Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[martin butler]

That's simply not true. New build can be - and should be - ordered. Ideally with enhancements such as level boarding in one vehicle (large engines and level boarding in all vehicles is probably too hard to achieve), but aside from that 7-car tri-mode 80x are perfect.

It's been done for near enough every other TOC. It's inexcusable that it isn't for XC.

So then, why is it that there was no order then for XC ? when GW and the others were replacing their HST fleets?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So then, why is it that there was no order then for XC ? when GW and the others were replacing their HST fleets?

Because for some reason DfT won't open its wallet despite having done so for pretty much all other TOCs, including subsidy basket cases like Northern. It's as bizarre as it is wrong.

The fix is a new fleet of an appropriate size and length with a capacity uplift of at least 50% taking into account suppressed demand. Lots of us avoid XC and travel via London instead because XC is so grim. If XC was pleasant to use, people would return to it in droves.

TPE had exactly the same problem when it only had 185s and had new stock ordered to roughly double its capacity and (apart from commuter times which will always be an issue) isn't overcrowded any more. It's obvious.

 

[Harpo]

Because for some reason DfT won't open its wallet despite having done so for pretty much all other TOCs, including subsidy basket cases like Northern. It's as bizarre as it is wrong.

It’s not bizarre, just a function of DfT’s ability to get away with it because -
a) XC doesn’t serve London and
b) No MPs (bar one in Banbury!) are making any noise about XC.

 

[Tetragon213]

Even if the DafT didn't want to spend money on new stock, there's plenty of "stored" (and therefore extant) stuff that XC could use to alleviate the overcrowding in the short term. From quick peruse of Wikipedia...

6 x 5 coach Class 221s
4 x 5 coach Class 180s
5 x Class 67s with 9 x DVTs, and a considerable number of Mk4s
Plus a not-inconsiderable number of HST sets yet to find futures abroad.

All of which are capable of 125mph (theoretically), and could at least go some way into providing additional seats.

 

[Snow1964]

So then, why is it that there was no order then for XC ? when GW and the others were replacing their HST fleets?

ORR publishes data annually on average age of each operators fleet.
most recent is now 13 months out of date (uses 31 March 2025 data)

XC was near top of oldest fleet at 23.7 years at March 2025 (so now nearer 25 years)

Only operators that have average age older are :
Chiltern 32.0 years (but newish mk5s arriving since report date)
Scotrail 25.3 years (222s transferring in, confirmed recently)
Northern 24.9 years (no order placed yet)
South Western 24.2 years (701s replaced 455s since)
East Midlands 23.8 years (810s being phased in)

Because for some reason DfT won't open its wallet despite having done so for pretty much all other TOCs, including subsidy basket cases like Northern. It's as bizarre as it is wrong.

Strictly Northern hasn't yet confirmed any orders (although been plenty of talk, rumours, and keeping lawyers busy)

So now Northern and XC are with oldest fleets, but nothing tangible is actually happening to reduce this.

Passenger rolling stock age explained | Office of Rail and Road

What factors influence changes in the average age of rolling stock?

www.orr.gov.uk

 

[3RDGEN]

So then, why is it that there was no order then for XC ? when GW and the others were replacing their HST fleets?

The HST's were approaching 40 years old at the time replacement plans started, same goes for some Northern units now. The XC fleet is only 25 years old so has a minimum of 10 years left, there are plenty of exBR fleets to be replaced first before you get to the 22x ones. They are just starting the refurbishment program and Alstom got a maintenance contract to late 2031 so the fleet isn't going anywhere soon, ScotRail are taking the 222's to 2035 with an option to 2040 so that gives an indication of expected fleet life.

