Cross country new traction

[Scotrail88]

With the decarbonisation agenda, do we expect a big announcement soon on a new fleet to replace the voyagers at CrossCountry.
With Bi-Mode 800s available, it would make sense to have a comparable make up with some 9 cars and 5 cars that split to continue beyond Edinburgh and Bristol, etc.

COP26 might be the catalyst for this?

crosscountry must operate at least 70% of their mileage under wires already so would make sense.

 

[Huntergreed]

With the decarbonisation agenda, do we expect a big announcement soon on a new fleet to replace the voyagers at CrossCountry.
With Bi-Mode 800s available, it would make sense to have a comparable make up with some 9 cars and 5 cars that split to continue beyond Edinburgh and Bristol, etc.

COP26 might be the catalyst for this?

crosscountry must operate at least 70% of their mileage under wires already so would make sense.

Given that cross country are almost certain to gain both Avanti’s Voyager fleet and EMR’s Meridian fleet in the future, I doubt they’ll be getting any new stock just yet. As Avanti have just refurbished their voyagers, I imagine the rest of the fleet will also be upgraded.

I would expect perhaps within a decade or so, alongside the retirement of their HST fleet, this may be announced, and slowly but surely as the voyagers fade out in the distant future I imagine they will replace them with bi-modes, although there’ll probably be something newer than the 80x by then.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Much more likely they will corner the market for 125mph diesels with cascades to them of Avanti Voyagers and EMR Meridians, for the next decade.
Where else would they go at barely half-life?
A great pity the e-Voyager bi-mode never happened, it would be a game-changer today.

 

[XAM2175]

A great pity the e-Voyager bi-mode never happened, it would be a game-changer today.

It would need to have been possible for it to now be a game-changer.

 

[swt_passenger]

With the decarbonisation agenda, do we expect a big announcement soon on a new fleet to replace the voyagers at CrossCountry.
With Bi-Mode 800s available, it would make sense to have a comparable make up with some 9 cars and 5 cars that split to continue beyond Edinburgh and Bristol, etc.

COP26 might be the catalyst for this?

crosscountry must operate at least 70% of their mileage under wires already so would make sense.

No, we don’t, and that’s based on the consensus view of quite a few recent similar threads suggesting it.
My view is similar to many other members, firstly more 221 and 222 as they become available, and secondly HST replacement for fleet standardisation purposes.

 

[RobShipway]

No, we don’t, and that’s based on the consensus view of quite a few recent similar threads suggesting it.
My view is similar to many other members, firstly more 221 and 222 as they become available, and secondly HST replacement for fleet standardisation purposes.

I suspect that the six car class 222 units will replace the HST's. With Avanti class 221's and the other EMR class 222's replacing class 170 units. The only other option, would be if either the Avanti 221's or EMR class 222 units replace the GWR class 255 castle units?

 

[swt_passenger]

I suspect that the six car class 222 units will replace the HST's. With Avanti class 221's and the other EMR class 222's replacing class 170 units. The only other option, would be if either the Avanti 221's or EMR class 222 units replace the GWR class 255 castle units?

I very much doubt the 170s will be replaced by 222s. This has also been discussed in a few recent threads, but 22x are usually considered complete overkill for the former Central trains routes. The idea of bringing in 221/222 is to increase train lengths on the main long distance XC routes.

 

[tbtc]

COP26 might be the catalyst for this?

Maybe, but then we could have said the same about the G7 shindig in Cornwall - I'm sure people speculated beforehand that Johnson would want an "oven ready" announcement to generate positive headlines about the climate/ investment

I can't see anything happening though - realistically there's nowhere else for the 221/222s to go - there's not much scope for XC to introduce new services (or extend existing ones, given conflicts)

Really, the franchise needs some surgery, it's too complex, unfocussed, unable to evolve because it's constrained by so many bottlenecks (and even if you do see an improvement in one area, it just means a ten minute dwell at the next key station because the path beyond there is set in stone) - but nobody wants to tackle it - given the hundreds/thousands of markets that it serves, any tweaks will manage to upset someone (e.g. the recent thread about ECML timetables saw someone upset that there won't be a direct Leeds - Banbury service, even though this was just one train a day and only in one direction!)

