Will 225s replace Voyagers?

[387star]

Sorry behind on news seems east coast 225s will be replaced
Might xc get them or will they get 222s
Can 220s and 222s couple up?

 

[D365]

Sorry behind on news seems east coast 225s will be replaced
Might xc get them or will they get 222s

Who knows yet? Bitta both, one might like to think. If anywhere though I still reckon MML would be better. Refurbished and provided with Traxx where needed.

Can 220s or 221s and 222s couple up?

Probably not, at least not from a software point of view. The 'Mk1' Voyagers (220/221) run Alstom TMS for Pendolino compatibility whilst 'Mk2' 222 runs the specific Bombardier equivalent. Not sure about couplings.

 

[Eagle]

Of course, the 225s can only run on XC's all-electric routes. Which currently is only planned to be Manchester to Southampton (although filling in the gaps to York is pretty much inevitable at some point).

 

[nomis1066]

Voyagers are appalling units. Not enough seats, cramped and generaly unsuitable for what they are used. The best use I can think of for them is to cascade them to FGW to operate their Reading Gatwick service which - with 3 car 165s - is often subject to gross overcrowding. There are obvious issues like are they in gauge etc etc and bearing that in mind - a further cascade might be possible to Southern to replace their hopelessly inadequate two cars on the Brighton-Ashford run. Then the displaced two car 171s can be added to the Uckfield line pool which could do with extra coaches. This on the assumption that common sense never prevails and those two isolated diesel "pockets" in the SE corner of England remain unelectrified.

Voyager = rich man's Pacer. Pacer = poor man's Voyager.

 

[Manchester77]

Wondered how long itd take for the first anti voyager comment to be posted, didn't even take an hour!

As previously posted the best home for them seems to be the MML however they seem to want 125 mph EMUs. Nothing to stop mark IVs with a Traxx loco on GEML services replacing the existing 90 + mark III services. If orders are timed correctly you can have a one hit EMU for XC, MML and Hull. If the CAF EMU as listed in the First Group bid for WCML were done you could also add these on however if VT do their 391s I guess these could be used on the MML / XC.

 

[Eagle]

The best use I can think of for them is to cascade them to FGW to operate their Reading Gatwick service which - with 3 car 165s - is often subject to gross overcrowding.

A four-car Voyager has slightly less seats than a FGW 165.

 

[43074]

Who knows yet? Bitta both, one might like to think. If anywhere though I still reckon MML would be better. Refurbished and provided with Traxx where needed.

Agreed, but unfortunately 125mph EMUs seem to be the preferred option at the moment with EMT.

Probably not, at least not from a software point of view. The 'Mk1' Voyagers (220/221) run Alstom TMS for Pendolino compatibility whilst 'Mk2' 222 runs the specific Bombardier equivalent. Not sure about couplings.

It's a matter of software, as I understand it. They can couple now but only in emergencies. With electro-pneumatic brakes you rely on the coupling for braking as well, so you would have no brakes in the rear unit if a 220 and 222 were coupled.

 

[tbtc]

Electrification from Manchester to Southampton should free up around a dozen Voyagers (or around twenty if they split the "X" at Birmingham), but it'll be a long time before we see wires to Plymouth (yet alone Penzance/ Aberdeen etc) so there will be plenty of 220/221s needed on XC, just running bulked up services from York to Bristol.

 

[Drsatan]

As previously posted the best home for them seems to be the MML however they seem to want 125 mph EMUs.

I believe it's been proposed that EMUs operate an enhanced St Pancras to Corby and St Pancras to Nottingham service. I imagine 225s may be retained for Sheffield to St Pancras services.

 

[dk1]

I believe it's been proposed that EMUs operate an enhanced St Pancras to Corby and St Pancras to Nottingham service. I imagine 225s may be retained for Sheffield to St Pancras services.

Dear DfT, can we have some on Anglia. Our poor guards really don't like slam doors. We don't mind keeping the 90s for acceleration. Thanks.

 

[route:oxford]

It's a matter of software, as I understand it. They can couple now but only in emergencies. With electro-pneumatic brakes you rely on the coupling for braking as well, so you would have no brakes in the rear unit if a 220 and 222 were coupled.

If the hardware is the same and it's only a matter of the software - just reboot with the alternative software.

As to the Mark 4 sets.

Grab a couple of 88s geared for 125mph in a push-pull format and timetable for 50mph (or predicted speed) between Birmingham and York.

Although, perhaps they can run up to max speed under the wires before dropping the pants...

 

[D365]

Dear DfT, can we have some on Anglia. Our poor guards really don't like slam doors. We don't mind keeping the 90s for acceleration. Thanks.

There's twice as many Mk4s as you need. What could one do with the remainder? Plus they're tilt gauge so more cramped than your darling Mk3s. 'Chiltern-isation' will do for you

 

[rebmcr]

If the hardware is the same and it's only a matter of the software - just reboot with the alternative software.

