If Arriva were to lose the XC franchise...

[Aictos]

12 coach trains that won't fit on half the platforms at stations XC serve!!! Dear oh dear there are some ridiculous ideas on here sometimes!

LHCS - from where and powered by what?!

12 coach trains would only be used when needed ie special events are happening like England winning the World Cup at Wembley....

Normally 6 or 8 cars in operation would be the norm.

As to LHCS, I'm sure there are various operators out there who could hire out the rolling stock for the summer ie DBS, FGBRF or DRS could easily supply the rolling stock.

 

[devon_metro]

Whilst in no sense of the word do I like XC, (too expensive due to lack of AP and sky high walk up fares, appalling state of the Voyager fleet, removal of tables on Voyagers, introduction of sub standard trolley service etc) they aren't as bad as fgwrich makes out.

Their HSTs really are pleasant to travel on aside from the lack of buffet facilities and are a credit to Cross Country. I rarely encounter late running and generally its quite reliable. However passenger facilities aren't up to scratch.

 

[OMGitsDAVE]

Where would you get the HSTs from?

Thats something I didn't think well enough into. I would probably order some
7-coach 222s then to run the services, where as Voyagers would run the older routes.

 

[mumrar]

Ooh, DRS, lets froth! And the fastest locos they have are the 95mph Class 47s or then 80mph Class 37s. That'll do on the Plymouth-Penzance and Edinburgh-Aberdeen, but XC have a bit more track to do than that. What was really needed was for BR to have started an IEP style project before privatisation, then maybe it would have come in to being around 2002 onwards? Everything short of brand new trains, or modifications to the existing fleet is just silly. Something I've said before, if only the internal coupling and uncoupling was simpler, would be a fleet of trailer vehicles for the Voyagers. You could put them at suitable locations with depots and use them to add up to 2 vehicles to each unit as and when required.

 

[The Planner]

I was under the impression that AXC are not in the best of positions because of their good performance. I think they were slightly resting their laurels on the amount of money they were receiving from schedule 4 and 8 payments off NR. Now that performance has risen from both sides that money isnt as forthcoming and AXC are actually paying money back now.

 

[starrymarkb]

What was really needed was for BR to have started an IEP style project before privatisation, then maybe it would have come in to being around 2002 onwards?

FGW were at an advanced stage of design with Siemens (to the extent that Siemens were touting the stock to other TOCs on their site) when the DfT took over IEP. Under the Greater Western franchise spec FGW were barred from ordering new high speed trains and the project died. IIRC the proposed in service date would have been 2007-2008, OK too late to stop Voyagers but it would have killed off the MTU programme (as HSTs would be scrapped) and would almost certainly be cheaper then the IEP Camel Class

 

[Pumbaa]

I was under the impression that AXC are not in the best of positions because of their good performance. I think they were slightly resting their laurels on the amount of money they were receiving from schedule 4 and 8 payments off NR. Now that performance has risen from both sides that money isnt as forthcoming and AXC are actually paying money back now.

It could be the case that this is certainly aiding/accelerating the slip into big red. I guess we'll find out soon enough

 

[Lampshade]

Is it safe to say they won't last until 2016 when the franchise expires? :P

 

[Fudgefrog]

if you get on a Pendo after midday, not only will you share a train with people

Erm, what?

probably also with the odour of their excrement too.

So you're best line of attack against Virgin is their toilets aren't very effective? Cos that's a problem XC seem to have, along with several other operators, too!


Also, let's not forget VT did not build the voyagers - Bombardier did. Virgin may be responsible for ordering trains that were too short (by the way can you prove to me that was all Virgin's decision?) but they cannot be blamed for the ultimate reliability or technical, under the bonnet designs of the trains. Frankly anything Virgin did wrong is surely something XC or the DaFT could resolve today, albeit increasing trains/ carriages would be expensive. Virgin may have c*cked up on ordering the original voyagers, but I'm sure XC could do more to improve several features of the trains.

And no offence but I very much doubt you, as someone who is not at board level at XC, have any idea what their financial status really is, as I'm sure the vast majority of people on this forum also don't. Don't defend something you can't prove, and word of mouth, rumours or speculation does not count as proof. Bring me XC's bank statements and perhaps I'll believe you (this is directed at both sides).

 

[fireincairo]

I've always been under the impression that Virgin wanted 7/6 car Voyager trains from the beginning, but the powers that be thought that shorter trains running more frequent services would do for the passenger numbers at the time.

