Possible XC Voyager replacements.

[Joseph T]

If XC were to replace their Voyagers right now, what could be their best option(s)?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Been rehashed and done to death endlessly. Take a look at people's ideas in these threads, perhaps.

XC desperately needs more rolling stock

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/10x-class-221-for-grand-central.249024/ The new timetable has really shown up XC for its need to get more stock. The 1127 Plymouth to Edinburgh is formed a 4 car and is ridiculously overcrowded days after day. Surely this service...

www.railforums.co.uk

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...apacity-on-cross-country-tpe-scotland.257979/

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/an-idea-for-improving-cross-country.258303/

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/crosscountry-voyagers-future-replacement.172999/

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/future-cross-country-fleet.229079/

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-new-trains-to-replace-their-voyagers.209062/

Cross country new traction

With the decarbonisation agenda, do we expect a big announcement soon on a new fleet to replace the voyagers at CrossCountry. With Bi-Mode 800s available, it would make sense to have a comparable make up with some 9 cars and 5 cars that split to continue beyond Edinburgh and Bristol, etc. COP26...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[D365]

Class 810. Easy, right..?

 

[Pete_uk]

Let's see what the LNER CAFs are like first...

 

[Joseph T]

Been rehashed and done to death endlessly. Take a look at people's ideas in these threads, perhaps.

XC desperately needs more rolling stock

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/10x-class-221-for-grand-central.249024/ The new timetable has really shown up XC for its need to get more stock. The 1127 Plymouth to Edinburgh is formed a 4 car and is ridiculously overcrowded days after day. Surely this service...

www.railforums.co.uk

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...apacity-on-cross-country-tpe-scotland.257979/

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/an-idea-for-improving-cross-country.258303/

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/crosscountry-voyagers-future-replacement.172999/

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/future-cross-country-fleet.229079/

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-new-trains-to-replace-their-voyagers.209062/

Cross country new traction

With the decarbonisation agenda, do we expect a big announcement soon on a new fleet to replace the voyagers at CrossCountry. With Bi-Mode 800s available, it would make sense to have a comparable make up with some 9 cars and 5 cars that split to continue beyond Edinburgh and Bristol, etc. COP26...

www.railforums.co.uk

Responding to a few threads here (namely the fourth one): Could their replacements be tri mode to use third rail instead of spending more to install overhead wires for third rail routes? If their replacements were IETs, could they also use third rail like the SE 395s?

 

[cslusarc]

The Voyageurs are probably not leaving XC before 2035 or so unless they are exported. By that time additional electrification should release some Class 802s from HT, GWR and/or TPE.

 

[quailking14]

I once thought of XC Voyagers being replaced with Stadler Smiles or Alstom Coradias adapted to UK loading gauge. Does this sound feasible?

 

[Trainbike46]

I once thought of XC Voyagers being replaced with Stadler Smiles or Alstom Coradias adapted to UK loading gauge. Does this sound feasible?

Stadler offered a FLIRT/SMILE derivative for the UK for the EMR intercity tender (they obviously didn't win), so it certainly is feasible for Stadler to build a 125 m/h IC for XC - the issue is that without the DfT deciding what XC should be, and ordering rolling stock appropriate for that

 

[RobShipway]

Not sure how you can have replacements for trains not received yet? By that I mean the 7 AWC class 221 units as per thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/7-extra-voyagers-for-cross-country.254798/ that will pass to XC once the class 805/807 units have started services with AWC.

If there was to be a replacement that I would suspect, depending on how much we have in OHLE around the country for any units to be tri-mode, however that does not mean that they would have third rail capability. By tri-mode it would be much the same as the CAF units to be introduced by LNER, where when not on OHLE, they would operate with battery-diesel power.

But it would be a case of seeing what is on the market at the time and what is needed by XC. With only the route to Bournemouth requiring third rail, there is no point in having a fleet of trains carrying extra weight when they are doing a service say from Manchester to Bristol or Paignton as an example, where the 3rd rail equipment would not be used. That is unless you are re - introducing XC services to the likes of Brighton, Eastbourne and Dover? I cannot see this happening as I don't believe there is the demand or the paths available. Besides certainly from Brighton, it would be quicker to travel up on a Thameslink service to London and then change at St Pancras/Kings Cross for either EMR or LNER services north or use Southern service to London Victoria and get the Victoria line to London Euston.

