• 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!

Isn't it time something was done with CrossCountry?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
Down here in the 'Extremities' (Hah!) the main issue with XC is, as pretty much everywhere else - short formed services and the smelly vestibules in the Voyagers.


What do you mean "down here" voyagers are short formed and have stinking bogs everywhere. ;)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

class303

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2011
Messages
391
Who on earth thought replacing the 8 or 9 carriage loco hauled stock with a 4 car unit? absolutely scandalous. how did that ever pass?
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Could Pendolinos be converted to dual voltage (for the Southampton-Bournemouth/Poole section) or would that be impossible (either physically or not financially viable)?

Going back a bit, Eurostars ran on 3rd rail between the channel tunnel and Waterloo and the West London line (via several routes).
The signalling and track circuits on all those routes had to be expensively upgraded and immunised to cope with the Alstom/GEC electric motors.
The same applies to Class 92s.
So to introduce similar traction equipment (the Pendolino is I think a development of the Eurostar package) all the new routes would need to be upgraded.
It's one reason Eurostars and Class 92s have never worked away from the tunnel routes on the 3rd rail.
It's also another reason why the plan was to upgrade the Basingstoke-Southampton line to AC operation - if you have to spend a lot of money it might as well be wired.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Just buy Class 395s or comparable units.
Dual voltage and capable of the speeds required.

Good acceleration.
 

47802

Established Member
Joined
8 Oct 2013
Messages
3,455
Correct. And on the loco sets half a coach was guards 'van', and the coaches were 20metres long.

Yes so that would give a capacity of around 330 standard class on a Loco hauled set and more on an HST, and what's the capacity on a Voyager wasn't it 162 standard on a 4 car and 221 on a 5 car, possibly a couple more seats have been shoved in since then.

Arh but XC got a more frequent service, well yes on some parts yes, but other parts not really particularly at times when people wanted to travel.

So hardly surprising there was lots of overcrowding, those responsible for it should have been sacked.

And then of course they may be reliable but there not a great train to travel on, ok maybe for a couple of hours but not for a 4+ hour journey.

I used to travel XC quite a lot pre voyager, but post voyager I avoid it like the plague, and to travel to the south coast have taken the via London option even if its been more expensive.
 
Last edited:

Ash Bridge

Established Member
Joined
17 Mar 2014
Messages
4,043
Location
Stockport
Yes so that would give a capacity of around 330 standard class on a Loco hauled set and more on an HST, and what's the capacity on a Voyager wasn't it 162 standard on a 4 car and 221 on a 5 car, possibly a couple more seats have been shoved in since then.

Arh but XC got a more frequent service, well yes on some parts yes, but other parts not really particularly at times when people wanted to travel.

So hardly surprising there was lots of overcrowding, those responsible for it should have been sacked.

And then of course they may be reliable but there not a great train to travel on, ok maybe for a couple of hours but not for a 4+ hour journey.

I used to travel XC quite a lot pre voyager, but post voyager I avoid it like the plague, and to travel to the south coast have taken the via London option even if its been more expensive.

We have used XC for our annual summer holiday in Cornwall each year for the past 20years, travelling to Exeter St. David's and picking up a rental car there. A 3.50-4hr journey on a Voyager and over this period have also travelled on HSTs & 47s + mk2s. We now always travel 1st class on the Voyagers and find them comfortable with the journey passing quickly& the on board staff very friendly, being offered at seat refreshments 3 or 4 times during the journey. For me two of the biggest problems in standard are 1. Because of the tilt profile of the body the tumble home body sides give the same claustrophobic feel that most airliners have, and 2.The seats are too upright,hard & narrow. In my opinion the Voyager feels narrower than the Pendolino even though both use the same seating. As a railway enthusiast I still miss the HSTs & mk2s but when I step on a Voyager I always have this reassured feeling it is going to get me there no fuss & on time, back in the days of 47s it was always more a feeling of hope it's not going to break down or anything!
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
tbtc said:
You'd lose some links (like Manchester to Bristol, Sheffield to Reading), but some of these could be provided by other franchises (Manchester - Bristol via the Marches, Sheffield - Reading via Marston Vale).

