Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[cactustwirly]

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!



As above.

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

There are no sidings like that at Reading and nowhere useful for the XC to terminate

Reading is also significantly busier than Preston.

Same with Birmingham obviously, the whole reason why XC hasn't been split is because of lack of platform capacity to accommodate it

 

[Bletchleyite]

This speculative proposal has arisen because XC has a shortage of diesel trains, can't easily obtain any more

This is a false premise. There are six Voyagers available now which are doing nothing, and a further two available within a few years with Grand Central in the process of looking for a new fleet. These would largely be enough to tide us over to XC's proposed new fleet which is now being discussed in another thread and actually being proposed by XC now, by ending four car operation and making almost every train at least 8 with only a few 5s at quiet times.

XC are much more likely to get these units than 350/2s because the cost of introducing them would be far, far lower, and they could enter service very quickly as no crew training would be required.

This 350/2 thing is just like 442s - it's people trying to find them a role. There are only really two places they could go - GWR to release Electrostars to either GTR or Southeastern or both (though DOO kit would need to be retrofitted), or Northern to allow 323 scrapping and an end to 3 car EMU working, though with some timetable tweaking needed to accommodate their slow door cycles. If they don't go to either of those, then it's razor blades, not XC. I supported the idea of bringing them in earlier, but now the Avanti Voyagers are available there's really no reason not to send all of those to XC instead, as it means they retain a single go anywhere fleet on the main services.

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

There are no sidings like that at Reading and nowhere useful for the XC to terminate

There's an entire maintenance depot at Reading which during the day mostly isn't full of trains.

Reading is also significantly busier than Preston.

It also has far more platforms so that's irrelevant.

Same with Birmingham obviously, the whole reason why XC hasn't been split is because of lack of platform capacity to accommodate it

We don't need to split it. We just need it to run longer trains.

 

[cactustwirly]

This is a false premise. There are six Voyagers available now which are doing nothing, and a further two available within a few years with Grand Central in the process of looking for a new fleet. These would largely be enough to tide us over to XC's proposed new fleet which is now being discussed in another thread and actually being proposed by XC now, by ending four car operation and making almost every train at least 8 with only a few 5s at quiet times.

XC are much more likely to get these units than 350/2s because the cost of introducing them would be far, far lower, and they could enter service very quickly as no crew training would be required.

This 350/2 thing is just like 442s - it's people trying to find them a role. There are only really two places they could go - GWR to release Electrostars to either GTR or Southeastern or both, or Northern to allow 323 scrapping and an end to 3 car EMU working, though with some timetable tweaking needed to accommodate their slow door cycles. If they don't go to either of those, then it's razor blades, not XC. I supported the idea of bringing them in earlier, but now the Avanti Voyagers are available there's really no reason not to send all of those to XC instead, as it means they retain a single go anywhere fleet on the main services.

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



There's an entire maintenance depot at Reading which during the day mostly isn't full of trains.



It also has far more platforms so that's irrelevant.



We don't need to split it. We just need it to run longer trains.

The maintenance depot has trains there during the day, and a lot of movements at peak times, when platform capacity is at a premium. Hardly a convenient place to turn or terminate a service

It's relevant, you clearly haven't been to Reading before. The full length platforms are all fully utilised, either by Elizabeth line, freight or the GWR intercity services, which are far more numerous than Avanti at Preston which is basically hourly

 

[Bletchleyite]

The maintenance depot has trains there during the day, and a lot of movements at peak times, when platform capacity is at a premium. Hardly a convenient place to turn or terminate a service

I'd venture it would be possible. And I think we will see it happen pretty soon, particularly if they get the remaining Avanti Voyagers.

It's relevant, you clearly haven't been to Reading before. The full length platforms are all fully utilised, either by Elizabeth line, freight or the GWR intercity services, which are far more numerous than Avanti at Preston which is basically hourly

Confused. I used Preston as an example of where trains were sent elsewhere to terminate, not as somewhere you had tons of capacity to leave them in platforms!

