Crosscountry- can someone explain the madness?

[Meyrick]

XC 221/220 availability is a little stretched due to ASLEF's overtime agreement expiring. As a result, less drivers are available to work HST sets and therefore 221/220's have been put in their place. This was certainly the agreement earlier in the year, I am not sure if they have reached an agreement yet.

As for Avanti 221's coming off lease, I wonder if they'll go to CrossCountry - considering they still have the Avanti/VT spec of a shop in the middle and bicycle spaces behind the drivers cab it would either have to be refitted or leased out in the current spec.

 

[cactustwirly]

No, it didn't. It didn't work because, quite simply, there was overall a reduction in capacity. If you make something better (and in principle Princess was better, much better) and you reduce its capacity, what do you think is going to happen?

The business model was flawed in that it didn't allow suitably long trains to be obtained. Really, the Voyagers needed to be 7-car, or there needed to be enough of them for a lot more doubling up.



The Voyager interior is certainly badly designed, and something with a layout more like the 170 (or actually 170s) would have been better.



Nobody "loses" franchises in that way (bar where they are removed for misconduct, e.g. Southeastern). Either he didn't bid, or Arriva bid better, I forget.



Yes, this is a problem.



Yes, I'd agree there needs to be a review of XC and who it is meant to serve, probably involving a reduction in its frequency and the addition of a load of long, doors at thirds local services for the local traffic in the paths.



If all the AWC Voyagers don't go to XC then the world is mad. There are probably enough of them to both bin the (poorly utilised) HSTs and double up the services that need it.

(I expect the world to be proven to be mad )

The whole problem is that the Voyagers are fundamentally flawed trains and completely unsuitable for anything.
They are very inefficient in terms of operating costs and also space. The seating capacity is woefully bad, and so is the luggage storage. The passenger experience on them is very average as well.

The only way to improve XC is to scrap the Voyagers and start again with a complete fleet of bi mode 802s

 

[iainbhx]

I get the 0653 Birmingham to Manchester Piccadilly service every Wednesday and it used to be a double but has recently been a single (the service arrives into New Street ECS with other 220/221s that form the Edinburgh service). Similarly, the 1827 return service was a single (to Reading) but has recently turned up as a double (to Bournemouth)

I get it most Mondays from New Street to Crewe, this week it was a single four coach unit as it was three weeks ago. When I got off it was looking reasonably well loaded.

 

[GoneSouth]

I realise I'm going to be lynched for saying this, so I'll pop my head over the parapet briefly, then hide!
I quite like the voyagers, there only failure is being too ridiculously short. If they were all 12 cars there would be no problem for me. Obviously noone is going to fund that, so we're stuck where we are with the worst of all worlds. They can (over)fill the trains several times over, so don't have a need for cheap fares. But then passengers feel the journey experience is worse because they've paid more. But if they did cheap fares, imagine how many more people would travel.
I don't remember it being all rosy before voyagers. Sporadic services on short journeys is what I remember. Not a regular hourly long journey. Going Manchester to Birmingham every couple of hours and an odd one or two to Coventry or Poole isn't better than hourly to Bournemouth. HSTs were much shorter than the trains they replaced, so they shortened those too!

I have similar memories. Trains terminating at York in the middle of the day instead of going further north to Newcastle, Leeds to Brum was only about 6/7 trains per day (and I did have to stand occasionally), Manchester to Brum with whatever electric commuter emu they could get their hands on rather than proper intercity coaches. There were buffet cars, much earlier starts so you do Bristol to Manchester by 0830 and you didn’t have to sell a kidney to afford a ticket before 0930.

It was basic… but FUN

York to Swansea was a fav memory from the 80s, olde world wooden panelling, fresh air whenever you felt like opening your window, no Diesel engine racket under every seat… those were the days!

Would I go back? No. The frequent timetable was a breath of fresh air and ended nonsense like 3 hour gaps in services between Leeds and Birmingham (which to be fair you could also avoid if you were prepared to catch the all stops DMU to Sheffield and change onto a Newcastle/York/Doncaster Brum, which I wasnt ).

