Wouldn't it be great if Cross-Country took some of the redundant HST's?

[Dave91131]

I have read all posts in this thread with great interest, I don't work in any capacity connected to the railway (never have and probably never will) but I'm going to throw my two pence worth out there and see what people think.

With obvious consideration needed for ensuring a viable business model and ongoing successful operation, particularly outgoing operational costs and other overheads, the railway should be run with the interests of the passengers (its paying customers) at the forefront of its decision making and actions as DarloRich in particular eludes to several times in posts. For example, I'm very confident that if a poll were to be taken of 1000 daily XC travellers, over 90% would not be disappointed if an ex GWR HST with 7 or 8 carriages turned up on their service as opposed to what is essentially a 3 or 4-car (by the time the driving ends, ex-shop areas and other non-passenger accommodation areas are removed) Voyager.

Rolling stock cascades / replacements in my humble opinion should have been and still should be something along the lines of the following (I'll bring in the WCML as the Pendolino's and 221's are affected too):


Short term:

All XC 220's and 221's are replaced by HST's ex GWR and VTEC (displaced by new 80x units), giving an all-HST fleet to XC. Yes there would be some variety in seating arrangements, seating types etc but surely in the 21st century this can be managed for a relatively short period.

The WCML 221's are replaced by 90 + mk3 rakes of stock (displaced from GA by new 720/745/755/7xx whatever they are units), with 67's / 68's either topping or replacing the 90 as appropriate over non-electrified sections.


Long term:

All of the above HST and loco-hauled mk3 rolling stock on WCML and XC is replaced by new-build bi-mode class 80x units, probably 11-car for WCML and 9-car for XC in my view (decision to be made whether to have an all bi-mode fleet for WCML to give total operational flexibility or a majority of electric only units with a smaller number of bi-modes to mirror the 221's and 390's at present which presents operational constraints).

All 220's and 221's are removed from XC and WCML, stripped back to a shell internally, given a half-life complete refurbishment which improves the passenger saloon interiors vastly as well as any required mechanical work, and are sent to Scotland. These fulfil duties for which the HST's will be used as well as others as required / appropriate, thereby releasing 15x and 170 units for short and medium distance work elsewhere or to strengthen other services in Scotland.

Slight digression – the order for these new units would also include additional vehicles to increase all ECML 9-car 80x units to 11-car.


The changes needed are much more deeply rooted than 'this train can't work that service because that ROSCO owns it and leases it to that TOC who doesn't get on with that TOC because they always make them late' nonsense. The disability compliance date needs postponing, rolling stock needs moving around / ordering / replacing, and most importantly a proper action plan is needed – not just for XC but for the entire UK network.

I'm well aware that those with a much greater knowledge than I will ever have will reply to this with numerous reasons why none of what I have suggested can happen, why I'm deluded for thinking it ever could etc – and that's fine. I won't reply with any abuse, negativity etc.

But my views will remain unchanged, as I'm sure DarloRich's will.

To summarise – my above suggestions bring short-term moderate pain (putting up with 220's and 221's for a bit longer but in the knowledge that good things are coming) but long term gain for the railway's paying customers. In reality and with what is happening / going to happen, all I can see for the railway's passengers is long term severe pain.

Over and out.

 

[JonathanH]

The bottom line for private companies is profit. So why would a company lease and pay access charges for additional stock when they can squeeze everyone one into existing stock.
Difference between privatisation and nationalisation. One is run for shareholders other is run for benifit of the country.

The first paragraph explains why the Cross Country services will retain their existing rolling stock. The existing passengers fit (somewhat squashed in some cases but not all) on what is already there.

A nationalised operator would not use additional rolling stock either.

In practice, the operation of Cross Country using Voyagers would remain the same in either case. If a private operator thought it could make money from running longer trains it would have proposed it and got it agreed with the DfT long before now. A nationalised operator needs to keep costs as low as possible to restrict demands on the public purse.

 

[Darandio]

The WCML 221's are replaced by 90 + mk3 rakes of stock (displaced from GA by new 720/745/755/7xx whatever they are units), with 67's / 68's either topping or replacing the 90 as appropriate over non-electrified sections.

