Future of 22x Units

[jopsuk]

We did. But I don't know where he got the directive number from. I already quoted that it applies to aerosols.

hah! My point being that very often things that people claim the EU have imposed upon us, have in fact been things we've used the mechanisms of the EU to impose upon the rest of the Union. We are, after all, one of the biggest and most influential nations in the organisation.

 

[Rob F]

We are, after all, one of the biggest and most influential nations in the organisation.

Those were the days.......☹️☹️

 

[boxy321]

The class 68 is based on Vossloh (now Stadler)'s Eurolight, which has a 125mph option. The UK hasn't taken any 125mph versions but is there a good reason we couldn't? If so can they be simply (=cheaply!) modified to run at the higher speed? This could solve quite a few headaches. No doubt create a few too.

When I travel on these (Chiltern), they either seem to accelerate very slowly or the driver isn't in a rush. The journey times to Marylebone reflect this too.

 

[The Ham]

And an inefficient use of internal space. Actually, make that an abysmal interior layout.

Anyone suggesting using them in place of 159s out of Waterloo needs their head testing - look at the number of seats per vehicle.

Only as 4/5 coach units, if you convert them to 10 coach units (even without removing any of the accessable loos or making any other layout changes) they would have the same capacity as a 9 coach train formed of 3*159's.

Although they in its own right wouldn't* provide any extra capacity into London, what it does allow is for more 159's to be swapped with the 2 coach 158's to allow more 15x trains formed of 10 coaches.

It would also allow the running of some longer trains at other times of the day, possibly allowing 4 or 5 coach trains rather than 3 which are seen on some off peak services. Although this could also result in some 6 coach trains becoming 5 coaches, although add long as this didn't happen on the busiest of these services I doubt many would be that bothered. Especially if a significant number of services were 10 coach trains.q

*The removal of 5 accessable loos, old shop spaces and luggage racks could provide space for some extra seats boosting the numbers of seats to that approaching that of the 10 coach 15x's. Therefore providing some additional capacity into London.

 

[43096]

Only as 4/5 coach units, if you convert them to 10 coach units (even without removing any of the accessable loos or making any other layout changes) they would have the same capacity as a 9 coach train formed of 3*159's.

Although they in its own right wouldn't* provide any extra capacity into London, what it does allow is for more 159's to be swapped with the 2 coach 158's to allow more 15x trains formed of 10 coaches.

It would also allow the running of some longer trains at other times of the day, possibly allowing 4 or 5 coach trains rather than 3 which are seen on some off peak services. Although this could also result in some 6 coach trains becoming 5 coaches, although add long as this didn't happen on the busiest of these services I doubt many would be that bothered. Especially if a significant number of services were 10 coach trains.q

*The removal of 5 accessable loos, old shop spaces and luggage racks could provide space for some extra seats boosting the numbers of seats to that approaching that of the 10 coach 15x's. Therefore providing some additional capacity into London.

Rather than piddling around with trains that have never been fit for purpose - on XC or anywhere else - better to enhance capacity either with more 158s (sets come off ATW in the not too distant future) or something new build that does fit with what is needed.

Voyagers are fundamentally not right for the UK railway. They need to be replaced and go in the bin.

 

[driver_m]

Rather than piddling around with trains that have never been fit for purpose - on XC or anywhere else - better to enhance capacity either with more 158s (sets come off ATW in the not too distant future) or something new build that does fit with what is needed.

Voyagers are fundamentally not right for the UK railway. They need to be replaced and go in the bin.

You love em really! They'd have been ideal replacing 175s bit that's an opportunity gone now.

 

[mmh]

Rather than piddling around with trains that have never been fit for purpose - on XC or anywhere else - better to enhance capacity either with more 158s (sets come off ATW in the not too distant future) or something new build that does fit with what is needed.

Voyagers are fundamentally not right for the UK railway. They need to be replaced and go in the bin.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with them other than them either being too short or not enough of them. Something with hindsight applies to all of the orders immediately post privatisation. 8 coach 390s with 4 first class coaches anyone?

