Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[irish_rail]

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hiring in a few loco hauled and DVT units from Chiltern when their mk 5s take over, to replace some of the 221 units withdrawn for extending the units, at the same time curtailing some routes, where other operators can pick up the slack, for example, Beyond Bristol people traveling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,

So a passenger travelling from the north to Plymouth will have to change onto a stopper at Bristol that takes an hour just to get to Taunton, before having to wait for a connection onto a no doubt full ex London train to complete the journey. Your asking people travelling to Plymouth to change twice after Bristol and add over an hour onto their journey. No thanks......

 

[The Ham]

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.

Adding the 6 sets to the fleet could allow this allocation to the 44 diagrams
11 trains 5+4
11 trains of 4+4
22 trains of 5

Ideally the 5+4 would be the configuration for the core and several of the single unit diagrams would be beyond the core and swapping a 4 coach set with another 5 coach set at station near the edge of the core.

That compares with the current fleet which could allow:
6 trains of 5+4
12 trains of 4+4
26 trains of 5

Of course what might be more useful would be to create a fleet of:
12 sets of 7 coaches - 221's
2 sets of 5 coaches - 221's
62 sets of 4 coaches - mix of 220's and 221's

A 7 coach set and a 4+4 train would be broadly equal in terms of capacity.

That could allow:
10 sets of 7
21 sets of 4+4
13 sets of 4

With just 13 sets being without a pair, it should be possible to pair sets through the core.

Yes, it's not ideal that capacity beyond the core might reduce a little, and some services might reduce in capacity vs having a 5+4 or 5+5 train, however with (maybe) every train in the core as 4+4 or 7 coach trains of should be much easier to know what's going to turn up.

The 7 coach sets also reduce the risk of a unit being locked out of use and allows a better balancing of passengers along the train vs a train or two sets.

 

[brad465]

Adding the 6 sets to the fleet could allow this allocation to the 44 diagrams
11 trains 5+4
11 trains of 4+4
22 trains of 5

Ideally the 5+4 would be the configuration for the core and several of the single unit diagrams would be beyond the core and swapping a 4 coach set with another 5 coach set at station near the edge of the core.

That compares with the current fleet which could allow:
6 trains of 5+4
12 trains of 4+4
26 trains of 5

Of course what might be more useful would be to create a fleet of:
12 sets of 7 coaches - 221's
2 sets of 5 coaches - 221's
62 sets of 4 coaches - mix of 220's and 221's

A 7 coach set and a 4+4 train would be broadly equal in terms of capacity.

That could allow:
10 sets of 7
21 sets of 4+4
13 sets of 4

With just 13 sets being without a pair, it should be possible to pair sets through the core.

Yes, it's not ideal that capacity beyond the core might reduce a little, and some services might reduce in capacity vs having a 5+4 or 5+5 train, however with (maybe) every train in the core as 4+4 or 7 coach trains of should be much easier to know what's going to turn up.

The 7 coach sets also reduce the risk of a unit being locked out of use and allows a better balancing of passengers along the train vs a train or two sets.

Something else I'd like to see in terms of capacity increase is a higher frequency on certain routes. Bristol-Exeter for example could do with being half-hourly, which even if only a single 5-car, would be a capacity uplift. Likewise a regular half-hourly Reading-Birmingham, rather than some hours being 1tph only in a given direction, especially given the limited number of double sets on this route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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

Which are needed. It isn't just the overcrowding there now, it is suppressed demand too. And 10x26 will mostly be overkill.

 

[London Trains]

Which are needed. It isn't just the overcrowding there now, it is suppressed demand too. And 10x26 will mostly be overkill.

I don't agree that a full fleet of new, fixed formation 9 or 10 x 26m units for XC would be overkill, there is so much suppressed demand that I highly suspect such units would end up paying for themselves through all of the additional revenue - sadly there is no way of actually quantifying this without it actually happening though, so the DaFT won't do it.

