Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[Bletchleyite]

What is your evidence for this? It is a repeated assertion with no grounding

I'd think it was pretty obvious, really? Well-priced rail gets people out of cars, and poorer people drive older, more polluting cars.

, and, even if it is true, applies elsewhere too.

Yes, it's a great model that, where capacity is available, should be repeated elsewhere, and often is e.g. Northern vs. TPE (where there is a significant fare difference, not the 5p "ORCATS raids"). Broadening the market by offering a fast but expensive option and a slow but cheap one is a good way of attracting as many people as possible to rail without damaging your ability to charge higher fares to those who can afford to pay them. It isn't competition, it's widening your offer to as great a customer base as possible.

Indeed, the model could apply here. If it was significantly cheaper to use WMT services on the Wolves-Cov corridor, more people would do so rather than cramming onto XC. The German concept of differentiated fares between train classes does this quite nicely - your "PTE passes" are valid only on regional services with only higher point to point fares valid on the IC/ICE services. Where only an IC/ICE service connects a particular set of places, an exception can be and is made, usually shown clearly on the displays. These are short distance services, yes, but some people are exceptionally price sensitive - these are the ones who choose Northern where TPE is an option with a very small fare differential, and there are plenty of such people.

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

Reform the 222s in to 7 car trains and use them when they come off lease…

ScotRail and Lumo have already bagged them. Otherwise this would be a good idea - take all 22x and reform to 7 car sets (maybe also a few 9s for exceptionally busy services) and scrap a load of end cars for parts.

 

[Bayum]

ScotRail and Lumo have already bagged them. Otherwise this would be a good idea - take all 22x and reform to 7 car sets (maybe also a few 9s for exceptionally busy services) and scrap a load of end cars.

I know. Thus the eye roll Massive own goal from DaFT and ROSCOs

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps GBR’s best option might be to almost restore Cross-Country mark 1 (fewer true long distance services) as a new premium product with its own pricing, while converting XC mk2 (post-Princess) to low cost regional/suburban operations. And do it before open access operators force their hand.

I did mention that option above. A less frequent (perhaps two hourly base), true long distance XC with high spec (but shortish) trains running infrequently with enforced compulsory reservation to keep the local passengers off, and an overlay of more frequent, longer, EMU where possible services to provide for the local need. The issue with XC is probably them trying to be all things to all people rather than adopting the more common local-IC split that most countries do.

 

[stuu]

I don't begrudge anybody preferring the faster service - I'd always catch it myself if it was available and the same price. The problem is that 50 miles is still a pretty short low-value journey when it's taking seats away from passengers who are going 400 miles or more. You do need to improve the GWR service, if nothing else because I'm not sure all the Taunton passengers would fit on it.

There is enormous churn of passengers at Bristol TM, from my experience up to half the passengers get off there. If you look at reservations, and I did Taunton to Bristol every day for 7 years, very few from the SW are beyond Birmingham

 

[35B]

Indeed, the model could apply here. If it was significantly cheaper to use WMT services on the Wolves-Cov corridor, more people would do so rather than cramming onto XC. The German concept of differentiated fares between train classes does this quite nicely - your "PTE passes" are valid only on regional services with only higher point to point fares valid on the IC/ICE services. Where only an IC/ICE service connects a particular set of places, an exception can be and is made, usually shown clearly on the displays. These are short distance services, yes, but some people are exceptionally price sensitive - these are the ones who choose Northern where TPE is an option with a very small fare differential, and there are plenty of such people.

That assumes adequate enforcement. The problem of the Wolves-Cov corridor is the combination of very high demand for the "premium" fast service over the local service, combined with short journey times making on board enforcement difficult. As far too many threads on this forum show, very many members of the travelling public struggle to accept the idea that in buying a cheaper ticket, they are agreeing to abide by some forms of restriction. That is then magnified by repeated hard done by stories on media when, inevitably, some are caught and penalised.

