Adelantes for FGW (again?)

[thefab444]

I would be suprised if the 180s went to any other franchised operator other than FGW, although TPE makes the most sense out of the rest of the options.

Either way, like jcollins says, they should be used to allow the chosen TOC to redeploy their existing stock, not to start yet another random unit cascade.

 

[swt_passenger]

They seem to have plenty to hire out! (fgw.emt and northern mostly) How many were transferred to scotrail?

They never sub-hired units to all those TOCs at the same time, and only one is on daily hire now.

The two units that went to Scotrail were not spare, they were swapped for two other 2 car units to avoid a situation where two of 41 units were owned by a different Rosco. I did try and explain that yesterday...

All London & SE commuter operators have loads of units kicking their heels during the middle of the day, whethere EMU or DMU. SWT's DMU fleet is 88% utilised on weekdays, this is normal utilisation for DMUs 85% is considered typical.

If units being observed at a depot at a weekend is seen as somehow wrong, then SN also have loads of spare 171s.

The Sunday timetable is significantly reduced on the Salisbury line - as it is in many areas of the 'Southern Region'...

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

I am sure I have read somewhere that GC are looking at replacing their HST's and East Coast would then be interested in getting the GC HST's rather having the class 180's.

An enthusiasts suggestion somewhere, and little more than that I reckon, dating back to before the decision was made not to run the Lincoln service.

Which is precisely why East Coast aren't having the 180s at all. There may be a current idea that East Coast could do with an extra HST, but that's a different situation entirely.

 

[WestCoast]

I would be suprised if the 180s went to any other franchised operator other than FGW, although TPE makes the most sense out of the rest of the options.

I see they will be placed on the Cotswolds Line with FGW, in order to displace some Turbos from the route. This is a good thing in my opinion, I dislike the Turbos on that route.

Does anyone think that 158s would be fine for this route? I think they offer a decent balance between comfort and coping with the stopping pattern! It's a shame that some couldn't be sourced, so that TPE could have the 180s.

 

[tbtc]

I accept people have dismissed the idea of a shared pool, but a TPE/Hull Trains shared pool could actually work pretty well. My thought is that they could be diagrammed mainly on Scotland services for TPE, with some early morning/late evening 'positioning moves' between Manchester and Hull to allow for maintenance rotation.

I've argued before that they should be maintained at Hull, since the five "spare" will be able to cover the Hull - Manchester Piccadilly service and available to "swap" with HT duties.

Running them from Hull to Glasgow/Edinburgh via Manchester would be a diagram nightmare (in my eyes) though
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

SWT can't really be compared to the other operators due to the service pattern. I do sense a slight bitterness towards them

My only bitterness is that they tie up a 158 on the wholly electrified Lymington service, when they have lots more EMUs... that 158 might not sound like a lot, but it'd allow a couple of busy Liverpool - Norwich services to be extended to three coach operation (whilst we wait for the LM 172s to send 150s to Northern to send 156s to EMT...)

Personally, I think the line from Basingstoke to Exeter should be considered as an electrification scheme (plus Bath - Southampton and the "six"), to fill in the gaps and release a large number of DMU coaches north (whilst the service to Exeter is only hourly, these services are nine coach in the eastern part of their journey, that'd give a big boost to the other 158 operators (e.g. some to Northern, some to ATW, some to FGW...)

 

[Chris B]

I see they will be placed on the Cotswolds Line with FGW, in order to displace some Turbos from the route.

Not sure where you 'see' that - but its complete speculation. Mark Hopwood, the MD @ FGW, has said they may displace turbos on one or two shoulder peak serrvices, but otherwise they would be used anywhere that thwey felt would be a good use of them - likely on heavily loaded turbo services...

 

[WestCoast]

Not sure where you 'see' that - but its complete speculation. Mark Hopwood, the MD @ FGW, has said they may displace turbos on one or two shoulder peak serrvices, but otherwise they would be used anywhere that thwey felt would be a good use of them - likely on heavily loaded turbo services...

Earlier on the thread. However, I take your point. I think they are suitable enough to replace the HST workings on the Hereford - Paddington services, as the dwell times can be controlled better.

 

[thefab444]

The trouble with replacing heavily loaded Turbos with 180s is that, as I pointed out earlier, a 180 actually holds a few less standard class passengers than a single 166!

My only bitterness is that they tie up a 158 on the wholly electrified Lymington service, when they have lots more EMUs... that 158 might not sound like a lot, but it'd allow a couple of busy Liverpool - Norwich services to be extended to three coach operation

The whole reason why the 158 is there is that we don't have enough EMUs! Buy us some more 444s and we might be able to do without a couple of 158s.

 

[Chris B]

Earlier on the thread. However, I take your point. I think they are suitable enough to replace the HST workings on the Hereford - Paddington services, as the dwell times can be controlled better.

You're not thinking it through - as stated above, a 180 holds about the same as a 3car 165, and fewer than a 166. So a full HST wouldn't all fit into a 180.

Why can't we quote from more than one post?....oh well, I'll have to double-post...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The trouble with replacing heavily loaded Turbos with 180s is that, as I pointed out earlier, a 180 actually holds a few less standard class passengers than a single 166!

