Cross Country Voyagers - rear set locked out of use?

[londonmidland]

I’ve been on a number of Cross Country services which have been formed of a double Voyager, however, more recently, there has been an increasingly common occurrence of where the rear set has been locked out of use, due to lack of train crew.

For Southbound services, it’s usually after Newcastle where they make everyone cram into the front set, which can often only be formed of 4 coaches and lead to big overcrowding issues.

Have Cross Country always required both sets to be staffed by Train Managers?

 

[Deafdoggie]

I’ve been on a number of Cross Country services which have been formed of a double Voyager, however, more recently, there has been an increasingly common occurrence of where the rear set has been locked out of use, due to lack of train crew.

For Southbound services, it’s usually after Newcastle where they make everyone cram into the front set, which can often only be formed of 4 coaches and lead to big overcrowding issues.

Have Cross Country always required both sets to be staffed by Train Managers?

They used to have a Train Manager in one set & Retail Services Manager in the other. But they're short on RSMs now, which will explain the set not being in service.

 

[dk1]

Rules have changed recently according to XC replies on Twitter.

 

[PP57601]

06:25 Plymouth - Edinburgh is booked a double set as far as Bristol TM (rear set then detached to form a subsequent service to Manchester).
Quite often the rear set is locked out of use if there isn’t a second Train Manager available that morning.

 

[voyagerdude220]

06:25 Plymouth - Edinburgh is booked a double set as far as Bristol TM (rear set then detached to form a subsequent service to Manchester).
Quite often the rear set is locked out of use if there isn’t a second Train Manager available that morning.

That's not been the case since the timetable change. A different 220/221 comes off the shed at Bristol Temple Meads to form the Manchester. The 06:25 from Plymouth is now a single set throughout.

 

[paulmch]

Is there some feature of the Voyagers that means the driver can't act as the competent person in the front portion? That's always been good enough for the 170s in the XC fleet.

 

[AJDesiro]

I find this baffling… When Avanti had 221s they only required one guard for a double set. In fact, the last ever 221 service only had a driver and a guard, and both sets were open. Why does XC have such a rule if it’s not an issue on other TOCs? It’s baffling!

(Having said that, a TM locked out the rear 5 cars on an 805, I overheard him talking about it saying he was “fed up” with people and that it “is booked as a 5 anyway”)

 

[Carlisle]

Rules have changed recently according to XC replies on Twitter.

I don’t think there’s any industry wide rules requiring a staff member in every set but as others have said previously on this subject it might’ve become TOC policy at some point as part of a local union agreement.

 

[Snow1964]

I don’t think there’s any industry wide rules stipulating a staff member in every set but as others have said previously it might be TOC policy as part of a local union agreement.

And it seems to be the agreement is to lock out rear unit, even if that is a 5car and the front only a shorter 4car.

Of course in a sane world if going to provide 8 or 9 coaches, wouldn't write an agreement to utilise just 44-56% of the train.

 

[dk1]

I don’t think there’s any industry wide rules requiring a staff member in every set but as others have said previously on this subject it might’ve become TOC policy at some point as part of a local union agreement.

We don't have to have a staff member in every unit at my TOC. In regard to XC this is what the ‘X’ guys replied in a tweet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We don't have to have a staff member in every unit at my TOC. In regard to XC this is what the ‘X’ guys replied in a tweet.

Generally the DOO TOCs don't require it - Chiltern certainly doesn't. I wonder will GBR move to a uniform policy?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Rules have changed recently according to XC replies on Twitter.

I wonder why. TM in the rear set and RSM in the front set always used to be good enough.

They’re short of units so they drag them across the country empty. The mind boggles.

 

[Carlisle]

Generally the DOO TOCs don't require it - Chiltern certainly doesn't. I wonder will GBR move to a uniform policy?

Anything controversial will likely be shelved as Labour isn’t going to want the time between GBRs launch & the next election riddled with disputes & strikes.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

EMR have this rule on their 222 fleet, but not any other traction type.

A suitably safety trained first class customer host can be the person in the other unit. Occasionally an off duty manager, director etc or someone travelling to a meeting etc will step up, obviously in the correct way.

It's magically all ok through with multiple 170s coupled!

Most of these "rules" and "agreements" are relics of when drivers would need to leave the train to use a signal post telephone or around a guard not being able to reset a passcom alarm in the other unit without walking along track, potentially with 125mph running lines. Some, more pragmatic TOCs, understand that the driver can do this instead, from their unit, whereas at other TOCs, that would be seen as reducing the role of a guard.

Somewhat contrasts with Lumo running 125mph InterCity express services, completely DOO. Although they have a "ambassador" on board with an limited appreciation of the on-board systems and track safety, the safety case which these trains run on is pure DOO.

 

[John R]

Rules have changed recently according to XC replies on Twitter.

Could you provide a link please?

 

[800001]

EMR have this rule on their 222 fleet, but not any other traction type.

A suitably safety trained first class customer host can be the person in the other unit. Occasionally an off duty manager, director etc or someone travelling to a meeting etc will step up, obviously in the correct way.

It's magically all ok through with multiple 170s coupled!

Most of these "rules" and "agreements" are relics of when drivers would need to leave the train to use a signal post telephone or around a guard not being able to reset a passcom alarm in the other unit without walking along track, potentially with 125mph running lines. Some, more pragmatic TOCs, understand that the driver can do this instead, from their unit, whereas at other TOCs, that would be seen as reducing the role of a guard.

Somewhat contrasts with Lumo running 125mph InterCity express services, completely DOO. Although they have a "ambassador" on board with a limited appreciation of the on-board systems and track safety, the safety case which these trains run on is pure DOO.

