5 x 180s up for grabs

[tbtc]

I can assure you that 158's do not work to paisley canal and have never been diagrammed to do so

I was sure I'd read on here that there have been 158s on there

 

[CarterUSM]

Definately not, central crews are only just training on them for whifflets and benhars, but i'm sure they've run on the Queen st-Anniesland service which is of similar running time.

 

[tbtc]

benhars

Sorry for not knowing, but what are Benhars?

 

[The Planner]

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.

Im not convinced they will ever get off the ground, they dont have any traction, there is no proof or application for paths yet. The latest they have is that they expect to run push pull like WSMR, but Ive no idea where they expect to get 67s from. It wont be next spring either, December 2011 is what they seem to think the earliest they will be up and running. New Zealand in the World Cup are a safer bet....

 

[anthony263]

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?

I think the 07:00 Cardiff - Bristol TM is worked by a voyager on weekdays together with the 20:15 from Bristol TM in the evening i think the services now go to Manchester instead of newcastle like they used to.

 

[142094]

Sorry for not knowing, but what are Benhars?

Sounds like Benhar Junction, going by the fact that Whifflet is a station in Glasgow, trains going to "benhars" must go via Benhar Junction?

 

[CarterUSM]

Sorry for not knowing, but what are Benhars?

Not at all, it's just the colloquial term for Glasgow-Edinburgh via Shotts as 142094 has rightly identified.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

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

In principle I agree with you (though I'm not prejudiced against open access operators). However, the 180 doesn't seem to be a very practical unit to use as a crowd buster. The only way I see them being helping to relieve overcrowding is if you can find a route where DMUs always run in multiple (e.g. a couple of 158s or similar), replace the 158s with one x 180 and then place the 158s where they can be used to good effect.

Two problems; 1. I can't think of a suitable route to put the 180s on, where DMUs could be freed up; and 2. the overcrowding is generally worst where units with 1/3 - 2/3 doors would be most useful to enable fast loading / unloading and they are like hen's teeth.

So, back to the Lincoln open access suggestion....

 

[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...

In principle I agree with you (though I'm not prejudiced against open access operators). However, the 180 doesn't seem to be a very practical unit to use as a crowd buster. The only way I see them being helping to relieve overcrowding is if you can find a route where DMUs always run in multiple (e.g. a couple of 158s or similar), replace the 158s with one x 180 and then place the 158s where they can be used to good effect.

Two problems; 1. I can't think of a suitable route to put the 180s on, where DMUs could be freed up; and 2. the overcrowding is generally worst where units with 1/3 - 2/3 doors would be most useful to enable fast loading / unloading and they are like hen's teeth.

So, back to the Lincoln open access suggestion....

Liverpool - Nottingham (run Norwich as a separate service).

a) Capacity enhancement between Liverpool - Manchester and Manchester - Sheffield which both suffer overcrowding

b) Frees up EMT 158's.

c) Means Northern do not need to give EMT their 156s in return for 150s.

That is two TOC's and two major passenger flows which benefit from self contained diagrams. One set of 2x158 might still be required to make up the number of sets required.

Yes, Lincoln gets a raw deal, but it is just utterly daft to be starting new services when overcrowding is as bad as it is elsewhere.

 

[NXEA!]

Well I'd say send the remaining two 180's to join the other three at Northern. Then this will displace roughly 4 158's. (2 2 car's and 2 3 car's from the 158 75x series). Then you could send the 2 3 cars to join the 95x series of 158's on Portsmouth-Cardiff services and the 2 2 cars to EMT to ease overcrowding on Norwich-Nottingham-Liverpool services. Would this work or make sense?

 

[rail-britain]

Benhar, it's just the colloquial term for Glasgow-Edinburgh via Shotts

I've never heard of that or seen that before
Usually called "a slow coach to Edinburgh", even the Citylink coach is quicker!

 

[CarterUSM]

I've never heard of that or seen that before
Usually called "a slow coach to Edinburgh", even the Citylink coach is quicker!

Indeed it is, although the semi-fasts are great and make the journey fly by!!! Perhaps it's just a staff thing, or an older term ofd description, though i'm sure i've heard the odd passenger mention it before. Incidently, and apologies for further off topic, but does anyone know wher the now long gone spur at the junction led to?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Liverpool - Nottingham (run Norwich as a separate service).

a) Capacity enhancement between Liverpool - Manchester and Manchester - Sheffield which both suffer overcrowding

b) Frees up EMT 158's.

c) Means Northern do not need to give EMT their 156s in return for 150s.

That is two TOC's and two major passenger flows which benefit from self contained diagrams. One set of 2x158 might still be required to make up the number of sets required.

Yes, Lincoln gets a raw deal, but it is just utterly daft to be starting new services when overcrowding is as bad as it is elsewhere.

That's a very nice idea if it works. Would five x 180s be enough to run the service and would separating the Liverpool - Norwich free up trains, or just use more trains?

