Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[ValentaFan1974]

This absolutely - stabilise the network using the resources you already have. How many 170 units are sitting in sidings on a Sunday because of no staff to run them, when they could be taking the pressure off the longer distance trains south of Derby. And an agreement that the catering staff can be the second person on a double Voyager again could be done very quickly if there was the will to do it.

The catering staff/competent person issue on double voyagers is actually down to the RMT - it’s them that don’t want it, not XC.

 

[aron2smith]

There is no doubt that XC suffers persistent overcrowding and we would all welcome a sustainable long term solution, but a number of these assertions need contextualising.

Although in its final years as a sector Intercity under BR made great strides it did not have a 'set standard' to work to; rather it did what it could with the resources available. Crosscountry operations were always the Cinderella, for many years formed of all sorts of cascaded rolling stock running various NE-SW services at odd times as well as the Brighton and Dover workings. The allocation of HSTs to a number of these journeys was probably the high point but they ran much less frequently than today's services.

'Operation Princess', the Virgin XC plan did not replace the full length trains like for like with Voyagers - what it did though was to take, for example, an 8 coach train running every 2 hours and recast the service with, say, an hourly service of 4 coach Voyagers. BR for many years had been constrained by investment limits and therefore managed demand by means of pricing and timetabling, but the new world of franchises did not seek to limit such growth. Under Virgin, the sudden provision of hourly services on routes that for decades had maybe enjoyed maybe 5 trains a day stimulated pent up demand at it was for that reason the Voyagers were quickly overwhelmed. Unfortunately the franchises were still underpinned by public contracts that constrained over-expansion and there was therefore no quick answer to the problem. Put simply, if a franchise had a booming business but held a limited length contract (as XC did) the only way further new trains could be procured was if Government would underwrite their value beyond the contract end, and neither DfT nor Treasury were willing to do this.

This is all coming full circle as the original contracts move over to DfTO and GBR; the Crosscountry issue can't be hidden behind the smoke and mirrors of the quasi-privatised structure; but any 'quick wins' will be entirely dependent on the availability of rolling stock and the means to fund it. (That and sorting out the industrial relations issues).

Thank you for the context. Very interesting and frustrating it was like this. Sounds like another problem caused by an all too powerful Treasury, who can't just let the railway function and run itself. Reading this made me wonder what could've been possible if the railway (private or public) was given 25 years so it could plan ahead. If GBR doesn't focus on the long term, then they've learnt nothing.

 

[JonathanH]

Sounds like another problem caused by an all too powerful Treasury, who can't just let the railway function and run itself.

The Treasury and passengers are the only funding sources available. Passengers unfortunately don't provide the funding the railway needs to run itself.

 

[43074]

Frankly the double set TM thing needs resolving - and not by employing more TMs! It's completely unjustifiable and needs to be abolished.

Likewise on EMR Intercity (albeit off topic) - I'm sceptical that as many 10 car 810s as promised will run until the double TM requirement is sorted out/abolished.

 

[aron2smith]

The Treasury and passengers are the only funding sources available. Passengers unfortunately don't provide the funding the railway needs to run itself.

This is why housing and transport policies should be linked. Then real estate could subsidise public transport.

 

[LowLevel]

Likewise on EMR Intercity (albeit off topic) - I'm sceptical that as many 10 car 810s as promised will run until the double TM requirement is sorted out/abolished.

There isn't any shortage of train managers so I don't think it will be an issue.

 

[Snow1964]

'Operation Princess', the Virgin XC plan did not replace the full length trains like for like with Voyagers - what it did though was to take, for example, an 8 coach train running every 2 hours and recast the service with, say, an hourly service of 4 coach Voyagers.

Thats only part of the original conversion plan, it wasn't practical to phase in new stock if frequency was being doubled but length halved, had to be one big switch on single date for whole route.

The solution was start with shortened voyagers, then add extra intermediate vehicles as patronage grew. (which is why the end vehicles are A and F with some missing letters for the growth carriages). However the extra vehicles never got ordered and still stuck with 4 and 5 car sets, rather than 5 and 6 car sets.

Adding a traction battery is probably well within the modular design principles. I'd be surprised if adding shoes and the 750v gear was though.

