Voyagers for Stirling-Euston?

[Chester1]

For the right offering.

The offering primarily means ticketing, stopping patterns and journey times. How many normal passengere will notice the difference between a spruced up Voyager and a new 80X? How many of those will not travel by train because of a dislike of Voyagers? I would very much welcome an open access service on WCML to keep Avanti on its toes.

 

[zwk500]

Why is 125mph tilt so important for just 4 trains/day? Grand Central's Euston - Blackpool service using Class 90/non-tilt mk4's was approved.

The majority of the tilt benefit is north of Lancaster.

TPX mk5 using Class 90/91 or short formed IC225 sets (any left?) may be more difficult to path further south but no issues north of Preston which is full of EMU's running at 100/110 and this weekend Class 80x diversions from the ECML also running at this speed.

Can the Mk5s work with 90s (there aren't any spare 91s/MK4s left I don't think)? Pathing a 110mph train from Euston to Preston would be fine, WCRC regularly run 100mph Class 86-hauled charters out of Euston that are Fast Line until the Trent Valley.

 

[ainsworth74]

Can the Mk5s work with 90s (there aren't any spare 91s/MK4s left I don't think)?

I am open to correction but I believe that a 90 could haul them, they're just coaches, but work would be required to have the 90 talk to the DTS for push/pull.

 

[JonathanH]

Pathing a 110mph train from Euston to Preston would be fine, WCRC regularly run 100mph Class 86-hauled charters out of Euston that are Fast Line until the Trent Valley.

Isn't that because they have a dedicated path in the timetable planning just for that purpose?

0648 from Euston with calls at Watford Junction and Milton Keynes. Goes onto the slow at Rugby just in front of the 0710 from Euston to Birmingham and 0713 from Euston to Manchester. That is quite an obstructive path before the full timetable gets going.

Grand Union appear to want a stop at Milton Keynes, based on their website. That might be fine for an early train but it is going to be tricky at 100mph or 110mph in the middle of a full south WCML service.

 

[zwk500]

Isn't that because they have a dedicated path in the timetable planning just for that purpose?

0648 from Euston with calls at Watford Junction and Milton Keynes. Goes onto the slow at Rugby just in front of the 0710 from Euston to Birmingham and 0713 from Euston to Manchester. That is quite an obstructive path before the full timetable gets going.

They do indeed have a dedicated path but it proves the concept - if the space wasn't there it wouldn't be offered. And Grand Union would be part of a timetable planning process as well, should they be running.

 

[Chester1]

The problem is that once the 805/807/810 orders are complete there are no further 80x derivative orders in prospect in any quantity. That means anyone wanting to order small numbers - such as Open Access operators - are going to pay a really high price to get new trains, which may well cripple the business case. 22x units are an ideal alternative: mid-life, available and reliable.

If they place the order as soon as access rights are granted it could easily be early 2027 before the first new unit enters service for them. Grand Union could start service with the Voyagers in early 2025 and transition to new stock during 2027. If there are the ususal delays then they just carry on with Voyagers until all the new stock is ready and working properly. I doubt the Rosco will get a better chance to get any further revenue. It looks like Grand Central, Grand Union or scrap yard for the 13 spare Avanti 221s. There is no guarantee it would be 80X. 397s are a proven design too. A new Alstom or Siemens design is probably too risky for an open access operator.

 

[The Planner]

They do indeed have a dedicated path but it proves the concept - if the space wasn't there it wouldn't be offered. And Grand Union would be part of a timetable planning process as well, should they be running.

They were very well embedded in Dec 22 development.

 

[Energy]

They were very well embedded in Dec 22 development.

Does it allow for them to operate 80X?

 

[The Planner]

Does it allow for them to operate 80X?

There were 110mph paths put in.

 

[Master29]

There are currently (strictly soon will be) surplus 221s and 222s

I agree ideally would have an electric unit, but there aren't any surplus 125mph electric trains (there are the Transpennine mk5s, but no spare express locos), remaining 91s seem to have homes.

