My ideas for future use of Class 222 units

[The Ham]

As well as being used on XC could other uses be found for the 222's?

On XC there are currently 63 units including the 5 HST's. If you added the 27 sets of 222's to that having removed the HST's that's 85 units, which would probably be too many.

Personally I think that they'll be reformed with a number of end coaches going into store.

I would suggest ending up with a fleet something like this:
- 1*7 coach 220
- 22*5 coach 220
- 1*7 coach 221
- 20*5 coach 221
- 7*9 coach 222
- 8*7 coach 222

Although that leaves it as a fleet of 59 units there would be no need for any pairs of units as the 10 units with 7 coaches would ask have about the same capacity as a pair of 4 coach units and the 7 units with 9 coaches would allow at least 5 diagrams to be run using them. This would compare with at best 4 diagrams run by HST's.

The other advantage is that none of the 222's would be to be paired with the 220's or 221's meaning no software problems.

The slight variation to the above would be to have all the above 220's and 221's as 5 coach units and use the spare middle coaches to form 4 units with 3 coaches (standard class only) to add as crowd busters through the core so that as many services as possible were 8 coaches long (but with a few more seats than the current 8 coach trains as there would be less first class seats).

 

[Townsend Hook]

As well as being used on XC could other uses be found due the 222's?

On XC there are currently 63 units including the 5 HST's. If you added the 27 sets of 222's to that having removed the HST's that's 85 units, which would probably be too many.

Personally I think that they'll be reformed with a number of end coaches going into store.

I would suggest ending up with a fleet something like this:
- 1*7 coach 220
- 22*5 coach 220
- 1*7 coach 221
- 20*5 coach 221
- 7*9 coach 222
- 8*7 coach 222

Although that leaves it as a fleet of 59 units there would be no need for any pairs of units as the 10 units with 7 coaches would ask have about the same capacity as a pair of 4 coach units and the 7 units with 9 coaches would allow at least 5 diagrams to be run using them. This would compare with at best 4 diagrams run by HST's.

The other advantage is that none of the 222's would be to be paired with the 220's or 221's meaning no software problems.

The slight variation to the above would be to have all the above 220's and 221's as 5 coach units and use the spare middle coaches to form 4 units with 3 coaches (standard class only) to add as crowd busters through the core so that as many services as possible were 8 coaches long (but with a few more seats than the current 8 coach trains as there would be less first class seats).

So basically you would end up with 26 spare 222 driving vehicles? Instead of reforming the 222s into all these long formations why not just keep them as is, and double up the fours and fives as required to make longer sets, meaning 26 cars worth of extra capacity around the network?

 

[CosherB]

I'm sure life would be a lot easier to leave all 220/221/222 sets as is and just have a fleet of 4, 5 and 7 car units, and multiple up in class as required. Don't try to mix and match!

 

[Domh245]

I presume the thinking is to try and reduce the amount of dead space in the fleet (ie the areas between the cabs and the start or the passenger accomodation). Of course it needs to be seen it the class 222s are coming off lease, and if Beacon Rail can get their hands on them.

 

[Uzair]

Oh God.

 

[DarloRich]

As well as being used on XC could other uses be found for the 222's?

On XC there are currently 63 units including the 5 HST's. If you added the 27 sets of 222's to that having removed the HST's that's 85 units, which would probably be too many.

Personally I think that they'll be reformed with a number of end coaches going into store.

I would suggest ending up with a fleet something like this:
- 1*7 coach 220
- 22*5 coach 220
- 1*7 coach 221
- 20*5 coach 221
- 7*9 coach 222
- 8*7 coach 222

Although that leaves it as a fleet of 59 units there would be no need for any pairs of units as the 10 units with 7 coaches would ask have about the same capacity as a pair of 4 coach units and the 7 units with 9 coaches would allow at least 5 diagrams to be run using them. This would compare with at best 4 diagrams run by HST's.

The other advantage is that none of the 222's would be to be paired with the 220's or 221's meaning no software problems.

The slight variation to the above would be to have all the above 220's and 221's as 5 coach units and use the spare middle coaches to form 4 units with 3 coaches (standard class only) to add as crowd busters through the core so that as many services as possible were 8 coaches long (but with a few more seats than the current 8 coach trains as there would be less first class seats).

why mess about with breaking units up and trying to make all the vehicles like each other. Just leave them as the are and double up where need. That or replace entirely by HST.

