Cross Country franchise: should it be more radical?

[takno]

If an argument can be made for Aberdeen-Penzance, or even Edinburgh-Bristol, it can also be made for connecting distant cities that are not already connected too. Aberdeen-Ipswich or Norwich-Swansea. The issue is that there is very little passenger numbers for those journeys and if Glasgow-London struggles to compete with a flight in to Heathrow, a train from Aberdeen, Edinburgh or even Newcastle to Bristol is not going compete with air travel.

Glasgow to London doesn't struggle to compete with a flight to Heathrow - there are plenty of people on the trains. The fact that there are some passengers for who flying is preferable and some for who Heathrow is more convenient doesn't alter the fact that for a lot of passengers the train is the preferred option even when it's more expensive.

If we're talking about say Scotland to the Southwest then the flight will probably be faster, but there's unlikely to be more than one flight a day, if that, on each route. Even before Flybe went bust, Exeter to Edinburgh was only once a day on a stupid little whirly-copter, and was rarely as cheap as the train. Far preferable to get the train at the most convenient time, where I can do a few hours work and then tuck into a four pack while I watch a little Netflix.

I'm not sure where Ipswich comes into this, since neither I or anybody I know has ever wanted to go there. I would point out though that there have been north-east-south-west trains for at least my whole lifetime now, and their existence has at least fed into mine and my family's choice of place to live. Maybe if the train had gone direct to Ipswich that's where my parents would have retired to, but it doesn't so they didn't. Random cuts in long-established services need a good rationale, and some East Anglia-based whatabouterry isn't it.

 

[The Ham]

I think it is very naive to think that travel on public transport will not recover and grow beyond 2019 levels. Such a belief needs to come with several big assumptions:

• The economy will not recover, ever.
• People will work from home for a majority of their time, on a permanent basis
• Car usage will increase proportionally and continue to do so
• There will be no vaccine
• Ignoring the huge number of people who have (post lockdown) taken to going out. Thousands of people in bars & restaurants.
• We all want to stay at home
• We have no desire to travel

It is too far fetched to think that the last 6 months represents the status quo going forward.

I will add this link for context, to show the equivalent year should we see a long-term fall.

Historical national rail passenger journeys in the United Kingdom 2024 | Statista

In the fiscal year 2023/24, more than 1.6 billion passenger journeys were made on national rail services in the UK. This represents a nearly 20 percent increase compared to 1,300 million passenger journeys made in the previous period. Passenger numbers had been particularly low during the...

www.statista.com

Even if we maintain the current 40% of 2019 levels then we'd only be doing back to 1990's level of rail use.

However there's some points worth highlighting:
- rail doesn't suffer the same losses in use that road does when there's significant downturns, as cars can easily cost over £2,000/year just to have them for 1,000 miles. As such whist some rail use falls there's others who then use it as they only need to pay for what they use and so rail could see some falls maybe not to the extent that some fear

- WFH probably isn't going to be for the majority of people for the majority of their time, however even if it was for the majority of their time (say 3 days a week) that's still going to be some time (even if that's on average once a month) going somewhere. Well you've just significantly cut the number of miles traveled by car, so some will use rail for the longer distance travel as it's cheaper than car ownership. Anyway, even if 70% of all work could be done from home and that's fine for 50% of the time that's only about a 20% fall in rail use (65% of rail travel is commuting), which only rolls the clock back to 2012.

- car use cannot easily grow beyond 2019 levels, anyway I suspect that most of the current losses in rail use aren't sure to people switching to car, but rather because people aren't traveling.

- If there's no vaccine (unlikely) or there's one with some limitations (like the Flu Vaccine) then chances are Covid-19 would be something which impacts us in a similar way to the Flu. Yes there's likely to be some changes to the way we do things, however that's likely to be asking the lines of giving each other more space - in the context of rail that's likely to be trying to do away with people standing. As such that's going to mean extra capacity.

- a big fall in my personal travel has been related to limiting the contract with my wider family, that's not sustainable long term unless as a country we're happy to have grandparents not see grand children or cousins see each other.

 

[30907]

If an argument can be made for Aberdeen-Penzance, or even Edinburgh-Bristol, it can also be made for connecting distant cities that are not already connected too. Aberdeen-Ipswich or Norwich-Swansea. The issue is that there is very little passenger numbers for those journeys and if Glasgow-London struggles to compete with a flight in to Heathrow, a train from Aberdeen, Edinburgh or even Newcastle to Bristol is not going compete with air travel.

