Cross Country New Franchise

[Fearless]

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

Ah, thanks. It's listed in our profiles, which is why I wondered.

 

[HH]

And yet I have one.

 

[ashworth]

It’s the total lack of close to seat luggage space that puts me off travelling on any XC Voyager trains. Even a small case will not fit on the overhead racks. A number of years ago I travelled with a friend who had their case stolen from an end of carriage luggage rack and so ever since that incident I refuse to leave my luggage anywhere not within sight.

Many other types of modern train don’t have overhead racks big enough even for a small case including many Southern and South Eastern trains serving Kent and Sussex holiday distinctions, but at least the space between seats is more generous and you can usually find a space for a small case even sometimes under the seat. Trains like 150’s, 156’s, 158’s, 170’s, 175’s and 185,s all have overhead racks that will take a small case. I can also usually get my case on overhead racks on HSTs and Mk 4s. Therefore when going away for a few days I try my best to avoid Voyagers and will even rather travel long distances, with changes of train, on slower local stopping services to enable me to keep my luggage in view.

 

[Busaholic]

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

Hell would freeze over before some forum members ever admitted to ''liking'' anyone else's contribution!

 

[Kite159]

Trains like 150’s, 156’s, 158’s, 170’s, 175’s and 185,s all have overhead racks that will take a small case

Yet I find the overhead racks on a 175 being poor, a bag which will happily fit in the overhead rack of a voyager doesn't fit in a 175.

 

[Skipness]

The prospectus correctly identifies some of the major problems with XC.
1. Overcrowding, especially on Voyager diagrams.
2. Sea water and Voyagers at Dawlish.
3. Passenger churn (I like that word!) at places such as New Street where half a trainload of passengers alight to be replaced by a similar number.

XC has always had the problem of being both a long distance operator carrying a substantial number of short distance passengers. The prospectus doesn't really address this.

 

[ashworth]

Yet I find the overhead racks on a 175 being poor, a bag which will happily fit in the overhead rack of a voyager doesn't fit in a 175.

You are almost certainly correct. Sorry, I’m probably wrong as it’s a long time since I last travelled on a 175.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As it stands with the current franchise schedule, the XC bidders are on their own in regards to future rolling stock plans.
WCP is not decided until April/May 2019, while the XC ITT comes out in January - so no 221s from VT (even if they are to be released, which is unknown).
East Midlands is similarly decided in April 2019, so no clarity on availability of Meridians until then, either.
Availability of 170s or equivalent DMUs (175, 185) will be a little clearer by the ITT date, as the release plans of other TOCs are confirmed.
Of course, the DfT can be prescriptive in the ITT if it wants to, or negotiate different deals with the bidders after WCP and EM are decided.
And of course the franchise schedule may slip (the EM ITT was already 2 months late when issued).
The 22x ROSCOs (Voyager Leasing for the 220/1, Eversholt for 222) will also have a good idea of the options being considered by the bidders.
Or the bidders could go for something new.

 

[tbtc]

The optimist in me thinks that the DfT are playing 3D chess, and are thinking several moves ahead of everyone else.



They know that the only way to increase capacity on XC in the short/medium term is the 222s (HSTs can’t accelerate as fast so forget about crowbarring them into the complicated XC timetable – given that this is one TOC who are at the mercy of virtually every other one and can’t simply rip up the timetable to introduce poorly accelerating trains).



They can’t specify 222s for XC, as the 222s belong on the MML. To insist on 222s moving to XC until the EMT/EMR winner is announced would prejudice negotiations for St Pancras services.



So they have to wait until the new EMR franchise is known, with the agreement that it’ll replace all LDHS services with 802s (or something broadly similar) before they can talk about the 222s giving thousands of extra seats to the Cross Country network.



Since the WCML franchise can’t easily increase their resources, there may even be a little “cherry on the cake”, whereby the twenty seven 222s arriving at XC allow (say) three Voyagers to move from XC to the WCML franchise (to permit more doubled up services – e.g. at the moment a single Voyager can end up at Euston – or maybe additional portion working to places like Blackpool). That’d make for good politics – spreading around the resources.



