• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
7,392
We can all burn through umpteen sets of crayons on XC’s woes but it is caught viciously by the railway’s post-covid shift from TOC-led growth to DfT’s misguided penny pinching.

We can only hold our breath to see what Burnham does to DfT and the treasury’s remits.
DfT does what HMT allows it to.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Never going to happen, but…

Adapt those 350/2s so they can be diesel-hauled in service (and a suitable number of locos- 68s - to match) and run 8 cars Bristol - Manchester, using the units freed up to strengthen other services.
The 350/2s that are going to Northern to replace 323s???

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Let's not let the rest of Whitehall off the hook - the politicians have collectively failed here, not just at DfT
Sorry but that comment displays a spectacular ignorance of how government works. What exactly should the MOD or Department for Work and Pensions for example have done to address a transport issue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I'd take a different view. The HSTs in Scotland still work, are in lease, and don't have a reputation for overcrowding. If a needs based assessment for capacity change were to be made, then Scotland would not be as urgent as Cross Country. While I'm normally against centrally directed cascades and political interference, this is one place where devolution and commercialisation have led to a below par outcome.

That said, I would personally not regard the 222s as an answer in either case. At their age, and with their known inefficiency, the case for replacing the Voyager/Meridian family with more modern traction that can run without diesel is in my view very strong.
Carefully ignoring the safety imperative to replace HSTs.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

NCT

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2025
Messages
2,095
Location
London
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

'We are where we are'.

The HST reliability/obsolescence problem is acute. New trains are required now. Given Scotland's limited borrowing powers, the timescale for intercity replacement tied to a realistic decarbonisation timeframe is 5-10 years. Scotland looked at the market, identified an immediately executable solution, and progressed at pace. It's an entirely rational and logical decision.

Again, I'm thankful that Scotland didn't have to go through a supreme committee prone to misdiagnosing problems and suggesting bending the 4th dimension.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,722
'We are where we are'.

The HST reliability/obsolescence problem is acute. New trains are required now. Given Scotland's limited borrowing powers, the timescale for intercity replacement tied to a realistic decarbonisation timeframe is 5-10 years. Scotland looked at the market, identified an immediately executable solution, and progressed at pace. It's an entirely rational and logical decision.

Again, I'm thankful that Scotland didn't have to go through a supreme committee prone to misdiagnosing problems and suggesting bending the 4th dimension.
HST reliability at ScotRail is only an issue because ScotRail have made it an issue thanks to their own incompetence.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,362
'We are where we are'.

The HST reliability/obsolescence problem is acute. New trains are required now. Given Scotland's limited borrowing powers, the timescale for intercity replacement tied to a realistic decarbonisation timeframe is 5-10 years. Scotland looked at the market, identified an immediately executable solution, and progressed at pace. It's an entirely rational and logical decision.

Again, I'm thankful that Scotland didn't have to go through a supreme committee prone to misdiagnosing problems and suggesting bending the 4th dimension.
As I’ve said, I do not begrudge the Scots making a decision given their own local priorities. I do regard their opportunity to make that choice as a sign of systemic failure in a government controlled system
 

NCT

Established Member
Joined
18 Apr 2025
Messages
2,095
Location
London
As I’ve said, I do not begrudge the Scots making a decision given their own local priorities. I do regard their opportunity to make that choice as a sign of systemic failure in a government controlled system

It's a government regulated system (at least was until ScotRail was nationalised) and governments are not infallible. Governments at all levels have to respond to consequences of their own actions or directions. You'll always have independent government bodies competing in the same markets. Just because a decision maker is government doesn't mean that decision maker shouldn't act commercially.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
7,392
As I’ve said, I do not begrudge the Scots making a decision given their own local priorities. I do regard their opportunity to make that choice as a sign of systemic failure in a government controlled system
You are basically rejecting the practical implications of devolution.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,362
It's a government regulated system (at least was until ScotRail was nationalised) and governments are not infallible. Governments at all levels have to respond to consequences of their own actions or directions. You'll always have independent government bodies competing in the same markets. Just because a decision maker is government doesn't mean that decision maker shouldn't act commercially.
You are basically rejecting the practical implications of devolution.
You both misread me - my issue is that the freedom that Scotrail are commended for taking is freedom that should have been available to XC. Had that freedom been available, my contention is that XC would probably have intervened earlier, and secured that capacity - and that, considered nationally, that would have been a better outcome
 

Trainbike46

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2021
Messages
4,359
Location
belfast
No, I'm not quite suggesting that level of insanity - though their freedom to act is heavily constrained by the maintenance obligations in the contract.

