Happy to help 
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
What is wrong with CrossCountry?
- Thread starter 1e10
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
SussexSpotter
Member
Well whatever way Arriva payed for the loco hauled services in Wales, and by hiring in some loco's from DB Schenker.....but seeing as bringing back loco hauled has been dismissed on here as not being a good idea due to timetable issues then I don't really know what else to suggest really.....
In some ways I do feel sorry for the management at XC. They can be held accountable for some of the things which is why I suggested the management is the issue but there is after all things which little can be done about. I think anyone whoever was incharge would find it difficult to sort some of it out, I suppose sometimes you just have to make the best of the little that you have......
I wonder how different things would be now though if Virgin XC has kept the franchise....one can only wonder!
Last edited:
You mean by using money from the Welsh Government? I'm not sure why the Welsh Government would fund services that spend their time in England and Scotland?
SussexSpotter
Member
You mean by using money from the Welsh Government? I'm not sure why the Welsh Government would fund services that spend their time in England and Scotland?
Good point....
JamesRowden
Established Member
Perhaps the East Coast Mainline Cross Country services could terminate at York. 100/110 mph EMUs could then be used for the York-Edinburgh-Glasgow route. This would reduce operating costs north of York and make more carriages available for peak services. If this left Cross Country with too much stock, some Voyagers could be transfered to other operators to help reduce the national DMU shortage problem.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 2,631
I don't think you have explained how you intend to do this.
You'd be chopping a lot of through traffic in half by doing that.
SussexSpotter
Member
I'm not convinced by your suggestion of terminating XC services at York. If you were to terminate them there, I doubt many Scottish passengers would be too pleased at that......and look at how many through journey's you would be chopping....!
To be perfectly honest with you I don't really know how I would intend to do this, I just suggested it as something that I would sort out if I were to manage XC differently. It would take a lot of time and thought and it's not as simple as ''Right, lets sort out the fares this way and that way''....The fares system is very complicated as I think we all know and you'd have to look at each different route and see what could and could not be changed....
Last edited:
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
The only issues I can see with XC is the fact that the 220s/221s are far too short to run services in the core, ideally I reckon if both fleets were extended to 9 or 10 cars then a lot of the overcrowding would disappear so instead of doubling up services, services would use a single unit but hopefully this would mean more services being able to run.
The other issue I see with them as I'm bias here is running 2 car 170s on Birmingham to Stansted and running Birmingham to Leicesters services which should be extended to Stansted to offer a half hourly service between Birmingham and Stansted.
That said the Stansteds really ought to be 4 coaches long, I know there are platform issues at certain locations but its not acceptable to run 2 car trains on a airport service.
The other issue I see with them as I'm bias here is running 2 car 170s on Birmingham to Stansted and running Birmingham to Leicesters services which should be extended to Stansted to offer a half hourly service between Birmingham and Stansted.
That said the Stansteds really ought to be 4 coaches long, I know there are platform issues at certain locations but its not acceptable to run 2 car trains on a airport service.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,281
Who will pay for all this new diesel stock?
The only chance SW-Scotland services have is frankly 5-car IEPs.
A bit more capacity and drastically reduced running costs compared to Voyagers.
The only chance SW-Scotland services have is frankly 5-car IEPs.
A bit more capacity and drastically reduced running costs compared to Voyagers.
Like I have said before I think infill electrification and new electric stock maybe 6 or 7 cars and also 2x5 cars for peaks splitting to a single unit for quieter sections. Have just 1 service per day to Penzance/Aberdeen operating in/out of Plymouth/Edinburgh during the peaks so passengers benefit from extra capacity during busier times and also the operator benefits from a greater load on their service.
Does it need brand new stock or simply hand-me-down stuff from elsewhere with more capacity? What about the 222's at some point?
Also HST's coming off-lease from FGW - one assumes that the final day of operation for most of the South Wales HST's is not exactly the same day as the last possible economical day of use for this stock. Especially as HST operation will continue in the South West anyway. So cascaded HST's could 'buy' another 5 or so years for XC whilst we await better 'quality' cascades.
Also HST's coming off-lease from FGW - one assumes that the final day of operation for most of the South Wales HST's is not exactly the same day as the last possible economical day of use for this stock. Especially as HST operation will continue in the South West anyway. So cascaded HST's could 'buy' another 5 or so years for XC whilst we await better 'quality' cascades.
Numatic
New Member
I don't think there's anything wrong with XC
Trainfan344
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2012
- Messages
- 2,305
Here's one for you then. ECS from Stanstead airport towards new street comes through formed of 2 x 2 car 170's, a couple of minuites later, the next train is cancelled due to staff shortages, yet they can afford the ECS?
Philip Elliott
Member
- Joined
- 9 Feb 2009
- Messages
- 807
Almost certainly the ECS is the cancelled train (due to lack of senior conductor)....
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,281
ECS does not require a guard.
Yes that would be a suitable option for now. But im thinking electric stock and wires in the future.
