Talk:Cross Country Route

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / in UK (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article lacks references.
WikiProject Yorkshire (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Cross Country Route is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


/Archive 1

Old talk[edit]

DO they use turbostars on the Lickey? And are they any good for torque? I'd have thought (on the basis mind you of prejudice) you needed the flexibility of a diesel-electric to make a decent fist of the gradient?? Linuxlad 09:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes Central Trains use them on Nottingham-Cardiff services. (Our Phellap 13:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Ah yes. What speed do they do the Lickey? (the Voyagers seem to do about 60; the old 2,500 hp diesel-electrics were often struggling at 30 to 40 IIRC. (I like to set it as a work/energy problem to Year 11 students :-)) Linuxlad 13:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know sorry. They go quicker than the old diesel locomotives from what I recall. This may be because all carriages are motorised? (Our Phellap 13:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC))

NB NB - don't forget the stub Cross Country services created to lead in to all the routes through Brum with a cross-country flavour, 'drilling down' (chris j wood's nice phrase) to particular examples such as this (MR) one. In so far as the SW/NW route through Brum counts as Cross Country, it should perhaps be referenced there. Linuxlad 20:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

and this article talks about the second of Virgin's routes - that to Southampton. which certainly wasn't Midland: how to designate that? - Plus the Midland only went as far as Leeds on this current route: what about the NER/Cal/NBR - and the GWR? Peter Shearan 08:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

bhp of 'older diesels'[edit]

"many older diesels were underpowered' - this is a bit questionable as a statement - they provided 2500 bhp, just like it said they would on the can (a fun sum, within the capabilities of a competent GCSE student at Y11 :-)). And this was significantly better than the steam locos of earlier year which only did (from memory) 600 bhp. What is possibly true (IIRC [citation needed]) is that a nominal 3300bhp electric loco was capable of being _over-run_ for a period, making it very useful on eg West Coast Main line... Bob aka Linuxlad 14:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"cinderella" status[edit]

what is "cinderella" status? I'm guessing from the context maybe something to do with the fact that if it ran late it became severley delayed (turned into a pumpkin)? Is this correct? Could someone who knows expand the article please...? Tjwood 6 July 2005 10:41 (UTC)

Cinderella, though best of the bunch, usually had to play second string to her sisters. In a similar way, the cross-country route, though offering some of the longest Inter-City journeys on the network, was never actively promoted and timetabled, because of BR's structure. I recollect the phrase being Ivor Warburton's, but I may be wrong (it's many year's since the conversation, on the aforesaid route)Linuxlad

The actual route mentioned here[edit]

This would appear to include the route as follows

We need to identify which segments of rail are covered by which wikipedia articles already, and which aren't. The Derby-Sheffield part is part of the Midland Main Line - there is only one railway line going north from Derby, which merges with the Nottingham loop of the MML south of Chesterfield and then goes through Sheffield. The main route here then appears to go via Rotherham, Swinton/Mexborough, Pontefract, York, Northallerton, Darlington, east of Aycliffe, Durham, Chester le Street, Gateshaed, Newcastle, etc. The latter part of this is of course the East Coast Main Line. So what bits of this route correspond to what? Morwen - Talk 23:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Bits of the main XC route. Our Phellap 00:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The history of the Bristol-Gloucester-Birmingham bits are already covered IIRC. Try going via the Lickey Incline article. And people like Chevin have written extensively on the Midland Railway bits around Derby Linuxlad
Any reasons why the section of XC route North of Derby comprises Derby, Dronfield, Chesterfield and York but Sheffield and say Meadowhall, which are all equally on the MML as well as the XC? Is Dronfield predominantly on the MML or the XC, for it is on both route digram templates. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that the locations on the concurrency are shown on both diagrams, for clarity. Chris cheese whine 22:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The Virgin XC service does not stop at Meadowhall, but it does make occassional stops at Dronfield, and is indicated on the Virgin network map.   johnwalton   (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it on that map. Chris cheese whine 22:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sheffield is on the map, but not on the route diagram on the article, however the network map only shows te main stops as station XC does serve such as Wakefield Westgate and Burton-on-Trent are not found on the map. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 23:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
New suggestion: Break off any specific parts of the route that do not already have their own historical articles, and on the diagram here list only the main stations from wherever-in-the-southwest to wherever-in-Scotland, including no junctions or connections. Pull information on key junctions and connections into the article itself as prose or a short list. Thoughts? Chris cheese whine 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: This should not merely end at wherever Virgin runs today, if there were historically trains from Penzance to Wick, then the strip should show the main stations on these (not even all main stations, we can link out in the article itself). Chris cheese whine 23:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd pretty much agree with the above. There should certainly be a mention of historical stops/routes in the article, but I think the schematic map should only show stations currently served. Virgin stop at Dronfield once a day, the stop is shown on the above link if you select "network view" or on the relevant timetable, but they don't make a stop at Meadowhall.   johnwalton   (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There still is no mention of Burton on Trent or Sheffield in the line diagram... The Virgin XC network map is off topic considering the header in the article which states that this is not the article concerning XC services but the historical line, on which many stops are missing and others arbitrarily chosen. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


