Electrodiesel Class 22x?

[jopsuk]

I think they're supposed to remain coupled for the service, but split/joing between services somewhat. Though once when still on Virgin XC I travlled Edinburgh-St Austell- a unit came from Dundee, coupled to a second at Edinburgh, somewhere (may have been Leeds) the rear unit was poorly so it was deatached and another added to the front, then at Plymouth the (now) rear unit was detached with only the fron going forward to Cornwall. This was though exceptional.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Splitting high speed units also has the disadvantage of being very inefficient space wise. Cabs and the crumple zones behind them take up a lot of space, and there are 4 of those needed for a splittable unit. Each unit also needs duplicate facilities, so twice as many buffets and twice as many disabled toilets. Due to the fact that high speed units can't easily be gangwayed, it also means some crew have to be doubled up. Splitting and joining also takes time, is a source of unreliability, and also has safety implications (all of which are significant reasons not to use loco swaps or drags, yet are just as significant, or not, when it comes to units).

 

[DarloRich]

I have a plan - go to Derby ( or NRM or wherever) look in filing cabinet for HST plans, extract, photocopy, tart up for 21st century, build, operate - simples

We have a system that works. Why can’t we build a newer, better version. Why do we have to have horrible Voyager clones? WHY?

Bi mode to me seem to be a bit a red herring. Why bother? it seems silly to cart all those engines and feul about for maybe 50-100 miles at the end of the line. It just seems like more stuff to go wrong.

Why not build these trains as electrics with the ability to be dragged?

 

[jopsuk]

The idea of adding coaches to the 22x fleet to make them b-mode isn't too bad- whilst it would be inefficient hauling around the electical equipment off the wires and the diesel engines under the wires, it would mean improving capacity and working with what we've already got, which is no bad thing.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Just one more thing. Correct me if I'm wrong but when Bombardier has spoken of the possibility of building new 22X vehicles, have they ever said it would be at Derby? Bombardier are not a British company, they are a Canadian Company who's rail division is based in Germany, but happens to have a plant in the UK. None of the 22Xs were built at Derby, so there is no guarentee any future vehicles would be either. IEP on the other hand is to be built in the UK, so on the purely British jobs front, IEP is as good as if not better than 22X ED.

 

[HSTEd]

The transformer pack that is used for electrical operation isn't that heavy and an electrical traction bus is useful even under diesel power as it would, if the software allowed, allow any engine to power any traction motor, which would remove the problems with not being able to tackle the Lickey Incline due to lack of engines as you would still have all your tractive effort available, you would just have to run up it slowly.

With our relatively small stop frequencies, especially on the East Coast Route, the relatively slack acceleration of loco hauled rolling stock is rather damaging to journey times.
If we assumed for a minute the ECML was now a high speed route with 140mph running throughout, a 395 could make the London-Peterborough-York-Darlington-Newcastle-Berwick-Edinburgh run in roughly 3.5 hours versus ~4 for a Class 91 doing the same.
Does the discomfort of having traction motors making a little noise under the floor really equal having half an hour longer journey times? 3.5 hours is matching the airline journey time (including Heathrow Express, security and suchlike) and as such would allow the railway to finally put to bed the majority of domestic airline travel.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Is there any proof that a 395 could manage 3.5hours on a 140mph ECML? The main advantage units have over loco hauled is from a standing start, but once speed has picked up the advantage decreases until eventually it disapears. The advantage is only really significant on services with regular stops where trains are spending most of their time accelerating. Once you get about 10miles between stops it's really not a factor. It's also not fair to compare a modern EMU with AC traction motors to an older loco with DC traction motors. AC gives significant advantages in terms of starting performance by allowing the train to make best use of available grip. It's also lighter weight for a given power output, allowing higher power-weight ratios. A modern loco with AC motors would perform much more like a modern EMU. Remember most units are powered on half their axles or less anyway.

 

[HSTEd]

Well I crunched those numbers using the stop distances and the documented performance of the 395 on Ebbsfleet-Ashford international, which I admit is an extremely crude model but a better one is hard to derive from easily available information.

Either way it seems extremely unlikely we will see any more true loco hauled stock built for use in the United Kingdom, even the TGV is heading for replacement with the AGV and the ICE has already gone.

