Why is CrossCountry so overpriced?

[nw1]

Ah ok, thanks for the figures.

So BHM-Edinburgh is perhaps around twice as far - perhaps a little less - so my initial guess of £120 must be about right.

 

[TheGuy77]

Return from Birmingham New Street-Edinburgh, with SplitSave and XC costs £172.59.

 

[nw1]

I've been searching Trainline for how much that ticket would cost today. I did Basingstoke to Stafford for 1 adult (I had to do it roughly since XC don't go to Surrey anymore),

That's roughly the right sort of distance, but a little less than my own journey. What I did was caught a local train to Guildford from my station, and then boarded the 0900 XC (0805 ex-Portsmouth) direct to Stafford. Mk-II stock, 47 south of BHM, 85 north thereof...

return within 1 week of August both at around 1200 and it costs £77 with SplitSave (or £154.89 without). So you can save quite a lot if you use SplitSave.

The £154.89 in that case sounds very, very overpriced in real terms compared with 1983 prices. Even SplitSave is more expensive than the inflation-adjusted 1983 price.

Return from Birmingham New Street-Edinburgh, with SplitSave and XC costs £172.59.

And that's with SplitSave, still well above the likely "1983 adjusted for inflation and mileage" price.

All the discussion about price and demand versus capacity is good. One point we often forget is history.

Reducing or eliminating public subsidy was a top-level objective when decisions on this stock were taken, about 25 years ago. Regulated fares were to increase at generally at RPI+x and RPI+x+ouch where quality improvements were to take place. Unregulated anytime fares were assumed to increase by as much as possible.

That seemed a fundamentally bad decision, based purely on political philosophy.

Why RPI+x, and not RPI? It just isn't right, to me, to fundamentally allow train fares to go up by more than the rate of inflation, as over time it results in rail travel becoming less and less affordable and eventually many will be priced off long-distance train travel full stop.

All part of a particular political philosophy which views subsidising things via taxes as fundamentally Bad, but baked-in above-inflation year-on-year increases for products and services fundamentally Not Bad.
Use public money (i.e. taxes) and you're spreading the cost amongst everyone, rather than hitting rail users disproportionately hard.

 

[Xavi]

I haven’t looked at the detail for some time but I recall that the allocation of NR costs to XC was relatively high compared with the London Intercity operators.

 

[Trainman40083]

£20 adjusted for inflation today is around £66.


I've been searching Trainline for how much that ticket would cost today. I did Basingstoke to Stafford for 1 adult (I had to do it roughly since XC don't go to Surrey anymore), return within 1 week of August both at around 1200 and it costs £77 with SplitSave (or £154.89 without). So you can save quite a lot if you use SplitSave.

Wonder what it would cost via London?

 

[LLivery]

Does the CrossCountry franchise end in 2027 or 2031?

2027

 

[TheGuy77]

Wonder what it would cost via London?

Using the Tube and without SplitSave, £134.49. Still cheaper than XC.

 

[LkmtvMetatarsl]

I travelled from Leeds to Plymouth and back in May and actually had a good experience. Double Voyagers to/from Bristol both ways so no overcrowding that I saw and the worst delay was 20 mins at Bristol Parkway heading back when there was a trespasser on the line, although the lost time was largely made up by the time we got to Leeds. I used to hate Voyagers but I've grown to quite like their intercity interiors (compared to an "all things to all men" feel of a 185) and decent ride compared to a 195.

Is it just the normal routes that XC have struggled to keep their drivers trained on, or all the numerous diversionary lines as well? I've noticed in the last year or so that when trains are heavily delayed and therefore bypass Leeds and Wakefield, they tend to be routed via Sherburn and Pontefract (S&K) rather than via Doncaster. Is this due to route retention issues?

 

[Trainman40083]

Using the Tube and without SplitSave, £134.49. Still cheaper than XC.

I remember at one time , someone saying about how they avoided Tube fares, by buying a ticket to say Clapham Junction from the north, that had the tube fare included, but had fewer time restrictions.

 

[RailWonderer]

Don't think new more economical rolling stock and nationalisation will lower prices either, they will only hike them if anything or at best you get a fare freeze if Labour so desires to spend a bit on the railway if they stay in power.

 

[Trainman40083]

Don't think new more economical rolling stock and nationalisation will lower prices either, they will only hike them if anything or at best you get a fare freeze if Labour so desires to spend a bit on the railway if they stay in power.

The more people who want to use the trains, for various reasons, will see the railways max out of capacity, and the only way that has ever been "managed" has been by either increased fares, or cutting out station stops. Exactly what XC is doing. I'd expect their management would rather have bigger trains, but the DfT won't like that. Lucky they are getting 12 extra 221s. Might have been better to have all 20, and displace some 4 car units

 

[anothertyke]

I find it quite surprising that XC are losing money - given the consistently high loadings and high prices of tickets, are there any additional debts on the books that other operators don't face?