 

[43074]

3. Yes, that probably means an end to the many £9/11/12 tickets for London - Birmingham (based on fares for Wednesday morning - https://www.thetrainline.com/book/r...searchId=7012cba0-49cf-48f3-91ce-f7c57edd4519 - but whilst we have lots of passengers struggling with the "fun sized" diesel services between Manchester and Birmingham - on which few 'cheap' tickets exist - it seems ridiculous to waste so many resources on three competing London - Birmingham services. We've many spare EMUs capable of running on the fully electrified line between Manchester and Birmingham but we can't provide an eight coach EMU because we apparently need to run four coach DMUs for the minority of passengers traveling all the way to e.g. Bournemouth

It doesn't waste any resources running a WMT service between London and Birmingham though - it's still necessary to provide a local service to Birmingham from Canley, Tile Hill, Berkswell and Hampton-in-Arden etc, in the same way that there is still a need for London services from Northampton, Milton Keynes, Bletchley and Leighton Buzzard. You may as well combine them at Northampton and fill seats on them with end to end London to Birmingham customers.

No-one has come up with a satisfactory answer for what you do with the Reading to Birmingham corridor if the Bournemouth service were chopped north of Birmingham (How is, say, Reading to Nottingham and Manchester to Northampton in any way better than just retaining Bournemouth to Manchester but running longer trains?)

 

[Bletchleyite]

That assumes adequate enforcement.

Only if you consider fairness important above all else. The vast majority of people will travel on the service they selected when they bought their ticket. Some may not, but as long as you redirect enough that the overcrowding problem is resolved then that's a successful measure.

See also pick up/set down only - you largely don't need to enforce it. When a pick up only northbound service arrives at MKC from Euston there are always maybe 5-10 people get off it who clearly knew it stopped and ignored it, but those 5-10 are noise level compared to the problem they are trying to avoid, namely all the seats being taken by commuters from Euston so the long distance Anytime premium passengers don't get a look-in.

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

No-one has come up with a satisfactory answer for what you do with the Reading to Birmingham corridor if the Bournemouth service were chopped north of Birmingham (How is, say, Reading to Nottingham and Manchester to Northampton in any way better than just retaining Bournemouth to Manchester but running longer trains?)

It isn't, which is why this Manchester-Northampton idea is nothing more than a game of crayons to find something to do with the 350/2s while breaking an established flow to satisfy people who are even more of a Takt purist than me!

If there is a Manchester-Birmingham capacity problem and it's really not possible to find a way to run the Manchester-Reading as 8 car minimum due to the Reading reversal, the most sensible option to me seems to be just to have one XC to each of Liverpool and Manchester and one WMT, and make the Manchester WMT 240m long and the Bristol XC ideally 9 car (just over 200m) which is mostly the case anyway and could be all day if you brought in the 6 unallocated 221s. I just can't see us needing more capacity than that in the foreseeable future. The WMT remaining at Liverpool goes 8 car which together with a 5 car Voyager increases capacity there over two 4-car 350s an hour, while Liverpool gets an XC back they've wanted for a while. And all that only requiring a few extra units at WMT which could be, er, 350/2s*, and the only staff training needed being WMT drivers/guards needing to sign Colwich-Manchester via Stoke.

What's not to like about that option unless you happen to need to travel from Manchester to Oxford/Reading which isn't going to be a massive flow, and some of that flow is going to go via London anyway as it's less cramped and often cheaper due to XC's very high fares? It seems to do everything that's needed without needing any extra paths at all.

* Yes, a microfleet, but not really a microfleet in the problematic sense because 350/2s have so much commonality with the other subclasses.

 

[Topological]

Also looking at a standard hour arrivals:

xx:18 from Reading
xx:24 from Bristol*
xx:27 from Leeds
xx:51 from Bournemouth*

Departures

xx: 03 to Bournemouth*
xx: 28 to Leeds
xx: 33 to Reading
xx: 42 to Bristol Temple Meads*

* denotes a Manchester train.

