AWC cast-offs!

[Efini92]

...and I suspect exceed the length of the depot at Central Rivers.

The rivers does have the option of putting more roads in though.

 

[mmh]

Well a 4-car voyager has 200 seats - 26 first, 174 second class. An XC HST has 459 seats - 70 first, 389 standard. So two 4-cars would give a reduction in seating capacity sadly.

However, Avanti West Coast have no 4 car Voyagers.

 

[RobShipway]

The 220s have a lower seating capacity than the 170s. The 170s are much better suited to XC work than say EMR work where they are on stopping services.

I doubt it will be ~3/5th the cost, the end cars would be little use to the rosco without some cars in between so they'd be included for little extra.

I cant really see any of this happening, the 222s have been talked about for XC before but I don't think there is the money for it. Adding the Avanti 221s and reseating all the voyagers with thinner backs to add more seats in would still add capacity.

I wonder how much of the disabled toilet is structural, I know it can't be completely removed but could some of it be changed to luggage racks and change it into a smaller toilet?

222s wouldn't suit scotrail, they are heavy, fuel thirsty, and don't meet the electrification/climate targets scotrail has. EMR is keeping the 180s for now (and for 4 units I doubt Scotland wants them).

Which would kill of extending existing units to more than 5 cars, depot modifications would be expensive...

Since the Covid Pandemic, the class 170's I believe have not exactly been full so no need for the extra capacity that they would provide against a class 220.

Class 222's would suit Scotrail more so than the HST units that they are currently using for their Inter7City services. Without the class 180's at some point going to Scotrail, there is no way that the HST sets can be fully replaced at Scotrail and I doubt that the HST would be kept beyond 2030, by which time the HST vehicles would have done anything up to 54 years service, depending on when they where originally built.

 

[317 forever]

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Doesn't that cause an issue with the seat reservation displays which is also expensive to rectify?

They don't work properly anyway. They could fit the battery powered system LNER fitted to the Mk4s instead.

I think other than reseating Coach D back to regular Standard you'd have a job cramming more seats in even if you went for ironing boards, they are pretty tight to start with.

 

[JonathanH]

They don't work properly anyway.

What doesn't work properly? The Voyager reservation displays have always worked reliably in my experience.

 

[mmh]

What doesn't work properly? The Voyager reservation displays have always worked reliably in my experience.

They didn't work on the Avanti Voyager I was on an hour ago, so many apologetic announcements on the tannoy. It's not uncommon by any means.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What doesn't work properly? The Voyager reservation displays have always worked reliably in my experience.

They don't work more often than not in my experience, particularly on the Avanti units. It is a design issue - they are one of the first things turned off automatically if a unit needs to "load shed" due to an engine or alternator problem.

 

[rjames87]

If eventually all of the AWC 221s did come across, that would be enough centre cars to make a significant number of the XC 221s up to 8 carriages, which would surely be sufficient capacity for many routes. They would of course need the shop to be removed if they wanted to keep things consistent.

 

[class397tpe]

However, Avanti West Coast have no 4 car Voyagers.

The person I was replying to suggested replacing a HST with two 4-car voyagers - I assume through cascading.

In my opinion, XC need the extra capacity so badly that we should not be thinking about replacing HSTs with voyagers until the overcrowding issues have been resolved. The HSTs have been PRM'd and are good for a few more years, XC need to expand capacity not replace the HSTs.

 

[mmh]

The person I was replying to suggested replacing a HST with two 4-car voyagers - I assume through cascading.

In my opinion, XC need the extra capacity so badly that we should not be thinking about replacing HSTs with voyagers until the overcrowding issues have been resolved. The HSTs have been PRM'd and are good for a few more years, XC need to expand capacity not replace the HSTs.

Well yes, given the poor decision to remove Voyagers from the West Coast, they should go somewhere useful and not be scrapped. The obvious use for them is Cross Country. It may or may not happen because the railway is organised ludicrously.

We' might be getting close to having more threads about Voyager redeployment than there are Voyagers to be redeployed.

 

[class397tpe]

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.

They would be way overpowered and have similar if not less seats than 158s - more capacity is needed on that route.

 

[Snow1964]

The question is usually asked on these forums about could it be used by X operator on Y service, to increase capacity.

The question should really be, why is the leasing company finding it more attractive to park them up and get no income, than offer them to someone at a reduced rate and get some income.

Possibly a related question is why if they are offered at a good rate, do operators prefer to continue with other stock, (no training required even if stock more expensive), so logically why is training determining this (probably training isn’t valued, just badly costed).

 

[Starmill]

They should go to XC (like, those two should go there now), but it seems this common sense may be too much to ask.

Certainly it's the case that additional money for CrossCountry is too much to ask the current government, yes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2022 ==

Almost no XC services only need 4 cars. Plus they have 4 car sets already.