There is nothing on this page which could be disputed or cited. I don't understand the tag at the top of this page. Everything here is backed up by other Wikipedia articles. Mojo29 23:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Doesn't the cross country route go to Penzance, Aberdeen and Glasgow? Dewarw 09:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I had always thought of it in those terms - certainly when I first used to travel it regularly in the early 70s most of the big trains were going North beyond Sheffield and South beyond Exeter (and that's still true for VT3 I think). The Cardiff route was always a bit of a branch-line Bob aka Linuxlad 15:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


In the new Cross Country franchise this route does not even exist anymore, Mark999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark999 (talkcontribs) 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Cardiff - Nottingham[edit]

Would this route be part of the cross-country route? as most of its route is on the current ccr and will be operated by crosscountry very soon Mark999 13:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The section from Cardiff to Gloucester is GW rather than Midland, so probably shouldn't be on the map in the first place. 18:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


This article confuses the "Cross Country Route", as in the Midland line from Bristol to Derby and beyond, with the "Cross Country Franchise", as in the long-distance services running across it, and "CrossCountry", the current franchisee. The three need to be separated out somewhat. (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Most lines have separate articles for their modern line and their historical constituents. For instance Midland Main Line is different from North Midland Railway etc. Here, for instance, Bristol to Gloucester Railway has acquired a template of lines which were never part of the original line. The actual modern line could be considered Derby (milepost zero) to Westerleigh Junction outside Bristol. I would suggest a separate article (though I cant think of a name) as it is today, and referring historically to its constituents: Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway, Birmingham and Gloucester Railway and Bristol and Gloucester Railway. (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I've drafted out something very roughly in User:Chevin/Sandbox. Any comments would be welcome. Chevin (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


Do we have a source to say Worcester is actually on the CCR? It seems like an odd diversion to me, especially given that the rest of it has no diversions whatsoever, and Worcester's hardly a big place. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Template transclusion problem[edit]

There are currently problems with template transclusion in this article, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Cross Country Route. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As at least a temporary fix I've moved the route diagram out to a separate page (Cross Country Route diagram) so that the rest of the templates in the article (including reference citations) can be displayed. If someone wishes to improve the links and formatting they are, of course, welcome to do so. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As even that separate diagram hit the template transclusion size limit after a number of changes by other editors, I have now split the diagram into two parts, Cross Country Route (North) and Cross Country Route (South). --David Biddulph (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to an as-of-yet undetermined destination. The consensus is clearly to move the page (removing the Title Case), but there is no firm consensus about where to move it. I suggest a new discussion (possibly an RFC) to determine the new location. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Cross Country RouteCross-country route – Or possibly some better name. I can't find any evidence of the current title, capped and punctuated thus, in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Something has to be done to clear up this muddle. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Gotta love those spaced em dashes, too; fixed that. Dicklyon (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

