Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[NCT]

Not sure I follow. It was clockface - two trains per hour, one fast (terminating at New St) and one semifast (continuing to Scotland, providing better connectivity than now). Takt doesn't require everything to have the same stopping pattern - it's not Merseyrail. It just requires repeating patterns every hour or two hours.

Indeed the whole WCML is now pretty much "takt", some of it quite clever like the Marston Vale slotting in between useful connections to/from it.

There are plenty of hours when all 3 trains are busy (we wouldn't be building HS2 if they weren't). The idea of removing one of the fast paths could only happen in selected hours, and that would introduce hour-to-hour timetable variations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A nationalised railway should deploy resources in the most efficient manner. Cheap Advances on Avanti on fast services with spare capacity is more efficient than running a slow train.

People don't want to decide three weeks ahead that they're going for a short distance day out. You could offer cheap walk ups on Avanti but then lose the ability to cane the premium market.

The train is running anyway, the debate is just about where it's split.

 

[brad465]

South of Bristol XC could do with a doubled frequency, and/or GWR running a semi-fast between Bristol and Taunton to take some strain. While overcrowding here is not as bad as through the Midlands, it's still a problem, and I have seen 4-car Voyagers reject passengers at Taunton before. If XC were allowed to extend the Bristol terminators to Exeter, something that was proposed pre-covid, a half-hourly frequency would alleviate overcrowding.

Alternatively, if GWR were able to run the Cardiff-Exeter service semi-fast (same calling pattern north of Bristol, but south of here calling only at Weston-super-Mare, Bridgwater, Taunton, Wellington, Tiverton Pkwy, Cullompton, Exeter), and extend the Severn Beach-Weston service to terminate at Taunton (to compensate for Highbridge & Burnham and give Bridgwater an extra tph), there's an extra service that runs at a reasonably attractive journey time where a XC doesn't catch-up to it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why shouldn't they have been built?

Because they're a poor compromise bodged to fit a bad concept. The "were 810s right for EMR" thread delves into their many flaws.

 

[NCT]

People don't want to decide three weeks ahead that they're going for a short distance day out. You could offer cheap walk ups on Avanti but then lose the ability to cane the premium market.

The train is running anyway, the debate is just about where it's split.

Where it's split is central to the discussion of how to use existing DMUs and EMUs most efficiently in the medium term.

Forgoing a whole fleet's worth of suppressed demand just to preserve a very specific way of serving a niche market segment seems bizarre.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are plenty of hours when all 3 trains are busy (we wouldn't be building HS2 if they weren't). The idea of removing one of the fast paths could only happen in selected hours, and that would introduce hour-to-hour timetable variations.

Peak extras are fine in a Takt provided the base service is the same all day. The south WCML has them, take a look.

Back to XC, might some peak extras in the busy core perhaps help?

 

[NCT]

Peak extras are fine in a Takt provided the base service is the same all day. The south WCML has them, take a look.

Back to XC, might some peak extras in the busy core perhaps help?

The same paths being used for wildly different purposes peak and off-peak is not just peak extras. It's not takt.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where it's split is central to the discussion of how to use existing DMUs and EMUs most efficiently in the medium term.

Forgoing a whole fleet's worth of suppressed demand just to preserve a very specific way of serving a niche market segment seems bizarre.

Splitting the WMT service at Northampton is not a requirement to increase Manchester to Birmingham capacity. It's a silly idea produced by people who don't know the WCML very well and should just go in the bin.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2026 ==

The same paths being used for wildly different purposes peak and off-peak is not just peak extras. It's not takt.

Not sure I follow. I'm saying go to 2tph all day and chuck in a couple of off pattern peak extras when it's actually busy, which in my experience is extremely rare so you'd be talking at most two each way. Needn't be in the current paths, just wherever they fit. This (combined with Trings starting/terminating back at Bletchley) is how the south WCML works.

 

[NCT]

Splitting the WMT service at Northampton is not a requirement to increase Manchester to Birmingham capacity. It's a silly idea produced by people who don't know the WCML very well and should just go in the bin.

A nationalised, efficiency focused railway should maximise pure EMU running under wires so only routes that have to have mixed traction suffer the incremental costs.