But as @TT-ONR-NRN says in his post above, as to what replaces Voyagers has pretty much been done to death.

 

[cslusarc]

Are forum members expecting XC to return its Voyageurs to their lessor before the fleet becomes life-expired in the 2030s? If they are retired early, would they be scrapped or exported?

 

[JonathanH]

Are forum members expecting XC to return its Voyageurs to their lessor before the fleet becomes life-expired in the 2030s?

The general sentiment is that forum members would like them to be returned by XC to allow more capacitous rolling stock, but there is a reasonable expectation that they won't be due to funding issues and uncertainty about whether there will be electrification of their routes.

If they are retired early, would they be scrapped or exported?

It is fairly unlikely that they will be retired early for the reasons noted above.

 

[quailking14]

I do imagine that the voyagers could be converted into bi-mode trains if electrification projects were to be ramped up. However, their age and capacity issues I think will lead to their retirement by 2040. However, I do think some could be converted into new measurement trains to be used by network rail.

I do see LNER's new tri-mode trains being designed by CAF as a potential voyager replacement. But by the time voyagers are retired, new trains which haven't even been designed yet might have entered the market, so who knows

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It is fairly unlikely that they will be retired early for the reasons noted above.

That would be the reason he said if, no?

 

[QSK19]

I once thought of XC Voyagers being replaced with Stadler Smiles or Alstom Coradias adapted to UK loading gauge. Does this sound feasible?

So, the 180s have a home to go to once GC are eventually done with them

 

[swt_passenger]

I do imagine that the voyagers could be converted into bi-mode trains if electrification projects were to be ramped up. However, their age and capacity issues I think will lead to their retirement by 2040. However, I do think some could be converted into new measurement trains to be used by network rail.

Conversion of 220/221 to bimode has been ruled out by the manufacturer. Far too expensive, and also insufficient remaining service life.

 

[Mark J]

What about the Class 222 being returned by East Midlands Railway, when they receive their Class 810 units.

Failing that, why not give XC some brand new Class 810s to begin with.

 

[QSK19]

What about the Class 222 being returned by East Midlands Railway, when they receive their Class 810 units.

It’s been mentioned to death that 222s won’t be going over to XC: it would create a micro fleet of another class (DfT would never fund all 27); and they’re incompatible with 220s/221s. Add to that having to train staff on another class type.

Failing that, why not give XC some brand new Class 810s to begin with.

The DfT would never fund brand new trains - the very best XC could do was to get 7 extra 221s.

 

[RobShipway]

What about the Class 222 being returned by East Midlands Railway, when they receive their Class 810 units.

Failing that, why not give XC some brand new Class 810s to begin with.

It’s been mentioned to death that 222s won’t be going over to XC: it would create a micro fleet of another class (DfT would never fund all 27); and they’re incompatible with 220s/221s. Add to that having to train staff on another class type.

It would be more likely that the class 222's will go to Scotraill to replace the IC125 fleet, but like the class 222 units going to XC I think has also been mentioned to death.

The DfT would never fund brand new trains - the very best XC could do was to get 7 extra 221s.

When it comes to fleet replacement, I do believe that it is down to the economy of the country, which at the moment despite what the current Government may say is not that good. So any replacements would be on the basis if the stock being used by a TOC is at the point of being life expired or urgently needing to be withdrawn due to mechanical issues that cannot be repaired. With XC have trains that are no more than 24 years old currently in the shape of the 220's and 23 years in the shape of the 221's, then I cannot see them getting any new trains for the next 25 years to be honest. If the class 220/221 are taken out of service in 2049, then they would have done the same amount of time in service as the MK3 coaching stock has done up to this year which is 49 years.

People seems to forget that there is no actual age when units or coaching stock need to be replaced and a good example of that is where there is still British Rail MK1, MK2 and MK3 stock still in service not just in the UK but around the world.

 

[Mark J]

It would be more likely that the class 222's will go to Scotraill to replace the IC125 fleet, but like the class 222 units going to XC I think has also been mentioned to death.


