Meridians post-electrification

cjmillsnun · 8 Jan 2015

ExRes said:
Given the proper information before boarding nobody would ever have to move forward 5 coaches, unless they're too stupid to understand what the difference is between the front and rear of the train of course
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would you really be concerned about a slightly slower journey if you had a much longer train and many more seats available each time you travelled in a 222 rather than a 158 ?

More seats?

Do you know how many seats SWT can pack in a 159?

There's a big difference seat wise between a 9 car 159 and a 10 car 222, in the favour of the 159s.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_222)

5 car 222 has 192 standard and 50 first class seats..

From South West trains

http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/our-trains.aspx#78000

3 car 159/0 has 170 standard, 23 first and 13 tip up seats.

3 car 159/1 has 170 standard, 24 first and 19 tip up seats.

Simple maths sells you that the 159s will have the greater capacity.

They also run as 10 cars, (2x 158s and 2x159s)

2 car 158 in SWT trim has 114 standard, 13 first and 9 tip up seats...

So a 10 car 158/159 combo has up to 698 seats, compared to 484 on the Meridian.

And I find that the seats in SWT trim 158/159s are very comfortable, and the train isn't unpleasant to be in.

Even if the 222 was refitted to a similar number of seats, it is still thirstier and slower than the sprinters (if there are differential speeds). And it wouldn't be any more comfortable either.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

TheKnightWho said:
Why do Sprinters get much better speed limits there?

They are much lighter and cause less damage to the track.

RailUK Forums

SpacePhoenix · 8 Jan 2015

TheKnightWho said:
My point was that with 14 coaches, there are no stations other than Waterloo that could actually take them (other than maybe Exeter). It's not an issue of people knowing where to sit, it's a case of no-one actually being able to use them otherwise.

Bournemouth might (I think it's platform 1 that's the really long one.) Probably only any use if there is something like the Air show going on in town

Bigfoot · 9 Jan 2015

With asdo beacons at pretty much every station why couldn't units be modified to only open certain coaches much like the 458s?

SpacePhoenix · 9 Jan 2015

Can 222s be used without modification on 3rd rail track or would they need to be modified? (Risk of part of the bogies catching the 3rd rail)

edwin_m · 9 Jan 2015

SpacePhoenix said:
Can 222s be used without modification on 3rd rail track or would they need to be modified? (Risk of part of the bogies catching the 3rd rail)

Probably not a problem as the relevant parts are the same as 220s.

ExRes · 9 Jan 2015

cjmillsnun said:
More seats?

Do you know how many seats SWT can pack in a 159?

There's a big difference seat wise between a 9 car 159 and a 10 car 222, in the favour of the 159s.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_222)

5 car 222 has 192 standard and 50 first class seats..

From South West trains

http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/our-trains.aspx#78000

3 car 159/0 has 170 standard, 23 first and 13 tip up seats.

3 car 159/1 has 170 standard, 24 first and 19 tip up seats.

Simple maths sells you that the 159s will have the greater capacity.

They also run as 10 cars, (2x 158s and 2x159s)

2 car 158 in SWT trim has 114 standard, 13 first and 9 tip up seats...

So a 10 car 158/159 combo has up to 698 seats, compared to 484 on the Meridian.

And I find that the seats in SWT trim 158/159s are very comfortable, and the train isn't unpleasant to be in.

Even if the 222 was refitted to a similar number of seats, it is still thirstier and slower than the sprinters (if there are differential speeds). And it wouldn't be any more comfortable either.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They are much lighter and cause less damage to the track.

My apologies, I thought this was a hypothetical thread rather than a pedantic one, my understanding was that introduction of displaced 222s was to increase seats overall, personally I would rather see a 5 car 222 turn up at a station than a 2 car 158, perhaps I'm just being silly though

sprinterguy · 9 Jan 2015

ExRes said:
My apologies, I thought this was a hypothetical thread rather than a pedantic one, my understanding was that introduction of displaced 222s was to increase seats overall, personally I would rather see a 5 car 222 turn up at a station than a 2 car 158, perhaps I'm just being silly though

I didn't think that 2-car class 158s were commonly used solo on the Waterloo to Exeter route, I thought that it was primarily 3-car class 159s, which, as has been pointed out, have a capacity only slightly less than a 5-car class 222.

What good would it do to replace a 2 or 3 car unit with a 5 car one on relatively quiet off peak services, when using those same 5 car units would reduce capacity on heavily loaded peak services by around 200 seats (based on 10 car 222 versus 9/10 car 158/159 formations)? The current joining and splitting of 158 and 159 units seems around optimum for the Waterloo to Exeter services in terms of passenger capacity.

