Cross Country Trains - Who will operate it after October?

[Mamorin]

As this is a speculative thread, and we know from the DfT Prior Info notice that new contract will be 4 years, extendable to 8 years, seems very unlikely to me that they would be allowed to continue at current pared back level until Autumn 2027 and potentially through to 2031

Roger Ford in his pre Modern Railways ezine, has commented that DfT have finally worked out that if can't cut costs easily, the only way to cut subsidy is to boost revenue, by going for growth. This also seems to conflict with the idea of not adding services quickly.

Of course growth requires more bums on seats, but that means providing the seats, you can't easily up the fares if your offer is poor compared to a UK domestic flight. It is daft when say a Somerset resident can get to Scotland cheaper by flying, or cheaper and quicker by adding 100 miles and travelling on rail via London. They need to accept people actually travel from NW to SW, and would not prefer to do it via SE. XC needs to stop thinking it is a local and medium distance service for the Midlands, and everything else is an inconvenient add on

Of course we all know some companies that bid are all hot air and over promise, remember SWT promises adding thousands of extra peak hour seats in Waterloo, instead they failed to do it before pandemic happened, then subsequently cut around 22% of their vehicle km.

Personally I am hoping for someone else to get XC, preferably one of the operators understanding potential growth (even if until now DfT has rather prevented it from actually happening), failing that someone who has experience of suitable trains to supplement the fleet, East Midlands with their 222s perhaps ? Or someone that will bring in the 222s (or something else modern and reliable), and be prepared to scrap half the class 220 driving cars, whilst reforming remainder into 6car sets. In my view XC shouldn't have 4car trains. Need a new operator with vision, not a giver up who something below bare minimum.

So its possible that XC may have to reinstate some if the cut calls. Hopefully my station could at least get two of its XC calls back as there is revenue to be made there, perhaps 50-100 passengers.

 

[occone]

Throwing more Voyagers at XC would be good enough for me if it meant being able to get a seat.

It's pathetically hilarious as others have said that 4 rattling carriages are deemed good enough for routes that take 7 hours and go all the way from Edinburgh to Plymouth.

They're also 20 years old - and looking it. A refurb as Avanti did would go a long way to improving the experience as the Virgin interior is starting to get threadbare

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Or if it won't change, commit to the model. Cut service length back and let other operators handle the final mile if people travel that far. That way they could run more doubles with the current stock level. It's not ideal, but it's still more logical than current operations.

Agreed. Do a similar timetable on the South West - Scotland diagrams to the pandemic ones!

I'm thinking like 3 Newcastle to Edinburgh and maybe 2 or 3 Plymouth to Penzance service extensions for now.

 

[zwk500]

It’s bluddy boring to be honest. We haven’t had a new TOC come around since Avanti West Coast (don’t be annoying and mention the invisible OLR takeovers of late). I love a bit of change here and there.

It's not just boring, it's actively harmful to passengers. The 'oh just one more' nature of these awards as we are in some horrific limbo between Covid and GBR (if/when it ever happens) means companies are naturally cautious about any investments that they're not guaranteed to get returns on before they get swept up in the brave new world. The whole rationale for offering decent length franchise contracts was to give TOCs some reasonable medium-term certainty at the start of the contract to make the changes and investments they promised.

 

[JonathanH]

The 'oh just one more' nature of these awards as we are in some horrific limbo between Covid and GBR (if/when it ever happens) means companies are naturally cautious about any investments that they're not guaranteed to get returns on before they get swept up in the brave new world.

Is there any scope at all in the current rail operation framework for the operator to suggest improvements? This is no longer the franchise framework where an operator would look to invest to build extra business. As far as I can see, isn't it solely up to the DfT to suggest any investment now, and get costed plans from the operator to implement them?

The whole rationale for offering decent length franchise contracts was to give TOCs some reasonable medium-term certainty at the start of the contract to make the changes and investments they promised.