 

[daccer]

It seems absolutley crazy that coping with passenger growth over the next few years is going to come down to the cascading of a couple of 20 year old dmu's. By the look of it whent he class 172 fleet is in place the cascade will be used to return loan units to their TOC's and to do away with LHCS. After that there is nothing left. at the moment the country's reserve fleet of usable stock seems to be a few class 508's. Overcrowding is here to stay and if electrification does get delayed I pity those poor devils up North who will be forced to endure Pacers well past their 30th birthdays. What is patently obvious is that the situation is going to get a lot worse before it gets remotely better.

 

[tbtc]

That's a very nice idea if it works. Would five x 180s be enough to run the service and would separating the Liverpool - Norwich free up trains, or just use more trains?

Sadly you'd need about seven trains to work Nottingham to Liverpool (its roughly an hour from Nottingham to Sheffield, roughly an hour from Sheffield to Manchester and roughly an hour from Manchester to Liverpool), so a minimum six hour trip (plus recovery time, plus a spare unit for maintenance etc). I'm not saying that the Hull - Manchester service would be the best use of them, but the fact that five units could work it was a plus.

Agree that the service should be split at Nottingham though

 

[sprinterguy]

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

Couldn't remember if 107 was still on temporary loan to Hull Trains or not, my error.

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.

Unfortunately, XC DO seem to have conclued they have a choice not to fully utilise their HSTs. I agree their should be a "use them or lose them deal", it's absolutely scandalous that XC decide not to use perfectly useable trains.

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

That is most probably true, and it has been a niggling thought at the back of my mind; I have a feeling that FGW don't want the 180s back, especially when it's such a small number of trains. But recieving 5 180s or 3 HSTs, the choice SHOULD be 5 180s. I think we can conclude from both the Crosscountry and FGW arguments that what makes sense and what actually happens according to the preference of TOCs can be vastly different on the railways. The FGW idea still sounds good to me, it's just a question of whether FGW would actuallt take the 180s back. Doubtful really =/

 

[brompton rail]

Probably the most appropriate use of the Adelantes would be for FGW to take them back - they are maintaining sister company Hull Trains' 180s - and use them for Cotswold Line services out of the peaks. They used to operate this line and would be an improvement on the Turbos used for many off peak (and some peak) services. HSTs could still do the peak trains.

Their 125 mph speed would be fine for Oxford - Paddington and such a move would free up some Turbos for other duties, though it is doubtful that this would help Bristol area or Deveon services who are also short of stock.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

Anyone here want to put their hand in their deep, deep pockets to pay FGWs training costs & I suspect for the re-fitment of ATP?

 

[Ricardo]

Having read through this thread, there are a most amazing number of uses proposed for the Adelante units by various contributors. What to do with a misfit fleet of 5 units clearly a difficult decision.

If DfT rail were thinking logically about what to do with them, one would hope that they would consider the following criteria which would help identify where the units could be put to best use:

• Combine the Northern & East Coast allocations to give 5 units, at the cost of Northern losing these units on Manchester-Blackpools. A fleet of 5 units is still unattractive, but less unattractive than a 2 or 3-unit fleet!
  
• Utilise the units on intercity routes, preferably involving 125mph running. Extra money was spent buying high speed units rather than commuter units; failure to use these capabilities represents a waste of the original investment.
  
• Use the 180s on a self-contained route needing 4 or 5 units OR on a self-contained route needing more than 5 units, but not running to a regular interval frequency (mixing faster and slower unit types on a regular interval timetable would force schedules to be slower to accomodate the slower unit type, wheras a non-interval timetable would provide potential for faster timings on services operated by 180s, whilst having slower timings for slower units)
  
• Use the 180s on an existing route- agree with other posters, financial limitations on the DfT and the railways currently preclude starting new routes - vis a vis the cancellation of the EC Lincoln services
  
• Use the units on routes which pass near to or start/end near to depots with experience of servicing and handling class 180s
  
• Avoid running up extra costs such as re-training, route clearance, re-fitting, etc, if possible
  
• Use the 180s on routes where the units they supplant DMUs which, via a cascade process (and there are numerous ways this could be done!) leads to suitable replacement stock being provided to Northern for the Manchester-Blackpools.
  
• Ensure that this cascade process is relatively simple and does not end up shunting unsuitable units to the wrong operator...

These criteria are not ranked in any particular order!

To my mind, using these criteria, use of the 180s on Manchester-Scotland services probably represents themost logical home for this small subfleet, though I'm sure other contributors can make a convincing case for several other intercity routes.

The trouble is, DfT rail often do not appear to make the sensible, logical decisions. More often than not this is due to various shenanigans involving leasing companies, who may make competetive offers for leasing of units for use on operations where they may not be the best choice, considering the bigger picture. Examples of this have included the FGW spare 158s fiasco back in 2007 (?) , 458s indirectly displacing 442s on SWT, and so forth. In the case of the 180s, given the small fleet which is difficult to effectively employ, I would suspect that the leasing companies would hold some significant sway over where the units go.....

