Why are XC allowed to continue?

[dk1]

It's a national rail contract, franchises are gone. All revenue goes to the treasury & all major decisions are done by the DfT, XC management can't do anything to improve things, they are just contractors.

Yes I understand that. It’s just easier to explain it like that. I work for a national rail contractor lol.

 

[Disrupted]

I'm sorry but I have used all of those operators and, whilst improvements are needed, you are over exaggerating. If it were the media I'm sure it would be a crisis.

Not wanting to veer the thread off topic, but perhaps we should respectfully agree to disagree.

I too have used all of those operators, and see daily the number of full and part cancellations they inflict on their passengers. LNER consistently abandoning north of Edinburgh, regularly not running Anglo-Scottish services beyond Newcastle in one direction of the other, ditto Avanti at Preston and cancelled throughout in a number if cases.

Whilst the journeys you have undertaken with them may have been relatively ok, overall I firmly believe the majority of the travelling public would share my view;

The entire rail network is a disgrace.

 

[Bill Bishop]

I also wonder if there‘ll ever be a limit to the number of separate discussions about 222s and XC?
We probably had enough threads last year, and yet here we go again…

Perhaps the 222s may be useful on Norwich to Liverpool

 

[43066]

Not wanting to veer the thread off topic, but perhaps we should respectfully agree to disagree.

I too have used all of those operators, and see daily the number of full and part cancellations they inflict on their passengers. LNER consistently abandoning north of Edinburgh, regularly not running Anglo-Scottish services beyond Newcastle in one direction of the other, ditto Avanti at Preston and cancelled throughout in a number if cases.

Whilst the journeys you have undertaken with them may have been relatively ok, overall I firmly believe the majority of the travelling public would share my view;

The entire rail network is a disgrace.

Yet swathes of the network continue to perform well, notably the bits free of above mentioned government interference. The Elizabeth Line has been a triumph, London Overground works well and has also been a huge success story since it launched. On the DfT side there are many issues, but (eg) GA and C2C get a good write up. So the above statement is far too general and simplistic.

What exactly is there to be gained by saying “it’s a disgrace” without considering why the problems exist?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

If I'm doing the math correctly, in 2022-23, CrossCountry made 16.5p per passenger km, more or less comparable with most other intercity operators (Avanti: 17.3; GWR: 17.8; EMR: 16.4).

Interestingly, LNER made notably less revenue (13.0p/km), but its expenses are lower to match.

Interesting! What source did you pull the numbers from? Are comparative figures for other operators also available?

 

[bleeder4]

I travel on a return trip between Birmingham and Edinburgh around once a month. For the last few months I have been using XC to do it, as Avanti are just too unreliable. They'll either cancel the train entirely, or if it does run it will sometimes terminate at Preston instead. XC are much more reliable. Yes, the trains are much shorter (often just a 4 coach Voyager) but so far they've never let me down. There's always an unreserved coach at one end of the train so I make sure I stand at the right part of the platform for that and am one of the first to board the coach when it arrives. So far, I have always been able to get a seat the whole way between Birmingham and Edinburgh. It's easier to do this on the return journey, as the train starts in Edinburgh so I can arrive at the station early and often be the first one to enter the coach and take my pick of the seats. The busiest part of the route in my experience is between Leeds and Sheffield. On the usual 4 coach unit, there will pretty much always be people standing all down the aisle between those two stations. Yes, Birmingham to Edinburgh takes an hour longer with XC but, in my opinion, that is a small price to pay for having a more reliable service.

 

[Disrupted]

Yet swathes of the network continue to perform well, notably the bits free of above mentioned government interference. The Elizabeth Line has been a triumph, London Overground works well and has also been a huge success story since it launched. On the DfT side there are many issues, but (eg) GA and C2C get a good write up. So the above statement is far too general and simplistic.

What exactly is there to be gained by saying “it’s a disgrace” without considering why the problems exist?

