Future of Class 180 Units Discussion

[hexagon789]

Surely you’d want all of 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 for maximum micro-diagramming hassle...

Sounds like Chiltern 168s!

Would be very flexible if nothing else.

 

[Railperf]

I saw at least two 180's sitting at Etches Park but still in HT livery. They don't look ready for service!

 

[greatvoyager]

I saw at least two 180's sitting at Etches Park but still in HT livery. They don't look ready for service!

I just hope they are reliable, but based on past performance it’s not looking good.
Do you know if they were being worked on?

 

[Railperf]

I just hope they are reliable, but based on past performance it’s not looking good.
Do you know if they were being worked on?

I saw no activity on them whatsoever - and my journey was midweek. I'm assuming Covid-19 has halted any plans as the reduced service means there are plenty of 222's available and more than enough HST's to cover the timetable. Why would they waste time and money on stock that may never be needed - especially in view of the reliability issues.

 

[Domh245]

I saw no activity on them whatsoever - and my journey was midweek. I'm assuming Covid-19 has halted any plans as the reduced service means there are plenty of 222's available and more than enough HST's to cover the timetable. Why would they waste time and money on stock that may never be needed - especially in view of the reliability issues.

Because the HSTs aren't PRM compliant, whilst the 180s are. It's been discussed in another thread (possibly the EMR livery thread?) that depot fitters are currently undergoing training on them, and mainline driver training starts next month

 

[greatvoyager]

Because the HSTs aren't PRM compliant, whilst the 180s are. It's been discussed in another thread (possibly the EMR livery thread?) that depot fitters are currently undergoing training on them, and mainline driver training starts next month

It will be interesting to see if the 180s work well, but good to know they haven’t been abandoned.

 

[greatvoyager]

So as seen with EMR, the 180s are still unreliable so scrap is probably the most likely option.

 

[DB]

So as seen with EMR, the 180s are still unreliable so scrap is probably the most likely option.

Ever since the 180s were dispensed with by FGW the first time, the have only ever been of interest to anyone when there was nothing else suitable available (or not at a price they could afford) - hence the open access operator usage.

I guess it will depend on whether any operator wants four 125mph units after EMR has finished with them, and can't get / can't afford anything better. However, given that diesel-only units are increasinly being frowned on for long-distance services with a fair proportion of the mileage under the wires, and the age of the units now, there may be no takers.

 

[JonathanH]

The most recent copy of Modern Railways suggests that the equivalents of no less than 55 5-car 80x units will be released by GWR, LNER, TPE, Hull Trains and East Coast Trains as a result of the downturn - in that context there really isn't any future for the 180s.

 

[hooverboy]

Ever since the 180s were dispensed with by FGW the first time, the have only ever been of interest to anyone when there was nothing else suitable available (or not at a price they could afford) - hence the open access operator usage.

I guess it will depend on whether any operator wants four 125mph units after EMR has finished with them, and can't get / can't afford anything better. However, given that diesel-only units are increasinly being frowned on for long-distance services with a fair proportion of the mileage under the wires, and the age of the units now, there may be no takers.

For the right price,chiltern could probably make use of them.

The 180 flull fleet of 14 would be enough to facilitate an "express" service from marylebone to birmingham at 30 minute intervals,and would come in cheaper than the present CL68+mk3+dvt setup.
The other bonus with going to chiltern,is alstom is the OEM,and has production and maintenance facilities in birmingham.They should have a better understanding of the quirks and hence reliabiltiy should improve a bit.

 

[JonathanH]

For the right price,chiltern could probably make use of them.

The 180 flull fleet of 14 would be enough to facilitate an "express" service from marylebone to birmingham at 30 minute intervals,and would come in cheaper than the present CL68+mk3+dvt setup.

Why is there a fascination on this forum with trying to run an 'express' or enhanced service on the Chiltern line with whatever off-cast rolling stock it can get its hands on?

The current long-distance service on the Chiltern line is as good as it is going to get - firstly, there is a distinct probability that the DfT will direct the London to Birmingham traffic to the Avanti service and secondly, the pathing on the mainly two-track Chiltern route limits the service to what currently runs. Finally, 168s run most Chiltern longer-distance operations and probably offer the most cost-effective way of running the service - the class 68+Mk3+DVT set up is used on a handful of key services and no more.

