Following the XC 'Prior Information notice', what changes could be made to the XC franchise?

[Blindtraveler]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/dft-publishes-cross-country-prior-information-notice.241142/

I very much hope that some money is found from somewhere for a a substantial change to the the fleet.

XC needs a uniform load of bi-modes and in my personal view these should be Stadler and the the Voyages could be heavily refurbished and cascaded to other routes , where are they they will happily do another 15 years.

If the intention is to keep them on CrossCountry until the end of their working lives, which in reality is another 10 or 15 years, god I feel old as I can remember them new, then a heavy interior refurbishment is is long long overdue.

 

[Energy]

XC needs a uniform load of by modes and in my personal view these should be stadler

Would be nice but I doubt the money is there. Fleet changes we will see will be the loss of HSTs (GWR now abandoning there's makes maintanence difficult) and possibly adding 221s, especially if Bristol to Manchester properly returns.

and the the voyages could be heavily refurbished in cascaded 2 to other routes where are they they will happily do another 15 years

There aren't other routes which they are suitable for.

then a heavy interior refurbishment is is long long overdue

Agreed.

 

[DanNCL]

Would be nice but I doubt the money is there. Fleet changes we will see will be the loss of HSTs (GWR now abandoning there's makes maintanence difficult) and possibly adding 221s, especially if Bristol to Manchester properly returns.

I can see the ROSCO of the 221s offering an attractive price to XC to take the full fleet, it might be enough to sway the DFT if XC can provide a business case for it.

HSTs aren’t impossible to keep after GWR boot them out of Laira as there’s space at Heaton for them, but it would require refreshing staff at Heaton on HST maintenance, as well as a complete rewrite of the HST diagrams.

There aren't other routes which they are suitable for.

ScotRail could definitely be eyeing them up for potential HST replacement. But the 222s are probably a more likely outcome for that.

 

[gc4946]

My big hope?? is that the DfT will agree a contract specifying a core level of two XC services an hour each way fanning out from Birmingham New Street to Manchester Piccadilly, Newcastle, Reading and Bristol Temple Meads subject to heavy interior refurbishment of the Voyagers, and examining options for future train replacement.

 

[Gaz55]

Any award should have been dependant on increasing the fleet. I realise that the DFT are holding the purse strings, but it would be ridiculous if fleets that are coming out off lease aren't cascaded to XC. Another four years of the same old XC if not.

 

[JonathanH]

Any award should have been dependant on increasing the fleet.

This is only a Prior Information Notice. It doesn't specify the fleet. However, as you have noted, Value for Money is the key aspect.

 

[heathrowrail]

I agree with everyone else, 221s and maybe 222s forced to join XC to replace the HSTs, longer term a fleet review to replace them all.

 

[Starmill]

This is only a Prior Information Notice. It doesn't specify the fleet. However, as you have noted, Value for Money is the key aspect.

I think that it's a sensible conclusion though that the HSTs are toast either way within a couple of years, it's just precisely how quickly they will go.

The question of the Avanti 221s however is much more open - could easily go either way. Hopefully when the contract is awarded it will contain a decision.

Another four years of the same old XC if not.

To be fair it may be worse rather than better as they could withdraw the HST fleet and still choose not to take on any ex Avanti 221s.

 

[43096]

I agree with everyone else, 221s and maybe 222s forced to join XC to replace the HSTs, longer term a fleet review to replace them all.

I think that it's a sensible conclusion though that the HSTs are toast either way within a couple of years, it's just precisely how quickly they will go.

The question of the Avanti 221s however is much more open - could easily go either way. Hopefully when the contract is awarded it will contain a decision.


To be fair it may be worse rather than better as they could withdraw the HST fleet and still choose not to take on any ex Avanti 221s.

Given the 10% budget cuts required by DfT to come into effect from May, I would expect HSTs to go with no replacement.

 

[Watershed]

To be fair it may be worse rather than better as they could withdraw the HST fleet and still choose not to take on any ex Avanti 221s.

