Cross Country New Franchise

[LNW-GW Joint]

DfT has published a Prospectus, and invited expressions of interest, for the new Cross Country franchise to start at the end of 2019.
A short list is due by the end of September, with the ITT issued in January 2019.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cross-country-rail-franchise-2018-prospectus

There's plenty of background information on the structure and performance of the current franchise, but very little which gives a clue as to what the DfT wants for the next franchise.
It does cover the overcrowding issue with an interesting Beeching-report type usage map.
It also mentions East West Rail and HS2 opportunities, but nothing is specifically mandated.

. It has been suggested by stakeholders that Cross Country should be a long distance operator with the focus on providing good quality long distance and inter-regional services. Separating out and transferring these local services from Cross Country to another franchise would allow Cross Country to focus on its longer distance routes whilst putting these services in a franchise which operates similar services. The benefits of doing so would be considered alongside the costs and disruption for the companies and staff involved. The Department is beginning exploratory talks with relevant TOCs on operational feasibility. It should be noted that it is not proposed to transfer the Birmingham to Stansted and Cardiff to Nottingham services to another operator as part of this remapping. At the date of publication of this Prospectus, the Secretary of State has not made any decision to remap any Cross Country services, either by transferring existing services to or from another franchisee. Any changes would only take place with public support.

 

[whhistle]

So the only two they're looking at are:

• Leicester to Birmingham
• Nottingham to Birmingham

Which are both linked to their longer versions:

• Stansted to Birmingham
• Nottingham to Cardiff

Not too sure why they don't just transfer all of them.

 

[jw]

I'm unsure if moderators will want to merge this new thread with the existing one here...

Anyway, I was quietly surprised when I read the prospectus. I had always assumed XC was a heavily subsidised financial basket case, with the DfT looking to use any excuse to rationalise the network to balance the books, but the document states:

The franchise is at an important milestone. Farebox revenue has been growing year on year and Cross Country has developed into a stable and resilient business that generates a premium for the taxpayer and a healthy return for investors. The main challenge is to address the immediate problems of crowding. However, we want an innovative bidder who can deliver more than this: there is potential to grow the franchise by developing new markets.

Between 2008/09 and 2017/18 AXC’s farebox income has continued to increase, growing by 65% from £320.3million to £529.9million.

AXC has paid a franchise premium since 2011/12. Prior to then it was receiving a subsidy. A £59million premium was paid in 2017/18. However, the franchise received £174million and £91million revenue support in 2015/16 and 2016/17, respectively (and received support in earlier years, from November 2011 to the end of the last franchise). The 2017/18 underlying total revenue (excluding revenue support) exceeds costs by £67million (excluding franchise premium and performance costs). The next franchisee is expected to build on and maximise the commercial value of this franchise, for the beneft of the passenger and the taxpayer, through both revenue growth and cost effciencies.

Perhaps the financial balance will change if some of the Turbostar routes transfer to the West Midlands franchise, but I'm heartened to read that the DfT see XC as financially viable and potentially expanding and serving new markets. The new franchise will start in 2019 for 7-10 years, so other than engineering disruption, shouldn't see dramatic redrawing due to the early phases of HS2 only coming online at the end of the contract.

Definitely a more upbeat tone to this prospectus than the previous consultation which seemed to have an undertone of dropping smaller stops/pricing people off - I do hope I'm reading things correctly!

 

[pt_mad]

Does sound a much more positive tone which hints there is a lot of potential for growth there. Re the two local routes potentially going over to WMR, it makes me wonder whether WMR could use their new diesel stock on the routes? I.e. the CAF Civity DMUs that are being ordered, which are replacing the 170s for WMR routes. This could allow all current class 170s to transfer to XC, which would allow lengthening of all sets one would assume.
At a guess WMR would have to increase their order of CAF DMUs as I doubt theres enough slack with whats been ordered to run to Leicester and Nottingham as well and maybe the frequency would need to be increased sometime in the future as well when they eventually start running from Water Orton way into Moor Street.

Where the 170s would then be maintained I don't know. Birmingham would still seem the obvious place. Perhaps Tyseley could still manage the maintenance? Or maybe they could transfer 170 maintenance to Central Rivers? Or have it at Leicester and build a new shed? Although I realise this could be a pain for train crews as things stand.

