Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[amahy]

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.

Don’t see why 58/70 should pose a problem, seen as TPE 185s run at 48/50 or something like that.

 

[DDB]

Could perhaps save an extra unit or two by splitting at Bristol as I think they sometimes do now. I don't know if there is a similar place you could split at the Northern end.

 

[irish_rail]

Could perhaps save an extra unit or two by splitting at Bristol as I think they sometimes do now. I don't know if there is a similar place you could split at the Northern end.

Not ideal as Bristol to Exeter and vice versa is often very crowded on a single set. Better to do a split at say Newcastle at the northern end where at least passengers have other options (LNER). The GWR "alternative" isn't a real comparison as its a slow all stations stopper. So, full length trains for the south western end of the route please!

 

[Manutd1999]

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.

This is promising. Based on this, I would propose the following action plan:

1) Cut back the Voyager operation to a hourly Edinburgh-Plymouth and hourly Manchester-Southampton, all operated by 2x4 or 5+4 sets. No splitting/joining or extensions, just keep it simple, reliable and with sufficient capacity.

2) Recruit new guards or change working practices to enable all sets to be used at all times. Running locked sets simply shouldn't be tolerated by the DfT.

3) Add an hourly class 350 from Birmingham to Manchester to maintain frequency along that corridor.

That would stabilise the situation. Yes the Bristol-Manchester and Reading-Newcastle routes would lose out, but at least passengers could connect via Birmingham in the knowledge that they're likely to have a more comfortable journey whilst onboard.

 

[irish_rail]

This is promising. Based on this, I would propose the following action plan:

1) Cut back the Voyager operation to a hourly Edinburgh-Plymouth and hourly Manchester-Southampton, all operated by 2x4 or 5+4 sets. No splitting/joining or extensions, just keep it simple, reliable and with sufficient capacity.

2) Recruit new guards or change working practices to enable all sets to be used at all times. Running locked sets simply shouldn't be tolerated by the DfT.

3) Add an hourly class 350 from Birmingham to Manchester to maintain frequency along that corridor.

That would stabilise the situation. Yes the Bristol-Manchester and Reading-Newcastle routes would lose out, but at least passengers could connect via Birmingham in the knowledge that they're likely to have a more comfortable journey whilst onboard.

I can see one sizeable issue is that the XC drivers based on the south coast are based at Bournemouth, so cutting short to Southampton may have ramifications.

 

[43074]

That would stabilise the situation. Yes the Bristol-Manchester and Reading-Newcastle routes would lose out, but at least passengers could connect via Birmingham in the knowledge that they're likely to have a more comfortable journey whilst onboard.

No it wouldn't as it doesn't provide any additional capacity - running 1 x 8-car instead of 2 x separate 5-cars would be a reduction in capacity at times.

What would you do to maintain frequency on the Birmingham to Bristol, Reading and York corridors? They are all busy enough to warrant a half hourly frequency

 

[zwk500]

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.

Which doesn't solve the double weave on the WCML and introduces the problem of where to terminate a train from Manchester at Clapham Jn

 

[station_road]

...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.

It really won't - transport doesn't figure in general election voting considerations. The latest yougov figures show transport at precisely 0% on the list of single most important factors affecting voting intentions (and at less than 2% of anyone's top 3 considerations when voting).

Health, the economy, cost of living and immigration are the areas that will decide the next election.

 

[Killingworth]

It really won't - transport doesn't figure in general election voting considerations. The latest yougov figures show transport at precisely 0% on the list of single most important factors affecting voting intentions (and at less than 2% of anyone's top 3 considerations when voting).

Health, the economy, cost of living and immigration are the areas that will decide the next election.

Excessive cost and the local effects of HS2's construction may have limited impact in a few constituencies. Unless any more emotive bat tunnel type issues emerge around election time!

 

[Manutd1999]

I can see one sizeable issue is that the XC drivers based on the south coast are based at Bournemouth, so cutting short to Southampton may have ramifications.

Services could probably be extended to Bournemouth if absolutely necessary, or drivers could shuttle to work.

No it wouldn't as it doesn't provide any additional capacity - running 1 x 8-car instead of 2 x separate 5-cars would be a reduction in capacity at times.