We'll start with this one.

They won't replace stock cleared for 125mph on the WCML with stock only capable of 110mph. The amount of pathing problems makes it a non starter.

 

[yorksrob]

The bottom line for private companies is profit. So why would a company lease and pay access charges for additional stock when they can squeeze everyone one into existing stock.
Difference between privatisation and nationalisation. One is run for shareholders other is run for benifit of the country.

I think its fair to say that aspects of the current system, such as some leasing contracts, seem to incentivise crowding on some services.

 

[yorksrob]

Would be illegal post 2020, so not worth bothering with.

Then change the law.

 

[yorksrob]

By the same token, if HSTs are such a great solution, why haven't XC been champing at the bit. The current XC franchise runs out in 2019 and the rolling stock market has only swung in favour of TOCs in the past few years. As we both know XC won't take on any more stock used or new because Arriva ate notorious tight wads.

For starters, there haven't been many HST's going spare up until now.

 

[yorksrob]

the solution would be DRS buys them and operates them as rescue/charter stock.

not officially classed as full mainline operation,so should secure derogation due to infrequent use(allegedly)

gives DRS an excuse to get shot of mk2's for something a bit more comfortable too.
could quite easily see hst short form on barrow/cumbria and wherry lines.They've already said they are looking at retiring some of their older locos

37/47's saving grace might be they are capable of heavy haul,but 20's and 31's I think are definitely for the knackers yard.Considering DRS and network rail use both in T+T formation,then HST can quite easily meet and beat those.

That's a possibility, but doesn't do much to resolve the XC capacity issues.

 

[Taunton]

They won't replace stock cleared for 125mph on the WCML with stock only capable of 110mph. The amount of pathing problems makes it a non starter.

Which is EXACTLY what has been done on the GWML out to Reading, where an all-125mph operation on the Main Lines has now been interleaved with 110mph class 387s.

 

[cactustwirly]

Then change the law.

Whos going to support that?
Definitely not disabled people....

 

[cactustwirly]

Which is EXACTLY what has been done on the GWML out to Reading, where an all-125mph operation on the Main Lines has now been interleaved with 110mph class 387s.

Hmm?
The 387s have replaced long standing 165 services which were previously 90mph.

 

[tbtc]

I want a seat. I don't want to stand next to the toilet breathing in anothers pooh fumes having paid £90 for the privilege. Get me more seats. I think the HST is the answer. Whats yours?

You're not daft, Rich.

You work in the industry.

You know that HSTs can't match Voyagers for timings and you know that the XC timetable can't simply be rejigged (due to the number of other TOCs that it conflicts with).

So you know that HSTs aren't going to be a realistic answer.

Play to the gallery all you want, complain about the smelly toilets to your heart's desire, but unless HSTs are going to accelerate as fast as Voyagers then you're wasting your time.

Come with me on a Friday out of New Street on a full price second class ticket and tell me 3 hours of pooh fumes aren't the issue. it is horrible. The tickets cost us real people a fortune ( no railcard, no special handshake first class club remember ) and we are treated with contempt by XC

I'm not sure who you think I am, but I've no railcard or any such fineries. I've had one single First Class ride in the past decade or so (an advanced ticket, cheaper than Standard).

However I did commute daily on Voyagers from Sheffield to Leeds - the busiest section of the XC network - I've done my time stood on them - I don't know if that qualifies me as a "real person" (I paid 100% for my tickets, no discounts, if that makes any difference to you). But, whatever my thoughts on the odour emanating from the bogs, there's no point trying to replace Voyagers with something that can't meet Voyager timings.

For example, due to the Derby blockade, your xx:30 from Birmingham currently passes Alwarke Junction (north of Rotherham) at xx:30 (i.e. two hours after it left New Street), getting to Leeds at xx:00 (two and a half hours after leaving Birmingham), on its way to Edinburgh (or Glasgow/ Aberdeen/ Dundee).

At xx:34, the 75mph Northern DMU leaves Alwarke Junction on its way to Leeds - ten stops later it gets there at xx:30 - i.e. half an hour after the Voyager arrived in Leeds.