Some of the ideas on here are slightly conflicting. Some posts say they want longer trains on Aberdeen-Penzance which is more expensive but want cheaper fares. This doesn't work. Overcrowded trains isn't much of an incentive to reduce fares. Really there needs to be a review of service provision, capacity required and fares strategy to work out a way forward for XC.
I've seen a few trains from Stansted or Cambridge run ECS in the path of the passenger over the last few months, in all cases because of the lack of a guard. XC, to their credit, have done their best - in at least one case, getting a guard over to Melton to meet the train there to run forwards in service.
route:oxford
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 4,949
The platform was built ready for it at MK though wasn't it?
And after the go-ahead for the rebuild has been confirmed, it would be both political and career suicide for Network Rail to say "oops sorry, there's no room".
It's probably going to be one of the biggest changes to the passenger-flow paradigm outside London since the mass closure of lines in the 60s.
As an example, it'll knock nearly an hour off a journey between Oxford & Chester
Actually in fundamental terms it does - the train costs £x to run (And yes, figure £x will increase if you make it longer), the more people you can tempt onto it, the more revenue you can generate.
This is why capacity is such a big thing for airlines. Emirates operate a 380 instead of a 737-800 on flights to Dubai because the more people they can comfortably carry the more profitable the flight will be even after the increased costs associated with the larger aircraft. In rail terms you'll find the cost per seat of operating a 2 car 170 is not lower than the cost per seat of operating a 4 car 170. Infact probably quite the opposite.
This is only a problem if the demand doesn't exist and you are paying for massive overcapacity. A potential issue at the extreme ends of the XC network but I'm not sure how big a deal this is really. Sure it carries fresh air for 2 hours at each end of the trip but for the main 10 hour run in between the additional capacity makes your service much more appealing for additional customers.
Bit surely that leads you to the conclusion XC already seem to have come to; strengthen services in the core eg double Voyager/HST between Edinburgh/Newcastle and Bristol/Plymouth...
Then your unstrengthened diagrams are the ones working to the very extremities of the network.
Rarely ever a double Voyager as far down as Plymouth. The very busy services - ie the 16:25 off Plymouth - is usually a 4 coach Voyager and standing on departure on Fridays. If you've not made a reservation before about 10 days out you are often lucky to get one.
Most double Voyagers go no further down than Bristol Temple Meads and are usually accompanied by almost zero passenger information about which portion to use until you get to Bristol and find by the time you've moved units, all the seats have gone.
JamesRowden
Established Member
The work at Reading station means that from Easter this year, doubled Voyagers or HSTs can now run on Crosscountry services via Reading because they all now use the longer platforms and not the shorter bays.
SussexSpotter
Member
How many actually run as doubles though????
Last edited:
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,653
As part of West Coast route mod yes, doesn't mean you block out paths for years for something that still isn't set in stone (which you can't anyway).
Depends how they do it, saying it is full and we need to do this to fix it, is different and happens quite often.
VT_Valenta
Member
Got 1944 XC Voyager from BRI - PLY Yesterday. A few things:
- Vestibule stank (like, more than normal) of cleaning fluid and festering sewage because (point 2)
- THE HEATING WAS ON IN THE VESTIBULE. The F*?
The saloons were all nice and cool, but every time someone opened the door a sauna like effect occurred where hot air rushed in and made everyone sniff the lovely superclean pine.
- Vestibule stank (like, more than normal) of cleaning fluid and festering sewage because (point 2)
- THE HEATING WAS ON IN THE VESTIBULE. The F*?
The saloons were all nice and cool, but every time someone opened the door a sauna like effect occurred where hot air rushed in and made everyone sniff the lovely superclean pine.
I am currently writing you from aboard the 08:27 Manchester Piccadilly to Bournemouth service, which has 5 coaches, is lightly loaded and has working air conditioning. Every seat I have seen is reserved but I'm lucky in that mine is too. There's a group of business people who I think may be going to a conference in Birmingham or something, whom I feel a bit sorry for because there are only about 10 of them and they are spread throughout 3 coaches. When I got on, the usual smell assailed my nostrils. IT'S SAD that I think 'oh well you can't have everything' at that. Why can't we aim a bit higher? You can have a train, on occasion, that's on time, not overcrowded and comfortable, but only if it smells of s**t.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
XC has the highest subsidy of all the long-distance TOCs.
They are also underperforming against the revenue profile and are in maximum revenue support.
That means neither Arriva nor DfT want to invest in the service.
Salvation was at hand when VT planned to replace their Voyagers in the failed WCML franchise bid last year. This would have freed up 21x221s by 2016 for the next XC franchise.
We currently don't know how the franchise extension negotiations are going.
If VT aren't going to get new electric stock then XC are stuck with what they've got.
XC also now has the prospect of an extension to 2019, but negotiations haven't started as the current deal runs to 2016 (which is also the date all the Voyager leases run out).
If they charge high fares and the trains are packed, how come they make a loss? The foregoing posts just don't seem to match with your sentence: -
'They are also underperforming against the revenue profile and are in maximum revenue support.'
They must have submitted a revenue plan to have been awarded the franchise originally.
- Status