Should CrossCountry order new trains to replace their Voyagers?

[tetudo boy]

I'm not sure if there was any thread talking about this, but it's a topic worth reviving. There's been some talk about CrossCountry ordering new trains to replace their existing Intercity fleet. On my thread about the possible refurbishment of the Voyager sets, some people prefer that they were to be replaced.

I personally think it's time to phase out their much-criticized Voyager set's and replace them with something much better.

 

[crablab]

I would suggest:
- government commit to electrifying the XC route
- franchise commitment for new operator to replace Voyagers with diseal, third rail and 25kV IC stock (trimode).

Hopefully the diseal can be removed in time, but it may be the only way to get new trains on the route quickly.

Alternatively, you could refurbish the Voyagers and then order electric only stock.

Hitachi 80x being an obvious choice here.

 

[popeter45]

i know the 395 does AC/DC and 800/802's do AC/Diesel but can 80X's be fitted with all 3 modes in the same train?
i could long term potentially see a combined fleet of AT300's and AT200 to replace both the Voyagers and Turbostars

 

[Domh245]

I'm not sure if there was any thread talking about this, but it's a topic worth reviving.

Only a few*. It does feel like this comes up at least every couple of months!

i know the 395 does AC/DC and 800/802's do AC/Diesel but can 80X's be fitted with all 3 modes in the same train?

Not easily with any of the existing units as they only have an AC bus line connecting the vehicles, but it's not beyond Hitachi's capability to produce a bi-modal dual voltage unit. Given the rather stretched nature of 3rd rail supplies generally (and pretty short mileage of XC on third rail equipped routes) they would be better running on diesel over them (dependant on progress of traction decarbonisation strategy - it may be that 3rd rail is required as/when diesel is eliminated if 25kV conversion/dual wiring isn't forthcoming, that or battery/hydrogen)


*also try a search for just "XC"

 

[popeter45]

Not easily with any of the existing units as they only have an AC bus line connecting the vehicles, but it's not beyond Hitachi's capability to produce a bi-modal dual voltage unit. Given the rather stretched nature of 3rd rail supplies generally (and pretty short mileage of XC on third rail equipped routes) they would be better running on diesel over them (dependant on progress of traction decarbonisation strategy - it may be that 3rd rail is required as/when diesel is eliminated if 25kV conversion/dual wiring isn't forthcoming, that or battery/hydrogen)

well in theory could just install shoes on each powered car instead of running a extra DC line?
i believe some DC EMU's already do this?

 

[Domh245]

well in theory could just install shoes on each powered car instead of running a extra DC line?
i believe some DC EMU's already do this?

That'd leave the driving vehicles (and any other unpowered vehicles) without power. You'd need to put inverters that turn the DC into AC to feed it into the bus (in effect the Supply converter in reverse ideally as the output from the right of that box is DC) or do the DC bus solution, which would probably be cheaper. You would likely need to put shoes on all motored vehicles anyway just to handle the power draw


image taken from here

 

[Journeyman]

Best solution, I reckon, is cascading over the 222s when EMR get rid of them, and then giving all units a thorough refurb. Job's a good 'un. Combined 220-222 fleet will be big enough to allow a fair amount of standardisation and the busiest services to be lengthened.

 

[popeter45]

Best solution, I reckon, is cascading over the 222s when EMR get rid of them, and then giving all units a thorough refurb. Job's a good 'un. Combined 220-222 fleet will be big enough to allow a fair amount of standardisation and the busiest services to be lengthened.

thats really only gonna be a short term solution
XC need something electric well before the Diesel ban

 

[YorksLad12]

Only a few*. It does feel like this comes up at least every couple of months!

I've only been here a few months, try once a fortnight!

 

[Journeyman]

thats really only gonna be a short term solution
XC need something electric well before the Diesel ban

It'll do until the Voyagers/Meridians are knackered. I appreciate it's far from ideal, but I'm not sure XC's economics would support a complete fleet renewal any time soon.

 

[py_megapixel]

Best solution, I reckon, is cascading over the 222s when EMR get rid of them, and then giving all units a thorough refurb. Job's a good 'un. Combined 220-222 fleet will be big enough to allow a fair amount of standardisation and the busiest services to be lengthened.

