Idea: CrossCountry overhaul

[JamesT]

Absolutely no five car units for XC under any circumstances.

Minimum seven coach sets, we've suffered from five car units for 25 years, let's not make the same mistake again. If there's a problem at Reading, let's get some AI and quantum computing in to solve the pathing.

Even when they have 20% more seats than the current 5 car units? Or 60% more than the 4-car ones.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Even when they have 20% more seats than the current 5 car units? Or 60% more than the 4-car ones.

20% more seats just means fewer people will have to stand in a 5 car set.

 

[Killingworth]

So you propose cutting off a huge purpose of the XC network - East Midlands and Yorkshire to Scotland?

Thought this was supposed to be about improving connectivity? This seems to be very Birmingham (and Harrogate) centric.

Sheffield based and Newcastle born I was immediately turned off further examination of this entire thread by the casual dismissal of connections into Scotland.

I'd head south-west more often if I could be certain of getting a seat at a reasonable price and could rely on catering for such a long journey.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Absolutely no five car units for XC under any circumstances.

Minimum seven coach sets, we've suffered from five car units for 25 years, let's not make the same mistake again. If there's a problem at Reading, let's get some AI and quantum computing in to solve the pathing.

A 5-car 80X has 20% more capacity than a Voyager. AI can't solve the problem of trying to run too many trains on a line at capacity, which needs major civil works like HS2. Also, OP suggested services via Redhill to Gatwick from Reading direction, which would require reversal at Redhill, and it would be preferable to use the bay platform, which could only fit at most 6 cars of 26m coaches.

 

[London Trains]

Absolutely no five car units for XC under any circumstances.

Minimum seven coach sets, we've suffered from five car units for 25 years, let's not make the same mistake again. If there's a problem at Reading, let's get some AI and quantum computing in to solve the pathing.

Fully agree but the minimum should be 9 coach sets, it is very well known that there is significant suppressed demand on the network and having 9 coaches provides a step-change in capacity from even a double Voyager.

 

[The Planner]

If there's a problem at Reading, let's get some AI and quantum computing in to solve the pathing.

Still waiting for that to happen 15 years after the latest instance of train planning software that said it would solve all ills

 

[Topological]

I suggest removing platforms 1 and 2 and extending 3 over Caversham Road bridge as shown, adding another crossover with a diamond at west main junction to join the festival line for connectivity towards Didcot. This appears to give standage of around 270m. Trains displaced from 1 and 2 would pass under the mains to the relief side where they'd be combined with relief line services to Slough and then either Paddington on the fasts or Heathrow if and when the western link gets built. XC would mainly use 3, 7 and 8, leaving the relief platfroms free for local traffic, EL and freight. Note up main platfroms 10 and 11 can also be used for reversals towards Basingstoke.
View attachment 186233

You could almost leave platform 1 in situ and then only allow trains in and out when there was no CrossCountry using the elongated 3.

Even better would be the XC arrive, leave its front half in the front of 3, and then free the line for whatever was in 1 to get out (or in) then the next XC half turn up from Basingstoke to take the 5 thats already sat there away.

Needs everything to run smoothly but looks doable (provided that the half still in platform 3 doesnt foul the point to 1) It is very much how Manchester Piccadilly platforms 9-12 operate.

 

[BlueLeanie]

A 5-car 80X has 20% more capacity than a Voyager. AI can't solve the problem of trying to run too many trains on a line at capacity, which needs major civil works like HS2. Also, OP suggested services via Redhill to Gatwick from Reading direction, which would require reversal at Redhill, and it would be preferable to use the bay platform, which could only fit at most 6 cars of 26m coaches.

It doesn't matter if a 5-car 80X has 20% more capacity if there will still be people standing up the aisles. We are left in no better position than we are now. We can't possibly find ourselves in the situation where the the entire country is limited to too short trains for the next 40 years because a single platform in a town in Berkshire is the limiting factor to operating services.

Still waiting for that to happen 15 years after the latest instance of train planning software that said it would solve all ills

Things were very different 15 years ago.

