Future of 22x Units

[Meerkat]

If you are using doubled up Voyagers is there line capacity to let the front one go fast whilst the back one picks up the intermediate stops, like the Arun valley?

 

[swt_passenger]

If you are using doubled up Voyagers is there line capacity to let the front one go fast whilst the back one picks up the intermediate stops, like the Arun valley?

I’m not really sure how useful that would be. Someone suggested in a previous thread that instead of XC running separately to Bournemouth and Southampton, they should do something like that to save a path, but then how many normal XC calls are you looking at south of Reading as far as Southampton? Only Basingstoke, Winchester and Southampton Parkway. So is it worth skipping any of those on a hypothetical fast portion to Bournemouth, and having to deal with getting everyone into the correct portion at or before Reading?

 

[option]

Some numbers;

220: 34 x 4car sets (already at XC)
221: 20 x 5car sets (at Virgin), 4 x 4car sets (at XC), 20 x 5car sets (at XC)
All those cars are interchangeable, so that gives; 78 driving car pairs & 196 intermediate cars

222: 27 sets, so 27 driving car pairs & 89 intermediate cars

Current fleet at XC, inc HSTs, is 63 sets


So, what could be done?
For a start, all sets will be a minimum of 6 cars

222: 22 sets of 6cars (+ 1 spare intermediate & 10 driving cars)
220/221: 49 sets of 6cars (+ 58 spare driving cars)

That gives you 71 sets, so an increase of 8 & with higher capacities than at present. Allows you to drop the HSTs.
Not enough extra to replace the 29 Turbostar sets, but could change some of their routes & use the 22x instead.


What to do with all the spare driving cars?
I wonder if it's possible to convert from driving car to intermediate? Either 1:1 or 2:1.
If 2:1; that's another 222 set, leaving 2 spare driving cars. An extra 5 220/221 sets, leaving 8 spare driving cars.

Gives you 77 sets, an increase of 14.

 

[Meerkat]

If you have the platform space bung a couple of driving cars back to back at one end, as First class dining.
No excuses for standard class plebs to go near them then

 

[JamesT]

Some numbers;

220: 34 x 4car sets (already at XC)
221: 20 x 5car sets (at Virgin), 4 x 4car sets (at XC), 20 x 5car sets (at XC)
All those cars are interchangeable, so that gives; 78 driving car pairs & 196 intermediate cars

222: 27 sets, so 27 driving car pairs & 89 intermediate cars

Current fleet at XC, inc HSTs, is 63 sets


So, what could be done?
For a start, all sets will be a minimum of 6 cars

222: 22 sets of 6cars (+ 1 spare intermediate & 10 driving cars)
220/221: 49 sets of 6cars (+ 58 spare driving cars)

That gives you 71 sets, so an increase of 8 & with higher capacities than at present. Allows you to drop the HSTs.
Not enough extra to replace the 29 Turbostar sets, but could change some of their routes & use the 22x instead.


What to do with all the spare driving cars?
I wonder if it's possible to convert from driving car to intermediate? Either 1:1 or 2:1.
If 2:1; that's another 222 set, leaving 2 spare driving cars. An extra 5 220/221 sets, leaving 8 spare driving cars.

Gives you 77 sets, an increase of 14.

Do the platforms XC stop at support 6+6 formations?

 

[JonathanH]

For a start, all sets will be a minimum of 6 cars

Why? You might as well keep the driving coaches and operate 4+4? Imagine the outcry if 6-car trains become crowded and you have scrapped 2 driving coaches.

(Of course operating diesel powered trains with 8 engines all guzzling fuel isn't very green or efficient which is one reason for leaving CrossCountry exactly as it is.)

 

[option]

Why? You might as well keep the driving coaches and operate 4+4? Imagine the outcry if 6-car trains become crowded and you have scrapped 2 driving coaches.

(Of course operating diesel powered trains with 8 engines all guzzling fuel isn't very green or efficient which is one reason for leaving CrossCountry exactly as it is.)

What are the numbers like for 4+4?

You can't do it with the 222s, there's not enough driving cars.
By making everything 6cars, then any set could replace any set.
There's also the issue of whether you can get that now 8car set onto the platforms.