Note that Manchester-Bristol only became a regular direct link in December 2007 following the Scotland-South West via North West service being split with Scotland-Birmingham via North West going to Virgin (WC) and Birmingham-South West going to XC.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
It wouldn't take a *huge* number to double up the units from York - Bristol - depending how many Voyagers are freed up by Virgin...

To run an hourly service from York to Bristol would require about 9 units, to run them doubled up would take about 18. However, assuming that they are already 220's they could be paired up with the 10 units freed up from Manchester to South Coast services doubling the number of seats.

If however, there is a mixture of 221's and 220's on both routes those 221's could be cascaded to replace 220's to then be paired up with the 220's freed up from Manchester to South Coast services and those already on the York to Bristol route at least increasing the number of seats from 250 to 400 (60% more). As well as increasing the number of seats on other services.
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
Note that Manchester-Bristol only became a regular direct link in December 2007 following the Scotland-South West via North West service being split with Scotland-Birmingham via North West going to Virgin (WC) and Birmingham-South West going to XC.

I must have dreamt up all those coaches at Temple Meads with 'Manchester' on the roof boards in the 1950s then? :D

(I appreciate the frequency of service was somewhat lesser at that time!).
 

martynbristow

Member
Joined
15 Jun 2005
Messages
426
Location
Birkenhead
I used to use the old XC a lot and it was a fabulous trip as a kid but you'd end up with some problem every time.
Virgin did s decent job draging the service into the 21st century.
Ok Voygers are naff and theres better trains out there but they don't have the issues that affected the loco hauled trains.
They have power sockets and are more frequent. The use of 4 cars means you aren't parading round a 9 car set at silly hours of the day no one wants to travel.
I strongly think these should have been used to supplement not replace. These routes need a faster connection for people travelling a long way.
Is Arriva going to cough up the money for that :P
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
Can anyone explain why this thread couldn't have been a continuation of the existing Cross Country thread that was already running at the time this one started? Is there anything new here at all? The original poster actually made a couple of posts in the existing thread before starting this one...

Probably too late to have the threads merged I suppose...
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
The main issue with the Voyagers is that they are too short by about three coaches. I'm in the minority I think but after they sorted out the worst of the sewage smell I quite enjoy travelling on them!
I personally don't mind the voyager. I don't need to use them very often (other than Bristol - Birmingham occasionally) but the ones I have used have smelt fine and I think they're quite good at what they do. My main moan is the seats aren't great for long distances.
Down here in the 'Extremities' (Hah!) the main issue with XC is, as pretty much everywhere else - short formed services and the smelly vestibules in the Voyagers. Other than that, they are a smooth ride compared to the rest of the stuff used down here.

They could do with some extra leg room as well.
I see two patterns there, Voyagers are too short and are too uncomfortable to sit on for long journeys (due to seats and the spacing of them). Mind you, the latter point applies to most stock, and when you get a window (coach D on a VT Voyager, I think) there is a much better view than on a 390.

release the Voyagers to another operator and route such as Cardiff - Portsmouth which they'd be more suited to.
Voyagers more suited for Cardiff-Portsmouth? I'm not so sure. 125mph 5-car units with 262 seats (5-car XC 221) or a 4-car 90mph 158 formation with 268 seats? At least the Voyagers would have the doors in the right place though, unlike the class 166 units which some have proposed for the route. I don't think Voyagers in their current form are well suited to anything, too short for INTERCITY work, too fast/expensive for Regional Express and too poorly furnished for either. Fix the length and the interior and they would probably be quite suitable for XC.

