Great Western Coffee Shop

All across the Great Western territory => Across the West => Topic started by: Bmblbzzz on February 03, 2017, 12:21:21



Title: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Bmblbzzz on February 03, 2017, 12:21:21
Prompted by some comments on another thread saying that Voyagers make worse use of their space than any other train type. Rather than clutter that thread up, I thought it deserved a thread of its own. I think my main experience of Voyagers is XC services between Bristol and the Midlands, often on a Sunday evening, and yes, they're almost always crowded; often several people standing in the vestibules (or sitting on the vestibule floor). I've always put this down to timing – somehow it always seems to be the start or end of a university term or there's a big sports event on – without paying particular attention to the internal layout. So, explanations, comments, views, facts and figures?


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: broadgage on February 03, 2017, 13:05:55
To many disabled toilets that each take up a lot of space.
A lot of space wasted at the ends of the train for collision safety reasons, shows IMHO the unsuitability of DMUs for fast or long distance services.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Noggin on February 03, 2017, 13:31:56
Also bodyshell profile narrower than normal so that it can tilt.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: mjones on February 03, 2017, 13:46:50
Overhead luggage racks that you can't fit much into. Give the leisure travel market that XC serves, and Virgin's marketing at the time they were introduced shows they were targeting this, a lack of luggage space was a fundamental problem.

The over-provision of large toilets has already been mentioned, but the now-removed 'shop'also  took up a lot of space. Because windows could't be retrofitted this area couldn't be re-allocated to seating, so is an under-used luggage space instead. It is clear that the design of its basic structure was inflexible, not allowing future changes of internal layout, even though  it isn't uncommon for rolling stock to be significantly reconfigured during its working lifetime.

The electronic reservation system means that people can't spot unreserved seats easily, leading to bunching when boarding, which must affect dwell times.

Having a mix of 4 and 5 car units leads to inconsistent train lengths. Running two in multiple is clearly inefficient, I do wonder whether it would have been better to have build fewer trains but made them all 5 car.

I remember that when they were first introduced there was a lot of concern that they would be too small for many flows, and horrendous overcrowding occurred straight away, so this can't be blamed on unforseen growth in subsequent years.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Richard Fairhurst on February 03, 2017, 14:02:43
To many disabled toilets that each take up a lot of space.
The story I heard is that Virgin/Bombardier misread the regulations and thought that one disabled toilet had to be provided per class of travel. At the time, Virgin were planning a three-class product: first class, business class and standard class. When Chris Green was parachuted in to rescue Virgin he very sensibly nixed that idea, but it was too late to economically cancel the extra toilets.

But that may be complete apocryphal nonsense.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: didcotdean on February 03, 2017, 15:53:04
I remember that when they were first introduced there was a lot of concern that they would be too small for many flows, and horrendous overcrowding occurred straight away, so this can't be blamed on unforseen growth in subsequent years.
This (!)

The concept of doubling frequency but halving the size (roughly) of accommodation was always flawed, without consideration of the specific design drawbacks of the Voyager itself. At peak time the fact that there is another train in half an hour is of little benefit as it could be equally full. Also there are a number of key parts of routes where the frequency could not be doubled; take for example Leamington Spa to Birmingham NS via Coventry & Birmingham International. Plus of course the stations that ended up being dropped as the timetable couldn't work ...  ;D


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: mjones on February 03, 2017, 15:56:54
.... Plus of course the stations that ended up being dropped as the timetable couldn't work ...  ;D
Quite!

I look back fondly on the days when there were early morning trains from Didcot to Manchester, really useful. You could make an early start and get to all sorts of places north of Birmingham for a mid morning meeting, and then directly back again in the evening.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Bmblbzzz on February 03, 2017, 16:25:25
Interesting points.

I certainly recognise the lack of appropriate luggage space. The point about disabled loos and three classes is curious. I hadn't heard the three class idea – it does sound a bit Branson! – and I think I'd kind of assumed all the loos were disabled-usable now, or thereabouts. That the trains are too short, even if frequency has increased, seems a problem common to many train types and operators.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on February 03, 2017, 17:34:19
The Cross-Country franchise required a large subsidy at the time - in fact it is still in receipt of a subsidy, receiving some £20 million per year on operating expenses.

Until it covers all it operating expenses it won't be able to afford any more trains.

Which doesn't mean to say that the current trains don't use their internal space as efficiently as they could - it's all to do with revenue per square metre of floor space! In the current edition of Modern Railways Ian Walmsley suggests that the bi-mode idea should be taken up again - adding a new-build extra coach carrying a transformer and pantograph to both lengthen the trains and allow them to take power from the overhead wires where they are present.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Tim on February 03, 2017, 17:37:37
They are inefficient because they are too short.  The usable space per coach is too short and the number of coaches too low.

The former caused by huge toilets, the former shop area and the crumple zone of the end vehicles.
The latter caused by the flawed "operation princess" concept of having very frequent trains.

