What if CrossCountry could restore the services

[The Planner]

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?

Lumo are using spare capacity in what is effectively a firebreak path. Their paths are also rubbish as they have been shoehorned in. They are in a flight of 5 fast line paths going north with the last one being the LNWR which crosses at Ledburn. Its add risk into what is a planned parallel move.

How do you know the Voyagers are spare? The other pinch points are Crewe to Weaver and Edge Hill to Lime St.

 

[DarloRich]

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

Why? mainly because I don't use those routes! I want a seat on the trains I use

 

[Farnborough]

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.

Why does XC need to run a Bristol-Reading service, when GWR do plenty of these

 

[JamesT]

Why does XC need to run a Bristol-Reading service, when GWR do plenty of these

I expect @Topological means Bristol to Reading via Birmingham. Joining together the two services that current go to Manchester, because the Birmingham to Manchester part has been replaced by something else.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are enough unused Voyagers at Three Rivers for 2 services a day from the West Country to Liverpool.

There aren’t any ‘spare’ Voyagers, except for the 6 that are off lease (for now). If those are leased by Cross Country, there are far better uses for them than West Country to Liverpool. Especially goven that almost everyone on board would be already on a West Country to Manchester train.

 

[Topological]

I expect @Topological means Bristol to Reading via Birmingham. Joining together the two services that current go to Manchester, because the Birmingham to Manchester part has been replaced by something else.

Yes. Exactly. Just tying together the two bits that were chopped off when the Manchester was turned into an EMU.

I dont think anyone would use Cross Country end to end, but Cheltenham to Leamington, or Bristol to Coventry, might be useful journey pairs.

 

[Vexed]

Lumo are using spare capacity in what is effectively a firebreak path.

What's the point in the firebreak if NR will happily have something pathed through it?

 

[Bald Rick]

What's the point in the firebreak if NR will happily have something pathed through it?

Happily is doing a lot of work there!

 

[Vexed]

Happily is doing a lot of work there!

I'm not surprised!

 

[WTT Gremlin]

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?

Through having paths which in part resemble a Class 4 freight with a 'sprint' ability.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Mar 2026 ==

Happily is doing a lot of work there!

What's the point in the firebreak if NR will happily have something pathed through it?

Not sure I'd be happy if I was 'happily' being used like that.

 

[Energy]

Why? mainly because I don't use those routes! I want a seat on the trains I use

Yep. Whenever people on XC threads prioritise one [of Plymouth - Edinburgh, Bournemouth - Manchester, or Bristol - Manchester] over the other two routes, it's usually because it's the one they use. Though Newcastle - Reading is certainly a little quieter than the others.

All of those routes are well used & well designed, and the solution for XC is rolling stock with more capacity. Adding short extensions is convenient but can worsen route reliability.

 

[deltic08]

There aren’t any ‘spare’ Voyagers, except for the 6 that are off lease (for now). If those are leased by Cross Country, there are far better uses for them than West Country to Liverpool. Especially goven that almost everyone on board would be already on a West Country to Manchester train.

That is what I meant. Out and back twice a day would only need 2 Voyagers still leaving 4 spare.

 

[nw1]

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.

What happens to Bournemouth-Birmingham in that scenario?

Granted the quality of the service is poor but someone presumably needs to operate it as there have been through links on this corridor since time immemorial.

Are you thinking a new SWR Bournemouth-Reading through service then GWR Paddington-Reading-Oxford-Birmingham, with a change at Reading necessary?

Or say GWR taking over this route in its entirety, buying more IETs, and operating it with the same IET pool it uses for its other routes?

 

[TheGrew]

I think a consistent hourly Gatwick extension from Reading would be well used. No idea how easy it would be to path or if there are enough units. But I think it would give a lot of people an attractive route to the UK's second airport.

 

[Topological]

I think a consistent hourly Gatwick extension from Reading would be well used. No idea how easy it would be to path or if there are enough units. But I think it would give a lot of people an attractive route to the UK's second airport.

Would it not be better for GWR to extend their service first? It is not seen as practical to use longer units on Reading to Gatwick, so that would suggest that there is no real market.

For those of us coming in from GWR land, Paddington -> Elizabeth Line -> Farringdon and then Thameslink to Gatwick works very well. That would cover Oxford passengers in terms of the CrossCountry. Birmingham and Coventry would be quicker via London on Avanti.

 

[Farnborough]

I think a consistent hourly Gatwick extension from Reading would be well used. No idea how easy it would be to path or if there are enough units. But I think it would give a lot of people an attractive route to the UK's second airport.

The majority of stations between Reading and Gatwick can (barely!) accommodate a 3-car 165 - a Voyager would be overkill.

Or are you suggesting Reading-Guildford-Gatwick only?

The locals would prefer the existing stopping service is improved, especially wrt reliability!

 

[Bayum]

Probably asked by many others - why? The timetable is actually at a point where it can cope with the number of services and we have rolling stock used (mostly) effectively to provide the capacity required. If it were me, I would be considering reinstating services within its own intercity network, e.g. Leeds to Reading and Bournemouth instead of changing at Derby/New Street.

The commuter network though could do with a big increase in rolling stock and capacity. Focus on what you have.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think a consistent hourly Gatwick extension from Reading would be well used. No idea how easy it would be to path or if there are enough units. But I think it would give a lot of people an attractive route to the UK's second airport.

If it was that useful, then why did XC chose to extend alternate services beyond Reading to Southampton a few years ago? But you‘re right though, it wouldn’t be easy to path, which is exactly why extensions to Gatwick and Brighton were binned in about 2007.

