Cross Country should abolish first class until capacity issues are addressed

[Starmill]

I think your judging coaches to harshly. I use National Express from time to time and they have modern comfortable coaches, they're in a better internal condition than Cross Country Voyagers.

I prefer rail travelbut if the train is going to be full and when you factor in the cost saving then the coach becomes a viable alternative.

I think realistically most people would prefer to put up with the bouncing and swaying ride of a coach plus the minor annoyance of a seatbelt rather than not being able to board the train on CrossCountry because there are simply too many people standing. @dk1 just has a strong personal dislike of coaches!

 

[mike57]

This weekend has been even worse than usual due to Kings Cross closed, at lot of these passengers using EMR/ XC between Derby & further north.

The Avanti Edinburgh services have been full & standing also.

We travelled to Peterborough Saturday, and the change in travel patterns was to be expected but quite extreme. A lot of passengers from the NE and Yorkshire had obviously decided to travel via Sheffield. There was a big crowd at Doncaster waiting for the 9 coasch XC service, I didnt see it pull in as our train south was also arriving, but even with 9 coaches I imagine it was full.

Travelling south from Doncaster to Peterborough our train was nearly empty, I counted 6 passengers in our carriage, and the rest of the train was similar, this was 10am Saturday mornning, normally this train will be packed. Our late afternoon return train was even more empty. However there were a lot waiting to join at Doncaster.

Obviously the Kings Cross closure will make an already dire situation worse.

I try and avoid XC these days, in HST days it wasn't too bad, but now there is just not enough capacity. Certainly on my last journey it was impossible to move through the train, no ticket checks or trolley service, and a toilet visit was more like planning a Himalayan expidition. If I had paid for 1st Class I would have been pretty miffed. Are there any requirements to provide any level of first class in the ToC arrangements with the DfT? If not then abolishing it might be a pragmatic move.

 

[BrianW]

XC trains are too short. Does it cost more to run five (or nine?) car trains than 4-car?

Why are there insufficient drivers?

Who decides on these things- who shoulders the blame/ consequences? How to change that? This has dragged on already for far too long.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does it cost more to run five (or nine?) car trains than 4-car?

Of course it does! Worth it in XC's case, though.

 

[dk1]

I think realistically most people would prefer to put up with the bouncing and swaying ride of a coach plus the minor annoyance of a seatbelt rather than not being able to board the train on CrossCountry because there are simply too many people standing. @dk1 just has a strong personal dislike of coaches!

Never been keen that's true. Much rather get on a busy train or wait for the next one.

 

[BrianW]

Of course it does! Worth it in XC's case, though.

That's rather my case! How much more does it cost- is there some kind of cost-benefit assessment that could be shared here? Cost/ income per seat/ passenger?
If it's so obviously worth it, why doesn't it happen?

 

[800Travel]

I very much like the idea of declassifying first class on XC, but this would cause problems when it came to first class season tickets on XC routes. There would need to be some kind of scheme agreed so these people weren’t out of pocket. Either full refund and pass returned, or an easy way to reclaim the excess when using first class etc.

To comply with forum rules - XC = Cross Country

 

[DarloRich]

First class really needs permanently declassifying, until capacity is properly sorted

yes they should - any other answer is wrong.

 

[Starmill]

That's rather my case! How much more does it cost- is there some kind of cost-benefit assessment that could be shared here? Cost/ income per seat/ passenger?
If it's so obviously worth it, why doesn't it happen?

If CrossCountry's Voyager routes ran with double the capacity, most services would carry roughly the same number of people as they do today, but obviously on the trains at capacity with those people siting down rather than standing up. Cost for fuel, maintenance and train leasing would roughly double. You can see why the Department are unwilling to allow any increase over and above the incoming Voyager fleet, which just slightly exceeds the capacity lost with HST withdrawal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If CrossCountry's Voyager routes ran with double the capacity, most services would carry roughly the same number of people as they do today, but obviously on the trains at capacity with those people siting down rather than standing up.

