XC Voyager to Leicester today

[bengolding]

Waiting for another service at New St earlier, I couldn't help but notice the 14:52 XC service to Leicester depart. Nothing untoward about that, except that it was formed of a 4 car Voyager service, when services have always been 170s on the Birmingham-Leicester/Cambridge route. Clearly it had no problem stopping at small stations such as Water Orton or Hinckley.

I wonder if this was a one-off, or do the XC guards on here know otherwise? XC should really consider introducing them on the New St-Cambridge route, a well used long distance route which deserves more capacity than a 2 car 170!

 

[MCR247]

Of course it was a one-off.: Its happened before though....

Oh and I'm sure XC have loads of spare voyagers to use on routes that don't actually need them :roll:

 

[Minilad]

It happens quite regular.
Usually unavailability of a Senior Conductor (who sign 170s but not Voyagers) and use a Train Manager (who sign Voyagers but not 170s) instead. Of course there is a standby Voyager at New St available. Could only do Leicester and back as they are not passed into Stansted AFAIK

 

[jopsuk]

I know 222s have been all the way to Norwich, but have 220/221 ever gone even to Cambridge, let alone Stansted?

 

[lm321412]

I know 222s have been all the way to Norwich, but have 220/221 ever gone even to Cambridge, let alone Stansted?

220/221s are not permitted to run to Stansted Airport. The XC platform is not big enough and the inside platforms do not have the correct ventilation.

 

[dk1]

When Hull Trains had 'Pioneers' they frequently ran via Cambridge & i think on at least one occasion ran down the Lea Valley to Liverpool Street, though this may have been in final throws of their own 170s.

 

[mumrar]

XC are currently low on 170s so this is being used short term. Today it was crewed for traction by a Bristol TM and for route by New St SCs. More often than not it's a shortage of traction, rather than crews. A four car would fit at all platforms, it's a 5-car that would be trouble.

The unit today also worked the 17:39 New Street to Derby, which a 220 also worked yesterday due to the booked 170 failing.

 

[bengolding]

XC are currently low on 170s so this is being used short term. Today it was crewed for traction by a Bristol TM and for route by New St SCs. More often than not it's a shortage of traction, rather than crews. A four car would fit at all platforms, it's a 5-car that would be trouble.

The unit today also worked the 17:39 New Street to Derby, which a 220 also worked yesterday due to the booked 170 failing.

That makes sense then.

I'll be donig this route later in the week. Can you post the timings if the Voyager does this route again, as it makes my First Class ticket expense all the more worthwhile rather than finding First overfilled due to an overcrowded 2 car 170 .

 

[Masbroughlad]

Would be good to see Voyagers on Nottingham to Cardiff services (permanently!)

 

[mumrar]

Would be good to see Voyagers on Nottingham to Cardiff services (permanently!)

And I presume 170s working the Newcastle to Reading services then? :-P

 

[ainsworth74]

And I presume 170s working the Newcastle to Reading services then?

Well the door layout would be useful through the Birmingham - Newcastle core section of the route. But the whole 2/3 car unit thing would probably make the overcrowding even more 'interesting'

 

[sprinterguy]

XC are currently low on 170s so this is being used short term. Today it was crewed for traction by a Bristol TM and for route by New St SCs. More often than not it's a shortage of traction, rather than crews. A four car would fit at all platforms, it's a 5-car that would be trouble.

The unit today also worked the 17:39 New Street to Derby, which a 220 also worked yesterday due to the booked 170 failing.

What’s up with XCs’ Turbostars, out of curiosity?

This is further proof, as if any were needed, of one of the follies of privatisation, and more specifically the issues caused by splitting up the Central Trains franchise: It appears, to a bystander such as myself, that LM have recently upped their number of 170 diagrams while XC goes short due to problems with their own units: Despite the fact that Tyseley are maintaining two basically identical fleets of 170/5 and 170/6 units for two different operators operating over different legs of what was once all Central routes, there’s no hope of any LM 170s that are going spare covering XCs’ shortfall because it’s not one of the trains that has been specifically allocated to the XC franchise by the DfT. :roll: The same flippin’ type of train maintained at the same depot, but no interchangeability between the two separate TOC fleets. Madness.