The remaining six/eight 221's should be the first step then there's the three sets on refurb which will return to the operational fleet in early 2028 which gets you some extra capacity. You could then look at a small new build multi-mode fleet, follow on orders of 810/897's for example, to operate the Manchester - Bournemouth route releasing units to strengthen the other routes. Then in early 2030's you start looking at full fleet replacement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The HST's were approaching 40 years old at the time replacement plans started, same goes for some Northern units now. The XC fleet is only 25 years old so has a minimum of 10 years left, there are plenty of exBR fleets to be replaced first before you get to the 22x ones.

We need to stop thinking about fixed numbers of years and deal with the fact that these units are utterly unfit for purpose in just about every way.

 

[Trainbike46]

We need to stop thinking about fixed numbers of years and deal with the fact that these units are utterly unfit for purpose in just about every way.

Exactly.

Bringing in the currently stored 221s to alleviate issues in the short term while the new fleet is constructed is probably a good idea, but the fact is that the 220/221s are very expensive operationally, very low capacity trains that really aren't worth keeping long-term. If it was up to me, I'd be planning to replace them at the next lease end date with new, high capacity, cheaper to operate units.

 

[quantinghome]

We need to stop thinking about fixed numbers of years and deal with the fact that these units are utterly unfit for purpose in just about every way.

Indeed. The Class 141s graced us with their presence for what, 13 years? LU's 1983 stock only lasted 14. The (super-)voyagers have about a quarter of a century on the clock now.

But we're facing the sunk cost fallacy - lots of money currently going into the refurbishment (which based on my experience of it last week I pronounce as "not bad, considering" - but I was in the less busy half of a 2x4 formation).

That said the Class 365s were refurbished after 20 years and scrapped a few years afterwards, so there's always hope. The fuel costs, have high lease costs and evident problems with doubled up operation must make XC a very expensive operation.

 

[Snow1964]

Exactly.

Bringing in the currently stored 221s to alleviate issues in the short term while the new fleet is constructed is probably a good idea, but the fact is that the 220/221s are very expensive operationally, very low capacity trains that really aren't worth keeping long-term. If it was up to me, I'd be planning to replace them at the next lease end date with new, high capacity, cheaper to operate units.

I would caveat that, and say, at very least if can't justify a whole new fleet, should have got some new trains, scrapped some 221 end cars (rather than refurbish them) and add the 221 middle cars to lengthen the 220s.

(if not using the tilt, scrap the ones with heavier tilt equipment, not the non-tilt vehicles)

Something like an 807 with diesel and battery and third rail for Bournemouth would be better than a voyager, although better still if it had some level boarding coaches

 

[brad465]

When do Hitachi currently run out of work? They have Lumo and Grand Central IET fleets at the moment under construction, but these are relatively small. I could see XC potentially being able to go to them for a fleet order when this work is done to try and keep Newton Aycliffe going (especially if the potential order approval is in 2028, with a general election nigh). Or if not Hitachi, maybe a different design that's built at Derby once the 345 add-ons are finished.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When do Hitachi currently run out of work? They have Lumo and Grand Central IET fleets at the moment under construction, but these are relatively small. I could see XC potentially being able to go to them for a fleet order when this work is done to try and keep Newton Aycliffe going. Or if not Hitachi, maybe a different design that's built at Derby once the 345 add-ons are finished.

Given the nature of XC an 8 car 730/2 but tri-mode would be perfect - the wide doors at quarters would be ideal for the short busy sections and the rest of the interior isn't really any worse than a Voyager, though you'd want a slightly lower seating density and proper 2+1 1st. But I don't think that product is offered sadly.

You could go to CAF for an 8 car 897 following on from the LNER order.

(I think if the vehicles are 24m rather than 26 then 8 car would be better - working on the basis that close to the Euro standard 200m is probably about the right length for non London IC services - I think it would be the right length for TPE post-upgrade too)

 

[Zomboid]

We need to stop thinking about fixed numbers of years and deal with the fact that these units are utterly unfit for purpose in just about every way.

I suspect that most on here would agree, but that's not necessarily how the treasury, DfT etc operate... There ought to be a case that low capacity, high operating cost trains are suppressing demand (and revenue), but that's not trivial to quantify.