Yup, so you swap one for the other & give those a better ride. Move the turbo to strengthen other tuirbo services. You can't do that with a 180 onto a turbo - so you have to release other turbos first.

 

[Class172]

I see they will be placed on the Cotswolds Line with FGW, in order to displace some Turbos from the route. This is a good thing in my opinion, I dislike the Turbos on that route.

Does anyone think that 158s would be fine for this route? I think they offer a decent balance between comfort and coping with the stopping pattern! It's a shame that some couldn't be sourced, so that TPE could have the 180s.

Yes, the Cotswold route is too long for 166s, 180s would be ideal but there is a shortage of stock as we have identified.

Do you mean putting 158s on the Cotswold? I don't think that would make a difference; also there doesn't seem to be any available easily.

In the world of fantasy, I would put my fantasy DEMU on the Cotswold line as I feel it would be suitable. On second thoughts, it might even be better suited for FTPE, allowing 180s to go to FGW.

That wouldn't work. The 170s are diagrammed to be used in 2 car formation due to a shortage of carriages for North and South TPE since having to move extra 185s over to the Scottish route. There should really be 4 lots of 4 car 170 diagrams, as there used to be but TPE are really short of carriages.

Sorry, I thought the majority of 170 diagrams were operated as 2 170 units.

 

[sulli_os]

Shame they couldn't go to First's other venture TPE. A few 180s on the peak services across the Pennines or even running the Man Airport - Scotland services, releasing 185s for Pennine peak services. Oh well...

 

[Class172]

Why can't we quote from more than one post?....oh well, I'll have to double-post...

You can: to the right of the quote button is a speech bubble - press this on the posts you wish to quote then click in the post reply button at the bottom.

 

[WestCoast]

Yes, the Cotswold route is too long for 166s

This is what I was getting at. The numerous complaints over comfort on the 166s for such a journey duration. However, I realise you couldn't just replace them all with Adelantes becuase of capacity issues.

Do you mean putting 158s on the Cotswold? I don't think that would make a difference; also there doesn't seem to be any available easily.

If there was, a 158 would be a decent unit for the job (8-car?).

You're not thinking it through - as stated above, a 180 holds about the same as a 3car 165, and fewer than a 166. So a full HST wouldn't all fit into a 180.

What about a doubled-up 180? Then there is platform lengths...

Mind you, TPEs 3-car 158s were replaced with 3-car 185s, with less seats!

 

[Chris B]

I think there is more seats in a 10car 180 set than an HST....

 

[WestCoast]

I think there is more seats in a 10car 180 set than an HST....

574 seats to be precise. 472 seats on a FGW HST.

So, it wouldn't struggle. However, I've heard they don't like working in multiple, whether that's true or not I don't know.

I have no idea about whether it's possible on this line or not, someone local must know.

 

[thefab444]

So, it wouldn't struggle. However, I've heard they don't like working in multiple, whether that's true or not I don't know.

I have no idea about whether it's possible on this line or not, someone local must know.

FGW used to run a number of regular double 180 services on the Oxford and B&H lines. If you were to replace an HST to Hereford, then it would probably be best to run it as a double unit to Oxford and then a single unit beyond. Most TOCs handle detaching units within the prescribed 4/5 minutes no problem, but this may well be too much to ask on FGW.

 

[Chris B]

The throughput at Oxford in the peaks is such that they had real problems the last time they ran double-headers like that, in keeping to timetable. They do take a while to split & restsrt - being fully comopuerised, they have to shut down the computersm, split them & restart - took 7 or 8 minutes.

This also alarmed the passengers, as they weren't allowed on / off until the split had taken place. Even with the TM's announcements.....

 

[thefab444]

Ah, maybe not so practical then. With Desiros and Electrostars, providing the computer doesn't throw a wobbly a detachment can easily be done and the front portion ready to roll within 2 minutes, despite Network Rail requiring 4.

 

[devon_metro]

574 seats to be precise. 472 seats on a FGW HST.

So, it wouldn't struggle. However, I've heard they don't like working in multiple, whether that's true or not I don't know.

I have no idea about whether it's possible on this line or not, someone local must know.

472 seats on an HST is the pre refurb figure.

There are in the region of 540 seats on a 'High Density' FGW 2+8 HST

 

[Chris B]

I thought all the high-density sets were 2+7?

 

[150222]

Lets not forget FTPE struggle with terrible overcrowding on the 185's especially Leeds to Manchester (even worse on a single 170 in the peaks) and to a lesser extent Manchester to Preston.

 

[tbtc]

574 seats to be precise. 472 seats on a FGW HST.

So, it wouldn't struggle. However, I've heard they don't like working in multiple, whether that's true or not I don't know.

I have no idea about whether it's possible on this line or not, someone local must know.

By the sounds of it, they don't like working, full stop!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The whole reason why the 158 is there is that we don't have enough EMUs! Buy us some more 444s and we might be able to do without a couple of 158s.

...but SWT withdrew the EMUs which used to operate the line.

