What should happen in the next CrossCountry Franchise

[xotGD]

When we had Summer seaside trains was in the days when BR had surplus old stock sitting in sidings and spare locos and crew. No TOC wants old stock doing nothing and nor want to pay leasing fees on modern stock which is not intensively worked. The alternative is to hold back stock due to go for scheduled maintenance and have the works doing nothing

Much better to have the surplus stock sat in sidings but not available to use on summer Saturdays, as we have now.

 

[The Ham]

Much better to have the surplus stock sat in sidings but not available to use on summer Saturdays, as we have now.

I do wonder if it would be possible to loco haul some EMU's with the EMU's taking hotel power from the loco, given the number of EMU's which will become spare soon. Although chances are your have to run it with a loco end to end, which wouldn't be very viable.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Well. I wrote to the DfT quite recently / a little while ago. In the letter, I used the phrase "almost pleading with you" - to transfer the HST's from Virgin Trains East Coast to CrossCountry services once IET's take over East Coast Mainline services. Didn't this happen when 225's took over in British Rail days?

Basically it's clear that passengers / most passengers prefer HST's for long-distance travel than Voyagers on routes to and from Scotland and the South West! Yes I love and enjoy the Voyagers in their own way - for example: colourful modern interior, good legroom (non-priority seats), refreshing smell by the toilets, very reliable air-conditioning system (which worked in around 30°C weather) and a good reliable vehicle all round really.

However if you're looking for a train that has a relaxing journey all round then it's the InterCity 125 HST whether the DfT likes it or not. I mentioned I believe the 125 Group wants to preserve a full production HST.

The XC HST's have, per set, 457 seats (70 First Class + 387 Standard). 46 of the 457 are Priority seats. These also have a Quiet Coach, coach G, which has 67 seats. There are 30 tables in Standard Class and around 35/40 seats where passengers can keep an easy eye on their luggage. Plus there's 7 toilets and more room for a trolley to get down the train.

Some of this I didn't think to mention in my letter to the DfT.

I suggested 3 options...

1. HST's from VTEC to basically be reformed to 7 coaches.
2. A fleet of new 7-car trains (Class 802's would be nice - something like that I said to the DfT).
3. A new version of the InterCity 125 - with an air-conditioned version of the Mark 1 coach (for First Class), but not with an own compartment due to the different formations. I suggested Mark 5's as the Standard Class coaches.

I think I was more focused on the routes to and from Scotland and the South West. Still, other XC routes can benefit from strengthened trains!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you went for #3 the TPE coaches are essentially it. But for XC I think a bi-mode MU would have more virtue, either the 802 or the new offering from Bombardier. I agree that 7 coaches (or 8 in the unlikely event of them being 20m) would be right, though.

 

[PaxmanValenta]

It would make just as much sense to curtail the Cross Country Newcastle at York in the bay platform; and let East Coast run their trains up to Newcastle 3tph or extend their York two-hourly to Middlesbrough. Etc.

That’s roughly what they were going to do anyway once the full IEP fleet was in use. It’s allegedly (by Stagecoach) the lack of infrastructure to do it on that has led to the recently discussed early end to the franchise...

That would effectively spell the end of the XC service from Scotland to Cornwall which has probably existed since the 1950s. If you end XC at York then might as well end it at Bristol too so the longest SW to NE XC journey is only from Bristol to York
I disagree with cutting it.

 

[swt_passenger]

That would effectively spell the end of the XC service from Scotland to Cornwall which has probably existed since the 1950s. If you end XC at York then might as well end it at Bristol too so the longest SW to NE XC journey is only from Bristol to York
I disagree with cutting it.

I was only pointing out that there were already known plans to add more ECML services, I didn’t want it to be as a result of removal of XC services either, that’s why I edited down the post I was replying to. In other words they can probably increase ECML trains without removing XC.

 

[The Ham]

If there was space to get the services to Basingstoke which currently start/end at Reading could there be an advantage of extending the service to Salisbury?

Based on current timetable it would probably have to run in front of the current Exeter service to Basingstoke (probably by about 10 minutes), but would cut journey times between Salisbury and Reading by about 10 a minutes with services to Oxford or North by about 15-20 minutes and in the peak hours give those traveling between Basingstoke and Andover/Salisbury as well as Basingstoke/Reading more capacity.

Of course that would require extra units.

