5 x 180s up for grabs

[The Planner]

Give them to ATW, they could use them on the Holyhead - Cardiff route, again subject to clearance & then transfer the 175's elsewhere.

The....WAG....dont....want....them.....

 

[Ivo]

The....WAG....dont....want....them.....

Neither....does....anyone....else.....

(sorry )

 

[ainsworth74]

The....WAG....dont....want....them.....

Sorry I'm not quite sure what your talking about?

Neither....does....anyone....else.....

Not true! I'd happily have them trundling up and down between Darlington and Saltburn rather than pacers

I guess the biggest problem with the 180s is that only 5 is a small fleet that no one really wants to operate. The only operators that could use them as a uniform fleet are GC and HT but they don't need the capacity as badly as other TOCs. Besides even if GC took them cascading their HSTs would be hard as they are non-standard so none of the HST operators would want them as sets (but perhaps the power cars and carriges seperatly to strengthen their existing sets?).

I think one of the most interesting ideas is to give them to TPE and try and have them work together with HT so that maintenance and stabling can at least be combined and perhaps even crew sharing. As for capacity on the Hull-Manchester route, in my experience between Leeds and Manchester the services are as busy as any other TPE Manchester bound service so whilst perhaps a 180 is a waste between Hull and Leeds further on it would be very useful extra capacity.

Then again perhaps the simplest option is to simply leave them where they are and forget about them! Would save on arguing

 

[ukrob]

I know this might seem a totally radical and out there suggestion.... but how about they stay with Northern which already has depot and traincrew already familiar with them whilst also being the only franchise (opposed to OA) who uses them and is also a franchise with massive overcrowding problems...

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

ukrob... Go stand in the corner.

You know that you're not allowed to apply common sense or logical reasoning/thought to the railway.

 

[northwichcat]

They are quieter, but I think that a five car train each hour would improve things greatly on the northern Transpennine route (reserve more seats on it to free up capacity on the other hourly trips).

I don't think that would happen. Three of the reasons for the Hull services being less busy are:
1. They start and terminate at Manchester Piccadilly. People from the Airport, Liverpool and Warrington don't travel on Hull services if they're going to Huddersfield or Leeds.
2. They don't go to York. From my experience more people board and alight at York than at Hull.
3. The Hull service covers a shorter distance and less stations so less people are likely to board it.

If 180s were to be be put on Hull services it would be sensible to them to be extended to Liverpool and to take the slot of the Liverpool-Scarborough service. However, losing a direct train to York would not be popular in Liverpool or Warrington.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Two other suggestions:

1. Combining the fact that they would be most useful on Manchester Airport to Scotland and Northern staff sign them but don't sign the 185s that would be released. Put 180s on Manchester to Scotland and terminate Hazel Grove services at Manchester and put 185s on the current Manchester to Preston part of Hazel Grove to Preston. TPE staff then operate the 185 Manchester to Preston service and in the short term Northern staff work the 180s on Manchester to Scotland between Manchester and Preston. Then with natural staff turnover the 180s get worked entirely by TPE crews.

2. Grand Central take the 180s and release their HSTs to XC. XC release their 170/3s and 170/6s to TPE. The Manchester to Preston part of Hazel Grove to Preston becomes TPE, as above, to allow more capacity for Northern services.

 

[MCR247]

Why not run them on some Manchester - Scotland services, and then join 4 up in (2x 10 car ) Manchester and run them ECS to Hull and then have 1 running a Hull service?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

2. Grand Central take the 180s and release their HSTs to XC. XC release their 170/3s and 170/6s to TPE. The Manchester to Preston part of Hazel Grove to Preston becomes TPE, as above, to allow more capacity for Northern services.

Eh? How does that work? XC don't want HSTs, otherwise why would they have 3 lying around? And how would 5 HSTs release 29 170s?

