If Carlsberg made DMUs - the Class 175!

[BestWestern]

If you did that you have to account for the middle coach not having an identical seating layout to the end coaches.
This way the reserved seating is always identically laid out.

Hmm that's a fair point. This is what FGW do with their 'West' (Sprinter) services however, and it appears to work without any issues. The sets do have unusually numbered seats though, with reservations always beginning at seat 17!

 

[John55]

So essensially a new 100mph 158 based on a turbostar chassis?

What chassis?

 

[317666]

I would say the Class 175s are the best post-privatisation DMUs, very nice to travel on. Some of them are starting to sound quite knackered though, particularly 001: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AH4USpAyj4

 

[D365]

Alstom could have done so much better in the UK if their trains had been more reliable from the word go... Perhaps Washwood Heath would still be open if SWT and Dft hadn't lost confidence in them.

 

[tbtc]

First have a habit of ordering "unique" designs (175s for FNW, 180s for FGW, 185s for TPE) - interesting that nobody else has ordered any of these trains after First did (compared to Turbostars/ Voyagers which saw similar orders in future).

Then again, look how no other bus company has followed the "ftr" concept

If Alstom hadn't messed up so badly with the early reliability of the 180s and 175s then I think between them they could have sown up a lot of the inter-city and inter-regional DMU markets as apart from their appalling reliability (well to be fair the 175s are pretty good these days) they're very good units.

I totally agree - if the 175/180s were averagely reliable then we could have seen them (or something similar) ordered for various new builds of stock (MML 222s, TPE 185s etc), you could have had over a hundred ordered, and the 175/180 would have been the default DMU for new orders instead of the 170s.

I don't know if this was First North Wetsern or Alston's decision, maybe there was a good technical reaosn why gangways couldn't have been put in, but in that case why order two-coach units? A classic example of where the mindset of doings things cheaply leads you. Two-coach inter-city trains. :roll:

They weren't "inter-city" though - no need for the eye rolling.

They were built to do Regional Railways/ Provincial routes like Manchester - Blackpool and Manchester - Llandudno, replacing 101s/ loco hauled stock (partly by cascading Sprinters onto shorter routes).

 

[Schnellzug]

They weren't "inter-city" though - no need for the eye rolling.

They were built to do Regional Railways/ Provincial routes like Manchester - Blackpool and Manchester - Llandudno, replacing 101s/ loco hauled stock (partly by cascading Sprinters onto shorter routes).

You don't think ordering stock to that high specification, but only two cars and without gangways, warrants an eye roll?

 

[fgwrich]

Just to point out - Don't forget that the 180s were actually orderered by Great Western Holdings for North Western Trains planned Blackpool to London services. This of course didn't happen and were transfered over to FGW insted.

But i know what you meant TBTC

However, whether it's to do with reservations or future extentions - it is a shame that there were and still are two car 175s running around on the nextwork, and unfortunatly working such long distance services as Manchester to Milford Haven.

 

[tbtc]

You don't think ordering stock to that high specification, but only two cars and without gangways, warrants an eye roll?

I think that if you are going to criticise stock then you need to appreciate why it was ordered/ what it was ordered to do.

The 175s were never intended as "Inter City" - they were to replace slam door trains (101s, loco hauled) on "Provincial" services at a time when passenger numbers hadn't grown in the way they have since.

If you are going to complain about gangwayless DMUs on "Inter City" services then surely you should be talking about 170s (London - Norwich/ Hull/ Nottingham/ Derby).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just to point out - Don't forget that the 180s were actually orderered by Great Western Holdings for North Western Trains planned Blackpool to London services. This of course didn't happen and were transfered over to FGW insted.

But i know what you meant TBTC

However, whether it's to do with reservations or future extentions - it is a shame that there were and still are two car 175s running around on the nextwork, and unfortunatly working such long distance services as Manchester to Milford Haven.

I've never quite understood the maths of the 180 order - if they were intended for the FNW London services (which included Rochdale and Manchester Airport too) then fourteen seems a very high number.

I think the 175s are a bit of a poisoned chalice for ATW - they got the modern DMUs out of the FNW break up (which looked like "Wales" got a good deal) but it does mean that they cannot benefit from a common fleet of 158s - e.g. it would allow them to split some 158s to give three coach services like FGW have to Portsmouth.

 

[ainsworth74]

I've never quite understood the maths of the 180 order - if they were intended for the FNW London services (which included Rochdale and Manchester Airport too) then fourteen seems a very high number.

Could it be that the original order for FNW was smaller but when the decision was taken to move them across to FGW the number ordered was bumped up to enable them to cover the services planned there rather than their original planned services?

 

[tbtc]

Could it be that the original order for FNW was smaller but when the decision was taken to move them across to FGW the number ordered was bumped up to enable them to cover the services planned there rather than their original planned services?

It may well be that - but I've never seen it officially - I wish they'd ordered more though - it'd have been interesting to see how a seven/eight coach 180 compared to an HST.

 

[ainsworth74]

it'd have been interesting to see how a seven/eight coach 180 compared to an HST.