The base problem is that it is a "national" service - with low high income traffic , lots of small flows and a service which is very busy in the core - but quiet at the extremities. Any worthwhile suggestions as to how to square the circle , no doubt welcome.
I'm with tbtc on this one:
I don't know how we solve the problem (short of replacing all services by coupled up 153s so that an eight coach 153 at New Street sheds coaches every half hour and becomes a single unit by Penzance :lol: )
It is a difficult problem. I'm not sure if it truely is quiet at the extremities but assuming it is then portion working would seem to be the answer. However, XC uses 125mph units, which in my opinion are unsuitable for portion working. They cannot have passenger-corridors between the units, which makes boarding the wrong portion rather too critical and increases the minimum required staffing level. They also lose seating space because they cannot have passengers too close behind the cabs.

Things will get better if the electric spine goes through as Manchester-South Coast can go to dual voltage 110mph electrics.
110mph? Is there no 125mph running on the route at all, despite the current use of Voyagers? If a 110mph unit can do the job, it sounds like another job for an EMU version of a 158/159 (which might be similar to a 5-WES (class 442), but with a pantograph). Portion working then becomes a much more reasonable solution.

HSTs are unlikely to be used even if they were available (too expensive, too big, too old).
Voyagers are also very expensive, so I'm not sure if they are actually any cheaper, and I don't think IC125s are too big either (maybe reduce them to 2+7 sets). I agree however that IC125s are unlikely to move to XC because they are too old (although I hope some IC125s are retained, because, for some routes, I can't see any feesible alternative which would not be a retrograde step).

Who on earth thought replacing the 8 or 9 carriage loco hauled stock with a 4 car unit? absolutely scandalous. how did that ever pass?
Think it was more like loco plus 7 coaches or 2+7 HST.
Yes so that would give a capacity of around 330 standard class on a Loco hauled set and more on an HST, and what's the capacity on a Voyager wasn't it 162 standard on a 4 car and 221 on a 5 car, possibly a couple more seats have been shoved in since then.

Arh but XC got a more frequent service, well yes on some parts yes, but other parts not really particularly at times when people wanted to travel.

So hardly surprising there was lots of overcrowding, those responsible for it should have been sacked.
I agree, overcrowding is not supprising given the short trains ordered and the fact that improving frequency attracts more passengers. So, let's suppose many XC trains saw a reduction from 330 seats to 221. That's 109 fewer seats per train.

I also think that it would be foolish to repeat the error of XC by buying a lot of short IC trains again.
My sentiments exactly. No wonder I like to call the department for transport DaFT, since they seem to have repeated the error. The currently planned TOTAL (first+std) seating capacity of the new 5-car class 800/801 units is 315. Following the reduction in first class, a FirstGW full-buffet IC125 set will, I think, have 475 seats in standard class alone. The standard class capacity of the IC125s will thus be 160 greater than the entire capacity of a 5-car 800/801.

The use of 4 cars means you aren't parading round a 9 car set at silly hours of the day no one wants to travel.
The use of 4 cars also means you are using short trains at busy times, unless you have enough of them that every one can be coupled to another (not a great idea with 125mph stock for the reasons listed above) at busy times which means you have sidings full of 'spare' units at the quiet times when you are running the shorter trains.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, the question that hasn't been asked yet in this topic (I think):
Are there any differences between class 220 and class 222 carriages other than software? If not, when the MML is wired could cascade the 222s to XC and insert the intermediate carriages from the 220s into them? You would then have some longer units (the lengthened 222s) and a load of redundant 2-car class 220 units which I doubt have much more capacity than a single 153 (if that). It's not ideal to throw away those driving cars, but the improved seats:train-length ratio would be rather benfitial I would suspect.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
110mph? Is there no 125mph running on the route at all, despite the current use of Voyagers? If a 110mph unit can do the job, it sounds like another job for an EMU version of a 158/159 (which might be similar to a 5-WES (class 442), but with a pantograph). Portion working then becomes a much more reasonable solution.

New build of 444s perhaps but with the cab of a 380 (to meet current crash regs)? The jigs might have been disposed of but with CAM it shouldn't be too difficult to make new jigs
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
110mph? Is there no 125mph running on the route at all, despite the current use of Voyagers? If a 110mph unit can do the job, it sounds like another job for an EMU version of a 158/159 (which might be similar to a 5-WES (class 442), but with a pantograph). Portion working then becomes a much more reasonable solution.