I'd be interested in the stats, but I suspect that voyagers come out very poorly in terms of:

number of seats per bogie (with all the attendant cost of bogie maintenance and weight)
number of seats per driver (with the cost of paying for a driver)
number of seats per path used
number of seats per guard
number of seats per litre of fuel burnt per minute
number of seats per trolley person, and
number of seats per first class host

It is the (occupied) seats that pay for bogies, the driver, the paths, the guards, the fuel and the other staff so the ratio needs to be better.  Either shorter, cheaper trains (the Class 158/159 interregional option) or proper intercity high speed trains but carrying more passengers.  

A 4-car voyager only has 174 standard class seats.  A three coach class 159 has more than that.  

BTW, I recall the Virgin 3-class idea.  Virgin has toyed over the years with something other than first and Standard.  I'm I correct in thinking that when the Voyagers were launched they rather confusingly called their first class "club class".  I had never heard class confusion as a reason for the huge toilets though.  


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Tim on February 03, 2017, 17:43:25

Until it covers all it operating expenses it won't be able to afford any more trains.


Isn't the problem more along the lines of until they have more efficient trains (ie longer and a bit less frequent) they won't be able to cover all their operating expenses?

Adding a new build coach is an interesting idea.  The problem I can see is that the current coaches are half way though their economic life and by the time they come to be scrapped the new-built coaches will still have plenty of economic life in them if the new built coaches were simple trailers you might make the sums work, but with all the electrical equipment in them they will not come cheap and will need a long productive life ahead of them to make them pay.

Some kind of reforming the existing stock into longer sets with a smaller number of additional trains (either new built or refurbed HSTs) would perhaps square the circle leaving the bimode option until the voyagers need scrapping. 


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: ellendune on February 03, 2017, 18:22:10
Lengthening the trains will lead to some platform issues I suspect - at least at Reading. 


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: IndustryInsider on February 03, 2017, 20:41:22
Wasn't lengthening them ruled out on technical/cost grounds fairly recently?


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: John R on February 03, 2017, 21:28:55
Ian Walmsley in Modern Railways suggests that at the time it was considered Bombardier thought they had DfT over a barrel, so the price was not competitive. A few years on the landscape for new rolling stock has changed somewhat, so he speculated they might give a different response now.  Although Tim's point regarding the economic life of the stock is very relevant, and I suspect may make it unlikely.

What hasn't been mentioned is that when the franchise was awarded to Virgin it was on the basis of brand new loco-hauled stock. How that morphed to multiple units isn't clear to me, (and wasn't at the time), but it seemed to be a big faux-pas by the DfT in allowing such a change, and with the benefit of hindsight, even more so. 


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: stuving on February 03, 2017, 22:22:11
There are several meanings of "efficiency" being applied in this thread, and in some cases more than one in a single post. But then a type of train doesn't have an "input" and "output" measured in the same units so you can give a percentage.

So to be clear you need to talk about making efficient use of something - such as all resources (expressed as a total operating cost), maximum length, or per path. And they won't all point in the same direction of course.

Here is a report (from The Locomotive & Carriage Institution) of Dennis Lovett (http://www.lococarriage.org.uk/vermin_trains.html) (Acting Director of Corporate Affairs, Virgin Trains) giving a talk about the VXC franchise and Operation Princess. As a listener's report it is not that reliable, and the date of the talk is given as November 2002 and 2003, but it's worth a look. To quote very briefly, he starts with:

Quote
A fifteen-year CrossCounty franchise was awarded to Virgin Trains on 15th January 1997 following their successful bid based on 6 delivery points:

    A "world class" travel experience;
    Brand new trains for the entire fleet;
    A new clock face timetable across the UK;
    A national rail network linking the regional centres;
    Journey time accelerations of 20% or better;
    A doubling of the number of passengers carried from the level seen at the commencement of the franchise.

and, later:

Quote
Dennis conceded that, such was the success of VXC in increasing passenger numbers by 40% since the launch of Operation Princess, overcrowding has become a serious problem on many services and in the long-term it would be necessary to lengthen Class 220 train formations from 4 to 5 cars. He also noted that the first issue to resolve here was a decision as to who will pay for this!

I can't fathom what time period that 40% is meant to cover - is it from the procurement as launch (December 1998)? Or is it just from the new timetable (September 2002)? Either way, I can't see how it exceeds the doubling they had planned for from 1997. Surely that means that the fleet wasn't big enough, so adding to it (with more trains as well as extra vehicles) was a franchise commitment - and not a long-term one, either.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Bmblbzzz on February 03, 2017, 22:29:19
I had never heard class confusion as a reason for the huge toilets though.  
We're British, class confusion is a reason for all sorts of things!  ;)


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: ellendune on February 03, 2017, 22:59:21
What hasn't been mentioned is that when the franchise was awarded to Virgin it was on the basis of brand new loco-hauled stock. How that morphed to multiple units isn't clear to me, (and wasn't at the time), but it seemed to be a big faux-pas by the DfT in allowing such a change, and with the benefit of hindsight, even more so. 

