• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

AWC cast-offs!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Towers

Established Member
Joined
30 Aug 2021
Messages
2,969
Location
UK
Genuinely astounded that there's any possibility of Voyagers being scrapped when XC continues to be the utter mess that it is.

It might genuinely be time to hang up the "person interested in railways" hat if that happens, just what on earth!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

lammergeier

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2017
Messages
505
At what stations would 10 not work?
And is there any scope to extend those platforms?
Bearing in mind... SDO and such, so it's more a case of whether they "operationally" fit (not fouling junctions and such).
Burton, Chesterfield, Leeds P15 & 16 and New St P12 off the top of my head. Maybe one or two south of New St but I don't know without looking. No SDO on Voyagers - requirement is to lock rear coach out of use on a 10 car
 

ashley84

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2021
Messages
51
Location
Birmingham
(Lurk=off..)
I've been watching this thread and some of its predecessors with interest. The situation with XC is very frustrating. I have used XC off and on all my life, having grown up in Plymouth, had family in Sheffield and now find myself living in Birmingham.

Growing up in Plymouth, my impression was most rail passengers from there are taking long-distance journeys, which are likely to involve XC if going anywhere other than London. So XC is many people in the area's impression of what the whole railway is like, when in reality it has never been a high priority route politically.

Pre-Voyagers, some of the hauled stock was very antiquated (as much as I liked it for geeky reasons) and the timetables a bit random. As much as Virgin's reforms introduction of Voyagers was flawed, it felt at the time like the route was finally being brought into line with other parts of the country, with modern stock and a regular hourly schedule to Birmingham. This all seems very naive now that we have 2-hour gaps in the timetable, and having to avoid certain services because they're just too busy.

For me the question is, what can I (or we), as an ordinary citizen, do about this? I could complain to XC but I'm sure I wouldn't be telling them anything they don't already know. I could write to my MP but he's on the opposition benches and has no real power. Any point in writing to the DfT?! I feel as though, compared with eg the well publicised issues with Avanti, this is just not getting the attention it deserves. Although I guess some of that is because XC have been mediocre for years whereas Avanti have seemingly declined much faster from a better starting point?

Thank you.
 

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,508
Location
Plymouth
(Lurk=off..)
I've been watching this thread and some of its predecessors with interest. The situation with XC is very frustrating. I have used XC off and on all my life, having grown up in Plymouth, had family in Sheffield and now find myself living in Birmingham.

Growing up in Plymouth, my impression was most rail passengers from there are taking long-distance journeys, which are likely to involve XC if going anywhere other than London. So XC is many people in the area's impression of what the whole railway is like, when in reality it has never been a high priority route politically.

Pre-Voyagers, some of the hauled stock was very antiquated (as much as I liked it for geeky reasons) and the timetables a bit random. As much as Virgin's reforms introduction of Voyagers was flawed, it felt at the time like the route was finally being brought into line with other parts of the country, with modern stock and a regular hourly schedule to Birmingham. This all seems very naive now that we have 2-hour gaps in the timetable, and having to avoid certain services because they're just too busy.

For me the question is, what can I (or we), as an ordinary citizen, do about this? I could complain to XC but I'm sure I wouldn't be telling them anything they don't already know. I could write to my MP but he's on the opposition benches and has no real power. Any point in writing to the DfT?! I feel as though, compared with eg the well publicised issues with Avanti, this is just not getting the attention it deserves. Although I guess some of that is because XC have been mediocre for years whereas Avanti have seemingly declined much faster from a better starting point?

Thank you.
I feel your frustration. The Plymouth route seems to be the poor relation with fewer doubled up voyagers compared to the Reading route, despite the long journeys generally being done on the Plymouth axis (3 and a half hours just to get to Birmingham) . I fear for this bank holiday weekend that we will see rather too many 5 coach voyagers turning up southbound tomorrow and northbound on Monday!
Very frustrating knowing voyagers are now being laid up idle!
 