When it comes to fleet replacement, I do believe that it is down to the economy of the country, which at the moment despite what the current Government may say is not that good. So any replacements would be on the basis if the stock being used by a TOC is at the point of being life expired or urgently needing to be withdrawn due to mechanical issues that cannot be repaired. With XC have trains that are no more than 24 years old currently in the shape of the 220's and 23 years in the shape of the 221's, then I cannot see them getting any new trains for the next 25 years to be honest. If the class 220/221 are taken out of service in 2049, then they would have done the same amount of time in service as the MK3 coaching stock has done up to this year which is 49 years.

People seems to forget that there is no actual age when units or coaching stock need to be replaced and a good example of that is where there is still British Rail MK1, MK2 and MK3 stock still in service not just in the UK but around the world.

Whatever happens, XC certainly needs some kind of 'fix'.

The current status quo of short trains and overcrowding cannot continue indefinitely, without hemorrhaging customers in the longer term. Even now, I (and I know others) avoid XC services where possible.

 

[GoneSouth]

Failing that, why not give XC some brand new Class 810s to begin with.

Well if the interior is as uncomfortable in terms of seating and lighting as the GWR 80x, and the whole train vibrates and shudders at anything over 40mph, you can keep them, we’ll stick with the voyagers. Like the interior or not, it’s fair to say they glide over good fast track much more smoothly than any of the IEP trains do.

They’re getting a refurb anyway so they aren’t going anywhere soon.

 

[Bill57p9]

Right now there are 13 class 68+Mk5a sets sat in storage.
For all the same reasons as the 222s, it just isn’t going to happen.

Since XC isn’t in a place to get AWCs surplus Voyagers I simply cannot see any change coming to their stock portfolio.

 

[D365]

People seems to forget that there is no actual age when units or coaching stock need to be replaced and a good example of that is where there is still British Rail MK1, MK2 and MK3 stock still in service not just in the UK but around the world.

But barring a few specific instances, none of these are seeing intensive ”frontline” use.

 

[Technologist]

It would be more likely that the class 222's will go to Scotraill to replace the IC125 fleet, but like the class 222 units going to XC I think has also been mentioned to death.


When it comes to fleet replacement, I do believe that it is down to the economy of the country, which at the moment despite what the current Government may say is not that good. So any replacements would be on the basis if the stock being used by a TOC is at the point of being life expired or urgently needing to be withdrawn due to mechanical issues that cannot be repaired. With XC have trains that are no more than 24 years old currently in the shape of the 220's and 23 years in the shape of the 221's, then I cannot see them getting any new trains for the next 25 years to be honest. If the class 220/221 are taken out of service in 2049, then they would have done the same amount of time in service as the MK3 coaching stock has done up to this year which is 49 years.

People seems to forget that there is no actual age when units or coaching stock need to be replaced and a good example of that is where there is still British Rail MK1, MK2 and MK3 stock still in service not just in the UK but around the world.

The issue with those trains are that they are diesel, they will have to go before then irrespective of their age.

I did some calcs based on the Hitachi IET platform and came to the conclusion that bi mode battery trains will be a lot more capable than most people expect.

For example a battery train could get from Market Harborough to Sheffield and back with 125 mph running provided it could charge while stationary at the main stations (no need to increase stopping time). Once you factor in improvements in aero-dynamics (UK trains are not world leading in aerodynamics and in general aero enhancements stop earlier on existing designs which have abundant energy from OHLE and diesel vs a more energy limited battery train) battery technology and weight reduction in the non battery portions of the train which can then be put into batteries ranges of 150-200 miles off the wire are possible.

Thus for the XC route if the train had 25KV, 3rd rail and batteries it could bridge the gap between Didcot and Birmingham particularly if it could grab top ups at the stations. Some of the Derby to Sheffield electrification might be needed as I think the Coventry to Birmingham section (33 minutes + dwell in Brum) is a little marginal to fully charge the train to get it past Sheffield. The proposed electrification North of Edinburgh is likely enough to get the train to Aberdeen and back.