Replace Voyagers with something that accelerates sluggishly (like a long HST) and you'll be late leaving Birmingham/ Sheffield, miss your current path, find yourself stuck behind the Dearne Valley Stopper and arrive in Leeds half an hour later than intended. That's the reality of XC's timetable - they can't afford to waste a minute here or there because if they do then they'll be stuck behind stoppers (if not the Rotherham service then it could be a Cross City service from Birmingham to Bromsgrove or a Northern service from Stoke to Manchester etc etc.

5/6/7 HSTs are nowhere near as quick off the blocks and up to line speed as 220/221s.

This bears repeating.

Yes, I'm afraid I do tend to react to my emotions. The emotion of getting annoyed when squashed up uncomfortably on an inadequate train.

The Mk 3's which TPE supposedly intended to run aren't really compatible with my suggestion that each HST should have a priority carriage fitted out to the latest standard. This would ensure that every potential passenger would still have access to every train, whereas TPE were proposing to make people wait for the next service, then ringvfor a taxi if they couldn't get on that.

Is that too pragmatic a solution for the purists ?

Are you suggesting something that will keep time with existing Voyager diagrams, or are you mithering about why you'd prefer 1970s trains?

If rolling stock was that cheap to lease and operate, Cross Country wouldn't have the crowding issues now. It does, so it isn't.

Don't talk empty, you know as well as I do that they are tied into a contract for the voyagers.

True - which limits what XC can realistically do.

Also worth pointing out that it's easy for TOCs to replace an old 100mph EMU with a new 100mph EMU - some TOCs can obtain "off the shelf" trains - some TOCs just require "common or garden" trains - but there's not a lot of self powered fast accelerating 125mph stock on the market for XC to aim for - the realistic options seem to be either get some 802s or get the EMT 222s (once they get 802s). And 802s are only really becoming an option now - they weren't an option five/ten years ago.

I have read all posts in this thread with great interest, I don't work in any capacity connected to the railway (never have and probably never will) but I'm going to throw my two pence worth out there and see what people think.

With obvious consideration needed for ensuring a viable business model and ongoing successful operation, particularly outgoing operational costs and other overheads, the railway should be run with the interests of the passengers (its paying customers) at the forefront of its decision making and actions as DarloRich in particular eludes to several times in posts. For example, I'm very confident that if a poll were to be taken of 1000 daily XC travellers, over 90% would not be disappointed if an ex GWR HST with 7 or 8 carriages turned up on their service as opposed to what is essentially a 3 or 4-car (by the time the driving ends, ex-shop areas and other non-passenger accommodation areas are removed) Voyager.

As someone who used to commute daily on Voyagers, I'd rather have an eight carriage train than a three carriage train - no doubt - but this only works if your eight coach train can match the timings of the three coach train.

I've mentioned the issue between Rotherham and Leeds above in reply to @DarloRich , but as a more general point, look at the Derby blockade for XC. They can't run through Derby station so the services are diverted via Toton. Fair enough. But they can't rip up the timetable either side of Derby - they are forced to retain the "traditional" paths through Leeds etc - so the answer is to have some services sitting at Burton for ten minutes or more (e.g. http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C77403/2018/07/25/advanced) to ensure that an XC service can run in an XC path from Edinburgh/Newcastle to Chesterfield and again in an XC path from Burton to Plymouth/ Southampton (albeit half an hour later).

There are some good things about Voyagers (very reliable, big windows, have sped up lots of journeys), there are some bad things about Voyagers (lack of carriages, lack of seats inside those carriages due to the poor layout, meaning lots of passengers end up stood by the bogs), I'm not going to shed tears if they are scrapped *but* any replacement needs to deal with the current Voyager timings - adding an extra couple of minutes here and there is fine if you are on a relatively self-contained TOC but XC don't have that luxury - the amount of conflicts and flat junctions mean it's going to be very difficult to rewrite the timetable.

IF anyone can suggest a way of matching Voyager timings with some other trains then I'm listening but the nostalgia for old trains and the naive assumption that we can just delay/ignore accessibility deadlines aren't convincing me.

