Why are XC allowed to continue?

[Iskra]

If those 12 units mean everything on the BoM to Manchester and Plymouth to Edinburgh becomes a double set then great, problem solved. But I fear these sets will be swallowed up by lightly used reintroduced services like York to Reading or Bristol to Manchester. I hope I'm wrong, and the days of a 4 car voyager turning up at Bristol full and standing West Country bound will be gone, but I will believe it when I see it.

DfT press release on Northern Powerhouse Rail

Was there not talk of a new terminal building at Manchester Airport? There was talk of a tram extension to the HS2 station, but never properly defined. A local solution would hopefully try and link existing railways via the airport (HS2 wasn't interested).

www.railforums.co.uk

This post neatly demonstrates where the people are on the XC Network, and it's blatantly clear that the South West is out on a limb. Reading-Newcastle is not a quiet train and does also have the side benefit of relieving the 'Via Leeds' services somewhat- a double win. There may be an argument that Bristol-Exeter needs a better GWR semi-fast style service, although last time I did that route on a Castle Class HST it was empty, so there is capacity it just isn't utilised effectively. This capacity issue could probably be eased via GWR cheap advances to keep people off cross-country and fill space on the stopper.

 

[irish_rail]

DfT press release on Northern Powerhouse Rail

Was there not talk of a new terminal building at Manchester Airport? There was talk of a tram extension to the HS2 station, but never properly defined. A local solution would hopefully try and link existing railways via the airport (HS2 wasn't interested).

www.railforums.co.uk

This post neatly demonstrates where the people are on the XC Network, and it's blatantly clear that the South West is out on a limb. Reading-Newcastle is not a quiet train and does also have the side benefit of relieving the 'Via Leeds' services somewhat- a double win. There may be an argument that Bristol-Exeter needs a better GWR semi-fast style service, although last time I did that route on a Castle Class HST it was empty, so there is capacity it just isn't utilised effectively. This capacity issue could probably be eased via GWR cheap advances to keep people off cross-country and fill space on the stopper.

The reason the GWR service was empty, is because no one travels on it , they prefer the much quicker XC one. The GWR one stops at every pile of bricks. If ,and it's a big If , GWR had enough stock then great, they could definitely provide a decent rival service to XC on the Plymouth to Bristol corridor, even dare I say it to Birmingham. But GWR are shorter of rolling stock than any other TOC right now, so that isn't going to happen. Yes South west is out on a limb, but it is enough millions of people to warrant a service to the rest of the country, and doesn't deserve to get one train an hour (which seems to be a 4 car set 50 percent of the time, completely inadequate).

 

[Class 317]

I believe xc have around 50 Voyagers diagramed daily including a small number of double sets. I'd imagine once they have the 12 additional 221's most trains will be either 5 car or double 8 cars offering a significant increase in seating capacity.

With 32 * 5 car sets say 28 should be a reasonable assumption for daily diagrams leaving 22 or so diagrams to be covered by the 38 * 4 car sets. It would be reasonable to assume say 34 daily diagrams. This should mean 10 to 12 double sets or so. This leaves around 10 to 12 single 4 car diagrams.

If paths can be found once Reading to North East becomes hourly again I think it would make sense to divert all or some of the ones terminating at York via Leeds.

 

[43074]

I suspect most people who suggest severing Leeds from direct Scotland services are simply saying it as it will benefit them better. They don’t care a jot about the fact that Leeds is the 3rd largest financial centre in the country or that it is a railhead to an entire region connecting nearly 2.5m people both incoming and outgoing (West Yorkshire has a lot of tourist hotspots too you know). They just want their own services better and care nothing for others.

Everytime there’s a XC thread they just can’t think outside of the box and come up with a solution that benefits everybody, instead they‘d rather suppress demand in West Yorkshire and force everyone onto the road. They seem to be happily ignoring the important West Yorkshire to Scotland market. Imagine carving their own direct services up to suit those in West Yorkshire.

All I’m seeing is severing a busy corridor to save about 3 or maybe 4 Voyagers and no suitable alternatives to this hugely important market for the economy. TPE will not be serving it and even if they did they’d be taking on a second trainload on top of their own on crowded services, the often hilarious suggestions of changing at York onto already crowded LNER services is not the answer either.

