Ex Virgin Trains Voyagers, where could they go next?

[LOL The Irony]

Yes, and the fact that the electronics are set out differently to be under the floor and create more room.

Is it an easy fix?

 

[greatvoyager]

Is it an easy fix?

In all honesty I'm not sure, but if it isn't too expensive and if there is demand for it, I'm think they could find a way.

 

[devonexpress]

Yes, and the fact that the electronics are set out differently to be under the floor and create more room.

There's probably a modification that can be done, depends how much money the TOC wants to spend, it hasn't been done yet as there hasn't been a need to couple a 222 to a 220 or 221.

 

[greatvoyager]

There's probably a modification that can be one, depends how much money the TOC wants to spend, it hasn't been done yet as there hasn't been a need to couple a 222 to a 220 or 221.

That's true, we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

 

[greatvoyager]

I'd like to see a way for 222s to be able to work on multiple with 220s/221s.
I think that the Ex Virgin units are vital for XC.

 

[ainsworth74]

I could be wrong but can't a 220/221 mechanically couple to a 222 they just then can't talk to each other as they have different Train Management Software? So a 220/221 could, for instance, rescue a 222 (or vice versa) but couldn't operate in service.

Though now that I've typed that I'm wondering if there might also be coupler height issues as well...

 

[greatvoyager]

I could be wrong but can't a 220/221 mechanically couple to a 222 they just then can't talk to each other as they have different Train Management Software? So a 220/221 could, for instance, rescue a 222 (or vice versa) but couldn't operate in service.

Though now that I've typed that I'm wondering if there might also be coupler height issues as well...

They have the same coupling, but they have different electrical equipment and software, so they can drag each other.

 

[JonathanH]

I'd like to see a way for 222s to be able to work on multiple with 220s/221s.

Why? Even if they all operated for Cross Country, they could be dedicated to different routes without any operational issues arising - same as Cross Country manage to operate 170s and 22x already without needing to couple them.

They already operate 220 and 222 between Derby and Sheffield without worrying too much about coupling them up.

 

[greatvoyager]

Why? Even if they all operated for Cross Country, they could be dedicated to different routes without any operational issues arising - same as Cross Country manage to operate 170s and 22x already without needing to couple them.

They already operate 220 and 222 between Derby and Sheffield without worrying too much about coupling them up.

Just to provide as much flexibility as possible.
Also, 170s and 22x units work different routes and have different roles, so there would never be a need to couple them up.

 

[Energy]

220s work long distance whereas 170s work shorter distance more frequently stopping trains.

 

[Aictos]

On the subject of flexibiity, Class 390s and Class 221s both operate between Birmingham and Edinburgh/Glasgow yet I don't see any call for them to both work in multiple?

Equally, IF the Class 222 fleet did find it way to Cross Country I fail to see why any fleet planner would in normal service require a Class 222 to work in multiple with a Class 220/221 when in reality all they would actually do is use the cascaded Class 222s to work specific diagrams to increase seating capacity in formations of up to 10 cars while using the freed up Class 221s to work in multiple with the Class 220s where it is needed.

The important lesson is where capacity is needed as there are some parts of the XC network where a single Class 220 is acceptable yet other parts where it most certainly is not.

 

[ainsworth74]

Class 390s and Class 221s both operate between Birmingham and Edinburgh/Glasgow yet I don't see any call for them to both work in multiple?

The minimum formation that would give you would be a fourteen car train. I'm not sure there are many platforms that that formation would fit on the WCML! Meanwhile you could easily have eight, nine or ten car 220/221 and 222 formation which are actually usable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The minimum formation that would give you would be a fourteen car train. I'm not sure there are many platforms that that formation would fit on the WCML! Meanwhile you could easily have eight, nine or ten car 220/221 and 222 formation which are actually usable.

15 car trains (5 x 221) have run on the Chiltern Line "blockade busters", but those needed only to fit at Birmingham International and Euston!

 

[greatvoyager]

On the subject of flexibiity, Class 390s and Class 221s both operate between Birmingham and Edinburgh/Glasgow yet I don't see any call for them to both work in multiple?

