Cross Country Voyager overcrowding: What can be done about it?

The Planner said:

So they are disadvantaged for what gain? Not stopping at Stockport or Banbury is no guarantee of speeding the services up. Especially in the case of Stockport, you'll just run into something at Slade Lane or in Piccadilly throat. Banbury is the same, you'll end up waiting at Oxford, Reading or Coventry. You need the Solihull XC out of the way to enable any Moor St Oxford services to work.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking. Stockport - Picc is busy enough at the moment, and Stockport doesn't have a through line. I could see half the XC services being held Edgeley Junction to wait for a service at the platform anyway, especially with delays.

And with regards to pax numbers, going back to what this thread's all about, if people in Stockport or Banbury need to use the XC to get to a destination, many will still get on that train, they'll just get on it elsewhere. Yeah sure some pax will pick other routes, but the "positives" of not stopping at either station are minimal, in comparison to the negatives.

Are Stockport-Manchester pax really that much of an issue on XC? On Avanti my observation is that a fair few people do make that journey but they are replaced by a similar number of people joining at Stockport for the intercity journey. Stockport is a lot busier (being a "south Manchester and north Cheshire Parkway", in effect) than a lot of people think it is. On some Avanti services as many as or more board at Stockport as do at Piccadilly, which means there is a decent amount of space for those making the short journey.

Bletchleyite said:

Are Stockport-Manchester pax really that much of an issue on XC? On Avanti my observation is that a fair few people do make that journey but they are replaced by a similar number of people joining at Stockport for the intercity journey. Stockport is a lot busier (being a "south Manchester and north Cheshire Parkway", in effect) than a lot of people think it is. On some Avanti services as many as or more board at Stockport as do at Piccadilly, which means there is a decent amount of space for those making the short journey.

Click to expand...

Passenger statistics can be misleading when looking at flows through a station like Stockport but those available on the Railway Data website provide background, not least to the number of interchanges, see;https://www.railwaydata.co.uk/stations/overview/?TLC=SPT

VItraveller said:

there’s no reason why those trains should be calling at Stockport, Banbury and Southampton Airport Parkway.

Click to expand...

VItraveller said:

as for Banbury, there’s nothing there that a couple of direct Chiltern trains from Moor Street to Oxford couldn’t solve.

Click to expand...

XC provide the majority of the Oxford/Banbury service, quite apart from enabling through journeys farther afield, in both directions. As has been said, many times, the solution is longer trains, not withdrawing services.

Bletchleyite said:

Are Stockport-Manchester pax really that much of an issue on XC? On Avanti my observation is that a fair few people do make that journey but they are replaced by a similar number of people joining at Stockport for the intercity journey. Stockport is a lot busier (being a "south Manchester and north Cheshire Parkway", in effect) than a lot of people think it is. On some Avanti services as many as or more board at Stockport as do at Piccadilly, which means there is a decent amount of space for those making the short journey.

Click to expand...

My experience is exactly this. Stockport is a churn location and isn't a hotspot for creating overcrowding. Probably why it wasn't included in last summer's skip-stop timetable (which I recall affected the likes of Wakefield and Chesterfield).

Falcon1200 said:

XC provide the majority of the Oxford/Banbury service, quite apart from enabling through journeys farther afield, in both directions. As has been said, many times, the solution is longer trains, not withdrawing services.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I'm rather confused by the "XC is too popular, so we need to cut up the routes" logic followed by some.

deltic08 said:

The ideal would be addition of new build of say 10x7-car bimodes to supplement the Voyagers to take advantage of using the wires from Edinburgh/Newcastle as far south as Derby by the time MML electrification is complete changing there onto diesel only Voyagers for journey's to Birmingham and south thereof.

Click to expand...

80Xs aren't perfect for XC since their performance on diesel is much slower than the 22Xs.

The 810s can match 22X timings, but I wouldn't order more of them till the EMR units work, and 24m vs 26m loses some potential capacity.

Something custom isn't impossible, but would be poor value if it was a small batch.

VItraveller said:

Problem with XC in my opinion is that people often use the service for local journeys rather than long distance

Click to expand...

XC's market isn't only long distance; there are plenty of routes which aren't long but XC is well suited to cover, e.g., Banbury to Coventry. Virgin chose high acceleration units for XC deliberately...

Energy said:

Indeed. I'm rather confused by the "XC is too popular, so we need to cut up the routes" logic followed by some.