The sooner XC get a kick up the bum to restore the pre covid timetable the better.

You reckon?

Given there's a 0955 to Paddington just 12 minutes before the Cross Country service I fully expect the majority are specifically waiting for the latter service.

True, but at least on the occasions I have used this service, the 4/5 car is doubled up to another unit at Plymouth, so hopefully the Plymouth passengers are all comfortably in their seats before you arrive!

 

[Grecian 1998]

From a political perspective, XC has two major problems:

1. It doesn't serve London, meaning most MPs don't generally use it themselves.

2. It isn't associated with a specific geographical area, meaning MPs / Mayors don't feel the need to demand better services to show they're championing their region's interests.

There have been complaints of overcrowding on the 'classic' XC routes i.e. those worked by Voyagers and (since 2007) HSTs, ever since Operation Princess 20 years ago in 2002. The steps which have been taken to alleviate overcrowding in this time can largely be described as follows:

2003: Cutting routes significantly, removing Liverpool, Poole etc. This was as much for reliability reasons as overcrowding IIRC. Not popular with the places taken off the XC map, but a good decision overall, albeit any reduction in overcrowding was modest. Liverpudlians might disagree, but I'd say they were a winner in getting a far better service to Birmingham.

2007: The franchise passed to Aviva, who brought in 5 HSTs... and then spent most of the week only running 2 of them, as they were more expensive to operate than Voyagers. More recently there have been times when none of them are running to save cost.

There was however an improvement on routes XC had been running - but these were the services along the northern section of the WCML, which became operated by Pendolinos or 10 coach Voyagers. Changing at Birmingham isn't ideal if you want to travel from the SW towards Preston but at least overcrowding generally isn't an issue.

2016: A consultation on reducing services at the periphery e.g. cutting Paignton services to 1 tpd on weekdays and terminating the Aberdeen - Penzance train at Birmingham. In return XC would be able to increase capacity in the core - 8 vice 5 carriages on some services and 5 vice 4 on others, as well as running Manchester - Bristol services through to Exeter. Seemed like a good idea to me. However the places which would lose out complained vociferously and the plan was scaled back to just running some afternoon Manchester services on to Exeter.

2017: XC took two stored Voyager driving sets from VT and created 3 x 4 221s from 2 x 5 221s. An extra 70 seats.

... And IIRC that's basically it. You now have a situation where a large group of trains which are only suitable for XC will soon be available, allowing them to increase frequency and capacity - and yet no-one has any confidence that XC will actually get hold of any of them. It's cheaper for XC and the DfT not to use them, so why bother? The last 20 years has indicated no-one who matters politically will complain.

I suspect that XC will be allowed enough 221s to retire the HSTs, but there may be a lack of enthusiasm for hiring any more than what they and the DfT assess to be the bare minimum. It probably won't tally with many other people's view of that target.

 

[GoneSouth]

The whole problem is that the Voyagers are fundamentally flawed trains and completely unsuitable for anything.
They are very inefficient in terms of operating costs and also space. The seating capacity is woefully bad, and so is the luggage storage. The passenger experience on them is very average as well.

The only way to improve XC is to scrap the Voyagers and start again with a complete fleet of bi mode 802s

Completely disagree, Voyagers are far more comfortable than 80x units., but both sadly have engines throbbing underneath you (when not under wires in the case of 80x). Seats, lights that aren’t blindingly bright and smoothness of ride are far superior on the Voyager

 

[class397tpe]

I have similar memories. Trains terminating at York in the middle of the day instead of going further north to Newcastle, Leeds to Brum was only about 6/7 trains per day (and I did have to stand occasionally), Manchester to Brum with whatever electric commuter emu they could get their hands on rather than proper intercity coaches. There were buffet cars, much earlier starts so you do Bristol to Manchester by 0830 and you didn’t have to sell a kidney to afford a ticket before 0930.

It was basic… but FUN

York to Swansea was a fav memory from the 80s, olde world wooden panelling, fresh air whenever you felt like opening your window, no Diesel engine racket under every seat… those were the days!

