Future of Cross Country Services?

[Ianno87]

What about those from Burton, Derby, Sheffield and Wakefield who rely on XC to provide direct services to Scotland and the rest of the East Midlands with one change at Sheffield every hour to reach Scotland?

What proportion of XC's total passengers do those flows represent?

How many will still travel even if a change of train is introduced?

Key East Midlands centres will still be no more than a single change away from Scotland - Nottingham via Leeds, Leicester via Birmingham.

 

[ainsworth74]

People keep saying about how overpriced XC is but I randomly put in Darlington to Newton Abbot in a couple of weeks expecting something around 06:00 then nothing till mid afternoon. Instead I was pleasantly surprised to see an AP single for just £69 & at the very civilised departure time of 09:13 & its direct to boot. Not bad at all.

So, if you can get the same level of AP on a return service, £138 for a return journey? That's pretty steep considering the restrictiveness of an AP type ticket.

A lot of it is also to do with the walk-up tickets that XC price. £175.80 for the Off-Peak return for that journey, to me, seems very expensive whilst the £375.20 they want for the Anytime Return seems positively insanely expensive. Though the PRIV price of £43.95 for the Off-Peak Return isn't bad

 

[route:oxford]

People keep saying about how overpriced XC is but I randomly put in Darlington to Newton Abbot in a couple of weeks expecting something around 06:00 then nothing till mid afternoon. Instead I was pleasantly surprised to see an AP single for just £69 & at the very civilised departure time of 09:13 & its direct to boot. Not bad at all.

Try comparing:-

Peak Oxford-Glasgow - SOR, priced by Virgin - £140.80
Peak Oxford-Edinburgh - SOR, priced by Cross Country - £296.60

 

[glbotu]

Try comparing:-

Peak Oxford-Glasgow - SOR, priced by Virgin - £140.80
Peak Oxford-Edinburgh - SOR, priced by Cross Country - £296.60

Surely a lot of the issue with XC is that they need to manage demand because their trains are so damn small. I pretty much avoid XC like the plague when making long intercity journeys and have at times made 50% savings doing so.

Would an increase in train capacity (allowing more doubled-up core services) allow for a greater number of lower cost advance tickets, or even non-Advances?

 

[ainsworth74]

Would an increase in train capacity (allowing more doubled-up core services) allow for a greater number of lower cost advance tickets, or even non-Advances?

That would seem a reasonable assumption. XC do have some very good value APs available on their routes (for instance £33.90 for Darlington to Newton Abbot or £10.30 for Darlington to Sheffield) but because they're trains are almost uniformly so busy there is no point in making those available in any great number as the trains will fill quite happily with much more expensive tickets on offer.

You would, therefore, hope that increased capacity would trigger them to make more lower priced APs available to help fill the extra capacity.

That is, after all, the original purpose of APs, to fill trains which would otherwise be empty or lightly loaded.

 

[tbtc]

I doubt the residents of Birmingham (albeit servied by Virgin), , Cheltenham, Bristol and Plymouth would appreciate losng their through services to the North and Scotland.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I disagree, I like having trains from the southwest to Scotland and the northeast.

What about those from Burton, Derby, Sheffield and Wakefield who rely on XC to provide direct services to Scotland and the rest of the East Midlands with one change at Sheffield every hour to reach Scotland?

What is the market from Burton to "Scotland"? Or from Cheltenham?

Whilst knowing that two places hundreds of miles apart are linked by a direct service is appealing, I think that the bigger priority for Burton/ Cheltenham etc would be extra capacity on services to central Birmingham, since this is the kind of journey that many people make each day (before we worry about esoteric links).

If all XC trains were terminated at Newcastle would that give any scope to restoring any sections of routes that were culled during Operation Princess?

I don't know what links you have in mind.

The Southern Region will be pretty full up, in terms of Brighton/ Plymouth/ Weymouth.

