Idea: CrossCountry overhaul

[Trainbike46]

I was just thinking if went for 1.2m platforms then the trains wouldn't require a decent amount of the unit taken up by equipment in the passenger area. That is one of my issues with the FLIRTs, which can make them feel cluttered. 1.2m seems to be the standard for major infrastructure projects in the UK for example HS2 & Elizabeth Line.

While I disagree with your assessment of the FLIRTs, they are not the only design that offers level-boarding. Across Europe, different designs with their own advantages and disadvantages are available with level-boarding at platforms significantly lower than the UK 915mm standard. Siemens and Bombardier were building level-boarding trains for NS more than 20 years ago.

The problem with 1200mm is twofold:
- Firstly, it requires every platform in the country to be rebuild at a different height.
- Secondly, 1200mm platforms either foul the loading gauge for freight trains (preventing freight trains from running), or have to have a much larger horizontal gap, which brings its own risks.

There is a reason 1200mm platforms are limited to parts of the network that doesn't see freight trains. Having different platforms heights across the country is the worst of all worlds, so sticking with 915mm is easily the best option.

CAF charge an unreasonable amount for level boarding according to Gareth Dennis, hence most TOCs don't bother. Even with TfLs new DLR trains they have a floor height of 1025mm.

CAF charged a lot for the level-boarding option when LNER did the procurement, for future procurements who wins will depend on the quality and price of the bids, if CAF were to consistently be the most expensive one, they simply won't win. CAF has build level-boarding trains for European operators for good prices, so I suspect they won't keep this up. I'm guessing in the LNER case, the reason for the big difference was that the 897 uses the exact same bodyshells as the 397, so was much cheaper on design costs.

 

[BerkshireRails]

The problem with 1200mm is twofold:
- Firstly, it requires every platform in the country to be rebuild at a different height.
- Secondly, 1200mm platforms either foul the loading gauge for freight trains (preventing freight trains from running), or have to have a much larger horizontal gap, which brings its own risks.

Some platforms are already compliant with 12000mm, and a photo of class 69 is in the Elizabeth Line core.

Having a larger horizontal gap, I see an opportunity to widen the floor of the train, plus you're going to fit gap fillers anyway, so having a wider gap doesn't matter too much.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Do they need to be 7-car? If you stick to 5-car 802s that's an off the shelf product, so shouldn't be too difficult to introduce relatively speaking. Plus, 5-car 802s have a staggering 80-odd seats extra per unit than 5-car Voyagers, so straight away replacing 4 and 5-car units with these is an extra 80-100 seats, while 10-car formations being possible is an even more significant boost in capacity compared to 8/9/10-car Voyager formations, something having 7-car units would not support.

Acquire 5 car 802s for Inter-City and you may have 80 additional seats, but that barely covers current demand, doesn't cover suppressed demand, and gives no opportunity for growth.

Perhaps specify a pair of "flex" carriages in every set that can be shifted around between sets without trauma so it is easy to take a two seven car sets and create a five car and nine car.

Being mindful that I'm suggesting a merger of TPX & XC, so there'll still be plenty of 5 car units to use across the enlarged franchise.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Acquire 5 car 802s for Inter-City and you may have 80 additional seats, but that barely covers current demand, doesn't cover suppressed demand, and gives no opportunity for growth.

Perhaps specify a pair of "flex" carriages in every set that can be shifted around between sets without trauma so it is easy to take a two seven car sets and create a five car and nine car.

Being mindful that I'm suggesting a merger of TPX & XC, so there'll still be plenty of 5 car units to use across the enlarged franchise.

However you can double a pair of 5 cars but you can't do the same for a pair of 7 cars. So in my view it would be better to have fleet of let's say 140 5 cars rather than 100 7 car sets to replace all Voyagers.

 

[BlueLeanie]

However you can double a pair of 5 cars but you can't do the same for a pair of 7 cars. So in my view it would be better to have fleet of let's say 140 5 cars rather than 100 7 car sets to replace all Voyagers.

Then double staff a shop, double staff first class, double staff guards or hosts

If you are going to run a ten car set day-in day-out then order them from day one.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Then double staff a shop, double staff first class, double staff guards or hosts

If you are going to run a ten car set day-in day-out then order them from day one.

