Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[Russel]

Presumably the DfT would have been free to bid for the 222 fleet when the lease with EMR was ending had they so wished. They didn't, Lumo and ScotRail did, so here we are. The DfT can't even get the off lease 221s to XC in a sensible timeframe.

And then accepting that the HSTs are cooked, if not the 222s, what would ScotRail have had as an option? New builds, presumably. Notwithstanding what they've done, that would probably actually be the best option - they don't actually need 125mph on the internal services, do they?

New builds should have been the choice 10 years ago when they decided on HST's which they knew were already on borrowed time.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I’m not an HST romantic, and I’m not denying that they’re near life expiry

They aren’t near life expiry, they are well beyond life expired!

 

[Krokodil]

The DfT can't even get the off lease 221s to XC in a sensible timeframe.

Quite. The second those units were off-lease from Avanti (the first pair in June 2022, the last in December 2024), they should have been straight into service with XC - stopping only for long enough to stick some new logos on. Instead while the DfT dithered, Grand Central pounced. Even now there are six units sat off-lease.

 

[The Ham]

The 8 car sets are irrelevant because a seven car Avanti-spec 80x has 26% more seats than an eight car Voyager in a far greater level of comfort, without the risk that the passengers all cram in to one unit and are unable to spread out into the other because there's no gangway. These 8 car sets roughly make up 10 unique diagrams today.

I find it odd that 7 coach sets which are required because they provide around double the capacity (+80% to +123%) of the currect 4 or 5 coach services and yet where there's already longer sets they have to make do with a 26% uplift in capacity (4+4 have 400 seats and so +26% means you're suggesting the 7 coaches sets have 504 seats, when previously you've said 452 seats, which is 13% - an easy mistake to make) on the 4+4 sets and hardly any uplift on the 4+5 sets.

It's worth noting that there's around 25 services which are run (at Birmingham) as 4 coach sets, and so trying to replace them with just 11 coach sets (7 of which are either spares or are needed for the 2 current* services which are 4+5 trains which split along their route)

* I say current, as with 2 extra units (those currently under refurbishment) and those stored units there's a good chance that the number of 4+5 services will increase.

In comparison the new 5 coach sets provide around 50% more capacity (+32.5% to 66%) whist the 9 coach sets would provide between 19.7% and 47%.

The point I'm making is that having such a high uplift of capacity by having so many 7 coach sets is likely to result in a scaling back of the order.

So two diagrams. To which my proposal would add a handful of seats on those two diagrams

Currently 2 diagrams, there's a good chance that the extra 2 units (currently being refurbished) and the 6 units in store would likely result in additional 4+5 coach sets.

Whilst those 8 that's likely to be 6 extra diagrams which couldbe n+n, and whist there's no certainty that these will be 4+5 coach sets, it's also possible that some may be.

Even if the 4+4 sets are 80% full (320 passengers) a new fleet is likely 5 years out from full delivery, and assuming once delivered a future order (not just the follow on option) isn't likely for 15 years (20 years in total) even at 3% growth year on year those 320 passengers become 578 passengers.

That's why there's likely a need for 9 coach sets rather than 7 coach sets. Again it's something which the DfT aren't likely to look favourable on if with modest growth the business case basically says "this works now, but we'll be back for more capacity within 10 years.

, 10 diagrams increase by 26% in capacity and 23 diagrams double in capacity because a seven car 80x replaces a single Voyager. The remaining 9 diagrams (which will be five car 80x replacing four car 220 on the likes of the Reading-Newcastles) increase in capacity by 50%. It spreads the extra capacity around the network, which is important because XC serves a complicated range of busy flows.

Your proposal increases the two already better-equipped diagrams by 33% and eight of the still reasonably-equipped diagrams by 50%. Great news if you happen to be on those particular services. However XC isn't the sort of compact network where it's easy to target longer trains at peak flows like the NSE operators do, it's a complex operation that sprawls across the country, with a mixture of commuter traffic (to multiple hubs), leisure and business travel. So for those not on those 10 trains, you have shortened two eight car 220s into a five car 80x, which if even if you use TPE's high density seating plan on offer represents a 16% cut in capacity on those two trains, or if you want your long distance passengers to actually enjoy their journey it's a 25% cut. Meanwhile the other 32 diagrams get either a 63% increase (for the handful which are replacing a solo 220) or 33% (for the majority replacing a 221).