Indeed and with TOCs being asked to find 10% budget cuts, I would almost be surprised if that isn't what ends up happening. The Avanti 221s may end up on a one-way trip to Newport sooner than expected...

 

[Energy]

I think that it's a sensible conclusion though that the HSTs are toast either way within a couple of years, it's just precisely how quickly they will go.

The question of the Avanti 221s however is much more open - could easily go either way. Hopefully when the contract is awarded it will contain a decision.

All of the rolling stock has its lease expire on 15th October 2023, I'd expect the 170s to remain as is and the HSTs to just not have their lease extended.

Voyager wise they need a new lease for their current 220s and 221s so it's possible they get a good price on the avanti units at the same time.

 

[InOban]

They should drop all the services beyond Edinburgh to Glasgow and probably also those to Aberdeen. Scotrail isn't as short of dmus as it was and there is more need of the XC vehicles in England.

 

[JonathanH]

Voyager wise they need a new lease for their current 220s and 221s so it's possible they get a good price on the avanti units at the same time.

Good price or not it is all about the business case.

Lease cost is not everything. Will Alstom give a good price for the extra maintenance at Central Rivers, will there be maintenance capacity elsewhere on the network? How much do the extra traincrew cost? Can the extra platform occupation and empty stock workings be accommodated? Is ridership going to grow with more capacity at the same fares?

Logically, I assume that there are a series of costed options that Arriva put forward to the DfT with the base case being the current timetable and trainfleet (with HSTs withdrawn). Anything extra needs to demonstrate that it doesn't increase the cost to the DfT relative to that base case.

Is it even in Arriva's financial interest to come up with costed options that involve more trains?

 

[rjames87]

Also opportunities for a new leasing deal to see the voyagers made longer using carriages from spare ones as they become available, with end cars scrapped. Presumably would again fit the bill for being value for money as it lowers staff costs (removing the need for duplication in dual units). All depends if the leasing company have better offers I guess for the Avanti units.

 

[RobShipway]

I can see the ROSCO of the 221s offering an attractive price to XC to take the full fleet, it might be enough to sway the DFT if XC can provide a business case for it.

HSTs aren’t impossible to keep after GWR boot them out of Laira as there’s space at Heaton for them, but it would require refreshing staff at Heaton on HST maintenance, as well as a complete rewrite of the HST diagrams.


ScotRail could definitely be eyeing them up for potential HST replacement. But the 222s are probably a more likely outcome for that.

I would have to agree with the above, only exception possibly being that Chiltern may take either the class 222 or class 180's to replace their loco hauled fleet.

 

[JonathanH]

Also opportunities for a new leasing deal to see the voyagers made longer using carriages from spare ones as they become available, with end cars scrapped. Presumably would again fit the bill for being value for money as it lowers staff costs (removing the need for duplication in dual units). All depends if the leasing company have better offers I guess for the Avanti units

Is Central Rivers set up to deal with trains longer than 5 coaches long?

 

[The Ham]

Also opportunities for a new leasing deal to see the voyagers made longer using carriages from spare ones as they become available, with end cars scrapped. Presumably would again fit the bill for being value for money as it lowers staff costs (removing the need for duplication in dual units). All depends if the leasing company have better offers I guess for the Avanti units.

If we took the ICWC fleet of 20 221's we could create:
- 5 * 8 coach units to replace the HST
- 5 * 8 coach units to replace 4+5 pairings

That would then allow you to take 10 of the 4 coach units and allow you to lengthen 20 to 5 coaches.

The overall fleet of 22x would increase by 60 coaches, however with 40 fewer mark 3 and 12 class 43's the overall lease costs and running costs would be fairly similar, if not lower.

With a simpler fleet (less staff training & a uniform fleet for maintenance) and a few less pairs of 22x's in service there's probably a bit of a saving (especially from the fuel costs of the HST's).

Is Central Rivers set up to deal with trains longer than 5 coaches long?

The 8 coach trains could (for maintenance purposes) be 4+4, although there maybe a need for an end coach to couple to the end to act as a shunter when moving the halves about.

