BR Class 180 - Adelantes

[43096]

Were GC HSTs MTU retrofitted?

Yes.

 

[Driver068]

Indeed, it would be interesting to know Grand Central's long term fleet strategy.

Im wondering as previously posted in another thread that moving from Heaton to Tyne Yard is to help with maintenance costs keeping them low. Surely short term measure but new stock needed in medium/long term

 

[WAB]

I don't think Grand Central will be happy with their image given that the budget option out of Kings Cross is far more modern and reliable. There just isn't the money for new units, and the politics of continuing to be the last diesel runs under the wires on the southern ECML could be quite an issue if they took on 221s.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I don't think Grand Central will be happy with their image given that the budget option out of Kings Cross is far more modern and reliable. There just isn't the money for new units, and the politics of continuing to be the last diesel runs under the wires on the southern ECML could be quite an issue if they took on 221s.

At least they’re diesel due to running off wires though.

While they’re better off as bi-modes, it’s nowhere near as bad as situations such as Avanti’s use of Voyagers from London to Edinburgh via Birmingham (ending I know) and LNER’s former use of HSTs on London Leeds/London Edinburgh, where the trains run entirely under wires and didn’t even require a diesel train.

 

[WAB]

At least they’re diesel due to running off wires though.

While they’re better off as bi-modes, it’s nowhere near as bad as situations such as Avanti’s use of Voyagers from London to Edinburgh via Birmingham (ending I know) and LNER’s former use of HSTs on London Leeds/London Edinburgh, where the trains run entirely under wires and didn’t even require a diesel train.

As you have said, there aren't HSTs at KX anymore and Voyagers will soon be a thing of the past at Euston. Now the GC 180s are the only units in the train shed to be noisy and throwing out exhaust fumes, it is very noticeable.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

As you have said, there aren't HSTs at KX anymore and Voyagers will soon be a thing of the past at Euston. Now the GC 180s are the only units in the train shed to be noisy and throwing out exhaust fumes, it is very noticeable.

Yes, there’s not much that can be done though while Grand Central are skint

 

[Driver068]

Skint, wouldn't exactly say skint. GC have bounced back well from covid especially being a OAO. ORRs latest statistics show they've have done better than most long distance rail operators in this last quarter. Not flush with cash i suspect but in regards to aquiring new rolling stock id presume it would be unaffordable. Which begs the question where do they go now...

 

[Energy]

Skint, wouldn't exactly say skint. GC have bounced back well from covid especially being a OAO. ORRs latest statistics show they've have done better than most long distance rail operators in this last quarter. Not flush with cash i suspect but in regards to aquiring new rolling stock id presume it would be unaffordable. Which begs the question where do they go now...

I wouldn't expect any major rolling stock changes for GC until they have secured track access rights beyond 2026.

 

[Driver068]

I wouldn't expect any major rolling stock changes for GC until they have secured track access rights beyond 2026.

I agree, however another 4 years of 180s is a long time given the current issues. Would they be able to sustain the 180s as it is with repairs after repairs or ultimately would they have no choice but to have something in place be it additional maintenance costs or additional rolling stock to see them through. Things seem bad in Dec 2022 with their performance, so it makes me think how much longer can this continue until Dec 2026?

Would it be safe to say EMR 180s and or some voyagers be a more than likely out come medium term?

 

[Energy]

I agree, however another 4 years of 180s is a long time given the current issues. Would they be able to sustain the 180s as it is with repairs after repairs or ultimately would they have no choice but to have something in place be it additional maintenance costs or additional rolling stock to see them through. Things seem bad in Dec 2022 with their performance, so it makes me think how much longer can this continue until Dec 2026?

Would it be safe to say EMR 180s and or some voyagers be a more than likely out come medium term?

Taking on the EMR 180s to help deal with poor availability is possible, rolling stock different to the 180s would require GC to invest in training staff and sorting maintenance. Any new stock will need to match or exceed the 180 performance to stick to timings.