Most suggestions are a great advert for the A1 or maybe Easyjet might fill a nice LBA - EDB market which would now have appeared.

Laughably a lot of these people claim to be pro-rail but it would appear to be only pro-rail in the areas it suits them.

Out of interest, why is TPE serving West Yorkshire to Edinburgh not a suitable alternative to XC running to Edinburgh via Leeds?

As long as the "via Leeds" service remained as Plymouth to York (noting the lack of capacity to turn back at Leeds itself and the sizeable demand from York itself to places south) that represents no reduction in connectivity from Leeds to the Midlands and South West, and using a 300 seat 802 in place of a 200 seat Voyager on the majority of trains would increase capacity on the Leeds to Edinburgh flow, assuming it would run hourly.

Given this is a speculative thread, I'd propose something along the lines of reorganising XC and TPE like this:
1tph Plymouth to York (XC)
1tp2h Newcastle to Reading (via Doncaster)
1tp2h Edinburgh to Bristol (via Doncaster)

1tph Liverpool to Edinburgh (TPE)
1tph Liverpool to Newcastle (TPE)

Thus providing half hourly Leeds - Newcastle, hourly Leeds to Edinburgh connectivity and recognising the fact there is more demand to Leeds and Manchester from north of York than there is to Birmingham and beyond with half hourly Newcastle to Liverpool services.

 

[Iskra]

Out of interest, why is TPE serving West Yorkshire to Edinburgh not a suitable alternative to XC running to Edinburgh via Leeds?

As long as the "via Leeds" service remained as Plymouth to York (noting the lack of capacity to turn back at Leeds itself and the sizeable demand from York itself to places south) that represents no reduction in connectivity from Leeds to the Midlands and South West, and using a 300 seat 802 in place of a 200 seat Voyager on the majority of trains would increase capacity on the Leeds to Edinburgh flow, assuming it would run hourly.

Given this is a speculative thread, I'd propose something along the lines of reorganising XC and TPE like this:
1tph Plymouth to York (XC)
1tp2h Newcastle to Reading (via Doncaster)
1tp2h Edinburgh to Bristol (via Doncaster)

1tph Liverpool to Edinburgh (TPE)
1tph Liverpool to Newcastle (TPE)

Thus providing half hourly Leeds - Newcastle, hourly Leeds to Edinburgh connectivity and recognising the fact there is more demand to Leeds and Manchester from north of York than there is to Birmingham and beyond with half hourly Newcastle to Liverpool services.

And how are you replacing the fastest, longest train between Sheffield and Leeds each hour?

The reason the GWR service was empty, is because no one travels on it , they prefer the much quicker XC one. The GWR one stops at every pile of bricks. If ,and it's a big If , GWR had enough stock then great, they could definitely provide a decent rival service to XC on the Plymouth to Bristol corridor, even dare I say it to Birmingham. But GWR are shorter of rolling stock than any other TOC right now, so that isn't going to happen. Yes South west is out on a limb, but it is enough millions of people to warrant a service to the rest of the country, and doesn't deserve to get one train an hour (which seems to be a 4 car set 50 percent of the time, completely inadequate).

This sounds like a local GWR issue to me, rather than destroying long distance services that serve a far greater population. It’s the tail wagging the dog.

 

[mangyiscute]

If those 12 units mean everything on the BoM to Manchester and Plymouth to Edinburgh becomes a double set then great, problem solved. But I fear these sets will be swallowed up by lightly used reintroduced services like York to Reading or Bristol to Manchester. I hope I'm wrong, and the days of a 4 car voyager turning up at Bristol full and standing West Country bound will be gone, but I will believe it when I see it.

The thing is that the majority of people for example on the Bournemouth branch get off at Birmingham New Street, so cross country need to figure out how to make some of these people take the Newcastle/York train rather than all cramming on the Manchester train. I think a return to an hourly frequency for the Newcastle trains will be useful for this, as currently it's just a bit random as to which hours have a train (going north I think they leave reading at 06:45, 10:45, 14:45, 15:45 and 17:45) and they are also often cancelled.
But overall it will be far better to have a single voyager every half hour than a double voyager every hour, as it provides better frequency and more options for direct journeys.

