Future of 22x Units

[Bletchleyite]

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

It can probably cope without third rail, but something like 7 or 8-car 80x would be absolutely ideal for XC.

 

[JonasB]

It can probably cope without third rail, but something like 7 or 8-car 80x would be absolutely ideal for XC.

Probably, but 3rd rail would be a nice addition for at least a couple of trains. But even some 802s would be great, at least not for the people on the platforms in Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle and other major stations.

 

[Energy]

I think that the 220 and 221 fleet will be sadly scrapped. Maybe some of the 221s kept for scotrail. The only operator I can think of now is Chiltern, who could take the 222s to allow the current 168s (and about 10 170s like xc's 2 car fleet) to replace the 165s. Or Chiltern using the 221s as there are more 221s than 222s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that the 220 and 221 fleet will be sadly scrapped.

I don't think it'd be that sad, really. They were a first go at an IC DEMU, and they provided for the learning of quite a lot of lessons.

 

[krus_aragon]

I don't think it'd be that sad, really. They were a first go at an IC DEMU, and they provided for the learning of quite a lot of lessons.

Nearly the first, but certainly the first in decades.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nearly the first, but certainly the first in decades.

Fair point.

To be fair I think they have a few years left. My choice would be to give all 22x to XC for a quick capacity boost pending the delivery of an order of 7-car 80x which would replace them, then they'd go to scrap.

 

[whhistle]

Nearly the first, but certainly the first in decades.

Although I'd stretch at calling them "multiple units" in modern understandings. Especially as there was a power car at each end instead of all the way through, wasn't there?

Like people calling HSTs multiple units... to be honest, they're not locos (as a set) either but perhaps fall into their own type of train.
Reminds me of tomatoes being a fruit. Why don't we just create a new type of food group called "salads" which would solve all that.

 

[krus_aragon]

Although I'd stretch at calling them "multiple units" in modern understandings. Especially as there was a power car at each end instead of all the way through, wasn't there?

Agreed, they're a long way from what we'd call a MU these days. But from the limited reading I've done on them, I believe there were some driven axles in some of the intermediate units.

 

[JonasB]

But from the limited reading I've done on them, I believe there were some driven axles in some of the intermediate units.

According to Wikipedia: 2′Bo′+Bo′2′+2′2′+2′2′+2′Bo′+Bo′2′, so yes.

 

[MarkyT]

What is commonly referred to as a multiple unit is really just a fixed length (semi) permanently coupled passenger unit with a built in driving cab incorporated at either end. How many axles are driven and how they are grouped together is largely irrelevant. HSTs and 22xs both conform to this definition, although clearly HSTs cannot be coupled up in multiple as they were already a full length train so there was no need to provide the couplings, brake and control connections etc at the nose ends. Now there are increasing numbers of 4 and 5 car HST units operating in various parts of the country it's plausible that operators might wish to form longer trains by coupling a number of them together, in a similar manner to more modern intercity units. Clearly, additional equipment would be required for this and would no doubt prove uneconomic on such an old asset.

 

[Clansman]

Maybe some of the 221s kept for scotrail.

Why though?

 

[Energy]

Why though?

I was going to suggest the Fife Circle Line but that is now getting electrified and Voyagers are not that fuel efficient, I wonder how fuel efficient the 4/5 car HSTs are, however I think these will get replaced with bimode units.

 

[Clansman]

I was going to suggest the Fife Circle Line but that is now getting electrified and Voyagers are not that fuel efficient, I wonder how fuel efficient the 4/5 car HSTs are, however I think these will get replaced with bimode units.

Of all the diesel routes in Scotland, the Fife Cirlce tops it for being the least suitable for 22X units. Fuel inefficiency, capacity inefficiency, platform lengths not coping for any sort of compensation to allow double 22Xs to at least go beyond the capacity of a double 158, and the dodgy departure process, all in the space of 5 minute intervals between many stations pretty much destroys any case for them to work the Fife Circle.

Why does the Fife Circle need Voyagers anyway? They don't provide any benefit what so ever over a double 170 or 158s in the peaks. None what so ever. Off peak they would just be ticking time bombs until the peaks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Fife Circle, as basically a suburban commuter service, needs the wires, not overpowered, inefficient, space-wasting IC DMUs.

