Cross Country New Franchise

[XC victim]

I wonder if anyone actually expressed an interest in bidding for this Franchise?

So it looks like it will be many years before there are any improvements to this Franchise. The really annoying thing is that it would be relatively easy and cheap to make some major improvements.

 

[KashmireHawker]

The only other Active (in this case Dormant) company, with the name Cross Country is First Cross Country Limited, which was used within the 2007 Franchise process, meaning there has been pretty much no interest at all!

 

[tbtc]

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

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that the previously expected deadline for the XC franchise meant that bidders would have been submitting their proposals before the East Midlands Railway franchise was announced - i.e. the XC bidders couldn't include 222s in their plans because at the time of bidding the 222s weren't officially leaving the East Midlands (despite the suggestion/expectation of bi-modes replacing them).

However this (further) deferral of the XC dates mean that the 222s will potentially be up for grabs by the time the Arriva XC franchise finally ends.

(as a parallel example - the Arriva bid for Northern couldn't include the use of 185s since this happened at the same time as the TPE bids - whilst the winning TPE bid included 397s/802s/loco hauled - and therefore there will be dozens of spare 185s - there were officially no spare 185s when Arriva were putting in their bid for Northern so they had to come up with alternatives)

Yes, I'm clutching at straws here...

 

[swt_passenger]

The only other Active (in this case Dormant) company, with the name Cross Country is First Cross Country Limited, which was used within the 2007 Franchise process, meaning there has been pretty much no interest at all!

Those dormant company names have little or nothing to do with current franchising. Basically meaningless red herrings.
A future franchisee doesn’t actually need to set up a specific company before bidding, maybe not even then.

 

[The Ham]

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that the previously expected deadline for the XC franchise meant that bidders would have been submitting their proposals before the East Midlands Railway franchise was announced - i.e. the XC bidders couldn't include 222s in their plans because at the time of bidding the 222s weren't officially leaving the East Midlands (despite the suggestion/expectation of bi-modes replacing them).

However this (further) deferral of the XC dates mean that the 222s will potentially be up for grabs by the time the Arriva XC franchise finally ends.

(as a parallel example - the Arriva bid for Northern couldn't include the use of 185s since this happened at the same time as the TPE bids - whilst the winning TPE bid included 397s/802s/loco hauled - and therefore there will be dozens of spare 185s - there were officially no spare 185s when Arriva were putting in their bid for Northern so they had to come up with alternatives)

Yes, I'm clutching at straws here...

My post was in relation to the fact that the current XC franchise would be extended and therefore what units could possibly be used by that extension to improve capacity.

Later in my post I did highlight that the 222's may not be avaliable during the franchise extension (due to there not being information in the public realm detailing this).

 

[HH]

I wonder if anyone actually expressed an interest in bidding for this Franchise?

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.

 

[HH]

My post was in relation to the fact that the current XC franchise would be extended and therefore what units could possibly be used by that extension to improve capacity.

Later in my post I did highlight that the 222's may not be avaliable during the franchise extension (due to there not being information in the public realm detailing this).

ALL the current rolling stock comes off lease in October 2019. I'd say the ROSCOs have AXC and hence DfT over a barrel on any short life extension.

As for AXC and their profit level; the DA will probably assume a 4% level of profit, but this is fairly meaningless as the key part of the negotiation is the forecast of future revenues and costs. For this DA the ONLY card in DfT's hand is OLR. AXC hold the rest of the pack...

 

[The Ham]

ALL the current rolling stock comes off lease in October 2019. I'd say the ROSCOs have AXC and hence DfT over a barrel on any short life extension.

As for AXC and their profit level; the DA will probably assume a 4% level of profit, but this is fairly meaningless as the key part of the negotiation is the forecast of future revenues and costs. For this DA the ONLY card in DfT's hand is OLR. AXC hold the rest of the pack...

Given that no other franchises are likely to want the 220/221's in the short term, and those that may could have access to 222's, any lease is likely to comparable. Especially given that there's always the option for new trains which could result in some cost reductions (fuel, maintenance, etc) as well as capacity improvements which could be favourable to the TOC's.

 

[HH]

Given that no other franchises are likely to want the 220/221's in the short term, and those that may could have access to 222's, any lease is likely to comparable. Especially given that there's always the option for new trains which could result in some cost reductions (fuel, maintenance, etc) as well as capacity improvements which could be favourable to the TOC's.

There is ZERO chance of new rolling stock in the DA.

 

[Journeyman]

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.

You have to wonder. Given First Group's obvious fairly major problems, VTEC's collapse and a lot of future franchises being risky and problematic in various ways, it wouldn't surprise me if we start to see fewer bids, that are a lot more conservative and risk-averse in nature.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

So what is happening with the franchise? Is it going to end in 2019, 2020 or what?