What would you do to maintain frequency on the Birmingham to Bristol, Reading and York corridors? They are all busy enough to warrant a half hourly frequency

My proposal would keep roughly the same seat count between Reading-Birmingham, Bristol-Birmingham and Birmingham-Sheffield as per today, but concentrated onto one service per hour rather than two. However, the frequency would reduce passenger numbers slightly, as more travel via other operators or alternate means. Overall I'd be confident that a longer, hourly train would be less overcrowded than half-hourly, short trains.

Additional Class 350 services from Birmingham-Manchester wouled increase capacity along that corridor and maybe an extra WMR Birmingham-Reading could be considered in the medium-term.

Obviously this isn't an ideal solution, the railway shouldn't be trying to limit passenger numbers like this. But the current situation isn't acceptable either IMO and getting a significant amount of extra rolling stock will take time, so something has to give.

 

[stevieinselby]

I can see one sizeable issue is that the XC drivers based on the south coast are based at Bournemouth, so cutting short to Southampton may have ramifications.

It only needs one extra diagram (so 2 units) to have the Southampton services continue to Bournemouth, so if all the (Super)Voyager fleet is available then that should still be achievable.

No it wouldn't as it doesn't provide any additional capacity - running 1 x 8-car instead of 2 x separate 5-cars would be a reduction in capacity at times.

Why would you change from running two 5-car units to two 4-car units? If it's currently two 5-car units then run it as a 5+5. We're not changing the number of 4- and 5-car units, we're just running them paired up every hour rather than solo every half-hour. As I said, I'm not convinced it's the right way to do it, and it certainly isn't a satisfactory long-term solution to see the frequency reduced (along with the capacity on some sections of the network that currently see a solo and a double every hour), but it might address some short-term problems that are causing the services to be unreliable.

 

[The Planner]

Services could probably be extended to Bournemouth if absolutely necessary, or drivers could shuttle to work.

My proposal would keep roughly the same seat count between Reading-Birmingham, Bristol-Birmingham and Birmingham-Sheffield as per today, but concentrated onto one service per hour rather than two. However, the reduced frequency would reduce passenger numbers slightly, as more travel via other operators or alternate means. Overall I'd be confident that a longer, hourly train would be less overcrowded than half-hourly, short trains.

Additional Class 350 services from Birmingham-Manchester wouled increase capacity along that corridor and maybe an extra WMR Birmingham-Reading considered in the medium-term.

Obviously this isn't an ideal solution, the railway shouldn't be trying to limit passenger numbers like this. But the current situation isn't acceptable either IMO and getting a significant amount of extra rolling stock will take time, so something has to give.

Reducing to 1tph is a retrograde step. People want frequency. I doubt this would reduce passenger numbers at all.

 

[Manutd1999]

Reducing to 1tph is a retrograde step. People want frequency. I doubt this would reduce passenger numbers at all.

People also want a seat, or at least space to board.... There are no perfect solutions here unless/until XC gets additional rolling stock, so it's a case of picking the least-worst option

 

[HSTEd]

Which doesn't solve the double weave on the WCML and introduces the problem of where to terminate a train from Manchester at Clapham Jn

Well, you could just extend the current Watford Junction terminator to Manchester. If you can somehow find a path north of Watford.

 

[The Planner]

People also want a seat, or at least space to board.... There are no perfect solutions here unless/until XC gets additional rolling stock, so it's a case of picking the least-worst option

Which this isn't

 

[Topological]

This is promising. Based on this, I would propose the following action plan:

1) Cut back the Voyager operation to a hourly Edinburgh-Plymouth and hourly Manchester-Southampton, all operated by 2x4 or 5+4 sets. No splitting/joining or extensions, just keep it simple, reliable and with sufficient capacity.

2) Recruit new guards or change working practices to enable all sets to be used at all times. Running locked sets simply shouldn't be tolerated by the DfT.

3) Add an hourly class 350 from Birmingham to Manchester to maintain frequency along that corridor.

That would stabilise the situation. Yes the Bristol-Manchester and Reading-Newcastle routes would lose out, but at least passengers could connect via Birmingham in the knowledge that they're likely to have a more comfortable journey whilst onboard.

Why keep Edinburgh-York?

Surely you would save a lot of diagrams there?

Now LNER has 3tph there does not seem to be much need to waste Voyagers under the wires.

With the saved diagrams you can bring back Bournemouth and probably get a decent second service between Reading and Yorkshire on single Voyagers.

 

[stevieinselby]

Why keep Edinburgh-York?

