Why does everybody hate XC?

[tbtc]

Something I've been meaning to ask for a while (but never worth starting a thread for, and here seems to be as good as any):

How much time difference would there be between a Turbostar and a Voyager between York and Bristol? Or Manchester to Birmingham? There are obviously some 100+ mph stretches north of York (etc), but would a Turbostar be able to match Voyager timings on the "core" XC section?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Something I've been meaning to ask for a while (but never worth starting a thread for, and here seems to be as good as any):

How much time difference would there be between a Turbostar and a Voyager between York and Bristol? Or Manchester to Birmingham? There are obviously some 100+ mph stretches north of York (etc), but would a Turbostar be able to match Voyager timings on the "core" XC section?

On the WCML, TPE 185 (max 100 mph) take only 20 min or so longer to do Preston-Glasgow than a VT 390 (max 125 mph), calling at 2 or 3 more stations than the Pendolino. But the line Lancaster-Carlisle is so bendy, spped really counts for little.

 

[GingerSte]

Sadly any additional coaches in the Voyagers MUST be powered

I do agree, increasing ALL these units to 6 coaches would increase capacity
Furthermore West Coast could option for their units to be increased as well (but suggestions are their additional coach will be electric rather than diesel powered)

However, the increased capacity does not reduce costs
Ironically it actually increases it!
This is due to the poor design of the Voyager, plus the track access charges that apply to such a unit.

I can see your point on the additional coach being powered. I was hoping that they might get away with not powering them, rather than assuming.

Of course the alternative is to pair some more of the four-car Voyagers, and split them at Newcastle/Bristol. One of the Voyagers would go on to Scotland/South West coast, and the other one would link up with its counterpart heading towards the core section. This would concentrate capacity on the core section, albeit with some "operational risk" as Network Rail would call it.

Just out of curiosity, how does the design of the Voyager make it more expensive to add a coach?

I imagine that if both VWC and XC were strengthening their Voyager, and VWC was going to ask for a pantograph to be fitted to this theoretical sixth coach, then it would be cheaper for the suppliers to set up their factory for one design only, and give XC at least passive provision for a pantograph in the future. It would also come in useful on the sections north of York, and for the MML if the electrification goes ahead.

Also, do the track access charges apply per coach or per train? (Personally I believe that the ORCATS reveune allocation system should allocate fare box money per coach rather than per train, so that a 10 coach train gets twice as much as a 5 coach train. This would provide a much greater incentive for operators to lease extra rolling stock. It would also change the dynamic of how TOCs used their stock, as they would try and extract maximum value from each coach.)

 

[rail-britain]

Just out of curiosity, how does the design of the Voyager make it more expensive to add a coach?

The fuel economy is pants
Some time ago someone posted the results of a FOI request, which included full details for the actual costs; I was shocked at how high (bad) they were
After some calculation it was shown a HST was cheaper!

The unit therefore consumes more fuel, adding one coach to a five coach set increases the consumption uniformly by 20%
All the other running costs also increase by about 20%, including the track access charges

However if the train was a loco and five coaches, then the costs would only increase by about 12%
The loco fuel consumption would increase by about 25%
However the track access charges would be lower as the additional non-powered coach would be charged less than a voyager coach, but there isn't much in it

 

[Bishopstone]

I agree with others who suggest the services should be split, and perhaps integrated with other TOCs.

Something like:

Penzance - Bristol semi-fast, run by fGW
Bristol - Sheffield
Basingstoke - Preston (leave Soton/Bournemouth to SWT, and Carlisle/Glasgow to VT and TPE)
Leicester to Edinburgh via Nottingham, Sheffield and Newcastle, run by EMT. Leave Dundee/Aberdeen to Scotrail and EC.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

So where are you going to put the terminating XC services at Basingstoke, there's enough conflictions there already!

You could put it down to Salisbury then on to Bristol for it to return to the North! It could then be possible for it to form a relief for the overcrowded Portsmouth - Cardiff services.

However the reason it goes to Bournemouth is its tourist trade (God knows why, it's a right hovel, why go there when it's SO much nicer here in the West Country!)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I agree with others who suggest the services should be split, and perhaps integrated with other TOCs.

Something like:

Penzance - Bristol semi-fast, run by fGW
Bristol - Sheffield
Basingstoke - Preston (leave Soton/Bournemouth to SWT, and Carlisle/Glasgow to VT and TPE)
Leicester to Edinburgh via Nottingham, Sheffield and Newcastle, run by EMT. Leave Dundee/Aberdeen to Scotrail and EC.