Voyagers run with XC have the tilt mechanism disabled and I believe the only section fo 125mph running is a brief stretch near Reading - and then only if they are routed onto the fast lines rather than the reliefs.
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,504
Location
Southampton
IIRC, Voyagers cannot run at 125mph between Didcot and Reading due to not having ATP fitted, and are limited to 110mph.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
We have done this one before, Im sure they can hit 125 between Bushbury and Stafford and Water Orton and Wichnor, or are we just talking about the GW.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
IIRC, Voyagers cannot run at 125mph between Didcot and Reading due to not having ATP fitted, and are limited to 110mph.

See page 79 of the online (public) sectional appendix. There is a 110 mph limit for non ATP stock applied on the GW generally, but by exception it does NOT apply to Didcot to Reading West. Voyagers can and do travel at line speed on the mains on that stretch.
 

LateThanNever

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
1,027
I see two patterns there, Voyagers are too short and are too uncomfortable to sit on for long journeys (due to seats and the spacing of them). Mind you, the latter point applies to most stock, and when you get a window (coach D on a VT Voyager, I think) there is a much better view than on a 390.

Voyagers more suited for Cardiff-Portsmouth? I'm not so sure. 125mph 5-car units with 262 seats (5-car XC 221) or a 4-car 90mph 158 formation with 268 seats? At least the Voyagers would have the doors in the right place though, unlike the class 166 units which some have proposed for the route. I don't think Voyagers in their current form are well suited to anything, too short for INTERCITY work, too fast/expensive for Regional Express and too poorly furnished for either. Fix the length and the interior and they would probably be quite suitable for XC.

I'm with tbtc on this one:It is a difficult problem. I'm not sure if it truely is quiet at the extremities but assuming it is then portion working would seem to be the answer. However, XC uses 125mph units, which in my opinion are unsuitable for portion working. They cannot have passenger-corridors between the units, which makes boarding the wrong portion rather too critical and increases the minimum required staffing level. They also lose seating space because they cannot have passengers too close behind the cabs.

110mph? Is there no 125mph running on the route at all, despite the current use of Voyagers? If a 110mph unit can do the job, it sounds like another job for an EMU version of a 158/159 (which might be similar to a 5-WES (class 442), but with a pantograph). Portion working then becomes a much more reasonable solution.

Voyagers are also very expensive, so I'm not sure if they are actually any cheaper, and I don't think IC125s are too big either (maybe reduce them to 2+7 sets). I agree however that IC125s are unlikely to move to XC because they are too old (although I hope some IC125s are retained, because, for some routes, I can't see any feesible alternative which would not be a retrograde step).

I agree, overcrowding is not supprising given the short trains ordered and the fact that improving frequency attracts more passengers. So, let's suppose many XC trains saw a reduction from 330 seats to 221. That's 109 fewer seats per train.

My sentiments exactly. No wonder I like to call the department for transport DaFT, since they seem to have repeated the error. The currently planned TOTAL (first+std) seating capacity of the new 5-car class 800/801 units is 315. Following the reduction in first class, a FirstGW full-buffet IC125 set will, I think, have 475 seats in standard class alone. The standard class capacity of the IC125s will thus be 160 greater than the entire capacity of a 5-car 800/801.

The use of 4 cars also means you are using short trains at busy times, unless you have enough of them that every one can be coupled to another (not a great idea with 125mph stock for the reasons listed above) at busy times which means you have sidings full of 'spare' units at the quiet times when you are running the shorter trains.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, the question that hasn't been asked yet in this topic (I think):
Are there any differences between class 220 and class 222 carriages other than software? If not, when the MML is wired could cascade the 222s to XC and insert the intermediate carriages from the 220s into them? You would then have some longer units (the lengthened 222s) and a load of redundant 2-car class 220 units which I doubt have much more capacity than a single 153 (if that). It's not ideal to throw away those driving cars, but the improved seats:train-length ratio would be rather benfitial I would suspect.

