Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
But a 7 car 80X has more capacity than every single train that XC currently operates, and has over double most of them... So why would we need to double them up.
Fine in a world of unlimited money, lets get 9 car 80X, but we don't live in that world, even 7 car 80X are beyond what will be ordered being realistic.
Double sets just don't work on XC, lets not risk it again.
XC are unlikely to order anything for another five years or more so will Hitachi still be offering the current 80x product? I would assume XC will get the next generation of what the manufactures are offering in the early 2030's or possible cast off 80x's from GWR/LNER routes if they get the new fleets.
It's best not to double up because then you need to double up crews and cabs and crash protection waste length, with a 10 car 80x pair having the same capacity as a 9 car single unit on LNER, say. Better to follow the Thameslink or Avanti* model of having multiple lengths of train and distributing the capacity appropriately by diagramming things to the services that need it, unless you're going to do part-journey splitting/joining which while I argued for it most here are arguing against due to the performance impact this can have.
* Yes, I know, the 805s, but those are for a very specific reason relating to the high demand Chester-Euston and much lower demand Holyhead-Chester, though personally I'd still have gone with single units for that too.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
XC are unlikely to order anything for another five years or more so will Hitachi still be offering the current 80x product? I would assume XC will get the next generation of what the manufactures are offering in the early 2030's or possible cast off 80x's from GWR/LNER routes if they get the new fleets.
It's pretty certain, unless they withdraw from the market, that Hitachi will still offer a 25-26m vehicle end doored 140mph bi-mode unit, whatever it happens to be called. You can't after all get an Electrostar now but you can get an Aventra and while it looks very different (in my view is better in almost every way apart from that the short versions still use a narrow bodyshell) it's functionally the same idea.
But a 7 car 80X has more capacity than every single train that XC currently operates, and has over double most of them... So why would we need to double them up.
Just order a fleet of 7-car 807s (obviously with engines!) and be done with it. That would give you train which is basically the same length as an double set of 220s but with, in Avanti's interior (which I'd be keen to keep, it's great), around 404 seats in standard class and 49 seats in first class. For comparison the 8-car 220 which we're comparing against has 348 standard class seats and 52 first class seats. So a minor loss of first class capacity (which you could probably regain by simply having a slightly smaller kitchen) but overall 53 extra seats.
Now considering that a) an 8-car 220 already can deal with all but the most extreme loadings and b) a 7-car 807 still has more capacity even than the 8-car 220 to me any suggestion of needing longer trains than 7-car is really over egging the pudding.
As I said at the beginning just order a fleet of 30 odd 7-car 807s and be done with it. The improvement in the interior over a Voyager and the additional capacity on all XC services will be utterly transformational and instantly resolve basically all the issue that XC faces (excluding industrial relations anyway!). Quite apart from being able to finally use the wires where available. Imagine not having all those Voyager engines rumbling away polluting Birmingham New Street anymore!
XC are unlikely to order anything for another five years or more so will Hitachi still be offering the current 80x product? I would assume XC will get the next generation of what the manufactures are offering in the early 2030's or possible cast off 80x's from GWR/LNER routes if they get the new fleets.
If XC are serious about decarbonising with new fleet by 2035, then they can't really wait until 2031 or later to order. New designs can take 5-6 years to be in service.
If they are happy to order a follow on batch to a standard design already in use elsewhere in UK then of course process is much quicker as there is no design, development and testing time. Perhaps 2.5 years lead time to first unit, but a big order could take 4-6 years before all built.
But a follow on batch of regional (not high speed) is only possible if some regional bimode trains have already been ordered by others, even if XxC version has more intermediate carriages), there are multiple routes where 3+ hour journeys could benefit from regional trains by 2030-32 (eg Cardiff-Plymouth, Cardiff-Portsmouth, Waterloo-Exeter etc), but no guarantee GBR (or is current shadow) would go down that path. But it is the one type that would free up many newer DMUs some of which work in multiple.
The Alternative option which could be ordered almost straight away is a fleet of class 807 type trains.
This is a critical reason to act quickly on this in my view. With a double 22x idling away the air is so thick you can taste it. I think there is a serious risk of staff health being affected and thus future legal cases on the matter. I'm actually surprised Unions haven't acted on it and insisted on technical solutions being looked at to reduce it e.g. stop-start or similar - there are the pulse jet fans, but they aren't enough (and make the station incredibly noisy when running at full pelt - and excessive noise is a health and safety issue too.