As a passenger they seem perfectly suited to the WCML and people like them. Again the only real problem is there isn't enough of them

 

[43096]

You love em really! They'd have been ideal replacing 175s bit that's an opportunity gone now.

Thing is - they wouldn't be ideal. For any given train length a 158/170/175/various new build options is far more efficient.

 

[driver_m]

Thing is - they wouldn't be ideal. For any given train length a 158/170/175/various new build options is far more efficient.

All hypothetical but I was thinking a there and then swap over of units, purely for the crowd busting that is sorely needed on a number of the services, plenty of horrified faces can be seen at various stations if the NW-Manchester turns up with a 2 car. As for power, they wipe the floor with any of those units on a climb.

 

[mmh]

Thing is - they wouldn't be ideal. For any given train length a 158/170/175/various new build options is far more efficient.

On the north wales coast there is a definite pecking order of which type of train passengers prefer to turn up. It's, unsurprisingly, 221, 175, 158, 150.

Exactly the same sort of order as you'd get anywhere else in the country. The passenger doesn't care that, for example, a Voyager, HST or 800 might be less efficient than a 150 between Bristol and Taunton, they just prefer the nicer and longer train.

 

[43096]

On the north wales coast there is a definite pecking order of which type of train passengers prefer to turn up. It's, unsurprisingly, 221, 175, 158, 150.

Exactly the same sort of order as you'd get anywhere else in the country. The passenger doesn't care that, for example, a Voyager, HST or 800 might be less efficient than a 150 between Bristol and Taunton, they just prefer the nicer and longer train.

Which is why XC passengers prefer the HSTs, and always have done. Always remember being on an MML HST hired in by XC where the MD was on board and he was walking through apologising it wasn't a Voyager - very amusing to hear the punters telling him "This is much better than your other trains - plenty of seats, there's luggage space and a proper buffet car. When are you getting some more?"

 

[The Ham]

Rather than piddling around with trains that have never been fit for purpose - on XC or anywhere else - better to enhance capacity either with more 158s (sets come off ATW in the not too distant future) or something new build that does fit with what is needed.

Voyagers are fundamentally not right for the UK railway. They need to be replaced and go in the bin.

By the time 22x's are likely to be available it is likely to be early 2020's by which point the 158's/9's will be pushing 35.

 

[mmh]

Which is why XC passengers prefer the HSTs, and always have done. Always remember being on an MML HST hired in by XC where the MD was on board and he was walking through apologising it wasn't a Voyager - very amusing to hear the punters telling him "This is much better than your other trains - plenty of seats, there's luggage space and a proper buffet car. When are you getting some more?"

Not surprised! I think I've only been on a (current) XC HST once. Newcastle to York so not a long journey but even so I was quite happy when it turned up. A big part of whether or not I like an HST journey or not these days seems to depend on what's been done to the interior.

I still think they're fantastic trains, but the great western interior was rubbish. XC seemed to have the same seats as EC but felt nicer (maybe just because the refurb was newer). EMT was a complete trip down memory lane, and the Grand Central carriages also with original seats but on first class spacing were fantastic. All tabled and with endless legroom, brilliant.

 

[43096]

By the time 22x's are likely to be available it is likely to be early 2020's by which point the 158's/9's will be pushing 35.

So you're betting off replacing all the 158s/159s on SWR with new stock and not faff around with transferring in Voyagers that are not fit for the job.

 

[The Ham]

By my maths you could convert the 220's / 221's to 17 * 10 coach units.


You need something like 7 units to run the services to Exeter and a further 4 or 5 to run an hourly service to/from Yeovil in addition.


With a further two units you could extend the Yeovil services to Weymouth with a slightly longer journey time (but still likely fast enough that people would still be able to leave later and arrive sooner than direct services). You may also need one or two for some Bristol services (run as a separate service from Basingstoke to increase frequenties on the WofE line and to provide enough overlap that you don't lose too many passengers from the existing services) and you've found a use for the whole fleet and provided extra capacity on a lot of services and provided some new routes.

 

[gsnedders]

How much work would be involved in reforming the 220s/221s to longer trains? Obviously the Class 222s were longer, but are they similar enough that the TMS will accept it without modification? I presume rebuilding the cab cars into intermediate cars as some have suggested is highly unlikely given the crash structure likely means you'd be as well starting from scratch, as the body shell is fundamentally the wrong shape?

