Voyagers for Stirling-Euston?

[Bletchleyite]

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

As it is over, and over, and over again

 

[Merioneth]

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.


Excuse me?? According to who??

Says everyone over 5’11” I know who has to travel on them. Rotten seats, no shoulder room, internal doors that close on all but the most seasoned passengers, and vile-smelling lavatories.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Says everyone over 5’11” I know who has to travel on them. Rotten seats, no shoulder room, internal doors that close on all but the most seasoned passengers, and vile-smelling lavatories.

Very subjective. I personally very much disagree that a train with wider, 2+2 (vice 2+3) seating, armrests, plugs, tables, pull down trays, vestibules to keep out the cold, Wi-Fi and warm lighting is less favourable than a train with NONE of those aforementioned amenities.

 

[Bald Rick]

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!

Very approximately, a double voyager running from Stirling to London will use about the same quantity of fuel as an A320neo flying from Edinburgh to Stansted or Luton. Albeit the 2x221 will be more than twice as efficient on a seat mile basis, if 90% of the seats are taken for the whole journey (as they usually are for such flights)

Says everyone over 5’11” I know who has to travel on them. Rotten seats, no shoulder room, internal doors that close on all but the most seasoned passengers, and vile-smelling lavatories.

I‘m 6’3” and prefer a voyager over a 350 any day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Says everyone over 5’11” I know who has to travel on them. Rotten seats, no shoulder room, internal doors that close on all but the most seasoned passengers, and vile-smelling lavatories.

They are, it appears, planning to replace the seats, so this will likely not be an issue. Grand Central passengers may not like it compared to the spacious 180s, but at least they might have at least half a chance of getting to their intended destination on the intended day.

I‘m 6’3” and prefer a voyager over a 350 any day.

Interesting, as there are far more seats with good legroom on a 350 than a Voyager. On a Voyager I only fit in the priority seats or tables (the latter risking a game of kneesie), on a 350 it's only the 9-row centre sections I don't fit, and that isn't even all of the centre sections, some of them have 8 rows. I don't hate Voyagers, but they really do need reseating with something like the seats in the Pendolinos to make legroom acceptable throughout.

 

[WAB]

Voyagers are alright as long as each person has two seats for themselves. Given that one seat for two people is too much to ask for on many services, it's no surprise that the idea of them being used anywhere isn't exactly popular...

 

[dave59]

Power supply issues on the WCML precluded the last application. Not sure of this is still an issue but it seems NR are behind the demand curve on the ECML and now the WCML with infrastructure provision, hence the need for bi-mode or diesel. The 221 is a safer bet for GU, better for the line speed but also side steps this issue.

Only in the UK. They'll be bringing back 2xClass 50 next.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-06/updated-network-rail-representations-270522b.pdf

 

[snowball]

Power supply issues on the WCML precluded the last application. Not sure of this is still an issue but it seems NR are behind the demand curve on the ECML and now the WCML with infrastructure provision, hence the need for bi-mode or diesel.

Sounds plausible in the light of posts from the last few days in this thread:

WCML Power Supply & Auto Transformer Upgrade

As I understand it (from a number of sources): 1. The old FS at Parkside in the SW corner of the intersection has been de-commissioned - there is satellite indication of this. 2. A new ATFS has been built called Willow Park, using the former grid feed, to the North of the L&M, a little to the...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[ben2012]

Wouldnt it make more sense for GC/GU to get the 222s and XC to get the 221s?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Wouldnt it make more sense for GC/GU to get the 222s and XC to get the 221s?

XC is getting 7 extra 221s. Funding could not be found for any further sets above that.

 

[Trainbike46]

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.

Absolutely agreed that a diesel train service is better than no train service at all

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.

Why would it be limited to a lower speed on passenger services? On what freight services would it use its 125 mph capability? Isn't the whole point of a 125 mph locomotive to use that speed when on passenger services?

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

Those aren't idle, and there were supposed to be more services to use them on that haven't materialised

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

Why does LNER have 5-cars at all? an all 9-car fleet would have been more useful

Very approximately, a double voyager running from Stirling to London will use about the same quantity of fuel as an A320neo flying from Edinburgh to Stansted or Luton. Albeit the 2x221 will be more than twice as efficient on a seat mile basis, if 90% of the seats are taken for the whole journey (as they usually are for such flights)

So assuming your statement that a fuel-inefficient 20 year old train uses about as much fuel as one of the most efficient planes available is accurate:

a320neo 174 seats, 90% occupancy is 157 passengers
class 221 10-car 492 seats

Seems like the diesel train is much better. GU should be able to beat 157 passengers (31.8%) in a 10-car train on average

XC is getting 7 extra 221s. Funding could not be found for any further sets above that.

I'd say it's more accurate to say that the government refused to approve funding beyond 7 extra 221s

 

[JonathanH]

Why does LNER have 5-cars at all? an all 9-car fleet would have been more useful

Some of the intended extensions presumably didn't warrant the cost of a 9-car unit. There isn't an unlimited source of funding for all trains to run at full length.

I'd say it's more accurate to say that the government refused to approve funding beyond 7 extra 221s

Because there wasn't a suitable business case for that funding.

It is all very well saying that more funding should be made available but ultimately there isn't scope to do so.