 

[greatvoyager]

What are the numbers like for 4+4?

You can't do it with the 222s, there's not enough driving cars.
By making everything 6cars, then any set could replace any set.
There's also the issue of whether you can get that now 8car set onto the platforms.

But if you do that, if one part of a train fails, it's taken out of service. Doubled up trains can be split if part of it fails. It is more efficient that way.

 

[option]

But if you do that, if one part of a train fails, it's taken out of service. Doubled up trains can be split if part of it fails. It is more efficient that way.

but i've already got at least 8 more sets, so could increase frequency, which means a failure isn't such an issue.

What failure mode are you suggesting?

 

[greatvoyager]

but i've already got at least 8 more sets, so could increase frequency, which means a failure isn't such an issue.

What failure mode are you suggesting?

There was a time in the past when I've travelled on voyagers and at Bristol the train had to divide because there was some sort of mechanical issue with the unit we were on (the rear portion) which meant it shut down. As there were two units, we simply moved to the front set and continued the journey.

 

[greatvoyager]

but i've already got at least 8 more sets, so could increase frequency, which means a failure isn't such an issue.

What failure mode are you suggesting?

Essentially, I'm suggesting the IET way of working, where 5 car units rarely operate alone. They are nearly always doubled up which enables this flexibility.

 

[JonathanH]

What are the numbers like for 4+4?

You can't do it with the 222s, there's not enough driving cars.
By making everything 6cars, then any set could replace any set.
There's also the issue of whether you can get that now 8car set onto the platforms.

I'm not suggesting we cut down 5-car units to 4-car. I'm suggesting that they use 4+4, 4+5, 5+5 as appropriate on the core part of the route and that for services beyond the core 4-car or 5-car operation will be sufficient.

Maybe they just substitute 4+4 where 5 is currently used and 5 where 4 is currently used.

There is no need for any set to replace any set, you dedicate 222s to one route, 220s and 221s to the others. No need for them to operate in multiple, just like there is no need to run 220s and HSTs in multiple today.

As you say, there may well be issues with 8-car, 9-car or 10-car at certain locations - eg Doncaster platform 3B, Birmingham New Street when they use the east end only, Reading platform 3, Chester-le-Street, Newcastle bays... You may well need to revise the timetable. Perhaps some routes may cope with 5-car units.

We assume that Central Rivers can take the increased size of the fleet. I guess this is fine because it already deals with all 78 220s / 221s. However, depot capacity elsewhere would still need to be considered.

And then there is the fuel issue...

 

[greatvoyager]

I'm not suggesting we cut down 5-car units to 4-car. I'm suggesting that they use 4+4, 4+5, 5+5 as appropriate on the core part of the route and that for services beyond the core 4-car or 5-car operation will be sufficient.

Maybe they just substitute 4+4 where 5 is currently used and 5 where 4 is currently used.

There is no need for any set to replace any set, you dedicate 222s to one route, 220s and 221s to the others. No need for them to operate in multiple, just like there is no need to run 220s and HSTs in multiple today.

As you say, there may well be issues with 8-car, 9-car or 10-car at certain locations - eg Doncaster platform 3B, Birmingham New Street when they use the east end only, Reading platform 3, Chester-le-Street, Newcastle bays... You may well need to revise the timetable. Perhaps some routes may cope with 5-car units.

We assume that Central Rivers can take the increased size of the fleet. I guess this is fine because it already deals with all 78 220s / 221s. However, depot capacity elsewhere would still need to be considered.

And then there is the fuel issue...

In terms of fuel, didn't Virgin experiment with Biofuels on voyagers? If so, as the world needs less emissions, can't biofuels be researched for all future diesel fleets?
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rolling-stock/Virgin-Trains-leads-Europe-with-biodiesel-train

 

[quantinghome]

OK, here's what I think would be the most efficient arrangement: the existing 22X sets should be rearranged to give mostly 7-car and 4-car sets (with a very small number of 5-cars due to number of intermediate carriages). The 4-car sets can be doubled-up, giving around the same seating capacity overall as a single 7-car set. This provides a largely uniform fleet based on the following:

220: 34 x 4-car
221: 30 x 4-car, 1 x 5-car, 13 x 7 car
222: 14 x 4-car, 2 x 5-car, 11 x 7 car

This gives a total of 40 x (4+4/5) cars and 24 x 7 cars (plus an additional single 5 car unit).

