Future uses for class 220s/221s and 222s?

[AndrewE]

If we actually get on with it, MML electrification could release a large amount of new bi-modes perfectly suited for the job! Releases the Voyagers for 180 replacement, the 180s can then either be scrapped or downrated to less taxing duties.

Um, do we think electrifiction will actually reach Sheffield (and Leeds) before the older diesel units are life-expired and scrapped?

 

[JonathanH]

I would be amazed if HMT didn't insist on maximising use of existing assets going forward.

HMT will only want to maximise the use of existing assets if they deliver a return on the investment - ie the extra leasing cost does not require additional subsidy.

Let's not forget that these aren't government assets and there is no Section 54 guarantee so not using them is cheaper than starting new leases if no need is perceived for these units or the additional projected revenue is less than the operational and financial costs.

So, HMT may not allow new trains which displace 22x fleets but equally they may not allow use of the surplus 22x units either.

One of the biggest costs with the 222s in particular is finding a depot for them.

 

[supervc-10]

I would be very surprised if Avanti's 221s don't replace the XC HSTs in the short term once the 805/807s are in service, which could also allow the Voyagers to have a much needed refurbishment. In an ideal world the entire fleet would be replaced with bi-modes but of course that's not going to happen any time soon.

There are a total of 143 Meridian cars by my maths, 40 XC Mk.3s, and 116 XC 221 cars. Not quite enough to replace the HSTs *and* the 221s - which I would imagine would be wanted.

One way to improve XC's passenger numbers would be to make the travelling experience nicer, and by that I mean by having enough seats on the train for you to actually sit down. But I'm not sure if the investment would generate enough return. Of course if you look holistically improving connectivity across the country improves the economy and if that improvement is done with rail, even polluting diesel Voyagers, it's better for the environment. But that kind of logic escapes the government!

 

[43096]

I would be very surprised if Avanti's 221s don't replace the XC HSTs in the short term once the 805/807s are in service, which could also allow the Voyagers to have a much needed refurbishment. In an ideal world the entire fleet would be replaced with bi-modes but of course that's not going to happen any time soon.

There are a total of 143 Meridian cars by my maths, 40 XC Mk.3s, and 116 XC 221 cars. Not quite enough to replace the HSTs *and* the 221s - which I would imagine would be wanted.

Don't forget that 5 of the XC Mark 3s are spares and they only have three HST sets out at any one time, as one diagram is a maintenance changeover set and is effectively unproductive. Eliminate that lot and you are down to replacing 28 Mark 3s. If you want to replace the 221s and Mark 3s, it's 144 cars on that basis. I'm not sure why you'd want to create two large-ish different fleets (220 and 222) when by bringing in more 221s you don't do that.

 

[JonathanH]

Probably a case for altering to 19 5car and 8 6car in 2024 (when they transfer Operators). Could even be more reformed as 6car if another operator wanted some 4car units. A few 4car might be good replacement for GWR shortened HST sets

Without going to far off topic, cross country could do with a fleet that has more capacity, but less than double units on some routes, so a fleet of about dozen 6car might suit them.

A 4-car unit does not have sufficient capacity to equal GWR shortened HST sets (or two 158s which would be the better replacement for the HSTs).

Future use of 222s is highly speculative and I don't think it governs how they are to be used and reformed at the current time.

 

[Clansman]

A 4-car unit does not have sufficient capacity to equal GWR shortened HST sets (or two 158s which would be the better replacement for the HSTs).

The same old elephant in the room with 22X proposals that seriously ought to be addressed.

It's hard to see where they'll end up if not XC or some open access operator.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

Romours/people are talking going around about the 222s going to Cross Country when EMR 810s arrive. Would this be an ideal move for XC considering they are similar to the Voyagers?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It seems logical unless XC go bi-mode for the long distances they run under the wires.
Avanti's 221s may also end up with XC.
But where would the 22x be maintained?
XC have a dedicated facility at Central Rivers (Burton on Trent) for their 220/221s (which also maintains the Avanti 221s).
EMR maintain the 222s at Derby, but that will go over to Hitachi for the 810s.
I've no idea if Central Rivers could cope with the whole 220/221/222 fleet.