Could you imagine the boom in open access applications if a load of voyagers were to become available?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could you imagine the boom in open access applications if a load of voyagers were to become available?

That the units might be used for OAOs isn't a reason not to fix XC. That's about the worst reason I've ever seen.

 

[Zomboid]

That the units might be used for OAOs isn't a reason not to fix XC. That's about the worst reason I've ever seen.

It was said in jest...

 

[Tester]

It was said in jest...

I can't see Open Access Operators touching Voyagers with the proverbial barge pole!

 

[Zomboid]

A lot of recent applications seem to be based on using the same limited batch of ex Avanti units.

Never mind. If you have to explain the joke it didn't work...

 

[zwk500]

We need to stop thinking about fixed numbers of years and deal with the fact that these units are utterly unfit for purpose in just about every way.

Unfortunately the leases will be for a fixed number of years. So while that can be changed, there's a cost attached to doing so.

The treasury are rather keen right now, even more so than usual, to avoid costs. However, the current lease deal ends in 2031 so if new stock is to be procured around then, the time for planning that is now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately the leases will be for a fixed number of years. So while that can be changed, there's a cost attached to doing so.

The treasury are rather keen right now, even more so than usual, to avoid costs. However, the current lease deal ends in 2031 so if new stock is to be procured around then, the time for planning that is now.

It usually takes 5 years or so to get a new fleet fully in service, so I'd agree, as 2031 is 5 years off it's time to start now.

 

[3RDGEN]

When do Hitachi currently run out of work? They have Lumo and Grand Central IET fleets at the moment under construction, but these are relatively small. I could see XC potentially being able to go to them for a fleet order when this work is done to try and keep Newton Aycliffe going (especially if the potential order approval is in 2028, with a general election nigh). Or if not Hitachi, maybe a different design that's built at Derby once the 345 add-ons are finished.

They have the HS2 joint venture contract with Alstom so plenty of work for them and there's the on going tenders for Southeastern, Northern and TPE ongoing.

 

[rapmastaj]

We need to stop thinking about fixed numbers of years and deal with the fact that these units are utterly unfit for purpose in just about every way.

Seconded.

CrossCountry desperately needs a political champion. This dire rolling stock situation would have been fixed long ago on any other TOC, but it remains at CrossCountry because (due to its inter-regional, non-London nature) nobody is putting their neck out to fight for improvements.

 

[martin butler]

I can't see XC getting any new stock before 2030, in the meantime, the best option will be to strengthen what they have, by up engine some sets and adding trailer vehicles from other stored stock, or stock thats going to be come spare units making the 4 car units into 6 car, possibly 7

On the routes that need the extra capacity, and possibly hiring in a few loco hauled and DVT units from Chiltern when their mk 5s take over, to replace some of the 221 units withdrawn for extending the units, at the same time curtailing some routes, where other operators can pick up the slack, for example, Beyond Bristol people traveling west can change to GWR, Basingstoke for Southampton etc,

 

[43096]

Even if the DafT didn't want to spend money on new stock, there's plenty of "stored" (and therefore extant) stuff that XC could use to alleviate the overcrowding in the short term. From quick peruse of Wikipedia...

6 x 5 coach Class 221s
4 x 5 coach Class 180s
5 x Class 67s with 9 x DVTs, and a considerable number of Mk4s
Plus a not-inconsiderable number of HST sets yet to find futures abroad.

All of which are capable of 125mph (theoretically), and could at least go some way into providing additional seats.

Where are these "considerable number of Mark 4s" that are available? Clue: there aren't any

What are these not-inconsiderable number of HST sets? There's probably enough trailers for around six 7-car sets.

 

[The Ham]

Unfortunately the leases will be for a fixed number of years. So while that can be changed, there's a cost attached to doing so.

The treasury are rather keen right now, even more so than usual, to avoid costs. However, the current lease deal ends in 2031 so if new stock is to be procured around then, the time for planning that is now.

