Operation Princess

[ainsworth74]

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.

Such as?

 

[LE Greys]

@ 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.

Last time I was outside an HST toilet for any length of time, there was a freezing, howling gale because the windows would not shut properly and the entire area was choked with suitcases because passengers don't seem to know about/trust the van in the TGS.

One thing Voyagers certainly did was revolutionise times and timekeeping, compared with an ageing 47 that accelerated like a slug with lead shoes. Given the choice, I'd take the interior from the MkIId's but would still prefer to get there a bit earlier (and be certain I was going to get there at all) using the Voyager. Generally, 90% of the problems of Voyagers were solved when they built Meridians, which although not brilliant either still do their job well enough. Dellas are no great shakes either.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Such as?

Trans-Pennine, Norwich-Liverpool, Stansted-Birmingham, Paddington-Hereford and all the other long-distance MU turns that could do with better catering or longer trains. Might need some track upgrades, though. Guess what we can do with all the 170s/185s replaced (assuming the 185s have their seats padded out).

 

[ainsworth74]

Trans-Pennine, Norwich-Liverpool, Stansted-Birmingham, Paddington-Hereford and all the other long-distance MU turns that could do with better catering or longer trains. Might need some track upgrades, though.

A four car 220 will have fewer seats than a three car 185 and probably less than a four car 158/170 and not all that much more than two car 158/170 so on all those routes you would be either decreasing or at the least only matching the existing levels of capacity. A five car 221 might be an improvement but not by much and there aren't that many of them. Also to improve catering you would need to reinstall the the buffet further reducing capacity. You'll also be wasting on all but the ECML sections on Trans-Pennine and GWML sections of the Pad-Hereford the top speed of the 220s and 221s. Actually it would probably be even slower than that as I don't think that Voyagers can take advantage of SP differentials (though happy to be told otherwise) so on Liverpool - Norwich you would end up slowing the service down.

 

[LE Greys]

A four car 220 will have fewer seats than a three car 185 and probably less than a four car 158/170 and not all that much more than two car 158/170 so on all those routes you would be either decreasing or at the least only matching the existing levels of capacity. A five car 221 might be an improvement but not by much and there aren't that many of them. Also to improve catering you would need to reinstall the the buffet further reducing capacity. You'll also be wasting on all but the ECML sections on Trans-Pennine and GWML sections of the Pad-Hereford the top speed of the 220s and 221s. Actually it would probably be even slower than that as I don't think that Voyagers can take advantage of SP differentials (though happy to be told otherwise) so on Liverpool - Norwich you would end up slowing the service down.

Which is why I mentioned track upgrades. I also hate 185s because they're so uncomfortable and would much rather travel on a 221 (although a 222 would be far better). The point of this would be to try to drag some of these routes back up to InterCity-equivalent standard, correcting a mistake made by BR when Regional Railways took them over. Voyagers aren't exactly brilliant, but at least they're main line stock.

 

[ainsworth74]

Which is why I mentioned track upgrades. I also hate 185s because they're so uncomfortable and would much rather travel on a 221 (although a 222 would be far better). The point of this would be to try to drag some of these routes back up to InterCity-equivalent standard, correcting a mistake made by BR when Regional Railways took them over. Voyagers aren't exactly brilliant, but at least they're main line stock.

How likely though is it that there would be investment on the scale needed to raise the linespeeds on these routes? Not very I would have thought what with the rest of the committed improvements over the coming decade.

Personally I just don't buy the idea that Voyagers are rolling stock that should be redeployed onto the mentioned routes as I don't see there being much benefit to them being put there.

 

[DarloRich]

Such as?

LE Grays has got there first but my idea would be to place them on inter regional services that could do with an upgrade from a 156/158/159/170 to a slightly better train. I would look to refurbish the interior slightly to make it a bit better and a nicer place to be

 

[ainsworth74]

I assume you didn't see my above post (going on the post times at least) but I will say again I don't see Voyagers as being anything like appropriate for inter-regional work. They're heavy, fast accelerating 125mph DMUs they don't strike me as being the sort of thing to replace 75mph 156s.

 

[DarloRich]

I assume you didn't see my above post (going on the post times at least) but I will say again I don't see Voyagers as being anything like appropriate for inter-regional work. They're heavy, fast accelerating 125mph DMUs they don't strike me as being the sort of thing to replace 75mph 156s.