And how are you replacing the fastest, longest train between Sheffield and Leeds each hour?

The Plymouth XC is literally still running to York, so it still runs between Sheffield and Leeds in the exact same way it does currently.

This sounds like a local GWR issue to me, rather than destroying long distance services that serve a far greater population. It’s the tail wagging the dog.

Well then why can't I say that the lack of Sheffield to Leeds capacity is a Northern issue, so why should Cross Country have to fill in that gap? Your regional bias is showing through clearly, Cross Country is crucial in the South West and it is crucial in Yorkshire, neither area should get cuts.

 

[Iskra]

The thing is that the majority of people for example on the Bournemouth branch get off at Birmingham New Street, so cross country need to figure out how to make some of these people take the Newcastle/York train rather than all cramming on the Manchester train. I think a return to an hourly frequency for the Newcastle trains will be useful for this, as currently it's just a bit random as to which hours have a train (going north I think they leave reading at 06:45, 10:45, 14:45, 15:45 and 17:45) and they are also often cancelled.
But overall it will be far better to have a single voyager every half hour than a double voyager every hour, as it provides better frequency and more options for direct journeys.


The Plymouth XC is literally still running to York, so it still runs between Sheffield and Leeds in the exact same way it does currently.

How are you getting an additional train per hour through New Street and Sheffield then?

 

[mangyiscute]

How are you getting an additional train per hour through New Street and Sheffield then?

There are currently paths for 2tph for XC to run from the North East to the South West, which currently is the Edinburgh to Plymouth and the Newcastle to Reading (but they aren't using all of these paths as it's not yet gone back to hourly post covid)
The suggestions made simply use these two hourly paths.

 

[Iskra]

There are currently paths for 2tph for XC to run from the North East to the South West, which currently is the Edinburgh to Plymouth and the Newcastle to Reading (but they aren't using all of these paths)
The suggestions made simply use these two hourly paths.

Fair enough

 

[Neptune]

Out of interest, why is TPE serving West Yorkshire to Edinburgh not a suitable alternative to XC running to Edinburgh via Leeds?

As long as the "via Leeds" service remained as Plymouth to York (noting the lack of capacity to turn back at Leeds itself and the sizeable demand from York itself to places south) that represents no reduction in connectivity from Leeds to the Midlands and South West, and using a 300 seat 802 in place of a 200 seat Voyager on the majority of trains would increase capacity on the Leeds to Edinburgh flow, assuming it would run hourly.

Given this is a speculative thread, I'd propose something along the lines of reorganising XC and TPE like this:
1tph Plymouth to York (XC)
1tp2h Newcastle to Reading (via Doncaster)
1tp2h Edinburgh to Bristol (via Doncaster)

1tph Liverpool to Edinburgh (TPE)
1tph Liverpool to Newcastle (TPE)

Thus providing half hourly Leeds - Newcastle, hourly Leeds to Edinburgh connectivity and recognising the fact there is more demand to Leeds and Manchester from north of York than there is to Birmingham and beyond with half hourly Newcastle to Liverpool services.

I know this is a speculative forum but never let it get in the way of actual reality. TPE have no plans to extend the Newcastle service to Edinburgh as it stands (maybe post TRU but that is a long way away). XC have no plans to curtail the Edinburgh service at York. As much as that obviously grates with people it is where we are. The 12 additional Voyagers to XC will help relieve some of the overcrowding across the entire XC network.

I would prefer it if TPE ran alongside XC on the corridor to Edinburgh personally but accept the situation as it is, so long as it doesn’t get worse as some people seem to want.

 

[The Planner]

There are currently paths for 2tph for XC to run from the North East to the South West, which currently is the Edinburgh to Plymouth and the Newcastle to Reading (but they aren't using all of these paths as it's not yet gone back to hourly post covid)
The suggestions made simply use these two hourly paths.

Coming back for May 25 though.