 

[The Ham]

So you're betting off replacing all the 158s/159s on SWR with new stock and not faff around with transferring in Voyagers that are not fit for the job.

I'm saying that the 22x's are more suitable than people make out for the WofE line of they were to be changed to a 10 coach unit.

You also have to bear in mind that a new unit isn't likely to be able to use the third rail closer into London without significant power upgrades.

Finally there's a good chance that before the late 2030's that there could be some wires on the WofE line and the potential for Crossrail 2 allowing additional services. As such having something that ties the services over until then and then buying a big new fleet to also replace the 450's and 444's at the same time starts to make sense.

Finally in what way would a 20 coach 22x unit not be suitable for the line? Capacity I've covered in that with some modifications to remove some of the accessable loos when they are formed as 10 coach units they would be getting on for the capacity of the 10 coach 15x's.

Yes there would be some inflexibility, in that all trains would have to be 10 coaches long, but that's probably not necessarily a bad thing for several services.

 

[The Ham]

How much work would be involved in reforming the 220s/221s to longer trains? Obviously the Class 222s were longer, but are they similar enough that the TMS will accept it without modification? I presume rebuilding the cab cars into intermediate cars as some have suggested is highly unlikely given the crash structure likely means you'd be as well starting from scratch, as the body shell is fundamentally the wrong shape?

The basis of my suggestion is only using the central coaches for the central coaches of a 10 coach unit, so very little work in that regard.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Everyone has missed my idea back on the previous page.

 

[The Ham]

So there are 6 7 car 222's. There a 4 a piece of 4 car 221 & 222 sets. That means 12 more 5 car sets and you can keep the 2 7 car 222's as they are or a take a carriage out of each one & have 4 6 car sets. To make this easier to read, I'll make two lists.

Spoiler: Voyager option A - no Virgin sets

• 34 4 car trains (all 220)
• 45 5 car trains (24 221, 21 222)
• 2 7 car trains (all 222)

Or:

• 43 5 car trains (22 221, 21 222)
  
• 4 6 car trains (2 221, 2 222)

Spoiler: Voyager option B - with Virgin sets

• 34 4 car trains (all 220)
• 65 5 car trains (44 221, 21 222)
• 2 7 car trains (all 222)

Or:

• 63 5 car trains (42 221, 21 222)
• 4 6 car trains (2 221, 2 222)

All 4 car trains would be replaced with 5 car trains or coupled to another 4 car train to ease & prevent overcrowding. The 6/7 car trains would be very useful, although IMO the 6 car trains would be better as they could be coupled to a 4 car train or a 5 car train where as a 7 car train could maybe only be coupled to a 4 car train.

I guess that you would be expecting this fleet to stay at XC.

The problem with that is that is that it would require more coaches to provide the same capacity as longer units.

For instance a pair of 220's would be the same capacity as a 7 coach 22x unit (assuming the same central coach configuration as at present), likewise a pair of 221's would be the same capacity as a 9 coach unit.

Now if there was a new build bimodal fleet those 7 and 9 coach units could probably gain an extra few seats by having fewer accessible loos (even at a higher than normally required 3 or 4 out unit). They would also likely have lower maintenance costs as well as cheaper fuel costs.

That's before you consider staffing cost savings by not needing to double up a lot of your staff and the extra income due to more people having their tickets checked.

Finally, there's a good chance that the track access charges would be lower, especially when compared to the 221's.

All of that would likely mean that running a fleet of 7 and 5 coach units, or even 9 and 5 coach units, could be a comparable cost to using the 22x's. This would mean that either the owners of the 22x fleets would need to drop their prices to become competitive or they are likely to find themselves with a fairly large fleet of units with nothing to do.

Of course XC may still want to have a number of longer units and so either there's going to be some end 22x coaches heading for scrap to allow the remainder to be lengthened or there's going to be a new build fleet of longer units with XC retaining their 221's and some reformed 220's to provide the 5 coach units for the fleet.

With most of those options chances are there's going to be the 222 fleet spare, along with the possibility of some/all of the Voyagers.

