Should AT300's be ordered for CrossCountry and East Midlands Trains

[Emblematic]

As regards the MML, unless there is a commitment to wire Corby to Syston via Manton, Trent to Chesterfield, Trowell to Mansfield Jct, Toton to Attenborough Jct, Sheet Stores to Stenson and back to Derby, and finally Chesterfield North to Sheffield via Beighton, then Bi-mode is the only option unless you go down the thunderbird route.
Remember that emergency diversions may be required at any time, and Bi-mode is the best option to get trains running again with the least disruption.

However no other line gets bi-modes just for diversions and disruptions, so it's hard to see why that would be a factor for the MML alone.

 

[jimm]

Dumping the entire 22x fleet on XC might appear to make sense but the economics of running those trains isn't going to be ideal. DMUs make sense when trains are short, since the extra running costs compared to electric are low enough to not justify the capital expenditure of electrification. Satisfying XC's capacity demands for the future would mean running 22x rakes as long as the infrastructure would allow (e.g. 4+5 or 5+5) but then the extra operational cost of diesel is significantly higher than before. Since the number of seats on board a 22x set is also lower than it should be (a 4 car 220 has the seating capacity of a 3 car 158) the ability to earn ticket revenue to pay off these higher running costs is also limited.

And the economics of buying lots of new bi-mode trains, that will still be running many a mile on diesel for many a year, are going to look better, are they? And buying lots of new trains in the context of a TOC that apparently does not make any money, despite charging, as Xavi notes, fares that are fairly eye-watering much of the time.

Yes, we all know the 220's seating capacity is pathetic. But two sets with pathetic seating capacity running paired up is better than one on its own, should some 222s arrive to increase the stock available to XC. The 222s are not quite so pathetic, XC would not require as much first class as EMT and you could perfectly well shuffle formations around to provide some nine-car sets again if that was what was wanted.

An AT300 fleet would be able to use the overhead electric wires that already exist between Glasgow and Doncaster, while being able to carry more passengers. The MML electrification will add Derby to Sheffield, TP will add Leeds to York and another thread here says that a parliamentary answer suggests that Sheffield to Leeds and Doncaster will likely be the only extra wiring scheme approved for CP6. Therefore, there will be wires for a considerable proportion of the entire XC route,

And there is all of one XC train per hour north of Newcastle, which is hardly a compelling argument, however many miles it involves
Derby-Sheffield will likely be the last bit of MML to go live, in late 2023, so no electric running for a very long time here.
Half the XC service between Sheffield and York goes via Doncaster, so TPE wires do nothing for the services via Doncaster and the trains via Leeds will still need diesel anyway to get between Leeds and Sheffield.
Any Yorkshire infill scheme will presumably follow completion of TPE and MML wires, so looks likely to be 2024 or so - again no benefit whatever here from electric traction for a very long time.
Therefore there will not be any wires for another considerable proportion of the entire XC network, even after those schemes are completed.

Sounds as though it's a done deal, so 222s will augment XC after release from MML and journey times will remain the same as present (unchanged since after Operation Princess). The completed Reading and Norton Bridge schemes plus Filton Bank and Derby in the pipeline will help the time-keeping statistics.

I'm not saying it's a done deal but logic says that new trains should go where they are actually needed and that has to be the Midland Main Line, where we know there is a commitment to electrify, which changes the traction needs of the route.

There is no such commitment on XC routes, so diesel traction will remain fundamental to its operations for what looks like getting on for another 10 years at least and 222s leaving EMT offer a clear way to increase capacity in the meantime, albeit XC could probably do with a good few of them right now, rather than in several years' time.

 

[NotATrainspott]

And the economics of buying lots of new bi-mode trains, that will still be running many a mile on diesel for many a year, are going to look better, are they? And buying lots of new trains in the context of a TOC that apparently does not make any money, despite charging, as Xavi notes, fares that are fairly eye-watering much of the time.

GWR's fleet of AT300s for the South West will use electric power for the first 30 minutes of their >5 hour journeys. Yes, some of the case for the new trains is that the 22xs wouldn't be available in time but I remember a lot of posts on this forum explaining that even the longest possible 22x rake would be a waste of time on Cornwall runs.