I suspect that the six car class 222 units will replace the HST's. With Avanti class 221's and the other EMR class 222's replacing class 170 units

It'd be a waste to replace 222s with 170s IMHO - the services that the 170s operate don't require running at over 100mph, replacing a three coach 170s with a four coach 222 would be a reduction in capacity, I can't see any advantages (and any 222s should really be on the longer distance XC routes)

 

[irish_rail]

Maybe, but then we could have said the same about the G7 shindig in Cornwall - I'm sure people speculated beforehand that Johnson would want an "oven ready" announcement to generate positive headlines about the climate/ investment

I can't see anything happening though - realistically there's nowhere else for the 221/222s to go - there's not much scope for XC to introduce new services (or extend existing ones, given conflicts)

Really, the franchise needs some surgery, it's too complex, unfocussed, unable to evolve because it's constrained by so many bottlenecks (and even if you do see an improvement in one area, it just means a ten minute dwell at the next key station because the path beyond there is set in stone) - but nobody wants to tackle it - given the hundreds/thousands of markets that it serves, any tweaks will manage to upset someone (e.g. the recent thread about ECML timetables saw someone upset that there won't be a direct Leeds - Banbury service, even though this was just one train a day and only in one direction!)



It'd be a waste to replace 222s with 170s IMHO - the services that the 170s operate don't require running at over 100mph, replacing a three coach 170s with a four coach 222 would be a reduction in capacity, I can't see any advantages (and any 222s should really be on the longer distance XC routes)

I would agree that XC is still too complicated.
Personally I'd shave off services beyond Plymouth and beyond Edinburgh for starters, however I would add in some west coast destinations like Liverpool , with a Crewe stop, that would also be useful for changing onto trains for further north and north Wales.
GwR and Scotrail should provide the services west of Plymouth and North of Edinburgh.

 

[D365]

I suspect that the six car class 222 units will replace the HST's. With Avanti class 221's and the other EMR class 222's replacing class 170 units. The only other option, would be if either the Avanti 221's or EMR class 222 units replace the GWR class 255 castle units?

What six car units?

For the nteenth time, the Voyagers are completely unsuited to Birmingham-Stansted.

The GWR HSTs are only being used because it’s so difficult to source 100mph diesels.

Why are you so keen to rehome intercity diesels on routes that are even less suitable?

 

[irish_rail]

With the decarbonisation agenda, do we expect a big announcement soon on a new fleet to replace the voyagers at CrossCountry.
With Bi-Mode 800s available, it would make sense to have a comparable make up with some 9 cars and 5 cars that split to continue beyond Edinburgh and Bristol, etc.

COP26 might be the catalyst for this?

crosscountry must operate at least 70% of their mileage under wires already so would make sense.

Should just point out that splitting and joining at Bristol isn't ideal, and that services are really needed at least as far as Taunton in order to interchange with GWR services heading further west.

 

[skyhigh]

Who would pay for a new fleet?

 

[The Ham]

A few points:

The track access charges for the HST GTi/Castles are a LOT higher than would be the case for a Voyager of similar capacity (which may be longer), however that is small change compared to the leasing costs. As such, unless the Voyagers are getting sold for scrap chances are that's not all that likely.

Of course, IF it were to happen then it could be possible to reduce the power output which could also reduce fuel costs.

With regards to XC, I would expect that the Avanti units would likely happen (subject to what sort of passenger numbers we see by the end of this year).

What would likely happen is that they would be brought in to be used on services run by 4 coach units, those 4 coach units would then pair up to replace 5 coach units and those existing 5 coach units would then replace more 4 coach services.

With 20 new units (and allowing for some existing units already running in pairs) all least all services would be 5 coaches long, all 4 coach units would be run in pairs and there could be a few services where there's pairs involving 5 coach units. (HST's retained).

Once the 222's become available there would appear to be less demand for them, I suspect that with the scraping of a few end units there could be some longer length units created to replace the HST's.

The other thing which could be worth doing is scraping end units to create longer units so that track access charges were lowered. This could include creating a standard fleet of 5 coach units of the 220/221's, which would require 11 additional 5 coach units to maintain the availability.