So match as follows

xx:18 forms xx:33 (15 minutes reversal)
xx:24 form xx:28 to Leeds
xx:27 from Leeds now goes as xx:42 to Bristol
xx:51 from Bournemouth forms xx:03 to Bournemouth (12 minutes reversal)

Or:

xx:18 from Reading forms the xx:28 to Leeds (As now)
xx:24 from Bristol forms xx:42 to Bristol (18 minutes reversal)
xx:27 from Leeds for xx:33 to Reading (As now)
xx:51 from Bournemouth forms xx:03 to Bournemouth (12 minutes reversal)

It reall is just that Bournemouth pair that cause the issues.

Manchester's are:

33 and 56 arrivals
01 and 30 departures

So to run a 350-based Manchester service needs a dedicated platform at New Street, or requires the trains to go further East.

Liverpools fast is xx04 having arrived at xx48 - Hence could align with Bournemouth.

 

[Harpo]

That assumes adequate enforcement. The problem of the Wolves-Cov corridor is the combination of very high demand for the "premium" fast service over the local service,

A lesson learned on Avanti services from London to Birmingham is to use the loo before Coventry as it’s hard to find a vacant one afterwards. Even with lots of seats available.

 

[35B]

Only if you consider fairness important above all else. The vast majority of people will travel on the service they selected when they bought their ticket. Some may not, but as long as you redirect enough that the overcrowding problem is resolved then that's a successful measure.

IF that works, fine - and I accept the point about people thinking they're obliged to travel on the train they selected (a different can of worms). But if you implement a more restrictive policy, and then do not enforce it, pre-existing patterns of behaviour may well reassert themselves (especially where they've been established since before MK was a gleam in a planner's eye).

 

[daodao]

No-one has come up with a satisfactory answer for what you do with the Reading to Birmingham corridor if the Bournemouth service were chopped north of Birmingham (How is, say, Reading to Nottingham and Manchester to Northampton in any way better than just retaining Bournemouth to Manchester but running longer trains?)

It is better, as the Manchester to Northampton service can be run by electric trains (such as the spare class 350/2s), releasing diesel Voyagers to strengthen XC services on non-electrified routes. It is 'greener' and reduces lengthy diesel 'running under the wires'.

 

[Magdalia]

The issue with XC is probably them trying to be all things to all people rather than adopting the more common local-IC split that most countries do.

This is the root of the issue. The Cross country network is trying to do two things at once and not doing either of them very well.

A less frequent (perhaps two hourly base), true long distance XC with high spec (but shortish) trains running infrequently with enforced compulsory reservation to keep the local passengers off, and an overlay of more frequent, longer, EMU where possible services to provide for the local need.

One of the big changes in the UK economy since privatisation is the growth of big cities outside London as regional economic centres, especially Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds. The privatised franchise model made it very difficult for the railway to adapt to that change, especially in the parts of the network that have capacity constraints.

But I would put the emphasis the other way round: for the benefit of these big city economies the long, preferably EMU local trains are now the priority, they should be the foundations of the service and the long distance XC service should be the overlay.

In an ideal world that would involve a complete timetable rewrite, and possibly some capacity enhancements too. But the UK economy can't afford to wait for that, it needs quick wins that can be delivered within the constraints of the existing resources.

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

Manchester to Northampton service can be run by electric trains (such as the spare class 350/2s), releasing diesel Voyagers to strengthen XC services on non-electrified routes. It is 'greener' and reduces lengthy diesel 'running under the wires'.

Manchester-Northampton with class 350/2s provides the local service between Manchester and Birmingham that both cities need to help to fuel their economic growth. That's more important than the "green" aspects, which are icing on the cake. Manchester-Northampton with class 350/2s can also be done within the constraints of the existing resources. That isn't just trains, it is also about platform capacity at New Street and paths between Wolverhampton and Coventry. Northampton as a terminating point isn't ideal, and if someone can come up with another better way of running EMUs Manchester-Birmingham, that also retains the through Euston-Birmingham via Northampton service, then I would support it. But only if it can be demonstrated that it will work within the existing constraints.

