XC Voyager Refurbishment. Is it actually worth doing?

[Thunderer]

mods note - split from here

XC Voyager Refurbishment

In Modern Railways January 2024. Beacon Rail have gone out to tender for XC Voyager refurbishment with 3 companies interested in the work (Alstom probably one of them). Also mentions Beacon Rail considering batteries for the voyagers but ruled out on cost. Not much other detail, but some good...

www.railforums.co.uk

I think everyone can debate what Voyagers should go where doubled up or not until the end of time, but the fact of the matter is we have millions more people in this country now and as a result more people travelling, so spending oodles of money refurbing Voyager trains that have not been fit for purpose on the XC route for 20 years+ (capacity) is completely pointless and makes no business sense long term.The DFT should pull its finger out and get 7 or 9 car bio-mode AT300’s or something similar onto the XC network as soon as practically possible to provide the much needed capacity. People here mention having to change trains if services were curtailed at York etc, how about the DFT build a new fleet of trains,then bring back places like Liverpool, Swansea, Brighton, Poole, Weymouth, Guildford, & Bradford back onto what was the original XC Network, before it was drastically screwed up in 2007 by he DFT? How about providing a train or two again from Poole/Bournemouth to the North East & Scotland, instead of every train going to Manchester? There is just no incentive these days to attract new XC passengers both with the woeful provision of limited services with even more limited capacity at extortionate ticket prices, its no wonder most people take to the coach or the car.

 

[Wolfie]

I think everyone can debate what Voyagers should go where doubled up or not until the end of time, but the fact of the matter is we have millions more people in this country now and as a result more people travelling, so spending oodles of money refurbing Voyager trains that have not been fit for purpose on the XC route for 20 years+ (capacity) is completely pointless and makes no business sense long term.The DFT should pull its finger out and get 7 or 9 car bio-mode AT300’s or something similar onto the XC network as soon as practically possible to provide the much needed capacity. People here mention having to change trains if services were curtailed at York etc, how about the DFT build a new fleet of trains,then bring back places like Liverpool, Swansea, Brighton, Poole, Weymouth, Guildford, & Bradford back onto what was the original XC Network, before it was drastically screwed up in 2007 by he DFT? How about providing a train or two again from Poole/Bournemouth to the North East & Scotland, instead of every train going to Manchester? There is just no incentive these days to attract new XC passengers both with the woeful provision of limited services with even more limited capacity at extortionate ticket prices, its no wonder most people take to the coach or the car.

You really have no clue about the "delights" of dealing with the Treasury (HMT). It's bad enough when the economy is doing well. With the Chancellor looking to make large cuts? No chance.

 

[tomoufc]

You really have no clue about the "delights" of dealing with the Treasury (HMT). It's bad enough when the economy is doing well. With the Chancellor looking to make large cuts? No chance.

This is why GBR needs to include a public ROSCO. Buying new trains would count as capital expenditure (like new roads), and would therefore be allowed according to the fiscal rules, but leasing new trains off a private ROSCO wouldn’t, as leasing charges are current expenditure (like disabled benefits).

 

[Bornin1980s]

This is why GBR needs to include a public ROSCO. Buying new trains would count as capital expenditure (like new roads), and would therefore be allowed according to the fiscal rules, but leasing new trains off a private ROSCO wouldn’t, as leasing charges are current expenditure (like disabled benefits).

To be honest, I would prefer keeping current levels of disability benefits to new trains. Yes, I'm a claimant myself.

 

[Thunderer]

You really have no clue about the "delights" of dealing with the Treasury (HMT). It's bad enough when the economy is doing well. With the Chancellor looking to make large cuts? No chance.

I never claimed to understand the internal rudiments of the DFT. They probably don’t fully understand their own department either. We all know they are hopeless when it comes to running our Railways. I was just highlighting what the current shortfalls are on XC using Voyagers and providing a much needed potential solution. We all know nothing will change with XC until the 2030’s as they are stuck with the Voyager fleet. I have used the XC network on and off for over 40 years and over those years, its decline in available passenger capacity for an ever growing population coupled now with its woeful value for money has been a very sad sight to see.

