X-country or formally known in BR days as inter-regional have always been a bit of Cinderella service.  In BR days there was a large dwell time at places like Reading, 15 plus mins.

X-country did have 125's (HST's) which could be argued were over spec as most of the routes operated were 90 mph, but the 125's were at the time BR's standard intercity passenger train stock thereby reducing Driver training on different traction units also for maintenance spares and staff training.

There is no simple fix, as some parts of the x-country routes are heavy commuter use for example Reading - Basingstoke, Reading - Oxford, Coventry - Birmingham; just to name a few.  So do you size the train set to suit these hot spots or for the cross country connectivity?

Perhaps in the new GBR world X-country should revert to inter- regional

 
The biggest problem is short sets, and consequent crowding, too many trains just 4car or 5car at busy times (and there is a reason why end cars are labled A and F, because made provision to extend to 6car, but never did).

It doesn't help that XC cancels so many trains, that passengers get doubled up on next service.  Their latest performance figures show 9.6% are cancelled, and 3.4% are shortformed (which I think they define as single set that should be double, rather than including 4car that should be 5car)

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/about-us/key-business-performance-indicators

Basically it is a network stuck with using 25 old diesel trains, that were designed for a high frequency service, in 3 classes (the premier standard never happened), so badly laid out for today's passenger flow.  And of course operate huge mileages on diesel whilst on electrified lines.

I understand the units being refurbished have done about 5.5 million miles, and they do around 220,000 miles per year.   Although for such intensive use are actually in fairly good condition, if not the correct product for today's (and going into 2030s) railway.

 

I don't think any such analysis will help. The current Cross Country set-up is used for a variety reasons. Personally, I have used it for holidays (Reading-Newcastle as part of a Scottish trip, to get to Southampton Airport for a flights, and in my youth, before it was a thing, equivalent services for holidays in Scotland and Dorset starting from Reading), business (mostly to get to Birmingham, Wolverhampton or Manchester for meetings), family visits when my in-laws lived in North Yorkshire, and commuting, when Cross Country still ran to Gatwick and Portsmouth and sometimes it was a convenient (and much more comfortable) way to do the Reading-Guildford part of my commute.

I think that this misses the point. It's not just an end-to-end service for grannies in Manchester or Newcastle to go the seaside at Bournemouth or Torquay. It is a very useful service for all kinds of travellers using various parts and various lengths of its network. The main cause of complaint repeated on this forum (over-crowding) shows that there is more demand for its services than can be coped with by its current capacity. Small fixed-formation 4- or 5-car trains are no longer sufficient.


This highlights a confusion. Are we talking about the current Cross Country franchise operation, based on long-distance services running largely on an X-shaped network linking Scotland, the North-east, Yorkshire and the East Midlands (on one arm), Manchester, Cheshire/Staffs and Wolverhampton (on the second), the Thames Valley and the Solent/Greater Bournemouth area (on the third) and Bristol and the South-west on the fourth, and a "tail" to Stanstead, all radiating out of Birmingham? I can see the sense of these remaining as a single business unit, with a common core fleet of trains and staff, into which the other routes you mention do not seem to fit well.

Or do you mean that under a new unified GBR, they ought to be promoted together as part of a strategy to encourage more rail use by long-distance travellers not intending to travel via London? I can support this, as over many years I've been surprised by how few potential passengers are surprised to learn (for example) that there are direct trains from Reading to Gatwick or Manchester. But I cannot see any advantage or possible improvement to the trains on the current Cross Country routes from lumping them into the same operating division or business unit.

 

The ticket sales data is interesting - it tells a story of where people have travelled and not what the potential for travel is were it to be easier.    We have a Complete matrix for Reading in the Coffee Shop - showing 2400 different sources/destinations for tickets sold. 

It is instructive to look at the history and see changing patterns with the arrival of the Elizabeth line - ticket sales to place like Stratford.    And, yes, re-analysing (I don't have the spare time either) the data in zones is interesting; I have in the past done that to look at Swindon / Chippenham to the Solent area ...

 
I wish I had the spare time - and know how - to do such an analysis as I think it would be very revealing.

I understand the distaste for having to ‘make a connection’ when going by train (or any public transports for that matter) especially when the connection is not guaranteed - long gone are those days. And this maybe doubly so for the business traveller trying to maximise the company value from the time and expense, and minimise the impact of travelling on their personal lives.