I would operate them as ten on the busiest sections and then split them into two 5-car sets to service more places. For example, you could have a 10-car train from Manchester to Eastleigh, then split to form a 5-car train to Bournemouth and a 5-car train to Portsmouth Harbour.

 

[NCT]

I would operate them as ten on the busiest sections and then split them into two 5-car sets to service more places. For example, you could have a 10-car train from Manchester to Eastleigh, then split to form a 5-car train to Bournemouth and a 5-car train to Portsmouth Harbour.

You are not actually answer the point you've just quoted are you.

 

[BerkshireRails]

You are not actually answer the point you've just quoted are you.

I have answered the reason for running 5 cars in pairs rather than using a fixed 10-car fleet. It is to retain the splitting and joining of services and increase the amount. Extra Crewe is a positive. Plus, some network parts can't fit a 10-car AT300 even with ASDO because of point work. Plus 5 cars allows you to better match the demand for the section of the route.

 

[43096]

Extra Crewe [sic] is a positive.

Not if you're paying for it and it requires extra subsidy.

 

[rapmastaj]

The overcrowding on CrossCountry is insane. I am staggered that anyone would consider that ordering a new 5 car fleet for them is a good idea. I would go straight to 9 car.

 

[London Trains]

I would operate them as ten on the busiest sections and then split them into two 5-car sets to service more places. For example, you could have a 10-car train from Manchester to Eastleigh, then split to form a 5-car train to Bournemouth and a 5-car train to Portsmouth Harbour.

Surprised it took this long for the Portsmouth suggestion to come up

Having services split and join, as well as having lots of branches served a couple of times a day just adds unnecessary complexity to the XC network, which should be kept as simple as possible. The use of double units also doubles staff costs as mentioned by others, as well as continuing the issue of horribly overcrowded single units turning up.

Just order a large batch of full-length 9 coach units and be done with it.

 

[A S Leib]

The overcrowding on CrossCountry is insane. I am staggered that anyone would consider that ordering a new 5 car fleet for them is a good idea. I would go straight to 9 car.

What's the difference in seats between 9 and 10 cars, and would 11 be feasible (I'd guess all CrossCountry stations between Manchester and Coventry have long enough platforms, but I don't know about the rest of their network)?

 

[deltic]

I see Bradford gets overlooked for Harrogate and Hull doesnt get a mention

 

[JamesT]

What's the difference in seats between 9 and 10 cars, and would 11 be feasible (I'd guess all CrossCountry stations between Manchester and Coventry have long enough platforms, but I don't know about the rest of their network)?

If we're talking 80x, it also needs to be borne in mind their carriages are ~10% longer than the existing stock. They're also more efficient in terms of seats per metres than the Voyagers. An 807 gets as many seats into its 182m length as a 4+5 Voyager pair does in 214m. Running every service with the equivalent of a double Voyager would be a pretty good uplift in capacity, compared to many that run as single units.
But as you say, not all of XC's network has long platforms. One that I'm immediately aware of is Reading, where some services use the bay platform 3. This is 125m long, so too short for a 5-car 80x, never mind longer.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Surprised it took this long for the Portsmouth suggestion to come up

Having services split and join, as well as having lots of branches served a couple of times a day just adds unnecessary complexity to the XC network, which should be kept as simple as possible. The use of double units also doubles staff costs as mentioned by others, as well as continuing the issue of horribly overcrowded single units turning up.

Just order a large batch of full-length 9 coach units and be done with it.

9 cars wouldn't work with some platforms due to platform sharing with other services at places like Birmingham New Street and Reading.

 

[Topological]

9 cars wouldn't work with some platforms due to platform sharing with other services at places like Birmingham New Street and Reading.

But to that end neither would the doubled up 5's that many of us favour.

I think that Birmingham New Street is ok since many CrossCountry trains do get platforms to themselves at the moment (even if only using half) because they arrive and depart from different ends.

Reading is a bit more difficult. The only option being on the Elizabeth Line side where there is often a long platform free. According to the Traksy diagram it would be ok to use one of those platforms then go underneath the GWR mainlines to reach Reading West.