If the basic battery architecture is around 700-900volts then already have the inverters to power the traction motors from batteries, and convert line voltage and/or regeneration during braking to dc for the batteries, including all the power electronics to handle this.
Adding a few pick up shoes is a tiny add on cost as already added the expensive parts.

 

[jayah]

I don't imagine that GBR will make any difference, unless they can somehow rob Peter to pay Paul in a way that the reduces stock somewhere else.
I don't see how GBR will have any more public cash for Crosscountry than currently and private investment will presumably disappear entirely.

Unless some optimistic rolling stock leasing company offers to take a share of future revenue growth in exchange for a discount on leasing costs somehow?

Avanti have brought in extra stock to run more services on what is deemed 'congested infrastructure' and NR, ORR are already knocking these back.

How about using Class 390/807s to cover XC Birmingham - Manchester by extending the 2tph from Euston that terminate at New Street and turn back the XC Bristol / Bournemouth there instead? That would release perhaps 7-8 Voyagers for strengthening.

 

[edwin_m]

If the basic battery architecture is around 700-900volts then already have the inverters to power the traction motors from batteries, and convert line voltage and/or regeneration during braking to dc for the batteries, including all the power electronics to handle this.
Adding a few pick up shoes is a tiny add on cost as already added the expensive parts.

This is likely to be dictated by the voltage of the power fed from the diesels into the traction inverters today, as new batteries would most likely work at a similar voltage. If it's something other than 750V then more electronics would be needed to convert the third rail voltage.

 

[The Planner]

Avanti have brought in extra stock to run more services on what is deemed 'congested infrastructure' and NR, ORR are already knocking these back.

The Liverpools are fine, its anything over and above that falls under congested infrastructure. There is little spare stock.

How about using Class 390/807s to cover XC Birmingham - Manchester by extending the 2tph from Euston that terminate at New Street and turn back the XC Bristol / Bournemouth there instead? That would release perhaps 7-8 Voyagers for strengthening.

Thats a chunky timetable problem.

 

[Uncle Buck]

If GBR wants a bigish early 'win' it needs to start the ball rolling on 8 or 9 carriage trains for its core intercity services and 4 or 5 car outer suburban bi modes or bump the 170 services to others.

Top and tail class 99s with 'dumb' trailers would be good with a good fit out.

Intercity Cross Country could be a top flight service but it will probably continue to be the runt of the GBR litter.

I know there are some people who seem to have a thing for push-pull loco-hauled sets, but in this case they would seem to be the answer to some of the problems. Any reliable locomotive hauling any carriages would be an improvement on the current permacrisis.

 

[HSTEd]

I know there are some people who seem to have a thing for push-pull loco-hauled sets, but in this case they would seem to be the answer to some of the problems. Any reliable locomotive hauling any carriages would be an improvement on the current permacrisis.

There aren't really any usable carriages though. Most of whats left from the last loco hauled operations appear to be pretty rotten (see the Mark 3s), and the fleet of actually good passenger locomotives isn't exactly extensive.

Of couse, there is only one 125mph locomotive available and its the Class 67, which is not exactly.... high performance?
If you aren't using 125mph stock you could probably work something out using our (comparatively) ample supply of EMUs and not bother with loco hauled operations.

 

[JamesT]

I know there are some people who seem to have a thing for push-pull loco-hauled sets, but in this case they would seem to be the answer to some of the problems. Any reliable locomotive hauling any carriages would be an improvement on the current permacrisis.

But there essentially aren’t any carriages available, so you would have to build new, at which point why order such unsuitable rolling stock when a new fleet of units is what is needed?

 

[HSTEd]

Thats a chunky timetable problem.

Of the existing Birmingham New Street or Wolverhampton terminators, which would be the "easiest" to swap with the XC trains north of Birmingham?

(I understand none are likely to be easy, but you get the idea).

 

[Halish Railway]

Rolling stock wise, assuming GBR consolidates the operations of various TOCs, mainly operations staff with overlapping route knowledge, it would be most advantageous to have an 80x derivative given that LNER, TPE, EMR, Avanti and GWR staff already have the knowledge of these units.

