Should Class 800 be ordered for the Cross Country franchise?

[Domh245]

Indeed, though I think 10 or 9 car on some busier services could work too!

9 Car would be massive overkill. GWRs 9 car IETs seat 650, whilst a 2x221 voyager seats 524, I don't think any services need such a massive boost in capacity. 7 Car is a good compromise with plenty of capacity beyond what is currently provided

 

[Energy]

9 Car would be massive overkill. GWRs 9 car IETs seat 650, whilst a 2x221 voyager seats 524, I don't think any services need such a massive boost in capacity. 7 Car is a good compromise with plenty of capacity beyond what is currently provided

A 9 car GWR minus 1 standard carriage and 1 first carriage would be roughly equal to double 221.

 

[class26]

You say run on electric between Bristol and Parkway but not around Brum as it would be no use being too short yet the section around Brum is longer than Bristol ! (Bromsgrove - New Street). It would also help up the Lickey incline

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Why not order 9-car and 5-car sets? CrossCountry could do with extra capacity

 

[Energy]

Why not order 9-car and 5-car sets? CrossCountry could do with extra capacity

9 cars are quite long, will they fit at some platforms? 7 cars is a nice in between, not much point ordering 5 cars if they don't split apart from maybe some of the turbostar routes.

a 7 car is already roughly equal to double voyager which will be enough plus extra.

 

[gg1]

You say run on electric between Bristol and Parkway but not around Brum as it would be no use being too short yet the section around Brum is longer than Bristol ! (Bromsgrove - New Street). It would also help up the Lickey incline

Only the slow lines on the 4 track section of the Cross City line are electrified so effectively it's Bromsgrove to Barnt Green and Kings Norton to New Street (and the latter section is of no use for services routed via the Camp Hill line anyway).

 

[800002]

So, effectively, we're talking about tri-mode CL. 80x's? Third rail DC, OLHE AC, and diesel.
I agree its a very good idea to replace the 22x fleet with something more appropriate and longer, but in not sure you could get away with running third rail shoe equipment across the entire route.
Ideal to move away from diesel, I know, but as so many threads on here suggested, just not practical at this time (next 10 years) as the electric infills required just isn't there yet.
A good compromise though would be to run a bi-mode capable of 125mph on diesel on the GWML and the max line speed on the SWML (100mph? 110?) running on the overheads where possible.

I can't help but think though there would be an issue with different interferences between the GWML and the ECML with any 80x unit? Or were they the same interface issues present on both introductions doth the same solution?
But even that would be solvable, maybe, by only running on overheads on the ECML which is currently vastly more expansive than the GWML (reading - Didcot / Bristol Parkway (one hopes eventually Temple Meads) / Westerleigh Jn).

 

[SouthEastBuses]

So, effectively, we're talking about tri-mode CL. 80x's? Third rail DC, OLHE AC, and diesel.
I agree its a very good idea to replace the 22x fleet with something more appropriate and longer, but in not sure you could get away with running third rail shoe equipment across the entire route.
Ideal to move away from diesel, I know, but as so many threads on here suggested, just not practical at this time (next 10 years) as the electric infills required just isn't there yet.
A good compromise though would be to run a bi-mode capable of 125mph on diesel on the GWML and the max line speed on the SWML (100mph? 110?) running on the overheads where possible.

I can't help but think though there would be an issue with different interferences between the GWML and the ECML with any 80x unit? Or were they the same interface issues present on both introductions doth the same solution?
But even that would be solvable, maybe, by only running on overheads on the ECML which is currently vastly more expansive than the GWML (reading - Didcot / Bristol Parkway (one hopes eventually Temple Meads) / Westerleigh Jn).

Yes, however, the ones with third rail DCs would be limited to the Southampton-Newcastle route and Bournemouth-Manchester route.

What is the problem of using third rail shoe equipment for such a long journey outside the third rail area?

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes, however, the ones with third rail DCs would be limited to the Southampton-Newcastle route and Bournemouth-Manchester route.

What is the problem of using third rail shoe equipment for such a long journey outside the third rail area?

There would really be no problem whatsoever with third rail gear as long as is it is retractable. If they actually decided to build a “dual voltage and bimode” variant I can see no reason it couldn’t go anywhere, But I just can’t see it happening while there are 220/221/222 available in such great numbers, with a life of up to 15-20 years...

 

[class26]

Only the slow lines on the 4 track section of the Cross City line are electrified so effectively it's Bromsgrove to Barnt Green and Kings Norton to New Street (and the latter section is of no use for services routed via the Camp Hill line anyway).

You are right, should have thought a little more !

