Ideas for improving the CrossCountry timetable

[zwk500]

A true half-hourly express service Bristol - Taunton - Exeter would of course be wildly popular, just impossible to resource (even once all of the new Voyager trains are productive).

Bristol - Exeter half hourly is probably of more interest to them than any other extension given the consultation a few years ago. Although as has been stated, this would require more trains.

XC going to half-hourly would only make sense if the GWR Cardiff-Taunton service dropped out. In some hours the GWR is only 10 minutes behind the XC from Newcastle https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...24-04-25/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt. Running Hourly Manchester-Plymouth and Hourly Cardiff-Exeter seems much more reasonable journey provision to me.
Exeter isn't that big, and the demand to/from Bristol is reasonable but not 3tph Intercity all-day big. Maintaining connections to Cardiff (the GWR services form a half-hourly Bristol-Cardiff service with the Portsmouths, and that's very much needed). from Exeter is probably more important than having a 2nd XC every hour.

 

[JonathanH]

Hourly Manchester-Plymouth and Hourly Cardiff-Exeter seems much more reasonable journey provision to me.
Exeter isn't that big, and the demand to/from Bristol is reasonable but not 3tph Intercity all-day big.

Isn't Cardiff to Exeter the regional service on the route and expected to pick up Cullompton and Wellington if they ever reopened?

Currently the corridor has a slow from Bristol to Weston-super-Mare, the semi-fast Cardiff service and the fast XC that only stops at Taunton and Tiverton Parkway.

XC to Exeter makes sense where both it, and the Plymouth XC service use short trains, as it increases long distance capacity up to the point where it can be handled by GWR onwards to the West. If XC could justify more capacity on the Plymouth services, there is less need to run the second train to Exeter. Platform 2 at Exeter is a constraint on the length of Exeter terminators from the North.

 

[zwk500]

Isn't Cardiff to Exeter the regional service on the route and expected to pick up Cullompton and Wellington if they ever reopened?

The chances of those stations reopening is very low, being realistic.

Currently the corridor has a slow from Bristol to Weston-super-Mare, the semi-fast Cardiff service and the fast XC that only stops at Taunton and Tiverton Parkway.

1tph fast, 1tph semi-fast (but still a competitive journey time) and 1tph stopper seems reasonable provision considering the size of the two cities, the demand between them, and the available intermediate traffic. There's only so many people living there, and they can't all be on every train.

XC to Exeter makes sense where both it, and the Plymouth XC service use short trains, as it increases long distance capacity up to the point where it can be handled by GWR onwards to the West. If XC could justify more capacity on the Plymouth services, there is less need to run the second train to Exeter. Platform 2 at Exeter is a constraint on the length of Exeter terminators from the North.

If you only have 1tph west of Bristol run by XC, there is a potential operational argument to keep the train running longer throughout rather than dropping carriages back at Bristol.

 

[JonathanH]

If you only have 1tph west of Bristol run by XC, there is a potential operational argument to keep the train running longer throughout rather than dropping carriages back at Bristol.

Yes, I agree. I think the thing about both Exeter and Southampton is the peaks and troughs of demand to travel from those places north of Bristol and Reading. Most of the time 1tph south of Bristol and Reading deals comfortably with the demand, but peaks caused by holiday and weekend traffic lead to a problem.

As you outlined the pattern of services, plus 2tph some hours towards London doesn't seem inappropriate most of the time, but struggles sometimes.

 

[zwk500]

Yes, I agree. I think the thing about both Exeter and Southampton is the peaks and troughs of demand to travel from those places north of Bristol and Reading. Most of the time 1tph south of Bristol and Reading deals comfortably with the demand, but peaks caused by holiday and weekend traffic lead to a problem.

As you outlined the pattern of services, plus 2tph some hours towards London doesn't seem inappropriate most of the time, but struggles sometimes.

That's the nature of travel patterns. In peak hours or on summer saturdays you can run additional trains if it's that big a problem. The railway probably doesn't run at a high enough centile at the moment, but expecting it to run at the 95th or 100th centile isn't sustainable long-term.

 

[daodao]

Remove the Birmingham-Manchester sector from XC and use LNWR emus for this route; it is good enough for Liverpool to Birmingham.

Remove the sector north of Leeds from XC.

Both these changes would reduce diesel Voyagers from "running under the wires" and release Voyagers to strengthen some of the remaining XC train services to 8 carriages. Workarounds can be devised for any consequences of these changes at Birmingham New Street and Leeds stations.

