Cross Country New Franchise

[DenmarkRail]

From a customer point of view the onboard service was far superior which VTEC promptly set about ruining. The staff were much more satisfied with them as employers and happier as a result. None of VTEC bulls*** hip advertising/condescending attitude where doing you over was regarded as some sort of twisted improvement.

VTEC premiums was what got them into trouble in the first place so that's hardly anything to champion.

Could they have been more entrepreneurial..sure but I would rather travel with them any day over VTEC.

Not revelant... Move on... If VT had bid for XC (unlikely) then they would obviously do things differently, and make changes to prevent another disaster. Lessons were learnt by SC and VT.

 

[GrimShady]

Not revelant... Move on... If VT had bid for XC (unlikely) then they would obviously do things differently, and make changes to prevent another disaster. Lessons were learnt by SC and VT.

Not talking about Virgin taking over XC, tbtc and I were discussing the merit of removing the franchise holder entirely and running it DOR style.

 

[DenmarkRail]

Not talking about Virgin taking over XC, tbtc and I were discussing the merit of removing the franchise holder entirely and running it DOR style.

DOR was a boring company which essentially just continued the operation, and cancelled all of the exciting enhancements planned... They did nothing good, apart from keeping the trains running.

That is exactly the opposite to what XC needs... They need excitement to bring a new era of the network... New stock, new service patterns, new brands, new everything...

 

[43074]

Something quantifiable, like did DOR pay a higher premium than VTEC?

That particular measure doesn't translate to whether or not a TOC is doing a better job in the slightest though, it's difficult to quantify (without having access to the figures) things like whether or not the advertised First Class service is being provided on all the trains, equally it's possible for a company to pay a higher premium by cutting back on things like catering staff and providing a less consistent and reliable service, ahem...

I remember them as a fairly uninspiring operator who cut back on NXEC's ambition (cutting plans for daytime Harrogate/ Lincoln services, handing over the 180s to Northern since they had no use for them) - not the worst TOC ever but they'd be remembered as quote boring were it not for the fact that they are a post-boy for the Nationalisation brigade.

I'd agree they weren't necessarily the most inspiring operator but I certainly remember them doing a better job at getting the basics right than VTEC did, e.g. PPM hit the 90s towards the end of the operation, quite a bit of effort went into improving the performance of the 91s, they had a worthwhile rewards scheme and a reasonably good image (their marketing was much better than VTECs even if the brand itself was a bit bland). Yes investment was needed by the time VTEC took over, and to be fair to them they started out reasonably promising, but clearly it didn't last.

 

[43074]

DOR was a boring company which essentially just continued the operation, and cancelled all of the exciting enhancements planned... They did nothing good, apart from keeping the trains running.

That is exactly the opposite to what XC needs... They need excitement to bring a new era of the network... New stock, new service patterns, new brands, new everything...

What on earth are you on about? Excitement to bring a new era of the network?

What XC needs is more capacity, how exactly that is provided is quite rightly what the new franchise seems to be about. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the basic service pattern or concept of providing 2tph on each of the branches into Birmingham and hourly trains between all axes, it just needs more capacity.

 

[GrimShady]

DOR was a boring company which essentially just continued the operation, and cancelled all of the exciting enhancements planned... They did nothing good, apart from keeping the trains running.

That is exactly the opposite to what XC needs... They need excitement to bring a new era of the network... New stock, new service patterns, new brands, new everything...

Maybe so however as I said from a customer point of view they were far better than what came after.

The other issue was they were serving out NXECs time. Not point in expanding when the writing was always going to be on the wall.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

DOR was a boring company which essentially just continued the operation, and cancelled all of the exciting enhancements planned... They did nothing good, apart from keeping the trains running.

That is exactly the opposite to what XC needs... They need excitement to bring a new era of the network... New stock, new service patterns, new brands, new everything...

