FGW 180s whats their future?

[Woody]

Is there anything concrete information regarding the future of the 180s.

 

[Donny Dave]

AFAIK, nothing has been sorted. There has been rumours about the 180s going to Scotrail, then FCC, then TPE, but nothing was ever sorted. The latest rumour is that FGW want to keep the 180s until December next year at least....

 

[Tom]

The latest confirmed rumour is that the DfT are forcing FGW to keep the 180s at the present time....

 

[Andrew]

I think FGW are likely to keep them until the HST refurbs are completed.

 

[Techniquest]

Putting them on Pompey - Cardiff runs is a current rumour.

 

[Coxster]

Putting them on Pompey - Cardiff runs is a current rumour.

I heard that somewhere else too but I seem to recall there being some possible clearence issues on some parts of the route that may prevent that? Don't quote me on that though as I can't confirm (or deny) it

 

[Jim]

I want them on CDF - PMH, but it won't be able to happen without LOTS of restrictions

 

[thefab444]

Southampton Central - Swansea services would be a possibility, I heard the problem was in the Fareham area?

They could leave from Platform 5 (the west facing bay) and then call at Salisbury, Warminster, Westbury, Trowbridge, Bath Spa, Bristol Temple Meads, Newport, Cardiff Central, Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath and Swansea.

The current 158 operated Portsmouth Harbour - Cardiff services could remain as normal frequency-wise, but use 153s to strengthen services (nicked off the ill-fated Westbury - Southampton stoppers). The stopping pattern would be slightly adjusted:

Portsmouth & Southsea, Fratton, Cosham, Fareham, Southampton Central, Romsey, Salisbury, Warminster, Dilton Marsh (x), Westbury, Trowbridge, Bradford-on-Avon, Bath Spa, Keynsham (x), Bristol Temple Meads, Filton Abbey Wood, Severn Tunnel Junction (x), Newport and Cardiff Central.

 

[Jim]

Southampton Central - Swansea services would be a possibility, I heard the problem was in the Fareham area?

They could leave from Platform 5 (the west facing bay) and then call at Salisbury, Warminster, Westbury, Trowbridge, Bath Spa, Bristol Temple Meads, Newport, Cardiff Central, Bridgend, Port Talbot Parkway, Neath and Swansea.

The current 158 operated Portsmouth Harbour - Cardiff services could remain as normal frequency-wise, but use 153s to strengthen services (nicked off the ill-fated Westbury - Southampton stoppers). The stopping pattern would be slightly adjusted:

Portsmouth & Southsea, Fratton, Cosham, Fareham, Southampton Central, Romsey, Salisbury, Warminster, Dilton Marsh (x), Westbury, Trowbridge, Bradford-on-Avon, Bath Spa, Keynsham (x), Bristol Temple Meads, Filton Abbey Wood, Severn Tunnel Junction (x), Newport and Cardiff Central.

Your plans are good but a few problems there though!

1. Warminster can be scrubbed strght off the 180 scene, as it only has a 4 car platform southbound & just about 5 northbound. Trowbridge going southbound would be fine, but northbound would again, be 1 hell of a squeze!

2. Portsmouth - Cardiff idea I do quite like, except a 153 would slow the service down 1 hell of a lot, as I belive that parts of:
Salisbury - Soton are 85
Bath - Bristol are 90
Bristol - Cardiff are 90;
So it would loose a lot of time compared to current.

BTW, the (X) by STJ & Keynsham, are you suggesting these should be request stops:?

 

[devon_metro]

I don't see the need to run to Swansea. A waste of resources IMHO. It already gets an hourly HST service prosiving yonks of capactity.

 

[thefab444]

Are there any possibilities for extending platforms at Trowbridge or Warminster, never got off at the latter and only briefly at the former?

