Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[GRALISTAIR]

Or trains that aren’t so thirsty. There can be no doubt that thousands, if not tens of thousands of pounds can be saved each day by using the electrification where it exists. Especially when you consider that most stretches of track on the XC network with a linespeed of over 100mph are already electrified.

Derby to Birmingham wiring would really help that case. ( sorry slightly ot)

 

[AndrewE]

See the link in post 451 above

yes, EDB-LDS and vv both show 168 (as do other city pairs show a balance) so something is fishy or oversimplified. Hourly trains between such important places must be shockingly unreliable or expensive to be so little used... Maybe 3 hours is too long for the distance, or split ticketing is hiding a lot of journeys. Can RUK Forum's ticket sales throw any light on this?

 

[stevieinselby]

Leeds toEdinburgh is approx 80 passengers each way per day. Hardly a big issue.

To put it in context, Leeds to Barnsley has not much more than double the ridership of Leeds to Edinburgh, despite the fact that Edinburgh is nearly 10 times the distance away – that 80 each way doesn't look too shabby in that light!

Remember that it isn't just passengers from A to B that we need to consider. Station-pair usage might be useful for seeing relative ridership, but it doesn't show the whole story for the flow. We also need to factor in passengers travelling from Wakefield to Waverley, or from Leeds to Leven, or any other combination of station-pairs where the obvious route is using XC from Leeds to Edinburgh as part of a longer journey.

 

[Grumpy]

Remember that it isn't just passengers from A to B that we need to consider. Station-pair usage might be useful for seeing relative ridership, but it doesn't show the whole story for the flow. We also need to factor in passengers travelling from Wakefield to Waverley, or from Leeds to Leven, or any other combination of station-pairs where the obvious route is using XC from Leeds to Edinburgh as part of a longer journey.

Absolutely right. However the 80 passengers are spread over 14 trains. Even if adding in the other potential station pairs I can’t see them overwhelming a TPE 802 Newcastle terminator extended to Edinburgh . Ideally cross-linked with the existing TPE Edinburgh service.

 

[Manutd1999]

Absolutely right. However the 80 passengers are spread over 14 trains. Even if adding in the other potential station pairs I can’t see them overwhelming a TPE 802 Newcastle terminator extended to Edinburgh . Ideally cross-linked with the existing TPE Edinburgh service.

Indeed - especially if there are 2x 802s each hour to Newcastle and passengers travelling between the NE and Sheffield/Derby/Birmingham are all on the XC service via Doncaster. It won't solve everything but I feel my suggestion has some potential...

 

[jayah]

It's a shame the 220 didn't end up being the original 67+stock formation that was proposed, as at least it'd have a blunt end vehicle at one end with a full coach of passenger accommodation rather than barely half of one.

To be fair a Class 67 has only has one engine and won't move if that goes wrong.

Not a problem for a Voyager.

 

[jayah]

Or trains that aren’t so wasteful of space.

That too, but not something we are reading about in the volumes being written about LED lighting and power sockets.

 

[cle]

I know you do Manchester Bristol but the biggest flow is Manchester-Thames valley.

So the Bristol passengers should change at Birmingham and Manchester Thames valley should be half hourly.

This probably makes sense. People would complain but they always will with change.

Bristol - Sheffield would go to half hourly which seems to overlay well with Cardiff - Nottingham ? And streamlines those directions and no reversals / bad crossings.

You’d want both Mancs via Coventry. Bristol I suppose could go either way if terminating - do a loop - but ideally via University

 

[mernrith]

Remember that it isn't just passengers from A to B that we need to consider. Station-pair usage might be useful for seeing relative ridership, but it doesn't show the whole story for the flow. We also need to factor in passengers travelling from Wakefield to Waverley, or from Leeds to Leven, or any other combination of station-pairs where the obvious route is using XC from Leeds to Edinburgh as part of a longer journey.

It's been mentioned a lot in ECML-timetable change related posts that Durham-Edinburgh is now only served by XC, with 160 passengers per day last financial year, on the same levels to that of Leeds-Edinburgh. From my observation that number is to the lower side when people do split their tickets at Newcastle, with consideration that the proposed idea was to strip XC from directly serving Scotland and asking everyone to make a change at Waverley, Scotland-current XC service regions and Leeds/Durham/north ECML-Edinburgh does warrant an hourly train in my opinion.

