Future of 22x Units

[Bletchleyite]

I think the Voyagers could live on but in light of the crash regs for 125mph I would propose reforming them into larger groups like the 8 cars (or more if possible) some of the 222s were originally shipped in. With an internal refit to high density seating layout I think they could be better units more akin to diesel pendos.

They already have a high density seating layout and an interior that makes them look like a diesel Pendolino. I hate to think what you would turn them into!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seats in intermediate coaches with accessible toilets:

Voyager: 66
HST (east coast): 62
Mk 4 (east coast): 68
Pendolino: 62

Yeah they have big toilets, but all accessible toilets are big. Nothing remarkably space inefficient about the design itself.

Three accessible toilets was itself a poor design decision.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I remember reading somewhere (possibly on here) that the reason for the smell issue on Voyagers is something to do with the proximity of hot exhausts/other equipment to the waste tanks. This seems to be less of an issue with the similar Meridian units, so there is presumably a possible fix. How much this would cost, and whether it's viable on vehicles approaching 20 years old is another matter though.

Whether the 22x fleets stay where they are now or not, they're getting to the point where a mid-life overhaul is due. As those companies that do overhauls are going to be busy dealing with PRM compliance for the next 18 months, any major work will probably not take place until that work is finished... but when it does, many of the issues with the stock can be solved if the will is there.

Whilst they aren't popular with passengers, the 22x family are pretty reliable. If any do come free, using them to replace the unreliable 180s would be ideal if GC survive that long.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does seem that the two 125mph DMU designs have a bit of a split:

Voyager: good below the floor, less good above
180: good above the floor, appalling below

The latter are certainly more of a priority for the scrapper.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It does seem that the two 125mph DMU designs have a bit of a split:

Voyager: good below the floor, less good above
180: good above the floor, appalling below

The latter are certainly more of a priority for the scrapper.

Now, if only there was some way to do a "cut & shut" type job...

 

[gingertom]

Now, if only there was some way to do a "cut & shut" type job...

it's what Wabtec's allegedly good at....

 

[James James]

The access charges for a 125mph diesel loco would be high, maybe prohibitive.
Class 67 was nominally 125mph capable but never ran at that speed in normal traffic.
Just because a manufacturer says it's an option doesn't mean it will work in UK conditions.
Where do Stadler (or any) diesel locos operate at 200km/h? Nowhere I suspect.

Plenty of 200km/h diesels in the US, and apparently we're going to have some sweet trade deals with them which should make such locos cheap.

Closer to home, RENFE have some 200km/h diesels.

 

[gingertom]

Plenty of 200km/h diesels in the US, and apparently we're going to have some sweet trade deals with them which should make such locos cheap.

Closer to home, RENFE have some 200km/h diesels.

much closer to home we have the class 43, which does 125mph day in day out, and the class 67, which does not.

 

[mullac30]

much closer to home we have the class 43, which does 125mph day in day out, and the class 67, which does not.

According to Wikipedia, 67's can do 125mph as it was the design speed, infact it reached in 143mph during testing in Spain.

 

[43096]

Usual guff on here about the 22x series, so let's go back to the OP's original point. How long are they leased out for to their respective TOC's? (Basically asking could another TOc do what happened to TPE when they lost those 170s?) Can we please try to avoid the usual rubbish about them? Yes I drive them and have just had to put up with an unreliable one, but at least try to be objective please!!!

The Voyagers were covered by a Section 54 agreement that means they had leases guaranteed beyond the (initial) franchise period. March 2019 is the date when the Voyager s54 agreement expires, so the lease is up to the end of the current franchise in October next year.

 

[43096]

Seats in intermediate coaches with accessible toilets:

Voyager: 66
HST (east coast): 62
Mk 4 (east coast): 68
Pendolino: 62

Yeah they have big toilets, but all accessible toilets are big. Nothing remarkably space inefficient about the design itself.

You have missed the point. A Voyager has three big toilets in 4-cars; no other design has that. That is a massive waste of space, especially in such a small train.