 

[Starmill]

1tph fast, 1tph semi-fast (but still a competitive journey time)

Just to note the typical journey time of the GWR service is 45% - 50% longer than the CrossCountry. This is inevitable given the number of extra stops necccesary.

In some hours the GWR is only 10 minutes behind the XC from Newcastle https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/se...24-04-25/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

If you look at their times at Taunton you'll see the gaps are rather longer.

 

[The Planner]

Remove the Birmingham-Manchester sector from XC and use LNWR emus for this route; it is good enough for Liverpool to Birmingham.

Remove the sector north of Leeds from XC.

Both these changes would reduce diesel Voyagers from "running under the wires" and release Voyagers to strengthen some of the remaining XC train services to 8 carriages. Workarounds can be devised for any consequences of these changes at Birmingham New Street and Leeds stations.

"workarounds"

 

[swt_passenger]

Remove the sector north of Leeds from XC.

Congratulations - I’m pretty sure nobody’s ever suggested that before in about 15 years of repeating the same old stuff every few months…

 

[Rich McLean]

If there was enough stock, the GWR Penzance services could run fast in alternate hours to the XC Exeter terminator, with the current semi fast terminating at Taunton.

That is not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Remove the Birmingham-Manchester sector from XC and use LNWR emus for this route; it is good enough for Liverpool to Birmingham.

Remove the sector north of Leeds from XC.

Both these changes would reduce diesel Voyagers from "running under the wires" and release Voyagers to strengthen some of the remaining XC train services to 8 carriages. Workarounds can be devised for any consequences of these changes at Birmingham New Street and Leeds stations.

What about Bristol/Birmingham-Newcastle, Reading-Manchester/Wolverhampton, Sheffield-Newcastle/Edinburgh, Bristol-Wolverhampton/Manchester traffic? Changing at a station like New Street is highly unattractive for many passengers, and to a lesser extent, the same applies to Leeds.

 

[Neptune]

Congratulations - I’m pretty sure nobody’s ever suggested that before in about 15 years of repeating the same old stuff every few months…

Yes and there’s a hell of a lot of amnesia regarding lack of capacity for terminating XC services all day. It doesn’t matter how many times it’s explained that it would mean something else would have to give (most likely a local service and a TPE) it gets trotted out in the seemingly monthly ‘here’s a ‘great’ idea for Cross Country’ threads.

"workarounds"

Yes. No doubt as a fellow planner you feel the same pain as me whenever you hear that word.

 

[Snow1964]

DfT have added the XC train requirement, towards the end there is a set of of routes that they need to operate at least once or twice a week.

There are also first and last train requirements

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/662a402a690acb1c0ba7e5ea/xc-trains-23-rail-contract-train-service_requirement.pdf

 

[daodao]

What about Bristol/Birmingham-Newcastle, Reading-Manchester/Wolverhampton, Sheffield-Newcastle/Edinburgh, Bristol-Wolverhampton/Manchester traffic? Changing at a station like New Street is highly unattractive for many passengers, and to a lesser extent, the same applies to Leeds.

My suggestions were only put forward because XC have a dire shortage of capacity, and all their trains need to be able to operate away from the wires. Unfortunately, this isn't going to be relieved any time soon. The few extra trains that XC have recently been allowed to acquire are just a replacement for the retired HS125's.

Therefore, what stock XC has needs to be used on routes that only XC can practically operate; other operators can cover Birmingham-Manchester and Leeds-Newcastle-Edinburgh with electric or bi-mode stock. While it may be difficult, it would not be impossible to make arrangements to deal with the consequences of removing these sectors from XC. IMO it is the "least worst" option with the resources available.

Of course, the best solution would be for XC to be allowed to acquire new additional 5+ coach bi-mode stock for use on these services, and not split them off, but "dream on".

 

[YorkRailFan]

Therefore, what stock XC has needs to be used on routes that only XC can practically operate; other operators can cover Birmingham-Manchester and Leeds-Newcastle-Edinburgh with electric or bi-mode stock. While it may be difficult, it would not be impossible to make arrangements to deal with the consequences of removing these sectors from XC. IMO it is the "least worst" option with the resources available.

