Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

Russel said:

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

Click to expand...

Even with the HST's crashworthiness not being quite on par with modern stock, the simple nature of rail being less likely to crash flips the equation a lot. In this analogy of Metro vs Leon, would you still be in the Leon if it was full orders of magnitude less likely for the Metro to crash in the first place?

All but the oldest trains will probably beat out even the very best cars for risk, simply due to how much more likely it is for you to have a car crash over a train crash.

Tetragon213 said:

Even with the HST's crashworthiness not being quite on par with modern stock, the simple nature of rail being less likely to crash flips the equation a lot. In this analogy of Metro vs Leon, would you still be in the Leon if it was full orders of magnitude less likely for the Metro to crash in the first place?

All but the oldest trains will probably beat out even the very best cars for risk, simply due to how much more likely it is for you to have a car crash over a train crash.

Click to expand...

I'd take a rake of mk1's any day over driving on our road network, safety wise.

yorksrob said:

I'd take a rake of mk1's any day over driving on our road network, safety wise.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. The railways are just that much safer, simply due to how unlikely it is you'll have a crash.

Tetragon213 said:

Even with the HST's crashworthiness not being quite on par with modern stock, the simple nature of rail being less likely to crash flips the equation a lot. In this analogy of Metro vs Leon, would you still be in the Leon if it was full orders of magnitude less likely for the Metro to crash in the first place?

All but the oldest trains will probably beat out even the very best cars for risk, simply due to how much more likely it is for you to have a car crash over a train crash.

Click to expand...

I'm well aware of the differences in safety between road and rail, that wasn't the point I was making...

Russel said:

I'm well aware of the differences in safety between road and rail, that wasn't the point I was making...

Click to expand...

The catch-22, on which views may legitimately vary, is that the relative safety of older trains for staff shifts the balance for legal compliance under ALARP principles. At that point, what is reasonable for Scotrail to seek to do may be at odds with what DfT should have been doing at a network level to address the major issues with XC capacity - and which I suspect XC would have done for themselves had they had the freedom to act.

In both cases, my view remains that these are short term sticking plasters, relying upon expensive and inefficient trains that are well past half life for long term use, rather than moving towards replacements that would deliver not just safety or capacity advantages, but also operational and staffing efficiencies.

35B said:

The catch-22, on which views may legitimately vary, is that the relative safety of older trains for staff shifts the balance for legal compliance under ALARP principles.

Click to expand...

I don't agree. Most (almost all) of the safety risks have been engineered out by signalling and interlocking, improved fencing, crash barriers (as in the Lune Gorge) etc. which is what is supposed to happen.

35B said:

At that point, what is reasonable for Scotrail to seek to do may be at odds with what DfT should have been doing at a network level to address the major issues with XC capacity - and which I suspect XC would have done for themselves had they had the freedom to act.

Click to expand...

35B said:

In both cases, my view remains that these are short term sticking plasters, relying upon expensive and inefficient trains that are well past half life for long term use, rather than moving towards replacements that would deliver not just safety or capacity advantages, but also operational and staffing efficiencies.

Click to expand...

That is true, but capacity is needed now and getting people off roads is the quickest way to improve safety overall.

AndrewE said:

I don't agree. Most (almost all) of the safety risks have been engineered out by signalling and interlocking, improved fencing, crash barriers (as in the Lune Gorge) etc. which is what is supposed to happen.

Click to expand...

That isn't the whole of ALARP - and "availability" of "safer" trains does affect the calculation. Not as much as ASLEF or some on here suggest, but it does affect it.

AndrewE said:

That is true, but capacity is needed now and getting people off roads is the quickest way to improve safety overall.

Click to expand...

I completely agree - which is why I'd rather the 22x fleet had ended up at XC, as an interim measure as part of a longer term plan that would see them on the path to razor blades sooner than later

I recognise the 'complexity' of bidding for stock (and justifying the expenditure/ investment) in a competitive environment as stuff comes off-lease/ into 'store'. Stock sitting in sidings out of use is a waste.
Hopefully, GBR will enable greater coordination, forward thinking, cascading, refurbing etc etc.
Decarbonisation might also affect the life expectancy of 'old' stock.