 

[Dennis]

My idea for quickly increasing capacity on Voyagers would be to take out all but one of the (smelly) toilets and fit them out with 3+2 seating. Might be a bit cosy on a 221 but hey, a 25% instant capacity increase!

 

[yorksrob]

Whos going to support that?
Definitely not disabled people....

I'm sure disabled people would prefer to be able to get on the train than not. We already have a compromise where typically part of the train has an accessible toilet. How is having an accessible priority carriage any different ?

 

[yorksrob]

You're not daft, Rich.

You work in the industry.

You know that HSTs can't match Voyagers for timings and you know that the XC timetable can't simply be rejigged (due to the number of other TOCs that it conflicts with).

So you know that HSTs aren't going to be a realistic answer.

Play to the gallery all you want, complain about the smelly toilets to your heart's desire, but unless HSTs are going to accelerate as fast as Voyagers then you're wasting your time.



I'm not sure who you think I am, but I've no railcard or any such fineries. I've had one single First Class ride in the past decade or so (an advanced ticket, cheaper than Standard).

However I did commute daily on Voyagers from Sheffield to Leeds - the busiest section of the XC network - I've done my time stood on them - I don't know if that qualifies me as a "real person" (I paid 100% for my tickets, no discounts, if that makes any difference to you). But, whatever my thoughts on the odour emanating from the bogs, there's no point trying to replace Voyagers with something that can't meet Voyager timings.

For example, due to the Derby blockade, your xx:30 from Birmingham currently passes Alwarke Junction (north of Rotherham) at xx:30 (i.e. two hours after it left New Street), getting to Leeds at xx:00 (two and a half hours after leaving Birmingham), on its way to Edinburgh (or Glasgow/ Aberdeen/ Dundee).

At xx:34, the 75mph Northern DMU leaves Alwarke Junction on its way to Leeds - ten stops later it gets there at xx:30 - i.e. half an hour after the Voyager arrived in Leeds.

Replace Voyagers with something that accelerates sluggishly (like a long HST) and you'll be late leaving Birmingham/ Sheffield, miss your current path, find yourself stuck behind the Dearne Valley Stopper and arrive in Leeds half an hour later than intended. That's the reality of XC's timetable - they can't afford to waste a minute here or there because if they do then they'll be stuck behind stoppers (if not the Rotherham service then it could be a Cross City service from Birmingham to Bromsgrove or a Northern service from Stoke to Manchester etc etc.



This bears repeating.



Are you suggesting something that will keep time with existing Voyager diagrams, or are you mithering about why you'd prefer 1970s trains?





True - which limits what XC can realistically do.

Also worth pointing out that it's easy for TOCs to replace an old 100mph EMU with a new 100mph EMU - some TOCs can obtain "off the shelf" trains - some TOCs just require "common or garden" trains - but there's not a lot of self powered fast accelerating 125mph stock on the market for XC to aim for - the realistic options seem to be either get some 802s or get the EMT 222s (once they get 802s). And 802s are only really becoming an option now - they weren't an option five/ten years ago.



As someone who used to commute daily on Voyagers, I'd rather have an eight carriage train than a three carriage train - no doubt - but this only works if your eight coach train can match the timings of the three coach train.

I've mentioned the issue between Rotherham and Leeds above in reply to @DarloRich , but as a more general point, look at the Derby blockade for XC. They can't run through Derby station so the services are diverted via Toton. Fair enough. But they can't rip up the timetable either side of Derby - they are forced to retain the "traditional" paths through Leeds etc - so the answer is to have some services sitting at Burton for ten minutes or more (e.g. http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C77403/2018/07/25/advanced) to ensure that an XC service can run in an XC path from Edinburgh/Newcastle to Chesterfield and again in an XC path from Burton to Plymouth/ Southampton (albeit half an hour later).

There are some good things about Voyagers (very reliable, big windows, have sped up lots of journeys), there are some bad things about Voyagers (lack of carriages, lack of seats inside those carriages due to the poor layout, meaning lots of passengers end up stood by the bogs), I'm not going to shed tears if they are scrapped *but* any replacement needs to deal with the current Voyager timings - adding an extra couple of minutes here and there is fine if you are on a relatively self-contained TOC but XC don't have that luxury - the amount of conflicts and flat junctions mean it's going to be very difficult to rewrite the timetable.