Because losing direct services between Edinburgh and Leeds/Sheffield, or between Newcastle and Sheffield/Birmingham, and making those passengers change at York would be too big a penalty to be an acceptable loss to the network.

 

[Manutd1999]

Which this isn't

What is then?

An alternative could be to keep the service pattern as-is but move to advance-only (LNER style) for defined long-distance journey pairs (e.g. Birmingham-Newcastle, Leeds-Edinburgh). Flexible tickets wouldn't be sold for those journeys and advances are obviously only sold for the seated capacity.

Flexible tickets on shorter journeys (e.g. Leeds-Sheffield, Derby-Birmingham) would continue, but you might not get a seat.

 

[Topological]

Because losing direct services between Edinburgh and Leeds/Sheffield, or between Newcastle and Sheffield/Birmingham, and making those passengers change at York would be too big a penalty to be an acceptable loss to the network.

Would it make more sense to do something involving LNER when the electrification is finished and terminate CrossCountry at Leeds.

The logic here is that it WOULD be better to preserve direct, but that did not stop them reducing the WCML to just Manchester.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Because losing direct services between Edinburgh and Leeds/Sheffield, or between Newcastle and Sheffield/Birmingham, and making those passengers change at York would be too big a penalty to be an acceptable loss to the network.

Absolutely.

 

[Trainbike46]

What is then?

There have been many proposals in this thread that are better than what you suggested, in various timeframes.

An alternative could be to keep the service pattern as-is but move to advance-only (LNER style) for defined long-distance journey pairs (e.g. Birmingham-Newcastle, Leeds-Edinburgh). Flexible tickets wouldn't be sold for those journeys and advances are obviously only sold for the seated capacity.

Flexible tickets on shorter journeys (e.g. Leeds-Sheffield, Derby-Birmingham) would continue, but you might not get a seat.

This is such a bad idea I don't even know where to start.

 

[mernrith]

Why keep Edinburgh-York?

Surely you would save a lot of diagrams there?

Now LNER has 3tph there does not seem to be much need to waste Voyagers under the wires.

With the saved diagrams you can bring back Bournemouth and probably get a decent second service between Reading and Yorkshire on single Voyagers.

Didn't know where you'd get the third train running to Edinburgh. 3tph only applies to KGX-NCL apparently.
And stripping Leeds and Durham (5th and 6th largest passenger destinations along the ECML from EDB) away from their only direct train to Edinburgh would be a massive loss. As well as other Midland-NE/Scotland flows.

 

[zwk500]

Well, you could just extend the current Watford Junction terminator to Manchester. If you can somehow find a path north of Watford.

Which doesn't solve either problem because of the issues finding a suitably fast path north, and the suitability of the turnback arrangements for a train coming from Manchester being quite different to one coming from Watford.

Remember also that if this proposed service would be late-running, turning it early at Watford, MK or Northampton would be a much greater impact to onward journeys as they'd be dumped onto trains to Euston.

 

[AndrewE]

Well, you could just extend the current Watford Junction terminator to Manchester. If you can somehow find a path north of Watford.

Which doesn't solve either problem because of the issues finding a suitably fast path north, and the suitability of the turnback arrangements for a train coming from Manchester being quite different to one coming from Watford.

Remember also that if this proposed service would be late-running, turning it early at Watford, MK or Northampton would be a much greater impact to onward journeys as they'd be dumped onto trains to Euston.

I think that comment was tongue-in-cheek.

We do need something doing for XC passengers though, and doubling up units on the Manchester starters and running alternately with EMUs seems to be a relatively quick and easy win, but won't release units for the E-SW route. Hiring the spare sets (and sorting the crewing issue) seems to be the answer there.
Hopefully that MD will get her marching orders pretty quick, you can't run a utility which depends completely on its staff for what it has to deliver if you spend your life trying to antagonise them.

 

[Snow1964]

Additional Class 350 services from Birmingham-Manchester wouled increase capacity along that corridor and maybe an extra WMR Birmingham-Reading could be considered in the medium-term.

Obviously this isn't an ideal solution, the railway shouldn't be trying to limit passenger numbers like this. But the current situation isn't acceptable either IMO and getting a significant amount of extra rolling stock will take time, so something has to give.

Some services changing to 350s would be a quick fix (although the spare 350s really need a refurb and interior layout change).

Probably better to continue to Birmingham International or Coventry than litter up New Street with trains laying over.