I would have thought that the change would quite easily be justified by the increased flexibility it gave in operation, particularly at Birmingham New Street - where some trains reverse and at Reading where all XC trains reverse. Reversing loco hauled stock in either location would have been a major constraint on capacity. At Reading it would essentially have ruled out the use of the west facing bay platforms.  Yes, I know you could have used DVT's but, HST were acceptable DMUs so why not these new DMUs.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: onthecushions on February 03, 2017, 23:09:46
Before XC got its voyagers, it used rakes of 7 loco hauled coaches, latterly Mk2. Allowing for 6 full 2nd's they could seat c384 ordinary mortals. They were hourly not at 30 minute intervals but traffic was lighter then, although they could still be full and standing. The voyagers' faults (like turbos) are probably those of success - they're much quicker than a 47+7 (or even a 45/1 + 9... aah memories) and so lots of us want to use them.

Bring back the Peaks,

OTC


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: stuving on February 04, 2017, 01:10:50
There was a lot going on in 2002, what with Princess, the WCML upgrade being replanned, Railtracks demise, etc. This is what the House of Commons   Select Committee on Transport made of Operation Princess, from their 2002/3 Fourth Report "Railways in the North of England" (https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmtran/782/78202.htm), 19 June 2003,    Report HC 782-I.

Quote
Operation Princess

69. In September 2002 Virgin Cross Country launched a new timetable in "Operation Princess". Although it extended beyond the North, Virgin told the Sub-committee:

"The entire CrossCountry timetable is to be re-written on 30 September to create the new regional network in which train services frequencies will almost double overnight and many journeys accelerated. The new CrossCountry timetable is code-named Operation Princess and represents one of the biggest national timetable changes in the last 30 years. The North East will be one of the main beneficiaries of the upgrading with a doubling of train frequencies throughout the region as follows:
CrossCountry trains: daily to/from     Now    30 September 2002
Berwick                                           6     32
Newcastle/Durham/Darlington            27    64
York                                              28     64
Leeds                                            21     33
Doncaster                                      11     30
Sheffield                                        32     65

The new service will give the North East two core CrossCountry links across the UK: a) an hourly Edinburgh-York-Leeds-Birmingham-South West service; and b) an hourly Newcastle-York-Doncaster-Birmingham-South Coast service. Trains will be routed alternatively via Leeds and Doncaster to provide each with an hourly CrossCountry service and more connections into local train service networks (40% of CrossCountry passengers use another train company). The new services also create a new two-hourly direct service link between the North East and South Wales."[78]

70. Services would also be improved in the Northwest:

"A rather ragged CrossCountry service pattern will be replaced with a new hourly service to Carlisle/Scotland and Birmingham/Reading. There will also be new two-hourly service from Manchester to Scotland, from Blackpool to Birmingham and from Liverpool to Birmingham. Operation Princess will renew the entire CrossCountry train fleet with Voyagers/Super Voyagers from 30 September 2002 in the North West, and will bring major timetable benefits in both service frequency and journey times:
CrossCountry trains: daily to/from     Now    30 September 2002
Manchester-Birmingham                     38     50
Warrington-Birmingham-South             15    32
Liverpool-Birmingham-South                10    18
Blackpool-Birmingham-South                 3    14
Preston-Birmingham-South West          22    48
Birmingham-Scotland                         29     55

71. Operation Princess has not gone as smoothly as planned. In the first place, there has not been the capacity on the Network to accommodate all these service increases. By February 2003 the SRA was announcing thinning some services to increase network reliability.

72. Secondly, Virgin replaced old trains with new Voyager trains which, Virgin told us:

"...offer a vastly improved travel experience with an on-board shop, and club class area with an at-seat service, electronic information systems and audio entertainment at every seat. The Voyager/Super Voyager fleets are amongst the first in the UK to fully comply with the European legislation for disabled access".[79]

73. The new trains, although more frequent than those they replaced, were smaller. It was not long before there were widespread complaints about their overcrowding. When he appeared before us in another inquiry, Mr Green explained:

"The underlying cause of the overcrowding was a massive growth in short term travel on the route which we designed as a long-distance route.... We have learnt some tough lessons on overcrowding, particularly overcrowding on a congested railway. I think we have also demonstrated that introducing a fast, frequent service of new trains does attract a lot of new passengers, so the challenge is how to maintain this upward trend at a slower growth rate so we have time to match demand with capacity".[80]

74. There are several lessons to be drawn from this episode:

a)  the SRA needs to take a much clearer view of the network capacity before approving timetable changes.

b)  when high quality, frequent, trains are provided overall passenger use grows. This suggests that there may be ways to cut subsidies while improving the service.

c)  the increased demand is for regular short to medium journeys, rather than long distance ones. The Government's target for increasing passenger kilometerage must not be an excuse to provide a service which does not meet customer needs.

Now MPs don't always get things right - often locating ends on their sticks you'd never thought were there. But that does seem to explain the contradictory evidence from other sources.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: ChrisB on February 04, 2017, 04:41:41
Fyi above reference to XC & Reading, the vast majority reversing use platform 7 currently, not west-facing bays


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Bmblbzzz on February 04, 2017, 09:53:55
Regarding measures of inefficiency, I was thinking in terms of use of floor space, but whether that was the sense in the original use, I don't know.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: ellendune on February 04, 2017, 10:07:10
Fyi above reference to XC & Reading, the vast majority reversing use platform 7 currently, not west-facing bays

It would have been much more of an issue in the old station. 