A passing thought I have. London 'tube trains' IIUC run all day in fixed formations, with more trains at busier times and carrying more air 'off-peak'. Presumably the 'powers that be' have decided that that is 'better' with passengers interchanging from line to line. than eg 'splitting' trains, 'short-forming' etc

35B said:

That isn't the whole of ALARP - and "availability" of "safer" trains does affect the calculation. Not as much as ASLEF or some on here suggest, but it does affect it.

Click to expand...

The real significance of ALARP is in the last two initials. Parliament made the HaSaWA 1974 and the judges quite quickly defined "Reasonably Practicable." It means (in the UK H&S context) "when the gains in safety are outweighed by the costs of those last improvements."

I would say that almost any additional cost incurred to make the railway safer today is probably beyond what is reasonably practicable. Taking older trains out of use just because they are older (and pushing people onto road transport) would be a real own-goal.

London Underground putting "skirts" between coaches after someone fell between was a worthwhile not-too-expensive fix, whereas fitting platform edge doors throughout certainly wouldn't be justified. On new-build high-capacity lines where long trains are entering platforms at a significant speed then they almost certainly are justified...

AndrewE said:

Taking older trains out of use just because they are older (and pushing people onto road transport) would be a real own-goal.

Click to expand...

I'd firmly agree. It would be better to have new 8xx/FLIRT stock on the XC and ScotRail routes, but keeping older HSTs to boost capacity would still be a better option imo than retiring them "because they're old and 'unsafe'". Pricing people out of trains and into cars will kill far more people in the long run.

AndrewE said:

London Underground putting "skirts" between coaches after someone fell between was a worthwhile not-too-expensive fix, whereas fitting platform edge doors throughout certainly wouldn't be justified. On new-build high-capacity lines where long trains are entering platforms at a significant speed then they almost certainly are justified...

Click to expand...

Imo, the LU should look towards getting a rolling program to install PEDs. That's an area where I can foresee a reasonable case for installing the expensive equipment, on an enclosed network.

Tetragon213 said:

Imo, the LU should look towards getting a rolling program to install PEDs. That's an area where I can foresee a reasonable case for installing the expensive equipment, on an enclosed network.

Click to expand...

LU has looked into it before

Here's an FOI response from 2023:

Introducing PEDs requires complex system integration between doors, trains and signalling to ensure their successful operation and reliability. Therefore it is not considered efficient to introduce them at one or two stations on a line in isolation.

TfL doesn’t have a precise figure, but based on previous installation on the Jubilee and Elizabeth lines and other metros worldwide, the cost estimate is thought to be around £2-2.5 million (2022 prices) per platform including the systems integration required between trains, signalling and PEDs. There would also be increased costs for future operation and maintenance of the PEDs.

Click to expand...

One big issue is that a 'rolling' programme still couldn't do only a platform at a time, but would need to do either entire lines, or decent length sections (e.g. a branch) at a time.

It's a shame because there's a good argument from a safety and service perspective to have any ATO-driven line use PEDs in the central area underground sections. But at £2.5m a platform, and then the disruption that would be caused, it's understandable that TfL think there are more important areas to focus on.

zwk500 said:

LU has looked into it before

Here's an FOI response from 2023:

FOI request detail

FOI request detail

tfl.gov.uk

One big issue is that a 'rolling' programme still couldn't do only a platform at a time, but would need to do either entire lines, or decent length sections (e.g. a branch) at a time.

It's a shame because there's a good argument from a safety and service perspective to have any ATO-driven line use PEDs in the central area underground sections. But at £2.5m a platform, and then the disruption that would be caused, it's understandable that TfL think there are more important areas to focus on.

