Can GBR bring XC back up to INTERCITY standard?

[JamesT]

The SRA said no. Converting driving coaches to intermediate coaches on a non gangwayed unit is effectively impossible.

In my opinion, the solution is to reform the fleet into 43 6 car units and order some 8 car 897s with third rail shoes. Hitachi could be an option, but they're record with non standard microfleets is poor, and this order would be one (tri-mode dual voltage 7 car train that can generally meet Voyager timings). On the other hand CAF are building a tri-mode train for LNER and this would only be a minor variation - third rail shoes and 2 less coaches.

The other thing I would do is get rid of the Nottingham-Cardiff service and replace it with a Leeds-Cardiff service, providing 2tph between Birmingham and Leeds. This then enables Birmingham-Nottingham to run independently, while enabling the order of 9 more trains, brining the potential order to 19 8 car trains, which enables all Bournemouth-Manchester services along with other key services to be operated with 500+ seat trains, equivalent to 2x5car voyagers.

The 397s are perfectly good EMUs for TPE, they just need an extra coach or two. Trying to cascade 80x that can't meet timings around the network will cause issues.

Why bother with third rail shoes? How much of a Voyager's running is over that network? If you're going to buy new trains for XC, just buy the same thing and run over battery/diesel where there isn't overhead wiring.

 

[Brubulus]

Why bother with third rail shoes? How much of a Voyager's running is over that network? If you're going to buy new trains for XC, just buy the same thing and run over battery/diesel where there isn't overhead wiring.

Basingstoke-Bourenmouth, and given that the units would mostly work Manchester-Bourenmouth and how most batteries/motors will accept 750v DC without any extra equipment, to me it's a no-brainer.

 

[Zomboid]

Why bother with third rail shoes? How much of a Voyager's running is over that network? If you're going to buy new trains for XC, just buy the same thing and run over battery/diesel where there isn't overhead wiring.

Basingstoke is at MP47.75, Branksome (where the depot is) is at 110.5. Bournemouth station is 108.25.

So a round trip from Basingstoke would be 122 miles or thereabouts, plus the 14 miles each way from Reading if that's not wired and we're on batteries. 150 miles without any battery charging will need quite a lot of cells, and then they'd need to charge back up enough to get from Didcot to Coventry/ New St on the relatively short run between Southcote Jn and Didcot.

It's far enough to be worth fitting shoes, IMO. Even if the trains are diesel bi-modes then it's worth it.

 

[Brubulus]

If XC could run 2tph to Leeds now, they would. Are you saying you now need another path for the Birmingham Nottingham?

If you use the Northern path from Leeds to Sheffield, there is a way to fit in a path between the Newcastle-Reading and Nottingham-Cardiff and replace that to Cardiff. The Nottingham to Birmingham would run behind it, but it would require slightly better acceleration than a Turbostar can currently provide.

This can be solved by using 196s between Nottingham and Birmingham, however Shrewsbury and Hereford passengers would need to reacquaint themselves with Turbostars.

Stansted and Nottingham, and the Turbostar fleet should be WMT.

 

[FGWHST43009]

The SRA said no. Converting driving coaches to intermediate coaches on a non gangwayed unit is effectively impossible.

In my opinion, the solution is to reform the fleet into 43 6 car units and order some 8 car 897s with third rail shoes. Hitachi could be an option, but they're record with non standard microfleets is poor, and this order would be one (tri-mode dual voltage 7 car train that can generally meet Voyager timings). On the other hand CAF are building a tri-mode train for LNER and this would only be a minor variation - third rail shoes and 2 less coaches.

The other thing I would do is get rid of the Nottingham-Cardiff service and replace it with a Leeds-Cardiff service, providing 2tph between Birmingham and Leeds. This then enables Birmingham-Nottingham to run independently, while enabling the order of 9 more trains, brining the potential order to 19 8 car trains, which enables all Bournemouth-Manchester services along with other key services to be operated with 500+ seat trains, equivalent to 2x5car voyagers.

The 397s are perfectly good EMUs for TPE, they just need an extra coach or two. Trying to cascade 80x that can't meet timings around the network will cause issues.

That's a good idea, spare driving vehicles can be cannibalised for spares. Would the 897 include engines powerful enough for 125 on diesel akin to the 810s? Alternatively, exclusive allocating them to routes where 125mph on diesel isn't required could be an option, i.e. Bournemouth/Bristol-Manchester. All 125mph sections on those routes are wired so Voyagers can operate routes through Birmingham-Derby-Sheffield. I would move Chesterfield, Tamworth and Burton over to Cardiff-Leeds making the Plymouth-Edinburgh the fast service. Would Newcastle-Reading be binned?

