New XC fleet by 2035 ?

[Yorkshire09876]

Electrification with batteries will be massively lower cost overall, which is what matters for rational decision making. Also, battery developments (as linked) are greatly reducing the resource implications (and the materials are in any case recyclable). Within a decade we will start to see the removal of OHLE and, especially, third rail, as renewals come due - starting with less intensively used routes.

You seem to be thinking entirely of up-front costs. Over the lifetime of the trains it really won't be cheaper, especially taking into account the level of power loss involved with batteries, as opposed to powering the train directly from the OHL.Whether improved batteries actually make it to production remains to be seen but they will not avoid the power loss issue. And while batteries are in theory recyclable, the process is much, much harder (and more expensive) than recycling EMUs and worn-out OLE components.

As regards seeing the removal of OHL within a decade - afraid I regard that suggestion as completely deluded.

 

[43096]

You seem to be thinking entirely of up-front costs. Over the lifetime of the trains it really won't be cheaper, especially taking into account the level of power loss involved with batteries, as opposed to powering the train directly from the OHL.Whether improved batteries actually make it to production remains to be seen but they will not avoid the power loss issue. And while batteries are in theory recyclable, the process is much, much harder (and more expensive) than recycling EMUs and worn-out OLE components.

As regards seeing the removal of OHL within a decade - afraid I regard that suggestion as completely deluded.

As well as power loss, add in the extra weight being carted around for the lifetime of the trains and the extra cost/power required to do so.

 

[Zomboid]

Increasing the amount of electricity required to power rail travel whilst reducing the amount of electrification is a pretty bonkers idea.

I'm sure batteries will play a role in the future, but they're not magic.

 

[slowroad]

You seem to be thinking entirely of up-front costs. Over the lifetime of the trains it really won't be cheaper, especially taking into account the level of power loss involved with batteries, as opposed to powering the train directly from the OHL.Whether improved batteries actually make it to production remains to be seen but they will not avoid the power loss issue. And while batteries are in theory recyclable, the process is much, much harder (and more expensive) than recycling EMUs and worn-out OLE components.

As regards seeing the removal of OHL within a decade - afraid I regard that suggestion as completely deluded.

Well we will have to wait and see. The most cost effective approach to the S. Wales Valleys was discontinuous electrification and that was based on battery technology of at least five years ago. The early stage proposals for Chiltern envisage far less OHLE. Give it another ten years…..

 

[Class15]

Well we will have to wait and see. The most cost effective approach to the S. Wales Valleys was discontinuous electrification and that was based on battery technology of at least five years ago. The early stage proposals for Chiltern envisage far less OHLE. Give it another ten years…..

There is no way OHLE is going to be taken down unless there is a very good reason. Just ‘use batteries’ isn’t going to cut it on routes where the wires are already up. The Valleys used discontinuous electrification, yes, but that still involved putting wires up rather than taking them down.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Well we will have to wait and see. The most cost effective approach to the S. Wales Valleys was discontinuous electrification and that was based on battery technology of at least five years ago. The early stage proposals for Chiltern envisage far less OHLE. Give it another ten years…..

'Cost effective' with these projects just means 'capital cost up-front' though - it won't take into account the cost over the lifetime of a fleet of trains.

 

[Brubulus]

It's going to come down to cost. Stadler FLIRT is 125mph capable, with level boarding, though it would likely require an 9 car unit that would effectively be a 4 and 5 car train put together, much how the 745s are 2 6 car trains put together. CAF would probably be cheaper for an 8 car unit, while a 7 car 80x is likely to be uncompetitive due to its lack of level boarding and likely higher cost compared to CAF.

XC services would today need circa 350 seats as a general baseline that enables persistent standing to be abolished. Though from TPE we know what's actually needed is an approximate doubling in capacity to account for induced demand and future growth, which would require fixed formation sets of around 500 seats, which is viable with the train lengths mentioned above (just).

