XC desperately needs more rolling stock

[PacerTrain142]

The design is now 20 years old, and isn't really very good.

I personally quite like the design of the voyager. It looks modern and areodynamic.

 

[JonathanH]

I personally quite like the design of the voyager. It looks modern and areodynamic.

I was thinking more in terms of the fact that it is a diesel train, somewhat space inefficient, a bit claustrophobic inside despite the large windows and short.

They could indeed still be considered to appear modern and aerodynamic but that isn't where they fall down.

 

[PacerTrain142]

I was thinking more in terms of the fact that it is a diesel train, somewhat space inefficient, a bit claustrophobic inside despite the large windows and short.

They could indeed still be considered to appear modern and aerodynamic but that isn't where they fall down.

I’m guessing they chose diesel because most of the rail network was not electrified at the time. I prefer diesel traction though because you can hear the engine. From outside they are really loud (and sound good when pulling away) but inside they are quite quiet, they must have good sound insulation.

I agree they should have made them longer though.

 

[Snow1964]

I’m guessing they chose diesel because most of the rail network was not electrified at the time. I prefer diesel traction though because you can hear the engine. From outside they are really loud (and sound good when pulling away) but inside they are quite quiet, they must have good sound insulation.

I agree they should have made them longer though.

No, not a question of percent electrified

Diesel fuel was relatively cheap when they were ordered 25 years ago, and the particulates and emissions was not really a big thing.

Also the extra cost and complications of dual mode was not considered important. Other factors included no one seemed to realise that Birmingham New Street had ventilation at outer ends for locos, and a DEMU would fill the station with fumes.

 

[Starmill]

I’m guessing they chose diesel because most of the rail network was not electrified at the time. I prefer diesel traction though because you can hear the engine. From outside they are really loud (and sound good when pulling away) but inside they are quite quiet, they must have good sound insulation.

I agree they should have made them longer though.

The primary objective with noise is to design a train which is quiet.

But regardless of that the answer is no because there are lots of reasons why a new Voyager couldn't be approved today, from crashworthiness to engine emissions. In any case there will be Voyager trains siting off lease without work so why would anyone pay to build more similar units today?

 

[PacerTrain142]

I’m coming home from my holiday, Currently travelling on a Cross Country Voyager from Cheltenham Spa to Manchester Piccadilly. The train is quite busy but we have reserved seats and I can’t see anyone standing. I’m in coach D btw. I agree about the slightly claustrophobic feel, however once you are sat down it’s ok, the seats are reasonably comfortable. Some of the seats have no window view though, which isn’t great. At least Cross Country have free wifi on their trains now, you had to pay for it a few years ago.

 

[LUYMun]

I travelled on today's 1O08 (Manchester Piccadilly - Bournemouth) service, which was partially cancelled to start from Birmingham New Street due to earlier disruption along the Basingstoke-Reading line. It was running as an 8 coach train, the service being relatively quiet - or at least it was in the second front coach - between Winchester and Southampton. Quite a contrast to the last time I used XC along the same route a year ago using a single (4 coach) Voyager unit.

 

[urpert]

The design is now 20 years old, and isn't really very good.

Also I’m pretty sure the Brugge factory (formerly BN) is long gone. (There are some surprising similarities between Voyagers and some of the SNCB stock built by Brugge at the same time like the AM96 emus - window and door shapes and so on - even though they are totally unrelated in principle. The Voyagers are nothing like Adtranz/Bombardier Derby products of the same era, by comparison.)

 

[43096]

Also I’m pretty sure the Brugge factory (formerly BN) is long gone.

I’m absolutely sure that it is still open. It is building M7 stock for SNCB. It also does overhaul work, notably on TRAXX locos.

 

[43096]

The Voyagers are nothing like Adtranz/Bombardier Derby products of the same era, by comparison.)

That’s because the Voyagers were a Bombardier design from before the ADtranz acquisition. Likewise the Electrostar and Turbostar designs pre-dated the acquisition of Derby by Bombardier. So it’s hardly a surprise they have nothing in common!

 

[urpert]

I’m absolutely sure that it is still open. It is building M7 stock for SNCB. It also does overhaul work, notably on TRAXX locos.

Ah OK, my mistake.