Anyway, if Swansea is no good, then how about Bournemouth - Cardiff Central - providing relief for the Weymouth services? Or another possibility is to time it such that the Express (Soton - Cardiff) service connects with the slow at Southampton, so that if you come from Portsmouth and want to go to Bath Spa, its quicker to change at Southampton for the express (which leaves first) than stay on the slow - this would mean the slow would have to wait at Southampton for a good 5 minutes.

As for 153s on the Portsmouth - Cardiff, if it is a 158 + 153 combination, what is the maximum speed of the train... 75 or 90?

John

PS Yes, the (x) suggests a request stop. I think I missed off Patchway, which would also be a request stop instead of Keynsham, which would be timetabled.

 

[Jim]

Are there any possibilities for extending platforms at Trowbridge or Warminster, never got off at the latter and only briefly at the former?

Anyway, if Swansea is no good, then how about Bournemouth - Cardiff Central - providing relief for the Weymouth services? Or another possibility is to time it such that the Express (Soton - Cardiff) service connects with the slow at Southampton, so that if you come from Portsmouth and want to go to Bath Spa, its quicker to change at Southampton for the express (which leaves first) than stay on the slow - this would mean the slow would have to wait at Southampton for a good 5 minutes.

As for 153s on the Portsmouth - Cardiff, if it is a 158 + 153 combination, what is the maximum speed of the train... 75 or 90?

John

PS Yes, the (x) suggests a request stop. I think I missed off Patchway, which would also be a request stop instead of Keynsham, which would be timetabled.

There is no real way of platform extension at either, without major problems, including buying land out, so that would not happen very well.

Bournemouth - Caardiff doesn't really have any market in my opinon, pathing around Southampton could also become a bit of a problem, especially AM peak

With the connection plan, nearly everyone would then get on the fast, leaving the slow empty, as currently happens with Westbury - Soton

75 if a 153/150/143 is involved

 

[thefab444]

Trouble is, if we cut out Warminster and Trowbridge to try and shove more people onto the slow - is there a big enough market for Southampton - Salisbury - Westbury - Bath - Bristol - Newport - Cardiff to fill a 5-car express unit (presuming the FC would be refitted to SC in case a 158 needs to fill in?).

Perhaps the best solution would be to swap the 180s with a TOC like ATW or Northern for 158s e.g. 14 x 180 for 20 x 158. But if the DfT are forcing the 180s to stay with FGW, we're back to square one...

John

PS Talking of short platforms, aren't the front/rear doors on 180s not for public use anyway?

 

[Jim]

Trouble is, if we cut out Warminster and Trowbridge to try and shove more people onto the slow - is there a big enough market for Southampton - Salisbury - Westbury - Bath - Bristol - Newport - Cardiff to fill a 5-car express unit (presuming the FC would be refitted to SC in case a 158 needs to fill in?).

Perhaps the best solution would be to swap the 180s with a TOC like ATW or Northern for 158s e.g. 14 x 180 for 20 x 158. But if the DfT are forcing the 180s to stay with FGW, we're back to square one...

John

PS Talking of short platforms, aren't the front/rear doors on 180s not for public use anyway?

Trowbridge is 1 of the biggest "fillers" for the service, all Saturday AM services are full & standing every Saturday morning, so if you cut Trowbridge out, it kind off defets the object of running the service

You mention a 158 fill-in, that just would not be allowed to happen, unless it was 4-158

DaFT would just not do a big unit swap like that, and I can't see ATW wanting 180's

Front & Rear doors are indeed not used, BUT they are used as the bike spaces, so you can't really use that as a solution

 

[Andrew]

180s stop at short platforms on Cotswold services (Hanborough, Shipton, Honeybourne)

As for a 158 fill-in "just not being allowed to happen" - why wouldn't it? FGW are (normally!) sensible enough to know that a short formed train is better than no train.

In any case, I reckon the 180s will stay on Oxford/Cotswold/Exeter semi-fast services. If/when they switch to HST the 180s will leave FGW - I seriously doubt they'll ever get to Portsmouth.

