What if CrossCountry could restore the services

[James Kevill]

If the new CrossCountry franchise by the government begins, it could restore the services when the franchise was previously operated by Virgin Trains years ago, before it was taken over by Arriva.

Services to Swindon, Liverpool Lime Street, Blackpool North, Portsmouth, Brighton, Poole, Swansea, and London Paddington were ceased from the operations in 2003.

CrossCountry could operate the West Coast services to Liverpool Lime Street, Preston, Blackpool North, Lancaster, Carlisle and Glasgow Central only, as the services between Plymouth to Scotland could terminate at Edinburgh Waverley.

CrossCountry could operate London and Southern services to London Paddington, Poole, Guildford, Portsmouth & Southsea, Portsmouth Harbour and Brighton via Gatwick Airport.

It could also even operate the South Wales services to Swansea and could make Cardiff Central an hourly service so the passengers could go to South Wales from West Midlands, East Midlands Yorkshire, North East England and Scotland regularly.

Birmingham New Street to Swindon could also be restored, when Virgin Trains previously operates the services.

CrossCountry could bring back the Bournemouth to Edinburgh Waverley services, and the Plymouth to Scotland services could terminate at Edinburgh Waverley and LNER and ScotRail InterCity Express services could take over CrossCountry services between Edinburgh Waverley to Dundee and Aberdeen services/

Passengers will have to change over at Edinburgh Waverley to get to Glasgow Central, Dundee and Aberdeen from the destinations like South West, Birmingham, Derby, Yorkshire and North East England.

 

[JamesT]

Franchise services were ultimately specified by the government anyway, especially so since Covid and the management contracts. The direction of travel has clearly been for more consistent services across the core, not extensions here there and everywhere. Why do you think a change of nameplate to GBR changes anything?

 

[The Planner]

Where is all the stock and capacity coming from to run these? The vast majority of these outliers were only two or three services a day. People don't want random services, they want continuity.

 

[swt_passenger]

What is the point in restarting this discussion yet again?

But have you already forgotten your 2024 suggestions on the same topic:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/crosscountry-new-franchise-in-2027.266057/#post-6724488

and the 2020 version:

Ideas for the new CrossCountry franchise

I was thinking about ideas for the future CrossCountry franchise such as new trains, new routes and extension of the existing services. Any ideas for this new franchise which is due to start in 18th October this year? (If the franchise is delayed or cancelled)

www.railforums.co.uk

All the factors that led to the 2003 reductions, and then the 2007 rationalised standard pattern haven’t disappeared. I expect the ill-fated Princess timetable would still be impossible to run if tried again.

 

[Bevan Price]

Is it a franchise ? Or more like a contract to operate existing XC services until (if) new GBR becomes a reality .

 

[D365]

What is the point in restarting this discussion yet again?

But have you already forgotten your 2024 suggestions on the same topic:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/crosscountry-new-franchise-in-2027.266057/#post-6724488

and the 2020 version:

Ideas for the new CrossCountry franchise

I was thinking about ideas for the future CrossCountry franchise such as new trains, new routes and extension of the existing services. Any ideas for this new franchise which is due to start in 18th October this year? (If the franchise is delayed or cancelled)

www.railforums.co.uk

All the factors that led to the 2003 reductions, and then the 2007 rationalised standard pattern haven’t disappeared. I expect the ill-fated Princess timetable would still be impossible to run if tried again.

Many thanks for providing the previous links. As you rightly state, nothing has changed to enable ’historical’ CrossCountry services to be restored.

 

[465fan]

Can we just have all the old destinations restarted (Swindon, Poole, Portsmouth, Brighton, Ramsgate, Newquay, Cardiff, you name it) all guaranteed at least one direct service each day to Liverpool, Manchester, Aberdeen, Hull and somewhere else? Screw the timetable implications, let's make it so someone who travels once every 12 months can get a direct train, at the expense of clockface connections and regular customers.

