BR Class 180 - Adelantes

[XAM2175]

The Cummins Diesel engine was generally fine (although could argue a slightly lower rating would have helped)

The reliability problems are mainly with transmissions, it was a Voith hydraulic design with retarder (which from memory are now isolated to reduce the parts that were prone to break down). I don’t think it is an bad transmission, just it doesn’t like being shaken to bits mounted alongside a vibrating diesel or connected by less than flexible driveshafts.

I think there was also an issue regarding the positioning of the radiators, which in such a confined space, couldn't work as effectively as they should do. It's a shame the sole bar and below components were so c"ap because, from a passenger perceptive, they are fantastic units which knock the Bombardier fleets out of the park*.

It's an odd set of circumstances given that the powertrain isn't really unique to the 180s - the Cummins QSK19-R engine is also used by the 185s, 220s, 221s, and 222s, and the Voith T 312 bre transmission is also shared with the 185s.

 

[LowLevel]

There’s an expectation that service changes will be spread across May and the December changes (with possibly some September changes) depending on complexity of the change. EMR might be able to put off the 180s going until after the summer which would delay the Skegness problem until 2024.

There's a perspective that with the 158s seemingly being retained for Norwich as well as Liverpool that frees up a reasonable number of 170s, same as the apparent withdrawal of the Mansfield Woodhouse off peak services.

These can be used to strengthen trains as required but with the added caveat that running 170s in multiple to Skegness is an absolute pain in the proverbial given the wacky range of platform lengths which depending on the combination of units involves quite a bit of thinking on the part of the guard in terms of having the passengers in the right place and even being in the right unit to operate the SDO. A mass investment scheme to sort out platform lengths or fit ASDO in the Eastern Counties seems unlikely so this will persist.

Alternatively of course you could stick 170s on Liverpool for the summer which is much less problematic and send the through gangway 158s to Skegness.

 

[43096]

Not so. First Group took over the GW and NW franchises in Feb 1996 and March 1997 respectively. The 175s were ordered in July 1997 and the 180s in October 1997

Yes so. The Great Western and North Western franchises were won by Great Western Holdings, which was formed of GW management (51% stake), 3i (24.5%) and First (24.5%). First bought out all the other shareholders in March 1998, so the 175s and 180s were ordered under GW Holdings management.

 

[Clarence Yard]

This. I was at Thames Trains at the time and we were interested in getting new additional stock. GW Holdings were trying to get us interested in coming in with them to boost the order books. FG were not in the driving seat on the stock, it was GW directors and engineers.

GW Holdings were even trying to set up their own ROSCO, iirc.

 

[43096]

GW Holdings were even trying to set up their own ROSCO, iirc.

Wiltshire Leasing, IIRC. The original intention was for the 175s and 180s to be owned by them, but think they found Angel had access to cheaper capital.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Are you sure about that? SWT (Stagecoach) ordered its 450s in April 2001, after its own less-than-successful procurement of 458s (the DC version of the 334) . Both the 360s and the 450s entered service in 2003 = I recall tghe 450s were delayed because a power upgrade was needed (lack of co-ordination between SWT, Siemens and Railtrack)
Not so. First Group took over the GW and NW franchises in Feb 1996 and March 1997 respectively. The 175s were ordered in July 1997 and the 180s in October 1997

Strictly, the BR MBO Great Western Holdings (which had a FirstGroup share) took over the North Western franchise (NWT) in March 1997, and were bought out by FG in March 1998 to become FNW.
I don't think NWT actually placed Coradia orders before FG took over, but had selected the Alstom design.
NWT had plans to run a mix of 175s and 180s, with the 180s running into Euston from North West/North Wales origins.
They abandoned the idea of running to Euston when they discovered their finances were in trouble, and the Coradia order was placed by FG as 27x175s for FNW and 15x180s for FGW.
175s have been maintained at Chester by Alstom throughout, while 180s were maintained at Old Oak by FGW themselves.
180s have never really had a "home", and the 175s are about to be evicted from Chester by the CAF 397 fleet, CAF now owning the depot.
175s are also reported to have corrosion issues, and 180s are likely to be the same, so the long-term future of both fleets is in doubt.

The origin of the Desiro UK fleet was in the class 332s for Heathrow Express (1997), which were built by CAF but had a Siemens traction package.
Once Stagecoach fell out with Alstom with the class 458s, Siemens had an easy route for the SWT class 450 order, already having acceptance on the electrics.
In the event too many 450s were ordered for SWT, so the last tranche was reengineered and diverted to WCML suburban services as class 350s.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Yes so. The Great Western and North Western franchises were won by Great Western Holdings, which was formed of GW management (51% stake), 3i (24.5%) and First (24.5%). First bought out all the other shareholders in March 1998, so the 175s and 180s were ordered under GW Holdings management.

Mea Culpa.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I'd take Modern Railways' content over unreliable internet wibble any day.

Since MR printed what it did, there has been the Chancellor's autumn statement and DfT requests for substantial cuts in the 2023 TOC business plans (this is what triggered the GWR HST rundown). Getting rid of the 180s is an obvious target for EMR.

I thought it was you who always denounced the content of Rail, but I agree the 180s seem an easy hit.

 

[Energy]

I thought it was you who always denounced the content of Rail, but I agree the 180s seem an easy hit.

Rail and Modern Railways are different magazines.

 

[Philip]

Surely any 180s leaving EMR would jump to the top of the list for Chiltern loco-hauled replacement? Makes more sense than a handful of 175s which would probably have to run in multiple without gangway connections, to maintain capacity.

 

[LowLevel]

Surely any 180s leaving EMR would jump to the top of the list for Chiltern loco-hauled replacement? Makes more sense than a handful of 175s which would probably have to run in multiple without gangway connections, to maintain capacity.

