• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

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

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
11,136
It would be ridiculous to scrap the entirety of the voyager fleet at just 25 years.

Assuming that we're going to keep the Voyagers slightly longer term I'd be inclined to get (say) 12 nine coach 80x (more would preferable).

You could then scrap a load of end vehicles in the 221 fleet and create a fleet of 6 coach voyagers (26).

You could then scrap some end coaches from the 220 fleet to create 17 units with 6 coaches.

Those 6 coach trains could have 306 standard class seats and 26 first class seats (total of 332 whilst a pair of 4 coaches has more at 400, not that many extra). Even if they were to lock out of use the rear set due to a lack of staff, it should be tolerable.

That would give you a combined fleet of 43 Voyagers which could almost entirely be paired up. Although, there's scope to run 6 coach units towards the outer edges/on the much quieter services if a smaller unit was preferable.

Both the 9 coach 80x and the pairs of 22x's would have around 600 seats, so they could stand in for each other if you didn't allow all the seats to be bookable to balance the difference (802/1 had 647 seats, of which 71 are first class whilst the 22x's run in pairs would have 664 seats of which 52 are first class).

It's also worth noting that currently XC are leasing 312 coaches across 70 units, doing the above would mean that they are leasing 366 coaches across 55 units. As such the lease costs wouldn't be significantly higher but the trains would have a lot higher capacity.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Joined
2 Feb 2019
Messages
640
I agree that a fleet of 9 car class 80x trains or similar with around 600 seats should be used for at least some of the Edinburgh-Plymouth, Manchester-Bournemouth and Manchester-Bristol services that need high capacity. This would only require one train manager on each train and would avoid the problem of needing two train managers for a double set. The lack of a second train manager has caused some rear sets to be locked out of use so the train is overcrowded despite having a second set. This was the purpose of the High Speed Trains that were used for some Edinburgh-Plymouth services before their withdrawal from use.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
5,243
Location
Somerset
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.
Given the need to strengthen services already exists, a “slow and steady” order for new stock would allow first for that and then for the replacement of Voyagers as they come to the end of their natural. You can’t just buy trains off the shelf, so realistically it would be years before they started to arrive anyway.
 

Zomboid

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2025
Messages
1,057
Location
Oxford
How about removing the 220s from the main axes and using them to replace the 170s (34 replacing 29, so a handful of spares that could go to anyone who wants them, and I'm sure there would be no shortage of takers for the 170s), then buying a new batch of 160-175m long bi-modes to supplement the 221s, so that ideally neither type needs doubling up.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
16,981
How about removing the 220s from the main axes and using them to replace the 170s (34 replacing 29, so a handful of spares that could go to anyone who wants them, and I'm sure there would be no shortage of takers for the 170s), then buying a new batch of 160-175m long bi-modes to supplement the 221s, so that ideally neither type needs doubling up.
The 220s don’t offer any increase in seating capacity over a 3-car 170, they cost more to run and in any case won’t fit into the bay platform XC use at Stansted. Other than that, they’re perfect…
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
17,913
How about removing the 220s from the main axes and using them to replace the 170s (34 replacing 29, so a handful of spares that could go to anyone who wants them, and I'm sure there would be no shortage of takers for the 170s), then buying a new batch of 160-175m long bi-modes to supplement the 221s, so that ideally neither type needs doubling up.
220s are far from suitable for the stopping 170 services, they will be slower due to dwell times.
 

Zomboid

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2025
Messages
1,057
Location
Oxford
220s are far from suitable for the stopping 170 services, they will be slower due to dwell times.
Can they not make that up with the better acceleration? 170s aren't exactly quick off the mark. Probably not that many places the extra top speed will be of any use, but they should be faster to line speed.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
17,913
Can they not make that up with the better acceleration? 170s aren't exactly quick off the mark. Probably not that many places the extra top speed will be of any use, but they should be faster to line speed.
On a Leicester local service the 170 would be quicker. A 220 marginally quicker on a Cardiff. You need 90 second dwells as a minimum on a Vogager.
 

