Should Class 800 be ordered for the Cross Country franchise?

[HSTEd]

2+6 perhaps? That would give the increase in seats that XC desperately needs, without overly impinging on the capacity and timetable. I'm sure a few TFs could be converted into TSs if needs be.

Well even a 2+5 HST is going to have drastically more seats than a 4-car 220.
~40 first class and ~310 standard class seats (1 disabled toilet for each class, 1 first class and four standard class carriages)
350 seats compared to..... 26 first class and ~174 on a 220, for a total of 200.

350 v 200 is quite some uplift in capacity.

 

[gingertom]

the electric car for a Voyager has been discounted as being far too expensive. It's not difficult to make such a car but the biggest difficulty is getting the traction power to the existing traction equipment in the rake and the associated additional switchgear needed to achieve this. As it would be a new build it need a latest emission regs diesel engine which means the fleet would not be uniform- different spares and maintenance regime for that one vehicle in the rake.

Im going to be unpopular and suggest that the easiest, and cheapest way to solve the capacity issues is 2+5 HSTs

not worst idea I've heard. It would release 4 car voyagers for strengthening other services. A 2+6 would probably keep pace with the timetable too. I did toy with the idea of suggesting voyagers for ScotRail's intercity services but 2+4 and 2+5 HSTs won that, as they were available. That idea would have been to give XC a load of 2+5 / 2+6, freeing up 4-car voyagers. The Highland main line, being mostly single track, benefits from a timetable that runs less trains, so a pair of 4-car voyagers splitting and joining at Perth, with a set going forward to Glasgow and Edinburgh, might have made better use of the paths available.

Anyway this is about the introduction of bi-mode units to avoid running diesel under the wires. IMHO if there are wires it makes so much sense to make use of them.

 

[mallard]

the electric car for a Voyager has been discounted as being far too expensive

Last that was heard (in 2011) was that the DfT were "concerned" about the costs. The fact that nothing's been heard since then is a good indication that other things were considered a high priority, but since we've not had any new stock or franchise changes on XC (or MML or WCML, also users of 22x stock) means there's not really been any opportunity for Bombardier/the ROSCOs to actively "pitch" the idea to the operators. Indeed, even if the costs are high, if the alternative is that the fleets sit idle after being replaced by 80x bi-modes, the ROSCOs might well take on the option out of their own pockets.

One usenet post from 2012 (can't really link it, since Google Groups resists direct linking), citing "Informed Sources" states that the eVoyager programme was cancelled partly due to "the expanding electrification programme means that it will be possible to cover more Voyager-type duties with straight EMUs." Since this is now not happening, that changes the business case.

It also states that "In its ICWC bid Virgin proposed replacing Voyagers with Baby Pendolinos.", something that is also pretty unlikely now.

As it would be a new build it need a latest emission regs diesel engine which means the fleet would not be uniform- different spares and maintenance regime for that one vehicle in the rake.

As I understand it, the extra vehicle woudn't have a diesel engine (or possibly even traction motors), it would be a pure trailer. It's not as though 22x units lack power; it's fairly common for 222s to run with one engine down without major effect on timings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The eVoyager programme could work if the will to install jigs for the Voyagers & Meridians at Litchurch Lane is large enough. Remember - they were built in Bruges, not Derby, and the jigs have since been removed from Bruges.

The vehicles don't surely have to actually be Voyager vehicles, they could be any other 23m bodyshell. It'd look a bit odd, but the 508 vehicles inserted into 455s don't exactly draw masses of complaints.

 

[nat67]

Do you think CrossCountry will get 800s in the new franchise in bi mode as I would love to see a class 800 coming through birmingham

I agree its so much better than Voyagers choking us. And a lot more quieter to.

 

[59CosG95]

The vehicles don't surely have to actually be Voyager vehicles, they could be any other 23m bodyshell. It'd look a bit odd, but the 508 vehicles inserted into 455s don't exactly draw masses of complaints.

Indeed the 455/7s don't draw many complaints, but then again they only have a top speed of 75mph, so aerodynamic performance is only really an afterthought.
To meet the Voyager spec, they'd need to be capable of 125mph. Additionally, the bogies of the cars to go in the middle of the 221s would need to be tilt-capable.
Don't the Voyagers and their ilk also have a HV bus line?

 

[The_Engineer]

Diesel Electric units in general do not have an electric bus-line for traction. Each traction package stands alone on that car.

One reason for the expensive nature of the extra "pantograph" car in the eVoyager proposal was the expense of running HV bus-lines down the train, including additional jumpers between cars. Also, the additional dead weight of the unpowered pantograph car means that performance would be notably slower. The option of removing some or all diesel engines was a considered option but looking more at West Coast rather than cross-country.

It just couldn't be made viable no matter how it was looked at.

 

[47802]

A fleet of 802's could certainly help to reduce the amount of Under the Wire running but I doubt the Voyagers will be going anywhere else anytime soon so it would probably be only enough to replace the HST's and add some capacity, and if the Dft decided XC should be a dumping ground for 222's then clearly it wouldn't happen.