Perhaps not but he units they replace can be put to good use elsewhere. The Voyager might have to "take one for the team". I think they could have a use even on 75mph lines if only to offer passengers a better train. Like I said they need to be refurbished to a higher standard.

Refurbished, extended (by 2 or 3 vehciles) and fitted with a pantograph vehicle they could, actually, be a go anywhere do anything item of stock.

TBH they are to useful to simply bin but as long as i dont have to travel on them i dont care where they go

 

[ainsworth74]

Perhaps not but he units they replace can be put to good use elsewhere. The Voyager might have to "take one for the team". I think they could have a use even on 75mph lines if only to offer passengers a better train. Like I said they need to be refurbished to a higher standard.

Or perhaps we could just extend them by two or three carriages, fit pantographs and refit the buffets as well as maybe taking out a bay of seats from each side of the carriage to give everyone a bit more legroom and then leave them where they are doing the job they were built for. Then build more suitable replacements for units such as 156s or 158s. Just a thought

 

[LE Greys]

Or perhaps we could just extend them by two or three carriages, fit pantographs and refit the buffets as well as maybe taking out a bay of seats from each side of the carriage to give everyone a bit more legroom and then leave them where they are doing the job they were built for. Then build more suitable replacements for units such as 156s or 158s. Just a thought

We already have those, they're called 170s and 172s. Trouble is, they are working on services that are not necessarily suitable. If some form of replacement for Voyagers comes in, I hope that Scotland gets a few. This will release plenty of 170s to squeeze out the 158s and allow them to cascade to England (getting rid of the Scottish 158s is a bit of an obsession with me) to replace 150s. The total cascade to eventually replace all Pacers and 150s is not really important here. Generally, however, the cause is.

In 1982, sectorisation farmed out the regional express routes to Regional Railways. The result was that within a decade, loco-hauled six-, seven- and eight-coach formations were down to two- or three-car DMUs. Suddenly, regional express passengers trains had been degraded to a terrible extent, such that it is very hard to tell that they are expresses at all. Cascading the Voyagers (that, whatever their faults, were designed for express passenger workings) would rectify that error. Meanwhile, Cross-Country would have some new train (be it IEP, Pioneer or something else) that would be as good as the HSTs it used to have. It would require money, quite a lot of it at first, but it's doable in a decade or so.

 

[Yew]

Could voyagers be used on XC's 170 routes? like nottingham cardiff and similar?

 

[DarloRich]

Or perhaps we could just extend them by two or three carriages, fit pantographs and refit the buffets as well as maybe taking out a bay of seats from each side of the carriage to give everyone a bit more legroom and then leave them where they are doing the job they were built for. Then build more suitable replacements for units such as 156s or 158s. Just a thought

the leg room is one of the minor issues. It is the seats that want that wants ripping out and replacing with a better one

 

[LE Greys]

Could voyagers be used on XC's 170 routes? like nottingham cardiff and similar?

With track upgrades to bring general passenger train speed limits up to SP values (or even just HST or DMU limits up to SP) then they could. Otherwise, that is the only stumbling block.

 

[ainsworth74]

If some form of replacement for Voyagers comes in, I hope that Scotland gets a few. This will release plenty of 170s to squeeze out the 158s and allow them to cascade to England (getting rid of the Scottish 158s is a bit of an obsession with me) to replace 150s.

I would have thought EGIP would manage to do that pretty much by itself certainly in the cause of allowing the cascading of 158s away from Scotrail into England.

In 1982, sectorisation farmed out the regional express routes to Regional Railways. The result was that within a decade, loco-hauled six-, seven- and eight-coach formations were down to two- or three-car DMUs. Suddenly, regional express passengers trains had been degraded to a terrible extent, such that it is very hard to tell that they are expresses at all.

Those DMUs allowed an improvement in service frequency that led to an increase in passenger numbers and it also allowed for cost savings that all helped to contribute to keeping regional lines open during the 1980s.

Cascading the Voyagers (that, whatever their faults, were designed for express passenger workings) would rectify that error.

At the cost of doing nothing about improving seating capacity, increasing the maintenance costs of various routes and possibly slowing down others (without expensive upgrade works). Given those factors I'll keep my 158s thank you very much and leave Voyagers to where they're better suited.

