How could a 125 mph capable gangwayed unit be achieved?

[Transilien]

There is much discussion on this forum of Cross Country bringing on gangwayed units to replace their voyagers. How could this be achieved while retaining the same top speed as the voyagers?

 

[hexagon789]

There is much discussion on this forum of Cross Country bringing on gangwayed units to replace their voyagers. How could this be achieved while retaining the same top speed as the voyagers?

I'm not sure it could, the more stringent crash regs apply at speeds exceeding 190km/h and I don't think a gangway connection and thus aperture cut in the middle of the cab can be accommodated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it is 190km/h could a 189km/h (118mph) unit suffice? Particularly if it had really good acceleration?

 

[whoosh]

If it is 190km/h could a 189km/h (118mph) unit suffice? Particularly if it had really good acceleration?

We are now in the realms of a 110mph class 350-esque type train, boosted to 115mph (nearest 5 mph) or 118mph. Seems do-able and realistic to me.

 

[Jan Mayen]

Perhaps just have an all 8 car fleet instead?
Other train lengths are available.

 

[hexagon789]

If it is 190km/h could a 189km/h (118mph) unit suffice? Particularly if it had really good acceleration?

Sounds like adopting the German practice of downgrading speeds on new trains to meet lesser crash protection requirements -

See the ICE4 being designed for 265km/h instead of 280 and the IC2 being designed for 189km/h instead of 200.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We are now in the realms of a 110mph class 350-esque type train, boosted to 115mph (nearest 5 mph) or 118mph. Seems do-able and realistic to me.

Sounds like adopting the German practice of downgrading speeds on new trains to meet lesser crash protection requirements -

See the ICE4 being designed for 265km/h instead of 280 and the IC2 being designed for 189km/h instead of 200.

Common practice in the US. Isn't almost everything 89mph there for that reason?

Having ridden on one, a bi-mode version of a Class 730/2 with a slightly less dense Standard (20 fewer seats, 4 per coach), a 2+1 First Class (I think that would lose you a further 3-4 seats) and a drop between the bogies on one vehicle* for level boarding would be ideal for the job. The gangways would remove the need for double queueing and make catering available in both bits. The doors at quarters would ease and speed boarding/alighting at busy stations where XC is heavily used for local traffic, a bit like the 185s have done very well on TPE, yet with the long centre section still feel like a proper long distance unit.

Only thing is whether 190km/h is fast enough to avoid them eating ECML paths, though specifying very high acceleration when on electric would to an extent mitigate that. The 80x on electric accelerate far faster than Voyagers (almost knocks you over), so you should be able to match that with a unit geared for a top speed 22mph slower** if you install enough power.

* Allegedly Alstom are about to release a new UK platform which is basically that. Stadler can also do it; articulation isn't the only option - there have now been two orders with conventional 26.4m coaches with between-bogie drops, the Scandinavian night trains plus some German regional ones.
** 80x are run at 125mph here but are really 140mph units.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2025 ==

Perhaps just have an all 8 car fleet instead?
Other train lengths are available.

Yes, true, another option for XC would just be to go back to full length trains as they did before. Though 80x are only available in odd lengths so it'd have to be 7 or 9 if it was those; the CAF units ordered for LNER might not have that restriction, though, and 8x24 might well be a sweet spot for XC, with a more efficient layout that would exceed the capacity of a 9 car Voyager formation, or 7.80x would probably give you about the same.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2025 ==

Talking of the 730/2 (which, to be fair, has about the same legroom as a Voyager - taking a row out would make it better) the WCML spec has 406 seats while a 5 car Voyager has just 236, demonstrating how inefficient the Voyager layout is. Simply replacing coach for coach with a 730 like unit would near-double seating capacity without decreasing comfort in Standard, though I'd prefer they did space the seats a bit better for a unit intended for longer journeys. Better luggage space on the 730 too as the overheads are actually usably sized.

 

[hexagon789]

Common practice in the US. Isn't almost everything 89mph there for that reason?

That's not crash regs, that's signalling requirements.

