Department for Transport launches CrossCountry franchise consultation

[The Planner]

Would go via Birmingham.

But you said the Liverpools replace them? Im confused now.

 

[The Planner]

Theres also limited paths between Wolverhampton and Birmingham, but more capacity on the diversionary path which goes via Bescot, which would allow for an additional service to the North West to still fit in the current service patterns.

Not if you still need to call at New St there isnt as you are either adding trains to cross at Soho or bringing them in via Aston and Proof House which isnt awash with capacity at all.

 

[B&I]

Underlying this consultation is a fundamental problem that DfT don't seem to want to acknowledge: there are not enough seats on the core routes. (Underlying that problem.ate the more fundamental problems that the DfT's.planning staff either don't know what they're doing, or have a complete antipathy to promoting or even accommodating passenger growth on routes which don't involve London, but that's another story).

Shifting services between franchises and / or fiddling with stopping patterns is so much rearranging of deckchairs. XC need more vehicles, preferrably some forming split services to serve more peripheral destinations, and perhaps new routes to take some pressure off the existing core. Additonal local services should then be implemented to speed up XC ones and move more people. If this requires some more infrastructure investment outside London, then it's time they got on with it.

 

[SeanM1997]

Underlying this consultation is a fundamental problem that DfT don't seem to want to acknowledge: there are not enough seats on the core routes. (Underlying that problem.ate the more fundamental problems that the DfT's.planning staff either don't know what they're doing, or have a complete antipathy to promoting or even accommodating passenger growth on routes which don't involve London, but that's another story).

Shifting services between franchises and / or fiddling with stopping patterns is so much rearranging of deckchairs. XC need more vehicles, preferrably some forming split services to serve more peripheral destinations, and perhaps new routes to take some pressure off the existing core. Additonal local services should then be implemented to speed up XC ones and move more people. If this requires some more infrastructure investment outside London, then it's time they got on with it.

One relatively simple change would be to add a carriage onto the Voyager set. Virgin Trains have all 5 coach Voyagers but CrossCountry are only 4 coaches. Adding a coach could resolve this problem. In addition, lets take the route between the North West and Birmingham, you could operate a five coach train from Manchester/Stockport/Wilmslow and a five coach train from Liverpool/South Parkway/Runcorn and join them at Crewe to continue to Birmingham and onwards to Bournemouth or Bristol. This would give Liverpool two new services per hour, increase capacity between Manchester and Birmingham by adding the additional coaches, and means 10 coach trains can operate between Crewe and Birmingham/Bristol/Bournemouth. One train an hour could operate Manchester-Birmingham via Stoke to maintain that link using a 5 coach train, meaning there would be 15 carriages an hour between Manchester and Birmingham

 

[JonathanH]

One relatively simple change would be to add a carriage onto the Voyager set. Virgin Trains have all 5 coach Voyagers but CrossCountry are only 4 coaches. Adding a coach could resolve this problem. In addition, lets take the route between the North West and Birmingham, you could operate a five coach train from Manchester/Stockport/Wilmslow and a five coach train from Liverpool/South Parkway/Runcorn and join them at Crewe to continue to Birmingham and onwards to Bournemouth or Bristol. This would give Liverpool two new services per hour, increase capacity between Manchester and Birmingham by adding the additional coaches, and means 10 coach trains can operate between Crewe and Birmingham/Bristol/Bournemouth. One train an hour could operate Manchester-Birmingham via Stoke to maintain that link using a 5 coach train, meaning there would be 15 carriages an hour between Manchester and Birmingham

Not going to happen - Voyagers are mid life - the return on investing in a carriage that might be used for 15 years would make its construction unaffordable.

The whole crux of this particular consultation is how to make do with four coach Voyagers for the whole of the next franchise perhaps with a view to HS2 taking some of the traffic towards the very end of it.

 

[SeanM1997]

Not going to happen - Voyagers are mid life - the return on investing in a carriage that might be used for 15 years would make its construction unaffordable.

The whole crux of this particular consultation is how to make do with four coach Voyagers for the whole of the next franchise.

What about Class 800 trains (the ones on GWR and LNER)? These are 5 and 9 carriage trains which can be attached to form 2x5 coach trains, to allow more destinations to be served, as well as allowing electric running for a greener service

 

[XC victim]

I cannot believe the London bias of the Department for Transport. What was the idea of the direct award for this franchise last year if they are not planning on making any improvements during the next Franchise.

