Arriva CrossCountry contract extended through to October 2019

[swt_passenger]

I thought stock was leased from rolling stock companies because franchises don't last long enough.

If that is the case then surely it doesn't matter how long a direct award is.

If South West Trains had agreed a direct award, would they have had no additional rolling stock or was their direct award due to be long enough to allow new rolling stock?

DfT amended the existing franchise by deed of variation in 2015, the decision to order the 707s predates the direct award cancellation, there's no reason I can see that the direct award would have affected it. The new franchise ITT requires any incoming franchise to carry on with 707 introduction as planned, it would seem it would have happened irrrespective of franchise award progress.

You only have to look at Southern over the last few years, they have acted as DfT's procurement agent for trains for a variety of purposes to do with Thameslink or Southern capacity increases, it was all going on while the TSGN bidding and award process went on in parallel...

Seems to me (getting back on topic) that if DfT had actually wanted new stock for XC then the direct award would not have been an obstacle.

 

[gray1404]

Won't be difficult for XC to cut journey times, they merely just need to reduce station dwell times.

 

[infobleep]

DfT amended the existing franchise by deed of variation in 2015, the decision to order the 707s predates the direct award cancellation, there's no reason I can see that the direct award would have affected it. The new franchise ITT requires any incoming franchise to carry on with 707 introduction as planned, it would seem it would have happened irrrespective of franchise award progress.

You only have to look at Southern over the last few years, they have acted as DfT's procurement agent for trains for a variety of purposes to do with Thameslink or Southern capacity increases, it was all going on while the TSGN bidding and award process went on in parallel...

Seems to me (getting back on topic) that if DfT had actually wanted new stock for XC then the direct award would not have been an obstacle.

If they didn't, as seems likely, why don't they want such a thing? I doubt they would want to explain themselves. The press would be on top of it.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Robertj21a]

The conscious decision to keep half their HST fleet parked up in sidings (to save leasing costs) whilst customers get squeezed into some of the most over crowded trains outside the south west was disgraceful. It may have been permitted in the poorly-written franchise, and may enable the company to maximise profits, but it's clearly putting corporate greed ahead of the interests of passengers.

.

To be fair, they are operating according the franchise specification. If they flouted that it would be understandable to have a good moan about XC but they aren't, so it's difficult to be too critical. I think you'll find that the attainment of profits usually takes precedence over just about everything in most companies !

 

[Kettledrum]

Won't be difficult for XC to cut journey times, they merely just need to reduce station dwell times.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. Longer station dwell times have been built into the XC timetable for two reasons:

1. the slam doors on the HST trains take longer to close than automatic doors, even with despatch staff on the platforms to make sure they are all closed. Hence longer dwell times need to be built into the timetable.

2. The trains get regularly delayed - and because XC do not run on a simple dedicated network of their own everyone else's delays have a knock on effect on them. There are so many potential bottlenecks too. Sometimes an incident in Scotland will delay a unit that is supposed to meet timetable requirements towards the south coast on the same day.

Occasionally, XC are able to use a spare standby unit to start the service afresh from Birmingham New Street, and terminate the stranded train earlier, but the most common way for XC to recoup the delays is to put lots of padding in the timetable with longer station dwell times that can be reduced if the service is running late.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be fair, they are operating according the franchise specification. If they flouted that it would be understandable to have a good moan about XC but they aren't, so it's difficult to be too critical. I think you'll find that the attainment of profits usually takes precedence over just about everything in most companies !

Just because it's operating within the rules doesn't mean it's acceptable in the court of public opinion.

MPs found that to their cost when they claimed that some of their expense claims were allowable within the rules.

Other large international companies have also faced significant criticism for not paying any UK tax on huge amounts of UK sales - despite complying with international tax law.

I agree XC operate to the franchise specification but that's no consolation to any passenger who regularly suffers from the over-crowding.

Some of the scenes I have seen on XC services from Birmingham New Street are like something from a third world country.

People shouldn't need to resort to sitting in luggage racks as a matter of routine. I regularly see elderly people who are struggling to stand and are stuck in the vestibule area standing with 12 other people, because there's no room to move anywhere - and in the main part of the coach all seats are taken and there is no space in the gangway because that is full of standing people too.

......and all the time XC have 2 or 3 HSTs parked up in sidings because the franchise doesn't insist that they are used.

