Why does everybody hate XC?

[scotsman]

If the Cross Country service in Devon/ Cornwall is well used by local journeys then that's what FGW are for. In the same way that the SWT services were chopped at Exeter (with FGW providing replacements west of St Davids), maybe FGW should be responsible for these local trips in the south west? I'm not saying that FGW have loads of extra capacity, but maybe a 158 would be a better use of resources than a whole Voyager.

I boarded an XC service in Truro last week, and it was already pretty full. I'd like to see a 158 cope with that.

Not idea, and will be unpopular, but there are other trains from Edinburgh to York, or Basingstoke to Southampton etc. Maybe we should stop pretending XC is a really "Cross Country" TOC for journeys of 200/300 miles and concentrate on the main York/ Manchester/ Reading/ Bristol section.

XC makes up a lot of the capacity on the EDB-YRK route.

 

[Failed Unit]

I boarded an XC service in Truro last week, and it was already pretty full. I'd like to see a 158 cope with that.


XC makes up a lot of the capacity on the EDB-YRK route.

But not useful capacity considering how close it is to the East Coast services.

I don't think it would be missed myself. I would rather see East Coast running 1/2 hourly with XC gone to be honest. The loadings on the East Coast trains are already higher and people doing journeys from Edinburgh - York nearly always choose East Coast because of the better facilities on the train. Even pax heading for Leeds often do XC / TPE combo's. If XC stopped running on the East Coast tomorrow I am sure the extra pax could be taken on existing services, loadings I have seen leaving Edinburgh tend to be low (except the 1705 which is full of commutors for Dunbar)

 

[tbtc]

XC makes up a lot of the capacity on the EDB-YRK route

There are five trains an hour from York to Newcastle, and three trains most hours from Newcastle to Edinburgh.

XC cutting their service north of York to half of its current frequency would save maybe four Voyagers and still leave four trains an hour from York to Newcastle and two an hour from Newcastle to Edinburgh. Plenty. But maybe the ORCATS revenue from running Voyagers on this stretch is better than they would get additional revenue from running longer services on their "core" section.

 

[class313]

I have only used XC on the odd Newport- Lydney service in the evenings, and I was lucky enough not to have to go on a voyager, it was a 170, which was really nice and comfortable. It was sooooo much better than a ATW class 150 that smells of pee and is not comfortable, which I would usually have gone on.

 

[Ivo]

XC 170s are quite nice, but for my liking they feel a little cramped. Go up the line to Cheltenham, though, and "cramped" means something quite different. The difference between the 170s and the Voyagers really is that big (no pun intended).

Mind you, ATW 150s are pretty lame. But I feel that their biggest failing is the Coradia. On the outside, the corporate livery actually looks quite good (a rarity), making the 175 look pretty impressive. Go inside though, and... oh dear.

The biggest problem with XC specifically though is of course price. To give an example, a single from Port Talbot to Birmingham, as priced by ATW, is £37.80. On the other hand though, from Cardiff - over 30 miles closer - the price is 10% greater.

 

[scotsman]

I propose we compile these posts into a little publication entitled "The Little book of XC hatred"

 

[Ivo]

As the resident "protaganist" in the fight against the evil Arriva, allow me to provide a foreword...

Fifteen years ago, the railways were in the process of privatisation. The Welsh trains and the Western trains would be one. And the InterCity services away from London would be one, before being merged with the West Coast Main Line by Richard Branson's Virgin Group. Everything worked smoothly. Trains ran as required, and were well-equipped too.

But then came the launch of a new train - the Voyager. Built by Bombadier, this "aircraft on wheels" was noisy, unreliable, and quite literally sickening. And with the Voyagers came a new CrossCountry franchisee - Arriva. Gone were the shop facilities that formerly adorned the Voyagers under Virgin, in favour of more sardine seating. And gone was the tilt too, reducing the routing available. Not all of this work was Arriva's alone, as proven by the loss of the service to Brighton, but then for the most part the service was no better than poor.

And now, for the first time ever, the dark secrets of Britain's worst train operating company have come to light. Read on...

 

[Invincibles]

In some ways it is a shame that Cross Country can not find one more unit so they could extend the xx52 to Nottingham in the path of the following hours xx54 East Midlands train to Nottingham from Leicester.