Cab signalling or a protection system is required for 80mph or greater, hence the 79mph limit for conventionally signalled passenger trains. Dark territory (unsignalled) is 59mph for passenger trains for the same reason, the regulations state 60mph or greater not greater than 60mph.

 

[Zomboid]

1 mile at 115mph takes 31s, whilst at 125mph it takes 29s.
Those are rounded numbers, so let's say the difference is 3s. The difference is 1 minute over 20 miles at a solid 115mph, which is probably ok if you've got good acceleration and an XC style calling pattern, but might be a measurable degradation on a York to London non-stop run.

So if XC replaced voyagers with 115mph (suitably furnished) 730 style bi-modes, would the timetable be un-meetable? The only places I know of that have a higher line speed are Birmingham - Derby which is about 40 miles (not all at 125 line speed, but a lot is), and north of York which is about 160 miles, but I'm not sure how much of that is at 125.

 

[whoosh]

Talking of the 730/2 (which, to be fair, has about the same legroom as a Voyager - taking a row out would make it better) the WCML spec has 406 seats while a 5 car Voyager has just 236, demonstrating how inefficient the Voyager layout is.

Yes, Voyagers (and Meridians) are very inefficient space wise. The main reason is the end coaches (particularly on a 4 car train!) have the front third unavailable for passenger use. I understand that this was because of a ruling or standards set, about trains over 100mph, which came in after the Polmont crash in the 1980s (train hit a cow with driving trailer coach leading and loco at the back).
This is the reason that Driving Van Trailers on Mark 4s were a van and not passenger accommodation.
This is also the reason that when the seats do start on a Voyager, that they are all backwards facing until the final third of the front coach.

I think these standards have relaxed a bit now, as we have class 350s at 110mph (and 387s with 110mph design speed).

However, this may affect a raise from 110mph to 115mph/118mph.

 

[NCT]

There seems to be a spate of solutions looking for problems of late ...

 

[Bletchleyite]

There seems to be a spate of solutions looking for problems of late ...

XC is certainly a massive problem. Even with more Voyagers the need to double-crew remains an issue.

 

[Sorcerer]

Maybe I just have a slight aversion to using gangway fleets for intercity work (and gangway fleets as a whole in some way) but when it comes to CrossCountry overcrowding the solution should simply be longer trains. Instead of four or five coach units have seven or eight coach units running at the same frequency. A bi-mode seven-coach 80x unit would have almost twice the capacity of a five-coach Voyager, but perhaps by then Alstom will be offering bi-mode Aventra express unit off-the-shelf. The concept already exists after all.

 

[stevieinselby]

There is much discussion on this forum of Cross Country bringing on gangwayed units to replace their voyagers. How could this be achieved while retaining the same top speed as the voyagers?

Buy longer trains. It's not rocket science!
XC don't do portion working, so there's no need to have two units joined together when you could just have one unit that's big enough to meet demand.

 

[Trainbike46]

There is much discussion on this forum of Cross Country bringing on gangwayed units to replace their voyagers. How could this be achieved while retaining the same top speed as the voyagers?

Personally I am on team just get better trains. I proposed on another thread to shift most 5-car 80x to XC (bin the voyagers) - in part to replace them with more suitable trains at LNER and GWR, and in part because of the massive step-change in capacity and quality even a 5-car 80x would be at XC.

However, if new trains were to be procured for XC, in my view they should be full length, so something like:
- 7/9x 26m (e.g. 80x) (~182/234m)
- 10/12x 20m (e.g. FLIRT) (~200m/240m)
- 8/9/10x 24m (~192/216/240m)

All new trains should have level boarding as an absolute requirement, including these ones.

 

[duffield]

Buy longer trains. It's not rocket science!
XC don't do portion working, so there's no need to have two units joined together when you could just have one unit that's big enough to meet demand.

Actually XC do do a small amount of portion working. The 0943 from Cardiff (1M43) joins with the 0827 from Plymouth (1S43) at Birmingham to form the Edinburgh service. There's a matching return service leaving Edinburgh at 1307 (1V64).