AWC cast-offs!

[Energy]

GWR could replace the Castle HSTs with them too?

Might be wrong but I thought the plan was 387s to Cardiff would cascade enough 800/802s to replace the Castles.

 

[secretsquirels]

OAO’s?

 

[Trainbike46]

OAO’s

Are any open access operators looking at diesel high-speed stock at the moment? I'm not aware of any

 

[greatvoyager]

With 221142/143 being stored, I have a worrying feeling they may have the same fate as the 360/2s.

 

[Trainbike46]

I can't imagine anyone other than XC being interested, so unless the DfT allows XC to expand it's fleet, scrapping seems likely. The 222s are even more at risk, I'd say

 

[py_megapixel]

If it's really true that the other two are just going to sit in storage, those who were responsible for that decision should be forced to spend a few days doing nothing but going back and forth in standard class on XC Voyager services, on an itinerary specifically designed to catch the short-formed ones. Then maybe they'd realise the need for those extra units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't imagine anyone other than XC being interested, so unless the DfT allows XC to expand it's fleet, scrapping seems likely. The 222s are even more at risk, I'd say

The units are a bit rubbish and so scrap wouldn't be a bad outcome, but they really are needed on XC, and possibly ScotRail, until something better can be procured and in service.

 

[Trainbike46]

The units are a bit rubbish and so scrap wouldn't be a bad outcome, but they really are needed on XC, and possibly ScotRail, until something better can be procured and in service.

Why would Scotrail want them? Short term, they have the HSTs (which they are stuck with anyway), long term they want electric. I agree XC definitely needs them, but for some reason the DfT seems to disagree.

Another use-case: the 22x might be used to replace the 180s at Grand Central and EMR, but won't require all of them, so not a particularly likely outcome either

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would Scotrail want them? Short term, they have the HSTs (which they are stuck with anyway)

Because the Unions aren't happy with the crashworthiness of HST cabs.

I'd be totally unsurprised, therefore, if they binned the HSTs and took the 222s as an interim thing with a view to keeping for 5-10 years until bi-modes are ordered and in service.

 

[rjames87]

I imagine that if anything is scrapped with the 221s it would the ends of each vehicle. Perhaps then the DFT would sign off the funds for one or two extra vehicles per train to increase capacity. Get the balance right with number of cars in each train and you can reduce staffing easily by having no duplication.

 

[Trainbike46]

Because the Unions aren't happy with the crashworthiness of HST cabs.

I'd be totally unsurprised, therefore, if they binned the HSTs and took the 222s as an interim thing with a view to keeping for 5-10 years until bi-modes are ordered and in service.

Isn't the Scottish government bound by some contract that they'll have to pay for the HSTs until 2030? If so I can see ScotGov dragging their heels on replacing them until they can order electric units

 

[Bletchleyite]

I imagine that if anything is scrapped with the 221s it would the ends of each vehicle. Perhaps then the DFT would sign off the funds for one or two extra vehicles per train to increase capacity. Get the balance right with number of cars in each train and you can reduce staffing easily by having no duplication.

A full 5 car fleet with no 4s would certainly be an improvement.

 

[JonathanH]

A full 5 car fleet with no 4s would certainly be an improvement.

...if they are going to operate on their own. Coupled, 9 fits better than 10 on the CrossCountry network.

 

[Starmill]

Because the Unions aren't happy with the crashworthiness of HST cabs.

I'd be totally unsurprised, therefore, if they binned the HSTs and took the 222s as an interim thing with a view to keeping for 5-10 years until bi-modes are ordered and in service.

Voyagers will be cheaper to maintain and more fuel efficient too. They are also less harmful to air quality in cities. So it only needs their lease cost to come down a little to make them competitive with the HST. The difficulty is in making the numbers work (20 isn't enough to go full replacement) and as such in finding somewhere suitable for them to be maintained. Also the significant cost of driver training.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2022 ==

Isn't the Scottish government bound by some contract that they'll have to pay for the HSTs until 2030? If so I can see ScotGov dragging their heels on replacing them until they can order electric units

I don't think their leases were as long as that but yes this is an issue, unless it gets to the point that buying out of the leases and re-contracting is cheaper.

 

[Wolfie]

I can see the AWC class 221's going to XC, with the Class 220 units being used on services where class 170 units are used, as long as the route allows it. So where you currently have a Class 220 working with a class 221, you would have two class 221's working together.

I can also see a couple of the class 222 units moving to XC as well, with 222 001-222 002 replacing the HST trains at XC. The other Class 222 units, I can see replacing most of the HST sets with Scotrail. I can also see the 4 class 180 units, once EMR have finished using them moving to Scotrail as well.

