Should Voyagers be converted into bi-modes?

[RobShipway]

I would be very surprised indeed if the idea of converting old diesel trains to electric was to go ahead, especially the 22x series. The 22x series is a diesel intercity train, and given it has never been designed for electric use from the start, the costs needed to convert them to electric would be completely unfeasible. Such a conversion would also probably make them less efficient than brand new electric or bi-mode units.
If Grand Central or CrossCountry wanted bi-mode trains, it would be much more feasible to just order and buy a fleet of new Class 80x IETs, rather than mess around with converting mid life cycle Voyagers (or Super Voyagers) into electric units.

If you really want electric capable trains - buy new IETs, send the Voyagers to Newport Sims. Problem solved.

You seem to forget that they where designed a DEMU units and there was plans not long after the Voyagers where introduced to add a carriage or two to convert them to be diesel trains, that could also be used as electric trains using a pantopgraph carriage. As the second post in the thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rs-so-they-could-become-bi-mode-units.129788/ states the following:

The plan was 5th carriages with a pantograph for all the 4 car 220s (with options to do the same to the other 22xs). However, the costs were too high.

Also Cameron backed the project saying it would be good for British industry without realising Bombardier planned to do the work at their steel factory in Belgium, not their aluminium factory in Derby. Political backing disappeared when Westminister realised Voyagers had steel carriages Bombardier did not build steel carriages in Derby.

You also have the details from 2012 in the page https://www.railstaff.co.uk/2012/01/26/pan-up-for-voyagers/:

26TH JANUARY 2012

The DfT is to look in more detail at a scheme to convert the Bombardier built CrossCountry Voyager fleet to hybrid operation, by inserting a pantograph-carrying carriage.
The e-Voyager project would provide more work for Bombardier’s Derby workforce.
Transport Minister, Justine Greening, has asked the department to check out costs and described herself as enthusiastic about the project.
Large parts of the CrossCountry network, such as Devon and Cornwall, will not be electrified in the medium term. However a number of CrossCountry journeys, such as those between Birmingham and the north-west, are made entirely along electrified routes.
Says Paul Roberts, president of Bombardier Transportation in the UK, ‘It is encouraging news from Ms Greening on her plans for the eVoyager project, where we hope a contractual agreement can be reached in the first quarter of 2012.’

 

[MarkyT]

My choice would be class 810's for XC, as supplied to EMR. After all, the Midland Railway was a single system, with St Pancras only the London extension.

As soon as some are available, all XC services North of Leeds could be worked by them. Infill electrification would then be viable especially where other services would share the wires.

However I do like the XC Voyagers, even with the smells and have experienced very good timekeeping over a decade of travelling - much better than GWR. The UK doesn't have the skills needed to convert them to OLE supply.

WAO

I don't mind the Voyagers either really. They're certainly quick, smooth riding, and seemingly very reliable (apart from around Dawlish in certain weather conditions clearly!) A new XC train based on the 810s would have the poke to keep up 125mph on diesel sections where required, as specced for MML. ISTR Midland Main Line and XC were in the same division of Intercity for a time under BR sector management and a common maintenance base could once again be established for such a new Hitachi fleet in the Derby area. I doubt any administration in any nation on earth would take on an OHLE conversion of the Voyagers. It is simply not economical to carry out such major reengineering on trains of their age.

 

[Energy]

You seem to forget that they where designed a DEMU units and there was plans not long after the Voyagers where introduced to add a carriage or two to convert them to be diesel trains, that could also be used as electric trains using a pantopgraph carriage. As the second post in the thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rs-so-they-could-become-bi-mode-units.129788/ states the following:

The plan was 5th carriages with a pantograph for all the 4 car 220s (with options to do the same to the other 22xs). However, the costs were too high.

Also Cameron backed the project saying it would be good for British industry without realising Bombardier planned to do the work at their steel factory in Belgium, not their aluminium factory in Derby. Political backing disappeared when Westminister realised Voyagers had steel carriages Bombardier did not build steel carriages in Derby.