 

[Manutd1999]

Worth remembering that the Voyagers are currently going through a refit. It would be highly inefficient to bin them for a new fleet straight after, and options for cascading are limited now Scotrail is taking the 222s.

Taking all spare 221s seems like a better compromise, preferably quickly before an open-access operator gets them.

Then make whatever timetable and staffing adjustments are necessary to ensure everything along the Manchester/Newcastle to Bristol/Reading core can run as doubled-up sets, with no units locked out of use. Units could then split/join as necessary for extensions beyond Newcastle/Reading/Bristol, and some extensions could be cut back to 1p2h (or less...) if needed to save diagrams.

It's not the ideal solution, but it's a reasonable compromise IMO.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Worth remembering that the Voyagers are currently going through a refit. It would be highly inefficient to bin them for a new fleet straight after, and options for cascading are limited now Scotrail is taking the 222s.

Taking all spare 221s seems like a better compromise, preferably quickly before an open-access operator gets them.

Then make whatever timetable and staffing adjustments are necessary to ensure everything along the Manchester/Newcastle to Bristol/Reading core can run as doubled-up sets, with no units locked out of use. Units could then split/join as necessary for extensions beyond Newcastle/Reading/Bristol, and some extensions could be cut back to 1p2h (or less...) if needed to save diagrams.

It's not the ideal solution, but it's a reasonable compromise IMO.

I agree for now.

Cross country have publicly said they've made the case to DfT/government so if it is blocked then it's entirely them. The rail industry needs to be very clear if it is rejected, the government would rather have spare trains sat in sidings than in service.

 

[The Ham]

I don't agree that a full fleet of new, fixed formation 9 or 10 x 26m units for XC would be overkill, there is so much suppressed demand that I highly suspect such units would end up paying for themselves through all of the additional revenue - sadly there is no way of actually quantifying this without it actually happening though, so the DaFT won't do it.

The thing is to deliver a universal 7 coach fleet would require more coaches, and so would be the more expensive option, the whole point of the mixed 5/9 coach fleet was that it was a similar sized fleet in terms of coaches:
312 - current fleet
342 - current fleet plus the 6 in storage
304 - mixed 5/9 class 800 similar fleet (12×9 and 40x5)
332 - upgraded mixed 5/9 class 800 similar fleet (19×9 and 33x5)
364 - universal 7 coach class 800 similar fleet

Even with the 221's in storage (342 coaches) a universal 7 coach fleet (364 coaches) requires more coaches.

The upgraded 5/9 coach fleet could deliver (with 85% fleet occupancy) 16 of the 44 diagrams as 9 coach sets (roughly 1 in 3).

Yes they maybe carrying around a lot of fresh air, however if the lease cost is the same per coach (and bearing in mind a bimodal train would be cheaper to run and the staff costs, due to there being no second unit to have extra staff in, would also be lower) the cost is no higher than the current fleet plus the 6 units in storage if that gets sign-off.

Likewise, the cheapest Passenger Variable Usage for a class 220/221 is 20.23pmp, so 101.15pmp for a 5 coach unit whilst the class 800's (and they have lower charges for the full length units vs the short length units and differences between motor and trailer coaches) are 100.67ppm.

Such a small reducing may sound like splitting hairs, however with a sightly smaller number of coaches in the fleet there would be a measurable level of savings, especially once you start taking of millions of miles per year (each diagram wouldonly need to average 320 miles for the fleet to be doing 5 million miles and so even at that level of a difference of 0.48ppm is £24,000 a year) now whilst tiny in termsof the costs of the railway (£24,000 is likely 1/9th the cost of the lease of 1 coach) it's still a saving. Although it's worth noting that the 221's have a higher charge and so the savings are likely to be more than this.

It's also worth noting that a 9 coach set would cost 152.51ppm and so whilst higher than a 5 coach set, only by around 50% and so compared to running a 5+5 train the cost savings over that same 5 million miles distance would be:
£7,625,500 - 9 coach train
£10,067,000 - 5+5 coach train

At £2,441,500 in savings, if we assume that the lease costs are £200,000 per coach then that's 12 coaches of the fleet paid for.

