• 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!

Class 222 and MML

Status
Not open for further replies.

Prestige15

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2016
Messages
487
Location
Warrington
Just wondering

Once the MML gets electrified what would happen to the 222's? Is there still a possible chance for them to be converted to EMU or would it be moved elsewhere, If it did i may think it could end up with XC or ATW.

Some say 91+mk4 but i doubt that would happen.

As for MML itself, Could it do with tilting trains?

A couple says 91+mk4 even though some say it was possibly to allow them to tilt back in the 90's but today all that fixers and fittings will needed to be added on and i expect that wont be cheap, so i doubt on that one aswell.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Blamethrower

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2014
Messages
384
Location
Bedfordshire
Just wondering

Once the MML gets electrified what would happen to the 222's? Is there still a possible chance for them to be converted to EMU or would it be moved elsewhere, If it did i may think it could end up with XC or ATW.

Some say 91+mk4 but i doubt that would happen.

As for MML itself, Could it do with tilting trains?

A couple says 91+mk4 even though some say it was possibly to allow them to tilt back in the 90's but today all that fixers and fittings will needed to be added on and i expect that wont be cheap, so i doubt on that one aswell.

I believe this has been discussed on a different thread but I can't be bothered to search for you :)

You'll see the normal arguments: Yes it can, no it can't, too expensive, no it isn't ad infinitum

Personally, I think we should get some 800/1/2s for the job, but of course they don't tilt. There are a few places where tilt would be good, but probably not enough to add it overall.

Much as I like 222s, they are getting really tired now:- aircon hit and miss, toilets hit and miss, seats/seat backs really well worn now but as far as I am aware, mechanics still very good.

You could add a pantograph coach but it would mean taking each set out of service for a full refurb without anything to replace them with adequate acceleration abilities.

It still baffles me that no bi-mode train was ever conceived on the UK network until the 800/1s. As such I think cross country will end up getting a fleet of them too.
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
They could go anywhere. It's a little early to speculate yet, and even then minds can change.
 

CosherB

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2007
Messages
3,041
Location
Northwich
Are you on a mission to create as many new threads as possible?! :D

As Blamethrower states, this topic has been raked over many times already - almost as many times as the future of the 442s (if they have one!). Try searching the (literally) hundreds of posts on this topic on here. Enjoy!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,097
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Much as I like 222s, they are getting really tired now:- aircon hit and miss, toilets hit and miss, seats/seat backs really well worn now but as far as I am aware, mechanics still very good.

Yeah, I used one yesterday and it was incredibly tatty - powder coat scratched off tables, ground in muck, condensation in windows, stinking exhaust, worn seats, aircon broken etc. And the engine was *very* noisy compared with my more usual Voyagers, so I think the mounts are possibly getting worn too.

If they are to carry on much longer, a *major* overhaul and refurb is needed, rather than just a seat cover swap (though that would help!)

VT's Voyagers are in far better nick - are Stagey working them hard and not giving them the necessary TLC? Most un-Stagecoach, that.
 
Last edited:

Prestige15

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2016
Messages
487
Location
Warrington
Are you on a mission to create as many new threads as possible?! :D

As Blamethrower states, this topic has been raked over many times already - almost as many times as the future of the 442s (if they have one!). Try searching the (literally) hundreds of posts on this topic on here. Enjoy!

You could say that:D
 

Mordac

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2016
Messages
2,386
Location
Birmingham
VT's Voyagers are in far better nick - are Stagey working them hard and not giving them the necessary TLC? Most un-Stagecoach, that.
Maybe it's Stockholm Syndrome, but I also find that Virgin's 221s are in far better shape than XC's Voyagers (haven't been on a 222 in years so no idea there). And they're the ones with the tilt still on, which is supposedly complicates maintenance. Do Virgin just put them to a much gentler workload?
 

Townsend Hook

Member
Joined
3 Aug 2011
Messages
932
Location
GB
Maybe it's Stockholm Syndrome, but I also find that Virgin's 221s are in far better shape than XC's Voyagers (haven't been on a 222 in years so no idea there). And they're the ones with the tilt still on, which is supposedly complicates maintenance. Do Virgin just put them to a much gentler workload?

VT services tend to have less frequent stops than on XC, which I would guess could be a contributing factor.
 

Master29

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2015
Messages
1,970
I remember at some point they were touted for the GWR Devon and Cornwall to Paddington but of course that ain't happening now. Just have to see on this one.
 

Andy-mc

Member
Joined
26 Apr 2014
Messages
207
Location
Leicester
Probably not the best of ideas and probably has been said before but
- use 222's to replace some of the 150 stock
- scrap HST's (yes we all love them but their day has to come eventually)
- replace the HST's and 222's with 800's
- while waiting for 800's use VTEC's 225's
 

Prestige15

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2016
Messages
487
Location
Warrington
What if they go to SWT? A 7 car should be fine, convert two out of three first class coach to standard and put them on the Waterloo - Exeter (as most 159's run as six car anyway) and the five car on others routes such as Waterloo - Sailsbury/Bristol with some running as 10 cars especially at the peaks.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,003
What if they go to SWT? A 7 car should be fine, convert two out of three first class coach to standard and put them on the Waterloo - Exeter (as most 159's run as six car anyway) and the five car on others routes such as Waterloo - Sailsbury/Bristol with some running as 10 cars especially at the peaks.

