What if 67 hauled trains had supplemented Voyagers on XC?

[dk1]

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:

 

[D1009]

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.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

 

[dk1]

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.

Only met him once. Had to fire up one of the then new 2-car 170s for the launch of the Norwich-Cambridge service in 2002. Seem to recall he never wore a tie.

 

[The Planner]

Rule 1 of Railforums, never let facts get in the way.

 

[43096]

Sounds about right to me. Too many Branson bashers on here to accept that though :roll:

"Sounds about right"? So you don't know. Come back when you have the facts.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Rule 1 of Railforums, never let facts get in the way.

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

 

[dk1]

"Sounds about right"? So you don't know. Come back when you have the facts.

I'm back No facts yet just like many other posts.

 

[43096]

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

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...

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

 

[The Planner]

What were the actual bums on seats figures though of that 19400? To build a case on doubling the passenger numbers one can only assume the trains were nowhere near full.

 

[route:oxford]

I await the Branson luvvies response...

It's easy to play games with numbers - which is probably why you're not comparing like with like.

To do that you'd have to multiply the number of seats on the stock by the component diagrams.

Now, how about comparing the number of seats delivered on a Sunday under Voyagers compared to that delivered under BR mid 90s with 47s and HST?

 

[J-2739]

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...

Why you so hard on Bran? Blame the Stupid Rail non-Authority.

 

[neilb62]

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....

 

[Bletchleyite]

No tilt option on turbostars....

No tilt on XC now either, so no matter.

 

[najaB]

No tilt on XC now either, so no matter.

But there was a the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But there was a the time.

There was, but the fact that there isn't now proves it to have been unnecessary.

 

[tbtc]

My memory of XC pre-Princess was that the hourly Birmingham to Leeds service (which generally came from the south west and only ran north of Newcastle in the early morning/ evening - three placing journeys into Scotland) were pretty unreliable, often half a coach was given over to "Guards" (BSO - i.e. making the "number of carriages" vs "number of carriages" comparison awkward) and often ran via both Doncaster and Leeds, i.e. significantly slower so little use for through passengers in a hurry. 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.

Easy to say that Voyagers should have been bigger from day one, but (as I've said before) this was an era of two coach DMUs on London - Hull/ Barnsley/ Nottingham and five coach DMUs on London - Cardiff. The only difference is that these other routes saw capacity upgraded (two coach Turbostars replaced by three coach Turbostars replaced by four coach Meridians on the MML, FGW180s replaced by HSTs on Cardiff duties. The difference was that Virgin's "bespoke" trains were harder to extend as nobody else ordered Voyagers, so the Belgian production line closed down once the 222s were built.

See also 175s and 185s - just one production of each fleet, so never easy to order additional units of extra coaches for existing trains.

Maybe if Virgin had gone for something less flashy like non-tilting 100mph DMUs (which would still have been faster than the 47s they replaced) then it'd have been possible for further orders?

Too many Branson bashers on here

I await the Branson luvvies response...

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"?

Rule 1 of Railforums, never let facts get in the way.

True!

 

[43096]

Why you so hard on Bran? Blame the Stupid Rail non-Authority.

The SRA didn't exist at the time Virgin took on the contract.

Sorry, but it was Virgin's decision to go for the new trains and timetable in the franchise bid - no-one else's. Franchises were much less prescribed back then than they are now.

They would have been far better ditching the tilt and using the money to make more of/the entire fleet 5 car. In addition, the interior configuration with so many large toilets is very, very poor and results in the loss of a significant amount of seating (and luggage) capacity.

 

[dk1]

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!

Oh my goodness. That's far to deep a question. Will need to sleep on that one

 

[AnonymousUser1]

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...

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

 

[Jd12]

Voyagers have either 208 seats (4 car) or 278 seats (5 car). Originally the XC fleet was 34 4-car and 40 5-car.