IF anyone can suggest a way of matching Voyager timings with some other trains then I'm listening but the nostalgia for old trains and the naive assumption that we can just delay/ignore accessibility deadlines aren't convincing me.

I believe its been established that an eight carriage HST has better acceleration characteristics than a nine carriage one.

I'm not convinced that there is money in the industry to rustle up a load of new IC standard self-powered trains, not in the comparatively short term, anyway.

 

[43096]

Hmm?
The 387s have replaced long standing 165 services which were previously 90mph.

Quite. And I could swear the 100mph 332s use the main lines as well...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm sure disabled people would prefer to be able to get on the train than not. We already have a compromise where typically part of the train has an accessible toilet. How is having an accessible priority carriage any different ?

I was thinking this very thing as I read through the lively debate on this thread... If you're a wheelchair user boarding a 185, you're restricted to the "ballroom" area in the composite coach because that's the only place your wheelchair would fit. If that coach was a modified mk3, what's the difference?

Modern stock, even the "level boarding" Stadler units on order for GA, Wales and Merseyrail, still restricts passengers in wheelchairs to a specific area of the train. Converting just one vehicle of an HST set for wheelchair access would be no different in practical terms. If the legislation which comes in in 2020 rules this out, then the question has to be why? Not only why would it rule this out, but if so why does it not also apply to new-build stock?

It does seem that the railway treats deadlines the same way I treated deadlines during my first year at university: ignore them until the panic sets in at the 11th hour, then hash together something that only just barely meets the expected requirements!

I also note that there is currently a thread on this website asking why there's a clamour for renationalisation. This thread has people citing various contractors employed to do the work of making stock comply with the legislation which is pending. There's also mention of different companies which operate franchises, and the various leasing companies which own the rolling-stock. BR wasn't perfect I know, but in most cases when it set out to make a big change (electrification projects, refurbishments, rolling-stock replacement) it generally (with a few notable exceptions) managed to do so pretty well. This may not have been down to public ownership, but I imagine that having all the different plates (rolling-stock, infrastructure, staffing) being kept spinning by a single body probably helped.

 

[class26]

My idea for quickly increasing capacity on Voyagers would be to take out all but one of the (smelly) toilets and fit them out with 3+2 seating. Might be a bit cosy on a 221 but hey, a 25% instant capacity increase!

There should be no more 2 + 3 seating on trains in the UK and certainly not on Cross Country. This is a long distance inter City route. If they did , i for one would be in my car definitely Can you imagine doing a journey from say Newcastle to Reading on 3 + 2 ? This is maybe ok on a 30 minute commuter run but on trains where the potential journey is 4 , 5 or 6 hours ? In any case, many trains where there is 3 + 2 seating the middle seat is left unoccupied so achieving precisely nothing except wasting space and creating an inferior ambiance, even to what the present day Voyagers are.

 

[gg1]

The first paragraph explains why the Cross Country services will retain their existing rolling stock. The existing passengers fit (somewhat squashed in some cases but not all) on what is already there.

This of course assumes potential passengers aren't being put off by the prospect of travelling on a crush loaded Voyager.

I occasionally have to travel from Brum to Leeds on business but gave up on XC a few years ago and now drive instead. IMO the more unpredictable journey times are a fair trade off for a guaranteed seat and air which doesn't smell of ****, someone I work with feels exactly the same way. I accept it's possible we're completely unique in this regard and there are no other potential XC customers on the roads but somehow I doubt it.

 

[The Ham]

I would suggest that XC using HST's is about as good as owning a pink unicorn.

At first glance it looks like it is great but when it comes down to the practical factors it tends to not work.

Converting whole trains wouldn't produce enough trains in the circa 3 years before a fairly substantial new fleet could be delivered.

Converting one coach per train wouldn't help the majority of passengers. As it would create delays (doors being left open, people struggling to open the doors, not keeping to 22x timings) not benefiting the majority of padres with a disability (not all people with a disability require a wheelchair, for instance those with sight problems).