 

[sprinterguy]

I travelled on today's 1O08 (Manchester Piccadilly - Bournemouth) service, which was partially cancelled to start from Birmingham New Street due to earlier disruption along the Basingstoke-Reading line. It was running as an 8 coach train, the service being relatively quiet - or at least it was in the second front coach - between Winchester and Southampton. Quite a contrast to the last time I used XC along the same route a year ago using a single (4 coach) Voyager unit.

Yeah that's part of the one diagram on the Manchester - Bournemouth route presently rostered a pair of Voyagers. It's well targeted in terms of my regular usage, pleasantly surprised that it was still a pair of units despite some disruption to services.

 

[gc4946]

Until new bimode replacements arrive, the best way would be to run all XC services with either 8 or 9 car Voyagers and 222s if they become available and if enough Turbostar centre cars obtained, all running as 4-car 170s.
I'd prefer running longer trains with sufficient seating and luggage accommodation, at the expense of running fewer services.

 

[The exile]

Until new bimode replacements arrive, the best way would be to run all XC services with either 8 or 9 car Voyagers and 222s if they become available and if enough Turbostar centre cars obtained, all running as 4-car 170s.
I'd prefer running longer trains with sufficient seating and luggage accommodation, at the expense of running fewer services.

That’s probably fine for the long-distance element - less so where XC form the backbone of the local service

 

[Rhydgaled]

XC desperately need new rolling stock.

XC really needs a new fleet of trains.

I disagree. XC desperately needs more rolling stock on its InterCity routes, but it doesn't have to be new. In the longer term, there are parts of XC's network which would benefit from new designs but none of these are urgent requirements and some require medium/long-term infrustructure upgrades before the new stock is needed.

Ideally they need bi/tri mode trains that can run on overhead electrics/third rail, diesel and battery.

I know various parts of their route: Bournemouth to Basingstoke is 3rd Rail. Basingstoke to Reading non electrified, Reading to Didcot overhead electrics, and Didcot to Coventry also non electrified.

I've never been North of Coventry yet, so don't know what the route is like northwards.

There's a map here showing the extent of GB rail electrification. It's a little outdated, but I don't think the suituation has changed much north of Coventry/Birmingham as far as XC is concerned. The one relevant change I can think of is that overhead electrification is underway between York and Leeds, but I've not heard of that being completed so presumably still a work in progress.

The obvious long term solution would be a fleet of bi modes

Given that you haven't got the word 'new' in there, I could agree with that - depending on how we define 'long-term'. Ultimately, the whole lot should be electrified and run using straight EMUs (or electric locos with push-pull coaches), but that (ie. the whole lot) is certainly not a short or medium term prospect.

about 60% of XC routes are electrified, and it really ought to be possible to operate parts by EMUs if change service patterns

Unfortunately, most of the current OHLE on XC routes is north of Birmingham and the only* 3rd rail electrification is (as far as XC is concerned) isolated from any other electrified route by the Reading-Basingstoke gap. It's therefore not a question of simply swapping destination pairs to create a fully electrified route that could be run by an EMU. Given the potential complexity of a tri-mode with 3rd rail, overhead and diesel capability, I would prioritise Basingstoke-Reading and Didcot-Birmingham** for electrification (aided by the fact Didcot-Oxford electrification is currently delayed rather than cancelled). This would allow new dual-voltage EMUs (a hybrid of the class 800 and class 395 designs - but specify plug doors this time) to be ordered for the Manchester-Bournemouth route without having to worry about a diesel mode. In theory you could then switch the Reading-Newcastle and Manchester-Bristol services to become Newcastle-Bristol and Manchester-Reading and in order to be able to run the latter with the new EMUs, but that would force more passengers into having to change at New Street.

* unless they really do still run to Guildford as the map implies - I thought XC to Guildford was no more
** via Solihull unless the Leamington-Coventry doubling desired by XC has been done by then in which case make this Didcot-Coventry instead

Interesting that it says, “change here to avoid changing at Birmingham New Street”. Is Birmingham New Street a dodgy station or something?

New Street is a large, hard to navigate, station. At platform level, the air is often polluted with diesel fumes and, possibily because of the 'Grand Central' shopping centre on top of it, one end is split by ticket barriers so if you come up the wrong set of stairs from the platform you can't reach some other platforms without either going back down or through two sets of barriers. It can be be really frustraighting. I have heard it called 'Mordor Central' before now, and I would probably have adopted that nickname for it myself had Network Rail not ended the anti-social (and much hated by me) policy of charging for the use of toilets. If they still charged for the toilets, New Street would certainly deserve the comparison to Tolkien's evil land.

