5 x 180s up for grabs

[ashworth]

I forgot about the Victoria service, I just went into Piccadilly mode because the service mentioned was a TPE one

I know that the servce mentioned was a TPE train from Piccadily. The train was fairly full on leaving Piccadilly but it was following stops at Salford crescent, Bolton and Chorley that the train got especially overcrowded. Saturday Northern services from Victoria to Blackpool North using a 180 could provide an alternative comfortable train for passengers from Victora and these stations.

 

[northwichcat]

If all East Coast services operated non-stop between Edinburgh & Newcastle, would 5x180s be sufficient to operate an hourly stopping diagram between Newcastle & Edinburgh?

The 180s have pretty good acceleration compared to the HST stock and it would be a perfect opportunity for Transport Scotland/NE England to jointly sponsor a service for the benefit of people on both sides of the border...

Not that it would ever happen...

It would be quite right for that idea to be rejected as it would be a waste of resource. I've caught services from Edinburgh southbound when the previous train has been cancelled and there's been absolutely no problems getting everyone on the train and seated. The 180s should be used directly or indirectly to prevent passengers getting left behind because the train is too full which is what's happening in various parts of England. This makes Manchester Airport to Newcastle and Manchester Airport to Edinburgh ideal candidates for 180s.

You also need to note that Berwick-upon-Tweed gets a lot of long distant visitors because of the sand dues so making them all change at Newcastle isn't a good thing.

 

[IanXC]

How about the following cascade:

5x 180 to Grand Central - gives them a uniform fleet
6x HST to CrossCountry - allows them to do an internal cascade with more HSTs on the core route and 220s for peak services on their ex Central routes
6x 170/5s to Northern - replace pacers

Not sure if CrossCountry use 170s in multiple? Potential also to transfer the 2x 170/3s to ScotRail and return 2x 158s to Northern...

Thoughts?

 

[ainsworth74]

6x HST to CrossCountry ... 6x 170/5s to Northern - replace pacers

Thoughts?

Where are the 6 HSTs coming from? GC dont have 6 HST sets. Same for the 170s, where are they coming from?

 

[northwichcat]

How about the following cascade:

5x 180 to Grand Central - gives them a uniform fleet
6x HST to CrossCountry - allows them to do an internal cascade with more HSTs on the core route and 220s for peak services on their ex Central routes
6x 170/5s to Northern - replace pacers

Not sure if CrossCountry use 170s in multiple? Potential also to transfer the 2x 170/3s to ScotRail and return 2x 158s to Northern...

Thoughts?

I can see DfT deciding in that case that Northern should get their 158s back from Scotrail and Scotrail get the 170s.

 

[TheWalrus]

Must we have 165s and 166s? At least the Chiltern ones are quite nice, but the FGW ones are bleedin' awful. Still, if they displace 143s I won't complain. Assuming they fix the stupid internal display unit things which never work probably and stream the same information year after year... (yawn)

I shall have a look at a revised timetable for the area. But what would become of Dilton Marsh? I assume some services would have to be extended to Warminster (because you can't reasonably stop a 180 at a tiny one-door halt! )?

Yeah they are getting new CISs. And like I said, they would be made more suitable for long-distance use.

Please get back to me or send a PM about your revised timetable, I would love to see it!

And you can stop a 180 there if it means you don't run a ridiculous WSB-WAR shuttle! Makes more sense than running an additional train for a "station" with 10k pax per year?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To run a Westbury - Bristol PW stopper it might be necessary to reopen platform 4 at Westbury otherwise there would be too many trains for two few platforms. Bath-Bristol's very congested so to run that service hourly (at minimum), it might be necessary to wait for Bath-Bristol to be resignalled.

After figuring out my proposed plans today (which aren't finished) I have scrapped the WSB-BPW stopper idea. The WSB-BTH is too conjested to reasonably fit them in, not too mention BTH-BRI. It just doesn't all fit in.