Well now, we've reached day two without anyone expressing fear and anxiety about being stranded for days in a snowdrift in rural Aberdeenshire or Derbyshire away from the wires and having only batteries and no diesel. Suggestions that a battery train run to Fort Bill (as Ember coaches do day-in, day-out) and there was outrage!

So in reality, how much of the current XC network will be electrified by 2035? I'm guessing that Coventry to Didcot will be done, along with Edinburgh to Dundee. Maybe time to cut back on the extensions to Southampton etc?

If we're lucky, Bristol Parkway to Temple Meads and Didcot-Oxford. Can't see anything else happening given batteries performance and the cancellation of MML electrification.

The crumple zone limitations of 125mph are substantially reduced when compared to the period when the Voyagers were built.

 

[Richard123]

Given developments in battery technology it is quite possible there will be no further electrification. See for example the potential of sodium ion:

The Sodium-Ion Battery Revolution Has Started - CleanTechnica

Support CleanTechnica's work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe. Sodium-ion batteries have been in the works for years, and now sodium-ion batteries have started to appear in cars and home storage. JAC, in a partnership with Volkswagen, has been shipping a vehicle called the Sehol or...

cleantechnica.com

It would be irresponsible use of public funds to authorise electrification (other than very limited amounts for recharging) at least until the position becomes clearer, and probably that means never.

This blind hope in future technology has frozen the network since Grayling put his faith in biofuels (nearly two decades on and still competing for foodstuffs with net negative climate impact). At the time exactly the same claim was made and electrification required to pay back financially within 15 years... Now long since passed.

Future technology might transform. For now we have plenty of intensively operated mainlines that if electrified as sensible (non-Network Rail) costs would already have paid us back and would continue to for decades to come.

For now battery trains are cheaper and better than diesel by most metrics, but heavier and substantially more expensive than straight electric.

 

[slowroad]

'Cost effective' with these projects just means 'capital cost up-front' though - it won't take into account the cost over the lifetime of a fleet of trains.

No it doesn’t. Economic appraisal is based on whole life costs. (And it is rational to delay high cost decisions when technology is advancing rapidly, as there are - as always - alternative ways to spend the £.)

 

[supervc-10]

'Cost effective' with these projects just means 'capital cost up-front' though - it won't take into account the cost over the lifetime of a fleet of trains.

The Valleys Lines though have a number of places where actually fitting 25kV electrification would have resulted in the need to do a lot of work though, didn't it? Bridges or tunnels IIRC? And the costs of that would have been astronomical.

But I cannot see lines with existing electrification infrastructure being removed, ever. Batteries are amazing, and are going to be absolutely key to improving our carbon emissions by allowing things to be electric (I drive an electric car, for example), but I can't see any battery powered EMUs ever running below wires without a pantograph being up on the regular!

 

[Yorkshire09876]

No it doesn’t. Economic appraisal is based on whole life costs. (And it is rational to delay high cost decisions when technology is advancing rapidly, as there are - as always - alternative ways to spend the £.)

When those trains come to end of life, if they are battery trains they are scrapped (with cost of processing the batteries). With EMUs, the OHL is there for the next trains to use, offsetting the cost further and further over time. It can of course also be used by multiple fleets of trains.

Roger Ford came up with the humourous concept of 'bionic duckweed' quite a few years now to describe the government's obsession with new technology removing the logic of OHL. Since then we've been through biofuels, hydrogen cells and now batteries - and none have yet proven to be the magic bullet claimed when they appeared. What will the next incarnation be?

 

[BlueLeanie]

Batteries are going to have a big part in getting between the gaps at strategic points on the Network.

But.

The electric infrastructure will be owned outright by the Government.
The batteries will be leased. Indeed, the batteries will probably be leased on separate contract to the rest of the train. A bit like how an airline leases the tyres, frame, and engines of an aircraft separately. If you do the arithmetic on five sets x eight years x nine coach battery leases over the expected 40 years lifespan of a new electric unit, I suspect physical infrastructure will win. Especially when freight is brought into consideration.

