In your opinion - which TOC has been the most experimental and why?

[Bletchleyite]

In defence of 185s, they are superb Pennine hill-climbers and accelerators compared to 170s.

They are, but I'd rather have a slower journey and a seat.

 

[Ianno87]

They are, but I'd rather have a slower journey and a seat.

You won't have a seat if they can't be pathed on the WCML, ECML etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You won't have a seat if they can't be pathed on the WCML, ECML etc.

There wouldn't be an issue with pathing them on either of those (and none join both) - they are 100mph units, same as 185s. The extra engine power was solely needed for the TransPennine bits, and indeed they automatically derate when not on that section by stopping one engine.

 

[Ianno87]

There wouldn't be an issue with pathing them on either of those (and none join both) - they are 100mph units, same as 185s. The extra engine power was solely needed for the TransPennine bits, and indeed they automatically derate when not on that section by stopping one engine.

185s acceleration is definitely taken advantage of on the northern WCML starting away from Penrith et al.

I doubt TPE operation of Manchester-Scotland would have been feasible otherwise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

185s acceleration is definitely taken advantage of on the northern WCML starting away from Penrith et al.

They're still only (I'm almost certain) on 2 engines. To be fair that's slightly more power than a 170, but they are heavy!

I doubt TPE operation of Manchester-Scotland would have been feasible otherwise.

Good. It was an idiotic move thinning an inadequate fleet yet further. They shouldn't have been operating the "North West Express" services, either. If a fleet is too small, adding several extra routes to it is nuts!

 

[ALEMASTER]

They're still only (I'm almost certain) on 2 engines. To be fair that's slightly more power than a 170, but they are heavy!



Good. It was an idiotic move thinning an inadequate fleet yet further. They shouldn't have been operating the "North West Express" services, either. If a fleet is too small, adding several extra routes to it is nuts!

The 185 "Pennine" Units have 3 engines, one under each car, but the eco feature sees the computer start up and shut down one of the engines purely for uphill sections of route, for example on the South route the trains that call at Dore & Totley often do a start up/shut down there before/after passing through the Hope Valley.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Dec 2020 ==

Ah, sorry, I thought you meant they had already done one!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Dec 2020 ==



Yes, but that wasn't financially viable, so they made the wrong choice. They could have chosen to order a higher capacity of lower cost units such as 170s, but they didn't, they wanted their own, customised, high-cost and inefficiently-laid-out stock instead (and tilt, which was no real use except on the WCML), because that's Virgin for you.

It was also mind-numbingly obvious that it wouldn't work to improve a service and reduce the capacity of it. (2 4-car Voyagers an hour gives you considerably fewer seats than one HST).

So the business model was completely flawed, and XC passengers are still suffering from it 20 years later. A true stuff-up.

Indeed, much as they do have their weaknesses, the answer to most problems caused relating to early-post-privatisation DMUs (175s, 185s etc) appears to be "should have bought 170s instead"!

not sure 170s would be suitable for a long distance high speed franchise! Of course Cross Country does suffer from being made to be all things to all people with shorter distance passengers crowbarred into long distance express trains.

Cross Country moved from having a roughly hourly service at best, formed of a combination of clapped out class 47/Mk2 coaches and HSTs, to a half hourly Voyager service with faster journey times thanks to the infrastructure being upgraded as well as the trains. The capacity increased from 7 coaches per hour (either loco hauled or HST once an hour at best) to 9 coaches per hour (a 5 car and a 4 car half an hour apart).

The problem is the service was so much more attractive - more frequent service, faster journeys, more reliable and new trains the extra passengers attracted couldn't be accommodated in those 2 extra carriages per hour, a similar issue that faced Midland Mainline when the half hourly 170 service was introduced at Market Harborough, Kettering and Wellingborough which led to those units being replaced by 222s.