 

[JonathanH]

Romours/people are talking going around about the 222s going to Cross Country when EMR 810s arrive. Would this be an ideal move for XC considering they are similar to the Voyagers?

Which people? People can spread any rumours they like, often without any substance.

There has been speculation about the future of 222s for about ten years on this forum. Apart from a costed plan for them to work services from Paddington to Devon and Cornwall which obviously hasn't happened, everything is speculation purely based on the fact they are similar to the Voyager fleet.

 

[Halish Railway]

I don’t think that there’s anything confirmed yet, just logical suggestions, although I would say that it’s more likely that Avanti West Coast’s Voyagers would join CrossCountry.

It’s worth noting that whilst the 222s are similar to the 220/221s, they are supposedly different in many ways.

I know that there are a couple of threads discussing their future but I can’t find any.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

It seems logical unless XC go bi-mode for the long distances they run under the wires.
Avanti's 221s may also end up with XC.
But where would the 22x be maintained?
XC have a dedicated facility at Central Rivers (Burton on Trent) for their 220/221s (which also maintains the Avanti 221s).
EMR maintain the 222s at Derby, but that will go over to Hitachi for the 810s.
I've no idea if Central Rivers could cope with the whole 220/221/222 fleet.

That's a good point which I don't have an answer for.

Which people? People can spread any rumours they like, often without any substance.

Railway enthusiast is where I've heard it from.

 

[JonathanH]

Railway enthusiast is where I've heard it from.

Right. A leak from someone involved in train leasing, someone who works on strategy for the DfT, in a fairly senior planning position at Cross Country or for Bombardier would have more credibility.

 

[REVUpminster]

222s to replace the Castle Sets. Any takers??

 

[43096]

Railway enthusiast is where I've heard it from.

Just the usual platform end/forum end(!?) wibble, then.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

222s to replace the Castle Sets. Any takers??

Probably not.

 

[JonathanH]

222s to replace the Castle Sets. Any takers??

No evidence for that either. The common view is that they aren't appropriate.

 

[Irascible]

222s to replace the Castle Sets. Any takers??

Probably only in the sense of replacing NE/SW 220s at XC & *those* replacing GW HSTs, but that seems as likely as wiring to Penzance.

 

[westcoaster]

I could see them going to a HST operator to replace them either ScotRail or GWR.
A possibility of TFW replacing units on long distance runs.

 

[JonathanH]

The thing about all this repeated 22x speculation is that we are nowhere near it actually happening so we are going to be waiting a year or more before anything changes.

There is perhaps a possibility that Avanti could release a handful of 221s to see off the CrossCountry HSTs before their 80x stock arrives. There have been suggestions that the first Avanti 221s could be going off lease shortly.

However, then, just like the 379s, there could be a period when the remainder of the Avanti 221s and, more likely, the EMR 222s are in store unused.

Therefore, the speculation is about something that, for the most part, is a possibility for 2024 or 2025.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

I could see them going to a HST operator to replace them either ScotRail or GWR.
A possibility of TFW replacing units on long distance runs.

TFW don't need them has they are having new trains anyways.

 

[D365]

TFW don't need them has they are having new trains anyways.

Not enough to see off all of the 80s-built units.

 

[JonathanH]

Not enough to see off all of the 80s-built units.

The intention of the various orders was to remove the entire fleet (although I note that a number of class 153s are owned directly).

 

[D365]

The intention of the various orders was to remove the entire fleet (although I note that a number of class 153s are owned directly).

Indeed, alas that has since changed with the Class 170s now going to EMR.

 

[quantinghome]

So to summarise so far, there is still a need for 125mph capable diesel-powered intercity trains, particularly on the XC network which has perennial capacity problems, for several years at least. But the obvious candidates - the 22X fleets coming free from other operators, are expensive to operate and much in need of a mid-life refurbishment.

Would reforming and lengthening the Class 220s improve their economics? Given the Class 220 carriage designations (A, C, D, F) it seems that 6-car formations were planned to be an option. So how about turning the 34no. 4-car sets into 17no. 6 cars and scrap 34 inefficient end carriages. That increases seat capacity from 200 to 332 (66% uplift), not considering internal refurbishment to remove the inefficient toilets which could add perhaps 30-40 more seats. You could also consider removing the engines from 1 or 2 of the cars to further improve efficiency.

