Could Virgin have replaced Super Voyagers on West Coast before the franchise change in 2007?

[greatvoyager]

I was thinking about how different the outlook could have been. If in 2007, Virgin had ordered a new fleet of trains ready for service on the West Coast when they lost the CrossCountry franchise.
My suggestion was going to be a Meridian fitted with the tilting equipment, probably a Class 223 "Super Meridian" if you will.
Apart from having a more passenger friendly interior, this would have also enabled all 221s to be used by CrossCountry, and could've eased the problem of overcrowding.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Why would Virgin have ordered new trains in 2007? The voyagers would be new still. I would say CrossCountry should have ordered new trains or at least additional Voyagers.

 

[greatvoyager]

Why would Virgin have ordered new trains in 2007? The voyagers would be new still. I would say CrossCountry should have ordered new trains or at least additional Voyagers.

To me, it was the fact that they were going to be making changes to the voyagers anyway, specifically refurbisment/moving of the shop vehicle. Also, seeing how trains that serve London get more investment than those that avoid London, such as CrossCountry, my logic was that West Coast would've got the new trains.
Also, the 40 5-car units were ordered for CrossCountry anyway, only the 4 4-car 221s were for west coast, and even then they were using 390 drags whilst the four car units worked on XC services.
I believe that with the introduction of the 222, the 220/221 design was retired so either way it would most likely be 222-esque units ordered.
I remember reading in a railway magazine at the time how they were suggesting replacing 221s with another 20 390 units, although that was speculation of the magazine.
To be fair, Class 707s are going to be replaced and they are just 2 years old, so it wouldn't be out of the question.

 

[6Gman]

But you haven't explained why it would have made any commercial sense for VT to replace the 221s - which are still perfectly serviceable units 12 years later - with something else?

 

[greatvoyager]

But you haven't explained why it would have made any commercial sense for VT to replace the 221s - which are still perfectly serviceable units 12 years later - with something else?

I would propose that the replacements would have bi mode functionality, as the London-Wales route required it. As that is the only West Coast route that has any diesel running, retaining diesels for the Birmingham-Scotland runs has been somewhat of a waste and bad for the environment.
And I was thinking about additional capacity for CrossCountry services as a consequence.
Essentially, why has it taken 12 years

 

[Ianno87]

I would propose that the replacements would have bi mode functionality, as the London-Wales route required it. As that is the only West Coast route that has any diesel running, retaining diesels for the Birmingham-Scotland runs has been somewhat of a waste and bad for the environment.
And I was thinking about additional capacity for CrossCountry services as a consequence.
Essentially, why has it taken 12 years

Bi-mode technology probably wasn't where it is now back in 2007.

 

[greatvoyager]

Bi-mode technology probably wasn't where it is now back in 2007.

If there was, maybe IETs would've had a less troubled introduction.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Bombardier had Bi-Modes in SNCF service in 2005

 

[greatvoyager]

Bombardier had Bi-Modes in SNCF service in 2005

So they could've used that technology for bi mode trains in 2007.

 

[tbtc]

Bi-mode technology probably wasn't where it is now back in 2007.

I think that that's the most important point.

If there was an "off the shelf" product available, like the 802s are now, permitting small/medium follow-on orders (e.g. the way that Hull Trains are able to take some) then maybe it'd have been a consideration.

As it was, it'd have been a huge risk for Virgin to get a manufacturer to try to cram technology untested in the UK loading gauge into a smallish fleet of trains when they didn't *need* to order any new trains - the Voyagers were modern, the Voyagers were designed to run the Euston - WCML - Holyhead/ Glasgow services after all.

Don't get me wrong, I like anything where the answer is "additional capacity on the crowded XC services through Sheffield" but, if that was the aim in 2007 then it might have been to order something like a 222 for XC (i.e. better than a Voyager as there would be no requirement for tilting, which XC services don't all require - even if that meant giving Virgin a few of the XC Voyagers too)

Whereas, the GWR and LNER franchises *needed* some self powered 125mph trains to replace dozens of HSTs, so a big risky Government funded project was necessary a few years later (even if this meant watching Hitachi running rings round the DfT's crack team of negotiators!) - something like an 802 would have been a "nice to have" for Virgin in 2007 rather than an essential (and would have been a big risk and very expensive to order a bespoke micro fleet in such circumstances)

Nice idea though.