Given this is a speculative thread, I'd propose something along the lines of reorganising XC and TPE like this:
1tph Plymouth to York (XC)
1tp2h Newcastle to Reading (via Doncaster)
1tp2h Edinburgh to Bristol (via Doncaster)

1tph Liverpool to Edinburgh (TPE)
1tph Liverpool to Newcastle (TPE)

Thus providing half hourly Leeds - Newcastle, hourly Leeds to Edinburgh connectivity and recognising the fact there is more demand to Leeds and Manchester from north of York than there is to Birmingham and beyond with half hourly Newcastle to Liverpool services.

Are you diverting to Bristol with the alternate hour Reading train?

 

[43074]

I know this is a speculative forum but never let it get in the way of actual reality.

Might as well close this part of the Forum down then

Given the mess that has been made of integrating LNER, XC and TPE north of York in the East Coast recast in December the industry has managed to make the existing service provision worse of it's own making!

 

[Iskra]

I would prefer it if TPE ran alongside XC on the corridor to Edinburgh personally but accept the situation as it is, so long as it doesn’t get worse as some people seem to want.

The Edinburgh-Newcastle bit is where there is over-provision though. It’s where LNER trains seem quietest, to me at least. Whatever capacity enhancements come, Edinburgh-Newcastle is not the priority, it’s the cores south of there that need the capacity.

 

[43074]

Are you diverting to Bristol with the alternate hour Reading train?

Yes, it would be a similar concept to before December 2008 alternating with different parts of the "X" feeding into Birmingham. But given north of York would reduce to hourly in this concept (and indeed with only 3tph to split between XC and TPE in reality) it would maintain the through services both to the Thames Valley and Bristol at least.

 

[Neptune]

Might as well close this part of the Forum down then

Speculation is fine but when it is in the realms of racing to the bottom as seen in certain parts here is that a good thing?

Sometimes a visit to planet reality helps keep the mind focused and prevents ridiculous claims such as Yorkshire to Scotland has an over provision of services, despite the fact that they’re very busy and a reduction in service level would lead to modal shift away from the railways.

Hardly a good advert for speculation is it.

 

[Killingworth]

My wife booked from Sheffield to Alnmouth last October. Supposedly 9 car and so displayed at Alnmouth where I was waiting. Turned up as 4 and she was very glad to get out - needless to say there was no catering. However 9 car would have been generous.

Evening journeys back into Newcastle on XC were on well loaded trains. There may not be big numbers at the smaller stations served but along the routes they provide overlapping volumes.

 

[43074]

Speculation is fine but when it is in the realms of racing to the bottom as seen in certain parts here is that a good thing?

Sometimes a visit to planet reality helps keep the mind focused and prevents ridiculous claims such as Yorkshire to Scotland has an over provision of services, despite the fact that they’re very busy and a reduction in service level would lead to modal shift away from the railways.

Hardly a good advert for speculation is it.

In fairness I do agree that they are busy and I didn't propose removing them completely as others had - I was merely asking why remapping the Anglo Scottish service to TPE would be such a bad idea?

Given that there are only 3 paths per hour available between XC and TPE north of York in the recast, and there seems to be some upset in the North East over the proposed loss of the TPE Newcastle to Manchester service I don't think it's a bad thing to at least question whether the balance of services is right between the actual demand and what people want.

 

[Killingworth]

The Edinburgh-Newcastle bit is where there is over-provision though. It’s where LNER trains seem quietest, to me at least. Whatever capacity enhancements come, Edinburgh-Newcastle is not the priority, it’s the cores south of there that need the capacity.

That seems to be true from observation at Alnmouth but London is not the top destination from north of Newcastle.

 

[Manutd1999]

Out of interest, why is TPE serving West Yorkshire to Edinburgh not a suitable alternative to XC running to Edinburgh via Leeds?

In a GBR world where we don't have to worry about TOC self-interest, I would agree that TPE should run a half-hourly Manchester-Leeds-Newcasle, with 1ph extending to Edinburgh.

