Where could the Voyagers go?

[Richard Scott]

Depends on how the 10 coach 22x's are configured, as a pair of 5 coach units then yes. However if you run then as a single 10 coach train they're not much lower than a 9 coach 159.

Of course it depends on what else is happening, for instance if you've electrified to Yeovil then the 22x's could be used for off peak services with EMU's running the peak hour services and West of Yeovil passengers making a cross platform change. The 22x's could still run into Waterloo every other hour, just not in the peaks.

But what's the point? They offer no improvement and are fuel hungry compared to what they're replacing.

 

[Kilopylae]

Would 221s be suitable for the Nottingham to Cardiff Central, Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich or Birmingham New Street to Stansted Airport services?

Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich is the only one I feel qualified to comment on and I would say Voyagers would work well for it

 

[Daniel740]

Why can’t we place the voyager units into storage and keep them as a ‘back up’?

 

[class26]

Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich is the only one I feel qualified to comment on and I would say Voyagers would work well for it

This route has been mentioned numerous times and numerous times it has been said that Voyagers would be heavily speed restricted east of Peterborough to make it not worthwhile.

 

[Energy]

Why can’t we place the voyager units into storage and keep them as a ‘back up’?

Trains are leased in this country so someone will need to be paying for them, plus there would need to be staff trained for the voyagers, route clearance isn't too big of a problem as they are cleared for a lot of the UK due to operating for XC. There are also a lot of voyagers, keeping 4 for spot hire (if they could be acquired cheaply) wouldn't be too out of the question but there are 34 of just the 220s and 44 221s.

 

[greatvoyager]

Trains are leased in this country so someone will need to be paying for them, plus there would need to be staff trained for the voyagers, route clearance isn't too big of a problem as they are cleared for a lot of the UK due to operating for XC. There are also a lot of voyagers, keeping 4 for spot hire (if they could be acquired cheaply) wouldn't be too out of the question but there are 34 of just the 220s and 44 221s.

Also, there's probably a lack of locations to store them and the ROSCO will not want assets stored expensively if they could be used, otherwise they may as well scrap them.

 

[The Ham]

But what's the point? They offer no improvement and are fuel hungry compared to what they're replacing.

Indeed, but if using 22x's allowed the use of the 158/159's on other routes elsewhere (again without the need for a short lived DMU) then they could be used.

As I said, they may not be perfect, but if it allows a least worst option (which maybe more expensive in fuel but cheaper in not paying for a train in least costs over 10 years before then scraping them) then it might be considered.

Also, at I've pointed out, if they are part of an electrification scheme to Yeovil (22x's running 1tph between Yeovil and Exeter with every other service extending to Waterloo) then even the overall energy cost could still be lower.

I'm not suggesting that they would definitely be used on the SWR services (chances are they actually just stay with XC before they are scrapped) but the argument that it'll never happen due to capacity limits isn't as strong an argument if other changes come into play.

 

[Clansman]

What about ScotRail to replace the HSTs on their ‘Inter-city’ routes?

The 222s are a bit easier to find a home for, a bit smaller fleet and they have more space inside as they didn't have the tilt profile issue. There is a perfect number of these to replace the HSTs at Scotrail if they decide they would like to replace the HSTs. Chiltern is also an option, which would allow the 168s to be cascaded to replace the 165s, which I'm sure someone (GWR or Northern) would take.

220/221s are a bit harder to find a home for, their tilt profile makes them less desirable compared to the 222s and there are many of them, the WCML 221s could be of interest to Chiltern or Scotrail but there aren't quite enough for the latter (the former can just use 168s on some services) but too many if you take the XC 221s, and they can still choose the 222s.

To anyone looking at Voyagers in the context of ScotRail I7C runs, try making a pros and cons list vice a double 158 to ScotRail specs, and that in itself will show why Voyagers are such an awful idea.

If anywhere in Scotland justified Voyagers, you could say Glasgow-Stranraer/Carlisle/Newcastle at a push. Certainly not I7C.

Considered here https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/avanti-voyagers-to-scotrail.208026

Thank you for saving me from yet another one of my inevitable diatribes against this subject!

 

[Energy]

To anyone looking at Voyagers in the context of ScotRail I7C runs, try making a pros and cons list vice a double 158 to ScotRail specs, and that in itself will show why Voyagers are such an awful idea.

If anywhere in Scotland justified Voyagers, you could say Glasgow-Stranraer/Carlisle/Newcastle at a push. Certainly not I7C.


Thank you for saving me from yet another one of my inevitable diatribes against this subject!

