Suggestions on how to improve CrossCountry

[The Planner]

But that again raises the old question which no one can answer, what are XC for? Are they there to provide connectivity by stopping at any small/medium sized shack increasing journey times and putting longer distance punters off? Or do we expect them to be a long distance operator with "fast" journey times with the connectivity provided by someone else or the perceived terrible notion of having to change somewhere else?

 

[tbtc]

It really is time something was done about the Birmingham-Stoke-Manchester service. It's hell trying to board a train, especially at peak times. I know the historical reason for XC being the operator, but why another operator isn't required to run an hourly (or preferably a half-hourly) service is just stupid. The link between the country's 2nd & 3rd cities surely deserves better?

Agreed - it's a terrible service considering the size of the connurbations.

There are going to be lots of "modern" EMUs on the transfer list over the next few years - some eight/ten coach 350s/ 360s or 379s etc would be fine from Manchester to Birmingham International/ Coventry (depending on local paths east of New Street)

But apparently it's more important to restrict the service between the second and third largest places in the country for the sake of the low number of people wanting through services to Penzance etc.

Glasgow to Newcastle is a big flow indeed and Motherwell to Edinburgh . Glasgow to Nottingham , cant see it happening but you dont get many going south of Derby from Glasgow

Motherwell - Edinburgh has a ScotRail service every couple of hours though?

It'd be more efficient for LNER to run a five coach service from Glasgow to Edinburgh every few hours for the sake of retaining a Newcastle service - a waste of Voyagers running under the wires.

...apart from Brum to Derby, where it seems XC are the only operator. At least they do run some Nottingham to Brum stoppers, even if they are erratic and infrequent.

Infrequent?

I thought they were every half hour (which is the same frequency that Birmingham has to Manchester/ Liverpool/ Sheffield/ Leicester/ Bristol etc... and the same frequency that Nottingham has to Sheffield) - I'm not sure how much more frequent you want the Nottingham - Birmingham service to be?

I like how some people are suggesting that XC skip Banbury

I don't think that there's any serious chance of that - other than in the mind of one local who is using a strawman argument.

An easy way of making some extra capacity (now they’re talking about how one XC will have to terminate at York vice Newcastle to let extra EC and TP trains go north), would be to have a York & Leeds splitter (splitting at Sheffield); so that you have 8 coaches at least and 4 to Leeds, 4 to York via Donny

The problem I'd have with that is that the eight coaches are going to be more needed for Sheffield - Leeds than for Sheffield - Derby, but at least it'd hopefully increase the frequency.

For "Connectivity." Someone other than me making the point that the network can provide more value if we use it sensibly.
Most lines need 3 levels of service: stoppers, semi-fasts calling mainly at junctions and on some routes real expresses. No point going non-stop Wrexham to Bidston, for example!

Ideal world, starting from scratch etc, we'd copy the marvellous Germans etc etc

But, realistically, given the complicated timetable, the speed differentials between fastest/slowest, the existing demands, the lack of four tracking on most lines, I think it's all theoretical.

Easy to say that we should have genuine expresses on XC on stopping at places with over 250,000 (or 500,000) in the urban area, but running anything at line speed for longer distances is soon going to catch up the 75mph Sprinter services ahead.

 

[AndrewE]

But that again raises the old question which no one can answer, what are XC for? Are they there to provide connectivity by stopping at any small/medium sized shack increasing journey times and putting longer distance punters off? Or do we expect them to be a long distance operator with "fast" journey times with the connectivity provided by someone else or the perceived terrible notion of having to change somewhere else?

That's the problem with the present stupid structure of "our" railway - the set-up that professional railwaypeople told the politicians not to go for.
How about reorganising it with something like Regional Operations Directors/Managers and give them the remit to consider the transport needs of the region (and consult) and then implement some sort of taktfahrplan?

 

[route:oxford]

Do that and I don't really care what else. There are a few service enhancements that would be nice, notably varying the routes a bit to include, for example, a Reading-Oxford-fast-New Street-WCML-Scotland every 3 or 4 hours or so, but that's very much the nice to have rather than the essential.

Reading is awkward, if you're going to head to Scotland, you're much better off taking the train to London then get a fast Virgin from Euston.

For me in Oxford, I do miss the direct West Coast services from Oxford to Glasgow/Edinburgh. 5h19m pretty much exactly matches the driving time or faffing with fights.