Aberdeen-Penzance is a red herring as the extensions operate in marginal time, but Central Scotland to South Yorks/East Midlands and Bristol will be decent enough flows. And Newcastle-Bristol seems to justify its hourly service.
XC (like most non-London routes) doesn't have large flows to a few destinations, but small flows to large numbers of destinations.

 

[geordieblue]

If an argument can be made for Aberdeen-Penzance, or even Edinburgh-Bristol, it can also be made for connecting distant cities that are not already connected too. Aberdeen-Ipswich or Norwich-Swansea. The issue is that there is very little passenger numbers for those journeys and if Glasgow-London struggles to compete with a flight in to Heathrow, a train from Aberdeen, Edinburgh or even Newcastle to Bristol is not going compete with air travel.

By that argument let's just scrap direct trains more than four hours in length. 'If there is competition from air travel, a direct train isn't needed...'
Whilst I agree in principle that a direct train is not always needed, I think the idea that one coherent journey should be split into three is nonsense.

 

[XAM2175]

I think Scotland will have difficulty becoming independent, and if it does, a lot of people will be angry to lose their direct train connections.

While the whole issue of independence is mostly hypothetical at this stage I do think that this take is a major oversimplification. Most proposals would have Scotland remain in the Common Travel Area with Ireland and the remainder of the UK - so there would be no immigration controls on the border crossing - and joining the EU customs area (which would not happen until some time after the actual separation) would entail checks more on the movement of freight and other large-volume shipments rather than individuals.

I agree it is something to keep in the back of the mind while making long-term plans, but not quite in the sense of a Tartan Curtain () effectively closing the border.

 

[Purple Orange]

@takno @The Ham @willgreen

I’ll reiterate that I’m talking 20 years in to the future here, so an awful lot can change. However folk need to start viewing through a lens of how much HS2 will change passenger usage.

XC is hooked on Birmingham, it is the biggest destination or start point on any XC train. Even stations not served by HS2, but has strong passenger flows to Birmingham on XC don’t necessarily need to be served by a XC service. On the WCML it could go to a service similar to a LNW 350 for example, similar to the current Liverpool service.

Therefore where the vast majority of passengers are taken away, does available capacity on the existing lines justify being eaten up by a service that not so many people will use? Especially one where a change from HS2 will be an hour faster than the direct train.

And to the point about Ipswich. It’s not whataboutary, but highlghting the fact that just like not many people want to do Aberdeen-Ipswich, not many people want to do Aberdeen-Plymouth either.

I just don’t think people are grasping how much HS2 (and NPR) will change the landscape of rail travel.

 

[takno]

@takno @The Ham @willgreen

I’ll reiterate that I’m talking 20 years in to the future here, so an awful lot can change. However folk need to start viewing through a lens of how much HS2 will change passenger usage.

XC is hooked on Birmingham, it is the biggest destination or start point on any XC train. Even stations not served by HS2, but has strong passenger flows to Birmingham on XC don’t necessarily need to be served by a XC service. On the WCML it could go to a service similar to a LNW 350 for example, similar to the current Liverpool service.

Therefore where the vast majority of passengers are taken away, does available capacity on the existing lines justify being eaten up by a service that not so many people will use? Especially one where a change from HS2 will be an hour faster than the direct train.

And to the point about Ipswich. It’s not whataboutary, but highlghting the fact that just like not many people want to do Aberdeen-Ipswich, not many people want to do Aberdeen-Plymouth either.

I just don’t think people are grasping how much HS2 (and NPR) will change the landscape of rail travel.

I'm sure that HS2 will have an impact, but it's already 40 minutes quicker for me to get to the Southwest from Edinburgh if I change at Birmingham, and I see plenty of people getting the west coast train all the way from Scotland to London, even though they could save 40 minutes by changing at Crewe. People like a direct point to point service - it's easier and more robust.

In any case, HS2 isn't going to be running anything for the next 10 years, and nothing much north of Birmingham is even nailed on yet. There's really very little evidence yet that it will ever make a difference to the north-east southwest route. Whether you want to swap out a couple of the north-western trains for more of a commuter operation because of HS2 really doesn't have any bearing on services from Scotland to the Southwest

 

[The Ham]

@takno @The Ham @willgreen

I’ll reiterate that I’m talking 20 years in to the future here, so an awful lot can change. However folk need to start viewing through a lens of how much HS2 will change passenger usage.