Four cars are OK for the levels of demand on Nottingham - Cardiff Central services. But that's probably about it for whole day diagrams. They can in theory work Birmingham - Leicester stopping services too but that's obviously not desirable. Obviously there are some partial diagrams where they might attach and detach where they're fine as four for that part only.

 

[The Planner]

Certainly it's the case that additional money for CrossCountry is too much to ask the current government, yes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2022 ==


Four cars are OK for the levels of demand on Nottingham - Cardiff Central services. But that's probably about it for whole day diagrams. They can in theory work Birmingham - Leicester stopping services too but that's obviously not desirable. Obviously there are some partial diagrams where they might attach and detach where they're fine as four for that part only.

Wouldn't want them anywhere near the locals. They would be slower due to needing longer dwells.

 

[mmh]

The person I was replying to suggested replacing a HST with two 4-car voyagers - I assume through cascading.

In my opinion, XC need the extra capacity so badly that we should not be thinking about replacing HSTs with voyagers until the overcrowding issues have been resolved. The HSTs have been PRM'd and are good for a few more years, XC need to expand capacity not replace the HSTs.

Well yes, given the poor decision to remove Voyagers from the West Coast, they should go somewhere useful and not be scrapped. The obvious use for them is Cross Country. It may or may not happen because the railway is organised ludicrously.

We' might be getting close to having more threads about Voyager redeployment than there are Voyagers to be redeployed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2022 ==

Wouldn't want them anywhere near the locals. They would be slower due to needing longer dwells.

Oh, that old chestnut. If somewhere needs extra dwell time it's because it's somewhere that's busy enough to need it, or as a result of not providing enough capacity. Perhaps we could have a timetable that accommodated that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The person I was replying to suggested replacing a HST with two 4-car voyagers - I assume through cascading.

Yes, my suggestion was to send the two spare 5-car Voyagers to XC, put them onto existing 4-car diagrams (thus allowing a capacity increase on those, be that 4 to 5, or 8/9 to 9/10) and put the two 4-car units released together to replace one HST diagram.

 

[Energy]

Since the Covid Pandemic, the class 170's I believe have not exactly been full so no need for the extra capacity that they would provide against a class 220.

I'm not really sure what the point of this is, you'd be decreasing capacity on the 170 routes just to cascade 170s to places they aren't suitable for.

Oh, that old chestnut. If somewhere needs extra dwell time it's because it's somewhere that's busy enough to need it, or as a result of not providing enough capacity. Perhaps we could have a timetable that accommodated that?

Nope, its not. If the current trains are fine with the current dwell times and the new ones are not, its a problem with the new trains.

Well yes, given the poor decision to remove Voyagers from the West Coast,

Is it that poor? The 221s were running diesel under wires for a large amount of their journey.

The question should really be, why is the leasing company finding it more attractive to park them up and get no income, than offer them to someone at a reduced rate and get some income.

Because these deals take time to agree to? While 221s to XC is easy for other rolling stock it will require training and other work on the TOCs end.

If eventually all of the AWC 221s did come across, that would be enough centre cars to make a significant number of the XC 221s up to 8 carriages, which would surely be sufficient capacity for many routes. They would of course need the shop to be removed if they wanted to keep things consistent.

...but why? 8 car units would require work to their depot and would have less capacity than just coupling the 2 221s.

Class 222's would suit Scotrail more so than the HST units that they are currently using for their Inter7City services. Without the class 180's at some point going to Scotrail, there is no way that the HST sets can be fully replaced at Scotrail and I doubt that the HST would be kept beyond 2030, by which time the HST vehicles would have done anything up to 54 years service, depending on when they where originally built.

I agree that the HSTs need replacing but 222s aren't the right decision, the decarbonisation plan will have most of the routes electrified.

 

[Starmill]

The obvious use for them is Cross Country. It may or may not happen because the railway is organised ludicrously.

Is refusing to agree new and very expensive long term leases 'ludicrous'? The Department have said that costs need to be cut including rolling stock lease costs. Of course many things about historical rolling stock policy have been utterly ludicrous, but now we have the contracts we have and the money we have. In general the contracts simply cannot be broken during their term, so the only possible opportunity to reduce fleet sizes to economise is when rolling stock leases expire. As they are with Avanti's Voyagers.

I'm not defending the austerity-driven decision not to sign for them. But I think it's more down to deliberate 'penny pinching' than incompetence.

Look at it this way, if the Department authorised CrossCountry to spend extra money leasing these units as soon as they became available they'd be paying market rate. For every month they sit unused however the investors who bought them take a loss. This will incentivise them to offer cheaper leases. Of course, the issue is that while DfT are waiting it would be possible for Transport Scotland to sign for them at a nice discount. If they can find somewhere to maintain them.

