ValentaFan1974
Member
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2014
- Messages
- 225
That’s because 221144 was transferred in from Virgin not so long ago and it’s not been changed...
I don't see much of an advantage in this happening. Much of these routes is unelectrified and IET performance on diesel is middling at best, only approaching reasonable if you put power packs under almost all the cars. It wouldn't stand a chance of beating Voyager timings, and if you can't even do that then why even replace them? The fundamental issue for this proposal is that it would cost a lot without delivering a notable benefit, and that there isn't currently an in-production rolling stock product available that can beat Voyagers or Meridians in terms of diesel performance up to 125mph.Personally I would order new IETs for XC South/SW-Manchester/NE services
Much though they might be an upgrade in terms of rolling stock for the latter, Turbostars are well suited to the former route in terms of their design, and are just as new as Voyagers. The problem is just that they aren't doubled up enough!Birmingham-Stansted and other inter-urban services such as Cardiff-Portsmouth.
I don't see much of an advantage in this happening. Much of these routes is unelectrified and IET performance on diesel is middling at best, only approaching reasonable if you put power packs under almost all the cars. It wouldn't stand a chance of beating Voyager timings, and if you can't even do that then why even replace them?
Perhaps, but how much of that could be fixed if you did a decent refurbishment (coming back to the title of the thread) of the Voyagers? I bet you could end up with an interior far better than the IETs. Unfortunately there just isn't enough slack in the fleet to do a refurbishment at any reasonable rate, and quite apart from that, it'd effectively take a Government grant to have it done (and then they'd be stingy and not let it be done properly).For reasons of capacity and passenger environment. (Yes, I know, the seats).
Perhaps, but how much of that could be fixed if you did a decent refurbishment (coming back to the title of the thread) of the Voyagers? I bet you could end up with an interior far better than the IETs. Unfortunately there just isn't enough slack in the fleet to do a refurbishment at any reasonable rate, and quite apart from that, it'd effectively take a Government grant to have it done (and then they'd be stingy and not let it be done properly).
Ultimately, once EMR have replacements for the Meridians in 4 or 5 years' time, I think it would only be sensible for CrossCountry to get them. It would introduce additional diagramming complexity unless they were reworked to be compatible with Voyagers (which would likely be an expensive and time-consuming project), but it would at least mean that far more Voyagers could be doubled up or reformed into longer units.
It would be much better to leave the fleet mostly as is and lengthen the 4 car 221's & 222's to 5 cars.
Personally I think that if the cost of fixing the fleets so they can run in pairs (i.e. a 222 with a 220/221) is prohibitive it could be that the 222 fleet are set as fixed length units to block that from happening, even if that leaves a load of end coaches heading for scrap.
This had to be seen in the light of the fact that XC would be gaining up to 143 coaches (with maybe a further 100 coaches from the Virgin fleet) to their current fleet of 252 coaches. In addition they will be loosing demand, due to the building of HS2, North of Birmingham.
There could be a case for the following:
11 x 9 coach 222's
2 x 8 coach 222's
(28 end coaches scrapped from 222 fleet)
5 x 9 coach 221's
26 x 5 coach 221's
(26 end coaches scrapped from 221 fleet)
17 x 5 coach 220's
17 x 3 coach (standard class only) 220's*
* Used as crowd busters on busy services
Although that would be a lot of end coaches scraped it would still give a significant upgrade in capacity to the XC fleet.
There would be no 4 coach units, the 3 coach units would (by being all standard class) would give you a few more seats than a pair of 4 coach units when paired with a 5 coach unit, even if 5 or of the 18 units with 8/9 coaches were used to replace the HST's that's still quite a few big trains.
Although the overall number of 5/8/9 coach units wouldn't be much different than the number of current 4/5 coach units there would be no need to run any of them as pairs as there's a either be 8/9 coach units or could be paired with the 3 coach units.
As if by magic, the 7 car 222's appear.With what would you lengthen them with?
As if by magic, the 7 car 222's appear.
Shame about the Voyager ceiling panels though, that are more “never cleaned smoke filled room” than bright and colourful. I think the tables are very old fashioned looking as well...I think the Voyager blue and red moquette has lasted very well and does make the interior seem bright and colourful. Traveling on a un refurbished GC Class 180 still in First group moquette definitely feels a few decades older.
On such an overcrowded network, scrapping any driving cars seems foolish. Semi-permanently coupled 8 or 9 car units would work well IMO.
I very much doubt that passengers from Reading and south thereof are going to go to the effort (and probably considerable additional cost) of changing at Old Oak Common when they already have a relatively fast direct train. It will be those passengers who were already going via London, or those for whom the difference was marginal either way, who will switch to HS2.Reading (& South of there) and Birmingham
Birmingham might be marginal but surely it will be faster and more spacious to use HS2 for anyway further north?I very much doubt that passengers from Reading and south thereof are going to go to the effort (and probably considerable additional cost) of changing at Old Oak Common when they already have a relatively fast direct train. It will be those passengers who were already going via London, or those for whom the difference was marginal either way, who will switch to HS2.
For places like Crewe, Manchester, Sheffield and north thereof, yes. But for anywhere before then - and in particular places like Derby, Tamworth, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke and other such places that currently have fairly fast direct trains - it's not going to be worth it.Birmingham might be marginal but surely it will be faster and more spacious to use HS2 for anyway further north?
Yes of course, the advantage is and will always primarily be for those stations with direct XC services. But that is a not insignificant number of places. My point is simply that demand on XC won't be reducing as much as some might think due to HS2.But unless you are getting on at a XC service you have to change anyway, so if you can get a train to a modern OOC and then a long HS train it will be better than changing at Basingstoke onto a cramped XC train
I don't think it will be any different to the current situation for journeys where there is a balanced choice to be made between going via London or not. The regulated fares (i.e. Off-Peak Returns) are very similar, but the unregulated fares, whilst already sky-high on CrossCountry, are even higher on the route via London. I wouldn't be surprised if a situation arises similar to that which happened when HS1 domestic services started. Current Any Permitted or via London fares will be rerouted "not via HS2" and a new, higher "Plus High Speed 2" ticket will be introduced.Don’t forget that HS2 will have a lot of seats to fill so could well be undercutting XC fares.
Yes of course, the advantage is and will always primarily be for those stations with direct XC services. But that is a not insignificant number of places. My point is simply that demand on XC won't be reducing as much as some might think due to HS2.