• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Arriva CrossCountry contract extended through to October 2019

Status
Not open for further replies.

hibtastic

Member
Joined
19 Oct 2014
Messages
281
I was unfortunate enough to have to stand on an extremely busy Voyager from Inverkeithing to Edinburgh yesterday morning. The XC Voyagers really are in desperate need of a refurb so I hope the franchise extension goes some way to improving their appearance.

The XC Voyagers are definitely smellier than their VT counterparts too.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Leaving Glasgow with one fast service a day to Newcastle/Leeds/Sheffield.

I think calling it a "fast" service is a stretch when it takes 15 minutes longer to reach Edinburgh, and it can sometimes be faster to go via Carlisle and the S&C to Leeds.

It's a duplication of a service that Scotrail do better.
 

ScotTrains

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2014
Messages
376
Location
Scotland
Whenever I've caught it, and the EC predecessor, there's been a handful of people on it.

The reason why it is a waste of time is because it duplicates the Waverley-Queen Street route which is a) quicker and b) in the process of being upgraded to allow more, longer and faster trains to operate on it.

It is quicker to get off at Waverley, wait for the Scotrail express, and go to Queen Street than it is to ride the XC through to Central. Some of the "through" trains sit in Waverley for twenty minutes. It's pointless.

The reason why it is a waste of resources is because it ties up a Voyager unit for nearly three hours, a unit that would be better used elsewhere on the network.

EC binned the route because it swallowed up a 91 for three hours, a 91 they needed elsewhere, and the same applies with XC. When the Queen Street route modernisation is completed I'd bin it.

I've been on the Glasgow to Edinburgh XC service four times in the last fortnight. It's alway been packed, with numerous people standing. Admittedly, this may be because I travel at the weekend. Perhaps it's quieter during the week, I don't know. The Dundee/Aberdeen services have been the same whenever I've travelled with them.

I understand what you are saying about it being quicker to change in Edinburgh due to long rest times. But, if the XC services are evidently so busy why would they want to get rid of them? They must be making a fortune on the route. From a business point of view surely they should be increasing their capacity on the busiest routes at the busiest times.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,663
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.
May be they can't be bothered or don't want to? That's my cynical view. Of course of they wish to make a public statement as to why they couldn't do anything I don't mind changing my opinion.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 

Goatboy

Established Member
Joined
23 Jun 2011
Messages
2,274
Who are these people who can afford to travel XC anyway? I had to abandon them due to the spiraling cost and now have to use cheaper forms of travel like driving my own car with just me in it...
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,663
By just getting all the 222s from EMT, then XC could reform the 22x fleets to form longer units.

A future fleet could look like:
- 7x9 coach trains (formed of 222s to replace the 5 HSTs and pairs of 22x's)
- 21x7 coach trains (formed of either 221s or 222s to replace the 5 coach 221s)
- 22x5 coach trains (formed of 220s to lengthen those 220s)
- a minimum of 7x5 coach trains (new 80x units to replace part of the 220 fleet or any of the 221s due to some 222s being retained by EMT, which coincidentally would be broadly the number of units required to run the Manchester to South Coast services which would have the most under the wire running)

The replacements for the HSTs would be broadly of the same capacity, otherwise all other replacements would be bigger as a 7 coach unit would have circa 350 seats vs 250 (plus 40%) and the 5 coach units would have either 250 or 315 seats vs 200 (plus 25% to 58%).

There would be a lot less need for doubling up of units, which would bring the staff overheads down but there would be a lot of end coaches in store/scrapped.

The number of coaches on lease would be 65 more than currently (421 vs 356) but without the need for the leasing of the class 43's, so lease costs shouldn't be too much more, but with the potential to carry a lot more people.

The track access charges would be higher because of the total number of coaches and due to the higher charges for the 22x's over the Mark 3's, yet there would be significant savings from not needing to run pairs of class 43's with each HST in service.

Therefore although costs would be higher overall it shouldn't be so much that it meant that XC wasn't viable.

The first step would be to buy the new 80x's early in the next franchise and reform all the 220's to be 5 coaches long whilst retaining the HSTs until the 222's can be released.

If EMT were to want to retain some 222s then that would be known (due to be being announced about 5 months before the ITT for the XC franchise) and so extra 80x's could be added into the bid which could allow the lengthening of the 221s to 7 coach units earlier.
If they can afford to buy 80xs in the next franchise, why can't they afford to buy them now? According to the International Monterey Fund, we are going to become the fastest G7 growing economy. Now does that mean none of the G7 countries could afford new rolling stock right now for a route such as XC?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,300
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.