As there is no 125mph running West of Exeter or ?even West of Taunton or North of Edinburgh then you could fit the fronts with corridor connections and divide them after the 125mph sections have been completed.

I concur that the Voyagers aren't bad trains but their service is not fit for long distance journeys - with inadequate leg room, long waits in stations, overcrowding, no proper food offering, poor cleaning arrangements during the journey and all with the additional hazard that you may find your 'own' seat reserved mid voyage and very expensive fares. I dread the occasional Scotland Cornwall journeys I need to make as they write off a whole day and feel like an endurance test. If there were longer trains they could at least have a proper food offering which would greatly improve the journey's experience.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
The reality is the longer trains will only be available in the short(ish) term will be the HSTs allowing Voyager trains to run in pairs.

Medium term it may be possible to order IEP Bi-mode trains to replace the HSTs and also make use of the electrified sections, currently Birmingham to Manchester and Doncaster to Glasgow though possibly in future this may include Birmingham to Doncaster, and York via Leeds, and also Birmingham to Basingstoke if the electric spine is constructed. Birmingham to York will for the most part depend on what is funded for CP6 - along way off yet.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
110mph? Is there no 125mph running on the route at all, despite the current use of Voyagers? If a 110mph unit can do the job, it sounds like another job for an EMU version of a 158/159 (which might be similar to a 5-WES (class 442), but with a pantograph). Portion working then becomes a much more reasonable solution.
New build of 444s perhaps but with the cab of a 380 (to meet current crash regs)? The jigs might have been disposed of but with CAM it shouldn't be too difficult to make new jigs

I assume that the new Desiro City platform could be used (just with 23m coaches) which would provide many advantages over the existing 444's. Of course the other advantage of Desiro City units is that it could be possible to maintatin them in Southampton if needed as I doubt the extra trianing to maintain them would be very much for someone who can maintain 444's and 450's.

Voyagers are also very expensive, so I'm not sure if they are actually any cheaper, and I don't think IC125s are too big either (maybe reduce them to 2+7 sets). I agree however that IC125s are unlikely to move to XC because they are too old (although I hope some IC125s are retained, because, for some routes, I can't see any feesible alternative which would not be a retrograde step).

They maybe used as a stop gap between IEP being delivered (c, 2018) as well as Voyagers going off lease (at a similar time) and the electric spine being finished enough to allow EMU workings between Manchester and Basingstoke (as south of Basingstoke s 3rd rail already so if that is late it's not a problem) when dual voltage EMU's can start running.

I agree, overcrowding is not supprising given the short trains ordered and the fact that improving frequency attracts more passengers. So, let's suppose many XC trains saw a reduction from 330 seats to 221. That's 109 fewer seats per train.

At the time the tinking was that train travel was going into decline, so fewer seats per train wasn't a problem as the total number of seats tended to be a similar amount over the day, with some seeing more. The problem was it didn't happen that way

My sentiments exactly. No wonder I like to call the department for transport DaFT, since they seem to have repeated the error. The currently planned TOTAL (first+std) seating capacity of the new 5-car class 800/801 units is 315. Following the reduction in first class, a FirstGW full-buffet IC125 set will, I think, have 475 seats in standard class alone. The standard class capacity of the IC125s will thus be 160 greater than the entire capacity of a 5-car 800/801.

However I do not think that they are making the same mistake, firstly there are 9 coach versions as well as 5 coach versions. Also, there are going to be more IEP coaches than there are Mark 3 coaches in EC and FGW (1093 IEP's vs 883 Mark 3's & 4's, bearing in mind that some of the Mark 3's will currently need to be retained for services to Cornwall). But that is a subject which has been covered many times elsewhere.

Anyway, the question that hasn't been asked yet in this topic (I think):
Are there any differences between class 220 and class 222 carriages other than software? If not, when the MML is wired could cascade the 222s to XC and insert the intermediate carriages from the 220s into them? You would then have some longer units (the lengthened 222s) and a load of redundant 2-car class 220 units which I doubt have much more capacity than a single 153 (if that). It's not ideal to throw away those driving cars, but the improved seats:train-length ratio would be rather benfitial I would suspect.

