Why is CrossCountry so overpriced?

[dk1]

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.

To be fair BR was prolific at doing this. Internally it was known as pricing passengers off to suppress demand and raising fares to whatever the market would bear.

 

[Trainman40083]

To be fair BR was prolific at doing this. Internally it was known as pricing passengers off to suppress demand and raising fares to whatever the market would bear.

Indeed it was.

 

[Merle Haggard]

To be fair BR was prolific at doing this. Internally it was known as pricing passengers off to suppress demand and raising fares to whatever the market would bear.

But under instruction from Government - to avoid investment to allow in expansion of services to accommodate increased demand.

Management by 'the department' is not new...

 

[dk1]

But under instruction from Government - to avoid investment to allow in expansion of services to accommodate increased demand.

Management by 'the department' is not new...

Always been the same. Nothing new.

 

[frodshamfella]

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.

Yes I've also gone via London too for the same reasons. It's ridiculous really, but far better than using XC and changing at New Street. The fare via London can be cheaper too.

 

[gc4946]

In part, savvy people cottoned on to split ticketing if using XC services, hence, indirectly, higher fares for those unaware of the intriacies of the fares system. Also huge suppressed demand for long distance through services avoiding London.

 

[A S Leib]

Also huge suppressed demand for long distance through services avoiding London.

In October 2023, of the fifteen busiest domestic flight routes, fourteen involved Northern Ireland, London, or both. The exception was Bristol – Edinburgh, in thirteenth.

That said, that was still ~76,000 journeys when there's only ~4400 between Temple Meads and Waverley by rail per year (not accounting for split ticketing or other reasons why statistics might be off), so that would suggest lots of room to grow with the right time and price.

Looking at the headline price, return flights from Bristol to Edinburgh on Monday (07:05–08:20, 21:40–22:55) are currently available for £190. Looking at split ticketing sites, going by train on Monday would be £178 for the cheapest flexible tickets, splitting at Cheltenham, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Wigan and Preston; unlikely to be found by infrequent rail travellers, and uncompetitive time-wise.

 

[Envoy]

If Cross Country were an airline they would say - hey, our services are full even though we are charging high fares because of our small planes. We shall buy new bigger planes and charge less and grab even more passengers and make more money as the crew costs will be the same.

Goodness knows why the government are so blind that they cannot see the demand for travel on routes that don’t go to London - be it people doing short hops or travelling long distance. The Government should allow Cross Country to have new trains that are bi-mode.

 

[irish_rail]

In October 2023, of the fifteen busiest domestic flight routes, fourteen involved Northern Ireland, London, or both. The exception was Bristol – Edinburgh, in thirteenth.

That said, that was still ~76,000 journeys when there's only ~4400 between Temple Meads and Waverley by rail per year (not accounting for split ticketing or other reasons why statistics might be off), so that would suggest lots of room to grow with the right time and price.

Looking at the headline price, return flights from Bristol to Edinburgh on Monday (07:05–08:20, 21:40–22:55) are currently available for £190. Looking at split ticketing sites, going by train on Monday would be £178 for the cheapest flexible tickets, splitting at Cheltenham, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Wigan and Preston; unlikely to be found by infrequent rail travellers, and uncompetitive time-wise.

And you can bet that a good proportion of those Bristol Edinburgh flight journeys started further south west in the likes of Plymouth. Its all the more reason why we need better XC journeys to Scotland from the south west, preferably running up the West Coast for a quicker journey time. Maybe nationalisation will be a chance for XC to adapt its routes a little as presumably in the future any traincrew should in theory be able to work any train, so nothing stopping Preston drivers re-doing voyagers and covering Birmingham to Edinburgh for example.

 

[Xavi]

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.

Does the FTAC impact the ‘subsidy’ per passenger km analysis regularly shown in industry journals?

 

[Clarence Yard]

Yes, it does, which is why I would be very wary of using those figures.