At the moment, my preference is to:-

Press a button on an App on my phone and the local bus company will send a mini-bus to my house within 10 minutes and take me to the P&R
From the P&R take a Coach to London
Walk from Baker Street to Kings Cross or Euston and get a train to Scotland

Or

Drive to Milton Keynes, particularly enjoying the 4hr direct service back on a Sunday evening, followed by a 35 minute drive.


I'm rather looking forward to the E-W link opening. With the right connections - 4h40m from Oxford to Glasgow? It's going to be one less reason for owning a car and avoids getting to MK by car and finding the car park full.

 

[AndrewE]

Agreed - it's a terrible service considering the size of the conurbations.
There are going to be lots of "modern" EMUs on the transfer list over the next few years - some eight/ten coach 350s/ 360s or 379s etc would be fine from Manchester to Birmingham International/ Coventry (depending on local paths east of New Street)

Agree

But apparently it's more important to restrict the service between the second and third largest places in the country for the sake of the low number of people wanting through services to Penzance etc.

No, we need more rolling stock ASAP, and something imaginative ought to be done to better use the things like e.g. Voyagers wasting their time under the wires from Brum to Manchester.

Infrequent? I thought they were every half hour (which is the same frequency that Birmingham has to Manchester/ Liverpool/ Sheffield/ Leicester/ Bristol etc... and the same frequency that Nottingham has to Sheffield) - I'm not sure how much more frequent you want the Nottingham - Birmingham service to be?

I had a quick look at the "service" from Willington on RTT. 2 and 3 hour gaps, so a not very useable stopping service.

The problem I'd have with that is that the eight coaches are going to be more needed for Sheffield - Leeds than for Sheffield - Derby, but at least it'd hopefully increase the frequency.

mere detail! It wasn't my suggestion, but surely it's a good idea and local knowledge just suggests a different split.

Ideal world, starting from scratch etc, we'd copy the marvellous Germans etc etc

The Swiss invented it, I think. But that's no reason not to adopt it whenever we get the chance... on that argument we british would be too proud to have copied and used things like the Internal Combustion Engine! Foreign innovations!

But, realistically, given the complicated timetable, the speed differentials between fastest/slowest, the existing demands, the lack of four tracking on most lines, I think it's all theoretical.

Easy to say that we should have genuine expresses on XC on stopping at places with over 250,000 (or 500,000) in the urban area, but running anything at line speed for longer distances is soon going to catch up the 75mph Sprinter services ahead.

It's why the railway has timetable planners, and long-term investment plans for things like additional strategically-placed slow lines, or even occasional 4-platform stations.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree with the point about Birmingham to Manchester. An hourly twelve carriage crowd buster, formed of redundent electric stock reconfigured internally to suit a longer distance service would be ideal and sensible.

However, I don't understand why that would be incompatible with running an existing service to Penzance ? If its due to limited paths, perhaps the longer distance service could run via Crewe instead.

 

[Domh245]

I had a quick look at the "service" from Willington on RTT. 2 and 3 hour gaps, so a not very useable stopping service.

Willington has around 30,000 passengers a year, it shouldn't be a surprise that it has a comparatively poor service. Burton (.8 million) and Tamworth (1.2 million) have 2tph in each direction from the 170 services, as well as occasional stops from the long distance services.

 

[cle]

These comments are why I made my post. Not to remove any stops from the Banburys, Chesterfields or Tamworths of this world, but another set of hourly services between Birmingham and Manchester, Leeds and Nottingham, focused on the big cities and not the regional commuting.

I had the latter via Leicester as the new Leeds would cover Derby. This would be inter-city in stopping pattern, but more like a shuttle.

Perhaps Reading - Oxford - Birmingham only is another one - which could become the Manchester (calling Stoke only).

 

[The Ham]

There's some suggestions which I can see the advantage of doing IF they could be made to work:
- 350's or other EMU running Manchester to Birmingham (or Coventry) freeing up units to lengthen other services. However that at most would only create about half a dozen units, but would create a lot of capacity over that leg
- 2+5 HST's being used to replace 4 coach units and then those 4 coach units being paired together to replace 5 coach units.

However there's a few problems with these options and so I'd be surprised if they could be a viable option.

 

[The Ham]

One thing that would help XC is to make a change which doesn't alter their trains or calling patterns, that being extend more GWR services to Banbury.

By doing so it would give people from Reading, Oxford and the south coast the option of using the Chiltern services to head north from Banbury. This would remove some passengers from the XC services. Although the numbers wouldn't be a lot of would free up some seats.