If the Dft decides to ditch Stanstead from XC, then ordering enough 802's to allow Voyagers to be cascaded onto the Nottingham-Cardiff route would allow XC to get rid of their entire 170 fleet.

 

[mallard]

It just couldn't be made viable no matter how it was looked at.

Sure, in 2011/12 that was the case. However, that decision was at least partly based on asessments of future electrification and WCML rolling stock solutions that have since changed. Even then, the business case was clearly very close since Bombardier did undertake significant work in studying feasibility and design. Whether the option is more viable now is something for the ROSCOs, operators and DfT to assess, I don't think any of us can say either way. It'll be interesting to see if it comes up during discussions of future XC, MML and WCML franchises.

 

[43096]

Sure, in 2011/12 that was the case. However, that decision was at least partly based on asessments of future electrification and WCML rolling stock solutions that have since changed. Even then, the business case was clearly very close since Bombardier did undertake significant work in studying feasibility and design. Whether the option is more viable now is something for the ROSCOs, operators and DfT to assess, I don't think any of us can say either way. It'll be interesting to see if it comes up during discussions of future XC, MML and WCML franchises.

It's a dead duck, basically. We're now almost 10 years further on (certainly will be if they were ordered now), so the remaining life of the Voyagers has decreased significantly. That matters because it means the costs of any extra vehicles have to be written off over a shorter period, which pushes lease costs up.

Bombardier were at best lukewarm anyway - the plan was about protecting/creating UK jobs during the recession; they would probably have preferred to build in Brugge rather than Derby. The Voyagers have Alstom electrical kit so would have required substantial Alstom input - things have moved on since they were ordered/built and Bombardier has since acquired Adtranz (and with it its own traction system through the ASEA heritage) so they would obviously have preferred to do this work in house (rather than Alstom at Preston).

 

[samuelmorris]

Re: thread title, nah, not unless significantly more of the route gets wired. If you were to order more, stick them on the VTWC routes and send their Voyagers down to bolster the XC fleet (unsure what implications that would have for 125mph running).

 

[cactustwirly]

Well even a 2+5 HST is going to have drastically more seats than a 4-car 220.
~40 first class and ~310 standard class seats (1 disabled toilet for each class, 1 first class and four standard class carriages)
350 seats compared to..... 26 first class and ~174 on a 220, for a total of 200.

350 v 200 is quite some uplift in capacity.

But they can't work south of Reading, unless they have SSL bogies.

 

[HSTEd]

But they can't work south of Reading, unless they have SSL bogies.

As the number of HST trailers in service will be dropping precipitously soon, its probably not impossible to ensure enough SSL Mark 3s end up with XC to make that possible.
Indeed we are only talking about 170 trailers plus spares total to support a 34 set fleet. And it would be possible for only part of their fleet to have that capability and still operate their existing timetable.
Noone else neds SSL Mark 3s to my knowledge so the fleets could be switched around so they get all the SSL ones.

This way of doing things allows a cheap and drastic expansion of XC's current capacity.

 

[gingertom]

As the number of HST trailers in service will be dropping precipitously soon, its probably not impossible to ensure enough SSL Mark 3s end up with XC to make that possible.
Indeed we are only talking about 170 trailers plus spares total to support a 34 set fleet. And it would be possible for only part of their fleet to have that capability and still operate their existing timetable.
Noone else neds SSL Mark 3s to my knowledge so the fleets could be switched around so they get all the SSL ones.

This way of doing things allows a cheap and drastic expansion of XC's current capacity.

agreed. However this requires some joined-up thinking- is the industry capable of this?!?

 

[w1bbl3]

A HST based solution is surely a short term as the 43's and mk3's can't keep being life extended for regular service, isn't the current power door programme intended for a ten year life to 2030 which is about the point the 220's would start to reach 30 years old and be at a logical age for replacement anyway.

A HST 2+5 or HST 2+6 is a quick capacity increase through most of day but does create a problem for the double voyager diagrams where the net capacity would reduce unless the fleet would also include some 2+8 sets.

Personally I'd have thought that either MML or XC will get a new fleet and loser the complete 220/221/222 family, but I suppose a more comprehensive rejuggling is possible if DfT do some joined up planing to replace the 15x's cascading 170's so voyagers end up on secondary long distance routes. XC and MML could then both receive new bimode fleets.

 

[gingertom]

A HST based solution is surely a short term as the 43's and mk3's can't keep being life extended for regular service, isn't the current power door programme intended for a ten year life to 2030 which is about the point the 220's would start to reach 30 years old and be at a logical age for replacement anyway.

A HST 2+5 or HST 2+6 is a quick capacity increase through most of day but does create a problem for the double voyager diagrams where the net capacity would reduce unless the fleet would also include some 2+8 sets.

Personally I'd have thought that either MML or XC will get a new fleet and loser the complete 220/221/222 family, but I suppose a more comprehensive rejuggling is possible if DfT do some joined up planing to replace the 15x's cascading 170's so voyagers end up on secondary long distance routes. XC and MML could then both receive new bimode fleets.

plus procuring 2 fleets would give economy of scale, commonality of parts etc. Far too sensible.