Topological

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2023
Messages
2,004
Location
Swansea
How about removing the 220s from the main axes and using them to replace the 170s (34 replacing 29, so a handful of spares that could go to anyone who wants them, and I'm sure there would be no shortage of takers for the 170s), then buying a new batch of 160-175m long bi-modes to supplement the 221s, so that ideally neither type needs doubling up.
A variation on this is to remove one carriage from the 220s and add it to some of the other 220s then put the short 220s on Nottingham - Birmingham - Cardiff diagrams. Would probably need to remove the first class seats though.

220s to Stansted Airport on the diagrams that shuttle between Birmingham - Leicester and Stansted would be a bit difficult, though 3-car may work it would be a big reduction in capacity versus the 3-car 170s.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,800
Location
North
A variation on this is to remove one carriage from the 220s and add it to some of the other 220s then put the short 220s on Nottingham - Birmingham - Cardiff diagrams. Would probably need to remove the first class seats though.

220s to Stansted Airport on the diagrams that shuttle between Birmingham - Leicester and Stansted would be a bit difficult, though 3-car may work it would be a big reduction in capacity versus the 3-car 170s.
220s cannot run as a 3-car.
 

Brubulus

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2022
Messages
642
Location
Cambridge
A variation on this is to remove one carriage from the 220s and add it to some of the other 220s then put the short 220s on Nottingham - Birmingham - Cardiff diagrams. Would probably need to remove the first class seats though.

220s to Stansted Airport on the diagrams that shuttle between Birmingham - Leicester and Stansted would be a bit difficult, though 3-car may work it would be a big reduction in capacity versus the 3-car 170s.
You can run 4x23M dissel trains to Stansted Airport. However you can't really run a voyager from Ely to Peterborough since they can't meet SP differentials. A 4 car voyager has a similar capacity to a 3 car 170, so running 3 car 220s would simply not work, they would have less capacity than some 2 car trains and astronomical running costs.

One could form 43 6 car voyagers with the current XC fleet. 6 car voyagers and 5 car 80x are effectively interchangable in terms of capacity. (Around 325 seats) This could then enable an order for a fleet of longer trains, which could be diagrammed such that key peak flows are served by circa 500 seat trains. (7 car 80x can easily achieve that with a small kitchen and around 50-60 first class seats)

I can see the argument for replacing Nottingham-Cardiff with Leeds to Cardiff, which just about works with Voyagers on minimum headways behind Newcastle-Reading, using the December 2025 Leeds-Sheffield path.

Hand over the Turbostars to WMT, so they can operate Birmingham - Nottingham/Leicester/Stansted, and put 196s on Birmingham-Nottingham, their additional acceleration will enable the extra path, and resolve the overcrowding on that route. Sadly the Shrewsbury route will have to say hello to 170s again but the 196s acceleration isn't quite as important on that route. The Turbostars will remain at WMT until they find a replacement, which can be done as a GBR procurement exercise, alongside replacing the fleets of all the other operators which needs to replace their aging DMU fleets.

This enables an order of around 20 trains, enough to have 500 seat units on Bournemouth all day and on key peak services across the rest of the network, while not causing a massive scrappage of Voyagers, which would be hated by the DfT.

I've changed my mind on trying to rebalance the GWR fleet, what's needed there is sensible diagramming to put 9 car trains on the longest routes.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
11,136
One could form 43 6 car voyagers with the current XC fleet. 6 car voyagers and 5 car 80x are effectively interchangable in terms of capacity. (Around 325 seats) This could then enable an order for a fleet of longer trains, which could be diagrammed such that key peak flows are served by circa 500 seat trains. (7 car 80x can easily achieve that with a small kitchen and around 50-60 first class seats)

That reduction would mean just 34 end coaches going for scrap, however as they have relatively few seats per coach that's unlikely to be that wasteful.

It would be possible to strip the spare vehicles for parts and it may even be possible to consider if it were possible to strip the 6 coach of the engines without materially slowing the units down. However by making the average weight per coach lighter the amount of fuel needed per seat would reduce.

As a single 6 coach unit wouldn't have that many fewer seats than a doubled up 4 coach unit then the cost to run services which are a bit too busy for a 5 coach unit would reduce due to the lack of need for the third member of staff (being in the rear unit). When they are needed the cost of them would be spread across more seats.

