Cross Country New Franchise

[XCTurbostar]

Will the potential remapping be put on hold now? I.e. the question in the consultation regarding potentially giving Birmingham to Nottingham and Leicester routes to WMR?

I assume so yes. Dissolving these routes to other operators was actually the result of the consultation. This freeze essentially makes the DfT consultation useless as well.

What will happen when WMR's 170s go off lease? Are WMR still going to maintain XC's 170s even if maintenance on WMT's new stuff is contracted out like the Siemens stuff currently is?

Nothing will happen to XCs 170s.. as it stands right now, XC pay WMT for maintenance and since the 172s are staying, there should be no alternative arrangements for XC. It essentially just becomes a smaller fleet of overall units for Tyseley to maintain.

Potentially if things remain just as they are for say another two years just on a caretaker basis and passenger numbers grow with no extra capacity, eventually won't it just be a case of passengers waiting at Birmingham and not being physically able get on the train they wanted?

Yes, the xx:49 to Nottingham and xx:52 to Leicester and Cambridge are already rammed full with 3 coaches. I look forward to a 2 carriage train for my next 3 years..

 

[plcd1]

This looks like it could be a poor result for passengers. Probably likely things go on as they are with direct awards and some small improvements, probably no full interior refurbs or new stock unless the DFT stipulate they have to take on some stuff that is going off lease shortly.

That announcement said options to be considered in due course. So does that mean after the review and aftermath? Could be no improvements even announced for a year maybe more?

If we use West Coast as an example the direct awards havn't really offered any ambitious improvements just a few new workings, WiFi and the external repaint was to happen anyway.

Dare I say it but I fear that the WCP franchising process may be delayed now pending the report. Anyone else fear the same? Because if they are worried about XC simply because it serves a wide area, what are the potential consequences of a mistake being made with the WCP? Just as severe? Although potentially HS2 is still going to be built asap so they are going to have to start addressing operators for it sooner rather than later surely.

If Grayling's aim is to push operation and infrastructure maintenance closer together then single route based TOCs with bolted on infrastructure expertise is probably the end result. Isn't that what WCP requires in very loose terms? I confess I haven't paid much attention to it. I therefore doubt Dft will delay that franchise because it has to have an operator in place alongside the enormous HS2 project team sooner rather than later.

Cross Country is really a huge problem for the Grayling vision of the future. It will run over everybody else's tracks, it will have next to no infrastructure responsibilities compared to regional / line of route TOCs and therefore sits outside his grand vision. It will therefore have to "trade" with whatever the future structure is - that might be 7 or 10? different infrastructure businesses. How on earth do you specify upgrades for XC (e.g. track or capacity upgrades) in such a mucked about, confused structure? In short XC will be a "problem child" alongside the FOCs. No wonder the DfT have put it on the back burner as it's all to difficult to deal with now. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see the DfT try to dismantle XC and restructure its network and give bits of it to other TOCs. The fact the long through journey trains would be lost in consequence will be deemed an acceptable price to force "Grayling World" into existence. You can almost imagine the civil servants in the DfT working out how to do this.

 

[The Ham]

This looks like it could be a poor result for passengers. Probably likely things go on as they are with direct awards and some small improvements, probably no full interior refurbs or new stock unless the DFT stipulate they have to take on some stuff that is going off lease shortly.

It is entirely possible that there could be some noticeable improvements, as the "problem" that Grayling had highlighted is lack of investment.


As such, and bearing in mind what was being asked in the consultation, I wouldn't be surprised if we did see some off lease units being added to the XC fleet as part of the direct award.


I had previously (just after it was announced that XC were to havea direct award) listed some of the options to strengthen the 22x fleet at XC.


This included 222's, 350's, HST's and 185's and my post includes some of the problems with each:

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.

 

[The Ham]

If Grayling's aim is to push operation and infrastructure maintenance closer together then single route based TOCs with bolted on infrastructure expertise is probably the end result. Isn't that what WCP requires in very loose terms? I confess I haven't paid much attention to it. I therefore doubt Dft will delay that franchise because it has to have an operator in place alongside the enormous HS2 project team sooner rather than later.

Cross Country is really a huge problem for the Grayling vision of the future. It will run over everybody else's tracks, it will have next to no infrastructure responsibilities compared to regional / line of route TOCs and therefore sits outside his grand vision. It will therefore have to "trade" with whatever the future structure is - that might be 7 or 10? different infrastructure businesses. How on earth do you specify upgrades for XC (e.g. track or capacity upgrades) in such a mucked about, confused structure? In short XC will be a "problem child" alongside the FOCs. No wonder the DfT have put it on the back burner as it's all to difficult to deal with now. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see the DfT try to dismantle XC and restructure its network and give bits of it to other TOCs. The fact the long through journey trains would be lost in consequence will be deemed an acceptable price to force "Grayling World" into existence. You can almost imagine the civil servants in the DfT working out how to do this.

