Cross-country overcrowding: what could be done?

[Taunton]

Would the obvious quick (partial) fix be the 6 5-car 221s in storage? But even that seems to be beyond the budget willingness of the DfT?

In all fairness the DfT have given Cross Country a fixed but substantial amount, do I recall £420m per year (the actual amount is irrelevant) to run things with. It's up to CC to run things within that amount, and not to somehow squander it and then come back for more.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Ask yourself how many votes are there in Birmingham to Sheffield trains? Or any other XC sector. The answer is hardly any and this plays against the expenditure involved. Renationalisation has reduced all railway questions to this.

Stupidly I'd hoped all the 222s would be added to the 220 and 221s for XC.

 

[NCT]

In all fairness the DfT have given Cross Country a fixed but substantial amount, do I recall £420m per year (the actual amount is irrelevant) to run things with. It's up to CC to run things within that amount, and not to somehow squander it and then come back for more.

Whatever amount agreed isn't a top-down 'slush fund' for the TOC to spend as they see fit, but bottom-up approved micro-project by micro-project. Even an extra unbudgeted bin needs DfT (read Treasury) approval.

 

[Freemo]

0603 Birmingham to Edinburgh is almost always doubled up since the new 221s came in so from my perspective it's been worthwhile them spending hundreds of thousands to improve the service I use most often. Still get the occasional 'locked out of use' situation but it doesn't seem as bad as others for that.

 

[thedbdiboy]

When they put 4 and 5 coach trains (sometimes even less!) on what should be Intercity routes through our 2nd biggest city + a number of our other big city regions, are we really surprised? Crosscountry are the only operator I've used where even 1st class was packed, full and standing! Short trains, unsuitable rolling stock for long distance journeys, it's a sad site. I'm really hoping when all TOCs are finally nationalised, all the Intercity operators are merged and a set standard is enforced like was the case under British Rail. When Crosscountry turns up with an 8 or 9 coach service, they are more than adequate but far too often this doesn't happen unfortunately.

The initial trigger for the current gross overcrowding on XC was the introduction of the woeful Branson Voyagers which saw replacement of full length trains with units which were not only shorter but had totally inadequate provision of luggage space for the type of services operated. Things have deteriorated further more recently with mutiple cancellations and services running with units locked out, in great part due to industrial relations problems seen following arrival of the Amazonans, as disussed in length on other threads.

The latter should be easier/quicker to fix than the former, if the will is there.

The previous trains may well have been longer, but most were not “full-length” (ie 10-12 coach). The tragedy (incompetence) is that nothing significant has been done about it in the intervening 25 years. Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised - after all, the trains don’t serve London, so “aren’t important”. (Not my opinion I hasten to add).

There is no doubt that XC suffers persistent overcrowding and we would all welcome a sustainable long term solution, but a number of these assertions need contextualising.

Although in its final years as a sector Intercity under BR made great strides it did not have a 'set standard' to work to; rather it did what it could with the resources available. Crosscountry operations were always the Cinderella, for many years formed of all sorts of cascaded rolling stock running various NE-SW services at odd times as well as the Brighton and Dover workings. The allocation of HSTs to a number of these journeys was probably the high point but they ran much less frequently than today's services.

'Operation Princess', the Virgin XC plan did not replace the full length trains like for like with Voyagers - what it did though was to take, for example, an 8 coach train running every 2 hours and recast the service with, say, an hourly service of 4 coach Voyagers. BR for many years had been constrained by investment limits and therefore managed demand by means of pricing and timetabling, but the new world of franchises did not seek to limit such growth. Under Virgin, the sudden provision of hourly services on routes that for decades had maybe enjoyed maybe 5 trains a day stimulated pent up demand at it was for that reason the Voyagers were quickly overwhelmed. Unfortunately the franchises were still underpinned by public contracts that constrained over-expansion and there was therefore no quick answer to the problem. Put simply, if a franchise had a booming business but held a limited length contract (as XC did) the only way further new trains could be procured was if Government would underwrite their value beyond the contract end, and neither DfT nor Treasury were willing to do this.

