Great Western Coffee Shop

As we all know the current future for the Class 180 is with Grand Central and EMR, but if in the future that changes what other uses could they have?

I was told once before by someone they have the same engine and bodyshell as the Class 175, only a different cab.  So could it be possible to modify them to Class 175s and put them to use in Wales?

In theory yes, but TfW has committed to eliminating use of the Class 175s when it's new stock appears, so it's not immediately obvious why it would want to do that. And they have a dreadful reliability record, which means that franchise operators would probably have been wary of taking them on. Though with a return to franchises unlikely, they will go where the DfT says, though that won't be Wales, as it doesn't have any authority to dictate rolling stock here.

My understanding is that the 175s have become much more reliable with the TLC of Chester depot ... but even together, these classes are relatively small in numbers so none-standard, so they may not be very popular to take on.  Issues with spares, with mechanic knowledge, etc, over the years.

In the list below I have bolded all the high speed diesel trains (probably should not have included the 801)

Only 14 class 180 buit

27 class 175

27 class 222

34 class 220
44 class 221
(78 in group)

96 class 142

76 class 165
21 class 166
(97 in group)

100 class 125 / HST

114 class 155
42 class 156
(156 in group)

137 class 150

182 class 158/9

93 class 800
42 class 801
60 class 802
(195 in group)

For clarity I meant the Class 180s have a terrible reliability record which would make them an unattractive proposition, although I can see how my wording was rather ambiguous.

So what future do other's see for them? Scrap? Sell off to another country?

Impossible to tell, especially with the current situation making anything difficult to predict.  They will remain low down the list for operators purely because of their reputation, but situations like the one with EMR might occur and leave them as a viable option.

Indeed - I got what you meant and added another reason for reluctance.   Who would make a 'top choice' of a small, unreliable class?

The future of open access operations, where the 180s have been used quite a bit of late, will be very interesting with the collapse of the franchising model.  As it has been, open access has filled in the gaps that the DfT hasn't been interested enough in filling; with the business model for extra services changed beyond recognition, will anyone want to run them?   The DfT wasn't really interested before, what chance that they are now?

For standardisation, the 180s may have a short life like the diesel hydraulics, or they may find themselves a secondary line that requires around 8 to 10 unit diagrams per day and has at least some sections of fast running.


Interesting question. They are unusual models in the UK. Are they a design variant of something that's used elsewhere?

Cardiff Portsmouth anyone. Lower speeds may make them more reliable :-\

That gives you about 170 seats per train less than a 5-car Turbo.  Much more comfortable seats, mind you.

I would need to check on specific varieties but ...

3 car 158 (as used until a few months back) - 200 seats
5 car 180 (as talked about there) - 287 seats
5 car 165+166 - about 420 seats

The 158s were getting overcrowded BUT consider
- is 2+3 too crammed for a longer journey?
- when will we be allowed to sit that close anyway?
- do we really need the doubling of seats per train or is it overkill?
- Once MetroWest starts 2 per hour Bristol to Westbury, will that abstract a lot of passengers?
- How about passengers transferring to the second train per hour south of WSB when SWI to SOA comes along?
- Does end door work for this service with high intermediate traffic?
- Where is the front door on a 180 - can it realistically stop at DMH?
- Is there a buffet in a 180 and could it be taken out for more seats?

I did think about this and i'm sure someone else raised this question when i did some browsing the other night, someone said it would be a waste of a 125mph unit.   It's a shame the Class 172 is no longer being made, I'd imagine GWR would have put in a decent sized order, replace the entire mixed local fleet with a large batch of 172s in various lengths, 2/3/4 possibly 5 cars.

There was an order for around a dozen 4 car units very similar to the 172 for the Cardiff / Portsmouth service about to be placed a few years back - but electrification of the Paddington lines was announce and the displaced diesel multiple units were earmarked for cascade to the line, which is what has happened.

