Great Western Coffee Shop

East Coast have today announced that their May 2011 "Eureka" regular interval timetable will no longer include a 2 hourly London to Lincoln service and that this will be replaced by 4 trains London to Newark only using existing rolling stock. They also state that they will not be taking the last 5 Class 180s.

Details here
http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/travel-information/Eureka/How-it-will-affect-you/ (http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/travel-information/Eureka/How-it-will-affect-you/)

So what will happen to the 180s now?
First Trans Pennine Express?  FGW have them back (maintenance on First Hull Trains still carried out at Old Oak Common) or who?

Here's a completely pie-in-the-sky idea, but wouldn't it be great...?

Use the five spares (plus the two currently reduced to bumbling between Manchester and Blackpool) to boost capacity on PMH-CDF services, then send a suitable number of displaced 158s (not all of them!) up north to counter the incessant bleating emanating from the north west about overcrowding. Anyone would think sometimes that Manchester is the only place in the country where trains are a little on the busy side at peak times. No doubt Northern will be quick off the mark ensuring that the smartly refurbed FGW units are suitably neglected and allowed to get into a mouldering state so that they fit in with the rest of their fleet.

I didn't think there were more than 5 Class 180s spare. Northern's are sub leased from East Coast and I believe First have 1 set currently in use with Hull Trains as a spare set. East Coast were to had them back later this year in order to refurbish and train crews. Of course the rental would have been a cost to East Coast (and in effect DafT) so that cost is saved.

I was just about to say - but blakey got the first......

I travel to liverpool a lot to see mom, I never ever ever ever ever use a northern train.  They are the only TOC I know to have generally worse rolling stock than LM put on the Kiddie to Brum route and the Brum to London route.

I don't know what the non-manchester trains are like - but from what I've seen - I'd rather use misery rail.

I change at piccadilly cos I hate crewe and my order of choice is FTP, East Midland, and only if I have to Northern

So I can see why manchester commuters complain.  Although we all know why I complain about trains........

There are definitely only five 180s allocated to East Coast, three of which are currently on lease to Northern while I think Hull Trains has another of the EC allocation as a spare while its four sets go through overhauls. The other five are with Grand Central.

I can think of an FGW route where they would come in very handy, where they would be able to operate from a depot well used to them and which maintains Hull Trains' sets - and they would provide about half of the extra DMU coaches that FGW was supposed to get for Thames Valley services. But as I've said before, any return to these parts should only be after a proper upgrade programme to deal with the things that used to keep going wrong in the past.

If used on the Cotswold Line, they could displace pretty much all the 166 diagrams - allowing the 166s to return to Reading-Gatwick work and freeing 165s to strengthen main line commuter services - and be able to mix it with HSTs on the fast lines. Send them to Bristol and you would need to retrain depot staff, they would cover only part of the 158 fleet's duties and would never run at anything near top speed.

And is the tide of abuse towards Northern and the north necessary? How would FGW or any other operator cope if it had been given a franchise on the basis there would be no passenger growth (ie no need for any extra stock), when in fact there has been 34 per cent growth on Northern in six years. The area's other key operator, TransPennine, is also desperate for new stock. Were you commuting around Leeds or Manchester, you might be pretty aggrieved too.

I am not a commuter around leeds or manchester

However as I've always said - if I can't get a table, I'd rather drive

Train travel for me is - get stuff done even on route to work.  If I can't get stuff done then I may as well have the freedom of driving.

This is not in FPC but............ I am so looking forward to the end of next week however I am DREADING having hobsons choice of SC or driving........ at least I should be able to bag a table at BTM if I'm in A and on the train already

If I had to spend up to an hour a day reading papers or books just for the hell of it - forget it - drive or stay over

Sorry, wasn't intended as a torrent of abuse towards the north. Although I've always lived in the south (although come to think of it Oxford is some way north of Watford...), my parents are both originally northern (Lancashire/Yorkshire area) as are the vast majority of my extended family, so there's no axe to grind there. It just strikes me that there seems to be a certain bias towards Northern as regards stock allocation (i.e. whatever is spare, or even not spare viz the famous December 2006/7 [?] farce, we'll send it up to Northern). He who shouts loudest seems to get all the DMUs sent his way. Even though ATW do seem to be suffering from a similar problem, as in a "no growth" basis to the franchise that has turned out to be anything but, they don't seem to be high priority for new stock. It just irks me somewhat that for some reason Northern and the Manchester/Leeds conurbation in particular seem to be permanently at the front of the queue and s*d the rest of the country, to the extent of the farcical situation where high-quality 125 mph intercity rolling stock is reduced to pootling stopping trains on a backwater like Manchester - Blackpool.

And as far as their maintenance of stock goes, admittedly my experience of Northern is fairly limited but with the exception of the Aire Valley line EMUs all of their DMU stock that I have travelled on was in an advanced state of decrepitude, certainly worse than Wessex became towards the end of their franchise, and given the degree of rat-infestation they stooped to that's saying something.

