Future of the Intercity 125s

[starrymarkb]

Thereby throwing away ten years' value.

In 2025 they'd be 50 years old, I'd say that was pretty good use and would be equal to the A Stock.. Does anyone else still use 50+ year old stock on main routes...

Certainly I can see the majority being scrapped from 2017 onwards with those in best condition lasting maybe 10 years longer.

 

[Nym]

Cascaded Class 222s from MML electrification and 221s from XC and ICWC in combination with the current Bi-Mode IEP results in an oversupply. Thats before we consider the Basingstoke wires and other infill...

 

[sprinterguy]

Thereby throwing away ten years' value.

The costs of the HSTs to the ROSCOs will no doubt be fully amortised by 2025 (and probably by 2017), and the track access charges for the TOCs will likely be little different (They may even be lower, given that the IEP uses distributed traction and there are also shorter formation sets) for 5- car and 9-car IEPs compared to what they are for 2+8 HSTs, while the costs of leasing the trains may also be comparable. So what further “value” is there to be gleaned from fifty year old trains?

The life spans of most of the major components of the mark 3 carriages might be able to be spun out to 2035, but from what I remember from that report this would not be without further, extensive, life-extension work and would probably not be applicable to all the vehicles, as additional spare parts will be needed as the carriages continue to age. Life-extending mark 3s to last until 2035 is also not likely going to be commercially or economically desirable for the TOCs involved compared to purchasing new trains.

As starrymarkb says, it is extremely likely that we will continue to see some HSTs in revenue earning service on the main line into the 2020s. However, I do not envisage that the HST fleet as a whole will make it past 2020 without inroads being made into their numbers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Cascaded Class 222s from MML electrification and 221s from XC and ICWC in combination with the current Bi-Mode IEP results in an oversupply. Thats before we consider the Basingstoke wires and other infill...

Precisely: For the sake of argument, I have attempted to roughly plot out a couple of different potential scenarios that would see large numbers of HSTs remaining in service following displacement from the East Coast and GWML.

However, once MML electrification and probable further electrification of Crosscountry routes is taken into account (Even before that, to be honest), the principal conclusion that I can draw is “why would any TOC or railway official ever deem it worth bothering?” There will be many, more modern trains available for deployment on other routes at around the same time that the HSTs would become available.

 

[Royston Vasey]

That's economics. But where a business needs to be depends on what they are doing. The right sort of tax reform would make it easier to do business at less desirable locations. Which in turn would take the pressure off the more desirable ones and, to get back to the original subject, take the pressure off the infrastructure, including the railways. If fewer young people had to move far from their home areas to find work, then there would, for instance, be less of a rush at weekends as they went home to visit their friends and folk.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Thereby throwing away ten years' value.

Ah, so your crackpot economics stretch as far as macroeconomics too! Making London a less desirable place to do business is just stupid. Trying to penalise businesses for succeeding in the most desirable place to do business is madness. For example, London is the financial capital of the world, it's one of the few industries in which the UK leads the world. The economy is global. You won't get large businesses relocating to Swansea and Ipswich and Aberdeen, they'd relocate to Frankfurt, Paris, New York, Shanghai or Singapore.

 

[tbtc]

Have you ever tried to get to Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport or Wilmslow from most of South Manchester using public transport?

Same goes with any large urban connurbation. Difference is that southern Manchester is seing large amounts of money being spent on a tram to help this (as well as all of the existing train services, bus services etc).

 

[Royston Vasey]

Thereby throwing away ten years' value.

Be careful about taking one journalist's interpretation of one academic paper at a conference. I've given technical and commercial presentations and journalists know a million ways to misinterpret a message depending on their agenda or lack of intelligence.

Saying "this metal won't fully fatigue for 25 years" is not the same as "this fleet of coaches and their entire fittings and components will be fully viable to operate for 25 years".

What is not reported is the cost at which a serviceable coach can be rebuilt around your non-fatigued (but still corroding) metal frame and the viability of continuing to overhaul/rebuild/maintain that coach. Corrosion repairs are a huge part of such a rebuild, and that has nothing to do with metal fatigue.