A nationalised, efficiency focused railway should place more emphasis on takt-like interchanges making specific direct journeys less critical. Service design should be driven by core markets and not incidental markets, and operational efficiency (e.g. matching direct services to traction) should have higher weighting. The Netherlands is an excellent example at this. They WILL run separate electric and diesel services at the electrification boundary ad because interchanges are properly designed the psychological penalty is small. Other interchanges are well designed so secondary markets can still make efficient interchanges). Organise Northampton as a takt node and you can still offer cheap 'via Northampton' tickets.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2026 ==

Splitting the WMT service at Northampton is not a requirement to increase Manchester to Birmingham capacity. It's a silly idea produced by people who don't know the WCML very well and should just go in the bin.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2026 ==



Not sure I follow. I'm saying go to 2tph all day and chuck in a couple of off pattern peak extras when it's actually busy, which in my experience is extremely rare so you'd be talking at most two each way. Needn't be in the current paths, just wherever they fit. This (combined with Trings starting/terminating back at Bletchley) is how the south WCML works.

You wanted to use the off-peak vacated Avanti fast paths for Cross Country type services. Those Cross Country services wouldn't be able to run in the peaks. That's different timetables for different hours. That's not peak extras.

 

[778]

The bargain-basement WMR London - Birmingham fares are a current market inefficiency, where those passengers can be efficiently and inexpensively carried on Avanti and Chiltern. The WMR through passengers should not drive network desig

Are you saying that the WMR London - Birmingham fares should be done away with?

If paths are scarce around New St, binning off one of the two largely not very busy fast Avanti services would arguably be a better choice, as per what operated pre the 807s.

If you replaced one of the Avanti services with another LNWR service would you send that via Northampton or via the fast lines?

Longer term new full length tri mode units are the solution, not used suburban EMUs.

Something like an 897 or a 756 with more carriages and a 125mph maximum speed? I think that XC should really have been given the ex TPE mark 5 carriages sets and 68s instead of Chiltern.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A nationalised, efficiency focused railway should maximise pure EMU running under wires so only routes that have to have mixed traction suffer the incremental costs.

A nationalised, efficiency focused railway should place more emphasis on takt-like interchanges making specific direct journeys less critical. Service design should be driven by core markets and not incidental markets, and operational efficiency (e.g. matching direct services to traction) should have higher weighting. The Netherlands is an excellent example at this. They WILL run separate electric and diesel services at the electrification boundary ad because interchanges are properly designed the psychological penalty is small. Other interchanges are well designed so secondary markets can still make efficient interchanges). Organise Northampton as a takt node and you can still offer cheap 'via Northampton' tickets.

I could not possibly disagree more with pretty much the entirety of that. We aren't talking about Merseyrail here (and NS is basically a big metro). If GBR organises its services for operational rather than passenger convenience as a primary driver, it will have failed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2026 ==

If you replaced one of the Avanti services with another LNWR service would you send that via Northampton or via the fast lines?

That's not the suggestion, rather the suggestion is to free a New St terminating slot for an hourly 12 car 350/2 XC service from Manchester.

Having said that I'm still starting to favour the idea of sending one of the XCs to Liverpool instead and one of its WMTs to Manchester, with the latter lengthened when running to Manchester to 12 car. That just requires a few extra units rather than lots of complexity and avoids having to break the WMT through service, and would add more than enough extra capacity when you also consider the extra eight 221s.

If the 4 car 221s are then for strengthening only, you could further add capacity by making those Standard only.

 

[NCT]

I could not possibly disagree more with pretty much the entirety of that. We aren't talking about Merseyrail here (and NS is basically a big metro). If GBR organises its services for operational rather than passenger convenience as a primary driver, it will have failed.

Groningen - Vlissingen as the crow flies is pretty much Manchester - London. The high-frequency parts of England are essentially Dutch sized. The Dutch model works. You simplify operation and use the capacity, performance and financial efficiency benefits to run all-day frequent metro-style services. That's the operating model most successful at taking people out of cars.

 

[778]

Having said that I'm still starting to favour the idea of sending one of the XCs to Liverpool instead and one of its WMTs to Manchester, with the latter lengthened when running to Manchester to 12 car. That just requires a few extra units rather than lots of complexity and avoids having to break the WMT through service.

