Should class 180s be banned from the ECML?

[Bayum]

You're clearly not a MML passenger.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2022 ==



Better than not being able to get on the train because it's too full though.

Depends whether the guard bollocks you for over travelling…

 

[bramling]

Following posts made in the following thread:

Grand Central train stopped due to fault near Welwyn

Grand Central Class 180 Train stopped under red light under Lyles Lane WGC with engines still running. All Southbound services routed onto slow lines. Northbound lines running ok. 1652546969 1652547203 Signal 620 Headcode 5A61

www.railforums.co.uk

To keep that thread on topic, the question is posed in this section: should class 180 diesel multiple units be banned from the East Coast Main Line?

They’re either reliable enough to run or they’re not. Don’t see why their deployment should make a difference.

As others have said, it’s rather unfortunate as these are pretty decent units from a passenger ambience point of view. A shame the reliability issues have never been able to be fully addressed.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Old Oak Common had the measure of their reliability. It’s a shame none of their inheritors have managed to master the 180s to the same extent.

 

[InTheEastMids]

They’re either reliable enough to run or they’re not. Don’t see why their deployment should make a difference

The TOC is penalised for unreliability by delay attribution aren't they?

If so, that the costs of unreliability to TOCs are not high enough, if they can afford to have 180s (or anything else) sitting down on a frequent basis and causing large amounts of delay.

 

[A0]

Well, I don't agree with the leasing system for trains.

The hysteria about slam doors and drop-lights was always meaningless nonsense that could have waited until the new trains were available.

I'm perhaps fortunate enough not to have experienced a 225 failure on the ECML in the last year or two.

I have experienced several occasions where inadequate short units have been put on the MML, and have experienced a 5 carriage Azuma on the ECML being cancelled - following train was a 225 and fortunately managed to take the additional passengers. Thank goodness for 225's !

The "hysteria" as you put it was the fact they completely and utterly discriminate against disabled travellers. The DDA of 2005 effectively signed the death warrant on drop lights and slam doors - that you still think 17 years later it was "OK" that such things were still in place until a couple years ago and preventing access speaks volumes.

 

[yorksrob]

The "hysteria" as you put it was the fact they completely and utterly discriminate against disabled travellers. The DDA of 2005 effectively signed the death warrant on drop lights and slam doors - that you still think 17 years later it was "OK" that such things were still in place until a couple years ago and preventing access speaks volumes.

The HST's were fully staffed trains, so there was always someone to assist people when needed.

The time to introduce fully DDA compliant trains would have been when the new stock was available and not go scrabbling around for inadequate hand me downs to fill the gap for two years.

Exactly how accessible do you think a rammed short formed 222 or 180 would be to a disabled traveller ?

The treasury that you're always defending, had the chance to authorise new stock in time, or even authorise electrification, but it didn't do, putting in the legislation for DDA compliant trains but not the funding. All mouth and no trousers as usual. That "speaks volumes".

 

[bramling]

The "hysteria" as you put it was the fact they completely and utterly discriminate against disabled travellers. The DDA of 2005 effectively signed the death warrant on drop lights and slam doors - that you still think 17 years later it was "OK" that such things were still in place until a couple years ago and preventing access speaks volumes.

That’s rather disingenuous. As you say, there was 17 years to sort the issue, yet it was still close to the wire with some issues left persisting into the 2020s. If anything speaks volumes it’s the industry’s (and by definition government’s) failure to get to grips with this in good time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2022 ==

Old Oak Common had the measure of their reliability. It’s a shame none of their inheritors have managed to master the 180s to the same extent.

It does seem that FGW knew exactly what they were doing by getting rid of them!

I remember doing a journey from Cheltenham to London on one in their first FGW incarnation, and again from Worcester to London more recently. In both cases it was a pretty positive journey experience.

 

[A0]

The HST's were fully staffed trains, so there was always someone to assist people when needed.

The time to introduce fully DDA compliant trains would have been when the new stock was available and not go scrabbling around for inadequate hand me downs to fill the gap for two years.

Exactly how accessible do you think a rammed short formed 222 or 180 would be to a disabled traveller ?

The treasury that you're always defending, had the chance to authorise new stock in time, or even authorise electrification, but it didn't do, putting in the legislation for DDA compliant trains but not the funding. All mouth and no trousers as usual. That "speaks volumes".

Why should disabled people have to rely on "assistance" ? That was the whole point of the DDA - to give them the independence the rest of us take for granted. And as far as I'm aware the 180s and 222s have the same staffing level as the HSTs had - so not sure why you're claiming staffing is an issue?