The other reason to be careful is that that paper was given to justify a contemporaneous rebuild of Mk3 coaches in ~2010. It may well be viable at this point to rebuild Mk 3s now for another 15 years life but when it comes to 2020 or 2025, the equation becomes, how much do I have to spend on this vehicle for a mere 5 years of life, not 15. It stops making sense because the yield from that vehicle is much lower. Some Mk 3s may well be on the rails to 2030, but large scale fleets cost huge amounts to rebuild and it would never have enough of a payback.

 

[tbtc]

**

ETA: Am just doing the maths here. Since IEP will replace all HSTs on East Coast, all HSTs on EMT, all HSTs on FGW services through Didcot, the only ones still required will be the five with XC and the ones with FGW required for services through Newbury.

Does anyone know the number required for the Newbury services (i.e. Paddington - Exeter/ Plymouth/ Penzance)?

Of course twenty seven cascaded 222s could replace a number of these - but does the maths work? Are there going to be more than say a dozen/ fifteen HST diagrams on West of England services (allowing for some HSTs to be replaced by doubled up shoter 222s)? Can anyone provide figures?

 

[sprinterguy]

**

ETA: Am just doing the maths here. Since IEP will replace all HSTs on East Coast, all HSTs on EMT, all HSTs on FGW services through Didcot, the only ones still required will be the five with XC and the ones with FGW required for services through Newbury.

Does anyone know the number required for the Newbury services (i.e. Paddington - Exeter/ Plymouth/ Penzance)?

Of course twenty seven cascaded 222s could replace a number of these - but does the maths work? Are there going to be more than say a dozen/ fifteen HST diagrams on West of England services (allowing for some HSTs to be replaced by doubled up shoter 222s)? Can anyone provide figures?

If I remember correctly (I don't have the data to hand, so apologies if I get any of the numbers wrong), FGW essentially operate three HST sub-fleets:

16 x Long distance sets in 2+8 formation, maintained at Plymouth Laira.
10 x High density sets in 2+8 formation, maintained at Plymouth Laira.
18 x High density sets recently lengthened to 2+8 formation, maintained at Old Oak Common.

Now without going through the FGW HST diagrams with a fine toothcomb (A lot of the diagrams see the trains moving around routes over the course of the day, making it difficult to split diagrams up by route), I would suggest that Laira's 16 long distance sets would be enough to cover all of the services to the South West. I would expect Old Oak's 18 high density sets to be the first for withdrawal (Used primarily on Oxford, Cheltenham and Bristol services), leaving ten Laira based high density sets that I am unsure about, but will probably be surplus to requirements as well.

 

[tbtc]

If I remember correctly (I don't have the data to hand, so apologies if I get any of the numbers wrong), FGW essentially operate three HST sub-fleets:

16 x Long distance sets in 2+8 formation, maintained at Plymouth Laira.
10 x High density sets in 2+8 formation, maintained at Plymouth Laira.
18 x High density sets recently lengthened to 2+8 formation, maintained at Old Oak Common.

Now without going through the FGW HST diagrams with a fine toothcomb (A lot of the diagrams see the trains moving around routes over the course of the day, making it difficult to split diagrams up by route), I would suggest that Laira's 16 long distance sets would be enough to cover all of the services to the South West. I would expect Old Oak's 18 high density sets to be the first for withdrawal (Used primarily on Oxford, Cheltenham and Bristol services), leaving ten Laira based high density sets that I am unsure about, but will probably be surplus to requirements as well.

Thanks.

So if FGW require sixteen x high density eight coach trains then there's not enough 222 coaches to reform them into the original nine coach formations (7x9 + 20x4) to replace the West of England diagrams. Frustrating!

::back to the drawing board::

(assuming that a panto-car isn't realistic, like the shelved Project Thor)

 

[JamesRowden]

So if FGW require sixteen x high density eight coach trains then there's not enough 222 coaches to reform them into the original nine coach formations (7x9 + 20x4) to replace the West of England diagrams. Frustrating!

::back to the drawing board::

(assuming that a panto-car isn't realistic, like the shelved Project Thor)

Five 5 car 180s will be displaced by IEP on the Paddington-Hereford line. Might these fill your stock gap?

Also, since 222s are MUs they could be split enroute (unlike HSTs) in order to reduce the total amount of stock required along the route.

 

[The Ham]

Thanks.

So if FGW require sixteen x high density eight coach trains then there's not enough 222 coaches to reform them into the original nine coach formations (7x9 + 20x4) to replace the West of England diagrams. Frustrating!