EDIT: Even a 395 is powered on only 16 of its 24 axles and I believe some Japanese shinkansen sets manage to reach 100% of axles powered.

 

[MCR247]

Splitting high speed units also has the disadvantage of being very inefficient space wise. Cabs and the crumple zones behind them take up a lot of space, and there are 4 of those needed for a splittable unit. Each unit also needs duplicate facilities, so twice as many buffets and twice as many disabled toilets. Due to the fact that high speed units can't easily be gangwayed, it also means some crew have to be doubled up. Splitting and joining also takes time, is a source of unreliability, and also has safety implications (all of which are significant reasons not to use loco swaps or drags, yet are just as significant, or not, when it comes to units).

Oh an a loco isn't a load of wasted space? :roll:

 

[ChrisCooper]

Oh an a loco isn't a load of wasted space? :roll:

I never said a loco wasn't wasted space!

 

[HSTEd]

Assuming the EMU is a doubled up 395 with 8 motor vehicles and 4 trailers, the train would be adhesion limited up to a speed of roughly 10-15mph and would at that point be solely power limited.
The train would weigh approximately 550t and have 8960hp and a power to weight ratio of 16.3hp/t.
A class 91+9 Mark IV+DVT weighs in at roughly 500t with 6300hp, it is adhesion limited under good conditions to roughly 37.5mph and has a power to weight ratio of 13hp/t.
The multiple unit would be at 50mph before its tractive effort to weight ratio was similar to that of the Class 91 train at starting.

Ofcourse the employment of such a multiple unit would probably require massive overhauls of the traction power supplies on the ECML but that is probably overdue anyway.

A Multiple unit can also derive almost all of its service brakeforce from a regenerative braking system which is not practical for loco hauled stock unless you wish to have the train operate with locomotive brakes only which would reduce average speeds, using the coaches brakes result in significant energy expenditure and wear on the braking system.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Lets face facts there will be no more orders for loco hauled stock in the UK! EMU's, DMU's and IEP type designs are the way forward. Quite rightly there is no way that the DfT will agree to anything else!

 

[HSTEd]

On another note, some kind of Electrodiesel Electrostar is probably easier to engineer and just as important to reducing "under the wires" running as it would mean that many routes that are run largely under wires would be able to use them. (Norwich-Liverpool comes to mind as a particularly egregious example, especially with the impending MML electrification, and the WEML to a lesser extent)

 

[junglejames]

Using RJ660 Vienna-Salzburg as an example, which departs Vienna at 0614 tomorrow morning. It achieves the highest stop-to-stop average speed of 142kph between St. Polten and Linz. Over a distance of approximately 128km.

The first Class 395 service from Ebbsfleet to Ashford International with a similar top speed (its slightly higher at the moment due to the higher top speed on HS1 to the Westbahn but not an order of magnitude difference) covers the 53km from Ebbsfleet to Ashford in 19 minutes, an average speed of 167kph on a hop half the length.

So there we go, although the 395 has a 140mph top speed compared to the current 125mph top speed on the Westbahn that doesn't make up for the insanely higher acceleration of the 395.

We are not looking for LHCS for short hops. We are looking for LHCS on long Intercity journeys where acceleration doesnt matter as much.
You mentioned a while back about not reaching top speed. So 91s never reach top speed? LHCS can always reach top speed. They can have good acceleration. Not as good as some MUs, but good enough for an Intercity journey.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh an a loco isn't a load of wasted space? :roll:

Eh, not as much as too many driving cabs and space doing nothing because of the speed of the MU.
Afterall, traction equipment on the loco means more space under a coach for other equipment. Which means it doesnt have to be crammed elsewhere into the coach. Result is a more spacious coach.

 

[Barrett M95]

Well I crunched those numbers using the stop distances and the documented performance of the 395 on Ebbsfleet-Ashford international, which I admit is an extremely crude model but a better one is hard to derive from easily available information.

Either way it seems extremely unlikely we will see any more true loco hauled stock built for use in the United Kingdom, even the TGV is heading for replacement with the AGV and the ICE has already gone.

EDIT: Even a 395 is powered on only 16 of its 24 axles and I believe some Japanese shinkansen sets manage to reach 100% of axles powered.

