Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[321362]

I may have said this already, but IMO the solution is cutting all of the useless parts of XC. Does Plymouth really need an Edinburgh service or would 1tph to Birmingham suffice?

- Does anywhere north of Edinburgh actually need XC - would more LNER or fast ScotRail services be better instead?

- Could Bournemouth instead have, say, 1tph to Moor Street calling at Brockenhurst, So'ton Central, Airport, Winchester, Basingstoke, Reading, Oxford, Banbury, Leamington and Moor Street - there's little demand from Southampton/Bournemouth going north of Birmingham and those people (majority for Manchester) can change at Birmingham or in London.

- TfW could take over Cardiff-Birmingham (also probably serving Moor St rather than New St) as XC seem unable of running a reliable service on that line west of Birmingham.

- Give Stansted-Peterborough to Greater Anglia, send the Stansted-Birmingham passengers via Tottenham Hale or via Peterborough (via Tottenham Hale tends to be faster than the direct XC a fair bit of the time)

- Manchester-Birmingham should never have been XC in the first place, WMT or Avanti can have it and run more than 4 car trains.

XC's core market is Bristol-Birmingham-Derby-northern ECML. They should focus on that rather than trying to run to everywhere and ending up running to nowhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

- Manchester-Birmingham should never have been XC in the first place, WMT or Avanti can have it and run more than 4 car trains.

XC's core market is Bristol-Birmingham-Derby-northern ECML. They should focus on that rather than trying to run to everywhere and ending up running to nowhere.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Manchester-Bournemouth (if anyone wants that) may be better via London, but Manchester-Bristol is part of the core XC offering and should remain.

I suggest above swappine one WMT with one XC between Liverpool and Manchester. You could give Liverpool the Bournemouth at 5 car, and make the WMT service 12 car by bringing a few 350/2s back into the fleet.

 

[Zomboid]

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.

Seems pretty good to me actually, though Birmingham to Liverpool is also fully electrified. Bournemouth to Liverpool would give a good variety of WCML connections via Stafford and Crewe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seems pretty good to me actually, though Birmingham to Liverpool is also fully electrified.

It is but it's more about capacity. Liverpool-Brum demand seems fine at 5 car (5.730 seems perfect for it, though admittedly 730s are much more efficiently laid out than Voyagers). A 12 car once an hour from Manchester to Brum would soak up passengers, and people could be priced onto it from the XC. And it wouldn't require any extra paths because you're just swapping an existing service, while extra units could be found easily by bringing a few 350/2s back into use and swapping the seats to a 2+2 layout.

 

[NCT]

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

On the contrary, once the railway becomes pseudo civil service there's much less freedom in how you talk about your political masters.

 

[The Ham]

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.

Three 10% you quoted was the upgraded in capacity from the original 800 like fleet to the upgraded 800 like fleet, vs the existing the changes to the usable fleet seating (90% unit utilisation of existing fleet and 85% unit utilisation of any of the upgrades would be:

10.0% for the stored units (do minimum)
35.3% for the original 5/9 fleet option
49.9% for the upgraded 5/9 fleet option
60.1% for the universal 7 coach fleet
119.5% for all trains being 5+5 or 9 coaches fleet

Doing the same but with the stored units in use:

23.0% for the original 5/9 fleet option
36.2% for the upgraded fleet
45.1% for the universal 7 coach fleet
99.5% for all trains being 5+5 or 9 coaches fleet

As such, it's gong to be a big ask to justify getting the universal 7 coach fleet option, especially given that GWR was only getting 18% when they moved to their fleet and the baseline option for the 5/9 fleet would be more than 1/3rd in extra capacity.

Although, I have said that there should most definitely be an option to allow a future order to move to a full 7 coach fleet if passenger numbers hit certain targets once the original order is delivered.

Although, the one factor which could come into play is would 7 coaches count as full length for track access charges, if not that could be a significant factor in favour of keeping a mixed length fleet.

For the same extra 32 coaches we could deliver (as an upgrade to a built fleet of the upgraded 5/9 option) would be:
364 - upgraded mixed 5/9 class 800 similar fleet (27×9 and 25x5)
In service that could be:
23 x 9 coach sets
21 x 5 coach sets

That's better than every other service.