We know that DfT policy is going to be to maximise fare income - "Our new deal for rail demands more for passengers. It will simplify people’s journeys, ending the uncertainty and confusion about whether you are using the right ticket or the right train company." This may include removing fares that undercut the primary service - eg potentially include removing any discount for using the Chiltern line relative to Avanti services. More to the point, Chiltern services are likely to have more stops once HS2 opens.

The other bonus with going to chiltern,is alstom is the OEM,and has production and maintenance facilities in birmingham.They should have a better understanding of the quirks and hence reliabiltiy should improve a bit.

Where are the Alstom production and maintenance facilities in Birmingham you are referring to? Yes, the 180s were built there but Washwood Heath closed shortly afterwards. I would guess that there isn't any knowledge about maintaining 180s at Oxley and it isnt exactly on the route.

 

[Domh245]

alstom is the OEM,and has production and maintenance facilities in birmingham

*had!

Washwood heath is long gone, and the only other Alstom outpost in the West Midlands is Oxley (apart from a legal office in Birmingham centre). However given what we saw about Alstom's complete lack of support back in that era, I don't think that they would have been much help anyway! Hell, by the time the 4 units are done at EMR, I suspect Etches Park will be as well versed in their quirks than anywhere else with Alstom shirts!

 

[hooverboy]

Why is there a fascination on this forum with trying to run an 'express' or enhanced service on the Chiltern line with whatever off-cast rolling stock it can get its hands on?

The current long-distance service on the Chiltern line is as good as it is going to get - firstly, there is a distinct probability that the DfT will direct the London to Birmingham traffic to the Avanti service and secondly, the pathing on the mainly two-track Chiltern route limits the service to what currently runs. Finally, 168s run most Chiltern longer-distance operations and probably offer the most cost-effective way of running the service - the class 68+Mk3+DVT set up is used on a handful of key services and no more.

We know that DfT policy is going to be to maximise fare income - "Our new deal for rail demands more for passengers. It will simplify people’s journeys, ending the uncertainty and confusion about whether you are using the right ticket or the right train company." This may include removing fares that undercut the primary service - eg potentially include removing any discount for using the Chiltern line relative to Avanti services. More to the point, Chiltern services are likely to have more stops once HS2 opens.


Where are the Alstom production and maintenance facilities in Birmingham you are referring to? Yes, the 180s were built there but Washwood Heath closed shortly afterwards. I would guess that there isn't any knowledge about maintaining 180s at Oxley and it isnt exactly on the route.

that may be the case,but 168's would be perfectly suited to the new EWR diagrams, and mk3's are ancient,no matter what hauls them.

the 180's,while not going full pelt,would offer a cheaper alternative to the loco hauled stock,better acceleration,and "updated" stock than is presently the case.Local traincare facilities are a total bonus.At 2tph that would be quite an upgrade,and the fleet size is just about right to see to that,wit a bit of wiggle-room for out of service/under maintenance units

 

[DB]

that may be the case,but 168's would be perfectly suited to the new EWR diagrams, and mk3's are ancient,no matter what hauls them.

the 180's,while not going full pelt,would offer a cheaper alternative to the loco hauled stock,better acceleration,and "updated" stock than is presently the case.Local traincare facilities are a total bonus.At 2tph that would be quite an upgrade,and the fleet size is just about right to see to that,wit a bit of wiggle-room for out of service/under maintenance units

So what if 168s would be suitable elsewhere? That's no reason to swipe them from where they are.

180s are not well laid out for a commuter operation (which is what Chiltern's main business is), and 125mph units are not necessary or ideal (wasted space at the ends, etc). it's also mainly a 2-track railway, so when they break down (which they will) it will cause a lot of delays.

Plus the Grand Central ones aren't even available! Assuming that GC survives the next year there is no indication that they will be available either - there has been no mention of any plans to replace their 180s at the moment.

 

[greatvoyager]

Based on everything that’s happening at the moment, looks like the only real option will be to turn 180s into razor blades.

 

[hexagon789]

and mk3's are ancient,no matter what hauls them.

And why does that matter?

Age isn't everything.

 

[D365]

And why does that matter?

Age isn't everything.

???

Bringing Mk3 coaching stock up to 2020 standards has been very costly. More so than anticipated.

 

[DB]

???

Bringing Mk3 coaching stock up to 2020 standards has been very costly. More so than anticipated.

But in the case of the Chiltern sets, it's already done so no issues there on that front.

 

[hexagon789]

???

Bringing Mk3 coaching stock up to 2020 standards has been very costly. More so than anticipated.