 

[northwichcat]

[*] Avoid running up extra costs such as re-training, route clearance, re-fitting, etc, if possible

When Northern first tested the 180s they found no issues with an assumption that if a 175 is cleared than a 180 is also cleared. On that basis Manchester Airport to Oxenholme is cleared for 180s via Bolton or via Wigan.

If they get the 180s the Hazel Grove-Preston service could be spilt at Manchester and TPE could run some Manchester to Preston services on behalf of Northern using 185s and Northern staff could operate the 180s on behalf of TPE as far as Preston to prevent a large number of crew having to learn the 180s at first.

The purple First colour of the 180 interior corresponds with the purple First colour of the 185s and 170s.

 

[387star]

Manchester-Scotland would be ideal and I'm convinced that's what will happen given TPE only company not to get extra stock

 

[Snapper]

Why are people assuming that EC are going to get rid of the 180s?

 

[387star]

It has been publicly stated
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Although NXEC no longer exists, its successor East Coast pressed ahead with the plans [to introduce 180s], and managed to secure five units, three of which were temporarily sub-leased to Northern (see above).[10] However, it recently announced that, due to government cuts, it would no longer be introducing a regular all-day service to and from Lincoln, which the units had been planned to operate.[22] The five units planned for use by East Coast will therefore become available for other operators

 

[swt_passenger]

Why are people assuming that EC are going to get rid of the 180s?

Because ECML Co issued an explicit statement on their website:

Seven weekday trains in each direction had been planned for the new Lincoln/London King’s Cross services, using an additional new fleet of trains (five Adelante Class 180s). East Coast will now not introduce this new fleet, and will instead use its existing trains to operate a modified service pattern which will include a single direct service from Lincoln

http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/travel-information/Eureka/How-it-will-affect-you/

Undated, but it has been on the ECML site for at least a month now...

Edit:

There was also an explicit statement in the ORR's letter of 11th August, following up their invitation for other operators to use the Lincoln paths.

DfT pointed out that the only suitable 125 mph rolling stock (which was to have been used for the Lincoln services) would be redeployed elsewhere on franchised services and would not therefore be available for use on the ECML.

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/ecml-orr-letter-110810.pdf

 

[YorkshireBear]

Can't see them going anywhere but manchester scotland services to be honest. Can't decide if it will be right decision as 180's will be tediously slow boarding as an airport train. Does a 180 have sufficent luggage space for the high volume of suitcases.

Only question is does anyone know how much the capacity will increase and whether it would be feasible to remove a few seats for large suitcase storage?

I just don't know of another company who would get them, northern getting some extra stock ( not much net but still a gain) and TPE are in desperate need.

 

[ukrob]

Can't see them going anywhere but manchester scotland services to be honest. Can't decide if it will be right decision as 180's will be tediously slow boarding as an airport train. Does a 180 have sufficent luggage space for the high volume of suitcases.

Only question is does anyone know how much the capacity will increase and whether it would be feasible to remove a few seats for large suitcase storage?

I just don't know of another company who would get them, northern getting some extra stock ( not much net but still a gain) and TPE are in desperate need.

How will it work with the Scotland services joining and splitting? It isn't as simple as a like for like replacement.

 

[YorkshireBear]

How will it work with the Scotland services joining and splitting? It isn't as simple as a like for like replacement.

I don't know, i don't think TPE should get them as it's inpractical i just can't see anyone else getting them. I suppose any introduction of new stock with TPE is going to involve them rejigging their timetable.

 

[tbtc]

Manchester-Scotland would be ideal and I'm convinced that's what will happen given TPE only company not to get extra stock

There aren't enough for the Manchester - Scotland service, so they will still be timed for a 100mph 185, as 185s would still do some duties.

Plus, the current arrangements of joining/ splitting Windermere/ Barrow services would have to end

Plus you'd lose the flexibility of units being able to interchange between Blackpool duties and Scottish ones (when changing round at Manchester Airport).

The only easy answer for five units would be the Manchester - Hull service, which is a stand alone route, and where the 180s can be interworked with Hull - London if required (maintain a common pool at Hull to ensure better availability etc)

 

[387star]

They could still work Manchester-scotland we're talking 5 units if needbe they could reduce First Class provision and even shorten the sets to 3 coaches so you have up to 8 3 car 180s created (8x3 is 24 and there are 25 coaches from the 5 180s if my maths is right)... the remaining coach could make one of the sets 4 car or lengthen a 180 elsewhere.. not sure if this is practical though! They could reconfigure the interior and make it more high density to

tbtc: where would the 170s be reallocated?

 

[ukrob]

They could still work Manchester-scotland we're talking 5 units if needbe they could reduce First Class provision and even shorten the sets to 3 coaches so you have up to 8 3 car 180s created (8x3 is 24 and there are 25 coaches from the 5 180s if my maths is right)... the remaining coach could make one of the sets 4 car or lengthen a 180 elsewhere.. not sure if this is practical though!

You wouldn't have enough cabs even if you could chop and change the units about like that.