AXC or VXC?

[Zoe]

They could have simply extended some London to Bristol services to Plymouth though. No need to force everyone onto sprinters. In the end FGW did get extra HSTs but elected to use them on Paddington to Oxford and outer suburban commuter services and withdraw their 180s.

As for the north I expect York or at the most Newcastle would be the termius with GNER running extra services to Edinburgh to cover.

That said, if Virgin were only going to run from Bristol to York/Newcastle would they have needed all their Voyagers? Some could have gone to FGW and GNER to allow them to run extra services.

 

[mumrar]

None of the above. Give it to someone new, maybe DSB or Serco-NedRail.

If by DSB you mean DB Schenker then that is one of the most silly and ill-informed comments I've ever seen on here. Have you been trapped under a rock for a long time?

 

[Pumbaa]

None of the above. Give it to someone new, maybe DSB or Serco-NedRail. Much more trustable than either of them.

Agreeing with mumrar here, possibly comment of the year so far?!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just read this through, and I agree with a lot of things. In particular tbtc (surprise) and curly42, the railway should be run by railwaymen, not by suits who think they can run a railway. Possibly the biggest failure of privatisation yet.

I think, and some agree with me here, that XC would work best as returning to a primarily Inter-City operation;

1) Take the current XC Notts/Cardiff/Stansted services, couple them with TPE, the LM Turbostar routes, EMT Liverpool - Norwich, Nottingham - Leeds, South Wales - Manchester, Liverpool/Manchester/Preston - Birmingham and new routes that will be created by point 2) below and give them to a new regional franchise, which specialises in long distance links with new stock, taking the overcrowding on many routes to head and releasing existing stock for the current operators.

2) create the new XC service based on existing service. Hub in Birmingham, with six routes that fan out N, S, NE, SE, SW, NW. The CAPITALS indicate where most services stop, a few run beyond. (Brackets) indicate limited service, as the core routes will be replicated by new regional services.

a) Brum - (Wolves) - (Stafford) - Stoke - Stockport - Manchester
b) Brum - (Leamington) - (Banbury) - Oxford - Reading - SOUTHAMPTON - Bournemouth
c) Brum - (Derby) - Sheffield - Doncaster/Leeds - York - Darlington - NEWCASTLE - Edinburgh
d) Brum - (International) - Coventry - Milton Keynes - Stratford - Ebbsfleet
e) Brum - BRISTOL - Taunton - Exeter - Newton Abbot - Plymouth
f) Brum - (Wolves) - Crewe - (Warrington) - (Wigan) - Preston - Lancaster - Carlisle - Glasgow

20 minute frequency N - S with each northern spoke serving each southern spoke once an hour, ie each spoke gets 3 services an hour so using Manchester as an example, it gets 1 to Bournemouth, 1 to Plymouth, 1 to Ebbsfleet. On the flip side, Ebbsfleet gets 1 to Manchester, 1 to Edinburgh (newcastle), 1 to Glasgow.

3) introduce new regional services to compensate for the loss of intermediaries. Including a York - Edinburgh to cover Thirsk, Chester-le-Street, Durham etc, the Plymouth to Cheltenham, Birmingham to Reading as an extension of current services.

Suddenly the whole operation is a lot more attractive! Proper IC level of service restored, local links served by new local services with stock like existing 444s or whatever, and I daresay it could be lucrative. With decreased journey times comes increased patronage and draw.

 

[Zoe]

a) Brum - (Wolves) - (Stafford) - Stoke - Stockport - Manchester
b) Brum - (Leamington) - (Banbury) - Oxford - Reading - SOUTHAMPTON - Bournemouth
c) Brum - (Derby) - Sheffield - Doncaster/Leeds - York - Darlington - NEWCASTLE - Edinburgh
d) Brum - (International) - Coventry - Milton Keynes - Stratford - Ebbsfleet
e) Brum - BRISTOL - Taunton - Exeter - Newton Abbot - Plymouth
f) Brum - (Wolves) - Crewe - (Warrington) - (Wigan) - Preston - Lancaster - Carlisle - Glasgow

If you are going to have them all start or terminate at Birmingham then there's no reason for an XC franchise to exist, all the services coul dbe run by other TOCs.

Route A: Virgin

Route B: FGW

Route C: East Coast

Route D: Virgin

Route E: FGW

Route F: Virgin

 

[Pumbaa]

Sorry I meant to make it clearer, all journeys continue through Birmingham to one of the possible destinations. I was just using Brum as the starting point to illustrate the possible calling patterns.