The DfT goes one stage further in “total subsidy per passenger km” which is to try and allocate Network Grant to TOC by taking the percentage of FTAC paid as the divider in that particular calculation!

As both Network Grant and FTAC varies year to year, it’s a fairly meaningless set of figures if you are trying to look at year to year comparisons in TOC subsidies.

 

[Xavi]

Yes, it does, which is why I would be very wary of using those figures.

The DfT goes one stage further in “total subsidy per passenger km” which is to try and allocate Network Grant to TOC by taking the percentage of FTAC paid as the divider in that particular calculation!

As both Network Grant and FTAC varies year to year, it’s a fairly meaningless set of figures if you are trying to look at year to year comparisons in TOC subsidies.

Thanks. DfT using meaningless figures, now there’s a surprise!

 

[Trainman40083]

In October 2023, of the fifteen busiest domestic flight routes, fourteen involved Northern Ireland, London, or both. The exception was Bristol – Edinburgh, in thirteenth.

That said, that was still ~76,000 journeys when there's only ~4400 between Temple Meads and Waverley by rail per year (not accounting for split ticketing or other reasons why statistics might be off), so that would suggest lots of room to grow with the right time and price.

Looking at the headline price, return flights from Bristol to Edinburgh on Monday (07:05–08:20, 21:40–22:55) are currently available for £190. Looking at split ticketing sites, going by train on Monday would be £178 for the cheapest flexible tickets, splitting at Cheltenham, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Wigan and Preston; unlikely to be found by infrequent rail travellers, and uncompetitive time-wise.

Elsewhere, it was highlighted that between Sheffield and London (EMR), 75% of travellers went by car, about 8% by coach. So with Cross Country the potential for passenger growth must be huge. But is there is capacity, even if there was? I am sure there are pinch points at various locations.

 

[30907]

In October 2023, of the fifteen busiest domestic flight routes, fourteen involved Northern Ireland, London, or both. The exception was Bristol – Edinburgh, in thirteenth.

That said, that was still ~76,000 journeys when there's only ~4400 between Temple Meads and Waverley by rail per year (not accounting for split ticketing or other reasons why statistics might be off), so that would suggest lots of room to grow with the right time and price.

A classic route where air wins comfortably on journey time even allowing for the time "add-ons." Though the correct comparison would be with the Bristol and Edinburgh airports' catchment against the XC equivalent.

If Cross Country were an airline they would say - hey, our services are full even though we are charging high fares because of our small planes. We shall buy new bigger planes and charge less and grab even more passengers and make more money as the crew costs will be the same.

Really? No extra cabin crew? Not to mention other costs

 

[signed]

Really? No extra cabin crew? Not to mention other costs

If you get from an A220 to an A320, you have the same amount of mandatory cabin crew (2 or 3 I can't remember), and there is no way that widebodies would hold the comparaison.

You would get economies of scale at that point, so I can see that point where costs per passengers would be sensibly the same.

 

[QueensCurve]

There are a lot more seats to fill in an 11-car Class 390 than a 5-coach Voyager.

So under-provision of capacity leads to a higher price to damp demand. And you get a vibro-massage thrown in.

 

[A S Leib]

Though the correct comparison would be with the Bristol and Edinburgh airports' catchment against the XC equivalent.

Agreed, although by train Bath, Weston-super-Mare etc. combined – Edinburgh's a very low amount compared to Bristol – Edinburgh flights.

 

[YorksLad12]

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.

Direct routes are good - but do they have to be hourly? Sheffield-Leeds will always be faster on XC than Northern, by 15 to 20 minutes at least. If there were local 'crowdbusters', such as Derby-York, the people who actually want to travel longer distances could do so. They could even be run by XC...

 

[TheGuy77]

Direct routes are good - but do they have to be hourly? Sheffield-Leeds will always be faster on XC than Northern, by 15 to 20 minutes at least. If there were local 'crowdbusters', such as Derby-York, the people who actually want to travel longer distances could do so. They could even be run by XC...