 

[Topological]

This is the root of the issue. The Cross country network is trying to do two things at once and not doing either of them very well.


One of the big changes in the UK economy since privatisation is the growth of big cities outside London as regional economic centres, especially Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds. The privatised franchise model made it very difficult for the railway to adapt to that change, especially in the parts of the network that have capacity constraints.

But I would put the emphasis the other way round: for the benefit of these big city economies the long, preferably EMU local trains are now the priority, they should be the foundations of the service and the long distance XC service should be the overlay.

In an ideal world that would involve a complete timetable rewrite, and possibly some capacity enhancements too. But the UK economy can't afford to wait for that, it needs quick wins that can be delivered within the constraints of the existing resources.

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


Manchester-Northampton with class 350/2s provides the local service between Manchester and Birmingham that both cities need to help to fuel their economic growth. That's more important than the "green" aspects, which are icing on the cake. Manchester-Northampton with class 350/2s can also be done within the constraints of the existing resources. That isn't just trains, it is also about platform capacity at New Street and paths between Wolverhampton and Coventry. Northampton as a terminating point isn't ideal, and if someone can come up with another better way of running EMUs Manchester-Birmingham, that also retains the through Euston-Birmingham via Northampton service, then I would support it. But only if it can be demonstrated that it will work within the existing constraints.

Looking at the times

The xx:56 arrival from Manchester could form the xy:04 to Liverpool, though at 8 minutes is 6 minutes less turnaround than the current Liverpool has.
The xx:48 arrival from Liverpool could form the xy:01 to Manchester

That just leaves an xx:33 arrival from Manchester and the xx:30 to Manchester, which would work with Birmingham International IF you can squeeze one path there.

That way you have not touched London - Birmingham.

IF you can fudge that through for a couple of years then HS2 opens and there are more Bletchley to Birmingham via Weedon trains and the recast allows a bit more flexing. Possibly even send Liverpool back to being self contained and send both Manchesters through.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Manchester-Northampton with class 350/2s provides the local service between Manchester and Birmingham that both cities need to help to fuel their economic growth. That's more important than the "green" aspects, which are icing on the cake. Manchester-Northampton with class 350/2s can also be done within the constraints of the existing resources. That isn't just trains, it is also about platform capacity at New Street and paths between Wolverhampton and Coventry. Northampton as a terminating point isn't ideal, and if someone can come up with another better way of running EMUs Manchester-Birmingham, that also retains the through Euston-Birmingham via Northampton service, then I would support it. But only if it can be demonstrated that it will work within the existing constraints.

Read post 246 for an option that provides all the capacity needed without any extra paths and also returns XC to Liverpool as they want.

 

[Topological]

Read post 246 for an option that provides all the capacity needed without any extra paths and also returns XC to Liverpool as they want.

Except it doesn't really because you are still using the voyagers.

The Manchester to 350s releases voyagers.

 

[Magdalia]

Read post 246 for an option that provides all the capacity needed without any extra paths and also returns XC to Liverpool as they want.

It is a different way of trying to do two things at once, and does have its attractions, though the New Street turnrounds do look tight.

Except it doesn't really because you are still using the voyagers.

The Manchester to 350s releases voyagers.

It does still use the Voyagers, but it does increase capacity by having long EMUs 1tph to both Manchester and Liverpool.

What's not to like about that option unless you happen to need to travel from Manchester to Oxford/Reading which isn't going to be a massive flow

Hopefully one day soon it will be possible to do Manchester-Oxford via Milton Keynes.

 

[Topological]

It is a different way of trying to do two things at once, and does have its attractions, though the New Street turnrounds do look tight.


It does still use the Voyagers, but it does increase capacity by having long EMUs 1tph to both Manchester and Liverpool.


Hopefully one day soon it will be possible to do Manchester-Oxford via Milton Keynes.

