222s for CrossCountry?

[Meerkat]

The 170 routes need moving to either EMT or WMT, to be honest (along with the 170s, unless an additional order of 196s was placed). They are, unlike the rest of XC, regional expresses, and do not fit it at all well.

How do you define InterCity vs Regional Express? Cardiff-Birmingham is surely IC?

 

[The Ham]

7 coach 222s would be too long to fit in the platforms between Manchester & Liverpool - and whilst selective door opening might be available, I think it would seriously increase station dwell times.
5 coach 222s have fewer standard class seats than a pair of 158s, which would increase overcrowding if/when traffic returns to pre-Covid levels.

A 7 coach unit is likely to need more than one end coach of first class seating, as such it's probably fairly easy to not have the first class ends coach not stop next to a platform.

Although the thing which messes that plan up is that the train is likely to be random as to which way around it is. Although even standard class in the end coach doesn't have a lot of passengers so the loss of the very end door wouldn't have much of an impact unless the station was particularly busy.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Aug 2020 ==

I'm not convinced that 222 will go to XC, 221 more likely 10 sets to effectively replace HST's and 10 sets for increased capacity. All the 4 car sets could be paired up and single 4 car would be replaced by 5 car, bringing in 222 to XC as well especially post covid i think will be seen as overkill by the DFT

10 extra units (assuming 10 for the replacement of the HST's) would only allow the doubling up of 20 of the 38 units with 4 coaches (34*220's and 4*221's).

Which whilst a good step forwards wouldn't really be enough (although a few are already paired on some services so it would be a little better than indicated).

Personally I'd 9 coach the 7 coach 222's (actually 7 units) and then 7 coach the rest (8 units) and whilst that would lose you a little capacity, not enough to worry about, but it would ensure that you only paired 220/221's in service but had the capability to switch units around (9 coaches is similar in capacity as 2*5 and 7 is similar as 2*4).

If it was felt that have too much capacity, then convert some of the the 4 coach units to 5 coach units by scrapping more of the end coaches (23*5 220's, using 1 class 221 coach, and 2*5 221's, with one class 221 mid coach spare). That would leave a total fleet of:
- 23*5 220's
- 42*5 221's
- 8*7 222's
- 7*9 222's

That would be a fleet of 80 units compared with the current 68 units, however with many more coaches (and therefore capacity) than the number of units would indicate.

 

[37424]

10 extra units (assuming 10 for the replacement of the HST's) would only allow the doubling up of 20 of the 38 units with 4 coaches (34*220's and 4*221's).

Which whilst a good step forwards wouldn't really be enough (although a few are already paired on some services so it would be a little better than indicated).

Yes sorry its late your right, I'm still not convinced the Dft would go for much more than that, an alternative would be to take a fleet of reformed 10x7 car 222 to replace the HST's double more services up and essentially get rid of the single 4 car workings.

If they wanted to get rid of paired unit workings and there was no where else for the 222's to go then yes i guess they might look a reform on then lines you are suggesting.

Ultimately I guess what happens to railway going forward in terms of franchising and whether the dft are calling the shots in terms of what rolling stock is used or we still have potential franchise bidders choosing the rolling stock for their bids may have some bearing on it, if its the later then they may see an AT300 variant that can spend a 400 mile round trip between York and Edinburgh on Electric as a better business case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How do you define InterCity vs Regional Express? Cardiff-Birmingham is surely IC?

The overall nature of the Class 170 services, being slower, stopping at more places and carrying primarily short distance loadings. You could argue for adding an IC service on top if there is considerable demand for Cardiff-Brum, but the present service isn't that.

 

[bussikuski179]

Personally, I wouldn’t get a 170 all the way from Cardiff to Birmingham, having done a similar journey on a Finnish Sm4, from Tampere to Helsinki, about the same distance. The difference though, is that on Tampere-Helsinki there are alternatives. I think they should introduce a more IC-like Cardiff-Birmingham service while keeping the current Cardiff to Nottingham services.

 

[JonathanH]

The overall nature of the Class 170 services, being slower, stopping at more places and carrying primarily short distance loadings. You could argue for adding an IC service on top if there is considerable demand for Cardiff-Brum, but the present service isn't that.

