Pendolino 390055 To Enter Service

[AlterEgo]

390055 will enter service as a nine-car set on Monday 9th January.

Happy spotting!

 

[Pumbaa]

Thank the lord for re-negotiated franchise agreements!

I now await the standard PR spin etc etc.

 

[northernrail]

Anyone know the Diagrams?

 

[Minilad]

Anyone know the Diagrams?

Yes I would like to know what its doing too. Then I can avoid it

 

[topgun390]

removed

 

[The Planner]

Maybe I am mis-understanding the comprehensive diagrams there, but surely 054 and 055 can't work diagrams 504 and 518 unless I have missed the knitting going into Barton even though you have stated 1S39 goes to Voyager workings.

 

[All Line Rover]

390054/055
Appendix - Plan for 390054 and 390055 in traffic


Summary of changes to formation are as follows:-

Monday to Friday

The following trains to be formed 390 (were 2x221)

1S36 06:19 Birmingham New Street to Edinburgh NEW RSID 9050
1M54 10:51 Edinburgh to Birmingham New Street NEW RSID 9051
1S77 15:20 Birmingham New Street to Glasgow Central NEW RSID 9052
1M87 20:10 Glasgow Central to Crewe NEW RSID 9053

OH MY WORD! hock: I can't believe that!

That train is rarely more than 25% full after Carlisle, and there are usually less than 10 passengers after Preston. Why on earth do Virgin need 2x221's or a 390 to operate that service? I suppose it's for operational purposes, perhaps?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Fridays

The following train to be formed 2x221 (was 390)

1G40 19:03 London Euston to Birmingham New Street NEW RSID 3053

We have not yet allocated new RSIDs to weekend trains as this will be done in the week 42 specification.

This one's actually very clever - it will significantly increase Standard Class capacity on what is a very busy service. (Yes, it will decrease First Class capacity, but who cares about First Class customers at that time - they can travel before or after!)

Monday to Thursday

Diagram 654

5S36 05+24 Oxley CS to Birmingham New Street
1S36 06:19 Birmingham New Street to Edinburgh
1M54 10:51 Edinburgh to Birmingham New Street
1S77 15:20 Birmingham New Street to Glasgow Central
1M87 20:10 Glasgow Central to Crewe
5H87 23+35 Crewe to Longsight CS

Oooo!

May I ask where you get this information from, as it's certainly very interesting?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

OH MY WORD! hock: I can't believe that!

That train is rarely more than 25% full after Carlisle, and there are usually less than 10 passengers after Preston. Why on earth do Virgin need 2x221's or a 390 to operate that service? I suppose it's for operational purposes, perhaps?

It's been a 390 on a Friday since December 2008...

 

[All Line Rover]

It's been a 390 on a Friday since December 2008...

It was a (single) 221 when I travelled on it frequently early last year.

 

[route:oxford]

Ok, it's fantastic that the extra space will be available on more services between Birmingham and Scotland.

But

Virgin are very good at filling their services...

What is being done to mitigate issues for the popular connection with XC at Wolverhampton and Birmingham New Street?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

It was a (single) 221 when I travelled on it frequently early last year.

Well, it has been booked 390 FO in the past (and obviously from hereon in) for a good while now, I had always assumed it was since VHF.

 

[All Line Rover]

Ok, it's fantastic that the extra space will be available on more services between Birmingham and Scotland.

But

Virgin are very good at filling their services...

What is being done to mitigate issues for the popular connection with XC at Wolverhampton and Birmingham New Street?

That is certainly a very popular connection, but I don't see why problems with XC should stifle VT's capacity growth. It's XC's problem regarding capacity on those trains! The only thing Virgin should do is ensure that their services arrive exactly on time, so that people do not miss the XC connection's (VT frequently runs about 10 minutes late, causing many people annoyance and distress when they miss the XC connection).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, it has been booked 390 FO in the past (and obviously from hereon in) for a good while now, I had always assumed it was since VHF.

It seems a complete waste of capacity to me, although I'm sure Virgin have their reasons.

 

[Eagle]

It seems a complete waste of capacity to me, although I'm sure Virgin have their reasons.

Because it's part of a diagram, which includes other earlier services. Obviously.

 

[Nym]

Because it's part of a diagram, which includes other earlier services. Obviously.

Handbags at 20 paces!!

