The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 16,132
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.....
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.....
The....WAG....dont....want....them.....
Ivo said:Neither....does....anyone....else.....
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).
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.
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 how would 5 HSTs release 29 170s?
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).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.
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.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?
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).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)
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).
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..
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.
Are these five just as bad, have different interiors, or other?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.
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?
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
SWT don't want anything that's "non standard", you only need to look where they've gone with their fleet
Are these five just as bad, have different interiors, or other?
True, but I take it you meant 3 car 158s being replaced by 3 car 185s?
plus it could release ten 170s which could go to ScotRail to release nine 158s
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?
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.
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.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.
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?
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.
I am against running new services (especially by Open Access Operators) when there is appalling overcrowding on franchised services. Sort them out first.
If nobody really wants them for a current service...
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.
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
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.
even then the loss in seats is marginal given the loss of an entire carriage
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.
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.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