XC desperately needs more rolling stock

[TheWalrus]

They still might. You never know.

It would be the most logical outcome for the 222s and could still be based and maintained at Etches Park. I don’t think anyone really knows what the future holds for them at this stage!

 

[dk1]

It would be the most logical outcome for the 222s and could still be based and maintained at Etches Park. I don’t think anyone really knows what the future holds for them at this stage!

I very much doubt they’ll be based at Derby. Apart from no longer carrying spares parts etc, there will be no room at the inn.

 

[Mgameing123]

Why 7? That's going to leave a tiny microfleet, unless the remaining ones are going to cover for refurbs?


Yes, that is very true. It is better than nothing, which is what most of us had started to expect. Plus, it’s 7 more reliable, more compatible trains, which could be deployed more easily, flexibly and cost effectively to cater to demand.

They might also get the 222's from EMR.

 

[QSK19]

They might also get the 222's from EMR.

Doubt it; and they’re spoken for, I think. And also, they’re incomparable with 220s/221s. Makes sense to go for any Avanti 221s going off lease which the DfT won’t fund.

 

[GoneSouth]

Doubt it; and they’re spoken for, I think. And also, they’re incomparable with 220s/221s. Makes sense to go for any Avanti 221s going off lease which the DfT won’t fund.

Who’s having the 222s?

What this means is that we now have a situation where XC is stuck with what it has with no prospect of expansion for at least the next 8 years.

The DfT won’t fund extra voyagers beyond the 7 to replace HSTs now, so the remaining Avanti voyagers will either go to someone else or sit rotting for 8 years. XC are now locked into 8 years of maintenance of Voyagers and won’t to be investing in any new type of train during this period.

What happens if/when the XC network is really overcrowded?

Government meddling = mess.

 

[JonathanH]

Government meddling = mess

What source of funding was available that would have enabled all 20 Voyagers to go to Cross Country?

 

[357]

they’re spoken for

By who?

 

[QSK19]

By who?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2023 ==

Who’s having the 222s?

What this means is that we now have a situation where XC is stuck with what it has with no prospect of expansion for at least the next 8 years.

The DfT won’t fund extra voyagers beyond the 7 to replace HSTs now, so the remaining Avanti voyagers will either go to someone else or sit rotting for 8 years. XC are now locked into 8 years of maintenance of Voyagers and won’t to be investing in any new type of train during this period.

What happens if/when the XC network is really overcrowded?

Government meddling = mess.

Speculative threads elsewhere in RF state another possible home for them. Nothing confirmed, which is why I added “I think” to my message.

In any case, another reason for doubting 222s to XC is that Eversholt wouldn’t want to split the fleet up unless the lease fee was punitive. As in, there are 27 222s in total: the DfT wouldn’t lease all 27 (no way in hell if they’ve only given 7 extra 221s to XC!). So if the DfT funded, say, 12 of them, it wouldn’t be palatable for Eversholt to have the other 15 sat there idle with no home.

 

[The Planner]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2023 ==


Speculative threads elsewhere in RF state another possible home for them. Nothing confirmed, which is why I added “I think” to my message.

In any case, another reason for doubting 222s to XC is that Eversholt wouldn’t want to split the fleet up unless the lease fee was punitive. As in, there are 27 222s in total: the DfT wouldn’t lease all 27 (no way in hell if they’ve only given 7 extra 221s to XC!). So if the DfT funded, say, 12 of them, it wouldn’t be palatable for Eversholt to have the other 15 sat there idle with no home.

Why would Eversholt cut their nose off to spite their face? Getting paid for 12 is better than not getting paid at all.

 

[JonathanH]

In any case, another reason for doubting 222s to XC is that Eversholt wouldn’t want to split the fleet up unless the lease fee was punitive.

The owner of the 221s seems happy to split that fleet up.

However, I think it is difficult to imagine that Arriva put forward a costed option for 7 221s and 12 222s to the DfT for their consideration, let alone 47 extra 22x.