You also have the details from 2012 in the page https://www.railstaff.co.uk/2012/01/26/pan-up-for-voyagers/:

26TH JANUARY 2012

The DfT is to look in more detail at a scheme to convert the Bombardier built CrossCountry Voyager fleet to hybrid operation, by inserting a pantograph-carrying carriage.
The e-Voyager project would provide more work for Bombardier’s Derby workforce.
Transport Minister, Justine Greening, has asked the department to check out costs and described herself as enthusiastic about the project.
Large parts of the CrossCountry network, such as Devon and Cornwall, will not be electrified in the medium term. However a number of CrossCountry journeys, such as those between Birmingham and the north-west, are made entirely along electrified routes.
Says Paul Roberts, president of Bombardier Transportation in the UK, ‘It is encouraging news from Ms Greening on her plans for the eVoyager project, where we hope a contractual agreement can be reached in the first quarter of 2012.’

It still wouldn't have solved the traction bus issues.

And for work for Derby the 379s ordered around that time were 120 carriages rather than the 38 to up all voyagers to 5 cars.

 

[DanNCL]

East Anglia is no good as Voyagers cannot operate at SP speeds across some parts of the Fens. For example Ely-Lakenheath would be 45mph.

What’s the reason that Voyagers can’t run at SP speeds across the Fens? Is there an actual issue that would prevent it or is it simply a case of nobody envisaging a need for Voyagers to run there?

 

[MarkyT]

What’s the reason that Voyagers can’t run at SP speeds across the Fens? Is there an actual issue that would prevent it or is it simply a case of nobody envisaging a need for Voyagers to run there?

I think it's mainly weight. They are comparatively heavy vehicles and there may be details of their suspension and power transmission arrangements that result in higher track forces than other lower-performance DMUs. Also affects track access charges I understand.

 

[dk1]

What’s the reason that Voyagers can’t run at SP speeds across the Fens? Is there an actual issue that would prevent it or is it simply a case of nobody envisaging a need for Voyagers to run there?

As stated it’s weight. They’ve been to Norwich before unsuccessfully.

 

[D365]

You seem to forget that they where designed a DEMU units and there was plans not long after the Voyagers where introduced to add a carriage or two to convert them to be diesel trains, that could also be used as electric trains using a pantopgraph carriage. As the second post in the thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rs-so-they-could-become-bi-mode-units.129788/ states the following:

The plan was 5th carriages with a pantograph for all the 4 car 220s (with options to do the same to the other 22xs). However, the costs were too high.

The costs were too high, because the Voyagers were not designed for bi-mode conversion...

 

[Snow1964]

With the voyagers now over 20 years old, not going to make any economic sense to modify them.

What might make sense is to build new bodyshells that are full width (not reduced for tilting) with much better passenger layout (not so many giant toilets) and transfer equipment to them. Reusing as much as possible eg bogies, shop fittings etc

Effectively build new EMUs, with the diesel generators slung under them. But might be a problem, if gets classed as new train then existing diesel would fail current emissions levels.

The economic reality is stuck with them at the moment, and through into 2030s. However they really need to be cascaded around the country to areas that are likely to remain unelectrified for next 15 years, not allocated to services where lot of route is electrified

The voyagers themselves don't need changing (or strictly whilst not perfect, are better than some other fleets), but some routes currently using them really need bi-modes. Perhaps more practically the timetable needs rethinking, and voyager services not generally operated north west of Birmingham, or north of York, but more going from Birmingham East-West (think North Wales / Chester to Norwich / Stansted etc

 

[WestAnglian]

Voyagers should certainly be converted, no question. I'd convert them into baked bean tins.

 

[The Ham]

Other than the possibility of going to Scotland the other location which could work (although never see 125mph running and would likely mean 2 diets rather than one) would be the WofE line, as a 10 coach unit (note not in 5+5 formation) would have the same capacity as a 9 coach 159 train.

Although they wouldn't be useful for peak services, they could allow DMU or bimodal units to be used elsewhere.

The big downside would be that there would be too much capacity west of Salisbury, however that might not be a bad thing (other than costs, but that could be mitigated against by offering better value fares to generate more income).

The other option (on the same route) would be to split some services at Yeovil (cross platform interchange) with bimodal/battery trains running the London end of the service. You could still run through services (one ever two hours or one every three hours would give the option of direct services whilst still reducing the amount of diesel use over electrified routes).