 

[Roast Veg]

The batteries will be leased. Indeed, the batteries will probably be leased on separate contract to the rest of the train. A bit like how an airline leases the tyres, frame, and engines of an aircraft separately.

There's no guarantee of this. Battery leases for electric road vehicles are largely a thing of the past.

 

[BlueLeanie]

There's no guarantee of this. Battery leases for electric road vehicles are largely a thing of the past.

True, but they generally still lease the tyres.

But do remind me which electric passenger carrying vehicles on the roads right now are still expected to be carrying passengers in 40 years. Stagecoach replace their diesel Tube units every 5 years.

 

[JonathanH]

If you do the arithmetic on five sets x eight years x nine coach battery leases over the expected 40 years lifespan of a new electric unit, I suspect physical infrastructure will win.

If there is no money for the capital cost of electrification, leasing wins, regardless of the long term impact.

 

[Trainbike46]

When those trains come to end of life, if they are battery trains they are scrapped (with cost of processing the batteries). With EMUs, the OHL is there for the next trains to use, offsetting the cost further and further over time. It can of course also be used by multiple fleets of trains.

Roger Ford came up with the humourous concept of 'bionic duckweed' quite a few years now to describe the government's obsession with new technology removing the logic of OHL. Since then we've been through biofuels, hydrogen cells and now batteries - and none have yet proven to be the magic bullet claimed when they appeared. What will the next incarnation be?

While I agree with your sentiment, battery trains are actually in service today on former diesel lines, and are reducing carbon emissions, unlike biofuels or hydrogen. Most BEMU projects do seem to involve extra electrification at that (e.g. Welsh valleys and the ongoing Fife project), so in my view battery is significantly more useful than the bionic duckweed.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

While I agree with your sentiment, battery trains are actually in service today on former diesel lines, and are reducing carbon emissions, unlike biofuels or hydrogen. Most BEMU projects do seem to involve extra electrification at that (e.g. Welsh valleys and the ongoing Fife project), so in my view battery is significantly more useful than the bionic duckweed.

A small number are in use, and have only been in use for a short period. Time will tell how they fare in the longer term.

And straight EMUs would 'reduce carbon emissions' further as there would not be the requirement to manufacture batteries, and the trains would make more efficient use of electricity (i.e. none of the losses associated with charging / discharging batteries).

I can see that batteries may have a limited place in some circumstances, but the idea that they are an as-good-as replacement for OHL on busier lines is just government spin.

Remember that the reason for widespread electrification in the 1960s and 70s was because it's simply more efficient than trains lugging their power sources around with them - emissions at point of use wasn't really a consideration then. The greater efficiency of OHL point hasn't changed, and it is still more efficient than trains lugging their power sources around with them (be that diesel engines and fuel tanks, batteries, or whatever else).

 

[LLivery]

If most people were happy to do this, and would prefer it to trolley service, then the operators wouldn't all have come to the same conclusion and closed the buffets.

I always understood this to be about cost cutting and adding more seats (because of short trains), not what passengers preferred. On Eurostar, you walk to the cafe. In other countries, you walk to the buffet. Who's moaning about it?

Have to say I find it rather bizarre that some people on a railway forum seem to believe that decisions like this are made on what 'people prefer'.

The main reason why train operators prefer trolleys is cost. Very little in the way of equipment needed on the train to be maintained, fewer staff required, more space which can be used for seats. Trolleys can be prepared in a catering base and just loaded on - no preparation needed on the train at all.

If the buffets weren't popular, why were there frequently queues for them? Surveys produced to 'justify' removing them were normally biased in that they asked whether people thought a trolley was a good idea, without mentioning that this would mean removal of the buffet.

This.

 

[William3000]

If it needs subsidy, and how much is partly arbitrary or an accounting anomaly (depends on if other operators serve routes too, and which operator sets the fares).

If you take journeys between say Manchester or Liverpool and Bristol (3rd, 4th, 8th largest English cities) then could take a XC priced fare via Birmingham, or a TfW fare via Hereford or an Avanti+GWR via London.

