Avanti West Coast Class 221 to CrossCountry

[43096]

I'm not in the industry. If I choose to think of my fellow passengers as hapless idiots who keep messing things up then that's really my business

Apologies.

 

[rjames87]

The whole point of the regular half hourly service is the number of passengers it has attracted over the years because of the ‘improved’ service. The current timetable works okay while there are no passengers travelling but once things get back to normal and people are allowed to travel for leisure, you’ll potentially just have a double voyager overcrowded running hourly, so no difference to running half hourly single voyagers which then offers no improvement. That’s the whole reason why the extra trains are needed.

 

[Purple Orange]

The whole point of the regular half hourly service is the number of passengers it has attracted over the years because of the ‘improved’ service. The current timetable works okay while there are no passengers travelling but once things get back to normal and people are allowed to travel for leisure, you’ll potentially just have a double voyager overcrowded running hourly, so no difference to running half hourly single voyagers which then offers no improvement. That’s the whole reason why the extra trains are needed.

This. It is not that long until Avanti get hold of their IET fleet and by the time the country is back to normal, both Avanti and EMR may no longer require their Voyagers & Meridians. I’d hand them all over to XC.

In order to get a service of minimum 8-car trains, by adding the all Avanti & EMR 221s and 222s, this would allow XC could run:

• 10 x 8 car Meridians
• 7 x 9 car Meridians
• 38 x 9-car Voyagers
• 1 x 10 car Voyager

 

[Leo555]

Could it not be more economical to lengthen some of the 221s to 7/8 coach by inserting extra coaches from Avanti's 221 and doing away with the shorter end coaches. Presume this could mean that staff costs would not increase and offer better value per seat than lengthening including end coaches from a fuel economy perspective?

 

[rjames87]

That would make sense but it probably wouldn’t be ideal from the leasing companies perspective as they’ll be left with numerous end vehicles that are wasted. Unless it’s a case of cutting their loses because nobody else wants to take on the trains of course.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

Using Avanti 221s is a good idea, but does the entire route need 8 or 10 cars if sales/loading figures suggest its quiet between Penzance and Bristol for example would they think it was a good idea to 4 car it from Penzance to Bristol, add an additional 5 car unit at Bristol, run that through to Newcastle or Edinburgh and chop 5 cars off again or the Bournemouth services being doubled at Reading for example.
Purely to save on staffing/fuel costs on each set that'll be doubled. But that's all depending on how easy it is to couple them, multiple units are traditionally much easier to couple and uncouple with only a few minutes lost.

Voyagers???

 

[takno]

Using Avanti 221s is a good idea, but does the entire route need 8 or 10 cars if sales/loading figures suggest its quiet between Penzance and Bristol for example would they think it was a good idea to 4 car it from Penzance to Bristol, add an additional 5 car unit at Bristol, run that through to Newcastle or Edinburgh and chop 5 cars off again or the Bournemouth services being doubled at Reading for example.
Purely to save on staffing/fuel costs on each set that'll be doubled. But that's all depending on how easy it is to couple them, multiple units are traditionally much easier to couple and uncouple with only a few minutes lost.

Voyagers???

Adds a lot of complexity. Realistically based on historical traffic an 8 car unit wouldn't be especially quiet as far as Exeter, and quite possibly Plymouth. Messing around with coupling and uncoupling is really only something you'd want to be doing because you were desperate for the extra units in the core. Far better if you've got spare units to run longer fixed formations throughout and save on the staff.

 

[rjames87]

Do all trains need to be 7/8/9 coaches all day? Presumably not?

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Regarding the comments on lengthening the Voyagers to 7-9 coaches: With a double Voyager, if one half breaks then other can be used compared to fixed formation trains.

 

[takno]

Do all trains need to be 7/8/9 coaches all day? Presumably not?

No, but the benefits of splitting trains just to avoid extra mileage for some coaches is a bit questionable. In service it means you're doubling up quite a lot of onboard staff, and you're having to add driver diagrams and train paths to get the detached units over to a depot, then you're potentially risking delays caused by attaching units not arriving on time, or by mechanical failures in the coupling/uncoupling process.

Finally platform utilisation is a problem, since you will have units occupying through platforms, which you might get away with at Bristol, but can't afford at Birmingham and could do without at Edinburgh fot example.

And all of this is to save carrying seats which better yield management might well see you fill, or at least seats which could be providing the very-off-peak passengers with the luxury of not being crammed in like sardines.