It's not quite as simple as that - there will be a lot of people not travelling (i.e. going by car instead) because of how grim it is. Thus if you lengthen trains you may get that suppressed market.

 

[Starmill]

It's not quite as simple as that - there will be a lot of people not travelling (i.e. going by car instead) because of how grim it is. Thus if you lengthen trains you may get that suppressed market.

You wouldn't meaningfully because the people who aren't travelling won't start travelling just because there's more convivial standing space.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You wouldn't meaningfully because the people who aren't travelling won't start travelling just because there's more convivial standing space.

To be fair, I don't think large numbers of standing passengers are acceptable on a long distance service. It's acceptable between Wolves and Cov, but not throughout, and XC has far too much standing throughout.

This is one odd case where compulsory reservations would force the issue - want to double the fares income? Double the train length.

But if we are saying XC are so highly loaded that a single 5 car is carrying the number of passengers that would fit in a 10 (which I don't think is largely the case, because there isn't that much standing space on a Voyager - the vestibules are small and the aisle is narrow) then they need to do more than double capacity to pick up the suppressed demand. But I suspect an uncomfortably overcrowded Voyager is probably operating at maybe 130-150% of the seating capacity, so if you doubled its length you'd get everyone seated and about 50% of spare seats to sell.

One thing that might be worth doing with regard to the subject line is changing the First Class to 2+2 but window aligned and with extra legroom in the airline seats. That could allow it to be only part of the coach and fit in more Standard seats. Another would be replacing the seats with the ones on the Pendolino refurb (or even just Fainsa Sophias) so you can squash in a couple more rows - the original seats are VERY space inefficient. But then all that costs, and inexplicably the DfT won't fund the fix despite them funding it for other TOCs like TPE which, when it only had 185s, was in the exact same position. TPE demonstrated exactly what was needed - fleet doubled = less overcrowding and picking up some suppressed demand.

 

[mike57]

A crush loaded train, which XC tend to be must present a safety hazard, both in its own right, and exacerbating a situation which otherwise might not have resulted in harm. I can think of a lot of scenarios which would become serious due to excessive overcrowding. (I am not talking a few standees, here, more like when every available space is full of people, even the toilets.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

A crush loaded train, which XC tend to be must present a safety hazard, both in its own right, and exacerbating a situation which otherwise might not have resulted in harm. I can think of a lot of scenarios which would become serious due to excessive overcrowding. (I am not talking a few standees, here, more like when every available space is full of people, even the toilets.)

Crush loaded trains do not pose a safety hazard. They are designed to be run as such.

They are however a comfort hazard, and are not to be encouraged on long distance services, there really does need to be enough capacity, and it is disgraceful that nothing has ever been done to solve this on XC in the nearly 30 years of problems.

 

[Starmill]

To be fair, I don't think large numbers of standing passengers are acceptable on a long distance service. It's acceptable between Wolves and Cov, but not throughout, and XC has far too much standing throughout.

This is one odd case where compulsory reservations would force the issue - want to double the fares income? Double the train length.

But if we are saying XC are so highly loaded that a single 5 car is carrying the number of passengers that would fit in a 10 (which I don't think is largely the case, because there isn't that much standing space on a Voyager - the vestibules are small and the aisle is narrow) then they need to do more than double capacity to pick up the suppressed demand. But I suspect an uncomfortably overcrowded Voyager is probably operating at maybe 130-150% of the seating capacity, so if you doubled its length you'd get everyone seated and about 50% of spare seats to sell.

One thing that might be worth doing with regard to the subject line is changing the First Class to 2+2 but window aligned and with extra legroom in the airline seats. That could allow it to be only part of the coach and fit in more Standard seats. Another would be replacing the seats with the ones on the Pendolino refurb (or even just Fainsa Sophias) so you can squash in a couple more rows - the original seats are VERY space inefficient. But then all that costs, and inexplicably the DfT won't fund the fix despite them funding it for other TOCs like TPE which, when it only had 185s, was in the exact same position. TPE demonstrated exactly what was needed - fleet doubled = less overcrowding and picking up some suppressed demand.