You lose vital connections though, as I said above. I agree that there can be some cutbacks (say to Penzance) but the ones you listed are important services. Sheffield would lose direct service to Newcastle and Edinburgh. Manchester to the South West and South Cost via Reading, Newcastle to Birmingham, Bristol and the South West and Coast.

 

[daodao]

You lose vital connections though. I agree that there can be some cutbacks (say to Penzance) but the ones you listed are important services.
Sheffield would lose direct service to Newcastle and Edinburgh. Manchester to the South West and South Cost via Reading, Newcastle to Birmingham, Bristol and the South West and Coast.

I envisage 2 tph from Birmingham to Sheffield, comprising 1 from Bournemouth to Leeds, and 1 from Plymouth to York via Doncaster, with a 2-hourly extension to Edinburgh. Manchester passengers would need to change, as do those from Liverpool now.

XC would also run class 170 trains from Nottingham to Cardiff (1 tph), Stansted Airport to Birmingham (1 tph) and Leicester to Bristol (1 tph). TPE would provide the inter-city express service from Leeds to York and places further north.

 

[FlyingPotato]

What's the obsession with cutting Leeds' Scotland services and giving Doncaster extras
Doncaster already has a 9 car to Edinburgh, plus all the others to York.
Yet you want to take away more trains between Leeds and the North? Why should Leeds lose out on another connection

The same goes with Manchester trains, what's the obsession. I don't see diesel under wires as a good reason for it. Should we cut the Morecambe branch to Bare Lane to stop running under wires on the WCML
Should we cut Aberdeen to Glasgow services because they run under wires from Stirling? I'm saying it's good to have diesel under wires, but using it as an excuse is poor. The focus should be building capacity and holding out till bimodes

If Brum Manchester needs more seats, add in another service if possible (but that's a topic for another thread)

Cutting the core route will just put people off trains

 

[YorkRailFan]

I envisage 2 tph from Birmingham to Sheffield, 1 from Bournemouth to Leeds, and 1 from Plymouth to York via Doncaster, with a 2-hourly extension to Edinburgh. Manchester passengers would need to change, as do those from Liverpool now.

Why should Leeds lose their Edinburgh service whilst Doncaster gets 9 car Azumas twice hourly? This isn't just about Manchester, as mentioned in other XC threads, Wolverhampton is a very popular destination for XC passengers coming from places like Reading. I think more Birmingham-Manchester services operated by LNR (possibly using displaced 350/2s once more 730s enter service) but axing XC services to Manchester would be very unpopular. As I said, changing at a station like New Street is very unattractive for many passengers, especially those with disabilities. Many passengers travel from Manchester to destinations south of Birmingham, diesels running under the wires isn't a good excuse to axe this service. There are far worse examples of diesels running under the wires (like the Doncaster-Edinburgh bi-hourly XC service you proposed).

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I envisage 2 tph from Birmingham to Sheffield, 1 from Bournemouth to Leeds, and 1 from Plymouth to York via Doncaster, with a 2-hourly extension to Edinburgh. Manchester passengers would need to change, as do those from Liverpool now.

These seems to cut England’s 3rd and 4th cities somewhat comprehensively from the network, Manchester totally and Leeds to the north.

 

[The Planner]

I envisage 2 tph from Birmingham to Sheffield, 1 from Bournemouth to Leeds, and 1 from Plymouth to York via Doncaster, with a 2-hourly extension to Edinburgh. Manchester passengers would need to change, as do those from Liverpool now.

All with lovely workarounds terminating trains which are operationally a nightmare to do so such as New St, Sheffield and Leeds. Why does Bristol and locations south of Birmingham only get 1tph to the north in your plans?

 

[TheGuy77]

What about giving XC EMR's Liverpool to Norwich line?

 

[swt_passenger]

What about giving XC EMR's Liverpool to Norwich line?

Another very regular suggestion over the years. It doesn’t go through BirmIngham, so is not in scope of the XC TOC.

 

[YorkRailFan]

What about giving XC EMR's Liverpool to Norwich line?

XC doesn't have the stock for that and introducing 158s (as EMR wouldn't be able to give more than the current 170s used on the service) would introduce fleet complexity.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Stop running the Cross Country Trains extensions beyond Edinburgh to Glasgow and Aberdeen and use the rolling stock to lengthen more trains on the core routes. The Government of Scotland should arrange for their own train operator to run the Edinburgh to Glasgow and Aberdeen services which are currently provided by Cross Country Trains extensions. In 2017 Cross Country Trains tried to reduce the number of extensions to Aberdeen but the Scottish Rail Minister at the time who is currently the First Minister of Scotland asked the Department for Transport in London to ensure that Cross Country Trains continued to run the train services between Edinburgh and Aberdeen that Cross Country Trains wanted to stop running. I found this a bit surprising as I thought the Government of Scotland in 2017 as now aspired to Scotland becoming an independent country so I though the Government of Scotland would be keen to take over the running of these train services.

