Why are XC allowed to continue?

[JJmoogle]

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?

Having used a 221 and a 745 on the same day the difference is quite clear, you can see it.

The every toilet is an accessible toilet and the then standards of crumple zone design leading to massive vestibules on a voyager is part of it,

I assume there's some more space 'lost' by putting tilt mechanisms(or the space for them) underneath means more equipment is needed upstairs, along with the two to three decades more of experience in multiple unit design and technological advancements making components smaller.

 

[Meerkat]

Having used a 221 and a 745 on the same day the difference is quite clear, you can see it.

The every toilet is an accessible toilet and the then standards of crumple zone design leading to massive vestibules on a voyager is part of it,

I assume there's some more space 'lost' by putting tilt mechanisms(or the space for them) underneath means more equipment is needed upstairs, along with the two to three decades more of experience in multiple unit design and technological advancements making components smaller.

But a 745 would need power packs - are they really shorter than the difference in crumple zones (assuming the accessible toilets issue is fixable in refurb)?

 

[Energy]

assuming the accessible toilets issue is fixable in refurb

They can't be. They are structural to the train, if they could be easily removed they would have been years ago. That train section is luggage storage or the shop on Avanti in non toilet vehicles.

 

[JJmoogle]

But a 745 would need power packs - are they really shorter than the difference in crumple zones (assuming the accessible toilets issue is fixable in refurb)?

The powerpack vehicles are really rather short so I'm going to say yes.

 

[Richard Scott]

The powerpack vehicles are really rather short so I'm going to say yes.

To be honest, the powerpack is irrelevant, it's part of the train and just makes the train longer (it's more like a loco but shorter and also has advantage of removing underfloor engine noise); it doesn't use up passenger space like a cab, which is part of the structure. Considering years ago cross country trains were often load 13 plus a loco, train length is irrelevant, it's how it's used that's important and 2 Voyagers together waste an awful lot of passenger space. If you look at capacity of 2x5 car 800s compared to a 9 car, the 9 car wins by quite a margin, I believe.

 

[Krokodil]

But a 745 would need power packs - are they really shorter than the difference in crumple zones

If we assume that two powerpacks are required, then the space they occupy is not much more than the dead area between two Voyagers.

How else do FLIRTs save space?

- One vestibule per 15m vehicle instead of two per 23m vehicle
- articulated bogies so the vehicles are closer coupled, though the flip side is that the vehicles are shorter so there are more joints than with long vehicles.
- fewer UATs and fewer toilets in general. Probably not enough for a longer distance operation, but you don't need the ratios that the Voyagers are equipped with.

As they have fewer bogies and would reduce diesel engine hours by a decent margin, they'd be cheaper to operate.

 

[Meerkat]

If we assume that two powerpacks are required, then the space they occupy is not much more than the dead area between two Voyagers.

How else do FLIRTs save space?

- One vestibule per 15m vehicle instead of two per 23m vehicle
- articulated bogies so the vehicles are closer coupled, though the flip side is that the vehicles are shorter so there are more joints than with long vehicles.
- fewer UATs and fewer toilets in general. Probably not enough for a longer distance operation, but you don't need the ratios that the Voyagers are equipped with.

As they have fewer bogies and would reduce diesel engine hours by a decent margin, they'd be cheaper to operate.

So the main advantage to your plan is changing to long units, which is expensive and unlikely IMO, rather than Flirts themselves.
Never been on one so a couple of questions re suitability for XC…
How quiet are the connections over the bogies - AIUI they are effectively in the middle of the saloon between vestibules in the middle of the adjoining vehicles?
I assume a trolley can get through the power unit if a person can, despite them being narrow?

 

[Trainbike46]

I'll answer your questions from my personal experience, others may see things differently

So the main advantage to your plan is changing to long units, which is expensive and unlikely IMO, rather than Flirts themselves.