As suggested before using the 350's as 8 coach trains between Manchester and the Midlands would probably be the best short term fix. As that would give a lot of extra seats between Manchester and Birmingham and would allow more services to be run with pairs of 22x's on other services.

If that still didn't provide quite enough then some 185's running as pairs on the Paignton services would help further.

That would give us time for new trains to replace the 4 coach units.

In an ideal world project Thor would have created a fleet of 5 and 9 coach bimodals 22x's and there wouldn't be the same capacity issues that we've got now.

 

[yorksrob]

I would suggest that XC using HST's is about as good as owning a pink unicorn.

At first glance it looks like it is great but when it comes down to the practical factors it tends to not work.

Converting whole trains wouldn't produce enough trains in the circa 3 years before a fairly substantial new fleet could be delivered.

Converting one coach per train wouldn't help the majority of passengers. As it would create delays (doors being left open, people struggling to open the doors, not keeping to 22x timings) not benefiting the majority of padres with a disability (not all people with a disability require a wheelchair, for instance those with sight problems).

As suggested before using the 350's as 8 coach trains between Manchester and the Midlands would probably be the best short term fix. As that would give a lot of extra seats between Manchester and Birmingham and would allow more services to be run with pairs of 22x's on other services.

If that still didn't provide quite enough then some 185's running as pairs on the Paignton services would help further.

That would give us time for new trains to replace the 4 coach units.

In an ideal world project Thor would have created a fleet of 5 and 9 coach bimodals 22x's and there wouldn't be the same capacity issues that we've got now.

Ah, so its not about accessibility of trains, its about this country's hysterical aversion to slam doors !

It is of course correct that disability includes more than just those conditions requiring a wheelchair, which is why converting one carriage would actually be doubly or tripply useful as for those with genuine difficulty using slam doors, it would provide access to the carriage on the other side of the vestibule as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My idea for quickly increasing capacity on Voyagers would be to take out all but one of the (smelly) toilets and fit them out with 3+2 seating. Might be a bit cosy on a 221 but hey, a 25% instant capacity increase!

Believe it or not there was a genuine proposal for a 3+2 "Virgin Value class" which was abandoned in part because they realised how the seats would only fit kids... (they'd be about the same width as those abysmal "schoolkid coaches").

This is the reason for 3 accessible bogs being fitted (one per class) rather than two accessible and one small.

 

[DarloRich]

You're not daft, Rich.

You work in the industry.

You know that HSTs can't match Voyagers for timings and you know that the XC timetable can't simply be rejigged (due to the number of other TOCs that it conflicts with).

So you know that HSTs aren't going to be a realistic answer.

Play to the gallery all you want, complain about the smelly toilets to your heart's desire, but unless HSTs are going to accelerate as fast as Voyagers then you're wasting your time.

So what is the realisitic answer? We all agree that more capacity is badly needed, that such capacity has been needed for many years, that the Voyager ( while a good train from an operational point of view) is not a great train for large numbers of passengers and that a sensible new train order is the medium/long term solution. However, the problem is: How do we get that capacity increase in the short term?

if the timetable cant be fixed do we need to look at cutting the XC network to provide maximum capacity on the SW/NE core? Cut anywhere SW of Exeter, north of Edinburgh or Glasgow and south of Reading? Take on some EMU's ( the 350's as suggested) to run Manchester to Birmingham/WM trains?

Do we refit the Voyager to provide maximum seats? Remove 2 of the toilets, remove first class, remove any catering provision & squash in as many seats as we can?

if we cant use the HST perhaps it is time to take some really hard decisions about what is important and where the key business is for this TOC?

Alternatively cut XC prices to reflect the standard of accommodation offered

IF anyone can suggest a way of matching Voyager timings with some other trains then I'm listening but the nostalgia for old trains and the naive assumption that we can just delay/ignore accessibility deadlines aren't convincing me.

The accessibility deadlines are becoming a red herring. They wont be met. That is as obvious as it is disappointing. Derogations will have to be granted subject to a plan to replace the non compliant stock in a certain time frame ( ie confirmed new orders). The alternative is to stop running large numbers of services. That will not be acceptable.

