Where could the Voyagers go?

[Fawkes Cat]

I don't think we have speculated on this one, so (with apologies if I am wrong) here goes:

The scenario: it is suggested that XC should acquire bi-modes (e.g. IETs) to minimise the extent that they run on diesel under the wires.
The problem: XC's current Voyager fleet, while rather worn and not large enough, is not life-expired (~ 20 years old): a refurbishment could extend the working life for (n.b. guess) another 20 years. So it's hard to justify the cost of new stock.
The question: where could Voyagers be cascaded to, to make use of the sum already invested in them and justify buying new trains?

 

[Kilopylae]

Voyagers would be appropriate for Cardiff – Manchester via Hereford and Cardiff – Holyhead services, but TfW would never have a use for the whole XC fleet.

 

[JonathanH]

The question: where could Voyagers be cascaded to, to make use of the sum already invested in them and justify buying new trains?

There are plenty of threads about this and usual candidates, Portsmouth to Cardiff, Marches, Waterloo to Exeter, Chiltern main line, North Wales Coast, Scotland, Settle and Carlisle, none of which the Voyagers would be suitable for (or should I say, more suitable for than just keeping them on the XC routes).

 

[Kilopylae]

Waterloo to Exeter

I asusme the people who suggest this have never travelled on that line? The train stops every ten miles west of Salisbury, at least one of the stations (I don't recall which) is barely long enough for a three-car 159, and I don't know if I would trust a Voyager with the really sloped bit near Tisbury. (And just for completeness, using Voyagers for that service would essentially rule out any future possibility of extending the line west via Crediton, though I don't think that's ever going to happen anyway).

Marches

What would make Voyagers inappropriate there?

 

[JonathanH]

.What would make Voyagers inappropriate there?

The increase in operational expenditure relative to the trains which are already in use / on order and the unnecessary use of 125mph rolling stock on a route with lower speed limits.

 

[The Planner]

The increase in operational expenditure relative to the trains which are already in use / on order and the unnecessary use of 125mph rolling stock on a route with lower speed limits.

The speed thing is a red herring. There will be plenty of examples where a type of traction can go faster than the majority of a route is capable of. The Voyagers themselves sit on routes currently where the vast majority is nowhere near 125mph.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Sims, Newport.

 

[43096]

Sims, Newport.

Beat me to it!

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I don't think we have speculated on this one, so (with apologies if I am wrong) here goes:

(...)
The question: where could Voyagers be cascaded to, to make use of the sum already invested in them and justify buying new trains?

There are plenty of threads about this

Oops. Sorry.

 

[Whistler40145]

Is there a significant difference in design between Class 221 and Class 222?

Could 221s be cascaded to the Midland Mainline?

 

[Domh245]

Is there a significant difference in design between Class 221 and Class 222?

Could 221s be cascaded to the Midland Mainline?

Keep up, the 222s are being released from the MML in 2023 by a new fleet of bi modes.

Sims, Newport.

Surely EMR Kingsbury would be more suitable, particularly given it's proximity to Central Rivers and the fact that they run past it every day! Would be almost schadenfreudic

 

[Whistler40145]

Keep up, the 222s are being released from the MML in 2023 by a new fleet of bi modes.



Surely EMR Kingsbury would be more suitable, particularly given it's proximity to Central Rivers and the fact that they run past it every day! Would be almost schadenfreudic

A rather sarcastic response

 

[Richard Scott]

Beat me to it!

Damn, that was my answer too! Afraid that is best place for them. Diesel engines only, not meeting modern emissions regulations whilst using lots of fuel. Out of date before they were built really. Built in 21st Century using 20th Century ideals and technology.

 

[greatvoyager]

Probably all congregate at XC for a while and then scrapped. Can’t think of any other TOC where they would fit.

 

[PTR 444]

What about ScotRail to replace the HSTs on their ‘Inter-city’ routes?