 

[QSK19]

The owner of the 221s seems happy to split that fleet up.

Could it be because:

- The 221s are split across 2 TOCs anyway (GC aside) yet all the 222s are at the same one (although I do acknowledge that the 222/1s were at HT before they were all consolidated at EMT)?

- I believe 44 221s were built; so that’s a big enough number to split the fleet without effectively leaving a micro-fleet?

Just suggesting possible reasons why.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2023 ==

Why would Eversholt cut their nose off to spite their face? Getting paid for 12 is better than not getting paid at all.

But then what if, say, ScotRail comes along to replace their HST fleet and only 15 222s are available at the time? 27 of them is a more attractive prospect than 15 and having to find another dozen or so units from elsewhere. I agree that 12 being leased does at least bring in revenue compared to all 27 being sat there doing nothing; however it’s a question of whether Eversholt would want to play the long game and wait for somebody to take all 27. No doubt the 810 introduction will lead to interesting times 222-wise!

Back on the topic of XC needing more stock, I’d have thought the DfT would say that it’s already looked after XC by the 170/6s getting the extra centre cars from some of the 170/5 units before they moved to EMR. The spin would be that they’ve done enough for XC through that and the extra 221s. Therefore, I can’t see them doing much more for XC.

 

[class 9]

What source of funding was available that would have enabled all 20 Voyagers to go to Cross Country?

That's the crux of all that is wrong with privatisation, under BR type arrangements the 221s would probably have been payed for now, so ongoing costs would be just day to day maintenance/overhauls/refurbishments, not continuing leasing costs.
As it stands though, all of them to XC is the cheapest option, all maintained at Central Rivers, no traincrew/ maintenance staff training, they go anywhere else and all these will incur significant extra cost.

 

[TheWalrus]

Could they still be maintained at Derby?

 

[JonathanH]

Could they still be maintained at Derby?

222s. No. The part of the depot thag looks after 222s has transferred / is transferring to Hitachi to maintain the 810s.

That's the crux of all that is wrong with privatisation, under BR type arrangements the 221s would probably have been payed for now, so ongoing costs would be just day to day maintenance/overhauls/refurbishments, not continuing leasing costs.

You say that but we don't know whether the railway has paid the full cost of the 221s that it would have paid under 'BR type arrangements'. Moreover, even BR could have moved onto a leasing arrangement as the way it procured rolling stock.

 

[class 9]

222s. No. The part of the depot thag looks after 222s has transferred / is transferring to Hitachi to maintain the 810s.


You say that but we don't know whether the railway has paid the full cost of the 221s that it would have paid under 'BR type arrangements'. Moreover, even BR could have moved onto a leasing arrangement as the way it procured rolling stock.

I said probably, so not definite, although at some point it would have been, so point remains valid.
Whether BR would have gone down the leasing route is just supposition.

 

[Starmill]

What happens if/when the XC network is really overcrowded?

Some services have been seriously overcrowded now for over two decades. What happens is, ultimately, it's self-regulating. People who get left behind or endure a journey squashed into a tiny standing space around the doors or along the aisle of a Voyager train make arrangements to travel by road instead or use a different operator's service from an alternative station. People complain but nothing would actually change.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2023 ==

Government meddling = mess.

Yes, their competency for management is dreadful and their policy is all wrong. However, at least they're still mostly paying the bills? If they didn't, CrossCountry wouldn't exist at all, and that would be far worse.

 

[43096]

That's the crux of all that is wrong with privatisation, under BR type arrangements the 221s would probably have been payed for now, so ongoing costs would be just day to day maintenance/overhauls/refurbishments, not continuing leasing costs.

BR wrote the asset cost off over several years (20 or more). There is a huge difference between paying for an asset in cash terms, as compared with how it is treated on the balance sheet and in the profit & loss account.

