Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[NCT]

I think of this thread as "XC is grossly overcrowded and under-resourced... What can be done NOW?" so talk of new fleets, major reallocation of routes between TOCs etc is too far away, even if it could be the sensible outcome for us all in the longer term.

Precisely.

 

[HSTEd]

Taking on the 6 remaining Class 221s would likely require an increase in subsidy that might be difficult to sell to the Treasury.

Perhaps you could mitigate this by disbanding 9 of the Class 220s and using the centre vehicles to make up the remaining 17 sets to five-cars?

That would reduce the net increase in vehicles to be operated from 30 to 11, but still gain a substantial boost in capacity since you'd gain 12 end and 18 middle cars in exchange for 18 end cars and 1 centre car.

It also moves you towards a pure five-car fleet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Taking on the 6 remaining Class 221s would likely require an increase in subsidy that might be difficult to sell to the Treasury.

Perhaps you could mitigate this by disbanding 9 of the Class 220s and using the centre vehicles to make up the remaining 17 sets to five-cars?

That would reduce the net increase in vehicles to be operated from 30 to 11, but still gain a substantial boost in capacity since you'd gain 12 end and 18 middle cars in exchange for 18 end cars and 1 centre car.

It also moves you towards a pure five-car fleet.

Problem with doing that is that 10 is too long in a lot of cases. 5+4 is a very useful formation length.

 

[HSTEd]

Problem with doing that is that 10 is too long in a lot of cases. 5+4 is a very useful formation length.

Well you could still have 4 5+4 diagrams because you had the short Class 221s, but I accept the point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well you could still have 4 5+4 diagrams because you had the short Class 221s, but I accept the point.

If you were going to disband units, though, disbanding a couple of 5s to extend 4s to 5 is what Avanti did because you get more intermediates per wasted pair of end cars then.

 

[FGWHST43009]

The issue with the Wakefield calls isn't that the trains call at Wakefield- it's that calling at Wakefield without any pick-up/set-down or other ticketing restrictions means they get swamped with Wakefield to Leeds passengers. Simply barring Leeds-Wakefield tickets (and PTE passes) from being valid would solve that problem as long as those restrictions were able to be enforced. Omitting the stop entirely hinders longer distance passengers who use Wakefield as a railhead.

You could also remove the Wakefield stop from the departure board, i.e. display the next stop as Sheffield as well as the ticketing restrictions. At least between Newcastle and York on the CrossCountry services they announce that TPE and LNER tickets aren't valid etc. Also Wakefield has slow approaches from the south so it's probably best to stop. When XC skipped Wakefield in summer 2024 it didn't save on journey times as the trains would just get to Sheffield earlier and spend more time there.

 

[HSTEd]

If you were going to disband units, though, disbanding a couple of 5s to extend 4s to 5 is what Avanti did because you get more intermediates per wasted pair of end cars then.

I suppose you could also disband 5s to make 9s and 10s.

Two intermediate cars can convert two five-car units into a permanent ten car unit. One intermediate car can convert two five cars units into a nine car unit.
If we used all six of the spare units, we could convert 18 of the existing units into 9 10 car lashups.
If you used the 4 4-car 221s instead you could make 14 5-car units and 4 4-car units into 5 10-car lashups and 4 9-car lashups.

The long trains economise on end vehicles and eliminate crewing issues, at the cost of some reduction in flexibility.

It should be possible to trade intermediate cars for end cars one for one by this method.

 

[Energy]

XC could cover its non-170 routes with around 40 AT300-type trains. This thread assumes they can't take this option due to cost, yet they can somehow afford all 78 voyagers, around 20 350/2s, and the additional train crew that the Manchester - Birmingham - Northampton would require. I'm not convinced.

Any improvement to XC is likely to require more subsidy. XC has been reported as looking into the 6 units before and is on a traincrew recruitment drive to reduce double sets being locked out. Improving XC isn't going to be a tear-up of the timetable, but reducing single 4-car set operation with an eventual view to a new fleet. XC is already working on this.