 

[JonathanH]

There are no sidings like that at Reading and nowhere useful for the XC to terminate

XC occasionally stable in Kennet Bridge loop.

 

[absolutelymilk]

This is a false premise. There are six Voyagers available now which are doing nothing, and a further two available within a few years with Grand Central in the process of looking for a new fleet. These would largely be enough to tide us over to XC's proposed new fleet which is now being discussed in another thread and actually being proposed by XC now, by ending four car operation and making almost every train at least 8 with only a few 5s at quiet times.

Please could someone link to this other thread?

 

[daodao]

XC are much more likely to get these units than 350/2s because the cost of introducing them would be far, far lower, and they could enter service very quickly as no crew training would be required.

I was envisaging that LNWR would take over the Manchester to Birmingham service from XC, so introducing (or re-introducing) the 350/2s would not have major issues regarding familiarity or crew training. Obtaining the few spare Voyagers would only have a limited impact on XC's capacity issues unless some of the limbs of the XC network are pruned.

 

[cactustwirly]

XC occasionally stable in Kennet Bridge loop.

I did think of this, wasn't sure how long it is

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was envisaging that LNWR would take over the Manchester to Birmingham service from XC, so introducing them would not have major issues regarding familiarity or crew training.

There would need to be at least some crew training, because WMT drivers and guards don't sign Stoke-Manchester or Crewe-Manchester, and there also aren't enough of them to add that service so you'd need to recruit and train probably in the order of 30-50 more crew (based on the figures for East West Rail which has a not dissimilar running time). It might be easier for WMT to take over the service than XC take the 350s on, but I would expect the amount of crew training required to be broadly similar whichever of them did it.

Obtaining the few spare Voyagers would only have a limited impact on XC's capacity issues unless some of the limbs of the XC network are pruned.

I don't agree. The Avanti sets that they have already got have made a significant difference, and giving them the other 8 would largely solve the issue. It wouldn't allow for much growth, but the proposed new fleet is more about that.

Here's the thread on that by the way:

New XC fleet by 2035 ?

XC issued a new 10 year sustainability plan this week and it includes Our long-term ambition is clear: to significantly reduce and eventually eliminate the impact of diesel emissions on local air quality across our network. By December 2025, we will outline indicative costs for a new fleet...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[cactustwirly]

I'd venture it would be possible. And I think we will see it happen pretty soon, particularly if they get the remaining Avanti Voyagers.



Confused. I used Preston as an example of where trains were sent elsewhere to terminate, not as somewhere you had tons of capacity to leave them in platforms!

The Manchester - Bournemouth all need to reverse too, which isn't as bad as the terminators from Newcastle, I think they have 10 minutes dwell time

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Manchester - Bournemouth all need to reverse too, which isn't as bad as the terminators from Newcastle, I think they have 10 minutes dwell time

You could probably tweak with that by giving them dwell elsewhere to catch up the delay if blocking a long platform for ten minutes was an issue. Northampton (there again!) fulfils that purpose for the WMT services going that way - often they arrive there late, but as it has capacity for layovers they rarely leave it late, which reduces delay cross-pollination.

For instance, might they be able to sit five minutes at Oxford in each direction without knackering much else, shortening the Reading time to a quick turnaround? Would depend on the paths, but Oxford is hardly intensively worked.

 

[zwk500]

The Manchester - Bournemouth all need to reverse too, which isn't as bad as the terminators from Newcastle, I think they have 10 minutes dwell time

Not at Birmingham they don't - whichever way they go to Bournemouth. Manchester - Bournemouth via Coventry or Tyseley use Proof House Jn to Soho Jns. Manchester-Bournemouth via Tyseley does require significant crossing moves though, but not reversal.

Bristol-Manchester needs to reverse if coming/going via University, and Bristol-Edinburgh needs to reverse if coming/going via Camp Hill. Edinburgh-Bournemouth needs to reverse regardless.

I would argue the Birmingham-Manchester leg of both 'XC South' services is rather important for through traffic, despite the significant churn at Birmingham. Running additional Birmingham-Manchester EMUs is good but I would not cut the XC services.