Derby-Sheffield-York is probably busy just because you can only get a fast train between these three stations (apart from three trains a day run by Northern from Sheffield-York which doesn't count because they are nowhere near as frequent as XC). Perhaps if Northern or EMR or any other operator ran a regional-express train between these stations you could see a lot less overcrowding on XC.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

I'd not get hung up on families of 4 going on their annual hollibobs, as a family car (particularly EV) with 4 people in it is a road space and environmentally efficient mode of transport.

It's cars with one or two people in them that need to be the primary target.

 

[Bikeman78]

The money goes to the Treasury. Given the small trains and operating cost, probably very little money is being made at all.

How much should it cost to travel with CrossCountry?

There is no way I would pay three figures to go on a Voyager. I would drive instead. I say that as someone who has a pretty bog standard car.

 

[paul1609]

I'd not get hung up on families of 4 going on their annual hollibobs, as a family car (particularly EV) with 4 people in it is a road space and environmentally efficient mode of transport.

It's cars with one or two people in them that need to be the primary target.

Ive just done a long weekend in my 3 litre Hilux pickup truck, 4 adults from Arundel Sussex to Cockermouth Cumbria. One day we went on the Ravenglas railway, the other we went on the Ulswater Steamers. public transport wasnt an option because of one the passengers health and we needed to take quite a lot of luggage so using the other vehicle available a vauxhall Crossland wasnt feasible either.
the whole weekend was in the region of 1050 miles. Diesel came in at just under £200 plus i used the M6 toll coming back which was £9.90.
Could 4 adults do even the core Arundel to Penrith journey for a marginal cost of £210 by rail?

 

[A S Leib]

Could 4 adults do even the core Arundel to Penrith journey for a marginal cost of £210 by rail?

£140 would get four adults with railcards as far as Milton Keynes with off-peak returns via Kensington Olympia. Four London Northwestern super off-peak returns from MKC to Stafford would bring it up to £213. £61 each is the cheapest I can find for advance tickets for the first week of October.

 

[mpthomson]

If Cross Country were an airline they would say - hey, our services are full even though we are charging high fares because of our small planes. We shall buy new bigger planes and charge less and grab even more passengers and make more money as the crew costs will be the same.

Goodness knows why the government are so blind that they cannot see the demand for travel on routes that don’t go to London - be it people doing short hops or travelling long distance. The Government should allow Cross Country to have new trains that are bi-mode.

That's absolutely not what an airline would say. There's no reason to charge less if flights are constantly full and crew costs don't stay the same in a larger plane. As an example the price for a ticket on Singapore from LHR to SIN is exactly the same whether the service is 777 or 380 and they're all packed flights.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's absolutely not what an airline would say. There's no reason to charge less if flights are constantly full and crew costs don't stay the same in a larger plane. As an example the price for a ticket on Singapore from LHR to SIN is exactly the same whether the service is 777 or 380 and they're all packed flights.

I do however think there's significant suppressed demand on XC caused by how nasty it is.

Look at TPE, which has gone from packed 3 car trains to packed 5 car trains - the trains got bigger and more people switched to them, and now it's looking like longer still might be sensible.

It might be that XC prefer just to run full short trains around as that's profitable, but as a subsidised TOC profit is not the only motive.

 

[Trainbike46]

I do however think there's significant suppressed demand on XC caused by how nasty it is.

Look at TPE, which has gone from packed 3 car trains to packed 5 car trains - the trains got bigger and more people switched to them, and now it's looking like longer still might be sensible.

It might be that XC prefer just to run full short trains around as that's profitable, but as a subsidised TOC profit is not the only motive.