 

[WAB]

I agree, however another 4 years of 180s is a long time given the current issues. Would they be able to sustain the 180s as it is with repairs after repairs or ultimately would they have no choice but to have something in place be it additional maintenance costs or additional rolling stock to see them through. Things seem bad in Dec 2022 with their performance, so it makes me think how much longer can this continue until Dec 2026?

Would it be safe to say EMR 180s and or some voyagers be a more than likely out come medium term?

More 180s would still face similar reliability issues (including failing mid-diagram), with the added issue of finding depot space. Also, the ex-Hull Trains examples were refurbished c.2010 and are now very tired, compared to the Grand Central fleet which was refurbished in c. 2018 - a fair difference in the passenger environment.

I doubt there would be any interest in replacing the 180s with 221s due to the training and maintenance, as well as the need for route clearance potentially?, unless they are a long term addition to the fleet as part of an extension of track access rights as @Energy said.

Any new stock will need to match or exceed the 180 performance to stick to timings.

221s and 222s can't match the 180 performance AFAIK, although there is only a few minutes in it. Many of the GC paths have a fair bit of pathing and performance allowances in, so it could possibly work?

 

[QSK19]

Taking on the EMR 180s to help deal with poor availability is possible, rolling stock different to the 180s would require GC to invest in training staff and sorting maintenance. Any new stock will need to match or exceed the 180 performance to stick to timings.

Maybe some 810s? They are spec’ed for superior performance on diesel (4 engines as opposed to 3 in the 80x stock) and all of the product development will have been done for EMR’s order. Therefore, by the time GC placed an order, the 810s could effectively be an “off-the-shelf” product and theoretically lower in cost.

But, as others have said, affordability is a key issue. Presuming that GC don’t reach a position where they can afford new builds, I don’t think they would have much choice other than to take EMR’s 180s or some 222s (remembering that the 222/1s ran down the ECML with Hull Trains).

 

[WAB]

Maybe some 810s? They are spec’ed for superior performance on diesel (4 engines as opposed to 3 in the 80x stock) and all of the product development will have been done for EMR’s order. Therefore, by the time GC placed an order, the 810s could effectively be an “off-the-shelf” product and theoretically lower in cost.

But, as others have said, affordability is a key issue. Presuming that GC don’t reach a position where they can afford new builds, I don’t think they would have much choice other than to take EMR’s 180s or some 222s (remembering that the 222/1s ran down the ECML with Hull Trains).

222s would need to be cleared via Sunderland and are pretty thirsty. 180s might be more likely as a stop-gap, even if they are less reliable and have a worse passenger environment. If there is no money for 80xs for the foreseeable, then I would guess that it would make 222s more likely as a long-term solution.

 

[Gaz55]

Given Arriva own both GC and XC, could there be a possibility that some 220s or 221s get moved over to GC if they manage to get the Avanti 221s on lease.

 

[43096]

Given Arriva own both GC and XC, could there be a possibility that some 220s or 221s get moved over to GC if they manage to get the Avanti 221s on lease.

Wouldn’t GC just lease the ex-Avanti 221s directly rather than moving stuff around?

 

[liamf656]

Given Arriva own both GC and XC, could there be a possibility that some 220s or 221s get moved over to GC if they manage to get the Avanti 221s on lease.

The previous replies already explain how expensive it would be in maintenance and staff training

 

[DannyMich2018]

I travel regularly between Leicester and Kettering. Whenever the service is a 180 it's almost always late, often 20 or more- either there's door problems or something else. Shame cause they are nice trains but just so unreliable.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

221s and 222s can't match the 180 performance AFAIK, although there is only a few minutes in it. Many of the GC paths have a fair bit of pathing and performance allowances in, so it could possibly work?

22x have the same Cummins QSK19 engine as the 180s, so you'd expect performance to be similar.
There will of course be other differences.