 

[greatvoyager]

I think that that's the most important point.

If there was an "off the shelf" product available, like the 802s are now, permitting small/medium follow-on orders (e.g. the way that Hull Trains are able to take some) then maybe it'd have been a consideration.

As it was, it'd have been a huge risk for Virgin to get a manufacturer to try to cram technology untested in the UK loading gauge into a smallish fleet of trains when they didn't *need* to order any new trains - the Voyagers were modern, the Voyagers were designed to run the Euston - WCML - Holyhead/ Glasgow services after all.

Don't get me wrong, I like anything where the answer is "additional capacity on the crowded XC services through Sheffield" but, if that was the aim in 2007 then it might have been to order something like a 222 for XC (i.e. better than a Voyager as there would be no requirement for tilting, which XC services don't all require - even if that meant giving Virgin a few of the XC Voyagers too)

Whereas, the GWR and LNER franchises *needed* some self powered 125mph trains to replace dozens of HSTs, so a big risky Government funded project was necessary a few years later (even if this meant watching Hitachi running rings round the DfT's crack team of negotiators!) - something like an 802 would have been a "nice to have" for Virgin in 2007 rather than an essential (and would have been a big risk and very expensive to order a bespoke micro fleet in such circumstances)

Nice idea though.

This is all a case of what might have been. For some reason I've always preferred the idea of uniform fleets, hence why I would suggest cascading all Voyagers to XC and new trains for West Coast instead of ordering another class for XC and have 221s stay at Virgin.

 

[JonathanH]

Also, the 40 5-car units were ordered for CrossCountry anyway, only the 4 4-car 221s were for west coast, and even then they were using 390 drags whilst the four car units worked on XC services.

That's not really true - XC previously ran Birmingham to Scotland trains via the WCML and gave up these services to the WC operator. If you recall, WC initially got 221101-221113/142-144 and then 221114-221118 when the converted HSTs were ready. Therefore, around 12 of the 5-car units were effectively for Birmingham to Scotland via the West Coast route (although, of course, 220s were also used on the WC side prior to the split in 2007).

 

[greatvoyager]

That's not really true - XC previously ran Birmingham to Scotland trains via the WCML and gave up these services to the WC operator. If you recall, WC initially got 221101-221113/142-144 and then 221114-221118 when the converted HSTs were ready. Therefore, around 12 of the 5-car units were effectively for Birmingham to Scotland via the West Coast route (although, of course, 220s were also used on the WC side prior to the split in 2007).

I realise the 221s that remained with Virgin continued with the West Coast Birmingham-Scotland services, but I was suggesting about an order being made before that was split and the new franchises were created in 2007, and thus a subsequent increase in capacity on both West Coast (newer, longer trains for North Wales and Birmingham-WCML-Scotland routes) and CrossCountry (inheriting more trains upon start of the franchise to run the remaining routes).

 

[Royston Vasey]

New stock wasn't being ordered to replace perfrctly acceptable nearly new stock back then like it is today!

 

[greatvoyager]

New stock wasn't being ordered to replace perfrctly acceptable nearly new stock back then like it is today!

Having used CrossCountry services most of my life, I know how overcrowded it could be. I was thinking about the best way to utilise the fleet and provide the most suitable rolling stock. I can only speak for myself obviously, but I just believed this as a possibility.

 

[JonathanH]

I think the point that is missed in this discussion is that there was very limited doubling up of Voyager diagrams at the time (and obviously still isn't).

What is effectively being suggested is that in 2007, the XC franchise could have been specified by the DfT on the basis of 8-car and 5-car services. That would have been a big step up in capacity and probably wasn't on the table. In practice, the only capacity uplift required by the DfT was delivered by 5 HSTs to address the peak flow into / out of Birmingham and a very limited amount of 8-car working in the opposite direction. The leasing of HSTs effectively freed up the extra 221s for West Coast.

