Speculation: Class 222 to GW in the long term?

[jimm]

The difference is the DfT's future plans for the Cotswolds are a reduction in train length to 5-car IEPs (granted franchise bidders might make DaFT see the error of their ways there) but they are allowing the Cornwall services to keep their IC125s for the time being

And there you go again. Do you ever read posts properly, or just have a very selective memory?

1. Will you stop keep going on about five-car sets when it suits your argument - as it is clear as day the bi-mode fleet is not going to end up as all five-car. I have explained the issues over the franchise that are delaying progress to getting this sorted out. And, just in case you have forgotten your own posts as well, you were advocating seven-car IEPs only the other day....

2. As I pointed out yesterday, no decision has been taken about whether HSTs will continue to operate to Devon and Cornwall, so stop stating as fact that they will.

IEP and competitive price in the same sentence? You do know that IEP also stands for Incredibly Expensive Procurement, costing twice as much as Pendolinos? I suspect a large part of the reason for that is the PFI nonsense, so I doubt Hitachi can do much to make it cheaper.

Those financial arrangements apply to the IEP batch ordered by DafT. If they are true to their word and let the operators take the lead on rolling stock procurement in future, then subsequent orders will very likely be ordered and funded in a different fashion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

where on the "it would be cheaper to build a new shell, take the engine and transmission from the driving coach and fit it to the new build" scale does "rebuild the driving end of a coach into a inner end" lie?

On no, not back to the 'how many expensive ways can we tear apart and rebuild perfectly serviceable trains with years of useful life left in them' theorising.

 

[Rhydgaled]

And, just in case you have forgotten your own posts as well, you were advocating seven-car IEPs only the other day....

I may be advocating 7-car IEP, but that doesn't mean DaFT will change the order.

where on the "it would be cheaper to build a new shell, take the engine and transmission from the driving coach and fit it to the new build" scale does "rebuild the driving end of a coach into a inner end" lie?

On no, not back to the 'how many expensive ways can we tear apart and rebuild perfectly serviceable trains with years of useful life left in them' theorising.

'perfectly serviceable trains with years of useful life left in them'? I think not. As several of us have said several times, the usefulness of 22xs in the present form is minimal. They are expensive to run, which makes it hard to put them on regional express work to help cover the shortage of 158s, but you don't get many seats per length of unit, and the seats they do have are rammed in, not much comfort, which doesn't make them that useful for Intercity services either. jopsuk's question is a good one, I hadn't bothered asking it myself simply because I expect the answer is 'way off the expensive end of the scale' but if I'm wrong about that it would be a very useful way of getting more usefulness out of the stock.

 

[tbtc]

As several of us have said several times, the usefulness of 22xs in the present form is minimal. They are expensive to run, which makes it hard to put them on regional express work to help cover the shortage of 158s, but you don't get many seats per length of unit

Again, you compare apples with oranges.

Since we are talking post-2020 (i.e. by the time that the MML is wired and 222s will be freed up), 158s will need to be made accessible, with "universal" toilets, proper wheelchair spaces etc, which will cut down their seating capacity

 

[whhistle]

Although apples and oranges are both fruits, therefore there is comparable merit between them.

 

[anthony263]

I remember reading the suggetstion of reducing the number of 5 carriage bi-bodes in favour of a number of 8 carriage bi-modes which would work peak hour London - Cheltenham and also the London -Hereford/Bristol - Weston Super Mare - Exeter services.

Certainly this is soemthing I would prefer since it would reduce teh risk of just a 5 carriage unit turning up rather than a pair. The remaining 5 carriage bi-modes would work the London - Taunton/Exeter semi fast services via Newbury and Westbury and also off peak London - Cheltenham/Worcester services as well as the services to Carmarthen. Of course they would work in pairs on the busiest sections of the routes such as Oxford - London

 

[tbtc]

Although apples and oranges are both fruits, therefore there is comparable merit between them.

True, but it seemed silly to compare 158s with 222s in terms of capacity since (by the time that any cascades/ swaps occur) the 158s are going to lose a number of seats when upgraded to the accessibility standard that 222s already conform to.

