Future of 22x Units

[greatvoyager]

I agree that Cardiff to Nottingham could be a future service for 22x units, to release Turbostars to strengthen other routes. Whether Voyagers or Meridians are suitable is another question though.

 

[221129]

Will 22x units be required to have the automated announcements/PIS installed?

They already have it.

 

[greatvoyager]

They already have it.

Thanks for confirming.

 

[greatvoyager]

As voyagers are overpowered for requirements, can engines be de-rated?

 

[greatvoyager]

I believe there is potential for a re-engine programme for the fleet as a way to cut emissions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As voyagers are overpowered for requirements, can engines be de-rated?

How are they overpowered for requirements? They are correctly powered for a 125mph DMU. They are no use for anything else because they waste platform space with a long nose that is not required for a slower service.

It's Class 185s that are overpowered.

 

[greatvoyager]

How are they overpowered for requirements? They are correctly powered for a 125mph DMU. They are no use for anything else because they waste platform space with a long nose that is not required for a slower service.

It's Class 185s that are overpowered.

Many of the lines they serve have lower speed limits, in particular south of Birmingham.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Many of the lines they serve have lower speed limits, in particular south of Birmingham.

But most routes have at least some 125mph running. Ergo they are not overpowered.

 

[LOL The Irony]

because they waste platform space with a long nose that is not required for a slower service.

The driving cars of a Voyager are shorter than the trailers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The driving cars of a Voyager are shorter than the trailers.

But about a quarter to a third of the driving car doesn't contain any passenger accommodation nor really could it due to the layout and lack of windows - it's this that is wasting space if the train isn't going to run over 110mph.

There's too much wrong with them that, once XC are done with them, there would be any point in trying to fix them up.

Add to these other points that we really need to move to an outright ban on the use of diesel under the wires except where the wires have failed, and particularly in stations like New St. If all diesel trains were banned from it it would be so much nicer - imagine cleaning the roof back to bare concrete and making a feature of it with uplighters?

Bin them off and order more 80x.

 

[greatvoyager]

But about a quarter to a third of the driving car doesn't contain any passenger accommodation nor really could it due to the layout and lack of windows - it's this that is wasting space if the train isn't going to run over 110mph.

There's too much wrong with them that, once XC are done with them, there would be any point in trying to fix them up.

Part of the nose section contains the catering facilities without which there may be problems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Part of the nose section contains the catering facilities without which there may be problems.

A full kitchen is not applicable to "XC-lite" routes. Indeed, it isn't really applicable to anything other than peak-hour Virgin Trains services.

 

[greatvoyager]

A full kitchen is not applicable to "XC-lite" routes. Indeed, it isn't really applicable to anything other than peak-hour Virgin Trains services.

Maybe they can compromise bt moving catering to one area, and converting the old kitchen to a seated area with additional leg room.

 

[MarkyT]

It could be argued that the non-tilting 220s are overpowered as they have the same installed power per car as the 221s but are about 8 tonnes lighter per car. Even after tilting was removed from the XC 221s, most of the extra weight was still there in the heavy outside frame bogies. Voyagers of both types also run around routinely with one engine shut down, yet manage to keep time, so again that suggests they are somewhat over the top for their assigned duties today. It should be remembered that many timings were relaxed somewhat after the Operation Princess timetable meltdown on initial introduction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe they can compromise bt moving catering to one area, and converting the old kitchen to a seated area with additional leg room.

It'd be allowed, I guess, if the unit top speed was reduced to 110mph, but with no windows it'd be utterly grim.

 

[Meerkat]

Call it the reduced sensory load area and pretend you are being very aware.

 

[greatvoyager]

It could be argued that the non-tilting 220s are overpowered as they have the same installed power per car as the 221s but are about 8 tonnes lighter per car. Even after tilting was removed from the XC 221s, most of the extra weight was still there in the heavy outside frame bogies. Voyagers of both types also run around routinely with one engine shut down, yet manage to keep time, so again that suggests they are somewhat over the top for their assigned duties today. It should be remembered that many timings were relaxed somewhat after the Operation Princess timetable meltdown on initial introduction.

Which makes me wonder why voyager trailers aren't an option.

 

[JamesT]

Which makes me wonder why voyager trailers aren't an option.

Isn't the usual answer that they're so long out of production that it would be expensive to reinstate a production line to produce new carriages, even if they're unpowered? (Same reason producing a pantograph car isn't going to happen either).

 

[greatvoyager]

Isn't the usual answer that they're so long out of production that it would be expensive to reinstate a production line to produce new carriages, even if they're unpowered? (Same reason producing a pantograph car isn't going to happen either).

True, but they did re-open the Pendolino production line for 106 vehicles, and there would be 105 vehicles required to provide for all 22x units with a pantograph car.

 

[option]

Which makes me wonder why voyager trailers aren't an option.

Do you need all the sets as sets though?
What if you split a few up to release the carriages to be put into other sets

 

[greatvoyager]

Do you need all the sets as sets though?
What if you split a few up to release the carriages to be put into other sets

The problem is that doesn't really increase capacity. Extra cars would, but splitting them up would leave some services with less seats.

 

[JamesT]

True, but they did re-open the Pendolino production line for 106 vehicles, and there would be 105 vehicles required to provide for all 22x units with a pantograph car.