We're now at the stage where a University student could capture data from RTT and Network Rail infrastructure maps and remodel the entire Network timetable in the time it takes to decide about the second Hobnob.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Clearly my plan would require Basingstoke electrification. Didn't know about the Salisbury semis.

A few years ago, I came up with the idea of running Elizabeth Line services to Basingstoke for the fun of it to replace the Basingstoke shuttle.

Quite a lot of signaller workload with the crossings and the connection to the Kingswear line for excursions. The latter could be properly route signalled in a new scheme. The current BR system at Paignton made passive provision for this with numbers allocated and space for the extra relays on the racks etc, but in the end BR couldn't come to a satisfactory commercial arrangement with the DVR company and the NR release of the crossover Ground Frame is still by a totally non-interlocked key kept in the signalbox. On the steam railway side the ground frame release is all properly interlocked, of course.

Would it be a practical solution to permanently shut the level crossing between Paignton and Kingswear? Then you only have the level crossing between Paignton & Torre to deal with, which hopefully would reduce the workload for the signaller, and it could always be its own workstation at Exeter.

Fully agree but the minimum should be 9 coach sets, it is very well known that there is significant suppressed demand on the network and having 9 coaches provides a step-change in capacity from even a double Voyager.

9 cars would be good, but would they fit in all of the platforms not already mentioned and sidings required for service without fouling junctions for reversing moves?

 

[Bald Rick]

Things were very different 15 years ago.

We're now at the stage where a University student could capture data from RTT and Network Rail infrastructure maps and remodel the entire Network timetable in the time it takes to decide about the second Hobnob.

As it happens, I‘ve just had a third Hobnob, and considerign a fourth, and no sign of any new timetable yet…

Perhaps “Smart Timetabling” isn’t a thing, after all.

 

[Energy]

As it happens, I‘ve just had a third Hobnob, and considerign a fourth, and no sign of any new timetable yet…

Perhaps “Smart Timetabling” isn’t a thing, after all.

I'd replace the passengers with AI; it would do wonders for service reliability.

Even when they have 20% more seats than the current 5 car units? Or 60% more than the 4-car ones.

The class 805s are 20% more seats, but they have a very generous layout.

For comparison, the TPE 802s pack in 318 seats, which is 34.7% more than a 5 car XC 221 and 82.8% more than a 4-car 220..

Ideally, they'd spring for 7 car 80Xs similar to 807s; they manage 404 standard seats, or a 132% increase on a 4 car 220, while still having a table heavy, generous seating layout.

As for those asking for 9 car units: maybe as an option to order extra vehicles later on, but I see no chance of all 9 cars of the bat.

 

[BerkshireRails]

It doesn't matter if a 5-car 80X has 20% more capacity if there will still be people standing up the aisles. We are left in no better position than we are now. We can't possibly find ourselves in the situation where the the entire country is limited to too short trains for the next 40 years because a single platform in a town in Berkshire is the limiting factor to operating services.

Even some 9 & 10 car 80X diagrams are full and standing so you will always have this issue no matter how long and how frequent the trains to a point. There is other stations like Birmingham New Street which are also an issue. It will be interesting to see how the planned new chords in Birmingham effect length of CrossCountry services.Platform lengths for Birmingham New Street from the timetable planning rules.

 

[London Trains]

9 cars would be good, but would they fit in all of the platforms not already mentioned and sidings required for service without fouling junctions for reversing moves?

Is there anywhere where there is genuinely an insurmountable problem with the platform length preventing 9 coach 80Xs, considering large parts of the network are already served by 9-coach 80Xs or 11-coach Pendolinos, and SDO can be used at smaller stations?

Birmingham New Street is not a major issue as there are no physical constraints, some services would just have to use different platforms as XC services could no longer share a platform with another train.

