Route and rolling stock changes which could fix CrossCountry's problems?

[py_megapixel]

At the moment, service on the CrossCountry franchise seems somewhat poor. Arriva, who have held the franchise for almost 12 years at this point, continues to run trains which has received little more than mild refurbishment and which are often extremely overcrowded. On the other hand, the routes they operated are useful, and significantly reduce the number of changes needed for many journeys. Since it now appears that the franchise will once again be directly awarded to Arriva for at least another year, it seems as good a time as any to speculate about what the franchise operator could do to fix XC's problems.

This thread assumes that it is not possible to order new rolling stock or make major infrastructure changes at this time, although options such as taking on old trains (such as HSTs) could be debated.

One of the main things that I would do would be to completely strip down the fleet of [Super] Voyagers and install better soundproofing, new toilets, and give the seats at least a deep clean and new covers, if it is considered too early to replace them. Possibly a few seats could be removed and the other seats shuffled around accordingly to allow more legroom for passengers, and then the leftover seats could be used to convert part of the first class carriage to standard to reduce the number of standard passengers that need to stand. I don't mind Voyagers except when they are crowded, and I can't say I'm a fan of how much noise they make.

It looks like the Meridians will be leaving the Midland Mainline soon as well. Maybe XC could make use of those? Also, there may be some routes which should be transferred to or from the franchise.

Please feel free to debate any ideas which could improve the XC franchise (including anything which I haven't covered) in this thread!

 

[6Gman]

Possibly a few seats could be removed and the other seats shuffled around accordingly to allow more legroom for passengers, and then the leftover seats could be used to convert part of the first class carriage to standard to reduce the number of standard passengers that need to stand.

Wouldn't that leave First Class passengers standing in some cases?

 

[6Gman]

One of the main things that I would do would be to completely strip down the fleet of [Super] Voyagers and install better soundproofing, new toilets, and give the seats at least a deep clean and new covers, if it is considered too early to replace them.

How long would that take? And how would you replace those units while the work is in progress?

 

[duffield]

Wouldn't that leave First Class passengers standing in some cases?

Exactly. It's only about 2/3 of a coach as it is (due to the cab/kitchen). 1st class is often very near or at capacity at busy times; reducing it would give up valuable revenue for the gain of a handful of standard seats. It would also make the remaining 1st class less attractive - more difficult to access the toilet, noisier, overspill from standing standard class passengers. You might at well abolish 1st class and accept that the affected passengers will travel by car (or possibly via London for some journeys). But even that would still leave peak services full, standing and crammed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While I generally don't support this and personally wouldn't pay for it, they could consider switching to 2+2 1st (using better seats) like SWR did, allowing it to be reduced in size with the same number of seats.

 

[VT 390]

While I generally don't support this and personally wouldn't pay for it, they could consider switching to 2+2 1st (using better seats) like SWR did, allowing it to be reduced in size with the same number of seats.

But on XC one of the few reasons I would pay there very expensive first class fares is for a single seat.

 

[ian959]

Simplest way to fix Cross Country is to replace the Voyagers and HSTs with Class 802/1 9 car bi-modes on a one for one basis. Gives major capacity improvements, which is the biggest issue with Cross Country. Class 221 Voyagers could then displace the Class 170s on a one for one basis, unless Class 802/0 5 car bi-modes are bought (which would bring overall fleet costs down due to having a single fleet type). However, if the thread is assuming that no new rolling stock can be bought, there is little that can be done to fix Cross Country.

Using more HSTs is simply pointless. As much as they are liked they are 40 years old and need to be retired.

There are not many other rolling stock options available to fix the one basic problem of insufficient capacity. The one that makes the most sense is for Virgin to replace its Class 221s with Class 802/1 bi-modes on a one for one basis (mix of 5 car and 9 car) and cascade the Class 221s to Cross Country.

Getting rid of first class seating is not an option as demand for it is still high, especially on long distance routes - why get rid of high premium fare seats for lower fare seats? Makes no sense at all, probably overall reducing fare revenue and thus likely seeing increased standard fares to compensate. Buying 9 car Class 802/1s could increase first class seating and thus increase revenue potentially, reducing subsidies. Yes, pigs might fly too, but it is possible.