Maybe Cardiff/ Swansea, but is a Voyager running under the wires going to be a great use of resources (since the GWML will be electrified before we are in any realistic position to start reintroducing old links)?

Putting Liverpool back on the XC map would presumably mean reducing the current through services from Manchester to Bristol/ Reading (since any Liverpool service beyond Birmingham will have to come at the expense of a current through service from somewhere else).

Maybe if XC aren't running to Scotland then that frees up the possibility of some Hull services (though of course Hull was never on the Princess map).

Beyond that, I can't think of anything.

Why would XC trains terminate at Newcastle if they pulled out of Scotland - surely the core route ends at Leeds or York. Beyond, it represents duplication - indeed you could argue that an concentrating the network on an X ending at York/Leeds, Manchester, Bristol and Reading is probably all that is really needed.

If GWR are going to be running an hourly service from Bristol to Plymouth (?) then that covers much of that leg.

I think that the best use of the resources we have at the moment would be to focus on the core that you've mentioned (maybe with the "via Doncaster" service continuing to run to Newcastle), with the kind of early/late services beyond to maintain some token through link (like BR's three a day from Edinburgh down the ECML in the morning and three back up in the evening).

In Theory, you could have the Aberdeen and Dundee trains still run as per normal.

Example:
Southbound in the mornings from Newcastle in order
1V83 0625 NCL - RDG
1V48 0645 NCL - PLY
1O84 0725 NCL - SOU
1V50 0606 EDB - PLY (HST)
1V85 0625 EDB - RDG
1V52 0601 GLC - PLY
1O86 0935 NCL - SOU
1V54 0632 DEE - PLY (HST)
1V87 1035 NCL - RDG
1V56 1042 NCL - PLY
1O88 1135 NCL - SOU
1V58 1144 NCL - PZN
1V89 1235 NCL - RDG
1V60 0820 ABD - PZN (9 car set from NCL to PLY)
1O40 1335 NCL - GLD
1V62 1343 NCL - PZN
1V91 1435 NCL - RDG
1V64 1442 NCL - PLY
1V96 1535 NCL - RDG
1V66 1541 NCL - PLY
1V93 1635 NCL - RDG
1V68 1641 NCL - PLY
1O94 1735 NCL - SOU
1V70 1741 NCL - BRI
1M72 1835 NCL- BHM
1V71 1843 NCL - BRI
1M76 1935 NCL - BHM
1M00 1942 NCL - BHM

Northbound arriving at Newcastle
1E34 Ex Derby arr 0838 forms 1O86
1S31 Ex BHM arr 0927 forms 1V87
1E38 Ex BHM arr 0947 forms 1V56
1S33 Ex BHM arr 1030 forms 1O88
1E42 Ex BHM arr 1045 forms 1V58
1S35 Ex BTH arr 1129 forms 1V89
1E79 Ex GLD arr 1145 combines with 1V60 to form a double set as far as PLY
1S37 Ex PLY arr 1229 forms 1O40
1E82 Ex RDG arr 1245 forms 1V62
1S39 Ex PLY arr 1329 forms 1V91
1E86 Ex WIN arr 1345 forms 1V64
1S41 Ex PLY arr 1429 forms 1V96
1E32 Ex RDG arr 1445 forms 1V66
1S43 Ex PZN arr 1529 forms 1V93
1E36 Ex SOU arr 1545 forms 1V68
1S45 Ex PLY arr 1625 splits, with front portion departing for ABD at 1637, rear portion forms 1V96
1E40 Ex RDG arr 1645 forms 1V70
1S47 Ex PZN arr 1725 forms 1M72
1E44 Ex SOU arr 1745 forms 1V71
1S49 Ex PLY arr 1833 splits. Front portion to DEE dep 1840, rear portion forms 1M76
1E48 Ex RDG arr 1845 forms 1M00
1S51 Ex PLY arr 1932 dep 1935 to GLC (HST)
1S52 Ex SOU arr 2001 (Terminates)
1S53 Ex PLY arr 2032 dep 2035 to EDB (HST)
1E56 Ex RDG arr 2042 (Terminates)
1S55 Ex PLY arr 2128 dep 2135 to EDB
1E60 Ex SOU arr 2144 (Terminates)
1E64 Ex RDG (Terminates)