I would love to see the slightest rationale for that bunch of random suggestions. The 180s should go to Gillette or Wilkinson Sword.

 

[TheBigD]

Voyagers will be cheaper to maintain and more fuel efficient too. They are also less harmful to air quality in cities. So it only needs their lease cost to come down a little to make them competitive with the HST. The difficulty is in making the numbers work (20 isn't enough to go full replacement) and as such in finding somewhere suitable for them to be maintained. Also the significant cost of driver training.

Not that they'll see use for scotrail, but given the current usage of the HST (18 planned diagrams*), the fleet 20 x 221s would be just short, unless you plan on 90% availability.

* from what others have posted here and elsewhere, they often don't manage full availability.

 

[43096]

Because the Unions aren't happy with the crashworthiness of HST cabs.

I'd be totally unsurprised, therefore, if they binned the HSTs and took the 222s as an interim thing with a view to keeping for 5-10 years until bi-modes are ordered and in service.

As I have told you before, they'd be paying for two sets of trains for many years if they did that. The ScotRail HSTs have a Section 54 on them that runs through until 2030.

 

[QSK19]

I can also see the 4 class 180 units, once EMR have finished using them moving to Scotrail as well.

Nope, as has been said before in the thread, EMR are keeping them seeing as 33x 810s were deemed an insufficient number and the DfT doesn’t want to open its wallet to authorise ordering a few more whilst the window of opportunity is there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2022 ==

They could go to East Midlands Railway. They could be used on Nottingham - Liverpool or Nottingham - Crewe and maybe Skegness services.

This way they could replace the remaining EMR 158s.

Assuming that “They” refers to 22x, the 222s unsuitability for Liverpool- Nottingham has been discussed to death countless times on RF. A quick search will be rich in information why. No doubt the same issues will apply to 220s/221s.

The 158s are staying after it was decided that EMR will keep said route.

 

[XAM2175]

As I have told you before, they'd be paying for two sets of trains for many years if they did that. The ScotRail HSTs have a Section 54 on them that runs through until 2030.

Dear Lord, please please please make all the Voyagers get shredded ASAP so we don't have to keep having this discussion. Amen.

 

[krus_aragon]

Dear Lord, please please please make all the Voyagers get shredded ASAP so we don't have to keep having this discussion. Amen.

New thread: "What should be done with the scrap metal from the old Voyagers?" :P

 

[Snow1964]

With 221142/143 being stored, I have a worrying feeling they may have the same fate as the 360/2s.

Yes, but it is a problem that can only be dealt with by fixing the legislation. Should always have been a clause along the lines of any train coming off lease is maintained for spot hire for 2-3 years, unless 30 years old, or similar.

There should also have been an obligation that short formed trains are exceptional (say no more than 5 per year on each train number) to force operators to get sufficient stock

At the moment it is put in cold storage and treated as as a holding area pending movement to scrap area.

But really the intermediate cars need to be sent out to lengthen other units, even if the driving vehicles are stored/scrapped.

 

[Inthewest]

...if they are going to operate on their own. Coupled, 9 fits better than 10 on the CrossCountry network.

At what stations would 10 not work?
And is there any scope to extend those platforms?
Bearing in mind... SDO and such, so it's more a case of whether they "operationally" fit (not fouling junctions and such).

Bin end cars, make new 8 / 9 / 10 car units for the rest of their lives, then for the scrap heap.

 

[class397tpe]

At what stations would 10 not work?
And is there any scope to extend those platforms?
Bearing in mind... SDO and such, so it's more a case of whether they "operationally" fit (not fouling junctions and such).

Bin end cars, make new 8 / 9 / 10 car units for the rest of their lives, then for the scrap heap.

I mean there have been instances on both the Manchester-Bournemouth and Edinburgh-Plymouth route of 10-car running.
E.g. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:P88982/2022-08-24/detailed#allox_id=1
Can't find any on the NE-SW route in the past 7 days but I do remember seeing it on RTT.

 

[WizCastro197]

You still need to find 2½ minutes on a stopper based on dwell alone. You won't make any of that back between Narborough and Leicester, and only marginally between Nuneaton and Coleshill as its only 70mph. SP differentials knocking about as well I think.

