Could the Cross Country franchise be improved?

[tbtc]

HS2 is going to mean an end to a number of the current HS2 links - it's going to be transformational north of Birmingham.

If you accept that we won't have through services like Manchester to Bournemouth in the medium term then why not grasp the nettle now?

• Cut Manchester off the XC map (it'll be coming off one day regardless).
• Build a fleet of 110mph medium distance EMUs.
• Use them to run a half hourly Birmingham - Manchester service and a half hourly Birmingham - Liverpool service.
• Doesn't matter whether you give these two services to LM/ VTWC, I'm not fussy.
• Make sure that they are long enough to suit the demand between three of England's biggest cities (or doubled up to be long enough)
• Use the eight (?) Voyagers freed up to provide capacity in the York - Bristol/ Reading "core".
• Use the eight (?) 350/2s freed up to provide capacity on the southern half of the WCML (and replacing the need for any 319s?).

Further south,give the Birmingham Leicester locals and the Midlands Stansted to EMT

Gets my vote.

The only reason to have XC running this service (in my eyes) is because of the available stock (i.e. XC run 170s, EMT don't).

Operationally, it'd make more sense with EMT (who already operate to Leicester/ Peterborough/ Ely etc), it would allow integration with existing EMT services (e.g. Birmingham - Leicester services with Ivanhoe services, giving Loughborough some direct services to Birmingham again).

It'd be nice if the post-ScotRail cascades allowed enough 158s and 170s freed up to bring the Birmingham - Stansted service into line with other EMT services.

If nothing at all was an issue such as line capacity, tracks, stock, etc, I'd like to see this;

Glasgow-Manchester-Birmingham-Bristol-Plymouth-Penzance 1tp2h

Glasgow-Manchester-Birmingham-Reading-Bournemouth 1tp2h

Even if paths and stock weren't an issue, I'd not want to put Glasgow - Birmingham services through the bottleneck that is Manchester Piccadilly.

The services work much better being split at Manchester. I'd suggest XC services are split at Leeds too (as previously mentioned).

What? No love for north of Edinburgh?

It's a tough one (and I say that as a Fifer).

The Dundee/ Aberdeen extensions are clearly at "marginal" times when the stock wouldn't be used for much more (i.e. the token extension north of Edinburgh isn't robbing anyone at Birmingham of extra seats), but I don't know how the economics of it work for XC - given the essentially-ECS moves (northbound in the early morning, southbound late at night) and need to keep drivers trained on it... are the handful of people (like me) who use it as a through service beyond Waverley worth it?

I think it would have a practical use. Swansea is 2 changes away from places that can't be easily reached from Cardiff, including some parts of the North East, North West, East Midlands and Scotland. It could increase the competitiveness of Swansea to have direct trains to the West Midlands and put 1 change from most anywhere in the country like Cardiff is. It would require more resources in a new XC tender but I think it has a lot more potential than some other suggestions.

Swansea has a direct service every hour to Crewe and Manchester Piccadilly - given the connections from there, I'd say it's doing okay in terms of long distance connectivity.

Once the GWML is wired to Swansea, there's even less chance of XC running there.

I would like to see services speeded up though through the removal of stops; I'd start by running all Voyager/HST services as express between Birmingham to Derby, Newcastle to Edinburgh and Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester.

I agree that XC should be a proper "fast" service. I don't know if the fact that it isn't is the fault of privatisation (i.e. XC gets ORCATS money from stopping at places like Macclesfield)? It may be.

Potentially - and I know there are a thousand arguments against this - consider pick-up/set-down restrictions so that (say) West Midlands passengers don't cram onto Voyagers for one-stop journeys when there's an LM train along in a few minutes

I don't know about the West Midlands, but they certainly tried this in Yorkshire - southbound peak services from Leeds were "pick up only" at Wakefield for a while under Virgin.

Sadly, the journey was too short (and too busy) for ticket checks, so the hoards of Metro card holders would board regardless and they abandoned it.

No extensions. Rather, consider retreating from the furthest extents of the network (e.g. Penzance) which can be better served by the local operator, enabling more capacity/doubled-up trains in the core

Given the problems that XC have, I agree.

TPE and VTEC will be providing increased services from Yorkshire to Edinburgh.

Get GWR to provide more services from Bristol to Devon.

Focus more on the "core" (instead of the much smaller number of people going all the way from Plymouth to Newcastle).