 

[Driver068]

The previous replies already explain how expensive it would be in maintenance and staff training

So would it be cheaper to constantly fault find and repair 180s on a regular basis than alternate stock. Yes i see the point of training crew but surely with 2x 180s permanently knackered and the other 8 (With GC) always under going repairs, surely this is quite costly. As mentioned previously, GC have done well post covid but with all the money being thrown at repair after repair, then would is mean in the long run it may seriously affect their finances and put them in a arkward position as after all they are a OAO. Or am i barking up the wrong tree lol

In regards to matching performance, im not sure i understand. If both types of units have a capability of 125mph. I assume its not taking into consideration there max speed but other performance issues - could someone elaborate why it may not be similar

 

[lumitumey12345]

Any news on what GC plans to do with the 2 knackered units?

 

[jackot]

221s and 222s can't match the 180 performance AFAIK, although there is only a few minutes in it. Many of the GC paths have a fair bit of pathing and performance allowances in, so it could possibly work?

22x have the same Cummins QSK19 engine as the 180s, so you'd expect performance to be similar.
There will of course be other differences.

Yes I was of the impression that the performance of the Voyagers are on par with the Adelantes and maybe even be better, as I thought the generators and electric traction motors of the voyagers would offer better traction performance compared to the hydraulic transmission of the adelantes, as motors can better match the engine’s output (or something along those lines). Even if that’s not the case, I would imagine the differences would be minor and changes could be made to the pathing.

 

[RobShipway]

Apologies, if someone has mentioned this before, but if the LNER Mk 4's are coming off lease this year, could it not be the case that GC use these along with the class 82 DVT plus a class 93?

Admittedly, it would have a lower speed of 110mph, but I believe would have just as quick, if not quicker acceleration than the class 180 units.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Training for any new type of stock is a significant cost so ideally, as an OA, you should only do it once in a while.

As far as HT is concerned, the 222’s had better performance on the ECML than the 180’s. They were really quick off the mark and the 180’s didn’t seem able to match their more sprightly ways. The 180 units have a better passenger environment but the 222 fleet was far more reliable.

The QSK19 with electric transmission seemed to be a better set up than the hydraulic option. Incidentally, in the latter the set up had to be more precise and the strain on the crankshaft had to be carefully managed. If the engine maintainer didn’t achieve this, the QSK19 would go bang.

One of the problems GC has faced is the periodic ambivalence that Arriva, or rather DB, has had in OA. This has led to them muddling on with older traction rather than doing what FG has done and gone towards new stock.

If you want a decent extension to your TAA, you really have to go new, not muck about with older traction. Personally, I wouldn’t be mucking about with 221 or other older stock - get your business case for new sorted out asap. In the meantime, grab those remaining 180 cars to tide you over.

 

[gabrielhj07]

221s and 222s can't match the 180 performance AFAIK, although there is only a few minutes in it. Many of the GC paths have a fair bit of pathing and performance allowances in, so it could possibly work?

22x have the same Cummins QSK19 engine as the 180s, so you'd expect performance to be similar.
There will of course be other differences.

Yes I was of the impression that the performance of the Voyagers are on par with the Adelantes and maybe even be better, as I thought the generators and electric traction motors of the voyagers would offer better traction performance compared to the hydraulic transmission of the adelantes, as motors can better match the engine’s output (or something along those lines). Even if that’s not the case, I would imagine the differences would be minor and changes could be made to the pathing.

The Class 222 has peak acceleration of 0.8ms-2, which is very good, and while Angel Trains don't publish their acceleration figures, I would be surprised if the 180s could outperform them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2023 ==

For comparison, an 801 will accelerate at a maximum of 0.7ms-2, and that's on AC.

 

[Energy]

If you want a decent extension to your TAA, you really have to go new, not muck about with older traction. Personally, I wouldn’t be mucking about with 221 or other older stock - get your business case for new sorted out asap. In the meantime, grab those remaining 180 cars to tide you over.

