Future of 22x Units

[jopsuk]

Wild suggestions:
Hack end cars into centre cars as required
Convert the XC and WC 221s to 220 spec (fully remove all tilting gear, lighter bogies)
Reactivate Project Thor
So, including the two out of use cars, there's 356 carriages across the 220/221 fleet. Form into six car units, that's 59 units + 2 spare cars. Add two pantograph new build coaches to each unit, reconfigure interiors (toilets, buffet counter, etc), voila, lovely fleet of 8 car bimode IC units.
Or 50 9 car units.
Let's go with that.
Add another 20 similar units from the 22x fleet

Leaving 6 voyager and 3 Meridian driving cars.

 

[Lockwood]

Would they fit through the Ryde tunnel?

 

[AverageTD]

Scrap the Voyagers....disgusting, uncomfortable, smelly trains IMO

I'm guessing you are referring to XC voyagers as the Virgin Voyagers are great. Much better than Pendolinos in my opinions.

 

[1e10]

You have missed the point. A Voyager has three big toilets in 4-cars; no other design has that. That is a massive waste of space, especially in such a small train.

No, it was completely unnecessary. Two would have been quite adequate, one in each class of wheelchair accommodation. If they wanted to put the same amount of space into use for toilets more effectively, two large and two small would have fitted into the same space and been more useful. The third one would be of no use for a wheelchair user as there is no wheelchair space next to it.

Is it a big issue? You’d only be able to remove one accessible toilet, so a handful of extra seats at best. Hardly going to resolve any overcrowding issues on XC.

Also it’s not only wheelchair users who benefit from an accessible toilet. People with reduced mobility will appreciate the space. I know relatives of mine who not wheelchair bound but with reduced mobility would not be able to get into a non-accessible toilet on a Pendolino etc. Mothers will also appreciate the space, as all the toilets have a changing board. You could argue a mother would not want to have to squeeze through a packed train with their young child to reach the accessible toilet at either end.

 

[urpert]

All possible suggestions...

• Make a 2 car one and put it on the Stourbridge Town branch
• Ship the 4 car voyages to Iran/Iraq/Some TIPLAC*
• convert one or two to New Measurement Trains
• Ashford to Brighton services
• A new GWR Birmingham to Paddington via Kidderminster service
• Chiltern 68/mk3 replacements

Or alternatively burn them

* - Tin Pot Little African Country. See Yes Minister for more info

You forgot
* reinstate Cross Country services to Brighton

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I'm guessing you are referring to XC voyagers as the Virgin Voyagers are great. Much better than Pendolinos in my opinions.

Yes, sorry I meant the XC ones.

Would rather travel in a 4Sub or EPB for the Voyager distances ...

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

To be honest, the Voyagers aren't that bad - on my last 2 Virgin Trains 'Super' Voyager journeys in 2015 from London Euston back to Milton Keynes Central, I've sat in the unreserved Standard Class coach with most tables.

The Voyagers could be cascaded to say Scotrail and used as Scenic trains, replacing the 1980's trains. I've not been to Scotland but I've been on Google Earth and looked at the Far North timetable - I dread to think how long delay a breakdown would cause.

I'm not sure how reliable the Class 15x stock is up there but the Voyagers are very reliable trains. Like some modern buses, not the best but they don't result in frequent calls to engineers in the day!

All it needs is for an identical First Class seating layout (Quiet Coach could be introduced) and you'd have what 175 seats in 4 coaches, maybe around 225 in 5 coaches?

I believe some Scotrail 15x trains have around 130 seats. Assuming yes, you'd probably have quite a spacious modern reliable air-conditioned train with 45 more seats in 4 coaches and around 95 in 5 coaches.

You could cut the top speed from 125mph to a reasonable 90 - 100mph.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

^^^^
Platform lengths would be an issue with the Oban/Fort William splitters. SDO is doable but not ideal when there's no gangway.

 

[47802]

To be honest, the Voyagers aren't that bad - on my last 2 Virgin Trains 'Super' Voyager journeys in 2015 from London Euston back to Milton Keynes Central, I've sat in the unreserved Standard Class coach with most tables.

The Voyagers could be cascaded to say Scotrail and used as Scenic trains, replacing the 1980's trains. I've not been to Scotland but I've been on Google Earth and looked at the Far North timetable - I dread to think how long delay a breakdown would cause.

I'm not sure how reliable the Class 15x stock is up there but the Voyagers are very reliable trains. Like some modern buses, not the best but they don't result in frequent calls to engineers in the day!

All it needs is for an identical First Class seating layout (Quiet Coach could be introduced) and you'd have what 175 seats in 4 coaches, maybe around 225 in 5 coaches?

