Voyagers

[Schnellzug]

Only if the Voyager was doing a South West to North East XC service. If it was doing Reading - Manchester service it would not make any difference at all other than having more seats available for the passengers.

Don't they still have the wires between Coventry/Birmingham and manchester?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 220's have never been able to tilt, only the 221's (Super Voyagers) can tilt (Virgin's can, XC can't) and XC don't have many 221's anyway.

They have 22 or 23, don't they?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Currently only Virgin Class 221s can tilt, Class 221s in the possesion of XC are effectively equivalent to Class 220s at this point, therefore I propose the following:

- Cascade all 57 XC 221s and 220s to secondary routes, both with XC and with other operators such as EMT and TPE to enable the replacement of Express Sprinters and Turbostars, particularily those on crowded runs such as Liverpoo-Norwich.
- Order 57 Cl220/1 compatible non-tilting pantograph trailers to convert the aforementioned units to electrodiesel operation.
- Order 21 Cl221 compatible tilting pantograph trailers to convert the remaining VT units to electrodiesel operation
- Order 62 new 11 carriage electrodiesel class 222s to replace the aforementioned XC units and its HSTs and give them a uniform (excluding Turbostar) fleet.
- Order 208 new pantograph trailer and intermediate motor vehicles to make all existing Class 222 sets up to 11 carriages, cascading 220/1s will permit EMT to release the shorter existing sets to replace HSTs.

All that results in the order of 947 new vehicles of various types, almost entirely for Class 222 trains, with some 57 newly designed non tilting, and 21 tilting, Class 220/1 compatible pantograph trailers added in.

If we assume the displaced Voyagers go to XC, EMT and TPE we could be looking at total elimination of 18 HSTs from the first two and Turbostars from the latter as the 22xs have sufficiently low RA to go where the 185s cannot.
.

Do you recommend eradicating the HSTs completely, or is this a long term plan for when they're finally completely worn out? (And if we're talking about 947 new vehicles, I suppose this would be a long term plan).

 

[sprinterguy]

Plus also additional Voyager coaches wouldn't need a "universal" toilet, so would have more seats than a "normal" Voyager coach.

(or room for a shop etc)

Working from the Meridian seating capacities, which I know isn't entirely fair as they have an entirely different interior layout but one that is generally accepted to be superior to that of the Voyagers, a class 222 MS vehicle without disabled toilet seats 68, which is the same as a Virgin 221 MS with a disabled toilet. I presume that Virgin (or XC) would be able to cram in more seats of the existing design in a carriage with no disabled toilet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Only if the Voyager was doing a South West to North East XC service. If it was doing Reading - Manchester service it would not make any difference at all other than having more seats available for the passengers.

As schnellzug says, there's still wires from Coventry/Birmingham to Manchester. Fingers crossed that the Chiltern line is proposed for electrification in the CP6 period, in line with the possible withdrawal of the 165s, so that it joins up with, via Oxford, the Great Western electrification. If the sections of infill electrification needed south of Reading were also carried out, you could do away with the need for bi-mode trains at all on the route and pass it over to new dual electric AC/DC units.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Now, ignoring the problem of the body shells, people would tend to agree that Class 222s are improved with regards to interior space and so on, so any new carriages would preferably incorporate the interiors of those into the design.

The question becomes whether it would be feasible to build a Class 222 carriage that was compatible with Class 220/1 trains.

Only as long as the Voyagers undergo an interior refurb at the same time to bring them up to the same standard; otherwise you'd have a couple of distinctly oddball looking new carriages in the formation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 220's have never been able to tilt, only the 221's (Super Voyagers) can tilt (Virgin's can, XC can't) and XC don't have many 221's anyway.

