'CHARD Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 what was the 'challenger' project? i'm sure i've heard of a plan for short formed HSTs with only one power car and a DVT? Aha! As it happens I have a daybook right here with minutes of the last meeting I attended on the Challenger project before it was formally aborted; IIRC because the Regulator would not consent to the extra paths VT had requested. At the time, we were looking after the sets that would have gone on to form the Challengers proper (VT were planning to call Class 255), and their daily position was discussed. They were already called Challengers in Ops. O/T but it may make a few of you smile to lift these notes from a different meeting, indulge me! 1-10-02 TS expected 2, rec'd 1 Poole failure from 30-09-02 abandoned @ OX, expected 2-10-02 NL rec'd 1. Departed on one power car. DY rec'd 1. 15 late off, coolant leak. MA rec'd 2. A third went to NL. LL rec'd 1 Maintenance set, Neville Hill New diagrams written 1-10-02 for ECS MA - NL for A-exam and for ECS MA - LL for S-exam. "There are no firm foundations for managing this fleet at the moment. The workload is immense... 85% of activity at (identity protected) is Challengers. (id protected) is not exercising no control (sic) - just operating Challengers willy-nilly to support Voyager fleet." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 I'd ride 'em... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 a couple of 'might've beens' at the railwaycentre.com(scroll down to the bottom) what was the 'challenger' project? i'm sure i've heard of a plan for short formed HSTs with only one power car and a DVT? incidentally, in the EMU artists impressions, there are interesting photo mock-ups for the ECML if virgin had got it - pendos and a UK version of the TGV! here Virgin Cross Country were going to have "Challengers" and "Pioneers" in addition to the Voyager fleet. The Challengers were 2+5 refurbished HSTs whereas I believe the Pioneers were pretty much 2+5s from the existing Virgin HST fleet, with not quite so much work done on them !!!. No DVTs for the HSTs - the only DVT used was on the Crewe based Riviera set which was sometimes used on thr BHM-MAN circuit with a hired class 90. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy stroud Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I seem to remember that there was a BR plan to create push pull trains from HST's, along the lines of one power car and three or four mark 3's. The second driving end being accommodated in a normal carriage, after conversion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Was it not for working beyond a certian point in a long distance journey after which a full length train and catering facilities were no longer deemed necessary? Between Plymouth and Penzance was one area being examined as I recall. You're both right! This was being discussed, and dismissed, in the Road-Runner era of Great Western - when Brian Scott was MD, and before First came along. O/T - my other half sewed the pleated curtains for the refurb TF mock-up at St Phillips Marsh, and final sign-off of the interior colour scheme, fabrics at least, is attributed to Brian Scott's wife! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 The platforms at Reading would accommodate a 5 (Voyager) coach train and in fact Platform No.3 was lengthened to accommodate the new trains. Let us not forget however that some of the loco hauled XC sets ran with 5 vehicles and in fact offered fewer (but wider) seats than the Voyagers. One reason for short trains was to get more of them for the money and this allowed the original Virgin service which concentrated a train every 30 minutes onto the Reading - Birmingham core route section; easy to forget trains were specified around a particular service pattern when that pattern long ago ceased to exist as originally planned. I'm slightly confused by this last sentence as I've been looking up train times for a work trip to Birmingham and there are still two trains an hour from Reading (though the "paper" timetables aren't easy to follow as the NW and NE services are on separate timetables!). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 2, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 2, 2012 I'm slightly confused by this last sentence as I've been looking up train times for a work trip to Birmingham and there are still two trains an hour from Reading (though the "paper" timetables aren't easy to follow as the NW and NE services are on separate timetables!). Reading -Birmingham still is two trains an hour but much of the original trainplan that came with the Voyagers has vanished into history Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpster Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 A couple of weeks ago I made a journey from Newcastle to Brockenhurst with my bike for a week's cycling in the New Forest. The new Cross-Country layout of the Voyager sees the bike storage places where the shop used to be. Bikes are to be hung on hooks from the ceiling by the front wheel and thus stored vertically. Beside the bike spaces is a large luggage space (much needed) for bags which won't fit in the overhead racks. The journey south was fine, but on the return leg I had to change at New Street. The planned 8-coach train of two Voyagers was reduced to a single 4-coach affair which, being a Friday night, was absolutely rammed