Future of 22x Units

[Sad Sprinter]

When will they electrify Sheffield to Birmingham? Couldn't XC then use IETs? The Voyagers could then be scrapped or replaced what little HSTs remain, and the class 222s I suppose could go to long distance regional services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When will they electrify Sheffield to Birmingham? Couldn't XC then use IETs? The Voyagers could then be scrapped or replaced what little HSTs remain, and the class 222s I suppose could go to long distance regional services.

XC could use IETs now if they wanted to.

 

[greatvoyager]

XC could use IETs now if they wanted to.

As we know, XC is always last of the main lime franchises to get investment in rolling stock, hence the lack of substantial change since 2001.

 

[greatvoyager]

When will they electrify Sheffield to Birmingham? Couldn't XC then use IETs? The Voyagers could then be scrapped or replaced what little HSTs remain, and the class 222s I suppose could go to long distance regional services.

Is Birmingham to Sheffield due to be electrified?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Is Birmingham to Sheffield due to be electrified?

I mean, it was at some stage. I have a Rail mag from admittedly 2011 that showed Bedford to Sheffield electrification and a possible Birmingham to Derby electrification. But those were sweet, sweet naive days..

 

[greatvoyager]

I mean, it was at some stage. I have a Rail mag from admittedly 2011 that showed Bedford to Sheffield electrification and a possible Birmingham to Derby electrification. But those were sweet, sweet naive days..

I see, if that had happened the future of 22x units would be bleak.

 

[greatvoyager]

XC could use IETs now if they wanted to.

That's probably going to happen at some point.

 

[greatvoyager]

What happened to the biofuel that Virgin were testing for voyagers in the early/mid 2000s?

 

[greatvoyager]

I think 222s could be good for the Liverpool-Nottingham service, seeing as they are sometimes used on that route.

 

[sprinterguy]

I think 222s could be good for the Liverpool-Nottingham service, seeing as they are sometimes used on that route.

TPE, if it is indeed they who take on that service as strongly rumoured, probably wouldn't want another type of stock for crews to have to learn.

 

[greatvoyager]

TPE, if it is indeed they who take on that service as strongly rumoured, probably wouldn't want another type of stock for crews to have to learn.

You make a fair point.

 

[class 9]

TPE, if it is indeed they who take on that service as strongly rumoured, probably wouldn't want another type of stock for crews to have to learn.

Whoever ends up running the Liverpool -Nottinghams, I would imagine that some staff would be TUPEd over from EMR and they will sign 222s.

 

[greatvoyager]

Whoever ends up running the Liverpool -Nottinghams, I would imagine that some staff would be TUPEd over from EMR and they will sign 222s.

That was my thinking.

 

[43096]

Whoever ends up running the Liverpool -Nottinghams, I would imagine that some staff would be TUPEd over from EMR and they will sign 222s.

Will they sign 222s, though? Not all the EMR "local" links sign 222s AFAIAA.

 

[greatvoyager]

Will they sign 222s, though? Not all the EMR "local" links sign 222s AFAIAA.

Maybe, if they want to increase capacity.

 

[greatvoyager]

Hypothetically speaking if they were ever given electric pantograph cars, would 1 or 2 carriages be added?

 

[adamedwards]

A far more likely scenario is a the temporary use of the 221s from Avanti WC and the 222s as a quick fix for over crowding and then a new franchise getting rid of all of them replaced by something bimode, as the fuel savings Doncaster to Edinburgh and Machester to Birmingham will be worth it and the diesels will be much more efficient. Some 220s, 221s and 222s might then go to replace the Castles and Inter7City trains, but given the poor seating layouts, far more likely they get scrapped.

 

[greatvoyager]

A far more likely scenario is a the temporary use of the 221s from Avanti WC and the 222s as a quick fix for over crowding and then a new franchise getting rid of all of them replaced by something bimode, as the fuel savings Doncaster to Edinburgh and Machester to Birmingham will be worth it and the diesels will be much more efficient. Some 220s, 221s and 222s might then go to replace the Castles and Inter7City trains, but given the poor seating layouts, far more likely they get scrapped.

Most people seem to think that, I think all 22x units will end up at XC, and then be replaced when they are life expired.

 

[greatvoyager]

So replacement with bi modes is highly likely, so the 220/221/222 units will probably be retired after that. Thinking about it they would be surplus to requirements.

 

[The Ham]

Hypothetically speaking if they were ever given electric pantograph cars, would 1 or 2 carriages be added?

It would appear that you need a transformer for every 5 coaches, so a 5 coach train needs 1 whilst a 6 coach train needs 2. 9 coach trains are fine with 2, whilst 12 need 3.

Therefore to lengthen a 4 coach train means the creation of a 5th coach.

However a 5 coach train would need 2 extra coaches to hold the two transformers.

That could get fairly expensive fairly quickly (what with ~40 X 5 coach units).

As such it could be cheaper to create 9 coach units by removing 1 existing coach from the 5 coach units to the replace with a transform. That releases 20 coaches from the existing fleet, these could be added to the upgraded units and a second transform be added to create 9 coach units.

They would be
5 coaches existing
2 coaches transformer
2 coaches from the rest of the fleet

That would give XC (if my maths is right) a single length of "short" trains (69*5 coaches) and some 9 coach units (7*9 coaches).