The new extended franchise and the additional seats are hugely welcome - I'm not really sure they're enough.

 

[Ianno87]

Won't be difficult for XC to cut journey times, they merely just need to reduce station dwell times.

Not when you have to fit your trains around the entire rest of the UK rail network.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

waiving the £10 ‘change of travel’ fee for advance tickets from January 2017

Has anyone mentioned this yet, what is this all about?

If they dilute advance tickets then it will be a bad thing, could lead to price rises.

While it is frustrating when you miss your advance train or need to change plans, people are very used to it these days with most airlines, hotel bookings, event ticket purchases all being non-refundable.

 

[Rich McLean]

Believe me when I say the long dwells are needed. Even with those dwell times, trains often get turned around short of destination. Southampton and Newton Abbot are often used to turn late running incoming services.

If you cut the dwells, passengers travelling from the likes of Plymouth will be playing a lottery if their train turns up at all.

 

[centraltrains]

Has anyone mentioned this yet, what is this all about?

If they dilute advance tickets then it will be a bad thing, could lead to price rises.

While it is frustrating when you miss your advance train or need to change plans, people are very used to it these days with most airlines, hotel bookings, event ticket purchases all being non-refundable.

That's just the £10 admin fee though? I assume you still have to pay the difference between original purchase price and new ticket cost?

 

[Ianno87]

Believe me when I say the long dwells are needed. Even with those dwell times, trains often get turned around short of destination. Southampton and Newton Abbot are often used to turn late running incoming services.

If you cut the dwells, passengers travelling from the likes of Plymouth will be playing a lottery if their train turns up at all.

Basically the reason why Poole (amongst others) got lopped off the network in 2003 - turning short at Bournemouth became near-standard practice...

 

[The Planner]

XC like to get to A-B as quick as possible with longer dwells, they perceive as having to wait outside a station or be pathed out on approach as being bad for customers as they will think "oh we are being delayed again". As others have said, reduce the dwells everywhere and you will import that again as you won't always be able to keep that journey time to the next station or stations.

 

[snail]

most people have their own data package anyway, they would just prefer to be able to get the taxpayer and other farepayers to subsidise it.

My data package isn't enough to cover a one-off long journey. I would have to pay EE £15 for a top up. I suspect the majority of occasional travellers would be in the same position.

 

[headshot119]

My data package isn't enough to cover a one-off long journey. I would have to pay EE £15 for a top up. I suspect the majority of occasional travellers would be in the same position.

I pay around £20 a month for 16GB of data on EE, that's more than enough for heavy usage on long journeys. For instance travelling from Cardiff - Paddington and back I've streamed Netflix to my tablet for the entire journey and not burned through that much data. (Only the Severn Tunnel caused issues with signal)

 

[snail]

I pay around £20 a month for 16GB of data on EE, that's more than enough for heavy usage on long journeys.

Good for you. I'm tied into a 24 month phone contract and don't have a 3G/4G tablet or laptop so don't have the option.

 

[headshot119]

Good for you. I'm tied into a 24 month phone contract and don't have a 3G/4G tablet or laptop so don't have the option.

You'd be surprised what phone companies will do if you ring them up. Find a contract you like with them, and ask if you can move to it, even if you stick paying a higher rate.

My point was that mobile data packages aren't as expensive these days as people make out. I'd rather see the government pump £90Million into giving 100% 4G coverage, or lengthening the voyagers to 8 cars.

 

[jopsuk]

I know some are going to go "but I get great reception" but generally speaking railways have rather variable coverage (especially compared to major roads- a hangover from the initial roll-out as car phones). Railways wifi can be set up to work through tunnels and deep cuttings, places general phone coverage (especially 3G/4G) struggles.

 

[headshot119]

I know some are going to go "but I get great reception" but generally speaking railways have rather variable coverage (especially compared to major roads- a hangover from the initial roll-out as car phones). Railways wifi can be set up to work through tunnels and deep cuttings, places general phone coverage (especially 3G/4G) struggles.

That I won't deny, Cardiff - Paddington just happens to be a good route for coverage on EE, and HSTs don't have a film blocking signal through the windows.

The marches between Cardiff and Wrexham on the other hand, the less said the better

 

[najaB]

I'd rather see the government pump £90Million into giving 100% 4G coverage...