Doing a splitting/joining operation for XC isn't like doing it for regional operator, where you have clearly-defined peak services, and you can just pull a unit off the train when it terminates in a bay platform and just leave it there for the day. You might choose to do it now to cram a little extra capacity in between Bristol and York, but if you had the stock to run the service properly it's something you'd probably want to avoid

 

[Aictos]

If for example, the Class 222s became available and were cascaded to XC, would it be beneficial to keep the units in their ex EMR formation and also what diagrams are self contained enough to keep the Class 220 and Class 221 fleet on one set of self contained diagrams and the Class 222 fleet on their own set of self contained diagrams?

Eg not being in the position where a service is booked for a pair of Class 220s to join at say Birmingham and a Class 222 turns up vice Class 220.

Also could we see Class 22Xs on the Cardiff to Nottingham diagrams freeing up the Class 170 fleet to run longer trains on the Birmingham to Leicester/Stansted Airport diagrams?

 

[Purple Orange]

I don’t work in the rail industry, but reading through many comments, splitting the train twice (once at the southern end and again at the northern end) sounds like there is a consensus of adding complexity.

Given changes to frequencies, is it not a good opportunity to make some changes? There are talks that LNER want a 3rd service north of York. Therefore should the core be redefined as sitting between Bristol, Reading, Manchester & York (if LNER gets a 3rd service, Newcastle if it sticks with 2). Within that core, 2tph run, and outside the core 1 tph, giving:

• Manchester - Bristol
• Manchester - Southampton
• Edinburgh - Reading
• York - Plymouth

Could this reduce the volume of potential units required and therefore enable greater doubling up with the 20 Avanti sets too?

 

[takno]

I don’t work in the rail industry, but reading through many comments, splitting the train twice (once at the southern end and again at the northern end) sounds like there is a consensus of adding complexity.

Given changes to frequencies, is it not a good opportunity to make some changes? There are talks that LNER want a 3rd service north of York. Therefore should the core be redefined as sitting between Bristol, Reading, Manchester & York (if LNER gets a 3rd service, Newcastle if it sticks with 2). Within that core, 2tph run, and outside the core 1 tph, giving:

• Manchester - Bristol
• Manchester - Southampton
• Edinburgh - Reading
• York - Plymouth

Could this reduce the volume of potential units required and therefore enable greater doubling up with the 20 Avanti sets too?

There are loads of other threads where people have done their fantasy recast of the XC timetable. Do we really have to go through it all again?

 

[Purple Orange]

There are loads of other threads where people have done their fantasy recast of the XC timetable. Do we really have to go through it all again?

You don’t have to comment if you don’t wish to contribute. Think a recast is relevant to a thread about bringing in additional units that can assist with longer trains. They won’t enable every service to double up, therefore redrawing the map can help.

 

[The Planner]

I wouldn't expect any wholesale recasting of XC anytime soon, you don't tend to do more than one big timetable job at a time and especially when XC will affect so much else. WCML recast is likely next on the "big list" for 2023.

 

[92002]

Quite a lot of 5 car voyagers operated Glasgow-Euston pre pandemic

Given that the XC contract is up for renewal shortly, it would make more sense to replace the voyager and HSTs fleet with Bi-Mode trains. They spend vast amounts of time under OHL.

The Glasgow 5 car trains usually get another added at Woverhapton and these will be replaced by Bi Mode trains too.

At one time ScotRail showed an interest for Voyagers to replace 158s or 170s. Preferably the tilting version which could give journey time improvements.

 

[greatvoyager]

Given that the XC contract is up for renewal shortly, it would make more sense to replace the voyager and HSTs fleet with Bi-Mode trains. They spend vast amounts of time under OHL.

Is there money to do this though?

The Glasgow 5 car trains usually get another added at Woverhapton and these will be replaced by Bi Mode trains too.

I was under the impression that the plan was for all Scottish services to be Pendolino operated, with bi-modes on the north Wales service and the electric 80x on the London-Birmingham and the new London-Liverpool service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was under the impression that the plan was for all Scottish services to be Pendolino operated, with no-modes on the north Wales service and the electric 80x on the London-Birmingham and the new London-Liverpool service.

No-modes? LHCS?

Yeah, that's the plan, typo aside.

 

[greatvoyager]

No-modes? LHCS?

Yeah, that's the plan, typo aside.