 

[tomoufc]

To be honest, I would prefer keeping current levels of disability benefits to new trains. Yes, I'm a claimant myself.

Of course, that’s not actually a real choice. My point is that even according to the government’s mad fiscal rules (which are being justified to cut disability benefits), they could order a huge amount of new rolling stock.

 

[AndrewP]

If the trains are going to be around for a while absolutely - yes.

These are fundamentally good trains that were ordered too short but are now 20 plus years old.

The seats are bulky and thinner ones would make things more spacious, the tables at airline seats are terrible for using a laptop at and you only get power at the window seat.

So unless they are going by 2030 please just do it!

 

[Topological]

If the trains are going to be around for a while absolutely - yes.

These are fundamentally good trains that were ordered too short but are now 20 plus years old.

The seats are bulky and thinner ones would make things more spacious, the tables at airline seats are terrible for using a laptop at and you only get power at the window seat.

So unless they are going by 2030 please just do it!

Exactly this.

The voyagers could make excellent reliefs if there is ever a case where the main trains are run as new stock. The ability to run at 125mph means they can offer additional runs on any main line. To my understanding that makes them more suitable for branches that end with long main line runs too. In essence there is a use for them.

It is good to see them being refurbished.

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Exactly this.

The voyagers could make excellent reliefs if there is ever a case where the main trains are run as new stock. The ability to run at 125mph means they can offer additional runs on any main line. To my understanding that makes them more suitable for branches that end with long main line runs too. In essence there is a use for them.

It is good to see them being refurbished.

The railway in this country doesn't keep stock for 'reliefs', and it's pie in the sky to think that might ever happen now. In the past, it was one thing keeping some grotty Mk1s in a siding and getting them out for a few weeks each year, but modern units can't just be left like that - they will simply fail a lot. A unit with engines is also massively more expensive to keep in working order than some old loco-hauled coaches with only basic electrics in them.

As regards the Voyagers being good trains, the only good thing about them is their reliability. That really is the only thing in their favour - the interiors are awful, and due to the positions of massive toilets, the former shop area, equipment cabinets, etc, they make very poor use of the limited space available - and trying to address that would be very costly. The XC ones do need a basic refurb now because they've never had one and are in a right state, but the government ought to be planning to replace them within five years or so. They can spout all the hot air they like about reducing car use, but if there aren't any alternatives, or the alternatives are actively unpleasant, then people will continue to take the car.

 

[Topological]

The railway in this country doesn't keep stock for 'reliefs', and it's pie in the sky to think that might ever happen now. In the past, it was one thing keeping some grotty Mk1s in a siding and getting them out for a few weeks each year, but modern units can't just be left like that - they will simply fail a lot. A unit with engines is also massively more expensive to keep in working order than some old loco-hauled coaches with only basic electrics in them.

As regards the Voyagers being good trains, the only good thing about them is their reliability. That really is the only thing in their favour - the interiors are awful, and due to the positions of massive toilets, the former shop area, equipment cabinets, etc, they make very poor use of the limited space available - and trying to address that would be very costly. The XC ones do need a basic refurb now because they've never had one and are in a right state, but the government ought to be planning to replace them within five years or so. They can spout all the hot air they like about reducing car use, but if there aren't any alternatives, or the alternatives are actively unpleasant, then people will continue to take the car.

The only pie that is in any sky is the thought that CrossCountry will get new trains when the voyagers exist. The even more absurd suggestion is above is that the voyagers would not need refurbishing even IF the big pie of new stock existed. I have simply said that there are roles for voyagers.

I think a lot of contributors just have a hatred of the voyager.

I would gladly use voyagers on any of my journeys. When I do get voyagers it is possible to have 2 seats to myself on almost the whole journey. Cheltenham to Stafford can be busy, with Cheltenham to Wolverhampton being the worst. Depending on time leaving Manchester it can be busy to Stoke. Otherwise, anything more would be overkill.

As per the split at York, should Manchester to Birmingham be EMU etc, there is simply no need to replace voyagers. With some small changes to the routes doubling up addresses capacity.