by the time we left Reading, with people standing the length of every carriage and the vestibules packed with people. When I came to get off in Birmingham, it was almost impossible to fight through to my bike, then get my bags out of the storage bit, whilst passengers were getting off and new ones on. The vestibule areas and narrow corridors into the passenger saloons are terribly designed; people waiting on the platform can't see if anyone's left to get off the train, and those waiting to get off have to keep opening the vestibule door manually since it doesn't sense if anyone's standing near it! Such small things make for a truly unpleasant travelling experience. In the end I had to literally throw my bags off the train in order to escape! Arp Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 We don't link to Social Media sites on here (phew!), but this Tweet from earlier today may amuse those of you familiar with (and contemptuous of) the Class 220 experience: "Headmistress type in Quiet Zone of 0830 BHM - NCL we can still hear your telecon loud and clear although you're hiding in the luggage stack." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted November 2, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 2, 2012 A fairly typical experience then. It beats me how some people on here seem to defend it tooth and nail. To be fair I think most people do recognise the problems and isues with the current XC setup. However - and this is the important bit - what most people are also awere of is, to put it bluntly, things wont be changing however much people might complain. The DfT will NOT allow any new trains (even refurbished BR stock) to be procured, even the e-voyager plan whichh could have seen some limited set lengthening is now apparently dead acording to industry insiders). In any case timetabling REQUIRES the use of the short bay platforms at Reading to maintain the current GWML and XC service levels there so even if the DfT were to permit train lengthening it wouldn't be by much. This is not the same as defending the situation rather a recognition that we should be focusing on things that can realistically be done rather than getting carried away with impossable (politically and economic) solutions. In such an enviroment the management of XC do seam to be trying to make what improvements they can - getting rid of the shop for more storage space being one of those iniatives which should make things a little bit better and should be recognised as such. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gerbil-Fritters Posted November 2, 2012 Author Share Posted November 2, 2012 The DfT will NOT allow any new trains At the risk of seeming like a complete nub, why not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 The DfT will NOT allow any new trains (even refurbished BR stock) to be procured, even the e-voyager plan whichh could have seen some limited set lengthening is now apparently dead acording to industry insiders). Not strictly true, this, otherwise how would sister company Chiltern be happily expanding its fleet with more refurbished MkIIIs and going to tender for more locos, and third sister ATW getting hold of the ex-Cargo-D MkIIIs to add to its loco-hauled portfolio... Yes, true of the ring-fenced franchise assets over which DfT/ DOR would require step-in rights in the event of failure of the franchisee, but not true of further stock that the franchise parent might want to add at its own risk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supaned Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 And with XC therein lies the issue. The current franchise is due to expire in 2 or 3 years time , after that there is no guarantee that DB/Arriva will retain it (unless of course they mount a huge campaign in the media and on social networking when it goes against them...) , so there is no financial sense in making a large investment for which they may not reap the rewards. Ultimately , that is the core issue with the current franchise system - the terms are not long enough to justify expenditure on rolling stock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Ultimately , that is the core issue with the current franchise system - the terms are not long enough to justify TOC expenditure on new rolling stock deep into the franchise. True, but only really if you caveat with my red. The forthcoming Greater Anglia and Greater Western - to give just two examples - will undoubtedly involve new rolling stock. What you're trying to distinguish, and I think we are actually in agreement here, is that further into a franchise, an operator doesn't have the freedom to say to the market "please may I have another ten of those, like you built me six years ago?" Future Thameslink and Crossrail franchises come with huge new fleets in the box, so that's not strictly an issue with the franchise system. If the successful TOCs wanted to add more Class 345s or whatever later on, though, that could be a problem, you're quite right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted November 2, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 2, 2012 At the risk of seeming like a complete nub, why not? A signifficant part of any franchise holders costs is simply 'hiring' the trains it uses from the leasing companies. If they lease more trains their costs go up - all very well as long as the revenue generated makes it worthwhile - and you would be right when talking about most businesses. Unfortunatley despite what the Government like to pretend railway franchises are not the same as ordinary franchises and the Government has an enormas ammount of control over them. If the franchise is one that recieves a subsady from the government (most do, because even the likes of First Great Western and East Midlands Trains run rural branch lines, comuter routes, etc as well as 'profit generating' intercity services) the Government has to increase the subsidy to compensate. Before the Government will agree to this the treasuary has to be convinced that the increased cost is worthwhile, and in the current climate, especially if the franchise is coming to an end this is quite hard to do. Also if the franchise is ending, the Government might use it as an opotunity to reorganise it which might free up extra stock within the franchise. For example transpenine services from Manchester to Scotland are planned to transfer to the West Coast franchsise with the Government perpaired to fund a small fleet of Desiro EMUs thus releasing exsisting Transpennine stock to strengthen its own services. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted November 2, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 2, 2012 Future Thameslink and Crossrail franchises come with huge new fleets in the box, so that's not strictly an issue with the franchise system. If the successful TOCs wanted to add more Class 345s or whatever later on, though, that could be a problem, you're quite right. Minor point but IIRC Crossrail will be run on a concession basis (like the Overground and DLR) by TfL. It will not be franchised like Thameslink Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 And with XC therein lies the issue. The current franchise is due to expire in 2 or 3 years time , after that there is no guarantee that DB/Arriva will retain it (unless of course they mount a huge campaign in the media and on social networking when it goes against them...) , so there is no financial sense in making a large investment for which they may not reap the rewards. Ultimately , that is the core issue with the current franchise system - the terms are not long enough to justify expenditure on rolling stock. True, but only really if you caveat with my red. The forthcoming Greater Anglia and Greater Western - to give just two examples - will undoubtedly involve new rolling stock. What you're trying to distinguish, and I think we are actually in agreement here, is that further into a franchise, an operator doesn't have the freedom to say to the market "please may I have another ten of those, like you built me six years ago?" Future Thameslink and Crossrail franchises come with huge new fleets in the box, so that's not strictly an issue with the franchise system. If the successful TOCs wanted to add more Class 345s or whatever later on, though, that could be a problem, you're quite right. This is a tricky one actually The West Coast franchise shambles was majoring at one point on the fact that it was a loooong franchise and the poor lambs couldn't possibly figure how much things would change by blah blah blah. This suggested that long franchises might not actually be that beneficial after all. We've also had the "ouch - can't possibly order new rolling stock without a cast iron guarantee of whole life use" from Roscos. But what about the Chiltern Railways franchise which currently is halfway through a 20 year life ? Was there this much argy bargy ten years ago ? What about the class 221s which Virgin currently operate ? These units delivered in 2001/2002 are technically without contract from April 2016 based on one WC bid. If it was the case that expensive to operate DMUs only have a guaranteed working life of fourteen years, why did the Rosco not quibble, and why did the SRA / DfT / ORR underwrite the deal ? There is a lot of hot air being ejected of the current railway system Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Sitting in a Meridian coach with the engine out. Lovely ride Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Bear Digital Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Sitting in a Meridian coach with the engine out. Lovely ride Go and ask the driver nicely and he'll shut it down each time for you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crusader Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 oh, if only... anybody know what they might have looked like? My idea above is clearly and evolution of the EG PP sets... Single cab class 67 locos (As pictured in keefer's Railway Centre link) working with four carriage push-pull rakes. There would have been 36 locomotives and 140 carriages, giving 35 complete rakes, which would have worked alongside forty three 4-car tilting Super Voyagers. So we can at least be thankful that we did in the end get some trains on Crosscountry that are longer than four carriages, as that was not the plan under the loco-hauled proposals. Bombardier were the preferred bidder to construct the loco hauled carriages. The proposal for refurbished Class 255 "Challenger" HST sets in 2+5 formation came about later, after the order for thirty four class 220 Voyagers and forty four class 221 Super Voyagers had been finalised. If I remember correctly ('CHARD probably has a better idea) between 10 and 14 sets would have become Challengers, and they were to have been