Cross Country HST withdrawals?

[Rhydgaled]

People travelling from London or Reading to Oxford would use the Cotswold Line trains regardless. Who uses the local service to travel from London to Reading or Didcot, rather than a fast line train?

I thought there were two fast trains per hour between PAD and Oxford (1 Cotswolds Line service and one terminating at Oxford). However, perhaps the issue with the EMUs terminating at Didcot is more that passengers from Reading and Slough might use the stoppers is they were through EMUs to Oxford, rather than passengers going all the way from London on the stoppers?

I can’t help thinking a better option for PRM compliance, especially with only a few years left in service, would have been to fit internal door handles on the slam doors and seal the droplights.

I agree - if they were/are to be withdrawn in 2023 a quicker and cheaper modification to the doors (or even just a derrogation/dispensation) would have made more sense. The fact they went to the trouble of fitting power doors leads me to feel they should still have a good few years use ahead of them yet.

I seem to recall that the droplights were the issue with the slam doors and not the door handles.

I think there is two seperate issues here - I think I read that the Night Rivera Sleeper is to have the droplights sealed in the next few years on saftey grounds - this was something that came up seperately to the 2020 PRM deadline I think. On the PRM front (Persons of Reduced Mobility) I would expect the big issue is that it is difficult enough for an able-bodied to reach the external door handle from the inside by leaning out of the window (I would imagine it would be extremely difficult for some disabled persons and completely impossible from a wheelchair). However, I seem to recall from discussion at the time that fitting an internal handle would raise saftey concerns as the central door locking system was not considered robust enough given the greater force that could be applied to an internal handle compared to the awkard position of leaning out to reach the external handle - increasing the risk of the door openning while the train was moving unless the door locks were signficantly upgraded. A 'quick and cheap' door modification might therefore not have been possible.

UK one of the poorest countries in Western Europe? Don't think so, you obviously have little experience of Western Europe.
Can we afford the fuel for Voyagers? They must cost a fortune to run. Sooner they're consigned to scrapyard the better; afraid they're a relic of a time when diesel power was seen as the easy option.

Unfortunately we don't have the extent of electricification necessary to make replacing Voyagers a sensible option at the momement. The sooner they're consigned to scrapyard the better IF and only if their replacements are:

• straight EMUs of suitable INTERCITY specification (including a minimum of 7 coaches)
• locomotive-hauled coaches of suitable INTERCITY specification (including a minimum of 7 coaches) - if the locomotives for this are new-build rather than cascaded then these should be pure-electrics
• cascaded rolling stock (must already be existant / on-order) of suitable INTERCITY specification - this is the only option that may involve rolling stock with a diesel mode (eg. class 800 units)

The fuel used by Voyagers is a serious issue though - which is why dropping some driving vehicles (which give less capacity for similar fuel consumption) could be a good idea...

XC should consolidate the 22x fleet into units of a reasonable length, therefore delivering increased capacity and increased cost efficency for said capacity. The 222 fleet can be consolidated into 22 6 coach units. While the 221 and 220 fleet can be consolidated into 22 5 coach and 26 7 coach units. After some frequency improvements and the operation of Cardiff-Nottingham with said units, the fleet is effectively utilised providing a large increase in capacity while scrapping 70 driving cars, reducing the amount of money on the least space efficent coaches.

Are the class 222 driving cars any less inefficient than the class 221/220 driving cars? I think there was a hybrid Voyager (one unit with a mix of class 220 and 221 coaches) - if that is the case then I'm assuming it would also be possible to create a hybrid unit with a mix of class 222 and class 220 cars (this may even have the same bogies throughout, unlike the class 220/221 hybrid which would have had tilting bogies only on some coaches and not others). If possible, I think the best way forward might be to scrap all/most of the class 220 driving cars and use the middle cars to make the 222s longer.