The 222s, of course, weren't "hand me downs" (you mentioned them in the thread), they were new to the MML and all bar a few units have spent their working life there. The 180s are very similar in concept - different mechanically - but far more compliant and accessible than your beloved clapped out Mk3s - and as pointed out upthread the 180s are planned to be a stop gap until the new EMR fleet arrives. What it *does* mean is that EMR have a DDA compliant fleet, which is surely a good thing?

 

[yorksrob]

Why should disabled people have to rely on "assistance" ? That was the whole point of the DDA - to give them the independence the rest of us take for granted. And as far as I'm aware the 180s and 222s have the same staffing level as the HSTs had - so not sure why you're claiming staffing is an issue?

The 222s, of course, weren't "hand me downs" (you mentioned them in the thread), they were new to the MML and all bar a few units have spent their working life there. The 180s are very similar in concept - different mechanically - but far more compliant and accessible than your beloved clapped out Mk3s - and as pointed out upthread the 180s are planned to be a stop gap until the new EMR fleet arrives. What it *does* mean is that EMR have a DDA compliant fleet, which is surely a good thing?

Why indeed, which is why DDA compliance is rightly built into new trains. However that is no excuse for withdrawing non-compliant stock when you don't have an adequate fleet to replace it. The government put the legislation into law - it should have ensured that adequate compliant stock was available.

The 222's were introduced to work alongside the HST fleet and so were never going to be adequate on their own, hence the scrabbling around for 180's

 

[43096]

Why should disabled people have to rely on "assistance" ? That was the whole point of the DDA - to give them the independence the rest of us take for granted. And as far as I'm aware the 180s and 222s have the same staffing level as the HSTs had - so not sure why you're claiming staffing is an issue?

The 222s, of course, weren't "hand me downs" (you mentioned them in the thread), they were new to the MML and all bar a few units have spent their working life there. The 180s are very similar in concept - different mechanically - but far more compliant and accessible than your beloved clapped out Mk3s - and as pointed out upthread the 180s are planned to be a stop gap until the new EMR fleet arrives. What it *does* mean is that EMR have a DDA compliant fleet, which is surely a good thing?

The point about assistance isn't as relevant as you might think in the context of Mark 3 vs 180/222 - unless anyone can demonstrate where level boarding is available with 180/222 stock. Without level boarding assistance is still required.

 

[A0]

Why indeed, which is why DDA compliance is rightly built into new trains. However that is no excuse for withdrawing non-compliant stock when you don't have an adequate fleet to replace it. The government put the legislation into law - it should have ensured that adequate compliant stock was available.

There *is* sufficient stock - EMR have the 222s and 180s - we get it, you don't like the 180s and think non compliant HSTs should have bern retained. You're wrong and fortunately those who run the rail industry think so as well.

The 222's were introduced to work alongside the HST fleet and so were never going to be adequate on their own, hence the scrabbling around for 180's

Not quite - the introduction of the Corby diagrams using 360s freed up 222s leaving a *small* balance of HSTs which are covered by the 180s. A good all round solution - but not one you like, because you like clapped out, non compliant BR built stock.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2022 ==

The point about assistance isn't as relevant as you might think in the context of Mark 3 vs 180/222 - unless anyone can demonstrate where level boarding is available with 180/222 stock. Without level boarding assistance is still required.

BIB *May* be required, not all disabled people need level boarding. But reaching to open heavy, manual doors as opposed to pressing a button to open a powered door is likely to affect far more.

 

[AM9]

Why indeed, which is why DDA compliance is rightly built into new trains. However that is no excuse for withdrawing non-compliant stock when you don't have an adequate fleet to replace it. The government put the legislation into law - it should have ensured that adequate compliant stock was available.

The 222's were introduced to work alongside the HST fleet and so were never going to be adequate on their own, hence the scrabbling around for 180's

Although there is supposed to be shared accountability in government (I don't think there's any accepted at all with this lot), the several derogations of compliance were about as far as it could have been delayed (and way beyond what should have been allowed). There is no excuse for ignoring equality laws unless it there is a safety case. Inconveniencing able bodied passengers is not a H&S matter, it's political embarassment. Nothing wrong with the law here.

 

[bramling]

There *is* sufficient stock - EMR have the 222s and 180s - we get it, you don't like the 180s and think non compliant HSTs should have bern retained. You're wrong and fortunately those who run the rail industry think so as well.



Not quite - the introduction of the Corby diagrams using 360s freed up 222s leaving a *small* balance of HSTs which are covered by the 180s. A good all round solution - but not one you like, because you like clapped out, non compliant BR built stock.