 

[greatvoyager]

I think the point that is missed in this discussion is that there was very limited doubling up of Voyager diagrams at the time (and obviously still isn't).

What is effectively being suggested is that in 2007, the XC franchise could have been specified by the DfT on the basis of 8-car and 5-car services. That would have been a big step up in capacity and probably wasn't on the table. In practice, the only capacity uplift required by the DfT was delivered by 5 HSTs to address the peak flow into / out of Birmingham and a very limited amount of 8-car working in the opposite direction. The leasing of HSTs effectively freed up the extra 221s for West Coast.

Regardless of what the DfT believes, capacity was, and is still, a big issue and I have always wondered what could've been.

I would've also preferred the Birmingham-Scotland via WCML to remain with CrossCountry and be able to travel directly to Preston or Carlisle.

Just out of interest, does anyone know if Voyager timings on the London-Wales services were much of an improvement over HST timings?

 

[Ianno87]

Regardless of what the DfT believes, capacity was, and is still, a big issue and I have always wondered what could've been.

I would've also preferred the Birmingham-Scotland via WCML to remain with CrossCountry and be able to travel directly to Preston or Carlisle.

Two paragraphs that contradict each other.

The removal of XC through running from the northern WCML has enabled Virgin to diagram double Voyagers/Pendolinos much more effectively to provide Birmingham-Scotland capacity than VXC ever could.

 

[greatvoyager]

Two paragraphs that contradict each other.

The removal of XC through running from the northern WCML has enabled Virgin to diagram double Voyagers/Pendolinos much more effectively to provide Birmingham-Scotland capacity than VXC ever could.

That's true, but surely at least when they were with VXC there was a requirement for diesel running. Having the Voyagers work any service other than the North Wales line results in running diesel trains on a completely electrified line, which could be better used elsewhere.

 

[JonathanH]

That's true, but surely at least when they were with VXC there was a requirement for diesel running. Having the Voyagers work any service other than the North Wales line results in running diesel trains on a completely electrified line, which could be better used elsewhere.

At the time the Voyagers were allocated to WC, there were still a number of non-electrified routes over which Voyagers were diverted for engineering work, and that was part of the reason for allocating them to WC in the first place. Since 2007, Voyagers on WC have, on occasion, run over numerous non-electrified routes.

They are now due to be replaced on the WC route and perhaps will now be better used elsewhere but, as discussed in many other threads, you can't take for granted that they will be used to improve the XC service as platform lengths, stabling requirements, staff availability, financing and many other factors all need to be taken into account.

 

[greatvoyager]

At the time the Voyagers were allocated to WC, there were still a number of non-electrified routes over which Voyagers were diverted for engineering work, and that was part of the reason for allocating them to WC in the first place. Since 2007, Voyagers on WC have, on occasion, run over numerous non-electrified routes.

They are now due to be replaced on the WC route and perhaps will now be better used elsewhere but, as discussed in many other threads, you can't take for granted that they will be used to improve the XC service as platform lengths, stabling requirements, staff availability, financing and many other factors all need to be taken into account.

My suggestion was still to use diesel stock, just not the voyagers.

I would think seeing that for many years, the WCML has been one of the most important routes in the country, DfT would take note of various customer opinions, including:-
- Although not how I feel (as per my username), many people hate voyagers, as seen on numerous threads and even described by the new franchise holder as unpopular and uncomfortable.
- Too much diesel under wires on WCML.
- A desperate need for extra capacity on XC.

As much as this may well happen within the next 3 years (although I won't get my hopes up), I think this whole process has taken too long.

I'll also be honest and say that this is also mainly due to my desire to experience a tilting Meridian in service.

 

[greatvoyager]

Also, this is about exploring a possibility that I had discussed with a few other people at the time. As purely speculative, I'd like to imagine that this was under consideration, and wonder what ideas other people would have had.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I think Virgin Trains should have ordered ten or so extra Pendolinos and just retained the Voyagers for solely Chester line services.