They were ordered as the following:
220: 34 Sets
221 (4 Car): 4 Sets
221 (5 Car): 40 Sets

 

[SpacePhoenix]

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

 

[43096]

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

LHCS figures take account of the brakes and buffet cars; likewise HST set figures take account of TGS and buffets.

I don't have the number of diagrammed sets to hand either for the old fleet or for Voyagers.

I note though that I seem to be the only putting some facts into this debate: there's nothing from those who think "Voyager is best".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They were ordered as the following:

220: 34 Sets

221 (4 Car): 4 Sets

221 (5 Car): 40 Sets

Well aware of what was ordered. The 4-car 221s were not for XC, but (laughably) to replace full length HSTs and LHCS on Euston-North Wales workings.

 

[dk1]

In a perfect world I would have liked to see Hitachi bi-modes ordered for the South West-Scotland route. This would release Voyagers for other routes & possibly instead of shortened HST sets for Scotrail. Best case seems 222s released at some point from the MML.

Then again we could be surprised. Whoever thought we'd have an entire new fleet throughout East Anglia until a few weeks ago?

 

[sprinterguy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If it's during darkness or you are like much of the population & have your face constantly on a device then who cares anyway?

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.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

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.

 

[The Ham]

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.

It would be interesting to see the timetables for those services which switched traction in the 90's, I would suggest that those are the ones that gained the most.

The problem with XC now is that with the trains being so busy it means that dwell times have deteriorated, it is also worth noting that with such a busy network there is probably little scope to timetable better journey times because of all the competing other services.

I would suggest that shorter turn arounds at final destinations would play a big difference with seating capacity. As will the capability to run pairs of units over the cores; as who cares if you have a train with 440 seats when there are only (say) 100 people on a train towards the outer edges of the network.

One final point, XC currently have HST's (admittedly not used as heavily as they could be) however that does mean that there is extra capacity beyond that provided by just the Voyagers, by my maths it would push the XC seating capacity to circa 20,700. This would mean that XC has about 7% more seats than it did under the old rolling stock with a smaller network, the ability to provide extra capacity over the core and shorter turn arounds.

Yes XC does need more capacity, however the old fleets would have needed to be replaced well before now, even if they could have carried on for longer than they did.

Other types of DMU "could" have been possible to order more of, but given that other no growth franchises haven't been able to order new trains until recently, I would be surprised if it made any difference. Likewise titling/non tilting would have had a small impact (i.e. two or three extra coaches).

We are where we are, and although hindsight is a wonderful thing, I doubt that many would have been too critical of the introduction of the Voyager fleet at the time. There would have been some calling for longer trains (and personally I think that they should have all been 5 coach train), but then as others have said, could the business case have been made for that? Just the 34 extra coaches for the 220's would have cost about £3.5 million a year in lease costs if each coach costs about £100,000 a year. Given how much the losses at XC have been in the past that would have been an extra chunk of money to be found for that, which could well have come at the cost of other rail projects.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

I agree, I have previously suggested that the 222's be formed (by scrapping/storing end units) as 7 coach units so that they never have to run in pairs with Voyagers. With the Voyagers be formed as a mix of 5 and 7 coach units.

Just as a related note, a 7 coach train would have broadly the same capacity as a pair of 4 coach 22x's, meaning that by having 15 to 20 of them, along with all 5 coach units for the other services, would give XC a noticeable step up in capacity over what they have today.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you look back at the archives of the uk.railway USENET newsgroup, you'll see that a lot of people (many of whom now post here) were very critical of the introduction of Voyagers for many reasons, not least the capacity issues.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There was, but the fact that there isn't now proves it to have been unnecessary.

Tilt isn't necessary when Birmingham/Manchester-Scotland via Preston aren't part of the franchise any more. When they were, tilt would have been necessary on the long stretches of the WCML, and since that's what the XC franchise was back then there's not much that could have been done.

 

[swt_passenger]

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

When the 220s were ordered, no one would have considered replacing the 158/159s because they were far too new.

You're using 12 years of hindsight.