The high fares are because their trains are small and otherwise full, so decreasing fares would not increase revenues. If they have the opportunity to increase the passenger capacity of their services dramatically, the achievable revenue will increase as well. Then, the operational cost of a longer 22x rake would scale linearly as it gets longer, whereas the same train length of bi-mode AT300 would cost less due to the ability to use the overhead wires on the fastest and most power-hungry sections of the line. FirstGroup ordered AT300s for TP North not just because they had an option for them but because they would be the best way to increase profits.

Yes, we all know the 220's seating capacity is pathetic. But two sets with pathetic seating capacity running paired up is better than one on its own, should some 222s arrive to increase the stock available to XC. The 222s are not quite so pathetic, XC would not require as much first class as EMT and you could perfectly well shuffle formations around to provide some nine-car sets again if that was what was wanted.

Yes, that would be true to an extent. However, if given the chance, I would expect XC to continue using five car sets so that it isn't necessary to over-provide capacity at the ends of the network. Therefore, the seating capacity of the trains isn't likely to be able to increase significantly above what it is at the moment.

And there is all of one XC train per hour north of Newcastle, which is hardly a compelling argument, however many miles it involves
Derby-Sheffield will likely be the last bit of MML to go live, in late 2023, so no electric running for a very long time here.
Half the XC service between Sheffield and York goes via Doncaster, so TPE wires do nothing for the services via Doncaster and the trains via Leeds will still need diesel anyway to get between Leeds and Sheffield.
Any Yorkshire infill scheme will presumably follow completion of TPE and MML wires, so looks likely to be 2024 or so - again no benefit whatever here from electric traction for a very long time.
Therefore there will not be any wires for another considerable proportion of the entire XC network, even after those schemes are completed.

I'm not saying it's a done deal but logic says that new trains should go where they are actually needed and that has to be the Midland Main Line, where we know there is a commitment to electrify, which changes the traction needs of the route.

There is no such commitment on XC routes, so diesel traction will remain fundamental to its operations for what looks like getting on for another 10 years at least and 222s leaving EMT offer a clear way to increase capacity in the meantime, albeit XC could probably do with a good few of them right now, rather than in several years' time.

I'm suggesting that bi-modes for XC would happen concurrently with new electric stock for the MML. If anything, the most effective way to do it would be to build bi-modes first with the intention of replacing the HSTs on both routes and sorting out the short-term capacity requirements, and then start building electric-only variants in time for the MML electrification milestones. The MML bi-mode HST replacement sets would cascade to XC when no longer required.

My point is that the long term economics of using the 22x fleet for XC aren't as sound as they might appear given the changes that are to be expected on the rail network in the medium-long term. With the current rate of growth and the suppressed demand on XC due to overcrowding I would be very surprised if HS2 Phase 2 completely got rid of the need to have proper InterCity trains on the XC network. If there is a possibility that the 22xs would need to be replaced on XC duties before electrification has stretched enough to make bi-modes redundant, then it may well be the case that it would be more efficient to buy more AT300s now-ish while the production facilities are available and the design complies with all the relevant standards.

If the ROSCOs find some way of de-tuning the 22x fleet there would be no wastage, as de-tuned 22xs would remove the need to order some regional diesel trains in the short-medium term to cope with yet more increases in passenger demand. If that weren't possible, then the trains would most likely have reached the end of their economic life. It would be a waste but it would be the consequence of a fundamental change in strategy towards electrification. The electrification strategy will deliver more than enough benefits in the future to outweigh any possible waste of the 22x fleet.

 

[The Ham]

The 222's aren't going to be available until after 2020, as such they are not going to be of much if any use until about the mid 2020's. By which time their regional DMU's will be getting rather long in the tooth and so may look to do a unit swap with someone like Chiltern who has newer regional units but run a semi intercity service to end up with better suited units on both franchises.

The thing a lot of people forget when there is talk of where trains should go in the future is that passenger numbers are growing. Yes HS2 will reduce numbers quite a bit, but that will mean that the better acceleration of the 22x's will mean that stopping at more stations will be needed. If you are able to combine that with little or no increase in journey time then all the better.

That is why I think that XC wise to consider getting 30 bimodal units which are 7 or 8 coaches long, which replace the 221's and HST's. Then reform the 220's so that they have half as many units but they are 6 coaches long and use them and the 221's to run the services currently run by the 220's (40 units with 5 or 6 coaches vs 34 with 4 coaches).