A double Sprinter on a TfW is nowhere near as bad, you only get a proper noseful when it departs.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If they are happy to order a follow on batch to a standard design already in use elsewhere in UK then of course process is much quicker as there is no design, development and testing time. Perhaps 2.5 years lead time to first unit, but a big order could take 4-6 years before all built.
That's one reason most of us are advocating standard 80x. They are available basically off the shelf and would be in service very quickly. They are not perfect by any means, with some serious flaws, but they are much lower risk than a wholly new design or one that another TOC is commissioning that isn't in service yet (897).
But a follow on batch of regional (not high speed) is only possible if some regional bimode trains have already been ordered by others, even if XxC version has more intermediate carriages), there are multiple routes where 3+ hour journeys could benefit from regional trains by 2030-32 (eg Cardiff-Plymouth, Cardiff-Portsmouth, Waterloo-Exeter etc), but no guarantee GBR (or is current shadow) would go down that path. But it is the one type that would free up many newer DMUs some of which work in multiple.
I think it'd probably make more sense to do something like:
- Put in an order for 7 car bimode 80x now, with them entering service as soon as possible. I'd agree with the Avanti interior, it's the best I've seen yet and its low density with lots of luggage space would be well suited to XC.
- As Voyagers are released, put 5 car Voyagers on the presently single-unit regional services that are overcrowded and that don't have a platform length issue. These are not ideal by any means, but are more capacity allowing the existing Turbostars to be doubled up. This is a very Chiltern-y solution - what have we got now and how can we use it to maximise capacity?
- When the combined GBR regional bimode unit order is sorted out, order long-enough replacements as part of this. That these will take a while to get in service doesn't really matter because we've got a workable short term solution in place of working regionals with a mix of Voyagers and Turbostars.
Yep, that's why I advocate this approach. It'd be nice to have low floor, but in reality these trains are not going to end up DOO (even if who does the doors changes at some point, they are not going to end up single staffed) so assistance can be provided by the guard where necessary.
This is a critical reason to act quickly on this in my view. With a double 22x idling away the air is so thick you can taste it. I think there is a serious risk of staff health being affected and thus future legal cases on the matter. I'm actually surprised Unions haven't acted on it and insisted on technical solutions being looked at to reduce it e.g. stop-start or similar - there are the pulse jet fans, but they aren't enough (and make the station incredibly noisy when running at full pelt - and excessive noise is a health and safety issue too.
A double Sprinter on a TfW is nowhere near as bad, you only get a proper noseful when it departs.
Agree this is a key reason this needs sorting. It's simply unpleasant, and certainly unhealthy. If we want people to use rail, it should be pleasant! And like all workers, rail staff deserve a healthy working environment.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's one reason most of us are advocating standard 80x. They are available basically off the shelf and would be in service very quickly. They are not perfect by any means, with some serious flaws, but they are much lower risk than a wholly new design or one that another TOC is commissioning that isn't in service yet (897).
I think it'd probably make more sense to do something like:
- Put in an order for 7 car bimode 80x now, with them entering service as soon as possible. I'd agree with the Avanti interior, it's the best I've seen yet and its low density with lots of luggage space would be well suited to XC.
- As Voyagers are released, put 5 car Voyagers on the presently single-unit regional services that are overcrowded and that don't have a platform length issue. These are not ideal by any means, but are more capacity allowing the existing Turbostars to be doubled up. This is a very Chiltern-y solution - what have we got now and how can we use it to maximise capacity?
I don't think the 22x are suitable for the Stansted route, due to SP differentials in East Anglia, and platform length restrictions at Stansted (4-car limit). AIUI, they could be used on Cardiff-Nottingham though, and you could use the 170s freed up there to ensure the Stansted route can all be 4-car.
- When the combined GBR regional bimode unit order is sorted out, order long-enough replacements as part of this. That these will take a while to get in service doesn't really matter because we've got a workable short term solution in place of working regionals with a mix of Voyagers and Turbostars.
Agreed. Though it should be considered whether a BEMU could serve these (and other regional routes). I think that would be feasible for all XC 170 routes, and lots of other routes as well.
Yep, that's why I advocate this approach. It'd be nice to have low floor, but in reality these trains are not going to end up DOO (even if who does the doors changes at some point, they are not going to end up single staffed) so assistance can be provided by the guard where necessary.
The lack of level-boarding is actually the biggest issue I have with this plan. Then again, my favoured alternative (order more, ~270m* 897s for LNER, and cascade most LNER 5-car 800s to XC**), also doesn't provide level boarding. The real advantage there would be to increase LNER capacity, with the higher-capacity units available for use on the busiest routes/times.