In what way is the leasing contract for the XC HSTs "inadequate"? It's a normal dry lease contract. Such leases are commonly used by many TOCs. So is EMT's HST lease also "inadequate" as it is also a dry lease?
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I've been on the Glasgow to Edinburgh XC service four times in the last fortnight. It's alway been packed, with numerous people standing. Admittedly, this may be because I travel at the weekend. Perhaps it's quieter during the week, I don't know. The Dundee/Aberdeen services have been the same whenever I've travelled with them.

I understand what you are saying about it being quicker to change in Edinburgh due to long rest times. But, if the XC services are evidently so busy why would they want to get rid of them? They must be making a fortune on the route. From a business point of view surely they should be increasing their capacity on the busiest routes at the busiest times.

The XC services does provide an Edinburgh link from Motherwell, and a decent connection to Edinburgh/Newcastle from Ayrshire without having to schlep between stations in Glasgow.

However, whether this needs to be an XC service is a reasonable debate - an hourly/half-hourly Scotrail EMU may be better.
 

Kettledrum

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2010
Messages
790
By just getting all the 222s from EMT, then XC could reform the 22x fleets to form longer units.

A future fleet could look like:
- 7x9 coach trains (formed of 222s to replace the 5 HSTs and pairs of 22x's)
- 21x7 coach trains (formed of either 221s or 222s to replace the 5 coach 221s)
- 22x5 coach trains (formed of 220s to lengthen those 220s)
- a minimum of 7x5 coach trains (new 80x units to replace part of the 220 fleet or any of the 221s due to some 222s being retained by EMT, which coincidentally would be broadly the number of units required to run the Manchester to South Coast services which would have the most under the wire running)

The replacements for the HSTs would be broadly of the same capacity, otherwise all other replacements would be bigger as a 7 coach unit would have circa 350 seats vs 250 (plus 40%) and the 5 coach units would have either 250 or 315 seats vs 200 (plus 25% to 58%).

There would be a lot less need for doubling up of units, which would bring the staff overheads down but there would be a lot of end coaches in store/scrapped.

The number of coaches on lease would be 65 more than currently (421 vs 356) but without the need for the leasing of the class 43's, so lease costs shouldn't be too much more, but with the potential to carry a lot more people.

The track access charges would be higher because of the total number of coaches and due to the higher charges for the 22x's over the Mark 3's, yet there would be significant savings from not needing to run pairs of class 43's with each HST in service.

Therefore although costs would be higher overall it shouldn't be so much that it meant that XC wasn't viable.

The first step would be to buy the new 80x's early in the next franchise and reform all the 220's to be 5 coaches long whilst retaining the HSTs until the 222's can be released.

If EMT were to want to retain some 222s then that would be known (due to be being announced about 5 months before the ITT for the XC franchise) and so extra 80x's could be added into the bid which could allow the lengthening of the 221s to 7 coach units earlier.

Interesting ideas, and the almost fits with the timing of the franchise extension in that by the time the 2019 end date comes, we should be much clearer what the plan is for the Midland Main Line - hopefully with new electric stock.

I don't think we'll see as many surplus end cars as you suggest though. The EMT model has been to reconfigure the class 222 trains to produce more 5 car units and double up the trains for peak services. In some cases the doubled up units split at an interim station on the route. The model works really well, - so well in fact that EMT stick with the model despite the additional train crew costs. It would also work for XC as:

- it gives you more flexibility if a unit fails
- you can avoid sending longer trains to the quieter extremes of the network and therefore keep serving the existing destinations - and keep track access charges down
- you can double up Voyagers in the busiest sections - e.g. through New Street.

I really hope something like this is the plan once the new franchise extension comes to an end.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,942
I've been on the Glasgow to Edinburgh XC service four times in the last fortnight. It's alway been packed, with numerous people standing. Admittedly, this may be because I travel at the weekend. Perhaps it's quieter during the week, I don't know. The Dundee/Aberdeen services have been the same whenever I've travelled with them.

I understand what you are saying about it being quicker to change in Edinburgh due to long rest times. But, if the XC services are evidently so busy why would they want to get rid of them? They must be making a fortune on the route. From a business point of view surely they should be increasing their capacity on the busiest routes at the busiest times.