 

[DanNCL]

I think there is two seperate issues here - I think I read that the Night Rivera Sleeper is to have the droplights sealed in the next few years on saftey grounds - this was something that came up seperately to the 2020 PRM deadline I think. On the PRM front (Persons of Reduced Mobility) I would expect the big issue is that it is difficult enough for an able-bodied to reach the external door handle from the inside by leaning out of the window (I would imagine it would be extremely difficult for some disabled persons and completely impossible from a wheelchair). However, I seem to recall from discussion at the time that fitting an internal handle would raise saftey concerns as the central door locking system was not considered robust enough given the greater force that could be applied to an internal handle compared to the awkard position of leaning out to reach the external handle - increasing the risk of the door openning while the train was moving unless the door locks were signficantly upgraded. A 'quick and cheap' door modification might therefore not have been possible.

From a PRM perspective there were two issues with the droplights - both the difficulty of reaching the door handle through the lowered droplight and the force required to lower the droplight.

The Night Riviera has magnetic locks on the droplights integrated into the central door locking system.

An internal door handle would have likely meant replacing the external door handle and mechanism too with a new one. I struggle to believe it wouldn't have been possible to implement internal door handles and a more robust central door locking system.

Are the class 222 driving cars any less inefficient than the class 221/220 driving cars? I think there was a hybrid Voyager (one unit with a mix of class 220 and 221 coaches) - if that is the case then I'm assuming it would also be possible to create a hybrid unit with a mix of class 222 and class 220 cars (this may even have the same bogies throughout, unlike the class 220/221 hybrid which would have had tilting bogies only on some coaches and not others). If possible, I think the best way forward might be to scrap all/most of the class 220 driving cars and use the middle cars to make the 222s longer.

Mixing 220/221 and 222 vehicles is a non starter. 222s have a Bombardier traction package whereas 220s and 221s have an Alstom traction package (I know it's all Alstom now, but still!). To merge vehicles from the two types would be more hassle than it's worth.

If you lengthen any units using intermediate vehicles from 220s it would have to be the 221s.

 

[Rhydgaled]

An internal door handle would have likely meant replacing the external door handle and mechanism too with a new one. I struggle to believe it wouldn't have been possible to implement internal door handles and a more robust central door locking system.

Sure, a more-robust central door locking system for the slam doors could probably have been done, but it wouldn't have been cheap'n'easy - so we would be in a similar position regarding having spent alot of time, money and effort modifying the mark 3s for what has turned out to be (with the exception of ScotRail, hopefully) a very-limited future life.

Mixing 220/221 and 222 vehicles is a non starter. 222s have a Bombardier traction package whereas 220s and 221s have an Alstom traction package (I know it's all Alstom now, but still!). To merge vehicles from the two types would be more hassle than it's worth.

If you lengthen any units using intermediate vehicles from 220s it would have to be the 221s.

Oh, I thought they were all Bombardier (220s, 221s and 222s) with the exception of some coupling-related stuff on the 220s/221s being the same as the Alstom Pendolinos in case they had to be resuced something else in the Virgin Trains fleet (390 or 'Thunderbird' 57)?

Ah well - if they can't be mixed I guess the best option would probably have to involve ditching a small number of class 222 driving cars (since there were some 4-car 222s) in order to eliminate 4-car operation and maximise the number of units with 7 or more cars.

 

[DanNCL]

Oh, I thought they were all Bombardier (220s, 221s and 222s) with the exception of some coupling-related stuff on the 220s/221s being the same as the Alstom Pendolinos in case they had to be resuced something else in the Virgin Trains fleet (390 or 'Thunderbird' 57)?

Ah well - if they can't be mixed I guess the best option would probably have to involve ditching a small number of class 222 driving cars (since there were some 4-car 222s) in order to eliminate 4-car operation and maximise the number of units with 7 or more cars.

They were all built by Bombardier but the 220s and 221s were equipped with Alstom traction motors and other electrical equipment for commonality with the 390s. The commonality with 390s wasn't needed for the 222s so for those Bombardier used their own traction motors and electrical equipment. I believe the TMS is different on a 222 too.

 

[43096]

They were all built by Bombardier but the 220s and 221s were equipped with Alstom traction motors and other electrical equipment for commonality with the 390s.

It’s nothing to do with commonality with the 390s. When they were ordered/built, Bombardier did not have an in-house traction system as it had not yet acquired ADtranz (which brought with it the former ASEA lineage). So it bought in from Alstom for the traction system.