It happens on a lot of other threads (e.g. people complaining that areas receiving cascaded EMUs will see a reduction in capacity compared to the Sprinters they currently have - ignoring the fact that those Sprinters are going to have to lose a few seats to make way for larger toilets/ wheelchair spaces...).

 

[The Ham]

I may be advocating 7-car IEP, but that doesn't mean DaFT will change the order.

...and as you have been told DfT don't have to change the order the Franchise holders will be able to (as long as they order the minimum number of units that the DfT has ordered and don't add the need for too many engines)

'perfectly serviceable trains with years of useful life left in them'? I think not. As several of us have said several times, the usefulness of 22xs in the present form is minimal. They are expensive to run, which makes it hard to put them on regional express work to help cover the shortage of 158s, but you don't get many seats per length of unit, and the seats they do have are rammed in, not much comfort, which doesn't make them that useful for Intercity services either. jopsuk's question is a good one, I hadn't bothered asking it myself simply because I expect the answer is 'way off the expensive end of the scale' but if I'm wrong about that it would be a very useful way of getting more usefulness out of the stock.

The 22x's do have a lot of useful life left in them, however I do agree that there are few routes which are suitable for them. Cost is one big factor, but if no one wants them the lease costs of them could come down (as the ROSCO's will want to get something for them rather than have them sat idle) to a point where their overall cost per seat is comparable.

 

[Xavi]

True, but it seemed silly to compare 158s with 222s in terms of capacity since (by the time that any cascades/ swaps occur) the 158s are going to lose a number of seats when upgraded to the accessibility standard that 222s already conform to.

It happens on a lot of other threads (e.g. people complaining that areas receiving cascaded EMUs will see a reduction in capacity compared to the Sprinters they currently have - ignoring the fact that those Sprinters are going to have to lose a few seats to make way for larger toilets/ wheelchair spaces...).

159s already have accessible toilets with nil impact on seating and, from memory, it's in one of the driving vehicles, so there shouldn't be any impact on 158s when upgraded. Another sample of how 158/9s will go down as one of the best trains ever built, certainly in terms of value for money.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
In terms of the composition of the GW IEP fleet, will the franchise be let early enough for the winner to decide before production has commenced? I hope so because any winner would change it from the DfT plans.

 

[jimm]

I may be advocating 7-car IEP, but that doesn't mean DaFT will change the order.

'perfectly serviceable trains with years of useful life left in them'? I think not. As several of us have said several times, the usefulness of 22xs in the present form is minimal. They are expensive to run, which makes it hard to put them on regional express work to help cover the shortage of 158s, but you don't get many seats per length of unit, and the seats they do have are rammed in, not much comfort, which doesn't make them that useful for Intercity services either. jopsuk's question is a good one, I hadn't bothered asking it myself simply because I expect the answer is 'way off the expensive end of the scale' but if I'm wrong about that it would be a very useful way of getting more usefulness out of the stock.

Yes, they are perfectly serviceable trains with years of useful life left in them. There are issues with them, but that does not mean that carving them up is going to be cost-effective. And in a situation when new dmu orders look like a non-starter for some time to come, then we are most surely going to have to find something useful to do with them, whatever it costs to run them - and that something will very likely involve use on regional routes in place of 158s and 170s, which are going to be needed to help plug gaps where Pacers have disappeared but wires have yet to appear.

And since when has it been the case that 22xs aren't "that useful for Intercity services"? Only the other day they were the bee's knees when it came to services to the Cotswold Line, in a fantasy non-existent, too small, bi-mode form.

I seem to recall you have previously advocated scrapping the 22x family, despite the obvious future need for diesel stock.

 

[jopsuk]

On no, not back to the 'how many expensive ways can we tear apart and rebuild perfectly serviceable trains with years of useful life left in them' theorising.

No, theorising on how to get them into optimal formations- on the basis that the current formations might not be optimal for all possible uses. There's 126 cars total in the 222 fleet. 6*7 plus 17*5 plus 4*4 might not be the ideal fleet. For instance, one arrangement could be 21*6-car units- admittedly doubles would require very long 280m platforms, but six car units would be a sensible length for express services from Edinburgh and Glasgow to Aberdeen and Inverness, for example.

