IETs on XC

[dk1]

It’s complete overkill to use such 125 mph stock on 90 mph routes with frequent stops. This has been pointed out time and again, and the same point also applies to XC’s secondary midlands routes, those originally transferred from Central trains in 2007.

Totally agree.

You could say the same for the 175s though.

But that is a Welsh thing

Surely Voyagers could operate TFW routes, the Liverpool to Norwich route, Cardiff to Penzance and Portsmouth?

You can discount Liverpool-Norwich as has been explained many times before.

 

[Kite159]

Makes sense, have a fleet of 9 coach 802 style trains to get rid of the wasted space with shorter units combined, also will make it more appealing as no more 4 coach 220s running between Oxford & Birmingham etc

 

[dk1]

Makes sense, have a fleet of 9 coach 802 style trains to get rid of the wasted space with shorter units combined, also will make it more appealing as no more 4 coach 220s running between Oxford & Birmingham etc

I think the longest you’re likely to get with XC will be 5, 6 or at a push 7.

 

[HSTEd]

The Class 221s vary in capacity between 200 and 256.

The absolute most a ten-car double 5-car Cl221 formation is going to carry is 512.
Even the 7-car 807s have 453 seats.
Adding two more standard vehicles to a TPE Cl802 gets you to 518 seats in a 7-car formation.


Honestly I would settle for 5s with options for additional vehicles to make some units up to 7.

You can get rid of doubling up and all the associated staffing and operational headaches.

Are there any platform limitations preventing a 7x26 = 182m train in the platforms XC uses?

Given the awful utilisation of space in the Voyagers, I can't see anyone wanting to touch them with a bargepole when they can get IEPs or new flat front units instead.

 

[sprinterguy]

Honestly I would settle for 5s with options for additional vehicles to make some units up to 7.

You can get rid of doubling up and all the associated staffing and operational headaches.

Yep, that'd be fine by me: The passenger capacity would be significantly increased against existing single sets, compares well against double sets, and the savings in fuel would be significant over the course of a year, and 4 engines per 5-car unit would mean fewer of those (running for fewer hours per day) to maintain and service across the whole fleet.

I doubt the 7-car extension option would ever get taken up, but we could have wistful conversations about it twenty years down the line.

Are there any platform limitations preventing a 7x26 = 182m train in the platforms XC uses?

I don't think so regarding through platforms, but platform utilisation for terminating services at Reading and Newcastle might require a rethink: Through platform space at the latter must be at a premium now that TPE are similarly unable to use the West end bays with their 5-car 802s, and the number of LNER services has increased.

Though if all the Manchester - Reading/Bournemouth trains are extended back through to the South Coast, and only a handful of Reading - Newcastle trains are reinstated then it wouldn't be a regular occurrence at either location.

Given the awful utilisation of space in the Voyagers, I can't see anyone wanting to touch them with a bargepole when they can get IEPs or new flat front units instead.

Indeed. They were a brave venture at the time into the fairly unexplored world of high speed, high performance diesel multiple units, built for a single purpose and have long since been overtaken by improvements in design.

 

[TheBigD]

XC's Voyagers seat either 200 - 26F/174std (4 car) or 262 - 26F/236std (5 car).

For comparison the 80x fleets...

GWR 5 car, 326 - 36F/290std
LNER 5 car, 302 - 48F/254std
Hull Trains 5 car, 327 - 43F/284std
TPE 5 car 5 car, 342 - 24F/318std
LUMO 5 car 394, 0F/394std

 

[Topological]

I must confess to thinking XC were using through platforms at Reading now and were not constrained in length. Used to use the old platform 7 bay at Reading but that is long gone?

i can see a strong argument for more 5 car 80x for XC, though I still think a small amount of electrification and appropriate use of 100mph EMUs on the GWR would free more 80x. Will not work at the moment because of the ones which are out for cracking, but could work longer term.

A less ambitious version of this would see XC retain more double voyagers in that case. The 80x between Plymouth and Birmingham may even be operated by GWR to allow interworking of diagrams. Bristol to Leeds and beyond by XC, Bournemouth to Manchester by XC, Southampton to Newcastle by XC and then filling the South West to Manchester bit not covered by the shorter Plymouth to Birmingham working would be an electric Birmingham to Manchester train (possibly replacing Birmingham New Street termination with Birmingham International for capacity since both Manchester to Birmingham and Plymouth to Birmingham naturally face East on arrival at New Street.) Hopefully cutting 1 between Birmingham and Manchester and 1 between Birmingham and the South West allows double Voyagers on what remains.

I think Birmingham to Derby will still be sufficiently served by 1 long distance XC and two Birmingham to Nottingham 3 car 170. Derby to Sheffield is covered well by the two EMR trains as well as the remaining 1 long distance XC. It is only Sheffield to Leeds that would be underserved, but given XC only run 1 train per hour anyway, and the other XC path traditionally goes via Doncaster, this might not be an issue.

 

[Meerkat]

Can the hypothetical freed up GWR 80X maintain 125mph where the XC ones would need to, or does XC need new ones with more GUs, akin to 810s?