It's an embedded safety-critical system. It might not even be changeable at all, and even if it is, it'd be a major overhaul job with weeks of testing.

 

[Murph]

Are the 225 sets still 140mph-capable (if/when ERTMS finally arrives, and they were retrofitted with it)?

If so, and they still have some good life remaining in them, something involving 140mph running on ECML / WCML would seem to be the best use of them. It would be kinda nice if they could finally run at their design speed before they are retired!

 

[tsr]

A four-car Voyager has slightly less seats than a FGW 165.

A FGW Turbo also has doors in practical places, and a three-car unit will have a reasonable amount of luggage space. Turbos additionally have windows which can be opened if it gets smelly onboard, and sewage systems which do not overheat and stink. Last but not least, it is not unheard of for them to run with a fourth coach if one diagram needs a significant capacity boost. Finally, they have just had a modest refurbishment. If the performance of RHTTs improves to combat their winter wheelslip, and if someone bothers to fix the aircon, please could we keep them on the North Downs Line? Thank you.

 

[Manchester77]

Are the 225 sets still 140mph-capable (if/when ERTMS finally arrives, and they were retrofitted with it)?

If so, and they still have some good life remaining in them, something involving 140mph running on ECML / WCML would seem to be the best use of them. It would be kinda nice if they could finally run at their design speed before they are retired!

Would require tilt to run on the WCML. Probably could but after not running at 140 for so long might not exactly be reliable or doable

 

[dk1]

There's twice as many Mk4s as you need. What could one do with the remainder? Plus they're tilt gauge so more cramped than your darling Mk3s. 'Chiltern-isation' will do for you

Didn't say all, only some. 12 sets will do. Can't see a full upgrading of the MK3 sets happening now. Just a partial upgrade to take them through to 2020.

 

[The Ham]

Sorry behind on news seems east coast 225s will be replaced
Might xc get them or will they get 222s
Can 220s and 222s couple up?

I think that XC would get at least a few of Virgin 221's (who curretnly have 20) to strengthen their fleet once the ICWM franchise is relet and the Voyagers are replaced by EMU's.

XC are likely to then get a number of gaps wired up in CP6 and replace about 1/2 their services by EMU's, meaning that if the IC225's ran the Manchester-South Coast services it would only be for a fairly short time (likewise East Midlands). Until about 2022, when they'd start getting their own EMU's (possibly in partnership with East Midlands), which would be then be delived over a few years to allow the missing lengths of electrification to be done.

The 222's are likely to be kept as a single fleet. There are a couple of options:

1) Replacing the current XC fleet of 220's with XC having to run them as a seperate fleets, but with the advantage that they could retain some of their 220's to strengthen the 221's. Although there would be 7 less 222's sets this shouldn't be as bad as it first looks as there are six 7 coach sets which are the same as six 8 coach trains formed of 2x4 coach 220's. The thing that would cause problems is that there would be a gap of at least one set, plus the need to have extra spare sets to be able be run the two seperates fleets, this would cause XC to need more sets than if they were to run a uniform (well only 220's and 221's) fleet.

2) Use them to replace the IC125's which are being retained to run the Cornish train services.

3) Use them in Scotland, although that would depend on finding suitable routes and services for them (often meaning that the 222's would have to be at least 1 coach longer than the existing stock to keep a comparable number of seats).

Of course it could well be that XC get the Mark 4's with the class 91's being replaced by bi-modal locos to enable them to bridge the gaps in their network (maybe with a few extra to give the trains a boast near the edges of their network where they will need to diesel engine for farily long lengths). That would give XC an extra 52 coaches more than at present, although it would give a capacity boast of a lot more than this, as 114 of their current stock of 250 coaches has 1/3 not being used for seats.

 

[route:oxford]

It's an embedded safety-critical system. It might not even be changeable at all, and even if it is, it'd be a major overhaul job with weeks of testing.

Major overhaul - by a couple of blokes with their laptops.

When it comes to software, nothing is impossible.

 

[158722]

I think that XC would get at least a few of Virgin 221's (who curretnly have 20) to strengthen their fleet once the ICWM franchise is relet and the Voyagers are replaced by EMU's.

XC are likely to then get a number of gaps wired up in CP6 and replace about 1/2 their services by EMU's, meaning that if the IC225's ran the Manchester-South Coast services it would only be for a fairly short time (likewise East Midlands). Until about 2022, when they'd start getting their own EMU's (possibly in partnership with East Midlands), which would be then be delived over a few years to allow the missing lengths of electrification to be done.

