dk1
Veteran Member
Wasn't it the DfT? I thought Virgin wanted 7 cars for the Voyagers but the DfT refused?
Sounds about right to me. Too many Branson bashers on here to accept that though :roll:
Wasn't it the DfT? I thought Virgin wanted 7 cars for the Voyagers but the DfT refused?
I don't think they ever wanted 7 cars, but they certainly wanted the 4 car sets to be lengthened to 5, and the 5 car sets lengthened to 6. That's why to this day there is no coach E on XC voyagers.Wasn't it the DfT? I thought Virgin wanted 7 cars for the Voyagers but the DfT refused?
Sounds about right to me. Too many Branson bashers on here to accept that though :roll:
The irony was that it was the SRA's Richard Bowker who refused more stock for VXC.
He had previously been instrumental for Virgin in winning the XC franchise and Operation Princess and all that, including the Voyager purchase.
But he was sat on by the Treasury who were in recession mode after the Railtrack collapse, and which also gave us the "no growth" franchises (Northern, ATW etc).
"We are not throwing more money at XC" was the quote at the time.
It was also heavily loss-making, which people tend to forget, and has only recently turned round.
Sounds about right to me. Too many Branson bashers on here to accept that though :roll:
Rule 1 of Railforums, never let facts get in the way.
"Sounds about right"? So you don't know. Come back when you have the facts.
indeed
do any of the resident 'stattos' have to hand the number of HSTs which were allocated to XC duties at or immediately prior to privatisation ? vs those that beleonged to 'western region' operations, the MML or those retained for ECML related duties post the introudction of the class 91s and mk4s
I await the Branson luvvies response...
The XC fleet prior to Voyager introduction was made up of 24 HST sets (approx 440 seat) and 26 Mark 2 sets (approx 370 seats).
Voyagers have either 208 seats (4 car) or 278 seats (5 car). Originally the XC fleet was 34 4-car and 40 5-car.
So fleet seating capacity was 19,400 under the old fleet and 18,192 in the Voyagers.
For a business case that was predicated on doubling passenger numbers to make the finances work, ordering a new train fleet that had fewer seats than the one it replaced was a monumentally stupid decision.
Effectively, that decision has saddled XC with an inadequate train fleet for a generation.
I await the Branson luvvies response...
I agree wholeheartedly. They should have been looking to double capacity - if that wasn't affordable as Voyagers, a cheaper option such as Turbostars should have been selected.
No tilt option on turbostars....
But there was a the time.No tilt on XC now either, so no matter.
But there was a the time.
Too many Branson bashers on here
I await the Branson luvvies response...
Rule 1 of Railforums, never let facts get in the way.
Why you so hard on Bran? Blame the Stupid Rail non-Authority.
The above two posts illustrate the futility of threads that rate vaguely to Virgin.
How do you have a rational debate when opinions are so polarised, that anyone expressing a different view is a "fanboy" or "hater"?
True!
The XC fleet prior to Voyager introduction was made up of 24 HST sets (approx 440 seat) and 26 Mark 2 sets (approx 370 seats).
Voyagers have either 208 seats (4 car) or 278 seats (5 car). Originally the XC fleet was 34 4-car and 40 5-car.
So fleet seating capacity was 19,400 under the old fleet and 18,192 in the Voyagers.
For a business case that was predicated on doubling passenger numbers to make the finances work, ordering a new train fleet that had fewer seats than the one it replaced was a monumentally stupid decision.
Effectively, that decision has saddled XC with an inadequate train fleet for a generation.
I await the Branson luvvies response...
Voyagers have either 208 seats (4 car) or 278 seats (5 car). Originally the XC fleet was 34 4-car and 40 5-car.
and what was the planned availability of those diagrams ? but once again that would be facts getting in the way of the cranks and their yanking of certain parts - and do the LHCS figures take account of the use of brakes as one of the coaches
They were ordered as the following:
220: 34 Sets
221 (4 Car): 4 Sets
221 (5 Car): 40 Sets
Not fantasy. The majority of the North East - South West services were HSTs, as were most of the South Coast - North East services that made it as far as Newcastle. Crosscountry's class 47 hauled rakes were a comparatively rare sight in the North East of England. HSTs were also used on at least some of the long distance Scottish services via the WCML such as the "Devon Scot".More fantasy
The vast majority of XC services were not delivered using HSTs - they were diagrammed for elderly 95mph max (on a good day) class 47 units hauling equally elderly Mk2s.
