Why are XC allowed to continue?

[WAB]

The Edinburgh-Newcastle bit is where there is over-provision though. It’s where LNER trains seem quietest, to me at least. Whatever capacity enhancements come, Edinburgh-Newcastle is not the priority, it’s the cores south of there that need the capacity.

There are very few services which run as a double north of Newcastle; mostly either busy peak departures or for operational convenience. Ultimately the patterns of demand on NE-SW are so complex, you just need to have blanket doubles on everything entering Newcastle-Bristol plus a decent selection of the busiest services onto Edinburgh or Plymouth. I just don't think it is realistic to free up any more resources from north of Newcastle to feed capacity enhancements elsewhere - the units for that need to come from outside XC.

I recently made 2 journeys on 12 coach trains through central London. One was almost empty all the way to Brighton. The return trip started much the same, but standing room only before reaching the Thames. I doubt many went as far as Cambridge. Tidal flow loadings of course, but running a consistent hourly through service with capacity makes sense.

That's what we need for XC even if it will convey a lot of fresh air at some times of day in many places. Longer and more reliable trains will bring more users. Currently we're all saying the same thing. Overcrowding is deterring greatee use across the nation. Roll on 2026 when we can see how effectively these extra untits can change all that.

The obsession with closely matching capacity to demand can go overboard. This inevitably leads to operations which fall apart as soon as units start getting displaced, with single units getting sent out vice doubles. There are also the additional staffing costs, difficulties in providing catering and first-class amenities, and space penalties in the form of extra cabs. I firmly believe that 7-car 80xs replacing the Voyagers could be made to pay by increasing capacity, reducing the number of cabs to maintain, and reducing staffing costs. An aggressive Advance pricing strategy could un-supress demand and cover the additional fuel and maintenance costs.

Most people who board at Leeds have already changed from another service so making them change twice in a short space of time from one overcrowded service to another is going to suppress demand and push it onto the roads (maybe that is your intention).

In fairness I do agree that they are busy and I didn't propose removing them completely as others had - I was merely asking why remapping the Anglo Scottish service to TPE would be such a bad idea?

Firstly, does TPE have the units? And secondly, does freeing up four units compensate for making a great many passengers change trains to/from an hourly service, particularly with the likelihood of delays on the XC portion? As Neptune has said, many passengers have changed once already. Adding a second or third change is going to make things worse. Whilst I dislike the urge many feel to have direct trains from and to everywhere, places like Leeds, Sheffield, Derby, Bristol and Plymouth having direct trains to Scotland is a completely reasonable expectation on the part of the public.

 

[JonathanH]

An aggressive Advance pricing strategy could un-supress demand and cover the additional fuel and maintenance costs.

One of CrossCountry's problems is the way that costs are not met by revenue. Are you talking about the LNER strategy of removing off-peak tickets, which may well bring in more revenue?

 

[Richard Scott]

The obsession with closely matching capacity to demand can go overboard. This inevitably leads to operations which fall apart as soon as units start getting displaced, with single units getting sent out vice doubles. There are also the additional staffing costs, difficulties in providing catering and first-class amenities, and space penalties in the form of extra cabs. I firmly believe that 7-car 80xs replacing the Voyagers could be made to pay by increasing capacity, reducing the number of cabs to maintain, and reducing staffing costs. An aggressive Advance pricing strategy could un-supress demand and cover the additional fuel and maintenance costs.

This is the problem with the past few decades nailing the flag to the unit mast. It's not flexible and putting units together wastes space with unnecessary cabs and money with duplication of staff. I doubt 80x units would cost more in fuel, Voyagers must be some of the most inefficient trains going in regards to fuel consumption; I hate to think how much they use. To be honest they're a total relic and need replacing but I appreciate this won't happen. They really should never have been allowed to order diesel only units especially as they replaced electric locos, a ludicrous move.
I'm also amazed Cross-Country trains are as popular as they are. The prices are stupidly high but obviously people are paying it. I'm afraid to say I've long given up and gone to other cheaper modes namely coach operators. It may take longer and not be as appealing but for the money saved it's a no brainer for me.

 

[WAB]

One of CrossCountry's problems is the way that costs are not met by revenue. Are you talking about the LNER strategy of removing off-peak tickets, which may well bring in more revenue?

