Future of 22x Units

[greatvoyager]

They're also completely different traction systems. Kinda presents an issue...

Fair enough.

 

[squizzler]

I have recently sampled the new GWR timetable and am thinking of the 'superfast' trains they have introduced and the potential of emulating it if you had more short voyagers than you knew what to do with...

If XC franchise got its hands on every 22x unit ever built, would there be any prospect of introducing services that run nonstop for extensive parts of their route, cutting out even the fairly large hubs? I am not familiar with the northern sections of XC, but on the southern parts this might entail loading up at at stations on the south coast - until Exeter or Southampton - and then skipping everything including Reading and Bristol, not stopping till the Midlands. The northern parts of the network would mirror this. The short Voyagers would be ideal for such 'superfasts', IMO.

 

[krus_aragon]

If XC franchise got its hands on every 22x unit ever built, would there be any prospect of introducing services that run nonstop for extensive parts of their route, cutting out even the fairly large hubs? I am not familiar with the northern sections of XC, but on the southern parts this might entail loading up at at stations on the south coast - until Exeter or Southampton - and then skipping everything including Reading and Bristol, not stopping till the Midlands. The northern parts of the network would mirror this. The short Voyagers would be ideal for such 'superfasts', IMO.

The first question that comes to my mind is "are there extra paths through the core of the network for these superfasts"?

 

[greatvoyager]

I have recently sampled the new GWR timetable and am thinking of the 'superfast' trains they have introduced and the potential of emulating it if you had more short voyagers than you knew what to do with...

If XC franchise got its hands on every 22x unit ever built, would there be any prospect of introducing services that run nonstop for extensive parts of their route, cutting out even the fairly large hubs? I am not familiar with the northern sections of XC, but on the southern parts this might entail loading up at at stations on the south coast - until Exeter or Southampton - and then skipping everything including Reading and Bristol, not stopping till the Midlands. The northern parts of the network would mirror this. The short Voyagers would be ideal for such 'superfasts', IMO.

Interesting idea, I guess it would depend on whether there would be paths that would allow this without being affected by local stoppers.
Also, would having all 22x units provide enough trains to run the service?

 

[whhistle]

I also think the Class 222's will end up at CrossCountry, they could either replace Class 170's on the Birmingham New Street to Stansted Airport route (certainly the 4 car 222's could be used on that) or be used on intercity services with four car Class 220's replacing the 170's.

22x units apparently can't run into Stansted Airport. Some sort of gauging issue / platform length issues.

Cardiff to Nottingham or even the Leicester locals perhaps though... (although the door position is wrong for regional services, the acceleration rate would easily claw back time lost at stations when boarding). Cost to run could make this a non-starter though.

What they could also do is make all Class 222's three or four car and make the Class 220 fleet five car using the spare 222 carriages.

Voyager and Meridian coaches are quite different so mix and matching them won't happen.

On CrossCountry routes that use two car Class 170's (which my understanding is that they will be lengthened soon)

Where have you heard the XC 170s will be extended? Using what coaches? It's rumoured 1 coach from Southerns (4-car) 171s will be used to make a common pool of 3-coach 170s if/when EMR take them on.



XC should take on other Voyagers / Meridians but doubling up isn't a great idea. People on wrong sets, double the staff... better to scrap end cars and form a common length fleet for their remaining days as after XC are finished with them, I can't see any other operator wanting them.

XC HST set could go to Scotrail (seems a waste to have done all the modifications for it not to be used).

Scotrail could also take on some of the Voyagers or Meridians instead of their HSTs.

 

[sprinterguy]

I'm certainly not going to read 625 posts to see if someone has asked the question before, but if 222s were used then how do people expect XC to split the services up? it's extremely well known that 220s & 221s can't work with 222s so there would have to be quite clear areas of work so that the two groups don't come together

If my suggestion on the previous page of using primarily doubled up 4-car 220s on Edinburgh - South West services is discounted, then the 222 fleet is also a good match for the number of diagrams on that route, with the 4-car units operating doubled up. It would allow Derby Etches Park to remain their primary maintenance base, although I'm not sure that any space will remain if the new 804 fleet is being maintained there.

I have recently sampled the new GWR timetable and am thinking of the 'superfast' trains they have introduced and the potential of emulating it if you had more short voyagers than you knew what to do with...

If XC franchise got its hands on every 22x unit ever built, would there be any prospect of introducing services that run nonstop for extensive parts of their route, cutting out even the fairly large hubs? I am not familiar with the northern sections of XC, but on the southern parts this might entail loading up at at stations on the south coast - until Exeter or Southampton - and then skipping everything including Reading and Bristol, not stopping till the Midlands. The northern parts of the network would mirror this. The short Voyagers would be ideal for such 'superfasts', IMO.