395s have a top speed of 140mph as you know but I can tell you thy may get off the mark well up to about 160km/h but believe me from 160 to 225 they take so long that most of them in service rarely top 210km/h. They really struggle at their top service speed. It seems to be their gearing is optimised for acceleration to moderately high speeds. I've spoken to some of the drivers about this.

 

[RichmondCommu]

We are not looking for LHCS for short hops. We are looking for LHCS on long Intercity journeys where acceleration doesnt matter as much.
You mentioned a while back about not reaching top speed. So 91s never reach top speed? LHCS can always reach top speed. They can have good acceleration. Not as good as some MUs, but good enough for an Intercity journey.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We? I wasn't aware that you represented the Department for Transport? With regard to rail travel speed is everything and that includes acceleration! The future is EMU's and DMU's (IEP or not). No more loco hauled stock will be built for this country and I would put my mortgage on that.

 

[HSTEd]

395s have a top speed of 140mph as you know but I can tell you thy may get off the mark well up to about 160km/h but believe me from 160 to 225 they take so long that most of them in service rarely top 210km/h. They really struggle at their top service speed. It seems to be their gearing is optimised for acceleration to moderately high speeds. I've spoken to some of the drivers about this.

Thats a bit.... odd....
Perhaps some kind of multiple gear final drive?

 

[Chris125]

395s have a top speed of 140mph as you know but I can tell you thy may get off the mark well up to about 160km/h but believe me from 160 to 225 they take so long that most of them in service rarely top 210km/h. They really struggle at their top service speed. It seems to be their gearing is optimised for acceleration to moderately high speeds. I've spoken to some of the drivers about this.

You sure this hasnt got more to do with the timings not needing 140mph? Unless they need to recover time, there's just no need to keep accelerating much beyond 125.

Chris

 

[Barrett M95]

Yes. I can't accurately quote the words used but there was a definite impression of mild disappointment that line speeds demanded were not always achieved especially on gradients - and there are plenty of those on CTRL. It wasn't a case of not needing the speed. Their relative lack of top end speed (they are only semi-high speed trains really) does mean they often get caught by 373s particularly south of Ebbsfleet where there is a big difference in cruising speeds. 373s can keep their 270 to 300 even up the gradients whereas the 395s seem to be dropping to around 200 rather than 225. That is a 100km/h difference which with a 3 minute headway as is often used means they can get in the way. Their impressive acceleration from a stand goes some way to make up for it but only so far.

 

[DarloRich]

The transformer pack that is used for electrical operation isn't that heavy and an electrical traction bus is useful even under diesel power as it would, if the software allowed, allow any engine to power any traction motor, which would remove the problems with not being able to tackle the Lickey Incline due to lack of engines as you would still have all your tractive effort available, you would just have to run up it slowly.

With our relatively small stop frequencies, especially on the East Coast Route, the relatively slack acceleration of loco hauled rolling stock is rather damaging to journey times.
If we assumed for a minute the ECML was now a high speed route with 140mph running throughout, a 395 could make the London-Peterborough-York-Darlington-Newcastle-Berwick-Edinburgh run in roughly 3.5 hours versus ~4 for a Class 91 doing the same.
Does the discomfort of having traction motors making a little noise under the floor really equal having half an hour longer journey times? 3.5 hours is matching the airline journey time (including Heathrow Express, security and suchlike) and as such would allow the railway to finally put to bed the majority of domestic airline travel.

Yes because we all want to spend 3.5 hours sat on a commuter train! :roll::roll: Do you want to sit on that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Class_395_MSO_Interior.JPG

or that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:6_Mark_IV_FO_Interior.JPG

or that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CrosscountryMark3.JPG

Offer me 3.5 hours on a class 395 style train or 4 hours on a train formed of comfortable well equipped INTERCITY stock I would take the slower journey.
I might be old fashioned or just plain stupid in demanding a bit of relaxation and comfort on a long journey rather than being crammed in cheek by jowl or shaken to death or contracting vibration white finger every time I try to use my lap top.

Sorry about that but why does modern equal a reduction in passenger journey environment?

 

[sprinterguy]

Comparing standard class in a 395 to first class in a mark 4 is a tad unfair, and it is possible to fit any sort of seating you'd like into any design of train. You could easily specify Mallard seating for an EMU replacement of the mark 4s.