 

[Iskra]

Any award should have been dependant on increasing the fleet. I realise that the DFT are holding the purse strings, but it would be ridiculous if fleets that are coming out off lease aren't cascaded to XC. Another four years of the same old XC if not.

Well that’s not quite as catastrophic as it sounds, as passenger numbers are still down on pre-pandemic and future growth is hardly going to be startling considering the current malaise on the railways.

Good price or not it is all about the business case.

Lease cost is not everything. Will Alstom give a good price for the extra maintenance at Central Rivers, will there be maintenance capacity elsewhere on the network? How much do the extra traincrew cost? Can the extra platform occupation and empty stock workings be accommodated? Is ridership going to grow with more capacity at the same fares?

Logically, I assume that there are a series of costed options that Arriva put forward to the DfT with the base case being the current timetable and trainfleet (with HSTs withdrawn). Anything extra needs to demonstrate that it doesn't increase the cost to the DfT relative to that base case.

Is it even in Arriva's financial interest to come up with costed options that involve more trains?

…and does a factory at Newton Aycliffe need some more work…

 

[sprinterguy]

Purely speculatively, a fleet of no more than 60 5-car class 80x units would be sufficient to replace the Voyager and HST fleets and would represent a notable increase in seats per unit compared to the Voyagers, without increasing the total number of vehicles in the fleet, decreasing the total number of diesel engines (Even if they went for 4 engine class 810 derivatives to match Voyager timings) and reducing fuel usage and emissions at point of use to zero by over 8,000 train miles a day, even with the current contracted timetable, by using the overhead wires between Birmingham and Manchester, or York and Edinburgh/Glasgow (Assuming the ECML supply in Scotland is beefed up as intended).

This should have a positive impact on fuel costs for potentially comparable leasing, track access and maintenance costs (Though I suspect in reality there would be increases in the latter three). Though it wouldn't be possible to use the units in pairs so some services that currently operate as 8 or 9-cars would lose capacity.

Less radically, taking on ten of Avanti's class 221s would cover withdrawal of the HSTs without increasing the total number of vehicles in the fleet but allowing greater flexibility in diagramming to allow additional services to also be strengthened to double sets.

Note that this is all said from a point of idle speculation - in reality, there are many good and sober points that have been made by others on this thread taking into account real world considerations that more pragmatically suggest little to no change.

 

[JonathanH]

…and does a factory at Newton Aycliffe need some more work…

HS2 order is part of its (and Derby's) future workload

 

[tbtc]

We have dozens of carriages of relatively modern trains either sat “rusting”* in sidings long term or scrapped (379s being the high profile ones at the moment, but also 360s etc), and plenty more carriages look to be joining them on the Naughty List soon enough (350s etc)…

…We have cost cutting to come in the Spring (as the Government focus on reducing spending rather than increasing revenues - I’m not saying I agree, but the Government obviously control everything nowadays so they have that power, no Branson is going to stand up to them, TOCs will meekly take their cheques for doing what the Government specified)…

…And still people think that ROSCOs will bend over backwards to ensure they get at least some “peppercorn” leading fees (and that there’s going to be big explanations of operations)

I’d love to be proved wrong, but it gets fairly inevitable that the result will be “XC are expected to carry on as briefly similar timetable without HSTs and maybe even losing a couple of 170s, only Scottish such being a maximum of a couple of ex-Avanti Voyagers”

There’s maybe a debate to be had about whether we’re better off with fewer/longer services (do that XC’s core is doubled up Voyagers), with “Local” TOCs filling the gaps in the surrendered XC path, if such frequencies are so important… maybe a debate about the frequency beyond York/ Bristol/ Reading… but that’s all outwith the timescale of this specific exercise, and I can’t see any radical changes any time soon, other than some minor cuts beyond the “core” to hide the fact that XC will have fewer carriages - don’t expect a net fleet increase, don’t expect many Avanti Voyagers, don’t expect 222s, don’t expect overall benefits from a passenger perspective, don’t expect ROSCOs to give their stock away at bargain basement rates

(*- I don’t know whether all of it literally “rusts”, given that different trains are made from different metals, but you get the metaphor)

 

[Stephen Lee]

For regional services, I prefer to take class 153s(PRM-TSI complied) and Class 158s to supplement the 170s
For intercity, I prefer the Avanti 221s and EMR 222s to join the fleet while replace HSTs and boost capacity.