It’s hard to compare the previous service with now, as naturally the service has been designed to shift some journeys onto the Corby services.

However, if we work on the basis that a round trip to Corby and back takes 3 hours (I realise there was inter working in the old timetables), that’s only nominally 3x 222 freed up based on the former hourly service.

If the legacy HST fleet was 9x8 and 3x6, then I make that 90 Mk3s.

3x 5-car 222 freed from Corby and 4x 5-car 180 adds up to 35 180/222 vehicles, which of course also tend to be slightly lower capacity than Mk3s.

As I say, I realise comparisons aren’t entirely easy to make as the Corby service is now half-hourly and stopping patterns have changed, however outwardly one can’t escape from the fact that a replacement of 90x Mk3s by 35x 180/222 for the Sheffield and Nottingham routes can hardly be shouted as a glowing success story.

Open to correction on the numbers above, I’m not as familiar with EMR as GN!

 

[yorksrob]

There *is* sufficient stock - EMR have the 222s and 180s - we get it, you don't like the 180s and think non compliant HSTs should have bern retained. You're wrong and fortunately those who run the rail industry think so as well.



Not quite - the introduction of the Corby diagrams using 360s freed up 222s leaving a *small* balance of HSTs which are covered by the 180s. A good all round solution - but not one you like, because you like clapped out, non compliant BR built stock.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2022 ==



BIB *May* be required, not all disabled people need level boarding. But reaching to open heavy, manual doors as opposed to pressing a button to open a powered door is likely to affect far more.

Expecting three 180 units to replace eight or nine HST's was always going to involve heroic levels of delusion.

The problem with the 360's is that they don't actually go to the main Inter-City destinations on the route on account of a lack of wires. Now if the Government had fulfilled it's commitment to electrify, you might have had a solution.

"A great all round solution" if you don't mind being stood in a vestibule all the way to Leicester.

 

[cactustwirly]

The "hysteria" as you put it was the fact they completely and utterly discriminate against disabled travellers. The DDA of 2005 effectively signed the death warrant on drop lights and slam doors - that you still think 17 years later it was "OK" that such things were still in place until a couple years ago and preventing access speaks volumes.

DDA compliance is irrelevant, as there isn't any space for wheelchair users as the trains are crammed full.
A 4 or 5 car 222 has less than half the seating capacity of the HSTs they replaced.
If I was disabled I'd rather need assistance to board a non compliant train, than not be able to travel

 

[A0]

DDA compliance is irrelevant, as there isn't any space for wheelchair users as the trains are crammed full.
A 4 or 5 car 222 has less than half the seating capacity of the HSTs they replaced.
If I was disabled I'd rather need assistance to board a non compliant train, than not be able to travel

*Sigh* not for the first time DDA is not all or solely about wheelchair users.

 

[43074]

I think the HST v 222 debate on the MML has been done to death in this thread, but people have short memories as crowding has always been a problem on 222s on the MML, since December 2008 they tended to be used on Sheffield services whilst the generally quieter Nottingham fasts were HSTs. In the peaks most of the demand that the HSTs catered for came from Kettering and south of in my experience of using them, which is of course what the 360s are there for nowadays.

It isn't a new phenomenon since the disappearance of the HSTs, indeed if anything I think there has been an uptick in demand from north of Kettering since May 21 on account of the faster peak journey times which has exacerbated the crowding issue.

Anyhow back to the 180s I can't think of a precedent for 'banning' stock from a route on account of unreliability, the example of Arriva Trains Northern Sprinters on the WCML of Carlisle seemed to come from hysteria whipped up by Virgin to the SRA rather than any occasions where the units had broken down.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the HST v 222 debate on the MML has been done to death in this thread, but people have short memories as crowding has always been a problem on 222s on the MML, since December 2008 they tended to be used on Sheffield services whilst the generally quieter Nottingham fasts were HSTs. In the peaks most of the demand that the HSTs catered for came from Kettering and south of in my experience of using them, which is of course what the 360s are there for nowadays.

They certainly carried plenty of people from Nottingham, Leicester etc when I used them.

 

[A0]

They certainly carried plenty of people from Nottingham, Leicester etc when I used them.

Wow - another of the inevitable "Yorksrob example of a massively overcrowded train where the industry doesn't agree with him" examples.

Going back OT - there have been trains which are much less than then 180s are, which also ran on the ECML - so no, there isn't a case for "banning" the 180s from the ECML..

 

[yorksrob]

Wow - another of the inevitable "Yorksrob example of a massively overcrowded train where the industry doesn't agree with him" examples.

