if you personally held the Crosscountry Franchise, what would you do?

[bluenoxid]

Immediately I would look at cutting the Manchester - Bristol service in half so that it terminates in the West Midlands area and convert it to EMU operation as a quick way of getting capacity.

Have a look at the existing network and see if the 170's would be better sent to Reading, Bristol, Cardiff or Stansted, Nottingham. This would enable the release of capacity where possible.

Extend Reading to "Heathrow Parkway" (Hayes and Harlington) so that a direct link is clearly available.

Look at extra capacity in certain areas, particularly advantageous where it can be fully utilised to capacity.

Look at extra areas to serve, Scarborough, Middlesborough, Liverpool, Hull, particularly in the Summer season.

 

[IanXC]

The Service from the South West are the longest and if you force them to go via Leeds they will be less likely to use the direct service and so running a faster service from the South West no longer has a business case. The Reading to Newcastle service could go via Leeds to retain the link from Leeds to the North East.

Presumably increasing the journey times on the South West services would result in a reduction in ORCATS share too?

 

[yorkie]

I'd like split the cross country route into cross country express and cross country local both running hourly on the core route, Edinburgh to Bristol. The fast service could be using a 225 when it was electrified and would call at Edinburgh,Newcastle, Durham, Darlington, York, Leeds, Wakefield, Sheffield, Derby, Birmingham, Cheltenham and Bristol parkway and temple meads. The slower would use voygers with panto coaches and would be similar to now a days but with more regular calls at smaller stations.

The OP said "if you personally held the Crosscountry Franchise", but you have answered with what you would do if you were the DfT setting a franchise service specification!

A franchise holder can choose stock (but often they don't really have a choice!), and can choose to have things like a restaurant but they don't get to set the timetable!

I would try to put Liverpool back on the XC map but not entirely sure how yet. I may run it north to Scotland. I am also toying with the idea of sending bi modes to Holyhead to replace virgin service. so electrification to Chester is easier as no need to worry about onward connections.

You think all that could be run in addition to the franchise specification, ie you would be able to fund all those additional services without subsidy? I have my doubts.

(BTW please use a spell checker ... I have corrected your post above in a spell check - took only about 10 seconds!)

 

[Zoe]

Presumably increasing the journey times on the South West services would result in a reduction in ORCATS share too?

Well no, if you increase the journey time by adding more stops you are going to increase your share.

 

[route:oxford]

Well, funding it all out of my own pocket, I'd have to do it in stages.

First would be an upgrade to the Manchester-South Coast routes. I'd go for 8 car hybrid electro diesel turbostars.

Two cars, first Class and mini-buffet. End doors
Four cars standard tourist seating. 6 Tables per carriage, remainder airline seating. End doors
Two cars, standard high density seating, overhead luggage only, not reserveable. doors at 1/3 & 2/3.

125mph capable under the wires, 90mph when under diesel power.

I'd then do something that I've never seen on the forums before... I'd build a chord at Millbrook and operate an hourly service from Reading to Luton Airport Parkway via the E-W rail link using 4 car voyagers that were released from the improvements to my Manchester-South Coast service.

 

[yorkie]

Presumably increasing the journey times on the South West services would result in a reduction in ORCATS share too?

It would , if it caused trains to be overtaken or appear less attractive to customers.

Also it would be a breach of the franchise conditions!

 

[Zoe]

A franchise holder can choose stock (but often they don't really have a choice!), and can choose to have things like a restaurant but they don't get to set the timetable!

I thought the stock these days was all specified by the dft. How can the TOCs choose different stock?

 

[OMGitsDAVE]

To be honest, I'd just add a carriage to the Turbostars, and add 3 carriages (all standard) to the Voyagers, one including a shop.

VOYAGERS: I would serve First Class Passengers a meal, if their journey was longer than 60 minutes. An all-day Breakfast would be provided on all services departing before 10.30AM, and a lunch menu of Sandwiches and Snacks from 10.30AM until 3.30PM. Any departing between 3.30PM and 8.00PM would be served a good meal, with a large selection of hearty meals - with proper cutlery. After 8.00PM, a similar menu to the lunch will be provided, but on a smaller scale.

The shop would serve a good variety of snacks and sandwiches on all journeys, with paninis and breakfast buns also available to be bought.

That's pretty much it for now - but no doubt i'll add to it.

