AWC stored 221s off to Cross Country

[Jacob Porrett]

I've heard that the stored Avanti 221s could be taken out of storage and be going to Cross Country. Any truth in this at all?

 

[JonathanH]

I've heard that the stored Avanti 221s could be taken out of storage and be going to Cross Country. Any truth in this at all?

There has been no public announcement of any additional rolling stock for Cross Country.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would make sense, which probably means it won't happen.

Not heard any news either way.

 

[hexagon789]

I've heard that the stored Avanti 221s could be taken out of storage and be going to Cross Country. Any truth in this at all?

On the contrary, the number of double Voyager diagrams is to be significantly reduced instead.

 

[JonathanH]

It would make sense, which probably means it won't happen.

It might be a widespread view of the forum that it would make sense, but ultimately every operator has been instructed to reduce costs, and the timetable for May has been written, so in lots of ways it doesn't make sense.

 

[Starmill]

It has been "leaked" that CrossCountry were lobbying to take some of them on, but for beyond that I think it's going to be a case of "wait and see", and, more importantly, "don't get your hopes up".

 

[O L Leigh]

I’ve been hearing the answer is “no” because the DfT are not prepared to pay the money for the work to make them compatible with the XC fleet.

 

[74A]

What work would be needed. Surely they are the same train ?

 

[JonathanH]

What work would be needed. Surely they are the same train ?

Disabling the tilt arrangement for a start. The interiors aren't the same, but perhaps that is less of a problem.

It was discussed last month here https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...or-other-toc-stock.243188/page-3#post-6072034

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve been hearing the answer is “no” because the DfT are not prepared to pay the money for the work to make them compatible with the XC fleet.

Which I find bizarre, because they don't *have* to be compatible with the XC fleet. The HSTs are a microfleet, these would be. Just run them around in pairs without letting them get near anything else. They'll be cheaper to maintain than HSTs because there'll be some parts commonality.

 

[class397tpe]

Which I find bizarre, because they don't *have* to be compatible with the XC fleet. The HSTs are a microfleet, these would be. Just run them around in pairs without letting them get near anything else. They'll be cheaper to maintain than HSTs because there'll be some parts commonality.

Exactly, just stick them on the HST diagrams or something. Same argument IF XC took 222s - yeah they aren't compatible but they manage fine with HSTs and Voyagers being incompatible at the moment..

 

[O L Leigh]

Surely they are the same train ?

Only in the same way that all Electrostars are the same train.

Which I find bizarre, because they don't *have* to be compatible with the XC fleet. The HSTs are a microfleet, these would be. Just run them around in pairs without letting them get near anything else. They'll be cheaper to maintain than HSTs because there'll be some parts commonality.

It would help enormously if they were, though.

As I see it, there are three main areas that would need work; tilt decommissioning, TMS harmonisation and internal layout. The last of these is not really an issue from an operational perspective, but if the seating layout is not at least broadly comparable with the XC units then there will be issues with the seat reservations.

Tilt decommissioning is highly desirable. In the very short term the system could simply be isolated, but this is not a proper solution. In normal circumstances you would only isolate a system temporarily to deal with a fault so that the train could be moved to a location where it can be dealt with. How long this could be allowed to continue from a technical perspective I couldn’t say, but it would mean that the TASS and tilt would require ongoing maintenance to ensure no unwanted operation. As is already well known, XC Cl221s have had the tilt actuators replaced with a fixed metal bar to ensure the train can never tilt, and ideally this would need to be done also to any AWC units transferring across.

The real thing that needs doing is the TMS. I don’t know enough about the AWC fleet to be certain, but as they have been a separate fleet for such a long time I can only imagine that the TMS version they use is very different from the XC version. As such, you really want to avoid coupling them to each other unless you can be sure that they won’t cause any problems. Of course, you could leave the AWC units as they are but, as you observe, you would have to diagram them very carefully to keep them apart from the XC units.