In doing so it would significantly increase the capacity of XC without having to have lots of doubled up units with all the extra staff required to do that (I.e. if nothing else having 2 catering crew on a service with the driver in the front unit and the guard in the rear unit).

It is unlikely that there would ever be the need for 4 coach intercity units going forward, so the loss of that wouldn't be a problem.

Another thing that can be overlooked is that the more modern the train the more likely that maintenance has been designed in, meaning that maintenance processes are simpler. This means that costs are reduced, which could mean that the overall cost is not too dissimilar to older units.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Do any of the 220s, 221s and 222s need all their engines running to keep to booked times either on their existing routes or some of the routes people are proposing moving them to?

 

[edwin_m]

As regards the MML, unless there is a commitment to wire Corby to Syston via Manton, Trent to Chesterfield, Trowell to Mansfield Jct, Toton to Attenborough Jct, Sheet Stores to Stenson and back to Derby, and finally Chesterfield North to Sheffield via Beighton, then Bi-mode is the only option unless you go down the thunderbird route.
Remember that emergency diversions may be required at any time, and Bi-mode is the best option to get trains running again with the least disruption.

MML services on all those are either a few trains a day, essentially for stock positioning, or diversionary use only. As I posted above, there are other alternatives and buying braces as well as the belt isn't always affordable.

 

[Kneedown]

However no other line gets bi-modes just for diversions and disruptions, so it's hard to see why that would be a factor for the MML alone.

Because a unit will find itself on the above mentioned stretches of line quite frequently. Emergency diversions are only an example. Planned engineering work is another.
The MML has many diversionary routes along it's length, all of which are utilised frequently for one reason or another. It would be madness to not have Bi-mode until such time as those routes are wired.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How quickly could the "diesel engine modules" be installed if it was known that a diversionary route might be used for long enough that has no overhead?

 

[Hairy Bear]

Do any of the 220s, 221s and 222s need all their engines running to keep to booked times either on their existing routes or some of the routes people are proposing moving them to?

No they can run with one engine out and still maintain the current timings generally. But the engine under each coach needs to run to provide full air-con and battery charging as xc found its not a long term solution. But with so many running with traction faults you need all engines running at the start of day to give good odd's of making it to the end of day.
They are not that good design, dont be fooled by the mpc being quoted , they have some serious shortfalls in design and running.

 

[edwin_m]

No they can run with one engine out and still maintain the current timings generally. But the engine under each coach needs to run to provide full air-con and battery charging as xc found its not a long term solution. But with so many running with traction faults you need all engines running at the start of day to give good odd's of making it to the end of day.
They are not that good design, dont be fooled by the mpc being quoted , they have some serious shortfalls in design and running.

The bi-modes won't have diesel engines in the end cars so a 5-car bi-mode on diesel is roughly equivalent to a 221 with two engines out. Maybe slightly better as I think they are a bit lighter and the engine may have a bit more power.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And there is all of one XC train per hour north of Newcastle, which is hardly a compelling argument, however many miles it involves

Half the XC service between Sheffield and York goes via Doncaster, so TPE wires do nothing for the services via Doncaster

Number of trains per hour that can be converted from diesel to electric is a factor in making the case for electrification, but for bi-modes the key issue is how much of their time they will spend running under the wires. Someone with more time than I have can do some analysis of the mileages of the main Voyager routes and I think you'll find the proportion under the wires is quite high for some of them. A partial replacement would also be possible, concentrating the bi-modes on the routes with the highest proportion of electrification and perhaps even swapping around some of the destinations to optimise this.

While Transpennine electrification doesn't affect the route via Doncaster, the line from Doncaster to York is already electrified so whichever route is taken the proportion under the wires is similar.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The bi-modes won't have diesel engines in the end cars so a 5-car bi-mode on diesel is roughly equivalent to a 221 with two engines out. Maybe slightly better as I think they are a bit lighter and the engine may have a bit more power.

Power to weight is roughly between an IC125 2+8 and 2+9 formation unless derated as per IEP. Engines are 750kW nominal and one would assume XC sets would remain fully rated.

The problem is AT300 sets won't do 125mph on diesel power, so unless every 125mph section of the XC core is electrified, pathing difficulties arise.