I've envisaged such a concept of an hourly "fast" and hourly "regional" service over the Crosscountry inter-city network in the past, though not quite so limited in stopping pattern for the fast services. As this is purely speculative, you could potentially have something like:

FAST (Total = 28 trains)
HOURLY Plymouth - Edinburgh (18 trains)
Calling at Exeter St Davids, Bristol Temple Meads, Birmingham New Street, Derby, Sheffield, Leeds, York and Newcastle

HOURLY Bournemouth - Manchester Piccadilly (10 trains)
Calling at Southampton Central, Reading, Oxford, Leamington Spa, Birmingham New Street and Stoke-on-Trent/Crewe

REGIONAL (Total = 55 trains)
HOURLY Penzance - Cardiff Central (12 trains)
Calling at St Erth, Camborne/Redruth, Truro, St Austell/Par, Bodmin Parkway, Liskeard, Plymouth, Totnes, Newton Abbot, Exeter St Davids, Tiverton Parkway, Taunton, Weston-super-Mare, Bristol Temple Meads and Newport.

HOURLY Exeter - Manchester Piccadilly (10 trains)*
Calling at Tiverton Parkway, Taunton, Bristol Temple Meads, Cheltenham Spa, Birmingham New Street, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield and Stockport
* Could start from Paignton during the summer.

HOURLY Southampton Central - York (11 trains)
Calling at Southampton Airport Parkway, Winchester, Basingstoke, Reading, Oxford, Banbury, Leamington Spa, Coventry, Birmingham International, Birmingham New Street, Tamworth/Burton-on-Trent, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield, Doncaster and York

HOURLY Cardiff Central - Nottingham (10 trains)
Existing service upgraded to "Inter-city Regional" standard, with existing calling pattern.

HOURLY Nottingham - Glasgow Central (12 trains)**
Calling at Chesterfield, Sheffield, Wakefield Westgate, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Morpeth/Alnmouth, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Edinburgh Waverley, Haymarket and Motherwell
** Could run to Aberdeen instead of Glasgow Central in alternate hours, increasing train requirement to approx 15 units.

"Either/Or" indicators for intermediate stops indicate calls at one or the other in alternate hours.

Unit requirements include a rough provision for layovers at each end of the route.

NOTES
Other than overlaps in regional services between Exeter St Davids and Bristol Temple Meads, and Chesterfield and York, this retains the same frequency of XC inter-city services across the 'X'-axis network as at present. Overlaps between regional services have been designed to maintain connectivity by direct train as much as possible both north and south from stops on the regional services, when compared to the current timetable.

I originally devised this long before GWR (They were still First Great Western at the time!) began to implement their increased frequency of regional services between Penzance, Plymouth and Exeter, and Cardiff, Bristol and Taunton. As such, the Penzance - Cardiff Central duplicates some of that service, but offers regular through trains from end to end and may sit better within the GWR franchise.

Frustratingly, there's more units required for fast services than there are 222s, which would otherwise be my preference. However, it does demonstrate that there's more than sufficient units (38 x 4-car 220/221, 40 x 5-car 221 and 27 x class 222, totalling 105 units) to cover the maximum requirement for 86 trains (Including the alternate hour extension of Nottingham - Glasgow services to Aberdeen), permitting doubling up of 4-car units.

Ideally if a path was available (Previous discussions have strongly suggested that it isn't) I'd also like to see an additional hourly electric Birmingham International - Manchester via Stoke service to ensure that intermediate stops between Birmingham and Manchester retained the same service frequency as at present, but that lies outside the consideration of Voyager utilisation.

 

[greatvoyager]

If my suggestion on the previous page of using primarily doubled up 4-car 220s on Edinburgh - South West services is discounted, then the 222 fleet is also a good match for the number of diagrams on that route, with the 4-car units operating doubled up. It would allow Derby Etches Park to remain their primary maintenance base, although I'm not sure that any space will remain if the new 804 fleet is being maintained there.

I've envisaged such a concept of an hourly "fast" and hourly "regional" service over the Crosscountry inter-city network in the past, though not quite so limited in stopping pattern for the fast services. As this is purely speculative, you could potentially have something like:

FAST (Total = 28 trains)
HOURLY Plymouth - Edinburgh (18 trains)
Calling at Exeter St Davids, Bristol Temple Meads, Birmingham New Street, Derby, Sheffield, Leeds, York and Newcastle

HOURLY Bournemouth - Manchester Piccadilly (10 trains)
Calling at Southampton Central, Reading, Oxford, Coventry, Birmingham New Street and Stoke-on-Trent/Crewe

REGIONAL (Total = 55 trains)
HOURLY Penzance - Cardiff Central (12 trains)
Calling at St Erth, Camborne/Redruth, Truro, St Austell/Par, Bodmin Parkway, Liskeard, Plymouth, Totnes, Newton Abbot, Exeter St Davids, Tiverton Parkway, Taunton, Weston-super-Mare, Bristol Temple Meads and Newport.

HOURLY Exeter - Manchester Piccadilly (10 trains)*
Calling at Tiverton Parkway, Taunton, Bristol Temple Meads, Cheltenham Spa, Birmingham New Street, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield and Stockport
* Could start from Paignton during the summer.