WizCastro197

Established Member
Joined
12 May 2022
Messages
1,468
Location
Reigate
It sound really really bad but, could the voyagers possibly go to SWR? To replace the 158/159s, It is a crazy idea but ideally SWR should get brand new stock but just as an interim measure to prevent The Voyagers from going to scrap

Maybe It isn't such a good idea considering that 6 coach 159 (2 coupled) has almost 200 more seats than a 5 coach Class 22x
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,741
It sound really really bad but, could the voyagers possibly go to SWR? To replace the 158/159s, It is a crazy idea but ideally SWR should get brand new stock but just as an interim measure to prevent The Voyagers from going to scrap

Maybe It isn't such a good idea considering that 6 coach 159 (2 coupled) has almost 200 more seats than a 5 coach Class 22x
This has been done many times before on here and every time the conclusion is it's a crazy idea.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
7,450
Location
Northern England
It sound really really bad but, could the voyagers possibly go to SWR? To replace the 158/159s, It is a crazy idea but ideally SWR should get brand new stock but just as an interim measure to prevent The Voyagers from going to scrap

Maybe It isn't such a good idea considering that 6 coach 159 (2 coupled) has almost 200 more seats than a 5 coach Class 22x
That, and the fact that finding somewhere for the Voyagers isn't the issue. The issue is that of persuading bureaucrats of what I would consider a simple premise: trains providing additional capacity on notoriously overcrowded corridors are better than the same trains sitting in a shed somewhere.

I was only slightly joking with my earlier comment about insisting on such bureaucrats using the service for an extended period. I genuinely suspect that the people who make the decisions are looking on paper at some theoretical maximum capacity for a Voyager, and deciding on that basis that XC must already have sufficient capacity, when in fact almost any frequent user of the service would be adamant that it didn't.

Of course, I could be totally wrong, and DfT might have other capacity increase plans. For example, they might be about to turn around and, out of nowhere, announce an order of several dozen 10-car FLIRTs to completely see off the Voyagers from XC... but somehow I doubt this is the case.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
11,039
Location
West Wiltshire
Genuinely astounded that there's any possibility of Voyagers being scrapped when XC continues to be the utter mess that it is.

It might genuinely be time to hang up the "person interested in railways" hat if that happens, just what on earth!

I don’t really have a problem with voyagers being scrapped in the next few years, their seating capacity is poor, and being diesel only makes a mockery of being used on a part electrified network. So when replacements are ready then they can go.

But it is fundamentally wrong to store them when so many cross country services are short formed or spanning big gaps because some trains are not running, or missing out the stations near the end.

So I totally agree reducing the voyager fleet at current time is bonkers.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,240
It sound really really bad but, could the voyagers possibly go to SWR? To replace the 158/159s, It is a crazy idea but ideally SWR should get brand new stock but just as an interim measure to prevent The Voyagers from going to scrap

Maybe It isn't such a good idea considering that 6 coach 159 (2 coupled) has almost 200 more seats than a 5 coach Class 22x
Voyagers, (or EMR 222s which have also been suggested before), are also overkill in terms of power and speed for the Basingstoke to Salisbury/Exeter route, they’re 125 mph trains that would be wasted on such a slow route. There are very few routes they’d be suitable for.
 
Last edited:

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
8,320
I suspect that, within the next few years, some 220s and 222s may be "on offer" for sale to overseas operators, whilst others might follow the 360/2s to early graveyards; classes 175 and 180 may also share the same fate.
 

class397tpe

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2022
Messages
172
Location
Cambridge
I don’t really have a problem with voyagers being scrapped in the next few years, their seating capacity is poor, and being diesel only makes a mockery of being used on a part electrified network. So when replacements are ready then they can go.

But it is fundamentally wrong to store them when so many cross country services are short formed or spanning big gaps because some trains are not running, or missing out the stations near the end.

So I totally agree reducing the voyager fleet at current time is bonkers.
It would be a bit of a farce as well to scrap the Avanti voyagers given the refresh they had. It would make a mockery of XC and EMR who haven't been granted refurbishments of their very tatty fleets, while Avanti was handed out money to refresh their voyagers only for them to be scrapped a couple of years later.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
7,450
Location
Northern England
It would be a bit of a farce as well to scrap the Avanti voyagers given the refresh they had. It would make a mockery of XC and EMR who haven't been granted refurbishments of their very tatty fleets, while Avanti was handed out money to refresh their voyagers only for them to be scrapped a couple of years later.