 

[RobShipway]

I think the best idea is to give them to ATW as I said previous and as someone else said in this thread use them instead of the class 57+mk2 coaches on the Holyhead - Cardiff which is more costly than hiring a DMU unit such as the Class 180.

I can also see ATW doing a Fishguard - Portsmouth service using a couple of the class 180 trains maybe?

Another, alternative is for them to be used for London - Great Yarmouth services so that Great Yarmouth has a regular service, not just in the summer.

 

[The Planner]

The WAG arent interested in them for the Gerald and Geraldine.

 

[Ivo]

Here is my completed timetable. I recommend viewing with two pages on screen for it to work best, but this may make the text too small to read easily. Unfortunately, I feel that eight 180s would be required. Bristol to Southampton services would use 3-car 158s; all others would use 2-car 150s.

A proposal created by thefab444 can be found here.

Version 2 can be found here

 

[Old Hill Bank]

The Chiltern Kidd-Brum-Marly services would suit the 180's
but would Chiltern want to change strategy?

 

[Voyager 2093]

The Chiltern Kidd-Brum-Marly services would suit the 180's
but would Chiltern want to change strategy?

It definitely would suit this service. But I doubt Chiltern would pull out of getting 67s and refurbished MK3s as they have already arranged for this to happen.

 

[tbtc]

The trouble with these 180s is that a class of five would be pretty unworkable at a big TOC, given the need to train staff/ parts etc. And Hull Trains/ Grand Central don't really need any more trains at the moment (plus I'd be reluctant to give modern five coach trains to Open Access operators whilst there is so much crowding on existing services elsewhere in the country).

So, how's about giving them to First Transpennine Express to use on the Manchester - Hull service, to interwork with the First Hull Trains Hull - London service (which I think goes clockface when Eureka happens, albeit not each hour). Gives them a common maintenance etc.

The displaced 170s go to Scotrail to release 158s elsewhere (Northern/ FGW/ ATW), or go to London Midland to release any remaining 150s elsewhere (since they are planning on keeping some 150s when they get the 172s?).

Leeds - Manchester needs better capacity, and the five 180s should be about enough to cope with that hourly service. Trouble with weight on the line around Selby is an issue, but 185s use it, and they aren't exactly lightweight machines.

 

[northwichcat]

The trouble with these 180s is that a class of five would be pretty unworkable at a big TOC, given the need to train staff/ parts etc. And Hull Trains/ Grand Central don't really need any more trains at the moment (plus I'd be reluctant to give modern five coach trains to Open Access operators whilst there is so much crowding on existing services elsewhere in the country).

So, how's about giving them to First Transpennine Express to use on the Manchester - Hull service, to interwork with the First Hull Trains Hull - London service (which I think goes clockface when Eureka happens, albeit not each hour). Gives them a common maintenance etc.

The displaced 170s go to Scotrail to release 158s elsewhere (Northern/ FGW/ ATW), or go to London Midland to release any remaining 150s elsewhere (since they are planning on keeping some 150s when they get the 172s?).

Leeds - Manchester needs better capacity, and the five 180s should be about enough to cope with that hourly service. Trouble with weight on the line around Selby is an issue, but 185s use it, and they aren't exactly lightweight machines.

From my experience the Hull-Manchester services have always been the least crowded of the North TPE and that reason combined with the weight problems is why TPE use more 170s on Hull services than 185s.

I'm not sure what advantage a fleet share with Hull Trains would have unless you are proposing that at particularly busy times on North TPE a 185 could run down to London and an extra 180 could go on to TPE.

 

[sprinterguy]

I think it's highly irritating that the Eureka timetable is being scaled down this way, so that it is only being delivered peicemeal. The supposed benefits of the restructured timetable are seeming ever fewer, although at least the London-York semi-fasts haven't been lost.

I would want to see the 5 180s going to a franchised operator rather than open access; the network is desperate for extra trains and I think the franchises should take precedence, as these are the operators most in need of extra capacity.
Personally, I'd like to see them going to either FGW, for the Portsmouth routes as has been mentioned above, which would free up 158 units to go elsewhere within FGW, or to TPE for either Manchester Airport-Glasgow or long distance north Transpennine services.