I'm not surprised they want to retain the Stansted and Cardiff with XC. They are pretty much a long distance semi express type service that just suffers due to low capacity stock and overcrowding. Cardiff could have the potential for Voyager or 222 stock in the future and Stansted probably would if it wasn't for the annoying clearance issues at Stansted which prevent this. Its still the main route from the central midlands anywhere into East Anglia though so it must generate some decent revenue. It would have been a shame if it was run more as a commuter route in the future and its for the best it remains with XC as is planned imo.

 

[Hadders]

This being the DfT there'll do something like drop services north of Edinburgh (expecting Scotrail to deal with the displaced passengers) and west of Exeter/Plymouth (with GWR picking up the passengers). This will mean they can use the trains to strengthen services on the main XC spine.

I doubt there'll be any new trains.

 

[pt_mad]

This being the DfT there'll do something like drop services north of Edinburgh (expecting Scotrail to deal with the displaced passengers) and west of Exeter/Plymouth (with GWR picking up the passengers). This will mean they can use the trains to strengthen services on the main XC spine.

I doubt there'll be any new trains.

What about the displaced 222s from East Mids when the eventually get bi-mode though? XC is totally the logical place for them.

Agree with you on removing the extremities of the XC network to focus on the core. They''ve already hinted at this with the previous consultation on removing Torbay etc and if stock is at a shortage this would seem one of the only obvious quick fixes available short term.

 

[FOCTOC]

XC would be better minus the long distance stuff. That desperately needs replacing with a service and stock thats fit for purpose, unlike the disgusting 3rd rate service on offer today. I cant be alone in going to great lengths to avoid XC and its vile overcrowded Voyagers, with abysmal food offerings?

 

[Hadders]

What about the displaced 222s from East Mids when the eventually get bi-mode though? XC is totally the logical place for them.

Agree with you on removing the extremities of the XC network to focus on the core. They''ve already hinted at this with the previous consultation on removing Torbay etc and if stock is at a shortage this would seem one of the only obvious quick fixes available short term.

Is EMT definately getting bi-modes? I can see EMT getting EMUs for the Corby's and bi-modes to replace the HSTs. Then keep the Meridians. Far from ideal but this is the DfT we're talking about....

I suspect XC will get a few additional trains to strengthen the Stansted and Cardiff services and have to manage with the additional stock generated by not serving the extremities.

 

[class26]

XC would be better minus the long distance stuff. That desperately needs replacing with a service and stock thats fit for purpose, unlike the disgusting 3rd rate service on offer today. I cant be alone in going to great lengths to avoid XC and its vile overcrowded Voyagers, with abysmal food offerings?

You are not alone !

 

[Domh245]

Is EMT definately getting bi-modes? I can see EMT getting EMUs for the Corby's and bi-modes to replace the HSTs. Then keep the Meridians. Far from ideal but this is the DfT we're talking about....

I suspect XC will get a few additional trains to strengthen the Stansted and Cardiff services and have to manage with the additional stock generated by not serving the extremities.

Bi-modes with similar levels of performance to a 222 have been specified for the intercity services (excluding Corby). Whether or not they are replacing the whole Intercity fleet or just the HSTs remains to be seen.

 

[Fearless]

You are not alone !

Definitely not alone! XC have stupendous cheek in the way they fleece their passengers. They even charge £1 to collect a ticket booked online from a ticket machine at the station. None of the other companies I travel on make any charge for that.

 

[superalbs]

Definitely not alone! XC have stupendous cheek in the way they fleece their passengers. They even charge £1 to collect a ticket booked online from a ticket machine at the station. None of the other companies I travel on make any charge for that.

They didn't do that for me?

 

[Fearless]

They didn't do that for me?

I wonder why? When I booked, the collection fee was automatically added to the cost. Maybe they've changed it recently after people complained?

 

[_toommm_]

I wonder why? When I booked, the collection fee was automatically added to the cost. Maybe they've changed it recently after people complained?