Yes, but in those days the franchise operators had to build plans which could generate growth from investment, so would look to enhance the offering. Even then, latterly they were just bidding against a high level specification. The franchise awards from the late 1990s and 2000s were fairly different in nature from those more recently.

What scope would there be now for some ambitious operator to come along and say they would deliver the kind of Cross Country that posters in this forum seem to want? Surely, the DfT (and Treasury) hold all the cards?

The operator, and the length of the contract they are bidding against is in a way irrelevant, although I recognise your point that if the DfT wanted enhancements it would need to give a contract long enough for the operator to see through the implementation of the changes.

 

[zwk500]

Is there any scope at all in the current rail operation framework for the operator to suggest improvements? This is no longer the franchise framework where an operator would look to invest to build extra business. As far as I can see, isn't it solely up to the DfT to suggest any investment now, and get costed plans from the operator to implement them?

I don't know, I'm afraid.

Yes, but in those days the franchise operators had to build plans which could generate growth from investment, so would look to enhance the offering. Even then, latterly they were just bidding against a high level specification. The franchise awards from the late 1990s and 2000s were fairly different in nature from those more recently.

Absolutely.

What scope would there be now for some ambitious operator to come along and say they would deliver the kind of Cross Country that posters in this forum seem to want? Surely, the DfT (and Treasury) hold all the cards?

Part of the problem with that is, of course, that there are several different visions for what XC 'should' be, both here and in TOC/DfT circles.

The operator, and the length of the contract they are bidding against is in a way irrelevant, although I recognise your point that if the DfT wanted enhancements it would need to give a contract long enough for the operator to see through the implementation of the changes.

The length of contract is very relevant, to me. But it is highly dependent on the nature of the changes. A station repaint is a short-term commitment, introducing PAYG Smartcards would be a much longer-term investment. And it's also about keeping project teams together rather than constantly being stood down.

 

[Snow1964]

Is there any scope at all in the current rail operation framework for the operator to suggest improvements? This is no longer the franchise framework where an operator would look to invest to build extra business.

What scope would there be now for some ambitious operator to come along and say they would deliver the kind of Cross Country that posters in this forum seem to want? Surely, the DfT (and Treasury) hold all the cards?

This rather depends on if look at it (and present your proposal) as a we can carry on with the same as now, or if you work other way and say we won't cost you any more than currently subsidising it, but we want flexibility to do our thing to grow revenue and will share any uplift from current base that you pay now

 

[zwk500]

This rather depends on if look at it (and present your proposal) as a we can carry on with the same as now, or if you work other way and say we won't cost you any more than currently subsidising it, but we want flexibility to do our thing to grow revenue and will share any uplift from current base that you pay now

But are the DfT willing to enter into that flexibility?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It's not just boring, it's actively harmful to passengers. The 'oh just one more' nature of these awards as we are in some horrific limbo between Covid and GBR (if/when it ever happens) means companies are naturally cautious about any investments that they're not guaranteed to get returns on before they get swept up in the brave new world. The whole rationale for offering decent length franchise contracts was to give TOCs some reasonable medium-term certainty at the start of the contract to make the changes and investments they promised.

Well yes exactly. If you look at the mess of TfW now, a large part of that is down to the constant no-growth of the Welsh franchise under Arriva. And similarly, XC hasn’t been allowed to change or improve at all which is why it constantly fails to satisfy many of its passengers.

 

[adrock1976]

No operator can reform the 220s and scrap driving cars as they are beholden to what the lease company wants to do with its asset.

Any operator, including the current one can discuss the best options for increasing capacity with the DfT and leasing companies, but they are not in a position to act alone, and they are working to specifications.

If anything, what XC lacks is an effective lobby group who can encourage a different service specification. I'm not sure the operator really has scope for lobbying to run a different service now.

Regarding reforming the Voyagers, I recall reading in the Rail magazine back in 2007/8 that the former Virgin Trains reformed 221142-143 to 5 coaches by means of using the intermediate coaches from 221144, thus leaving the driving cars. When Virgin no longer required the cars of 221144, they had to put it back exactly how it was.