Of course, it's also possible to create a bodge, how about taking the spare 5th car of a 458, adding loads of batteries in the saloon which just becomes a Flirt style walkway, marshalling between pair of 350s with appropriate gangway converters and wiring. Then take them Bletchley-Didcot to rejoin the wires. Daft in theory, but possibly practical in interim if new build will take 5 years

 

[321362]

Of course, it's also possible to create a bodge, how about taking the spare 5th car of a 458, adding loads of batteries in the saloon which just becomes a Flirt style walkway, marshalling between pair of 350s with appropriate gangway converters and wiring. Then take them Bletchley-Didcot to rejoin the wires. Daft in theory, but possibly practical in interim if new build will take 5 years

I looked at this once, laughed at it, looked again and realised it's actually a sensible-ish solution. 458s in general are likely on the way out with the 701s stumbling into service slowly. Even without shoving it in between a pair of 350s, you could just convert half of the middle coach to be a FLIRT-style battery pack (while you're at it, give it a pantograph and a diesel engine or two) and run the whole set on something like Manchester to Bournemouth.

 

[AndrewE]

I looked at this once, laughed at it, looked again and realised it's actually a sensible-ish solution. 458s in general are likely on the way out with the 701s stumbling into service slowly. Even without shoving it in between a pair of 350s, you could just convert half of the middle coach to be a FLIRT-style battery pack (while you're at it, give it a pantograph and a diesel engine or two) and run the whole set on something like Manchester to Bournemouth.

but given that the EMUs depend on power from their pantographs I can't see one centre car (battery or diesel) powering 9 vehicles.
If you want your new power (supply) car to feed them then it's a major rebuild, I would guess 5 years at least given that you are looking at feeding a MW or so into a unit not originally designed to accept it other than from the pans - unless you are looking at a dedicated 25kW feed across the top of the units to the pans.
XC needs capacity now!

 

[Killingworth]

Why keep Edinburgh-York?

Surely you would save a lot of diagrams there?

Now LNER has 3tph there does not seem to be much need to waste Voyagers under the wires.

With the saved diagrams you can bring back Bournemouth and probably get a decent second service between Reading and Yorkshire on single Voyagers.

The wonderful thing about this thread is the input from across the nation - most of us wanting to retain direct train connectivity from our location to everywhere else, plus more destinations and more frequently too.

We're happy to do without sections of the network where we rarely go, often unaware of regular and irregular traffic flows. As an example, I was surprised to see a well loaded southbound XC from Glasgow at Alnmouth one evening in October, yet an LNER service from Edinburgh a little later on the following evening was almost empty.

We seem to have established all but unanimity that parking up redundant Avanti units is crazy, but the business case for taking them on (and manning them) rests too heavily on gut feeling that more seats will attract more users.

Speaking personally I'd be happier booking to Cornwall if I knew I'd have a seat and would get food and drink on the way. On a winter journey in 2024 I sat beside a guy with a bag of provisions to cover his trip. He'd started at Paignton - Newton Abbott - Glasgow - Oban then picked up by car for final 40 miles. In summer he'd do the trip by car - or boat! On my section of that journey the trolley service had no hot water and didn't appear.

 

[brad465]

Having seen the LNER mock-up 897 release today, how easily could XC do a follow-on order of some of these (maybe with one or two carriages fewer if 10-car has platforming issues)? It would at least stop the 897s being a micro-fleet.

 

[Starmill]

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

That depends on how many sales and of what value there are! At the end of the day London - Birmingham is an economically important market in a way which Long Buckby - Milton Keynes or Berkhamsted - Rugby simply are not. And if someone drives from Greater London to Birmingham City Centre the negative externalities of that are potentially meaningful, but most people living in Long Buckby will just drive to their destination in MK and not consider the train regardless of the price or journey time, and the externalities far smaller.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2026 ==

@Magdalia typically makes evidence-based comments based on such information

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing! The use of data in a context for which it is not suitable, and presented according to the particular perspective, rather than a wholesale view of all of the available data, often results in rather worse at policy outcomes than if the data hadn't been used at all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2026 ==

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.

This is by far the most important part of this. The 0742 from Birmingham New Street to Bristol Temple Meads really ought to revert to starting back at Manchester Piccadilly as well, as 1012 is rather late for the first arrival in Bristol. Unfortunately an Avanti service is in the way of an 0700 departure from Stafford to Wolverhampton.