But I think this raises the issue of what market is CC trying to serve. Is it a business market or is leisure market service ? If the former, then it’s more likely that the destination station (or the city business district it serves) is the actual final destination. But if its leisure it maybe more likely that the final destination is further afield than a city business district, and most likely necessitating a change of transport (mode) anyway ?

And, if the latter is valid, then surely an efficient inter-regional service running between regional ‘hubs’ would work well?

My own personal experience - admittedly limited to the south of Birmingham portion of the network - and based on the copious amounts of luggage seen being manhandled into every nock and cranny - I would argue CC is a leisure market service. Yes - I am sure there are folks reliant on the CC service to get to work every day - but this has to be a smaller number of people than those trying to get to or back from non-work related activities ? Otherwise why run a Reading to Manchester service - for example - that can’t be a commuter/business  service surely ?

 
If I had a spare day or two (spoiler: I don't) I'd be very tempted to take the Origin/Destination Matrix data and map it onto CrossCountry route patterns.

In other words, of the journeys starting in (say) Reading, how many are heading for a destination that is best served by a CrossCountry service across Birmingham? I genuinely don't know the answer - I'm intrigued to see that there are more Reading–Banbury passengers than Reading–Manchester Piccadilly, for example, but then when you add Stockport…

I suspect you could get some interesting answers simply by matching up origins/destinations within certain polygons (e.g. the North-West to the South-West).

 

National Express coaches have gone down this route. From the Plymouth and Cornwall we used to have through coaches to the north. Now we have services to Birmingham with various connections to different locutions in the north.

 

You may also call the Swansea -> Portsmouth and Brighton service (as it was) Cross County, and Liverpool - Newcastle ... under GBR there is some logic to move things between logical divisions for today rather than for the last 30 years.  Might add the Marches line too.

 

and



That's simply because (with the exception of the Stanstead line, added later) it reflects where the available lines for express routes avoiding London are, namely Bristol or Cardiff to Basingstoke, Basingstoke to Reading, Oxford to Birmingham, Birmingham to Derby and Sheffield to Leeds or York.

If we'd had East/West via an Oxford-Cambridge link we might have had (and might still get) direct links between the South West and East Anglia.

Cross Country is far more than an enhanced Birmingham suburban service. Choosing to go via London is at least a matter of choice (I've been grateful to avoid a TfL cross-London transfer on more than one occasion), and one of the things that has become clear to me, both from being a member of this forum and speaking to friends who do not use the railways as much as I do, is that changing trains is something many don't like doing or acts as a disincentive to using the train. And, having worked much of my career in Reading and Guildford, I've had a number of colleagues delighted to find that they can get to meetings in Manchester or Birmingham without the hassle of travelling across London.

I would mostly use the car for travel to Cambridge, Essex or East Anglia, but part of that was quite a bit of what I did involved clients based out of town centres or attending site visits in rural or suburban locations. But outside East Anglia, their network provides a number of links between the main commercial service centres which avoid London. There's also no shortage of either students or tourists on their trains. It ain't broke, but could do with another shot of investment like it got just after the turn of the century, when in consequence the Reading-Birmingham corridor was reported to have had the greatest increase in traffic of any UK rail route.   

 
Cross country serves a weird shaped network,
apologies for the map with graphics, but it's only one on their site that is roughly to scale rather than diagram form.

https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/sites/default/files/basic_page_docs/12058264_illustrated_route_map_q4_2023_a4_-1.pdf

Now if compare that to UK population hubs then it's obvious that cross country network serves something operationally convenient rather than geographically sensible.

As an aside, and as someone aged 61 and retired (but not yet 67 and getting state pension), came across this map whilst checking (known as silver cities, or where us oldies tend to be based)

https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/silver-cities-ageing-population-changing-urban-britain/

Fairly obvious that XC doesn't really serve some areas with higher than average retired very well either.   It doesn't serve lots of university cities either, so isn't that useful for those who don't (or chose not to) drive, but need to make longer journeys

Using my senior railcard, could visit places by train, but XC is rather slow and uncomfortable to reach some of them.   My last trip on XC was Bristol-Durham, but we came back via Kings Cross as got cheap First class advance (and LNER provides food and drink), both routes took about same time between Durham and BoA

Should XC run routes that are clearly key secondary linking routes, which don't currently, instead of duplicating fast electric services such as York-Scotland.  

I would be merging XC and the longer routes of Transpennine (TP local routes should be northern or metro mayor routes) and adding in key routes like Cardiff-Portsmouth to give a national network that isn't London destination.  