The commonality with 390s wasn't needed for the 222s so for those Bombardier used their own traction motors and electrical equipment.

Do you have a source for that, as everything I’ve seen says the 222s have Alstom kit?

 

[Trainbike46]

Are the class 222 driving cars any less inefficient than the class 221/220 driving cars? I think there was a hybrid Voyager (one unit with a mix of class 220 and 221 coaches) - if that is the case then I'm assuming it would also be possible to create a hybrid unit with a mix of class 222 and class 220 cars (this may even have the same bogies throughout, unlike the class 220/221 hybrid which would have had tilting bogies only on some coaches and not others). If possible, I think the best way forward might be to scrap all/most of the class 220 driving cars and use the middle cars to make the 222s longer.

If this were even possible, it would make more sense to keep the class 220 & 221 driving cars and scrap the 222 drivign cars, as that would allow you to stick with just the current staff training arrangements

and with just the current coupling arrangements for multiple working and rescue

 

[Rhydgaled]

If this were even possible, it would make more sense to keep the class 220 & 221 driving cars and scrap the 222 drivign cars

Not necessarily if the class 222 interior is more efficient.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Not necessarily if the class 222 interior is more efficient.

The 222's have a buffet and perch seats by the doors too. Far better HST replacements than the Voyagers!

 

[jimm]

The service was West of Reading to the Cotswolds on a a Saturday morning, I believe back in 2012.

It's not exactly a massive surprise that a westbound HST on the Cotswold Line early on a Saturday morning* was not overflowing with passengers - unlike the trains prior to 9am heading towards London.
*Paddington HST departures in 2012 being the 05.21 to Great Malvern (busy on its return run departing 08.45 or so) and 08.21 and 10.21 to Hereford, with latter heavily loaded out to Oxford with day trippers and forming the 17.30 departure from Oxford on the way back to London.

 

[Falcon1200]

I would go slightly further with OHL electrification. For the GWML, in a currently practical ideal world (where there are limits to how much can be done), the OHL should extend from the current western limit of just west of Chippenham to just south west of Taunton station. The reason being that a reasonable number of both services to/from London Paddington originate or terminate here. Plus the Taunton to Cardiff Central services also obviously originate or terminate here. In addition, “local” services to Bristol and beyond also originate or terminate here.

That allows a very large proportion of trains using the GWML between Taunton and Bristol / Cardiff / London to be electric types.

Then the next step would be to extend the OHL from B.T.M. along the Filton lines to Stoke Gifford Junction (Bristol Parkway) and Patchway Junction. Followed by extending the OHL from Westerleigh junction towards Birmingham.

I would very much agree with all those ambitions, although don't forget Didcot/Oxford! Possibly electrify in manageable stages, eg to Bristol via both routes initially, then on to Weston-Super-Mare and later to Taunton and beyond. As well as GWR, enabling XC to run as much mileage as possible on electric vice diesel has got to be a Good Thing, and in line with our climate change ambitions/responsibilities.

But then, I woke up and realised that as a pro-railway person, and a pro-public transport person, and someone who thinks we should take climate change seriously, this is far too logical, and never going to happen while we have such useless politicians in government.

The problem the politicians have, from whatever party and whether deemed useless or not, is finding the money to pay for things amidst all the other national needs.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I would very much agree with all those ambitions, although don't forget Didcot/Oxford! Possibly electrify in manageable stages, eg to Bristol via both routes initially, then on to Weston-Super-Mare and later to Taunton and beyond. As well as GWR, enabling XC to run as much mileage as possible on electric vice diesel has got to be a Good Thing, and in line with our climate change ambitions/responsibilities.

Absolutely, it has to be done in manageable stages.

Ultimately however, the ambition should be to electrify the GB rail network at least to the extent recommended by Network Rail in their Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy (see the map on page 5 of this document) by 2050 with all the hydrogen units (and most of the battery units) recommended by that strategy being bi-modes with pantographs for use while under the wires. Anything else is out of alignment with our net-zero obligations. Unfortunately, the failure of the current Government (and many of the previous ones) to invest in rail electrification means this target date now appears to be beyond what is 'currently practical'.