Ideally it would be run by a pair of units to Basingstoke where it would split to serve both Southampton and Salisbury, however that would require quite a few more units.

 

[Bob M]

The priority should be to extend the Reading terminators to Basingstoke. That would mean one change rather than two for journeys to the SWR network.

 

[swt_passenger]

If there was space to get the services to Basingstoke which currently start/end at Reading could there be an advantage of extending the service to Salisbury?

Of course that would require extra units...

What they have said they want to do is run it to Southampton. Maybe they believe that is where the real demand is. It would need one additional unit per day, but it cannot presently be pathed west of Basingstoke.

 

[tbtc]

That would effectively spell the end of the XC service from Scotland to Cornwall which has probably existed since the 1950s. If you end XC at York then might as well end it at Bristol too so the longest SW to NE XC journey is only from Bristol to York
I disagree with cutting it.

I don't know about the 1950s, but I do remember the 1980s/1990s, when BR only ran three "Cross Country" services a day north of Newcastle - essentially to get the HSTs from Craigentinny in the morning and back again in the evening - a bit like EMT's token extension of London - Sheffield services to/from Leeds (to get the HSTs from/to Neville Hill).

Given that the ECML franchise will soon had lots of 800/801s (depending on how many 91s/Mk4s they retain), it makes more sense to me (as a Scot living in Sheffield) to run a 5x26m long (or 9x26m long) 800/801 from York to Newcastle and back, rather than a four coach Voyager on the Reading - Newcastle service - especially if this then means that the couple of Voyagers freed up are then used to improve capacity on the York - Bristol section. Maybe even reduce the Leeds - Edinburgh service down to something less substantial (given that TPE will soon be running two services per hour from Leeds to Newcastle, one of which will extend to Edinburgh, all with longer trains than Voyagers).

I know there's nostalgia for the kind of "Aberdeen to Penzance" journeys but IMHO we'd be better at focussing resources on the XC "core", rather than worrying about "nice to have" aspirations (e.g. putting places like Salisbury on the map).

 

[The Ham]

I don't know about the 1950s, but I do remember the 1980s/1990s, when BR only ran three "Cross Country" services a day north of Newcastle - essentially to get the HSTs from Craigentinny in the morning and back again in the evening - a bit like EMT's token extension of London - Sheffield services to/from Leeds (to get the HSTs from/to Neville Hill).

Given that the ECML franchise will soon had lots of 800/801s (depending on how many 91s/Mk4s they retain), it makes more sense to me (as a Scot living in Sheffield) to run a 5x26m long (or 9x26m long) 800/801 from York to Newcastle and back, rather than a four coach Voyager on the Reading - Newcastle service - especially if this then means that the couple of Voyagers freed up are then used to improve capacity on the York - Bristol section. Maybe even reduce the Leeds - Edinburgh service down to something less substantial (given that TPE will soon be running two services per hour from Leeds to Newcastle, one of which will extend to Edinburgh, all with longer trains than Voyagers).

I know there's nostalgia for the kind of "Aberdeen to Penzance" journeys but IMHO we'd be better at focussing resources on the XC "core", rather than worrying about "nice to have" aspirations (e.g. putting places like Salisbury on the map).

I would suggest it depends on if there's going to be new rolling stock or not, if there is then there could be the option to strengthen the core AND having nice to haves.

If there's not going to be any new trains then there's going to be a need for cutting more from the XC network like you've suggested to ensure extra capacity for the core.

 

[takno]

I don't know about the 1950s, but I do remember the 1980s/1990s, when BR only ran three "Cross Country" services a day north of Newcastle - essentially to get the HSTs from Craigentinny in the morning and back again in the evening - a bit like EMT's token extension of London - Sheffield services to/from Leeds (to get the HSTs from/to Neville Hill).

Given that the ECML franchise will soon had lots of 800/801s (depending on how many 91s/Mk4s they retain), it makes more sense to me (as a Scot living in Sheffield) to run a 5x26m long (or 9x26m long) 800/801 from York to Newcastle and back, rather than a four coach Voyager on the Reading - Newcastle service - especially if this then means that the couple of Voyagers freed up are then used to improve capacity on the York - Bristol section. Maybe even reduce the Leeds - Edinburgh service down to something less substantial (given that TPE will soon be running two services per hour from Leeds to Newcastle, one of which will extend to Edinburgh, all with longer trains than Voyagers).