Would I go back? No. The frequent timetable was a breath of fresh air and ended nonsense like 3 hour gaps in services between Leeds and Birmingham (which to be fair you could also avoid if you were prepared to catch the all stops DMU to Sheffield and change onto a Newcastle/York/Doncaster Brum, which I wasnt ).

The sooner XC get a kick up the bum to restore the pre covid timetable the better.


True, but at least on the occasions I have used this service, the 4/5 car is doubled up to another unit at Plymouth, so hopefully the Plymouth passengers are all comfortably in their seats before you arrive!

Yep! They certainly do need a kick :P
I did calculate in another thread that if they wanted a capacity uplift, taking on all the Avanti 221s and EMR 222s would be the near perfect number of units to run the pre-covid timetable with ~95% of services doubled up.

Completely disagree, Voyagers are far more comfortable than 80x units., but both sadly have engines throbbing underneath you (when not under wires in the case of 80x). Seats, lights that aren’t blindingly bright and smoothness of ride are far superior on the Voyager

A lightly-loaded voyager is more comfortable I agree, especially with the lighting. However I'd take a heavily-loaded 80x over a heavily-loaded voyager any day - the profile designed for tilting inside a voyager makes it feel so much more cramped and claustrophobic than an 80x when its full and standing.

 

[cactustwirly]

Completely disagree, Voyagers are far more comfortable than 80x units., but both sadly have engines throbbing underneath you (when not under wires in the case of 80x). Seats, lights that aren’t blindingly bright and smoothness of ride are far superior on the Voyager

I completely disagree, the 802s are much better trains. The engines are quieter and there are significantly more seats in a 892 than a 22x.
Stuff like seats can be specced differently.
Like first group and the Lumo units

 

[py_megapixel]

Completely disagree, Voyagers are far more comfortable than 80x units., but both sadly have engines throbbing underneath you (when not under wires in the case of 80x). Seats, lights that aren’t blindingly bright and smoothness of ride are far superior on the Voyager

You might think that the seating on a Voyager is comfortable, but that's only the case if you are short and not carrying any substantial luggage. In contrast to a Voyager, the layout and profile of the 80x carriages does afford tons of legroom and enormous overhead racks, so you don't feel crammed in by either the seat in front being too close or having to keep your bags by your feet. The choice of rigid seats with poor economics is a massive error of specification (someone probably thought they could save a few quid and nobody would notice), but isn't an inherent flaw with the 80x series, as demonstrated by the specification of different seats in the Lumo and East Midlands units.

The engines on 80x are quiet. One can barely tell that you're in diesel mode, especially in the trailer carriages.

 

[Starmill]

From a political perspective, XC has two major problems:

1. It doesn't serve London, meaning most MPs don't generally use it themselves.

2. It isn't associated with a specific geographical area, meaning MPs / Mayors don't feel the need to demand better services to show they're championing their region's interests.

There have been complaints of overcrowding on the 'classic' XC routes i.e. those worked by Voyagers and (since 2007) HSTs, ever since Operation Princess 20 years ago in 2002. The steps which have been taken to alleviate overcrowding in this time can largely be described as follows:

2003: Cutting routes significantly, removing Liverpool, Poole etc. This was as much for reliability reasons as overcrowding IIRC. Not popular with the places taken off the XC map, but a good decision overall, albeit any reduction in overcrowding was modest. Liverpudlians might disagree, but I'd say they were a winner in getting a far better service to Birmingham.

2007: The franchise passed to Aviva, who brought in 5 HSTs... and then spent most of the week only running 2 of them, as they were more expensive to operate than Voyagers. More recently there have been times when none of them are running to save cost.

There was however an improvement on routes XC had been running - but these were the services along the northern section of the WCML, which became operated by Pendolinos or 10 coach Voyagers. Changing at Birmingham isn't ideal if you want to travel from the SW towards Preston but at least overcrowding generally isn't an issue.

2016: A consultation on reducing services at the periphery e.g. cutting Paignton services to 1 tpd on weekdays and terminating the Aberdeen - Penzance train at Birmingham. In return XC would be able to increase capacity in the core - 8 vice 5 carriages on some services and 5 vice 4 on others, as well as running Manchester - Bristol services through to Exeter. Seemed like a good idea to me. However the places which would lose out complained vociferously and the plan was scaled back to just running some afternoon Manchester services on to Exeter.