 

[gc4946]

I suspect there'll be a few improvements to the current service pattern, eg some more Bristol-Manchester and Reading-York services by leasing a few more ex-Avanti 221s for those extra services plus cover for departed HSTs, but looking at things, probably no change to service levels beyond the core.
I also hope XC can get hold of extra class 170 centre cars to make all their units 3-car

 

[A0wen]

We have dozens of carriages of relatively modern trains either sat “rusting”* in sidings long term or scrapped (379s being the high profile ones at the moment, but also 360s etc), and plenty more carriages look to be joining them on the Naughty List soon enough (350s etc)…

…We have cost cutting to come in the Spring (as the Government focus on reducing spending rather than increasing revenues - I’m not saying I agree, but the Government obviously control everything nowadays so they have that power, no Branson is going to stand up to them, TOCs will meekly take their cheques for doing what the Government specified)…

…And still people think that ROSCOs will bend over backwards to ensure they get at least some “peppercorn” leading fees (and that there’s going to be big explanations of operations)

I’d love to be proved wrong, but it gets fairly inevitable that the result will be “XC are expected to carry on as briefly similar timetable without HSTs and maybe even losing a couple of 170s, only Scottish such being a maximum of a couple of ex-Avanti Voyagers”

There’s maybe a debate to be had about whether we’re better off with fewer/longer services (do that XC’s core is doubled up Voyagers), with “Local” TOCs filling the gaps in the surrendered XC path, if such frequencies are so important… maybe a debate about the frequency beyond York/ Bristol/ Reading… but that’s all outwith the timescale of this specific exercise, and I can’t see any radical changes any time soon, other than some minor cuts beyond the “core” to hide the fact that XC will have fewer carriages - don’t expect a net fleet increase, don’t expect many Avanti Voyagers, don’t expect 222s, don’t expect overall benefits from a passenger perspective, don’t expect ROSCOs to give their stock away at bargain basement rates

(*- I don’t know whether all of it literally “rusts”, given that different trains are made from different metals, but you get the metaphor)

Bit in bold - a bit disingenuous on the 360s as the ex Anglia ones are now with EMR and those which were scrapped were owned by Heathrow, not part of one of the ROSCO fleet and presumably from Heathrow's point of view they were written off assets once the Elizabeth line opened.

On XC - why the persistent demands for more HSTs ? They're nearing their 50th birthday - half the time people complain about old, clapped out rolling stock - 313s which are the same age as the HSTs, Sprinters which are 10 years younger, then the next second there's a demand for more 50 year old trains.

The Voyagers and Meridians are due a refresh, but are now mid life and easily good for another 10-15 years, by which time various bits of electrification will be complete and a sensible decision taken as to the best stock for XC moving forward.

 

[Snow1964]

Although the mods have split the threads, what XC gets will be a function of value for money as that determines size of fleet needed.
Using round numbers if 2019 timetable generates net £1m per week, but a half hourly timetable with high ticket sales filling the seats produces net £1.5m per week then going to need lot more rolling stock.

My predictions :
1) remaining HSTs phased out
2) Extra 221s and 222s join fleet, but are reformed to give some 6car or 7car sets for workings where single set is too short, but double unit is overkill
3) some 4 car sets are reformed into 6car sets, with bodies of two driving vehicles stored or scrapped (2x4car become back to back 3+3), keeping all the engines and spare bogies and seats etc as maintenance spares
4) New bi-modes (with dual voltage) are built for services to Manchester, Bournemouth and possibly also Edinburgh, cascading out some of the pure diesel trains
5) The 170s are replaced by 220, 221 fleet cascaded out by new bi-modes, or 5car IET units transferred from GWR if a regional 110mph bi-mode is built for GWR secondary line workings (basically the current Castle HST workings and some Cotswold services which don’t justify high speed IETs)

 

[JonathanH]

My predictions :

Come back in 2028 and see if there is a growth agenda then. There simply isn't an expansionist agenda for Britain's railways at the moment, indeed quite the contrary, value for money generally means trimming to the bone.