Meanwhile, Cross-Country would have some new train (be it IEP, Pioneer or something else) that would be as good as the HSTs it used to have. It would require money, quite a lot of it at first, but it's doable in a decade or so.

Yes it would cost a lot of money and I'd rather spend it on a new rolling stock for the regional routes that was purpose designed and built for those routes rather than cascading Voyagers off of routes that they're suited for (and with minor alterations could be made even better) onto routes that there not and buying yet another fleet of inter-city trains replacing young trains of the same type.

the leg room is one of the minor issues. It is the seat that wants that wants ripping out and replacing with a better one

I have no issue with the seating personally but I do think they could do with maybe a tad more leg room. I always have issues with bashing a class of trains over their seating is it's a very subjective part of a train interior.

 

[LE Greys]

the leg room is one of the minor issues. It is the seat that wants that wants ripping out and replacing with a better one

I don't think they're too bad, certainly compared with the ones on 185s which have practically no cushions. Still neither are as good compared with IC-70s, which are not as good as MkIs. And they call that progress!? :roll:

 

[AndyLandy]

As far as I'm concerned, the biggest problem with the Voyagers is lack of capacity. They need to be at least six vehicles long, probably more. When XC took delivery of their first Voyagers, pre-Princess, they were run in pairs alongside the existing HST service and I never noticed any particular issues with overcrowding. The trains were shiny and new, compared to mangy old BR stock.

The next problem is the interior layout of the Voyagers. I have a hiking rucksack which fits in the rack above the seat on Mk.3 stock, but not on a Voyager. Also, the HST sets had a greater proportion of table seats. I really don't care for airline-style seating. Of course, this isn't a problem specific to the Voyager. I remember doing KGX-NCL on a GNER HST back in 2004-ish, before they'd refurbished them. The thing was in a right state, with uncomfortable and worn out seating. Conversely, the West Coast Voyagers on the EUS-CTR/HHD runs are perfectly pleasant rides.

In my experience, interior layouts make the biggest difference to passengers. The difference between an SWT 159 and the then-TPE 158s was vast. SWTs train were comfortable and clean, whereas the TPE 158s looked like they were bins on rails. Seriously, did nobody clean them? You compare that to SWT refurbishing their 455s with passengers believing they were new trains.

Of course, these days, I don't really care so much about interiors in HST sets, since on the rare occasions I travel on one, I can be found in the vestibule with my head out the window!

As for the other criticisms of the Voyagers, I accept that they're not the most comfortable of ride, with the under-floor engines and the toilets and vestibules can be a bit nasty at times.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't think they're too bad, certainly compared with the ones on 185s which have practically no cushions. Still neither are as good compared with IC-70s, which are not as good as MkIs. And they call that progress!?

How many times do I (and others!) have to say this, seating is subjective what you think is good others might not. I personally don't think that IC70s are up to much compared with for example Mallard style seating as found on all of EC's trains and XC HSTs hell I prefer Voyager seating to IC70s!

 

[LE Greys]

I would have thought EGIP would manage to do that pretty much by itself certainly in the cause of allowing the cascading of 158s away from Scotrail into England.

Well I agree with that, and hope to see the wires as far as Dyce (the practical northern limit) one day. This might solve the problem, but it will take time. Still, there is hope there.

Those DMUs allowed an improvement in service frequency that led to an increase in passenger numbers and it also allowed for cost savings that all helped to contribute to keeping regional lines open during the 1980s.

That is a consideration. Perhaps, like railmotors, express diesel cars and Voyagers, they were victims of their own success.

At the cost of doing nothing about improving seating capacity, increasing the maintenance costs of various routes and possibly slowing down others (without expensive upgrade works). Given those factors I'll keep my 158s thank you very much and leave Voyagers to where they're better suited.

Yes, but are they?

Yes it would cost a lot of money and I'd rather spend it on a new rolling stock for the regional routes that was purpose designed and built for those routes rather than cascading Voyagers off of routes that they're suited for (and with minor alterations could be made even better) onto routes that there not and buying yet another fleet of inter-city trains replacing young trains of the same type.

