Class 221 for Grand Central

[HamworthyGoods]

True; but hasn't a 'guiding mind' for the rail industry been strongly recommended on a number of occasions? Surely such a 'guiding mind' should be given powers to organise who gets what stock.

You can’t give ‘guiding minds’ powers to organise who gets what stock if the stock is owned by someone else.

Unless you nationalise the ROSCOs (which would add massively this country’s national debt) any ‘guiding mind’ will have no more power than any other commercial business.

Can you imagine if some government quango suddenly decided they were going to rent your private house that you owned to someone else and you got no say in the matter?

 

[43096]

You can’t give ‘guiding minds’ powers to organise who gets what stock if the stock is owned by someone else.

Unless you nationalise the ROSCOs (which would add massively this country’s national debt) any ‘guiding mind’ will have no more power than any other commercial business.

Can you imagine if some government quango suddenly decided they were going to rent your private house that you owned to someone else and you got no say in the matter?

Adding to that is that Grand Central is entirely outside the Government controlled train operators, too, being an open access operation. The DfT (or whoever) can't just tell GC to start using 222s.

 

[GWVillager]

You can’t give ‘guiding minds’ powers to organise who gets what stock if the stock is owned by someone else.

Unless you nationalise the ROSCOs (which would add massively this country’s national debt) any ‘guiding mind’ will have no more power than any other commercial business.

Can you imagine if some government quango suddenly decided they were going to rent your private house that you owned to someone else and you got no say in the matter?

That's a meaningless analogy, though. If you were renting your private house to a hospital, and the Government then re-let it to another NHS department, you wouldn't necessarily be as right to object. When you're engaged in providing a public service, you have to concede that the public takes priority.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

That's a meaningless analogy, though. If you were renting your private house to a hospital, and the Government then re-let it to another NHS department, you wouldn't necessarily be as right to object. When you're engaged in providing a public service, you have to concede that the public takes priority.

No you don’t you can lease your trains to private operators without and qualms or government interventions as many ROSCOs do to private freight or passenger operators.

 

[GWVillager]

No you don’t you can lease your trains to private operators without and qualms or government interventions as many ROSCOs do to private freight or passenger operators.

You can now, but that’s the point of a guiding mind.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The guiding mind will not be a controlling one, apart from the 14 DfT operators.

ROSCOs are private companies as are OA operators and if anyone in Government tried to tell them what they can lease (and to whom), the courts will soon sort the Government out. Basically, whether it is GBR or the DfT, as far as these companies are concerned, the DfT/GBR can “do one”, as they say.

The only way a controlling mind will work is by nationalisation (of both OA and the ROSCOs) and that will cost the Government a fortune, which is why it hasn’t been done or suggested for GBR.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

You can now, but that’s the point of a guiding mind.

Yes but the guiding mind will have no control over private rolling stock companies, that has never been in the anyone’s plan.

 

[YorksLad12]

Assuming Grand Central would be able to provide a reliable service with 14 class 180s the first of those outcomes is surely the best option for passengers in general. Clearly, there is a need for the 180s to step back a bit to give time to work on them to provide the reliable service necessary; the current short-term loan of two Voyagers could have done that, but CrossCountry needed cover in the short-to-medium term (in the form of the IC125s) and the Government have taken that away.

The only way GC could provide a reliable service with the 180s would be if they doubled them up, so that the one that worked could drag the one that didn't.

I've not been keeping up with this thread, but given the incompatibility of 222s with the rest of XC's fleet, would it not make more sense to allocate the Meridians to GC, at least in part, to ensure XC has all the Voyagers?

Someone else pointed out on a different thread that that's not a problem - you run them as 222-only diagrams. Same as they did for the HST sets.

 

[Halish Railway]

The only way GC could provide a reliable service with the 180s would be if they doubled them up, so that the one that worked could drag the one that didn't.

That's if a fault doesn't transfer between units.

 

[D365]

That's if a fault doesn't transfer between units.

But those failure modes (earth fault or electronic failure) are no different to any other multiple unit.

 

[Nym]

But those failure modes (earth fault or electronic failure) are no different to any other multiple unit.

And is also what Dellner Condoms are for...

Although that would rely on the MUs being designed with their multi working in such a way that fault transmission could be minimised by use of electrical isolation, which for the 180s (and 175s) designed at Washwood Heath, 50:50 chance.
For anything newer, no chance. "Value Engineering" cuts all of these "nice to haves" out of new rolling stock to manufacturers can pick up pennies with quid coins falling out of their proverbial.

Always fun testing something new, having a failed unit and just asking, "Why didn't it just do this?" or "Why do you need the CANBUS up to close the battery contactors? Isn't it just a wire?"

 

[YorksLad12]

That's if a fault doesn't transfer between units.

Ahem. I should have surrounded my comment in <sarcasm> tags

 

[trainswitheddy]

Unsure if this has already been spoken about but both voyagers are now wearing the GC livery...must say the advertisement looks a tad distasteful.

* Edited from not to now, oops!

 

[Wyrleybart]

Unsure if this has already been spoken about but both voyagers are now wearing the GC livery...must say the advertisement looks a tad distasteful.

* Edited from not to now, oops!

Do you mean each end car, or all ten vehicles ?