That's enough that in any hour you'd probably be able to see Birmingham Reading with 1 train with 9 coaches and the other with 5, likewise Birmingham to Bristol.

For example for Birmingham to Reading would see the Manchester service being 9 coaches and the Newcastle service being 5 coaches in the even hours and the Manchester services being 5 coaches and the Newcastle being 9 coaches in the odd hours.

On the track access charges, assuming that the 7 coach sets don't count as full length the cost would be 280.46ppm for 2 services, whist a 9 coach and a 5 coach set would be 253.12 for two services.

For 5 million miles (and XC is likely to be double maybe even triple that) that's an extra £2,233,000 in track access charges. To put that into context that's 10 coaches equivalent of lease charges which would mean that the business case for the mixed fleet would be easier to justify whilst still giving the same hourly capacity in the core.

As I've said before, I'm not opposed to a universal 7 coach fleet, it's just it's likely a harder business case to get across the line than a mixed fleet.

 

[321362]

I'm sorry but that's nonsense. Manchester-Bournemouth (if anyone wants that) may be better via London, but Manchester-Bristol is part of the core XC offering and should remain.

I suggest above swappine one WMT with one XC between Liverpool and Manchester. You could give Liverpool the Bournemouth at 5 car, and make the WMT service 12 car by bringing a few 350/2s back into the fleet.

I do agree, Manchester to Bristol should remain, I didn't make that clear sorry. Specifically Manchester-Bournemouth could be split at Birmingham, and then something like Manchester-Bristol and Exeter-Edinburgh as the services in the southwest, although the latter runs into the same issues that if the line is blocked at Berwick, Exeter loses out on service.

If the connections could be timed well I'd almost suggest barely any XC through trains through New Street to avoid this issue, with timed connections between Exeters and Edinburghs etc, but that would take a lot more platform space at New Street even if you had them both on the same platform and you just have to walk down from zone A to zone B, and would also require more units.

I think the best solution is something along these lines (you'd probably have enough units to double some of these frequencies but this is the baseline)

1tph Exeter - Tiverton - Taunton - Temple Meads - Parkway - Cheltenham - New Street - Tamworth - Derby - Sheff - Wakefield - Leeds - York - Darlington - Durham - Newcastle - Alnmouth - Berwick - Dunbar - Edinburgh (timed connection at York with an LNER Edinburgh superfast)
1tph Bournemouth - Brock - So'ton Central - Airport - Winchester - Basingstoke - Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Leamington - Moor Street
1tph Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Leamington - Cov - Bhm Intl - New Street - Tamworth - Derby - Chesterfield - Sheffield - Donny - York (timed connection with a Newcastle TPE)
2tph New Street - Wilnecote - Tamworth - Burton - Willington- Peartree - Derby - Long Eaton - Beeston - Nottingham
1tph New Street - Water Orton - Coleshill Parkway - Nuneaton - Hinckley - Narborough - South Wigston - Leicester
1tph New Street - Coleshill Parkway - Nuneaton - Hinckley - Leicester - Melton Mowbray - Oakham - Stamford - Peterborough (timed connection with a GA to Stansted)
1tph Manchester - Stockport - Macclesfield - Stoke - Stafford - Wolves - Birmingham - Bromsgrove (?) - Worcestershire Parkway - Cheltenham - Bristol Parkway - Temple Meads

University loses out, I think it would slow down the Manchester-Bristol too much, but I'm never sure how necessary the calls there are on XC services anyway (the TfW would have to run via Stourbridge and terminate at Snow Hill I guess). Water Orton gets an actually useable service, as does Peartree which currently only has a few EMR per day and no XC.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are track access charges even significant post nationalisation? It will just be GBR paying itself.

It does explain why open access operators seem to love 5 car sets though. It's a bit perverse - operators should not be incentivised for wasting capacity on short trains!

 

[Harpo]

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.

Thats the general CAF, er, quality though, as we see with those wretched 197s. I’ve not seen anything that suggests their issues relate to non-compatible traction. If CAF had also supplied the CS traction, I really do wonder if things would have been better or much worse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anything I'm missing?

