XC HSts Wasted in the sidings

[hooky3]

Can't believe 3 XC HSTs are kept in depots and sidings Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays as we all struggle to get a seat and have to face the overcrowding of the voyagers. What is the reason for the lack of use of the HSTs and dont XC get many complaints about overcrowding?

 

[HSTEd]

The glorious free market demands the HSTs remain in the sidings.

(Basically the XC stock leasing agreement has them pay the same amount for leasing the Voyager sets no matter how intensively they are used, whereas the HSTs are rented "pay as you go" per mile. So it is not worth using the HSTs more than absolutely necessary).

 

[hooky3]

The glorious free market demands the HSTs remain in the sidings.

(Basically the XC stock leasing agreement has them pay the same amount for leasing the Voyager sets no matter how intensively they are used, whereas the HSTs are rented "pay as you go" per mile. So it is not worth using the HSTs more than absolutely necessary).

so much for putting the customers first then!

 

[HSTEd]

Despite what the PR drones at ATOC or the DfT say.... Arriva's first and only objective is to make money (and this is how it should be, this is the only purpose of private companies).

If they can get away without using the HSTs they will.

 

[Simon11]

so much for putting the customers first then!

Or more like reducing the cost of the industry, so tax payers pass less subsidy.

 

[william]

Reduce costs even further and close the line. OK what I'm trying to say is how far do you go? Where do you draw the line when it comes to reducing costs vs providing a decent service/QOL/decent society?

 

[tbtc]

Can't believe 3 XC HSTs are kept in depots and sidings Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays

Do any TOCs use their full fleet every day of the week?

Arriva are making a loss on the franchise, they'd have to pay extra to use the HSTs more intensively, they are not required to use them every day in the franchise specification, they therefore don't use every set every day.

And the three midweek days you mention are the quietest ones on XC. Not "quiet", but "quietest".

 

[Rich McLean]

Have XC only got 4 HST sets now. I am sure they transferred one to East Coast a while back, which used to be set XC02?

 

[TheWalrus]

How are they making a loss? Isn't it one of the busiest franchises?

 

[route:oxford]

How are they making a loss? Isn't it one of the busiest franchises?

In essence, a loss occurs when your operating costs exceed the income.

Despite the XC services being absolutely packed in key locations, in others they can be quite quiet. XC don't really have the knack to get their loadings quite right.

 

[Geezertronic]

Reduce costs even further and close the line. OK what I'm trying to say is how far do you go? Where do you draw the line when it comes to reducing costs vs providing a decent service/QOL/decent society?

Any service is better than no service at all. If people didn't want to use it, they wouldn't. The fact that they do suggests that no matter what the state of the service is, it's better than any alternatives

 

[umontu]

so much for putting the customers first then!

To mangle Sir Humphrey Appleby's question about schools.

"What have the customers got to do with it?"

 

[tbtc]

How are they making a loss? Isn't it one of the busiest franchises?

Short answer - dunno.

Long answer - XC must be a horribly expensive logistically complicated franchise to operate (given the number of locations/ depots), the Voyagers presumably aren't cheap to run, the busy Voyagers are maybe only carrying a couple of hundred passengers (so would be lightly loaded if the same length as an HST), the busy Voyager at New Street may be carrying very few passengers by Penzance, there's not the same need for expensive first class/ premium "London" services that other "Inter City" franchises can cream.

I agree that its odd that such busy trains are making a loss though.

 

[The Ham]

Short answer - dunno.

Long answer - XC must be a horribly expensive logistically complicated franchise to operate (given the number of locations/ depots), the Voyagers presumably aren't cheap to run, the busy Voyagers are maybe only carrying a couple of hundred passengers (so would be lightly loaded if the same length as an HST), the busy Voyager at New Street may be carrying very few passengers by Penzance, there's not the same need for expensive first class/ premium "London" services that other "Inter City" franchises can cream.

I agree that its odd that such busy trains are making a loss though.

They also only take a share of the ticket sales on routes like Reading to Bournemouth, which means that although their trains are often jam packed on those routes they are not getting all the ticket sales that they could do.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Or more like reducing the cost of the industry, so tax payers pass less subsidy.

If you believe that, you either will believe anything or you are a Tory lol

 

[brianthegiant]

The glorious free market demands the HSTs remain in the sidings.
(Basically the XC stock leasing agreement has them pay the same amount for leasing the Voyager sets no matter how intensively they are used, whereas the HSTs are rented "pay as you go" per mile. So it is not worth using the HSTs more than absolutely necessary).