 

[paul1609]

Other than the possibility of going to Scotland the other location which could work (although never see 125mph running and would likely mean 2 diets rather than one) would be the WofE line, as a 10 coach unit (note not in 5+5 formation) would have the same capacity as a 9 coach 159 train.

Although they wouldn't be useful for peak services, they could allow DMU or bimodal units to be used elsewhere.

The big downside would be that there would be too much capacity west of Salisbury, however that might not be a bad thing (other than costs, but that could be mitigated against by offering better value fares to generate more income).

The other option (on the same route) would be to split some services at Yeovil (cross platform interchange) with bimodal/battery trains running the London end of the service. You could still run through services (one ever two hours or one every three hours would give the option of direct services whilst still reducing the amount of diesel use over electrified routes).

I suspect the DC electrification wouldn't be up to supplying the current required for a 10 car unit at 100 mph plus fast charging batteries on the same train for a 150 mile return trip off the juice to Yeovil. Looked as a self-contained route Waterloo to Yeovil is only around 40% electrified. Much of the ex southern region dc system was only upgraded sufficiently to run the existing services when the Desiro/ Electrostars were introduced. It doesn't have the spare capacity that's inherit in most 25 Kv ac systems.

 

[Trainbike46]

I suspect the DC electrification wouldn't be up to supplying the current required for a 10 car unit at 100 mph plus fast charging batteries on the same train for a 150 mile return trip off the juice to Yeovil. Looked as a self-contained route Waterloo to Yeovil is only around 40% electrified. Much of the ex southern region dc system was only upgraded sufficiently to run the existing services when the Desiro/ Electrostars were introduced. It doesn't have the spare capacity that's inherit in most 25 Kv ac systems.

Feeder stations can be upgraded where necessary though

 

[paul1609]

Feeder stations can be upgraded where necessary though

I suspect you'd need something akin to the SEML dc upgrade for Eurostar where the distance between the feeder stations was halved by converting the track parallel huts to feeder stations. Not really sure what size of battery pack you'd need for 150 mile return trip at 90mph off the juice but I suspect there wouldn't be that much room for passengers on board.

 

[Trainbike46]

I suspect you'd need something akin to the SEML dc upgrade for Eurostar where the distance between the feeder stations was halved by converting the track parallel huts to feeder stations. Not really sure what size of battery pack you'd need for 150 mile return trip at 90mph off the juice but I suspect there wouldn't be that much room for passengers on board.

You would probably want charging in some form at the southwest end too, making it a 70ish mile unelectrified journey, but you can fit a surprising battery capacity in a train.

an OHLE island around Yeovil (and Exeter) could do the trick

 

[2192]

What’s the reason that Voyagers can’t run at SP speeds across the Fens? Is there an actual issue that would prevent it or is it simply a case of nobody envisaging a need for Voyagers to run there?

What does "SP speeds" mean?

 

[MarkyT]

What does "SP speeds" mean?

I think it was for sprinters originally, subsequently applying to other similar lighter weight units.

 

[Trainbike46]

What does "SP speeds" mean?

It a separate speed profile for lightweight units, such as sprinters (153s, 156s, 158s), 170s, 755s and possibly others. In East Anglia there's a bunch of lines where units that can't use those are limited to low speeds, meaning that a voyager couldn't even get close to keeping to time when replacing a 170 on XC services, for example

 

[dk1]

It a separate speed profile for lightweight units, such as sprinters (153s, 156s, 158s), 170s, 755s and possibly others. In East Anglia there's a bunch of lines where units that can't use those are limited to low speeds, meaning that a voyager couldn't even get close to keeping to time when replacing a 170 on XC services, for example

Exactly. Ely N Jcn to Lakenheath is a very long way at 45mph for example.

 

[liamf656]

What does "SP speeds" mean?

