IETs on XC

[YourMum666]

Would IETs make sense as a suitable replacement to the ageing HST stock on Cross Country ?

 

[dk1]

Would IETs make sense as a suitable replacement to the ageing HST stock on Cross Country ?

I don’t think HSTs come into it as they are being withdrawn anyway. IETs would obviously be a good thing on any of the XC Voyager operated routes to reduce diesel use under the wires. Trouble is the 220/221 fleet is only mid-life with no obvious other home to go to yet apart from Inter7City routes in Scotland. Even then however 222s are shortly to be freed up too.

 

[RobShipway]

Would IETs make sense as a suitable replacement to the ageing HST stock on Cross Country ?

I don’t think HSTs come into it as they are being withdrawn anyway. IETs would obviously be a good thing on any of the XC Voyager operated routes to reduce diesel use under the wires. Trouble is the 220/221 fleet is only mid-life with no obvious other home to go to yet apart from Inter7City routes in Scotland. Even then however 222s are shortly to be freed up too.

I believe that the replacement for the XC HST fleet, is either going to be more use of the existing 220/221 fleet or the adding of the Advanti West Coast 221 fleet to XC.

With regards to Scotrail, I have to agree with DK1 that the Inter7City HST fleet could get replaced by class 222's as they like the 220/221 fleet are only mid life through their career. But stranger things have happened in the past with younger fleets than the 220/221/222 fleets. A good example of this is the class 360/2 units where 360204 & 360205 have been scrapped.

The other thing at the moment is the cost of buying new trains. You have to remember that many of the new trains being introduced this year, where ordered back in 2016 - 2020. A good example of this is the class 810 IET units which where ordered in August 2019. They where originally due to enter service by December 2022, but covid has delayed the delivery into service until 2024. That hopefully means that the class 810 units will be completed before the end of this year and tested through that time as well. Depending on when in 2024 the class 810 that is a five year period from the original order to being accepted into service. There is at least three years from the order before the trains are built. Yes, the class 810 is a shortened IET train so there are differences to say the class 800/801/802/803/805/807 trains. But even if you ordered a train identical to a class 800 IET train, you will probably have to wait some years as I suspect that the order for HS2 trains would come before your order.

Other than for HS2, I cannot see any new orders for IET trains happening in the next few years.

 

[YourMum666]

I don’t think HSTs come into it as they are being withdrawn anyway. IETs would obviously be a good thing on any of the XC Voyager operated routes to reduce diesel use under the wires. Trouble is the 220/221 fleet is only mid-life with no obvious other home to go to yet apart from Inter7City routes in Scotland. Even then however 222s are shortly to be freed up too.

surely the 222s could be cascaded to SWR and Chiltern on diesel routes

 

[adamedwards]

Trade off is slower boarding and a lighting if a 222 replaces a 168 on Chiltern as the doors are narrower. Also maintanence is probably higher. I suspect a lot of the 221s and 222s will end up scrapped as no one will want them.

 

[The Planner]

surely the 222s could be cascaded to SWR and Chiltern on diesel routes

Depends on the formations. Chiltern for example can use small multiple sets and double up etc. You can not tinker with 222s in the same way.

 

[tbtc]

surely the 222s could be cascaded to SWR

Which routes?

For a start, the “crumple zones” on the 125mph 222s take up as lot of space (158/159s are 90mph so don’t need these)

Secondly, the corridor connection on 158/159s allows them to run at up to 10x23m long with access to the entire train (so no doubling up of staff required )

The flexible 158/159s can run at anything from 46m long to 230m long and potentially split multiple times en route (e.g. only some carriages on a Waterloo - Exeter service run all the way, some turn back at Salisbury to attach to the next eastbound train, some could portion work to Bristol or Weymouth)

Would you also be putting 222s on the Romsey service? Or keeping a tiny fleet of 158s just for this?

222s won’t get up to 125mph on the SWR routes, so the top speed becomes an expensive luxury that comes at a cost

Cascading long distance high speed stock onto slower routes is a lot more hassle than it spreads (see also “put XC Voyagers on the Stansted service” etc)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would IETs make sense as a suitable replacement to the ageing HST stock on Cross Country ?

Yes, absolutely, 100% definitely. Ideally a dedicated new-build fleet of 7 or 8 car units. However DfT won't be paying for any.

 

[dk1]

surely the 222s could be cascaded to SWR and Chiltern on diesel routes

That's an option maybe for Waterloo-Exeter or medium distance Chiltern but depends how it affects overall seating capacity.

 

[Mag_seven]

The Intercity Express Programme originally encompassed Cross Country but it was quietly dropped and confined to East Coast and GWR.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Would IETs make sense as a suitable replacement to the ageing HST stock on Cross Country ?

