If you were DfT - the future of Voyagers

[D365]

25kV AC is a lot more efficient than 750v DC - less energy is lost through heat (high voltage, lower current) - the justifications you listed above are used by Network Rail, I believe.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

25kV AC is a lot more efficient than 750v DC - less energy is lost through heat (high voltage, lower current) - the justifications you listed above are used by Network Rail, I believe.

That's right, but if as the previous poster said, the cost of electicity is relatively low, when does it become worth the cost and disruption of making a changeover?

 

[D365]

That's right, but if as the previous poster said, the cost of electicity is relatively low, when does it become worth the cost and disruption of making a changeover?

We need to make better use of energy in the future - more electric railways but no confirmed plans for (nuclear) power generation. You make a fair point, the changeover will be difficult even with dual-voltage trains. Conversion is better in the long-term, it would seem, for standardising the railways.

 

[starrymarkb]

As I understand it, but I have not been able to find references, there are TSI regulations which come into effect in relation to railways running at 160kph and over. I recall being on a train from Hamburg to Cologne around 2006 which never went above 160 (there are speedos inside the carriages).

I believe the Germans require cab signalling over 160km/h - but that is a local rather then EU regulation...

The French are fine running 200km/h on normal signals

 

[Metrailway]

I believe the Germans require cab signalling over 160km/h - but that is a local rather then EU regulation...

The French are fine running 200km/h on normal signals

Don't the French have KVB fitted on every unit which is a type of ATP?

 

[HSTEd]

That's right, but if as the previous poster said, the cost of electicity is relatively low, when does it become worth the cost and disruption of making a changeover?

Because it turns out that since we are one of the few countries still to use third rail in heavy rail traction, the very high power substations and large cross section traction rails required are rather bespoke.

This inflates the cost of the installation to the point that it has comparable cost to simply installing 25kV systems.
And there would actually be less disruption during 25kV installation on plain track than from renewal of the third rail since you can leave the 25kV equipment in place during normal operations, meaning you don't have to closer the railway for long periods to put it up.

The energy efficiency benefits are merely a bonus that looks good politically.

 

[RobShipway]

Just turning this thread back to the future of the Voyagers, now that according to the latest Modern Railways that E-Voyager has more or less been dropped, what does the future hold for the Voyagers?

If you look at any plans that either First or Virgin had, they both had plans to have baby Pendolino's take over the Birmingham - Scotland services. So I guess that the Class 221's that are spare will either have the Tilt removed and be given to Cross Country or placed on other routes like to Holyhead where they are still needed?

 

[ainsworth74]

So I guess that the Class 221's that are spare will either have the Tilt removed and be given to Cross Country or placed on other routes like to Holyhead where they are still needed?

Well it never got far enough to really know the answer but it seems that Virgin's plan called for all the Voyagers to be replaced (with drags where there were no wires) which means there would be spare 221s for XC but, of course, that raises questions about how they'd introduce a load of new services without more trains. First on the other hand seemed to have been going the other way and replacing Voyagers on Birmingham - Scotland but then keeping the released units to strengthen existing services and run the new ones. Meaning no extra trains for XC.

So if the First bid had stood then it seems that there wouldn't have been any spare Voyagers as a result.

 

[tbtc]

Just turning this thread back to the future of the Voyagers, now that according to the latest Modern Railways that E-Voyager has more or less been dropped, what does the future hold for the Voyagers?

If you look at any plans that either First or Virgin had, they both had plans to have baby Pendolino's take over the Birmingham - Scotland services. So I guess that the Class 221's that are spare will either have the Tilt removed and be given to Cross Country or placed on other routes like to Holyhead where they are still needed?

I've tried to take this thread back on topic a couple of times, but it keeps veering off in weird and wonderful directions

First were planning on keeping the WC Voyagers, but use them for increased Bangor services, new services to Shrewsbury etc. Virgin claimed that they weren't keeping the Voyagers yet seemed to manage to plan to run lots of additional services by replacing 21 Voyagers with 21 short Pendolini.

I'd love to see them used on the XC core, which really needs capacity - rather than some of the fanciful ideas on this thread - simple, boring but necessary.

 

[RobShipway]

I've tried to take this thread back on topic a couple of times, but it keeps veering off in weird and wonderful directions

First were planning on keeping the WC Voyagers, but use them for increased Bangor services, new services to Shrewsbury etc. Virgin claimed that they weren't keeping the Voyagers yet seemed to manage to plan to run lots of additional services by replacing 21 Voyagers with 21 short Pendolini.

