There are 2 ways to look at this :
This was under the assumption that the available number of carriages would be the same as present, and therefore trains would still be splitting at Newcastle, Bristol etc.
I don't really see why you'd go for fixed formation loco hauled over multiple units.
Depends on the government's priorities. Currently it's smaller schemes like Midland Rail Hub.
My thinking is that you're not duplicating cabs wasting space that could be used for passengers, an 8 coach Voyager has 4 cabs, probably more than an entire coach, in reality, lots of duplicated equipment e.g. compressors etc, all adding to weight. You also only need one set of staff either loco hauled stock not 2 sets if two units coupled. I would expect reasonable energy savings with a loco and 8 coaches over an 8 coach unit, especially in diesel mode.
Through-gangwayed muliple units, anyone?
If you want push pull you have to duplicate cabs unless you want station pilot locomotives trying to split sets and splice vehicles into the middle of the formation. That is going to be a nightmare in any significant railway station, the British railway is just far too intensively operated for that.
The voyagers have large cabs because they are 125mph stock while the only meaningful 125mph running is the ECML and Birmingham - Derby. Manchester - Bournemouth and Bristol have no 125mph running aside from a tiny stretch just outside Bristol. A class 196, 350, or 444 wastes much less.
You want duplicated compressors, if the main one fails the train will need to be taken out of service fairly urgently.
Not on XC, a single catering cart wouldn't get through an entire 8-9 car train anyway. The Pendolinos typically have a driver, guard, 2 first-class catering staff, someone on the shop, and sometimes an onboard chef.
I wouldn't, with less driven axles you get less effective regen. You also have the weight less distributed so worse track wear which NR punishes with higher access charges.
But they need to get near voyager timings in the busy electrified sections to fit in existing paths. A class 68 with a few mk3s or mk5s is nowhere near a voyager performance (closer to class 168). For a long set of mk5s they'd be needing 2 68s.
The mk5s aren't that space-efficient and no manufacturer is going to be rushing for a small order of purpose-built coaches for XC.
Yes, the multiple-unit operation at XC is only because of the poor capacity of voyagers. On a completely new fleet, you wouldn't bother and would go with a standard fleet of 5 or 7-car 802-style trains.
7 car and 5 car would be amazing
Isn't Stansted the bit of XC that uses Class 170s rather than Voyagers? So not somewhere that would be affected by replacing the Voyagers.
Yes.
Looking back on it, it really was a massive mistake giving Arriva the franchise in 2007, or at the very least not mandating a fresh order as I believe virgin were proposing, of both more voyager trains and carriages, the fleet was but about 6 years old then, indeed perhaps 'Project Thor' might have succeeded in that enviroment...
) Don't they run at 125 Oxford-Reading also?
Some of the routes using 170s have sprinter differentials, notably Cambridge/Stansted. Norwich-Derby isn't an XC route at all, but it also requires sprinter differentials
I'm not sure hitachi would be the best option given the stories of Hitachi upping their prices a lot
Yep. That is what I was thinking with some flexibility to notch up to 8 or even 9 cars if needed.
It would be such an expensive overkill using inappropriate trains for the duty.
Most of the issues are with the components, they are not appalling trains per se. They have just received the cheapest components possible (ie seating), much of which is the fault of the Dft.
You wouldn't be stopping them at Chepstow, Lydney, Ashchurch, Coleshill would need an exact stop, Hinckley, Narborough, South Wigston, Wilnecote, Wilington and so on and so forth without spending a load on platform extensions or slowing the timetable down for SDO dwells.
They are appalling trains if you have to sit in them for 4+ hours which I had to do recently. CAF probably won’t be any better given my experience of the very clunky Northern units. Definitely a race to the bottom
I have also noticed the CAF stuff to be abysmal in terms of the ride. There seems to be no low brake step , similarly initial power seems to be very hefty, giving me whiplash effect. At first I thought it was just a bad driver but I've experienced it numerous times on 19x trains now.
Even ignoring the seats the 80x is appalling. The ride quality is utterly abysmal, fleet availability is seemingly permanently lower than what it should be and that's before we get to the cracking fiasco.
Personally I find the ride fine, and I drive/ travel them on the B and H! Much of the fleet availability problems is down to cheap components being specified for them. Hitachis inability to remedy seemingly easily fixable faults (driver guard buzzer set too loud for instance) isn't helping availability admittedly.
The ride is hideous, at 125mph feels like it may leave the rails. Perhaps different coaches ride differently depending on their position in the train? Also driver's seat has its own suspension?
