Hybrid Voyagers

[HSTEd]

Converting the Cl222s to electrodiesel would enable the trains to Corby and the Stopping Nottingham train to switchover even if it requires the train to be stationary at the time.
THats atleast two trains an hour out of the five.

If the trains are capable of switching over on the move then all the trains can use it easily, [this seems reasonable, certainly in the electric-diesel direction as that simply requires the ADD to be forced to activate, the opposite would presumably be achieved by gently raising the pan to the height of the contact wire].

Although the traction control package is different from the Virgin Voyagers the transformer equipment/rectifiers what have you on the Pantograph trailer is mechanically very similar, so it becomes a relatively small matter to design a modification of the existing design.

I can hope that this will lead to additional Cl222 units being procured as the defacto standard Electrodiesel/Diesel multiple unit for intercity operations, leading to the banishment of HSTs from the MML and ECML in advance of the almost inevitable collapse of the IEP.

It also improves the case for rolling electrification to Nottingham/Derby in advance of the HS2 decision which could take years yet, since they will be able to use the electrification as it advances and be able to use it for all intercity services immediately without a timetable recast.

As for the reduction in power to weight ratio, I was under the impression that the line was not particularily taxing for the Meridians which are overpowered in four coach formations, let alone more streamlined 7 coach ones.

 

[tbtc]

Converting the Cl222s to electrodiesel would enable the trains to Corby and the Stopping Nottingham train to switchover even if it requires the train to be stationary at the time.
THats atleast two trains an hour out of the five

Around a third of EMT's "Inter City" fleet are HSTs though, mainly on the Nottingham duties, which I think is being forgotten in this thread

I can hope that this will lead to additional Cl222 units being procured as the defacto standard Electrodiesel/Diesel multiple unit for intercity operations, leading to the banishment of HSTs from the MML and ECML in advance of the almost inevitable collapse of the IEP.

It also improves the case for rolling electrification to Nottingham/Derby in advance of the HS2 decision which could take years yet, since they will be able to use the electrification as it advances and be able to use it for all intercity services immediately without a timetable recast

Building dozens of (bi-mode and fully electric) 222s to replace HSTs would be better than a whole new class of train - the 222s work okay so why not stick with a tried/tested train?

I know others on here would be against more/new bi-mode trains though.

 

[HSTEd]

Around a third of EMT's "Inter City" fleet are HSTs though, mainly on the Nottingham duties, which I think is being forgotten in this thread

My understanding is that the HSTs tend to be concentrated on the "fast" Nottingham services where the lesser acceleration will not be such a significant issue, additional trains could be purchased to displace them and perhaps allow regular extension of Sheffield trains to Leeds.

 

[northwichcat]

XC have 35 x 4 car Voyagers, so 35 pantograph vehicles could see all 4 car XC services become 5 car which would certainly be a welcome improvement.

Saying that surly having the Virgin Voyager services justify having the pantograph vehicle more due to them being under the wires the most. However, XC need extra capacity more.

 

[Jonny]

XC have 35 x 4 car Voyagers, so 35 pantograph vehicles could see all 4 car XC services become 5 car which would certainly be a welcome improvement.

Saying that surly having the Virgin Voyager services justify having the pantograph vehicle more due to them being under the wires the most. However, XC need extra capacity more.

This would cause quite a few knock-on problems though, including fitting in the signalling overlap of Platforms 10-12 at Newcastle (4 cars barely fit between buffers and starter). It just happens that a lot of XC services start from Platforms 10 or 11; 12 is the only alternative bay at that end (before anyone says Platform 9, the 3-car Class 185s struggle to fit in there, so no hope for the voyagers!)

 

[Nym]

Newcastle clearly needs longer platforms, TPE is shortly (hopefully) to become 6 car operation, and I don't think XC will be too much behind it...

Can't go letting NCL screwing up the works...

 

[HSTEd]

XC have 35 x 4 car Voyagers, so 35 pantograph vehicles could see all 4 car XC services become 5 car which would certainly be a welcome improvement.

Saying that surly having the Virgin Voyager services justify having the pantograph vehicle more due to them being under the wires the most. However, XC need extra capacity more.

The larger the order, the more likely it is that they can obtain the body shells being produced in the UK as part of the order, or the state could simply purchase the licences to the 22x family and contract with anyone in the UK to build them.
So I would say, convert all of them to ED and order additional units to serve in place of the Bi-mode IEP sets and remaining HSTs, and if possible replace several Turbostar and other regional express sets.