This is all coming full circle as the original contracts move over to DfTO and GBR; the Crosscountry issue can't be hidden behind the smoke and mirrors of the quasi-privatised structure; but any 'quick wins' will be entirely dependent on the availability of rolling stock and the means to fund it. (That and sorting out the industrial relations issues).

 

[cactustwirly]

Don't forget that the arrival of the additional 221s from Avanti followed the departure of the HSTs, plus there must be at least one Voyager under refurbishment, so not a massive uplift in additional coaches all considered. There's also the issue of short-staffing and the working arrangements that mean there must be crew with certain qualifications in both units, so sometimes a pair will be running with a set locked out of use if short-staffed.

A very long-standing problem with XC and no significant resolution on the horizon to my knowledge.

However the Voyagers are very space inefficient, a 4 car 220 has the same amount of seats as a 158.
A HST has almost double the seats per coach, so it is technically a downgrade in capacity

 

[LowLevel]

However the Voyagers are very space inefficient, a 4 car 220 has the same amount of seats as a 158.
A HST has almost double the seats per coach, so it is technically a downgrade in capacity

They're not quite that bad. A 158 has around 130-140 seats depending on spec. A 220 has 200.

 

[NCT]

There is no doubt that XC suffers persistent overcrowding and we would all welcome a sustainable long term solution, but a number of these assertions need contextualising.

Although in its final years as a sector Intercity under BR made great strides it did not have a 'set standard' to work to; rather it did what it could with the resources available. Crosscountry operations were always the Cinderella, for many years formed of all sorts of cascaded rolling stock running various NE-SW services at odd times as well as the Brighton and Dover workings. The allocation of HSTs to a number of these journeys was probably the high point but they ran much less frequently than today's services.

'Operation Princess', the Virgin XC plan did not replace the full length trains like for like with Voyagers - what it did though was to take, for example, an 8 coach train running every 2 hours and recast the service with, say, an hourly service of 4 coach Voyagers. BR for many years had been constrained by investment limits and therefore managed demand by means of pricing and timetabling, but the new world of franchises did not seek to limit such growth. Under Virgin, the sudden provision of hourly services on routes that for decades had maybe enjoyed maybe 5 trains a day stimulated pent up demand at it was for that reason the Voyagers were quickly overwhelmed. Unfortunately the franchises were still underpinned by public contracts that constrained over-expansion and there was therefore no quick answer to the problem. Put simply, if a franchise had a booming business but held a limited length contract (as XC did) the only way further new trains could be procured was if Government would underwrite their value beyond the contract end, and neither DfT nor Treasury were willing to do this.

This is all coming full circle as the original contracts move over to DfTO and GBR; the Crosscountry issue can't be hidden behind the smoke and mirrors of the quasi-privatised structure; but any 'quick wins' will be entirely dependent on the availability of rolling stock and the means to fund it. (That and sorting out the industrial relations issues).

Excellent post.

Since Covid years TOCs have been funded on an annual hand-to-mouth Treasury micro-managed basis. I'm not hopeful things will be that much better under GBR (thing might improve, but I suspect only marginally). From your description it looked as though BR was living land to mouth too. We had the most benign environment of fixed-term project based funding under franchising, and even that couldn't escape Treasury conservatism.

 

[ValentaFan1974]

I’m seeing posts about getting the extra 6 ex-Avanti sets that are languishing in sidings. Sounds great but there isn’t the staff to man them and I don’t think that situation will change anytime soon. The discussion about running double sets with one TM is done to death and doesn’t look like it’s going to change anytime soon.

One alternative could be to take the centre coaches out of the 6 stored sets and strengthen some of the current 5 car units to 6 or 7 cars. That would free up some 4 car units to slightly quieter routes…. However I don’t think it’s workable…

 

[43096]

I’m seeing posts about getting the extra 6 ex-Avanti sets that are languishing in sidings. Sounds great but there isn’t the staff to man them and I don’t think that situation will change anytime soon. The discussion about running double sets with one TM is done to death and doesn’t look like it’s going to change anytime soon.

Frankly the double set TM thing needs resolving - and not by employing more TMs! It's completely unjustifiable and needs to be abolished.