That's 64 units to fill diagrams, compared to 63 at present including HSTs.

- Near-uniform fleet
- HSTs can be retired
- Roughly double the current seating capacity per train
- Virtually all trains are maximum 8 car, so minimal concerns with platform length.

 

[greatvoyager]

OK, here's what I think would be the most efficient arrangement: the existing 22X sets should be rearranged to give mostly 7-car and 4-car sets (with a very small number of 5-cars due to number of intermediate carriages). The 4-car sets can be doubled-up, giving around the same seating capacity overall as a single 7-car set. This provides a largely uniform fleet based on the following:

220: 34 x 4-car
221: 30 x 4-car, 1 x 5-car, 13 x 7 car
222: 14 x 4-car, 2 x 5-car, 11 x 7 car

This gives a total of 40 x (4+4/5) cars and 24 x 7 cars (plus an additional single 5 car unit).

That's 64 units to fill diagrams, compared to 63 at present including HSTs.

- Near-uniform fleet
- HSTs can be retired
- Roughly double the current seating capacity per train
- Virtually all trains are maximum 8 car, so minimal concerns with platform length.

That sounds good, but to reform the 221/222 units will take considerable time, as the majority will be changed.

 

[greatvoyager]

Wouldn't it just be easier for the original 9-car 222 meridians be reformed, to give a fleet of 7 9 car and 20 4 car 222 units?
Then the 9 car units can take over HST diagrams and the 4 car units can work in multiple.
The remaining 220/221 units can work busier services in 9/10 car formations.

 

[quantinghome]

That sounds good, but to reform the 221/222 units will take considerable time, as the majority will be changed.

Is this much of an issue? It's not unusual to change train formations. They're due a mid-life refit anyway so could be done then.

Wouldn't it just be easier for the original 9-car 222 meridians be reformed, to give a fleet of 7 9 car and 20 4 car 222 units?
Then the 9 car units can take over HST diagrams and the 4 car units can work in multiple.
The remaining 220/221 units can work busier services in 9/10 car formations.

This doesn't leave enough units if the shorter ones are doubled-up. 56 by my count.

 

[greatvoyager]

Is this much of an issue? It's not unusual to change train formations. They're due a mid-life refit anyway so could be done then.
True but it's still going to cost money to do so many units.

This doesn't leave enough units if the shorter ones are doubled-up. 56 by my count.

Not all services would be necessarily be doubled, I did refer to the busiest ones.

 

[The Ham]

Is this much of an issue? It's not unusual to change train formations. They're due a mid-life refit anyway so could be done then.

No major issue, you came the 222 fleets first, starting with creating the 7 coach units and bring them into service, then once they are all done take out of service on a drilling program the 220/221's.

 

[greatvoyager]

Off all 22x fleets, the 222 is the smallest, so it would be easier to make changes to them.

 

[Energy]

Why would GWR spend money on getting old-ish diesel intercity trains into service with driver training etc. when they can just order more 5 car 802s which can operate these routes and lots of the staff are trained on?


Scotrail HSTs seem to be a short term solution for high speed trains as lots of electrification is happening right now, once the electrification is finished they would go for bimodes or battery emus for stretches which aren't electrified, like the west highland line, and emus for fully electrified routes.


The 180s are unreliable but Grand Central aren't in a rush to replace them, the 180s are PRM compliant and aren't in desperate need of replacement, Grand Central can just wait for new rolling stock if it needs new rolling stock and they wouldn't bother for a fleet which are only there for a few years maximum.


Excluding GWR, there is Scotrail, Northern, EMR and SWR. EMR are getting cascaded turbostars, SWR could replace theirs but the 22X units don't seem the right fit, Scotrail could replace theirs but they have 40 158s and 43 156s so there aren't enough units to fully replace all of the dmus, plus they have turbostars already, Northern would probably just order more 158s.