 

[bnm]

If by DSB you mean DB Schenker then that is one of the most silly and ill-informed comments I've ever seen on here. Have you been trapped under a rock for a long time?

Er.... DSB = Danish State Railways. A company already expanding into foreign markets. That's how I read it - it'd be silly to assume that he meant a freight/logistics subsidiary entering the passenger train market. Particularly when DB already has at least three passenger subsidiaries.

So, silly and ill-informed back atcha. :roll:

 

[Zoe]

Sorry I meant to make it clearer, all journeys continue through Birmingham to one of the possible destinations. I was just using Brum as the starting point to illustrate the possible calling patterns.

So would you vary the service then so trains from the South West would go to Edinburgh, Manchester and Glasgow? I'm surprised Liverpool is on your list as it always used to have a service from the South West until Operation Princess.

 

[Pumbaa]

So would you vary the service then so trains from the South West would go to Edinburgh, Manchester and Glasgow? I'm surprised Liverpool is on your list as it always used to have a service from the South West until Operation Princess.

Correct. Liverpool is a difficult one, it's an awkward position. You could potentially vary the Glasgow services to run to either Glasgow or Liverpool beyond Crewe, but its not ideal. Due to the fact Liverpool has been shafted, most people don't think twice about travelling to Crewe, Manchester or Preston to continue their journey. Now that's developed, I highly doubt it will ever change.

 

[Zoe]

Now that's developed, I highly doubt it will ever change.

You could use the same argument for developing Birmingham New Street as the interchange for the South and South West to Glasgow.

 

[Pumbaa]

Well, two services need to exist. 1 from Brum to S/SW, 1 up the WC to Glasgow. Combining them gives increased journey opportunities. For minimal cost, you get high gains. Surely that would be better than not running them through?

 

[Zoe]

Well, two services need to exist. 1 from Brum to S/SW, 1 up the WC to Glasgow. Combining them gives increased journey opportunities. For minimal cost, you get high gains. Surely that would be better than not running them through?

But you'd also get increased journey opportunities by running trains to Liverpool. Currently all the South/South West services head for the East Coast or Manchester. Even Glasgow gets direct trains from the South West via the East Coast. If you are going to run services from the South West via the West Coast then I think Liverpool also deserves a service even if only a single train per day.

 

[MCR247]

I'd go back to something like this under VXC

1tph Bristol-Newcastle
1tph Reading-Manchester
1tph Birmingham-Manchester
1tp2h Manchester-Scotland
1tph Bournemouth-Scotland (alternate EC & WC)
1tph Plymouth-Scotland (alternate EC & WC)

But extend the Mancester - Reading to Southampton

 

[route:oxford]

Selfishly, I far preferred it when Virgin were running the XC services.

Travelling from Oxford to Scotland was fantastic. 5h19m to Edinburgh/Glasgow on a direct service!

An early arrival into Glasgow once permitted me to get from Oxford to Stirling (via a spring between Central and QS) in 5h45m...

 

[Jonny]

The thing is, Arriva has used the ECML recast as an excuse to jettison most of the stops at Chester-le-Street. Having voyagers stop was ideal because they were able to fit the short platforms and had the ability to get up to speed quickly and so not block the line, as well as having spare capacity for the passenger numbers involved. It also solved the problem of how to achieve rapid-accelerating services without the adjoining neutral section in the overhead electrification coming into play (meaning that electric stoppers are almost impossible, especially northbound).

The short platforms given peak passenger numbers and the nearby neutral section are the sort of things that Network Rail could sort out from its "surplus".

I am also rather suspicious that Arriva are cutting back train services because they are a bus company and Chester-le-Street to/from Newcastle is also a bus market. IMHO it is one such market that deserves to have a train service compete against it since said buses are unreliable, scruffy and have an even rougher ride than the pacers.

 

[Greenback]

Have Arriva cut the stops from Chester le Street, or is it the timetable planners that have done that? Just a question, as I haven't looked at the latest timetable plans for the ECML.

 

[Jonny]

Have Arriva cut the stops from Chester le Street, or is it the timetable planners that have done that? Just a question, as I haven't looked at the latest timetable plans for the ECML.

I'm not sure which, but the post-May-21st timetable according to National Rail Enquiries makes for very bleak reading and I suspect that Arriva-XC would have a lot of leeway to insert stops into the schedule if they wanted to. That Arriva are a rival bus operator on that section does make me very suspicious and I do hold it against the Arriva brand.