::back to the drawing board::

(assuming that a panto-car isn't realistic, like the shelved Project Thor)

That does of course depend on what trains are needed. As given the loadings west of Plymouth it maybe better to run them as 4 or 5 coaches and double them up for running into London. Using the few 9 coach trains that there would be to run the peak hour trains between Plymouth and London

Assuming the 222's have the same capacity as the XC class 221's they are as follows; 4 coach 26 first class and 182 standard class, so doubled up they are 52 first class and 364 standard.

That compares to FGW long distance HST (2+8); 375 standard class, 112 or 118 first class.

If you could get a 4 coach and a 5 coach that would be 52 first class 434 standard, with a bit of a rebuild you maybe able to rebalance the classes and still achieve similar levels of capacity. With the bonus of not having to run trains which are too long for the number of passengers through Cornwall.

 

[ainsworth74]

Assuming the 222's have the same capacity as the XC class 221's they are as follows; 4 coach 26 first class and 182 standard class, so doubled up they are 52 first class and 364 standard.

They do not have the same capacity as a 221 as Meridans have a sensible number of DDA toilets. A 5-car 222 has 192 standard class seats and 50 first class. There is a composite coach so if you were to change that to a standard only coach you end up with 238 standard and 22 first class. In a doubled up formation you'd get 476 standard and 44 first class or if you keep the composite coach the doubled up formation will be 384 standard and 100 first class.

 

[tbtc]

Five 5 car 180s will be displaced by IEP on the Paddington-Hereford line. Might these fill your stock gap?

Also, since 222s are MUs they could be split enroute (unlike HSTs) in order to reduce the total amount of stock required along the route.

Good thinking

Yes, displaced 180s (esp if Selby - Hull is wired at the start of CP6!) and portion working on many services west of Plymouth would be a big help!

 

[AndyLandy]

Good thinking

Yes, displaced 180s (esp if Selby - Hull is wired at the start of CP6!) and portion working on many services west of Plymouth would be a big help!

Don't forget that it's also likely that some Voyagers are likely to be freed up during CP6, not sure how compatible they are with 222 sets though...

 

[ainsworth74]

Don't forget that it's also likely that some Voyagers are likely to be freed up during CP6, not sure how compatible they are with 222 sets though...

Mechanically I'd imagine there would be no problem. Actually getting them to work together would require changing the TMS on either the Voyagers or Meridians to be compatible with each other. Voyager use a TMS supplied by Alstom in order to be compatible with 390s (and also I think the tilting plays a part) whilst Meridians use Bombardier's own TMS and the two are not compatible.

 

[AndyLandy]

Mechanically I'd imagine there would be no problem. Actually getting them to work together would require changing the TMS on either the Voyagers or Meridians to be compatible with each other. Voyager use a TMS supplied by Alstom in order to be compatible with 390s (and also I think the tilting plays a part) whilst Meridians use Bombardier's own TMS and the two are not compatible.

Isn't that just a glorified "firmware flash", or is it far more complicated than that?

 

[hwl]

Five 5 car 180s will be displaced by IEP on the Paddington-Hereford line. Might these fill your stock gap?

Also, since 222s are MUs they could be split enroute (unlike HSTs) in order to reduce the total amount of stock required along the route.

I suspect it may need a full look at the diagrams (in a similar way to the questions raised about the number of units ordered on the IEP thread) to actually give an accurate answer.

Also if you assume 1 unit under going major maintenance at a time, there might be an advantage to the shorter 222s as less coaches might be out of action on average.

Electrification, Reading improvements, crossrail and introduction of IEPs will lead to a timetable recast that could shave some time off the journeys or possibly reduce dwell times at terminating stations before the next trip possibly reducing the number of units required on the West country services.

 

[bolli]

Isn't that just a glorified "firmware flash", or is it far more complicated than that?

I don't think that they even work on the same voltage or have the same connectors.

So they would have to rip them out and start afresh...