I think at the time (although part of me is unsure of this) it was the Royal Bank of Scotland that was involved in the leasing of the Voyagers - a bank that was bailed out after the 2008 global economic crash and the former big gaffer Fred Goodwin stripped of his gong.

 

[JonathanH]

This rather depends on if look at it (and present your proposal) as a we can carry on with the same as now, or if you work other way and say we won't cost you any more than currently subsidising it, but we want flexibility to do our thing to grow revenue and will share any uplift from current base that you pay now

I have no 'proposal' here. I'm speculating about how things currently work. It would be great to have it clarified.

An 'all-singing, all-dancing' XC that goes everywhere Operation Princess envisaged with long trains on every service would be truly amazing to see, but it isn't going to happen.

The DfT base case is presumably that the net cost of operation would ideally remain constant or reduce. As I understand it, government (with a small g) is currently carrying all revenue risk, positive or negative for the railway.

I think therefore that the operator has no revenue risk, and is just paid a management fee to operate the services and keep stations tidy (although as we know CrossCountry can't operate stations).

The moment an operator proposes that it is given flexibility to do its thing to grow revenue and share any uplift poses the risk to the DfT that there may not be an uplift. It isn't clear to me who fills the gap and how. What lever does the operator and its owner have to fill any gap?

I understand that the general view of the forum is that XC is a sleeping giant just waiting for more capacity and cheaper fares to unlock heaps of revenue, and I can understand why people think that, but equally there is clearly a risk that such a plan doesn't generate that revenue.

Well yes exactly. If you look at the mess of TfW now, a large part of that is down to the constant no-growth of the Welsh franchise under Arriva.

...and the way that franchise was specified, against which Arriva prepared their bid.

And similarly, XC hasn’t been allowed to change or improve at all which is why it constantly fails to satisfy many of its passengers.

Arriva may well not have been the best operator picked in 2007 to operate the XC franchise but was anything better on the table in the other bids? The Virgin XC franchise had failed and stability was needed.

It isn't obvious to me that the 2008 timetable, as incrementally enhanced by 2019, is the wrong service for CrossCountry from the point of view of reliability and coverage. The length of the trains at times of high demand is clearly an issue that hasn't been addressed. Would another operator have done anything different? We have no way of knowing.

Going back to the focus of what I am trying to get an answer to, does any operator have scope to do something different now, beyond incremental change, or is it just in the hands of the DfT and its specification?

The narrow answer to the original question does seem to be that it just rolls over with Arriva and possibly some incremental change.

 

[Snow1964]

Just published 29th Aug by DfT

Who will run cross country consultation outcome

Detail of outcome​

This consultation was launched to hear stakeholders’ views on a future Cross Country franchise competition. The competition was cancelled, so this consultation was closed with no formal outcome.

Cross Country rail franchise

Informing the requirements for the next Cross Country rail franchise.

www.gov.uk

Something is obviously happening (or about to happen) with XC for DfT to decide to publish this now

 

[MattRat]

Just published 29th Aug by DfT

Who will run cross country consultation outcome

Cross Country rail franchise

Informing the requirements for the next Cross Country rail franchise.

www.gov.uk

Something is obviously happening (or about to happen) with XC for DfT to decide to publish this now

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it just looks like the competition was cancelled, which can only mean 1 of 2 things. XC keeps the franchise and is given an extension (with maybe some changes), or XC becomes OLR.

 

[Mamorin]

I'm expecting the service to remain as it is now, any stations that saw their Cross Country services "suspended" will not get them back, given Cross Country don't want to serve "Small Stations" anymore.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Just published 29th Aug by DfT

Who will run cross country consultation outcome

Cross Country rail franchise

Informing the requirements for the next Cross Country rail franchise.

www.gov.uk

Something is obviously happening (or about to happen) with XC for DfT to decide to publish this now

They are just belatedly catching up with their admin - the competition was closed over 4 years ago!