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: didcotdean on February 04, 2017, 10:28:21
If it became accepted back 14 years ago that XC is more of a short to medium connecting railway rather than an long end-to-end one, it makes me wonder (bringing it full circle) why there was emphasis on the pricing of tickets between Wick and Par, of which there are probably next to none sold from one end of the year to the next.

The logical solution is for sufficient better layout of seating to be available primarily for the long distance customers at say a 50% premium and commuter seating for the shorter journeys. Maybe this could be called first and standard class  ;D


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: grahame on February 04, 2017, 11:17:33
Travelling on Cross Country (and not  scientific survey) I see a massive number of short and medium distance journeys.  Taking a long distance journey last month, though, every other passenger changed over on the way. And, yes, it might have been quicker and cheaper for me to have flown too.  But there's no single obvious place where the entire train empties and refills.

Because you have high speed trains with crumple zones, bullet noses and no through corridors you have an inefficiency of space.  And of staffing too if you couple multiples of the things together.   By having 4 and 5 car units, you're somewhat saving on the percentage of the trains that's crumple zone, but reducing the chances and benefit of adding and subtracting sections.   I don't envy Cross Country their task of trying to meet all the various requirements, even though I've been a bit critical here in the past on how they present information at forums and meetings, and to their more questioning customers.

Chance would be a fine thing. Hypothetically, I look at class 387 and I see multiple units that have corridor connections, no crumple zone, and a top speed of 110 m.p.h.  (Yes, I know they are electric!).  And I wonder if the operation and efficiency (and customer satisfaction) on Cross Country would improve if they had corridor connecting trains, 2 or 3 cars long, fully utilised length, but with a top speed of "only" 110 m.p.h.      Making good use of people's train time, reliable WiFi included in the price of the ticket, a little extra seat space and good acceleration and perhaps you could even drop a few more m.p.h.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: ellendune on February 04, 2017, 14:08:51
Travelling on Cross Country (and not  scientific survey) I see a massive number of short and medium distance journeys. 

Yes its the same problem as GWR have between Paddington and Reading, but several times over!

A couple of weeks ago I went to Leeds. Since I had to go via London I did not use XC and since I was leaving Leeds just before 5 I chose to return the same way!  A colleague travelled on XC and left at the same time (an unusually good connection at Cheltenham Spa). We both reached ur destination at around the same time also.  However my colleague had to stand all the way from Leeds to Sheffield whereas I had a table seat to myself most of the way!


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: simonw on February 05, 2017, 14:59:53
Answering the original question, I'd guess the trains are too short and luggage space inadequate, it was designed for older luggage items which tend to be small than current luggage. Consequentially, corridors and aisles are cluttered, and seats are occasionally used for luggage.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I'd guess that Project Princess was designed to address CrossCountry issues from 15 years ago. The failure of many other rail networks, like GWR, to provide enough local and regional infrastructure means that CrossCountry has taken up the slack, compounded with possibly the highest rail growth in the country, leading to incredibly high demand in some local areas.

Regularly I travel to the West Midlands from Bristol. In the the morning it is ok, but in the evening I frequently have to stand all the way.

The best solution would be to get GWR, and others to provide intercity services within their regions, and not just to London, and slowly allow Cross Country to focus on its inter region franchise.   


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: ChrisB on February 05, 2017, 15:46:33
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I'd guess that Project Princess was designed to address CrossCountry issues from 15 years ago.

Errrr.....Project Princess *was* 15 years ago, wasn't it? (2002?)

Quote
The best solution would be to get GWR, and others to provide intercity services within their regions, and not just to London, and slowly allow Cross Country to focus on its inter region franchise.

They do?.....Cornwall to Reading? SW - Bristol? What's needed is *across-region*, ie GWR as far as Birmingham, similar to ATW Manchester-Cardiff.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Bmblbzzz on February 05, 2017, 17:48:16
Well, if you want to go to Cheltenham from Bristol (as an example of a short journey), you have a choice of XC heading off to Brum, Glasgow or wherever in 40 mins or GWR train heading to Malvern taking just over an hour, for virtually the same price. Often I'll choose the GWR because I'm not in a hurry and have bulky luggage, but for most people the XC is a no-brainer. And from Birmingham, as simonw says, there is no choice. Well, you could go via Worcester and change I suppose but you'd have to look up connections and maybe (I don't know, never done it) get a specific route ticket.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: LiskeardRich on February 05, 2017, 18:31:48


Chance would be a fine thing. Hypothetically, I look at class 387 and I see multiple units that have corridor connections, no crumple zone, and a top speed of 110 m.p.h.  (Yes, I know they are electric!).  And I wonder if the operation and efficiency (and customer satisfaction) on Cross Country would improve if they had corridor connecting trains, 2 or 3 cars long, fully utilised length, but with a top speed of "only" 110 m.p.h. 