As a regular traveller on CrossCountry over the years I have seen these services deteriorate. They were once intercity services but they are now just an irritation for the department of transport who hasn’t the faintest idea what to do with them.

The solution is so simple. Purchase a small fleet of 5 car class 802s to cover Manchester to Bournemouth & Bristol / Exeter services. Then use the 5 car voyagers on the Newcastle to Reading services and doubled up 4 car voyagers on the Scotland to Southwest services. This would allow splitting at the extremities of the services. That way no services or stations need to be cut.

Any remaining voyagers could be cascaded to the Turbostar routes with DfT carrying out any necessary clearance work for them.

 

[B&I]

. In addition, lets take the route between the North West and Birmingham, you could operate a five coach train from Manchester/Stockport/Wilmslow and a five coach train from Liverpool/South Parkway/Runcorn and join them at Crewe to continue to Birmingham and onwards to Bournemouth or Bristol. This would give Liverpool two new services per hour, increase capacity between Manchester and Birmingham by adding the additional coaches, and means 10 coach trains can operate between Crewe and Birmingham/Bristol/Bournemouth. One train an hour could operate Manchester-Birmingham via Stoke to maintain that link using a 5 coach train, meaning there would be 15 carriages an hour between Manchester and Birmingham

Yes, a simple way of boosting capacity in the core and connectivity at the edges, once the rolling stock is available.

Similarly on the NE/SW route you could (for example) split somewhere like Sheffield, and send one train to Leeds and Bradford and the other to the north east and Scotland, or one train to Hull and the other to Leeds ans points north.

However, make the mistake here of suggesting that Liverpool, Bradford, Hull or any other major city not currently served by XC should be added to the network, and this usually provokes a barrage of posts about how said city is lucky not to be razed to the ground for its impertinent challenge to the holy creed of Doing Things The Way The Railway Establishment Says They Should Be Done.

 

[B&I]

Not going to happen - Voyagers are mid life - the return on investing in a carriage that might be used for 15 years would make its construction unaffordable.

The whole crux of this particular consultation is how to make do with four coach Voyagers for the whole of the next franchise perhaps with a view to HS2 taking some of the traffic towards the very end of it.

Or in other words, how to appear to be doing something while in fact muddling along with the same indequate service. It's not good enough

 

[1018509]

Completed survey and expect my Weymouth to Reading and beyond services with stops at Christchurch and New Milton with longer more frequent trains to be implemented immediately - or perhaps not.

 

[Jamm]

As a frequent XC user in the main core, I actually quite like XC despite its flaws.

Looking through the document, I'd say the main thing the next franchise owner needs to do is to increase the capacity of trains going through the core. I'm not sure how but I think it might be possible if all the voyagers are paired up and new rolling stock are leased to replace what is lost.

Does anyone know if it's possible that Camp Hill Chord to be built and some if not all turbostar services are diverted to there instead of New St? It would fit in the idea of TOC change for turbostar routes quite nicely as well as freeing up some of paths at New St.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The reality is that CrossCountry is already a service which needs a relatively high subsidy (~13p/passenger mile) considering it's a pure Intercity franchise. The DfT has a large budget compared to some other departments, but it is ultimately at the behest of the Treasury, which is unwilling to spend unnecessary sums of money in these straitened times of cuts.

Hence the only conditions under which they will approve spending money on new stock (which will have to be directly or indirectly subsidised) is if the operator can make a good case that the investment can be recouped.

 

[Kettledrum]

The reality is that CrossCountry is already a service which needs a relatively high subsidy (~13p/passenger mile) considering it's a pure Intercity franchise. The DfT has a large budget compared to some other departments, but it is ultimately at the behest of the Treasury, which is unwilling to spend unnecessary sums of money in these straitened times of cuts.

Hence the only conditions under which they will approve spending money on new stock (which will have to be directly or indirectly subsidised) is if the operator can make a good case that the investment can be recouped.

XC having high ticket prices, trains full to over-crowding, and still needing high subsidy has always been a bit of a puzzle to me. I assume one of the reasons for this is the expensive running costs and access charges for the particular type of trains it runs. Rolling stock prices are now very competitive and the availability of bi-modes could reduce running costs further.

Some of the questions in the consultation are about the features passengers would like to see in the trains, so perhaps there is some hope about the future rolling stock after all.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

XC having high ticket prices, trains full to over-crowding, and still needing high subsidy has always been a bit of a puzzle to me. I assume one of the reasons for this is the expensive running costs and access charges for the particular type of trains it runs. Rolling stock prices are now very competitive and the availability of bi-modes could reduce running costs further.