2017: XC took two stored Voyager driving sets from VT and created 3 x 4 221s from 2 x 5 221s. An extra 70 seats.

... And IIRC that's basically it. You now have a situation where a large group of trains which are only suitable for XC will soon be available, allowing them to increase frequency and capacity - and yet no-one has any confidence that XC will actually get hold of any of them. It's cheaper for XC and the DfT not to use them, so why bother? The last 20 years has indicated no-one who matters politically will complain.

I suspect that XC will be allowed enough 221s to retire the HSTs, but there may be a lack of enthusiasm for hiring any more than what they and the DfT assess to be the bare minimum. It probably won't tally with many other people's view of that target.

I believe that CrossCountry gained a sixth pair of power cars in 2020, such that they now could increase availability to four out of the five sets on some days of the week if necessary. Of course this hasn't actually come to pass.

I agree with your comment that the HST sets are likely to be withdrawn before too long and this is likely to be the quid pro quo for further Voyager trains.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The whole problem is that the Voyagers are fundamentally flawed trains and completely unsuitable for anything.
They are very inefficient in terms of operating costs and also space. The seating capacity is woefully bad, and so is the luggage storage. The passenger experience on them is very average as well.

The only way to improve XC is to scrap the Voyagers and start again with a complete fleet of bi mode 802s

I always enjoy a Voyager journey over a long distance, the issue is they need to be doubles or its not feasible. Yesterday’s journey from Sheffield to Gloucester was exceptionally pleasant because it was a 8 carriage service. The 4/5 carriages are by contrast dire in the peaks, as I know you understand very well from taking them regularly out of Reading as I do.

They need a good refurbishment a la Avanti’s, and the support of the twenty West Coast ones coming over, and to run all services in pairs, or at least as many as possible. Then, I think it would be fine.

It will be madness not to send 142 and 143 over now.

 

[GoneSouth]

I completely disagree, the 802s are much better trains. The engines are quieter and there are significantly more seats in a 892 than a 22x.
Stuff like seats can be specced differently.
Like first group and the Lumo units

But the seats on a brand new 80x will never be changed so (to me) the voyager will always be a more comfortable ride and as a passenger that’s what matters to me and makes it a better train. I’m not saying technology on the 800s isn’t better, they are superbly impressive when you see the acceleration from standing, BUT they are bloody horrid to sit on for 4 hours

 

[py_megapixel]

But the seats on a brand new 80x will never be changed so (to me) the voyager will always be a more comfortable ride and as a passenger that’s what matters to me and makes it a better train. I’m not saying technology on the 800s isn’t better, they are superbly impressive when you see the acceleration from standing, BUT they are bloody horrid to sit on for 4 hours

I don't find them any more uncomfortable than a park bench. I know you wouldn't exactly want to sit on a park bench for 4 hours if you could avoid it, and it's certainly not the benchmark we should be using for new train seat design, but I wouldn't exactly describe it as "bloody horrid".

In constrast, I find Voyagers considerably less comfortable than a park bench, because in a park I wouldn't have to cram my legs against the seat in front!

 

[class397tpe]

I don't find them any more uncomfortable than a park bench. I know you wouldn't exactly want to sit on a park bench for 4 hours if you could avoid it, and it's certainly not the benchmark we should be using for new train seat design, but I wouldn't exactly describe it as "bloody horrid".

In constrast, I find Voyagers considerably less comfortable than a park bench, because in a park I wouldn't have to cram my legs against the seat in front!

I definitely prefer the voyager seats for sitting in... but the profile makes it impossible to get a laptop out, unlike the 80x with extendable tray tables and much thinner seats.

 

[gc4946]

I have similar memories. Trains terminating at York in the middle of the day instead of going further north to Newcastle, Leeds to Brum was only about 6/7 trains per day (and I did have to stand occasionally), Manchester to Brum with whatever electric commuter emu they could get their hands on rather than proper intercity coaches. There were buffet cars, much earlier starts so you do Bristol to Manchester by 0830 and you didn’t have to sell a kidney to afford a ticket before 0930.