There are three dimensions to the argument. The first, very simply, is that both Hitachi* and their partners need to want to play - which is not guaranteed.

Second is that Hitachi have not built X trains. They have built a number of trains that will allow them to fulfil X diagrams, where the contract will have some parameters around the level of usage. If that usage changes (e.g. by changing the mileage or duty cycle), that will affect the maintenance requirement and therefore the available fleet and/or the cost.

Third, you need to look at where the depots are and how they can support those duties. Hitachi have built two major depots, Stoke Gifford and Doncaster. They've then taken over a number of others, and trains are outstationed at yet more. All of this is based on workloads that are based around ECML and GWML fleets and their duties. Cross Country has a very different duty cycle (hence the use of Central Rivers as a core location for Bombardier) on a very different contract model - you can't assume that you can translate one into the other.

More generally, the conversation here is about "if there are X vehicles, then Y can be done". Ignoring what I've just written, that's an end state. Even where costs are spread over decades by lease arrangements, there are significant costs for making major changes to fleets and operations. They rely on people and money, and we've seen recently (e.g. TPE "Nova" fleets, TfW, EMR) how much that stretches the finite resources of TOCs.

Given all that, if I were looking at the XC fleet for GBR, I would be looking at wholesale fleet renewal, and I'd not be looking at a cascade. The cl. 80x unit design is over a decade old, with significant known flaws that don't appear to have been ironed out by Hitachi - compare their performance with that of the 390s post introduction (or indeed, in engineering terms, the Voyagers). This would be a really good opportunity to get manufacturers to bid to provide something significantly better. It's 24 years since I first travelled in a Voyager; they'll be 30+ before a proper procurement exercise could deliver meaningful replacement with new trains.

And in the meantime, I'd scramble to do the best with what I've got, making best use of the capacity that does exist and grabbing whatever trains I could that could run as part of the existing timetable.

* - I've used "Hitachi" as short hand for the various consortia that actually provide contracted services to cl. 80x operators.
Thank you for explaining the situation in that much detail!

I don't think that necessarily requires a significant change, but it does require a complete rewrite of the diagrams at XC, to enable trains to start from and finish at the required maintenance locations. For GWR, all three depots could be used (North Pole for Reading starts/ends; Stoke Gifford for Bristol starts/ends; and potentially Swansea Maliphant for services currently starting and ending at Cardiff, extended to Swansea). On the ECML, Doncaster and Edinburgh Craigentinny could be used. If the diagrams are made so that the mileage and times are similar, that shouldn't break the conditions of the current contract.

The more important question to address is: Why bother with a cascade?

I do agree with your point that ordering a new, trimode (Electric, Battery, Diesel) for XC would be a good solution for the problems at XC. In my view, train lengths should be so that doubling up isn't necessary, so probably somewhere around 200-250m, as part of a design to minimise operating costs.

However, the advantage of a cascade is that it enables resolving issues at three IC operators, so potentially gives better value for money. The issues to address are:
XC:
-Insufficient capacity throughout
-High operational costs (especially diesel and staffing needs) per available seat
LNER:
-Insufficient capacity on key Edinburgh-London route
-Single 5-cars not worth the paths they take on the path-restricted ECML
GWR:
-Too many 5-car trains
-Insufficient capacity (seasonal and varies between routes)
-If electrification expands, there may be a case for an electric only high-speed fleet

The way to resolve this would be for LNER to order a new subfleet ~270-290m long for the Edinburgh services. Ideally, these will be longer versions of existing LNER fleets, so either longer 897s or 80x, to reduce crew training costs. There are sufficient long platforms at KGX and Edinburgh to enable this. The increased capacity on Edinburgh services can then be used to win market share, primarily from air. There appear to be around 11 Edinburgh-only diagrams in the current weekday timetable. Those could be filled with ~13 new trains, and would free up 11 diagrams. That would be sufficient to cascade all 10 5-car bimodes, and maybe a few 9-cars to XC.