The problem the politicians have, from whatever party and whether deemed useless or not, is finding the money to pay for things amidst all the other national needs.

Maybe; maybe not. If they were to take the necessary actions on climate change, they would save money in some areas (eg. road building - just look at the Welsh Government's review of trunk road projects) and raise taxes (for example on aviation) as well as increasing expenses (eg. spending more on rail). I'm not sure whether the complete climate action package would be a net-positive or a net-negative on the public purse, but it's not the clear expense that it first appears to be.

 

[spotify95]

Sure, a more-robust central door locking system for the slam doors could probably have been done, but it wouldn't have been cheap'n'easy - so we would be in a similar position regarding having spent alot of time, money and effort modifying the mark 3s for what has turned out to be (with the exception of ScotRail, hopefully) a very-limited future life.


Oh, I thought they were all Bombardier (220s, 221s and 222s) with the exception of some coupling-related stuff on the 220s/221s being the same as the Alstom Pendolinos in case they had to be resuced something else in the Virgin Trains fleet (390 or 'Thunderbird' 57)?

Ah well - if they can't be mixed I guess the best option would probably have to involve ditching a small number of class 222 driving cars (since there were some 4-car 222s) in order to eliminate 4-car operation and maximise the number of units with 7 or more cars.

Class 222 are now all either 5 car or 7 car units - the 222/1's were extended to 5 car by removing coaches from 222005 and 222006, thereby making 4x 7 car units (222001-004) and the rest 5 car (222005-023, 222101-104).

 

[Bletchleyite]

From a PRM perspective there were two issues with the droplights - both the difficulty of reaching the door handle through the lowered droplight and the force required to lower the droplight.

The Night Riviera has magnetic locks on the droplights integrated into the central door locking system.

An internal door handle would have likely meant replacing the external door handle and mechanism too with a new one. I struggle to believe it wouldn't have been possible to implement internal door handles and a more robust central door locking system.

The problem with internal handles and a big heavy door like that is that people would fling them open and knock people over on the platform. Such a shame BR "did its own thing" instead of using the standard UIC folding door from the start, or even power doors.

 

[Fen Enthusiast]

When roughly could we expect the last of the XC HST sets to be withdrawn? I'm hoping for a first and last trip on a XC HST. Was supposed to travel on one on the 08.06 out of Edinburgh as far as York on the 2nd of January, but it was cancelled due to the unavailability of train crew. That said, according to RTT, apparently the service started down the line from Leeds instead.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Ah well - if they can't be mixed I guess the best option would probably have to involve ditching a small number of class 222 driving cars (since there were some 4-car 222s) in order to eliminate 4-car operation and maximise the number of units with 7 or more cars.

Class 222 are now all either 5 car or 7 car units - the 222/1's were extended to 5 car by removing coaches from 222005 and 222006, thereby making 4x 7 car units (222001-004) and the rest 5 car (222005-023, 222101-104).

I was aware of that (see 'were' instead of 'are' - which I have just emphaised in the quote above) however note that I also said 'maximise the number of units with 7 or more cars'. With only four 7-car units the current makeup of the fleet doesn't give many 7-car units at all.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

When roughly could we expect the last of the XC HST sets to be withdrawn? I'm hoping for a first and last trip on a XC HST. Was supposed to travel on one on the 08.06 out of Edinburgh as far as York on the 2nd of January, but it was cancelled due to the unavailability of train crew. That said, according to RTT, apparently the service started down the line from Leeds instead.

According to 'RAIL' - 2 diagrams will be retained in May followed by 1 in September. Not good when we needed the 4 diagrams said before.

 

[class397tpe]

According to 'RAIL' - 2 diagrams will be retained in May followed by 1 in September. Not good when we needed the 4 diagrams said before.

So nothing actually changes from may since they only do 2 diagrams right now? And the withdrawal will start in September?

 

[AndrewE]

So nothing actually changes from may since they only do 2 diagrams right now? And the withdrawal will start in September?

I suppose that is better than them disappearing in May...

 

[Fen Enthusiast]

According to 'RAIL' - 2 diagrams will be retained in May followed by 1 in September. Not good when we needed the 4 diagrams said before.