See above. I reckon we have nowhere near enough express passenger stock. To me, Aberdeen-Glasgow, Norwich-Liverpool, Nottingham-Cardiff, etc are Inter-City routes - main lines - and should be treated as such. Perhaps they are secondary main lines, but if they once rated Jubilees, Castles, B12s or such things, or maybe 40s or 50s, then they surely rate main line stock. Turbostars may have 100 mph performance, but is that enough? To be main line equivalent, you need first class, better luggage facilities and on-board catering. All of which you can find in a Meridian, which is basically a Voyager MkII. So, withdraw the Voyagers, upgrade them to Meridian standard and redeploy them. Cascase the 170s to shorter-distance routes with main line 'dashes' of up to 100 mph, cascade the 158s to replace 150s and with enough electrification, no more Pacers. A new class of DMU, perhaps a version of the 172, comes in to replace the 156 and later the 158. We're talking 2030 by the time this is finished.

I have no issue with the seating personally but I do think they could do with maybe a tad more leg room.

I expect you're taller than I (which would be no surprise). Personally, I think the seats are tolerable and have just about enough padding under your backside.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How many times do I (and others!) have to say this, seating is subjective what you think is good others might not. I personally don't think that IC70s are up to much compared with for example Mallard style seating as found on all of EC's trains and XC HSTs hell I prefer Voyager seating to IC70s!

Fair enough, each to his own.

 

[ainsworth74]

Well I agree with that, and hope to see the wires as far as Dyce (the practical northern limit) one day. This might solve the problem, but it will take time. Still, there is hope there.

Well I'm aiming for Aberdeen personally but I'm not going to let that get in the way of some agreement

That is a consideration. Perhaps, like railmotors, express diesel cars and Voyagers, they were victims of their own success.

Seems to be the case to me. We went from six or seven coach trains at low frequency (and perhaps irregular times as well) to maybe hourly or more two/three car trains at vaguely regular times. We've seen it time and time again that when you do that lots of people will change from other modes of transport to taking the train.

Yes, but are they?

Right now? Well they're probably not quite right for the work they're doing, but with extensions, a bit of work on the interior and the refitting of the buffet I would say yes they are suited to the work they're doing.

To me, Aberdeen-Glasgow, Norwich-Liverpool, Nottingham-Cardiff, etc are Inter-City routes - main lines - and should be treated as such.

Those all seem like inter-regional routes to me (other than Aberdeen - Glasgow there I would like to see something that had a buffet at least and probably something along the lines of a Voyager just without the top speed of a Voyager).

Turbostars may have 100 mph performance, but is that enough?

For most routes yes I would say 100mph is prefectly fast enough. We should be aiming at targeting those areas where linespeeds are sub-100mph for increases before worrying about raising other linespeeds.

To be main line equivalent, you need first class, better luggage facilities and on-board catering. All of which you can find in a Meridian, which is basically a Voyager MkII. So, withdraw the Voyagers, upgrade them to Meridian standard and redeploy them. Cascase the 170s to shorter-distance routes with main line 'dashes' of up to 100 mph, cascade the 158s to replace 150s and with enough electrification, no more Pacers. A new class of DMU, perhaps a version of the 172, comes in to replace the 156 and later the 158. We're talking 2030 by the time this is finished.

That's going to be one complex upgrade requiring significant work on the units involved (and you can say goodbye to ever restoring tilt on 221s I would imagine) as it would take moving a lot of equipment from where ever it currently is to below the floors (that's why 222s feel more spacious, because they simply are). It will also be a very very expensive upgrade as well I would imagine.

As for the rest, why not carry out a simple interior refresh on the Voyagers (along the lines that I've suggested up thread) and get the extensions done as part of Operation Thor, then spend money on procuring proper replacements for the existing inter-regional fleet (at least those units that need replacing 158s for example have plenty of life in them yet)? I don't see what advantages your suggestion has over mine other than it would put big fuel hungry inter-city Voyagers onto what are (no matter what they may have been in the past) for the most part these days inter-regional routes.

 

[exile]

A few people here don't seem to appreciate there is a problem with long fixed-formation trains, running more or less empty at off-peak times. It's much better to have short trains that can be coupled together as required. Even better, loco-hauled trains where extra coaches can be added but I suspect that will never happen.

Having said that I can't understand why LM were running 8 coaches on the Birmingham-Euston route on a Sunday. There were perhaps 20 people aboard my train - so a train of 300 tons or so was being used to transport a busload of people.....

 

[LE Greys]

Well I'm aiming for Aberdeen personally but I'm not going to let that get in the way of some agreement

Now there's a nice subject for another thread.