Personally, I wouldn’t get a 170 all the way from Cardiff to Birmingham, having done a similar journey on a Finnish Sm4, from Tampere to Helsinki, about the same distance. The difference though, is that on Tampere-Helsinki there are alternatives. I think they should introduce a more IC-like Cardiff-Birmingham service while keeping the current Cardiff to Nottingham services.

Outside the peaks, where exactly does a Cardiff to Nottingham service stop that wouldn't allow a 222 to run the service rather than a 170? The primary stopping pattern is Cardiff - Newport - Gloucester - Cheltenham Spa - Worcestershire Parkway - University - Birmingham - Tamworth - Burton - Derby - Long Eaton - Beeston - Nottingham.

Yes, some stop at Chepstow, Lydney and at the other stations between Birmingham and Derby to fill gaps in other services and the units interwork with the Birmingham to Nottingham stopping service but I don't think you would take too many of the stops out in a "IC-like" Cardiff to Nottingham service.

 

[Anonymous10]

Outside the peaks, where exactly does a Cardiff to Nottingham service stop that wouldn't allow a 222 to run the service rather than a 170? The primary stopping pattern is Cardiff - Newport - Gloucester - Cheltenham Spa - Worcestershire Parkway - University - Birmingham - Tamworth - Burton - Derby - Long Eaton - Beeston - Nottingham.

Yes, some stop at Chepstow, Lydney and at the other stations between Birmingham and Derby to fill gaps in other services and the units interwork with the Birmingham to Nottingham stopping service but I don't think you would take too many of the stops out in a "IC-like" Cardiff to Nottingham service.

Worse case run it like gwr do on pembroke dock branch in the summer one carriage is on the smaller platforms and the conductor makes a announcement

 

[4-SUB 4732]

So if you reform, you get:
- 220 4 car x 34
- 221 4 car x 4
- 221 5 car x 40
- 222 9 car x 7
- 222 4 car x 20

So, in theory, if you recast the timetable to ensure that your Manchester - Bournemouth units go round in circuits, same for Manchester - Bristol, in theory in future York - Plymouth (better that for punctuality than Edinburgh) and Edinburgh - Southampton / Reading, you end up with:
- Manchester to Bournemouth, 9 diagrams (with a swap of paths between XC and VT between Stoke and Manchester, to enable a ~55min turnaround).
- Manchester to Bristol, 10 diagrams (assuming 8 normal ones and some extra capacity for extensions to Exeter / Paignton).
- York to Plymouth, 10 diagrams (with the odd extra bit for an early starter at Newcastle if plausible and a Penzance or two, so maybe 13).
- Edinburgh to Southampton, 17 diagrams (assumes all services go to Soton, so I'm guessing it's only 15 with the Reading finishers, and this figure assumes some Glasgow or Aberdeen starters).

Assuming everything works out, you can use:
- 6 x 9 car 222 diagrams and 3 x 8 car 222 diagrams for Manchester to Bournemouth.
- 10 x 5 car 221 diagrams for Manchester to Bristol.
- 11 x 8 car 220 diagrams and 2 x 5 car 221 diagrams for York to Plymouth, matching those two short sets to lower occupancy services.
- 6 x 8 car 222 diagrams and 9 x 5 car 221 diagrams for Edinburgh to Southampton, capacity matching the longer 222s for certain services that are busiest.
- 8 x 5 car 221 diagrams for Cardiff to Nottingham as an improved Intercity service.

This would leave the operator daily spares of 3 x 4 car 220, 4 x 4 car 221, 1 x 9 car 222 and 2 x 4 car 222. The remaining unaccounted for 20 x 5 car 221s are then smashed into maintenance spares (4) and therefore gives 16 x 5 car 221s over to another operator. Can't think immediately of any reasonable options, but Chiltern is always possible (5 diagrams on the 'fast' Moor Street and 5 diagrams on the 'semi' Snow Hill), as well as a few extras for Kidderminster extensions perhaps. They could even be out-based for maintenance at Central Rivers accordingly.