 

[TheGuy77]

Service 7: Newcastle Central - Birmingham New Street - Exeter St Davids - Plymouth
Newcastle Central - Durham - Darlington - York - Doncaster - Derby - Burton-on-Trent - Birmingham New Street - Bromsgrove - Worcestershire Parkway - Cheltenham Spa - Bristol Parkway - Bristol Temple Meads - Taunton - Tiverton Parkway - Exeter St Davids - Dawlish - Newton Abbot - Totnes - Ivybridge - Plymouth

Service 8: Newcastle Central - Birmingham New Street - Southampton Central - Bournemouth
Newcastle Central - Durham - Darlington - York - Doncaster - Derby - Burton-on-Trent - Birmingham New Street - Solihull - Warwick Parkway - Leamington Spa - Banbury - Oxford - Didcot Parkway - Newbury - Whitchurch - Winchester - Southampton Airport - Southampton Central - Brockenhurst - Christchurch - Bournemouth

Why don't either of these services call at Sheffield? Surely there would be a reason...

 

[Energy]

Crosscountry already cannot run a 10 car voyager (you see 9 car formations...) due to platform lengths. A 10 car 80X is a no go, and a 9 car might not be either.

A 7 car can still easily beat a double voyager formation, which is plenty even with growth. If you were to do an order for XC, you'd include options to extend the fleet at a later date.

I doubt there is enough spare paths but in an ideal world you'd up some routes to 2tph if 1tph 7 car 80X is insufficient.

 

[Cormoran1274]

What's the difference in seats between 9 and 10 cars, and would 11 be feasible (I'd guess all CrossCountry stations between Manchester and Coventry have long enough platforms, but I don't know about the rest of their network)?

In terms of Voyager routes, I believe they're only restricted in the South West (Totnes, Paignton and maybe some Cornwall stations?) every station on their South Coast route can hold a 9 or 10 car formation. Not sure about Scotland

 

[Bald Rick]

Accepting that this is a fantasy proposal and not serious (2nd time I’ve written that today!), how long would this take to implement? The crew training requirement would be astronomical; I reckon it would take 4-5 years just to train the crew, and cost tens of millions in crew training.

That’s before we get to where are these trains going to fit on the network. (2tph on the Cross City via Lichfield? Sheffield? Oxford? New St? I’ll stop).

 

[NCT]

The only loss with this is Oxford et al. to the North. Since terminating at Moor Street would mean walking between the two.

Otherwise, all seems very sensible. Manchester should really be operated with higher capacity EMUs like Liverpool (though probably more doubles)

Since you just saved a lot of voyagers, how about coupling one of the Reading corridor trains with the faster of the two Shrewsbury trains such that interchange to Manchester or the North East can still be made at Birmingham New Street (or Wolverhampton for Manchester)?

Readings to Moor Street is the more contentious move. It would make more sense under full HS2 as Curzon Street would handle the major long-distance destinations.

Perhaps if the rest of New Street workings are all streamlined (i.e. fully segregated Stour and Gloucester sides), then perhaps platforms 8 and 9 can handle terminating movements from the Reading direction. Especially if Midlands Connect moves the Leicesters to Moor Street.

 

[I'm here now]

In terms of Voyager routes, I believe they're only restricted in the South West (Totnes, Paignton and maybe some Cornwall stations?) every station on their South Coast route can hold a 9 or 10 car formation. Not sure about Scotland

Practically all Cornwall stations apart from Truro & PZ

 

[BerkshireRails]

Crosscountry already cannot run a 10 car voyager (you see 9 car formations...) due to platform lengths. A 10 car 80X is a no go, and a 9 car might not be either.

A 7 car can still easily beat a double voyager formation, which is plenty even with growth. If you were to do an order for XC, you'd include options to extend the fleet at a later date.

I doubt there is enough spare paths but in an ideal world you'd up some routes to 2tph if 1tph 7 car 80X is insufficient.

However a 7 car can't platform share, which if still required to enable efficient operations might prevent a complete fleet of 7 cars, also the Reading to Newcastle service uses the bays at Newcastle, which although they are being lengthed they will still have a limited usefulness. 1V49 09:03 Manchester Piccadilly Bristol Temple Meds and 5W42 08:46 Manchester Piccadilly to Ardwick Depot platform share at Manchester Piccadilly.