For what price ? - XC lost money under BR , was (frankly) bailed out under the VXC "contract" by the SRA , was let to Arriva who turned a loss making contract to a right side of the balance sheet operation (and IMHO did a decent job operationally) , so a new franchise which may be let , needs to consider the operating cost of the present operation and work out how to (a) add value (b) make decent money.

The latter (b) is all very good , but you have a franchise which is not a huge business market , with lots of small scale flows , discounted commuter fares and cost sensitive leisure traffic.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

At a guess, I would say it's partly due to the network itself, crossing lots of paths can lead to delays with widespread knock on effects elsewhere in the country. There is also probably the most important issue of profitability. Arriva XC, in recent times have made comparatively little profit - as opposed to other long distance operators.

If profitability is a major issue along with widespread delays due to path crossings, then would the CrossCountry franchise benefit from having it be split up and ran separately in certain areas? I mean surely if it's too big to be profitable and such because of issues of the network then it might be a good idea to consider a restructure?

 

[GrimShady]

There's no reason a DOR style operation can't succeed and reinvest the profits back into the business. Why should it have to go to Arriva's (or any other private company) shareholders?

For a franchise that's historically a loss earner surely every penny should be used to bolster it?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

There's no reason a DOR style operation can't succeed and reinvest the profits back into the business. Why should it have to go to Arriva's (or any other private company) shareholders?

For a franchise that's historically a loss earner surely every penny should be used to bolster it?

In my view , not a bad option. The Arriva XC operation was for a long time supported by the profits from Arriva Trains Wales ....

 

[HH]

There's no reason a DOR style operation can't succeed and reinvest the profits back into the business. Why should it have to go to Arriva's (or any other private company) shareholders?

For a franchise that's historically a loss earner surely every penny should be used to bolster it?

I haven't checked recent results, but early doors it was Arriva's shareholders who were subsidising the premium. Still. that doesn't make for a good story, does it?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's no reason a DOR style operation can't succeed and reinvest the profits back into the business. Why should it have to go to Arriva's (or any other private company) shareholders?
For a franchise that's historically a loss earner surely every penny should be used to bolster it?

The financial targets of NXEC and VTEC were a lot more severe than that of DOR (yes, they did sign up for them, and failed).
Premiums (to the DfT) go to pay for subsidies on other franchises (eg Northern) and contribute towards huge Network Rail costs.
If you let DOR/LNER off the same targets, that creates a vacuum which means a smaller rail budget elsewhere.
It's the premiums that matter, not the TOC "profits" which are tiny in comparison (and negative for VTEC).
We don't yet know what "premiums" LNER is targeted to deliver, or what improvements have been promised, so we can't measure performance against VTEC.

 

[GrimShady]

I haven't checked recent results, but early doors it was Arriva's shareholders who were subsidising the premium. Still. that doesn't make for a good story, does it?

It's not uncommon for a business to be expected to invest in a venture that they choose to go for. That's the price of doing business.

It doesn't change the point that for a franchise that is notoriously unprofitable needs every penny to be reinvested and not given away. Ultimately a public company DOR style is capable of a good return to the DfT without striping the service in order to turn a profit.

 

[GrimShady]

The financial targets of NXEC and VTEC were a lot more severe than that of DOR (yes, they did sign up for them, and failed).
Premiums (to the DfT) go to pay for subsidies on other franchises (eg Northern) and contribute towards huge Network Rail costs.
If you let DOR/LNER off the same targets, that creates a vacuum which means a smaller rail budget elsewhere.
It's the premiums that matter, not the TOC "profits" which are tiny in comparison (and negative for VTEC).
We don't yet know what "premiums" LNER is targeted to deliver, or what improvements have been promised, so we can't measure performance against VTEC.

Part of the issue is ridiculously high premiums expected or over bid for which ultimately results in failure leaving yet again an operator of last resort to clean up the mess. There's blame on both VTEC and DfT in this regard, far too much is expected. It's not sound business planning and doesn't do anyone any good.