Some areas have different speed limits depending on traction. SP in this instance originally meant 150/153/155/156/158/159 but since subsequent fleets were built now includes 165/166/168/170/171/172 and I believe 195/196/197/755/756 also fall into this category. Note that they are all lightweight

The reason other traction has lower speed limits across the fens is because they are too heavy for the soft ground

You’ll find other speed restrictions under HST, MU, DMU, EMU and CS. I can’t find anything in this forum explaining but I’m sure someone with better knowledge will

 

[dk1]

Some areas have different speed limits depending on traction. SP in this instance originally meant 150/153/155/156/158/159 but since subsequent fleets were built now includes 165/166/168/170/171/172 and I believe 195/196/197/755/756 also fall into this category. Note that they are all lightweight

755s only just made it. They were altered during construction to have smaller tanks to comply & hence the need to visit fuelling points on a more frequent basis and the construction of new facilities at Colchester depot.

 

[Whistler40145]

IMHO the best way forward for XC is to completely replace the 220/221 fleet with a new fleet of 8xx units, all units capable of working off OHLE, 3rd Rail and Diesel. The 170s on the Cardiff Central to Nottingham service would be replaced with units similar to 755s or 197s

 

[The Ham]

IMHO the best way forward for XC is to completely replace the 220/221 fleet with a new fleet of 8xx units, all units capable of working off OHLE, 3rd Rail and Diesel. The 170s on the Cardiff Central to Nottingham service would be replaced with units similar to 755s or 197s

Whilst third rail would be advantageous, it's 1.5tph over a fairly short distance so the benefits would be fairly limited.

Arguably battery power would be a better option given that would bring benefits over a wider area.

 

[zwk500]

Whilst third rail would be advantageous, it's 1.5tph over a fairly short distance so the benefits would be fairly limited.

Arguably battery power would be a better option given that would bring benefits over a wider area.

The best solution is probably what GWR were trialling on IETs - Having 3 gensets and 2 battery packs as part of the Bi-Mode. Batteries won't do all of XC's extensions, so they'll need a diesel or other fuelled power for a full unit lifetime anyway.
Agree with @Whistler40145 that 755s would do quite nicely for their more 'regional express' workings.

 

[Snow1964]

Heard a rumour (and it might have been based on the comment from Alstom MD at House of Commons committee 6 Dec), that one of the potential options to keep Derby busy is a voyager electric power car.

Something like this was discussed about 12-15 years ago, called project Thor, at the time was to build a pantograph extra car for voyagers, but it was uneconomic.

Would seem new plan is possibly to use the intermediate cars from spare Avanti 221s, or the long 222s and make a pantograph transformer car.

My understanding is the problems are basically that the 220 and 221 drive to onix traction package would need new feed cables as currently only from diesel alternators, not from central feed. Also the 222 cars have more underfloor equipment. I am guessing could always mount transformer inside the body (as was done on class 306, 307 when converted from dc) if not enough room. Of course the diesel power pack on Stadler units and the old 2xx DEMUs was above floor.

So aim would be a 25kv package that can be added in an intermediate vehicle, which might need to lose its diesel set to save weight, capable of powering a 6car set. Wouldn't be big loss if one vehicle did have a toilet if losing floor space to a transformer, perhaps could get some luggage racks over the transformer.

The other complication is ownership, voyagers are Beacon, 222s are Eversholt, but possibly if no one wants them and only going to be long term stored with no income, then some deal to use them can be made.

Probably lot of logic in the bi-mode and lengthening, if going to have spare fleet then might as well be just some driving bodyshells rather than long term stored whole trains. I presume can easily unbolt engines, seats, even bogies for spares etc. So keep intermediate cars, scrap end cars. Maybe swap out heavy tilting bogies (with tilt isolated) for standard versions, again scrap least useful bits, not as currently configured.

Also seems to me that 4car voyagers, if not coupled are generally too short, and a fleet of 6car sets would be better, with few 4car sets retained for strengthening busy trains as way forward. If it was me I would make the 4car strengthening sets all standard class (so scrap the first class driving cars, reform retained sets with other end car). Might even be better to have standard 6 car sets with 3car all standard seating strengthening sets. Perhaps the strengthening sets could remain diesel to save conversion money.

To give the voyagers a refurb and keep them in their current unsuitable configuration just seems dumb to me. The needs for next 8+ years isn't same as late 1990s when they were conceived.

