Class 43 HST cascade fate

[43096]

There's lots of equipment which can't be built into passenger stock, the main question will be whether it can be optimised to work at higher speeds, whether components can be fitted onto BT10 bogies rather than B4/B5 bogies, etc.

I'd say there's a good chance of a second NMT type formation, though possibly doing slightly different things.

MENTOR could really do with being replaced too, if the money can be found - the vehicle itself is 61 years old and the modifications are 40 years old. NMT does much of the same work with the pantograph fitted Mark 3 vehicle but MENTOR is still needed for new electrification installation testing.

There's been plenty of Mark 3 vehicles disposed of that NR could have got hold of to replace MENTOR had they been so inclined.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How many HSTs do FGW own, as oppose to lease? They will have to be sold off to someone, possibly one of the ROSCOs.

FGW/GWR do not own any HSTs...

There are 12 power cars and 42 trailers owned by FirstGroup. They are still leased to GWR, just from their parent company.

 

[Class 170101]

There's nowhere else for the damn things to go, and the only place the MML stock could realistically go to is XC.

They'll just have to run around, doubled up, until there's more electrification and they can be replaced by bi-mode and electric units in their entirety.

The other option, a bit more radical, is to write the bloody things off and scrap them early.

No matter where you think about using them, they're too long, too expensive to run and have too few seats.

Assuming you are referring to the Class 222s, how about Northern Ireland / Ireland for their cross Border service? As I recall this was proposed as a use for them at one time.

 

[najaB]

Assuming you are referring to the Class 222s, how about Northern Ireland / Ireland for their cross Border service? As I recall this was proposed as a use for them at one time.

The Enterprise sets have recently been rebuilt/refurbished so the need for replacement has been pushed quite a few years into the future.

 

[RichmondCommu]

No doubt however reports suggest that 43160 is to be repaired at considerable expense after its prang at Plymouth. That suggests its owners believe it has rather more than scrap value.

Is that because the TOC don't have sufficient spare power cars if 43160 is written off?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is that because the TOC don't have sufficient spare power cars if 43160 is written off?

How much damage was discovered to it as a result of that prang?

 

[The Ham]

Is that because the TOC don't have sufficient spare power cars if 43160 is written off?

Quite. Let's assume that there was alternative 125mph DMU's available, the cost to lease a 7 coach unit would be getting on for £800,000 just for one year (I.e. until the 80x's started to free up HST's). As such anything up to that amount is likely to be just sound business judgment.

 

[Rich McLean]

Please, please let this be true !!

They really ought to keep some spare trailers back from the torch as well, so that they can extend to 5 or six carriages if necessary in the future to cope with potential growth. (This should still be short enough to allow for zippy acceleration).

There will be 3 sets in the Bristol area on Cardiff - Taunton's with the rest running Plymouth - Penzance together with the 802s and a few 150/2s. In total, 9 diagrams for 11 sets

Two sets will run from Plymouth to Cardiff in the morning with 2 sets running from Cardiff/Bristol down to Penzance. Also one set will run through in each direction in the evening, so that stock gets moved about. Pretty similar to how it all works now. 158s will also cover some runs between Paignton/Exeter and Bristol, so that units coming on and off maintenance can be moved about as required (158s will be allocated to the new Exeter depot).

The HSTs will also work a few peak time moves between Plymouth and Exeter, again interworking with 150/2s.

However, this can all change again of course, as we have already seen with all the 166s and most 2 car 165s being allocated to Bristol, instead of the 3 car 165s as initially planned.

 

[Harbornite]

There's been plenty of Mark 3 vehicles disposed of that NR could have got hold of to replace MENTOR had they been so inclined.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

FGW/GWR do not own any HSTs...

There are 12 power cars and 42 trailers owned by FirstGroup. They are still leased to GWR, just from their parent company.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[yorksrob]

There will be 3 sets in the Bristol area on Cardiff - Taunton's with the rest running Plymouth - Penzance together with the 802s and a few 150/2s. In total, 9 diagrams for 11 sets

Two sets will run from Plymouth to Cardiff in the morning with 2 sets running from Cardiff/Bristol down to Penzance. Also one set will run through in each direction in the evening, so that stock gets moved about. Pretty similar to how it all works now. 158s will also cover some runs between Paignton/Exeter and Bristol, so that units coming on and off maintenance can be moved about as required (158s will be allocated to the new Exeter depot).

The HSTs will also work a few peak time moves between Plymouth and Exeter, again interworking with 150/2s.

