New XC fleet by 2035 ?

[stevieinselby]

Personally I think the opportunity to do a full fleet replacement including the 170's being missed is probably a mistake longer term.

I'd agree with something like a 7 Car Class 800 derivative to replace the Voyagers with 5 car units to replace the 170's. The advantage of having a single fleet in terms of traction training maintenance etc could be a good longer term cost justification. Especially if we are likely to see a steady equalisation of traincrew terms and conditions as GBR moves forward.

There's no point in up-speccing a provincial XC train for 125mph when it won't ever exceed 100mph, it just adds unnecessary cost.

 

[Richard123]

Cr

For staffing/catering reasons I'd rather see fixed formations than doubling up. They could always be ordered in multiple lengths - as I said I'd suggest 7 and 9 x 26m (the end sections would be useful on XC for added luggage capacity and the likes). Avanti manage to fairly well shift their 5, 7, 9 and 11 car sets around the place to get capacity largely right (give or take doubling up the 5s). If some services are quiet, bring the prices down - XC is not only grim at present but also often swingeingly expensive - why price people off if you no longer need to?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Oct 2025 ==



Long distance services of course shouldn't really have standees at all other than where people are using them as local services around cities (or truly exceptional stuff like big events that only happen once a year like Glastonbury); there should be sufficient capacity. It says a lot about how bad XC is that a few standees doesn't sound excessive.

Crowding on XC is so bad I only use it in extremis. Car wins most of the time: the prices don't help either.

I'm sure XC could fill twice the capacity if they had it and priced quieter services more like other TOCs...

 

[LLivery]

Please no more short Intercity trains unless there's a serious desire for splitters, and even then it should be the exception not the rule.

We're using high fares to manage demand, then propose to keep restricting seating capacity for another 30 years on an at capacity network, by having trains shorter than necessary. Why!? 8-10 car fixed sets should be the norm for any Intercity route. We can easily fill 8 car XC trains with fares that aren't in the stratosphere.

Stop with this nonsense staffing two halves, have a cafe/shop car; it doesn't need to be full on cooked meals, but modern solutions with self service if we really want to cut back on costs. Most people are perfectly happy to walk down a train, without those bloody trollies blocking the way, and everyone going to one cafe/shop car on a 8-10 car train makes more financial sense.

And with 8-10 cars we can have decent leg room, seats and tables, not cramming seats in like its Ryanair.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's no point wasting space with pointy noses and crumple zones in a 170 replacement, which don't need the higher top speed which requires these features.

By the time the Voyagers are replaced, a 'single fleet' is likely to be irrelevant anyway as XC in its present form is unlikely to exist. The 80x design is likely to be obsolete, too.

Realistically the 170 services need to be moved to whatever constitutes the regional operation by then, either run from Nottingham, Birmingham or indeed both. They have always been a bad fit in XC.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Oct 2025 ==

Crowding on XC is so bad I only use it in extremis. Car wins most of the time: the prices don't help either.

I'm sure XC could fill twice the capacity if they had it and priced quieter services more like other TOCs...

TPE provides evidence of that, yes. A formerly badly overcrowded network that still fills (but not to excess) trains twice the length as before.

 

[gingertom]

Are there any places on XC's network where speeds above 110mph are required away from the wires?

 

[JamesT]

Are there any places on XC's network where speeds above 110mph are required away from the wires?

Sections of the Cross Country route between Birmingham and York have 125mph limits. Most of that isn’t wired.

 

[Roast Veg]

Sections of the Cross Country route between Birmingham and York have 125mph limits. Most of that isn’t wired.

Church Fenton to York is almost electrified already, which just leaves the section between Water Orton and Derby. Derby to Leeds and Doncaster appears to be all 110mph or slower.

 

[JamesT]

Church Fenton to York is almost electrified already, which just leaves the section between Water Orton and Derby. Derby to Leeds and Doncaster appears to be all 110mph or slower.

Fair enough, though actually the speed on the unwired sections doesn’t necessarily change the rolling stock requirements. XC have routes where they need 125mph capability to fit in and meet the timetable, but said routes are not 100% wired. Which inevitably leads to a 125mph bimode as the solution. Whether by the time the replacement occurs batteries have sufficient capacity to replace diesel might be interesting.