Even if the actual milage for the 8 coach sets was 2.5 million miles that on its own could allow the new fleet to be 2% more expensive per coach and still cost less in lease charges than the current fleet.

Therefore, any extra passenger revenue would go to reducing the subsidy, and I suspect that there would be a reasonable number of extra passengers.

Worth remembering that the Voyagers are currently going through a refit. It would be highly inefficient to bin them for a new fleet straight after, and options for cascading are limited now Scotrail is taking the 222s.

Taking all spare 221s seems like a better compromise, preferably quickly before an open-access operator gets them.

Then make whatever timetable and staffing adjustments are necessary to ensure everything along the Manchester/Newcastle to Bristol/Reading core can run as doubled-up sets, with no units locked out of use. Units could then split/join as necessary for extensions beyond Newcastle/Reading/Bristol, and some extensions could be cut back to 1p2h (or less...) if needed to save diagrams.

It's not the ideal solution, but it's a reasonable compromise IMO.

It's likely to take a while for the new fleet to enter service, especially given the need to go out to tender, as such 2030 isn't an unreasonable timetable for the whole new fleet to be delivered (and the 22x's to go out of service).

However, the maths of the new fleet gets better if we've expanded the fleet with the 6 units in storage.

If lease costs are comparable per coach the in service fleet seat count could rise:
13,024 - current 22x fleet
14,331 - current 22x fleet + the spares
17,630 - original 5/9 coach option
19,528 - upgraded 5/9 coach option


Even between the two 5/9 coach options that's a 10% increase in capacity. I think that most people would take that as an upgrade.

However, even between the current fleet with the extra 6 units to the original 5/9 seat proposal the increase is 23%.

However, that increase in capacity could be delivered for a cost of no more than £0 in lease costs over the extra 6 units even with a 12.5% increase in lease costs per coach over the existing fleet.

Whist to be able to make the same "cost no more than £0" for the universal 7 coach fleet there would have to be a 6% reduction on the lease costs per coach (either in other savings and/or in the actual lease costs).

Whilst not entirely impossible it does make the 5/9 fleet the cheaper option whilst still delivering a decent uplift in capacity.

A 7 coach unit with 70 first class seats and 404 standard class seats (it's likely that first class would be 2/3rds of a coach rather than a full coach, both plus the end coach, so seating numbers might be a little higher) would be:
20,856 seats in service

Given the already significant increases in capacity between the existing fleet plus 6 units option and the original 5/9 mixed fleet (+23%) is a further 18% increase from the original 5/9 fleet and the universal 7 coach fleet likely to be justifiable?

Even if it might be, the extra 7.8% capacity over the upgraded 5/9 fleet option is likely to be too small to go that extra step for the extra cost.

As such whist the ideal would bethe universal fleet, I suspect that it's a bit of a step too far for the government to approve.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree for now.

Cross country have publicly said they've made the case to DfT/government so if it is blocked then it's entirely them. The rail industry needs to be very clear if it is rejected, the government would rather have spare trains sat in sidings than in service.

Given they're all going into public ownership anyway, there's no reason for them to be coy about it either.

 

[zwk500]

Given they're all going into public ownership anyway, there's no reason for them to be coy about it either.

Conversely, all the MDs are about to start reporting to the Minister they'd be blaming for the stock sat in sidings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even between the two 5/9 coach options that's a 10% increase in capacity. I think that most people would take that as an upgrade.

It won't be enough. My view would be that the suppressed demand is significant but not significant enough to fill 240m ish trains unless you price dump those ones. Hence the 7.

Unfortunately XC isn't London-peaky. A London TOC would be able to ensure those 9s did the weekday morning southbound, evening northbound and Sunday afternoon southbound services. XC won't be able to do that as its peaks are much more spread - it's just basically always busy. Hence the 7s.

While a zero-cost option would get rid of the nasty Voyagers, that isn't enough. The issue is a significant capacity one. It would be better to go for growth.