 

[irish_rail]

Please can we put the idea of XC concentrating on the "core" as far as Bristol to bed. There isn't currently a viable onward journey as the GWR services to Exeter are all station stoppers. This is in stark comparison to the ECML north of York which is flush with intercity trains. Any cancellation of XC west of Bristol would be hugely negative for Exeter, Plymouth and Cornwall. The only way a core operation could potentially work is something along the lines of York to Exeter (where connections exist into GWR intercity Cornish trains).

 

[Adrian1980uk]

The problem is available DMUs are becoming a rare beast on the network as the DFT will refuse to order any (decarbonisation). As time goes on it will tighter and tighter as DMUs get older and replacements aren't forthcoming, battery power is coming but I'm not convinced soon enough and will not currently work with XCs long distance network.

My feeling is GBR will conclude the need a new fleet of bi modes similar to the FLIRTs that engines can be swapped for batteries on the future, these will free up more DMUs to help across the network with overcrowding.

This isn't just a cross-country problem, see Northern thread as well and is hopefully fairly high up the GBR to solve list.

 

[Tetragon213]

Maximum speed for the 99 is only 75mph.

At this point, I will take quite literally anything if it alleviates the overcrowding, as a regrettably extensive user of XC services between Sheffield and Bristol.

The problem is available DMUs are becoming a rare beast on the network as the DFT will refuse to order any (decarbonisation). As time goes on it will tighter and tighter as DMUs get older and replacements aren't forthcoming, battery power is coming but I'm not convinced soon enough and will not currently work with XCs long distance network.

My feeling is GBR will conclude the need a new fleet of bi modes similar to the FLIRTs that engines can be swapped for batteries on the future, these will free up more DMUs to help across the network with overcrowding.

This isn't just a cross-country problem, see Northern thread as well and is hopefully fairly high up the GBR to solve list.

More 8xx stock wouldn't be a terrible idea, in that case. Especially seeing as it would "support local industry" by having large orders be placed with the Hitachi factory at Newton Aycliffe.

Of course, the ideal solution for the core section imo is to electrify the damn thing. Get the wires up between Westerleigh Junction to Bromsgrove via Worcester, and then repeat it between Lichfield and Derby. From there, pray that MML gets completed, and put up the wires between Sheffield and Doncaster. Electrification would allow for faster accelerating trains, and it would alleviate the carbon concerns, which imo are vastly overstated; the carbon from a new set of DMUs will be far eclipsed by the carbon of hundreds of cars from people being priced out of rail by the lack of capacity.

 

[Harpo]

Given that everything is already specified by the DfT I’d say nothing is going to change with GBR.

Agreed. Hundreds of DfT staff are moving to GBR and become (presumably) even more distant from the treasury than before.

 

[zwk500]

At this point, I will take quite literally anything if it alleviates the overcrowding, as a regrettably extensive user of XC services between Sheffield and Bristol.

75mph running won't do anything to alleviate the overcrowding because they won't hit the slots at Birmingham New Street. You need equally capable stock on all XC services to make the timetable work.

More 8xx stock wouldn't be a terrible idea, in that case. Especially seeing as it would "support local industry" by having large orders be placed with the Hitachi factory at Newton Aycliffe.

Of course, the ideal solution for the core section imo is to electrify the damn thing. Get the wires up between Westerleigh Junction to Bromsgrove via Worcester, and then repeat it between Lichfield and Derby. From there, pray that MML gets completed, and put up the wires between Sheffield and Doncaster. Electrification would allow for faster accelerating trains, and it would alleviate the carbon concerns, which imo are vastly overstated; the carbon from a new set of DMUs will be far eclipsed by the carbon of hundreds of cars from people being priced out of rail by the lack of capacity.

This bit is probably in speculative.

At this point the most likely solution to XC's capacity issues is to replace some current 80x bi-modes with BEMUs on the London radial IC services and cascade the 802s/805s to XC. Then a coherent strategic rolling electrification plan to get the XC network sufficiently wired up that by the time the 80x stock is retired they can go to BEMUs.

 

[The Planner]

At this point, I will take quite literally anything if it alleviates the overcrowding, as a regrettably extensive user of XC services between Sheffield and Bristol.

