• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Not a good start for the FGW 180's

Status
Not open for further replies.

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
I can safely say Cambridge does not need an intercity service. It would be overkill, off peak all is needed is maybe a couple of 8 car trains on the non-stop services. Even that wouldnt be vital at all, but would be welcome. Capacity is definatly needed in the peaks, but not new trains. Just longer 365s, the speed is fine as north of Hitchin line speed drops and the door layout makes them ideal for when they run semi fasts. I know there aren't any more 365's but we certainly don't need HST type trains, mostly because all trains terminate at Cambridge. It's only the Kings Lynn and the XC services that regularly run as through services off peak, and only a few GA to Kings Lynn.

You're absolutely right. Oxford is different, since the Oxford Flyers can run through from the Cotswold Line and have to mix it with HSTs for the 40-odd miles from Didcot to Paddington. Something 395-ish might work, but only if it has inter-operability with other stock on the route. I'd prefer to see the Cambridge fasts running into Liverpool Street, so that they don't take up more paths through Welwyn. Still, that's probably impractical, and the current solution just happens to be what works best.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

1D53

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
2,667
To add an even odder angle to these test runs being cancelled GC have got 102 on hire!
 

NSE

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2010
Messages
1,727
You're absolutely right. Oxford is different, since the Oxford Flyers can run through from the Cotswold Line and have to mix it with HSTs for the 40-odd miles from Didcot to Paddington. Something 395-ish might work, but only if it has inter-operability with other stock on the route. I'd prefer to see the Cambridge fasts running into Liverpool Street, so that they don't take up more paths through Welwyn. Still, that's probably impractical, and the current solution just happens to be what works best.

You're right, if intercity trains to Newcastle or other ECML destinations could come through Cambridge stops on one or two services would be a good idea, similar to the Cotswold Line, but as most trains terminate there simply isn't the need. I agree with the fasts to Liverpool Street if it were possible, I'd like a fast one such as Stortford and Tottenham only maybe even fully non-stop, but hey one can only wish :P

(if we're really going for it, I'd like to see that train being 90+Mk4 hauled, down from an electrified Breckland Line calling at Thetford, Cambridge, Stortford and Tottenham, but thats another story :P )
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
but as most trains terminate there simply isn't the need.
The fast Cambridge services are similar to the fast Oxford services in that it's half-hourly from London with one train each hour continuing beyond Cambridge to King's Lynn like on of the Oxford fast services each hour continues towards Worcester. The use of intercity stock even on services that terminate at Oxford has been quite succesful. There are also advance fares from Oxford to London (as you'd expect with an intercity service) that are just £4 whereas the cheapest single from Cambridge to London is the Super Off Peak at £15.90.
 
Last edited:

NSE

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2010
Messages
1,727
The fast Cambridge services are similar to the fast Oxford services in that it's half-hourly from London with one train each hour continuing beyond Cambridge to King's Lynn like on of the Oxford fast services each hour continues towards Worcester. The use of intercity stock even on services that terminate at Oxford has been quite succesful. There are also advance fares from Oxford to London (as you'd expect with an intercity service) that are just £4 whereas the cheapest single from Cambridge to London is the Super Off Peak at £15.90.

Well advance fares would be good, no one can argue that. However why put intercity stock on a train when four carriages aren't full up off peak?
Well loaded yes, but not always full off peak. During the rush hour, yes it is a different story (of which I frequently use them) but I do not see any difference between how jammed they are compared to other four car emu services around London. Also, there are four other services to London.

And while Kings Cross is busy at rush hour, I'd also take a good guess and say Liverpool Street is equally if not possibly more busy due to it being in the City. So I think personally Intercity Stock on that route rather than KGX would be a better idea.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Well advance fares would be good, no one can argue that. However why put intercity stock on a train when four carriages aren't full up off peak?
Advance fares could be used to fill the empty seats. FGW intercity services seem much busier since the widespread introduction of advance fares in 2006.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
From my quick scan through this thread I didn't spot any mention of the RMT issue which is, as far as I know, still ongoing with FGW and these sets?

The RMT have raised a dispute over the 180 door system having been reconfigured by FGW to their original spec, whereby the Driver releases the train doors rather than the Guard. I've no idea what the situation was when they were new or why it wasn't raised back then, but at the current time the RMT has a policy of opposing the introduction of any non-existing stock at a TOC where the Guard doesn't have full control of power doors. When these units went to Northern, a modification was carried out to convert them to full Guard door operation, however the RMT claim the FGW undid this mod on the sly when the sets came back, and are now claiming that they can't do anything about it. The union has said that it is quite prepared to go into battle over the issue if it isn't settled. So, if these are crew training runs then is there perhaps an outside possibility that the cancellation many have been connected with the dispute?! - however, I must say that I haven't actually heard anything to that effect, it may well just be a simple train fault!
 

Captain Chaos

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2011
Messages
835
I guarantee that the cancellations are nothing to do with the union. The train is genuinely broken.