There is not a lot of correlation between quality (comfort), speed (duration) and price. XC might be quickest, but often most squashed, and if unlucky to get a 4car voyager, might not get a seat either. And catering is very unreliable too (sometimes near end of journey, or static as aisles are busy)

XC has cut back routes, you can't use it to visit tourist cities like Bath, Chester or Cambridge, it doesn't serve any major airports (ok, it does serve some smaller ones like Southampton or Birmingham). At times it feels like XC is more an outer suburban service around Birmingham than a comfortable quick way to get from one side of the country to another. Is it trying to serve long distance travellers or Brum commuters. If it is the latter then yes it will need subsidy.

If it is trying to link large provincial business centres like Leeds, Manchester, Bristol etc then it doesn't do it very quickly, and why apart from Torbay does it seem to not quite reach many UK holiday destinations. It needs trains that do regional sprints, and if that means not stopping for 50+ miles both sides of Birmingham then that is market it should aim at, and get trains that are comfortable for 3+ hour journeys, not designed to call at stations every few minutes doing commuter services

XC does serve Cambridge and London Stansted and Birmingham airports are the 4th and 6th busiest in the UK - definitely major airports.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Oct 2025 ==

The romanticised idea that CrossCountry should just be about people making long journeys right across the country simply isn't the reality, nor should it be linking everywhere to everywhere. To be effective, then dealing with its share of commuters is just as important, and Saturday shoppers travelling one stop.

The stopping service between Birmingham NS and Leicester doesn’t feel like a long distance inter city route though.

 

[brad465]

Your numbers are close. For a 220 it's 200 seats (174 standard, 26 first), for a four-car 221 it's 186 (160 standard, 26 first), and for a five-car 221 it's 246 (220 standard, 26 first). Meanwhile a five-coach Class 810 will have 301 seats (254 standard, 47 first) and already beats the longest Super Voyager in terms of capacity with standard class alone with an only slightly longer individual coach length. For standard 26m seven or nine-coach IETs it'd be even greater.

I did get the numbers wrong, but the comparison was being made with a 5-car 800/802, not with the 810. In this case it's 246 seats per Class 221, and 326 seats for common 800/802 5-car sets. The TPE 802/2 interior apparently has 342 seats, so in this arrangement has nearly 100 seats more than a Class 221.

 

[Sorcerer]

I did get the numbers wrong, but the comparison was being made with a 5-car 800/802, not with the 810. In this case it's 246 seats per Class 221, and 326 seats for common 800/802 5-car sets. The TPE 802/2 interior apparently has 342 seats, so in this arrangement has nearly 100 seats more than a Class 221.

When you said equivalent length I took it very literally and compared the 810 because of similar coach lengths rather than assuming you simply meant five-coach units which is how we ended up comparing different trains. Regardless both comparisons aren't too far off and still correctly demonstrate just how capacity-inefficient the Voyager fleet is by modern standards. Even though a five-coach 8xx would still add one-hundred extra seats I would hope CrossCountry or it's successor would learn from history and actually introduce seven-coach units at the bare minimum.

 

[WAB]

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.

I'm interested by your idea of pooling - are you suggesting 9-car units on the SW-NE axis with full kitchens and double the first class capacity of a double-Voyager?

You could feasibly have different stock on the Edinburgh to Plymouth from everything else. An 80x derivative would allow familiarity with ECML and GWR 80x (assuming you are sharing drivers, rescuing each other etc).

For the Bristol to Manchester, Manchester to South East and Reading to Leeds you could use a bimode 110mph fleet based in Central Rivers. A 730 type derivative could work there.

This would be no different to when CrossCountry had some HSTs but was mainly running loco and coaches.

(Both should be battery-enabled with charging from 3rd rail and overhead. The Plymouth 80x derivative would need infrastructure to charge at Plymouth.)

You'd have to increase the number of spares available at strategic points to allow trains to be restarted during disruption, or you're just asking for the service to fall apart. Inter-regional services presenting at the regional boundaries heavily-delayed are a performance nightmare.

