Forthcoming rolling stock orders

Status
Not open for further replies.

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
5,746
Tit bit of information about upcoming rolling stock orders:

RAIL 692 p20 said:
Government plans to publish in April details of likely forthcoming needs for new trains, so that potential suppliers in the UK manufacturing chain can prepare for them...

Villiers revealed that Bombardier is to be asked for a firm price to build electric power cards that will be inserted into 30 to 35 four-car diesel Voyagers for CrossCountry. A decision on whether to order will be taken against this price, she said.
Presumably thats likely to be the 34 strong 220 fleet. XC of course do have 1 4 car 221, however I wonder whether the costs of procuring 1 vehicle for 221141 would be reasonable. However if they are surely it makes sense to procure 4 new 221 centre cars, and bring 221144 back into usage, even if this means swapping units between Virgin and CrossCountry.

It'll be interesting to see what else is in the April announcement anyway, surely they wont just announce one deal for XC!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,521
Location
Macclesfield
The way that the Voyager fleet was carved up between Virgin and Arriva XC was a bit silly really: It would surely have made more sense, as others have suggested in the past, for Crosscountry to have been allocated 221142-144 and for Virgin to have two more 5-carriage 221s in return seeing as they clearly prefer to have a standard fleet of 20 five carriage Voyagers rather than 21 trains in a mix of four and five carriage formation. Crosscountry would have benefitted from having an additional unit, and it would be the logical choice to place all the four carriage Voyagers with the one operator.

The Voyager hybridisation plans seem to have reduced in scope from when they were originally reported then. It does seem that with those numbers that it'll only concern the thirty four 220s. If Crosscountry can have a standard fleet made up entirely of five carriage trains (I'm not sure what to think with regards to the four 4-carriage 221s) then that's good news, although it's a shame that the scheme now being proposed isn't further-reaching.

It will certainly be interesting to see what possibilities lie ahead in terms of new rolling stock, I look forward to reading this report when it is released.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,128
Location
Mold, Clwyd
I doubt an actual order for XC will appear in April - maybe a "minded to" if Bombardier come up with a decent price.
Since DfT have said they want to move away from rolling stock procurement, leaving it to the TOCs of the new franchises, I don't see how they can be very specific.
Probably an indication of where they will contemplate funding more/new trains, and where the cascades might go.

eg
new EMUs for GW Thames Valley, leaving 319s for Lancs (or vv - unlikely!)
new EMUs for TP with cascades for NT
etc

IEP and Thameslink look like being the last DfT-specified fleets, plus Crossrail procured by TfL.
The overall Voyager situation depends on the attitude of the new WC franchisee, as to whether they keep their 221s as is, upgrade them to bimode or buy something else.
That depends on the franchise competition result.
The HLOS for CP5 in July might be the next major rolling stock trigger (eg perhaps MML electrification and South Wales Valleys).
 

cj_1985

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
643
if common sense existed at the DfT (Wouldn't that be something incredible), they would be looking at ordering pantograph carraiges for all the class 22X units...

atleast then there would be more benefits than one order (for talking sake) now, and then a seperate order/contract in XX years, if any more were to be ordered. Ordering XX Pantograph carraiges with options for another XX carraiges for a set period would probably end up offering a lower cost per carraige than they could get by ordering just these 30 or so carraiges.

Plus the benefit of reduced diesel fuel usage on services operated by 22X units (under the wires), and the benefit of extra seats on existing services and providing extra seats for use on future services when the units eventually get displaced. And i suppose they could make all the usual PR claims about reduced carbon emmisions and all that spin.

As for other stock to be ordered...
IIRC, The Thameslink stock contract hasn't been signed yet.
There will be the Crossrail stock
IEP, if (god forbid) the contract gets signed

then you have the situation with EMUs for the Thames Valley and the NW electrified routes, since the delay in signing the Thameslink fleet contract will delay the availability to displace and refurb/overhaul the class 319s.

Fleet replacement for the MerseyRail network

Expected new EMUs to replace the class 90s, Mk3s and DVTs working in anglia during the next full length franchise period

Required/Expected Pacer unit replacements... either displaced EMU or DMUs that will probably need other units to replace the displaced units elsewhere on the network)

then there is the subject of sleeper stock.. ie. if its going to be refurbished/rebuilt or if new stock will be ordered for scotrail and possibly the GW sleeper services.

and thats based solely on the existing and expected infrastructure upgrades... and not taking into account any additional electrification into Wales and/or the south west etc.

so thats quite a bit, and thats excluding trams/light rail vehicles and anything ordered by/for open access operators
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,493
Location
Central Belt
The voyagers are interesting beasts. The bit of the route I frequent Edinburgh - Leeds the demand rarely fills a 4 car set, but other area an additional coach would still see overcrowding. 6 car 220s anyone?