It's not just XC and FOC's it's also OAO's.

It can't be beyond the wit of man to come up with a way of ensuring two business can work together. Especially when there's the scope for one to receive money from the other.

I would suggest that there's probably very few upgrades which would benefit XC which wouldn't also significantly help the main franchise. The main one would be if you wanted 125mph running over a section of track where the main franchise only ran 75-100mph units.

However anything like freight loops, electrification, improved junctions, better signals, etc. would allow improvements (or at least provide options when there's problems).

If I could get someone else to part pay for my improvement scheme then I'd be happy.

I would be inclined to have a pot of money that was for use by those outside of the geographical area of a franchise/track company which they could "bid" for (a bit like the new station find). Bits of the fund could be linked to specific companies and/or managed by those companies (i.e. Hull Trains funding electrification).

You could even have "loans" which were provided by the government and paid back using future savings/extra income. For instance if a company identified a problem with a junction which was causing delays and was limiting capacity they could use the future income and savings from delay repay/delay payments to fund improvements to that junction.

 

[pt_mad]

It is entirely possible that there could be some noticeable improvements, as the "problem" that Grayling had highlighted is lack of investment.


As such, and bearing in mind what was being asked in the consultation, I wouldn't be surprised if we did see some off lease units being added to the XC fleet as part of the direct award.


I had previously (just after it was announced that XC were to havea direct award) listed some of the options to strengthen the 22x fleet at XC.


This included 222's, 350's, HST's and 185's and my post includes some of the problems with each:

And some great ideas there. Give them them the 222s as soon as available, potentially split off Birmingham to Manchester workings and use refurbished 350/2s there (could be given to LNR in theory or XC), and even lease them the WMR 170 fleet when it goes off lease in (2020?).

However, I do fear that because the direct award at VTWC was so simple and offered very little, that we may well see the same here. I.e. nothing ambitious, with caution to anything which risks the premiums, timetable errors or industrial action etc and meaning it's only business as usual for the next two to three years until everything has been worked out.

Have there been many direct awards which have specified a large extra allocation of stock to the franchise coming in during the direct award?

 

[The Ham]

And some great ideas there. Give them them the 222s as soon as available, potentially split off Birmingham to Manchester workings and use refurbished 350/2s there (could be given to LNR in theory or XC), and even lease them the WMR 170 fleet when it goes off lease in (2020?).

However, I do fear that because the direct award at VTWC was so simple and offered very little, that we may well see the same here. I.e. nothing ambitious, with caution to anything which risks the premiums, timetable errors or industrial action etc and meaning it's only business as usual for the next two to three years until everything has been worked out.

Have there been many direct awards which have specified a large extra allocation of stock to the franchise coming in during the direct award?

GWR's one where they were getting the 387's. As not only did everyone think that they were only getting the 319's (which they may now be getting anyway) but it resulted in redistribution of their DMU fleet.

Unfortunately for passengers of GWR the plans haven't worked out as well as they could have.

 

[Chester1]

VTWC direct award was limited by the cost of procuring new tilting trains. XC situation is more similar to GWR direct award which did not need specialised stock. Its unrealistic to expect a big change but some extra stock could be obtained. My personal preference would be splitting off 1tph between Manchester and Birmingham and run it with double 350s uprated to run at 110mph and fitted with an intercity layout. It would prepare for the HS2 service in 2026-27, nearly double capacity and free up 8+ Voyagers to boost capacity on other services. The Meridians probably won't be available before the end of the DA, neither would PRM-TSI compliant HSTs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I definitely agree that the 350/2 option would be very easy to do in the short term and would be a useful capacity enhancement.

 

[The Ham]

VTWC direct award was limited by the cost of procuring new tilting trains. XC situation is more similar to GWR direct award which did not need specialised stock. Its unrealistic to expect a big change but some extra stock could be obtained. My personal preference would be splitting off 1tph between Manchester and Birmingham and run it with double 350s uprated to run at 110mph and fitted with an intercity layout. It would prepare for the HS2 service in 2026-27, nearly double capacity and free up 8+ Voyagers to boost capacity on other services. The Meridians probably won't be available before the end of the DA, neither would PRM-TSI compliant HSTs.

I'm not sure that Manchester - Birmingham would release 8 Voyagers, as a round trip takes 3 hours.

 

[The Planner]

They also inter work the Bristol and Bournemouth services, so New St becomes a car park again.

 

[Senex]

VTWC direct award was limited by the cost of procuring new tilting trains. XC situation is more similar to GWR direct award which did not need specialised stock. Its unrealistic to expect a big change but some extra stock could be obtained. My personal preference would be splitting off 1tph between Manchester and Birmingham and run it with double 350s uprated to run at 110mph and fitted with an intercity layout. It would prepare for the HS2 service in 2026-27, nearly double capacity and free up 8+ Voyagers to boost capacity on other services. The Meridians probably won't be available before the end of the DA, neither would PRM-TSI compliant HSTs.

