Forthcoming rolling stock orders

Status
Not open for further replies.

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,006
Location
Redcar
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!
Not really there are only a few limited sections where XC 221s could even use their tilt mechanisms (VT 221s do however use their tilt) and if the timetable were written to take advantage of the extra speed then those services would be restricted to 221 operation only reducing the flexibility of XCs fleet. So seeing as the tilt is not being used anyway it makes sense to disable it as it reduces maintenance and ensures there is one less thing to go wrong.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,233
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Not really there are only a few limited sections where XC 221s could even use their tilt mechanisms (VT 221s do however use their tilt) and if the timetable were written to take advantage of the extra speed then those services would be restricted to 221 operation only reducing the flexibility of XCs fleet. So seeing as the tilt is not being used anyway it makes sense to disable it as it reduces maintenance and ensures there is one less thing to go wrong.
The one line where there is an impact is Stone-Stoke-Cheadle Hulme where there is a good tilt speed profile, used by VT's 390s.
The XC 221s used tilt on this route when VT ran the service but Arriva XC disabled it.
Others say it has no effect on the timetable but on a capacity-constrained route it can't help.
Arriva XC use a mix of 220/221 on the route.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,006
Location
Redcar
Others say it has no effect on the timetable but on a capacity-constrained route it can't help.
Arriva XC use a mix of 220/221 on the route.
Which they wouldn't be able to do if the services were timetabled for tilt trains only and if you timetable some for tilt and others for non-tilt then you make having a regularly timetable harder and still have the issue of if a 221 throws a sicky then you can't just throw a 220 out to cover because the 220 won't keep to the timetable.

I admit it isn't perfect having tilting stock with it's tilt disabled but I think it was a logical move from XC.
 

ash39

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2012
Messages
1,375
No what I meant was it was a waste building the 221's with tilt when they were to be used mostly on cross country, they must have known it wasn't suitable when the order went in?

Or were the suitable parts of the cross country routes expected to be upgraded to take tilting trains and then the project got shelved? like the 140mph ECML and WCML upgrades !!
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
No what I meant was it was a waste building the 221's with tilt when they were to be used mostly on cross country, they must have known it wasn't suitable when the order went in?!
The 221s were built for a combination of XC and non-electrified WC services. At the time of build Manchester-Scotland was a XC route which could use the tilt. Also the Scotland-Birmingham services continued beyond Birmingham, so if a 221 was used on that route for it's tilting ability North of Birmingham it finished up going all the way to the South West and back.

Although, with many of the 220s being 4 car and many of the 221s being 5 car it meant the larger 5 car services got put on the busier services opposed to the ones where the tilt could be utilised.
 

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
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.
Then they should just build some more coaches to make them all 7/8/9 car and have done with it.
While capacity might be well over what is needed right now, this stock will be ready for future growth.



1. The extra vehicles don't need the tilting ability bring down the cost.
At the moment...

What if the next operator decided to bring the tilting ability back? Then you'd have one dummy coach in the middle of a set.

It would be safer and better for the future if the extra coach had tilting ability if the original set did.


Then again, maybe they should just give the Voyagers (as they are, diesel trains) to another operator and build some new stock capable of doing everything which is required. Rather than having to replace the old diesel stock soon anyway.
Surely that 2-car Voyager could have new software written for it to work as a 2-car train? Silly working by itself though.
 
Last edited:

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
At the moment...

What if the next operator decided to bring the tilting ability back? Then you'd have one dummy coach in the middle of a set.
You've quoted me out of context

jcollins said:
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.
The 220s of course have no tilting facility and are the ones that are set to be given the extra pantograph vehicle.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
5,760
Surely that 2-car Voyager could have new software written for it to work as a 2-car train? Silly working by itself though.
Doesn't it have a missing compressor, and wouldn't it have less seating capacity than a pacer! Not to mention 1 coach of standard and 1 of first class!
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,006
Location
Redcar
Doesn't it have a missing compressor, and wouldn't it have less seating capacity than a pacer! Not to mention 1 coach of standard and 1 of first class!
It does indeed have a missing compressor, however it has been jury rigged so that it can operate under it's own steam (to a limited degree) but it's certainly not suitable for revenue service (and that's ignoring the seating capacity of such a unit).
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,382
Talking in the past about the 50m Euro investment Siemens put in developing Desiro UK
from 2007 even though Thameslink has not yet been signed, Siemens have built two powered and two trailer SF7000 bogies and having tested them they are now enroute from Graz to Krefield to be mated to two prototype bodyshells for dynamic testing.


