Department for Transport launches CrossCountry franchise consultation

[MarkyT]

Voyager high level luggage racks are constrained by the tilt profile.

I remember reading at the time they were introduced that the overhead shelf was deliberately made smaller than dictated by the body profile to prevent people from placing large items up there. The interior paneling has a distinct convex shape over the shelf to achieve this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I remember reading at the time they were introduced that the overhead shelf was deliberately made smaller than dictated by the body profile to prevent people from placing large items up there. The interior paneling has a distinct convex shape over the shelf to achieve this.

There was a stupid fad of doing this with post-privatisation stock, until the Class 450 (then 444 and 350) broke it by providing practical large racks (the Pendolino ones are also quite sensible). *Stars are particularly bad for it - though the larger rack used in First Class on ScotRail units is much more sensible and really needs retrofitting to the lot.

The rack itself is also too thick and would be better as either mesh or glass.

 

[mmh]

Voyager high level luggage racks are constrained by the tilt profile. Making them much larger would reduce headroom, but some modern hard case wheeled luggage won’t go in high level racks however spacious they are.

I've been surprised by the overhead racks on Voyagers (and Pendolinos, except under the pantographs) - I have a wheeled suitcase which was the biggest I could find which would fit the publicised size limits for all the airlines I was planning to use on a multi-journey holiday. It fits (snugly) on Voyagers and Pendolinos, doesn't on class 175 and the racks on Southern electrostars are so tiny they're only of use for handbags and umbrellas, which is really annoying when many don't have any floor racks and they serve a very busy airport!

Looking at the bodyshell of an Electrostar and more so a 175 there's surely no reason they couldn't have been a better size.

 

[HowardGWR]

Voyager high level luggage racks are constrained by the tilt profile. Making them much larger would reduce headroom, but some modern hard case wheeled luggage won’t go in high level racks however spacious they are.

On the other hand 444s are missing certain features, there is no dedicated toilet in first class, and no space provision for a first class wheelchair passenger. Also no low level luggage storage, however people do regularly take over the bike or wheelchair spaces for luggage.

At least the luggage racks on a 444 are both deep and wide, allowing easy stowage of a standard cabin luggage wheelie case. They are like airline lockers, except for the front cover. The glass floors of them are a neat touch too. I changed over to a 377 at Southampton recently and could not find any where safe to put the cases. Voyagers are just useless in that regard.

 

[Class 170101]

You won't get away with removing the accessible toilets.

Surely you could reduce the number though and replace with non-accessible ones as long as at least one accessible loo is retained? Four in a five coach Voyager seems excessive.

 

[mmh]

Surely you could reduce the number though and replace with non-accessible ones as long as at least one accessible loo is retained? Four in a five coach Voyager seems excessive.

What would you do with the space freed up by removing them though? They're in (very long!) vestibule areas with no windows.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What would you do with the space freed up by removing them though? They're in (very long!) vestibule areas with no windows.

That's the problem with the Voyager design - nobody would want to sit there because there's no window, and there's no need for *that* much luggage space in most cases.

They really are an incredibly poor design.

 

[HowardGWR]

You would hope that TOC / DfT managers would be alive to these points, but it seems that we are condemned to suffer the syndrome explained by Ian Walmsley about how these choices are made (that was on seats)..

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

You won't get away with removing the accessible toilets.

Sorry, not removing them all, but trimming it down to a more sensible number. The 350s get it about right IMO for a 4-car unit - 1 accessible and 1 non-accessible toilet.

There can't be that many passengers who need an accessible toilet at once!

 

[Esker-pades]

Surely a 4 coach service on a long distance route can't help either. Even if the Voyagers were refurbished to give them better capacity, I doubt they'd cope well. For such core city-city routes, longer trains have to be provided. Outside Voyager routes, a 2 car 170 does not cope well when it comes to the load at Cambridge, for example.

 

[Clip]

That's the problem with the Voyager design - nobody would want to sit there because there's no window, and there's no need for *that* much luggage space in most cases.

They really are an incredibly poor design.