*around 270m is the longest that still gives you enough platform options at King's Cross.
**Keep maintenance at current hitachi sites so there is no need to renegotiate the contract, which would likely be prohibitively expensive. This does restrict what diagrams they can be used on.
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)
I do know where you are coming from, longer units are overkill at the fringes of the network, and in an ideal world would have a 5car set fully gangwayed that was doubled up on busy core (north of Bristol and Oxford, south of Chesterfield etc). The alternative idea of a 3car capacity booster set to avoid crowding, that never operates on its own, but which is designed to work coupled to provide extra seats in the busy central core is not daft idea.
The reality is even with auto couplers there are not suitable stations to detach a unit, leave it sitting in a platform for a while (in case of late running), then attach it to train going opposite direction. Bristol Temple Meads or Taunton could probably handle it, but can't think of other places with suitable spare platforms for stabling (and really would need a location around 70-150 miles from Birmingham in every quadrant to make it fully work).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
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.
I know SDO selective door opening is a partial solution, but having been sold an advance ticket where allocated coach wasn't in the platform, and seen accessibility problems associated with it. It is long way from perfect.
For the long-distance routes 9 car should work but is Chepstow really an issue when it's only served by 1 long-distance train a day? Cardiff Central-Edinburgh could just run instead of a Plymouth-Edinburgh train via Bristol Parkway and a Manchester service can be extended to Plymouth. Has Filton ever been served by XC?
The lack of level-boarding is actually the biggest issue I have with this plan. Then again, my favoured alternative (order more, ~270m* 897s for LNER, and cascade most LNER 5-car 800s to XC**), also doesn't provide level boarding. The real advantage there would be to increase LNER capacity, with the higher-capacity units available for use on the busiest routes/times.
Level boarding is certainly a very good thing, but it'd also mean a new design, which realistically would mean the current problems persisting for another 10 years minimum. Whereas standard 26m 80x could be got in service quickly because they're already proven. Intercity trains are always likely to have a second member of staff on board (whatever their job title might be) and they can put a ramp down if one is needed, and doing so doesn't cause significant disruption to the service because there are fewer stops and they tend to be scheduled for longer than for regional trains.
There are not many stations that can handle a 9car voyager, but 10car is too long.
10car voyager (23m vehicles) is around 231m
9 car 80x (26m vehicles) is about 234m
A lot of main stations on West coast mainline are nearer 300m platforms
Many on GWR route marked for 2x5car IET (260m)
Those on South Coast Route are about 245m (for 12x20m)
Most on East Coast mainline also around 240-250m
Of course XC choose to call at some stations that have platforms that are much shorter, including some as short as about 120m. But that is fairly irrelevant to a 8 or 9 or 10car decision.
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
When fleet renewal comes up there will be a competitive tender. An AT300 product is the most likely but by no means the only outcome. Contrary to all the conflicting ideas on what a future XC should be, it will continue having to be all things to all people (because we won't have HS2 by then). So yes, the procuring authority (whatever it happens to be called then) will want to have their cake and eat it in just about all dimensions possible. It'll have to be mixed mode and diesel mode will be specified to have performance no worse than a Voyager. It means the underfloor area will be chocka so level boarding probably will have to be sacrificed. A 125mph Class 755 derivative isn't entirely out of the question, but the power packs and unit-end motors eat into the overall unit length.
It'll have to be a multiple unit with MU acceleration. Cross Country paths slower than today will cause significant adverse timetable recast across the length of the country. Where Cross Country is hourly it (should if doesn't already) forms a combined 30-minute takt with a London LDHS operator. Cross Country Edinburgh path (should) operate in the opposite half hour to LNER slow Edinburgh; Cross Country (does) operate in the opposite half hour to GWR between Taunton and Plymouth. They need to have the same performance characteristics. Back then those HST paths were a combination of non-standard and having stops pulled out to make sure they weren't too non-standard.
Indeed the tender will not pigeonhole the exclusive use of the AT300, as that would be seen as uncompetitive.
Depending on the unit length and whether the DfT make the mistake of including multiple working into the fleet requirements, Hitachi may choose to offer the 24m variant over the 26m variant.
Depending on the unit length and whether the DfT make the mistake of including multiple working into the fleet requirements, Hitachi may choose to offer the 24m variant over the 26m variant.
If a speculative CrossCountry tender were to include a requirement for performance in self-powered mode to match Class 22x on diesel, that would more than likely necessitate Hitachi offering the AT300-SXR (aka Class 810).
