5 x 180s up for grabs

[387star]

oh yeah silly me!!

 

[tbtc]

tbtc: where would the 170s be reallocated?

In my head, the 170s would be sent to Scotrail to release some 158s to Northern/ EMT/ FGW, all of whom are in need of additional 158 carriages

Five 180s release nine 170s (which often work in multiple at the moment) which would release (say) seven or eight 158s - which gives around fifteen carriages, so around five 158 carriages each for Northern/ EMT/ FGW (to be bolted on to exisiting busy services, in the way that FGW use 158 carriages to extend their Portsmouth services to three coaches). Everyone's a winner?

If the five 180s would be able to replace all nine 170s (not guaranteed, some 170s do double up, but I think five five car 180s for nine two car 170s may not quite go) then TPE retain two classes (though share 180s with Hull Trains, for spares etc), Scotrail move to having more 170 at the expense of 158s (which hopefully simplified things there too)

Alternatively, send the 170s to London Midland to free up any remaining 150/153s which could go to Northern/ EMT/ FGW as above (no 150s at EMT, since they don't run any already, however)

 

[387star]

sounds good! I agree thaat FGW still require extra 158 coaches. If that were to happen the 8 158s from Wessex Trains and South West Trains that are with FSR would be the obvious examples to head south as these haven't been refurbished.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Though wasn't there an issue with train weight hence 170s being used on Hull runs to begin with? surely the 180s could prove 'track heavy'?

 

[Anvil1984]

Maybe a silly suggestion but what about moving them to Scotrail after clearance to replace some of the 170 / 158 work and send some 158s or 156 down south. I don't know the logiistics but its one in my head so I'll think out loud

 

[MCR247]

I think it would be great if LM kept some 3 car 150s, which then meant they gave their centre 170 cars to XC which may leave 1 or 2 2 car 170s spare, which could be sent to ScotRail in return for 2 158s to Northern. Not a great amount, but better than nothing

 

[tbtc]

Maybe a silly suggestion but what about moving them to Scotrail after clearance to replace some of the 170 / 158 work and send some 158s or 156 down south. I don't know the logiistics but its one in my head so I'll think out loud

Scotrail certainly use a lot of 158 + 170 combinations (or doubled 170s), when a five coach train would be better.

There aren't enough 180s to replace a whole line, but if it released five 158s + five 170s then it'd be a very good thing (other than it gives Scotrail one additional unit type to deal with)

 

[Kneedown]

Liverpool - Nottingham (run Norwich as a separate service).

a) Capacity enhancement between Liverpool - Manchester and Manchester - Sheffield which both suffer overcrowding

b) Frees up EMT 158's.

c) Means Northern do not need to give EMT their 156s in return for 150s.

Totally agree, although most people here know i've always said some 180's should be deployed on this route.
EMT would probably be reluctant to let 158's go as they've spent £30mil refurbishing them, but there's no reason why they couldn't release 156's which i'm sure would be snapped up.
There's no reason why a 180 couldn't run through to Norwich though. As i've said on another thread, the only major issue is the speed restriction between Ely and Lakenheath which is but a few short miles and other factors would negate this problem.

 

[blackfive460]

The only easy answer for five units would be the Manchester - Hull service, which is a stand alone route, and where the 180s can be interworked with Hull - London if required (maintain a common pool at Hull to ensure better availability etc)

Would 5 units be enough to cover TPE's Liverpool - Scarborough trains? 185s get seriously overcrowded at times on this and, allegedly, there's a problem running pairs east of York (door off the platform somewhere? Or is that just a guards excuse not to open up the back three?).

 

[Anvil1984]

There is no allegedly about it, the back 3 does not fit on the platform at Seamer and the local instruction is to keep the back set locked out until York. There was no need to infer the staff do it to annoy passengers / commission grab

 

[YorkshireBear]

I like the idea of using them on the liverpool nottingham, that would realease a few 158's that EMT could use to increase nottingham norwich to 4 car? as there is overcrowding on that part of route too, and even if it isn't severe now its a little bit of forward planning

Although would you say release 158's or have it as an additional service? Down hope valley they got a bit of oppurtunity to stretch their legs aswell.

 

[Kneedown]

I like the idea of using them on the liverpool nottingham, that would realease a few 158's that EMT could use to increase nottingham norwich to 4 car? as there is overcrowding on that part of route too, and even if it isn't severe now its a little bit of forward planning

Although would you say release 158's or have it as an additional service? Down hope valley they got a bit of oppurtunity to stretch their legs aswell.

180's would be restricted to 70mph over the Hope Valley, although 158's don't get much above this for most of the way due to them being low in power on the gradients.

 

[swt_passenger]

I like the idea of using them on the liverpool nottingham, that would realease a few 158's that EMT could use to increase nottingham norwich to 4 car? as there is overcrowding on that part of route too, and even if it isn't severe now its a little bit of forward planning

They are committed to running Liverpool - Norwich as a through service. The DfT tried to split the route at Nottingham when the franchise was being relet, and there were massive local objections - allegedly from people who'd never normally set foot on the train...