I believe if you have an XC only ticket they charge as they're using other folk's infrastructure. But for tickets involving other TOCs they won't as booking the same ticket with the other TOC wouldn't incur said charge

 

[asw22]

£1 to collect your ticket? Sounds like typical Arriva again

 

[dk1]

£1 to collect your ticket? Sounds like typical Arriva again

I thought it was just because XC do not manage a single station on the network. The quid seems only fares fair really on all the other TOCs that do.

 

[Aictos]

This being the DfT there'll do something like drop services north of Edinburgh (expecting Scotrail to deal with the displaced passengers) and west of Exeter/Plymouth (with GWR picking up the passengers). This will mean they can use the trains to strengthen services on the main XC spine.

I doubt there'll be any new trains.

I agree, paths west of Exeter and Plymouth would be better served by a improved GWR service with better connections at these stations plus it has a bonus that you never get a XC sitting down at Dawlish again.

The same applies to Scotland, with a improved SR service you could run more internal services with connections at Edinburgh.

Yes it means a reduction in XC serving these stations but unless they get more rolling stock then it's the best option for XC to strengthen the Core which to me is more important.

XC would be better minus the long distance stuff. That desperately needs replacing with a service and stock thats fit for purpose, unlike the disgusting 3rd rate service on offer today. I cant be alone in going to great lengths to avoid XC and its vile overcrowded Voyagers, with abysmal food offerings?

I disagree here:

I disagree that XC would be better off without the long distance stuff because in essence XC is a long distance operator, it just so happens to make a lot of local stops too which can easily be soaked up by other operators and let XC just have the long haul stuff.

As to the rolling stock, the existing Turbo routes need sorting out first as they suffer from overcrowding more then the Voyagers being that they are limited to either 2 or 3 cars, there's nothing wrong with the Voyagers apart from them not having as many coaches as the older stock.

 

[mark-h]

£1 to collect your ticket? Sounds like typical Arriva again

They wanted to charge me that on a trip from Edinburgh to Newcastle last year. I booked through VTEC (for the exact same ticket price) and did not have to pay for ticket collection. XC would have paid commission to VTEC for my booking.

XC e-tickets would have been free, however I prefer proper tickets as these will be easier to use in case of disruption.

 

[HH]

CrossCountry have no ticket offices and no ticket machines. They therefore always have to pay a charge when you print out your ticket on another TOC's machine, whereas this would largely not be the case for other TOCs. For short journeys this would be a high % of the cost, so possibly they'd rather you bought the ticket from somewhere else, or maybe on APs they're pulling a Ryanair.

 

[DDB]

I think I remember that the most recent timetable change swapped some of the calls around between the Cardiff-Nottingham and Birmingham-Nottingham services. Looking at the current timetable, away from the peaks the Long Eaton and Beeston calls are on the Cardiff-Nottingham services but Willington and Wilnecote seem more of a mixture. I would imagine that IF you wanted to separate the services between operators you would put all the extra stops on the Birmingham-Nottingham "local" service and speed up the more "long distance" Cardiff-Nottingham.
I understand that the timetable will be rejigged to take advantage of the Derby rebuild. (I assume in the December change?) so it will be interesting to see if the intermediate stops get juggled about and whether that gives any clues about splitting the service or not.

DDB

 

[The Ham]

I would agree that DfT aren't likely to specify be trains, given that running pairs of 4+4 units is inefficient (I've previously worked out that the lease costs would need to between 5-10% less for the 22x's to make it a comparable total cost) we could end up with new trains for XC and a load of 4 coach units at idle.

 

[a_c_skinner]

There is one obvious idea:

for example could APOD tickets be sold without a seat reservation?

 

[dk1]

There is one obvious idea:

That's being looked into already. Seems fair to me.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Yes, so obvious I'm ashamed not to have thought of it, as should whoever is in charge...

Assuming someone is in charge.

 

[Aictos]

I think I remember that the most recent timetable change swapped some of the calls around between the Cardiff-Nottingham and Birmingham-Nottingham services. Looking at the current timetable, away from the peaks the Long Eaton and Beeston calls are on the Cardiff-Nottingham services but Willington and Wilnecote seem more of a mixture. I would imagine that IF you wanted to separate the services between operators you would put all the extra stops on the Birmingham-Nottingham "local" service and speed up the more "long distance" Cardiff-Nottingham.
I understand that the timetable will be rejigged to take advantage of the Derby rebuild. (I assume in the December change?) so it will be interesting to see if the intermediate stops get juggled about and whether that gives any clues about splitting the service or not.

