Were Bombardier Voyagers a mistake?

[Kite159]

If that's the only two then there's not really much stopping new coaches being built to extend all Voyagers to 10 coaches (apart from cost), for each of the above the busier section could stay being done with Voyagers and the less busy section with something else

Or build more 390s so the voyagers which sit under the wires all day long (some Scottish services), plus some extra so virgin can take over the Manchester/Scotland services by extending one of the Manchester terminators.

 

[Kettledrum]

125mph capability is of marginal benefit on most of the original Virgin routes where the linespeeds don't allow. For example I cant see much difference in Voyager/Turbostar journey times between Birmingham and Cheltenham, or between Voyagers and 185's twixt Leeds and York.

Three minutes or so saved between York and Darlington is hardly significant.

There are important stretches of the XC network where line speeds are 125mph. Although the services are not necessarily time-tabled to run at 125mph, having this capability on these stretches does help the XC trains catch up some time as punctuality can be a problem on their longer services.

I frequently use both East Midlands Trains and XC and I don't really have a preference between the HSTs and the Voyagers of either company. For me, the problem is over-crowding, particularly on the XC Voyagers, or when the EMT peak services that should be formed from 2 voyagers coupled up is short formed and only one turns up. Then all the problems become worse, the seats the smell, the windows etc.

In an ideal world, we would have world class railway with more coaches in each unit and seats that lined up with windows, but we can't afford that.

So to summarise, the Voyagers are ok until they get over-crowded.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Why is adding extra seats, luggage space, and providing an at seat service evidence that XC don't look after their fleet?

Do you not understand what a comma means? Hint: it implies a list of separate things.

The arriva trains are battered, tatty and uncared for.

They're also too cramped.

They also suffer from a poor on-board service- a crappy trolley is not the same as a buffet counter, even if your llukewarm coffee is "served at your seat".

 

[edwin_m]

125mph capability is of marginal benefit on most of the original Virgin routes where the linespeeds don't allow. For example I cant see much difference in Voyager/Turbostar journey times between Birmingham and Cheltenham, or between Voyagers and 185's twixt Leeds and York.

Three minutes or so saved between York and Darlington is hardly significant.

I was thinking more of York to Edinburgh and (for a tilting 221) Stafford to Glasgow. There were also upgrades to speeds above 100mph on routes such as Birmingham to Sheffield and the largely fruitless attempt at introducing tilting between Leamington and Oxford. All these were planned by Virgin as part of a package to take the most advantage of the Voyagers, though many of the journey times gains were rolled back when the "Operation Princess" timetable turned out to be unworkable.

As far as I'm aware Birmingham-Cheltenham and Leeds-York weren't upgraded in this way and probably therefore don't have any sections above 100mph.

 

[MarkyT]

I quite enjoy travelling on Voyagers myself, appreciating the electric style acceleration and smooth ride. I've not noticed significant vibration really except once a few years ago in a vehicle that was clearly in a very bad way judging by the smoke it was emitting, and although the engines are clearly not silent experienced from the interior I find the low roar quite comforting, soporific even.

A minor quibble with the standard class interior is the window seat outer armrest. These hard plastic monstrosities are impossible to hinge up out of the way like the others due to the body profile so are fixed in place. Due to the body profile I cannot get my arm properly supported on top so I end up with my elbow joint wedged hard up on the unforgiving edge. On long journeys I have woken up on numerous occasions with a completely dead arm due to the funny bone effect of pressure on the nerves there. It happens with either arm whichever side I sit, so I usually try to get an aisle seat where the armrests can both support my lower arms fully, or can be hinged out of the way.

 

[matacaster]

Wasn't this the whole idea of shorter trains in that Operation Princess would effectively double frequencies of services and so longer trains wouldn't be needed?

Actually Voyagers and the initial plan for them always reminded me of the way DB use the class 612 unit - a two car tiling, express train - usually found in 2x2 combinations.