BTW - can there ever be too many vehicles on XC?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If they did goto XC or VTWC (or whoever has the 220s and 221s at the time), could the TMS be replaced to one compatible with the Voyagers?

 

[Townsend Hook]

If they did goto XC or VTWC (or whoever has the 220s and 221s at the time), could the TMS be replaced to one compatible with the Voyagers?

They won't go to VTWC, no tilt means no EPS speeds.

 

[The Ham]

So basically you would end up with 26 spare 222 driving vehicles? Instead of reforming the 222s into all these long formations why not just keep them as is, and double up the fours and fives as required to make longer sets, meaning 26 cars worth of extra capacity around the network?

Because you end up with a 68% increase in central coaches which is now than enough for XC for the time being but with the cost saving of not needing extra staff or those 26 end coach leases.

 

[CosherB]

Because you end up with a 68% increase in central coaches which is now than enough for XC for the time being but with the cost saving of not needing extra staff or those 26 end coach leases.

So what would the ROSCO do with 26 end coaches i.e. it's assets?

 

[MatthewRead]

Wasn't there talk about them being used on the Chiltern Main Line?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Do the 222 end cars have the same issue as Voyagers, not having the required compressor that would allow two of them to run together on their own?

 

[D365]

I was thinking about replying to some of the above posts, but then I remembered that this is a 'fantasy' thread...

 

[Townsend Hook]

Do the 222 end cars have the same issue as Voyagers, not having the required compressor that would allow two of them to run together on their own?

I would imagine so, but can't say definitively. In any case, I cannot think of any services that a pair of intercity driving vehicles would be remotely suitable for.

 

[sd0733]

If potentially in the future the 222 do end up at XC the only logical reformations I could see would be to reform the 6 7 car units as 8 car and then run all the north east-south West as an 8 car, either single unit or a pair of fours. I'd think this would have roughly similar capacity to the 7-car hst sets

 

[whoosh]

I know it's just a bit of fun, but 222s cannot work in multiple with 220/221s as their electrical systems are different, so if you were thinking of placing a 222 coach into a 220/221 set then that won't work.

It was quite a logistical challenge when the 222s were changed from their original make up of nine cars and four cars, into 7 cars, and mostly 5 cars I think. As someone said above with reference to compressors, I think at least one car had to be fitted with one, and some first class vehicles changed to standard.

But if you are going to remarshall them they need to stay in entirely 222 sets.

 

[whoosh]

Do the 222 end cars have the same issue as Voyagers, not having the required compressor that would allow two of them to run together on their own?

Yes that's correct. The driving cars do not have compressors.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

If they did goto XC or VTWC (or whoever has the 220s and 221s at the time), could the TMS be replaced to one compatible with the Voyagers?

more the point should the XC 220/ 221 be fitted withthe TMS designed forthe class rather than the one forced on them for commonality with the Pendos ...

 

[The Ham]

I know it's just a bit of fun, but 222s cannot work in multiple with 220/221s as their electrical systems are different, so if you were thinking of placing a 222 coach into a 220/221 set then that won't work.

It was quite a logistical challenge when the 222s were changed from their original make up of nine cars and four cars, into 7 cars, and mostly 5 cars I think. As someone said above with reference to compressors, I think at least one car had to be fitted with one, and some first class vehicles changed to standard.

But if you are going to remarshall them they need to stay in entirely 222 sets.

Which is what I have done, the 220 central coaches are within 220 end coaches, likewise the 221's and 222's.

 

[CosherB]

Which is what I have done, the 220 central coaches are within 220 end coaches, likewise the 221's and 222's.

I think you're losing the battle on this one .....

 

[D365]

Wasn't there talk about them being used on the Chiltern Main Line?

Fantasy talk maybe.

more the point should the XC 220/ 221 be fitted withthe TMS designed forthe class rather than the one forced on them for commonality with the Pendos ...

Would the Class 222 TMS even have the necessary software provisions for tilt?

I think you're losing the battle on this one .....

Take it easy on this thread, as above this is a fantasy discussion!

 

[Chester1]

Chiltern might be interested in having some of them or accepting a smaller number of CrossCountry Voyagers and all the Meridians going to CrossCountry. The Meridians won't be available to cascade until the start of the next Chiltern franchise in 2021 or after a direct award. 220s, 221s or 222s are much more suited to Chilterns fast London-Birmingham services than Mark III sets or treble 168s which could then be cadcaded. 27 would be too many though.