I suggested elsewhere that by forming a 10 coach 22x it would have broadly the same capacity as a 9 coach train formed of 159's. If these were used on a 0.5tph frequency from Exeter to Waterloo with 1.5tph (rising to 2.5tph post Crossrail 2) run by EMU"s from Salisbury.

By doing so you would just need 6 of them, you would still need a DMU shuttle to run Exeter to Salisbury on the other 0.5tph.

You've mentioned this before, but it'd mean that the rest of the 222s would end up as three or four coaches long.

Given the crumple zones etc in such 125mph stock, that would mean the equivalent seating of two/three coach Sprinters.

Twenty one short Meridians (with all the track access charges of three/four coach units but the seating of two/three coach Sprinters) aren't going to be much use.

This seems more about "what would be nice through Salisbury" than "what would be the best use of the stock.

If more capacity is needed on the core then the only solution really would be to start cutting services back, but I don't see this being the end of the world. If ScotRail are going to run HSTs north of Edinburgh then I don't see the XC offering being able to compete, and cutting back to Newcastle would be reasonable if instead their path were used by a 125mph TPE service from Liverpool which would take advantage of the wires. That service would preserve the Edinburgh-Leeds link as well, so it shouldn't cause a massive amount of harm. I think that there is a lot of suppressed demand on the XC core at the moment as a result of the overcrowding on services, so just providing enough capacity to then give every current passenger a seat might not end up lasting very long.

Agreed.

I am pretty sure the only reason the toilet smells are noticed so much is due to the large proportion of people who end up stood in the vestibule areas. My only complaint about the voyagers is the lack of capacity

XC is the forgotten franchise. They don't serve London or are seen as part of the Northern powerhouse so there is simply no political desire to improve services

I agree with both of those points (sadly!)

The HSTs are not a permanent solution, but there's no need for EMUs to increase capacity just yet. Maybe getting XC to use the HST rakes they do have- rather than leaving half of them parked in Craigentinny all week- might be a good start.

The fact that they don't think it worthwhile using the HSTs more (and didn't attempt to get more, e.g. VTEC took on a "spare" EMT set) seems significant.

Cross country definitely needs an extra train per hour between Leeds and B'ham.
- We are currently lacking a rail operator that connects the north east and west Yorkshire to the east midlands. Cross Country should fulfil this and apply for track access for a new Newcastle to B'ham (via Leeds, and Via Leicester).
Essentially Newcastle - Durham - Darlington - York - Leeds - Wakefield - Sheffield - Derby - EM stops (Long eaton, EM parkway, Loughborough, Leicester) - then direct to B'ham.

What do you mean by the East Midlands?

There's an hourly service from Edinburgh/ Newcastle/ York/ Leeds to Derby (bi-hourly from Glasgow).

I don't know whether you'd consider Burton, Retford, Newark, Grantham or Peterborough to be in the East Midlands too?

Or do you just mean that you want a service that's fast in the rest of the country but slow in your neck of the woods so that places like Long Eaton are better connected?

Why they have been stuck in subsidy could be due to a range of factors:

- short trains limiting the number of passengers they can carry in total (and therefore income),
- expensive track charges for the HSTs,
- no additional income from car parking or station shops, as XC don't have any,
- allocation of overheads or a large management charges from the parent company

Good luck to anyone who can square this circle - Voyagers are too short to be profitable but HSTs are too long to be affordable.

I'm guessing it is too late now to just order additional coaches for voyagers?

Sadly.

"Project Thor" remains one of the biggest wasted opportunities since privatisation - if they'd got that right then it'd have been transformational - we'd have seen longer XC services as well as being able to potentially extend other fleets too (if the technology worked on Voyagers then it could have been used to put extra coaches into other fleets).

Frustrating.

 

[swt_passenger]

If we're looking to free some Voyagers from somewhere could a case be made for terminating Reading to Newcastle services at York? It would remove the duplication of having 2 XC services running 10 minutes apart North of York, and would prevent having an over provision of 4tph between Leeds and Newcastle (2 TPE and 2 XC) if the Reading services are diverted to Leeds in the future.

I'm surprised people don't just propose cutting all services back wherever they meet the tracks of the main regional network operator in the manner of JamesRowden's existing suggestions. As well as Basingstoke, you could just have them terminating at places such as Bristol, Stafford, or York.

That should consistently wreck the whole existing network, not just the bit in the south.