 

[northwichcat]

Geographically speaking yes, socially speaking probably not. The point I was making that if EMT/Northern can't return the units in a similar condition to when they were sent up, why should loaning take place? North was the geographical direction in which they were loaned.

What was actually the issue with the units?

I mentioned the SWT 158 subleased to Northern got vandalised when it was left at Scarborough overnight but I understand Northern immediately removed it from service to clean up. There is a high chance that the underlying paintwork was in a poorer condition after the graffiti was removed but in that case should Northern be trying to paint a Stagecoach livery on to a train or be paying SWT for the damage?

With SWT and EMT they are sister companies so it's easy for them to bill each other as required.

 

[Helvellyn]

My only bitterness is that they tie up a 158 on the wholly electrified Lymington service, when they have lots more EMUs.

We have no spare EMUs in the peak, which is why some 158/159 units are used on Hmapshire local services in the peak, and it's easier to leave the Lymington branch operating with the same unit all day.

But SWT withdrew the EMUs which used to operate the line.

Because they were due an overhaul and it was cheaper to remove another multiple unit type from service and use a 158 on the branch.

If it hadn't been for the recession SWT would have been operating more 9-car and 10-car DMUs into/out of Waterloo in the peaks. As it was, it hasn't done so yet, meaning a couple of units they utilised elsewhere. SWT have the long-term leases on these units, they are needed in the peaks and I love the way people on here think some units should be put elsewhere.

SWT suffered this themselves - the 30 4-car 350/1 units London Midland have were intended to be part of the 32 5-car 450 units for use on Windsor Line services. As it was 120 vehciles were put with LM by the SRA, resulting in SWT then having a top-up order of another 17 450 units that came in for the new franchise.


Back to the 180s. A logical but unlikely solution - 1 unit to First Hull Trains; 4 units to Grand Central; 3 Grand Central HSTs to First Great Western.

 

[northwichcat]

The whole reason why the 158 is there is that we don't have enough EMUs! Buy us some more 444s and we might be able to do without a couple of 158s.

..but SWT withdrew the EMUs which used to operate the line.

I agree the 421s that SWT had were early 1970 builds. They were not life expired when withdrawn and if SWT wanted to upgrade there were 508s available. Unfortunately, apparently the spare 508s put in to storage have corroded badly according to Merseyrail who looked at taking them on as spares in 2009.

 

[anthony263]

Read on the FGW coffee shop forum and another rail forum that there is a chance of 1 of these class 180's if FGW do get the working a peak hour service to/from Henley on thames

 

[WestCoast]

In the wholly electrified Lymington service, when they have lots more EMUs... that 158 might not sound like a lot, but it'd allow a couple of busy Liverpool - Norwich services to be extended to three coach operation (whilst we wait for the LM 172s to send 150s to Northern to send 156s to EMT...)

A Pacer would look nice in SWT colours on the Lymington Shuttle, or are they still conveniently banned from third rail land?

 

[thefab444]

Only from Southern Region 3rd Rail land.

if SWT wanted to upgrade there were 508s available.

Yes, I can just imagine SWT thinking: "let's have a nice fleet of one non-standard unit for which we don't have anything else local capable of coupling with, which none of our crews know how to drive or guard, and which will no doubt need considerable internal refurbishment and a mechanical overhaul".

You seem to think SWT are deliberately using a Class 158 on the Lymington branch to spite Northern. It's actually just the best solution to the problem given the resources available. Provide us with more suitable resources and the 158 is yours.

 

[WestCoast]

You seem to think SWT are deliberately using a Class 158 on the Lymington branch to spite Northern. It's actually just the best solution to the problem given the resources available. Provide us with more suitable resources and the 158 is yours.

I know this wasn't aimed at my post(s), but it's quite obvious they aren't doing it to spite Northern. They deal with what they have. Stagecoach also have EMT, which suffers from 158 stock shortages (mostly down to the DfTs preference of London Midland in the Central Trains split) on the rammed Liverpool - Norwich service.

I will be the first to admit that it's annoying to see SWT operating a flashy 158 on an 11 minutes shuttle service, when 2+ journeys have pacers on Northern. However, it's not SWTs fault, is it? Look at TPE having to use a 185 on the Windermere - Oxenholme Lake District shuttles, a very lovely 20 minutes ride, but it doesn't warrant a Desiro. So, there are examples of this in both areas.

 

[Chris B]

Read on the FGW coffee shop forum and another rail forum that there is a chance of 1 of these class 180's if FGW do get the working a peak hour service to/from Henley on thames

Yes, I posted that, following disvussions with FGW top brass

 

[starrymarkb]

I agree the 421s that SWT had were early 1970 builds. They were not life expired when withdrawn and if SWT wanted to upgrade there were 508s available. Unfortunately, apparently the spare 508s put in to storage have corroded badly according to Merseyrail who looked at taking them on as spares in 2009.

They were oddballs in the fleet, commonality means economies of scale. Look at Ryanair, they only operate one type of aircraft, Easyjet will soon be operating just A319s/A320s (identical for crew and little difference from a maintenance view) with the last 2 737s returning to the leasco at the end of the term.