 

[tbtc]

I don't think that would happen. Three of the reasons for the Hull services being less busy are:
1. They start and terminate at Manchester Piccadilly. People from the Airport, Liverpool and Warrington don't travel on Hull services if they're going to Huddersfield or Leeds.
2. They don't go to York. From my experience more people board and alight at York than at Hull.
3. The Hull service covers a shorter distance and less stations so less people are likely to board it.

If 180s were to be be put on Hull services it would be sensible to them to be extended to Liverpool

All very true.

However, there are only five of these 180s. So, Manchester Piccadilly - Hull Paragon would be a (roughly) two hour trip, meaning five 180s would be perfect for it. Plus, with these unreliable units, the idea of sharing them at Hull may mean there is a "plan B" for when things inevitably go wrong.

Five car 125 mph units would be better suited to Manchester Airport - Newcastle (where faster running and better capacity would be put to better use), but there's only five of them. As I've said before, we should never have let such small classes of trains being built, but we need to be realistic.

 

[mrcheek]

Not sure if anyones suggested it yet, but why not give the 180s to SWT, to replace the 159s on Exeter to Waterloo. Im sure FGW would be grateful for the 159s ion turn.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

SWT don't want anything that's "non standard", you only need to look where they've gone with their fleet.

They had 170's, which they got rid of in exchange for more 158s, 99% similar parts to 159s.
They had 442's, which they got rid of because they were non standard.

By keeping everything as standard, means you only buy standard parts, which you can buy in bulk and as any commodity buyer will tell you, you get things cheaper buying in bulk.

So do you think that FGW are going to want them back, when they're non standard compared to the rest of the fleet? I don't think so.

 

[northwichcat]

And how would 5 HSTs release 29 170s?

I said it would release the 170/3s and 170/6s with XC. XC also have 17x170/1s and 6x170/5s.

 

[sprinterguy]

2. Grand Central take the 180s and release their HSTs to XC. XC release their 170/3s and 170/6s to TPE. The Manchester to Preston part of Hazel Grove to Preston becomes TPE, as above, to allow more capacity for Northern services.

The Crosscountry part of the deal would never work. As is mentioned above, Crosscountry aren't even using there current 5 HSTs to full capacity, so why would they take on more? Plus, the Grand Central HSTs are completely non-standard compared to the refurbed XC sets, only being 2+5, and with no TGS or TCC vehicles. Also, there are only 3 GC HSTs, so I'm not sure how this would replace 2x170/3 (170397/8) and 4x170/6 (170636-639).

Also this argument, the way I read it, is hinged on the 3 GC HSTs replacing three Voyager diagrams, which then go on to replace three 170 diagrams. The various Crosscountry routes are operated as self contained all-Voyager (Edinburgh and north east England to the South West, Manchester to south east) or all Turbostar (Cardiff-Nottingham, Birmingham-Stansted), so I see it as unlikely that Crosscountry would introduce 3 Voyager diagrams onto the Turbostar routes. I can imagine that Voyagers would be fairly suitable for Cardiff to Nottingham, but it is also true that a 4 car 220 has LESS standard class seats than a 3 car 170 (191 versus 174 respectively), so replacing a Turbo diagram with a Voyager would actually reduce capacity.

There is much sense to be said for the alternative Transpennine idea though. I definitely think that one of the First Group companies should be getting these units (FGW/TPE).

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Did my eyes deceive me the other night at New St, when I saw a Voyager on a XC service to Cardiff at around 1835?

 

[rail-britain]

When are these likely to be available?
I was under the impression that GC were currently using some of them?

I was tempted to try one last year, but internally they looked rather "tired" (Hull Trains)

 

[sprinterguy]

Did my eyes deceive me the other night at New St, when I saw a Voyager on a XC service to Cardiff at around 1835?

Good grief, proved wrong already Well that's the first time I've been aware of a Voyager on the Cardiff-N'ham route, and I have quite a lot of dealings with that service; I've only seen 170s on there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When are these likely to be available?
I was under the impression that GC were currently using some of them?

