Cross country new traction

[RobShipway]

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.

If Cross Country do go for new trains, it would be something that replaces the class 170 units first so I suspect that it would be something like Stadler Flirt units.

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.

Cross Country replacing Voyager units with Hitachi AT300 units, would still give you the problem as to what to replace the class 170 units with, as AT300 units have the same issues I believe with the route between say Birmingham - Stanstead Airport as using Voyagers.

What I can see is likely to happen, is three car bi-mode Stadler Flirt units replace the 25 both 2 car and 3-car class 170 units, but maybe used in conjunction with each other to form longer trains.

Then you have 5 car bi-mode Stadler flirt units replace both the 34 class 220 Voyagers and the 24 class 221's currently in service.

 

[BayPaul]

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

Especially as I suspect that Newton Aycliffe is at risk of closure, which wouldn't look good

If Cross Country do go for new trains, it would be something that replaces the class 170 units first so I suspect that it would be something like Stadler Flirt units.


Cross Country replacing Voyager units with Hitachi AT300 units, would still give you the problem as to what to replace the class 170 units with, as AT300 units have the same issues I believe with the route between say Birmingham - Stanstead Airport as using Voyagers.

What I can see is likely to happen, is three car bi-mode Stadler Flirt units replace the 25 both 2 car and 3-car class 170 units, but maybe used in conjunction with each other to form longer trains.

Then you have 5 car bi-mode Stadler flirt units replace both the 34 class 220 Voyagers and the 24 class 221's currently in service.

Any particular reason why the 170s would go first? For my mind they are considerably better trains than the voyagers, their main issue simply being one of length. An option for solving this would be to make one route into an 80x, cascading the 170s released to the Stansted route. Alternatively, a full fleet replacement could be an option, either with bi-mode flirts, or something like a bi-mode 385 for an all Hitachi fleet. The advantage of the Hitachis over Stadlers for the Voyager routes would be the commonality of servicing with the GWR/LNER/EMR/Avanti fleets for the various depots, as well as the above point about Newton Aycliffe.

 

[RobShipway]

Especially as I suspect that Newton Aycliffe is at risk of closure, which wouldn't look good

Any particular reason why the 170s would go first? For my mind they are considerably better trains than the voyagers, their main issue simply being one of length. An option for solving this would be to make one route into an 80x, cascading the 170s released to the Stansted route. Alternatively, a full fleet replacement could be an option, either with bi-mode flirts, or something like a bi-mode 385 for an all Hitachi fleet. The advantage of the Hitachis over Stadlers for the Voyager routes would be the commonality of servicing with the GWR/LNER/EMR/Avanti fleets for the various depots, as well as the above point about Newton Aycliffe.

Several reasons for getting rid of the class 170's first.

1) The units where built from 1998 - 2005. I am not sure as to when the XC class 170's where built, but if they where from the late 1990's they need replacing.
2) The class 170's come from a design that is dated from the earlier 1990's in the form of the class 165/166 units.
3) The class 220/221 units are 125mph capable units and can be run on the majority of XC routes. You would not run class 170's say on Reading - Scotland service. So the class 170 units are limited to the routes that they can be run on.
4) Class 170 units are required by the likes of EMR, so these can go to them to be replacing older class 153/156/158 units.

 

[Stephen Lee]

I would expect Class 221s from Avanti West Coast and 222s from EMR Intercities being cascaded to XC.
On the other hand, in this article it was mentioned that:

CrossCountry is also seeking an additional ‘170’ to operate a new peak hour service between Cambridge and Peterborough (p12)., Modern Railways

So I wondered if there are Class 170 available for it and also for the routes strengthening planned in the West Midlands Rail Investment Strategy

 

[Domh245]

1) The units where built from 1998 - 2005. I am not sure as to when the XC class 170's where built, but if they where from the late 1990's they need replacing.
2) The class 170's come from a design that is dated from the earlier 1990's in the form of the class 165/166 units.
3) The class 220/221 units are 125mph capable units and can be run on the majority of XC routes. You would not run class 170's say on Reading - Scotland service. So the class 170 units are limited to the routes that they can be run on.
4) Class 170 units are required by the likes of EMR, so these can go to them to be replacing older class 153/156/158 units.