 

[Topological]

You could feasibly have different stock on the Edinburgh to Plymouth from everything else. An 80x derivative would allow familiarity with ECML and GWR 80x (assuming you are sharing drivers, rescuing each other etc).

For the Bristol to Manchester, Manchester to South East and Reading to Leeds you could use a bimode 110mph fleet based in Central Rivers. A 730 type derivative could work there.

This would be no different to when CrossCountry had some HSTs but was mainly running loco and coaches.

(Both should be battery-enabled with charging from 3rd rail and overhead. The Plymouth 80x derivative would need infrastructure to charge at Plymouth.)

 

[Snow1964]

There remains the strange reference on the DfT procurement spreadsheet under the Transpennine fleet, with comment about supporting longer term decarbonisation of the network

Procurement of new rolling stock to support TRU and the longer-term decarbonisation of the network..Fleet size of 29units, with an option to procure up to 55 units in total. The additional units reflect an ask from DfT Passenger Services, a separate business case will be undertaken should there be a requirement to procure additional units above the 29. The indicative contract value is based to build the trains. Linked to CAMS2259

Not sure what these potential 26 extra units for DfT passenger services are. Or why exactly 26, as it's not a round number like 20 or 30. Another DfT document suggested these will be about 205m long (so around 7-8 vehicles each).

My suspicion is they have an outline plan to displace another fleet, but no idea which one. It is probably just coincidence that 26 units of 8 vehicles, just happens to be similar number of vehicles to XC 170 and 4car voyagers

ORR data shows XC as having one of the oldest (average age) fleets at 24.2 years old. Only Chiltern, SWR, Scotrail, Northern, and EMR have older fleets (and 3 of those will have rapid fall in average age as new fleets enter service in next few months.

Another possibility is XC get some of the existing 80x fleet with new BEMUs backfilling. There are a number of them that are running large percentage of time on electric lines where an EMU with a 50-60 mile battery would be realistic alternative.

DfT and associated bodies listing of future commercial contracts (commercial pipeline) - GOV.UK

www.gov.uk

 

[station_road]

Any new fleet for Cross Country will realistically be around for 30 years or more, and I think needs significant extra capacity from now - there is surely suppressed demand on many journeys today because of unreliability and overcrowding yet trains in the core sections are still full almost all the time. And then organic growth of even just 1% a year over a 30 year lifespan would require c40% more seats than today.

I'd prefer to see a single fleet of longer trains, with infrastructure or timetabling changes to cope with stations that can't currently accommodate those (the bay at Reading - would it be impossible to find a regular slot on one of the through platforms) and accept that at the margins of the network trains may run emptier.

 

[dosxuk]

Most people are perfectly happy to walk down a train, without those bloody trollies blocking the way, and everyone going to one cafe/shop car on a 8-10 car train makes more financial sense.

If most people were happy to do this, and would prefer it to trolley service, then the operators wouldn't all have come to the same conclusion and closed the buffets.

 

[The exile]

If most people were happy to do this, and would prefer it to trolley service, then the operators wouldn't all have come to the same conclusion and closed the buffets.

Think that part of the problem is when the ideal comes up against reality. For most people (who only want a coffee and something to go with it), having a trolley bring it to your seat sounds infinitely preferable - until you board at Bristol at “coffee time” (whatever that happens to be) and don’t see the trolley until 5 minutes before you get off at Derby. Equally, the thought of “going up to the buffet and getting hot food when I want it and bringing it back to my seat” quickly palls on a packed 5 car Voyager when by the time you get back to your seat it’s occupied by a 20 stone bloke who got on while you were in the queue.

 

[JonathanH]

Any new fleet for Cross Country will realistically be around for 30 years or more, and I think needs significant extra capacity from now - there is surely suppressed demand on many journeys today because of unreliability and overcrowding yet trains in the core sections are still full almost all the time.

It will come down to the business case that can be presented to Treasury. The CrossCountry operation will always require a certain allocation of subsidy. More capacity means higher lease payments. It seems unlikely that there would be any desire to reduce the revenue yield per passenger so that additional capacity would need to be filled at current prices to be anywhere near viable.

 

[Snow1964]

It will come down to the business case that can be presented to Treasury. The CrossCountry operation will always require a certain allocation of subsidy. More capacity means higher lease payments. It seems unlikely that there would be any desire to reduce the revenue yield per passenger so that additional capacity would need to be filled at current prices to be anywhere near viable.

