Future for Class 180 Adelante fleets

[trainswitheddy]

Didn't Grand Central mention they were looking into getting new bi-modal trains if their track access agreement was extended. Maybe a 5 coach version of the CAF bi-mode being made for LNER unless they can come to some sort of deal with Hiatchi

With the shenanigans of the CAF fleets previous and Hitachi apparently too expensive to go for, maybe Stadler is in with a shout?

 

[WAB]

Unlikely given that the NMT has recently had significant work done with overhauled engines, major exams and ETCS fitment.

And HSTs are probably easier to look after class 37-style than a multiple unit.

 

[Spaceship323]

Didn't Grand Central mention they were looking into getting new bi-modal trains if their track access agreement was extended

Haven't GC just spent a lot of money having their 180's fitted with ETCS for use on the ECML?

Grand Central Class 180 reaches 125mph in ETCS test on ECML

Grand Central 180108 now holds the British speed record using the European Train Control System, having reached 125mph during main-line tests in August.

www.railmagazine.com

 

[trainswitheddy]

Haven't GC just spent a lot of money having their 180's fitted with ETCS for use on the ECML?

Grand Central Class 180 reaches 125mph in ETCS test on ECML

Grand Central 180108 now holds the British speed record using the European Train Control System, having reached 125mph during main-line tests in August.

www.railmagazine.com

Iirc Network Rail paid for that, but even so...180s will probably be used into the early 2030s while a new fleet is sorted out, I'd be very surprised if GC could get a new fleet of (potentially) new designs ready onto the mainline before the ETCS switchoff.
Either way, new units will be coming as per the track access agreement (if I'm understanding correctly)

 

[Trainguy34]

Haven't GC just spent a lot of money having their 180's fitted with ETCS for use on the ECML?

In this case, couldn't they be used to test ETCS at high speeds on other lines?

 

[D365]

In this case, couldn't they be used to test ETCS at high speeds on other lines?

Which other lines? Trilink (WCML north) and TRU (Transpennine Route Upgrade) are very early days.

 

[Mgameing123]

Why would anyone want to get the Class 180? It’s some unreliable train that always breaks down. It’s the IC4 of England!

 

[507020]

In this case, couldn't they be used to test ETCS at high speeds on other lines?

Departmental use, given they can run at 125mph would be very interesting to see.

 

[trainswitheddy]

Out of interest, how were they at Northern? Unlikely that they'd go (No idea where they'd be needed/used) but what was the reason Northern got rid? Iirc they were fairly popular with passengers? How were they reliability-wise?

 

[357]

Haven't GC just spent a lot of money having their 180's fitted with ETCS for use on the ECML?

Grand Central Class 180 reaches 125mph in ETCS test on ECML

Grand Central 180108 now holds the British speed record using the European Train Control System, having reached 125mph during main-line tests in August.

www.railmagazine.com

This was done in around 2016, before the project kept being delayed, and was paid for by NR.

Out of interest, how were they at Northern? Unlikely that they'd go (No idea where they'd be needed/used) but what was the reason Northern got rid? Iirc they were fairly popular with passengers? How were they reliability-wise?

Apparently when they aren't going too fast they are OK!

Departmental use, given they can run at 125mph would be very interesting to see.

Like any of the HST power cars already in departmental use?

If Grand Central’s track access agreement is extended, they’ll be staying on their current services for the foreseeable future.

Says who? A new fleet is part of the application and publicly available information?

 

[sprinterguy]

Unlikely that they'd go (No idea where they'd be needed/used) but what was the reason Northern got rid?

They received an influx of class 150s from London Midland to replace them.

 

[Tetragon213]

What actually made the 180s so infamously unreliable, to the point where the phrase "You'll be going nowhere" became their biggest legacy?

I could, however, see XC potentially taking them on. They seem to constantly be short forming their trains (in my regrettably extensive experience with them for work travel...), so it's not out of the bounds of possibility for them to take on the 180s to try and relieve some of the pressure on their overworked Voyager fleet.

 

[357]

I could, however, see XC potentially taking them on. They seem to constantly be short forming their trains (in my regrettably extensive experience with them for work travel...), so it's not out of the bounds of possibility for them to take on the 180s to try and relieve some of the pressure on their overworked Voyager fleet.

I couldn't see them taking on Voyager diagrams.

If they are cheap, potentially a short term solution to overcrowding on turbostar routes, as most of the problems happen at high speed, but still very very unlikely.

 

[brad465]

What actually made the 180s so infamously unreliable, to the point where the phrase "You'll be going nowhere" became their biggest legacy?