In particular, and I appreciate this is a relatively niche comparison, but Grand Central seem to be able to make voyagers (2 of them, atleast), make sense. Their loadings are, atleast on the surface, very similar, along with vehicle milage (circa 600 miles per unit, per day, with 1 diagram on 2 London trips and the other on 1). Further, anecdotally, I'd suggest the average GC fare £/mile is substantially lower.

What's making such a big difference here?

One big difference is that Open Access operators pay marginal track access charges but TOCs pay charges based on fully allocated costs.

I suspect another difference is that GC are getting more mileage per set out of their fleet than XC. 40mph averages do nothing for productivity.

 

[Dr Hoo]

One big difference is that Open Access operators pay marginal track access charges but TOCs pay charges based on fully allocated costs.

I suspect another difference is that GC are getting more mileage per set out of their fleet than XC. 40mph averages do nothing for productivity.

Open access passenger operators now also pay towards underlying track access costs, albeit with a ‘ramp up’ phase as discussed in other recent threads.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Fixed track access makes no difference to fares. FTAC is effectively a laundered DfT subsidy (through the TOC) to NR and usually varies by millions each year, all variances being accounted for in the DfT subsidy payment process. Think of it as another form of Network Grant, but paid via the TOC.

It plays absolutely no part in the commercial business plans of the TOC (save for having to account for the actual payment to NR) or the setting of fares.

 

[nwales58]

I.went interailing earlier this year. Started in St.Malo and ended in Seville. All of it was avoiding capital.cities, so I think you would call it cross country. It was such a pleasant experience and a world away from travelling between regional UK cities using XC .

Lucky choice. In France a more typical experience might be Brest to Rouen. Only 2-3 connections a day by TER to Versailles and back out or a 3h wait at Le Mans or 3h on a bus from Rennes to Caen so everyone will use TGV via Paris Montparnasse (ugh) and St-Lazare. Spain, e.g. Santander-Salamanca is 2 connections a day with a 2h wait somewhere (or a DIY connection), fares cheaper than XC but service levels far worse and when it's full it's full.

Germany is a better analogy, crosscountry is equivalent to the whole ICE/IC network so you'd be getting 12 coach ICE4s on the heavily used longer slower routes (or an overcrowded IC 4-coach KISS at the other extreme) which are 2-hourly or hourly all day. Just allow for being 1-2h late.

In the real world we could have one of
a) *cheaper* crosscountry with more overcrowding and lower service levels (quiet trains at the extremities or early/late chopped to pay for lower revenue) ,
b) *dearer* crosscountry, better pricing to eliminate overcrowding, suppress demand or push it elsewhere,
c) *enforced reservations* to eliminate overcrowding at current service levels (or lower levels if revenue falls),
d) increased subsidy to increase capacity - try taking that to HM Treasury

Time for a poll on a/b/c.

 

[Lampshade]

I find it quite surprising that XC are losing money - given the consistently high loadings and high prices of tickets, are there any additional debts on the books that other operators don't face?

Because the trains are packed with people making relatively short trips (such as using them instead of Northern), splitting, or on Advances, and as soon as people need to make a ‘full fat’ XC journey like Newcastle to the South West, they see the eye watering fares for a family and choose to drive instead.

 

[nwales58]

Why RPI+x, and not RPI? It just isn't right, to me ...

All part of a particular political philosophy which views subsidising things via taxes as fundamentally Bad ...

Almost, but subsidising public roads (and airports) good, anything else bad.

Ignoring externalities, can I justify public subsidy for a family of 4 travelling from Yorkshire to Devon for a holiday when they could go by road or decide to go to Bridlington instead? If no additional subsidy they are on an existing crowded train or in congested road traffic.

If more subsidy is needed for a nicer holiday journey is that more worthy than improving access to higher-paying jobs in York and Leeds for those living in Bridlington, Pocklington and the whole area? Or building more affordable housing close to higher-paying jobs? Unfortunately the genuine choices are like those for the forseeable future.

 

[TheGuy77]

I was thinking of an open-access operator running trains from York-Derby via Castleford and from Leeds-Cleethorpes via Gainsborough. Maybe that could reduce overcrowding.

 

[RailWonderer]

If more subsidy is needed for a nicer holiday journey is that more worthy than improving access to higher-paying jobs in York and Leeds for those living in Bridlington, Pocklington and the whole area? Or building more affordable housing close to higher-paying jobs? Unfortunately the genuine choices are like those for the forseeable future.

If nearby jobs pay a lot, the nearby housing won't be cheap.

 

[jfollows]

I.went interailing earlier this year. Started in St.Malo and ended in Seville. All of it was avoiding capital.cities, so I think you would call it cross country. It was such a pleasant experience and a world away from travelling between regional UK cities using XC .

I agree.
A few years ago, mind you, I went Carcassonne-Bordeaux-Nantes-Rennes-Saint Malo. Corail-Corail-EMU-TGV. Connection held at Bordeaux. Impression given that it was normal. First Class. Not expensive.
I can't imagine planning the same sort of trip in the UK on Cross Country. One through train, perhaps. But if it's appropriate I prefer to go via London instead because the trains are better and there are alternative services. And often it's no more expensive.

