HSTs replacing Voyagers for the Cross Country services.

[LOL The Irony]

Actually a 2+6 HST has a power:weight ratio only marginally less than a Voyager.

But a 2x220/4 car 221 only takes up a bit more space than a 2+6 HST.

 

[DB]

But a 2x220/4 car 221 only takes up a bit more space than a 2+6 HST.

So what? Space generally isn't the primary issue, especially with selective door opening.

 

[43096]

But a 2x220/4 car 221 only takes up a bit more space than a 2+6 HST.

The issue is that there aren't enough 220s/221s to allow many pairs.

 

[LOL The Irony]

So what? Space generally isn't the primary issue, especially with selective door opening.

Well, you can get the 222's from EMR and then you get 4 4 car units, 17 5 car units and 6 7 car units. Then you can get 20 5 car 221's from Avanti and then there's no need for any HST's. No 2+whatever and a (relatively) common intercity fleet with common parts and a common manufacture across all the fleet, on top of enabling the doubling up of most services.

 

[DB]

Well, you can get the 222's from EMR and then you get 4 4 car units, 17 5 car units and 6 7 car units. Then you can get 20 5 car 221's from Avanti and then there's no need for any HST's. No 2+whatever and a (relatively) common intercity fleet with common parts and a common manufacture across all the fleet, on top of enabling the doubling up of most services.

Well, yes, but none of that is related to your point about the length of the trains.

 

[Purple Orange]

Well, you can get the 222's from EMR and then you get 4 4 car units, 17 5 car units and 6 7 car units. Then you can get 20 5 car 221's from Avanti and then there's no need for any HST's. No 2+whatever and a (relatively) common intercity fleet with common parts and a common manufacture across all the fleet, on top of enabling the doubling up of most services.

This is what needs to happen for XC until HS2 reshapes the whole network. No point in ordering new trains and certainly no point in entertaining the idea of using HSTs.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Well, you can get the 222's from EMR and then you get 4 4 car units, 17 5 car units and 6 7 car units. Then you can get 20 5 car 221's from Avanti and then there's no need for any HST's. No 2+whatever and a (relatively) common intercity fleet with common parts and a common manufacture across all the fleet, on top of enabling the doubling up of most services.

Personally, I'd reform the Class 222 units (back) into 9 car formations and reform the Class 220 units into 5 car formations. The surplus driving vehicles can be stripped for "component recovery" and scrapped.

 

[DB]

Personally, I'd reform the Class 222 units (back) into 9 car formations and reform the Class 220 units into 5 car formations. The surplus driving vehicles can be stripped for "component recovery" and scrapped.

Think it was only seven of the 222s which were ever 9 car, wasn't it?

 

[py_megapixel]

Personally, I'd reform the Class 222 units (back) into 9 car formations and reform the Class 220 units into 5 car formations. The surplus driving vehicles can be stripped for "component recovery" and scrapped.

What would you do with the 5 car units? Run them in pairs?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Think it was only seven of the 222s which were ever 9 car, wasn't it?

Yeah. I'd make more 9 cars out of the rest of the fleet.

What would you do with the 5 car units? Run them in pairs?

Yeap, 2 x 5 or 1 x 9 should be, give or take, pretty much identical in terms of capacity (the same rationale as with the IET fleet).

It saves worrying about mixing Class 220/221 and Class 222 units in service too.

 

[py_megapixel]

Yeap, 2 x 5 or 1 x 9 should be, give or take, pretty much identical in terms of capacity (the same rationale as with the IET fleet).

It saves worrying about mixing Class 220/221 and Class 222 units in service too.

Presumably for reservation purposes there would need to be something in place, even if it's just a case of leaving 2 coaches unreserved in a 10 car but only 1 in a 9 car, or something like that.

That's not a new problem though.

