Future of 22x Units

[greatvoyager]

I don't think the voyagers are bad trains, they just could've been better when designed. In reality, no long distance, express passenger service should have 4-cars. 5-cars is the absolute minimum.
I've never had a bad journey on a voyager. I agree that HSTs are the best train we've ever had, but as long as the trains used get the job done, I can't complain.

 

[The Ham]

The current XC fleet is:
- 5*2+7 coach HST (457 seats)
- 16*3 coach class 170 (200 seats)
- 13*2 coach class 170 (120 seats)
- 38*4 coach class 220/221 (208 seats)
- 20*5 coach class 221 (278 seats)

IF EMT were to be getting the XC 170's as is a potential option (bearing in mind that XC have no franchise to be able to secure them with) then it could be that there's a need for a different fleet to be used by XC.

As such the following could be the future fleet:
- optional 5*2+7 coach HST (457 seats)
- 38*4 coach class 220/221 (208 seats)
- 40*5 coach class 221 (250/278 seats)
- 6*8 coach class 222 (398/404 seats)
(Above would be covering current HST, 220 & 221 services, with below covering class 170 services)
- 17*5 coach class 222 (240 seats)
- 1*4 coach class 222 (181 seats)
- 20*2 coach class 158, run as pairs in the Stansted services (138? seats/unit so 276 seats/service)

Please note that above assumes that the seating isn't changed (nor are extra buffets removed) awaiting a new franchise start and whatever that looks to do. It also requires the storage of 6 end coaches.

It would mean that there's 28 trains to cover the current 29 class 170 units (there's one current diagram which is a pair of two coach 170's which could be covered by a single 5 coach class 222 & still provide the same capacity). There would be quite an uplift in capacity across the day with every service being able to be rotated to have an increase in capacity (the only risk is if the single 4 coach unit has to sub for the diagram which currently has a pair of 170's on).

That's 84 or 89 trains to cover the work of 53 currently on the current HST/Voyager services. Bearing in mind there's already se services run with pairs of units and at the very least there's 1 extra long unit (comparable to a 4+4 in seating capacity), assuming that the HST's weren't also retained, that could allow a lot of the existing services, at least over the core, to be run as pairs of units.

Even if everything was end to end and there's no current services which are run as pairs that's basics 2/3 of all Voyager services able to run in pairs. As such, again, over the day that's quite an uplift in capacity compared to the existing.

If I were the ROSCO with the 222's is be looking to do a deal with XC which said; I'll least you my fleet of 222's for the same as you are paying for the 3 coach 170's on the understanding that this deal lasts until at least 2024 or 18 months after your current franchise ends whichever is sooner. They then hope that when XC or Chiltern are re-let that one or other would then be interested in taking them on a commercial basis, however in the meantime they've got some income rather than storage costs.

 

[Kettledrum]

IF EMT were to be getting the XC 170's as is a potential option (bearing in mind that XC have no franchise to be able to secure them with) then it could be that there's a need for a different fleet to be used by XC.

As such the following could be the future fleet:
- optional 5*2+7 coach HST (457 seats)
- 38*4 coach class 220/221 (208 seats)
- 40*5 coach class 221 (250/278 seats)
- 6*8 coach class 222 (398/404 seats)
(Above would be covering current HST, 220 & 221 services, with below covering class 170 services)
- 17*5 coach class 222 (240 seats)
- 1*4 coach class 222 (181 seats)
- 20*2 coach class 158, run as pairs in the Stansted services (138? seats/unit so 276 seats/service)

I'm really not sure it is sensible to have any of the above formed as 4 car units in the future or to use any of the 22x series to replace the class 170's.

The 4 car units are just too small and we need to be looking at significant increases in XC capacity. As many as possible really need to be reformed as 5 car units and run in pairs on peak services.

Class 170 units have wider doors and more standing space enabling more passengers to be carried on peak services and easier alighting of passengers. They are well suited for the commuter services that they often form now - albeit need to be run as 4 or 5 car formations on peak services themselves (either 2+2 units coupled together or 1x2 car coupled to a 1x3 car)

Class 22x units on these services would have longer dwell times.