ExRes · 9 Jan 2015

sprinterguy said:
I didn't think that 2-car class 158s were commonly used solo on the Waterloo to Exeter route, I thought that it was primarily 3-car class 159s, which, as has been pointed out, have a capacity only slightly less than a 5-car class 222.

What good would it do to replace a 2 or 3 car unit with a 5 car one on relatively quiet off peak services, when using those same 5 car units would reduce capacity on heavily loaded peak services by around 200 seats (based on 10 car 222 versus 9/10 car 158/159 formations)? The current joining and splitting of 158 and 159 units seems around optimum for the Waterloo to Exeter services in terms of passenger capacity.

I have absolutely no idea what 158s are used for or in what formations, I don't use SWT services and haven't since I caught one from Clapham to Waterloo 2 or 3 years ago, nor am I likely to use SWT again

If 158s and 159s are preferable to 222s for SWT passengers then good for them, I'm sure there will be many others who would give their right arm for regular 222 services

I apologise for being so stupid and commenting on a hypothetical situation on a hypothetical thread, I will do my best not to make the same mistake again

:roll:

sprinterguy · 9 Jan 2015

ExRes said:
I apologise for being so stupid and commenting on a hypothetical situation on a hypothetical thread, I will do my best not to make the same mistake again

:roll:

I wouldn't worry about it, it's all in the name of discussion.

222s on the Waterloo to Exeter route wouldn't seem like a terrible idea if only their seating capacity was anywhere near that of the 159s they would be replacing (at the same train length).

Clip · 9 Jan 2015

Send them to Southern to use on the Uckfield services

ExRes · 9 Jan 2015

Send them down to Paignton for the Dartmouth Steam & DEMU Railway, I reckon you could get 125mph at Goodrington and it would give me the chance to become a volunteer driver without getting covered in coal dust

* Thought I should just add a

Grumpy · 9 Jan 2015

My own view is that the Voyagers/Meridians should be scrapped when their leases expire, and something better built.

However when comparing seating capacity, perhaps it should be said that they waste a lot of potential seat space and could do better. Thus do they need so many toilets? Most EMU sets only have one or two per 4 cars. Take some out and put in seats. Do they have too many First Class seats (for the routes they might be used on). Some could be replaced by more second class.

ExRes · 9 Jan 2015

Grumpy said:
My own view is that the Voyagers/Meridians should be scrapped when their leases expire, and something better built.

However when comparing seating capacity, perhaps it should be said that they waste a lot of potential seat space and could do better. Thus do they need so many toilets? Most EMU sets only have one or two per 4 cars. Take some out and put in seats. Do they have too many First Class seats (for the routes they might be used on). Some could be replaced by more second class.

I've no idea if the 222s have been internally altered since I last drove them, the 7 car sets were vastly oversubscribed with first class accommodation on the majority of journeys while the ridiculous composite coaches should have been changed to standard class from day one, pay a first class fare and then share it with standard class passengers ?, no way, but not anywhere near as bad as the MML 170s with their centre coach first class of course

I can't agree with your comments on the toilets, if the 222s are to remain distance trains then you simply can't have enough toilet facilities and the average passenger would go specky if you reduced those facilities

As for scrapping them, the 222s are only 10 years old, do you really think the Rosco that owns them are going to scrap them and then fork out for replacements ? if the TOCs called for them to be scrapped they would be offered sweet fanny adams in the way of replacements or would be charged a whacking great premium on any new trains

AndyLandy · 9 Jan 2015

If the 222s are to come off the MML, about the only really sensible use I can think of for them is to strengthen the XC fleet. There are still services ran by single 4- and 5-car Voyagers that could benefit from running two units instead of one.

You could conceivably also then cascade some 221s from XC to VT to use on WCML services, maybe for services to places like Shrewsbury or Blackpool (although I believe Blackpool will be wired by then)

sprinterguy · 9 Jan 2015

AndyLandy said:
If the 222s are to come off the MML, about the only really sensible use I can think of for them is to strengthen the XC fleet. There are still services ran by single 4- and 5-car Voyagers that could benefit from running two units instead of one.

I think that the 222s would make a good regional fleet for the Wales franchise in place of the 175s. The 220/221/222s don’t cut much mustard with me as Intercity trains, but I think that they’d do fine as regional ones.

