XC in CP 6

[MidlandMainlie]

True, but where would you cascade them to? I personally think that XC should be providing decent through-journey opportunities, it's certainly a key reason it was created in the first place. Chopping it to bits, just so we can put EMUs on it a few years sooner just doesn't seen sensible to me.

There are a number of places that 22x fleets could be sent to. I personally would send the 222 fleet to GW to run services from Paddington into Devon/Cornwall rather than retaining HST's. The 220's could be redeployed onto some 170 operated routes like Birmingham to Stansted Airport. The 221's freed up from WCML by a potential order of Baby Pendolino could be more difficult to find a home for but hasn't the Scottish government said it would like some for services from Glasgow/Edinburgh to Aberdeen/Inverness freeing up more 170's/158's.

 

[The Ham]

XC electrification wont start till 2020 at the earliest and by time its completed the 220's and 221's will be nearly 25 years old, I don't see any reason why they couldn't spend their remaining years on other parts of the network. It's not like the electrification of the MML has been stopped because the 222's are less than 10 years old.

Also it is one thing to cater for the passenger numbers we have now, it's quite another to cater for passenger numbers in 12 years time. We may well need all the current XC fleet and a fleet of electric trains.

 

[AndyLandy]

Also it is one thing to cater for the passenger numbers we have now, it's quite another to cater for passenger numbers in 12 years time. We may well need all the current XC fleet and a fleet of electric trains.

That's a very good point! How many times have we already "replaced" the HSTs, yet almost all of them are still in service.

 

[Eagle]

An I right in saying that the Voyagers were designed from the outset for a possible bimodal conversion?

 

[tbtc]

This is an odd one. CrossCountry are reportedly keen for both of their Sheffield-York services to go via Leeds, rather than one via Doncaster. In the past one of the key reasons for XC going via Doncaster has been to provide a reasonable service between Doncaster and York, however this isn't won't be so much of a concern if East Coast provide an hourly service with the KGX-YRK stoppers.

As far as I can see the area that would be disadvantaged by such a change would be passengers travelling from/via Hull, Goole, Cleethorpes, Grimsby and Scunthorpe. The impact of other electrification could be to enable a third XC Birmingham to Sheffield, then proceeding to Humberside - I don't believe its strictly necessary for XC to operate between Doncaster and York any more.

Given the current Sheffield - Hull (or even Sheffield - Cleethorpes) services to XC has some things going for it - whilst I know that people on this forum obsess about places having direct access to London, the idea of giving a place like Hull a direct train to Birmingham (and beyond) could be equally important.

I know I bang on about splitting up the "X", but one problem that XC have is that they need to balance each side of the "X" - you couldn't easily make Manchester - Birmingham a twenty minute service since it wouldn't fit the slots from Birmingham to Reading/Bristol.

If we have an hourly Doncaster - York service provided by EC (running bi-modes to Middlesbrough/ Scarborough?) then the loss of a fast Sheffield - York service wouldn't be too bad. Problem will be finding slots to divert the current Donny service through Leeds.

 

[AndyLandy]

An I right in saying that the Voyagers were designed from the outset for a possible bimodal conversion?

I think, given how unlikely Thor has turned out to be, that wasn't the case. That said, they are DEMUs, so the underlying traction is electric, with a diesel power plant. I find it surprising that it's turned out to be as difficult as it is.

 

[tbtc]

I think, given how unlikely Thor has turned out to be, that wasn't the case. That said, they are DEMUs, so the underlying traction is electric, with a diesel power plant. I find it surprising that it's turned out to be as difficult as it is.

Its one of the biggest headaches in recent years - Project Thor would have solved a lot of problem - getting extra coaches into busy Voyagers, removing thousands of miles of "running under the wires" each day - saving face for Bombardier's "British" operations etc.

It would have ticked a lot of boxes - but (with bi-mode IEP on the way) there's less and less chance of it ever happening now.

 

[Kettledrum]

A plan to insert an extra vehicle into Voyagers which would include a pantograph. This would have enabled them to run off the wires when available and use their diesel engines elsewhere. It would also, of course, have increased capacity of the units.

It was killed (or rather everything went quiet) when the costs started to mount and Bombardier decided to use overseas suppliers for the equipment rather than UK based companies (the Government had wanted it to be used as a boost to UK manufacturing). So it's pretty much as dead as a dodo at this point. Which is a shame really as it would have been quite an improvement (if it worked as advertised!).

Bombardier well and truly messed this up. With the history of railway technical expertise in Derby, how can they have failed to make use of it? After all the fuss they made of the IEP contract going to a Japanese company as well. Perhaps it might have been different had they put their money where there mouth is, and built a prototype in Derby to prove their commitment to the technology and the UK rail industry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Firstly, I'm not too fussed about the far termini (whether Southampton services to go Newcastle or Aberdeen or Manchester) - there's such a tiny market for "end to end" journeys.