The EMT one could then go north to Loughborough as currently (passengers could change onto the XC for Nottingham though I expect most get the faster London - Nottingham anyway), East Midlands Parkway and up the Erewash to Chesterfield and potentially Sheffield (though I would avoid with a connection at Chesterfield for Sheffield) or Manchester. To free up that unit the current second slower London - Derby - Sheffield could go back to terminating at Derby.

I do not know whether this would create huge problems on the Erewash line as I would expect a departure from Leicester at this time to be just ahead of the Northern Nottingham - Leeds (which would be the train to provide the connection to Sheffield and also Leeds on the same platform at Chesterfield) and then as for the hope valley well in theory it would end up just behind the Norwich - Liverpool so not compromised by the stopper.

It would reconnect Nottingham and Birmingham via Leicester, and the East Midlands with Manchester and the North West but it needs at least one more unit and probably another EMT Meridian (could run off peak to make use of the spare HST?)

If this worked then the number of people who use XC Leicester - Birmingham - Manchester to take advantage of the advanced fares might ease overcrowding a little (I can not be the only one who does that)

 

[The Planner]

And gone was the tilt too, reducing the routing available. Not all of this work was Arriva's alone, as proven by the loss of the service to Brighton, but then for the most part the service was no better than poor.

Reducing what routing ?? where can't they go anymore ??

 

[Failed Unit]

Reducing what routing ?? where can't they go anymore ??

Good point, you can put a request in to go anywhere you want!

A lot of the problem has been touched on. Under BR it was easy for XC to have routes to places all over the UK.

Have a look at some of the "outposts" it used to cover such as Aberdeen, Swansea and Brighton.

Some of these were in effect dead workings, a train arriving at Edinburgh after 1700 for example will not be needing to make a return journey. Same with Swansea, the train was ran at a time when it was not going to return from Bristol.

The train was taken forward by local drivers, so the Aberdeen service would have taken been taken forward by a Scotrail driver using a Scotrail path. I am sure if I recall correctly under BR the XC service used to leave Edinburgh in the peak so it released a 158 for another service. This is not new back in the day HST's were used on the Edinburgh - Falkirk - Glasgow route in the peak at times they would have not been used to return to London.

Now we are under XC the staffing becomes a lot more difficult, you are not going to train Scotrail staff to drive a voyager and use it vice a 170. The Aberdeen service as a result runs empty from Edinburgh first thing in the morning! Brighton could still be served first thing in the morning as the unit is not doing anything else should XC want to.

most people are against XC because of things out of thier control. I don't use XC myself and now travel via London. The main reasons are better train enviroment (seats, buffets, wi-fi, phone reception), speed (not much slower then going via Birmingham for my journeys, although that is more to do with the fact that Lincoln - Birmingham now needs a change at Nottingham), Cost (Mainly cheaper to go via London - ticket release on London operators often takes place before XC so I have often purchased before XC's are released)

XC does not need my custom anyway, they are bursting at the seams anyway. Hindsight is a wonderful tool, but the main problem is that the Voyagers replaced the mk3's and mk2's seat for seat so no more real capacity was provided. Some places such as Penzance have had capacity reduced. Traffic numbers grew so their was no-where for them to go. It seems a lot more difficult to expand trains now. If a 6 coach was added it would either need to be unpowered or have a totally different engine to the rest of the fleet.

 

[route:oxford]

Everything worked smoothly. Trains ran as required, and were well-equipped too.

Perhaps the passage of time has softened your recollection of the historic service provision. Everything didn't run smoothly, Trains did not always run to plan. I'm not overly confident about the "well-equipped" either.

then came the launch of a new train - the Voyager. Built by Bombadier, this "aircraft on wheels" was noisy, unreliable, and quite literally sickening.

Depends on how you judge noisy, I'd disagree. I've yet to be on a failed Voyager, and never been sick on a Voyager either. I have been sick on a 156 resulting in it being taken out of service (no alcohol involved), also on an HST between York & Newcastle (again no alcohol involved).