I can understand the ROSCO needing a contract on the voyagers that ensures they can recoup their capex. I guess in the case of the HSTs they got them for peppercorn, so different economics apply. And I suppose XC need some contingency for voyagers being out of service for maintenance, etc. Nonetheless this sounds like a lot of contingency.
I would have thought it would be in the interest of the ROSCO to try to contract the HSTs in a way which would derive at maximum income from them, which at the moment it doesn't sound like they are, beyond presumably some sort of fixed standby charges?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Any service is better than no service at all. If people didn't want to use it, they wouldn't. The fact that they do suggests that no matter what the state of the service is, it's better than any alternatives

Yes for those who don't drive, it's better than walking.

People generally use the service because they have to.

What is wrong with trying to provide a better service to customers?

I feel for XC because they got lumped with stock that is not suited to their needs (Voyagers would probably be better suited to Chiltern and the 67s, Mk3s and DVTs would certainly be much better than voyagers for XC), but that is no excuse for not providing a satisfactory service. The whole ethos of "well people use it so it's good enough" is why our railways are a standing joke.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes for those who don't drive, it's better than walking.

People generally use the service because they have to.

What is wrong with trying to provide a better service to customers?

Because enough people have to use the service to fill the service to capacity, there is no good reason to increase costs which would inevitably decrease the yield on the investment.

There is no money in a "better service" in this case and as such the company won't do it... it can't do it, as it would not be in the best interests of its shareholders.

 

[cjmillsnun]

It's already been said that a lot of these services are full, so there is a need for more capacity.

 

[TheWalrus]

How are they making a loss? Isn't it one of the busiest franchises?

In essence, a loss occurs when your operating costs exceed the income.

I think I worked that out!

If a TOC is operating packed trains a lot of the time and making losses then there is something seriously wrong somewhere! They need to find the issues and deal with them.

In regards to Reading-Bournemouth do they sell any Advances or XC only fares?

 

[cjmillsnun]

There is no money in a "better service" in this case and as such the company won't do it... it can't do it, as it would not be in the best interests of its shareholders.

There's no money in it? How do you know?

A lot of these services are full, and by providing better trains with extra capacity they may entice more people to take the train, not because they have to, but because they want to over and above their car.

That's what a business needs to do. It needs to grow. (most shareholders would like growth as when profits happen they're normally bigger!) At the moment XC is stagnating.

Now I know some of it isn't XC/Arriva's fault. They got stuck with trains that aren't suitable that they have to pay for anyway.

That's part of the problem with pseudo privatisation. You've got a company that probably wants to grow the business, but they're hamstrung by a government and regulator who really pull the strings.

In reality BR had more freedom than the franchised TOCs do, and as such could use more suitable stock on certain routes.

The way the railways are run in this country are a joke. They either need to be fully privatised to give operators freedom to run the kind of service they want to (with subsidies for some socially necessary but unprofitable routes) or they need to be brought back in house and be run publicly.

I personally would prefer them brought back in house, DOR has proven public ownership can work, but I would settle for full private ownership. Anything is better than what we have now.

 

[g4mby]

Now I know some of it isn't XC/Arriva's fault. They got stuck with trains that aren't suitable that they have to pay for anyway.

So they didn't know what trains they would be operating when they applied for the franchise?

 

[route:oxford]

So they didn't know what trains they would be operating when they applied for the franchise?

You never can never be sure of the whims of DfT.

Turn the clock back a few years and there was excited talk of an additional (pantograph) carriage to upgrade the Voyagers to hybrid sets. This would have made a significant difference with around 50-60 extra seats on every XC set.

Not worth making any changes for now. It won't be *that* long until the XC Voyagers can be displaced with a 380 derivative.

 

[HSTEd]

There's no money in it? How do you know?

A lot of these services are full, and by providing better trains with extra capacity they may entice more people to take the train, not because they have to, but because they want to over and above their car.

This will certainly increase revenue income, but it could quite easily increase production costs by more than it increases the income.
A 2+7 HST will have drastically higher operating costs in terms of fuel consumption and track access than a 4 or 5 car Voyager will.

They could quite easily end up with a lower return on their investment once you include the increase costs and capital expenditure.

That's what a business needs to do. It needs to grow. (most shareholders would like growth as when profits happen they're normally bigger!) At the moment XC is stagnating.

