New XC fleet by 2035 ?

[vuzzeho]

Obviously the 99 platform would have to be modified, but I'd suspect that both purchase and maintainace costs would be lower than modern bi-mode multiple units, which are incredibly expensive compared to loco + coaches.

We don't know for sure, but it would be a bad choice. On top of all the reasons listed above, it would be a bad use of platform capacity on a network that isn't exactly flush with capacity.

 

[Mgameing123]

Assuming the future size and scope of the "traditional" Cross Country operations to stay broadly the same as the situation in 2025 (i.e. ignoring the ex-Central Trains routes/ Turbo stars), you're probably going to need sixty-something trains to replace the Voyagers (on the basis that each has more seats than at the moment, or runs in pairs more often, i.e. an upgrade but nothing ground groundbreaking)

Ideally one big fleet that could do anything a Voyager currently does

Certainly capable of being self powered (battery, diesel, duckweed/ whatever) and running off overhead electrification

However, of those sixty-something, only a tiny amount at any one time will be either (a) on Third Rail or (b) running at 125mph

How much should the tail wag the dog?

It takes three units to provide the hourly service from Basingstoke to Bournemouth , which includes a healthy layover at the south coast

And maybe half a dozen units north of York at any one time (the Aberdeen extensions take up many hours but are at the far ends of the each day when the train would just be sat at Craigentinny anyway), although little of the XC running north of York is 125mph - the line isn't particularly fast north of Newcastle -only one short bit of 125mph in Scotland - XC services often stop multiple times between York and Edinburgh - if we were talking 2035 then I'm sure there'll have been a recast or two on the ECML anyway

So, whilst the wishlists will no doubt include Third Rail and 125 mph running, both of those come at a cost, both financial and non financial (Third Rail means additional weight but more importantly making trains more complicated means more scope for things to go wrong - 125mph capabilities means sacrificing some of the space on board for "crumple zones" etc)

XC abandoned tilt because the benefits on short sections of the network didn't match the fleet -wide costs, so how much of the final design will be trying to introduce bespoke features that might only be used by 10% of trains at any one time (or even fewer)?

Or do you split the operation into a "limited to 110mph but can do Third Rail" for the Manchester - Bournemouth corridor and "125mph but no Third Rail, like an 810" for the Edinburgh - Plymouth corridor?

I've suggested doing versions of this before, operationally neater to simplify things, few people will be doing journeys like Doncaster to Reading on XC anyway - it'd allow two separate fleets

I’d say a mixed fleet that can inter work with the other operations under BR would work better. Like routes that are mainly unelectrificed will need trains with batteries capable of withstanding the long distances. But the routes that are electrified shouldn’t be using these heavy battery units and rather use EMU’s which could also do operations on other parts of GBR. Then for the Bournemouth runs, they would need a dual voltage EMU that can run at 125 mph under AC and maybe just 100 mph under DC current.

 

[Russel]

Were the mk5s cheaper than an equivalent unit? Not sure where the certainty that would be cheaper comes from.

Any carriages are gonna likely have to be a brand new design.

Why can't more Mk5s be ordered?

We don't know for sure, but it would be a bad choice. On top of all the reasons listed above, it would be a bad use of platform capacity on a network that isn't exactly flush with capacity.

How many stations served by XC would this realistically be an issue, given they run 9 car trains all day every day as things stand already?

SDO Is a viable option.

 

[Topological]

Why can't more Mk5s be ordered?



How many stations served by XC would this realistically be an issue, given they run 9 car trains all day every day as things stand already?

SDO Is a viable option.

The challenge with a 9-car loco-hauled train is that you need to platform the engine and whatever is on the back. Yes, you can have them off the platform, but that then assumes that the signal locations allow. A 9-car unit combination is shorter.

I think that there are very few reasons to order loco hauled any more. Really CrossCountry could run with 110mph units with gangways. There are very few 125mph sections.

 

[YorkshireBear]

It's been discussed before, a 7car 80X has more seats than a 9 car voyager so if all units were that it would more than suffice capacity wise.

Proven design, no redesign needed, can be integrated with other Intercity TOCs under GBR should it be required or viewed as beneficial as similar units driven at TPE/LNER/AEC/GWR.

Appreciate it's speculative but it's just not realistic that XC will purchase loco hauled stock.