The crew training issue is odd. The union has stated that we are in dispute while at the same time allowing us to train on them. It's a daft stance too. We worked them how they are now since their inception, which the union came to a temporary agreement with FGW over. Now the union is saying it is unsafe to work them that way again (ridiculous, how can we possibly refuse) and the company says the modification would be too complex and expensive to do as well as not enough time (equally doubtful).

Yes, a ballot has been called but I very much doubt, from the conversations I have had with others, that a strike is likely to go ahead over the issue. It seems to be more a case of the union showing that it will strike over such issues now and in the future in light of the McNulty report. Although I think they are probably 20 years too late to prevent the spread of DOO on Thames Valley services tbh.

Essentially my view is that it is a load of hot air and machoism. I doubt anything is ever going to happen. Just my opinions of course.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
I would have to say that, in principle, I support the RMT's stance. Whilst it might seem daft or trivial, if the union is to do it's job and protect the role of the Guard, they need to be watching things like this. It might seem insignificant at the time, but we all know how a trickle can quickly become a flood. One has to bear in mind that FGW have seemingly spent time and money specifically removing a perfectly serviceable system of Guards operating doors, in order to return to a Driver-operated system - why was that decision made, and to what end? It's sad that it has to come to this, but the RMT are doing what they are here to do, and anyone who pays their membership should be grateful for that.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
One has to bear in mind that FGW have seemingly spent time and money specifically removing a perfectly serviceable system of Guards operating doors, in order to return to a Driver-operated system - why was that decision made, and to what end?

Because they wanted the train returned to the condition they were in when they first operated them and so that they matched the rest of the 180 fleet (it's only the 180s that operated with Northern that got modified to have the guard open the doors)?
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,252
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
I guarantee that the cancellations are nothing to do with the union. The train is genuinely broken.

The crew training issue is odd. The union has stated that we are in dispute while at the same time allowing us to train on them. It's a daft stance too. We worked them how they are now since their inception, which the union came to a temporary agreement with FGW over. Now the union is saying it is unsafe to work them that way again (ridiculous, how can we possibly refuse) and the company says the modification would be too complex and expensive to do as well as not enough time (equally doubtful).

Yes, a ballot has been called but I very much doubt, from the conversations I have had with others, that a strike is likely to go ahead over the issue. It seems to be more a case of the union showing that it will strike over such issues now and in the future in light of the McNulty report. Although I think they are probably 20 years too late to prevent the spread of DOO on Thames Valley services tbh.

Essentially my view is that it is a load of hot air and machoism. I doubt anything is ever going to happen. Just my opinions of course.

I'll agree with that, as this is not just how they ran upon original service with FGW but is how the L&TV operates today, with the guard required to make sure that it is safe for the driver to release and the guard closes the doors and gives the ready signal to the driver.

Whilst i havent looked any deeper into this, it's only the 3 180s modified by Northern that have this with the RMT calling for the modification to be rolled out to the rest of the FGW 180 fleet, but First returning them back to original condition, as per the rest of the fleet of the Adelants. This is because the RMT sees this as a method of bringing in DOO services undercover the cover of darkness.

And anyway, the only times the 180s can run DOO only is in ECS anyway.

Anyway, that's my stance / knowledge on the subject.
 

rmt-driver

Member
Joined
21 Dec 2010
Messages
289
Would be good to see the 180s call at Ealing Broadway as they used to do on Sunday mornings when they were with FGW before
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
Advance fares could be used to fill the empty seats. FGW intercity services seem much busier since the widespread introduction of advance fares in 2006.

You dont need IC stock to have advanced fares, chiltern and southern offer them on non-reservable stock. From a business point of view is a better not to have empty seats in the first place? London - Cambridge could be 8 car all day with APs to fill demand, but is it worth it. Yes to us, doubtful to a shareholder.

Just thinking as well the 180s will be a capacity reduction so the ap quota will go down. Give me a 365 anyday at least the seating layout is nicer than the high density Great Western HST.
 
Last edited:

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
You're absolutely right. Oxford is different, since the Oxford Flyers can run through from the Cotswold Line and have to mix it with HSTs for the 40-odd miles from Didcot to Paddington. Something 395-ish might work, but only if it has inter-operability with other stock on the route. I'd prefer to see the Cambridge fasts running into Liverpool Street, so that they don't take up more paths through Welwyn. Still, that's probably impractical, and the current solution just happens to be what works best.

Impractical from both a line capacity and speed point of view- Lee Valley is badly congested as it is (the numerous level crossing along there don't help). Plus, how fast did they manage the non-stop run last year? Pretty sure it wasn't as fast as a Kings Cross express. The viaduct section through East London is rather limiting.
 

NSE

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2010
Messages
1,727
Advance fares could be used to fill the empty seats. FGW intercity services seem much busier since the widespread introduction of advance fares in 2006.