More 8xx stock wouldn't be a terrible idea, in that case. Especially seeing as it would "support local industry" by having large orders be placed with the Hitachi factory at Newton Aycliffe.

Of course, the ideal solution for the core section imo is to electrify the damn thing. Get the wires up between Westerleigh Junction to Bromsgrove via Worcester, and then repeat it between Lichfield and Derby. From there, pray that MML gets completed, and put up the wires between Sheffield and Doncaster. Electrification would allow for faster accelerating trains, and it would alleviate the carbon concerns, which imo are vastly overstated; the carbon from a new set of DMUs will be far eclipsed by the carbon of hundreds of cars from people being priced out of rail by the lack of capacity.

Why via Worcester and Lichfield? Two routes XC only use on diversions.

 

[mernrith]

At this point the most likely solution to XC's capacity issues is to replace some current 80x bi-modes with BEMUs on the London radial IC services and cascade the 802s/805s to XC. Then a coherent strategic rolling electrification plan to get the XC network sufficiently wired up that by the time the 80x stock is retired they can go to BEMUs.

Why not build new 80x directly for XC then? Should battery be some sort of environment concern, Hitachi have tested with that particular TPE 802.

For example instead of running all the way from Edinburgh to Penzance, why not run an hourly service from Newcastle to Bristol as 2x4 car units? Passengers beyond these points could change onto GWR services in the South and LNER in the North, both of which have greater capacity than XC.

Some major destinations, say Leeds and Durham only have XC as their major, if not sole provider of direct Edinburgh service. I don't think stripping XC away is a good idea at all.

 

[takno]

Why via Worcester and Lichfield? Two routes XC only use on diversions.

For that matter why not barnt green to Kings Norton and round the Camp Hill?

The solution in my lifetime is probably to just sort out the staffing situation and start reliably running paired voyagers where both halves definitely always stay in service. You probably also need better local services combined with XC not stopping at Taunton, Wakefield or Worcestershire parkway

 

[YorkshireBear]

For that matter why not barnt green to Kings Norton and round the Camp Hill?

The solution in my lifetime is probably to just sort out the staffing situation and start reliably running paired voyagers where both halves definitely always stay in service. You probably also need better local services combined with XC not stopping at Taunton, Wakefield or Worcestershire parkway

Sensible post.

We are probably in a TPE situation, where the first job is to just stabilise it, which as a daily commuter on TPE for the last 11 years, they have, I now can rely on TPE where as 2-4 years ago I just couldn't at all.

Sort staffing and relations. Get the current service running consistently. Then work on future.

My concern is the government seems to have no interest in doing so.

 

[edwin_m]

At this point the most likely solution to XC's capacity issues is to replace some current 80x bi-modes with BEMUs on the London radial IC services and cascade the 802s/805s to XC. Then a coherent strategic rolling electrification plan to get the XC network sufficiently wired up that by the time the 80x stock is retired they can go to BEMUs.

GWR is running 5-car 80x on some services that are more suitable for regional units, such as Cardiff-Plymouth. The proposed regional bi-mode fleet could perhaps displace these to XC where their 125mph capability would be necessary and they could run substantial distances on 25kV. It creates a microfleet but even as 5-cars the extra seating compared with a 221 would help.

 

[The exile]

GWR is running 5-car 80x on some services that are more suitable for regional units, such as Cardiff-Plymouth.

Even more pertinently (given the route), Bristol - Worcester! My own feeling is that what should have happened instead of Princess was to have retained the basic frequency with full length long distance trains and added in high capacity semi-fasts covering the core picking up some of the smaller stops from the long-distance services and adding a few extra ones (Birmingham -Bristol stopping at Worcester, for example)

 

[zwk500]

Why not build new 80x directly for XC then? Should battery be some sort of environment concern, Hitachi have tested with that particular TPE 802.