We need to keep services like this, but these in addition would be good. just strat the Preston's at Reading, and make FGW put on a fast service to Basingstoke - it would tie up Basingstoke to terminate it there.

 

[Lampshade]

We need to keep services like this, but these in addition would be good. just strat the Preston's at Reading, and make FGW put on a fast service to Basingstoke - it would tie up Basingstoke to terminate it there.

A Preston - Reading service would be useless for people actually going Preston - Reading, if anything like the Manchester - Bournemouth service it'd take well over 3 hours, probably quicker to go via London.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

A Preston - Reading service would be useless for people actually going Preston - Reading, if anything like the Manchester - Bournemouth service it'd take well over 3 hours, probably quicker to go via London.

OK... calling points:

Preston
Crewe
Wolves
Bhm New St
Oxford
Reading

Times:
Preston-Bhm N St - 1h20
Bhm N St-Reading (via Soliull) - 1h20
Total - 2h40

Preston-Euston - 2h10
Euston-Paddington - 30m (after getting to plats / off LUL/taxi etc)
Paddington-Reading - 35m
Total - 3h15

 

[GingerSte]

The fuel economy is pants
Some time ago someone posted the results of a FOI request, which included full details for the actual costs; I was shocked at how high (bad) they were
After some calculation it was shown a HST was cheaper!

The unit therefore consumes more fuel, adding one coach to a five coach set increases the consumption uniformly by 20%
All the other running costs also increase by about 20%, including the track access charges

However if the train was a loco and five coaches, then the costs would only increase by about 12%
The loco fuel consumption would increase by about 25%
However the track access charges would be lower as the additional non-powered coach would be charged less than a voyager coach, but there isn't much in it

So after all this promotion of rail as a greener alternative to cars, Virgin go and specify a train which is less fuel efficient than a HST! I do wish companies would stop talking a good game and started actually delivering.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

We need to keep services like this, but these in addition would be good. just strat the Preston's at Reading, and make FGW put on a fast service to Basingstoke - it would tie up Basingstoke to terminate it there.

Where precisely is FGW going to magic this stock up from then? FGW are chronically short of stock.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Where precisely is FGW going to magic this stock up from then? FGW are chronically short of stock.

Someone lend them a 153? Look, I'm not a rolling stock person - I'm here to comment on services

 

[rail-britain]

So after all this promotion of rail as a greener alternative to cars, Virgin go and specify a train which is less fuel efficient than a HST!

As above, Virgin did not specify this, DfT did
Virgin did everything to try and get a train more to their specification, but the negotiations went on for so long they pretty much had to concede the point

 

[starrymarkb]

So after all this promotion of rail as a greener alternative to cars, Virgin go and specify a train which is less fuel efficient than a HST! I do wish companies would stop talking a good game and started actually delivering.

Virgin were looking at a mixed DMU/push pull rakes for XC - but it didn't happen. They also planned to lengthen to 6 or 7 coaches as demand grew. That was blocked.

 

[tbtc]

So where are you going to put the terminating XC services at Basingstoke, there's enough conflictions there already!

The platform the half hourly Reading shuttles use? (since the XC service is pathed between them)

If not, there's always Reading, where there are connections for dozens of places
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Where precisely is FGW going to magic this stock up from then? FGW are chronically short of stock.

They are getting additional trains from London Midland/ LOROL (and only losing a handful of 142s to Northern), plus they could chop their Brighton service?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course the alternative is to pair some more of the four-car Voyagers, and split them at Newcastle/Bristol. One of the Voyagers would go on to Scotland/South West coast, and the other one would link up with its counterpart heading towards the core section. This would concentrate capacity on the core section, albeit with some "operational risk" as Network Rail would call it

Gets my vote. An eight/ nine/ ten coach train on the "core" and half of that going forward to Penzance etc

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The platform the half hourly Reading shuttles use? (since the XC service is pathed between them)

If not, there's always Reading, where there are connections for dozens of places
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


They are getting additional trains from London Midland/ LOROL (and only losing a handful of 142s to Northern), plus they could chop their Brighton service?

I reckon Brighton will go. Reading has more bay capacity, and it would give better connection/turnback times.

 

[Aictos]

Someone lend them a 153? Look, I'm not a rolling stock person - I'm here to comment on services

Still, you do have to consider where they will get the rolling stock from to run such services.

I would like to divert the slow Peterboroughs/Cambridges alterating between the two on a hourly basis via Hertford instead of via Welwyn using the existing stock which FCC has so both routes get a much fairer choice of services ie at the moment, the Welwyn route has both semi fast and stoppers while the Hertford route only really has the stoppers.