 

[mumrar]

What’s up with XCs’ Turbostars, out of curiosity?

This is further proof, as if any were needed, of one of the follies of privatisation, and more specifically the issues caused by splitting up the Central Trains franchise: It appears, to a bystander such as myself, that LM have recently upped their number of 170 diagrams while XC goes short due to problems with their own units: Despite the fact that Tyseley are maintaining two basically identical fleets of 170/5 and 170/6 units for two different operators operating over different legs of what was once all Central routes, there’s no hope of any LM 170s that are going spare covering XCs’ shortfall because it’s not one of the trains that has been specifically allocated to the XC franchise by the DfT. :roll: The same flippin’ type of train maintained at the same depot, but no interchangeability between the two separate TOC fleets. Madness.

Think it's more to do with LM prioritising their efforts on their own fleet first. If there's going to be a unit miss something due to a lack of parts, it'll be XC's not LM's.

If privatisation hadn't come about we wouldn't have half the new traction that we have, and a lot more half-arsed refurbs. We'd also have a lot more surplus stock, because as a whole nationwide fleet it wouldn't seem so wasteful.

 

[sprinterguy]

Think it's more to do with LM prioritising their efforts on their own fleet first. If there's going to be a unit miss something due to a lack of parts, it'll be XC's not LM's.

Well, that goes to prove my point; that's hardly a working practice that is going to bring benefits to the passenger overall.

If privatisation hadn't come about we wouldn't have half the new traction that we have, and a lot more half-arsed refurbs. We'd also have a lot more surplus stock, because as a whole nationwide fleet it wouldn't seem so wasteful.

Generally, I'm in favour of the privatisation of BR, but the manner in which it has been done has introduced an awful lot of inefficiencies into the industry that weren't previously present. While privatisation addressed a number of things that were wrong with BR, it has removed a lot of the opportunity for joined up thinking in the rail industry.

Would we really have seen a lot less new trains if the rail network had remained nationalised? BR had a lot of new designs on the drawing board. It remains to be seen how many of those would have got off the drawing board, but the Networker programme still had a lot of scope for a more extensive roll out, Strathclyde PTE proposed class 157 units (Which I see as the foreunner to the Turbostars) to replace their 156s, and "Intercity 250" was promised for the West Coast main line which would have, hopefully, seen the WCML upgraded for higher speed running sooner than was the case. Not to mention the 1,000 day drought of train orders that surrounded the uncertainty of privatisation.

What we have now is a lot of different new train types, and a lot of different refurbishments to different specs. Half-arsed or not, at least there'd be a standard to train builds and refurbs under nationalisation that is evidently lacking in the privatised railway environment.

Highlighting that having a shared nationwide train fleet would bring economies of scale to fleet sizes acts to point out the inefficiencies of having a large number of separate train fleets, when it would be more efficient to have a single, large fleet.

British Rail had a lot of problems, and was absolutelty woeful in some areas (From what I can work out/vaguely remember, train and infrastructure maintenance practices seemed to be...lacking...when the chips were down). But there's so many holes in the current model of privatisation that even with all the fresh ideas it's brought to the table it's impossible not to pick at them.

 

[Flywaver]

170/1s not allowed to couple to other 170s at the mo... Door Control issues.
This is probably why the shortage..

 

[MCR247]

The XC MPC figure was 9,338 in March. That truly is shocking

 

[bb21]

That makes sense then.

I'll be donig this route later in the week. Can you post the timings if the Voyager does this route again, as it makes my First Class ticket expense all the more worthwhile rather than finding First overfilled due to an overcrowded 2 car 170 .

I'll be trying to catch the 220's too on this line if possible. Is there a temporary diagram for these units or does it vary day by day? If there is a diagram, does any XC guard mind letting me know by PM what it is so I can do a few runs on them? Thanks

 

[MCR247]

It will just happen if there is a shortage. No diagram. No prior planning.

At least that is AFAIK