Future of 22x Units

[greatvoyager]

I'd argue that binning the end coaches isn't a too far stretch of the imagination. The ROSCO would rather have a few end cars not in service than the entire fleet. Doesn't mean that 2 x 5 car isn't simpler though.

But with the first class vehicles having to be swapped around in 7-car 222s, surely that would mean even more reformations.

 

[The Ham]

But with the first class vehicles having to be swapped around in 7-car 222s, surely that would mean even more reformations.

If you're doing a refurbishment of the trains, as they are mid life, then it makes little difference if you have to take all the seats out to replace the carpets as to what then goes back in and into which coaches.

 

[greatvoyager]

If you're doing a refurbishment of the trains, as they are mid life, then it makes little difference if you have to take all the seats out to replace the carpets as to what then goes back in and into which coaches.

I was referring to the fact that the coaches were swapped between different units.
For example, 222005 had it's first class vehicles, 60345 and 60445, swapped with 60347 (ex 222007) and 60443 (ex 222003).

 

[greatvoyager]

I wonder if 180s on Grand Central will be replaced by 22x units, which would be interesting as they were planning to use 222s originally.

 

[greatvoyager]

If there is no prospect if the electric pantograph cars being produced, can Coach F on XC be re-lettered to Coach E?

 

[option]

If talking about the 222s, when they are all off-lease they will be 20 years old. They will need a refurbishment, & that would be a good time to re-arrange all the units available into their max & most efficient formations, which is the 9car sets as built.
(Doubling up 4/5car units is inefficient, as there's 1/2 carriage worth of seats lost right in the middle of platforms, & you need at least 2 of all staff.)

There are 27 end car pairs, & 89 carriages.
That's enough to make 12 9car sets, which is more than enough to replace the current 10 XC HSTs.
It then leaves you with 5 spare carriages & 3 end car pairs.

 

[MarkyT]

Whatever happens to their formations, and assuming the end of tilt with a new operator, a mid life rebuild would be a great time to ditch the heavy outside frame bogies on the entire fleet of 221s in favour of something like the lighter weight B5000 inside frame models as used on the 220s and 222s. This would save over 8 tonnes per vehicle. The latest Bombardier bogies add mechatronic 'active' suspension elements that improve ride further and significantly reduce wheel and track wear, so these technologies could also be considered, and if the benefits are worth it the B5000s (the old name for the 'Flexx eco' bogie offered today) on the 220s and 222s might also be replaced, or retrofitted with the active components if they are compatible. The roll compensation offered by the Wako system (named after a leading Japanese reseacher) can also offer a small amount of tilt in a much lighter bogie.

 

[greatvoyager]

Whatever happens to their formations, and assuming the end of tilt with a new operator, a mid life rebuild would be a great time to ditch the heavy outside frame bogies on the entire fleet of 221s in favour of something like the lighter weight B5000 inside frame models as used on the 220s and 222s. This would save over 8 tonnes per vehicle. The latest Bombardier bogies add mechatronic 'active' suspension elements that improve ride further and significantly reduce wheel and track wear, so these technologies could also be considered, and if the benefits are worth it the B5000s (the old name for the 'Flexx eco' bogie offered today) on the 220s and 222s might also be replaced, or retrofitted with the active components if they are compatible. The roll compensation offered by the Wako system (named after a leading Japanese reseacher) can also offer a small amount of tilt in a much lighter bogie.

That could work, but would mean that the 221s would become 220s?

 

[MarkyT]

That could work, but would mean that the 221s would become 220s?

Effectively yes as the bogies are the only major difference between the two classes. A weight saving of over 40 tonnes per 5 car unit would improve performance and save appreciable energy and carbon over a notional 20 years remaining life. I expect the B5000s are already much kinder to the track than the outside frame bogies so there might be some track access charge benefits too.

 

[Meerkat]

As pure diesels they aren’t going to get a 20 year life are they?
Savings are going to need to be massive for a ROSCO to risk that much midlife work

 

[greatvoyager]

Effectively yes as the bogies are the only major difference between the two classes. A weight saving of over 40 tonnes per 5 car unit would improve performance and save appreciable energy and carbon over a notional 20 years remaining life. I expect the B5000s are already much kinder to the track than the outside frame bogies so there might be some track access charge benefits too.

There are lots of benefits to that idea, but cost could be an issue.

