Future for Class 180 Adelante fleets

[357]

Grand Central may need to keep hold of some of Class 180s if running the Cleethorpes services, as only 9 sets have been ordered from Hitachi.

They could keep 4 sets and the other coaches go to Great Western Railway to make the 2 car 175s up to 3 cars.

The driving cars could then go in to storage.

They have an option for more sets of future additional paths and new services are approved

 

[Wolfie]

I think they were probably quite glad to see the back of them tbh, since they went before the HSTs did.


I think there's a better chance of it than the EMUs that have been dumped all this time, there's definitely options its just whos willing to spend a few £ to get them up to scratch. Be interesting to see what happens to the ones at Alstom.

Notably the Alstom-backed potential OA operation is proposing to use Class 22xs and not these mobile junk heaps.

 

[vuzzeho]

What exactly is specifically wrong with them? Why are they so unreliable when the 22x and 175s (sometimes) are fine? Do we know?

 

[Wolfie]

What exactly is specifically wrong with them? Why are they so unreliable when the 22x and 175s (sometimes) are fine? Do we know?

As an outsider looking in it appears to be an unholy combination of poor initial design and equally poor build quality. Sadly that appears to have been commonplace in Alstom products built for the UK rail market at that time.

 

[cactustwirly]

Seeing as GWR are now taking on the 175s, do you think it's possible that GWR might actually take the 180s back? Possibly they could be put to work on the Wessex Main Line via Salisbury, replacing some of the rather tired Class 165s? I can't see hurting GWR to take on the 175's developmental cousin (and I suspect there will be quite some compatibility of spares etc).

The Wessex Main Line is only about 90mph max (and usually lower iirc), so that shouldn't particularly overstress the Adelante engines too much.

A better solution would be to take the 180s, put them on the Cardiff to Exeter runs and replace all the non London 800 workings, to strengthen the Intercity services.

180s can be based at Laira alongside the 175s

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

As an outsider looking in it appears to be an unholy combination of poor initial design and equally poor build quality. Sadly that appears to have been commonplace in Alstom products built for the UK rail market at that time.

Class 390 firmly excluded of course, as this, unlike the Junipers and Coradias, has consistently performed very reliably indeed.

 

[cactustwirly]

Class 390 firmly excluded of course, as this, unlike the Junipers and Coradias, has consistently performed very reliably indeed.

The irony that they are a Fiat product...

 

[InTheEastMids]

The irony that they are a Fiat product...

This may explain better reliability, definitely explains why 390s are so much better looking.

On topic, what is the genuine level of Cl180 reliability now - would any serious operator take them on?
Might it improve if they were used on less demanding routes (e.g. <100mph) perhaps with engine deration? (less heat, less stress on tranmissions, brakes etc)

Any news/views on the couple of ex-EMR units that I recall were taken to Alstom at Widnes for some reason?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The irony that they are a Fiat product...

They were built with several Alstom systems from the start though, such as the Alstom Onyx traction motors of which a variant also feature on the far less reliable 334, 458 and former 460 fleets.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

A better solution would be to take the 180s, put them on the Cardiff to Exeter runs and replace all the non London 800 workings, to strengthen the Intercity services.

180s can be based at Laira alongside the 175s

Very sensible idea as they have 125mph top speed too as well as 5 coaches. If First Class was declassified on all these then you've close to the capacity of Standard Class on an 80x.

If they did then they should be based at St Philips Marsh as if or when one fails in Cardiff or Exeter then the depots not too far.

Actually that's very good thinking!

 

[stevieinselby]

What exactly is specifically wrong with them? Why are they so unreliable when the 22x and 175s (sometimes) are fine? Do we know?

I think part of it was the decision to go for a diesel-mechanical drivetrain at 125mph. All the other 125mph diesel trains we have in the UK – and, I think, across the rest of the world – are diesel-electric. I'm not an expert but it doesn't seem implausible that the extra stress on the engine and drivetrain that this will cause is at least partly responsible for the poor mechanical reliability. That and the fact that Alstom's products have often been pretty ropey – the 175s haven't exactly been smooth sailing, and the 458s and 460s had dreadful reliability for several years until they were thoroughly overhauled.