As for reforming Voyagers, the problem is that the current timetable is built around double sets (to the extent they are available). Empty stock workings and platform occupancy at Birmingham New Street is built around double sets. It is just too much upheaval to start going to 6 or 7 coach sets.

The 170s are replaced by 220, 221 fleet cascaded out by new bi-modes

We've had this before. 220s aren't a big capacity uplift on 170s and can't do Stansted. They could do Cardiff to Nottingham but aren't the ideal rolling stock for the route.

 

[The Ham]

Well that’s not quite as catastrophic as it sounds, as passenger numbers are still down on pre-pandemic and future growth is hardly going to be startling considering the current malaise on the railways.


…and does a factory at Newton Aycliffe need some more work…

Quarter on quarter rail growth is on an upwards tend (although there's been one month where there was a drop in the last 6, the following month was quite a bit higher than the one before).

Also whilst XC is at 68% of pre Covid levels this against the backdrop that they are operating 64% of the service km's of pre Covid. As such there's more passengers per service km than there was.

The big question which needs to be answered; would rubbiyng more services increase the passenger numbers by enough to justify the extra service?

Whilst a reduced service from XC (also applies TPE and Avanti) could mean that other TOC are benefitting from transfered passengers, those reduced services also make it harder to use rail and so probably overall it leads to a suppression of overall passenger numbers (which harms the rail industry and could potentially require more support from the government).

 

[JonathanH]

The big question which needs to be answered; would rubbiyng more services increase the passenger numbers by enough to justify the extra service?

Trouble is that on day one, running more services costs more money because the passenger growth doesn't happen overnight, so someone has to bankroll the additional capacity for a period until passenger numbers increase.

With the DfT having a funding squeeze now, and the operator not having any direct interest / involvement in revenue, there is no facility to 'borrow" against a future expectation of growth.

The 10% cut in real terms funding mentioned in other threads appears to apply to all TOCs. I doubt there is scope for greater cuts at another TOC to allow greater short term costs at CrossCountry.

 

[Iskra]

Quarter on quarter rail growth is on an upwards tend (although there's been one month where there was a drop in the last 6, the following month was quite a bit higher than the one before).

Also whilst XC is at 68% of pre Covid levels this against the backdrop that they are operating 64% of the service km's of pre Covid. As such there's more passengers per service km than there was.

The big question which needs to be answered; would rubbiyng more services increase the passenger numbers by enough to justify the extra service?

Whilst a reduced service from XC (also applies TPE and Avanti) could mean that other TOC are benefitting from transfered passengers, those reduced services also make it harder to use rail and so probably overall it leads to a suppression of overall passenger numbers (which harms the rail industry and could potentially require more support from the government).

Sorry, do these figures account for the fact that many more trains are now double units, so capacity has increased on those lines? If you double the train formation on the core while cutting at the fringes, but only gain 4% that's not very good?

 

[Brubulus]

Sorry, do these figures account for the fact that many more trains are now double units, so capacity has increased on those lines? If you double the train formation on the core while cutting at the fringes, but only gain 4% that's not very good?

The lower frequencies really put people off, especially given many core corridors of XC were half hourly, now they're hourly or worse.
Increasing capacity doesn't especially affect demand, unless fares or frequencies are changed.
On the other hand, halving the frequency will have a clear effect on demand as the timetable stops aligning with people's schedules. Frequrncy reductions often ruin connections, making many of the journeys XC catered to far longer, putting people off using them.
Most people will just drive if rail doesn't work for their plans.