 

[Jim]

180s stop at short platforms on Cotswold services (Hanborough, Shipton, Honeybourne)

As for a 158 fill-in "just not being allowed to happen" - why wouldn't it? FGW are (normally!) sensible enough to know that a short formed train is better than no train.

In any case, I reckon the 180s will stay on Oxford/Cotswold/Exeter semi-fast services. If/when they switch to HST the 180s will leave FGW - I seriously doubt they'll ever get to Portsmouth.

I know they do stop at the short platoforms, but they replaced HSTs on some services, which also ment it was a short platform, unlike on the Ports - Cardiff ATM

Passengers would not let it happen, is what I ment by that

Exactly, well, as long as they keep the Exeter Semi's!

 

[Techniquest]

Mention of Hanborough came up. Since we are discussing short platforms at some lengths here, is it actually possible to stop a HST at Hanborough? I know the ones to/from Hereford are not booked to, but nor is the 1551 PAD - WOS. Guess what...The day I did it from Oxford a little while we stopped and dropped off and picked up passengers! Thought this was not allowed. And yes, this is a HST run as well!

 

[Andrew]

Yes, I had always thought HSTs had no grandfather rights at Hanborough, but it seems somewhat confused.

It may be to do with the 'performance risks' of stopping an HST twice on the single line (Hanborough, Charlbury) when HST acceleration isn't as good as is necessary to maintain the Cotswold Line timetable, which relies on everything arriving and departing Evesham and the Ascott-u-Whychwood junction bang on time.

But it is odd. And it's not helped by trying to work out which trains are HSTs when FGW add reservations availble symbols to trains which must surely be Turbos! (AFAIK the only booked weekday HSTs are the 1551, 1722 and 1822).

 

[ChrisCooper]

Whilst HST acceleration is not up to the 180s, I doubt they have a disadvantage over the 166s, since the second generation DMUs (and Turbostars) don't have the lightning acceleration that is common today, afterall, they have less than half the power of modern DMUs (350hp compared to 750hp). 165s are more nippy though, due to having the same engines but lower gearing (75mph rarther than 90mph). The problem HSTs have on start stop working is dwell time, due to the slam doors, although if people shut doors after them that wouldn't be a problem, but it does have to be factored in.

 

[Andrew]

165/0s (Chiltern) are 75mph but 165/1s (FGW) are 90mph same as 166s. Agreed on dwell times being the main HST problem.

 

[Philip]

I heard a rumour that ATW were going to run one of the Cardiff-Paddington services each day sooner or later. Is this true and if so would they use 175s or would they hire a 180 from FGW to work the service?

 

[Turbostar]

From what I've read in rail press, the 180's will remain on lease to FGW until at least April 2008. It's still under review what will happen next, but one rumour is that 12 Class 142's (yes, 142's!) rendered surplus by Northern, would be used on branch lines in Devon & Cornwall, allowing other units to be moved, & the 180's to be stood down! IIRC, we had 142's down here years ago, & was a total waste of time as they couldn't cope with the tight curves of the branch lines, & were spending more time in the depot having the wheelsets repaired, & eventually ended up being sent back up north.

Mart

 

[87015]

but one rumour is that 12 Class 142's (yes, 142's!) rendered surplus by Northern, would be used on branch lines in Devon & Cornwall, allowing other units to be moved, & the 180's to be stood down!

Latest Railways Illustrated claims talks of 'heritage DMUs' for branches. No idea how good the gen is mind...

 

[djw1981]

Is class 142 heritage yet?

 

[The Snap]

Getting there...seen as though there as a small group who wanted to bring a 143 to the ELR. The Diesel Dept just laughed at them and told them to get lost...

 

[W14Fishbourne]

I heard a rumour that ATW were going to run one of the Cardiff-Paddington services each day sooner or later. Is this true and if so would they use 175s or would they hire a 180 from FGW to work the service?

Only on Fantasyland Rail. Why should they want to do that? It would involve a pool of drivers learning the route (and refreshing it) for just one train a day. And, if there were only one train a day, even if one train were to be in the peak hour the other would be off-peak, with only limited revenue possibilities. It would be more trouble than it was worth.