I absolutely agree; I've argued before for a cascade plan like this:
- Electrify GWR to Bristol (both ways), Swansea, and Oxford
- order new 125 mph EMUs for the South Wales, Bristol and Oxford ICs, at least 260m long
- Cascade the excess 5-car GWR 80x to XC, keep maintenance at current depots (rewrite XC diagrams to accomodate)
- Increase the LNER order from CAF, both in length to at least 260m (longer might be possible on LNER, but I'd have to check), and in number sufficient to replace all bimode 5-car 80x, assuming CAF is willing to do that for a reasonable price.
- Cascade all LNER bimode 5-car 80x to XC, keep maintenance at current depots except London, rewrite XC diagrams to accommodate

This way, LNER and GWR have new, higher capacity to use on their busiest services - expanding capacity without needing more paths. XC get higher capacity, more efficient, and nicer units for their services, and start to take on some of that suppressed demand

 

[Envoy]

I absolutely agree; I've argued before for a cascade plan like this:
- Electrify GWR to Bristol (both ways), Swansea, and Oxford
- order new 125 mph EMUs for the South Wales, Bristol and Oxford ICs, at least 260m long
- Cascade the excess 5-car GWR 80x to XC, keep maintenance at current depots (rewrite XC diagrams to accomodate)
- Increase the LNER order from CAF, both in length to at least 260m (longer might be possible on LNER, but I'd have to check), and in number sufficient to replace all bimode 5-car 80x, assuming CAF is willing to do that for a reasonable price.
- Cascade all LNER bimode 5-car 80x to XC, keep maintenance at current depots except London, rewrite XC diagrams to accommodate

This way, LNER and GWR have new, higher capacity to use on their busiest services - expanding capacity without needing more paths. XC get higher capacity, more efficient, and nicer units for their services, and start to take on some of that suppressed demand

Brilliant plan although I would suggest that 140mph stock should be in the order for GWR. The only problem that I can see is that the diversionary route from south Wales to Swindon via Gloucester is not electrified. Likewise, it would be good to have Bath > Westbury > Newbury wired so that electric only trains to Bristol have a diversionary route whilst at the same time benefiting the direct trains on the London to Exeter/ Cornwall route. It would also means more use of electric for new trains on the Cardiff to Portsmouth run.

The sooner widespread electrification takes place, the better. We have some of the busiest railways in the world.

 

[Topological]

Brilliant plan although I would suggest that 140mph stock should be in the order for GWR. The only problem that I can see is that the diversionary route from south Wales to Swindon via Gloucester is not electrified. Likewise, it would be good to have Bath > Westbury > Newbury wired so that electric only trains to Bristol have a diversionary route whilst at the same time benefiting the direct trains on the London to Exeter/ Cornwall route. It would also means more use of electric for new trains on the Cardiff to Portsmouth run.

The sooner widespread electrification takes place, the better. We have some of the busiest railways in the world.

The Vale of Glamorgan is an issue for Swansea, and there are the extensions to Carmarthen to consider.

However, I think the Carmarthen could be dropped. Wiring the Vale of Glamorgan would help TfW to use their electric metro fleet more too.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Some genuinly good strategic ideas coming out of this. (to think a decade or so ago , maybe more , we had some off the record discussion for 3 car 315's for the Valleys - secondhand as a bargain basement electrification for South Wales valleys etc !!!)

 

[PyrahnaRanger]

Ive just done a long weekend in my 3 litre Hilux pickup truck, 4 adults from Arundel Sussex to Cockermouth Cumbria. One day we went on the Ravenglas railway, the other we went on the Ulswater Steamers. public transport wasnt an option because of one the passengers health and we needed to take quite a lot of luggage so using the other vehicle available a vauxhall Crossland wasnt feasible either.
the whole weekend was in the region of 1050 miles. Diesel came in at just under £200 plus i used the M6 toll coming back which was £9.90.
Could 4 adults do even the core Arundel to Penrith journey for a marginal cost of £210 by rail?

Even if you could, Cumbria’s public transport really isn’t that great to get you to and from those places you visited at anything like reasonable times to be honest - so you were probably better off driving!