The bit that is missing for Cross Country is how to get a battery train to Penzance, Bristol to Exeter electrification would do it.

 

[RobShipway]

The issue with those trains are that they are diesel, they will have to go before then irrespective of their age.

I did some calcs based on the Hitachi IET platform and came to the conclusion that bi mode battery trains will be a lot more capable than most people expect.

For example a battery train could get from Market Harborough to Sheffield and back with 125 mph running provided it could charge while stationary at the main stations (no need to increase stopping time). Once you factor in improvements in aero-dynamics (UK trains are not world leading in aerodynamics and in general aero enhancements stop earlier on existing designs which have abundant energy from OHLE and diesel vs a more energy limited battery train) battery technology and weight reduction in the non battery portions of the train which can then be put into batteries ranges of 150-200 miles off the wire are possible.

Thus for the XC route if the train had 25KV, 3rd rail and batteries it could bridge the gap between Didcot and Birmingham particularly if it could grab top ups at the stations. Some of the Derby to Sheffield electrification might be needed as I think the Coventry to Birmingham section (33 minutes + dwell in Brum) is a little marginal to fully charge the train to get it past Sheffield. The proposed electrification North of Edinburgh is likely enough to get the train to Aberdeen and back.

The bit that is missing for Cross Country is how to get a battery train to Penzance, Bristol to Exeter electrification would do it.

Since the only third rail destinations are Bournemouth and Southampton, why would any new trains need 3rd rail?

As I pointed out in my earlier post, unless XC are going to extend the routes back to serving the likes of Brighton, Eastbourne and Dover, then there is no need for any new XC trains to be having 3rd rail equipment onboard.

What is needed at Bournemouth and Southampton, is charging points in any sidings.

But barring a few specific instances, none of these are seeing intensive ”frontline” use.

Not now, but they did in their time.

 

[D365]

Not now, but they did in their time.

In what time?

 

[RobShipway]

In what time?

The Mk1 stock through the 1960's to the 1990's. Mk2 stock from 1964 to early 2000's and Mk3 stock from 1975 up to 2020 accept for those that have since been refurbished i.e. Chiltern, GWR and Scotrail which are still i service.

You have to remember that in the past there was many carriage hauled trains that are now done with multiple units, such as the services from London Waterloo to Salisbury and Exeter. There is also the point that prior to the HST sets, Penolino's etc.... All trains on the West and East Coast mainline where locomotive hauled, whether it was electric or diesel locomotives. Some of those locomotives are now doing freight trains such as the class 47 and class 90 locomotives.

Yes, many of the Mk1 and Mk2 coaches have gone on to either preserved railway lines or private operators. But I know many of those have had to be rebuilt in many cases, as the wear and tear that they have taken, plus over the years how they where stored have caused many to corrode.

But I guess someone like you @D365 is to young to remember loco hauled stock of the 1970's where you would have trains hauled on the East Mainline by the likes of the class 55 Deltic, the class 81 and 87 running loco hauled trains up the West Coast Mainline and the likes of the class 35, 37 & 52 hauling coaching stock along the Great Western mainline.

 

[sprinterguy]

When it comes to fleet replacement, I do believe that it is down to the economy of the country, which at the moment despite what the current Government may say is not that good. So any replacements would be on the basis if the stock being used by a TOC is at the point of being life expired or urgently needing to be withdrawn due to mechanical issues that cannot be repaired. With XC have trains that are no more than 24 years old currently in the shape of the 220's and 23 years in the shape of the 221's, then I cannot see them getting any new trains for the next 25 years to be honest. If the class 220/221 are taken out of service in 2049, then they would have done the same amount of time in service as the MK3 coaching stock has done up to this year which is 49 years.

People seems to forget that there is no actual age when units or coaching stock need to be replaced and a good example of that is where there is still British Rail MK1, MK2 and MK3 stock still in service not just in the UK but around the world.

And conversely, many fleets have historically survived no longer than 20-30 years: It was quite common for various BR modernisation plan diesel loco, coaching stock and multiple unit types.

