But what's the point when the train you're travelling on has same (or higher) emissions than the car you were in? There is nothing about a Voyager that will tempt me out of a car and especially not with prices charged. When I used to have to travel to Edinburgh I'd drive if two of us went, if I was in my own I'd divert via London and use Sleeper (in seated accommodation) or Lumo as much cheaper even taking into account the travel to/from London.
Will better seating get people out of their cars? In my experience getting into the city centre outweighs the additional comfort of the car, what puts people of XC is their high price and previous experiences of overcrowding on XC.
If the government want to divert money away from road building projects and put restrictions on private cars in city centres (which is coming by one means or another, whether you like it or no) it's fairly obvious that the layout and quality of the trains needs to be top notch. Nearly all regional and all intercity services justify onboard toilets (at minimum one per two coaches) at-seat catering for hot drinks, chargers for laptops and phones, reliable WiFi, and seats with reasonable space for working or resting, which means folding tables and decent legroom with 2+2 seating. For an example of this see the three car class 197 specification. These also include a very small standard premium compartment which will be available at an onboard upgrade.
Indeed. However much I disagree with XC's high fares decreasing them before increasing capacity would just make the issue worse. Getting 8 (or at least 6) car voyagers on all services at good frequencies would be a good start.
No it's my view as a paying passenger. The cost does not add up especially when there were two of us. I'd rather take public transport when I can irrespective of traction provided, which was why I'd happily pay for a seat on sleeper as was a good use of time and cheaper than the XC option.
I think you’re overstating this a bit - I’ve spoken to many non-enthusiasts who have opinions on the rolling stock they use. Mind you, it’ll often be something like “I hate those horrible old trains on TfW” - even if they don’t know the difference between a Pacer and a Sprinter, they’ll notice if a MK4 turns up!
XC ones are 'well worn' to say the least. The Avanti ones are more polished.
I was thinking something similar, trains with locos aren't even common any more, and people around me do not consider a Class 319 any less of a train than a Class 390.
You’re certainly right - we’re very much in a https://xkcd.com/2501/ situation here, and there’s a very good chance I’m completely off base.
Quite the opposite, I think - that’s a sign she was paying attention to the trains, and noticed something was different, even if the difference was (to someone like us) superficial and irrelevant.
I'd go as far as saying most people don't really care all that much about the actual train at all, so long as at turns up as advertised, gets them to their destination on time, and doesn't require them to remortgage their house to afford the fare. Just look at the number of people using LNR Crewe-Euston (no catering, possible 3+2 seating, commuter style door layouts etc), or the various TfW longer distance services operated by 150s and paired 153s, or even - despite all of their apparent faults - XC Voyager services.
Good seats and table provision could help bring new passengers but for now XC needs to stop turning away its existing ones. As long as people get to their destination on time, with a decent enough seat (which the voyagers have) and for a decent price then they'll use trains. A particularly good interior might make repeat customers consider the train more but that shouldn't be top of the XC priority list.
A double set only needs 1 Train Manager, however the other set must have a member of onboard staff ( either a RSM or FCH).
That's the case for Hitachi AT300s but if we're talking about Voyagers as per the thread title, Avanti and CrossCountry put a train manager in both.
I've definitely been on Avanti trains formed of 2x221s with only one TM on the entire train who was in the rear set. Front set just had the woman working in the Shop.
Iirc, Avanti put two TMs on where possible, but the agreement with the union is (at least, what I can recall from reading an RMT newsletter) that they should strive to put two TMs on each set. I've certainly been on Avanti 221s with only 1 TM, even if it's a 10 car service.
If the passengers can't get a seat with 2+2 seating, there's no chance that they'll agree to reducing the capacity further.
High fares are down to the rolling stock, even if not necessarily in the way some posters have in mind. The limited capacity of 220s in particular mean that XC (having been told "no more trains") have been forced to price off demand. Extra capacity would bring fares down. Seven car 80x running at the full Op Princess frequency is just what XC needs. As a mark of how space-inefficient Voyagers are, a seven-car 807 will have more seats than a nine-car 220+221 lash-up.
For you, yes, because you've admitted multiple times you're very tall, and that you like Grammar seats - these aren't too dissimilar from the IC Grammars in shape. I know a lot of people who dislike them compared to the original seats. I haven't been on the refurbs for long enough at a time to make a decision myself, but as always, it's subjective. It seems obvious, but apparently not, that not everyone will prefer thinner seats.
Each to their own, I'm not tall and I prefer the refurb ones. The extra legroom just generally makes it feel much less cramped, the old seats always felt a bit too warm for some reason as well.
Hell of a lot quicker than the sluggish 67s!
I also dislike them.
That hasn't happened anywhere else recently. In fact, fares often go up when there is additional capacity added to reflect the investment, and higher operational costs.
Even though a Voyager is relatively thirsty for a train, it’s still likely better than a car.