Points 1 & 2 are utterly irrelevant. They may not be the most bang up to date design, but they are air-conditioned, accessible, reasonably efficient, and have all the 'mod-cons' that people would expect (or can be fitted with them). Quite why you think they justify replacement on age alone I have no idea. FWIW, a little over half of their fleet are the original 170s built for MML in 1998/9, the other half are ex-Central trains and were built 1999/2000

Point 3 is odd. On that basis, we better replace all of EMR's fleet with some do-all train so it can do the intercity, corby, and regional work. Or perhaps replace the GWR fleets with something that's equally at home on London-Didcot, London-Swansea and Paignton-Exmouth. Or all of SWR's fleet with 450s that are as ill suited to metro-work as long distance weymouth services. XC is very much a 'two operators lumped under a brand' situation, talk of 170s on Reading-Scotland is just bizarre frankly.

Point 4 is the only one with any merit, but this is resolved by cascading suitable stock from other TOCs (eg TfW) or hanging on to 158s that are still broadly suitable for that sort of work. Moving XC 170s to EMR is very much robbing Peter to pay Paul

 

[Neptune]

Several reasons for getting rid of the class 170's first.

1) The units where built from 1998 - 2005. I am not sure as to when the XC class 170's where built, but if they where from the late 1990's they need replacing.
2) The class 170's come from a design that is dated from the earlier 1990's in the form of the class 165/166 units.
3) The class 220/221 units are 125mph capable units and can be run on the majority of XC routes. You would not run class 170's say on Reading - Scotland service. So the class 170 units are limited to the routes that they can be run on.
4) Class 170 units are required by the likes of EMR, so these can go to them to be replacing older class 153/156/158 units.

Point 4 is totally at odds with point 1. Surely if they’re too old for XC then by your reckoning they’d be too old for EMR.

Whilst we’re at it shall we scrap all Electrostar units? Your point 1 would relate to them too.. and the 175’s and 333’s and 390’s and……..

For what it’s worth the 170’s are excellent units for inter-regional work, more so than they are for local stopping work.

 

[RobShipway]

So I wondered if there are Class 170 available for it and also for the routes strengthening planned in the West Midlands Rail Investment Strateg

I thought that the CAF Civity Class 196 units where replacing all the class 170's with West Midlands Trains, such that the class 170's could move to EMR?

Unfortunately, I have not got a subscription to Modern Railways but I cannot imagine why XC would need another class 170 unit when their units are being extend from 2 to 3 car units.

Points 1 & 2 are utterly irrelevant. They may not be the most bang up to date design, but they are air-conditioned, accessible, reasonably efficient, and have all the 'mod-cons' that people would expect (or can be fitted with them). Quite why you think they justify replacement on age alone I have no idea. FWIW, a little over half of their fleet are the original 170s built for MML in 1998/9, the other half are ex-Central trains and were built 1999/2000

Point 3 is odd. On that basis, we better replace all of EMR's fleet with some do-all train so it can do the intercity, corby, and regional work. Or perhaps replace the GWR fleets with something that's equally at home on London-Didcot, London-Swansea and Paignton-Exmouth. Or all of SWR's fleet with 450s that are as ill suited to metro-work as long distance weymouth services. XC is very much a 'two operators lumped under a brand' situation, talk of 170s on Reading-Scotland is just bizarre frankly.

Point 4 is the only one with any merit, but this is resolved by cascading suitable stock from other TOCs (eg TfW) or hanging on to 158s that are still broadly suitable for that sort of work. Moving XC 170s to EMR is very much robbing Peter to pay Paul

For points 1 & 2, try looking at the design of the class 170's and where things are placed. It leaves very little room to be adapted for other technology to be powering the units. The design of the class 170 units is dated from 30 years ago almost. With regards to EMR using class 170's, they are using them on local services, not Inter-City services which is what they are being used for by XC. There is a difference in requirements between doing a local service with EMR and say doing Birmingham - Stanstead Airport which is more of an Inter-City service. Would you be happy if EMR used a class 170 on a service between St Pancras & Sheffield?