Indeed, which is why looking at what a class 800 type fleet with 12 sets of 10 coaches and 40 sets of 5 coaches (which sits within the number of coaches already at XC but giving a 30% uplift in usable seats in the units in service at any time) would be a good thing to do.

Whist I can see the appeal of a 52 sets of 7 coaches, your also needing 13.8% more coaches than currently.

Especially as the latter could potentially be run using 3 diesel coaches and 1 battery coach to minimise the fuel burn.

 

[Kite159]

That's a big ask for batteries.
Off of a quick scan of openrailwaymap, you'd be looking at a lot of unelectrified track, much of which makes little sense to electrify in the first place.

Penzance - Stoke Gifford Jn (Bristol Parkway)
Extremely short section of electrified line
Yate Jn - Bromsgrove
Relatively short section of electrified line
Grand Jn - South Yorks. Jn

And even between Bromsgrove & Birmingham New Street, on the 4 track section between Longbridge & Kings Norton only the outer lines have wires

 

[Tetragon213]

Where are these "considerable number of Mark 4s" that are available? Clue: there aren't any

Looks like the Wikipedia article is out of date again. It lists out 314 units produced, 144 in service, and 19 scrapped. If more than 19 have been scrapped, or if more than 144 are in service, I'm happy to be corrected.

What are these not-inconsiderable number of HST sets? There's probably enough trailers for around six 7-car sets.

The HST fleet list indicates a whole load of power cars as "Stored" as opposed to "Scrapped", "Preserved", or "Exported". Again, if a lot more of the power cars are gone, happy to be corrected.

Even then, if we completely discount any locomotive-hauled stock and decide to let the Adelantes rot, that still leaves 6 Class 221s in storage which could be put to good use out there.

And even between Bromsgrove & Birmingham New Street, on the 4 track section between Longbridge & Kings Norton only the outer lines have wires

Indeed, and I suspect putting 4-tracking in would be an expensive and difficult-to-justify undertaking.

 

[43096]

Looks like the Wikipedia article is out of date again. It lists out 314 units produced, 144 in service, and 19 scrapped. If more than 19 have been scrapped, or if more than 144 are in service, I'm happy to be corrected.

Of the Mark 4 fleet (the 314 you quote includes DVTs, which have no passenger accommodation), 66 remain in service with LNER, 50 are with TfW, 2 are in "industrial use" as coupling translators at Worksop and the remaining 196 have been disposed of.

The HST fleet list indicates a whole load of power cars as "Stored" as opposed to "Scrapped", "Preserved", or "Exported". Again, if a lot more of the power cars are gone, happy to be corrected.

From the power car fleet you are realistically looking at a maximum of 11 power cars available.

Moral of the story: treat Wikipedia with extreme caution as a reliable source.

Even then, if we completely discount any locomotive-hauled stock and decide to let the Adelantes rot, that still leaves 6 Class 221s in storage which could be put to good use out there.

Given XC's ridiculous operating rules about needing a guard in both sets of a pair, adding additional sets to the fleet doesn't necessarily mean more capacity. It just seems to mean running with one set locked out of use much of the time.

 

[The Planner]

Indeed, and I suspect putting 4-tracking in would be an expensive and difficult-to-justify undertaking.

Happening under Midlands Rail Hub

 

[brad465]

I can't see XC getting any new stock before 2030, in the meantime, the best option will be to strengthen what they have, by up engine some sets and adding trailer vehicles from other stored stock, or stock thats going to be come spare units making the 4 car units into 6 car, possibly 7

On the routes that need the extra capacity, and possibly hiring in a few loco hauled and DVT units from Chiltern when their mk 5s take over, to replace some of the 221 units withdrawn for extending the units, at the same time curtailing some routes, where other operators can pick up the slack, for example, Beyond Bristol people traveling west can change to GWR, Basingstoke for Southampton etc,

The only obvious rolling stock increase will be the six 221s still in store, which XC have actively put a case out for taking on (still awaiting a DfT response). If any operators are able to offload their 170s in future I could see XC getting some of them, such as Scotrail and Northern (who are both pursuing BEMUs), however the issue here is 170s are often found at TOCs also possessing older Sprinters, which are much more likely to leave said TOCs first.