HOURLY Southampton Central - York (11 trains)
Calling at Southampton Airport Parkway, Winchester, Basingstoke, Reading, Oxford, Banbury, Leamington Spa, Birmingham New Street, Tamworth/Burton-on-Trent, Derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield, Doncaster and York

HOURLY Cardiff Central - Nottingham (10 trains)
Existing service upgraded to "Inter-city Regional" standard, with existing calling pattern.

HOURLY Nottingham - Glasgow Central (12 trains)**
Calling at Sheffield, Wakefield Westgate, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Morpeth/Alnmouth, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Edinburgh Waverley, Haymarket and Motherwell
** Could run to Aberdeen instead of Glasgow Central in alternate hours, increasing train requirement to approx 15 units.

"Either/Or" indicators for intermediate stops indicate calls at one or the other in alternate hours.

Unit requirements include a rough provision for layovers at each end of the route.

Other than overlaps in regional services between Exeter St Davids and Bristol Temple Meads, and Chesterfield and York, this retains the same frequency of XC inter-city services across the 'X'-axis network. Overlaps between regional services have been designed to maintain connectivity by direct train as much as possible both north and south from stops on the regional services, when compared to the current timetable.

I originally devised this long before GWR (They were still First Great Western at the time!) began to implement their increased frequency of regional services between Penzance, Plymouth and Exeter, and Cardiff, Bristol and Taunton. As such, the Penzance - Cardiff Central duplicates some of that service, but offers regular through trains from end to end and may sit better within the GWR franchise.

Frustratingly, there's more units required for fast services than there are 222s, which would otherwise be my preference. However, it does demonstrate that there's more than sufficient units (38 x 4-car 220/221, 40 x 5-car 221 and 27 x class 222, totalling 105 units) to cover the maximum requirement for 86 trains (Including the alternate hour extension of Nottingham - Glasgow services to Aberdeen), permitting doubling up of 4-car units.

Ideally if a path was available (Previous discussions have strongly suggested that it isn't) I'd also like to see an additional hourly electric Birmingham International - Manchester via Stoke service to ensure that intermediate stops between Birmingham and Manchester retained the same service frequency as at present, but that lies outside the consideration of Voyager utilisation.

That does sound good, shame we probably won't see it.

 

[sprinterguy]

That does sound good, shame we probably won't see it.

Thanks. I'm sure my whole proposal can be completely pulled to bits in a multitude of different ways, and I welcome anyone to do so if they're so inclined, but I quite like it as a means to address complaints that Crosscountry isn't a "proper" inter-city operation while still retaining good regional connectivity from and between provincial towns.

With the 222s reformed as 8 x 6-car and 19 x 5-car trains, fleet utilisation could look something like this:
FAST (Total = 28 trains)
VOYAGER Plymouth – Edinburgh: 18 trains = 12 x 8-car pairs of 4-car class 220, 6 x 5-car class 221
VOYAGER Bournemouth - Manchester Piccadilly: 10 trains = 10 x 5-car class 221

REGIONAL (Total = 55 trains)
VOYAGER Penzance - Cardiff Central: 12 trains = 12 x 4-car class 220
VOYAGER Exeter - Manchester Piccadilly: 10 trains = 10 x 5-car class 221
MERIDIAN Southampton Central – York: 11 trains = 11 x 6/5-car class 222
VOYAGER Cardiff Central – Nottingham: 10 trains = 10 x 5-car Class 221
MERIDIAN Nottingham - Glasgow Central: 12 trains = 12 x 6/5-car class 222

TOTAL
36 diagrammed from 38 x 4-car class 220/221, 36 diagrammed from 40 x 5-car class 221 and 23 diagrammed from 27 x 5/6-car class 222 (Rising to 26 out of 27 222s with an Aberdeen extension - bit tight, that).

NOTES
Penzance - Cardiff is the only route that operates single 4-car units: I allocated them to this service as it is partially duplicated by GWR's regional services as I noted above, so expect demand to be lower than anywhere nearer the Crosscountry 'core'. It's also the only Voyager route I've listed that doesn't pass or get within 25 miles of Central Rivers depot - Again, perhaps a better fit for GWR in general, but units could be rotated back to the Midlands in conjunction with the Plymouth - Edinburgh fast service, the only other one that utilises 4-car 220/221s (in pairs).

I made sure that Cardiff Central - Nottingham received 5-car class 221s, as a 4-car unit wouldn't represent an increase in seating capacity over the existing 3-car class 170s.

Bournemouth - Manchester and Exeter/Bristol - Manchester diagrams could continue to interwork as at present.

Allocating Meridians to Southampton Central - York and Nottingham - Glasgow Central keeps them on routes with close contact with Derby Etches Park, or potentially any other Midlands facility with capacity to maintain them.

 

[greatvoyager]

Thanks. I'm sure my whole proposal can be completely pulled to bits in a multitude of different ways, and I welcome anyone to do so if they're so inclined, but I quite like it as a means to address complaints that Crosscountry isn't a "proper" inter-city operation while still retaining good regional connectivity from and between provincial towns.