Going back OT - there have been trains which are much less than then 180s are, which also ran on the ECML - so no, there isn't a case for "banning" the 180s from the ECML..

The point is, it often wasn't massively overcrowded, primarily because the capacity was there. But it was reasonably busy - as one would expect from a major city such as Nottingham. There is a difference.

 

[johntea]

Where would the money come from to replace them?

If it involved raising the ticket price for the passenger they would then likely struggle to compete with the likes of LNER

I often catch Grand Central knowing exactly what to expect, a no frills A to B trip down the ECML with the price of an advance matching that

They often have issues but in fairness are usually quick enough at sorting out ticket acceptance with LNER

 

[cactustwirly]

The point is, it often wasn't massively overcrowded, primarily because the capacity was there. But it was reasonably busy - as one would expect from a major city such as Nottingham. There is a difference.

I would disagree, I regularly took early afternoon/late morning trains which you would expect to be quiet in the weekday.

Almost every seat was taken between Leicester and London. Plus the availability of cheap advances was scarce. I would argue the trains were very busy.

I wouldn't like to see them at the moment with only 5 cars...

 

[A0]

I would disagree, I regularly took early afternoon/late morning trains which you would expect to be quiet in the weekday.

Almost every seat was taken between Leicester and London. Plus the availability of cheap advances was scarce. I would argue the trains were very busy.

I wouldn't like to see them at the moment with only 5 cars...

Some of the crowding will be mitigated though by not stopping after Kettering.

And "cheap advances" are designed to stimulate demand on quieter routes / services - it isn't an automatic right that there should be advances.

 

[yorksrob]

I would disagree, I regularly took early afternoon/late morning trains which you would expect to be quiet in the weekday.

Almost every seat was taken between Leicester and London. Plus the availability of cheap advances was scarce. I would argue the trains were very busy.

I wouldn't like to see them at the moment with only 5 cars...

I must admit, I was usually in first class at this time, so may have been spared the worst crowding.

It's certainly no surprise that large cities such as Nottingham and Leicester generate many passengers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2022 ==

Some of the crowding will be mitigated though by not stopping after Kettering.

And "cheap advances" are designed to stimulate demand on quieter routes / services - it isn't an automatic right that there should be advances.

It does represent a considerable decline in service for many people if they can no longer use the train because capacity has been cut and prices raised as a consequence.

 

[A0]

I must admit, I was usually in first class at this time, so may have been spared the worst crowding.

It's certainly no surprise that large cities such as Nottingham and Leicester generate many passengers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2022 ==



It does represent a considerable decline in service for many people if they can no longer use the train because capacity has been cut and prices raised as a consequence.

But prices haven't been raised (beyond the standard rises seen across the network) - it's simply that there are fewer promotionally priced tickets - you don't discpunt items which will sell at full price - anyone with even a basic understanding of marketing knows that.

 

[yorksrob]

But prices haven't been raised (beyond the standard rises seen across the network) - it's simply that there are fewer promotionally priced tickets - you don't discpunt items which will sell at full price - anyone with even a basic understanding of marketing knows that.

The railway is a mass transit system designed to move large numbers of passengers.

If you deliberately reduce capacity and price people off as a result, you're moving away from what the railway is there to do.

 

[A0]

The railway is a mass transit system designed to move large numbers of passengers.

If you deliberately reduce capacity and price people off as a result, you're moving away from what the railway is there to do.

Except British Rail did exactly that for the best part of 40 years. Price rises were used to manage demand even back then.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

And yet these units were deemed suitable to replace HST traction on the Midland Mainline.

Whoever makes these decisions is not working in the interest of passengers.

I think you mean "Whoever makes these decisions is not working in the interest of enthusiasts like myself," as the HSTs did not have accessible toilets in first class, and had slam doors which are dangerous for a number of reasons and cause accessibility issues.

 

[yorksrob]

Except British Rail did exactly that for the best part of 40 years. Price rises were used to manage demand even back then.

The treasury was wasn't very forward thinking then either.

The fact remains that capacity has been prematurely restricted with a result that the service available has deteriorated. That's not good for passengers or the economy of the Midlands.

 

[Wolfie]

The railway is a mass transit system designed to move large numbers of passengers.

If you deliberately reduce capacity and price people off as a result, you're moving away from what the railway is there to do.

But what you seem to want to do is artificially inflate capacity and thus, you apparently believe, reduce prices by retaining obscolescent at best rolling stock in service when it is no longer required. Strangely enough HMT would never favour that.