XC - better off now?

[whoshotjimmi]

OK - here's the deal. Cross Country provide services the whole length and breadth of this Great Nation. However, debate rages as to whether the introduction of Voyagers onto the route has been a success or failure. There are more overall services, but less point to point dependability.

Are you a passenger who uses XC regularly? Was it better pre Voyager? Or have Virgin done you a favour?

Also, is Arriva the right company to take franchise forward?

You decide people!!!!!!

 

[Mojo]

It's better now because trains are so much more frequent and reliable. I frequently travelled between Birmingham and Bristol 2007-2008 and only experienced a delay over 20 minutes once. At stations with lots of facilities such as New Street and Temple Meads it's possible to just turn up and catch the next train with little lost.

The downside is the crowding - not just in peak hours but often during the day and especially on Sundays people are standing for what could potentially be long journeys. The high fares are an inconvenience, booking in advance has some great deals but that defeats the point of having a frequent service if you're tied to one train.

Despite the work that's been carried out, the routes are also rather slow, particularly those in the South. Bristol to Birmingham in 1h30m is roughly similar by road, but how many people are going into the City Centre? The regular journey I mentioned above could be driven in 1h15m whereas the train took 1h26m plus the local transport which was 1h. If I was going from City Centre to City Centre it's little competition solely on time, but my journey from north Bristol to south Birmingham was far more convenient by car.

I'm also concerned about the extent to which the XC network is being used as a way to provide services to stations that really should be provided by local trains, but where the local/regional trains just don't exist (either at all, or to a suitable level). Examples include the extent to which passengers travel between Birmingham New Street & Banbury (even worse via Coventry); Bristol Temple Meads & Parkway and even stopping at places like Chester-le-Street. Latest I've heard is that the West of England want some CrossCountry services stopping at Yate - whilst the extra frequency is definately needed, it's a local station and should be served by local trains.

 

[TEW]

The service overall is better I would say, and it all looks nicer to the customer but the truth of it is there are many faults. The voyagers simply are to short and overcrowding to great and I personally feel it was a mistake taking the franchise away from Virgin.

 

[P156KWJ]

It's better now because trains are so much more frequent and reliable. I frequently travelled between Birmingham and Bristol 2007-2008 and only experienced a delay over 20 minutes once. At stations with lots of facilities such as New Street and Temple Meads it's possible to just turn up and catch the next train with little lost.

The downside is the crowding - not just in peak hours but often during the day and especially on Sundays people are standing for what could potentially be long journeys. The high fares are an inconvenience, booking in advance has some great deals but that defeats the point of having a frequent service if you're tied to one train.

Despite the work that's been carried out, the routes are also rather slow, particularly those in the South. Bristol to Birmingham in 1h30m is roughly similar by road, but how many people are going into the City Centre? The regular journey I mentioned above could be driven in 1h15m whereas the train took 1h26m plus the local transport which was 1h. If I was going from City Centre to City Centre it's little competition solely on time, but my journey from north Bristol to south Birmingham was far more convenient by car.

I'm also concerned about the extent to which the XC network is being used as a way to provide services to stations that really should be provided by local trains, but where the local/regional trains just don't exist (either at all, or to a suitable level). Examples include the extent to which passengers travel between Birmingham New Street & Banbury (even worse via Coventry); Bristol Temple Meads & Parkway and even stopping at places like Chester-le-Street. Latest I've heard is that the West of England want some CrossCountry services stopping at Yate - whilst the extra frequency is definately needed, it's a local station and should be served by local trains.

The Aberdeen to Penzance diagram seems to stop everywhere in the West Country!

 

[Pumbaa]

The service overall is better I would say, and it all looks nicer to the customer but the truth of it is there are many faults. The voyagers simply are to short and overcrowding to great and I personally feel it was a mistake taking the franchise away from Virgin.

If anything - the opposite. Virgin had no plans to re-introduce HSTs onto the routes unlike Arriva. I think Arriva have done a good enough job so far, although not enough is different to comment.

 

[Techniquest]

As someone who despises Arriva considerably, I'd agree with Conner's comment that it shouldn't have been taken off Virgin. Of course, as makstaylor says Virgin did not plan to reintroduce HSTs to their fleet so that's one thing that goes in Arriva's favour.

I would also agree that there have not been any real improvements otherwise. We've had ONE 221 modified so far, and Arriva have had the franchise since November 2007. I know they don't have much spare capacity, but that's rather ridiculous. And that modification on 221126 really should have involved a full refurbishment, not just removing the shop and adding luggage space. Just looking at the Voyagers inside, you wouldn't know the franchise had changed!