We are talking a small amount of empty seats, and without meaning to sound snobbish, Cambridge is fairly affluent (I know Oxford probably is too) and full of plenty of wealthy foreign students. This means that yes, everyone would love an advance fare, but most people can afford it as it is.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
You dont need IC stock to have advanced fares, chiltern and southern offer them on non-reservable stock. From a business point of view is a better not to have empty seats in the first place? London - Cambridge could be 8 car all day with APs to fill demand, but is it worth it. Yes to us, doubtful to a shareholder.
Since 2006 FGW have significantly increased the cost of walk-up fares on some routes but at the same time introduced a range of very cheap advance fares and since then many trains have been very busy even off peak. It shows that this policy must work or FGW wouldn't have done it. The fact that Oxford was given an intercity service in 2004 and that it is planned for Cambridge to get an intercity service with the IEP must at least suggest that it's not a completely stupid idea.
We are talking a small amount of empty seats, and without meaning to sound snobbish, Cambridge is fairly affluent (I know Oxford probably is too) and full of plenty of wealthy foreign students. This means that yes, everyone would love an advance fare, but most people can afford it as it is.
You were saying that there is no need to use intercity stock on services that are not full off peak. FGW have shown this can work well.
 
Last edited:

D1009

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2012
Messages
3,166
Location
Stoke Gifford
There are also advance fares from Oxford to London (as you'd expect with an intercity service) that are just £4 whereas the cheapest single from Cambridge to London is the Super Off Peak at £15.90.

I think the main reason for this is the competition with the coach which IIRC runs every 10 minutes to London. Am I right in thinking this does not apply to Cambridge ?
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
zoe - cambridge is getting trains capable of 125mph for paths on the Ecml, not to give it an Inter-city service. The same reason as Oxford so you don't get 100mph trains wasting capacity. The fact that the only trains that could do this were IC style stock was the consequence. I would still argue that the seating of the Great Western HST is not IC, it is worse in layout than the 365s.

As for your empty IC stock, east coast (Newark services) and Grand Central (Bradford) also demonstrate the point.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
zoe - cambridge is getting trains capable of 125mph for paths on the Ecml, not to give it an Inter-city service. The same reason as Oxford so you don't get 100mph trains wasting capacity. The fact that the only trains that could do this were IC style stock was the consequence. I would still argue that the seating of the Great Western HST is not IC, it is worse in layout than the 365s.
Why not just order a 395 style unit for Cambridge then rather than IEP?
 
Last edited:

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
Why not just order a 395 style unit for Cambridge then rather than IEP?

Too sensiable, the government wants to show the IEP is needed so are trying to create uses for it rather than cancel the project. The Cambridge additions are just to make the batches bigger. The 395 would be the sensiable option.
 

Barn

Established Member
Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
1,463
I have to admit that a small, evil part of me hopes the RMT ballot will be successful, merely so I can see how the union tries to justify striking for that issue in its media releases.

Driver open / guard close seems a pretty good combination to me. You get a quick release at stations for reduced dwell time, but with the safety advantages of having the guard inspect the train from the platform.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Does the guard close the doors?
 
Last edited:

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,857
Location
Central Belt
I have to admit that a small, evil part of me hopes the RMT ballot will be successful, merely so I can see how the union tries to justify striking for that issue in its media releases.

Driver open / guard close seems a pretty good combination to me. You get a quick release at stations for reduced dwell time, but with the safety advantages of having the guard inspect the train from the platform.

Isn't that how it works on the 395s? Maybe even the 378s as well?
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
378, 220, 221, 222, 390, 375, 377...
So considering all these trains have driver open and guard close, why was it decided to have the driver close the doors on the Voyagers?
 

NSE

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2010
Messages
1,727
You were saying that there is no need to use intercity stock on services that are not full off peak. FGW have shown this can work well.

There is just no need for intercity stock, personally I think Cambridge fast services should be incorporated into the Thameslink fleet, but still terminated at KGX, because cambridge fast diagrams are interworked with Peterborough and Cambridge semi-fasts, and by putting IC stock on the Cambridge Fasts you're segregating those services and early morning/late evening/peaks stop at Royston and Letchworth. A service operated by a 180 type train calling at Letchworth/Royston/Cambridge is just a waste. 365's are perfect.
 

317666

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2009
Messages
1,771
Location
East Anglia
For the people saying that 8 car Cambridge trains are empty off-peak - they really aren't! Most of the time they're full with only a few seats left, and I use them quite a lot.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
365's are perfect.
But are only 100 mph whereas the IEP will be 125 mph. I expect if you asked Oxford commuters if they prefer the HSTs or the turbos most would prefer the HSTs and the IEP may well be seen as an improvment in service quality when it is introduced on the Cambridge route.
 

Bridge189

Member
Joined
19 Sep 2011
Messages
174
So considering all these trains have driver open and guard close, why was it decided to have the driver close the doors on the Voyagers?

I was told they didn't like the beep-beep,beep thing so much because it takes too much time and does not always work very well on busy trains. I wouldn't be surprised if/when the voyagers get a heavy refurb if that system was taken out and local door controls inserted for door close.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top