 

[yorkie]

Well no, if you increase the journey time by adding more stops you are going to increase your share.

Well, true, it means that you get income for intermediate journeys. When XC added a load of stops at 'Operation Princess' they were accused of 'ORCATS raiding' and some of these stops where later withdrawn e.g. Gloucester (which was a crazy idea as it caused a reversal).

 

[Zoe]

It would , if it caused trains to be overtaken or appear less attractive to customers.

I thought the revenue was split based on where the train stops at, not on actualy journeys made by passengers on specific services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Gloucester (which was a crazy idea as it caused a reversal).

A city like Gloucester should have XC services, removing the Tuffley loop was very shortsighted.

 

[yorkie]

I thought the stock these days was all specified by the dft. How can the TOCs choose different stock?

I am surprised at this suggestion! Stock is a real mess because the TOCs are allowed to specify what they want. Yes, the DfT does sometimes force/direct TOCs to use particular stock, and the DfT arranges some cascades, but in theory TOCs are, for the most part, free to choose. But in reality as stock is usually confined to a specific route it forces the TOCs hand.

For example SWT were able to offload the 458s with Desiros, and then negotiate a better lease on the 458s and took them back! SWT also were able to offload the 442s. But Southern were reportedly forced by the DfT to take on the 442s.

In the case of XC, Arriva put re-introducing and re-furbishing HSTs into their franchise bid, and the bid was successful. The DfT didn't force bidders to use HSTs.

 

[Zoe]

In the case of XC, Arriva put re-introducing and re-furbishing HSTs into their franchise bid, and the bid was successful. The DfT didn't force bidders to use HSTs.

But I seem to remember at the start of the Greater Western franchise the 158s were taken away by the dft and went to Scotland and First had pacers forced on them. As far as I know the dft can refuse to underwrite the lease of stock also so have a veto on any plans the TOC have.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Yorkshire is a tricky one unfortunately. Leeds is a huge market, but its slower. I think keeping leeds connected is more important or XC wouldnt want to divert trains there.

 

[yorkie]

As far as I know the dft can refuse to underwrite the lease of stock also so have a veto on any plans the TOC have.

Yes, but that hardly means it's correct to say that the TOCs have no control over the stock. They do, but with the risk that the DfT interferes. It is therefore quite reasonable to pose a question asking what stock people would choose for a particular franchise. Yes, the DfT may well intervene, but TOCs can and do decide for themselves what stock to use.

This is quite different to the timetable, where it is the DfT who specifies things like the minimum service levels, calling patterns, etc. Yes, a TOC can run additional trains but these will all be without subsidy. If a TOC increases journey times by introducing additional stops, this may well cause them to be in breach of the franchise. If they can insert stops without increasing journey times then I think that would be okay.

The whole idea of privatisation is ludicrous when you have the DfT meddling to the extent that they do. But the DfT meddling isn't necessarily a bad thing because they are - at least in theory - protecting our interests. Unfortunately some of the decisions made by the DfT are a bit 'DafT' and can be counter-productive.

 

[YorkshireBear]

(BTW please use a spell checker ... I have corrected your post above in a spell check - took only about 10 seconds!)

I do usually sorry got distracted :/

Well i was unsure i could add them without subsidy so thats why i didnt put much thought into them.

 

[tbtc]

To be honest, I'd just add a carriage to the Turbostars, and add 3 carriages (all standard) to the Voyagers, one including a shop

I think that'd iron out most of the problems; it doesn't need anything fancy just more coaches.

If the Voyagers were seven/eight coaches then the three "disabled" toilets would be fine (no need to replace them), there wouldn't be the same amount of standing, there would be more spare capacity to offer cheaper "advanced" tickets, there's scope for "panto-cars", station dwells would be a lot faster with lots more doors, you could probably even get rid of the need for doubled up Voyagers and therefore get rid of HSTs)

 

[strange6]

Sack XCDriver!

 

[A0]

I'd then do something that I've never seen on the forums before... I'd build a chord at Millbrook and operate an hourly service from Reading to Luton Airport Parkway via the E-W rail link using 4 car voyagers that were released from the improvements to my Manchester-South Coast service.

And how would you work around the small matter of a lack of capacity on the MML between Bedford and Luton and also the lack of infrastructure to turn trains from the North at Luton? And don't even think about doing it a Luton Airport Parkway - there's no space at all down there.