Motherwell as mentioned, but also for stations in South Glasgow it means one doesn't have to walk across Glasgow potentially with hevay cases and looking at the weather forecast it seems to rain frequently in Glasgow so its a drier option as well.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I've been on the Glasgow to Edinburgh XC service four times in the last fortnight. It's alway been packed, with numerous people standing. Admittedly, this may be because I travel at the weekend. Perhaps it's quieter during the week, I don't know. The Dundee/Aberdeen services have been the same whenever I've travelled with them

Is this related to the upgrades to infrastructure on the Falkirk High lines?

If they can afford to buy 80xs in the next franchise, why can't they afford to buy them now? According to the International Monterey Fund, we are going to become the fastest G7 growing economy. Now does that mean none of the G7 countries could afford new rolling stock right now for a route such as XC?

The short term boost caused by a massive devaluation of the currency is a one off shot in the arm. It won't last (as inflationary factors start to hit the UK economy, partly caused by the increased cost of imports)

As for the trains - one of the reasons not to get 80xs right now is because everyone else is ordering them. There'll be no space on the production line at Newton Aycliffe until much closer to 2019. Unless you want them built in Japan/ Italy?

In what way is the leasing contract for the XC HSTs "inadequate"? It's a normal dry lease contract. Such leases are commonly used by many TOCs. So is EMT's HST lease also "inadequate" as it is also a dry lease?

Agreed - you wouldn't describe a PAYG mobile as "a perverse incentives to keep the phone out of service".

Motherwell as mentioned, but also for stations in South Glasgow it means one doesn't have to walk across Glasgow potentially with hevay cases and looking at the weather forecast it seems to rain frequently in Glasgow so its a drier option as well.

The XC services does provide an Edinburgh link from Motherwell, and a decent connection to Edinburgh/Newcastle from Ayrshire without having to schlep between stations in Glasgow.

However, whether this needs to be an XC service is a reasonable debate - an hourly/half-hourly Scotrail EMU may be better.

Passengers from Ayrshire have direct Scotrail services from Ayr/ Irvine etc to Waverley though.

Back in my day, Central only had an hourly all stops service via Shotts to Edinburgh. Now, as well as the stopper, there's the semi-fast Shotts service that only takes around 1h10, there are a few Scotrail services via Motherwell too (taking 1h10).

So there's never been less need for the XC service to serve Glasgow during the daytime.

Interesting ideas, and the almost fits with the timing of the franchise extension in that by the time the 2019 end date comes, we should be much clearer what the plan is for the Midland Main Line - hopefully with new electric stock

XC and the MML were linked in BR days (from days of Peaks to getting the HSTs around the same time).

We could well see the same stock ordered for both routes - since it may not be economic to order something specific for each one - I'd be happy if we ordered 80xs for both - based on what we've seen so far - but maybe we'll see bi-modes cascaded onto MML and XC (with pure electric ones on the ECML/ GWML)?

Apologies if mentioned earlier.....

In the run up to privatisation, when BR had Train Operating Units (TOU), Cross Country was lumped with Midland Mainline.

Not sure why Midland Cross Country was split or why together in the first place. I guess it may have been centred on Derby???

Probably because neither was big enough to warrant a position at the top table in its own right - similar stock - both a bit B-list?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,011
Location
Yorks
In what way is the leasing contract for the XC HSTs "inadequate"? It's a normal dry lease contract. Such leases are commonly used by many TOCs. So is EMT's HST lease also "inadequate" as it is also a dry lease?

It's inadequate because it provides a perverse incentive for XC to park the fleet up during some of the week when HST's would be better employed alleviating crowding.

As far as I'm aware, EMT more or less fully utilise their HST fleet throughout the week and don't suffer the same crowding issues.
 

Martin_1981

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2011
Messages
257
I was unfortunate enough to have to stand on an extremely busy Voyager from Inverkeithing to Edinburgh yesterday morning. The XC Voyagers really are in desperate need of a refurb so I hope the franchise extension goes some way to improving their appearance.

The XC Voyagers are definitely smellier than their VT counterparts too.

I went from Exeter to Birmingham and back for the day on Saturday, Voyagers both ways. Numerous ceiling spotlights in the carriages on both trains were not working, some window glazing units had failed (condensation between the glass) and some of the seat upholstery was coming away. So yes I agree they are in need of a refurb. That aside, they were smooth and quiet enough for what is a fairly short 2.5 hour trip. XC charge enough so it's about time travellers saw some improvements. I know they are on about free wi fi soon, though I can't believe they currently charge whereas GWR and SWT have free wi fi. I thought the XC routes had a better service under Virgin and a cheaper one too. Only downside was no HST's except Summer Saturdays and the odd hire in for weekday Plymouth services when Voyager availability was low.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,011
Location
Yorks
Agreed - you wouldn't describe a PAYG mobile as "a perverse incentives to keep the phone out of service".