TPE serving Leeds-Newcastle/Edinburgh would allow XC's longest-distance services to focus around two main routes:

1ph Edinburgh - Doncaster - Birmingham - Reading - Bournemouth
1ph Manchester - Birmingham - Bristol - Plymouth

These would be true "InterCity" services and would skip smaller stations (Burton, Chesterfield, Tiveton etc.). Ideally they would also alternate destinations out of Birmingham each hour (i.e. 1p2h Edinburgh-Plymouth, 1p2h Edinburgh-Bournemouth). I think this is already possible northbound but the southbound timings may need to be adjusted.

There would then be 2x shorter, regional services with a few more stops:

1ph York - Leeds - Birmingham - Bristol - Exeter
1ph Manchester - Birmingham - Reading

Didcot to Coventry would be prioritised for electrification to allow the Manchester service to move to an EMU.

 

[cle]

You haven't been to Liverpool for a while have you...... Tourism is a major part of Liverpool's economy. The Beatles thing alone is an enormous brand for the city that brings in countless visitors. Most visitors , will arrive by train if possible, especially when staying at a city centre hotel. It is therefore crucial to the Liverpool economy that it has decent rail links. It needs better links with almost all of the south of England and South Wales.

I’m not denying that this demand and segment exists - just that it is far smaller than the demand for Scousers taking trains ex-Liverpool. And London is the biggest destination for them - other than Manchester but that is more spread given local and semi services, and multiple routes.

Whereas far more people visit Manchester (tourism, business, other, doesn’t matter) than Liverpool.

Notably, also - Manchester is a hub with onwards rail in every direction. Liverpool is a coastal terminus. Much less interchange.


Cornwall - a far more important service provision than Plymouth itself. Which is a tiny rail market relative to its size, ie a very insular, local economy. Cornwall should definitely stay on XC.

 

[YorksLad12]

In a GBR world where we don't have to worry about TOC self-interest, I would agree that TPE should run a half-hourly Manchester-Leeds-Newcasle, with 1ph extending to Edinburgh.

TPE serving Leeds-Newcastle/Edinburgh would allow XC's longest-distance services to focus around two main routes:

1ph Edinburgh - Doncaster - Birmingham - Reading - Bournemouth
1ph Manchester - Birmingham - Bristol - Plymouth

These would be true "InterCity" services and would skip smaller stations (Burton, Chesterfield, Tiveton etc.). Ideally they would also alternate destinations out of Birmingham each hour (i.e. 1p2h Edinburgh-Plymouth, 1p2h Edinburgh-Bournemouth). I think this is already possible northbound but the southbound timings may need to be adjusted.

There would then be 2x shorter, regional services with a few more stops:

1ph York - Leeds - Birmingham - Bristol - Exeter
1ph Manchester - Birmingham - Reading

Didcot to Coventry would be prioritised for electrification to allow the Manchester service to move to an EMU.

If you take the Newcastle-York route and are choosing where to go next you could head west to Huddersfield and Manchester; south to Sheffield, Derby and Birmingham; and south-east (ish) to Doncaster and London (yes... I know...).

In practice it doesn't matter that you wouldn't do the third of those, because of the problems with trying to fit in the first two sensibly around LNER's requests.

But taking your suggestion one (radical!) step further; why does XC run hourly from Plymouth/Bristol to Edinburgh? How many people make the whole trip? Why not make it a three-hourly service, and fill in the gaps with shorter, more local services (from XC or local operators)?

(Dons flame-proof troosers.)

 

[Topological]

But taking your suggestion one (radical!) step further; why does XC run hourly from Plymouth/Bristol to Edinburgh? How many people make the whole trip? Why not make it a three-hourly service, and fill in the gaps with shorter, more local services (from XC or local operators)?

(Dons flame-proof troosers.)

If they ran it as a proper loco-hauled affair then I think some would be very happy with that proposal.

It is about identifying what CrossCountry is supposed to be and then working from there. A core X would seem like the best option with journeys beyond the X covered by other operators in the ways suggested up thread.

Trying to have direct everywhere to everywhere is nice on paper, but results in a lot of inefficiency.

 

[Snow1964]

If they ran it as a proper loco-hauled affair then I think some would be very happy with that proposal.