How does having 19 sets of 9 coaches result in only 10 trains having extra capacity?

As if we're looking at the original proposal, which had 12 sets of 9 coaches, but then we'd be looking at a comparison 5/7 fleet of something like
26 × 7 coach sets
26 × 5 coach sets

To match the current 312 coaches (but again the original mixed 5/9 proposal was for 304 coaches).

If you've got a budget for 40-odd 9 coach sets plus a dozen fives then by all means I've no objections. What I'm objecting to is having a very unbalanced fleet where the capacity will often not be in the right place at the right time. However if - for the purposes of this discussion - you want to restrict vehicle numbers to the present fleet size then your proposal targets the capacity increase unevenly, generally adding further strengthening to services which were already doing OK, while not doing so much for the many services which are struggling. My proposal on the other hand spreads capacity evenly across the services which are struggling.

The idea is to get DfT sign off on this first phase with an option for further coaches as passenger numbers increase. For example, if XC hits 20% growth between now and 2031 then that would permit XC to then order a further 43 coaches, enough to build 3 new 9 coach units and lengthen 4 of the existing 5 coach sets.

That would give XC:
26 × 9 coach sets
3 trains to be able to run as 5+5
30 × 5 coach sets

We've still not overcome the issue that with the planned 41 sets of 7 coaches, that's a lot of longer maintenance roads being used by not full length sets. If XC get long maintenance roads on the hope of longer trains inthe future DfT are going to question it and could not permit the funding for that and so XC could be locked with a maximum of 7 coach sets or only using 5+5 trains (but needing more coaches on lease and more rolling stock storage).

If the Reading-Newcastles are busy enough then you would start by extending those to seven coaches to match the rest of the fleet. If not then you can leave them alone and extend the sevens to nines. Yes, you might (if the purse strings are tight) decide to only do half of the remaining fleet for the Manchesters and leave the NE/SW half alone (or vice versa). When Avanti has a mixed fleet of 5/7/9/11 car units (with variations in who signs what, which units can work where, and which units have to obey what speed restrictions) then I can't get too worked up about it in respect of a fleet that all drivers would sign and which can go anywhere on XC's network.

The difference with the Avanti fleet is that the 5 and 7 coaches (805's and 807's), 9 and 11 coach (390's) are fairly clear at to where they go.

It's also worth noting that in theory a 7 coach 807 (469 seats) could sub for a 9 coach 390 (489 seats) without it being much of an issue.

The issue isn't who can drive what, but where can what be maintained and stored where.

 

[Krokodil]

I find it odd that 7 coach sets which are required because they provide around double the capacity (+80% to +123%) of the currect 4 or 5 coach services and yet where there's already longer sets they have to make do with a 26% uplift in capacity

I don't know how I can simplify it for you. The trains which are already long do not need extra capacity as desperately as the shorter ones do. If you were to spend a day doing passenger counts of trains passing through Birmingham, you would find that the trains with many passengers in excess of capacity are the four/five car trains, not the eight/nine car trains. This is common sense. A blanket "increase each diagram by the same percentage" approach doesnt' target the capacity where it's needed. You need to up train lengths to a uniform minimum.

If I've read a few percentages upside down then that's just down to tiredness. The fact remains though that your "no fleet growth" proposal must involve shortening some trains which are currently run as eight car sets - 12 nine car sets (including maintenance) replacing 12 pairs of sets in service today (excluding maintenance, excluding units away for refurbishment). My "no fleet growth" proposal spreads the growth more evenly through the fleet.

We've still not overcome the issue that with the planned 41 sets of 7 coaches, that's a lot of longer maintenance roads being used by not full length sets. If XC get long maintenance roads on the hope of longer trains inthe future DfT are going to question it and could not permit the funding for that and so XC could be locked with a maximum of 7 coach sets or only using 5+5 trains (but needing more coaches on lease and more rolling stock storage).

