Adelantes for FGW (again?)

[WestCoast]

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.

Fleet commonality always has operational advantages. However, there is also an argument to say that having a fleet to cope with different missions is desirable, hence many airlines going for a mixed fleet. Flybe sticking Q400s on UK-Southern Spain routes wouldn't go down too well (although I believe it has happened once or twice!).

Anyway, after a slight diversion to airlines...

 

[Max]

Can we try to keep vaguely on topic please?

 

[WestCoast]

What were the original reasons for FGW's disposal of the 180s? Were there any apart from the obvious reliability issues?

 

[tbtc]

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.

I agree - the Windermere branch is an equally daft example of a TOC using a "one size fits all" approach and using something far too valuable (a three coach 185 in the Lake District, a 158 on the electrified branch at Lymington)

At the same time we have London Midland and Scotrail using 170s on routes that 150s would be suitable for, yet other TOCs have to use unsuitable stock (Pacers running anything over half an hour, FGW using a 153 from Bristol to Cornwall).

One easy suggestion for SWT would be to wait for the Thameslink cascade when Southern should have a lot of stock freed up (since additional Thameslink paths south of London will directly replace some Southern services, meaning fewer EMUs required)... that allows SN to give up a 455 to SWT (which already run 455s, admittedly not in Hampshire).

You could even argue for 313s to be allocated to the branch (the lack of toilet shouldn't be a problem on such a short journey...).

Mind you, what I'd really like would be a new order of SWT EMUs to allow a number of 450s to move to London Midland/ West Coast (for Manchester Airport - Glasgow/Edinburgh) and Northern (to cover new electrification in Lancashire, plus replace the 1980s EMUs which could go to NXEA/ LM)

(alternatively, why not give SWT a small batch of Pacers for the Lymington branch and the "Salisbury Six"? You know it makes sense...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What were the original reasons for FGW's disposal of the 180s? Were there any apart from the obvious reliability issues?

I'd presume that the availability of HSTs (some of which they purchased outright) meant that the 180s looked ripe for replacement

 

[Blindtraveler]

it would certainly make sense to see a
pacer on the windermear branch and something like a 313 on limington. On topic however if FGW get these units i for one wil be mad as they regected them in the first place and i cant help but wonder if as soon as something goes wrong they wil revert to cansilation, an HST or even bustitution rather than the bother of sorting it? They would as others point out be better forced upon GC with HSTs cascaded to FGW. A cupple or indeed all to TPE would too be good!

 

[tbtc]

As a thought, could one of the conditions on FGW getting five 180s be that they give at least an HST or two to Cross Country?

 

[schwa]

What exactly are the issues with the train? Crap build quality/crap maintenance/crap design?

 

[150222]

I don't think pacers are cleared to lymington or the romsey loop.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What were the original reasons for FGW's disposal of the 180s? Were there any apart from the obvious reliability issues?

Apparently there were issues with dwell times and the doors being unreliable.

 

[starrymarkb]

Flybe sticking Q400s on UK-Southern Spain routes wouldn't go down too well (although I believe it has happened once or twice!).

Do they have the Legs for it? Though they do go as far as the South of France from the Southern UK.

Apologies for the OT Tangent...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What were the original reasons for FGW's disposal of the 180s? Were there any apart from the obvious reliability issues?

High Operating costs too, a 5 car 180 cost more to run then a 8 car HST...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What exactly are the issues with the train? Crap build quality/crap maintenance/crap design?

Build and Design, Alstom products seem to need a lot of TLC, combined with a lack of customer support meant most TOCs now won't touch Alstom products...

 

[thefab444]

it would certainly make sense to see... something like a 313 on limington.

Why would it make sense to run the branch with a complete oddball unit that isn't compatible or particularly similar to the rest of the local SWT fleet? The only thing SWT have that is even vaguely similar to a 313/508 are the 455s.