Sorry, do you mean one a day or one every hour?

810s don't make sense anywhere. They should never have been built.

To be fair a lot of people have said they are the best version of the IETs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry, do you mean one a day or one every hour?

One an hour.

To be fair a lot of people have said they are the best version of the IETs.

Primarily those without legs or substantial luggage. Like absolutely everything new ordered by Abellio/Transport UK (720, 745/755, 196, both types of 730), the interior fitting and decor quality is very high but they are extremely cramped. Continuing this critique is more for this thread, though:

Class 810 - The Right Fit For EMR?

I've seen a lot of debate in the main Class 810 introduction thread, so creating this as a friendly space for debate around the merits of the 810 including but not limited to... -Seats -Capacity -Possibility of keeping 222 fleet to supplement capacity? Personally, I'd prefer the whole fleet be...

www.railforums.co.uk

With regard to XC specifically there's no reason not to go for "full fat" 26m 80x with their higher usable space. The 810s are a bodge specifically designed for the platforms at St Pancras, an issue not applicable to XC, so no more should be built unless EMR want a few extra. Even if going for 5 car units, an option I do not support for XC, the extra 10m of length is valuable. You could always fit the 810 interior to such a unit, though I'd personally rather you didn't.

 

[778]

One an hour.

The only problem could be that the intermediate stations between Crewe and Liverpool would lose out unless the XC service would stop at those stations.

 

[Halish Railway]

A nationalised, efficiency focused railway should maximise pure EMU running under wires so only routes that have to have mixed traction suffer the incremental costs.

A nationalised, efficiency focused railway should place more emphasis on takt-like interchanges making specific direct journeys less critical. Service design should be driven by core markets and not incidental markets, and operational efficiency (e.g. matching direct services to traction) should have higher weighting. The Netherlands is an excellent example at this. They WILL run separate electric and diesel services at the electrification boundary ad because interchanges are properly designed the psychological penalty is small. Other interchanges are well designed so secondary markets can still make efficient interchanges). Organise Northampton as a takt node and you can still offer cheap 'via Northampton' tickets.

The floor of this argument is that if we were a more sensible efficiency-focused country like The Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany etc all of the core CrossCountry routes would have been electrified long ago and we wouldn't have to argue about how to replace/supplement highly specialised, thirsty and hard to come by diesel high speed trains. Almost all cross-country style routes in Germany, the best point of comparison operate with 16 carriage ICE 3s or 12/13 carriage ICE 4s. The only unnelectrified railways in the Netherlands and Germany are comparatively rural branch lines. The only Voyager route where the case for electrification is fairly weak is running beyond Plymouth to Penzance.

For all the floors of the CrossCountry's offerings, its great strength is its long distance service offering, providing 2tph from Birmingham to most principle destinations and 1tph to places further a field whilst catering well to cross-Birmingham passengers. It is almost singlehandedly responsible for the growth of passenger numbers that has proven the Voyagers to be inadequate and strengthened the case to electrify all their core routes and order a fleet of conventional 125mph EMUs. For me messing around with the one great virtue of CrossCountry is a dangerous game and we must not lose track of how valuable it is.

For all the strengths of the Dutch railways and its operating model it is not without flaws, especially in regards to long distance services. The only routes that pass through the Netherlands that are as long as the four Voyager routes are international services and they are plagued with the same problems of overcrowding, high ticket prices and unreliability that the Voyager routes see.

 

[daodao]

You appear to be another person unfamiliar with the south WCML. I'd suggest trying the service and rethinking that latter suggestion because it's completely false.

Trying the service wouldn't be helpful in influencing my thinking. What matters in making decisions about what passenger rail services provide (or not) is passenger statistics, as the Beeching report tried to do (albeit crudely). Nowadays, more reliable passenger statistics are available from ticket sales and other sources.

@Magdalia typically makes evidence-based comments based on such information, whereas you seem to rely more on personal observation in this instance, which can be distorted by the particular train services selected to be used. My comments are in line with others on this forum, including @Magdalia.

 

[Mgameing123]

Allocating scarce resources primarily for the benefit of passengers only travelling on heavily discounted fares really is the tail wagging the dog.

I mean I think it’s resources well spent if it means people get affordable public transport which this country really lacks.

