• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

My proposal for Cl180s to be reformed as Cl175s

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,874
So why do enthusiasts assume that the midlife Class 91s are going to get scrapped (when 800/801s come along)?
Because of the three obvious places to cascade them to, GWML, MML and London-Norwich, the first is also getting IEP, the 2nd wants new 125mph EMUs for reasons of acceleration and the third could use the mrk4s but would be better off keeping the class 90s than using class 91s (again because of acceleration).

The 91's lack of acceleration really boxes them into the East Coast. The sensible thing to do, in my view, is to divert the 30x9 = 270 IEP vehicles ordered to replace the IC225s to suplement the GWML order (lengthing the 5-car sets to 9-car and possibly adding a few more sets to cover things like Oxford fasts which are now rumored to be looking at 125mph stock rather than cascaded 319s or the new EMUs Southern have ordered to cover for the delayed Thameslink stock).
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,069
Your '391s' are presumably the Baby Pendolinos suggested for after VT's Super Voyager lease is finished? I don't think there will be enough of the Cross Country routes electrified before it's not worthwhile to order more of circa 2000 trains.

South Coast to Manchester will be wired up by 2020 (which given the 4 hour 45 minute end to end journey time on an hourly frequency) is likely to require at least 10 trains to run the services (assuming a 7 minute turn around), plus the need to have a spare and it could be that 12 would be the basic needed.

Although that is hardly worth a new train order, there could be a good chance that 85 miles of wiring required to allow the Newcastle to Reading/Southampton to be run as EMU is likely to be a fairly high priority post 2019. As such that could add a further 23 trains to the order (35 units).

Which still isn't a very large order it could well be that an order with a follow on option is the way that XC go as with the need to "only" wire up 210 miles worth of track to be able to run the following as EMU's they could well be in the need for a good few EMU's between 2020 and 2025:
- (Southampton) Reading to Newcastle (85 miles of wires)
- (Cardiff) Bristol Temple Meads to Manchester Piccadilly (125 miles of wires)
- Bournemouth to Manchester Piccadilly (CP5 scheme)
- Cardiff Central to Nottingham (165 miles of wires)

Also it should be noted that given that the EMU's could be significantly cheaper to run than the 22x's that their costs to run a 7 to 9 coach EMU could well be comparable to running a 4 to 5 coach 22x.

Given the "mistake" in only ordering short 220's/221's it could be better to order a mix of 5,7 and 10 coach sets so that there would be a way of reconfiguring some units and/or doubling up others to provide a good level of service as and where it is needed. If you therefore take an average set length as being 7 that would be 245 coaches (compared with the 250 coaches of the current XC 22x fleet, although there would still be a need for quite a few of the 22x's for quite some time on XC)
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
13,205
What's the current value of a Class 180?

Mechanically; naught, interior; debatably better.

As an aside, something I've noted of my DB compatriots. Their ICx is to replace LH services but is also proposed to replace the ICE 1/2s very soon, which are younger than the IC225s, albeit younger. Aside from MML, possibly, I don't see much other use for our faithful IC225s.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,280
Perfectly servicable but not necessarily suitable for anything. At least we are trying to suggest ways of reconfiguring perfectly servicable trains to make them more useful unlike DaFT which is replacing perfectly servicable IC225s with brand new trains at even more enormous expense. The latter is likely to see perfectly serviceable class 91s torn apart, by the scrapman.

I disagree, 170s don't do ok in a regional express role and I would expect there are others you would say the acceleration makes them useless in a stopping role (although that's where I'd tend to want to put them).

Diesel engines which will be 15 years old by the time this happens, if it does. Not the same as throwing away IEP engines after just 2-5 years service.

Maybe, if you change the cabs on the class 175 DMS vehicles to add corridor connections between units. Would the 100mph top speed be of use on the route though? If not, you might as well leave them alone and use 2-car 175s on the HOWL.