I was tempted to try one last year, but internally they looked rather "tired" (Hull Trains)

Grand Central has it's own seperate allocation of 4 180s (180101/5/12/14). The five sets under scrutiny here are those that were to be taken by East Coast in 2011: Namely the 3 units currently in use with Northern (180103/6/8), and two spare units (180102/4).

And yes if you ask me the old First Group interiors in the Hull Trains and Grand Central examples are looking rather rough.

 

[northwichcat]

The Crosscountry part of the deal would never work. As is mentioned above, Crosscountry aren't even using there current 5 HSTs to full capacity, so why would they take on more? Plus, the Grand Central HSTs are completely non-standard compared to the refurbed XC sets, only being 2+5, and with no TGS or TCC vehicles. Also, there are only 3 GC HSTs, so I'm not sure how this would replace 2x170/3 (170397/8) and 4x170/6 (170636-639).

You've pointed out in your own post why CrossCountry don't need 6 HSTs to replace 6 170s - they aren't using all the sets currently. GC have 24 mk3s and 6 Class 43s - combine that with XC's 10 43s and 45 mk3s and you get 34 43s and 69 mk3s. A longer HST can replace instances where a pair of Voyagers are used together.

The various Crosscountry routes are operated as self contained all-Voyager (Edinburgh and north east England to the South West, Manchester to south east) or all Turbostar (Cardiff-Nottingham, Birmingham-Stansted), so I see it as unlikely that Crosscountry would introduce 3 Voyager diagrams onto the Turbostar routes.

If change of diagrams is going to result in an operator rejecting stock then the 180s will just go in to storage as no operator will be able to put them in to effective use without revising diagrams.

I can imagine that Voyagers would be fairly suitable for Cardiff to Nottingham, but it is also true that a 4 car 220 has LESS standard class seats than a 3 car 170 (191 versus 174 respectively), so replacing a Turbo diagram with a Voyager would actually reduce capacity..

Umm where else has this happened? 185s replacing 220s on Manchester to Scotland and 2 car 170s replacing 158s on Manchester to Hull, 3 car 158s replaced by 3 car 185s, not to mention the 172s that are going to replace 150s. The fact is unless you build every train carriage to have exactly the same number of seats and if a cascade takes place frequently some seats ar lost.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Good grief, proved wrong already Well that's the first time I've been aware of a Voyager on the Cardiff-N'ham route, and I have quite a lot of dealings with that service; I've only seen 170s on there.

It's also not unheard of for a 170 to fill in for a Voyager if it fails.

 

[rail-britain]

Namely the 3 units currently in use with Northern (180103/6/8), and two spare units (180102/4).

And yes if you ask me the old First Group interiors in the Hull Trains and Grand Central examples are looking rather rough.

Are these five just as bad, have different interiors, or other?

 

[tbtc]

Did my eyes deceive me the other night at New St, when I saw a Voyager on a XC service to Cardiff at around 1835?

Isn't there still one a day to Cardiff (a shadow of the bi-hourly Virgin Cross Country service to Cardiff, with one extending to Swansea)? It may be at a completely different time to when you saw it, of course.

Plus, one Voyager works from Nottingham in the morning IIRC
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Umm where else has this happened? 185s replacing 220s on Manchester to Scotland and 2 car 170s replacing 158s on Manchester to Hull, 3 car 185s replaced by 3 car 185s

True, but I take it you meant 3 car 158s being replaced by 3 car 185s?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

SWT don't want anything that's "non standard", you only need to look where they've gone with their fleet

Very true However, unless we give these units to HT or GC, they are going to be "non standard" at any TOC they go do. And since HT don't need any more units, and GC presumably want to keep their HSTs, there's no realistic chance of either of those happening. Only way round it would be to run Hull - Manchester as a co-operation between HT and TPE (since it doesn't interwork with other TPE services), plus it could release ten 170s which could go to ScotRail to release nine 158s which could go to (three each to Northern/ FGW/ ATW. Net result is Transpennine get longer trains, ScotRail get an extra unit and FGW/ Northern/ ATW each get additional units.