Seems to be the case to me. We went from six or seven coach trains at low frequency (and perhaps irregular times as well) to maybe hourly or more two/three car trains at vaguely regular times. We've seen it time and time again that when you do that lots of people will change from other modes of transport to taking the train.

Right now? Well they're probably not quite right for the work they're doing, but with extensions, a bit of work on the interior and the refitting of the buffet I would say yes they are suited to the work they're doing.

Those all seem like inter-regional routes to me (other than Aberdeen - Glasgow there I would like to see something that had a buffet at least and probably something along the lines of a Voyager just without the top speed of a Voyager).

I certainly agree with that! Ideally make it electric as well. Some form of expanded 380 with a 444-type body might be OK. Still, is Hull-Manchester really much less important than Aberdeen-Glasgow when the English cities actually have bigger populations?

For most routes yes I would say 100mph is prefectly fast enough. We should be aiming at targeting those areas where linespeeds are sub-100mph for increases before worrying about raising other linespeeds.

It wasn't really speed I was getting at, it was all the other things like first class and better catering that are needed as well but are either not there (as in EMT) or in such a limited way that they hardly count (as in Scotrail).

That's going to be one complex upgrade requiring significant work on the units involved (and you can say goodbye to ever restoring tilt on 221s I would imagine) as it would take moving a lot of equipment from where ever it currently is to below the floors (that's why 222s feel more spacious, because they simply are). It will also be a very very expensive upgrade as well I would imagine.

As for the rest, why not carry out a simple interior refresh on the Voyagers (along the lines that I've suggested up thread) and get the extensions done as part of Operation Thor, then spend money on procuring proper replacements for the existing inter-regional fleet (at least those units that need replacing 158s for example have plenty of life in them yet)? I don't see what advantages your suggestion has over mine other than it would put big fuel hungry inter-city Voyagers onto what are (no matter what they may have been in the past) for the most part these days inter-regional routes.

Personally, I think that inter-city/inter-regional is a bit of a false dichotomy. Cross Country was the inter-regional part of Inter-City before sectorisation, which is what I think created this artificial divide. The current XC franchise seems to be an attempt to resolve the problem, but not entirely successfully, because they still have two tiers of service. The divide opened up in the 1980s, when the IC routes improved as a result of better rolling stock and reduced stopping patterns, while the RR routes didn't exactly deteriorate, but shifted focus towards local traffic, resulting in DMU operation and more stops. One of my priorities would be to close the divide by jacking up the RR routes towards IC standard.

Still we all know I think sectorisation ruined the railways. :roll:

Everyone also knows I hate 158s, because I think they are a bodge, but I guess they suited RR at the time. In a way, they are a bit like the Voyagers, too short, uncomfortable and not as good as what they replaced. Still, refurbishment did a very good job with them, but I reckon they should be cascaded down a little. For instance, I would put them on Bristol-Weymouth and the Cornish stoppers instead of 150s. The 159s really ought to be displaced as well, perhaps by a diesel version of the 444s complete with buffet, provided it's more comfortable inside. Add electrification to that, and we're talking a major shake-up of what was once Regional Railways to increase the standards.

However, that's way outside this thread's subject area. For now, the limited role cascaded Voyagers can play in that, plus their potential replacement (whatever it is) is what we are thinking about.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A few people here don't seem to appreciate there is a problem with long fixed-formation trains, running more or less empty at off-peak times. It's much better to have short trains that can be coupled together as required. Even better, loco-hauled trains where extra coaches can be added but I suspect that will never happen.

Having said that I can't understand why LM were running 8 coaches on the Birmingham-Euston route on a Sunday. There were perhaps 20 people aboard my train - so a train of 300 tons or so was being used to transport a busload of people.....

Understood there. Streamlining and lack of gangway connections can cause problems with that, though.

 

[HSTEd]

A few people here don't seem to appreciate there is a problem with long fixed-formation trains, running more or less empty at off-peak times. It's much better to have short trains that can be coupled together as required. Even better, loco-hauled trains where extra coaches can be added but I suspect that will never happen.

Or on electric routes we could take advantage of modern technology.