In that respect would the Voyagers benefit from, say, a re gearing to 110 or 100mph and running on the longer "secondary" cross country such as Norwich-Liverpool or Cardiff-Portsmouth etc... ? Not, that is going to happen but...

t.

Ian

I remember [I think???? ... old age!!] when the 2-hourly class 45/1, then 47/4's + 6 or 7 coaches on Newcastle -> Liverpool were replaced by more frequent but unsuitable and somewhat pathetic for long distances (for which they were not designed) class 150's. Now that was a REAL downer!

 

[MarkyT]

. . . There were also upgrades to speeds above 100mph on routes such as Birmingham to Sheffield and the largely fruitless attempt at introducing tilting between Leamington and Oxford. All these were planned by Virgin as part of a package to take the most advantage of the Voyagers, though many of the journey times gains were rolled back when the "Operation Princess" timetable turned out to be unworkable.

An interesting fact about Operation Princess is that in official performance modelling work, the tilting trains, although clearly allowing very marginal higher maximum speed in a limited number of places, did not always reduce point-to-point timings for the traditional stopping patterns on Reading - Birmingham, compared to the lighter non-tilt fitted units.

That is because the 220s were around 10 tonnes lighter per car than the 221s due to much lighter bogies and wheelsets and the absence of tilt actuator and control equipment. With the same installed power of 560 KW that gives a significant difference in the power to weight ratios and makes an appreciable difference in acceleration capability with the lighter units usually winning on the typically shorter point to point distances on the Cross Country network. Even though the non-tilters clearly couldn't exploit any higher tilt speeds on the relevant sections, the project did improve some non tilt-speeds above previous loco hauled/HST limits as well in places where it was possible.

On WCML by contrast, the tilt is very useful enabling Virgin's Voyagers to keep pace with their Pendolinos, and distances between stops are typically much longer so acceleration is less of an issue.

Tilt was a mistake on the Cross Country units in that despite its subsequent removal, the unnecessarily heavier bogies will continue to have to be hauled around for the remainder of the trains' lives.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Or build more 390s so the voyagers which sit under the wires all day long (some Scottish services), plus some extra so virgin can take over the Manchester/Scotland services by extending one of the Manchester terminators.

What's the max speed on them Scottish services? If it's no more then about 100-110mph then perhaps they could go for 380s instead (geared to suit)

 

[Bright Boy]

The Voyagers were a mistake to my mind, good point and well worth asking the question (original or not!)

They should have stuck with loco hauled stock as Cross Country services passenger numbers are more variable than other routes (although they should have stuck with Loco hauled for all mainline services).

Perhaps when HST's are cascaded from Great Western and East Coast they can use those, maybe refurbish them as well. But that would only be until all the Cross Country routes are Electrified, then they should move to Electric hauled stock as that is much cheaper, when that will be is anyone's guess.

They should add extra routes to the franchise also, like South Wales to East Anglia and East Midlands - Manchester - Glasgow/ (via West Coast & G&SW line) East Midlands - Leeds - Glasgow (via Settle & Carlisle)

 

[SpacePhoenix]

They should add extra routes to the franchise also, like South Wales to East Anglia and East Midlands - Manchester - Glasgow/ (via West Coast & G&SW line) East Midlands - Leeds - Glasgow (via Settle & Carlisle)

Given that there is a national shortage of DMUs, where do you propose the DMUs come from?

 

[Grumpy]

There are important stretches of the XC network where line speeds are 125mph. Although the services are not necessarily time-tabled to run at 125mph, having this capability on these stretches does help the XC trains catch up some time as punctuality can be a problem on their longer services.

I frequently use both East Midlands Trains and XC and I don't really have a preference between the HSTs and the Voyagers of either company. For me, the problem is over-crowding, particularly on the XC Voyagers, or when the EMT peak services that should be formed from 2 voyagers coupled up is short formed and only one turns up. Then all the problems become worse, the seats the smell, the windows etc.

In an ideal world, we would have world class railway with more coaches in each unit and seats that lined up with windows, but we can't afford that.

So to summarise, the Voyagers are ok until they get over-crowded.