 

[The exile]

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

The logical home for Reading - Birmingham if not with an XC-type operation is with what is currently GWR. Possibly combined with the Oxford fasts so as not to take up any more paths into Paddington. Hourly 9-car IETs or equivalents should resolve capacity issues - though there would be a loss of capacity /frequency between Oxford and Reading that might need addressing.

 

[Topological]

The logical home for Reading - Birmingham if not with an XC-type operation is with what is currently GWR. Possibly combined with the Oxford fasts so as not to take up any more paths into Paddington. Hourly 9-car IETs or equivalents should resolve capacity issues - though there would be a loss of capacity /frequency between Oxford and Reading that might need addressing.

That would be nice, though would need more IETs? I suppose that once the 175s start there may be more IETs around. You would also only have 1tph Oxford to Birmingham versus the nominal 2 now.

That does leave the Bristol - Birmingham stub service to do something with (presuming the EMU on Manchesters).

I proposed that there was still a Reading to NE CrossCountry. That could remain alongside an hourly GWR. Then you are only losing 1tph between Oxford and Reading. Of course, my Bristol to Reading via Birmingham did not create any loss between Oxford and Reading.

However it gets spun, if the GC 820s are a success then they should be ordered en masse for CrossCountry.

 

[The exile]

That does leave the Bristol - Birmingham stub service to do something with (presuming the EMU on Manchesters).

With EMUs doing the Manchester kegs and Reading - Birmingham with “GWR” (the second hourly service could be simply Birmingham - Reading), you’re left with a NE-SW service - no dilemma over what to do with the Birmingham - SW axis at all. However - much easier to start a replacement of Voyagers with bi-modes and leave things more as they are.

 

[Snow1964]

XC are at 95.5% of their pre covid passenger numbers
Per ORR data Oct-Dec 2019 10.76m passengers, Oct-Dec 2025 is 10.28m

But train Km nowhere near 95.5% of 2019 levels
Per ORR data Oct-Dec 2025 is 6.4m km, only 77% of Oct-Dec 2019 figure.

Ok, they have lost a few HSTs in 6 years, but gained similar number of voyager carriages instead, so fleet is almost same size.

So unless XC have lost 23% of their workforce and timetables have had fundamental recast losing 23% of the train paths available to XC in 2019. Becomes difficult to explain to a layman why they cannot just return to pre-pandemic service levels

 

[NCT]

Isn't the May 2026 timetable a significant step towards restoring the pre Covid timetable?

 

[Stephen42]

XC are at 95.5% of their pre covid passenger numbers
Per ORR data Oct-Dec 2019 10.76m passengers, Oct-Dec 2025 is 10.28m

But train Km nowhere near 95.5% of 2019 levels
Per ORR data Oct-Dec 2025 is 6.4m km, only 77% of Oct-Dec 2019 figure.

Ok, they have lost a few HSTs in 6 years, but gained similar number of voyager carriages instead, so fleet is almost same size.

So unless XC have lost 23% of their workforce and timetables have had fundamental recast losing 23% of the train paths available to XC in 2019. Becomes difficult to explain to a layman why they cannot just return to pre-pandemic service levels

XC passenger km is 90% for the same period and increase in split ticketing will overstate passenger number recovery.

The 77% is only services which ran. With 10% cancellations across that period the intended timetable would be roughly 85%. Engineering works will cause some fluctuations even when the permanent timetable is the same. On the flip side until last year there was a drop in staff numbers, most operators have seen higher rates of absence/lower overtime uptake and doubled up voyagers might require more staff than the HSTs did.

Isn't the May 2026 timetable a significant step towards restoring the pre Covid timetable?

It's a step towards. The timetable running now has more services than the timetable the stats above mostly cover. May 2026 adds a few more services on top. In terms of crude weekday passenger service numbers May 2026 is about half way between 2019 and May 2025.

 

[43074]

What's the point in the firebreak if NR will happily have something pathed through it?

NR don't really have a choice though - if there's white space on the graph then an operator can bid to use it. And if NR don't like it they will be taken to the cleaners at a dispute.

But there hasn't really been a test case of firebreaks in a dispute situation as of yet as they have mostly concerned new entrants to the industry, rather than an existing operator using a spare path which exists in the timetable

 

[The Planner]

NR don't really have a choice though - if there's white space on the graph then an operator can bid to use it. And if NR don't like it they will be taken to the cleaners at a dispute.

But there hasn't really been a test case of firebreaks in a dispute situation as of yet as they have mostly concerned new entrants to the industry, rather than an existing operator using a spare path which exists in the timetable

They only get taken to the cleaners if there isn't evidence to say performance nose dives.

 

[43074]

They only get taken to the cleaners if there isn't evidence to say performance nose dives.

Indeed

 

[WTT Gremlin]

Some Timetable Planning Rules documents detail specific capacity constraints.

Whether 'extra' paths (or calls within paths) are included in a WTT is also significantly influenced by what if any rights are held, (and where they sit in the priority for inclusion from the Network Code).

 

[The Planner]

Some Timetable Planning Rules documents detail specific capacity constraints.

Whether 'extra' paths (or calls within paths) are included in a WTT is also significantly influenced by what if any rights are held, (and where they sit in the priority for inclusion from the Network Code).

A lot of those are historic and quite random.

 

[Harlequinuk]

Why not use mk4 coaches and loco haul for a service? Might give the 93s something do ; Sussex Scot? Dorset Scot? Liverpool to Dover direct? All avoiding London and no changing?