 

[brad465]

Loco hauled stock will likely never happen.

The logical route would be a fleet of 9 coach 805 style units (in terms of seats, having a little shop area), it can be spun as saving jobs in the North East. And if they use the same dimensions as the existing Hitachi units it won't be a big issue for route clearance

If a 9-car 80x were ordered and introduced for XC that would be a stonking extra 215 seats compared to a 9-car equivalent Voyager pair (even more if it's vs an 8-car). So naturally they won't be ordered. As said above though, 7-car provides slightly more than a 9-car Voyager, and if the whole fleet were them it's miles above any 4-8 car Voyager formation, which the bulk of them are.

 

[Russel]

The challenge with a 9-car loco-hauled train is that you need to platform the engine and whatever is on the back. Yes, you can have them off the platform, but that then assumes that the signal locations allow. A 9-car unit combination is shorter.

I think that there are very few reasons to order loco hauled any more. Really CrossCountry could run with 110mph units with gangways. There are very few 125mph sections.

I know, it wasn't what I asked though...

How many XC served stations would platform length be an issue? Assuming 1 loco, 8 coaches, one being a DVT type, so 9 cars in total, which would be of a similar length to what XC operate on a daily basis already.

 

[JamesT]

I know, it wasn't what I asked though...

How many XC served stations would platform length be an issue? Assuming 1 loco, 8 coaches, one being a DVT type, so 9 cars in total, which would be of a similar length to what XC operate on a daily basis already.

It’s been discussed before, though I can’t immediately find the thread.
But we’ll start off with Reading, where XC use bay platforms that can only accommodate a single Voyager, never mind a double set.

 

[Russel]

It’s been discussed before, though I can’t immediately find the thread.
But we’ll start off with Reading, where XC use bay platforms that can only accommodate a single Voyager, never mind a double set.

Whole point is single Voyagers are unsuitable as things stand, so a solution would have to be found here either way.

 

[JamesT]

Whole point is single Voyagers are unsuitable as things stand, so a solution would have to be found here either way.

But a fleet of units that can be combined gives more flexibility than your loco hauled suggestion. Services than can be accommodated use a double set, those that cannot have a single. If XC didn’t have the locking out issues then their double sets would go a long way.

 

[Topological]

But a fleet of units that can be combined gives more flexibility than your loco hauled suggestion. Services than can be accommodated use a double set, those that cannot have a single. If XC didn’t have the locking out issues then their double sets would go a long way.

Hence why I would go for gangways and I think that limits to 110mph.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jan 2026 ==

It’s been discussed before, though I can’t immediately find the thread.
But we’ll start off with Reading, where XC use bay platforms that can only accommodate a single Voyager, never mind a double set.

Yes. It is also the case that the question is about signals, not platform lengths anyway.

Birmingham New Street is another potential issue as platforms there can be shared if CrossCountry are using single voyagers. I do not know how often the platforms are shared though.

 

[Russel]

But a fleet of units that can be combined gives more flexibility than your loco hauled suggestion. Services than can be accommodated use a double set, those that cannot have a single. If XC didn’t have the locking out issues then their double sets would go a long way.

Wasn't my suggestion, I was responding to an earlier post stating platform lengths would be an issue with loco hauled sets, as per post #153.

Realistically, very few XC services warrant a single unit, any future order should be 5 or 6 car minimum, the bay platform at Reading shouldn't come in to it, I struggle to believe there wouldn't be alternative options.

 

[WAB]

But a fleet of units that can be combined gives more flexibility than your loco hauled suggestion. Services than can be accommodated use a double set, those that cannot have a single. If XC didn’t have the locking out issues then their double sets would go a long way.

Which then rapidly becomes single units on unsuitable services for whatever reason (see the LNER 5-cars on the Leeds route, GWR shortforms across the board, TfW shortforms, etc.) and the promises of multiple formations vanish into thin air.

Not to mention the additional staffing requirements, wasted space, wasted cabs, and difficulties for customers looking for seats.

 

[Topological]

Which then rapidly becomes single units on unsuitable services for whatever reason (see the LNER 5-cars on the Leeds route, GWR shortforms across the board, TfW shortforms, etc.) and the promises of multiple formations vanish into thin air.

Not to mention the additional staffing requirements, wasted space, wasted cabs, and difficulties for customers looking for seats.