 

[HSTEd]

Returning to the formations of a handful of "full length" sets and many 4 car set might also be useful if we are going to have them on secondary routes.

 

[The Ham]

No, theorising on how to get them into optimal formations- on the basis that the current formations might not be optimal for all possible uses. There's 126 cars total in the 222 fleet. 6*7 plus 17*5 plus 4*4 might not be the ideal fleet. For instance, one arrangement could be 21*6-car units- admittedly doubles would require very long 280m platforms, but six car units would be a sensible length for express services from Edinburgh and Glasgow to Aberdeen and Inverness, for example.

My maths puts the total number of coaches at 143 (of which 54 are end units and 89 are mid units), that allows 22x6 coach sets to be built however it would leave 1 spare mid unit and 12 spare end units.

In reality would Scotrail find a use for that many IC class trains, would the potentially spare 221's from ICWC not be a better bet, converting the 20x5 coach sets into 10x6 coach sets and 10x4 coach sets so that there were a mix of units available and a mix of lengths available. For instance they could run as 4, 6, 4+4 or 4+6 set trains. With any spares being used to strengthen XC services.

 

[LE Greys]

My maths puts the total number of coaches at 143 (of which 54 are end units and 89 are mid units), that allows 22x6 coach sets to be built however it would leave 1 spare mid unit and 12 spare end units.

In reality would Scotrail find a use for that many IC class trains, would the potentially spare 221's from ICWC not be a better bet, converting the 20x5 coach sets into 10x6 coach sets and 10x4 coach sets so that there were a mix of units available and a mix of lengths available. For instance they could run as 4, 6, 4+4 or 4+6 set trains. With any spares being used to strengthen XC services.

That's one possibility for Scotrail, although their 125mph capability would be somewhat wasted north of the Central Belt (unless upgrades with tilt ever happen, not very likely). It seems more likely that this is a possible home for the 185s, although they would also require some track upgrades before they could run at 100 everywhere that 170s can. Ultimately, Aberdeen will be electrified one day, but Inverness probably never will, so there will have to be some form of self-powered unit for the Highland Line for as long as it exists.

 

[HSTEd]

Inverness could potentially be electrified for the purposes of allowing the sleeper to switch to simplified EMU only operation.

Its only single track and large parts of it have few overbridges, which would seem to indicate that it could be done relatively cheaply.

 

[tbtc]

Returning to the formations of a handful of "full length" sets and many 4 car set might also be useful if we are going to have them on secondary routes.

Given the "crumple zone" space on 125mph stock, a four coach 222 wouldn't be much use (other than the Corby service, how many services need 125mph stock but only a short length?).

 

[HSTEd]

Given the "crumple zone" space on 125mph stock, a four coach 222 wouldn't be much use (other than the Corby service, how many services need 125mph stock but only a short length?).

It would have superior capacity to todays' 4-car Voyagers simply because it would only have one massive toilet instead of 3.

And as to where it would be useful... if we put our minds to it I am sure we could find minor regional express routes where massive acceleration and superior speed could be useful.

 

[The Ham]

Given the "crumple zone" space on 125mph stock, a four coach 222 wouldn't be much use (other than the Corby service, how many services need 125mph stock but only a short length?).

Why that question wasn't asked when XC were ordering their 220's as it would have saved a lot of problems that they now have.

 

[tbtc]

It would have superior capacity to todays' 4-car Voyagers simply because it would only have one massive toilet instead of 3.

And as to where it would be useful... if we put our minds to it I am sure we could find minor regional express routes where massive acceleration and superior speed could be useful.

...and how many routes are perfectly suited to a four coach Voyager? Very few. Trying to replicate this with a train that only has a couple of extra seats would be a waste of time.

Going back to nine and four coaches would leave you with only 7x nine coach 222s and 20x four coach - whilst MM's plan to replace the Turbostars with four coach 222s and use 7x nine coach ones for a Leeds - London service had some merit, now we have so many three coach 100mph DMUs (170, 171, 175, 185) as well as a few three coach 158/159s, there's really not a "niche" for 20x four coach 222s (which are really just "three and a half coaches" long, when you take the crumple zone space into the equation).