Yes, it doesn't include a Manchester-Bristol service!

I would say the non-negotiable long distance core (ignoring the 170 services which really should not be XC) is Manchester-Bristol and Plymouth-Edinburgh. You could argue for both of those just being 2tph with long trains, and the rest going to other regional operations, e.g. Moor St-Bournemouth by GWR as you suggest.

 

[The Ham]

Are track access charges even significant post nationalisation? It will just be GBR paying itself.

It does explain why open access operators seem to love 5 car sets though. It's a bit perverse - operators should not be incentivised for wasting capacity on short trains!

Whist it's GBR paying GBR, I suspect that there's an engineering reason why there's a difference in prices, and so whilst the part of GBR which runs the future XC services may not pay the part of GBR which maintains the track, the latter would have higher costs which our would have to pay.

 

[321362]

Yes, it doesn't include a Manchester-Bristol service!

I would say the non-negotiable long distance core (ignoring the 170 services which really should not be XC) is Manchester-Bristol and Plymouth-Edinburgh. You could argue for both of those just being 2tph with long trains, and the rest going to other regional operations, e.g. Moor St-Bournemouth by GWR as you suggest.

that... would be the one I missed out! have edited to fix, thanks

 

[Tetragon213]

- Manchester-Birmingham should never have been XC in the first place, WMT or Avanti can have it and run more than 4 car trains.

LNR was planning a "Destination Manchester" thing a while back, though when I asked LNR's social media, their representatives stated "[they were] still actively in meetings/discussions". Avanti has something along the lines of 1 or 2 services per day taking trains through New Street from Manchester.

I think that Birmingham-Manchester is actually a good source of untapped potential from LNR/AWC.

 

[daodao]

Converted 350/2s anyone?

They could just be put, without any need for conversion, directly onto XC's Manchester-Birmingham sector, to be operated by WMR/LNWR as 8-coach trains, to replace the Voyagers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

LNR was planning a "Destination Manchester" thing a while back, though when I asked LNR's social media, their representatives stated "[they were] still actively in meetings/discussions". Avanti has something along the lines of 1 or 2 services per day taking trains through New Street from Manchester.

I think that Birmingham-Manchester is actually a good source of untapped potential from LNR/AWC.

WMT Destination Manchester is the Birmingham-Stone-Stoke-Crewe stopper being redirected to Manchester Airport. It can only be 4 car due to the junction layout at Stone so it won't provide significant Manchester-Brum capacity, and wouldn't be desirable as such because of the extra change. It's a reasonable idea, but it isn't going to do anything for XC.

There was a second proposal to extend the WMT Crewe to Manchester Victoria but that's off now.

I don't think Avanti should be wasting units on Manchester-Birmingham (I think they operate one a day for route learning purposes though?), though a Euston-Birmingham-Manchester classic line service may be of benefit post HS2. Swapping a WMT for an XC with Liverpool and extending the WMT to 12 car using spare 350/2s is probably a sensible involvement of WMT in all this though - Manchester would need to keep the Bristol and get whichever WMT fits that path, while Liverpool would get the Bournemouth as a 5 car.

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

They could just be put, without any need for conversion, directly onto XC's Manchester-Birmingham sector, to be operated by WMR/LNWR as 8-coach trains, to replace the Voyagers.

3+2 is not really suitable for that sort of service. It is a commuter interior.

However there is a workaround - put 350/2s on the Brum-Stoke-Manchester Airport stopper when this starts which is required to be 4 car due to Stone's layout and cannot be longer, and will primarily be used for local passengers who are likely only carrying hand luggage (as is the trend for low cost air travel). The released 2+2 seated 350s can then be used to strengthen the Liverpools, swapping one of those to Manchester and sending an XC to Liverpool. This solution increases capacity, avoids the misuse of an interior designed for local use (and which lacks luggage capacity) on a middle distance service, and doesn't use any extra paths.

 

[stevieinselby]

I may have said this already, but IMO the solution is cutting all of the useless parts of XC. Does Plymouth really need an Edinburgh service or would 1tph to Birmingham suffice?

- Does anywhere north of Edinburgh actually need XC - would more LNER or fast ScotRail services be better instead?