 

[HowardGWR]

I think the north south XC capacity problem is due to abandonment of former routes.
Bournemouth traditionally had a strong connection with the Manchester /North West area (retirement /visiting those retired plus gentility holiday trips). I don't know what the current pattern of travel is (it won't be gentility) but I just wonder whether the market would not be better served vis Westbury and Bath. At least, in that way, one avoids the Basingstoke flat junction capacity problem. Bath to Bristol will be a fair old bottleneck soon though.

How to get to Westbury? - well, via Southampton is a 'great way round' but then so is via Reading. Southampton and Bournemouth are physically poorly connected to the north west, since the closure of no less than three north-south routes (S&DJR, MSWJR. DN&SR). The route via Reading West has led to the huge fly-under /over expense at Reading and even that leaves Didcot still as a flat junction and bottlenecks besides.

The abandoned routes would have needed their GSJs too now, but in capacity terms, one at least should have remained. I rather fancy the MSWJR might have provided the best route. It would have been a fair old multi route junction at Rushey Platt, mind you.

 

[43074]

I'm surprised people don't just propose cutting all services back wherever they meet the tracks of the main regional network operator. As well as Basingstoke, you could just have them terminating at Bristol, Stafford, York.

That should consistently wreck the whole existing network, not just the bit in the south.

I'm not proposing to 'consistently wreck the whole existing network', indeed my suggestion would have maintained the hourly Edinburgh service as it is now, but in 2019 using the ECML North of York there will be
- 3 trains per hour (tph) VTEC to Newcastle, of which 2tph through to Edinburgh
- 1tp2h VTEC to Middlesbrough
- 2tph TPE to Newcastle, one of these to Edinburgh
- 1tph TPE to Middlesbrough
- 2tph XC to Newcastle, one of these to Edinburgh
- 1tph Open Access to Edinburgh (if approved)
- Grand Central to Sunderland, 4 trains per day and;
- Freight
which is ludicrously over the top, where on earth is the demand for 7tph between York and Newcastle coming from? I think this is an instance where longer trains are a more efficient way of providing the required capacity than shorter, more frequent services. The Newcastle > Reading services are - in my experience - less busy than other services between York and Newcastle, hence my suggestion to terminate the Reading services at York.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sadly, the journey was too short (and too busy) for ticket checks, so the hoards of Metro card holders would board regardless and they abandoned it.

You can sort that by once in a while cancelling the stop and catching them out

Good luck to anyone who can square this circle - Voyagers are too short to be profitable but HSTs are too long to be affordable.

HSTs can of course be shortened as ScotRail will be doing. But I'm fairly convinced that 7x23m is the right length for most XC services.

It is a real pity the 220s were not built as LHCS per the original plan. Reforming them would be so much easier.

 

[JamesRowden]

The trains are stabled overnight at Eastleigh and the crews come from Bournemouth. If they didn't run further south than Basingstoke (Why Basingstoke and not Reading? Very, very random choice) then you'd need to do a big rethink on the logistics, which would need a massive expansion of Reading depot, which is very hard to retain crew at anyway.

Reading does not have any other through services beyond Basingstoke. Services could still run to/from locations close to the existing depots at the beginning and at the end of the day (including possibly more via Guildford).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm surprised people don't just propose cutting all services back wherever they meet the tracks of the main regional network operator in the manner of JamesRowden's existing suggestions. As well as Basingstoke, you could just have them terminating at places such as Bristol, Stafford, or York.

That should consistently wreck the whole existing network, not just the bit in the south.

Bristol does not have any other regular express services to Plymouth. Such an alternative service would require diesel stock in any case.

Manchester has many onward links for Cross Country Passengers that Stafford does not have.

Both examples are quite different to the relationship between Basingstoke and Southampton/Bournemouth with regards to Cross Country services.

 

[sprinterguy]

Replace the Doom Bar with Pedigree. I know the bottled versions of both are brewed in Burton now, and I was ecstatic when Arriva Crosscountry introduced a proper premium bottled ale to their range, but I do prefer a bottle of Pedigree.

 

[The Planner]

Surprised no one has not actually suggested that XC gets binned entirely and it gets divvied up in some other way, unless of course Ive missed it.

 

[Andrewlong]

I want rid of the horrible voyagers and would be more happy with HST I detest voyagers. Seriously more capacity is the key.

If possible I would like see a fleet of refurbished mark 3 coaches hauled by a 67 or 68.

 

[sprinterguy]

If possible I would like see a fleet of refurbished mark 3 coaches hauled by a 67 or 68.

