Class 221 for Grand Central

[Wyrleybart]

Quite likely, the market price is ultimately what someone will pay. The alternative is ultimately being stored, no lease revenue, and possibly never used again.

One of the problems for the Lease Cos is if they have not been fully depreciated, putting them in store with no known future user means providing a diminution of value in their accounts (their P&L account is hit with a write down to scrap value).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 May 2023 ==



Don't forget Grand Union have recently acquired open access rights for 10 years from December 2024 for a Carmarthen-London service too. The plan there was existing spare Diesel trains initially, then new bi-modes.

Link it to possibility that Grand Central are just thinking an interim fleet to replace the unreliable 180s, or to allow them to move routes with a Grand Union tie up. But maybe longer term 222s will be used instead of bi-modes.

Nothing seems to be definite yet, so can't rule out some fancy cascade that hasn't yet been revealed. I'm sure founder of GC and GU is same person, but don't know how they interact

Market price etc ???
The Rosco shipped 221142/ 2211423 to Worksop as they were off lease and presumably looking for work. You would now have to assume that work has been found as part of this "non announcement" so ROG dragged both sets back to Central Rivers where work is being done on them.

I may be totally wrong but AIUI the two Grand xxxxx companies no longer have any link and I was under the impression Grand Union's teaction plans were based on Hitachi Bimodes for the Carmarthen services, and less recently 90s and Mk4s for the Stirling service. However, heard nothing of the Stirling plans for a while and those "spare" Mk4 rakes are no longer spare - at least until LNER stop using them anytime between now and when Kings Cross gets ETCS'd

 

[dk1]

I doubt it, but Hull did use 222s at one point.

Good old Pioneer fleet.

 

[fgwrich]

I may be totally wrong but AIUI the two Grand xxxxx companies no longer have any link and I was under the impression Grand Union's teaction plans were based on Hitachi Bimodes for the Carmarthen services, and less recently 90s and Mk4s for the Stirling service. However, heard nothing of the Stirling plans for a while and those "spare" Mk4 rakes are no longer spare - at least until LNER stop using them anytime between now and when Kings Cross gets ETCS'd

Correct, the Grand connection split when Arriva bought out Alliance Rail (the parent of Grand Central) in 2011 and Mr Yeowart left then. Though it is somewhat ironic that the like to proclaim their proud independence on their website while also listing working with the likes of Renfe etc.

 

[WillPS]

The decision not to order pan-cars for the Voyager fleets was puzzling at the time and has aged terribly, hasn't it?

 

[Energy]

The decision not to order pan-cars for the Voyager fleets was puzzling at the time and has aged terribly, hasn't it?

Voyagers don't have a traction power bus running throughout so that would need to be retrofitted at great expense. Derby can't produce steel bodied vehicles so the extra cars would be made outside the UK.

 

[D365]

The decision not to order pan-cars for the Voyager fleets was puzzling at the time and has aged terribly, hasn't it?

As above - not puzzling when you realise the Voyagers are fundamentally incompatible with OHLE pickup.

 

[Snow1964]

The decision not to order pan-cars for the Voyager fleets was puzzling at the time and has aged terribly, hasn't it?

They never built the proposed 6th coach (coach E) either. The original plan was to build it as traffic built up after starting the Operation Princess services, and faster tilting services towards unelectrified NW destinations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 May 2023 ==

I’d imagine that Grand Central have made the decision that it’d be less hassle to get rid of the Adelantes and get Voyagers instead given their proven track record and availability of parts and maintenance expertise given that XC’s Voyagers aren’t going anywhere (no pun intended).

Every time an Adelante sits down on the ECML or fails before it makes it out of the depot GC must take a hit in having to pay compensation.

This seems logical, the 180s don't have a great record. Better to use something that generally works if going to operate a 20+ year old train. Both the 180 and 221 are about 22 years old.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I'm amused by the fact it's sort of the reverse of what Hull Trains did ten fifteen years ago, noting that the Voyagers and Meridians are from the same family.

 

[Snow1964]

Costs can't be that bad if GC are going for 221s over bimodes...

Without knowing if this is a short interim fleet (say 2-5 years) or a plan into 2030s difficult to know what longer term plan is.

Materials prices have been rising, so maybe new bi-modes are expensive at the moment. But a point will soon come where Hitachi has to decide what to do between completing the 805+807+810 deliveries, but not yet ready to start series production of HS2 fleet. Basically does it mothball factory 2025-2027 or offer keen price to to build few more bi-modes to keep skills ticking over.