If we've been over this once we've been over it a hundred times. The Northern stopping service between Manchester and Macclesfield (say) is already at capacity. If you don't allow standing on XC you just end up with people not being able to board the stopping service instead.

Four car Voyagers at crush load are carrying almost as many people stood as sitting down. They're actually very good for standing, much better than say an 802. Unless you're suggesting both removing First Class, reseating it to Standard, and making all services 7-9 car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Four car Voyagers at crush load are carrying almost as many people stood as sitting down. They're actually very good for standing, much better than say an 802.

I don't agree at all. An 802 has wider aisles and bigger vestibules. Far better to stand in (and I've stood in both!)

But if the Northern Manchester-Macc stopper is undercapacity, it'd probably be cheaper to solve that by giving Northern some of the huge numbers of spare EMUs knocking around at the moment so they can lengthen it and similar services. They've already done so for Blackpool and it demonstrably works - 2 car DMU to 6 car EMU is quite a transformation.

 

[6Gman]

That's rather my case! How much more does it cost- is there some kind of cost-benefit assessment that could be shared here? Cost/ income per seat/ passenger?
If it's so obviously worth it, why doesn't it happen?

The cost would be significant and the only way it would be "worth it" (in the strictly financial sense used by the TOCs and the DfT) would be if it attracted sufficient additional income to offset that cost. Which could well involve an increase in numbers travelling that would fill the additional capacity and leave it as overcrowded as it is now!

Not justifying it, but unless the DfT is willing to put in more money that's the reality.

 

[Killingworth]

Abolish first class until capacity issues are resolved? It's likely to be years. That's effectively proposing abolition of first class as once it went it would be hard to restore.

The First class option is needed on long journeys like those of XC. I'd rather pay extra for a guaranteed seat and catering, however all XC fares are high. There's much scope for split ticketing and Seatfrogging to get a more reasonable Standard and First experience.

That's the wrong way for users to have to do it but TOCs are forcing us to take what little advantages there are from every loophole. Pricing needs to be simpler

For now the services are maximising income on costs that must be as low as they can go.

For the future no XC service on the core routes should be operating with less than 6 walk through cars as standard.

If someone proposed an all first daily open access service, operated by something like HSTs with good catering, there might be a market. The longest XC journeys may be less time critical within the day and the novelty might catch on, like the Jacobite only longer. But we're pensioning them off to Mexico and Nigeria.

 

[800Travel]

I don't agree at all. An 802 has wider aisles and bigger vestibules. Far better to stand in (and I've stood in both!)

But if the Northern Manchester-Macc stopper is undercapacity, it'd probably be cheaper to solve that by giving Northern some of the huge numbers of spare EMUs knocking around at the moment so they can lengthen it and similar services. They've already done so for Blackpool and it demonstrably works - 2 car DMU to 6 car EMU is quite a transformation.

And the interior sliding doors don’t slam on standing passengers. 802 >> voyager

 

[Starmill]

I don't agree at all. An 802 has wider aisles and bigger vestibules. Far better to stand in (and I've stood in both!)

The Voyager vestibule is significantly bigger than the 802 one. You can easily do two people abreast standing in a Voyager doorway without it being cramped, as well as in the corridor connection between the coaches, because it has a larger standback, an 802 can fit one person max in the corridor connection and doorway. The accessible toilets mean there's more standing space because there's a longer aisle around them without seats, and on Voyagers people sit in the luggage racks in coach D which don't exist on 802s.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Yes, absolutely. Seats, standing, sat on the floor, luggage racks, wherever. Be honest with passengers. Things are rubbish now, but we can’t magic trains out of anywhere soon. Until then, we will do absolutely everything we can to maximise capacity for everyone, so first class is declassified.