 

[Jimini]

I must confess to thinking XC were using through platforms at Reading now and were not constrained in length. Used to use the old platform 7 bay at Reading but that is long gone?

99% of them use (the 'new') platform 8 to terminate / reverse in, so plenty of room for 10 car units.

 

[YourMum666]

Can the hypothetical freed up GWR 80X maintain 125mph where the XC ones would need to, or does XC need new ones with more GUs, akin to 810s?

akin to 810s, uprated diesel engine as most of XC’s routes is diesel running

 

[Kite159]

I think the longest you’re likely to get with XC will be 5, 6 or at a push 7.

I will admit to forgetting that a coach of a 802 is longer than the coaches on a voyager. Although, would a 7 coach set have any issues with platform lengths?

(Just to move away from the "Short trains run in multiple" model which has wasted space) Like with GA replacing 1/2 coach sprinters with 3/4 coach Flirts has driven up usage in GA land (no more someone from Beccles worrying about being able to get onto a Lowestoft train for example), longer trains on XC will boost demand from those previously not wanting to gamble having to stand when a 4 coach 220 rocks up

 

[Anonymous10]

Surely Voyagers could operate TFW routes, the Liverpool to Norwich route, Cardiff to Penzance and Portsmouth?

No tfw route is 125 capable max is 100 and that's limited usual is 75mph or 90

 

[Annetts key]

(Just to move away from the "Short trains run in multiple" model which has wasted space) Like with GA replacing 1/2 coach sprinters with 3/4 coach Flirts has driven up usage in GA land (no more someone from Beccles worrying about being able to get onto a Lowestoft train for example), longer trains on XC will boost demand from those previously not wanting to gamble having to stand when a 4 coach 220 rocks up

Also, how many people are put off due to getting on board, only to find that the only empty seats are those with reservations? And then if they have sat down, have to leave these seats, as the passengers with the reservations show up. I’ve seen this happen often on busy XC services.

 

[Bevan Price]

XC's Voyagers seat either 200 - 26F/174std (4 car) or 262 - 26F/236std (5 car).

For comparison the 80x fleets...

GWR 5 car, 326 - 36F/290std
LNER 5 car, 302 - 48F/254std
Hull Trains 5 car, 327 - 43F/284std
TPE 5 car 5 car, 342 - 24F/318std
LUMO 5 car 394, 0F/394std

And (varies since refurbishment), typically 2x2car 158 had 276 std seats when new (except Scottish sets which contained some 1st class areas.)
So any Voyager on Liverpool - Nottingham/Norwich would mean a big reduction in seats - and probably why they stopped sending Meridians to Liverpool on Grand National Day. .

 

[sprinterguy]

I must confess to thinking XC were using through platforms at Reading now and were not constrained in length. Used to use the old platform 7 bay at Reading but that is long gone?

99% of them use (the 'new') platform 8 to terminate / reverse in, so plenty of room for 10 car units.

Have to admit, I wasn't certain whether there was still an issue at Reading - good to know that isn't the case any more.

 

[MattRat]

Just had a thought. Could XC tag onto the 805 Avanti order, to get a better deal?

 

[43096]

Just had a thought. Could XC tag onto the 805 Avanti order, to get a better deal?

You are rather assuming that new trains are on the table for XC, for which there is currently no evidence.

 

[MattRat]

You are rather assuming that new trains are on the table for XC, for which there is currently no evidence.

I'm suggesting that to sweeten the deal with the DFT, XC could make that offer to them. You don't seriously think XC are happy with the current situation?

 

[irish_rail]

Just had a thought. Could XC tag onto the 805 Avanti order, to get a better deal?

Better to cascade some 5 cars from GWR that way XC gains with 60 odd additional standard class seats over a 221 set, plus GWR gains with a 9 car new build replacing a 5 car set. Everyone wins. Although I admit no money is likely to be spent, but if it was, then a deal where GWR and XC both benefit will be politically and operationally desirable.

 

[MattRat]

Better to cascade some 5 cars from GWR that way XC gains with 60 odd additional standard class seats over a 221 set, plus GWR gains with a 9 car new build replacing a 5 car set. Everyone wins. Although I admit no money is likely to be spent, but if it was, then a deal where GWR and XC both benefit will be politically and operationally desirable.

But tagging onto an existing order will be cheaper in terms of raw cash. And the DFT already don't listen to GWR.

 

[py_megapixel]

I don't think more IETs to the DfT's rubbish specification would really be much of an improvement on Voyagers. It would ease the overcrowding, but that's about it.

I know that seat comfort, colour schemes and lighting design are all matters of opinion, but the lack of space for cycles and luggage, the choice of poor quality upholstery that already looks grubby, the fact that the seat cushions are collapsing after just a few years in service and seemingly the increasing frequency of mechanical issues (as well as, of course, the infamous cracking problem) are not!

Surely now we should be looking at an updated version with some commonality with the first batches of IET, but also learning from what's gone wrong with them.