Have you actually had a look at the current maintenance space available? The maintenance shed at Central Rivers is set up for 5x23m units. You're going to need a new shed whatever you do, unless it's 810s you're ordering. The stabling sidings are just over 360m long (each fits three Voyagers at present). 2x7x26m will fit snugly in them, being the exact same length as 5x26m+9x26m. If you order a mostly 5x26m fleet then you'll be unable to make the most efficient use of the space.

 

[AndrewE]

Let's leave re-forming voyagers, drafting in 222s and whether Scotland had any right to hire them, even new builds, aside for now as all these things are years in the future. XC needs capacity increases now, tomorrow if possible. Even who happens to own the different sets is irrelevant as Govt could lean on them to cooperate and alter the current contracts. The 350s could substitute for Voyagers on the Manchester legs of IC services as soon as there were drivers for them - and traction training a fully railway-aware driver already on the route must be the quickest fix. Maintenance of the Voyagers would be exactly the same (same units, same length, same place) and there are probably several depots where the extra EMUs could be looked after too.

(Re timetabling, I remembered a long dwell at Wolves on one of those trains and imagined that it was still the norm. (in fact e.g. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G01022/2026-07-09/detailed#allox_id=1 does have longer-than usual stops at Wolves, New St and Cov)

Given the need to release Voyagers for XC today it must be possible to find ways to tweak the timetables to allow easy interchange between the new north-end EMU service and the southern legs of the XC routes. Such a change need not be symmetrical, e.g. change at Wolves in one direction, Cov in the other, and need not even be cross-platform if the two trains ran through the same platform in quick succession.)

 

[NCT]

It’s the Manchester - Northampton day of the month again!

 

[AndrewE]

It’s the Manchester - Northampton day of the month again!

Have you got any other ideas? A dozen ready-to-run trains up your sleeve, perhaps? Remember these are needed now, XC is a disgrace, damaging rail's reputation and is suppressing demand.

 

[NCT]

Have you got any other ideas? A dozen ready-to-run trains up your sleeve, perhaps? Remember these are needed now, XC is a disgrace, damaging rail's reputation and is suppressing demand.

I’ve always been for Manchester - Northampton as EMUs. Maximising use of straight EMUs (the cheapest type of traction to operate); minimising diesel under the wires; simplifying the Cross Country timetable; releasing Voyagers to strengthen other sections. What’s not to like?

This always seems to trigger the usual suspects. Forcing passengers to change at New Street; too operationally led, they cry.

If people aren’t willing to sacrifice some sacred cows then they will just cement current mediocrity. They’ll continue parroting ‘spending other people’s money’ solutions and go to bed soundly having ‘won the argument’.

 

[Tetragon213]

I’m not an HST romantic, and I’m not denying that they’re near life expiry. But I’m taking a hard headed look at the gaps in supply of inter city trains. And that tells me that, looked at at a network level, there’s a good case for the 222s being prioritised to XC before both fleets are replaced.

Imo, the safety aspects of slightly out of date stock being pressed into service, are far outweighed by the safety aspects of x-hundred many people being priced out of rail and forced to use cars (which are literal orders of magnitude more deadly). Not to even mention the carbon emissions.

Also, if my train was going to crash, I'd rather be in a seat on an older train with space around me, than rammed like a sardine with my shoulders pressing into the vestibule panel. I reckon the risk of injury would be far higher in a so-called modern train if the pax are being treated like cattle, compared to a slightly older train where the pax are at least sitting down and the full effectiveness of the (albeit limited) safety features are brought into play.

 

[Snow1964]

Given the need to release Voyagers for XC today it must be possible to find ways to tweak the timetables to allow easy interchange between the new north-end EMU service and the southern legs of the XC routes. Such a change need not be symmetrical, e.g. change at Wolves in one direction, Cov in the other, and need not even be cross-platform if the two trains ran through the same platform in quick succession.)

Another way to look at it is on XC network map
(this one is roughly geographic, rather than a diagram)

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/sites/default/files/basic_page_docs/12058264_illustrated_route_map_q4_2023_a4_-1.pdf

Bits of network are electrified all over, with longest sections being Coventry-Manchester (via both Crewe and Stoke on Trent) and Doncaster/Leeds - York - Edinburgh - Glasgow.