I believe some Scotrail 15x trains have around 130 seats. Assuming yes, you'd probably have quite a spacious modern reliable air-conditioned train with 45 more seats in 4 coaches and around 95 in 5 coaches.

You could cut the top speed from 125mph to a reasonable 90 - 100mph.

Well aside the fact that Voyagers are heavy compared to a 158, I'm guessing can not use sprinter speed differentials, and likely very much more expensive to lease and maintain even if you run them at lower speed and maybe take an engine out.

I suspect the only place voyagers will be going is where they already are XC

 

[Clansman]

Long shot, but maybe Scotrail when the HST programme doesn't fully materialise?

Does not meet the conditions set out by the franchise agreement in terms of what was specified for Intercity rolling stock.

 

[WYSH]

In all seriousness, when the rubber band on the PPMs eventually irreparably breaks, I would expect an order for 2 more 230s for that purpose (one in use, one on site spare).

Sooner rather than later hopefully. The 139 is one of the few trains on the uk network which makes a 230 look like an improvement.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Sooner rather than later hopefully. The 139 is one of the few trains on the uk network which makes a 230 look like an improvement.

For Stourbridge a short length of bottom-contact third-rail and a couple of soon-to-be redundant DLR sets would be a better option, but we're off-topic there!

 

[whhistle]

We’ve gone from Crosscountry network likely to be trimmed as no new trains will be purchased by the next franchise, to maybe they will use HSTs to boost the numbers, to maybe they will get so many new trains they can start withdrawing Voyagers.

The title of the other thread says "wouldn't it be cool if XC took on some HSTs". The answer is no, because they won't be ready in time. I almost suspect the few that are going through PRM at the moment are a token "we're doing something".

A quantity of new trains so all Voyagers can be doubled up, and possibly also used to replace 170s with XC will probably be the best outcome we can hope for, so I doubt the discussions in this thread will come to anything for about 20 years.

I always thought replacing 170s with Voyagers was a no go because of the door position (IE, 170s have doors at 3rds rather than coach ends)?

Chiltern Mainline

This was one I didn't think of.
I wonder though if Chiltern would take on the XC HSTs if XC decided to bin them off in favour of a new uniformed fleet of bi-modes.

 

[Domh245]

I almost suspect the few that are going through PRM at the moment are a token "we're doing something".

Those going through PRM mods are the moment (their existing HST fleet) aren't token - they are a legal obligation for running post 2020, which they are intended to do, at least until new stock is procured by the next franchise.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Although they can go quite a bit quicker than the stated 100mph (I found this out at the DRS open day). With better gearing they could easily do 125.

Was there ever an intention for them to go faster? I've always wondered why they appear to have a very powerful engine for what they haul.

 

[whhistle]

Those going through PRM mods are the moment (their existing HST fleet) aren't token - they are a legal obligation for running post 2020, which they are intended to do, at least until new stock is procured by the next franchise.

Are ALL of the XC MK3s going to get through in time though?
Perhaps they'll be keeping an eye on this whole MK4s on the MML idea and grab some of those.
But then again, perhaps it's the leasing company that's financing it all so XC have nothing to lose anyway.

 

[Ianno87]

. Mothers will also appreciate the space, as all the toilets have a changing board. You could argue a mother would not want to have to squeeze through a packed train with their young child to reach the accessible toilet at either end.

Fathers equally well appreciate it too, by the way, since it's not 1954 any more.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Leaving 6 voyager and 3 Meridian driving cars.

How are there 3 222 driving cars left when there are 2 per unit?

 

[urpert]

Fathers equally well appreciate it too, by the way, since it's not 1954 any more.

Beat me to it!

 

[tbtc]

I always thought replacing 170s with Voyagers was a no go because of the door position (IE, 170s have doors at 3rds rather than coach ends)?

The three problems (for me) with replacing 170s with 220/221s are

there's not much capacity increase (I think a three coach Turbostar replaced by a four coach Voyager would mean a *reduction* in Standard Class seats) - a five coach Voyager would have more seats but realistically its the four car ones that are going to be freed up first
(if we are talking about routes like the XC Turbostar services) there's no chance to use the 125 capabilities of the Voyagers
the journey times may even be slower due to Sprinter differentials on some routes (e.g. in the Fens)

...so no real benefits, other than changing trains suited to large turnovers of passengers at busy stations (e.g. at Derby on a Nottingham - Birmingham) for trains suited to longer distance passengers, but that's a marginal thing on these kind of routes that doesn't really fall into the "pro" or "con" bracket

I wonder though if Chiltern would take on the XC HSTs if XC decided to bin them off in favour of a new uniformed fleet of bi-modes.