If it needs subsidy, and how much is partly arbitrary or an accounting anomaly (depends on if other operators serve routes too, and which operator sets the fares).

If you take journeys between say Manchester or Liverpool and Bristol (3rd, 4th, 8th largest English cities) then could take a XC priced fare via Birmingham, or a TfW fare via Hereford or an Avanti+GWR via London.

There is not a lot of correlation between quality (comfort), speed (duration) and price. XC might be quickest, but often most squashed, and if unlucky to get a 4car voyager, might not get a seat either. And catering is very unreliable too (sometimes near end of journey, or static as aisles are busy)

XC has cut back routes, you can't use it to visit tourist cities like Bath, Chester or Cambridge, it doesn't serve any major airports (ok, it does serve some smaller ones like Southampton or Birmingham). At times it feels like XC is more an outer suburban service around Birmingham than a comfortable quick way to get from one side of the country to another. Is it trying to serve long distance travellers or Brum commuters. If it is the latter then yes it will need subsidy.

If it is trying to link large provincial business centres like Leeds, Manchester, Bristol etc then it doesn't do it very quickly, and why apart from Torbay does it seem to not quite reach many UK holiday destinations. It needs trains that do regional sprints, and if that means not stopping for 50+ miles both sides of Birmingham then that is market it should aim at, and get trains that are comfortable for 3+ hour journeys, not designed to call at stations every few minutes doing commuter services

 

[43096]

XC has cut back routes, you can't use it to visit tourist cities like Bath, Chester or Cambridge, it doesn't serve any major airports (ok, it does serve some smaller ones like Southampton or Birmingham). At times it feels like XC is more an outer suburban service around Birmingham than a comfortable quick way to get from one side of the country to another. Is it trying to serve long distance travellers or Brum commuters. If it is the latter then yes it will need subsidy.

XC does serve Cambridge. Is Stansted not a major airport?

 

[ac6000cw]

XC has cut back routes, you can't use it to visit tourist cities like Bath, Chester or Cambridge, it doesn't serve any major airports (ok, it does serve some smaller ones like Southampton or Birmingham).

It still serves Cambridge, and London Stansted airport.

 

[JonathanH]

It needs trains that do regional sprints, and if that means not stopping for 50+ miles both sides of Birmingham then that is market it should aim at, and get trains that are comfortable for 3+ hour journeys, not designed to call at stations every few minutes doing commuter services

The romanticised idea that CrossCountry should just be about people making long journeys right across the country simply isn't the reality, nor should it be linking everywhere to everywhere. To be effective, then dealing with its share of commuters is just as important, and Saturday shoppers travelling one stop.

 

[JamesT]

The romanticised idea that CrossCountry should be about people making long journeys right across the country simply isn't the reality, nor should it be linking everywhere to everywhere. To be effective, then dealing with its share of commuters is just as important, and Saturday shoppers travelling one stop.

And presumably if you’re taking away the short hops from XC, the expectation would be that some other operator would have to find rolling stock and paths to provide the lost connectivity?

 

[brad465]

XC could replace all their Voyager carriages 1:1 with an IET equivalent size and add something like 80 seats per 5-cars, that's how bad Voyager capacity is (249 vs 329 IIRC).

 

[Yorkshire09876]

If most people were happy to do this, and would prefer it to trolley service, then the operators wouldn't all have come to the same conclusion and closed the buffets.

Have to say I find it rather bizarre that some people on a railway forum seem to believe that decisions like this are made on what 'people prefer'.

The main reason why train operators prefer trolleys is cost. Very little in the way of equipment needed on the train to be maintained, fewer staff required, more space which can be used for seats. Trolleys can be prepared in a catering base and just loaded on - no preparation needed on the train at all.

If the buffets weren't popular, why were there frequently queues for them? Surveys produced to 'justify' removing them were normally biased in that they asked whether people thought a trolley was a good idea, without mentioning that this would mean removal of the buffet.

 

[Sorcerer]

XC could replace all their Voyager carriages 1:1 with an IET equivalent size and add something like 80 seats per 5-cars, that's how bad Voyager capacity is (249 vs 329 IIRC).