Whoops, autocorrect again

 

[Leo555]

I certainly wasn't; thinking about a recast of the timetable. But simply thinking that taking the 20 221 centre coaches = 60 centre coaches and inserting them in to the 24 super voyagers. And without any splitting / joining might make for a stronger business case with the Dft than doubling up units with end coaches. No worries about the leasing company that is part of the risk you take on that not all your stock will always be in demand?

 

[greatvoyager]

I certainly wasn't; thinking about a recast of the timetable. But simply thinking that taking the 20 221 centre coaches = 60 centre coaches and inserting them in to the 24 super voyagers. And without any splitting / joining might make for a stronger business case with the Dft than doubling up units with end coaches. No worries about the leasing company that is part of the risk you take on that not all your stock will always be in demand?

Are they have to change the Avanti carriages to the original external info screens? Are they going to work with the XC software?
Also, I’d still argue having more shorter trains adds flexibility, because if you have less trains, that will cause bigger problems in the event of a failure.

 

[Leo555]

Are they have to change the Avanti carriages to the original external info screens? Are they going to work with the XC software?
Also, I’d still argue having more shorter trains adds flexibility, because if you have less trains, that will cause bigger problems in the event of a failure.

If they had to to change the Avanti carriages or make them work with XC software - surely that will apply either way, if working coupled up or by insertion in to a longer single train.

I agree it adds flexibility but also adds to staffing/fuel costs - which may be more of a loss than a gain?

 

[Purple Orange]

I wouldn't expect any wholesale recasting of XC anytime soon, you don't tend to do more than one big timetable job at a time and especially when XC will affect so much else. WCML recast is likely next on the "big list" for 2023.

Which would be timed with the possibility of the Avanti fleet to XC.

 

[greatvoyager]

If they had to to change the Avanti carriages or make them work with XC software - surely that will apply either way, if working coupled up or by insertion in to a longer single train.

I agree it adds flexibility but also adds to staffing/fuel costs - which may be more of a loss than a gain?

Good point I agree, but to me it seems a little strange to not make use of every vehicle available, particularly on XC where overcrowding in normal times was rather bad.

 

[Leo555]

Good point I agree, but to me it seems a little strange to not make use of every vehicle available, particularly on XC where overcrowding in normal times was rather bad.

That sort of was my original question. Could the value for money be significantly greater by doing away with the end coaches on the basis of a lower seat count and the need for additional staff vs running longer fixed formations throughout the network.

One other benefit in terms of overcrowding may be that passengers can walk the full length of the train?

 

[37424]

Personally I think a cascade of the 221's to XC is likely I think they will use them to get rid of the HST's replacing them with 2x4 car., it would also allow around another 8 or 9 diagrams allowing for maintenance spare's to go to 2x4 car, and then that would allow a significant number current 4 car diagrams to go to 5 car. This seems the more likely level of capacity upgrade in the current climate, and unless your looking to get rid of the 170's from XC as well the use of the Meridians on XC as well would seem like massive overkill.

Ideally you would buy new Bi-mode trains for XC but I don't think that's going to happen until you have got another 10 years usage out of the Voyagers particularly with the Dft likely to be calling the shots rolling stock wise for the foreseeable future.

 

[greatvoyager]

Personally I think a cascade of the 221's to XC is likely I think they will use them to get rid of the HST's replacing them with 2x4 car., it would also allow around another 8 or 9 diagrams allowing for maintenance spare's to go to 2x4 car, and then that would allow a significant number current 4 car diagrams to go to 5 car. This seems the more likely level of capacity upgrade in the current climate, and unless your looking to get rid of the 170's from XC as well the use of the Meridians on XC as well would seem like massive overkill.

Ideally you would buy new Bi-mode trains for XC but I don't think that's going to happen until you have got another 10 years usage out of the Voyagers particularly with the Dft likely to be calling the shots rolling stock wise for the foreseeable future.

Would be interesting to see a lack of capacity change to too much.

 

[The Planner]

Which would be timed with the possibility of the Avanti fleet to XC.

The fleet could go to XC, you wouldn't be re-writing the XC timetable around that though.

 

[Purple Orange]

The fleet could go to XC, you wouldn't be re-writing the XC timetable around that though.

No, that’s not the point. I’m saying it would be a useful point to revise the timetable in order to get the most out of the fleet for the good of the passenger. At present, the 4-car services are simply not good enough from a passenger perspective.

 

[Leo555]

At that point the benefit on the face of it would be increasing frequency as opposed to lengthening with doubled up sets. That way you could recast the timetable to make some routes even more frequent but with the increase in staff costs to go with it?