I don't have a problem with specifying EMUs for Intercity routes if they are well specced, as the traction motor noise is negligible and in fact I have found there to be less track noise coming from the wheelsets on a Pendolino than in a mark 3 at speed when sitting in the passenger saloon. The only issue with the current run of Intercity EMUs is that their specification has been lousy: Poor seat to window alignment, poor seats themselves, claustrophobic interiors, smelly toilets and pathetic luggage space, which are all problems that could plague new loco hauled stock just the same.

I do vehemently disagree with allocating underfloor DMUs to long distance routes though. If you're not going to electrify the route, then get some proper trains with a loco/power car up front so that I can have some peace and quiet and not be rattled to death for crying out loud.

 

[HSTEd]

Im not sure how specifying intercity grade seating for a Class 395 will change its performance to an enormous extent, its not like table seats are massively heavier than those 2+2 high density ones.

Also on routes like London-Aberdeen presumabely the diesels would not be switched on before Haymarket (or wherever the wires will finish by then) so there would not be any shaking for the vast majority of the passengers, and the alternative above Aberdeen is pretty much sprinters.

I also note that on lower speed routes that you could probably run with only some of the diesels, so the guard could easily announce "We will be isolating the diesels in First Class and in the Standard Class in Coach B" so that people can move to the coaches with the isolated engines as I somehow doubt that a 10 vehicle train will be full on those parts of the route as a regular occurrence.

 

[DarloRich]

Comparing standard class in a 395 to first class in a mark 4 is a tad unfair, and it is possible to fit any sort of seating you'd like into any design of train. You could easily specify Mallard seating for an EMU replacement of the mark 4s.

I don't have a problem with specifying EMUs for Intercity routes if they are well specced, as the traction motor noise is negligible and in fact I have found there to be less track noise coming from the wheelsets on a Pendolino than in a mark 3 at speed when sitting in the passenger saloon. The only issue with the current run of Intercity EMUs is that their specification has been lousy: Poor seat to window alignment, poor seats themselves, claustrophobic interiors, smelly toilets and pathetic luggage space, which are all problems that could plague new loco hauled stock just the same.

I do vehemently disagree with allocating underfloor DMUs to long distance routes though. If you're not going to electrify the route, then get some proper trains with a loco/power car up front so that I can have some peace and quiet and not be rattled to death for crying out loud.

They are precisely my views! The spec is the key. I am not some luddite who wants a return to Deltics and mark II's (now there is a thought!) but i DO want a comfortable, well laid out, well equipped, pleasent place to be. I DO NOT want a cramped, claustrophobic, uncomfortable, cave like snot box!

 

[HSTEd]

I like Mallard 2+1, despite the tilt profiled bodysides it seems so much more spacious than a 390, but there is no reason that a non tilting EMU could not be more spacious inside and still have seats that line up with the windows. (How did that happen with 390s? its not like they were derived from an existing body shell like the Mark 3 stock).


Edit: as this was originally part of the plan to replace HSTs on the East Coast I propose something of the following:-

Step A: Purchase a fleet of electrodiesel multiple units derived from the Class 222 to be deployed on routes such as Aberdeen-London.
Step B: Wire Hull, Leeds-York and other bits in the name of improving redundancy and eliminating near all-electric diesel diagrams.
Step C: Purchase a class of non tilting 140mph EMUs to displace the electrodiesels onto routes such as Cross Country and to improve services north of Edinburgh where wiring is unlikely to ever become even remotely feasible.
Step D: As the Class 91s near retirement, purchase ~160mph Pendolino derived tilting stock to replace them, perhaps displacing the Class 91s to secondary routes instead of retiring them.

Its expensive but I think its the best option for keeping the ECML competitive with the western routes which will likely become extremely crowded extremely quickly

 

[apk55]

I like the idea of electro diesel units for working many of our cross country services, where a significant part is run under the wires. It is reasonable to assume that a lower performance on diesel is acceptable as most none electrified lines have lower speed limits and a balancing speed of 80mph on level track would be acceptable. The advantages of a through service would outweigh the small timing gains that higher power would bring.

Two other suggestions are

1/ Third rail operation as well.
This type of unit could be useful for services such as Waterloo to Exeter as well as cross country services such as Manchester to Bornemouth.