Let's see what happens in the short term future if Arrival are even interested anymore. They current popular view is they don't give a hoot.

 

[plcd1]

Looks like the refranchising of Cross Country is a casualty of Mr Grayling's Rail Review.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-root-and-branch-review-of-rail

The department has reviewed all ongoing franchise competitions and other live rail projects in the context of the rail review. Due to the unique geographic nature of the Cross Country franchise, which runs from Aberdeen to Penzance and cuts across multiple parts of the railway, awarding this franchise in 2019 could impact on the review’s conclusions.

It has therefore been decided that this competition will not proceed. Services will continue to be operated by the existing franchisee with options beyond this to be considered in due course. The department will consider the responses to the Cross Country public consultation in the development of future options for the franchise.

All other ongoing franchise competitions and other live rail projects are continuing as planned.

So Arriva carry on and potential improvements are delayed even more.

 

[The Ham]

Looks like the refranchising of Cross Country is a casualty of Mr Grayling's Rail Review.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-root-and-branch-review-of-rail



So Arriva carry on and potential improvements are delayed even more.

There are still ways that they XC could still see improvements. Don't forget that GWR's franchise extension brought us the HST GTI's.

For instance by knowing what is happening with the 222's (and when) they could be brought into use on XC.

Alternatively it could result in more HST's being converted and brought to the franchise.

Another option could result in 350's being used to run Manchester to the West Midlands.

Finally, and a bit of curve ball, pairs of 185's could be used on the Exeter/Paignton services.

All of which could be fairly easy wins, although there's possible issues with each.

The 222's may not be released until 2021 or later (which maybe towards the end of the extension), the HST's could be quite costly and there may not be many paths that they could be used on our they may need to be limited in length, the 350's could cause a headache trying to get their extra paths where they overlap with the existing XC services as well as requiring passengers to change and the 185's could cause pathing issues as well as needing to run double units when that's not required currently.

However given the government are aware of the capacity issues I would I would suggest that they would need to be seen to be doing something and they've used up the trick of bringing back into service the last 221.

 

[skifans]

Reported dft have cancelled the competition for the franchise, Arriva to continue: https://mobile.twitter.com/philatrail/status/1042675618587070464

 

[quantinghome]

This is one of the key drawbacks of franchising. Quite apart from the question of what private companies can actually bring to the party, the franchising system itself introduces inordinate delays to improving services. Cross country clearly needs more capacity. The solution is obvious - longer trains, but it is very difficult to get the company to do anything over and above what was agreed at the time the franchise was let. That's not the franchisee's fault, you might say, they are under no obligation to do more than they have agreed to. True enough, but it means the whole system becomes very inflexible, exacerbated further by interminable delays in refranchising. Improvements fail to happen, not for reasons of cost or engineering difficulty, but due to the sheer bureaucracy required to run the franchising system.

 

[KashmireHawker]

That is now officially confirmed by the DfT, in a statement taken from the Department's website, with the main reason being that "Due to the unique geographic nature of the Cross Country franchise, which runs from Aberdeen to Penzance and cuts across multiple parts of the railway, awarding this franchise in 2019 could impact on the review’s conclusions."

 

[superalbs]

What a disaster...

 

[The_Train]

So does this leave Arriva running the XC franchise on an indefinite timescale or will a fixed extension be announced in due course?

 

[EE Andy b1]

So does this leave Arriva running the XC franchise on an indefinite timescale or will a fixed extension be announced in due course?

Knowing the DfT i would expect a fixed timescale which would then be extended every year until them come up with another dubious plan!!

The poor long suffering Cross Country passengers will have to suffer and put up with Arriva even longer.

 

[The_Train]

Knowing the DfT i would expect a fixed timescale which would then be extended every year until them come up with another dubious plan!!

Haha a very real possibility.