Problem is, most of the Voyager routes are actually electrified along most of their length.

XC (excluding the Turbostar routes) is basically four main arms, centred on Birmingham:

• North west - fully electrified all the way to Manchester
• North east- electrified as far as Edinburgh (possibly with a gap immediately out of Birmingham?)
• South - electrified apart from Coventry to Didcot
• South west - electrified only as far as Barnt Green on the Cross City Line

With that said, I would electrify Coventry to Didcot and Barnt Green to Bristol - both of which are really daft gaps in my opinion. I would then order a fleet of EMUs for the Manchester routes, and Newcastle to Reading. My choice would probably be something like an 8-car 397 with third rail capability. Then the Voyagers, with a high-quality interior refurbishment could be concentrated on the Scotland to South West route, allowing doubling up of all services, and more extensions at either end, boosting capacity. This would also allow for the withdrawal of the HSTs, which as amazing as they were when introduced, are really starting to show their age a bit.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm not sure if there was any thread talking about this, but it's a topic worth reviving. There's been some talk about CrossCountry ordering new trains to replace their existing Intercity fleet. On my thread about the possible refurbishment of the Voyager sets, some people prefer that they were to be replaced.

I personally think it's time to phase out their much-criticized Voyager set's and replace them with something much better.

It‘s come up many many times while you’ve been a member here. The realistic probability is almost zero. I‘d expect only the HSTs might be replaced in a couple of years with either ex WC 221s or ex EMR 222s.

Give it another ten years or more for major change..

 

[tetudo boy]

Best solution, I reckon, is cascading over the 222s when EMR get rid of them, and then giving all units a thorough refurb. Job's a good 'un. Combined 220-222 fleet will be big enough to allow a fair amount of standardisation and the busiest services to be lengthened.

And THAT'S the problem. Everyone just wants the Voyagers gone. I already made a thread about refurbishing the Voyagers and I ultimately decided to have them replaced. I wouldn't mind the cascade of AWC Voyagers and Meridians, though.

South west - electrified only as far as Barnt Green on the Cross City Line

By the way, the electrification has been extended to Bromsgrove.

 

[greatvoyager]

And THAT'S the problem. Everyone just wants the Voyagers gone. I already made a thread about refurbishing the Voyagers and I ultimately decided to have them replaced. I wouldn't mind the cascade of AWC Voyagers and Meridians, though.

Not everyone, I wouldn’t mind seeing the 22x fleet transferred, considering how much surplus there will be of them, and then replaced with something closer to 2040.

 

[swt_passenger]

And THAT'S the problem. Everyone just wants the Voyagers gone. I already made a thread about refurbishing the Voyagers and I ultimately decided to have them replaced. I wouldn't mind the cascade of AWC Voyagers and Meridians, though...

So you want the Voyagers replaced, but you wouldn’t mind the AWC Voyagers and Meridians being cascaded in? That’s an odd position to take...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

With that said, I would electrify Coventry to Didcot and Barnt Green to Bristol - both of which are really daft gaps in my opinion. I would then order a fleet of EMUs for the Manchester routes, and Newcastle to Reading. My choice would probably be something like an 8-car 397 with third rail capability. Then the Voyagers, with a high-quality interior refurbishment could be concentrated on the Scotland to South West route, allowing doubling up of all services, and more extensions at either end, boosting capacity. This would also allow for the withdrawal of the HSTs, which as amazing as they were when introduced, are really starting to show their age a bit.

I probably agree with most of this.

 

[The Planner]

Problem is, most of the Voyager routes are actually electrified along most of their length.

XC (excluding the Turbostar routes) is basically four main arms, centred on Birmingham:

• North west - fully electrified all the way to Manchester
• North east- electrified as far as Edinburgh (possibly with a gap immediately out of Birmingham?)
• South - electrified apart from Coventry to Didcot
• South west - electrified only as far as Barnt Green on the Cross City Line

That is one hell of a gap out of Birmingham towards Edinburgh.....

 

[tetudo boy]

That is one hell of a gap out of Birmingham towards Edinburgh.....

A HUGE gap between Birmingham and York. I also heard that they were electrifying the Derby to Sheffield section of the MML, but I'm not sure if that's going ahead.

