• 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!

Future of Class 180 Units Discussion

What is next for Class 180 units?

  • Scrap

    Votes: 46 20.9%
  • CrossCountry

    Votes: 28 12.7%
  • All to Grand Central

    Votes: 123 55.9%
  • Network Rail

    Votes: 8 3.6%
  • Used to test new ideas

    Votes: 8 3.6%
  • High Speed Logistics Trains

    Votes: 4 1.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 0.9%
  • Not Sure

    Votes: 1 0.5%

  • Total voters
    220
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,839
Location
Glasgow
That's a good point.

Put it this way, the full fleet would've allowed double units on some services and you could perhaps have dedicated the fleet to specific routes (possibly the Cotswolds, maybe Cheltenham being quieter than Bristol/South Wales/West Country), but with Hull Trains and Grand Central having much of the fleet it just became an awkward micro-fleet under FGW
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Inthewest

Member
Joined
12 Feb 2020
Messages
93
Location
The West
I don't understand why people seem obsessed with doubling up services.

TOCs hate doing it and either do for expected capacity or some sort of operational reason.

Having the front set as driver only, meaning no revenue or doubling up on staff are the two solutions that are not preferred in any sense. Passengers usually crush load on to one unit too - only in a capacity way is it good. No other at all.

The EMR approach will be different as the doubling up (to split en route) is planned and thus staffing will be at appropriate levels.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,839
Location
Glasgow
I don't understand why people seem obsessed with doubling up services.

TOCs hate doing it and either do for expected capacity or some sort of operational reason.

Having the front set as driver only, meaning no revenue or doubling up on staff are the two solutions that are not preferred in any sense. Passengers usually crush load on to one unit too - only in a capacity way is it good. No other at all.

The EMR approach will be different as the doubling up (to split en route) is planned and thus staffing will be at appropriate levels.

Perhaps they wouldn't have run doubles but they would've had the option, did the 180s run any peak services under FGW?
 

Mitchell Hurd

On Moderation
Joined
28 Oct 2017
Messages
1,648
Perhaps they wouldn't have run doubles but they would've had the option, did the 180s run any peak services under FGW?

They did - one regular one I understand was the 17:18 from Paddington to Oxford which was semi-fast to Reading then the once usual calling points from there to Oxford. From Didcot Parkway it was Radley and Oxford.

I caught this twice - the busiest was I remember back in May 2016 when it was full and standing til Maidenhead then only Reading to Tilehurst.

I was a bit disappointed when this changed to a Turbo (5 cars I believe) given the more InterCity quality service but then again a 5-car Turbo had more seats than the 180.

A 180 for just over an hour from London back to Didcot Parkway was fantastic as I was able to use my Off-Peak Day Return ticket from Didcot Parkway to London on that train back to Didcot!
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,839
Location
Glasgow
They did - one regular one I understand was the 17:18 from Paddington to Oxford which was semi-fast to Reading then the once usual calling points from there to Oxford. From Didcot Parkway it was Radley and Oxford.

I caught this twice - the busiest was I remember back in May 2016 when it was full and standing til Maidenhead then only Reading to Tilehurst.

I was a bit disappointed when this changed to a Turbo (5 cars I believe) given the more InterCity quality service but then again a 5-car Turbo had more seats than the 180.

A 180 for just over an hour from London back to Didcot Parkway was fantastic as I was able to use my Off-Peak Day Return ticket from Didcot Parkway to London on that train back to Didcot!

A 180 would be better than a Turbo but obviously an HST has greater capacity and would've perhaps be more useful in that respect in the peak particularly on a semi-fast run.
 

greatvoyager

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2019
Messages
2,426
Location
Exeter
They did - one regular one I understand was the 17:18 from Paddington to Oxford which was semi-fast to Reading then the once usual calling points from there to Oxford. From Didcot Parkway it was Radley and Oxford.

I caught this twice - the busiest was I remember back in May 2016 when it was full and standing til Maidenhead then only Reading to Tilehurst.

I was a bit disappointed when this changed to a Turbo (5 cars I believe) given the more InterCity quality service but then again a 5-car Turbo had more seats than the 180.