- Could Bournemouth instead have, say, 1tph to Moor Street calling at Brockenhurst, So'ton Central, Airport, Winchester, Basingstoke, Reading, Oxford, Banbury, Leamington and Moor Street - there's little demand from Southampton/Bournemouth going north of Birmingham and those people (majority for Manchester) can change at Birmingham or in London.

- TfW could take over Cardiff-Birmingham (also probably serving Moor St rather than New St) as XC seem unable of running a reliable service on that line west of Birmingham.

- Give Stansted-Peterborough to Greater Anglia, send the Stansted-Birmingham passengers via Tottenham Hale or via Peterborough (via Tottenham Hale tends to be faster than the direct XC a fair bit of the time)

- Manchester-Birmingham should never have been XC in the first place, WMT or Avanti can have it and run more than 4 car trains.

XC's core market is Bristol-Birmingham-Derby-northern ECML. They should focus on that rather than trying to run to everywhere and ending up running to nowhere.

What services, or sections of services, are currently run by XC that don't need to be run at all?
The only sections I can see that could reasonably be lost are the three trains a day that run beyond Edinburgh (2 to Glasgow, 1 to Aberdeen), and the two trains a day that run beyond Plymouth to Penzance, where they make up a very small proportion of the overall route capacity.
Everything else still needs to be run, so what is the benefit of cutting long-distance services in half? It isn't as though there's a huge surfeit of spare trains sitting around that would magically become available and suitable just because a route was transferred from XC to another TOC. The only one of those links that could feasibly be switched out for other spare existing stock is Manchester to Birmingham if the 350s in storage can be completely refitted internally and brought back into service – but it is a core route between the country's 2nd and 3rd largest metropolitan areas that some people have an unhealthy obsession with downgrading to a suburban route and reducing the options for direct long-distance travel, and any gains from releasing additional capacity are likely to be offset by losing passengers who don't want to travel on a suburban service and then change at Birmingham (especially if the Bournemouth services are going to be relegated to Moor Street so they won't even be changing within New Street but going OSI).

I agree that it is not a great idea for XC to be running branches with just one or two trains a day, and that they should be concentrating on running a core service. But that core service unquestionably includes long-distance services running across Birmingham connecting the south coast to Manchester and Edinburgh, by way of lots of towns and cities in-between, in order to provide a large number of overlapping journeys.

 

[ChrisC]

I do agree, Manchester to Bristol should remain, I didn't make that clear sorry. Specifically Manchester-Bournemouth could be split at Birmingham, and then something like Manchester-Bristol and Exeter-Edinburgh as the services in the southwest, although the latter runs into the same issues that if the line is blocked at Berwick, Exeter loses out on service.

If the connections could be timed well I'd almost suggest barely any XC through trains through New Street to avoid this issue, with timed connections between Exeters and Edinburghs etc, but that would take a lot more platform space at New Street even if you had them both on the same platform and you just have to walk down from zone A to zone B, and would also require more units.

I think the best solution is something along these lines (you'd probably have enough units to double some of these frequencies but this is the baseline)

1tph Exeter - Tiverton - Taunton - Temple Meads - Parkway - Cheltenham - New Street - Tamworth - Derby - Sheff - Wakefield - Leeds - York - Darlington - Durham - Newcastle - Alnmouth - Berwick - Dunbar - Edinburgh (timed connection at York with an LNER Edinburgh superfast)
1tph Bournemouth - Brock - So'ton Central - Airport - Winchester - Basingstoke - Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Leamington - Moor Street
1tph Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Leamington - Cov - Bhm Intl - New Street - Tamworth - Derby - Chesterfield - Sheffield - Donny - York (timed connection with a Newcastle TPE)
2tph New Street - Wilnecote - Tamworth - Burton - Willington- Peartree - Derby - Long Eaton - Beeston - Nottingham
1tph New Street - Water Orton - Coleshill Parkway - Nuneaton - Hinckley - Narborough - South Wigston - Leicester
1tph New Street - Coleshill Parkway - Nuneaton - Hinckley - Leicester - Melton Mowbray - Oakham - Stamford - Peterborough (timed connection with a GA to Stansted)
1tph Manchester - Stockport - Macclesfield - Stoke - Stafford - Wolves - Birmingham - Bromsgrove (?) - Worcestershire Parkway - Cheltenham - Bristol Parkway - Temple Meads

University loses out, I think it would slow down the Manchester-Bristol too much, but I'm never sure how necessary the calls there are on XC services anyway (the TfW would have to run via Stourbridge and terminate at Snow Hill I guess). Water Orton gets an actually useable service, as does Peartree which currently only has a few EMR per day and no XC.