Of the two, I think FGW could make better use of them, as the problem with using 180s on TPE to displace 185s to work 170/3 diagrams is the aforementioned weight issues on the Hull services, which would mean that the 170/3s woud still be required so couldn't be cascaded anywhere, whilst 5 freed up 185s would be left with little to do (except bolster existing North Transpennine services). If it was possible to cascade the 170s (to Scotrail, releasing 158s to Northern or FGW) and use the freed up 185s more widely, it would be a more attrative proposition, but sending them to FGW sounds more sensible to me.

On the flip side, I can see the attractiveness of sending 4 to GC and 1 extra to Hull Trains (allowing them to undertake a wholesale refurbishment of theirs), to give both ECML open access operators standard fleets, the problem with that is the 3 GC HSTs that would be released are slightly non standard in their current condition in that they are only 2+5 formations, with no TGS either, so would be difficult to fit in with any operator unless they had a few extra mark 3s above the maintenance requirement lying around to insert in these sets to bring them up to standard, which is unlikely.

So send them to FGW!

 

[northwichcat]

whilst 5 freed up 185s would be left with little to do (except bolster existing North Transpennine services).

Not necessarily. TPE cut back the number of services they ran between Manchester and Preston to run the Scottish services without getting any extra stock. The gap has since been filled by extra Northern services - which was why the 180s went to Northern in the first place - they were the only spare stock. If TPE run an extra Manchester Piccadilly to Preston service every hour (one could be a Windermere service) that could free up some of Northern's Sprinters for other routes.

 

[bluenoxid]

The 185's could be used to take on existing Northern services. For example Manchester-Blackpool, Blackpool-York, Manchester-Liverpool or even Leeds-Sheffield on a wet-ish lease basis. There is no need to transfer staff.

This could release a couple of 158's or 156's to EMT.

 

[tbtc]

From my experience the Hull-Manchester services have always been the least crowded of the North TPE and that reason combined with the weight problems is why TPE use more 170s on Hull services than 185s.

I'm not sure what advantage a fleet share with Hull Trains would have unless you are proposing that at particularly busy times on North TPE a 185 could run down to London and an extra 180 could go on to TPE.

They are quieter, but I think that a five car train each hour would improve things greatly on the northern Transpennine route (reserve more seats on it to free up capacity on the other hourly trips).

I was thinking that sharing the 180s between Hull Trains and TPE would hopefully mean it was easier at the Hull end for spares/ drivers/ parts/ maintenence. I appreciate the two companies are operationally seperate (at the moment) but a fleet of five 180s *anywhere* in the UK is going to be awkward to maintain, so at least sharing them with another operator already using them would help. Not perfect, as I've said, but pragmatic

 

[CarterUSM]

Are the 180's completely unlike any other current dmu, that is to say, they are a 'stand alone' class with nothing else out there being similar?

 

[WestCoast]

Are the 180's completely unlike any other current dmu, that is to say, they are a 'stand alone' class with nothing else out there being similar?

Aren't they in the same family as the 175s? Yet the 175s obviously aren't 125mph!

Personally I think Northern should keep the 180s! Failing that, TPE could put them to good use relieving overcrowded MAN airport - Scotland services. They could use their full speed and capacity well!

 

[route:oxford]

Are the 180's completely unlike any other current dmu, that is to say, they are a 'stand alone' class with nothing else out there being similar?

They are based on the Coradia platform as are class 175.

Both were built around 2001, not sure if Alstom are capable of building further 180 or 175 sets.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

More's to the question. Who'd want them? They're unreliable and generally awful.

 

[ainsworth74]

They could use their full speed and capacity well!

As 180s can't tilt the highest speed at which they could operate on the WCML would 110mph. Granted faster than the current Blackpool route, but still short of their top speed.

More's to the question. Who'd want them? They're unreliable and generally awful.

