Where could the Voyagers go?

[Islineclear3_1]

Sims, Newport.

Haven't been on the forum for a while so yes, again, beaten to it. The scrapyard is the only place.

I remember, years ago, withdrawn stock was often used for fire training exercises. I nominate the Voyagers for this purpose...

 

[DB]

Haven't been on the forum for a while so yes, again, beaten to it. The scrapyard is the only place.

I remember, years ago, withdrawn stock was often used for fire training exercises. I nominate the Voyagers for this purpose...

There are various railway vehicles at fire service training facilites. Two carriages from the Greyrigg Pendolino are at the big training centre in Moreton in Marsh, along with a number of other vehicles.

 

[Energy]

You'd gain about 8 seats by converting the disabled bogs to small ones. And increase seating density? Crikey, have you ever been on one?

I have, thinking back my plan does seem a little mad, could be even more mad as Virgin were planning a 3 + 2 class bellow standard at one point for the voyagers.

 

[Scott M]

Get them onto the Tyne and Wear metro, anything is better than what we have at present.

 

[Energy]

Get them onto the Tyne and Wear metro, anything is better than what we have at present.

You're getting nice Stadler trains soon!

 

[greatvoyager]

I have, thinking back my plan does seem a little mad, could be even more mad as Virgin were planning a 3 + 2 class bellow standard at one point for the voyagers.

Even though it was considered, 3+2 in a voyager seems impossible.

 

[Scott M]

You're getting nice Stadler trains soon!

And not a moment too soon.

 

[Energy]

Even though it was considered, 3+2 in a voyager seems impossible.

I'm not sure how Virgin planned to fit 3+2 in.

 

[Clansman]

Yes it can, the voyagers have a low capacity due to the large number of disabled toilets, remove them and change the seating layout to be higher density and the capacity problem is solved.

It's not as easy to change the seating layout. ScotRail/TS wanted a lower density, with better legroom and space between seats for luggage. Removing a toilet (which on a Voyager is a key structural component) will not buy you enough seats to even break even on a ScotRail specced HST with respect to capacity, legroom, and luggage space. Remember you'd still be compensating for loss of overhead luggage space, and with your suggested higher density, a loss of space between seats.

Where are all them cases going to go when they can't fit on a Voyager's overhead luggage rack? On another rack? That'll be another 4 seats removed then. You see my point?

4/5 car HSTs aren't great for fuel consumption either, I have heard this point before but I doubt the voyagers are worse than a 4/5 car HST unless there are figures to back it up.

How is that a point against them? The HSTs don't operate at 125mph either even if both are capable of it.

And? They may be fitted for tilt but they do not have to use it. It isn't a point against them.

These are points against them because when you are about to utilise something that poses negatives, one would expect to at least be able to take advantage of the unique selling points of them. Aka tilting on the Voyagers, 125mph running etc. Yet even a Voyager's USP wouldn't be able to be utilised if you were to even contemplate excusing their shortfalls for the basics that ScotRail/TS require that simply can't be provided on them, but can on a HST.

And the HSTs do not? If you want to talk about space inefficienticies look at the 43 at either end of a HST.

The power cars have been converted to take 6 bikes per pair, plus the additional 2 in one of the Mk3s. Try finding 8 bike spaces on a Voyager, or converting one to fit 8 bikes, whilst also providing compensation on the many many many shortfalls that make them unsuitable for ScotRail I7C running. This is the perfect example of my above point. Taking something on which has negatives should provide positives to the extent where it's an investment worthwhile making.

In the early 2000s when ScotRail were modernising and building on from Sprinter usage, yes, you could argue there was a gap for Voyagers to come in. But not in 2020. Not a chance.

 

[paul1609]

I don't think that XC will survive HS2. All the long distance traffic will transfer to other routes. The East Coast route will become a secondary route to Scotland. A passenger from Exeter or the South West to Newcastle or Scotland will take a London train and change at Old Oak Common. It would make sense to break up the journeys at Birmingham, York etc and transfer the remaining services to the local operating franchise Great Western, Transpennine etc.
The broken up services wold not really require a 125 mph diesel train.