Not going to happen. Both the 100% coverage (sheep don't need social media), and Government paying for it. They've done a bad enough job with BDUK delivering 2G that I can't see them touching 4G with a ten-foot pole.

 

[plcd1]

You are right that XC is not an easy franchise to run well, but please don't give XC too much benefit of the doubt.

The conscious decision to keep half their HST fleet parked up in sidings (to save leasing costs) whilst customers get squeezed into some of the most over crowded trains outside the south west was disgraceful. It may have been permitted in the poorly-written franchise, and may enable the company to maximise profits, but it's clearly putting corporate greed ahead of the interests of passengers.

As someone who regularly gets crushed on some of their services, I am well placed to comment.

The main reason it's not an easy franchise to run, is that there are more chances of trains being delayed, because of the length of the network, An incident in Scotland can result in cancellations or punctuality issues on the South Coast for example.

...and there is the challenge of getting your trains through the Birmingham New street congestion all day.

If XC could get its hands on any displaced diesel rolling stock from EMT after electrification, then it could make a huge difference.

To be clear I hedged my comments not to let XC off but to avoid making an outrageous or wholly inaccurate statement given my usage of XC is extremely low. The last two rides were both short - Reading to Oxford and Derby to Brum - and at off peak times and in 1st class so not at all representative of what many people will experience. There is obviously far more relevant and regular experience from other posters on this forum. My usage of NR services is really very low these days so I am out of touch on most services except a few in London.

Until I read this thread I had no awareness that XC had taken the decision they had about the HSTs. On face value it seems daft to me but if they're not in breach of their franchise then they can do this. I know from managing a PPP contract that contractors can often do things that appear to be or are "perverse" but there are rarely cast iron ways to stop them if all the contract aspects are OK.

As I said before I suspect a lack of clarity on electrification progress and future rolling stock cascades is a factor in constraining the XC franchise. The other will be a desire of the DfT to have competitive pressure on costs and likely premium payments for the next full franchise especially *if* any expansion is decided upon post 2019.

 

[yorksrob]

If central Government can re-order franchises in this way, I don't see why they can't do something about the inadequate leasing arrangements of XC's HST's, bringing them into line with the rest of the fleet and removing perverse incentives to keep them out of service.

 

[glbotu]

With all this talk of wholesale franchise re-mappings and how most of XC's problems come from all of the lines they have to cross, could it not be more sensible to "tighten" the network to a small number of core lines, that don't duplicate, and get OTHER franchises to pick up the slack.

Does the network really need a Penzance - Aberdeen service?

Sure, direct trains are a disproportionately favoured in the UK, but surely at this point it's a trade-off of awful performance and over-crowding against having larger routes. What if instead of running an hourly Plymouth - Edinburgh, you have an hourly Bristol - York, with EC (or TP) getting the path from Scotland - York and GW getting the path from Bristol - Plymouth. This also reduces the requirement for inappropriately long trains for large sections of the route, just because Leeds - Sheffield needs a peak service formed of 10 cars. Then, we don't need complex cascade plans to see what can be dumped on XC, we just need to bolster EC (or TP) and GW with a few extra units.

 

[najaB]

Does the network really need a Penzance - Aberdeen service?

No. But it does need a Penzance to Bristol service, a Bristol to Birmingham service, a Birmingham to Newcastle service via Sheffield and a Newcastle to Aberdeen service.

 

[ainsworth74]

No. But it does need a Penzance to Bristol service, a Bristol to Birmingham service, a Birmingham to Newcastle service via Sheffield and a Newcastle to Aberdeen service.

I suppose that's sort of the point. Would it be better to have the more split up service that can better match demand (you'd want long trains on Birmingham to Newcastle than on Penzance to Bristol for example) and improve service reliability (a signal failure in Edinburgh doesn't then delay services in the Bristol area) than stringing all those separate flows together on one monster service?

I don't know the answer to that question by the way but I think it's one worth asking!

 

[glbotu]

No. But it does need a Penzance to Bristol service, a Bristol to Birmingham service, a Birmingham to Newcastle service via Sheffield and a Newcastle to Aberdeen service.

Indeed, but if you read the rest of my post, you'll see the suggested thought. My suggestion was to get the "local" route operators to run the remaining services. With cross country only notably dealing with crossing the country.

 

[najaB]

Indeed, but if you read the rest of my post, you'll see the suggested thought. My suggestion was to get the "local" route operators to run the remaining services. With cross country only notably dealing with crossing the country.