 

[Nym]

Realistically I recon the biggest possible order would be 216 cars, 2 for the 4 and 5 car sets making them 6 and 7 car sets, and 3 each for the 7 car sets, 10 car sets would be handy for the Penzance services on the GW, maybe some shuffling round could jump that up a little to make it 230 cars.

 

[northwichcat]

This would cause quite a few knock-on problems though, including fitting in the signalling overlap of Platforms 10-12 at Newcastle (4 cars barely fit between buffers and starter). It just happens that a lot of XC services start from Platforms 10 or 11; 12 is the only alternative bay at that end (before anyone says Platform 9, the 3-car Class 185s struggle to fit in there, so no hope for the voyagers!)

Which platform did ATN use for TPE services then? I remember on peak services an empty 158 arriving and then another 158 arriving from Sunderland and joining on it before continuing to Liverpool.

 

[ainsworth74]

The larger the order, the more likely it is that they can obtain the body shells being produced in the UK as part of the order

The original order was for nearly 500 vehicles and the body shells weren't produced in the UK. So I doubt an order for less than 100 (or even Nym's 230) will see any built here (as well as the fact that Derby can't do the welding processes required for 22x construction).

 

[HSTEd]

The original order was for nearly 500 vehicles and the body shells weren't produced in the UK. So I doubt an order for less than 100 (or even Nym's 230) will see any built here (as well as the fact that Derby can't do the welding processes required for 22x construction).

Yes, and I do believe Bombardier put a pricetag of £100m for such upgrades, hence my second suggestion

There are also the HST sets to displace on the MML (13 x 10 carriage sets), XC (5 x 10 carriage sets), East Coast (~12 x 10 carriage sets) and potentially the Cl159s on SWT (30 x 4 carriage sets).
Added to the 230 carriages suggested by Nym, that brings the total to 650 carriages, which is rather larger than the original order.

 

[northwichcat]

Realistically I recon the biggest possible order would be 216 cars, 2 for the 4 and 5 car sets making them 6 and 7 car sets, and 3 each for the 7 car sets, 10 car sets would be handy for the Penzance services on the GW, maybe some shuffling round could jump that up a little to make it 230 cars.

I can't see the doubled up Holyhead-London services going down to 6/7 car operation or up as far as 14 car operation. The sensible option would be for Virgin to only get 21 pantograph vehicles and and then reform the sets including the stored driving vehicles to give 9 x 7 car 221s primarily for the Scottish services and 14 x 5 car 221s primarily for the North Wales/Chester to London services.

Relating to costs would it be cheapest to make all the pantograph vehicles for Voyagers tilting compatible or to design a tilting one for 221s and a non-tilting one for 220s?

 

[Nym]

If you wanted to push it up to 500, you could knock together some brand new, 223 vehicles for ICGW in lieu of the Bi Mode SET, I'm thinking 9 or 10 car units, so if you had a fleet of 30 odd units (that is about what ICGW actually needs) as a follow on to the 222 order (to get round procurement laws) and have them compatable with the 222 units, so perhaps a 222/2 with some 6 car and some 9 or 10 car units, (6 car for the costwold services, I stand corrected if it isn't 6 car it can take there) push it up to 40 222/2 units if you include some 10 car ones for ICEC to replace HSTs. Then the LDPE EMY order just needs to be an LDPE EMU in standard 10x23m formation for LDPE services not needing tilt, and then possibly some additional 390 units for ICWC to displace the 221s, although HS2 will do a damned good job of that if the HS2CC stock is correctly specified.

So you could see an order standing at something like...

68 220 centre cars each with 1.8MW transformers fitted and a 25kVAC bus across the roof so one panto at once is raised

88 221 centre cars again with 1.8MW tranformers fitted, but capable of tilt, (even if locked out, there will be some going to ICWC where it's needed)

52 222/0 centre cars, again 1.8MW tranformers.
8 222/1 centre cars, same deal.

16 (96 Veh.) 222/2 units at 6 car length for ICGW, 4 generator and 2 transformer coaches. For ICGW services via Kemble and/or Oxford

25 (250 Veh.) 222/3 units, 10 car length, 7 generator and 3 transformer coaches for ICGW services to Plymouth, Penzance and via Kemble, possibly.