The most efficient plan at New Street would see Manchester-Bournemouth all run via Coventry, NE-Bournemouth all run via Tyseley, Manchester-Bristol all run via Camp Hill and NE-Bristol all run via University.

 

[takno]

Not at Birmingham they don't - whichever way they go to Bournemouth. Manchester - Bournemouth via Coventry or Tyseley use Proof House Jn to Soho Jns. Manchester-Bournemouth via Tyseley does require significant crossing moves though, but not reversal.

Bristol-Manchester needs to reverse if coming/going via University, and Bristol-Edinburgh needs to reverse if coming/going via Camp Hill. Edinburgh-Bournemouth needs to reverse regardless.

I would argue the Birmingham-Manchester leg of both 'XC South' services is rather important for through traffic, despite the significant churn at Birmingham. Running additional Birmingham-Manchester EMUs is good but I would not cut the XC services.

The most efficient plan at New Street would see Manchester-Bournemouth all run via Coventry, NE-Bournemouth all run via Tyseley, Manchester-Bristol all run via Camp Hill and NE-Bristol all run via University.

I assume the original comment meant at Reading

 

[brad465]

If XC can't get anymore capacity anytime soon, the answer I think is for other operators to increase capacity somehow along the sections they share with XC, and/or lengthen the 170 services and allow the Voyager ones to skip more stops.

For example:

-GWR to run more services between Exeter and Bristol, including a semi-fast.
-GWR extend all Paddington-Oxford services to Banbury, and/or Chiltern run a Oxford-Birmingham service.
-Run longer 170 services between Birmingham and Derby, then all Voyager services run non-stop between the two.
-Greater Anglia run a doubled frequency between Ely and Peterborough, with the extra services coming from Cambridge.
-LNWR/WMR have more frequent/longer services through the Wolverhampton corridor.

There maybe short-term competition concerns, but it's all going to be GBR eventually.

 

[zwk500]

I assume the original comment meant at Reading

Ah, sorry. Ignore my post then.

 

[stevieinselby]

Derby/Leicester to Birmingham does need more services, but that's to provide an alternative for short distance journeys - these are the only routes out of Birmingham with no "local" service, and overcrowding between New Street and Tamworth or Burton crowds out longer-distance passengers.

Derby to Birmingham is already 3-4tph ... is the problem there that that isn't enough to meet the demand, or more that the trains are too full with passengers travelling longer distances to comfortably accommodate Derby passengers?

Hypothetically speaking, I'm convinced if the original XC franchise hadn't gone to Virgin and their obsession with stupid tilting trains, if something like a 180 was ordered instead, XC wouldn't have been so problematic

Given the reliability problems that the 180s had for many years, that really would have been out of the frying pan and into the fire! I'm not convinced the interior was all that more spacious either, they always felt to have quite a cramped profile to me. A standard Meridian was better than a Voyager in pretty much every respect, despite them having the same base platform ... if XC had had a fleet of 5-car class 222s (or preferably more than 5-car) then things would have been a lot better.

I think that XC should really have been given the ex TPE mark 5 carriages sets and 68s instead of Chiltern.

The downside there is that you are limiting them to running as 5-car sets with no possibility of forming longer trains, unlike class 22x or other new-build units.
There is then a slight restriction that a 68+5 would not fit in bay platform 3 at Reading, but it looks like only a handful of services use that anyway, with most reversing or terminating in the through platforms, so it shouldn't be a big deal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given the reliability problems that the 180s had for many years, that really would have been out of the frying pan and into the fire! I'm not convinced the interior was all that more spacious either, they always felt to have quite a cramped profile to me. A standard Meridian was better than a Voyager in pretty much every respect, despite them having the same base platform ... if XC had had a fleet of 5-car class 222s (or preferably more than 5-car) then things would have been a lot better.

A bit better maybe - the ambiance is nicer. But they are still inefficiently laid out with poorly sized overhead racks, so we would still be where we are now. All the 22x are a deeply flawed design caused by the use of a tilt profile on units that mostly don't tilt.