Your numbers are close. For a 220 it's 200 seats (174 standard, 26 first), for a four-car 221 it's 186 (160 standard, 26 first), and for a five-car 221 it's 246 (220 standard, 26 first). Meanwhile a five-coach Class 810 will have 301 seats (254 standard, 47 first) and already beats the longest Super Voyager in terms of capacity with standard class alone with an only slightly longer individual coach length. For standard 26m seven or nine-coach IETs it'd be even greater.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Well now, we've reached day two without anyone expressing fear and anxiety about being stranded for days in a snowdrift in rural Aberdeenshire or Derbyshire away from the wires and having only batteries and no diesel. Suggestions that a battery train run to Fort Bill (as Ember coaches do day-in, day-out) and there was outrage!

So in reality, how much of the current XC network will be electrified by 2035? I'm guessing that Coventry to Didcot will be done, along with Edinburgh to Dundee. Maybe time to cut back on the extensions to Southampton etc?

 

[slowroad]

Well now, we've reached day two without anyone expressing fear and anxiety about being stranded for days in a snowdrift in rural Aberdeenshire or Derbyshire away from the wires and having only batteries and no diesel. Suggestions that a battery train run to Fort Bill (as Ember coaches do day-in, day-out) and there was outrage!

So in reality, how much of the current XC network will be electrified by 2035? I'm guessing that Coventry to Didcot will be done, along with Edinburgh to Dundee. Maybe time to cut back on the extensions to Southampton etc?

Given developments in battery technology it is quite possible there will be no further electrification. See for example the potential of sodium ion:

The Sodium-Ion Battery Revolution Has Started - CleanTechnica

Support CleanTechnica's work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe. Sodium-ion batteries have been in the works for years, and now sodium-ion batteries have started to appear in cars and home storage. JAC, in a partnership with Volkswagen, has been shipping a vehicle called the Sehol or...

cleantechnica.com

It would be irresponsible use of public funds to authorise electrification (other than very limited amounts for recharging) at least until the position becomes clearer, and probably that means never.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

It would be irresponsible use of public funds to authorise electrification (other than very limited amounts for recharging) at least until the position becomes clearer, and probably that means never.

It really wouldn't! Straight electric trains are much simpler and cheaper to build / maintain, and avoid the inevitable energy losses associated with batteries.

Plus of course batteries are not as "clean" as their proponents try to convince us. In particular the mining and product, and later disposal.

 

[TheGrew]

Whilst I have not done the analysis, I would have thought that one of the positives for electrification is that 25kv transformers are much lighter than either diesel engines or batteries, resulting in lower axle loads and therefore track maintenance. I appreciate this will be partially offset by OHLE maintenance, but on a sufficiently busy section of track, I imagine it would make economic sense.

 

[JonathanH]

It really wouldn't! Straight electric trains are much simpler and cheaper to build / maintain, and avoid the inevitable energy losses associated with batteries.

Plus of course batteries are not as "clean" as their proponents try to convince us. In particular the mining and product, and later disposal.

True, but as much as the battery material needs to be extracted, so do the metals for the fixed electrification infrastructure.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

True, but as much as the battery material needs to be extracted, so do the metals for the fixed electrification infrastructure.

Largely steel and copper - much easier to obtain / produce than the materials used in batteries, and far more easily recycled once worn out (some items, such as OHL stanchions, will have a very long life expectancy).

 

[Mogz]

I don't see why it'd make sense for them to have the shorter coaches. I'd just go with bog-standard* 7 car IETs - that length would be about right if all trains were that length - or possibly a few 9s for the busiest services.

* Ideally with the Avanti interior, though I don't mind that much as long as they use the updated Sophia cushion without the metal bar!

This. Couldn’t have put it better!

 

[slowroad]

It really wouldn't! Straight electric trains are much simpler and cheaper to build / maintain, and avoid the inevitable energy losses associated with batteries.

Plus of course batteries are not as "clean" as their proponents try to convince us. In particular the mining and product, and later disposal.

Electrification with batteries will be massively lower cost overall, which is what matters for rational decision making. Also, battery developments (as linked) are greatly reducing the resource implications (and the materials are in any case recyclable). Within a decade we will start to see the removal of OHLE and, especially, third rail, as renewals come due - starting with less intensively used routes.