 

[bramling]

I don't think we have speculated on this one, so (with apologies if I am wrong) here goes:

The scenario: it is suggested that XC should acquire bi-modes (e.g. IETs) to minimise the extent that they run on diesel under the wires.
The problem: XC's current Voyager fleet, while rather worn and not large enough, is not life-expired (~ 20 years old): a refurbishment could extend the working life for (n.b. guess) another 20 years. So it's hard to justify the cost of new stock.
The question: where could Voyagers be cascaded to, to make use of the sum already invested in them and justify buying new trains?

Pretty much nowhere is the answer. They don’t offer much capacity over something like a 3-car 170 or 175, so you’d be just taking up platform berths and stabling space for essentially minimal benefit. A full interior refit might help a bit, but it would need to be pretty extensive.

SWR is completely out of the question as they run long 158/159 formations at peak times, so 10x159 replaces by 10x221 would be a massive reduction in capacity.

The only other place would be Chiltern, but again why would you replace a 1990s 168 with something barely newer and have to extend a load of platforms and expand stabling space just to get you to the status quo?

This leaves Scotrail and GWR as a replacement for the HST sets, a role for which they’d actually be vaguely suitable, however again I’m not sure what actual benefits they’d offer.

They should just stay on XC and be supplemented by the AWC and EMR versions.

 

[JonathanH]

What about ScotRail to replace the HSTs on their ‘Inter-city’ routes?

Considered here https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/avanti-voyagers-to-scotrail.208026

 

[crablab]

Sims, Newport.

I think Booths would be glad to get in on the action!

I agree, I don't see that they are worth spending any money on or have a future beyond the routes they currently operate.

 

[Philip]

What about Northern? They've shown before that they're not afraid of leasing intercity stock with their use of 180s. It might seem far fetched but Voyagers would be a very good replacement for classes 156 and 158.

They would be good on the Calder Valley, Cumbria and Newcastle express services.

 

[JonathanH]

They've shown before that they're not afraid of leading intercity stock with their use of 180s. It might seem far fetched but Voyagers would be a very good replacement for classes 156 and 158.

The direct lease of 180s wasn't long term. The use of a Grand Central 180 for two trains a day is operational convenience.

Which routes do you think Voyagers would be a good replacement for classes 156 and 158? Do you think using them would increase loadings on any of those routes?

 

[Philip]

The direct lease of 180s wasn't long term. The use of a Grand Central 180 for two trains a day is operational convenience.

Which routes do you think Voyagers would be a good replacement for classes 156 and 158? Do you think using them would increase loadings on any of those routes?

See above; Calder Valley, Barrow, Windermere, Newcastle-Morpeth, Leeds-Nottingham. A good number of 195s could then replace Sprinters, they would be an excellent replacement for 150s on stopping services.

 

[CBlue]

Not sure the 156's and 158's are quite suited for replacing 150s due to their respective door layouts?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

What about Northern? They've shown before that they're not afraid of leasing intercity stock with their use of 180s. It might seem far fetched but Voyagers would be a very good replacement for classes 156 and 158.

They would be good on the Calder Valley, Cumbria and Newcastle express services.

The Class 180 has a sensible passenger capacity, even when taking into account 125mph crumple zones. The Class 220 simply doesn't.

I suggest scrapping them not out of some toilet odour anti Branson sentiment, but purely out of the economics of operating them - they're thirsty on fuel and provide no meaningful capacity uplift - they do the exact opposite when operating like for like in terms of vehicles.

If you want to give Northern more capacity, one option is to replace Class 158 and Class 159 units at South Western Railway with a bi-mode unit. It's an inescapable, unavoidable problem that a 3 car Class 159 unit can provide the same capacity as a 4 car Class 220, so if you want capacity uplift, you run more Class 158 or Class 159 units in multiple with the benefit of low running costs and gangway connectivity.

 

[Energy]

The 222s are a bit easier to find a home for, a bit smaller fleet and they have more space inside as they didn't have the tilt profile issue. There is a perfect number of these to replace the HSTs at Scotrail if they decide they would like to replace the HSTs. Chiltern is also an option, which would allow the 168s to be cascaded to replace the 165s, which I'm sure someone (GWR or Northern) would take.

