Should First Capital Connect get the 180s?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Julian G

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2005
Messages
3,511
Hi I spotted this interesting message by a User in Southern Railway Gen
silverlink_wcml said:
I really can see how stubborn that cow Elaine Holt is really is, i've
noticed in the First Capital Connect Forum in the First Capital
Connect Website, that she was talking about the 13 Southern 319s, Do
you really reckon FCC should have the Southern 319s, I don't FCC
should have them at all, FCC should get the 180s for their express
routes and put the 365s on Local so that the Ex-BedPans can go to the
Thameslink route and help out with the Overcrowding Issues

thanks
I really do Have a Point, as that Holt Woman is a Cow, she just wants 319
I just do hope that First Crapital Disconnect will get the 180s and the additional 313s when TFL has replaced them all with Plastic Junk
This is my plan of what FCC should do when they get 180s
Class 180s
London King's Cross-Peterborough/Cambridge/King's Lynn FAST
Class 365s Crapital Notworkers
London King's Cross-Peterborough/Cambridge/SEMI-FAST and Royston
Class 313s
Normal Routes, but hopefully MORE trains during the Rush Hour and Letchworth Trains
and so the Ex-BedPan Trains Class 317s should move to the Thameslink Route so There will be Extra Trains and there will be no need for the Disconnect Evening Peak Restrictions

So what do you reckon FCC should do?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

compsci

Member
Joined
2 Jul 2006
Messages
169
Location
Cambridge
180s or something else diesel powered are the only realistic short to medium term solution if trains on the Cambridge/King's Lynn route are to be made more frequent/longer.

The electrification past Royston was done on the cheap, so nothing longer than an 8 coach EMU can get past Royston. (Up to Royston comes off the same feed as the ECML around Hitchin.) The line north of Milton (village just north of Cambridge) is only electrified by a single feed from there, so nothing more than 4 coach EMUs can run.

Diesel powered trains obviously don't suffer from these problems, and could also go faster than the 365s on the ECML, potentially creating a few more paths. Cambridge station is currently a bit too short to allow 12 coach trains on both platforms, but as an interim solution it might be possible to use platforms 1 and 4 (which are continuous) together.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
17,909
Location
0035
Not *More* diesel trains under the wires, please :neutral:
 

compsci

Member
Joined
2 Jul 2006
Messages
169
Location
Cambridge
I suppose they could fit 12 coach 365s with bikes connected to dynamos to get enough power, and offer discounts to anyone willing to pedal, but that probably wouldn't be too popular with passengers.

The only other solution is to actually upgrade the electrification, but I would expect that to be quite a way down Network Rail's list of priorities.
 

devon_metro

Established Member
Joined
11 Oct 2005
Messages
7,561
Location
London
Thing is, if it's got OHLE use it! Places without need all of the diesel they can get! And yet more new trains being taken away from the GWML. I think the 180s are fantastic!
 

Sprog

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2005
Messages
1,315
Location
SPM
no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Its froth.
:roll:

I know exactly whats happening with the 180s.

Ahh, its fun being employed by the biggest Rail-operator in the country ;)


but sorry..commercially sensitive information.
 

southy39

Member
Joined
25 Dec 2005
Messages
95
Location
Lanarkshire, Scotland
what the hell...
how many times does this need to be said...
although the 365's were designed as dual voltage to in theory operate on thameslink.. they would not be allowed to do this and operate on through services as.. guess what....

the wonderfull health and safety rules say you can not use a unit on thamelink that does not have a front door/exit.
basically this is due to not having enough space down the side of the units to evacuate incase of an emergency in the tunnels.
 

Tom C

Member
Joined
4 Jul 2005
Messages
549
If anyone was online for the Managers forum they would know that whatever happens with extra stock the evening peak restrictions will remain.

Elaine Holt is quite stuck in her ways about stock issues and she thinks that all blame for the overcrowding on Thameslink lies solely with Southern and to be honest she is out of order using it as a PR exercise however there is an issue here. Southern don't need to operate 319's, they only work in multiple within class, they no longer work between Watford and Clapham so the dual voltage nature of the units are wasted and they could quite easily replace these units with 458's that are now struggling for work.

