• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

CrossCountry voyagers due for a referb?

Status
Not open for further replies.

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,254
Ditto retrofitting laminated safety glass (all done very quietly).

Although that has its own risks. It really is a toss up as to which is preferable. Toughened will break allowing egress although the risk of falling through exists if the the coach goes on its side. Laminated will not break easily meaning if the doors won't open for whatever reason you could end up trapped.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Whistler40145

Established Member
Joined
30 Apr 2010
Messages
5,911
Location
Lancashire
IMHO it should’ve been a requirement when Arriva took on the CrossCountry franchise for a full refurbishment of the Voyager fleet to take place part way through the franchise.

If I was travelling on a long distance service on a XC Voyager then I wouldn’t expect it to look shabby and dated
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Reading would be an issue, platform 3 definitely can't take a double Voyager, and slotting one in between stoppers could be a challenge (platforms 13-15B)
So they would have to use platforms 7-9, right in the way of GWR IC traffic
The Manchester - Bournemouth double set uses platform 8 in both directions on its usual diagram, the same as many of the Bournemouth - Manchester services. Granted there's less flexibility to use other platforms, though it's also worth noting that there were quite a lot of double sets operating between Birmingham and Reading during the recent Euston bank holiday blockades.
 
Last edited:

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
The Manchester - Bournemouth double set uses platform 8 in both directions on its usual diagram, the same as many of the Bournemouth - Manchester services. Granted there's less flexibility to use other platforms, though it's also worth noting that there were quite a lot of double sets operating between Birmingham and Reading during the recent Euston bank holiday blockades.

It's more the Newcastle services that are the issue, as they are booked to use 3 (for Southampton) or 14B
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
The plastic used in the plastic and GFRP backed BR seats from the 1970s to early 1990s degrades over time losing strength and fracture toughness so they shatter far more easily than they did when new.

It doesn't just effect high speed rolling stock, SWT and Southern replaced all the seats in their 455s too.
New seat design was praised at Grayrigg (390) and Oxshott (SWT 455 vs flying cement mixer) for performing better than old seating designs and reducing casualties.
GNER and FGW replacing all their HST seating wasn't done just to spruce up the interior.

Ditto retrofitting laminated safety glass (all done very quietly).

Were these seats directly related to any casualties or is this simply an observation?

IC70 is still in use on EMT HSTs so it can't be that bad.

There's still no reason a modern seat should be uncomfortable. What has softer upholstery got to do with the actual construction of the seat.
 

Mogz

Member
Joined
20 May 2019
Messages
445
Daily Crosscountry traveller here. Usually a commute, sometimes longer journeys with the family.

The Voyagers are simply too short and the seating too cramped to be fit for purpose.

Now assuming that we have to stick with this rolling stock rather than replacing it, I hope the following would not be too “Pie in the Sky”:

- Lengthen to 7 or 9 coaches as per the original Class 222s.

- A 50/50 split of table and airline seating.

- A few inches more leg-room in the latter.

- A small buffet counter (or, perish the thought, a cafe car as found on the continent on similar journey lengths!)

- A couple of pre-bookable compartments in First (for business meetings?) and Standard (for families- bench style seating would suffice there).

Long distance continental train travel reminds me that we could do so much better with our longest distance services if we took a leaf out of their book.

Ironically, all of the above are available on DB services. Same parent company as XC.
 

pt_mad

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2011
Messages
2,960
Were these seats directly related to any casualties or is this simply an observation?

IC70 is still in use on EMT HSTs so it can't be that bad.

There's still no reason a modern seat should be uncomfortable. What has softer upholstery got to do with the actual construction of the seat.

Is it not to do with level of fire resistance? With denser firmer thinner upholstery being more fire resistant?
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
The Voyagers are simply too short and the seating too cramped to be fit for purpose.
Agreed. But they would be even more expensive to lease and operate if they were longer, meaning the DfT might have exempted CrossCountry from fares regulation entirely to make the figures add up to stop it being a total basketcase franchise.

Now assuming that we have to stick with this rolling stock rather than replacing it, I hope the following would not be too “Pie in the Sky”:

- Lengthen to 7 or 9 coaches as per the original Class 222s.
Not happening, unless you propose reducing the fleet size and redistributing the carriages, with numerous driving carriages then thrown away or stripped for parts - which would itself be very wasteful. The design is well past the end of production and can no longer be built again for a number of reasons.

