How can CrossCountry realistically be improved?

[tbtc]

I take real issue with the suggestion that XC should focus more north of Bristol.
Trouble is, between Bristol and Plymouth, it is XC and NOT GWR who provide the main service. GWR only provides stoppers on this route. Infact, in my experience , a southbound XC train often leaves Bristol busier than when it arrived.
The idea that XC could cut down the number of services between Bristol and Plymouth Is a complete and utterly none starter, UNLESS GWR are given extra stock to provide a 2 hour quick service between the south wests two biggest cities, and that just isn't going to happen.

You'd need to have "local" TOCs step up to the plate and take responsibility for the main "local" flows - agreed - rather than just expecting XC to pick up the strain

At the moment we have a situation where the peak time 18:08 from Edinburgh to Dundee/Aberdeen is the ex-Plymouth service, and similarly the 17:45 from Bristol to Exeter/Plymouth is the ex-Aberdeen service to Penzance, because BR were canny at pinching spare resources - clever planning but terrible for ensuring people's train home is at a reliable time

For example, there was an InterCity diagram that wouldn't leave Edinburgh until mid-morning before heading to London and a London arrival into Edinburgh that came off duty at teatime, so it was agreed to let ScotRail "pinch" that stock so that there was a nice long HST providing an 07:55 from Inverness that got into Edinburgh mid-morning and a nice long HST providing an 18:00ish service from Edinburgh to Inverness - canny use of rare stock at the time - but the modern railway shouldn't be run on such a threadbare nature - we shouldn't be expecting the Cross Country service from Aberdeen to Penzance to be the main service between the cities of Leeds and Sheffield (but we do, because Northern Spirit scaled back their Leeds - Westgate - Sheffield services when the Voyagers were introduced to focus on other routes.

Same applies to a number of other parts of the country, as I've listed above - XC were expected to pick up responsibility for the bi-hourly Glasgow to Newcastle/ York service, XC were expected to pick up stops at ECML stations to allow London - Edinburgh trains to be sped up, we've seen a number of journeys/routes abandoned by "Provincial" TOCs so that the passengers are dumped onto busy Voyagers - XC has become the dumping ground for other people's problems

XC have tightly timed paths that need to get through certain bottlenecks/ flat junctions etc at fixed times - e.g. I've mentioned here before that leaving Sheffield a couple of minutes late means that the Dearne Valley stopper gets out of Aldwarke Junction ahead and then stops several times on the way to Leeds, meaning that the XC service stuck behind has no way of recovering, but will then be at least half an hour late by the time it's got to Leeds - there are a number of examples across the country where one false step by XC means being stuck behind a slow DMU for a long time

XC can only do this with stock capable of doing 125mph (not all services do reach 125mph, but given the interworking, it would be very complicated to rip up the diagrams/ timetables to accommodate a fleet of 100mph trains)

XC can only do this with fast accelerating trains capable of getting out of key stations and up to line speed pretty quickly - only Voyagers/ Meridians really tick those boxes...

...but XC's Voyagers are thinly spread with many under the wires between Birmingham and Manchester at any one time, many of them north of York at any one time, many of them west of Bristol at any one time. So, to deal with the obvious capacity problems that XC have, we need to let them use the only trains capable of meeting their paths in the "core" to spend more time in the core - we need to get other TOCs to shoulder more of the responsibility for some of the shorter distance flows - we need to let XC focus at their core market

 

[JohnRegular]

Here's a question- admittedly one that's been floated before- if/when XC get hold of more 22x trains, is it worth reforming them into longer units and scrapping end vehicles, or just running them doubled up?
I'm inclined to think that the (relatively small) loss of potential capacity is justified by the lower staff costs required, since a second guard isn't required, and a single trolley can serve the whole train.