Nice big order of EMUs for scotrail should be happening soon to replace the 314s and central belt DMUs.
 

CC 72100

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2012
Messages
3,562
The voyagers are interesting beasts. The bit of the route I frequent Edinburgh - Leeds the demand rarely fills a 4 car set, but other area an additional coach would still see overcrowding. 6 car 220s anyone?

Nice big order of EMUs for scotrail should be happening soon to replace the 314s and central belt DMUs.
That's the thing with XC operations. Some parts of the route extra demand is needed, other bits it would be a waste of capacity. That is why I *think* some trains are doubled up for part of their journey.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,323
It's a case of 'be careful what you wish for'.

If all the Voyagers were 6 x 23m, I suggest they'd no longer run in pairs, because they'd be far too long for nearly every station they call at.

This is a point made in most of the (many) previous discussions about lengthening XC Voyagers with a panto coach...
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
5,746
It's a case of 'be careful what you wish for'.

If all the Voyagers were 6 x 23m, I suggest they'd no longer run in pairs, because they'd be far too long for nearly every station they call at.

This is a point made in most of the (many) previous discussions about lengthening XC Voyagers with a panto coach...
Which I guess is avoided by limiting the program to 34 220s - I dont think theres anywhere which has a problem with 2x 221.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
22,323
Which I guess is avoided by limiting the program to 34 220s - I dont think theres anywhere which has a problem with 2x 221.
I think what might happen is that a 5th coach programme for the 220s might be seen as some sort of trial. Then if successful a follow up programme might be done differently for 221s. Perhaps reducing two or three units temporarily to four car and refitting their existing diesel powered coaches as pan coaches, to eventually provide a whole fleet of 5 car units.

Alternatively, just build a small number of pan coaches (maybe 8) to 'prime the pump', and once all the 5 cars are done by exchange, use those left over to eventually bring the four car 221s and 222s up to five car status.
 

Robbies

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
1,997
Location
Berkshire
To me though, this is Daft at it's best as I would have thought the Virgin 221's would actually be doing more mileage under the wires than the XC 220's?
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
To me though, this is Daft at it's best as I would have thought the Virgin 221's would actually be doing more mileage under the wires than the XC 220's?
Virgin's definitely run under the wires for a higher percentage of the time they are in operation. However, I don't know how intensely Virgin use their Voyagers compared to XC.

I imagine there's two plausible reasons for the XC 220s being done:
1. The extra vehicles don't need the tilting ability bring down the cost.
2. The Virgin franchise is set to end soon so DfT may see it as up to the bidders to say why pantograph vehicles are needed for the 221s.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
5,746
Yep, would 12 car voyagers on virgin cause problems? Although not many are double voyagers diagrams.
Thinking of the 11 car pendolino project I suspect that there are quite a few stations that would cause a problem.

As I recall last time we considered this for XC the main stops between Edinburgh and Bristol could cope with 12 car operation, (maybe with the exception of Cheltenham). Causes much more trouble on the XC services which head down the Chiltern Mainline to the South Coast though.
 

Robbies

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
1,997
Location
Berkshire
Yep, would 12 car voyagers on virgin cause problems? Although not many are double voyagers diagrams.
Only on the services that only go as far as Chester as if memory serbes the dead end platform that the five car 221 Voyager went into only just about fitted. if you added a sixth car it would have to be stationed at the through line platforms which would then cause problems with other trains following on behind the Voyagers.

I think I prefer the idea, that one of the existing carriages is taken out of each 221 and have that replaced with a pantograph car with more seating in if possible.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
7,738
If all sets extended by 1 car could XC take 11 car? or operationally would that make doubling up difficult having to seperate 5 and 6 car pools.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,838
Perhaps a better idea would be replacing a 221 non-driving vehicle with a pan car (or just adding a pan car to the four 4 car sets) and then building an extra twenty pan cars and forty driving cars to form a extra twenty 5 car trains with those surplus non-driving cars.

In a similar way, EMT could have Pan cars added in place of a non-driving car on 16 of the 5 car sets, an a pan car added to the ex-HT sets and the remaining 7 sets being made back up to 9 car and then having a pan car added giving them ten 5+5 trains and seven 10 car trains.

Perhaps that is too simple and costly for anyone to take seriously.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Yep, would 12 car voyagers on virgin cause problems? Although not many are double voyagers diagrams.
A higher proportion of Virgin services are doubled up Voyagers when comparing to XC.

In all honesty Virgin aren't due any more extra capacity as the extra Pendolinos are supposed to provide the extra capacity they need, while if XC don't get the extra Voyager vehicles they don't get any extra capacity.

However, saying that maybe phase 2 could be 221 pantograph vehicles for Virgin, with the pantograph vehicles replacing existing vehicles, which could then be cascaded to XC.
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
2,525
Im not convinced the eVoyager will even happen now - with the bodyshells coming from Belgium and the traction package from one of their own suppliers in europe instead of Preston it serves little purpose as some kind of saviour for Litchurch Lane and British train building. The idea was good, but the real world has rather got in the way...