One route that needs to be transferred to Cross Country is Liverpool - Norwich, it just makes no sense being in the East Midlands franchise to me since it really is the very definition of a cross-country route.

 

[VT 390]

Simplest way to fix Cross Country is to replace the Voyagers and HSTs with Class 802/1 9 car bi-modes on a one for one basis. Gives major capacity improvements, which is the biggest issue with Cross Country. Class 221 Voyagers could then displace the Class 170s on a one for one basis, unless Class 802/0 5 car bi-modes are bought (which would bring overall fleet costs down due to having a single fleet type). However, if the thread is assuming that no new rolling stock can be bought, there is little that can be done to fix Cross Country.

Using more HSTs is simply pointless. As much as they are liked they are 40 years old and need to be retired.

There are not many other rolling stock options available to fix the one basic problem of insufficient capacity. The one that makes the most sense is for Virgin to replace its Class 221s with Class 802/1 bi-modes on a one for one basis (mix of 5 car and 9 car) and cascade the Class 221s to Cross Country.

Getting rid of first class seating is not an option as demand for it is still high, especially on long distance routes - why get rid of high premium fare seats for lower fare seats? Makes no sense at all, probably overall reducing fare revenue and thus likely seeing increased standard fares to compensate. Buying 9 car Class 802/1s could increase first class seating and thus increase revenue potentially, reducing subsidies. Yes, pigs might fly too, but it is possible.

One route that needs to be transferred to Cross Country is Liverpool - Norwich, it just makes no sense being in the East Midlands franchise to me since it really is the very definition of a cross-country route.

I do think that the Cardiff to Nottingham route would work well with either 221 or 802 units but the other 170 route through Leicester I think needs to have doors at the third positions because of the more frequent stops and more commuter type of route, unless a way could be found to split the local Leicester and Stansted workings.

The Liverpool to Norwich route is being split soon anyway so will of news long distance as it is now.

 

[swt_passenger]

One route that needs to be transferred to Cross Country is Liverpool - Norwich, it just makes no sense being in the East Midlands franchise to me since it really is the very definition of a cross-country route.

It isn't a natural fit with XC because it doesn't run via Birmingham New St. But as VT 390 said, it is already being dismantled, and split into separate routes either side of Nottingham; with Liverpool - Nottingham expected to go to the Transpennine franchise.

 

[6Gman]

Simplest way to fix Cross Country is to replace the Voyagers and HSTs with Class 802/1 9 car bi-modes on a one for one basis. Gives major capacity improvements, which is the biggest issue with Cross Country. Class 221 Voyagers could then displace the Class 170s on a one for one basis, unless Class 802/0 5 car bi-modes are bought (which would bring overall fleet costs down due to having a single fleet type). However, if the thread is assuming that no new rolling stock can be bought, there is little that can be done to fix Cross Country.

And the massive cost would be financed by higher fares or higher subsidy?

 

[6Gman]

Using more HSTs is simply pointless. As much as they are liked they are 40 years old and need to be retired.

In what way is there a need for them to be retired?

 

[Kettledrum]

And the massive cost would be financed by higher fares or higher subsidy?

We don't know that it would be an increased cost or lower subsidy. Other franchisees have recently found it financially beneficial to replace very old rolling stock with newer. Manufacturers are offering good deals. There's also greater fuel efficiency and lower track access charges and newer lease deals with better terms. Then if you're able to go for bi-mode instead of diesel the benefits are even greater.
The key of course is to be able to spread the capital element of the cost of the new stock over many years - something which you can't do if you're a franchisee who is only given one short term extension after another.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

This probably won't be popular, but the overcrowding on XC services suggests that demand for journeys exceeds the supply of seats. Supply is effectively fixed (no one has yet come up with a workable way of getting more trains into XC's use) so demand needs to be reduced.

And the simplest way to do that is to increase XC fares.

 

[py_megapixel]

This probably won't be popular, but the overcrowding on XC services suggests that demand for journeys exceeds the supply of seats. Supply is effectively fixed (no one has yet come up with a workable way of getting more trains into XC's use) so demand needs to be reduced.

And the simplest way to do that is to increase XC fares.

I have no actual issue with fare increases in exchange for a better service. The problem is that you aren't getting better service - you are getting the same thing in a more costly form. I think it is often forgotten that public transport is becoming more and more essential. To pick an example randomly, there is no real sensible alternatives to XC from Birmingham to Bristol, and not everyone is necessarily able to drive.