Also interested to know who a Luton - Reading service, where presumably the only significant stop en route would be Oxford, would appeal to?

Given you can get from Luton into St Pancras in 20 mins, across to Paddington in 20 mins and Paddington - Reading in 30 mins - so let's say a 90 min journey - I doubt you'd make a journey time more appealing.

And if you included MKC en-route - so you'd need a reversal on the WCML - then there's no way this "new" option would take less than 90 mins......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be honest, I'd just add a carriage to the Turbostars, and add 3 carriages (all standard) to the Voyagers, one including a shop.

VOYAGERS: I would serve First Class Passengers a meal, if their journey was longer than 60 minutes. An all-day Breakfast would be provided on all services departing before 10.30AM, and a lunch menu of Sandwiches and Snacks from 10.30AM until 3.30PM. Any departing between 3.30PM and 8.00PM would be served a good meal, with a large selection of hearty meals - with proper cutlery. After 8.00PM, a similar menu to the lunch will be provided, but on a smaller scale.

The shop would serve a good variety of snacks and sandwiches on all journeys, with paninis and breakfast buns also available to be bought.

That's pretty much it for now - but no doubt i'll add to it.

Problem is that for every passenger using XC as a long distance Inter City type service (where what you're proposing is fine) you probably have 3 who are using it as little more than a commuter service (make that ratio 1:10 if take Birmingham NS - Coventry as your example.....)

I suspect the demand for a high-quality at seat dining is decidedly limited on many XC services and would never be profitable.

 

[OMGitsDAVE]

I think that'd iron out most of the problems; it doesn't need anything fancy just more coaches.

If the Voyagers were seven/eight coaches then the three "disabled" toilets would be fine (no need to replace them), there wouldn't be the same amount of standing, there would be more spare capacity to offer cheaper "advanced" tickets, there's scope for "panto-cars", station dwells would be a lot faster with lots more doors, you could probably even get rid of the need for doubled up Voyagers and therefore get rid of HSTs)

That's what I was thinking of! An 8 coach Super-Voyager and 7-coach Voyager would be a great addition. A panto car would be a must, in order to be able to save energy while also making the Voyager's much more cost-effective.

I suspect the demand for a high-quality at seat dining is decidedly limited on many XC services and would never be profitable.

It wouldn't be based on profit, it'd be based on the customer. XC charge enough as it is !

 

[Minilad]

Sack XCDriver!

Oi

I was going to suggest more pay, fewer hours and more holidays !!

 

[Blindtraveler]

good point. Are staff conditions over there ok? If not what could be changed

 

[A0]

It wouldn't be based on profit, it'd be based on the customer. XC charge enough as it is !

Point is though all the customer pays for is a space on a train to take them from point 'A' to point 'B'. Catering is discretionary and HAS to make a profit otherwise it impacts other areas of the business. If it was a large enough cost to provide it could make a profitable route unprofitable - which would then result in a subsidy having to be paid to provide the actual train service - which makes no sense at all.

 

[Masbroughlad]

Point is though all the customer pays for is a space on a train to take them from point 'A' to point 'B'. Catering is discretionary and HAS to make a profit otherwise it impacts other areas of the business. If it was a large enough cost to provide it could make a profitable route unprofitable - which would then result in a subsidy having to be paid to provide the actual train service - which makes no sense at all.

I think the catering function should be an added value service. It is hard to say what its stand alone profit is. How many people do/do not ravel due to good/poor/lack of catering facilities? A good offer will attract people...

If looking at catering profit - maybe consider anything break even or better as being worth while? Or build it into the cost of ALL long distance inter-city travel (as in 1st class EC, VT etc).

 

[route:oxford]

And how would you work around the small matter of a lack of capacity on the MML between Bedford and Luton and also the lack of infrastructure to turn trains from the North at Luton? And don't even think about doing it a Luton Airport Parkway - there's no space at all down there.

Also interested to know who a Luton - Reading service, where presumably the only significant stop en route would be Oxford, would appeal to?

Given you can get from Luton into St Pancras in 20 mins, across to Paddington in 20 mins and Paddington - Reading in 30 mins - so let's say a 90 min journey - I doubt you'd make a journey time more appealing.

And if you included MKC en-route - so you'd need a reversal on the WCML - then there's no way this "new" option would take less than 90 mins..

Don't worry, I don't really have enough money to do this... But the point was definitely a termination at Luton Airport Parkway - but I don't object to it going further down the line to find a place to turn.