With some reformation, 17 x 6 car and 10 x 4 car units (one spare intermediate vehicle left over) to replace 16 x 3 car and 11 x 2 car class 175 units sounds like a pretty good way to increase capacity on busy Marches and North Wales coast services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Grumpy said:
However when comparing seating capacity, perhaps it should be said that they waste a lot of potential seat space and could do better. Thus do they need so many toilets? Most EMU sets only have one or two per 4 cars. Take some out and put in seats. Do they have too many First Class seats (for the routes they might be used on). Some could be replaced by more second class.

You’d end up with a lot of seats without windows unless you propose punching out additional window spaces in the bodyshells. The 222s aren’t nearly so badly arranged in terms of toilets as the preceding Voyager classes were. 6 toilets on the 7-car sets and 4 toilets on the 5-car sets (3 on the small number of 4-car sets), with the large disabled access toilets confined to the driving vehicles only, doesn’t seem like a bad layout to me on a long distance train.

Kneedown · 9 Jan 2015

sprinterguy said:
I wouldn't worry about it, it's all in the name of discussion. 222s on the Waterloo to Exeter route wouldn't seem like a terrible idea if only their seating capacity was anywhere near that of the 159s they would be replacing (at the same train length).

I think sometimes there is confusion between "Seating capacity" and "Overall capacity".
I can't comment personally on the seating layout of SWT 158/9's, but over here in EMT land the 158's had seating crammed into every available space on refurbishment. The result was loads of seats but very little room for anything else. 222 seating is more spacious with more luggage room, hence less seats per coach.
If it's botty's on seats wanted, with no consideration for passenger belongings then it should be a relatively simple matter to cram 158 style seats, with 158 style spacing into a 222 coach on refresh.

The Ham · 9 Jan 2015

Grumpy said:
My own view is that the Voyagers/Meridians should be scrapped when their leases expire, and something better built.

However when comparing seating capacity, perhaps it should be said that they waste a lot of potential seat space and could do better. Thus do they need so many toilets? Most EMU sets only have one or two per 4 cars. Take some out and put in seats. Do they have too many First Class seats (for the routes they might be used on). Some could be replaced by more second class.

No need to scrap all of them (bearing in mind that capacity/short length is the main problem) if the end vehicles of some sets are scrapped/put in store/used for spares then the central coaches could then be used in other sets which would then make those sets longer.

For instance the 222's could be formed into 6 sets of 9 coaches plus 5 sets of 6 coaches and 9 sets of 5 coaches. In doing so it could mean that Virgin could cascade their 221's to XC (meaning an extra 20 sets for XC to use to improve their fleet*). Some of their services would have the same number of seats (either pairs of 5 coach sets or the 9 coach sets) whilst some would see an increase (by pairing a 5 coach set with a 6 coach set). They would also have more seats over their fleet, as although there would be the same number of total sets the total number of coaches will have gone up.

In the above example it would mean that 14 end coaches would not be being used, however that is better for the ROSOC than the whole fleet not being used.

*bearing in mind that for each 221 that XC get they could improve the capacity of up to 3 services. This is done by:
- swapping a 221 for a 220 which currently runs a service (increase in seats from 200 to 250)
- then swap one of the existing services run by a 221 with a 220 (increase in seats from 200 to 250 for the service run by the 220)
- then with the spare 220 from the first service pair it up on the service previously run by a 221 so there are now two 220's (increase in seats from 250 to 400 for the service run by the 221).

Of course some units could be used for lengthening routes (i.e. all XC services which currently terminate a Reading could be extended to Guildford) or used for new routes.

sprinterguy · 9 Jan 2015

The Ham said:
In doing so it could mean that Virgin could cascade their 221's to XC (meaning an extra 20 sets for XC to use to improve their fleet*).

What would be replacing the 221s on the West Coast? 222s dont tilt, so are no good for the West Coast franchise.

The Ham · 9 Jan 2015

Kneedown said:
I think sometimes there is confusion between "Seating capacity" and "Overall capacity".
I can't comment personally on the seating layout of SWT 158/9's, but over here in EMT land the 158's had seating crammed into every available space on refurbishment. The result was loads of seats but very little room for anything else. 222 seating is more spacious with more luggage room, hence less seats per coach.
If it's botty's on seats wanted, with no consideration for passenger belongings then it should be a relatively simple matter to cram 158 style seats, with 158 style spacing into a 222 coach on refresh.

I would be very surprised if it were possible to fit in an extra 50 seats into a 5 coach 222, as that is the minimum that would be needed and even then the capacity of a pair of 222's would only be the same as a 9 coach train formed of 9 coaches (bearing in mind that some SWT's services are formed of a pair of 159's and a pair of 158's with 10 coaches).