I genuinely wonder whether whoever authorised the Avanti voyager refurbishment didn't bother read what they were signing properly, and thought the project encompassed the CrossCountry ones as well.

After our transport secretary's wonderful demonstration that they don't know where Manchester - the third-largest city in the country they are supposed to be responsible for the transport network in - lies on the rail network, I don't think any further displays of ignorance from the DfT can really surprise me.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,189
Location
Bolton
It would be a bit of a farce as well to scrap the Avanti voyagers given the refresh they had. It would make a mockery of XC and EMR who haven't been granted refurbishments of their very tatty fleets, while Avanti was handed out money to refresh their voyagers only for them to be scrapped a couple of years later.
Better value for money than the work on the 442s mind...
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
19,347
Location
Yorkshire
It would be a bit of a farce as well to scrap the Avanti voyagers given the refresh they had. It would make a mockery of XC and EMR who haven't been granted refurbishments of their very tatty fleets, while Avanti was handed out money to refresh their voyagers only for them to be scrapped a couple of years later.
As with the 442s, there's a danger of falling into the "sunk cost fallacy" here. Having spent a few thousand pounds on a deep clean and new seat covers isn't a reason to keep hold of units which are no longer needed or suitable.

Some operators will value their brand image enough to keep outgoing stock in good order up to the end (for example SWT kept the Slammers nice and clean right up until they went to the great shed in the sky) whereas others won't bother (such as EMR, with the Meridian seats in standard looking like a sofa that's been dumped in a front garden on a council estate for about three months).
 

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,626
Location
Yorkshire
As with the 442s, there's a danger of falling into the "sunk cost fallacy" here. Having spent a few thousand pounds on a deep clean and new seat covers isn't a reason to keep hold of units which are no longer needed or suitable.

Some operators will value their brand image enough to keep outgoing stock in good order up to the end (for example SWT kept the Slammers nice and clean right up until they went to the great shed in the sky) whereas others won't bother (such as EMR, with the Meridian seats in standard looking like a sofa that's been dumped in a front garden on a council estate for about three months).
Or indeed any garden in any area ;)
 

ashley84

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2021
Messages
51
Location
Birmingham
I feel your frustration. The Plymouth route seems to be the poor relation with fewer doubled up voyagers compared to the Reading route, despite the long journeys generally being done on the Plymouth axis (3 and a half hours just to get to Birmingham) . I fear for this bank holiday weekend that we will see rather too many 5 coach voyagers turning up southbound tomorrow and northbound on Monday!
Very frustrating knowing voyagers are now being laid up idle!
I've never used the Reading route - wasn't meaning to suggest it's any less important, just that I'm a lot less familiar with it. For me its both the capacity and the timetable. For example, the first off-peak Plymouth train from Birmingham is at 11:12. Yes, you can get an earlier train to Bristol and change, but it doesn't get you there much earlier. Getting the first train after a 2-hour gap (eg the 11:27 Plymouth-Birmingham) is risky because they're often very busy as a result of the "missing" previous train. Getting the last train before a 2-hour gap is also risky because if it turns up short-formed and full then it's a 2-hour wait until the next one. It just feels like what Virgin tried to do with Operation Princess is now well and truly in the bin, and we're left with quite an inflexible timetable.

XC also provide the majority of trains between Bristol and Taunton, so ending up on a train only going as far as Bristol is often not hugely helpful. I understand the argument that perhaps the extremities of the network should be curtailed to improve the core, but at the SW end, terminating trains at Bristol often means a considerably longer journey with possibly two changes of train, whereas continuing to Taunton or Exeter would allow connections with GWR London-Plymouth/Penzance services.

I "get" that Voyagers have many flaws. They are a product of the early privatisation era when electrification and even bi-modes weren't on anyone's agenda. They're diesel-only, and not particularly clean diesels by modern standards, at a time when the public are becoming increasingly aware of the health implications of air pollution. So I accept that they probably don't have a long term future and we need to move on from them. But all the while that (a) nothing better has been seriously proposed or funded, (b) large parts of XC aren't electrified and aren't likely to be any time soon, (c) we still have significant numbers of HSTs in use on the network which are much older, it just makes no sense. Even if we accept that XC aren't getting any more stock in the foreseeable future, surplus Voyagers could at least replace some HSTs and give them more operational flexibility from a standardised fleet.