I know there's nostalgia for the kind of "Aberdeen to Penzance" journeys but IMHO we'd be better at focussing resources on the XC "core", rather than worrying about "nice to have" aspirations (e.g. putting places like Salisbury on the map).

There obsession with people living in Leeds and Sheffield seeming to want to turn XC to turn from the operator it is into a Leeds-Sheffield shuttle is getting incredibly old. Cutting the XCs at York and running the York stopper there instead radically reduces journey opportunities from Birmingham, Derby and Sheffield to Newcastle, which are all quite comfortably within the core. Cutting back from Edinburgh on the basis that Edinburgh is getting a bunch of largely unwanted Transpennine trains offering no useful journey opportunities at all would be crazy.

I could see the logic of running the XC trains (or ideally the EC stoppers) via the coast to Newcastle, but anything beyond that is just odd.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would suggest it depends on if there's going to be new rolling stock or not, if there is then there could be the option to strengthen the core AND having nice to haves.

If there's not going to be any new trains then there's going to be a need for cutting more from the XC network like you've suggested to ensure extra capacity for the core.

I would be astonished if the new XC franchise was not specified to have a fleet of bi-modes, but it may well be that cutbacks are also considered in order to reduce the number needed.

When's it due out?

 

[The Ham]

I would be astonished if the new XC franchise was not specified to have a fleet of bi-modes, but it may well be that cutbacks are also considered in order to reduce the number needed.

When's it due out?

The ITT is due in October 2018.

My guess would be that the East Midlands ITT (this month) will be the one with bimodals and the XC saying to use the 222's or bimodals. Although that does leave the possibility of XC getting all new trains and leaving nearly all the 22x's without a home.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 22x were the first attempt at an InterCity DMU for the UK and do have significant flaws - it might genuinely be worth scrapping them early if newer, more suitable stock is going to be a similar price or even cheaper to lease.

 

[pt_mad]

If you went for #3 the TPE coaches are essentially it. But for XC I think a bi-mode MU would have more virtue, either the 802 or the new offering from Bombardier. I agree that 7 coaches (or 8 in the unlikely event of them being 20m) would be right, though.

What is the new offering from Bombardier? Is it an Aventura Bi-mode?


Trouble with loco hauled mk5s is that in theory a 125mph passenger loco is going to be needed. Don't think 68s for example would cut it. MU probably be best.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is the new offering from Bombardier? Is it an Aventura Bi-mode?

Yes, they propose an Aventra bi-mode with end doors. It looks fairly decent, the modular design of the *Star and Aventra (which clearly derives from it) would make that fairly easy to do I reckon.

Trouble with loco hauled mk5s is that in theory a 125mph passenger loco is going to be needed. Don't think 68s for example would cut it. MU probably be best.

Not only that but a bi-mode, though the idea of building EMUs actually designed to have a loco whacked on the end would be interesting. The Pendolino almost worked, but a properly designed solution could work well.

 

[The Ham]

Currently there 252 coaches across 58 units. Assuming £110,000 per coach in lease costs that's just shy of £28 million a year.

Now if you assume a whole new fleet formed of:
- 32 * 7 coach units
- 30 * 5 coach units
That's 374 coaches over 62 units, assuming the same lease costs per coach that's £41 million (an increase of 48%). However, compared to getting the 222's which would give a total of about £43.5 million over 395 coaches (an increase of 55%).

If we assume similar capacities then it should be possible to have 400 seats in the 7 coach units and 250 seats in the 5 coach units. This would mean a total number of seats across the fleet of 20,300 compared with 12,600 (an increase of 61.1%). Whilst adding the 222's would provide a total number of seats of 19,650 (an increase of 55.9%).

Assuming that if you retained all the 22x fleet that you would end up with the 4 coach units always running in pairs you end up with effectively 64 trains:
- 21 pairs of 4 coach units
- 6 * 7 coach units
- 37 * 5 coach units

Which would mean that you could have a more flexible fleet (in that you have more scope for more pairs of 5 coach units) I don't think that it would make up for the extra lease costs (about 6%) for fewer seats.

Then in a mismatch in staffing numbers,
assuming that you provide a guard in the other unit to the driver and then a trolley in each unit, using the 22x's would require (in very simple terms):
- 64 drivers
- 64 guards
- 85 trolly staff

This compares with (again in very simple terms):
- 62 drivers
- 62 guards
- 62 trolly staff

That's not even allowing for some extra guards to protect revenue on the pairs of units when people realise that they could get a free trip if they travel in the front unit as the guard stays in the rear unit (although they would have know to switch units when the train reverses direction like it does at Reading).