I would like to see Bi-modes on XC, though. Also, wasn't the Class 800 only made to run at 110 mph on diesel mode unless there's wind behind it or on an incline?

 

[Energy]

Also, wasn't the Class 800 only made to run at 110 mph on diesel mode unless there's wind behind it or on an incline?

100mph on 800s, 125mph on 802s, 810s and 805s.

• North west - fully electrified all the way to Manchester
• North east- electrified as far as Edinburgh (possibly with a gap immediately out of Birmingham?)
• South - electrified apart from Coventry to Didcot
• South west - electrified only as far as Barnt Green on the Cross City Line

Apart from the about 130 miles from Birmingham to York and the South West some routes only have small bits unelectrified. I would get up the wires and order some 7 car 807s (Hitachi AT300s) or something similar.

 

[tetudo boy]

100mph on 800s, 125mph on 802s, 810s and 805s.

I'm probably going to choose the Latter three because the class 802 is usually used on London to Penzance services and because it has better speed.

 

[43096]

Problem is, most of the Voyager routes are actually electrified along most of their length.

XC (excluding the Turbostar routes) is basically four main arms, centred on Birmingham:

• North west - fully electrified all the way to Manchester
• North east- electrified as far as Edinburgh (possibly with a gap immediately out of Birmingham?)
• South - electrified apart from Coventry to Didcot
• South west - electrified only as far as Barnt Green on the Cross City Line

With that said, I would electrify Coventry to Didcot and Barnt Green to Bristol - both of which are really daft gaps in my opinion. I would then order a fleet of EMUs for the Manchester routes, and Newcastle to Reading. My choice would probably be something like an 8-car 397 with third rail capability. Then the Voyagers, with a high-quality interior refurbishment could be concentrated on the Scotland to South West route, allowing doubling up of all services, and more extensions at either end, boosting capacity. This would also allow for the withdrawal of the HSTs, which as amazing as they were when introduced, are really starting to show their age a bit.

Reading West to Basingstoke isn't electrified and there's more than a bit of a "gap" on the north east leg out of Birmingham, you don't really hit wires until Doncaster or York.

By the way, the electrification has been extended to Bromsgrove.

On the fast lines as well? The original electrification didn't include the fast lines between Kings Norton and Longbridge, nor is the route via Bordesley wired which is a regular alternative to the congested cross-city section via University.

 

[tetudo boy]

On the fast lines as well? The original electrification didn't include the fast lines between Kings Norton and Longbridge, nor is the route via Bordesley wired which is a regular alternative to the congested cross-city section via University.

I'm pretty sure they are electrified on the fast lines too.

 

[Domh245]

I'm pretty sure they are electrified on the fast lines too.

They aren't

 

[Journeyman]

And THAT'S the problem. Everyone just wants the Voyagers gone. I already made a thread about refurbishing the Voyagers and I ultimately decided to have them replaced. I wouldn't mind the cascade of AWC Voyagers and Meridians, though.

At the risk of sounding controversial, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Voyagers and Meridians that a decent mid-life refurb won't solve. They're far too new to consign to scrap, and the only fundamental issue with them is that most XC services need another couple of coaches.

 

[crablab]

They're far too new to consign to scrap, and the only fundamental issue with them is that most XC services need another couple of coaches.

At what point is something "too new" to go to scrap? The 332s are going to scrap and they are a similar age.

There's nothing fundamentally "wrong" with them, only that they are getting to be the wrong tool for the job in a railway that doesn't want tilting capability, does want bi-mode (and ultimately full electric) and needs more capacity.

How much will fitting ETCS cost? Is it even possible? According to this forum, bi-mode essentially isn't as a result of the original design of the units.

At some point, environmentally and economically, replacement becomes the best option. There is no point throwing good money after bad Frankensteining them into something mediocre just because the train "isn't very old".

 

[JamesT]

At what point is something "too new" to go to scrap? The 332s are going to scrap and they are a similar age.

There's nothing fundamentally "wrong" with them, only that they are getting to be the wrong tool for the job in a railway that doesn't want tilting capability, does want bi-mode (and ultimately full electric) and needs more capacity.

How much will fitting ETCS cost? Is it even possible? According to this forum, bi-mode essentially isn't as a result of the original design of the units.