Put the 222s into a mixture of five/ six coach lengths (since there's not a "round number" of centre coaches). At least that way you can use them on routes that require something a bit bigger than a three coach unit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why that question wasn't asked when XC were ordering their 220's as it would have saved a lot of problems that they now have.

Yes - in hindsight we should never have ordered trains with only a couple of hundred seats for those services.

I still maintain that if Voyagers had been ordered with six/ seven/ eight coaches we'd see most of the complaints go down (e.g. people wouldn't complain about the toilets anything like as much because they wouldn't have to spend long journeys stood outside the toilets because of a lack of seating).

 

[The Ham]

Yes - in hindsight we should never have ordered trains with only a couple of hundred seats for those services.

I still maintain that if Voyagers had been ordered with six/ seven/ eight coaches we'd see most of the complaints go down (e.g. people wouldn't complain about the toilets anything like as much because they wouldn't have to spend long journeys stood outside the toilets because of a lack of seating).

Even an option for a follow on order for an extra 34 central coaches (enough to make all the 220's to 5 coaches long) to be used by any of the 22x's was added to the 222 order it would have made things a LOT better as I would have thought at least a few of them would have been ordered.

At least now tenders for new stock do at least have an option for further vehicles so that it overcomes this problem.

 

[RobShipway]

Even an option for a follow on order for an extra 34 central coaches (enough to make all the 220's to 5 coaches long) to be used by any of the 22x's was added to the 222 order it would have made things a LOT better as I would have thought at least a few of them would have been ordered.

At least now tenders for new stock do at least have an option for further vehicles so that it overcomes this problem.

But there lies the problem with the 220/221/222 trains, as any new coaches would be better being pantograph coaches given the electrification schemes planned but to order enough you would be paying the same amount as buying the IEP trains.

In the longer term (say next 15 - 20 years), I can see most of the Class 221/220/222 fleet either being scrapped or working on routes where thet are still under the wires for most of the route as happens with the class 221's that do the Chester/North Wales routes.

 

[The Ham]

But there lies the problem with the 220/221/222 trains, as any new coaches would be better being pantograph coaches given the electrification schemes planned but to order enough you would be paying the same amount as buying the IEP trains.

I was not suggesting a new order of 22x's now, rather an option to have been taken in 2005/6 of extra middle coaches so that we weren't left with the fleet of such short units.

In the longer term (say next 15 - 20 years), I can see most of the Class 221/220/222 fleet either being scrapped or working on routes where thet are still under the wires for most of the route as happens with the class 221's that do the Chester/North Wales routes.

I agree that it is likely that the 22x's (or at least a lot of end units) will not all make it to a normal DMU retirement age, as either they will run out of even vaguely suitable routes, electrification overtakes them and/or passenger growth makes such short units impractable. However until such time as they reach the end of their useful life, then they shoul dbe used on the most suitable routes.

 

[tbtc]

Routes with 90/100mph stock that might justify 220/221/222s post 2020/2025(ish) - ignoring routes that are going to be electrified or get bi-mode IEP?

Edinburgh/Glasgow to Aberdeen/Inverness (already sees some doubled up DMUs, so may not be a big jump in capacity - could be a reduction)
Leeds - Nottingham (unless the MML "gaps" are wired in CP6?)
Nottingham - Cardiff

Erm?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Routes with 90/100mph stock that might justify 220/221/222s post 2020/2025(ish) - ignoring routes that are going to be electrified or get bi-mode IEP?

Edinburgh/Glasgow to Aberdeen/Inverness (already sees some doubled up DMUs, so may not be a big jump in capacity - could be a reduction)
Leeds - Nottingham (unless the MML "gaps" are wired in CP6?)
Nottingham - Cardiff

Erm?

Nottingham - Cardiff is a good one, since the current 170s have similar waste-of-space problems for a regional unit (although with 170s it's because the doors are in the wrong place, and wider). Also 2-car 175s aren't really long enough for Cardiff - Manchester, even a 4(sorry 3.5)-car 222 probally is an increase in capacity over a 2-car 175.

 

[The Ham]

Routes with 90/100mph stock that might justify 220/221/222s post 2020/2025(ish) - ignoring routes that are going to be electrified or get bi-mode IEP?