 

[SussexLad]

I don't think that XC will survive HS2. All the long distance traffic will transfer to other routes. The East Coast route will become a secondary route to Scotland. A passenger from Exeter or the South West to Newcastle or Scotland will take a London train and change at Old Oak Common. It would make sense to break up the journeys at Birmingham, York etc and transfer the remaining services to the local operating franchise Great Western, Transpennine etc.
The broken up services wold not really require a 125 mph diesel train.

You make a good argument, but I don't quite buy it. XC serve a lot of cities that won't be served by HS2. People value direct links as well, it makes them feel safer that they won't be stranded somewhere. Plus connection times are a deal breaker when it comes to changing trains and the quickest routes...

 

[The Ham]

You make a good argument, but I don't quite buy it. XC serve a lot of cities that won't be served by HS2. People value direct links as well, it makes them feel safer that they won't be stranded somewhere. Plus connection times are a deal breaker when it comes to changing trains and the quickest routes...

XC will change, but perhaps not as much as Paul suggests.

However I would point out that travel between Southampton and most key places on the XC network beyond Birmingham and it's likely to be significantly faster via Old Oak Common. For example Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds, etc would all be an hour quicker.

The change risk is at Reading (heading south) as you'd be changing back to the current XC services, otherwise OOC is likely to be half hourly or better.

If agree that for Birmingham where it's marginal that for South of Reading people wouldn't change, but for Reading itself the service would be much more frequent and a bit quicker.

However I also agree that XC would still need to serve a lot of other places, as such would probably still have a reasonable amount of passengers using the services.

If we assume that HS2 would reduce demand by 70% on XC services, then chances are on many services that the loading would fall to about 40% through the core (beyond that HS2 is unlikely to make much difference). However, that's likely to just mean that more people would be able to use those services, so the loading would be higher.

As how many on here say, I avoid XC because it's busy/expensive (due to it being busy)/the toilet smell (less of an issue if you know you'll get a seat because it's less busy). Anyway I think you get the idea, that more people would use XC if they weren't overcrowded.

 

[paul1609]

XC will change, but perhaps not as much as Paul suggests.

However I would point out that travel between Southampton and most key places on the XC network beyond Birmingham and it's likely to be significantly faster via Old Oak Common. For example Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds, etc would all be an hour quicker.

The change risk is at Reading (heading south) as you'd be changing back to the current XC services, otherwise OOC is likely to be half hourly or better.

If agree that for Birmingham where it's marginal that for South of Reading people wouldn't change, but for Reading itself the service would be much more frequent and a bit quicker.

However I also agree that XC would still need to serve a lot of other places, as such would probably still have a reasonable amount of passengers using the services.

If we assume that HS2 would reduce demand by 70% on XC services, then chances are on many services that the loading would fall to about 40% through the core (beyond that HS2 is unlikely to make much difference). However, that's likely to just mean that more people would be able to use those services, so the loading would be higher.

As how many on here say, I avoid XC because it's busy/expensive (due to it being busy)/the toilet smell (less of an issue if you know you'll get a seat because it's less busy). Anyway I think you get the idea, that more people would use XC if they weren't overcrowded.

After HS2 there probably be more demand from the Bournemouth line for a service to London Paddington via Reading and Old Oak Common than for the classic XC service. Electrify Reading West to Basingstoke and run a dual voltage emu. Terminate XC at Reading or extend it via Guildford to Gatwick or Ashford International.

 

[Richard Scott]

You make a good argument, but I don't quite buy it. XC serve a lot of cities that won't be served by HS2. People value direct links as well, it makes them feel safer that they won't be stranded somewhere. Plus connection times are a deal breaker when it comes to changing trains and the quickest routes...

Agree, look at many countries with high speed networks and you'll find long distance trains on classic routes to serve those places not within reach of the high speed line.

 

[The Ham]

After HS2 there probably be more demand from the Bournemouth line for a service to London Paddington via Reading and Old Oak Common than for the classic XC service. Electrify Reading West to Basingstoke and run a dual voltage emu. Terminate XC at Reading or extend it via Guildford to Gatwick or Ashford International.

To an extent I'd agree with you, however there's quite a flow between (say) Basingstoke and Oxford.

If you could get more services between Basingstoke and Reading then I would suggest that there could be a good case for doing so.

