Avanti West Coast Class 221 to CrossCountry

[quantinghome]

I suspect it depends on where the change is, whether it's a tight connection, and how complex the change is. A half hour cross platform change at New Street is okay - not too far to walk, reasonably nice building, plenty of seating and a range of places to get something to eat and drink. Half a mile walk up the platform at Curzon Street, and then a 10 minute walk or a tram to New Street takes the comfortable change time up to at least 45 minutes, and makes the whole experience a lot less pleasant. Hiking over from the HS2 platforms to the other side of Piccadilly and then joining the crowds on the least-pleasant platforms at normal Piccadilly is probably almost as bad as the Birmingham change.

Changing trains between Curzon St and New St is far from ideal but you're having to push the interchange time very hard to make your argument hold. Half a mile platform at Curzon Street? Come off it!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Changing trains between Curzon St and New St is far from ideal but you're having to push the interchange time very hard to make your argument hold. Half a mile platform at Curzon Street? Come off it!

It's not half a mile, but it is very close to half a kilometre (400m)!

Curzon St to New St is very similar to Liverpool Lime St to Liverpool Central, well under 10 minutes and not that far off Manchester Pic main concourse to 13/14, really. It just needs tidying up somewhat and having the vagrants removed from the shortest route (through the tunnel).

 

[Purple Orange]

It's not half a mile, but it is very close to half a kilometre (400m)!

Curzon St to New St is very similar to Liverpool Lime St to Liverpool Central, well under 10 minutes and not that far off Manchester Pic main concourse to 13/14, really. It just needs tidying up somewhat and having the vagrants removed from the shortest route (through the tunnel).

New Street to Curzon street will be a bigger pain in the backside that Piccadilly P13. There are memes that depict the facial expression you have when you get to Piccadilly and then realise your train is leaving from P13, especially when you’re in a hurry. Now imagine the same at Curzon Street. You arrive at the concourse, then realise you have to get on to the platforms at New Street, which involves leaving the station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

New Street to Curzon street will be a bigger pain in the backside that Piccadilly P13. There are memes that depict the facial expression you have when you get to Piccadilly and then realise your train is leaving from P13, especially when you’re in a hurry. Now imagine the same at Curzon Street. You arrive at the concourse, then realise you have to get on to the platforms at New Street, which involves leaving the station.

But 13/14 is unpleasant not just because it's a bit of a walk, it's because it's overcrowded, windswept and delay-prone. Curzon St will be none of those things - it's a modern purpose-built high speed station, not an urban "S-Bahn" turned failed jack of all trades. 13-14 is what you'd get if HS2 was running from Snow Hill via the Moor St through platforms.

 

[takno]

Changing trains between Curzon St and New St is far from ideal but you're having to push the interchange time very hard to make your argument hold. Half a mile platform at Curzon Street? Come off it!

Half a mile might be overstating it, particularly for the tram which will be half-way down, but you could easily be 500m from the road at the front of the station. You're looking at basically a kilometre walk from train door to train door, through two different stations and some streets. For people who aren't familiar with it, or have any mobility limitations at all that's a minimum of 20 minutes on top of the safe time you want to leave for potential delays. Even if you feel like 30 minutes would be safe, the booking system is unlikely to offer you an interchange time of less than 45 minutes. And that's before any time due to the train times not syncing up perfectly. It could turn out that the average connection in Birmingham is an hour.

If the bit of time you spend on HS2 between Birmingham and Yorkshire or Birmingham and Cheshire isn't at least 90 minutes quicker (which it isn't), why would you bother?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you're overdoing it there. It's more like Liverpool Lime St to Liverpool Central, and that can easily be done in 10 minutes with time to grab a coffee and use the loo on the way. And if you're of limited mobility or have luggage you can use the Loop (but use the lift at both ends or it'll take twice as long as walking and you'll walk almost as far through the tunnels).

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Or a draughty, hissing, squeaking Mk3?




Always better to be designed for accessibility as new, rather than retro fitted compromises.

