the 5 spare 180s. What's happening?

[junglejames]

They as in the 165s will either stay exactly where they are now in the Thames Valley and the 166s to risk the wrath of Northerners will be cascaded to Northern to use on the Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Blackpool services,

They might not be brand new BUT they are newer then their existing trains and I look forward to be corrected to see if anyone would prefer to keep their 142s then have a newer train.....

The most obvious problem here, being the fact that 166s definitely are not able to head up North. The loading gauge restricts there use from vitually everywhere except the South West.
Id even be surprised if they were cleared for Pompey to Cardiff.
However they can definitely use Bristol. Dont know about every platform, but they have been to Bristol plenty of times before on the old Oxford to Bristol service.

 

[route:oxford]

How many would be needed for a clockface Oxford:Milton Keynes and Aylesbury:Milton Keynes service?

(If they'd fit between Bicester & MK)

 

[tbtc]

How many 166s are on Worcester duties?

I thought a lot were HSTs these days (to provide capacity on the Oxford - London stretch)?

Obviously 165/166s run on the "slow" London - Oxford services.

 

[swt_passenger]

That's my point, from various comments here there seems to be a restriction on them using Temple Meads and until there's actually news of these restrictions being lifted, I'm of the opinion that the 158s will stay on their existing routes.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The most obvious problem here, being the fact that 166s definitely are not able to head up North. The loading gauge restricts there use from vitually everywhere except the South West.
Id even be surprised if they were cleared for Pompey to Cardiff.

165/6s on Portsmouth to Cardiff has been published in various route plans, and the GWML RUS, 'subject to gauge clearance of the route'.

Lack of current gauge clearance shouldn't be seen as a reason why it cannot happen. For quite a while now, new classes have only ever been gauge cleared for the routes on which they are initially required to work. That doesn't mean they cannot work elsewhere, just that it hasn't ever been required.

However, both these classes have just been route cleared from Redhill to Selhurst depot, and from Guildford to Basingstoke via Woking. Bog standard SR territory in other words. Now, in the absence of any reports of major recent infrastructure work on those routes, presumably the conclusion must be that clearing them isn't actually as much of a problem people keep suggesting.

 

[tbtc]

165/6s on Portsmouth to Cardiff has been published in various route plans, and the GWML RUS, 'subject to gauge clearance of the route'.

Lack of current gauge clearance shouldn't be seen as a reason why it cannot happen. For quite a while now, new classes have only ever been gauge cleared for the routes on which they are initially required to work. That doesn't mean they cannot work elsewhere, just that it hasn't ever been required.

However, both these classes have just been route cleared from Redhill to Selhurst depot, and from Guildford to Basingstoke via Woking. Bog standard SR territory in other words. Now, in the absence of any reports of major recent infrastructure work on those routes, presumably the conclusion must be that clearing them isn't actually as much of a problem people keep suggesting.

I wonder whether the 165/166 clearance story is similar to the "Pacers can't work on third rail" one...

 

[Arriva158]

How many 166s are on Worcester duties?

I thought a lot were HSTs these days (to provide capacity on the Oxford - London stretch)?

Obviously 165/166s run on the "slow" London - Oxford services.

Afaik there's at least 2 booked returns on the Worcester runs, 2 booked return runs on the Great Malvern route and one on the Hereford run with the rest (remaining 5 iirc) being HST's!

 

[asylumxl]

I think the clearence issue thing is a myth. If the dimensions quoted on Wikipedia are to be believed, it's only 1cm wider and 1cm taller than a 377..

 

[northwichcat]

I think the clearence issue thing is a myth. If the dimensions quoted on Wikipedia are to be believed, it's only 1cm wider and 1cm taller than a 377..

When FNW were first trying to get clearance for 175s they ran in to problems as they were too wide for some lines, even though in theory they are narrower than a 150. The problem was just the width of the step by each of the doors and some minor adjustments sorted the problem.