Am I right in saying XC's HSTs are now older than the 47+hauled sets were when replaced by Voyagers? (Although arguably the HSTs are in better condition than those hauled sets were at that time.)
 

class397tpe

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2022
Messages
172
Location
Cambridge
As with the 442s, there's a danger of falling into the "sunk cost fallacy" here. Having spent a few thousand pounds on a deep clean and new seat covers isn't a reason to keep hold of units which are no longer needed or suitable.

Some operators will value their brand image enough to keep outgoing stock in good order up to the end (for example SWT kept the Slammers nice and clean right up until they went to the great shed in the sky) whereas others won't bother (such as EMR, with the Meridian seats in standard looking like a sofa that's been dumped in a front garden on a council estate for about three months).
Yeah, that is true, plus the exterior of EMR trains generally look like they've just spent a week driving around a farm.

If the DfT are unwilling to authorize additional stock for XC, at the very least it would be nice for them to swap their 221s for Avanti ones, which are in much better condition with the refresh inside. Although the presence of the shop would probably complicate matters.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
27,189
Location
Bolton
Yeah, that is true, plus the exterior of EMR trains generally look like they've just spent a week driving around a farm.

If the DfT are unwilling to authorize additional stock for XC, at the very least it would be nice for them to swap their 221s for Avanti ones, which are in much better condition with the refresh inside. Although the presence of the shop would probably complicate matters.
The Avanti West Coast ones are the ones that aren't on lease, though. The CrossCountry ones are.

Realistically there are only two outcomes here. It's sure been fun to discuss the Transport Scotland option but it's so unlikely it can probably be ignored. The first, then, is that CrossCountry persuade the Department that those additional units represent good value for money - better value for money than something else that the Department is looking at, such as funding for bus services, more support for TfL or pay awards to resolve disputes. The other is that the units are stored for a time, then scrapped.

One question I would ask is if people claiming that it is only right that CrossCountry get the extra money to lease more units would still rather have that than one of the other areas of spending that is within their control. For example, it's hardly useful to have the money for more Voyagers if frequent strikes over pay by drivers and other train crew result in no service, is it? One possibility to fund pay awards and solve the dispute would be to look at cutting frequency further, and for example removing some cost by withdrawing between Edinburgh and Aberdeen and between Plymouth and Penzance. But of course nobody discusses these options because they're not politically palatable. Unfortunately though, the industry is essentially in crisis mode and sadly I don't see this improving in the short term.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,270
Even if you don't think they are good value to increase capacity, what about using them to get rid of HSTs? Surely that saves money?
Yes, but there really need to be five 221s available to lease before the HSTs can be removed, and people keep on pointing out to me that direct replacement of one 221 for one HST reduces capacity, so perhaps more than five 221s need to be available first.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
11,039
Location
West Wiltshire
Am I right in saying XC's HSTs are now older than the 47+hauled sets were when replaced by Voyagers? (Although arguably the HSTs are in better condition than those hauled sets were at that time.)

Yes, the cross country HSTs were built towards the end of the production run (around 1981-82) although some vehicles are from late 1970s. Therefore at least 40 years old.

The class 47s were mainly built 1963-66 and survived on some cross country services until about 2001 so were upto about 38 years old

By the end of the class 47 hauled rakes, air conditioned coaches from about 1970-74 were the norm (about 31-34 years old) although older mk1 BG full brake coaches were still on one end of some formations. The hauled sets were all hand me downs, I think they had been cascaded to cross country when East coast got mk4 coaches displacing HSTs. Before that most cross country rakes were non air conditioned mk2a-2c from late 1960s which were used from early 1980s until about 1993 (replaced when about 24-27 years old)

The voyagers are now about 21 years old, so almost certainly in second half of their life, but not that much younger than the hauled rakes that were norm in 1970s, 1980s, 1990s at generally 15-34 years old.
 