That's why they are going for a service of mainly 4 car from Liverpool to Nottingham, with 2 cars beyond on some.

Using 180s on the whole route would presumably be turned down on line speed issues, same as when 222s were proposed?

 

[tbtc]

Would 5 units be enough to cover TPE's Liverpool - Scarborough trains?

Sadly not, no

Hull - Manchester - Hull is around a five hour trip, which would be okay for the five units, but you'd need more to get to Scarborough

Shame there are so few 180s, as they'd be suited to some other longer distance routes, but the remainder are tied up doing essential things like the Bradford - Pontrfract service :-x

 

[northwichcat]

There aren't enough for the Manchester - Scotland service, so they will still be timed for a 100mph 185, as 185s would still do some duties.

But it would have the advantage of a late running train can make up time by doing 110mph.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bradford - Pontrfract service :-x

It's a Bradford-Pontefract-London service not a West Yorkshire local service.

 

[MCR247]

What was getting at was that they are probably being used as a local service more than a London service. Why make new routes when the ones we have now are overcrowded and could use the stock? :x

 

[Failed Unit]

What was getting at was that they are probably being used as a local service more than a London service. Why make new routes when the ones we have now are overcrowded and could use the stock? :x

We all knew what you meant,

It's a Bradford-Pontefract-London service not a West Yorkshire local service.

LOL - some people just don't get it do they

 

[northwichcat]

Why make new routes when the ones we have now are overcrowded and could use the stock? :x

Haven't Bradford-Kings Cross services under the East Coast franchise been cut back to just one per day to use the stock on more crowded routes?

New services can reduce overcrowding on existing services. For example, most long distance passengers from Hudderfield go via Leeds or Manchester as they are the only two fast routes in and out of the town, so running a service to London via Stockport or Sheffield could reduce overcrowding on North TPE.

 

[Failed Unit]

Haven't Bradford-Kings Cross services under the East Coast franchise been cut back to just one per day to use the stock on more crowded routes?

New services can reduce overcrowding on existing services. For example, most long distance passengers from Hudderfield go via Leeds or Manchester as they are the only two fast routes in and out of the town, so running a service to London via Stockport or Sheffield could reduce overcrowding on North TPE.

Lots of ways of looking at this,

The alterations to the Bradford - London service was in part to assist in providing the 30 minute Leeds - London service, but the passenger numbers on it were low as Forster Square - Leeds already was every 30 minutes operated by Northern.

If you want to get from Huddersfield, Bradford, Halifax etc - London it will always be quicker to go via Leeds and change, so the GC train isn't aimed at people that are wanting to get from A-B quickly, it is aimed at leisure travellers like WSRC (Which I don't think was reduced passengers on ATW Chester - Birmingham or Virgins London - Wolves trains)

If Stagecoach extended its London - Sheffeild service to Huddersfield via Barnsley it may remove the odd leisure traveller but the vast majority would remain on the North TPE anyway. The liesure traveller could go via Sheffield for quieter trains anyway!

 

[northwichcat]

If you want to get from Huddersfield, Bradford, Halifax etc - London it will always be quicker to go via Leeds and change

The proposed GC Bradford-Huddersfield-Stockport-Crewe-London service was supposed to be 2.5 hours from Huddersfield to Euston, which would be faster than changing. It would also have called at Stockport, Alderley Edge and Crewe. Stockport and Crewe would provide good interchange for services to Cheshire and the West Midlands and yes there is a market for services between Huddersfield and Cheshire and West Midlands, you just need to see how many people change to southbound Northern services or XC services after alighting TPE services at Piccadilly or Leeds.

 

[Failed Unit]

The proposed GC Bradford-Huddersfield-Stockport-Crewe-London service was supposed to be 2.5 hours from Huddersfield to Euston,

LOL - And the 172's will be in service with LM in 2010, I have other funny joke we will have trains from Kings Lynn to Blackfriars in 2000, Edinburgh will be complete by 2012, Lincoln will get a quick direct service to London using IEP from 2015. Lots of things look good on paper that are never going to happen.

yes there is a market for services between Huddersfield and Cheshire and West Midlands, you just need to see how many people change to southbound Northern services or XC services after alighting TPE services at Piccadilly or Leeds.

I wouldn't dispute this, but what is better for the railway as a whole, a Stockport - Huddersfield service or an improved Manchester - Leeds service. If I had chose one improvement for that line it would be to Electrify and run 4 car EMU's rather than direct service. Although people in Huddersfield may not agree. Wasn't the main reason of moving the services to Manchester Piccadilly in the first place to provide Huddersfield better connection to the rest of England. Save people walking between Victoria and Piccadilly and it killed of the Stalybridge - Stockport service at the same time.

 

[northwichcat]

Wasn't the main reason of moving the services to Manchester Piccadilly in the first place to provide Huddersfield better connection to the rest of England. Save people walking between Victoria and Piccadilly and it killed of the Stalybridge - Stockport service at the same time.

If you look at what's happened since then you'll note some services have seen cutbacks due to a lack of paths out of Piccadilly and priority has been given to Virgin, while I think most Huddersfield-London passengers don't go via Manchester.