Maybe a fleet of 5 & 9 car sets would be best, with the 5 cars working routes which 9 cars can't and 9 cars providing additional capacity compared to the 5 cars.

Practically all Cornwall stations apart from Truro & PZ

Saltash as well due to the location of the Up signal protecting the single line Royal Border Bridge/Royal Albert Bridge. Saltash is limited to 2 cars.

Not if you're paying for it and it requires extra subsidy.

However you gain increased riddership which of sets the increase in cost.

Surprised it took this long for the Portsmouth suggestion to come up

Having services split and join, as well as having lots of branches served a couple of times a day just adds unnecessary complexity to the XC network, which should be kept as simple as possible.

All routes would get at least an hourly service. Portsmouth would run via Hedge End from Eastleigh.

 

[Topological]

Crosscountry already cannot run a 10 car voyager (you see 9 car formations...) due to platform lengths. A 10 car 80X is a no go, and a 9 car might not be either.

A 7 car can still easily beat a double voyager formation, which is plenty even with growth. If you were to do an order for XC, you'd include options to extend the fleet at a later date.

I doubt there is enough spare paths but in an ideal world you'd up some routes to 2tph if 1tph 7 car 80X is insufficient.

Is it not the case that Voyagers do not have selective door opening, hence they cannot use a 10?

Assuming that common sense is applied and any 2x5 split at Plymouth / Newcastle / Reading, then does that leave any station that could not handle a 2x5 80x with selective door opening?

The problems at the remote ends of the route are why 2x5 has a big advantage over a single longer unit.

 

[43096]

However you gain increased riddership which of sets the increase in cost.

But would you get the same increase if you didn’t duplicate staff. The answer almost certainly is “yes” - how many customers extra would travel because there was another guard? So it is an extra cost that is unnecessary.
.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Saltash as well due to the location of the Up signal protecting the single line Royal Border Bridge/Royal Albert Bridge. Saltash is limited to 2 cars.

Doesn’t Saltash count under the original quote that practically all Cornish stations other than Truro and PZ have short platforms?

 

[MarkyT]

Reading is a bit more difficult. The only option being on the Elizabeth Line side where there is often a long platform free. According to the Traksy diagram it would be ok to use one of those platforms then go underneath the GWR mainlines to reach Reading West.

I suggest removing platforms 1 and 2 and extending 3 over Caversham Road bridge as shown, adding another crossover with a diamond at west main junction to join the festival line for connectivity towards Didcot. This appears to give standage of around 270m. Trains displaced from 1 and 2 would pass under the mains to the relief side where they'd be combined with relief line services to Slough and then either Paddington on the fasts or Heathrow if and when the western link gets built. XC would mainly use 3, 7 and 8, leaving the relief platfroms free for local traffic, EL and freight. Note up main platfroms 10 and 11 can also be used for reversals towards Basingstoke.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2025 ==

I was just thinking if went for 1.2m platforms then the trains wouldn't require a decent amount of the unit taken up by equipment in the passenger area. That is one of my issues with the FLIRTs, which can make them feel cluttered. 1.2m seems to be the standard for major infrastructure projects in the UK for example HS2 & Elizabeth Line.

CAF charge an unreasonable amount for level boarding according to Gareth Dennis, hence most TOCs don't bother. Even with TfLs new DLR trains they have a floor height of 1025mm.

Yet the same company have manufactured level boarding vehicles for varyious European platform heights. It would clearly be a big expense to develop a new concept bodyshell now after they've just designed and delivered one in huge numbers for the UK, guaranteed to lock in massive gaps for decades.

Fair enough, that is another option, what software did you use for the Signal Diagram?

A private product I developed with a software engineer over 20 years ago. Still a very quick way of sketching a layout. Also does a simple simulation of the signalling system in operation with train movements.

If you remove the flats by Sand Level Crossing on the Dartmoor Railway side and realigned the track do you think it would be possible to triple track that section?

Huge cost for very desirable properties, and would likely be difficult politically. I think a new track on the other side with 'just' the crossing keeper's cottage and signalling interlocking building in the way would be more practical. Heres a 1970 OS map of the area. The brick built interlocking is just to the north of the old signalbox site shown here. With the equipment about 35 years old here now, renewal must be on the horizon now and the building might be replaced in a different position for a new system. It's likely such a large building containing masses of relay logic wouldn't be required for a modern processor-based installation.