At the moment peak services of class both 2 and 3 car class 170's can be absolutely packed through Birmingham. Sending out a 4 car 22x unit instead would probably make this worse for passengers.

There is a further argument against XC using all the 22x units, and that's the significant cost of running diesel units under the wires. This might make the finances of XC ordering bi-modes more attractive - as well as make a significant contribution to reducing diesel fumes at Birmingham New Street.

 

[43096]

If I were the ROSCO with the 222's is be looking to do a deal with XC which said; I'll least you my fleet of 222's for the same as you are paying for the 3 coach 170's on the understanding that this deal lasts until at least 2024 or 18 months after your current franchise ends whichever is sooner. They then hope that when XC or Chiltern are re-let that one or other would then be interested in taking them on a commercial basis, however in the meantime they've got some income rather than storage costs.

Not going to happen, is it? XC cannot commit to lease something beyond their current franchise end without DfT approval, which would in effect be a Section 54 agreement - which DfT don’t like. XC aren’t going to sign up beyond the franchise end at their own risk as they potentially end up paying for 18 months with no franchise to pay for them.

 

[krus_aragon]

Not going to happen, is it? XC cannot commit to lease something beyond their current franchise end without DfT approval, which would in effect be a Section 54 agreement - which DfT don’t like. XC aren’t going to sign up beyond the franchise end at their own risk as they potentially end up paying for 18 months with no franchise to pay for them.

I suspect the phantom hand of the DfT was encouraging East Midlands bidders to replace the 222s, precisely in order that they were available for XC. If that's the case, the DfT would presumably support XC taking them on.

 

[43096]

I suspect the phantom hand of the DfT was encouraging East Midlands bidders to replace the 222s, precisely in order that they were available for XC. If that's the case, the DfT would presumably support XC taking them on.

You are assuming the DfT is a logical, rational organisation!

 

[The Ham]

I'm really not sure it is sensible to have any of the above formed as 4 car units in the future or to use any of the 22x series to replace the class 170's.

The 4 car units are just too small and we need to be looking at significant increases in XC capacity. As many as possible really need to be reformed as 5 car units and run in pairs on peak services.

Class 170 units have wider doors and more standing space enabling more passengers to be carried on peak services and easier alighting of passengers. They are well suited for the commuter services that they often form now - albeit need to be run as 4 or 5 car formations on peak services themselves (either 2+2 units coupled together or 1x2 car coupled to a 1x3 car)

Class 22x units on these services would have longer dwell times.

At the moment peak services of class both 2 and 3 car class 170's can be absolutely packed through Birmingham. Sending out a 4 car 22x unit instead would probably make this worse for passengers.

There is a further argument against XC using all the 22x units, and that's the significant cost of running diesel units under the wires. This might make the finances of XC ordering bi-modes more attractive - as well as make a significant contribution to reducing diesel fumes at Birmingham New Street.

There's just 1 for coach unit, the rest would be 5's that should be easy to mostly be able to ensure it misses the busiest of services.

With regards to capacity the five coach 222's would have 40 more seats than the three coach 170's (basically 7 of those standing in each doorway could sit down) and, this is also relevent to loading/unloading, 10 doors compared to 6. That should be enough extra to compensate for the narrower doors and the "loss" of standing space.

Chances are when the new franchise starts the 22x fleet would be replaced, however until then there's a need for more capacity. With no sight of a new franchise or many alternatives for the 22x fleets the owners of them would be looking for a way of earning something from their assets rather than scraping them or having to pay to store them.

Not going to happen, is it? XC cannot commit to lease something beyond their current franchise end without DfT approval, which would in effect be a Section 54 agreement - which DfT don’t like. XC aren’t going to sign up beyond the franchise end at their own risk as they potentially end up paying for 18 months with no franchise to pay for them.

That's an easy fix, you put in a break clause which the leasee can implement at any point.

 

[43096]

That's an easy fix, you put in a break clause which the leasee can implement at any point.