It was basic… but FUN

York to Swansea was a fav memory from the 80s, olde world wooden panelling, fresh air whenever you felt like opening your window, no Diesel engine racket under every seat… those were the days!

Would I go back? No. The frequent timetable was a breath of fresh air and ended nonsense like 3 hour gaps in services between Leeds and Birmingham (which to be fair you could also avoid if you were prepared to catch the all stops DMU to Sheffield and change onto a Newcastle/York/Doncaster Brum, which I wasnt ).

The sooner XC get a kick up the bum to restore the pre covid timetable the better.


True, but at least on the occasions I have used this service, the 4/5 car is doubled up to another unit at Plymouth, so hopefully the Plymouth passengers are all comfortably in their seats before you arrive!

I too remember travelling between Bournemouth and Birmingham New Street in the late 80s, and in the early 90s between Leeds and Bristol.
However the Voyagers should have been at least six cars long, the demand generated from Virgin's revamp meant they were soon overwhelmed.
I can't see DfT authorising new trains soon so XC will have to cope with doubled up Voyagers.

 

[JonathanH]

However the Voyagers should have been at least six cars long, the demand generated from Virgin's revamp meant they were soon overwhelmed.

One of the problems with longer trains is that some of the planning for the original timetable relied on the use of short platforms that had hitherto not been used for CrossCountry services - eg Reading platforms 3 / 7, Doncaster platform 3b, the bays at Newcastle, half platforms at Birmingham New Street etc.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I too remember travelling between Bournemouth and Birmingham New Street in the late 80s, and in the early 90s between Leeds and Bristol.
However the Voyagers should have been at least six cars long, the demand generated from Virgin's revamp meant they were soon overwhelmed.
I can't see DfT authorising new trains soon so XC will have to cope with doubled up Voyagers.

One of the problems with longer trains is that some of the planning for the original timetable relied on the use of short platforms that had hitherto not been used for CrossCountry services - eg Reading platforms 3 / 7, Doncaster platform 3b, the bays at Newcastle, half platforms at Birmingham New Street etc.

Double sets would also be too long. Twelve 23m wouldn’t fit at most places.

 

[class 9]

I am a bit hazy, Didn't Aslef pull the rest day work agreement, re-instate it and then XC said they wouldn't agree to Reatday working?

If I am right then the traveling public have less trains causing over crowing due to industrial action by the company and most probably the Dft have sanctioned it?

ASLEF didn't pull the rest day working agreement, it expired.
A verbal agreement was agreed for a new one,but when it went to senior management, the response was no. Whether this was as directed by the DfT, who knows? They have stated they've no involvement in day to day running of TOCs.

 

[Western Sunset]

My take on all this.
The idea of short, but more frequent trains was a flawed concept right from the start. Might work on suburban services, but not on long-distance traffic, where the previous trains had been double the length. I understand the idea was in trying to spread the load, but people are creatures of habit and if they finish work at 5pm they want to get a train around then, not spread themselves for the benefit of the rail operator.
Whilst the idea of joining the shorter trains to provide longer ones at peak times sounded appealing, with no corridor connection between the two there was always going to be increased staffing costs to consider too.

 

[Bald Rick]

ASLEF didn't pull the rest day working agreement, it expired.
A verbal agreement was agreed for a new one…

was it on the same terms as the previous one?

 

[Buffer stop]

ASLEF didn't pull the rest day working agreement, it expired.
A verbal agreement was agreed for a new one,but when it went to senior management, the response was no. Whether this was as directed by the DfT, who knows? They have stated they've no involvement in day to day running of TOCs.

ASLEF wanted £100 Booking on payment for a new deal.. same as Avanti have. DFT said no thank you.

 

[Goldfish62]

ASLEF wanted £100 Booking on payment for a new deal.. same as Avanti have. DFT said no thank you.

I'm not surprised!!!

 

[JonathanH]

ASLEF wanted £100 Booking on payment for a new deal.. same as Avanti have. DFT said no thank you.