They lack sufficient furnishable space to provide the capacity required - they can't be used to replace any of the 90/100mph DMU stock without losing seating and standing capacity.

The only place they could realistically be used is on the CrossCountry franchise, and even then, only on 'mainline' routes where 125mph running is required (also the Sprinter differential issue comes into play on secondary routes - Class 222 stock can't run at Sprinter speeds, just MU, DMU and HST differentials, which tend to be mainline rather secondary route features).

The options are running them doubled up, reforming them and scrapping driving vehicles to provide 7 or 8 vehicle formations, or scrapping the whole lot when they come off the MML in 2022.
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
1,013
The 222's are better off sticking together as one fleet.

They can't multi with 220/221 so no point on XC runs.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
They can't multi with 220/221 so no point on XC runs.

What prevents them from that? The coupler looks to be the same, and I don't think there are many significant differences otherwise. Surely the only real issue is a software one, which is a relatively simple fix?
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,003
The 222's are better off sticking together as one fleet.

They can't multi with 220/221 so no point on XC runs.

The next XC franchise will need some level of additional capacity, with HST stock to be withdrawn and the possibility of at least some Class 221 units going to the West Coast franchise.

It's a choice between cascading Class 222 units or ordering new Hitachi AT300 stock, either way you've got incompatibility issues. The Class 222 units do at least benefit from being fully mechanically compatible with the Class 220/221 units and can rescue each other, even if portion working isn't possible.
 

Harbornite

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2016
Messages
3,627
The next XC franchise will need some level of additional capacity, with HST stock to be withdrawn and the possibility of at least some Class 221 units going to the West Coast franchise.

It's a choice between cascading Class 222 units or ordering new Hitachi AT300 stock, either way you've got incompatibility issues. The Class 222 units do at least benefit from being fully mechanically compatible with the Class 220/221 units and can rescue each other, even if portion working isn't possible.

Virgin could do with having all the 221s, unless the next wcml franchise orders bi mode stock. If XC did lose all their 221s then you'd have the aformentioned issues with portion working, so the idea might not be feasible.

In hindsight, it's a shame that Virgin didn't get a mix of 11 coach, 5 coach and 6 coach units for the Crosscountry franchise and west coast mainline.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,003
What prevents them from that? The coupler looks to be the same, and I don't think there are many significant differences otherwise. Surely the only real issue is a software one, which is a relatively simple fix?

The coupler is physically identical and mechanically compatible, but the wiring for the Class 220 fleet is organised in such a way as to be compatible with Class 221 units which have additional wiring circuits for the tilting authorisation system (needed when two Class 221 units are coupled together so the driver can observe the tilting status of the rear unit).
 

Prestige15

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2016
Messages
487
Location
Warrington
They lack sufficient furnishable space to provide the capacity required - they can't be used to replace any of the 90/100mph DMU stock without losing seating and standing capacity.

The only place they could realistically be used is on the CrossCountry franchise, and even then, only on 'mainline' routes where 125mph running is required (also the Sprinter differential issue comes into play on secondary routes - Class 222 stock can't run at Sprinter speeds, just MU, DMU and HST differentials, which tend to be mainline rather secondary route features).

The options are running them doubled up, reforming them and scrapping driving vehicles to provide 7 or 8 vehicle formations, or scrapping the whole lot when they come off the MML in 2022.

all this is standard class
159 3 car 172 seats - 222 5 car 192 seats
159 6 car 334 seats - 222 10 car 384 seats
7 car 222 (as of now, 4 standard and 3 first class) 236 seats
Converting 2 coaches to standard (should be 66 seats each) would bring out 366 seats.

Only the 159 will take advantage over the 222 on seating capacity if it formed of 8/9 car
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,003
all this is standard class
159 3 car 172 seats - 222 5 car 192 seats
159 6 car 334 seats - 222 10 car 384 seats
7 car 222 (as of now, 4 standard and 3 first class) 236 seats
Converting 2 coaches to standard (should be 66 seats each) would bring out 366 seats.

Only the 159 will take advantage over the 222 on seating capacity if it formed of 8/9 car

That's not like for like, it involves reducing first class capacity on the Meridian fleet but not on a like for like basis on the Class 158/159 fleet, that's a bit naughty.

Class 159/1 (3 car) has 164 standard class seats and 18 tip-up seats (the Class 159/0 has one more tip-up seat). 23 first class seats are also provided (24 for Class 159/0).

Class 158 (2 car) in SWT configuration has 110 standard class seats and 11 tip-up seats. 13 first class seats also provided.

That gives a five vehicle formation 274 standard class seats and 29 tip-up seats. It also provides 36 first class seats.

The 5 car Class 222 units at present are 190 standard, 11 tip-up seats and 50 first class seats.

If it's reconfigured, including removal of the buffet but keeping the same number of first class seats (36/37) you can only push standard seating up by another 22 seats (that's based on the composite vehicle losing 14 first to provide 22 standard seats) which takes you to 212 standard seats. No additional tip-up seats can be provided.