Like a class 170 but with corridor connections maybe....

Whilst north to south cross country gets voyagers, east to west services get turbostars


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: PhilWakely on February 05, 2017, 19:03:20
I felt for an 'older couple' the other morning. Travelling from Newton Abbot all of the way to Edinburgh and not wishing to change trains. On that day, this particular service strengthened at Birmingham with another Voyager unit added to the front, but this unit was only going as far as Newcastle where the rear unit was detatched. Hence this couple would have needed to have up sticks at either Birmingham or Newcastle and transfer to the other set. Not good!


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: 1st fan on February 05, 2017, 22:16:59
Travelled a fair few times firstly to Sheffield and then a few years later up to Coventry almost every fortnight from Kensington Olympia on Cross Country. I saw the train being used by a few OAP passengers who could get to Gatwick from Manchester without needing to change trains. There was one Ex BR man in the ticket office who knew how to sell tickets that didn't need to go via London. One day he wasn't there and a new young lady tried to tell me I couldn't get from there to Coventry without going via Watford or Euston. She initially told me that the station wasn't served by Cross Country and was very surprised when I proved that there were two trains a day. Then she couldn't sell me a ticket for the next train going Cross Country because she didn't know how and the Gold Card upgrade flummoxed her completely.

Fortunately Mr Ex BR came off his break and he filled her in. I had by this point then missed the 10:30 so as a result he endorsed the ticket for use via Paddington at no extra charge. He was excellent and I was very disappointed when he retired. He taught me how to do the correct sequence on the ticket machine for the tickets I used just in case.

I missed the HST when it went on that route and was replaced by the Voyager. I loved it when the route was blocked on a weekend and the service ran fast to Birmingham International up the WCML where I'd change for Coventry. Was quicker door to door that way than going to Euston and up up the WCML direct to Coventry. I missed the route when that went entirely and had to go via Paddington instead.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Rhydgaled on February 07, 2017, 12:00:24
Chance would be a fine thing. Hypothetically, I look at class 387 and I see multiple units that have corridor connections, no crumple zone, and a top speed of 110 m.p.h.  (Yes, I know they are electric!).  And I wonder if the operation and efficiency (and customer satisfaction) on Cross Country would improve if they had corridor connecting trains, 2 or 3 cars long, fully utilised length, but with a top speed of "only" 110 m.p.h.
I do think that it is rather wasteful to run units with a top-speed in excess of 110mph (thus requiring crumple zones) in multiple. With a pair of Voyagers, you have four crumple zones as opposed to just two with a 9-car Pendolino (although the latter train is terrible for its own reasons, not least the windows are too small). Maintaining infrustructure for higher speeds is only worthwhile if you have a large volume of passengers anyway, so why not have a policy of only building high-speed trains 7+ carriages long?

Like a class 170 but with corridor connections maybe....

Whilst north to south cross country gets voyagers, east to west services get turbostars
Not 170s please, 'like a 158, but with a 110mph top speed' or 'like a 110mph diesel 442' would have been a better reply in my opinion (although 170s are only rated for 100mph). There are several problems with XC's 170s; the legroom is attrocious (perhaps, at least in part, due to the second problem), the doors are in the wrong place and they don't have UEGs. The primary fast service between two points, as the Cardiff-Nottingham service is, is going to be carrying at least some long-distance passengers and thus the standard of accomadation needs to support that. The outer-suburban door layout and inner-suburban legroom of XC's 170 fleet is not fit for purpose. Increase the legroom and shift them onto things like the Cardiff-Cheltenham stopping service, and get some sort of diesel version of class 442 (in formations between 2 and 4 coaches) for the likes of Cardiff-Nottingham.

UEG = Unit End Gangway


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: JayMac on February 07, 2017, 13:14:42
a 9-car Pendolino (although the latter train is terrible for its own reasons, not least the windows are too small).

Tell that to to the survivors of the Grayrigg derailment. None of whom were ejected from carriages thanks in no small part to the smaller toughened windows.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: mjones on February 07, 2017, 17:39:34
I did some digging on Wikipedia to compare the number of seats on a Voyager with Adelantes and Meridians. I realise this source isn't always accurate, so if someone spots an error then corrections welcome:

Voyager 220 4 coach 200 seats, of which 26 First Class
Voyager 221 4 coach 188 seats, of which 26 FC
Voyager 221 5 coach 250 seats, of which 26 FC

Adelante 180 5 coach 287 seats, of which FC?

Meridian 222 4 coach 165 seats of which 33 FC
Meridian 222, 5 coach 242 of which 50 FC

Meridian 222 7 coach 342 of which 106 FC

Just comparing the 5 coach trains, the Adelante comes out on top in total seats, although I'm not sure how many of those seats are FC.  But they feel more spacious even when full. It is interesting that the Meridians have even fewer seats than the Voyager, but then presumably they serve a simpler, more predictable network and EMT can run 7 coach trains on the busier services.