The other issue with leaving them as they are is that it is likely to create a training need with its associated costs. It is likely that the units are divergent to the extent that traincrew would need perhaps a day for familiarisation, which would apply to both drivers and guards. This will require staff to be released from their duties to complete this, and is likely to involve far higher numbers of staff than is the case for HST operations (not all links at all depots sign HSTs, but almost every driver signs Voyagers and would need whatever training is considered necessary). Even if you limit the routes over which these units operate you don’t eliminate this training need entirely.

I’ll admit that some of these are not exactly “big ticket” items, but they are costs that would need to be met. But if the DfT says they won’t pay then even these won’t be done.

 

[AzureOtsu]

Thay could reclassify them to a different subclass and leave them in 10 car formations to make sure they never have the opportunity to couple up to the XC 220/221s

 

[O L Leigh]

Thay could reclassify them to a different subclass and leave them in 10 car formations to make sure they never have the opportunity to couple up to the XC 220/221s

Bit of a waste of capacity given the number of 9 car platforms (the 10th coach would have to remain locked out due to the lack of SDO). Plus it doesn't do away with the training need that using unmodified sets would likely require.

The mods necessary are not far-reaching or necessarily very expensive. The problem is that if no money is forthcoming, nothing can be done. Every job, no matter how small, has a cost attached to it.

 

[Snow1964]

Just out of interest, on a current XC HST route eg Newcastle-Birmingham-Penzance would they ever encounter a tilt actuator balise.

I am wondering if it is a paper problem like running an HST with long swing link bogies, completely irrelevant unless you take it on a third rail equipped route.

So basically provided operating routes were restricted, does the tilt system have to be physically dectivated or removed, rather than just switched off, and relevant fuse pulled out so can't accidentally work.

I suspect the other 2 differences are no more a problem than HSTs and voyagers, not a problem assuming you don't try and couple them.

 

[dk1]

On the contrary, the number of double Voyager diagrams is to be significantly reduced instead.

But on the plus side we are ramping back up to around 11 direct Manchester-Bristol direct services each way including Paignton extensions.

 

[O L Leigh]

Just out of interest, on a current XC HST route eg Newcastle-Birmingham-Penzance would they ever encounter a tilt actuator balise.

I am wondering if it is a paper problem like running an HST with long swing link bogies, completely irrelevant unless you take it on a third rail equipped route.

So basically provided operating routes were restricted, does the tilt system have to be physically dectivated or removed, rather than just switched off, and relevant fuse pulled out so can't accidentally work.

I suspect the other 2 differences are no more a problem than HSTs and voyagers, not a problem assuming you don't try and couple them.

There may well be some technical workarounds for things like the tilt, but differences between TMS versions is more problematic because that is a system that staff are expected to have to operate. Either you change it to match the XC version or you will need to ensure staff have been familiarised with the differences, but both have a cost implication. It doesn’t matter that a job is small and inexpensive if, as the information I’ve been hearing suggests, there’s going to be no money coming to carry out the work.

It’s perhaps also worth pointing out that the DfT is out to realise savings. Removal of the HSTs from XC does not necessarily mean that they will be replaced with anything. Reallocating the AWC fleet may seem like common sense, but I’m unsure to what extent that admirable quality exists within the department.

It would be good if it did happen, though. I’m in the “wait and see” camp.

 

[Mikey C]

Unlike some of the "London" operators, I would imagine that CC traffic, especially the longer distance Voyager and HST routes, has been far less affected by the reduction in commuter traffic?

 

[Trainbike46]

Only in the same way that all Electrostars are the same train.



It would help enormously if they were, though.

As I see it, there are three main areas that would need work; tilt decommissioning, TMS harmonisation and internal layout. The last of these is not really an issue from an operational perspective, but if the seating layout is not at least broadly comparable with the XC units then there will be issues with the seat reservations.

Tilt decommissioning is highly desirable. In the very short term the system could simply be isolated, but this is not a proper solution. In normal circumstances you would only isolate a system temporarily to deal with a fault so that the train could be moved to a location where it can be dealt with. How long this could be allowed to continue from a technical perspective I couldn’t say, but it would mean that the TASS and tilt would require ongoing maintenance to ensure no unwanted operation. As is already well known, XC Cl221s have had the tilt actuators replaced with a fixed metal bar to ensure the train can never tilt, and ideally this would need to be done also to any AWC units transferring across.