 

[Failed Unit]

If you look at what's happened since then you'll note some services have seen cutbacks due to a lack of paths out of Piccadilly and priority has been given to Virgin, while I think most Huddersfield-London passengers don't go via Manchester.

That is common knowledge but thank-you for sharing it. Didn't I also say that most people from Huddersfield - London go via Leeds? I don't think many people from Huddersfield - Birmingham go via Leeds somehow however. It will over 20 years since transpennie services moved to Piccadilly from Victoria, saying that in the past a Huddersfield - Birmingham traveller could have changed at Warrington Bank Quay after leaving the Hull - Holyhead services. They are talking of moving back to Victoria as a result of the Northern Hub, progress hey.

 

[87019Chris]

The proposed GC Bradford-Huddersfield-Stockport-Crewe-London service was supposed to be 2.5 hours from Huddersfield to Euston, which would be faster than changing. It would also have called at Stockport, Alderley Edge and Crewe. Stockport and Crewe would provide good interchange for services to Cheshire and the West Midlands and yes there is a market for services between Huddersfield and Cheshire and West Midlands, you just need to see how many people change to southbound Northern services or XC services after alighting TPE services at Piccadilly or Leeds.

Why not just run a Huddersfield to Birmingham train Stopping at Stockport alderly edge and maybe crewe (doesn't have to can take freight avoider or go on centre lines) as there are a load of services from Crewe to Birmingham and Birmingham New Street to London or if they do want to run to London direct call at stations that are mentioned above and Lichfield TV, Tamworth Low Level, and Nuneaton as these stations dont have many trains into london for example Tamworth LL has 1 an hour to london and crewe which goes Via Stoke to change for Manchester Picc as these would atrack people from the certain areas into getting the trains if they were fast from Nuneaton.

 

[northwichcat]

Why not just run a Huddersfield to Birmingham train Stopping at Stockport alderly edge and maybe crewe (doesn't have to can take freight avoider or go on centre lines) as there are a load of services from Crewe to Birmingham

Wilmslow would make more sense as a call on a Birmingham service as most Manchester-Birmingham's go via Macclesfield and GC would have used Alderley Edge on London services as the London market from Wilmslow is already well served by Virgin.

 

[swt_passenger]

Why not just run a Huddersfield to Birmingham train Stopping at Stockport alderly edge and maybe crewe (doesn't have to can take freight avoider or go on centre lines) as there are a load of services from Crewe to Birmingham and Birmingham New Street to London...

Open Access probably only works financially if you can provide 'more choice for London travel'?

I think there might be other ways of describing it though...

 

[tbtc]

Why make new routes when the ones we have now are overcrowded and could use the stock? :x

That's exactly it!

We can't fit all the passengers on routes like Transpennine (with the three coach trains), yet we have 180s (five coach trains) wasted elsewhere

Until we can solve the capacity problems on busy routes we shouldn't be putting good stock on "speculative" services

 

[sprinterguy]

Although, on the flip side, Open Access has in some instances helped to relieve stock issues: Hull Trains' first four Class 170 Turbostars went on to work with Scotrail, and their later four 222 Meridians have gone on to provide extra capacity at EMT. So if open access operators are ordering their own new stock then it can be beneficial, but I agree that stock built for a franchised operator should not be then offered to a potential open access sevice.

 

[northwichcat]

Another 180 suggestion:

TPE use them for Manchester Airport to Edinburgh services (Edinburgh over Glasgow as Virgin don't provide a regular Preston-Edinburgh service.)

Glasgow services could be run by 2 or 3 x 170s, with one attached or detached at Preston for the Windermere run. This would leave 3 car 185s to replace the 2 car 170s on North/South TPE.

 

[Kneedown]

They are committed to running Liverpool - Norwich as a through service. The DfT tried to split the route at Nottingham when the franchise was being relet, and there were massive local objections - allegedly from people who'd never normally set foot on the train...

That's why they are going for a service of mainly 4 car from Liverpool to Nottingham, with 2 cars beyond on some.

Using 180s on the whole route would presumably be turned down on line speed issues, same as when 222s were proposed?

EMT have no objection in principle to splitting the service at Nottingham. The reason they are going for 4cars splitting to 2 at Nottingham is due to the limited number of 158's they have.
The use of 222's has never been turned down on the route. They are cleared the whole way, but there are none spare after the London's are taken care of.
I sign the entire route from Liverpool to Norwich, and i'll say it yet again. Speed is not really an issue as the 158's currently on the route rarely get up to the maximum permitted speeds.

 

[northwichcat]

The use of 222's has never been turned down on the route. They are cleared the whole way, but there are none spare after the London's are taken care of.

EMT can use 222s on Liverpool-Norwich on Saturdays and Sundays but choose not to under normal circumstances.

I sign the entire route from Liverpool to Norwich, and i'll say it yet again. Speed is not really an issue as the 158's currently on the route rarely get up to the maximum permitted speeds.

But then isn't the route timed for 75mph running opposed to 90mph running so that 156s and 153s can be used without losing time?