 

[TheKnightWho]

No they can run with one engine out and still maintain the current timings generally. But the engine under each coach needs to run to provide full air-con and battery charging as xc found its not a long term solution. But with so many running with traction faults you need all engines running at the start of day to give good odd's of making it to the end of day.
They are not that good design, dont be fooled by the mpc being quoted , they have some serious shortfalls in design and running.

Slightly unrelated, but they're actually very pleasant trains to ride in when the engine isn't roaring away underneath you!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Power to weight is roughly between an IC125 2+8 and 2+9 formation unless derated as per IEP. Engines are 750kW nominal and one would assume XC sets would remain fully rated.

The problem is AT300 sets won't do 125mph on diesel power, so unless every 125mph section of the XC core is electrified, pathing difficulties arise.

I thought class 802s could manage 125mph on diesel, and that it was only the class 800s that had the 100mph limitation?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I thought class 802s could manage 125mph on diesel, and that it was only the class 800s that had the 100mph limitation?

It wasn't the plan, but it has maybe changed. There was no 125mph running on diesel required for either GWR or Hull Trains, and it shouldn't be an issue for TransPennine, bearing in mind the electrified routes they get post 2021.

 

[tbtc]

Part of the problem is that the Voyager overtakes the "fast" Northern service that goes via Barnsley, so travellers from Sheffield to Wakefield or Leeds will probably go for the faster train despite it being crowded and less comfortable (Northern 158s may not be great but in my view they still beat Voyagers hands down). If they get the timings right Northern Connect may help on that one

Agreed - my boss gets the 158s from Leeds to Sheffield for reasons of comfort and better guarantee of a seat (compared to the Voyager that overtakes it).

The Northern Connect was advertised as taking around forty five minutes (or maybe "fifteen minutes faster than the current Nottingham - Leeds service), which suggests the same timings as the existing XC service - that should make a much bigger difference (in terms of encouraging passengers off XC).

On the Leeds/Doncaster issue, it mustn't be forgotten that Doncaster deserves some decent connectivity towards Birmingham, both in its own right and in providing connections eastwards (which may also be possible at Sheffield but there could be crowding issues). It is also much easier to path an extra service on the 125mph ECML between Doncaster and York than trying to thread it through Wakefield and Leeds.

Agreed - Doncaster is the "hub" for a reasonable population around Humberside (as well as its own population).

No bi-modes makes perfect sense so we can use them off wire routes for diversions.
You are obviously not aware of the amount of diversions that that take place early morning ,late at night and weekends when we can maintain the service and positioning moves for ecs

New stock would be presumably be based in the East Midlands, which means all of the running to Neville Hill wouldn't be required (which eliminates an element of ECS and an element of retention along diversionary routes between Sheffield and Leeds).

After that, what is there? The Erewash from Chesterfield to Nottingham? That should be done in CP6 along with the Hope Valley route.

North of Corby? No scheduled passenger trains in a normal hour, so an excessive line to electrify when there are plenty of busy routes currently unwired.

You can take out all the padding you like - if you can find it - but it isn't going to cure things like being stuck up the backside of a stopper between Leamington and Bordesley because of the sheer number of trains trying to use the tracks around Birmingham. Which is why some of the padding is there in the first place

True - and the same "up the backside of a stopper" can happen a dozen times between Edinburgh and Plymouth (whether in East Lothian or South Yorkshire or West Midlands or North Bristol) - which is why I don't think XC will ever dare take a lot of padding out.

It's key connection point, plus is the long-distance station of choice for people living in north Bristol and South Gloucestershire, who will never ever travel via Temple Meads, or change to or from an infrequent GWR stopper at Cheltenham, so Parkway can't be missed out.

Oh, I agree - I was just using Parkway as an example of somewhere that XC must stop twice in a relatively short distance (how do you get ride of short distance passengers/ speed up services... you can't always).

However no other line gets bi-modes just for diversions and disruptions, so it's hard to see why that would be a factor for the MML alone.

True.

See also the "TPE must have DMUs to cover diversions to the overnight services to Manchester Airport" argument, which is generally massively overblown.