Keeping Northern's allocation as it is makes sense too, but would you give Northern the two currently "with" East Coast? This would mean Northern getting two additional five coach trains, which could maybe mean cascading a 158 or two to ATW/ FGW/ EMT to ensure that everyone gets a slice of the pie?

 

[northwichcat]

Are these five just as bad, have different interiors, or other?

The declassified FC section in the Northern ones will need a lot of sorting out as there's worn out seat covers, seats that don't recline properly, lights in need of replacement.

 

[rail-britain]

At ten years old they are all probably due their first major refurbishment then, although that is a bit early
Once refurbished they should then be more reliable and easier to lease on short-term contracts

 

[northwichcat]

True, but I take it you meant 3 car 158s being replaced by 3 car 185s?

Yes I've corrected that now. I can't think of many other instances where if you mistype one type of unit you get the type that replaced it.

plus it could release ten 170s which could go to ScotRail to release nine 158s

The 185 fleet isn't sufficient for all TPE services minus the Hull services. 170s are being used increasingly on South TPE services due to the number of 185s needed for the Scottish timetable since Dec 09 which is why there are less doubled up 170s on Hull services.

This would mean Northern getting two additional five coach trains, which could maybe mean cascading a 158 or two to ATW/ FGW/ EMT to ensure that everyone gets a slice of the pie?

It would create problems at Northern as 158s are used exclusively on former ATN routes and the 180s are used on former FNW routes and for practical purposes they operate as two different companies - although actually being one company made it easy when they wanted to swap the FNW 158s with the ATN 150s.

 

[sprinterguy]

You've pointed out in your own post why CrossCountry don't need 6 HSTs to replace 6 170s - they aren't using all the sets currently. GC have 24 mk3s and 6 Class 43s - combine that with XC's 10 43s and 45 mk3s and you get 34 43s and 69 mk3s. A longer HST can replace instances where a pair of Voyagers are used together.

Ok fair enough, IF Crosscountry were to fully utilise it's HSTs (plus additional GC sets), then that would have the potential to release a good few Voyagers from previousy "doubled-up" diagrams which would cover the loss of 8 170s, good point. The problem is, that XC have already proved that they are not keen on fully utilising their current allocation of HSTs, so I can't see that the benefits of bringing extra HSTs to XC would be fully realised.

Plus there's still the issues of the different vehicle types used in the Grand Central formations, which would still be prevalent if the formations were fiddled to give 2+8 formations, although a TRSB in place of a TCC wouldn't make much difference I imagine. You'd end up with too many spare ex-GC TFs, as Grand Central have 6 and XC only use one per train, so you'd either have to leave them spare or use them declassified as standard coaches. I doubt that XC would be willing to undertake a refurbishment on these vehicles to bring them in line with the five current Crosscountry sets, so you would end up with two sub-fleets of HST carriage rakes within a very small fleet.

Umm where else has this happened? 185s replacing 220s on Manchester to Scotland and 2 car 170s replacing 158s on Manchester to Hull, 3 car 185s replaced by 3 car 185s, not to mention the 172s that are going to replace 150s. The fact is unless you build every train carriage to have exactly the same number of seats and if a cascade takes place frequently some seats ar lost.

In all of these instances, the replacement trains are of similar (or lesser in the case of 185s replacing the 220s; and even then the loss in seats is marginal given the loss of an entire carriage: 154 standard and 15 first in a 185 versus 174 standard and 26 first in a 220) lengths than the trains they replaced (granted the LM 172s are 23m carriages against the 20m 150s), where a loss in seats is understandable given the lower seating densities that modern units present; but in this scenario it is being proposed that less seats are being offered whilst the train length is being increased by 23m, which just seems inefficient. Although arguably a loss of 17 standard seats is a negligible impact considering that a two car 170/1 is sometimes sufficient on off peak workings on these routes, and also, arguably, a 220 should offer greater comfort than a 170 on a long distance journey, although you won't find me agreeing with that for a second.