 

[Zomboid]

Birmingham to Derby is the only non-electrified section of 125 in the country, I believe. There are a few patches of 110 around (a bit between Oxford and Banbury, as well as down in the west country and between Derby and Sheffield)

 

[Halish Railway]

If you use the Northern path from Leeds to Sheffield, there is a way to fit in a path between the Newcastle-Reading and Nottingham-Cardiff and replace that to Cardiff. The Nottingham to Birmingham would run behind it, but it would require slightly better acceleration than a Turbostar can currently provide.

The Nottingham to Cardiff and Newcastle to Reading services arrive at New Street within 5 minutes of each other and generally share platform 11, leaving for their respective destinations within a few minutes of each other. There simply isn’t enough space to terminate other services at New Street.

I would say that if you wanted to provide an additional service from Leeds to Birmingham then extending the new Leeds to Sheffield path to Birmingham Moor Street when the Bordesley chords are open and remove the stops at Chesterfield, Burton and Tamworth from the Edinburgh to Plymouth services.

 

[The Planner]

If you use the Northern path from Leeds to Sheffield, there is a way to fit in a path between the Newcastle-Reading and Nottingham-Cardiff and replace that to Cardiff. The Nottingham to Birmingham would run behind it, but it would require slightly better acceleration than a Turbostar can currently provide.

This can be solved by using 196s between Nottingham and Birmingham, however Shrewsbury and Hereford passengers would need to reacquaint themselves with Turbostars.

Stansted and Nottingham, and the Turbostar fleet should be WMT.

The Leeds to Sheffield terminator arrives right before the Plymouth XC, or are you diverting the Leeds Nottingham? There is a slot between the Newcastle Reading and the Nottingham Birmingham at Derby, You cannot fit one between the southbound Plymouth and Cardiff though as you just get in a tangle around Water Orton.

 

[swt_passenger]

Basingstoke is at MP47.75, Branksome (where the depot is) is at 110.5. Bournemouth station is 108.25.

So a round trip from Basingstoke would be 122 miles or thereabouts, plus the 14 miles each way from Reading if that's not wired and we're on batteries. 150 miles without any battery charging will need quite a lot of cells, and then they'd need to charge back up enough to get from Didcot to Coventry/ New St on the relatively short run between Southcote Jn and Didcot.

It's far enough to be worth fitting shoes, IMO. Even if the trains are diesel bi-modes then it's worth it.

XC don’t use Bournemouth Depot however, their south coast base is Eastleigh (with the necessary ECS mileage)...

 

[YorksLad12]

The Leeds to Sheffield terminator arrives right before the Plymouth XC, or are you diverting the Leeds Nottingham? There is a slot between the Newcastle Reading and the Nottingham Birmingham at Derby, You cannot fit one between the southbound Plymouth and Cardiff though as you just get in a tangle around Water Orton.

Worth remembering that there will be an additional Leeds-Wakefield-Sheffield fast service from December. It doesn't stop at Meadowhall, apparently, so a stop would need adding if extending it to Nottingham as there are flows from stations to Nottingham to Meadowhall (small, but enough to leave to standing between the two stations). Extending it to Birmingham instead is taking it far out of Northern territory (you might want LNW crew from Sheffield/Derby southwards), as well as the lack of platform space at Birmingham.

 

[FGWHST43009]

The Nottingham to Cardiff and Newcastle to Reading services arrive at New Street within 5 minutes of each other and generally share platform 11, leaving for their respective destinations within a few minutes of each other. There simply isn’t enough space to terminate other services at New Street.

I would say that if you wanted to provide an additional service from Leeds to Birmingham then extending the new Leeds to Sheffield path to Birmingham Moor Street when the Bordesley chords are open and remove the stops at Chesterfield, Burton and Tamworth from the Edinburgh to Plymouth services.

I agree, I remember getting a lucky connection at New Street from the 0624 off Newcastle onto the 0930 to Cardiff Central. As I make the journey from Newcastle to Bristol Parkway to go to and from uni, removing stops and a slightly faster journey would be nice.

 

[edwin_m]

In my opinion, the solution is to reform the fleet into 43 6 car units and order some 8 car 897s with third rail shoes. Hitachi could be an option, but they're record with non standard microfleets is poor, and this order would be one (tri-mode dual voltage 7 car train that can generally meet Voyager timings). On the other hand CAF are building a tri-mode train for LNER and this would only be a minor variation - third rail shoes and 2 less coaches.

