|
Zoe
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2009, 12:05:49 » |
|
Sadly so am I if I'm heading north of Birmingham as I'd rather go via London. The HSTs▸ that XC▸ run don't operate at the times heading north when I would travel which is a bit of a shame as I was so pleased when I heard they were bringing them back  I think that going via London is only an real alternative if you are going to an ECML▸ destination. If you are going for a Midland Mainline or WCML▸ destination, not only are there no through tickets via London but it also takes quite a bit longer. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Timmer
|
|
« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2009, 17:24:41 » |
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gtc6j/Inside_Out_West_Midlands_14_01_2009/This is worth viewing, as it shows the extent of the overcrowding on voyagers. No doubt they've deliberately picked the worst trains, but even so it shows just how unsuitable voyagers are. HST▸ 's used to get very busy on the routes, and that was when they had 7 carriages (averaging 400 seats - unrefurbished), rather than 4 (averaging 188 seats) or 5 (224 seats). Even the 6 car Mark II coaching stock had around 270 seats. Sadly no longer available to view which is a shame because I had heard about this Inside out report the other week and never got round to checking it out. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2009, 18:43:39 » |
|
Ian Walmsey has a very good article in February's Modern Railways on how to design a coach interior to give mostly seats around tables with a few airline seats as well, so that every one gets a view out of the window. Plus luggage space.
I don't understand this obsession with running shorter trains because they damage the track less.
Not sure where I read it but Network rail are beginning to wonder if it's not the number of powered axles that matter not number of coaches.
It was always said the ride behind a Merchant Navy was always better West of Brookwood where the electrics departed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2009, 21:11:12 » |
|
Unfortunately, going via London is no go for me! If I am heading for NXEC▸ destinations, then I board the XC▸ service at B'ham. Remember, don't blame XC for the trains they inherited. Also: blame whoever decided that Virgin needed 5 more Voyagers last month (I am sure Chester could cope with a gap in its hourly service)! Just think, we could have had 5 double voyagers going around AS WELL AS THE HSTs▸ .....  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dog box
|
|
« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2009, 21:14:56 » |
|
no you cant blame XC▸ for the trains they inherited,,but the refurbishment is down to them
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All postings reflect my own personal views and opinions and are not intended to be, nor should be taken as official statements of first great western or first group policy
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2009, 21:19:24 » |
|
But they have had to do something.
It's either a crap refurb reducing legroom, or no luggage space / seats.
(ok - still not enough seats, but its an effort)
I also like the idea of bike space, which should prevent delays - provided platform staff direct cyclists to the correct coach.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
devon_metro
|
|
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2009, 21:36:07 » |
|
The bikes don't fit in the bloody rack!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2009, 21:40:47 » |
|
The bikes don't fit in the bloody rack!!
 Oh dear..........  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chris from Nailsea
|
|
« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2009, 22:36:50 » |
|
Personally, I agree that the refurb was rubbish (and that is down to Cross Country, as they specified it). Also, the provision for cycles is indeed woefully inadequate (as it was with the rather Heath Robinson efforts of FGW▸ , in their HST▸ refurb). One gets the impression that those designing such cycle storage have no real idea of the dimensions of the average adult bicycle, as they seem to persist in producing racks more suited to a child's tricycle.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
William Huskisson MP▸ 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.
|
|
|
|
Btline
|
|
« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2009, 22:47:17 » |
|
A possilbe (but very unlikely) temporary solution.
VT▸ reduce their service to B'ham and Manchester to 2 tph.
The freed up Pendolinos do B'ham to Scotland.