 

[deltic08]

Apart from London, which is the biggest flow from Harrogate, all other destinations require a change at York or Leeds. More through trains to Harrogate would be good but......
The London trains between Leeds and Harrogate are very lightly loaded so other terminating trains would be the same or less
The only reason Harrogate has 6 train to/from London daily is that there is not room at Leeds to turn around 2 trains an hour on the London service. The solution was to extend some services to Harrogate and Bradford and turnround there. In the case of Harrogate, £2.25M was provided to install an out of use turnback siding of 2X5-coach length, a short platform for on train staff to use, a facing crossover so both platforms can be used from the Leeds direction and signalling for entry to/from the siding.
There is now no other room for additional sidings as the land was sold off years ago for a supermarket. As such, more terminating trains cannot be accommodated in Harrogate between the peaks.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Is there anywhere where there is genuinely an insurmountable problem with the platform length preventing 9 coach 80Xs, considering large parts of the network are already served by 9-coach 80Xs or 11-coach Pendolinos, and SDO can be used at smaller stations?

Birmingham New Street is not a major issue as there are no physical constraints, some services would just have to use different platforms as XC services could no longer share a platform with another train.

Newcastle. Especially with the proposed increase in XC service terminating, some will need use the south end bay

 

[William3000]

Absolutely no five car units for XC under any circumstances.

Minimum seven coach sets, we've suffered from five car units for 25 years, let's not make the same mistake again. If there's a problem at Reading, let's get some AI and quantum computing in to solve the pathing.

5 car units would be an increase on the woefully inadequate and short Class 170 Turbostars that run on the Stansted Airport, Cambridge, Peterborough, Leicester, Birmingham New Street Services. This is a vital service - the only one linking the global life sciences powerhouse of Cambridge to the Midlands and North. 5 car trains would be a step in the right direction but 7 would be better, agreed.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'd replace the passengers with AI; it would do wonders for service reliability.

The class 805s are 20% more seats, but they have a very generous layout.

For comparison, the TPE 802s pack in 318 seats, which is 34.7% more than a 5 car XC 221 and 82.8% more than a 4-car 220..

Ideally, they'd spring for 7 car 80Xs similar to 807s; they manage 404 standard seats, or a 132% increase on a 4 car 220, while still having a table heavy, generous seating layout.

As for those asking for 9 car units: maybe as an option to order extra vehicles later on, but I see no chance of all 9 cars of the bat.

A 7 car 80X has the same capacity as a 9 car voyager, but with no double manning of sets and is actually shorter in terms of platform length. I think that would be a superb starting point for XC. Imagine if every service was a 9 car voyager now.....

 

[Magdalia]

5 car units would be an increase on the woefully inadequate and short Class 170 Turbostars that run on the Stansted Airport, Cambridge, Peterborough, Leicester, Birmingham New Street Services. This is a vital service - the only one linking the global life sciences powerhouse of Cambridge to the Midlands and North. 5 car trains would be a step in the right direction but 7 would be better, agreed.

5 or 7 car trains to/from Stansted Airport won't happen without major construction work to resolve the platform capacity constraint.

Through journeys between Cambridge and Birmingham are not vital. There are only 15k one way journeys per year, Cambridge doesn't make the top 50 of destinations from Birmingham and Birmingham doesn't make the top 50 of destinations from Cambridge. The vital journeys at the eastern end of the route are Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough: Stansted and Peterborough are 4th and 9th ranked destinations for Cambridge. Peterborough is enhanced in priority as a changing point for the East Coast Main Line, more Cambridge passengers change at Peterborough for ECML destinations than stay on the train for destinations towards Birmingham. After East West Rail opens the main route Cambridge-Birmingham will be by changing trains at Bletchley.

At the other end, it is the Birmingham-Leicester flow that is vital. Leicester is New Street's 8th biggest flow after Euston and 6 local West Midlands stations (Coventry, Wolverhampton, Selly Oak, International, University and Walsall). From Leicester, Birmingham is the third biggest destination after St Pancras and Nottingham.

Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough and Birmingham-Leicester are both vital services. But they don't need to be the same service, and it would be better for both if they were separate.

 

[BerkshireRails]

5 or 7 car trains to/from Stansted Airport won't happen without major construction work to resolve the platform capacity constraint.