But this then comes back to the rinse and repeat debate about whether a short-form is better than nothing.

I am firmly in the short-form being better than no train at all camp.

 

[WAB]

But this then comes back to the rinse and repeat debate about whether a short-form is better than nothing.

I am firmly in the short-form being better than no train at all camp.

Cancellation stats are the only data which get reported at a sufficiently high level or with enough political impact to inspire rapid rectification.

Short-form stats are not routinely reported on. If the booked formations are changed, this again is not reported on and cannot be easily identified without manual analysis of the 'before' and 'after' unit diagrams. Short-forms which cause over-crowding or people being left behind are not publicly reported or consistently recorded. Short-forms once allowed to creep in are generally allowed to stay as a result.

 

[Dr Day]

Cancellation stats are the only data which get reported at a sufficiently high level or with enough political impact to inspire rapid rectification.

Short-form stats are not routinely reported on. If the booked formations are changed, this again is not reported on and cannot be easily identified without manual analysis of the 'before' and 'after' unit diagrams. Short-forms which cause over-crowding or people being left behind are not publicly reported or consistently recorded. Short-forms once allowed to creep in are generally allowed to stay as a result.

Plenty of data must be available even if not all published so one would hope the industry (including the non GBR bits) can get better at working together to use it to deliver better outcomes. Those outcomes will inevitably have to include improvements for the taxpayer, but even with the same seat miles operated more could probably be done to balance demand and supply geographically and temporally.

Folks on here may not like more variable timetables, maintenance schedules and fares, but they are one way of balancing things out without necessarily adding more cost.

 

[Yew]

I don't see why it'd make sense for them to have the shorter coaches.

I'm not sure that it's possible to make a train with acceptable ride characteristics if it has 26m carriages on the UK network.

 

[brad465]

Presumably we will have to wait until at least late-2027 for XC to even consider a new fleet tender, then another year or two for approval, given Arriva are not going to do this when they know they won't have the franchise for much longer.

 

[Topological]

Cancellation stats are the only data which get reported at a sufficiently high level or with enough political impact to inspire rapid rectification.

Short-form stats are not routinely reported on. If the booked formations are changed, this again is not reported on and cannot be easily identified without manual analysis of the 'before' and 'after' unit diagrams. Short-forms which cause over-crowding or people being left behind are not publicly reported or consistently recorded. Short-forms once allowed to creep in are generally allowed to stay as a result.

So I should wait an extra hour for my train because then the cancellation stats get more political attention?

You can, but I am sure the majority of the public would prefer to be able to get to where they are going.

Thankfully, TfW use gangwayed units on the South Wales to Manchester trains and though I do sometimes suffer a short form, it is very very rare that there is no train at all. The 197s have the added benefit that one can be taken out of a double unit to cover for the inevitable failure of a Mk4 set (which is the usual reason my morning train is a single unit, the other unit covering the train an hour earlier)

 

[Mogz]

Loco hauled stock will likely never happen.

The logical route would be a fleet of 9 coach 805 style units (in terms of seats, having a little shop area), it can be spun as saving jobs in the North East. And if they use the same dimensions as the existing Hitachi units it won't be a big issue for route clearance

As a regular XC victim passenger, Avanti West Coast type 807s with the same layout, seating and catering would be a dream come true if introduced on XC.

 

[JonathanH]

Presumably we will have to wait until at least late-2027 for XC to even consider a new fleet tender, then another year or two for approval, given Arriva are not going to do this when they know they won't have the franchise for much longer.

Arriva will surely do whatever the DfT directs them to do. If the DfT was interested, and had the funds for development of a new fleet plan, the current XC management would be looking at it before 2027. It doesn't seem like the position will change in 2027.

The faith that this forum has that something is going to be done in the near term does seem somewhat optimistic.

 

[Topological]

Although it does not solve the three crew member issue, the 810 may be a platform that a larger order could be placed for. Interworking with the MML trains would give greater operational flexibility.

I do know it will never happen, but I can tell myself there is a lot of scope for political spin in marginal seats.

 

[Kite159]

Although it does not solve the three crew member issue, the 810 may be a platform that a larger order could be placed for. Interworking with the MML trains would give greater operational flexibility.

I do know it will never happen, but I can tell myself there is a lot of scope for political spin in marginal seats.