I just think that overall sending the three Grand Central HSTs to Crosscountry would cause a lot more hassle than sending the five 180s direct to FGW or TPE, so in comparison to other ideas it's a no hoper.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Sorry I'm not quite sure what your talking about?



Not true! I'd happily have them trundling up and down between Darlington and Saltburn rather than pacers

I guess the biggest problem with the 180s is that only 5 is a small fleet that no one really wants to operate. The only operators that could use them as a uniform fleet are GC and HT but they don't need the capacity as badly as other TOCs. Besides even if GC took them cascading their HSTs would be hard as they are non-standard so none of the HST operators would want them as sets (but perhaps the power cars and carriges seperatly to strengthen their existing sets?).

I think one of the most interesting ideas is to give them to TPE and try and have them work together with HT so that maintenance and stabling can at least be combined and perhaps even crew sharing. As for capacity on the Hull-Manchester route, in my experience between Leeds and Manchester the services are as busy as any other TPE Manchester bound service so whilst perhaps a 180 is a waste between Hull and Leeds further on it would be very useful extra capacity.

Then again perhaps the simplest option is to simply leave them where they are and forget about them! Would save on arguing

It would make sense, in my humble opinion, for either GC or HT to be encouraged to take the units and operate them on the services that EC had planned to use them for (i.e. improving the rail service for Lincoln), but without subsidy (i.e. at their own risk).

It seems to me that all parties would benefit: -

1. The people of Lincoln would get their improved train service;
2. The 180s would be utilised with a TOC that already uses 180s, offering economy of scale maintenance wise;
3. The taxpayer doesn't pick up the tab / get exposed to risk;
4. Network Rail would get its paths filled and receive the track access revenue (albeit only the variable part, but then the fixed part that EC paid wouldn't have increased anyway!).

I know philosophically, DfT is quite negative about open access, but isn't this one situation where it actually makes most sense?

 

[ukrob]

It would make sense, in my humble opinion, for either GC or HT to be encouraged to take the units and operate them on the services that EC had planned to use them for (i.e. improving the rail service for Lincoln), but without subsidy (i.e. at their own risk).

It seems to me that all parties would benefit: -

1. The people of Lincoln would get their improved train service;
2. The 180s would be utilised with a TOC that already uses 180s, offering economy of scale maintenance wise;
3. The taxpayer doesn't pick up the tab / get exposed to risk;
4. Network Rail would get its paths filled and receive the track access revenue (albeit only the variable part, but then the fixed part that EC paid wouldn't have increased anyway!).

I know philosophically, DfT is quite negative about open access, but isn't this one situation where it actually makes most sense?

I am against running new services (especially by Open Access Operators) when there is appalling overcrowding on franchised services. Sort them out first.

 

[tbtc]

Yes I've corrected that now. I can't think of many other instances where if you mistype one type of unit you get the type that replaced it.



The 185 fleet isn't sufficient for all TPE services minus the Hull services. 170s are being used increasingly on South TPE services due to the number of 185s needed for the Scottish timetable since Dec 09 which is why there are less doubled up 170s on Hull services.



It would create problems at Northern as 158s are used exclusively on former ATN routes and the 180s are used on former FNW routes and for practical purposes they operate as two different companies - although actually being one company made it easy when they wanted to swap the FNW 158s with the ATN 150s.