That should work, leaving enough spare sets to double sets up through the core, while the off peak daytime traffic North of Newcastle is handled by VTEC and TPX. HST diagrams unaffected. Aberdeen and Dundee runs plus one Glasgow run per day each way also unaffected

Codes:
NCL = Newcastle Central
EDB = Edinburgh
RDG = Reading
PLY = Plymouth
SOU = Southampton
GLC = Glasgow Central
DEE = Dundee
PZN = Penzance
ABD = Aberdeen
BRI = Bristol Temple Meads
BHM = Birmingham New Street
BTH = Bath Spa
WIN = Winchester
GLD - Guildford

I like that.

I like that a lot.

Surely a lot of the issue with XC is that they need to manage demand because their trains are so damn small. I pretty much avoid XC like the plague when making long intercity journeys and have at times made 50% savings doing so.

Would an increase in train capacity (allowing more doubled-up core services) allow for a greater number of lower cost advance tickets, or even non-Advances?

Whilst it'd probably be naïve to assume price cuts on normal tickets, I'd like to think that if XC had more capacity to accommodate more passengers then they'd price their tickets much more competitively.

I know they are expensive, but the current franchise is stick with the short trains of the previous franchise - pricing people off the route is how BR would have done it.

 

[najaB]

That is, after all, the original purpose of APs, to fill trains which would otherwise be empty or lightly loaded.

And, in many cases, reduce the load on services that would otherwise be full and standing, by virtue of appealing to customers who are price rather than schedule sensitive.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I know they are expensive, but the current franchise is stick with the short trains of the previous franchise - pricing people off the route is how BR would have done it.

They do have some room for expansion at present: the HST diagrams are very slack, slacker even than GWR's 180s for (in theory) less flammable trains.

But it certainly will be interesting to see what bidders propose for the next XC franchise.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Why would XC trains terminate at Newcastle if they pulled out of Scotland - surely the core route ends at Leeds or York.

The depot is at Tyne Yard?

 

[ainsworth74]

The depot is at Tyne Yard?

More importantly I would have said is the crew depot at Newcastle. I believe Heaton only provides simple overnight work (toilet tank emptying, tanking and so on).

 

[causton]

Though the PRIV price of £43.95 for the Off-Peak Return isn't bad

Is it not?

A Queens Park (London) to Queens Park (Glasgow) ticket (the only one I can remember off the top of my head which I buy for the sheer novelty ) - is £33.85!

 

[gerryuk]

Why would XC trains terminate at Newcastle if they pulled out of Scotland - surely the core route ends at Leeds or York. Beyond, it represents duplication - indeed you could argue that an concentrating the network on an X ending at York/Leeds, Manchester, Bristol and Reading is probably all that is really needed.

Surly its madness to expect people from Sheffield and Birmingham, two of the largest cities in the country and no doubt big revenue earners for XC to change trains in York or Leeds if they wanted to travel to places like Newcastle? Are you really expecting a city the size of Sheffield to have no direct trains to Scotland?

 

[Rich McLean]

What is the market from Burton to "Scotland"? Or from Cheltenham?

Whilst knowing that two places hundreds of miles apart are linked by a direct service is appealing, I think that the bigger priority for Burton/ Cheltenham etc would be extra capacity on services to central Birmingham, since this is the kind of journey that many people make each day (before we worry about esoteric links).



I don't know what links you have in mind.

The Southern Region will be pretty full up, in terms of Brighton/ Plymouth/ Weymouth.