I wonder if splitting the sections north of Doncaster or Leeds or York (with exception of Aberdeen trains) is better alternative, perhaps run that with pairs of 350s refurbished internally with 2+2 seats etc

If then look at the northern and Anglo-Scottish Express (TPE)

https://projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/TPE%20Geographical%20Route%20Map%20December%202023.jpg

It sort of becomes obvious have pointless overlaps between TPE and XC and neither is really optimised, with XC running diesels under the wires, and no route that runs throughout from north west to South West England.

So perhaps a better solution is to lease the spare 350s, refit internally for longer journeys, train crews, and regig the split of TPE and XC routes from December 2027 timetable (or as early as practical) once all part of DfTO / GBR

 

[AndrewE]

Another way to look at it is on XC network map
(this one is roughly geographic, rather than a diagram)

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/sites/default/files/basic_page_docs/12058264_illustrated_route_map_q4_2023_a4_-1.pdf

Bits of network are electrified all over, with longest sections being Coventry-Manchester (via both Crewe and Stoke on Trent) and Doncaster/Leeds - York - Edinburgh - Glasgow.

I wonder if splitting the sections north of Doncaster or Leeds or York (with exception of Aberdeen trains) is better alternative, perhaps run that with pairs of 350s refurbished internally with 2+2 seats etc

If then look at the northern and Anglo-Scottish Express (TPE)

https://projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/TPE%20Geographical%20Route%20Map%20December%202023.jpg

It sort of becomes obvious have pointless overlaps between TPE and XC and neither is really optimised, with XC running diesels under the wires, and no route that runs throughout from north west to South West England.

So perhaps a better solution is to lease the spare 350s, refit internally for longer journeys, train crews, and regig the split of TPE and XC routes from December 2027 timetable (or as early as practical) once all part of DfTO / GBR

That is a good idea, I hadn't really thought just how great a distance it was under the wires from Yorkshire to Edinburgh. (That must be why the journey seems to go on for ever!)

I wonder whether the 110 mph of the 350s will be too much of a handicap on what should be long 125 mph runs? The thing about Manc to Cov (or Northampton!) is that the stops are relatively frequent through heavily-trafficked areas and I guess that running at 110 mph isn't really a constraint.

 

[JamesT]

Imo, the safety aspects of slightly out of date stock being pressed into service, are far outweighed by the safety aspects of x-hundred many people being priced out of rail and forced to use cars (which are literal orders of magnitude more deadly). Not to even mention the carbon emissions.

Tell that to the person at the pointy end whose only protection is some fibreglass

Also, if my train was going to crash, I'd rather be in a seat on an older train with space around me, than rammed like a sardine with my shoulders pressing into the vestibule panel. I reckon the risk of injury would be far higher in a so-called modern train if the pax are being treated like cattle, compared to a slightly older train where the pax are at least sitting down and the full effectiveness of the (albeit limited) safety features are brought into play.

I don't know if the RAIB report on Bedford will cover the cause of the various injuries, but received wisdom is that you are safer on a heavily loaded train because you can't travel as far before hitting something.

 

[AndrewE]

Tell that to the person at the pointy end whose only protection is some fibreglass

but trains have signals which are generally obeyed with (usually-) failsafe oversight systems. Completely unlike road transport.

 

[amahy]

Tell that to the person at the pointy end whose only protection is some fibreglass

And, that person at the pointy end also had to drive a car to work, in which they are far more likely to be involved in an accident.

 

[Tetragon213]

Tell that to the person at the pointy end whose only protection is some fibreglass

Stonehaven was a bit of a one-off. If the media reported on car accidents the way they reported on rail, it would make some some sobering reading.

For context, 3 people tragically lost their lives in 2021 at Carmont, and that was the first fatal rail accident in which a passenger was killed for 13 years, 5 months, and 18 days. In 2021 alone, 1,558 people were killed in car accidents, or approximately 513 times more people died on the road in 2021 alone, than died on trains in the intervening 13 and a half years since Grayrigg.