 

[ScotTrains]

Especially the provision of Free Alcohol in 1st Class a la Virgin and LNER ....even if it is restricted to 60mins + journeys.

I agree! As a long distance intercity operator they should be providing a good 1st class menu (with alcohol) similar to Virgin, clearly showing what options are likely to be served from each station, eg colour coded timetable like virgin/ lner.
With Scotrail and TPEx apparently improving their 1st class offering XC need to up their game too. To facilitate this I would like to see XC introduce longer trains with a buffet/kitchen and at least 2 coaches of first class. Redundant LNER HSTs would be perfect.

 

[cle]

There's some suggestions which I can see the advantage of doing IF they could be made to work:
- 350's or other EMU running Manchester to Birmingham (or Coventry) freeing up units to lengthen other services. However that at most would only create about half a dozen units, but would create a lot of capacity over that leg
- 2+5 HST's being used to replace 4 coach units and then those 4 coach units being paired together to replace 5 coach units.

However there's a few problems with these options and so I'd be surprised if they could be a viable option.

350s is not a terrible shout, they manage Birmingham-Liverpool just fine, and with a shorter stopping pattern to Manchester, passenger amenities wouldn't be such a concern. A service with one stop (Crewe or Stoke) would do the run so quickly, that commuter stock is fine as a PIXC-type capacity buster. If it was 1h20 mins, I could probably even handle a 319. And at 8 cars, it'd be way more useful than the Voyagers.

 

[Masbroughlad]

Longer trains with comfortable, well configured seats. Catering to be improved - better range and available much more widely. No catering after 8pm and only on core route isn't very good.

In essence, return it to INTERCITY standard.

Add in West Coast to SW and SE again. Serve more city destinations again - Swansea, Liverpool, Blackpool, Hull, Brighton, Portsmouth, Weymouth etc.

 

[The Ham]

350s is not a terrible shout, they manage Birmingham-Liverpool just fine, and with a shorter stopping pattern to Manchester, passenger amenities wouldn't be such a concern. A service with one stop (Crewe or Stoke) would do the run so quickly, that commuter stock is fine as a PIXC-type capacity buster. If it was 1h20 mins, I could probably even handle a 319. And at 8 cars, it'd be way more useful than the Voyagers.

It's likely that it would also be a short term solution as it would either be replaced by new/extra stock or failing that slightly longer term by HS2 services (which would be much faster) once the relevent phase 2 section is built.

 

[tbtc]

I had a quick look at the "service" from Willington on RTT. 2 and 3 hour gaps, so a not very useable stopping service

Regardless of the frequency at quieter intermediate stations, the service between the big cities is every half hour, which is about as good as it ought to be (it just needs longer trains)

The Swiss invented it, I think. But that's no reason not to adopt it whenever we get the chance... on that argument we british would be too proud to have copied and used things like the Internal Combustion Engine! Foreign innovations!It's why the railway has timetable planners, and long-term investment plans for things like additional strategically-placed slow lines, or even occasional 4-platform stations.

Ideal world etc.

But where are the opportunities to develop a three-tier service on existing XC routes?

Maybe the Germans/ Swiss would restrict Edinburgh - Plymouth to only serving half a dozen intermediate stations (Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield Birmingham, Bristol TM and Exeter) but any "high speed" Cross Country service is going to bump into tediously slow local paths (e.g. Bristol to Gloucester, Newton Abbot to Exeter, Rotherham to Leeds...), whilst there's no spare paths to still serve the intermediate places (Durham, York, Wakefield, Chesterfield, Derby, Cheltenham, Bristol Parkway, Taunton etc).

If you see the numbers trying to board a Voyager at Leeds in the rush hour and decide that the large number of Wakefield commuters should just wait for a spare seat on the next Pacer/ Sprinter out of Leeds then you'll have riots.

IF we were building from scratch, I'd agree with you. But with the reality of where we are now, any XC service has got to be a compromise due to limited paths/ limited places to overtake local trains etc.

These comments are why I made my post. Not to remove any stops from the Banburys, Chesterfields or Tamworths of this world, but another set of hourly services between Birmingham and Manchester, Leeds and Nottingham, focused on the big cities and not the regional commuting

Where are the paths though?

And where do you draw the line between "big cities" and not-big-cities? Places like Stockport, Wolverhampton and Wakefield are large but tend to be underestimated because they are part of/ next door to larger urban conurbations.