The route would take you from Reading, Didcot Parkway (quite a few people live there), Oxford, Bicester, Bletchley, then all stations to Luton Airport Parkway.

I had discounted MKC as it would mean a double reversal (Bletchley-MKC-Bletchley) and someone would complain about it invalidating tickets.

Sometimes though, the opportunity to travel somewhere without carting luggage through central London or the underground is appealing. A "not-london" ticket that is permanently "off-peak" for travel to/from Luton Airport Parkway only may find favour with travellers too.

 

[sprinterguy]

I would split Crosscountry into “Intercity” and “Regional” operations, the details of which are explained below.

Voyager formations and facilities
Top priority: Get Wi-fi fitted!

I’d add pantograph coaches to the Voyagers, with one centrally located panto car added to the 220s to make them five carriage units and two panto cars added to each of the class 221s as the third vehicle in from either end to make them seven carriage units.

The five carriage 220s would be used on the Crosscountry “regional” services and would have the shop reinstated to sell a range of drinks, snacks and entertainment media.

The seven carriage 221s would be the core fleet of the long distance Crosscountry “intercity” fleet, and would have full buffet facilities fitted in place of the shop to serve proper hot meals in first class.

The formation of the Voyager fleet would therefore be as follows:
Class 220: DMF – MRSMB – PTS – MS – DMS
Class 221: DMF – MRSB – PTS – MS – PTS – MS – DMS

I would also remove one of the disabled toilets per train to leave just two on the 220s, located in the driving vehicles, and a total of three on the 221s located in the driving vehicles and in the MS in the centre of the train. In place of the removed disabled toilets would be a much smaller standard “cupboard” toilet alongside some nice big luggage racks to provide lots of tasty additional luggage space.

I’d probably get shot of the five HSTs as well: While they are worlds apart from the Voyagers in terms of comfort, amenities and ambience, they are rather non-standard and I have no place for them in my brave new world of Crosscountry. Send ‘em to Grand Central to release their 180s to Great Western (The HSTs are passed to work into Bradford now IIRC).

Intercity and Regional operations
Intercity
The basis of the Crosscountry “Intercity” operation would consist of two, hourly arms:
Edinburgh to Plymouth
Manchester to Bournemouth

These would be operated by the seven carriage class 221s offering full buffet facilities in first class, with scope for the busiest trains to be ten carriage formations consisting of the five carriage 220s working in pairs, as there would only be enough 221s available to work all the required diagrams if XC were to receive Virgins’ twenty 221s. Many intermediate stops would be removed, leaving only the key stations.

Regional
The Crosscountry “Regional” network would be worked by five carriage 220s and would be hourly.

The routes would consist of:
1. Glasgow – Edinburgh – Newcastle – York – Leeds
2. York – Doncaster – Sheffield – Chesterfield – Derby – Birmingham
3. Manchester – Stoke – Birmingham – Cheltenham – Bristol
4. Birmingham – Leamington Spa – Banbury – Oxford (- Reading?)
5. Cardiff - Bristol – Exeter – Plymouth – Penzance
6. Reading – Southampton/Bournemouth/Brighton

As time went by, it would be possible to incorporate many of these regional routes into other franchises that may be more relevant for that service and could see replacement rolling stock ordered that is more suitable for the service. Details of such are illustrated below.

1. Glasgow to Leeds: East Coast: 8/9 trains
I recognise that an additional path would have to be found for this service between Newcastle and Edinburgh as well as between York and Leeds, and these do not grow on trees.
Definitely one for East Coast this. With infill electrification between York and Leeds, which should really, really, be done, it could be operated with Desiro EMUs of some description, be they AC electric 5-car 444s, 4-car 380s or just bog standard 350s. Any of those would be welcome running through my native north east.

2. York to Birmingham: Crosscountry: 5 trains
Routed via Doncaster, as the long distance “Intercity” service would run via Leeds, as I have decided that Leeds is the more influential Northern centre and so deserves better long distance links than Donny. This could be operated by EMT technically to open up a bit more competition over some stretches of the route, but given that it is a truly “Crosscountry” journey and the Voyagers are probably the best stock for the job then it’s best to leave it with XC.

3. Manchester to Bristol: Crosscountry: 6 trains
Giving Manchester direct trains to the West Country and connections to the South West and South Wales, while the “Intercity” XC services from Manchester head for the South Coast.