But both classes use the same bodyshell, so if the 221s had never been intended to utilise tilt in the first place, then it is possible that a less restrictive bodyshell profile could have been used for Voyagers and Super Voyagers alike.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Currently only Virgin Class 221s can tilt, Class 221s in the possesion of XC are effectively equivalent to Class 220s at this point, therefore I propose the following:

- Cascade all 57 XC 221s and 220s to secondary routes, both with XC and with other operators such as EMT and TPE to enable the replacement of Express Sprinters and Turbostars, particularily those on crowded runs such as Liverpoo-Norwich.
- Order 57 Cl220/1 compatible non-tilting pantograph trailers to convert the aforementioned units to electrodiesel operation.
- Order 21 Cl221 compatible tilting pantograph trailers to convert the remaining VT units to electrodiesel operation
- Order 62 new 11 carriage electrodiesel class 222s to replace the aforementioned XC units and its HSTs and give them a uniform (excluding Turbostar) fleet.
- Order 208 new pantograph trailer and intermediate motor vehicles to make all existing Class 222 sets up to 11 carriages, cascading 220/1s will permit EMT to release the shorter existing sets to replace HSTs.

All that results in the order of 947 new vehicles of various types, almost entirely for Class 222 trains, with some 57 newly designed non tilting, and 21 tilting, Class 220/1 compatible pantograph trailers added in.

If we assume the displaced Voyagers go to XC, EMT and TPE we could be looking at total elimination of 18 HSTs from the first two and Turbostars from the latter as the 22xs have sufficiently low RA to go where the 185s cannot.

It would require the government to buy the 22x design family from Bombardier (and they arent likely to get any more orders so it wouldnt be insanely expensive) and develop pantograph trailers compatible with both 222 and 220/1 tilting and non tilting trains itself and then contract out production to any builder (preferably willing to build a plant in Britain).

It would likely result in the cascade of large numbers of turbostars and sprinters as well, helping pacer replacement.

It'd probably be simpler and cheaper, providing that the DfT ever get round to deciding what they want from the specification, to purchase an order of 8-car Bi-mode IEP trains for Crosscountry to work the long distance services, and restructuring the XC franchise so that a number of shorter distance regional services are set up that could use some of the Voyagers released, with the remainder of the Voyagers, moving to other regional duties.

It sounds as if there is a minimum threshold order size below which it would be unfeasible to build the bi-mode IEP trains that the DfT is so wedded to (Though there seems to be no reciprocal minimum order threshold for the puny number of electric IEPs being built :roll, so if XC put in an order for quite a few bi-mode IEP units (And please not 5-carriage units; we don't want to see the same mistakes being made twice), it would reduce the pressure on the GWML to take on large numbers of bi-mode trains and perhaps make the DfT think about wiring up the GWML properly. Well, I can dream...

Plus, ordering IEP trains would tick that all important box of "supporting British jobs" which there is currently such a rumpus over, whereas additional Voyager/Meridian carriages would almost certainly be built and fitted out on the continent.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They have 22 or 23, don't they?

Twenty three. Which is a strange turn of events when there were initially only four Voyagers (The 4-car 221s, 221141-144) ordered specifically for West Coast. Although of course the shared nature of the two Virgin franchises meant that West Coast was free to pinch units from XC as it pleased.

 

[HSTEd]

Do you recommend eradicating the HSTs completely, or is this a long term plan for when they're finally completely worn out? (And if we're talking about 947 new vehicles, I suppose this would be a long term plan).

I would suggest doing all that is possible to reduce the numbers of HSTs in service now, since it may become neccesary to start cannabilising sets to maintain the remaining units at some point, so the more spares and fewer active sets there are the better.

The HSTs im talking about are probably a bit old to cascade and would have to be let go most likely, unless someone wants to use them to eliminate the Cl180s due to the non-standardness of that design.

This is a rather long term plan as you say, largely because its talking about nearly as many carriages purchased as the Thameslink programme. Although ofcourse this would not neccesarily be the only order, as if the IEP programme crashes and burns (as I expect it to frankly) then there is an opening there to provide the ED trains they are looking for with minimum fuss simply by extending the Cl222 production line. (Either that or eyeing up the surviving HSTs on the Great Western, probably both if I had my way).

I chose to Cascade the non tilting Voyagers (220s and XC 221s) simply because they are non compatible with the Cl222s so expanding them to full intercity length would just increase the non standard vehicles in service and work against having a fully uniform diesel/bimode Intercity fleet.
This way they can work on heavy regional routes and aid in Pacer replacement by potentially eliminating something on order of 57-100 two carriage units (depending on whether the services would have been doubled up or not) once the cascades are complete.