Maybe Cardiff/ Swansea, but is a Voyager running under the wires going to be a great use of resources (since the GWML will be electrified before we are in any realistic position to start reintroducing old links)?

Putting Liverpool back on the XC map would presumably mean reducing the current through services from Manchester to Bristol/ Reading (since any Liverpool service beyond Birmingham will have to come at the expense of a current through service from somewhere else).

Maybe if XC aren't running to Scotland then that frees up the possibility of some Hull services (though of course Hull was never on the Princess map).

Beyond that, I can't think of anything.



If GWR are going to be running an hourly service from Bristol to Plymouth (?) then that covers much of that leg.

I think that the best use of the resources we have at the moment would be to focus on the core that you've mentioned (maybe with the "via Doncaster" service continuing to run to Newcastle), with the kind of early/late services beyond to maintain some token through link (like BR's three a day from Edinburgh down the ECML in the morning and three back up in the evening).



I like that.

I like that a lot.


Whilst it'd probably be naïve to assume price cuts on normal tickets, I'd like to think that if XC had more capacity to accommodate more passengers then they'd price their tickets much more competitively.

I know they are expensive, but the current franchise is stick with the short trains of the previous franchise - pricing people off the route is how BR would have done it.

For info, GWR will only run a few early and a few late services a day through to Plymouth/Penzance and vv. Everything else will Terminate at Plymouth (Exeter) from the West and Taunton from the North, with XC covering the Bristol to Plymouth traffic

 

[47271]

Sheffield to Scotland was mentioned upthread. I've just had a quick look online at the sort of journey I might make to Sheffield by way of an explanation of why I avoid Cross Country like the plague.

I'm not saying my ticket splitting technique is perfect, but it's how I make my choices day in day out, so here goes:

Thursday 8 September, I've just made that up, I'm not going to Sheffield then.

Cross Country dep Edinburgh 0810 arr Sheffield 1151

Advance First Class Single £193.30 'only 4 tickets left at this price'. You've got to be kidding.

VTEC dep Edinburgh 0800, change at Doncaster onto Transpennine arr Sheffield 1120.

Two Advance First Class Singles combined £64.50. Thank you very much.

Now, I could probably split the direct fare several times and make it cheaper, but why should I bother when it's all laid out in front of me like that?

On the basis of that quick search, never mind the horrible trains, I don't need Cross Country in Scotland.

This is just me mind!

 

[theironroad]

To widen the question, I wonder why xc still exist. I'm sure that very few people make anywhere near end to end journeys on xc and all the smaller regional journeys could be swallowed up by allowing the other relevant tocs to run the services.

Most people travelling from say Exeter or Bournemouth to Edinburgh or Aberdeen, or even Newcastle are more likely to fly than the take the train.

 

[Rich McLean]

To widen the question, I wonder why xc still exist. I'm sure that very few people make anywhere near end to end journeys on xc and all the smaller regional journeys could be swallowed up by allowing the other relevant tocs to run the services.

Most people travelling from say Exeter or Bournemouth to Edinburgh or Aberdeen, or even Newcastle are more likely to fly than the take the train.

Still plenty of passengers who make through point to point journeys across various points on the route.

Such as:
Derby to Bristol
Plymouth to Leeds
Taunton to Manchester
Cheltenham to Sheffield
Chesterfield to Edinburgh
and similar

Passengers may not travel end to end, but it avoids changing trains for those longer legs through TOC boundaries

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think the fact that the current service is poor in many ways is a reason to ditch the whole idea of XC and decide there should be no service between Sheffield and Edinburgh or York and Glasgow.

TPE is similar in terms of its market and service pattern and is also pretty poor in a lot of ways at the moment, but the new franchise has made the case to buy new trains and expand the service. Perhaps the key difference is that TPE has an involved sponsor in Rail North. XC covers most of the country and therefore only DfT has the remit to sponsor it, but it doesn't go near enough to London for anyone there to be a regular user. Perhaps the best reform would be to move the DfT staff responsible for XC to, say, Birmingham?