?

That's a preposterous comment. People have PAYG mobile phone contracts precisely so they can ration their own usage, just as energy suppliers install pre-payment meters to force their more errant customers to ration their energy usage.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,663
As for the trains - one of the reasons not to get 80xs right now is because everyone else is ordering them. There'll be no space on the production line at Newton Aycliffe until much closer to 2019. Unless you want them built in Japan/ Italy?
How about putting in the order now. It's only three years away.

In the past they sometimes waited to put in rollong stock orders and that delayed trains. Just because an order is made, doesn't mean they have to build it straight away. I can't see much changing in terms of other rolling stock in three years to affect the order.

If they don't want to put an order in now, how about explaining that don't wish to do it now but please bare without be as we will do something in three years time when capacity to build is better. They drop the capacity to build bit if that affects the competitive tender process.


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,300
It's inadequate because it provides a perverse incentive for XC to park the fleet up during some of the week when HST's would be better employed alleviating crowding.



As far as I'm aware, EMT more or less fully utilise their HST fleet throughout the week and don't suffer the same crowding issues.

The issue is actually nothing to do with the lease, it's to do with the number of seats to be provided by the franchisee under the contract. Had the franchise agreement been tighter then XC would have had to use their HSTs to hit the capacity requirement in the contract.
 

Firesprite

Member
Joined
22 Dec 2011
Messages
295
Location
Fens
Shame that they will be no improvements on the Stansted airport route. Timetable has not changed since I moved to Fens, 15 years ago. The first train to Cambridge is full and overloaded when it arrives at March and is pot luck if you can get on at all. The locals have been demanding earlier trains to Cambridge and the airport for years. The first train out of March to New Street arrives in Bimingham (7.58am) before the first train to the airport arrives in Cambridge (8.09am).
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,685
Location
Mold, Clwyd
How about putting in the order now. It's only three years away.

In the past they sometimes waited to put in rollong stock orders and that delayed trains. Just because an order is made, doesn't mean they have to build it straight away. I can't see much changing in terms of other rolling stock in three years to affect the order.

If they don't want to put an order in now, how about explaining that don't wish to do it now but please bare without be as we will do something in three years time when capacity to build is better. They drop the capacity to build bit if that affects the competitive tender process.

The "big money" has gone on franchises which arguably are in greater need of fleet replacement/upgrade (GWR, Northern/TPE, East Anglia).
XC has a fleet of newish trains, and the time horizon is only 3 years.
DfT will decide what's best for XC after they have let West Coast and East Midlands, when the rolling stock cascade position will be clearer.
Ordering a new 80x fleet today just brings up the question of what you are going to do with the 22x fleet in 5 years time when the MML is wired.

The XC 17x routes could do with a revamp though.
I'm not sure the DfT knows quite what to do with those routes, as they could easily be run by other franchises.
They are a legacy of the "one route/one TOC" policy of the SRA, which is why the Derby/Leicester/Cheltenham axes out of Birmingham are XC-only.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,011
Location
Yorks
The issue is actually nothing to do with the lease, it's to do with the number of seats to be provided by the franchisee under the contract. Had the franchise agreement been tighter then XC would have had to use their HSTs to hit the capacity requirement in the contract.

There have been cases in the past (the old Northern Rail for example) where operators have provided capacity additional to their franchise agreement to enhance their product. Had XC's lease for the HST's been a flat rate basis rather than "pay as you go" there's every likelihood that they would have preferred to get their moneys worth by using them as much as possible to solve capacity problems, rather than having them sitting in sidings part of the eek.
 

Amy Worrall

Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
143
The "big money" has gone on franchises which arguably are in greater need of fleet replacement/upgrade (GWR, Northern/TPE, East Anglia).
XC has a fleet of newish trains, and the time horizon is only 3 years.
DfT will decide what's best for XC after they have let West Coast and East Midlands, when the rolling stock cascade position will be clearer.
Ordering a new 80x fleet today just brings up the question of what you are going to do with the 22x fleet in 5 years time when the MML is wired.

Can't they permanently double up every voyager they have (thus giving them 50% fewer trains) and then order new ones to bring their total number of trains up to the same amount? That's essentially what happened to the voyagers on Virgin West Coast, right?