 

[WYSH]

Send some of the voyagers to TPE to replace the 185s which can be sent to northern

 

[LOL The Irony]

Class 68's are not rated for 125mph.

Although they can go quite a bit quicker than the stated 100mph (I found this out at the DRS open day). With better gearing they could easily do 125.

 

[mmh]

You have missed the point. A Voyager has three big toilets in 4-cars; no other design has that. That is a massive waste of space, especially in such a small train.

I haven't. The only problem with Voyagers as a passenger is they're either too short, or there's not enough of them. Everyone who was used to mk2 or mk3s knew that if you wanted to go to the toilet, there'd be two at the end of the carriage nearest to you. No need to walk through another carriage.

And those trains had toilets which weren't wheelchair accessible, but neither were they the broom cupboards you can't move in on, for example the 390s where the layout was specified at the same time as the Voyagers.

Nobody goes into a Voyager toilet and gets annoyed by how big it is except an enthusiast with an axe to grind. I quite like the idea of making all toilets better for the passengers.

Most (all?) new trains immediately post-privatisation were badly specified, it was a free for all and most got it wrong.

 

[Andyh82]

Well it seems to have moved on a bit.

We’ve gone from Crosscountry network likely to be trimmed as no new trains will be purchased by the next franchise, to maybe they will use HSTs to boost the numbers, to maybe they will get so many new trains they can start withdrawing Voyagers.

A quantity of new trains so all Voyagers can be doubled up, and possibly also used to replace 170s with XC will probably be the best outcome we can hope for, so I doubt the discussions in this thread will come to anything for about 20 years.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

According to Wikipedia, 67's can do 125mph as it was the design speed, infact it reached in 143mph during testing in Spain.

I think you'll find they are limited to 110mph on NR.
Design speed isn't the same as service speed.
390s are specced for 140mph but NR cannot support more than 125mph (same with 800s).
Access charges (related to track wear at high speed) are a major factor.

 

[mmh]

Access charges (related to track wear at high speed) are a major factor.

Once we've left the EU and voted in a government (of either persuasion) with the gumption to do it we could stop that farce.

I'm not holding my breath.

 

[gingertom]

I think you'll find they are limited to 110mph on NR.
Design speed isn't the same as service speed.
390s are specced for 140mph but NR cannot support more than 125mph (same with 800s).
Access charges (related to track wear at high speed) are a major factor.

aware 67s are 125mph locos. My point is they don't do that speed in day to day service for various reasons, most of which have been covered here. Unlike the 43s which have been doing 125mph since day 1.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Could always convert them to articulated buses...

Scrap the Voyagers....disgusting, uncomfortable, smelly trains IMO

Agreed

Well that didn't take long...

Nor did that

Three accessible toilets was itself a poor design decision.

No, it just ensured redundancy in case of one failing allowing the PRM requirement for them not to be affected.

 

[gingertom]

Once we've left the EU and voted in a government (of either persuasion) with the gumption to do it we could stop that farce.

I'm not holding my breath.

nor I. Must be compelling reasons not to permit a 125mph loco to do 125 mph.
Similarly the class 90 was designed as a 125mph machine but capped at 110 because of the brakes. If the brakes could have been upgraded easily (=cheaply) then the work would have been done. It hasn't and we're stuck with it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, it just ensured redundancy in case of one failing allowing the PRM requirement for them not to be affected.

No, it was completely unnecessary. Two would have been quite adequate, one in each class of wheelchair accommodation. If they wanted to put the same amount of space into use for toilets more effectively, two large and two small would have fitted into the same space and been more useful. The third one would be of no use for a wheelchair user as there is no wheelchair space next to it.

The reason it was allegedly done was that they were going to have three classes and it was too late to change the order when they decided on two, but the idea of a 3+2 Virgin Value class was in a 2.73 (at the widest point) metre wide unit was so hair brained it should never have entered consideration. It'd have been like those 3+2 schoolkid coaches, much narrower than 3+2 in a more conventional 20m EMU which tends to be 2.80 or 2.82m wide, or at least 2.76 with slab sides as per the Desiro.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Once we've left the EU and voted in a government (of either persuasion) with the gumption to do it we could stop that farce.

