BR Class 180 - Adelantes

[delt1c]

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.

Why still call the DVT class 82. It is a driving van

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Why still call the DVT class 82. It is a driving van

Indeed it’s a bit like calling a mk4 buffet car a class 10

 

[david1212]

Class 82 was the TOPS classification of the AL2 electric locomotives

British Rail Class 82 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Mk3 DVT's are numbered 821xx and the Mk4 DVT's 822xx.
However officially have these DVT's ever been class 82?

Back to GC short term acquiring the EMR sets is their best option even if for parts to get all of the GC sets operational rather than to use. Then long term some new bi-mode sets that can match existing timings at least on overhead with if necessary timetable adjustments when on diesel.

 

[43096]

However officially have these DVT's ever been class 82?

They have been classified as NZA on the system since new ie they are non-passenger carrying coaching stock.

They are categorically not Class 82!

 

[WildNorthlands]

180s have been chronically unreliable from new. They’re one of those designs that have been bad from the start and never will be anything resembling reliable.

I suspect GC might be forced to get new rolling stock that’s bi-mode in the coming years, as they’re the last TOC to send diesel trains into Kings Cross.

Just electrify Bradford - Low Moor - Halifax - Wakefield - Doncaster then and they could use electric throughout! Not 180's though please...

 

[Kneedown]

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.

180s also have a specialised brake pad, each made up of 18 oversized copper "nuts", which provide fantastic friction and prevent glazing, which impairs braking performance. It is these nuts that also cause the lovely squealing noise.
As for "breaking performance", i'm not the best person to ask, as I really don't seem to get many issues with them. I've only come to a stand twice with them, and always managed to get them going again.
I know water ingress is causing some electrical issues, as well as en-suite shower facilities in the saloon, but a refurbishment with attention paid to fixing leaks and renewing some wiring and relays ought not to be beyond the whit of man.

 

[DanNCL]

Just electrify Bradford - Low Moor - Halifax - Wakefield - Doncaster then and they could use electric throughout! Not 180's though please...

Even if their two routes were fully wired GC would still need bi-modes to serve Sunderland, unless someone was going to build a bespoke dual voltage (25kV AC and 1500V DC) UK spec unit just for GC.

 

[DoubleO]

I feel that it could be a chicken and egg scenario for GC. I can't see Arriva even considering new rolling stock without a longer track access agreement, but I suspect any significant extension to their TAA would need a commitment to replace the 180s, as I believe was the case for Hull Trains when they secured a longer TAA.

 

[Clarence Yard]

That’s not how it works.

You get your rolling stock quotes in and then you put your business plan together and submit it to the ORR, as part of the TAA application process.

Once you get your TAA extension/new TAA approved (on the basis of that business plan) you can then sign your rolling stock contract and confirm your delivery date “window”.

The term of that TAA (which the ORR determines) will be dependent on the cash level of investment so it will have an earlier expiry date if that investment in new stock isn’t made - there is usually a clause in the TAA that states this.

 

[DoubleO]

That’s not how it works.

You get your rolling stock quotes in and then you put your business plan together and submit it to the ORR, as part of the TAA application process.

Once you get your TAA extension/new TAA approved (on the basis of that business plan) you can then sign your rolling stock contract and confirm your delivery date “window”.

The term of that TAA (which the ORR determines) will be dependent on the cash level of investment so it will have an earlier expiry date if that investment in new stock isn’t made - there is usually a clause in the TAA that states this.

Interesting. I had a feeling it wouldn't be quite as straightforward as I'd suggested, but I still think fundamentally the same issue may exist.

 

[Wyrleybart]

That’s not how it works.

You get your rolling stock quotes in and then you put your business plan together and submit it to the ORR, as part of the TAA application process.

Once you get your TAA extension/new TAA approved (on the basis of that business plan) you can then sign your rolling stock contract and confirm your delivery date “window”.

The term of that TAA (which the ORR determines) will be dependent on the cash level of investment so it will have an earlier expiry date if that investment in new stock isn’t made - there is usually a clause in the TAA that states this.

Really interesting "CY". Thanks.
I believe it is the case that Arriva have been equipping their 180s with ETCS, or at least the harnesses for ETCS, which means they should be able to continue on the ECML section between Stoke and Kings Cross even as the system is commissioned. Obviously Hull Trains would have had to face that issue had they continued with their 180s, but I believe all 80x have the capability built in.

It does however make sense to replace the 180s if Arriva can make a financial case, and perhaps sooner, whilst the various Hitachi AT300 series are being built.