I don't think you will be able to guarantee a profit for XC. But by using more competitively-priced advances where spare capacity is available, you would likely be able to justify the marginal costs of an overall increase in fleet mileage and fuel costs resulting from all services running as 7-cars rather than a mixture of 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 cars. It might not even be a massive increase in costs, given the increase in fuel efficiency, small increase in carriage miles, reduction in staffing, and more opportunities to use electrification.

New fleet + not being horrendously overcrowded off-peak = more passengers overall through increased goodwill. It's hard to understate just how unpopular XC is with the travelling public. Bring it up to InterCity standard and there could be a decent amount of growth.

Just look at the situation now:

Origin destination	Journey time	Mileage	Reliability of service group	Frequency	Rolling stock	Catering	Fare three weeks out	Fare two days out
LNER Leeds - KX	2hrs 13	167 miles	56.20% RT	Half-hourly	New 9-car 80x	Most likely	£33.10	£43.80
XC Leeds - Birmingham NS	1hr 54	92 miles	33.40% RT (with extended dwells)	Hourly	Manky 4-car Voyager	ha!	£41.80	£77.90

What makes XC's operation so expensive that it cannot justify a similar fleet investment to LNER despite higher fares for lesser mileage?

 

[Neptune]

You make a good point about the West Coast. Cutting that to Manchester is a real shame, when actually, via the WCML Scotland is closer to the south, yet at present all XC services are forced up the unnatural Eastern side. Why go from the far west (Plymouth), to the far north west (Glasgow), via the far east! No wonder people fly. If the west coast XC trains could be cut back to Manchester then why not the eastern side at York? If anything I'd reinstate WCML trains to XC at the expense of the ECML stuff.

So back to racing to the bottom. Manchester already has a Scotland service so you propose making it 2tph, again at the expense of the West Yorkshire market making it 0 trains.

Here’s a thing. The WCML has a heavier population to the south whereas the ECML is the other way around (London excepted) so XC would be sacrificing a large part of their network to run through sparser territory.

I mean you’ve already said yourself that you don’t see a problem with changing trains so those from the SW like yourself can always change onto the WCML services at Birmingham New Street for a faster journey to Scotland and save XC losing money from no longer serving the larger populous route.

 

[daodao]

There are very few services which run as a double north of Edinburgh Newcastle; mostly either busy peak departures or for operational convenience.

The issue with XC is that it has insufficient rolling stock, so it has to be used most effectively. It is the main operator between Bristol and Derby (the old Midland main line) and this route has to be its primary focus. With respect to services to the Yorkshire/North-East/Scotland, and taking account of conflicting needs, IMO its premier service needs to be an hourly 8 car train from Plymouth to Newcastle via Doncaster, with a 2-hourly regular extension to Edinburgh, and additional extra extensions at the beginning/end of the day in marginal time to Edinburgh and Penzance. This service should have only limited stops between Bristol and Sheffield, at Bristol Parkway, Cheltenham Spa, Birmingham New Street and Derby, to minimise journey times, which is why I would also route it via Doncaster.

For Yorkshire, there would also be an hourly Bournemouth-Leeds service (ideally with 8 but at least 5 coaches), which could lay over at Neville Hill - the only extra issue would be a crossing move in 1 direction just east of Leeds, but no extra trains east of Leeds station (and one less per hour east of Neville Hill) and no extra demands on limited platform capacity at Leeds. The hourly Liverpool-Newcastle TPE could be extended 2 hourly to Edinburgh to provide a regular Leeds-Edinburgh service. There would also need to be an extra hourly service from Bristol to Birmingham, which in my view could be extended to Leicester.

If anything I'd reinstate WCML trains to XC at the expense of the ECML stuff.

On the contrary, XC needs to focus on services via Derby to Yorkshire and North-East England. I would hand over all XC Manchester-Birmingham services to another operator to be operated by electric trains, with XC not serving North-West England or the WCML at all. If a direct service is deemed essential between North-West and South-West England, why not run one or two direct limited stop trains daily from Liverpool to Plymouth via the North and West main line (the Marches route) and Maindee East curve?

 

[The Ham]

If a 7 coach 220/221 existed it would have the same capacity as a 4+4 coach pairing. As such the current situation is more costly when 4+4 coach trains are sent out even before you consider the extra staff costs (one less coach to lease, one less coach to pay track access charges on, etc).

If you were to look at a 7 coach 80x train it would have more capacity, however when it was running where there were wires it would have lower fuel bills (as well as track access charges at least 0.7ppm per coach less than a 220, with the 221's being more costly still).