The reason I ask is because if Arriva are operating under an indefinite timescale that could be pulled at any point (or indeed a short fixed term) then surely they will be reluctant to invest in the franchise? I guess it's overcrowded Voyagers for the foreseeable future

 

[pdeaves]

The reason I ask is because if Arriva are operating under an indefinite timescale that could be pulled at any point (or indeed a short fixed term) then surely they will be reluctant to invest in the franchise? I guess it's overcrowded Voyagers for the foreseeable future

I would expect a negotiation between Arriva and DfT that may or may not include new trains/timetable changes/anything else. 'Carry on as you are for the same money' is, I think, a highly unlikely outcome, if for no other reason than some of the things DfT has paid for are likely to be complete now (in line with original timescales).

 

[EE Andy b1]

You only have to look at the West Coast franchise since First won it, then were removed from winning and it staying with the current operator that nothing much has really changed in the last 6 years, no proper investment no new rolling stock, all gone a bit stale until WCP happens. If and when unless DfT changes there minds again before April 2019.

 

[sprinterguy]

I'Carry on as you are for the same money' is, I think, a highly unlikely outcome,

It's all just speculation at the moment of course, but I don't view that as highly unlikely, but rather as the most probable outcome: Arriva essentially as "caretaker" for the franchise to see it through to, perhaps, 2021 while the DfT make up their minds as to what they want to do next: There was already an option on the 2019 extension to take it through to December 2020.

Minimal change to the subsidy, premium and revenue profile, minimal change to the train fleet, and implementation of the "lite" variant of the timetable changes, originally due for December 2017, sometime in 2019 to attempt to squeeze a quart from a pint pot is the most likely outcome IMO.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Minimal change to the subsidy, premium and revenue profile, minimal change to the train fleet, and implementation of the "lite" variant of the timetable changes, originally due for December 2017, sometime in 2019 to attempt to squeeze a quart from a pint pot is the most likely outcome IMO.

I'd agree, but "minimal change to the train fleet" might involve taking on off-lease express-standard DMUs (185s were mentioned upthread, maybe the ex-WMT 170s, and who knows what else). That allows DfT to say it's doing something, and avoids the bad publicity of modern trains sitting around in sidings. I'd be surprised if more HSTs were converted, though.

 

[dk1]

You only have to look at the West Coast franchise since First won it, then were removed from winning and it staying with the current operator that nothing much has really changed in the last 6 years, no proper investment no new rolling stock, all gone a bit stale until WCP happens. If and when unless DfT changes there minds again before April 2019.

Only cosmetic improvements such as free wifi (coming up) some refurbishment to the current fleet & of course extending the network to Shrewsbury & Blackpool. With HS2 looming in 8 years I would be surprised if any further tilting stock is ordered. Probably best to just muddle through until then.

 

[sprinterguy]

I'd agree, but "minimal change to the train fleet" might involve taking on off-lease express-standard DMUs (185s were mentioned upthread, maybe the ex-WMT 170s, and who knows what else). That allows DfT to say it's doing something, and avoids the bad publicity of modern trains sitting around in sidings. I'd be surprised if more HSTs were converted, though.

The DfT don't tend to stipulate unit cascades - I would expect the lease of any additional units to be decided commercially by Arriva; if the financial return to Arriva is expected to remain similar then I wouldn't expect a great deal of change in the train fleet. The 185s are likely to be available within the term of an extended franchise, the ex-WMT 170s less so, but I'd be surprised to see Crosscountry undertaking traction training and crew familiarisation with a whole new train fleet for the sake of perhaps twelve months service with that franchise (Extra 170s would avoid that hassle but may not be available within the timescale).

 

[EE Andy b1]

I just hope that DfT allow/make Cross Country take on some of the ex GWR Class 43s and MK3s and to give them dispensation over the doors/toilets until a future franchise package is sorted out.
It would be scandalous once again to have usable rolling stock sitting in sidings when could be fully utilised and allowing class 220/221 fleets to be doubled up on certain routes.