t or won’t operate those paths, they should be given to someone who will.

But this is totally irrelevant since XC - and very specifically the managing director - will be history in October 2027 and GBR will be running the service. Her current performance should form no part in making long term decisions. GBR should be given the chance to use the paths before handing them over to a private company.

 

[ainsworth74]

Because a new operator wouldn't be so daft as take on a 7 day a week contract and only employ enough staff so that it is relying on volunteers (voluntary overtime) to fulfil the full basic schedule.

Being new, rather than inheriting staff means not TUPE which allows correct terms and conditions rather than some 19th century approach where poorly paid staff were desperate for overtime money which no longer works.

But the reason that XC aren't able to sort things out is in large part because their hands are tied by Government decisions some recent, some over many decades meaning they're stuck between a rock and a hard place...

Perhaps a different senior leadership team could play the cards they've been dealt differently and better, but the cards they've been dealt are still extraordinarily poor and it's doubtful that anyone given the constraints over not having a free hand to try and fix the underlying issues (capacity and industrial relations) would do all that much better.

Personally it makes more sense to actually enable XC to be fixed first rather than just saying "Oh, lets get another operator in to run four or five services per day".

But this is totally irrelevant since XC - and very specifically the managing director - will be history in October 2027 and GBR will be running the service. Her current performance should form no part in making long term decisions. GBR should be given the chance to use the paths before handing them over to a private company.

Quite!

 

[The Ham]

Why do you assume an alternative operator wouldn't have the same issue?

They may well do (although others have covered this).

The factor in favour for doing it is that XC/GBR can use their stock pushed off those paths (or not relocated from where they are currently being used) to provide capacity elsewhere.

Given that the currently run services between Newcastle and Reading are run by 4 coach units, the class 180's would give an increase in standard class seats of 52 and 16 seats in first class.

Even if they were to run as 5 coach sets with XC there would still be 6 extra standard class seats and 16 extra in first class.

If XC were to be given the opportunity to get 12 sets with 9 coaches and 40 sets with 5 coaches matching the GWR class 800's (I.e. a larger capacity train but within the same number of coaches as the current 22x fleets) then it'll be a different question.

As then the 180's would have 64 fewer standard seats but 6 more first class seats (net 58 fewer seats) and every current 4 coach 22x service would, by being replaced by a train which matches the class 800's would have 114 more standard class seats and 10 extra first class seats.

As such the 180"s would be reducing capacity and so would be a bad idea.

As the number of coaches is broadly the same (but slightly lower) as long as the lease per coach is comparable there's no cost increase, but there would be cost savings. Even before the potential for carrying more passengers.

All XC/GBR need to do to ensure that this OAO application is totally dead is put out a tender for a fleet which matches the GWR class 800's for capacity, performance, etc.

Until then, the limited resources at XC should be given a boost by giving the OAO the paths and XC focus on using their units to run more pairs across the core (which would likely generate a larger profit than running the 5 missing paths - which presumably are less desirable than the ones they already run).

 

[Tetchytyke]

But this is totally irrelevant since XC - and very specifically the managing director - will be history in October 2027 and GBR will be running the service

None of the other TOCs have had a replacement of management when they were nationalised.

And if we work on the assumption that, as XC claim, XC’s hands are tied by government anyway…

 

[The Planner]

Because they’re not run by a Managing Director who learned all she knew about the railway by mangling the Royal Mail before going off to run an Amazon prison fulfilment centre?

If XC can’t or won’t operate those paths, they should be given to someone who will.

The MD coming from anotber company is irrelevant.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The MD coming from anotber company is irrelevant.

It’s not really, not when the root cause of XC’s woes are abysmal industrial relations. As we see on Sundays and as we see with the number of booked double units running around with one unit locked out of use due to insufficient staff.

If XC can’t or won’t use the paths they have then they should be given to somebody who will.

 

[357]

booked double units running around with one unit locked out of use due to insufficient staff.

Not due to insufficient staff - due to XC withdrawing the higher payment to the catering staff for taking on the higher levels of responsibility to manage the set on their own.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 May 2026 ==

If XC can’t or won’t use the paths they have then they should be given to somebody who will.

Indeed, it should be a free market!

 

[zwk500]

It’s not really, not when the root cause of XC’s woes are abysmal industrial relations.