The 180s are perfectly suitable for GC, which wants more of them, they are perfectly suitable for use on Scottish services between the major cities, they are suitable for Cardiff-Portsmouth, or Cardiff-Manchester. None of which would require tearing them to bits.

So the 170s (and, by association, 168s) are useless for, er, all the things they are used for now? It'll have to be the scrap line for them, as they are clearly no good. Hang on to those Pacers, boys, here are some useless 100mph dmus we need to get rid of first....

The Class 91s are a small fleet, to an unusual design, and will be 30 years old by the time the EC IEPs arrive, so the rail industry will have had its money's worth - and their expected lifespan - out of them by then.

Oh, so now we're age-qualifying the removal of evil diesel engines, are we?

Where on earth do you get the idea that they are going to be taking any off IEPs within two years of them entering service? As electrification spreads, new straight electric sets will be built for the routes that are being wired, with bi-modes moving to the places where that capability is still required. How is it you seem unable to grasp such a basic, obvious point?

Probably because you're too busy fantasising about sending 100mph dmus to operate high-frequency services on a low-speed railway through one of the most sparsely-populated parts of Britain. While I am sure that a better frequency is justified at the southern end of the Heart of Wales Line, the proposition that the demand is there to justify running every two hours at the northern end and bear far higher maintenance costs for extra loops and increased track wear is laughable. And I say that as someone who used to live in South Shropshire and used the line on occasion.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,874
So the 170s (and, by association, 168s) are useless for, er, all the things they are used for now? It'll have to be the scrap line for them, as they are clearly no good. Hang on to those Pacers, boys, here are some useless 100mph dmus we need to get rid of first....
Not sure about 168s, but alot of the work 170s are currently on should be undertaken by a propper regional express unit like a class 158 or 175, but sadly we don't have nearly enough of those. I probably wouldn't scrap the 170s, they'd be nicer than Pacers and 150s for stopping services so that is where I'd put them. But if the acceleration's as bad as some seem to suggest some passengers might end up asking for the Pacers/150s back as the 170s might not be able to keep time as well.

The Class 91s are a small fleet, to an unusual design, and will be 30 years old by the time the EC IEPs arrive, so the rail industry will have had its money's worth - and their expected lifespan - out of them by then.
The expected lifespan of an electric locomotive is 40 years, not 30 (that's diesel stock).

Where on earth do you get the idea that they are going to be taking any off IEPs within two years of them entering service?
2-5 years. IEPs will enter service from 2017 to 2019. CP6 is 2020 to 2024. If some of the later units are running on a line that is electrified in the first year of CP6 they will only have been in service for two years. Even the first batch will only have been going five years if OHLE is enabled on lines they are using two years into CP6.

As electrification spreads, new straight electric sets will be built for the routes that are being wired, with bi-modes moving to the places where that capability is still required. How is it you seem unable to grasp such a basic, obvious point?
Oh, I can grasp the idea alright. I sounds perfectly sensible. But this is DaFT we are talking about, rather than the electrics having 26m vehicles and the bi-modes fitting the existing loading guage the whole IEP fleet has 26m vehicles. That means no cascades without guage clearing other routes. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Probably because you're too busy fantasising about sending 100mph dmus to operate high-frequency services on a low-speed railway through one of the most sparsely-populated parts of Britain. While I am sure that a better frequency is justified at the southern end of the Heart of Wales Line, the proposition that the demand is there to justify running every two hours at the northern end and bear far higher maintenance costs for extra loops and increased track wear is laughable. And I say that as someone who used to live in South Shropshire and used the line on occasion.
I would hardly call 2-hourly (or roughly that) high-frequency. I think the HOWL might even be able to take that without additional loops. I think all five current passing loops, plus Ammanford and Builth Road, warrant a 2-hourly service (ideally one that is quite a bit faster than today's trains). It is the other intermediate stations, rather than sections of the route, which don't really justify a higher frequency than the current 4 trains per day.