 

[driverd]

I think people really have the wrong perspective on xc. They are not an intercity TOC in terms of the journeys their customers make. They're better thought of as an regional express, which handily strings together lots of useful journeys. They don't claim to be anything else. I make this statement on the basis of a conversation with one of their performance managers - They acknowledge the average journey is circa 60 miles (ie: an hour). When considering comfort, rolling stock etc, it's on this basis decisions are made. The timetable reflects this, xc manage quite remarkable reliability given the scope of the operation by copious standing time at many large stations, with good journey times between most cities and their nearest neighbours.

Let's be honest, a lot of the fault for today's crosscountry woes falls at the feet of virgin. The voyagers were the wrong stock for a good many reasons, but the key ones for me are an overprovision of first class, wrong door layout and too much desire for a common fleet across XC and WC. A more powerful turbostar variation would have been better for XC, whilst the Voyager is about right for WC.

 

[The Ham]

Here's a question- admittedly one that's been floated before- if/when XC get hold of more 22x trains, is it worth reforming them into longer units and scrapping end vehicles, or just running them doubled up?
I'm inclined to think that the (relatively small) loss of potential capacity is justified by the lower staff costs required, since a second guard isn't required, and a single trolley can serve the whole train.

My view is yes it's worth scraping end vehicles and just running longer sets.

Three other factors come into play, maintenance of the end coaches, the extra lease costs and the extra track access charges. Whilst individually they may not be much, combined that's a lot to be covered by up to 45 people per coach.

Also it's worth noting that if passenger numbers grow enough to have justified the need for those end coaches then it'll justify the cost of a new fleet of (say) 80x trains to increase capacity further.

My view would be to change the 222's to be a fleet of 9 coach trains and have the 220/221's as all 5 coach trains which mostly run in pairs (as a 5+5 would have broadly the same capacity as a 9 coach unit).

As (IIRC) that's nearly enough to have every service run at full length (i.e. 9 or 5+5), although there's a good chance that there's scope to limit the 5 coach only services to the edges of the network (i.e. those places like West of Exeter or North of York where there's other services which could limit the risk of over crowding).

 

[irish_rail]

I think people really have the wrong perspective on xc. They are not an intercity TOC in terms of the journeys their customers make. They're better thought of as an regional express, which handily strings together lots of useful journeys. They don't claim to be anything else. I make this statement on the basis of a conversation with one of their performance managers - They acknowledge the average journey is circa 60 miles (ie: an hour). When considering comfort, rolling stock etc, it's on this basis decisions are made. The timetable reflects this, xc manage quite remarkable reliability given the scope of the operation by copious standing time at many large stations, with good journey times between most cities and their nearest neighbours.

Let's be honest, a lot of the fault for today's crosscountry woes falls at the feet of virgin. The voyagers were the wrong stock for a good many reasons, but the key ones for me are an overprovision of first class, wrong door layout and too much desire for a common fleet across XC and WC. A more powerful turbostar variation would have been better for XC, whilst the Voyager is about right for WC.

Try telling that to people in the south west looking to go to the north or Midlands. 3 and a half hours just to get from Plymouth to Brum. If that isn't proper intercity length trips I don't know what is.
Trouble is XC also caters for shorter trips like Macclesfield to Manchester for example and so in some respects it is trying to be all things to all people.

 

[daodao]

I've suggested before (and will continue to suggest) that XC focus more on the "core" (roughly York/Leeds Manchester to Bristol/Reading)

Fixed that for you. Manchester should be removed from the XC network and the Birmingham-Manchester service provided by higher capacity emus (e.g. class 350) - it's good enough for Liverpooi and emus provide a smoother, pleasanter (and greener) journey. Some ingenuity will be needed to deal with these trains at New Street, e.g. linking with services to Coventry/Northampton (but not beyond).

 

[AngusH]

As a radical idea, I'd be tempted to give up on it and just abolish the cross country operation entirely.

Transfer the trains and the staff of course and just let the routes be run as part of other operations.

With shorter, more regionalised operations, each could be more resistant to delays
and there would be fewer operators in total.