Build an EMU where the only difference between carriages is that some have cabs and pantographs and some don't.
This would involve distributed transformers in every carriage and motored axles in every carriage in the same ratio throughout the train. (Every carriage having one powered bogie for instance) with a single 25kV bus line running throuh the train for ETS and traction supply.

You then use an ethernet style networking system to provide TMS and passenger service functionality and to check for train completeness by polling every carriage in the train at intervals.

If the carriages were all fitted with autocouplers at both ends you could simply chop and change the formation to suit even more easily than you can with a HST (since in a depot under computer control it could concievably do it entirely automatically).
The pantograph and traction bus would be oversized for the maximum draw likely (which is considerably lighter than doing the same for a locomotive) and then you have an EMU with the flexibility of loco hauled electric stock in the old sense but all the operational benefits.

 

[ainsworth74]

I certainly agree with that! Ideally make it electric as well. Some form of expanded 380 with a 444-type body might be OK. Still, is Hull-Manchester really much less important than Aberdeen-Glasgow when the English cities actually have bigger populations?

It wasn't really speed I was getting at, it was all the other things like first class and better catering that are needed as well but are either not there (as in EMT) or in such a limited way that they hardly count (as in Scotrail).

Personally I've thought for a while that something along the lines of a 444 (either pure EMU, DMU or Bi-mode) would be pretty much perfect for fulfilling a lot of roles on the network. You have a nice passenger interior (lets not talk about seats ), first class, buffet and if you had them at either four or five vehicles with gangways you could easily do portion working (eight cars Manchester to York then four onto Scarborough/Middlesbrough anyone or how about eight cars Manchester to Carstairs then four onto Edinburgh/Glasgow?).

Still we all know I think sectorisation ruined the railways.

NSE worked out quite well I think, but I take you point that for RR it probably was to some extent a disaster but at the same time there certainly were improvements (Sprinterisation doing away with the bulk of the 1st Generation DMUs for example).

However, that's way outside this thread's subject area.

Perhaps but it's fun to talk about nonetheless

For now, the limited role cascaded Voyagers can play in that, plus their potential replacement (whatever it is) is what we are thinking about.

Aaaand were back to being in disagreement Look I'm not going to change my mind on this and I can tell you're not so perhaps it would be best if we just disengage as otherwise on this point we're just going to go round and round in circles.

 

[LE Greys]

Or on electric routes we could take advantage of modern technology.

Build an EMU where the only difference between carriages is that some have cabs and pantographs and some don't.
This would involve distributed transformers in every carriage and motored axles in every carriage in the same ratio throughout the train. (Every carriage having one powered bogie for instance) with a single 25kV bus line running throuh the train for ETS and traction supply.

You then use an ethernet style networking system to provide TMS and passenger service functionality and to check for train completeness by polling every carriage in the train at intervals.

If the carriages were all fitted with autocouplers at both ends you could simply chop and change the formation to suit even more easily than you can with a HST (since in a depot under computer control it could concievably do it entirely automatically).
The pantograph and traction bus would be oversized for the maximum draw likely (which is considerably lighter than doing the same for a locomotive) and then you have an EMU with the flexibility of loco hauled electric stock in the old sense but all the operational benefits.

That's a logical extension of what the LNER were doing with Buckeye couplers. There, you still had to hook up the brake and steam pipes, but it made coupling a lot less hazardous and quicker. AIUI, Mk IVs improved on this by using Tightlocks, but still run in fixed formations anyway (which seems a bit pointless). Assuming they use Dellners or Scharfenbergs (I don't know if the software would permit this sort of thing) then it would be useful. The real question is where to keep all the extra stock. Secondly, if it's doing more than 100, what about streamlining it? Potentially, you could have a V-shaped cab, but an unaerodynamic gangway in the middle might make it awkward. All vehicles would need a cab (possibly at both ends) to enable splitting and joining to happen at stations.

Still, weren't there once 2-car 309s to permit extensions during the peaks?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Aaaand were back to being in disagreement Look I'm not going to change my mind on this and I can tell you're not so perhaps it would be best if we just disengage as otherwise on this point we're just going to go round and round in circles.

Fair enough. <handshake>

Now I'd better get on with the report I'm supposed to be writing...