XC is hooked on Birmingham, it is the biggest destination or start point on any XC train. Even stations not served by HS2, but has strong passenger flows to Birmingham on XC don’t necessarily need to be served by a XC service. On the WCML it could go to a service similar to a LNW 350 for example, similar to the current Liverpool service.

Therefore where the vast majority of passengers are taken away, does available capacity on the existing lines justify being eaten up by a service that not so many people will use? Especially one where a change from HS2 will be an hour faster than the direct train.

And to the point about Ipswich. It’s not whataboutary, but highlghting the fact that just like not many people want to do Aberdeen-Ipswich, not many people want to do Aberdeen-Plymouth either.

I just don’t think people are grasping how much HS2 (and NPR) will change the landscape of rail travel.

I understand that HS2 will change XC rail travel significantly (not least that Southampton to Manchester is an hour faster going via OOC and likely to be more frequent rather than using the direct XC services as they currently stand, even to Birmingham is likely to be marginally better) however that sort of long distance travel isn't the majority of passengers on XC services.

As such even if those long distance passengers were 50% of current passengers with extra capacity being provided through 80x's then if we see ongoing growth in rail use (which is likely) the trains are unlikely to be 50% full.

If rail growth continues at 2%/year for 20 years then what was 100 passengers becomes 150 passengers, if you then halve that (due to HS2 taking the long distance) then you've still got 75 passengers.

However 15 years later you're up to 101 passengers.

Change that to 2.5% and after the cut it's 82 passengers and then it's then 8 years before you get back to 100 passengers.

Yes that's probably going to mean that XC would be better off not over providing capacity. However there's still likely to be a good case for more capacity now and then looking at spare EMU's providing extra capacity in 10 years time once there's some more wires and then them being redeployed/scrapped depending on their age to reduce capacity as HS2 starts up.

Anyway it could well be that XC becomes a feeder service to HS2 services and the extra capacity is needed (just lots of short distance passengers and fewer longer distance services).

 

[Purple Orange]

I'm sure that HS2 will have an impact, but it's already 40 minutes quicker for me to get to the Southwest from Edinburgh if I change at Birmingham, and I see plenty of people getting the west coast train all the way from Scotland to London, even though they could save 40 minutes by changing at Crewe. People like a direct point to point service - it's easier and more robust.

In any case, HS2 isn't going to be running anything for the next 10 years, and nothing much north of Birmingham is even nailed on yet. There's really very little evidence yet that it will ever make a difference to the north-east southwest route. Whether you want to swap out a couple of the north-western trains for more of a commuter operation because of HS2 really doesn't have any bearing on services from Scotland to the Southwest

Ok, let’s assume Aberdeen-Plymouth/Penzance still runs on the existing network, post HS2. A majority of passengers boarding at Edinburgh, Newcastle, Durham, Darlington, York, Leeds, Sheffield, Chesterfield, Derby & Nottingham will be directed on to a HS2 train. Therefore it will be the equivalent of a lightly loaded 4-car voyager. However to justify running a train in to Birmingham, we may see the future XC service make more stops more regularly closer in to Birmingham (e.g. Burton and Tamworth), which will result in a slower service for those travelling from north of Edinburgh. It’s going to make it a very unattractive option to take.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2020 ==

Anyway it could well be that XC becomes a feeder service to HS2 services and the extra capacity is needed (just lots of short distance passengers and fewer longer distance services).

You make very interesting points regarding potential growth/decline in XC passengers. I think your last paragraph is most pertinent though. The paths used by XC may become feeder services, but consequently the need to run the whole length of the country may not be there.

 

[geordieblue]

Two points -
If the eastern leg is watered down, all of this becomes completely academic and XC must continue in at least its current form, or more probably in an electrified and upgraded form.
HS2 has an image as a premium service. I imagine fares on HS2 will be higher than those on XC in the same way that express London-Edinburgh services are more expensive. I'm not sure of this point and bow to the superior wisdom of other members, but if HS2 fares are more expensive than those on the classic network, the idea that hordes of Scottish or south-wester travellers will want to change into an HS2 service is unlikely.