In that regard it is good that the trains are getting refurbished and I look forward to continuing to enjoy the benefits operation Princess created.

 

[The Planner]

The railway in this country doesn't keep stock for 'reliefs', and it's pie in the sky to think that might ever happen now. In the past, it was one thing keeping some grotty Mk1s in a siding and getting them out for a few weeks each year, but modern units can't just be left like that - they will simply fail a lot. A unit with engines is also massively more expensive to keep in working order than some old loco-hauled coaches with only basic electrics in them.

As regards the Voyagers being good trains, the only good thing about them is their reliability. That really is the only thing in their favour - the interiors are awful, and due to the positions of massive toilets, the former shop area, equipment cabinets, etc, they make very poor use of the limited space available - and trying to address that would be very costly. The XC ones do need a basic refurb now because they've never had one and are in a right state, but the government ought to be planning to replace them within five years or so. They can spout all the hot air they like about reducing car use, but if there aren't any alternatives, or the alternatives are actively unpleasant, then people will continue to take the car.

Its folly to assume they are off to be razor blades. You are looking at £3 million per new 800 carriage, a refurb is going to be a fraction of that.

 

[quantinghome]

As regards the Voyagers being good trains, the only good thing about them is their reliability. That really is the only thing in their favour - the interiors are awful, and due to the positions of massive toilets, the former shop area, equipment cabinets, etc, they make very poor use of the limited space available - and trying to address that would be very costly. The XC ones do need a basic refurb now because they've never had one and are in a right state, but the government ought to be planning to replace them within five years or so. They can spout all the hot air they like about reducing car use, but if there aren't any alternatives, or the alternatives are actively unpleasant, then people will continue to take the car.

Reliability is what will save them. Trains typically last 40 years or more. They only get removed earlier if they start falling to bits (see: Pacers) or they can't be redeployed to other routes (see: numerous electric units in the south east). They are in dire need of interior refurbishment but should be good for another 15-20 years, particularly seeing as they can be deployed pretty much anywhere.

 

[liamf656]

I think they should have been refurbished well over a decade ago, but I appreciate that's neither here nor there. I can't see anything new coming anytime soon, so a refurb will be welcome in my opinion

Reliability is what will save them. Trains typically last 40 years or more. They only get removed earlier if they start falling to bits (see: Pacers) or they can't be redeployed to other routes (see: numerous electric units in the south east). They are in dire need of interior refurbishment but should be good for another 15-20 years, particularly seeing as they can be deployed pretty much anywhere.

I second this!

 

[The Ham]

Its folly to assume they are off to be razor blades. You are looking at £3 million per new 800 carriage, a refurb is going to be a fraction of that.

However not all coaches are created equal.

If we're running 9 coach 22x trains (as a pairing of 4+5) they seat 462 people, a 9 coach 80x seats at least 611 seats people, whilst even a 5 coach 80x seats 326 people.

Based on the 80x numbers you could have a 7 coach version seating 456 people (based on average numbers per coach of either the 5 or 9 coach versions listed above).

If we assume that the 22x's are being leased at £200,000 per coach, the 80x's could be leased for £257,000 per coach and not cost any more.

£3 million would be paid back after 12 years, so allowing for other costs at that rate as long as the 80x's lasted over 24 years then there's a fair chance a leading company would be willing to consider such an order.

However, the issue comes when you've got a universal fleet of 7 coach units replacing diagrams which are shorter than 9 coaches, as XC would have to grow their market to get the extra passengers to cover the extra costs.

As the current XC fleet is large enough (based entirely on the number of coaches, as there's more end coaches the numbers would be slightly higher than this) to create 29.7 nine coach diagrams (the reality is 24 nine coach diagrams and 7 eight coach diagrams and one 4 coach unit spare).

Let's call that 30, however, my guess would be that there's probably something like 50 diagrams, so whilst 60% of services would cover their costs using the above numbers, that's still 40% of services which would be an extra cost.