Click to expand...

and again I think it would be an own-goal: extra costs (reflected in ticket prices) or line/station/platform closures would displace traffic onto roads which are far less safe. However I believe that more congestion reduces road traffic speeds - and ironically the severity of accidents too...

AndrewE said:

The real significance of ALARP is in the last two initials. Parliament made the HaSaWA 1974 and the judges quite quickly defined "Reasonably Practicable." It means (in the UK H&S context) "when the gains in safety are outweighed by the costs of those last improvements."

I would say that almost any additional cost incurred to make the railway safer today is probably beyond what is reasonably practicable. Taking older trains out of use just because they are older (and pushing people onto road transport) would be a real own-goal.

London Underground putting "skirts" between coaches after someone fell between was a worthwhile not-too-expensive fix, whereas fitting platform edge doors throughout certainly wouldn't be justified. On new-build high-capacity lines where long trains are entering platforms at a significant speed then they almost certainly are justified...

Click to expand...

Two points here, as we're veering off topic.

First, if acquiring new trains, the spend on safety is the part of the spend associated with the safety improvement, not the whole of the spend.

Second, I made specific reference to Scotrail and their decision about replacing HSTs, where the existence of an option like the 222s would have affected the quantity to be considered in "reasonably practicable".

And all of these duties are measured in terms of what the organisation has control of - not the wider social impact. And, yes, that is a perverse outcome

Has culling the passengers been proposed as an option?

Northumbriana said:

Has culling the passengers been proposed as an option?

Click to expand...

Yes. Ozzy the New Street bull (with the aid of an AI powered gaze tracking system) will identify potential XC customers and zap them with his laser eyes. The resulting ashes can easily be transported in the overhead racks, no seats required.

Snow1964 said:

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.

Click to expand...

So they are profitable, and if they ordered a new fleet would bring in more passengers and so become even more profitable, especially if the new fleet was also fixed length of 7 and/or 9-car where staffing costs go down compared to two-units coupled together. Shows even more how short-sighted the DfT are here.

duffield said:

Yes. Ozzy the New Street bull (with the aid of an AI powered gaze tracking system) will identify potential XC customers and zap them with his laser eyes. The resulting ashes can easily be transported in the overhead racks, no seats required.

Click to expand...

At last, a workable solution that's within our means and control period.

brad465 said:

So they are profitable, and if they ordered a new fleet would bring in more passengers and so become even more profitable, especially if the new fleet was also fixed length of 7 and/or 9-car where staffing costs go down compared to two-units coupled together. Shows even more how short-sighted the DfT are here.

Click to expand...

Possibly but not necessarily. The incremental costs of a new fleet, *may* not have been forecast to have been covered by the incremental revenue. And there may be capital costs eg depots which need financing or funding too.

Short term the spare class 221's would offer quite a bit of relief once the staffing to man them is sorted.

Post GBR I could see cascades coming back into fashion as one investment can benefit multiple routes.

For example if you were to order say circa 55 extra CAF Trimodes for east coast you could trigger a cascade of 9 car IET to GW service..This could then increase GW capacity and also allow both GW and EC 5 car IET to go to cross country to displace voyagers offering greater capacity.

This is an example of what could be possible not necessarily a recommendation. A cascade like this could benefit 3 routes for one new train order and would likely increase the benefit to cost ratio meaning it's more likely to get passed DFT.

Krokodil said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, to a point, in that there's lots employers who have drivers on roads.

On the point raised by someone, per vehicle milage the railway is worse than roads, however if a car crashes chances are is only around 1.5 people per car (average), although what's worth noting is that the majority of railway deaths are linked to trespassers and so for a user or driver (or other staff) the risk is very much reduced.

Dr Day said:

Possibly but not necessarily. The incremental costs of a new fleet, *may* not have been forecast to have been covered by the incremental revenue. And there may be capital costs eg depots which need financing or funding too.

Click to expand...