A 180 for just over an hour from London back to Didcot Parkway was fantastic as I was able to use my Off-Peak Day Return ticket from Didcot Parkway to London on that train back to Didcot!
I remember that too, but it was nice whilst it lasted.
 

greatvoyager

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2019
Messages
2,426
Location
Exeter
Put it this way, the full fleet would've allowed double units on some services and you could perhaps have dedicated the fleet to specific routes (possibly the Cotswolds, maybe Cheltenham being quieter than Bristol/South Wales/West Country), but with Hull Trains and Grand Central having much of the fleet it just became an awkward micro-fleet under FGW
That's the biggest problem, the fact that they are part of a microfleet and I can't help but wonder if they would've been more reliable with a bigger build of units. Seems like most of the time, they are seen as just an interim solution.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,512
What splitting en route is planned for EMR?
I thought about asking the same question. I think previous discussions found there were not going to be enough units for every service to run doubled, but it doesn’t actually follow from that that they need to split in service?
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,839
Location
Glasgow
That's the biggest problem, the fact that they are part of a microfleet and I can't help but wonder if they would've been more reliable with a bigger build of units. Seems like most of the time, they are seen as just an interim solution.

Not sure about reliable, that I think is endemic to the powertrain rather than the number of units. I do think if FGW had retained the whole fleet for their second period of use with them, it would've been more flexible and they might have at least retained them as long as the HSTs
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I feel it worth pointing out that the 180s were initially put into service to provide the new Paddington - Cardiff service (alongside the existing hourly Swansea HSTs), i.e. they weren't directly replacing HSTs, they were running an additional service, so the fact that they weren't as long as the HSTs was less of an issue (especially as many HSTs in the UK were a coach shorter before the shuffle around post-Princess etc)

They are looking fairly useless for the future (too short for most 125 mph services, too much space wasted with crumple zones etc for the kind of services that do need five coaches - most LDHS services are at least partly electrified so pure diesel is a waste), even before you take the reliability issues into account, but I cans see why they seemed a good idea twenty years ago (even if the story was that they were intended for routes like Rochdale - London?).

If they didn't have their initial reliability problems I would expect more would have been ordered so the issue of a micro fleet wouldn't be as much of a problem.

The prospectus that Arriva were handing out at Leeds station in around 2002 showed that they intended to run four coach 180s if they'd won the TransPennine Express franchise - there's an alternative timeline in a parallel universe somewhere where Arriva won that bid and National Express ordered 180s to replace the 170s on the Midland Main Line, in which case we'd have had quite a big fleet of them spread across the network (based on the numbers of each class that were ordered).

Obviously it wasn't to be, but I can see that it might be preferable to have a fleet of around a hundred 180s (than a tiny class of 180s, a fairly small class of 222s and a medium sized class of 185s).

I thought about asking the same question. I think previous discussions found there were not going to be enough units for every service to run doubled, but it doesn’t actually follow from that that they need to split in service?

It's getting late but my memory is that you'd need roughly eighteen units to provide a half hourly Sheffield - London - Nottingham - London - Sheffield service, and they've ordered thirty (?), so there's roughly enough units ordered to allow half of all diagrams to be doubled up (assuming say 10% spares/ maintenance etc), and the roughly nine hour duration of Sheffield - London - Nottingham - London - Sheffield would mean that the services arriving into London in the morning peak would be back in London to depart in the evening peak - obviously there's a large element of "back of fag packet" here but with just one type of train on all services through Wellingborough the dwell times at St Pancras should be a lot better than the current set up (and a fast northbound service can form a slow southbound service and vice versa), so it doesn't look as terrible as the numbers may suggest.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,839
Location
Glasgow
I feel it worth pointing out that the 180s were initially put into service to provide the new Paddington - Cardiff service (alongside the existing hourly Swansea HSTs), i.e. they weren't directly replacing HSTs, they were running an additional service, so the fact that they weren't as long as the HSTs was less of an issue (especially as many HSTs in the UK were a coach shorter before the shuffle around post-Princess etc)

They are looking fairly useless for the future (too short for most 125 mph services, too much space wasted with crumple zones etc for the kind of services that do need five coaches - most LDHS services are at least partly electrified so pure diesel is a waste), even before you take the reliability issues into account, but I cans see why they seemed a good idea twenty years ago (even if the story was that they were intended for routes like Rochdale - London?).

For the time in which they were introduced, it seemed to be the way of doing things; either increasing frequency or adding new services with new but shorter stock. Perhaps if they were 7-car they would've been more useful.

Wasn't there originally a plan for a one or two-car version of these back when FNW was ordering a mixed 100/125mph fleet?
 