Adding third rail shoes would in no way be a minor modification to an existing design that didn't already include provision. Mechanically a high speed bogie isn't going to like having extra things bolted onto it, and electrically, unless the DC link is already at 750V, traction electronics would need a major re-design.

The other thing I would do is get rid of the Nottingham-Cardiff service and replace it with a Leeds-Cardiff service, providing 2tph between Birmingham and Leeds. This then enables Birmingham-Nottingham to run independently, while enabling the order of 9 more trains, brining the potential order to 19 8 car trains, which enables all Bournemouth-Manchester services along with other key services to be operated with 500+ seat trains, equivalent to 2x5car voyagers.

Why does Leeds need more long-distances services enough for Nottingham to lose one of the few it has? I must visit the Birmingham-Derby capacity thread as this is probably relevant here.

 

[Falcon1200]

I don't think XC get many first class customers

There are plenty of XC services on which First Class is well patronised.

 

[quantinghome]

Why does Leeds need more long-distances services enough for Nottingham to lose one of the few it has? I must visit the Birmingham-Derby capacity thread as this is probably relevant here.

This reveals a fundamental weakness of the XC network NE branch - half of the four XC slots on the Birmingham-Derby line are taken up by trains which terminate only 45 miles away from Birmingham. It's a huge waste of capacity for an intercity route - akin to terminating half the EMR intercities at Bedford. Nottingham should not be a dead end for XC; those trains really need to be extended further North.

 

[A S Leib]

those trains really need to be extended further North.

I think the best case scenario is around sixty-five minutes longer for Derby to Chesterfield via Nottingham rather than direct. I know that Avanti manages demand through cheaper advance tickets via the West Midlands to Stafford and north, which is around the same time difference, although also ideally needs Nottingham trains to be longer (true whether or not they go north of there).

 

[Zomboid]

I think the better option would be for those trains to continue further east given that Birmingham, Derby eyc already have a much faster service to Sheffield etc. I'd guess that means via the Grantham route, since the flat crossing is a major limitation towards Lincoln.

 

[Killingworth]

There are plenty of XC services on which First Class is well patronised.

Many being Seatfrog trade ups in my experience, a way to get any seat.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the better option would be for those trains to continue further east given that Birmingham, Derby eyc already have a much faster service to Sheffield etc. I'd guess that means via the Grantham route, since the flat crossing is a major limitation towards Lincoln.

I'd say Lincoln would be a much better destination if it can be made to work (it could replace the faster EMR service). Grantham isn't really much of a place in itself and anyone railheading towards Birmingham could do so from Peterborough or Newark instead. It also needs a local out of Birmingham to pick up the smaller stops and the bulk of the overcrowding between there and Tamworth or Burton, and I'd also argue that one of the XC Nottingham services could run via the Stenson to Sheet Stores route which would save about 20min with various alternative services now available for those going to Derby. But this is probably getting more into the Birmingham-Derby thread.

 

[Zomboid]

I'd say Lincoln would be a much better destination if it can be made to work (it could replace the faster EMR service). Grantham isn't really much of a place in itself and anyone railheading towards Birmingham could do so from Peterborough or Newark instead. It also needs a local out of Birmingham to pick up the smaller stops and the bulk of the overcrowding between there and Tamworth or Burton, and I'd also argue that one of the XC Nottingham services could run via the Stenson to Sheet Stores route which would save about 20min with various alternative services now available for those going to Derby. But this is probably getting more into the Birmingham-Derby thread.

I think getting anything to cross the ECML in the right gap and then have that lead to a usable path into New Street is a recipe for mayhem. I guess it'll potentially have a longish dwell at Derby and could have one at Nottingham too. But you don't want to slow things down so much to make the journey time unattractive...

Agree that it would be the better destination, though. Could even carry on to Cleethorpes.

 

[edwin_m]

I think getting anything to cross the ECML in the right gap and then have that lead to a usable path into New Street is a recipe for mayhem. I guess it'll potentially have a longish dwell at Derby and could have one at Nottingham too. But you don't want to slow things down so much to make the journey time unattractive...

Agree that it would be the better destination, though. Could even carry on to Cleethorpes.

I was thinking it would probably avoid Derby via the Stenson to Sheet Stores line, but I agree it would need padding at Nottingham.

 

[Xavi]

There are plenty of XC services on which First Class is well patronised.

Yes, full on both my trips this week.

 

[Mike Machin]

Yes, full on both my trips this week.

In an ideal world and planning for future growth so we don’t end up with more ludicrous overcrowding in a few years time, Cross-Country needs a new fleet of 11 car trains - nine standard class and two first.