 

[NCT]

I mean I think it’s resources well spent if it means people get affordable public transport which this country really lacks.

Taxpayer affordable public transport.

 

[Mgameing123]

Taxpayer affordable public transport.

So? Should poor people not have the ability to go to London or Brum?

 

[The Planner]

WCML South fast lines were deemed congested infrastructure in 2020.

ORR quoted NR evidence in their 3rd July determination, when Wrexham / Lumo / Virgin applications were all rejected, and before many of these new Liverpool trains have been added, that south of Rugby from 11am on a typical day there is 3mins of lateness in the system feeding right through to the evening peak.

You say there is little spare stock. But here you are being asked to choose between adding new capacity to a line that is not particularly overcrowded and had many of its 9 car trains extended 10-12yrs ago, or adding stock to a franchise that has been chronically underprovided for a good 20yrs now.

No. The new issue is power supply north of Crewe, on top of the capacity issue on the southern end. Existing plans are the limits, hence the OA knock backs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

@Magdalia typically makes evidence-based comments based on such information, whereas you seem to rely more on personal observation in this instance, which can be distorted by the particular train services selected to be used. My comments are in line with others on this forum, including @Magdalia.

I don't know which statistics @Magdalia is using, but would request that they post a reference to them so they can be confirmed correct and relevant, because they do not tie in with my experience of the use of the through Euston-Northampton-Birmingham service at all times of year frequently over the past 20 years or so, in particular with regard to the considerable number of through passengers across Northampton (far, far more remain on the train than board or alight at NMP with the possible exception of morning/evening peak services when there is more commuting to London/Birmingham). I suspect they are missing something, e.g. not including Euston-Birmingham statistics because they aren't available for those specific services but only in aggregate for both them and the Avanti services - if so, those statistics are not reliable for the purposes of this discussion because they ignore one of the largest flows on those services aside from London commuters and day-trippers from the south WCML as well as the reasons why those are large flows and why those flows are important.

This is not Southport, where a desire for a service to Castlefield is just a preference. This is ignoring major flows and the reasons they exist (namely that people want affordable walk up fares between London and Birmingham, because people largely aren't willing to make short distance trips booked well in advance*, unlike say London-Edinburgh where almost all are booked in advance and were even before the fares "trial"). Yes, Chiltern could provide that service instead, but Chiltern are (a) diesel, thus having poorer environmental credentials, and (b) offer less than half the capacity, so I'd suggest the WCML slow services, twice an hour at 240m where necessary, are a better way to provide that flow (with Chiltern just providing a more local service), and thus breaking it for the purposes of adding a Manchester-Northampton service that nobody wants is a terrible suggestion. Yes, Avanti could offer affordable walk up fares, but if they did they'd lose a lot of money from the people who are willing to pay silly money who would then pay less, and that income isn't small.

If Chiltern was electrified and started running 240m twice an hour, the case for breaking the WMT service at NMP is probably greater. But much as I would like to see that it's not likely in the next 20 years at least, and I'd be surprised if I saw it in my lifetime (though I'd expect some sort of battery arrangement to come at some point).

One could at a push suggest doing that to one train per hour, however, provided the two did connect well at NMP. At least as long as 1tph through was maintained, and was 240m long throughout the day (ideally all 730, as the capacity is higher than a 12 car 350 formation). As I'm strongly of the view that XC need to retain a through Manchester-Bristol service to connect Britain's second city with arguably the most important city in the South West, one of these per hour is the most I'd countenance anyway. But I think we could achieve that without breaking the south WCML by simply swapping the Reading and one of the Liverpool-Brum services over and running that at 240m all day. I can't see demand for more than that really being there even if you price dumped, provided the XC Bristol is at least 8 car which it could be and mostly now is. This isn't a Merseyside seaside town and the debate about whether it has a service to a given station about a mile and a half from the one it might instead have one to, it's a connection between three important cities for UK business.

* That doesn't mean to say it can't be Advance *fares* as it seems GBR is likely to prefer, but these would need to be more like Northern's ones in that the price is still good right up to the time of travel and in very close to unlimited quantities.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jan 2026 ==

Taxpayer affordable public transport.

