Extra carriages, 180s for FGW

[Schnellzug]

Very.

• Longer HSTs
• Additional Sprinters
• Getting the 180s back

What is odd is that they don't appear to be giving anything up; normally a TOC only gets additional units at the cost of cascading something else somewhere, so that there appears to be benefits around the country.

I've nothing against FGW, and the capacity certainly seems needed on a number of services, but to get such a big boost so late in the "life" of a franchise seems quite different to other TOCs (which only tend to get improvements in the early years).

There's the 142s, which will be sadly missed.



:-/

 

[sprinterguy]

Nothing for the Portsmouth-Cardiff line, they've had the same traction on that line since 1991!

The Great Western main line to South Wales has had the same traction since 1976, and the East Coast London to Aberdeen and Inverness services (and a few to Edinburgh, too), have had the same traction since the early/mid eighties.

My original local line, Sunderland to Newcastle, has been operated primarily by Pacers since they were introduced in 1986 (Although they have changed from 143s to 142s in that time; a retrograde step many may argue)!

I think the old adage of "if it ain't broke, then don't fix it!" applies here. If a particular train design is well suited to a route (Although in North East England we might appreciate pairs of 142s as a minimum by this point), then there's not really any need for it to be displaced within the course of its' intended design life.

In the case of the Great Western region though, things are destined to change quite soon anyway.

 

[Schnellzug]

..

Nothing for the Portsmouth-Cardiff line, they've had the same traction on that line since 1991!

True, but what they were talking about as a consequence of Electrification was nothing more than cascading the well-over-20-years-old 165s & 166s, so I think I'd say the lack of any Pronouncements in that respect was something to be grateful for. :-/

 

[jopsuk]

There's the 142s, which will be sadly missed.



:-/

That's nothing to do with today's announcement though, and isn't that in exchange for an equal number of 150s to the number of 142s, and thus a capacity increase?

 

[driver9000]

Any chance of the "new" HST carriages being upgraded to power doors ala Chiltern as part of their refurbishment/rebuild?

Is there much point fitting power doors until the other GW coaches are going through works to have them fitted?

 

[jopsuk]

(oops)

 

[tbtc]

That's nothing to do with today's announcement though, and isn't that in exchange for an equal number of 150s to the number of 142s, and thus a capacity increase?

Agreed.

Under the old way of doing things, I'd have expected an announcement like "Longer HSTs, additional 150s, return of the 180s" to come at the cost of (say) "...but the 143s are going to ATW", or something like that.

This announcement seems to be all good news for FGW.

 

[swt_passenger]

What is odd is that they don't appear to be giving anything up; normally a TOC only gets additional units at the cost of cascading something else somewhere, so that there appears to be benefits around the country.

That is totally illogical. If a unit is defined as 'additional' how can it be cancelled out by a cascaded unit?

But if you consider NEW units, such as the LM 172s, then you'd be on the right lines, in that LM have had all this new stock, but only by giving up nearly all the existing cascaded stuff.

 

[sprinterguy]

That is totally illogical. If a unit is defined as 'additional' how can it be cancelled out by a cascaded unit?

Seems to have been the case for Northern in the current cascade. All the publicity releases that have trumpeted from on high the arrival of fifty "additional" carriages, yet failing to mention the loss of four 156s (Eight carriages) and three 180s (Fifteen carriages).

 

[pemma]

That is totally illogical. If a unit is defined as 'additional' how can it be cancelled out by a cascaded unit?

DfT claimed the 322s are additional to the network, when the 380s that replaced them were additional.

The same with the 172s and cascaded 150s. They were both 'additional.'

 

[tbtc]

That is totally illogical. If a unit is defined as 'additional' how can it be cancelled out by a cascaded unit?

But if you consider NEW units, such as the LM 172s, then you'd be on the right lines, in that LM have had all this new stock, but only by giving up nearly all the existing cascaded stuff.

Seems to have been the case for Northern in the current cascade. All the publicity releases that have trumpeted from on high the arrival of fifty "additional" carriages, yet failing to mention the loss of four 156s (Eight carriages) and three 180s (Fifteen carriages).

DfT claimed the 322s are additional to the network, when the 380s that replaced them were additional.

The same with the 172s and cascaded 150s. They were both 'additional.'

Yeah, I'm using "additional" in the DfT sense of the word (as in "additional, for that franchise") - years of exposure to Government double-speak has obviously affected me

 

[pemma]

Seems to have been the case for Northern in the current cascade. All the publicity releases that have trumpeted from on high the arrival of fifty "additional" carriages, yet failing to mention the loss of four 156s (Eight carriages) and three 180s (Fifteen carriages).

What they fail to mention is the extra Northern services between Manchester and Preston were added in because the Voyagers were taken off the Manchester-Scotland route and subsequently caused a capacity decrease of 4 carriages every 2 hours between Manchester and Preston. Adding the extra Northern service in was only putting capacity back where it should have remained in the first place.

 

[swt_passenger]

DfT claimed the 322s are additional to the network, when the 380s that replaced them were additional.

The same with the 172s and cascaded 150s. They were both 'additional.'

The original announcement that described the LM 172s didn't say they were additional, it said:

"London Midland is already committed to introducing new trains into the franchise. The introduction of these new vehicles will facilitate cascades to other franchises..."

But it doesn't matter - the point being made by tbtc was that all incoming additional vehicles into a franchise must result in others being cascaded eleswhere - and that is not borne out by the evidence.

