Stock they should have built more of

[samuelmorris]

Archive.org seems to have a copy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050310215944/http://www.arpleyfields.freeserve.co.uk/151_page_2.htm

 

[Manchester77]

Archive.org seems to have a copy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20050310215944/http://www.arpleyfields.freeserve.co.uk/151_page_2.htm

Thank you!

 

[DT611]

the class 210 to have gone into full production, would have been interesting to travel on 1

 

[Manchester77]

Class 350/4 since when all 10 are delivered it will be nesacary to use 185s at very busy timess. If there were A few extra you could have more units doubled.

 

[jopsuk]

Sufficient 379s to run every Cambridge/Stansted/Bishops Stortford service using them.

 

[Wolfie]

While it is true that Class 180s are not cleared to use Birmingham New Street due to not being cleared through Proof House Tunnel, they could be cleared as ATW use 175s on several services from Shrewsbury to Birmingham International, 175s having the same body profile as 180s.

I have never seen or heard of a 175 on Shrewsbury to Birmingham Internatonal.

 

[Yew]

a.c. version of Class 442
16 5-car units for NSE out of Liverpool Street would have been a great replacement for the Class 309 fleet for services to Clacton-on-Sea/Walton-on-the-Naze. Not sure if there was a suitable a.c. traction motor available with sufficient power for a 5-car 100 mph unit, or if any a.c. version might have ended up with three motor bogies?

That would be pretty close to a 317 with end-door configuration instead of a commuter layout. sounds good to me.

 

[sprinterguy]

I have never seen or heard of a 175 on Shrewsbury to Birmingham Internatonal.

The 07:08 Birmingham International to Llandudno is booked for a 2-car class 175 at present, has been for some time now. There might be a couple of other workings, too.

 

[Erniescooper]

I have never seen or heard of a 175 on Shrewsbury to Birmingham Internatonal.

You have to be an early riser 1G28 05:18 Shrewsbury-Birm Int is a 175 everyday .

 

[61653 HTAFC]

With the exception of 142s (for which ideally I'd order more 143/4s instead if I could turn the clock back), pretty much every fleet that's been ordered since the HSTs allowed little or no room for growth, both in BR days and since. The most obvious example being the downsizing of the 185 order.

I'm not sure any more 156s would be much use, given their low-density interior and 75mph top speed- though if there'd been an extra 50 of those instead of 155s that wouldn't be so bad (albeit some might have needed to become '152s' much like all the BR-owned 155s became 153s). A few dozen extra 158s would be brilliant though- maybe we could try buying back the Thai 158s...

As for the 175s/180s- these are excellent trains today, though blighted by all the Lockhead-era Firstgroup fixtures & fittings. They could also have done with being a bit longer, but we could say that about almost all units.

I'm pretty sure that if they'd worked 'out of the box' from the start like their competitors (170s*/22Xs) did, then there may well have been follow-on orders. Given how troublesome the 175s in particular were, I can't blame TOCs/ROSCOs for selecting the more reliable product.

*Before anyone pipes up saying that 175s are nothing like 170s, they were both marketed as regional express units regardless of what opinions certain posters might have about door configuration. :roll:

 

[D6975]

I thought that it was intercity 250 and a full line upgrade, then when the treasury didn't have the money intercity wanted 10 extra 225 sets for west coast which again was blocked because there wasn't enough money and privatisation.

That's pretty much what I remember. The WCML upgrade was to be class 93 locos, Mark 5 coaches + DVT. Similar to what the ECML got, just newer, faster, etc etc.
The idea of using Mk 4s only came about as a result of the Mk 5 project being binned.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I posted that from a passengers' point of view, not an operational one. They've since settled down and are perfoming (reasonably) well.

They are similar to the 175s, so I'd have thought it was possible if it was ever required. Last time I checked London to Hull or London to Hereford did not require going through Birmingham New Street.'

If a train fails whilst in service then surely that influences a passenger’s point of view? Even now I often note that they fail for one reason or another which is hardly ideal to the likes of Hull Trains. A failed unit equals cancelled trains equals angry customers.

I've always included class 180's in the Inter-City bracket with some justification. It’s impossible to imagine why they could be considered successful when they are effectively banned from a major Inter-City station which Birmingham New Street clearly is. Surely you can see that?

In the 1990s, InterCity were planning to upgrade the West Coast Main Line using 225s: I was referring to the fact that had this happened, we wouldn't have had to endure Pendolinos on that route!