DDB

The only problem with that is the Class 170 diagrams at the moment are all interworked with each other so a average diagram might see Nottingham to Cardiff to Birmingham then work a service to Stansted and back then a Leicester stopper so unless you find a way to work around this, I don't think it will work.

 

[pdeaves]

So the only two they're looking at are:

• Leicester to Birmingham
• Nottingham to Birmingham

Which are both linked to their longer versions:

• Stansted to Birmingham
• Nottingham to Cardiff

Not too sure why they don't just transfer all of them.

[I haven't read the DfT document yet]
I take it that there is some plan to cut (some) XC service patterns. I find this intriguing as the DfT (or at least government more generally) is always on about competition, yet the very places where competition between TOCs exists, they want to prevent it.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I note that the Prospectus makes no reference to procuring new fleet or getting rid of any trains. This is interesting given that, at the end of a possible 10 year franchise, with say an extra 2 year direct award, as has been typical in many franchises over recent years, the HSTs would be well into 40, nearly 50, years old.

The only suggestions in the Prospectus in relation to fleet were that the new XC may wish to refurbish the fleet to add seating capacity whilst simultaneously keeping the necessary levels of Intercity comfort that leisure travellers expect. I find it difficult to imagine how this could successfully be done, without an extensive, and hence expensive, refurbishment - at which point it is almost better value to procure additional trains.

There is also no mention made of a transfer of the EMT Meridians, which many had expected. That obviously does not mean this will not happen, but it is not clear whether the DfT still intend it to happen, given they made no mention of what might be a rather significant change.

I also note that the prospectus was published only very shortly after the passenger consultation ended - I believe I filled it out only a few weeks or a month or so ago. Does this leave enough time for the DfT to have read and considered all responses?

I am quite surprised and disappointed at this Prospectus - though of course we are not at ITT stage yet - as it almost reads like that for a no-growth franchise, even though it seems likely that XC will continue to experience the significant growth it has over the current franchise.

 

[FOCTOC]

I agree, paths west of Exeter and Plymouth would be better served by a improved GWR service with better connections at these stations plus it has a bonus that you never get a XC sitting down at Dawlish again.

The same applies to Scotland, with a improved SR service you could run more internal services with connections at Edinburgh.

Yes it means a reduction in XC serving these stations but unless they get more rolling stock then it's the best option for XC to strengthen the Core which to me is more important.



I disagree here:

I disagree that XC would be better off without the long distance stuff because in essence XC is a long distance operator, it just so happens to make a lot of local stops too which can easily be soaked up by other operators and let XC just have the long haul stuff.

As to the rolling stock, the existing Turbo routes need sorting out first as they suffer from overcrowding more then the Voyagers being that they are limited to either 2 or 3 cars, there's nothing wrong with the Voyagers apart from them not having as many coaches as the older stock.

Your welcome to disagree. However I usually have to travel from the South to the Midlands several times per week. Whilst on paper XC is the most convenient, I travel via London using SWR/LUL/Virgin. I can guaruntee I get a seat on a usually uncrowded train, get to split my journey and can either avail myself of numerous retail outlets for food or have some of the excellent choice offered by Virgin. Usually the aircon works all the way as well. Theres no comparison. As for travelling somewhere like Aberdeen to Plymouth on a XC Voyager? I would prefer to perform brain surgery upon myself with a Black and Decker minus anaesthetic.

 

[Fearless]

As for travelling somewhere like Aberdeen to Plymouth on a XC Voyager? I would prefer to perform brain surgery upon myself with a Black and Decker minus anaesthetic.

Oh I so agree. If only I knew how to 'like' a post on this forum! (Is there a button I'm not seeing?)

 

[swt_passenger]

Oh I so agree. If only I knew how to 'like' a post on this forum! (Is there a button I'm not seeing?)

“Like” is intentionally not switched on in these forums.