I don’t know the times of these but I assume they only stop at Keynsham as a high capacity commuter service into Bristol in the morning and out again in the evening peak? Surely an attempt by GWR to ease congestion on their much smaller 2 or 3 car regional stoppers rather than an attempt to connect Keynsham to London.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why are XC allowed to continue?
- Thread starter brompton rail
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Chapeau, I was in the US. Now happily in France.I note this posted at 3.30 a.m.ish ... As a grandad I have as much right to whinge as any other member of society. I'm appreciative that full fare payers subsidise my 'old git's railcard' while I would appreciate a less uncomfortable ironing board of a seat, and better still a seat of any kind on XC
CAF are building a tri-mode for LNER. I’m fairly sure they could reduce that to bi-mode by removing the battery element from the equation.
Alstom (Bombardier as was) were able to offer a bi-mode Aventra too as far as I know but no takers.
If the replacement is 10-15 years away then current offerings aren't necessarily relevant.
The point being that we really shouldn't have to be waiting 10-15 years to sort out XC. Cascaded 221s from Avanti are a sticking plaster. The fact is that Voyagers are incredibly inefficient in so many ways - fuel consumption, use of diesel traction for long periods under the wires, the fact that very little space in a 220 is actually dedicated to passenger seating as a proportion of the unit, duplication of staffing if you actually want to serve all passengers properly...
Until the Voyager fleet has been replaced by something more suitable for the job (some kind of 7-9 car bimode unit) then XC will continue to haemorrhage money.
Trainbike46
Established Member
They do; CAF got an order for trimodes for LNER, which by the sound of it would fit well at XC
They may be willing to design one though!
Out of the current offerings, hitachi 80x, Stadler FLIRT, and CAF bimode/trimode are the main potential offerings
Though personally I think all new rolling stock orders should require at least 1, preferably all, car(s) with full level boarding - which does put Stadler ahead currently
Agreed
Trainbike46
Established Member
A comparison:
| Class | seats | length | seats m^-1 |
| Class 220 | 200 | 93 metres | 2.15 |
| Class 221 (5-car) | 246 | 119 metres | 2.07 |
| Class 800 (bimode, 5-car) | 302 (LNER) 326 (GWR) | 130 metres | 2.32 (LNER) 2.51 (GWR) |
| Clas 800 (bimode, 9-car) | 611 (LNER) 650 (GWR) | 234 metres | 2.61 (LNER) 2.78 (GWR) |
| Class 745 (Electric only) | 704 (IC) 722 (StanEx) | 237 metres | 2.97 (IC) 3.05 (StanEx) |
| Class 755 (bimode, 4-car) | 202 | 81 metres | 2.49 |
| theoretical 12-car bimode FLIRT with 2 powerpacks | 704 (IC) 722 (StanEx) | 250 metres | 2.82 (IC) 2.89 (StanEx) |
Clearly the voyagers have the fewest seats per metre train length, while the stadlers are similar to the class 80x, both much better than voyagers
The difference is really significant, a ~240 metre train gets you 492 seats in a voyager, compared to 611 to 650 seats on an 80x or ~700 on a FLIRT
Some notes:
- FLIRTs do exist in 125mph version, but I do not know how much changes would be needed to make the UK version 125mph capable
- Tip-up seats are excluded
- A major cause of the difference between the GWR and LNER capacity is the buffet
- IC 745s have a buffet and first class, StanEx are standard class only, no buffet
- the theoretical 12-car bimode FLIRT is assumed to follow the interior of a 745 with 2 6.7 metre powerpacks added
- I would wonder why the stadlers have the name of being space-inefficient, but I guess the two main factors are that they have very visible dead-space and that they are often compared to very dense classes with 2+3 seating, compared to which they do have lower capacity. However, unless anyone is suggesting replacing voyagers with a class 150 that isn't particularly relevant
Is the thinking that they would only go 125mph under wires?
Presumably it would only be possible to go to about 200 metres on CrossCountry so fixed formation 8 car units with two power packs? The various limitations to Voyager operation over 9-cars have been discussed a few times (and indeed certain places where only a single Voyager fits).
Trainbike46
Established Member
That would need to be specified depending on route needs - I am not familiar enough with where exactly XC uses 125mph, compared to where has or is likely to get wires as to whether diesel 125mph running is necessary or desirable
As I understand it, FLIRTs can be any number of cars with a minimum of 2, so a 9-car with 2 powerpacks fixed formation would fit in the ~200m you suggest.
