Virgin Voyagers, terrible.

wdpics · Post by **wdpics** » Wed May 23, 2007 6:38 pm

enotayokel wrote:
wdpics wrote:
I agree with your comment on the tilting action - but even then, why voyager - why not go with class 373's instead of 390's?
373's can't tilt (and IIRC are limitted to 110 on standard BR catnery)

Also a 373 would have problems doing Edinburgh to Penzance... The problems would start near York

I wasnt sure if the 373 could - i assumed they could (never been on them before) because of the high speeds they can do.

As for problems, i'm not sure i follow you - the ECML is electfied so it would be okay

Sorry - i still have my L plates on when it comes to these locos (i am just learning it all - having played MSTS for ages, i think its time to learn about them lol)

Beetlejuice · Post by **Beetlejuice** » Wed May 23, 2007 6:43 pm

I think He means that there is no electrification from York towards Penzance so they wouldn't get there.... not even with huge detour as the GWML is non electric too!

enotayokel · Post by **enotayokel** » Wed May 23, 2007 6:45 pm

A large part (at least 50%) of the Edinburgh to Penzance route is not electrified

Hence the problems upon leaving York...

Also its not going to be easy to Electrify. Your biggest problem is this - The Dawlish Sea Wall

AlistairW · Post by **AlistairW** » Wed May 23, 2007 6:49 pm

wdpics wrote:My question is why virgin went with vomet comets instead of waiting untill the IEP's came out and just didnt refurbished their HST's and class 90's

Because Virgin wanted to revolutionise train travel in the UK, they wanted to bring something new and different and there certainly wasn't any sign of IEP. IEP only really took off this year, more than 5 years since Voyagers were introduced, they were ordered before this. They also wanted to operate more trains that were shorter, hence the 4 and 5 coach half hourly formations opposed to 7 coach hourly trains.

enotayokel wrote:I still don't see why Voyagers are hated.

The General Traveling Public seem to like them

Here here, I hate them but I have to agree, average Joe loves them and that’s what matters!

enotayokel wrote:BTW - Cross Country wasn't all HST. If you were lucky you got an HST, if you were unlucky you got a 47 and 5 mk2s. Not the most reliable.

To be fair a majority of services were HST's and the LHCS (Loco Hauled Coaching Stock) was 7 MK2's IIRC. Then again if Thatcher had approved more HSTs back in the early 80's we would have never of had that problem!

wdpics wrote:To me, they seem to be cheaply made. Too compact, squashed in, and too much plastic. If it had anymore plastic, it should have a "made in china" sticker on it.

They appear more squashed for various reasons, including higher seat backs making you feel more enclosed, a different body profile (its more of an egg shape) to allow for tilt which can make people feel claustrophobic and maybe the 'tint' on the windows lets in less natural light.

wdpics wrote:I wasn’t sure if the 373 could - i assumed they could (never been on them before) because of the high speeds they can do.

373's require electric power which is either delivered via Over Head Lines or a 3rd Rail. There is neither of these between York - Leeds - Sheffield and the West Country. Sadly!

arabiandisco · Post by **arabiandisco** » Wed May 23, 2007 7:54 pm

enotayokel wrote:A large part (at least 50%) of the Edinburgh to Penzance route is not electrified Hence the problems upon leaving York...

Also its not going to be easy to Electrify. Your biggest problem is this - The Dawlish Sea Wall

Now, I agree that there are many potential problems with electrifying to Penzance. The sea wall is not one of them. There is already an electrified sea wall in the UK - on one of the Glasgow suburban routes (I think it's Largs, but I'm not completely sure). It's very simple - provide 50kV insulation rather than 25kV, and away you go. The only potential problem really is the increased liklihood of the sea water shorting out the insulation, so by doubling the provision, you're fine. No technical reason why Dawlish would provide any problems at all.

220389 · Post by **220389** » Wed May 23, 2007 10:05 pm

i don't have Voyagers i do prefer HST's the problem with voyagers that i don't like is the seating is to crampt and they are nosey like any thing and i can't imagine me on a journy from Penzance to york with the vibrations as well.

Beetlejuice · Post by **Beetlejuice** » Thu May 24, 2007 7:30 am

Hi guys can the pendos go at 140 yet as well?

AlistairW · Post by **AlistairW** » Thu May 24, 2007 7:31 am

Beetlejuice wrote:Hi guys can the pendos go at 140 yet as well?

