Which is of course a result of the fact that it's trying to serve two masters. XC is a long-distance TOC providing north-south links that aren't possible with other operators. It's also a local operator, providing local links.
Take away the problem of capacity and XC is serving the one master of getting people from A to B on all stations it serves. Remember that where TOCs run their services are based on where the Dft and to an extent the TOC want them to serve, and not what the capacity of their rolling stock can handle. It's like many people are essentially implying that services should revolve around what the rolling stock can handle. Not that I'm suggesting that it is not a fair position to take, but where rolling stock capacity is the problem on a TOC with a long distance purpose, why solve the problem of capacity by creating the other problem of shoving masses of passengers onto other TOCs, breaking their longer journeys and with itthe very purpose of the TOC in the first place?
With XC, provide the adequate rolling stock, and all else will fall into place. LNER is proof of that. Nobody is talking about the issue of LNER serving local journeys at an even lower frequency than local operators, but because they provide adequate capacity and are increasing it, nobody is talking about suspending their services on such routes like those to Inverness and Aberdeen.
The Voyagers are intercity stock, and would be well suited in an ideal to a high speed, limited stop XC operation. To do that, you'd need relieving local services over the same routes, using Class 170s or something else, and probably run by the regional TOCs. That would probably look something like:
- Cheltenham to Plymouth, operated by GWR
- Oxford to Southampton, operated by GWR or SWR
- Cheltenham to Derby, operated by WMT
- Manchester to Oxford, operated by WMT
- Derby to Leeds, operated by Northern
- Leeds to Newcastle, operated by Northern
- Newcastle to Edinburgh, operated by Northern or ScotRail
North of Edinburgh and west of Plymouth, the existing service is probably reasonable. Even the bits north of Leeds are negotiable, though they would also help to relieve TransPennine. Doing this would require finding capacity that presumably doesn't exist, rolling stock that doesn't exist, and money that doesn't exist to subsidise the service.
It might be 'right', on some measure of neatly classified trains by usage. But it isn't really practical, so whatever runs on the CrossCountry route will have to serve two masters badly, rather than one well.
Rolling stock capacity is key. As you say, cutting XC is not practicle at all.
Are people trying to imply that the routes of TOCs should entirely revolve around the type of trains they have? So in that instance, TPE should suspend all Scotland services, ScotRail should suspend all 170 operated Inverness/Aberdeen services, Northern should suspend all DMU operated Southport services and single pacer operated services around Yorkshire, and TfW should halt all Manchester services? Cut the routes, put all the rolling stock on the core, and where practicle hand the services to other TOCs to spread the burden?
Take the Newcastle to Edinburgh suggestion that others may agree with. ScotRail run services to Dunbar, soon to be Berwick, and Northern serve Chathill. Both TOCs serve all local stations in between. XC serve only Dunbar, Berwick, Alnmouth, and Morpeth. So really, XC is already serving the long distance principle stations that the franchise is intended to do. The exact same stations as long distance counterparts LNER, and soon to be TPE. So in the suggestion of handing Edinburgh-Newcastle's XC duties to local TOCs serving local stations, all Edinburgh (and the principle intermediate stations) to Newcastle passengers on XC services will force LNER services to full with standing, force ScotRail and Northern to provide an unnessessary service between Chathill and Berwick, clogging up that resultant all stop service, and extending the journey times for Edinburgh/Newcastle passengers who decide not to endure full and standing LNER services with an additional 20-30 minutes onto a journey on non IC suited rolling stock for a 2.5hour journey. What is the logic? Because Voyagers are the problem, so that all service must adapt, as opposed to solving the problem at source?
And then there's paths. Take Scotland as an example again. XC take up what otherwise would be ScotRail paths and serve local stations in the same way LNER do. They can't serve fewer stations, because they would end up running in to the back of the next local service its following. And if you could speed it up, you'd be held at Edinburgh for another 5-10 minutes longer until the original path becomes available south of Edinburgh. Take away the XC service, you'll have a ScotRail service with the exact same passengers, whilst other passengers somewhere in Aberdeenshire are forced to stand because a set had to be drafted in to compensate XC pulling out. Then all the long distance passengers north of Edinburgh will then get on that exact same XC service in Newcastle, 2.5 hours after boarding their full and standing all stopper to Newcastle or the LNER service getting held up behind it which is full and standing with those not wantin to endure the local service.
Alternatively, the DfT specify new rolling stock for XC at the earliest possible stage, and kill the problem once and for all. Afterall, nobody is moaning about LNER services north of Edinburgh, so why is XC different with their north of Edinburgh or west of Plymouth services? I'm sure if XC were using 9 coach HSTs, nobody would be batting an eyelid.
Not to come across that I'm slating your post, but I really am critical of the idea of cutting areas or all of XC from those who don't see the logistics behind it, nor the solutions that could easily solve the currnet problems without the chaos that wielding the axe would do for many TOCs across the UK.
