180

[YorkshireBear]

just an idea or more question.. do we know who is getting the 180's yet and what for?

if not could XC take them on as using them would increase 4 (1 spare) 4 car diagrams to 5 car and 4 4car diagrams to 8 car

thats quite a good increase especially with new service to southampton being introduced?

 

[ainsworth74]

if not could XC take them on as using them would increase 4 (1 spare) 4 car diagrams to 5 car and 4 4car diagrams to 8 car

It would complicate maintenace, would possible require having the 180s cleared onto new routes, would need retraining of drivers and guards for new traction.

Its a nice idea but for a micro-fleet like that I don't think it is worth it. They really should have built many more 180s or none at all and built many more of something else entirely.

 

[Pumbaa]

180s can't be used on XC. They were offered when fGW originally wanted to get rid of them, but there are issues in a tunnel around New St, which would cause severe headaches if a 180 ended up on a job that had to go through (I think its Camp Hill) tunnel because it was the only way into New St.

 

[mallard]

Weren't Transpennine looking at them at one time?

Personally, I think they would be a good match, it does seem rather silly that the main express services between the major cities of Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool (plus the Scottish services!) are operated by 3-car regional/commuter trains (that are often packed full, even off-peak).

 

[sprinterguy]

It would be easier to deal with them if they'd been kept together as a 14 train fleet. The class as a whole is still too small to really be useful, but it would still be better than having less than a handful with each operator. They seem to be the trains that nobody knows what to do with, and have ended up filling in small cracks in capacity in the hands of three different operators wherever work can be found for them.

Transpennine would be able to make better use of them if the entire fleet of 14 was available. Then, they might be able to actually dedicate a full route to them, if the joining and splitting arrangements were rearranged a little bit.

AFAIK I don't think there's been a definite decision made on the five East Coast intended 180s, so cue a whole thread of assumptions and hearsay!

Heard a vague mention of the unfortunate five going back to First Great Western. I view that as exceedingly unlikely but then again the DfT moves in mysterious ways...

 

[EWS 58038]

One way to find out if they are indeed going to FGW, contact Captain Deltic. Sure he knows exactly what DafT has in mind for them.

 

[tbtc]

it does seem rather silly that the main express services between the major cities of Sheffield, Manchester ... are operated by 3-car regional/commuter trains (that are often packed full, even off-peak).

The Sheffield to Manchester route can be a two car 170 or a two car 158, so the three car 185s are a comparative luxury. It's a nightmare route.

As for the 180s, I have the "franchise proposal" leaflet for when Arriva bid for Transpennine, promising four car 180s on routes like Blackpool - Manchester - Sheffield - Hull (Sheffield to Manchester would be four trains per hour). If this had happened, we'd have had a decent sized class to use. Instead we have some daft little classes (175, 180, 185) when one "big" class would be a lot more use.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I know, but we need to learn lessons from these mistakes and stop wasteful building of "micro" classes

 

[route:oxford]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I know, but we need to learn lessons from these mistakes and stop wasteful building of "micro" classes

If the 180s had been the "perfect" set when built, had entered service without a glitch, been economical with fuel and operated over high mileages before failure...

You can be absolutely sure that it wouldn't be a "micro" class - the 5 car sets would have been lengthened to 8/9 cars and the class size would be significantly larger.

But they weren't perfect. Shame really.

 

[jopsuk]

Aye- if they'd had a much smoother introduction, I reckon at the very least all the fast services (perhaps all services) on the Oxford branch of the GWML would be 180s at the very minimum. But then if the 458 (from the related EMU family from Alstom) had been succesful, SWT would have no Desiros... Alstom did very poorly at a key point in the introduction of post-privitisation classes- which is why they have no credibility when bidding for new projects in the UK.

 

[tbtc]

If the 180s had been the "perfect" set when built, had entered service without a glitch, been economical with fuel and operated over high mileages before failure...

You can be absolutely sure that it wouldn't be a "micro" class - the 5 car sets would have been lengthened to 8/9 cars and the class size would be significantly larger.