80Xs aren't perfect for XC since their performance on diesel is much slower than the 22Xs.

The 810s can match 22X timings, but I wouldn't order more of them till the EMR units work, and 24m vs 26m loses some potential capacity.

Something custom isn't impossible, but would be poor value if it was a small batch.

XC's market isn't only long distance; there are plenty of routes which aren't long but XC is well suited to cover, e.g., Banbury to Coventry. Virgin chose high acceleration units for XC deliberately...

Click to expand...

80x performance off the wires should be vastly improved by swapping an engine with a battery pack. I can see the best solution for this to be for XC to take the 5 car 802s from GWR, order 12 more 9 car 80x for them. Reform all of XCs current trains into 7 car sets. (Which provides 29 trains)
Now you've got 51 trains with relatively similar capacities. Drop all extensions and hope for the best. (I understand this would be very tight, requiring 46 trains for regular service).

Brubulus said:

80x performance off the wires should be vastly improved by swapping an engine with a battery pack.

Click to expand...

Yes and no.

The AT300s do not power-share the engine packs between vehicles. The engine power packs can only power the motor car they are physically on.

Swapping an engine pack for a battery pack will increase performance for that motor vehicle, but won't for the other vehicles. So a 2 engine + 1 battery 5 car 80X will have better performance but it won't be as good as a 5 car 80X on electric.

Since the diesel engines are the power bottleneck, the lack of power sharing isn't a problem for the current bimode sets. But a battery pack is likely able to put out more power than one motor car can put down.

Energy said:

Yes and no.

The AT300s do not power-share the engine packs between vehicles. The engine power packs can only power the motor car they are physically on.

Swapping an engine pack for a battery pack will increase performance for that motor vehicle, but won't for the other vehicles. So a 2 engine + 1 battery 5 car 80X will have better performance but it won't be as good as a 5 car 80X on electric.

Since the diesel engines are the power bottleneck, the lack of power sharing isn't a problem for the current bimode sets. But a battery pack is likely able to put out more power than one motor car can put down.

Click to expand...

Do you have a definitive reference for there being no power sharing between vehicles? Class 810 have power packs under 4 vehicles but motors only under 2. So clearly some variants can power share.

JamesT said:

Do you have a definitive reference for there being no power sharing between vehicles? Class 810 have power packs under 4 vehicles but motors only under 2. So clearly some variants can power share.

Click to expand...

Probably one of the many things changed for the 810s which are going so well

JamesT said:

Do you have a definitive reference for there being no power sharing between vehicles? Class 810 have power packs under 4 vehicles but motors only under 2. So clearly some variants can power share.

Click to expand...

Sure, this is probably more information than you want.

I'll keep to the 5 car sets on both, since it makes it a bit shorter, but the 7/9 car 80Xs behave the same way, but with extra motor/trailer vehicles.

Class 80X

Formed as: Driving Pantograph Trailer + Motor + Motor + Motor + Driving Pantograph Trailer

There's a high-voltage AC* bus fed from the pantographs that spans the length of the entire unit (you can see the "pigtails" at the top between vehicles) and a 400V APS bus for hotel power. Each motor vehicle can draw power of the high-voltage AC bus or from the generator unit (if installed).

Motor vehicles each have 4 bogie-mounted 226kW self-ventilated motors [details]. The motor vehicles are responsible for driving their motors and providing an APS bus supply. They also have emergency batteries.

The APS bus can cross-feed between vehicles to provide APS power to trailer vehicles and vehicles with a failed generator unit.

Traction power is not cross-fed. You'll notice that motor vehicles with a failed generator unit won't be putting down any power on the rails on diesel. With only diesel engines, there'd be no advantage in cross-feeding generator unit power since one motor car can put down more power than its engine pack can provide.

As far as I understand, the class 395s are the same but with slightly different motors [details] and the generator unit supply instead being used for third rail. The class 395s, being a similar proven design, helped Hitachi win the IEP contract. It's worth bearing in mind that the bimode IEPs were originally intended for only 100mph on diesel...



Image Description - Diagram of the Traction/Auxilliary Power System. Credit: Hitachi.

Class 810

Formed as: Driving Pantograph Trailer + Motor + Trailer + Motor + Driving Pantograph Trailer

The 810s aren't dissimilar, but only have two motor cars. To compensate for this, they have 250kW motors instead. To match 22X timings, each motor car has two diesel engines as its generator supply, one located on the motor vehicle and the other on the adjacent driving vehicle.