Yes, class 170's with EMR will be used on services such as Liverpool Lime Street - Norwich, which I know people will say is no different than the XC Cardiff - Nottingham service where it is travelling from one city and ending up at another city. But Cross Country is an Inter City TOC and the class 170's are Inter-Regional units, not Inter-City units.

Point 4 is totally at odds with point 1. Surely if they’re too old for XC then by your reckoning they’d be too old for EMR.

Whilst we’re at it shall we scrap all Electrostar units? Your point 1 would relate to them too.. and the 175’s and 333’s and 390’s and……..

For what it’s worth the 170’s are excellent units for inter-regional work, more so than they are for local stopping work.

Difference is that EMU units, generally have a longer life span than diesel units otherwise you would not have class 313 units working coastway services with Southern even though they are 40 plus years old and much older than diesel pacer units that have recently been scrapped.

If you look at the link https://www.ipexconsulting.com/insi...ification-repurposing-existing-rolling-stock/ provided Stephen Lee, this is actually making a good suggestion for the Voyager and Meridian units as follows:

"In the Class 93, Stadler has taken the Class 88 concept a stage further by fitting batteries and using them in a very similar fashion to the Hayabusa HST. The batteries and the diesel engine combined provide sufficient capability to accelerate a train adequately when off-wire.

Tri-mode future​

If a tri-mode locomotive could be developed for the UK market with 125 mph electric capability and 110 mph off-wire capability, there is the potential for the Voyager and Meridian fleets to be reconfigured as locomotive-hauled rolling stock. The combined fleet could be configured to provide push-pull trains with one driving trailer vehicle and a flexible number of trailer vehicles, all with both the engines and the traction motors removed. In addition, the rheostatic resistor location, now redundant, could be reused for solar panels to charge the auxiliary batteries.

These Voyager and Meridian fleets could then have more capacity than at present, easing the overcrowding significantly; could be reconfigured internally to improve ambiance; would be quiet; and most significantly could produce a solution which would retain the vehicles in useful service at least until the end of their original design life. Continued demand for HSTs shows that there is nothing inherently wrong with head-end power and carriages for long distance travel.

Further, as battery technology improves, the rating and size of the battery pack could be increased, thus reducing the reliance and use of the diesel engine until such a point that the diesel engine provides the boost for the battery rather than the other way around.

Crucially, financing for the locomotive, and hence leasing costs, need not necessarily be tied to the remaining life left in the Voyager and Meridian fleets. Potential secondary uses with different passenger or freight vehicle formations may justify recovery of the initial locomotive investment over a 30 or 40-year period or even longer."

If there is enough in the way of carriages, you may find that Voyager/Meridian coaches hauled by class 93 may replace the class 170's units which would then go to EMR for their Inter-Regional services.

 

[gingertom]

Would a fleet of 755 bi-mode Flirts be a good unit to replace the 170s?

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

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.

I was thinking exactly the same thing about Plymouth and Edinburgh, thank you! After all, the depots are near the stations!

 

[skyhigh]

"In the Class 93, Stadler has taken the Class 88 concept a stage further by fitting batteries and using them in a very similar fashion to the Hayabusa HST. The batteries and the diesel engine combined provide sufficient capability to accelerate a train adequately when off-wire.

Tri-mode future​

If a tri-mode locomotive could be developed for the UK market with 125 mph electric capability and 110 mph off-wire capability, there is the potential for the Voyager and Meridian fleets to be reconfigured as locomotive-hauled rolling stock. The combined fleet could be configured to provide push-pull trains with one driving trailer vehicle and a flexible number of trailer vehicles, all with both the engines and the traction motors removed. In addition, the rheostatic resistor location, now redundant, could be reused for solar panels to charge the auxiliary batteries.