I think you'll find that people would sit there if the price was right for those seats.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely a 4 coach service on a long distance route can't help either. Even if the Voyagers were refurbished to give them better capacity, I doubt they'd cope well. For such core city-city routes, longer trains have to be provided. Outside Voyager routes, a 2 car 170 does not cope well when it comes to the load at Cambridge, for example.

2-car DMUs don't cope for anything anywhere barring branch lines.

 

[1e10]

and there's no need for *that* much luggage space in most cases.

There are many services where the luggage racks (including the large rack in coach D) becomes full to the brim with luggage.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

That's the problem with the Voyager design - nobody would want to sit there because there's no window

I’d sit there (for business rather than leisure trips) if I could get some work done on my laptop. Unfortunately, Voyager seat-back table design is such that I can’t, unlike (say) a GWR HST or 800.

 

[43074]

2-car DMUs don't cope for anything anywhere barring branch lines.

That's a rather sweeping generalisation, there are plenty of services where 2 cars are perfectly adequate: if ordering a new fleet you'd hope there were enough of them to run 4 car trains (and longer) to cope with peaks in demand.

 

[sleepy_hollow]

...

But at Sheffield you have four other services per hour to Doncaster, two slow ones at xx05 and xx30 which take forty minutes and two fast ones at xx10 and xx24 which take under half an hour. Yes, the four non-XC services from Sheffield to Doncaster run within half an hour of each other - the timetable is a real mess, but that's the kind of thing that XC have to fit in around.....

At least one of those has changed its departure time in the last few years, so there is presumably some scope for arranging the local trains around XC rather than vice versa.

Faster journey times in the Bristol-Sheffield section would be my preferred improvement, followed by more seats. What could actually be achieved? From the forum I get the impression that Bristol-Birmingham does not have 125 mph sections and that BHM to SHF only has some limited 125 mph in the Trent Valley. So what journey time reductions might be possible given higher speeds, first with existing constraints, and secondly with the other services rearranged around XC?

 

[B&I]

At least one of those has changed its departure time in the last few years, so there is presumably some scope for arranging the local trains around XC rather than vice versa.

Faster journey times in the Bristol-Sheffield section would be my preferred improvement, followed by more seats. What could actually be achieved? From the forum I get the impression that Bristol-Birmingham does not have 125 mph sections and that BHM to SHF only has some limited 125 mph in the Trent Valley. So what journey time reductions might be possible given higher speeds, first with existing constraints, and secondly with the other services rearranged around XC?

Fantasy digression time: if it was physically possible to bring any of the old (Midland ?) route back into use, could any of it form a higher speed bypass, or would you need a new alignment ?

 

[lammergeier]

At least one of those has changed its departure time in the last few years, so there is presumably some scope for arranging the local trains around XC rather than vice versa.

Faster journey times in the Bristol-Sheffield section would be my preferred improvement, followed by more seats. What could actually be achieved? From the forum I get the impression that Bristol-Birmingham does not have 125 mph sections and that BHM to SHF only has some limited 125 mph in the Trent Valley. So what journey time reductions might be possible given higher speeds, first with existing constraints, and secondly with the other services rearranged around XC?

There should be some journey time improvements south of Birmingham soon, AIUI the 70 restriction at Tuffley is to be removed and the linespeed will be increased to 100 for Voyagers/HSTs just about all the way from Gloucester to Yate, removing a long stretch of 90mph.

There is also the Filton four tracking which appears to be progressing well should improve matters between Temple Meads and Parkway.

Derby remodelling will result in significantly faster and more reliable journeys through Derby, and I'm not just repeating the blurb from NR on this it really does look like an excellent project. With a bit of luck the excessive dwell times at Derby will be removed which again will improve things.

 

[edwin_m]

Fantasy digression time: if it was physically possible to bring any of the old (Midland ?) route back into use, could any of it form a higher speed bypass, or would you need a new alignment ?

Where do you mean? The route between Birmingham and Sheffield is former Midland track throughout. XC leaves the former Midland route north of Sheffield, but the section avoided was always pretty slow due to mining subsidence and managed to avoid both Leeds and Doncaster.