So does this mean that they'll only be two specific services that will be worked by a HST? I'm not very enlightened on the subject of "diagrams", so I'm easily confused when diagrams are mentioned.

 

[AndrewE]

So does this mean that they'll only be two specific services that will be worked by a HST? I'm not very enlightened on the subject of "diagrams", so I'm easily confused when diagrams are mentioned.

A diagram is a set of (one) day's workings for a loco or a set of stock, which might be repeated the following day, or if it is a 2-day circuit because it ends up in a different place, might alternate with another different-numbered diagram so that it can get home. It could be more than 2 days...​

​

If you look at 1950s coaching stock, one train might have had several groups of coaches on it working different diagrams and circuits depending on where it (and they) went and what the back-working options were.​

 

[43096]

So does this mean that they'll only be two specific services that will be worked by a HST? I'm not very enlightened on the subject of "diagrams", so I'm easily confused when diagrams are mentioned.

A diagram in this context is a set of services that a train (or indeed a driver/guard, but we'll leave that for this) is planned to work in a day.

So as an example, these services are all worked by the same train (in this case an XC HST set):
5V44 0533 Neville Hill Depot to Leeds
1V44 0611 Leeds to Plymouth
1S51 1227 Plymouth to Edinburgh
5S51 2130 Edinburgh to Craigentinny Depot

The first and last are empty workings that get the train from and to the depot. So that train will work two passenger services during the day. That set of workings is the train's "diagram" for that day.

For XC, normally there is a second HST set that works the opposite workings (passenger services Edinburgh to Plymouth, Plymouth to Leeds). So XC have four individual services that are worked by an HST, using two trains (two diagrams).

 

[Rhydgaled]

So does this mean that they'll only be two specific services that will be worked by a HST? I'm not very enlightened on the subject of "diagrams", so I'm easily confused when diagrams are mentioned.

Unfortunately, 'diagrams' is a word with several possible meanings in railway discussions:

• a plan-view drawing of something (this is what I would consider to be the accepted definition in general use, but the rail industry isn't limited to that definition)
• a list of train workings/services which are planned to be operated by the same loco/unit/rake-of-LHCS (rolling stock diagram) or member of staff (train crew diagram) - this is probably the meaning that applies in this context
• a specific design of rail vehicle (for example GH1G, which I think is one of the many diagrams (for want of a better word) of mark 3 kitchen/buffet car) - a mark 4 TSOE I think would be a different diagram from a normal mark 4 TSO - this is a meaning I have only recently come across so I'm not sure I have understood/explained it correctly

To further elaborate on the second definition above (which it appears is the one you're interested in), imagine a route with a train every 3 hours, where trains take about 85 minutes to complete the run. It might (but probably wouldn't, because the way I have done it here is resource inefficient) have a timetable something like this:

	ONE​	TWO​	ONE​	TWO​	ONE​	TWO​	ONE​
Station A		07:00	10:00	13:00	16:00	19:00	22:00
Station Z		08:25	11:25	14:25	17:25	20:25	23:25
Station Z	05:50	08:50	11:50	14:50	17:50	20:50
Station A	07:15	10:15	13:15	16:15	19:15	22:15

In this case that service would require two diagrams to operate (with buses, this appears to be called the Peak Vehicle Requirement (PVR) of a route). I have intentifed the two unit diagrams as ONE and TWO in the above table, but I suspect it is more-common to list the workings. For example, diagram TWO would probably look something like this (I don't work in the industry, so don't know what it really looks like):

• 07:00 Station A to Station Z
• 08:50 Station Z to Station A
• 13:00 Station A to Station Z
• ... and so on until...
• 20:50 Station Z to Station A

Since my timetable is so resource-inefficient, with units sat around at Station A for hours between runs, there's a good chance that the diagrams would be interworked with another route. For example, diagram ONE could start like this (station C could be anywhere, not necessariliy between A and Z, but for this example assume it is about 20 minutes from A):

• 05:50 Station Z to Station A
• 07:30 Station A to Station C
• 08:00 Station C to Station A
• 08:30 Station A to Station C
• 09:00 Station C to Station A
• 10:00 Station A to Station Z
• ... and so on...