Something like this ?
(a cross country train loco + 12 carriages), this was the South Coast to Scotland service in mid 1980s before HSTs and later voyagers took over (roughly 260m or 11.5 voyager vehicles in length)

47639 St Denys 19-9-86

47639 'Industry Year 1986' is passing Southampton Up Yard with the heavy twelve coach 08:34 Poole to Edinburgh and Glasgow ‘Wessex Scot’ on 19th September 1986. The train is composed of mostly air conditioned Mk2 coaches with two brake firsts, also included is Mk1 RMB Miniature Buffet in the...

www.flickr.com

 

[43074]

But taking your suggestion one (radical!) step further; why does XC run hourly from Plymouth/Bristol to Edinburgh? How many people make the whole trip? Why not make it a three-hourly service, and fill in the gaps with shorter, more local services (from XC or local operators)?

There's probably not much demand for hourly Plymouth/Bristol to Edinburgh in of itself... but if patterns of demand are going to mean you end up with, for instance, an hourly Edinburgh/Newcastle/York to Birmingham service and an hourly Birmingham to Plymouth then joining them up is logical for through journeys and capacity at New Street apart from anything.

It is about identifying what CrossCountry is supposed to be and then working from there. A core X would seem like the best option with journeys beyond the X covered by other operators in the ways suggested up thread.

Reinventing the wheel with XC like that is a bit futile, because you'd probably end up with an hourly service from Birmingham to Plymouth, Bournemouth, Manchester and Newcastle/Edinburgh because strategically those are sensible links to have, supplemented by services doubling the frequency to half hourly on each axis from Birmingham as far as Bristol, Reading, Manchester and York which is basically what is there now/from May 2025.

The question about what XC is supposed to be is probably more about how best XC should serve corridors such as Wolverhampton - Birmingham - Coventry and York - Leeds/Doncaster - Sheffield to make best use of capacity and not crowd out the longer distance flows with short distance passengers. The answer is probably just by running longer trains, but that's less interesting than speculating on new destinations or routes!

 

[Topological]

Something like this (a cross country train loco + 12 carriages), this was the South Coast to Scotland service in mid 1980s before HSTs and later voyagers took over (roughly 260m or 11.5 voyager vehicles in length)

47639 St Denys 19-9-86

47639 'Industry Year 1986' is passing Southampton Up Yard with the heavy twelve coach 08:34 Poole to Edinburgh and Glasgow ‘Wessex Scot’ on 19th September 1986. The train is composed of mostly air conditioned Mk2 coaches with two brake firsts, also included is Mk1 RMB Miniature Buffet in the...

www.flickr.com

Still got enough vehicles like that in Crewe, can bring them back into front-line service.

Everyone will be happy.

I suppose it would need to change locos a few times along the way to really justify the reduction to 1 train every 3 hours.

Plus those who cant wait can just take the more regularly doubled voyager and change at York.

This bringing old trains back can only be win-win.

There's probably not much demand for hourly Plymouth/Bristol to Edinburgh in of itself... but if patterns of demand are going to mean you end up with, for instance, an hourly Edinburgh/Newcastle/York to Birmingham service and an hourly Birmingham to Plymouth then joining them up is logical for through journeys and capacity at New Street apart from anything.

Reinventing the wheel with XC like that is a bit futile, because you'd probably end up with an hourly service from Birmingham to Plymouth, Bournemouth, Manchester and Newcastle/Edinburgh because strategically those are sensible links to have, supplemented by services doubling the frequency to half hourly on each axis from Birmingham as far as Bristol, Reading, Manchester and York which is basically what is there now/from May 2025.

The question about what XC is supposed to be is probably more about how best XC should serve corridors such as Wolverhampton - Birmingham - Coventry and York - Leeds/Doncaster - Sheffield to make best use of capacity and not crowd out the longer distance flows with short distance passengers. The answer is probably just by running longer trains, but that's less interesting than speculating on new destinations or routes!

The critical element there is nothing going to Scotland and generally more opportunities to run double voyagers as a result.

Though the more I think about an enthusiasts type 1 train every 3 hours to get people from the South West to Scotland without changing the...