Comes to 554 cars total...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And regarding costs, the only modifications (major) are pantographs and bogies...

 

[HSTEd]

And then you add in the additional sets for the other TOCs which require HST replacement [which I make to be 30 x 10 carriage sets] and potentially SWT which could do with some new stock to enable the Sprinters to be released for capacity enhancement on lines with far more SP differential limits.

 

[Nym]

You thinking what I'm thinking of here and replacing the 159s en masse with class 222/5 units with 3rd rail pickup and generator coaches? 10 car units to Exeter and Penzance again?

If so, I can see the order approaching 800 vehicles

And they'd have 7 years to deliver them, all of them...

Knock some more on for TPE at 6 or 8 car units and you're getting even more...

 

[HSTEd]

Well I can see the order topping a thousand once you include the Cl159s and those extra HSTs.... and the TPE (which seems reasonable as it would eliminate under-wires running on the South-TPE and probably allow improved speeds as the 222s would have access to whatever HST differentials there are in that area)

 

[Nym]

And knock on some 6 car units for EMT Liverpool - Norwich?

And some more for St Pancras - Derby - Matlock - Chinley - Guide Bridge - Manchester Piccadilly 2tph

 

[HSTEd]

And knock on some 6 car units for EMT Liverpool - Norwich?

And some more for St Pancras - Derby - Matlock - Chinley - Guide Bridge - Manchester Piccadilly 2tph

Unfortunately, there wont be any units for Liverpool-Norwich without major upgrades to the Breckland line thanks to the insanely low non SP speed limits on the route, unless they were to set the line to be 45/HST75 instead of SP75.

I would have thought Manchester and Leeds trains from St Pancras were a natural outgrowth of the existing service patterns once electrification occurs to Sheffield, assuming it does infact occur.

 

[northwichcat]

I would have thought Manchester and Leeds trains from St Pancras were a natural outgrowth of the existing service patterns once electrification occurs to Sheffield, assuming it does infact occur.

One proposal for the Liverpool-Norwich service is that it's routed away from Sheffield to speed up the service between Manchester and Nottingham. This could be done in conjunction with an EMT mainline service being extended to Manchester.

 

[Nym]

An EMT Sheffeild service being extended to Manchester from Sheffeild via Dore?

Or a Nottingham terminator being sent onwards to Manchester via Derby?

 

[HSTEd]

An EMT Sheffeild service being extended to Manchester from Sheffeild via Dore?

Or a Nottingham terminator being sent onwards to Manchester via Derby?

I meant the former, but I suppose doing the latter would leave the Sheffield fast trains free to be extended to Leeds, giving one tph to both Leeds and Manchester out of St Pancras.

 

[Nym]

Would you route this Sheffeild Midland - Hope - Chinley - Manchester service via New Mills or Stockport?

I'd vote New Mills, then the Norwich - Liverpool L St service can continue to run to Liverpool via Stockport from Chinley, with the new service running into Manchester Piccadilly East platforms, providing one of the two 'fast' services between Manchester and Sheffeild.

Would cut Stockport - Sheffeild services though, but that could be made up by extending a Hazel Grove service to Chinley (And electrifying there)

 

[Jonny]

Which platform did ATN use for TPE services then? I remember on peak services an empty 158 arriving and then another 158 arriving from Sunderland and joining on it before continuing to Liverpool.

IIRC it was platforms 5 to 8 - an Island through platform (since Sunderland is from the High Level Bridge end, which actually leads northbound on the ECML). It is possible to "bend" to 5 cars, but the overlap is blocked and the rest of Plat. 9-12 are out of use for however long it takes. Also, it's a detour for something from Sunderland to approach the west end of NCL.

 

[HSTEd]

Would you route this Sheffeild Midland - Hope - Chinley - Manchester service via New Mills or Stockport?

I'd vote New Mills, then the Norwich - Liverpool L St service can continue to run to Liverpool via Stockport from Chinley, with the new service running into Manchester Piccadilly East platforms, providing one of the two 'fast' services between Manchester and Sheffeild.

Would cut Stockport - Sheffeild services though, but that could be made up by extending a Hazel Grove service to Chinley (And electrifying there)

I would route them via Guide Bridge, assuming ofcourse that the transfer to electric traction can be made on the move as that would give use of electrification for the final run into Picadilly while avoiding the jam that is Stockport and its surround.