The OP asked "were voyagers a mistake". You seem to be agreeing .They have 125mph capability that is hardly used. I cant think of the routes you mention that have 125 mph capability where the Voyagers are not timetabled to take advantage. Where are these? Seems madness.
As you say
"all the problems become worse, the seats the smell, the windows etc."

I don't mind travelling on the Voyagers, nice big windows good ride etc., but an upgraded 159 would have been cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate, and a better travelling environment
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was thinking more of York to Edinburgh and (for a tilting 221) Stafford to Glasgow. There were also upgrades to speeds above 100mph on routes such as Birmingham to Sheffield and the largely fruitless attempt at introducing tilting between Leamington and Oxford. All these were planned by Virgin as part of a package to take the most advantage of the Voyagers, though many of the journey times gains were rolled back when the "Operation Princess" timetable turned out to be unworkable.

As far as I'm aware Birmingham-Cheltenham and Leeds-York weren't upgraded in this way and probably therefore don't have any sections above 100mph.

Well as stated York to Darlington gives approx. 3 minutes benefit. North of Darlington there isn't much 125 mph capability. Thus Darlington to Durham shows similar timings for Voyagers and 185's, also Durham to Newcastle when allowance is made for the intermediate stop. The reality is that most of the cross country route isn't capable of 125mph, and where it is the benefits aren't worth the cost or inferior travelling experience. With regard to Stafford-Glasgow, most people on here would say Pendolinos should be bought.

 

[edwin_m]

An interesting fact about Operation Princess is that in official performance modelling work, the tilting trains, although clearly allowing very marginal higher maximum speed in a limited number of places, did not always reduce point-to-point timings for the traditional stopping patterns on Reading - Birmingham, compared to the lighter non-tilt fitted units.

That is because the 220s were around 10 tonnes lighter per car than the 221s due to much lighter bogies and wheelsets and the absence of tilt actuator and control equipment. With the same installed power of 560 KW that gives a significant difference in the power to weight ratios and makes an appreciable difference in acceleration capability with the lighter units usually winning on the typically shorter point to point distances on the Cross Country network. Even though the non-tilters clearly couldn't exploit any higher tilt speeds on the relevant sections, the project did improve some non tilt-speeds above previous loco hauled/HST limits as well in places where it was possible.

On WCML by contrast, the tilt is very useful enabling Virgin's Voyagers to keep pace with their Pendolinos, and distances between stops are typically much longer so acceleration is less of an issue.

Tilt was a mistake on the Cross Country units in that despite its subsequent removal, the unnecessarily heavier bogies will continue to have to be hauled around for the remainder of the trains' lives.

I agree with this except that the last point is valid only in hindsight. The 221s were ordered primarily for Birmingham-Scotland which was part of the XC franchise at the time. The timetable at the time had many of these workings continuing to Reading so they also tilt on the route via Oxford. When Birmingham-Scotland was transferred to West Coast there was no point in XC retaining tilting units so they disabled the tilt equipment. But unless someone finds a use for tilting diesels somewhere else, these units will indeed be dragging unnecessary weight around for the rest of their lives.

The speed upgrades for non-tilt trains covered quite a bit of the line between Birmingham and Sheffield. These are (mostly) plated as HST differential restrictions, so can be used by XC HSTs as well as EMT's HSTs and 222s.

 

[al.currie93]

The Voyagers were a mistake to my mind, good point and well worth asking the question (original or not!)

They should have stuck with loco hauled stock as Cross Country services passenger numbers are more variable than other routes (although they should have stuck with Loco hauled for all mainline services).

Perhaps when HST's are cascaded from Great Western and East Coast they can use those, maybe refurbish them as well. But that would only be until all the Cross Country routes are Electrified, then they should move to Electric hauled stock as that is much cheaper, when that will be is anyone's guess.

They should add extra routes to the franchise also, like South Wales to East Anglia and East Midlands - Manchester - Glasgow/ (via West Coast & G&SW line) East Midlands - Leeds - Glasgow (via Settle & Carlisle)

I agree with you about locomotives (before anyone comments, I'm NOT saying keep the 47s and Mk2s; I mean a new build).