 

[Trainbike46]

Is refusing to agree new and very expensive long term leases 'ludicrous'? The Department have said that costs need to be cut including rolling stock lease costs. Of course many things about historical rolling stock policy have been utterly ludicrous, but now we have the contracts we have and the money we have. In general the contracts simply cannot be broken during their term, so the only possible opportunity to reduce fleet sizes to economise is when rolling stock leases expire. As they are with Avanti's Voyagers.

I'm not defending the austerity-driven decision not to sign for them. But I think it's more down to deliberate 'penny pinching' than incompetence.

Look at it this way, if the Department authorised CrossCountry to spend extra money leasing these units as soon as they became available they'd be paying market rate. For every month they sit unused however the investors who bought them take a loss. This will incentivise them to offer cheaper leases. Of course, the issue is that while DfT are waiting it would be possible for Transport Scotland to sign for them at a nice discount. If they can find somewhere to maintain them.

If the 222s are owned by a different leasing company, or not all 220/221s are owned by the same leasing company, trying to get the companies involved to underbid each other (specifically if you also make them compete against new 80x or FLIRT/SMILE bimodes), might be a way to get the leasing charges down a lot. Specifically as there doesn't seem to be a remotely sensible home for the 22x trains other than cross-country: all other intercity operators either have/will receive brand new bimodes or, in the case of Scotrail, have long term contracts and a decarbonisation agenda to prevent them from taking the 22x. So, it really does seem to be XC or no-one, which is a good position for the government to get leasing charges down

 

[The Planner]

Oh, that old chestnut. If somewhere needs extra dwell time it's because it's somewhere that's busy enough to need it, or as a result of not providing enough capacity. Perhaps we could have a timetable that accommodated that?

Or maybe its because Voyagers need longer dwell times to 170s due to the door cycles? But don't let a little rant get in the way of facts.

 

[Starmill]

Or maybe its because Voyagers need longer dwell times to 170s due to the door cycles? But don't let a little rant get in the way of facts.

It is partially made up for because Voyagers have better acceleration than Turbostars.

 

[Snow1964]

Is refusing to agree new and very expensive long term leases 'ludicrous'? The Department have said that costs need to be cut including rolling stock lease costs. Of course many things about historical rolling stock policy have been utterly ludicrous, but now we have the contracts we have and the money we have. In general the contracts simply cannot be broken during their term, so the only possible opportunity to reduce fleet sizes to economise is when rolling stock leases expire. As they are with Avanti's Voyagers.

I'm not defending the austerity-driven decision not to sign for them. But I think it's more down to deliberate 'penny pinching' than incompetence.

Look at it this way, if the Department authorised CrossCountry to spend extra money leasing these units as soon as they became available they'd be paying market rate. For every month they sit unused however the investors who bought them take a loss. This will incentivise them to offer cheaper leases. Of course, the issue is that while DfT are waiting it would be possible for Transport Scotland to sign for them at a nice discount. If they can find somewhere to maintain them.

That makes sense, leave them in store, hope price falls.

Obviously bit of a problem if stuck with long term leases on other stock, with no break clauses so can’t get rid of them and take cheaper stored stock instead.

What I don’t really understand is if cross country got a 3 year extension from Oct 2020 to Oct 2023, why it would have signed a lease beyond Oct 2023. So presumably soon needs to either think about extending lease or finding cheaper alternative stock

 

[The Planner]

It is partially made up for because Voyagers have better acceleration than Turbostars.

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.

 

[Starmill]

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.

I'm not sure anyone has suggested they're actually suitable for the Birmingham to Leicester stopping services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure anyone has suggested they're actually suitable for the Birmingham to Leicester stopping services.

Indeed. The suggestion for these two specifically is that they can allow one of the HSTs to be retired.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They would be way overpowered and have similar if not less seats than 158s - more capacity is needed on that route.

In any case, would a 5-car Voyager not be too long for the bay platforms at the South end of Sheffield station which the Liverpools currently use? That means re-jigging everything else to allow them to use one of the through platforms, if that's even possible.

 

[TheBigD]

In any case, would a 5-car Voyager not be too long for the bay platforms at the South end of Sheffield station which the Liverpools currently use? That means re-jigging everything else to allow them to use one of the through platforms, if that's even possible.

Platform 7 takes a 5 car 222...

222 platform7 sheffield - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

 

[OffThePacer18]

Is it totally mad to suggest they could do Portsmouth - Cardiff?
GWR could replace the Castle HSTs with them too?

 

[JonathanH]

Is it totally mad to suggest they could do Portsmouth - Cardiff?

Yes, nowhere near enough capacity.

GWR could replace the Castle HSTs with them too?

Nope.