When will someone do something about CrossCountry

[duffield]

Today I am using CrossCountry to make a long distance journey from Winchester to Stafford.

I have the same complaints. As I type this, people are standing in the aisles and crammed into the vestibules, and some passengers are sitting on each other’s knees. The train has 4 coaches, minimal leg-room and luggage space, and there has already been an apology from the catering manager that the trolly will not be passing through the train due to overcrowding.

Is my complaint more valid now that I am using the service for a long distance journey rather than my (nearly hour-long) daily commute?

I would be most grateful if anyone from the industry (preferably from Arriva or DB) can explain why we should put up with this level of service when other operators now have trains of up to 12 coaches on our railways?

It's outrageous. I'm lucky enough to have a retired rail staff 1st class pass, but when I travel on XC I get to see in passing the hell that is standard class on some services. The 5 coach Voyagers are bad enough, but the 4 coach ones are ridiculous at times. But really there is only one place to point the finger of blame - the government. XC's hands have been tied, the government has repeatedly deferred essential decisions on XC rolling stock, they really don't seem to give a toss about this franchise. This has been going on for years and years, with still no end in sight. (*Maybe* XC will get the Meridians from EMR in 2 or 3 years? Not much sign of anything else at present).

 

[Anonymous10]

It should be done. With all the off-lease HST's, there is really no excuse. As for the PRM mods, we've left the EU, so what are they going to do about it? A simple amendment by the DfT in parliament would suffice.

I'll repeat, there really is not an excuse where XC are concerned. What is lacking on all sides, Arriva and DfT, is the will to act. That's why both should be quite frankly ashamed of themselves in how they are running the franchise.

Action is required, and urgently, not the blame game between all of the parties involved.

-rant over-

So just cos we left the eu a law giving those with impaired movement better facilities should be axed ?

 

[Mogz]

Changed at Stafford for the onward Avanti West Coast connection.

Another Voyager.

But what a difference! It’s a 10 Coach train (2 x 5 car 221) run by Avanti (ex-VT). There’s still a proper buffet with hot food and the train seems a lot cleaner and the lighting brighter than the dingy XC offering.

For those (like me) who prefer a table, there are two Standard Class coaches (one in each unit) that are nearly all table seats, aligned with the windows.

It’s the same unit type as XC, but the difference is astonishing.

The problem with XC is not the Voyagers themselves, it’s the train lengths, the seating and the facilities that are a problem. If only the XC units could be fitted out to Avanti standards and doubled up like this on more trains (perhaps splitting en route to serve eg Manchester AND Liverpool, Newcastle AND Bradford etc) I and many other XC victims would be very happy!

If XC get the Meridians, allowing the Voyagers to be doubled up, that would certainly be a good start.

 

[Mogz]

New St- Guildford absolutely rammed and standing.

5 coaches insufficient to cope with the demand.

Would I be doing everyone a favour by just shutting up and accepting that the standard of service isn’t going to improve on XC?

 

[The Ham]

New St- Guildford absolutely rammed and standing.

5 coaches insufficient to cope with the demand.

Would I be doing everyone a favour by just shutting up and accepting that the standard of service isn’t going to improve on XC?

XC is clearly an area where there's a need (there has been for some time) for improvement.

Whilst some may be irked by this being pointed out, generally the more it's highlighted the more coverage it'll get.

The only question that I have is, would it not be better to highlight it on other platforms as well?

 

[Mogz]

XC is clearly an area where there's a need (there has been for some time) for improvement.

Whilst some may be irked by this being pointed out, generally the more it's highlighted the more coverage it'll get.

The only question that I have is, would it not be better to highlight it on other platforms as well?

Yes. I and those of my colleagues who
use XC all responded in detail to that consultation about how the next XC franchise should be, only to have been told our efforts were a waste of time by DfT when it was shelved.

 

[MontyP]

It's interesting that the OP refers to a "commute" - is not part of the issue that they are even carrying commuters?

Isn’t that what trains are for?