The thought occurred to me reading this thread - I assume the only reason  they have not already been scrapped is that their working life has been during a period of expanding demand for capacity. Had they been around in the 1960s they would have been culled long before their upcoming 20th birthdays. Having said that, when some were brought back to the GW system and some were used in some of the peak Oxford-Reading-Paddington morning services that called at all stations from Didcot to Reading, they were an enormous step up in comfort from the Turbos.

The capacity became a problem when  they were being substituted for 5 car Turbo services, which had much greater seating capacity as set out by II above, on some busy commuter services. I remember aggrieved passengers from Newbury complaining of this in the Newbury Weekly News at the time.

The key question - how much do they cost to run? If you can run one for about the same cost as a 158, then perhaps they might find a niche, but if they cost more than 50% more, it's difficult to see one.  

Old Oak Common really got the hang of them in their latter days: as a regular 180 passenger on the Cotswold Line, I don't recall having any mechanical-induced cancellations in their last few years. It's noticeable that their new stewards haven't been quite so adept.

As a passenger I slightly prefer them to IETs - they feel airier and the bike space is so much better. But then I don't have to repair them...

Only achieved with a very intensive and expensive maintenance programme.  No usage at weekends, and travelling ‘fitters’ regularly on board or meeting all arrivals at Paddington.

Class 810, 33 x 5 car for Midland Main Line, bimode, due to enter service during 2022
Class 803, 5 x 5 car for East Coast Trains, Standard Class Only, Electric, with buffet, delivery this year (2020)

Further 23 on order ... Rail Magazine (https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/avanti-confirms-class-numbers-for-hitachi-train-order)
13 x 805 (Bimode) and 10 x 807 (Electric) for Avanti, delivery 2022.

I make that 255 units in total.

DfT, the ROSCOs and ToC's will and are focusing on some standard products from the manufactures.  A uniformity of trains and traction units manages to keep the operating costs down.  Many of the trains are now maintained by the manufacture at depots they manage and operate.

BR had started on this route, Mk2 coaches then the Mk3 and HST, its Networker fleet, BR had started to eradicate different classes of locomotives

Yet it's taken the privatised rail industry 24 years to work it out! Hopefully by 2024 Cross Country will be added to that list of IET operators, whilst they(IETs) have their downfalls, the majority of which I hope will be fixed in the future during overhauls they aren't bad trains. I do wonder in the future if Hitachi might release a regional dmu, a mix between a Class 385 & a Class 800.

I suspect the DfT will judge that the best reuse of the glut of Voyagers (and possibly Meridians) being released by Avanti and EMR will be on Cross Country. I hope the Voyagers will get a thorough overhaul to make them more spacious inside, and more suitable for longer distance journeys. They are due one after nigh on 20 years in service, and with more rolling stock available, hopefully the seat pitch/table provision can be more akin to the IETs.  If they don't get it now, then I suspect they will go their whole life in more or less the original state, which would be a very depressing thought for passengers.

Probably the most likely scenario, the voyagers are fine for us on shorter intercity services, Hull Trains, Transpennie. But for Crosscounty they are certainly not.

I think that the Meridians are cousins of the Voyagers?  So some commonality in maintenance and skills in a fleet of over 100 trains.  And a very different prospect to a fleet of 14 trains which has proven difficult and expensive to keep in daily service.

By "shorter intercity services", what do you mean?   Do you mean services that don't take very long, services that don't cover long distances, or services that don't need many carriages?   Although many Cross Country Train franchise services cover long, long distances taking a very long time, most of the passengers on them aren't going all that far.   Business from Bristol or south thereof to Newcastle or north thereof will account for perhaps just a handful of seats in a carriage, and you'll find if you talk to most groups on there that they're travelling from Exeter or Taunton to Bristol, from Bristol to Birmingham, Birmingham to Sheffield or Sheffield to Newcastle.  Domestic air travel in recent years has ripped away most of the very long distance traffic on speed, on price, on comfort / experience and on marketing.