The ideal stock for HOWL would really be class 156s. I only suggest 175s as an alternative given that the 2-car sets are a bit short for mainline work given that the lack of corridor cabs frustrates multiple working. Even then, I only brought it up because somebody suggested using 175s for Fort William / Oban services, which I suspect is a low-speed route not unlike HOWL. If the choice is between the Fort William/Oban line and HOWL then I would suggest the HOWL is the better choice since there is no requirement for multiple working on the HOWL so there would be no need to fit corridor cabs.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,280
Not sure about 168s, but alot of the work 170s are currently on should be undertaken by a propper regional express unit like a class 158 or 175, but sadly we don't have nearly enough of those. I probably wouldn't scrap the 170s, they'd be nicer than Pacers and 150s for stopping services so that is where I'd put them. But if the acceleration's as bad as some seem to suggest some passengers might end up asking for the Pacers/150s back as the 170s might not be able to keep time as well.

The expected lifespan of an electric locomotive is 40 years, not 30 (that's diesel stock).

2-5 years. IEPs will enter service from 2017 to 2019. CP6 is 2020 to 2024. If some of the later units are running on a line that is electrified in the first year of CP6 they will only have been in service for two years. Even the first batch will only have been going five years if OHLE is enabled on lines they are using two years into CP6.

Oh, I can grasp the idea alright. I sounds perfectly sensible. But this is DaFT we are talking about, rather than the electrics having 26m vehicles and the bi-modes fitting the existing loading guage the whole IEP fleet has 26m vehicles. That means no cascades without guage clearing other routes. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

I would hardly call 2-hourly (or roughly that) high-frequency. I think the HOWL might even be able to take that without additional loops. I think all five current passing loops, plus Ammanford and Builth Road, warrant a 2-hourly service (ideally one that is quite a bit faster than today's trains). It is the other intermediate stations, rather than sections of the route, which don't really justify a higher frequency than the current 4 trains per day.

The ideal stock for HOWL would really be class 156s. I only suggest 175s as an alternative given that the 2-car sets are a bit short for mainline work given that the lack of corridor cabs frustrates multiple working. Even then, I only brought it up because somebody suggested using 175s for Fort William / Oban services, which I suspect is a low-speed route not unlike HOWL. If the choice is between the Fort William/Oban line and HOWL then I would suggest the HOWL is the better choice since there is no requirement for multiple working on the HOWL so there would be no need to fit corridor cabs.

Hang on, you tell us that the 170s can't accelerate, now you say they should be on stopping services - where you need acceleration. And that they shouldn't be on inter-regional services. So that, like I said, means they must be utterly useless for the things they do.

And why aren't you sure about 168s? They do fast runs, they do semi-fast stoppers, same as 170s - apart from the couplings and the cab front on the first batch, they are 170s.

If the lifespan of an electric locomotive is 40 years, why did BR scrap all its early electrics after less than 30? Virgin withdrew the 87s after less than 30 years' service - only going to Bulgaria has saved some from the cutter's torch, which is what happened to a dozen of them - 30 years is good rule of thumb working life for trains, of whatever variety.

And the 91s are going to be 30 by the time the EC IEPs arrive and are, as I said, a small fleet, of unusual design - their owners have done a lot of work looking at replacing them with brand new European-built locos. Why do you suppose that is? Simple - the cost of getting another decade of life out of the 91s does not look attractive.

As for IEP, what are you on about? What exactly are the odds that any route and IEP starts working on in 2017 is going to be electrified in 2020? Or have you seen some secret DfT plan?

Because the logic of how things pan out suggests that the next port of call for the wiring trains will be XC routes and perhaps the Chiltern Line (where the franchise ends in 2021) after that (both freeing up a lot of diesel units with life left in them) and there's quite a bit of those routes to go at, so they won't be getting to the core places bi-modes are going to be in use day in, day out, such as the Cotswold Line or Swindon-Gloucester-Cheltenham, for some time after that and even if for some reason they did set to work there in 2020, then those bi-modes could go straight to the West Country, where there is not going to be any great rush to install wires, or to XC to bridge non-electrified gaps. So those diesel engines will be staying right where they are for quite some time.