 

[hexagon789]

Yes they should order some form of 125mph bi-mode. Perhaps something more akin to the 810 for EMR with the improved diesel performance (as it would need to match Voyager timings which I assume are similar to Meridian ones).

I'm not sure the added complication and cost of third-rail power capability is worth it though, unless someone can come up with some figures?

 

[Energy]

Yes they should order some form of 125mph bi-mode. Perhaps something more akin to the 810 for EMR with the improved diesel performance (as it would need to match Voyager timings which I assume are similar to Meridian ones).

I'm not sure the added complication and cost of third-rail power capability is worth it though, unless someone can come up with some figures?

The 395s have 3rd rail and they are AT300, not sure though if 3rd rail is worth the space the equipment would take up though unless there is a considerable amount on some routes.

 

[Domh245]

Yes they should order some form of 125mph bi-mode. Perhaps something more akin to the 810 for EMR with the improved diesel performance (as it would need to match Voyager timings which I assume are similar to Meridian ones).

I'm not sure the added complication and cost of third-rail power capability is worth it though, unless someone can come up with some figures?

Agreed, it wouldn't be a simple addition as I understand that unlike most EMUs they don't have the 750v DC bus, meaning additional cost and complication to make it work, beyond just sticking retractable shoes on some of the vehicles. Even once you've done that, there's questions about if the power supplies will cope with what they'd be drawing.

As for matching the need for higher performance, it is possible that it isn't necessary. Would they be able to get away with the slightly reduced performance over the unelectrified core, it might make pathing slightly easier as you've no longer got (for example) sluggish 170s and high speed voyagers on the same stretch between Derby & Cheltenham - the high speed, congested bits of network (Birmingham-Manchester, York-Scotland) they'd be able to use the overheads

The 395s have 3rd rail and they are AT300, not sure though if 3rd rail is worth the space the equipment would take up though unless there is a considerable amount on some routes.

Just because they're the same family doesn't mean that they are identical under the skin! As for mileage over third rail, it's Basingstoke - Bournemouth and a tiny amount in Guildford for that one train per day. I'm not convinced it would be worth it tbh

 

[Purple Orange]

There would really be no problem whatsoever with third rail gear as long as is it is retractable. If they actually decided to build a “dual voltage and bimode” variant I can see no reason it couldn’t go anywhere, But I just can’t see it happening while there are 220/221/222 available in such great numbers, with a life of up to 15-20 years...

Are you suggesting a shelf life of a further 15-20 years? The Voyagers are approaching being 20 years old already. Compare that to the point when the IC225 units reached 20 years old, it wasn’t long until plans were being made to include them in being replaced by the 801 units.

 

[Energy]

Just because they're the same family doesn't mean that they are identical under the skin! As for mileage over third rail, it's Basingstoke - Bournemouth and a tiny amount in Guildford for that one train per day. I'm not convinced it would be worth it tbh

Yep, they also have the bimode equipment which takes up space, the 395s don't have this.

 

[Aictos]

It would be in my view far more simple to just use a Bi-Mode that can operate on either diesel or OHL, using the diesel on 3rd rail and unelectrified lines while using the OHL equipment on lines equipped with OLHE.

This technology has already been proven unlike the proposed 3rd rail, diesel and OHL design which for a high speed train has yet to be proven.

 

[swt_passenger]

Are you suggesting a shelf life of a further 15-20 years? The Voyagers are approaching being 20 years old already. Compare that to the point when the IC225 units reached 20 years old, it wasn’t long until plans were being made to include them in being replaced by the 801 units.

Yes, I definitely am suggesting 220/221 potentially have 35-40 years service life.

With the ECML fleet there was only an original requirement to replace their HSTs, I believe most people were fairly surprised when IC225s (but not all of them) were then included in the planned replacement.

 

[Energy]

Are you suggesting a shelf life of a further 15-20 years? The Voyagers are approaching being 20 years old already. Compare that to the point when the IC225 units reached 20 years old, it wasn’t long until plans were being made to include them in being replaced by the 801 units.

It really depends on how they have been treated, a well maintained unit lasts longer and is nicer for the passenger, badly maintained will have a shorter lifespan. XC maintenance isn't quite as good on the voyagers as Virgin's (don't know about Avanti's)

 

[hexagon789]

The 395s have 3rd rail and they are AT300, not sure though if 3rd rail is worth the space the equipment would take up though unless there is a considerable amount on some routes.

That was what I was thinking, trying to fit the additional equipment into a design which is believe is already pressed for space with the Gen Units would be an issue to start with and could the third-rail take the power drain either?