And I will happily withdraw this RM proposal in favor of a better name if someone proposes one that's likely to achieve consensus. Or we can just work it out in this discussion, perhaps. Dicklyon (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  • It's certainly not the CrossCountry Route, as franchises are temporary. I don't see any better name for this. Unless someone can come up with a specific name then I see no reason to move from one imperfect name to another. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have a feeling that the problem here is the existence of this article at all, rather than the title. Despite having travelled on the route many times, I am having trouble finding evidence of its notability as a coherent whole, apart from the franchise as covered at CrossCountry. RGloucester 19:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm more concerned about hashing out the scope of the article than the title, at the moment. A couple of Americans here, not particularly knowledgeable about the details of British rail operations. So, for an overview I start at Inter-city rail in the United Kingdom: "After the sectorisation of British Rail, inter-city trains were operated by InterCity (British Rail). InterCity ran numerous Cross Country services, which were inter-city services that traversed several regions. The InterCity Cross-Country division operated services between city pairs that used a combination of the various main lines, but usually avoided Greater London; many of these served the Cross Country Route (MR)." (MR) means Midland Railway. Per InterCity (British Rail) § Main destinations, the Cross Country Route extended from Penzance to Aberdeen. Per InterCity (British Rail) § Privatisation, the InterCity Cross Country franchise was originally awarded to Virgin CrossCountry, which initially operated a route VT4: Aberdeen and Edinburgh Waverley through Birmingham New Street to Cardiff, Swansea, Paignton and Penzance, but that route was dropped by the time CrossCountry took over the franchise from Virgin. Now CrossCountry route 1 goes from Plymouth to Edinburgh Waverley, with extensions on both ends to get to Penzance and Aberdeen. An early version of the article acknowledged the ambiguity of the term: The term cross country route can clearly be a generic one; it is usually used on the English network to refer to the main routes through Birmingham, currently franchised to Virgin Trains. Principal amongst these is the North-East/South-West route through Birmingham, Derby and Sheffield, built by the Midland Railway (MR). Other routes will be added as links. So where and why did the idea come about that the Cross Country Route was just from Bristol to York, rather than Penzance to Aberdeen? wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Route simplified to show Cross Country Route only." (Bristol–York) 19 November 2007. wbm1058 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe even Bristol to York is too long. This issue goes way back. Although the 8 February 2007 version said it "includes" some of the longest inter-city rail journeys in the UK, eg Penzance to Aberdeen, the infobox of that version focuses on "the core Bristol-Birmingham-Derby route" (Bristol-Birmingham-Derby Line redirects to here). This article may exist because of the line's 'Cinderella' status. Cardiff Central to Newcastle Line also redirects to here, and although historical versions of the article included Cardiff, there is no mention of that city in the current version. wbm1058 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    The Bristol-York bit has its origins in the predecessors of the Midland Railway (MR), created in 1844 by amalgamation; successive amalgamations brought other railways into the MR. A whole chain of railways linked Bristol with Leeds (from south to north, these were: the Bristol & Gloucester; the Birmingham & Gloucester; the Birmingham & Derby Junction; and the North Midland) and all were part of the MR by the end of 1846. At Normanton, the York & North Midland was a close ally, but did not become part of the MR - it amalgamated with others in 1854 to create the North Eastern Railway, but the close relationship remained, and so MR trains (and those of its successor, the London, Midland and Scottish Railway) were never denied access to York. The route north from York, and that south from Bristol, were in the hands of other companies right down to 1948, although through trains ran much earlier - particularly in the summer.
    It's not even accurate to describe it as Aberdeen-Penzance (or even Penzance-Aberdeen); when originally introduced, and for at least thirty years, the Aberdeen-Penzance service didn't use the MR route, and didn't even run via Birmingham - its route between York and Exeter was via Sheffield Victoria, Leicester Central, Banbury, Oxford and Swindon. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, let's work out the scope and come up with a better name; but in any case, we don't make up proper names, so unless we find a better name, let's downcase this one (and put the hyphen as most sources do). Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Looks as if the consensus is to move for now. Other article issues exist, but that doesn't justify the current bad name. Homunq () 14:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Move - Cross country route is a generic definition, as per example. Suggesting Bristol to Leeds "something" (route/railway/rail link/...). --Robertiki (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait a minute. When I worked on the railways many years ago, the route was generally called the "North East-South West", abbreviated to "NE-SW" or "NE/SW". There are plenty of references to that - [1], a lot of which are railfan pages, but many aren't as well [2] [3] Page 10 of this. Rather than move it from one wrong name to another, why not at least move it to one with some references? (btw, NE/SW generally referred to Newcastle-Penzance, and didn't involve Scotland, although that may have been because cross-country services from Scotland in those days generally ran via Edinburgh, Carstairs and the WCML). Black Kite (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Edit: just found this from CrossCountry themselves, referring to it as such - [4]. Black Kite (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
But North East - South West route is also pretty generic. That doc calls it "CrossCountry's North East - South West route". The same description is applied in sources to various other lines. Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Relisting in the hope that we can still get a consensus to move somewhere because there seems to be agreement the current title is not ideal. Jenks24 (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Suggest "CrossCountry North East – South West route", on the theory that a) CrossCountry is a proper name (the business name), "North East – South West" is allegedly a proper name (trademark designation of the rail service in question), and "route" is just a descriptor. I would also be okay with lowercasing the middle part if it isn't really a service trademark and is also just descriptive. Putting CrossCountry first is natural disambiguation and resolves any concern about the generic nature of the rest of it. All that said, I tend to agree with RGloucester that the problem really may be that this is a bogus article that isn't about any one thing, but is a conglomeration of stuff that needs to be in separate articles. It looks to me rather like trying to write an article on "the Oakland – San José route", which is really just one of numerous paths one can use to get around the San Francisco Bay Area, traversing at least three different transit systems.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Why is the suffix of UK now added to the title? To me, that seems less like a railway line and more like a description of a bunch of lines. Could I have some context as to why it had UK added, as I can't find it in the section above. Nathan A RF (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, the rail line(s) is/are in the UK. I don't think that country has a monopoly on the term "cross-country route" (whether that's a proper name or not), so "UK" is needed for disambiguation. Of course, one could argue that the UK has many cross-country routes, not just the one described in this article. The comments in the closed discussion above about the difficulty in clearly identifying the scope of the article are directly relevant to our difficulty in determining an adequate title of the article. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
So after a move discussion doesn't get anywhere, Dicklyon decides to go to some random title which has never been used by anyone with a disambiguation which is unnecessary. I'm going to revert. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that was a truly terrible choice for a name. G-13114 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
At the moment, I don't see any good choices for the title, so we have to settle for the best of the lot of poor choices. Really, the only way to solve this long-term is to focus on the content, and the title should then follow from that. Note that although I have this on my watchlist, I haven't checked in since the last discussion. wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
In that case, probably best just to leave it where it has been for years. It's as good as anything. G-13114 (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
As the close noted, there was a clear consensus to move. So moving back to the title with inappropriate caps among other problems can hardly be considered progress. Do you not have any better ideas? Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: It says "to an as-of-yet undetermined destination". No destination was subsequently discussed; and yet you moved it to a name which you decided upon yourself, without first consulting anybody else, which was clearly in breach of your previous warnings about moving pages without discussion. Indeed, less than four days before you moved the page, you were given this note by Useddenim (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)