Should Class 800 be ordered for the Cross Country franchise?

[yorkie]

This thread is also under Rolling stock rather than speculative ideas too which is rather odd.

If it's not reported to us (using the report button), it's best to assume we aren't aware of it

I’m reassured someone agrees. I think this thread was maybe missed when the speculation sub-forum was set up, I suspect it was already a few months old and not current at that time.

Yes it's a relatively new section and this thread may have been created just before it was set up. Either way, I have moved the thread now

 

[The Ham]

If it's not reported to us (using the report button), it's best to assume we aren't aware of it

The report function appears to work well and generally fixes problems quickly.

It certainly has resulted in spurious threads being deleted promptly when there was a rash of them.

Although not foolproof, in that there can be errors even these errors are fixed promptly when questioned, it does appear to work well and allows the forum to run smoothly and hopefully reduces the workload of the very hard working admins.

 

[The Ham]

I have no evidence to back this up, and only from my own experience, but I’m pretty certain a Voyager would be able to beat an IET on diesel mode at acceleration and being the first to reach 125mph. On electric mode however I am unsure..

However how many sessions of 125mph track are there when a (theoretical) XC 80x would be running where there aren't wires?

My guess would that there's not that many and that the extra capacity of 5 coach 80x would improve the loading/unloading times and so compensate for most speed losses.

 

[toby_farman]

They're still a 30 year old train reaching thr end of their useful life.

Let's not forget wheelchair users and people with disabilities...

 

[toby_farman]

Or the numerous other threads that exist about XC rolling stock issues. I’m not exactly sure why this 18 month old one one was chosen for resurrection, but it’s doubled in length just today. And yet nothing new has been mentioned...

The XC rolling stock is older, and still no better!

 

[toby_farman]

I have no evidence to back this up, and only from my own experience, but I’m pretty certain a Voyager would be able to beat an IET on diesel mode at acceleration and being the first to reach 125mph. On electric mode however I am unsure..

By the time new XC stock (suggesting 80x here), finally gets ordered, they will have updated the IETs so they will be able to match or even outperform a voyager on diesel mode. That's assuming your right about the trains.

 

[toby_farman]

Does anyone have some comparison data for the performance of an IET on electric and diesel v a CrossCountry Voyager or HST (as I am assuming when on electric the IET has better acceleration and sustained running at 125mph, and lesser performance when running on diesel)

I have no evidence to back this up, and only from my own experience, but I’m pretty certain a Voyager would be able to beat an IET on diesel mode at acceleration and being the first to reach 125mph. On electric mode however I am unsure..

This is a HST Vs 800 on diesel:

 

[toby_farman]

The Class 68s aren’t old though, the oldest is only 6 years old and I don’t see that as a reason to withdraw them not when you have 50 year old Class 37s on the Welsh Valleys!

Not suggesting replacing the 68s (use them for freight) but replace the MK3 coaches with voyagers for faster acceleration and comfort on the Chiltern main line... Maybe that's what they're gonna do with the ex-EMR 222 meridians!

 

[samuelmorris]

This is a HST Vs 800 on diesel:

A PR stunt from GWR debunked by quite a few people on here I'm afraid - HSTs accelerate faster than suggested by that video.

By the time new XC stock (suggesting 80x here), finally gets ordered, they will have updated the IETs so they will be able to match or even outperform a voyager on diesel mode. That's assuming your right about the trains.

That's a bold assumption as the 26m vehicle variant is essentially constrained by the current design and would require a major rework. The only way to really deal with the performance issue will be shown in the units ordered for EMR with shorter vehicle lengths and supposedly an extra generator unit in there as well. That may well be the design chosen should 80x units ever be ordered for XC.

Not suggesting replacing the 68s (use them for freight) but replace the MK3 coaches with voyagers for faster acceleration and comfort on the Chiltern main line... Maybe that's what they're gonna do with the ex-EMR 222 meridians!

Faster sure, but I think most people would rate Chiltern's Mk3s as more comfortable (and less claustrophobic) than Voyagers.

Incidentally, I'd like to point out you can edit your own posts to add more quotes after posting.