Yes, you'd have extra costs compared to running a single 4 or 5 coach unit, however as (I suspect) that the number of services (let alone diagrams) where they are suitable is limited, this isn't likely to be an issue.

Also, as I pointed out before, the total number of coaches increases, but not all that significantly.
 

RailWonderer

Established Member
Joined
25 Jul 2018
Messages
2,021
Location
All around the network
Given the need to strengthen services already exists, a “slow and steady” order for new stock would allow first for that and then for the replacement of Voyagers as they come to the end of their natural. You can’t just buy trains off the shelf, so realistically it would be years before they started to arrive anyway.
Given that Northern, Scotrail and GWR still need their Sprinters replaced and Southeastern and Chiltern will then need some of their stock replaced, XC is hardly a priority. More doubled up Voyagers, ideally with Avanti style refurbishments is sufficient for the next 15 years.

After 10 years maybe new IC trains start replacing the oldest Voyagers, but I would prefer to see corroded, draughty, cramped and filthy Sprinters gone first.
 

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,338
Location
Plymouth
Given that Northern, Scotrail and GWR still need their Sprinters replaced and Southeastern and Chiltern will then need some of their stock replaced, XC is hardly a priority. More doubled up Voyagers, ideally with Avanti style refurbishments is sufficient for the next 15 years.

After 10 years maybe new IC trains start replacing the oldest Voyagers, but I would prefer to see corroded, draughty, cramped and filthy Sprinters gone first.
Only trouble with that point of view is that most journeys on these "cramped filthy sprinters" are half hour perhaps. XC journeys are much longer and so a decent environment is way more important, especially to those of us in say the south west where the journey to Bristol or Birmingham is several hours.
Also, is more doubling up of Voyagers on the cards? The current situation is pretty dire for single sets operating, I was under the impression all other voyagers where for open access operators?
 

stevieinselby

Member
Joined
6 Jan 2013
Messages
828
Location
Selby
Only trouble with that point of view is that most journeys on these "cramped filthy sprinters" are half hour perhaps. XC journeys are much longer and so a decent environment is way more important, especially to those of us in say the south west where the journey to Bristol or Birmingham is several hours.
Also, is more doubling up of Voyagers on the cards? The current situation is pretty dire for single sets operating, I was under the impression all other voyagers where for open access operators?
Apart from not being big enough, there isn't anything seriously wrong with the Voyagers from a passenger experience point of view, so no need to replace them – just hoover up the surplus 221s and 222s and bin off the Open Access Orcats raids, and that would solve a lot of XCountry's problems.
 

Zomboid

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2025
Messages
1,057
Location
Oxford
I wouldn't say there's "nothing wrong" with them, but they're certainly not bad enough to be in urgent need of replacement. They just need to be bigger. Though taking on the currently off lease 221s would be a decent starting point...

There's not that many 22x units in OAO service are there? At least not yet - and aren't most of the 222s going to end up with Scotrail? To get hold of them for XC would mean finding something else for Scotland - and in any case they're not operationally compatible with voyagers, so would be a small fleet of special units - in which case I'd say get a small fleet of bi-modes that are similarly incompatible. Be they 110mph units along the lines of 730s, or a follow on order of 810s...
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
5,003
I was under the impression all other voyagers where for open access operators?
ex-Avanti voyagers:

12x XC
6x Storage
2x Grand Central (temporary)

class 222s:

5x 6 car for Lumo
19x 5car & 3x 6car for Scotrail (not publicly confirmed)



From what I understand with some careful timetabling (e.g. 5 car replaces a 4 car service, which then joins another 4 car to be 8 car) XC can get more capacity with not that many more sets.
just hoover up the surplus 221s and 222s and bin off the Open Access Orcats raids, and that would solve a lot of XCountry's problems.
Getting all the 221s should be possible.