But this will never happen.

It would have been wise if XC managed by Virgin at the time actually kept their HSTs but still introduced the Voyagers and instead hired out their LHCS or retired them.

 

[Failed Unit]

Still, you do have to consider where they will get the rolling stock from to run such services.

I would like to divert the slow Peterboroughs/Cambridges alterating between the two on a hourly basis via Hertford instead of via Welwyn using the existing stock which FCC has so both routes get a much fairer choice of services ie at the moment, the Welwyn route has both semi fast and stoppers while the Hertford route only really has the stoppers.

But this will never happen.

It would have been wise if XC managed by Virgin at the time actually kept their HSTs but still introduced the Voyagers and instead hired out their LHCS or retired them.

I remember in BR days there used to be a fast services to Hertford, I think it went to Peterborough. But then the locals were only every 30 minutes back then.

 

[mumrar]

It seems people think that the double sets on the core section will fix it all, but these will require two sets of standard class hosts and two first class hosts and two train managers. Plus you'd need drivers to perform detach/attach and shunts needed. Adding an additional vehicle to a Voyager would add an extra 20%, but it's a load cheaper in track access charges than an HST to start with. According to NR's access charges for 2010 (freely available PDF) an HST powercar cost 28.18 pence per vehicle mile. Mk3 coaches cost 6.53ppvm. So a 7 coach set costs 102.07ppm. 220 Voyagers are charged at 8.72ppvm so a 4car set costs 34.88ppm, or 8car 71.76ppm. The NR document makes noted of higher charges for 221 vehicles, but I suspect one of the many reasons for XC isolating tilt tech is to be charged the 220 rate rather than 12.09ppvm versus 8.72ppvm. So, as we're talking percentages, an HST costs 292% of what a 4 car Voyager costs in track access charges. I don't think, even if Voyagers are fuel inefficient per vehicle, they work out at costing more than an HST.

 

[222007]

By 'most times' I take it you mean 'some times'. I have worked the XC services to Stansted, and before with Central Trains. They have busy sections, more especially on the peak trains. But after leaving Leicester, a Stansted bound service has few passengers until connecting with the East Coast and some passengers at Ely. The stock also needs a balance for the Off Peak period, as well as the Peak times too. When I work the last Stansted-New St, the most passengers you see after Peterborough is about 20-25. Not very good for a 3 car 170. On a couple of services the length of train is affected by the service calling at Manea. Only 2 car 170s are allowed to call there.

As a collegue of yours mumrar i'd disagree with a couple of things here Peak trains along the stansted route are very busy throughout the journey (i never go past cambridge so dont know past there and never worked a later train off cambridge than the 1800) also some of the off peak trains can be very healthy with there loadings. Also i've always been told a 3 car can call at Manea and Whittlesey so long as its a stroke 3 or 6?

As for the poster (cant remember who it was) saying about diagrams being shared on the Stansted and Leicester turns you are quite correct. An in bound stansted service forms the next Leicester Derparture and each in bound leicester service (xx:16) forms the next stansted.

 

[Geezertronic]

Why would the DfT have anything to do with speccing the interior of a brand new train? This was the 'brave new world' of privatisation with very little gov't input, it was all Virgin who wanted three classes and four/five coach trains from the outset.

Who said anything about the train interior? Virgin XC wanted longer trains, this was blocked by DfT

 

[rail-britain]

HST 7 coach set costs 102.07ppm.
220 Voyagers 8car 71.76ppm

As I mentioned above the track charges are cheaper for the Voyager, but the running costs are DOUBLE that of a HST
Therefore for an operational fleet the HST works out cheaper!
I don't have access to the fuel costs at the moment, but if a HST works out at 1 mpg, then a 5 car Voyager is 0.5 mpg

 

[Donny Dave]

The fuel economy is pants
Some time ago someone posted the results of a FOI request, which included full details for the actual costs; I was shocked at how high (bad) they were
After some calculation it was shown a HST was cheaper!