This means Virgin Trains using Pendolinos on all Manchester, Liverpool, Blackpool, Birmingham and Scotland via both Wolverhampton and Trent Valley services. And the freed up Voyagers allow for more ten carriage formations to Chester and more extensions to North Wales.

If Shrewsbury really must have a service they could just have tacked it onto the end of the Wrexham train.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I think Virgin Trains should have ordered ten or so extra Pendolinos and just retained the Voyagers for solely Chester line services.

This means Virgin Trains using Pendolinos on all Manchester, Liverpool, Blackpool, Birmingham and Scotland via both Wolverhampton and Trent Valley services. And the freed up Voyagers allow for more ten carriage formations to Chester and more extensions to North Wales.

If Shrewsbury really must have a service they could just have tacked it onto the end of the Wrexham train.

well surely it’s better to extend the Birmingham service to Shrewsbury as it is the most direct route.

 

[The Planner]

I think Virgin Trains should have ordered ten or so extra Pendolinos and just retained the Voyagers for solely Chester line services.

This means Virgin Trains using Pendolinos on all Manchester, Liverpool, Blackpool, Birmingham and Scotland via both Wolverhampton and Trent Valley services. And the freed up Voyagers allow for more ten carriage formations to Chester and more extensions to North Wales.

If Shrewsbury really must have a service they could just have tacked it onto the end of the Wrexham train.

Ordered Pendolinos when they had no idea when Blackpool would be wired? That Shrewsbury idea is bonkers to say the least.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Ordered Pendolinos when they had no idea when Blackpool would be wired? That Shrewsbury idea is bonkers to say the least.

yeah Shrewsbury has actually been successful.

 

[JonathanH]

I think Virgin Trains should have ordered ten or so extra Pendolinos and just retained the Voyagers for solely Chester line services.

The point you are missing here is that the changes to the West Coast franchise in 2007 were made to a franchise that only had five years to run and were at the behest of the DfT.

The DfT ordered four extra Pendolinos (and the other coaches to extend sets from 9-car to 11-car) as the change was around the intended change of franchise. You'll note that no one thought of ordering replacement stock for the SuperVoyagers at this point despite the fact that many were operating solely 'under the wires'.

The 2012 franchise change is when there was an opportunity to order something to replace the SuperVoyagers, not 2007 or any time up to 2012 but as we know the replacement franchise fell through and consequently they have stayed put.

 

[The Ham]

There's a couple of points, IIRC, the upgrade to the West Coast Main Line wasn't fully complete in 2007.

The Voyagers had a least which meant that they had to be paid for and used until (IIRC) 2017.

XC wasn't paying a premium.

You need an order of ~120 coaches to get a good deal on the units.

All of these would have had a bearing on the choice not to expand the fleet.

However I've voted for the replacement of the trains. Why? As the DfT are slow in building any extra capacity and the extra coaches would have been very useful.

Anyone who doubts that they are slow in allowing TOC's to provide the required capacity just need to look at SWR services which are for coaches and run at about 4pm through Woking yet still have people standing on them as there's a need for more capacity.

Likewise look at Platforms 15&16 at Manchester Piccadilly or Crossrail 2, for infrastructure projects which should be making more progress than they are.

 

[greatvoyager]

There's a couple of points, IIRC, the upgrade to the West Coast Main Line wasn't fully complete in 2007.

The Voyagers had a least which meant that they had to be paid for and used until (IIRC) 2017.

XC wasn't paying a premium.

You need an order of ~120 coaches to get a good deal on the units.

All of these would have had a bearing on the choice not to expand the fleet.

However I've voted for the replacement of the trains. Why? As the DfT are slow in building any extra capacity and the extra coaches would have been very useful.

Anyone who doubts that they are slow in allowing TOC's to provide the required capacity just need to look at SWR services which are for coaches and run at about 4pm through Woking yet still have people standing on them as there's a need for more capacity.

Likewise look at Platforms 15&16 at Manchester Piccadilly or Crossrail 2, for infrastructure projects which should be making more progress than they are.

Those are all good points.

 

[greatvoyager]

I think that a bi mode 390 would've been interesting.