Equally, IF the Class 222 fleet did find it way to Cross Country I fail to see why any fleet planner would in normal service require a Class 222 to work in multiple with a Class 220/221 when in reality all they would actually do is use the cascaded Class 222s to work specific diagrams to increase seating capacity in formations of up to 10 cars while using the freed up Class 221s to work in multiple with the Class 220s where it is needed.

The important lesson is where capacity is needed as there are some parts of the XC network where a single Class 220 is acceptable yet other parts where it most certainly is not.

390s are full length trains though, and I don't know anyone who would describe 4 or 5 car trains as full length. In any event, it's only my opinion and I know that there are lots of drawbacks to making 222s and 220s/221s compatible.

 

[greatvoyager]

As tilt is probably not going to be required, I expect that function will be removed.

 

[greatvoyager]

220s work long distance whereas 170s work shorter distance more frequently stopping trains.

Exactly, and 222s have the same role as 220s and 221s, which is why it would make sense for them to be able to work in multiple.

 

[greatvoyager]

15 car trains (5 x 221) have run on the Chiltern Line "blockade busters", but those needed only to fit at Birmingham International and Euston!

I remember those, but sadly we probably won't see it again.

 

[greatvoyager]

The minimum formation that would give you would be a fourteen car train. I'm not sure there are many platforms that that formation would fit on the WCML! Meanwhile you could easily have eight, nine or ten car 220/221 and 222 formation which are actually usable.

I'd be interested to see a 390/22x formation.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'd be interested to see a 390/22x formation.

I feel like it's happened but I cannot find a video on YouTube.

 

[greatvoyager]

Assuming that any refurb under Avanti will be minimal, perhaps the next operator, which I hope will be XC, will do a full refurb of the whole fleet, as it needs it.

 

[greatvoyager]

I feel like it's happened but I cannot find a video on YouTube.

Perhaps to test out coupling in an emergency situation?

 

[greatvoyager]

Just realised other parts of West Coast 221s are radically different from the CrossCountry ones. The sanding system is different, the external Destination screens are being changed on West Coast to LEDs, so I wonder if that will get in the way of any transfer to XC.

 

[Energy]

Just realised other parts of West Coast 221s are radically different from the CrossCountry ones. The sanding system is different, the external Destination screens are being changed on West Coast to LEDs, so I wonder if that will get in the way of any transfer to XC.

The external displays on 390033 (the one used for training) got replaced, not sure about any other voyagers or pendolinos, but the old displays certainly need changing.

 

[greatvoyager]

The external displays on 390033 (the one used for training) got replaced, not sure about any other voyagers or pendolinos, but the old displays certainly need changing.

221101 has new LED external displays near doors, and I've seen a few of the older livery units have it too.

 

[coradiafan2000]

As TPE aren't getting any new trains for the Cleethorpes to Manchester services, do you think Voyagers would be suitable for the route? Highly doubtful that it'll happen, at least not within the next five years or so, but it's still fun to think about.

 

[greatvoyager]

As TPE aren't getting any new trains for the Cleethorpes to Manchester services, do you think Voyagers would be suitable for the route? Highly doubtful that it'll happen, at least not within the next five years or so, but it's still fun to think about.

Interesting thought... I'm not sure if it would be the best idea, but anything can happen.

 

[greatvoyager]

Another option would be to use intermediate vehicles to extend the other 221s.

 

[devonexpress]

Why? Even if they all operated for Cross Country, they could be dedicated to different routes without any operational issues arising - same as Cross Country manage to operate 170s and 22x already without needing to couple them.

They already operate 220 and 222 between Derby and Sheffield without worrying too much about coupling them up.

Why? Because 4/5 voyagers are currently rammed and XC are desperate for extra capacity.

 

[greatvoyager]

Why? Because 4/5 voyagers are currently rammed and XC are desperate for extra capacity.

That's the main thing, capacity needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

 

[greatvoyager]

When they come off lease, I wonder how long they will be stored for before transfer or sadly, scrap.