 

[nw1]

That's a rather sweeping generalisation, there are plenty of services where 2 cars are perfectly adequate: if ordering a new fleet you'd hope there were enough of them to run 4 car trains (and longer) to cope with peaks in demand.

Yes, 2-car DMUs are adequate _off peak_ for the Salisbury-Romsey-Southampton-Romsey locals, though in peak hours either longer trains or peak extras are required - though the former doesn't happen and there aren't enough of the latter (also an 18.17 departure from SOU seems oddly late for a peak extra; surely would be better to run it between 1700 and 1800?)

SOU to Portsmouth stoppers would probably cope with a 2-car off peak too, though obviously there are no 2-car EMUs operating in this area so would never happen in practice.

 

[B&I]

Where do you mean? The route between Birmingham and Sheffield is former Midland track throughout. XC leaves the former Midland route north of Sheffield, but the section avoided was always pretty slow due to mining subsidence and managed to avoid both Leeds and Doncaster.

Sorry, should have made clear that I meant between Bristol and Birmingham

 

[ac6000cw]

Sorry, should have made clear that I meant between Bristol and Birmingham

That's nearly all ex-Midland as well - the only part that isn't is between Yate and Bristol (and it already by-passes Worcester and Gloucester).

 

[The Planner]

There should be some journey time improvements south of Birmingham soon, AIUI the 70 restriction at Tuffley is to be removed and the linespeed will be increased to 100 for Voyagers/HSTs just about all the way from Gloucester to Yate, removing a long stretch of 90mph.

One maybe one and a half minute tops.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

One maybe one and a half minute tops.

A few minutes' saving on different sections of each diagram could end up releasing a few extra sets to enable more services to be doubled up.

 

[B&I]

That's nearly all ex-Midland as well - the only part that isn't is between Yate and Bristol (and it already by-passes Worcester and Gloucester).

Alright then, the other, now-closed section of line between Bristol.and Birmingham, whoever built it

 

[edwin_m]

Alright then, the other, now-closed section of line between Bristol.and Birmingham, whoever built it

There was the Great Western route, that went through Stratford, gave Worcester an even wider berth than the Midland and joined the current route at Cheltenham. Part now a steam railway, might be a small advantage to serving Stratford but nowhere else on the route would be worth stopping Cross Country.

The Midland approach from Yate to Bristol was closed as mentioned with trains now using the GWR route. Keeping this open might have avoided the Filton 4-tracking but it would also have prevented any call at Bristol Parkway or other interchange with the South Wales main line.

 

[MrCub]

I've often wondered, and the chat here makes me ask this, which people see as preferable? Would you prefer short trains with a lack of capacity but were fast, or longer slower trains, on the same route?

Or how about a longer train with more capacity on a slightly longer route, and a shorter one on the quick route (say 2h30 vs 1h 50)?

 

[The Planner]

A few minutes' saving on different sections of each diagram could end up releasing a few extra sets to enable more services to be doubled up.

Like your optimism, but chances are it will get swallowed up at Kings Norton or Westerleigh.

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes, 2-car DMUs are adequate _off peak_ for the Salisbury-Romsey-Southampton-Romsey locals, though in peak hours either longer trains or peak extras are required - though the former doesn't happen and there aren't enough of the latter (also an 18.17 departure from SOU seems oddly late for a peak extra; surely would be better to run it between 1700 and 1800?)

The 1817 is now the return working of the 1724 Basingstoke to Southampton 450 service. That has to run down at that time because it fills one of the gaps caused by evening peak Waterloo - Poole stoppers being diverted to Portsmouth via Eastleigh.

I suspect when it gets back to Winchester it then fills another gap in the Winchester to Southampton pattern. It’s up working from Southampton might just be a bonus rather than a necessity.

 

[xotGD]

Would passengers rather have a 2 hour journey standing up or a two-and-a-half hour journey sitting down? I suspect the latter, and strengthening trains should be a priority over increasing speed.