Based on the above, and the lower fuel costs for the bimodals as they can use the cheaper costs of running on electricity than diesel and the units are likely to be lighter (even if only due to needing to carry less fuel on most routes, but probably certainly lighter than the 221's), I would opt for a whole new fleet.

I can't think of a single reason that the new fleet would be more costly, other than if the lease costs were higher and even then the lease costs would probably have to be about 10% (maybe even 15%) higher per coach before the other factors made me change my mind (just on the cost factor).

As such I wouldn't be surprised if we did see a total fleet replacement.

 

[43074]

Given that the ECML franchise will soon had lots of 800/801s (depending on how many 91s/Mk4s they retain), it makes more sense to me (as a Scot living in Sheffield) to run a 5x26m long (or 9x26m long) 800/801 from York to Newcastle and back, rather than a four coach Voyager on the Reading - Newcastle service - especially if this then means that the couple of Voyagers freed up are then used to improve capacity on the York - Bristol section. Maybe even reduce the Leeds - Edinburgh service down to something less substantial (given that TPE will soon be running two services per hour from Leeds to Newcastle, one of which will extend to Edinburgh, all with longer trains than Voyagers).

I know there's nostalgia for the kind of "Aberdeen to Penzance" journeys but IMHO we'd be better at focussing resources on the XC "core", rather than worrying about "nice to have" aspirations (e.g. putting places like Salisbury on the map).

This fails to recognise the fact that a good proportion of customers using XC are doing so precisely because they offer direct trains away from the core, e.g. Edinburgh to Derby without changing - there needs to be the capacity in the fleet to do both and that is exactly what the new franchise should be trying to do. If it means you have an enlarged fleet of 5 cars and split and join them to match demand and/or serve more destinations at the extremities then that's how it should be done. Cutting the network back because of crowding is not a sustainable way of managing the issue - the new franchise should be about long term growth rather than cutting things back because we haven't got the resources to cope in the short term.

 

[tbtc]

There obsession with people living in Leeds and Sheffield seeming to want to turn XC to turn from the operator it is into a Leeds-Sheffield shuttle is getting incredibly old. Cutting the XCs at York and running the York stopper there instead radically reduces journey opportunities from Birmingham, Derby and Sheffield to Newcastle, which are all quite comfortably within the core. Cutting back from Edinburgh on the basis that Edinburgh is getting a bunch of largely unwanted Transpennine trains offering no useful journey opportunities at all would be crazy.

I could see the logic of running the XC trains (or ideally the EC stoppers) via the coast to Newcastle, but anything beyond that is just odd.

Apologies for obsessing with the idea that the only TOC providing a proper InterCity service between two of the biggest cities in the country should try to improve that service. Clearly I am outnumbered by the people who want through services from Paignton to Arbroath or whatever, but I'll keep on trying to explain that there are more passengers travelling between "local" big cities each day than doing journeys of over two hundred miles.

I'm a bit confused that you dismiss the hourly TPE services from Edinburgh to Newcastle/ York/ Leeds/ Huddersfield/ Manchester as "offering no useful journey opportunities", whilst bemoaning the hypothetical idea of XC reducing the Edinburgh to Newcastle/ York/ Leeds frequency?

This fails to recognise the fact that a good proportion of customers using XC are doing so precisely because they offer direct trains away from the core, e.g. Edinburgh to Derby without changing - there needs to be the capacity in the fleet to do both and that is exactly what the new franchise should be trying to do. If it means you have an enlarged fleet of 5 cars and split and join them to match demand and/or serve more destinations at the extremities then that's how it should be done. Cutting the network back because of crowding is not a sustainable way of managing the issue - the new franchise should be about long term growth rather than cutting things back because we haven't got the resources to cope in the short term.

How many people a day are doing Edinburgh - Derby each day though? A thousand? A hundred? A dozen? Single figures?

Whereas the numbers travelling between large cities less than a hundred miles from each other (e.g. Birmingham to Manchester, Leeds to Sheffield, Bristol to Birmingham), where XC are the only realistic InterCity train are significantly bigger. That's the market I think XC should be focussing on.