I don't see the point in using 317s because they will be heavilly restricted between Moorgate and Bedford and due to the nature of the timetable will only be used during the peak hours which is a bit of a waste but 319's would be the perfect option because there is no crew training issues, they can work all day and can work on all parts of the line

As for Great Northern Electrics well Yorkie and I spoke about this and I agree that 90's plus Mk3's could easily be implemented onto certain peak trains which would free 365's to strengthen the rest of the timetable but First will not go for this because of crew training, cost of hire, hurting wallets etc etc

I also work for First and they have started to ruin the Thameslink side of things and unless it stops it will be destroyed way beyond Thameslink despite Elaine Holt whittering on about how Thameslink was left when Go-Ahead left.

Britains Train Companies working together? - Yeah right
 

16CSVT2700

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2005
Messages
1,835
Location
Gdansk
no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Its froth.
:roll:

I know exactly whats happening with the 180s.

Ahh, its fun being employed by the biggest Rail-operator in the country ;)


but sorry..commercially sensitive information.
In other words.. shurrup and wait :)
 

class 313

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2005
Messages
6,477
Location
St Albans
I like her, she wants 319s! :D you cant put 365s or 180s on the line so stop moaning allthose who want it!

319s are perfect for the Thameslink run. So stop moaning "Lets have 180s and 365s"... 365s have thinner seats and what im aware of only have 1 toilet per train, also the front door issue is there. 180s well they suck before i start, they also cant go on thameslink due to the front end.

The only units that could go on would bee 377/5 or a 350 and from what i have heard it will be one of them two that will replace the 319s. TBH i would like 377/5s to take the 319s place as for one they are british made, they look good, they are more quiet than desiros, and they havnt got desiro in their name.

But for now 319s will rule the Thameslink route for years to come so like i said, stop moaning about 365s and 180s IT WONT HAPPERN!
 

compsci

Member
Joined
2 Jul 2006
Messages
169
Location
Cambridge
Who said anything about 180s on Thameslink? Through running to GN will only happen when the issues surrounding Thameslink N (N is an integer strictly greater than 2000 and hopefully less than 2100) are sorted out. If/when this eventually occurs there will be a refranchise.

The issue that may have been missed (and the whole reason that ticket restrictions were introduced) is that the 8 coach 365s currently running the KX - CBG route are standing room only in the evening peak. Everybody would like 12 coaches, but it's not as simple as running a 12 coach 365 because of the reasons outlined above. Hence the need for an alternative solution.
 

Julian G

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2005
Messages
3,511
I like her, she wants 319s! :D you cant put 365s or 180s on the line so stop moaning allthose who want it!

319s are perfect for the Thameslink run. So stop moaning "Lets have 180s and 365s"... 365s have thinner seats and what im aware of only have 1 toilet per train, also the front door issue is there. 180s well they suck before i start, they also cant go on thameslink due to the front end.

But for now 319s will rule the Thameslink route for years to come so like i said, stop moaning about 365s and 180s IT WONT HAPPERN!
what, You people really don't understand at all, I said 180s on Great Northern not Thameslink, I do know that they are not allowed

no , Coxster, I do Speak English like the rest of us, if you have a look in the Yahoo Groups they also mess up the name, Oh well, it's time for name change now, "Great Northern Thameslink"

Well 319/2 won't be going to the Thameslink Line for sure as they are banned from the line due to their seating arrangements, So if the 319/2s get another interior overhaul at Wolverton, then they will be allowed
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
4,346
Location
In the cab with the paper
Its froth.
As, unfortunately, is a lot of this thread also.

The electrification past Royston was done on the cheap, so nothing longer than an 8 coach EMU can get past Royston. (Up to Royston comes off the same feed as the ECML around Hitchin.) The line north of Milton (village just north of Cambridge) is only electrified by a single feed from there, so nothing more than 4 coach EMUs can run.
The electrification between Hitchin and Cambridge was done to facilitate the working of EMU's and, therefore, was planned and implemented as such. This is not doing something "on the cheap", but providing infrastructure to meet a purpose. It may prove to be short-sighted, but this does not make it "cheap".