The reason for this is that although the 158's/159's have a few more seats in them compared to the central coaches of the 22x's, the 22x's have quite a few less seats in the end coaches. There is no way around that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

sprinterguy said:
What would be replacing the 221s on the West Coast? 222s dont tilt, so are no good for the West Coast franchise.

I'd forgotten that important fact.

There may however be other uses for them, which they wouldn't otherwise be useful for, if they were formed in longer lengths.

Grumpy · 9 Jan 2015

ExRes said:
I can't agree with your comments on the toilets, if the 222s are to remain distance trains then you simply can't have enough toilet facilities and the average passenger would go specky if you reduced those facilities

As for scrapping them, the 222s are only 10 years old, do you really think the Rosco that owns them are going to scrap them and then fork out for replacements ? if the TOCs called for them to be scrapped they would be offered sweet fanny adams in the way of replacements or would be charged a whacking great premium on any new trains

Well the 350’s for example are working Manchester to Scotland and I haven’t heard anyone complaining about shortage of toilets. That’s further than the Meridians are working.

I don’t believe we need to worry what the Rosco wants to do with the units. Clearly there is a commitment by the TOC to pay the lease charges, and there may well be a Government guarantee that these will be paid by another TOC up to a certain date. However by that time the Rosco will have recovered its initial investment, and the taxpayer under no obligation to pay/guarantee any more rentals. What we then need is trains suitable for the services they are being run on, which might be with different body profile, door spacing, more fuel efficient or electric, less weight and thus track charges etc etc etc. Who might fund such trains is up for debate-if the bankers can see a profit from it, bearing in mind the Government covenant, then there shouldn’t be a problem.

If the Rosco’s want to earn future lease income from the existing units then they will need to put forward a competitive package which might be a combination of lower lease charges, lower running costs and more capacity suitable for the services they would run on.

ExRes · 9 Jan 2015

Grumpy said:
Well the 350s for example are working Manchester to Scotland and I havent heard anyone complaining about shortage of toilets. Thats further than the Meridians are working.

I dont believe we need to worry what the Rosco wants to do with the units. Clearly there is a commitment by the TOC to pay the lease charges, and there may well be a Government guarantee that these will be paid by another TOC up to a certain date. However by that time the Rosco will have recovered its initial investment, and the taxpayer under no obligation to pay/guarantee any more rentals. What we then need is trains suitable for the services they are being run on, which might be with different body profile, door spacing, more fuel efficient or electric, less weight and thus track charges etc etc etc. Who might fund such trains is up for debate-if the bankers can see a profit from it, bearing in mind the Government covenant, then there shouldnt be a problem.

If the Roscos want to earn future lease income from the existing units then they will need to put forward a competitive package which might be a combination of lower lease charges, lower running costs and more capacity suitable for the services they would run on.

That's interesting, I don't think there's a single class of train that I've ever travelled on where people have been satisfied with the number of toilets provided

I believe you really should worry about the Rosco's, without them there would be virtually no trains on the tracks in this country, try pushing them around at your own peril because there's little chance of rolling stock coming from other sources

cjmillsnun · 9 Jan 2015

ExRes said:
I believe you really should worry about the Rosco's, without them there would be virtually no trains on the tracks in this country, try pushing them around at your own peril because there's little chance of rolling stock coming from other sources

If someone was to offer enough money on a lease, then what is stopping another company forming themselves as a ROSCO. It's not compulsory that the one of big 3 are used.

Admittedly there would be a massive startup cost, but it is about time there was more competition in rolling stock.

BantamMenace · 9 Jan 2015

cjmillsnun said:
If someone was to offer enough money on a lease, then what is stopping another company forming themselves as a ROSCO. It's not compulsory that the one of big 3 are used.

Admittedly there would be a massive startup cost, but it is about time there was more competition in rolling stock.

Any pension, hedge, bank or investor with a 9 figure sum could become a player in the market should they be able to get people with the knowledge onboard.

SpacePhoenix · 9 Jan 2015

The Ham said:
No need to scrap all of them (bearing in mind that capacity/short length is the main problem) if the end vehicles of some sets are scrapped/put in store/used for spares then the central coaches could then be used in other sets which would then make those sets longer.