Also, where do you propose that the extra money goes? Allowing Arriva to just keep the profits would be literally rewarding them for providing a poor service.

There is also of course the issue that CrossCountry already makes a profit, which could be put to some good use if reinvested. But this thread is not about nationalisation.

How long would that take? And how would you replace those units while the work is in progress?

I wondered if CrossCountry could temporarily lease enough HST sets to cover 2/3 Voyager diagrams while the work took place. I am unsure if an HST could keep to Voyager timings though; possibly someone who is familiar can confirm whether they could or not?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I have no actual issue with fare increases in exchange for a better service. The problem is that you aren't getting better service - you are getting the same thing in a more costly form.

(...)

Also, where do you propose that the extra money goes? Allowing Arriva to just keep the profits would be literally rewarding them for providing a poor service

As I say, I don't expect this suggestion to be popular. But to comment on the points I have extracted:

- actually, those who travel will get a better service. They will have more chance to sit down.

- would Arriva be making more money? Their fixed costs (hiring and running the trains) would remain the same, but the number of tickets sold would fall. It isn't clear to me that the increased cost per ticket would necessarily compensate for the decreased number of tickets.

And surely Arriva, like any private business, is already meant to maximize its profits. So if selling fewer tickets at a higher unit cost would maximize profits then wouldn't they already be doing it?

 

[VT 390]

This probably won't be popular, but the overcrowding on XC services suggests that demand for journeys exceeds the supply of seats. Supply is effectively fixed (no one has yet come up with a workable way of getting more trains into XC's use) so demand needs to be reduced.

And the simplest way to do that is to increase XC fares.

What about the places which are only served by XC and will have no other rail alternative?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What about the places which are only served by XC and will have no other rail alternative?

I guess you're talking about XC-lite - is there any station on the main XC network (i.e. the Voyager network) that only they serve? I can't think of one, and I've done quite well at avoiding them of late.

XC-lite is a rather easier problem to solve - transfer in 158s or 170s, or order a few 195/196s. 90/100mph DMUs are not difficult to come by, really.

 

[swt_passenger]

I guess you're talking about XC-lite - is there any station on the main XC network (i.e. the Voyager network) that only they serve? I can't think of one, and I've done quite well at avoiding them of late.

XC-lite is a rather easier problem to solve - transfer in 158s or 170s, or order a few 195/196s. 90/100mph DMUs are not difficult to come by, really.

...and as suggested before, at the same time transfer the XC-lite routes back into more appropriate TOCs. Then whatever the problem to be solved is on the 170 operated routes, it isn’t XC’s. If people see it as a regional operator again perhaps they’ll stop proposing over the top Voyagers as suitable cascaded stock as well.

 

[DPWH]

I have no actual issue with fare increases in exchange for a better service. The problem is that you aren't getting better service - you are getting the same thing in a more costly form. I think it is often forgotten that public transport is becoming more and more essential. To pick an example randomly, there is no real sensible alternatives to XC from Birmingham to Bristol, and not everyone is necessarily able to drive.

Also, where do you propose that the extra money goes? Allowing Arriva to just keep the profits would be literally rewarding them for providing a poor service.

There is also of course the issue that CrossCountry already makes a profit, which could be put to some good use if reinvested. But this thread is not about nationalisation.


I wondered if CrossCountry could temporarily lease enough HST sets to cover 2/3 Voyager diagrams while the work took place. I am unsure if an HST could keep to Voyager timings though; possibly someone who is familiar can confirm whether they could or not?

The alternative is to take a coach, which is going to be uncomfortable, but likely much cheaper.

 

[PartyOperator]

...and as suggested before, at the same time transfer the XC-lite routes back into more appropriate TOCs. Then whatever the problem to be solved is on the 170 operated routes, it isn’t XC’s. If people see it as a regional operator again perhaps they’ll stop proposing over the top Voyagers as suitable cascaded stock as well.

Voyagers may be over the top as far as speed goes, but they still wouldn't be big enough for the 17:30 from New Street to Cardiff. I don't mind standing as far as Cheltenham, but it's often impossible to get on the train.