I really don't understand the distaste for MK3's on this forum. The last time I used one to Ipswich two years ago it was still one of the most comfortable train journeys you can make in the British Isles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I really don't understand the distaste for MK3's on this forum. The last time I used one to Ipswich two years ago it was still one of the most comfortable train journeys you can make in the British Isles.

Bad seats (as built), bad ride (including the characteristic side to side sway due to inadequate damping), noisy and over-lit. Not that great. A product of their time.

I'm not sure where I'd put a 221 in comparison, probably roughly equal, but I'd certainly say an 80x is overall much better than a Mk3.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Bad seats (as built), bad ride (including the characteristic side to side sway due to inadequate damping), noisy and over-lit. Not that great. A product of their time.

I'm not sure where I'd put a 221 in comparison, probably roughly equal, but I'd certainly say an 80x is overall much better than a Mk3.

221's are possibly one of the most awful long-distance trains in this country. Cramped, short and noisy thanks to a pesky engine under your seat. 80x's have awful, awful seats and are far brighter than a MK3. I really don't see how any long distance train to date built since privatisation is any better than a MK3.

 

[greatvoyager]

221's are possibly one of the most awful long-distance trains in this country. Cramped, short and noisy thanks to a pesky engine under your seat. 80x's have awful, awful seats and are far brighter than a MK3. I really don't see how any long distance train to date built since privatisation is any better than a MK3.

I think it depends, travelling around certain curves on HSTs between Exeter and Bristol, for example, feels like they might come off of the track because of the bounce and sway.

Getting back on topic, whether the Class 221s transfer or not will probably be determined by demand.

 

[Purple Orange]

Half a mile might be overstating it, particularly for the tram which will be half-way down, but you could easily be 500m from the road at the front of the station. You're looking at basically a kilometre walk from train door to train door, through two different stations and some streets. For people who aren't familiar with it, or have any mobility limitations at all that's a minimum of 20 minutes on top of the safe time you want to leave for potential delays. Even if you feel like 30 minutes would be safe, the booking system is unlikely to offer you an interchange time of less than 45 minutes. And that's before any time due to the train times not syncing up perfectly. It could turn out that the average connection in Birmingham is an hour.

If the bit of time you spend on HS2 between Birmingham and Yorkshire or Birmingham and Cheshire isn't at least 90 minutes quicker (which it isn't), why would you bother?

To put it one way, if I’m travelling to Bristol from Manchester I will usually have an open return ticket. Quite often when I have arrived at Temple Meads to get the train, I have often boarded the first XC service heading north, then changed at New Street (if thatvtrain is heading to Newcastle) on the basis that I might catch the XC service from Reading to Manchester, therefore getting home faster.

When HS2 is operating and I am doing a similar journey again, I would board the first XC service heading north again. Upon arriving at New Street, I will take the chance of getting home faster by nipping to Curzon Street - it really is no more than 10 mins walk, 15 mins walking slow. By which point the train I left at New Street may be 80 mins from Piccadilly, but even with a 30 min wait at Curzon Street, I will still be arriving in Manchester before my original train. Personally I’d rather not be on a train than on a train generally. The less time, the better.

 

[L Brightwell]

I was just having a thought that the 20 remaining Class 221 Super Voyagers could be transferred to CrossCountry franchise after they are replaced by 13 Class 805 Agility Trains 300 in 5 carriages and 10 Class 807 Agility Trains 300 in 7 carriages. And CrossCountry will be able to form a uniform fleet for all of these Class 220 Voyagers and Class 221 Super Voyagers fleets and they might replace the 12 High Speed Trains sets (12 Class 43 and 40 Mark 3 Coaches).

This is a hard one to say. The government are aiming to reduce CO2 emissions and I understand that the Class 220s and 221s release particularly excessive amounts of carbon. So on that perspective I don't see it being a wise idea taking the Class 221 Super Voyagers from Avanti West Coast following their introduction of Hitachi AT300s. I think that CrossCountry should look at a wider range of options and not just adding more Voyagers and Super Voyagers to their fleet.