But they weren't perfect. Shame really.

True.

A great shame, as we could have done with more units like 180s on the rails, but a class of just over a dozen are going to be an oddity regardless of how glitch-free they are

 

[YorkshireBear]

True.

A great shame, as we could have done with more units like 180s on the rails, but a class of just over a dozen are going to be an oddity regardless of how glitch-free they are

should we not be looking at getting them all with GC and FHT then? at least then there common to two companies operating very similar routes

 

[jopsuk]

Indeed- but how do you coerce GC into replacing their HSTs (that they've spent a lot of money on doing up) with further 180s (that they'll need to refurbish to their standard)? It would, you're right, make operational sense.

 

[ainsworth74]

should we not be looking at getting them all with GC and FHT then? at least then there common to two companies operating very similar routes

I'm fairly sure we've talked about this before and as I recall the feeling was that HT don't need anymore 180s than they've got and as long as GC are using HSTs they don't need anymore 180s either. If you were to remove the HSTs from GC and replace them with 180s then a) they would still have to many 180s and b) you would then have non-standard HST sets to deal with.

Really we keeping back to the point, there simply aren't enough 180s to actually do anything with them!

 

[Pumbaa]

Indeed- but how do you coerce GC into replacing their HSTs (that they've spent a lot of money on doing up) with further 180s (that they'll need to refurbish to their standard)? It would, you're right, make operational sense.

Make up some daft doddle about First being anti-competitive and get them to sell fHT either voluntarily or otherwise, bring GC and HT together under one brand, replace the HSTs with the remaining 180s and give the HSTs back to the ROSCO. ROSCO then have an adequate testbed to work with DfT for life extension programme, and they will enter service with fGW, XC or whoever.

 

[sprinterguy]

Make up some daft doddle about First being anti-competitive and get them to sell fHT either voluntarily or otherwise, bring GC and HT together under one brand, replace the HSTs with the remaining 180s and give the HSTs back to the ROSCO. ROSCO then have an adequate testbed to work with DfT for life extension programme, and they will enter service with fGW, XC or whoever.

And in addition to that, Grand Central lose three trains and gain five in this scenario, which gives them a bit of breathing space in their maintenance allocation, so that they should be able to cover all of their services and not have all the woes they have been having with late running and cancellations. Plus with HT and GC under one roof there'd be economies of scale to be had with operating a common fleet of one train design between them, that should keep the 180s fairly reliable.

It makes sense, and hence it won't happen

 

[Pumbaa]

It could - HT only have their paths till 2014. So then is the opportune moment to give GC the paths and the 180s under one route.

 

[sprinterguy]

I'd love to see it happen: It seems so inefficient having two open access operators serving what are fairly similar markets and vying for capacity on the already congested southern end of the ECML, as well as one of those operators having two different types of train in such a small fleet.

As great as I think it is that there are Valentas specifically and HSTs generally passing through my old home town of Sunderland, I'd much rather they could provide a regular, reliable and consistent service and get their problems with failures sorted.

The three GC HSTs, buffer fitted and in 2+6 formations (assuming all the GC mark 3 conversions ever made it out of Marcroft), are perfect fodder for HST life extension testbeds.

 

[MCR247]

In 2014 would it be a good idea for GC and HT to work together, and to say run Hull - Donny and Bradford - Donny and then the two 180s join? That might be a better use of path

 

[ainsworth74]

So its not just me that has idly thought that having GC and HT merge would be a good idea

Having them split/join and Doncaster does seem like a good idea, but it would take some pretty significant reworking of both GC's and HT's timetable seeing as the services seem to be calling at Doncaster roughly an hour apart all day. Not that that should be an obsticle to trying to get them to join up!

 

[sprinterguy]

In 2014 would it be a good idea for GC and HT to work together, and to say run Hull - Donny and Bradford - Donny and then the two 180s join? That might be a better use of path

Sounds like a good idea to me, helps to save paths on the ECML. The only issue, as Ainsworth74 says, is that there'd need to be a retiming of the services in order to get them to be able to join and split at Doncaster with minimal waiting time.