Having said that at 456 seats per 7 coach unit that would allow:
- an extra 356 seats per train which is currently a 4 coach 22x (+128% in capacity)
- an extra 194 seats per train which is currently a 5 coach 221 (+74% in capacity)
- an extra 56 seats per train which is currently a 4+4 coach diagrams (+14% in capacity)

Which given the number of single unit diagrams is likely to be the vast majority of services, you could place an order for 5 coach 80x's now with an 18 month lead time until first unit, 18 months to deliver the full fleet and with an option to extend to 7 coaches with that order needing to be placed within 3 years of final unit delivery.

That would give XC 6 years (maybe a bit more if you didn't order them now, maybe a little less if the build process was a bit faster) to grow their market, and even if they ended up with a fleet of 6 coach units (circa 405 seats, so would be the equivalent of all diagrams being 4+4 coaches), that would probably be just about enough (those services which are currently 4+4 and 4+4 would be the ones people would then avoid due to overcrowding).

Reliability is what will save them. Trains typically last 40 years or more. They only get removed earlier if they start falling to bits (see: Pacers) or they can't be redeployed to other routes (see: numerous electric units in the south east). They are in dire need of interior refurbishment but should be good for another 15-20 years, particularly seeing as they can be deployed pretty much anywhere.

The thing with most machines is that they can be very reliable until they are not and then they can become very unreliable fairly quickly.

That's not too say that they should be replaced now, but given lead times on new fleets into service there's probably a case to be made for putting it an invitation to tender in the next few years.

Also, there's been lots of threads about where the 22x's could be used, the bottom line is with their ineffective use of space you're unlikely to find many places you could send them.

A few more options open up if you scrap several of the end coaches so they become longer sets, and even then there's limited routes which would be suitable (for instance probably not anywhere where their heavy weight would mean they would have to run noticeable slower than sprinters).

 

[YorksLad12]

However not all coaches are created equal.

If we're running 9 coach 22x trains (as a pairing of 4+5) they seat 462 people, a 9 coach 80x seats at least 611 seats people, whilst even a 5 coach 80x seats 326 people.

Based on the 80x numbers you could have a 7 coach version seating 456 people (based on average numbers per coach of either the 5 or 9 coach versions listed above).

If we assume that the 22x's are being leased at £200,000 per coach, the 80x's could be leased for £257,000 per coach and not cost any more.

£3 million would be paid back after 12 years, so allowing for other costs at that rate as long as the 80x's lasted over 24 years then there's a fair chance a leading company would be willing to consider such an order.

However, the issue comes when you've got a universal fleet of 7 coach units replacing diagrams which are shorter than 9 coaches, as XC would have to grow their market to get the extra passengers to cover the extra costs.

As the current XC fleet is large enough (based entirely on the number of coaches, as there's more end coaches the numbers would be slightly higher than this) to create 29.7 nine coach diagrams (the reality is 24 nine coach diagrams and 7 eight coach diagrams and one 4 coach unit spare).

Let's call that 30, however, my guess would be that there's probably something like 50 diagrams, so whilst 60% of services would cover their costs using the above numbers, that's still 40% of services which would be an extra cost.

Having said that at 456 seats per 7 coach unit that would allow:
- an extra 356 seats per train which is currently a 4 coach 22x (+128% in capacity)
- an extra 194 seats per train which is currently a 5 coach 221 (+74% in capacity)
- an extra 56 seats per train which is currently a 4+4 coach diagrams (+14% in capacity)

Which given the number of single unit diagrams is likely to be the vast majority of services, you could place an order for 5 coach 80x's now with an 18 month lead time until first unit, 18 months to deliver the full fleet and with an option to extend to 7 coaches with that order needing to be placed within 3 years of final unit delivery.

That would give XC 6 years (maybe a bit more if you didn't order them now, maybe a little less if the build process was a bit faster) to grow their market, and even if they ended up with a fleet of 6 coach units (circa 405 seats, so would be the equivalent of all diagrams being 4+4 coaches), that would probably be just about enough (those services which are currently 4+4 and 4+4 would be the ones people would then avoid due to overcrowding).