Bring in the 20no. Avanti 221s to maintain the overall number of XC sets. Then possibly add the 222s - again, perhaps reform to 6 carriages to give 22no. standard sets and scrap a few end cars.

This gives XC a fleet of refurbished trains with a capacity of getting on for 400 seats, nearly double the current class 220, which can operate with the same number of staff at present with less fuel consumption. There's less requirement to double up trains, but if needed XC could move a huge number of people and probably offer some decent advance fares for a change.

 

[JonathanH]

Would reforming and lengthening the Class 220s improve their economics? Given the Class 220 carriage designations (A, C, D, F) it seems that 6-car formations were planned to be an option. So how about turning the 34no. 4-car sets into 17no. 6 cars and scrap 34 inefficient end carriages. That increases seat capacity from 200 to 332 (66% uplift), not considering internal refurbishment to remove the inefficient toilets which could add perhaps 30-40 more seats. You could also consider removing the engines from 1 or 2 of the cars to further improve efficiency.

You would have to pay the leasing company through increased lease charges per remaining vehicle for the loss of economic value for their assets (eg the discarded driving cars) and it is almost certain that holes can't be cut in the side of the toilet / shop area to put in more windows (otherwise it might have even tried in 2008). Maybe some fuel savings but the overall seating capacity is still quite poor.

A simple strategy of running 5 coaches instead of 4 and 8 instead of 5 ought to be possible with the 20 extra Voyagers without any reforming thereby increasing capacity on every service - eg 20 5-cars and 38 4-cars at XC become 19 8-car pairs and 40 5-car units. Is it really worth removing the end cars?

There's less requirement to double up trains, but if needed XC could move a huge number of people and probably offer some decent advance fares for a change.

I'd imagine that if the DfT authorises extra capacity at XC, they will also want fares to rise (further) to meet the extra costs.

 

[quantinghome]

You would have to pay the leasing company through increased lease charges per remaining vehicle for the loss of economic value for their assets (eg the discarded driving cars) and it is almost certain that holes can't be cut in the side of the toilet / shop area to put in more windows (otherwise it might have even tried in 2008). Maybe some fuel savings but the overall seating capacity is still quite poor.

A simple strategy of running 5 coaches instead of 4 and 8 instead of 5 ought to be possible with the 20 extra Voyagers without any reforming thereby increasing capacity on every service - eg 20 5-cars and 38 4-cars at XC become 19 8-car pairs and 40 5-car units. Is it really worth removing the end cars?

TBH I have expressed scepticism about removing the end cars in previous discussions. But if it's a case of making the Voyager cost-effective against other options, or scrapping it, what is the leasing company going to do? They need to make the Voyager a more attractive proposition.

I'd imagine that if the DfT authorises extra capacity at XC, they will also want fares to rise (further) to meet the extra costs.

Yeah, I'd imagine that their way of thinking. Price of everything and value of nothing.

 

[507020]

A simple strategy of running 5 coaches instead of 4 and 8 instead of 5 ought to be possible with the 20 extra Voyagers without any reforming thereby increasing capacity on every service - eg 20 5-cars and 38 4-cars at XC become 19 8-car pairs and 40 5-car units. Is it really worth removing the end cars?

But what do they do on services that are currently 9 or 10 cars?

 

[Nottingham59]

You would have to pay the leasing company through increased lease charges per remaining vehicle for the loss of economic value for their assets (eg the discarded driving cars)

No you wouldn't. The 222's will shortly have zero economic value, because Cross County is effectively a monopoly buyer in this case, and could drive down the lease costs to minimal levels by threatening to walk away from any deal. If there are no takers for 222's then they have scrap value.

(That is assuming, of course, that the DfT have the determination to drive down costs in this way, and the bankers who own the rolling stock leasing companies aren't too close to Tory ministers.)

 

[Ken H]

Is there a market for them abroad somewhere.

 

[Purple Orange]

Is there a market for them abroad somewhere.

Turn them in to classrooms!