All of the solutions that just switch Manchester to EMU save voyagers and increase capacity on the sections that cannot be EMU-ised. So the optimal is not just to switch where the voyagers go to.

However, there is a small side effect of sending voyagers to Liverpool as they reduce capacity compared to the present EMU.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except it doesn't really because you are still using the voyagers.

The Manchester to 350s releases voyagers.

There are 6 spare Voyagers sat doing nothing now and a further two on short term lease to Grand Central available within a few years. There's therefore no longer any need to release them - just give the extra ones to XC! This is the simplest way to add capacity, with just the lease and maintenance costs of the extra units added and no crew training required.

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

However, there is a small side effect of sending voyagers to Liverpool as they reduce capacity compared to the present EMU.

Not if the EMU is switched to 8 car. Presently it's 4 car twice an hour. If you make the remaining hourly EMU 8 car then the Voyager is pure extra capacity. I'd go 12 on the Manchesters assuming it's possible path wise not to interwork the two.

This would previously have involved platform constraints at New St when it used 4C, but it mostly doesn't any more, the increased Shrewsbury service now ties that up pretty much all day. And New St's main platforms are quite long, so half a platform can fit an 8 car.

 

[Magdalia]

Not if the existing EMU is switched to 8 car. Presently it's 4 car twice an hour. If you make the remaining hourly EMU 8 car then the Voyager is pure extra capacity.

I was just starting to write that!

 

[Topological]

There are 6 spare Voyagers sat doing nothing now and a further two on short term lease to Grand Central available within a few years. There's therefore no longer any need to release them - just give the extra ones to XC! This is the simplest way to add capacity, with just the lease and maintenance costs of the extra units added and no crew training required.

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



Not if the EMU is switched to 8 car. Presently it's 4 car twice an hour. If you make the remaining hourly EMU 8 car then the Voyager is pure extra capacity. I'd go 12 on the Manchesters assuming it's possible path wise not to interwork the two.

This would previously have involved platform constraints at New St when it used 4C, but it mostly doesn't any more, the increased Shrewsbury service now ties that up pretty much all day. And New St's main platforms are quite long, so half a platform can fit an 8 car.

Ah, they are every 30 minutes on the direct route now.

Previously, one of the two Liverpools was much slower.

Forming the 34 from Birmingham from a train ex-Manchester is too tight though so it does not solve the what to do with the second Manchester.

Either way, if the goal is providing capacity on CrossCountry then solutions that remove Voyagers under wires North West from Birmingham have more merit than something that shifts them around.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah, they are every 30 minutes on the direct route now.

Previously, one of the two Liverpools was much slower.

Forming the 34 from Birmingham from a train ex-Manchester is too tight though so it does not solve the what to do with the second Manchester.

That assumes you can't tweak with the paths or platforming. You quite possibly can. Timetables are not immutable. And even if that limited it to 8 rather than 12-car you've still got a capacity gain there over the previous 5 car Voyager on the Reading service.

Either way, if the goal is providing capacity on CrossCountry then solutions that remove Voyagers under wires North West from Birmingham have more merit than something that shifts them around.

The through services have value in and of themselves, so that's not an absolute either.

 

[Magdalia]

Either way, if the goal is providing capacity on CrossCountry then solutions that remove Voyagers under wires North West from Birmingham have more merit than something that shifts them around.

Yes. Ideally there would be 2tph Birmingham-Manchester and 2tph Birmingham-Liverpool all with 8 car class 350s, but that's probably unachievable within existing constraints.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes. Ideally there would be 2tph Birmingham-Manchester and 2tph Birmingham-Liverpool all with 8 car class 350s, but that's probably unachievable within existing constraints.

It would be good if there were those services, yes, but not to the complete exclusion of the long distance service entirely because that also has value, though it could be less frequent, e.g. 0.5tph.