I also agree with you about HSTs transferred to XC after the class 800s arrive; that can allow 51 Voyagers to be cascaded onto routes that all 51 185s currently operate, as Voyagers will be better suited for those routes than they are. The displaced 185s can then be cascaded onto routes that 150s operate, which can in turn be cascaded to 142 routes. Voila! 51 142s are replaced on a like-for-like basis, the class 150 routes get newer trains, and TPE and XC get their much needed capacity increase.

The remaining 6 Voyagers with XC can be used on one of the new routes that were suggested :P

My personal opinion of Voyagers is that they are fine for journeys of 2 hours or less. I prefer HSTs for the quieter and more spacious Mk3s with no underfloor noise and vibrations, and those are the things that make Voyagers less preferable to me for long journeys. Other than that I think they're comparable.

About the enthusiasts being the only ones to dislike Voyagers over HSTs, that is a rediculous comment; a good friend of mine who is no rail enthusiast recently said to me that "Alĺ of those Cross Country trains should be scrapped; I hate those ones! They should be replaced with more of those nice First Great Western ones that used to have the TVs in them!" So it isn't just enthusiasts, I know plenty of 'passengers' who feel the same.

 

[edwin_m]

What's the max speed on them Scottish services? If it's no more then about 100-110mph then perhaps they could go for 380s instead (geared to suit)

On Birmingham-Scotland tilting Voyagers can run at 125mph, using most of the same enhanced permissable speeds as the Pendolinos. It's unlikely that non-tilting stock could keep to the timetable on this journey.

Non-tilting stock can't use the enhanced permissible speeds so is limited to 110mph (except for a short section of 125 near Motherwell). This is also the maximum speed for the class 350s which work most of the Manchester-Scotland trains.

If someone wanted to run a 125mph non-tilting unit on the WCML some of the straighter sections could be upgraded to 125mph, but far fewer than those where tilting trains can reach this speed.

 

[thenorthern]

I know TP Express wanted to obtain 10 180s for their Manchester - Scottish trains but in the end they didn't, it would have been nice though if they did are it could have meant London - Scotland would have been quicker than it is now.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What's the max speed on them Scottish services? If it's no more then about 100-110mph then perhaps they could go for 380s instead (geared to suit)

The WCML is mostly 110/125mph (EPS) between Stafford and Carstairs.
Voyagers now run, mostly in pairs, Scotland-Birmingham-Euston and need their tilt throughout.
Stafford-Stoke-Manchester is also fitted for tilt but XC don't bother to use it.
They therefore are restricted to 110mph, unlike the 125mph of the Pendolinos on the same stretch.

XC Voyagers operate 125mph Wolverhampton-Stafford, Reading-Didcot, much of Derby-Birmingham, and on the ECML.
Also 110mph in places Bristol-Taunton, Oxford-Banbury, Derby-Chesterfield, Birmingham Int-Coventry.

 

[MarkyT]

I agree with this except that the last point is valid only in hindsight. The 221s were ordered primarily for Birmingham-Scotland which was part of the XC franchise at the time. The timetable at the time had many of these workings continuing to Reading so they also tilt on the route via Oxford. When Birmingham-Scotland was transferred to West Coast there was no point in XC retaining tilting units so they disabled the tilt equipment. But unless someone finds a use for tilting diesels somewhere else, these units will indeed be dragging unnecessary weight around for the rest of their lives.

Good point - hindsight is a wonderful tool! Also I recall that in the original timetable those Scotland - Reading trains ran limited stop south of Birmingham, I think they would have been the one's via Solihull, then missing Leamington, Banbury or both before all calling at Oxford. Without the speed loss of stopping, the tilt might have helped a little more on timings clearly. However I don't believe TASS on the line was ever used in normal service. Unlike on the WCML, I'm sure it was not fully commissioned at the start of Voyager operations, so the initial timetables must have been adjusted to take that into account. Those hourly Glasgow - Reading via Manchester trains were appalling for timekeeping anyway. I had regular meetings in Manchester at the time and invariably on returning to Reading waited forlornly on Piccadilly platform 13 in mid afternoon or the early evening peak for trains that had been described initially as 5 down, which on arrival would have degenerated to 25 minutes or more behind three or four locals given preference through the Oxford Road corridor. Slots would then be lost through Birmingham etc, etc . . .