 

[Purple Orange]

This is a hard one to say. The government are aiming to reduce CO2 emissions and I understand that the Class 220s and 221s release particularly excessive amounts of carbon. So on that perspective I don't see it being a wise idea taking the Class 221 Super Voyagers from Avanti West Coast following their introduction of Hitachi AT300s. I think that CrossCountry should look at a wider range of options and not just adding more Voyagers and Super Voyagers to their fleet.

Other than new fleet, what options are there? The government does have an aim of reducing CO2, but at the same time it has pressure from within the party to not invest, unless it is private investment.

 

[JamesT]

This is a hard one to say. The government are aiming to reduce CO2 emissions and I understand that the Class 220s and 221s release particularly excessive amounts of carbon. So on that perspective I don't see it being a wise idea taking the Class 221 Super Voyagers from Avanti West Coast following their introduction of Hitachi AT300s. I think that CrossCountry should look at a wider range of options and not just adding more Voyagers and Super Voyagers to their fleet.

There's also the sunk cost of manufacturing emissions to consider. Although the Voyagers may not be particularly environmentally friendly, they exist now whereas a replacement would likely need manufacturing. It can sometimes be a net benefit to keep running older rolling stock and put off the costs of the replacement, especially if there may be a wholesale rewriting of the service changing the rolling stock requirements.

 

[37424]

Other than new fleet, what options are there? The government does have an aim of reducing CO2, but at the same time it has pressure from within the party to not invest, unless it is private investment.

I don't see them being replaced soon, they still have reasonably another 10 years of like left, I don't see many options for re-deployment elsewhere, and although Diesel under the wires could be reduced they would still be doing a lot of Diesel miles anyway, and its more likely to be about reducing emissions with some hybrids tweaks etc.

If you compare it say the West Coast there you have a much stronger case in the reduction of Diesel Running that there will be compared to the amount Diesel running that will be still required, although the probable downside will be that any future off wire diversions will fall into the not enough capacity, carn't be arsed, bustitution category.

 

[Purple Orange]

I don't see them being replaced soon, they still have reasonably another 10 years of like left, I don't see many options for re-deployment elsewhere, and although Diesel under the wires could be reduced they would still be doing a lot of Diesel miles anyway, and its more likely to be about reducing emissions with some hybrids tweaks etc.

If you compare it say the West Coast there you have a much stronger case in the reduction of Diesel Running that there will be compared to the amount Diesel running that will be still required, although the probable downside will be that any future off wire diversions will fall into the not enough capacity, carn't be arsed, bustitution category.

Yet there is also a need to improve capacity, so taking the Voyagers when they are no longer required by Avanti makes sense to me. It’s a fleet of 20 five-car trains - best to make use of them.

 

[BayPaul]

If we were back in the traditional franchising era, I could easily have seen voyagers being replaced in the next XC franchise. Many people forget that for the TOCs, the trains themselves are an Opex, not a Capex cost, as they are leased, and I can't imagine that they are the cheapest trains to lease. They must also be pretty expensive trains to operate, being heavy, thirsty and needing lots of crew for a fairly small number of passengers, and as they age maintenance costs are probably going up. Just as on EMR and Avanti, I could well see that a new TOC could easily provide new trains at a similar or even lower cost than the existing fleet, and also enjoy the benefit of a huge increase in capacity (342 seats in a 5 car TPE 802, vs 262 seats in a 5 car XC Voyager = 30% increase), even if the trains were to be a similar length. I could imagine there would also be the possibility for maintenance to be simplified, given that there are Hitachi depots in good locations for the XC services.

In this new world, it may be different, but I could still see the economics being similar - the DfT loses nothing if the voyagers all go to scrap - it is just the ROSCOs loss, but they gain quite a lot if they get new trains - potentially lower leasing costs, lower operating costs, reduced CO2, good messaging, ability to keep the Newton Aycliffe factory open a bit longer. The only difference now might be the capacity increase may be a bit less than in previous times.