A new depot would almost certainly be needed, however, if we assume £200 million a year in TOC costs (about 333 coaches) a one of cost of (say) £75 million (even a 20 year design life would mean a cost of £0.25 million per year) would be fairly limited in the grand scheme of things.

Class 317 said:

Short term the spare class 221's would offer quite a bit of relief once the staffing to man them is sorted.

Click to expand...

Indeed, there's currently 2 diagrams (and they are primarily Plymouth Edinburgh services) which are 4+5, 6 new trains could see this increase.

However, it's more likely to mean:
- 5 coach set replaces a 4 coach set
- that 4 coach set and another pair up to run the Diagram of a 5 coach set
- the released 5 coach set back fills for the second 4 coach set

With 6 new sets, that's likely 1 spare sets and then up to 15 diagrams (bearing in mind there's 44 at XC) seeing capacity improvements.

Class 317 said:

Post GBR I could see cascades coming back into fashion as one investment can benefit multiple routes.

For example if you were to order say circa 55 extra CAF Trimodes for east coast you could trigger a cascade of 9 car IET to GW service..This could then increase GW capacity and also allow both GW and EC 5 car IET to go to cross country to displace voyagers offering greater capacity.

This is an example of what could be possible not necessarily a recommendation. A cascade like this could benefit 3 routes for one new train order and would likely increase the benefit to cost ratio meaning it's more likely to get passed DFT.

Click to expand...

Indeed, either building new 9 coach sets (80x's or similar) or by lengthening 5 coach sets to be 9 coach sets and releasing the extra 5 coach sets (extra as in where they become surplus to requirement by exceeding the original number of coaches in the fleet).

I've previously highlighted how GBR could get 24 sets with 5 coaches for XC by building new coaches (100) for GWR and in doing so not only get those sets for XC but also increase capacity at GWR without increasing the number of coaches on lease at GWR and upgrade the GWR and XR units to have battery packs (in doing so not needing to build more diesel engines)

In fact GBR would have 100 spare to potentially deliver a significant amount of the XC fleet, potentially not needing any new engines to deliver a XC fleet made up of:

24 × 5 coach (already accounted for below)
24 × 9 coach (72 engines)
14 × 5 coach (28 engines)

Total fleet 62 units, and so enough to run 44 diagrams as:
20 × 9 coach sets
8 × 5+5 trains
16 × 5 coach sets

Although that's assuming that diagrams are run end to end, the number of 5+5 through the core could be higher if one set served the outer reaches of the network.

Note, this assumes no additional electrification, as it could be that with more electrification it could be that a 1 engine 2 or 4 battery (depending on length) sets could be used and so the fleet could get larger without needing further diesel engines (be that new or from LNER).

My previous workings:

The Ham said:

The first step was to lengthen several of the 80x's at GWR so they were 9 coach units and then use the excess units to replace 22x units at XC.

Current GWR fleet:
36 × 5 coach 800
21 × 9 coach 800
22 × 5 coach 802
14 × 9 coach 802
(59 full length equivalent, where 5+5 is equivalent to a single 9 coach set)

Total coaches = 605
Total total diesel engines = 319

By substituting 2 batteries in the 9 coach sets and 1 battery in the 5 coach sets you could have longer sets without needing to increase the number of diesel engines.

This would allow a new GWR fleet of:
5 × 5 coach 800 (16 to XC)
36 × 9 coach 800
4 × 5 coach 802 (8 to XC)
24 × 9 coach 802
(64.5 full length equivalent, where 5+5 is equivalent to a single 9 coach set)

Total coaches = 605 (at GWR)
Total diesel engines = 216 (168 at GWR and 48 at XC).

Of the 136 up rated class 802 engines these could be used so every 5 coach unit used and just 11 of the 9 coach sets would be the lower powered engines.

24 class 80x's at XC would allow 20 diagrams (plus 4 units for spares) leaving 24 diagrams (plus a minimum of 5 units for spares) to be run by class 22x's.

Click to expand...

Obviously, the above was the first step in the process, ideally the full replacement of the 22x fleet would be desirable (and essential come around 2035/2040).