 

[JamesRowden]

I have just found a very interesting post at http://http://www.transitionmarlborough.org/blogpost40 which states the following:

Bedwyn station is currently served by diesel turbo trains from Paddington or Newbury and the occasional fast diesel train to/from Exeter and Plymouth. This is set to change once the line is electrified. However, as electrification will only come as far as Newbury, The Bedwyn Trains Passenger Group have written to both Claire Perry (MP that covers Bedwyn and Marlborough) and Richard Benyon (MP that covers Hungerford and Kintbury) asking them to investigate how this will affect Bedwyn station. They both received the same reply from the Transport Minister, Theresa Villiers – after the year 2016 the diesel Turbo trains will not be allowed to run between Reading and Paddington. This means that Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn would be on a diesel Turbo shuttle service to Newbury or Reading.

It is proposed that through services to Exeter will be in two categories –

(i) A fast service between Paddington and Exeter (first stops Reading and Taunton) using the existing HST trains and

ii) A semi-fast service, using new IEP trains (these are bi-mode trains that can run under the wire to Newbury and then diesel thereafter), between Paddington and Exeter (stopping at additional stations such as Newbury, Pewsey and Westbury).

There is a danger that neither the fast service nor the semi-fast service will stop at Bedwyn in future.

BTPG are running a campaign to get our frequency of service and stops at Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn on all the semi-fast IEP Paddington to Exeter service, included in the forthcoming franchise document for the Great Western route.

This indicates that some of the West Country HSTs will be replaced with IEP Bi-modes and so less 222s/180s than we thought would be required to replace the remaining HSTs on the fast services.

 

[The Ham]

I have just found a very interesting post at http://www.transitionmarlborough.org/blogpost40 which states the following:

Originally Posted by Sam Page
Bedwyn station is currently served by diesel turbo trains from Paddington or Newbury and the occasional fast diesel train to/from Exeter and Plymouth. This is set to change once the line is electrified. However, as electrification will only come as far as Newbury, The Bedwyn Trains Passenger Group have written to both Claire Perry (MP that covers Bedwyn and Marlborough) and Richard Benyon (MP that covers Hungerford and Kintbury) asking them to investigate how this will affect Bedwyn station. They both received the same reply from the Transport Minister, Theresa Villiers – after the year 2016 the diesel Turbo trains will not be allowed to run between Reading and Paddington. This means that Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn would be on a diesel Turbo shuttle service to Newbury or Reading.

It is proposed that through services to Exeter will be in two categories –

(i) A fast service between Paddington and Exeter (first stops Reading and Taunton) using the existing HST trains and

ii) A semi-fast service, using new IEP trains (these are bi-mode trains that can run under the wire to Newbury and then diesel thereafter), between Paddington and Exeter (stopping at additional stations such as Newbury, Pewsey and Westbury).

There is a danger that neither the fast service nor the semi-fast service will stop at Bedwyn in future.

BTPG are running a campaign to get our frequency of service and stops at Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn on all the semi-fast IEP Paddington to Exeter service, included in the forthcoming franchise document for the Great Western route.

This indicates that some of the West Country HSTs will be replaced with IEP Bi-modes and so less 222s/180s than we thought would be required to replace the remaining HSTs on the fast services.

It's interesting that Exeter may be getting IEP services.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Be careful about taking one journalist's interpretation of one academic paper at a conference.

Saying "this metal won't fully fatigue for 25 years" is not the same as "this fleet of coaches and their entire fittings and components will be fully viable to operate for 25 years".

What is not reported is the cost at which a serviceable coach can be rebuilt around your non-fatigued (but still corroding) metal frame and the viability of continuing to overhaul/rebuild/maintain that coach. Corrosion repairs are a huge part of such a rebuild, and that has nothing to do with metal fatigue.

The other reason to be careful is that that paper was given to justify a contemporaneous rebuild of Mk3 coaches in ~2010. It may well be viable at this point to rebuild Mk 3s now for another 15 years life but when it comes to 2020 or 2025, the equation becomes, how much do I have to spend on this vehicle for a mere 5 years of life, not 15. It stops making sense because the yield from that vehicle is much lower. Some Mk 3s may well be on the rails to 2030, but large scale fleets cost huge amounts to rebuild and it would never have enough of a payback.

I am not relying on a journalist's interpretation. I have heard the same thing from at least two other separate sources who were responsible for refurbishing the vehicles. The only significant corrosion is in the toilet areas. Steel railway vehicles tend to corrode fromt the inside out due to rain leakage and condensation. Some mark 3 vehicles have suffered badly from condensation-induced corrosion but not the inter-city ones. I would suggest that the most likely reason for their apparent immunity is the fact that they have air conditioning.