The 9 coach units would be of a comparable capacity to a pair of units. The problem would be that just for their fleet XC would have an order of 87 coaches, which isn't quite 100. 100 coaches is the approximate level where the cost per train falls to a fairly reasonable price per coach.

Repeat for the VWCT fleet, with the removed coaches moving to XC and XC could gain another 7*9 coach units (total of 14) at the cost of 7*5 coach units (total of 62). This would get us to 114 coaches.

This would compare with 126 new coaches but a mix of 5 and 7 coach units.

 

[class 9]

Will they sign 222s, though? Not all the EMR "local" links sign 222s AFAIAA.

Is NOT-LIV classed as ‘local’ though?
Are the Intercity and regional links separate? Thought they did a mixture of work.

 

[gingertom]

It would appear that you need a transformer for every 5 coaches, so a 5 coach train needs 1 whilst a 6 coach train needs 2. 9 coach trains are fine with 2, whilst 12 need 3.

Therefore to lengthen a 4 coach train means the creation of a 5th coach.

However a 5 coach train would need 2 extra coaches to hold the two transformers.

That could get fairly expensive fairly quickly (what with ~40 X 5 coach units).

As such it could be cheaper to create 9 coach units by removing 1 existing coach from the 5 coach units to the replace with a transform. That releases 20 coaches from the existing fleet, these could be added to the upgraded units and a second transform be added to create 9 coach units.

They would be
5 coaches existing
2 coaches transformer
2 coaches from the rest of the fleet

That would give XC (if my maths is right) a single length of "short" trains (69*5 coaches) and some 9 coach units (7*9 coaches).

The 9 coach units would be of a comparable capacity to a pair of units. The problem would be that just for their fleet XC would have an order of 87 coaches, which isn't quite 100. 100 coaches is the approximate level where the cost per train falls to a fairly reasonable price per coach.

Repeat for the VWCT fleet, with the removed coaches moving to XC and XC could gain another 7*9 coach units (total of 14) at the cost of 7*5 coach units (total of 62). This would get us to 114 coaches.

This would compare with 126 new coaches but a mix of 5 and 7 coach units.

the other thing to throw into the mix is, would the transformer car(s) be equipped with a diesel genset? If it isn't, the others will have the dead weight of another coach to haul, reducing the performance on diesel. If it is equipped with a diesel, would it have grandfather rights and be allowed to be a 750bhp Cummins 19QSK like the rest of the rake, or, if it is classed as a new build, would it have to be different conform to the latest emission regs? I can't see maintenance staff being happy with a mix of engine types in same rake.

 

[Bletchleyite]

the other thing to throw into the mix is, would the transformer car(s) be equipped with a diesel genset? If it isn't, the others will have the dead weight of another coach to haul, reducing the performance on diesel. If it is equipped with a diesel, would it have grandfather rights and be allowed to be a 750bhp Cummins 19QSK like the rest of the rake, or, if it is classed as a new build, would it have to be different conform to the latest emission regs? I can't see maintenance staff being happy with a mix of engine types in same rake.

There would be a good case for replacing all the engines with more modern ones.

 

[43096]

Is NOT-LIV classed as ‘local’ though?
Are the Intercity and regional links separate? Thought they did a mixture of work.

The split is essentially on the lines of the old Midland Mainline and Central Trains parts of the franchise (or InterCity and Regional Railways if you go further back!) though obviously there has been some cross-training (e.g. some “local” crews sign 222s and HSTs).

 

[43096]

the other thing to throw into the mix is, would the transformer car(s) be equipped with a diesel genset? If it isn't, the others will have the dead weight of another coach to haul, reducing the performance on diesel. If it is equipped with a diesel, would it have grandfather rights and be allowed to be a 750bhp Cummins 19QSK like the rest of the rake, or, if it is classed as a new build, would it have to be different conform to the latest emission regs? I can't see maintenance staff being happy with a mix of engine types in same rake.

It’s doubtful that you could fit an engine, alternator, cooler group etc and fit a transformer as well underneath.

 

[JonathanH]

That would give XC (if my maths is right) a single length of "short" trains (69*5 coaches) and some 9 coach units (7*9 coaches)

Are you going to build a new depot to maintain these hypothetical 9-coach trains?

 

[gingertom]

It’s doubtful that you could fit an engine, alternator, cooler group etc and fit a transformer as well underneath.

agreed, otherwise it would have been done long ago. There's good reasons project Thor was too expensive to proceed.

 

[greatvoyager]

agreed, otherwise it would have been done long ago. There's good reasons project Thor was too expensive to proceed.

Pretty much every good idea is too expensive. Shame really.

 

[gingertom]

It’s doubtful that you could fit an engine, alternator, cooler group etc and fit a transformer as well underneath.

if the rest of the rake was upgraded with, say, the MTU as fitted to the 80x then you'd possibly get away with being "one short" especially in a 5car extended to 6. However you would probably need to retraction with uprated motors to take the higher power, larger cooler group needed, higher fuel consumption therefore reduced range etc etc. Am expensive nightmare. Best leave as is.

 

[greatvoyager]

if the rest of the rake was upgraded with, say, the MTU as fitted to the 80x then you'd possibly get away with being "one short" especially in a 5car extended to 6. However you would probably need to retraction with uprated motors to take the higher power, larger cooler group needed, higher fuel consumption therefore reduced range etc etc. Am expensive nightmare. Best leave as is.

The 22x is overpowered anyway. They can run with an engine out and keep time.