 

[Domh245]

trying to fit the additional equipment into a design which is believe is already pressed for space with the Gen Units would be an issue to start with

And yet they're also supposedly capable of fitting 2 gensets under the floor of a shorter vehicle with the EMR units, so perhaps it would be possible

 

[hexagon789]

Agreed, it wouldn't be a simple addition as I understand that unlike most EMUs they don't have the 750v DC bus, meaning additional cost and complication to make it work, beyond just sticking retractable shoes on some of the vehicles. Even once you've done that, there's questions about if the power supplies will cope with what they'd be drawing.

As for matching the need for higher performance, it is possible that it isn't necessary. Would they be able to get away with the slightly reduced performance over the unelectrified core, it might make pathing slightly easier as you've no longer got (for example) sluggish 170s and high speed voyagers on the same stretch between Derby & Cheltenham - the high speed, congested bits of network (Birmingham-Manchester, York-Scotland) they'd be able to use the overheads

Not since the shift from dc to three-phase ac traction motors, though I believe on some(/all?) units the way the overhead power is transferred to the motors involves conversion to dc at some point.

The ability to run on electric on the ECML is definitely a major benefit, you could tighten timings there to allow for any need to slacken they off the electric. I think though the only 125mph running off the OLE would then be Derby-Birmingham but as I said above if the 810 traction design was utilised diesel performance wouldn't be an issue.

 

[hexagon789]

And yet they're also supposedly capable of fitting 2 gensets under the floor of a shorter vehicle with the EMR units, so perhaps it would be possible

Well I still see arguments over that on a near daily basis, I'm still unsure what's actually going on with the 810s in that respect.

 

[Domh245]

Not since the shift from dc to three-phase ac traction motors, though I believe on some(/all?) units the way the overhead power is transferred to the motors involves conversion to dc at some point.

It involves DC, but looking at this diagram (taken from this paper, which also has some more description, it's done per-vehicle at the motors (supply converter) with only the 25kV bus (and APS busses) between vehicles. That's in contrast to (eg) the Bombardier system which transforms and rectifies the 25kV AC supply to 750v DC and passes that between vehicles, making it trivial to add third rail support by just adding shoes and a link to that bus. On these units you'd need to either create a parallel 750v DC bus, or put shoes on every motor vehicle and figure out a way of feeding it into the stage between the supply converter and the driver converter/APS, which would be trivial if said link is 750v DC or more complicated if it isn't.

 

[hexagon789]

It involves DC, but looking at this diagram (taken from this paper, which also has some more description, it's done per-vehicle at the motors (supply converter) with only the 25kV bus (and APS busses) between vehicles. That's in contrast to (eg) the Bombardier system which transforms and rectifies the 25kV AC supply to 750v DC and passes that between vehicles, making it trivial to add third rail support by just adding shoes and a link to that bus. On these units you'd need to either create a parallel 750v DC bus, or put shoes on every motor vehicle and figure out a way of feeding it into the stage between the supply converter and the driver converter/APS, which would be trivial if said link is 750v DC or more complicated if it isn't.

Given the issues with the third rail power supply and thirsty air-con modern trains I think third-rail capability would be ruled out on practicality as much as cost

 

[Domh245]

Given the issues with the third rail power supply and thirsty air-con modern trains I think third-rail capability would be ruled out on practicality as much as cost

Agreed!

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think they should electrify more of the lines first-do the Midland and Birmingham to Bristol then go for it. Otherwise they'd be used as a usefeul excuse to not electrify anything else.

 

[800002]

I think they should electrify more of the lines first-do the Midland and Birmingham to Bristol then go for it. Otherwise they'd be used as a usefeul excuse to not electrify anything else.

A good crystal ball you have there... Probably very accurate.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

I think they should electrify more of the lines first-do the Midland and Birmingham to Bristol then go for it. Otherwise they'd be used as a usefeul excuse to not electrify anything else.

Agreed. They should be back on track with electrification!

 

[Purple Orange]

I think they should electrify more of the lines first-do the Midland and Birmingham to Bristol then go for it. Otherwise they'd be used as a usefeul excuse to not electrify anything else.

I don’t think the use of bimodes can be used as an excuse. Increasing pressure will be placed on the government to reduce carbon pollution further and further. Diesel usage from Manchester to Birmingham should be a crime.

 

[Purple Orange]

Yes, I definitely am suggesting 220/221 potentially have 35-40 years service life.

With the ECML fleet there was only an original requirement to replace their HSTs, I believe most people were fairly surprised when IC225s (but not all of them) were then included in the planned replacement.

In prior generations I’d agree with you on a 35-40 year life span. But times are changing fast and I don’t think diesel trains will be tolerated where there does not need to be any diesel trains.