XC HSts Wasted in the sidings

[The Ham]

But surely 3x5 coach trains is better than 1x7 and 2x4 overall?
Oh ok, so as a solution to overcrowding on one of the constantly busiest routes in the UK, when additional carriages come available for it, were just not going to use all of them? Makes sense.

Same as above

So we want extra trains, so that we can put a load of carriages unnecessarily into store because we want these "ideal" 7 coach voyagers?

Firstly I am not saying that we should have them, rather what might happen beyond the next few years to try and give XC a better length of train as short trains appear to be the problem that they are suffering from.

It does very much depend on what the future policy is. For instance once MML, ICWC and XC stops needing the class 22x's in quite such large numbers then there come the problem of what to do with them. As there are only so many IC routes where they are of use it may well be that putting some of the end coaches in store so that other sets can be longer is the best future for them.

For instance if the ICWC franchise gets rid of all their voyagers then that is 20 sets of 5 coach trains which is a lot of trains to find a new route to cover when many of the existing IC routes are becoming electrified or at least mostly electrified so any extra services run on those routes are likely to be short lived. As such it may be that it is better for these trains to be 12 sets of 7 coach trains, 10 sets of 8 coach trains or ever 7 sets of 10 coach trains (plus 2x4 coach trains) or any other possible combination to improve capacity on key routes rather than run more and more doubled up serviced.

 

[SkinnyDave]

I would be happy to have some in Scotland for Glasgow/Edin-Aberdeen and Inverness routes

 

[The Ham]

I would be happy to have some in Scotland for Glasgow/Edin-Aberdeen and Inverness routes

That's probably not a problem. Even if all the 222's went elsewhere (such as to GW to run their services to the south west post 2019 to retire all their IC125's & such as a few to Hull trains so they can run more services until the line to Hull is electrified) and only 10 of the 20 ICWC voyagers were released by the acquisition of new trains this would allow 5 new 8 coach XC trains to be created (in reality it is likely to be an all or nothing release of voyagers).

This would then free up 10x4 coach 220's for use in Scotland, whilst still increasing capacity on XC as they would have not only a true 8 coach train (rather than 2x4 coach trains paired up which have less seats), but they would also likely have new 7 or 8 coach EMU's for the Manchester to South Coast services giving them more voyagers to enable more service to be run doubled up.

Add to this that during CP6 the short gaps in the XC network which are not electrified or due to be electrified by 2019 (York/Doncaster to Sheffield and Derby to Birmingham) are likely to be high up the priority list enabling a lot more EMU's to run XC services.

 

[tbtc]

It does very much depend on what the future policy is. For instance once MML, ICWC and XC stops needing the class 22x's in quite such large numbers then there come the problem of what to do with them. As there are only so many IC routes where they are of use it may well be that putting some of the end coaches in store so that other sets can be longer is the best future for them.

At the moment you've got the following High Speed DMUs:

14x180
34x 220
44x 221
27x 222

=123 trains (at roughly five coaches long on average)

If you run a half hourly Manchester - Reading (Southampton/ Bournemouth) service post CP5 electrification then you'd free up around twenty Voyagers.

If you order new EMUs for WCML routes like London - Blackpool or Birmingham - Glasgow then you'd free up a handful of the twenty one Voyagers with that franchise.

If you wire Selby - Hull early in CP6 then that's four 180s freed up.

So in under ten years time you could have thirty-something "spare" long distance EMUs. Means I can understand why people are reluctant to order new long distance DMUs - we'll have more than enough in a few years time (esp with bi-mode IEP on the horizon).

One possibility not mentioned would be to keep the Voyager cabs and turning them into EMUs?

 

[Goatboy]

I like 180's, they seem like much nicer IC stock than the 220's.

 

[junglejames]

As I've said before, if Virgin Cross Country had retained their HST fleet then the trains wouldn't have been available for FGW to use on the Kennet/Thames commuter services and these would still be stuck with overcrowded turbos or at best 180s.

Without the cascaded HSTs from VXC, FGW and GNER were going to order a brand new fleet of HSTS (partly to replace the current HSTs, and to add any extras that may be required), so no they wouldnt have been stuck with turbos or 180s. In fact, without the cascade from VXC, you may find that FGW wouldnt be using 180s at all now. The cascade from VXC has actually ended up hurting the industry in the long run. Especially for XC, FGW and the EC franchise holder.

FGW and GNER had spent ages preparing the new HST along with the manufacturer (Siemens I believe). It was fully designed, and funded, and was all ready to be ordered. Then at the last minute, the DFT told them not to.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I like 180's, they seem like much nicer IC stock than the 220's.

From a reliability standpoint, unfortunately the 220 is the better train. For passenger comfort, I agree I'd rather be on a 180

EDIT: am surprised that a 222 costs more than a 220 per mile

 

[HSTEd]

Remember that the Voyagers would not be the first stock to leave XC, the HSTs would go first.

So Manchester-South Coast electrification frees maybe 5 HSTs and 10-12 Voyagers instead of 20 Voyagers.