Edinburgh/Glasgow to Aberdeen/Inverness (already sees some doubled up DMUs, so may not be a big jump in capacity - could be a reduction)
Leeds - Nottingham (unless the MML "gaps" are wired in CP6?)
Nottingham - Cardiff

Erm?

With Edinburgh/Glasgow to Aberdeen/Inverness, although a 4 coach 22x (although I'd expect that the 220's will stay with XC to be run doubled up until there are new IC EMU's to replace them) would be a drop in capcity over a 4 coach 158 it could then free up a lot of 158's to be used on other services.

Given the first place which could be releasing any class 22x's is likely to be ICWC (as it currently due to start 6 months before the East Midlands franchise is due to start and there is no need to wait on compeation of electrification projects) it is more likely that there will be spare 221's before there are spare 222's. This would proberbly mean that there would be 5 coach 221's should at about comparable with a four coach 158, although as suggested before it may be better to look at reforming them into a mixture of 4,5 & 6 coach sets.

 

[edwin_m]

Routes with 90/100mph stock that might justify 220/221/222s post 2020/2025(ish) - ignoring routes that are going to be electrified or get bi-mode IEP?

Edinburgh/Glasgow to Aberdeen/Inverness (already sees some doubled up DMUs, so may not be a big jump in capacity - could be a reduction)
Leeds - Nottingham (unless the MML "gaps" are wired in CP6?)
Nottingham - Cardiff

Erm?

Chiltern?

 

[LE Greys]

With Edinburgh/Glasgow to Aberdeen/Inverness, although a 4 coach 22x (although I'd expect that the 220's will stay with XC to be run doubled up until there are new IC EMU's to replace them) would be a drop in capcity over a 4 coach 158 it could then free up a lot of 158's to be used on other services.

Given the first place which could be releasing any class 22x's is likely to be ICWC (as it currently due to start 6 months before the East Midlands franchise is due to start and there is no need to wait on compeation of electrification projects) it is more likely that there will be spare 221's before there are spare 222's. This would proberbly mean that there would be 5 coach 221's should at about comparable with a four coach 158, although as suggested before it may be better to look at reforming them into a mixture of 4,5 & 6 coach sets.

Those usually run as 3-car Turbostars anyway, doubling up in the peaks, with Turbostar+158 formations sometimes appearing. The latter probably won't happen once E-G electrification goes live. A single 220 is a drop in capacity over a single 170, so they would have to double up in the peaks as well. It's only really worth it if we ever get 125 running.

My suggestion as to where to send them is XC, to shore up capacity and allow more formations to run in pairs, and perhaps access some of the Operation Princess destinations. Putting them on Nottingham-Cardiff would be another possibility, allowing an internal cascade of 170s, or possibly freeing up a few for work somewhere else (restoring them to Liverpool-Norwich perhaps).

 

[Rhydgaled]

A single 220 is a drop in capacity over a single 170

Really? I thought those suburban doors would eat into a 170's seating capacity, not as much as the crumple-zones and disabled toilets on a 220 but a 220 is longer overall.

 

[transmanche]

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.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Again, you compare apples with oranges.

Since we are talking post-2020 (i.e. by the time that the MML is wired and 222s will be freed up), 158s will need to be made accessible, with "universal" toilets, proper wheelchair spaces etc, which will cut down their seating capacity

159s already have accessible toilets with nil impact on seating and, from memory, it's in one of the driving vehicles, so there shouldn't be any impact on 158s when upgraded. Another sample of how 158/9s will go down as one of the best trains ever built, certainly in terms of value for money.

Weren't 158s built with disabled toilets? Even if they weren't, aren't ATW's 158s now compliant with the TSI PRM? They certainly have 'Attention conductor, call for aid activated' announcements now, and some seats with extra legroom etc.

 

[LE Greys]

Really? I thought those suburban doors would eat into a 170's seating capacity, not as much as the crumple-zones and disabled toilets on a 220 but a 220 is longer overall.

I've re-checked and it turns out they're about the same (assuming my book isn't out of date). 220s have 186 passenger seats (26/160) while 170s have 187 (18/169). Presumably, the former shop area and additional first class seats eat up more capacity.

Of course, you're using a lot more fuel to transport these people not much faster...