 

[swt_passenger]

if the timetable cant be fixed do we need to look at cutting the XC network to provide maximum capacity on the SW/NE core? Cut anywhere SW of Exeter, north of Edinburgh or Glasgow and south of Reading?

Apparently Grayling said yesterday he wasn’t going ahead with any cuts to the main XC network, following consultation so far.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Apparently Grayling said yesterday he wasn’t going ahead with any cuts to the main network, following consultation so far.

And when a Tory says he won't make cuts, he damn well means it!

(Hopefully that's enough varied smilies to indicate satire!)

 

[A0wen]

Apparently Grayling said yesterday he wasn’t going ahead with any cuts to the main XC network, following consultation so far.

I suspect "main" is the operative word there. And that's a fair position to take.

The focus for XC has to be some of the 'joining the dots' and if they're running half empty trains once they get beyond Exeter or Edinburgh then there's a legitimate challenge about running to Aberdeen, Dundee or Penzance a couple of times a day.

 

[kje7812]

And when a Tory says he won't make cuts, he damn well means it!

(Hopefully that's enough varied smilies to indicate satire!)

Nah, you need twice that amount.

 

[swt_passenger]

I suspect "main" is the operative word there. And that's a fair position to take.

The focus for XC has to be some of the 'joining the dots' and if they're running half empty trains once they get beyond Exeter or Edinburgh then there's a legitimate challenge about running to Aberdeen, Dundee or Penzance a couple of times a day.

Yes I just re-read the consultation and also think the way it’s written that the ‘very limited’ services will still be pulled. So that’s Bath, Guildford, and Cardiff to Bristol. Of course they all help with diversionary route knowledge, so as discussed in previous threads I think some could still possibly run as ECS.

 

[whhistle]

But I would still like them to have a few HST's plus the five sets they have already got. Who wouldn't.

While I haven't travelled on these new fangled 80* trains as yet, I'd suggest most customers would prefer a nice new, modern, quiet train packed with technology than a much older coach turning up.

It's easy to remember on this forum, we know the differences between in a lot of detail. The average passenger will want something new and modern for daily travelling.

I see cloud dreaming plans of bygone trains being kept in service.
It isn't practical, isn't good and isn't really an option long term.

Well Albert Einstein stated that a definition of idiocy is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

Which is stupid.

Take Derren Browns flipping a coin and getting heads 100 times in a row.
He spent all day doing it because eventualy it would happen.
He was doing the same thing over and over again, but got different results. Ergo not an idiot if that was your intended outcome.

But if you want to take views from some dead racist crackpot scientist and try and apply them to modern life, go ahead.

If new IC diesel roolling stock is so cheap to build, how come they haven't already placed an order so that the Voyagers can be doubled up ? Answer is, its not.

Money.
It's coming to the end of the franchise.

Any company would be stupid to spend money on new trains now when there's no guarantee they'll be operating them in a couple of years... right when they're built and entering service.

Plus, Arriva will suggest a complete fleet replacement as part of their franchise bid, which will give them extra points. Start doing it now and you lose those points.

Where’s the “like” button?

The admins are against it, and any discussion of it through fear we'll all use buttons instead of posting.

 

[A0wen]

As suggested before using the 350's as 8 coach trains between Manchester and the Midlands would probably be the best short term fix. As that would give a lot of extra seats between Manchester and Birmingham and would allow more services to be run with pairs of 22x's on other services.

You don't need to run the 350s as 8 car, they've got 206 standard seats and 24 first class a 4 car 220 has 26 first class and 174 standard. So just swapping a 220 for a 350 would offer 15% more seats. I can't believe that a 100% increase in the number of seats is necessary.

 

[DarloRich]

You don't need to run the 350s as 8 car, they've got 206 standard seats and 24 first class a 4 car 220 has 26 first class and 174 standard. So just swapping a 220 for a 350 would offer 15% more seats. I can't believe that a 100% increase in the number of seats is necessary.

but would a 350/2 not need a refit internally to offer a better environment? that might reduce seat numbers a touch.