Which totally negates your whole argument in the first place!!!!!!

 

[krus_aragon]

Chances are when the new franchise starts the 22x fleet would be replaced, however until then there's a need for more capacity. With no sight of a new franchise or many alternatives for the 22x fleets the owners of them would be looking for a way of earning something from their assets rather than scraping them or having to pay to store them.

(Depending on that the current rail review says) I'd tend to disagree. If the new franchise were to order new rolling stock (to be delivered in the early 2020s), then we'd end up with the entire 22x fleet off-lease and out of use when they're only two decades old. The long-distance diesel franchises coming up for renewal then would be Chiltern, Scotrail, and TPE. The latter has just been flooded with new rolling stock, and Scotland hasn't considered Voyagers acceptable for its Inter7City services.

It looks to me like it's a case of CrossCountry, Chiltern, or scrapping most of a fairly young fleet. I'd favour CrossCountry myself.

 

[The Ham]

Which totally negates your whole argument in the first place!!!!!!

In what way?

XC are hardly going to turn away such a big increase in capacity for a near peppercorn lease (24 units for the lease costs of the 16 class 270's which are 3 coaches long).

The only way that they would is if they had an alternative fleet to use, unless someone is aware of them being allowed to order such a fleet or for there being a suitable alternative fleet, which is unlikely.

Chances are even if there was a new fleet they would look to ditch the 221/220 first.

 

[43096]

In what way?

Well, you said, “If I were the ROSCO with the 222's is be looking to do a deal with XC which said; I'll least you my fleet of 222's for the same as you are paying for the 3 coach 170's on the understanding that this deal lasts until at least 2024 or 18 months after your current franchise ends whichever is sooner. They then hope that when XC or Chiltern are re-let that one or other would then be interested in taking them on a commercial basis, however in the meantime they've got some income rather than storage costs.”
If you give an opt-out on the lease, then the bit I have highlighted is utterly worthless.

 

[Andrew*Debbie]

It looks to me like it's a case of CrossCountry, Chiltern, or scrapping most of a fairly young fleet. I'd favour CrossCountry myself.

What about Open Access operators? Or are they also going for bi-mode and EMU?

 

[krus_aragon]

What about Open Access operators? Or are they also going for bi-mode and EMU?

There are over a hundred 22x sets that would be looking for a home if Cross Country oped for new-build stock. Open Access Operators may be able to make use of a few, but they'd hardly make a dent in the overall number.

 

[Energy]

I think the next cross country franchise will go for a bimode fleet, if that person from Virgin West Coast is correct then they will either need replacing or expensive work done to them. Lots of the cross country services are under wires now and cheaper leasing means that it is probably more financially viable to replace them.

I think the 222s will go to Chiltern who will use them on the mainline services and move the 168s to replace the 165 services (although they will need a few more 168s but they shouldn't be hard to get considering West Midlands Trains are currently replacing 170s which are similar to 168).

GWR may just order some more 802s to replace the short HSTs to save on maintanence costs as they have 1 less different type of train.

 

[Energy]

The 22Xs aren't fuel efficient so I don't see them going to any open access operator.

 

[ExRes]

Let's be honest about this, franchise holders are going to decide based on the bottom line, if they decide that a new fleet meets both their financial and capacity requirements then a new fleet is what they'll settle for, why would any franchise holder settle for 22x trains when everybody constantly complains that they're not suitable for this, that and everything else and that they're uncomfortable, noisy and smelly, would someone please explain why any franchise holder would want 20 year old trains that, normally, everyone hates unless they're being given massive financial reasons to do so

If the 22x fleets can't be used economically and sensibly then they should go up for sale to any takers or to the recycling yard

 

[Prestige15]

I'm really not sure it is sensible to have any of the above formed as 4 car units in the future or to use any of the 22x series to replace the class 170's.

The 4 car units are just too small and we need to be looking at significant increases in XC capacity. As many as possible really need to be reformed as 5 car units and run in pairs on peak services.