For instance the 222's could be formed into 6 sets of 9 coaches plus 5 sets of 6 coaches and 9 sets of 5 coaches. In doing so it could mean that Virgin could cascade their 221's to XC (meaning an extra 20 sets for XC to use to improve their fleet*). Some of their services would have the same number of seats (either pairs of 5 coach sets or the 9 coach sets) whilst some would see an increase (by pairing a 5 coach set with a 6 coach set). They would also have more seats over their fleet, as although there would be the same number of total sets the total number of coaches will have gone up.

In the above example it would mean that 14 end coaches would not be being used, however that is better for the ROSOC than the whole fleet not being used.

*bearing in mind that for each 221 that XC get they could improve the capacity of up to 3 services. This is done by:
- swapping a 221 for a 220 which currently runs a service (increase in seats from 200 to 250)
- then swap one of the existing services run by a 221 with a 220 (increase in seats from 200 to 250 for the service run by the 220)
- then with the spare 220 from the first service pair it up on the service previously run by a 221 so there are now two 220's (increase in seats from 250 to 400 for the service run by the 221).

Of course some units could be used for lengthening routes (i.e. all XC services which currently terminate a Reading could be extended to Guildford) or used for new routes.

If they use the same engines as the Voyagers then there is nothing to stop new coaches for them being made as there is an engine design available for the Voyagers that meets the current regs

cjmillsnun · 9 Jan 2015

Although there is a variant of the cummins QSK that is compliant, will it fit in the UK loading gauge.

Domh245 · 9 Jan 2015

Or, as has been mentioned recently, you could just build more coaches and whack the exact same engine underneath it, provided you can find one that is in a "reconditionable" condition somewhere.

Bevan Price · 9 Jan 2015

mikeg said:
Anybody know what will happen to these? I suppose they could be converted being DEMUs to electric traction, but have heard little about how this is to be achieved. Is there a precedent of DEMUs having being converted in such a way?

Presumably it would involve some sort of inverter to simulate a diesel supply... Unless DEMUs' motors run on 50Hz Single phase AC already?

Sell them to Australia, maybe, to replace their HST clones ?

ainsworth74 · 9 Jan 2015

I'm sure our Australian correspondent will be along soon to give plenty of detail but the XPT is similar to our HST only in that it shares the same power cars the coaching stock is totally different. So not really clones and I doubt a Meridan would be considered a suitable replacement. Especially considering it's also deployed on sleeper services.

The Ham · 9 Jan 2015

SpacePhoenix said:
If they use the same engines as the Voyagers then there is nothing to stop new coaches for them being made as there is an engine design available for the Voyagers that meets the current regs

If they were to be used on slower routes could there not be extra coaches with no extra engines inserted. For instance could be scope for the 7 coach sets to run with 6 powered coaches and one unpowered coach without much difference in performance?

If there was then the extra powered coach from each set could be paired with a further in powered coach and inserted into a 5 coach set to result in 12 sets with 7 coaches, 11 sets with 5 coaches and 4 sets with 4 coaches.

Of course if you were going to do that you may wish for sets to be of a length that allowed them to be paired up and be 11 coaches long, in which case you may go for 17 sets of 7 coaches (one unpowered) and 10 sets of 4 coaches (all powered, resulting in slightly better performance when run as pairs in a 11 coach train), with one powered coach "spare"probably used in one of the longer sets. Although would the train builders be interested in an order of just 16 coaches? I think not.

w1bbl3 · 10 Jan 2015

The Ham said:
For instance the 222's could be formed into 6 sets of 9 coaches plus 5 sets of 6 coaches and 9 sets of 5 coaches. In doing so it could mean that Virgin could cascade their 221's to XC (meaning an extra 20 sets for XC to use to improve their fleet*). Some of their services would have the same number of seats (either pairs of 5 coach sets or the 9 coach sets) whilst some would see an increase (by pairing a 5 coach set with a 6 coach set). They would also have more seats over their fleet, as although there would be the same number of total sets the total number of coaches will have gone up.

I would have thought that logically due to the lack of tilt directly cascading 222's to XC would be more sensible than sending them to west coast. This would enable withdrawal of the HST services and reduction if not elimination of doubled up 220's by using 7 car 222's. Beyond this some of 170's could be replaced by 4 car 220's particularly the Nottingham > Cardiff route to take advantage of 100mph+ mainline running.

This would open options for 170's being cascaded as 15x replacements, effectively creating the potential for no new DMU's to be needed until well into the 2030's.

Regarding west coast I can't think of a tilt capable bi-mode or that such a small order to cover London > North Wales services would be viable, a follow on order of short 390's would make sense to release 221's from under the wires running Scotland > London via Birmingham. These could be further released to XC.

Meridians post-electrification

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Member