The HSTs were only about 20 years old at the time, and no intention of replacing them short term.

So why were there none left in Virgin's fleet by the time they lost XC to Arriva (since part of the Arriva bid was bringing some back)?

If the second train from Nottingham is extended to Bristol, instead of the Manchester service extending to Bristol, that should free up terminating capacity at Birmingham to accommodate the Manchester service.

Aren't the Birmingham-Leicester and Birmingham-Nottingham services essentially local stoppers? If so, giving them to WMR and running them through to Shrewsbury with 196s released from the Birmingham-Hereford route (not sure what would run that though) would probably make more sense.

That shows just how utterly profligate of space the Voyager is. One extra coach and no extra seats at all.

While Voyagers are particularly bad, the same is true to a degree of any 125mph stock on the British rail network. For example, I'm pretty sure GWR's 9-car IETs have 627 seats and the 5-car IETs have 315 seats. Therefore, when two GWR 5-car IETs are running in multiple they have 630 seats (one extra coach and only 3 extra seats).

the fuel usage of the HST's are greater than the likes of the class 220, 221 and 222 fleets.

Unfortunately it may not be publicly available online anymore, but there was an RSSB Research report on "Traction energy metrics" which compared various GB diesel trains in terms of litres of fuel burnt per seat-km (it also compared them to electric trains and other modes of transport using CO2 metrics). The IC125s were found to use less fuel per seat-km than Voyagers (which were the worst-performing of the 5 diesel train types studied - the most efficient of the 5 being 170s).

So many trains being withdrawn these days due to new disability legislation. Why not modify them to comply rather than scrap them like TFW have done with thier 153’s?

Surely the 5 IC125 sets with CrossCountry (shortly to be withdrawn) have already had millions spent on them to the meet the same disability legislation (which came into force on 1st Jan 2020 if I recall correctly) as TfW's 153s. The slam doors on the mark 3s were replaced by power-operated doors for example.

They don't meet PRM now, they just got a dispensation. Most accept the HSTs are old, they just don't want withdrawl without replacement.

A good few million pounds of taxpayer's money was spent on the XC, GWR (castle sets) and ScotRail IC125s though to make them far closer to compliant (and from the other part of your post, which I've not quoted, it sounds like the 800s aren't fully compliant either?) so even if they are running on a dispensation surely the taxpayer should expect a longer 'return' on their investment in life-extending the HSTs to run beyond the 2020 PRM deadline. Yes, the HSTs are old, but I don't think it was worth spending on power doors for less than three years beyond the leglislated PRM date. If it was known at the time that the fleet was to be withdrawn in September 2023 they should have just aranged a dispensation for them to run with slam doors until September 2023 instead of putting all that work into the modifications.

You’re answer is appreciated but as a mere punter I simply cannot accept that as an answer, even if that is the bare bones of the situation, because it is utterly infuriating.

If that is the case it would seem that nothing can happen or change, no matter how obvious or welcome the outcome, because in order to make that change you’d actually have to do something in order to reach the outcome.

There was a plan in the works to do something to slightly increase capacity on XC's InterCity services. XC took on two extra class 43 powercars (giving them five full IC125 sets plus a spare pair of powercars) to improve availability so that they could have four 2+7 sets out daily instead of the two they have run over the past few years.

Given that each IC125 in service releases a Voyager for use elsewhere, eight diagrams could be stregthened in total.

I believe this change was expected to be introduced at the May 2023 timetable change (ie. we should already be seeing the benefit). However, I understand that the necessary overhaul work was running behind schedule and was not completed in time for the May timetable. The improvement could presumably have been introduced in December but instead the DfT have cancelled the whole thing and four diagrams will need to be reduced in length to cover.

Have you seen a video of an IET and HST leaving the same station. I think that you will find that the IET is actually quicker to acceleration speed than an HST. A good example of this is the video

uploaded 5 years ago. It shows 8-car HST leaving the same station as 10-car IET.