Lumo Ambassadors are fully training in door operation of the trains, and can despatch if required, eg if degraded working (catch failure).

 

[GordonT]

Whatever the whys and wherefores of rules and agreements it must be one of the most extreme examples of appalling customer service to taunt your passengers on an overcrowded train by dangling an additional unit in front of their noses which they are prevented from using. Also, as others have pointed out, a complete waste of a scarce resource. Warrants something similar to the "Fiennes apology", referred to in a different thread, from when he once insisted on going on the PA at Kings Cross and announcing: "this (delay) was caused by management incompetence".

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Lumo Ambassadors are fully training in door operation of the trains, and can despatch if required, eg if degraded working (catch failure).

Yes, but there's no requirement for them to even be there in the Lumo safety case. The train can run without them being on-board, albeit it's an issue if something breaks and they need degraded working.

 

[sheff1]

Whatever the whys and wherefores of rules and agreements it must be one of the most extreme examples of appalling customer service to taunt your passengers on an overcrowded train by dangling an additional unit in front of their noses which they are prevented from using.

Especially so when announcements are made that the train about to arrive is formed of 8/9 coaches, when the rear set has been locked out since at least the previous stop.

Leeds are masters at this tactic which causes delays in departure waiting for those who have spread along the platform to make their way down (many only after much shouting and a good number all trying to get in through the rear door of the front unit).

 

[43066]

And it seems to be the agreement is to lock out rear unit, even if that is a 5car and the front only a shorter 4car.

Of course in a sane world if going to provide 8 or 9 coaches, wouldn't write an agreement to utilise just 44-56% of the train.

Or you’d simply use fully gangwayed units, or you’d provide the necessary staff, in line with the relevant agreements.

The fundamental issue is that agreements of this nature need to be honoured from both sides, and can’t just be ignored when convenient.

EMR have this rule on their 222 fleet, but not any other traction type.

A suitably safety trained first class customer host can be the person in the other unit. Occasionally an off duty manager, director etc or someone travelling to a meeting etc will step up, obviously in the correct way.

Correct. It’s a bit of a fudge but at least allows passcoms etc. to be reset.

Most of these "rules" and "agreements" are relics of when drivers would need to leave the train to use a signal post telephone or around a guard not being able to reset a passcom alarm in the other unit without walking along track, potentially with 125mph running lines. Some, more pragmatic TOCs, understand that the driver can do this instead, from their unit, whereas at other TOCs, that would be seen as reducing the role of a guard.

Drivers cannot reset passcoms or egresses from the cab. They can merely override them temporarily. Hence there is still likely going to be a need for someone to walk back along the ballast which introduces risk and disruption if a line block is required.

 

[GordonT]

Especially so when announcements are made that the train about to arrive is formed of 8/9 coaches, when the rear set has been locked out since at least the previous stop.

Which in a wider retail context could fall foul of legislation forbidding a seller from making a false statement of fact, otherwise known as misrepresentation.

 

[dk1]

Generally the DOO TOCs don't require it - Chiltern certainly doesn't. I wonder will GBR move to a uniform policy?

I think that will all depend if the unions are onboard. Never had to have a crew member in 170s when we ran them in multiple but we could not operate them as DOO if more than one. These days our 755s can operate with no crew members in the rear units and can operate DOO as long as certain agreed criteria are applied.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jun 2025 ==

Could you provide a link please?

Unfortunately not as it would mean trawling through Twitter over the last few weeks. Apologies.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Could you provide a link please?

XC Post 1
XC Post 2

 

[RPI]

GWR have "lead hosts" who are the member of staff in a double IET set. Basically, a grade of customer host. That said, Ticket Examiners and RPI's can also be used for this (I've had many a rest day work in the early days of IET's for this lol).

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Why are XC short of RSMs at the moment? Sounds a bit like the arrangement GWR use with ‘Front Set Lead’ role being fulfilled by a safety-competent customer host on a 10-car formation.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

XC Post 1
XC Post 2

How odd, both posts are from last year so it's hardly a "recent" change.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Indeed. Some other posts seem to mention that a defective unit may be conveyed by a running passenger unit to a set place where it can be detached and serviced. I just assume its XC policy rather than safety specfic rule by the Rulebook.
XC Unit Convey

How odd, both posts are from last year so it's hardly a "recent" change.

Infact this seems to be from 2021: XC Post 3

Hi Liam. Unfortunately, we have locked the rear 4 coaches out of use due to staff shortage. ^EW

 

[dk1]

XC Post 1
XC Post 2

You have to love Cross Country’s blunt honesty

 

[amahy]

This seems like a complete p**s take from XC, many other TOCs are running double, even triple units with no corridor connections between them. If they can, why can't XC?

 

[dmncf]

I was in the front set of a 9-car CrossCountry service to Penzance, at Easter, hence it was overcrowded as you would expect.
On the approach to Birmingham New Street the train manager warned that the rear set would be locked out of use from Birmingham New Street onwards because he thought there would not be staff member available to cover it from there onwards, but after arrival and passengers relocating from rear set to front set, a staff member did unexpectedly turn up and the rear set remained in use.
When already at Bristol Temple Meads the train manager unexpectedly announced that the the rear set would be locked out of use, and this time it did happen and the rear set remained locked out of use for the remainder of the journey.

A different query while I am posting: I have made a few CrossCountry journeys on horribly overcrowded 5-car trains where it would be impossible to offer the catering trolley service, but there has been no announcement about catering, and certainly no attempt to offer a static service. Realtime Trains does show that there should have been a catering service. Are the catering staff on board, or do they get excused from boarding when it's too overcrowded?