 

[dk1]

Where is all the stock and capacity coming from to run these? The vast majority of these outliers were only two or three services a day. People don't want random services, they want continuity.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[James Kevill]

I know that CrossCountry already operates from Birmingham New Street to Manchester Piccadilly line, and from Edinburgh Waverley to Glasgow Central line, but what if it could apply more new West Coast Main Line services if granted a permission from DfT. Since CrossCountry already operates the services of Bournemouth and Bristol Temple Meads to Manchester Piccadilly, It could operate new services of Bournemouth and Bristol Temple Meads to Liverpool Lime Street, Preston, Blackpool North, Lancaster, Carlisle, and Glasgow Central via Birmingham New Street and Crewe. Class 221 Super Voyagers would then regain the tilt mechanism to allow them to tilt over the curved lines like they used to operate by Virgin Trains West Coast and Avanti West Coast. CrossCountry currently operates the services to Glasgow Central via Leeds and Edinburgh Waverley could be rerouted to Glasgow Queen Street via Kalkirk High, and Glasgow Central could be the West Coast Main Line only.

 

[Topological]

The Birmingham to Scotland via WCML is now run with 9 or 11-car pendolinos. Any switch to voyagers would be a massive downgrade.

Birmingham to Liverpool is now every half hour with much more capacity than a 221 could offer.

It is not clear what bringing CrossCountry back to the WCML would achieve. The loss of capacity would be huge for both the WCML routes and the other CrossCountry journeys that would no longer be double units.

Arguably it is the Manchester - Birmingham that needs to stop being CrossCountry rather than the other way around.

 

[AlterEgo]

I know that CrossCountry already operates from Birmingham New Street to Manchester Piccadilly line, and from Edinburgh Waverley to Glasgow Central line, but what if it could apply more new West Coast Main Line services if granted a permission from DfT. Since CrossCountry already operates the services of Bournemouth and Bristol Temple Meads to Manchester Piccadilly, It could operate new services of Bournemouth and Bristol Temple Meads to Liverpool Lime Street, Preston, Blackpool North, Lancaster, Carlisle, and Glasgow Central via Birmingham New Street and Crewe. Class 221 Super Voyagers would then regain the tilt mechanism to allow them to tilt over the curved lines like they used to operate by Virgin Trains West Coast and Avanti West Coast. CrossCountry currently operates the services to Glasgow Central via Leeds and Edinburgh Waverley could be rerouted to Glasgow Queen Street via Kalkirk High, and Glasgow Central could be the West Coast Main Line only.

Why would any of this be a good idea, and what purpose does it serve?

 

[The Planner]

I know that CrossCountry already operates from Birmingham New Street to Manchester Piccadilly line, and from Edinburgh Waverley to Glasgow Central line, but what if it could apply more new West Coast Main Line services if granted a permission from DfT. Since CrossCountry already operates the services of Bournemouth and Bristol Temple Meads to Manchester Piccadilly, It could operate new services of Bournemouth and Bristol Temple Meads to Liverpool Lime Street, Preston, Blackpool North, Lancaster, Carlisle, and Glasgow Central via Birmingham New Street and Crewe. Class 221 Super Voyagers would then regain the tilt mechanism to allow them to tilt over the curved lines like they used to operate by Virgin Trains West Coast and Avanti West Coast. CrossCountry currently operates the services to Glasgow Central via Leeds and Edinburgh Waverley could be rerouted to Glasgow Queen Street via Kalkirk High, and Glasgow Central could be the West Coast Main Line only.

Where are all the trains coming from, as well as the capacity?

 

[Acathater]

I know that CrossCountry already operates from Birmingham New Street to Manchester Piccadilly line, and from Edinburgh Waverley to Glasgow Central line, but what if it could apply more new West Coast Main Line services if granted a permission from DfT. Since CrossCountry already operates the services of Bournemouth and Bristol Temple Meads to Manchester Piccadilly, It could operate new services of Bournemouth and Bristol Temple Meads to Liverpool Lime Street, Preston, Blackpool North, Lancaster, Carlisle, and Glasgow Central via Birmingham New Street and Crewe. Class 221 Super Voyagers would then regain the tilt mechanism to allow them to tilt over the curved lines like they used to operate by Virgin Trains West Coast and Avanti West Coast. CrossCountry currently operates the services to Glasgow Central via Leeds and Edinburgh Waverley could be rerouted to Glasgow Queen Street via Kalkirk High, and Glasgow Central could be the West Coast Main Line only.