If the franchise is now profitable (i.e. paying a premium to the Treasury) then that strengthens the likelihood of improvements – by the time the next XC franchise arrives the Voyagers will be half way through their nominal “thirty year” life expectancy – they should be ready for withdrawal around the time that HS2 blows a hole in the conventional services from Birmingham to Leeds etc (and frees up a lot of LDHS stock from other TOCs). It all ties up okay. However, the DfT have to ensure that the cards fall in a certain order as there’ll be complaints if they show this masterplan to mere mortals.



The pessimist in me thinks that the DfT are making it up as they go along and the only improvement from the new franchise will be a couple of Universal toilets replaced by Inaccessible ones to allow some additional seats to be squeezed in in the space saved. This will no doubt cost tens of millions of pounds to implement and will require each Voyager to be out of service for around three years whilst a couple of extra seats are added.


(at least there will be a lot of "spare" 100mph DMUs capable of running the current ex-CentralTrains services, due to the 170s/ 175s/ 185s being freed up around England/ Scotland/ Wales, so that side of the franchise looks easier to "fix")

 

[whhistle]

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 can't see any bidder wasting an opportunity to win more points by specifying a complete stock replacement, from the Sprinters to the Meridians and HSTs of course.
By the time CAF have finished the Northern and WMR lot, EMT (or rather EMR!) will be ready to order local DMUs. I just hope appropriate (ready for growth) sized trains are ordered!

...it’ll replace all LDHS services with 802s...

Might be worth stating what you mean the first time round:

Please remember many members do not understand rail “jargon” (including acronyms, station codes and specialist terms). Such terms should be correctly defined the first time they are used; codes and abbreviations must not be made up.

 

[HH]

LDHS = Long Distance High Speed

 

[Class 170101]

They may well specify new Stock for the Voyagers and HSTs especially if the leasing costs are cheaper and the trains longer. Aren't the HSTs and Voyager rates expensive?

 

[NorthernSpirit]

I've filled in the consultation. Detailing two things where the form asks for any other comments, one is a new CrossCountry route (I've mentioned it on this forum in another thread), the other is the transfering of the management of Burton on Trent from EMT (who manage the station but no East Midland Trains services call there) to CrossCountry. Therefore CrossCountry would manage a single station on the rail network.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I've filled in the consultation. Detailing two things where the form asks for any other comments, one is a new CrossCountry route (I've mentioned it on this forum in another thread), the other is the transfering of the management of Burton on Trent from EMT (who manage the station but no East Midland Trains services call there) to CrossCountry. Therefore CrossCountry would manage a single station on the rail network.

The reason why this is managed by EMT is because it is nearer to all their other stations which they manage. If XC only managed a single station the costs of just managing that would be incredible. I suppose they could brand it XC and subcontract it to a local TOC but again that's just a silly solution. Though it's equally silly to have a station managed by EMT which sees no EMT services!

 

[Kite159]

I've filled in the consultation. Detailing two things where the form asks for any other comments, one is a new CrossCountry route (I've mentioned it on this forum in another thread), the other is the transfering of the management of Burton on Trent from EMT (who manage the station but no East Midland Trains services call there) to CrossCountry. Therefore CrossCountry would manage a single station on the rail network.

And what about the other stations which are managed by EMT on behalf of XC?

 

[Aictos]

And what about the other stations which are managed by EMT on behalf of XC?

What about Coleshill Parkway then? Managed by LNWR/West Midlands Trains but only Cross Country trains call there or Stamford managed by EMT but only Cross Country again call there.

Personally it's stupid to have a situation where the operator of the station doesn't have it's own trains calling there but that's the modern railway for you!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

... or Stamford managed by EMT but only Cross Country again call there.

Has three EMT services a day during the week (two on a Saturday, nowt on a Sunday). Easier to have the current set up than XC have to create a minute stations department with all the management, paperwork and legal processes that go with it.

 

[The Ham]

Has three EMT services a day during the week (two on a Saturday, nowt on a Sunday). Easier to have the current set up than XC have to create a minute stations department with all the management, paperwork and legal processes that go with it.

Maybe it could be a option to have NR run the stations on behalf of XC.

As NR already have some stations (generally larger stations) there's no extra paperwork or significant costs.