Operationally, no problem for a Voyager to run from Penzance to Aberdeen. Operationally, no problem to couple two Voyagers together.  For current market (as it was up to very recently) shorter journeys by almost all passengers on the trains.  Not sure why Voyagers are "certainly not" fine for these journeys but they are for Hull to London or for Manchester to Edinburgh - perhaps you can clarify why you are certain, southwest?

As one of the few members of this forum who finds Voyagers acceptable, even for long distances, can I add in their defence too that I did a journey from Inverness to Reading nearly 5 years ago, changing from an HST 125 to a Voyager at Newcastle and the seats on the Voyager were much more comfortable than those on the Virgin East Coast HST.

I appreciate that compared to a 180, there's a lot more space in the latter, but the fact that there are only 14 of them with no repeat orders and a history of being sent back to the lessors speaks for itself.

The real issue on Cross country is overcrowding. Due to the trains being to short for the number of passengers in the core area ie Bristol-York/Manchester and Reading/York/Manchester.
When Voyagers get crowded they become extremly Claustrophobic due to the reduced width of the coaches (to allow for tilt that is no longer used). This also applies to Meridians I had a very unplesant trip from St Pancras to Derby on one last year.

If the Ex West coast Voyagers and the Meridians are added to Cross country it will Improve things but idealy the fleet needs some major metalwork to produce longer trains by removing some cabs.

One problem in the GWR area is going to be capacity at Reading currently Cross country make use of the Bays especialy platform 3 this will not be possible with longer units or 2 coupled. Arriving from the north with 2 units and leaving 1 at Reading is going to require a full length platform being occupied for about 30 minutes Network rail will not like that.

Remember 1S76 (http://www.1s76.com/1S76%202007.htm) ... front unit onwards again via the North Downs line while the rear heads to / via Southampton?      Agreed on the overcrowding ... any other splits at the end of the core section?

Hitachi have basically 3 types of trains they offer, intercity type (800's) they have a regional unit as well as a suburban they did bid for both Crossrail and TLP.  They have put forward designs for LUL stock as well

There is one service that runs south from the north east in the Evening peak as far as Gloucester as 2 units then splits one unit continues to Plymouth and the other returns ECS to Central rivers via Worcester Shrub hill.
The last time I used it (from Sheffield at 5pm to New street) it was short formed!

OK - so it's over two months since I darkened the doors of Reading Station, but at the times I usually travel/travelled through they use/used other through platforms, especially 7 and 8 which are/were frequently both occupied in the early evening by Cross Country trains. There are now 8 through platforms, double the number before, so surely there's capacity?

I'm suspecting it goes via Worcester for route learning?    South of Birmingham, with a statistically insignificant small number of personal journeys under my belt (one!) I suspect 1 unit would be plenty.

The difference in ride quality between them and 125's was noticeable at speed. Can work/make notes happily most of the time on a 125 or 80x, but 180s were usually too bouncy

Quite a lot of them, at a guess well over half, are running as 8/9 cars at the moment due to the reduction in numbers of XC services.

Short intercity journey's - I did already state this Hull Trains, Transpennine services (Instead of Class 800s). Cardiff to Penzance being another example.  Whilst it might make sense to have a 4 coach voyager from Penzance as far as Exeter, beyond Exeter the train often get's very busy until Birmingham, the problem being that the voyagers are spreaded so thinly it's not possible to double them up like GWR do with the IET's.  Even if the Meridians joined XC it's currently not possible for them to couple up to a 220 or 221. Even if XC get all the voyager fleet, is that going to be able to cover the demand?

I also remember reading up when the Voyagers we're introduced that their testing and designed was originally for services in the North of England (Such as Transpennine), they we're never intended by the manufacturer to be used on Penzance to Aberdeen services.

The way I see it a fleet of Class 802s (5 and 9 car) would better suit XC business, here's why.
1) By the time a new fleet could be ordered in 2024, most of XC network will be near Hitachi or IET depots. GWR in the SW, LNER in the NW & Scotland, Avanti in the NW & Birmingham, meaning maintenance can be outsourced to Hitachi or other operators.
2) Having a more consistent fleet would make for easier diagramming and replacements, reducing cancellations, staff training would be on all one fleet, so diversions via Exeter Central for example would be possible (I don't believe it is currently with the Voyagers)
3) XC would be able to make use of electrified parts of the network, something the voyagers can't currently do, reducing their fuel bill, emissions etc.

