They have poor fuel economy because they are 125mph units capable of accelerating as fast as an EMU (or a 75mph DMU) - the best of both worlds.
Yes. A big mistake if you ask me, one that IEP looks set to make which is one reason why I'm set against it. If you want the acceleration of an EMU then, unless you're service is very infrequent, the line should be electrified so you can have an EMU, the fuel ecconomy of Voyagers probably makes them alot more expensive to run, meaning the investment in OHLE would probably pay for itself quicker than replacing IC125s. The cost of running 22xs means they aren't really suitable for anything other than the Intercity routes they are presently used on, but they don't provide sufficent comfort or capacity to be suitable were they are.
Well I never, a thread mentioning 22xs and Great Western and here you are yet again trying to foist the blasted things on the Cotswold Line, despite having been told umpteen times before that they will never ever in a million years have adequate seating capacity, even in nine-car formations, to replace the 500-seat and 580-seat HSTs currently used, never mind allow for any future growth in passenger traffic. And that the idea of adding electric traction to 22xs is pretty obviously dead and buried.
Sorry, I forgot the seating capacity issue in my eagerness to rid ourselves of the impending doom IEP will bring about if it isn't rationalised. As for E-Voyager being dead, I know, but note the passage from NYM that I was quoting when I said that: "there is also the small matter that electrodieseling the 222 fleet is significantly more viable if combined with a transfer to GW than it is for the 220 / 221 fleet with XC. If anyone cares then I'll post up more details." Just because bi-mode 221s and 220s have been declared unviable it doesn't mean bi-mode 222s have been also.
I do however have to ask you, would you rather have 8/9-car bi-mode class 222 units on the Cotswolds line or the have the 5-car IEP DfT is planning to foist on the Cotswolds line. A 5-car IEP, by the way, will have around 250 standard class seats and 60 First class I believe. A 8-car 222 might not have as many seats as an IC125, but it'd have more seats than the IEP bi-modes you'd get otherwise.
The donkey engine is the small engine going in the IEP electric sets for shunting/get out of trouble if power is lost situations
I know that. Again, check the context of my words. To rephrase what I was saying: if you put bi-mode 222s on the Cotswolds line, the IEP order needn't include ANY bi-modes and instead can be all pure-electric IEPs (and I clarified that, by 'pure'-electric, I meant no 'donkey engine').
And you can't constantly change locos on Class 91+Mk4 formations. The time division multiplex gear hates being being plugged in and unplugged frequently, which is why these trains run as semi-permanently-coupled formations, same as 90s+Mk3s on Norwich services and with 86/87/90s on West Coast expresses before Pendolinos. And aren't Mk4s another element of your plans to save the GW from IEP? They can't be in two places at once.
If the TDM is that problematic it needs work. However, is it really that bad? While the mrk4 rakes are semi-permanently-coupled, the 91 is not fixed to the set. Sometimes, I think, the 91 is swapped at Kings Cross between workings. How many different DVTs has the class 91 in 'Flying Scotsman' livery run with since the 'Flying Scotsman' livery was applied?
Any unit for Waterloo-Exeter really needs end gangways, so revenue staff can get through the train and passengers can move into the right portion when they are split at Salisbury. Something like a dual-voltage 444 would be ideal.
Agreed, or (better yet?) a dual-voltage 5-WES (aka class 442), perhaps in 3-car or 4-car formations rather than the 5-car sets of 442/444. Similarly I think TransPennineExpress should have OHLE-powered 444/442-type units, and the north-Wales coast if it is electrified. Portion-working should not be done with units that don't have end-gangways in my opinion, anything that lacks end-gangways should be long enough that you don't need to run it in multiple (another reason why I don't like Voyagers and short IEPs).
I think it should keep its 158/159s until it is electrified (hopefully early in CP6) - no other DMU provides a better set-up for a route that needs high capacity operation at the eastern end plus splittable units for the quieter western end.
185s, 222s etc wouldn't be an improvement on that line - only EMUs would.
Agreed. The last applies to a lot of other lines though, including TPE where the 185s currently are. Somebody should have built a load more 158s/159s instead of 170s and 185s.
Early CP6 is when we could do with a whole load of DMU's to replace the pacers (see other thread).
Isn't CP6 a bit late to replace Pacers? Unless they are given a dispensation to work for a year or two extra, they will have to have the access-for-all mods by the end of 2019. If anyone has invested in said mods for the Pacers they will be here to stay for some time.
I'd agree with the doubling up of staff on longer trains - even if there's a link from each coach - how can one person check all tickets on an HST (for example)? One member of staff can struggle on some Sprinters, so seems optimistic to ask one to deal with a two hundred metre (plus) train - regardless of corridor connection
I agree, multiple revenue protection staff for longer trains regardless of corridor connections would be useful. However, doubling-up catering staff is unecessary if there are through corridor-connections and the ability to move passengers between units on-the-move (if they are in the wrong portion on a portion-worked service or one unit is full and standard while there are plenty of seats in the other) is, in my opinion, crucial.