 

[Pete_uk]

Yes it would be a good idea. Either that or mk5s with a loco one end.

 

[sprinterguy]

As the number of HST trailers in service will be dropping precipitously soon, its probably not impossible to ensure enough SSL Mark 3s end up with XC to make that possible.
Indeed we are only talking about 170 trailers plus spares total to support a 34 set fleet. And it would be possible for only part of their fleet to have that capability and still operate their existing timetable.
Noone else neds SSL Mark 3s to my knowledge so the fleets could be switched around so they get all the SSL ones.

This way of doing things allows a cheap and drastic expansion of XC's current capacity.

Except that, between GWR and VTEC, with 26 sets bound for Scotrail and 12 (11?) for GWR regional services, there's only a total of 30 sets coming off lease - I'm not sure where you get the idea that there's "more than enough" to replace the whole 220 fleet. While with 2+5 sets you wouldn't be utilising all the available vehicles, that still accounts for around 60% of them and depending on vehicle type required the choice wouldn't be entirely indiscriminate. I don't know how many vehicles are fitted with SSL bogies, but 60% of the available fleet seems like a tall order as I thought they were in the minority (though it may also be possible to cherrypick from vehicles made redundant from rakes going through the Scottail programme - depends on the owning ROSCO, I suppose).

Of course, focus redeployed HST sets on the North East - South West axis, with sufficient sets to allow all the 4-car Voyagers to be doubled up as an equivalent to my previous class 802 proposal, and it never need be an issue.

 

[sprinterguy]

Either that or mk5s with a loco one end.

On one or both of the Manchester services, I'd welcome that and it doesn't seem like a bad fit, assuming that they could be 6-car rakes and still keep to current schedules.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the Dft decides to ditch Stanstead from XC, then ordering enough 802's to allow Voyagers to be cascaded onto the Nottingham-Cardiff route would allow XC to get rid of their entire 170 fleet.

The "XC-lite" services would to me certainly make more sense as being in either EMT or WMT. They are regional expresses at best, whereas the rest of XC is inter-regional. A very poor fit to the franchise, just like those TPE "semi local" services which will be appearing which really should be with Northern.

 

[BestWestern]

i would replace the voyagers with 800s to improve the passenger experience for a start. Then voyagers can be shifted onto longer distance DMU routes replacing 158s etc.

It's a funny thing, I've always disliked Voyagers as much as everybody else, but since sampling the 800s I find myself unexpectedly warming to them. Whilst undoubtedly tired, slightly odourous and clearly a flawed design, they've developed a certain warmth and cosyness... Yes really! I find the subdued tones and comfortable seating of a 220/221 to be preferable to the IET 'clinic waiting room' ambience, although admittedly of course the cumfy seating is irrelevant to those wedged into the vestibules. But given the choice of either (assuming HST isn't on the list!), I'd take the Vomiter!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't actually mind them that much either - indeed if I have a choice on the WCML I will choose them over the Pendolino because the seats are the same but the windows are much bigger. The main problem with them is (a) that they are dirty diesels operating mostly under the wires, which really has to stop, and (b) that they are too short (but a double set is fine).

I *do* like the subdued VTWC interior (on both types) with the rich, dark colours and low level of lighting, I agree it is relaxing and homely, and that the 800 interior is way too stark, particularly that horrid lime green band which (because it was the standard colour for bus grab poles in the 1990s) harks back to the very worst of bus deregulation.

 

[superkev]

Perhaps if they eventually finish the vw electrification gw should get new electrics as originally intended and the class 800's cascaded to cross country Midland main line.
K

 

[Domh245]

Perhaps if they eventually finish the vw electrification gw should get new electrics as originally intended and the class 800's cascaded to cross country Midland main line.
K

If/when GW electrification is finished in whole, then the engines will simply be removed from the 800s. They won't be cascaded around because of the nature of the IEP contract

 

[gingertom]

Perhaps if they eventually finish the vw electrification gw should get new electrics as originally intended and the class 800's cascaded to cross country Midland main line.
K

i think they will simply remove the engines and flog them on eBay.

 

[IanXC]

There is a dedicated thread for the Bombardier product here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/bombardier-designs-125mph-bi-mode-for-uk-market.162536/

 

[gingertom]

There is a dedicated thread for the Bombardier product here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/bombardier-designs-125mph-bi-mode-for-uk-market.162536/

thanks Ian, this new entry to the marketplace will stir things up. Nothing like a bit of competition to concentrate the minds.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

I'm very interested to see if the class 755 Bi Mode Flirts being introduced to GA prove their worth, and with Stadler likely to have future capacity after this order a XC order could be achievable

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm very interested to see if the class 755 Bi Mode Flirts being introduced to GA prove their worth, and with Stadler likely to have future capacity after this order a XC order could be achievable

Guess that'd need a few power cars, assuming we are talking a full length unit?

 

[gingertom]

Guess that'd need a few power cars, assuming we are talking a full length unit?

I guess several could be introduced into the rake as necessary, however these take up platform space, restricting the overall length of a unit, therefore seating capacity. IIRC the power car was designed to accommodate 4 engines, if used to the max there may be range problems. Certainly worth a close look.