Someone with more time than I have can do some analysis of the mileages of the main Voyager routes and I think you'll find the proportion under the wires is quite high for some of them

I tried to work a percentage out for a number of routes many years ago... before the CP5 electrification was announced - I think that Metro Centre - Morpeth was the "winner", but with the various bits of electrification announced in the past five years, Manchester to Bournemouth on XC must be increasing.

The problem is AT300 sets won't do 125mph on diesel power, so unless every 125mph section of the XC core is electrified, pathing difficulties arise.

How much unelectrified track will require 125mph running by the end of the decade? In fact, how much unelectrified track requires 125mph running now?

(admittedly its different if the wires come down on the ECML and 800s switch to diesel operation, but in normal circumstances, I don't think that the "restriction" to 100mph on unelectrified lines will hurt XC that much?)

 

[pemma]

However no other line gets bi-modes just for diversions and disruptions, so it's hard to see why that would be a factor for the MML alone.

No route gets bi-modes at present full stop. There's many examples of diesels operating under the wires - Virgin said at one point it wouldn't be possible to replace Voyagers on Birmingham-Scotland services with electric trains due to diversionary routes not being electrified. With Chat Moss getting electrified with Bolton to follow, plus a quicker to attach diesel loco offered to Virgin, they reconsidered but it hasn't really got beyond that stage even now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

True.

See also the "TPE must have DMUs to cover diversions to the overnight services to Manchester Airport" argument, which is generally massively overblown.

The alternative will be more 185s will be retained by TPE. It's not just the overnight services, the Standedge Tunnel could get closed on a Sunday. Would you be happy if half the South TPE services got replaced by buses when the line was fully open so that TPE could use the South TPE 185s to provide some through services via Brighouse?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the new North TPE stock is, as alleged, LHCS, surely they will couple a diesel locomotive on the front?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

How much unelectrified track will require 125mph running by the end of the decade? In fact, how much unelectrified track requires 125mph running now?

There can't be much left post MML and North TP. I don't have the number to hand, but I'll see what I can find.

 

[pemma]

If the new North TPE stock is, as alleged, LHCS, surely they will couple a diesel locomotive on the front?

But that would mean there would need to be diesel locos sat around doing nothing a lot of the time.

I forgot when I posted previously there's two reasons TPE want bi-mode:
1. Only half of North TPE services would be able to use the electrics from December 2022 if the options were only DMUs and EMUs.
2. Diverting services.

So in theory if the Standedge Tunnel was closed on a Sunday we could see Services from Scarborough to Liverpool using the wires from York to Huddersfield and then again from Victoria to Liverpool, Middlesbrough to Manchester Airport services doing similar. However, I think it's unlikely TPE will be able to divert all their services via Brighouse due to track capacity so maybe the electric Newcastle services would only go to Huddersfield, with a couple of electric sets running between Liverpool and Victoria?

 

[edwin_m]

There can't be much left post MML and North TP. I don't have the number to hand, but I'll see what I can find.

Anything between Birmingham and Derby or between Bristol and Exeter? Can't imagine it would cost more than a minute or two if they had to slow to 100mph, and that ought to be offset by electric running elsewhere on the journey. If acceleration on diesel is no better than an HST then the time lost due to stops would be more significant.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No route gets bi-modes at present full stop.

But bi-modes have been ordered for GWML, ECML and TPE, but all of these have significant non-electrified sections on their core routes. MML doesn't.

It's not just the overnight services, the Standedge Tunnel could get closed on a Sunday. Would you be happy if half the South TPE services got replaced by buses when the line was fully open so that TPE could use the South TPE 185s to provide some through services via Brighouse?

That problem has gone away now TPE has got bi-modes, they can just run via Calder Valley. However there was no serious suggestion of running bi-modes when the only need for diesel was for diversionary purposes - that only happened when people realised the core Manchester-Leeds section wouldn't be electrified until around the end of the franchise.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Anything between Birmingham and Derby or between Bristol and Exeter? Can't imagine it would cost more than a minute or two if they had to slow to 100mph, and that ought to be offset by electric running elsewhere on the journey. If acceleration on diesel is no better than an HST then the time lost due to stops would be more significant.

110mph in small sections south of Bristol, no 125mph running at all.

46m 31ch (single track miles) at 125mph between Birmingham and Derby via Tamworth (33m 27ch being 90/HST125, 13m 4ch being 125). There's a further 6m 10ch of 120mph line.