Plus, ordering IEP trains would tick that all important box of "supporting British jobs" which there is currently such a rumpus over, whereas additional Voyager/Meridian carriages would almost certainly be built and fitted out on the continent.

Well my plan specifically has the trains not being built by bombardier but with the design being purchased by the public sector and the construction contracted out to anyone willing to build a British plant, the size of the order and the aforementioned possibility of large followups should make it feasible.

Only as long as the Voyagers undergo an interior refurb at the same time to bring them up to the same standard; otherwise you'd have a couple of distinctly oddball looking new carriages in the formation.

Well as the Voyagers in my revised plan would likely be cascaded (apart from teh VT ones) a substantial rebuild of the entire fleet would not seem to be beyond the realms of possibility, so if its not too expensive to move equipment under the floor (essentially building a Cl222-lite using an existing Cl221 bodyshell and traction package) then that would be done too.


And all this is before we get on with adding additional routes to XC beyond those that it could presumabely restore thanks to the end of doubling up trains in its core routes (as one 11 carriage Cl222 is probably equal to 2 Cl220s even with the superior interior space) or replacing the Cl180s if the released HSTs are considered unsuitable.

 

[IanXC]

Twenty three. Which is a strange turn of events when there were initially only four Voyagers (The 4-car 221s, 221141-144) ordered specifically for West Coast. Although of course the shared nature of the two Virgin franchises meant that West Coast was free to pinch units from XC as it pleased.

Remember that the West Cost franchise did not include Birmingham-Scotland at that time though. The 4 Voyagers were for London-North Wales, presumably thought to be too much of a micro fleet for a franchise which cannot share its stock with another.

 

[sprinterguy]

Remember that the West Cost franchise did not include Birmingham-Scotland at that time though. The 4 Voyagers were for London-North Wales, presumably thought to be too much of a micro fleet for a franchise which cannot share its stock with another.

Good point, I'd forgotten that Birmingham to Scotland was part of the Crosscountry franchise not so long ago.

 

[Pumbaa]

One detail that has not yet been reported is that all the Voyager/Super Voyager engines have been downrated from 750 to 700hp. This is for both VT and XC but I'm not sure if the work has been completed yet.

 

[Blindtraveler]

reasone for this being?

 

[Lampshade]

reasone for this being?

Fuel economy is my guess, it's not like Voyagers are underpowered.

 

[Blindtraveler]

agree with you there. Just hope however this doesnt affect there abilitty to get time back when delayed with a clear path infront of them - there 1 and only redeaming feature for me!

 

[Minilad]

agree with you there. Just hope however this doesnt affect there abilitty to get time back when delayed with a clear path infront of them - there 1 and only redeaming feature for me!

I would say that would be as much to do with slack running times as the Voyagers themselves. And Its not very often a delayed Voyager gets a clear path either

 

[The Planner]

I would say that would be as much to do with slack running times as the Voyagers themselves. And Its not very often a delayed Voyager gets a clear path either

Lots of the Voyager timings need to go up, not down because they are slack ! vast numbers of them were made as tight as possible for Princess.

 

[HSTEd]

Oh and in reference to my previous posts, should the displaced Cl220/221s not be sufficient to take regional expresses away from Cl170/2s and Cl158/9s (and they won't be), we could always order additional four carriage electrodiesel Cl222s, especially if sets of shoebeams can be retrofitted to them.

Formed up like this: DMS, PTS, MS, DMC

oh and then there are possible future orders for "Tilting Meridians" to consider, Cl223 perhaps?

EDIT:
It also occurs to me that the train would need only one set of shoebeams, presumably fitted on one of the non driven bogies in the PTS, this is because if the train is stopped while gapped it could simply start one diesel engine and use it to move the train out of the gap.

Presumably the on-board loads (apart from air con) can be handled by whatever the normal on-board system is for engines stopped for the few seconds the train is gapped.


EDIT #2: Presumabely the shoebeam gear would be standard on all the newbuild Cl222 PTSs and possibly the Cl220/1 ones as well, although you would probably have to mess around with the traction package to stop the train overloading third rail power supplies by drawing far too much power, although thats simply extra lines of code in the control system.