Secondly, if there's to be a service from Reading/ Oxford (etc) to Sheffield (etc) then it could go via Bletchley/ Bedford/ Leicester

Thirdly, I've argued in the past about splitting the "X" - so that the current XC franchise becomes split into a "North West - Thames Valley" corridor and an "Yorkshire/East Midlands - South West/ Cardiff" corridor - would make things a lot more operationally simple (esp with the former corridor being mainly electrified post CP5), and better to integrate with other TOCs.

I'm not sure either way on whether the franchise should be split. We want more XC journey opportunities (e.g. North West - South West and e.g. North East - Southampton/Bournemouth). Would splitting the franchise achieve this?

On the other hand has the taxpayer achieved any economies of scale and a better deal by having the XC routes combined in a single franchise?

Given the lack of innovation by XC, and given the lack of integration with station and track management on the XC routes, perhaps splitting it into operating contracts as opposed to franchises would work better.

 

[Muzer]

I still don't quite get the people who don't see XC as useful for end-to-end journeys. Of course it is! Maybe not Aberdeen to Penzance, but certainly, say, Southampton or Bournemouth to Manchester. I'm pretty sure general public use for this sort of thing is higher than enthusiasts sometimes think - never underestimate the power of fewer changes among the general public when they have luggage.

Of course, if it really IS as low as some people make out, this clearly means XC simply aren't doing their job properly of providing a lower-cost, lower-hassle alternative to the faster services from London (ludicrously-priced advances to blame?).

 

[Goatboy]

I still don't quite get the people who don't see XC as useful for end-to-end journeys. Of course it is! Maybe not Aberdeen to Penzance, but certainly, say, Southampton or Bournemouth to Manchester. I'm pretty sure general public use for this sort of thing is higher than enthusiasts sometimes think - never underestimate the power of fewer changes among the general public when they have luggage.

Only need board an XC service and look at the seat reservations to tell that many people make long through journeys using XC.

 

[anme]

Only need board an XC service and look at the seat reservations to tell that many people make long through journeys using XC.

Genuine question - do these seat reservations show a lot of people making long journeys, or not very many?

 

[Goatboy]

Genuine question - do these seat reservations show a lot of people making long journeys, or not very many?

Quite a few people seem to make long journeys on XC - whilst Penzance to Inverness is hardly commonplace stations South of Bristol to stations North of Sheffield seem fairly common.

 

[1e10]

It's common. A friend of mine regularly takes a 4 hour trip on XC services to visit her dad.

 

[route:oxford]

(ludicrously-priced advances to blame?).

Not just luricrously priced advances. The peak fares are unhelpful too.

Compare two similar return journeys. Departing each way in the morning "peak".

Oxford to Glasgow - £132.00 return.

Oxford to Edinburgh - £273.00 return


The Glasgow route is priced by Virgin, the Edinburgh route is priced by Cross Country.

 

[Goatboy]

The Advances on longer flows are also often very ridiculous. The lower tiers seem to have very limited availability mostly leaving a selection of fares which are almost always beaten by the standard offpeak return. Which rather defeats the object of an Advance, but there we go.

I find it incredibly irritating that I can travel from Devon to London for £18 but need to split tickets to get anything less than about 50-60 quid each way to Birmingham...

 

[Drsatan]

I believe a forum member discovered a memo from XC's fare department which stated that advanced fares for many flows will not be made available on Friday afternoons and on Sunday afternoons. Given the lack of advanced purchase fares south of Birmingham New Street at these times I believe the memo's contents are pretty accurate.

 

[Eagle]

Not just luricrously priced advances. The peak fares are unhelpful too.

Compare two similar return journeys. Departing each way in the morning "peak".

Oxford to Glasgow - £132.00 return.

Oxford to Edinburgh - £273.00 return


The Glasgow route is priced by Virgin, the Edinburgh route is priced by Cross Country.

I'm surprised that there isn't an Oxford to Edinburgh via Preston fare set by Virgin though, as many other statins on that leg of XC seem to have one. Besides, almost everyone undertaking that journey will be going that way because it's about an hour quicker.

 

[Goatboy]

I believe a forum member discovered a memo from XC's fare department which stated that advanced fares for many flows will not be made available on Friday afternoons and on Sunday afternoons. Given the lack of advanced purchase fares south of Birmingham New Street at these times I believe the memo's contents are pretty accurate.

These are the times I travel XC and I have never seen an Advance fare actually available on the trains I use. Full price walkon fares only.

The trains are both very busy but this is more to do with the fact they are formed of 4 coach voyagers offering 2.5 coaches of actual standard class seating - the HST operated services either side are far nicer as a result.