The speed upgrades for non-tilt trains covered quite a bit of the line between Birmingham and Sheffield. These are (mostly) plated as HST differential restrictions, so can be used by XC HSTs as well as EMT's HSTs and 222s.

Also from Wolverhampton to Stafford, where the line is so straight 125MPH was possible throughout without any TASS fitment.

 

[route:oxford]

About the enthusiasts being the only ones to dislike Voyagers over HSTs, that is a rediculous comment; a good friend of mine who is no rail enthusiast recently said to me that "Alĺ of those Cross Country trains should be scrapped; I hate those ones! They should be replaced with more of those nice First Great Western ones that used to have the TVs in them!" So it isn't just enthusiasts, I know plenty of 'passengers' who feel the same.

"Nice" is a synonym used by the polite British for "mediocre".

 

[Class 170101]

I also agree with you about HSTs transferred to XC after the class 800s arrive; that can allow 51 Voyagers to be cascaded onto routes that all 51 185s currently operate, as Voyagers will be better suited for those routes than they are. The displaced 185s can then be cascaded onto routes that 150s operate, which can in turn be cascaded to 142 routes. Voila! 51 142s are replaced on a like-for-like basis, the class 150 routes get newer trains, and TPE and XC get their much needed capacity increase.

HSTs aren't permitted south of Reading unless the bogies are of the Short Swing Link variety.

If the HSTs will finish their days on Cross Country it will be between Plymouth and Edinburgh via the East Coast. The Voyagers will be needed to strengthen the remaining services and I would suggest to provide a third hourly path between Birmingham and York (via Leeds).

Electrification in thwe Northwest will see the end of the Pacers not IEP.

 

[Rich McLean]

HSTs aren't permitted south of Reading unless the bogies are of the Short Swing Link variety.

If the HSTs will finish their days on Cross Country it will be between Plymouth and Edinburgh via the East Coast. The Voyagers will be needed to strengthen the remaining services and I would suggest to provide a third hourly path between Birmingham and York (via Leeds).

Electrification in thwe Northwest will see the end of the Pacers not IEP.

I would like the above to happen, once East Coast cascade their HSTs as FGW HSTs are spoken for

Penzance/Plymouth - Edinburgh/Glasgow/Aberdeen (HSTs with a few doubled up Voyagers) 1tph
Bournemouth - Manchester (Doubled up Voyagers) 1tph
Southampton/Reading - Newcastle via Doncaster (single 220s) 1tph
South West/Bristol - Manchester (single 221s) 1tph
NEW Cardiff - York via Leeds (220s) 1tph
AMMENDED New Street - Derby 2tph (170s)
New Street - Leicester (170s) Halts service 1tph
New Street - Stanstead Airport (170s) 1tph

There will not be enough HSTs cascaded to run every NE - SW service as HST, but will enable many services to be doubled up, as detailed above.

Not perfect, but working with what we have got

 

[cjmillsnun]

HSTs aren't permitted south of Reading unless the bogies are of the Short Swing Link variety. (except on ex BR Western Region)

I had to fix that for you. Standard HSTs have plied their trade south of Reading from day one.

Also as more HSTs become available it is entirely feasible that SSL bogie HST sets could go to XC. Having said that, it is more likely they will retain Voyagers instead.

 

[Grumpy]

Also from Wolverhampton to Stafford, where the line is so straight 125MPH was possible throughout without any TASS fitment.

And the 100mph 350's do the journey just a quickly as the Voyagers.

 

[The Ham]

I agree with you about locomotives (before anyone comments, I'm NOT saying keep the 47s and Mk2s; I mean a new build).