 

[Snow1964]

They are just belatedly catching up with their admin - the competition was closed over 4 years ago!

Down to just 6.5 weeks until XC current contract expires on 15th October.

The lack of announcement so far means either new organisation is going to have to leap into action very fast, or going to get another wishy washy benefits no one, carry on muddling through extension.

Any extension rather makes last December tender for 4 year contract (extendable to upto 8 years) pointless

Cross Country rail services: prior information notice

www.gov.uk

 

[JonathanH]

Any extension rather makes last December tender for 4 year contract (extendable to upto 8 years) pointless

We don't know what information was gathered as part of that tender. Maybe the information received has led to more time being needed to reach a conclusion on XC's future.

In the meantime no doubt those in control are happy to see it continue in its current form.

 

[Snow1964]

We don't know what information was gathered as part of that tender. Maybe the information received has led to more time being needed to reach a conclusion on XC's future.

In the meantime no doubt those in control are happy to see it continue in its current form.

I don't disagree that easy option is extension

But if keep asking people to commit time and money bidding, and then cancel, before long won't have any bidders

 

[RobShipway]

Down to just 6.5 weeks until XC current contract expires on 15th October.

The lack of announcement so far means either new organisation is going to have to leap into action very fast, or going to get another wishy washy benefits no one, carry on muddling through extension.

Any extension rather makes last December tender for 4 year contract (extendable to upto 8 years) pointless

Cross Country rail services: prior information notice

www.gov.uk

Interesting reading as to how changes to the franchise could be made which is from page 20 onwards as follows:

"To improve the service pattern and network to offer journeys that better meet your needs Issues and ideas for your response We understand the importance of Cross Country in moving people around the country, and connecting them to the services of other train operators. Our initial and informal feedback from stakeholders exposed a number of themes including a desire to see Cross Country focus exclusively on being a long distance high speed, high quality intercity operator, connecting major cities. Proposals included providing a longer operating day, removing local services from the franchise, speeding-up longer distance trains and serving additional destinations beyond the current network. However, it must be recognised that the scope for substantial change may be limited because of the constraints of the rail network. The Cross Country network crosses many other routes and requires slots at very busy stations 2 Which of the following potential measures do you think could overcome crowding caused by short distance commuters using long distance Cross Country trains, assuming that suitable alternative services are available? a. Removing calls from towns closest to the conurbation centre either completely or just at peak times b. Retaining calls at such stations but restricting them to pick up/set down only c. Removing the validity of local multi-modal tickets on long distance trains d. Other (please suggest). (please use the Annex to help inform your response) Please provide specific instances where these may be applicable. "

The possible suggestions are as follows:

1) Possibly move local services from Birmingham to Leicester and Nottingham to a local service operator
2) East Coast services north of York to Newcastle. There are service constraints with this part of the XC route, where you have due to enhances from TPE where they have two trains per hour from Manchester and LNER extending stopping services from York to Newcastle, this is as well as freight services, which have different speed profiles using the two track area between Northallerton and Newcastle.
3) Extremities of the XC Network as follows:

"West of Plymouth to Penzance: Great Western Railway (GWR) are enhancing service provision by introducing two trains per hour between Plymouth and Penzance from December 2018. This enhancement gives passengers west of Plymouth better journeys and connections. Cross Country services are early in the day eastbound and at the end of the day westbound, and some could potentially be covered by a longer operating day by GWR. (Note that we are not proposing any changes to the Summer Saturday-only services to Newquay).