 

[Roast Veg]

It would be nice if a future XC (ideally as part of GBR) could move away from such a strong dependency on Central Rivers.

 

[brad465]

When you said equivalent length I took it very literally and compared the 810 because of similar coach lengths rather than assuming you simply meant five-coach units which is how we ended up comparing different trains. Regardless both comparisons aren't too far off and still correctly demonstrate just how capacity-inefficient the Voyager fleet is by modern standards. Even though a five-coach 8xx would still add one-hundred extra seats I would hope CrossCountry or it's successor would learn from history and actually introduce seven-coach units at the bare minimum.

XC having 9-car units would have the benefit that two separate crews are not required, which reduces the disruption by shortages of train crew (cancellation or short-forming), as well as being a big capacity uplift; a 9-car 221 double Voyager (432 seats) vs a 9-car 800/802 (647 seats) is an extra 215 seats for the same number of carriages, a whopping 50% increase approx. A 7-car IET-style formation would likely have comparable capacity to a 9-car Voyager formation, but with the added bonuses of lower crew demands and no danger of short-forming, so I could see these being a common fleet order if not too costly.

 

[Sorcerer]

XC having 9-car units would have the benefit that two separate crews are not required, which reduces the disruption by shortages of train crew (cancellation or short-forming), as well as being a big capacity uplift; a 9-car 221 double Voyager (432 seats) vs a 9-car 800/802 (647 seats) is an extra 215 seats for the same number of carriages, a whopping 50% increase approx. A 7-car IET-style formation would likely have comparable capacity to a 9-car Voyager formation, but with the added bonuses of lower crew demands and no danger of short-forming, so I could see these being a common fleet order if not too costly.

Should Hitachi require any more contracts for the production line I can see this being the case. Rather than four or five coach units a fleet of seven-coach units with maybe even a nine-coach subfleet would be the perfect replacement, the question is whether a competitor like CAF could deliver a potential alternative as a follow-in order after LNER's 10-coach tri-mode fleet, but when comparing a 397 with 286 seats against an 802/0 with 326 seats, there is very much a clear winner in terms of capacity.

 

[Brubulus]

Railwaydata's passenger loading statistics seem to suggest that most of XCs services, while often full and standing on 4 and 5 car services, tend not to fill up as much on 8 and 9 car services, though I know it is an underestimate. This suggests that a uniform 7-8 coach fleet would be optimal.

 

[class26]

Railwaydata's passenger loading statistics seem to suggest that most of XCs services, while often full and standing on 4 and 5 car services, tend not to fill up as much on 8 and 9 car services, though I know it is an underestimate. This suggests that a uniform 7-8 coach fleet would be optimal.

Probably due to huge fares

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Railwaydata's passenger loading statistics seem to suggest that most of XCs services, while often full and standing on 4 and 5 car services, tend not to fill up as much on 8 and 9 car services, though I know it is an underestimate. This suggests that a uniform 7-8 coach fleet would be optimal.

There is probably a lot of suppressed demand too, which also needs to be taken into account.

 

[JonathanH]

Probably due to huge fares

There is probably a lot of suppressed demand too, which also needs to be taken into account.

There is no impetus for the railway funding model to provide a load of extra capacity simply to enable fares to be reduced. More capacity at existing, or higher fares, is something the funding model might countenance.

Information on whether the recent addition of 12 extra Voyagers has increased or reduced the subsidy requirement will be a useful pointer.

 

[Trainbike46]

There is no impetus for the railway funding model to provide a load of extra capacity simply to enable fares to be reduced. More capacity at existing, or higher fares, is something the funding model might countenance.

Even at the same fares, the more pleasant travelling environment consistently enabled by better capacity, is likely to increase passenger numbers

Information on whether the recent addition of 12 extra Voyagers has increased or reduced the subsidy requirement will be a useful pointer.

Remember that voyagers are very expensive on a per-seat basis, due to their high staffing needs, their high fuel consumption, and their low capacity.