It wouldn’t make a world of difference, but it would be a powerful gesture of choosing passengers with standard class tickets over increased revenue (temporarily!)

Fixed.

 

[Starmill]

But if the Northern Manchester-Macc stopper is undercapacity, it'd probably be cheaper to solve that by giving Northern some of the huge numbers of spare EMUs knocking around at the moment so they can lengthen it and similar services. They've already done so for Blackpool and it demonstrably works - 2 car DMU to 6 car EMU is quite a transformation.

This is very impractical from an infrastructure point of view without extension of the bay platform at Stoke-on-Trent, which would be a huge job.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I very much like the idea of declassifying first class on XC, but this would cause problems when it came to first class season tickets on XC routes. There would need to be some kind of scheme agreed so these people weren’t out of pocket. Either full refund and pass returned, or an easy way to reclaim the excess when using first class etc.

To comply with forum rules - XC = Cross Country

First class seasons on XC routes must be vanishingly rare.

 

[800Travel]

First class seasons on XC routes must be vanishingly rare.

ECML upper half for sure

Edit - for mods - ECML = East Coast Mainline

 

[Hadders]

In my experience XC 1st class is often full, it certainly doesn't cart fresh air around so I don't see the point in a general declassification.

 

[Topological]

Isnt the answer always to have EMUs on Manchester to Birmingham? Likewise, terminate XC at York and have EMUs running in the paths north from York. That should free up a lot of Voyagers for doubling up.

Direct trains seem like the easier price compared to losing First.

Also worth noting is that not all XC are crush-loaded, it seems to be affecting Birmingham to Reading more than Birmingham to Bristol.

 

[TrainBoy98]

Also worth noting is that not all XC are crush-loaded, it seems to be affecting Birmingham to Reading more than Birmingham to Bristol.

This is a good point, we're talking very generally about an entire TOC, when in reality it's only certain routes. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution. Certainly 2tph to Reading would help fix this issue, as south of Reading they're usually relatively lightly loaded compared to north

 

[800Travel]

Isnt the answer always to have EMUs on Manchester to Birmingham? Likewise, terminate XC at York and have EMUs running in the paths north from York. That should free up a lot of Voyagers for doubling up.

Direct trains seem like the easier price compared to losing First.

Also worth noting is that not all XC are crush-loaded, it seems to be affecting Birmingham to Reading more than Birmingham to Bristol.

But that would require another operator to take on those paths and offer similar stopper services. TPE is the one that comes to mind, but they had to cut back on timetabled services to improve timetable resilience so doubt they'd want to take on much more for now. Anyone know if they even have 'spare' trains? 802s or 397s I suppose. I do like your idea - I massively prefer 80xs to voyagers anyway and it would be better for the environment. Just depends on the practicality.

TPE should maybe get some more 5 cars and run double formations. A bit like what HT have been doing on some services. That said, maybe the formation would result in some carriages being locked out of use due to platform length restraints until maybe around Leeds (on a northbound service).

The only other key benefit of having XC on this section is it adds another operator. Recently ASLEF have staggered TOCs across multiple days. Removing XC from ECML North would remove an 'option' on strike days. So when an operator is on strike, there would be max 1 other operator rather than 2.

(For Mods - TPE = TransPennine Express, HT = Hull Trains, XC = Cross Country, ECML = East Coast Mainline)

 

[Jimini]

In my experience XC 1st class is often full, it certainly doesn't cart fresh air around so I don't see the point in a general declassification.

Agreed. As a regular of first class on XC, please leave it be! There's more than enough of us willing to pay for it.

 

[JonathanH]

The only other key benefit of having XC on this section is it adds another operator. Recently ASLEF have staggered TOCs across multiple days. Removing XC from ECML North would remove an 'option' on strike days. So when an operator is on strike, there would be max 1 other operator rather than 2.

That really shouldn't need to be a long term consideration.