These Voyager and Meridian fleets could then have more capacity than at present, easing the overcrowding significantly; could be reconfigured internally to improve ambiance; would be quiet; and most significantly could produce a solution which would retain the vehicles in useful service at least until the end of their original design life. Continued demand for HSTs shows that there is nothing inherently wrong with head-end power and carriages for long distance travel.

Further, as battery technology improves, the rating and size of the battery pack could be increased, thus reducing the reliance and use of the diesel engine until such a point that the diesel engine provides the boost for the battery rather than the other way around.

Crucially, financing for the locomotive, and hence leasing costs, need not necessarily be tied to the remaining life left in the Voyager and Meridian fleets. Potential secondary uses with different passenger or freight vehicle formations may justify recovery of the initial locomotive investment over a 30 or 40-year period or even longer."

If there is enough in the way of carriages, you may find that Voyager/Meridian coaches hauled by class 93 may replace the class 170's units which would then go to EMR for their Inter-Regional services.

Given the massive cost and complexity of converting a multiple unit into what is effectively LHCS I can't see that ever getting off the ground.

 

[Aictos]

There is a difference in requirements between doing a local service with EMR and say doing Birmingham - Stanstead Airport which is more of an Inter-City service. Would you be happy if EMR used a class 170 on a service between St Pancras & Sheffield?

Just a point but you cannot state that Birmingham to Stansted Airport is a Inter-City service when at best, it is simply a Regional service as to saying Class 170s are not suitable for the service I would beg to disagree as they are fine for the route with the only issue that they need to be a minimum of 4 coaches as the 3 car Class 170s used to get very busy pre Covid.

 

[irish_rail]

Then you have 5 car bi-mode Stadler flirt units replace both the 34 class 220 Voyagers and the 24 class 221's currently in seservice.

No thanks on Flirts. A 3 hour plus journey on XC with doors in the middle of the carriages doesn't exactly appeal. Far from an intercity type train.
Might be OK on certain XC routes, but certainly not the routes out of the south west where journey times are often 2 3 or 4 hours plus.

 

[D365]

No thanks on Flirts. A 3 hour plus journey on XC with doors in the middle of the carriages doesn't exactly appeal. Far from an intercity type train.
Might be OK on certain XC routes, but certainly not the routes out of the south west where journey times are often 2 3 or 4 hours plus.

What some seem to forget is that the CrossCountry Cl170 routes have a completely different set of requirements compared to those where the Voyagers operate. Greater Anglia style FLIRTs would be ideal for Birmingham-Stansted, presumably Cardiff-Nottingham also. But definitely not on the "trunk" routes.

As for converting the Cl22x fleets to LHCS. Forget it.

 

[Wolfie]

No thanks on Flirts. A 3 hour plus journey on XC with doors in the middle of the carriages doesn't exactly appeal. Far from an intercity type train.
Might be OK on certain XC routes, but certainly not the routes out of the south west where journey times are often 2 3 or 4 hours plus.

I must admit that l always wondered why Cross Country, except perhaps for the way it inherited the routes and rolling stock from Central Trains, has 170s and not 158s which, based on the SWT/SWR precedent, would appear more suitable.

 

[D365]

I must admit that l always wondered why Cross Country, except perhaps for the way it inherited the routes and rolling stock from Central Trains, has 170s and not 158s which, based on the SWT/SWR precedent, would appear more suitable.

How many three car Cl158s did Central Trains operate?

My view is the ⅓ and ⅔ doors are far more ideal on Birmingham-Stansted and also out to Nottingham.

 

[JonathanH]

I must admit that l always wondered why Cross Country, except perhaps for the way it inherited the routes and rolling stock from Central Trains, has 170s and not 158s which, based on the SWT/SWR precedent, would appear more suitable.

Presumably it was thought that Cross Country was a better place for 100mph rolling stock than 90mph rolling stock. The Central Trains carve up sent the 158s to East Midlands and 170s to the West Midlands and Cross Country. The 170s are not out of place on Birmingham to Stansted and Cardiff to Nottingham.