Going with standard 802s should make maintenance easier and cheaper with Hitachi depots nearby already, the London locals might have something to say about diesel still being in use under wires as well. Fully agree with new stock with additional 180s as a stop gap.

Apologies, if someone has mentioned this before, but if the LNER Mk 4's are coming off lease this year, could it not be the case that GC use these along with the class 82 DVT plus a class 93?

Where will they be maintained? Hitachi have already got depots up the ECML while the mk4s are having to be maintained by Northern

Admittedly, it would have a lower speed of 110mph, but I believe would have just as quick, if not quicker acceleration than the class 180 units.

Probably if the train is short enough on electric, on diesel I'm doubtful.

GC could get a track access extension in the next few months, Hull Trains got theirs extended to 2029 when it still had over 3 years left.

 

[Kneedown]

The Class 222 has peak acceleration of 0.8ms-2, which is very good, and while Angel Trains don't publish their acceleration figures, I would be surprised if the 180s could outperform them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2023 ==

For comparison, an 801 will accelerate at a maximum of 0.7ms-2, and that's on AC.

From a standing start a 180 will pick up power and get going a fair bit quicker than a 222. The 222 will start to catch up mid range. Braking performance on the 180 is far superior to a 222's.
I did Pancras to Leicester tonight on 1F70 with 180113, in 61min 50secs, even with the regular "catch up with the Corby" at Wellingborough, although it did go over at Wellingborough Nth instead of Kettering Sth.
Overall there's very little between the classes performance wise.

 

[gabrielhj07]

From a standing start a 180 will pick up power and get going a fair bit quicker than a 222. The 222 will start to catch up mid range. Braking performance on the 180 is far superior to a 222's.
I did Pancras to Leicester tonight on 1F70 with 180113, in 61min 50secs, even with the regular "catch up with the Corby" at Wellingborough, although it did go over at Wellingborough Nth instead of Kettering Sth.
Overall there's very little between the classes performance wise.

Thanks for clarifying, I have yet to sample 180s on the MML.

 

[WAB]

22x have the same Cummins QSK19 engine as the 180s, so you'd expect performance to be similar.

Yes I was of the impression that the performance of the Voyagers are on par with the Adelantes and maybe even be better, as I thought the generators and electric traction motors of the voyagers would offer better traction performance compared to the hydraulic transmission of the adelantes, as motors can better match the engine’s output (or something along those lines). Even if that’s not the case, I would imagine the differences would be minor and changes could be made to the pathing.

The Class 222 has peak acceleration of 0.8ms-2, which is very good, and while Angel Trains don't publish their acceleration figures, I would be surprised if the 180s could outperform them.

Certainly the timing load profile suggests that 221s and 222s would not be able to keep to 180 running times on Grand Central; however, many GC paths have a lot of pathing allowance put in so in this case, it would be of little consequence. If there wasn't sufficient pathing time, however, taking even a minute longer could lose the train its path at somewhere like the Welwyn two-track section.

In regards to matching performance, im not sure i understand. If both types of units have a capability of 125mph. I assume its not taking into consideration there max speed but other performance issues - could someone elaborate why it may not be similar

Acceleration, braking (at different speeds and on different gradients) and a whole host of other factors which affect how the unit behaves.

 

[Kneedown]

Thanks for clarifying, I have yet to sample 180s on the MML.

IF the currently circulating rumours are true, you'd best try to sample them before May. I stress the word IF.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Braking performance on the 180 is far superior to a 222's.

What about breaking performance?

Guessing, but perhaps this is because the 222s use rheostatic braking (i.e. the electric motors), whereas the 180s use friction (presumably disc?) brakes, after their hydrodynamic system proved unreliable.

So...
180 braking is better than 222 braking because the 180 braking kept breaking whereas 222 brakes do not break, but do not brake as well as the 180s brakes that do not break.
Perfectly clear.