Some of the questions in the consultation are about the features passengers would like to see in the trains, so perhaps there is some hope about the future rolling stock after all.

If you look purely in terms of XC itself as a company, it's not that bad. But if you allocate the massive Network Rail subsidy in proportion to the passenger service miles which CrossCountry runs, then it's an entirely different picture. I think the fact is that over a lot of XC routes, there aren't that many passenger services, and yet there is still a high cost to upgrading and maintaining these routes. It would take ticket prices that are a lot higher, and/or much higher passenger numbers at current average fare prices, to 'pay off' this subsidy.

 

[Xavi]

XC having high ticket prices, trains full to over-crowding, and still needing high subsidy has always been a bit of a puzzle to me. I assume one of the reasons for this is the expensive running costs and access charges for the particular type of trains it runs. Rolling stock prices are now very competitive and the availability of bi-modes could reduce running costs further.

Some of the questions in the consultation are about the features passengers would like to see in the trains, so perhaps there is some hope about the future rolling stock after all.

Widely acknowledged within the industry that the subsidy is required because XC shares revenue with other operators, e.g. Taunton to Bristol, Bristol to Cheltenham with GWR, whereas London franchises keep it all to themselves. Also, XC fares have been ratcheted up for flows like Exeter to Birmingham to dampen down demand (short trains can’t cope), which worsens revenue take for XC as passengers split tickets into journeys that are shared with other operators. DfT knows this but doesn’t care as its not London.

 

[B&I]

The reality is that CrossCountry is already a service which needs a relatively high subsidy (~13p/passenger mile) considering it's a pure Intercity franchise. The DfT has a large budget compared to some other departments, but it is ultimately at the behest of the Treasury, which is unwilling to spend unnecessary sums of money in these straitened times of cuts.

Hence the only conditions under which they will approve spending money on new stock (which will have to be directly or indirectly subsidised) is if the operator can make a good case that the investment can be recouped.

There must come a point where capacity problems are driving away the extra passengers who could help the finances of the whole operation. Surely more carriages on existing services are a relatively cheap way of addressing this ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

alternative idea attached - would be expensive as effectively 4 different body shells, but would cater for both long and short distance travellers

Class 444 is a bit like that.

 

[DenmarkRail]

While XC has its flaws, there have been virtually no changes since Virgin apart from downgrades in first class and introduction of HST sets.

I would prefer it if Virgin bid / won again, but that’s just personal preference

 

[Mojo]

While XC has its flaws, there have been virtually no changes since Virgin apart from downgrades in first class

CrossCountry has enhanced the First class service provision since Virgin Trains days; with better food (particularly outside of the First class host duty times where the offering was one of the notorious “Snack boxes”) and more of the route covered by First class hosts.

 

[Harbornite]

In my opinion, XC should attempt reduce crowding by missing out stops at unimportant places like York and Wakefield, and instead focus on serving new destinations like St Ives, Falmouth and Wick with infrequent but useful services...


/s

 

[tbtc]

I can't see a third path from Birmingham to Sheffield working.

Birmingham to Derby has a half hourly Turbostar service (to Nottingham) and Derby to Sheffield has a half hourly Meridian service (from London), so I can't see the Voyager service being able to go to a twenty minute frequency very easily. More seats, please, PLEASE, but I can't see any more paths through this neck of the woods. If anything, unless the Magic Hitachi Tree is going to give us some 802s, we should look at cutting back some existing XC services to provide improvements on the Birmingham corridor - running half hourly north to Newcastle and hourly to Edinburgh is a luxury if TPE are running half hourly from Leeds to Newcastle and hourly from Leeds to Edinburgh (plus First's Open Access service north of Edinburgh, enhanced LNER services etc). Hourly north of York and bi-hourly north of Edinburgh would suffice, I reckon.

But I'd rather that we concentrated resources on the core routes before we started worrying about luxuries like Bradford/ Inverness/ Carlisle/ Brighton/ Hull etc.

Some interesting ideas. I'm afraid my regular use of XC predated operation Princess, when we need to travel between my parents in Edinburgh and my wife's in Derby. But I digress

There were suggestions before to drop Aberdeen, but at that time Scotrail didn't have any dmus to replace the xc services. When the refurbished HSTs arrive, and the IEPs, I can't imagine anyone choosing to use a voyager, and the LNER services can carry the remaining oil traffic. Maybe a morning ECS working to start from Dundee. A midday service seems an extraordinary waste of resources

If they have to keep Aberdeen on the map then a midday service seems the best way to do it.

