What makes Voyagers so inefficient?

[whole diary]

[Bmblbzzz]

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! 

[ellendune]

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^» (Department for Transport - about) 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^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) 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^‡(resolve)'s but, HST^▸ (High Speed Train) were acceptable DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) so why not these new DMUs.

[onthecushions]

Before XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) got its voyagers, it used rakes of 7 loco hauled coaches, latterly Mk2^▸ (Mark 2 coach). 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

[stuving]

There was a lot going on in 2002, what with Princess, the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) 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", 19 June 2003,    Report HC 782-I.

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^▸ (United Kingdom): 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^» (Strategic Rail Authority - about) 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^▸ (Member of Parliament) 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.

[ChrisB]

Fyi above reference to XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) & Reading, the vast majority reversing use platform 7 currently, not west-facing bays

[Bmblbzzz]

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.

[ellendune]

Fyi above reference to XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) & 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. 

[didcotdean]

If it became accepted back 14 years ago that XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) 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 

[grahame]

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.

[ellendune]

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^▸ (Great Western Railway) 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^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) 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!

[simonw]

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^▸ (Great Western Railway), 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.   

[ChrisB]

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?)

The best solution would be to get GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway), 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^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) Manchester-Cardiff.

[Bmblbzzz]

Well, if you want to go to Cheltenham from Bristol (as an example of a short journey), you have a choice of XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) heading off to Brum, Glasgow or wherever in 40 mins or GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) 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.

[LiskeardRich]

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

[PhilWakely]

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!