 

[The Ham]

So if you reform, you get:
- 220 4 car x 34
- 221 4 car x 4
- 221 5 car x 40
- 222 9 car x 7
- 222 4 car x 20

So, in theory, if you recast the timetable to ensure that your Manchester - Bournemouth units go round in circuits, same for Manchester - Bristol, in theory in future York - Plymouth (better that for punctuality than Edinburgh) and Edinburgh - Southampton / Reading, you end up with:
- Manchester to Bournemouth, 9 diagrams (with a swap of paths between XC and VT between Stoke and Manchester, to enable a ~55min turnaround).
- Manchester to Bristol, 10 diagrams (assuming 8 normal ones and some extra capacity for extensions to Exeter / Paignton).
- York to Plymouth, 10 diagrams (with the odd extra bit for an early starter at Newcastle if plausible and a Penzance or two, so maybe 13).
- Edinburgh to Southampton, 17 diagrams (assumes all services go to Soton, so I'm guessing it's only 15 with the Reading finishers, and this figure assumes some Glasgow or Aberdeen starters).

Assuming everything works out, you can use:
- 6 x 9 car 222 diagrams and 3 x 8 car 222 diagrams for Manchester to Bournemouth.
- 10 x 5 car 221 diagrams for Manchester to Bristol.
- 11 x 8 car 220 diagrams and 2 x 5 car 221 diagrams for York to Plymouth, matching those two short sets to lower occupancy services.
- 6 x 8 car 222 diagrams and 9 x 5 car 221 diagrams for Edinburgh to Southampton, capacity matching the longer 222s for certain services that are busiest.
- 8 x 5 car 221 diagrams for Cardiff to Nottingham as an improved Intercity service.

This would leave the operator daily spares of 3 x 4 car 220, 4 x 4 car 221, 1 x 9 car 222 and 2 x 4 car 222. The remaining unaccounted for 20 x 5 car 221s are then smashed into maintenance spares (4) and therefore gives 16 x 5 car 221s over to another operator. Can't think immediately of any reasonable options, but Chiltern is always possible (5 diagrams on the 'fast' Moor Street and 5 diagrams on the 'semi' Snow Hill), as well as a few extras for Kidderminster extensions perhaps. They could even be out-based for maintenance at Central Rivers accordingly.

You're going to add a lot of end coaches without gaining a lot of extra seats, that's a lot more depot space, track access charges, extra staff costs, etc. All of which adds costs.

Now whilst it provides extra units for another operator there's few which would need/want/could find a use for them. In which case just scrap some of the end coaches and run some 7 coach units (broadly the same capacity as a pair of 4's) and save the extra costs.

If the owner of the units wishes to do so then they'll have to reduce the leases to cover those extra charges, so unless there's a good need to do so they'll not likely do so.

 

[43074]

Outside the peaks, where exactly does a Cardiff to Nottingham service stop that wouldn't allow a 222 to run the service rather than a 170? The primary stopping pattern is Cardiff - Newport - Gloucester - Cheltenham Spa - Worcestershire Parkway - University - Birmingham - Tamworth - Burton - Derby - Long Eaton - Beeston - Nottingham.

Yes, some stop at Chepstow, Lydney and at the other stations between Birmingham and Derby to fill gaps in other services and the units interwork with the Birmingham to Nottingham stopping service but I don't think you would take too many of the stops out in a "IC-like" Cardiff to Nottingham service.

Nottingham to Birmingham/Cardiff would be a very sensible route for them - options for journey time improvements between Nottingham and Birmingham, potentially free up 170s provide much needed longer trains on the Leicester route. There aren't too many speed differentials for stock with lighter axle loadings and much of the route is 100mph+. They could continue to be maintained at the purpose built depots either at Central Rivers or Etches Park, so there are lots of arguments in favour.

I could see the XC Intercity routes going for an 80x option, that's more sensible than transferring the 222s just to find a home for them. Still talking 2023 onwards so really not too late to be ordering new stock for then if required.

 

[DB]

I could see the XC Intercity routes going for an 80x option, that's more sensible than transferring the 222s just to find a home for them. Still talking 2023 onwards so really not too late to be ordering new stock for then if required.

I really can't see the government agreeing to new stock for XC (or most other franchises) at the moment, or in the next few years.

 

[43074]

I really can't see the government agreeing to new stock for XC (or most other franchises) at the moment, or in the next few years.

If we're talking network wide here (perhaps not XC immediately) I don't buy that to be honest - if not for passenger growth new builds will be required to replace life expired stock in the next few years, and not least trying to retain thousands of jobs (read: votes) in assembly and the supply chain which would be put at risk in the event there were no orders.