To an extent this reverts things to how they were pre-Virgin with a few Glasgow-West Country services via Birmingham.
You could create space to revert back by splitting/rerouting some of the Euston-Birmingham-Scotland services, clearing paths north of Birmingham. The problem is stock - you'd need a fleet of hybrid electric / diesel sets. Running the 221 under the wires would be a retrograde step

 

[The Planner]

To an extent this reverts things to how they were pre-Virgin with a few Glasgow-West Country services via Birmingham.
You could create space to revert back by splitting/rerouting some of the Euston-Birmingham-Scotland services, clearing paths north of Birmingham. The problem is stock - you'd need a fleet of hybrid electric / diesel sets. Running the 221 under the wires would be a retrograde step

Why would you reroute the Euston Birmingham Scotland, that needs a new path on the WCML and more units as you would still need the 3tph Birmingham service. Same goes for splitting, and that doesn't release a path.

 

[Djgr]

I think that most people wish that all Cross Country services could be taken AWAY from them.

 

[cle]

Euston - Brum - Scotland is so efficient, in terms of capacity. It feels like another London train, and fits a lot of folks. Very helpful for the interim journeys too.

Birmingham-Liverpool at 2tph / 8 car is also better than anything random in history going to Paddington or Poole twice a day. If it could get to International or even Coventry / Northampton for one, might enable some other things to speed up.

Manchester should arguably be similar. Once HS2 is done, after Stafford, I would send them via Crewe. And have Curzon St - Stone route - Manchester services in addition. Might need some reallocation at Stockport.

Problem is that the Manchesters go on to Bristol and Reading. The other argument is that Reading-Manchester is 2tph, and Bristol-Sheffield... is 2tph.

 

[swt_passenger]

The NW routes were basically transferred to the WCML operator, LM and TPE nearly twenty years ago. @James Kevill - you really need to give up your repeated campaigning, it’s a complete waste of time. As numerous previous discussions have considered, XC can hardly provide the capacity necessary to meet their existing routes.

 

[Cach17]

Not only do you seem to have made multiple similar threads before, you appear to have made no attempt whatsoever to engage with the replies in said threads.

Also, XC and all other TOCs will be part of GBR by the end of next year anyway.

 

[deltic08]

Why would any of this be a good idea, and what purpose does it serve?

West Country-Bristol-Birmingham-Glasgow via the West Coast even without tilt would be much quicker to Glasgow than via York and Edinburgh and serve Warrington and/or Wigan then Preston, Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith Carlisle and Glasgow.

Where is all the stock and capacity coming from to run these? The vast majority of these outliers were only two or three services a day. People don't want random services, they want continuity.

That is the fly in the ointment.
Cross Country should try a West Country-Birmingham-Liverpool service and see what the loadings are. Say, twice a day.

 

[AlterEgo]

Cross Country should try a West Country-Birmingham-Liverpool service and see what the loadings are. Say, twice a day.

Where's the stock and paths coming from?

 

[DarloRich]

ARGH! XC need to make the services they currently run be actually tolerable before they add extra crayon based destinations to the timetable.

They should CUT the network to the NE/SW corridor and dump the rest.

 

[duffield]

ARGH! XC need to make the services they currently run be actually tolerable before they add extra crayon based destinations to the timetable.

They should CUT the network to the NE/SW corridor and dump the rest.

I presume by "dump the rest" you mean "hand over to other operators"? A few years ago I would have agreed (e.g. split Nottingham to Cardiff, Nottingham to Birmingham to go to EMR and Birmingham to Cardiff to TfW).

But now it all seems pointless given that XC will cease to exist and become part of GBR next year, and some sort of major restructuring (Large regions? Intercity? who knows?) is supposed to follow. Any changes surely need to be done as part of the GBR restructure, not on a piecemeal basis before the shape of that restructure is know.

 

[DarloRich]

Any changes surely need to be done as part of the GBR restructure, not on a piecemeal basis before the shape of that restructure is know.

agreed - I meant dump the rest into a different "service group" or whatever we call them in the future world. Surely the focus has to be on making the current core timetable work and make the journey experience at least tolerable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd certainly say that the Class 170 services should be put into other regional operators. They are and always have been a poor fit. Doesn't overly matter which of TfW, EMR or WMT each bit goes into really, it'll all be GBR by then, just pick the one that has the most appropriate fleet to work alongside the 170s. Probably EMR.