 

[HSTEd]

That's a logical extension of what the LNER were doing with Buckeye couplers. There, you still had to hook up the brake and steam pipes, but it made coupling a lot less hazardous and quicker. AIUI, Mk IVs improved on this by using Tightlocks, but still run in fixed formations anyway (which seems a bit pointless). Assuming they use Dellners or Scharfenbergs (I don't know if the software would permit this sort of thing) then it would be useful. The real question is where to keep all the extra stock. Secondly, if it's doing more than 100, what about streamlining it? Potentially, you could have a V-shaped cab, but an unaerodynamic gangway in the middle might make it awkward. All vehicles would need a cab (possibly at both ends) to enable splitting and joining to happen at stations.

Well I wasn't going to take it quite to the point of fitting every carriage with pantographs or cabs, Im sorry if that wasnt clear.

What I would propose is that every vehicle with a cab have a pantograph, and that there be a mix of streamlined and non streamlined (gangwayed) cabs vehicles (non streamlined cab vehicles would probably have cabs on both ends).
With computer controlled operations in the depot, you can make any formation the diagram might require at the touch of a button with no additional staff hours, beyond having your driver and train crew wait around a few minutes while the train rearranges itself on the depot roads.

I would presume you would keep the stock in a handy set of sidings that would allow the requisite automated shunting movements, so presumably a set of carriage sidings protected by trip points with a headshunt and points at both ends (so more loops than sidings).

 

[tbtc]

For most routes yes I would say 100mph is prefectly fast enough. We should be aiming at targeting those areas where linespeeds are sub-100mph for increases before worrying about raising other linespeeds

Agreed - 100mph is fast - the issue is getting rid of the low speed areas (to avoid braking etc) rather than trying to shave a few seconds off by increasing sections to 125.

For this reason I'm really not too fussed about 125mph on the MML, I'd rather they sorted out the sub-100 sections first

 

[WestCoast]

Everyone also knows I hate 158s, because I think they are a bodge, but I guess they suited RR at the time. In a way, they are a bit like the Voyagers, too short, uncomfortable and not as good as what they replaced. Still, refurbishment did a very good job with them, but I reckon they should be cascaded down a little.

Maybe I have lower stock standards (I do commute on Northern ), but to me a 158 seems like a terribly big step up from the likes of 142s/150s on regional stopping routes.

 

[tbtc]

@ 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.

Really Voyagers are perfect for the routes they run on (they can do 125mph where they need to, they can accelerate about as well as an EMU, they have First Class etc), they are just too short.

A longer Voyager obviously wouldn't be as cramped - if the worst thing you can say about lengthening Voyagers is that it'd just attract more passenger then surely thats a good thing? And then extend coaches further if need be?

There's really nowhere else for Voyagers - the "Regional Railways" routes suggested are generally timed for 90mph units (158s), so 125mph Voyagers would be a waste. Plus the crumple zones etc mean that a four coach Voyager would be a drop in capacity from a three coach DMU (e.g. the 158s on Cardiff - Portsmouth or the 170s on Nottingham - Cardiff).

Only way out of this vicious circle is to extend the Voyagers (and insert a Panto coach).

 

[D1009]

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.

Incorrect, I refer you to Austrian Federal Railways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railjet

Whatever people on here might want, XC are happy with their voyagers, and so are the passengers, other than enthusiasts. In percentage terms very few trains are overcrowded, though many approach full. There is a maintenance contract with Bombardier which is working well, with an ideally situated purpose built state of the art depot. So specualtion about them being replaced is a waste of time, because they're not going to be.

My journeys on XC tend to revolve around the HST diagrams as much as possible, that's because I know there will be plenty of room and their HSTs are more pleasant to travel on, but outside the enthusiast world that is not a huge issue.

I am hoping they can find a way of extending the Voyagers by inserting a transformer/pantograph coach so the existing traction motors can be powered from the overhead, and at the same time upgrade the interiors to Meridian standard. The HSTs would still be more comfortable, but I'm not sure they would survive this development.

 

[starrymarkb]

Incorrect, I refer you to Austrian Federal Railways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railjet

There is a reason that OBB went for Loco-Hauled. They had ordered far more Taurii then they had a use for following a downturn in freight traffic. It was easier to dig some 140mph 8000hp locomotives out of storage and pair with new coaches then to order units. Not many other countries have a supply of such locos in store (and Taurii are not cheap unless bought en-masse - or piggybacked on the now complete OBB order)

IIRC a Taurus is semi permanently coupled to a specific rake and they are treated as fixed formation units.