Extra Voyagers for XC▸ until new stock arrives!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Super Guard
|
|
« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2009, 11:03:54 » |
|
Where is First Class? "At the rear sir" Train Arrives... ... ... Great, It's at the front *looks like a prat whilst sprinting to the other end of the platform* thanks for that get given duff info from XC▸ , and then it is up to us to ring CIS to get it changed. I too dread any XC train coming in though as I just don't trust whether it is the right way round or not. I tell people, stand in the middle and i'll wave like a crazy person when I see the front of the train come in Of course XC tell me it is "up to FGW▸ staff" to make sure it is right on our screens - which to an extent is true as Plymouth staff could verify before it leaves, but why XC cannot just get it right to start with heaven only knows Then if it is a refurbed voyager you have to wave all the bikes to Coach D and not the rear of F. XC HST▸ design is spot on (apart from the lack of buffet car), however I was speaking with a buffet host on one last week who told me he can get through one coach at a time before needing to refill, and then when trying to get to the other end he is invariably stopped by passengers wanting a refill, so those at the wrong end of the trolley service may never get served!! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 27, 2009, 11:09:09 by SDA »
|
Logged
|
Any opinions made on this forum are purely personal and my own. I am in no way speaking for, or offering the views of First Great Western or First Group.
If my employer feels I have broken any aspect of the Social Media Policy, please PM me immediately, so I can rectify without delay.
|
|
|
|
broadgage
|
|
« Reply #26 on: January 27, 2009, 13:37:47 » |
|
Ian Walmsey has a very good article in February's Modern Railways on how to design a coach interior to give mostly seats around tables with a few airline seats as well, so that every one gets a view out of the window. Plus luggage space.
I don't understand this obsession with running shorter trains because they damage the track less.
Yes, a very interesting article, I particularly liked "when customers say they want a seat, they dont mean that they want to sit with thiere knees behind theire ears in order that 4 more people can sit down, they mean that want an extra coach in order that 74 more people can sit down" (or words to that effect, dont have the article to hand) There is a general belief among the public at large, that the railway industry has received large amounts of public money which has been spent on REDUCING train lengths. Whilst the well informed members of this forum will be aware that this is not allways the case, regretably often it is. My local line (not FGW▸ ) suffered total route modernisation some years ago, which meant 6 car trains replacing 8 car. Waterloo to Exeter was also modernised, with 8 car loco hauled services downgraded to 3 car DMUs▸ . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU▸ is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
|
|
|
|
Zoe
|
|
« Reply #27 on: January 27, 2009, 16:09:36 » |
|
Waterloo to Exeter was also modernised, with 8 car loco hauled services downgraded to 3 car DMUs▸ .
This was more accident than design though, Network SouthEast were looking for a solution at the same time as Regional Railways had ordered too many 158s and so the route ended up with the unused 158s classed as 159s. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dog box
|
|
« Reply #28 on: January 27, 2009, 16:41:48 » |
|
The shopless voyager looks no different outside to a shopped voyager so Sda you must be faced with a bit of a problem second guessing what variety of voyager it is.
Incidentally you would have thought the things would have been built to just be able to slot in another carriage to make them bigger, although i dont think this is very easy to acheive
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All postings reflect my own personal views and opinions and are not intended to be, nor should be taken as official statements of first great western or first group policy
|
|
|
|
thetrout
|
|
« Reply #29 on: January 27, 2009, 16:44:24 » |
|
My understanding of the XC▸ refurbishments was that they were planning to take out the onboard shop and a toilet. The shop I could almost understand because it is an absolute nightmare if you have 3 or 4 people trying to choose something to eat But taking out a toilet I think is a very bad idea especially considering the amount of miles the trains run. Hence why a HST▸ or LHCS▸ would be more appropriate for the long distance. I'm sure i've said this before in another post, but the amount of MK2 sitting aroung the rail network not doing anything I think is criminal, considering the amount of overcrowding we have to put up with on this route. On an update of my recent XC travels I have come to the conclusion that the catering department might as well not be in existance on XC. On the CIS▸ at Temple Meads it said, At Seat Service Available on board. Get on, no at seat service. I was then informed that First Class passengers do not get anything south of Bristol LIES!!! They said they had no food, what the FCH didn't realise is I saw him open the fridge, low and behold, enough food to feed an army obviously didn't he like me ... ... ! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