deployed on services from Manchester to the South Coast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmustu Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 The Challengers were primarily for use on the Blackpool London Paddington via Swindon service that never materialised. At the start of Princess the 2+5 HSTs were mainly used on the Blackpool B'ham International services, with the odd one used on the Bournemouth's, and 158s were used on the Swindons. When the SRA announced its 1 operating company from each London terminal policy, the proposed Blackpool London services were dropped, not long after that the Swindons went back to Wessex trains, and the Blackpool B'ham International were knocked on the head, and HSTs finished regular operation on XC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crusader Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 Ah, I knew the "Challengers" were destined for somewhere "West side" of the XC network. Thanks for the correction. Mind you the 2+5 HST formations on Crosscountry were regulars on the North East to South West corridor as well until the very end of HST operation with Virgin XC. I remember watching some of the very last HST services at Newcastle on their final day at the end of September 2003, including the stick-on "headboard" on the last southbound service from Edinburgh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supaned Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 A few sobering thoughts on Voyagers for the naysayers to consider. I was speaking to a Standards manager regarding the recent derailment in Scotland. Considering the train derailed at nearly 80mph , it did well in that everybody on board walked away relatively unscathed. Likewise when a set derailed at speed near York after hitting a car that had been abandoned on a crossing. It was mentioned that had those trains been formed of loco and stock , there was every likelihood that the whole train formation would have been derailed and in a lot more serious manner , almost certainly with serious injuries. The trains are by no means perfect , as has been discussed on here , but , if you want to get home to your friends and family in one piece , they work as designed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 A few sobering thoughts on Voyagers for the naysayers to consider. I was speaking to a Standards manager regarding the recent derailment in Scotland. Considering the train derailed at nearly 80mph , it did well in that everybody on board walked away relatively unscathed. Likewise when a set derailed at speed near York after hitting a car that had been abandoned on a crossing. It was mentioned that had those trains been formed of loco and stock , there was every likelihood that the whole train formation would have been derailed and in a lot more serious manner , almost certainly with serious injuries. The trains are by no means perfect , as has been discussed on here , but , if you want to get home to your friends and family in one piece , they work as designed. Granted that their construction and mechanics meet modern crash worthiness standards. However, a Challenger 2 main battle tank will get you home to friends and family too, but that doesn't mean we should have to happily suffer the experience simply because we (might) be a bit more safe should an extremely rare accident occur. The Voyagers were designed in an era of CAD and computer modelling, with 150 odd years of experience to draw on with regard to passenger space design and comfort, with an existing comfort benchmark (in use with the same company, no less) to equal, or ideally, better i.e. the Mark 3 - there really is no excuse for their 'passenger experience' shortcomings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted November 8, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 8, 2012 I was speaking to a Standards manager regarding the recent derailment in Scotland. Considering the train derailed at nearly 80mph , it did well in that everybody on board walked away relatively unscathed. Likewise when a set derailed at speed near York after hitting a car that had been abandoned on a crossing. It was mentioned that had those trains been formed of loco and stock , there was every likelihood that the whole train formation would have been derailed and in a lot more serious manner , almost certainly with serious injuries. Quite how someone can reach that conclusion does not seem to be entirely down to the train itself because an awful lot depends on the couplings and their keeping the vehicles in line. Equally the dynamics of any derailment, and what follows an initial collision or derailment, can vary enormously depending on a large variety of factors of which but one is the ability of the train to remain coupled in a single unit or for its vehicles to remain in line. However a modern vehicle structure once it has derailed at speed is bound to be considerably more robust that one designed and built to the standards of 60 years ago (when BR Mk1 coaches were highly rated for their crash resistant properties compared with vehicles only a couple of decades older). Similarly a late 1960s/early '70s designed vehicle in the shape of the BR Mk 3 is still a benchmark in crash resistance when it comes to body strength - as has been shown in more than a few high speed derailments and collisions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.