 

[edwin_m]

Cast an eye forward to 2033 (and ignore the fact that it's two franchises away, we don't have forward planning and everything is subject to the vagaries of the franchise and leasing markets).

HS2 (assuming built as currently planned) will then take passengers from the principal XC flows of Birmingham-Derby-Sheffield-Leeds-York-Newcastle and Birmingham-Manchester. But it won't serve intermediate stations and won't go beyond those limits, notably to Bristol or beyond (unless a connection is buit at Birmingham and the line is electrified, which seems a good idea but no indication HS2 wants to do and pay for it).

At this stage the classic XC network will probably look very much like it is now, with trains stopping relatively frequently, but more evenly loaded along the length of the route because some of the passengers on the busiest sections will now be using HS2 instead. So the fleet size after HS2 will probably be similar to now, but there is a need to deal with the short term overcrowding until HS2 provides relief.

This suggests to me that the next XC franchise should have a fleet of bi-modes to augment but not replace the Voyagers, and deploy these mainly on the routes with the highest proportion of electrification (Glasgow to York or Leeds is a fair distance). By 2033 the Voyagers will be life-expired and could be replaced by a smaller number of extra bi-modes or EMUs depending on the extent of electrification by then.

The alternative would be to bring in the 222s displaced by Voyagers off the MML and replace the entire fleet in 2033.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another alternative would be, as I've mentioned before, to separate off the Manchester branch from the rest of the network and operate it using pairs of refitted (2+2 Std, 2+1 1st) Class 350/2s.

 

[smtglasgow]

Another alternative would be, as I've mentioned before, to separate off the Manchester branch from the rest of the network and operate it using pairs of refitted (2+2 Std, 2+1 1st) Class 350/2s.

This might seem heretical to many, but to some extent this is what happened with the Scotland/WCML XC services when Virgin took over Scotland – Birmingham via Carlisle. The sky didn’t fall in when the link was broken at Birmingham, and while I have sympathy for the elderly or confused who don’t like changing trains, at least New Street, despite its layout, is well-staffed. I do Glasgow-Exeter a few times a year and it works fine – no fuss. As long as connections are sensible – say 15 minutes – and the timetable robust enough, a standalone Birmingham – Manchester shuttle could add capacity and resilience. One of XC’s great drawbacks is the fact that signal failure at Totnes can disrupt the commuter in Tamworth, so adding reliability might mitigate again the lost links.

 

[pt_mad]

Currently there 252 coaches across 58 units. Assuming £110,000 per coach in lease costs that's just shy of £28 million a year.

Now if you assume a whole new fleet formed of:
- 32 * 7 coach units
- 30 * 5 coach units
That's 374 coaches over 62 units, assuming the same lease costs per coach that's £41 million (an increase of 48%). However, compared to getting the 222's which would give a total of about £43.5 million over 395 coaches (an increase of 55%).

If we assume similar capacities then it should be possible to have 400 seats in the 7 coach units and 250 seats in the 5 coach units. This would mean a total number of seats across the fleet of 20,300 compared with 12,600 (an increase of 61.1%). Whilst adding the 222's would provide a total number of seats of 19,650 (an increase of 55.9%).

Assuming that if you retained all the 22x fleet that you would end up with the 4 coach units always running in pairs you end up with effectively 64 trains:
- 21 pairs of 4 coach units
- 6 * 7 coach units
- 37 * 5 coach units

Which would mean that you could have a more flexible fleet (in that you have more scope for more pairs of 5 coach units) I don't think that it would make up for the extra lease costs (about 6%) for fewer seats.

Then in a mismatch in staffing numbers,
assuming that you provide a guard in the other unit to the driver and then a trolley in each unit, using the 22x's would require (in very simple terms):
- 64 drivers
- 64 guards
- 85 trolly staff

This compares with (again in very simple terms):
- 62 drivers
- 62 guards
- 62 trolly staff

That's not even allowing for some extra guards to protect revenue on the pairs of units when people realise that they could get a free trip if they travel in the front unit as the guard stays in the rear unit (although they would have know to switch units when the train reverses direction like it does at Reading).

Based on the above, and the lower fuel costs for the bimodals as they can use the cheaper costs of running on electricity than diesel and the units are likely to be lighter (even if only due to needing to carry less fuel on most routes, but probably certainly lighter than the 221's), I would opt for a whole new fleet.