I'd love to see them used on the XC core, which really needs capacity - rather than some of the fanciful ideas on this thread - simple, boring but necessary.

I have to agree with you there, however I know it is a bit of fantasy where the core routes are OHLE, but the Voyagers should be run as e-Voyagers and not just be a fanciful idea by Arriva for the Cross Country Voyagers.

Unfortunately, it comes down to cost though and a lot of re - wiring of the Voyager Units apparently which I seem to remember has been done on both Mk3 carriages for First and many other trains in the past to keep them in service.........

 

[ainsworth74]

I'd love to see them used on the XC core, which really needs capacity - rather than some of the fanciful ideas on this thread - simple, boring but necessary.

Quite. My thinking for a while has been that when/if any Voyagers are released from the WCML they be cascaded over to XC to double up services that are currently single Voyagers. Then once we're in a position to introduce EMUs on some XC routes those Voyagers rendered surplus could be used to expand the XC network putting places like Liverpool and Portsmouth (for example) back on the map.

 

[tbtc]

I have to agree with you there, however I know it is a bit of fantasy where the core routes are OHLE, but the Voyagers should be run as e-Voyagers and not just be a fanciful idea by Arriva for the Cross Country Voyagers.

Unfortunately, it comes down to cost though and a lot of re - wiring of the Voyager Units apparently which I seem to remember has been done on both Mk3 carriages for First and many other trains in the past to keep them in service.........

Totally agreed about eVoyagers - they looked like such an obvious solution, frustrating that they can't be done now.

 

[RobShipway]

Quite. My thinking for a while has been that when/if any Voyagers are released from the WCML they be cascaded over to XC to double up services that are currently single Voyagers. Then once we're in a position to introduce EMUs on some XC routes those Voyagers rendered surplus could be used to expand the XC network putting places like Liverpool and Portsmouth (for example) back on the map.

And also Brighton, if paths are available!!

 

[tbtc]

Quite. My thinking for a while has been that when/if any Voyagers are released from the WCML they be cascaded over to XC to double up services that are currently single Voyagers. Then once we're in a position to introduce EMUs on some XC routes those Voyagers rendered surplus could be used to expand the XC network putting places like Liverpool and Portsmouth (for example) back on the map.

I'd be a very happy man if that happened - the XC network could slowly be built back to what it used to be!

#happydays

 

[RAGNARØKR]

And also Brighton, if paths are available!!

Haha Brighton, that was my first encounter with a Voyager. Sexy looking train, I though, then it got on the move and, combined with the engine vibration, you could feel bumps in the track that I never knew existed after travelling almost daily for about 30 years on the route, those days mostly in CIGs and VEPs.

Big disappointment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've tried to take this thread back on topic a couple of times, but it keeps veering off in weird and wonderful directions

It will, the topic interacts with all sorts of other related issues and the decisions that have to be made around them. And the Voyager has always been a controversial train.

 

[The Ham]

A lot of disscusions on here have been about how to lengthen the class 22x's, however, if ICWC (when it is refranchised) no longer requires it's Voyagers and/or when XC gets EMU's could some of the sets not be shortened to lengthen others?

If this was to happen would there be any (no XC) routes that would be suitable for 3 coach 22x's? The one that I thought of was maybe the Cardiff/Portsmouth service.

 

[ainsworth74]

If this was to happen would there be any (no XC) routes that would be suitable for 3 coach 22x's? The one that I thought of was maybe the Cardiff/Portsmouth service.

Capacity is the problem. I'd imagine a 3 coach 22x will have similar capacity to a 2 coach 158 on a route that often sees 3 coach 158s.

 

[AndyLandy]

Capacity is the problem. I'd imagine a 3 coach 22x will have similar capacity to a 2 coach 158 on a route that often sees 3 coach 158s.

That's precisely my concern. If you freed up some IC DMUs from the existing mainline routes, the obvious cascade destinations are the inter-regional "Alphaline" type routes, so Cardiff-Weymouth/Portsmouth/Crewe. They're long distance, unlikely to be electrified any time soon and could stand to have faster journey times. The problem of course is capacity, especially in the driving vehicles.