 

[JonathanH]

HS2 has an image as a premium service. I imagine fares on HS2 will be higher than those on XC in the same way that express London-Edinburgh services are more expensive. I'm not sure of this point and bow to the superior wisdom of other members, but if HS2 fares are more expensive than those on the classic network, the idea that hordes of Scottish or south-wester travellers will want to change into an HS2 service is unlikely.

XC fares are not cheap - everything official points to HS2 fares being set at the same level as the classic routes - that is the whole point of building it, to move passengers away from the classic routes.

 

[Purple Orange]

Yes HS2 has an image of being a premium service, but it also has an image that it is all about speed, when indeed it is all about capacity. That image you refer to is concocted by anti-HS2 campaigns. It will be no more premium than current Avanti, LNER or GWR services. On all corridors it is planning to run, it is a significantly greater volume of seats to fill and the cost of a ticket will be priced to extract the greatest yield.

I wouldn’t know of stats are available, but on average, what proportion of passengers on a XC train leaving Bristol are heading north of Leeds? I suspect that the only good reason for continuing the service north t Newcastle & Edinburgh is because there are enough people joining at Birmingham & Leeds who want to go there, replacing the passenger volume from Bristol & the south west.

 

[geordieblue]

XC fares are not cheap - everything official points to HS2 fares being set at the same level as the classic routes - that is the whole point of building it, to move passengers away from the classic routes.

XC fares are cheap with split ticketing but I appreciate that is beside the point.
Beyond that, I see forcing changes as something that puts ordinary people off using the railway. Direct services are fundamentally useful. And we're not talking about an everything-to-Manchester Airport scenario, but an extremely well-established network linking both ends of the country together. Why should HS2 rip this up and force people to change?

 

[Purple Orange]

XC fares are cheap with split ticketing but I appreciate that is beside the point.
Beyond that, I see forcing changes as something that puts ordinary people off using the railway. Direct services are fundamentally useful. And we're not talking about an everything-to-Manchester Airport scenario, but an extremely well-established network linking both ends of the country together. Why should HS2 rip this up and force people to change?

It may continue, but let’s acknowledge that timings will be significantly worse, with more stops on the XC network (just as it will on the WCML to Euston).

PS, who are ‘ordinary’ people? Aren’t those the same people who currently use XC and will switch to HS2 in the main? XC services still need to justify passenger flow, when it might be that more stopper services in to Birmingham may be a better use of available capacity. It is not true to say that long distance services have the monopoly over paths on the classic lines.

 

[geordieblue]

It may continue, but let’s acknowledge that timings will be significantly worse, with more stops on the XC network (just as it will on the WCML to Euston).

Whilst that's true, at least passengers will have an option of changing onto a faster train or having one slow direct train.

 

[Gareth]

While the whole issue of independence is mostly hypothetical at this stage I do think that this take is a major oversimplification. Most proposals would have Scotland remain in the Common Travel Area with Ireland and the remainder of the UK - so there would be no immigration controls on the border crossing - and joining the EU customs area (which would not happen until some time after the actual separation) would entail checks more on the movement of freight and other large-volume shipments rather than individuals.

I agree it is something to keep in the back of the mind while making long-term plans, but not quite in the sense of a Tartan Curtain () effectively closing the border.

The two big assumptions here being that A: the EU would be happy with a new member state opting out of Schengen - one of the EU's two flagship federalist policies, alongside the Euro; both of which are mandatory for new member states and B: the remainder of Britain will want an open border with a state that will have its own immigration policy, along with freedom of movement with the rest of the EU. And no, "But Ireland..." isn't an argument. Ireland's membership of the EEC/EU predates Schengen, so they secured an opt out (as the UK did). The UK tolerates the open border due the the very particular political situation on the island, along with the immigration loopholes that come with it. I wouldn't be so sure Scotland would be looked upon as a similar case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst that's true, at least passengers will have an option of changing onto a faster train or having one slow direct train.

Which was the whole point of XC as conceived - infrequent (e.g. about 3 trains per day ran via Manchester to Scotland), comfortable, slowish trains providing through journey opportunities. In many cases it was quicker to go via London or change elsewhere, but the through service was the marketing point.

Mid 1990s IC even made that point directly with their "X may change, but they won't change trains" campaign.