Given what has been said about the economies of XC the only way they can increase capacity and decarbonise would be to order rolling stock to cascade enough of GWR and LNER’s Class 800s to XC. Finish GWEP and order EMUs for the London to Oxford, Cardiff, Swansea and Bristol services and more 897s for LNER.

That would mean three existing TOCs would gain new (to them in the case of XC) trains and more capacity, two of which would serve London, making the economic case much stronger.

Whether this would be possible within the confines of the IEP contract is something that I’m not too familiar with. With some more comfortable seats, softer lighting and more reliable fuel pumps it could work quite well.

 

[Uncle Buck]

There aren't really any usable carriages though. Most of whats left from the last loco hauled operations appear to be pretty rotten (see the Mark 3s), and the fleet of actually good passenger locomotives isn't exactly extensive.

Of couse, there is only one 125mph locomotive available and its the Class 67, which is not exactly.... high performance?
If you aren't using 125mph stock you could probably work something out using our (comparatively) ample supply of EMUs and not bother with loco hauled operations.

Point taken, but how could CrossCountry use an EMU when so much of their network is unelectrified? Am I misunderstanding your post?

But there essentially aren’t any carriages available, so you would have to build new, at which point why order such unsuitable rolling stock when a new fleet of units is what is needed?

I appreciate many people will throw their heads in their hands at the very mention of this, but wouldn’t something like the ill-fated Nova 3 be the best solution to XC’s problems? 5 cars on the quieter routes, two sets knocked together for the busier ones, hauled by a diesel loco that can go anywhere and can be replaced if the lines are ever electrified. I’m not a loco maniac, it just seems that they can fill a niche and XC might be that niche.

 

[HSTEd]

Point taken, but how could CrossCountry use an EMU when so much of their network is unelectrified? Am I misunderstanding your post?

Well, other people in this thread have pointed out that you could potentially alter diagrams to produce some route segments that could be operated by EMUs.

You could save several sets if you could find an alternative method of operating the Manchester-Birmingham leg, for example.
Those sets could then be moved to unelectrified route segments.

 

[vdriud]

What i find bonkers is 5 car IETs operating Bristol to Worcester stoppers, empty. There have even been 9 car ones operating this service with 8.5 empty carriages. Meanwhile, they pass rammed 4 coach voyagers.

The capacity is in the wrong place.

 

[mernrith]

I appreciate many people will throw their heads in their hands at the very mention of this, but wouldn’t something like the ill-fated Nova 3 be the best solution to XC’s problems?

Nova 3s are now in Chiltern's hands as Mk3 replacement and capacity upgrades.

Given what has been said about the economies of XC the only way they can increase capacity and decarbonise would be to order rolling stock to cascade enough of GWR and LNER’s Class 800s to XC. Finish GWEP and order EMUs for the London to Oxford, Cardiff, Swansea and Bristol services and more 897s for LNER.

Once again, why not build new 80x directly for XC?
With manufacturers either known for or currently having delays needing to produce new stock before 800s go to XC, I don't think it's a good idea to rely on cascading - keeping them new trains to XC only (at least not part of subsequent stock movements) is less likely to cause impact over several regions.
As if like 222s aren't hanging on EMR territory now when they should be under refurbishment, or even working for Scotrail/Lumo had Hitachi delivered 810s on time.

Speaking of LNER, I think they are less likely to release 800s apart from the obvious contract issues. If 897s are to replace 225s directly then they are more likely to work for Yorkshire routes - the region which saw capacity stripped recently. Then you get the short 800s to possibly couple with short 801s to run Scottish routes and are also handy when diversion is needed.

 

[Snow1964]

What i find bonkers is 5 car IETs operating Bristol to Worcester stoppers, empty. There have even been 9 car ones operating this service with 8.5 empty carriages. Meanwhile, they pass rammed 4 coach voyagers.

The capacity is in the wrong place.

But that comes down to the lack of 5-6car 100-110mph regional bimode trains with seating for 3+ hours.

If the regional routes like Cardiff-Portsmouth, Cardiff-Nottingham, Cardiff-Manchester had these, then they wouldn't be hoarding 2car and 3car DMUs (often in multiple) so those 5car intercity IETs would be free to cover longer distance services.