 

[150222]

Why would it make sense to run the branch with a complete oddball unit that isn't compatible or particularly similar to the rest of the local SWT fleet? The only thing SWT have that is even vaguely similar to a 313/508 are the 455s.

I swt got some ex southern 455's they could keep a small pool at southampton for lymington and currently 158 operated PMS to SOU services. They could be sent back to wimbledon as service trains. Fit toilets on some units if required.

 

[Blindtraveler]

fare point the fabb444, but the FCC sets wil need a golden retirement home sometime. Agree though maybe a 455 or 2 down that way perhaps

 

[northwichcat]

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".

Well Northern and ATN prior to them were operating 3x321s opposed to 6x158s doubled up under the wires. ATW and Chiltern operate very small fleets of 121s, while LM operate 2x139s. However, SWT moan about consistency and get whatever they want!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think pacers are cleared to lymington or the romsey loop.

Both Pacers and 180s aren't cleared for a lot of lines simply because clearance has never been applied for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

When TPE took over the Windermere service it was diagrammed something like:
Manchester Airport to Windermere
Windermere to Oxenholme
Oxenholme to Windermere
Windermere to Manchester Airport
Manchester Airport to Windermere
etc.

So every other service a unit used on the Windermere service was used on was over 2 hours.

The problem with changing it now to a local train is there remains some through Manchester Airport services even though the frequency was cut and some Windemere shuttles are too well used to have 142s and 150s on shuttles.

 

[WestCoast]

When TPE took over the Windermere service it was diagrammed something like:
Manchester Airport to Windermere
Windermere to Oxenholme
Oxenholme to Windermere
Windermere to Manchester Airport
Manchester Airport to Windermere
etc.

So every other service a unit used on the Windermere service was used on was over 2 hours.

The problem with changing it now to a local train is there remains some through Manchester Airport services even though the frequency was cut and some Windemere shuttles are too well used to have 142s and 150s on shuttles.

Windermere shuttles are either mostly empty or packed full in my experience, depends on the time of day, direction and seasonal factors. I take your point about the 142 not coping, something I quite often see on the South Fylde Line services on a Saturday morning!

I remember the days of the 175s and through services well. It's all the DfTs fault, 100% down to them. Forcing the Scotland services onto TPE, without any extra stock provision.

I still can't understand why TPE have the North West network at all, it would be better suited with Northern IMO. However, the problem is quite obviously that Northern have an inadequate and aged pool of stock.

 

[northwichcat]

I still can't understand why TPE have the North West network at all, it would be better suited with Northern IMO. However, the problem is quite obviously that Northern have an inadequate and aged pool of stock.

It's probably down to the Welsh Assembly interfence. The 175s were intended for North West and North Wales routes with FNW but as the Welsh Assembly wanted an all Wales franchise.

Ideally we should have seen a new TPE franchise which included the four North TPE routes, South TPE, York to Blackpool and Liverpool-Norwich. Then we should have had an order of 4-5 car 22xs for all the new routes.

Then Northern would have had the Chester depot, the 175s and the North West routes.

 

[tbtc]

Well Northern and ATN prior to them were operating 3x321s opposed to 6x158s doubled up under the wires. ATW and Chiltern operate very small fleets of 121s, while LM operate 2x139s. However, SWT moan about consistency and get whatever they want!

It is strange how Northern have dealt with 3x 180s + 3x 321s, FGW have single digit numbers of two different Pacer classes, NXEA manage with a handful of 153s, Chiltern will only have a few 172s (etc etc) yet SWT can't be expected to run anything but 158s on their Salisbury Six/ Lymington Branch services because that'd mean having non-standard units.

However, to get back on topic, one of the problems with the small number of 180s being split between so many TOCs (since Hull Trains and Grand Central aren't giving theirs up) is that any TOC which takes the five "NXEC" units will end up with a non-standard number of units.

Whichever way you do the maths (unless you give them to GC in exchange for all their HSTs) there's no easy answer. I know this will be herasy to some on here, but it'd have actually been better for the railways if we'd had fourteen more Voyagers built (than fourteen 180s)...

