Talk:Cross Country Route

src: i.ytimg.com

Video Talk:Cross Country Route

Archive

/Archive 1

Maps Talk:Cross Country Route

Old talk

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)

src: bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com

bhp of 'older diesels'

"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 ) 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)

src: i.pinimg.com

"cinderella" status

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

src: bikepacker.com

The actual route mentioned here

This would appear to include the route as follows

• various, from Cornwall, Devon, etc
• Taunton railway station
• Bristol Temple Meads railway station
• Gloucester railway station
• Cheltenham Spa railway station
• Birmingham New Street railway station
• Tamworth railway station
• Burton-on-Trent railway station
• Derby railway station
• Chesterfield railway station
• Sheffield railway station (Leeds railway station?)
• York railway station
• Darlington railway station
• Durham railway station
• Newcastle upon Tyne railway station
• Berwick upon Tweed railway station
• Edinburgh railway station
• etc

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)

• Plymouth-Bristol is Great Western Main Line
• Bristol-Birmingham not currently covered
• Birmingham-Derby not currently covered
• Derby-Sheffield is Midland Main Line
• Sheffield-Doncaster is covered by Sheffield to Hull Line
• Doncaster-Edinburgh is East Coast Main Line

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)

src: i.pinimg.com

Sources

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)

src: image.isu.pub

Route?

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)

src: i.pinimg.com

CrossCountry

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

src: www.operationwardiary.org

Cardiff - Nottingham

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. 90.203.45.244 18:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Separation

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. 90.203.45.244 (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. 86.145.166.29 (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)

Worcester?

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

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

UK?

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)

Source of the article : Wikipedia