I think I have a video somewhere of a 158 and an IC125 leaving Carmarthen at the same time. The 158 gets away much quicker, but clearly on a 125mph line the HST would eventually catch up. I think I've read previously that a class 800 has fairly rapid acceleration from a standing start (at least compared to an IC125 or IC225) but at higher speeds the older trains start to pick up the pace a bit. For example, an IC225 might go (I've no idea of actual figures) from 90mph to 125mph faster than a class 800.

The most ideal situation would be the majority Avanti class 221's going to XC, with a few to Grand Central.

I would argue that the ideal situation in the short-term would be for XC to get ALL the Voyagers (220s and 221s) except for the two already on loan to Grand Central. Unless the mark 3s have gone straight in the shredder and there's no hope of bringing the IC125s back to run the planned four diagrams, then that should also happen. Then, when the class 810s have arrived, Grand Central can have a few 5-car 222s (unless they've managed to get the 180s working properly, in which case I'd remove first class from the 5-car 222s and give them to XC for Cardiff-Nottingham, releasing some 170s) and XC would get 7-car or 8-car 222s, plus the two Voyagers from Grand Central, giving XC the entire Voyager fleet.

The current issue is that the remaining HSTs (and their recently shortened versions in Scotland and the West Country) cannot afford to be replaced as such, so there is a need to make better use of the remaining XC diesel trains.

Several current issues actually:

• we cannot afford to lose the capacity they provide
• we cannot afford the damage brand-new diesel (or even bi-mode, if capable of more than 110mph) stock would do to already highly unsatisfactory electrification prospects
• there is residual value in the modifications done to life-extend the trains beyond 2020

In the absence of replacement rolling stock from somewhere, the HST's need to be kept on.

Exactly.

 

[daodao]

Several current issues actually:

• we cannot afford to lose the capacity they provide
• we cannot afford the damage brand-new diesel (or even bi-mode, if capable of more than 110mph) stock would do to already highly unsatisfactory electrification prospects
• there is residual value in the modifications done to life-extend the trains beyond 2020

The HSTs and their shortened derivatives are on the way out soon and this decision is irrevocable. They are ready for the scrapyard. I did not suggest building more diesel trains, but that other TOCs should provide alternative electric services on certain routes to reduce diesel running under the wires, so that existing XC Voyager trains can be deployed on routes where diesel traction is currently essential. The key electrified routes where XC run extensive services are:

• Manchester Piccadilly-Coventry
• Edinburgh-Doncaster
• Bournemouth-Basingstoke

 

[RobShipway]

I would argue that the ideal situation in the short-term would be for XC to get ALL the Voyagers (220s and 221s) except for the two already on loan to Grand Central. Unless the mark 3s have gone straight in the shredder and there's no hope of bringing the IC125s back to run the planned four diagrams, then that should also happen. Then, when the class 810s have arrived, Grand Central can have a few 5-car 222s (unless they've managed to get the 180s working properly, in which case I'd remove first class from the 5-car 222s and give them to XC for Cardiff-Nottingham, releasing some 170s) and XC would get 7-car or 8-car 222s, plus the two Voyagers from Grand Central, giving XC the entire Voyager fleet.

I believe that there is a few stops on the Nottingham - Cardiff route where the class 222 units would not be able to stop without physical changes being made where possible, like extending the platforms.

 

[Energy]

A good few million pounds of taxpayer's money was spent on the XC, GWR (castle sets) and ScotRail IC125s though to make them far closer to compliant (and from the other part of your post, which I've not quoted, it sounds like the 800s aren't fully compliant either?)

The 800s will be fully compliant, however their high floors mean they aren't the gold standard for accessibility.

Here are the bits in which the XC HSTs don't comply:

(unless they've managed to get the 180s working properly, in which case I'd remove first class from the 5-car 222s and give them to XC for Cardiff-Nottingham, releasing some 170s)

Why? The 170s work well on these routes.

XC would get 7-car or 8-car 222

How are they getting these? There are only a few 7 car 222s.

XC doesn't need the 222s, the 220s and 221s can give 20 6 car 221s and 58 4 car 220/221s to run as 4+4. That should be enough.

The improvement could presumably have been introduced in December but instead the DfT have cancelled the whole thing and four diagrams will need to be reduced in length to cover.

Why would they spend tax payer money on HSTs when 221s would become available?

So why were there none left in Virgin's fleet by the time they lost XC to Arriva (since part of the Arriva bid was bringing some back)?

