Class 221 for Grand Central

[43102EMR]

Indeed. Can't blame them for frivolous repainting.

I would imagine that will change if they decide to get a whole fleet of 221s to bin the 180s

1023 Bradford Intc to Kings Cross and 1627 Kings Cross to Bradford both allocated 221143 today throughout.

Seems to be a weekend working at the moment - weekdays the Voyager diagram only seems to go as far as Wakefield

 

[Rhydgaled]

it's very British to reward utter incompetence and failure - after all, the country keeps re-electing the Tories

It should also be remembered that the First Past The Post system of elections gives results which do not reflect voter opinion. There has often been a majority government, able to push through most of what it wants to do due to having over 50% of the MPs in Parliment, who attracted less than 50% of the election vote. This is because, if a candidate wins say 36% of the vote they can be elected if they have opponents each winning 32% of the vote.

Should allow some improvements as weren’t only a couple of HSTs in use each day?

Absolutely. 7 daily diagrams (assuming spares will just be the existing spares), or 6 at fewest, will do far, far more for capacity than the HSTs ever did due to their low utilisation.

Although it should not be forgotten that the plan was to up HST utilisation once the C6 overhaul programme was complete.

Yes; it should be remembered that XC were planning to increase the IC125 diagrams from 2 daily diagrams to 4 and that, even with two IC125 diagrams supplementing the Voyagers, there was a need for more Voyagers. For example, earlier this year (when the IC125s were still in service) one of my brothers had to stand from Bristol Parkway to Exeter on an XC (Super) Voyager.

In my opinion Grand Central should not have any Voyagers - they should have gone to XC and the rest should follow. If Grand Central really requires alternative rolling stock (rather than just getting all the 180s to provide more spares) then they should get the 222s when released from EMR - otherwise they should also go to XC - XC really needs a huge increase in capacity.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In my opinion Grand Central should not have any Voyagers - they should have gone to XC and the rest should follow. If Grand Central really requires alternative rolling stock (rather than just getting all the 180s to provide more spares) then they should get the 222s when released from EMR - otherwise they should also go to XC - XC really needs a huge increase in capacity.

Well that's not how the rolling-stock market works, as you know.
There isn't a fat controller who can shunt their own assets around.
XC are getting Voyagers - 7 of them, to replace the HSTs.
XC plainly is not being given the money to lease more.
It's up to the Rosco to place the rest commercially (and apart from the first couple they are not available yet, anyway).

 

[Driver068]

In my opinion Grand Central should not have any Voyagers - they should have gone to XC and the rest should follow. If Grand Central really requires alternative rolling stock (rather than just getting all the 180s to provide more spares) then they should get the 222s when released from EMR - otherwise they should also go to XC - XC really needs a huge increase in capacity.

I tend to agree, any additional DMUs that GC aquire will only be a stop gap and a short term fix to their current issues. As far as i am aware, from 2030, KGX is aiming to have NO diesel traction arriving at its station. If true, any 221s or 222s will only be short term. Whilst they will probably have a longer and more benificial role to play at XC. GC are desperate for rolling stock. Along with this and previously mentioned about KGX, GC would be best suit submitting a tender for at least some 80x varient moving forwards.

 

[JonathanH]

As far as i am aware, from 2030, KGX is aiming to have NO diesel traction arriving at its station. If true, any 221s or 222s will only be short term.

Is that a position for the station to decide upon?

 

[Danfilm007]

Is that a position for the station to decide upon?

As it's a Network Rail managed station, it might be an aim from an operation capacity on ECML south too?

 

[Clarence Yard]

It might be an aim but NR don’t decide - that will ultimately be an ORR decision under the current TAA regime, unless both parties to a TAA agree to only operating electric.

 

[Meerkat]

Can’t NR start charging more for diesels based on the extra cleaning required? And start muttering about extra ventilation required as concerns about pollution.

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, they can’t. Charging policy is determined by the ORR.

 

[Driver068]

Is that a position for the station to decide upon?

No, MP/Government desicion. I dont get involved in politics lol.
However its i formation that has been going round at a number of TOCs

 

[dk1]

In my opinion Grand Central should not have any Voyagers - they should have gone to XC and the rest should follow. If Grand Central really requires alternative rolling stock (rather than just getting all the 180s to provide more spares) then they should get the 222s when released from EMR - otherwise they should also go to XC - XC really needs a huge increase in capacity.

I don’t disapprove of GC getting the 221s on the the basis that XC are only allowed 7 units as dictated by the DfT so it’s not as if they are depriving XC of additional capacity as there are still 11 left or possibly 4 or 5 should Grand Union get a look in. It also allows GC to gain experience of this type of unit should the similar 222s head their way.