I agree with others that the NE-SW core route should be Edinburgh-Plymouth. Also I think the Chesterfield stop should remain as it is on Edinburgh-Plymouth train and not changed to a York-Reading.
A Chesterfield stop provides same platform connections from Nottingham to the North. Chesterfield station also has a very wide catchment area and is more convenient for many people than Sheffield and therefore should retain the through train serving the wider range of destinations.

Do all trains need to stop at Tamworth as Tamworth has 2tph on the Birmingham-Nottingham route. Perhaps just an additional 1tph the faster XC routes would be better so continuing to provide 1tph non stop between Derby and Birmingham..

The journey from Nottingham to Birmingham is already too slow including reversal at Derby. Adding all those extra stops on all trains between the two cities would make the journey time even longer.

There are just a few of my thoughts.

 

[321362]

I agree with others that the NE-SW core route should be Edinburgh-Plymouth. Also I think the Chesterfield stop should remain as it is on Edinburgh-Plymouth train and not changed to a York-Reading.
A Chesterfield stop provides same platform connections from Nottingham to the North. Chesterfield station also has a very wide catchment area and is more convenient for many people than Sheffield and therefore should retain the through train serving the wider range of destinations.

Do all trains need to stop at Tamworth as Tamworth has 2tph on the Birmingham-Nottingham route. Perhaps just an additional 1tph the faster XC routes would be better so continuing to provide 1tph non stop between Derby and Birmingham..

The journey from Nottingham to Birmingham is already too slow including reversal at Derby. Adding all those extra stops on all trains between the two cities would make the journey time even longer.

There are just a few of my thoughts.

What does serving Plymouth actually provide? Looking at the passenger flow numbers for Plymouth, the only station in the top 25 destinations which is only connected to Plymouth by XC is Birmingham New Street, with around 15,000 passengers per year. That's about 40 passengers a day travelling from Plymouth to anywhere north of Bristol (maybe 50 maximum as there's a few for Cheltenham etc).

Likewise, it's only around 10 passengers a day going north of Bristol from both Totnes and Newton Abbot. Even at the top end of that, 80-odd journeys per day doesn't really warrant 1tph between Exeter and Plymouth. That's like running a train just for 10 people who can just as well change at Exeter.

The services are well-used from Plymouth, but for very few actual through journeys. If it was a 5 car GWR IET running in its place, it would have the same passenger numbers.

 

[43096]

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.

ICE-L is locomotive hauled.

 

[Uncle Buck]

I was thinking that the locos could be built alongside the coaching stock, to form a holistic trainset. This would after all be a major order. Surely there are not enough tri-mode locos lying around?! Of course they would have to be able to be adapted for other purposes.

 

[Zomboid]

Would a loco hauled set be able to keep up with voyager timings? Probably could be fine on electric, but at 750hp per vehicle (I think?) they're very highly powered for diesel trains.

The same problem would affect any alternative stock, but I think a loco would find it especially challenging with probably only 4 traction motors to put the power down with.

 

[martin butler]

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......

Arnt there fast services calling at Temple meads to Plymouth and beyond ? why would they need to change twice ?

 

[Zomboid]

What does serving Plymouth actually provide? Looking at the passenger flow numbers for Plymouth, the only station in the top 25 destinations which is only connected to Plymouth by XC is Birmingham New Street, with around 15,000 passengers per year. That's about 40 passengers a day travelling from Plymouth to anywhere north of Bristol (maybe 50 maximum as there's a few for Cheltenham etc).

Likewise, it's only around 10 passengers a day going north of Bristol from both Totnes and Newton Abbot. Even at the top end of that, 80-odd journeys per day doesn't really warrant 1tph between Exeter and Plymouth. That's like running a train just for 10 people who can just as well change at Exeter.