I could, however, see XC potentially taking them on. They seem to constantly be short forming their trains (in my regrettably extensive experience with them for work travel...), so it's not out of the bounds of possibility for them to take on the 180s to try and relieve some of the pressure on their overworked Voyager fleet.

XC are already getting extra voyagers from Avanti (7x to replace the HST carriage loss, plus an additional 5x). If they did go it might be to increase capacity on 170-operated routes, which are as overcrowded as voyager ones.

 

[3RDGEN]

What actually made the 180s so infamously unreliable, to the point where the phrase "You'll be going nowhere" became their biggest legacy?

Design issues which affected the Coradia and Juniper fleets from Washwood Heath meant they had inherent issues from build, by the time First GWR finally got them they had lost interest and moved on so replaced the units ASAP. The units then sat around with no future, Northern took some as a stop gap and East Coast plans to use them got cancelled, HT's and GC picked them up but neither of them was going to spend big on the units.

During the sporadic running they have had there was little loving maintenance / ownership of the units so issues didn't get rectified, modifications didn't get made and the contracted maintainers had limited experience of the units so had little chance or incentive to improve them. If GWR had kept the 14 units they would have had to fix the issues so some effort would have been made and performance would have been better, similar to what SWT's did with the 458's. Don't forget HT's diagrammed 3 from 4 units per day running massive mileages, they got five 802 units to replace them.

Once they are finished with GC, if there is no passenger boom and a rolling stock shortage, the best option would be scrapping.

 

[357]

Once they are finished with GC, if there is no passenger boom and a rolling stock shortage, the best option would be scrapping.

Unless someone wants to do one of the retraction/proof of concept type projects that were all the rage ten years ago.

Anyone remember the Pacer refurbishment?

 

[trainswitheddy]

XC are already getting extra voyagers from Avanti (7x to replace the HST carriage loss, plus an additional 5x). If they did go it might be to increase capacity on 170-operated routes, which are as overcrowded as voyager ones.

Some of the 170 routes are definitely deserving of more "InterCity" style stock, I wonder if there will be any capacity upgrades even considered anytime soon.

 

[43096]

Design issues which affected the Coradia and Juniper fleets from Washwood Heath meant they had inherent issues from build, by the time First GWR finally got them they had lost interest and moved on so replaced the units ASAP. The units then sat around with no future, Northern took some as a stop gap and East Coast plans to use them got cancelled, HT's and GC picked them up but neither of them was going to spend big on the units.

Had the Voyager drive system gone under the floor of the 180s - the traction system is Alstom Onix - then things might have been different. Sources suggest going with hydraulic transmission was influenced by the hydraulic fan club in GWT at the time.

 

[HSTEd]

Had the Voyager drive system gone under the floor of the 180s - the traction system is Alstom Onix - then things might have been different. Sources suggest going with hydraulic transmission was influenced by the hydraulic fan club in GWT at the time.

I can't help but think it somewhat amusingc that Great Western Trains would be a fan of hydraulic transmissions, given Western region's previous escapades with it.

 

[43096]

I can't help but think it somewhat amusingc that Great Western Trains would be a fan of hydraulic transmissions, given Western region's previous escapades with it.

That’s where it stems from - the original WR hydraulics. A case of heart ruling head if ever there was one.

 

[Trainbike46]

This idea of putting "more IC-like stock" on the XC 170s routes comes up regularly. Unfortunately it is a really bad idea when you look at the details.

The 170s routes, at least the one to Ely/Cambridge/Stansted Airport, require sprinter differentials to be even close to keeping time. Any stock that can't use sprinter differentials is utterly unsuitable for those routes. This is why they currently use 170s, and why putting voyagers or 180s on them would be a bad idea

 

[Tetragon213]

This idea of putting "more IC-like stock" on the XC 170s routes comes up regularly. Unfortunately it is a really bad idea when you look at the details.

The 170s routes, at least the one to Ely/Cambridge/Stansted Airport, require sprinter differentials to be even close to keeping time. Any stock that can't use sprinter differentials is utterly unsuitable for those routes. This is why they currently use 170s, and why putting voyagers or 180s on them would be a bad idea

Apologies, what do you mean by Sprinter differentials?

Also, remember that XC uses 170s for a lot of routes, most infamously the CDF-NOT via BHM run. Other than the issue of Lickey Incline, I can't see any major hangups technologically for adding a few 180s on the Cardiff run.

 

[Trainbike46]

Apologies, what do you mean by Sprinter differentials?