I would only involve GWR if more electrification takes place. Assuming electrification to Bristol (both ways), Oxford, and Swansea is completed, I would order full-length (~230-260m) electric only trains, and cascade the freed up 5-car 80x to XC. All 9-car 80x and some 5-car 80x would stay with GWR. The 802s are on a more standard contract, so I would prioritise those for cascading to XC.

These two steps would not free up sufficient trains to replace all current XC trains. I see two main ways to handle that. If the new, extra long, LNER fleet is to be 80x, as part of the same contract order the remaining trains needed for XC. These should be full length (personally, I would just go straight to all 9-car, but a mix of 7-car and 9-car would probably work). If the new, extra long, LNER fleet is to be 897s, then order enough of extra of the regular length 897s to replace all bimodes at LNER, and cascade the complete bimode fleet to XC.

This way, a single train order benefits multiple routes. By placing a focus on reducing operational costs (by reduced staffing and diesel use), this shouldn't be too expensive over the long-term, while enabling significant passenger growth.
 

Forty29

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2021
Messages
758
Location
Bicester
Lot's of cancellations on Cross-country last Thursday meant have posted earlier. Reason given on platform announcement's shortage of drivers.
Four car units never seem big enough for any service. Though a nine car l saw at Oxford was equally full and standing!
 

Ash Bridge

Established Member
Joined
17 Mar 2014
Messages
4,213
Location
Stockport
Lot's of cancellations on Cross-country last Thursday meant have posted earlier. Reason given on platform announcement's shortage of drivers.
Four car units never seem big enough for any service. Though a nine car l saw at Oxford was equally full and standing!
Could that have been due to the other cancellations? (Genuine question btw!)
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,377
Location
Taunton or Kent
The latest RAIL magazine has an item of the 6x 221s off lease will go to XC, but only after a short-term spell with EMR to relieve that debacle, with the deal reportedly almost signed.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
11,015
Location
West Wiltshire
The latest RAIL magazine has an item of the 6x 221s off lease will go to XC, but only after a short-term spell with EMR to relieve that debacle, with the deal reportedly almost signed.
Better than nothing, if they get 6 more 5car voyagers (but not straight away)

XC have about 396 vehicles (including 170s), so extra 30 vehicles is about 7.5% fleet size increase. But if that is all that is planned for at least next 10 years then it's more whack-a-mole moving crowding problem around, than a serious strategy to seat growing numbers of passengers
 

Strathclyder

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
3,819
Location
Clydebank
That this is the situation is directly the fault of the Treasury with the DfT as their frontman/proverbial meat shield for refusing to fund the steps required for XC to drag itself out of this doomloop for over 25 years now.

As things are, ScotRail/Transport Scotland saw the resulting opening to snap up the bulk of the 222s and took it as it was the medium-term solution available that best aligned with their needs (HST safety concerns being prime among them, never mind their operational costs) given the legal parameters they themselves have to operate within when it comes to Scotland's overall borrowing powers. If they had the legal ways and thus the financial means to just order new-build bi-modes and skip the 222s entirely, I have no doubt they would have.

However, even if this were the case, that wouldn't mean that the DfT/Treasury would suddenly find the funds needed to move the 222s across to XC and the associated cost increases that would come with it, never approve of it being used to fund such a fleet expansion regardless of the tangable benefits it would bring to the long-suffering XC passenger. It's honestly a miracle they've managed to get a hold of those 6 off-lease 221s.
 
Last edited:

TT-ONR-NRN

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2016
Messages
12,725
Location
Worcester
Better than nothing, if they get 6 more 5car voyagers (but not straight away)

XC have about 396 vehicles (including 170s), so extra 30 vehicles is about 7.5% fleet size increase. But if that is all that is planned for at least next 10 years then it's more whack-a-mole moving crowding problem around, than a serious strategy to seat growing numbers of passengers
According to the MD though, in a previous comment she gave to Modern Railways or something, those six 221s would end single four-car Voyager working.
 