 

[toby_farman]

The class 769 is a case in point there. As is the eVoyager mentioned upthread.
People agree. It is daft to invest in infrastructure then not use it. But changing the rolling stock, as has been happening nationwide in recent years due to PRM regulations, has caused untold chaos and delays in the new stock entering service. and here, the existing stock is good, there may not be enough of it. But a voyager that isn't crowded is quite nice, and most people are in favour of HSTs. I agree rail transport always seems less flashy than road or plane, but those get replaced more quickly, and have more of a secondary market for used stuff once it gets removed from top tier operator respectively.
Think of the HSTs (and in some ways Voyagers too)like 757s if your in to your planes. surprisingly similar situation. (and then IETs as A321s!)
I recommend having a look at some of the TPE, GA, or Scotrail threads to see what happens when new stock seemingly inevitably gets delayed.

If CrossCountry dumped their high-speed fleet (HSTs, 220s, 221s) the HSTs would be scrapped and the voyagers could easily replace short HSTs in service with GWR (4 car "Castle Class") -- or the longer-distance services served by sprinters (think Portsmouth harbour to cardiff central, a three car 158) which are pure diesel and could benefit from the higher speed, relability and comfort of a 125mph voyager.

 

[toby_farman]

nobody can deny that the IET looks cooler...
(By Hammersfan - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77240033)

 

[toby_farman]

I think Bimodes is the term you're looking for, although they technically are hybrids, they do not operate in the manner that is normally referred to by hybrids, 80x units (as yet) have no ability to reuse any energy produced via diesel power.
Yes indeed, as regular DMUs with very large engines Voyagers are quite inefficient. That alone, however, does not justify their replacement - the cost of acquiring new units is considerable - the bi-mode 800s came in around £2.8 million per vehicle.

It makes sense to me that if the ECML intercity operator is nationalised, so too should be the WCML operator, especially if HS2 ever goes ahead - the franchising system seems incapable of avoiding a monopoly, but that's far less an issue if the monopoly is the government.

Yet, SWR can replace two-year old 707s with 701s.....

 

[Energy]

With regards to sending the 22Xs to Chiltern read this, it's one of my many messages about them. In fact below that link there is a whole thread I have made before about new rolling stock for Chiltern.
If you want to talk about the future of the 22Xs beyond CrossCountry please also talk the thread linked and keep this one about new rolling stock for CrossCountry.

22Xs Future:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/future-of-22x-units.167576/page-12#post-4233723

Chiltern new rolling stock:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/chiltern-new-trains.191886/

Now back onto CrossCountry, I can see the 22Xs getting replaced, in a thread about WCML someone said that someone who actually works with the voyagers said that they are nearly life expired and needs a lot of work done, this is for the WCML units but it does make it likely XC units get replaced.

Do the 802s have the diesel range though, they may be able to reach Penzance from London but XC has to do most of that route plus Aberdeen to Reading, which maybe have lots down electrified main lines but lots isn't.

XC will also have a sizable order and some manufacturers may be more willing to do something more custom, I'm personally hoping for 6/9 car bimode Stadler EC250s, although bimode versions don't exist the EC250 is based of the Flirt which does have bimodes running in the UK and it is more intercity than the Flirt. 6 car versions could run on services which are fine on 4 car 220s and ones which are one on 4 (2+2) / 3 / 5 (2+3) and possibly a couple 6 (3 + 3) Turbostar services while the 9 cars take over most of the voyager operations.

 

[coppercapped]

The class 769 is a case in point there. As is the eVoyager mentioned upthread.
People agree. It is daft to invest in infrastructure then not use it.

No, it is not daft. It can be very sensible as it is a 'sunk cost'. A 'sunk cost' refers to money that has already been spent and which cannot be recovered. What is important in business planning - and this includes the railways - is identifying and controlling the costs which may, or will, occur in the future. In the case of the railways the question to be answered is 'Will it benefit the company more to buy and operate new trains or to continue with the existing ones?' It is necessary to understand that sunk costs are excluded from such decisions about the future because the cost will remain the same regardless of the outcome of any decision which is taken.