The advantages of the FLIRT are in the level boarding (which, in my view, should be a requirement for all new rolling stock orders), the fact that they are relatively easily changed to other power modes, and

From a seats perspective, the voyagers are bad in a way that cannot be changed (look at comparing the seating density of a 5-car voyager with a 5-car 80x!) - so the advantages wouldn't solely be in it being a longer unit, but also in it being a better unit. This wouldn't only be possible with a FLIRT, but apparently Hitachi has massively increased charges for new 80x units, making that option less likely

Never been on one so a couple of questions re suitability for XC…

You should try them sometime! they are very good units.

How quiet are the connections over the bogies - AIUI they are effectively in the middle of the saloon between vestibules in the middle of the adjoining vehicles?

FLIRTS are much quieter than most other diesel trains I have been on, and also quieter than many EMUs, despite the connections between cars being effectively in the saloon yes

I assume a trolley can get through the power unit if a person can, despite them being narrow?

I think they can get through, yes

 

[dk1]

I can assure you all that the catering trolley can easily pass through the power-packs on class 755 units and happens several times a day on the triple traction diagrams between Norwich & Liverpool St. Vestibule areas are quiet as quiet can be.

 

[jammmmmsssssss]

I can assure you all that the catering trolley can easily pass through the power-packs on class 755 units and happens several times a day on the triple traction diagrams between Norwich & Liverpool St. Vestibule areas are quiet as quiet can be.

The only times when I thought a 755 was loud was when the doors to the power pack were stuck open and I was sitting right by it (happened a few times)

 

[dk1]

The only times when I thought a 755 was loud was when the doors to the power pack were stuck open and I was sitting right by it (happened a few times)

Some software updates caused that to be the default setting and can be very easily overridden by the driver.

 

[sleepy_hollow]

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.

In essence XC is currently operated by fast, reliable diesel trains and more of the type are probably becoming available, for all their wasted space. The railway will remain diesel operated for the foreseeable future so the real medium term questions seem to be:

1. How soon can more Voyagers transferred to XC?
2. How much of the line can be raised to 125 mph, and how much will be worth it? For example the speed limit past Charfield Meadow appears to be 100 mph. Is raising the limit from Bristol Parkway/Yate to Cheltenham/Gloucester and thence to Bromsgrove/Birmingham to 125 mph possible, and is it worth it?

 

[Senex]

In essence XC is currently operated by fast, reliable diesel trains and more of the type are probably becoming available, for all there wasted space. The railway will remain diesel operated for the foreseeable future so the real medium term questions seem to be:

1. How soon can more Voyagers transferred to XC?
2. How much of the line can be raised to 125 mph, and how much will be worth it? For example the speed limit past Charfield Meadow appears to be 100 mph. Is raising the limit from Bristol Parkway/Yate to Cheltenham/Gloucester and thence to Bromsgrove/Birmingham to 125 mph possible, and is it worth it?

Wasn't 125 where possible between Birmingham and Taunton part of the originally-conceived Operation Princess infrastructure package? (But unlike Birmingham–Sheffield, Wolverhampton–Stafford, Oxford–Banbury (for tilt), tht bit and several other never got started—and then came the Railtrack collapse.)

 

[virgintrain1]

Wasn't 125 where possible between Birmingham and Taunton part of the originally-conceived Operation Princess infrastructure package? (But unlike Birmingham–Sheffield, Wolverhampton–Stafford, Oxford–Banbury (for tilt), tht bit and several other never got started—and then came the Railtrack collapse.)

It was!

 

[The Planner]

Wasn't 125 where possible between Birmingham and Taunton part of the originally-conceived Operation Princess infrastructure package? (But unlike Birmingham–Sheffield, Wolverhampton–Stafford, Oxford–Banbury (for tilt), tht bit and several other never got started—and then came the Railtrack collapse.)

Struggled enough to get Bromsgrove Westerleigh to what it is now. Level crossings still causing the problems.

 

[TheGuy77]

CrossCountry - they save money so you don't have to!

 

[Mamorin]

I do hope this happens, as I feel Congleton would be better served by a regional operator. Only issue for locals would be the possible loss of a service to Kidsgrove.

Pre-pandemic a 2nd hourly service at Congleton post HS2 would have been an idea worth looking at imo, but now 1 service per hour will do.