 

[glbotu]

To widen the question, I wonder why xc still exist. I'm sure that very few people make anywhere near end to end journeys on xc and all the smaller regional journeys could be swallowed up by allowing the other relevant tocs to run the services.

Most people travelling from say Exeter or Bournemouth to Edinburgh or Aberdeen, or even Newcastle are more likely to fly than the take the train.

It's the Circle Line argument applied on a larger scale. "Why does the Circle Line exist?" is a solid question, given it basically duplicates the District, Hammersmith and City and Metropolitan Lines. Well, it's that there is track capacity on the "Circle" (and to Hammersmith these days), and that capacity needs to be used to accommodate passengers. There isn't the capacity to have more trains terminate at Ealing/Barking/Wimbledon/Amersham etc, so the Circle Line is there to make use of the extra space, while providing a service.

The same is true of Cross Country. Realistically speaking, it provides services over a number of flows, while allowing (reasonably) efficient stock usage. Edinburgh - Newcastle, Newcastle - York, York - Sheffield, Leeds - Birmingham etc. are all useful flows. You could split these all up into separate services (and possibly get a reliability boost for your troubles), but then you lose the direct services (which in this country at least, results in increased patronage) and need extra platform capacity at places like Newcastle, York, Leeds, Sheffield etc. which given that many railway sites are already pretty constrained, would be difficult to accommodate.

What Cross Country currently needs is more trains, but doing that by cutting the service back at Newcastle/York will just result in more trains anyway (because you'll need extra trains to cover for the XC service you've just cut in half). You've not actually gained any trains, just made it more inconvenient for passengers and timetable planners.

 

[sprinterguy]

To widen the question, I wonder why xc still exist. I'm sure that very few people make anywhere near end to end journeys on xc and all the smaller regional journeys could be swallowed up by allowing the other relevant tocs to run the services.

Most people travelling from say Exeter or Bournemouth to Edinburgh or Aberdeen, or even Newcastle are more likely to fly than the take the train.

The primary benefit of the Crosscountry franchise as a long distance operation is that it caters for a lot of different overlapping journeys, though: Plymouth - Birmingham, Bristol - Leeds, Birmingham - Newcastle and Leeds - Edinburgh can all be catered for by a single train service for example. As has been mentioned above, start dismantling that through service into independent components that fit (reasonably) neatly into the regional structure of the other TOCs and you begin to lose a lot of important direct links between regional centres around the country.

 

[backontrack]

We currently have an hourly Edinburgh-Plymouth and an hourly Newcastle-Reading, with extensions to Dundee, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Paignton and Penzance.

Why not run from Bristol Parkway to Edinburgh bi-hourly? The starting points would alternate between Bristol Temple Meads and Cardiff Central. You could use HSTs on this service. There would be a couple of extensions per day to Plymouth in each direction, with one going to Penzance and the other (in summer months only) running to Newquay. At the northern end, services would alternate between serving Glasgow and Aberdeen.

Then, run 2tph between York and Birmingham. One train would operate to Plymouth, and the other to Reading.

A 3tp2h frequency between York and Bristol (including Parkway) would allow other destinations to be opened up too. Not Brighton, Haslemere or Angmering, but perhaps Hull, Swansea and Middlesbrough. You'd route the Reading train via Doncaster - perhaps this could serve Hull.

 

[edwin_m]

XC is basically trying to do two things.

The historic role has been to provide through trains on journeys that are otherwise awkward to do, aimed at optional leisure travellers. These passengers aren't particularly time-sensitive so the trains only need to run a few times a day and the journey time isn't particularly critical, but the fact it's a through train is important. Many people on this forum seem to see this as XC's main role, but actually it isn't.