2/ Use of Supercapacitor energy storage.
Supercapcitors are a form of energy storage device that can be charged and very quickly although they have limited storage capacity. On a train this can give a short term power boost when accelerating and store braking energy for the next acceleration. Very useful for regional services with frequent stops or speed changes enabling diesel engines can be run on load for a higher percentage of the time, improving fuel efficiency as well as recycling braking energy. An interesting article on the subject can be found at http://www.allianz-pro-schiene.de/v...-des-eisenbahnverkehrs/praesentation-kehl.pdf .

 

[40086]

I like Mallard 2+1, despite the tilt profiled bodysides it seems so much more spacious than a 390, but there is no reason that a non tilting EMU could not be more spacious inside and still have seats that line up with the windows. (How did that happen with 390s? its not like they were derived from an existing body shell like the Mark 3 stock).


Edit: as this was originally part of the plan to replace HSTs on the East Coast I propose something of the following:-

Step A: Purchase a fleet of electrodiesel multiple units derived from the Class 222 to be deployed on routes such as Aberdeen-London.
Step B: Wire Hull, Leeds-York and other bits in the name of improving redundancy and eliminating near all-electric diesel diagrams.
Step C: Purchase a class of non tilting 140mph EMUs to displace the electrodiesels onto routes such as Cross Country and to improve services north of Edinburgh where wiring is unlikely to ever become even remotely feasible.
Step D: As the Class 91s near retirement, purchase ~160mph Pendolino derived tilting stock to replace them, perhaps displacing the Class 91s to secondary routes instead of retiring them.

Its expensive but I think its the best option for keeping the ECML competitive with the western routes which will likely become extremely crowded extremely quickly

No no no no!!!

Edinburgh - Kings Cross with electric traction (EMUs can be comfortable long distance with correct specified interior!) then stick a diesel loco on for the northern sections to Aberdeen / Inverness.

Why would you want to lug diesel power units & associated auxiliaries under the wires adding to weight & therefore track wear & energy consumption in having to shift it? It's a daft idea, the only reasonable solution is a diesel loco, & forget the 9 minute engine change gibberish, I've seen an engine swap done in Germany in 3 minutes so an EMU buffering up with modern couplers should be just as fast!

Although given current fuel prices I suspect a case can be made for wiring up most of the country including Aberdeen at least! Remember by 2014 E-G will be done and as far North as Dunblane, if you then go with Fife commuter routes Aberdeen & Perth are easy add ons!

 

[DarloRich]

There is an interesting article on IEP on page 28 in the September issue of Modern Railways. Have a look.

Why is passenger comfort not the number 1 priority? The thought of a fleet of long distance Voyager based units makes me shudder. The folk that seem to love these things CLEARLY have never done regular long distance journeys on this type of train.

Again - WHY DOES MODERNITY MEAN A LESS COMFORTBALE EXPERIANCE?

 

[sprinterguy]

There is an interesting article on IEP on page 28 in the September issue of Modern Railways. Have a look.

Why is passenger comfort not the number 1 priority? The thought of a fleet of long distance Voyager based units makes me shudder. The folk that seem to love these things CLEARLY have never done regular long distance journeys on this type of train.

Again - WHY DOES MODERNITY MEAN A LESS COMFORTBALE EXPERIANCE?

Agreed. The IEP project originally started out as "HST2", a straight replacement for the time served HST. As such, I expected a similar level of development and consideration put into the development of these trains as was the case with the HSTs (Arranging the first class seating bays so that they matched the length of the windows, etc), but all such considerations seem to have gone out of the window. IEP is trying to be too many things to too many people, a jack of all trades but a master of none.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

as this was originally part of the plan to replace HSTs on the East Coast I propose something of the following:-

Step A: Purchase a fleet of electrodiesel multiple units derived from the Class 222 to be deployed on routes such as Aberdeen-London.
Step B: Wire Hull, Leeds-York and other bits in the name of improving redundancy and eliminating near all-electric diesel diagrams.
Step C: Purchase a class of non tilting 140mph EMUs to displace the electrodiesels onto routes such as Cross Country and to improve services north of Edinburgh where wiring is unlikely to ever become even remotely feasible.
Step D: As the Class 91s near retirement, purchase ~160mph Pendolino derived tilting stock to replace them, perhaps displacing the Class 91s to secondary routes instead of retiring them.