Is a 'booking on payment' as simple in concept as it sounds or only payable in certain circumstances?

 

[Buffer stop]

Simple, you book on for a rest day you get the £100.

Avanti have had it for a while, they won't pull rest days as they know they will never get the same deal back.

 

[Parallel]

From a political perspective, XC has two major problems:

1. It doesn't serve London, meaning most MPs don't generally use it themselves.

2. It isn't associated with a specific geographical area, meaning MPs / Mayors don't feel the need to demand better services to show they're championing their region's interests.

I think this is the crux of it. Nobody is fighting for the XC network due to there not really being a local market on many flows, and not being London centric.

There would probably be more uproar if XC altered the Birmingham - Leicester service than the Edinburgh - Plymouth one!

 

[JamesT]

My take on all this.
The idea of short, but more frequent trains was a flawed concept right from the start. Might work on suburban services, but not on long-distance traffic, where the previous trains had been double the length. I understand the idea was in trying to spread the load, but people are creatures of habit and if they finish work at 5pm they want to get a train around then, not spread themselves for the benefit of the rail operator.
Whilst the idea of joining the shorter trains to provide longer ones at peak times sounded appealing, with no corridor connection between the two there was always going to be increased staffing costs to consider too.

The problem is Crosscountry are not just a long-distance operator, for many places they are the primary local. E.g. Banbury to Oxford which is a popular commute. Currently in the morning if you wanted to be in around 9am there’s an XC arriving 8:15, then a slow GWR at 9:05 and the next XC at 9:14. When they ran twice an hour that gave many more options and didn’t leave you stuck for an hour if you missed the train you were aiming for.
Many trips also involve connections, higher frequencies make it less likely you would be sitting in an intermediate station twiddling your thumbs waiting ages for your next train.
If XC had been allowed to increase their fleet as they’d asked to do in the past then I think the ‘high’ frequency timetable is the right service.

 

[quantinghome]

My take on all this.
The idea of short, but more frequent trains was a flawed concept right from the start. Might work on suburban services, but not on long-distance traffic, where the previous trains had been double the length. I understand the idea was in trying to spread the load, but people are creatures of habit and if they finish work at 5pm they want to get a train around then, not spread themselves for the benefit of the rail operator.
Whilst the idea of joining the shorter trains to provide longer ones at peak times sounded appealing, with no corridor connection between the two there was always going to be increased staffing costs to consider too.

Short trains are certainly a bad idea. But I disagree with you on frequency: 2 trains per hour has become the minimum standard on most intercity routes. The size of the cities XC connects means it has potential to carry far more passengers than at present, certainly enough to fill two 8-carriage trains per hour on the main X network.

I think this is the crux of it. Nobody is fighting for the XC network due to there not really being a local market on many flows, and not being London centric.

There would probably be more uproar if XC altered the Birmingham - Leicester service than the Edinburgh - Plymouth one!

There are important local markets served by XC, but it's not the main intercity service on most of those flows. Bristol - Derby is the only significant length where it's the sole intercity service. Elsewhere it supplements other local services.

 

[py_megapixel]

My take on all this.
The idea of short, but more frequent trains was a flawed concept right from the start. Might work on suburban services, but not on long-distance traffic, where the previous trains had been double the length. I understand the idea was in trying to spread the load, but people are creatures of habit and if they finish work at 5pm they want to get a train around then, not spread themselves for the benefit of the rail operator.

I don't follow. More frequent trains means there's more likely to be a train at about 5pm.

 

[starlightEXPRESS]

Isn't the problem with XC that each unit is full for around 40 minutes in the morning rush and 40 minutes in the evening rush, but for the rest of the day they are half empty?

So, they provide a useful commuter service for flows like Oxford-Banbury, Bristol-Taunton, Derby-Birmingham etc, but most of the rest of the day they are carting around fresh air. The non-London city destinations just don't generate enough traffic outside of the peaks to justify either longer trains or greater frequencies - whether we like it or not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't the problem with XC that each unit is full for around 40 minutes in the morning rush and 40 minutes in the evening rush, but for the rest of the day they are half empty?

In short, no, it isn't.