If you lengthened as many 222's (14 in total) to 8 coaches (which would be the same capacity as a 9 coach train formed of 2 units), then because you wouldn't need pairs of them to run longer length trains you could just about cover the HST's and the reworking of the fleet to 5 coaches.

You'd still have 1*4 coach 221 and 5 middle coaches from the 222 fleet, the latter would likely create a 7 coach unit or a permanent pair of units 9 coaches long so that it had broadly the same capacity as the rest of the 8 coach fleet, and the 4 coach units would likely be used as a second unit in a pair all the time.

Whilst that does reduce the maximum capacity of the fleet, if that's an issue (probably in more than a few years time) then other options could be considered such as new bimodal trains, however it should also be noted that HS2 will also reduce demand on XC services, as such chances are it would be fine until they become life expired and/or some can be replaced by EMU's.

 

[RobShipway]

It'd be a waste to replace 222s with 170s IMHO - the services that the 170s operate don't require running at over 100mph, replacing a three coach 170s with a four coach 222 would be a reduction in capacity, I can't see any advantages (and any 222s should really be on the longer distance XC routes)

I think that you got your comment backwards. The class 170's would be replaced by either 4 car class 220 or 5 car class 221. The class 222's would then replace the class 220/221's on the routes that they where doing.
But as has been commented certainly with the 4 car class 220 unit, you would have less seats than the three class 170 unit.

When I said six car class 222's in my earlier post, apologies I meant the 7 car class 222's of which there are 6.

A few points:

The track access charges for the HST GTi/Castles are a LOT higher than would be the case for a Voyager of similar capacity (which may be longer), however that is small change compared to the leasing costs. As such, unless the Voyagers are getting sold for scrap chances are that's not all that likely.

Of course, IF it were to happen then it could be possible to reduce the power output which could also reduce fuel costs.

With regards to XC, I would expect that the Avanti units would likely happen (subject to what sort of passenger numbers we see by the end of this year).

What would likely happen is that they would be brought in to be used on services run by 4 coach units, those 4 coach units would then pair up to replace 5 coach units and those existing 5 coach units would then replace more 4 coach services.

With 20 new units (and allowing for some existing units already running in pairs) all least all services would be 5 coaches long, all 4 coach units would be run in pairs and there could be a few services where there's pairs involving 5 coach units. (HST's retained).

Once the 222's become available there would appear to be less demand for them, I suspect that with the scraping of a few end units there could be some longer length units created to replace the HST's.

The other thing which could be worth doing is scraping end units to create longer units so that track access charges were lowered. This could include creating a standard fleet of 5 coach units of the 220/221's, which would require 11 additional 5 coach units to maintain the availability.

If you lengthened as many 222's (14 in total) to 8 coaches (which would be the same capacity as a 9 coach train formed of 2 units), then because you wouldn't need pairs of them to run longer length trains you could just about cover the HST's and the reworking of the fleet to 5 coaches.

You'd still have 1*4 coach 221 and 5 middle coaches from the 222 fleet, the latter would likely create a 7 coach unit or a permanent pair of units 9 coaches long so that it had broadly the same capacity as the rest of the 8 coach fleet, and the 4 coach units would likely be used as a second unit in a pair all the time.

Whilst that does reduce the maximum capacity of the fleet, if that's an issue (probably in more than a few years time) then other options could be considered such as new bimodal trains, however it should also be noted that HS2 will also reduce demand on XC services, as such chances are it would be fine until they become life expired and/or some can be replaced by EMU's.

I agree about the point of make the class 222 units longer. However, I suspect that if any units get scrapped that it will be class 220 units rather than the younger and more flexible class 222 units.

 

[Aictos]

One point about the Class 170 XC services, would the existing Cardiff to Nottingham be a candidate for Class 22X operation?

The existing Birmingham to Leicester service would probably either go to West Midlands Railway or kept with XC with the Birmingham to Stansted service.

If the Cardiff to Nottingham service did go over to Class 22X operation them it would free up Class 170s for the Birmingham to Stansted via Leicester corridor.

As to long distance XC services, extra Class 22Xs would mean lengthening those services and retiring the HSTs.