Borrowing the core routes ideas from upthread:

Plymouth - Exeter - Bristol - Birmingham -> GWR
Bournemouth - Southampton - Reading - Birmingham -> GWR (or southwestern?)
Birmingham - Manchester -> West Coast
Birmingham - Leeds - Newcastle - Edinburgh ->TPE or maybe LNER?
Stansted - Birmingham -> EMR

There are probably other routes, and the exact operator could be wrong, but this is the basic idea.

Ideally redraw the timetable so that you can travel between key city pairs with one cross platform change, to a waiting train.

Although that change might be to a different operator and could be at a different interchange station for each city pair.

 

[JamesT]

My view is yes it's worth scraping end vehicles and just running longer sets.

Three other factors come into play, maintenance of the end coaches, the extra lease costs and the extra track access charges. Whilst individually they may not be much, combined that's a lot to be covered by up to 45 people per coach.

Also it's worth noting that if passenger numbers grow enough to have justified the need for those end coaches then it'll justify the cost of a new fleet of (say) 80x trains to increase capacity further.

My view would be to change the 222's to be a fleet of 9 coach trains and have the 220/221's as all 5 coach trains which mostly run in pairs (as a 5+5 would have broadly the same capacity as a 9 coach unit).

As (IIRC) that's nearly enough to have every service run at full length (i.e. 9 or 5+5), although there's a good chance that there's scope to limit the 5 coach only services to the edges of the network (i.e. those places like West of Exeter or North of York where there's other services which could limit the risk of over crowding).

Are the ROSCOs going to be happy with scrapping assets that aren’t end of life and getting less money in from leasing fewer vehicles?
Running doubled up also gives XC more resilience. There was a thread earlier complaining about XC only running a single unit, which turned out to be because the other had failed on depot. If they only have long trains then are the chances not higher that a failure results in cancellation of the service?

 

[JonathanH]

Are the ROSCOs going to be happy with scrapping assets that aren’t end of life and getting less money in from leasing fewer vehicles?

The DfT is under no obligation to use the vehicles at all. It is fairly easy to envisage a scenario whereby the vehicles coming off lease see no further use if the price and terms aren't right. The DfT has a fairly strong hand.

 

[XC victim]

I think it is time people realised that the railways are not there to move people around the country. People in the south west need to realise they should not be travelling to the midlands, the north or Scotland. People in the northwest should not be travelling to the south coast. People should not be travelling between cities like Bristol, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leeds, Reading, Newcastle, Glasgow, Gloucester, Wolverhampton, York, Oxford, Manchester, Leicester, Edinburgh, Southampton, Birmingham, Derby, Cardiff etc (and certainly not Carlisle, Liverpool, or Brighton), not to mention the many, many towns linked to the cross country network.

The railways are there to link local towns to the nearest city and to link every town in Britain to London. There is simply no place for CrossCountry on the railway network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it is time people realised that the railways are not there to move people around the country.

What a silly statement.

 

[XC victim]

What a silly statement.

Sorry, just joining in with what appears to be the general consensus in this forum

 

[tbtc]

I think people really have the wrong perspective on xc. They are not an intercity TOC in terms of the journeys their customers make. They're better thought of as an regional express, which handily strings together lots of useful journeys. They don't claim to be anything else. I make this statement on the basis of a conversation with one of their performance managers - They acknowledge the average journey is circa 60 miles (ie: an hour). When considering comfort, rolling stock etc, it's on this basis decisions are made. The timetable reflects this, xc manage quite remarkable reliability given the scope of the operation by copious standing time at many large stations, with good journey times between most cities and their nearest neighbours.

Let's be honest, a lot of the fault for today's crosscountry woes falls at the feet of virgin. The voyagers were the wrong stock for a good many reasons, but the key ones for me are an overprovision of first class, wrong door layout and too much desire for a common fleet across XC and WC. A more powerful turbostar variation would have been better for XC, whilst the Voyager is about right for WC.