Anyhow, as I have said previously, railway vehicles consist of components with various life cycles, of which steel bodyshells are amongst the longest-lived. Since steel is not subject to fatigue failure in the way that aluminium is, there is no good reason not to accept the 2035 date for now and then review the situation again in 2020. The stock was built over a period of about 10 years. Obviously there will be a drop-dead date but it is evidently nowhere near in sight. If you are in the US you will be aware that there is stainless steel bodied stock still in service after 60 years. More of a worry is the "known unknown" regarding the fatigue life of the first generation of aluminium bodied stock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ah, so your crackpot economics stretch as far as macroeconomics too! Making London a less desirable place to do business is just stupid. Trying to penalise businesses for succeeding in the most desirable place to do business is madness. For example, London is the financial capital of the world, it's one of the few industries in which the UK leads the world. The economy is global. You won't get large businesses relocating to Swansea and Ipswich and Aberdeen, they'd relocate to Frankfurt, Paris, New York, Shanghai or Singapore.

We are not starting to get rude, are we?

Redistributing the burden of taxation within the UK is not making London less attractive, it is making other parts of the UK more attractive. Because London is relatively under-taxed compared to the rest of the country, commercial rents are higher than they would otherwise be. It is of no benefit to businesses - they just end up paying more to the half-dozen or so ancient aristocratic families who between them own the most valuable areas of central London, mostly through off-shore companies so the UK government does not get its whack in tax revenue. And in the meantime the undesirability of the UK regions means persistent unemployment at high levels, landing the taxpayers with a massive welfare bill.

Now that really is what you should call crackpot economics.

 

[swt_passenger]

It's interesting that Exeter may be getting IEP services.

It certainly isn't new 'news' though, a semifast IEP service on the B&H to pick up intermediate calls has been discussed here on a number of previous occasions.

The debate has always been about frequency, and how far it would go, ie if the destination would be Westbury, Taunton or Exeter...

 

[Royston Vasey]

I am not relying on a journalist's interpretation. I have heard the same thing from at least two other separate sources who were responsible for refurbishing the vehicles. The only significant corrosion is in the toilet areas. Steel railway vehicles tend to corrode fromt the inside out due to rain leakage and condensation. Some mark 3 vehicles have suffered badly from condensation-induced corrosion but not the inter-city ones. I would suggest that the most likely reason for their apparent immunity is the fact that they have air conditioning.

Anyhow, as I have said previously, railway vehicles consist of components with various life cycles, of which steel bodyshells are amongst the longest-lived. Since steel is not subject to fatigue failure in the way that aluminium is, there is no good reason not to accept the 2035 date for now and then review the situation again in 2020. The stock was built over a period of about 10 years. Obviously there will be a drop-dead date but it is evidently nowhere near in sight. If you are in the US you will be aware that there is stainless steel bodied stock still in service after 60 years. More of a worry is the "known unknown" regarding the fatigue life of the first generation of aluminium bodied stock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
We are not starting to get rude, are we?

Redistributing the burden of taxation within the UK is not making London less attractive, it is making other parts of the UK more attractive. Because London is relatively under-taxed compared to the rest of the country, commercial rents are higher than they would otherwise be. It is of no benefit to businesses - they just end up paying more to the half-dozen or so ancient aristocratic families who between them own the most valuable areas of central London, mostly through off-shore companies so the UK government does not get its whack in tax revenue. And in the meantime the undesirability of the UK regions means persistent unemployment at high levels, landing the taxpayers with a massive welfare bill.

Now that really is what you should call crackpot economics.

You're missing the point again. Nothing "drops dead", it merely becomes uneconomic to maintain, refurbish and generate revenue from in comparison to a new asset. I'm not talking about when a steel coach body will fall apart. It's the value it generates and at what cost.

The value calculation in the US would be done by a state-owned transit authority looking to kick any necessary investment 5-10 years down the road, not a ROSCO in a privatised rail industry looking to maximise a long term profit centre for up to 40-50 years.