If it could be properly managed XC has colossal potential to build both standard and first class business. However, this will never be realised while the organisation remains shackled to the DfT and state ownership.

Cross Country should be a fully privatised open access operator, free to build a successful business to meet the demands of the market and drive growth, as indeed should all long-distance Inter-City operations be ideally.

Hopefully a change of government eventually will totally free up the long-distance passenger business, leaving just a few commuter/urban/metropolitan services under the control of local transit authorities.

Sadly for now, we are regressing back to allowing the ‘we know best’ nanny state to play with the train set. Investment will dwindle to just a trickle, when the government has health, education and defence to support first.

So, do I think GBR can bring Cross-Country back to INTERCITY standard. Not a chance, cross country services will wither away, just as the did under the previous misguided period of nationalisation presided over by British Rail.

 

[JonathanH]

Cross Country should be a fully privatised open access operator, free to build a successful business to meet the demands of the market and drive growth, as indeed should all long-distance Inter-City operations be ideally.

Are you suggesting that a privatised open access operator could run CrossCountry on a commercial basis if they could just have some 11-coach trains to run those services?

In theory such an outcome could have been proposed in the first round of franchising back in the 1990s, but unfortunately CrossCountry has basically always been a basket case with regard to its revenue and funding needs.

 

[The Ham]

In an ideal world and planning for future growth so we don’t end up with more ludicrous overcrowding in a few years time, Cross-Country needs a new fleet of 11 car trains - nine standard class and two first.

The thing is, XC could build up to that fairly easily without having to scrap all the 22x's early and without the cost of running 11 coach trains on services which only have about (say) 7 coaches worth of passengers now (4 coach full and standing is probably about 7 coaches in a bit of comfort).

Get their fleet to be made of:
12*9 coach 80x (or similar)
43*6 coach 220/221's

The latter works if you scrap some end coaches (which are generally only about 1/2 the capacity of a middle coach) and reform with a half decent number of seats.

You could do that by placing an order to lengthen the GWR 802's to 9 coaches, GWR retain the ability to run 12 full length services (22*5 coaches is the equivalent to 11 full length services) with 10 transfering to XC as well as 2 new 9 coach sets (106 coaches in the order). You then have an option so you could order more units for XC so if there's growth (spoiler there's likely to be) you could then have more 9 coach units ordered (either for GWR and/or XC and/or TPE).

That'll give you about 10 years before a decision is needed on if you need a full 11 coach fleet for XC, but would give you the ability to order more units to be delivered for up to about 6 years.

If it could be properly managed XC has colossal potential to build both standard and first class business. However, this will never be realised while the organisation remains shackled to the DfT and state ownership.

The above option wouldn't significantly increase the number of coaches (GWR -2 coaches, XC +44, giving a net increase of 42 coaches - when the current number is coaches at XC and in the GWR fleet is 432, so about +10%, XC going to a full 11 coaches fleet would be at least +50%) on lease, but does increase the number of seats by a noticeable amount.

However, without access to the GWR fleet (which is likely only the state could do, or at least require two companies to allow) it would require GWR to keep paying for extra coaches (22*5= 110 vs 12*9=108, even though GWR would have more seats from the.

Cross Country should be a fully privatised open access operator, free to build a successful business to meet the demands of the market and drive growth, as indeed should all long-distance Inter-City operations be ideally.

Hopefully a change of government eventually will totally free up the long-distance passenger business, leaving just a few commuter/urban/metropolitan services under the control of local transit authorities.

The thing is, there'll still be national government involvement - even if that's to determine who gets to use what paths.

Also, where does GWR sit, it's certainly for long distance passengers but then through Devon and Cornwall many of those provide the local transport? However it also provides a lot of commuter/urban services (to answer would probably mean a new thread).

Sadly for now, we are regressing back to allowing the ‘we know best’ nanny state to play with the train set. Investment will dwindle to just a trickle, when the government has health, education and defence to support first.

So, do I think GBR can bring Cross-Country back to INTERCITY standard. Not a chance, cross country services will wither away, just as the did under the previous misguided period of nationalisation presided over by British Rail.

However, there is a path (as suggested above) where even with government investment dwindling there could be a way to increase capacity without significant extra costs. Maybe not as much capacity as some might like, but then it's unlikely that a private company would increase the fleet size by +50% without some assurances that they'll see a return on that investment.

Just because XC saw 15% growth in passenger numbers last year and 18% the year before as well as it only needing about 8% growth before carrying more passengers than pre COVID isn't enough.