I'm not holding my breath.

Why on earth would Brexit have anything to do with that? Access charges are not formulated by the EU.

 

[mmh]

Why on earth would Brexit have anything to do with that? Access charges are not formulated by the EU.

Directive 2016/2037 requires that member states allow companies from other member states to in principle run rail services over the member's rail infrastructure, effectively requiring members to separate infrastructure from operations. We'd already done that through our cack-handed privatisation twenty years ago, the rest of the EU has complied with this by creating splitting off the "infrastructure" side of their state-run railways to separate entities still under state control in a remarkable box-ticking exercise.

 

[Far north 37]

what makes you think scotrails hst programme isnt going to fully materialise its running behind schedule but so has a lot of new rolling stock these days to say it isnt going to fully materislise is pretty wild speculation.

South Western to replace 159s?

Long shot, but maybe Scotrail when the HST programme doesn't fully materialise?

A good fit may be the current 175 routes that are overcrowded.[/QU

 

[Prestige15]

I have a few suggestions but all are in doubts but were in the real world, anything can happen.

EMT: Norwich - Liverpool

Chiltern Mainline

GWR: Long distance routes (Cardiff - Portsmouth or Waymouth - Great Malven)

Deport them

Start a new life as a washing machine

 

[gingertom]

what makes you think scotrails hst programme isnt going to fully materialise its running behind schedule but so has a lot of new rolling stock these days to say it isnt going to fully materislise is pretty wild speculation.

Wabtec is running so far behind with this modification programme it could realistically be Dec 2020 when the final rake is delivered and in service. Not wild speculation but simple maths: 120 coaches at a rate of one per week? If I was in Scotrail's shoes I'd be worried about losing even more 170s off-lease before the HSTs are ready and investigating a plan B to mitigate if it isn't going to happen. OT for this thread though.

 

[bussnapperwm]

All possible suggestions...

• Make a 2 car one and put it on the Stourbridge Town branch
• Ship the 4 car voyages to Iran/Iraq/Some TIPLAC*
• convert one or two to New Measurement Trains
• Ashford to Brighton services
• A new GWR Birmingham to Paddington via Kidderminster service
• Chiltern 68/mk3 replacements

Or alternatively burn them

* - Tin Pot Little African Country. See Yes Minister for more info

 

[driver_m]

The Voyagers were covered by a Section 54 agreement that means they had leases guaranteed beyond the (initial) franchise period. March 2019 is the date when the Voyager s54 agreement expires, so the lease is up to the end of the current franchise in October next year.

Is that applied to both franchises? I'm not up on XC and at a guess ours would have possibly altered when we took 20 sets on.

 

[class26]

I haven't. The only problem with Voyagers as a passenger is they're either too short, or there's not enough of them. Everyone who was used to mk2 or mk3s knew that if you wanted to go to the toilet, there'd be two at the end of the carriage nearest to you. No need to walk through another carriage.

And those trains had toilets which weren't wheelchair accessible, but neither were they the broom cupboards you can't move in on, for example the 390s where the layout was specified at the same time as the Voyagers.

Nobody goes into a Voyager toilet and gets annoyed by how big it is except an enthusiast with an axe to grind. I quite like the idea of making all toilets better for the passengers.

Most (all?) new trains immediately post-privatisation were badly specified, it was a free for all and most got it wrong.

I think a person whop can`t get a seat on a voyager going to the enormous toilet would think that it was possible to get a few extra seats in with a sensible size of bog !

 

[Bletchleyite]

All possible suggestions...

• Make a 2 car one and put it on the Stourbridge Town branch

In all seriousness, when the rubber band on the PPMs eventually irreparably breaks, I would expect an order for 2 more 230s for that purpose (one in use, one on site spare).