So stuck between hiring (leasing) old spare diesel trains, or waiting until build something (which might get stuck with, if service is unsuccessful). More a failure of the way privatisation didn't insist on pool of trains being kept available for short term hire.

That would have made some sense but not with this government.

 

[Merioneth]

110mph… Class 379 or 350/2? Plenty available to lease, more comfortable than a Voyager, and 8 coaches would give loads of capacity. I suspect a fast, comfortable run in either of these classes of units would be attractive to the clientele sought for the proposed service.

 

[Blindtraveler]

179 would definitely work, especially if they made a real effort with the catering, perhaps supplying pre-cooked hot meals from stations to order and a decent trolley that was regularly restocked so that the t didn't get cold and the sandwiches didn't get hot

 

[dk1]

The refurbishment plan for GU 221s is for 2+1 seating in standard with good legroom along with individual seating in 1st class. Buffet & fixed kitchen area will also be provided.

 

[Energy]

The refurbishment plan for GU 221s is for 2+1 seating in standard with good legroom along with individual seating in 1st class. Buffet & fixed kitchen area will also be provided.

Wonder how they plan on making money...

 

[The Planner]

Using 221s means they can do things Avanti couldnt or wouldnt.

 

[dk1]

Wonder how they plan on making money...

My thoughts exactly. Time will tell.

 

[XCTurbostar]

110mph… Class 379 or 350/2? Plenty available to lease, more comfortable than a Voyager, and 8 coaches would give loads of capacity. I suspect a fast, comfortable run in either of these classes of units would be attractive to the clientele sought for the proposed service.

I don’t doubt that they would be interested but on the flip of that, I don’t think the leasing company would be initially interested in leasing <10 units to a small operator. They’d prefer to have all units under the same name and maintenance. Obviously, if the leaser is struggling to shift them, it would make sense for this to happen.

As I said previously, it’s much more likely that GU is targeting 125MPH paths to make it more likely that their bid is accepted and clearly, it does make it more appealing.

 

[Some guy]

Although environmentalists will be complaining they should take a leaf out of the 68 and 66 book and trial a train with vegetable oil which has proven to reduce emissions by 90% to compensate

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Absolutely!

Much better to introduce a rail service which is one diesel train and reduce potentially hundreds of cars or a much more polluting A320!

Unfortunately, many have lost sight of this and seem to write off the idea of 'diesel under the wires'.

Well said. I have no time for woke nonsense and double standards like this. A new train service, diesel or otherwise, is better than no new train service.

350/2? Plenty available to lease, more comfortable than a Voyager, and 8 coaches would give loads of capacity.

Excuse me?? According to who??

 

[RobShipway]

Since the Government have changed the goal posts when it comes to the selling of petrol and Diesel vehicles, then there is no reason why Grand Union should not introduce a new service from London to Sterling using class 221 units with tilt enabled. As @TT-ONR-NRN states a new train service being introduced is better than no train service being introduced.

Depending on who is in Government after next years general election and their policies, will be a case as to where any of the current Government Policies get changed. However, if they do get changed the changes I doubt will be immediate and may not be felt until 2026.

Whilst I understand the argument about having diesel under the rails, which is why Avanti went for using class 805/807 units on the WCML and EMR have done the same with the class 810 units in the MML, GU have to be operating the service at 125mph. Whilst you have got capable carriages in the form of the TPE MK5A carriages, you need a 125mph electric locomotive to haul them. Other than using class 221 Voyagers, the other option would have possibly been to use the TPE MK5A coaches if possible with a class 67 loco, but even though the class 67 loco is a 125mph diesel, I think that it is limited to 100 - 110mph when being used on passenger services, so this option would not have been able to provide the service that GU requires.

With regards the class 379 and class 350/2, you would have to spend vast more money on refurbishing these units to enable them to work the route for GU's requirement and the class 379 units would have to have their speed increased to be able to be used at 110mph, which as been said a few times is not cheap to be able to do.

 

[dave59]

GU have to be operating the service at 125mph.

They don't have to be operating the service at max 125mph but it's desirable for marketing. Only the 221 and 390 achieve this on the WCML unless the speed profiles are changed for non-tilt.