 

[josh-j]

222s. No. The part of the depot thag looks after 222s has transferred / is transferring to Hitachi to maintain the 810s.


You say that but we don't know whether the railway has paid the full cost of the 221s that it would have paid under 'BR type arrangements'. Moreover, even BR could have moved onto a leasing arrangement as the way it procured rolling stock.

Sorry for the slight diversion from the topic here but if Eversholt weren't extracting a profit from their leasing then they wouldn't be in the business. Its surely guaranteed that ROSCOs make things more expensive for no good reason. The government is the *perfect* entity to be making investments in things like trains. Think about it. In days gone by people rented TVs (actually this is still possible isn't it but not so common) because they cost a lot and people don't generally have huge stashes of cash to throw around at big purchases. If they could buy it outright they'd save money, but if you can't, you gotta lease.

The government CAN buy trains outright (whatever certain politicians might insinuate, a fleet of trains is a piffling nothing on the national finances) and end up saving money over the long term vs leasing. It's the perfect situation for buying and owning versus throwing money away by renting.

All that the ROSCO structure does is funnel taxpayers money off to shareholders and tax havens. I can't help but think a lot of the "too expensive" type problems in the UK rail industry when it comes to getting decent rolling stock where we end up with short forms and overall inadequate stock procurement are basically a non-existent problem that is simply the result of the absolute craziness of forcing (almost) all trains to generate profit for these somewhat opaque companies to act as middlemen rather than just employing their staff directly for maintenance and simply buying the trains we need.

I bet we could've even had longer voyagers that weren't always rammed!

 

[357]

I bet we could've even had longer voyagers that weren't always rammed!

We could. Check out the history of the 222 fleet to see how easily they can be reconfigured.

 

[QSK19]

We could. Check out the history of the 222 fleet to see how easily they can be reconfigured.

Indeed. The 222s first came as 9 and 4 car units and since then have been a mix of 5, 7 and 8 cars. I think the 222s have had more flexibility because of the stark difference between the train sizes when originally delivered to Midland Mainline; whereas the 221s have been either 4 or 5 car.

You could change the size of 222s without massively impacting the size of the donor trains. For example, you take two cars each from two 7 car units and add a car each to four 4 car trains. The former 7 car trains still have a half decent capacity (and the size of the six trains involved are all 5 car, hence standardisation as an added benefit); whereas if you took 2 cars away from the 221s, the donor train would end up being a 2 or 3 car Voyager. Much like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

So, yes, you could follow the same theory of shortening/lengthening the 222s; however the small difference in size between the shortest and longest 221s would make that very difficult indeed.

 

[YorksLad12]

You could change the size of 222s without massively impacting the size of the donor trains. For example, you take two cars each from two 7 car units and add a car each to four 4 car trains. The former 7 car trains still have a half decent capacity (and the size of the six trains involved are all 5 car, hence standardisation as an added benefit); whereas if you took 2 cars away from the 221s, the donor train would end up being a 2 or 3 car Voyager. Much like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I can't remember in which of the many XC threads I suggested this (it might even be upthread), but: taking one car out of the 4-car sets and inserting it as coach E in the five-car sets would mean you could run a six-car set in most circumstances. You only need the extra carriages in the peaks; attach one of the three-car remainders at Derby, detatch at Newcastle in the afternoon/evening peak, for example (you'd remove First on the remainder sets first). Or, stick two threes together to make another six.

 

[david1212]

I can't remember in which of the many XC threads I suggested this (it might even be upthread), but: taking one car out of the 4-car sets and inserting it as coach E in the five-car sets would mean you could run a six-car set in most circumstances. You only need the extra carriages in the peaks; attach one of the three-car remainders at Derby, detatch at Newcastle in the afternoon/evening peak, for example (you'd remove First on the remainder sets first).

One down side of a three-car set is needing at least once crew member for just 26 first and 108 standard class seats ( maybe slightly wrong numbers ).