At the moment there's an 04:30 from Craigentinny to Dundee, which becomes the 06:42 from Dundee to Aberdeen (are 07:58) to become the 08:20 south, not passing Craigentinny again until after eleven, almost seven hours since it left its siding.

The northbound service in the evening leaves Waverley at 18:10 and doesn't return to the capital until after midnight. That's best part of thirteen hours in the day for the sake of retaining a through service - at least running it so that it leaves Birmingham at seven in the morning, you could get up to Aberdeen and back so that the unit was only north of Edinburgh in daylight hours so that it was providing additional capacity into Leeds in the morning rush hour (09:01) and providing additional capacity out of Newcastle in the evening (17:30).

On a side note, EMT really should extend 1tph from Sheffield to Leeds, that 1 XC service is the only fast train that journey has and it gets BUSY OH DEAR LORD.

Good news - Sheffield is to get a second "fast" service an hour to Leeds to take some pressure of the hourly Voyager...

...bad news is that, instead of being provided by an EMT Meridian/HST, it'll be provided by a Northern 195 - a sticking plaster in the grand scheme of things.

I would leave the long distance Turbostar routes with CrossCountry personally however but they will need new or additional rolling stock in the coming franchise. I suppose what would be nice in this hypothetical is if the service transferred to WMT using existing stock sub-leased from XC with that then released back to XC when a tag on order of 196s (considering they're supposed to replace 170s in that franchise it seems logical) for WMT came into service allowing XC to boost capacity on the long distance Turbostar routes without actually needing any new stock for the franchise

I'm tempted to move the XC Turbostar services to Chiltern...

...for the simple reason that they seem to be the best TOC at pinching additional 170s from under the noses of other TOCs

(please tell me you only mean "WMT are supposed to replace 170s in that franchise" and there's not a requirement for XC to replace theirs too? we're going to be swimming in modern 100mph DMUs at this rate, with all of the displaced 170s and 175s, whilst nobody has built 75mph DMUs since the 1980s)

The consultation has an interesting question about "churn" when boarding/alighting from stations.

IME most of this is caused by passengers hunting for their reserved seats, particularly infrequent leisure passengers of the sort who've always made up much of the XC customer profile. This crowds the aisles and causes queues in the vestibules and out onto the platforms

Much as I defend the Voyagers, the conga-line past the toilets to get into the passenger accommodation can cause a lot of problems at stations, especially when some numptie is still trying to get off whilst others are getting on!

I cannot believe the London bias of the Department for Transport. What was the idea of the direct award for this franchise last year if they are not planning on making any improvements during the next Franchise

In fairness, the London based DfT have also been kicking other franchises down the road over the last few years - ever since the WCML fiasco five(?) years ago, they've not had the guts to arrange proper replacements and have deferred/ extended/ delayed various awards, which includes "London" TOCs (EMT etc).

XC having high ticket prices, trains full to over-crowding, and still needing high subsidy has always been a bit of a puzzle to me. I assume one of the reasons for this is the expensive running costs and access charges for the particular type of trains it runs. Rolling stock prices are now very competitive and the availability of bi-modes could reduce running costs further

Good question and good answers to it - I think that the logistics of XC (all of the bases, contingencies, different staff, rotas etc) must make it very complicated and expensive to organise, but this is guesswork.

Hopefully more seats (e.g. 222s) will improve the economics a bit - staffing etc won't go up significantly but capacity will.

 

[Sleepy]

Three words - East Midlands consultation. Don't bother as DfT will ignore everyone as they think they know better !! A certain Mr Horton will probably be next MD .......... DOO anyone ?

 

[ainsworth74]

(please tell me you only mean "WMT are supposed to replace 170s in that franchise" and there's not a requirement for XC to replace theirs too? we're going to be swimming in modern 100mph DMUs at this rate, with all of the displaced 170s and 175s, whilst nobody has built 75mph DMUs since the 1980s)

Hmm yes my wording fell apart a bit there didn't it? Fear not! I was trying to say that, since WMT are procuring 196s to replace the services that WMT currently operate with 170s, it would make sense, in a universe where the XC services from Birmingham to Nottingham/Leicester are transferred to WMT, for there to be an add on order of 196s for WMT to then replace the 170s that are used on Birmingham - Nottingham/Leicester. You could then use those 170s that are "spare" on strengthening the long distance Cardiff - Nottingham and Birmingham - Stansted Airport services so they can all be 4/5/6 car formations.