 

[irish_rail]

I don't think more IETs to the DfT's rubbish specification would really be much of an improvement on Voyagers. It would ease the overcrowding, but that's about it.

I know that seat comfort, colour schemes and lighting design are all matters of opinion, but the lack of space for cycles and luggage, the choice of poor quality upholstery that already looks grubby, the fact that the seat cushions are collapsing after just a few years in service and seemingly the increasing frequency of mechanical issues (as well as, of course, the infamous cracking problem) are not!

Surely now we should be looking at an updated version with some commonality with the first batches of IET, but also learning from what's gone wrong with them.

For me its just the seats that urgently need attention. Other than that they are not a bad train, especially the none GWR ones without the horrible lime green inside. Though I imust admit the seat on a voyager is more comfy that that on an IET , so something needs to be done on that front as there are some very long journey times on XC. Re the seats, surely the manufacturer could be held responsible for a seat that has only lasted 5 years and now has a completely collapsed base?

 

[Snow1964]

Better to cascade some 5 cars from GWR that way XC gains with 60 odd additional standard class seats over a 221 set, plus GWR gains with a 9 car new build replacing a 5 car set. Everyone wins. Although I admit no money is likely to be spent, but if it was, then a deal where GWR and XC both benefit will be politically and operationally desirable.

Both have routes where they don't need 125 or 140mph design speed train. Would be much better with fleet of 5car 100-110mph bi-modes configured for long secondary routes (comfortable seats, but doors suitable for some busy station stops). If GBR had ever started it was the one standard train they should have ordered. Something to fill wide gap between high speed and local/commuter train.

Using IETs Cardiff-Plymouth is overkill, meanwhile XC can't find stock with enough seats

 

[Meerkat]

akin to 810s, uprated diesel engine as most of XC’s routes is diesel running

The 810s have more engines than the 802s so they can keep to 222 schedules, which would suggest an 802 presumably couldn't keep to a XC HST/Voyager schedule.

 

[XAM2175]

The 810s have more engines than the 802s so they can keep to 222 schedules, which would suggest an 802 presumably couldn't keep to a XC HST/Voyager schedule.

That's on a 125 mph diesel line, though. How much 125 mph running would a hypothetical bi-mode Voyager replacement need to do while away from the wires?

 

[Meerkat]

That's on a 125 mph diesel line, though. How much 125 mph running would a hypothetical bi-mode Voyager replacement need to do while away from the wires?

Good point, forgot the bits I was thinking of were electrified. What is Birmingham-Derby, and would they need the extra power for acceleration to match the Voyagers?

 

[class397tpe]

I don't think more IETs to the DfT's rubbish specification would really be much of an improvement on Voyagers. It would ease the overcrowding, but that's about it.

I know that seat comfort, colour schemes and lighting design are all matters of opinion, but the lack of space for cycles and luggage, the choice of poor quality upholstery that already looks grubby, the fact that the seat cushions are collapsing after just a few years in service and seemingly the increasing frequency of mechanical issues (as well as, of course, the infamous cracking problem) are not!

Surely now we should be looking at an updated version with some commonality with the first batches of IET, but also learning from what's gone wrong with them.

Isn't that basically what the Class 810 is? A longer (7 car+) Class 810 would be perfect for XC. Improvements on first IETs with the doors sliding the other way, so no windowless seats. New seats (remains to be seen if any good). Smaller less wasteful kitchens. And more diesel engines per train so can reach 125 on diesel. Now if only the money was found...
You can only dream of an XC with enough capacity that it can start offering cheaper advances like LNER to fill trains...

 

[WAO]

Much of the Birmingham Derby line is HST (not EPS) 125mph, like the Wolverhampton Stafford line, before such speed improvements went out of fashion. The adoption of HST's for XC was (IIRC) to ease future pathing on EC and GW main lines. More of a semi-fast, higher density design would probably have suited the core.

Choosing 810's for XC would align the route with the MML, as it was in Midland Railway days. Five cars is a bit short though!

WAO

 

[Nottingham59]

Can the hypothetical freed up GWR 80X maintain 125mph where the XC ones would need to, or does XC need new ones with more GUs, akin to 810s?

Where would they need to maintain 125mph? It's only the electrified sections that are intensively used with 125mph stock, where acceleration to 125mph will matter.

On Birmingham-Derby and Bromsgrove-Gloucester, there's only around 4tph, and the other trains are 170s. And south of Bristol, I would have thought pathing would be easier if sectional running times were comparable with GWR 80X.

 

[Meerkat]

Does XC drop units for the extremities - ie send two to Bristol/Exeter but only one continues beyond that?

Where would they need to maintain 125mph? It's only the electrified sections that are intensively used with 125mph stock, where acceleration to 125mph will matter.

On Birmingham-Derby and Bromsgrove-Gloucester, there's only around 4tph, and the other trains are 170s. And south of Bristol, I would have thought pathing would be easier if sectional running times were comparable with GWR 80X.

The immediate issue would be that if they can't keep to Voyager schedules the timetable wouldn't need to change, and AIUI that is a really big deal for XC due to all the interfaces with other mainlines and city networks.