Should CrossCountry order new trains to replace their Voyagers?

[Journeyman]

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.

Yeah, it's not even remotely a problem. It wouldn't be difficult to diagram 222s separately, and for spares and maintenance there's no issues at all. It would also eliminate the expensive inconvenience of the HST micro fleet.

 

[py_megapixel]

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).

Yeah, it's not even remotely a problem. It wouldn't be difficult to diagram 222s separately, and for spares and maintenance there's no issues at all. It would also eliminate the expensive inconvenience of the HST micro fleet.

It may not be a problem. But in the past, people have assumed that all 22x can work in multiple and citied that as a reason for a potential 222 transfer. I was more pointing that out to DorkingMain, who may not be aware of the fact, than attempting to suggest it couldn't be worked around.

Personally I still think Avanti 221s would be a more sensible option, because it would mean that the entire "high speed" fleet could work in multiple, as well as all being the same from a passenger perspective (which is good for minimising confusion when it comes to reservations etc) - but there may not be enough of them.

 

[tetudo boy]

Are CAF Civity's a good option for replacements? I think I considered that somewhere before.

To keep this one-sided, I would rather just cascade some AWC 221s for extra capacity and order some new set's.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are CAF Civity's a good option for replacements?

Well, they're cheap?

To me 80x is the obvious choice.

 

[py_megapixel]

Well, they're cheap?

To me 80x is the obvious choice.

Rather something 397-ish than an 80x in my opinion, though I think the 80x were fairly cheap as well (at least they were according to various posters on here)... I just prefer the interior ambience of the 397.

My ultimate preference would be for Siemens Velaro

 

[tetudo boy]

My ultimate preference would be for Siemens Velaro

It would be good to see an Intercity version of the Velaro family.

Bombardier (the ones who made the Voyagers) also have an Intercity Express version of their Zefiro family, which Västtrafik has just ordered. It would be interesting to see them in their UK form.

 

[HST43257]

in the short term, I’d like to see AWC give their 221s to XC with EMR doing the same with their 222s. 220s could go to Chiltern or maybe operate the current 170 routes. I’d try to put 7 car and doubled up 4 car 222s with HSTs on the longest journeys (Scotland to South West) where possible because of (my opinion) their extra comfort. 221s and 5 car 222s would operate the remaining routes.

in the longer term I’d like it all replaced by one type of train. (Not Birmingham to Nuneaton slow - that’d be a 4 car EMU). A tri-mode AT300 capable of 125mph on any power. Trains 5 or 7 coaches that can double up to be 10 if needed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is the Vasttrafik version:

I suspect a UK one would look very similar but narrower - Scandinavian railways use UK style curved body profiles rather than UIC style flat ones.

Looks a bit like you'd expect a "conventional" FLIRT would.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Yes absolutely. As said in another thread they should order Hitachi IET class 800s in tri-mode, capable of running overhead electric, third rail electric (for the Southampton and Bournemouth lines) and diesel electric.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

They could in my opinion, also go for a tri-mode Stadler SMILE that is capable of 225 km/h (140 mph). Again like with the IET it would do overhead electric, third rail electric and diesel electric (though batteries and hydrogen for the unelectrified lines would be a better choice).

 

[rjames87]

in the short term, I’d like to see AWC give their 221s to XC with EMR doing the same with their 222s. 220s could go to Chiltern or maybe operate the current 170 routes. I’d try to put 7 car and doubled up 4 car 222s with HSTs on the longest journeys (Scotland to South West) where possible because of (my opinion) their extra comfort. 221s and 5 car 222s would operate the remaining routes.

in the longer term I’d like it all replaced by one type of train. (Not Birmingham to Nuneaton slow - that’d be a 4 car EMU). A tri-mode AT300 capable of 125mph on any power. Trains 5 or 7 coaches that can double up to be 10 if needed.

I would imagine any transfer to XC would surely be with a view to them not keeping the HSTs

 

[HST43257]

I would imagine any transfer to XC would surely be with a view to them not keeping the HSTs

With the refurb bringing them up to PRM ready standards, I reckon they have a short term future.

 

[Journeyman]

With the refurb bringing them up to PRM ready standards, I reckon they have a short term future.

Microfleets are not economic. If a bunch of extra Voyagers became available, replacing the HSTs is a no-brainer.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

If I'm honest, yes. Most of us (me included) love HST's but they won't last forever. One type of InterCity train, some with 7 coaches (6 might just be enough, 8 maybe overkill unless there's a big event on or severe disruption), some with 5.

Personally, I'd love it if Hitachi Class 8xx stock would be far better than the Voyagers - backwards trips are better in the 8xx than the Voyagers and also we need a train that's newer than the HST's but better than the Voyagers! The Voyagers are nice trains yes but newer longer stock would be far more preferable I think.

 

[Meerkat]

Bearing in mind the economics of XC I think this is a purely political decision......but has a lot on its side.
That Hitachi factory will be running out of work, and letting it close would be brave.
80x is an established product that can be in service quickly and unlikely to embarrass anybody with chaotic delays.
Might even be able to get them in service before the next election, and one fleet gives shiny new trains from Cornwall to the Red Wall.