I very much doubt it. A microfleet of 4 extremely tired trains is unlikely be top of anyone's list for anything.

 

[XAM2175]

The origin of the Desiro UK fleet was in the class 332s for Heathrow Express (1997), which were built by CAF but had a Siemens traction package.

If I recall correctly, the order was placed with Siemens, and they sub-contracted the bodywork and assembly to CAF. That was the case with the 333s, at least.

 

[lumitumey12345]

Does anyone know which 2 units are permanently knackered in GC?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Rail and Modern Railways are different magazines.

I obviously know that, but they’re both railway magazines. I don’t like the latter very much.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Surely any 180s leaving EMR would jump to the top of the list for Chiltern loco-hauled replacement? Makes more sense than a handful of 175s which would probably have to run in multiple without gangway connections, to maintain capacity.

The top of the list to replace Chiltern loco hauled is nothing….

 

[anamyd]

It's an odd set of circumstances given that the powertrain isn't really unique to the 180s - the Cummins QSK19-R engine is also used by the 185s, 220s, 221s, and 222s, and the Voith T 312 bre transmission is also shared with the 185s.

Could the fact that the 180s are 125mph units whereas the 185s are 100mph units make a difference? I would've thought it would just be a different final drive ratio, but maybe I'm missing something?

 

[Suraggu]

The top of the list to replace Chiltern loco hauled is nothing….

Not strictly true but whats accurate is Class 180s won't be heading to Chiltern.

 

[QSK19]

I absolutely love the 180s (as does my son, whose birthday party invites even had a picture of them on!); however, despite my well-known hate for the DfT, it makes complete sense for them to leave EMR. Even if they could be re-leased on a peppercorn rate, their unreliability, high maintenance costs and the fact they’d stick out like a sore thumb when alongside the 810s simply makes it unviable for them to be kept. Regrettably, it’s the right decision to get rid.

My only concern is that, with them gone, 33 810s isn’t enough to overcome chronic overcrowding (and I think 31 out of the 33 are required to maintain proposed diagrams). But that’s for another thread.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Meanwhile 180s have bounced around between operators and depots, never achieving reliability anywhere

Old Oak made a very good fist of it, particularly in their second spell with FGW.

 

[Undaunted]

In my last job I had a cab pass although I did not work for Network Rail or a TOC. I was travelling in the cab of a 180 on GW one day and the driver was recounting his experiences of them in the early days. His worst moment was when a fault developed on a crowded rush hour train, which required him to go to a cupboard in the passenger area to rectify it. Having pushed his way past a number of standing passengers, apologising profusely, he reached the cupboard and flung it open. It was empty. Thinking quickly, he peered in and then said "Ah, I thought so" and rapidly returned to the driving cab. Not his favourite units...

 

[fgwrich]

Old Oak made a very good fist of it, particularly in their second spell with FGW.

Indeed, enough for Hull Trains to send their units across London to have them maintained there instead of Crofton. Reliability certainly took a hit again when OOC closed.

 

[Wyrleybart]

Does anyone know which 2 units are permanently knackered in GC?

180103 has vehicles from five different units in it, was dragged by class 37 via Wembley to Ilford and is currently alleged to be battered back into life. Not sure of any long term stoppers butr feqw of the GC units have all their own numbered vehicles. 180101 and 180105 have a cabbed vehicle of each other in their formation.

Regarding the EMR four, 180110 has been running as a 4 car for a considerable time with internet rumours that it's fifth car might not be returned to service.

 

[M1544]

GC seem to almost always have one of the 4 Bradford to London returns cancelled these days due to “more trains than usual requiring repairs”. Hardly good for a reliable service. They would be better permanently cancelling one until they have enough units to run a full reliable service.

 

[lumitumey12345]

Wouldn't it be sensible for GC to acquire some of the 221 units that will be going off lease from Avanti to cover for or replace all of their 180s. Would be good as a stop gap, maybe order IET's later this decade?

 

[htafc]

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

 

[gabrielhj07]

Wouldn't it be sensible for GC to acquire some of the 221 units that will be going off lease from Avanti to cover for or replace all of their 180s. Would be good as a stop gap, maybe order IET's later this decade?

They are probably being eyed up by XC. I think the 222s would be a decent choice, displaced by 810s but incompatible with the voyagers.

 

[Driver068]

It makes you wonder if keeping the HSTs would of been a viable option a few years ago. My understanding is there were issues with the GC fleet of HSTs but given the state of the 180s where and how do GC move forward with the current fleet.
Given XC contract is up in Oct 2023, would you say its more that likely XC would opt for 800s for future fleet. It seems all long distant operators are going that way and maybe XC and will follow suit in years to come. However i can not see GC going down the 800 route any time soon so i wonder if the 220/221 and 222s are the most likely option.

As mentioned above, it seems more Bradford services are being cancelled than Sunderland. Is this correct and if so is the Sunderland rpute deemed more profitable??

 

[gabrielhj07]

It makes you wonder if keeping the HSTs would have been a viable option a few years ago.

Were GC HSTs MTU retrofitted?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Dec 2022 ==

As mentioned above, it seems more Bradford services are being cancelled than Sunderland. Is this correct and if so is the Sunderland rpute deemed more profitable??

It serves York so I would imagine so. It’s the only one I’ve used.

 

[lumitumey12345]

They are probably being eyed up by XC. I think the 222s would be a decent choice, displaced by 810s but incompatible with the voyagers.

They could use the 7 car units on Sunderland and 5 car on Bradford services

 

[Retorus]

I've only ever been on one once but I remember it pretty fondly. Seemed like a decent unit from a passenger perspective (when it runs!). Always found the position of the first class coach odd though.