4. Birmingham to Oxford: Chiltern: 3/4 trains
This could very easily be operated by Chiltern out of Moor Street, reducing the squeeze on capacity it would cause at New Street. All it would take would be electrification of the Uckfield branch and the stock becomes available to make this possible in the form of six 4-car 171/8s. You wouldn’t even have to electrify the Marshlink at the same time as that route could still be ably served by the ten 2-car 171/7s.

5. Cardiff to Penzance: Great Western: 7 trains
Helping to keep diesels off the wires on the GWML once it is electrified, as London to Plymouth & Penzance services should be routed via the B&H IMO, so this ensures that Bristol retains a direct service to the South West (Along with the Edinburgh to Plymouth “Intercity” XC service). This could very easily be part of the Greater Western franchise, and if it got hold of all fourteen class 180 “Adelantes” (Through GC and HT getting IEP bi-mode trains, or GC getting XCs’ five HSTs), then this would allow a split of around eight units for the Cardiff to Penzance service and six units for the Cotswolds.

6. Reading to Bournemouth/Brighton: South West Trains: 4 trains
Definitely a candidate for operation by South West Trains with stock other than Voyagers. Could run to Brighton or Bournemouth on alternate hours.

TOTAL: 34 trains (Ironically exactly the same size as the 220 fleet but with no spares at all), with eleven units not suitable for replacement with other rolling stock if placed with another TOC.

Turbostars
As an additional little aside, a swap should be done with LM so that XC has all ten 3-car 170/6s and LM have all twenty three 2-car 170/5s (six trains move either way). All XCs’ 170 fleet would then be three carriage except for 170111-117 which could run as three pairs to give four carriage trains (One unit is left spare).

 

[DarloRich]

I would do the following;

1) Erect banners at each station proudly proclaiming that XC's reign of terror is over. There would be pictures of the guilty and there crimes displayed. IE John Smith - HE ordered the Voyagers! There would be nice pictures of me and my team making things better in a nice friendly way , showing what decent chaps we were

2) look at the entire service spread/ timetables and passenger loadings and try to work out if it is actually any good . To me the core route is Scotland-North East-Yorkshire- Derby-Midlands-Bristol-Exeter-Plymouth-Westwards. There might need to be decision to be made on Doncaster/Leeds. IMO i would send the longer distance Anglo scottish trains via Doncaster to cut a bit of the journey times. To that that core you add fill in jobs like Cardiff - Nottingham, Liverpool/Manchester - Reading- Southampton also a Glasgow- Manchester/Birmingham via the WCML. Essentially bring back the X shaped service map The problem with this is that your hub is New Street so.............

3) Sort out New Street ( you did say fantasy land right) make it into a nice station which people might actualy like to get a train to and from, rather than a dark dank dirty sh*t hole that it is at present

4) Voyager replacement - try and con another TOC to swap you HST for Voyager. That wont happen so i would take whatever i could get. I would even go to heritage railways and beg them for Mkii/iii stock and locomotives! This would be a stop gap. The Voaygers are toxic to this franchise so they have to go. I would seek to design and procure a proper train, with a DVT and dedicated locomotive and mark v stock. This would offer decent quality accomadation of at least 7 car lengths to include a buffet. I think a formation would be 1 full fc, one half buffet fc 5 standard minimum

5) No hybrid sh*t either - electrify the whole route ( fantasy lad again) and raise line speeds where possible. Therefore a 125 mph capable electric loco ought to meet the specification

6) tickets - try to inovate and get new and better ticket options/packages. Work on the prices as much as i can to drive them down

7) I would try and get a clockface timetbale of two trains at least an hour along the core route. One fast Intercity and one slower stopper

 

[YorkshireBear]

I would split Crosscountry into “Intercity” and “Regional” operations, the details of which are explained below.

not quoting it all its huge....

I like your idea a lot. The main express X route is very good, but will 7 be enough? obviously with voyager there is room for further expansion.
What stopping pattern would you make with the intercity services?

The regional ones seem good too. Again would it be possible to get longer trains because i not entirely sure 5 will be enough when you revamp a timetable like this, remebering effects operation princess had.
Glasgow leeds is good, but could you extend it to nottingham via barnsley? (replace the current northern express) which could have a number of benefits.
-releasing a few northern units.
-giving nottingham a train to scotland which many on here say should be done.
-not terminating in leeds through platforms.
-Barnsley gets a slightly better service.
-Wakefield kirkgate might attract investment.