Agree completely

It feels like the Voyagers were more about "VTWC wanted swanky 125mph trains with lots of First Class for their lucrative London - Chester - Holyhead services (and the tail was wagging the dog, meaning that the significantly larger order of trains for XC was based upon the small number required for these Euston journeys)"

Worth reminding some people here that most XC services were pathed for Class 47s (yes, some HSTs ran, and some 86s etc) but the services didn't tend to get anywhere near 125mph because they were based around the capabilities of a 47 - so there was no expectation of 125mph trains - the Voyagers are reliable and technologically brilliant but completely over-engineered (and under-seated) for the role they do on XC = a fleet of something like Turbostars would have made it much easier to allow future expansion/ extensions too

Try telling that to people in the south west looking to go to the north or Midlands. 3 and a half hours just to get from Plymouth to Brum. If that isn't proper intercity length trips I don't know what is.
Trouble is XC also caters for shorter trips like Macclesfield to Manchester for example and so in some respects it is trying to be all things to all people.

They said that "the average journey is circa 60 miles" - of course some people travel much further than that, but every journey of three hours is presumably outnumbered by a few people making much shorter trips

Fixed that for you. Manchester should be removed from the XC network and the Birmingham-Manchester service provided by higher capacity emus (e.g. class 350) - it's good enough for Liverpooi and emus provide a smoother, pleasanter (and greener) journey. Some ingenuity will be needed to deal with these trains at New Street, e.g. linking with services to Coventry/Northampton (but not beyond).

That'd be fine by me - I think that the important thing is that everywhere on the "X" gets a decent service to Birmingham - it doesn't matter to me whether Sheffield's trains terminate at Bristol/ Reading/ Cardiff/ Penzance/ Weymouth etc because the number using them no further than Birmingham is what matters

Are the ROSCOs going to be happy with scrapping assets that aren’t end of life and getting less money in from leasing fewer vehicles?

Agreed

I suspect that if you got to the ROSCO and say "we'd like to just lease 250 Voyager carriages with only some end carriages rather than the full 280 carriages" you'll find that the ROSCO's price will be suspiciously close to the price of leasing all 280 (since it's not as if they can do anything with the other carriages)

The railways are there to link local towns to the nearest city and to link every town in Britain to London

There are a thousand ways to critique XC

This approach really isn't one of them...

 

[driverd]

As a radical idea, I'd be tempted to give up on it and just abolish the cross country operation entirely.

Transfer the trains and the staff of course and just let the routes be run as part of other operations.

With shorter, more regionalised operations, each could be more resistant to delays
and there would be fewer operators in total.

Borrowing the core routes ideas from upthread:

Plymouth - Exeter - Bristol - Birmingham -> GWR
Bournemouth - Southampton - Reading - Birmingham -> GWR (or southwestern?)
Birmingham - Manchester -> West Coast
Birmingham - Leeds - Newcastle - Edinburgh ->TPE or maybe LNER?
Stansted - Birmingham -> EMR

There are probably other routes, and the exact operator could be wrong, but this is the basic idea.

Ideally redraw the timetable so that you can travel between key city pairs with one cross platform change, to a waiting train.

Although that change might be to a different operator and could be at a different interchange station for each city pair.

I'm sorry, no.

Why are people obsessed with breaking up XC?

Why is there an obsession with it being highly unreliable when this couldn't be further from the truth (compared to, for example, TPE).

XC is doing two things at once; providing a regional express service and a (generally) slower, longer distance service. The main function from the business perspective is the former, but both are important functionally.

A study I was quoted from a chap at Arup was that you lose 80% of your market when you introduce a connecting journey. So if you want to wave goodbye to 80% of Bristol to Sheffield fare revenues, for example, sure, split it up.

The other silly element to this idea is that you'll make the journey for anyone who has to change even more off-putting, because if north of Birmingham train is, say 18 late for a 15 mins connection, you end up with 1 hour delay (and an entitlement to full delay repay), giving further loss of revenue and even more of an incentive to just drive. That's before we delve into where you'll find the stock to provide extra capacity on these new, split journeys, that will invariably lose utility with the turn around time at stations, as well as occupying much needed platform space.

