Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 18:35 28 Mar 2024
- How do I renew my UK passport and what is the 10-year rule?
- Passengers pleaded with knifeman during attack
- Family anger at sentence on fatal crash driver, 19
- Easter travel warning as millions set to hit roads
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
28th Mar (1988)
Woman found murdered on Orpington to London train (*)

Train RunningCancelled
16:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:48 Reading to Gatwick Airport
17:54 Cardiff Central to London Paddington
17:57 London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street
18:03 London Paddington to Penzance
18:08 London Paddington to Frome
Additional 18:25 Shalford to Reading
18:26 Newbury to Bedwyn
18:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
18:37 Westbury to Swindon
18:51 Filton Abbey Wood to Bristol Temple Meads
18:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
19:23 Reading to Gatwick Airport
19:24 Newbury to Bedwyn
19:33 London Paddington to Worcester Shrub Hill
19:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
20:16 Frome to Westbury
20:49 Newbury to Bedwyn
20:56 Worcester Foregate Street to London Paddington
21:16 Bedwyn to Newbury
Short Run
15:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
15:30 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour
16:19 Carmarthen to London Paddington
16:23 Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central
16:35 London Paddington to Plymouth
16:50 Plymouth to London Paddington
17:03 London Paddington to Penzance
17:20 Reading to Gatwick Airport
17:30 London Paddington to Taunton
17:36 London Paddington to Plymouth
17:50 Gloucester to Salisbury
17:59 Gatwick Airport to Reading
18:18 Newbury to London Paddington
18:19 Reading to Gatwick Airport
18:54 Reading to Gatwick Airport
18:59 Gatwick Airport to Reading
19:06 London Paddington to Bedwyn
19:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
20:42 Bedwyn to London Paddington
Delayed
13:59 Cardiff Central to Penzance
14:15 Penzance to London Paddington
15:03 London Paddington to Penzance
16:03 London Paddington to Penzance
Additional 17:17 Exeter St Davids to Penzance
Additional 17:26 Castle Cary to Penzance
17:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
An additional train service has been planned to operate as shown 18:25 Shalford to Reading
18:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
19:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 28, 2024, 18:42:26 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[133] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[132] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[53] Return of the BRUTE?
[44] If not HS2 to Manchester, how will traffic be carried?
[41] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[32] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: What makes Voyagers so inefficient?  (Read 20011 times)
1st fan
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 402


View Profile
« Reply #30 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 (British Rail(ways)) 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 (High Speed Train) 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 (West Coast Main Line) 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.
Logged
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 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 (Cross Country Trains (franchise))'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 (Unit End Gangway). 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
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18894



View Profile
« Reply #32 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.
Logged

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Sir Terry Pratchett.
mjones
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 408


View Profile
« Reply #33 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(resolve)
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» (East Midlands Trains - about) 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 (Cross Country Trains (franchise))? 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?

Logged
Richard Fairhurst
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1204


View Profile Email
« Reply #34 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!
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2017, 09:09:28 »

too right they are!
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #36 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. 
Logged
simonw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 589


View Profile Email
« Reply #37 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
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2017, 10:01:38 »

Could still happen, but more unlikely as the stock gets older.
Logged
Tim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2738


View Profile
« Reply #39 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 (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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 (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) 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 (High Speed Train) will be the best we can probably hope for. 
 
Logged
Chris from Nailsea
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 17865


I am not railway staff


View Profile Email
« Reply #40 on: February 15, 2017, 17:21:47 »

UEG (Unit End Gangway) = 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  Smiley
Logged

William Huskisson MP (Member of Parliament) was the first person to be killed by a train while crossing the tracks, in 1830.  Many more have died in the same way since then.  Don't take a chance: stop, look, listen.

"Level crossings are safe, unless they are used in an unsafe manner."  Discuss.
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1500


View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: February 16, 2017, 20:53:26 »

UEG (Unit End Gangway) = 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  Smiley
Not sure how 'official' that is, it's just something I saw on a forum once and added to my 'written vocabulary'.
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard)) it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
Charles T
Full Member
***
Posts: 52


View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: February 20, 2017, 21:28:21 »

Just to make it worse...


A franchise extension.

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

XC (Cross Country Trains (franchise))'s HSTs (High Speed Train) are amazing; I always ensure I get one when traveling from Bristol.
Logged

We are sorry to announce that the .. Great Western Railway service is delayed.
JayMac
Data Manager
Hero Member
******
Posts: 18894



View Profile
« Reply #43 on: February 21, 2017, 01:40:12 »


I love the 170s, travel on them GCR» (Gloucester - next trains) - CDF» (Cardiff - next trains) alot. I always avoid the Arriva services.

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

Arriva CrossCountry. Wink
Logged

"Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the rest of the day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Sir Terry Pratchett.
4064ReadingAbbey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 455


View Profile
« Reply #44 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.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the 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 the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page