For a small franchise, it seems strange that Chiltern have seven different types of trains (two and three coach 165s, two, three and four coach 168s, two coach 172s and the loco hauled rakes). To my untrained eye, there looks like scope for simplifying the fleet (focussing on something like 195s with corridor connections?) rather than taking on additional types of train. But not up to me...

(I like the idea of a uniform fleet of bi-modes for XC mind)

 

[gazthomas]

For Stourbridge a short length of bottom-contact third-rail and a couple of soon-to-be redundant DLR sets would be a better option, but we're off-topic there!

How about a Travelator?

 

[hooverboy]

Would they fit through the Ryde tunnel?

no chance.

 

[jopsuk]

How are there 3 222 driving cars left when there are 2 per unit?

Because part of the proposal involves mangling (quite a lot of) driving cars into centre cars.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Because part of the proposal involves mangling (quite a lot of) driving cars into centre cars.

I thought that was the reason. I don't see any point in it since the Voyagers are coming up for 20 years old. It'd be better to make as many 221 & 222 5 cars as possible.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Directive 2016/2037 requires that member states allow companies from other member states to in principle run rail services over the member's rail infrastructure, effectively requiring members to separate infrastructure from operations. We'd already done that through our cack-handed privatisation twenty years ago, the rest of the EU has complied with this by creating splitting off the "infrastructure" side of their state-run railways to separate entities still under state control in a remarkable box-ticking exercise.

Ummm https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con...TOC&uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.314.01.0011.01.ENG

Commission Directive (EU) 2016/2037 of 21 November 2016 amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC as regards the maximum allowable pressure of aerosol dispensers and to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (Text with EEA relevance )

I suspect you are referring to Directive 2012/34/EU Article 6. That said, we separated our infrastructure during railway privatisation in the mid 90s. Unless we have a Labour government under Corbyn that decides to renationalise, then forget anything changing soon.

Anyway back to Voyagers. I suspect they will live out their days with XC, including the 221s currently with VT and I also suspect that EMT's successor may well go for a common fleet for their St Pancras IC routes, with the Meridians then going to XC to allow them to augment their fleet.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I thought that was the reason. I don't see any point in it since the Voyagers are coming up for 20 years old. It'd be better to make as many 221 & 222 5 cars as possible.

So there are 6 7 car 222's. There a 4 a piece of 4 car 221 & 222 sets. That means 12 more 5 car sets and you can keep the 2 7 car 222's as they are or a take a carriage out of each one & have 4 6 car sets. To make this easier to read, I'll make two lists.

Spoiler: Voyager option A - no Virgin sets

• 34 4 car trains (all 220)
• 45 5 car trains (24 221, 21 222)
• 2 7 car trains (all 222)

Or:

• 43 5 car trains (22 221, 21 222)
  
• 4 6 car trains (2 221, 2 222)

Spoiler: Voyager option B - with Virgin sets

• 34 4 car trains (all 220)
• 65 5 car trains (44 221, 21 222)
• 2 7 car trains (all 222)

Or:

• 63 5 car trains (42 221, 21 222)
• 4 6 car trains (2 221, 2 222)

All 4 car trains would be replaced with 5 car trains or coupled to another 4 car train to ease & prevent overcrowding. The 6/7 car trains would be very useful, although IMO the 6 car trains would be better as they could be coupled to a 4 car train or a 5 car train where as a 7 car train could maybe only be coupled to a 4 car train.

 

[EveningStar]

Directive 2016/2037 requires that member states allow companies from other member states to in principle run rail services over the member's rail infrastructure, effectively requiring members to separate infrastructure from operations. We'd already done that through our cack-handed privatisation twenty years ago, the rest of the EU has complied with this by creating splitting off the "infrastructure" side of their state-run railways to separate entities still under state control in a remarkable box-ticking exercise.

So in summary, most EU member states made an EU directive work for them while we screwed up. Hardly think we can blame the EU for our stupidity. Neither does it give me much confidence that we will get things right in whatever the future brings.

 

[Lockwood]

no chance.

Well, thought I'd get that one out of the way

 

[jopsuk]

So in summary, most EU member states made an EU directive work for them while we screwed up. Hardly think we can blame the EU for our stupidity. Neither does it give me much confidence that we will get things right in whatever the future brings.

I'd bet that the UK had a big role in drafting and promoting the directive.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I'd bet that the UK had a big role in drafting and promoting the directive.

We did. But I don't know where he got the directive number from. I already quoted that it applies to aerosols.