Taking on the 6 remaining Class 221s would likely require an increase in subsidy that might be difficult to sell to the Treasury.

This is why they haven't been taken on yet.

People can be annoyed at the DfT for not taking on all 222s for XC, but this would undoubtedly dramatically increase the amount of subsidy required.

Perhaps you could mitigate this by disbanding 9 of the Class 220s and using the centre vehicles to make up the remaining 17 sets to five-cars?

It probably wouldn't reduce costs much. The ROSCO is unlikely to offer a discount since the end-vehicles by themselves have no further use for the ROSCO.

You could make a case for a wholly 5/6 car fleet, with minimal double workings, based on reduced staffing costs.

 

[HSTEd]

It probably wouldn't reduce costs much. The ROSCO is unlikely to offer a discount since the end-vehicles by themselves have no further use for the ROSCO.

The leasing fees for the Class 221 are probably largely fixed regardless of fleet size in any case. There is precious little future for any of this stuff other than scrap at this point.
If you want Class 221s or Class 220s at all, it probably only loosely depends on how many you want.

It'd mostly be operational savings, in fuel, maintenance and such.

You could make a case for a wholly 5/6 car fleet, with minimal double workings, based on reduced staffing costs.

As I noted above, you could make up HST standings of 9 or 10 cars too.

 

[NCT]

Immediate costs depend on the expiry date of existing Class 220/221 leases.

Even if unit costs of a new fleet is lower than the 220s and 221s, if you are tied to paying 220 and 221 leases anyway then the most economic solution is to top up the existing fleet rather than replace the fleet mid-lease.

Also new train procurement tends to be a 5-year exercise. Whereas dusting off the stored 221s can happen 'tomorrow'.

 

[Angmering1974]

I think of this thread as "XC is grossly overcrowded and under-resourced... What can be done NOW?"

Price every ticket at £500+. Overcrowding will be gone.

No, I don't work for the DfT nor LNER

 

[Bletchleyite]

Price every ticket at £500+. Overcrowding will be gone.

No, I don't work for the DfT nor LNER

The thread's question can almost certainly be answered by "introduce the LNER fare increase trial on all XC priced fares" or "set the compulsory reservation flag on XC" or both, but that would actually be quite costly as it'd significantly reduce the number of tickets they could sell. If you're going to start making reservations effectively or actually compulsory, then you really need enough seats not to be turning people away en masse or you will suffer a big income drop.

 

[ThatBloke]

I suppose you could also disband 5s to make 9s and 10s.

Two intermediate cars can convert two five-car units into a permanent ten car unit. One intermediate car can convert two five cars units into a nine car unit.
If we used all six of the spare units, we could convert 18 of the existing units into 9 10 car lashups.

Such a proposal is not achievable without significant cost implications.
1. The main service depot at Central Rivers has road lengths and lifting jacks set for 5 cars.
2. There would be a significant Engineering/modification cost, to deal with air capacity and many other issues.

 

[Markuk]

Ah stuff the 350/2s. The 350/1s were built with 3rd rail and OHLE gear. Replace the XC Manchester to Bournemouth route with 350/1s via Brum, Northampton, Watford, the west London line and Clapham Junction. Problem solved.

 

[amahy]

Ah stuff the 350/2s. The 350/1s were built with 3rd rail and OHLE gear. Replace the XC Manchester to Bournemouth route with 350/1s via Brum, Northampton, Watford, the west London line and Clapham Junction. Problem solved.

I’ve talked about something similar, but slightly less radical than this. Split the North East - South West route at York and run 350/2s between York and Edinburgh, axing the limited service to Dundee/Aberdeen/Glasgow. Also, curtail the Bournemouth/Bristol to Manchester route at Birmingham, extending LNWR’s London to Birmingham services to Manchester via Stoke in XC’s place.

 

[zwk500]

Ah stuff the 350/2s. The 350/1s were built with 3rd rail and OHLE gear. Replace the XC Manchester to Bournemouth route with 350/1s via Brum, Northampton, Watford, the west London line and Clapham Junction. Problem solved.