Good value for the taxpayer is important, but that doesn't mean making the railway cheap, it means making it more effective as well as financially affordable. The criteria for that are for some debate, perhaps another thread would be good on that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jan 2026 ==

A nationalised, efficiency focused railway should maximise pure EMU running under wires so only routes that have to have mixed traction suffer the incremental costs.

A nationalised, efficiency focused railway should place more emphasis on takt-like interchanges making specific direct journeys less critical. Service design should be driven by core markets and not incidental markets, and operational efficiency (e.g. matching direct services to traction) should have higher weighting. The Netherlands is an excellent example at this. They WILL run separate electric and diesel services at the electrification boundary ad because interchanges are properly designed the psychological penalty is small. Other interchanges are well designed so secondary markets can still make efficient interchanges). Organise Northampton as a takt node and you can still offer cheap 'via Northampton' tickets.

Breaking services where the wires end on mainline services (this isn't Merseyrail) isn't driving things by core markets, it's driving things by operational convenience. Operational convenience should never be the primary driver.

You wanted to use the off-peak vacated Avanti fast paths for Cross Country type services. Those Cross Country services wouldn't be able to run in the peaks. That's different timetables for different hours. That's not peak extras.

Who says they wouldn't be able to run in the peaks? They would run in a different path.

 

[NCT]

Who says they wouldn't be able to run in the peaks? They would run in a different path.

So non-takt.

 

[JonathanH]

This is ignoring major flows and the reasons they exist (namely that people want affordable walk up fares between London and Birmingham, because people largely aren't willing to make short distance trips booked well in advance

The advance fares on LNR are also cheaper than on Avanti and I would imagine that many people on the LNR trains aren't actually travelling on walk up tickets.

 

[cactustwirly]

Because they're a poor compromise bodged to fit a bad concept. The "were 810s right for EMR" thread delves into their many flaws.

I couldn't find any except for a few teething problems which are expected.

Your disdaine for the 810s is rather bizarre, given they are a significant upgrade from the Voyagers and designed to meet their performance on Diesel
An 802 on the other hand wouldn't be a good option as it would be slower on diesel, and has already been explained anything more than 5 cars would be an issue for Reading to Newcastle/Bournemouth to Manchester because of platforming at Reading, Birmingham and Newcastle

 

[Bletchleyite]

So non-takt.

Again, seemingly random peak* extras dealing with specific identified extra demand are acceptable in a Takt provided they are overlaid on a consistent all day base service. Even Switzerland does that! The extras are usually Regio/RegioExpress services laid on top of an S-Bahn service "im Takt" but there are other examples.

Even Merseyrail doesn't have a totally consistent timetable on all lines (the Headbolt line is the most consistent if I recall, the Southport the least).

* Peak can mean anything, not necessarily the commuter peak.

The advance fares on LNR are also cheaper than on Avanti and I would imagine that many people on the LNR trains aren't actually travelling on walk up tickets.

Some will be, yes. But the key is not only that they're cheap but also that they're cheap close to the time of travel. People don't plan short distance day trips months in advance, which is what is necessary to get a genuinely good value Advance on Avanti at busy leisure times. They're also not very day or time-flexible - you want to go to $BIG_CITY in the morning on a Saturday and back in the evening, you aren't going to do it out at 3pm on a Wednesday and back at 9am on a Sunday because it's cheap, like you might for a few days away. And if it is too pricey, that market will drive, and because it's a budget market they will most likely drive in a polluting older diesel car, not an EV.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jan 2026 ==

I couldn't find any except for a few teething problems which are expected.

Your disdaine for the 810s is rather bizarre, given they are a significant upgrade from the Voyagers and designed to meet their performance on Diesel

No reason you could not put more engines under a 7 car 80x to get that performance. All the intermediates have the high floor to fit one.

An 802 on the other hand wouldn't be a good option as it would be slower on diesel, and has already been explained anything more than 5 cars would be an issue for Reading to Newcastle/Bournemouth to Manchester because of platforming at Reading, Birmingham and Newcastle

Those issues can be resolved. The Forum loves to say things are impossible just because they're a challenge - taking on the challenge is usually the right option. How are those people who said it was impossible to do 12 car Euston-Crewe semi fasts because platform 7 at Crewe is too short getting on, remind me?