Hope that helps.

In the case of the XC Plymouth-Edinburgh route, it is such a long journey that a single unit (or HST set) would be unable to get four trips (two services in each direction) done in a day. Thus one diagram for the XC IC125s (which don't generally stray from that route unless there is engineering work somewhere) can include a maximum of three specific services (two in one direction and one in the other) if it starts very early in the day but normally seem to only include one or two specific services.

'Two diagrams' means 'two sets are planned to be in use', so depending on how many services are included on the actual diagrams, it could be that four services (two southbound and two northbound) will be worked by IC125s (eg. in recent years the norm seems to have been one set doing an Edinburgh-Plymouth run and then coming back on a Plymouth-Leeds and the second set doing Leeds-Plymouth southbound then heading back north to Edinburgh). However, I understand that maintainance for XC's IC125 is done in Plymouth so it may be that they reduce it two one service per diagram (ie. the first set/diagram being an Edinburgh to Plymouth working, with the set then going on depot; and the second set/diagram coming off depot in Plymouth and going north to Edinburgh to replace the other set ready for the next day).

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

So nothing actually changes from may since they only do 2 diagrams right now? And the withdrawal will start in September?

Yep. So much for them listening to customers who want extra capacity - they should have been kept another 2 or 3 years in service til replacements came in!

 

[Man_with_beard]

What will xc be using as replacements? If there are three 125s wouldn't that equal to around 5/6 voyagers in length. Didn't think they had all the voyagers hence why 125s were employed to fill gaps.

 

[JonathanH]

What will xc be using as replacements? If there are three 125s wouldn't that equal to around 5/6 voyagers in length. Didn't think they had all the voyagers hence why 125s were employed to fill gaps.

Single Voyagers from the existing fleet. CrossCountry have publicly stated that the capacity the HSTs provided over that offered by a Voyager at weekday peak times is no longer required.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/cross-country-hst-withdrawals.244265/#post-6105465

 

[class397tpe]

Single Voyagers from the existing fleet. CrossCountry have publicly stated that the capacity the HSTs provided over that offered by a Voyager at weekday peak times is no longer required.

Which is a complete and utter lie. Even if the commuters on expensive anytime tickets haven't fully come back, most travellers on XC are on still pretty expensive off-peak fares (as XC doesn't really do advance tickets much - also means it's hard for them to funnel customers onto the double voyager services as they are all the same price). How they aren't rolling in money with how busy the trains are I don't know. The HST services are very busy at weekends - even full and standing sometimes.

My only hope with the delayed withdrawal till September is that by then some more Avanti 221s may be off lease - so potentially could be waiting to bring a good amount into the fleet at once. But it is the dft so can't get any hopes up. 4 HST diagrams from may would have been nice as now we will have more single voyagers due to the increase in services.

 

[Xavi]

How they aren't rolling in money with how busy the trains are I don't know.

Unlike other long-distance operators XC revenues are often shared with other operators even though they carry the bulk of the passengers.

 

[class397tpe]

Unlike other long-distance operators XC revenues are often shared with other operators even though they carry the bulk of the passengers.

Surely it would make sense for XC to offer advance fares just below the price of an off peak (or off peak return) then? As surely 100% of an advance fare is better than a proportion of an off-peak...

 

[yorksrob]

Single Voyagers from the existing fleet. CrossCountry have publicly stated that the capacity the HSTs provided over that offered by a Voyager at weekday peak times is no longer required.

I'll have some of what they've been taking !

 

[Xavi]

Surely it would make sense for XC to offer advance fares just below the price of an off peak (or off peak return) then? As surely 100% of an advance fare is better than a proportion of an off-peak...

15 years or so ago XC offered more and better value advance fares but the services became too overcrowded so they started to reduce volume and increase advance fares to similar prices as walk-up fares. Now they’re severely overcrowded again with many customers using split tickets that take advantage of regulated fares. The revenue goes off in all directions shared with other TOCs. DfT knows this but doesn’t care as XC doesn’t serve London, so it suits them to call it a basket case and cut costs.