Whilst track access charges are small per service, they mount up rather quickly. A 80x vs a 4+4 where they're doing 500 miles a day, 200 day across a fleet of 50 units (assuming that is the number of 80x's and we could run enough 4+4 units to match that) and the saving would be nearly £1.4 million a year, or possibly about enough to lease one of the 80x units.

However with circa 450 seats, the 80x would be comparable with a 4+5 220/221 in terms of capacity and so benefits would be far higher.

 

[Neptune]

I honestly don’t think people know how hard it is to find suitable paths on/off Neville Hill without buggering up the mainline. It’s hard enough ad hoc but hourly….

Also losing 1tph Leeds - York/Newcastle. Really?

 

[Snow1964]

On the contrary, XC needs to focus on services via Derby to Yorkshire and North-East England. I would hand over all XC Manchester-Birmingham services to another operator to be operated by electric trains, with XC not serving North-West England or the WCML at all.

I mean you’ve already said yourself that you don’t see a problem with changing trains so those from the SW like yourself can always change onto the WCML services at Birmingham New Street for a faster journey to Scotland and save XC losing money from no longer serving the larger populous route.

I think this is where the XC problem lies, it is very easy to go from SE to NE without XC, and SE to Midlands and North and Scotland without XC.

But very difficult to do SW, central South, and South Wales to anywhere in country (except indirectly travelling via London) without using XC. So really XC core market should be where other long distance operators don't go.

So I agree Devon-Bristol-Birmingham-York is a key market, but so is Devon-Bristol-Birmingham-Lancashire. And shouldn't really be ignoring Dorset, Wiltshire, Hampshire, Oxfordshire either, these should be key markets.

I would argue if short of stock anything more than once every 2-3 hours north of York is excessive, if it means the reality is people cannot travel in comfort on through train to heritage cities like Bath and Oxford, or reach Southampton with their cruise luggage, or their Cornwall holiday resort.

From the South West, XC runs trains to Edinburgh (but they are lot slower, and more expensive) than the airline flights. It has allowed the flights to grow in number (e collapse of FlyBe did cause temporary dip, but others moving in with higher capacity planes) XC is choosing to be uncompetitive (unlike say LUMO that is trying to take their market share). It feels like XC isnt interested in Newcastle and Scotland to South West traffic, so why run through trains that route.

XC doesn't seem to have any market focus. It ignores potential traffic and serves some routes at frequencies that don't make sense.

 

[Killingworth]

Interesting to see LSL's Midland Pullman HST will be running from Berwick to Penzance this month. It calls at Chesterfield and omits Leeds and Sheffield. Price looks high? Compare it with first class service on XC and it's not..

See; https://midlandpullman.com/journey/cornish-riviera-pullman-12-04-2024/

 

[daodao]

But very difficult to do SW, central South, and South Wales to anywhere in country (except indirectly travelling via London) without using XC. So really XC core market should be where other long distance operators don't go.

South Wales to the Midlands requires the use of XC, but for South Wales to Scotland/NW England/Yorkshire one can use the North and West main line (the Marches route) with direct services to Chester/Crewe/Wilmslow/Stockport/Manchester or for other major destinations mostly requiring just one further change.

 

[I'm here now]

Could XC Voyagers be retrofitted w/ pantographs to go under the wires? Also, could you use some mark5As sets for services contained within the CrossCountry Route? These should provide 49 extra seats compared to 5 coach voyagers.

 

[JonathanH]

Could XC Voyagers be retrofitted w/ pantographs to go under the wires?

Not on the existing coaches, and any new build of intermediate coaches wouldn't have a sufficient payback period.

Also, could you use some mark5As sets for services contained within the CrossCountry Route?

No locomotive with sufficient speed.

These should provide 49 extra seats compared to 5 coach voyagers.

There are other ways of providing extra seats using the additional Voyagers coming in.

 

[daodao]

Also losing 1tph Leeds - York/Newcastle. Really?

There would still be 4tph Leeds-York and 4tph York-Newcastle with 1tph through service Leeds-Newcastle.

 

[Neptune]

There would still be 4tph Leeds-York and 4tph York-Newcastle with 1tph through service Leeds-Newcastle.

A capacity and connectivity cut is still a capacity and connectivity cut however you dress it up. Why does the key employment, business and tourist region of West Yorkshire always seem to take the brunt of it with these wonderful XC ideas? It’s not some empty rural backwater you know.

