What makes Voyagers so inefficient?

[whole diary]

[Bmblbzzz]

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^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) 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?

[broadgage]

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^▸ (in my humble opinion) the unsuitability of DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) for fast or long distance services.

[Noggin]

Also bodyshell profile narrower than normal so that it can tilt.

[mjones]

Overhead luggage racks that you can't fit much into. Give the leisure travel market that XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) 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.

[Richard Fairhurst]

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.

[didcotdean]

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 ... 

[mjones]

.... Plus of course the stations that ended up being dropped as the timetable couldn't work ... 

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.

[Bmblbzzz]

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.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

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.

[Tim]

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^▸ (by the way), 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.  

[Tim]

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^▸ (High Speed Train)) would perhaps square the circle leaving the bimode option until the voyagers need scrapping. 

[ellendune]

Lengthening the trains will lead to some platform issues I suspect - at least at Reading. 

[IndustryInsider]

Wasn't lengthening them ruled out on technical/cost grounds fairly recently?

[John R]

Ian Walmsley in Modern Railways suggests that at the time it was considered Bombardier thought they had DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) 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. 

[stuving]

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 (Acting Director of Corporate Affairs, Virgin Trains) giving a talk about the VXC^▸ (Virgin Cross Country - former franchise) 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:

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^▸ (United Kingdom);
    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:

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.