They might have made quite a useful replacement for the MML HST sets. An unpopular suggestion with some I'm sure but thirteen seven/eight coach 180s sound like just the right sort of thing to displace the thirteen HSTs on EMTs books.

 

[tbtc]

They might have made quite a useful replacement for the MML HST sets. An unpopular suggestion with some I'm sure but thirteen seven/eight coach 180s sound like just the right sort of thing to displace the thirteen HSTs on EMTs books.

The MML isn't a bad place for the 180s (if the stories about XC not being able to tale them due to Proof House tunnels?) - since they can't tilt they can't do over 110 on the WCML - the electrification of most of the GWML means that the one remaining unelectrified "main" line would make sense.

The trouble is that the maths isn't perfect (as I'm sure you appreciate) - if we could get rid of the need to serve Corby then maybe there'd be enough coaches to allow the HSTs to be replaced by 180s (with a few doubled up 222s dealing with the lack of HSTs)

 

[D365]

The trouble is that the maths isn't perfect (as I'm sure you appreciate) - if we could get rid of the need to serve Corby then maybe there'd be enough coaches to allow the HSTs to be replaced by 180s (with a few doubled up 222s dealing with the lack of HSTs)

How about re-opening the line to Oakham and adding extra 222s onto eVoyager, if it goes ahead with all Voyager/Meridian units. Bombardier could then justify refitting Litchurch Lane or opening a new factory possibly? I would like (not going to happen, but oh well!) Class 180 to run a "Pork Pie Express" to Melton Mowbray!

 

[Michael.Y]

You don't think ordering stock to that high specification, but only two cars and without gangways, warrants an eye roll?

There are 11 2-car units (175/0) and 16 3-car units (175/1), thus more 3-cars were ordered than 2-cars.

For comfort and facilities, the 175s beat 158s and 150s in every department, however compared to their British predecessors/colleagues, as someone who works them every day I cannot feel any warmth towards them.

Plus they have quirks (the sensor for the sliding doors being at ankle level for example) and moods (the sliding doors like to open and close on their own) and passengers can NEVER find the bins (tucked away in between rear-meeting seats.) Plus for seeming to the public's eye to be fairly modern trains, having no plug sockets is a massive turnoff for our pax. Plus the gangways are very narrow, and you have to make sure you have, as Tony Hancock once put it, a clear run before you step into them.

However, seeing how 002 stood up at Whitland, and having been on board when units have run over livestock and sandbags on the track, I feel more safe sat where I do inches behind the nose section than I do in a 158.

For being a French design built in Brum with an American engine being run by a Welsh rail company owned by the Germans, it's not done too bad!

 

[pemma]

I've never quite understood the maths of the 180 order - if they were intended for the FNW London services (which included Rochdale and Manchester Airport too) then fourteen seems a very high number.

I think there were also plans for 180s on FNW Holyhead services had the FNW London services got 180s.

I think the 175s are a bit of a poisoned chalice for ATW - they got the modern DMUs out of the FNW break up (which looked like "Wales" got a good deal) but it does mean that they cannot benefit from a common fleet of 158s - e.g. it would allow them to split some 158s to give three coach services like FGW have to Portsmouth.

The break up was done too much for political reasons. It also took what seemed like an eternity to get the diagrams and units sorted. There were ATW crews and units working FNW services and vice versa for quite a while after the changes had happened.

The TPE 158s fully refurbished retaining the First Class areas would have been ideal for the South Wales to North Wales/Manchester services.

Like I said before in another thread if you're offering a trolley service on a long distance service you should have corridor connections if multiple units are used.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For being a French design built in Brum with an American engine being run by a Welsh rail company owned by the Germans, it's not done too bad!

You forget to mention they are maintained at Chester, which is an English city despite the ATW branding all over the station and the automated station announcements there pronouncing all the Welsh place names correctly but getting a number of English place names incorrect.

 

[Michael.Y]

You forget to mention they are maintained at Chester, which is an English city despite the ATW branding all over the station and the automated station announcements there pronouncing all the Welsh place names correctly but getting a number of English place names incorrect.

Really? I for one have not heard of Llandidnor....

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I've never quite understood the maths of the 180 order - if they were intended for the FNW London services (which included Rochdale and Manchester Airport too) then fourteen seems a very high number.

As I recall there was supposed to be a mix of 175/180s on both franchises (GWT and NWT).
But when they took over First realised that 125mph was not viable on FNW and so they got all the 175s and FGW got all the 180s.
They could not have been used at over 110mph on the WCML anyway (no tilt).

 

[fgwrich]

As I recall there was supposed to be a mix of 175/180s on both franchises (GWT and NWT).
But when they took over First realised that 125mph was not viable on FNW and so they got all the 175s and FGW got all the 180s.
They could not have been used at over 110mph on the WCML anyway (no tilt).

Shame they wern't going for the Wessex Franchise at the time then, as we could have had further 3 Car 175 orders on the Cardiff to Portsmouth services.

Really? I for one have not heard of Llandidnor....

Yes, this infamous town of Llandidnor - ive noticed that it seems to pronounce Llandudno Junction, but she then invents Llandidnor.