As for the later point, you're talking about macroeconomic issues over which the UK has no control - globalisation of means manufacturing jobs have declined rapidly. The financial sector is one industry which, thankfully, still generates a huge amount of revenue for UK plc.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

You're missing the point again. Nothing "drops dead", it merely becomes uneconomic to maintain, refurbish and generate revenue from in comparison to a new asset. I'm not talking about when a steel coach body will fall apart. It's the value it generates and at what cost.

The value calculation in the US would be done by a state-owned transit authority looking to kick any necessary investment 5-10 years down the road, not a ROSCO in a privatised rail industry looking to maximise a long term profit centre for up to 40-50 years.

As for the later point, you're talking about macroeconomic issues over which the UK has no control - globalisation of means manufacturing jobs have declined rapidly. The financial sector is one industry which, thankfully, still generates a huge amount of revenue for UK plc.

We are not actually in disagreement in principle on life extension. It just seems that the mark 3 stock has lasted much longer than expected or intended and the is no necessity at the moment to set a date by which it will have to be replaced due to the ravages of the years.

As regards the alleged problems of globalisation, some of these are self-inflicted. If you look at the difference between GROSS LABOUR COSTS TO EMPLOYERS and NET PURCHASING POWER OF WAGES in the various countries of Europe, you will find that the former is typically between 180% and 230% of the former. The difference is tax.

 

[tbtc]

Don't forget that it's also likely that some Voyagers are likely to be freed up during CP6, not sure how compatible they are with 222 sets though...

If you keep the XC "cross" as it is now then you'd need eleven Voyagers for the hourly Manchester - Bournemouth service (based on the daily diagrams, so add in a couple of extra ones for spares/ maintenance etc).

We are not actually in disagreement in principle on life extension. It just seems that the mark 3 stock has lasted much longer than expected or intended and the is no necessity at the moment to set a date by which it will have to be replaced due to the ravages of the years

Pacers have lasted much longer than expected or intended and the is no necessity at the moment to set a date by which it will have to be replaced due to the ravages of the years, by the same logic

Nothing unique about HSTs/ Mk3s.

(replaced due to DDA? That's a whole other story)

 

[ainsworth74]

If you keep the XC "cross" as it is now then you'd need eleven Voyagers for the hourly Manchester - Bournemouth service (based on the daily diagrams, so add in a couple of extra ones for spares/ maintenance etc).

Though that could (and perhaps should) go over to EMU operation by around 2020.

 

[tbtc]

Though that could (and perhaps should) go over to EMU operation by around 2020.

Yeah, I'm just suggesting that as a guide to the number of Voyagers that may be freed up by this electrification

 

[Rich McLean]

The voyagers that will end up being freed up on the Manchester - Bournemouth runs will more than likely add capacity to the rest of the XC Network. The 5 coach voyager I was on the other day would of still been packed even with a HST

 

[AndyLandy]

Yeah, I'm just suggesting that as a guide to the number of Voyagers that may be freed up by this electrification

A couple of additional infills in CP6 and you could free up a large number of XC Voyagers. If you were prepared to stop doing a direct service between Aberdeen and Penzance, you could possibly free up the whole fleet...

The voyagers that will end up being freed up on the Manchester - Bournemouth runs will more than likely add capacity to the rest of the XC Network. The 5 coach voyager I was on the other day would of still been packed even with a HST

That would seem likely. It's not worth buying EMUs for just the one XC route during CP5. Much better to wait for some more schemes in CP6 and do a wholesale EMU deployment.

 

[tbtc]

A couple of additional infills in CP6 and you could free up a large number of XC Voyagers. If you were prepared to stop doing a direct service between Aberdeen and Penzance, you could possibly free up the whole fleet...

If you can do a little infill (Moorthorpe/ Doncaster - Swinton - Meadowhall - Sheffield, Derby - Birmingham and Bromsgrove - Bristol Parkway) then you'd only need diesels for services to Devon/ Cornwall I guess.

But would any politician want to lose those token longer distance links?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The voyagers that will end up being freed up on the Manchester - Bournemouth runs will more than likely add capacity to the rest of the XC Network. The 5 coach voyager I was on the other day would of still been packed even with a HST

Agreed - more capacity required - can't argue with putting "freed up" Voyagers on existing routes

It's not worth buying EMUs for just the one XC route during CP5. Much better to wait for some more schemes in CP6 and do a wholesale EMU deployment.

Add on order of "baby Pendolini" after the new WCML operator orde... oh, wait, there's a problem with that