 

[DB]

If we're talking network wide here (perhaps not XC immediately) I don't buy that to be honest - if not for passenger growth new builds will be required to replace life expired stock in the next few years, and not least trying to retain thousands of jobs (read: votes) in assembly and the supply chain which would be put at risk in the event there were no orders.

There's been such a flood of new trains over the past few years (plus those currently on order) that there isn't actually much that can be considered 'life expired'. I can't actually think of anything which couldn't be kept for another 5 to 10 years at least.

 

[Meerkat]

I really can't see the government agreeing to new stock for XC (or most other franchises) at the moment, or in the next few years.

Cynically new Bi-modes for XC are great value politically - one order provides “Brand new, environmentally friendly, trains” headlines in cities and towns right across the country and even in Scotland!

 

[DB]

Cynically new Bi-modes for XC are great value politically - one order provides “Brand new, environmentally friendly, trains” headlines in cities and towns right across the country and even in Scotland!

Given that succesive governments have ignored all the complaints about overcrowding on XC for years, I doubt if that'll be a major consideration - and they could get a lot of the same kudos by just giving them the spare 221s (and possibly the 222s) and reducing overcrowding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given that succesive governments have ignored all the complaints about overcrowding on XC for years, I doubt if that'll be a major consideration - and they could get a lot of the same kudos by just giving them the spare 221s (and possibly the 222s) and reducing overcrowding.

The risk for 80x for XC would be that they just order the bog-standard 5-car sets, one per Voyager. Because of how much space is wasted in Voyagers that is an uplift, but it's not really enough of an uplift to solve the problem long-term - 7-car is about what they need. And as they mostly aren't a commuter railway, they aren't going to be hit in the same way those TOCs are.

 

[WesternLancer]

Some people on here do like the term 'life-expired'. Reality is they are not and they've just had quite a lot of money spent on them, so are likely to remain for a while yet.

I would have thought that the Avanti 221s were more likely than the 222s to end up with XC if the DfT agrees to extra capacity, on the grounds that they are fully compatible with the existing Voyager fleet, whereas 222s are not.

Yeah - and if one thing is 'life expired' it's the std class seats in EMR's 222s - which seem clapped out to me these days. Meanwhile even EMRs IC70 HST seats have plenty of stuffing in them still...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yeah - and if one thing is 'life expired' it's the std class seats in EMR's 222s - which seem clapped out to me these days. Meanwhile even EMRs IC70 HST seats have plenty of stuffing in them still...

EMT do seem to have let those units get very scruffy. New seats on moving to XC would be nice anyway, I find the single-piece high backs rather claustrophobic.

 

[DB]

EMT do seem to have let those units get very scruffy. New seats on moving to XC would be nice anyway, I find the single-piece high backs rather claustrophobic.

They used flat fabric for the covers, and that never wears well.

I actually quite like the seats though - massively better than Voyager seats.

 

[WesternLancer]

They used flat fabric for the covers, and that never wears well.

I actually quite like the seats though - massively better than Voyager seats.

yes, better seats IMHO too but they have lost cushioning, esp on base such that a bar along the front of the seat presses into your leg. 1st class is OK. Problem in std is more than just worn fabric.

 

[Meerkat]

Given that succesive governments have ignored all the complaints about overcrowding on XC for years, I doubt if that'll be a major consideration - and they could get a lot of the same kudos by just giving them the spare 221s (and possibly the 222s) and reducing overcrowding.

True, but they won’t be ‘brand new’, ‘green’, or keeping a factory busy!

 

[Purple Orange]

I would like to see the EMT 222s and Avanti 221s transferred to XC, but I don’t see the need to remodel them and mess on with changing the length of the units. Let’s say all those units went to XC, that would result in:

• 38 x 4-car 220\221s
• 40 x 5-car 221s
• 4 x 4-car 222s
• 17 x 5-car 222s
• 6 x 7-car 222s

That would represent a 96% increase the number of carriages. Surely the sensible approach would be to ensure a minimum of a 7-car train is operating on all intercity routes. This could result in:

• 6 x 7-car 222s
• 8 x 10-car 222s (5-car units)
• 1 x 9-car 222 (5+4)
• 1 x 8-car 222 (4+4)
• 1 x 4-car 222 spare
• 38 x 9-car 221s/220s (5+4)
• 1 x 10-car 221 (5+5)

This would provide for 55 trains ranging in 7-10 cars in length, with one 4-car unit left spare.