 

[MCR247]

But thats quite minor isn't it. Personally I'd retime the Bradfords

 

[GNERman]

But thats quite minor isn't it. Personally I'd retime the Bradfords

harder than you think, they already have one service which doesn't go via pontefract from london due to pathing...

 

[387star]

Personally (in an ideal world without training/mixed fleet woes) I think Hull Trains and Grand Central should take voyagers from XC and XC take ALL the 180s

Open Access companies should NEVER be given priority with stock WHEN it is in such need on franchised services IMO...

 

[Royston Vasey]

It's a fair point, however where are the franchised TOCs queuing up either for the HSTs or 180s? GC bought off lease power cars in poor condition and surplus LHCS in 2006-7. Later they took unwanted unreliable 180s. Why shouldn't they keep the HSTs they invested so much in? XC are presumably perfectly happy with the Voyagers, whether enthusiasts like them or not. Why would they even want 180s? As for the HSTs, Arriva don't even fully utilise their own. Bolster EC or FGW? Perhaps but they haven't made any serious noise about wanting them.

Hull Trains leased brand new 222s and then they were taken off them for 180s when the franchised operator wanted them.

I'm not really sure your post is borne out by reality.

 

[MCR247]

deleted

 

[tbtc]

Make up some daft doddle about First being anti-competitive and get them to sell fHT either voluntarily or otherwise, bring GC and HT together under one brand, replace the HSTs with the remaining 180s and give the HSTs back to the ROSCO. ROSCO then have an adequate testbed to work with DfT for life extension programme, and they will enter service with fGW, XC or whoever.

Best thing to do like that would be to restrict Open Access to one clockface path per two hours from London, meaning Hull Trains and GC are welcome to double up 180s between London and Doncaster.

GC HSTs may be "non standard" but they are a lot more "standard" than for XC to take on some 180s (or something else new)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

On the subject of 180s, they do seem 'wasted' on Northern's Vic-Bpl trains, when I was on them in daytime in May (I know very specific!!!) it was dead (I was the only one in the back carriage), there can't have been more than 15 got on in total Lostock-Chorley, and it looked fairly quiet upon departure (obviously it is also used for passenegers to Bolton etc) from Vic. The usual 150/156 or occasional 142 would be better suited, but I know its harder than that to get the stock there. I think they are perfect for FGW Padd-Worcs/Hereford services, and HT's KGX-Hull trains, but that's just me! I know it's easy to say this, but getting the relevant stock everywhere and to the correct TOCs is much harder!

 

[tbtc]

Personally I'd retime the Bradfords

I agree, albeit with the word "retime" replaced by "scrap (for being a complete waste of time and completely inefficient use of stock - that's assuming they bother to run the service as they are frequently cancelled)"

 

[ainsworth74]

On the subject of 180s, they do seem 'wasted' on Northern's Vic-Bpl trains, when I was on them in daytime in May (I know very specific!!!) it was dead

Would daytime be peak time or not? Because from what I hear at peak times the 5 car 180s are just about perfect for the demand on their routes with Northern.

I agree, albeit with the word "retime" replaced by "scrap (for being a complete waste of time and completely inefficient use of stock - that's assuming they bother to run the service as they are frequently cancelled)"

+1

 

[tbtc]

On the subject of 180s, they do seem 'wasted' on Northern's Vic-Bpl trains, when I was on them in daytime in May (I know very specific!!!) it was dead (I was the only one in the back carriage), there can't have been more than 15 got on in total Lostock-Chorley, and it looked fairly quiet upon departure (obviously it is also used for passenegers to Bolton etc) from Vic. The usual 150/156 or occasional 142 would be better suited, but I know its harder than that to get the stock there. I think they are perfect for FGW Padd-Worcs/Hereford services, and HT's KGX-Hull trains, but that's just me! I know it's easy to say this, but getting the relevant stock everywhere and to the correct TOCs is much harder!

At least Northern are using two daily, and the capacity *is* needed on peak runs (a shame they don't use them on weekend Blackpool trips too)