Chris
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,252
Perhaps a better idea would be replacing a 221 non-driving vehicle with a pan car (or just adding a pan car to the four 4 car sets) and then building an extra twenty pan cars and forty driving cars to form a extra twenty 5 car trains with those surplus non-driving cars.

In a similar way, EMT could have Pan cars added in place of a non-driving car on 16 of the 5 car sets, an a pan car added to the ex-HT sets and the remaining 7 sets being made back up to 9 car and then having a pan car added giving them ten 5+5 trains and seven 10 car trains.

Perhaps that is too simple and costly for anyone to take seriously.
On the assumption that XCs Super Voyagers are never to tilt again, you could consider fitting their 221s with the lighter bogies of the 220s- essentially making them 220s- to save on fuel, track wear etc. If you're engaged in such an expensive programme, it's a case of "might as well".
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
On the assumption that XCs Super Voyagers are never to tilt again, you could consider fitting their 221s with the lighter bogies of the 220s- essentially making them 220s- to save on fuel, track wear etc. If you're engaged in such an expensive programme, it's a case of "might as well".
Relating to that the tilt facility on the XC 221s would be best utilised on Manchester-Bournemouth services. However, at present that would be the best XC service to switch to a dual powered train.
 

158722

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
803
A higher proportion of Virgin services are doubled up Voyagers when comparing to XC.

In all honesty Virgin aren't due any more extra capacity as the extra Pendolinos are supposed to provide the extra capacity they need, while if XC don't get the extra Voyager vehicles they don't get any extra capacity.

However, saying that maybe phase 2 could be 221 pantograph vehicles for Virgin, with the pantograph vehicles replacing existing vehicles, which could then be cascaded to XC.
If 1 intermediate diesel car was taken out of half of the 221s (22 units) and replaced by a new electric power car, we'd end up with 22x 5-car bi-mode 221s, suitable for being multied up when required, as per the 220s.

Then, if the spare diesel car was added to the other half of the fleet, along with 4 extra non-powered cars required to augment the 4x 4-car 221s of course, hence 22x 6-car diesel sets. These would no doubt require 2 new electric power cars, given the weight-ratio of the 6 diesel cars - hence 22x 8-car bi-mode sets to work by themselves on say the Brum-Edinburgh/Glasgow turns which are currently a mix of inadequate 5-car sets or over-the-top 2x5-car or a 9-car Pendo or busier AXC services. No doubt some re-distribution of sets between WC and XC would be needed, but surely a decent way of getting extra capacity for XC as well as far less under the wires diesel running for both operators.
 

Robbies

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
1,997
Location
Berkshire
Relating to that the tilt facility on the XC 221s would be best utilised on Manchester-Bournemouth services. However, at present that would be the best XC service to switch to a dual powered train.
Why would Manchester - Bournemouth services be better to re - enable the class 221 tilt? Surely it would be better on the longer services from Plymouth etc...??

Besides not all of the route between Manchester - Bournemouth would be suitable for using the tilt. You would only have the parts between Manchester and Birmingham, then between Oxford and Reading where tilt could be used. The tilt system certainly could not be used between Basingstoke and Bournemouth because of the issues with the third rail.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Why would Manchester - Bournemouth services be better to re - enable the class 221 tilt? Surely it would be better on the longer services from Plymouth etc...??
The GWML doesn't have higher running speeds for tilting stock compared to non-tilting stock, the WCML does.

If the GWML receives an over budget upgrade to enable tilting then maybe that'll change.
 

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,855
Why would Manchester - Bournemouth services be better to re - enable the class 221 tilt? Surely it would be better on the longer services from Plymouth etc...??

Besides not all of the route between Manchester - Bournemouth would be suitable for using the tilt. You would only have the parts between Manchester and Birmingham, then between Oxford and Reading where tilt could be used. The tilt system certainly could not be used between Basingstoke and Bournemouth because of the issues with the third rail.
What would be the point of tilt between Oxford & Reading - it's not exactly bendy.

Tilt was enabled somewhere between Oxford & Birmingham though.
 

Peter Mugridge

Established Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
10,794
Location
Epsom
Im not convinced the eVoyager will even happen now - with the bodyshells coming from Belgium and the traction package from one of their own suppliers in europe instead of Preston it serves little purpose as some kind of saviour for Litchurch Lane and British train building. The idea was good, but the real world has rather got in the way...

Chris
The Belgian Voyager factory no longer exists; the bodyshells would very likely be assembled at Litchurch Lane, especially after the political stink recently.
 

ash39

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2012
Messages
1,375
From what I've picked up above,are people saying 221's currently drive round the country with their tilt mechanisms locked out? What a waste!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top