Yes I'm aware of that but I also wonder why the ROSCO is now so keen to replace the class 91's. The answer is that the class 91's are very expensive to maintain. The Pendolinos are much quicker and have transformed services on the WCML, something that 225's would have been unable to do. And I speak as a frequent and contented user on the WCML.

Yes, but the 9 car 222s were stored for about a year after they were built because there was no work for them... A great success there!

One year in a possible 30 years of use? They're now beating the pants off HST's on the MML. And how long were the class 180's out of use for?

 

[43074]

If a train fails whilst in service then surely that influences a passenger’s point of view? Even now I often note that they fail for one reason or another which is hardly ideal to the likes of Hull Trains. A failed unit equals cancelled trains equals angry customers.

Most train failures on the East Coast are due to freight; they rarely seem to fail nowadays. If you can provide a date for the last 180 failure on the ECML I might have grounds on which to believe your comment.

I've always included class 180's in the Inter-City bracket with some justification. It’s impossible to imagine why they could be considered successful when they are effectively banned from a major Inter-City station which Birmingham New Street clearly is. Surely you can see that?

But they're not ''banned'' - they aren't cleared. There's a big difference between being banned and not cleared. Did you read the comments on Class 175s at New Street? They could be cleared in the future, if that was ever required.

Yes I'm aware of that but I also wonder why the ROSCO is now so keen to replace the class 91's. The answer is that the class 91's are very expensive to maintain. The Pendolinos are much quicker and have transformed services on the WCML, something that 225's would have been unable to do. And I speak as a frequent and contented user on the WCML.

You don't know they wouldn't have transformed services on the route! They would have replaced 86s and 90s etc. on the West Coast Main Line, which by then were 30 years old anyway. If they transformed the East Coast Main Line from it's HSTs which werre only 10 at the time, so I see no reason why the same couldn't have been true of the West Coast in the 1990s.

 

[317663]

1) Class 317 (They have good acceleration, and seem popular by trainspotters)
2) Class 166 - 21 were built, and they're excellent quality.
3)Class 322 - duh, only 5 were built
4) class 506 - used on manchester lines, had sliding doors and similar traction to the class 313/507

 

[Beveridges]

I'm not sure any more 156s would be much use, given their low-density interior and 75mph top speed- though if there'd been an extra 50 of those instead of 155s that wouldn't be so bad (albeit some might have needed to become '152s' much like all the BR-owned 155s became 153s).

They should have not built Pacers at all and just built more 156's instead. Or at least, if you have to use Pacers, use them on short journeys, not busy long distance runs like Man Picc-Chester/Sheffield & Blackpool-Colne which are INCREDIBLY Pacer dominated routes even today and all these runs are over 1 hr 30 mins end to end!

 

[Manchester77]

4) class 506 - used on manchester lines, had sliding doors and similar traction to the class 313/507

But they were 1500DC so would have required some kind of conversion or scrapping. Wikipedia says the 8 units were used quite well with 6 providing service leaving one spare and on for overhaul. Also the 506s were built in the 50s where as the PEP class stock in the 70s..?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They should have not built Pacers at all and just built more 156's instead. Or at least, if you have to use Pacers, use them on short journeys, not busy long distance runs like Man Picc-Chester/Sheffield & Blackpool-Colne which are INCREDIBLY Pacer dominated routes even today and all these runs are over 1 hr 30 mins end to end!

There was certainly in imbalance in terms of the ratio of sprinters to pacers which was less of an issue when they were first introduced, as diagrams were simpler, with units generally dedicated to a single route or group of routes on any given day. Services were less frequent too, so there would have been far more slack in the fleet in 1988. Now, several services have been linked together within diagrams in order to reduce down-time and 'sweat the assets'- something Northern and ATW have to do, being expected to operate more services with pretty much the same amount of carriages.

But they were 1500DC so would have required some kind of conversion or scrapping. Wikipedia says the 8 units were used quite well with 6 providing service leaving one spare and on for overhaul. Also the 506s were built in the 50s where as the PEP class stock in the 70s..?

It's a shame the 303s couldn't have had a bit of work to get another 10 years or so out of them. I remember riding to Glossop on the unrefurbished one (046 or 048 I think, can't just remember). Would rather have had those on the Airedale than the 308s!

 

[RichmondCommu]

Most train failures on the East Coast are due to freight; they rarely seem to fail nowadays. If you can provide a date for the last 180 failure on the ECML I might have grounds on which to believe your comment.

I'm specifically referring to class 180's and not train failures in general. I'll have to look back but a class 180 service was cancelled out of Kings Cross the other week. I'll do some digging.

But they're not ''banned'' - they aren't cleared. There's a big difference between being banned and not cleared. Did you read the comments on Class 175s at New Street? They could be cleared in the future, if that was ever required.