810s for XC would provide a very small capacity gain. XC needs a big capacity gain, and that means a full length train on pretty much every service. Five cars won't cut it, seven is the minimum that would. Look at TPE for an example - a doubling of train length was needed, and was near enough delivered, and now it's no longer purgatory. XC (pre Avanti Voyager) needed that too, and it needs the rest of it. But even if you must go five car, they might as well be ten metres longer - the very specific and insurmountable constraint of St Pancras isn't there. And whether individuals might like a particular interior (non-tall people quite liking the seats and ambiance of the 810 is why some people like them, not their length, plus that they look quite good in purple and gold) is largely irrelevant to the specific train - you could put Sophias in an 810 or LEANs in an 800 and you can paint it whatever colour you like.

 

[cactustwirly]

Again, seemingly random peak* extras dealing with specific identified extra demand are acceptable in a Takt provided they are overlaid on a consistent all day base service. Even Switzerland does that! The extras are usually Regio/RegioExpress services laid on top of an S-Bahn service "im Takt" but there are other examples.

Even Merseyrail doesn't have a totally consistent timetable on all lines (the Headbolt line is the most consistent if I recall, the Southport the least).

* Peak can mean anything, not necessarily the commuter peak.



Some will be, yes. But the key is not only that they're cheap but also that they're cheap close to the time of travel. People don't plan short distance day trips months in advance, which is what is necessary to get a genuinely good value Advance on Avanti at busy leisure times. They're also not very day or time-flexible - you want to go to $BIG_CITY in the morning on a Saturday and back in the evening, you aren't going to do it out at 3pm on a Wednesday and back at 9am on a Sunday because it's cheap, like you might for a few days away. And if it is too pricey, that market will drive, and because it's a budget market they will most likely drive in a polluting older diesel car, not an EV.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jan 2026 ==



No reason you could not put more engines under a 7 car 80x to get that performance.



Those issues can be resolved. The Forum loves to say things are impossible just because they're a challenge - taking on the challenge is usually the right option. How are those people who said it was impossible to do 12 car Euston-Crewe semi fasts because platform 7 at Crewe is too short getting on, remind me?

810s for XC would provide a very small capacity gain. XC needs a big capacity gain, and that means a full length train on pretty much every service. Five cars won't cut it, seven is the minimum that would. Look at TPE for an example - a doubling of train length was needed, and was near enough delivered, and now it's no longer purgatory. XC (pre Avanti Voyager) needed that too, and it needs the rest of it. But even if you must go five car, they might as well be ten metres longer - the very specific and insurmountable constraint of St Pancras isn't there.

They can be resolved, but would need new platforms being built at New Street and Newcastle to accommodate it which I don't see happening.

Reading would need a recast of the timetable, most services are booked to use platform 8, but some are booked for platform 3 which is 5 car max, or share platforms 12-15 with other services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They can be resolved, but would need new platforms being built at New Street and Newcastle to accommodate it which I don't see happening.

I suspect it wouldn't need anything of the sort, just a bit of a rejig. Even stuff like taking a terminating train out into the sidings and bringing it back are options, or even continuing it on a stop or two to somewhere else* (which I think was why TPE extended Middlesbrough services to Saltburn, though that's since stopped I think?). You'd think they never terminated trains at 2 platform through stations!

Reading would need a recast of the timetable, most services are booked to use platform 8, but some are booked for platform 3 which is 5 car max, or share platforms 12-15 with other services.

As above.

* e.g. Avanti tend not to terminate at Preston outside of disruption - planned Preston terminators run to Blackpool which has the capacity.

 

[daodao]

Breaking services where the wires end on mainline services (this isn't Merseyrail) isn't driving things by core markets, it's driving things by operational convenience. Operational convenience should never be the primary driver.

This speculative proposal has arisen because XC has a shortage of diesel trains, can't easily obtain any more and existing services are overcrowded, combined with the availability of spare electric trains with only a limited number fully electrified routes where they can be used. Beggars can't be choosers, so operational convenience and practicability may have to take precedence over the provision of desirable through services.

 

[mernrith]

They can be resolved, but would need new platforms being built at New Street and Newcastle to accommodate it which I don't see happening.

I'd say NCL doesn't need new platforms - just shift the TPE to terminate more in the bays and not the through ones.