 

[jopsuk]

Not ambitious enough. Where's "rebuild the spare driving vehicles into intermediates" and "put one or two pantograph and transformer vehicles into each set to make them bi-modes" (the latter of course being a seriously considered project previously)

 

[Domh245]

Would the Class 222 TMS even have the necessary software provisions for tilt?

Why would the XC 221s need tilt provisions in the software?

 

[Townsend Hook]

Why would the XC 221s need tilt provisions in the software?

To enable tilt to be reinstated in the future?

 

[Domh245]

To enable tilt to be reinstated in the future?

At not insignificant expense, to save a few minutes on a few routes whilst simultaneously getting rid of fleet commonality with respect to timings? Can't really see it happening myself.

 

[D365]

Reprogramming the TMS would also come at significant expense.

 

[The Ham]

Chiltern might be interested in having some of them or accepting a smaller number of CrossCountry Voyagers and all the Meridians going to CrossCountry. The Meridians won't be available to cascade until the start of the next Chiltern franchise in 2021 or after a direct award. 220s, 221s or 222s are much more suited to Chilterns fast London-Birmingham services than Mark III sets or treble 168s which could then be cadcaded. 27 would be too many though.

Again, forming them as longer units but less of them could be an option.

The problem with fixating on keeping the sets as they are fails to take on board that leading out all the central coaches and some of the end coaches is a whole lot better than not leading any of them.

No TOC is going to say, OK then, although you want us to pay £1million extra a year to lease 10 end coaches that we don't need. When for (say) £500,000 more than the units that we need we could have brand new bimodal trains which will also reduce our fuel bill.

If you were a train leading company with 89 central coaches and 54 end coaches and you could get £13 million for most of that our £14 million for all of that, are you going to turn down the smaller amount on the chance that someone may want to lease all of them, even though there's a limited market for them and no-one else has made contact with you?

I wouldn't be surprised if they even accepted £11 million, as 78% is better than 0%. In fact 20 years at £11 million is better than 15.5 years at £14 million. As such do you hope that within 4 years someone else comes along wanting the full fleet or do you go with the lower figure that you can start charging now?

(Above figures based on £100,000 per coach, although it doesn't matter too much what the price per coach is as it would just end up with the same difference relative to the total just with different values.

 

[Chester1]

Again, forming them as longer units but less of them could be an option.

The problem with fixating on keeping the sets as they are fails to take on board that leading out all the central coaches and some of the end coaches is a whole lot better than not leading any of them.

No TOC is going to say, OK then, although you want us to pay £1million extra a year to lease 10 end coaches that we don't need. When for (say) £500,000 more than the units that we need we could have brand new bimodal trains which will also reduce our fuel bill.

If you were a train leading company with 89 central coaches and 54 end coaches and you could get £13 million for most of that our £14 million for all of that, are you going to turn down the smaller amount on the chance that someone may want to lease all of them, even though there's a limited market for them and no-one else has made contact with you?

I wouldn't be surprised if they even accepted £11 million, as 78% is better than 0%. In fact 20 years at £11 million is better than 15.5 years at £14 million. As such do you hope that within 4 years someone else comes along wanting the full fleet or do you go with the lower figure that you can start charging now?

(Above figures based on £100,000 per coach, although it doesn't matter too much what the price per coach is as it would just end up with the same difference relative to the total just with different values.

I don't know the platform lengths on the Chiltern Mainline but doubled up 4s or single 7s should be fine based on the current loco hauled sets and that would use up but one middle coach. I can't forsee a situation were more than a couple of end units or one middle car are put into storage. The emphasis for CrossCountry and Chiltern and any other interested opperator would be for maximum capacity possible within the limitations of infrastructure. Apart from 2 Voyager end cars being left unused for a few years I can't think of an example of MU cars being left unused.

 

[Kettledrum]

There are a number of other arguments for not leaving the end driving vehicles parked up in sidings:

- it would be a disaster politically - people facing unnecessary over-crowding, whilst Ministers allow coaches to be parked up in sidings.

- it would lead to more cancelled trains. If a 8 coach unit fails, the service doesn't run. If one unit in a train formed of two 4-coach units fails, you can still run the service, albeit short formed.

- with trains formed of shorter units joined together, you can split the units at towards the end of the journey to serve multiple destinations.

The downside of running multiple units joined together is additional train crew, but it's a price worth paying for so many additional seats and service reliability.