It's listed for electrification in the forthcoming Electrification RUS update (but would still need DfT approval).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There can't be much left post MML and North TP. I don't have the number to hand, but I'll see what I can find.

Most of Derby-Kingsbury is 125mph.
And there's a bit of 110mph around Highbridge.
Wolvercot-Tackley is 110mph.
All these XC and the odd GWR beyond Bristol.
Much of Thatcham-Westbury on the B&H is 110mph.
I think that's about it outside lines with committed electrification.

 

[freetoview33]

I believe there is a plan to have some additional CrossCountry trains between Cardiff and Birmingham (Via Bristol Parkway) Which could still use 220's.

Here are some routes I can think of that can use 220/1/2
Liverpool - Norwich
Waterloo - Exeter (on some express services)
Chiltern Services
East - West rail
Cardiff - Hollyhead
Cardiff - Portsmouth

 

[edwin_m]

I believe there is a plan to have some additional CrossCountry trains between Cardiff and Birmingham (Via Bristol Parkway) Which could still use 220's.

Here are some routes I can think of that can use 220/1/2
Liverpool - Norwich
Waterloo - Exeter (on some express services)
Chiltern Services
East - West rail
Cardiff - Hollyhead
Cardiff - Portsmouth

Several of these have the problem that the 22x seats fewer people per coach than a 158 or a 175, despite being heavier and more costly to run. So only really worthwhile if they can exceed 100mph or there are no other units to be had elsewhere. Also won't East West be electrified?

So out of that batch I think only Chiltern, and the Cardiff-Birmingham if that happens. But as we've just been told of 20-odd route miles of 125mph between Birmingham and Derby I'd also add Cardiff and Birmingham to Nottingham.

 

[The Ham]

Several of these have the problem that the 22x seats fewer people per coach than a 158 or a 175, despite being heavier and more costly to run. So only really worthwhile if they can exceed 100mph or there are no other units to be had elsewhere. Also won't East West be electrified?

So out of that batch I think only Chiltern, and the Cardiff-Birmingham if that happens. But as we've just been told of 20-odd route miles of 125mph between Birmingham and Derby I'd also add Cardiff and Birmingham to Nottingham.

It depends on how long the units are, if short 4 coach units then I could see that they wouldn't be great, but reconfigure the length of the units (by stirring/scraping end units) and it maybe better to opt for a long (6 to 8 coaches) train fitness of a single 22x unit rather than pairs of shorter units. Not least if the 22x's are out of work and being offered with cheap leases.

 

[Haydn1971]

Half the trouble with CrossCountry is that some services run almost empty - I've been on one out of Sheffield to Oxford, completely full with people standing to Birmingham, practically empty onwards, yet coming back, moderately busy to Birmingham and rammed again to Sheffield - I'm sure services are full at times between Birmingham and Oxford, but I've never experienced it. Seems more irregular than any other service I'm familiar with

Perhaps AT300s aren't right for XC, perhaps something like a end gangwayed and end door 3/4 car Bi-mode AT200 type unit running doubled or tripled up would make better work of pasenger loadings at the expense of top speed on stuff like ECML, something like the 444 ?

 

[edwin_m]

It depends on how long the units are, if short 4 coach units then I could see that they wouldn't be great, but reconfigure the length of the units (by stirring/scraping end units) and it maybe better to opt for a long (6 to 8 coaches) train fitness of a single 22x unit rather than pairs of shorter units. Not least if the 22x's are out of work and being offered with cheap leases.

You still have more cost and weight per seat than on a 158 or 170, in fact more cost if you've scrapped some coaches and re-configured the others. For this you get the benefit of some extra seating in the same length and a through gangway, but the set is no longer divisible to cope with variations in demand. The leasing cost would have to go pretty low to make up for the various extra operating costs.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What's the maximum speed that any unit with a corridor connection like the 380s could run at?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Half the trouble with CrossCountry is that some services run almost empty - I've been on one out of Sheffield to Oxford, completely full with people standing to Birmingham, practically empty onwards, yet coming back, moderately busy to Birmingham and rammed again to Sheffield - I'm sure services are full at times between Birmingham and Oxford, but I've never experienced it. Seems more irregular than any other service I'm familiar with

Perhaps AT300s aren't right for XC, perhaps something like a end gangwayed and end door 3/4 car Bi-mode AT200 type unit running doubled or tripled up would make better work of pasenger loadings at the expense of top speed on stuff like ECML, something like the 444 ?

