New XC fleet by 2035 ?

[Snow1964]

XC issued a new 10 year sustainability plan this week and it includes

Our long-term ambition is clear: to significantly reduce and eventually eliminate the impact of diesel emissions on local air quality across our network.

By December 2025, we will outline indicative costs for a new fleet that meets the latest environmental and emissions standards. Subject to funding, we will roll out this fleet by March 2035 in order to reduce our CO2e emissions by 63% from our FY2024 baseline, in line with our Science Based Targets.

Intrigued they have chosen to phrase it as roll out by March 2035, which usually means completion of roll out, rather than introduce a new fleet starting from.

Of course there is the funding caveat, but they must be quite advanced with their plans if they will be announced within next 2 months (presumably before Christmas break, not at end of December).

Anyone got any ideas where this will lead.

CrossCountry Train's Sustainability Strategy | CrossCountry Trains

CrossCountry delivers an integral part of Britain's sustainable transport network. Read more about our train sustainability policy here.

www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk

 

[The Planner]

Its an un-funded strategy. "Outline indicative costs" says finger in the air to me.

 

[scosutsut]

Sounds like the way it will work now. They'll have to make a case to the DFT for funding, battling other TOCs for position and priority and they have chosen the environmental angle and the long game.

 

[TheGrew]

I could see them getting A train derivatives once Newton Aycliffe needs a new order for political reasons.

 

[ashley84]

Will Crosscountry as an entity or brand even still exist by 2035? (Here's hoping..)

 

[stevieinselby]

I could see them getting A train derivatives once Newton Aycliffe needs a new order for political reasons.

Fortunately with Vivarail having gone bust and the A60 stock having been scrapped a long time ago, there's only one possible interpretation of that now

 

[Zomboid]

To be fair, assuming they get the kinks ironed out the 810 design would be well suited to XC. I'm sure Hitachi would like to sell a few more of them.

 

[quantinghome]

Sounds like the way it will work now. They'll have to make a case to the DFT for funding, battling other TOCs for position and priority and they have chosen the environmental angle and the long game.

TOCs won't really exist post-2027. It will be a bun fight within GBR.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair, assuming they get the kinks ironed out the 810 design would be well suited to XC. I'm sure Hitachi would like to sell a few more of them.

I don't see why it'd make sense for them to have the shorter coaches. I'd just go with bog-standard* 7 car IETs - that length would be about right if all trains were that length - or possibly a few 9s for the busiest services.

* Ideally with the Avanti interior, though I don't mind that much as long as they use the updated Sophia cushion without the metal bar!

 

[Zomboid]

On the basis that (for the trains I get) a 5 car 221 is usually about enough, and that has 246 seats compared to 301 in an 810, so that allows for some growth whilst still fitting in P3 at Reading and only requiring a half platform at New Street (do they stack them at Manchester too?).

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the basis that (for the trains I get) a 5 car 221 is usually about enough, and that has 246 seats compared to 301 in an 810, so that allows for some growth whilst still fitting in P3 at Reading and only requiring a half platform at New Street (do they stack them at Manchester too?).

"A 5 car is enough" is not something that is commonly said by XC passengers!

 

[Zomboid]

That's my experience! 4 cars are hopeless, but in a 5 there aren't usually people standing, other than for things like New St to Coventry on the 1703.

As a 444 advocate I think that template with it's 334 seats (as built, with the buffet) would be even better suited. 90 extra seats in the same length ought to be adequate, and they could always double up if necessary...

 

[FlyingPotato]

That's my experience! 4 cars are hopeless, but in a 5 there aren't usually people standing, other than for things like New St to Coventry on the 1703.

As a 444 advocate I think that template with it's 334 seats (as built, with the buffet) would be even better suited. 90 extra seats in the same length ought to be adequate, and they could always double up if necessary...

I've been on enough 5 and 8 cars that are full and standing at different points throughout the day to know that it won't be adequate

 

[Zomboid]

And on those, run them as 10s.

 

[gg1]

"A 5 car is enough" is not something that is commonly said by XC passengers!

"A 5 car is tolerable" is probably more accurate. Certainly IME most crush loaded XC services I've travelled on (predominantly between Brum and either Leeds or Manchester) have been 4 car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And on those, run them as 10s.