True about the 158/ 185 thing - I can't think of another example

If the five 180s could all go to the Lancashire side of Norther's operation, to release some 156s to ScotRail to release 158s to EMT/ ATW/ FGW? Since *any* 180s are above and beyond what Northern were expecting, they could give five 156s to ScotRail. The 156s are more suited to lines like Paisley Canal etc which see some 158 running these days, and the 158s would be more suited to Cardiff - Portsmouth or the Nottingham - Liverpool stretch of Norwich Liverpool
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am against running new services (especially by Open Access Operators) when there is appalling overcrowding on franchised services. Sort them out first.

100% agreed

 

[route:oxford]

If nobody really wants them for a current service...

Maybe best to send them for deep maintenance and move the 1st Class provision forward into a driving car. I know there are reasons why it is where it is, but it's always struck me as being a bit stupid.

Then start testing them on the Leamington Spa-Yeovil route via Oxford in order that the Co-op have suitable stock for their OA service starting next spring. 125mph should help to keep things moving whilst they are on the GW mainline... The depots should still be familiar with the stock for maintenance contracts too.

 

[northwichcat]

If nobody really wants them for a current service...

It isn't a case of no-one wants them. It's a case of whoever gets them gets the short straw and the operators would all prefer a cascade so they don't have a few of one type of unit that is known to be unreliable.

In reality it's going to be a case of whoever can get them will take them but would prefer another type of unit i.e. Northern took them but would have preferred Sprinters instead.

 

[GNERman]

Grand Central has it's own seperate allocation of 4 180s (180101/5/12/14). The five sets under scrutiny here are those that were to be taken by East Coast in 2011: Namely the 3 units currently in use with Northern (180103/6/8), and two spare units (180102/4).

And yes if you ask me the old First Group interiors in the Hull Trains and Grand Central examples are looking rather rough.

He hmm, GC have 5 180's, 101, 105, 107, 112 and 114.

 

[northwichcat]

The 156s are more suited to lines like Paisley Canal etc which see some 158 running these days, and the 158s would be more suited to Cardiff - Portsmouth or the Nottingham - Liverpool stretch of Norwich Liverpool

Have ScotRail refurbed the 158s that they 'borrowed' from Northern and then Transport Scotland decided they could keep? I know they've spent a lot on 158 refurbishment but not sure if that they've done the 'borrowed' 158s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ok fair enough, IF Crosscountry were to fully utilise it's HSTs (plus additional GC sets), then that would have the potential to release a good few Voyagers from previousy "doubled-up" diagrams which would cover the loss of 8 170s, good point. The problem is, that XC have already proved that they are not keen on fully utilising their current allocation of HSTs, so I can't see that the benefits of bringing extra HSTs to XC would be fully realised.

The question is why should XC be allowed to 'decide' they don't want to use all their mk3 carriages when other operators are short and overcrowding isn't uncommon on XC services? DfT should issue train carriages on a 'use them or lose them' basis to prevent some operators being short while others keep them in storage.

even then the loss in seats is marginal given the loss of an entire carriage

The same applies to all 180s, 22xs and 390s. The front and rear carriages are very small compared to a standard Sprinter or Turbostar driving car.

I just think that overall sending the three Grand Central HSTs to Crosscountry would cause a lot more hassle than sending the five 180s direct to FGW or TPE, so in comparison to other ideas it's a no hoper.

Considering FGW chose to replace 180s with HSTs I think they may prefer the GC HSTs to 180s.

 

[CarterUSM]

True about the 158/ 185 thing - I can't think of another example

If the five 180s could all go to the Lancashire side of Norther's operation, to release some 156s to ScotRail to release 158s to EMT/ ATW/ FGW? Since *any* 180s are above and beyond what Northern were expecting, they could give five 156s to ScotRail. The 156s are more suited to lines like Paisley Canal etc which see some 158 running these days, and the 158s would be more suited to Cardiff - Portsmouth or the Nottingham - Liverpool stretch of Norwich Liverpool

I can assure you that 158's do not work to paisley canal and have never been diagrammed to do so. However, from October, 158's will start to on whifflet services, this is a diagramming measure and for a little more operational flexibilty.