The chances of you being killed in a HST or older train, are orders of magnitude lower than the odds of you being killed in a car crash. Hence, even if you're resorting to using older stock, it's still safer to be in that older stock compared to being in the driving seat of a car.

 

[Oxfordblues]

If I worked for CrossCountry I'd plant a long line of leylandii trees between the railway and the depot at Barton-under-Needwood to hide all the surplus voyagers from the view of the wretched passengers crammed into 4-car units going past!

 

[Killingworth]

The chances of you being killed in a HST or older train, are orders of magnitude lower than the odds of you being killed in a car crash. Hence, even if you're resorting to using older stock, it's still safer to be in that older stock compared to being in the driving seat of a car.

That's not a totally fair comparison with car safety.

How many driving seats in cars are moving on roads every day compared with the number of driving seats in trains?

There are far greater number of road vehicles being driven for far more miles every day. The casualties in road accidents are remarkably low on historic criteria.

That doesn't take away from the fact that railways in Britain are very safe and that we are far more likely to suffer injury on the roads. We use them a lot more.

 

[35B]

Tell that to the person at the pointy end whose only protection is some fibreglass

Risk management should be about the entire risk, not just focus on a specific subset.

The HSTs need to go, because they are more or less life expired. But replacing them with 20 year old fuel guzzling mediocrities in a kneejerk response to a truly exceptional incident is not a rational policy - it's kicking the can down the road. And DfT should never have left EMR or XC in the position where like for like interim replacements would be unavailable

 

[LLivery]

Let's put some real numbers on XC Trains, taking most recent accounts at Companies House

TRANSPORT UK EAST MIDLANDS LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

TRANSPORT UK EAST MIDLANDS LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

Accounts are year to 31 March 2025, but more recent ORR quarterly data to 31/3/26 shows 10% growth in passenger km in a year (5% further distance, 5% growth in passenger numbers), so likely year to Mar 2026 will be about 10% extra

Year to Mar2025 Turnover £521.8m

Per note 5 franchise subsidy £-28.2m (paid back, not received)
and £-4m subsidy adjustment (ie appears refunded £32m subsidy to Govt)
They also received £2.9m fixed fee income and £6.7m for performance

After paying out subsidy, the net loss was £0.37m

Interest & financing received and paid was £5.1m gain
So with interest, had profit before tax of £4.5m

After paying £1.3m Corporation Tax, profit was £3.2m

So common myth, that XC are a heavily subsidised basket case, appears not to reflect in numbers, it actually appears they pay Government

What about current finances?
even if assume fares didn't change, the 10% growth suggests revenue now closer to £575m, but as fares went up Spring 2025, income probably nearer £600m
That suggests probably making a surplus of £35-40m before having to pay subsidy (which because it is paid out rather than received, might be easier thought of as a levy, rather than negative subsidy)

So could XC afford to lease more trains ?
Handily note 18 in accounts tells us how much was paid in lease liabilities £43.9m. They have around 400 carriages, so around £110k per vehicle per year. Leasing costs appear to be only about 8% of the costs

If were to take on say 30 extra vehicles (perhaps 6 x 5car 221s for example) then would not be needing extra subsidy based on extra income.

Of course if have bigger fleet, need more staff, and staff costs of £146m are about 28% of their costs, so maybe the real problem is the failing to sort the crew in both sets, and regularly leaving one locked out.

Very interesting, thank you. Honestly, 110k per vehicle is cheaper than I expected.

Risk management should be about the entire risk, not just focus on a specific subset.

The HSTs need to go, because they are more or less life expired. But replacing them with 20 year old fuel guzzling mediocrities in a kneejerk response to a truly exceptional incident is not a rational policy - it's kicking the can down the road. And DfT should never have left EMR or XC in the position where like for like interim replacements would be unavailable

Dare I say it, maybe the HSTs for XC and the MML should've had the locos replaced for the interim rather than withdrawing the MKIIIs entirely. I know the doors where an issue, but that should've been sorted before it was a legal issue. But that's a another can of worms

 

[Snow1964]

That is a good idea, I hadn't really thought just how great a distance it was under the wires from Yorkshire to Edinburgh. (That must be why the journey seems to go on for ever!)