● ● From Exeter/Newton Abbot to Paignton: GWR is introducing an improved two trains per hour service from Exeter to Paignton in December 2018 with better journey times and connections. Although there was a strong response to a 2016 consultation which proposed a suggested significant cut, a marginal reduction from Torbay may allow a much more regular half hourly Cross Country service from Exeter northbound for passengers to connect into, improving overall connectivity. 6 Should bidders be given flexibility to make limited changes to the extremities to the network so that benefits such as reduced crowding in the centre of the network can be provided? Yes Yes, but only if alternatives are provided No?24 Cross Country Passenger Rail Franchise – Public Consultation

● ● North of Edinburgh to Aberdeen: There are limited services currently to and from Dundee and Aberdeen, with the Dundee service, in particular, providing commuter capacity. It may be possible to reach agreement with Transport Scotland to provide alternative services as their franchise develops in the coming years.

● ● Southampton to Bournemouth: South Western Railway (SWR) runs a frequent service between Southampton and Bournemouth and is proposing extra services on this section, subject to agreement through industry processes.

● ● Guildford: One train each way per day serves Guildford. The local operator GWR provides two trains per hour between Guildford and Reading which connect into Cross Country services throughout the day.

● ● Bath: Cross Country has extended one train a day to start from Bath early in the morning. The local operator GWR provides three fast trains per hour between Bath and Bristol and one to two stopping services per hour, which connect into Cross Country services throughout the day.

● ● Cardiff to Bristol Temple Meads service: Cross Country operates a service from Cardiff to Manchester once a day that currently detours via Bristol Temple Meads and therefore takes a lot longer than either using the Wales and Borders route via Shrewsbury or simply leaving Cardiff later and picking up the same train at Bristol Parkway. It does, though, plug a gap in the standard service pattern between Cardiff and Bristol Temple Meads, and provides an important early morning service from Cardiff, Newport, Severn Tunnel Junction and Patchway to Filton Abbey Wood and Bristol. If this (and the corresponding return service) can be covered by GWR we would look to withdraw it from Cross Country."

Now as stated above, the document was written over 4 years ago as I don't believe that the Guildford service exists anymore. The only times you see XC Voyagers at Guildford is if they travel through Guildford from Eastleigh TRSMD to go to Reading as is happening this Friday at about 05:55.

Depending on the timing, I have found in the past that the early morning XC services from Bournemouth have not been that full much before Basingstoke. I do wonder if a class 170 could be used as a link service from Bournemouth to Reading as a link to a later service. The Voyager that would have been used from Bournemouth could then work in conjunction with the Voyager unit that operates the Reading service.

The document does state that the franchisee, can reduce overcrowding either introduce longer trains where it is affordable and value for money. This could be achieved by the franchise holder redefining the network where other operators are increasing services to allow the use of the existing fleet where demand is highest. They could also be cascading trains from elsewhere on the national network, if they are suitable and available or leasing new trains. They could also reduce the number of passengers using the Cross Country trains for short distance travel into and out of the main conurbations, by reducing the number of short distance passengers where there is Suitable Alternatives.

Now, whoever the franchise holder is going to be there is a need to replace the five High Speed Trains that have 8 coaches each. This point and what future stock Cross Country may have has been discussed in the threads https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/cross-country-hst-withdrawals.244265/ https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/awc-stored-221s-off-to-cross-country.244398/

 

[swt_passenger]

Now as stated above, the document was written over 4 years ago as I don't believe that the Guildford service exists anymore. The only times you see XC Voyagers at Guildford is if they travel through Guildford from Eastleigh TRSMD to go to Reading as is happening this Friday at about 05:55.

Operates on this and every other Friday, and Mon and Wed. It was reduced from daily in the last timetable, but is needed for route knowledge retention irrespective of passenger use, as noted before. But it was proposed for removal from passenger service in the last proper franchise consultation in 2016 anyway.

I think they’d still run via Bath sometimes for diversionary knowledge purposes but I’m not so familiar with what they do long term in the Bristol area.

Then, reverting the ex-Central trains routes to the local operators has been suggested regularly in these forums over the years, I don’t see any significant problems with that, at least it might stop regular suggestions to cascade Voyagers to inappropriate routes.

