XC Voyagers debate

[Mintona]

I'm not a great fan, but there are worse trains out there...

The problem is 4 or 5-car DMUs are just plain unsuitable for Bournemouth-Edinburgh or Penzance-Manchester. The 'minibus theory' didn't work at Sprinterisation, and it was no surprise here it didn't work again at Operation/Fiasco Princess. When all the bits inside work and its not rattling too much, inside they are reasonable, a step above the Pendos.

222s are very nice inside - whack the 220s to that standard for short inter-regional routes such as Brum-Norwich, Notts-Cardiff, Liverpool-Newcastle, with 221s on mini-XC turns Bristol-York/Reading-Mamchester, and then HSTs/HST2s on the long-distance true XC stuff would be much better fleet management IMO.

Yes that would work well....except where would the HSTs come from?

 

[voyagerdude220]

IMO, I really like Voyagers, (not surprising, considering my username), but I also admit that there are problems with them.

I personally think that:

1) There should be more carriages added to 220/221's
(which i know that the DFT prevented VXC from doing:cussing: )

[or alternatively more Voyagers built, for more double sets]

2) More luggage space, especially in the FC carriage- I say that, because there's only one luggage rack in coach A, compared to the 2 in coach F.

Would it be possible for a disabled toilet to be swapped with a normal-sized toilet, to increase luggage space?

On a similar note- Why has a law come in place, to prevent passengers from placing luggage in the wheelchair space when it's not being used- If a wheelchair did come on, it would only take everyone a few moments to move the luggage out of the way for the wheelchair?

If it's been such a problem, why wasn't this regulation implemented more nearer the start of Voyager operation?

Isn't it essential to reserve this space in advance anyway?

3) Improve the FC catering on all Voyagers - not just those going to/from London. Why should passengers going to/from London be given a higher level of service, compared to passengers elsewhere?

 

[Jim]

IMO, I really like Voyagers, (not surprising, considering my username), but I also admit that there are problems with them.

I personally think that:

1) There should be more carriages added to 220/221's
(which i know that the DFT prevented VXC from doing:cussing: )

[or alternatively more Voyagers built, for more double sets]

2) More luggage space, especially in the FC carriage- I say that, because there's only one luggage rack in coach A, compared to the 2 in coach F.

Would it be possible for a disabled toilet to be swapped with a normal-sized toilet, to increase luggage space?

On a similar note- Why has a law come in place, to prevent passengers from placing luggage in the wheelchair space when it's not being used- If a wheelchair did come on, it would only take everyone a few moments to move the luggage out of the way for the wheelchair?

If it's been such a problem, why wasn't this regulation implemented more nearer the start of Voyager operation?

Isn't it essential to reserve this space in advance anyway?

3) Improve the FC catering on all Voyagers - not just those going to/from London. Why should passengers going to/from London be given a higher level of service, compared to passengers elsewhere?

1) DfT did not fund, not prevent from doing
2a)To prevent Standing FC passengers
2b)FC coach=no, where would the disabled person go to the bog! BUT I do think the ones without a wheelchair space nearby are a bit of a farce though
2c)If it was for luggage, it would be called a luggage rack! I guess VXC didn;t see the problem arrising, but have you ever had to move luggage as station dispatch staff because the owner can't be bothered/isn't there to move it! It is not essential to reserve the space, there is nothing to stop anyone turning up wanting to get on a train, that is only for booked assitence (according the to VXC pax charter)

Can anyone tell I was board Friday night, so read through the whole passenger charter!

 

[1VWC]

Yes that would work well....except where would the HSTs come from?

A while back, there was serious consideration being given to swapping x amount of Voyagers from XC for x amount of HSTs on the East Mids franchise.

 

[voyagerdude220]

1) DfT did not fund, not prevent from doing

2b)FC coach=no, where would the disabled person go to the bog! BUT I do think the ones without a wheelchair space nearby are a bit of a farce though

I wasn't reffering to removing the disabled toilet from either coach A, or coach F, because they both have the wheelchair spaces.

I was reffering to coach C, but didn't actually put that down at the time.

 

[ChrisCooper]

A while back, there was serious consideration being given to swapping x amount of Voyagers from XC for x amount of HSTs on the East Mids franchise.

Surely though Voyagers would be even less suited to East Mids than Cross Country, since serving London means they have good loadings along the whole route, and at most times, so a one for one replacement of HSTs would be rediulous (and if the plan was for a 2 for 1 swap and run them in pairs, why not just do that on XC). Also, 220s and 222s are totally incompatable, both in terms of multiple working (they can couple, but can't work in multiple), onboard facilities (shop vs. buffet), crew training (crew trained to operate one can't automatically operate the other), and parts (they are the same bodyshell and traction equipment, but beyond that they don't have much in common).

As for using Voyagers on shorter XC runs like Birmingham to Stansted and Nottingham to Cardiff, they would be somewhat wasted due to the lower lines speeds on these routes, yet both are quite limited stop so the acceleration benfit over the 158/170s currently used wouldn't be that great. Birmingham to Stansted would particularly be a waste since other than the short strech on the MML north of Leicester and possibly some south of Ely, line speed doesn't exceed 90mph, and good sections of the route, including the whole way from Peterborough to Ely, is 75mph top. Nottingham to Cardiff does follow the main XC route from Derby to Gloucester with some fast running, aswell as on the GW from Severn Tunnel Junction onwards, but Nottingham to Derby and Gloucester to STJ arn't fast. It's slow around Birmingham aswell. Capacity would improve, replacing the current 2, 3 if you're lucky, coach trains with 4 coaches, but doubling up the existing 2 coach trains would give even more capacity at less cost. Also, Voyager are bad for luggage, and that would be a problem on the Stansted trains (in the summer a lot of people use them from the Midlands to Stansted when flying out from there).