We're eventually going to have to accept that some XC units will run around empty at times, that's the trade off the railway has to accept for them travelling through major cities at peak times.

A Class 802 5 car unit in the typical configuration they've been order is a 330 seat unit, with 100 passengers onboard for through journeys (i.e say ones that are only possible on XC) there's still 230 seats available, that's equivalent to the regional TOC such as London Midland finding an extra 4 car EMU in the peak.

We've made peace with ThamesLink Class 700 units running empty at times, otherwise we would still be ordering 4 car units and leaving 4 or 8 cars at Brighton and Bedford outside of the peaks, we now need to do the same with XC and accept the benefit from having 330 to 660 seat trains which will run fairly empty some of the time. There's always the opportunity to yield manage the quiet sections of the route, and I dare say there are some travellers who are put of XC because they think the trains are overloaded on the entire route when that's not always the case.

We've also made peace with the ludicrous operating costs of the Voyager fleet, hoovering up fuel on what are 45 tonne (Class 220) and 55 tonne (Class 221) carriages, each with their own 750hp engine and too few seats, the Class 800 carriages are similar in weight to the Class 220, boast almost 3 extra metres of space, and even with 8 bays, standard intermediate carriages have 88 seats, compared with 66 to 68 seats for the Voyagers. If the XC layout with just 2 tables was used, seating increases to 100 in standard.

It should be possible, if it was absolutely necessary to make the economics stack up, to have a 5 car bi-mode AT300 unit with around 320-330 standard class seats and 45-50 first class seats. That's 1 x 5 car unit having almost the same capacity as 2 x 4 car Class 220 units.

Track access charges are going to be comparable to a Voyager and lower than a Super Voyager, it's able to use OLE where available, has 140mph capability when GWML and ECML are upgraded and day to day running costs will be significantly lower, even with the engine packs rated at 750kW.

I'd guestimate, based on the purchase cost of the Class 802s for FGW, the operating (fuel, track access, maintenance agreement) and leasing costs for the Voyager family, XC could operate 5 car AT300 units for pretty much the same money as a 5 car Super Voyager and at a significant saving over operating more Class 222 units (especially if they are used to allow more units to be doubled up in service) unless they come with astonishingly low leasing costs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What's the maximum speed that any unit with a corridor connection like the 380s could run at?

110mph currently, Hitachi claim a 125mph AT200 unit is possible but I'd be doubtful of that retaining a front end gangway connection. The AT200 unit already has the driver relatively far back in the cab, in relation to the coupler head, for the purposes of crash safety.

 

[jimm]

Half the trouble with CrossCountry is that some services run almost empty - I've been on one out of Sheffield to Oxford, completely full with people standing to Birmingham, practically empty onwards, yet coming back, moderately busy to Birmingham and rammed again to Sheffield - I'm sure services are full at times between Birmingham and Oxford, but I've never experienced it. Seems more irregular than any other service I'm familiar with

Perhaps AT300s aren't right for XC, perhaps something like a end gangwayed and end door 3/4 car Bi-mode AT200 type unit running doubled or tripled up would make better work of pasenger loadings at the expense of top speed on stuff like ECML, something like the 444 ?

Plenty of services south of Birmingham can be full and standing on various legs of their journeys, particularly in the weekday peaks, due to commuter traffic, but Saturday football fixtures and students travelling on Sunday afternoon/evening can do a good job of filling a 220 as well.

In most cases, having a 320-seat AT300-type train would probably make many of those journeys a lot more comfortable, just by greatly increasing the odds of passengers getting a seat.

But whether XC is going to get anything other than cascaded Voyagers or Meridians for quite some time, whatever their thirst for diesel, is another matter entirely. They are facts on the ground, rather than something on a wish list.

 

[freetoview33]

Thinking about it they probably will just end up with voyagers just doubled up for the time being anyway.

Must admit by the sounds of it 5 car BiMode AT300 would be perfect for them!

I would like to see an expanded XC network again! Like serving Liverpool.