Operation Princess

[pt_mad]

The idea was for single ended locos based on the class 67 with four carriage rakes of new build coaching stock instead of the 220s, and the 221s were to only have been four carriages in length. I can't remember what the reason for Virgin going for a squadron fleet of DEMUs was, but I don't think that lack of acceleration was it (A 67 on load 4 can accelerate pretty rapidly!). Track access charges might have been.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's all down to personal taste, I suppose: I think that the Mallard and XC HST seating (Grammer, is it?) is the best long distance seating out there.

The whole network might have benefitted from sticking to Loco hauled services with a new generation of coaching stock. That way all intercity stock could be cascaded around anywhere, like the HSTs are now. I often wonder how we will ever manage without them.

 

[Zoe]

The whole network might have benefitted from sticking to Loco hauled services with a new generation of coaching stock.

At the end of the day though there is little benefit in using loco hauled stock over MUs and quite a few disadvantages so this was never going to be a realistic option.

 

[pt_mad]

At the end of the day though there is little benefit in using loco hauled stock over MUs and quite a few disadvantages so this was never going to be a realistic option.

It just seems to have worked so well with the 125s though. With all the advanced software and systems of a modern DMU extending them is nothing like coupling up an additional coach to a loco.

 

[sprinterguy]

The FGW seats offer better privacy. XC isn't used much for long distance though.

I'm not sure why there'd be a need for any more privacy onboard a train than that afforded by a Crosscountry HST interior. I use Crosscountry for some pretty long distance journeys (3 hours usually, sometimes more) and I know a number of others who do as well. Although from personal observation the typical journey length for Crosscountry between their principal markets is about two hours: Still not an insubstantial journey time though: Similar to London to York or London to Manchester.

 

[tbtc]

Thing is I think they've got to the stage now where even if they modified all units to 8 coaches people would still be annoyed due to cramped interiors and lack of luggage space.

You ride on a Mallard Mk4 coach or a XC HST and you realise what real intercity long distance travel should be like. Then the voyager turns up and you spend the whole journey cramped and annoyed. And the vibrations are annoying as well.

I think by XC running the HSTs they are actually making their own customers realise how rubbish the Voyagers are.

I honestly think that if Voyagers each had another couple of coaches then 95% of the criticisms would disappear.

Give people a seat and they don't spend the journey stood outside the toilet (so the smell is less of an issue). Give people more seats and there's spare capacity to sell some bargain "advance" tickets. Give people more seats and the problems of luggage space etc are much less of an issue.

You have to bear in mind the politics of the time and what was happening to Railtrack. Branson invested huge amounts of money and expected some return on it. The nuts and bolts of the railway industry simply wasn't geared up for that sort of approach. What we got were initially totally unworkable timetable proposals and a brand new unknown train fleet. That it didn't work was probably foreseeable. About the time Virgin lost the franchise, Bomabardier finally managed to deliver a reliable train fleet. Deactivating the tilt improved things even more. There are many similarities between today's very much watered down XC timetable to those original proposals, so to say Operation Princess was a failure is not entirely correct.

Good points, taking the context of ten years ago into account - its easy to forget how things were back then - the railway really didn't know how to deal with things like increasing demand (after years of "managed decline" under BR)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The idea was to run twice as many services with 4/5 car Voyagers and then extend them later, but the DfT decided XC didn't need the extra coaches when the scheme failed (It's also worth noting that the DfT stopped Virgin extending their Pendolinos and then ordered some extra stock for the next franchise anyway).

To pretend to wear an SRA/DfT/taxpayer hat for a bit, the XC franchise needed a big subsidy and they did not want more money spent on it, either on extending Voyagers or keeping HSTs.
If XC HAD kept the HSTs they would not have been recycled to FGW and others, so we would have been even shorter of 125mph stock.

Despite the overcrowding, XC is still unprofitable and problematic for Arriva.
Very slowly, the DfT is warming to a Voyager extension (and bimode) proposal.
And just to redress the balance of opinion a bit, the 221 Voyagers are fine, in fact well-nigh perfect, for the Euston-Chester-North Wales runs.

 

[Zoe]

Very slowly, the DfT is warming to a Voyager extension (and bimode) proposal.