Class 317

Member
Joined
7 Jul 2020
Messages
555
Location
Cotswolds
This would be good news and should end single 4 car sets as a regular thing on core routes particularly once the refurbishment is finished.

Looking at the figures if you have say 30 out of 38 5 car and the same for the 4 car sets diagramed daily, that should allow the circa 54 ish daily diagrams to be covered by either 8 car double sets or 5 car singles.

Their might be some services at the extremities that remain single 4 car sets eg to Cardiff, Penzance and Aberdeen but only from the likes of Plymouth, Gloucester, Edinburgh etc.

Logically the 2 sets with GC will follow once they have thier new fleet as the Rosco should be willing to lease at a reasonable price.

Extra trains are alright but will not solve the overcrowding alone. The staffing still needs to be sorted out.

Sundays need to be brought into the working week to avoid the mass Sunday cancellations which cause overcrowding. The issue of double sets requiring 2 TM's needs to be fixed either by recruitment of additional TM's or making use of catering staff with suitable training and pay changes, as the second on board staff member for double sets.

Looking further ahead getting the Voyager replacements right in the early 2030's will be critical to ensuring long term resolution of this issue.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
4,244
Looking further ahead getting the Voyager replacements right in the early 2030's will be critical to ensuring long term resolution of this issue.
My money would be on a large order for 4 car versions of whatever CAF or Hitachi are making at the time, but a bit later than that, towards the end of the 2030s
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,021
Looking further ahead getting the Voyager replacements right in the early 2030's will be critical to ensuring long term resolution of this issue.

Something like this:

CrossCountry Fleet Replacement Strategy: A Phased, Affordable and Scalable Approach

The CrossCountry Voyager fleet has now provided more than two decades of service across Britain's long-distance regional rail network. While the ongoing refurbishment programme will improve the passenger experience and extend the fleet's useful life, the units will approach 35 years of age during the 2030s and remain a diesel-only solution operating across a network with increasing electrification.

At the same time, persistent overcrowding remains one of CrossCountry's biggest challenges. This proposal therefore seeks not simply to replace ageing trains, but to increase capacity, reduce operating costs and support decarbonisation through a phased fleet strategy.

Phase 0: Immediate Capacity Relief (2027)

The first step would be the transfer of the six Class 221 units no longer required by Avanti West Coast into CrossCountry service.

Benefits include:

  • Immediate increase in fleet availability.
  • Additional seating capacity on busy routes.
  • Improved operational resilience.
  • Reduced overcrowding ahead of fleet replacement.
  • Support for passenger growth during the transition period.

This phase could be delivered relatively quickly and provides an immediate benefit long before any new trains enter service.

Phase 1: Core Fleet Replacement (Order 2028, Complete 2033)

The Voyager fleet would be replaced by:

  • 56 x 5-car bi-mode intercity trains.
  • Approximately 326 seats per train.
  • Performance broadly comparable to modern Class 80x fleets.
  • Battery-assisted operation to reduce diesel consumption.
  • Designed from the outset for future expansion up to 9 coaches.

Although the new fleet would contain fewer vehicles than the current enlarged Voyager fleet, it would deliver approximately 17% more seating capacity than today's fleet.

Key benefits include:

  • Increased passenger capacity.
  • Lower fuel consumption.
  • Reduced carbon emissions.
  • Lower maintenance costs.
  • Lower track access costs per seat.
  • Improved reliability.
  • A single standardised fleet replacing both 4-car and 5-car Voyagers.

The proposal focuses on increasing capacity per train rather than increasing service frequency, making better use of existing paths on an increasingly congested railway network.

Indicative Delivery Timeline

2027


  • Strategic business case development.
  • Market engagement with manufacturers.
  • DfT approval process.

2028-2029

  • Competitive procurement process.
  • Submission and evaluation of bids.
  • Preferred bidder selected.
  • Contract award.

2029-2030

  • Detailed design phase.
  • Prototype construction.
  • Testing and certification.