At the moment XC acts more like a Birmingham based outer suburban network, rather than a UK network bypassing London.   London is important but not everyone needs to be routed to change trains there.  Even the French run TGVs bypassing Paris to connect different parts of the country.

 

Indeed.

My personal preference for a long distance journey where it cannot me made direct is for the change of trains to be earlier or later in the journey so I can be settle most of the time.   Home to Edinburgh - rather change at Cheltenham Spa ...

 
Not everybody starts from Plymouth. There are a significant number of journeys from the southwest to Derby and north thereof which cross Birmingham. A change at Birmingham is not easy and passengers prefer through trains. My last 2 journeys on Cross Country were Bristol Parkway to York and Edinburgh to Bristol Parkway. I would not have welcomed a change at Birmingham

 
HS3

 

 
You can't get a Cross Country train from Plymouth to Essex and East Anglia. You are expected to change in London (Crossrail has made that easier); so for Plymouth trains, why go further than Birmingham which could be the hub for the north. Maybe on a Saturday there is a justification for Penzance-Scotland but I doubt it.

 
There's an immediate problem with this approach Ibraine.

If you look at the destinations currently covered by Cross Country,  you'll see that thre are " strings" of urban areas that together have larger populations, like Southampton and Bournemouth/Christchurch/Poole, or Banbury/Oxford/Reading/Basingstoke, or Taunton/Exeter/Plymouth. Many of the conurbations you mention already are connected by the main line network radiating out of London or lie close together with reasonable existing links.

I think that the current Cross Country network is just about right, possibly only needing a few trains to Liverpool, Plymouth or Brighton to be better,  but I perfectly understand that line capacity constraints and the relatively modest additional fare revenue might not justify this or make it possible.

All it needs is some longer trains (it borders on the criminal that after nearly two years of a new government with a minister from the rail industry they have Voyager units stored out of use)
and some work on pathing of trains and timetabling to eliminate as many conflicts that usually seem resolved at the expense of Cross Country trains, notwithstanding the generous lay over periods at stops like Reading, and you should have something really useful. I am heartened to read some positive comments in this thread to support this view.

And no, I don't see limits on access to services for shorter distance travellers or increasing other parallel services (for which there's probably not the line capacity) as necessary.  If there's more seats on lengthened trains that should address the issue.  The occasional full and standing evening rush hour train between New Street and Leamington is a price we should be happy to pay for the convenience of through trains between the South Coast/Thames Valley and Birmingham and the North and we shouldn't begrudge some West Midlands commuters using them to get home a little earlier.  Sit back, relax and look forward to enjoying the countryside down to Oxford once they have got off.

 


Interesting data. If (re)designing the cross country network I’d start here and select station pairs that didn’t have a ‘natural’ alternative service. For example, no need for a cross country service between Glasgow and Edinburgh or between Manchester and Liverpool, where other providers cover these off.

I don’t think one change of train is too much to ask for passengers venturing cross country, although it maybe two if there is a change required at each end. So the cross country network becomes a true ‘inter-city’ network.

What I can’t rationalise is whether the general travelling public will see the one/two changes and too many and then bolt for the car alternative ? I suspect this might be case.

 
Can’t really see nationalisation causing the Voyagers to be replaced 10-15 years before their due date, as has already been said.

 

I’d tend to agree…. but with nationalisation round the corner it would make more sense to go with Hitachi IETs.  Current GWR crews could then easily cover current XC work.

 
In the absence of a replacement for the Voyagers, I'd increase regional services on the CrossCountry routes where there's overcrowding.

So more GWR services on Oxford–Banbury. More Chiltern services on Banbury–Birmingham (and that's happening!). More regional services on Cheltenham–Birmingham – perhaps by extending the TfW service from Cardiff. An EMU shuttle from Birmingham to Manchester using the spare 350s.

I know each of these have their own challenges. But generally I think expecting long-distance CrossCountry services to be the main provider for local journeys is a fool's errand.

 
Buy or lease a limited number of FULL  LENGTH trains, fixed formation 9 or 10 vehicles. Use these on the most popular services, thereby freeing up existing short units to double up and relieve overcrowding.

Avoid "flexible train length" as flexible means shorter.
Include ample luggage space, with provision for cycles and surfboards.
A full buffet.
Selective door opening.
Avoid anything made by Hitachi, as that has become a toxic brand.

 
London Buses had this problem 40 years ago of late running and traffic congestion. Their solution was to shorten the routes. Not liked but inevitable.