Extending four coach trains to five coach trains will help but I'm not sure even 5 coaches will be enough long term although maybe it will once HS2 is built north of Birmingham.

 

[pt_mad]

Have practially all XC's former HSTs been transferred to Great Western and East Coast?

 

[mralexn]

I doubt it. My mates cant tell the difference. Think your over estimating how much normal passenegers care/notice.

Even my Mum Prefers HST's to Voyagers :P

 

[LE Greys]

Well, to return to the original concept as it is, the phrase "victim of its own success" springs to mind. How many times have we seen a new fixed-formation service rapidly become overloaded when they introduce shorter than normal trains? Steam railmotors and express diesel railcars on the GWR - the former had trailers added and the latter ended up being replaced by a Hall with six coaches. The Silver Jubilee needing an extra vehicle. Extensions to the MkIII production line to up all GW/MML HSTs to 2+8, and I suppose the 2+9 formations on the ECML. The Burlington Zephyr and Flying Hamburger probably went through similar problems. Basically, people are sometimes a bit pessamistic in loading estimations, and if they don't have options for extra vehicles, they end up with overcrowding.

 

[transmanche]

Basically, people are sometimes a bit pessamistic in loading estimations, and if they don't have options for extra vehicles, they end up with overcrowding.

You only have to look at LO for an example of such as success story.

From 2-EPBs running a 3tph(?) service, to 3-car 313s running up to 4tph(?) we now have 4-car Capitalstars running up to 8tph on core route. Shows you what a bit of investment and TLC can do - and how right the decision was to extend the 378s from 3 to 4-cars,

 

[ainsworth74]

It just seems to have worked so well with the 125s though. With all the advanced software and systems of a modern DMU extending them is nothing like coupling up an additional coach to a loco.

Not necessarily as 222s can have their length altered pretty easily as the on-board computer (by Bombardier) is set up to be able to do so with ease. 220s and 221s have Alstom computer software due to the need for them to be able to couple with 390s in emergency situations and that particular software is nowhere near as easy to modify for different train lengths (though obviously not impossible).

 

[HSTEd]

It just seems to have worked so well with the 125s though. With all the advanced software and systems of a modern DMU extending them is nothing like coupling up an additional coach to a loco.

The advanced software can be developed to be effectively plug and play if you want, uncouple the middle of the formation and shunt a new carriage in and then press a button in a cab after its reattached.

 

[sprinterguy]

Have practially all XC's former HSTs been transferred to Great Western and East Coast?

Three power cars have gone to Network Rail for the NMT, six to Grand Central, six (I think) to East Coast but the vast majority have gone to FGW. Crosscountry have of course now returned nine of their former power cars to service (43285, as 43085, used to be a Midland Mainline machine: EMT gained 43089 once NR were finished with it).

Does everyone realise that in six months time it will be the ten year anniversary of Operation Princess? It's strange to think that the Voyagers have now been with us for over a decade.

 

[DarloRich]

A few points:

1) Will people stop suggesting XC is only used for short journeys - It isn’t. Many of the journeys are 3 hours plus. Lots of us are obliged to use XC for long distance services and it is never pleasant. (Unless you get an HST)

2) Longer Voyagers would do away with most of the problems?
a) Would longer Voyagers make the seats have more than an inch of padding?
b) Would longer voyagers make the seats more comfortable to sit in for any length of time
c) Would longer Voyagers remove the all pervading smell of excrement?
d) Would longer voyagers make the train more quiet and less rattley?
e) Would longer Voyagers make the provision of food and refreshments better?
f) Would longer Voyagers remove the fact that the trains have been designed by idiots and bought by fools who never have to travel on them?
g) Would Longer Voyagers create more space to store luggage of would they simply create 1 or 2 carbon copies of the existing horrific mobile chemical toilet?

3) That Virgin had no input at all into the design, procurement, specification or operation of the Voyagers. You are telling me that the client got NO say at all in the introduction of these hideous pieces of crap? Really? So they just were presented with a fait accompli and had no say at all? Really? A capitalist super company like Stagecoach or Virgin just rolled over and accepted that? Really? If it were me I would have refused to take them into service unless I was allowed to specify them and work with the procurement body, designers and constructers to ensure I had a train fit for purpose.