With the 222s reformed as 8 x 6-car and 19 x 5-car trains, fleet utilisation could look something like this:
FAST (Total = 28 trains)
VOYAGER Plymouth – Edinburgh: 18 trains = 12 x 8-car pairs of 4-car class 220, 6 x 5-car class 221
VOYAGER Bournemouth - Manchester Piccadilly: 10 trains = 10 x 5-car class 221

REGIONAL (Total = 55 trains)
VOYAGER Penzance - Cardiff Central: 12 trains = 12 x 4-car class 220
VOYAGER Exeter - Manchester Piccadilly: 10 trains = 10 x 5-car class 221
MERIDIAN Southampton Central – York: 11 trains = 11 x 6/5-car class 222
VOYAGER Cardiff Central – Nottingham: 10 trains = 10 x 5-car Class 221
MERIDIAN Nottingham - Glasgow Central: 12 trains = 12 x 6/5-car class 222

TOTAL
36 diagrammed from 38 x 4-car class 220/221, 36 diagrammed from 40 x 5-car class 221 and 23 diagrammed from 27 x 5/6-car class 222 (Rising to 26 out of 27 222s with an Aberdeen extension - bit tight, that).

NOTES
Penzance - Cardiff is the only route that operates single 4-car units: I allocated them to this service as it is partially duplicated by GWR's regional services as I noted above, so expect demand to be lower than anywhere nearer the Crosscountry 'core'. It's also the only Voyager route I've listed that doesn't pass or get within 25 miles of Central Rivers depot - Again, perhaps a better fit for GWR in general, but units could be rotated back to the Midlands in conjunction with the Plymouth - Edinburgh fast service, the only other one that utilises 4-car 220/221s (in pairs).

I made sure that Cardiff Central - Nottingham received 5-car class 221s, as a 4-car unit wouldn't represent an increase in seating capacity over the existing 3-car class 170s.

Bournemouth - Manchester and Exeter/Bristol - Manchester diagrams could continue to interwork as at present.

Allocating Meridians to Southampton Central - York and Nottingham - Glasgow Central keeps them on routes with close contact with Derby Etches Park, or potentially any other Midlands facility with capacity to maintain them.

Would be nice to see happen.

 

[greatvoyager]

Thanks. I'm sure my whole proposal can be completely pulled to bits in a multitude of different ways, and I welcome anyone to do so if they're so inclined, but I quite like it as a means to address complaints that Crosscountry isn't a "proper" inter-city operation while still retaining good regional connectivity from and between provincial towns.

With the 222s reformed as 8 x 6-car and 19 x 5-car trains, fleet utilisation could look something like this:
FAST (Total = 28 trains)
VOYAGER Plymouth – Edinburgh: 18 trains = 12 x 8-car pairs of 4-car class 220, 6 x 5-car class 221
VOYAGER Bournemouth - Manchester Piccadilly: 10 trains = 10 x 5-car class 221

REGIONAL (Total = 55 trains)
VOYAGER Penzance - Cardiff Central: 12 trains = 12 x 4-car class 220
VOYAGER Exeter - Manchester Piccadilly: 10 trains = 10 x 5-car class 221
MERIDIAN Southampton Central – York: 11 trains = 11 x 6/5-car class 222
VOYAGER Cardiff Central – Nottingham: 10 trains = 10 x 5-car Class 221
MERIDIAN Nottingham - Glasgow Central: 12 trains = 12 x 6/5-car class 222

TOTAL
36 diagrammed from 38 x 4-car class 220/221, 36 diagrammed from 40 x 5-car class 221 and 23 diagrammed from 27 x 5/6-car class 222 (Rising to 26 out of 27 222s with an Aberdeen extension - bit tight, that).

NOTES
Penzance - Cardiff is the only route that operates single 4-car units: I allocated them to this service as it is partially duplicated by GWR's regional services as I noted above, so expect demand to be lower than anywhere nearer the Crosscountry 'core'. It's also the only Voyager route I've listed that doesn't pass or get within 25 miles of Central Rivers depot - Again, perhaps a better fit for GWR in general, but units could be rotated back to the Midlands in conjunction with the Plymouth - Edinburgh fast service, the only other one that utilises 4-car 220/221s (in pairs).

I made sure that Cardiff Central - Nottingham received 5-car class 221s, as a 4-car unit wouldn't represent an increase in seating capacity over the existing 3-car class 170s.

Bournemouth - Manchester and Exeter/Bristol - Manchester diagrams could continue to interwork as at present.

Allocating Meridians to Southampton Central - York and Nottingham - Glasgow Central keeps them on routes with close contact with Derby Etches Park, or potentially any other Midlands facility with capacity to maintain them.

Also, would logical regarding 222s on Derby services, unless they change base.

 

[greatvoyager]

Wonder how things could've been different if the 222 layout was the original opposed to the 220/221.