By the way, you included a link to the PIN, but quoted from the 2018 consultation, would this have been a better link:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/714761/cross-country-passenger-rail-franchise-public-consultation.pdf

 

[RobShipway]

Operates on this and every other Friday, and Mon and Wed. It was reduced from daily in the last timetable, but is needed for route knowledge retention irrespective of passenger use, as noted before. But it was proposed for removal from passenger service in the last proper franchise consultation in 2016 anyway.

I think they’d still run via Bath sometimes for diversionary knowledge purposes but I’m not so familiar with what they do long term in the Bristol area.

Then, reverting the ex-Central trains routes to the local operators has been suggested regularly in these forums over the years, I don’t see any significant problems with that, at least it might stop regular suggestions to cascade Voyagers to inappropriate routes.
By the way, you included a link to the PIN, but quoted from the 2018 consultation, would this have been a better link:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/714761/cross-country-passenger-rail-franchise-public-consultation.pdf

Oops... thanks @swt_passenger.

The ex - Central Trains services I think should be passed to West Midlands Trains. But that is a discussion for another thread.

 

[I'm here now]

Interesting reading as to how changes to the franchise could be made which is from page 20 onwards as follows:

"To improve the service pattern and network to offer journeys that better meet your needs Issues and ideas for your response We understand the importance of Cross Country in moving people around the country, and connecting them to the services of other train operators. Our initial and informal feedback from stakeholders exposed a number of themes including a desire to see Cross Country focus exclusively on being a long distance high speed, high quality intercity operator, connecting major cities. Proposals included providing a longer operating day, removing local services from the franchise, speeding-up longer distance trains and serving additional destinations beyond the current network. However, it must be recognised that the scope for substantial change may be limited because of the constraints of the rail network. The Cross Country network crosses many other routes and requires slots at very busy stations 2 Which of the following potential measures do you think could overcome crowding caused by short distance commuters using long distance Cross Country trains, assuming that suitable alternative services are available? a. Removing calls from towns closest to the conurbation centre either completely or just at peak times b. Retaining calls at such stations but restricting them to pick up/set down only c. Removing the validity of local multi-modal tickets on long distance trains d. Other (please suggest). (please use the Annex to help inform your response) Please provide specific instances where these may be applicable. "

The possible suggestions are as follows:

1) Possibly move local services from Birmingham to Leicester and Nottingham to a local service operator
2) East Coast services north of York to Newcastle. There are service constraints with this part of the XC route, where you have due to enhances from TPE where they have two trains per hour from Manchester and LNER extending stopping services from York to Newcastle, this is as well as freight services, which have different speed profiles using the two track area between Northallerton and Newcastle.
3) Extremities of the XC Network as follows:

"West of Plymouth to Penzance: Great Western Railway (GWR) are enhancing service provision by introducing two trains per hour between Plymouth and Penzance from December 2018. This enhancement gives passengers west of Plymouth better journeys and connections. Cross Country services are early in the day eastbound and at the end of the day westbound, and some could potentially be covered by a longer operating day by GWR. (Note that we are not proposing any changes to the Summer Saturday-only services to Newquay).

● ● From Exeter/Newton Abbot to Paignton: GWR is introducing an improved two trains per hour service from Exeter to Paignton in December 2018 with better journey times and connections. Although there was a strong response to a 2016 consultation which proposed a suggested significant cut, a marginal reduction from Torbay may allow a much more regular half hourly Cross Country service from Exeter northbound for passengers to connect into, improving overall connectivity. 6 Should bidders be given flexibility to make limited changes to the extremities to the network so that benefits such as reduced crowding in the centre of the network can be provided? Yes Yes, but only if alternatives are provided No?24 Cross Country Passenger Rail Franchise – Public Consultation

● ● North of Edinburgh to Aberdeen: There are limited services currently to and from Dundee and Aberdeen, with the Dundee service, in particular, providing commuter capacity. It may be possible to reach agreement with Transport Scotland to provide alternative services as their franchise develops in the coming years.