There is no traction power sharing between two motor vehicles. You can treat them the same as the 80X motor vehicles; they just have one engine on an adjacent trailer due to limited space.



To bring it back to XC... the 80Xs were originally designed as 140mph electric / 100mph diesel, and as such lack the performance XC needs. The 810s would be better suited but have a lower capacity (24m vs 26m) compared to 80Xs, and a 7-car variant would require a little bit of design work since you'd need a non-driving trailer with an engine.

Energy said:

...

The 810s can match 22X timings, but I wouldn't order more of them till the EMR units work, and 24m vs 26m loses some potential capacity.

...

Click to expand...

I've just compared the 26m 805s with the 24m 810s and the 810s have a very slightly *higher* capacity, 301 total seats vs 299. And that's with twice the first class. If you configured the 810s with the same amount of first as the 805s, you'd get 284** standard seats on the 810s versus 274 on the 805s (with 25 first on both).

** Maybe a handful more.

I think maybe the more "squashed" design of the 810s balances the length reduction to give slightly more passenger capacity.

There's quite a lot of space between the doors and the ends of the carriage on an 80x, where there's a lot of bodyside taper and no seating. Of course that space is used for stuff, including toilets, that will have to find a home elsewhere.

Energy said:

Sure, this is probably more information than you want.

I'll keep to the 5 car sets on both, since it makes it a bit shorter, but the 7/9 car 80Xs behave the same way, but with extra motor/trailer vehicles.

Class 80X

Formed as: Driving Pantograph Trailer + Motor + Motor + Motor + Driving Pantograph Trailer

There's a high-voltage AC* bus fed from the pantographs that spans the length of the entire unit (you can see the "pigtails" at the top between vehicles) and a 400V APS bus for hotel power. Each motor vehicle can draw power of the high-voltage AC bus or from the generator unit (if installed).

Motor vehicles each have 4 bogie-mounted 226kW self-ventilated motors [details]. The motor vehicles are responsible for driving their motors and providing an APS bus supply. They also have emergency batteries.

The APS bus can cross-feed between vehicles to provide APS power to trailer vehicles and vehicles with a failed generator unit.

Traction power is not cross-fed. You'll notice that motor vehicles with a failed generator unit won't be putting down any power on the rails on diesel. With only diesel engines, there'd be no advantage in cross-feeding generator unit power since one motor car can put down more power than its engine pack can provide.

As far as I understand, the class 395s are the same but with slightly different motors [details] and the generator unit supply instead being used for third rail. The class 395s, being a similar proven design, helped Hitachi win the IEP contract. It's worth bearing in mind that the bimode IEPs were originally intended for only 100mph on diesel...

Image Description - Diagram of the Traction/Auxilliary Power System. Credit: Hitachi.

Class 810

Formed as: Driving Pantograph Trailer + Motor + Trailer + Motor + Driving Pantograph Trailer

The 810s aren't dissimilar, but only have two motor cars. To compensate for this, they have 250kW motors instead. To match 22X timings, each motor car has two diesel engines as its generator supply, one located on the motor vehicle and the other on the adjacent driving vehicle.

There is no traction power sharing between two motor vehicles. You can treat them the same as the 80X motor vehicles; they just have one engine on an adjacent trailer due to limited space.



To bring it back to XC... the 80Xs were originally designed as 140mph electric / 100mph diesel, and as such lack the performance XC needs. The 810s would be better suited but have a lower capacity (24m vs 26m) compared to 80Xs, and a 7-car variant would require a little bit of design work since you'd need a non-driving trailer with an engine.

Click to expand...

We know 80x can generally meet HST timings as is, without batteries. Replacing 1 power pack with batteries increases performance by around 10% 2.3 vs 2.1 MW, which is probably fine for XC, given the very good performance of the 802 on electricity. Is there any chance the 802 could be fitted with more powerful motors or modified with a DC bus. (This would probably be too expensive)
I would structure the timetable so Edinburgh-Plymouth would always be voyager run, while the two Manchester routes would always be 802 run. Reading to Newcastle would be run by either unit, depending on availability.

810s are much denser trains than 805s, no buffet, less tables per coach, smaller kitchen. My proposal is to move GWR 802s to XC (326 seats, equivalent to 6.5 coaches of voyager)

I can see the arguments for a newbuild fleet for XC, but the voyagers can't really be scrapped fully quite yet, they sadly need to be in service for 10 more years, and GWR are suffering from a real glut of 5 car trains that would have a home at XC where they could provide a substantial capacity increase, and my proposal would lead to a net loss of coaches across both GWR and XC but an increase in capacity at both.