 

[The Ham]

The risk for 80x for XC would be that they just order the bog-standard 5-car sets, one per Voyager. Because of how much space is wasted in Voyagers that is an uplift, but it's not really enough of an uplift to solve the problem long-term - 7-car is about what they need. And as they mostly aren't a commuter railway, they aren't going to be hit in the same way those TOCs are.

Based on the GWR class 802 with 326 seats that's an uplift of:
63% for 4 coach 22x's (about 2/3's of the XC fleet)
25% for 5 coach 221's (about 1/3 of the fleet)

Overall that's +47%.

Now whilst I agree that's not really enough pre Covid-19 there maybe a case for ordering 1 for 1 with an option for another 116 coaches to lengthen the entire fleet to 7 coaches to provide flexibility for passenger numbers returning to previous numbers within a few years. (Although I'd make it 200 so that there's an option to improve the length of other 80x fleets of so required).

It would also (hopefully) allow for a faster delivery of the base fleet.

 

[Purple Orange]

Based on the GWR class 802 with 326 seats that's an uplift of:
63% for 4 coach 22x's (about 2/3's of the XC fleet)
25% for 5 coach 221's (about 1/3 of the fleet)

Overall that's +47%.

Now whilst I agree that's not really enough pre Covid-19 there maybe a case for ordering 1 for 1 with an option for another 116 coaches to lengthen the entire fleet to 7 coaches to provide flexibility for passenger numbers returning to previous numbers within a few years. (Although I'd make it 200 so that there's an option to improve the length of other 80x fleets of so required).

It would also (hopefully) allow for a faster delivery of the base fleet.

We need to be careful about using the term pre-covid or post-covid in terms of long term planning. It is a mistake to assume that demand in any industry will fall. Short-term it certainly will, but a couple of years from now we could all be talking about the mistaken assumptions made in 2020.

 

[The Ham]

I would like to see the EMT 222s and Avanti 221s transferred to XC, but I don’t see the need to remodel them and mess on with changing the length of the units. Let’s say all those units went to XC, that would result in:

• 38 x 4-car 220\221s
• 40 x 5-car 221s
• 4 x 4-car 222s
• 17 x 5-car 222s
• 6 x 7-car 222s

That would represent a 96% increase the number of carriages. Surely the sensible approach would be to ensure a minimum of a 7-car train is operating on all intercity routes. This could result in:

• 6 x 7-car 222s
• 8 x 10-car 222s (5-car units)
• 1 x 9-car 222 (5+4)
• 1 x 8-car 222 (4+4)
• 1 x 4-car 222 spare
• 38 x 9-car 221s/220s (5+4)
• 1 x 10-car 221 (5+5)

This would provide for 55 trains ranging in 7-10 cars in length, with one 4-car unit left spare.

The problem is with such a set up is that for every pair of units running you have 1 coach load of seats spread over 2 coaches.

This is fine if you need that much extra capacity, but given the extra costs required to facilitate it (larger depots, more staff, more maintenance, more track access charges, etc.) if you don't have enough passengers then it's all extra extra costs to be covered.

If you did need that extra capacity than chances are you could just agreed to track on the end coaches to then sub divide the trains (much as XC did when they created their 4 coach 221's).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2020 ==

We need to be careful about using the term pre-covid or post-covid in terms of long term planning. It is a mistake to assume that demand in any industry will fall. Short-term it certainly will, but a couple of years from now we could all be talking about the mistaken assumptions made in 2020.

I only used the term for looking back to before lockdown, however the plan I suggested allowed for passenger numbers to revert back to that and then some by having the option to extend to 7 coaches as well as another 70 coaches to allow for other future growth.

 

[DB]

The danger with ordering enough for now with possibly for expansion is that more often than not it doesn't happen - e.g the option for the much needed 4th vehicle for the 185s was never taken up.

And with units, if it doesn't happen within the first few years then designs will have moved on and it will probably become sufficiently difficult as to rule it out.

 

[The Ham]

The danger with ordering enough for now with possibly for expansion is that more often than not it doesn't happen - e.g the option for the much needed 4th vehicle for the 185s was never taken up.

And with units, if it doesn't happen within the first few years then designs will have moved on and it will probably become sufficiently difficult as to rule it out.

Can you cite a time that has happened in the last decade rather than one from nearly 20 years ago, as the rail industry had changed a lot in that time?