And somehow they thought that passenger numbers would remain constant in the future.. :roll:

 

[Aictos]

I've always been under the impression that Virgin wanted 7/6 car Voyager trains from the beginning, but the powers that be thought that shorter trains running more frequent services would do for the passenger numbers at the time.

And somehow they thought that passenger numbers would remain constant in the future.. :roll:

That is indeed correct, it was down to the SRA at the time putting the block on the Voyagers being any longer then what Virgin actually wanted.

There's talk however of extra coaches being inserted into the voyager trainsets which would enable the Voyager to run off both the OHLE and use the Diesel engine.

 

[87015]

That is indeed correct, it was down to the SRA at the time putting the block on the Voyagers being any longer then what Virgin actually wanted.

There's talk however of extra coaches being inserted into the voyager trainsets which would enable the Voyager to run off both the OHLE and use the Diesel engine.

So if Virgin wanted them longer so much why didn't they get their chequebook out then?

 

[starrymarkb]

Because the risk was too high, if Virgin had a 20 year franchise then they probably would. But as it stands any franchise can be revoked at any time on a DfT whim, regardless of performance. A good example would be First Great Eastern, who ordered a fleet of 360s only to get one year's use from them as they lost the franchise the following year to NatEx. If they had bought the fleet of 360s without the DfT underwrites, and NatEx chose not to buy them from First then First would have ~£150m of unit to find a home for, (given that at the time, their other franchises were FNW and FGW - I can't see much scope for reuse)

With additional Voyager coaches, this would have been harder still, as the main fleet (DfT spec) would move to the new operator, while Virgin's extra intermediate vehicles couldn't be reused without new Driving vehicles.

First did indeed buy a fleet of HSTs from storage, but at a price that wasn't too expensive to suck if things went wrong. The SRA was not happy with this move either

 

[jopsuk]

It does rather come to the example of Chiltern- they took a bit of a gamble with the first two batches of 168s, but it paid off, and under their long franchise agreement are investing not just in rolling stock (the 168/2s and potentially LHCS) but also the infrastructure.

Short franchises encourage conservative investment. Long franchises (with conditions) encourage more creative thinking.

 

[Aictos]

Long term franchises are better as it does indeed encourage investment, if FCC was a 20 year franchise then we could have see the 317s being cascaded to other routes and maybe a replacement for the 313s.

 

[djw1981]

Any stations near the end fop a long XC route is more vulnerable to delays - minor delays build as you miss your allocated slots at junctions stations etc.

 

[2030720310]

oh and its nice to know you avoid XC, we`ll never meet , and one last thing if you wanted to go from Reading to Birmingham how would you get there?

Get a FGW service to Worcester and London Midland from there

 

[route:oxford]

Get a FGW service to Worcester and London Midland from there

Or a FGW service to Banbury and change to a Chiltern Service there.

Do Chiltern still run one service a day to/from Oxford for route purposes?

 

[thefab444]

Indeed, although this runs at about 2300 - 0000 from memory. Inbound working from Stratford-upon-Avon, return to Banbury.

 

[Drsatan]

I'm not happy with Arriva either. Firstly, they've barred GroupSave tickets from their services, secondly, they've got rid of the buffet from their 220s/221s and replaced it with a trolley service (which can't run most of the time because of passengers/baggage in the corridors), AP fares have gone up (in line with most TOCs); reintroducing a few HSTs is window dressing. And now Arriva want to remove a couple of TSOs from their HSTs on the grounds they're too expensive - as it's the run-up to Christmas that's a really bright idea since it'll mean more people standing. Result! More revenue from the bastards at Arriva HQ

Admittedly, it's not Arriva's fault for the Voyagers being too short. Virgin wanted to order extra trailer cars for them but the SRA/DafT wouldn't let them for some reason. The Voyagers are unsuitable for really long distances in my opinion so, in an ideal world, they'd be replaced with loco hauled stock and a DVT to avoid having to run round. The ex IE Mk3s currently sitting in North Wall sidings in Dublin would be ideal but, as usual, the bastards at DafT would rather let them be scrapped than put back into service again. I've no idea what locos could be used but if more "in-fill" routes are electrified e.g Basingstoke-Reading, Manchester - Preston, then maybe a mix of 90s and a new type of diesel loco could haul these trains. Of course, this is all pie in the sky crap and we'll have to put up with Voyagers for a lot longer.

 

[Chris B]

It does rather come to the example of Chiltern- they took a bit of a gamble with the first two batches of 168s, but it paid off, and under their long franchise agreement are investing not just in rolling stock (the 168/2s and potentially LHCS) but also the infrastructure.