I'm not denying some operators regularly perform better than others, not am I denying that there are reasons for the issues the TOC's I mentioned seem to suffer with.

The problem for the railway is its fare paying customers don't care about the ins and outs of why they receive shambolic or non existent service.

They want a train to pick them up from A when it's meant to, and drop them off at B when it's meant to. And a lot of the time, the railway fails to achieve this.

 

[dk1]

Perhaps the 222s may be useful on Norwich to Liverpool

Non starter due to weight issues across the Fens.

Yes, Birmingham to Edinburgh takes an hour longer with XC but, in my opinion, that is a small price to pay for having a more reliable service.

Worth it for the stunning views along the NE coast of the ECML

 

[Kettledrum]

The question which really needs to be asked is why aren't XC generating enough revenue to fund investment in longer and more frequent trains?
The trains I have seen across a number of different routes always well loaded, indeed excessively so in some cases which often deters repeat business. But if the trains are packed with advance saver fares, they are probably struggling to break even. They need to invest in more capacity with a premium product and try to make more from upselling and meal service. Not a full blow onboard kitchen, but an easily delivered meal suitable for a 4+ hour journey. They need to maximise revenue to be able to invest.

Some of XC fares are eye watering, and for distances of any length, other options such as travelling by coach or flying are often far cheaper, as is going via London and using different operators. The trains are often packed too, so the shortfall in revenue has always puzzled me.

One factor could be that other operators run stations and are able to generate huge amounts of additional income from station car parking. XC gets no car parking revenue at all.

 

[43074]

The interesting question is where you could best make cuts elsewhere to fund a better XC operation.

There is finite money available for the overall railway, so more money for a better XC service would appear to mean less somewhere else.

Easy, you don't make any cuts at all. Fill the additional capacity with fare paying passengers and recoup the investment that way.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

They want a train to pick them up from A when it's meant to, and drop them off at B when it's meant to. And a lot of the time, the railway fails to achieve this.

However the vast majority of the time the railway does achieve this…

 

[CarrotPie]

Non starter due to weight issues across the Fens.

Is the limit a normal amount (ie the 222s are obscenely overweight) or is it quite low (ie the 222s are normal weight)? What I'm getting at is: is it worth it to modify it when the 222s may only last 10 years: will new trains be overweight too?

 

[Starmill]

Well, the Newcastle / Reading is a shortened version of Newcastle / Southampton; it runs less than two hourly now rather than hourly, so how has that improved the service?

It's not. It's like that purely because that uses fewer staff to run.

 

[RailWonderer]

Even with a lot of investment, long distance through services are impunctual by nature. You could improve frequency and capacity with money but not the fact XC runs on different mainlines and regional lines with freight, local, regional and other IC operators.

 

[Djgr]

Presumably for the same reason for Sunak and cronies are allowed to continue.

 

[Starmill]

It's a national rail contract, franchises are gone. All revenue goes to the treasury & all major decisions are done by the DfT, XC management can't do anything to improve things, they are just contractors.

Loads of contracts were gross cost before the pandemic too. It really isn't some new thing.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is the limit a normal amount (ie the 222s are obscenely overweight) or is it quite low (ie the 222s are normal weight)? What I'm getting at is: is it worth it to modify it when the 222s may only last 10 years: will new trains be overweight too?

They’re just completely inappropriate stock for the route type (ie Norwich Liverpool), weight is just part of the problem. They’re over-specced for top speed, and have inadequate seating capacity compared to more suitable local or regional DMU stock.

However this is just typical thread drift, Norwich - Liverpool is nothing to do with XC‘s supposed problems that this thread is about.

 

[Starmill]

The question which really needs to be asked is why aren't XC generating enough revenue to fund investment in longer and more frequent trains?
The trains I have seen across a number of different routes always well loaded, indeed excessively so in some cases which often deters repeat business.

You've answered your own question. Their trains are unusually costly to run because they are very inefficient with diesel, and simultaneously they provide laughably little standard class seat capacity, which is restricting demand.