Hourly trains between such important places must be shockingly unreliable or expensive to be so little used...

Northbound knock-on delays on XC can be quite nasty sometimes.

Indeed - especially if there are 2x 802s each hour to Newcastle and passengers travelling between the NE and Sheffield/Derby/Birmingham are all on the XC service via Doncaster. It won't solve everything but I feel my suggestion has some potential...

Currently, only 1 out of 3tph trains from York is a 802, the Lime Street-Newcastle. Redcar and Scarborough are served by 185s, not sure where you're getting another 802 from. Your suggestion only solves XC's problems in expense of moving the Scottish/NE section to TPE whose problem wasn't and shouldn't be there.

 

[Halish Railway]

Currently, only 1 out of 3tph trains from York is a 802, the Lime Street-Newcastle. Redcar and Scarborough are served by 185s, not sure where you're getting another 802 from. Your suggestion only solves XC's problems in expense of moving the Scottish/NE section to TPE whose problem wasn't and shouldn't be there.

TPE are procuring 29 new trains as part of the TransPennine route upgrade, with an option for 26 more.

Prior to the Pandemic TPE ran 2tph to Newcastle, with one extending to Edinburgh so once they have their new trains resourcing this service change shouldn’t be an issue.

 

[mernrith]

TPE are procuring 29 new trains as part of the TransPennine route upgrade, with an option for 26 more.

Prior to the Pandemic TPE ran 2tph to Newcastle, with one extending to Edinburgh so once they have their new trains resourcing this service change shouldn’t be an issue.

An extra hourly Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle-Edinburgh service by an 802/EMU would definitely be welcomed if it does deliver.
I'm just against the idea of making this run possibly by a 185 and in expense of North Yorkshire losing a direct train across the Pennines.

 

[quantinghome]

Leeds toEdinburgh is approx 80 passengers each way per day. Hardly a big issue.

It's double that: https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/odm/gbr/?year=&string_out=Leeds [8487]&dest=S-9328



The ODM numbers are one way, so that's over 160 per day. Doesn't sound much but it's the 8th highest long distance flow from Leeds (defined as destinations outside Yorkshire & Humber).

 

[Manutd1999]

I'd still argue that those 160 passengers would be better off on a busy TPE 802 (or whatever they order next) than a busy Voyager. It would also be electric, lowering operating costs and emissions.

The argument against it isn't Leeds IMO, it's whether Sheffield/Derby (and less importantly Bristol/SW) should lose their direct Edinburgh service to enable it.

 

[swt_passenger]

An extra hourly Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle-Edinburgh service by an 802/EMU would definitely be welcomed if it does deliver.
I'm just against the idea of making this run possibly by a 185 and in expense of North Yorkshire losing a direct train across the Pennines.

I thought it had been established the ECML paths don’t line up for a through TPE to Edinburgh? That’s why the present Edinburgh to Newcastle runs as a stand alone service and didn’t get joined to the service south of Newcastle in the recent ECML Timetable changes.

 

[quantinghome]

I do wonder how representative the ODM numbers actually are of passengers' complete journeys. Here are the ODM numbers from Edinburgh to non-Scottish destinations with >20k journeys.

York is 3 x Leeds

Leeds is only slightly ahead of Preston

Peterborough ahead of Birmingham?

LONDON BR	1154417​
Newcastle	477858​
York	178228​
MANCHESTER BR	130865​
Berwick-Upon-Tweed	104966​
Leeds	61170​
Preston (Lancs)	60464​
Durham	58274​
Carlisle	53108​
Morpeth	44593​
Peterborough	39067​
Darlington	38179​
LIVERPOOL BR	37732​
Alnmouth	34701​
BIRMINGHAM BR	34411​
Sheffield	24812​
Doncaster	24534​
Crewe	24017​
Oxenholme Lake District	23129​
NEWARK BR	22878​
Lancaster	20527​
WARRINGTON BR	20382​

 

[Killingworth]

I do wonder how representative the ODM numbers actually are of passengers' complete journeys. Here are the ODM numbers from Edinburgh to non-Scottish destinations with >20k journeys.