220/221s are a bit harder to find a home for, their tilt profile makes them less desirable compared to the 222s and there are many of them, the WCML 221s could be of interest to Chiltern or Scotrail but there aren't quite enough for the latter (the former can just use 168s on some services) but too many if you take the XC 221s, and they can still choose the 222s. I would imagine they will be with XC for a while longer, with the WCML units joining XC.

May be of interest to the export market, but probably unlikely.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The 222s are a bit easier to find a home for, a bit smaller fleet and they have more space inside as they didn't have the tilt profile issue. There is a perfect number of these to replace the HSTs at Scotrail if they decide they would like to replace the HSTs. Chiltern is also an option, which would allow the 168s to be cascaded to replace the 165s, which I'm sure someone (GWR or Northern) would take.

220/221s are a bit harder to find a home for, their tilt profile makes them less desirable compared to the 222s and there are many of them, the WCML 221s could be of interest to Chiltern or Scotrail but there aren't quite enough for the latter (the former can just use 168s on some services) but too many if you take the XC 221s, and they can still choose the 222s. I would imagine they will be with XC for a while longer, with the WCML units joining XC.

May be of interest to the export market, but probably unlikely.

Class 222 uses the same tilt profile bodyshell as the Class 220/221 fleet. The Class 222 is a lightly modified Class 220 unit, the main difference being a new Bombardier derived train management system and some associated wiring and electrical equipment modifications. It's the TMS problem that makes them technically incompatible with the Class 220 fleet for full multiple working.

ScotRail are betting heavily on rolling out electrification in the coming years and won't want (and almost certainly won't need) Class 22x units of any type.

 

[Energy]

ScotRail are betting heavily on rolling out electrification in the coming years and won't want (and almost certainly won't need) Class 22x units of any type.

Yeah, the thought was that they would temporarily need some diesel units, which the 22Xs could have worked well for had Scotrail not chosen HSTs.

 

[Whistler40145]

Would 221s be suitable for the Nottingham to Cardiff Central, Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich or Birmingham New Street to Stansted Airport services?

 

[greatvoyager]

Would 221s be suitable for the Nottingham to Cardiff Central, Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich or Birmingham New Street to Stansted Airport services?

I believe Stansted Airport doesn’t have platforms long enough, and the door positioning could have a major effect on dwell times.

 

[The Planner]

Would 221s be suitable for the Nottingham to Cardiff Central, Liverpool Lime Street to Norwich or Birmingham New Street to Stansted Airport services?

As long as people don't think they would suddenly provide large journey time improvements. what you gain in acceleration would just be lost as dwell times.

 

[The Ham]

Pretty much nowhere is the answer. They don’t offer much capacity over something like a 3-car 170 or 175, so you’d be just taking up platform berths and stabling space for essentially minimal benefit. A full interior refit might help a bit, but it would need to be pretty extensive.

SWR is completely out of the question as they run long 158/159 formations at peak times, so 10x159 replaces by 10x221 would be a massive reduction in capacity.

The only other place would be Chiltern, but again why would you replace a 1990s 168 with something barely newer and have to extend a load of platforms and expand stabling space just to get you to the status quo?

This leaves Scotrail and GWR as a replacement for the HST sets, a role for which they’d actually be vaguely suitable, however again I’m not sure what actual benefits they’d offer.

They should just stay on XC and be supplemented by the AWC and EMR versions.

Depends on how the 10 coach 22x's are configured, as a pair of 5 coach units then yes. However if you run then as a single 10 coach train they're not much lower than a 9 coach 159.

Of course it depends on what else is happening, for instance if you've electrified to Yeovil then the 22x's could be used for off peak services with EMU's running the peak hour services and West of Yeovil passengers making a cross platform change. The 22x's could still run into Waterloo every other hour, just not in the peaks.

Of course they're not perfect, but if you're looking for a location for them to be used until more electrification can allow them to retire without the need for new DMU's to be built and then scrapped early then it's a possible option.