Far more important from the TOCs point of view is to provide frequent and relatively fast travel between city pairs that are close enough together to attract lucrative and time-sensitive business travellers. Hence 2TPH on fairly close pairs such as Birmingham-Bristol, Sheffield-York etc. Where city pairs are further apart, such as Glasgow-Newcastle, the frequency can be less as the waiting time is a less significant part of the journey. This is reasonably compatible with the long-distance role, as a few trains can extend beyond the core network, though if XC were allowed to maximise their revenue they would probably just operate between Reading, Bristol, Manchester and Leeds.

The third role, which XC doesn't really want, is carrying local travellers on journeys where alternative services are non-existent or less attractive. This fills up the trains for short distances meaning either overcrowding that puts off the business travellers, or having to run a much longer train over a long route simply because one small part is crowded. In practice the former tends to happen - otherwise there would be lots of cheap tickets available.

 

[cactustwirly]

We currently have an hourly Edinburgh-Plymouth and an hourly Newcastle-Reading, with extensions to Dundee, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Paignton and Penzance. Southampton Central

Why not run from Bristol Parkway to Edinburgh bi-hourly? The starting points would alternate between Bristol Temple Meads and Cardiff Central. You could use HSTs on this service. There would be a couple of extensions per day to Plymouth in each direction, with one going to Penzance and the other (in summer months only) running to Newquay. At the northern end, services would alternate between serving Glasgow and Aberdeen.

Then, run 2tph between York and Birmingham. One train would operate to Plymouth, and the other to Reading.

A 3tp2h frequency between York and Bristol (including Parkway) would allow other destinations to be opened up too. Not Brighton, Haslemere or Angmering, but perhaps Hull, Swansea and Middlesbrough. You'd route the Reading train via Doncaster - perhaps this could serve Hull.

I think lack of rolling stock would be a factor.

Bristol is also well served by the Bristol to Manchester service

 

[route101]

The Scotland to South Coast journeys should come back maybe not frequent but a couple a day . Not too sure these even exist anymore !

 

[theironroad]

The Scotland to South Coast journeys should come back maybe not frequent but a couple a day . Not too sure these even exist anymore !

When you can fly from Southampton/gatwick to Edinburgh/Glasgow/Aberdeen/Inverness in1.25 hrs plus some airport and transfer time then 7+ hrs on xc train is really only attractive for a very small minority of travellers.

 

[glbotu]

We currently have an hourly Edinburgh-Plymouth and an hourly Newcastle-Reading, with extensions to Dundee, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Paignton and Penzance.

Why not run from Bristol Parkway to Edinburgh bi-hourly? The starting points would alternate between Bristol Temple Meads and Cardiff Central. You could use HSTs on this service. There would be a couple of extensions per day to Plymouth in each direction, with one going to Penzance and the other (in summer months only) running to Newquay. At the northern end, services would alternate between serving Glasgow and Aberdeen.

Then, run 2tph between York and Birmingham. One train would operate to Plymouth, and the other to Reading.

A 3tp2h frequency between York and Bristol (including Parkway) would allow other destinations to be opened up too. Not Brighton, Haslemere or Angmering, but perhaps Hull, Swansea and Middlesbrough. You'd route the Reading train via Doncaster - perhaps this could serve Hull.

But then, are you filling in the missing other trains? Currently, you've reduced York - Newcastle, a very busy flow, from 5tph to 3.5 tph and reduced Durham's service from 4 tph to 2.5 tph. The top-of-the-hour TPE depatures from Newcastle already struggle with the loads from Newcastle - Durham. They are the first departures following the two XC departures. Reducing that to 1tp2h is all of a sudden a much worse service, with some hours only served by an hourly VTEC (loading all the way to London) and an hourly TPE (I'll give you that TPE and VTEC are increasing their services, but that's in response to growth). You've also reduced the frequency from Newcastle - Edinburgh down to 1tph in most hours.