At some point, environmentally and economically, replacement becomes the best option. There is no point throwing good money after bad Frankensteining them into something mediocre just because the train "isn't very old".

The 332s are a micro fleet that have a suitable successor ready to go which could come from a larger pool of vehicles. There isn’t yet a certain successor for long distance self powered intercity. (Though the 80x looks fairly likely if someone is willing to stump up)

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/a...8-etcscabhumanfactorsdesignguidance/file.html mentions a “Voyager Leasing ETCS Project”, so someone at least was looking at fitting it. Updating a cab is surely going to be easier than trying to fundamentally reconfigure the traction package and modify the body shell. (Is cutting a pantograph well going to be possible without destroying structural integrity?)

Depending on how much pollution/energy is involved in making new carriages compared to using the old ones, the best choice may be to “sweat the assets”. No crazy modification schemes, just keep using them until circumstances change. If XC can get their hands on all the 22xs that should sort out their capacity problems for a while.

 

[Journeyman]

At what point is something "too new" to go to scrap? The 332s are going to scrap and they are a similar age.

There's nothing fundamentally "wrong" with them, only that they are getting to be the wrong tool for the job in a railway that doesn't want tilting capability, does want bi-mode (and ultimately full electric) and needs more capacity.

How much will fitting ETCS cost? Is it even possible? According to this forum, bi-mode essentially isn't as a result of the original design of the units.

At some point, environmentally and economically, replacement becomes the best option. There is no point throwing good money after bad Frankensteining them into something mediocre just because the train "isn't very old".

As mentioned above, the 332s are a bad example because they're a micro-fleet that doesn't even have TPWS, meaning they can't operate anywhere else. The Voyagers/Meridians can.

Yeah, running diesels under the wires isn't great, and what happens next might be a DfT decision - I suspect they'll specify a preference for bi-modes, but if anyone bids for XC any time soon, a Voyager/Meridian fleet for the next ten years or so seems like a blindingly obvious choice. Remember the trains the IETs replaced were much older.

I'm not one for deliberately hanging onto old stock for the sake of it - you'll see me ridicule plans to desperately justify retaining Mark 4s - but keeping the Voyagers on XC for at least the next few years is a no-brainer. Investment money will be in short supply in years to come, and I suspect the leasing companies will be happy to offer good deals on the 22x fleet to anyone who might want to use them.

Depending on how much pollution/energy is involved in making new carriages compared to using the old ones, the best choice may be to “sweat the assets”. No crazy modification schemes, just keep using them until circumstances change. If XC can get their hands on all the 22xs that should sort out their capacity problems for a while.

Exactly, it's a quick win with minimal risk (assuming EMR and Avanti's new bi-modes aren't horrendously late).

 

[DorkingMain]

I very much expected that Avanti and EMR would send their 22x to Cross Country when they're finished with them. They're the other major operator of those units, and it would give scope for huge capacity increases. Avanti is 20 x 5 car 221, EMR has 6 x 7 car / 17 x 5 car / 4 x 4 car 222.

Would also potentially allow them to release some of their 170 fleet (units which are incredibly in demand)

 

[py_megapixel]

I very much expected that Avanti and EMR would send their 22x to Cross Country when they're finished with them. They're the other major operator of those units, and it would give scope for huge capacity increases. Avanti is 20 x 5 car 221, EMR has 6 x 7 car / 17 x 5 car / 4 x 4 car 222.

Would also potentially allow them to release some of their 170 fleet (units which are incredibly in demand)

Worth noting 2 things:

• 222s can't operate in multiple with other 22x (though I don't believe I've ever seen a 220/221 combo and they probably can't work in multiple either)
• Doesn't solve the problem of most of their routes being diesel under the wires

 

[JonathanH]

Worth noting 2 things:

• 222s can't operate in multiple with other 22x (though I don't believe I've ever seen a 220/221 combo and they probably can't work in multiple either.

Why does that get brought up every time? XC operate three incompatible fleets at the moment and don't have any problems doing so without accidentally needing to couple them up. 220 and 221 have operated together throughout their lifetimes (and do at the moment).

It is absolutely possible to operate 220/221 and 222 on separate routes or diagrams.