- A 50/50 split of table and airline seating.
Not happening, as table seating is less efficient (seeing as you are doing nothing at all with the space between each table rows' angled seatbacks or beneath the seats, whereas airline seating makes extremely good use of both areas). Introducing more tables would mean increasing the number of carriages required to seat and carry (standing) the same number of passengers.

- A few inches more leg-room in the latter.
I think it's the tables more than the airline rows that need extra legroom! The airline rows are more or less OK for me, and I'm on the taller side.

- A small buffet counter (or, perish the thought, a cafe car as found on the continent on similar journey lengths!)
Probably the most likely out of all of the proposals to actually happen, but I doubt it will happen since buffets are generally located towards the middle of a train, taking up valuable real estate where seating could go. By contrast, seating cannot be put in the leading/trailing third of the leading/trailing carriage of the train (on a 125mph unit such as a Voyager), so having the trolley based there isn't a waste of any space. You could, I suppose, convert these areas into buffets but I don't see that happening (probably still prohibited for safety reasons).

- A couple of pre-bookable compartments in First (for business meetings?) and Standard (for families- bench style seating would suffice there).
I don't think we're seeing any trains having compartments reintroduced in this country! It's seen as too outmoded, not to mention space inefficient as it's too cramped to have 4-abreast with our loading gauge, and if you have 3-abreast compartments then that's already two fewer seats per compartment length (of say 1.5m), not to mention the wastefulness, again, of not using the space behind or beneath the seats.

Long distance continental train travel reminds me that we could do so much better with our longest distance services if we took a leaf out of their book.
There are some things that continental Europe definitely does better than the UK in terms of the travelling experience, from my first-hand experiences. But I'm afraid the only proposal of yours that I can agree with is the lengthening of services - the others I don't agree with. But I don't think any of them are happening, either way!

Ironically, all of the above are available on DB services. Same parent company as XC.
That's like saying that you're disappointed The Sun doesn't have a letters page like The Times does, just because they both have Murdoch's News International as their parent company! The only thing common to DB and XC is the ownership at a technical level. There is no other link.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
Is it not to do with level of fire resistance? With denser firmer thinner upholstery being more fire resistant?

Quite possibly however wouldn't that apply to all rail vehicles? Your just as likely to encounter fire on a 100mph crash vs 125mph.
 

NoOnesFool

Member
Joined
26 Aug 2018
Messages
602
The Voyagers would be great candidates for Grammar IC seating, it would allow for more leg room, and more seats per carriage, a fine example of this is the EMT 158s.

The colour scheme is becoming quite dated but they are still functional and very reliable trains, as well as being PRM friendly, which is XCs main concern with the older HSTs at the minute.
They could benefit from more seating, perhaps removing the disabled toilets from non wheelchair carriages and replacing them with space saving toilets to allow for more seats. The interior colour scheme could do with updating and some of the table seats could be converted to "airline" seats. I cannot see this happening under the current franchise though.

They are quite nice trains and certainly a dream for the depot engineers and fitters as they never fail (well, hardly ever). Compare them to a 180, or an HST (which I know they have a youthful advantage over) and the Voyagers are jolly well built trains.
 

Mogz

Member
Joined
20 May 2019
Messages
445
... some of the table seats could be converted to "airline" seats. I cannot see this happening under the current franchise though.

Having just stepped off a packed-to-standing Voyager, I would observe that are precious few tables as it is, and the airline seats give the carriage a very cramped feel.

That said, I agree they are well built.

One other observation that I would make is that long distance travellers often squeeze suitcases into the aisles as the luggage racks are inadequate. A few more tables would enable the space between the seat backs to be utilised for luggage.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,538
The interior colour scheme could do with updating and some of the table seats could be converted to "airline" seats.

They already have very few table seats following the initial Arriva XC seating changes. You have to have one bay in the carriage so that not all seats face the same way.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,542
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If there can't be any additional stock, they'd do well to put ironing boards in, to be honest. I'd rather sit on one of those than stand, and they're very thin so will maximise capacity.
 

jw

Member
Joined
25 Jul 2010
Messages
165
Agreed. But they would be even more expensive to lease and operate if they were longer, meaning the DfT might have exempted CrossCountry from fares regulation entirely to make the figures add up to stop it being a total basketcase franchise.

CrossCountry generates a premium. This was confirmed in the 2018 DfT franchise prospectus. The argument that more capacity can't be afforded no longer applies.

Farebox revenue has been growing year on year and Cross Country has developed into a stable and resilient business that generates a premium for the taxpayer and a healthy return for investors.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
CrossCountry generates a premium. This was confirmed in the 2018 DfT franchise prospectus. The argument that more capacity can't be afforded no longer applies.
A premium in the coddled world of franchises, where Network Rail subsidies aren't considered for the purposes of determining which services are profitable. Very few, if any, services are truly profitable when all costs and subsidies are considered.

