Bushbury to Stafford. Thats all.
Thank you. Thought it was not much.
Not convinced 350/2 would be without some sort of alterations for luggage. You also have the issue no one would want to sit in large bays. Other 350s would be ok with luggage space added.
True, maybe some shuffling around with other 350s.
Notice I didn't add that aspect into my reply
Without pointing out the obvious flaws in the political rant, battery chemistries for rail vehicles are designed for the preferred business case. Some of the manufacturers are guaranteeing to midlife. Of course by that time, batteries will be much lighter and cheaper still.
And will cost more in the long run due to extra wear and tear caused by the extra weight of those batteries.
It's then identifying the opportunities for five-car formations to come in handy, and the cost of the performance risks they bring in.
That really depends on how many billions it costs to electrify the line. Some of those ongoing cost savings have been eclipsed by ballooning costs.
That's the rub here in the UK. We are talking about battery services on routes that elsewhere in Europe would be electrified as most cost effective approach.
Versus the actual cheaper cost of buying and running shorter trains?
It would be a similar length to a 9 coach voyager, while providing a similar capacity, so no worse than the voyagers. The only major concerns I can see would be acceleration at low speeds, but even then, loco hauled sets are a realistic solution
7 coach 80x would provide the same capacity as a 9 coach Voyager.
Sadly yes.
There were restrictions on some steep gradients like the South Devon banks. On one power car, I think they needed a clear run at Dainton from Newton Abbot station without a signal stop in the old Aller Junction area. ISTR calls at Totnes were withdrawn too, so the trains didn't have to start again from a stand at the bottom of the next steep gradient.
Yes, would be interesting to see how Spanish or Italian contractors (or other countries) where they seem to find it economic, would price the job.
7 coach 80x provides significant growth on all but a handful of services, and still provides a small growth on 9car sets. There are not many 9 cars running around and there will be even less of they ever revert to the pre COVID timetable.
7 car 80x makes sense.
Are any of the 80x fleet capable of chopping and changing length, like the 222s and Pendolinos? If so XC could bulk order 7-car units, then if future demand suffices, add an extra 2-carriages to some units.
XC avoid 10-car voyagers due to length; 9 car 80X may prove too long.
There are not many stations that can handle a 9car voyager, but 10car is too long.
I think 5 and 10 car 80X’s should be the norm. 9 and 7 cars are a waste of capacity.
Then use SDO at those stations.
How is 7 car 80X a waste of capacity when it offers more capacity than a 9car 22X set?
Because you can't double up a 7 car 80X unless we make a 3 car 80X.
Most stations along the route already see 9 car 80x so shouldn't be too much of a problem. On the XC route, GWR 9 car 80x operate on routes from just south of Worcestershire Parkway, of course not a direct service, but those stations served by XC are served by 9-car 80x. Same goes for Wakefield/Doncaster to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen so no issues there. Sheffield should be capable of handling a 9 car 80x, I'm sure EMR will be running 10 car 810s which will be longer than a 9 car 80x. Derby, Tamworth and New St have platforms long enough to take a 9 car 80x. Only Chesterfield and Burton will need platform extensions
I think current XC policies have generally scared everyone away from double sets instead of one longer set. (catering often in one part only, sometimes one set locked out etc)
There are few more stations than that with insufficient platform length, don't forget XC also serves places like Filton Abbey Wood, Chepstow etc with shorter platforms. These would all be relevant if there is one standard XC fleet system wide.