However the other thing to throw into the mix is the Southern Approach to Heathrow, in that if that gets the go ahead then that would provide you with a service between Basingstoke and Paddington via Old Oak Common. That could then provide that connectivity without needing to go via Reading, leaving the XC services as they are.

 

[SussexLad]

if we assume that HS2 would reduce demand by 70% on XC services, then chances are on many services that the loading would fall to about 40% through the core (beyond that HS2 is unlikely to make much difference). However, that's likely to just mean that more people would be able to use those services, so the loading would be higher.

As how many on here say, I avoid XC because it's busy/expensive (due to it being busy)/the toilet smell (less of an issue if you know you'll get a seat because it's less busy). Anyway I think you get the idea, that more people would use XC if they weren't overcrowded.

Even that assesment I still find too harsh. A fundamental part of XCs current strategy is to charge a really high price so they can actually fit everyone into a tiny and poorly designed train.

So drop the price back to a sensible level and change the trains, you'll still achieve pretty good passenger numbers. Key to this strategy is the HS2 operator charging a lot of money for the privilege of a faster trains. Which will probably happen.

 

[JonathanH]

Key to this strategy is the HS2 operator charging a lot of money for the privilege of a faster trains. Which will probably happen.

Why is this view still in place? It has been repeated time and time again that the HS2 operation will charge fares consistent with those currently charged? That is the whole point.

Even that assesment I still find too harsh. A fundamental part of XCs current strategy is to charge a really high price so they can actually fit everyone into a tiny and poorly designed train.

So drop the price back to a sensible level and change the trains, you'll still achieve pretty good passenger numbers

Maybe, but you do need to maintain the current yield from the additional passengers.

It could yet be cheaper to go via HS2 than the classic network for journeys such as Bournemouth to Manchester.

 

[JamesT]

From a personal, selfish POV if XC gained more Voyagers I'd like to see an increase in Oxford - Birmingham trains. Even with the speed increases HS2 from Old Oak Common brings, it feels wrong to head South in order to catch a train going North. More frequent calls at International than the current one per hour would make catching a train from Interchange more attractive. (Or whilst we wait for HS2, better connectivity with the airport or other long distance trains from New Street)

 

[SussexLad]

Why is this view still in place? It has been repeated time and time again that the HS2 operation will charge fares consistent with those currently charged? That is the whole point.


Maybe, but you do need to maintain the current yield from the additional passengers.

It could yet be cheaper to go via HS2 than the classic network for journeys such as Bournemouth to Manchester.

Because look at the fares currently charged compared to 20 years ago. Its going to happen.

An alternative interpretation would be, HS2 is going to change XCs extortionate fares and XC will lower their price to compensate.

Also with regards to yield, you gain advantages from economies of scale. So longer trains (one train, not two joined together as you'd need 2 train managers!) should reduce cost per passenger so maintain yields.

This approach requires the voyages to be stored or scraped, which brings about a cost saving opportunity because you can use modern bi modes with high density seating.

 

[The Ham]

Because look at the fares currently charged compared to 20 years ago. Its going to happen.

An alternative interpretation would be, HS2 is going to change XCs extortionate fares and XC will lower their price to compensate.

Also with regards to yield, you gain advantages from economies of scale. So longer trains (one train, not two joined together as you'd need 2 train managers!) should reduce cost per passenger so maintain yields.

This approach requires the voyages to be stored or scraped, which brings about a cost saving opportunity because you can use modern bi modes with high density seating.

Indeed, a train with capacity for 200 passengers or one with capacity for 400 still has broadly the same staff costs, marginal "other costs" and up to double lease costs, only costs 4/3 of the cost of the first train.

That means that if you can sell 350 tickets vs 220 tickets means that the ticket prices can be 17% lower and still make as much mark up per passenger as before.

If you're looking to make the same total profit then the discount could be higher.

If your lease costs don't double then the discount could be more.

By reducing the number of staff needed (by reducing pairs of units) then the discount could be more.

Obviously there's a limit to how much discount you can apply, and there's a limit to the numbers who will use rail. However given how busy XC was, reducing the non discounted tickets by 20% would probably attract a lot more passengers to use the services. Probably enough to justify the extra capacity.

Probably not something for this year, but probably something which would enable XC to justify competing with HS2. Even if it doesn't make much of a difference in the percentage fall as people switch, the fact that it starts at a higher base level would mean that XC had a better future.