 

[tbtc]

I'm also concerned about the extent to which the XC network is being used as a way to provide services to stations that really should be provided by local trains, but where the local/regional trains just don't exist (either at all, or to a suitable level)

Agreed. Cross Country stopping at Chester le Street and Dronfield is just silly.

Virgin had a good idea, but made two big mistakes - not ordering enough middle coaches for the Voyagers and the extra narrow bodies for tilting that few of them use. If Voyagers were seven coaches long and slightly wider then they'd be fine.

They could do with sorting out the service via Leeds (which is horribly busy between Sheffield and Leeds), which co-ordinates badly with the "via Doncaster" service.

Would have been interesting to see how they'd cope if they'd introduced all the planned things like the Paddington - Swindon - Gloucester - Birmingham - Preston - Blackpool service, and regular services to Dundee/ Swansea etc.

 

[TDK]

As someone who despises Arriva considerably, I'd agree with Conner's comment that it shouldn't have been taken off Virgin. Of course, as makstaylor says Virgin did not plan to reintroduce HSTs to their fleet so that's one thing that goes in Arriva's favour.

I would also agree that there have not been any real improvements otherwise. We've had ONE 221 modified so far, and Arriva have had the franchise since November 2007. I know they don't have much spare capacity, but that's rather ridiculous. And that modification on 221126 really should have involved a full refurbishment, not just removing the shop and adding luggage space. Just looking at the Voyagers inside, you wouldn't know the franchise had changed!

I thought Arriva had to introduce HST's as Virgin kept some of the super voyagers. I don't think Arriva wanted to reintroduce HST's but had to, to maintain the level of coaches to run the service, I was surprised they didn't use 153's as they do on occasions run these from Manchester to Cardiff.

 

[MCR247]

I think XC are doing the best job they can. I think Virgin left the XC franchise in a mess because they treated the XC & WC as ONE franchise, so it made it harder for the DfT to sort out the stock. Like when they split CT into XC, LM & EMT. They had enough stock as one (because they could kind of interwork diagrams) but not enough as three.

 

[Pumbaa]

I thought Arriva had to introduce HST's as Virgin kept some of the super voyagers. I don't think Arriva wanted to reintroduce HST's but had to, to maintain the level of coaches to run the service, I was surprised they didn't use 153's as they do on occasions run these from Manchester to Cardiff.

No - they didn't have to. Remember the size of the franchise chnaged between handover. The rotues that the Voyagers needed to operate were reduced Brum - Scotland went to Virgin) so they didn't need to introduce HSTs, and just run services as a 4 car Voyagers, which would have been stupid.

 

[37402]

Of course, as makstaylor says Virgin did not plan to reintroduce HSTs to their fleet so that's one thing that goes in Arriva's favour.

Arriva didn't choose to reintroduce HSTs, the DfT told them they were going to (as they did with everything else in the franchise). Whoever won, you were going to get pretty much the same result...bar a few extra bits of vinyl on the outside.

 

[eezypeazy]

I have not used XC regularly, but last week, in Monday's snow, I had a business trip NCL to Brum. My outward journey was aboard a 220, running with a failed engine, and attempting to do the job of two trains - the one in front having been cancelled. It was noisy and slow and the ride quality was poor.

I hade the pleasure of one of XC's refurbished HST sets for my return journey - no comparison! The 30-year-old refurbished set was warm and clean and the ride really smooth!

My conclusion: 220s/221s are not suitable for such long journeys. Once the IEP untis are coming through, let's hope they cascade more HSTs to Cross Country initially, until the Cross Country routes are electrified.

I have two more NCL to Brum trips to do, in March. If my opinion changes, I shall let you know.

Regards

eezypeazy

 

[TEW]

The Aberdeen to Penzance diagram seems to stop everywhere in the West Country!

Once in Cornwall most the traffic it carries is people from Plymouth going through Cornwall rather than long distance travellers.

 

[tbtc]

My conclusion: 220s/221s are not suitable for such long journeys. Once the IEP untis are coming through, let's hope they cascade more HSTs to Cross Country initially, until the Cross Country routes are electrified

By the time IEP is up and running properly, the HSTs will be well beyond life expectancy - we really need something else instead. I still say extra Voyager coaches would solve a lot of problems though.

 

[stut]

For me, the big downside of AXC is the refurbished 170s (as a regular, if not that frequent, user of the SSD-BHM service). The seat pitch is painfully tight, and the seats thick, upright and metal-backed, meaning you can't tuck your legs under. The result? At 6'1", I simply can't fit in, unless I can get an aisle seat, and spill out into the aisle - in which case, I can forget about getting any work done... It's OK if it's quiet and you get a table seat with nobody opposite, but that's happened once (in the dead hours on a Saturday).