I've thought this before, while looking at one of Chilterns' mark 3 rakes. It's not realistic (where would you find sufficient spare mark 3s from, barring an expensive future conversion of HST vehicles, for a start?!), but with some six or seven car rakes, and you'd probably want a 68 over a 67 for the acceleration potential, they would be superb.

Although that's thinking like an enthusiast and regular passenger, but sadly not like a TOC.

 

[leomartin125]

In answer to the inital question 'Could the CrossCountry Franchiose be improved?' - Yes, majorly. It's terrible, with five cars at max peak times up from Bournemouth to Manchester, it needs a new franchise in all honesty. Arriva have had the franchise too long and ruined it in my opinion, I cannot understand the logic of having three Standard Class coaches on 90% of services that leave Bournemouth for a destination 200 miles away.

 

[sprinterguy]

It's terrible, with five cars at max peak times up from Bournemouth to Manchester, it needs a new franchise in all honesty. Arriva have had the franchise too long and ruined it in my opinion, I cannot understand the logic of having three Standard Class coaches on 90% of services that leave Bournemouth for a destination 200 miles away.

If that's what you understand to be the failings of the franchise then you can lay the majority of the blame at Virgin's door, who introduced the four and five carriage trains in the first place.

In terms of the Inter-city services, Arriva Crosscountry have done an excellent job of consolidating services over the core routes in order to optimise use of the train fleet, increased luggage and seating capacity of the Voyager trains (the former by removing the shop and the latter by reducing the seating pitch, but there's only so much you can do to improve a Voyager without resorting to serious re-engineering) and re-introducing a small fleet of seven carriage HST trains on some of the busiest services, while still retaining the core of the high frequency timetable introduced by Virgin.

The Crosscountry operation could be greatly improved upon, but I personally think that Arriva have done very well to improve or maintain service and fleet reliability given the duff hand they were dealt with by the previous incumbent operator.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Would the XC route out of Bournemouth be a good candidate for using 10 car IEPs if XC did ever get any?

 

[sprinterguy]

Cut Manchester off the XC map (it'll be coming off one day regardless

Why do you think that?

HS2 can be expected to have a significant effect on traditional Scotland/North East England to West Midlands/South West journeys, but I expect it to have less impact on journeys from the North West, given the smaller reduction of Manchester - Birmingham journey times and demand for travel from the likes of Stoke-on-Trent and Stafford to Birmingham and the South West.

If anything, I would expect to see North West - South West services strengthened to the detriment of "classic" North East - South West ones, post-HS2.

 

[coppercapped]

Why do you think that?

HS2 can be expected to have a significant effect on traditional Scotland/North East England to West Midlands/South West journeys, but I expect it to have less impact on journeys from the North West, given the smaller reduction of Manchester - Birmingham journey times and demand for travel from the likes of Stoke-on-Trent and Stafford to Birmingham and the South West.

If anything, I would expect to see North West - South West services strengthened to the detriment of "classic" North East - South West ones, post-HS2.

HS2 will need all the passengers it can get. The suggested routing will be via the interchange at Old Oak Common and then west on these new-fangled IEPs...

 

[leomartin125]

Would the XC route out of Bournemouth be a good candidate for using 10 car IEPs if XC did ever get any?

Possibly, but knowing XC they would end up getting 5 Car ones xD

 

[The Ham]

HS2 will not call at stations between Manchester and Birmingham, so there will be a need for services between those stations.

If we assume that HS2 between Manchester and Birmingham in 2033 that's 18 years of growth 56% to 140% more passengers based on 2.5% to 5% growth poet year).

If we assume that passenger numbers fall by 50% upon opening that gets us to 77% and 120% of where we are now. If it falls by 70% them we could be looking at 47% and 66% of where we are now. Either way it would mean that the existing trains would probably be a reasonable capacity for most of those options.

I doubt that it would fall by much more than 70%, as although there wouldn't be the long distance journeys there would be a number of people using XC services to get to HS2 services which would inflate numbers a bit.

 

[Kettledrum]

Would the XC route out of Bournemouth be a good candidate for using 10 car IEPs if XC did ever get any?

In my experience, 5 cars is normally fine for the Bournemouth end of the route, but these really get busy from Reading or sometimes Basingstoke.

In the long term, running 2 x 5 units together in the core section of the route, such as Birmingham to Reading would be great, and perhaps splitting the service somewhere so only one of the 5 car units goes on to serve Bournemouth.