 

[DorkingMain]

Diesel running under the wires is obviously not ideal, but equally there might not be an interest in purchasing a huge new fleet of bi-modes when there's available existing stock that fits the work.

 

[Energy]

Bearing in mind the economics of XC I think this is a purely political decision......but has a lot on its side.
That Hitachi factory will be running out of work, and letting it close would be brave.
80x is an established product that can be in service quickly and unlikely to embarrass anybody with chaotic delays.
Might even be able to get them in service before the next election, and one fleet gives shiny new trains from Cornwall to the Red Wall.

It wouldn't be a suprising political move to order new trains for XC, it would give Newton Aycliffe or Derby more work and XC covers so many places that politicians can claim they helped get new trains for their area. They can also build the trains for XC at a fairly slow pace to keep the factory with work as once more voyagers can be doubled up the need isn't that desperate, the voyagers aren't life expired yet and don't need PRM.

 

[Meerkat]

It wouldn't be a suprising political move to order new trains for XC, it would give Newton Aycliffe or Derby more work and XC covers so many places that politicians can claim they helped get new trains for their area. They can also build the trains for XC at a fairly slow pace to keep the factory with work as once more voyagers can be doubled up the need isn't that desperate, the voyagers aren't life expired yet and don't need PRM.

Good point. They won’t be in a hurry to change the timetable (assuming the 80x can win on electric acceleration??) so could just drop the new train in gradually.
The political need is keeping the factory open, losing some jobs due to a lower production rate isn’t anywhere near so bad.
Depot provision might be an issue, both in size terms and whether Bombardier would be happy selling it to Hitachi if Hitachi wanted to run maintenance of the new trains.

 

[Elecman]

after January 1st you could resurrect Project Thor and insist that Bombardier build in Derby with maximum British input.

 

[py_megapixel]

insist that Bombardier build in Derby with maximum British input.

The question is - insist that Bombardier build what? You're not suggesting that Bombardier should build orders for continental Europe in the UK are you?

 

[Elecman]

The question is - insist that Bombardier build what? You're not suggesting that Bombardier should build orders for continental Europe in the UK are you?

Project Thor inserting a 25Kv electric power car into the existing rains creating a bi mode

 

[py_megapixel]

Project Thor inserting a 25Kv electric power car into the existing rains creating a bi mode

Fair enough

Just realised you wrote that in your original post, not sure how I didn't take that information in first time(!)

 

[JonathanH]

after January 1st you could resurrect Project Thor and insist that Bombardier build in Derby with maximum British input.

No you couldn't. It has been made clear by informed posters in this forum that Project Thor was not feasible at an acceptable cost and that Derby doesn't have a suitable assembly line to do the work.

 

[tbtc]

Project Thor should have been done ten years ago.

But it wasn't, which means that the Voyagers are now "half way" through their expected life, rather than "a quarter" of the way (assuming a simplistic forty years thing - I appreciate that they weren't all built in 2000 but let's keep things simple here...)

So the economics of doing so are significantly worse than they were (i.s. you're building coaches with an expected life of only twenty years, rather than the thirty years that was the expected lifespan of Voyagers)

Plus, the Pendolino extension still had to be tendered for, even though there was only realistically one company that could win the bid, so it might still be complicated/expensive to do a tender.

I think that IETs are the long term answer for XC, but it'd be unrealistic to do anything in the short term, since the 220/222s would be a huge help to the franchise for the bulk of the next decade.

 

[Energy]

after January 1st you could resurrect Project Thor and insist that Bombardier build in Derby with maximum British input.

Voyagers are steel bodied, Derby can only build aluminium bodies and won't start steel body production for just a tiny voyager order. Voyagers can't share the power between vehicles so the car with the pantograph on would be the only car with powered bogies, not impossible but not ideal. It would probably be cheaper or a similar price to just order 7 car AT300s for XC.

This is all assuming Bombardier are willing to build more voyager vehicles, we can insist they build them in Derby but Bombardier may say that they aren't interested in building them at all. I believe Project Thor came from when Derby was running low on orders so they proposed it to the DfT, by the time anything happened Bombardier were no longer interested as Derby was busy again from other orders. If you throw enough money at Bombardier they will probably agree to do it (and Alstom as they made some of the important bits of the voyagers) but at that point it is probably cheaper to order AT300s which are meant to be quite cheap due to low leasing costs on new trains and the R&D costs having already been covered by the IEP.

Ordering AT300s would also keep many jobs at Newton Aycliffe which is good for politicians as well as the UK in general. The voyager cars would almost certainly have to be built overseas due to Derby being unable to produce steel bodies.

And who is paying for this? Why would the ROSCO agree to pay when the future for voyagers is already uncertain, they got sold to Beacon Rail a few years ago and I doubt they paid a lot for them. Why would the DfT pay when they can just get a ROSCO to finance some AT300s?

 

[387star]

Once they get meridians and refurbish their voyagers they could be on to a winner.
I see extra luggage space stickers now fitted on the outside by the old shop.

 

[py_megapixel]

Once they get meridians and refurbish their voyagers they could be on to a winner.

You seem to suggest that these things are already planned to happen.
In fact, I don't believe either are confirmed at all (though it would be great if they were )