For the 2 hour journey from PBO-BHM, this simply isn't bearable.

 

[Mintona]

As someone who despises Arriva considerably, I'd agree with Conner's comment that it shouldn't have been taken off Virgin. Of course, as makstaylor says Virgin did not plan to reintroduce HSTs to their fleet so that's one thing that goes in Arriva's favour.

I would also agree that there have not been any real improvements otherwise. We've had ONE 221 modified so far, and Arriva have had the franchise since November 2007. I know they don't have much spare capacity, but that's rather ridiculous. And that modification on 221126 really should have involved a full refurbishment, not just removing the shop and adding luggage space. Just looking at the Voyagers inside, you wouldn't know the franchise had changed!

What's the point in completely internally refurbishing the Voyagers? It isn't like they're shabby inside, so it isn't needed. Refurbishment costs a lot of money that no-one has at the moment.

 

[Failed Unit]

The trouble with IC Cross-Country is it currently trying to be all things to all people.

In the BR days it was basically.

Newcastle - Birmingham - Bristol, some services via Leeds some Doncaster. About hourly
North West - Birmingham - Poole, some from Manchester, some from Scotland

Some of the North East services started from Scotland, some South West services went beyond Bristol. We even had services from Scotland - Manchester - Birmingham - Plymouth.

The core was basically hourly but most destinations were linked by at least one train per day. If you wanted to travel from Durham - Gloucester or Newcastle - Poole direct you picked that train.

The improvements to the core frequency were needed and probably the people that spend the most money are happy. The stops at Dronfield and Chester-Le-Street were forced on XC due to cuts imposed by the SRA (Dronfield for the removal of Northerns Chesterfield - Sheffield service and Chester-Le-Street for the removal of the Saltburn - Newcastle service via Darlington). Dronfield should go now it has the Nottingham - Leeds service and Chester-Le-Street should really be a TPE only stop hourly.

If you look North of Newcastle it is treated like the local service taking most of the stops at Morpeth and Dunbar, although these are not really stops that should be on ECML services that frequenly either.

I think the frequencies between Birmingham and Leeds / Newcastle / Reading and Bristol are needed. But they are catering for people making the local journeys and the seating arrangements of the voyagers don't suit it. A 3 car turbo has more seats and is probably better configured for Birmingham - Reading. Likewise Leeds is just over 2 hours away so may a 100mph class 444 style EMU is the way forward, the shops are going anyway but a lot of space is wasted on the voyager. Maybe run a Reading - Moor Street service via Dorrige with a 4 car 172 for the commutor traffic?

The big losers are the leisure traveller, Durham - Birmingham international forget going direct now. Linking long distance cities is gone and people now travel via London instead now they have to change at least once anyway. West of Plymouth we have less seats than we did under inter-city. I think most of the problems are really down to the Voyagers not been long enough, they only really matched the existing no of seats and not cover growth.

I don't think we can satisfy everyone with XC, it will never compete with air for the long distance flows so is speed that important? Can we ever get back to linking as many places together as possible even if it is only 1 train per day? Would a service such as Plymouth - Newcastle stopping at only Plymouth, Exeter, Bristol Temple Meads, Birmingham New Street, Derby, Sheffield, York and Newcastle be viable?

I think that it has lost what its original objective was to avoid London for people travelling long distance on direct trains, but it is filling in its new objective of linking Birmingham to other major cities. Shame the trains are too short! Another point is that Leeds - Edinburgh has a good market but the poor catering offer on XC still means many people will use TPE and East Coast rather than the direct train.

 

[MCR247]

I dont like the XC Nottingham-BHM/Cardiff diagrams, because a BHM-NOT service forms a NOT-Cardiff service; so a 3car service from Cardiff forms a Birmingham service where as a 2car service goes to Cardiff where the extra capacity is needed.

 

[thefab444]

It is such a shame how much the XC network has shrunk since 1996 - 2003.

 

[LTJ87]

Overall, it's pretty good. Passengers in the Midlands travelling from Birmingham and Derby have a very good range of services.

I know it's wishful thinking but it would be great if Nottingham had more services on the main CrossCountry network, in addition to the single Nottingham-Bournemouth service.

One other point is that I wish XC brought back live radio on the at-seat audio. The infrastructure is already there so it might as well be used!

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Some very interesting points being made thus far.

I must say, I am quite surprised that it seems to be approximately 50/50 in favour and against. I had thought this would become a place to relieve some frustrations!

