CrossCountry Voyagers - future replacement

[S-Bahn]

Evening all,

Having recently had to travel on a very cramped and crowded Voyager out of Bristol and back (220 out, 221 return), I was wondering if the following should happen in the future:-

(I would add that I thought the Voyager's acceleration and locomotive performance was good, just it was cramped, uncomfortable and inadequate for catering for the number of passengers, which I am sure there is some agreement on).

1. Electrify the lines with overhead wires from Birmingham New Street to Southampton via Reading and to Exeter (at least, preferably further into D&C if possible).

2. Invest in Class 802 rolling stock or a similar bi-mode alternative - although I believe in standardisation, so something that is already in existence or will be the widely used next-gen.
OR
Go for a loco hauled option bi-mode option and use the new Mk5 standard coach - so a modern take on the old Class 47's with Mk2's

3. Refurbish the interior of the voyagers and utilise them elsewhere on the network.

What are your thoughts?

 

[hexagon789]

Evening all,

Having recently had to travel on a very cramped and crowded Voyager out of Bristol and back (220 out, 221 return), I was wondering if the following should happen in the future:-

(I would add that I thought the Voyager's acceleration and locomotive performance was good, just it was cramped, uncomfortable and inadequate for catering for the number of passengers, which I am sure there is some agreement on).

1. Electrify the lines with overhead wires from Birmingham New Street to Southampton via Reading and to Exeter (at least, preferably further into D&C if possible).

2. Invest in Class 802 rolling stock or a similar bi-mode alternative - although I believe in standardisation, so something that is already in existence or will be the widely used next-gen.
OR
Go for a loco hauled option bi-mode option and use the new Mk5 standard coach - so a modern take on the old Class 47's with Mk2's

3. Refurbish the interior of the voyagers and utilise them elsewhere on the network.

What are your thoughts?

I think perhaps something along the lines of Bombardier's 125mph bi-modes would be a good choice. You need something that can do 125mph on diesel properly and with ease, so I'd rule out an IET.

Ideally they'd offer the same capacity as XC's HSTs, so 8-car sets perhaps.

 

[S-Bahn]

I think perhaps something along the lines of Bombardier's 125mph bi-modes would be a good choice. You need something that can do 125mph on diesel properly and with ease, so I'd rule out an IET.

Ideally they'd offer the same capacity as XC's HSTs, so 8-car sets perhaps.

Thanks for the reply Hexagon 789. As a clarification, if electrification was extended to principal southern stations and therefore diesel power was required for the unelectrified extensions (e.g. Plymouth - Penzance, Southampton - Bournemouth, Reading - Guildford/Brighton etc), would 125mph performance be necessary when on diesel traction given the line speed restrictions?

Also I agree 5 cars isn't enough to keep up with demand, which I think TPE will find out in the coming years....

 

[hexagon789]

Thanks for the reply Hexagon 789. As a clarification, if electrification was extended to principal southern stations and therefore diesel power was required for the unelectrified extensions (e.g. Plymouth - Penzance, Southampton - Bournemouth, Reading - Guildford/Brighton etc), would 125mph performance be necessary when on diesel traction given the line speed restrictions?

Also I agree 5 cars isn't enough to keep up with demand, which I think TPE will find out in the coming years....

Birmingham to Derby has IIRC two fairly long 90/HST 125 sections, so unless you electrified that you'd need proper 125 diesel capability there. The sections you list there are indeed far slower. South of Newton Abbot is 75mph max.

Yes, I definitely think that 4 and 5-car trains are going from long insufficient to downright completely unsuitable, even just 7-car units would be an improvement.

 

[97201]

A 125mph bi-mode fleet, 7 coaches per unit as a minimum. The Voyagers have never been sufficient for the routes they're used on.

 

[whhistle]

Maybe I have read things wrong:

Will some of the GWR IET bi-mode diesel running capability become defunct when the electrification has been completed?

If so, shove them off to XC, order some more to replace the whole fleet.

Give GWR the pure electric versions.

I realise people have said IETs wouldn't be great but I don't know why. I thought the acceleration rate was up to modern standards?
Which then begs the question, how many stations do XC get away from that are pure diesel?

 

[gingertom]

Maybe I have read things wrong:

Will some of the GWR IET bi-mode diesel running capability become defunct when the electrification has been completed?

If so, shove them off to XC, order some more to replace the whole fleet.

Give GWR the pure electric versions.