Why do so many people want to cut back on Manchester's cross-country services (which are presumably provided because a market is believed to exist) and degrade the quality of the Manchester-Birmingham substitute? A 350 with its large two-thirds doors and three small saloons per vehicle can never provide a proper inter-city environment (just as the 185s don't).

 

[Chester1]

I'm not sure that Manchester - Birmingham would release 8 Voyagers, as a round trip takes 3 hours.

I calculated with both services (and spares), oops! So 3-4, certainly something considering how desperately XC needs extra capacity.

They also inter work the Bristol and Bournemouth services, so New St becomes a car park again.

I would probably drop one (Bournemouth) and keep the other. Perhaps it could be split and joined with the Southampton service? That would mean only one extra service terminating at Birmingham New Street. Perhaps the Manchester EMU I am proposing could be extended to Birmingham International? I am struggling to see which diesel trains can be introduced in the next 3 years.

Why do so many people want to cut back on Manchester's cross-country services (which are presumably provided because a market is believed to exist) and degrade the quality of the Manchester-Birmingham substitute? A 350 with its large two-thirds doors and three small saloons per vehicle can never provide a proper inter-city environment (just as the 185s don't).

There is probably demand between Manchester and Bristol but the through services exist primarily because of New Street not because Manchester to Oxford or Bournemouth etc are large passenger flows. Refitted 8 coach 350s would be a huge improvement on overcrowded 4 coach Voyagers.

 

[The Planner]

Operationally it is rubbish. You won't get another down to International either.

 

[DarloRich]

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.

Sigh. XC continues to be a joke. Chances of improvement gone for a Burton.

Apart from the incumbent I heard one rumour that there was one potential other bidder. I have to wonder whether the decision to delay franchising was actually taken due to lack of interest and the reason given is just smoke and mirrors.

I suspect this is the real reason!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why do so many people want to cut back on Manchester's cross-country services (which are presumably provided because a market is believed to exist) and degrade the quality of the Manchester-Birmingham substitute? A 350 with its large two-thirds doors and three small saloons per vehicle can never provide a proper inter-city environment (just as the 185s don't).

Better that than standing.

 

[DarloRich]

Why do so many people want to cut back on Manchester's cross-country services (which are presumably provided because a market is believed to exist) and degrade the quality of the Manchester-Birmingham substitute? A 350 with its large two-thirds doors and three small saloons per vehicle can never provide a proper inter-city environment (just as the 185s don't).

Better that than standing.

Exactly! Why is there a dislike of these trains in the "enthusiast" world? They are superb trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly! Why is there a dislike of these trains in the "enthusiast" world? They are superb trains.

Indeed. There also seems to be a fixation with not having one long saloon - yet surely enthusiasts like Mk1 and early Mk2 coaches, which have two saloons with a central door?

 

[DarloRich]

Indeed. There also seems to be a fixation with not having one long saloon - yet surely enthusiasts like Mk1 and early Mk2 coaches, which have two saloons with a central door?

or a tiny door at each end!

 

[pt_mad]

Exactly! Why is there a dislike of these trains in the "enthusiast" world? They are superb trains.

They are. We haven't even mentioned Siemens and LM were even given an industry award a few years ago for them being the most reliable unit on the network measured by miles per incident.

And why continue with gas guzzling Voyagers under the wires up to Manchester when 350s are going to be going spare as things stand.

Well fitted 350s with new seats and asthetics could be as good as Chiltern clubman sets any day.

The severe downside is I couldnt imagine XC being allocated a small fleet of 350s, and for the route to go to LNR would mean remapping and there's not much hope of that for a direct award imo.

 

[absolutelymilk]

The severe downside is I couldnt imagine XC being allocated a small fleet of 350s, and for the route to go to LNR would mean remapping and there's not much hope of that for a direct award imo.

They could be maintained by LNR but used by XC, in a similar way to how Northern use TPs 185s (although on a bigger scale and presumably painted in XC colours).

 

[Senex]

Exactly! Why is there a dislike of these trains in the "enthusiast" world? They are superb trains.

They may be superb trains, but they're not inter-city quality. For all their faults—which are many—the Voyagers are.

 

[pt_mad]

They could be maintained by LNR but used by XC, in a similar way to how Northern use TPs 185s (although on a bigger scale and presumably painted in XC colours).

Presumably though they'd have to be maintained by Siemens as I believe LMs were/are.

 

[pt_mad]

They may be superb trains, but they're not inter-city quality. For all their faults—which are many—the Voyagers are.