5 car formations:
Class 158+Class 159 = 274S + 36/37F + 29/30 tip-up
Class 222 = 212S + 36F + 11 tip-up.

If you repeat the calculations on a 7 car unit, using 2 x Class 158 + 1 x Class 159, and keeping the first class capacity identical, which in this case is 49/50 seats, the most standard seats you can fit into a 7 car formation is around 326, whilst retaining 49/50 first class seats.

7 car formations:
Class 158+Class 158+Class 159 = 385S + 49/50F + 45/46 tip-up
Class 222 = 326S + 49/50F + 18/19 tip-up

And so it goes on. You're especially screwed if you have to do anything with the 4 car Meridians, which are beyond useless when it comes to capacity - even in an all standard configuration, which you would presumably want, you only get 212 seats and 10 tip-up seats.

Which raises the other obvious question - why would you want to run stock with 4 x 750hp engines on an 85mph line when stock fitted with 3 x 450hp engines provides more capacity at vastly reduced operational cost ?

It's not even as if Class 222s to SWT would provide any increased reliability, Salisbury have the Class 158 and Class 159 fleets absolutely sorted and they're the most reliable DMU stock on the network, they thrash many an EMU.
 

whhistle

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
I wonder if Chiltern would be interested.
I know they've just done their MK3 stock but the 222's would more than cover their needs.
 

Prestige15

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2016
Messages
487
Location
Warrington
That's not like for like, it involves reducing first class capacity on the Meridian fleet but not on a like for like basis on the Class 158/159 fleet, that's a bit naughty.

Class 159/1 (3 car) has 164 standard class seats and 18 tip-up seats (the Class 159/0 has one more tip-up seat). 23 first class seats are also provided (24 for Class 159/0).

Class 158 (2 car) in SWT configuration has 110 standard class seats and 11 tip-up seats. 13 first class seats also provided.

That gives a five vehicle formation 274 standard class seats and 29 tip-up seats. It also provides 36 first class seats.

The 5 car Class 222 units at present are 190 standard, 11 tip-up seats and 50 first class seats.

If it's reconfigured, including removal of the buffet but keeping the same number of first class seats (36/37) you can only push standard seating up by another 22 seats (that's based on the composite vehicle losing 14 first to provide 22 standard seats) which takes you to 212 standard seats. No additional tip-up seats can be provided.

5 car formations:
Class 158+Class 159 = 274S + 36/37F + 29/30 tip-up
Class 222 = 212S + 36F + 11 tip-up.

If you repeat the calculations on a 7 car unit, using 2 x Class 158 + 1 x Class 159, and keeping the first class capacity identical, which in this case is 49/50 seats, the most standard seats you can fit into a 7 car formation is around 326, whilst retaining 49/50 first class seats.

7 car formations:
Class 158+Class 158+Class 159 = 385S + 49/50F + 45/46 tip-up
Class 222 = 326S + 49/50F + 18/19 tip-up

And so it goes on. You're especially screwed if you have to do anything with the 4 car Meridians, which are beyond useless when it comes to capacity - even in an all standard configuration, which you would presumably want, you only get 212 seats and 10 tip-up seats.

Which raises the other obvious question - why would you want to run stock with 4 x 750hp engines on an 85mph line when stock fitted with 3 x 450hp engines provides more capacity at vastly reduced operational cost ?

It's not even as if Class 222s to SWT would provide any increased reliability, Salisbury have the Class 158 and Class 159 fleets absolutely sorted and they're the most reliable DMU stock on the network, they thrash many an EMU.

A very touchy opinion...
 

HMS Ark Royal

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2015
Messages
2,798
Location
Hull
Why not send a couple of 222s to Hull so that Hull could have through trains to Liverpool restored?
 

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,275
The coupler is physically identical and mechanically compatible, but the wiring for the Class 220 fleet is organised in such a way as to be compatible with Class 221 units which have additional wiring circuits for the tilting authorisation system (needed when two Class 221 units are coupled together so the driver can observe the tilting status of the rear unit).

It's also down to the TMS. IIRC the 220/221s use an Alstom TMS and 222s Bombardier.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
As the TMS is software I imagine that isn't the hardest thing in the world to solve.

I'm not sure that they do have different TMS. However if they did, I imagine that it isn't just the software that'd need replacing, it'd need full replacement of the brains as well (and probably a fair amount of the sensors as well)
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,253
A very touchy opinion...

Here's the reply I would have made. You are searching for a solution to a non-existent problem. Waterloo to Salisbury infrastructure has been optimised (platform extensions etc) for running 10 x 23m combinations of 158/159 in the peaks. When the stock needs replacing, they'll order something tailored to the route.

222s would be a hammer to crack a nut, and as 125 mph units are completely over specified, and under seated...
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,097
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I'm not sure that they do have different TMS. However if they did, I imagine that it isn't just the software that'd need replacing, it'd need full replacement of the brains as well (and probably a fair amount of the sensors as well)

Would it? The TMS is just running on what is essentially a Windows PC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top