The real thing that needs doing is the TMS. I don’t know enough about the AWC fleet to be certain, but as they have been a separate fleet for such a long time I can only imagine that the TMS version they use is very different from the XC version. As such, you really want to avoid coupling them to each other unless you can be sure that they won’t cause any problems. Of course, you could leave the AWC units as they are but, as you observe, you would have to diagram them very carefully to keep them apart from the XC units.

The other issue with leaving them as they are is that it is likely to create a training need with its associated costs. It is likely that the units are divergent to the extent that traincrew would need perhaps a day for familiarisation, which would apply to both drivers and guards. This will require staff to be released from their duties to complete this, and is likely to involve far higher numbers of staff than is the case for HST operations (not all links at all depots sign HSTs, but almost every driver signs Voyagers and would need whatever training is considered necessary). Even if you limit the routes over which these units operate you don’t eliminate this training need entirely.

I’ll admit that some of these are not exactly “big ticket” items, but they are costs that would need to be met. But if the DfT says they won’t pay then even these won’t be done.

wouldn't the ongoing leasing costs be a bigger issue to the DfT than these small adjustments?

And really, there would have to be separate training for the AWC 22x? If anything, that suggests that maybe the training requirements for uk onboard staff could be relaxed a bit - these were all introduced as identical weren't they? How different are these different software version?

There may well be some technical workarounds for things like the tilt, but differences between TMS versions is more problematic because that is a system that staff are expected to have to operate. Either you change it to match the XC version or you will need to ensure staff have been familiarised with the differences, but both have a cost implication. It doesn’t matter that a job is small and inexpensive if, as the information I’ve been hearing suggests, there’s going to be no money coming to carry out the work.

It’s perhaps also worth pointing out that the DfT is out to realise savings. Removal of the HSTs from XC does not necessarily mean that they will be replaced with anything. Reallocating the AWC fleet may seem like common sense, but I’m unsure to what extent that admirable quality exists within the department.

It would be good if it did happen, though. I’m in the “wait and see” camp.

This all makes sense. As much as it feels like it would make sense, that doesn't mean that it will happen

There would still be cost savings by moving replacing 4/5 HSTs with 2 221s (as I understand it, Avanti has only released 2 so far). though of course less than by not replacing the HSTs at all

 

[O L Leigh]

And really, there would have to be separate training for the AWC 22x? If anything, that suggests that maybe the training requirements for uk onboard staff could be relaxed a bit - these were all introduced as identical weren't they? How different are these different software version?

As stated, I’m unsure of the extent to which the AWC and XC TMS systems diverge. Although they started as one fleet they have been separate for over a decade, which is plenty of time for them to be made very different.

It may be a fair bit or not much at all. However, if it is different in terms of the user interface, staff are going to need a familiarisation, which will probably be just a one day release for a briefing. But that’s still a lot of folk to cover, and harmonising the TMS would be cheaper.

 

[JonathanH]

Unlike some of the "London" operators, I would imagine that CC traffic, especially the longer distance Voyager and HST routes, has been far less affected by the reduction in commuter traffic?

Why? There were major commuting flows into Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Bristol and other large cities on the CrossCountry network, not to mention long distance business travel.

Isn't the message given by removal of the HSTs that were specifically diagrammed about these kinds of commuting flow, that this traffic is diminished?

Even in London, it is the slightly longer distance higher value commuting by office workers from the home counties that has diminished more than the short distance travel from more localised areas, precisely the same sort of flows (eg Derby or Cheltenham to Birmingham, rather than Selly Oak or Sutton Coldfield to Birmingham) that CrossCountry caters for.

 

[Trainbike46]

Why? There were major commuting flows into Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Bristol and other large cities on the CrossCountry network, not to mention long distance business travel.

Isn't the message given by removal of the HSTs that were specifically diagrammed about these kinds of commuting flow, that this traffic is diminished?

I think the only message given by the removal of the HSTs is that the DfT wants to reduce costs - and that this is the best bang for buck method of doing that for XC, instead of anything about passenger numbers or diagramming needs

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

As stated, I’m unsure of the extent to which the AWC and XC TMS systems diverge. Although they started as one fleet they have been separate for over a decade, which is plenty of time for them to be made very different.