They went to other operators, like Midland Mainline. Some of the XC sets are loco hauled mk3s rewired.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

but instead the DfT have cancelled the whole thing

Of course they did

 

[PacerTrain142]

Had they kept the pacers they could have attached them to the back of the 170’s, freeing up rolling stock elsewhere. They could be marketed them as third class travel!

 

[Snow1964]

I believe that there is a few stops on the Nottingham - Cardiff route where the class 222 units would not be able to stop without physical changes being made where possible, like extending the platforms.

If XC were acting as a proper long distance operator operating comfortable services across the country, it wouldn't be calling at wayside halts with short platforms.

Have to question why XC is not serving bigger stations only

Unfortunately, most of the current OHLE on XC routes is north of Birmingham and the only* 3rd rail electrification is (as far as XC is concerned) isolated from any other electrified route by the Reading-Basingstoke gap. It's therefore not a question of simply swapping destination pairs to create a fully electrified route that could be run by an EMU. Given the potential complexity of a tri-mode with 3rd rail, overhead and diesel capability, I would prioritise Basingstoke-Reading and Didcot-Birmingham** for electrification (aided by the fact Didcot-Oxford electrification is currently delayed rather than cancelled).

South of Birmingham, the wires continue to both Coventry and Bromsgrove.

You can also add Severn Tunnel Junction-Cardiff, the section through Bristol Parkway, Didcot-Reading West (first part of Basingstoke line), Ely-Stansted as AC electrified plus the third rail section Bournemouth-Basingstoke (and map also shows the part electrified Reading-Guildford route, although services not going there currently).

So around 60-65% of the routes XC use has electrification. Even if out by few percentage points (and I have estimated from a map), it is easily over 50% of the XC network

 

[sprinterguy]

If XC were acting as a proper long distance operator operating comfortable services across the country, it wouldn't be calling at wayside halts with short platforms.

Have to question why XC is not serving bigger stations only

Crosscountry inherited the stopping services on the Derby - Birmingham - Cheltenham corridor as part of the break up of the Central Trains franchise, as Nottingham - Cardiff did not sit comfortably with either East or West Mids franchises but the central part of that route lies in the middle of Crosscountry's key North East - South West corridor. I see no reason why XC shouldn't operate a two tier service as per GWR or East Midlands Railway.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Question for the thread: how many services can XC double up with the Avanti Voyagers if they were to lease the lot, minus the ones already at GC?
And if there are not enough, which services would be best for their current lengths?

 

[sprinterguy]

Question for the thread: how many services can XC double up with the Avanti Voyagers if they were to lease the lot, minus the ones already at GC?
And if there are not enough, which services would be best for their current lengths?

Of 53 Voyager diagrams, from a total of 58 units, formed of:
18 x 5-cars (20 units total)
35 x 4-cars (38 units total)

Adding 18 x 5-car units to the fleet would give:
38 x 5-car (total)
38 x 4-car units (total)

Which might allow for the following diagrams:
36 x 5-car
17 x 8-car (Pairs of 4-car units)

Add in replacing the 2 HST diagrams and there would still be 4 x 4-car Voyager diagrams required (Splitting 2 x 8-car formations to provide sufficient units).

 

[class397tpe]

Of 53 Voyager diagrams, from a total of 58 units, formed of:
18 x 5-cars (20 units total)
35 x 4-cars (38 units total)

Adding 18 x 5-car units to the fleet would give:
38 x 5-car (total)
38 x 4-car units (total)

Which might allow for the following diagrams:
36 x 5-car
17 x 8-car (Pairs of 4-car units)

Add in replacing the 2 HST diagrams and there would still be 4 x 4-car Voyager diagrams required (Splitting 2 x 8-car formations to provide sufficient units).

Is this 53 Voyager diagrams with 2XHSTs remaining? I.e. once the HSTs leave, XC will have to resource 55 diagrams with 58 units?

Ah, I think it was 53 voyager diagrams pre-covid right? Assuming it's less diagrams now due to the Newcastle-Reading services being sporadic, and reduction of Exeter / Bournemouth extensions.