However, this can all change again of course, as we have already seen with all the 166s and most 2 car 165s being allocated to Bristol, instead of the 3 car 165s as initially planned.

Ah thanks.

So there'll still presumably be 150's running from Penzance in the morning to Plymouth ?

I tend to try and avoid these on my hols as they get a bit crowded. Would prefer a short HST.

 

[Rich McLean]

Ah thanks.

So there'll still presumably be 150's running from Penzance in the morning to Plymouth ?

I tend to try and avoid these on my hols as they get a bit crowded. Would prefer a short HST.

There will still be 3 sets in the Plymouth area in the morning to run the Penzance duties. Most UP workings in the morning from Penzance will either be 802s or 220/221s. There needs to be some 150/153 moves at certain times in order to rotate stock for maintenance purposes.

Expect a few early morning runs from Exeter through to Penzance for this purpose

 

[yorksrob]

There will still be 3 sets in the Plymouth area in the morning to run the Penzance duties. Most UP workings in the morning from Penzance will either be 802s or 220/221s. There needs to be some 150/153 moves at certain times in order to rotate stock for maintenance purposes.

Expect a few early morning runs from Exeter through to Penzance for this purpose

The wrong direction for me mainly unfortunately. Hopefully that down evening service will be better timed.

 

[Private Baxter]

Hi. I haven't commented in this section before, but here's my two cents;

Shortened HSTs would be superb for longish distance stopping routes, such as Cardiff/Portsmouth, the early morning Bristol Parkway/Penzance etc. For that I'd like to think they'll keep coaches A, B, C and K (half and half) of the current make-up. As for keeping a few complete sets, it's been suggested numerous times, but never confirmed, that a handful will be retained to support, or act as spare for Plymouth/Penzance to Paddington. Those owned by First (including at least one of the green ones) are possibly likely to survive a little longer. (IMO).

As for Cross Country, I definitely think they'll be better off with extra HSTs, rather than voyagers, which I do not believe are suitable for some of their services.

 

[43074]

As for Cross Country, I definitely think they'll be better off with extra HSTs, rather than voyagers, which I do not believe are suitable for some of their services.

From the railway's point of view, the only problem with the Voyagers is that they're not long enough - I agree they need more stock but this will probably be a mix of 222s or bi-mode AT300s.

 

[edwin_m]

From the railway's point of view, the only problem with the Voyagers is that they're not long enough - I agree they need more stock but this will probably be a mix of 222s or bi-mode AT300s.

They are also very heavy and over-powered, and a large fraction of the floor area is unusable for seating. Hence the operating cost per seat is very high. I don't know if the lower operating costs of newer stock are enough to send the Voyagers to an early grave.

 

[BuryBlue]

Perhaps as previously suggested the power cars could be Vivarail'ed - I'd think that many could be regeared to favour acceleration over top speed.

If they are going to be in service for the next 10 years or so, maybe the slam door Mk3's could be granted an exemption. Similar exemptions have been granted to stations with compromise height tube platforms. Longer form rakes could definitely boost capacity in places that need them as a stop gap for long awaited electrification (the Anglia routes come to mind with the Felixtowe-Nuneaton programme)

 

[pinkpanther]

How busy are they generally?

XC Voyagers aren't usually that heavily loaded on the Southampton-Bournemouth leg, but the 4 car ones in particular tend to resemble sardine tins between Reading and Birmingham.

Not fun at all.

 

[The Ham]

XC Voyagers aren't usually that heavily loaded on the Southampton-Bournemouth leg, but the 4 car ones in particular tend to resemble sardine tins between Reading and Birmingham.

Not fun at all.

However, this is one of the reasons that even a few more units will make a noticeable difference to XC, as XC could run four coach units from Bournemouth to Basingstoke where they could join with another 4 coach unit to run the rest of the way and only need 5 extra units to do so rather than the 7 needed to run the service doubled up all the way.

In addition, given that some of the existing services are run by 5 coach units these would be able to swap with services run by 4 coach units. Meaning that those services would see an increase in capacity.

In theory XC need up to 17 extra units before all their 220's can be run in double formation and all other services can be run by 221's. However, if we assume that 10% are spare (3 * 200's), 10% are currently already working in pairs (3 * 220's) and that some aren't needed to go to the far end of the network doubled up (4 * 220's) then you are down to only needing 12 extra units.

It is why I think that if XC end up with all the 222's as well (27 extra units) that we will see a reconfiguration of the unit lengths by the removal of some of the excessive number of end coaches from use. (I.e. scrap/store 70 end coaches and have a uniform fleet of 5 or 6 coach units, made up of all 17 of the 220"s being 6 coaches, 2 of the 221's as 6 coaches and the rest (20 to 40, depending on how many are freed from ICWC) and the 222's being 19*5 and 8*6.