For staffing/catering reasons I'd rather see fixed formations than doubling up. They could always be ordered in multiple lengths - as I said I'd suggest 7 and 9 x 26m (the end sections would be useful on XC for added luggage capacity and the likes). Avanti manage to fairly well shift their 5, 7, 9 and 11 car sets around the place to get capacity largely right (give or take doubling up the 5s). If some services are quiet, bring the prices down - XC is not only grim at present but also often swingeingly expensive - why price people off if you no longer need to?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Oct 2025 ==

"A 5 car is tolerable" is probably more accurate. Certainly IME most crush loaded XC services I've travelled on (predominantly between Brum and either Leeds or Manchester) have been 4 car.

Long distance services of course shouldn't really have standees at all other than where people are using them as local services around cities (or truly exceptional stuff like big events that only happen once a year like Glastonbury); there should be sufficient capacity. It says a lot about how bad XC is that a few standees doesn't sound excessive.

 

[quantinghome]

Even doubled up units from Leeds to Birmingham are busy. This route needs to go half-hourly with longer trains. That means new trains asap. 2035 is far too late.

 

[Zomboid]

staffing/catering reasons I'd rather see fixed formations than doubling up.

This is why I like the 444 (or 730) template. If you need a 10 it's all still gangwayed. It would probably mean a 110mph top speed, and I don't know how much of a problem that would be.

 

[Sorcerer]

I don't see why it'd make sense for them to have the shorter coaches. I'd just go with bog-standard* 7 car IETs - that length would be about right if all trains were that length - or possibly a few 9s for the busiest services.

* Ideally with the Avanti interior, though I don't mind that much as long as they use the updated Sophia cushion without the metal bar!

I absolutely agree here. Having an IET of seven 26m coaches (182m) would be almost double the length of a four-coach Voyager (~93m) and with almost the capacity of a nine-coach Pendolino (453 vs 469). That is also assuming we go with an Avanti layout instead of trading some of the extra tables for airline style seats. A nine-coach IET would probably match an eleven-coach Pendolino in capacity as well, though I don't know if a 234m train will fit in most of the platforms on the network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is why I like the 444 (or 730) template. If you need a 10 it's all still gangwayed. It would probably mean a 110mph top speed, and I don't know how much of a problem that would be.

If a 110mph unit was suitable I would be looking at the 730 body shell with the wider doors at quarters myself. However you need 125mph for the ECML.

 

[Trainbike46]

Will Crosscountry as an entity or brand even still exist by 2035? (Here's hoping..)

Even if XC no longer exists the services will still be around and need stock

For staffing/catering reasons I'd rather see fixed formations than doubling up. They could always be ordered in multiple lengths - as I said I'd suggest 7 and 9 x 26m (the end sections would be useful on XC for added luggage capacity and the likes). Avanti manage to fairly well shift their 5, 7, 9 and 11 car sets around the place to get capacity largely right (give or take doubling up the 5s). If some services are quiet, bring the prices down - XC is not only grim at present but also often swingeingly expensive - why price people off if you no longer need to?

I think you got this exactly right- xc should have longer trains, with lower per-seat operating costs. Fixed-formation sets like you suggest would offer that. Though I'd personally definitely include a bunch of 9-car sets.

 

[stevieinselby]

This is why I like the 444 (or 730) template. If you need a 10 it's all still gangwayed. It would probably mean a 110mph top speed, and I don't know how much of a problem that would be.

Given how busy the ECML is north of York, and that at least part of the reason for TPE getting 125mph units for the Newcastle services was to reduce conflicts from trying to path slower trains in amongst 125mph LNER, XC and GC services, I suspect that XC downgrading to 110mph stock would cause problems, or might mean that they can't call at Durham any more (and stay off Northallerton and Chester-le-Street) if that would ease pathing problems ... but that could require a full recast of the ECML timetable, which is not something anyone is going to want to do again in the near future!

 

[Zomboid]

... but that could require a full recast of the ECML timetable, which is not something anyone is going to want to do again in the near future

We'll see about that in February!