 

[ambi23]

My experience with Cross-country recently suggests that they might be short-forming services to save on fuel costs. Various people were complaining that their seats were taken by other travellers who also had seat reservations for the same seat over the Easter bank holiday which suggests they only ran a single train instead of two.

Personally I would have liked to have seen Voyagers replaced with 7 carriage IETs, at least for long journeys (Penzance to Edinburgh) and for journeys that travel mostly under wires. The hope would be that further electrification infills can be done gradally (Bristol TM to Parkway, closing the gap between Yate and Bromsgrove and Derby to Sheffield/Leeds and Leeds to York and possibly Bristol to Exeter) prioritising where different operators use IETs. Some voyagers being used to replace 170s that can be moved to more rural services (Northern, GWR in the south west etc).

Does anybody know if IETs have level boarding? There were some videos shared by disabled passengers who had bad experiences with boarding Cross-country trains at New Street recently.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does anybody know if IETs have level boarding?

No, unfortunately not. A fully level boarding 125mph bimode unit would be very hard to do unless it was done by way of being locomotive hauled (either an actual locomotive or a Stadler power pod arrangement which is basically a short locomotive).

Level boarding in one vehicle would probably be possible though, if you put the engines under the others. With an odd number of vehicles (as appears to be a requirement for the IET, though I know not why) the middle one probably makes most sense as regardless of orientation it will always be in the same platform location. The Class 810 does have the engine arrangement that would allow for that, i.e. the middle vehicle without.

 

[sprinterguy]

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.

163 mark 4 carriages and 12 DVTs (which contribute to the total of 314) have been scrapped as of the end of February this year, according to the 225 Group fleet list.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2026 ==

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.

I strongly suspect that there are more stored power cars than there would be coaches to form rakes of sufficient length. A lot of HST mark 3s have either been scrapped or exported.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The unreliability of Mk4s in TfW's usage with diesel locomotives would make this a bad idea anyway. Same with HSTs - ScotRail's are falling apart on a daily basis.

Short term: all remaining 220/221 units. Ideally also the Grand Central two if they could have those other 180s instead, but they'd have to agree that which they may not as 22x are at least reliable unlike 180s.

Long term: new with ideally level boarding and a big capacity increase (at LEAST 50% more seats, ideally more) as happened for TPE. Order now and in service in about 5 years.

These have to be the answer. You could keep the 22x and just add new on top, but then you'll need to do another order soon and you get all the downsides of a mixed fleet and the myriad of other problems with Voyagers.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Conversely, all the MDs are about to start reporting to the Minister they'd be blaming for the stock sat in sidings.

I would suggest not the MDs making a song and dance about it... But the rest of us. Letters to MPs etc.

 

[Zomboid]

I'd take a slightly different view to fleet replacement. Get a batch of pointy fronted 800-alikes for the services which need 125mph (basically those that go up towards the ECML), and a second batch of 5 car, 110mph dual voltage multi modes with corridor connections to run the other routes: Bournemouth/ Bristol to Manchester and the Cardiff/ Nottingham/ Stansted.

I don't think there's enough electrification to get away with just batteries on the Nottingham/ Stansted routes, but a common fleet doing those services along with the Manchesters would still offer significantly more capacity than the voyagers and 170s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd move the 170 services to the WMT business unit personally, and let them order a few more 196s (possibly including letting them keep the East West ones and using/ordering something else for that) so they could use 4 car 196s on those services, and move the 170s to a TOC that really needs them e.g. EMR would really benefit from being able to bin off 158s.

They are and always have been a very bad fit for XC.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Many posters on this site seem to like suggesting push-pull loco-hauled sets, and usually these are not appropriate for most operations. But would this be a good option for CrossCountry, if the locos were tri-mode?

Their network is unusually varied, with the Manchester to Bournemouth service, for example, operating on overhead electric, unelextrified and third rail electric. A loco that could work on all three without issue would be a great boon. They could use batteries as much as possible on unelextrified routes, with diesel to extend the range.