No, a business needs to make the best possible return on its investment for its shareholders.
It can either grow the business or it can disperse its profits through larger dividend income, the latter is now the dominant choice in a world where everything is owned by hedge-funds that are more interested in stock yields than anything else.

Now I know some of it isn't XC/Arriva's fault. They got stuck with trains that aren't suitable that they have to pay for anyway.

They applied for the franchise knowing what they were getting in for.

The way the railways are run in this country are a joke. They either need to be fully privatised to give operators freedom to run the kind of service they want to (with subsidies for some socially necessary but unprofitable routes) or they need to be brought back in house and be run publicly.

If they want the benefits of full privatisation they should have full privatisation, they should not be able to extort money from the state when it suits them, so no subsidies whatsoever.

 

[tbtc]

It's already been said that a lot of these services are full, so there is a need for more capacity.

There is a need for more capacity. But the franchise is losing money, so what incentive is there to buy extra trains?

(and, to be blunt, if you are carrying 250 people on a four coach train with a lot of them standing up then you aren't increasing revenue if you run a seven coach train on which the same number of passengers are all sat down)

 

[455driver]

A 2+7 HST will have drastically higher operating costs in terms of fuel consumption and track access than a 4 or 5 car Voyager will.

Especially as XC will still have to pay for the voyager whether it is in use or not.

 

[corfield]

"so no subsidies whatsoever."

Which would lead very quickly I suspect to a pruning of the current network that would leave Beeching and his cuts forgotten as little more than a "tweak". And in an age of railway enthusiasm and growing usage.

How are TOCs "extorting" money from the state ?, as in use of violence, intimidation or abuse of authority.

As one contractor in a foreign country said to me recently, with regard to working with Western versus local authorities, "with you guys it's simple, you write a contract saying what you want, if I do that, you pay me what we agreed, if I don't do it, you don't pay me, and you assign a specific representative to monitor me and for me to contact you via - as a contractor, how could I want more than that; but with the local authorities, the contract means nothing, I have to bribe 100s of individuals every day to even carry out the work, and what I do has no relation to whether I get any money which is entirely down to whether I've kept the people who sign the cheques happy through bribes, employing their relatives and doing their favours. Thus my charges to them are much higher than to you."

If the UK Government still cannot write a contract saying what it wants, and what it will pay for it and then enforce it; then the best thing is to get shot of the railways entirely to the market as the Government clearly needs to be wound up sharpish as unfit for purpose.

 

[HSTEd]

Simple, they extort it through the use of the press, they put out lots of press releases about how they would "love" to run extra services but can't because the nasty DfT "won't let them".

This puts pressure on the government to fund improvements that will never pay for themselves.

And no, the government still can't write a decent contract because they get pilloried by the right wing press if they hire decent lawyers who can compete with the high power lawyers held on retainer by these companies that do nothing but bid for contracts.

They get rings run around them every single time.

So I would be quite happy for them to be "given entirely to the market" but only if they are actually given to the market.
And frankly, the vast majority of the "usage increase" over the last 15 years has been created by the government being willing to throw insane amounts of money at everything.
Even railfreight is a subsidy junkie now.

 

[tbtc]

Simple, they extort it through the use of the press, they put out lots of press releases about how they would "love" to run extra services but can't because the nasty DfT "won't let them".

This puts pressure on the government to fund improvements that will never pay for themselves.

And no, the government still can't write a decent contract because they get pilloried by the right wing press if they hire decent lawyers who can compete with the high power lawyers held on retainer by these companies that do nothing but bid for contracts.

They get rings run around them every single time

Out of interest, if the Government let the private sector get away with anything, how come XC is a loss making franchise for the TOC?

Surely, if the Government were that bad at things, XC would be a licence to print money?

 

[Kettledrum]

There is a need for more capacity. But the franchise is losing money, so what incentive is there to buy extra trains?

(and, to be blunt, if you are carrying 250 people on a four coach train with a lot of them standing up then you aren't increasing revenue if you run a seven coach train on which the same number of passengers are all sat down)

Well I've got so fed up with the overcrowding that I've stopped using XC and I am using my car again. I can't be the only one who is making this choice, so XC are losing custom and not maximising income.

Filling scarce network paths up at Birmingham New Street with trains that are too short is not in the public interest, and it's not in the long term financial interest of the Government. XC could be a profitable operator if it had longer trains that were all full.

e.g. in your example, if you have 400 people on a 7 coach train, your income is a lot more than 250 people on a four coach train.