 

[Tetragon213]

I think part of it was the decision to go for a diesel-mechanical drivetrain at 125mph. All the other 125mph diesel trains we have in the UK – and, I think, across the rest of the world – are diesel-electric. I'm not an expert but it doesn't seem implausible that the extra stress on the engine and drivetrain that this will cause is at least partly responsible for the poor mechanical reliability. That and the fact that Alstom's products have often been pretty ropey – the 175s haven't exactly been smooth sailing, and the 458s and 460s had dreadful reliability for several years until they were thoroughly overhauled.

I believe the Adelantes are actually diesel-hydraulic, which quite surprised me to learn about given Western Region's... "experience"... with the system in the past.

 

[stevieinselby]

I believe the Adelantes are actually diesel-hydraulic, which quite surprised me to learn about given Western Region's... "experience"... with the system in the past.

My understanding is that diesel-hydraulic counts as a subset of diesel-mechanical.
But yes, that gives even more reasons why they might not be winners of any golden spanner awards...

 

[43096]

Class 390 firmly excluded of course, as this, unlike the Junipers and Coradias, has consistently performed very reliably indeed.

Given that the 458s were for a time by some way the most reliable train in the country, that statement doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Further, the 390s are around 8400 miles per failure, which is bluntly at best average. They’re not much more reliable than the 180s and significantly less reliable than the 22x fleets.

 

[stevieinselby]

Given that the 458s were for a time by some way the most reliable train in the country, that statement doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

That was only after extensive remedial work – for the first few years of their lives, they were atrocious and had just about the worst record for reliability of any train fleet in the country.

 

[brad465]

I think they were probably quite glad to see the back of them tbh, since they went before the HSTs did.

To be fair, FGW/GWR really couldn't make their mind up on 180s, which spent over decade in and out so often they were doing the hokey cokey.

 

[Mikey C]

They were built with several Alstom systems from the start though, such as the Alstom Onyx traction motors of which a variant also feature on the far less reliable 334, 458 and former 460 fleets.

The Underground 95 stock also features Onyx motors

The 95s and 96 were fine in service, ditto the 390s, it's the Junipers and Coradias which sadly killed Washwood Heath, and largely took Preston down with them.

 

[cactustwirly]

To be fair, FGW/GWR really couldn't make their mind up on 180s, which spent over decade in and out so often they were doing the hokey cokey.

Tbf in the second stint they desperately needed more turbos for key Thames Valley commuter services. They were introduced at the same time as the 150s on Reading to Basingstoke

The 180s were on weekday Cotswold services which released 166s

First time around they were replaced by ex XC and MML HSTs (which retained the MML jingle)

 

[Grumpy]

What exactly is specifically wrong with them? Why are they so unreliable when the 22x and 175s (sometimes) are fine? Do we know?

This was covered off in an article by Ian Walmsley in Modern Railways a few months back.
From what I can remember of this the main issue is that the cooling system can’t deal with the heat from the engines, so to protect themselves they shut down. The suggestion was that the current timetables don’t demand so much power so the engines could be degraded in order to reduce heat build up. In association with this the body side valances should be removed to improve airflow around the engine/cooling area.
The Voith transmission has a built-in retarder but this can’t be used due to the heat problem and as a result brake wear is high with resultant high replacement costs. This in turn is compounded by use of a non-standard French braking system which has been unsatisfactory.
I think his conclusion was that the causes of the problems are known and can be dealt with, but that will cost money that no-one is willing to spend given the uncertain future of the units

 

[357]

This in turn is compounded by use of a non-standard French braking system which has been unsatisfactory.

That's interesting, I've always found 180 brakes to be pretty good - especially considering it's just friction.

Compared to a Voyager I'd say the performance is a bit better on a 180 - and it's possible to do a much smoother stop on a 180.