 

[tbtc]

not sure 170s would be suitable for a long distance high speed franchise! Of course Cross Country does suffer from being made to be all things to all people with shorter distance passengers crowbarred into long distance express trains

It'd have been interesting to consider how XC would have been if they'd gone for "standard" 100mph trains, which would then make it much easier to acquire additional units (rather than the very specific Voyagers which mean anything needs to be 125mph capable and fast accelerating - to match the performance of a 220/221).

The 47s couldn't do 100mph anyway, so a 170/175/185 would have still provided faster journeys - but with the bonus that it'd have been a lot easier to find more capable units.

(obviously with 170/185s there'd have been a lot of squealing about needing "proper" InterCity trains and all that, but it might have been preferable to Voyagers in some respects)

Cross Country moved from having a roughly hourly service at best, formed of a combination of clapped out class 47/Mk2 coaches and HSTs, to a half hourly Voyager service with faster journey times thanks to the infrastructure being upgraded as well as the trains. The capacity increased from 7 coaches per hour (either loco hauled or HST once an hour at best) to 9 coaches per hour (a 5 car and a 4 car half an hour apart).

The problem is the service was so much more attractive - more frequent service, faster journeys, more reliable and new trains the extra passengers attracted couldn't be accommodated in those 2 extra carriages per hour, a similar issue that faced Midland Mainline when the half hourly 170 service was introduced at Market Harborough, Kettering and Wellingborough which led to those units being replaced by 222s.

Good points - I think that, as time has gone by, the length of Cross Country services in BR days has grown and grown like a fish in an bar-room anecdote... people forget that the rakes of Mk2s contained half brakes, people assume that the HSTs were longer too. But then people forget about the way that some Newcastle - Birmingham services ran via both Leeds and Doncaster, thereby providing a much slower journey for longer distance passengers (I say "Newcastle to Birmingham" since there were only three ECML services a day north of Newcastle - partly as placing journeys from Craigentinny - people forget how infrequent some bits of the network were)

Obviously there should have been a plan for what to do if passenger numbers went higher than expected - at least Midland Mainline were able to increase the length of their two coach 170s to three coaches and then order longer 222s to replace them - but there was no contingency for XC to get the same capacity increase - very frustrating!

But that's as much a Government mistake as anything.

 

[43096]

Cross Country moved from having a roughly hourly service at best, formed of a combination of clapped out class 47/Mk2 coaches and HSTs, to a half hourly Voyager service with faster journey times thanks to the infrastructure being upgraded as well as the trains. The capacity increased from 7 coaches per hour (either loco hauled or HST once an hour at best) to 9 coaches per hour (a 5 car and a 4 car half an hour apart).

The problem is the service was so much more attractive - more frequent service, faster journeys, more reliable and new trains the extra passengers attracted couldn't be accommodated in those 2 extra carriages per hour, a similar issue that faced Midland Mainline when the half hourly 170 service was introduced at Market Harborough, Kettering and Wellingborough which led to those units being replaced by 222s.

That's the rose-tinted view of XC. In reality those same HSTs ran for another 15+ years with other operators. I'd also point out that an hourly 7-car HST from back then actually has slightly more seats than one 4-car and one 5-car Voyager per hour, just not wasting a path and need halve the number of crew to operate it.

As the justification for it was increasing passenger numbers, specifying a train fleet with a similar number of seats as the one being replaced is just brain dead. The whole thing wasn't known as "Operation Pumpkin" for nothing.

 

[Mikey C]

Ah, sorry, I thought you meant they had already done one!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Dec 2020 ==



Yes, but that wasn't financially viable, so they made the wrong choice. They could have chosen to order a higher capacity of lower cost units such as 170s, but they didn't, they wanted their own, customised, high-cost and inefficiently-laid-out stock instead (and tilt, which was no real use except on the WCML), because that's Virgin for you.

It was also mind-numbingly obvious that it wouldn't work to improve a service and reduce the capacity of it. (2 4-car Voyagers an hour gives you considerably fewer seats than one HST).