From my own point of view, the problem now is the same as it was before. The frequency between Birmingham and Newcastle has increased to roughly half hourly, but these trains still alternate between Leeds and Doncaster. A hourly 4 car Voyager at Leeds isn't enough. I have seen an improvement recently. A large number of trains through Leeds at least appear to be 5 or 8 car, but the hourly situation still remains. I don't see how this can change without dropping Doncaster. Surely Northbound is covered by NXEC, and Southbound would only require a short connection. I don't know what loadings at Doncaster are like so couldn't speculate further. It also seems to be more of a problem South of Leeds than North - presumably, again, due to the ECML competition.

As far as Arriva are concerned, all I can say is there has been a notable improvement since their North East franchise was handed to Northern.

 

[WillPS]

For me, the big downside of AXC is the refurbished 170s (as a regular, if not that frequent, user of the SSD-BHM service). The seat pitch is painfully tight, and the seats thick, upright and metal-backed, meaning you can't tuck your legs under. The result? At 6'1", I simply can't fit in, unless I can get an aisle seat, and spill out into the aisle - in which case, I can forget about getting any work done... It's OK if it's quiet and you get a table seat with nobody opposite, but that's happened once (in the dead hours on a Saturday).

For the 2 hour journey from PBO-BHM, this simply isn't bearable.

I'm a reasonably well built 6"4', and I find Cross Country's Turbostars quite pleasant. What's wrong with upright seats anyway? Seems more comfy to me!

 

[Failed Unit]

From my own point of view, the problem now is the same as it was before. The frequency between Birmingham and Newcastle has increased to roughly half hourly, but these trains still alternate between Leeds and Doncaster. A hourly 4 car Voyager at Leeds isn't enough. I have seen an improvement recently. A large number of trains through Leeds at least appear to be 5 or 8 car, but the hourly situation still remains. I don't see how this can change without dropping Doncaster. Surely Northbound is covered by NXEC, and Southbound would only require a short connection. I don't know what loadings at Doncaster are like so couldn't speculate further. It also seems to be more of a problem South of Leeds than North - presumably, again, due to the ECML competition.

Although your frequency is now about 1/2 hourly do you only use the route via Doncaster as it is 20 minutes quicker? Most people from Newcastle I understand prefer going via Doncaster because of the quicker time so it is in effect 1 useful train per hour. I have seen this debate a few times, yes Leeds has a larger demand but I guess they will need to work out if moving Leeds to half hourly will bring in more revenue then losing people that would have travelled from Newcastle, Durham, Darlington and York due to the longer journey time. I doubt this is that much of an issue really.

When you look at the East Coast destinations, Birmingham - Edinburgh will nearly always use the WCML, they generally only use the East for direct services beyond Birmingham (or places like Sheffield of course).

I have heard armchair debates about doing the following:

Hourly Birmingham - Edinburgh via Doncaster
1/2 hourly Birmingham - Leeds (even using the Barnsley route)
Extend TPE Manchester - Newcastle service to Edinburgh.

Of course with all good armchair debates, they never state where the rolling stock will come from!

 

[tbtc]

I have heard armchair debates about doing the following:

Hourly Birmingham - Edinburgh via Doncaster
1/2 hourly Birmingham - Leeds (even using the Barnsley route)
Extend TPE Manchester - Newcastle service to Edinburgh.

Of course with all good armchair debates, they never state where the rolling stock will come from!

Makes sense to me (running the EMT service from London to Sheffield "direct" would give Sheffield a much faster service, and mean a spare hourly path from Derby to Chesterfield for your additional XC train), then extend them via Barnsley to Leeds - should be possible without much conflict with other services between Meadowhall and Whitehall Junction (unlike the XC service via Westgate which gets delayed).

Replacing at least one of the hourly Sheffield - Leeds Northern services would free up (at least) a couple of 158s, which could be swapped for whatever Turbostars Northern are "allegedly" getting, plus the speeded up EMT service should save one Meridian too. Derby goes back to just one train per hour to London, but plenty scope for changing at East Midlands Parkway with a little rejiggling.

Birmingham gets a faster service to Newcastle/ Edinburgh (which may attract passengers from the rival West Coast franchise). Everyone's a winner (almost)!

 

[voyagerdude220]

No - they didn't have to. Remember the size of the franchise chnaged between handover. The rotues that the Voyagers needed to operate were reduced Brum - Scotland went to Virgin) so they didn't need to introduce HSTs, and just run services as a 4 car Voyagers, which would have been stupid.

I feel it would have been better if Virgin kept XC, simply so that the XC side of the VT operation could benefit from having all 78 Voyagers and Super Voyagers being available to it, and not just the batch which XC currently has.