Class 170 units have wider doors and more standing space enabling more passengers to be carried on peak services and easier alighting of passengers. They are well suited for the commuter services that they often form now - albeit need to be run as 4 or 5 car formations on peak services themselves (either 2+2 units coupled together or 1x2 car coupled to a 1x3 car)

Class 22x units on these services would have longer dwell times.

At the moment peak services of class both 2 and 3 car class 170's can be absolutely packed through Birmingham. Sending out a 4 car 22x unit instead would probably make this worse for passengers.

There is a further argument against XC using all the 22x units, and that's the significant cost of running diesel units under the wires. This might make the finances of XC ordering bi-modes more attractive - as well as make a significant contribution to reducing diesel fumes at Birmingham New Street.

(Depending on that the current rail review says) I'd tend to disagree. If the new franchise were to order new rolling stock (to be delivered in the early 2020s), then we'd end up with the entire 22x fleet off-lease and out of use when they're only two decades old. The long-distance diesel franchises coming up for renewal then would be Chiltern, Scotrail, and TPE. The latter has just been flooded with new rolling stock, and Scotland hasn't considered Voyagers acceptable for its Inter7City services.

It looks to me like it's a case of CrossCountry, Chiltern, or scrapping most of a fairly young fleet. I'd favour CrossCountry myself.

Is converting the voyagers into bi-mode officially dead?

 

[krus_aragon]

Is converting the voyagers into bi-mode officially dead?

That was the consensus here six years ago. To quote one post:

I was at a talk with a TOC MD who is familiar with Project Thor. It was confirmed this is a dead idea. It proved cheaper to buy a new all electric 125mph train than add a pantograph.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 22Xs aren't fuel efficient so I don't see them going to any open access operator.

They should go to XC short term while a new fleet of bi modes is ordered, then be scrapped. They were a first go at a 125mph IC DMU and allowed a lot of lessons to be learned but modern kit is much better.

 

[Kettledrum]

There's just 1 for coach unit, the rest would be 5's that should be easy to mostly be able to ensure it misses the busiest of services.

The OP also referred to 38*4 coach class 220/221 (208 seats), and my view is these are too small

 

[sprinterguy]

The 22Xs aren't fuel efficient so I don't see them going to any open access operator.

They're fitted with the same engines as the 180s that are currently used by both Grand Central and (for a few more months) Hull Trains, so shouldn't be any less fuel efficient than the current open access fleets but are significantly more reliable. Though to be honest I have difficulty envisaging Grand Central swapping their 180s for Voyagers, as long as the sticky tape and string that's holding them together doesn't give out.

 

[The Ham]

The OP also referred to 38*4 coach class 220/221 (208 seats), and my view is these are too small

Which if you read the post were allocated to be being used on the current XC Voyager services, which the post went on to say would mostly be run in pairs (2/3 assuming no existing paired services and that they didn't spilt/join along the route).

 

[The Ham]

Well, you said, “If I were the ROSCO with the 222's is be looking to do a deal with XC which said; I'll least you my fleet of 222's for the same as you are paying for the 3 coach 170's on the understanding that this deal lasts until at least 2024 or 18 months after your current franchise ends whichever is sooner. They then hope that when XC or Chiltern are re-let that one or other would then be interested in taking them on a commercial basis, however in the meantime they've got some income rather than storage costs.”
If you give an opt-out on the lease, then the bit I have highlighted is utterly worthless.

If I offer you the option to have my car, but I set the maximum end date (given that I have or may have a future use for it), but also allow you to hand it back when you like.

If that means that you are paying something for the car (say enough to cover my costs like insurance, VED, servicing, ect. however in the car if the train the ROSCO don't have to pay to store the trains) then we both benefit. If the end date is sooner than I would have liked then that's a shame, but not a problem.

You may be borrowing a car that drinks fuel, but as long as you are unable to get a new car you're not going to be too concerned.

However unlike the car example XC have the ability to sell more tickets to cover the extra fuel and staff costs.

 

[43096]

If I offer you the option to have my car, but I set the maximum end date (given that I have or may have a future use for it), but also allow you to hand it back when you like.