 

[Neptune]

Yes; it should be remembered that XC were planning to increase the IC125 diagrams from 2 daily diagrams to 4 and that, even with two IC125 diagrams supplementing the Voyagers, there was a need for more Voyagers. For example, earlier this year (when the IC125s were still in service) one of my brothers had to stand from Bristol Parkway to Exeter on an XC (Super) Voyager.

In my opinion Grand Central should not have any Voyagers - they should have gone to XC and the rest should follow. If Grand Central really requires alternative rolling stock (rather than just getting all the 180s to provide more spares) then they should get the 222s when released from EMR - otherwise they should also go to XC - XC really needs a huge increase in capacity.

So you do not think that Grand Central passengers deserve a reliable service right now because it does not affect you and yours? Better to strand someone at say Eaglescliffe or Pontefract due to yet another failed 180, than to stand for 1hr 20min despite getting to where they were going presumably on time.

It obvious that XC getting the remaining 13 x 221’s isn’t going to happen so if GC end up getting 10 x 221’s to replace the awful unreliable 180’s and XC ends up with the other 3 x 221’s on top of the 7 they’re getting then it’s better for the greater good surely as this can happen far quicker than either company waiting for the 222’s. Or does the world not work in that way in your eyes? Do you only look at what affects you?

 

[trainswitheddy]

221s still running short to Wakefield Kirkgate, any idea why they can't run to Bradford now??? Especially when they are on the weekend.
Apologies if this question has been answered

 

[M1544]

They’ve run right through to Bradford at weekends last few weeks

 

[trainswitheddy]

They’ve run right through to Bradford at weekends last few weeks

Yes, which is why I'm baffled they need to stop short anymore on Weekdays! Surely a headache for GC to arrange alternate transport?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Surely a headache for GC to arrange alternate transport?

They probably don’t need to, because they can use short notice timetable changes as a get out of jail free card. Makes direct trains to Bradford magically vanish from the timetable as if they never existed.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

No, MP/Government desicion. I dont get involved in politics lol.
However its i formation that has been going round at a number of TOCs

No it’s an ORR decision, track access rights are nothing to do with politics.

 

[Driver068]

Yes, which is why I'm baffled they need to stop short anymore on Weekdays! Surely a headache for GC to arrange alternate transport?

It will be down to driver training. Not 100% sure how or why exactly but currently not all are trained. This reason why there were previously stopping short. With it being a Saturday it maybe due to diagrams not fully covered so STP is in place.

No it’s an ORR decision, track access rights are nothing to do with politics.

Cheers for the official information.

 

[sprite]

Could it also be that on the weekend, all the stock moves from Crofton can go via Brighouse but there aren't the paths on a weekday meaning they run via New Pudsey and they may well not be cleared that way yet.

 

[Tracked]

Hopefully soon, got caught in the delays yesterday morning after 180102 decided to have a nice sit down (and a burn, probably) when approaching Retford.

 

[M1544]

Todays 0659 Bradford to Kings Cross I80107 cancelled at Doncaster due to a unit fault according to real-time trains. One fails somewhere every day now.
Bright spot is 1023 from Bradford is 221143. They could do with both 221s running at the same time really reliability is so poor of the 180s

 

[Purple Train]

That's the plan with GC. Stripped of Avanti logos and replaced with GC logos.
Front and rear vehicles in GC livery only. Thats how it will look for the foreseeable.

I never thought I'd see the day when I laid eyes on a more half-baked livery than the one on Pendolinos!

 

[voyagerdude220]

Todays 0659 Bradford to Kings Cross I80107 cancelled at Doncaster due to a unit fault according to real-time trains. One fails somewhere every day now.
Bright spot is 1023 from Bradford is 221143. They could do with both 221s running at the same time really reliability is so poor of the 180s

180107 had fire alarms sounding yesterday, both on it's morning working into London and it's next working 16:27 from London towards Bradford.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Well that's not how the rolling-stock market works, as you know.
There isn't a fat controller who can shunt their own assets around.

True; but hasn't a 'guiding mind' for the rail industry been strongly recommended on a number of occasions? Surely such a 'guiding mind' should be given powers to organise who gets what stock.

I don’t disapprove of GC getting the 221s on the the basis that XC are only allowed 7 units as dictated by the DfT so it’s not as if they are depriving XC of additional capacity as there are still 11 left or possibly 4 or 5 should Grand Union get a look in. It also allows GC to gain experience of this type of unit should the similar 222s head their way.

It has been suggested on another topic that the 7 units to XC may be a preliminary thing and the Government may 'drip feed' more at a later date once Avanti has been able to completely withdraw all their Voyagers.

So you do not think that Grand Central passengers deserve a reliable service right now because it does not affect you and yours? Better to strand someone at say Eaglescliffe or Pontefract due to yet another failed 180, than to stand for 1hr 20min despite getting to where they were going presumably on time.