I don't think I'd just have it as NE-SW though. I think Manchester-Bristol is quite important as an intercity service, and I'm not sure what you'd do with Reading-Birmingham though I suppose it could go to GWR or WMT? You could perhaps reduce it to NE-SW plus Manchester-Bristol though.

 

[Topological]

The challenge is always that Manchester to Birmingham is entirely under the wires and could be run with stock that is presently unused.

IF there is a half-hourly service on Birmingham - Bristol with double voyagers (staffed and in use) then the connection at New Street is not a major sacrifice. The problem is that it is a big IF there.

I am also unsure what you do with Birmingham - Reading as that seems like it needs to be CrossCountry too.

Note that all of this is ignoring the huge elephant of New Street capacity that is firmly in the room.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The challenge is always that Manchester to Birmingham is entirely under the wires and could be run with stock that is presently unused.

This is true, but if we accept the premise that Voyagers need replacement as they are old, unpleasant and highly polluting* and they increase train crew costs due to most trains being formed of two of them, replacing them with bi-modes solves that problem. Yes, you could run Manchester-Brum with 350/2s, but to an extent that's just finding something to do with 350/2s (when what should have been done with them is keeping them on the south WCML - a poor value lease is the only thing that stopped that happening).

I suppose what you could do is reform them into 8 car sets and scrap a load of end coaches (for spares), and use them exclusively on NE-SW, curtailing that to Newcastle at the north end, and they'd operate on almost entirely unelectrified routes. But other issues such as the inefficient interior layout would persist unless you want lots of seats by blank walls. And New St would still stink, though I suppose a stop start feature and larger aux batteries could be added to allow them to be shut down while there.

* If services terminated at New St this would be even worse than now when they mostly don't. Go there in the evening when services do terminate there and taste the air - it's thick.

 

[Topological]

I would solve the termination issue by trying to get an hourly pattern of:

Plymouth* - Edinburgh*
Bristol - Reading
Bournemouth* - Newcastle*

The Bristol-Reading is essentially just linking two routes but would need some play in the paths. Short journeys either side mean that actually as an end to end the units are not being asked to do too much. Plymouth-Edinburgh is the normal hourly NE-SW that exists now, with the * denoting that the destination/origin pairs do vary a bit through the day. Bournemouth*-Newcastle* also exists, but I would look into whether it actually needs to go so far or could become Southamption - York.

That then leaves you with the half-hourly EMU on the Manchesters

Of course, if you had replacement bi-modes then the whole disucssion would be different. Splitting Manchester is really just a last resort to free voyagers for the other routes.

 

[Snow1964]

There is some merit in the debate, but not along the lines of should XC restore services. Instead it should be more a rethink of where should longer services be serving on common corridors.

As example : Taunton-Exeter-Newton Abbot (some trains to London, some to Cardiff, some to North East or East Scotland etc). What exactly is the market being served, or is it just a scattergun of routings for operational convenience.

Example 2 : Manchester-Birmingham, another mad mix, why do trains end at Manchester and not continue (even if they reverse) to other cities on Transpennine Route, why is TPE and XC duplicating each other York-Newcastle.

Example 3 : Why is XC operating Cardiff-Nottingham when it is more a Midlands regional service. And as Cardiff is a through station why don't trains continue to Swansea rather than have separate Cardiff-Swansea services. Even though the wiring stops at Cardiff it's GWR that continues through so needs bi-modes rather than electric trains. (and it's not like there is a surplus of bi-modes) but there is a surplus of electric trains (even more if include future HS2 fleet)

The point I am making is the current XC network doesn't really make sense, it terminates at points lost to history. It doesn't serve some modern holiday nodes (eg Gatwick airport), but at same time serves smaller Stansted airport instead. It ignores some big regional (non-London) flows, and sometimes acts like it is more focused on West Midlands outer suburban, than long distance operator.

So there is a strong case for looking at journeys, unfreezing the early 1990s operator split and transferring some routes between operators to restore some sort of network, rather than disjointed system.