But I can see the issue, if 125 is needed for the ECML stretch then that sets the requirement. Though if they could diagram things appropriately then I don't think 110 would be an issue for anything that doesn't go up the Derby - York - ECML leg of the network. And in the brave new GBR world, is there any reason why Manchester - Bournemouth would need to be operated in conjunction with the SW - NE route? Just resource the stuff that needs 125 from the Intercity pool, and stuff that doesn't from some other "regional express" pool.

 

[tbtc]

Assuming the future size and scope of the "traditional" Cross Country operations to stay broadly the same as the situation in 2025 (i.e. ignoring the ex-Central Trains routes/ Turbo stars), you're probably going to need sixty-something trains to replace the Voyagers (on the basis that each has more seats than at the moment, or runs in pairs more often, i.e. an upgrade but nothing ground groundbreaking)

Ideally one big fleet that could do anything a Voyager currently does

Certainly capable of being self powered (battery, diesel, duckweed/ whatever) and running off overhead electrification

However, of those sixty-something, only a tiny amount at any one time will be either (a) on Third Rail or (b) running at 125mph

How much should the tail wag the dog?

It takes three units to provide the hourly service from Basingstoke to Bournemouth , which includes a healthy layover at the south coast

And maybe half a dozen units north of York at any one time (the Aberdeen extensions take up many hours but are at the far ends of the each day when the train would just be sat at Craigentinny anyway), although little of the XC running north of York is 125mph - the line isn't particularly fast north of Newcastle -only one short bit of 125mph in Scotland - XC services often stop multiple times between York and Edinburgh - if we were talking 2035 then I'm sure there'll have been a recast or two on the ECML anyway

So, whilst the wishlists will no doubt include Third Rail and 125 mph running, both of those come at a cost, both financial and non financial (Third Rail means additional weight but more importantly making trains more complicated means more scope for things to go wrong - 125mph capabilities means sacrificing some of the space on board for "crumple zones" etc)

XC abandoned tilt because the benefits on short sections of the network didn't match the fleet -wide costs, so how much of the final design will be trying to introduce bespoke features that might only be used by 10% of trains at any one time (or even fewer)?

Or do you split the operation into a "limited to 110mph but can do Third Rail" for the Manchester - Bournemouth corridor and "125mph but no Third Rail, like an 810" for the Edinburgh - Plymouth corridor?

I've suggested doing versions of this before, operationally neater to simplify things, few people will be doing journeys like Doncaster to Reading on XC anyway - it'd allow two separate fleets

 

[The Mercian]

I’ve often argued for longer 110mph EMUs on the Brum-Manc portion.

 

[The Pelican]

Assuming the future size and scope of the "traditional" Cross Country operations to stay broadly the same as the situation in 2025 (i.e. ignoring the ex-Central Trains routes/ Turbo stars), you're probably going to need sixty-something trains to replace the Voyagers (on the basis that each has more seats than at the moment, or runs in pairs more often, i.e. an upgrade but nothing ground groundbreaking)

Ideally one big fleet that could do anything a Voyager currently does

Certainly capable of being self powered (battery, diesel, duckweed/ whatever) and running off overhead electrification

However, of those sixty-something, only a tiny amount at any one time will be either (a) on Third Rail or (b) running at 125mph

How much should the tail wag the dog?

It takes three units to provide the hourly service from Basingstoke to Bournemouth , which includes a healthy layover at the south coast

And maybe half a dozen units north of York at any one time (the Aberdeen extensions take up many hours but are at the far ends of the each day when the train would just be sat at Craigentinny anyway), although little of the XC running north of York is 125mph - the line isn't particularly fast north of Newcastle -only one short bit of 125mph in Scotland - XC services often stop multiple times between York and Edinburgh - if we were talking 2035 then I'm sure there'll have been a recast or two on the ECML anyway

So, whilst the wishlists will no doubt include Third Rail and 125 mph running, both of those come at a cost, both financial and non financial (Third Rail means additional weight but more importantly making trains more complicated means more scope for things to go wrong - 125mph capabilities means sacrificing some of the space on board for "crumple zones" etc)

XC abandoned tilt because the benefits on short sections of the network didn't match the fleet -wide costs, so how much of the final design will be trying to introduce bespoke features that might only be used by 10% of trains at any one time (or even fewer)?