 

[Meerkat]

What is the timescale for the various 22x units to become available?
When does Hitachi need an AT300 order by to keep the factory going? Any guesses whether the Southeastern and HS2 stock decisions will be before that?
As a loss maker extra units (22x or AT300) will be a political decision.....

 

[greatvoyager]

What is the timescale for the various 22x units to become available?
When does Hitachi need an AT300 order by to keep the factory going? Any guesses whether the Southeastern and HS2 stock decisions will be before that?
As a loss maker extra units (22x or AT300) will be a political decision.....

The believe the remaining 22x units become available in 2022/2023.

 

[pro4600]

What is the feasibility of the 222 fleet being reformed by the next operator to be 8 x 6 car and 19 x 5 car by moving carriage from 7 car sets to 4 car sets?
I imagine not that straight forward as would have happened by now.

 

[sprinterguy]

What is the feasibility of the 222 fleet being reformed by the next operator to be 8 x 6 car and 19 x 5 car by moving carriage from 7 car sets to 4 car sets?
I imagine not that straight forward as would have happened by now.

They've been chopped and changed from 9 to 8 and then 7, and from 4 to 5 so I assume that a fleet of 6 and 5-car units should be doable - Unless the four ex-Hull Trains units have a software variation that keeps them separate from the other 222 units. I assume that the current small number of 7 car sets, is to suit operational requirements.

 

[greatvoyager]

22x units apparently can't run into Stansted Airport. Some sort of gauging issue / platform length issues.

Cardiff to Nottingham or even the Leicester locals perhaps though... (although the door position is wrong for regional services, the acceleration rate would easily claw back time lost at stations when boarding). Cost to run could make this a non-starter though.



Voyager and Meridian coaches are quite different so mix and matching them won't happen.



Where have you heard the XC 170s will be extended? Using what coaches? It's rumoured 1 coach from Southerns (4-car) 171s will be used to make a common pool of 3-coach 170s if/when EMR take them on.



XC should take on other Voyagers / Meridians but doubling up isn't a great idea. People on wrong sets, double the staff... better to scrap end cars and form a common length fleet for their remaining days as after XC are finished with them, I can't see any other operator wanting them.

XC HST set could go to Scotrail (seems a waste to have done all the modifications for it not to be used).

Scotrail could also take on some of the Voyagers or Meridians instead of their HSTs.

The 170/6s with WMR will lose there centre coach, before moving to EMR and then the 170/5s will have coach inserted. Was reported in a number of sources, including rail magazine.
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/fleet/east-midlands-railway-plans-spring-2020-start-for-class-170s
If 22x units have no prospect of operation after XC, they might as well take on all carriages and sets anyway.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens to HS2 and see what the budget brings before we can really start thinking about what to do with 22Xs

To explain, the recently elected government needs to show that it is doing something for the people of the midlands and north who voted Conservative, many for the first time; an easy way of doing this would be to re-authorise some of the cancelled electrification schemes, such as the MML and the Windermere branch. But we also have to remember the requirement to be carbon neutral by 2050; it is 30 years away, but at the slow pace infrastructure programmes currently work in this country it will be difficult to get all of the rail electrification we need done by that time. Targeted investment in electrification is therefore required.

Lets assume that the MML is re-authorised.

EMR are in the process of procuring a fleet of bi-mode trains; if the diesel power packs can easily be removed, it might be sensible to keep them with EMR as straight electrics, but if they are able to match the class 22Xs performance when running on diesel, it might be sensible to procure new straight electrics for the MML, keep the bi-mode capability of the trains EMR is currently procuring, and use them to replace life expired trains like, say, the 'Castle' class HSTs on GWR and DMUs used on other GWR long distance services like 158s and 'Turbos' (if they haven't already been replaced by the time electrification of the MML is completed and the Hitchi bi=modes become available).

So what if there is a plan put together which primarily takes account of three factors; age of rolling stock, a desire to minimise distances run as diesels under the wires, and the speed with which electrification can be undertaken.

I'm not sure exactly where they're based, but there are design/implementation electrification teams in existence for the MML, GW, and Trans Pennine electrification schemes, and I presume there's also one in the West Midlands as well who have done down the Lickey to Bromsgrove and the Walsall - Rugeley line. So what if the MML team re-commence electrification of the route (once it's finished to Market Harborough) at Moorthorpe/Doncaster and work southwards through Sheffield to Derby (possibly including the Matlock branch); then, instead of heading south to London, it does Derby - Birmingham, including the line between Wichnor Junction and Lichfield. The MML team should then do Derby - Nottingham/East Midlands Parkway, possibly Loughborough (through Leicester to Markey Harborough can be delayed until it is known what is being done in the Syston - Wigston area). The West Midlands team should then be responsible for extending the electrification from Bromsgrove to Westerleigh Junction (including Gloucester station).