Speed43125

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
1,142
Location
Dunblane
Wasn't there originally a plan for a one or two-car version of these back when FNW was ordering a mixed 100/125mph fleet?
I believe they were originally looking to order 2 car 100mph units and 3 car 125 mph units. Never heard of a one car post privatisation, that would be something though, having a one car 180!
 
Last edited:

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,839
Location
Glasgow
I beleive they were orignially looking to order 2 car 100mph units and 3 car 125 mph units. Never heard of a one car post privatisation, that would be something though, having a one car 180!

I remembered it slightly wrong, it was 100mph single car units:

When North West Regional Railways was franchised to the Great Western group in 1997, the package included the introduction of 70 new diesel vehicles to displace the 40-year-old 'heritage' stock still in service and to pioneer a service to London in competition with with Virgin, both from the Manchester area and the North Wales coast. Initially it was suggested that some would be 3-car sets capable of 125 mph for the London services, whilst the rest would be a mixture of one-car and two-car sets. GEC Alsthom were soon chosen as the constructor, and the inistal thought of single cars was revised to 2- and 3-car 100 mph sets plus 9 three-car 125 mph sets.
 

Mitchell Hurd

On Moderation
Joined
28 Oct 2017
Messages
1,648
Here's 2 hopefully good suggestions -

1. If Grand Central don't take them on when EMR have finished with them then could they be used for driver training? That's one way of avoiding constant thundering up and down 125mph too many times. Then again it's a 180 that drivers would learn to drive rather than a train in regular service.

2. Also, if they don't go to Grand Central, could they be placed into suitable storage for emergency / rescue trains - for instance if there's a train stranded in floods or a fully electric train that's failed between stations that may take hours for a diesel loco to rescue passengers?

5 coaches rescuing passengers from a train of 6 or more coaches yeah isn't ideal but way quicker than waiting for a locomotive.

Sorry if this sounds confusing but surely it's got to be better than scrapping high-quality InterCity trains - of course I mean trains with high-quality passenger interiors but a low-quality job for engineers.
 

greatvoyager

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2019
Messages
2,426
Location
Exeter
Here's 2 hopefully good suggestions -

1. If Grand Central don't take them on when EMR have finished with them then could they be used for driver training? That's one way of avoiding constant thundering up and down 125mph too many times. Then again it's a 180 that drivers would learn to drive rather than a train in regular service.

2. Also, if they don't go to Grand Central, could they be placed into suitable storage for emergency / rescue trains - for instance if there's a train stranded in floods or a fully electric train that's failed between stations that may take hours for a diesel loco to rescue passengers?

5 coaches rescuing passengers from a train of 6 or more coaches yeah isn't ideal but way quicker than waiting for a locomotive.

Sorry if this sounds confusing but surely it's got to be better than scrapping high-quality InterCity trains - of course I mean trains with high-quality passenger interiors but a low-quality job for engineers.
It sounds like an interesting idea, I just wonder if they would need rescuing themselves if they were to become rescue trains.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,839
Location
Glasgow
Here's 2 hopefully good suggestions -

1. If Grand Central don't take them on when EMR have finished with them then could they be used for driver training? That's one way of avoiding constant thundering up and down 125mph too many times. Then again it's a 180 that drivers would learn to drive rather than a train in regular service.

2. Also, if they don't go to Grand Central, could they be placed into suitable storage for emergency / rescue trains - for instance if there's a train stranded in floods or a fully electric train that's failed between stations that may take hours for a diesel loco to rescue passengers?

5 coaches rescuing passengers from a train of 6 or more coaches yeah isn't ideal but way quicker than waiting for a locomotive.

Sorry if this sounds confusing but surely it's got to be better than scrapping high-quality InterCity trains - of course I mean trains with high-quality passenger interiors but a low-quality job for engineers.

125mph route learning vehicles might be an option.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,369
125mph route learning vehicles might be an option.
For who, though? It’s not like there are plenty of drivers who sign them. If you really want this, a short HST set would be a better bet.
 

MB162435

Established Member
Joined
27 Aug 2017
Messages
1,259
Location
Penryn
Possibly use with Network Rail as 125mph test trains, would take the strain on the NMT HST set which at some point will become life expired, and could replace the 37/67 MK2 sets

Would take some conversion but given their passenger use is limited, it wouldn't be a stupid option and much better than scrap
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
The idea of using 180s as dedicated rescue trains gave me a good laugh. If you sent all 4 of them to the stranded train, one of them might make it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top