Scottish rail minister intervenes to block CrossCountry service reduction

www.railtechnologymagazine.com

All with lovely workarounds terminating trains which are operationally a nightmare to do so such as New St, Sheffield and Leeds. Why does Bristol and locations south of Birmingham only get 1tph to the north in your plans?

The only real solution is new 240 metre long bimode trains with around 600 seats like the 9-car GWR Class 800 IETs for the XC Edinburgh-Plymouth, Manchester-Bristol and Manchester-Bournemouth services at least. These are the main train services connecting Birmingham with Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle and there will never be enough seats with the current diesel Voyager rolling stock which will at some point have to be replaced anyway.

 

[dk1]

The chances of those stations reopening is very low, being realistic.

I thought it was announced last year that both those stations had got funding and where expected to possibly open during 2025/26.

 

[YorkRailFan]

The only real solution is new 240 metre long bimode trains

I would say tri-mode. Diesel, OLE and third rail pick up shoes so that they can pick up power between Basingstoke and Bournemouth and not have to use diesel on that section.

 

[Spaceship323]

What, if anything, would need to happen for Leicester – Peterborough to go up to twice per hour? Does XC have enough 170s, and would Peterborough have enough space for another terminating service?

As I see it you would need a platform 5 building first at Leicester as the evening peak train to Birmingham runs as 2 units joined on P1, you couldn't join 2 units on P3 because of EMR to London services and the Lincoln service would be blocking P4

 

[swt_passenger]

Stop running the Cross Country Trains extensions beyond Edinburgh to Glasgow and Aberdeen and use the rolling stock to lengthen more trains on the core routes. The Government of Scotland should arrange for their own train operator to run the Edinburgh to Glasgow and Aberdeen services which are currently provided by Cross Country Trains extensions. In 2017 Cross Country Trains tried to reduce the number of extensions to Aberdeen but the Scottish Rail Minister at the time who is currently the First Minister of Scotland asked the Department for Transport in London to ensure that Cross Country Trains continued to run the train services between Edinburgh and Aberdeen that Cross Country Trains wanted to stop running...

That’s a good example of Scottish Government flip-flopping on the subject, because their earlier preference had definitely been to remove LNER and XC services beyond Edinburgh. But the ensuing public objections apparently forced a u-turn.

A post from 2011 includes their proposals for 2014 onwards, and the reasoning to cut back to Waverley, it went down badly:

Transport Scotland Rail 2014 consultation

http://mobile.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/documents/reports/j203179/j203179.pdf The two biggest, and utterly ludicrous, points are: > Proposal to cut all cross-border services north of Edinburgh, forcing passengers onto ScotRail > Proposal to cut at least one of the Caley Sleeper routes...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[daodao]

The only real solution is new 240 metre long bi-mode trains with around 600 seats like the 9-car GWR Class 800 IETs for the XC Edinburgh-Plymouth, Manchester-Bristol and Manchester-Bournemouth services at least. These are the main train services connecting Birmingham with Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle and there will never be enough seats with the current diesel Voyager rolling stock which will at some point have to be replaced anyway.

I agree, and also for the Newcastle-Reading service which should be hourly. It would obviate the need for the "sticking plaster solutions" that I proposed in earlier posts on this thread. However, "dream on", as it ain't going to happen. XC doesn't serve London, so the Whitehall mandarins don't give a damn, and wouldn't allow resources to provided for such "profligacy".

 

[Falcon1200]

Avanti already has links from Birmingham Intl/Coventry to Manchester calling at all of XC's stations, apart from Macclesfield.

Avanti do not run any direct services, at all, between Coventry and Birmingham International, and Manchester.

Run from Haymarket to Glasgow Queen Street rather than Central. This would give Falkirk a direct link to the East Coast and catch out Lumo with their apparent intention to run to Glasgow.

That would simply deprive Motherwell of its soon-to-be one service per day to the East Coast. Falkirk will retain such a service even after LNER's forthcoming reductions.