4) Not one person in Virgin or the SRA thought that no extra people would travel on these trains? Really? All that advertising and they were surprised by the increase in demand? Really – no one thought of this? You are telling me that Virgin, who are extremely pr savvy, didn’t think their advertising would be a success? Really? I mean who walked into a meeting and said, hang on lads I have got an idea! Let’s take an 8 carriage train and replace it with a 4 carriage train. Let’s advertise the fact that we are going to run a more frequent service to more places for a good price but it will be ok because no one will use it!

5) That Virgin invested loads of money – they invested bot all but got a massive subsidy from all of us. Plus they did very well out of ORCATS.

6) To labour a point - why is it not possible in the 21st centaury to build a better train than one designed and built by people in a shed in Derby and Crewe armed with only hammers and spanners and who were on strike half the time? Why? Is that people who design and specify trains today simply couldn’t give a monkeys chuff about the people who have to travel on them?

 

[starrymarkb]

Were the Voyagers not ordered when Richard Bowker was at Virgin? they got rid of him soon afterwards for (iirc) Chris Green (ex-NSE).

Also unlike most other stock the Voyagers have yet to have a major refurbishment.

It is possible to build a better train. The problem is the Voyagers were built very cheaply (please note that savings in production cost might not be passed on to Virgin). I've heard good things about the IC3 and ICE-TD despite both being DMUs with underfloor engines. Problems occur when the bean counters overrule the engineers (a problem not confined to trains, compare a modern Mercedes with a pre 1992 one)

 

[HSTEd]

There is no all pervading "smell of excrement" in the passenger saloon of a Voyager in my experience, only in the vestibule is it at all noticeable and its no worse than the smell on a Pendo. If that is indeed what that smell in the vestibule of Pendos is.

More seats would mean noone would be in the vestibule for any significant length of time.
And more carriages would provide more luggage racks.

 

[ainsworth74]

1) Will people stop suggesting XC is only used for short journeys - It isn’t. Many of the journeys are 3 hours plus. Lots of us are obliged to use XC for long distance services and it is never pleasant. (Unless you get an HST)

No those of that do won't because a lot of journeys that people undertake are around an hour in length and nothing you say will change that. I accept that some people use them for longer journey as well but plenty of people don't as XC basically are the local operator on some parts of their network.

2) Longer Voyagers would do away with most of the problems?
a) Would longer Voyagers make the seats have more than an inch of padding?
b) Would longer voyagers make the seats more comfortable to sit in for any length of time

That would be in your opinion only, personally I've never had an issue with the seating on Voyagers (and I've done longer journeys in them before).

c) Would longer Voyagers remove the all pervading smell of excrement?
d) Would longer voyagers make the train more quiet and less rattley?

I don't understand where this comes from I've used plenty of Voyagers and I've only come across one where there was an unpleasant smell and that was only found in the vestibule not in the main carriage. Similarly I've only come across one Voyager that I would describe as rattly and moving to a different carriage solved that.

e) Would longer Voyagers make the provision of food and refreshments better?

Actually it probably would because then XC wouldn't have removed the buffet from their Voyagers to create more luggage space!

f) Would longer Voyagers remove the fact that the trains have been designed by idiots and bought by fools who never have to travel on them?

Pretty insulting there aren't we? I'm fairly sure that the designers weren't idiots in fact I'm sure they met the specification they were given very well.

g) Would Longer Voyagers create more space to store luggage of would they simply create 1 or 2 carbon copies of the existing horrific mobile chemical toilet?

Erm you are aware that VXC wanted to cut down the number of toilets fitted before delivery but it was too late in the build process to do so. Therefore I would say that in all probability that had they been built longer then no there wouldn't have been more toilets fitted (or at least not more disabled toilets).

As for most of your other points I honestly don't know the answers, mostly because I wasn't following the railways in any great detail at the time that this was all going down originally.

Though regarding point 6) I would to a point agree with you that the 21st Century has so far not provided a train that is better than what we had before, but I would disagree with you if you suggest that all 21st Century rolling stock is far worse than what came before.

 

[pemma]

Why it has proved impossible to develop a better train than the hst is beyond me

That's always going to depend on individual opinions. When Virgin first introduced Voyagers a lot of passengers seemed very impressed with the nice new trains compared to the old HSTs. The Voyagers have disadvantages over HSTs and vice versa.