The thing with most machines is that they can be very reliable until they are not and then they can become very unreliable fairly quickly.

That's not too say that they should be replaced now, but given lead times on new fleets into service there's probably a case to be made for putting it an invitation to tender in the next few years.

Also, there's been lots of threads about where the 22x's could be used, the bottom line is with their ineffective use of space you're unlikely to find many places you could send them.

A few more options open up if you scrap several of the end coaches so they become longer sets, and even then there's limited routes which would be suitable (for instance probably not anywhere where their heavy weight would mean they would have to run noticeable slower than sprinters).

Good analysis. I'd quibble that XC don't need to grow the market, there's probably a bit of suppressed demand (and people standing, as I've done Leeds-Sheffield).

Opinion elsewhere is that Hitachi won't do additional coaches, just full sets; you'd need a seven-car 80x as standard from them. Or shop elsewhere, of course.

 

[D365]

So unless they are going by 2030 please just do it!

I think they should have been refurbished well over a decade ago, but I appreciate that's neither here nor there. I can't see anything new coming anytime soon, so a refurb will be welcome in my opinion

Bear in mind that the Class 810s are not setting a shining example for the replacement of Class 22x trains. Even if new rolling stock was ordered now, I would be confident that the Voyagers won’t be gone from CrossCountry before 2030. So it’s liamf656’s comment that I agree with here. Refurbishment is long overdue, and it will tide over one of the production lines at Litchurch Lane.

 

[Bevan Price]

We don't yet know if an XC will exist if/when GBR comes into full operation, but I predict tht Voyagers will still be around until at least 2035/2040. Their future replacement will depend on whether or not some future government has seen sense, and decided to proceed with more extensive electrification schemes. At this point, some kind of bi-modal (electric + diesel) power seems most likely. Some will suggest battery - but somehow I doubt that there will ever be batteries with sufficient capacity to operate at 100/125 mph for long distances, but small enough to fit within passenger trains.

 

[Trainbike46]

mods note - split from here

XC Voyager Refurbishment

In Modern Railways January 2024. Beacon Rail have gone out to tender for XC Voyager refurbishment with 3 companies interested in the work (Alstom probably one of them). Also mentions Beacon Rail considering batteries for the voyagers but ruled out on cost. Not much other detail, but some good...

www.railforums.co.uk

I think everyone can debate what Voyagers should go where doubled up or not until the end of time, but the fact of the matter is we have millions more people in this country now and as a result more people travelling, so spending oodles of money refurbing Voyager trains that have not been fit for purpose on the XC route for 20 years+ (capacity) is completely pointless and makes no business sense long term.The DFT should pull its finger out and get 7 or 9 car bio-mode AT300’s or something similar onto the XC network as soon as practically possible to provide the much needed capacity. People here mention having to change trains if services were curtailed at York etc, how about the DFT build a new fleet of trains,then bring back places like Liverpool, Swansea, Brighton, Poole, Weymouth, Guildford, & Bradford back onto what was the original XC Network, before it was drastically screwed up in 2007 by he DFT? How about providing a train or two again from Poole/Bournemouth to the North East & Scotland, instead of every train going to Manchester? There is just no incentive these days to attract new XC passengers both with the woeful provision of limited services with even more limited capacity at extortionate ticket prices, its no wonder most people take to the coach or the car.

As much as I want the voyagers to be replaced, the only way I can see it happen soon is if the replacement is cheaper to operate (lower total operational cost including lease).

As they're likely to stick around for a while, a refurbishment is in order tbh.

 

[Halish Railway]

I wouldn’t be surprised if bi-mode units are ordered to SUPLEMENT the Voyagers for a few reasons.

1. Voyagers are probably the most suitable rolling stock to work the forthcoming Birmingham Moor Street to Cardiff and Bristol services to supplement the existing XC provision and it’s unfortunately likely that there won’t be any more electrification on this route, apart from the fast lines between Kings Norton and Longbridge.