More recently, including fleets that have been replaced on their initial routes but not necessarily withdrawn, you can look to:

TPE 158s by 185s (15 years)
AWC 221s by 805s (23 years)
EMR 222s by 810s (21 years)
WMT 350/2s by 730s (15 years)
GA 360s by 720s (18 years)
GA 379s by 745s (11 years)

Note that this list includes both of the other comparable 22x fleets.

The Mk1 stock through the 1960's to the 1990's. Mk2 stock from 1964 to early 2000's and Mk3 stock from 1975 up to 2020 accept for those that have since been refurbished i.e. Chiltern, GWR and Scotrail which are still i service.

You have to remember that in the past there was many carriage hauled trains that are now done with multiple units, such as the services from London Waterloo to Salisbury and Exeter. There is also the point that prior to the HST sets, Penolino's etc.... All trains on the West and East Coast mainline where locomotive hauled, whether it was electric or diesel locomotives. Some of those locomotives are now doing freight trains such as the class 47 and class 90 locomotives.

Yes, many of the Mk1 and Mk2 coaches have gone on to either preserved railway lines or private operators. But I know many of those have had to be rebuilt in many cases, as the wear and tear that they have taken, plus over the years how they where stored have caused many to corrode.

But I guess someone like you @D365 is to young to remember loco hauled stock of the 1970's where you would have trains hauled on the East Mainline by the likes of the class 55 Deltic, the class 81 and 87 running loco hauled trains up the West Coast Mainline and the likes of the class 35, 37 & 52 hauling coaching stock along the Great Western mainline.

You appear to have conflated fleets in squadron service with the last surviving remnants some decades later: The equivalent in your 2049 scenario would be perhaps five Voyagers surviving in service with, say, an Open Access operator, with the rest having been withdrawn many years previously. Certainly, based on historic precedent they would not remain in operation on the services they were designed and built for, as BR frequently replaced and cascaded rolling stock from frontline long distance services after comparatively few years.

Train fleets over the years have been replaced as and when commercial, economic or technological considerations have overtaken them (e.g electrification, accelerated schedules or increased speeds, introduction of air conditioning). Bi-mode capability has superseded the technological and environmental limitations of the diesel only Voyagers, and it is well established that they offer inadequate capacity as single units on the routes that they serve, at a time when the other comparable long distance DMU fleets from the same stable are being replaced by higher capacity, lower emission equivalents.

You are quite right that the deciding factor on any form of replacement is financial, though, and hence unlikely to happen.

 

[Technologist]

Since the only third rail destinations are Bournemouth and Southampton, why would any new trains need 3rd rail?

As I pointed out in my earlier post, unless XC are going to extend the routes back to serving the likes of Brighton, Eastbourne and Dover, then there is no need for any new XC trains to be having 3rd rail equipment onboard.

What is needed at Bournemouth and Southampton, is charging points in any sidings.


Not now, but they did in their time.

The reason why you would want 3rd rail is Bournemouth, I might do a detailed estimate of state of charge for the batteries but I suspect that to get from Bournemouth via Southampton, Reading etc to the 25KV lines at Coventry will be pushing it even with a top up charge at every station along the way, its 170 miles.

While the train can probably do the distance it it's batteries would be at a very low SOC by the time they get to Coventry with then 30 minutes to charge between Coventry and Birmingham, plus dwell time in the the station. I have assumed that max charge rate can be supported from OHLE which could be up to 6MW peak per train plus drive current which might result in some reinforcement if there are enough trains charging on the track.

However by the time the train exits Birmingham it probably won't be back at 100% SOC, so there might be limitation as to where it goes next. Hence why it might be worth having a 3rd rail pick up so that by the time the train leaves the 3rd rail network at Abingdon it's at 100% charge.

However having looked at Cross Country time tables it looks like even the Penzance to Glasgow train could make it on batteries as the trains spend so long at the stations the battery could be topped up enough to make the journey between the none electrified bits!

Plymouth - 11 mins
Bristol TM - 4 mins
Cheltenham - 13 mins
Birmingham NS - 26 mins (!)
Derby - 6 mins
Sheffield - 5 mins
Edinburgh - 16 mins

Why do XC services wait so long at stations?