The theoretical was a 12-car because I could make a more realistic estimate of seating capacity than for other lengths by suing information available on the 745s
Depending on where length restrictions exist, (A)SDO is an option
EDIT:
The purpose of my post was simply to give some context to efficiency of seating layout for the voyagers and the 2 main alternatives that exist on the UK rail network today - to illustrate how inefficient voyagers are, and to illustrate how much more efficient the alternatives are. The actual numbers will depend on layout chosen, as I tried to make clear by including various different layouts in the table
Last edited:
Yes, I get that but for a realistic comparison, I guess the individual vehicles could be selected from a full 745 / 755. The 745s also have that odd wasted 'not a cab' bit at the inner end of each six car unit. Two 755/4s give a view of what an 8-coach CrossCountry variant might be like, although maybe a bigger void would be needed at the front of the train behind the driver than on the 100mph variants.
You are comparing a Voyager with electric Flirt that doesn’t have power packs, and a branch line train.
Not sure that’s fair. Would also want to see a comparison with a Voyager with a refurbished higher density interior.
Richard Scott
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 3,696
How can the interior get much higher density; hardly any tables as it is?
Density can’t go much higher, even with new seats. The big issues are the accessible toilets, the crumple zones and the wasted cabs. Densifying would also make the Voyager experience even more unpleasant.
YorksLad12
Established Member
One think to note is that the last two 10-car units I've caught have had the rear coach locked out of use (once First, once Standard). There may be a theoretical limit to the length of XC services, for platform length; 4+5 seems to be fine throughout, ~212m. A 7- or 8-car 80x or an 8- or 9-car 810 should fit.
Quite a dramatic difference. I wasn't expecting 221s to be worse than 220s though, why is that?
Are there many 125mph unwired sections left in the UK? Birmingham to Derby is the main one I can think of, but that ought to be a prime candidate for infill electrification. There's a short Chippenham-Box section too, but otherwise I can't think of any.
Richard Scott
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 3,696
May be a few more table seats? In a 220 think only 2 tables per standard class coach?
Looking at the seating plan, coach B has two extra tables compared with coach C. That's not a massive difference, I'd have thought that the improved ratio of centre cars to driving cars would outweigh that.
The Arriva Wales Mk3 coaches managed 70 seats with almost all of them around tables, plus massive luggage stacks (they were great in the summer) and a PRM space. No UAT, but there were two standard bogs instead.
The Arriva Wales Mk3 coaches managed 70 seats with almost all of them around tables, plus massive luggage stacks (they were great in the summer) and a PRM space. No UAT, but there were two standard bogs instead.
virgintrain1
Member
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 209
The comparison is wrong, an XC 5 Car 221 has 262 seats. Avanti 256
No reason that you couldn't send a 200m E/DMU to the extremities. Other operators send 9 car IETs to Penzance, Inverness and Aberdeen. The inefficiency of running a long unit all the way to the terminus is compensated for by the more efficient engines and the fact that you can shut them down when under the wires. In the case of the FLIRT there are fewer bogies too, which is a saving in both weight and maintenance. Fewer crew required too (yes you can run a double Voyager on a skeleton crew if you want but you miss out on ticket and catering revenue). Coupling two non-gangwayed units also makes balancing loadings complicated. You can have an empty front set and a rammed rear set, with no easy way to correct it.
ideally. to gain a balance between additional capacity and operating costs, I guess the only option with existing trains would be to reform the trains into 6 or 7 cars using the centre cars from some units and scrapping the ends, that way you get a uniform fleet and remove the need for doubling up on staff. I know that causes issues for a small number of platforms and at maintenance depots etc where development work might be needed. I also know it’s an option leasing companies are unlikely to agree to though in a world where there is still demand for the trains! Would 6/7 car voyagers provide enough capacity on most routes though ?
Indeed, it seems rather a harsh conclusion, given the suppressed demand released.
And successive governments have since had a quarter of a century to sort out that rolling stock provision (and have chosen to withdraw a lot of it instead).
Indeed, the other thing to remember is that by having a longer unit (even with the same seating capacity in the middle coaches) you can remove 1 coach from the train compared to a pair of units. Therefore, if you've got a service which runs for 2/3 of the time as 4+4 and then 4 for the rest vs a 7 coach unit the extra coach lease nearly wiped out the overall cost saving.
To put some numbers to that, on a journey time of 210 minutes with 140 in the core and 70 out of the core you get:
8 x 140 plus 4 x 70 = 1,400
vs
7 x 210 = 1,470
That's an increase in lease costs of 5%.
Change the numbers, let's say to a 75:25 split and it then favours the longer train.