Brubulus said:

We know 80x can generally meet HST timings as is, without batteries.

Click to expand...

Yeah, though the HSTs don't accelerate particularly quickly.

Brubulus said:

which is probably fine for XC, given the very good performance of the 802 on electricity. Is there any chance the 802 could be fitted with more powerful motors or modified with a DC bus. (This would probably be too expensive)

Click to expand...

Generation-pack bus is a no without significant work, more powerful motors wouldn't help on diesel.

Tieing in the battery into the high-voltage AC bus could work. Hitachi has a battery trial on a TPE class 802, which can supposedly go battery-only in stations. They haven't said how they've achieved the retrofit, but this is how I suspect they've done it. The TPE 802 trial has a max of 75mph and has been able to keep to (diesel) timings. There's an argument that if a battery hybrid could solve the 802s sluggish acceleration, they'd have used it on the 810s.

duffield said:

I've just compared the 26m 805s with the 24m 810s and the 810s have a very slightly *higher* capacity, 301 total seats vs 299. And that's with twice the first class. If you configured the 810s with the same amount of first as the 805s, you'd get 284** standard seats on the 810s versus 274 on the 805s (with 25 first on both).

** Maybe a handful more.

I think maybe the more "squashed" design of the 810s balances the length reduction to give slightly more passenger capacity.

Click to expand...

805s aren't particularly dense. They're only intended as a slight uplift on 221s since they should mostly operate in double sets.

Brubulus said:

We know 80x can generally meet HST timings as is, without batteries. Replacing 1 power pack with batteries increases performance by around 10% 2.3 vs 2.1 MW, which is probably fine for XC, given the very good performance of the 802 on electricity. Is there any chance the 802 could be fitted with more powerful motors or modified with a DC bus. (This would probably be too expensive)
I would structure the timetable so Edinburgh-Plymouth would always be voyager run, while the two Manchester routes would always be 802 run. Reading to Newcastle would be run by either unit, depending on availability.

810s are much denser trains than 805s, no buffet, less tables per coach, smaller kitchen. My proposal is to move GWR 802s to XC (326 seats, equivalent to 6.5 coaches of voyager)

I can see the arguments for a newbuild fleet for XC, but the voyagers can't really be scrapped fully quite yet, they sadly need to be in service for 10 more years, and GWR are suffering from a real glut of 5 car trains that would have a home at XC where they could provide a substantial capacity increase, and my proposal would lead to a net loss of coaches across both GWR and XC but an increase in capacity at both.

Click to expand...

So you would put the 80x on the route where none of the depots have experience of 80x? Surely Edinburgh to Plymouth with depots at Edinburgh Newcastle Leeds Derby, Bristol and Plymouth, ALL of whom deal with 80x daily (or will soon) would be the sensible route for any new XC 80x trains and stick the Voyager junk on the Manchester to Bournemouth! Also bear in mind under the new GBR potentially drivers of 80x at Plymouth or Edinburgh might be cross covering XC trains anyway so another advantage, not to mention travelling on electric York to Edinburgh, a considerable distance.

Brubulus said:

80x performance off the wires should be vastly improved by swapping an engine with a battery pack. I can see the best solution for this to be for XC to take the 5 car 802s from GWR, order 12 more 9 car 80x for them. Reform all of XCs current trains into 7 car sets. (Which provides 29 trains)
Now you've got 51 trains with relatively similar capacities. Drop all extensions and hope for the best. (I understand this would be very tight, requiring 46 trains for regular service).

Click to expand...

Brubulus said:

I would structure the timetable so Edinburgh-Plymouth would always be voyager run, while the two Manchester routes would always be 802 run. Reading to Newcastle would be run by either unit, depending on availability.

I can see the arguments for a newbuild fleet for XC, but the voyagers can't really be scrapped fully quite yet, they sadly need to be in service for 10 more years, and GWR are suffering from a real glut of 5 car trains that would have a home at XC where they could provide a substantial capacity increase, and my proposal would lead to a net loss of coaches across both GWR and XC but an increase in capacity at both.

Click to expand...