Even if replacement of the 22x fleet was a longer time coming, with a reduction in sets needed the 220's could become 5 coach sets by scrapping end coaches.

However all these schemes around cascading LNER or GWR stock almost certainly come unstuck as you have to unpick the long contracts with Hitachi where they supply the current fleet.

JamesT said:

However all these schemes around cascading LNER or GWR stock almost certainly come unstuck as you have to unpick the long contracts with Hitachi where they supply the current fleet.

Click to expand...

Maybe, although with the potential to have a fairly large order (which could be up to nearly 400 coaches - or around 44% of the original IEP contract) and would only apply to roughly the latter half of the duration of the contract and reduces the risk from the diesel engines, it maybe something which they might be willing to do.

If another competitor could get the XC fleet (which at a minimum would be likely around 300 coaches) it could also open the door to that competitor getting a new order for GWR to increase their capacity (for example a 10 coach [26m], 125mph BEMU for services between London and Bristol/Bath/Cardiff/Oxford).

Today I got on the 17:21 XC Sheffield to Edinburgh service, had 9 cars and people still had to stand up in the vestibules, bit of a joke really. Thankfully I was only going as far as Leeds!

The Ham said:

Maybe, although with the potential to have a fairly large order (which could be up to nearly 400 coaches - or around 44% of the original IEP contract) and would only apply to roughly the latter half of the duration of the contract and reduces the risk from the diesel engines, it maybe something which they might be willing to do.

If another competitor could get the XC fleet (which at a minimum would be likely around 300 coaches) it could also open the door to that competitor getting a new order for GWR to increase their capacity (for example a 10 coach [26m], 125mph BEMU for services between London and Bristol/Bath/Cardiff/Oxford).

Click to expand...

The contracts aren’t just with Hitachi, and they also include maintenance. If you start changing things round at Doncaster or Stoke Gifford, you add a world of extra complexity.

You also need to allow for the fact that hitachi have not expressed much interest in add-on orders, and that their delivery of service to LNER and GWR has been mediocre at best.

35B said:

The contracts aren’t just with Hitachi, and they also include maintenance. If you start changing things round at Doncaster or Stoke Gifford, you add a world of extra complexity.

You also need to allow for the fact that hitachi have not expressed much interest in add-on orders, and that their delivery of service to LNER and GWR has been mediocre at best.

Click to expand...

Yes the original orders had 27.5 year maintenance contracts.

However there is not a lot of difference if say a Stoke Gifford (Bristol) maintained IET works a service to London, does a north Cotswold circuit and diagram gets back to Bristol, than working a Bristol - Birmingham - York service. Similarly those based at Doncaster could easily operate a service through Sheffield to Plymouth or Paignton

Can't really do much for XC about the units allocated to maintenance at depots near London, but those at Bristol or Yorkshire could easily operate some XC services if a cascade of trains was planned.

JamesT said:

However all these schemes around cascading LNER or GWR stock almost certainly come unstuck as you have to unpick the long contracts with Hitachi where they supply the current fleet.

Click to expand...

I don't believe any contracts need to be unpicked, unless I have misunderstood they don't specify the services or routes that are worked. They simply say where train has to end up for maintenance by a certain time, without exceeding a specific mileage.

Therefore it's more a case of Operators having free choice where to diagram them between off-depot time, and return for maintenance time. So as long as diagram ends in correct place to get to depot early or on time that meets the contract.

Class 317 said:

Short term the spare class 221's would offer quite a bit of relief once the staffing to man them is sorted.

Post GBR I could see cascades coming back into fashion as one investment can benefit multiple routes.

For example if you were to order say circa 55 extra CAF Trimodes for east coast you could trigger a cascade of 9 car IET to GW service..This could then increase GW capacity and also allow both GW and EC 5 car IET to go to cross country to displace voyagers offering greater capacity.