 

[Snow1964]

Could XC Voyagers be retrofitted w/ pantographs to go under the wires?

Not very economically.

However it is generally agreed there are too many driving vehicles, and not enough intermediate vehicles for sensible formations. It might be possible to remove just the top and front of a cab, rebuilt just that part of a vehicle and reform it into the middle of another unit, as an intermediate pantograph car

Would also need to replace the diesel and generator with a transformer in that vehicle. Economically there is stronger case for splitting some 4car and ending up with 5car or 6car bimodes than adding pantographs to existing fleet as formed. There is clearly fewer to do if they are reformed as longer sets. The capital cost of conversion is partly offset by the free cab parts and spares that can go into the spares pool. It might also be that as hybrids their expected usable life increases few years, all of which affects payback period.

 

[JonathanH]

However it is generally agreed there are too many driving vehicles, and not enough intermediate vehicles for sensible formations.

Is that the view of people with the ability to do anything about it, or just one that people have on this forum? Most importantly, is there any evidence in print that Beacon Rail, the DfT or CrossCountry take that view?

 

[J-2739]

@irish_rail Why do you hate the east side so much?

Not long ago, you were campaigning for LNER to lose their 9-car Azumas to GWR, reducing capacity for communities on the ECML; now you are advocating for the same communities to lose their only direct service to Scotland!

Give us a break!

 

[daodao]

Why does the key employment, business and tourist region of West Yorkshire always seem to take the brunt of it with these wonderful XC ideas? It’s not some empty rural backwater you know.

The issue is identifying the least worst option for XC with its shortage of capacity by focussing on its key SW-NE route through Birmingham. I am fully aware that Leeds is not a rural backwater - I was born there, although brought up in Manchester. However, the rail services Leeds now has (even if the XC service from there further north was withdrawn) overall are a vast improvement on those provided in former years.

 

[Neptune]

The issue is identifying the least worst option for XC with its shortage of capacity by focussing on its key SW-NE route through Birmingham. I am fully aware that Leeds is not a rural backwater - I was born there, although brought up in Manchester. However, the rail services Leeds now has (even if the XC service from there further north was withdrawn) overall are a vast improvement on those provided in former years.

Improved from 20 years ago, yes. Does your idea match current demand? Absolutely not. More capacity is needed. Your plan means less which would drive down demand and push it to the roads although that does seem to be the plans for a few people.

 

[Snow1964]

Is that the view of people with the ability to do anything about it, or just one that people have on this forum? Most importantly, is there any evidence in print that Beacon Rail, the DfT or CrossCountry take that view?

No but both of these didn't originally intend the 4car units to stay as 4car, which is why they refer to them as coaches A-F (with gaps) instead of A-D. There is historical evidence in print in various railway magazines about Operation Princess (before these things tended to go on the web), but little of recent commercial plans.

My memory might be vague now, but I think at the time of the initial order it was stated that couldn't operate mix of existing fleet and new voyager fleet and double frequency on some routes, so to speed delivery some would be 4car initially with extra intermediate vehicles following as growth needed it. There was never a long term plan to run single 4car sets long term on busy services

Obviously growth has since happened on parts of XC network, but the operator changed, and new one didn't follow the original plan.

 

[JonathanH]

My memory might be vague now, but I think at the time of the initial order it was stated that couldn't operate mix of existing fleet and new voyager fleet and double frequency on some routes, so to speed delivery some would be 4car initially with extra intermediate vehicles following as growth needed it.

The first 20 or so 221s were delivered as 4 car units, then extended later which sped up delivery.

There was never a long term plan to run single 4car sets long term on busy services

Well clearly the CrossCountry network started off with 40 5-car trains and 34 4-car ones, but 4 4-car units were inadequate for North Wales services. However, given the West Coast (and Oxford to Banbury) were the only places with tilt it isn't unreasonable that 18 of the CrossCountry 5-car units ended up there in the 2007 split, although technically five of those were displaced by the five HSTs.

Obviously growth has since happened on parts of XC network, but the operator changed, and new one didn't follow the original plan.

Indeed they didn't follow the original plan, but it might not be forgotten that Virgin XC had been in special measures in terms of not meeting its revenue plan.