The services are well-used from Plymouth, but for very few actual through journeys. If it was a 5 car GWR IET running in its place, it would have the same passenger numbers.

How many people on those trains are travelling Newton Abbot to Taunton etc? Would they all have to change at Exeter, or are you proposing that XC run Birmingham to Exeter and GWR add another train for Plymouth to Bristol?

 

[321362]

How many people on those trains are travelling Newton Abbot to Taunton etc? Would they all have to change at Exeter, or are you proposing that XC run Birmingham to Exeter and GWR add another train for Plymouth to Bristol?

Yes, GWR could take over XC's paths west of Exeter and also run extra Plymouth-Bristol stuff possibly continuing to Cardiff or Gloucester

 

[Tetragon213]

Going against the grain possibly, I personally think you could also trim the "top" off of XC's network.

Along the ECML, you already have LNER and TPE providing services onward to Edinburgh, as well as the non-stop Lumo services which could, if not for income shenanigans (which will probably go away with renationalisation), stop at Doncaster and York. I don't think it would be too great a loss to cut the XC service back from Edinburgh to York/Leeds/Newcastle/Doncaster. It would also open up more capacity ironically on the ECML, as the other operators would almost certainly be running trains with more seats.

 

[35B]

Going against the grain possibly, I personally think you could also trim the "top" off of XC's network.

Along the ECML, you already have LNER and TPE providing services onward to Edinburgh, as well as the non-stop Lumo services which could, if not for income shenanigans (which will probably go away with renationalisation), stop at Doncaster and York. I don't think it would be too great a loss to cut the XC service back from Edinburgh to York/Leeds/Newcastle/Doncaster. It would also open up more capacity ironically on the ECML, as the other operators would almost certainly be running trains with more seats.

I'd challenge that - the link across to the Midland is an important part of the value of XC, and removing the through service would undermine the value of the network to occasional travellers. I'd also question the "more seats" argument - the whole point of the recent ECML recast is to boost capacity on LNER. I also don't see DfT being at all keen on Lumo adding stops - or Lumo being that fussed given they're already running well laden.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Are track access charges even significant post nationalisation? It will just be GBR paying itself.

It does explain why open access operators seem to love 5 car sets though. It's a bit perverse - operators should not be incentivised for wasting capacity on short trains!

Track Access Charges really don’t come into it when deciding train length. Variable charges are relatively minor. It’s the rolling stock lease and maintenance costs, on a per vehicle basis, that matters.

You get 80x Hitachi sets in 5, 7 and 9 car sets so your business plan needs to hit the right formation to match the demand. In OA world you are usually working with higher average load factors than public sector operations and sometimes with higher yields as well, depending on the operation.

That cost of rolling stock is something the Treasury and DfT have always paid close attention to. The 221 saga is a case in point. They don’t want to pay for extra trains unless they have to and if they can park some up and avoid lease/maintenance costs, they really like that.

But I have to say the late Stuart Baker was someone who wasn’t on my favourites list but he would have seen to it that XC got the full fleet. He had a real fear of OA and always wanted to keep them away from secondhand rolling stock as well as getting franchises to fill up the network with trains, leaving no space for OA.

 

[stevieinselby]

Yes, GWR could take over XC's paths west of Exeter and also run extra Plymouth-Bristol stuff possibly continuing to Cardiff or Gloucester

Why? What would be the advantage of that?

Along the ECML, you already have LNER and TPE providing services onward to Edinburgh, as well as the non-stop Lumo services which could, if not for income shenanigans (which will probably go away with renationalisation), stop at Doncaster and York. I don't think it would be too great a loss to cut the XC service back from Edinburgh to York/Leeds/Newcastle/Doncaster. It would also open up more capacity ironically on the ECML, as the other operators would almost certainly be running trains with more seats.

Who is going to run more trains along the ECML? LNER can't run any more trains into London, and TPX can't run any more trains into Manchester – I can't see either of them being particularly interested in running a new service "short" service from Leeds/York to Edinburgh just to make up the shortfall from XC being cut – and the reduction or loss of through services between Sheffield/Leeds and Newcastle/Edinburgh would have a detrimental effect on ridership.