I think both Grand Central and CrossCountry passengers deserve a good service. By the sound of it, neither are currently getting a good service (GC due to unreliability and XC due to lack of capacity). Given that XC's probably is capacity, they should be given more trains - since GC's problem is reliability then I would argue that the solution there is to fix the trains, rather than getting more of them. The XC125s have already gone, if the two Voyagers already with GC had gone to XC instead they could have allowed XC to replace one of the IC125 diagrams (but not both) without a short-term reduction in capacity (on paper at least). Alternatively, if the XC125s had been kept until Avanti released more Voyagers the first two 221s could have gone to GC on an interim basis (while XC wait for Avanti to release enough Voyagers to replace all the XC125s and the issues with the 180s are sorted out) without making XC passengers any worse off than they are already. As it is, XC passengers have been given a worse suituation and GC have had an improvement.

It obvious that XC getting the remaining 13 x 221’s isn’t going to happen so if GC end up getting 10 x 221’s to replace the awful unreliable 180’s and XC ends up with the other 3 x 221’s on top of the 7 they’re getting then it’s better for the greater good surely as this can happen far quicker than either company waiting for the 222’s. Or does the world not work in that way in your eyes? Do you only look at what affects you?

I see the 180s as an asset with, potentially, 13-18 years life ahead of them - and as 14 five-car sets would appear to a good fit to the size of GC's operation (I've not seen any reports of a lack seats on GC - only unreliability - so presumably crowding isn't an issue) I think getting them to run reliably would be the best outcome for all concerned. Take these scenarios:

• XC has all 78 Voyagers, plus all the 222s, and GC has all 14 class 180s
• XC has 68 Voyagers, GC has the other 10 Voyagers and the 222s and 180s are standing in sidings somewhere
• XC has all 78 Voyagers, GC has all the 222s and the 180s are standing in sidings somewhere

Assuming Grand Central would be able to provide a reliable service with 14 class 180s the first of those outcomes is surely the best option for passengers in general. Clearly, there is a need for the 180s to step back a bit to give time to work on them to provide the reliable service necessary; the current short-term loan of two Voyagers could have done that, but CrossCountry needed cover in the short-to-medium term (in the form of the IC125s) and the Government have taken that away.

 

[skyhigh]

I think getting them to run reliably would be the best outcome for all concerned.

The problem being nobody has ever really managed to get 180s to run reliably. In my honest opinion if it were to be possible it would have been sorted by now.

 

[GWVillager]

I see the 180s as an asset with, potentially, 13-18 years life ahead of them - and as 14 five-car sets would appear to a good fit to the size of GC's operation (I've not seen any reports of a lack seats on GC - only unreliability - so presumably crowding isn't an issue) I think getting them to run reliably would be the best outcome for all concerned. Take these scenarios:

• XC has all 78 Voyagers, plus all the 222s, and GC has all 14 class 180s
• XC has 68 Voyagers, GC has the other 10 Voyagers and the 222s and 180s are standing in sidings somewhere
• XC has all 78 Voyagers, GC has all the 222s and the 180s are standing in sidings somewhere

Assuming Grand Central would be able to provide a reliable service with 14 class 180s the first of those outcomes is surely the best option for passengers in general. Clearly, there is a need for the 180s to step back a bit to give time to work on them to provide the reliable service necessary; the current short-term loan of two Voyagers could have done that, but CrossCountry needed cover in the short-to-medium term (in the form of the IC125s) and the Government have taken that away.

I really don't think the 180s will last any more than a few months, let alone 2 decades. As with the Class 175s, huge amounts of money, effort and resources have been poured into them time and time again yet they're still playing up - it looks rather as if we should cut our losses and say goodbye to what has been a failed experiment.

As for your suggestions, why can't XC have 68 Voyagers & all the 222s, and GC 10 221s?

 

[gabrielhj07]

As for your suggestions, why can't XC have 68 Voyagers & all the 222s, and GC 10 221s?

I've not been keeping up with this thread, but given the incompatibility of 222s with the rest of XC's fleet, would it not make more sense to allocate the Meridians to GC, at least in part, to ensure XC has all the Voyagers?

 

[GWVillager]

I've not been keeping up with this thread, but given the incompatibility of 222s with the rest of XC's fleet, would it not make more sense to allocate the Meridians to GC, at least in part, to ensure XC has all the Voyagers?

That would definitely be better in theory, but seen as some 221s are already with GC, I see relatively little point in retraining their crews.

 

[gabrielhj07]

That would definitely be better in theory, but seen as some 221s are already with GC, I see relatively little point in retraining their crews.

How significant would that retraining be? I thought it was just internal electrical differences that prevented multiple working.

 

[GWVillager]

How significant would that retraining be? I thought it was just internal electrical differences that prevented multiple working.

Probably insignificant, but I don't see much point in exchanging the sets, I think it's more than possible for XC to operate with a greater 222:220/1 ratio. The interiors should also be considered, the colours mean they don't really require any refurbishment with GC.