 

[jopsuk]

I think the clearence issue thing is a myth. If the dimensions quoted on Wikipedia are to be believed, it's only 1cm wider and 1cm taller than a 377..

but they're three metres longer- which means theyswing out further at the ends and in further in the middle. They would be OK if all platforms were straight.

Basically, they're as wide as most 20m stock, despite being 23m stock.

 

[asylumxl]

Well they're only 7cm wider than a 222 which is 23m, so I still think it's a myth.

 

[Bastiaan]

7 cm doesn't look much, but it surely can make a difference whether a train will or will not fit into the loading gauge.

 

[northwichcat]

rumours in the railway magazines

Apparently Modern Railways has said that the 8 x LM 150s going to Northern will replace the FGW bound 180s with the FGW 142s possibly staying put. To me that sounds like an idea thought up by someone in the West Country. That would leave Northern 6 carriages short*, EMT 8 carriages short* and give FGW 22* more carriages than promised by DfT.

* The 7x142s are supposed to replace the 3x180s at Northern, which Northern aren't entirely happy with due to the shorter carriage length of the 142s. The 8 x LM 150s going to Northern are supposed to be replacing 4x156s that are EMT bound.

 

[Lampshade]

I don't understand why LM don't just release 8x153s to EMT, allowing Northern to retain the 156s - which are needed, Manchester Vic - Blackpool is 2x156 minimum at peak times.

 

[MCR247]

I think a PPM should be ordered for Nuneaton - Coventry?

 

[IanPooleTrains]

Dunno what Northern are moaning about because they only 'borrowed' the 180s and the 142s are theirs already

But this riddle is even more complicated than LM getting their 172s!

 

[Lampshade]

They'd still be replacing 15x23m carriages with 14x15m carriages, a vast reduction in capacity when most 180s are full and standing leaving Oxford Road/Salford Crescent.

 

[IanPooleTrains]

So, in short, we would end up with a situation like Arriva Cross Country when they stick a measley amount of carriages on long distance routes

 

[MCR247]

No, not really.

 

[tbtc]

I'd rather Northern gained 8x 150 than 7x 142 (in fact, I'd rather take 6x 150 than the 7x 142 at FGW).

Hmm, the maths is:

Northern lose
3x 180 = 15 coaches
4x 156 = 8 coaches

Northern gain
7x 142 = approx 10 coaches (since the Pacers are shorter than 150/156s)

So Northern would still need a number of additional 150s from LM just to continue providing the same number of seats. Additionally, as many stations (Manchester Piccadilly/ Leeds etc) are at path capacity, Sprinters (with corridor connections) would be more use to Northern than the Pacers.

 

[MCR247]

Northern only give EMT 4 156s after gaining 8 150s?

 

[northwichcat]

Dunno what Northern are moaning about because they only 'borrowed' the 180s and the 142s are theirs already

Northern now have to run an extra service between Manchester and Preston due to 185s being cascaded from Windermere-Manchester Airport services to Scotland to Manchester Airport services which was to release the 22xs that were previously used on the Manchester-Scotland services.

It'd be almost the same as LM being told to replace the 4 car 350s on the Crewe-Euston via Stone services with 323s and then having to use 2 car 150s that the 172s are supposed to replace to run the Birmingham commuter services which the 323s are used on.

 

[tbtc]

Northern only give EMT 4 156s after gaining 8 150s?

I don't know if there's some double counting going on, but if the following is true:

Apparently Modern Railways has said that the 8 x LM 150s going to Northern will replace the FGW bound 180s with the FGW 142s possibly staying put

...then does this mean Northern are getting sixteen 150s from LM, or does this mean that just eight 150s are meant to replace both the 156s and 180s?

Or is someone at the magazine getting confused between the 150/156 swap and the 142/180 swap?

 

[northwichcat]

They'd still be replacing 15x23m carriages with 14x15m carriages, a vast reduction in capacity when most 180s are full and standing leaving Oxford Road/Salford Crescent.