The infinitely sliding brake controller actually has 256 "software" brake steps, and you can put as little as 1/3 of a bar of brake if you so desire.

 

[43096]

That's interesting, I've always found 180 brakes to be pretty good - especially considering it's just friction.

From memory, when the problems with the dynamic brakes arose on the 175s and 180s, the solution/mitigation adopted was a change of brake pad type. 175s got the same pads as a 180 and the 180s got the same specification as a Eurostar 373...

 

[Clarence Yard]

As I stated before, the cl.180 units are the DMU equivalent of the cl.50 locos. Fine when they work but absolute so and so’s when they don’t. And they don’t want to work anywhere 100% of the time.

All the Alstom units of that era suffer from under design, which stems from a need to cut production costs. The 180 cooling system is a classic example of that cost cutting, the radiators are inadequate and removing valances will only add to the problem of muck getting in between the top of the engine and the top of the underframe - a very restricted space which is near impossible to properly access and keep clean.

Love the interior but underneath leaves a lot to be desired. And don’t get me started on the need to get the engine crankshaft exactly right for the transmission and vice versa. If you don’t, the engine will go bang in a big way.

A cl.222 is a much better train underneath and, for Hull Trains, it was a tad quicker too.

 

[Snow1964]

As an outsider looking in it appears to be an unholy combination of poor initial design and equally poor build quality. Sadly that appears to have been commonplace in Alstom products built for the UK rail market at that time.

Although 24 years since building, would have thought all the poor quality initial build would have been sorted, loose fittings screwed on properly by now, etc.

But poor design will still be there unless parts have been redesigned and rectified.

 

[Wolfie]

Although 24 years since building, would have thought all the poor quality initial build would have been sorted, loose fittings screwed on properly by now, etc.

But poor design will still be there unless parts have been redesigned and rectified.

Absolutely

 

[Grumpy]

That's interesting, I've always found 180 brakes to be pretty good - especially considering it's just friction.

Compared to a Voyager I'd say the performance is a bit better on a 180 - and it's possible to do a much smoother stop on a 180.

The infinitely sliding brake controller actually has 256 "software" brake steps, and you can put as little as 1/3 of a bar of brake if you so desire.

I think the comments in the article were not about the brake effectiveness, but the original design that meant that changing the discs/pads was a difficult process and did not use common British parts.
re Comparable Voyager performance I think the comment was that the Voyager engines had been de-rated for cost/reliability benefits and hence this being a suggestion for the 180’s.

 

[tfw756rider]

Grand Central may need to keep hold of some of Class 180s if running the Cleethorpes services, as only 9 sets have been ordered from Hitachi.

They could keep 4 sets and the other coaches go to Great Western Railway to make the 2 car 175s up to 3 cars.

The driving cars could then go in to storage.

A 175 lengthened from 2 to 3 cars by inserting a 180 intermediate vehicle as a centre car would result in a unit with 14-litre, 450hp, 2-speed driving vehicles but a 19-litre, 750hp, 3-speed centre car.

 

[Wolfie]

A 175 lengthened from 2 to 3 cars by inserting a 180 intermediate vehicle as a centre car would result in a unit with 14-litre, 450hp, 2-speed driving vehicles but a 19-litre, 750hp, 3-speed centre car.

Are they compatible in any way, shape or form? Feels like someone saying that because they are a product of the same manufacturer and design family at the same time they should just miraculously work together.... Perhaps in the 1950s....

 

[SolomonSouth]

Surely scrap is the only future for the 180s? I don't see any other TOC wanting 20 year old, unique, unreliable trains?

 

[Meerkat]

Surely scrap is the only future for the 180s? I don't see any other TOC wanting 20 year old, unique, unreliable trains?

Push pull stock? Get rid of the burny bits and have nice quiet coaches.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Push pull stock? Get rid of the burny bits and have nice quiet coaches.

I seem to recall they have corrosion issues.

I'm inclined to agree - scrap. Unless GWR want to take them alongside the 175s for busier services, the lower speed services would stress them less and so they'd probably not catch fire quite as often.