 

[37424]

A few points:

The track access charges for the HST GTi/Castles are a LOT higher than would be the case for a Voyager of similar capacity (which may be longer), however that is small change compared to the leasing costs. As such, unless the Voyagers are getting sold for scrap chances are that's not all that likely.

Of course, IF it were to happen then it could be possible to reduce the power output which could also reduce fuel costs.

With regards to XC, I would expect that the Avanti units would likely happen (subject to what sort of passenger numbers we see by the end of this year).

What would likely happen is that they would be brought in to be used on services run by 4 coach units, those 4 coach units would then pair up to replace 5 coach units and those existing 5 coach units would then replace more 4 coach services.

With 20 new units (and allowing for some existing units already running in pairs) all least all services would be 5 coaches long, all 4 coach units would be run in pairs and there could be a few services where there's pairs involving 5 coach units. (HST's retained).

Once the 222's become available there would appear to be less demand for them, I suspect that with the scraping of a few end units there could be some longer length units created to replace the HST's.

The other thing which could be worth doing is scraping end units to create longer units so that track access charges were lowered. This could include creating a standard fleet of 5 coach units of the 220/221's, which would require 11 additional 5 coach units to maintain the availability.

If you lengthened as many 222's (14 in total) to 8 coaches (which would be the same capacity as a 9 coach train formed of 2 units), then because you wouldn't need pairs of them to run longer length trains you could just about cover the HST's and the reworking of the fleet to 5 coaches.

You'd still have 1*4 coach 221 and 5 middle coaches from the 222 fleet, the latter would likely create a 7 coach unit or a permanent pair of units 9 coaches long so that it had broadly the same capacity as the rest of the 8 coach fleet, and the 4 coach units would likely be used as a second unit in a pair all the time.

Whilst that does reduce the maximum capacity of the fleet, if that's an issue (probably in more than a few years time) then other options could be considered such as new bimodal trains, however it should also be noted that HS2 will also reduce demand on XC services, as such chances are it would be fine until they become life expired and/or some can be replaced by EMU's.

I think if the Avanti units come to XC they may well replace the HST's depending on demand, that would still effectively leave 10 units for extra capacity and with paring of 4 car units allow some 4 car services to go to 5 car. Whether the 222's come as well remains to be seen that strikes me as potentially overkill unless you are going to replace at least one of the 170 routes with them.

As for scraping end units to create longer trains I suspect the leasing companies would only entertain that idea if they were struggling to find work for them.

 

[JamesT]

I think if the Avanti units come to XC they may well replace the HST's depending on demand, that would still effectively leave 10 units for extra capacity and with paring of 4 car units allow some 4 car services to go to 5 car. Whether the 222's come as well remains to be seen that strikes me as potentially overkill unless you are going to replace at least one of the 170 routes with them.

As for scraping end units to create longer trains I suspect the leasing companies would only entertain that idea if they were struggling to find work for them.

I don’t think there’s much doubt that the Avanti 221s would see off the HSTs. Having essentially a single type of train with the same performance, the fleet manager and timetable planners would be delighted.
We’ll have to see how demand returns to the railway, but given how overcrowded many XC services were before the pandemic, getting the 222s would seem likely. Having a much larger fleet would give scope for running more Voyagers doubled up, without having to play games with splitting and joining so you’re doubled in the core but single at the extremities.

 

[D365]

I think that you got your comment backwards. The class 170's would be replaced by either 4 car class 220 or 5 car class 221. The class 222's would then replace the class 220/221's on the routes that they where doing.
But as has been commented certainly with the 4 car class 220 unit, you would have less seats than the three class 170 unit.

And again, this misses the point that the 220s are 100% unsuitable for Birmingham-Stansted. As long as they are three car units being used, the 170s are perfectly suited.

 

[mmh]

And again, this misses the point that the 220s are 100% unsuitable for Birmingham-Stansted. As long as they are three car units being used, the 170s are perfectly suited.

Out of interest, why are they unsuitable? Platform lengths along the route perhaps? (I don't know many of the stations on it)

 

[Aictos]

And again, this misses the point that the 220s are 100% unsuitable for Birmingham-Stansted. As long as they are three car units being used, the 170s are perfectly suited.