How many three car Cl158s did Central Trains operate?

Eight at the time of the carve up, acquired from TransPennine Express but the central cars went to Northern for the Calder Valley rather than East Midlands. There had been a previous incarnation of 3-car hybrid 158s but I think they went when Central Trains got the Midland Mainline 170s.

On the other hand, it has to be recognised that the relevant 158s weren't in great condition at that point.

 

[Wolfie]

Presumably it was thought that it was a better place for 100mph rolling stock than 90mph rolling stock. The Central Trains carve up sent the 158s to East Midlands and 170s to the West Midlands and Cross Country.


Eight at the time of the carve up, acquired from TransPennine Express but the central cars went to Northern for the Calder Valley rather than East Midlands.

On the other hand, it has to be recognised that the relevant 158s weren't in great condition at that point.

Do the Cross Country 170s ever use the 100mph capability, do you happen to know?

I had pondered preservation of existing maintenance arrangements as a potential reason.

 

[JonathanH]

Do the Cross Country 170s ever use the 100mph capability, do you happen to know?

I had pondered preservation of existing maintenance arrangements as a potential reason.

100 mph available most of the way from Bromsgrove to Cheltenham and Birmingham to Derby

The arrangements also meant that 170s were concentrated on Tyseley as you note and all the 156 / 158s went to Nottingham / Derby.

 

[Wolfie]

100 mph available most of the way from Bromsgrove to Cheltenham and Birmingham to Derby

The arrangements also meant that 170s were concentrated on Tyseley as you note and all the 156 / 158s went to Nottingham / Derby.

TY

 

[YorksLad12]

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.

Think it's worth remembering as well that the 810s will be the only 24m-ish trains. Given the expense of creating a separate design Hitachi might want to keep selling it. XC is the only operator left, really. In fact, I never got the whole love for the 26m-ish 80x series, especially with the doors at the end. Nine x 26m is nearly 10 x 23m.

Also: we're talking about XC's long-distance and regional services but there might not be an XC post-2023. The regional routes might be elsewhere.

 

[HST43257]

Could they enhance the Leicester line service, and put voyagers/meridians on the Cardiff/Birmingham to Nottinghams?

 

[The Ham]

Think it's worth remembering as well that the 810s will be the only 24m-ish trains. Given the expense of creating a separate design Hitachi might want to keep selling it. XC is the only operator left, really. In fact, I never got the whole love for the 26m-ish 80x series, especially with the doors at the end. Nine x 26m is nearly 10 x 23m.

Also: we're talking about XC's long-distance and regional services but there might not be an XC post-2023. The regional routes might be elsewhere.

What's happening in 2023 which would impact XC? Is this a typo and should read 2033 (that being the current expected opening date for all of HS2)?

Whilst HS2 would have an impact on XC, chances are it wouldn't wipe it out entirely.

Let's take as an example the Bournemouth to Manchester services.

Whilst Bournemouth to Basingstoke could be run by anyone, the link to Reading is important (and actually more so with the ability to change to HS2 services at Old Oak Common). As such that may as well stay.

Then there's the issue of connectivity between Banbury and Oxford, again it's something that others could provide, however you'd either need to find a way of turning the trains around at Banbury or they might as well be part of a longer service.

Almost all the way along the route is likely that there would be need for the service to remain and there would be limited benefit in splitting it up.

The other thing to consider is even if XC usage falls due to Covid by 20% and falls again post HS2 by 50%, but otherwise grew at an average of 2.5%/year then we'd see the following usage rates:
100 - 2009
128 - 2019*
102 - 2022
134 - 2033
67 - 2034

* XC usage between 2012 and 2019 based on 2.5% growth would have been 119, it was actually 123 (averaging 3% growth year on year) and that's with the issues of the Voyagers potentially hindering growth.

However if rail growth is only slightly higher then within a few years of HS2 opening we could be fairly close to XC carrying nearly the same number of passengers as in 2009, even without that it could be carrying passenger numbers similar to that seen in (say) 2004.