 

[MarkyT]

As pure diesels they aren’t going to get a 20 year life are they?
Savings are going to need to be massive for a ROSCO to risk that much midlife work

This leads to my additional suggestion that they are also fitted with moderately sized battery banks at overhaul in order to be able to run through dense urban areas and major stations with diesels shut down, and always be able to pull away with battery assist, to reduce wear and tear on the diesels. The hybrid system could be configured as 'plug-in' with charging facilities at depots and stabling points so trains can always start their day fully charged. Braking energy can also be harvested en route. My preferred 'plug in' method would be via a third rail pickup on each car. In new siding installations the power rail would be limited in length to only line up with shoes of stationary trains, and would only be energised when a train is present, but the trains would also be able to pick up power from existing third rail either stationary or on the move where it is provided on routes covered.

 

[greatvoyager]

If talking about the 222s, when they are all off-lease they will be 20 years old. They will need a refurbishment, & that would be a good time to re-arrange all the units available into their max & most efficient formations, which is the 9car sets as built.
(Doubling up 4/5car units is inefficient, as there's 1/2 carriage worth of seats lost right in the middle of platforms, & you need at least 2 of all staff.)

There are 27 end car pairs, & 89 carriages.
That's enough to make 12 9car sets, which is more than enough to replace the current 10 XC HSTs.
It then leaves you with 5 spare carriages & 3 end car pairs.

Aren't there only 5 HSTs?

 

[Snow1964]

Whatever happens to their formations, and assuming the end of tilt with a new operator, a mid life rebuild would be a great time to ditch the heavy outside frame bogies on the entire fleet of 221s in favour of something like the lighter weight B5000 inside frame models as used on the 220s and 222s. This would save over 8 tonnes per vehicle. The latest Bombardier bogies add mechatronic 'active' suspension elements that improve ride further and significantly reduce wheel and track wear, so these technologies could also be considered, and if the benefits are worth it the B5000s (the old name for the 'Flexx eco' bogie offered today) on the 220s and 222s might also be replaced, or retrofitted with the active components if they are compatible. The roll compensation offered by the Wako system (named after a leading Japanese reseacher) can also offer a small amount of tilt in a much lighter bogie.

There must be a trade off between cost of new bogies, vs fuel saving and track access cost saving and presumably less maintenance as no tilt system to maintain

Logically could use some of the freed up weight to install batteries if a battery hybrid is way forward.

On the other hand they have a form of grandfather rights as diesel units (they were built to lower emission standards than current) so unless there is specific clean air zones introduced don't really need to modify them.

For those worried about residual life, I do wonder if they could even be modified to operate as 3rd rail electric units, or even a push-pull set with a modern loco. Unlikely to make any sense to add a transformer coach now about 60% way through their expected lifespan. But new bogies might be transferable to their successors.

 

[greatvoyager]

In terms of push-pull, it would probably be better using proper stock.

 

[MarkyT]

There must be a trade off between cost of new bogies, vs fuel saving and track access cost saving and presumably less maintenance as no tilt system to maintain

Logically could use some of the freed up weight to install batteries if a battery hybrid is way forward.

On the other hand they have a form of grandfather rights as diesel units (they were built to lower emission standards than current) so unless there is specific clean air zones introduced don't really need to modify them.

For those worried about residual life, I do wonder if they could even be modified to operate as 3rd rail electric units, or even a push-pull set with a modern loco. Unlikely to make any sense to add a transformer coach now about 60% way through their expected lifespan. But new bogies might be transferable to their successors.

Project Thor wasn't it? A big problem as I understand it was that, from a traction perspective, each car is electrically self contained so there's no power bus between cars to share energy along that would be required for an additional transformer car to serve a group of motor cars. My suggestion works with the existing architecture to keep each car an individual hybrid.

 

[greatvoyager]

Project Thor wasn't it? A big problem as I understand it was that, from a traction perspective, each car is electrically self contained so there's no power bus between cars to share energy along that would be required for an additional transformer car to serve a group of motor cars. My suggestion works with the existing architecture to keep each car an individual hybrid.

Yep, there was also project omega, which was to simply extend all 4 car units to 5 cars by adding a Coach B.

 

[greatvoyager]

There must be a trade off between cost of new bogies, vs fuel saving and track access cost saving and presumably less maintenance as no tilt system to maintain

Logically could use some of the freed up weight to install batteries if a battery hybrid is way forward.

On the other hand they have a form of grandfather rights as diesel units (they were built to lower emission standards than current) so unless there is specific clean air zones introduced don't really need to modify them.