You were lucky if they were hauling 6 coaches and there was all the wasted time around the network as locos swapped ends or power units.
XC was a truly awful and unreliable experience.
To take a couple of routes that I use regularly, looking at a 1999 timetable journey times haven't always been greatly improved: Between Birmingham New Street and Newcastle, in 1999 the 10:00 and 16:00 departures via Doncaster took 3 hours 8 minutes and 3 hours 12 minutes respectively, compared to 3 hours 15 minutes today (though it's 2 hours 52 minutes in the southbound direction), while the typical journey time via Leeds was 3 hours 33 minutes compared to 3 hours 26 minutes today. Meanwhile, between Bristol Temple Meads and Birmingham, typical journey times in 1999 were between 1 hour 24 minutes and 1 hour 36 minutes compared to between 1 hour 23 minutes and 1 hour 28 minutes today.Worth pointing out that replacing 95mph Class 47s with 125mph Voyagers meant faster services which meant fewer diagrams required to maintain the same frequency, again making comparisons hard.
Despite the contention that few members of the general public care much for window seats any more it would seem that many still do, based on the way the seats next to window pillars are always the last to be occupied on even busy Pendolino and Voyager services with Virgin and Crosscountry. I see this on a daily basis.If it's during darkness or you are like much of the population & have your face constantly on a device then who cares anyway?
Even in the face of the ever increasing passenger demand that we're experiencing in the present day, I think you'd be hard pressed to vindicate eleven carriage trains on the Crosscountry network when even the more lucrative London-orientated Intercity operators are ordering new trains that are nine carriages long.The XC and VWC routes that they're used on now could probably have done with longer trains, maybe they'd been better off being 11 car versions of class 220s
Not fantasy. The majority of the North East - South West services were HSTs, as were most of the South Coast - North East services that made it as far as Newcastle. Crosscountry's class 47 hauled rakes were a comparatively rare sight in the North East of England. HSTs were also used on at least some of the long distance Scottish services via the WCML such as the "Devon Scot".
As noted on the previous page by 43096, Crosscountry's fleet was split almost 50:50 between HST and mark 2 rakes, with the loco hauled mark 2 rakes concentrated mainly on the West side of the operation on trains to Manchester, Liverpool and Edinburgh where they could utilise electric traction on the WCML north of Birmingham. The mark 2 rakes were supposed to be standard seven carriage formations, though I'll admit that, particularly in Virgin days, short formations were not uncommon.
To take a couple of routes that I use regularly, looking at a 1999 timetable journey times haven't always been greatly improved, either: Between Birmingham New Street and Newcastle, in 1999 the 10:00 and 16:00 departures via Doncaster took 3 hours 8 minutes and 3 hours 12 minutes respectively, compared to 3 hours 15 minutes today (though it's 2 hours 52 minutes in the southbound direction), while the typical journey time via Leeds was 3 hours 33 minutes compared to 3 hours 26 minutes today. Meanwhile, between Bristol Temple Meads and Birmingham, typical journey times in 1999 were between 1 hour 24 minutes and 1 hour 36 minutes compared to between 1 hour 23 minutes and 1 hour 28 minutes today.
However the Crosscountry network has gained in terms of frequency, reliability and a regular clockface timetable since the introduction of Voyagers, even if there's been little improvement in capacity or journey time. The question is whether this could also have been achieved using a train less poorly designed and better suited to the number of passengers being carried and nature of the route they operate, which is almost undoubtedly the case.
Even in the face of the ever increasing passenger demand that we're experiencing in the present day, I think you'd be hard pressed to vindicate eleven carriage trains on the Crosscountry network when even the more lucrative London-orientated Intercity operators are ordering new trains that are nine carriages long.
I continue to contend that, most of the time, Crosscountry services would be quite ably served by a mix of five and seven carriage trains (with some pairs of five carriage units on the very busiest services). Although with so many four carriage trains carrying passenger loads that would fill every seat on a five carriage unit, it makes me wonder whether the latent demand for travel would simply ensure that the five carriage trains would quickly become as busy as the four carriage ones are at present.
There was, but the fact that there isn't now proves it to have been unnecessary.
Would the industry have been better off ordering more 5 car 220s for any route that uses class 158/9s? Apart from differences in train lengths, a lot of the route profiles served by 158/9s must be suitable for class 220s had more been ordered at the time.
The XC and VWC routes that they're used on now could probably have done with longer trains, maybe they'd been better off being 11 car versions of class 220s