Are you turning into Ragnarokr? Not this stuff about 26m coaches again. He went on and on and on and on about how they were going to knock lumps out of places all along the GWML - but actually they weren't. And I think you might be surprised about clearances at a lot of places far away from the GW system too. BR nearly ordered the Mk4s as 26m stock.

For somewhere with the population of Mid Wales, a two-hourly train certainly would be high frequency, and as for the 'ideal train', most of the time a 153 is more than ideal between Llandovery and Craven Arms. How on earth that line survived when others of far greater value, that served far more people, got closed still baffles me to this day, even allowing for the less than fantastic roads in the area.

Faster trains? Have you actually travelled the full length of that line? Have you seen the infamous farm crossing at Heyope Crossing, with a 10mph limit in the middle of a 1 in 60 bank, with zero visibility? No-one is ever going to authorise the cost of fitting automated barrier equipment at the level crossings over roads at places like Dolau, Ffairfach, Llanwrda and Bucknell, so you can forget about running faster.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,874
Hang on, you tell us that the 170s can't accelerate, now you say they should be on stopping services - where you need acceleration. And that they shouldn't be on inter-regional services. So that, like I said, means they must be utterly useless for the things they do.
I don't know the 170s have poor acceleration, that's just what the general concensus on the fourms is. 170s certainly are not suitable for regional express services due to their outer-suburban door layout. I have said before that I consider both 170s and Voyagers to be mistakes, which aren't really ideal for anything. Sure, being unsuitable doesn't mean they can't be used (class 150s on the Fishguard daytime boat train is evidence of that), just that it would be better if you found something else to use.

Unlike Voyagers, whose problem is they are too short, 170s might be made useful (if you can re-gear them to 75mph that might give them decent acceleration and might make them good replacments for Pacers and/or 150/1s).

their owners have done a lot of work looking at replacing them with brand new European-built locos. Why do you suppose that is? Simple - the cost of getting another decade of life out of the 91s does not look attractive.
Then why did they also go to the bother of a duplex pantograph prototype? I think the TRAXX idea is more to do with trying to satisfy DaFT's desire for rapid acceleration despite the cost of buying new. The 91 life-extension option must be cheaper than the alternatives as otherwise there would be no point in the duplex pantograph prototype.

As for IEP, what are you on about? What exactly are the odds that any route and IEP starts working on in 2017 is going to be electrified in 2020? Or have you seen some secret DfT plan?
Just thinking logically about what is likely to be next on the list. I can see only two reasons for the announced TPE electrification not reaching Hull. One is the that DaFT don't want wires to Hull because they want their bi-modes. The other, perhaps more likely, explanation is that they have decided that there simply isn't enough time in CP5 to do the job, which suggests it will be first on the list in CP6. Harrogate might be done too since they are reportedly so desperate for electrification that they suggested using second hand tube stock (although that would require the wrong sort of electrification). Take off those two and bi-mode on East Coast looks even more unecessary than it already does. Swindon - Gloucester - Cheltenham could be a logical CP6 scheme too.

The trouble with XC is that there's alot of it, perhaps too much for a single control period. That means it would take time before the XC franchise itself would be able to benifit, unless it has bi-mode, which it doesn't and the bi-modes have 26m vehicles. Somebody really didn't think that through, unless they believe funding the guage clearance isn't a problem or really want the Hull, Harrogate and Cheltenham to London routes to remain diesel worked for the forseeable future.

Are you turning into Ragnarokr? Not this stuff about 26m coaches again. He went on and on and on and on about how they were going to knock lumps out of places all along the GWML - but actually they weren't. And I think you might be surprised about clearances at a lot of places far away from the GW system too.
I'm not turning into anyone else. I was dubious about 26m coaches before, but having been in corrospondance with somebody at Network Rail who reassured me that clearance would be done alongside clearance for OHLE and larger freight containers where possible to gain efficentcies. Therefore, I decided that 26m coaches weren't a bad idea for electrified routes, but still silly away from the wires. And, I was told, the majority of the £30m guaging works on Great Western are beyond the wires.