 

[JamesT]

What's happening in 2023 which would impact XC? Is this a typo and should read 2033 (that being the current expected opening date for all of HS2)?

The current franchise extension runs to October 2023. GB Railways should be somewhat established by then and whatever the replacement for the franchises should also have emerged.
It would seem an obvious point in time to examine the current franchise map to see if it still meets requirements. We know GB Railways will be split into regions, potentially the concessions may be mapped closer to those. Though of course CrossCountry ends up crossing all the boundaries by definition.

 

[The Ham]

The current franchise extension runs to October 2023. GB Railways should be somewhat established by then and whatever the replacement for the franchises should also have emerged.
It would seem an obvious point in time to examine the current franchise map to see if it still meets requirements. We know GB Railways will be split into regions, potentially the concessions may be mapped closer to those. Though of course CrossCountry ends up crossing all the boundaries by definition.

Thanks for the confirmation.

Likewise I would imagine that Avanti and LNER would also cross regional boundaries (not as many, but still quite a few), so some may hope for then to run some form of inter regional (some may even say city) network which XC would be able to sit within.

Whilst others may well like this to include others (for instance GWR's long distance services), I suspect that (at least in the case of GWR) they are within a clear region of their own and so would stay as such.

If that's the case this new inter regional network would have three main hubs (Euston, Kings Cross and Birmingham) with lower level hubs (hubs as they interact with key regional services more than they are where people change between long distance services) at Leeds/York/Reading/Exeter/Edinburgh/Glasgow/Manchester/Liverpool with limited (at least compared to between those greater/lesser hubs) services between the those lesser hubs and other locations (for instance to the South Coast or further into Scotland or further into the West Country).

 

[RobShipway]

Think it's worth remembering as well that the 810s will be the only 24m-ish trains. Given the expense of creating a separate design Hitachi might want to keep selling it. XC is the only operator left, really. In fact, I never got the whole love for the 26m-ish 80x series, especially with the doors at the end. Nine x 26m is nearly 10 x 23m.

Also: we're talking about XC's long-distance and regional services but there might not be an XC post-2023. The regional routes might be elsewhere.

The current franchise extension runs to October 2023. GB Railways should be somewhat established by then and whatever the replacement for the franchises should also have emerged.
It would seem an obvious point in time to examine the current franchise map to see if it still meets requirements. We know GB Railways will be split into regions, potentially the concessions may be mapped closer to those. Though of course CrossCountry ends up crossing all the boundaries by definition.

I can see the Cardiff service - Nottingham service going to Transport for Wales (TFW). Buy I can also see the Birmingham - Stanstead service either going to West Midlands Trains or being run as a joint WMT/GA service.

I also think that the EMR Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich will either be handed over to XC to run or will be curtailed such that EMR operates Sheffield - Norwich and either XC or WMT operate Liverpool Lime Street to Sheffield.

If the Liverpool Lime Street - Norwich service is handed over to XC, I don't see this being run by class 170's or Voyagers. I do see four car CAF bi-mode Civity or Stadler bi-mode flirt doing the service. The only other option would be a four car bi-mode version of Alstom Aventra doing the service. Since, there has not been a diesel version built of the Aventra, this is unproven technology so I cannot see the likes of XC going for it.

Then the question is how to replace the Voyagers. Well, I think that will either be a version of the Hitachi A-Train in bi-mode form or CAF bi-mode train similar to class 397. I do not see any other options on the market, other than perhaps an inter-city version of the Alstom Aventra in bi-mode form. The only other possibility would be a version of Siemens Velaro that was capable of running on UK loading gauge or doing a bi or tri-mode version of the class 444, but has a frontage similar to the Velaro.

 

[Stephen Lee]

What some seem to forget is that the CrossCountry Cl170 routes have a completely different set of requirements compared to those where the Voyagers operate. Greater Anglia style FLIRTs would be ideal for Birmingham-Stansted, presumably Cardiff-Nottingham also. But definitely not on the "trunk" routes.

As for converting the Cl22x fleets to LHCS. Forget it.

what is LHCS

 

[Aictos]

what is LHCS

Basically loco haulage, not going to happen.