If they are push-pull sets then it may be possible to add and remove carriages as required. This would be suitable for an operator whose troubles so often stem from capacity shortages.

Is one of the reasons for the failure of the Nova 3 sets which didn’t work out at TPE that they were a “micro-fleet”? A larger fleet would avoid this situation.

This is not a whimsy- I understand why loco-hauled is inappropriate for many circumstances- but this strikes me as the one part of the network where it would be appropriate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the problems with actual LHCS is that because the loco and coaches are typically made by different companies and there are a lot of systems that interface these days (much more complex than just pulling or shoving the train and a two-pipe brake setup) you seem to get a lot of reliability issues.

That's not to say though that you can't, given that you will be building entirely new sets, build a power car type solution to allow the whole train to be low floor throughout, though. There's the Stadler pod option, or you could have traditional HST power car style setups at one or both ends with one large engine or multiple small ones per Stadler*. And if you do that you can have distributed traction which improves acceleration. France is of course fairly big on high speed trains with power cars so they can be low floor throughout. This might be a platform length issue if you were building maxed-out trains for London-centric services, but for XC it wouldn't really be an issue if you built loco plus 7x26 rather than just 7x26 as that isn't a maxed out length on any substantial part of their network, and on those bits that it didn't fit ASDO could be used.

* Stadler themselves offer that traditional option if clients wish to order it. It's being ordered for both the Irish De Dietrich replacements and for the Scandinavian units, and it's also possible to have non-articulated if you want - they'll even do you standard 26.4m RIC coaches if you want them! The "kit of parts" is very flexible, they will build literally whatever you want.

 

[Harpo]

One of the problems with actual LHCS is that because the loco and coaches are typically made by different companies and there are a lot of systems that interface these days (much more complex than just pulling or shoving the train and a two-pipe brake setup) you seem to get a lot of reliability issues.

Whats the source data for that assertion? Caledonian sleepers, for example, have operated with a huge variety of traction with no apparent reliability issues arising from it.

By comparison some fully-integrated single manufacturer multiple units seem to be faring far worse for reliability such as 197s, 222s, 175s, etc..

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whats the source data for that assertion? Caledonian sleepers, for example, have operated with a huge variety of traction with no apparent reliability issues arising from it.

I'd suggest reading the CS thread to see just how reliable (or not) the CS stock has been so far! Though to be fair it is CAF. The Mk5as (which are more comparable) have had loads of issues too, though Chiltern seem to be doing OK with them now.

 

[zwk500]

One of the problems with actual LHCS is that because the loco and coaches are typically made by different companies and there are a lot of systems that interface these days (much more complex than just pulling or shoving the train and a two-pipe brake setup) you seem to get a lot of reliability issues.

It would be possible, at least in theory, to specify a common interface (at least for critical functions) within each vehicles' management system as part of a NTSN or European TSI.

That's not to say though that you can't, given that you will be building entirely new sets, build a power car type solution to allow the whole train to be low floor throughout, though. There's the Stadler pod option, or you could have traditional HST power car style setups at one or both ends with one large engine or multiple small ones per Stadler. And if you do that you can have distributed traction which improves acceleration. France is of course fairly big on high speed trains with power cars so they can be low floor throughout.

Stadler offer both SMILE and FLIRT at 200kph or more, low-floor variants, for the Power Pack option. But Alstom Coradia are the platform for NS's ICNG Sets (200kph), with a floor height of 810mm (760mm platforms), and DB recently procured the ICE L from Talgo with 760mm floors (https://www.railwaygazette.com/pass...fleet-on-course-to-enter-traffic-in-december/) so there's no reason it even needs to have power cars/packs.

Of course the Dutch and German units have a more generous loading gauge to put stuff on the roof, so might be a premium for UK gauge options.

 

[321362]

and a second batch of 5 car, 110mph dual voltage multi modes with corridor connections to run the other routes: Bournemouth/ Bristol to Manchester and the Cardiff/ Nottingham/ Stansted.