They've been quite reliable for GC and HT, certainly far better than they were with FGW. As a unit I quite like them the internal environment is good, the noise levels (for a DMU) are brilliant and in that regard better than a 158. But at the end of the day there is a huge shortage of units so someone is going to take them.

 

[the sniper]

Aren't they in the same family as the 175s? Yet the 175s obviously aren't 125mph!

This is what I've been wondering. Though 180's and 175's are part of the same 'family', as you point out, I wonder how close they are to each other technically?

The Planner has mentioned that the WAG have turned them down before, but if ATW could maintain them easily (relative to other TOCs) due to their experience with 175's, surely it'd be a good idea for them to have them? Personally, I could see them being useful on the North Wales Coast during the summer as the 175's and 158's get pretty packed when the weather's nice; they could either run to Manchester or even Birmingham (though the 175's don't normally come down here nowadays, and (most?) 158's split at Shrewsbury). Manchester to Cardiff would also of course be suitable for them. So, if I were the Führer, sorry, First Minister, of Wales, I'd have the 180's on the North Coast in the Summer and Manchester - South Wales for the rest of the year.

Just out of interest, do the 180's have buffets? I don't think I've ever seen their buffets in life or pictures if they do.

 

[tbtc]

More's to the question. Who'd want them? They're unreliable and generally awful.

This is the problem.

We have several TOCs with serious crowding problems on certain services.

We have five "unwanted" DMUs. Reliability problems in the past, I can understand why nobody would ideally want them.

These DMUs are capable of 125mph.

However, none of the busiest routes really need 125mph operation.

Five trains isn't enough to run something like Manchester - Cardiff, or Norwich - Liverpool or Cardiff - Portsmouth, and it'd be an awkward number to train staff on/ maintain.

Yet you can't leave these units in a siding (whilst other services are turning people away)

Nice trains inside, if fully fit, but what else can you do?

Would *all* the 175s, plus these five 180s be enough to replace Northern's 158s? Thus cascading the rest to EMT/ FGW

I have half a cunning plan in my head, which puts all the 175s and 180s at one operator, and results in no operator running both 156s and 158s, but the maths falls slightly short right now. Not to worry, am only on version twenty seven; I shall persevere...

 

[WestCoast]

Just out of interest, do the 180's have buffets? I don't think I've ever seen their buffets in life or pictures if they do.

I have seen a small counter closed up on the Northern units!

 

[Ivo]

So how often do 180s actually serve Blackpool then? As I've said elsewhere, I am going there at least once this summer and have never travelled - or even seen! - a 180 before (one of only two non-Scottish passenger units currently in service that I have never seen; the other is the 333), and would like to use a 180 at some stage. Are there specific diagrams run by 180s?

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

I think you'll find that there are clearance issues regarding the use of Class 180s over the Southern's 3rd rail system as well as platform clearances to contend with, then there's the short platforms as well, in regard to going between Portsmouth and Cardiff. So I think that will more or less kill that idea off.

FGW don't want them back because they're so unreliable, the HSTs seem to be settling down OK now, yeah they have their off days, but when you consider the pounding they get day in day out, with regular 125mph running between Paddington, Reading & the West, it's not surprising.

Give them to ATW, they could use them on the Holyhead - Cardiff route, again subject to clearance & then transfer the 175's elsewhere.

 

[tbtc]

Give them to ATW, they could use them on the Holyhead - Cardiff route, again subject to clearance & then transfer the 175's elsewhere.

Giving five 180s to ATW to release five 175s elsewhere only means getting two tiny fleets at operators. DFT (for all their sins) seem to be trying to avoid this (hence splitting the Central fleet so that all 150/ 158s went to EMT whilst all 156/158s went to EMT.

 

[TheExmoorBeast]

I'd have thought a train that quiet regularly self combusts would be perfect for the fiery Welsh.

 

[tbtc]

I'd have thought a train that quiet regularly self combusts would be perfect for the fiery Welsh.

I like it; the Dragon Express