For those worried about residual life, I do wonder if they could even be modified to operate as 3rd rail electric units, or even a push-pull set with a modern loco. Unlikely to make any sense to add a transformer coach now about 60% way through their expected lifespan. But new bogies might be transferable to their successors.

Money will be the biggest issue.

 

[option]

Effectively yes as the bogies are the only major difference between the two classes. A weight saving of over 40 tonnes per 5 car unit would improve performance and save appreciable energy and carbon over a notional 20 years remaining life. I expect the B5000s are already much kinder to the track than the outside frame bogies so there might be some track access charge benefits too.

41.4tonnes less per 4car set between the 220 & 221.
If you reformed them into bigger sets, so an 8car instead of 2x4car, there would also be more passenger space.

So that would give you lower operating costs + potentially increased revenue per train.

 

[greatvoyager]

It's looking more and more bleak for the future. I wonder if any TOC would invest in them for the long over new stock.

 

[greatvoyager]

Are there any other lines they could be cleared to use?

 

[greatvoyager]

They certainly do need a tarting up. Meridian 1st in particular is in a right state (Voyager 1st recently had seat foams and covers replaced).

I think with some new covers and maybe replace some of the wall covering, which I noticed on some units is cracked,they could look great.

 

[greatvoyager]

If only there was a way to add more seating without making it cramped.

 

[greatvoyager]

Is the XC franchise going to be re-let, or will it just be extended like it has been since 2016?
The requirement regarding rolling stock will be interesting to see, as the future of many 22x units will depend on it.

 

[43096]

Aren't there only 5 HSTs?

Yes. No idea where the idea of 10 has come from!

 

[greatvoyager]

Yes. No idea where the idea of 10 has come from!

Perhaps meant to say 10 power cars.

 

[option]

It's looking more and more bleak for the future. I wonder if any TOC would invest in them for the long over new stock.

Considering an investment firm bought them all (220s & 221s) in 2017, they would be expecting to get more than a few years of income from them.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/voyager-trains-sold-to-beacon-rail-leasing.151333/
Class 222s are owned by Eversholt

Current franchise is due to end in October 2020, but with apparently no invitation to tender having been issued yet, I expect the franchise to be extended. (seems to be 1 year between tender & franchise award, & 1 year extensions), so that pushes it out to end of 2021.
It took 3-4 years to get the Voyagers built & running, so you'd be looking at 2025 onwards for new trains for XC.

Which runs into the issue of what could you order in 2022? A diesel only train - no.
A bi-mode - to use what wires? What extra wires on XC routes will exist by 2025? by 2030?

Run the 22x's until 2040-3. That means ordering new trains in 2038, by which time there has been another 20years of electrification, & 20years of technological developments.

 

[greatvoyager]

Considering an investment firm bought them all (220s & 221s) in 2017, they would be expecting to get more than a few years of income from them.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/voyager-trains-sold-to-beacon-rail-leasing.151333/
Class 222s are owned by Eversholt

Current franchise is due to end in October 2020, but with apparently no invitation to tender having been issued yet, I expect the franchise to be extended. (seems to be 1 year between tender & franchise award, & 1 year extensions), so that pushes it out to end of 2021.
It took 3-4 years to get the Voyagers built & running, so you'd be looking at 2025 onwards for new trains for XC.

Which runs into the issue of what could you order in 2022? A diesel only train - no.
A bi-mode - to use what wires? What extra wires on XC routes will exist by 2025? by 2030?

Run the 22x's until 2040-3. That means ordering new trains in 2038, by which time there has been another 20years of electrification, & 20years of technological developments.

They'd best hope XC agree to take the additional units. Most other express / main line companies already have trains to fill the role.

 

[43096]

Considering an investment firm bought them all (220s & 221s) in 2017, they would be expecting to get more than a few years of income from them.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/voyager-trains-sold-to-beacon-rail-leasing.151333/

Beacon Rail are no more an investment firm than any other ROSCO. They’re not “ex-BR” like Angel, Eversholt and Porterbrook, but are still a ROSCO like Railpool and MRCE are.

 

[greatvoyager]

Beacon Rail are no more an investment firm than any other ROSCO. They’re not “ex-BR” like Angel, Eversholt and Porterbrook, but are still a ROSCO like Railpool and MRCE are.

And nothing about leases for units has specifically changed since they took ownership, apart from recreating 221144.