I think to do that you'd need to build some directed infrastructure German/Swiss style, though, e.g. passing loops at selected stations. For that you design the long term timetable and build the infrastructure to specifically support it (e.g. no need to 4-track Brum-Rugby, you just need extra loops at relevant stations - and notably Stechford already has one!)

 

[Magdalia]

That assumes you can't tweak with the paths. You quite possibly can. Timetables are not immutable.

That's true at routes and stations that have spare capacity. On routes that are at full capacity it is much more difficult, especially where there is a mix of fast and stopping services on a 2 track railway.

e.g. passing loops at selected stations. For that you design the long term timetable and build the infrastructure to specifically support it (e.g. no need to 4-track Brum-Rugby, you just need extra loops at relevant stations - and notably Stechford already has one!)

Also Birmingham International and Coventry, yet still we are told the line is full!

 

[Harpo]

Manchester-Northampton with class 350/2s can also be done within the constraints of the existing resources.

I assume that’s an incredibly sweeping use of the phrase ‘existing resources’? The required additional units are presumably off-lease, would need additional stabling/maintenance capacity and the existing traincrew resource would need retraining.

 

[172007]

That assumes adequate enforcement. The problem of the Wolves-Cov corridor is the combination of very high demand for the "premium" fast service over the local service, combined with short journey times making on board enforcement difficult. As far too many threads on this forum show, very many members of the travelling public struggle to accept the idea that in buying a cheaper ticket, they are agreeing to abide by some forms of restriction. That is then magnified by repeated hard done by stories on media when, inevitably, some are caught and penalised.

the largest faulure of the New Street / Grand Central development if you put aside track layout changes is tickets barriers.

At New Street there ought to be a re-evalution on the provision of ticket gates and platform segregation. Platforms used by XC and Avanti should as much as possible only allow ticket holders with tickets beyond Wolves, Cov and international.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I assume that’s an incredibly sweeping use of the phrase ‘existing resources’? The required additional units are presumably off-lease, would need additional stabling/maintenance capacity and the existing traincrew resource would need retraining.

Under the same definition of existing resources, but slightly fewer of them as no crew training would be required, the 6 spare Voyagers (and the following 2 once GC are done with them) could go to XC to extend the existing services. Reading may be a problem but at least you could ensure all of those were 5 with no single 4s at all, and the Bristol could be 9 all day. It's a complete no-brainer to give XC these units, they are literally doing nothing and are the same as their existing fleet.

 

[Magdalia]

I assume that’s an incredibly sweeping use of the phrase ‘existing resources’? The required additional units are presumably off-lease, would need additional stabling/maintenance capacity and the existing traincrew resource would need retraining.

I didn't mean that there would be no costs of transition, you're right that some financial resources would be needed for leasing costs and traincrew retraining. I don't know enough about the local railway geography regarding maintenance and stabling, but all of these issues would have to be addressed for any reintroduction of the class 350/2s.

 

[Harpo]

At New Street there ought to be a re-evalution on the provision of ticket gates and platform segregation. Platforms used by XC and Avanti should as much as possible only allow ticket holders with tickets beyond Wolves, Cov and international.

Maybe ask signallers to operate New Street with one arm behind their back too?

 

[Bletchleyite]

the largest faulure of the New Street / Grand Central development if you put aside track layout changes is tickets barriers.

At New Street there ought to be a re-evalution on the provision of ticket gates and platform segregation. Platforms used by XC and Avanti should as much as possible only allow ticket holders with tickets beyond Wolves, Cov and international.

Not practicable unless you want to double the size of the station. While the station is "sided" (some routes are only accessible from some platforms) there aren't defined areas like that and practically cannot be.

Also, local passengers on Avanti are largely not an issue because not everyone is travelling all the way to/from New St, a lot board/alight at Cov and Intl. So as long as it's not a 5 car (there are very few 5 car Euston-Brum workings) there's usually space, unlike XC. Similar to Manchester-Stockport, where Stockport is well used enough that there are plenty of seats for people making a Manchester<->Stockport journey.