In that case why design and build an Intercity train that is not cleared to run into one of the busiest Intercity stations on the network? How can you define that as being successful?

You don't know they wouldn't have transformed services on the route! They would have replaced 86s and 90s etc. on the West Coast Main Line, which by then were 30 years old anyway. If they transformed the East Coast Main Line from it's HSTs which werre only 10 at the time, so I see no reason why the same couldn't have been true of the West Coast in the 1990s.

I do because they are nothing like as quick as the Pendolinos and don't forget that there are a lot more station calls on the WCML which require much quicker acceleration. And with the class 91's reliability issues when new I can guarantee that they wouldn't have transformed the route. In fact it would have been a disaster. And hang on minute, the class 90's were not 30 years old when the Pendolinos were introduced!

 

[Manchester77]

It's a shame the 303s couldn't have had a bit of work to get another 10 years or so out of them. I remember riding to Glossop on the unrefurbished one (046 or 048 I think, can't just remember). Would rather have had those on the Airedale than the 308s!

Cracking units they were remember them from my childhood! Quite at least the 303s were the norths units not NSEs cast offs.

 

[transmanche]

In that case why design and build an Intercity train that is not cleared to run into one of the busiest Intercity stations on the network? How can you define that as being successful?

Surely trains are 'cleared' for the routes they are intended to operate? If they are not expected to work there, then there's no point in 'clearing' them.

If I've read the sectional appendix correctly, 91s and mk4s are also not cleared to operate through Birmingham New Street. Now they're an Intercity train and I'd hardly call them unsuccessful. But they've never been intended to operate through Birmingham, so they've never been cleared for there.

 

[Parallel]

I think more 175s would have been a good idea, perhaps more three coach units, as well as possibly some four coach units? They're good at what they do, and I'm sure, would be suited to a lot of other routes!

More 158s/159s, like many others have said would have come in useful - perhaps more purpose built 3 car units or some purpose built 4 car units. These are probably my favourite newer DMUs as they are so versatile and comfortable (well, the ones with the soft seat cushions are - if catching a FGW one then I always try to not end up in the 'hard seat' carriage.

Although I don't know much about them, more 180s would be great if their reliability was sorted. I don't know about the reliability issues, but I know they were used from Paddington-Temple Meads for a short amount of time, before they were withdrawn for this reason. Even with electrification slowly spreading across the UK, I think more longer unit DMUs should be invested into, and I'm not talking about Pendolinos!

I rather like 153s too - not so much when they act as one unit, but when they are attached onto other trains to provide more capacity at peak times. Not sure I'd want to see more on the network though.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Surely trains are 'cleared' for the routes they are intended to operate? If they are not expected to work there, then there's no point in 'clearing' them.

If I've read the sectional appendix correctly, 91s and mk4s are also not cleared to operate through Birmingham New Street. Now they're an Intercity train and I'd hardly call them unsuccessful. But they've never been intended to operate through Birmingham, so they've never been cleared for there.

The 225's were built specifically for the ECML and it's highly likely that at the very least the class 91's will end their life on the ECML. However as far as I know the class 180's were not designed for a specific route so one would think that they would have been designed to run into Birmingham New Street. I believe its called common sense.

Incidentally, if the 225's have been so successful why is the ROSCO apparently looking to replace the class 91's before they become life expired?

 

[transmanche]

The 225's were built specifically for the ECML and it's highly likely that at the very least the class 91's will end their life on the ECML. However as far as I know the class 180's were not designed for a specific route so one would think that they would have been designed to run into Birmingham New Street. I believe its called common sense.

After cancellation of the IC250 project, there was also a proposal to use 225s on the WCML. But just because they're 'not cleared' doesn't mean they are 'banned': it just means that no-one's done the paperwork to clear them. Why do all the paperwork unless you need to!

Incidentally, if the 225's have been so successful why is the ROSCO apparently looking to replace them before they become life expired?

I'll assume that this is a red herring, as you know the DfT's desire to have a uniform ECML fleet means that the 225s find themselves without any work to do. And by then they'll be around 30 years old anyway...

 

[RichmondCommu]

After cancellation of the IC250 project, there was also a proposal to use 225s on the WCML. But just because they're 'not cleared' doesn't mean they are 'banned': it just means that no-one's done the paperwork to clear them. Why do all the paperwork unless you need to!

Now then the original post referred to class 180's, not the 225's. If you decide to design and build an Intercity diesel train to peddle to the British you would surely ensure that the train could run all over the Intercity network?

