Franchising Devolution to Wales

[merlodlliw]

I understand FNW anticipated putting class 180s on North Wales services as well as using them on open access Rochdale/Blackpool to London services but the increased competition protection which Virgin got meant the open acess services were withdrawn and no 180s ever went to FNW.

Thats correct, The Anti Compli stopped FNW using London destinations from Preston/Crewe/Birmingham/Wolves/Coventry/Man Picc etc, it also helped kill off WSMR, however VT introduced the £10 return as opposed to FNW £25 return from Manchester to London,which killed FNW open access, Anti Compli was itself killed off last December at the end of VTs West Coast contract, my understanding is the Anti Compli is not operative on VTs extension any longer.
FNW did propose running North Wales to London open access using 180s,but due to Anti Compli could not use Crewe for the open access service so dropped the idea.

 

[D1009]

I understand FNW anticipated putting class 180s on North Wales services as well as using them on open access Rochdale/Blackpool to London services but the increased competition protection which Virgin got meant the open acess services were withdrawn and no 180s ever went to FNW.

Think the future not the past. FGW (or whoever is running GW then) will have no use for its 180s once electrification kicks in. There wouldn't be much demand for additional 125 mph DMUs unless the open access operators make any further progress, and the 180s are technically very similar to the 175s.

 

[northwichcat]

Think the future not the past. FGW (or whoever is running GW then) will have no use for its 180s once electrification kicks in. There wouldn't be much demand for additional 125 mph DMUs unless the open access operators make any further progress, and the 180s are technically very similar to the 175s.

There were a few potential future uses for the 180s (and 222s) put up for consideration by DfT as part of the IEP review and decision to not go ahead with diesel IEP.
1. Kings Cross -Hull/Harrogate/Skip/Lincoln
2. Paddington-Worcester/Hereford
3. Paddington-Plymouth/Penzance
4. Paddington-Newquay

 

[tbtc]

Think the future not the past. FGW (or whoever is running GW then) will have no use for its 180s once electrification kicks in. There wouldn't be much demand for additional 125 mph DMUs unless the open access operators make any further progress, and the 180s are technically very similar to the 175s.

Well, there'll still be unelectrified lines from London to Devon and Cornwall etc. The line from Oxford to Hereford won't be electrified either (oops, mentioned Hereford again).

I think it'd be fairer to say that there'll be less demand for 180s when bi-mode IEPs are introduced - they may well keep them instead of some HSTs for services to the south west though.

 

[D1009]

Well, there'll still be unelectrified lines from London to Devon and Cornwall etc. The line from Oxford to Hereford won't be electrified either (oops, mentioned Hereford again).

I think it'd be fairer to say that there'll be less demand for 180s when bi-mode IEPs are introduced - they may well keep them instead of some HSTs for services to the south west though.

The plans I have seen, which may well have changed by now, indicated that bi-mode IEPs would operate an hourly Paddington-Worcester service with some extensions to Great Malvern and Hereford, and that all the Cornwall services would continue to be HST. 180s did not feature, and when you think about it, with an upgrade on that scale, why retain a small fleet of non standard DMUs?

 

[northwichcat]

170 can be 4-car because the 168's are. Unfortunately the FNW franchise now defunct did not predict the demand as Chiltern did. The 175's should have been 4 car sets like some of the 168's but FNW didn't have the same vision.

Can't believe I missed the most obvious things when replying to this post earlier.

1. FNW's vision would never have included South Wales services! If the franchises hadn't been mucked around, new 4 car units could have been ordered for the Manchester Airport to Blackpool/Cumbria services and the 2 car 175s could have been moved to services like Manchester Airport to Liverpool, Manchester Airport to Southport, Manchester-Sheffield, Chester-Altrincham-Manchester etc. where the improved passenger comfort offered compared to Pacers and Sprinters may well have attracted additional custom which then could pay for the higher running costs.

2. FNW may have anticipated a follow on order for additional class 175 carriages but the poor reliability of them in their initial days hardly justified a new order being pursed. An additional order could have included lengthening existing trains.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Portion working helps increase unit efficiency. TPE can't justify a 6 car evening peak working from Manchester Airport to Barrow or Manchester Airport to Edinburgh but they can justify a 6 car portion working which splits at Preston. There aren't paths available to run the Barrow service 10 minutes ahead of the Edinburgh.

I agree that portion working is very useful. Given that pepole don't seem to like changing trains much, it also helps provide through services between a wider range of destinations. However, without corridor connections at the ends you have potential trobble if passengers board the wrong unit (due to being in a hurry to board a train that's about to leave or confusing information, such as Shrewsbury where the Cambrian train reverses so the anouncment telling you to travel in the rear coach of the train for Aberystwyth and Borth is useless). For this reason I think all multiple units should be built with corridor connections on the ends wherever possible to enable portion working to work cleanly (and where that is not possible supplied in units that have enough carriages that they are never worked in multiple in service).