There was a gap of 5 years between production runs of class 390. It’s now been almost 15 since the last 22x was produced.

 

[greatvoyager]

There was a gap of 5 years between production runs of class 390. It’s now been almost 15 since the last 22x was produced.

Again true, but it stands to reason that if there is real demand for it, it could happen.

 

[greatvoyager]

Seeing as the XC 221s are no longer fitted with the tilt equipment, why don't they replace the Y36 bogies with the B5005 bogies that the 220/222 have, or even the flex-eco version as fitted to the 172?

 

[Meerkat]

New carriages for decades old trains are going to cost a fortune to lease - what do the ROSCOs do with them when the original bit of the train heads for the scrap heap?

 

[greatvoyager]

New carriages for decades old trains are going to cost a fortune to lease - what do the ROSCOs do with them when the original bit of the train heads for the scrap heap?

The 22xs are about mid life in terms of how long they'll last. I'm not sure what they'd do, but it's not like there is nothing they can do.

 

[The Ham]

New carriages for decades old trains are going to cost a fortune to lease - what do the ROSCOs do with them when the original bit of the train heads for the scrap heap?

Indeed, it's why it's "better" for the ROSCOs to provide new units (say 9 coaches long) and then scrap some end coaches (about 22 should do it from the 220's to create a uniform 5 coach fleet).

If you had 13*9 coach units (117 new coaches) you'd be able to run the same number of diagrams without many more coaches than you'd have ordered for the lengthening of the 22x fleets, but you've only scrapped 22 coaches early rather than 100 or so at the end of the 22x fleet's life.

 

[JonathanH]

Indeed, it's why it's "better" for the ROSCOs to provide new units (say 9 coaches long) and then scrap some end coaches (about 22 should do it from the 220's to create a uniform 5 coach fleet).

If you had 13*9 coach units (117 new coaches) you'd be able to run the same number of diagrams without many more coaches than you'd have ordered for the lengthening of the 22x fleets, but you've only scrapped 22 coaches early rather than 100 or so at the end of the 22x fleet's life.

That is so unnecessary - doubling up 220s on the core part of the route is a more effective way of increasing capacity without scrapping perfectly adequate carriages and building new ones for what could be as little as 15-20 years life. Even new build units of another type and scrapping Voyager coaches mean that you have the problem of a partial fleet replacement at some point in the future.

There are four main routes
Plymouth / Cornwall to Edinburgh / Glasgow / Aberdeen
Exeter / Bristol to Manchester
Southampton / Reading to Newcastle
Bournemouth to Manchester

Use the flexibility of separate units to double up on the core bits
Plymouth to Newcastle
Bristol to Manchester
Reading to York
Reading to Manchester

and perhaps allow more extensions where capacity allows but there is currently insufficient rolling stock.

 

[The Ham]

That is so unnecessary - doubling up 220s on the core part of the route is a more effective way of increasing capacity without scrapping perfectly adequate carriages and building new ones for what could be as little as 15-20 years life. Even new build units of another type and scrapping Voyager coaches mean that you have the problem of a partial fleet replacement at some point in the future.

There are four main routes
Plymouth / Cornwall to Edinburgh / Glasgow / Aberdeen
Exeter / Bristol to Manchester
Southampton / Reading to Newcastle
Bournemouth to Manchester

Use the flexibility of separate units to double up on the core bits
Plymouth to Newcastle
Bristol to Manchester
Reading to York
Reading to Manchester

and perhaps allow more extensions where capacity allows but there is currently insufficient rolling stock.

I was replying to a suggestion of lengthening the Voyagers and how it would be better to do something different for not much cost difference.

However I do disagree on the premise that scraping end coaches is a waste. In that if the 22x's ever get retired from the XC franchise then either the whole lot will be scrapped or some end coaches will be scrapped to allow the lengthening of the remaining units to increase the capacity of them, as even running as pairs of units they're inefficient in terms of capacity. That would happen if they were being replaced today or in 10 years time.

Take for example a 2*5 units or a 10 coach unit (of one were to exist) they would have circa 530 seats or circa 590 seats. If you were a TOC would you be willing to pay the same for a train with 10% fewer seats?

That's before you consider that a 9 coach 80x had 630 seats and even with a 10% uplift for being bimodal would cost the same per train or slightly less per seat.

 

[greatvoyager]

I was replying to a suggestion of lengthening the Voyagers and how it would be better to do something different for not much cost difference.

However I do disagree on the premise that scraping end coaches is a waste. In that if the 22x's ever get retired from the XC franchise then either the whole lot will be scrapped or some end coaches will be scrapped to allow the lengthening of the remaining units to increase the capacity of them, as even running as pairs of units they're inefficient in terms of capacity. That would happen if they were being replaced today or in 10 years time.

Take for example a 2*5 units or a 10 coach unit (of one were to exist) they would have circa 530 seats or circa 590 seats. If you were a TOC would you be willing to pay the same for a train with 10% fewer seats?

That's before you consider that a 9 coach 80x had 630 seats and even with a 10% uplift for being bimodal would cost the same per train or slightly less per seat.

Having shorter trains allows more flexibility. Having a 10 coach single voyager means if the train fails, it fails. Having 2 5 cars joined means if one half fails, the other half can continue