Indeed, this is why a 4 car Class 170 should be the minimum length on this route with option of extending to 6 car Class 170s.

This is because even the 3 car Class 170s can get full and standing so extending services to a minimum of 4 cars would help.

The Class 22Xs should be kept as far away as possible from the route.

Out of interest, why are they unsuitable? Platform lengths along the route perhaps? (I don't know many of the stations on it)

Line restrictions East of Peterborough.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Out of interest, why are they unsuitable? Platform lengths along the route perhaps? (I don't know many of the stations on it)

They are very wasteful of length - a 170 properly crams people in - despite this comfort is better than 220s!

 

[JamesT]

Out of interest, why are they unsuitable? Platform lengths along the route perhaps? (I don't know many of the stations on it)

I think it’s previously been stated on this forum that the platforms XC use at Stansted are too short for a Voyager.

 

[mmh]

They are very wasteful of length - a 170 properly crams people in - despite this comfort is better than 220s!

But if there's no capacity problem on the route, what does that matter? Meanwhile there are routes where it does matter, and TOCs we're told need more DMUs but that sourcing them is nigh-on impossible.

 

[RobShipway]

But if there's no capacity problem on the route, what does that matter? Meanwhile there are routes where it does matter, and TOCs we're told need more DMUs but that sourcing them is nigh-on impossible.

There is too many on these forums that just want the status quo and are not prepared for change. That having been said, I would not have the Voyagers going to Stanstead Airport. I would leave it to be served by trains from Greater Anglia, the reason being is that there is no need for someone from Birmingham to be travelling to Stanstead Airport as has been said on many threads, so you are unlikely to be getting many passengers going the whole journey. The furthest the Birmingham services would need to go is Cambridge, so on that aspect there is no issue with using Voyagers to Cambridge.

And again, this misses the point that the 220s are 100% unsuitable for Birmingham-Stansted. As long as they are three car units being used, the 170s are perfectly suited.

I noticed that you did not include the post below from 37424 which all states "Whether the 222's come as well remains to be seen that strikes me as potentially overkill unless you are going to replace at least one of the 170 routes with them."

I think if the Avanti units come to XC they may well replace the HST's depending on demand, that would still effectively leave 10 units for extra capacity and with paring of 4 car units allow some 4 car services to go to 5 car. Whether the 222's come as well remains to be seen that strikes me as potentially overkill unless you are going to replace at least one of the 170 routes with them.

As for scraping end units to create longer trains I suspect the leasing companies would only entertain that idea if they were struggling to find work for them.

 

[class26]

Out of interest, why are they unsuitable? Platform lengths along the route perhaps? (I don't know many of the stations on it)

The other reason why they are unsuitable is that they cannot use the higher speeds east of Peterborough which 170`s can so there is a time penalty. The lower speeds are low across the fens. I forget exactly but seem to remember either 40 or 45 mph in parts

 

[JonathanH]

the reason being is that there is no need for someone from Birmingham to be travelling to Stansted Airport

National Express run frequent coaches from Birmingham to Stansted Airport as well (and the 2am coach wasn't empty on Sunday morning).

I did post the other day that the Birmingham service should only run to Peterborough and the Nottingham service only to Grantham so that Greater Anglia would be the only operator east of Peterborough (other than Kings Lynn) and to remove duplication but I doubt that is realistic.

It is a shame that the class 170 services are seen as the poor relation of the Voyager services on this forum. The Cardiff to Nottingham service isn't really all that different from the Manchester to Bristol (Exeter) or Newcastle to Reading (Southampton) service when those ran. However, I note that the Stansted route doesn't support Voyagers for other reasons.

 

[BayPaul]

I seem to be alone with this view, but I think that it is as likely that the next XC capacity announcement will be new 802 type trains as that it will be more voyagers. There is always a very '442' attitude on this forum of 'these trains are going spare, we need to find new homes for them', which leads to suggestions for 221s and 222s from Avanti and EMR moving over to XC, but that is looking at it in the wrong way.