I can't think of a single reason that the new fleet would be more costly, other than if the lease costs were higher and even then the lease costs would probably have to be about 10% (maybe even 15%) higher per coach before the other factors made me change my mind (just on the cost factor).

As such I wouldn't be surprised if we did see a total fleet replacement.

So the proposal is a large fleet of pairs of coupled Voyagers/222s with a guard in the rear set and a trolley staff member in the front set. But what time will the trolley operate until at night? If the trolley service ends at 8pm then the front set effectively goes unstaffed after 8 o clock. Is the TOC going to operate a loss making trolley with the member of staff forced to stay next to it no matter what occurs until midnight or after?

If there's a medical emergency or trouble etc onboard how does the trolley staff person, the only staff member in the front set other than the driver, leave the trolley and cash unattended? I'm not sure realistically you can replace a guard with a trolley person in the front set at all times. If you need a guard employ a guard.

 

[pt_mad]

Another alternative would be, as I've mentioned before, to separate off the Manchester branch from the rest of the network and operate it using pairs of refitted (2+2 Std, 2+1 1st) Class 350/2s.

+1. Give the Birmingham to Manchester to LNR. It could be operated with either a new fleet of Aventras to add on to their current order, or refit and release some 350/2s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So the proposal is a large fleet of pairs of coupled Voyagers/222s with a guard in the rear set and a trolley staff member in the front set. But what time will the trolley operate until at night? If the trolley service ends at 8pm then the front set effectively goes unstaffed after 8 o clock. Is the TOC going to operate a loss making trolley with the member of staff forced to stay next to it no matter what occurs until midnight or after?

If there's a medical emergency or trouble etc onboard how does the trolley staff person, the only staff member in the front set other than the driver, leave the trolley and cash unattended? I'm not sure realistically you can replace a guard with a trolley person in the front set at all times. If you need a guard employ a guard.

The driver deals with any such incident, just like they would on the entirety of a DOO train.

 

[pt_mad]

The driver deals with any such incident, just like they would on the entirety of a DOO train.

But youre getting ever closer to DOO on double set voyager trains if you're saying the driver stops the train in the middle of nowhere and deals with a fight etc. Is this really suitable for XC on a widespread basis?

I would guess the poster was alluding to the trolley person being multi trained and tasked to deal with any incident onboard other than revenue and safety critical?

 

[The Ham]

So the proposal is a large fleet of pairs of coupled Voyagers/222s with a guard in the rear set and a trolley staff member in the front set. But what time will the trolley operate until at night? If the trolley service ends at 8pm then the front set effectively goes unstaffed after 8 o clock. Is the TOC going to operate a loss making trolley with the member of staff forced to stay next to it no matter what occurs until midnight or after?

If there's a medical emergency or trouble etc onboard how does the trolley staff person, the only staff member in the front set other than the driver, leave the trolley and cash unattended? I'm not sure realistically you can replace a guard with a trolley person in the front set at all times. If you need a guard employ a guard.

I was comparing the very basic level of staff that would be needed and suggesting that a whole new fleet would be better (in that there would be very little double running).

 

[Bletchleyite]

But youre getting ever closer to DOO on double set voyager trains if you're saying the driver stops the train in the middle of nowhere and deals with a fight etc

Not any more than the huge number of double-unit trains with no gangways, the driver in the front and the guard in the rear that already operate around the network are. This is not DOO, not even close to it, nor do unions object to it as if it were.

Northern, for instance, must operate hundreds of such trains a day. LNR have the Class 319 diagrams which are such. There are absolutely loads of them.

Then there are DOO services which have completely unstaffed units, e.g. any GWR service formed of two Turbos.

 

[pt_mad]

Not any more than the huge number of double-unit trains with no gangways, the driver in the front and the guard in the rear that already operate around the network are. This is not DOO, not even close to it, nor do unions object to it as if it were.

Northern, for instance, must operate hundreds of such trains a day. LNR have the Class 319 diagrams which are such. There are absolutely loads of them.

Then there are DOO services which have completely unstaffed units, e.g. any GWR service formed of two Turbos.

Ok although I think it may be viewed differently if it was every train. Especially as it would be such a long train and over such a long distance with possibly long intervals between calls.

I think we may find that if XC do spread double unit running across the whole timetable (eventually) then there may be a guard rostered to both sets or at least a guard during hours where no trolley staff operate.