Yes but not in regular service as the track isn't capable of that speed.

jamesinbolton · Post by **jamesinbolton** » Thu May 24, 2007 9:13 am

AlistairW wrote:
Beetlejuice wrote:Hi guys can the pendos go at 140 yet as well?
Yes but not in regular service as the track isn't capable of that speed.

Sorry,

Incorrect. The top speed permissable without in-cab signalling is the reason that these trains cannot operate at 140mph. The track (where 140 speed would apply) is suitable.

AlistairW · Post by **AlistairW** » Thu May 24, 2007 2:49 pm

jamesinbolton wrote:
AlistairW wrote:
Beetlejuice wrote:Hi guys can the pendos go at 140 yet as well?
Yes but not in regular service as the track isn't capable of that speed.
Sorry,

Incorrect. The top speed permissable without in-cab signalling is the reason that these trains cannot operate at 140mph. The track (where 140 speed would apply) is suitable.

Not wishing to start an argument of any kind James, but how they're not allowed to operate at 135mph instead then? I would have thought that if all they needed was new in-cab signaling there would be at least some kind of scheme or project to get this fitted as it must be relatively inexpensive to fit compared to the benefits it could bring. When did the in-cab signaling legislation come into place?

jamesinbolton · Post by **jamesinbolton** » Thu May 24, 2007 4:38 pm

Don't worry you won't get an argument.

Permission is being obtained to run at 135 through the trent valley.

http://www.virgintrainsmediaroom.com/in ... icleid=870

Something about it here. I am not sure at which stage approval will be (if at all)given.

I am not sure who decides where the cut-off point is in relation to in-cab signalling. I was under the impression that the cut-off was at 125mph unless an extra aspect could be added to an existing 4-colour light signal to increase it to 5 aspects; which I assume is the reason for seeking permission to have it increased to 135, maybe to take into account the braking capabilities of more modern rolling stock.

arabiandisco · Post by **arabiandisco** » Thu May 24, 2007 4:57 pm

I doubt they'll get 135. (And I certainly doubt the requirement to save 2 minutes on the run to Manchester, which is what the effect would be). The case is, I believe, based on the fact that 390s have pretty good brakes, which is fine until it rains.

The rules are perfectly clear that 125 is maximum permissible speed with lineside signals.

In-cab signalling was part of the original scope of the WCML upgrade, but that was chopped pretty early. It would actually be massively expensive to fit in-cab signalling, particularly now lots of the route has been conventionally resignalled.

AlistairW · Post by **AlistairW** » Thu May 24, 2007 5:04 pm

Thanks for your answers James and arabiandisco

bdy26 · Post by **bdy26** » Fri May 25, 2007 12:11 am

It comes down to the spacing of the signals, which is based on a standard braking distance per train type at a given line speed. That speed is assumed to be 100mph, anything cleared above that has to have uprated brakes so they can stop from full line speed in 1 signal block in an emergency.

Adding a fifth aspect has been done in places on the east coast by way of a flashing green, though at that speed there are queries whether it can be detected early enough. When they ran the 91s on the ECML at that speed instructions to the driver was to make a full brake application if anything other than a flashing green aspect was shown.

From experience on the west coast, it's acceleration and deceleration rather than top speed that make the difference, and the pendos (love em or hate em) are very impressive in that respect. Not sure clearing for another 10 mph on the new stretch of track will make more than a few minutes' difference, but I will doubtless be there with my stop watch pretending to be working!

Still, I timed an 87 on non-aircon mk2s doing 122 south of stafford in the late 80s... now that was proper!

willywow16 · Post by **willywow16** » Sun May 27, 2007 12:28 pm

I caught a Virgin Voyager last night from Birmingham New Street at 1910 to Plymouth, the train came into Birmingham at 1915, on our way to Plymouth we was making good time, and got back ontime, but when we was heading into Bristol Temple mead's the train manager annouced that the drive was poorly, and anyone traviling on from Bristol will have a one hour delay until the train a hour behind us arrives into Bristol, and they can double them up. I was a bit annoyed about this because my last bus was at 2340, and we was spose to be in Plymouth at 2248, but arrived into Plymouth at 2348, but on the other hand the virgin train staff kept us all up to date on what was going on, and told us all to write in, and we could get something back.