If a speculative CrossCountry tender were to include a requirement for performance in self-powered mode to match Class 22x on diesel, that would more than likely necessitate Hitachi offering the AT300-SXR (aka Class 810).
Would there be any need for that requirement to be included? I know the MML is very tightly timed and so if the new trains couldn't match that performance then the whole timetable would fall apart, but is that such an issue for XC (away from electrified lines)?
If a speculative CrossCountry tender were to include a requirement for performance in self-powered mode to match Class 22x on diesel, that would more than likely necessitate Hitachi offering the AT300-SXR (aka Class 810).
If a speculative CrossCountry tender were to include a requirement for performance in self-powered mode to match Class 22x on diesel, that would more than likely necessitate Hitachi offering the AT300-SXR (aka Class 810).
Things have moved on in the world since the class 810s were ordered 6.5 years ago (and it is probably nearer 7-8 years ago since specs were being discussed).
It is now known (following the TPE test) that can have mix of battery and diesel generators under different vehicles. And the battery doesn't need to be massive to give extra boost during acceleration. Once cruising at top speed less power is required than during the initial and mid speed acceleration. It is acceleration rate that is key to performance, not maintaining a constant speed.
I have a feeling the class 93 is configured similar to this where both battery and diesel can be used together to provide acceleration when off the wires, but can use either (rather than both) when less power is needed.
So the idea need 4 diesels per 5cars to achieve 222 performance might have been only solution in 2018-19, but single solution is no longer applicable for a 2026 or later order.
I have a feeling the class 99 is configured similar to this where both battery and diesel can be used together to provide acceleration when off the wires, but can use either (rather than both) when less power is needed.
Just order a fleet of 7-car 807s (obviously with engines!) and be done with it. That would give you train which is basically the same length as an double set of 220s but with, in Avanti's interior (which I'd be keen to keep, it's great), around 404 seats in standard class and 49 seats in first class. For comparison the 8-car 220 which we're comparing against has 348 standard class seats and 52 first class seats. So a minor loss of first class capacity (which you could probably regain by simply having a slightly smaller kitchen) but overall 53 extra seats.
Now considering that a) an 8-car 220 already can deal with all but the most extreme loadings and b) a 7-car 807 still has more capacity even than the 8-car 220 to me any suggestion of needing longer trains than 7-car is really over egging the pudding.
As I said at the beginning just order a fleet of 30 odd 7-car 807s and be done with it. The improvement in the interior over a Voyager and the additional capacity on all XC services will be utterly transformational and instantly resolve basically all the issue that XC faces (excluding industrial relations anyway!). Quite apart from being able to finally use the wires where available. Imagine not having all those Voyager engines rumbling away polluting Birmingham New Street anymore!
Apart from all the factors you mention release suppressed demand. Even normal compound growth over the 6 years or so that Hitachi take to get a new order working outstrips 10%.
Double units are not always rammed (although often are), but the continued operation of crammed single units naturally acts as a limit growth, suppressing the market of anyone with a decent alternative to taking the train.
The IETs are fixed formation units with a 35 year projected life, starting some years in the future...
Apart from all the factors you mention release suppressed demand. Even normal compound growth over the 6 years or so that Hitachi take to get a new order working outstrips 10%.
Double units are not always rammed (although often are), but the continued operation of crammed single units naturally acts as a limit growth, suppressing the market of anyone with a decent alternative to taking the train.
The IETs are fixed formation units with a 35 year projected life, starting some years in the future...
It depends if we are trying to be speculative within realism or fantasy though.
The government wouldn't even order GWR and LNER a straight fleet of 9 car 80Xs and they serve London. Avanti didn't order 9 cars either. So XC have no chance.
I would love standard 9 car 80Xs to unlock huge growth potential, but it ain't gonna happen. Even 7 car is probably fantasy, as a 5 coach 80X has same seats as an 8 car 22X double set so would be seen as significant growth by those in power.
I would love standard 9 car 80Xs to unlock huge growth potential, but it ain't gonna happen. Even 7 car is probably fantasy, as a 5 coach 80X has same seats as an 8 car 22X double set so would be seen as significant growth by those in power.
The Voyagers are space inefficient, but an 8 car 220 double set has a total of 400 seats. Only the highest possible density, standard class only 803s are close to matching that in a 5 car configuration.