Incidentally, 8 car EMU's can and do run past Royston. The only restriction is that they don't call "all stops" as some of the smaller stations do not have sufficient platform length. They can also run all the way to Kings Lynn provided that there are no more than five EMU's in the section between Milton and Littleport neutral sections, and five between Littleport neutral section and Kings Lynn.

I don't see the point in using 317s because they will be heavilly restricted between Moorgate and Bedford and due to the nature of the timetable will only be used during the peak hours which is a bit of a waste but 319's would be the perfect option because there is no crew training issues, they can work all day and can work on all parts of the line.
There are no restrictions on running Cl317's between Moorgate and Bedford (unless you know something about them that I don't). They were perfectly fine to operate such services before, so they should still be fine now. The only restriction they have is not necessarily being suitable for operating some Cl319 unit diagrams, as they are not dual-voltage. However, there were no problems with using them during the recent blockade. In addition, almost all Thameslink drivers "sign" these units. A quick traction refresher would be all that is required for most drivers.

That said, I agree that more Cl319's would be the best option for increasing the Thameslink fleet.

As for Great Northern Electrics well Yorkie and I spoke about this and I agree that 90's plus Mk3's could easily be implemented onto certain peak trains which would free 365's to strengthen the rest of the timetable but First will not go for this because of crew training, cost of hire, hurting wallets etc etc.
Nope. They won't do it because it isn't possible.

Even if they re-introduced loco-hauled peak trains to Peterborough (they can't run such formations to Cambridge due to the electrification restrictions), it wouldn't make a huge amount of difference. The number of units it would free-up might be enough to strengthen a couple of trains or to add an extra service, but that really won't do it. What is really needed is the ability to run 12 car trains regularly, which means more stock, longer platforms and an electrification upgrade. They also won't use Mk3 stock on their services for the same reasons why they wouldn't use Cl180's (which I am, by degrees, getting to).

180s or something else diesel powered are the only realistic short to medium term solution if trains on the Cambridge/King's Lynn route are to be made more frequent/longer.
The main reason why we won't be seeing Cl180's on FCC services (quite apart from whatever Sprog might be referring to) is that FCC run a suburban commuter service and these are not suburban commuter units. They might take the pressure off the electrification, but they are in every other respect unsuitable for the job. The other thing that is conveniently forgotten is that FCC's unit diagrams would make the introduction of a dedicated fleet of non-compatible express units difficult. Quite often an 8 car Cl365 will come down from London and divide at Cambridge with one portion going on to Kings Lynn and the other going back to London semi-fast.

The other restricting factors have already been hinted at. The platforms at Shepreth and Meldreth won't hold more than a 4 car EMU and nowhere on the branch will hold more than an 8 car. As for frequency, the timetable sees to it that no more trains can be run. Fitting fast, semi-fast and slow services onto the same stretch of track ensures that headways are tight enough as it is without trying to up the frequency.

one TN
 

Tom C

Member
Joined
4 Jul 2005
Messages
549
There are no restrictions on running Cl317's between Moorgate and Bedford (unless you know something about them that I don't). They were perfectly fine to operate such services before, so they should still be fine now. The only restriction they have is not necessarily being suitable for operating some Cl319 unit diagrams, as they are not dual-voltage. However, there were no problems with using them during the recent blockade. In addition, almost all Thameslink drivers "sign" these units. A quick traction refresher would be all that is required for most drivers.

That said, I agree that more Cl319's would be the best option for increasing the Thameslink fleet.
Sorry didnt phrase that correctly

They are restricted to ONLY operate MOG to BDM which means that 317's would only be used during the rush hour unless Thameslink rewrite the timetable to put off peak services into MOG. I am sure you know that during the last blockade 317's were running into St Pancras along with the 319's so they could be used on any diagram North of the river however with the normal timetable they would be doing nothing more than one or two return trips. 319's could be used throughout the day which would be useful on Bedford to Brighton which is generally quite busy throughout the day especially from Gatwick Airport. Not only that there are FAR to many BDM to BTN services during the rush (including one which starts at LBG during the evening peak which is one of the most unpleasent services I have ever had to work) which are 4 car and the 13 319's would mean that could be reduced if not completely irradicated save for failures and disruption.