The downside there is that you are limiting them to running as 5-car sets with no possibility of forming longer trains, unlike class 22x or other new-build units.
There is then a slight restriction that a 68+5 would not fit in bay platform 3 at Reading, but it looks like only a handful of services use that anyway, with most reversing or terminating in the through platforms, so it shouldn't be a big deal.

Interestingly the 220s were originally going to be 4-car LHCS with a 67 on one end, which would have meant about an extra third of a coach of capacity as one end would have been a full vehicle. I don't think LHCS is a solution now, though, a tri-mode (diesel, battery and OHLE) or even quad-mode (add third rail) multiple unit is what is called for.

 

[zwk500]

I don't think LHCS is a solution now, though, a tri-mode (diesel, battery and OHLE) or even quad-mode (add third rail) multiple unit is what is called for.

Pet peeve - adding third rail would make it a dual-voltage tri-mode not quad mode. Nobody calls a 700 a bi-mode.

I think LHCS could have been the solution if it was committed to that XC would run to 8/9 car length throughout (either as a fixed-length formation of using 2x 4-car + Cab Car). However the decision to Split/join sets at certain points makes LHCS unviable as it requires trading operational convenience, or vice versa.

 

[cactustwirly]

You could probably tweak with that by giving them dwell elsewhere to catch up the delay if blocking a long platform for ten minutes was an issue. Northampton (there again!) fulfils that purpose for the WMT services going that way - often they arrive there late, but as it has capacity for layovers they rarely leave it late, which reduces delay cross-pollination.

For instance, might they be able to sit five minutes at Oxford in each direction without knackering much else, shortening the Reading time to a quick turnaround? Would depend on the paths, but Oxford is hardly intensively worked.

The 10 minutes is to perform the reversal and switch train crews

 

[jayah]

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.

If performance is poor now, which is what they said during the sunmer, then the infrastructure clearly doesn't support 'existing plans' to run even more services.

There is no pressing need for more capacity to Liverpool but a pressing need for more capacity on XC, although it is also true to say the 'shortage' exists largely by choice as XC had HSTs that were scrapped / exported and DfT have not taken up all of the available 180s / 221s that could have been used instead.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Sorry if this has been asked previously, but is there any reason why instead of coupling two Voyagers together, they can be permanently combined into one longer train and negate the current ridiculous 'locking-out' of one unit?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 10 minutes is to perform the reversal and switch train crews

Do the crew change at Oxford on the way out or back instead, then. A reversal needn't take 10 minutes.

Though to be fair, you could actually speed the reversal by having the new crew standing in exactly the right place to swap, as I believe is the plan for the Northern Powerhouse Rail reversals at Manchester Piccadilly! No need to walk the length of the train then.

Crew changes at Bletchley take under a minute on a through service.

 

[stevieinselby]

Sorry if this has been asked previously, but is there any reason why instead of coupling two Voyagers together, they can be permanently combined into one longer train and negate the current ridiculous 'locking-out' of one unit?

Do you mean by removing the two inner vehicles with the driving cabs, to make a 6-car unit?
I don't think there's any technical barrier – the 222s have been mashed together in 4, 5, 7 and 9 car formations at least, so they seem to be pretty flexible in that regard – the problem would be that there aren't enough of them to run every service "doubled up", and the removal of all those end vehicles would be a reduction in overall capacity, as well as a reduction in flexibility.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you mean by removing the two inner vehicles with the driving cabs, to make a 6-car unit?
I don't think there's any technical barrier – the 222s have been mashed together in 4, 5, 7 and 9 car formations at least, so they seem to be pretty flexible in that regard – the problem would be that there aren't enough of them to run every service "doubled up", and the removal of all those end vehicles would be a reduction in overall capacity, as well as a reduction in flexibility.

I did propose the idea of giving XC all 22x and creating 7 car units, with a load of driving cars scrapped. As ScotRail and Lumo are taking the 222s, though, this isn't feasible any more, and I imagine the costs of converting cab vehicles to normal ones would be prohibitive.