In the case of the choice made between continuing with the old or buying new an estimation has to be made whether the income generated by the extra passengers which may be attracted to new, improved and, it is to be hoped, faster journeys will leave the TOC better off allowing for the other costs of purchase, training, modifying or building maintenance depots and so on. This is an important question as directly or indirectly the cost of operation is reflected in the subsidy required or the premium paid and therefore in fares charged or the size of the taxpayers' contribution.

To reply to the points about emissions made by other posters. Levels of emission are irrelevant for this calculation as emission levels are set by law and companies, like people, have to obey the law. In any event the quantities of emissions emitted by 'the railway' are tiny compared to those caused by road transport; as a first approximation the emissions are proportional to the quantities of fuel used and in 2016 (the latest figures I have to hand) the railways consumed 578,000 tonnes of gas-oil (diesel) and road transport consumed 24,648,000 tonnes of gas-oil and 11,951,000 tonnes of motor spirit. The railway consumed 1.6% of the total, and in the last three years more of the railway has been electrified so this percentage has dropped still more.

But changing the rolling stock, as has been happening nationwide in recent years due to PRM regulations, has caused untold chaos and delays in the new stock entering service. and here, the existing stock is good, there may not be enough of it. But a voyager that isn't crowded is quite nice, and most people are in favour of HSTs. I agree rail transport always seems less flashy than road or plane, but those get replaced more quickly, and have more of a secondary market for used stuff once it gets removed from top tier operator respectively.
Think of the HSTs (and in some ways Voyagers too)like 757s if your in to your planes. surprisingly similar situation. (and then IETs as A321s!)
I recommend having a look at some of the TPE, GA, or Scotrail threads to see what happens when new stock seemingly inevitably gets delayed.

 

[Energy]

Also new rolling stock delays aren't as bad for XC as for other operators, XC does get overcrowded but it isn't like TPE's overcrowding and Scotrail and GA need get rid of non PRM compliant trains

 

[toby_farman]

No, it is not daft. It can be very sensible as it is a 'sunk cost'. A 'sunk cost' refers to money that has already been spent and which cannot be recovered. What is important in business planning - and this includes the railways - is identifying and controlling the costs which may, or will, occur in the future. In the case of the railways the question to be answered is 'Will it benefit the company more to buy and operate new trains or to continue with the existing ones?' It is necessary to understand that sunk costs are excluded from such decisions about the future because the cost will remain the same regardless of the outcome of any decision which is taken.

In the case of the choice made between continuing with the old or buying new an estimation has to be made whether the income generated by the extra passengers which may be attracted to new, improved and, it is to be hoped, faster journeys will leave the TOC better off allowing for the other costs of purchase, training, modifying or building maintenance depots and so on. This is an important question as directly or indirectly the cost of operation is reflected in the subsidy required or the premium paid and therefore in fares charged or the size of the taxpayers' contribution.

To reply to the points about emissions made by other posters. Levels of emission are irrelevant for this calculation as emission levels are set by law and companies, like people, have to obey the law. In any event the quantities of emissions emitted by 'the railway' are tiny compared to those caused by road transport; as a first approximation the emissions are proportional to the quantities of fuel used and in 2016 (the latest figures I have to hand) the railways consumed 578,000 tonnes of gas-oil (diesel) and road transport consumed 24,648,000 tonnes of gas-oil and 11,951,000 tonnes of motor spirit. The railway consumed 1.6% of the total, and in the last three years more of the railway has been electrified so this percentage has dropped still more.

Just saying, climate change is important, and newer 80x trains would have lower emissions that HSTs and 221x trains, even on diesel, and don't get me started on saving emissions when running on electric

 

[coppercapped]

Just saying, climate change is important, and newer 80x trains would have lower emissions that HSTs and 221x trains, even on diesel, and don't get me started on saving emissions when running on electric

Which bit of 1.6% did you not understand?