But I do think capacity wise it would work a lot better if a Voyager was to operate instead of the Turbostars. It isn't just Leicester-Birmingham it is also Stansted Airport -Birmingham New Street Via Leicester. 3 coaches doesn't cut it though, Everyone either gets on or off at Leicester on Stansted-Birmingham originated ones and on Birmingham back to Leicester practically no one leaves the train before Leicester. When I last used this service at 10:50 the train was rammed so it can and will get busy even off peak. Voyager would allow more capacity on Stansted-Birmingham (as it does pass and stop through Cambridge and Leicester)but I think for Birmingham to Leicester only, Turbostars May be okay for the future

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2022 ==

I mean there have been instances on both the Manchester-Bournemouth and Edinburgh-Plymouth route of 10-car running.
E.g. https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:P88982/2022-08-24/detailed#allox_id=1
Can't find any on the NE-SW route in the past 7 days but I do remember seeing it on RTT.

Most Today seem to be formed of 8/9 from Bournemouth. But there is the odd 4 coach to Manchester, Surely that can't work well?

 

[TheBigD]

But I do think capacity wise it would work a lot better if a Voyager was to operate instead of the Turbostars. It isn't just Leicester-Birmingham it is also Stansted Airport -Birmingham New Street Via Leicester. 3 coaches doesn't cut it though, Everyone either gets on or off at Leicester on Stansted-Birmingham originated ones and on Birmingham back to Leicester practically no one leaves the train before Leicester. When I last used this service at 10:50 the train was rammed so it can and will get busy even off peak. Voyager would allow more capacity on Stansted-Birmingham (as it does pass and stop through Cambridge and Leicester)but I think for Birmingham to Leicester only, Turbostars May be okay for the future

4 car voyager = 200 seats
3 car XC 170 = 202 seats (6 of the 22 units have 196 seats)

Replacing a 3 car 170 with a 4 car 220 doesn't increase capacity though it does increase operating costs.

If you want to increase Leicester-Brum capacity then it's more 170s you need.

 

[WizCastro197]

4 car voyager = 200 seats
3 car XC 170 = 202 seats (6 of the 22 units have 196 seats)

Replacing a 3 car 170 with a 4 car 220 doesn't increase capacity though it does increase operating costs.

Oh Okay I didn't realise that. How does that happen?

I do not recall but are most platforms on Birmingham-Leicester short?

I am assuming they are because why wouldn't a double Turbostar work?

 

[TheBigD]

Oh Okay I didn't realise that. How does that happen?

I do not recall but are most platforms on Birmingham-Leicester short?

I am assume they are because why wouldn't a double Turbostar work?

Leicester to Birmingham platforms take 5 cars. Indeed, the proposed Dec 18(?) XC timetable would have seen a 5 car rostered on the 0721 ex Leicester and 1752 ex Birmingham.

Proir to Covid there was a Sunday turn that saw a a 2+2 car diagram on the 1222 Birmingham-Stansted and return.

Stansted is limited to 2 x 2 car due to the length of platform 2 at Stansted.

 

[WizCastro197]

Leicester to Birmingham platforms take 5 cars. Indeed, the proposed Dec 18(?) XC timetable would have seen a 5 car rostered on the 0721 ex Leicester and 1752 ex Birmingham.

Proir to Covid there was a Sunday turn that saw a a 2+2 car diagram on the 1222 Birmingham-Stansted and return.

Stansted is limited to 2 x 2 car due to the length of platform 2 at Stansted.

So One 2 Car unit and one 3?

 

[43096]

Oh Okay I didn't realise that. How does that happen?

It’s partly a result of having more first class on the Voyager, but mainly because the Voyagers are incredibly space inefficient internally meaning they have relatively few seats.

In terms of costs, Voyagers will use more fuel, having much bigger engines. They will also be more expensive to lease than a 170.

 

[class397tpe]

But I do think capacity wise it would work a lot better if a Voyager was to operate instead of the Turbostars. It isn't just Leicester-Birmingham it is also Stansted Airport -Birmingham New Street Via Leicester. 3 coaches doesn't cut it though, Everyone either gets on or off at Leicester on Stansted-Birmingham originated ones and on Birmingham back to Leicester practically no one leaves the train before Leicester. When I last used this service at 10:50 the train was rammed so it can and will get busy even off peak. Voyager would allow more capacity on Stansted-Birmingham (as it does pass and stop through Cambridge and Leicester)but I think for Birmingham to Leicester only, Turbostars May be okay for the future

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2022 ==


Most Today seem to be formed of 8/9 from Bournemouth. But there is the odd 4 coach to Manchester, Surely that can't work well?

Yeah XC just seem to use a random allocator to throw whatever number of carriages on whatever diagram. Plus they barely do advances anymore so they can't try and push people towards the longer trains. It's a mess.