100% yes. A lot of XC routes run under the wires for considerable amount of time. Such as Penzance-Plymouth-Bristol-Birmingham-Sheffield-Leeds-York-Newcastle-Edinburgh and beyond running on the ECML north of York, and also bits of the CrossCity line in Birmingham, and Bournemouth-Southampton-Reading-Birmingham-Manchester, running under the WCML north of Coventry and also bits of the GWML (between Reading and near Didcot Parkway). I also would argue that the Bournemouth-Manchester trains should be dual voltage to make use of the third rail between Bournemouth and Basingstoke.

The only problem is that as some people have correctly pointed out (and whilst this is not an issue for the HSTs that are 40 years old), the Voyagers are mid life, and one could rightly question whether withdrawal of 20 year old units would be a sensible use of money or not. However, given what Avanti West Coast, Hull Trains and EMR have done, with replacement of their own 180s (Hull Trains/EMR), 221s (AWC) and 222s (EMR) of a similar age as XC's 220/221s, it might still be workable.

 

[WAO]

My idea for XC would be to cut it back to the southern, unelectrified portion, when York - Leeds is wired. This happened with the now electric Manchester/Liverpool - Scotland services, now accepted. As the MML gets wired, so the electric interchange could move south, perhaps justifying Nunnery - Moorthorpe wiring. I believe that the average jouney length on XC has been quoted as 47 miles so most travellers would be less affected with many gaining. The IET quandary would be whether to use standard length cars or the shorter 810's.

HS2 is a planning blight here as it puts into question the status of the Burton line from Birmingham.

WAO

 

[Bletchleyite]

This happened with the now electric Manchester/Liverpool - Scotland services, now accepted.

I think you misunderstand slightly what happened with these. They aren't long-term established services, they were added, then removed again due to TPE's inability to resource them. They were no use as through services as they're so slow.

 

[swt_passenger]

That's an option maybe for Waterloo-Exeter or medium distance Chiltern but depends how it affects overall seating capacity.

It’s complete overkill to use such 125 mph stock on 90 mph routes with frequent stops. This has been pointed out time and again, and the same point also applies to XC’s secondary midlands routes, those originally transferred from Central trains in 2007.

 

[HSTEd]

Even a 5-car fleet of IEP would be a huge improvement over the status quo.

A 5-car Cl802 manages 327 seats which isnt that far off the capacity of a double Cl220 formation


Uniform fleet of 5-cars would remove the need for much of the doubling up and allow the Voyagers to go for razorblades.

 

[irish_rail]

Even a 5-car fleet of IEP would be a huge improvement over the status quo.

A 5-car Cl802 manages 327 seats which isnt that far off the capacity of a double Cl220 formation


Uniform fleet of 5-cars would remove the need for much of the doubling up and allow the Voyagers to go for razorblades.

Agreed. Would be a big improvement on XC. Could build some new 9 car sets for GWR and GWR give some 5s to XC. Sadly XC never seems to feature in Dft spending despite being a lifeline for so many areas and journies.

 

[YourMum666]

The Intercity Express Programme originally encompassed Cross Country but it was quietly dropped and confined to East Coast and GWR.

due to what reasons did XC not benefit from the IEP?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even a 5-car fleet of IEP would be a huge improvement over the status quo.

A 5-car Cl802 manages 327 seats which isnt that far off the capacity of a double Cl220 formation

Quite shocking how poor the 220's use of space is, but you're not far off right.

OK, 6-car would work then, 7 ideal, 8 overkill.

How's about using those Avanti ones for a self-contained Manchester to Birmingham Intl service if the second Liverpool, as I suspect will happen, is never started? Would free up 22x for strengthening diesel services. You could even have Avanti operate the Euston-Brum semifast as Euston-Brum-Manchester through, giving a direct Manchester to the people of Rugby and Watford and a second one to MKC perhaps at cheaper fares.

 

[MattRat]

I don’t think HSTs come into it as they are being withdrawn anyway. IETs would obviously be a good thing on any of the XC Voyager operated routes to reduce diesel use under the wires. Trouble is the 220/221 fleet is only mid-life with no obvious other home to go to yet apart from Inter7City routes in Scotland. Even then however 222s are shortly to be freed up too.

They could stay with XC to replace the 170s, which could then go elsewhere instead.

 

[Trainbike46]

Even a 5-car fleet of IEP would be a huge improvement over the status quo.

A 5-car Cl802 manages 327 seats which isnt that far off the capacity of a double Cl220 formation


Uniform fleet of 5-cars would remove the need for much of the doubling up and allow the Voyagers to go for razorblades.