Or does NR buy the Dartmoor line and then you extend the Paignton Local services to Kingswear and then terminate the long distance services at Goodrington Sands?

A very popular and profitable tourist operation would not be given up without a fight. It might be more plausibly shortened to Goodrington though, with BR local services also terminating there. The superb terminus location for the steam railway right on the main drag between the town, bus and rail stations and the seafront would be lost, however.

 

[BerkshireRails]

I suggest removing platforms 1 and 2 and extending 3 over Caversham Road bridge as shown, adding another crossover with a diamond at west main junction to join the festival line for connectivity towards Didcot. This appears to give standage of around 270m. Trains displaced from 1 and 2 would pass under the mains to the relief side where they'd be combined with relief line services to Slough and then either Paddington on the fasts or Heathrow if and when the western link gets built. XC would mainly use 3, 7 and 8, leaving the relief platfroms free for local traffic, EL and freight. Note up main platfroms 10 and 11 can also be used for reversals towards Basingstoke.
View attachment 186233

Platform 1-3, excluding CrossCountry, are currently used by electric Newbury stoppers (Hourly) [GWR], diesel Basingstoke stopper (Half Hourly) [GWR] and diesel Salisbury semifast (Hourly) [SWR].

Huge cost for very desirable properties, and would likely be difficult politically. I think a new track on the other side with 'just' the crossing keeper's cottage and signalling interlocking building in the way would be more practical. Heres a 1970 OS map of the area. The brick built interlocking is just to the north of the old signalbox site shown here. With the equipment about 35 years old here now, renewal must be on the horizon now and the building might be replaced in a different position for a new system. It's likely such a large building containing masses of relay logic wouldn't be required for a modern processor-based installation.
View attachment 186241

Probably the perfect time to move signalling from Paignton to the pseudo Rail Operations Centre for West Country at Exeter Power Signal Box.

A very popular and profitable tourist operation would not be given up without a fight. It might be more plausibly shortened to Goodrington though, with BR local services also terminating there. The superb terminus location for the steam railway right on the main drag between the town, bus and rail stations and the seafront would be lost, however.

Don't they also own the South Devon Railway? So they could centralise at the South Devon Railway and do the planned extension to Ashburton with the money from selling the Dartmoor line to NR?

 

[MarkyT]

Platform 1-3, excluding CrossCountry, are currently used by electric Newbury stoppers (Hourly) [GWR], diesel Basingstoke stopper (Half Hourly) [GWR] and diesel Salisbury semifast (Hourly) [SWR].

Clearly my plan would require Basingstoke electrification. Didn't know about the Salisbury semis.

Probably the perfect time to move signalling from Paignton to the pseudo Rail Operations Centre for West Country at Exeter Power Signal Box.

Quite a lot of signaller workload with the crossings and the connection to the Kingswear line for excursions. The latter could be properly route signalled in a new scheme. The current BR system at Paignton made passive provision for this with numbers allocated and space for the extra relays on the racks etc, but in the end BR couldn't come to a satisfactory commercial arrangement with the DVR company and the NR release of the crossover Ground Frame is still by a totally non-interlocked key kept in the signalbox. On the steam railway side the ground frame release is all properly interlocked, of course.

Don't they also own the South Devon Railway? So they could centralise at the South Devon Railway and do the planned extension to Ashburton with the money from selling the Dartmoor line to NR?

The company that operates the Kingswear line traces its roots back to the original Dart Valley Railway at Buckfastleigh, though is much changed today, having since merged with a local tourist and river boat company. Although taking no part in rail operations, for many years they remained the landlord for the separate South Devon Railway organisation that took over Buckfastleigh. The SDR was eventually able to buy out the freehold and now has no direct business relationship, though the railways remain friendly and assist each other.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Maybe a fleet of 5 & 9 car sets would be best, with the 5 cars working routes which 9 cars can't and 9 cars providing additional capacity compared to the 5 cars.

Absolutely no five car units for XC under any circumstances.

Minimum seven coach sets, we've suffered from five car units for 25 years, let's not make the same mistake again. If there's a problem at Reading, let's get some AI and quantum computing in to solve the pathing.