York is 3 x Leeds

Leeds is only slightly ahead of Preston

Peterborough ahead of Birmingham?

LONDON BR	1154417​
Newcastle	477858​
York	178228​
MANCHESTER BR	130865​
Berwick-Upon-Tweed	104966​
Leeds	61170​
Preston (Lancs)	60464​
Durham	58274​
Carlisle	53108​
Morpeth	44593​
Peterborough	39067​
Darlington	38179​
LIVERPOOL BR	37732​
Alnmouth	34701​
BIRMINGHAM BR	34411​
Sheffield	24812​
Doncaster	24534​
Crewe	24017​
Oxenholme Lake District	23129​
NEWARK BR	22878​
Lancaster	20527​
WARRINGTON BR	20382​

I have increasing doubts about such numbers due to the more widespread use of split ticketing. The ORR suspects it may add 5% to total journey numbers and thus to under estimate true length. From personal experience I'd say that on XC 5% may be on the low side. A cheaper split on the same train is very often available.

That said the relative figures here are probably about right.

 

[35B]

I do wonder how representative the ODM numbers actually are of passengers' complete journeys. Here are the ODM numbers from Edinburgh to non-Scottish destinations with >20k journeys.

York is 3 x Leeds

Leeds is only slightly ahead of Preston

Peterborough ahead of Birmingham?

LONDON BR	1154417​
Newcastle	477858​
York	178228​
MANCHESTER BR	130865​
Berwick-Upon-Tweed	104966​
Leeds	61170​
Preston (Lancs)	60464​
Durham	58274​
Carlisle	53108​
Morpeth	44593​
Peterborough	39067​
Darlington	38179​
LIVERPOOL BR	37732​
Alnmouth	34701​
BIRMINGHAM BR	34411​
Sheffield	24812​
Doncaster	24534​
Crewe	24017​
Oxenholme Lake District	23129​
NEWARK BR	22878​
Lancaster	20527​
WARRINGTON BR	20382​

I'd be asking about the role of railheading, and where people actually travel between.

 

[cle]

I do wonder how representative the ODM numbers actually are of passengers' complete journeys. Here are the ODM numbers from Edinburgh to non-Scottish destinations with >20k journeys.

York is 3 x Leeds

Leeds is only slightly ahead of Preston

Peterborough ahead of Birmingham?

LONDON BR	1154417​
Newcastle	477858​
York	178228​
MANCHESTER BR	130865​
Berwick-Upon-Tweed	104966​
Leeds	61170​
Preston (Lancs)	60464​
Durham	58274​
Carlisle	53108​
Morpeth	44593​
Peterborough	39067​
Darlington	38179​
LIVERPOOL BR	37732​
Alnmouth	34701​
BIRMINGHAM BR	34411​
Sheffield	24812​
Doncaster	24534​
Crewe	24017​
Oxenholme Lake District	23129​
NEWARK BR	22878​
Lancaster	20527​
WARRINGTON BR	20382​

Interesting rundown - especially Durham being so far above Darlington. And Preston as high as Leeds.

Manchester performs well given the service is two-hourly and pretty slow, from a stopping pattern POV. Imagine an actual limited stop service run hourly (Preston/Lanc/Carlisle/Haymarket)...

 

[mmh]

Indeed. This thread has gone round in circles, but the simple answer is "a fleet of 80x, even if it's just a vehicle for vehicle replacement with 5 car sets and even if they're the shorter 810s".

Put bluntly, the Voyagers are just not fit for purpose. They're reliable, but the passenger accommodation just has nothing good about it bar the big windows.

As someone who used to actively seek out coach D (if I remember rightly - the all table, all window aligned coach that was originally changed to be so to be a 'hybrid' coach) I'd say it's clear the passenger accommodation can be very, very good.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Feb 2026 ==

Or trains that aren’t so thirsty. There can be no doubt that thousands, if not tens of thousands of pounds can be saved each day by using the electrification where it exists. Especially when you consider that most stretches of track on the XC network with a linespeed of over 100mph are already electrified.