 

[Surreyman]

Just turning this thread back to the future of the Voyagers, now that according to the latest Modern Railways that E-Voyager has more or less been dropped, what does the future hold for the Voyagers?

If you look at any plans that either First or Virgin had, they both had plans to have baby Pendolino's take over the Birmingham - Scotland services. So I guess that the Class 221's that are spare will either have the Tilt removed and be given to Cross Country or placed on other routes like to Holyhead where they are still needed?

Assuming that project 'Thor' - the E-Voyager is no longer happening, that has to have an impact on future Electrification.
A quick re-read of the Electrification plan shows that the remaining un-electrified parts of the Cross-Country route (North East to South West) after CP5 are at the top of the priority list, if however there are no E-Voyagers to operate the route (Bearing in mind the Penzance/Poole/Guildford & Aberdeen sections which will continue as Diesel/750V) then this takes away part of the Cost Justification (Not just new trains required but BI-Mode/Electro-Diesels).
Easier to just leave them where they are and electrify elsewhere methinks.

 

[HSTEd]

750V electrification may not be in vogue, but you don't need to use bi-mode over it remember....
(Class 395 certainly doesn't)....

The only place that will need bi-modes is really the SW arm of the network, and the line to Plymouth has a good case just for Plymouth terminating XC trains supposedly.

 

[Rhydgaled]

That's precisely my concern. If you freed up some IC DMUs from the existing mainline routes, the obvious cascade destinations are the inter-regional "Alphaline" type routes, so Cardiff-Weymouth/Portsmouth/Crewe. They're long distance, unlikely to be electrified any time soon and could stand to have faster journey times. The problem of course is capacity, especially in the driving vehicles.

Not just capacity, but also lack of comfort, means 22xs are a poor choice for regional express routes, the class 158 'Alphaline' units and 175s are much better suited to the task.

I think the 22xs need to be lengthened, with the extra carrages used not just to improve capacity but also to allow a reduction in seating density to improve comfort. But, I'm still very much opposed to new 125mph diesel trains/engines/coaches so I think the best method is the one Virgin used, reducing some sets to just the two driving cars and inserting the other vehices into other sets. Personally I would also use the engines from the redundant driving cars to power the necessary new bi-modes for Great Western instead of buying new engines. Shame a couple of pantograph cars can't be added to the sets as well...

Give ICWC an all-Pendolino fleet (with drags beyond Crewe/Chester to North Wales) and XC can have longer Voyagers (and the Meridians once MML wiring is complete around 2022).

 

[northwichcat]

Give ICWC an all-Pendolino fleet (with drags beyond Crewe/Chester to North Wales) and XC can have longer Voyagers (and the Meridians once MML wiring is complete around 2022).

Don't forget the next franchise will include Bolton, Blackpool and Shrewsbury services. While two of these unelectrified destinations will be getting electrics, they'll require Voyagers initially.

Also due to Virgin having Alstom Pendolinos they asked Bombardier to install a rival companies' software on their Voyager trains. The 222s didn't have this requirement so Bombardier used their own software but this means the 222s can't run in multiple with the 220s and 221s.

 

[Goatboy]

Not just capacity, but also lack of comfort, means 22xs are a poor choice for regional express routes, the class 158 'Alphaline' units and 175s are much better suited to the task.

If a 22x is a poor choice for a regional express route, just what IS it a good choice for? It's better suited to Regional Express services than it is to current long distance services, thats for sure. They'd work pretty well on Cardiff to Portsmouth Harbour services in 4-5 car form, freeing up 158's for other regional long distance services.

 

[tbtc]

If a 22x is a poor choice for a regional express route, just what IS it a good choice for? It's better suited to Regional Express services than it is to current long distance services, thats for sure. They'd work pretty well on Cardiff to Portsmouth Harbour services in 4-5 car form, freeing up 158's for other regional long distance services.

A four coach Voyager wouldn't be (much of?) an increase in capacity compared to a three coach 158 - due to the low seating capacity in the end Voyager coaches (crumple zones, First Class seating etc).

So you'd be putting on longer trains with no extra seats where the 125mph capabilities are never going to be used.

 

[HSTEd]

This is a little peripheral to the discussion fo voyagers.

But how about 6x23m flat front 110mph EMUs (maybe with gangways but that is likely unnecessary as doubling them would make them too long) for TPE and XC?

It is likely to be able to fit the same number of seats as a double Cl220 if it only has one disabled toilet and a Hull Trains 170 style compact buffet, which is all TPE XC is likely to need anyway.