Also there is a dedicated thread on the future of 22Xs here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/future-of-22x-units.167576/

Post I made elsewhere on the future of 22X units, it is replying on other suggestions so for context click on the above to see the post.

 

[greatvoyager]

Whatever happens, 22x units can resolve capacity issues.

 

[greatvoyager]

I wonder if Central Rivers would be able to accommodate the Meridians alongside the Voyagers.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Something about 222's was told to me some time ago, and I'm still puzzled - maybe someone on the Forum knows the answer...
In the early days of the Stagecoach franchise, MML stations had very limited platform staff on Sundays, meaning the conductor on HSTs had to play a variation of 'Whack-a-mole' to get all the doors shut and locked before a late passenger boarded and left a door open. I struck up a conversation about this to a Stagecoach employee, wondering if there was a plan to replace the HSTs - this was before the electrification proposals were public. His answer was that there was a desire to replace not just the HSTs, but the Meridians, and in some ways replacement of the latter was considered more pressing. Obviously surprised, I asked why. He then (understandably) became more circumspect, but did indicate that the Meridians were VERY expensive to operate. I did not press further as this would have been unfair. Probably, being unusually heavy, the access charges are high; but does anyone know of any other factors? Is it perhaps high fuel consumption, or is the diesel-electric transmission - in effect, a locomotive under each coach - very costly to upkeep?

 

[greatvoyager]

Something about 222's was told to me some time ago, and I'm still puzzled - maybe someone on the Forum knows the answer...
In the early days of the Stagecoach franchise, MML stations had very limited platform staff on Sundays, meaning the conductor on HSTs had to play a variation of 'Whack-a-mole' to get all the doors shut and locked before a late passenger boarded and left a door open. I struck up a conversation about this to a Stagecoach employee, wondering if there was a plan to replace the HSTs - this was before the electrification proposals were public. His answer was that there was a desire to replace not just the HSTs, but the Meridians, and in some ways replacement of the latter was considered more pressing. Obviously surprised, I asked why. He then (understandably) became more circumspect, but did indicate that the Meridians were VERY expensive to operate. I did not press further as this would have been unfair. Probably, being unusually heavy, the access charges are high; but does anyone know of any other factors? Is it perhaps high fuel consumption, or is the diesel-electric transmission - in effect, a locomotive under each coach - very costly to upkeep?

Logic says it would be the fuel consumption, which like the Voyagers, is said to be high. Although from what I've read on other sources, the consumption is exaggerated to a degree. It could also be down to personal opinion rather than problems with the units themselves.

 

[greatvoyager]

I expect that they will move to XC and then be scrapped around 2030..

 

[greatvoyager]

Post I made elsewhere on the future of 22X units, it is replying on other suggestions so for context click on the above to see the post.

I agree that SWR services are not the best places for 22x units. I'd imagine that the West Of England line would need lighter trains.

 

[greatvoyager]

Just had a thought... wonder if there will be a future in departmental use.

 

[greatvoyager]

Something about 222's was told to me some time ago, and I'm still puzzled - maybe someone on the Forum knows the answer...
In the early days of the Stagecoach franchise, MML stations had very limited platform staff on Sundays, meaning the conductor on HSTs had to play a variation of 'Whack-a-mole' to get all the doors shut and locked before a late passenger boarded and left a door open. I struck up a conversation about this to a Stagecoach employee, wondering if there was a plan to replace the HSTs - this was before the electrification proposals were public. His answer was that there was a desire to replace not just the HSTs, but the Meridians, and in some ways replacement of the latter was considered more pressing. Obviously surprised, I asked why. He then (understandably) became more circumspect, but did indicate that the Meridians were VERY expensive to operate. I did not press further as this would have been unfair. Probably, being unusually heavy, the access charges are high; but does anyone know of any other factors? Is it perhaps high fuel consumption, or is the diesel-electric transmission - in effect, a locomotive under each coach - very costly to upkeep?

I guess you have to weigh up improved acceleration against higher operating costs.

 

[greatvoyager]

If XC had the remaining 22x units, I assume they would've been able to implement their plan from April 2017 (Extending all Bristol-Manchester trains to Exeter and daytime service to Aberdeen) without having to sacrifice other services?