Or, stick two threes together to make another six.

So a minimum crew of three for 268 seats.

IMO better to dump the two driving cars with first class seats and make a 4-car standard class only set with 216 or so seats.

 

[YorksLad12]

One down side of a three-car set is needing at least once crew member for just 26 first and 108 standard class seats ( maybe slightly wrong numbers ).

True, but at the moment you need the same number of crew where units are doubled up, all the way from Plymouth to Glasgow. My way means you only need an extra member of crew when/where you deploy the 'crowdbuster' set (for around 150 Standard class passengers, remove First). At the moment, when there's a double set, there's sometimes only catering on one set (the set with the reservations, which seems fair). So I wouldn't have catering in the crowdbusters either.

So a minimum crew of three for 268 seats.

IMO better to dump the two driving cars with first class seats and make a 4-car standard class only set with 216 or so seats.

Better still, get DfT to loosen the purse strings and let XC take on the rest of Avanti's 221s

 

[QSK19]

Better still, get DfT to loosen the purse strings and let XC take on the rest of Avanti's 221s

Ah but that would be too easy a solution!

As I’ve said before, the DfT would already argue that they’ve done enough by granting the 7 extra 221s and the centre cars from some of the 170/5s. More chance of there being loco-hauled 360 services to Nottingham than XC getting all of Avanti’s 221s

 

[class 9]

I can't remember in which of the many XC threads I suggested this (it might even be upthread), but: taking one car out of the 4-car sets and inserting it as coach E in the five-car sets would mean you could run a six-car set in most circumstances. You only need the extra carriages in the peaks; attach one of the three-car remainders at Derby, detatch at Newcastle in the afternoon/evening peak, for example (you'd remove First on the remainder sets first). Or, stick two threes together to make another six.

I don't think a three car Voyager would be feasible, it would only have one air compressor, not sure that would be sufficient, but there'd be no back up should that pack up.

 

[357]

I don't think a three car Voyager would be feasible, it would only have one air compressor, not sure that would be sufficient, but there'd be no back up should that pack up.

Many types of unit only have one compressor.

The wonder of multiple unit working is that the other compressors on other units can pick up the slack. I've driven a 12 car train with only one compressor before now.

 

[Starmill]

One down side of a three-car set is needing at least once crew member for just 26 first and 108 standard class seats ( maybe slightly wrong numbers ).

I don't think that's actually a rule book requirement though so the company could just change their policy if ordered to do so?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Nov 2023 ==

Ah but that would be too easy a solution!

As I’ve said before, the DfT would already argue that they’ve done enough by granting the 7 extra 221s and the centre cars from some of the 170/5s. More chance of there being loco-hauled 360 services to Nottingham than XC getting all of Avanti’s 221s

Given seven 221s can reliably develop six five car 221 diagrams as part of the mixed fleet, that's actually two more vehicles in traffic than the hypothetical maximum number of four diagrams from six power car pairs and five seven car train sets which was available previously.

 

[357]

I don't think that's actually a rule book requirement though so the company could just change their policy if ordered to do so?

Correct. Look at DOO operations such as c2c where they have a 12 sar train of 3 units with no gangway - only person onboard is the driver. Same on Greater Anglia with the 720s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Correct. Look at DOO operations such as c2c where they have a 12 sar train of 3 units with no gangway - only person onboard is the driver. Same on Greater Anglia with the 720s.

Same on most Chiltern services - the vast majority are made up of more than one set.

 

[Snow1964]

Did bit of data extraction from latest ORR figures for XC

5.4m train kilometres (table 4.1) up 2%
27.3m vehicle km (table 5.1) down 7%
so average XC train now just 4.3 cars long

adjusting for change, last year was 29.2m and 5.292 so average XC train was 5.5 cars

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/ip3ayian/passenger-rail-usage-apr-jun-2023.pdf

How has average XC train shrunk 21% from 5.5 to 4.3 cars in a year ?