 

[Energy]

I wonder why it has the class 68?

 

[JamesT]

I wonder why it has the class 68?

Probably it was the simplest route they could put a loco hauled set on to get some DMUs for use elsewhere.
When the HSTs are fully in service Scotrail will have enough DMUs to go back to just 158/170 operation on the Fife Circle.

 

[Energy]

Probably it was the simplest route they could put a loco hauled set on to get some DMUs for use elsewhere.
When the HSTs are fully in service Scotrail will have enough DMUs to go back to just 158/170 operation on the Fife Circle.

Ahh ok, it seems strange that ScotRail are returning lots of the 170s to the ROSCO instead of the 156s as the 170s are 10 years younger.
Now back to the 22X, I originally thought about Chiltern but Chiltern is based on efficiency, they have larger doors for quicker dispatch times for the sample, but the 22Xs aren't fuel efficient, why would Chiltern go for them over 802s or Flirts, and the cost difference wouldnt be too much as cheaper leasing now exists and these would be better for fuel efficiency. And this is the same for many operators, most of them would have to train the staff on the trains and it would just make more sense for new trains.

 

[adamedwards]

Chiltern are experimenting with battery hybrid technology so I wonder if the 22x could benefit? Reduced size of diesel engines with batteries to give extra push on starting and to run the air con in stations like New St to reduce air pollution. That way they might be economical when cascaded to a secondary route. Reduce the top speed to 110mph to give better acceleration. The problem then is are there routes which actually need them?

 

[Clansman]

Ahh ok, it seems strange that ScotRail are returning lots of the 170s to the ROSCO instead of the 156s as the 170s are 10 years younger.

In the context of 156s, it's not strange at all.

3 x 156s (6 coaches) have more seating capacity than 2 x 170s (6 coaches), and capacity is the thing that most routes the 156s work in Scotland need more than simply a new train. Also, the 170s were naturally displaced by 385s, not the 156 per se, so again, taking 156s away off their core routes to provide 170s simply on the basis of having newer rolling stock is like trading a big 2 day old apple for a small 1 day old apple with a logistical nightmare added to the process. And what would that achieve? Another stop gap for routes that will likely be wired and provided with brand new dedicated rolling stock in the next decade or so anyway. Until then, capacity maximisation is the priority. And the 170s (or 22Xs while we are at it) are simply not cut out for this.

 

[Energy]

In the context of 156s, it's not strange at all.

3 x 156s (6 coaches) have more seating capacity than 2 x 170s (6 coaches), and capacity is the thing that most routes the 156s work in Scotland need more than simply a new train. Also, the 170s were naturally displaced by 385s, not the 156 per se, so again, taking 156s away off their core routes to provide 170s simply on the basis of having newer rolling stock is like trading a big 2 day old apple for a small 1 day old apple with a logistical nightmare added to the process. And what would that achieve? Another stop gap for routes that will likely be wired and provided with brand new dedicated rolling stock in the next decade or so anyway. Until then, capacity maximisation is the priority. And the 170s (or 22Xs while we are at it) are simply not cut out for this.

My guess was that the 156s needed modifications for the new PRM complience, and if they are going to refurbish a fleet they may as well refurbish some 170s with higher capacity as the 170s' cars are about 2m longer than the 156s', although it turns out the PRM modifications had been done back in 2016. Still seems strange too me that they decided to refurbish HSTs for there intercity routes instead of new Bimodes considering the electrification which is happening / happened. Anyway this is off topic so back to the 22Xs...

Chiltern are experimenting with battery hybrid technology so I wonder if the 22x could benefit? Reduced size of diesel engines with batteries to give extra push on starting and to run the air con in stations like New St to reduce air pollution. That way they might be economical when cascaded to a secondary route. Reduce the top speed to 110mph to give better acceleration. The problem then is are there routes which actually need them?

But the 165s (what Chiltern are experimenting with) are much lighter than the 22Xs for example 2 2-car 165s would weigh 148 tonnes (74 tonnes per unit / 37 tonnes per car), a 4-car 220 weighs 185 tonnes (46 tonnes per car) and a 4-car 221 weighs 227 tonnes (56.75 tonnes per car). This makes them not ideal for batteries as a battery powered train needs to be light for range.