The unit therefore consumes more fuel, adding one coach to a five coach set increases the consumption uniformly by 20%
All the other running costs also increase by about 20%, including the track access charges

However if the train was a loco and five coaches, then the costs would only increase by about 12%
The loco fuel consumption would increase by about 25%
However the track access charges would be lower as the additional non-powered coach would be charged less than a voyager coach, but there isn't much in it

Hmm .... The figures which I posted at the start of the month seem to suggest you have got your maths wrong. A 220 costs less than a 1/3 of a 2+9 HST per mile, and your saving on fuel as well

 

[GearJammer]

My main issue with cross country is the stock, the voyagers, my last trip on them several years ago was from Eastleigh Airport to Birmingham International for the model railway show there, the train up there was absoluely packed pretty much all the way but from Reading it was awfull, i had a seat and had my dad sat next to me but it still felt like we were squashed together and it was'nt a pleasent experiance but the return trip was even worse, we returned to Birmingham International station, the first Bournemouth XC train that came in was so full we physically could'nt get on it, the next was a similar situation but we managed to push are way onto the third one that came along, i sat on the floor in the vestibull behind the rear driving cab from Birmingham to Oxford when the train started thining out (not by much) i then stood next to the seat that my dad had got at Banbury and stood there untill it arrived at Basingstoke where i did eventually get a seat for the short run to Eastleigh, whenever we talk about are trip to the NEC we always say we don't remember much about the show but always remember that dreadfull train journey, whenever ive gone to the NEC since ive driven up in the car, its much easier, and cheaper!
Thing is, i don't ever recall this situation when XC used the 47's and MK2's, only once did one ever fail on us and due to the comfort of the stock i was'nt that much of a big deal, we just sat and waited for a replacement loco and they never seemed uncomfortably full.
I think the best thing XC could have done was give the MK2's a pretendalino style overhaul and used the class 57's for haulage, i mean most of them are ex XC 47/8's anyway!

 

[route:oxford]

Services are often infuriating, and could be done so much better (subject to funding and pathing), but I couldn't say that I hate XC.

It's easy enough identify a solution with the benefit of hindsight...

Given that at around the same time as the franchises were changing, FGW were handing back the 180s to Angel - there is a bit of me that thinks it would have been sensible to transfer the core Reading (and south coast)-Manchester route to FGW on the condition that they retain the 180s to do it.

But that doesn't really help the way things are now.

XC needs a way to get more passengers on the services (you can't make money without bums on seats), but it can't really accommodate any additional passengers on the core parts of it's routes. It also needs to cut costs - the primary method of doing that would be to cut the cost of stock leasing, fuel and the ppm charge from network rail.

The only real way of doing this is to source longer trains that cost less to operate and then fill the seats.

As I've said many times before on these forums... XC (Arriva/DB) have the benefit of being backed by German state so if it was appropriate, they could arrange for brand new stock to be built in Germany (funded by a state backed leasing company at soverign debt rates thus helping the German manufacturing industry/economy) then lease it for use on the XC network in the UK.

I'd love to see it happen - the flurry of e-mails between Network Rail, Angel Trains, the DfT, Treasury & No10 would match the finest episode of "Yes Prime Minister"

 

[TDK]

Just reading through these pages, you just get that feeling. is it the stock, the timetabling, the on-board stuff, or just Arriva?

It's just Arriva
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I mentioned above the track charges are cheaper for the Voyager, but the running costs are DOUBLE that of a HST
Therefore for an operational fleet the HST works out cheaper!
I don't have access to the fuel costs at the moment, but if a HST works out at 1 mpg, then a 5 car Voyager is 0.5 mpg

Where did you get that from? Is it a guess or do you have the evidence to back it up?

 

[mumrar]

As a collegue of yours mumrar i'd disagree with a couple of things here Peak trains along the stansted route are very busy throughout the journey

Whenever I work a peak service (between 16:00 and 19:00) they never ever have anyone standing (besides fools being 'British' about sitting by strangers). Yes, it can of course add extra people by Peterborough, but the centre part is pretty dead.

Also i've always been told a 3 car can call at Manea and Whittlesey so long as its a stroke 3 or 6?

The diagramming HAVE to specify a 2-car because of the possibility of a 170/1. Yes /3 and /6s can stop, but units are diagrammed by their length I believe.

 

[TheBigD]

The diagramming HAVE to specify a 2-car because of the possibility of a 170/1. Yes /3 and /6s can stop, but units are diagrammed by their length I believe.

The 0512 ex Stansted is booked a 3 car 170 and calls at both. The diagrams for the 3 cars are divided into 2 separate fleets for the /1's (8 diagrams) and for the /3's & /6's (5 diagrams) to reflect the lack of SDO on the /1 units.

 

[dk1]

I dont mind Voyagers on the whole. My main gripe is with the shop-less XC units as i no longer get COLD beer or a HOT burger.

 

[Ivo]

What TDK said.

It's just Arriva.