● ● Southampton to Bournemouth: South Western Railway (SWR) runs a frequent service between Southampton and Bournemouth and is proposing extra services on this section, subject to agreement through industry processes.

● ● Guildford: One train each way per day serves Guildford. The local operator GWR provides two trains per hour between Guildford and Reading which connect into Cross Country services throughout the day.

● ● Bath: Cross Country has extended one train a day to start from Bath early in the morning. The local operator GWR provides three fast trains per hour between Bath and Bristol and one to two stopping services per hour, which connect into Cross Country services throughout the day.

● ● Cardiff to Bristol Temple Meads service: Cross Country operates a service from Cardiff to Manchester once a day that currently detours via Bristol Temple Meads and therefore takes a lot longer than either using the Wales and Borders route via Shrewsbury or simply leaving Cardiff later and picking up the same train at Bristol Parkway. It does, though, plug a gap in the standard service pattern between Cardiff and Bristol Temple Meads, and provides an important early morning service from Cardiff, Newport, Severn Tunnel Junction and Patchway to Filton Abbey Wood and Bristol. If this (and the corresponding return service) can be covered by GWR we would look to withdraw it from Cross Country."

Now as stated above, the document was written over 4 years ago as I don't believe that the Guildford service exists anymore. The only times you see XC Voyagers at Guildford is if they travel through Guildford from Eastleigh TRSMD to go to Reading as is happening this Friday at about 05:55.

Depending on the timing, I have found in the past that the early morning XC services from Bournemouth have not been that full much before Basingstoke. I do wonder if a class 170 could be used as a link service from Bournemouth to Reading as a link to a later service. The Voyager that would have been used from Bournemouth could then work in conjunction with the Voyager unit that operates the Reading service.

The document does state that the franchisee, can reduce overcrowding either introduce longer trains where it is affordable and value for money. This could be achieved by the franchise holder redefining the network where other operators are increasing services to allow the use of the existing fleet where demand is highest. They could also be cascading trains from elsewhere on the national network, if they are suitable and available or leasing new trains. They could also reduce the number of passengers using the Cross Country trains for short distance travel into and out of the main conurbations, by reducing the number of short distance passengers where there is Suitable Alternatives.

Now, whoever the franchise holder is going to be there is a need to replace the five High Speed Trains that have 8 coaches each. This point and what future stock Cross Country may have has been discussed in the threads https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/cross-country-hst-withdrawals.244265/ https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/awc-stored-221s-off-to-cross-country.244398/

There used to be more services extending to Cornwall, now it’s just the Waverley service. I used to see services to Birmingham as well. Now I have to use the majority GWR services instead the more comfy XC ones

 

[RobShipway]

There used to be more services extending to Cornwall, now it’s just the Waverley service. I used to see services to Birmingham as well. Now I have to use the majority GWR services instead the more comfy XC ones

I remember times back in the 1970's/80's/90's when you could only travel on the Inter-City services if you where travelling as an example Penzance to Birmingham and if you where travelling to Penzance to Exeter, then you would have to travel on the BR local services. Now, I am not sure how you would do that with the travelling public in the 21st Century, whereby there is probably twice the amount of people that is wanting to travel between Penzance to Exeter by train, than there was back in the 20th Century.

Now the fact that you see the Waverley service is at least something, as many places like Brighton, have long since had XC services taken away from them, such that they have to travel by Thameslink, or Gatwick Express to London and travel across London to get a train to Birmingham. Yes, it is a quicker option than the XC services which used to go via Reading/Oxford route to Coventry and Birmingham, but you only had one train. Now, it is such with the amount of services with Thameslink, Gatwick Express and Southern local services that you would not be able to fit into any timetable any XC service to finish/start to/from Brighton. The other issue is that there was not really the demand there to be keeping the XC services from Brighton, as there is more of a demand for people to commute locally and to London. The same I believe is happening in Cornwall, with GWR upping the amount of services that they provide to enable people to better commute through Cornwall and Devon.