Assuming that ICWC keep their existing fleet that would be 23 * 6 coach units and 39 * 5 coach units. That would be enough to replace all the current services run by a single 221 with one run by a 6 coach unit. Although that doesn't allow for the replacements of the HST's, so a few less end coaches may be retained to accommodate that with some shorter units.

 

[edwin_m]

However, this is one of the reasons that even a few more units will make a noticeable difference to XC, as XC could run four coach units from Bournemouth to Basingstoke where they could join with another 4 coach unit to run the rest of the way and only need 5 extra units to do so rather than the 7 needed to run the service doubled up all the way.

In addition, given that some of the existing services are run by 5 coach units these would be able to swap with services run by 4 coach units. Meaning that those services would see an increase in capacity.

In theory XC need up to 17 extra units before all their 220's can be run in double formation and all other services can be run by 221's. However, if we assume that 10% are spare (3 * 200's), 10% are currently already working in pairs (3 * 220's) and that some aren't needed to go to the far end of the network doubled up (4 * 220's) then you are down to only needing 12 extra units.

It is why I think that if XC end up with all the 222's as well (27 extra units) that we will see a reconfiguration of the unit lengths by the removal of some of the excessive number of end coaches from use. (I.e. scrap/store 70 end coaches and have a uniform fleet of 5 or 6 coach units, made up of all 17 of the 220"s being 6 coaches, 2 of the 221's as 6 coaches and the rest (20 to 40, depending on how many are freed from ICWC) and the 222's being 19*5 and 8*6.

Assuming that ICWC keep their existing fleet that would be 23 * 6 coach units and 39 * 5 coach units. That would be enough to replace all the current services run by a single 221 with one run by a 6 coach unit. Although that doesn't allow for the replacements of the HST's, so a few less end coaches may be retained to accommodate that with some shorter units.

Does this allow for the fact that 222s are electrically incompatible with 220/221s? They would probably need dedicating to a particular route to minimise the risk that the two might turn up on diagrams that need to couple to each other. It probably also makes it extremely expensive to transfer coaches between the two classes.

Bear in mind also that if you have extra units in service you also need more maintenance spares. The other problem is platform length, which is one reason why Project Thor proposed lengthening 4-car units to 5-car but not 5-car to 6-car. Some platforms are too short for a 12-car 22x formation, including termini and junctions where SDO wouldn't help.

 

[Haydn1971]

They are also very heavy and over-powered, and a large fraction of the floor area is unusable for seating. Hence the operating cost per seat is very high. I don't know if the lower operating costs of newer stock are enough to send the Voyagers to an early grave.

A very interesting point, which makes me ponder if a mid life reconfigure to remove storage and loos, modify the seating configuration and put passengers in currently unused areas at each end might be worthwhile to create a new regional unit on services that currently use 158/175s etc. Otherwise, as you suggest, the economics might just twist the knife in favour of an early trip to Rotherham !

 

[The Ham]

Does this allow for the fact that 222s are electrically incompatible with 220/221s? They would probably need dedicating to a particular route to minimise the risk that the two might turn up on diagrams that need to couple to each other. It probably also makes it extremely expensive to transfer coaches between the two classes.

Bear in mind also that if you have extra units in service you also need more maintenance spares. The other problem is platform length, which is one reason why Project Thor proposed lengthening 4-car units to 5-car but not 5-car to 6-car. Some platforms are too short for a 12-car 22x formation, including termini and junctions where SDO wouldn't help.

With changing of unit lengths I had assumed that central coaches form 220's would only be used in combination with 220's; and likewise the 221's and 222's.

Given the majority of XC services are run as single units the risk would be relatively minimal that a 222 turned up with a 220/221 unit. However the current XC fleet is 23 * 221's and 34 * 220's whilst the above assumption was 27 (sorry I miscounted when I said 23 in my earlier post) 6 coach units (17 * 220's, 2 * 221's and 8 * 222's) and 39 * 5 coach units (20 * 221's and 19 * 222's), as such there would be 9 extra units (so only the need for one extra spare, assuming 10% spare). As such it should be fairly easy to split the 5 coach units in such a way that they could be run on dedicated axis of the network to further minimise the risk of the wrong class being the only unit available to run paired up.

IIRC Project Thor needed 2 pantagraph coaches for units of 6 coaches or longer. However the majority of the fleet (59%) would be 5 coach units and so it is unlikely that there would be a need for a pair of 6 coach units to form a train.