 

[317666]

She also says 'Clandidnor', the correct way of pronouncing it does sound like 'clan' but not exactly.

 

[Michael.Y]

She also says 'Clandidnor', the correct way of pronouncing it does sound like 'clan' but not exactly.

Thlan

 

[317666]

Thlan

Always thought it was closer to 'hlan' myself, but in any case the announcement is still wrong

 

[pemma]

Really? I for one have not heard of Llandidnor....

It sounds like the double L is pronounced as a C when I've heard it.

With Llandudno I think a phonetic pronouncation at English stations may work better. Would a German tourist at Manchester know how the Welsh pronouncations work?

 

[RobShipway]

It sounds like the double L is pronounced as a C when I've heard it.

With Llandudno I think a phonetic pronouncation at English stations may work better. Would a German tourist at Manchester know how the Welsh pronouncations work?

My Granddad who is Welsh tells me that the LL is actually pronounced as an F so Llandudno becomes Flandudno.

Have travelled a good few years ago now on a Class 175 from Manchester to Llandudno Junction late one afternoon and found it more comfortable than the class 158 I went to Manchetser on that morning.

Having lived not far from the GWML, I have travelled on the Class 180's last time they where used by FGW, both on services to Bristol and to the Cotsworlds. I found them to be very comfortable as well and if they had been more reliable at the start, I think would have been a better train for the Cross Country services to be honest than the Voyagers.

I also, think that the 3 car class 175's would have been better with gangways to be used in the FTPE services, such that they could work with either class 158 or 156 DMU's.

 

[pemma]

Having lived not far from the GWML, I have travelled on the Class 180's last time they where used by FGW, both on services to Bristol and to the Cotsworlds. I found them to be very comfortable as well and if they had been more reliable at the start, I think would have been a better train for the Cross Country services to be honest than the Voyagers.

The Voyagers were probably more forward thinking though as there is the option for making them dual powered.

I also, think that the 3 car class 175's would have been better with gangways to be used in the FTPE services, such that they could work with either class 158 or 156 DMU's.

The idea of having a 175 working in multiple with a 158 or a 156 doesn't sound like a good one to me. Why build a 100mph unit and then limit it to 90 or even 75mph running by running it in multiple with a slower train?

 

[RobShipway]

The Voyagers were probably more forward thinking though as there is the option for making them dual powered.



The idea of having a 175 working in multiple with a 158 or a 156 doesn't sound like a good one to me. Why build a 100mph unit and then limit it to 90 or even 75mph running by running it in multiple with a slower train?

Well, having watched the Welsh Marches video from video125 lines such as this are limited to 90mph anyway, so why have a 100mph trains doing this route?

 

[pemma]

Well, having watched the Welsh Marches video from video125 lines such as this are limited to 90mph anyway, so why have a 100mph trains doing this route?

It sounded like you were suggesting they should have been on TPE services with the option of running in multiple with 156s and 158s. TPE could have 125mph running on parts of their routes if they had suitable stock and were given fast paths.

 

[HSTEd]

Do class 175s even offer improved journey times over Class 158s? They don't seem to have a significantly higher power to weight ratio and as robbies says, most routes in Wales are 90mph or slower anyway.

Whereas 100mph running would have quantifiable benefits on say... the West of England Main Line, as I can't imagine 90mph trains are helpful for pathing on the SWML sections while 100mph trains would be better, and probably shave a few minutes off the journey time even without linespeed improvements.

 

[tbtc]

The idea of having a 175 working in multiple with a 158 or a 156 doesn't sound like a good one to me. Why build a 100mph unit and then limit it to 90 or even 75mph running by running it in multiple with a slower train?

You mean like coupling 100mph 170s to 153s (which LM do daily)?

 

[pemma]

You mean like coupling 100mph 170s to 153s (which LM do daily)?

Exactly. Why introduce more of this when we need to reduce this sort of practice?

 

[4SRKT]

Exactly. Why introduce more of this when we need to reduce this sort of practice?

Maybe the practice of overcrowding is one that is more important to reduce, especially on lines that are 90mph max (or less) anyway? ATW don't have any 156s so they're not likely to end up coupled to 175s.

LMs coupling of 153s to 170s on the Rugeley TV line just suggests that 170s are overspecced for this run. How much 75+mph actually goes on on this line?

These examples show the madness of stock allocations. 100mph 175s on 90mph max lines. 170s to Rugeley. FGW using 150s on the West of England main line on runs as long as Cardiff > Penzance while ScotRail squander 158s on empty trains to Anniesland or Whifflet. A complete mash-up of mostly unsuitable stock on the Calder Valley (Northern 150s or ex-Merseyrail 142s being the grimmest). 'Hopelessly inefficient' BR would just swap the sets over. In fact it wouldn't because it would never have allowed such bonkerorisity to occur in the first place. Having recently sat in a 150/2 all the way from Cardiff to Fishguard and back my mind did wander to all those empty 158 seats trundling around Glasgow. The same thing happened a few weeks ago when the 20:21 Manchester Victoria > Leeds produced a 2-car 144.