Speculation: Class 222 to GW in the long term?

[HSTEd]

The fuel consumption increases by about 44% (per seat)... which is not really catastrophic as fuel is a relatively minor cost on the modern railway.

Additionally to my knowledge XC Class 220s and 3-car 170s both seat ~200 people, after the refurbishments that gave them additional seats. (According to XC seating plans, but I suppose I may have made a mistake with the counting).

 

[The Ham]

Cardiff-Manchester
Cardiff-Nottingham
Cardiff-Holyhead
Cardiff-Portsmouth
Liverpool-Norwich
Birmingham-Stansted

All longish routes that could benefit from Voyagers - although not using the full capability of the trains.

Dependng on the lack of demand such services could be better run with freed up 158's over a 22x, also IIRC there are reasons why 22x's would not be suitable to run to Norwich (speed limits of non sprinters?) and Standsted (not cleared for going in the tunnel?).

When the E-W rail route opens, will it be electrified? Even if it is, it might enable some new long inter-regional cross-country routes (avoiding Birmingham) which could benefit for the Voyagers acceleration.

It has been announced as part of the HLOS that it will be electrified:
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hlos-2012/map-hlos-electrification.pdf

Which could allow for some extra IC services which avoid Birmingham, however it is more likely that they would be run by a new fleet of IC EMU's along with services between Manchester & the South Coast.

Or find new routes for them and open up new journey opportunities: e.g. Lincoln, Hull or Sheffield to Glasgow via the S&C?

Or stick new bogies on them, ship them across the Irish Sea and use them for the Belfast-Dublin Enterprise.

Although I wonder if the economics of conversion to electric will be revisited by the ROSCO in the future - if/when it becomes obvious that there's no suitable work for them and they come off-lease.

All of which may be possible and other routes could be possible (Liverpool-Cardiff via Hareford or Brighton-Plymouth) or even some existing routes could see an increase in frequency.

 

[Xavi]

Cardiff-Manchester
Cardiff-Nottingham
Cardiff-Holyhead
Cardiff-Portsmouth
Liverpool-Norwich
Birmingham-Stansted

All longish routes that could benefit from Voyagers - although not using the full capability of the trains.

When the E-W rail route opens, will it be electrified? Even if it is, it might enable some new long inter-regional cross-country routes (avoiding Birmingham) which could benefit for the Voyagers acceleration.

Or find new routes for them and open up new journey opportunities: e.g. Lincoln, Hull or Sheffield to Glasgow via the S&C?

Or stick new bogies on them, ship them across the Irish Sea and use them for the Belfast-Dublin Enterprise.

Although I wonder if the economics of conversion to electric will be revisited by the ROSCO in the future - if/when it becomes obvious that there's no suitable work for them and they come off-lease.

I agree the routes listed are the place for Voyagers / Meridiens to spend the second part of their lives. I'd also add Glasgow / Edinburgh - Aberdeen / Inverness and a regular Bristol - Penzance semi-fast incorporating all the bits and pieces services often formed of 150s along the route at present. The demand is there, I've regularly stood for an hour or more in a 150 through east Cornwall and most recently in February! This would also enable the speeding up of some FGW Paddingon expresses giving Plymouth a more acceptable service.

These are all lengthy routes between major destinations that will generate traffic growth and even more with pricing initiatives to maximise revenue. Several would generate new first class travel if retained, e.g. all routes from Cardiff.

I don't dispute the stuff about track costs etc, but that's a problem of the privatised railway - the country needs to use it's assets in a sensible way in order to provide the service that will drive the economy in the best possible way. The overall cost of the railway should be the driver, not whether a route is more expensive per train mile than with the previous, probably overcrowded, rolling stock solution.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Dependng on the lack of demand such services could be better run with freed up 158's over a 22x, also IIRC there are reasons why 22x's would not be suitable to run to Norwich (speed limits of non sprinters?) and Standsted (not cleared for going in the tunnel?).