And yes people will disagree, but let's remind ourselves that British Rail did something very similar back in the 70/80s removing small, expensive fleets to more generic ones.

Even if XC get all the voyager fleet, is that going to be able to cover the demand?

Adding the 100 or so Voyage vehicles from Avanti would be a big step up from the current fleet, more so if you added the Meridians. I doubt DfT would sanction both of those.

I also remember reading up when the Voyagers we're introduced that their testing and designed was originally for services in the North of England (Such as Transpennine), they we're never intended by the manufacturer to be used on Penzance to Aberdeen services.

I'm not sure that is my recollection. They were very clearly ordered for the XC network.

The way I see it a fleet of Class 802s (5 and 9 car) would better suit XC business, here's why.
1) By the time a new fleet could be ordered in 2024, most of XC network will be near Hitachi or IET depots. GWR in the SW, LNER in the NW & Scotland, Avanti in the NW & Birmingham, meaning maintenance can be outsourced to Hitachi or other operators.

I doubt those depots have been built with an expectation of a much bigger volume of work, and it could be hugely expensive, if at all possible due to space constraints, to increase their capacity.


2) Having a more consistent fleet would make for easier diagramming and replacements, reducing cancellations, staff training would be on all one fleet, so diversions via Exeter Central for example would be possible (I don't believe it is currently with the Voyagers)

The XC fleet as it is very consistent (except for the handful of HST's), so I'm not sure how that would be improved. Unless you are suggesting cooperation between TOC's which would be a big departure from the current situation.

 
3) XC would be able to make use of electrified parts of the network, something the voyagers can't currently do, reducing their fuel bill, emissions etc.

Yes, that's a fair point and might swing the decision. But the question then is what happens to all those mid life Voyagers, which it would be very wasteful to throw away, but which are probably not suitable for a large number of routes.

If I recall correctly they are diesel electrics, and I think I have seen on this forum that there was a plan (abandoned) to convert them to bi-mode.

Surely if we can spend money bodging 33 year old 319s into tri-modes, converting the not quite 20 year old Voyagers and their Meridian cousins is better sense?

You would think so, wouldn't you. But it was considered back in 2010/11, by inserting a 6th carriage. It was vetoed by the DfT, I seem to recall, because the financials didn't add up, because the trains were 10 years old.  Now a lot of carbon has been emitted since then, and sentiment has changed, but if they didn't add up then, you would have thought it unlikely they would now given the units are 10 years older.

I'm not sure I would use the Class 319 conversion as a shining example of how to convert units cost effectively either.

There may be only 14 class 180 units in the UK ... but they are part of the Cordellia family of which there are a lot on the continent, such as in Germany.  They could well find a home there; they would fit the loading gauge, just need the steering wheel moved from right to left.

There was a reason it was abandoned.  I believe it was mainly due to the cost of reinstating the production line to produce the extra vehicles, which would need to be built from scratch.  

However, that was before Bi-Modes became such a trend, and the knowledge accrued on how to make it work on other trains, so perhaps it could now be looked at again?  On the flip side, as Celestial says, they're half-way through their life and unpopular, so as the years go by a new fleet makes more and more sense - especially given the cascade of 221/2s as a pretty good sticking plaster for a while is a very real prospect.

With overcrowding/capacity problems almost certain to return, it seems perverse to scrap the 180s or sell them overseas.
In view of their poor reliability record, they might be BETTER used on a lower speed or secondary route, they might work more reliably if not pushed too hard.

Though not that old, they should be relatively cheap to lease if not much in demand.

Nails in the coffin for some units could be route gauge clearance approval, the ToC has to fund the assessment carried out by NR; any route mods or mods to the units has to be funded.

The reason why SWT wanted to use the 444 was their universal grandfather rights from the days of BR

Do you mean the 442s?