An alternitive option, would be to see what happens with ICWC (as that may free up a some 221's), as with more 221's a few 220's could be taken appart with the end units scrapped or put in store or even used as crowd busters (standard class only) on the core to lengthen some of the 221's to 7 coaches in length. By doing so the 7 coach sets would have nearly the same capcity as two x four coach sets. For each 7 coach set created one 4 coach set would be needed.

A slightly more complex soulution along the above would be to just use one coach from each 220, therfore needing 2 for each 7 coach train, to lengthen some of the 5 coach sets to 7 coaches. The remaining 3 coach sets could then be converted to standard class only to be used to be crowd busters in the core, either on the existing 4 and 5 coach sets as well as on the new 7 coach sets.

Of course that is likely to be post 2020 (as EMU's on the Manchester - South Coast services will help capacity before/about then), during which time more XC routes are likely to be electrified meaing more EMU's which would see the freeing up more 22x sets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As there is no 125mph running West of Exeter or ?even West of Taunton or North of Edinburgh then you could fit the fronts with corridor connections and divide them after the 125mph sections have been completed.

I concur that the Voyagers aren't bad trains but their service is not fit for long distance journeys - with inadequate leg room, long waits in stations, overcrowding, no proper food offering, poor cleaning arrangements during the journey and all with the additional hazard that you may find your 'own' seat reserved mid voyage and very expensive fares. I dread the occasional Scotland Cornwall journeys I need to make as they write off a whole day and feel like an endurance test. If there were longer trains they could at least have a proper food offering which would greatly improve the journey's experience.

Even where there are 125mph sections (even allowing for full 125mph running from the change in limit) If they run for 20 minutes at full speed that is only 3 minutes slower at 110mph than 125mph. Therefore for much of the XC network south of Birmingham it will make little or no differnce in journey time if they were only 110mph.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
At the time the tinking was that train travel was going into decline, so fewer seats per train wasn't a problem as the total number of seats tended to be a similar amount over the day, with some seeing more. The problem was it didn't happen that way
I’m quite confident that that wasn’t the thinking at the turn of the new millennium at all. Other than the blip caused by Hatfield and Railtrack's mismanagement of the network in the early days of privatisation, rail passenger numbers have been on the up since the latter days of BR sectorisation and pseudo-TOCs in the early nineties.

The (flawed) concept behind the Voyagers was that the existing Crosscountry trains were not being filled to capacity and short trains twice as often would be able to cope with a similar level of passenger demand to that being experienced at the time, as passenger trips would be spread over the greater number of services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
An alternitive option, would be to see what happens with ICWC (as that may free up a some 221's), as with more 221's a few 220's could be taken appart with the end units scrapped or put in store or even used as crowd busters (standard class only) on the core to lengthen some of the 221's to 7 coaches in length. By doing so the 7 coach sets would have nearly the same capcity as two x four coach sets. For each 7 coach set created one 4 coach set would be needed.

A slightly more complex soulution along the above would be to just use one coach from each 220, therfore needing 2 for each 7 coach train, to lengthen some of the 5 coach sets to 7 coaches. The remaining 3 coach sets could then be converted to standard class only to be used to be crowd busters in the core, either on the existing 4 and 5 coach sets as well as on the new 7 coach sets.
I really don’t see that anything nearly so radical need happen to the Voyagers, particularly that results in less than 20 year old DMU vehicles being rendered redundant.

There have been some far more realistic proposals to increase capacity on the Crosscountry network posted elsewhere recently: With only 8 additional units, be they sourced from Virgin West Coast or electrification of the Manchester to Bournemouth services, it would be possible to double up each hourly service through the Bristol to York “core” section.

Not that every service needs it anyway: Another eminently sensible proposal that has been suggested is to use additional 5-car 221s to replace 4-car 220s, and use the displaced 220s to double up remaining 220 operated services as 8-car trains. I use the Crosscountry Intercity network extensively and would expect such a measure to adequately increase capacity to meet demand, without any need for convoluted faffing around with train lengths.
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
I really don’t see that anything nearly so radical need happen to the Voyagers, particularly that results in less than 20 year old DMU vehicles being rendered redundant.