I've pondered on this fourm in the past whether the Birmingham - Stansted service could be split into seperate services where it crosses the ECML, with XC keeping the Birmingham - ECML section and the Greater Anglia TOC taking over ECML - Stansted. How much through demand does the route see? I personally think 158s could be much better than 170s for the Cardiff-Nottingham, but lots of other lines need more 158s too and not many are likely to be freed up.

 

[edwin_m]

There is some sort of case for splitting both Birmingham-Stansted and Liverpool-Norwich at Peterborough as it tidies up the franchise map. However this would increase platform occupancy there and force a lot of people to change trains for no very good reason.

 

[jimm]

I've pondered on this fourm in the past whether the Birmingham - Stansted service could be split into seperate services where it crosses the ECML, with XC keeping the Birmingham - ECML section and the Greater Anglia TOC taking over ECML - Stansted. How much through demand does the route see? I personally think 158s could be much better than 170s for the Cardiff-Nottingham, but lots of other lines need more 158s too and not many are likely to be freed up.

Turfing everyone off at Peterborough would be a very good way to kill a lot of rail traffic on the route. There is good demand for travel to and from Cambridge and Stansted from places west of Peterborough - which is why the trains do what they do now.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Turfing everyone off at Peterborough would be a very good way to kill a lot of rail traffic on the route. There is good demand for travel to and from Cambridge and Stansted from places west of Peterborough - which is why the trains do what they do now.

Fair enough if there's a good through demand, I just wondered if there actually was.

 

[swt_passenger]

Fair enough if there's a good through demand, I just wondered if there actually was.

IIRC DfT's attempts to split the Liverpool - Norwich service at Nottingham a few years back, as part of the Central franchise remapping consultation, resulted in 'local stakeholders' going ballistic and it was dropped from the eventual plans.

 

[edwin_m]

Split at Peterborough would be less inconvenient for passengers than Nottingham, as passengers to/from Cambridge, Stansted, Stevenage etc would still only have one change whereas Nottingham offers few connections to/from the Liverpool/Norwich that aren't also possible by other routes. But I agree either is much worse than keeping it as a through service.

 

[43074]

I can't see a future for Voyagers/Meridians on the former 'Express' routes, such as Norwich to Liverpool or Cardiff to Portsmouth. As I pointed out a while ago, you would not increase capacity by much, if anything, Their weight means they are expensive to run and they have a limited seating capacity - not because of their internal configuration but because of their body design with large disabled toilets at the non driving end of the driving vehicles and large vestibule areas.

The trains will probably end up providing services to/from London from the non electrified branches/extremities, such as Penzance to London or Lincoln to London, similar to the way in which Voyagers supplement the Pendolinos on the West Coast Main Line. Chiltern Railways might be interested but the 22xs would represent a reduction in seating capacity over a loco hauled train or a Clubman so it's unlikely, and that line is likely to be electrified in CP6 (post 2019).

 

[tbtc]

Out of interest, is there any scope to put seats into the "crumple zone" area, to try to give the end coaches a more reasonable capacity (on routes with a 100mph maximum speed)?

 

[HSTEd]

The alternative to use on secondary routes is the scrapline.

Is ordering additional diesel units preferable to using them?
That is the question we have to ask.

 

[Surreyman]

I can't see a future for Voyagers/Meridians on the former 'Express' routes, such as Norwich to Liverpool or Cardiff to Portsmouth. As I pointed out a while ago, you would not increase capacity by much, if anything, Their weight means they are expensive to run and they have a limited seating capacity - not because of their internal configuration but because of their body design with large disabled toilets at the non driving end of the driving vehicles and large vestibule areas.

The trains will probably end up providing services to/from London from the non electrified branches/extremities, such as Penzance to London or Lincoln to London, similar to the way in which Voyagers supplement the Pendolinos on the West Coast Main Line. Chiltern Railways might be interested but the 22xs would represent a reduction in seating capacity over a loco hauled train or a Clubman so it's unlikely, and that line is likely to be electrified in CP6 (post 2019).

Would it be feasible to remove some of the engines (and related fuel tanks)?
i.e reduce weight overall and take away unnecessary acceleration performance and top speed - derating them and rejig interiors by increasing the proportion of standard class seats to first class?