 

[Energy]

Heard a rumour (and it might have been based on the comment from Alstom MD at House of Commons committee 6 Dec), that one of the potential options to keep Derby busy is a voyager electric power car.

Something like this was discussed about 12-15 years ago, called project Thor, at the time was to build a pantograph extra car for voyagers, but it was uneconomic.

It would have the same issue as 10+ years ago but be even less economic now the units have less life left.

It would also be a fairly small order.

 

[MarkyT]

The best solution is probably what GWR were trialling on IETs - Having 3 gensets and 2 battery packs as part of the Bi-Mode. Batteries won't do all of XC's extensions, so they'll need a diesel or other fuelled power for a full unit lifetime anyway.
Agree with @Whistler40145 that 755s would do quite nicely for their more 'regional express' workings.

I don't think Voyagers & Meridians are quite as 'modular' as Hitachi products which are clearly more state-of-the-art technically. With their self-contained architecture, each Bombardier vehicle has its own complete diesel electric traction system, including motors, prime mover and fuel store, I think a small bank of batteries on each car would be a better solution if weight budget and space limits can be resolved. Batteries might allow a reduction in the quantity of fuel storage onboard. New cleaner diesel engines might also be a little smaller if the absolute highest peak acceleration load for short periods can be partially met from stored energy. One very compelling aspect of a hybrid configuration is the ability to harvest and store braking energy, instead of burning off all the regen from slowing in the rooftop resistor banks.

 

[Snow1964]

It would have the same issue as 10+ years ago but be even less economic now the units have less life left.

It would also be a fairly small order.

I think the difference was they were proposing new additional vehicles.

Sounds like they are now considering there is (or soon will be once 805, 807, 810 are in service) excess 220, 221, 222. So by converting some vehicles potentially it would be cost effective to reform into hybrid sets.

My thought was strong case for a 6car fleet for XC, with a few standard class only 3car sets to strengthen busiest services (not to be used on their own)

 

[HSTEd]

Even without considering the runaway costs at the last considered conversion, the trains aren't exactly new any more are they.

At this point it would probably be better to send them for scrap and buy some new electrodiesels instead.

 

[sprinterguy]

I think the difference was they were proposing new additional vehicles.

Sounds like they are now considering there is (or soon will be once 805, 807, 810 are in service) excess 220, 221, 222. So by converting some vehicles potentially it would be cost effective to reform into hybrid sets.

Sounds significantly worse than building bespoke new vehicles that would be specced to match the existing trains - With pre-existing vehicles, there's the:

Heavy engineering required to cut the well required for pantograph, circuit breakers and assorted gubbins on the roof;

Consideration of how far this then intrudes into the overhead saloon space;

Rearrangement of underfloor equipment to remove the engine and fit a transformer, with the prerequisite weight distribution and load bearing considerations (best case scenario the removal of the former matches the installation of the latter);

Electrical rewiring of the affected vehicle;

And reconfiguration of the Train Management System to 'talk' to Crosscountry-spec vehicles,

On top of the pre-existing consideration with new build vehicles of how this feeds power to the distributed traction motors across a Voyager unit.

Even without considering the runaway costs at the last considered conversion, the trains aren't exactly new any more are they.

At this point it would probably be better to send them for scrap and buy some new electrodiesels instead.

Hear hear. A new build fleet could increase capacity and better meet passenger's needs, while potentially achieving reductions in leasing and maintenance costs and taking advantage of the technological advancements of the past twenty years, with far less complexity than attempting to convert and shoehorn existing vehicles into an ageing and poorly suited pre-existing fleet.

 

[gingertom]

My choice would be class 810's for XC, as supplied to EMR.

WAO

I agree, but with the build based on the 26m bodyshell to increase passenger accommodation. I'd also be suggesting 7 car sets and to avoid the faff of having gensets supplying power to adjacent vehicles' traction motors, I'd stick with using a genset to feed traction power to that vehicle's one traction-equipped bogie. 8xx for some reason need to have an odd number of vehicles, so if the pantograph vehicle was in the centre you'd end up with something that looks suspiciously like what a project Thor Voyager would have looked like.