And 2 created.
Getting from Northampton to Wembley in a reasonable time requires weaving from slow to fast and then back.
Getting from the WLL to Bournemouth requires using the connection to the Windsor Lines and then running via Chertsey, or using the connection to the BML slows and running via the Wimbledon Loop and crossovers at the country end of the station.

 

[Manutd1999]

How many units does it require to run an hourly Edinburgh-Plymouth and hourly Manchester-Southampton, with no extensions? Could it be run with all 8/9 car sets?

I'd start with that aim - 8/9 car every hour on the two core routes. Only after that should we start to think about bow best to use any spares.

 

[Bletchleyite]

extending LNWR’s London to Birmingham services to Manchester via Stoke in XC’s place.

Absolutely not. Have you seen the mess doing things like that made last time?

 

[AndrewE]

How many units does it require to run an hourly Edinburgh-Plymouth and hourly Manchester-Southampton, with no extensions? Could it be run with all 8/9 car sets?

I'd start with that aim - 8/9 car every hour on the two core routes. Only after that should we start to think about bow best to use any spares.

That would be a good start (and maintains the through service for people who need it) - apart from the Central Rivers depot length issue, but I'm sure they could get round that, e.g. by lengthening a couple of roads.

I would also maintain the attraction of the Manc service frequency with EMUs running alternately with the lengthened Voyagers (Emus through to somewher they can turn round conveniently.) If LNR are taking on staff for EMU workings Crewe to Man Airport it should be possible to expand the training for road-learning via Stoke - or traction-training some XC drivers onto EMUs.

 

[Trainbike46]

I know these threads tend to repeat themselves, and I'm sorry for contributing to that.

Inherently, the problems with XC are:
[1] Insufficient capacity on large parts of the routes
[2] Rolling stock that has high operational costs on a per seat, or even per-passenger basis if including standees
[3] Working practices that, at times, prevent the capacity that is available from being used (the second set being locked out of use issue)

[2] is a very critical part here, because it is a major contributor to [1] not being resolved. [3] is a problem, but not the most pressing one in my view. It is however, relatively easy to resolve.

There are potential solutions, both long-term and short-term, to most of these. However, as actually resolving issues seems something both our current and previous governments are unwilling to do in most policy areas, people end up suggesting route changes, of varying levels of feasibility, in an attempt to alleviate the issues. I don't personally think that is likely to work, but of course we do not have to agree on that!

Potential solution to what I see as the underlying issues:

To [1] in the short term, take on all 221s that are currently off-lease. In the long term, procure new or cascaded 125 mph bimodes* of an appropriate length (around 8/9/10-car voyager equivalent, so 190-240ish metre long), fixed length with SDO fitted.

[2] is the hardest to resolve in the short term, and I can't identify any realistic solutions that could be implemented in the short term, but people with more knowledge of the operation than I might be able to. Then again, if it was easy it would probably have been done already!

In the long term, however, solutions are available. One solution is to reduce per-seat leasing cost by replacing the voyagers with more space efficient and fuel efficient stock. Another solution is to reduce the amount of staff-time (and therefore cost) needed to run a service, mostly by ending double manning for guards on longer trains. Going for fixed-length supports both of those aims, by reducing dead space that can't hold passengers, and ensuring the guard can access the whole train at any time, removing the need for two guards on doubled-up services as no services would be doubled up.

For [3], in the short term returning to the agreement with the catering staff member acting as the responsible staff member in one of the two units, with the guard in the other unit. The short term solution could continue in the long term, but other options like changing the agreed working practices, or switching to full-length fixed-length trains are also available in the longer term, but unrealistic or impossible in the short term.