 

[Erniescooper]

Bombardier have already been doing some derating of the Voyagers and at 700hp they reckoned on only saving 1-2% on fuel consumption , once you start to derate below much below 700hp you start to lose the ability to keep time with an engine isolated .

 

[edwin_m]

Would be feasible and the units can keep to schedule with at least one engine out, hence the abortive proposal to add a pantograph car to 220s that wouldn't have had another diesel engine. The proportionate weight saving would be quite small.

I guess the structure is somewhat over-engineered but the real problem is the relatively small area of saloon space per car. 222s are better than 220s and 221s as only the end car has the wheelchair toilet and the intermediate ones have a slightly larger saloon with an extra small window. A future refit of 220s and 221s could consider substituting a smaller toilet in some cars and extending the passenger area, but adding more windows would most likely mean major changes to the structure. Thinking back to the Pendolino thread I wonder if this could be a special dedicated saloon for those who just want to look at personal devices and aren't bothered about windows.

 

[Brunel]

Not sure people would be pleased with 222s down in GW land, they complain enough about the voyagers as it is! Although not as bad as voyagers, the 222s are still not suitable for the London - Plymouth/Penzance run. The engine noise is still as intrusive as it is on voyagers, the only advantage the 222s have over them is that their interior spec is more sensible. I'm no loco/coaches nut, but i do like a nice quiet smooth journey without a throbbing diesel engine underneath me for hours on end.

With the way things are thesedays, this will probably happen anyway.

Loco/coach nut and PROUD!

FGW don't want Class 222 as the passengers have told FGW they hate underfloor engines. since when has the DfT worried about the customer environment? All about the pennies.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hey Great Western....Dont do it...You'l regret it. Do the right thing and refurbish the HST's for ever.!.

If only.....

Proper train designed for people. Not for the accountants.

 

[tbtc]

FGW don't want Class 222 as the passengers have told FGW they hate underfloor engines

Would be interesting to learn more about this survey

 

[Brunel]

FGW don't want Class 222 as the passengers have told FGW they hate underfloor engines

Would be interesting to learn more about this survey

I will dig it out
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Could the industry not just get the best mark 3's from FGW are refurbish them like DB have done for their Chiltern operations? Granted, engines will be required, but engines are going to be required for the sleepers at some point soon as well.

 

[nathanclass323]

I will dig it out
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Could the industry not just get the best mark 3's from FGW are refurbish them like DB have done for their Chiltern operations? Granted, engines will be required, but engines are going to be required for the sleepers at some point soon as well.

Remember MK3 carriages still flush waste from the toilets onto the tracks. If a new toilet tank can be fitted, full refurbishments made and power doors added, it would extend their lifespan. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer slam door stock any day, but is that what the average user wants on today's railways?

But back to the main topic of this forum, if the operator of the GWML (whoever it may be in years to come) were to have anything 22x, it wouldn't be long term due to future electrification.

 

[IanXC]

Remember MK3 carriages still flush waste from the toilets onto the tracks. If a new toilet tank can be fitted, full refurbishments made and power doors added, it would extend their lifespan. Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer slam door stock any day, but is that what the average user wants on today's railways?

The post you quoted specifically mentioned the Chiltern refurbishment of Mark 3s, which includes power doors and retention tanks among other things.

 

[nathanclass323]

The post you quoted specifically mentioned the Chiltern refurbishment of Mark 3s, which includes power doors and retention tanks among other things.

I didn't realise the refurbishment included retention tanks. Thanks for clearing that up . I thought only one rake had power doors? Unless they've all been updated since I was told that.

They are certainly very nice to travel on either way and I do hope they're around for years to come.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I didn't realise the refurbishment included retention tanks. Thanks for clearing that up . I thought only one rake had power doors? Unless they've all been updated since I was told that.

They are certainly very nice to travel on either way and I do hope they're around for years to come.

AFAIK There's one rake (the former Cargo-D one in blue/grey) that still has the slam doors and drops on the track. All the 'Silver Sets' have power doors and tanks I think.