It could also allow some stations where there's more than one TOC to have a more balanced level of TOC influence. As the minor party would be paying money for it and so NR may be willing to allow things that the other TOC wouldn't.

It could then allow TOC's, like XC, to have more control over what happens at their stations. Although there would be a cost associated with this, it would definitely be cheaper than XC having to run a few stations themselves.

 

[Hadders]

NR don't operate ticket offices at the large stations it operates.

 

[The Ham]

NR don't operate ticket offices at the large stations it operates.

That's not a insurmountable problem. For instance that could still be operated by another TOC or NR could offer a service where they had a pool of ticket office staff which the other TOC's could hire in if needed (for instance to cover sickness).

Alternatively, assuming it's only stations served by XC (which have gaurds on their services, which could cover most services required) the train frequency isn't going to be that great and so the loss of ticket office probably isn't going to be that great an issue.

 

[Hadders]

That's not a insurmountable problem. For instance that could still be operated by another TOC or NR could offer a service where they had a pool of ticket office staff which the other TOC's could hire in if needed (for instance to cover sickness).

Alternatively, assuming it's only stations served by XC (which have gaurds on their services, which could cover most services required) the train frequency isn't going to be that great and so the loss of ticket office probably isn't going to be that great an issue.

Isn’t that what you want to avoid?

 

[whhistle]

That's not a insurmountable problem. For instance that could still be operated by another TOC or NR could offer a service where they had a pool of ticket office staff which the other TOC's could hire in if needed (for instance to cover sickness).

So you'd have:

NR managing the station.
One TOC calling there.
One TOC operating the ticket office.

That's a third extra complication than the current setup.

 

[Class 170101]

I have heard it said that the operators of XC only served stations don't seem to care about them as they have no dis-benefit to themselves in terms of negative feedback.

 

[ChrisHogan]

I have heard it said that the operators of XC only served stations don't seem to care about them as they have no dis-benefit to themselves in terms of negative feedback.

No, there's a performance regime in the templated Station Access Agreement (SAA). Have a look at the ORR website. However, remember that the Qualifying Expenditure under the SAA is decided each year and each beneficiary has a significant input into how much money is spent each year by the Station Facility Owner (SFO) on that station. I doubt whether "negative feedback" really comes into it for either SFO or XC.

 

[HH]

So you'd have:

NR managing the station.
One TOC calling there.
One TOC operating the ticket office.

That's a third extra complication than the current setup.

Doesn't this already happen at BNS? It certainly used to.

 

[ChrisHogan]

Doesn't this already happen at BNS? It certainly used to.

The problem with Network Rail managed stations is that its overheads are much greater than any TOC SFO. When Lime Street changed to NR operation in the early 2000s, the beneficiary TOCs blocked the change for over 12 months until the SRA agreed to pay the extra costs of the NR management team. NR has no incentive to minimise costs at stations as everything it spends at stations is enhanced by its percentage management fee.

 

[HH]

The problem with Network Rail managed stations is that its overheads are much greater than any TOC SFO. When Lime Street changed to NR operation in the early 2000s, the beneficiary TOCs blocked the change for over 12 months until the SRA agreed to pay the extra costs of the NR management team. NR has no incentive to minimise costs at stations as everything it spends at stations is enhanced by its percentage management fee.

Yes. If you want a fine example of that just look at St Pancras. Their staff number in three figures and yet they don't sell any tickets, dispatch any trains or man any barriers.

 

[whhistle]

Doesn't this already happen at BNS? It certainly used to.

Not quite as you have Virgin calling, but also operating the ticket office and manning barriers.

 

[HH]

Not quite as you have Virgin calling, but also operating the ticket office and manning barriers.

I believe they man barriers as a subcontractor to NR; this could change at any time. Also dispatch was a bit of a dog's breakfast last time I looked.

 

[adrock1976]

Doesn't this already happen at BNS? It certainly used to.

Not quite as you have Virgin calling, but also operating the ticket office and manning barriers.

Could somebody tell me if 25kV overhead line electrification has reached Barnes (BNS), which is south of the mighty Thames yet?

It would really be amazing to see a Class 390 Pendolino on the former London & South Western Railway metals.

On a serious point, it is forum policy not to use abbreviations or acronyms without first saying what they mean. Also, the same applies to the use of station codes as well.