 

[Energy]

Just saying, climate change is important, and newer 80x trains would have lower emissions that HSTs and 221x trains, even on diesel, and don't get me started on saving emissions when running on electric

Climate change is a concern, but we shouldn't be getting bimodes for everything because the government doesn't want to fully electrify lines which should be, cough cough MML. As said before bimodes are a compromise, they carry extra weight when in both electric and diesel, and in diesel they are also not as powerful, for example the 800s can't make 125mph on diesel although the 802s can.

Which bit of 1.6% did you not understand?

And there is the extra weight to carry around, bimodes are better than diesels but we shouldn't be in too much of a rush to replace diesels which run mainly on diesel routes and are relatively young, although I would replace the 22Xs because, as I said before, in another thread somebody who actually works with the WCML voyagers said that they are at the end of their lives.

 

[toby_farman]

Also new rolling stock delays aren't as bad for XC as for other operators, XC does get overcrowded but it isn't like TPE's overcrowding and Scotrail and GA need get rid of non PRM compliant trains

The are plenty of places where 22x trains would be better suited.
80x trains would be a great replacement for 22x trains allowing the 22x trains to be cascaded to longer distance routes done by sprinters like Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central which is a 158 dmu and could benefit them with faster acceleration and comfort.

 

[toby_farman]

Climate change is a concern, but we shouldn't be getting bimodes for everything because the government doesn't want to fully electrify lines which should be, cough cough MML. As said before bimodes are a compromise, they carry extra weight when in both electric and diesel, and in diesel they are also not as powerful, for example the 800s can't make 125mph on diesel although the 802s can.

Not to get political, but it's the CONSERVATIVE'S fault.

 

[Energy]

The are plenty of places where 22x trains would be better suited.
80x trains would be a great replacement for 22x trains allowing the 22x trains to be cascaded to longer distance routes done by sprinters like Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff Central which is a 158 dmu and could benefit them with faster acceleration and comfort.

Networker Turbos? They can serve that route much better if coupled together and given some nice seats than a voyager... or GWR will just get more 80Xs, they already have loads so it makes far more sense to order more than introduce another fleet which is older.

 

[toby_farman]

Which bit of 1.6% did you not understand?

It's still a waste when running diesels on electric track.

 

[Energy]

Not to get political, but it's the CONSERVATIVE'S fault.

Not really, mostly Chris Grayling's, remember Labour didn't give BR that much money.

 

[toby_farman]

Networker Turbos? They can serve that route much better if coupled together and given some nice seats than a voyager...

What would replace the networker turbos?

 

[Energy]

What would replace the networker turbos?

There is a rather large thread about Turbo cascades from the Thames Valley as the 345s from TfL / Crossrail and 387s from GWR (excluding the 769s as the are delayed) take over the services which Networker Turbos used to operate.

Plus GWR mentioned in an official document the Turbos are getting cascaded to the Portsmouth to Cardiff service.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-turbo-cascade-progress-to-bristol-region-services.146681/

 

[coppercapped]

Not to get political, but it's the CONSERVATIVE'S fault.

If that is the level of your understanding then I have little hope for the future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Less capacity - Class 802s have 26m cars but those only have 24m cars

Agreed. XC need capacity, the 26m sets would make sense. The MML is a unique case of adding those 2m per vehicle substantially increasing infrastructure cost.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The class 769 is a case in point there. As is the eVoyager mentioned upthread.
People agree. It is daft to invest in infrastructure then not use it. But changing the rolling stock, as has been happening nationwide in recent years due to PRM regulations, has caused untold chaos and delays in the new stock entering service.

But that won't happen with 80x - they are proven and reliable.

 

[Energy]

Agreed. XC need capacity, the 26m sets would make sense. The MML is a unique case of adding those 2m per vehicle substantially increasing infrastructure cost.

XC, and there intercity trains, run across the whole country so if they can't run across a stretch it can add a delay as it has to go a different route, instead of 7 26m cars what about 8 23/24m cars

 

[Bletchleyite]

XC, and there intercity trains, run across the whole country so if they can't run across a stretch it can add a delay as it has to go a different route, instead of 7 26m cars what about 8 23/24m cars

The stretch concerned is, I believe, the platforms at St Pancras, which XC do not serve and are unlikely to ever serve.