 

[paul1609]

Indeed, a train with capacity for 200 passengers or one with capacity for 400 still has broadly the same staff costs, marginal "other costs" and up to double lease costs, only costs 4/3 of the cost of the first train.

That means that if you can sell 350 tickets vs 220 tickets means that the ticket prices can be 17% lower and still make as much mark up per passenger as before.

If you're looking to make the same total profit then the discount could be higher.

If your lease costs don't double then the discount could be more.

By reducing the number of staff needed (by reducing pairs of units) then the discount could be more.

Obviously there's a limit to how much discount you can apply, and there's a limit to the numbers who will use rail. However given how busy XC was, reducing the non discounted tickets by 20% would probably attract a lot more passengers to use the services. Probably enough to justify the extra capacity.

Probably not something for this year, but probably something which would enable XC to justify competing with HS2. Even if it doesn't make much of a difference in the percentage fall as people switch, the fact that it starts at a higher base level would mean that XC had a better future.

The track access charges for HS rail are exponentially higher than classic rail. In Kent the whole county paid a premium 5% plus inflation on tickets for several years to pay for HS1. As a consequence we have some of the highest rail fares in the country but still need a considerably increased subsidy, that's with HS1 trains full and standing in the Peak (PRE Covid).

 

[The Ham]

The track access charges for HS rail are exponentially higher than classic rail. In Kent the whole county paid a premium 5% plus inflation on tickets for several years to pay for HS1. As a consequence we have some of the highest rail fares in the country but still need a considerably increased subsidy, that's with HS1 trains full and standing in the Peak (PRE Covid).

Just for clarification I want talking about HS2, only XC.

The issue with HS1 services is that the Southeastern services are short trains. HS2 services would likely have higher track access charges, other charges would likely not increase.

For instance having 16 coach trains rather than 9 or 11 wouldn't make a big difference to the lease costs and (assuming that at some future date the trains would need to be all 11 if not 12 coaches long) may actually result in a reduced lease cost.

Right now there's probably some who are thinking that how can having 16 coach trains be cheaper than 11 coach trains, right?

Well let me explain, it comes down to the increased speeds.

Currently it's 5 hours from leaving Euston to run to Manchester, to do the return trip and be ready to leave again. Under HS2 that stops to 3 hours.

Therefore 9+9+11 coach services every hour for 5 hours (before the first is ready to rerun the route) requires 145 coaches.

Change this to 16+16+16 for 3 hours requires 144 coaches.

The problem is that if we increase that to 11+11+9 that increases the number of coaches to 155, an all 11 coach fleet would be 165 and make it an all 12 coach fleet (one of the alternatives to HS2) and that's 180 coaches.

Now the savings aren't as clear cut on shorter routes (such as London Birmingham) with the existing fleet, however again as you increase the length of the existing fleet the savings get more noticeable.

However given that the HS2 trains have 1,100 seats vs a total of 1,058 seats when you total up the seats in both an 11 and 9 coach 390 (589+469) there's plenty of scope for extra passengers to cover any extra track access charges.

Anyway that's off topic from XC, but does highlight that longer trains don't always have to cost more than keeping the existing fleet. Whilst XC doesn't have the benefit of faster journey times like HS2 it would have scope for lots of extra passengers, especially if there's scope to reduce ticket prices a bit (as highlighted in my previous post).

 

[Bald Rick]

The track access charges for HS rail are exponentially higher than classic rail.

No, the track access charges for HS1 are higher than ‘classic rail’.

It doesn’t follow that track access charges for HS2 will be higher. Indeed, it doesn’t follow that there will be track access charges at all.

The world of financing railways has moved a long way in 20 years.

 

[backontrack]

Tyne Valley/Cumbrian Coast, potentially?

Or what about the Glasgow South Western?

 

[SussexLad]

Tyne Valley/Cumbrian Coast, potentially?

Or what about the Glasgow South Western?

I cant tell if Cumbria is a joke or serious? Given that the voyagers can't do Dawlish, I'm not sure running them along a costal route which at points is very close to the sea is a good idea

 

[Clansman]

Tyne Valley/Cumbrian Coast, potentially?

Or what about the Glasgow South Western?

The GSWR isn't a bad shout to be fair.