Looking from the operator's (and now, presumably GBR's) point of view, the most important question is about profitability. As has been shown by multiple new train orders, at the moment the balance has swung towards new trains, as low interest rates mean that their leasing charges compare very well with early 2000s stock. There are also a number of other financial points in favour of 802 type trains over voyagers: Lower fuel costs due to use of electric on large proportions of the network, lower maintenance costs as avoiding maintaining more elderly stock, and potential to use other operator's depots who also run 80x stock, much higher capacity for the same length train giving enhanced revenue, no need to pay for a refurb, and also a useful gap in capacity at Newton Aycliffe which may result in a better price.

Whilst the ROSCO may be left with relatively modern stock with nowhere to go but the scrapyard, from a TOC point of view, this isn't really relevant as the stock is leasehold. I suspect they would need to drop their leasing charges by a lot to make them compete with a new fleet.

 

[JonathanH]

I seem to be alone with this view, but I think that it is as likely that the next XC capacity announcement will be new 802 type trains as that it will be more voyagers. There is always a very '442' attitude on this forum of 'these trains are going spare, we need to find new homes for them', which leads to suggestions for 221s and 222s from Avanti and EMR moving over to XC, but that is looking at it in the wrong way.

Looking from the operator's (and now, presumably GBR's) point of view, the most important question is about profitability. As has been shown by multiple new train orders, at the moment the balance has swung towards new trains, as low interest rates mean that their leasing charges compare very well with early 2000s stock. There are also a number of other financial points in favour of 802 type trains over voyagers: Lower fuel costs due to use of electric on large proportions of the network, lower maintenance costs as avoiding maintaining more elderly stock, and potential to use other operator's depots who also run 80x stock, much higher capacity for the same length train giving enhanced revenue, no need to pay for a refurb, and also a useful gap in capacity at Newton Aycliffe which may result in a better price.

The response is usually that
a) the 802s can't keep up with Voyager timings on the diesel parts of the route that might mean that paths need to be amended
b) different servicing locations / depots may be needed
c) the electricity supply would need to be upgraded to allow them to run on some parts of the electric network
d) is there capacity at the existing Hitachi depots?

 

[BayPaul]

The response is usually that
a) the 802s can't keep up with Voyager timings on the diesel parts of the route that might mean that paths need to be amended
b) different servicing locations / depots may be needed
c) the electricity supply would need to be upgraded to allow them to run on some parts of the electric network
d) is there capacity at the existing Hitachi depots?

I don't think any of these are major issues
a) I say 802, but probably mean something like a cross between an 802 length carriages, and an 810 to give an additional diesel per train.
b / d) An issue, but not too much of one - many of the existing sites already service Hitachi trains as well as the existing voyager fleet - Central Rivers being the main exception, and in any case it is fairly common for a depot to be taken over like this.
c) No reason why they can't run on diesel until the supply is upgraded, similar to TPE's 802s do on the north ECML.

 

[mmh]

I seem to be alone with this view, but I think that it is as likely that the next XC capacity announcement will be new 802 type trains as that it will be more voyagers. There is always a very '442' attitude on this forum of 'these trains are going spare, we need to find new homes for them', which leads to suggestions for 221s and 222s from Avanti and EMR moving over to XC, but that is looking at it in the wrong way.

Looking from the operator's (and now, presumably GBR's) point of view, the most important question is about profitability. As has been shown by multiple new train orders, at the moment the balance has swung towards new trains, as low interest rates mean that their leasing charges compare very well with early 2000s stock. There are also a number of other financial points in favour of 802 type trains over voyagers: Lower fuel costs due to use of electric on large proportions of the network, lower maintenance costs as avoiding maintaining more elderly stock, and potential to use other operator's depots who also run 80x stock, much higher capacity for the same length train giving enhanced revenue, no need to pay for a refurb, and also a useful gap in capacity at Newton Aycliffe which may result in a better price.

Whilst the ROSCO may be left with relatively modern stock with nowhere to go but the scrapyard, from a TOC point of view, this isn't really relevant as the stock is leasehold. I suspect they would need to drop their leasing charges by a lot to make them compete with a new fleet.

All good points. An additional reason for preferring new stock for an increasingly Government-led railway is creating employment.