Most of the 222s are pencilled for Scotrail, not open-access. It was unlikely XC was going to get all 221s & 222s, that would have been a near doubling in the voyager fleet. Great for capacity but a very significant increase in costs.
 

stevieinselby

Member
Joined
6 Jan 2013
Messages
828
Location
Selby
I wouldn't say there's "nothing wrong" with them, but they're certainly not bad enough to be in urgent need of replacement.
I did say "nothing seriously wrong" rather than "nothing wrong"! They're certainly not my favourite train for a number of reasons, but yes, the fleet needs to be grown but they don't need to be replaced yet.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,929
Location
Yorks
There's not that many 22x units in OAO service are there? At least not yet - and aren't most of the 222s going to end up with Scotrail? To get hold of them for XC would mean finding something else for Scotland - and in any case they're not operationally compatible with voyagers, so would be a small fleet of special units - in which case I'd say get a small fleet of bi-modes that are similarly incompatible. Be they 110mph units along the lines of 730s, or a follow on order of 810s...

Needless to say, replacing trains that don't need replacing, rather than increasing capacity.

That's the modern railway all over.
 

Class 317

Member
Joined
7 Jul 2020
Messages
412
Location
Cotswolds
Surely the current RMT strike action must be causing many extra short forms. Sort that out and agree suitable T&C's for catering staff to be able to be in 1 unit and TM in another and many more trains would be able to be partially or fully double sets?

The 9 extra should be allowing over 20 diagrams to be strengthened from either 4 to 5 or 5 to 8 cars. I don't think they are yet able to achieve the best use out of the additional capacity they currently have.
 

sabanda

Member
Joined
25 May 2025
Messages
24
Location
Bournemouth
Though taking on the currently off lease 221s would be a decent starting point...
I'd be surprised if this weren't to happen at some point, given the number of ex-Avanti units for XC has already been increased from 7 to 12 - a further 6 on top of that doesn't require much stretching of the imagination!
 

amahy

Member
Joined
9 Dec 2024
Messages
139
Location
West Yorkshire
I do hope the remaining 6 voyagers go to XC, given that multiple sources, including Network Rail, have expressed negativity towards pretty much all the open access proposals, so it would be silly to just have 6 voyagers lying around with nobody using them.

I assume if they did go to XC, there wouldn’t be far off enough sets to make all diagrams 5 or 8 car.
 

Mitchell Hurd

On Moderation
Joined
28 Oct 2017
Messages
1,711
I do hope the remaining 6 voyagers go to XC, given that multiple sources, including Network Rail, have expressed negativity towards pretty much all the open access proposals, so it would be silly to just have 6 voyagers lying around with nobody using them.

I assume if they did go to XC, there wouldn’t be far off enough sets to make all diagrams 5 or 8 car.
They should be doing 5 and 8 coaches now - they've enough trains to do it yet the 07:04 Edinburgh to Penzance is 'planned to run with 4 coaches'.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
105,326
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
What about axing Manchester, leaving the Birmingham to Manchester section as a continuation of Avanti and having GWR run a Birmingham to Bournemouth service?

Separating Manchester off and running pairs or even triples of 350/2s on that instead (refurbished to 2+2 Standard and 2+1 1st) has been suggested more than once and is an idea I have a fair bit of time for. It doesn't work with the present diagrams but they could change. I'm really not sure Manchester to Bournemouth direct is that important, and that and Manchester-Bristol can be done via London in more comfort and often cheaper. And there'd still be the option to change at Birmingham.
 

Zomboid

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2025
Messages
1,057
Location
Oxford
That'll probably discourage some traffic, but where are the trains to run those services going to come from?
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
2,687
Location
Way on down South London town
Separating Manchester off and running pairs or even triples of 350/2s on that instead (refurbished to 2+2 Standard and 2+1 1st) has been suggested more than once and is an idea I have a fair bit of time for. It doesn't work with the present diagrams but they could change. I'm really not sure Manchester to Bournemouth is that important, and that and Manchester-Bristol can be done via London in more comfort and often cheaper.

To go further, you could run an SWT Bournemouth to Reading service and extend the Oxford fast trains to Birmingham, or back up to Manchester like told Cross Country services.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
5,243
Location
Somerset
What about axing Manchester, leaving the Birmingham to Manchester section as a continuation of Avanti and having GWR run a Birmingham to Bournemouth service?
Why GWR - hardly any of the route is on their patch (significantly, neither end is)
 

Top