Seconded.

CrossCountry desperately needs a political champion. This dire rolling stock situation would have been fixed long ago on any other TOC, but it remains at CrossCountry because (due to its inter-regional, non-London nature) nobody is putting their neck out to fight for improvements.

This is the ultimate problem with not serving London; very few MPs and other big business reps use them compared to Intercity operators into London. Ideally the capital city would be in a completely different part of the country, similar to how several English-speaking countries separate their capital from their financial districts, but that's another debate entirely.

 

[jayah]

That level of tinkering isn't going to get you level of capacity you'd get from changing to a fleet of class 800 (or comparable).

If you had every 220 and 221 possible you'd have 352 coaches, the suggested 5/9 coach fleet would require 304 coaches.

Now tell me which one the Treasury would sign off on?

Even with the lease costs of the 800's being 15% higher the total cost would be lower (unit rate of 100 for each class 22x coach and 115 for each class 800 coach the total is 35,200 for the 22x's and 34,900 for the 800's).

That's before you factor in lower running costs, higher capacity (so scope to sell more tickets), lower staff costs (limited need for staff in a second unit, as there'll be far fewer pairs of units) and coach count for track access charges.

Putting it simply; it is quite likely it's going to cost more and generate less income to not have a new fleet of class 800 (or comparable) at XC if the option is more 22x units.

It may already be the case that ditching the current fleet isthe cheaper option (even with very limited passenger growth expectations).

If that's the case if we were to ask the person at the Treasury who was to sign this off, "what should we do?" How likely is it that they would opt to keep the existing if the new fleet was actually gong to be cheaper than doing nothing?

As I don't have access to the actual costs, I don't know if that's the case, however it's likely to be worth someone investigating.

At a GBR level of it was a class 800 train we could make it even cheaper.

For example if we lengthen 24 of the 36 class 800's at GWR and transfer 10 five coach sets to XC, then GWR have 12 diagrams of 9 coaches (rather that 12 of 10 coaches) and still have 14 sets with 5 coaches but 2 fewer coaches on lease.

Yes I know that 36-24=12 not 14, but as your only needing 4 coaches to extend to 9 coaches you can order 48 mid coaches for insertion to 12 units to create "full length" trains for GWR, that would normally require 24 units with 5 coaches, so that's 12 units which are now spare. However, with a saving of 1 coach per 9 coach train vs a 10 coach train GWR can retain 2 units of 5 coaches and their fleet would still be smaller than it was by 2 coaches.

It gets complex without prices to set a comparison against.

If we assume that GWR are paying 100 per coach and due to inflation that would be 120 per coach for the new coaches.

The total number of new coaches for the GWR upgrade and XC is 302.

GWR agree to pay 100 per coach for their fleet, only because they have 10 extra coaches that's an increase of 1,000, but they have more capacity without paying the 1,200 which they would otherwise have to pay.

The annual cost of the 302 coaches is 36,240, only 1,000 of that is already being paid by GWR, giving a cost per coach of 116.70.

Doing this and given the other cost savings, XC would likely need to see an around 10% uplift in passengers even with a 20% uplift in lease costs per coach for it to be cost neutral.

Obviously that assumes that GWR can make their extra sets pay, but with cost savingsfor running a 9 coach set over a 5+5 train they're likely to be able to make the maths work too.

I think the leasing costs for new vs 20yrs old are a lot more than 15% higher. The 26m Class 800 vehicles are almost 15% longer!

What this does show is what a massive waste of space the 220/221 layout is and how much capacity they should be gaining just by ripping everything out and starting again.