 

[MontyP]

There is a consistent theme expressed that it is not possible to use more HSTs as they would struggle to match the Voyager times and hence wreck the timetable/reliabilty. Does the current timetable differentiate between Voyager and HST times? As far as I can see, the hourly Leeds-Plymouth trains all run to roughly the same times (dep xx11, arr xx48, 5 hr 37) even though some are regularly operated by HSTs (e.g. 0611 most days according to the Frequently Requested Diagrams thread). Do HSTs regularly fail to keep to the timetable?

 

[Mogz]

There is a consistent theme expressed that it is not possible to use more HSTs as they would struggle to match the Voyager times and hence wreck the timetable/reliabilty. Does the current timetable differentiate between Voyager and HST times? As far as I can see, the hourly Leeds-Plymouth trains all run to roughly the same times (dep xx11, arr xx48, 5 hr 37) even though some are regularly operated by HSTs (e.g. 0611 most days according to the Frequently Requested Diagrams thread). Do HSTs regularly fail to keep to the timetable?

It’s not even the Voyagers per se that I and many others have a problem with.

On the face of it, they are mechanically reliable and have large picture windows. The EMR 222s and coach (D?) of the the Avanti trains (buffet and all tables) show what can be done with the interiors to make them a comfortable and pleasant travelling environment.

They’re just too short and cramped.

Extra coaches and a review of the interior layout is what’s really needed.

I very much hope that XC getting cascaded 222s, which would allow doubling up of the Voyagers is a rearrangement or the Voyager seating to allow more tables and leg-room is not an unrealistic proposition to expect within the next few years.

HSTs are nice but the XC ones still suffer from the “pack ‘em in” interiors (to a lesser extent than the Voyagers).

 

[The Planner]

There is a consistent theme expressed that it is not possible to use more HSTs as they would struggle to match the Voyager times and hence wreck the timetable/reliabilty. Does the current timetable differentiate between Voyager and HST times? As far as I can see, the hourly Leeds-Plymouth trains all run to roughly the same times (dep xx11, arr xx48, 5 hr 37) even though some are regularly operated by HSTs (e.g. 0611 most days according to the Frequently Requested Diagrams thread). Do HSTs regularly fail to keep to the timetable?

HSTs are timed with HST running times if XC bid them expecting them to be regular runners. HSTs will keep to a Voyager schedule by using up engineering allowances. Get a TSR and it will start to fall back. A 5 car HST will keep a Voyager schedule.

 

[CJ]

Whenever I travel to Birmingham, I avoid travelling on the direct Manchester - Birmingham service, due to how overcrowded it can be.

I would get a train to Crewe, change there and wait for an incoming LNWR or AWC train to Birmingham (despite the journey being slightly longer, at least I would have more chance of finding a seat).

 

[Senex]

A 5 car HST will keep a Voyager schedule.

And that was why the 5-car HSTs were planned for the start of Operation Princess. (What were they to be called? Was it "Challengers"?)

 

[gg1]

Whenever I travel to Birmingham, I avoid travelling on the direct Manchester - Birmingham service, due to how overcrowded it can be.

I would get a train to Crewe, change there and wait for an incoming LNWR or AWC train to Birmingham (despite the journey being slightly longer, at least I would have more chance of finding a seat).

Exactly what I do when making the same journey. On the occasions I have to travel from Brum to Leeds, where there is no rail alternative to a crush loaded Voyager, I drive. A 5 car HST would be a massive improvement.

 

[Ianno87]

Whenever I travel to Birmingham, I avoid travelling on the direct Manchester - Birmingham service, due to how overcrowded it can be.

I would get a train to Crewe, change there and wait for an incoming LNWR or AWC train to Birmingham (despite the journey being slightly longer, at least I would have more chance of finding a seat).

Exactly what I do when making the same journey. On the occasions I have to travel from Brum to Leeds, where there is no rail alternative to a crush loaded Voyager, I drive. A 5 car HST would be a massive improvement.