 

[DB]

Can you cite a time that has happened in the last decade rather than one from nearly 20 years ago, as the rail industry had changed a lot in that time?

The 185 option expired a lot less than 20 years ago, but leaving that aside cann you cite any more recently where an extension option has been taken up? Or there wasn't an option, but extra vehicles were added? Only one I can immediately think of is the Pendolinos

 

[Purple Orange]

The problem is with such a set up is that for every pair of units running you have 1 coach load of seats spread over 2 coaches.

This is fine if you need that much extra capacity, but given the extra costs required to facilitate it (larger depots, more staff, more maintenance, more track access charges, etc.) if you don't have enough passengers then it's all extra extra costs to be covered.

If you did need that extra capacity than chances are you could just agreed to track on the end coaches to then sub divide the trains (much as XC did when they created their 4 coach 221's).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2020 ==



I only used the term for looking back to before lockdown, however the plan I suggested allowed for passenger numbers to revert back to that and then some by having the option to extend to 7 coaches as well as another 70 coaches to allow for other future growth.

The issue is that the extra capacity is needed. 4 & 5 car units are not enough and in an ideal world they would be 8-car to accommodate demand. As I mentioned before, current usage can’t be used as a model for future rail usage.

 

[The Ham]

The 185 option expired a lot less than 20 years ago, but leaving that aside cann you cite any more recently where an extension option has been taken up? Or there wasn't an option, but extra vehicles were added? Only one I can immediately think of is the Pendolinos

The 802's were for an initial order of 173 coaches with an option for 150 (total of 323) there's now just over 350 split between First Rail operations (GWR, TPE & Hull Trains).

As such not only an example but an example of the very type of train which would likely be ordered.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2020 ==

The issue is that the extra capacity is needed. 4 & 5 car units are not enough and in an ideal world they would be 8-car to accommodate demand. As I mentioned before, current usage can’t be used as a model for future rail usage.

Firstly not all 5 coach trains are created equal 22x's circa 260 seats Vs 802's a minimum of 326 seats (that's the equivalent of a 6 coach 22x).

I agree that current rail use can't be used as a model of future rail use (personally I'm of the view that Covid-19 will likely result in more rail use not less as the "business case" for car ownership changes with less day to day travel and more a few times a week and occasional travel meaning that the high up front costs of cars are spread over fewer days, so PAYG travel, like rail, makes more sense) which is why you should look to have the flexibility to order more if you need it but not to be forced to buy what may not be needed.

It also allows the full "base" fleet to be delivered sooner and then extend the units to 7 coaches steady add the extra coaches are delivered.

If we assume a 18 coach/week delivery schedule then a 5 coach fleet would take 17 week, whist a 7 coach fleet would take 23 weeks. Now whilst 6 weeks may not sound a lot of could make the difference between meeting a timetable change or not.

The other thing to consider is that by having an option for more than what's needed, hence why I suggested 200, is that it gives the option to extend much of the fleet to 9 coaches (42 out of 58) if it's found that there's more demand than anticipated.

Likewise it also gives the option to extend some in the TPE fleet and/or the GWR fleet of 802's from 5 to 9 coaches of there was extra demand there.

If it turns out that the 200 extra coaches aren't enough there's a big enough order that the train manufacturer should be willing to consider adding a few more without it costing too much. Even if they don't then you just don't take up the option and have a new 200+ coach order which is large enough to not be too costly.

Either way you have the flexibility that is things don't work out then you're not having trains carrying around lots of fresh air, conversely if passenger growth is huge then you have the option for more than enough units all at be all 7 coaches (equivalent of 8.5 coach class 22x unit, so comparable to a pair units; 4 coach + 5 coach 22x's), maybe even enough to be be 1/3 as 7 coaches and 2/3 as 9 coaches (647 seats vs 589 seats in an 11 coach class 390).

If rail growth is significantly more than you can retain some of the 22x fleet whilst you deliver more coaches, unless there's somewhere else they could be used (and generally the conclusion is that they wouldn't fit elsewhere very well, so chances are that's not much of a problem). However you'd need >10%/year for that to be of great concern. If that's the case then we'll run out of network capacity before we run out of the ability to deliver extra coaches to XC (the new 7 coach fleet would take 6 months to deliver in 3 years time and give +46% more capacity, whilst 10% growth/year would be +33% in the same timeframe).