There's a very strong demand for Reading - Birmingham for example, certainly enough for one eleven car or two six car trains per hour, but this isn't currently able to be provided.

If I'm doing the math correctly, in 2022-23, CrossCountry made 16.5p per passenger km, more or less comparable with most other intercity operators (Avanti: 17.3; GWR: 17.8; EMR: 16.4).

Interestingly, LNER made notably less revenue (13.0p/km), but its expenses are lower to match.

Indeed. Yield is similar but standard class capacity is much lower.

 

[43066]

I'm not denying some operators regularly perform better than others, not am I denying that there are reasons for the issues the TOC's I mentioned seem to suffer with.

The problem for the railway is its fare paying customers don't care about the ins and outs of why they receive shambolic or non existent service.

They want a train to pick them up from A when it's meant to, and drop them off at B when it's meant to. And a lot of the time, the railway fails to achieve this.

Clearly there are major problems in some areas, however large parts of the network continue to deliver a good service, hence my view that your original statement is far too general to be useful.

Unfortunately for fare paying customers (and the staff, and the taxpayer) the industry is currently being micromanaged by the DfT who are focussed entirely on short term cost savings, even where this is to the detriment of reliability/future revenue growth, and have zero interest in improving things for the passengers. This is an ongoing issue that manifests itself in various ways, and has been discussed in detail on many threads; most recently in relation to Northern’s Xmas eve debacle (a perfect demonstration of the current cynical, ideologically driven approach; the same government that legislates to bring in minimum service levels on strike days is quite happy for the service to utterly collapse on its watch the rest of the time).

Until that underlying position changes it’s hard to see much scope for improvement. Pointing the finger of blame at the individual companies (XC in the case of this thread) rather misses the point that the former franchises are currently being micromanaged under NRCs or OLR so aren’t free to make changes, and (crucially) aren’t incentivised to change anything even if they could, as they don’t take any revenue risk. Of course these companies are the convenient face of the industry, and it suits the DfT very well indeed for them (and/or the unions) to be blamed for the industry’s current woes.

Non starter due to weight issues across the Fens.

Indeed. Specifically they can’t use SP speed differentials.

 

[dk1]

Is the limit a normal amount (ie the 222s are obscenely overweight) or is it quite low (ie the 222s are normal weight)? What I'm getting at is: is it worth it to modify it when the 222s may only last 10 years: will new trains be overweight too?

They cannot run at SP speeds so would be limited to 45mph Ely to Lakenheath for example. I think 175s & 185s are also overweight.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

The fact that XC’s yield per kilometre is lower (despite eye-watering long distance fares) demonstrates two things:
- their business model isn’t working
- their passenger capacity per train path is inadequate

Its blindingly obvious but the logical answer is to use their timetable slots more efficiently, i.e. Provide more seats. Once the current overcrowding is solved, then look to adjust fares downward to fill all remaining seats. There is clearly a equilibrium point with a greater pax load / lower fares balance that the DfT should be aiming for. what they’ve actually done is reduce seat capacity further which can only lead to higher fares, but the fares are already essentially maxed out, so it’s a foolish strategy. This is why reducing capacity to chase short-term cost savings is such a stupid policy, as it costs revenue in the longer term. One thing about LNER by comparison - the transition to an IET fleet has greatly increased their passenger capacity compared to the Ic225 fleet that came before. Avanti already have a lot of seats available in their 390 fleet, it would be interesting to know what their load factors are on the Anglo-scot routes.

 

[Energy]

, but its expenses are lower to match.

How do XCs expenses compare to the rest?

 

[Dr Day]

The question which really needs to be asked is why aren't XC generating enough revenue to fund investment in longer and more frequent trains?