Back in reality, we have a generally very reliable service, achieved by sensible amounts of recovery time at key locations (Newcastle, Leeds, Derby, Birmingham etc). The key issue is not performance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd not say XC was unreliable. It's actually fairly impressively reliable given what it interacts with.

What it is is:-
1. Overcrowded
2. Uncomfortable
3. Expensive
4. Tatty
5. Has very poor customer service

To be fair, all of those, in my experience, apply in varying measures to every single Arriva operation I have ever used.

 

[HSTEd]

What happens if you make Class 755s that are the length of Class 745s, with additional generator segments added to get the required performance?

With tilt disabled, how much slower is a 100mph train than a notionally 125mph train with no tilt on the routes it runs?

Ticks the eco box and is almost certainly cheaper to run per seat - and not like much 125mph running is on XC anyway.

The Voyagers are pretty much a waste of time at this point. Turbostars would be preferable!

 

[XC victim]

I'm sorry, no.

Why are people obsessed with breaking up XC?

Why is there an obsession with it being highly unreliable when this couldn't be further from the truth (compared to, for example, TPE).

XC is doing two things at once; providing a regional express service and a (generally) slower, longer distance service. The main function from the business perspective is the former, but both are important functionally.

A study I was quoted from a chap at Arup was that you lose 80% of your market when you introduce a connecting journey. So if you want to wave goodbye to 80% of Bristol to Sheffield fare revenues, for example, sure, split it up.

The other silly element to this idea is that you'll make the journey for anyone who has to change even more off-putting, because if north of Birmingham train is, say 18 late for a 15 mins connection, you end up with 1 hour delay (and an entitlement to full delay repay), giving further loss of revenue and even more of an incentive to just drive. That's before we delve into where you'll find the stock to provide extra capacity on these new, split journeys, that will invariably lose utility with the turn around time at stations, as well as occupying much needed platform space.

Back in reality, we have a generally very reliable service, achieved by sensible amounts of recovery time at key locations (Newcastle, Leeds, Derby, Birmingham etc). The key issue is not performance.

I really, really couldn’t agree more. I am a regular long distance user of XC and I am fed up with being treated as a second class passenger who is being unreasonable in expecting an intercity service between major cities in this country.

Despite what is said on these forums people do travel long distance around the country, and as someone who doesn’t drive I rely on XC to visit relatives, go on holiday and generally move around.

I really don’t understand the need for XC to fit around other services all the time. I am constantly seeing on these forums how XC should be split up and passengers made to change trains, and yet if I make a similar suggestion about another TOC I get threatened with being banned from these forums. I know that not all XC journeys are Aberdeen to Penzance but many journeys are 2 or 3 hours longs and should surely require a similar level of intercity service

 

[driverd]

I really, really couldn’t agree more. I am a regular long distance user of XC and I am fed up with being treated as a second class passenger who is being unreasonable in expecting an intercity service between major cities in this country.

Despite what is said on these forums people do travel long distance around the country, and as someone who doesn’t drive I rely on XC to visit relatives, go on holiday and generally move around.

I really don’t understand the need for XC to fit around other services all the time. I am constantly seeing on these forums how XC should be split up and passengers made to change trains, and yet if I make a similar suggestion about another TOC I get threatened with being banned from these forums. I know that not all XC journeys are Aberdeen to Penzance but many journeys are 2 or 3 hours longs and should surely require a similar level of intercity service

In fairness, as I mentioned upthread, many journeys are circa 60 miles, but I entirely agree that doesn't undermine the important function served in linking numerous cities. The other issue is where to split the service. Split at Birmingham and you'll be inconveniencing a great many people. I don't think, other than perhaps at a handful of extremity stations, you could split it without doing so.

Ultimately, what we're looking for here is a compromise, and I'd honestly say that's very much the nature of XC lock, stock and barrel. It needs to meet the needs of many and it will always be a jack of all trades (master of none).