Last edited:

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,270
Yes, the cross country HSTs were built towards the end of the production run (around 1981-82) although some vehicles are from late 1970s. Therefore at least 40 years old.
Whilst that is true, the current CrossCountry HSTs aren't, in the main, the same ones that were the HSTs from the end of the production run, in particular power cars 43207 and 43208 which are among the first built and many coaches of sets XC04 and XC05 also come from this batch. Moreover, a fair number of the coaches are conversions from the even earlier LHCS build displaced from the West Coast. Therefore, some of the bits of the HSTs are in their mid 40s.

although older mk1 BG full brake coaches were still on one end of some formations
These had all gone by the days of Virgin Cross Country with sets all made up of of Mk2e / Mk2f BSO-5TSO-RFB formations.
 

ashley84

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2021
Messages
51
Location
Birmingham
The Avanti West Coast ones are the ones that aren't on lease, though. The CrossCountry ones are.

Realistically there are only two outcomes here. It's sure been fun to discuss the Transport Scotland option but it's so unlikely it can probably be ignored. The first, then, is that CrossCountry persuade the Department that those additional units represent good value for money - better value for money than something else that the Department is looking at, such as funding for bus services, more support for TfL or pay awards to resolve disputes. The other is that the units are stored for a time, then scrapped.

One question I would ask is if people claiming that it is only right that CrossCountry get the extra money to lease more units would still rather have that than one of the other areas of spending that is within their control. For example, it's hardly useful to have the money for more Voyagers if frequent strikes over pay by drivers and other train crew result in no service, is it? One possibility to fund pay awards and solve the dispute would be to look at cutting frequency further, and for example removing some cost by withdrawing between Edinburgh and Aberdeen and between Plymouth and Penzance. But of course nobody discusses these options because they're not politically palatable. Unfortunately though, the industry is essentially in crisis mode and sadly I don't see this improving in the short term.

Yes exactly, I agree. What's all the more frustrating about all this is that it doesn't feel like there is any real strategy.

Hypothetically I can see a strong argument that if XC ran say, Birmingham to Bristol hourly, alternate trains continuing to Plymouth and gave up with Penzance, that could potentially mean a more robust service and more seats on the section GWR don't also serve (Bristol-Birmingham). It would also make the timetable more memorable than currently with random 2-hour gaps at some times but then the odd Manchester service thrown in as an extra at other times.

But the problem is if nothing else changed, many passengers would see it as worse, not better. Currently, the connections at Bristol from the Bristol terminators often don't reach Plymouth much before the next XC service would do, sometimes involve 2 changes, and are mostly short trains without loads of space to mop up extra XC passengers. Taunton would also lose half it's fast services to Bristol on this arrangement. Maybe XC should terminate at Taunton, but I'm not sure if there is the platform capacity for more terminating services there?

If the whole thing was rejigged to make the connections work well at Bristol, and GWR had the resources to cope with the extra demand then I think that would be fine. But I fear that the moment they would just lop more services out the timetable without thinking about the wider consequences.
 

irish_rail

On Moderation
Joined
30 Oct 2013
Messages
4,508
Location
Plymouth
Yes exactly, I agree. What's all the more frustrating about all this is that it doesn't feel like there is any real strategy.

Hypothetically I can see a strong argument that if XC ran say, Birmingham to Bristol hourly, alternate trains continuing to Plymouth and gave up with Penzance, that could potentially mean a more robust service and more seats on the section GWR don't also serve (Bristol-Birmingham). It would also make the timetable more memorable than currently with random 2-hour gaps at some times but then the odd Manchester service thrown in as an extra at other times.

But the problem is if nothing else changed, many passengers would see it as worse, not better. Currently, the connections at Bristol from the Bristol terminators often don't reach Plymouth much before the next XC service would do, sometimes involve 2 changes, and are mostly short trains without loads of space to mop up extra XC passengers. Taunton would also lose half it's fast services to Bristol on this arrangement. Maybe XC should terminate at Taunton, but I'm not sure if there is the platform capacity for more terminating services there?