And stuff will tend to run to Crewe to get to Longsight, although if ICWC get their mits on Manchester - Scotland when it's electrified that could well change...

 

[The_Stig]

Taking two cars out is completely bafing tome. The two cars will now be ut of sync with the rest of the unit maintenance wise!

 

[route:oxford]

That is certainly a very popular connection, but I don't see why problems with XC should stifle VT's capacity growth. It's XC's problem regarding capacity on those trains!

You're absolutely right, it definitely shouldn't (and musn't).

So perhaps what should be asked is...

What can XC or DfT do to keep up with the likely growth of passenger traffic through the increased capacity on the WCML?

Switch the HSTs to the Reading & Coastal - Manchesters?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Switch the HSTs to the Reading & Coastal - Manchesters?

It still wouldn't cover them fully, plus I would say that the SW-NE/Scotland axis needs the capacity more, even in the future. You can't really change the frequency of service either. The only thing I can suggest is more carriages for Voyagers!

 

[Eagle]

The only thing I can suggest is more carriages for Voyagers!

With pantographs, of course! Being as between one third and one half of the distance covered by any XC 22x diagram is under the wires.

 

[sprinterguy]

Switch the HSTs to the Reading & Coastal - Manchesters?

Please don't, the capacity is needed on the long distance (Where HSTs are best suited) Edinburgh and North East to the South West services anyway, while the other service between the North East and Birmingham (Newcastle to Reading) is pretty much solely operated by the four carriage 220s.

What Crosscountry need to do is bite Bombardiers' arm off in taking up the offer of the pantograph car Voyager lengthening project, so that us Newcastle travellers can not only have longer trains, but peace and quiet north of Doncaster too!

 

[route:oxford]

Trouble is, for the price of 2 Pantograph cars - you could have a 6 car 172.

 

[MCR247]

Taking two cars out is completely bafing tome. The two cars will now be ut of sync with the rest of the unit maintenance wise!

But that will be the same as the rest of the 390s when they get their 2 cars inserted

 

[ukrob]

Taking two cars out is completely bafing tome. The two cars will now be ut of sync with the rest of the unit maintenance wise!

More sense than having one non-standard unit.

Anyway - over half the fleet will have the problem you describe in a years time.

 

[All Line Rover]

Trouble is, for the price of 2 Pantograph cars - you could have a 6 car 172.

Yes, but they're not designed for fast InterCity journeys like the Voyagers are (e.g. they are limited to 100mph). And although the Voyagers aren't loved, I doubt introducing Turbostars would make customer satisfaction shoot through the roof when people are travelling from Newcastle to Reading.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

With pantographs, of course! Being as between one third and one half of the distance covered by any XC 22x diagram is under the wires.

And if they ever did this, specifically add an additional non-pantograph carriage to 4-car trains. It makes much more sense to have a standardized fleet.

 

[The_Stig]

Taking two cars out is completely bafing tome. The two cars will now be ut of sync with the rest of the unit maintenance wise!

More sense than having one non-standard unit.

Anyway - over half the fleet will have the problem you describe in a years time.

Are the extra cars not being put in when they get a C4/6 overhaul?

 

[MCR247]

Yes, but they're not designed for fast InterCity journeys like the Voyagers are (e.g. they are limited to 100mph). And although the Voyagers aren't loved, I doubt introducing Turbostars would make customer satisfaction shoot through the roof when people are travelling from Newcastle to Reading.

I think you missed the point. I think he was saying how expensive they are for what they are. For 34 panto cars you could get 102 172 cars, so 56 2 car 172s. Its a lot of money

 

[Mr Spock]

I think you missed the point. I think he was saying how expensive they are for what they are. For 34 panto cars you could get 102 172 cars, so 56 2 car 172s. Its a lot of money

Actually based on 102 cars that is only 51 2 sets, or 34 3 car sets.

 

[MCR247]

Oh yeah, bad maths!

 

[tnxrail]

When these are runing will the pretendolino still be used, may have been said just wanted to know.

 

[whhistle]

Looking at it, the train seems to be missing the white wave separating the grey and red.
Not applied or livery tinker perhaps?

 

[Tomonthetrain]

Looking at it, the train seems to be missing the white wave separating the grey and red.
Not applied or livery tinker perhaps?

390054 is like that too.