Further north, the Trans-Pennine team doing Huddersfield - Leeds should then transfer east and electrify Neville Hill to Colton Junction; and the GW team should electrify Bristol Temple Meads to Parkway, then Didcot to Oxford, and finally Reading to Basingstoke. This then leaves the gap between Oxford and Coventry/Birmingham via Solihull; perhaps a new electrification team could be set up for this, them starting at Coventry/Birmingham and working south to Oxford, then electrifying from Aynho and Oxford to Marylebone - as has been suggested elsewhere, London's requirement for clean air zones/etc aren't going to let diesels continue to use Marylebone unchallenged indefinitely. This team should also do Coventry - Nuneaton

So if we're being pessimistic, could such an electrification programme be completed in 15-20 years? If it can, it just about matches the remaining life of all of the members of the 22x family of trains.

I'm not an electrical/electronic engineer, but as the 220s/221s are already roundly 20 years old I guess there are already parts required for the maintenance of them (and the 222s) which are becoming difficult to source; therefore, would it be sensible to give all members of the 22x family a major half-life refurbish which includes changes to control systems etc with semi-obsolete parts being replaced and other changes made to the control systems so that they can all work together, and at the same time undertaking some re-marshalling so that there are, say, some 6 or 7-car units? Could, for example, some of the existing 220/221 trains be broken-up and reformed into a single fleet of 5-car sets? Could this better be achieved by creating 5-car sets by using an existing 220 and four matching cars from a 221, then each have an identical car from a 222 added? Then mix the displaced cars from the 221s with vehicles from 222s to create the longer sets?

I know this isn't possible at present, but would it be - at reasonable cost - if all of the 22x fleet were to undergo a major half life refurbish?

All of the 22X family could then see out their lives on XC; hopefully, there would be sufficient to replace 170s on Nottingham - Cardiff's, and with electrification having been undertaken in the Nottingham - Derby - Birmingham corridor, perhaps that would then be a good time to transfer that current XC service to another franchise operator and replace the Turbostars with suitable EMUs (say the West Midland's Aventras). Not sure what to do about Birmingham - Stansted and the Leicester stoppers!

Of course it's speculation as to what would then replace the 22Xs; but with a rolling programme like this, something like a dual-voltage 397 could replace a 22X on trains going south of Basingstoke and on the Nottingham - Cardiff (if it were to be diverted to run via Parkway instead of Chepstow), and could the REP/TC idea be adopted for trains going south west of Bristol with something like a class 68 providing propulsion into Devon and Cornwall?

As I said, the latter is speculation; but keeping all of the 22X family on XC does seem to be a sensible option if an electrification rolling programme to fill in the gaps in the present network is adopted as it will enable them to see out their lives on the route for which they were procured, and enable maintenance at Central Rivers to continue. But that must be with the caveat that they undergo a major half-life refurbish; and if the government was to agree to an electrification rolling programme of the type described above, it should be easy for it to give the necessary undertakings to the vehicle's owners that they will remain with XC until they are no longer needed because of electrification. From such a government undertaking, the owners should be able to finance the necessary refurbishment work to enable the vehicles to continue in service for another 15 - 20 years.

 

[greatvoyager]

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens to HS2 and see what the budget brings before we can really start thinking about what to do with 22Xs

To explain, the recently elected government needs to show that it is doing something for the people of the midlands and north who voted Conservative, many for the first time; an easy way of doing this would be to re-authorise some of the cancelled electrification schemes, such as the MML and the Windermere branch. But we also have to remember the requirement to be carbon neutral by 2050; it is 30 years away, but at the slow pace infrastructure programmes currently work in this country it will be difficult to get all of the rail electrification we need done by that time. Targeted investment in electrification is therefore required.

Lets assume that the MML is re-authorised.

EMR are in the process of procuring a fleet of bi-mode trains; if the diesel power packs can easily be removed, it might be sensible to keep them with EMR as straight electrics, but if they are able to match the class 22Xs performance when running on diesel, it might be sensible to procure new straight electrics for the MML, keep the bi-mode capability of the trains EMR is currently procuring, and use them to replace life expired trains like, say, the 'Castle' class HSTs on GWR and DMUs used on other GWR long distance services like 158s and 'Turbos' (if they haven't already been replaced by the time electrification of the MML is completed and the Hitchi bi=modes become available).

So what if there is a plan put together which primarily takes account of three factors; age of rolling stock, a desire to minimise distances run as diesels under the wires, and the speed with which electrification can be undertaken.

I'm not sure exactly where they're based, but there are design/implementation electrification teams in existence for the MML, GW, and Trans Pennine electrification schemes, and I presume there's also one in the West Midlands as well who have done down the Lickey to Bromsgrove and the Walsall - Rugeley line. So what if the MML team re-commence electrification of the route (once it's finished to Market Harborough) at Moorthorpe/Doncaster and work southwards through Sheffield to Derby (possibly including the Matlock branch); then, instead of heading south to London, it does Derby - Birmingham, including the line between Wichnor Junction and Lichfield. The MML team should then do Derby - Nottingham/East Midlands Parkway, possibly Loughborough (through Leicester to Markey Harborough can be delayed until it is known what is being done in the Syston - Wigston area). The West Midlands team should then be responsible for extending the electrification from Bromsgrove to Westerleigh Junction (including Gloucester station).