I realise people have said IETs wouldn't be great but I don't know why. I thought the acceleration rate was up to modern standards?
Which then begs the question, how many stations do XC get away from that are pure diesel?

once the electrification is complete some of the trains will have their diesel power packs removed.
Generally accepted that 5-car sets would be too short for XC's requirements, but a 6-car set could be equipped with 4 diesel power packs, 7-car with 5. In unmuzzled mode such a set would achieve 125mph easily.
Bombardier's bi-mode Aventra is still a concept on the drawing board. Stadler's bi-mode Flirt could be configured Inter-city and be equipped with sufficient traction and diesel pods as necessary to match or better the voyager's performance. Once the spec of the class 93 is known it could, if suitable, power Mk5s.

 

[hexagon789]

I realise people have said IETs wouldn't be great but I don't know why. I thought the acceleration rate was up to modern standards?

On electric it's great, better than an HST and probably an InterCity 225. On diesel-mode though an IET cannot reach 125 on level track and only out accelerates an HST to 30mph, matches it to about 60mph and gets left behind thereafter.

Granted most of the 100mph+ running is on wires but much of XC's timetable is based on quick accelerating Voyagers. If you used IETs I think you might need to re-jig the timings on unelectrified sections a bit.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Granted most of the 100mph+ running is on wires but much of XC's timetable is based on quick accelerating Voyagers. If you used IETs I think you might need to re-jig the timings on unelectrified sections a bit.

Or just give them a bit more performance on diesel, like the 802s?

 

[hexagon789]

Or just give them a bit more performance on diesel, like the 802s?

I don't get the impression those are all that more capable. Really I think a proper 125mph bi-mode rather than an IET.

Something with Voyager acceleration on Diesel and Pendolino acceleration on electric.

 

[squizzler]

I am starting to think a "Back to the Future" scenario is most desirable in which Cross Country gets the second hand stock off other routes like they always used to. In this instance they acquire the Voyager family and HST trains off other routes as they become available. This buys them a decade so that the electrification programme can continue and technological progress can continue. After that time (and with a few random bits of OLE around the place) it might well be possible to run the franchise with battery electric hybrids. If not that, then it might be possible to run much of the GWR with battery electric hybrids and the franchise upgrade to such with Cross Country getting the IET sets.

 

[squizzler]

Bah! Duplicate post

 

[B&I]

Double 5 car sets through the core, splitting further out to bring more destinations (back) onto XC.

 

[gingertom]

Double 5 car sets through the core, splitting further out to bring more destinations (back) onto XC.

if splitting is to be the norm I'd prefer double 6 car sets, although that may have implications for platform lengths...

 

[Bletchleyite]

if splitting is to be the norm I'd prefer double 6 car sets, although that may have implications for platform lengths...

I think 5 x 26m would be fine if always running doubled up in the core, that's more than half a coach extra over the current 5 x 23m. The GWR units do "waste" a fair bit of space, but that doesn't have to be the case with the XC units as the full sized galley would not be needed; a microgalley taking up one window bay would be adequate.

 

[gingertom]

I think 5 x 26m would be fine if always running doubled up in the core, that's more than half a coach extra over the current 5 x 23m. The GWR units do "waste" a fair bit of space, but that doesn't have to be the case with the XC units as the full sized galley would not be needed; a microgalley taking up one window bay would be adequate.

would the capacity of a 5 x 26m away from the core be sufficient? Definitely a significant improvement over a 4-car Voyager but is it enough compared with a 5-car Voyager?

 

[43096]

would the capacity of a 5 x 26m away from the core be sufficient? Definitely a significant improvement over a 4-car Voyager but is it enough compared with a 5-car Voyager?

You'd actually gain a fair bit of capacity from the longer vehicles and also not having an enormous universal access toilet in every vehicle - that is a huge waste of space on the Voyagers.

 

[The Ham]

To compare
220 - 200 seats
221 - 188-250 seats
802 (GWR, 5 coach) - 326
802 (TPE, 5 coach) - 342

That's a minimum increase of 30% (5 coach 221 to 5 coach GWR unit).

A 6 coach 22x unit would likely (at best) match this, yet a 12 coach train would be 276m Vs a 10 coach train further of 80x's would be 260m. That 16m could make the difference between the train during at a station or not.

Also chances are (unless the 22x's have a >10% discount on lease costs) any new units would likely be cheaper to run, maintain and (if they are 26m stock) lease (due to needing fewer of them).