You could even set it up so that when ETCS Level 2 comes around (or even seperate balises like the TASS) a Packet 44 message tells it the limits of the traction system and the computer compensates appropriately, perhaps even leaving a couple of diesels running to aid acceleration on big 11 coach formations that have too much power to run entirely electric at full throttle.

 

[ainsworth74]

should the displaced Cl220/221s not be sufficient to take regional expresses away from Cl170/2s and Cl158/9s (and they won't be).

A 4-car 220/221 wouldn't be much of an improvement in capacity terms over a 3-car 158/9 or a 3-car 170/2 and would be much less (by about 50+ seats) than a 4-car 158 unit (which for example I believe Liverpool - Norwich will soon become).

oh and then there are possible future orders for "Tilting Meridians" to consider, Cl223 perhaps?

I have a feeling that would be pretty hard to implement. 222s have different bogies to 221s, they also don't have the same TMS as 221s and I have a feeling because they weren't built with tilt it was possible to shove more equipment below the trains (which is why they feel more spacious for passengers) which would have to be relocated to make the design tilt.

 

[HSTEd]

A 4-car 220/221 wouldn't be much of an improvement in capacity terms over a 3-car 158/9 or a 3-car 170/2 and would be much less (by about 50+ seats) than a 4-car 158 unit (which for example I believe Liverpool - Norwich will soon become).



I have a feeling that would be pretty hard to implement. 222s have different bogies to 221s, they also don't have the same TMS as 221s and I have a feeling because they weren't built with tilt it was possible to shove more equipment below the trains (which is why they feel more spacious for passengers) which would have to be relocated to make the design tilt.

Theres no chance of Liverpool-Norwich becoming four carriage throughout any time soon, and even outside the "Core section" of Nottingham-Liverpool its always packed, I avoid it when returnign to University, despite it being the direct train, for this reason.

IN that case 5 (or any number) carriages would be workable, I was just floating the idea, they would also be able to make the journey in reduced times due to the 125mph running capability on main line sections, plus the benefits of being electrodiesel that SNCF are apparently so happy about.

As for the Tilting Meridian, that is a pity but then I suppose the fact that any lines set up for tilting would likely be wholey electrified and thus not need bimode trains does sort of make up for that.

Either way its a large order.

 

[Schnellzug]

Just wondering, why is the bi-mode IEP much criticised as a poor idea, but an electro-diesel Voyager is seen as a good idea?

 

[button_boxer]

Just wondering, why is the bi-mode IEP much criticised as a poor idea, but an electro-diesel Voyager is seen as a good idea?

I think it comes down to trying to avoid ordering any new long distance diesel vehicles. If we need bi-mode stock at all then we should convert existing diesel stock (that spends ages under wires anyway) and then order brand new stock as all-electric, rather than ordering new stock bi-mode and having the existing stock stay all-diesel.

For the routes and loadings that voyagers run these days I think we all agree they are badly in need of lengthening, and if we want to build more carriages for them then it's better to do that as part of a bi-mode conversion rather than building more diesels.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I think it comes down to trying to avoid ordering any new long distance diesel vehicles. If we need bi-mode stock at all then we should convert existing diesel stock (that spends ages under wires anyway) and then order brand new stock as all-electric, rather than ordering new stock bi-mode and having the existing stock stay all-diesel.

For the routes and loadings that voyagers run these days I think we all agree they are badly in need of lengthening, and if we want to build more carriages for them then it's better to do that as part of a bi-mode conversion rather than building more diesels.

Yeah it not only creates a bi mode out of existing long distance diesel units, it adds capcity to them (much needed)
And the IEP bi mode is a very expensive option. To have enough diesel power it needs quite a lot of diesel engine which increases track wear and all manner of other maintenance diffculties. Over complicated.

 

[Schnellzug]

I think the simplest answer would be to have detachable power units, some diesel and some electric, which could be attached to sets of carriages (which, perhaps, could be adjusted in length to meet demand), with a driving trailer at the other end. For instance, a train from London to Edinbrugh could have an electric power unit, and if it's going on to Aberdeen, say, it could be swapped for a Diesel power unit. It's a radical idea, I know, but it would avoid the need to carry about equipment over long distances that are not needed.