I hardly think you can pin the current MD as even the primary cause of this issue, given XC's industrial relations before she was anywhere near the company.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 May 2026 ==

Not due to insufficient staff - due to XC withdrawing the higher payment to the catering staff for taking on the higher levels of responsibility to manage the set on their own.

There are posts on other threads (from somebody identifying as catering staff) that say XC would happily offer the payment.

Is there an accurate, yet succinct summary of each party's claimed position on the matter, and evidence to suggest whether or not the claims are in good faith?

 

[357]

I hardly think you can pin the current MD as even the primary cause of this issue, given XC's industrial relations before she was anywhere near the company.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 May 2026 ==


There are posts on other threads (from somebody identifying as catering staff) that say XC would happily offer the payment.

Is there an accurate, yet succinct summary of each party's claimed position on the matter, and evidence to suggest whether or not the claims are in good faith?

XC withdrew the payment and were hoping that the catering staff wouldn't want to rock the boat. Unfortunately on a public forum I'm going to have to state my source as "trust me bro" I hope you understand... but I will say that I did see the paperwork from both sides at the time.

I believe I know the poster you are referring to who is always very anti-union and has their own twist on things.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I hardly think you can pin the current MD as even the primary cause of this issue, given XC's industrial relations before she was anywhere near the company.

The Retail Service Manager issue was on her watch.

 

[Clarence Yard]

It doesn’t matter whose watch it was on, if the DfT won’t authorise the payment, that is it.

 

[Killingworth]

There are no easy answers for all our journeys

The XC Reading York service will run almost every hour in the May 2026 Timetable with some extending to and from Newcastle.
This looks to be close to the restoration of the full hourly service.

Living in south Sheffield with family and friends in Newcastle my prime interest in XC is that part of their route. Great to get 2 trains per hour for much of the day, but hang on.

Coming south from Newcastle they start only 4 to 7 minutes apart. Via Doncaster is my quicker ride in under 2 hours arriving at about xx.23. Via Leeds it's almost half an hour longer arriving nearer xx.55. A no brainer, avoid going via Leeds? Only need to get to Central a few minutes earlier to board a quicker train that's likely to depart on time. Via Leeds is likely to be busier, and often late.

It's not that simple. In Sheffield I want to catch a Hope Valley stopping train at xx.14. That better matches the XC coming via Leeds to achieve a shorter full journey time. Get the faster XC via Doncaster and I'm cooling my heels in Sheffield for 50 minutes, getting a taxi, or a family pick up.

Going north the two trains run within 10 minutes of each other from Sheffield, both making an easy connection with my incoming Hope Valley stopping train. Via Doncaster I'll have slightly longer to wait in Sheffield but should be in Newcastle about 15 minutes earlier.

That's when it comes to ticket pricing. Split ticketing? Maybe it's cheaper by TPE from Dore to Doncaster then LNER to Newcastle? Quite quick too. A recent return journey worked out both cheapest and quickest going LNER Newcastle to York, LNER York to Doncaster, Northern Doncaster to Sheffield, Northern Sheffield to Dore. (All those direct XC trains run through Dore.) My travelling companion on that trip was impressed with the planning. I was impressed that all the trains ran to time.

No wonder some are deterred from using trains - complexity of both timetables and fares plus overcrowding and cancelled trains. Do we need yet more options? But my brother lives near Brighton so maybe I do!

 

[The Ham]

No wonder some are deterred from using trains - complexity of both timetables and fares plus overcrowding and cancelled trains. Do we need yet more options? But my brother lives near Brighton so maybe I do!

My main support for suggesting that the OAO is given a chance is that it would increase capacity.

Not only do the 180's have more capacity than a single 220 or 221 (something which is going to be more liken when XC are running hourly to Newcastle), but also will mean that the current numbers of pairs formed of 220/221's will be reduced.

As such, the introduction of the OAO would not only mean the returning of the current number of pairs of units at XC, but would also likely mean more seats per service along the route where they are run by the OAO.

Given that these are paths which XC have chosen not to run would imply they didn't make a lot of money from them and so a 4 coach set is the most likely service provided, that is already significantly smaller than the 180's which are 5 coaches long (before looking at seating numbers, which are higher than the 5 coach 221's)