Or do you split the operation into a "limited to 110mph but can do Third Rail" for the Manchester - Bournemouth corridor and "125mph but no Third Rail, like an 810" for the Edinburgh - Plymouth corridor?

I've suggested doing versions of this before, operationally neater to simplify things, few people will be doing journeys like Doncaster to Reading on XC anyway - it'd allow two separate fleets

I think the popularity of IEPs suggests that 125mph trains are more popular than ever, turning up at places like TPE's Manchester-Leeds operation where the predecessor franchises, and BR, saw no need for anything over 100mph. As for third rail, batteries are increasing in power all the time, so that will be the obvious alternative to third rail shoes.

 

[Snow1964]

I think the popularity of IEPs suggests that 125mph trains are more popular than ever, turning up at places like TPE's Manchester-Leeds operation where the predecessor franchises, and BR, saw no need for anything over 100mph. As for third rail, batteries are increasing in power all the time, so that will be the obvious alternative to third rail shoes.

There is no problem with having a 125mph capable train on third rail, as the line south of Basingstoke is 100mph max anyway. Of course in the past (pre voyager) 125mph HSTs worked to Bournemouth/Poole.

Of course if the train has a lower top speed on 750v dc, then can electronically restrict its power too. Even on 25kv supply the voltage is transformed, usually rectified to dc, then modern power electronics use variable frequency to supply the ac motors. So negligible weight is added if it just feeds the inverters directly using third rail supply.

I think the third rail limit of 100mph is just one of those old BR limits that was based on what was needed at the time. Not aware of any evidence that says couldn't push it up to 105mph or 110mph with longer third rail transition ramps on the fastest sections. (Short ramps at speed do cause shoes to bounce a bit and arc).

If we are looking at trains in 2030s then possibly electrification will have been extended a bit, or in progress (some in Fife, maybe to Bristol, Yate, Didcot-Oxford, or alongside HS2 from Birmingham to Water Orton, or some near Bromsgrove etc). Reducing some of the non electrified sections to under about 50 miles (allowing batteries). They might only need diesels for south of Taunton and near Chesterfield. And a few miles of wires in those areas might be enough to dump the diesels and just fit batteries.

 

[43096]

I don't see why it'd make sense for them to have the shorter coaches. I'd just go with bog-standard* 7 car IETs - that length would be about right if all trains were that length - or possibly a few 9s for the busiest services.

* Ideally with the Avanti interior, though I don't mind that much as long as they use the updated Sophia cushion without the metal bar!

I would hope that GBR would be looking to move on from the utter dross that Hitachi have foisted upon us. Take away the interior - which is customer specified (badly) - the train itself is an utter lemon. Poor ride, poor manufacturing quality, poor fleet availability. It is simply nuts to keep buying more of these things. Instead GBR leadership should be calling Hitachi in and telling that until they up their game with the existing fleets there will be no more orders. If that means Newton Aycliffe shuts, so be it - if you build junk don't expect to stay in business.

 

[Randomer]

Personally I think the opportunity to do a full fleet replacement including the 170's being missed is probably a mistake longer term.

I'd agree with something like a 7 Car Class 800 derivative to replace the Voyagers with 5 car units to replace the 170's. The advantage of having a single fleet in terms of traction training maintenance etc could be a good longer term cost justification. Especially if we are likely to see a steady equalisation of traincrew terms and conditions as GBR moves forward.

Although I also think that level boarding for at least 1 accessible carriage should be specified for all future trains coming into service so an 800 derivative probably will not work.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Personally I think the opportunity to do a full fleet replacement including the 170's being missed is probably a mistake longer term.

I'd agree with something like a 7 Car Class 800 derivative to replace the Voyagers with 5 car units to replace the 170's. The advantage of having a single fleet in terms of traction training maintenance etc could be a good longer term cost justification. Especially if we are likely to see a steady equalisation of traincrew terms and conditions as GBR moves forward.

Although I also think that level boarding for at least 1 accessible carriage should be specified for all future trains coming into service so an 800 derivative probably will not work.

There's no point wasting space with pointy noses and crumple zones in a 170 replacement, which don't need the higher top speed which requires these features.

By the time the Voyagers are replaced, a 'single fleet' is likely to be irrelevant anyway as XC in its present form is unlikely to exist. The 80x design is likely to be obsolete, too.