 

[grumpyoldman01]

It’s one of the “what if” moments that I keep wondering about. I think I still have the Arriva prospectus for their TPE bid in about 2003, back when they proposed four coach 180s across the Pennines

This was around the same time that National Express (MM) were looking at 170 replacement and opted for 222s… Maybe if the 180 production lines were open then we’d have seen orders for them on both Midland Mainline and TPE - one big fleet of a couple of hundred carriages being much better than smaller sheets of 180/185/222

But then First have been pretty terrible at ordering trains - has anyone been so impressed with something that First procured that they’ve also ordered it? The 175s/ 180s/ 185s/ 334s don’t seem to have inspired other TOCs to follow suit - we’d have been a lot better off of First had just ordered standard stock like Turbostars as other franchises did

175s and 180s were ordered before First became involved in Great Western and North Western; and wasn't Arriva's offer for TPE based around "super" Turbostars?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jan 2023 ==

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

No - the GW and NW franchises were originally with Great Western Holdings (or something similar), a management buy-out subsequently sold to First Group

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Though FirstGroup were minority shareholders in Great Western Holdings from day 1 IIRC.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

175s and 180s were ordered before First became involved in Great Western and North Western; and wasn't Arriva's offer for TPE based around "super" Turbostars?
No - the GW and NW franchises were originally with Great Western Holdings (or something similar), a management buy-out subsequently sold to First Group

The Coradia design was indeed selected by GWH for GWT and NWT, but I think you'll find the deal was closed by FirstGroup after they acquired GWH in 1998.
FG also decided the specification and split of units (27x175 to FNW and 15x180 to FGW).
GWH, particularly NWT, had been in financial difficulty when FG took control of both franchises.
At one point NWT wanted 180s for services on the WCML, which was never viable.
The FG auto-announcer ("Ruth") is still used on at least the 175 fleet, despite two (or is it three?) changes of ownership.

 

[Spartacus]

Class 82 was the TOPS classification of the AL2 electric locomotives



The Mk3 DVT's are numbered 821xx and the Mk4 DVT's 822xx.
However officially have these DVT's ever been class 82?

Indeed Class 82 is still the TOPS classification of the AL2s, 82008 is still registered as an 82, rather than an 89, which is more usual for preserved 'modern traction'.

 

[Mikey C]

It's not First's fault that the 175s and 180s turned out to be so flawed when compared to the Turbostars. Met Cammell had successfully built the predecessor 156s, while their Networkers seemed on par with the BREL ones.

 

[dgl]

Really interesting "CY". Thanks.
I believe it is the case that Arriva have been equipping their 180s with ETCS, or at least the harnesses for ETCS, which means they should be able to continue on the ECML section between Stoke and Kings Cross even as the system is commissioned.

I suppose having GW-ATP from new helps in that respect as I would assume there is already some of the wiring/interfaces needed for it and potentially already suitable mounting for a eurobalise reader.

 

[D365]

I suppose having GW-ATP from new helps in that respect as I would assume there is already some of the wiring/interfaces needed for it and potentially already suitable mounting for a eurobalise reader.

Possibly the mounting points might prove useful, but the wiring harnesses for ETCS will be all-new.

 

[dgl]

Possibly the mounting points might prove useful, but the wiring harnesses for ETCS will be all-new.

Yes I assumed the wiring harness(es) would be new, I thought that at least some of the control inputs/outputs needed would already be there.

 

[greyman42]

It's not First's fault that the 175s and 180s turned out to be so flawed when compared to the Turbostars. Met Cammell had successfully built the predecessor 156s, while their Networkers seemed on par with the BREL ones.

Their 465s were inferior to BRELs.

 

[Mikey C]

Their 465s were inferior to BRELs.

Mechanically they were better though, the traction equipment of the BREL ones was partially replaced after 15 years!

 

[londonmidland]

With EMR wanting to bin their Class 180s by April, what will be their replacement?

Their reliability is less than impressive, with near daily faults resulting in them having to be taken out of service.

The 222s are already stretched to their limit, with some of them failing from time to time.

I’m not sure how true this is but apparently EMR are exploring the possibility of using the stored AWC 221s. Talks with Alstom have/are to be made in regards to the relevant modifications required for them, if they were to enter service with EMR.

 

[DanNCL]

Almost certainly nothing. The DFT don’t care about the passengers, they’ll not be the slightest bit worried about passengers being squeezed into an ever more overused fleet of 222s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Wasn't there talk last year that the 180s would be staying due to not enough Hitachi units being ordered?

Given their shocking reliability, if that decision has been reversed it's probably a good thing. The obvious solution is to actually order a big enough replacement fleet to cover everything, but failing that it should be 222s retained rather than 180s.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I think this will be a symptom of the current DfT cost cutting at all costs attitude. Same to why the HSTs and 769s are leaving GWR. Suspect this will be followed by similar stories at other operators.

 

[Mzzzs]

Wasn't there talk last year that the 180s would be staying due to not enough Hitachi units being ordered?

Given their shocking reliability, if that decision has been reversed it's probably a good thing. The obvious solution is to actually order a big enough replacement fleet to cover everything, but failing that it should be 222s retained rather than 180s.

I have seen online that during the day 31 units are in service and 2 are not in service which leaves recipe for disaster. I don't know if it's true but seems likely.

 

[Iskra]

Castle Class HST's?

 

[sonic2009]

Castle Class HST's?

Speed limited to 100mph weren't they? Not sure what speeds the MML has - but i suspect wouldn't keep to a timetable?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Not disputing it, but where are the actual publications stating 180s will go in April? And if they are going, why not May at the timetable change?

 

[londonmidland]

Not disputing it, but where are the actual publications stating 180s will go in April? And if they are going, why not May at the timetable change?

My mistake, it could actually be May. Everything is up in the air at the moment.