Further north, the Trans-Pennine team doing Huddersfield - Leeds should then transfer east and electrify Neville Hill to Colton Junction; and the GW team should electrify Bristol Temple Meads to Parkway, then Didcot to Oxford, and finally Reading to Basingstoke. This then leaves the gap between Oxford and Coventry/Birmingham via Solihull; perhaps a new electrification team could be set up for this, them starting at Coventry/Birmingham and working south to Oxford, then electrifying from Aynho and Oxford to Marylebone - as has been suggested elsewhere, London's requirement for clean air zones/etc aren't going to let diesels continue to use Marylebone unchallenged indefinitely. This team should also do Coventry - Nuneaton

So if we're being pessimistic, could such an electrification programme be completed in 15-20 years? If it can, it just about matches the remaining life of all of the members of the 22x family of trains.

I'm not an electrical/electronic engineer, but as the 220s/221s are already roundly 20 years old I guess there are already parts required for the maintenance of them (and the 222s) which are becoming difficult to source; therefore, would it be sensible to give all members of the 22x family a major half-life refurbish which includes changes to control systems etc with semi-obsolete parts being replaced and other changes made to the control systems so that they can all work together, and at the same time undertaking some re-marshalling so that there are, say, some 6 or 7-car units? Could, for example, some of the existing 220/221 trains be broken-up and reformed into a single fleet of 5-car sets? Could this better be achieved by creating 5-car sets by using an existing 220 and four matching cars from a 221, then each have an identical car from a 222 added? Then mix the displaced cars from the 221s with vehicles from 222s to create the longer sets?

I know this isn't possible at present, but would it be - at reasonable cost - if all of the 22x fleet were to undergo a major half life refurbish?

All of the 22X family could then see out their lives on XC; hopefully, there would be sufficient to replace 170s on Nottingham - Cardiff's, and with electrification having been undertaken in the Nottingham - Derby - Birmingham corridor, perhaps that would then be a good time to transfer that current XC service to another franchise operator and replace the Turbostars with suitable EMUs (say the West Midland's Aventras). Not sure what to do about Birmingham - Stansted and the Leicester stoppers!

Of course it's speculation as to what would then replace the 22Xs; but with a rolling programme like this, something like a dual-voltage 397 could replace a 22X on trains going south of Basingstoke and on the Nottingham - Cardiff (if it were to be diverted to run via Parkway instead of Chepstow), and could the REP/TC idea be adopted for trains going south west of Bristol with something like a class 68 providing propulsion into Devon and Cornwall?

As I said, the latter is speculation; but keeping all of the 22X family on XC does seem to be a sensible option if an electrification rolling programme to fill in the gaps in the present network is adopted as it will enable them to see out their lives on the route for which they were procured, and enable maintenance at Central Rivers to continue. But that must be with the caveat that they undergo a major half-life refurbish; and if the government was to agree to an electrification rolling programme of the type described above, it should be easy for it to give the necessary undertakings to the vehicle's owners that they will remain with XC until they are no longer needed because of electrification. From such a government undertaking, the owners should be able to finance the necessary refurbishment work to enable the vehicles to continue in service for another 15 - 20 years.

Regarding the reformation of 22x unuts, it'll depend on if they would be willing to re-engineer 222 carriages to be compatible with 220/221 units as there are a few differences mentioned upthread which means meridians can't currently work in multiple with voyagers. Also, 222s are owned by a different leading company, which would make it difficult to merge vehicles permanently into 220/221 units.

 

[whhistle]

The 170/6s with WMR will lose there centre coach, before moving to EMR and then the 170/5s will have coach inserted. Was reported in a number of sources, including rail magazine.
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/fleet/east-midlands-railway-plans-spring-2020-start-for-class-170s

Hmm, seems like a lot of faff.
May as well send the 3-car units to XC and send the 2-car units from XC to EMR.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

Regarding the reformation of 22x unuts, it'll depend on if they would be willing to re-engineer 222 carriages to be compatible with 220/221 units as there are a few differences mentioned upthread which means meridians can't currently work in multiple with voyagers. Also, 222s are owned by a different leading company, which would make it difficult to merge vehicles permanently into 220/221 units.

I must admit I'd forgotten about ownership.

But the Voyagers are now of the same age as the HSTs they replaced and have had roundly 20 years of intensive use; technical advances must mean that some parts are getting very difficult to replace economically, and won't wiring looms, etc, have deteriorated over that time? So wouldn't a half life refurbish programme provide the opportunity to create a mixed fleet of Voyager/Meridian trains which could work in multiple and on XC services for the next 15 - 20 years, thereby giving sufficient time to electrify gaps in the network which would permit all services except those going west of Bristol to be completely electric?

The 22X family also have steel bodies; I don't know how these are framed, but there MAY be the possibility of removing one universal toilet per set, cut some windows in the body sides where they were, and fit extra seats.