Nope. They won't do it because it isn't possible.

Even if they re-introduced loco-hauled peak trains to Peterborough (they can't run such formations to Cambridge due to the electrification restrictions), it wouldn't make a huge amount of difference. The number of units it would free-up might be enough to strengthen a couple of trains or to add an extra service, but that really won't do it. What is really needed is the ability to run 12 car trains regularly, which means more stock, longer platforms and an electrification upgrade. They also won't use Mk3 stock on their services for the same reasons why they wouldn't use Cl180's (which I am, by degrees, getting to).
So it is possible just not hugely benificial

Just point out that First were looking at this as an option, obviously that doesn't mean they will take up the option but it was something that First looked at along with 321's so I am told although I am struggling to find where they would get spare 321's.

Not got an awful lot of knowledge about Great Northern Electrics save for the fact that locos and coaches were used on Peterborough "locals" in the past so I concede that point dear sir :s
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
4,346
Location
In the cab with the paper
So it is possible just not hugely benificial

Just point out that First were looking at this as an option, obviously that doesn't mean they will take up the option but it was something that First looked at along with 321's so I am told although I am struggling to find where they would get spare 321's.

Not got an awful lot of knowledge about Great Northern Electrics save for the fact that locos and coaches were used on Peterborough "locals" in the past so I concede that point dear sir :s
Erm, well, yes I suppose it is possible.

The last time that loco-hauled stock formed a commuter service to Peterborough was way back in the 1980's which saw a Cl91 hauling a set of "no frills" Mk2f's. If memory served, it ran down empty to PBO in the morning before running non-stop up to KX. It then lurked around somewhere during the day before forming the return working and coming back later in the evening empty again. Given that it only ran for a short period at a time when the Cl91's were being delivered, I'm not sure if this was supposed to be the start of a new service or a quick and easy way of accumulating mileage on the new locos. It was quite a sight running back to London with the loco on the front the wrong way round. :)

Either way, FCC wouldn't run non-stop to PBO now as anyone wanting to make this trip uses GNER services, and it doesn't help anyone living in between. Running it as a limited stop service (e.g. Finsbury Park, Stevenage, Hitchin, Huntingdon then Peterborough) wouldn't work either, as loco-hauled stock would need longer station dwell times than EMU's.

one TN
 

Tom C

Member
Joined
4 Jul 2005
Messages
549
Well there are two services that I suppose could be used with locos and they are the 1640 and 1707 from Kings Cross which are both fast to St Neots then call at Huntington and Peterborough but really that is clutching at straws :)
 

Mushroom

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2006
Messages
503
Location
Altrincham
Just to add my opiinon to the mix: I recon they should be moved up north to First TPE if TPE replace virgin to Glasgow. A 185 up there would be hell.
 

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
4,469
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
Just to say that hauled commuter trains worked a treat over here (Euston-Northampton) and were very popular with commuters. That said i really can't see them on the East Coast. Over there hauled commuters finished around electrification, although there was an out and back diagram which was 89001 or 91s for a while (ala comment of ONE TN).
Interesting you mention a 1707 KX-P'boro still existing, that was hauled in the 70s/80s!
Also, when did 91s finally axe the last Huntingdon stops, they were there in at least early post electrification timetable.

There are plenty of diesel routes gagging for the extra capacity the 180s can provide.
 

Tom C

Member
Joined
4 Jul 2005
Messages
549
Never found 321s very interesting but got to admit those GEC motors do scream when they get pushed, even I like 319's but on DC without the buzzing :P
 

Julian G

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2005
Messages
3,511
Never found 321s very interesting but got to admit those GEC motors do scream when they get pushed, even I like 319's but on DC without the buzzing :P
Welcome to the EMU Lover's Club :toothy10:

Liam- I will have my growl from the 37 on Sept 30!

I like it when the 321 roars inside the tunnel while leaving Euston
319s are superb :smile: Yep, of course! having been on one from West Brompton to Brighton! :santa:
 

Jim

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2005
Messages
3,162
Location
Wick
What you REALLY need is a nice bash from Cardiff to Rhy on 37425, 22? miles of uphill THRASH
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top