I would imagine if XC gets bimodal units it would be the older style 26 metre coaches, rather than the EMR spec shorter coaches, considering they were only ordered due to platform length issues at the annex of the shopping centre.

Considering the issues the 810s have compared with the 805s,

 

[Russel]

I would imagine if XC gets bimodal units it would be the older style 26 metre coaches, rather than the EMR spec shorter coaches, considering they were only ordered due to platform length issues at the annex of the shopping centre.

Considering the issues the 810s have compared with the 805s,

Given the issues GWR are currently having with their IET bi-mode sets when running on diesel, let's hope that if an IET derivative is chosen, mistakes have been learnt from.

 

[brad465]

Given the issues GWR are currently having with their IET bi-mode sets when running on diesel, let's hope that if an IET derivative is chosen, mistakes have been learnt from.

If XC do order IET-style bi-modes one day, there should be consideration for electrifying the South Devon Banks: you'd have at least 2tph in each direction able to utilise it, deals with the high engine hp requirement issue, and provides a decent island for recharging (and not draining) batteries, which would be even more useful if a future XC fleet comes with batteries (along with GWR's large BEMU proposed fleet).

 

[Kite159]

....

If XC do order IET-style bi-modes one day, there should be consideration for electrifying the South Devon Banks: you'd have at least 2tph in each direction able to utilise it, deals with the high engine hp requirement issue, and provides a decent island for recharging (and not draining) batteries, which would be even more useful if a future XC fleet comes with batteries (along with GWR's large BEMU proposed fleet).

Nothing in England will get new overhead wires when Labour are in charge, they see the benchmark of Crewe to Kidsgrove (as completed by the 1997-2010 lot) as a distance too great.

Why invest in overhead wires when you can fit some batteries to trains, after all when the time comes to replace those batteries 7 years later they won't be in power and won't have to deal with the cost.

 

[Topological]

I would imagine if XC gets bimodal units it would be the older style 26 metre coaches, rather than the EMR spec shorter coaches, considering they were only ordered due to platform length issues at the annex of the shopping centre.

Considering the issues the 810s have compared with the 805s,

I think I was just looking for ways to get more capacity onto the MML when needed. A larger 810 order would achieve that.

By contrast a larger 80x order offers interworking with the GWR and LNER IETs on those sections of the route.

In all cases I would order 5-car because they can run in multiple and would already be a massive increase over the 220/221s.

 

[Russel]

If XC do order IET-style bi-modes one day, there should be consideration for electrifying the South Devon Banks: you'd have at least 2tph in each direction able to utilise it, deals with the high engine hp requirement issue, and provides a decent island for recharging (and not draining) batteries, which would be even more useful if a future XC fleet comes with batteries (along with GWR's large BEMU proposed fleet).

Oh I fully agree, I can't see it happening though unfortunately!

 

[stevieinselby]

Really CrossCountry could run with 110mph units with gangways. There are very few 125mph sections.

Much of the routes from Birmingham to Manchester and Derby are 125mph, but the key one is the ECML between York and Durham, which is mostly 125mph on the fast lines, and now that TPX have got 125mph units on it then anything slower causes pathing problems, and could see XC services relegated to the slow lines between York and Northallerton. It would need a complete recast of the ECML timetable, and we've just had one of those so there won't be a lot of appetite to do it again in a hurry.

 

[Topological]

Much of the routes from Birmingham to Manchester and Derby are 125mph, but the key one is the ECML between York and Durham, which is mostly 125mph on the fast lines, and now that TPX have got 125mph units on it then anything slower causes pathing problems, and could see XC services relegated to the slow lines between York and Northallerton. It would need a complete recast of the ECML timetable, and we've just had one of those so there won't be a lot of appetite to do it again in a hurry.

Which bits of Birmingham to Manchester? I thought it was all 110 max, especially without tilt?

I know there is a short section between Derby and Birmingham as that gets constantly cited when people are talking about 125 sections.

I don't think there is anything south of Birmingham, so most of CrossCountry is on slower lines.

Not having gangways and allowing this crewing debacle to continue seems a major sacrifice for just one of the four arms out of Birmingham

All that said, I do also see a strong argument for IETs that work with either the MML 810s or the LNER/GWR units.

Both are far preferable to loco hauled.