GWR have done it with the the Cardiff-Penzance services; although with the 175s I thought they might come back but the train is so unreliable and the stock has had no effect on increasing capacity in Devon and Cornwall or elsewhere by releasing the 158s to Bristol.

 

    How would YOU solve CrossCountry ?

I'd renationalise it.



Oh ... hold on a minute.

 

I seem to recall XC have expressed an interest in those six sets, but it’s sitting with the DfT?

Get those on XC routes ASAP, then the two Grand Central ones in 2028 (and also the boost of however many sets are currently undergoing refurbishment at a time) and you’ll have enough to make a very noticeable impact and perhaps get you through to a replacement order for the Voyagers (and the XC 170 fleet) in the late 2030s.

An option that just might get the ok from the treasury?

 
Start the process of ordering a new fleet of 9 car bi-mode trains now for delivery at the slowest possible viable rate. As they slowly enter service use any displaced Voyagers to double up other services. Given the usual delays new trains gave in entering service, by the time you’ve doubled up everything (and coped with the growth arising from the journey experience becoming something to enjoy rather than endure), those 15 years will be nearly up.

 

Yes, currently sets 101-106

Grand Central still has a pair too (units 142, 143), but has nine 5car tri-mode (class 820 ?) IETs on order, so shouldn't need them once these new trains arrive, as won't need so many spares.

Really it would be economically wasteful to scrap all the voyagers (likely to be in service about another 13-16 years), but there is a strong case for using just the intermediate cars and lengthening sets to 6cars.   Fewer vehicles to refurbish, and get a pool of spare parts, engines, bogies, seats, cab fittings etc.

I am not sure if having 4 or 5 or 6 car sets is best.   
4car on their own are too short and crowded (except at fringes of route).  5car sets get far too crowded in the Midlands and less than ideal too.  6car would be better and less of a problem when run on their own.
But if start having doubled up sets of 10, 11, 12 cars do they become overkill, or cause problems at stations where platforms are under 285m (935 feet) long.  An 11car voyager is similar length to 2x5car IETs

 

In theory, yes.

In practice the Voyager fleet has around 10-15 years of life left in them and it would be very hard to make the sums work for a £1bn+ full replacement of them for a few years yet, as it would be difficult to find a home for them.

A small additional fleet of new trains to bolster the current fleet?  Maybe.

 
The primary gripes of most users are smelly trains, unusable wi-fi/blocked mobile signal, overcrowding and high fares.

Most of that could be fixed by replacing existing stock with well-furnished 10-car and 5-car variants of 80x stock. This could bring the offering closer to a TGV/AVE/ICE-standard whilst with more capacity, tickets could be reduced so the per-mile price is closer to the network average.

As mentioned previously, much the core network is now electrified (with more in prospect), and at the very least a bi-mode fleet would offer better performance under the wires and the ability to catch up schedules, but also improve the business case for gaps like Derby to Birmingham and Bromsgrove to Bristol to be filled. Reliability is inevitably going to be difficult on complex and long routes, but I don't think it's the main gripe for most people.

An additional problem is that long-distance "Intercity" passengers doing multi-hour journeys are are mixed with those doing short commuter hops of as little as 10 minutes (e.g. Bristol TM to Bristol Parkway). This is to a certain extent being mitigated by new commuter services like TfWM's planned Birmingham to Bristol/Cardiff, but XC could also bring in "reservation only" carriages. 

 
Are there any ex-Avanti 221s still in storage?

 
I despise the Voyager train, there is something about the interior feeling cramped and chaos at every station that I avoid at all costs

Ironically I just had a weekend in Teignmouth and the cheapest trains by a long shot were using Cross Country.
I was due to travel with a friend, but she was unwell and pushed me to go on my own.

I got on the train at Weston to find people in my reserved seat - first two on the right in the carriage.
The quickly moved on request, but then an elderly lady sat in one of my reserved seats saying it was hers.
Her husband was sat in front of her, and had to move a lady into another seat.

Once I realised they were travelling together I explained they were both my seats and that they could sit there so they could travel together, so I sat in the seat in front.
As soon as I got comfortable a lady in the window seat said her sister had been sat there and was now on the left side, so I offered her sister my seat and sat in my third seat, even before the train had got to the main line

The thing about this, it wasn't just where I was sat there were people moving people from reserved seats all through the carriage and was absolute chaos.

I don't understand why people find the reservation system so difficult to read or take notice of.
The other problem, is why they are only ever 4 car sets, with one being an underused first class.

How 3 carriages has ever been deemed suitable for long distance is incredible.