2030-2033

  • Fleet manufacture and delivery.
  • Driver and maintainer training.
  • Progressive introduction into passenger service.
  • Retirement of the Voyager fleet.

This reflects the reality that major rolling stock procurements often require around 18 months to complete procurement and a further three years for manufacturing, testing and fleet entry into service.

Future-Proofed Expansion Options

A key element of the proposal is that future growth is secured through the original contract.

The initial order would include options for:

  • Additional complete trainsets.
  • Up to 120 additional intermediate vehicles.

This would be sufficient to support future train lengthening and provide a degree of flexibility for any future route enhancements or new services.

Because these vehicles would already be covered by the original procurement contract, future phases could be authorised and delivered significantly faster than undertaking a fresh rolling stock competition.

Phase 2: 15% Passenger Growth Trigger (Estimated 2033-2035)

Should passenger numbers increase by 15%, CrossCountry would exercise an option for:

  • 3 additional 5-car trainsets.

This would provide further capacity growth while maintaining a prudent level of initial investment.

Phase 3: 30% Passenger Growth Trigger (Estimated 2036-2038)

Should passenger growth reach 30%, twelve trains would be extended from 5-car to 9-car formations.

This would add:

  • 48 additional vehicles.
  • Approximately 3,850 additional seats.

Importantly, this would require:

  • No additional train paths.
  • No increase in service frequency.
  • Minimal additional operating resource.

A 9-car train would provide approximately 647 seats, almost matching the capacity of two coupled 5-car trains while requiring fewer vehicles and lower operating costs.

Compared with purchasing twelve additional 5-car trains, lengthening requires:

  • 48 vehicles instead of 60.
  • No additional train managers or drivers.
  • Lower maintenance costs.
  • Lower infrastructure costs.

Phase 4: Demand-Led Growth Beyond 30%

For every additional 5% growth achieved beyond the Phase 3 threshold:

  • Two further trains would be extended to 9 coaches.

This ensures investment remains closely aligned to actual passenger demand and avoids procuring capacity years before it is required.

Depot Strategy

The new fleet would require dedicated maintenance facilities designed with passive provision for future 9-car operations.

Following withdrawal of the Voyager fleet, facilities such as Central Rivers could potentially be repurposed for use by the new fleet, reducing future infrastructure costs and supporting long-term growth.

Why This Strategy Works

This proposal avoids both under-investment and over-procurement.

It delivers:

  • Immediate overcrowding relief.
  • Replacement of trains approaching 35 years of age.
  • Approximately 17% more seating capacity from Phase 1.
  • Lower operating and maintenance costs.
  • Reduced diesel consumption and emissions.
  • A future-proof fleet based on proven intercity concepts.
  • Demand-led expansion rather than speculative investment.

By completion of Phase 3, CrossCountry would have access to approximately 48% more seating capacity than today whilst largely retaining the existing service pattern and making more efficient use of existing railway infrastructure.

The result is a practical, scalable and affordable strategy that addresses overcrowding, supports decarbonisation and provides a clear long-term replacement plan for one of Britain's most important long-distance rail networks.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,021
Who has written this proposal? Is there a link to it?

I did, as the sort of thing which would be entirely sensible (I.e. so it'll never happen).

I had a spare few hours travelling by train the other day, so thought I'd expand on my thoughts in a way which would be understood by the DfT and Treasury.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,377
Location
Taunton or Kent
I did, as the sort of thing which would be entirely sensible (I.e. so it'll never happen).

I had a spare few hours travelling by train the other day, so thought I'd expand on my thoughts in a way which would be understood by the DfT and Treasury.
Darn, I was hoping it was an actual document someone at XC had published.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,021
Darn, I was hoping it was an actual document someone at XC had published.

Yes, sorry about that.

If anyone knows anyone high up at XC I'm happy for them to use it to present it to the DfT (although they may well want to change some of the numbers, like the growth targets).
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
7,392
I did, as the sort of thing which would be entirely sensible (I.e. so it'll never happen).