 

[py_megapixel]

Arriva, like any private business, is already meant to maximize its profits. So if selling fewer tickets at a higher unit cost would maximize profits then wouldn't they already be doing it?

I was under the impression that TOCs didn't have complete control over their fares and that they were largely set by the DfT or the local passenger transport executive.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I was under the impression that TOCs didn't have complete control over their fares and that they were largely set by the DfT or the local passenger transport executive.

- Advance fares are set by the operator. And while I know it's not a 1:1 match, the number of reserved seats on XC trains suggests they sell a lot of (self-priced) Advances.

 

[cosmo]

It looks like the Meridians will be leaving the Midland Mainline soon as well. Maybe XC could make use of those?

Now this isn't that bad an idea. They're part of the same family, so not much needed in the way of driver retraining. Cabs are similar too IIRC. Grand Central actually wanted to use them on KGX-SUN services back when they first started but ended up using short HST sets for whatever reason.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Now this isn't that bad an idea. They're part of the same family, so not much needed in the way of driver retraining. Cabs are similar too IIRC. Grand Central actually wanted to use them on KGX-SUN services back when they first started but ended up using short HST sets for whatever reason.

I suspect this is most likely to be the solution, given that they are very suitable for XC and they are not really any use anywhere else so will probably be on offer quite cheap.

 

[Clansman]

This probably won't be popular, but the overcrowding on XC services suggests that demand for journeys exceeds the supply of seats. Supply is effectively fixed (no one has yet come up with a workable way of getting more trains into XC's use) so demand needs to be reduced.

And the simplest way to do that is to increase XC fares.

On routes where XC are used as a commuter alternative then I totally agree with this. The morning Dundee originator is a prime example - always full and standing by Inverkeithing, then eases off after Edinburgh. Often forces long distance passengers from Markinch, Kirkcaldy, and Inverkeithing, to stand till Edinburgh. Though fare increases should only apply when commuter frequencies are complimented rather than replaced. In the case with Dundee, it is not.

So I reckon such an answer lies in rolling stock in the long term. Short term, a premium for seat reservations for commuter passengers could at least allow XC to prioritise longer distance passengers.

TPE seem to have a similar dillema with their routes, particularly between Manchester and Preston, and as such, have provided a solution by specifying both an intercity and commuter suited layout from CAF with their 397s (greater standing room, seating luggage storage, and a mixed door position layouts at traditionally busier areas of the train).

This seems like a reasonable solution for XC. What is required for XC isn't achievable with their current roling stock situation unless their 'satellite' routes take the hit; something which was ruled out anyway.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

If it was me, I'd have some or all the Voyagers from Virgin Trains as a stop-gap until new trains are introduced. That way, you can increase capacity or introduce a few extra services whilst waiting for new trains.

I can almost see Class 80x trains being the possible new high-speed trains given what new 125mph trains are (and will be running on other UK 125mph services).

 

[Grecian 1998]

Crosscountry wanted to shift a few services around to make better use of their fleet through the core route at the expense of the periphery as here: https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.u...ry-future-timetable-consultation-document.pdf

Unfortunately they received a lot of complaints from adversely affected areas such as Torbay and little encouragement from areas which would have benefitted so it got scaled back to giving Exeter a few extra afternoon peak services.

Prices already set by XC are extremely high as it is compared to other operators. Compare Bristol-Cheltenham off-peak fares set by GWR with Birmingham-Cheltenham off-peak fares set by XC, on the same train over the same different. Sheffield-Derby set by EMR and Birmingham-Derby set by XC are similar. A Bristol-Birmingham off-peak return is approx only £3 cheaper than a Bristol-Paddington off-peak return despite being 30 miles shorter, notably slower, and overcrowding being far more likely. Their advance fares generally seem to be more expensive per mile than other operators -but then when the trains are usually full, there's no incentive to reduce them.

Two of XC's major problems are 1: It doesn't go to London meaning MPs and their staff rarely use the services; and 2: Despite being centred on Birmingham, it doesn't have any geographic identity so no urban areas view it as a key part of their commuter network. This is despite the fact that a Plymouth-Edinburgh or Southampton-Newcastle service has to go through a major city in the peak once if not twice due to the length of their journey, so is an important part of multiple commuter networks. It therefore isn't a network for which any politicians appear to demand improvements. That said it is the sole operator for a small part of the Midlands east of Birmingham, including Burton-on-Trent, s it's possible politicians in that area are more vocal.