The ironic end to this, I actually travelled back on Saturday night
The train I was booked on ended up being cancelled

 
The first thing I would do is run a comprehensive analysis of the ticketing data to establish how much of the loading of each service is split between shorter (e.g. Plymouth > Totnes or Newton Abbot) and longer (e.g. South West > Birmingham) journeys.
On the basis of the results I would then make sectors with a preponderance of longer journeys reservation only, preferably aided by a new 'smart' reservation app which, once the origin station has been specified, only displays selected destinations so that the 'swamping' of services by short distance travellers is significantly reduced.

Where such restrictions were implemented I would amend the timetable(s), if necessary, to ensure that an appropriate 'local' service was available to short distance passengers.

The aforementioned ticketing data could also be used to determine, on a 'train-by-train' basis, the number of carriages required for each service; present experience quite clearly shows that 4 or 5 coach trains frequently don't cut the mustard.

The new LNER timetable might show a different way forward; using their Azumas there are now only four 10-car trains each weekday with a corresponding increase in a half-hourly 5-car train service.

 
I’ve used cross country a few times in the last month.
Each time I’ve had a refurbished train. I think the refurbished trains are pleasant enough.
The train managers have been very friendly.
No issue finding a seat.

But, and a big but, on each occasion it’s been a Sunday. They’ve terminated at Plymouth instead of continuing on to Penzance

 

The cruise ship issue is a significant and awkward one. AI result from Google:


and it's notable that 8 out of 10 of those by train from Southampton are naturally Cross Country journeys.

Lisa and I have been cruisers from Southampton for a number of years, and taking with other guests on the ships we have chosen I believe there's a bias (when population density considered) towards passengers on them from the north and the Scottish lowlands. 

At Southampton Central Station, there are distinct crowds of people arriving / departing by rail and that's in spite of the cruise companies offering coach transfer and parking deals, and in spite of it needing taxis to and from the station.  We use bus -> Bath from outside our home. Across the road (normally) in Bath for the direct train to Southampton, and coming from Bristol that can be pretty busy too.  There's a strong South Wales cruising contingent too, on the same train.

If the cruise companies / industry were to promote rail far more than they do, they could make for a real change - but not sure that XC would cope, nor that they would want the very peaky loads that could be generated.

Under GBR, there is a case for their being a nationwide TOC pool of go-anywhere longer distance trains to meet major peaks such as cruise high days, Cheltenham Gold Cup, Glastonbury, FA Cup final, bog snorkelling at Llanwrtwd, Great North Run, etc.   ... geography might suggest that Reading work be a logical base.

 

That'd be the end of Coventry - Bournemouth then. And University - South West.

No, longer trains, more limited stop, I reckon. Run the 221s as doubles & get 8xx stock for one side of the 'X' or the other as a step-change replacement. But the local stops need service spec in place of the removed stops.

 
I think it probably depends which part of their network you use. I find the service that covers Reading to Bournemouth is generally acceptable. One improvement could be if the looked at the number of cruise ships/passengers scheduled at Southampton. It is published a year in advance I believe, putting a 4-car train on when there five cruise ships scheduled is a likely recipe for disgruntlement.

 
10 car 800 series trains, as most of cross country is under the wires anyway, capacity, toilets in one go...

 
I have had the misfortune of having to use/rely on CrossCountry trains 5 times in the last month.

I managed to secure my pre-booked seat on just one of those trains.
Every single train was late departing - from as little as 15 minutes to 50 minutes.
Every single train was ‘full and standing’ - actually overflowing with people standing in the toilets on one mid-morning Reading to Birmingham New Street service (we actually bailed at Birmingham International as we worked out out TfW connection commenced there - and we just wanted off the Class 221 tubular hell hole.

Given passenger levels the need from some kind of non-London routing to get around the country is definitely needed and desired. But - given recent experiences (and previous) I wonder how GBR should look at revisit the whole cross country design.

Better trains (and longer) trains - 4 or 5 car 221s just don’t seem to cut it ?
Faster trains, better acceleration )- less station stops, moving to a major centre to centre service ?
Consider an alternative hub than Birmingham New Street (trains just seem routinely to sit for 5 mins outside waiting for a platform - and a discussion on Wolverhampton station with a staff member indicated the development of the West Midlands Metro is only going to make things worse) ?
Mandate pre-booking only - no turn up and go tickets for sale (radical I know) ?

What ideas have YOU had to solve the Cross Country issue(s)?

I fully admit that my experience has been limited to the south and west routes of CC - is it equally as bad elsewhere on their network ?