I'll assume that this is a red herring, as you know the DfT's desire to have a uniform ECML fleet means that the 225s find themselves without any work to do. And by then they'll be around 30 years old anyway...

There is nothing to suggest that the class 91's could be withdrawn along with the mk4 coaches. By all accounts the mk4's may well end up on the GEML hauled by Traxx locos. The most likely scenario is that the class 91’s will be withdrawn, not the mk4’s.

 

[transmanche]

Now then the original post referred to class 180's, not the 225's. If you decide to design and build an Intercity diesel train to peddle to the British you would surely ensure that the train could run all over the Intercity network?

You're still missing the point. The mention of 225 was to demonstrate an electric Intercity train that hasn't been cleared to run all over the Intercity electric network. But it could operate over many other routes if the appropriate paperwork is completed.

Do you actually believe that it's physically impossible for 180s to operate through Birmingham New Street? Isn't it far more likely that as no TOC has proposed using a 180 on a route through Birmingham New Street that there's no need to fill in the appropriate paperwork?

 

[RichmondCommu]

You're still missing the point. The mention of 225 was to demonstrate an electric Intercity train that hasn't been cleared to run all over the Intercity electric network. But it could operate over many other routes if the appropriate paperwork is completed.

When the 225's were planned and built there were only two electrified Intercity routes in this country so running though Birmingham wasn't a consideration. And running 225's was clearly an after thought.

Do you actually believe that it's physically impossible for 180s to operate through Birmingham New Street? Isn't it far more likely that as no TOC has proposed using a 180 on a route through Birmingham New Street that there's no need to fill in the appropriate paperwork?

If it's just a case of signing off some paper work and the administration fee why hasn't this been done? Are you seriously suggesting that Alsthom were right to ignore this? Any project manager with a modicum of sense would have ensured that an Intercity diesel train designed for the British market could run through Birmingham New Street. Are you trying to suggest that this is not logical?

 

[transmanche]

If it's just a case of signing off some paper work and the administration fee why hasn't this been done? Are you seriously suggesting that Alsthom were right to ignore this? Any project manager with a modicum of sense would have ensured that an Intercity diesel train designed for the British market could run through Birmingham New Street. Are you trying to suggest that this is not logical?

Yes. They might only bother to do the paperwork based on the orders. Or maybe the task is down to the ROSCO or TOC to do the work, not the manufacturer. Either way it's a complete non-issue. Unless of course you have evidence to show that a 180 can't fit!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If it's just a case of signing off some paper work and the administration fee why hasn't this been done? Are you seriously suggesting that Alsthom were right to ignore this? Any project manager with a modicum of sense would have ensured that an Intercity diesel train designed for the British market could run through Birmingham New Street. Are you trying to suggest that this is not logical?

There's only a handful of 180s, and no TOC running through Brum uses them, so why would anyone (TOCs/NR/DfT) sanction the expenditure of sorting the paperwork if there'd be no benefit to it?

IIRC The original plan for 180s, had they had an easier introduction, was to run Blackpool-London services for FNW. If this had happened, it might have been worth getting them passed though New Street as a diversion.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Yes. They might only bother to do the paperwork based on the orders. Or maybe the task is down to the ROSCO or TOC to do the work, not the manufacturer. Either way it's a complete non-issue. Unless of course you have evidence to show that a 180 can't fit!

Why is it an non-issue? Surely a huge selling point for a brand new diesel Intercity train would be that it could run all on Intercity routes? Rather like when the HST's were introduced. Do you think they would have introduced the HST's without checking that it was cleared for Birmingham New Street?

If a diesel Intercity train is not cleared to run through Birmingham New Street than I would suggest that this is clearly an issue. If it's just a case of paper work being signed off why wasn't this done? Why is New Street different to any other station regarding the running of class 180's?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's only a handful of 180s, and no TOC running through Brum uses them, so why would anyone (TOCs/NR/DfT) sanction the expenditure of sorting the paperwork if there'd be no benefit to it?

IIRC The original plan for 180s, had they had an easier introduction, was to run Blackpool-London services for FNW. If this had happened, it might have been worth getting them passed though New Street as a diversion.

But if you were building a brand new diesel Intercity train surely you would ensure that it can run on all Intercity routes in order to maximise sales? Surely the onus would be on the manufacturer?

 

[transmanche]

Why is New Street different to any other station regarding the running of class 180's?

It's not. The train hasn't been cleared for other stretches of route it's not expected to operate on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely the onus would be on the manufacturer?

Why? It depends on what the industry procedures are for obtaining clearance. I have no idea what they are. Do you?