My word, I have to say, I really like this as a concept. Nearly 300 standard class seats on all Manchester services and the ability to use the wires on the lengthy proportion of those services between Coventry/Birmingham and Manchester, and at least 350 standard seats (equivalent to a pair of 4-car units) on all NE-SW services and maintaining Voyager timings over the 100mph+ sections on diesel.

Finally, we'd be getting back towards the train capacities and proportion of electrified working that these services were achieving 25 years ago with the HST/loco-hauled operation, there'd be reduced exhaust emissions at New Street, lower diesel costs and fewer diesel engines to maintain, and GWR passengers would see benefits as well. It's quite tidy as well in terms of which crew depots would need to sign each type of stock, by focusing the two fleets on fairly discrete service groups. I love it, I wish the real railway was allowed to demonstrate such joined-up thinking.

Based on the numbers provided by JonathanH on the previous page, 18 units from 22 and 24 units from 29 (based on the current 5 diagrams, I think, on Newcastle/York - Reading rather than the full hourly service) in service each day would seem achievable. There'd probably have to be some rejigging of maintenance provision along the NE-SW route to suit 7-car trains, and I'd imagine depots on the Manchester route would have to familiarise themselves with 80x stock, though it's worth noting that there are potentially up to three 80x maintenance facilities on or near key points on the Manchester routes: Oxley (for Birmingham starts/finishes), Stoke Gifford (for Bristol) and North Pole (for Reading, with some ECS moves - I'd consider this one less likely), if they have any spare capacity. So just Longsight and Eastleigh to figure out, potentially.

Brubulus said:

80x performance off the wires should be vastly improved by swapping an engine with a battery pack. I can see the best solution for this to be for XC to take the 5 car 802s from GWR, order 12 more 9 car 80x for them. Reform all of XCs current trains into 7 car sets. (Which provides 29 trains)
Now you've got 51 trains with relatively similar capacities. Drop all extensions and hope for the best. (I understand this would be very tight, requiring 46 trains for regular service).

Click to expand...

I like the concept, but if we're ordering more 802s anyway then let's get a few more 5 cars for XC as well to keep the service reliable.

I notice on social media XC are putting out adverts apologising for overcrowding on the South West to Birmingham route. So clearly they are recognising that switching all the longer trains to the Bournemouth route all morning isn't the panacea they hoped it would be.

irish_rail said:

I notice on social media XC are putting out adverts apologising for overcrowding on the South West to Birmingham route. So clearly they are recognising that switching all the longer trains to the Bournemouth route all morning isn't the panacea they hoped it would be.

Click to expand...

Though I bet they'd be apologising for overcrowding on the Bournemouth route if it were reversed.

In my experience a 5 car is almost adequate - people having to stand at some point on most journeys, but not the Jubilee Line Experience(TM). A 4 car, at last south of Birmingham, is just not up to the job.

Zomboid said:

Though I bet they'd be apologising for overcrowding on the Bournemouth route if it were reversed.

In my experience a 5 car is almost adequate - people having to stand at some point on most journeys, but not the Jubilee Line Experience(TM). A 4 car, at last south of Birmingham, is just not up to the job.

Click to expand...

And yet this morning, as per usual, nearly half of all Plymouth departures to Birmingham are 4 car voyagers. It hasn't been this bad in a long long time. First we lost the HSTs , now we have lost the double sets and a lot of 5 car sets to Bournemouth. All in all it's left the south west to Birmingham service a complete mess, to the point where XC are apologising on social media. Will it descend to the levels of Cardiff to Birmingham I wonder.... who would of thought all these extra avanti sets could actually lead to a reduction in carriages (on our route at least!).

Zomboid said:

In my experience a 5 car is almost adequate - people having to stand at some point on most journeys, but not the Jubilee Line Experience(TM). A 4 car, at last south of Birmingham, is just not up to the job.

Click to expand...

Yeah, those extra 62 seats in Coach B often seem to make all the difference between a busy train and one that's absolutely packed to the gunwales.

Zomboid said:

I like the concept, but if we're ordering more 802s anyway then let's get a few more 5 cars for XC as well to keep the service reliable.

Click to expand...

You can't order more 802s, the engines aren't allowed due to emissions regulations. You would have to order a train with a slightly different engine design, as seen in the 805s. I would really like to see a few more 9 car trains on the GWR network.

irish_rail said:

So you would put the 80x on the route where none of the depots have experience of 80x? Surely Edinburgh to Plymouth with depots at Edinburgh Newcastle Leeds Derby, Bristol and Plymouth, ALL of whom deal with 80x daily (or will soon) would be the sensible route for any new XC 80x trains and stick the Voyager junk on the Manchester to Bournemouth! Also bear in mind under the new GBR potentially drivers of 80x at Plymouth or Edinburgh might be cross covering XC trains anyway so another advantage, not to mention travelling on electric York to Edinburgh, a considerable distance.