Its expensive but I think its the best option for keeping the ECML competitive with the western routes which will likely become extremely crowded extremely quickly

That seems to be an excessive amount of stock procurement for the ECML, and why would you specify 160mph capable stock? Without in-cab signalling, even 140mph is beyond the scope of Intercity operation,and by raising the line speed you reduce the number of paths available for freight and local trains and increase the number of conflicts with these services on what is a predominantly twin track railway.

Ideally, electrification of the MML, if only it was going to happen anytime soon, would release 222s for use on the ECML (Mainly the seven car units, but a few five car trains would be required as well) as bi-mode trains with pantograph cars, and electrification of the Transpennine routes would see Leeds-York and Hull electrified. With Scotlands' current pro-active approach to electrification, I wouldn't be surprised if Aberdeen is electrified by the time the 225 come up for replacement as well.

I think the ECML could get by with the six 7-car and four former Hull Trains 4-car 222s (With pantograph cars that'd provide six 9-car trains and four 5/6-car units, with the long sets on the Scottish runs and the shorter ones on the shorter distance English flows) even without those electrification projects if only a couple of additional electric trains sets could be procured (90s and mark 3s, or whatever), leaving seventeen 7-car bi-mode sets for the GWML or XC.

And then if/when those sections of electrification are completed, then order a fleet of forty 140mph capable (While I have outlined the problems of 140mph running above, I think that the installation of in-cab signalling to allow higher speed running over sections of the ECML would be a realistic aspiration within the course of the trains 30-40 year life spans) electric sets to replace the 225s. Sorted.

 

[40086]

Agreed. The IEP project originally started out as "HST2", a straight replacement for the time served HST. As such, I expected a similar level of development and consideration put into the development of these trains as was the case with the HSTs (Arranging the first class seating bays so that they matched the length of the windows, etc), but all such considerations seem to have gone out of the window. IEP is trying to be too many things to too many people, a jack of all trades but a master of none.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That seems to be an excessive amount of stock procurement for the ECML, and why would you specify 160mph capable stock? Without in-cab signalling, even 140mph is beyond the scope of Intercity operation,and by raising the line speed you reduce the number of paths available for freight and local trains and increase the number of conflicts with these services on what is a predominantly twin track railway.

Ideally, electrification of the MML, if only it was going to happen anytime soon, would release 222s for use on the ECML (Mainly the seven car units, but a few five car trains would be required as well) as bi-mode trains with pantograph cars, and electrification of the Transpennine routes would see Leeds-York and Hull electrified. With Scotlands' current pro-active approach to electrification, I wouldn't be surprised if Aberdeen is electrified by the time the 225 come up for replacement as well.

I think the ECML could get by with the six 7-car and four former Hull Trains 4-car 222s (With pantograph cars that'd provide six 9-car trains and four 5/6-car units, with the long sets on the Scottish runs and the shorter ones on the shorter distance English flows) even without those electrification projects if only a couple of additional electric trains sets could be procured (90s and mark 3s, or whatever), leaving seventeen 7-car bi-mode sets for the GWML or XC.

And then if/when those sections of electrification are completed, then order a fleet of forty 140mph capable (While I have outlined the problems of 140mph running above, I think that the installation of in-cab signalling to allow higher speed running over sections of the ECML would be a realistic aspiration within the course of the trains 30-40 year life spans) electric sets to replace the 225s. Sorted.

I would still advocate if you wanted to use 222s on the ECML North of Edinburgh that the transformer cars are added but the diesel power units are removed to make them straight electric and drag them north! The hybrid thing is just too wasteful on infrastructure wear & energy consumption (which actually sums Britain up really, no forward planning, chuck broken stuff into landfill instead of repair etc!).

Privatisation was a missed opportunity, rolling electrification should have been implemented at that time and the Voyagers should never have been built! What short-sighted individuals honestly believed diesel prices would remain affordable for the projected life of a Voyager! Never learn though do we?

 

[sidmouth]

This article might be of relevance to the thread:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/11/bombardier-120m-crosscountry-trains-deal