And it goes against the one operator per London terminal philosophy, which is why ATW no longer operates into Waterloo.

Whilst HST acceleration is not up to the 180s, I doubt they have a disadvantage over the 166s, since the second generation DMUs (and Turbostars) don't have the lightning acceleration that is common today, afterall, they have less than half the power of modern DMUs (350hp compared to 750hp).

A turbo will show a clear pair of heels to an HST over at least the first mile or so from a dead start and it's only when the HST begins to exploit its greater maximum speed over 90mph that it will draw ahead by any significant amount.

It's not only horsepower that counts, it's the weight of the train and the gearing. A 180 may well have a 750hp engine and an HST two 2250hp power units, but 180 vehicles weigh between 49.5 and 51.7 tonnes, and the HST an average of 41.4 tonnes, compared to the Turbos' 37.0 to 38.0 (class 165s) or 38.0 to 39.6 (class 166s with air conditioning). So the Turbo has less of a disadvantage than it might first appear. Furthermore, the HSTs in particular are geared more for high maximum speed than acceleration, which is no advantage on a line like the Cotswolds.

Out of interest, assuming that the HST is still using Valentas, the horsepower per tonne results for each type of train are as follows.

Class 166 Turbo (3 cars): 1050hp for 117.2 tonnes = 8.96hp per tonne
Class 180: 3750hp for 252.5 tonnes = 14.85hp per tonne
HST (8+2): 4500hp for 413.85 tonnes = 10.87hp per tonne

 

[devon_metro]

From what I've read in rail press, the 180's will remain on lease to FGW until at least April 2008. It's still under review what will happen next, but one rumour is that 12 Class 142's (yes, 142's!) rendered surplus by Northern, would be used on branch lines in Devon & Cornwall, allowing other units to be moved, & the 180's to be stood down! IIRC, we had 142's down here years ago, & was a total waste of time as they couldn't cope with the tight curves of the branch lines, & were spending more time in the depot having the wheelsets repaired, & eventually ended up being sent back up north.

Mart

So each branch gets 1 service a day? Pacers are limited to the amount of times they cant visit each of the Devon and Cornwall branches. They are much more suited to boosting peak hour Bristol services where passengers don't care about having a comfortable journey.

 

[Jim]

I heard a rumour that ATW were going to run one of the Cardiff-Paddington services each day sooner or later.

Why would they do that
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

where passengers don't care about having a comfortable journey.

Aye, because we care if we can get on the flipping trains!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And it goes against the one operator per London terminal philosophy, which is why ATW no longer operates into Waterloo.

So how come 2 TOCs use Victoria, Bridge and KX?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So each branch gets 1 service a day?

I thought they did anyway, as the rest are cancelled!

 

[Philip]

Why would they do that

I've no idea, I only heard the rumour from someone else and thought it sounded strange. Unless they meant a 175 had worked on the GW - don't they have the same clearance as the 180s?

 

[W14Fishbourne]

So how come 2 TOCs use Victoria, Bridge and KX?

The SRA didn't get round to resolving those ones, though, to be fair Victoria and London Bridge are effectively two stations side-by-side (yes, I know that Southern operate over the through lines, etc but presumably passenger convenience outweighs benefits of the the one-TOC rule in that case.) Kings Cross is broadly divided between TOCs on a Fast Lines/Slow Lines basis, and the SRA was assuming that GN Suburban services would eventually leave KX for Thameslink. None of these considerations apply with Cardiff to Paddington. (Nothing was done about Euston because of the on-going WCML modernisation and because the revamp of the Central Trains franchise was deemed more important.)

Furthermore, the South Eastern and Southern routes from Victoria and London Bridge divide almost immediately after leaving London, whereas on the patches that were amalgamated two TOCs shared the same tracks for considerable distances out of London: Paddington-Didcot, Liverpool Street-Ipswich, Waterloo-Salisbury.