 

[Purple Orange]

I would reform the meridian units as they were. With the 20 Avanti units, you can have the following cpmbinations:

• 2 X 10-car voyagers
• 38 X 9-car voyagers
• 2 X 8-car pioneers
• 16 X 8-car meridians
• 7 X 9-car meridians

XC currently has 64 trains voyagers and HSTs. This would provide 65 trains.

 

[Bevan Price]

But I thought the overwhelming reason people want HSTs to replace Voyagers (apart from the crank value) is for greater capacity, and a 2+4 doesn't do that? The simple fact is that at 2+6 and higher, it won't match a Voyager.

In fact I think a 2+4 HST has more standard class seats than a 4 coach Voyager. The latter seats about 160 -170 standard class, but each HST standard class coach usually has more than 70 seats.

 

[ABB125]

I really have lost count the number of threads about this topic there have been this year (let alone since I joined in 2016!).

Whilst it may be "nice" to convert more HSTs, there are plenty of voyagers available in a year or two. Perhaps if the HSTs had been ordered two years ago it would be different.
Personally I don't mind voyagers, and have never been on an XC HST (as they're always going the opposite way to what I need when I travel!). They do, however, need a good refurbishment (although I can't see that happening until the Avanti ones arrive to create spare capacity in the fleet). A more efficient interior layout, combined with more sets in operation should solve most of the major issues with XC.
I agree with the comment above that it would be a bit silly to order a new fleet until the final HS2 service pattern in known (and finalised). By that time the voyagers will be about life-expired anyway!

 

[tbtc]

If we are playing "Fantasy Cross Country Train Lengths" (based on a quantifiable/finite number of coaches - e.g. the current XC and Avanti Voyagers plus the EMR Meridians) then my preference would be to run them a bit like the way that LNER/GWR do with the 800/801/802s - have long trains of eight carriages and doubled up trains of "four plus five" carriages to provide broadly equivalent capacity.

That way you'd have about the same number of seats on each service through Birmingham, so could reserve seats on a common basis (i.e. with no reservations in the one middle carriage in the long trains and the two "end" carriages coupled together on the doubled up trains) - that way there's no panic if the wrong unit is allocated.

You can then propose running single shorter units on the fringe bits (Penzance etc), but keep everything through Birmingham at least eight coaches long.

(scrap all the HSTs, once the Avanti/ EMR units become available, obviously)

 

[Purple Orange]

On the topic of the EMR and Avanti trains cascading to XC, how much is it based in ‘fantasy’ and how much is based in realism? It seems a logical step to me, if they are not to be required on the WCML & MML.

As for having short units to Penzance or Aberdeen, how much of a hassle would it be to split units compared to keeping the trains in one piece?

 

[The Ham]

On the topic of the EMR and Avanti trains cascading to XC, how much is it based in ‘fantasy’ and how much is based in realism? It seems a logical step to me, if they are not to be required on the WCML & MML.

As for having short units to Penzance or Aberdeen, how much of a hassle would it be to split units compared to keeping the trains in one piece?

There's few other options for the 22x fleet other than XC, so whilst it's possible that they could go elsewhere the perceived wisdom on here is that's where they're going to go.

Pretty much the only other options are Chiltern to replace their loco stock or SWR to run the Exeter services to allow longer trains on the test of the routes. Neither are ideal and under the franchise model the timings didn't work (unless XC got new stock).

With regards to splitting/joining units at the outer edges, XC already do this at Plymouth on some services. Would they carry on doing so? That would depend on how in need they were for the extra units this would create, and whilst currently loadings are such that West of Plymouth can be comfortable pre Covid-19 it could well be that there's a need for more capacity in the future.

I would imagine that it's also down to if you are looking to replace the HST's and if you scrap too many end coaches by making longer (but fewer) units, either of which could limit the ability to run pairs of units on every service.

Having said that I could see XC splitting services on route, as an example (subject to making the paths work) splitting to run to Newquay and Penzance or Plymouth and Paignton. As that could encourage an increase in use to help justify the use of double units further out from the core which otherwise might not be justified.