That way you can convert all the soon to be electric XC trains out of Manchester to the South Coast and free enough Cl220s to retire the XC HSTs and double up more workings.

And it means you can replace all of the Cl185s on electric routes with them and end up with buckets of capacity....

Just a thought.

 

[The Ham]

A four coach Voyager wouldn't be (much of?) an increase in capacity compared to a three coach 158 - due to the low seating capacity in the end Voyager coaches (crumple zones, First Class seating etc).

So you'd be putting on longer trains with no extra seats where the 125mph capabilities are never going to be used.

Although if the 22x's were re geared to limit them to 100mph or possibly even 110mph which would enable the full use of the end coaches, which would overcome much of the capacity problem.

 

[sprinterguy]

But how about 6x23m flat front 110mph EMUs (maybe with gangways but that is likely unnecessary as doubling them would make them too long) for TPE and XC?

It is likely to be able to fit the same number of seats as a double Cl220 if it only has one disabled toilet and a Hull Trains 170 style compact buffet, which is all TPE XC is likely to need anyway.

That way you can convert all the soon to be electric XC trains out of Manchester to the South Coast and free enough Cl220s to retire the XC HSTs and double up more workings.

And it means you can replace all of the Cl185s on electric routes with them and end up with buckets of capacity....

Just a thought.

That works for me, for routes such as Transpennine North and Manchester to Bournemouth if these trains are similar to the SWT class 444s (In having end doors and buffets, etc) and if they might be five carriage units rather than six in order to fit the limitations of some of the platforms on the routes that they are used on (Newcastle, Reading if required).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although if the 22x's were re geared to limit them to 100mph or possibly even 110mph which would enable the full use of the end coaches, which would overcome much of the capacity problem.

What on earth would you do with the comparatively small space between cab door and the furthest forward passenger door other than the present (useful) purpose that it is put to providing luggage space or storage for the trolley? You couldn't realistically fit any seats in there.

 

[HSTEd]

That works for me, for routes such as Transpennine North and Manchester to Bournemouth if these trains are similar to the SWT class 444s (In having end doors and buffets, etc) and if they might be five carriage units rather than six in order to fit the limitations of some of the platforms on the routes that they are used on (Newcastle, Reading if required).

End doors are not going to be on any new non IEP stock at this rate.
The supposed advantages of them have been largely erased by the improvements in dwell times offered by the third position doors, improvements in door seals have largely removed any draft problems.

XCs catering provision could easily be supported by a microbuffet the size of the ones fitted to the ex-Hull Trains Turbostars, which should not reduce seating capacity significantly if the units are only fitted with one disabled toilet instead of two as would be fitted to two three car units in multiple.

Are 138m trains really going to be so difficult to route into platforms at stations as large as Newcastle or Reading?
Indeed will the rebuilt Reading station even have any east facing short bays? I thought even the relief platforms were going to be long enough for 8 car suburbans?
As to shortening them, at 5 cars they will not be able to support the capacity of a double Voyager whereas a 6 car formation can.

 

[Goatboy]

A four coach Voyager wouldn't be (much of?) an increase in capacity compared to a three coach 158 - due to the low seating capacity in the end Voyager coaches (crumple zones, First Class seating etc).

So you'd be putting on longer trains with no extra seats where the 125mph capabilities are never going to be used.

Well you've got to use them somewhere - they are a flawed design so wherever you use them they are going to have some sort of issue.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

End doors are not going to be on any new non IEP stock at this rate.
The supposed advantages of them have been largely erased by the improvements in dwell times offered by the third position doors, improvements in door seals have largely removed any draft problems.

Mid-coach doors are for suburban commuter trains IMHO and should not be fitted to medium or long distance stock. End doors give a far better ambience in the passenger cabin and as a result improve passenger comfort.

Not that this appears to be a high priority issue, sadly.

 

[HSTEd]

Mid-coach doors are for suburban commuter trains IMHO and should not be fitted to medium or long distance stock. End doors give a far better ambience in the passenger cabin and as a result improve passenger comfort.

Not that this appears to be a high priority issue, sadly.

I have not noticed any significant difference in passenger ambience between end door and third door position trains provided both are fitted with plug doors in good repair.

Additionally XC is not a true InterCity route, despite the claims of many to the contrary, it is more like TPE than ICWC.