With regards the class 379 and class 350/2, you would have to spend vast more money on refurbishing these units to enable them to work the route for GU's requirement and the class 379 units would have to have their speed increased to be able to be used at 110mph, which as been said a few times is not cheap to be able to do.

It looks like GU will implement significant refurbishment of whatever they use in the interim before procuring new stock. Short formed Ex-LNER sets. Proper luxury and no underfloor noise. Or the new CAF coaches hauled by a 93. Rapid acceleration can make up for the 110 rather than 125 top speed over much of this route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It looks like GU will implement significant refurbishment of whatever they use in the interim before procuring new stock. Short formed Ex-LNER sets. Proper luxury and no underfloor noise. Or the new CAF coaches hauled by a 93. Rapid acceleration can make up for the 110 rather than 125 top speed over much of this route.

The problem with ex-LNER sets is that there's no clarity on when they'll be available. LNER did want to replace them but I believe this process has been paused. I suppose they could try to convince TfW to take Mk5s instead and release theirs, but why would they?

 

[AndrewE]

The problem with ex-LNER sets is that there's no clarity on when they'll be available. LNER did want to replace them but I believe this process has been paused. I suppose they could try to convince TfW to take Mk5s instead and release theirs, but why would they?

Surely the common-sense option would be to "give" the ECML some more Azumas (so they have a uniform fleet) and cascade the IC225s into a secondary pool for OA operators?

 

[dave59]

I would have thought it was beneficial for LNER to have a fleet with similar performance profile but it seems to work for them if they are content not to reflect the Class 801 increased capability in the timetables.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would have thought it was beneficial for LNER to have a fleet with similar performance profile but it seems to work for them if they are content not to reflect the Class 801 increased capability in the timetables.

LNER want to replace them, there's a thread on it that implied that a 10 car Class 397 derivative from CAF was the leading bidder. However the funding is not forthcoming so they can't.

I'm sure if GU wanted to say to LNER "we'll buy you some new trains if we can have your Mk4s" then they would accept, but that'd be a very expensive option indeed, and in that case why wouldn't GU want the new trains themselves?

 

[dave59]

So the original DfT Hitachi procurement intentionally left the railway 8 sets short? A repeat performance of InterCity not ordering enough 225's.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So the original DfT Hitachi procurement intentionally left the railway 8 sets short? A repeat performance of InterCity not ordering enough 225's.

This happens over and over and over again. Too few 350s meant LM then LNR keeping 321s then 319s, for instance. XC needed the HSTs (and still do despite them having gone). And so on.

Repeated attempts to save money by underordering results in expensive microfleets. All the time.

 

[RobShipway]

This happens over and over and over again. Too few 350s meant LM then LNR keeping 321s then 319s, for instance. XC needed the HSTs (and still do despite them having gone). And so on.

Repeated attempts to save money by underordering results in expensive microfleets. All the time.

I could understand it, if the trains replacing gave more capacity. But the Voyagers replacing the HST's do not have the same number of seats, when you compare the Voyagers 246 sets to the 492 seats of each the HST sets. More of the class 221's should go to Cross Country with with the similar class 222 units going to GU in my opinion. The class 222 having been brought into service three years later than the class 221 units, would have a longer life span left in them.

 

[Speed43125]

This happens over and over and over again. Too few 350s meant LM then LNR keeping 321s then 319s, for instance. XC needed the HSTs (and still do despite them having gone). And so on.

Repeated attempts to save money by underordering results in expensive microfleets. All the time.

Yet when the opposite happens we get moaning of wasted money and idle trains sitting around doing nothing as well! (see Anglia 755s)

 

[Energy]

This happens over and over and over again. Too few 350s meant LM then LNR keeping 321s then 319s, for instance. XC needed the HSTs (and still do despite them having gone). And so on.

Repeated attempts to save money by underordering results in expensive microfleets. All the time.

To be fair the growth in the LNER Azuma order was the 22 5 car 800/801s... just the growth was underestimated.