Click to expand...

Oxley and Stoke Gifford would both be on the 80x routes. I can see how another solution is for newbuild stock on the Bournemouth corridor, that is able to take advantage of the third rail, though that means GWR, arguably a more politically important operator is stuck with an unhelpful fleet layout.

Newbuild stock can happen for XC long term, when the reformed voyagers need replacement circa 2035-2040. It would be ridiculous to scrap the entirety of the voyager fleet at just 25 years.

Brubulus said:

You can't order more 802s, the engines aren't allowed due to emissions regulations. You would have to order a train with slightly different emissions regulations. I would really like to see a few more 9 car trains on the GWR network

Click to expand...

Ok, then TPE have 19 802s, let's hand them over to XC as well and they can have some new 80xs (or 5 car 897s, or whatever they fancy really).

So we've got plenty of 802s for cross country and GWR and TPE get shiny new trains. There's probably some spare voyagers now as well, and they seem to be in demand from every OAO that there is...

Zomboid said:

Ok, then TPE have 19 802s, let's hand them over to XC as well and they can have some new 80xs (or 5 car 897s, or whatever they fancy really).

So we've got plenty of 802s for cross country and GWR and TPE get shiny new trains. There's probably some spare voyagers now as well, and they seem to be in demand from every OAO that there is...

Click to expand...

There are spare voyagers currently, no more voyagers would join the XC. TPE 802s are working quite well, and if they went over there would need to be new trains at XC, TPE and GWR, though it could work as a way to replace the voyagers entirely. Also there is likely a medium term need to replace the 185s(once there is full electrification from Manchester-Leeds) so if TPE is ordering new trains anyway this could work
It also would enable a micro fleet of 7-9 car trains with third rail pickup for Bournemouth-Manchester. (Or a microfleet of surviving Voyagers)

Brubulus said:

There are spare voyagers currently, no more voyagers would join the XC. TPE 802s are working quite well, and if they went over there would need to be new trains at XC, TPE and GWR, though it could work as a way to replace the voyagers entirely. Also there is likely a medium term need to replace the 185s(once there is full electrification from Manchester-Leeds) so if TPE is ordering new trains anyway this could work
It also would enable a micro fleet of 7-9 car trains with third rail pickup for Bournemouth-Manchester. (Or a microfleet of surviving Voyagers)

Click to expand...

Why aren’t all the voyagers XC yet? Are the ROSCOs after OAO money/ are there any plans for XC to have them?

I'm here now said:

Why aren’t all the voyagers XC yet? Are the ROSCOs after OAO money/ are there any plans for XC to have them?

Click to expand...

Most likely because the DfT/Treasury don't want to pay for XC to use them.

irish_rail said:

I notice on social media XC are putting out adverts apologising for overcrowding on the South West to Birmingham route. So clearly they are recognising that switching all the longer trains to the Bournemouth route all morning isn't the panacea they hoped it would be.

Click to expand...

I only see 4 double sets on the Bournemouth route which is only slightly more than before. Meanwhile 10 departures from Birmingham towards Plymouth today are doubles. Going north everything between the 1227 and 1827 from Plymouth is a double at some point in the journey.

Zomboid said:

Though I bet they'd be apologising for overcrowding on the Bournemouth route if it were reversed.

In my experience a 5 car is almost adequate - people having to stand at some point on most journeys, but not the Jubilee Line Experience(TM). A 4 car, at last south of Birmingham, is just not up to the job.

Click to expand...

But they’re appearing with depressing regularity.

43055 said:

I only see 4 double sets on the Bournemouth route which is only slightly more than before. Meanwhile 10 departures from Birmingham towards Plymouth today are doubles. Going north everything between the 1227 and 1827 from Plymouth is a double at some point in the journey.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the point I keep trying to make is that almost anybody setting out on a long distance journey, or a day trip for that matter, wants to depart in the morning. Yes there are lots of longer trains to and from Plymouth in the afternoon, but these are not the times of day people actually want to travel. It would be like putting 4 car EMUs on commuter services into London then running 12 car trains off peak. It seems someone has to lose out and it's Birmingham to Plymouth.