Can you say how they are not suitable for I7C routes? So far it is passenger capacity and comfort which can be solved by a refurbishment (HSTs had a more extensive refurbishment), diesel running (HSTs are also diesel) and time scale, which is the only valid point I have seen so far.

 

[XAM2175]

Sims, Newport.

Can we do this immediately, and then pretend they never existed? Not because they're especially bad or anything, but rather it seems to be the only way to be sure we'll never have to hear about cascading them ever again

 

[Clansman]

Can you say how they are not suitable for I7C routes? So far it is passenger capacity and comfort which can be solved by a refurbishment (HSTs had a more extensive refurbishment), diesel running (HSTs are also diesel) and time scale, which is the only valid point I have seen so far.

Absolutely. You're forgetting that the design of the Mk3s in comparison to the Voyagers is extremely versatile. No engines to think of, and no constraints of space to consider due to factoring in tilt profiling. There is more to work with on an Mk3. Less so a Voyager. An age difference of 20 years will hardly make a difference to that.

Take a comparison to a double 158 for example - which, until the pandemic, would only just about cope with loadings on the busiest of I7C routes (Inverness to Edinburgh in particular).

Compared to a double 158 and at a push a five car I7C HST, a five car voyager has;

• Fewer standard class seats (which defeats your first point - refurbishment cannot solve this without adding extra coaches)
• Less space for luggage due to body design (again, this cannot be solved without additional carriages)
• Greater fuel consumption
• Toilet emissions issues
• Requires guard/driver to both operate doors causing higher dwell times
• Less standing space
• Less bike storage space
• Higher leasing costs
• Greater purtrusion of vibration into the passenger saloon
• Not available until another three or four years
• Less legroom

In addition, they;

• Wouldn't be able to operate at 125mph
• Wouldn't be able to use tilt
• Would require six depots to sign them which is more hassle than what the timescale is worth at this point
• Would require platform lengthening to allow additional carriages to compensate for interior space inefficiencies
• Would require SDO

All this is before you consider what ScotRail/Transport Scotland want for I7C services, what passengers want, what they need, what the Scottish Government wants and most of all: the challenges involved to achieve this.

So remind me... what are the pros of running Voyagers on I7C runs again?

 

[JKF]

Is there any market for exporting old trains these days, or does the amount of technology in stock make vehicles uneconomical to maintain/make compatible?

 

[The Ham]

Absolutely. You're forgetting that the design of the Mk3s in comparison to the Voyagers is extremely versatile. No engines to think of, and no constraints of space to consider due to factoring in tilt profiling. There is more to work with on an Mk3. Less so a Voyager. An age difference of 20 years will hardly make a difference to that.

Take a comparison to a double 158 for example - which, until the pandemic, would only just about cope with loadings on the busiest of I7C routes (Inverness to Edinburgh in particular).

Compared to a double 158 and at a push a five car I7C HST, a five car voyager has;

• Fewer standard class seats (which defeats your first point - refurbishment cannot solve this without adding extra coaches)
• Less space for luggage due to body design (again, this cannot be solved without additional carriages)
• Greater fuel consumption
• Toilet emissions issues
• Requires guard/driver to both operate doors causing higher dwell times
• Less standing space
• Less bike storage space
• Higher leasing costs
• Greater purtrusion of vibration into the passenger saloon
• Not available until another three or four years
• Less legroom

In addition, they;

• Wouldn't be able to operate at 125mph
• Wouldn't be able to use tilt
• Would require six depots to sign them which is more hassle than what the timescale is worth at this point
• Would require platform lengthening to allow additional carriages to compensate for interior space inefficiencies
• Would require SDO

All this is before you consider what ScotRail/Transport Scotland want for I7C services, what passengers want, what they need, what the Scottish Government wants and most of all: the challenges involved to achieve this.

So remind me... what are the pros of running Voyagers on I7C runs again?

That assumes that the 22x's remain as 5 coach units, of they were lengthened to 7 coach units (so no longer than a 5+2 HST) they would have more seating.

The toilets are mostly an issue due to how busy the trains are (i.e. people having to stand near them and not being able to empty them as much),

That would offset some of the higher costs, however there'd be other costs which would reduce (for instance lower track access charges when compared to a HST, even at a 7 coaches).

Depending on busy a station is it could be that local door operation could be used when platforms are too short for the train.

Platform lengthening for busier stations probably need to be done anyway (if a 4 coach 158 is too busy then platforms for a 6 coach train would probably be needed anyway).

That's not too say that they would be ideal, rather to highlight that some of the problems could be overcome and some would need to be overcome regardless of what stock was used.