It might just be possible to get a 5-car unit with 20m coaches into the central bay at Stansted.

A 7 car 80X has the same capacity as a 9 car voyager, but with no double manning of sets and is actually shorter in terms of platform length. I think that would be a superb starting point for XC. Imagine if every service was a 9 car voyager now.....

But as the 9-car Voyagers are already at capacity, you might as well get an 8-car 80X, which has equivalent length to a 9-car Voyager. 23×9=208 & 26×8=207.

Newcastle. Especially with the proposed increase in XC service terminating, some will need use the south end bay

It can only fit a 5-car 80X, so there is no chance of fitting a 7 or 9-car 80X. I know NR plans to remove one of the platforms to enable all of the other bays to fit a 5-car 80X, rather than a single bay.

Is there anywhere where there is genuinely an insurmountable problem with the platform length preventing 9 coach 80Xs, considering large parts of the network are already served by 9-coach 80Xs or 11-coach Pendolinos, and SDO can be used at smaller stations?

Just because you have ASDO doesn't always mean you can work to a particular station, because you might be fouling the junction to enable reversal moves, which would prevent you from running the line with those units. Some stations which might be an issue are Redhill, Newcastle, Winchester Baltic Siding, Edinburgh Waverley as LNER already use the longest platforms.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I am not convinced the 9 cars are at capacity. They may be on some very specific services but the railway cannot afford to make all trains the length of the handful of busiest. I use XC semi regularly for travel all round the country and I do not recognise that the 9 cars are already at capacity.

 

[The Planner]

Things were very different 15 years ago.

We're now at the stage where a University student could capture data from RTT and Network Rail infrastructure maps and remodel the entire Network timetable in the time it takes to decide about the second Hobnob.

Why hasn't anyone done it then? and why is the train planning population only increasing?

Perhaps “Smart Timetabling” isn’t a thing, after all.

<chefs kiss>

 

[BlueLeanie]

Why hasn't anyone done it then? and why is the train planning population only increasing?

Maybe it's too niche?

Maybe the boffins cycle everywhere and have never been on a train?

Maybe the Unions have put barriers into the pathway of data export for a formal analysis?

Or it could simply be that no computer could ever do it better than a human?

 

[The Planner]

Maybe it's too niche?

Maybe the boffins cycle everywhere and have never been on a train?

Maybe the Unions have put barriers into the pathway of data export for a formal analysis?

Or it could simply be that no computer could ever do it better than a human?

It will be the latter. If someone found a way of getting rid of 75% or more heads across the industry, then it would be pursued. We are at the point that RTT and Traksy etc are used as the go to for the industry, so there is no issue with the data. TSSA haven't blocked that.

 

[Masbroughlad]

I'd go back to an inter-city service as was in the 90s. X with mid point Birmingham. East Coast to Scotland, West Coast to Scotland (Manc, Liverpool etc), South West, South East and South Wales from Brum.

Add in TP Express too.

 

[London Trains]

Newcastle. Especially with the proposed increase in XC service terminating, some will need use the south end bay

Newcastle wouldn't be able to accommodate a 9-coach XC service terminating every hour? My proposal for the use of 9-coach 80Xs is based on the existing timetable and not the suggestions on this thread for clarity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Aug 2025 ==

Just because you have ASDO doesn't always mean you can work to a particular station, because you might be fouling the junction to enable reversal moves, which would prevent you from running the line with those units. Some stations which might be an issue are Redhill, Newcastle, Winchester Baltic Siding, Edinburgh Waverley as LNER already use the longest platforms.

My proposal for the use of 9-coach 80Xs is based on the existing timetable and not the suggestions on this thread, so Redhill isn't relevant, and I don't see how the siding at Winchester is relevant either as XC wouldn't have any need to use it.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Newcastle wouldn't be able to accommodate a 9-coach XC service terminating every hour? My proposal for the use of 9-coach 80Xs is based on the existing timetable and not the suggestions on this thread for clarity.

Yes, it’s very unlikely it would be able to accommodate a 9-coach 80x XC service terminating each hour.