Especially given the opening of HS2 may alter demand (Reading to Birmingham, let alone further is likely to be slightly faster via HS2 and more frequent at 3tph vs 2tph), which is a risk factor for a private business which is likely to limit their desire to invest in trains with a 35+ lifespan when in 12 years time things could be quite different.

Conversely, by part using the GWR fleet and reforming the 22x's that would allow government to place a like for like order in (say) 2035 (so broadly as HS2 opens) to replace the 22x fleet, but with options to lengthen depending on how HS2 impacts XC.

 

[The Planner]

In an ideal world and planning for future growth so we don’t end up with more ludicrous overcrowding in a few years time, Cross-Country needs a new fleet of 11 car trains - nine standard class and two first.

If it could be properly managed XC has colossal potential to build both standard and first class business. However, this will never be realised while the organisation remains shackled to the DfT and state ownership.

Cross Country should be a fully privatised open access operator, free to build a successful business to meet the demands of the market and drive growth, as indeed should all long-distance Inter-City operations be ideally.

Hopefully a change of government eventually will totally free up the long-distance passenger business, leaving just a few commuter/urban/metropolitan services under the control of local transit authorities.

Sadly for now, we are regressing back to allowing the ‘we know best’ nanny state to play with the train set. Investment will dwindle to just a trickle, when the government has health, education and defence to support first.

So, do I think GBR can bring Cross-Country back to INTERCITY standard. Not a chance, cross country services will wither away, just as the did under the previous misguided period of nationalisation presided over by British Rail.

XC would slash most of the routes on day 1.

 

[Harpo]

Cross Country should be a fully privatised open access operator

Creating main lines without a national InterCity rail operator such as Cheltenham to Birmingham and Derby.

If XC was such a cash cow it would not be in the awful mess it is now.

 

[Brubulus]

Creating main lines without a national InterCity rail operator such as Cheltenham to Birmingham and Derby.

If XC was such a cash cow it would not be in the awful mess it is now.

Yet it seems to fill trains with relatively high fares. It's fleet utilisation in terms of seats available being used must be much higher than suburban and regional operators. It doesn't even have to operate stations with the cost that involves. DfT says Newcastle-Reading is profitable, which the most marginal XC intercity route. Some trimming of extensions and it would likely be a competitive and profitable buisness. I'm also suspecting the regional business is an additional cost based alongside the non viability of voyagers.

If I'm going totally crayon and being given XC tomorrow, I'd lease some modern bi-mode locomotives and buy every modernised MK3 coach, some DVTs and the MK5a fleet outright, running 5 and 8 car loco hauled formations. Would probably be much cheaper than Voyagers but would not have a chance of meeting timings.

Reforming the voyagers and buying Civities is probably the best way of doing it, given that CAF is generally much cheaper than Hitachi for micro-fleets.

Interested why OA applications don't tend to go down the loco-hauled route given the likely lower costs (alongside it being how it's done in Europe in non HS routes).

 

[Zomboid]

Interested why OA applications don't tend to go down the loco-hauled route given the likely lower costs (alongside it being how it's done in Europe in non HS routes).

The original WSMR did, and the GC to Blackpool would have been, too.

OAOs generally start off using whatever stock they can get cheaply.

 

[Xavi]

As I’ve posted many times on this forum, XC loses out on the distribution of revenue on several flows e.g., GWR provides half the service on the Exeter - Taunton - Bristol - Cheltenham route and is allocated 50% of the fare income from open ticket sales between those stations, yet 90% of passengers between those stations use the quicker XC services. Also, the allocation of track access charges (total of fixed and variable) doesn’t appear to do XC any favours either when compared to other operators.

The volume of passengers per train (paying some of the highest standard fares on the network) that I regularly witness over routes that account for 90% of XC operations is definitely not a basket case.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jun 2025 ==

As I’ve posted many times on this forum, XC loses out on the distribution of revenue on several flows e.g., GWR provides half the service on the Exeter - Taunton - Bristol - Cheltenham route and is allocated 50% of the fare income from open ticket sales between those stations, yet 90% of passengers between those stations use the quicker XC services. Also, the allocation of track access charges (total of fixed and variable) doesn’t appear to do XC any favours either when compared to other operators.

The volume of passengers per train (paying some of the highest standard fares on the network) that I regularly witness over routes that account for 90% of XC operations is definitely not a basket case.

I should also have mentioned that split ticketing of XC journeys (due to the extortionate through fares) at the likes of Cheltenham is another revenue winner for GWR in the example above.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Could GBR see a return of XC services from the south west to the north via the WCML? Plymouth-Glasgow for example.