In the longer term, one day the Midland Mainline will be electrified, so presumably Meridians could eventually supplement Voyagers on XC? Does anyone know how fundamentally different the wiring is, and whether they could be made compatible so that Meridian coaches could be used to lengthen Voyagers and provide a more uniformly longer fleet?



Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Richard Fairhurst on February 08, 2017, 08:17:24
And as a point of comparison, Chiltern's 168s are 272 seats per four-car set. Whether a Clubman is more comfortable than a Voyager I leave as an exercise for the reader!


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: ChrisB on February 08, 2017, 09:09:28
too right they are!


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Tim on February 08, 2017, 09:22:43
Does anyone know how fundamentally different the wiring is, and whether they could be made compatible so that Meridian coaches could be used to lengthen Voyagers and provide a more uniformly longer fleet?


My understanding is that it is only the electrical connectors in the couplers that are different.  So presumably they could operate together (ie a 222 4-car set coupled to a 220 4-car set) if new connectors were fitted.   Whether or not the vehicles are similar enough to be swapped into and out of sets (ie a set made up of some ex-222 vehicles and some ex-220 vehicles) is a different matter.  As I understand it quite a lot of the internal equipment is different. 


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: simonw on February 08, 2017, 09:48:51
There was an article 5+ years ago about extending Voyager trains with extra electric power carriages to increase size of the trains and to allow them to run under electric power where available.

This would have been a good idea!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/sep/11/bombardier-120m-crosscountry-trains-deal (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/sep/11/bombardier-120m-crosscountry-trains-deal)


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: ChrisB on February 08, 2017, 10:01:38
Could still happen, but more unlikely as the stock gets older.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Tim on February 08, 2017, 11:49:30
Could still happen, but more unlikely as the stock gets older.

exactly.  It was a good idea 5 years ago.  If it was done now, the original voyager units would be due scrapping (or a massively expensive overhaul) just as the new coaches were reaching middle age had plenty of life still in them and had not yet fully earned their keep.

I am optimistic that the IEPs will be a massive success and that that (and a desire to keep the Newton Aycliffe production lines operating) will be enough for the next XC franchise to replace the Voyagers with IEP bimodes.  The Voyagers can then be used elsewhere or perhaps be cascaded to the XC Turbostar routes allowing other ToCs to get their hands on the Turbostars.

In the meantime, doubling up Voyagers on a few journeys and adding a few HSTs will be the best we can probably hope for. 
 


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Chris from Nailsea on February 15, 2017, 17:21:47
UEG = Unit End Gangway

With thanks for that latest abbreviation, Rhydgaled, I've now added it to our Coffee Shop forum list, at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/acronyms.html  :)


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Rhydgaled on February 16, 2017, 20:53:26
UEG = Unit End Gangway

With thanks for that latest abbreviation, Rhydgaled, I've now added it to our Coffee Shop forum list, at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/acronyms.html  :)
Not sure how 'official' that is, it's just something I saw on a forum once and added to my 'written vocabulary'.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Charles T on February 20, 2017, 21:28:21
Just to make it worse...


A franchise extension.

I love the 170s, travel on them GCR - CDF alot. I always avoid the Arriva services: 1. Stops and is cold. 2. No food. 3. It is more of a shed environment.

XC's HSTs are amazing; I always ensure I get one when traveling from Bristol.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: JayMac on February 21, 2017, 01:40:12

I love the 170s, travel on them GCR - CDF alot. I always avoid the Arriva services.

If you're taking 170s between Gloucester and Cardiff, you are travelling on Arriva services.

Arriva CrossCountry. ;)


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on February 21, 2017, 14:30:25
Chance would be a fine thing. Hypothetically, I look at class 387 and I see multiple units that have corridor connections, no crumple zone, and a top speed of 110 m.p.h.  (Yes, I know they are electric!).  And I wonder if the operation and efficiency (and customer satisfaction) on Cross Country would improve if they had corridor connecting trains, 2 or 3 cars long, fully utilised length, but with a top speed of "only" 110 m.p.h.
I do think that it is rather wasteful to run units with a top-speed in excess of 110mph (thus requiring crumple zones) in multiple. With a pair of Voyagers, you have four crumple zones as opposed to just two with a 9-car Pendolino (although the latter train is terrible for its own reasons, not least the windows are too small). Maintaining infrustructure for higher speeds is only worthwhile if you have a large volume of passengers anyway, so why not have a policy of only building high-speed trains 7+ carriages long?


Since the Voyagers and Pendolinos were designed and built the 'construction and use' regulations have changed. The driver must now be placed behind the crumple zone regardless of the design speed of the train. This explains why 90mph trains such as the new Bombardier trains for Crossrail have sloped noses as do the 100mph Siemens' trains for Thameslink and the 100mph Hitachi electrics for Scotrail. There might be some difference in degree in the length of the nose depending on the energy which needs to be dissipated, but new build flat-fronted trains are a thing of the past.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: grahame on February 21, 2017, 18:34:47
Since the Voyagers and Pendolinos were designed and built the 'construction and use' regulations have changed. The driver must now be placed behind the crumple zone regardless of the design speed of the train.