So the business model was completely flawed, and XC passengers are still suffering from it 20 years later. A true stuff-up.

Indeed, much as they do have their weaknesses, the answer to most problems caused relating to early-post-privatisation DMUs (175s, 185s etc) appears to be "should have bought 170s instead"!

There's nothing wrong with the 175s, or to be more specific, nothing wrong with the concept of the 175s.

If they'd have worked better, I'm sure Alstom in Washwood heath would have got plenty more business for 175 derivatives, after the functionally similar end doored 158s are very popular on this board.

 

[Zooty]

They're still only (I'm almost certain) on 2 engines. To be fair that's slightly more power than a 170, but they are heavy!

The 185 "Pennine" Units have 3 engines, one under each car, but the eco feature sees the computer start up and shut down one of the engines purely for uphill sections of route, for example on the South route the trains that call at Dore & Totley often do a start up/shut down there before/after passing through the Hope Valley.

In my experience the third engine was always restarted for station departure on WCML, including the Barrow services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In my experience the third engine was always restarted for station departure on WCML, including the Barrow services.

I've not noticed that, rather just before departure is when the cycling of engines would occur, so you might hear/feel one starting in your coach, but another would stop. They rotate around so all engines get the same number of hours.

 

[Zooty]

I've not noticed that, rather just before departure is when the cycling of engines would occur, so you might hear/feel one starting in your coach, but another would stop. They rotate around so all engines get the same number of hours.

The engine would restart almost immediately the unit came to a stand. Around the time the doors were being released. From ones I observed from the platform, I didn't notice another engine stop.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The new LNER have done very well with their new stock I think, their LNER Perks scheme and simple booking system is a huge plus point for travelling north on the ECML as opposed to West Coast. Their image is also very consistent as a TOC and their services always seem to be punctual, compared to the old East Coast and GNER.
It makes it so difficult to choose though because a TOC's success is really dictated by the franchise terms that they sign up to with the DfT and the rolling stock they're given, LNER,Virgin and SWT were or are big successes partly because of new and/or quality rolling stock orders.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Wrexham and Shropshire - Gave Tame Bridge Parkway (TAB), Shrewsbury and Wrexham a "no change" London service.

Would later be adopted by both Virgin (Shrewsbury and Wrexham) and LNWR (TAB) as on their networks (albeit no link exists between the 3 since WSMR departed)

 

[NoMorePacers]

The new LNER have done very well with their new stock I think, their LNER Perks scheme and simple booking system is a huge plus point for travelling north on the ECML as opposed to West Coast. Their image is also very consistent as a TOC and their services always seem to be punctual, compared to the old East Coast and GNER.
It makes it so difficult to choose though because a TOC's success is really dictated by the franchise terms that they sign up to with the DfT and the rolling stock they're given, LNER,Virgin and SWT were or are big successes partly because of new and/or quality rolling stock orders.

You could very much make the argument that all of the plus points you listed towards LNER was as a result of work done by VTEC - the former just reaped the rewards the latter were hoping to achieve.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

the length of Cross Country services in BR days has grown and grown like a fish in an bar-room anecdote...

It sounds as if you've recently watched that wonderful film To Have And Have Not . . .

 

[AlastairFraser]

You could very much make the argument that all of the plus points you listed towards LNER was as a result of work done by VTEC - the former just reaped the rewards the latter were hoping to achieve.

Potentially, but VTEC shouldn't have proposed such a ridiculously high increase in franchise payments to the DfT in the first place.

 

[Ianno87]

Potentially, but VTEC shouldn't have proposed such a ridiculously high increase in franchise payments to the DfT in the first place.

The "bidders curse" - in order to win the franchise you just have to make it just slightly more undeliverable than the competitions' bid.