 

[Metroland]

Voyagers are a pretty badly designed train:

- Least fuel efficient train on the network, and one of the heaviest per passenger
- Cramped
- Too short
- Expensive to operate
- Were fitted with features that are no longer used: tilt, on board entertainment
- Expensive shop, that had to be taken out, now replaced with a trolley service

Instead of spending all the money on new trains, IHMO they would have been better off electrifying Barnt Green-Exeter, Coventry to Reading, Birmingham - Wakefield and Doncaster and using cascaded 87s (instead of sending them to Bulgaria) and 90s, and a small number of HSTs to work through to the South coast and Penzance.

They should be operating 8-12 coach trains with a lot of pre-book cheap fares.

There's about 320 miles to electrify, so the cost would have been about £256 million, over £100m less than Operation Princess.

If the railway was joined up, this could have been integrated with other electrification schemes, such as MML, and third rail could have been extended from Basingstoke to Reading and something like a class 92 could have worked Freightliner services at higher speeds, meaning they are easier to path and reduce delays.

To be frank, BR could have done wonders with the money, which was a similar amount spent of ECML electrification which also bought the 91 sets.

 

[Greenback]

As the resident "protaganist" in the fight against the evil Arriva, allow me to provide a foreword...

Fifteen years ago, the railways were in the process of privatisation. The Welsh trains and the Western trains would be one. And the InterCity services away from London would be one, before being merged with the West Coast Main Line by Richard Branson's Virgin Group. Everything worked smoothly. Trains ran as required, and were well-equipped too.

But then came the launch of a new train - the Voyager. Built by Bombadier, this "aircraft on wheels" was noisy, unreliable, and quite literally sickening. And with the Voyagers came a new CrossCountry franchisee - Arriva. Gone were the shop facilities that formerly adorned the Voyagers under Virgin, in favour of more sardine seating. And gone was the tilt too, reducing the routing available. Not all of this work was Arriva's alone, as proven by the loss of the service to Brighton, but then for the most part the service was no better than poor.

And now, for the first time ever, the dark secrets of Britain's worst train operating company have come to light. Read on...

I fear that your posy is riddled with inaccuracies and wishful thinking!

Arriva did not take over the franchise at the same time as the Voyagers came into service. Everything did not run smoothly before Arriva, either under Virgin or BR. And trains were not well equipped!

Just for a bit of perspective, I travelled on a service from Edinburgh to Bristol parkway on 1 September 2007. The train was short formed by two carriages, including one with my own reserved seat. I had bought a weekend first upgrade in the hope of a more comofrtable journey, but between Sheffield and Birmingham I people were sitting on the armrests. The train was over an hour late arriving at New St, at which point the new conductor refused tot ake the train out again unless some people got off. We eventaully got to Bristol Parkway just under 2 hours late. The buffet was closed on leaving Edinburgh. By the time it opened, the train was so packed that no one could get to it.

That was the wonderful Virgin Trains service. But never mind, it was a loco hauled service! And it was nothing to do with Arriva! So that's all right then!

Arriva had nothing to do with the Voyagers. They were also under pressure to provide more seats due to the chronic overcrowding caused by the poor design of the units (although I quite like the internal decor and seats, there is simply insufficient luggage space and the trains and carriages are too small). There ar emany things that Arriva XC can and should be criticised for, including general managerial incompetence, but the Voyagers are not one of them!

 

[sprinterguy]

A lot of my gripes about Crosscountry are due to the Voyagers.

Voyagers are completely unsuitable for long distance Intercity operation: The trains are too short and have woefully inadequate luggage space for the Intercity operator with the highest percentage of leisure travellers with large amounts of luggage, to the extent that these so called "Intercity" trains no longer have even so much as a shop. There never was a restaurant service available from when the Voyagers were new, and this from a TOC where journeys can be perhaps 8 hours long.

The first class service provision is poor, which is partly down to the inadequacies of the Voyager design and partly to Arriva's seeming lack of interest in attempting to provide anything better. The catering trolley is a useful feature, but even that is dependent on the aisles not being filled with standing passengers and excess luggage to make it's trip down the train.

A lot of time the engine noise is excessive, and the seating layout on the Voyagers is terrible. I'd like to be able to see the view outside when I'm travelling through Britain's varied landscape for 5 hours thank you very much.