A little bit surprised LNWR haven't latched on to this and offer their own fares connecting onto the TfW service at Crewe (like they now offer from Euston)

 

[JonathanH]

A little bit surprised LNWR haven't latched on to this and offer their own fares connecting onto the TfW service at Crewe (like they now offer from Euston)

How much room is there on those TfW services? While there might be capacity on the LNR services for cheap fares, that isn't true of the TfW services into Manchester.

 

[sprinterguy]

And that was why the 5-car HSTs were planned for the start of Operation Princess. (What were they to be called? Was it "Challengers"?)

5 car HSTs weren't just planned, they were operated by Virgin Crosscountry for a year from September 2002 until their withdrawal from North East - South West services a year later. However the 'Challenger' refurbishment never went ahead of course.

Been on two Crosscountry Voyagers recently with only one other person in the same carriage. One was due to disruption caused by a fatality at Cheadle Hulme, but the other was just the scheduled 15:05 departure from Manchester Piccadilly yesterday. Was noteworthy enough that I took a photo. Pity they don't look like this more frequently!

 

[JonathanH]

5 car HSTs weren't just planned, they were operated by Virgin Crosscountry for a year from September 2002 until their withdrawal from North East - South West services a year later.

Didn't they run Manchester Piccadilly to Birmingham International rather than North East to South West (or a bit of both)?

 

[yorksrob]

There is a consistent theme expressed that it is not possible to use more HSTs as they would struggle to match the Voyager times and hence wreck the timetable/reliabilty. Does the current timetable differentiate between Voyager and HST times? As far as I can see, the hourly Leeds-Plymouth trains all run to roughly the same times (dep xx11, arr xx48, 5 hr 37) even though some are regularly operated by HSTs (e.g. 0611 most days according to the Frequently Requested Diagrams thread). Do HSTs regularly fail to keep to the timetable?

I think that the idea that its possible to have HST timings in exactly the diagrams we have today, but would be impossible to path at any other time, is a massive red herring put about on this forum.

The real reason we won't get a large uplift of HST diagrams is that no one wants to cough up for them.

 

[tbtc]

HSTs are timed with HST running times if XC bid them expecting them to be regular runners. HSTs will keep to a Voyager schedule by using up engineering allowances. Get a TSR and it will start to fall back. A 5 car HST will keep a Voyager schedule.

I think that the idea that its possible to have HST timings in exactly the diagrams we have today, but would be impossible to path at any other time, is a massive red herring put about on this forum.

The real reason we won't get a large uplift of HST diagrams is that no one wants to cough up for them.

Well, I don't know who to believe here... the professional who has experience of pathing trains day in day out or the enthusiast who wants to believe that there's a future for lots of 1970s trains... if only there were some sort of way of knowing which one might have more knowledge in this field...

(and, as I've said a few times before, there really is very little margin for error on XC - e.g. if the Edinburgh-bound service leaves Sheffield a couple of minutes late then it'll arrive at Aldwarke Junction north of Rotherham to find that the Dearne Valley stopper has been let out before it - get stuck behind that 75mph path and the XC service will arrive in Leeds half an hour later than it's currently meant to, meaning little chance of getting out the other side of Leeds on a good path, getting in the way of everything by the time it reaches the ECML etc etc - there's very little margin for error - which is why, when XC have a mild diversion for engineering purposes, the general plan seems to be to sit around for twenty five minutes and then take the "next" XC path half an hour later - they can't tinker with their timetables very much because their paths are so constrained)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I very much hope that XC getting cascaded 222s, which would allow doubling up of the Voyagers is a rearrangement or the Voyager seating to allow more tables and leg-room is not an unrealistic proposition to expect within the next few years.

Just swapping the seats would help. The ones fitted have quite thick backs. If they put in something with a thin back like ironing boards that would give about 2" of extra legroom from the off. If you want to see that in action, try an original layout 158 and a Northern Connect refurb - the latter is the same layout (give or take priority seats) but has extremely generous legroom.