The 222's are likely to be kept as a single fleet. There are a couple of options:

1) Replacing the current XC fleet of 220's with XC having to run them as a seperate fleets, but with the advantage that they could retain some of their 220's to strengthen the 221's. Although there would be 7 less 222's sets this shouldn't be as bad as it first looks as there are six 7 coach sets which are the same as six 8 coach trains formed of 2x4 coach 220's. The thing that would cause problems is that there would be a gap of at least one set, plus the need to have extra spare sets to be able be run the two seperates fleets, this would cause XC to need more sets than if they were to run a uniform (well only 220's and 221's) fleet.

2) Use them to replace the IC125's which are being retained to run the Cornish train services.

3) Use them in Scotland, although that would depend on finding suitable routes and services for them (often meaning that the 222's would have to be at least 1 coach longer than the existing stock to keep a comparable number of seats).

Of course it could well be that XC get the Mark 4's with the class 91's being replaced by bi-modal locos to enable them to bridge the gaps in their network (maybe with a few extra to give the trains a boast near the edges of their network where they will need to diesel engine for farily long lengths). That would give XC an extra 52 coaches more than at present, although it would give a capacity boast of a lot more than this, as 114 of their current stock of 250 coaches has 1/3 not being used for seats.

This subject has come up on a few threads now and I think have to agree with your points about Virgin getting extra EMUs/mini-pendos, allowing most of their 221s to go XC, thus displacing their HSTs and expanding capacity. Once the gaps are plugged in the XC network, then they will need new build emus with 220s being shifted elsewhere.

222s, displaced from the midland by 91s and mk4s, work nicely to replace HSTs on Devon and Cornwall services, possibly reformed again as 8x 6-car and 19x 5-car with splitting/joining of services at Plymouth or Exeter, as required. Consensus of opinion seems to be the units will stay diesel only and not be converted to bi-modes, given the costs and age of them by the time this all comes to fruition.

 

[rebmcr]

Major overhaul - by a couple of blokes with their laptops.

When it comes to software, nothing is impossible.

Embedded systems don't work like that.

 

[swt_passenger]

If so, and they still have some good life remaining in them, something involving 140mph running on ECML / WCML would seem to be the best use of them. It would be kinda nice if they could finally run at their design speed before they are retired!

ECML? Complete non-starter. The only reason future use of the stock is up for discussion at all is that they are being completely replaced on the ECML with IEP.

 

[nomis1066]

Ah, most enlightening, a three car 165 has more seats than a four car Voyager! I was just offering up that 'cascade' suggestion earlier (Voyagers to replav overcrowded 165s on Reading Gatwick services) as a suggestion. That to me confirms even more the general inadequacies of Voyagers.

Again, just testing the water, how about 180 Adelantes on the Reading Gatwick? As with Voyagers, we are talking of 125mph trains possibly under utilised in terms of line speed etc etc, and there have been reliability issues with the 180s (I have personally not been let down by a Hull Trains 180), but these are comfortable, well laid out trains which, thinking about that spacious lay out may also have less seats than a 165..........!

 

[swt_passenger]

Again, just testing the water, how about 180 Adelantes on the Reading Gatwick?

To be replaced on GW by IEP, but already earmarked for GC to replace their HSTs.

Next...

 

[387star]

Virgin want to replace the voyagers ASAP don't they?

 

[Manchester77]

They want to replace their 21 221s with 21 baby pendos with new locomotives hauling them off wires. I don't get how they can expect to run more services with the same number of trains though.

 

[Qwerty133]

Why does the MML keep getting suggested for the 225s, normal passengers aren't going to be happy with older trains with slower acceleration after years of disruption, than currently. It is a bad idea to move them anywhere as the ECML is the only suitable route for 225s.
Outside of enthusiasts the vast majority of EMT passengers prefer meridians to HSTs for a number of reasons, so there will be absolutely no problem with it getting EMUs.
Personally I'd like to see the MML get a mix of full length and 'baby' pendolino or anything other than 225s or IEP.

 

[Murph]

ECML? Complete non-starter. The only reason future use of the stock is up for discussion at all is that they are being completely replaced on the ECML with IEP.

I was more thinking that they might work for secondary (non-EC) services which share the ECML. Assuming that they can run at 140mph, it might make pathing easier, helping overall capacity on the line.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Embedded systems don't work like that.

Depends. Is the firmware on EPROM or NAND flash? If it's NAND flash then it is as simple as replacing the firmware. That can be done simply with a laptop with the appropriate access. Obviously this would require a unit put aside for testing to ensure the new TMS works with all of the systems correctly. EPROM would require some disassembly so that the necessary chips can be replaced.

Bear in mind SCADA systems are generally safety critical (think nuclear reactors) and can be reprogrammed with a PC.

 

[ainsworth74]

I was more thinking that they might work for secondary (non-EC) services which share the ECML. Assuming that they can run at 140mph, it might make pathing easier, helping overall capacity on the line.

You do realise that the biggest capacity drain on places like the ECML is the fast services? Rather than making pathing easier having 140mph services will make pathing harder...