Personally, as mentioned by Bletchleyite, I'd agree XC is remarkably reliable given the length of service provided. The critique upthread, in my experience, is bang on the money. The root cause here, is the wrong train chosen by virgin. A significant contributory factor is a lack of ambition by the DfT to put those wrongs right.

 

[davetheguard]

The root cause here, is the wrong train chosen by virgin. A significant contributory factor is a lack of ambition by the DfT to put those wrongs right.

That looks pretty close to my own view.

The other trouble with DfT's lack of ambition is how much demand is suppressed by it; how many more journeys would be made on the XC network if the trains were longer, and if some cheaper long distance advances were available because of some resulting spare capacity? The extra journeys could be helping to fund the longer trains, and reduce demand for internal flights as an added bonus.

Personally, travelling from Devon, I go to Bristol less regularly than I would do if it wasn't almost inevitable I'll be standing half the way back. I almost never go to Birmingham anymore for the same reason - and because it's obviously even further to have to stand. For Manchester & points north I go via London; still a more comfortable journey despite the need to change & use the Tube.

 

[rjames87]

If the XC voyagers had simply been ordered with an extra carriage or two in the first place, I suspect half of the noise would disappear. Yes there are other issues with Voyagers but the over crowing is the big one.

 

[Mogz]

Cross Country, right back to steam days (yes, the term was in use in the timetables even then!) was, for most of its life, about having a few through trains a day between far flung destinations, stopping at major population centres en route.

Speed and frequency were secondary considerations.

VT tried to incorporate it into their brand as a sister to their Intercity West Coast operation (which was always about speed and frequency).

The two didn’t fit well together, so the network was slashed in order to operate over a core.

I wonder whether a totally new operation is required.

- Trim the existing XC services so that they operate frequent services over the very core of the network (eg just Manchester/Birmingham/Reading, Manchester/Birmingham/Bristol

AND

- Have a totally different operation utilising rolling stock better suited to ultra long distance needs (eg Chiltern style refurbished Mk3’s, refurbed HST’s or IET’s if you want to buy new) with infrequent through trains between far flung destinations eg

Aberdeen-Penzance
Edinburgh-Plymouth
Liverpool-Norwich
Cardiff-Newcastle

 

[rjames87]

My understanding is that despite cuts following Operation Princess, the new service still has a much better frequency that was deliverable and indeed survived until the recent Covid cuts, so it does seem the core of the plan was a success (demonstrated by passenger growth). I’m also not sure longer 170s would be fit for the routes operated by Voyagers.

I do however think the current 170 operated routes would be better sitting with another operator, as they operate more local services, e.g. Wilnecote, Coleshill Parkway.

 

[class26]

playing devils advocate the statement that most journeys are not more than 60 miles could be looked at in a different way.

Given the extortionate fares on XC, the high likely hood that the trains will be severely overcrowded many potential long journeys are discouraged

 

[jackot]

Cross Country, right back to steam days (yes, the term was in use in the timetables even then!) was, for most of its life, about having a few through trains a day between far flung destinations, stopping at major population centres en route.

Speed and frequency were secondary considerations.

VT tried to incorporate it into their brand as a sister to their Intercity West Coast operation (which was always about speed and frequency).

The two didn’t fit well together, so the network was slashed in order to operate over a core.

I wonder whether a totally new operation is required.

- Trim the existing XC services so that they operate frequent services over the very core of the network (eg just Manchester/Birmingham/Reading, Manchester/Birmingham/Bristol

AND

- Have a totally different operation utilising rolling stock better suited to ultra long distance needs (eg Chiltern style refurbished Mk3’s, refurbed HST’s or IET’s if you want to buy new) with infrequent through trains between far flung destinations eg

Aberdeen-Penzance
Edinburgh-Plymouth
Liverpool-Norwich
Cardiff-Newcastle

Great idea, I think splitting the franchise into 3 operations (ultra long distance, core and the current turbo star work) would work well. Maybe the regional routes could be spun off into another franchise rather than XC like @rjames87 said.