Depends on the TOC, some such as Chiltern's were done a while ago. Others were done because it was cheaper and theoretically quicker than new builds

 

[D365]

But in the case of the Chiltern sets, it's already done so no issues there on that front.

Ah right, I thought hexagon789 was insinuating that more Mk3s should be refurbished.

 

[DB]

Depends on the TOC, some such as Chiltern's were done a while ago. Others were done because it was cheaper and theoretically quicker than new builds

The Chiltern ones were done round about 2012, and so far as I know Arriva paid for the design themselves (they own the stock and are the parent company of Chiltern). They were planning to have a larger operational Mk3 fleet (they had bought up and stored a fair number of them), but in the end snapped up the ex-TPE 170s when they had the opportunity.

The figures I've seen quoted were about 250k per coach. Being plug doors they have to fit exactly, and the Mk3s are not built to tight tolerances which meant that getting the door leaves to fit was difficult. Only the four Chiltern sets had these doors fitted.

The more recent design fitted to a number of HSTs (with the design funded by Angel Trains) was intended to be cheaper (I've seen 125k per coach quoted), and the sliding door and pocket is a single assembly, so that the area could be prepared, the assembly fixed into place then welded in. Clearly it wasn't as straighforward as hoped given the delays to completion - although it's not clear whether that was down to the door work or other remedial work required on the coaches.

 

[hexagon789]

Ah right, I thought hexagon789 was insinuating that more Mk3s should be refurbished.

No, no. That wasn't what I was getting at. Understand your confusion now, apologies.

The Chiltern ones were done round about 2012, and so far as I know Arriva paid for the design themselves (they own the stock and are the parent company of Chiltern). They were planning to have a larger operational Mk3 fleet (they had bought up and stored a fair number of them), but in the end snapped up the ex-TPE 170s when they had the opportunity.

The figures I've seen quoted were about 250k per coach. Being plug doors they have to fit exactly, and the Mk3s are not built to tight tolerances which meant that getting the door leaves to fit was difficult. Only the four Chiltern sets had these doors fitted.

The more recent design fitted to a number of HSTs (with the design funded by Angel Trains) was intended to be cheaper (I've seen 125k per coach quoted), and the sliding door and pocket is a single assembly, so that the area could be prepared, the assembly fixed into place then welded in. Clearly it wasn't as straighforward as hoped given the delays to completion - although it's not clear whether that was down to the door work or other remedial work required on the coaches.

Indeed it has proved not to be, but the general principle was to be cheaper and quicker

 

[DB]

Indeed it has proved not to be, but the general principle was to be cheaper and quicker

It'll still have been a lot cheaper than new trains.

 

[greatvoyager]

Is it going to get to a stage where if a 180 unit fails, the TOC will just give up on it or do lease agreements mean they have to be repaired and kept in service?

 

[py_megapixel]

Is it going to get to a stage where if a 180 unit fails, the TOC will just give up on it or do lease agreements mean they have to be repaired and kept in service?

I believe the rolling stock company doesn't usually care whether the units are actually in active service or not, as long as they get their lease money.
However, there are generally stipulations about the conditions that they have to be handed back in, which means that either the maintenance has to be kept up or the TOC has to foot a costly repair bill at the end of the lease period.

 

[DB]

I believe the rolling stock company doesn't usually care whether the units are actually in active service or not, as long as they get their lease money.
However, there are generally stipulations about the conditions that they have to be handed back in, which means that either the maintenance has to be kept up or the TOC has to foot a costly repair bill at the end of the lease period.

The type of lease will also be relevant - if it's a wet lease where the owner pays for maintenance there's no advanage to the TOC in storing it in a non-working state, whereas if it's a dry lease the TOC has to pay and may, in some circumstances, decide to store it for a while before repairing it.

 

[hexagon789]

It'll still have been a lot cheaper than new trains.

Given the longer than anticipated time taken I wasn't sure of that remained the case

 

[greatvoyager]

I believe the rolling stock company doesn't usually care whether the units are actually in active service or not, as long as they get their lease money.
However, there are generally stipulations about the conditions that they have to be handed back in, which means that either the maintenance has to be kept up or the TOC has to foot a costly repair bill at the end of the lease period.

The type of lease will also be relevant - if it's a wet lease where the owner pays for maintenance there's no advanage to the TOC in storing it in a non-working state, whereas if it's a dry lease the TOC has to pay and may, in some circumstances, decide to store it for a while before repairing it.

Thanks both.