Yes, but if the combined Voyager and Meridian numbers were adequate, it wouldn’t be necessary to build the extra vehicles - merely scrap fewer of them. I have no idea what the payback time needs to be, but maybe ten years would be enough - especially if a stopgap solution obviated the need for more (new) bi-modes.

I suspect having invested in the HST's and gone through the pain of introduction, Scotrail isn't going to be in the market to replace them in the timescales that the Voyagers will need to find a new home. And they will be covering all the "Inter-City 7" routes, including Inverness to Aberdeen, so no opportunity to find a home for over 100 sets there (including Meridians and Pioneers).

As for TfW, they are already financially committed to a total fleet replacement, so you are clutching at straws in suggesting that they could be used there (unless you count the Wrexham to Bidston route or the three or four sets of MkIV stock on the WAG Express stock, but I can't imagine that going down well with members from the north).

So that's the problem with Voyagers if not used for XC. Most long distance services have had new trains recently. There are a small number of routes which might be ok, but not to find homes for 100 sets. 

If I could add some further background to the Project Thor story. In 2013 (if my memory serves me correctly!) I attended a presentation at the IMechE in London given by a Bombardier engineer on the issues facing any conversion of the Voyagers to bi-mode operation. I’ve dug out my notes and this is a précis of the evening.

Basically the costs of the project, taking everything together, were much higher than the benefits. It might have made sense if the decision had been made before the trains were seven years old - the costs involved were so high that they could not have been amortised in the remaining life of the train if the go-ahead had been given later.

Bombardier had done the detailed engineering design and showed several CAD drawings showing some of the detail. There were two possible choices to convert the trains to bi-mode:
one was that on coach was adapted to take a transformer, rectifier and pantograph
the other was that an additional coach for the pantograph and transformer would be built and slotted into the existing sets. The latter would have had the advantage that seating capacity would have been increased.

Neither of these options was cheap. In either case there would have to be significant re-engineering of the gubbins under coaches in a very constrained space - for example the Voyagers have a body mounted motor driving through a cardan shaft to the bogies. If a coach were to be converted and the four or five car formation were retained the power-to-weight ratio under diesel power would be reduced as one engine would be lost. Adding an extra coach, making 5 or 6 coaches, also reduces the power-to-weight ratio. In either case schedules under diesel power would have had to have been extended.

The quantity of under floor stuff that would need to be changed is significant: cross-feeds from the existing diesel power packs to supply the air conditioning in the transformer coach when off the wires but as cross-feed had not been considered in the basic design significant re-wiring and control circuit changes would have been necessary on all the other coaches. Routing the high voltage feed from the pantograph to the transformer through the passenger space was also an issue and it removed a couple of seats; power feeds from the transformer coach to the traction packages in the other coaches would have to be added together with the inter-coach connections, and so on. Again this was a significant issue as the power cables are a bit bigger than 13A domestic wiring and can’t be bent easily to fit confined spaces.

If an additional coach were to be built the costs would have been high as the numbers involved were comparatively small and the design had been superseded in the Belgium factories. An alternative design was briefly looked at but it would have been a maintenance nightmare as one coach would have been different (think interior trim fixtures and so on) from all the others in the fleet.

Bombardier reckoned each set would take about 4 months to re-engineer, regardless of whether a coach was re-built or one added. To achieve an efficient production flow at least three and probably four sets would have been out of service at any one time. This would mean that the affected TOC(s) would have to source the equivalent number of equivalent 125mph capable trains for the three or more years it would take for all the sets to to rebuilt.

Bombardier's conclusion was that if Project Thor had been agreed within five to seven years of the trains' original introduction the costs could have been recovered during the trains remaining life. If a go-ahead decision was delayed past that point, the economics were against it.

Logic suggests ... a long term move towards a limited number of fleets. They're the local, regional and long distance fleets, and with a rolling program of building so that they come on line progressively, in a production line and not a big batch way. There will be a generational move - perhaps every 15 to 20 years - moving the major production on to a new design.  I can see electric, bimode and self-powered varients with growth of the proportion electric over the years, and units "moving up" as eletrification carries on with a similar rolling program.