The generation and supply of electricity isn't free, despite what car adverts and politicians might suggest.

 

[AndrewE]

The generation and supply of electricity isn't free, despite what car adverts and politicians might suggest.

but a lot of it is much less carbon-intensive nowadays... Which is a much better investment in the future than just keeping on burning stuff.

 

[NCT]

In the short term swapping services between Cross Country and TPE between Leeds and Edinburgh is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Once TPE has its new fleet, it could be that TPE running to Edinburgh instead of Cross Country represents better balance of resources. If XC terminates at Leeds or York, it's conceivable that 1 of the 4tph Manchester - York would be in the right path for the XC to connect into.

Liverpool and Manchester to Edinburgh is naturally via the WCML, ditto Birmingham. So it's a choice between whether Huddersfield or Derby + Sheffield that are more deserving of a direct Edinburgh connection. Without considering timetabling constraints or rolling stock balancing, I'd say it ought to be the latter.

TPE is expected to run 4tph from Manchester to York. Of those 4tph, Middlesborough commands 1 and Scarborough commands 1 at best. Middlesborough commands 1 rather than 2, because the opposite hour wants to be the Sunderland (1tp2h) and LNER Middlesbrough (filling in other hour, the bit of the Dec 25 timetable that got deferred). Scarborough could become a shuttle, however it's not exactly clear whether trying to terminate yet another service at York or making that crossing move from Platform 5 is the lesser evil.

As for the Liverpool - Newcastle (- Edinburgh) TPE being 'true' intercity - let's face it - the pecking order of the York - Newcastle paths is such that it'll be TPE picking up Thirsk, Northallerton and Chester-le-Street calls. The frequency of stops is such that the services really ought to use regional rolling stock (still 125mph capable, like the 395). Besides you want the 6tph between Manchester - Leeds to have the same rolling stock characteristics.

 

[Manutd1999]

I'd agree with most of that.

It probably needs TRU and the subsequent fleet order + recast to make it work, but getting EMUs to run the route instead of Voyagers tips it in favour of TPE IMO.

If you have 4ph to York post TRU (I know that was originally planned but I'm not sure if it is still confirmed?), I would envisage a half-hourly to Newcastle (1ph running faster and extending to Edinburgh, 1ph calling at Chester-le-St), 1ph Saltburn and maybe 1ph Scarborough.

XC then runs hourly York-Leeds-Plymouth and Newcastle-Doncaster-Reading, with some spare Voyagers released to double-up more services

 

[NCT]

True, with the Cross Country Newcastle via Doncaster (most likely) to remain anyway, the other path from Leeds probably is better off being a TPE EMU.

 

[Charlie978]

I have increasing doubts about such numbers due to the more widespread use of split ticketing. The ORR suspects it may add 5% to total journey numbers and thus to under estimate true length. From personal experience I'd say that on XC 5% may be on the low side. A cheaper split on the same train is very often available.

That said the relative figures here are probably about right.

I second this.

On journeys from Sheffield/Chesterfield to Edinburgh I will often buy one ticket to York and another onwards (on LNER), therefore skewing the stats. And all that is if I don’t just drive to Doncaster and go from there.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Peterborough ahead of Birmingham?

Peterborough has a fast direct train.

And there’s probably people from e.g Cambridge who drive there and get the train.

Parkway stations do well these days. Haddenham and Thame Parkway and Oxford Parkway get around a million trips a year to London between them. Or 1/3rd of the figure for Manchester Piccadilly or Birmingham new street.

 

[quantinghome]

Peterborough has a fast direct train.

And there’s probably people from e.g Cambridge who drive there and get the train.

Parkway stations do well these days. Haddenham and Thame Parkway and Oxford Parkway get around a million trips a year to London between them. Or 1/3rd of the figure for Manchester Piccadilly or Birmingham new street.

Birmingham also has a fast direct train from Edinburgh, which is only half an hour slower than Edinburgh - Peterborough (around 4h08 vs 3h38). Railheading's contribution to Peterborough's numbers cannot possibly offset the fact that Birmingham is 10 times its size.