And not only would 3x142s be shorter in total length they'd have extra unused driving cabs taking up some of the space.

 

[tbtc]

Northern now have to run an extra service between Manchester and Preston due to 185s being cascaded from Windermere-Manchester Airport services to Scotland to Manchester Airport services which was to release the 22xs that were previously used on the Manchester-Scotland services.

...the upshot of which is that Virgin have got "spare" Voyagers to run on routes under the wires, whilst Northern have fewer spare units to run the number of services they now have to run (and are also losing slots to Virgin services)...

 

[MCR247]

I don't know if there's some double counting going on, but if the following is true:



...then does this mean Northern are getting sixteen 150s from LM, or does this mean that just eight 150s are meant to replace both the 156s and 180s?

Or is someone at the magazine getting confused between the 150/156 swap and the 142/180 swap?

I'm not sure. But I know that what I said was the original plan. I don't know whats happening now. Too confusing!

 

[tbtc]

I'm not sure. But I know that what I said was the original plan. I don't know whats happening now. Too confusing!

I'm just worried that someone at DFT has promised the same handful of 150s to lots of different TOCs for lots of different "purposes"!

In all seriousness, this "cascade" shows how desperate we all are for capacity - with several TOCs squabbling over a handful of "spare" 1980s DMUs. Desperate stuff...

 

[northwichcat]

is someone at the magazine getting confused between the 150/156 swap and the 142/180 swap?

If what's getting posted around is an accurate quote then it sounds like Tony Miles when writing in Modern Railways thinks the Northern 180s will be freed up in May 2011 when 8 150s arrive from LM. This is unlikely to be a second cascade as the first cascade was set to take place in May 2011.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So, in short, we would end up with a situation like Arriva Cross Country when they stick a measley amount of carriages on long distance routes

If you think the Voyagers are bad you should see the 185s used on TPE, just as many people try to squeeze on them as with the Voyagers but there are less carriages.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...the upshot of which is that Virgin have got "spare" Voyagers to run on routes under the wires

and Virgin will have 4 x new 11 car Pendolinos in storage for 18 months+. It would make sense to get those 11 car Pendolinos on to Glasgow-London now, move 4 x 9 car Pendolinos to Birmingham-Scotland services and to sublease 4 x Voyagers to either XC or TPE. I personally think TPE would be the better option as XC will likely just replace the HST diagrams with Voyager diagrams and not put any extra carriages in service.

 

[Drsatan]

If what's getting posted around is an accurate quote then it sounds like Tony Miles when writing in Modern Railways thinks the Northern 180s will be freed up in May 2011 when 8 150s arrive from LM. This is unlikely to be a second cascade as the first cascade was set to take place in May 2011.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If you think the Voyagers are bad you should see the 185s used on TPE, just as many people try to squeeze on them as with the Voyagers but there are less carriages.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


and Virgin will have 4 x new 11 car Pendolinos in storage for 18 months+. It would make sense to get those 11 car Pendolinos on to Glasgow-London now, move 4 x 9 car Pendolinos to Birmingham-Scotland services and to sublease 4 x Voyagers to either XC or TPE. I personally think TPE would be the better option as XC will likely just replace the HST diagrams with Voyager diagrams and not put any extra carriages in service.

I thought VWC wanted to use any spare Voyagers for the proposed Birmingham New Street - Hayes & Harlington (for Heathrow) service? Or is that not going ahead?

 

[MCR247]

Sorry, Virgin don't have them in storage. The DfT do. I'm not sure TP would want 4 units that would have to be sent to Burton to be maintained/they would have to learn them. XC would take them.

 

[Pumbaa]

I thought VWC wanted to use any spare Voyagers for the proposed Birmingham New Street - Hayes & Harlington (for Heathrow) service? Or is that not going ahead?

No VRG didn't really want to run that service, it was just being thrown at DfT as desperate blackmail for a franchise extension and use of the new 390s.