 

[RobShipway]

It is strange how Northern have dealt with 3x 180s + 3x 321s, FGW have single digit numbers of two different Pacer classes, NXEA manage with a handful of 153s, Chiltern will only have a few 172s (etc etc) yet SWT can't be expected to run anything but 158s on their Salisbury Six/ Lymington Branch services because that'd mean having non-standard units.

However, to get back on topic, one of the problems with the small number of 180s being split between so many TOCs (since Hull Trains and Grand Central aren't giving theirs up) is that any TOC which takes the five "NXEC" units will end up with a non-standard number of units.

Whichever way you do the maths (unless you give them to GC in exchange for all their HSTs) there's no easy answer. I know this will be herasy to some on here, but it'd have actually been better for the railways if we'd had fourteen more Voyagers built (than fourteen 180s)...

As the old saying goes, hindsight is a wonderful thing!

I can bever understand why FGW got the class 180's in the first place, if as has been mentioned that they were meant for the North West. I would have though that they would be ideal for the trains along the North Wales coast from the likes of Birmingham, Manchester etc...

 

[ainsworth74]

I can bever understand why FGW got the class 180's in the first place, if as has been mentioned that they were meant for the North West. I would have though that they would be ideal for the trains along the North Wales coast from the likes of Birmingham, Manchester etc...

Slightly over specified for North Wales with the 125mph top speed I would have thought, but anyway those services were heading for 175 operation whilst the 180s were intended to run FNW services to London (can't remember where from though).

 

[Lampshade]

...180s were intended to run FNW services to London (can't remember where from though).

Blackpool North and Rochdale

 

[tbtc]

Slightly over specified for North Wales with the 125mph top speed I would have thought, but anyway those services were heading for 175 operation whilst the 180s were intended to run FNW services to London (can't remember where from though).

This is the odd thing...

The FNW service from Manchester Airport was already EMU run, so it'd only have been the services from Blackpool and Rochdale (via the Eccles line) which needed 180s to get to London. And fourteen DMUs is a *lot* for those two routes (even allowing for the notorious reliability problems...).

It makes more sense if they were intended as straight HST replacements at Great Western (since they were ordered early on in the privatised world, when it wasn't obvious that we needed longer trains - remember this was at a time when MML were introducing two coach 170s for Barnsley - London and many routes were still "downsizing"), rather than for FNW.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As the old saying goes, hindsight is a wonderful thing!

It is. And Adelantes aren't wonderful things. As I've said before on here, if the design had worked well, we could have ended up with over a hundred sets*, and the 180 could have been seen as the HST replacement (not IEP etc)

* - MML and HT ordered 222s, TPE ordered 185s, yet both were rumoured to be interested in 180s once upon a time

 

[ainsworth74]

Blackpool North and Rochdale

Thanks, I thought Blackpool North was one but wasn't sure and flat out couldn't remember Rochdale

And fourteen DMUs is a *lot* for those two routes (even allowing for the notorious reliability problems...).

Perhaps they were thinking of increasing the frequency in the near future if they'd been allowed to run the services?

It makes more sense if they were intended as straight HST replacements at Great Western

Perhaps but I've seen Alstom promotional material that had images of 180s in FNW colours so they were definitely heading initially for FNW.

and the 180 could have been seen as the HST replacement (not IEP etc)

Can you imagine the froth on here if 180s had been annouced as the large scale replacement for HSTs

 

[RobShipway]

Thanks, I thought Blackpool North was one but wasn't sure and flat out couldn't remember Rochdale



Perhaps they were thinking of increasing the frequency in the near future if they'd been allowed to run the services?



Perhaps but I've seen Alstom promotional material that had images of 180s in FNW colours so they were definitely heading initially for FNW.



Can you imagine the froth on here if 180s had been annouced as the large scale replacement for HSTs

They would have been just as much froth it the HST replacement had been announced that it would be class 22x trains...