Although i know it has nothing to do with the franchise take over by Arriva, I really dislike and strongly disagree against the awful, drastic cutbacks south of Birmingham from places like Glasgow, Carlisle, Oxenholme, Preston and Crewe. Before the Government made their cutbacks on the network, you could happily and more importantly very easily travel from the North West, to both the South East AND the South West on a DIRECT train every two hours.

Now, you have to change at Wolves/New Street, defeating the point of the WCML upgrade for passengers not just solely travelling within what's now the VT network, although i know it wasn't aimed at the XC side at all.

Overall, I think it was better when XC was owned by Virgin, but must make the fair point that the reasons why- i.e. cut backs south of Birmingham, the specification stating that more seats must be created, meaning the removal of the shop, which i feel is essential on XC journeys, aren't actually within Arriva's control.

 

[87015]

Although i know it has nothing to do with the franchise take over by Arriva, I really dislike and strongly disagree against the awful, drastic cutbacks south of Birmingham from places like Glasgow, Carlisle, Oxenholme, Preston and Crewe. Before the Government made their cutbacks on the network, you could happily and more importantly very easily travel from the North West, to both the South East AND the South West on a DIRECT train every two hours.

You mean cutbacks which stem from the Voyager introduction?? A big VIRGIN idea you'll find. It all goes back to that and far more important losses you haven't mentioned with places like Liverpool chopped from the crosscountry network.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Makes sense to me (running the EMT service from London to Sheffield "direct" would give Sheffield a much faster service, and mean a spare hourly path from Derby to Chesterfield for your additional XC train), then extend them via Barnsley to Leeds - should be possible without much conflict with other services between Meadowhall and Whitehall Junction (unlike the XC service via Westgate which gets delayed).

Replacing at least one of the hourly Sheffield - Leeds Northern services would free up (at least) a couple of 158s, which could be swapped for whatever Turbostars Northern are "allegedly" getting, plus the speeded up EMT service should save one Meridian too. Derby goes back to just one train per hour to London, but plenty scope for changing at East Midlands Parkway with a little rejiggling.

Birmingham gets a faster service to Newcastle/ Edinburgh (which may attract passengers from the rival West Coast franchise). Everyone's a winner (almost)!

Sorry but I don't think that is a good idea at all. Is Chesterfield to a lose it's direct London train? Only 1 train from Derby to London and only between Derby & Leicester - a sure fire way of losing passengers. However EMT should run all the way to Leeds as that is the midland mainline or was until Wath - Wakefield was shut

 

[Pumbaa]

the specification stating that more seats must be created, meaning the removal of the shop, which i feel is essential on XC journeys, aren't actually within Arriva's control.

The removal of the shops hasn't resulted in seats being increased though - just increased luggage space, and space for a trolley.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Although your frequency is now about 1/2 hourly do you only use the route via Doncaster as it is 20 minutes quicker? Most people from Newcastle I understand prefer going via Doncaster because of the quicker time so it is in effect 1 useful train per hour. I have seen this debate a few times, yes Leeds has a larger demand but I guess they will need to work out if moving Leeds to half hourly will bring in more revenue then losing people that would have travelled from Newcastle, Durham, Darlington and York due to the longer journey time. I doubt this is that much of an issue really.

When you look at the East Coast destinations, Birmingham - Edinburgh will nearly always use the WCML, they generally only use the East for direct services beyond Birmingham (or places like Sheffield of course).

I was referring specifically to my own experiences here due to travelling mainly from Leeds. I have very little need usually to bypass Leeds. I am also speculating mainly about services travelling Northbound from Leeds/Doncaster.

I travelled to Sheffield from Leeds early this morning and made a point of using XC. I would normally just pick the first "fast" train. Imagine my disdain
when I was confronted by a 4 car Voyager! Having said that, I found a seat in the quiet carriage, the train wasn't that busy, I had loads of room and a very pleasant ride. My return was a Sheffield - Leeds fast via Barnsley on one of my beloved refurbished 158's. It was much busier, my seat had less legroom and the journey took much longer.

I think I just got lucky today as XC is usually nearly if not completely full heading South from Leeds. My point remains however that Leeds ought to have a half hourly service. If it is necessary at Sheffield and York, surely it is also at Leeds.

 

[D841]

Sorry but I don't think that is a good idea at all. Is Chesterfield to a lose it's direct London train? Only 1 train from Derby to London and only between Derby & Leicester - a sure fire way of losing passengers. However EMT should run all the way to Leeds as that is the midland mainline or was until Wath - Wakefield was shut

That would be Wath Road Junction - Goose Hill Junction, then. The Midland Main Line didn't serve Wakefield.