 

[4SRKT]

I think the simplest answer would be to have detachable power units, some diesel and some electric, which could be attached to sets of carriages (which, perhaps, could be adjusted in length to meet demand), with a driving trailer at the other end. For instance, a train from London to Edinbrugh could have an electric power unit, and if it's going on to Aberdeen, say, it could be swapped for a Diesel power unit. It's a radical idea, I know, but it would avoid the need to carry about equipment over long distances that are not needed.

Nice satire!

 

[Blindtraveler]

but seriusly though, if TS dont ban cross border stuff under there mad proposals order new IEP units for some EC runs and use the 91s and MK4s on runs which at a certain point can easily swap a 91 for a 67!

 

[Mojo]

CrossCountry used to have ISS cleaners on board to tidy the trains en-route. For example I regularly used to see them travelling between Cheltenham Spa and Bristol Temple Meads. However this on-board cleaning was axed in 2009 in favour of encouraging the Retail Service Managers/First Class Hosts to clean the train at certain points in the journey and then ISS cleaners to tidy the trains at the destination.

 

[Blindtraveler]

cost cutting again and it shows!

 

[Robinson]

Another point I would make about the XC Voyagers - when they axed the shops they told us the reason for this was to create more luggage space/people weren't using the shops because they feared losing their luggage if they left their seat, etc. Well, on the few occasions I have used an XC Voyager since the franchise change, I've always noticed that this extra luggage rack is distinctly under-used; there have never been many bags in it at all. I wonder if the same reasons are true here?

 

[swt_passenger]

CrossCountry used to have ISS cleaners on board to tidy the trains en-route. For example I regularly used to see them travelling between Cheltenham Spa and Bristol Temple Meads. However this on-board cleaning was axed in 2009 in favour of encouraging the Retail Service Managers/First Class Hosts to clean the train at certain points in the journey and then ISS cleaners to tidy the trains at the destination.

ISS have onboard cleaners doing the Reading to/from Southampton legs of the recently extended trains, so it can't be a 100% axe. The alternate trains that sit at Reading for half an hour are cleaned in the platform though.

 

[IanXC]

Theres no chance of Liverpool-Norwich becoming four carriage throughout any time soon, and even outside the "Core section" of Nottingham-Liverpool its always packed, I avoid it when returnign to University, despite it being the direct train, for this reason.

Isn't the cascade of 4x 156s from Northern to EMT is for this?

 

[tbtc]

Isn't the cascade of 4x 156s from Northern to EMT is for?

The 156s are to go on the EMT services that 158s run on which don't need 158s (e.g. Nottingham - Skegness, some duties on Nottingham - Matlock), releasing 158s to double up the service from Liverpool to Nottingham.

However the service is still planned to be two coaches from Nottingham to Norwich.

 

[swt_passenger]

Isn't the cascade of 4x 156s from Northern to EMT is for?

It can only make Nottingham - Liverpool 4 car all or most of the day I think. But some trains will be splitting and joining at Nottingham.

 

[tbtc]

Just wondering, why is the bi-mode IEP much criticised as a poor idea, but an electro-diesel Voyager is seen as a good idea?

I've argued this too.

I don't see the problem with bi-mode IEP (since we'll never electrify *every* branch, and don't want to lose direct London trains on lines like Newquay), but I appear to me in the minority (on here)

 

[HSTEd]

Im not against bi-mode IEP, I just think the programme is going to be a disaster and ordering trains that are halfway derived from current ones is probably better than developing it from scratch.

Continual Improvement where possible nad all that.

 

[sprinterguy]

I've argued this too.

I don't see the problem with bi-mode IEP (since we'll never electrify *every* branch, and don't want to lose direct London trains on lines like Newquay), but I appear to me in the minority (on here)

Having an option for new build bi-mode stock just sounds like an incentive for the DfT to not do a thorough job of wiring up routes, and leaving more unelectrified extremities than is really necessary. Is the additional cost of developing and constructing the Bi-mode IEP technology really less than electrifying an additional 40 miles of line or whatever in the long run, when you consider that plain electric vehicles would probably be lighter, causing less track wear, and all the power generation is done by a single source?

As for Voyagers, they are already here and are far too short, so adding pantograph coaches into the sets to provide some additional capacity makes sense, especially when IMO the only set of routes that is really suited to Bi-mode is Crosscountry, and London to North Wales.