The SF7000 bogie designed for Desiro UK is 33% on powered from 9.3 to 6.3 tonnes and 35% on trailer from 6.8 to 4.4 tonnes lighter than the previous SF5000 design. Assuming the contract is signed as expected, 90 bogies a month will be produced in Graz from March 2013 but this is just 20% of the factorys capacity.

Decent article on them in April Rail Engineer
http://www.therailengineer.com/print-archive/
 

NXEA!

Member
Joined
22 Oct 2009
Messages
482
I think the only Voyagers that'll be 'bi-moded' will be the 34 220's, 23 XC 221's and the 27 EMT 222's - initially. Personally I wouldn't go down the road of bi-moding the VW 221's at the moment - apparently the Traction Motor's won't fit on a unit that has to be able to tilt anyway - a requirement for the West Coast. I've read that the 221's have to be used on VW until 2017 (I think) - that theoretically allows them to be replaced by the next franchisee, when that agreement ends. Ideally what you'd want to do is string up some wires to Chester with 57's performing drags to Holyhead and order 21 11 car 390's (to replace the 21 221's. 31 390's are being lengthened, plus the four new sets will mean 21 will be left as 9 cars. The new 11 cars can replace the 9 cars which can move to Voyager duties, adding capacity on the electric operated routes, and the 9 cars can be reseated, 2 coaches with First Class and 7 standard which should manage to equal a double Voyager capacity I expect.), and displace the 21 221's to XC where they can add capacity and be bi-moded also.
 

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
7,702
Location
Nowhere near enough to a Pacer :(
i also have a hunch that if Virgin win the next WC Franchise and assuming DFT Distance themself from stock that the 9 car pendoes woant stay 9 car for very long and that a cupple more extras wil appear to allow Scotland Midlands to go totally 390 and mean 221s are running to Holyhead only and on shorter runs E.G BHM - EUS and on extra services EG 1K39 Fridays.

As reguards XCs voyagers panto cars do indeed make sense and as both WC and XC fleats will come up for major mid life refurb in the next few years I wonder if, as XC is clearly not seen as an Intercity service anymore if they might install 3 plus 2 seats in there 221s and the new panto cars as a way of offering unreservable extra seats?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
as to anything else, well the TL contract delay is undoubtedly causing headakes but the IEP Delay is not, for me at any rate.
East Coast have shown interest in Pendoes and the MK4s could then be cascaded to GEML with a further build of perhaps 22s for the non wired sections plus fast commuter services. This wil of course be entirely practicle with a production line for 22x boddyshells open, somewhere. There is of course the traction problem as the QSK19 isnt there anymore but not unsolvable.

Looking realistically at the current pending announcement I wonder (if its not TL) if it will be a replacement for LM 323s and remaining 321s
(audable grones, more new stuff for LM) But yet another consignment of 350/2s does make sense allowing 323s to move to northern.

Add perhaps a few more turbo/electrostars for perhaps GA/LM would be a logical step too with displaced 321s (with optional extra flees) moving north and LMs 170s moving to Scotrail to displace 158s to go to (or back to) Northern. Appologies for common sense.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
5,760
As reguards XCs voyagers panto cars do indeed make sense and as both WC and XC fleats will come up for major mid life refurb in the next few years I wonder if, as XC is clearly not seen as an Intercity service anymore if they might install 3 plus 2 seats in there 221s and the new panto cars as a way of offering unreservable extra seats?
How do you work out that XC is not seen as an Intercity service?! I don't think there will be any more 3+2 seating stock ordered now. Remember that LM have replaced 3+2 150s with 2+2 172s, and I don't think you'd begin to argue that 172 services are in anyway similar to Voyager routes.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,530
Location
Macclesfield
How do you work out that XC is not seen as an Intercity service?! I don't think there will be any more 3+2 seating stock ordered now. Remember that LM have replaced 3+2 150s with 2+2 172s, and I don't think you'd begin to argue that 172 services are in anyway similar to Voyager routes.
The popular opinion among a number of people on this forum is that Crosscountry is a number of regional journeys joined up and that few passengers are actually engaged in longer distance journeys of more than 2 hours or so. It's not my opinion mind, but the rolling stock, luggage space and standard of catering all point towards it being treated as a regional service rather than an Intercity one :roll:

I certainly couldn't ever see 3+2 seating fitted to trains such as the Voyagers though, whether they're deemed as operating regional services or not.
 

Robbies

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
1,997
Location
Berkshire
The popular opinion among a number of people on this forum is that Crosscountry is a number of regional journeys joined up and that few passengers are actually engaged in longer distance journeys of more than 2 hours or so. It's not my opinion mind, but the rolling stock, luggage space and standard of catering all point towards it being treated as a regional service rather than an Intercity one :roll:

I certainly couldn't ever see 3+2 seating fitted to trains such as the Voyagers though, whether they're deemed as operating regional services or not.
So any travelling from Bournemout to Birmingham and further North or from London Euston to North Wales should be travelling in a train that is no different than a class 165?

Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not a fact that the journeys made by people taking XC trains is going up and I would vouch that the 2+2 seating in the Voyagers and HST's used may have something to do with this? It certainly does for me when I use them.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
15,968
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
I certainly couldn't ever see 3+2 seating fitted to trains such as the Voyagers though, whether they're deemed as operating regional services or not.
I won't try to argue the difference between "Intercity" and "Regional" (as I'm not keen on the black/white definitions), but aren't Voyagers fairly narrow (in body profile) due to the tilting option, so pretty unsuited to 3+2 (regardless of the services they run)?
 

dosxuk

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
719
23m coaches (like Voyagers) are narrower than the 20m coaches which are commonly used with 3+2 seating layouts. Actually, is there any 23m coaches with 3+2 layout?
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
7,493
Location
Central Belt
I won't try to argue the difference between "Intercity" and "Regional" (as I'm not keen on the black/white definitions), but aren't Voyagers fairly narrow (in body profile) due to the tilting option, so pretty unsuited to 3+2 (regardless of the services they run)?
Did virgin not want 3 classes on the voyagers and that is why they have so many universal toilets. Not sure if it was 1st, club and standard or club, standard or 3rd they were looking for. If it was 3rd I wonder if they thought about 2+3. Anyway it was a long time ago so can't remember why it didn't happen. Not sure why each class needs its own universal toilet. Could two classes not share them if the wheelchair space was in the same area? Or is going through the corridor connection in a wheelchair a big no?
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,530
Location
Macclesfield
Did virgin not want 3 classes on the voyagers and that is why they have so many universal toilets. Not sure if it was 1st, club and standard or club, standard or 3rd they were looking for. If it was 3rd I wonder if they thought about 2+3. Anyway it was a long time ago so can't remember why it didn't happen. Not sure why each class needs its own universal toilet. Could two classes not share them if the wheelchair space was in the same area? Or is going through the corridor connection in a wheelchair a big no?
I think that it was part of the reason for having so many universal toilets but that still doesn't explain why the 221s have four and I've read in Modern Railways reports contemporary with the construction of the Voyagers that the units were fiited only with universal toilets because it was easier and cheaper than designing a smaller "cupboard" style toilet as well. The 180s get on just fine with one universal toilet per unit between first and standard class.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
15,968
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
I think that it was part of the reason for having so many universal toilets but that still doesn't explain why the 221s have four and I've read in Modern Railways reports contemporary with the construction of the Voyagers that the units were fiited only with universal toilets because it was easier and cheaper than designing a smaller "cupboard" style toilet as well. The 180s get on just fine with one universal toilet per unit between first and standard class.
Could it be that there were plans to extend them (and easier to put a non-DDA toilet into the *new* coaches)? But they weren't extended, so we were left with fewer seats...
 

dave59

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2010
Messages
86
i also have a hunch that if Virgin win the next WC Franchise and assuming DFT Distance themself from stock that the 9 car pendoes woant stay 9 car for very long and that a cupple more extras wil appear to allow Scotland Midlands to go totally 390 and mean 221s are running to Holyhead only and on shorter runs E.G BHM - EUS and on extra services EG 1K39 Fridays.
So franchisees and are suddenly going to start procuring stock? About as likely as planning and delivering electrification schemes I imagine. Common sense would be to have tagged on a batch of short 390's for Midlands/Scotland with the recent Alstom order and cascade the Voyagers ASAP. They were meant to be a stop gap and provide resilience during engineering work (for diversions)during the PUG, not stay on the route for 15 years.
 

dave59

Member
Joined
28 Jul 2010
Messages
86
agreed. I made the comments you quote as I believe DFT want to leave stock to the opperater in these new longer franchises.
Yes that's what they have stated but in practice any 'deal' would have to be done with the DfT, who authorise the cascades. They balked at buying 390's for the route then insisted the new ICWC franchisee run the 221's until 2016/17! No progress at all despite all the costly ITT and bidding wars, all the potential excitement of a new franchise comes to virtually nothing, except of course the mindless re-branding of everything should the incumbent be ousted. The DfT should let Virgin continue as a LOROL type service provider rather than let another silly franchise. The ROSCOs and operators can't do anything without the the fat controller civil servants' say so - exactly as in BR days.
 

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
1,502
One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is that the West Coast franchise is only committed to using the 221's until 2016. So maybe the bids could include plans for extra Pendolinos (say 7-cars) to replace the 221s, except for a handful to operate the North Wales services. That could allow XC to gain more Voyagers to replace the HSTs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top