There are risks - a design fault / check needed shows up a single point of failure, and the need to stick with a design for a decade even if something much better comes along. You could argue for two overlapping production lines each running for just shy of a decade.

I have seen - it was published somewhere - a DfT document looking at rolling stock demand for (it must have been) 30 years ahead, so clearly this sort of thing has (rightly) been thought of - or at least the production phase of it has.  The longevity and standardisation of maintenance may or may not have been - and indeed "Commercial Competition" may have tended t times to fragment the number of fleets more than is really good, and lead to feast and famine for the manufacturers, and spare part, skill and depot issues later on.

---

Grand piece of armchair theory.  What does it mean if projected onto higher speed trains?

Coming production programs for Avanti and Midland Main Line of 8xx units displace 22x units onto Cross Country - 58 units there up to around 100.   As the production line continues, it displaces the old 2+4 / 2+5 HSTs towards the end of this decade - probably indirectly, with new electric units manufactured as electrification extends, cascading biomodes to Cross Country, who's 22x diesel fleet is cascaded to the class 43 + carriage routes with only very limited overhead sections.

Way out suggestion for the 180s. New Zealand in particular the Wairapa route from Wellington to Masterton a 1 hour 50 journey time.

Currently Diesel loco and ex BR Mark 2s. Which not only has to run round at Masterton but be turned. I've got Video (somewhere) of the loco being manually pushed round on teh turntable at Masterton. At Wellington a second loco, already turned, is attached to haul to Masterton.


Also possibly Aukland to Hamilton, until they they get the line electrified, unfortuantely a bit late as commuter services may start in August but possibly November due to virus.

Journey time is 2h 12 to Auckland which does include a change at Papakura onto the newish 25Kv electrics.

Being 3' 6" max speed is around 70 mph but mostly slower, so you could say it's a waste of a 125 capable train, but then again it's going to be under much stress.

Unless someone can make them reliable with an economic level of maintenance could I suggest the most likely destination is the scrap heap?

The HST's are only a short term fix, even GWR have stated this with the Castle sets, running 41 year old HST fleets is not a long term solution, the voyagers would provide that as they have a good 15 years life left in them. Voyager replacements could only happen in 4 to 6 years time, which is about right for replacing HSTs.

I don't think GWR, or whatever form that franchise is in by then, will be interested in Voyagers replacing the Castle Class HSTs due to the Dawlish situation.

I think Voyagers could of course replace the Cross Country Class 170 fleet in the medium term, but there aren't many other obvious solutions if they don't see out their days on the existing XC Voyager operated routes.

<advocate mode="devils">If Network Rail are doing things at Dawlish to ensure it's fully stable and usable, and trains are provided to run these routes ... will problems remain?</advocate>

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=86oqnk--X_A

I always loved the way that video ends with "and if it doesn't work, try turning it off and on again".

That's always been standard railway fault finding procedure.  If that still doesn't work then you get your Bardic lamp out and hit it!  ;D

How long does it take to power a steam engine down and then up again?

A friend of mine who was driving Tornado was told to power the electronics off and on again if they played up (The official minder then went for breakfast and left my friend to it).

Standard procedure for busses as well!
Hopefully not aircraft in flight...........

I never said GWR should replace HST's with voyagers, I said Scotrail should. GWR have only said the Castle are short term. Personally GWR should look at something similar to the 172s that can replace the 150s, 165,166s and 158s with a uniform regional fleet able to run up to 100mph with connecting cabs.

It does happen sometimes but unlikely as there are multiple backups in place.

In a recent Air Accident Investigation programme an aircraft crash was caused by the pilot pulling a circuit breaker to reset a recurrent minor alarm because he had seen a ground engineer do the same thing !! There weren't any backups ............

I was meaning the PFD & MFD screens etc. I know the episode you are on about involving an ATR, sadly in that case the pilot broke the airline's SOP, which would be classed as it's backup.