To me, the fact that all three of the major issues with XC could be resolved by replacing the rolling stock with something more suitable to the XC operation suggests it is probably time to get started on that. There are at least three manufacturers that offer suitable product lines, the Hitachi 80x, the CAF 397/897, and a 125mph FLIRT UK as was offered but not selected for EMR. Other manufacturers may also be able to deliver suitable products. I think the procurement process should be started, potentially allowing for slower delivery to fit the construction around the many other UK train procurements happening at present (Scotrail, Northern, Southeastern, and GWR of the top of my head!).

 

[JonathanH]

Inherently, the problems with XC are:
[1] Insufficient capacity on large parts of the routes
[2] Rolling stock that has high operational costs on a per seat, or even per-passenger basis if including standees
[3] Working practices that, at times, prevent the capacity that is available from being used (the second set being locked out of use issue)

[4] It reportedly heavily loss making and therefore can't easily support an increase in capacity that requires an even higher subsidy
[5] There is only so much stabling space and depot facilities it has access to

 

[Snow1964]

To me, the fact that all three of the major issues with XC could be resolved by replacing the rolling stock with something more suitable to the XC operation suggests it is probably time to get started on that. There are at least three manufacturers that offer suitable product lines, the Hitachi 80x, the CAF 397/897, and a 125mph FLIRT UK as was offered but not selected for EMR. Other manufacturers may also be able to deliver suitable products. I think the procurement process should be started, potentially allowing for slower delivery to fit the construction around the many other UK train procurements happening at present (Scotrail, Northern, Southeastern, and GWR of the top of my head!).

Even XC have indicated they are considering replacing the fleet in their latest sustainability report (quoting page 47)

Key Deliverables
We will reduce our Scope 1 and 2 CO₂e emissions by 2.5% each year until 2030.
We will achieve a 63% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 CO₂e emissions by 2035.
We will outline the indicative costs for a new low-carbon fleet by December 2025.
We will reduce energy consumption by 2.5% each year across our leased sites.

Not sure what happened to outline indicative costs by last month for low carbon fleet. if this have been obtained, they are very well hidden as never seen anything with a ballpark figure published.

Our long-term plan (2035)
Subject to funding, by 2035, CrossCountry will have introduced a new, low-carbon fleet, delivering a step change in sustainability across our operations. This transition will reduce our CO₂e emissions by at least 63% compared to 2023/24

Subject to funding is bit of a catch all reason to do nothing, but otherwise note the wording 'by 2035' (which is before, not during) and 'introduced' (not introducing)

I think XC currently have a fleet of 345 vehicles. I know existing fleet doesn't have best seating optimisation, but for simplicity let's assume potential new fleet would be similar number of vehicles (even though ideally fleet would be bigger, perhaps 400-450 vehicles).

Even if a train builder was building 3 vehicles a week that is going to take about 3 years to build. So if last one is intended to be in service before 2035 would need first ones built by 2031. And if it takes 3-4 years from placing an order, to first one ready for testing, then XC only have few months left to get that order done. Long before GBR are scheduled to take over XC.

My own hunch is since publishing their sustainability strategy less than 6 months ago, XC have got lost on their path to meeting it. Meanwhile passengers suffer with no public plan on how things will be fixed.

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/sites/default/files/accessible/CrossCountry%20Sustainability%20Strategy%202025.pdf

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2026 ==

[4] It reportedly heavily loss making and therefore can't easily support an increase in capacity that requires an even higher subsidy

Heavily loss making is open to interpretation.

From latest accounts at Companies House

XC TRAINS LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

XC TRAINS LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Accounts Note 4, Passenger income £519m
Accounts Note 5 Franchise subsidy £28m
Profit before tax (page 16 of accounts) £4.5m
Profit after tax and financing £3.2m

[5] There is only so much stabling space and depot facilities it has access to

Although to be fair, some of its previously used stabling space it has chosen not to use anymore eg the sidings at Poole, or Blackpool because it has cut its network, isolating itself from formerly used stabling sidings

 

[NCT]

Heavily loss making is open to interpretation.

From latest accounts at Companies House

XC TRAINS LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

XC TRAINS LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Accounts Note 4, Passenger income £519m
Accounts Note 5 Franchise subsidy £28m
Profit before tax (page 16 of accounts) £4.5m
Profit after tax and financing £3.2m

Quite.