One thing that would help XC is to make a change which doesn't alter their trains or calling patterns, that being extend more GWR services to Banbury.

By doing so it would give people from Reading, Oxford and the south coast the option of using the Chiltern services to head north from Banbury. This would remove some passengers from the XC services. Although the numbers wouldn't be a lot of would free up some seats.

Agreed - if GWR have the spare trains then connections at Banbury to Chiltern could take a number of passengers off XC.

Serve more city destinations again - Swansea, Liverpool, Blackpool, Hull, Brighton, Portsmouth, Weymouth etc.

Phew - I'm glad someone got round to mentioning Brighton!

 

[Starmill]

I don't think that there's any serious chance of that - other than in the mind of one local who is using a strawman argument.

It was Chris Stokes' argument. XC should serve Kenilworth and ditch Banbury in those services. Sounds ludicrous to me...

 

[6Gman]

I agree! As a long distance intercity operator they should be providing a good 1st class menu (with alcohol) similar to Virgin, clearly showing what options are likely to be served from each station, eg colour coded timetable like virgin/ lner.
With Scotrail and TPEx apparently improving their 1st class offering XC need to up their game too. To facilitate this I would like to see XC introduce longer trains with a buffet/kitchen and at least 2 coaches of first class. Redundant LNER HSTs would be perfect.

Given the medical advice published this week perhaps TOCs should be withdrawing free alcohol?

 

[47271]

A few pages back I suggested the replacement of XC service north of Newcastle could free up a decent number of Voyagers for the core. Especially given that all of their trains enter Scotland via the East Coast, and that route is about to enjoy a major step up in Transpennine service very soon. Equally a Voyager to Aberdeen is going to look a bit rubbish when Scotrail gets going with their HSTs.

I was partly making it as a personal comment as a Scot: nothing short of cancellation of the alternative would get me to use them north of the border when there are so many other ways to go. I should add that I use them a lot around Birmingham, Oxford, Manchester and Bristol and I'm fine with that since it's the most sensible way to go but, yes, it's always massively overcrowded.

Other than one poster who's concerned about overcrowded services between Glasgow, Motherwell and Edinburgh - of course you should have a proper service, but hardly Cross Country's main concern - noone else has really argued against the idea.

This isn't a crusade of mine, so to be objective, would this free up enough units to make a real difference or would it just be tinkering at the edges?

I should also add that I think that if the operator was properly resourced in the long term then I wouldn't be making the point. It's just on the basis of what they have - is Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow really the best use of it?

 

[Andyh82]

I don’t get some of these suggestions, it seems there is a rule that has been decided by some that Cross country are not allowed any additional trains, but everyone else is.

So for example, TPE would need more stock to replace XC north of York, as would Scotrail in Scotland, as would GWR in the West country and as would one of the Midlands TOCs in the Midlands.

Unless XC passengers are supposed to just squeeze onto existing services if XC services were withdrawn in certain areas

Therefore if extra trains are being provided for those TOCs why not just get the trains for XC instead!

 

[yorksrob]

Given the medical advice published this week perhaps TOCs should be withdrawing free alcohol?

Slippery slope.

 

[6Gman]

Slippery slope.

It was said slightly tongue in cheek.

 

[yorksrob]

It was said slightly tongue in cheek.

Indeed. There'll be someone who thinks its a good idea though !

 

[cle]

And where do you draw the line between "big cities" and not-big-cities? Places like Stockport, Wolverhampton and Wakefield are large but tend to be underestimated because they are part of/ next door to larger urban conurbations.

If they are close to a larger urban place, they don't get the call. That's the point - that this additional set of services would not be for the local/regional commuting, and designed for the city to city journeys with longer gaps between stations.

How to measure it I think would be about flows and proximity to another larger place. Not population. Wolverhampton is bigger than Oxford, for instance - but it's also part of the West Midlands urban area, with many services to Birmingham each hour, and to Stafford/Crewe in the other direction. Oxford is more of a stand-alone metro/market and destination (and I don't want to get contentious here).

So I think no Stockport, Coventry, Wakefield, Wolves, Chesterfield and so forth.

Paths are another matter. It might need some consolidation across Brum. Or flighting right in front of the existing 'express'.
This is all blue-sky thinking although I would think there is a feasible path from Reading up to Birmingham via Solihull, if the others both end up running via Coventry. To give one example. Through Wolves is tricky I know.

 

[AndrewE]

If they are close to a larger urban place, they don't get the call. That's the point - that this additional set of services would not be for the local/regional commuting, and designed for the city to city journeys with longer gaps between stations.