And who's to say that the expenditure in expanding rolling stock would be met by a more than equal increase in revenue? People are still flocking in their millions to CrossCountry despite the overcrowding.

I'm not saying it's a good situation but some people don't seem to look at it from the DfT's point of view. For them, they see little reason why a lot of extra money should be spent that they might never see back.
 
Last edited:

Mogz

Member
Joined
20 May 2019
Messages
445
CrossCountry generates a premium. This was confirmed in the 2018 DfT franchise prospectus. The argument that more capacity can't be afforded no longer applies.

Since that is the case, could someone please explain to me why it would be unreasonable to expect the following on services that form some of the longest journeys in the country:

- Train lengths of 7-12 coaches.

- A proper guard’s van (eg half a carriage) with plenty of room for bikes, luggage, prams etc in the centre of the train.

- A mixture of airline, table and compartment seating (in both classes) to suit all seating preferences.

- A restaurant car. Not a luxury GWR Pullman Dining type premium service, but a cafe/ bistro serving reasonably priced hot food in a sit-down setting.

- A buffet counter.

- Free WiFi.

The above interior layout could be incorporated into an existing rolling stock design (eg IET or Mark 5 coach, depending on whether push-pull loco hauled or unit operation is ultimately preferred.)

Having been around Europe by train and seen all the above in modern high speed rolling stock, I really do wonder why it is not possible to do the same here.

This is compounded by the fact that some or all of these features were once to be found in the UK (compartments, restaurant cars) or are extant with other TOCs (longer trains, better seating mix, buffet counters).

Instead XC seem to be the budget airline equivalent of a TOC these days.

XC offer direct trains between destinations that could be reached quicker with a change of train or cross-London transfer (eg South West to Scotland, South Coast to North West).

If not competing on speed, surely they should be competing on comfort?
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
Since that is the case, could someone please explain to me why it would be unreasonable to expect the following on services that form some of the longest journeys in the country:
It might not be unreasonable to expect them if you want XC to be a high-quality service that passengers go to just for the comfort and amenities. But the Government is not in the business of subsidising such activities, for better or for worse. They care about economic benefits, and that is delivered by service frequency and speed most of all.

- Train lengths of 7-12 coaches.
Quite apart from the fact that these would not fit on all platforms used by XC (one good example being the Reading western platforms, or the half-platforms in Birmingham New Street), there is not the demand for this many coaches throughout the day. A better way to meet peak demand would be like with the IETs, where sets can split and join. But either way, there are very few services where people are literally prevented from travelling through the overcrowding. In almost all cases it is a question of comfort. If the same economic benefits can be delivered through shorter trains that accordingly cost less to lease and run, why would the DfT subsidise passengers to have a better chance of a seat? Comparisons with the likes of Thameslink and the southeast are not apt, seeing as the loadings are so much higher there that people are often genuinely unable to fit on the next train when one is cancelled.

- A proper guard’s van (eg half a carriage) with plenty of room for bikes, luggage, prams etc in the centre of the train.
Coach D on the Voyagers already has this in the former Shop area. It seems to be a total waste of space that's hardly ever full up with luggage, mostly used by people to sit down on the shelves.

- A mixture of airline, table and compartment seating (in both classes) to suit all seating preferences.
I've already explained why compartments aren't happening. Peoples' seating preferences are highly unlikely to sway someone from making or not making a particular journey, so again, economic benefits are very limited.

- A restaurant car. Not a luxury GWR Pullman Dining type premium service, but a cafe/ bistro serving reasonably priced hot food in a sit-down setting.
Total loss-maker, hence why it can only be offered on a select few services where it does exist, to pool all the demand onto that one train.

- A buffet counter.
Inefficient use of space, whether people like it or not.

- Free WiFi.
CrossCountry already has this throughout its fleet.

Having been around Europe by train and seen all the above in modern high speed rolling stock, I really do wonder why it is not possible to do the same here.
It's apples and oranges. Here almost all increases in subsidy have to have a Cost-Benefit justification. There are only very few exceptions (e.g. the replacement of the Pacers). Other European countries have higher taxes and are happy to subsidise their railways more.

This is compounded by the fact that some or all of these features were once to be found in the UK (compartments, restaurant cars)
If they no longer exist then that's a pretty good indication there's a reason for that! Why would any train operator stop providing a facility for which there is a strong justification?

or are extant with other TOCs (longer trains, better seating mix, buffet counters).
All already explained above.