 

[Clansman]

My guess was that the 156s needed modifications for the new PRM complience, and if they are going to refurbish a fleet they may as well refurbish some 170s with higher capacity as the 170s' cars are about 2m longer than the 156s', although it turns out the PRM modifications had been done back in 2016. Still seems strange too me that they decided to refurbish HSTs for there intercity routes instead of new Bimodes considering the electrification which is happening / happened. Anyway this is off topic so back to the 22Xs...

Again, when you look into the reasoning behind it, electing to have HSTs isn't strange at all.

Transport Scotland commissioned a survey to gauge the opinion of passengers along ScotRail's intercity routes, and the results found unanimous popularity for HSTs, and many passengers based their travel arrangements around East Coast (as it was back then) services to undertake journeys entirely on ScotRail routes.

And to keep this to topic to the thread, the results also found an unpopularity for trains with emmissions issues, insufficient capacity for luggage storage, suburban style layouts, and low seating capacity (relating to the 170s). This, by default, ruled the 22X family out of the running for any rolling stock procurement for ScotRail intercity routes, as Transport Scotland applied the results of this survey to their rolling stock criteria in the ScotRail franchise invitation to tender, to be implemented from 2015. Whilst not blatantley ruled out, the specifications cited particular red line areas which otherwise would have disqualified any bid including 22X units in their current states (noise vibration and toilet emmissions for starters). Thus, HSTs were offered by the winning company (Abellio) in a much more improved, enhanced, and modernised state, and chosen above alternative bids which included modified 170s (offered by First) to push them into the criteria. Bi-Modes, to my knowledge, weren't included by any bidder for the franchise as they weren't required by Transport Scotland. Possibly due to the fact that only around 40 miles* worth of ScotRail intercity routes are electrified, compared to over 560 miles unelectrified. The need for bi-modes on these routes is lower than what many people assume when it comes to Scotland. Until electrification progresses, HSTs are more than an adequate - and one which the majority of passengers actually wanted.

So whilst we know why HSTs were chosen and the logic behind it, it's also evident why 22Xs weren't chosen and why they are not suitable in any way to the requirements of Scottish intercity duties.

 

[gingertom]

Again, when you look into the reasoning behind it, electing to have HSTs isn't strange at all.

Transport Scotland commissioned a survey to gauge the opinion of passengers along ScotRail's intercity routes, and the results found unanimous popularity for HSTs, and many passengers based their travel arrangements around East Coast (as it was back then) services to undertake journeys entirely on ScotRail routes.

And to keep this to topic to the thread, the results also found an unpopularity for trains with emmissions issues, insufficient capacity for luggage storage, suburban style layouts, and low seating capacity (relating to the 170s). This, by default, ruled the 22X family out of the running for any rolling stock procurement for ScotRail intercity routes, as Transport Scotland applied the results of this survey to their rolling stock criteria in the ScotRail franchise invitation to tender, to be implemented from 2015. Whilst not blatantley ruled out, the specifications cited particular red line areas which otherwise would have disqualified any bid including 22X units in their current states (noise vibration and toilet emmissions for starters). Thus, HSTs were offered by the winning company (Abellio) in a much more improved, enhanced, and modernised state, and chosen above alternative bids which included modified 170s (offered by First) to push them into the criteria. Bi-Modes, to my knowledge, weren't included by any bidder for the franchise as they weren't required by Transport Scotland. Possibly due to the fact that only around 40 miles* worth of ScotRail intercity routes are electrified, compared to over 560 miles unelectrified. The need for bi-modes on these routes is lower than what many people assume when it comes to Scotland. Until electrification progresses, HSTs are more than an adequate - and one which the majority of passengers actually wanted.

So whilst we know why HSTs were chosen and the logic behind it, it's also evident why 22Xs weren't chosen and why they are not suitable in any way to the requirements of Scottish intercity duties.

apart from the fact that there weren't any 22x units available, never mind in the quantity required.

 

[Clansman]

apart from the fact that there weren't any 22x units available, never mind in the quantity required.