I heard that XC plan to replace many of the Voyagers with single coach 153 DMU's in order to then be able to justify removing the rest of the Advance tickets on the basis of reducing demand due to overcrowding

Remember, XC trains are over-crowded not due to excessive demand but because they are formed of trains with such low capacity. Even a quiet service would be 'packed' if you decided to operate it using a single Ford Mondeo taxi for example

 

[tbtc]

The Advances on longer flows are also often very ridiculous

This brings us back to the old "XC services are far too busy" / "why don't they sell lots of cheaper tickets" circular argument though

 

[Goatboy]

This brings us back to the old "XC services are far too busy" / "why don't they sell lots of cheaper tickets" circular argument though

It's a difficult one isn't it. The fact that XC sevices are:

a) Very expensive
b) Very busy
c) Losing money

Suggests to me that something within XC is simply not fit for purpose. I can't help thinking the massive lack of capacity causing both overcrowding and preventing the availability of generally good value fares as per say Virgin Trains or FGW is at the heart of this.

 

[Kettledrum]

It's a difficult one isn't it. The fact that XC sevices are:

a) Very expensive
b) Very busy
c) Losing money

Suggests to me that something within XC is simply not fit for purpose. I can't help thinking the massive lack of capacity causing both overcrowding and preventing the availability of generally good value fares as per say Virgin Trains or FGW is at the heart of this.

I don't buy the "losing money" argument. If they were seriously losing money, they would have gone out of business or handed back the franchise.

Many large companies like Amazon, Ebay, Starbucks all manage to "lose" money when it suits them by the UK company making large transfer payments to foreign sister companies - sometimes these are for things like a payment for the use of the brand. Could anything like this be contributing to Arriva XC apparently losing money?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I don't buy the "losing money" argument. If they were seriously losing money, they would have gone out of business or handed back the franchise.

Many large companies like Amazon, Ebay, Starbucks all manage to "lose" money when it suits them by the UK company making large transfer payments to foreign sister companies - sometimes these are for things like a payment for the use of the brand. Could anything like this be contributing to Arriva XC apparently losing money?

Most TOCs loose money before subsidy...

 

[Eagle]

I don't buy the "losing money" argument. If they were seriously losing money, they would have gone out of business or handed back the franchise.

XC are losing a lot of money, but they're kept afloat by being heavily subsidized. Like a lot of TOCs actually.

 

[AndyLandy]

XC are losing a lot of money, but they're kept afloat by being heavily subsidized. Like a lot of TOCs actually.

Which TOCs are actually bringing in money? Any at all?

 

[ainsworth74]

That one that's due for privatisation is...

 

[YorkshireBear]

That one that's due for privatisation is...

I may be wrong (Becoming regular now a days i'm ready to give up on railways) but i think East Coast once you take the direct grant to Network Rail away is actually also losing money. I think it may only be FCC that after direct grant pay back money, maybe one other London Commuter TOC.

But you are right in your cynical post about privatising it while it makes money... :P Love a good bit of cynicism me.

 

[Goatboy]

It's almost as if the rail network is a public service that's never going to be profitable on it's own and really is a frankly pointless thing to try and pretend is a profitable private enterprise...

 

[The Ham]

It's a difficult one isn't it. The fact that XC sevices are:

a) Very expensive
b) Very busy
c) Losing money

Suggests to me that something within XC is simply not fit for purpose. I can't help thinking the massive lack of capacity causing both overcrowding and preventing the availability of generally good value fares as per say Virgin Trains or FGW is at the heart of this.

To resolve c (to a certain amount) and given b the simple answer would be to have better length trains running XC services. If all trains were lengthed to 7 coaches there would proberbly be very few empty seats over the majority of their services. The problem is there is no cheap way of doing that (it was one reason why project Thor was looked forward by so many).

Yes, some of their costs would go up (track access charges, leasing and fuel), however their staffing and head office costs would stay the same whist their income from fares would go up, proberbly by more than the costs which went up. In reallity the cost per seat to run a train would go down, meaning that as long as they could sell a few extra tickets to cover the extra costs them.

For example if an extra coach cost £1,000 per day, it wouldn't take many extra tickets at £20, £50 and £100 to cover those extra costs. As an example if they could just need to sell 2x£100, 8x£50 and 20x£20, or 30 extra tickets for a coach with 70 seats. However that isn't about 40% of capacity of the coach, as many of those passengers could be using the same seat. Passenger A boards in Bournmouth and leaves at Reading, whose seat is then used by passenger B who then travels to Manchester.

Now it is unlikely that passenger income would increase enough from day one to cover the extra costs, but over 6 to 12 months it could well do enough that it is worth doing. The problem is that it would require some extra subsidy for a while for someone to do.

 

[1e10]

Would there be any empty seats to start with? Surely anyone standing in a 5-car Voyager would take the majority of those seats without bringing in any extra revenue as they're already fare paying customers.

 

[Goatboy]

Would there be any empty seats to start with? Surely anyone standing in a 5-car Voyager would take the majority of those seats without bringing in any extra revenue as they're already fare paying customers.

Leaving space to stand or spare seats for additional passengers...