There have been some far more realistic proposals to increase capacity on the Crosscountry network posted elsewhere recently: With only 8 additional units, be they sourced from Virgin West Coast or electrification of the Manchester to Bournemouth services, it would be possible to double up each hourly service through the Bristol to York “core” section.

The only reason for suggesting reformatting the lengths (probably post 2020) would be to allow XC to reduce their staffing costs by running 7 coach sets rather than trains formed of two sets of 4 couches, whilst allowing for further capacity if required with the 2 or 3 coach sets being able to be added in the core.

Not that every service needs it anyway: Another eminently sensible proposal that has been suggested is to use additional 5-car 221s to replace 4-car 220s, and use the displaced 220s to double up remaining 220 operated services as 8-car trains. I use the Crosscountry Intercity network extensively and would expect such a measure to adequately increase capacity to meet demand, without any need for convoluted faffing around with train lengths.

I also made that suggestion, however there may come a point when that is not enough (i.e. when beyond the core is in need of more than 4 or 5 coach sets). If there is more capacity in the core then it is likely that XC would see more passenger numbers beyond it as there would be more space for people from beyond the core to travel into it. As such sets which are 6 or 7 coaches long may then be needed on the outer extremities with more capacity (say 10 coaches) required in the core.
 

HarleyDavidson

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2014
Messages
2,529
Just as a side note:

No more 444s can be built, they destroyed the jigs & stuff that where required to make them when the order finished.

What you need is something along the lines of a 444, but made from aluminium & has 700 series bogies under it, better still articulation within set to give you a much smoother ride.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
What you need is something along the lines of a 444,but made from aluminium & has 700 series bogies under it, better still articulation within set to give you a much smoother ride.

Hence my comment about using the Desiro City platform (i.e. class 700) but with 23m coaches.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
Just as a side note:

No more 444s can be built,they destroyed the jigs & stuff that where required to make them when the order finished.

Not this old chestnut. If they'd ever needed to build more 444s they'd just have built new jigs, using their stored engineering drawings. How do you think they made the jigs for the first train?
 

D1733

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2014
Messages
22
Location
Brum
When travelling on CrossCountry, you often climb aboard a cramped class 220 or 221 which smells, is unclean and extremely busy. Instead of wasting money on things such as HS2, why aren't the DFT awarding more trains or coaches to CrossCountry to relieve such busy routes? On a service from Southampton to Manchester, passing many large cities there are only four carriages, one being first class! They're extremely unreliable, unclean, smelly, overcrowded and expensive. When will the improvements come?

My dad drives for XC and i have free rail travel pass so i go regulary on 220s and 221s and i agree they can become very cramped, but they dont seem to smell and i know they arent unclean! (i usually reside in first class so i dont go in standard, they are probably look unclean due to all the people during peak hours dropping crums/food e.c.t.)
 

nuneatonmark

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2014
Messages
471
My dad drives for XC and i have free rail travel pass so i go regulary on 220s and 221s and i agree they can become very cramped, but they dont seem to smell and i know they arent unclean! (i usually reside in first class so i dont go in standard, they are probably look unclean due to all the people during peak hours dropping crums/food e.c.t.)

I have travelled in both 220s and 221s on myriad journeys with VC and Virgin. I don't think they are bad trains at all, even for long distance. They are pretty comfortable and if you get a window seat a good view. The mobile signal is always very poor on them for some reason but that's all. I wish they could replace the 350s on the LM's Crewe service! Now that is a BAD train for a long distance! NO catering, NO luggage space. In holiday times all the heavy luggage gets stored by the doors making it very difficult to get on and off. Even worse if it happens to be a 350/2. It's shame they haven't done anything with the 350/3s like proper storage space, electronic seat reservations etc. They would also be much better on the XC route to Stansted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top