 

[mangyiscute]

It's interesting that no one seems interested in cutting either the Bournemouth branch at Basingstoke, or the Plymouth branch at Exeter, since that would be the analogy of cutting the Edinburgh branch at York - in both of those cases it would be just one change in order to get to any of the other places that XC serve.
Especially at Basingstoke, I think it would be very possible to terminate services there and save a couple of units

 

[JonathanH]

It's interesting that no one seems interested in cutting either the Bournemouth branch at Basingstoke, or the Plymouth branch at Exeter, since that would be the analogy of cutting the Edinburgh branch at York

Reading and Bristol would be more obvious than Basingstoke and Exeter.

A core of Bristol to Leeds / York and Manchester to Reading could provide a significant increase in capacity with other operators dealing with passengers wanting to travel further.

 

[Metrolink]

The interesting and frustrating element of the XC operation is the existence of key links between major cities, exclusively run by them, for example Manchester - Birmingham, York - Bristol Birmingham - Cardiff etc. I would personally give up on Reading - Bournemouth if i were XC. Of course there is no denying that it is a source of revenue, but I think (provided they have necessary stock) GWR would be better suited to run a service from Reading to The South Coast. Although not the most radical opinion as of yet, I think GWR could run the Birmingham - Bournemouth route better than XC by a country mile. They have a better catering and first class provision for leisure travellers which comprise a lot of the coastal traffic, and have access to 80x sets. I think GWR would provide a better service to Cardiff from Birmingham as well, with 802s of course, and providing more capacity between the cities than TfW who would probably put 150s on them .

I also side with 2-hourly services north of York/Newcastle, presuming TPE extends some of their Newcastle services to Edinburgh. At the end of the day XC should prioritise the areas that are the core of their network through the Midlands, than the ECML and has healthy competition and can be easily replaced by other operators.

 

[JonathanH]

Although not the most radical opinion as of yet, I think GWR could run the Birmingham - Bournemouth route better than XC by a country mile. They have a better catering and first class provision for leisure travellers which comprise a lot of the coastal traffic, and have access to 80x sets.

GWR don't have access to a significant excess of 80x units though. Do you propose that they reduce the number of departures from Paddington to free up units to operate Birmingham to Bournemouth?

 

[Snow1964]

It's interesting that no one seems interested in cutting either the Bournemouth branch at Basingstoke, or the Plymouth branch at Exeter, since that would be the analogy of cutting the Edinburgh branch at York - in both of those cases it would be just one change in order to get to any of the other places that XC serve.
Especially at Basingstoke, I think it would be very possible to terminate services there and save a couple of units

I think the difference is many of the alternative services along South Devon & Cornwall line, and the Basingstoke-Southampton-South Dorset sections are run with local or outer suburban stock. If you are doing a 4-10 hour journey by train, then doing 1-2 hours as a connection on services with negligible facilities, and nowhere to put a coffee cup isn't great substitute.

Completely different north of York, (or Newcastle) or Preston, there it is hard to find an alternative service without 2+2 seating, catering, luggage racks, and tables to put drinks on etc, the normal longer distance service facilities

 

[Metrolink]

GWR don't have access to a significant excess of 80x units though. Do you propose that they reduce the number of departures from Paddington to free up units to operate Birmingham to Bournemouth?

Possibly. Hypothetically, using a rough estimate of 3hr 30 mins journey time between the two that’s probably going to need 8 x 5 car units. If i had to choose from which services to remove units, it would most likely be any of the remaining Bedwyn/Newbury services that use 80x, maybe even Frome terminators.

Life would be easier if there were wires between Coventry and Didcot, but for the sake of speculative discussion we could just *imagine*.

The obvious issue with removing bi-modes on some of these services past the wires is lack of suitable stock to replace them. However, as the 80x sets become more popular on the wider network, new stock isn’t a huge challenge in the long term.

 

[Neptune]

I think the difference is many of the alternative services along South Devon & Cornwall line, and the Basingstoke-Southampton-South Dorset sections are run with local or outer suburban stock. If you are doing a 4-10 hour journey by train, then doing 1-2 hours as a connection on services with negligible facilities, and nowhere to put a coffee cup isn't great substitute.

Completely different north of York, (or Newcastle) or Preston, there it is hard to find an alternative service without 2+2 seating, catering, luggage racks, and tables to put drinks on etc, the normal longer distance service facilities

Good luck getting a table or seat north of York when you’re now standing on your now totally overcrowded LNER service.

 

[Bikeman78]

Reading and Bristol would be more obvious than Basingstoke and Exeter.

Bit of a pain having to change twice to go beyond Basingstoke. On the plus side, it would solve the supposed Winchester overcrowding problem.