 

[Energy]

Of 53 Voyager diagrams, from a total of 58 units, formed of:
18 x 5-cars (20 units total)
35 x 4-cars (38 units total)

Adding 18 x 5-car units to the fleet would give:
38 x 5-car (total)
38 x 4-car units (total)

Which might allow for the following diagrams:
36 x 5-car
17 x 8-car (Pairs of 4-car units)

Add in replacing the 2 HST diagrams and there would still be 4 x 4-car Voyager diagrams required (Splitting 2 x 8-car formations to provide sufficient units).

Here are the diagrams, some of these connect to other units so it isn't a direct change to double voyagers.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Of 53 Voyager diagrams, from a total of 58 units, formed of:
18 x 5-cars (20 units total)
35 x 4-cars (38 units total)

Adding 18 x 5-car units to the fleet would give:
38 x 5-car (total)
38 x 4-car units (total)

Which might allow for the following diagrams:
36 x 5-car
17 x 8-car (Pairs of 4-car units)

Add in replacing the 2 HST diagrams and there would still be 4 x 4-car Voyager diagrams required (Splitting 2 x 8-car formations to provide sufficient units).

Ah, so you could effectively confine the 4 car diagrams to the Bristol to Picc if you got the Avanti voyagers, and price some of the demand off them by offering cheap advances on the remaining diagrams and the Plymouth to Edinburgh (which you'd use an 8 car for, as well as Reading to Newcastle).
I wonder if, given that Scotrail wants the 222s, you could then take the 4 7 cars, give the rest to Scotrail and use them to get rid of the remaining 4 car diagrams.
Thanks for doing the maths!

 

[RobShipway]

If XC were acting as a proper long distance operator operating comfortable services across the country, it wouldn't be calling at wayside halts with short platforms.

Have to question why XC is not serving bigger stations only


South of Birmingham, the wires continue to both Coventry and Bromsgrove.

You can also add Severn Tunnel Junction-Cardiff, the section through Bristol Parkway, Didcot-Reading West (first part of Basingstoke line), Ely-Stansted as AC electrified plus the third rail section Bournemouth-Basingstoke (and map also shows the part electrified Reading-Guildford route, although services not going there currently).

So around 60-65% of the routes XC use has electrification. Even if out by few percentage points (and I have estimated from a map), it is easily over 50% of the XC network

Crosscountry inherited the stopping services on the Derby - Birmingham - Cheltenham corridor as part of the break up of the Central Trains franchise, as Nottingham - Cardiff did not sit comfortably with either East or West Mids franchises but the central part of that route lies in the middle of Crosscountry's key North East - South West corridor. I see no reason why XC shouldn't operate a two tier service as per GWR or East Midlands Railway.

I would add to what Sprinterguy has said by saying that there is large towns and cities that have small station platforms as that was the way they where built and with properties built around them, there is no space for those platforms to be lengthened.

Good examples are Chepstow on Nottingham - Cardiff Route and Manea, Whittlesea, Stamford and Oakham on the Birmingham New Street - Stansted Airport route. Whilst you may be able to get a 4 class 220 in these stations, you have to remember that there is more seats available and standing area on a three carriage class 170 unit. Although there are times on either Nottingham Cardiff or Birmingham - Stansted Airport routes where only a 2 carriage class 170 unit is used, as that is all that is required. But other times you also have both three and two carriage class 170 units working in multiple. But there is some parts of either route I believe where the weight of class 220 & 221 units would not be acceptable.

With regards to serving the bigger stations only, do you really want to stop people travelling to the likes of Chepstow, so that they cannot see the Horse Racing?

There other TOC's that cannot run the above mentioned routes, because none of the others have the capacity to run them and also if they do have the capacity, then the routes are not in an area that their TOC covers. Whereas XC is countrywide.

Whilst it maybe good to say that this part of the XC route needs to be AC electrified and these parts need 3rd rail electrification extended, you also have to put into context how making those changes will effect other TOC's on the routes and how it will effect how freight trains on those routes will be run.

Just so that you are aware, there is a part of the route between Reading and Guildford which is not third rail electrified, which is past the turnoff of the route to London Waterloo at Wokingham. From that point to Aldershot South Junction I believe is un-electrified.

 

[PacerTrain142]

So.. What is going to be replacing XC HST’s when they go out of service?

 

[Trainbike46]

So.. What is going to be replacing XC HST’s when they go out of service?

The current plan is nothing - simply stretching the existing voyager fleet more thinly