Short franchises encourage conservative investment. Long franchises (with conditions) encourage more creative thinking.

Agreed, but remember the only gamble they have so far taken was bidding for their franchise. The requirements (not voluntary investments!) for spending on infrastructure and stock are all built into the legal franchise contract. The only investment they have made outside franchise requirements was Aylesbury Vale Parkway & the track upgrade, I think.

 

[Voyager 2093]

Or a FGW service to Banbury and change to a Chiltern Service there.

Do Chiltern still run one service a day to/from Oxford for route purposes?

Yes Chiltern do run a service to and from Oxford for route purposes, I believe using a 165, this service runs normally from Stratford -Upon - Avon to Oxford and a one train per week from Birmingham Snow Hill to Oxford again using a 165.

Hope this helps

 

[starrymarkb]

The ex IE Mk3s currently sitting in North Wall sidings in Dublin would be ideal but, as usual, the bastards at DafT would rather let them be scrapped than put back into service again.

Remember that the parked IE Mk3s are pretty ropey, they have kept the ones in best condition in service...

 

[87015]

Remember that the parked IE Mk3s are pretty ropey, they have kept the ones in best condition in service...

I don't think there are any in service any more.

 

[Ferret]

I'm not happy with Arriva either. Firstly, they've barred GroupSave tickets from their services,

Umm, Group Save tickets were barred when Virgin was the incumbent!!! A bit more research needed before posting???

 

[Chris B]

Yes Chiltern do run a service to and from Oxford for route purposes, I believe using a 165, this service runs normally from Stratford -Upon - Avon to Oxford and a one train per week from Birmingham Snow Hill to Oxford again using a 165.

Not sure you're right. I catch the return from Oxford on a regular basis. It only runs Monday-Friday and from Sttratford upon Avon only at 2300, arrives 0014. Leaves Oxford at 0020, and is usually a 168.

 

[37401]

Get a FGW service to Worcester and London Midland from there

yup and all that hassle because fgwrich is too childish to use XC
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also, let's not forget VT did not build the voyagers - Bombardier did. Virgin may be responsible for ordering trains that were too short (by the way can you prove to me that was all Virgin's decision?) but they cannot be blamed for the ultimate reliability or technical, under the bonnet designs of the trains.

So basicly Virgin ordered something they know nothing about... hmm im sure they did pal

they would have knowen class 220 = 4 cars class 221 = 4-5 cars
as well as all the other technical specs, you wouldnt order a pizza without finding out whats on it first would you?

 

[90019]

they would have knowen class 220 = 4 cars class 221 = 4-5 cars
as well as all the other technical specs, you wouldnt order a pizza without finding out whats on it first would you?

As has been said before, Virgin wanted them to be longer but the DafT said no.
So it's more like ordering a big pizza then the government coming along and saying you can't have one that big and deciding it can only be 2/3 the size you want.

 

[Geezertronic]

And as usual it is the customers that suffer because of the accountants mistakes

And as usual, it probably costs more to retrofit additional cars into a set than it would have done to build the sets longer. The only saving grace would be if they did consider the panto coach for the 220/221's

 

[starrymarkb]

yup and all that hassle because fgwrich is too childish to use XC
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So basicly Virgin ordered something they know nothing about... hmm im sure they did pal

they would have knowen class 220 = 4 cars class 221 = 4-5 cars
as well as all the other technical specs, you wouldnt order a pizza without finding out whats on it first would you?

Virgin would have said "we want n x 6/7 car units" which SRA had final say on - eg TPX said they wanted 56 x 4 car 185s, that was reduced to 51 x 3 car by the SRA, also the 350/1s were originally 450s for SWT, SRA cancelled that mid build, then had to pay for the alteration to 350s or to scrap what had been built) - it was too risky financially to buy without the SRA support (ie Virgin's franchise was shorter then the life of the trains)

They would have also said we want X disabled loos, Seating for Y people, Shop counter, speed, acceleration, fuel consumption, tilt etc etc. They would not have specified window size (a common myth about the pendos is the small windows are for aircraft ambiance, rather then the size being determined by the structure of the body shell), plumbing, pantographs (again the front pan is used because of damping for 140mph running on UK knitting requires it, not because 'it looks better') etc etc.

When you tender for something like a new train, you make a wish list of what you want it to do, its then up to the builder to find the best way to do it at the lowest cost (ie less then the Quote). and its the lowest cost part that leads to design flaws and poor build. eg during the construction of the Cl180s Alstom wanted its suppliers to reduce the cost of parts by 33%, the result of which can been seen in the dismal reliability.