The length for non-electric running on XC is far bigger than on the majority of other IC TOCs. The economics will also be better to focus on electrifying routes feeding into the London Radial main lines, then to electrify suburban mainlines used by XC, then to in-fill gaps remaining in the core.
There is a big advantage to a TOC if you can completely eliminate diesel running for maintenance and logistics. If you can't, you're better off retaining a diesel/electric bi-mode operation. Avanti & LNER are very close to being able to go to all-BEMU operation. XC & GWR aren't.
Of course, we should have done this as a coherent strategy from at least 1955, and if that was the case then XC would likely be fully wired between Plymouth and the Central belt by now...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2026 ==

Even more pertinently (given the route), Bristol - Worcester! My own feeling is that what should have happened instead of Princess was to have retained the basic frequency with full length long distance trains and added in high capacity semi-fasts covering the core picking up some of the smaller stops from the long-distance services and adding a few extra ones (Birmingham -Bristol stopping at Worcester, for example)

The Worcester services are a clear case for BEMU operation, at least in the medium term.
Electrifying the Worcester area itself will require major resignalling work, but due to the layout constrains resignalling almost certainly needs to wait for ETCS (same issue as Shrewsbury) due to capacity constraints of conventional TCB regulations (and visual impact on station area for signal sighting).

Electrifying Standish Jn - Gloucester/Cheltenham is to me a very obvious win, ideally with both Swindon and Bristol lines included. Cheltenham-Bromsgrove is far less obvious, even if XC had Bi-Modes, at least until the TfW aim for Cardiff-Birmingham is realised and the XC Cardiff-Nottinghams are also bi-modes.

For that matter why not barnt green to Kings Norton and round the Camp Hill?

XC don't run that much via these routes, although IMO King's Norton to Longbridge fasts should be done for resilience and operational reasons if there's problems on the slows (and flexibility running Bromsgrove semi-fasts if wanted), while Camp Hill should be wired for the new local services.

Having said all this, there's probably a previous speculative thread on how to electrify XC.

 

[mernrith]

The length for non-electric running on XC is far bigger than on the majority of other IC TOCs. The economics will also be better to focus on electrifying routes feeding into the London Radial main lines, then to electrify suburban mainlines used by XC, then to in-fill gaps remaining in the core.
There is a big advantage to a TOC if you can completely eliminate diesel running for maintenance and logistics. If you can't, you're better off retaining a diesel/electric bi-mode operation. Avanti & LNER are very close to being able to go to all-BEMU operation. XC & GWR aren't.
Of course, we should have done this as a coherent strategy from at least 1955, and if that was the case then XC would likely be fully wired between Plymouth and the Central belt by now...

Would hardly say LNER is close to all-BEMU operation when Inverness/Aberdeen-KGX and occasional diversion via Durham Coast/Settle-Carlisle Line still exists. What is surplus is rather 5-car sets but that'd be too far off topic I guess.

And mentioning battery packs does not eventually mean XC get 801/803/807s or any units without ICE.
At least we know battery tech on 80x is possible and GC is ordering such tri-modes - say should XC ever consider getting some Hitachi units, they can get new ones similar to GC specs rather than relying on elsewhere to cascade worn ones. Seeing Scotrail/Lumo waiting for 222s for quite a while makes me think like that even more.

 

[takno]

GWR is running 5-car 80x on some services that are more suitable for regional units, such as Cardiff-Plymouth. The proposed regional bi-mode fleet could perhaps displace these to XC where their 125mph capability would be necessary and they could run substantial distances on 25kV. It creates a microfleet but even as 5-cars the extra seating compared with a 221 would help.

IIRC the Cardiff-Plymouths are being run short-term by 80x trains as an interim measure, and they are borrowed from other GWR services which really need them back.

The Cardiff-Plymouths run along much the same type of line as XC, including a decent chunk under 25kv wires from Cardff to north Bristol. For the remainder of the journey theyare running a stopping service, often right in front of an XC train, so their 125mph performance and faster acceleration arguably means that XC benefits from these trains being 80x anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2026 ==

Sort staffing and relations. Get the current service running consistently. Then work on future.

My concern is the government seems to have no interest in doing so.

I think that Arriva got thrown an extension they didn't really deserve by a government which was exhausted and worried about the way nationalisation was just happening under their noses. The focus of the current government is inevitably on the areas where it has most control, and on showing how much better than nationalised services are than the private ones, so XC inevitably loses out for a couple of years.