If that means that you are paying something for the car (say enough to cover my costs like insurance, VED, servicing, ect. however in the car if the train the ROSCO don't have to pay to store the trains) then we both benefit. If the end date is sooner than I would have liked then that's a shame, but not a problem.

You may be borrowing a car that drinks fuel, but as long as you are unable to get a new car you're not going to be too concerned.

However unlike the car example XC have the ability to sell more tickets to cover the extra fuel and staff costs.

I'm not following your logic.

In any case: the XC franchise ends in October 2020, but the 222s are needed to stay where they are until well into 2021. XC just aren't going to be interested in committing to a lease on stock which doesn't even become available until after their current franchise ends.

 

[The Ham]

I'm not following your logic.

In any case: the XC franchise ends in October 2020, but the 222s are needed to stay where they are until well into 2021. XC just aren't going to be interested in committing to a lease on stock which doesn't even become available until after their current franchise ends.

The current franchise ends in 2020, but given that the last franchise competition was cancelled is going to take time to restart it.

Based on a typical timetable of ~15 months from ITT to start of franchise, even if it started now we're looking at nearly 2021.

However the review which is being undertaken into franchising hasn't published it's full report I wouldn't be suprised if it took a year or two for that to be fully digested and built into the new ITT (or suitable replacement).

Given the potential complexity of XC compared to other franchises I wouldn't rule out a 2022/23 franchise start.

Especially if you consider the easy good publicity (across a very wide area of the country) which could be generated the year before an election (currently due 2022) by announcing a significant increase in XC capacity and then late 2021/early 2022 another announcement on the issuing of an ITT had been made. Especially if that document was known (i.e. was talked about in press statements) to be ensuring those capacity enhancements were retained or even enhanced and not lost by (say) renationalisation.

 

[Energy]

They're fitted with the same engines as the 180s that are currently used by both Grand Central and (for a few more months) Hull Trains, so shouldn't be any less fuel efficient than the current open access fleets but are significantly more reliable. Though to be honest I have difficulty envisaging Grand Central swapping their 180s for Voyagers, as long as the sticky tape and string that's holding them together doesn't give out.

Grand Central are a well established open access operator and can justify the class 180 over, for example, a class 170.

As 170s are coming off lease from West Midlands Trains surely it would make more financial sense to lease 2 2-car ones and couple them together. And they can still go 100mph. Wait the 170s are owned by Porterbrook... guess they probably aren't going to be that cheap to lease.

 

[whhistle]

then we'd end up with the entire 22x fleet off-lease and out of use when they're only two decades old.

But that is where we are now.
TOCs are happy to get rid of trains that aren't the latest product to save on costs.
And some TOCs are happy to get rid of relatively new trains...

 

[greatvoyager]

It seems a waste to get rid of all 22x trains, regardless of their downfalls, they are known quantities and surely there must be some sort of future for them.

 

[The Ham]

But that is where we are now.
TOCs are happy to get rid of trains that aren't the latest product to save on costs.
And some TOCs are happy to get rid of relatively new trains...

Indeed, which is why the 22x fleet is either going to have to adapt (such as the scraping of some end coaches to form longer units and/or be downgraded to run at lower speeds by the turning off engines/removal of engines/insertion of trailer coaches and/or conversion to bimodal) or they are going to get scrapped (even if they are fairly young for that).

There's a tiny chance that they stay in their current form and aren't scrapped, but that looks less and less likely the more franchises are let with their significant investment in rolling stock. With significant late 80's/early 90's trains still operating which are likely to need to be replaced in the next 7+ years as well as rail growth still doing fairly well (other than some wobbles in London) across much of the country, is likely to be a trend which continues (although maybe not as much as currently) for a bit longer.

 

[JonasB]

There is a further argument against XC using all the 22x units, and that's the significant cost of running diesel units under the wires. This might make the finances of XC ordering bi-modes more attractive - as well as make a significant contribution to reducing diesel fumes at Birmingham New Street.

My amateur view is that XC could really use some bi-modes and maaybe a few tri-modes.