 

[Purple Orange]

If we were back in the traditional franchising era, I could easily have seen voyagers being replaced in the next XC franchise. Many people forget that for the TOCs, the trains themselves are an Opex, not a Capex cost, as they are leased, and I can't imagine that they are the cheapest trains to lease. They must also be pretty expensive trains to operate, being heavy, thirsty and needing lots of crew for a fairly small number of passengers, and as they age maintenance costs are probably going up. Just as on EMR and Avanti, I could well see that a new TOC could easily provide new trains at a similar or even lower cost than the existing fleet, and also enjoy the benefit of a huge increase in capacity (342 seats in a 5 car TPE 802, vs 262 seats in a 5 car XC Voyager = 30% increase), even if the trains were to be a similar length. I could imagine there would also be the possibility for maintenance to be simplified, given that there are Hitachi depots in good locations for the XC services.

In this new world, it may be different, but I could still see the economics being similar - the DfT loses nothing if the voyagers all go to scrap - it is just the ROSCOs loss, but they gain quite a lot if they get new trains - potentially lower leasing costs, lower operating costs, reduced CO2, good messaging, ability to keep the Newton Aycliffe factory open a bit longer. The only difference now might be the capacity increase may be a bit less than in previous times.

What is considered an appropriate ‘lifetime’ for depreciation of a train before replacement? From a financial perspective, when the business case for the Voyagers was made it might have had an accounting ‘lifetime’ of 40 years, but it might have just been 20 years too.

 

[BayPaul]

What is considered an appropriate ‘lifetime’ for depreciation of a train before replacement? From a financial perspective, when the business case for the Voyagers was made it might have had an accounting ‘lifetime’ of 40 years, but it might have just been 20 years too.

I don't know, but it is not necessarily relevant. The ROSCO will be doing the depreciating and would have made the original business case. If the DfT / TOC decide not to continue using them, the ROSCO may record a big loss on their books if they had assumed the trains would be leased beyond the end of the existing contract, but I can't see that the DfT will actually care. As I said, from a TOC / DfT point of view, the trains are opex, not capex, so no depreciation.

 

[37424]

I don't know, but it is not necessarily relevant. The ROSCO will be doing the depreciating and would have made the original business case. If the DfT / TOC decide not to continue using them, the ROSCO may record a big loss on their books if they had assumed the trains would be leased beyond the end of the existing contract, but I can't see that the DfT will actually care. As I said, from a TOC / DfT point of view, the trains are opex, not capex, so no depreciation.

Isn't the Depreciation for IET based over 27 years, which I would imagine is similar for a Voyager, I think the Dft might care if the ROSCO suddenly have to get their money back over 20 years instead of 30 years and start to whack up their leasing charges.

 

[BayPaul]

Isn't the Depreciation for IET based over 27 years, which I would imagine is similar for a Voyager, I think the Dft might care if the ROSCO suddenly have to get their money back over 20 years instead of 30 years and start to whack up their leasing charges.

The IET is a very different contract though. The 22x ROSCOs have set a fixed price as far as I understand it for the duration of the existing contract. They wouldn't be able to just whack up their lease charges just because they got their internal maths wrong!

 

[Wolfie]

I don't know, but it is not necessarily relevant. The ROSCO will be doing the depreciating and would have made the original business case. If the DfT / TOC decide not to continue using them, the ROSCO may record a big loss on their books if they had assumed the trains would be leased beyond the end of the existing contract, but I can't see that the DfT will actually care. As I said, from a TOC / DfT point of view, the trains are opex, not capex, so no depreciation.

If too many ROSCOs have big losses on their books they will look at increasing their leasing charges to compensate or pull out of the field allowing the few remaining companies to do so due to the loss of competition.

 

[BayPaul]

If too many ROSCOs have big losses on their books they will look at increasing their leasing charges to compensate or pull out of the field allowing the few remaining companies to do so due to the loss of competition.