Sprinter differential speed limits; places where sprinters, and trains with similar characteristics like 170s and 755s have a higher speed limit than other trains. Between Peterborough and Ely the difference is massive, if memory serves the regular speed limit is something like 20 mph, with 60 mph sprinter differentials, though I may be misremembering the numbers. So any stock that can't use sprinter differentials would be a lot slower.

Also, remember that XC uses 170s for a lot of routes, most infamously the CDF-NOT via BHM run. Other than the issue of Lickey Incline, I can't see any major hangups technologically for adding a few 180s on the Cardiff run.

I don't know anything about the cardiff run, but the Birmingham-Stansted/Cambridge runs interwork with the Birmingham-Leicester runs, so those two do need to remain 170s or other sprinter-differential capable stock

 

[Strathclyder]

What actually made the 180s so infamously unreliable, to the point where the phrase "You'll be going nowhere" became their biggest legacy?

I seem to remember reading somewhere years ago that it was something to do with the way the engine and/or transmission was mounted under the floor, though I may be misremembering the details. Any flaws/problems that existed in the design brief from the start were only compounded by endemic build quality flaws at Washwood Heath that afflicted all Cordias/Junipers, with ScotRail's 334s perhaps being one the most reliable of the variants that are left now; not being passed around like a Christmas fruitcake between depots, operators and in/out of storage helps with that.

The end result with the 180s being a train that looks good - aesthetically I've always preferred them to Voyagers; doesn't cut the mustard in the real world ofc - with the reliabilty of a NBL Class 21. As noted above, if only they had the mechanical underpinnings of a Voyager/Meridian, it'd be a totally different story.

 

[TheBigD]

Sprinter differential speed limits; places where sprinters, and trains with similar characteristics like 170s and 755s have a higher speed limit than other trains. Between Peterborough and Ely the difference is massive, if memory serves the regular speed limit is something like 20 mph, with 60 mph sprinter differentials, though I may be misremembering the numbers. So any stock that can't use sprinter differentials would be a lot slower.

There is only a handfull of SP/MU differentials in the Peterborough to Ely route, and none that are as severe as 20/60.
There are currently a number of ESR/TSRs on the route that you may be thinking of with freight currently limited to 30mph over Welney Bridges.

The route between Ely and Norwich has the bigger differentials, the biggest being the 40/75 (I think) between Ely North Junction and Lakenheath.

 

[Iskra]

Some of the 170 routes are definitely deserving of more "InterCity" style stock, I wonder if there will be any capacity upgrades even considered anytime soon.

Surely XC should take all of the Voyagers for its 'core' route, then use 222's which are better suited for operating at shorter platforms for the current Turbostar routes. That would pretty much solve XC overnight without any new trains needed.

 

[HSTEd]

Surely XC should take all of the Voyagers for its 'core' route, then use 222's which are better suited for operating at shorter platforms for the current Turbostar routes. That would pretty much solve XC overnight without any new trains needed.

EDIT:
The Class 170s are arguably better trains for XC than the Voyagers though.

Pack the seats of a 4-car Voyager into a 3-car Turbostar


(Edited to remove reference to SP differentials as it may not apply to Ely-Peterborough).

 

[swt_passenger]

Some of the 170 routes are definitely deserving of more "InterCity" style stock, I wonder if there will be any capacity upgrades even considered anytime soon.

Are those the same XC routes where first class is being withdrawn from December? That’s not very ‘inter city’…

 

[Trainbike46]

There is only a handfull of SP/MU differentials in the Peterborough to Ely route, and none that are as severe as 20/60.
There are currently a number of ESR/TSRs on the route that you may be thinking of with freight currently limited to 30mph over Welney Bridges.

The route between Ely and Norwich has the bigger differentials, the biggest being the 40/75 (I think) between Ely North Junction and Lakenheath.

Thank you for pointing out that I mixed up what speed limits were what. The point that a train that can't use sprinter differentials is unsuitable for the Birmingham-Cambridge/Stansted route as it couldn't keep to time due to the lower speed limits stands in any case.

 

[Bevan Price]

That’s where it stems from - the original WR hydraulics. A case of heart ruling head if ever there was one.

In principle, Hydraulics were a good idea. They got a loco with over 2000 h.p. weighing 40-50 tons less than the equivalent diesel electric, so they could (in theory) pull heavier loads.
What helped to kill them were:
1. Those built br North British were very troublesome.
2. Electric train heating - it was much easier to install in diesel electrics.
3. Compared with over 500 Class 47s, there were smallish numbers of hydraulics, and being a non-standard design, became the first choice to get rid of when there was a surplus of locomotives.
4. HSTs; once HSTs took over lots of Western Region services, coupled with (3), there was no alternative work for the Hydraulics that could not be done by 47s.