I know you may need more stock so...

 

[sprinterguy]

not quoting it all its huge....

I like your idea a lot. The main express X route is very good, but will 7 be enough? obviously with voyager there is room for further expansion.
What stopping pattern would you make with the intercity services?

The regional ones seem good too. Again would it be possible to get longer trains because i not entirely sure 5 will be enough when you revamp a timetable like this, remebering effects operation princess had.
Glasgow leeds is good, but could you extend it to nottingham via barnsley? (replace the current northern express) which could have a number of benefits.
-releasing a few northern units.
-giving nottingham a train to scotland which many on here say should be done.
-not terminating in leeds through platforms.
-Barnsley gets a slightly better service.
-Wakefield kirkgate might attract investment.

I know you may need more stock so...

Yeah I apologise about the size of my post, there’s a lot to be said when you’re considering the restructure of the entire Crosscountry network!

I don’t know why, but I’ve always liked the idea of a fleet of five and seven carriage units. It’s also a more realistic aspiration as it only requires the addition of the pantograph coaches that Bombardier have already said they are capable of building, rather than wondering where a couple of hundred additional carriages would come from if the units were extended further.

Also, additional coaches beyond the pantograph cars would probably have to be powered coaches to avoid reducing the acceleration of the trains too much with the extra weight, and the Cummins engines fitted to the Voyagers are no longer in production due to more stringent emissions regulations having come into effect.

When (if) HS2 is finally open to Leeds, I think a Nottingham to Glasgow Crosscountry service via the ECML is a very good idea (The Voyagers wil probably be at the end of their lives at that point however), when Birmingham to Leeds passenger traffic is catered for by the much quicker HS2 line between the two cities and something more creative can be done with the existing Crosscountry paths. But at the present time it would be difficult to find an additional path to allow this to happen, although running it in the path of the current Leeds to Nottingham Northern service would be a good idea.

However, I’m keen to avoid my “Regional” Crosscountry services becoming too long distance, and Leeds to Glasgow would sit neatly with the East Coast franchise at a future date, rather than extending to Nottingham.

I think five carriage units would be acceptable for the Regional services I have outlined, as that is already the maximum length of the existing Crosscountry services (Excluding HSTs and the few “double ups” that there are) that cater for both Intercity and local traffic. On the Regional services, I am looking to remove the Intercity traveller component from the mix. London Midland operates four carriage 350s on its’ regional semi-fast services up the West Coast and they cope just fine, while Transpennine Express run three carriage trains across the Pennines on distinctly regional services. Additionally, it is this sort of length of train that I would have in mind to potentially replace the regional Voyagers on, say, the Leeds to Glasgow service.

The increase in seating from around 200 in standard to a figure comfortably over 300 in lengthening the five carriage units to seven carriages would make a big difference to capacity on Crosscountry.

Dear lord, I've come up with another mahoosive post; I didn't realise I had that much to say: I apologise again for the amount of reading material I'm providing here!

 

[tbtc]

When (if) HS2 is finally open to Leeds...

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this on this thread. HS2 (with the plan to run Birmingham - East Midlands - South Yorkshire - Leeds - Newcastle - Edinburgh could have a big impact on XC.

I'd imagine that with a direct HS2 service on this corridor (albeit not serving smaller places like York, Chesterfield, Tamworth...) then the XC service would be scaled back (maybe like SE services were to "encourage" people onto HS1?).

 

[YorkshireBear]

Yeah I apologise about the size of my post, there’s a lot to be said when you’re considering the restructure of the entire Crosscountry network!

again not gonna quote it all
No need to apolgise i know there is a lot to say, just dont think people want to read your long post then my long post when they can just read yours up the page

Well yes i guess you dont want to make them too long. I think leeds edinburgh services should be run by EC now! let alone in future although we do need york leeds electrification first.
Just nottingham is crying out for better services northbound it only has liverpool and leeds at the moment. Just saw an oppurtunity (i also really want to see something happen to kirkgate because i think that station has enough services to warrent a revamp) with that service.

You raise an interesting point post HS2, what will happen to the cross country network, i guess it would remain similar as people wont always be able to use HS2 from yorkshire to birmingham and there is still all the stations in between and beyond to consider. But it may release capacity to serve some more exotic destinations.