I'm generally optimistic that once it's under GBR control it might get more equal treatment, with a chance of a Transpennine-style reset. It's entirely possible that it ends up going the other way, but I don't think the gloomy default "they don't run trains to London so nobody will ever love us" narrative I hear so often here is really justified.

 

[edwin_m]

IIRC the Cardiff-Plymouths are being run short-term by 80x trains as an interim measure, and they are borrowed from other GWR services which really need them back.

The Cardiff-Plymouths run along much the same type of line as XC, including a decent chunk under 25kv wires from Cardff to north Bristol. For the remainder of the journey theyare running a stopping service, often right in front of an XC train, so their 125mph performance and faster acceleration arguably means that XC benefits from these trains being 80x anyway.

Do the other GWR services need these back more than CrossCountry does? If they are only interim, then the 125mph capability clearly isn't considered necessary (and how much track southwest of Bristol is cleared above 100mph anyway?). If 125mph was needed then they could be run by Voyagers or the spare 221s instead, as it's unlikely they would need the extra seating. These could even be managed by the same bit of GBR as CrossCountry, considering the commonality of route and traction. You'd lose the electric running between Cardiff and Patchway but gain it between Doncaster and Edinburgh or Birmingham and Manchester.

Even more pertinently (given the route), Bristol - Worcester! My own feeling is that what should have happened instead of Princess was to have retained the basic frequency with full length long distance trains and added in high capacity semi-fasts covering the core picking up some of the smaller stops from the long-distance services and adding a few extra ones (Birmingham -Bristol stopping at Worcester, for example)

Yes I had that one in mind too, but the problem here is that a train ducking into Worcester and presumably Gloucester too would end up being overtaken, so people and journey planners would still opt for the faster service unless there was some fare incentive. Perhaps a WCML model would work here, with the semi-fasts taking the "London Northwestern" role by providing cheaper but slower journeys.

 

[NCT]

The problem is available DMUs are becoming a rare beast on the network as the DFT will refuse to order any (decarbonisation). As time goes on it will tighter and tighter as DMUs get older and replacements aren't forthcoming, battery power is coming but I'm not convinced soon enough and will not currently work with XCs long distance network.

My feeling is GBR will conclude the need a new fleet of bi modes similar to the FLIRTs that engines can be swapped for batteries on the future, these will free up more DMUs to help across the network with overcrowding.

This isn't just a cross-country problem, see Northern thread as well and is hopefully fairly high up the GBR to solve list.

It's not even that. There are those ex-Avanti 221s sitting in sidings.

The problem is in the current world National Rail Contracts, decision making is annual, reactionary, hand-to-mouth, with an extremely risk-averse Treasury.

What's needed is a return to longer-term project-based decision making. Staff hiring, training, train leasing and revenue forecasts would have been a bread-and-butter project in the franchise days - there are still a lot of years before 2035 for such a project to deliver benefits.

 

[zwk500]

and how much track southwest of Bristol is cleared above 100mph anyway?

Going by OpenRailwayMap*, none. Bristol-Exeter is 100mph, but it's below 100mph from Starcross on.

(*) - Caveat that ORM only shows the 'normal' maximum permissible speed, so if there's a MU or HST speed above 100mph it won't display it.

 

[station_road]

The solution in my lifetime is probably to just sort out the staffing situation and start reliably running paired voyagers where both halves definitely always stay in service. You probably also need better local services combined with XC not stopping at Taunton, Wakefield or Worcestershire parkway

This absolutely - stabilise the network using the resources you already have. How many 170 units are sitting in sidings on a Sunday because of no staff to run them, when they could be taking the pressure off the longer distance trains south of Derby. And an agreement that the catering staff can be the second person on a double Voyager again could be done very quickly if there was the will to do it.

 

[Snow1964]

The length for non-electric running on XC is far bigger than on the majority of other IC TOCs.

Having said all this, there's probably a previous speculative thread on how to electrify XC.

Strangely by route mileage XC is about 50% already done.
And some of the diesel fringes (Aberdeen, Penzance are infrequent), so would not be suprised if over 50% of XC train mileage is on electrified routes.