 

[tbtc]

the point being made by tbtc was that all incoming additional vehicles into a franchise must result in others being cascaded eleswhere - and that is not borne out by the evidence

Thats the way that things have worked for a while though, say you get ten additional/new DMUs, but at the cost of losing eight or nine older ones.

Thats why I'm surprised at the "all good, nothing bad" announcement here. Normally there's a catch somewhere...

 

[didcot]

How many of the existing FGW fleet of HST are 7 carriage and how many 8 carriage?

Looking back at old Platform 5 records in 1986 there were 31 sets - all 7 carriage formations. In 1988 there were 21- 7carriage & 10- 8 carriage formations.

Wondered how often they had changed over the years - thanks.

 

[sprinterguy]

How many of the existing FGW fleet of HST are 7 carriage and how many 8 carriage?

Looking back at old Platform 5 records in 1986 there were 31 sets - all 7 carriage formations. In 1988 there were 21- 7carriage & 10- 8 carriage formations.

Wondered how often they had changed over the years - thanks.

16 Laira based 8 carriage long distance/low density sets.
10 Laira based 8 carriage high density sets.
18 Old Oak based 7 carriage high density sets.

Assuming that they're the same as they were at the start of the year.

 

[Temple Meads]

Hang on, I can't see where it says what the 180's will be doing, what line will they be running on?

 

[The Planner]

I'd bet money on it being the Cotswolds.

 

[pemma]

Hang on, I can't see where it says what the 180's will be doing, what line will they be running on?

To me it implies they'll be used on non-Paddington 16x routes allowing the 16xs they replace to be used to lengthen existing 16x services out of Paddington.

 

[swt_passenger]

Hang on, I can't see where it says what the 180's will be doing, what line will they be running on?

The FGW announcement states:

Cotswolds

Five Class 180 Adelante trains will be leased and refreshed to replace most of the Turbo services on the North Cotswolds line between Worcester and London Paddington.

http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=5338

Which to be fair is only what everyone has been expecting for about 18 months...

 

[Blindtraveler]

knowing there reliabilitty they woant be used on anything as theyle be broken down in a depot!

 

[PhilipW]

Will Bombardier be able to convert the 15 Mark III Buffet cars ?

Helping Bombardier seems to the name of the game on everyone's mind at the moment.

 

[Nym]

They may be able to... But Wabtec Doncaster would do a much better job of it...

 

[fgwrich]

They may be able to... But Wabtec Doncaster would do a much better job of it...

Will Bombardier be able to convert the 15 Mark III Buffet cars ?

Helping Bombardier seems to the name of the game on everyone's mind at the moment.

You mention Bombardier, but would they still be able to bid for any work like this though? With the refurbishment side of Derby now closed off, the only other places such work could take place within bombarby is Crewe {Which seems to do very little these days, and hasn't worked on any of the Mk3 refurb for FGW} and Ilford {Which carried out the bulk of the Mk3 Buffet Cars, But are they still carrying out such work there?}...

In all honesty, i reckon that Wabtec will get the contract, not least because of the amount of work their plants have carried out on the Mk3s - Kilmarnock refurbished the last set for FGW (Ex Nat Ex East Coast EC64? & Grand Centrals Mk3 Mods), BRUSH - i think - has also carried out work on Mk3s, And Doncaster {Arriva XCs Mk3s, East Coasts Mk3s, Virgins Pretendolino}, But also the amount of Fleet Engineering Expertise suppliable through Wabtec these days!

(And as you say Nym, Doncaster would do a better job of it too!)

 

[Yew]

Damn, I was hoping that EC (or someone) would use them for lincoln services, as Lincoln wants more services, and would use more if they where regular. But EC dont have the stock for it, so they would have solved both issues. (even one or two of them could have put enough slack on the newark terminators to allow them to get to lincoln.

 

[fgwrich]

Damn, I was hoping that EC (or someone) would use them for lincoln services, as Lincoln wants more services, and would use more if they where regular. But EC dont have the stock for it, so they would have solved both issues. (even one or two of them could have put enough slack on the newark terminators to allow them to get to lincoln.

Judging by one of the reccent Modern Railways / Last weeks Rail Mag, it would seem that EC are more interested in using the Newark terminaters (Itself originally bound for Lincoln) and extending those up to York....These using and crossing into just about everyone else on the ECMLs paths!

 

[Schnellzug]

Damn, I was hoping that EC (or someone) would use them for lincoln services, as Lincoln wants more services, and would use more if they where regular. But EC dont have the stock for it, so they would have solved both issues. (even one or two of them could have put enough slack on the newark terminators to allow them to get to lincoln.

They did offer the 180s, but Elaine Holt was so keen to serve the public that she turned them down.

 

[robertbishop]

So Reading > Basingstoke will be operated as a micro-fleet of 2x 3-car 150s (the oldest ones of all) requiring 100% availability? Hmmm.

Good point, but I would've thought there are spare 165s at Reading.

 

[Class172]

Hang on, I can't see where it says what the 180's will be doing, what line will they be running on?

I also think (and hope) it will be on the Cotswold Line to replace current 166 operated services (not the HSTs) and this will allow 166s to increase capacity in the Thames Valley services.

 

[tbtc]

These 150s are toilet-less?

Wouldn't it be better to keep them on the self contained branch line shuttles in the Thames Valley (e.g. Windsor)? A much shorter distance to go without a toilet...