A hypothetical 6 car 80x unit could potentially match the capacity of a double set 220 formation and could, I think, cover the current XC Voyager workings with a similar total number of vehicles in the fleet and at each stabling location overnight, while reducing number of diesel engines to maintain and fuel by a third (4 engines per 6 car set) - even fewer if each set has a battery pack in place of one engine.
I appreciate it's been claimed that Hitachi won't produce AT300s with an even numbers of vehicles, but it could be a comparable product from another manufacturer instead (as it would be subject to competitive tender) and, as the reality of the railway rarely matches the ideal, it's probable that the most we'd see in an actual order would be 5 car sets as you say, with it being possible to claim that it'd represent an increase in the number of seats per service (on average) and per day/week/year in total, from a smaller overall fleet size than at present.
It depends if we are trying to be speculative within realism or fantasy though.
The government wouldn't even order GWR and LNER a straight fleet of 9 car 80Xs and they serve London. Avanti didn't order 9 cars either. So XC have no chance.
For Avanti, there were good reasons for this:
805s: serve a route (Chester & North Wales) with very variable demand, so a unit that could double up was desirable. The longest unit that enabled this was 5-car.
807s: These were primarily for the second hourly Liverpool service, which was completely additional (so all growth), and they wanted to serve Liverpool South Parkway, which introduces a length restriction (at 7x26m).
Note also that the Avanti 80x order was 23 units to replace (what originally was) 20, so it was both more trains, and longer trains.
So for Avanti, the lengths were chosen to be maximal within the restrictions of the desired service pattern, which is good.
For LNER, ordering 5-cars was a bad decision in my view.
Are 80x train lengths easy to chop and change like 222s? If XC ever ordered them or similar, maybe they could order 7-car to start with, then if the demand exists for longer, add two carriages to some of them to make 9-car units.
The Voyagers are space inefficient, but an 8 car 220 double set has a total of 400 seats. Only the highest possible density, standard class only 803s are close to matching that in a 5 car configuration.
A hypothetical 6 car 80x unit could potentially match the capacity of a double set 220 formation and could, I think, cover the current XC Voyager workings with a similar total number of vehicles in the fleet and at each stabling location overnight, while reducing number of diesel engines to maintain and fuel by a third (4 engines per 6 car set) - even fewer if each set has a battery pack in place of one engine.
I appreciate it's been claimed that Hitachi won't produce AT300s with an even numbers of vehicles, but it could be a comparable product from another manufacturer instead (as it would be subject to competitive tender) and, as the reality of the railway rarely matches the ideal, it's probable that the most we'd see in an actual order would be 5 car sets as you say, with it being possible to claim that it'd represent an increase in the number of seats per service (on average) and per day/week/year in total, from a smaller overall fleet size than at present.
Ah I have misremembered my bad. I think the point would still stand though in terms of the view that a 5 car 80X is a lot bigger than a 4 or 5 car 22X so will be fine, that view from being those paying for the new trains.
Are 80x train lengths easy to chop and change like 222s? If XC ever ordered them or similar, maybe they could order 7-car to start with, then if the demand exists for longer, add two carriages to some of them to make 9-car units.
Not as easy to lengthen after build because 2 extra vehicles might be one trailer and one motor coach. But if transformer etc was only designed to handle existing motors loading then can't add more.
Of course can add 2 trailer coaches, but then performance is hit instead as got more mass to accelerate with same power.
If taking 2 vehicles out, different problems, plenty of power, but depending on configuration could lose something, eg if the accessible toilet /wheelchair spaces were in a vehicle to be removed
Not as easy to lengthen after build because 2 extra vehicles might be one trailer and one motor coach. But if transformer etc was only designed to handle existing motors loading then can't add more.
Of course can add 2 trailer coaches, but then performance is hit instead as got more mass to accelerate with same power.
If taking 2 vehicles out, different problems, plenty of power, but depending on configuration could lose something, eg if the accessible toilet /wheelchair spaces were in a vehicle to be removed
XC will be merged into GBR in 2027. There won't be a new XC fleet ordered before then, so GBR will be determining the future needs.
By then we will have solutions for the TPE and Northern requirements in the GBR era, with multiple bids from probably 5 bidders for modular electric/diesel/battery operation, some of it for 125mph on the ECML.
We will soon know which manufacturer(s) are preferred for these solutions, so best wait until those decisions are made (this year, seemingly).
XC should then piggy-back on those framework contracts - in the meantime it will be a Voyager world.
I would guess the tri-mode solution for TPE will likely suit XC as well.
Think it used to be on the positioning move between Bristol and Cardiff at the beginning and end of the day. Does the Temple Meads - Stansted train stop there?
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