No suggestion that XC should go for wholesale 170 replacement was intended as in my harebrained scheme XC ends up with exactly the same number of 170s as it has now. It just uses them on fewer services so that the remainder can be strengthened.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course you could regear a Class 170 to 75mph easily enough if that was needed (and get better acceleration too). Compared with the cost of a train a new intermediate gearbox is not going to be *that* expensive.

Such 170s, if they became spare, could go to Northern to allow the 150s to start being scrapped.

For the time being there is a glut of EMUs about which may result in the scrapping of some relatively new fleets (scrapping the 1980s fleets is probably not a bad thing as they're barely better than doubled-up Class 150s being the same body). But DMUs not so much - as long as there are 15x about, any freed up DMUs will go to very good use.

 

[Wychwood93]

Completed survey and expect my Weymouth to Reading and beyond services with stops at Christchurch and New Milton with longer more frequent trains to be implemented immediately - or perhaps not.

Way back when there was, of course, the New Milton stop in the morning - the 06.40 ex-Poole? My, then, 06.48 Christchurch (06.26 ex-Poole as I recall) used to be in front - hence the New Milton stop for the XC - filled in time. The drawback was if either 'my' train or the XC were late, then time would be put into the 07.02 from Bomo which attached to 'my' service at Southampton. Those were the days - I even had a non-stop Christchurch to Brockenhurst one morning when the first up XC had a red at Christchurch - just hopped on with a thumbs up from the guard!

 

[corsaVXR]

Class 444 is a bit like that.

A little bit, although just one car. I think that door is because of the pantograph well, and Siemens wanting to place it at one end to prevent a low ceiling in the middle of the carriage.

 

[edwin_m]

A little bit, although just one car. I think that door is because of the pantograph well, and Siemens wanting to place it at one end to prevent a low ceiling in the middle of the carriage.

I think the pantograph well has to be above a bogie, so the pan doesn't move off-centre on curves. The only exception I can think of is the Southern locos that used it for yard shunting only.

I think my proposal would be something like:

• Additional rolling stock such as bi-modes for the Scotland services, some of which run all the way from Doncaster or York to Glasgow (depending on exact routeing) under the wires. Possibility of 222s.
• Upgrade Nottingham-Cardiff to a full-spec service using Voyagers or 222s or whatever replaces them, with longer formations. This would strengthen most of the core route without needing extra paths. Nottingham-Birmingham leg to call Derby, Burton, Tamworth only with other stops transferred to the Nottingham-Birmingham which might remain as a 170.
• Remaining extra rolling stock to strengthen the core by doubing up and perhaps detaching/splitting at places like Bristol and York as suggested.

 

[The Ham]

Guildford - dump

Bin Guildford unless you can go back through to Brighton with it

The primary reason Guildford trains are there is to maintain route knowledge for the diversionary route via Haslemere. This needs to be retained whatever happens, therefore so do the Guildford (and Bath Spa; Manchester-Cardiff and a few others ) services.

The Guildford services are a one a day service early morning and mid evening. As such what would be gained by ditching it?

It certainly wouldn't gain extra capacity on the services which need it the most. As such why do those proposing that it be cut think that cutting it would be of benefit?

 

[swt_passenger]

The reality is that CrossCountry is already a service which needs a relatively high subsidy (~13p/passenger mile) considering it's a pure Intercity franchise...

But it isn’t really a “pure intercity” franchise at all, and this point of view has been discussed in fairly regular previous threads. There’s the ex Central Trains routes for a start. Even in the original long distance routes much of the capacity is taken up by people making short hops from one station to the next, if these passenger’s fares are being shared with the other main TOC in the area, then XC aren’t seeing that much revenue.

 

[The Ham]

Even in the original long distance routes much of the capacity is taken up by people making short hops from one station to the next, if these passenger’s fares are being shared with the other main TOC in the area, then XC aren’t seeing that much revenue.

It's why you can get some good deals on some XC services, as they then get all the money rather than just the cut that they are due.

For instance an advanced first class ticket from Plymouth to Exeter is often comparable to a standard off peak ticket. As what they pay out in free drinks is more than offset by getting the full ticket price.