That way they're not having to get rid of a fleet that in general works fine, but they are getting the extra capacity they need.

Is it difficult to run multiple fleets of different types of trains?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,879
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Can't they permanently double up every voyager they have (thus giving them 50% fewer trains) and then order new ones to bring their total number of trains up to the same amount? That's essentially what happened to the voyagers on Virgin West Coast, right?

You do get the odd single one, but in principle that could be done, yes. The thing is if the MML is getting wired, there will be a load of spare Meridians that could be used for that purpose for cheaper than new stock, which is probably why they are holding off.

I do however think XC would benefit greatly from bi-modes.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,685
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Is it difficult to run multiple fleets of different types of trains?

Two sizeable fleets is no problem.
But it would double the leasing/track access costs of the XC franchise, which is what DfT has refused to contemplate for 10 years at least.

Virgin don't run many doubled up Voyagers.
They double up in the peaks to Chester, and the Scotland services are an awkward mix of single and double (some units being added/removed at Wolverhampton).
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,326
Interesting ideas, and the almost fits with the timing of the franchise extension in that by the time the 2019 end date comes, we should be much clearer what the plan is for the Midland Main Line - hopefully with new electric stock.

I don't think we'll see as many surplus end cars as you suggest though. The EMT model has been to reconfigure the class 222 trains to produce more 5 car units and double up the trains for peak services. In some cases the doubled up units split at an interim station on the route. The model works really well, - so well in fact that EMT stick with the model despite the additional train crew costs. It would also work for XC as:

- it gives you more flexibility if a unit fails
- you can avoid sending longer trains to the quieter extremes of the network and therefore keep serving the existing destinations - and keep track access charges down
- you can double up Voyagers in the busiest sections - e.g. through New Street.

I really hope something like this is the plan once the new franchise extension comes to an end.

There would so be a number (7*80x + 22*220s) that would remain as 5 coach units. However, the 7 coach trains would only be slightly less than a pair of 4 coach units but without the cost of one unit and the saving in staff costs.

As such, although there will a place for 5 coach units which can run in pairs (much as the 4 coach units do currently) there is also a need for longer units.

I was also deliberate in my length of units, in that the 222's are all set as long units so there would be no need for them to run in pairs, as such you remove the bed to reprogramme their software to enable then to run in passenger service with 220s/221s.

It also limits the number of coaches that need to be leased.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,300
There have been cases in the past (the old Northern Rail for example) where operators have provided capacity additional to their franchise agreement to enhance their product. Had XC's lease for the HST's been a flat rate basis rather than "pay as you go" there's every likelihood that they would have preferred to get their moneys worth by using them as much as possible to solve capacity problems, rather than having them sitting in sidings part of the eek.

Sorry, but you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

The lease is not "pay as you go". XC are paying the full lease cost regardless of whether they use the stock or not.

The issue is that under a dry lease, the TOC is responsible for all maintenance, including heavy work such as C4/C6 work on the trailers and E/F/G exams on power cars. By not using the sets as much, that extends the time between overhauls and so reduces the TOCs costs as overhauls become due less often.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,011
Location
Yorks
Sorry, but you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

The lease is not "pay as you go". XC are paying the full lease cost regardless of whether they use the stock or not.

The issue is that under a dry lease, the TOC is responsible for all maintenance, including heavy work such as C4/C6 work on the trailers and E/F/G exams on power cars. By not using the sets as much, that extends the time between overhauls and so reduces the TOCs costs as overhauls become due less often.

Then it's clearly blindingly obvious that it would be better for the passenger if they were on the same type of lease as the Voyagers are, then there wouldn't be an incentive to use the types of train differently where passenger flows don't suit it, would there.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,300
Then it's clearly blindingly obvious that it would be better for the passenger if they were on the same type of lease as the Voyagers are, then there wouldn't be an incentive to use the types of train differently where passenger flows don't suit it, would there.

The option was there - the ROSCOs are quite happy to take on maintenance - but XC chose not to. The Voyagers are different as the contract was inherited from Virgin, so Bombardier do all maintenance as part of the contract.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,011
Location
Yorks
The option was there - the ROSCOs are quite happy to take on maintenance - but XC chose not to. The Voyagers are different as the contract was inherited from Virgin, so Bombardier do all maintenance as part of the contract.

Well in that case, Government should have forced the change on both parties as part of the current franchise renewal when it became apparent that the current arrangements were having a detrimental effect on the service.

Clearly the Government writ now runs with TOC's, why shouldn't it also with ROSCO's
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top