 

[tbtc]

Perhaps they were thinking of increasing the frequency in the near future if they'd been allowed to run the services?

It'd have been a hell of an increase - if you conservatively assume each trip from Blackpool Rochdale to London was four hours (allowing turnaround time/ padding) then you'd expect twelve units (i.e. allowing for some to be spare/rested each day) to provide to provide an hourly Rochdale service and an hourly Blackpool service...

The 175s were for the Manchester - Llandudno/ Blackpool/ Barrow services, so the 125mph 180s can't have been for those duties.

Perhaps but I've seen Alstom promotional material that had images of 180s in FNW colours so they were definitely heading initially for FNW.

I don't doubt you, I'm just struggling to think what they needed 180s for (whilst FGW had an obvious need)

Can you imagine the froth on here if 180s had been annouced as the large scale replacement for HSTs

It'd have been crazy!

But its not impossible to imagine - we could have had one big class of over 100 180s (existing order plus MML/HT Turbostar replacement plus planned order of 60x TPE DMUs), then potentially another 100 HST replacements...

(if the railways hasn't grown at the rate they did then would we have invested so much money in refurbishing HSTs?)

 

[graham43404]

(if the railways hasn't grown at the rate they did then would we have invested so much money in refurbishing HSTs?)

I doubt they would have done, but thankfully they did and that keeps me a very happy bunny

 

[ainsworth74]

It'd have been a hell of an increase

Ah yes it would have been one heck of an increase in that case wouldn't it.

I don't doubt you, I'm just struggling to think what they needed 180s for (whilst FGW had an obvious need)

Hmm I'm beginning to wonder if what happened was that FNW did order some 180s but when the decision was taken to assign them to Great Western a few more were tagged onto the order to help make up the numbers and originially FNW order was for fewer (perhaps half as many).

It'd have been crazy!

What the froth or the decision to use 5-car 180s to replace 7/8 car HSTs

But seriously I agree with you it's certainly possible that had the 180s worked almost out of the box that it would have lead to a much bigger follow on order. It's a shame that it didn't really as the 180s are good intercity units (ignoring the appalling reliability) and better than 222s and probably better in some ways than a 185.

 

[Lampshade]

This is the odd thing...

The FNW service from Manchester Airport was already EMU run, so it'd only have been the services from Blackpool and Rochdale (via the Eccles line) which needed 180s to get to London. And fourteen DMUs is a *lot* for those two routes (even allowing for the notorious reliability problems...).

FNW had 4x322s for the Manchester Airport services which I believe was 2 up, 2 down like the Blackpool/Rochdale services, which accounts for 8x180s assuming 4 per service (:?). There's always the probability they were thinking of ditching the 322s and running 180s under the wires, running them in double formation (unlikely, as it'd mean 20 coaches south of Warrington) or increasing the frequency.

 

[tbtc]

FNW had 4x322s for the Manchester Airport services which I believe was 2 up, 2 down like the Blackpool/Rochdale services, which accounts for 8x180s assuming 4 per service (:?). There's always the probability they were thinking of ditching the 322s and running 180s under the wires, running them in double formation (unlikely, as it'd mean 20 coaches south of Warrington) or increasing the frequency.

True, its just hard to know now.

This was at a time when Virgin were running just one train an hour from Manchester to London, there was certainly additional demand for FNW to tap into with their attempts at Open Access...

 

[starrymarkb]

FNW 180s would have been 3 car sets as proposed. They became 5 car when diverted to their sister company before build started

 

[150222]

The 180's had been reallocated to fgw long before they entered service (if it is true they were originally for first north western which i doupt). AFAIK they were for fgw's oxford and cotswold services (and sometimes exeter and cardiff) so they could displace hst's to make the cardiff/swansea service half/hourly.

 

[TEW]

They allowed the few remaining 47s and MK2 sets in use of daytime trains to be withdrawn and they allowed half hourly Cardiff services to be introduced.