Each poster was themed on a specific user with a picture of an actor representing them, and had a bit of a prelude on it about that "persona". Stuff like "Bob gets around a bit while he's young - his girlfriends may change, but he won't change trains". Or "Mavis likes a seaside break now she's retired, but she can't decide if she prefers Bournemouth or Blackpool - her holidays may change, but she won't change trains". Etc.

I'd say in many ways that concept has been completely lost, and it has just become a "general waste bin" for sort-of-IC services that nobody can be bothered to fit in elsewhere, so they can be quietly forgotten about while they don't lose too much money. Literally nothing at all seems to be done to make them actually attractive - people are priced off (going fast via London is now usually cheaper, not the premium option as it was), Voyagers are uncomfortable, cramped and noisy, and there's so much overcrowding that few journeys are enjoyable.

 

[Jozhua]

Well, at lot of the network will need to be re-rationalised after HS2. I think the best move is electrification of the existing lines, to give much more flexibility and the ability to run a "london midland" style service through Birmingham. For now, I think snatching up excess HST's just to get capacity up until more 221's and 222's come available. That gives another ten years to sort electrification. When HS2 phase 1 opens, Pendolinos or other spare EMUs could be used on some of the existing XC routes. When HS2 phase 2 opens, I think XC should focus on connecting Birmingham and the Southwest. Electrified Birmingham to Bristol/Plymouth & Reading/Southampton routes could also make use of spare intercity units such as the IET's from the ECML, to replace the 220/1/2's. HS2 will provide fantastic connectivity North of Birmingham and then focus can and should shift to the South West, where a lot of people will shift their journeys to that part of the country from road to rail. I know a lot of people who travel that way and a lot drive or take the coach, as the current rail trip is long, uncomfortable and expensive.

Overall I think a lot of the existing XC routes can actually be shifted to providing more local connectivity, or increasing regional connectivity. Trains connecting towns like Duffield/Belper to cities like Sheffield, where all of the trains in that direction never stop.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Yes, I have been on trains in the last couple of months. All very quiet - nowhere near 50% loadings, more like 10% maximum.

You’re very lucky then. I’ve been crammed into the doorways on Southern and London Overground too many times this Autumn.

 

[quantinghome]

I'd say in many ways that concept has been completely lost, and it has just become a "general waste bin" for sort-of-IC services that nobody can be bothered to fit in elsewhere, so they can be quietly forgotten about while they don't lose too much money. Literally nothing at all seems to be done to make them actually attractive - people are priced off (going fast via London is now usually cheaper, not the premium option as it was), Voyagers are uncomfortable, cramped and noisy, and there's so much overcrowding that few journeys are enjoyable.

Virgin's "Operation Princess" has much to answer for. The very term reeked of hubris. I mean, what happened to Cinderella after midnight? She turned back from a princess into her rags again, and that's just what's happened to XC.

The increase in frequency was a good idea (although pretty much repeating what was going on with the rest of the IC network). But the new trains were particularly badly thought out. Virgin wanted lots more passengers but didn't provide the capacity to achieve it. If you want bums on seats, you need more seats. It's a microcosm of the problems we have with the railways - a jack of all trades railway which doesn't deliver the right service for anyone. Short term franchise extensions haven't helped either, because no one has had to sit down and ask where they want XC to be in ten years' time.

The short term solution is pretty obvious though - take all the 22X's coming off other franchises and run minimum 8-car trains all day through the core network.

 

[JonathanH]

Virgin wanted lots more passengers but didn't provide the capacity to achieve it.

To some extent they weren't allowed to because the figures didn't stack up. The 220 / 221 fleet was not how the initial proposals for fleet replacement started out.

The short term solution is pretty obvious though - take all the 22X's coming off other franchises and run minimum 8-car trains all day through the core network.

The short term solution appears to be to use the existing fleet to run a reduced timetable with minimum 8-car trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The short term solution is pretty obvious though - take all the 22X's coming off other franchises and run minimum 8-car trains all day through the core network.

That and change the seating layout - look at the "Coach D" layout on Avanti's sets for how you can make Voyager travel actually quite pleasant, and add more luggage capacity too. With 8 cars minimum on all services (some 9 and 10) there's plenty of room to space things out better.

 

[quantinghome]

To some extent they weren't allowed to because the figures didn't stack up. The 220 / 221 fleet was not how the initial proposals for fleet replacement started out.