Good question, but revenue is only one side of the story. ie is it also 'how can operating costs be reduced so that the incremental revenue per additional seat mile is higher than the incremental cost per additional seat mile'?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Good question, but revenue is only one side of the story. ie is it also 'how can operating costs be reduced so that the incremental revenue per additional seat mile is higher than the incremental cost per additional seat mile'?

Easy, increase the number of seats so you’re dividing the cost by a larger number. Obviously there is a marginal cost increase by increasing the number of vehicles but for an intercity operator this should be outweighed by revenue gain.

 

[Dr Day]

for an intercity operator this should be outweighed by revenue gain.

Agree, it should be, but the fact that XC for so long (well before Covid and the current contractual situation) appear to have struggled to make any case for lengthening services suggests it may not be quite that straightforward.

 

[JonathanH]

Agree, it should be, but the fact that XC for so long (well before Covid and the current contractual situation) appear to have struggled to make any case for lengthening services suggests it may not be quite that straightforward.

Isn't the problem that the cost of lengthening services goes far beyond additional rolling stock, also involving depot alterations, more staff, different timetabling, platform capacity, changes to the services of other operators and other hidden factors, not just lease cost and some more diesel? Simply too much to contemplate as a big bang, hence the proposal to just add 35 extra carriages.

For example, another thread indicated a Voyager stabling at Holbeck overnight, citing the reason as insufficient capacity at Crofton depot. Extrapolate that across the network, and it is obvious why the changes to XC don't happen as easily as people think they should.

 

[Meerkat]

Easy, increase the number of seats so you’re dividing the cost by a larger number. Obviously there is a marginal cost increase by increasing the number of vehicles but for an intercity operator this should be outweighed by revenue gain.

Leasing costs money. Is that going to be worth it if it’s only full for part of the journey?
Also you are losing money if you are just giving expensively provided seats to people who were previously standing.

 

[Invincible]

XC have just been gifted an extended franchise. The DfT are the villains.

XC have a new owner with access to money, not sure if anything will change?

Arriva sold to I Squared — Financier Worldwide

www.financierworldwide.com

 

[Tetchytyke]

Agree, it should be, but the fact that XC for so long (well before Covid and the current contractual situation) appear to have struggled to make any case for lengthening services suggests it may not be quite that straightforward.

Isn't the problem that the cost of lengthening services goes far beyond additional rolling stock, also involving depot alterations, more staff, different timetabling, platform capacity, changes to the services of other operators and other hidden factors, not just lease cost and some more diesel?

XC has always been a challenge. It has always been the Cinderella of the long-distance network, even back in British Rail days it was always the last to receive upgraded stock. The reason for this is simple, and always has been: it doesn't go to London.

We had one big influx of investment, with the 220/221s and Operation Princess. But even then the SRA, as was, meddled and cut corners: Virgin weren't allowed to keep the HSTs they'd intended to refurbish and retain. Clearly this investment created as many problems as it solved, the 220/221s have always been massively overcrowded, and they've always been too heavy and too over-powered to be of use on more regional routes.

I think some of it is Arriva being Arriva too. They spent a fortune removing the on-board buffet to provide extra seating, and the changes provided precisely zero extra seats. They got permission to use a small fleet of HSTs and then decided to leave said small fleet of HSTs parked up for most of the week. No wonder the DfT finally decided to get rid; if even the TOC doesn't want to use the stock, why would the DfT see it differently?

The 220/221s were clearly a mistake in hindsight: too small and too heavy. But we're stuck with them until they're life expired now. The reason for this comes back, as it often does, again to the fact that XC don't serve London. Other TOCs would have been allowed to recover from the mistake long ago- SWR were allowed to replace their perfectly good 707s- but not XC. XC should have been allowed to obtain some IETs, which would have been perfect, given the existing IET infrastructure at both ends of the XC network. But that ship, too, has now sailed.

 

[dk1]

XC have a new owner with access to money, not sure if anything will change?

Arriva sold to I Squared — Financier Worldwide

www.financierworldwide.com

A nice thought but I can’t see it somehow.