I also agree with you about HSTs transferred to XC after the class 800s arrive; that can allow 51 Voyagers to be cascaded onto routes that all 51 185s currently operate, as Voyagers will be better suited for those routes than they are. The displaced 185s can then be cascaded onto routes that 150s operate, which can in turn be cascaded to 142 routes. Voila! 51 142s are replaced on a like-for-like basis, the class 150 routes get newer trains, and TPE and XC get their much needed capacity increase.

The remaining 6 Voyagers with XC can be used on one of the new routes that were suggested :P

My personal opinion of Voyagers is that they are fine for journeys of 2 hours or less. I prefer HSTs for the quieter and more spacious Mk3s with no underfloor noise and vibrations, and those are the things that make Voyagers less preferable to me for long journeys. Other than that I think they're comparable.

It is unlikely that much will change before the Voyages go off lease. Even then, with the franchise up for renewal and electrification making at least one route able to be run by EMU's, I wouldn't be surprised if very little changes before early in the 2020's.

I would expect that IF some HST's were used by XC there would likely be limits on which routes they would be suitable for. This would mean that only a few would be used. However it wouldn't take that many to provide a lot of improvements to a lot of services. For instance replace one train currently run by a 221 with a HST that then allows it to replace a 220 (an extra 50 seats over the existing or 25% more), this 220 can then be paired with another 220 and they run instead of a 221 (150 extra seats or 60% more) and that 221 replaces the second 220 used in the pair to replace it (50 extra seats or 25% more). Therefore, with the introduction of one HST 4 services have an increase in seats, the lowest of which would be 25%.

With regards to Locos, due to their lower acceleration than MU's it cases problems such as needing more units (extra costs) and taking up more paths.

 

[Minilad]

Good point - hindsight is a wonderful tool! Also I recall that in the original timetable those Scotland - Reading trains ran limited stop south of Birmingham, I think they would have been the one's via Solihull, then missing Leamington, Banbury or both before all calling at Oxford. Without the speed loss of stopping, the tilt might have helped a little more on timings clearly. However I don't believe TASS on the line was ever used in normal service. Unlike on the WCML, I'm sure it was not fully commissioned at the start of Voyager operations, so the initial timetables must have been adjusted to take that into account. Those hourly Glasgow - Reading via Manchester trains were appalling for timekeeping anyway. I had regular meetings in Manchester at the time and invariably on returning to Reading waited forlornly on Piccadilly platform 13 in mid afternoon or the early evening peak for trains that had been described initially as 5 down, which on arrival would have degenerated to 25 minutes or more behind three or four locals given preference through the Oxford Road corridor. Slots would then be lost through Birmingham etc, etc . . .



Also from Wolverhampton to Stafford, where the line is so straight 125MPH was possible throughout without any TASS fitment.

Once again the subject of tilt between Banbury and Oxford comes up. There was never any speed differential with or without on this section. So timings would not have decreased because of it. And yes TASS was operational in normal service.
And as for Wolves to Stafford being so straight, well it really isn't.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It is unlikely that much will change before the Voyages go off lease. Even then, with the franchise up for renewal and electrification making at least one route able to be run by EMU's, I wouldn't be surprised if very little changes before early in the 2020's.

The Voyager fleet leases are (or were) up for renewal in March 2016.
Virgin can extend theirs to 2017 to the end of their short franchise.
XC can't do much until they negotiate their direct award up to 2019.
I doubt if there will be any material change until the ICWC longer term plans are known after the new franchisee is picked in 2016.

 

[Bright Boy]

Given that there is a national shortage of DMUs, where do you propose the DMUs come from?

If you read my post in full you would have seen that I mentioned cascaded HST's !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree with you about locomotives (before anyone comments, I'm NOT saying keep the 47s and Mk2s; I mean a new build).