If the whole thing was rejigged to make the connections work well at Bristol, and GWR had the resources to cope with the extra demand then I think that would be fine. But I fear that the moment they would just lop more services out the timetable without thinking about the wider consequences.
Abandoning Plymouth like this just ain't gonna happen. Its a main traincrew base, the sets overnight at Laira, and your plan basically reduces the south west peninsula to a 2 hourly service northwards. The current service is very busy between Plymouth and Bristol as it is, so the idea of REDUCING frequency, thankfully, isn't going to happen!!
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,051
Location
Reston City Centre
Yes exactly, I agree. What's all the more frustrating about all this is that it doesn't feel like there is any real strategy

The specification for virtually all railway services in England effectively lies with Westminster, politicians there have more control than at any time in Railway history, so there’s nothing stopping them ripping up “franchise” agreements or insisting on new requirements (as long as they make appropriate payments for the additional subsidy required etc)

It’s just that, blessed with a level of powers that Nationalisation obsessives have always wanted Westminster to have, Westminster is either too scared to do much or too busy dealing with other issues, which is why so many of the old franchises are effectively kept on Life Support

If the whole thing was rejigged to make the connections work well at Bristol, and GWR had the resources to cope with the extra demand then I think that would be fine. But I fear that the moment they would just lop more services out the timetable without thinking about the wider consequences.

GWR don’t have the resources at the moment, agreed

Some franchises cut back parallel services when Operation Princess transformed the Cross Country network

FNW used to run from Manchester/Crewe/Stoke to Birmingham

Northern Spirit used to provide some fast daytime Leeds-Westgate-Sheffield services (some of which ran through to chesterfield)

I wouldn’t be surprised if GWR or Wales&West thinned out their Bristol-Devon services too, or Central Trains has to do similar in the Midlands

The point being, Princess was a convenient way of freeing up some stock that franchises could focus on their “core” routes, but this meant that those franchises couldn’t simply replace XC as their resources were tied up elsewhere

But the 800s that GWR run on their long distance routes are still a modern design, there’s nothing stopping the government writing a cheque to order a couple of dozen more*, so that GWR has enough fast trains to run an hourly New Street-Plymouth service (which would allow XC to cut their own forays into the south west back a bit, enough to give some viable daytime journeys from Manchester/Yorkshire to Devon, but not needing to run anything like as much as the half hourly that they used to try to provide)

All we need is someone to fund it, the companies will effectively do what the management contract tells them to do, any talk of “…but GWR don’t want to provide a service between…” is nonsense; GWR are there to implement the level of service that Westminster order them to

*- in the interests of pedantry, it wouldn’t be ordered under the original IET contract; only trains grown in the IET region get to be called 800s, anything else has to label itself as Sparkling Hitachi… maybe they’d have some minor cosmetic changes and have to be called 809s or something marginally different, but they could be any length you want and compatible with 800/802 for any multiple operations
 

43074

Established Member
Joined
10 Oct 2012
Messages
2,253
The point being, Princess was a convenient way of freeing up some stock that franchises could focus on their “core” routes, but this meant that those franchises couldn’t simply replace XC as their resources were tied up elsewhere

Not really, that explanation implies there was a strategy behind it, really it was a massive ORCATS raid by Virgin. I suspect the withdrawal of the services you've mentioned was more because there wasn't capacity in the timetable rather than being a calculated decision to free up stock for other things.
 

RobShipway

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
3,337
Not really, that explanation implies there was a strategy behind it, really it was a massive ORCATS raid by Virgin. I suspect the withdrawal of the services you've mentioned was more because there wasn't capacity in the timetable rather than being a calculated decision to free up stock for other things.
I believe that the Virgin XC services out of Brighton got cut as the paths where needed to enhance Thameslink services and the class 220 units used where needed on other services.

It also did not help that the depot being used at Three Bridges for Virgin XC was to be demolished to build the Thameslink depot.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
11,039
Location
West Wiltshire
I believe that the Virgin XC services out of Brighton got cut as the paths where needed to enhance Thameslink services and the class 220 units used where needed on other services.

It also did not help that the depot being used at Three Bridges for Virgin XC was to be demolished to build the Thameslink depot.

Yes when Virgin first took over cross country there were still trains to Brighton, Portsmouth, Poole etc, plus summer versions to Weymouth, Paignton etc.

Some of these summer versions followed the cross country core, but at other end went to places like Bolton, Bradford etc. Trains like Glasgow-Bournemouth ran all year.

Was cut back quite a lot when 220s started, then savaged 2-3 years ago, so network is now probably less than half of the routes Virgin inherited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top