 

[Richard Scott]

Is there any market for exporting old trains these days, or does the amount of technology in stock make vehicles uneconomical to maintain/make compatible?

Some countries seem more desperate to modernise, Romania has taken some withdrawn stock from other countries primarily France but also Germany and, I believe, Denmark. Romania has a lot of old stock and this is an easy way to update but they probably wouldn't want Voyagers, complexity and fuel consumption would count against them

 

[Energy]

Fewer standard class seats (which defeats your first point - refurbishment cannot solve this without adding extra coaches)

Yes it can, the voyagers have a low capacity due to the large number of disabled toilets, remove them and change the seating layout to be higher density and the capacity problem is solved.

Greater fuel consumption

4/5 car HSTs aren't great for fuel consumption either, I have heard this point before but I doubt the voyagers are worse than a 4/5 car HST unless there are figures to back it up.

Toilet emissions issues

What? A voyager already has a tank collecting it, the HSTs and 158s had to have them fitted.

Greater purtrusion of vibration into the passenger saloon

I honestly don't think it is as bad as people say.

Wouldn't be able to operate at 125mph

How is that a point against them? The HSTs don't operate at 125mph either even if both are capable of it.

Wouldn't be able to use tilt

And? They may be fitted for tilt but they do not have to use it. It isn't a point against them.

• Would require platform lengthening to allow additional carriages to compensate for interior space inefficiencies
• Would require SDO

And the HSTs do not? If you want to talk about space inefficienticies look at the 43 at either end of a HST.

 

[43096]

Yes it can, the voyagers have a low capacity due to the large number of disabled toilets, remove them and change the seating layout to be higher density and the capacity problem is solved.

4/5 car HSTs aren't great for fuel consumption either, I have heard this point before but I doubt the voyagers are worse than a 4/5 car HST unless there are figures to back it up.

What? A voyager already has a tank collecting it, the HSTs and 158s had to have them fitted.


I honestly don't think it is as bad as people say.

How is that a point against them? The HSTs don't operate at 125mph either even if both are capable of it.

And? They may be fitted for tilt but they do not have to use it. It isn't a point against them.

And the HSTs do not? If you want to talk about space inefficienticies look at the 43 at either end of a HST.

The Voyagers are a solution looking for a problem. They aren’t the answer for ScotRail: the answer for HST replacement is electrification.

The problem they could solve, though, would be a lack of work for scrapyards.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Yes it can, the voyagers have a low capacity due to the large number of disabled toilets, remove them and change the seating layout to be higher density and the capacity problem is solved.

The toilets are structural and cannot easily be removed - likewise for what's left of the shop structure, which is why it's used as bike storage. It was necessary to make a number of component location changes to achieve the superior coach layout on the Class 222 fleet, the wiring changes in part resulting from that combined with the decision to switch to the Bombardier train management system is why the Class 220/221 and Class 222 fleets are technically incompatible.

 

[Energy]

the answer for HST replacement is electrification.

Of course, both are stop gaps for electrification, but the 222s could be a solution if they decide to replace the HSTs very soon.

The toilets are structural and cannot easily be removed - likewise for what's left of the shop structure, which is why it's used as bike storage

Ahh, that's annoying and will make it harder to find a home for the 220/221s.

superior coach layout on the Class 222 fleet

This is why (along with the convient right number of trains) I said 222s for Scotrail.

 

[tbtc]

Doubled up on XC for the rest of their lives seems about the only place for them - I don't know if they'll manage forty years, given the high intensity of the services that they've been operating - some long distance high speed stock like Deltics didn't. Maybe a handful could be used to replace the 180s if Grand Central are able to survive long term, given the way that the 180s are even more useless!

There's maybe a chance that Scottish/ Welsh politicians will want something swanky for their longer distance "internal" services, but that's not a railway decision.

I'm getting increasingly sceptical about the "cascade down the food chain" suggestions that people make (on this and other threads). We've seen how Northern's idea of "new 195s to cascade 158/170s onto local services" has flopped. Replacing 170s on routes like Nottingham - Cardiff with Voyagers would mean much slower loading/unloading, no scope to use 125mph, so the "wasted" space means a four coach train wouldn't have any more seats than a three coach 170 - what benefit is there (unless you have a chip on your shoulder about door positions)?

But then I'm sceptical about the idea of ever electrifying from Perth to Inverness - you're going over a hundred miles - including some relatively hostile terrain - for the sake of one train per hour - you'd only do that for purely political box ticking reasons.