 

[1VWC]

It was a D(a)fT proposal to concentrate certain types of trains on certain routes.

 

[Daniel]

Yeah they look the same but none of them tilt like the 221

I know the Meridians, for one, have tilting equipment, but it isn't used.

 

[AlexS]

They may have the computer systems on board but they do not have tilting bogies.

 

[ChrisCooper]

The already mentioned problem of an exta 10t per coach for tilt equipment, and the resultant effect on performance (and also fuel consumption), means it's not the sort of thing you would fit and not use. As I'd said before, it's use on MML semi-fasts would be limited anyway, since most of the major speed restrictions are through or around stations where they stop. Unlike the 220s, which could be fitted with tilt in the future if wanted, the 222s never could, since the space where tilt equipment would go is taken up by other equipment, allowing additional passenger space.

Regarding the transfer of Voyagers to East Midlands, the DfT do seem good at coming up with daft proposals. The idea that it would be standardising is particularly stupid, since as I said, 220s and 222s are very different trains.

 

[Mojo]

I've also noticed of late from my weekly travels on Voyagers that the bins within the coaches have been removed, meaning the only bins on the train are the vestibule & toilet ones.

Yesterday's train had safety notices stuck on the panels between the windows at points throughout the coaches, and the luggage rack above the priority seats at the coach ends (which you've never been able to put luggage on because of a box there) has had signage and a 'Security seal' attached to the box indicating that glow sticks can be found in there.

 

[yorkie]

Virgin Voyagers on the Bournemouth via Oxford, BHM, up the east coast to Edinburgh have actually cut HST time by over 45 minutes, and the 221 has been proven to be quicker yes, as between Oxford and Banbury it's able to tilt and between York and Newcastle which speeds up the journey further.

I'm not sure about Banbury to Oxford - I hear conflicting reports about that. If you're a driver on that section then, of course, I'll take your word for it! But you only save a very small amount of time on that section. York-Newcastle certainly has no tilt though.

To be honest I think the 221s are quite good, but the 220s were a waste of time, money and work.

As far as XC is concerned, I actually think the 221s are a waste - more so than the 220s anyway - due to the reasons ChrisCooper said..

HSTs were being pushed to the max and were not doing it.
Which is why Voyagers were bought and it has been proven Voyagers cut the fastest HST time by 45 minutes.
I agree about the 4-carriages most people think that is ridiculous including many of the staff at Virgin Trains.

I recall the main reason for Voyagers being purchased was to increase service frequency - rather than decreased journey times - indeed the journey times on my route (Edinburgh-York-Birmingham) are largely unchanged.

The current VXC HST diagram is operating to Voyager timings. It can keep to them, but if a delay occurs for whatever reason it struggles to make the time back; something which a Voyager would be more able to do...

True, but I take issue with the recovery time. The 14:05 from EDB is often late due to congestion in York and then it loses it's path, it is booked just 3 minutes ahead of a stopper at Micklefield (HST due to pass at 16:55, stopper booked to call and depart at 16:58! that is tight). If it is put behind that stopper then it will not arrive into Leeds until 17:20, so will then be behind the 17:19 Donny stopper. Regardless of the traction it will not be possible to get to Moorthorpe until around 17:47, making it 14 down, booked time to pass Swinton is 17:39, so you're looking at 17:43 which means you will be heavily checked for the 17:24 Donny-Sheffield stopper which briefly joins the main line between Swinton and Rotherham, once that's out of the way you then would get ahead of it by Meadowhall, but you are then delayed by the 16:48 Leeds-Sheffield which you were meant to overtake while it was at Rotherham. And that's the best you can hope for! Last time I did this run we crawled most of the way as they kept finding stoppers to put us behind, we could have been jet powered but it would have made no difference on yellows almost the whole way from Micklefield to Sheffield! The train regularly makes up time between Derby and Birmingham though, which it can easily do providing NR don't find a few stoppers to stick in front. The Leeds runs are normally provided by heavy fuel-guzzling class 221s (one of the most inefficient trains on the network, behind 185s I reckon!) and these offer very, very little advantage over an HST. The problem is the stoppers getting in the way - a major problem when going via Leeds, which is why I normally choose to go via Doncaster.

Would it be possible for a disabled toilet to be swapped with a normal-sized toilet, to increase luggage space?

A very expensive fix to do now! At the time they were forced to do this but legislation has since been clarified and we now know that it was overkill. But the designers did what they thought they had to do.

 

[1VWC]

True, but I take issue with the recovery time. The 14:05 from EDB is often late due to congestion in York

The long fast runs on the 'racecourse' stretch North of York and the non stop run from Alnmouth right up until Edinburgh give plenty of scope for making up time as both S41 and M58 are given greens most of the way York-Darlington & vv (or have been the numerous times I've been up front). The HST manages to maintain time, but it is here where the Voyager would excel in making up time with its superior acceleration away from station stops. I totally agree it is down to the fact that the Voyager has far too many engines than is necessary but sometimes, just somtimes they come in useful.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A very expensive fix to do now! At the time they were forced to do this but legislation has since been clarified and we now know that it was overkill. But the designers did what they thought they had to do.

Originally there was envisaged to be three classes of accomodation on XC. Along the lines of First, Club and Standard,