How to measure it I think would be about flows and proximity to another larger place. Not population. Wolverhampton is bigger than Oxford, for instance - but it's also part of the West Midlands urban area, with many services to Birmingham each hour, and to Stafford/Crewe in the other direction. Oxford is more of a stand-alone metro/market and destination (and I don't want to get contentious here).

So I think no Stockport, Coventry, Wakefield, Wolves, Chesterfield and so forth.

Paths are another matter. It might need some consolidation across Brum. Or flighting right in front of the existing 'express'.
This is all blue-sky thinking although I would think there is a feasible path from Reading up to Birmingham via Solihull, if the others both end up running via Coventry. To give one example. Through Wolves is tricky I know.

I agree that there is a problem from commuters blocking space on Inter-City trains, with long-distance passengers losing out (think Leeds to Manchester too full for long-distance travellers to get on, but the train emptying out at Huddersfield!) It should be dealt with by using - and enforcing - "U" stops ("S" in the other direction) so that people already on the right side of the conurbation don't have to go into the centre to go back through their origin station again. The lack of Watford Junction stops on the WCML must be one of the worst examples of this.
Of course, if we had a decent timetable structure there would be good semi-fasts that might do away with the need to change onto the express anyway!

 

[tbtc]

It was Chris Stokes argument. XC should serve Kenilworth and ditch Banbury in those services. Sounds ludicrous to me...

Ah, didn't realise - cheers for explaining

Given the medical advice published this week perhaps TOCs should be withdrawing free alcohol?

Probably.

Maybe, as it'd be unfair to impose (further) price rises on XC passengers, they could choke demand off by making their services "dry" trains?

would this free up enough units to make a real difference or would it just be tinkering at the edges?

I honestly think that you'd only need to free up half a dozen Voyagers to make a big difference - that'd mean replacing four coach trains with five coaches, replacing five coaches with eight (in the "core"), on sufficient diagrams to add a lot of capacity where it's most needed.

I don’t get some of these suggestions, it seems there is a rule that has been decided by some that Cross country are not allowed any additional trains, but everyone else is.

So for example, TPE would need more stock to replace XC north of York, as would Scotrail in Scotland, as would GWR in the West country and as would one of the Midlands TOCs in the Midlands.

Unless XC passengers are supposed to just squeeze onto existing services if XC services were withdrawn in certain areas

Therefore if extra trains are being provided for those TOCs why not just get the trains for XC instead!

Part of it is that other TOCs *are* getting additional stock/ other TOCs are planning to improve services on routes where XC operate (ScotRail's Seven City HSTs, TPE on Leeds - Edinburgh, GWR's "Castles").

Part of it is that there's not been anything suitable for XC (given the need for units to match Voyagers for timings), and "no" scope for XC to tinker with their timetables.

Part of it is because EMUs aren't suitable for most XC routes (unless you split Manchester services in the West Midlands).

Part of it is because the over-ambitious Operation Princess made XC run a lot of services in areas where it was never a bit player (e.g. pre-Princess there were only three trains a day north of Newcastle, all early morning/ late evening), so it's more feasible to get "local" TOCs to deal with capacity problems in their areas and get XC to deal with the Bristol/ Oxford/ Manchester/ York "core".

If they are close to a larger urban place, they don't get the call. That's the point - that this additional set of services would not be for the local/regional commuting, and designed for the city to city journeys with longer gaps between stations.

How to measure it I think would be about flows and proximity to another larger place. Not population. Wolverhampton is bigger than Oxford, for instance - but it's also part of the West Midlands urban area, with many services to Birmingham each hour, and to Stafford/Crewe in the other direction. Oxford is more of a stand-alone metro/market and destination (and I don't want to get contentious here).

So I think no Stockport, Coventry, Wakefield, Wolves, Chesterfield and so forth

I'm not convinced that there are paths for this on top of the existing service.

But, for example, where would you have the Aberdeen - Penzance service stop? And the Manchester - Bournemouth?

 

[Senex]

Maybe the Germans/ Swiss would restrict Edinburgh - Plymouth to only serving half a dozen intermediate stations (Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield Birmingham, Bristol TM and Exeter) but any "high speed" Cross Country service is going to bump into tediously slow local paths (e.g. Bristol to Gloucester, Newton Abbot to Exeter, Rotherham to Leeds...), whilst there's no spare paths to still serve the intermediate places (Durham, York, Wakefield, Chesterfield, Derby, Cheltenham, Bristol Parkway, Taunton etc).