This would be very sensible

Though I would include an option in the order to extend the 5-cars to 7 or 9, so that if the passengers go up (I think this would be likely because 80x would really improve the quality for passengers), units can be extended, possibly first to 7 car and then later to 9 car if needed, so that XC can improve capacity without having to double up

They could stay with XC to replace the 170s, which could then go elsewhere instead.

you can't replace 170s on the stansted route because it needs sprinter differentials

and in any case, the 22x are way more expensive than the 170s, so why use them where they aren't necessary?

 

[MattRat]

you can't replace 170s on the stansted route because it needs sprinter differentials

and in any case, the 22x are way more expensive than the 170s, so why use them where they aren't necessary?

More capacity. Plus those 170s could be useful elsewhere, unlike the 22x.

Or are you saying the price difference is so great, you might as well order brand new 170 replacements?

 

[JohnRegular]

If, in spite of the chronic overcrowding on their trains, XC can't get their hands on the 22x that will be going spare, what chance do they have of getting new 80x?

Then again, before the pandemic, SWR managed to order brand new trains to replace brand new trains... so who knows?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Trouble is the 220/221 fleet is only mid-life

You could say the same for the 175s though.

The Intercity Express Programme originally encompassed Cross Country but it was quietly dropped and confined to East Coast and GWR.

That’s very interesting I never knew that.

 

[gg1]

I don’t think HSTs come into it as they are being withdrawn anyway. IETs would obviously be a good thing on any of the XC Voyager operated routes to reduce diesel use under the wires. Trouble is the 220/221 fleet is only mid-life with no obvious other home to go to yet apart from Inter7City routes in Scotland. Even then however 222s are shortly to be freed up too.

If money was available (which sadly it's not) I'd reform the Voyagers into 7 car units, scrap the surplus driving cars and order IETs to make up the shortfall in units.

 

[Trainbike46]

If, in spite of the chronic overcrowding on their trains, XC can't get their hands on the 22x that will be going spare, what chance do they have of getting new 80x?

Then again, before the pandemic, SWR managed to order brand new trains to replace brand new trains... so who knows?

I could see it happening if XC manages to make the case that it would be cheaper, which it could be depending on the lease costs of the 22x, as well as operating cost (primarily diesel could be much cheaper for 80x, but if you could do with less staff that would be another way of saving money)

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Quite shocking how poor the 220's use of space is, but you're not far off right.

OK, 6-car would work then, 7 ideal, 8 overkill.

I feel like this is short sighted, as even double 221s can be extremely busy at times, the HSTs certainly could, and 9 car of the same stock as being discussed here are always very busy between York and Edinburgh. I’d just order 9 car sets and then they could swap around with LNER and GWR’s if ever there needed to be such a scenario.

If money was available (which sadly it's not) I'd reform the Voyagers into 7 car units, scrap the surplus driving cars and order IETs to make up the shortfall in units.

Or whatever Alstom might offer, as shared facilities with those provided for the Voyagers and also maybe any depot used by Avanti’s 390s on route might work well.

 

[JohnRegular]

I could see it happening if XC manages to make the case that it would be cheaper, which it could be depending on the lease costs of the 22x, as well as operating cost (primarily diesel could be much cheaper for 80x, but if you could do with less staff that would be another way of saving money)

You would have to consider that XC could make the same staff cost savings by reforming the voyagers into longer units.

It would be interesting to see these options quantified; of course, they're all going to cost more than 'do nothing'.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Surely Voyagers could operate TFW routes, the Liverpool to Norwich route, Cardiff to Penzance and Portsmouth?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I feel like this is short sighted, as even double 221s can be extremely busy at times, the HSTs certainly could, and 9 car of the same stock as being discussed here are always very busy between York and Edinburgh. I’d just order 9 car sets and then they could swap around with LNER and GWR’s if ever there needed to be such a scenario.

7.802 has *considerably* more seats than an 8-car double 221. Voyagers have incredibly inefficient layouts, there are only seats in about 2/3 of the intermediate vehicles, and not much more than half the end vehicles.

 

[Trainbike46]

You would have to consider that XC could make the same staff cost savings by reforming the voyagers into longer units.

It would be interesting to see these options quantified; of course, they're all going to cost more than 'do nothing'.

absolutely, it would be very interesting to see the costs (both overall and per seat) and benefits of the options:
- do nothing (current 22x fleet, no extras or changes)
- larger 22x fleet by taking ex-avanti 221s and possibly ex-EMR 222s, no reforming the numbers
- Reformed 22x fleet, to eliminate doubling up
- New 80x or FLIRT/SMILE or similar fleet build for XC (initially 5 plus some 7 cars, with options to extend all to 7 and 9 car)
- New 9-car 80x for GWR and LNER, with some of the GWR/LNER 5-cars moving to XC, to eliminate doubling up at GWR and LNER, plus extra new 80x for XC if needed to make up numbers

I have a strong suspicion that the 80x options would come out looking rather attractive, but of course cannot be sure without actually getting prices from the leasing companies