This is an example of what could be possible not necessarily a recommendation. A cascade like this could benefit 3 routes for one new train order and would likely increase the benefit to cost ratio meaning it's more likely to get passed DFT.

Click to expand...

Yes, could have some cascades, but that would actually need a rolling stock strategy for next few years.

And of course there are also multiple scenarios eg take pairs of 4car voyagers, scrap 2 end cars (keeping all the parts and fittings as extra spares) and make some 6car sets. Not every route needs a 500 seat train, and no economic advantage of killing whole voyager fleet early. But really there is no case to continue single 4car sets in the busier core.

Also if going to do cascades, there are plenty of routes where XC 170s would be better utilised on diesel sections where 1980s rolling stock desperately needs replacing.

Snow1964 said:

I don't believe any contracts need to be unpicked, unless I have misunderstood they don't specify the services or routes that are worked. They simply say where train has to end up for maintenance by a certain time, without exceeding a specific mileage.

Therefore it's more a case of Operators having free choice where to diagram them between off-depot time, and return for maintenance time. So as long as diagram ends in correct place to get to depot early or on time that meets the contract.

Click to expand...

Not really. The whole contract structure is based on providing a number of units for a number of diagrams on a particular route.

Change the route, and you unpick the whole model

35B said:

Not really. The whole contract structure is based on providing a number of units for a number of diagrams on a particular route.

Change the route, and you unpick the whole model

Click to expand...

So you are saying that, when GWR started using 80x on regional routes, the contacts with Hitachi had to be changed, even if the GWR returns the unit to the depot at the same location and time?

That sounds insane, to say the least. By which I don't mean to say that you're wrong, insane contracts get written all the time.

Trainbike46 said:

So you are saying that, when GWR started using 80x on regional routes, the contacts with Hitachi had to be changed, even if the GWR returns the unit to the depot at the same location and time?

That sounds insane, to say the least. By which I don't mean to say that you're wrong, insane contracts get written all the time.

Click to expand...

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.

Class 317 said:

Short term the spare class 221's would offer quite a bit of relief once the staffing to man them is sorted.

Post GBR I could see cascades coming back into fashion as one investment can benefit multiple routes.

For example if you were to order say circa 55 extra CAF Trimodes for east coast you could trigger a cascade of 9 car IET to GW service..This could then increase GW capacity and also allow both GW and EC 5 car IET to go to cross country to displace voyagers offering greater capacity.

This is an example of what could be possible not necessarily a recommendation. A cascade like this could benefit 3 routes for one new train order and would likely increase the benefit to cost ratio meaning it's more likely to get passed DFT.

Click to expand...

The 6 x 221s are a start, but they need a lot more trains than just 6 sets. And their 170 diagrams are also very overcrowded as well.

A new fleet of Class 231/756 units to at least replace the 170s would not go amiss, imo. If Stadler can be convinced to build a 125mph capable version of the FLIRT for the UK market, I think there would be some benefit due to the shared parts and staff training required for replacing the Voyagers.

Tetragon213 said:

The 6 x 221s are a start, but they need a lot more trains than just 6 sets. And their 170 diagrams are also very overcrowded as well.

A new fleet of Class 231/756 units to at least replace the 170s would not go amiss, imo. If Stadler can be convinced to build a 125mph capable version of the FLIRT for the UK market, I think there would be some benefit due to the shared parts and staff training required for replacing the Voyagers.

Click to expand...

Given that more capacity is needed now, what can be done which is better than just the 6 Voyagers?
222s are out of the frame, being a) incompatible for strengthening the XC services, b) different and thus bringing the need for traction training and c) going to Scotland anyway.
To take Voyagers away from Manchester for the XC core we would need something else which is not too strange and ideally is electric. With the 350s now taken too is there another EMU that could fill in until a new build comes - in a decade or so?

If we have to wait for stock cascaded after the introduction of a new fleet it is going to be a lot more than a decade - if XC is third in line then it is 3 sets of crew-training to do after the new stock gets to its owner before any relief arrives for a start!