 

[Killingworth]

The strength and weakness of CrossCountry Trains is just that. It carries people from all over the country to all over the country. OK, it barely touches Wales and totally avoids Kent and East Anglia - but it's that south-east corner where it leaves no mark. London!

I note many posting in this thread either give no location or appear to live some distance from XC routes. How often do they use the routes? I make no secret that the NE-SW route passes within half a mile of my house and I catch their trains from Chesterfield going south or Sheffield if going north. (I once travelled between the two to catch up with a friend who was passing through.)

In my travels over many decades I've met a lot of people using these trains for many journey combinations. Many have made at least one change to use the XC service. Two examples come immediately to mind. Hull - Sheffield - Birmingham - somewhere in South Wales. Paignton - Newton Abbot - Glasgow - Oban then picked up by a relative to be driven for an hour to a cottage another hour or so away - in summer he'd have taken his boat! I've encountered many just travelling between Sheffield and Leeds and even shorter between Wakefield and Leeds. I've met commuters from Alnmouth into Newcastle and students from Durham going to Newcastle for a night out. Chinese tourists from York to Edinburgh. Me visiting an old friend in Cheltenham and him visiting old friends in Newcastle. A friend commuted almost daily from Sheffield to Birmingham.

All these and very many more journeys overlap. Throughout the XC threads voices want to cut out the extremities, to remove stops, send via London, suggest mid journey changes of trains and changes to routes.

My strongest observation is that since HSTs were stood down capacity and consequent comfort have gone badly backwards. We'd love to travel down to Devon, Cornwall and Penzance. The high fare is daunting but the memory of being bounced off one 5 car train into another 4 car at Derby going south then being bounced again on the way back from the rear 5 car unit into the 4 car sardine can leading unit has put us off using XC. We've used the car instead.

Get all the ex-Avanti units into service and offer an acceptable level of service on the present routes. See how passenger numbers start to recover. They will but it will take time for word to get round. For some of us it may be too late.

Don't knock all the overlapping long and short journeys. Together they help to justify the services for all of us.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I may have said this already, but IMO the solution is cutting all of the useless parts of XC. Does Plymouth really need an Edinburgh service or would 1tph to Birmingham suffice?

- Does anywhere north of Edinburgh actually need XC - would more LNER or fast ScotRail services be better instead?

The XC Edinburgh-Glasgow and Edinburgh-Aberdeen services should be operated by ScotRail. XC should not run beyond Edinburgh to Glasgow or Aberdeen.

- Could Bournemouth instead have, say, 1tph to Moor Street calling at Brockenhurst, So'ton Central, Airport, Winchester, Basingstoke, Reading, Oxford, Banbury, Leamington and Moor Street - there's little demand from Southampton/Bournemouth going north of Birmingham and those people (majority for Manchester) can change at Birmingham or in London.

This hourly XC service is Manchester Piccadilly - Stockport - Macclesfield - Stoke-on-Trent - Stafford - Wolverhampton - Birmingham New Street - Birmingham International (Airport) - Coventry - Leamington Spa - Banbury - Oxford - Reading - Basingstoke - Winchester - Southampton Airport Parkway - Southampton Central - Brockenhurst New Forest also for Lymington and the Isle of Wight - Bournemouth
so this needs to continue to run with this list of station calls for all these connections.

This hourly XC service connects Oxford and Reading, not just Southampton and Bournemouth, with Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester. It provides very useful connections from both North and South to Coventry and Birmingham Airport.

Rail passengers using these train services will not want to change at Birmingham New Street.

Birmingham New Street is a very busy station and may not have the platform capacity to split either the XC Manchester-Bournemouth or Manchester-Bristol service into two separate services at Birmingham New Street.

- Give Stansted-Peterborough to Greater Anglia, send the Stansted-Birmingham passengers via Tottenham Hale or via Peterborough (via Tottenham Hale tends to be faster than the direct XC a fair bit of the time)

No, XC Stansted-Birmingham also connects Peterborough and Cambridge with Leicester and Birmingham New Street plus several other stations including Stamford and Nuneaton.