 

[DarloRich]

That's always going to depend on individual opinions. When Virgin first introduced Voyagers a lot of passengers seemed very impressed with the nice new trains compared to the old HSTs. The Voyagers have disadvantages over HSTs and vice versa.

of course they did - Voyager was presented as a nice new shiny super train that would revolutionise services not some old stinking 30 year old relic of the awful BR days. They are not a patch on what they replaced.

The one i rode on at the NYMR looked really, really nice. It was great at 25mph! Once you went on one on the main line you quickly realised it was, in fact, rubbish

 

[whhistle]

Yeah, so people need to give up on local hauled trains for passenger services.
The sooner people accept they are a thing of the past, the better.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

of course they did - Voyager was presented as a nice new shiny super train that would revolutionise services not some old stinking 30 year old relic of the awful BR days. They are not a patch on what they replaced.

The one i rode on at the NYMR looked really, really nice. It was great at 25mph! Once you went on one on the main line you quickly realised it was, in fact, rubbish

I don't get this.
The HSTs on WCML runs before Voyagers turned up were awful.
Horrid fixed armrests, shabby interiors, bouncy ride (even at 110), unhygienic toilets, slam doors...

By contrast Voyagers are smart, very quick off the mark, easy to get on/off, rapid turnround/split/join when needed, decent windows, 125 tilt etc.
There are trains I prefer, and they do have their quirks, but they do the business and do not deserve all the opprobium.

Let's face it, XC isn't liked by other TOCs because it crosses all the boundaries and is an "orphan" TOC.
I would merge it with EMT and run it as a modern "Midland".
They could then get on with developing a bi-mode rolling stock solution to both operations, and then gradually electrify it.
But major change won't happen before the franchises are relet in 2016.

 

[tbtc]

A lot of the criticisms of Voyagers seem either subjective (can't say I've had much problem with the comfort of seats - everyone argues about seating though, there's not one seat that suits everyone) or really relate to length (the number of "disabled" toilets would be less of an issue if they were spread over seven/eight coaches, the smell of the toilets is more noticeable when you are forced to stand outside them for long periods due to lack of seats, the lack of decent food is because the shop was taken out to make more room for seats/luggage, the lack of decent luggage racks at the end of coaches is due to not having enough space for seats.... add an extra three coaches to each set and almost all of those problems would dissapear!)

Let's face it, XC isn't liked by other TOCs because it crosses all the boundaries and is an "orphan" TOC.
I would merge it with EMT and run it as a modern "Midland".
They could then get on with developing a bi-mode rolling stock solution to both operations, and then gradually electrify it.
But major change won't happen before the franchises are relet in 2016.

My own suggestion would be to split it into a North East - South West franchise (which could be part of FGW/ EMT/ East Coast/ TPE North?) and a North West - South Coast franchise (which could be part of FGW/ West Coast).

You'd lose some direct links (Manchester to Bristol, Sheffield to Reading etc) but you'd improve things overall

 

[DarloRich]

Yeah, so people need to give up on local hauled trains for passenger services.
The sooner people accept they are a thing of the past, the better.

What so it is verbooten to consider other options or point out the flaws with the wonderful units we are allowed to travel on?

nothing anyone says will ever convince me the voyager is a nice train to travel on for long distances. I hate them and go out of my way to travel by any means possible OTHER than a Voyager.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A lot of the criticisms of Voyagers seem either subjective (can't say I've had much problem with the comfort of seats - everyone argues about seating though, there's not one seat that suits everyone) or really relate to length (the number of "disabled" toilets would be less of an issue if they were spread over seven/eight coaches, the smell of the toilets is more noticeable when you are forced to stand outside them for long periods due to lack of seats, the lack of decent food is because the shop was taken out to make more room for seats/luggage, the lack of decent luggage racks at the end of coaches is due to not having enough space for seats.... add an extra three coaches to each set and almost all of those problems would dissapear!)



My own suggestion would be to split it into a North East - South West franchise (which could be part of FGW/ EMT/ East Coast/ TPE North?) and a North West - South Coast franchise (which could be part of FGW/ West Coast).

You'd lose some direct links (Manchester to Bristol, Sheffield to Reading etc) but you'd improve things overall

My response would be to remove the Voyager and design a fleet of trains that actually did the business.