How about putting the driver in a vehicle of his own - without passengers - and putting all the power stuff and systems and crumple zone in there, and also allowing space for bicycles and passenger's luggage for longer journeys.   Vehicles like this on either end of a train with 4, 5, 7, 8 or even 9 intermediate unpowered carriages which could be swapped between day and night (sleeper) carriages, and perhaps have a mixture of higher density and lower density carriages depending on the diagram.  Commonality of power vehicle, power vehicles detachable for different servicing cycles.   Or is this just too radical?



Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Western Pathfinder on February 21, 2017, 18:47:58
Since the Voyagers and Pendolinos were designed and built the 'construction and use' regulations have changed. The driver must now be placed behind the crumple zone regardless of the design speed of the train.

How about putting the driver in a vehicle of his own - without passengers - and putting all the power stuff and systems and crumple zone in there, and also allowing space for bicycles and passenger's luggage for longer journeys.   Vehicles like this on either end of a train with 4, 5, 7, 8 or even 9 intermediate unpowered carriages which could be swapped between day and night (sleeper) carriages, and perhaps have a mixture of higher density and lower density carriages depending on the diagram.  Commonality of power vehicle, power vehicles detachable for different servicing cycles.   Or is this just too radical?


I think I've heard of something like this before only it was a long long time ago and was opperated by something called a Diesel Hydraulic ?.... ;D


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: John R on February 21, 2017, 18:55:53
Another First group franchise will very soon be adopting exactly that model for some of its services. Although quite how many of the passenger benefits you suggest might ensue is yet to be seen.   


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: broadgage on February 21, 2017, 19:54:51
Since the Voyagers and Pendolinos were designed and built the 'construction and use' regulations have changed. The driver must now be placed behind the crumple zone regardless of the design speed of the train.

How about putting the driver in a vehicle of his own - without passengers - and putting all the power stuff and systems and crumple zone in there, and also allowing space for bicycles and passenger's luggage for longer journeys.   Vehicles like this on either end of a train with 4, 5, 7, 8 or even 9 intermediate unpowered carriages which could be swapped between day and night (sleeper) carriages, and perhaps have a mixture of higher density and lower density carriages depending on the diagram.  Commonality of power vehicle, power vehicles detachable for different servicing cycles.   Or is this just too radical?

Presumably these driving vehicles would only need a cab at one end, thereby slightly simplifying the design. Use of such a vehicle at each end of the train should give plenty of power and also "get you home" redundancy in the event of one failing. Some sort of remote control would be needed in order that one driver could control both driving vehicles.
A speed of 125 miles an hour should be entirely achievable, especially if the cab or driving end was streamlined or sloped.
Can anyone think of a suitable name for these new units, something perhaps that indicates the maximum service speed and also denotes that they are for longer journeys connecting major towns and cities.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: stuving on February 21, 2017, 20:45:00
Since the Voyagers and Pendolinos were designed and built the 'construction and use' regulations have changed. The driver must now be placed behind the crumple zone regardless of the design speed of the train. This explains why 90mph trains such as the new Bombardier trains for Crossrail have sloped noses as do the 100mph Siemens' trains for Thameslink and the 100mph Hitachi electrics for Scotrail. There might be some difference in degree in the length of the nose depending on the energy which needs to be dissipated, but new build flat-fronted trains are a thing of the past.

I'm struggling to follow the logic of that.

The current regulations, from what I can work out of what's in EN 15227:2008, specify the driver's protection zone against a collision with a like train at a closing velocity of  36 km/hr (10 m/s). That's the same whatever the top speed of the train is. So whatever determines how pointy a train's nose is, it's not the collision survival rules varying with speed.

Trains built before that standard, or the TSI that enforces it, have noses of various shapes - Pendolinos' and Voyagers' not being exactly flat. While class 387s go almost as fast, I suspect that their "outer suburban" label means they don't need to look fast. In other words, nose shape was a mixture of real aerodynamics and marketing.

However, the point about all trains needing to now have noses is probably true. (Maybe that should be "soon", as it appears that the full application of the latest rules has not yet come into force.) This is from an IRJ article (http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/main-line/bombardier-focuses-on-mass-and-maintenance-with-aventra.html?channel=524) about the design of the Aventra (e.g. Crossrail) as a replacement for the Electrostar (e.g. 387):

Quote
Aventra retains the extruded aluminium bodyshell structure of the Electrostar, although there are a number of important changes in this area, particularly around the driver’s cab, where frontal impact absorption elements have been redesigned to meet crashworthiness standard specified in the Locomotives and Passenger Rolling Stock (Loc & Pas) TSI.

It's certainly not flat, though not as laid-back as some.
(http://www.railjournal.com/images/Crossrail-Aventra-TfL.jpg)


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: ray951 on February 21, 2017, 21:00:47
Presumably these driving vehicles would only need a cab at one end, thereby slightly simplifying the design. Use of such a vehicle at each end of the train should give plenty of power and also "get you home" redundancy in the event of one failing. Some sort of remote control would be needed in order that one driver could control both driving vehicles.
A speed of 125 miles an hour should be entirely achievable, especially if the cab or driving end was streamlined or sloped.
Can anyone think of a suitable name for these new units, something perhaps that indicates the maximum service speed and also denotes that they are for longer journeys connecting major towns and cities.