But if the work is approached as being a major half life refurbish and the DfT is prepared to guarantee leases for another 15 - 20 years, the potential to upgrade these trains must be considerable, and the Voyagers could spend the rest of their lives on the services for which they were procured.

 

[Meerkat]

Factories needing work
Backlash against diesels
Succession of chaotic refurbishment projects
Need to butter up the north
I can’t see the politicians agreeing to subsidise anything other than bi-modes for XC, and then there isn’t much left for 22x.
Maybe temporary additions to XC whilst bi-modes come on stream, replace the GWR HSTs (but the engines are similar ages aren’t they so would there be again gain??)

 

[Energy]

replace the GWR HSTs (but the engines are similar ages aren’t they so would there be again gain??)

In my opinion this just wouldn't make sense, there wouldn't be a large enough fleet for this to work well. GWRs best options are to use 5 car 802s or to use new commuter style trains (which they will have to order soon anyway to get rid of the now rather old 150s)

 

[squizzler]

The 22x family are fast, pocket sized, go anywhere trains whose initial purchase is presumably amortised. This makes them perfect for open access operators. For this reason I wouldn't be surprised if they were scrapped with undue haste as soon as the official franchises are done with them - to keep them out of the hands of potential competitors.

 

[Meerkat]

In my opinion this just wouldn't make sense, there wouldn't be a large enough fleet for this to work well. GWRs best options are to use 5 car 802s or to use new commuter style trains (which they will have to order soon anyway to get rid of the now rather old 150s)

Not a large enough fleet?
800s would be massive overkill - these are local trains. HSTs and 22x would only make sense as written down cheap leases. 185s might be suitable.

The 22x family are fast, pocket sized, go anywhere trains whose initial purchase is presumably amortised. This makes them perfect for open access operators. For this reason I wouldn't be surprised if they were scrapped with undue haste as soon as the official franchises are done with them - to keep them out of the hands of potential competitors.

Not the franchises’ choice. The ROSCO own them and would take whatever makes the most financial sense.

 

[Energy]

Not a large enough fleet?

They only have about 12 short HST sets and the voyagers aren't similar to anything else in the fleet, having such a small fleet of trains which are so unique wouldn't make sense, unless XC continue to use voyagers by then, if so then where will these GWR voyagers come from?

these are local trains.

According to trainline Bristol Temple Meads to Penzance (which these operate on along with Cardiff to Penzance) is an over 4h journey, hardly local...

 

[greatvoyager]

I must admit I'd forgotten about ownership.

But the Voyagers are now of the same age as the HSTs they replaced and have had roundly 20 years of intensive use; technical advances must mean that some parts are getting very difficult to replace economically, and won't wiring looms, etc, have deteriorated over that time? So wouldn't a half life refurbish programme provide the opportunity to create a mixed fleet of Voyager/Meridian trains which could work in multiple and on XC services for the next 15 - 20 years, thereby giving sufficient time to electrify gaps in the network which would permit all services except those going west of Bristol to be completely electric?

The 22X family also have steel bodies; I don't know how these are framed, but there MAY be the possibility of removing one universal toilet per set, cut some windows in the body sides where they were, and fit extra seats.

But if the work is approached as being a major half life refurbish and the DfT is prepared to guarantee leases for another 15 - 20 years, the potential to upgrade these trains must be considerable, and the Voyagers could spend the rest of their lives on the services for which they were procured.

True, but at the time the HSTs were failing quite a bit. At the moment, 22x trains are fairly reliable in comparison.

 

[Meerkat]

They only have about 12 short HST sets and the voyagers aren't similar to anything else in the fleet, having such a small fleet of trains which are so unique wouldn't make sense, unless XC continue to use voyagers by then, if so then where will these GWR voyagers come from?

According to trainline Bristol Temple Meads to Penzance (which these operate on along with Cardiff to Penzance) is an over 4h journey, hardly local...

Fair point on the small fleet.
4 hours of stopping everywhere isn’t it? It’s a long local service.
They will replace the HSTs with whatever replaces 158s, or possibly 185s if they become cheap enough

 

[Energy]

Fair point on the small fleet.
4 hours of stopping everywhere isn’t it? It’s a long local service.
They will replace the HSTs with whatever replaces 158s, or possibly 185s if they become cheap enough

They stop at: Newton Abbot, Totnes, Ivybridge, Plymouth, Devonport, Dockyard, Keyham, St Budeaux Ferry Road, Saltash, St Germans, Menheniot, Liskeard, Bodmin Parkway, Lostwithiel, Par, St Austell, Truro, Redruth, Camborne, Hayle, St Erth. Although this could be for just the 158s, I think the HSTs make fewer stops.

 

[greatvoyager]

The 22x family are fast, pocket sized, go anywhere trains whose initial purchase is presumably amortised. This makes them perfect for open access operators. For this reason I wouldn't be surprised if they were scrapped with undue haste as soon as the official franchises are done with them - to keep them out of the hands of potential competitors.

Good point, will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[Energy]

Virgin's plan for open access uses 221s.