Ah... I've just had a look at air passenger numbers; there are over 200,000 on the Birmingham-Edinburgh route (I presume counting both ways), so that clears that up. The demand is there, but most people fly.

 

[YorkshireBear]

There is an article in Modern Railways Online saying XC have formally submitted a business case to take on the 6 off lease Ex Avanti WC 221s and also the 2 currently with GC once they are released. On the basis there isn't a business case for new trains currently and they could all be slotted into the current refurb programme. At least if this is rejected we know who is responsible!

https://www.modernrailways.com/article/crosscountry-makes-case-extra-221s?check_logged_in=1

CrossCountry wants to add an extra eight Class 221s to its fleet.

The operator also explained that whilst some have called for the Class 220/221 fleet to be replaced now rather than refurbished, changes in the money market have forced the industry to move away from the attitude of “building a new train will be cheaper than refurbishing an old one”.

With this in mind and reflecting continued demand for capacity on XC services, the operator has presented a business case to take on the 6x5-car sets released by Avanti West Coast and stored at Derby Litchurch Lane (Nos 221101-106) as well as the 2x5-car sets on short-term hire to Grand Central (Nos 221142/143) when they become available. “Putting the whole fleet together in the business would be the best solution,” an insider noted to Modern Railways, and should the proposal be rejected by the Department for Transport then passengers facing overcrowding will know that a solution was available.

In terms of capacity, XC Managing Director Shiona Rolfe confirmed to MR that work is ongoing to ensure that capacity is better matched with demand. This is being supported with fitment of passenger counting equipment, also from Journeo, in all vehicles as part of the refurbishment programme. “Advanced passenger counting will almost certainly help; it’s a useful addition in terms of giving us much more forensic data to be able to really understand the nuances along our network,” she said.

“What we know is that where that capacity is needed is not necessarily the full distance of that long distance journey; it’s often at specific points along it. Being better informed about that will help us to be much more forensic in terms of when we are making those biannual changes; actually, we’re thinking very carefully about where those pinch points are. I’m really confident that we’ve already started that process, but this new equipment will just add a lot more to being better informed about how we do that.”

The aim, according to managers, is to aim for every service to be a minimum of five cars and a single four car set being diagrammed for a Cornwall-North East journey should be an increasingly rare occurrence.

Whilst the XC National Rail Contract runs to 2031, it is expected the Secretary of State will exercise the option to use the break point in 2027, after which it can be terminated with three months’ notice, to being the business into state ownership; making it likely that XC will be the last operator to be renationalised. Tony Miles

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is an article in Modern Railways Online saying XC have formally submitted a business case to take on the 6 off lease Ex Avanti WC 221s and also the 2 currently with GC once they are released. On the basis there isn't a business case for new trains currently and they could all be slotted into the current refurb programme. At least if this is rejected we know who is responsible!

https://www.modernrailways.com/article/crosscountry-makes-case-extra-221s?check_logged_in=1

As much as I'd break out the champers the second I saw a gas axe approach a Voyager, another 8 would be a lot of help. It is a shame ScotRail need the 222s, as much as I think 22x are a bit rubbish if they got all of them the overcrowding problem would at least be resolved.

 

[YorkshireBear]

As much as I'd break out the champers the second I saw a gas axe approach a Voyager, another 8 would be a lot of help. It is a shame ScotRail need the 222s, as much as I think 22x are a bit rubbish if they got all of them the overcrowding problem would at least be resolved.

Absolutely. If new trains aren't a prospect then a refurb and an additional 8 five cars is certainly next down on my list of wishes for them!

 

[Trainbike46]

There is an article in Modern Railways Online saying XC have formally submitted a business case to take on the 6 off lease Ex Avanti WC 221s and also the 2 currently with GC once they are released. On the basis there isn't a business case for new trains currently and they could all be slotted into the current refurb programme. At least if this is rejected we know who is responsible!

https://www.modernrailways.com/article/crosscountry-makes-case-extra-221s?check_logged_in=1

That's great news - I hope it gets approved. It is the only realistic way to add capacity in the short term, as new trains (which I do believe is the ideal solution) would take time.