I am not a marketing expert but do you think Inter-City 125 would work? or failing that High Speed Train or HST for short?
Any suggestions for colour schemes?




Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Charles T on February 21, 2017, 21:40:49
Give  XC the 800s


Keep the HSTs for us. 👍😜


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: Charles T on February 21, 2017, 21:43:27

I love the 170s, travel on them GCR - CDF alot. I always avoid the Arriva services.

If you're taking 170s between Gloucester and Cardiff, you are travelling on Arriva services.

Arriva CrossCountry. ;)

Oh ahaha.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on February 22, 2017, 10:48:15
Since the Voyagers and Pendolinos were designed and built the 'construction and use' regulations have changed. The driver must now be placed behind the crumple zone regardless of the design speed of the train. This explains why 90mph trains such as the new Bombardier trains for Crossrail have sloped noses as do the 100mph Siemens' trains for Thameslink and the 100mph Hitachi electrics for Scotrail. There might be some difference in degree in the length of the nose depending on the energy which needs to be dissipated, but new build flat-fronted trains are a thing of the past.

I'm struggling to follow the logic of that.

The current regulations, from what I can work out of what's in EN 15227:2008, specify the driver's protection zone against a collision with a like train at a closing velocity of  36 km/hr (10 m/s). That's the same whatever the top speed of the train is. So whatever determines how pointy a train's nose is, it's not the collision survival rules varying with speed.

Thank you for the clarification. I had forgotten that the EN only defines one closing speed - it's some time since I read it! However I do seem to remember that at one point the driver could be placed within a strong shell but a few years ago this was changed so now he has to be behind it.

Trains built before that standard, or the TSI that enforces it, have noses of various shapes - Pendolinos' and Voyagers' not being exactly flat. While class 387s go almost as fast, I suspect that their "outer suburban" label means they don't need to look fast. In other words, nose shape was a mixture of real aerodynamics and marketing.

However, the point about all trains needing to now have noses is probably true. (Maybe that should be "soon", as it appears that the full application of the latest rules has not yet come into force.) This is from an IRJ article (http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/main-line/bombardier-focuses-on-mass-and-maintenance-with-aventra.html?channel=524) about the design of the Aventra (e.g. Crossrail) as a replacement for the Electrostar (e.g. 387):

Quote
Aventra retains the extruded aluminium bodyshell structure of the Electrostar, although there are a number of important changes in this area, particularly around the driver’s cab, where frontal impact absorption elements have been redesigned to meet crashworthiness standard specified in the Locomotives and Passenger Rolling Stock (Loc & Pas) TSI.

It's certainly not flat, though not as laid-back as some.
(http://www.railjournal.com/images/Crossrail-Aventra-TfL.jpg)


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: JayMac on February 22, 2017, 15:57:59
Since the Voyagers and Pendolinos were designed and built the 'construction and use' regulations have changed. The driver must now be placed behind the crumple zone regardless of the design speed of the train. This explains why 90mph trains such as the new Bombardier trains for Crossrail have sloped noses as do the 100mph Siemens' trains for Thameslink and the 100mph Hitachi electrics for Scotrail. There might be some difference in degree in the length of the nose depending on the energy which needs to be dissipated, but new build flat-fronted trains are a thing of the past.

Did this design criteria apply to the Class 387? They're a new build yet don't appear to have a sloped front greater in rake than the older Class 377.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: John R on February 22, 2017, 16:18:04
I seem to recall comment that the production line was coming to the end because they didn't meet the latest requirements, and so I guess it got to the point whereby they were timed out in terms of new orders.


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: paul7575 on February 22, 2017, 17:00:26
Did this design criteria apply to the Class 387? They're a new build yet don't appear to have a sloped front greater in rake than the older Class 377.
I don't believe 387s have a different physical structure to the 377s - and are probably considered a run on Electrostar order for crash protection standards.
The separate class number is more to do with their electronic systems not being capable of multiple working with the various 377 sub-classes.

Paul


Title: Re: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?
Post by: 4064ReadingAbbey on February 23, 2017, 13:52:50
Since the Voyagers and Pendolinos were designed and built the 'construction and use' regulations have changed. The driver must now be placed behind the crumple zone regardless of the design speed of the train. This explains why 90mph trains such as the new Bombardier trains for Crossrail have sloped noses as do the 100mph Siemens' trains for Thameslink and the 100mph Hitachi electrics for Scotrail. There might be some difference in degree in the length of the nose depending on the energy which needs to be dissipated, but new build flat-fronted trains are a thing of the past.

Did this design criteria apply to the Class 387? They're a new build yet don't appear to have a sloped front greater in rake than the older Class 377.

As I understand it, the requirements of the EN refer to new designs of stock. Existing designs may continue to be manufactured but only up to a cut-off date.

As Bombardier are changing over to their 'Aventra' platform I suspect that Electrostars will soon cease production.



This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net