 

[EE Andy b1]

Exactly the same as the West Coast franchise I should imagine and Arriva will be asked by government to keep running XC on a mnimuml profit basis, year by year until DfT come up with another idea and try to make that work!!

 

[CdBrux]

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.

This makes the assumption it's not possible for one organization to operate a franchise more effectively (both on cost and revenue side) than another even accounting for a relatively small margin. I suggest that assumption is false.

 

[GrimShady]

This makes the assumption it's not possible for one organization to operate a franchise more effectively (both on cost and revenue side) than another even accounting for a relatively small margin. I suggest that assumption is false.

Time for a different approach I say.

 

[HH]

Time for a different approach I say.

I'm sure that the Chairman of British Airways will be calling you shortly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure that the Chairman of British Airways will be calling you shortly.

There's no need to turn XC into a third-rate low-cost airline, it already is cheap and nasty. Well, expensive and nasty. Bit like BA, then.

 

[HH]

There's no need to turn XC into a third-rate low-cost airline, it already is cheap and nasty. Well, expensive and nasty. Bit like BA, then.

You'd rather have Ryanair?

 

[GrimShady]

I'm sure that the Chairman of British Airways will be calling you shortly.

Or we can keep going with business as usual.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You'd rather have Ryanair?

No, but if I want a flight these days easyjet.com is where I go first...

 

[nottinghamcity]

No, but if I want a flight these days easyjet.com is where I go first...

IveI just had a great experience with easyJet. Really shows what LCCs can do. It was about the soft product. The people. I can think of several TOCs who could really make a difference at little or no cost - it usually means treating your staff better.

 

[pt_mad]

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.

 

[BigCj34]

You'd rather have Ryanair?

At least it would be cheap!

 

[HH]

At least it would be cheap!

Really?

 

[The Ham]

Really?

Yes London - Manchester by Ryanrail would be £10*

* Plus a £300 booking fee and a £50 per bag charge

 

[BigCj34]

Yes London - Manchester by Ryanrail would be £10*

* Plus a £300 booking fee and a £50 per bag charge

To be fair the likes of OuiGo in France have been successful to date.

 

[HH]

To be fair the likes of OuiGo in France have been successful to date.

Let's get this in perspective. Ouigo, which serves Paris, had 7.6m passengers last year (2017). It doesn't offer catering on its trains and it only sells tickets online.

CrossCountry had 37.2m passengers in 2015/16, despite not serving London. It offers catering on a large part of its route and has to offer tickets on sale at stations (for which it has to pay other TOCs compensation).

Ouigo, as part of SNCF, doesn't have to publish results, but with a fleet of new, double decker trains, I somehow doubt that it has reduced SNCF's overall cost to the French taxpayer.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Ouigo has the luxury of being able to pick and choose which services it wants to run, so it'll run only the ones it thinks are profitable. It's an open-access operator, essentially. CrossCountry is obliged to run a wide range of 'runt of the litter' services that no one else is interested in, at times when there's no profit to be made.

 

[BigCj34]

Let's get this in perspective. Ouigo, which serves Paris, had 7.6m passengers last year (2017). It doesn't offer catering on its trains and it only sells tickets online.

CrossCountry had 37.2m passengers in 2015/16, despite not serving London. It offers catering on a large part of its route and has to offer tickets on sale at stations (for which it has to pay other TOCs compensation).

Ouigo, as part of SNCF, doesn't have to publish results, but with a fleet of new, double decker trains, I somehow doubt that it has reduced SNCF's overall cost to the French taxpayer.

I was not comparing OuiGo to Crosscountry at all. I was more referring to if Ryanair ran a low cost open access TOC, which is what OuiGo is, albeit owned by SNCF.

Anyway, this is clearly the wrong thread as Ryanair are not going to bid to run a franchise that has loss making services they are contractually obliged to operate.

 

[HH]

I was not comparing OuiGo to Crosscountry at all. I was more referring to if Ryanair ran a low cost open access TOC, which is what OuiGo is, albeit owned by SNCF.

Anyway, this is clearly the wrong thread as Ryanair are not going to bid to run a franchise that has loss making services they are contractually obliged to operate.

I think you can bet all the gold under the rainbows in Ireland on that one.

Ouigo has the luxury of being able to pick and choose which services it wants to run, so it'll run only the ones it thinks are profitable. It's an open-access operator, essentially. CrossCountry is obliged to run a wide range of 'runt of the litter' services that no one else is interested in, at times when there's no profit to be made.

Yes, Ouigo is a kind of OAO; a kind with nearly infinite pockets and no shareholder pressure. Nice work if you can get it. Of course there are no paths available to run something similar here; maybe after HS2?

 

[pt_mad]

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?

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? One would assume that would have been sorted as part of the new franchise relet but could end up a q mark in a few years if it's just continuous direct awards?

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?
I.e. crowding and no additional capacity could equal some passengers may have to see two trains go in the evening commuter peak before they can get on one that is eventually quieter?