Of course it could even be possible that XC would opt for a more complex range of unit lengths. For instance forming the 222's into a fleet of 12 units with 9 coaches and one of 7 coaches so that they will never be able to run in pairs with anything else and then have a mix of 5 and 6 coach units (which will also not likely need to run in pairs given the long unit lengths) for the rest of the fleet made up of 220's or 221's.

 

[XCTurbostar]

With CrossCountry's Franchise now extended until October 2019.. This will get very close to that deadline for HST removal.

Does anyone know if there is a plan to displace them which has been outlined in the new extension documents? Can CrossCountry operate the HST diagrams with Voyagers?

Thanks,
Ross

 

[ABB125]

There may not be enough voyagers to cover all the diagrams, and voyagers have less capacity. And what would you rather have: voyager or HST? (I've never actually been on an XC HST, they're always going in the wrong direction when I travel. I assume they are quite nice inside.)

 

[XCTurbostar]

There may not be enough voyagers to cover all the diagrams, and voyagers have less capacity. And what would you rather have: voyager or HST? (I've never actually been on an XC HST, they're always going in the wrong direction when I travel. I assume they are quite nice inside.)

For me, it would be a case of Chilternise the Mk3s and then take on additional HSTs to displace some voyagers. However, the HSTs are poor at keeping time and when they loose time its hard to make it back.

Thanks,
Ross

 

[richieb1971]

It might be my eyes, but the XC HST examples I have seen are by far the worst condition examples I've seen.

 

[sprinterguy]

With CrossCountry's Franchise now extended until October 2019...

According to whom? Nothing's even been officially communicated amongst employees, which you would imagine would be the first port of call.

It might be my eyes, but the XC HST examples I have seen are by far the worst condition examples I've seen.

Their external appearance does leave something to be desired when Great Western seem to get even the carriage ends of their mark 3s gleaming these days - I take it that the latter has some sort of hand washing regime going on that the VTEC regime for Crosscountry's HSTs does not, potentially one of the down sides of outsourcing all your maintenance requirements. Internally, though they're wonderful trains (although, as ever, opinions on seat comfort vary), as long as you don't have to work one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There may not be enough voyagers to cover all the diagrams, and voyagers have less capacity.

Even if Crosscountry were to split the very few services which currently operate with a pair of Voyagers I don't think you could find sufficient units to cover the HST services; the fleet is stretched about as far as it will go already. Even if they could, that would be turning seven and eight carriage services, which really need the capacity, into four carriage ones: Not something that anyone wants to see.

 

[duffield]

Can CrossCountry operate the HST diagrams with Voyagers?

Thanks,
Ross

Yes**. And they quite often do when things go wrong (I travel on XC between DBY and EXD* quite frequently and always go for the HSTs if possible. I seem to be quite unlucky since nearly half the time I end up with a Voyager).

My understanding is that the HST paths allow more time because of the slower acceleration so Voyagers can do HST diagrams but not the other way round (if they are to keep to time).

When I do get an XC HST I always find them in very good condition internally (but maybe that's just 1st class).

* DBY=Derby, EXD=Exeter St. Davids

** I mean from the timing point of view, *not* from the point of view of them having enough Voyagers!

I'm betting the HST 'deadline' will be extended a bit, anyhow.

 

[RobShipway]

With CrossCountry's Franchise now extended until October 2019.. This will get very close to that deadline for HST removal.

Does anyone know if there is a plan to displace them which has been outlined in the new extension documents? Can CrossCountry operate the HST diagrams with Voyagers?

Thanks,
Ross

Like it will be for GWR if they still need to be using HST trains, I think that XC will be able to use their HST trains pass the 2019 date. You have to note that for GWR, that the class 802 will have only just started to be introduced in December 2018 so there will still be a need for GWR to be using some HST sets.

 

[E_Reeves]

I hope they don't get rid of the HSTs. They are pretty reliable and extremely comfortable! I've only just had my first ride on one 2 days ago!

 

[Clarence Yard]

The word on the tracks is that all 5 sets are due to get PRM'd in 2017/8 if the franchise extension deal (rumoured to be fairly imminent) goes through.

 

[Tempest3K]

It might be my eyes, but the XC HST examples I have seen are by far the worst condition examples I've seen.

All of XC's fleet look that way on the outside (well, HST & Voyager - only seen a couple of their 170's but they looked grim too...) however, the XC interior on HST is generally good. Unlike a Voyager the MK3's are well lit and generally seem cleaner!