This would allow you to use more units in the intense core, and possibly serve more destinations too.

 

[Masbroughlad]

The return of:

-Through trains from Scotland, down the West coast to the South East and South West England
- Sleeper services
- Services via Brum to London Paddington
- Hull, Liverpool, Blackpool, Swansea, Portsmouth, Poole etc to the long distance network
- Proper trains!

 

[Kettledrum]

Where are the Bournemouth trains going in this scenario? If you swap them with the Newcastles, they are much less use than the current service, because the south coast to the NE is well served via London and the ECML.

Surely Bournemouth to Manchester was chosen as the main flow on that axis because that is where passengers want to go?

Hmm - in my experience, changing in London for going from Bournemouth to the NE is not easy, as it means a trek across London between termini It's easier to change at Birmingham New Street.

Perhaps when East - West rail is open, this could be used to run through trains from Bournemouth to the NE.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps Crosscountry could terminate at Basingstoke rather than Southampton/Bournemouth during the peak to allow longer trains to operate through the Crosscountry core, provide a 2tph service to/from Basingstoke, use the spare capacity on SWT services south of Basingstoke and reduce the amount of crossing paths at Basingstoke?

Are you sure there is much spare capacity on the SWT services south of Basingstoke???????????

 

[Jonny]

Hmm - in my experience, changing in London for going from Bournemouth to the NE is not easy, as it means a trek across London between termini It's easier to change at Birmingham New Street.

Perhaps when East - West rail is open, this could be used to run through trains from Bournemouth to the NE.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Are you sure there is much spare capacity on the SWT services south of Basingstoke???????????

That's as maybe, but through tickets include a tube transfer, which makes it much less awkward.

 

[JamesRowden]

Are you sure there is much spare capacity on the SWT services south of Basingstoke???????????

The SWT services should be busier closer to London. And the Waterloo-Basingstoke stoppers could be extended if the Crosscountry services terminated at Basingstoke.

 

[455driver]

Are you sure there is much spare capacity on the SWT services south of Basingstoke???????????

No there isn't but when has that ever stopped any of these 'proposals'!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The SWT services should be busier closer to London. And the Waterloo-Basingstoke stoppers could be extended if the Crosscountry services terminated at Basingstoke.

Is that the voice of experience or just a guess!

 

[Minilad]

Possibly, but knowing XC they would end up getting 5 Car ones xD

You do realise it was Virgin that foisted Voyagers upon us don't you?

 

[The Ham]

The SWT services should be busier closer to London. And the Waterloo-Basingstoke stoppers could be extended if the Crosscountry services terminated at Basingstoke.

In theory that may work, however I'm not sure it would work well in practice. XC services through Reading have a if changeover at Reading in my experience. As such I would suggest stopping the services there would be a better option.

Then there the issue of can the third rail system cope with more trains drawing power from it. If not then you don't gain anything as your still need DMU"s for the split service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You've mentioned this before, but it'd mean that the rest of the 222s would end up as three or four coaches long.

Given the crumple zones etc in such 125mph stock, that would mean the equivalent seating of two/three coach Sprinters.

Twenty one short Meridians (with all the track access charges of three/four coach units but the seating of two/three coach Sprinters) aren't going to be much use.

This seems more about "what would be nice through Salisbury" than "what would be the best use of the stock..

The thinking behind it is more to do with after 2025 when MML will likely be wired up, as will quite significant parts of XC (at least enough to run Newcastle to Reading/Southampton and Manchester to the south coast) there could be a surplus of 22x units with little other work.

When I had made the suggestion before I had talked about needing 6*10 coach units which I would form from 30 of the 43 sets of 220's. That would leave XC with:
- 14*220's/221's (4 coaches)
- 22*221's (5 coaches)
- the possibility of some/all of ICWC's 221's
- 4*222's (4 coaches)
- 17*222's (5 coaches)
- 6*222's (7 coaches)

Or in simple numbers (ignoring ICWC's 221's):

18*4 coach units (vs 43 now or 25 less)
39*5 coach units (vs 22 now or 17 more)
6*7 coach units (vs 0 now or 7 more)

Given a 7 coach unit basically had the same capacity as a pair of 220's it could be argued that it would leave XC with the equivalent of:

40*4 coach units and 39*5 coach units, which more than the current 43*4 coach units and 22*5 coach units. However they will only be required to run services north of Edinburgh and south west if Birmingham (and even those would be being eroded over time).