GBR (or shadow GBR in its current form), could unblock a lot of the silliness like this, by targeting the lack of regional (not high speed) first, doing a mini cascade, then moving to ordering BEMUs afterwards, it might even allow some of the later built DMUs to cascade out the oldest ones so they don't need the multi mode MMUs

 

[Harpo]

GBR (or shadow GBR in its current form), could unblock a lot of the silliness like this, by targeting the lack of regional (not high speed) first, doing a mini cascade, then moving to ordering BEMUs afterwards, it might even allow some of the later built DMUs to cascade out the oldest ones so they don't need the multi mode MMUs

With GBR’s leader coming from DfT along with several hundred DfT staff, I’m anticipating the ‘silliness’ being TUPE’d straight over.

 

[daodao]

Well, other people in this thread have pointed out that you could potentially alter diagrams to produce some route segments that could be operated by EMUs.

You could save several sets if you could find an alternative method of operating the Manchester-Birmingham leg, for example.
Those sets could then be moved to unelectrified route segments.

There are enough spare class 350/2 emus to take over the whole of the XC services on the Manchester to Birmingham section using 8 coach trains, and if appropriate run them through to Coventry/Northampton, taking over some local services as well.

 

[Snow1964]

Regardless of what stock XC has, if it doesn't employ enough drivers on Saturdays, the crowding just gets worse on what actually runs because of ridiculous numbers of cancellations.

Currently XC service updates showing
18 early cancellations
41 cancellations

Service Updates | CrossCountry Trains

Book quickly and easily. Buy cheap train tickets, find live train times, explore Railcards, and more today with CrossCountry.

www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk

So really XC needs to get its act together and employ enough staff so it can operate the service without routine voluntary overtime, even allowing for covering illness.

 

[yorksrob]

The previous trains may well have been longer, but most were not “full-length” (ie 10-12 coach). The tragedy (incompetence) is that nothing significant has been done about it in the intervening 25 years. Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised - after all, the trains don’t serve London, so “aren’t important”. (Not my opinion I hasten to add).

Indeed. The pre-Voyager trains also seemed to be overcrowded a lot of the times I used them.

 

[martin butler]

How many of the services offered by Cross Country can be made by other operators already running trains in the same area? Could they replace cross country? with other scheduled services? by changing trains along the route, or by better use of what's already available?

 

[The Planner]

Of the existing Birmingham New Street or Wolverhampton terminators, which would be the "easiest" to swap with the XC trains north of Birmingham?

(I understand none are likely to be easy, but you get the idea).

Current Euston services terminate at xx.48 and xx.27. The xx.48 would have to be the xx.01, the xx.27 could form the xx.30, but that is the absolute minimum dwell at New St and would be incredibly unreliable. Southbound the starters are xx.47 and xx.21. The Bristol arrives at xx.33 so potentially fits with the xx.47. Bournemouth is xx.56 and would have to fit the xx.21, far from ideal. That is ignoring the platform implications.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jan 2026 ==

How many of the services offered by Cross Country can be made by other operators already running trains in the same area? Could they replace cross country? with other scheduled services? by changing trains along the route, or by better use of what's already available?

Not that many, Bournemouth to Birmingham New St would end up being a change at Basingstoke, Reading, Oxford, Banbury, Leamington and Coventry I think? Bristol to Birmingham would be a change at Worcester. Manchester to Birmingham would be a change at Crewe or Stafford. You couldn't do anything towards Leicester or Derby.

 

[Mgameing123]

the DFT won’t like this suggestion but how about buy new trains with enough capacity???

 

[DDB]

How many of the services offered by Cross Country can be made by other operators already running trains in the same area? Could they replace cross country? with other scheduled services? by changing trains along the route, or by better use of what's already available?

They have a monopoly Derby to Birmingham which is why I really hope an open access competitor gets approved. There is currently a Cardiff York application in from Lumo

 

[Kite159]

They have a monopoly Derby to Birmingham which is why I really hope an open access competitor gets approved. There is currently a Cardiff York application in from Lumo

Even if that open access operator gets approved and starts running trains, it won't make much of an impact on XC between Birmingham & Derby.

 

[Howardh]

the DFT won’t like this suggestion but how about buy new trains with enough capacity???

Isn't one of the problems that longer trains can't fit in stations? Is so then just announce which carriages to use for any particular stop?