It may be a fair bit or not much at all. However, if it is different in terms of the user interface, staff are going to need a familiarisation, which will probably be just a one day release for a briefing. But that’s still a lot of folk to cover, and harmonising the TMS would be cheaper.

Fair enough!

 

[O L Leigh]

I think the only message given by the removal of the HSTs is that the DfT wants to reduce costs - and that this is the best bang for buck method of doing that for XC, instead of anything about passenger numbers or diagramming needs

It also helps reduce costs by removing the training need that HST usage brings. There’s a lot of staff who were still waiting on outstanding traction courses that now no longer need to happen.

 

[Trainbike46]

It also helps reduce costs by removing the training need that HST usage brings. There’s a lot of staff who were still waiting on outstanding traction courses that now no longer need to happen.

absolutely, removing the microfleet will clearly offer bigger savings than dropping the same number of units from the main fleet, simply because of reduced staff training needs (and potentially easier staff diagramming)

 

[Meerkat]

As stated, I’m unsure of the extent to which the AWC and XC TMS systems diverge. Although they started as one fleet they have been separate for over a decade, which is plenty of time for them to be made very different.

Why would they have been made very different. We are being told here that fixing the difference would cost a significant sum, so making them different must have cost a significant sum, and therefore been done for an important reason. Would unwinding differences really cost that much, compared to fixing it if they had been different to start with??

 

[Snow1964]

Why would they have been made very different. We are being told here that fixing the difference would cost a significant sum, so making them different must have cost a significant sum, and therefore been done for an important reason. Would unwinding differences really cost that much, compared to fixing it if they had been different to start with??

I was thinking that too, if they started the same (and I can't think of a good reason why they would have been built differently if Virgin operated both at the time).

Presumably the design of any update is already paid for and documented, as is how the update was done. And if it is software and it works on XC fleet, why can it not be copied over to replace the version Avanti use. It's not like any software will be new.

 

[MattRat]

From the little bits and pieces I've personally heard/read, it more sounds like they'll cut back XC services to where you'll make interchanges instead if you wish to go further, and less double running to stretch out the 220 and 221 fleet, with HSTs going to scrap with no replacement.

 

[O L Leigh]

Why would they have been made very different.

The TMS does not remain static and will be updated at various times for various reasons. Some will be critical updates that are likely to be common across both fleets, but some will be TOC specified and therefore likely to be different. There has never been a need for the two fleets to inter-work so TMS compatibility has never been an issue.

We are being told here that fixing the difference would cost a significant sum

I didn’t say it would be a “significant sum”.

If anything, this is a fairly inexpensive change to make. The problem is that, as with anything, it has a cost and, according to the information I’ve been hearing, the department is not prepared to pay for any alterations.

Frankly it doesn’t matter if it could all be done for free if, ultimately, the department is not prepared to allow these units to cascade to XC.

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

Presumably the design of any update is already paid for and documented, as is how the update was done. And if it is software and it works on XC fleet, why can it not be copied over to replace the version Avanti use. It's not like any software will be new.

The issue is not the practicality of harmonising the TMS. Provided the hardware remains the same between fleets and that there has been no physical divergence between the fleets, effecting a software update is easy. The problem is the cost. No-one is going to pay for it, no matter how cheaply it can be done.

 

[Meerkat]

I didn’t say it would be a “significant sum”.

Significant in impact, not size - ie if the cost is big enough to upset the Treasury then it is significant

The TMS does not remain static and will be updated at various times for various reasons. Some will be critical updates that are likely to be common across both fleets, but some will be TOC specified and therefore likely to be different. There has never been a need for the two fleets to inter-work so TMS compatibility has never been an issue.

If the trains are basically the same can't they pick one version and use it to replace the other - unless there have been other changes it should work? Will help that they are all maintained in the same place so one group of people presumably fully understand both.

 

[O L Leigh]

Significant in impact, not size - ie if the cost is big enough to upset the Treasury then it is significant

Just to clarify what I’ve been hearing. There’s no money forthcoming. None at all. Not one brass farthing. Any cost is too much.