The XC terminating services from the Dec timetable change (when the extra LNER services are introduced) use bay platform 10 throughout the day which is nowhere near being able to take a 9-coach 80x.

 

[BerkshireRails]

My proposal for the use of 9-coach 80Xs is based on the existing timetable and not the suggestions on this thread, so Redhill isn't relevant, and I don't see how the siding at Winchester is relevant either as XC wouldn't have any need to use it.

Winchester Baltic is used during engineering works and disruption by Cross Country.

 

[BlueLeanie]

There's probably enough space at Thames Valley Park to not only build a long wished for Elizabeth line station, but also a 9 coach Bay (or two)

That should keep things out of the way for a while.

 

[Grecian 1998]

But as the 9-car Voyagers are already at capacity

9 coach Voyagers are nowhere near capacity in my experience. What however does frequently happen is that if the A - F section of the train is nearer the entrance at major stations, that section will become wedged as that is a) a shorter walk b) where the reservations are. G - L will however be far quieter. I've travelled on trains from Bristol to Exeter where there was standing room only in A - F but I was sharing coach L with 2 other people.

Just about every service I get on - at weekends mainly - has one of the Train Managers announcing that G - L is far quieter than A - F if anyone wants to move there at the next station. It's possible weekday commuters are a bit savvier.


XC should definitely have (in any reasonable world) fixed 7 coach formations on the classic routes when the Voyagers are replaced. Two trains joined together leads to the situation described above where passengers are distributed unevenly, and also the other recent ridiculous situation where all the passengers are wedged in one unit whilst the second is literally lugging around fresh air as it's locked out of use because of staff shortages.

9 coaches would be nice but is exceedingly optimistic. You'd also need SDO or the last 2 carriages would have to be locked out of use south of Exeter.

With 7 coaches, granted this may be overkill at the ends of the route, but it would be extremely valuable in the core, require fewer staff than Voyagers for more seats and no time or personnel cost for attaching / detaching movements.

For all the weird and wonderful places you could join with XC, call me old fashioned but I'd rather they focused on providing an adequate passenger experience on the routes they currently run before the Voyagers start running ff the beaten track.

 

[BerkshireRails]

9 coach Voyagers are nowhere near capacity in my experience. What however does frequently happen is that if the A - F section of the train is nearer the entrance at major stations, that section will become wedged as that is a) a shorter walk b) where the reservations are. G - L will however be far quieter. I've travelled on trains from Bristol to Exeter where there was standing room only in A - F but I was sharing coach L with 2 other people.

Just about every service I get on - at weekends mainly - has one of the Train Managers announcing that G - L is far quieter than A - F if anyone wants to move there at the next station. It's possible weekday commuters are a bit savvier.


XC should definitely have (in any reasonable world) fixed 7 coach formations on the classic routes when the Voyagers are replaced. Two trains joined together leads to the situation described above where passengers are distributed unevenly, and also the other recent ridiculous situation where all the passengers are wedged in one unit whilst the second is literally lugging around fresh air as it's locked out of use because of staff shortages.

9 coaches would be nice but is exceedingly optimistic. You'd also need SDO or the last 2 carriages would have to be locked out of use south of Exeter.

With 7 coaches, granted this may be overkill at the ends of the route, but it would be extremely valuable in the core, require fewer staff than Voyagers for more seats and no time or personnel cost for attaching / detaching movements.

The issue with 7 cars is that they won't provide room for increased growth on the network, plus an 8-car would provide more capacity than a 7-car, but at the same time, be the same length as a double voyager. Also, splitting and joining trains would allow Paignton and Plymouth to receive more frequent services as all 10-car services would split and join at Newton Abbot.

We don't want to be in the same place in 10-20 years when 7-car 80Xs are packed, so go for 5 & 9 cars and lengthen the platforms when possible. 5 cars would be required for the Newcastle bay termators and routes with many short platforms, however most other routes could easily support 9 car 80Xs as the vast majority of the route already get 9 or 10 car units.

Also having to use SDO doesn't stop GWR from running 9 cars to Plymouth.