And the toilets still absolutely stink eight years after these trains were introduced and the problems first emerged, whilst it seems that most other operators who faced these problems have largely solved this issue.

And I notice that the old problems with non-functioning or dysfunctional toilet doors is resurfacing again, as I have experienced TWICE in just the last two days on two seperate trains, leading to revealing all to an unlucky audience of standing passengers unfortunate enough to be stuck in the vestibule outside as the door suddenly decides that it's had enough of remaining closed, or someone man-handles the door open as all the electrics are shot. What on earth is wrong with proper door locks that consist of a small length of metal attached to a small handle that turns with a "click"? Instead of all these very clever but highly temperamental electronic systems.

Crosscountry also have 5 HSTs that are shamefully underused when they could provide so much extra capacity on the longest distance services (Although at the moment 4 out of the 5 trains are in use on Saturdays, so that's not currently so much of an issue)

I don't have as many complaints with the Turbostar operated services, which are generally more reliable and seemingly better maintained and more pleasant to travel on, but some of the aforementioned service based troubles still apply. When travelling on the core XC section between Cheltenham and Derby, which I do regularly, I generally choose to travel on a Turbostar service instead of a Voyager as I find the 170s far more agreeable to travel on. I do wish that all the XC 170s were three carriages though (Is the transfer of the LM 170/6 centre cars to XC still going ahead?).

 

[Greenback]

You're right, the toilets are awful and there are too many seats that don;t allow you a decent view out of the window.

As I said, though, I find the seats more comfortable and the layout less claustrophobic than the FGW HST's.

The worse aspect is that the overhead luggage racks can;t seem to hold anything bigger than a briefcase! My holdall fits easily into the racks on HST's, 158's and even a 175, but no chance with a Voyager. No wonder there are so many bags littering the aisles and vestibules!

Still, noen fo this can be laid at the door of Arriva. Blame Virgin and the DaFt!

 

[sprinterguy]

You're right, the toilets are awful and there are too many seats that don;t allow you a decent view out of the window.

As I said, though, I find the seats more comfortable and the layout less claustrophobic than the FGW HST's.

The worse aspect is that the overhead luggage racks can;t seem to hold anything bigger than a briefcase! My holdall fits easily into the racks on HST's, 158's and even a 175, but no chance with a Voyager. No wonder there are so many bags littering the aisles and vestibules!

Still, noen fo this can be laid at the door of Arriva. Blame Virgin and the DaFt!

Yes those overhead luggage racks seem to be useful for nothing. I usually carry a small rucksack which I have no problems fitting into the luggage racks on other trains, but on Voyagers I end up storing it under the seat.

Arriva are principally just unfortunate in being landed with the trains they've inherited from Virgin. I am disappointed about the lack of a decent service level from Arriva, but many of these problems also stem back to the inadequate provision of suitable Intercity style facilities on Voyagers.

 

[route:oxford]

Voyagers are a pretty badly designed train:

- Least fuel efficient train on the network, and one of the heaviest per passenger

I'd guess that the PPM was the most fuel efficient new (diesel) train introduced to the market since privitisation.

Not exactly practical for running on Aberdeen to Penzance though.

So, of the Diesel Multiple Units built since privitisation that are capable of 100+mph and could be built as 7 car stock, which would be the most fuel efficient?

 

[tbtc]

As the resident "protaganist" in the fight against the evil Arriva, allow me to provide a foreword...

Fifteen years ago, the railways were in the process of privatisation. The Welsh trains and the Western trains would be one. And the InterCity services away from London would be one, before being merged with the West Coast Main Line by Richard Branson's Virgin Group. Everything worked smoothly. Trains ran as required, and were well-equipped too.

But then came the launch of a new train - the Voyager. Built by Bombadier, this "aircraft on wheels" was noisy, unreliable, and quite literally sickening. And with the Voyagers came a new CrossCountry franchisee - Arriva. Gone were the shop facilities that formerly adorned the Voyagers under Virgin, in favour of more sardine seating. And gone was the tilt too, reducing the routing available. Not all of this work was Arriva's alone, as proven by the loss of the service to Brighton, but then for the most part the service was no better than poor.