I suspect the Rosco was keen to price the 221s to find a user before the 222s also hit the available to re-lease market and potentially depressed price further.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #27 originally in this thread.

221143 is getting an exam and other maintenance work performed.

10 units in total are set to transfer to GC after refresh and rebranding.

That is the ROSCO's own information.

Do we know which 221s are transferring across and when will this happen roughly?

 

[william.martin]

I'm a bit confused, 221142 and 221143 are going to GC but are the other 8 XC or Avanti units?

 

[dk1]

The decision not to order pan-cars for the Voyager fleets was puzzling at the time and has aged terribly, hasn't it?

It was stated it wasn’t cost effective at the time as Project Thor was going to cost far more per vehicle than first thought.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Given that GC is open access, there's no reason they couldn't get their wallet out and alter the interior if they felt it would have a commercial benefit to them.

Er, wha? 180s have more legroom than Voyagers, considerably so, other than the old "hybrid"


Given that they're a budget operation, anything probably goes, really.

They're not supposed to be a budget operation, I thought the same a few years ago and posted the question on the forum but apparently not.

2007 is a long time ago now, but when they converted and refurbished the Mk 3s to HST trailers, a big selling point was exactly this. They lowered the density with standard seats all lining up to windows, and made this a key differentiator.

If anything, they made the airline seats too far apart, and the seat back tables were a bit too much of a reach!

 

[fgwrich]

It was stated it wasn’t cost effective at the time as Project Thor was going to cost far more per vehicle than first thought.

IIRC, we’ve got Bombardier to thank for that too. As well as the jigs being long gone, Bombardier wanted to use their own traction equipment, while the DfTs conditions was that it used equipment from Alstom in Preston (which makes sense given that the Voyagers use the Alstom Onix equipment anyway). Bombardier played hard ball and the idea fizzled out. A shame really!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

IIRC, we’ve got Bombardier to thank for that too. As well as the jigs being long gone, Bombardier wanted to use their own traction equipment, while the DfTs conditions was that it used equipment from Alstom in Preston (which makes sense given that the Voyagers use the Alstom Onix equipment anyway). Bombardier played hard ball and the idea fizzled out. A shame really!

So they’d have made the same ghost-wail traction sound as the 390s when on electric then. I love that sound.

 

[Snow1964]

I'm a bit confused, 221142 and 221143 are going to GC but are the other 8 XC or Avanti units?

The other 8 will also be Avanti units (being released due to new class 805 units)

That will leave 10 ex Avanti units, which don't yet have a new home, but potentially will go to XC

Cross Country have 20 5car and 4 4car class 221 units, what I don't know is if it is possible to split up the spare units and use the intermediate cars to lengthen other units, scrapping the driving car bodyshells, but keeping all the spare fitments, motors, bogies etc. Or if they might simply just take them as extra 5car units.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I'm a bit confused, 221142 and 221143 are going to GC but are the other 8 XC or Avanti units?

Why would they be XC units?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As above - not puzzling when you realise the Voyagers are fundamentally incompatible with OHLE pickup.

It actually has nothing to do with that at all, as it'd be easy enough to design them to do that.

When they were built, there was a genuine, serious proposal to dewire the ECML by GNER. This wasn't a joke - diesel was the clean fuel of the future, so why would you mess with all that unreliable knitting?

How things change...

 

[hexagon789]

When they were built, there was a genuine, serious proposal to dewire the ECML by GNER. This wasn't a joke - diesel was the clean fuel of the future, so why would you mess with all that unreliable knitting?

If subsequent interviews with Christopher Garnett (GNER MD) are to be believed, that was never a completely serious proposal but rather born of frustration with the OLE reliability on the ECML and a bit of publicity shaming of RAILTRACK for failing to do anything about it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If subsequent interviews with Christopher Garnett (GNER MD) are to be believed, that was never a completely serious proposal but rather born of frustration with the OLE reliability on the ECML and a bit of publicity shaming of RAILTRACK for failing to do anything about it.

Either way diesel was very much the clean fuel of the future - DMUs were being built, diesel cars were being incentivised etc. There was no motivation to build bi-modes even though they've been technically possible for as long as DEMUs have been a thing.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

The other 8 will also be Avanti units (being released due to new class 805 units)

That will leave 10 ex Avanti units, which don't yet have a new home, but potentially will go to XC

Cross Country have 20 5car and 4 4car class 221 units, what I don't know is if it is possible to split up the spare units and use the intermediate cars to lengthen other units, scrapping the driving car bodyshells, but keeping all the spare fitments, motors, bogies etc. Or if they might simply just take them as extra 5car units.