 

[whhistle]

I wonder if Chiltern would be another good candidate to take them?
They'd be wise to their pitfalls but surely better than the 165/166/168 units they have?
Although perhaps they'd skip the 220/221 and grab the 222s instead.

 

[sprinterguy]

I wonder if Chiltern would be another good candidate to take them?
They'd be wise to their pitfalls but surely better than the 165/166/168 units they have?
Although perhaps they'd skip the 220/221 and grab the 222s instead.

22X units would only be relevant to the Chiltern 'Mainline' services, not the suburban services that the 165s operate (Chiltern don't have any 166 units). Even then, I'm not sure how much more suitable than 168s they would be with Chilterns' service pattern, but if electrification is unlikely to be forthcoming this side of 2030, then 6 x 7-car, 17 x 5-car and 4 x 4-car class 222s might not be a bad fit to replace Chiltern's loco-hauled rakes and class 168 units: They may fall slightly short of the total requirement now that the Oxford services are in operation, though.

 

[Bezza49]

XC's solution is quite obvious.

Take HST sets up that become available from EMT, GW and LNER...

Improve train quantity and train length. Refurb the interiors and a new paint job. Simple.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

XC's solution is quite obvious.

Take HST sets up that become available from EMT, GW and LNER...

Improve train quantity and train length. Refurb the interiors and a new paint job. Simple.

But it's not in their franchise budget. HSTs are more expensive to operate than other trains, because the maintenance has to be outsourced to other TOCs' depots due the diagrams, there are more coaches to maintain, track access charges are higher....

It is realistically only going to happen if the DfT gifts them the money. And the DfT is extremely stingy in areas such as this.

 

[Eccles1983]

Send them northern.

Chester to Leeds
Liverpool to Nottingham
Newcastle to Carlisle.

Give the north a decent train. I'd love to have a blast of them.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Scrap all the Voyagers - nasty stinky toilets on wheels, the lot of 'em

Gimme an HST or loco-hauled stock any day

 

[mushroomchow]

I still don't know where this assumption that the next EM franchise will see the 222s cascaded has come from. The terms for this round of bidding have always been that it's just the HSTs that are being replaced by the new franchisee. It would throw up in the air the 2019 timetable change, which is designed around Meridian-performance timings, if they dumped the fleet for something that may or may not be able to match them.

Not that I put anything past the DfT - after all, they have a special propensity for repeatedly shafting the East Midlands in railway terms. We were supposed to have wires to Derby being installed by now, but instead we've just got a couple of slightly higher road bridges and the looming possibility of bi-modes...

 

[sprinterguy]

I still don't know where this assumption that the next EM franchise will see the 222s cascaded has come from. The terms for this round of bidding have always been that it's just the HSTs that are being replaced by the new franchisee. It would throw up in the air the 2019 timetable change, which is designed around Meridian-performance timings, if they dumped the fleet for something that may or may not be able to match them.

Not really, the East Midlands Invitation to Tender seems to pretty much preclude the continued use of class 222s:

5.9.4 ...bidders are required to provide newly-built rolling stock to operate intercity services on the Midland Main Line between London St Pancras and Sheffield/Nottingham in compliance with the applicable Train Service Requirement.

This rolling stock must be capable of:
a) Operating in electric mode (to take advantage of electrification infrastructure where this exists);
b) Operating in another mode (including for the whole journey if necessary);

But don't worry, the ability to match class 222 timings is stipulated:

and c) Operating Class 222-timed services from the as-bid TSR1 and TSR2 on the Midland Main Line with no detriment to intermediate and end-to-end journey times.

 

[krus_aragon]

As I read that, newly-built rolling stock must be capable of operating in electric mode. but I'm not sure if it requires all intercity services to be operated with new rolling stock: it seems a bit ambiguous.

 

[Mollman]

As I read that, newly-built rolling stock must be capable of operating in electric mode. but I'm not sure if it requires all intercity services to be operated with new rolling stock: it seems a bit ambiguous.

The perceived wisdom seems to be that the bi-modes must replace the HSTs but that given the size of the order it would make better financial sense to order more.