I do take the view that XC's new fleet should be fixed formation rather than for doubling up, because it simplifies crewing. That doesn't rule out some 5s, but they should only be used on services where 5 is actually sufficient.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The solution in my lifetime is probably to just sort out the staffing situation and start reliably running paired voyagers where both halves definitely always stay in service. You probably also need better local services combined with XC not stopping at Taunton, Wakefield or Worcestershire parkway

Skipping Wakefield Westgate makes sense, there should be enough capacity between there and Leeds with the LNER and Northern services, plus the additional Northern services from Kirkgate, plus the buses. XC calling there just acts as a "fig leaf" for Northern to continue running 2-car Sprinters on the Sheffield service.
Worcestershire Parkway I don't know enough about, but are there really enough people travelling from there that it overwhelms the XC services?
Not serving Taunton would be a poor move though, unless there's an increase in the GWR services to Bristol. It doesn't really compare with Wakefield where the XC services are doing a job that should be done by the local operator- Taunton is a railhead for large swathes of Somerset & North Devon. If XC stopped calling at Wakefield people will change at Leeds instead. If they stop calling at Taunton people will get on the M5.

 

[35B]

Skipping Wakefield Westgate makes sense, there should be enough capacity between there and Leeds with the LNER and Northern services, plus the additional Northern services from Kirkgate, plus the buses. XC calling there just acts as a "fig leaf" for Northern to continue running 2-car Sprinters on the Sheffield service.
Worcestershire Parkway I don't know enough about, but are there really enough people travelling from there that it overwhelms the XC services?
Not serving Taunton would be a poor move though, unless there's an increase in the GWR services to Bristol. It doesn't really compare with Wakefield where the XC services are doing a job that should be done by the local operator- Taunton is a railhead for large swathes of Somerset & North Devon. If XC stopped calling at Wakefield people will change at Leeds instead. If they stop calling at Taunton people will get on the M5.

Westgate also serves as an interchange onto XC from routes through Leeds, where the ECML connections don't work well through Doncaster and York.

 

[Mgameing123]

If XC can't get anymore capacity anytime soon, the answer I think is for other operators to increase capacity somehow along the sections they share with XC, and/or lengthen the 170 services and allow the Voyager ones to skip more stops.

For example:

-GWR to run more services between Exeter and Bristol, including a semi-fast.
-GWR extend all Paddington-Oxford services to Banbury, and/or Chiltern run a Oxford-Birmingham service.
-Run longer 170 services between Birmingham and Derby, then all Voyager services run non-stop between the two.
-Greater Anglia run a doubled frequency between Ely and Peterborough, with the extra services coming from Cambridge.
-LNWR/WMR have more frequent/longer services through the Wolverhampton corridor.

There maybe short-term competition concerns, but it's all going to be GBR eventually.

To be fair. Does GWR have enough spare rolling stock to run lets say Paddington to Birmingham New Street or Moor Street/Snow Hill?

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair. Does GWR have enough spare rolling stock to run lets say Paddington to Birmingham New Street or Moor Street/Snow Hill?

GWR doesn't have enough working rolling stock to run its own services.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Westgate also serves as an interchange onto XC from routes through Leeds, where the ECML connections don't work well through Doncaster and York.

It does, and in an ideal world the capacity on XC would be adequate and this whole discussion would be moot. However we are where we are, and skipping Wakefield (possibly with pick-up/set-down restrictions* rather than skipping the stop entirely, though that presents enforcement problems) would alleviate things a little by removing the short-hop passengers between Wakefield and Leeds.

*= Not sure a simple pick-up/set-down restriction would work in this case, as there will be longer distance passengers heading both north and south. Something like whatever the opposite of a ticketing easement is ("difficultment"? ) that barred use of MCards and other PTE tickets, plus short-distance tickets for journeys within West Yorkshire, would do the trick- though I'm not certain of the legality of that, and it could cause issues with split ticketing.

 

[Mgameing123]

GWR doesn't have enough working rolling stock to run its own services.

And to be fair so doesn’t Chiltern (but apparently has enough to run the EWR)