The TOC itself isnt the problem. The owners might be a problem however..........

 

[tbtc]

My response would be to remove the Voyager and design a fleet of trains that actually did the business

A ninety metre *anything* wouldn't be able to do the business on XC services(bearing in mind the crumple zone needed for 125mph operation).

You could have a ninety metre HSTs/ ninety metre 47 hauled rakes/ ninety metre anything... the problem is the length and not the Voyager design.

For example, if you had to stand outside the toilets of a HST for long distances because of lack of seats then you'd hate the smell of them.

Solve the length, solve the problems.

 

[Muzer]

I infrequently (probably about once or twice a year) travel to Macclesfield from Basingstoke to visit my grandparents, and I must say, I completely agree with the notion that Voyagers are crap. Very uncomfortable seats (in stark contrast with the SWT class 158/159 seats on the journey immediately before, between Andover and Basingstoke, which are the most comfortable I've seen on a train personally), no luggage space unless you're lucky enough to be in coach D, the toilets DO smell and you can smell them in the main carriage quite regularly (I'd say on probably about 1/4 of my journeys) - if it's not the toilets, there IS a horrible smell, and seat reservation screens rarely work, or sometimes they don't turn them on until *after* they leave Bournemouth so people are already in our seats as they looked before they sat down. I'm too young to remember the HST (if, indeed, it was HSTs running that line before), though I'm pretty sure I have been on them (I do remember waiting outside the slam doors with lots of luggage), so I can't really compare them, but as they stand - hell, I'd much prefer to be on a 3-4-hour journey in a class 158/159 than a 3-4-hour journey in a Voyager - they have more luggage space, much nicer seats, toilets that don't smell (the only smell that I can complain about is the overwhelmingly sickly smell of fish, but this is consigned to the vestibules between the 2- or 3-car units) - the only thing they're missing is power sockets in standard class. When a not particularly long distance train is more suitable than one designed to be for long distances, I think you have a problem (yes, I know you probably couldn't run a class 158/159 at those speeds, but my point is the interior layout of the trains are much nicer).

 

[martinsh]

of course they did - Voyager was presented as a nice new shiny super train that would revolutionise services not some old stinking 30 year old relic of the awful BR days. They are not a patch on what they replaced.

The one i rode on at the NYMR looked really, really nice. It was great at 25mph! Once you went on one on the main line you quickly realised it was, in fact, rubbish

Not quite sure about this. Was it a Voyager you rode on on the NYMR, or an HST ?

 

[DarloRich]

@ Martinsh - a Voyager. It had that new car smell it was so new ( and the toilets were clean and smelt of lemon!)

@tbtc - I have stood outside the toilets on an HST for long periods. The worst being London to Newcastle! It isn’t as bad as the Voyager. Yes, like any public toilet a toilet on a train smells but the voyager smells of excrement. At least the HST does not carry 100's of peoples waste around all day! It isn’t the toilet smell that I dislike. To be blunt it is the smell of someone else’s pooh being cooked by the exhaust I dislike!

forgive me but why is 90m the key - my brain has melted in a Voyager induced rage.

 

[tbtc]

forgive me but why is 90m the key - my brain has melted in a Voyager induced rage

Just the rough length of four 23m Voyager carriages (though with the "crumple zone" you get an even shorter train) - I was trying to make the point that any train of that length (whether loco hauled/ HST etc) would have many of the problems that a four coach Voyager has (bearing in mind that seating seems to be a subjective thing).

 

[DarloRich]

@ tbtc - yes sorry - I see what you mean now. I agree that a longer Voyager would have more seats, but I hesitate to use the word better because my fear is that they would simply build 2 or 3 carbon copies of the existing carriages less the disabled toilet. Thta would simply cram in more people in little comfort

I would prefer the voyagers to be lengthened and then used on more suitable services while a new fleet of long distance, true intercity stock was designed and built.

True intercity mind you not just another crappy unit (and I am not against units IF they are designed and specified properly). I would prefer a real train with carriages and a locomotive in order to offer the required level of comfort but it should be possible to replecate the same in a unit

PS - no under floor engines unless they are damped in such a way as to reduce vibration and noise!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
furthermore you run the risk of history repeating itself by boosting passenger numbers yet further creating a vicious circle.