Loadings on pretty much all trains between York and Edinburgh are very good, not just in peak hours either, but all day. You can't just cull those trains to help the XC "core" between York and Birmingham. If you then replace them, you're back at square 1, because you still need to buy more trains, but have now reduced the attractiveness of the services for the leisure market, by forcing everyone to change at York. Also, you've probably had to fit more platforms at York, in order to terminate 1.5 tph XC and the in-fill services from Edinburgh.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

XC is basically trying to do two things.

The historic role has been to provide through trains on journeys that are otherwise awkward to do, aimed at optional leisure travellers. These passengers aren't particularly time-sensitive so the trains only need to run a few times a day and the journey time isn't particularly critical, but the fact it's a through train is important. Many people on this forum seem to see this as XC's main role, but actually it isn't.

Far more important from the TOCs point of view is to provide frequent and relatively fast travel between city pairs that are close enough together to attract lucrative and time-sensitive business travellers. Hence 2TPH on fairly close pairs such as Birmingham-Bristol, Sheffield-York etc. Where city pairs are further apart, such as Glasgow-Newcastle, the frequency can be less as the waiting time is a less significant part of the journey. This is reasonably compatible with the long-distance role, as a few trains can extend beyond the core network, though if XC were allowed to maximise their revenue they would probably just operate between Reading, Bristol, Manchester and Leeds.

The third role, which XC doesn't really want, is carrying local travellers on journeys where alternative services are non-existent or less attractive. This fills up the trains for short distances meaning either overcrowding that puts off the business travellers, or having to run a much longer train over a long route simply because one small part is crowded. In practice the former tends to happen - otherwise there would be lots of cheap tickets available.

This. I mean this is exactly the double-edged sword of operation princess. I'm sure XC didn't think twice about picking up local stops at 1tp2h, but once those end up at 2tph, that becomes a useful local commuter service, but that just falls out of the UKs lack of track capacity around major cities. Realistically, things like Wakefield - Leeds, York - Leeds, Durham - Newcastle should be adequately served by local services, but are instead run by getting LDHS services to stop at those stations, because those paths are necessary for the LDHS services to run in the first place and there'd be very little point eating up the paths with stoppers.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

7+ hrs on xc train is really only attractive for a very small minority of travellers.

I don't want to slip into the knee-jerk Voyager bashing, but...

I genuinely don't mind a multi-hour journey on an HST or similar, but I won't do it on a Voyager. Not because of the usual tropes of seats that don't line up with windows, or smelly toilets, or underfloor engines, but simply because I can't work on a Voyager. The seat-back tables are too small for a laptop and, in the absence of a quiet coach, the train is too full of noisy leisure travellers and short-distance commuters to concentrate. Guarantee me an HST from Oxford to Edinburgh (6hr15) at a less-than-extortionate price, and I'll use it.

 

[AndyW33]

Most people travelling from say Exeter or Bournemouth to Edinburgh or Aberdeen, or even Newcastle are more likely to fly than the take the train.

One flight a day from Exeter Airport to Edinburgh, one to Newcastle, no service to Aberdeen.
No domestic flights at all from Bournemouth Airport. So let's try Southampton Airport instead:
5 flights a day to Edinburgh, 3 to Newcastle, none to Aberdeen.

 

[Class 170101]

The Scotland to South Coast journeys should come back maybe not frequent but a couple a day . Not too sure these even exist anymore !

13:48 Southampton to Edinburgh
the best in the opposite direction is
07:00 Edinburgh to Reading

 

[PHILIPE]

This thread is turning into yet another type of "My idea for Cross Country...." thread even to the extent of saying XC should go to South Coast again. We have discussed Brighton time and time again and has been done to death.

 

[najaB]

Realistically, things like Wakefield - Leeds, York - Leeds, Durham - Newcastle should be adequately served by local services, but are instead run by getting LDHS services to stop at those stations...

I don't know much about the other two city pairs, but from my observation Durham generates enough long-distance traffic to justify calls by VTEC.