As discussed above, 222s offer some advantages over the 220/221s - it's frustrating hat Bombardier built almost four hundred coaches before they learned their lesson - makes me almost yearn for the days when British Rail would build "only" a small class of experimental locomotives - so I think we are stuck with Voyagers in their current set up.

Running Voyagers (or Meridians) on any routes where the current 90/100mph DMUs maximise platform space seems a complete non starter - at the moment Chiltern/SWR have limited paths for their services and try to match the busiest trains to the length of the longest platforms - so replacing a 158/159/168 with Voyagers would mean a lot of wasted space (since the "crumple zone" wouldn't be necessary).

Plus, as I've said in other threads, I predict a future where the Chiltern line to Birmingham and the SWR route to Exeter become less important for long distance passengers, since a state controlled railway won't be bothered about deeply discounting tickets to compete with itself - with HS2 coming to Birmingham and 802s to Exeter, there's less and less justification for longer distance passengers using the slower services. So Voyagers on those routes would be over the top.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Of course, both are stop gaps for electrification, but the 222s could be a solution if they decide to replace the HSTs very soon.

Why would ScotRail choose to replace HSTs soon, given they're still taking delivery of PRM-TSI compliant HST sets ?

Do you have any idea of the costs and timescales involved in this sort of exercise ? I know there have been issues with Wabtec, but ScotRail took delivery of their first HST set for training more than three years ago - they've still not received the last of their stock yet.

This all assumes that the ScotRail franchise (or rather, Transport Scotland) isn't locked into using the HST sets until electrification allows their replacement. Transport Scotland have involved themselves in rolling stock agreements now for quite some time (the replacement for Abellio will have to use the Class 385 units, for example, as the complex lease agreement will see ownership eventually transfer to Transport Scotland) and it's entirely possible they've agreed with Angel Trains a bespoke lease agreement which suits the aspirations to electrify more of the network.

 

[43096]

Of course, both are stop gaps for electrification, but the 222s could be a solution if they decide to replace the HSTs very soon.

The HSTs are on long-term lease - I think guaranteed through to 2027. ScotRail/Transport Scotland can't just "decide to replace" them without a very big bill.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The HSTs are on long-term lease - I think guaranteed through to 2027. ScotRail/Transport Scotland can't just "decide to replace" them without a very big bill.

So seven years should allow for a fair bit of electrification so what would be next - bimodes I assume?

 

[Domh245]

So seven years should allow for a fair bit of electrification so what would be next - bimodes I assume?

They'll be bi-modal, just the second mode won't necessarily be diesel. TS's electrification strategy indicated both interim & longer term "alternative power sources" which I would expect to be introduced on the next generation of stock. Batteries or Hydrogen would seem more likely, dependant on how much remains unelectrified.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

So seven years should allow for a fair bit of electrification so what would be next - bimodes I assume?

I don't know - it would seem a rather significant waste of money to buy bi-modes only to remove the engines after a maximum of 8 years.

2035 is baseline for electrification of the routes to all seven Scottish cities and one would assume one leg (most likely Aberdeen) will be completed earlier, perhaps 2032. I also don't believe we will see HSTs replaced like-for-like on these services (no 125mph stock) but rather an EMU with 100/110mph capability and 5 or 6 x 23m vehicles. I'd personally expect (and procure) something very similar in design to the Siemens Class 444 units - sort of what you might get crossing a Class 385 with a Class 802...

The rational approach for ScotRail is to procure additional Class 385 units for services to Perth and the Fife Circle services, and to procure a variant of this for the Inter7City services so virtually everything going across the Forth and Tay Bridges is compatible with each other.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If they are kept until circa 2035 that would mean HSTs being in frontline service for circa 60 years. Not bad.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes it can, the voyagers have a low capacity due to the large number of disabled toilets, remove them and change the seating layout to be higher density and the capacity problem is solved.

You'd gain about 8 seats by converting the disabled bogs to small ones. And increase seating density? Crikey, have you ever been on one?

 

[CptCharlee]

Could go to GWR to replace castle sets on Penzance to Cardiff.

 

[JonathanH]

Could go to GWR to replace castle sets on Penzance to Cardiff.

Yes, but a load of money has just been spent to upgrade the Castle Sets and the Castle Sets offer more capacity.

 

[Kilopylae]

The Castle Sets offer a better passenger experience and have quicker station turnaround.

 

[DB]

Realistically, by far the most likely is XC. They need capacity, the 221s are compatible with the existing fleet (222s aren't, but are similar enough that driver conversion wouldn't be difficult), and in current circumstances new build orders are unlikely.

I can't see why people are suggesting routes where a fair amount of money has recently been spent on the existing stock. They are simply not going to replace it in the short term.