For somewhere with the population of Mid Wales, a two-hourly train certainly would be high frequency, and as for the 'ideal train', most of the time a 153 is more than ideal between Llandovery and Craven Arms.
Mid Wales may be sparsely populated, but the 7 places en-route I propose should be served every two hours have a total population of arround 21,000 (based on a quick flick through wikipedia). Several of the places served have a larger population than Machynlleth, which had arround 130,000 passengers in 2011/12 according to wikipedia wheras Llandrindod (arround 2,000 more population) had 47,206 passengers. What sort of numbers would you get from Llandrindod if it had the 2-hourly service Machynlleth does?

Have you actually travelled the full length of that line?
Once.

No-one is ever going to authorise the cost of fitting automated barrier equipment at the level crossings over roads at places like Dolau, Ffairfach, Llanwrda and Bucknell, so you can forget about running faster.
Not for four trains a day. With a train every two hours and journey time savings to be had though, maybe the benifits (speed and saftey) would add up enough to justify some improvement of some of the crossings.
 

Gareth Marston

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Messages
6,231
Location
Newtown Montgomeryshire
Mid Wales may be sparsely populated, but the 7 places en-route I propose should be served every two hours have a total population of arround 21,000 (based on a quick flick through wikipedia). Several of the places served have a larger population than Machynlleth, which had arround 130,000 passengers in 2011/12 according to wikipedia wheras Llandrindod (arround 2,000 more population) had 47,206 passengers. What sort of numbers would you get from Llandrindod if it had the 2-hourly service Machynlleth does?

Once.

Not for four trains a day. With a train every two hours and journey time savings to be had though, maybe the benifits (speed and saftey) would add up enough to justify some improvement of some of the crossings.



Lets make it clear About the population in mid Wales, people seem to think its distributed evenly and sparsely throughout its not. 50 percent of it lies around the Route of the Cambrian (c 150k), Brecon is off the rail map and the HOW is small numbers compared to Cambrian.

Machynlleth has 10 trains a day up the coast, 11 to Aberystwyth and 8 to Shrewsbury it's smaller than Llandod but has a footfall of 132 k, however a lot of the traffic is to/from Aber. Llandod does not have a regional centre with employment opportunities, retail, general hospital, FE and HE establishments sitting 35 minutes away. Machynlleth has been lucky to be at the junction of two lines and be the operational base for the Cambrian comparing the two is not apples with apples.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,280
Lets make it clear About the population in mid Wales, people seem to think its distributed evenly and sparsely throughout its not. 50 percent of it lies around the Route of the Cambrian (c 150k), Brecon is off the rail map and the HOW is small numbers compared to Cambrian.

Machynlleth has 10 trains a day up the coast, 11 to Aberystwyth and 8 to Shrewsbury it's smaller than Llandod but has a footfall of 132 k, however a lot of the traffic is to/from Aber. Llandod does not have a regional centre with employment opportunities, retail, general hospital, FE and HE establishments sitting 35 minutes away. Machynlleth has been lucky to be at the junction of two lines and be the operational base for the Cambrian comparing the two is not apples with apples.

Exactly. In the case of the Cambrian, the line actually goes to the places people along the line of route want to go to, eg Aberystwyth, Shrewsbury (with all its connectional options) and on to Birmingham (and London).

For the communities at the Shropshire end of the Heart of Wales, Ludlow is frankly a more important day-to-day focal point than Shrewsbury for most things and I reckon that if you offered the people of Llandrindod and Builth the choice of a rail link to Llanelli and Swansea or one to Cardiff, the latter would win hands down. Even if you did cut the journey times somewhat, it will still be far faster to make a Swansea-Shrewsbury journey via Cardiff and Hereford, so it would be no more attractive as a through route for longer-distance journeys than it is - not - now. Nor can you force people to make more local journeys if the trains still go to places they don't want to go to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top