I wonder whether the 110 mph of the 350s will be too much of a handicap on what should be long 125 mph runs? The thing about Manc to Cov (or Northampton!) is that the stops are relatively frequent through heavily-trafficked areas and I guess that running at 110 mph isn't really a constraint.

There isn't very much 125mph track north of Darlington, to Edinburgh/Glasgow. From memory a few bits with 115mph limit, and few miles of 125mph near Chathill (possibly I few I have forgotten, but fairly sure it is small percentage of whole route section) So a unit restricted to 110mph is probably not going to lose much time compared to a voyager, especially as the EMU is likely to accelerate faster than a diesel train.

Also being lighter the EMU could potentially benefit from some EMU speed differentials (although don't think there are any currently, but that's because no one has needed them yet, rather than not possible), more a paper exercise to review and add them without any physical improvements.

 

[Krokodil]

Have you got any other ideas? A dozen ready-to-run trains up your sleeve, perhaps?

There are half a dozen ready-to-run trains at Central Rivers. Even better, the crews already sign the class.

but trains have signals which are generally obeyed with (usually-) failsafe oversight systems. Completely unlike road transport.

There is still a risk of incursion from fallen trees, road vehicles etc.

 

[AndrewE]

There are half a dozen ready-to-run trains at Central Rivers. Even better, the crews already sign the class.

which would be a good start, but probably only a start.

There is still a risk of incursion from fallen trees, road vehicles etc.

far more so on roads though...

 

[Krokodil]

far more so on roads though...

If I am driving a private car, my safety is my own responsibility.

If I was driving a train, my employer has a responsibility to keep me safe.

 

[Zomboid]

There isn't very much 125mph track north of Darlington, to Edinburgh/Glasgow. From memory a few bits with 115mph limit, and few miles of 125mph near Chathill (possibly I few I have forgotten, but fairly sure it is small percentage of whole route section) So a unit restricted to 110mph is probably not going to lose much time compared to a voyager, especially as the EMU is likely to accelerate faster than a diesel train

There's a not insignificant amount of 125 on the ECML in Scotland, though the majority is 105-115.

 

[Tetragon213]

That's not a totally fair comparison with car safety.

How many driving seats in cars are moving on roads every day compared with the number of driving seats in trains?

There are far greater number of road vehicles being driven for far more miles every day. The casualties in road accidents are remarkably low on historic criteria.

That doesn't take away from the fact that railways in Britain are very safe and that we are far more likely to suffer injury on the roads. We use them a lot more.

Even when you use per passenger km statistics and balance out usage, rail is something on the order of 25 times less dangerous than travel by road.

Simply due to the commonplace nature of fatal car accidents, they don't ever get reported except in the most obscene cases or in the most minor of local newspapers. Meanwhile, Bedford received wall to ceiling news coverage for days and days. Imagine if the media spent that long talking about every single time a single fatality occurred on the road.

 

[amahy]

If I am driving a private car, my safety is my own responsibility.

If I was driving a train, my employer has a responsibility to keep me safe.

Apart from this isn't necessarily the case. Even the best, safest driver can get caught up in an accident caused by some other idiot!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apart from this isn't necessarily the case. Even the best, safest driver can get caught up in an accident caused by some other idiot!

Though your choice of vehicle and thus its safety when someone does do that (be it a Volvo or a Trabant) is yours.

 

[Krokodil]

Apart from this isn't necessarily the case. Even the best, safest driver can get caught up in an accident caused by some other idiot!

But I can choose which vehicle I buy, and may work on the basis of NCAP ratings in the process. This could be the difference between surviving a collision and not.

When you're working for an employer, they are responsible for making that assessment.

 

[Russel]

But I can choose which vehicle I buy, and may work on the basis of NCAP ratings in the process. This could be the difference between surviving a collision and not.

When you're working for an employer, they are responsible for making that assessment.

Exactly this, as safety goes, it's the difference between buying a Austin Metro and a Seat Leon.