For the last 17 years the most common train in the XC fleet has been the class 220 Voyager. A train with a grand total of 174 standard class seats. A whopping 2 more than a class 159 and 7 more than a class 185. I've been on a Voyager which was full in standard heading north from Bristol at 1400 on a Wednesday afternoon in January - about as off-peak as you can get - purely because of how few passengers it takes to fill standard class. A class 221 is slightly better at 224 seats but not much. Whilst XC did get some HSTs in 2008, they only run a few trains per day. No-one with any political influence appears to feel that such small trains providing the only regular direct service from Birmingham to Manchester is a problem. True many other areas have had similar problems (e.g. TPE routes or Cardiff-Portsmouth) but are now either getting better services or at least promised them. No-one seems to want to make a decision for XC.

For the express routes, it would be nice to see XC get some bi-mode 802s which can be focused on the Manchester corridors given the greater length of route under the wires. I don't know if tri-mode 802s would be possible so they can use the 3rd rail south of Basingstoke. Meridians would be useful on the north-eastern axis. That said, the only bit of the XC route where 125mph can be reached with no wires is between Brum and Derby, which seems to be generously timed anyway.

The lack of compatibility isn't really a problem given Voyagers and HSTs aren't compatible. Some Voyagers and Meridians could be doubled up although obviously the staffing costs for double units could be quite high.

Whatever any longer term solution is, it would be nice if there was some attempt at future proofing. I suspect a lot of people would like to use XC's services who are put off by the high fares and overcrowding even at offpeak times. I suspect 350-400 seat trains would lead to a rapid increase in passengers both at peak and off-peak times.

For the 'lite' routes I'd like to see Birmingham-Leicester and Birmingham-Nottingham transferred to the WMR franchise as hopefully they could then be seen as part of the West Midland network and there might be a bit more effort to champion improvements.

 

[The Ham]

If you changed the 222's into a fleet of 17x7 coach units then that would allow every service which was a single 220 to be run as either a double 220 or a 7 coach 222, either would equate to the same capacity.

Bring over the Virgin 221's and every service could be formed as a pair of units.

Although it wouldn't maximise the capacity available, it would:
- create a near doubling of capacity
- reduce costs (less coaches and less staff required)

Now even if you had to have a few more sat spare so that you could always send a unit out, you're not paying least costs on 20 end coaches which adds little to the capacity (that's nearly the same as 3 extra spare 7 coach units).

Those extra units could also mean fewer sorry formed trains being run, so you'd not have the complaints of the 80x's.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

If you changed the 222's into a fleet of 17x7 coach units then that would allow every service which was a single 220 to be run as either a double 220 or a 7 coach 222, either would equate to the same capacity.

Bring over the Virgin 221's and every service could be formed as a pair of units.

Although it wouldn't maximise the capacity available, it would:
- create a near doubling of capacity
- reduce costs (less coaches and less staff required)

Now even if you had to have a few more sat spare so that you could always send a unit out, you're not paying least costs on 20 end coaches which adds little to the capacity (that's nearly the same as 3 extra spare 7 coach units).

Those extra units could also mean fewer sorry formed trains being run, so you'd not have the complaints of the 80x's.

Good thinking and it makes sense for half of the fleet of 4-car Voyagers to run doubled up - equalling 34 8-coach Voyagers.

Another idea - run some 5-car Voyagers in place of 4-car sets and then use 23 of the 4-car Voyagers to run in place of 5-car ones. There's plenty that could do with more than 5 coaches but 2 in particular are both the weekday 14:27 and 15:27 Manchester to Bournemouth services. So a 7 or 8 (2x4) coach train on these will be most welcome.

Hopefully XC will have enough staff to train on the 222's, should they get them, and not do it resulting in cancellations due to staff shortages!

 

[JonathanH]

Although it wouldn't maximise the capacity available, it would:
- create a near doubling of capacity
- reduce costs (less coaches and less staff required)

If the trains were longer you would need to double the number of empty stock workings between Barton-under-Needwood and Birmingham New Street as most of the 16 units overnight there currently come in pairs splitting at New Street. You would need more depot capacity, more servicing, all costs which add up.