Also, First[/B ]Transpennine aren't taking many of their stopping slots up; and it is a fairly big bus market. The only trouble is that the buses are hideously erratic and stop every few hundred yards/metres for all of ten miles. Either an hourly clockface service or better still two trains per hour would be a worthwhile gamble and might bring some fresh custom onto the railway (OK, that includes abstracted from buses - but they're commercial so it doesn't matter so much). After all, if a Voyager is following an East Coast service (especially on a Durham-Darlington-York pattern), the stop time at Chester-le-Street might help by keeping it back for a little while.

As an aside, First running their 185s on 2/3rds power cannot help. OK so it's quiet in the back coach, but on the canted section North out of Chester-le-Street it isn't too clever as the time there is prolonged. Let's just say that it has me looking at non-train non-bus options; choice between car and bicycle, might well be the latter since the time it takes me over ten miles isn't much longer than the bus.

 

[BestWestern]

Just to move the focus back to the stock, I am required to travel on Voyagers during some shifts and I'd have to say that even on a short journey (Cheltenham - Bristol) they are pretty awful unless they're close to empty, when the space available can create an illusion of comfort. In reality however, one needs more than just a double seat to consider a train appropriate for long distance runs. I have travelled on the Portsmouth - Blackpool service under VXC with both 158 and Voyager stock, and (apart from one journey on a 158 with neither toilet functioning!) there really wasn't a great deal of difference in comfort levels, which really doesn't say a lot for the Voyager. Anybody who has ever had to stand up in the vestibules - as is standard practise on many servcies - will testify that the heat is often unbearable, the toilets stink, there is very little window space or daylight and it is probably one of the most miserable travel experiences on the railway today!

The simple fact would seem to be that busy long distance services require decent trains, with proper, comfortable coaches in a train length that doesn't require people to be rammed in with no regard whatsoever for their comfort. I really cannot fathom any thought process behind the current generation of stupidly short 'Sprinters with pointy cabs', which inevitably end up being woefully inadequate for their intended use and which then cause a major headache to get the problem solved. It might be an ultra-simple way of looking at things, but it is beyond me why we can't come up with a genuine HST replacement, of a similar configuration. This would allow far more long-term flexibility than a fixed DMU, far more comfort and greater length without expensive construction of powered trailers. No doubt there will now follow 1001 reasons why this couldn't/shouldn't/won't happen, but I'd argue that common sense would suggest it is both possible and, in many ways, preferable.

In the meantime, a heavy refurb of the Voyagers is several years overdue at least!

 

[WestCoast]

In the meantime, a heavy refurb of the Voyagers is several years overdue at least!

Not a refurb, but I do like what Virgin have done with coach D on their current Super Voyagers - the all table layout with comfy extra padded seats is great! But only when it's standard class Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh.

 

[Blindtraveler]

as someone from Edinburgh who has the choice of vt or xc for a run to brum, then the comparisons are easy. Vt have voyagers but they are clean and feature little things like phone signal and a decent buffet. Even when busy they dont seam to be overly unpleasent. Yc too have voyagers but with less space and as soon as a cupple of people and there bags start to occupy the vestibule because theres nowhere else for them, the excuse for a catering service stops. no phone of wifi iether. On another note, why are disabled loos provided in every coach and not just the ones with whealchair bays? When these trains are refurbed wrip them out, punch a whole in the side to create a windo, install tip up seats and make life that bit nicer for gangway passengers. A cupboard size toilet would ofcourse need to be installed.

 

[Zoe]

When these trains are refurbed wrip them out, punch a whole in the side to create a windo, install tip up seats and make life that bit nicer for gangway passengers. A cupboard size toilet would ofcourse need to be installed.

I believe Arriva did consider this but were unable to.

 

[route:oxford]

I believe Arriva did consider this but were unable to.

In what way "unable to"?

Are the units incapable of being altered to accommodate a smaller loo?

Are the ROSCO unwilling for such adjustments to be made to their asset?

Were politicians terrified about withdrawng a facility for the disabled? (Even though some individuals with impairments find it easier to deal with the movement of the train when there are walls to provide support...

or

Did the DfT throw a tantrum?

 

[DarloRich]

That's exactly the point though. XC is primarily a regional service that also provides some long distance journey opportunities. You can tell this be the am. ount of calls the trains make in the South West and the Midlands. There may well be quite a few people boarding at Plymouth going to Edinburgh but the majority will most likely only be going as far as Bristol or at the most Birmingham.