Cross Country was generating premia before Covid. In the post recovery world a 5% subsidy rate is pretty much heading towards break even.

 

[HSTEd]

And 2 created.
Getting from Northampton to Wembley in a reasonable time requires weaving from slow to fast and then back.
Getting from the WLL to Bournemouth requires using the connection to the Windsor Lines and then running via Chertsey, or using the connection to the BML slows and running via the Wimbledon Loop and crossovers at the country end of the station.

I interpreted the comment as just terminating at Clapham Junction where numerous trains to destinations all over the region are available. Not actually running to Bournemouth.

 

[Manutd1999]

How many units does it require to run an hourly Edinburgh-Plymouth and hourly Manchester-Southampton, with no extensions? Could it be run with all 8/9 car sets?

That would be a good start (and maintains the through service for people who need it) - apart from the Central Rivers depot length issue, but I'm sure they could get round that, e.g. by lengthening a couple of roads.

I meant that everything would be run by existing paired voyagers (2x4 or 4+5 car), no changes required.

Focusing all the Voyagers on 2x core routes and eliminating use of lone 4/5 car sets would ease overcrowding and improve the service quality in the short-term. 305s could be used to replace the 2nd hourly Birmingham-Manchester if desired.

Longer term, ordering a new fleet of bi-modes is the only solution which makes sense IMO

 

[Trainbike46]

[4] It reportedly heavily loss making and therefore can't easily support an increase in capacity that requires an even higher subsidy

While this is true, this is, as far as I can tell, mostly caused by the high costs per capacity, or my point [2]. It doesn't appear as though they have low prices per passenger-km, or suffer from empty trains!
I would be very surprised if ticket sales didn't increase with increased capacity, so I think there is a case to increase capacity, ideally in ways that reduce the per-capacity costs (as I outlined in my post)

[5] There is only so much stabling space and depot facilities it has access to

Is this actually a limiting factor? The whole 220/221 fleet was maintained by Central Rivers anyway, so it shouldn't present any issues with the short-term solution of acquiring the off-lease 221s.

It is something that would have to be considered as part of a new fleet though, but I don't think the stabling and depot facilities are the thing preventing that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2026 ==

Even XC have indicated they are considering replacing the fleet in their latest sustainability report (quoting page 47)

Not sure what happened to outline indicative costs by last month for low carbon fleet. if this have been obtained, they are very well hidden as never seen anything with a ballpark figure published.


Subject to funding is bit of a catch all reason to do nothing, but otherwise note the wording 'by 2035' (which is before, not during) and 'introduced' (not introducing)

I think XC currently have a fleet of 345 vehicles. I know existing fleet doesn't have best seating optimisation, but for simplicity let's assume potential new fleet would be similar number of vehicles (even though ideally fleet would be bigger, perhaps 400-450 vehicles).

Even if a train builder was building 3 vehicles a week that is going to take about 3 years to build. So if last one is intended to be in service before 2035 would need first ones built by 2031. And if it takes 3-4 years from placing an order, to first one ready for testing, then XC only have few months left to get that order done. Long before GBR are scheduled to take over XC.

My own hunch is since publishing their sustainability strategy less than 6 months ago, XC have got lost on their path to meeting it. Meanwhile passengers suffer with no public plan on how things will be fixed.

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/sites/default/files/accessible/CrossCountry%20Sustainability%20Strategy%202025.pdf

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2026 ==

I forgot about that! Let's hope that they take this opportunity to go for more capacity and lower per-capacity costs. XC should be trying to grow its passenger numbers, but that isn't going to happen without the capacity to transport those extra passengers. I do agree that it is unlikely to have a full, new fleet in service by the end of 2034 though, as they haven't actually started a procurement process yet. It would also require the units be built at the same time as most other train orders.

Heavily loss making is open to interpretation.