 

[sprinterguy]

Didn't they run Manchester Piccadilly to Birmingham International rather than North East to South West (or a bit of both)?

5-car sets operated on North East - South West services from the implementation of Operation Princess in September 2002 until withdrawal from that route on 27th September 2003. If I remember rightly, they continued operating Manchester Piccadilly - Birmingham International services or something like that into early 2004.

 

[The Planner]

I think that the idea that its possible to have HST timings in exactly the diagrams we have today, but would be impossible to path at any other time, is a massive red herring put about on this forum.

The real reason we won't get a large uplift of HST diagrams is that no one wants to cough up for them.

You don't have to believe it, but I have collected and seen vast amounts of data via cab rides, stop watching on the train, OTMR etc...

 

[yorksrob]

Well, I don't know who to believe here... the professional who has experience of pathing trains day in day out or the enthusiast who wants to believe that there's a future for lots of 1970s trains... if only there were some sort of way of knowing which one might have more knowledge in this field...

(and, as I've said a few times before, there really is very little margin for error on XC - e.g. if the Edinburgh-bound service leaves Sheffield a couple of minutes late then it'll arrive at Aldwarke Junction north of Rotherham to find that the Dearne Valley stopper has been let out before it - get stuck behind that 75mph path and the XC service will arrive in Leeds half an hour later than it's currently meant to, meaning little chance of getting out the other side of Leeds on a good path, getting in the way of everything by the time it reaches the ECML etc etc - there's very little margin for error - which is why, when XC have a mild diversion for engineering purposes, the general plan seems to be to sit around for twenty five minutes and then take the "next" XC path half an hour later - they can't tinker with their timetables very much because their paths are so constrained)

You don't have to believe it, but I have collected and seen vast amounts of data via cab rides, stop watching on the train, OTMR etc...

Then the question must be, how do you manage it on the diagrams that do have HST's. This is a railway which largely runs on hourly timetables. If you can run one in one hour, then it stands to reason that you can run one in the next.

Surely it's more disruptive/difficult to path having one train running to one set of timings, then have one the next hour running to a completely different set of timings.

 

[The Planner]

Surely it's more disruptive/difficult to path having one train running to one set of timings, then have one the next hour running to a completely different set of timings.

In a word yes.

 

[yorksrob]

In a word yes.

Then run everything to the HST timings.

 

[The Planner]

Then run everything to the HST timings.

And cause more problems when a 221 turns up to a junction early, is regulated and then is starting from a stand or lower speed when it is timetabled to be moving. It isn't as black and white as you like to make out.

 

[yorksrob]

And cause more problems when a 221 turns up to a junction early, is regulated and then is starting from a stand or lower speed when it is timetabled to be moving. It isn't as black and white as you like to make out.

Surely if a 221 was operating to a HST diagram, it would just run to the same speeds as the HST ?

We have EMU's up here that are diagrammed to run at slightly slower DMU speeds. It doesn't cause a problem.

 

[The Planner]

Surely if a 221 was operating to a HST diagram, it would just run to the same speeds as the HST ?

We have EMU's up here that are diagrammed to run at slightly slower DMU speeds. It doesn't cause a problem.

How does a driver of a 221 drive like a HST? How many of those EMUs get to locations earlier than they should?

 

[yorksrob]

How does a driver of a 221 drive like a HST? How many of those EMUs get to locations earlier than they should?

He'll drive at whatever speed it takes to get where he's supposed to be, when he needs to be there. All over the network there are diagrams timed for one type of traction, which have other types of traction filling in.

 

[Aictos]

I think that the idea that its possible to have HST timings in exactly the diagrams we have today, but would be impossible to path at any other time, is a massive red herring put about on this forum.

The real reason we won't get a large uplift of HST diagrams is that no one wants to cough up for them.

What a load of rubbish! Cost has nothing to do with the HSTs not having a uplift in diagrams.

The fact is they do not keep to Voyager timings hence they use HST timings.