You may not like the underfloor engines but again I doubt the majority of passengers care and seeing as there are no immediate plans for electrification and locomotive hauled stock is not an option I'm not sure what other options there are.

I DO have to use them on a regular basis for long distance travel and they are shockingly bad trains for anything over about an hour. They shake like mad, the seats are torture, most of the time you cant see out of a window, the tables seem tiny (or my work lap top is massive!) there is never a decent selection left on the trolley and they are noisey and rammed most of the time. Regardless of what anyone says or whatever excuses Virgin/XC pedel replacing an 8 carriage train with 4 or 5 carriages is both madness and a recipe for disaster!

Now that said IF they were set out like a Meridian things would be a lot better. Why is EMT able to make thier "Voyagers" a better place to be? I quite like going on those "Voyagers"

 

[ainsworth74]

Why is EMT able to make thier "Voyagers" a better place to be? I quite like going on those "Voyagers"

Because they're not Voyagers, they are Meridians that's the whole point. The Meridians share a body shell with the Voyager and various other components here and there but they incorporate a lot of lessons learned from the introduction and early service of the Voyagers. Hence why most people prefer Meridians to Voyagers, the Meridians are a more evolved design compared with the Voyagers.

As for the internal layouts I would hazard a guess that a MSO of a Meridian seats fewer people than the MSO of a Voyager to give you that extra comfort. Personally I don't think it would be a good idea to reduce the seating capacity of the Voyagers seeing as they already struggle with demand as it is.

 

[Zoe]

The 222s are only Voyagers as much as 158s are Sprinters. Basically memebers of the same family not the same trains.

 

[tbtc]

most of the time you cant see out of a window

Sorry, but exaggerating tends to distract from the genuine points that you make. Yes, the windows and seats don't line up perfectly on Voyagers. The same could be said of almost any modern class of unit, but do you see people criticising Turbostars (etc) for this?

People criticise Voyagers for things they wouldn't criticise another unit for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because they're not Voyagers, they are Meridians that's the whole point

In hindsight it'd have been nice to build a small class of Voyagers, learn the lessons, see what works/ doesn't work, *then* build dozens of improved units.

For example, I don't buy "first generation" electronic products, because version 2.0 has the problems ironed out...

 

[Zoe]

In hindsight it'd have been nice to build a small class of Voyagers, learn the lessons, see what works/ doesn't work, *then* build dozens of improved units.

They didn't build a handful of 150s and then build 158s though and both trains work well.

 

[tbtc]

They didn't build a handful of 150s and then build 158s though and both trains work well.

They built one Class 140, then twenty Class 141s, then about a hundred and fifty 142/143/144s. They learn from the initial batch and improve the next lot. The initial batch of any units are going to have faults, just look at the 180s

 

[185]

If by DSB you mean DB Schenker then that is one of the most silly and ill-informed comments I've ever seen on here. Have you been trapped under a rock for a long time?

DSB Danske Stastebahner are a bidder that approached the DfT for several franchises with some innovative ideas between 2004-2007.

DB Schenker are from another contry that likes sausages, like moustaches and invade Poland a lot.

At least under my rock, I studied geography

 

[Zoe]

They built one Class 140, then twenty Class 141s, then about a hundred and fifty 142/143/144s.

That was back in the day where public transport was a public service and a publically owned train builder. In the business world ordering a handful of trains just to see if passengers like that is going to be quite expensive.

 

[BestWestern]

They built one Class 140, then twenty Class 141s, then about a hundred and fifty 142/143/144s. They learn from the initial batch and improve the next lot. The initial batch of any units are going to have faults, just look at the 180s

That is to some extent a fair point, but the Pacers were new territory for a state-run company on a very tight budget, hence them ever existing in the first place. The Voyagers were a modern day train being designed and built with all the technology you could possibly want. There have been enough long distance trains of various types in various countries for the designers to appreciate from the outset that they are cramped, rattly and in no way as pleasant or civilised to ride in as their predocessors. I have to say that I think that's a pretty poor show. When you look at a Turbostar or Electrostar or Desiro etc, there have been several fleet builds of all of these to pretty much the same design and they all seem to have been essentially decent trains from the outset. The heavy, rythmic interior vibration on a departing Voyager is decidedly worse than on most of the 20 year old 158 sets that I work! A feature both trains do share however, is the sauna-like conditions in the vestibules on a warm-ish or worse day. On a train that is two decades old it is to some extent forgiveable, but what's the excuse on a Voyager?