Exactly - thus further proving the point as to why they weren't chosen and aren't going to be used in Scoland by ScotRail.

 

[Energy]

Thanks for the detailed reply, I'm guessing the HSTs are sort of a stop gap until they electrify the Scottish mainlines once they are done with some of the non intercity ones. Im happy that Abellio won over First though, I think everyone will agree that a modified 170 isn't great for the intercity routes... Back to the 22Xs I will be surprised if any operator takes them, there are few operators who would take high speed diesel trains and I don't think any will invest in the crew training etc. to put them into service as no operator really needs the 22Xs, for all the operators there seems to always be better option, I think some of the 5 and 7 car 222s or the 5 car 221 will remain with XC but it also seems likely that the new operator will decide to replace all the fleet.

 

[Clansman]

Thanks for the detailed reply, I'm guessing the HSTs are sort of a stop gap until they electrify the Scottish mainlines once they are done with some of the non intercity ones. Im happy that Abellio won over First though, I think everyone will agree that a modified 170 isn't great for the intercity routes... Back to the 22Xs I will be surprised if any operator takes them, there are few operators who would take high speed diesel trains and I don't think any will invest in the crew training etc. to put them into service as no operator really needs the 22Xs, for all the operators there seems to always be better option, I think some of the 5 and 7 car 222s or the 5 car 221 will remain with XC but it also seems likely that the new operator will decide to replace all the fleet.

I guess you could call it that. The thing that sets them apart is that they are a medium term stop gap, and one that people actually wanted. They aren't being foisted upon passengers in the same way many stop gaps are, as ScotRail wanted to offer a more specialised Intercity service with proper Intercity facilities, just like passengers had wanted. Though I wish I could speak as positively about the current time scale!

You may be interested in this, which outlines the proposals for modifying the 170s.

[/offtopic]

 

[Energy]

I guess you could call it that. The thing that sets them apart is that they are a medium term stop gap, and one that people actually wanted. They aren't being foisted upon passengers in the same way many stop gaps are, as ScotRail wanted to offer a more specialised Intercity service with proper Intercity facilities, just like passengers had wanted. Though I wish I could speak as positively about the current time scale!

You may be interested in this, which outlines the proposals for modifying the 170s.

[/offtopic]

Interesting, the 22Xs and HSTs seem to share the fact that right now they are a stop gap, I think in the next GWR franchise the short castle sets will get replaced (probably with caf) and the ScotRail ones are there because of lack of electrification and that will change in the future and the XC ones I think will get replaced in the next franchise.

 

[greatvoyager]

Interesting, the 22Xs and HSTs seem to share the fact that right now they are a stop gap, I think in the next GWR franchise the short castle sets will get replaced (probably with caf) and the ScotRail ones are there because of lack of electrification and that will change in the future and the XC ones I think will get replaced in the next franchise.

It would certainly appear to be that way. It looks like there will be a big influx of investment, with so many trains, particularly all 22x units, going to waste.

 

[Energy]

It would certainly appear to be that way. It looks like there will be a big influx of investment, with so many trains, particularly all 22x units, going to waste.

Voyagers are also going to be 20 years old when the first ones get replaced in the early 2020s so they arent the youngest but have still got lots of life left in them, however they spend a lot of time under wires so it makes sense to replace them for bimodes as well as not being fuel efficient they also don't use Bombardier's Flexx bogies but the B5000 one which came before them.

 

[greatvoyager]

Voyagers are also going to be 20 years old when the first ones get replaced in the early 2020s so they arent the youngest but have still got lots of life left in them, however they spend a lot of time under wires so it makes sense to replace them for bimodes as well as not being fuel efficient they also don't use Bombardier's Flexx bogies but the B5000 one which came before them.

That's a good point, bimodes make total sense, but as a fan of the 22x units, I'll be sad when they go.

 

[swt_passenger]

That's a good point, bimodes make total sense, but as a fan of the 22x units, I'll be sad when they go.

I don’t think this thread has produced any firm evidence that XC will be phasing out 221/220 anytime soon. If anything, I’d expect ex west coast 221s, and ex EMT 222s will be more likely to displace their few HSTs. Bi-modes for the long term, but not in the immediate future.