But if the Swiss decided that they needed to add in a set of genuinely fast services they would first of all decided what additional infrastructure they would need to provide the service reliably, then build it, then introduce the service. That's the way their planning is done. No way would a Manchester situation have been allowed to develop in Switzerland.

We have said quite a lot about Operation Princess and the acquisition of the Voyagers before, and everyone agrees that they are too short for the job. But there was supposed to be more to OP. The idea was that all trains would serve all the designated stops making up the XC routes and that fast journey times would be achieved by a combination of the very powerful trains with their 125 top speed and route upgrades that would permit that speed to be used as far as possible, or the highest possible lower speeds elsewhere. A major problem was that most of the route upgrade section of the plan was never executed and the timetable that was put into effect did not have the optimised paths that were in the drafts but significantly worse and slower pathing. And, of course, the 5-car HSTs never appeared on the scene, and a form of ticketing that would keep very-short-distance passengers off the trains was never developed.

I personally would much prefer to see a semi-fast ("InterRegio") service, and also a genuinely fast service between the major centres. But I wouldn't be happy about seeing Manchester-Birmingham, for example, provided by 350-type emus with their 2/3 doors etc. Services between cities like Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, and Edinburgh should be every bit as high quality (if that's what modern stock is supposed to be) as services between those cities and London.

 

[yorksrob]

But if the Swiss decided that they needed to add in a set of genuinely fast services they would first of all decided what additional infrastructure they would need to provide the service reliably, then build it, then introduce the service. That's the way their planning is done. No way would a Manchester situation have been allowed to develop in Switzerland.

We have said quite a lot about Operation Princess and the acquisition of the Voyagers before, and everyone agrees that they are too short for the job. But there was supposed to be more to OP. The idea was that all trains would serve all the designated stops making up the XC routes and that fast journey times would be achieved by a combination of the very powerful trains with their 125 top speed and route upgrades that would permit that speed to be used as far as possible, or the highest possible lower speeds elsewhere. A major problem was that most of the route upgrade section of the plan was never executed and the timetable that was put into effect did not have the optimised paths that were in the drafts but significantly worse and slower pathing. And, of course, the 5-car HSTs never appeared on the scene, and a form of ticketing that would keep very-short-distance passengers off the trains was never developed.

I personally would much prefer to see a semi-fast ("InterRegio") service, and also a genuinely fast service between the major centres. But I wouldn't be happy about seeing Manchester-Birmingham, for example, provided by 350-type emus with their 2/3 doors etc. Services between cities like Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, and Edinburgh should be every bit as high quality (if that's what modern stock is supposed to be) as services between those cities and London.

But the reality is, for Leeds -Manchester certainly, they're going to have (what I consider to be) a suburban type door layout. That said, from my 185 travels, its not the end of the world, even though I might not have designed those carriages that way myself !

 

[The Ham]

But I wouldn't be happy about seeing Manchester-Birmingham, for example, provided by 350-type emus with their 2/3 doors etc.

Having used both 350's and 450's these can be fairly comfortable units.

One of the main problems with 1/3 doors is when they open every 5 minutes during very hot/cold weather, however if they are kept at for longer time periods the 350's and 450's appear to cope well.

Put in dividing doors (akin to the first class sections) and they would cope better.

Fit them out with seating more like the 444's and they would be suitable for the circa 90 minute journeys which they would be expected to do.

The advice would be a lot cheaper to do than messing about forming 2+5 HST's with sliding doors and retention tanks.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Trouble is (and it was known even in 1996 when the first franchise was let) , that XC is a myriad of complex , interconnected flows , so not as easy as a "straightforward" IC operation. If the latter can be termed straightforward. Difficult to satisfy all possible users.

However , Manchester - Birmingham - connecting 2 vibrant and flourishing economies is not best served by "expensive" Voyagers. A stand alone operation - electrically powered - makes (to me) considerable sense. The SRA at the time had too many complex issues to deal with , and it was more or less left alone. Ideal turf for a 379 or similar package. More affordable IMHO.

 

[The Ham]

More affordable IMHO.

Quite, given the glut of off least EMU's I wouldn't be surprised if XC couldn't make the numbers to stack up to justify 8 coach (20m coaches) or even 10 coach (23m coaches) for all their services. Compared with a mix of 4, 5 and the occasional 8/9 coach trains which currently serve the route.