 

[Jonny]

Newcastle clearly needs longer platforms, TPE is shortly (hopefully) to become 6 car operation, and I don't think XC will be too much behind it...

Can't go letting NCL screwing up the works...

Like DafT oops I meant the DfT are going to stump up... plus then many a local station would need the same doing or risk getting left out altogether. Re-routing to another (longer) platform is possible but it would mess it up for Northern Rail's through services.

 

[Nym]

Or transfer to electric at Chinley if the wires reach there as part of the not yet published GMTTWA Electrifcation Plans...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Like DafT oops I meant the DfT are going to stump up... plus then many a local station would need the same doing or risk getting left out altogether. Re-routing to another (longer) platform is possible but it would mess it up for Northern Rail's through services.

TPE Express services will only be calling at MAN - MCO - MCV - Huddersfeild - LDS - Leeds East Pway - YRK soon anyway...

 

[HSTEd]

Course, you might be able to save valuable platforms at Picadilly by routing the Manchester-Sheffield-Derby-London trains into Victoria instead, which would also allow a degree of differentiation between the MML and WCML trains, preventing people mixing them up.

 

[Jonny]

Or transfer to electric at Chinley if the wires reach there as part of the not yet published GMTTWA Electrifcation Plans...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


TPE Express services will only be calling at MAN - MCO - MCV - Huddersfeild - LDS - Leeds East Pway - YRK soon anyway...

Not so good for Chester-le-Street and Thirsk (and to a lesser extent Northallerton); does Northern Rail even have a safety case for running to/stopping at Thirsk?

 

[Nym]

14:15 London Euston Fast
14:23 London St Pancras via Sheffeild
14:35 London Euston Fast
14:55 London Euston Fast

I wouldn't mix them up... although one must remember pax are thick...

I'd keep it at Piccadilly though, if we need more platforms for Piccadilly East, theres plenty of space in the car park for three more 9 car platforms, and retaining service access to further down, although if that is lost then an 8 or 10 track approach is more possible...

Imagine what it will be like with HS2bL intergrated into Piccadilly (Baring St) too...

14:05 London Euston via HS2 (Platform 23)
14:10 Lille or Paris GDN via London Old Oak Common (Platform 28)
14:15 London Euston via Stoke on Trent (Platform 11, Formally Platform 8)
14:20 London St Pancras via Sheffeild (Platform 4, Formally Platform 1)
14:25 London Euston via HS2 (Platform 24)
14:35 London Euston via Crewe (Platform 10, Formally Platform 7)
14:45 London Euston via HS2 (Platform 25)
14:50 London St Pancras via Chinley & Derby (Platform 5, Formally Platform 2)
14:55 London Euston via Stoke on Trent (Platform 9, Formally Platform 6)

That's not confusing at all

PS:
Pt 1 - 3 outside the trainshed to the East
Pt 4 - 15 are the current Pt 1 - 12
Pt 16 & 17 through southbound
Pt 18 & 19 terminating from MCO
Pt 20 & 21 through westbound
Pt 22 - 27 HS2 Domestic Platforms in Baring St Ind. Area
Pt 28 & 29 HS2 International Platforms with Customs.

Possibly some more in the old Mayfeild if it doesn't get flattened for the HS2 station, but I can't see any real use for them...

Unless a fantastic 6 track approach through Longsight widens out to 8 track when HS2 joins the viaducts, then 10 track with the E Lines, then diverging from Fast and Airport lines to make 12 track... Then some Airport Line terminating platforms in Mayfeild could be helpful, but the idea is to push as much through as possible at the moment. Although that will change no dowbt. So if one adds in some platforms there, piccadilly will end up with 34 if you include Metrolink Not at all confusing

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

Not so good for Chester-le-Street and Thirsk (and to a lesser extent Northallerton); does Northern Rail even have a safety case for running to/stopping at Thirsk?

Thirsk and Chester Le St have longer platforms that have been de-lengthened IIRC.

I can't see six car as a problem for either. And if 8 car, SDO FTW...

 

[DXMachina]

You thinking what I'm thinking of here and replacing the 159s en masse with class 222/5 units with 3rd rail pickup and generator coaches? 10 car units to Exeter and Penzance again?

Thought I saw elsewhere on this board it being stated that 3rd rail can't provide enough power for a long train at 100+mph?