I had a spare few hours travelling by train the other day, so thought I'd expand on my thoughts in a way which would be understood by the DfT and Treasury.
Not what HMT would expect.
Try something along the lines of (with costings):
- do nothing
- do minimum (short to medium term)
- various longer-term, more expensive options

Any business case without "do nothing" option would immediately be rejected.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,021
Not what HMT would expect.
Try something along the lines of (with costings):
- do nothing
- do minimum (short to medium term)
- various longer-term, more expensive options

Any business case without "do nothing" option would immediately be rejected.

Indeed, although for my post it would have made it a longer and it's in an thresd where do nothing is assumed to have been rejected.

Although as an overview, the class 22x's would need replacing in about 7 years beyond the likely timeline, so do nothing may well be doing this just about 7 years later (2033 plus 7 years is 2040 and the 22x's wound be around 38 years old, so about the right sort of time for replacing depending on if the targetis 35 or 40 years old).
 

Mike Machin

Member
Joined
19 Aug 2017
Messages
376
I think the way the treasury/DfT has handled Cross-Country is lamentable. But, the other day I was thinking about the XC route that I used to travel on regularly until conditions became intolerable.

My journeys were usually from Southampton or Winchester to Birmingham or the North West.

In the very early days of me using this route, we only had three through trains each weekday, approximately 09.27 departure from Southampton Central to Liverpool, (9 coaches, Class 33 to Reading, 47 onwards), 12.27 to Leeds and Newcastle (train divided at Sheffield) 11 coaches, Class 47), and 17.25 to Liverpool, 9-10 coaches, Class 47.

I appreciate that passenger numbers have increased greatly over the years, but clearly many, many people made journeys along these routes at all times of the day.

The major difference is that those passengers made their own itineraries, changing en-route at places such as Basingstoke, Reading and New Street, so their numbers were dissipated across dozens of different trains using random permutations of changing trains along the way. This ensured that they were spread-out across the network on a multitude of trains, rather than being herded and squeezed and squished into tiny inadequate voyagers.

I suppose XC is a victim of its own success, but clearly something pretty drastic needs to be done. Perhaps when GBR is one network again, people will once again find and plan their own more comfortable schedules and tailor their journeys accordingly.
 
Last edited:

osmarks

Member
Joined
23 Dec 2024
Messages
14
Location
England
I suppose XC is a victim of its own success, but clearly something pretty drastic needs to be done. Perhaps when GBR is one network again, people will once again find and plan their own more comfortable schedules and tailor their journeys accordingly.
People like direct trains. The railways should operate for the benefit of users and not inconvenience them to avoidably simplify operations.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
9,305
Location
Somerset
People like direct trains. The railways should operate for the benefit of users and not inconvenience them to avoidably simplify operations.
The choice of where gets direct trains to where (other than London or obviously close pairings) is almost entirely a result of operating decisions at one time or another. The case for a through service from Totnes to Chesterfield, for example, is probably not much stronger than for one from Honiton to Buxton. The choice is really between offering lots of “one-off” through trains as in BR cross-country days or a standard repeating pattern with more changing, where some people are “lucky” because their journey is still direct, but many others aren’t.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
6,430
Location
Sheffield
People like direct trains. The railways should operate for the benefit of users and not inconvenience them to avoidably simplify operations.
This morning I met a group travelling from Chesterfield to Glasgow. Should be by CrossCountry to Edinburgh with simple change in Edinburgh? 2 trains

They'd chosen East Midlands to Warrington Central, taxi to Warrington Bank Quay then Avanti to Glasgow Central, also 2 trains. I didn't check their lines of reasoning but they seemed to know what they were doing. Timings? Pricing?
 

Harpo

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2024
Messages
3,731
Location
Newport
The choice is really between offering lots of “one-off” through trains as in BR cross-country days or a standard repeating pattern with more changing, where some people are “lucky” because their journey is still direct, but many others aren’t.
The standard repeating pattern could be a good thing if the railway operated as an efficient connecting network. But it doesn’t.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,251
The standard repeating pattern could be a good thing if the railway operated as an efficient connecting network. But it doesn’t.
Again, that is a matter of what connections can be prioritised. If everything were able to run half hourly, almost all connections would be made within half an hour.
 

Top