Using simple names for clarity, not the exact changeover point, have :

In NE already electrified is Glasgow-Edinburgh-Newcastle-York-Doncaster
soon will be York-Leeds, and north of Edinburgh towards Kirkcaldy

In NW have Manchester-Crewe-Birmingham-Coventry (and route via Stoke)

in the South have Didcot-Reading and Basingstoke-Bournemouth

In South West Birmingham-Bromsgrove, Yate-Filton, Severn Tunnel Junction-Cardiff

In East have bit near Peterborough, and Ely-Stansted

I understand that justifying electrification on sections that only see an hourly service is going to be a stretch, but the idea that XC need bimodes (with all they expensive extra servicing for 35-40 years) instead of wiring a few 5-10 mile gaps and using BEMUs on majority of routes is just daft.

They only really need bimodes for the services to Devon, Cornwall, Aberdeen (which is not that many trains). Even fewer bimodes if bit of wiring in Tiverton-Exeter area was done too, as the Torbay services could become BEMU too. I estimate XC only needs about 40 miles total of strategic 5-10 mile wiring sections within longer gaps and it is only Plymouth and Aberdeen that would be beyond reach of BEMUs

Map of XC routes for clarity

Explore the UK by Rail with Our Route Map | CrossCountry Trains

Our Explore tool helps you to find the cheapest ticket for your journey as well as local info on your destination

www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk

 

[zwk500]

Strangely by route mileage XC is about 50% already done.
And some of the diesel fringes (Aberdeen, Penzance are infrequent), so would not be suprised if over 50% of XC train mileage is on electrified routes.

There's a strong argument to trim the edges and move to new BEMUs only. However I think you'd get political pushback on that.

In NE already electrified is Glasgow-Edinburgh-Newcastle-York-Doncaster
soon will be York-Leeds, and north of Edinburgh towards Kirkcaldy

Also Leeds-Doncaster, of which XC use from Moorthorpe area to Leeds

in the South have Didcot-Reading and Basingstoke-Bournemouth

Basing-Bomo is third rail of course - so an additional system to maintain in addition to the Battery or Diesel mode you need anyway.

In South West Birmingham-Bromsgrove, Yate-Filton, Severn Tunnel Junction-Cardiff

King's Norton - Longbridge fasts and the Camp Hill line as already mentioned, aren't wired. Yate-Filton is a generous rounding of the changeover points, for XC's Purposes it's Bristol Parkway-Bristol Parkway.

I understand that justifying electrification on sections that only see an hourly service is going to be a stretch, but the idea that XC need bimodes (with all they expensive extra servicing for 35-40 years) instead of wiring a few 5-10 mile gaps and using BEMUs on majority of routes is just daft.

Some of these are a lot more than 10 miles. Like Moorthorpe to Birmingham.

They only really need bimodes for the services to Devon, Cornwall, Aberdeen (which is not that many trains). Even fewer bimodes if bit of wiring in Tiverton-Exeter area was done too, as the Torbay services could become BEMU too. I estimate XC only needs about 40 miles total of strategic 5-10 mile wiring sections in longer gaps and it is only Plymouth and Aberdeen that would be beyond reach of BEMUs

But then they still have routes out of reach of BEMUs, so would still need Bi-Modes, or to further trim the services.

Given that:
- XC is not going to stop serving Plymouth
- Is extremely unlikely to stop serving Aberdeen
- Would need third rail or Diesel operation for Bournemouth
- 5-10 mile electrification schemes are going to require expensive 'extension cables' and other feeding arrangements, and gives limited opportunity to recharge batteries so aren't a panacea.

And the idea that XC don't need Bi-Modes is getting rather hard to defend. If they need bi-modes at all, it is most efficient to give them an existing 2-mode vehicle that is already operating on a good portion of their network anyway, and concentrate BEMUs on runs like London-Chester or London-Lincoln that have a solid electric core on which to stand the battery extension on top of.
This also means that when XC run late (to which the Gerry Feinnes answer of 'run the trains on time' simply isn't realistic) they have a consistent fleet to start doing set swaps and so on to get some semblance of service running, and staff training is also kept simple.

Adding a traction battery is probably well within the modular design principles. I'd be surprised if adding shoes and the 750v gear was though.