On the above 75% of 210 is 157.5
8 x 157.5 plus 4 x 52.5 = 1,470
Therefore the costs then balance.
Even Penzance to Newcastle (bearing in mind that some have suggested that north of there should be served by other operators to increase capacity elsewhere) would give you a 75:25 ratio assuming Exeter to Newcastle was the core.
Trainbike46
Established Member
You ask for a lot of comparisons here that require information that I don't think anyone on this forum can provide - What higher density layout for a voyager? Can you remove some of the accessible bogs, or not? I suspect removing crumple zones won't be possible.
I've heard some suggestions that the UK FLIRT design is mostly suited for 125mph, though I don't know how much work mostly is doing in that sentence!
I think, using the best information available, it is fair to say that a 125mph FLIRT is likely similar in density to an 80x
My source for seating numbers was wikipedia for the class 22x and 80x, which seems to have maintained its reputation for being wrong. For the FLIRTs I used the stadler-provided datasheets. That does explain the point noted by @Krokodil, which surprised me as well. I've provided an updated table below with your seat numbers for class 221:
| Class | seats | length | seats m^-1 |
| Class 220 | 200 | 93 metres | 2.15 |
| Class 221 (5-car) | 262 (XC) 256 (avanti) | 119 metres | 2.20 (XC) 2.15 (Avanti) |
| Class 800 (bimode, 5-car) | 302 (LNER) 326 (GWR) | 130 metres | 2.32 (LNER) 2.51 (GWR) |
| Clas 800 (bimode, 9-car) | 611 (LNER) 650 (GWR) | 234 metres | 2.61 (LNER) 2.78 (GWR) |
| Class 745 (Electric only) | 704 (IC) 722 (StanEx) | 237 metres | 2.97 (IC) 3.05 (StanEx) |
| Class 755 (bimode, 4-car) | 202 | 81 metres | 2.49 |
| theoretical 12-car bimode FLIRT with 2 powerpacks | 704 (IC) 722 (StanEx) | 250 metres | 2.82 (IC) 2.89 (StanEx) |
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,751
There are also all the platform occupancy and crew requirements for the shunt operations required to couple and uncouple units. As well as operational risk from the potential for the operation to fail for whatever reason.
Need a lot fewer staff for a fixed formation unit, and you don't have the train clogging up platforms if you don't want them to.
I've personally never been convinced of the benefits of coupling pointy end units, and no attempt to do it operationally in the UK has really gone well.
I just struggle to see how a Voyager can be wasting more space than an equal length train that needs power packs (and those aren’t the only non-passenger lengths on Flirts), unless the Voyager was built to stricter crumple lengths for 125mph.
If it’s comparing 2x5 v 1x10 (equivalent) then that’s a different story (which I don’t believe would get funded as it presumably means buying more 10s than half the number of 5s voyagers)
your x12 Flirt is also 10m longer, biasing the stats a bit. Would that fit all the way to the ends of XC?
Trainbike46
Established Member
It's important to realise that the voyager is an inefficient design - made clear by comparing a 5-car voyager with a 5-car 80x. As I understand it, this is in part because of changes to how crumple zones are handled between the voyagers and more modern designs, like the FLIRT and the 80x. Another reason the voyagers lose out is by the decision to make all toilets accesible toilets, which are much bigger. Having fewer cabs is also makes a difference, and a very major one (as you can see by comparing a 5-car with a 9-car 80x). It's important to note though that there isn't really any viable way of changing the ratio of middle cars to end cars for voyagers - unlike for new-build trains, whether they be 80x, FLIRT or some other design.
There is dead space in all train designs - In the FLIRT this is concentrated in a few places, as can be confirmed by looking at the carriage maps (attached in pdf), whereas in the 80x it is more spread across the train. The FLIRT saves space by the different door layout compared to an 80x, which is probably part of the reason for limited impact the dead space has on seats per metre of train. And the impact is clearly limited, as you can see from the seats per metre above. Your original (implied) claim that FLIRTs would be worse for seating density than a voyager I think is quite firmly disproven though.
The actual length of any new trains for XC will depend on maximum lengths at all the stations they will serve, perceived capacity needs, whether (A)SDO is acceptable at certain stations, willingness of the government to fund it, and undoubtedly some level of political interference
I agree that if a new order for XC were to happen, it makes sense to come up with a length so you don't have to do doubling up
Exactly that - which was the point being made. Use of “marginal” InterCity capacity to help relieve overcrowding on local flows. The side effect in this case is providing a through service for any London - Keynsham commuters, but the chances of there being any of those are vanishingly small.