 

[M1544]

1D73 1456 London King’s Cross to Bradford Intc worked right through with voyager 221143 today, this is notable as it’s the first time this service has run beyond Wakefield on a weekday (as opposed to sat and Sundays) in recent times as it has been terminating short at Wakefield Kirkgate for the last few months.

 

[ModernRailways]

1D73 1456 London King’s Cross to Bradford Intc worked right through with voyager 221143 today, this is notable as it’s the first time this service has run beyond Wakefield on a weekday (as opposed to sat and Sundays) in recent times as it has been terminating short at Wakefield Kirkgate for the last few months.

For anyone particularly curious, 1D73 is also booked to do this all week.

 

[trainswitheddy]

Do you mean each end car, or all ten vehicles ?

End cars, sorry!

 

[Class 170101]

Adding to that is that Grand Central is entirely outside the Government controlled train operators, too, being an open access operation. The DfT (or whoever) can't just tell GC to start using 222s.

But someone made HT take on the Class 180s? How did they do that? I can't believe HT would have given up the Class 222s for them willingly.

 

[43096]

But someone made HT take on the Class 180s? How did they do that? I can't believe HT would have given up the Class 222s for them willingly.

It did give HT a capacity increase, don't forget, by changing from 4-car 222 to 5-car 180. There may have been other factors in play with owning group politics with the DfT at the time.

 

[Neptune]

But someone made HT take on the Class 180s? How did they do that? I can't believe HT would have given up the Class 222s for them willingly.

It was 4x4 car units for 4x5 car. HT was growing and needed the extra capacity, the 180’s were going spare and there was a natural home for the 222’s. Nothing was imposed from what I recall.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I don't know whether this was a pull factor but the re-opening of the line to Corby required extra trains, and that's why the H.T. 222's were acquired.
The Corby re-opening ceremony was reported on local T.V. news and the then-M.D. (very young looking then, later moving on to greater things) was asked why, although a new station had been built and the line re-opened to passenger traffic, there was only one train a day in each direction and that only to the next station. He (eventually) answered by claiming it was nothing to do with him but because the new trains weren't being released by the present operator. It came across as 'the big boys won't give me my ball back boo-hoo' but it does suggest a reluctance on the part of H.T. (as it turned out - I don't recollect the source being stated at that stage) to part with them and perhaps pressure from the DfT.

In a good example of karma, the cl 180's that replaced the 222/1s later came to the Midland main line, and we know how that went

 

[3RDGEN]

But someone made HT take on the Class 180s? How did they do that? I can't believe HT would have given up the Class 222s for them willingly.

In 2016 FHT's got a 10 year track access agreement and at the same time took the 4 * 180's releasing the 222's which conveniently DfT wanted for EMR. Make of that what you will.

"https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/main-line/first-hull-trains-secures-10-year-track-access-deal/"

"First Hull Trains secures 10-year track access deal - BRITISH open-access passenger operator First Hull Trains has been granted a 10-year extension to its track access agreement from the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) "

 

[Neptune]

In 2016 FHT's got a 10 year track access agreement and at the same time took the 4 * 180's releasing the 222's which conveniently DfT wanted for EMR. Make of that what you will.

The 180’s replaced the 222’s in 2009.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You can’t give ‘guiding minds’ powers to organise who gets what stock if the stock is owned by someone else.

To add to the complications, Beacon Rail owns the Voyagers, Eversholt owns the Meridians, and Angel owns the Coradias.
There are also a variety of maintenance regimes for each fleet, in different locations.
It's not just moving pieces around on the chess board.
And today's guiding mind is about to axe its flagship rail investment project.

 

[3RDGEN]

The 180’s replaced the 222’s in 2009.

It was yes, wrong TAA. In 2009 they got an extension to 2014, then 2016, these extensions were granted around the same time as they had agreed to take the 180's and release the 222's.

"https://uktransport.fandom.com/wiki/First_Hull_Trains"

"First Hull Trains is one of the three ‘open access’ rail operators in the UK meaning that instead of owning a franchise and operating a level of service laid down by the SRA, it applied for, and was awarded in 2002, access rights for 10 years by the Office of the Rail Regulator. This was extended to December 2014 in January 2009, and in March 2009 was further extended to 2016."

 

[Clarence Yard]

But someone made HT take on the Class 180s? How did they do that? I can't believe HT would have given up the Class 222s for them willingly.

There was an “understanding” between the DfT and a very senior FG person over a non HT related matter (which I am not going to get into here) that resulted in HT giving up the 222 units, taking on the 180 units and the DfT then not objecting to the resulting Track Access application.

HT were quite happy with their 222 units.

 

[krus_aragon]

Always fun testing something new, having a failed unit and just asking, "Why didn't it just do this?" or "Why do you need the CANBUS up to close the battery contactors? Isn't it just a wire?"

I think the person that named it CANbus was overly optimistic.

 

[heathrowrail]

Realistically though if XC are only taking 5 221s from AWC, Does that then leave the opportunity for GC to replace all it's 180s and send them for scrap?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Realistically though if XC are only taking 5 221s from AWC, Does that then leave the opportunity for GC to replace all it's 180s and send them for scrap?

XC are taking on 7 221s

 

[43096]

Realistically though if XC are only taking 5 221s from AWC, Does that then leave the opportunity for GC to replace all it's 180s and send them for scrap?

It is not GC’s decision “to send them for scrap”.