 

[Topological]

At some point it will be accepted that direct trains from everywhere to everywhere are not needed and CrossCountry can drop Birmingham to Manchester, York north, beyond Plymouth and beyond Southampton (or possibly even Reading). The result would be an all double Voyager service on the remaining routes, whilst Manchester to Birmingham, York north go over to EMU and Southampton to Bournemouth can be 3rd rail electric.

However, the argument on here always goes the other way and advocates for Brighton, Liverpool and others to rejoin CrossCountry. That sort of point-to-point service will only further erode capacity.

 

[jfollows]

At some point it will be accepted that direct trains from everywhere to everywhere are not needed and CrossCountry can drop Birmingham to Manchester, York north, beyond Plymouth and beyond Southampton (or possibly even Reading). The result would be an all double Voyager service on the remaining routes, whilst Manchester to Birmingham, York north go over to EMU and Southampton to Bournemouth can be 3rd rail electric.

However, the argument on here always goes the other way and advocates for Brighton, Liverpool and others to rejoin CrossCountry. That sort of point-to-point service will only further erode capacity.

The problem is the people who are terrified of and won't change at Birmingham New Street, brought about in part by the railway's cavalier approach to connections in which passengers are essentially abandoned to fend for themselves and claim back money later.
Of course, personally, although I dislike the latest incarnation of Birmingham New Street I've no problem with changing there. But I've met many people who won't. So they will only travel on through trains.

 

[Topological]

The problem is the people who are terrified of and won't change at Birmingham New Street, brought about in part by the railway's cavalier approach to connections in which passengers are essentially abandoned to fend for themselves and claim back money later.
Of course, personally, although I dislike the latest incarnation of Birmingham New Street I've no problem with changing there. But I've met many people who won't. So they will only travel on through trains.

It would only be flows involving Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport and Manchester that would need a Birmingham connection. All other North West destinations are already off the CrossCountry network.

The other connection points on my reduced network were Plymouth, York and Southampton, which are all slightly more friendly for connections.

In an even better world Manchester to Birmingham would become so frequent that the connection would not matter, but paths from Wolverhampton are hard to find so it is likely that an EMU service could only be every 30 minutes as well.

 

[A S Leib]

In an even better world Manchester to Birmingham would become so frequent that the connection would not matter, but paths from Wolverhampton are hard to find so it is likely that an EMU service could only be every 30 minutes as well.

I think the plan for HS2 was 2 tph from Curzon Street to Manchester Piccadilly; would 3 tph have been possible with the 2019 plans without cutting other services? They were supposed to have been 200 m services, although of course increasing them to 400 m doesnt help much when your issue is that you've missed a connection and need to wait 29 minutes. An alternative could have been (depending on paths?) all Euston – Manchester HS2 services calling at Birmingham Interchange and ensuring that XC could run 2 tph via Coventry for easier interchange from the northwest towards Reading, Southampton etc.

 

[dk1]

Does the CrossCountry franchise end in 2027 or 2031?

According to Wikipedia it’s October 2027.

 

[Starmill]

I was amazed at how cheap the advance tickets between Peterborough and Cambridge/Stansted Airport actually were.

Always the way on XC. Short journeys they're frequently the cheapest option out there, medium and long they're almost always the top priced option.

 

[Trainman40083]

I think the plan for HS2 was 2 tph from Curzon Street to Manchester Piccadilly; would 3 tph have been possible with the 2019 plans without cutting other services? They were supposed to have been 200 m services, although of course increasing them to 400 m doesnt help much when your issue is that you've missed a connection and need to wait 29 minutes. An alternative could have been (depending on paths?) all Euston – Manchester HS2 services calling at Birmingham Interchange and ensuring that XC could run 2 tph via Coventry for easier interchange from the northwest towards Reading, Southampton etc.

Just remember that HS2 station at Birmingham International is in a different place to existing station

 

[A S Leib]

Just remember that HS2 station at Birmingham International is in a different place to existing station

Yes, although I think a people mover's planned so at least it shouldn't add on much extra time.

 

[Xavi]

Fixed track access makes no difference to fares. FTAC is effectively a laundered DfT subsidy (through the TOC) to NR and usually varies by millions each year, all variances being accounted for in the DfT subsidy payment process. Think of it as another form of Network Grant, but paid via the TOC.

It plays absolutely no part in the commercial business plans of the TOC (save for having to account for the actual payment to NR) or the setting of fares.

Not now, but what about when the TOCs were truly private and had to find a way to make a return for shareholders? The only way to recoup any fixed costs was revenue growth and, with no spare seats on (4-car) XC, hiking fares was the only option.

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, not even then. Franchises have always regarded it as an in and out cost which doesn’t affect the bottom line.

The only time it was ever considered was the base figure in your bid, which should match the cost that the ORR allocated to the TOC concerned in that start year (the DfT would check that). Any year to year variations in FTAC were always subject to automatic alteration in the DfT subsidy/premium line so it never really affected profitability. You were always “held neutral” on FTAC.

The judge in the GNER case called it “an artificial construct”, which was, and still is, a fair description.