And now, for the first time ever, the dark secrets of Britain's worst train operating company have come to light. Read on...

(that was a joke, right?)

 

[Metroland]

I'd guess that the PPM was the most fuel efficient new (diesel) train introduced to the market since privitisation.

Not exactly practical for running on Aberdeen to Penzance though.

So, of the Diesel Multiple Units built since privitisation that are capable of 100+mph and could be built as 7 car stock, which would be the most fuel efficient?

I'd ague that LH more efficient at that train length, maintaining all those diesel engines isn't cheap. In fact, units cost of the Voyagers are 4 times those cost of the services they replaced.

 

[Greenback]

(that was a joke, right?)

I hoped it was a joke, or a very light hearted post, but as Ivo hates Arriva, i took him to task just in case!

 

[Dewedin]

It's not Arriva's fault they've got completely unsuitable stock, but the stock is the reason I find myself using TPE + East Coast when travelling between Leeds and Edinburgh (and boy am I glad I've got the choice). Because there aren't nearly enough seats on the Voyagers, the advance fare availability is woeful. On the few occasions I do find a cheap XC fare I know before I even check my seat reservation that it's a HST service. Whenever I've travelled on a Voyager it's been a thoroughly unpleasant experience. They redefine the phrase 'cattle class.' And now Virgin are running these fuel-guzzlers on the completely electrified routes between Birmingham and Scotland, it beggars belief.

I'm not sure what a Voyager's ideal job is but it certainly is not running passengers from Aberdeen to Penzance.

 

[Ivo]

I might hate Arriva, but yes. It was a joke.

Should Ian Hislop ever come on here (it could happen, he is an enthusiast), he is more than welcome to use it in Private Eye

 

[Greenback]

I'd happily see them on Carmarthen - Manchester services! What about Norwich - Liverpool?

 

[MCR247]

They are too intercity for Liverpool - Norwich I think. Not enough seats, I doubt they would have a load more seats than a 158

 

[Greenback]

Some say that Norwich - Liverpool should be an intercity type train!

I'm not sure how many seats a Voyager has compared with a 158 or 175. The carriages do seem smaller. So the question is, why one earth did these trains get built with such limited capacity?

 

[sprinterguy]

It's been mentioned before: A 4 car Voyager has less seats than a three carriage 170 (174 standard versus 191 standard respectively). Which means that putting 4 car Voyagers on Norwich-Liverpool would actually be a decrease in capacity from using 2x class 158s (Offering a total of 292 seats). The capacity of a Voyager is awful given the length of the train.

 

[Geezertronic]

Some say that Norwich - Liverpool should be an intercity type train!

I'm not sure how many seats a Voyager has compared with a 158 or 175. The carriages do seem smaller. So the question is, why one earth did these trains get built with such limited capacity?

According to Wikipedia:

XC Class 220s have 26 seats in 2+1 formation in First Class and 182 seats in 2+2 formation in standard class (4 coach)

XC Class 221s have 26 seats in 2+1 formation in First Class and either 182 seats in standard (4 coach) or 252 seats in standard (5 coach)

 

[Lampshade]

A 221 (5 car) only has 182 seats in standard whereas a refurbished EMT 158 (2 car) has around 120/130 seats. I guess quite a lot of space is taken up with the overly large vestibules and the disabled toilet.

 

[TGV]

Just took my first XC journey for a couple of years in a 5 car voyager between Basingstoke and Oxford and back. Train was on time. Was really pleasantly cool on a hot day. Yes it was busy, but there were seats available as long as you don't mind walking down the carriage a bit. The train was clean and it left spot on time and arrived spot on time both there and back. It was comfortable, quiet, smooth and fast when it needed to be.

Now - I could have used the journey as an opportunity to get some ammunition to come here and join the ranters, but seriously - it was everything you would want from a train journey, I mean it. Almost perfect. Damn. Well done XC.

 

[Aictos]

I could just about agree with the last poster, I got one of the last XC services to Bristol Temple Meads and although there were plenty of seats, the whole train looked like a rubbish bin.
Would have been nice if a cleaner got on at Bristol Parkway or the stop before Parkway to litter pick the train as East Coast do on all services.