 

[mrcheek]

Im suprised nobody has mentioned one of FGW's great innovations: Bypassing the ROSCOs and buying up old HSTs directly.
FGW has had some stick over the years, often due to crowded local services when they first took those over (a problem which has coincidentally beset every single TOC that took over from National Express....), but this enabled them to double services to and from London.
They were also one of the first TOCs to bring back loco hauled local services.
And one of the first to cut First Class capacity, to increase the number of Standard Class seats. They were criticised for this at the time, but clearly they had been paying attention to the decline in First Class ticket sales. Many predicted overcrowding in First Class, but it didnt happen.
Also one of the first franchises to abandon parent company branding, to return to the old GWR name.

 

[py_megapixel]

Also one of the first franchises to abandon parent company branding, to return to the old GWR name.

I think they were the first in FirstGroup. But Chiltern Railways, c2c, SWT, Midland Mainline, EMT, Central Trains, Silverlink, Merseyrail, ScotRail, London Midland, Northern Rail, GNER, Thameslink, Thames Trains, WAGN, Wales & West, Wessex Trains, Valley Lines and East Coast all started with no parent company branding before the new GWR brand was introduced, and I believe Greater Anglia might have dropped the "Abellio" as well by that point.

 

[mrcheek]

I think they were the first in FirstGroup. But Chiltern Railways, c2c, SWT, Midland Mainline, EMT, Central Trains, Silverlink, Merseyrail, ScotRail, London Midland, Northern Rail, GNER, Thameslink, Thames Trains, WAGN, Wales & West, Wessex Trains, Valley Lines and East Coast all started with no parent company branding before the new GWR brand was introduced, and I believe Greater Anglia might have dropped the "Abellio" as well by that point.

I didnt phrase my post very well.

FGW are the only TOC to have used parent company branding, and then to stop using it.

 

[py_megapixel]

I didnt phrase my post very well.

FGW are the only TOC to have used parent company branding, and then to stop using it.

I see what you mean now, but it's still possible that Abellio Greater Anglia rebranded simply to Greater Anglia before the GWR rebrand. But I can't remember exactly when either of these rebrands happened, however, and I think the GWR rebrand might actually have been part of a wider FirstGroup strategy, with GWR simply being a trial of it, because shortly afterwards, Transpennine and Hull Trains both lost their First branding, and there never was a First South Western (the franchise started as South Western Railway)

Interestingly, the reverse has also happened, with the rebranding of "ONE" to "National Express East Anglia" in the late 2000s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think they were the first in FirstGroup. But Chiltern Railways, c2c, SWT, Midland Mainline, EMT, Central Trains, Silverlink, Merseyrail, ScotRail, London Midland, Northern Rail, GNER, Thameslink, Thames Trains, WAGN, Wales & West, Wessex Trains, Valley Lines and East Coast all started with no parent company branding before the new GWR brand was introduced, and I believe Greater Anglia might have dropped the "Abellio" as well by that point.

Chiltern only became part of a bigger group part way in to their term, it was initially a management buyout. By the time they were part of Arriva/DB the Chiltern Railways name was already established and more importantly respected. Conversely FGW dropping the corporate branding was because their reputation had become toxic, hence doing the same with many of their bus operations too.

 

[Energy]

and I think the GWR rebrand might actually have been part of a wider FirstGroup strategy,

First Group isn't a particularly respected name.

 

[Ianno87]

First Group isn't a particularly respected name.

And rhymes with "worst".

 

[Energy]

And rhymes with "worst".

Well FGW were known as Worst Great Western.

 

[I13]

Well FGW were known as Worst Great Western.

And sometimes even Worst Late Western!

 

[Ianno87]

Well FGW were known as Worst Great Western.

See also: Worst Crapital Disconnect.

 

[Bletchleyite]

See also: Worst Crapital Disconnect.

That was a masterpiece of stupidity; "Thameslink" is a massively strong brand (and not owned by Govia, so they could have used it).

 

[Hadders]

That was a masterpiece of stupidity; "Thameslink" is a massively strong brand (and not owned by Govia, so they could have used it).

Although you do hear them referred to as Thamess**t and Shambleslink.