2. As much as we rightly complain about flawed decisions made by the DfT bean counters surely someone’s going to think hmm we’ve spent all this money electrifying the MML to Sheffield, doing extensive upgrades and electrification of Leeds to York, adding more capacity between York and Newcastle and upgrading the power supply between Newcastle and Edinburgh, yet agricultural and space-inefficient diesels are still used on the only services that make use of all these routes.

3. Surely electrifying Derby/Sheet Stores Junction/Leicester to Birmingham/Lichfield is quite a low hanging fruit for a future scheme given the cancellation of the eastern leg of HS2, the outcry of the Railfreight industry to electrify these routes and provision of diversionary routes allowing extended length blockades to complete works at a reasonable rate.

 

[Mike Machin]

As reasonably large percentage of Cross-Country's business is providing services travelling for social/domestic/pleasure reasons rather than commuting, so I feel that the business should have been sold-off, lock, stock and barrel years ago.

Cross-County's cliental is very similar to Lumo's, so I'm sure it could thrive as an entirely independent entity and provision of acceptable rolling stock would be based on usage, demand and receipts rather than the whims of the mandarins in the treasury with the threat of government ministers constantly looking over their shoulder.

 

[quantinghome]

As reasonably large percentage of Cross-Country's business is providing services travelling for social/domestic/pleasure reasons rather than commuting, so I feel that the business should have been sold-off, lock, stock and barrel years ago.

Cross-County's cliental is very similar to Lumo's, so I'm sure it could thrive as an entirely independent entity and provision of acceptable rolling stock would be based on usage, demand and receipts rather than the whims of the mandarins in the treasury with the threat of government ministers constantly looking over their shoulder.

Tell me you know nothing about XC without telling me... etc.

Lumo is obviously geared around long distance only. It runs non-stop from Stevenage to Newcastle. It has no interest at all in commuters. And it's also a very simple operation.

The XC network is completely the opposite. Take what should be a long distance flow - Birmingham to Leeds. That has 6 intermediate stops. Even with the smaller stations removed you'd still be looking at a stop every 30 to 40 minutes between major cities. That's very obviously a prime service for commuters. In some cases, it's the ONLY option for commuters.

Of course, XC is also a long distance service and goes all over the country. It's a jack of all trades, with all the problems that entails. But I can't think of a worse way of dealing with them than hiving it off to an open-access operator. Bear in mind the current state of XC is largely down to an operator being given free reign to do what it wanted, which rapidly turned into a fiasco and required a massive government bailout to keep the lines operating.

 

[YorksLad12]

Tell me you know nothing about XC without telling me... etc.

Lumo is obviously geared around long distance only. It runs non-stop from Stevenage to Newcastle. It has no interest at all in commuters. And it's also a very simple operation.

The XC network is completely the opposite. Take what should be a long distance flow - Birmingham to Leeds. That has 6 intermediate stops. Even with the smaller stations removed you'd still be looking at a stop every 30 to 40 minutes between major cities. That's very obviously a prime service for commuters. In some cases, it's the ONLY option for commuters.

Of course, XC is also a long distance service and goes all over the country. It's a jack of all trades, with all the problems that entails. But I can't think of a worse way of dealing with them than hiving it off to an open-access operator. Bear in mind the current state of XC is largely down to an operator being given free reign to do what it wanted, which rapidly turned into a fiasco and required a massive government bailout to keep the lines operating.

Also, Lumo stays on the East Coast Main Line while XC... wanders somewhat. You'd have difficulty making it faster end-to-end, and the large station dwells at some stops are to mitigate against all of the inevitable accrued delays.

 

[The Ham]

Also, Lumo stays on the East Coast Main Line while XC... wanders somewhat. You'd have difficulty making it faster end-to-end, and the large station dwells at some stops are to mitigate against all of the inevitable accrued delays.

Indeed, even if you could make some second faster you're likely to end up with the train stopping at a station as it wouldn't be able to fit into another path (as the lines it connects between have limitations as to when it can run).

 

[stuu]

As reasonably large percentage of Cross-Country's business is providing services travelling for social/domestic/pleasure reasons rather than commuting, so I feel that the business should have been sold-off, lock, stock and barrel years ago.

Source?