Planning to make a trip from the South-West up to the Midlands in a few weeks, I had a look at real-time trains to see where the train would go, and I was amazed at how wasteful Cross-Country trains are with their timetables. Look, for example, at this...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[JonathanH]

The current status quo of short trains and overcrowding cannot continue indefinitely, without hemorrhaging customers in the longer term.

Unfortunately, the past 20 years shows there is nothing to stop it continuing indefinitely. Passengers have come and gone over that time.

And conversely, many fleets have historically survived no longer than 20-30 years: It was quite common for various BR modernisation plan diesel loco, coaching stock and multiple unit types.

Usually those fleets have become obsolete, or are needed elsewhere. Rolling stock design has not really moved on as quickly since 2003 as it did prior to that, and the Voyagers can't really go anywhere else.

It is notable that the WC Voyagers are being replaced after 20 years, but XC can't justify the funding for more than 35% of the 20 units coming out of service. If that is the case, it is really difficult to see how it could justify new build rolling stock, and even less new build rolling stock offering a capacity uplift.

Train fleets over the years have been replaced as and when commercial, economic or technological considerations have overtaken them (e.g electrification, accelerated schedules or increased speeds, introduction of air conditioning).

Barely any of that is applicable to the Voyagers though.

Bi-mode capability has superseded the technological and environmental limitations of the diesel only Voyagers,

There is still a large part of their network which doesn't have overhead wires.

it is well established that they offer inadequate capacity as single units on the routes that they serve, at a time when the other comparable long distance DMU fleets from the same stable are being replaced by higher capacity, lower emission equivalents.

It is also well established that that capacity issues are not a particular concern of the people pulling the strings. How does the loading factor for XC compare with other operators?

You are quite right that the deciding factor on any form of replacement is financial, though, and hence unlikely to happen.

Yes.

 

[sprinterguy]

Usually those fleets have become obsolete, or are needed elsewhere. Rolling stock design has not really moved on as quickly since 2003 as it did prior to that, and the Voyagers can't really go anywhere else.

There doesn't need to be anywhere else for the Voyagers to go: They've served their purpose and been overtaken by bi-mode capability and passenger growth (not that either of those latter things are likely to be relevant to the Government holding the purse strings as you say, mind).

It is notable that the WC Voyagers are being replaced after 20 years, but XC can't justify the funding for more than 35% of the 20 units coming out of service. If that is the case, it is really difficult to see how it could justify new build rolling stock, and even less new build rolling stock offering a capacity uplift.

I suppose it depends on what the leasing and maintenance costs would be for, say, 58 x 5-car class 810s (290 vehicles, 232 engines) against 65 x 4 and 5-car 220/221 (287 vehicles, 287 engines). Admittedly from what I read, leasing and maintenance on a Hitachi fleet probably wouldn't work out cheaper than whatever the current arrangements are.

There is still a large part of their network which doesn't have overhead wires.

And 810s in particular could match existing Voyager timings on diesel while being able to operate from the overhead wires for over 8,000 train miles each day, between Edinburgh/Newcastle and York/Doncaster or Manchester and Birmingham/Coventry, with commensurate savings on fuel use.

If the Manchester to Bournemouth and Bristol services could run on electric power until clear of Birmingham New Street then that would represent over 50% of XC's long distance services through that station running on electric power.

However having looked at Cross Country time tables it looks like even the Penzance to Glasgow train could make it on batteries as the trains spend so long at the stations the battery could be topped up enough to make the journey between the none electrified bits!

Plymouth - 11 mins
Bristol TM - 4 mins
Cheltenham - 13 mins
Birmingham NS - 26 mins (!)
Derby - 6 mins
Sheffield - 5 mins
Edinburgh - 16 mins

Why do XC services wait so long at stations?

Planning to make a trip from the South-West up to the Midlands in a few weeks, I had a look at real-time trains to see where the train would go, and I was amazed at how wasteful Cross-Country trains are with their timetables. Look, for example, at this...

www.railforums.co.uk

That's not a standard dwell time at Birmingham New Street, admittedly - it's noted in that thread that that was due to a diversion for engineering work. The norm is 5-6 minutes southbound and 8 minutes northbound on the NE-SW route. Similarly, Cheltenham Spa is normally 2 minutes.