When I look at Real Time trains, you do have the following XC services from Penzance:

06:28 Service to Edingburgh
08:37 Service to Edingburgh
20:47 Service from Edingburgh
21:35 Service from Aberdeen

In between the above services is there is movements from and to Penzance T&RSMD.

It would be good if cities/towns such as Portsmouth, Brighton, Eastbourne, Ashford International, Folkstone, Dover, Norwich, Cleethorpes all had similar covering from XC. But it will never happen, as the requirement for local commuter services or services where people can travel to London is greater than people travelling to say Coventry or Birmingham.

Not sure how you would do it, but I do think that the Department of Transport should send a survey where they have mobile phone/email contact details for motorists each year to find out where they have travelled too in their vehicles each year. From this you would have a better idea where bus services and train services are needed both locally and nationally each year.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I remember times back in the 1970's/80's/90's when you could only travel on the Inter-City services if you where travelling as an example Penzance to Birmingham and if you where travelling to Penzance to Exeter, then you would have to travel on the BR local services. Now, I am not sure how you would do that with the travelling public in the 21st Century, whereby there is probably twice the amount of people that is wanting to travel between Penzance to Exeter by train, than there was back in the 20th Century.

One of the suggestions in the linked article is to remove the validity of the Birmingham area integrated tickets on CrossCountry services. That's the norm in many countries e.g. Germany. Higher priced point to point tickets could still be offered, again as per Germany.

 

[Mamorin]

Our initial and informal feedback from stakeholders exposed a number of themes including a desire to see Cross Country focus exclusively on being a long distance high speed, high quality intercity operator, connecting major cities. Proposals included providing a longer operating day, removing local services from the franchise, speeding-up longer distance trains and serving additional destinations beyond the current network.

If this happens then it confirms that the XC network will remain as it is with smaller stations not getting their XC services back…. Or it could meen cut backs elsewhere depends on if XC becomes an AWC just for Scotland and the South East.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't help but giggle at the idea of anything to do with Arriva ever being "high quality".

I'd certainly like XC to be high quality, but it's nothing of the sort at the moment.

 

[Mamorin]

Have Arriva ever been high quality? A much higher quality XC would be better yes, also an XC that does not break its promises would be nice too.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Down to just 6.5 weeks until XC current contract expires on 15th October.

The lack of announcement so far means either new organisation is going to have to leap into action very fast, or going to get another wishy washy benefits no one, carry on muddling through extension.

Any extension rather makes last December tender for 4 year contract (extendable to upto 8 years) pointless

No, it’s exactly the point. It wasn’t a tender - it was a PIN for a Direct Award (DA), in other words an extension.

The procedure for a DA is that the existing operator has to price up what the DfT wants to operate over the lifetime of the DA contract period. To keep them honest, OLR usually has to do the same. They are the only two entities who have a chance of operating the contract - it isn’t an open competition.

If the price is right, the existing owning group gets the gig. That price can change during the process, using the DfT’s own estimate of what it should cost. There is discussion between the parties - it’s not a winning bidder takes all situation, like a franchise. A DA is usually announced very close to the start date, with some political spin to sell it to the public as a good deal.

If the existing Owning Group and the DfT can’t agree (which is unlikely for an NRC as it is basically free money for the Owning Group), OLR would take over but that isn’t going to make too much of a change as they will just appoint a couple of people to the existing TOC Board and maybe change one or two of the Execs - the existing TOC management will stay the same.

A word about bidding. It’s been dead for years and the UK rail bidding teams were all disbanded. The next real UK rail competition is likely to one of the TfL contracts.

 

[Mamorin]

So everything will stay the same as it is now with no improvements to anything until XC moves on to a TFL style contract. (If those TFL style contracts ever exist that is).

 

[The Planner]

So everything will stay the same as it is now with no improvements to anything until XC moves on to a TFL style contract. (If those TFL style contracts ever exist that is).

It will likely get worse before it improves again.