 

[JonathanH]

Why is XC operating Cardiff-Nottingham when it is more a Midlands regional service.

Why not? Why does some rose-tinted idea of the fact that CrossCountry should only operate mammoth long distance services persist despite the fact that it hasn't operated like that for nearly 25 years? It means that CrossCountry operates all services on the Cheltenham to Derby axis, consistent with how Greater Anglia operates all services on the Liverpool Street to Ipswich axis.

And as Cardiff is a through station why don't trains continue to Swansea rather than have separate Cardiff-Swansea services.

Aren't the stand alone Cardiff to Swansea services the stopping services on that corridor, and ones that go further into West Wales?

Swansea could in theory have alternate services to Manchester and Nottingham but that would involve 'English' trains operating further into Wales.

The point I am making is the current XC network doesn't really make sense, it terminates at points lost to history. It doesn't serve some modern holiday nodes (eg Gatwick airport), but at same time serves smaller Stansted airport instead.

Reading to Gatwick Airport with a 70mph limit and long signal headway isn't the stuff of a long distance operator any more than some of the regional routes people suggest that CrossCountry shouldn't be operating.

 

[deltic08]

Where's the stock and paths coming from?

There are enough unused Voyagers at Three Rivers for 2 services a day from the West Country to Liverpool. As far as I can see, the pinch point for paths is between Kings Norton and Stafford but again only 2 trains a day. How have Lumo found 5 daily paths along the West Coast main line?

ARGH! XC need to make the services they currently run be actually tolerable before they add extra crayon based destinations to the timetable.

They should CUT the network to the NE/SW corridor and dump the rest.

Why? XC and BR predecessor has never been just NE-SW. Why penalise passengers because XC are so incompetent?

I'd certainly say that the Class 170 services should be put into other regional operators. They are and always have been a poor fit. Doesn't overly matter which of TfW, EMR or WMT each bit goes into really, it'll all be GBR by then, just pick the one that has the most appropriate fleet to work alongside the 170s. Probably EMR.

I don't think I'd just have it as NE-SW though. I think Manchester-Bristol is quite important as an intercity service, and I'm not sure what you'd do with Reading-Birmingham though I suppose it could go to GWR or WMT? You could perhaps reduce it to NE-SW plus Manchester-Bristol though.

Why keep Manchester-Bristol because it is well used? Other XC routes are just as busy. I used a XC service from Birmingham to Southampton 5 car set and had to stand as far as Reading. It was already full and standing arriving at Birmingham.

This is true, but if we accept the premise that Voyagers need replacement as they are old, unpleasant and highly polluting* and they increase train crew costs due to most trains being formed of two of them, replacing them with bi-modes solves that problem. Yes, you could run Manchester-Brum with 350/2s, but to an extent that's just finding something to do with 350/2s (when what should have been done with them is keeping them on the south WCML - a poor value lease is the only thing that stopped that happening).

I suppose what you could do is reform them into 8 car sets and scrap a load of end coaches (for spares), and use them exclusively on NE-SW, curtailing that to Newcastle at the north end, and they'd operate on almost entirely unelectrified routes. But other issues such as the inefficient interior layout would persist unless you want lots of seats by blank walls.

I agree.

I would solve the termination issue by trying to get an hourly pattern of:

Plymouth* - Edinburgh*
Bristol - Reading
Bournemouth* - Newcastle*

The Bristol-Reading is essentially just linking two routes but would need some play in the paths. Short journeys either side mean that actually as an end to end the units are not being asked to do too much. Plymouth-Edinburgh is the normal hourly NE-SW that exists now, with the * denoting that the destination/origin pairs do vary a bit through the day. Bournemouth*-Newcastle* also exists, but I would look into whether it actually needs to go so far or could become Southamption - York.

That then leaves you with the half-hourly EMU on the Manchesters

Of course, if you had replacement bi-modes then the whole disucssion would be different. Splitting Manchester is really just a last resort to free voyagers for the other routes.

Why Bristol-Reading?
Bristol, Gloucester, Cheltenham, Worcester and Birmingham have their own direst services to Reading. This just takes up valuable paths and would not fill between Bristol and Birmingham just diluting filling other Bristol-Birmingham services.