 

[Speed43125]

Why would it be limited to a lower speed on passenger services? On what freight services would it use its 125 mph capability? Isn't the whole point of a 125 mph locomotive to use that speed when on passenger services?

See this thread from several years ago:

How often do, or have, class 67's reached 125mph?

As said, how often do, or have, class 67's reached 125mph? I know they can reach 110mph with WSMR (does this ever happen?) but ECML drags are limited to 90mph (I think).

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I'd say it's more accurate to say that the government refused to approve funding beyond 7 extra 221s

Which is semantics, there’s no magic money tree so as the business case for more then 7 additional units for XC didn’t stack up.

 

[AndrewE]

Which is semantics, there’s no magic money tree so as the business case for more then 7 additional units for XC didn’t stack up.

Which is patronising crap, as has been said many times before. A nation's budget has no resemblance to a household's budget.
UK plc will have part of a fleet of fully functional trains sitting round doing nothing, rotting in sidings when capacity is desperately needed on the line their sisters are going to, simply because of political choice and prejudice.

The self-imposed so-called "fiscal rules" have been repeatedly altered so that it looked as though the latest policy choices have been arrived at after careful evaluation against some "approved" criteria.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Which is patronising crap, as has been said many times before. A nation's budget has no resemblance to a household's budget.
UK plc will have part of a fleet of fully functional trains sitting round doing nothing, rotting in sidings when capacity is desperately needed on the line their sisters are going to, simply because of political choice and prejudice.

The self-imposed so-called "fiscal rules" have been repeatedly altered so that it looked as though the latest policy choices have been arrived at after careful evaluation against some "approved" criteria.

Here is the Business Case Requirements applications for funding we must meet on the railways for public investment. Unfortunately there is no box that can just be ticked to circumnavigate this and just “do what must be the right thing”

Trains off-lease and in the sidings is not passing financial cost to the public purse however wrong we think having assets unused is.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/749086/Project_Business_Case_2018.pdf

 

[AndrewE]

Here is the Business Case Requirements applications for funding we must meet on the railways for public investment. Unfortunately there is no box that can just be ticked to circumnavigate this and just “do what must be the right thing”

Trains off-lease and in the sidings is not passing financial cost to the public purse however wrong we think having assets unused is.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/749086/Project_Business_Case_2018.pdf

But it is still duplicitous politically-driven rubbish.
No consideration to the more important long- (actually urgent short-) term objective of achieving modal shift onto the railway, especially freight. We can't afford not to do it.

 

[ainsworth74]

Why does LNER have 5-cars at all? an all 9-car fleet would have been more useful

Because when the DfT was drawing up the service plan that the fleet they were procuring was expected to deliver they got it into their heads that there would be a lot of splitting and joining to service off ECML destinations. Things like the Harrogate to London services being 5-car from Harrogate, coupling up at Leeds and being a 10-car to London. LNER appear to have gotten their hands on that plan and gone "No, no thank you, we want absolutely nothing to do with that at all". They do do some splits and joins but I think basically only at Kings Cross and certainly not in service. But that's the main reason you hardly ever see LNER running 5-cars unless they're struggling with availabilty.

 

[dk1]

Wouldnt it make more sense for GC/GU to get the 222s and XC to get the 221s?

I thought the whole point of GU getting 221s was TASS.

 

[JonathanH]

But it is still duplicitous politically-driven rubbish.
No consideration to the more important long- (actually urgent short-) term objective of achieving modal shift onto the railway, especially freight. We can't afford not to do it.

Running longer trains, and indeed Voyagers to Stirling, doesn't get more freight on the railway.

Indeed, if there is a desire to get more freight on the railway, there wouldn't be Voyagers running from Euston to Stirling because the paths would be better utilised for freight purposes. However, it seems easier to get passengers to use trains than freight.

 

[The Planner]

I thought the whole point of GU getting 221s was TASS.

It makes their life easier, but there were paths for 110mph sets.

 

[dk1]

It makes their life easier, but there were paths for 110mph sets.

I like the idea of getting that little bit of an extra spurt on.

Taking advantage of that infrastructure seems a great idea.

 

[Class15]

In fact we now have a fully-electrified main line from Stirling to Euston! I totally agree that it would be a nonsense to use diesel traction under the wires for all that distance....but all of the surplus class 91s and Mark 4 stock have been converted into razorblades.

Absolutely agreed, madness to allow 221s to run under the wires from start to finish.

 

[krus_aragon]

However, it seems easier to get passengers to use trains than freight.

Well, they are self-loading.

 

[RailWonderer]

But that's the main reason you hardly ever see LNER running 5-cars unless they're struggling with availability

I get your point but the diagrammed daily working to and from Lincoln runs as a 5 car.

The DfT were thinking Middlesbrough and Grimsby as splits for 5 car pairs, the latter which is coming December 2023 if plans haven’t changed.

 

[TheBigD]

On LNER all but 1 of the weekly Lincoln are booked 5 cars, the Mon-Fri Middlesborough service is vooked a 5 car, and around half a dozen of the Leeds services are booked 5 cars.

 

[Bald Rick]

a320neo 174 seats, 90% occupancy is 157 passengers

186 seats, but yes.