No thanks on Flirts. A 3 hour plus journey on XC with doors in the middle of the carriages doesn't exactly appeal. Far from an intercity type train.
Might be OK on certain XC routes, but certainly not the routes out of the south west where journey times are often 2 3 or 4 hours plus.

I agree, routes from Plymouth to Birmingham and further north should be operated using IC type rolling stock while routes from Birmingham to Stansted/Leicester/Nottingham should be operated with Regional type rolling stock.

Operating a Class 220 on Birmingham to Stansted Airport is as much a bad use of the rolling stock as operating a Class 170 on Southampton to Manchester.

 

[RobShipway]

what is LHCS

Loco Hauled Carriage Service.

 

[Wolfie]

I can see the Cardiff service - Nottingham service going to Transport for Wales (TFW). Buy I can also see the Birmingham - Stanstead service either going to West Midlands Trains or being run as a joint WMT/GA service.

I also think that the EMR Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich will either be handed over to XC to run or will be curtailed such that EMR operates Sheffield - Norwich and either XC or WMT operate Liverpool Lime Street to Sheffield.

If the Liverpool Lime Street - Norwich service is handed over to XC, I don't see this being run by class 170's or Voyagers. I do see four car CAF bi-mode Civity or Stadler bi-mode flirt doing the service. The only other option would be a four car bi-mode version of Alstom Aventra doing the service. Since, there has not been a diesel version built of the Aventra, this is unproven technology so I cannot see the likes of XC going for it.

Then the question is how to replace the Voyagers. Well, I think that will either be a version of the Hitachi A-Train in bi-mode form or CAF bi-mode train similar to class 397. I do not see any other options on the market, other than perhaps an inter-city version of the Alstom Aventra in bi-mode form. The only other possibility would be a version of Siemens Velaro that was capable of running on UK loading gauge or doing a bi or tri-mode version of the class 444, but has a frontage similar to the Velaro.

Much of that looks like change purely for the sake of it. Why propose taking two routes off XC and then propose giving it another, which goes nowhere near XC's Birmingham hub?

I suspect that the Voyagers, and very possibly other 22xs, will be with XC until at least 2030.

 

[D365]

what is LHCS

Loco Hauled Carriage Service.

Locomotive Hauled Coaching Stock

I can see the Cardiff service - Nottingham service going to Transport for Wales (TFW). Buy I can also see the Birmingham - Stanstead service either going to West Midlands Trains or being run as a joint WMT/GA service.

I also think that the EMR Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich will either be handed over to XC to run or will be curtailed such that EMR operates Sheffield - Norwich and either XC or WMT operate Liverpool Lime Street to Sheffield.

If the Liverpool Lime Street - Norwich service is handed over to XC, I don't see this being run by class 170's or Voyagers. I do see four car CAF bi-mode Civity or Stadler bi-mode flirt doing the service. The only other option would be a four car bi-mode version of Alstom Aventra doing the service. Since, there has not been a diesel version built of the Aventra, this is unproven technology so I cannot see the likes of XC going for it.

Then the question is how to replace the Voyagers. Well, I think that will either be a version of the Hitachi A-Train in bi-mode form or CAF bi-mode train similar to class 397. I do not see any other options on the market, other than perhaps an inter-city version of the Alstom Aventra in bi-mode form. The only other possibility would be a version of Siemens Velaro that was capable of running on UK loading gauge or doing a bi or tri-mode version of the class 444, but has a frontage similar to the Velaro.

Not sure where WMT comes into this? Most people have suggested that, if the Liverpool-Norwich is split (which has been postponed indefinitely), that the Liverpool-Nottingham would be handed to TransPennine or Northern. Either way round, nothing to do with CrossCountry, who only share tracks between Sheffield/Chesterfield and Peterborough/Ely.

You state that a bi-mode Aventra is unproven technology, and yet you go on to suggest a bi-mode CAF or bi/tri mode Siemens.

No criticism at all, just trying to understand your thinking.