Therefore XC would still have 20% more 22x's than they currently have (counting each unit as a 4 or 5 coach equivalent and counting the increase in total numbers of units, even though there are more 5 coach units) but without the need to use them on as many services as they do at present. As such I wouldn't be suprised if more of the 22x's were lengthend by scrapping of end units (or some 2 coach standard only units kept for train lengthening over busy sections)

There would be extra capacity on the Salisbury (or Yeovil) services by running them by EMU's on a 1.5 tph frequency (something like the 444's without the buffet) until 2030 (or sooner if more paths can be engineered) when it would rise to 2.5 tph run by EMU's. Allowing the wires until 2035 to reach Exeter.

 

[Kettledrum]

The SWT services should be busier closer to London. And the Waterloo-Basingstoke stoppers could be extended if the Crosscountry services terminated at Basingstoke.

I understand your theory here, but it's just not borne out by my experience of the trains arriving in Bournemouth. I have been amazed at the crowds getting off some of the SWT arriving at Bournemouth - even at very late times of night.

Similarly I have got on off peak SWT services at Bournemouth only to struggle to find a seat, because they're already 90% full.

I might agree that the SWT services are full to way over 100% of seating capacity when they reach London

It's easier to get a seat on the XC services at Bournemouth, but even then the loadings on their 5 coach trains look reasonable.

.......so overall I'm quite concerned about many of the suggestions on here about cutting back some of the XC services to focus on the core, or to focus on expresses only.

Yes the central core of the XC route needs more capacity, so at some stage you have to bite the bullet and procure more units.

The current franchise contract is so poorly drawn up that it allows Arriva to leave HSTs sitting unused in the sidings, whilst passengers on some sections of the route are often cramped sitting in smelly vestibules.

Arriva choose not to use their HSTs because:

- they save money on lease costs by not using them
- the HSTs are so hard on the tracks that Network Rail charge very high track access charges for them
- they can fulfil their existing franchise contract without using them

(passenger over crowding does not seem to matter)

The biggest improvement in my view would be to require the new franchisee to procure more units and add capacity to the core services that way.

 

[The Ham]

Possibly, but knowing XC they would end up getting 5 Car ones xD

There is nothing wrong with shorter units, most commuter train companies only have 4 or best 5 coach units!

The problem is with the number of units and that they need lots of staff to run in pairs

If XC had only ordered 5 coach units with an option to buy more units circa 2005, then things wouldn't be as bad as they are now.

 

[Ash Bridge]

There is nothing wrong with shorter units, most commuter train companies only have 4 or best 5 coach units!

The problem is with the number of units and that they need lots of staff to run in pairs

If XC had only ordered 5 coach units with an option to buy more units circa 2005, then things wouldn't be as bad as they are now.

As far as this poster is concerned, I think you need to be explicit about the fact that it was Virgin XC and the Dft, as pointed out by a least two postings further back who were the guilty parties and not Arriva/DB who only took over the XC franchise from about 2007/8.

 

[JamesRowden]

I think that terminating all Cross Country services at Reading would be a non-starter since it would require people to make two additional train changes.

It costs far less for SWT to operate additional EMUs south of Basingstoke than for Cross Country to operate Voyagers beyond Basingstoke.

Perhaps a compromise would be for Cross Country to operate 1tph to Southampton and 1tph to Basingstoke.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But now I've thought about the LSWML to West London or Wokingham etc. passengers. This seems like a strong argument for Cross Country to continue to serve Bournemouth hourly so that it's still a single change a Reading.

 

[sprinterguy]

Possibly, but knowing XC they would end up getting 5 Car ones xD

It might not be what was intended but I assumed that's what SpacePhoenix meant, running them, as Kettledrum says, in pairs and splitting somewhere en route.

If the London-centric operators, with focused peak periods into the capital, are going for 9-car trains, then I can't see Crosscountry warranting longer than 7-car AT-300 units.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

HS2 will need all the passengers it can get. The suggested routing will be via the interchange at Old Oak Common and then west on these new-fangled IEPs...

I can't see the effect of HS2 on North West Crosscountry services being that catastrophic. As mentioned above there'll still be intermediate markets to serve that are not covered by HS2, many passengers prefer direct trains and assuming that there is little to no chance of the Crosscountry franchise being disbanded entirely post-HS2 then the operator is still going to want to attract revenue from key end-to-end markets such as Manchester to Bristol.