From latest accounts at Companies House

XC TRAINS LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

XC TRAINS LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Accounts Note 4, Passenger income £519m
Accounts Note 5 Franchise subsidy £28m
Profit before tax (page 16 of accounts) £4.5m
Profit after tax and financing £3.2m

That is a much better financial picture than I thought it was. Thank you for bringing some extra data to this discussion.

 

[Snow1964]

That is a much better financial picture than I thought it was. Thank you for bringing some extra data to this discussion.

Those published XC accounts are year to 31 March 2025.

But let's try and bring it bit more up to date
ORR Passenger rail usage quarterly reports for XC show :
15% more passengers April-June 2025 vs April-June 2024
6% more passengers July-Sep 2025 vs July-Sep 2024

I realise passenger numbers doesn't correlate directly with passenger income, but averaging those quarterly increases, suggests 10.5% extra.

If we add (rounded) 10% to the £519m income then get £52m more income, almost twice the £28m franchise subsidy in most recent accounts.

Of course costs will have increased too, let's say 5% to allow for inflation. There could easily be error in how much costs are up.

But even allowing for extra costs XC must be close to making a profit again (might actually be making a profit now, allowing for data time lag)

------

Going back to crowding, even if add remaining six 5car 221s ex Avanti, just 30 vehicles added to a fleet of 345 vehicles is about 8% increase. Not great when (using ORR data), XC quarterly passenger numbers change for 4 most recent quarters is 14%, 15%, 15%, 6% (average 12.5%)

So just adding 6 more 221s, will only absorb 8 months growth, then where does it get extra capacity from? It desperately needs to find additional rolling stock quickly, hasn't got time to wait for a new build if those growth rates continue.

 

[dk1]

Absolutely not. Have you seen the mess doing things like that made last time?

Beat me to it. The Abellio plan turned out to be a disaster that was hastily withdrawn.

 

[AndrewE]

I meant that everything would be run by existing paired voyagers (2x4 or 4+5 car), no changes required.

Focusing all the Voyagers on 2x core routes and eliminating use of lone 4/5 car sets would ease overcrowding and improve the service quality in the short-term. 305s could be used to replace the 2nd hourly Birmingham-Manchester if desired.

Longer term, ordering a new fleet of bi-modes is the only solution which makes sense IMO

OK, agreed, but some of us reading this thread are taking the title to mean "What can we do now" because action is desperately needed...

In the light of that we can offer:

1) take every Voyager and compatible train available and put it into service asap - the Treasury and DfT (i.e. ministers) must recognise that this is a running sore, even if it is outside the SE, and will impact on their reputation and chances of re-election. The money isn't much in the wider scheme of things and maybe it's time to take on the ROSCOs anyway.

2) pay (retrain if needed) existing XC buffet staff to enable the full use of all rolling stock on a train - I am surprised that this issue hasn't attracted more media opprobrium. Take on more (non safety-trained - in the short term) buffet staff to open the shop in the units with the guard

3) get the 350s into use on hourly non-Voyager trains from Manchester, which will be slower to happen, but in the short term the less frequent timetable will probably suppress demand a bit.

 

[stevieinselby]

How many units does it require to run an hourly Edinburgh-Plymouth and hourly Manchester-Southampton, with no extensions? Could it be run with all 8/9 car sets?

I'd start with that aim - 8/9 car every hour on the two core routes. Only after that should we start to think about bow best to use any spares.

By my reckoning, you would need 19 diagrams for Edinburgh—Plymouth and 10 diagrams for Southampton—Manchester based on an hourly service with about 45 minutes layover at each end, so if you were to run them all as 8/9/10-car sets then you would need 58 units.

According to Wikipedia, XC currently have either 61 or 70 (Super)Voyager units depending on which page you believe, so even at the top end of the range there it's looking tight, although if they could bring the remaining six 221s out of storage then 76 units to run 58 diagrams is starting to sound plausible. I'm not necessarily saying that I agree that that is the best way to run the network, but it certainly looks like it would be a feasible option.