The only reason 350s are not intercity trains is surely their interior fittings? With MK4/XC HST type seats, posh carpets and luggage racks the only difference would be the vestibules?

How much more intercity than a Chiltern Clubman do they need to be doing a Birmingham to Manchester? If capacity were increased and the standard exceeded the Voyagers and the 350/1s used on the Liverpools then surely it would be more than adequate?

 

[Edders23]

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.

was there not some talk a while back of making all TOC's manage all their stations when franchises were renewed ?

 

[Edders23]

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.

to be fair the EMT services at Stamford are stock moves masquerading as service trains

 

[DarloRich]

They may be superb trains, but they're not inter-city quality. For all their faults—which are many—the Voyagers are.

Really? the 350/1 & 350/3/4 are pretty decent layouts.

 

[virgintrain1]

Can't really see 350s being fitted with galleys and catering facilities. So the 350s would not really require a Service Manager, First Class Host as well as a Train Manager.
No XC service centre at MAN so you can't do a TPE style of "bring your own trolley" via a ramp on the train.

How about 1 voyager per hour to MAN and 1 voyager per hour to Liverpool all operated by XC then LNWR provide 1 350 per hour to MAN and 1 350 per hour to Liverpool.

 

[pt_mad]

Really? the 350/1 & 350/3/4 are pretty decent layouts.

And they tick a very important box, they don't kick out diesel fumes under the wires for 100 miles each way.

 

[pt_mad]

Can't really see 350s being fitted with galleys and catering facilities. So the 350s would not really require a Service Manager, First Class Host as well as a Train Manager.
No XC service centre at MAN so you can't do a TPE style of "bring your own trolley" via a ramp on the train.

An 8 car refitted 350 could easily accommodate a trolley and a complementary first class offering be it just a hot drink and cake or whatever.

I understand that standards should not deteriorate but the exact reasons why Birmingham to Manchester would need a far superior standard to Birmingham to Liverpool if the Southern end was split off I don't know?

 

[tbtc]

Why do so many people want to cut back on Manchester's cross-country services (which are presumably provided because a market is believed to exist) and degrade the quality of the Manchester-Birmingham substitute? A 350 with its large two-thirds doors and three small saloons per vehicle can never provide a proper inter-city environment (just as the 185s don't).

My reasons:

1. We don't have enough stock to meet current XC demand (need trains capable of meeting current Voyager paths - with their fast acceleration etc - hence the of-discussed idea of eight coach HSTs being a non-starter)
2. We look like we are going to have a surplus of 110mph-capable DMUs (350s, 360s and/or 379s) due to brand new stock in the south east
3. We currently need seven (?) Voyagers to run the half hourly Birmingham - Manchester service
4. Liverpool - Birmingham is run by 350s every half hour
5. Something similar to the 350s has been used on services between Liverpool/ Manchester/ Leeds/ York for a number of years now
6. New Street has a terrible problem with air pollution
7. You could run an eight coach EMU on services from Birmingham to Liverpool and Manchester - with 2+2 seats - that'd free up a number of Voyagers (which are required on the remaining bits of the XC "core") and give Liverpool/ Manchester passengers a better chance of a seat (as well as soaking up more of the Wolverhampton traffic than a Voyager currently can)
8. Controversial idea, but how about giving the WCML franchise the responsibility for Birmingham to Liverpool and Manchester and giving the Birmingham - Oxford - Reading - Southampton - Bournemouth service to GWR (i.e. allowing XC to concentrate on the North East - South West corridor)? That'd mean giving GWR around a dozen Voyagers (puts down his crayon)

Downsides:

1. Platform capacity at New Street. No getting away from it (and I'm not naively hoping that punting everything along the line to terminate at International will be a "magic bullet" to get round things). Interworking the Liverpool and Manchester services at New Street may improve things, but I accept that infrastructure may be the sticking point
2. Through trains from Manchester to Bristol etc. For a while under VTXC there were no services from Manchester to the West Country (there was 3tp2h to the South West from the Yorkshire corridor and a bi-hourly service to the South West from Scotland down the WCML avoiding Manchester). Are the number of people doing through journeys of hundreds of miles worth inconveniencing passengers on the Manchester - Stoke - Wolves - Birmingham corridor?
3. First Class wouldn't be as nice on an EMU like a 350. Maybe not - though I'm guessing a Voyager isn't exactly amazing in FC? But, again, needs of the many and all that. But with modern eight coach EMUs available, you could tart them up quite nicely. There's only around five intermediate stops from Birmingham to Manchester (e.g. Wolves, Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport), so not like the First Class passengers will be inconvenienced by doors opening every five minutes (since I appreciate that some people get quite sniffy about having their journey disrupted by doors opening).

I'm not saying it's perfect, just that it's better than the status-quo (whilst we wait for HS2 to finally arrive).