 

[Wolfie]

Still got enough vehicles like that in Crewe, can bring them back into front-line service.

Everyone will be happy.

I suppose it would need to change locos a few times along the way to really justify the reduction to 1 train every 3 hours.

Plus those who cant wait can just take the more regularly doubled voyager and change at York.

This bringing old trains back can only be win-win.


The critical element there is nothing going to Scotland and generally more opportunities to run double voyagers as a result.

Though the more I think about an enthusiasts type 1 train every 3 hours to get people from the South West to Scotland without changing the...

Everyone would not be happy. Why drag out antiques which are nowhere near modern standards to appease a group of enthusiasts who are nowhere near representative of the general travelling public?

 

[Topological]

Everyone would not be happy. Why drag out antiques which are nowhere near modern standards to appease a group of enthusiasts who are nowhere near representative of the general travelling public?

Because the general public want trains that have capacity and run to time. There is no obsession with random direct trains, or indeed a major hardship in changing if the connections work. The West Coast has already been cut back to Manchester only and nothing north from there. The East Coast could go exactly the same way provided the main connection point (York) was served in the same frequency as Manchester is.

The whole premise of CrossCountry providing faster services (missing the key market of Leeds) and over longer distances (duplicating LNER north of York) is not something the majority of users would sacrifice the chance of a double Voyager for. These are just people's desires from a rail perspective. Hence why not go the whole hog and make it a fully enthusiast-focused train. All fully tongue in cheek of course.

 

[irish_rail]

Because the general public want trains that have capacity and run to time. There is no obsession with random direct trains, or indeed a major hardship in changing if the connections work. The West Coast has already been cut back to Manchester only and nothing north from there. The East Coast could go exactly the same way provided the main connection point (York) was served in the same frequency as Manchester is.

The whole premise of CrossCountry providing faster services (missing the key market of Leeds) and over longer distances (duplicating LNER north of York) is not something the majority of users would sacrifice the chance of a double Voyager for. These are just people's desires from a rail perspective. Hence why not go the whole hog and make it a fully enthusiast-focused train. All fully tongue in cheek of course.

You make a good point about the West Coast. Cutting that to Manchester is a real shame, when actually, via the WCML Scotland is closer to the south, yet at present all XC services are forced up the unnatural Eastern side. Why go from the far west (Plymouth), to the far north west (Glasgow), via the far east! No wonder people fly. If the west coast XC trains could be cut back to Manchester then why not the eastern side at York? If anything I'd reinstate WCML trains to XC at the expense of the ECML stuff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You make a good point about the West Coast. Cutting that to Manchester is a real shame, when actually, via the WCML Scotland is closer to the south, yet at present all XC services are forced up the unnatural Eastern side. Why go from the far west (Plymouth), to the far north west (Glasgow), via the far east! No wonder people fly. If the west coast XC trains could be cut back to Manchester then why not the eastern side at York? If anything I'd reinstate WCML trains to XC at the expense of the ECML stuff.

Unless XC's capacity issues were fully resolved (i.e. all trains a minimum of 9 car), anyone who ever uses that service couldn't disagree more.

 

[cle]

The question about what XC is supposed to be is probably more about how best XC should serve corridors such as Wolverhampton - Birmingham - Coventry and York - Leeds/Doncaster - Sheffield to make best use of capacity and not crowd out the longer distance flows with short distance passengers. The answer is probably just by running longer trains, but that's less interesting than speculating on new destinations or routes!

Hopefully one day there are trains ex-Curzon Street to Handsacre and up to Manchester and Glasgow, at minimum.

I see this corridor as being the domain of services like today's Birmingham-Liverpool. No traditional XC, but 8 car EMUs doing 2tph regional routes like Liverpool, Preston and Manchester, starting from Northampton/Rugby/Coventry/Intl.

Shrewsbury/Mid Wales should lose direct services if not wired/longer. Anything through the Wolves corridor should be 6 cars +, to enable that short regional hop capacity as well as longer journeys. Currently XC is more 25 min fast hops than 5 hour cross country journeys, but the short trains don't enable both to exist well.