That is certainly true, but the DfT can probably afford a couple more big losses before they start to lose ROSCOs

 

[Wolfie]

The IET is a very different contract though. The 22x ROSCOs have set a fixed price as far as I understand it for the duration of the existing contract. They wouldn't be able to just whack up their lease charges just because they got their internal maths wrong!

Presumably the quid pro quo is a DfT commitment to the trains for the duration of the contract too.

 

[Purple Orange]

Isn't the Depreciation for IET based over 27 years, which I would imagine is similar for a Voyager, I think the Dft might care if the ROSCO suddenly have to get their money back over 20 years instead of 30 years and start to whack up their leasing charges.

27 years, I’ll take that as a working assumption. Thanks

I don't know, but it is not necessarily relevant. The ROSCO will be doing the depreciating and would have made the original business case. If the DfT / TOC decide not to continue using them, the ROSCO may record a big loss on their books if they had assumed the trains would be leased beyond the end of the existing contract, but I can't see that the DfT will actually care. As I said, from a TOC / DfT point of view, the trains are opex, not capex, so no depreciation.

It might not be relevant to a TOC, but it is relevant to the question I was wanting to understand.

 

[Energy]

27 years, I’ll take that as a working assumption. Thanks

I believe the IEP contract is for 27.5 years.

 

[RobShipway]

In a separate thread to this someone was asking as to whether you would add the Advanti Class 221's to the XC fleet or the class 222's. I would add both personally. But I would also pass the class 170 Turbostar trains that XC uses over for EMR/Southern to use.

XC operates 29 Turbostar units. You replace class 170's with class 222 trains, but you change the class 222's to be 4 or 5 car trains rather than having a mixture of 7, 5 and 4 car trains. Where some of the Turbostars are used in multiple together, you would have enough class 222's to replace the class 170 units. The question would be, if the class 222's can operate on the routes where the XC Class 170's operate.

The Avanti West Coast class 221's, then be used to bolster the service and work with XC's existing Class 220/221 fleets. But the Advanti Class 221 units will have to have tilt switched off on them, as has been done with the XC 221's.

Before any comments on this post, yes I know crazy idea. It will never happen. But then I was told a good years ago, that you would never be able to add diesel engines to a class 319 to make a tri - mode train...........

 

[greatvoyager]

In a separate thread to this someone was asking as to whether you would add the Advanti Class 221's to the XC fleet or the class 222's. I would add both personally. But I would also pass the class 170 Turbostar trains that XC uses over for EMR/Southern to use.

XC operates 29 Turbostar units. You replace class 170's with class 222 trains, but you change the class 222's to be 4 or 5 car trains rather than having a mixture of 7, 5 and 4 car trains. Where some of the Turbostars are used in multiple together, you would have enough class 222's to replace the class 170 units. The question would be, if the class 222's can operate on the routes where the XC Class 170's operate.

The Avanti West Coast class 221's, then be used to bolster the service and work with XC's existing Class 220/221 fleets. But the Advanti Class 221 units will have to have tilt switched off on them, as has been done with the XC 221's.

Before any comments on this post, yes I know crazy idea. It will never happen. But then I was told a good years ago, that you would never be able to add diesel engines to a class 319 to make a tri - mode train...........

Main problem would be dwell times compared to the 170s.
Also I believe Stansted isn’t able to take 22x units.

 

[RobShipway]

Main problem would be dwell times compared to the 170s.
Also I believe Stansted isn’t able to take 22x units.

Okay, I did not realise there was issues with 22x units going into Stanstead. So my idea is most certainly crazy then!

 

[greatvoyager]

Okay, I did not realise there was issues with 22x units going into Stanstead. So my idea is most certainly crazy then!

To be honest, I made a similar suggestion on a different thread a year or so ago and didn’t realise either.
I wouldn’t say it’s crazy, it’s more that there are certain issues that make it not viable.