Converted 350/2s anyone? (steal a few carriages from the 458s if they are being withdrawn to make 5 car sets)

 

[AndrewE]

Whats the source data for that assertion? Caledonian sleepers, for example, have operated with a huge variety of traction with no apparent reliability issues arising from it.

the thing conspicuously missing from CS is any attempt to use them for DVT/push-pull working. This seems to cause a step-change in difficulties...

 

[Zomboid]

Converted 350/2s anyone? (steal a few carriages from the 458s if they are being withdrawn to make 5 car sets)

I think you'd want something new if you want it to actually work...

 

[AndrewE]

I think you'd want something new if you want it to actually work...

it's a shame that recent experience doesn't bear that out! Ideally something simple, well run-in and de-bugged - and which hasn't been standing around in the cold and wet for too many months...

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be possible, at least in theory, to specify a common interface (at least for critical functions) within each vehicles' management system as part of a NTSN or European TSI.

It would, but as an IT professional I know full well that the standards are one thing and reality can very often be another when it comes to integrating two things built by different organisations even if technically to a standard.

Stadler offer both SMILE and FLIRT at 200kph or more, low-floor variants, for the Power Pack option. But Alstom Coradia are the platform for NS's ICNG Sets (200kph), with a floor height of 810mm (760mm platforms), and DB recently procured the ICE L from Talgo with 760mm floors (https://www.railwaygazette.com/pass...fleet-on-course-to-enter-traffic-in-december/) so there's no reason it even needs to have power cars/packs.

Of course the Dutch and German units have a more generous loading gauge to put stuff on the roof, so might be a premium for UK gauge options.

I believe stuff is indeed on the roof in these units. They are also EMUs, not bimodes (edit: ICE L is LHCS - really an IC - it's just that DB is diluting the ICE brand so they can charge higher fares on those services). You have to put the engines and batteries somewhere.

France also has some low floor DMUs with engines at roof level I believe. Just not practical for the UK - your choice is underfloor (in which case high floor in that vehicle*) or power car/locomotive designs of some sort, be that a Stadler pod, an actual loco or some sort of HST style hybrid. The advantage of the pod is that you can easily remove it if you later just want it to be an EMU. The theoretical advantage of LHCS (and part of the reason for TPE ordering Mk5s, though the main reason was that theoretically they were available quickly) is that you can remove a diesel or bimode locomotive and replace with an electric one.

* This is why I tend towards the idea of partial low floor, e.g. in Northern's fleet three car 24m units with larger engines in the driving coaches and a between-bogie drop in the middle coach with all wheelchair-user related stuff in there, or 4 car units with two such coaches.

 

[Trainbike46]

It would be possible, at least in theory, to specify a common interface (at least for critical functions) within each vehicles' management system as part of a NTSN or European TSI.

Stadler offer both SMILE and FLIRT at 200kph or more, low-floor variants, for the Power Pack option. But Alstom Coradia are the platform for NS's ICNG Sets (200kph), with a floor height of 810mm (760mm platforms), and DB recently procured the ICE L from Talgo with 760mm floors (https://www.railwaygazette.com/pass...fleet-on-course-to-enter-traffic-in-december/) so there's no reason it even needs to have power cars/packs.

Of course the Dutch and German units have a more generous loading gauge to put stuff on the roof, so might be a premium for UK gauge options.

NS ICNG is an EMU so doesn't have to worry about fitting diesel engines or battery packs like a unit for XC would. The ICE L is loco-hauled.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Converted 350/2s anyone? (steal a few carriages from the 458s if they are being withdrawn to make 5 car sets)

350/2s are an option in terms of separating out sections of route that are fully electrified (e.g. 8 or 12 car sets reseated to 2+2 doing Manchester-Birmingham with one of the two hourly services either binned off or redirected to Liverpool where demand is lower*). Converting EMUs to DMUs has been tried and not worked well in any case so that idea should probably be binned off now.

* Given that the Scousers seem to want an XC back, giving them one at 5-car and redirecting one of the WMT services to Manchester instead (and running that as a 12-car) really isn't a terrible idea, to be fair.