Instead XC seem to be the budget airline equivalent of a TOC these days.
They are certainly by no means as luxurious as other TOCs but they are far better than most commuter TOCs. But it hardly matters - there aren't many people who will actively prefer the train just because it's the train. They will choose on convenience, cost and journey time.

XC offer direct trains between destinations that could be reached quicker with a change of train or cross-London transfer (eg South West to Scotland, South Coast to North West).
There are still many cases where using CrossCountry is the quickest way compared to going via London, and even where this is not the case, many people (myself included) are willing to have a longer journey time in return for not having to change at all, or as many times. CrossCountry offers this.

If not competing on speed, surely they should be competing on comfort?
They do compete on speed for a fair number of runs (obviously not the very long distance Plymouth to Glasgow type routes). But where this is not the case they primarily compete on the convenience of having through trains between many places (or enabling journeys with just 1 or 2 changes as opposed to far more).

Don't get me wrong - I don't think the current situation on XC is in any way desirable. But it would take an about-turn in policy from the DfT and its organ grinder the Government for it to substantially change. There are rumours that capacity expansion is indeed on the cards for XC. If so I can only imagine this is a political ploy.
 

S-Bahn

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2018
Messages
260
Yes the Voyagers need a refurb. That's pretty much agreed!

In terms of the future, they are either going to have to inherit the EMT Class 222's (assuming EMT upgrade to Bi-Mode Class 802's or similar), or the franchise will have to buy/lease Class 802's (or a new variant with an up-rated diesel engines).

What about copying TPE and using a loco with new Mk5 coaches?
 

supervc-10

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2012
Messages
702
Quite apart from the fact that these would not fit on all platforms used by XC (one good example being the Reading western platforms, or the half-platforms in Birmingham New Street), there is not the demand for this many coaches throughout the day. A better way to meet peak demand would be like with the IETs, where sets can split and join. But either way, there are very few services where people are literally prevented from travelling through the overcrowding. In almost all cases it is a question of comfort. If the same economic benefits can be delivered through shorter trains that accordingly cost less to lease and run, why would the DfT subsidise passengers to have a better chance of a seat? Comparisons with the likes of Thameslink and the southeast are not apt, seeing as the loadings are so much higher there that people are often genuinely unable to fit on the next train when one is cancelled.

This is why I think that cascading the Meridians onto XC when the bi-modes are delivered to EMR might be a decent idea. The longer 222s can be used on routes that are busy throughout the day, while the Voyagers can be joined/split as required.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
This is why I think that cascading the Meridians onto XC when the bi-modes are delivered to EMR might be a decent idea. The longer 222s can be used on routes that are busy throughout the day, while the Voyagers can be joined/split as required.
I agree that it is the logical step forward in terms of improving XC's capacity (if refurbished HSTs are not part of the solution). Unfortunately it is a question of whether the DfT has other ideas for them!
 

supervc-10

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2012
Messages
702
I can't quite think where else the Meridians would go. Maybe an open access operator would like them, but other than that?
 

supervc-10

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2012
Messages
702
The new franchisee has plans to replace their entire fleet, with bi-modes replacing the 222s.
 

Kingham West

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2017
Messages
110
Cross Country has got much busier, on the Reading / Bournemouth routes recently , possibly because punctuality has improved, as Reading and Oxford works finish , quite frankly the overcrowding is now utterly unacceptable , and it’s about time capacity was boosted, that’s a political decision.
The alienation of discretionary travellers is an utter disgrace, these are the regular passengers of tomorrow, we need to put the passenger at the heart of Railway.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,542
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
FWIW (I posted this on the HST thread but it's also relevant here) I was on an XC HST from Plymouth to New St earlier, and it was a markedly better travel environment in every possible way - more capacity, yet once it got really busy it didn't feel cramped, more legroom, better seats, better lighting, properly sized luggage racks and so on.

Time to scrap the Voyagers and build something properly suitable. 7-car 80x should do the job well, or maybe Stadler or Bombardier will sort it.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,538
This is why I think that cascading the Meridians onto XC when the bi-modes are delivered to EMR might be a decent idea. The longer 222s can be used on routes that are busy throughout the day, while the Voyagers can be joined/split as required.

There are pretty much exactly the right number of Meridian units / carriages (with a limited level of rearrangement) for the HSTs to be replaced by the 7-cars, all 5-car Voyager workings to go 8-car (ie 2x220) and all 4-car workings to go 5-car (221 or 222).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top