So all ten 221s transferring are Avanti then?

 

[D365]

It actually has nothing to do with that at all, as it'd be easy enough to design them to do that.

Fitting a traction bus (typically in the region of 750-1500V) is a very substantial engineering exercise. The presence of a 750V traction bus (and dual supply capability) is the reason why the Class 319s were capable of being ’flexed’.

By contrast, it seems when they were procured, there was no thought of a bi-mode conversion for the Voyagers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fitting a traction bus (typically in the region of 750-1500V) is a very substantial engineering exercise. The presence of a 750V traction bus (and dual supply capability) is the reason why the Class 319s were capable of being ’flexed’.

Retrofitting one, yes. However, they could easily have been designed with one in the first place had they been so minded, but...

By contrast, it seems when they were procured, there was no thought of a bi-mode conversion for the Voyagers.

...because diesel was the clean fuel of the future.

 

[D365]

Retrofitting one, yes. However, they could easily have been designed with one in the first place had they been so minded…

Ah - I was writing specifically with a view to retrofit. Anyhow, long in the past.

 

[JonathanH]

Cross Country have 20 5car and 4 4car class 221 units, what I don't know is if it is possible to split up the spare units and use the intermediate cars to lengthen other units, scrapping the driving car bodyshells, but keeping all the spare fitments, motors, bogies etc. Or if they might simply just take them as extra 5car units.

I think the one thing the switch of ten units to Grand Central does is dismiss any idea that there is going to be a reformation of the class 220 / 221 units.

 

[Mollman]

So all ten 221s transferring are Avanti then?

Yes

 

[Snow1964]

I think the one thing the switch of ten units to Grand Central does is dismiss any idea that there is going to be a reformation of the class 220 / 221 units.

Ignoring the 220s, If XC took on other 10 units, could use the 30 middle cars to make up their 24 existing 221s to 6car. Not perfect but that would allow some trains currently using 2 4car 220s to be an operated as a single 6car set instead.

More importantly all the spare parts in the driving vehicles would become a source of spares for both 220 and 221 fleet. The trains are already 22 years old, availability of spares could become an issue over next decade. Removes the risk of a few trains long term out of use awaiting parts which could lead to cancellations and short forms.

Really comes down to do XC need more shortish trains, or some that are long enough to avoid doubling up some workings.

 

[Halish Railway]

Really comes down to do XC need more shortish trains, or some that are long enough to avoid doubling up some workings.

A fleet of six-car trains rules out the possibility of using 8/9/10 coach Voyagers where demand justifies it.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

A fleet of six-car trains rules out the possibility of using 8/9/10 coach Voyagers where demand justifies it.

If 221s were 6 car 220s are 4, that makes 10 cars total.

 

[NEDdrv]

I thought they'd had stuff removed, but it's just a ram replaced? So they are still very heavy then - it's just a maintenance saving on the upkeep of the tilt equipment?



With regard to leasing....

Could this be the situation/perceived situation?

XC (Arriva) say they are overcrowded and need more stock. Here's some 221s available.
"No we need to make cutbacks," say the DfT, "you can't have any at the moment."

"But someone else might take them if we don't take them now. It could cost more in the long run."

"There'll be 222s available in a couple of years," say the wise DfT.

"But they can't run in multiple with 220s and 221s. They aren't compatible."

Meanwhile over in the boardroom at GC (Arriva):
"These 180s keep catching fire and breaking down."
"Yes, we could wait a couple of years and have some 222s."
"Hold on.... we could do that. Or we could get these 221s cheap right now."
"Yes, but they are heavy with all that tilt equipment and will cost lots in fuel."
"We only need them for a year or two. Then we sublease them to XC as travel picks up, and make a profit. DfT could pay for XC to take 222s and have trains that can't couple... or they can have these 221s that do. But they'll have to pay us for them. We'll then take on the 222s because our trains dont need to be compatible with anything else."
"So the DfT would have to pay for XC to pay GC for them and our parent group Arriva would make a profit?"
"Yes! XC would get the trains it wants; we at GC get the trains we want; we, Arriva, make a profit out of it; and it costs the DfT more in the long run just like we said it would."
"Cheers!!"

Don’t think XC voyagers can work with AWC ones as they don’t have the same TMS system now, so in essence no different to 222’s for XC