I also agree with you about HSTs transferred to XC after the class 800s arrive; that can allow 51 Voyagers to be cascaded onto routes that all 51 185s currently operate, as Voyagers will be better suited for those routes than they are. The displaced 185s can then be cascaded onto routes that 150s operate, which can in turn be cascaded to 142 routes. Voila! 51 142s are replaced on a like-for-like basis, the class 150 routes get newer trains, and TPE and XC get their much needed capacity increase.

The remaining 6 Voyagers with XC can be used on one of the new routes that were suggested :P

My personal opinion of Voyagers is that they are fine for journeys of 2 hours or less. I prefer HSTs for the quieter and more spacious Mk3s with no underfloor noise and vibrations, and those are the things that make Voyagers less preferable to me for long journeys. Other than that I think they're comparable.

About the enthusiasts being the only ones to dislike Voyagers over HSTs, that is a rediculous comment; a good friend of mine who is no rail enthusiast recently said to me that "Alĺ of those Cross Country trains should be scrapped; I hate those ones! They should be replaced with more of those nice First Great Western ones that used to have the TVs in them!" So it isn't just enthusiasts, I know plenty of 'passengers' who feel the same.

al. currie93 got the idea, and advanced on my suggestion, nice one

I am an enthusiast but I can see myself from the angle of a non-enthusiast passenger, and I used XC services in the summer, I was not especially smitten by them, they are ok to an extent so I agree with al, they are only good for less than 2 hours, they could keep some for South Wales - Midlands - (East Anglia) services, or Birmingham to South East Coast at a push.
They would be better if 1:- all the power came from a power car at one end or both and 2:- If they contain the stench from the toilets to the toilets!

 

[MarkyT]

Once again the subject of tilt between Banbury and Oxford comes up. There was never any speed differential with or without on this section. So timings would not have decreased because of it. And yes TASS was operational in normal service.

Thanks for the clarification. I worked on a multi-disciplinary engineering study a few years before Voyagers were introduced, but I was not involved in actual implementation. There certainly WERE opportunities to permit some enhanced speeds for tilt, but it depended on track and civils work being carried out and the higher speeds would have changed the maintenance categories, renewals intervals and thus costs for the relevant sections. It sounds as if TASS was introduced without that work being completed, so although tilt could be allowed in certain places, it didn't give any speed advantage. The whole case for enhanced tilt speeds probably fell apart once the additional costs were known fully, especially once the Scottish services were transferred from XC and the opportunity to remove the tilt capability arose.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And as for Wolves to Stafford being so straight, well it really isn't.

Well certainly somewhat straighter than Rugely to Stafford and for the most part suitable for 125MPH without tilt!

 

[Aictos]

I would like the above to happen, once East Coast cascade their HSTs as FGW HSTs are spoken for

Penzance/Plymouth - Edinburgh/Glasgow/Aberdeen (HSTs with a few doubled up Voyagers) 1tph
Bournemouth - Manchester (Doubled up Voyagers) 1tph
Southampton/Reading - Newcastle via Doncaster (single 220s) 1tph
South West/Cardiff via Bristol - Manchester (single 221s) 1tph
AMMENDED New Street - Leicester via Derby 1tph (170s)
New Street - Stanstead Airport (170s) 2tph

There will not be enough HSTs cascaded to run every NE - SW service as HST, but will enable many services to be doubled up, as detailed above.

Not perfect, but working with what we have got

Corrected for you

 

[387star]

Virgin is probably glad of voyagers for new services to Shrewsbury and for diversions

However london Euston to scotland services hardly require voyagers and the Bangor services are electrified for most of the route... Where do the wires end?

 

[thenorthern]

Virgin is probably glad of voyagers for new services to Shrewsbury and for diversions

However london Euston to scotland services hardly require voyagers and the Bangor services are electrified for most of the route... Where do the wires end?

A bit after Crewe the wires end, I am 99% sure the North Wales Coast Line is not cleared for tilting.

If the Cross Country franchise had be won by anyone else in 1997 I doubt that tilting trains would have been introduced on any Cross Country services.

I suppose as well had Virgin Rail Group won the New Cross Country franchise in 2007 the tilting equipment on the 221s would probably still be enabled.