Who is the 'local' operator for Newcastle to Aberdeen? Or Birmingham to Newcastle via Sheffield? That's why CrossCountry exists - it has the 'problem children' routes.

 

[quantinghome]

No. But it does need a Penzance to Bristol service, a Bristol to Birmingham service, a Birmingham to Newcastle service via Sheffield and a Newcastle to Aberdeen service.

The issue is that there are lots of journeys between key centres which overlap. To expand on your example you would have:

Penzance - Bristol
Plymouth - Birmingham
Bristol - Leeds
Birmingham - Newcastle
Leeds - Edinburgh
Newcastle - Aberdeen

There is no point at which the route could be 'cut' without removing a direct service between two major destinations. A possible way round this is to have a core X-shaped service with ends at Manchester, Leeds, Reading and Bristol, with extensions beyond the core in one direction only, The current Manchester - Southampton service is an example of this. The only passengers who would miss out are those travelling from beyond the core to a destination beyond the core. By that point you're looking at very long journeys and the number of passengers affected is likely to be small. In fact this is pretty much what we have now, apart from the Edinburgh-Plymouth service which extends beyond the core at both ends. Two XC trains per hour between Newcastle and York does seem excessive given the level of service replicated by other operators. One possible option is:

- Cut Plymouth-Edinburgh back to Leeds
- Extend Reading - Newcastle to Edinburgh
- Extend TP to Edinburgh.

Not perfect, but would free up some units.

 

[The Ham]

The issue is that there are lots of journeys between key centres which overlap. To expand on your example you would have:

Penzance - Bristol
Plymouth - Birmingham
Bristol - Leeds
Birmingham - Newcastle
Leeds - Edinburgh
Newcastle - Aberdeen

There is no point at which the route could be 'cut' without removing a direct service between two major destinations. A possible way round this is to have a core X-shaped service with ends at Manchester, Leeds, Reading and Bristol, with extensions beyond the core in one direction only, The current Manchester - Southampton service is an example of this. The only passengers who would miss out are those travelling from beyond the core to a destination beyond the core. By that point you're looking at very long journeys and the number of passengers affected is likely to be small. In fact this is pretty much what we have now, apart from the Edinburgh-Plymouth service which extends beyond the core at both ends. Two XC trains per hour between Newcastle and York does seem excessive given the level of service replicated by other operators. One possible option is:

- Cut Plymouth-Edinburgh back to Leeds
- Extend Reading - Newcastle to Edinburgh
- Extend TP to Edinburgh.

Not perfect, but would free up some units.

If there were capacity it could be possible to move bits from XC to the local operators, but only if there was significant overlap.

For instance cut XC back to:
- Edinburgh and have Scottish or East Coast services run Newcastle to Aberdeen.
- Reading and have Western or South Western services run Poole/Southampton to Leamington Spa
- Exeter and have Western services run Plymouth/Paignton/Penzance to Cheltenham

That then means that you could gain capacity at the outer edges if the "local" TOCs had to provide their own trains for the services and it would free up 22x's for XC to use elsewhere.

However even then there would be complaints over the splitting of journeys and it would only be needed for about 8 years by which time there could be routes that could be run by 110mph EMU's (if you want a cheaper to lease train than a 125 mph EMU) and/or there would be a load of 222's to use to strengthen services.

Which also may no last very long before HS2 phase 2 changes the loadings of passengers on XC dramatically on certain legs.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There is no point at which the route could be 'cut' without removing a direct service between two major destinations.

That didn't trouble the DfT when the Birmingham-WCML-Scotland trains were switched from XC to West Coast.

Having XC run beyond Plymouth and Edinburgh is a waste of resources.

Personally, I'd switch Manchester-Birmingham (and Liverpool-Birmingham) into West Coast, have ScotRail run the services in Scotland and have Great Western run the services into Cornwall beyond Plymouth.

 

[najaB]

That didn't trouble the DfT when the Birmingham-WCML-Scotland trains were switched from XC to West Coast.

I don't quite follow the connection there - the routes were moved to VTWC intact, they weren't cut.

 

[Starmill]

There's pretty much nothing west of Plymouth that could require through trains to anywhere that's not within its own region, South West England, or London. This doesn't apply to North East Scotland, where, unlike Cornwall, there are two sizeable cities.