What stock would you suggest to operate the core services like Manchester to Reading? You could keep the Voyagers on these routes and cope with the long dwell times and inefficient interior, whilst getting new stock on much longer distance routes.

Otherwise, maybe a new fleet for the core could be procured from another operator. Something like a 185 (I have no clue if any of these would be available from TPE) or 170 would probably do - doors at middle, DMU and ideally either lengthened ( if being existing units) to somewhere between 5-9 cars. On the other hand, you could order Stadler Bi-Modes.

 

[py_megapixel]

I am no toff - but if I pay more for something I don't expect anyone else to get the same for less.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but if you sit in a first class carriage and there's a few other people there, it is highly likely that someone else in the carriage has paid less than you for it. In fact, on some TOCs it's disabled passengers get put in first regardless of what their ticket says so they are closer to the service staff should they require assistance - does that offend you?

Your contract with the railway is to be carried in the first class accommodation. Not to be able to pick and choose who else is.

 

[HSTEd]

Is it possible to find an original 'Operation Princess' timetable?

It would be interesting to see what services were envisaged and how it would have worked if rolling stock had been available.

 

[JonathanH]

Is it possible to find an original 'Operation Princess' timetable?

It would be interesting to see what services were envisaged and how it would have worked if rolling stock had been available.

Here. The point of my thread was to see if we could work out what was actually planned (although what should have been further improvements in the summer of 2003 became retrenchment later in 2002).

'Operation Princess' - what was the intended timetable?

There are plenty of threads which explore what went wrong and I don't want that to be regurgitated here. Neither am I wanting people to hanker about their favourite destinations. However, I am interested in understanding the Winter 2002 timetable and whether it could ever have been sustainable...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[AngusH]

XC is doing two things at once; providing a regional express service and a (generally) slower, longer distance service. The main function from the business perspective is the former, but both are important functionally.

A study I was quoted from a chap at Arup was that you lose 80% of your market when you introduce a connecting journey. So if you want to wave goodbye to 80% of Bristol to Sheffield fare revenues, for example, sure, split it up.

Fair enough.

It should really be analysed by city pairs as I said. If there is a strong flow Bristol to Sheffield, then run a train that covers the whole route between them.

If I'm wrong and the passengers are mostly end-to-end, Aberdeen to Plymouth, then maybe the complete route does make sense, but I'm unconvinced.

 

[driverd]

Fair enough.

It should really be analysed by city pairs as I said. If there is a strong flow Bristol to Sheffield, then run a train that covers the whole route between them.

If I'm wrong and the passengers are mostly end-to-end, Aberdeen to Plymouth, then maybe the complete route does make sense, but I'm unconvinced.

The problem is, where do you cut it? Bristol-Leeds may be a substantial flow, but perhaps also Plymouth-Parkway/Cheltenham, and Cheltenham-York, and Sheffield-Newcastle. What about if Leeds-Edinburgh is strong too?

There's so much overlap that there's no realistic place to cut the journey and I think anyone who uses xc will see and know this. Its why its pretty great as an idea, just not too well executed, for reasons repeatedly identified upthread; primarily rolling stock.

 

[The Ham]

I suspect that if you got to the ROSCO and say "we'd like to just lease 250 Voyager carriages with only some end carriages rather than the full 280 carriages" you'll find that the ROSCO's price will be suspiciously close to the price of leasing all 280 (since it's not as if they can do anything with the other carriages)

Whilst the lease costs may not be smaller you still haven't got to pay maintenance and track access charges for those vehicles. Nor do you have to store those extra 30 vehicles (which comes at a cost in the form of extra sidings).

Whilst those costs may not be very high it should also be noted that the number of passengers in those end coaches would be fairly limited. Overall the benefit of keeping those end coaches is going to be tiny compared to lengthening some trains (most likely 14 long 222's and a universal 5 coach fleet for the 220/221's).

That's enough for nearly every service to be 5+5 or 9 coaches (even allowing for the removal of the Host's), with most of the shortfall being made up by single unit running beyond the core.