I recall there was some plan for three classes and a new loco-hauled fleet. But ultimately it was their failure of strategy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To some extent they weren't allowed to because the figures didn't stack up. The 220 / 221 fleet was not how the initial proposals for fleet replacement started out.

The 220s were going to be more like the Mk5a sets, i.e. loco-hauled fixed formation unpowered MUs, but they were going to look the same as the DEMU 221s other than the loco on the end.

 

[JonathanH]

I recall there was some plan for three classes and a new loco-hauled fleet. But ultimately it was their failure of strategy.

Yes, I agree - the strategy does appear to have been a failure and I was definitely disappointed when I saw the September 2002 timetable, given what was expected.

 

[Ianno87]

Virgin's "Operation Princess" has much to answer for. The very term reeked of hubris. I mean, what happened to Cinderella after midnight? She turned back from a princess into her rags again, and that's just what's happened to XC.

The increase in frequency was a good idea (although pretty much repeating what was going on with the rest of the IC network). But the new trains were particularly badly thought out. Virgin wanted lots more passengers but didn't provide the capacity to achieve it. If you want bums on seats, you need more seats. It's a microcosm of the problems we have with the railways - a jack of all trades railway which doesn't deliver the right service for anyone. Short term franchise extensions haven't helped either, because no one has had to sit down and ask where they want XC to be in ten years' time.

The short term solution is pretty obvious though - take all the 22X's coming off other franchises and run minimum 8-car trains all day through the core network.

Basic problem with Princess was that the fleet and paths were stretched to the absolute limit. Apparently the timetable had about 50-odd iterations to stretch out the fleet as far as it could go to cover lots of "non-core" destinations on the route map... so cue lots of trips with repeated 8-10 minute turnrounds after 4-5+ hour journeys that required trains to be routinely turned short of destinations as a result.

 

[43096]

Basic problem with Princess was that the fleet and paths were stretched to the absolute limit. Apparently the timetable had about 50-odd iterations to stretch out the fleet as far as it could go to cover lots of "non-core" destinations on the route map... so cue lots of trips with repeated 8-10 minute turnrounds after 4-5+ hour journeys that required trains to be routinely turned short of destinations as a result.

The basic problem with “Operation Pumpkin” (as it became known) was ordering a train fleet that was essentially the same size as the one it replaced. When success of the plan was predicated on growing passenger numbers, it was a fatally flawed decision. Add in to the mix the badly specified, badly designed and badly built Voyager fleet and you have the ingredients for the fiasco it was.

 

[Ianno87]

The basic problem with “Operation Pumpkin” (as it became known) was ordering a train fleet that was essentially the same size as the one it replaced. When success of the plan was predicated on growing passenger numbers, it was a fatally flawed decision. Add in to the mix the badly specified, badly designed and badly built Voyager fleet and you have the ingredients for the fiasco it was.

The problem lessened (but was not eradicated) when the extremities were chopped off/thinned out in May 2003. It put a more realistic mapping of resources against the timetable.

Sept 2002 stretched the whole thing as far as it could go in theoery on a piece of paper, but with virtually no consideration of the resilience of that in practice or how growth in the busy core could be handled.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem lessened (but was not eradicated) when the extremities were chopped off/thinned out in May 2003. It put a more realistic mapping of resources against the timetable.

Sept 2002 stretched the whole thing as far as it could go in theoery on a piece of paper, but with virtually no consideration of the resilience of that in practice or how growth in the busy core could be handled.

I think the changes have over time reduced the punctuality problem to acceptable levels. What they haven't done is got capacity where it should be.

 

[Kilopylae]

Aberdeen-Penzance is a red herring as the extensions operate in marginal time, but Central Scotland to South Yorks/East Midlands and Bristol will be decent enough flows. And Newcastle-Bristol seems to justify its hourly service.
XC (like most non-London routes) doesn't have large flows to a few destinations, but small flows to large numbers of destinations.

It's also worth pointing out that, south-west of Bristol, XC services that have ultimately come from or are heading to Scotland are an important regional service. Exeter to Bristol is almost always XC, it's about fifty-fifty from Exeter to Newton Abbot, Totnes and Plymouth, and these are all fairly significant flows. It's not like they're just carrying fresh air past Bristol.