I believe that allocating small numbers of a relatively small fleet (14) to quite a few different operators is too inefficient. If two operators was the minimum, how about 'engineering' the transfer of the 5 to GC and HT so that they culd run more or longer services?

Then using the odd spare coaches that are about (IIRC even GC have some unused spares) make GC's 3 short HSTs up to 7, 8 or 9 coaches and offer them to FGW, EMT or even ECML Co.   

Can't really see 180s with FGW again though, unless enough top people have changed for them to have conveniently forgotten how they rushed to get rid of them originally...

On a separate point, weren't ATW & Northern both in an odd position regarding rolling stock - how could they be short of DMUs but still able to loan 150s or 142s to FGW when push came to shove?  You'd have to assume therefore that they were leasing more stock than the DfT would subsidise them to use?  I seem to recall a situation where ATW wanted to run such and such a service half hourly rather than hourly, and although they had the stock there was no funding...  So the loans to FGW may have avoided the embarrasment of stock sitting in sidings.

Away from DMUs, that's surely the position with EMUs such as the Southeastern 508s.  Everyone wonders why they haven't gone to Merseyside. I reckon it's because Merseytravel themselves can't afford them even though the RUS is full of ideas about strengthening services, and altering depots etc etc...

Last but not least, the Gatwick Express 460s will by all accounts be stored within a few months, as SWT's HLOS inrease is supposedly dead.

Paul

I'm told there is an article on the 180s in the next issue of Rail, Wednesday week. The author doesn't speculate, so it should be an informed article...if you can wait that long!

If they returned to FGW what would be inefficient about nine of the fleet being maintained at the depot that has most experience of working on 180s and which got the contract to service them for Hull Trains for that very reason?

Hull Trains don't want more than four train sets because that's what they need to operate their service, and what would Grand Central do with more of them things? They seem very happy with their HSTs now that the early problems seem to have been cured, their West Riding service has only just started and I don't imagine for a moment that FGW wants any more HSTs, given that it has been pulling them off Oxford and Cotswold services to save money on operating costs and track access charges.

FGW doesn't need more intercity trains, it needs more stock suitable for medium-distance, semi-fast work and apart from the busiest peak services on the Cotswold Line, the 180s were the ideal train for the route - unlike the 166s. And EMT are in the same boat as FGW, preferring to use Meridians wherever possible on cost grounds.

At the time FGW acquired the 142s at the end of 2007, they were in store, but still on Northern's books and were available for use if required, which, with the growth in passengers continuing over the past three years, is certainly the case now - hence them using 180s for lack of anything else more suitable for commuter duties until they get the Devon sets back, along with LM 150s. The ATW 150s would in all probability be running around on strengthened/higher frequency services in South Wales by now, funded by the WAG, had ATW not been ordered by DafT to lend them to FGW.

And the last thing Merseyside needs is more 508s. They have more than enough of the things already. The only reason any of them ever ended up in Kent and North London was precisely because many sets were in store for years on end surplus to requirements in Liverpool, even after more were needed in active service when the route to Chester and Ellesmere Port was electrified.

As for the 460s, we'll see. I can just see the headlines in the Tory and Lib Dem voting areas served by SWT when modern electric trains are parked in sidings. Anyone remember those pictures of ex-Wessex 153s and 158s at Eastleigh in early 2007?

send 158's North! no way! put 180's on CDF-PMH, displaced 158's onto services in devon and Cornwall then give Northern their bloomin skippers back is a better idea! they've had enough of our 158's thankyou!

could a 180 work cdf-portsmouth, what are there clearances around some of the tunnels that other classes have to divert round?

They should give some of them at least back to FGW.  I don't know why an earth they got rid of them all in the first place.  They are nice trains.  And far more comfortable seating than the awful refurbished claustrophobic high back seating they've got in those HST's now.   A very good idea is to put one of them at least on the Cardiff-Portsmouth route which has been overcrowded for years now.

I thought it was generally believed that First Group bought up a load of spare HSTs specifically so that they could give up the unreliable and non-standard 180s, and save their leasing costs? 

It does seem odd to me that so many people (both here and in other forums)  think the spare 180s will end up with FGW...  You can be pretty sure DfT aren't going to cover the extra leasing costs.

Paul

Agree. Is it not significant that only Open Access Operators are using these trains. East Coast no longer want them, Northern only use then 'cause there is nothing else but would rather have stock that fits in with the rest of their fleet. Why would FGW want these trains anyway, it is not Intercity stock they are short of, it is 'Regional Railways' type semi fast stock they need for the likes of Portsmouth and West Country regional services and there isn't any spare. Why do FGW run units on Cotswold services, well I think it is not due to a shortage of HSTs but because a unit is better matched to the business on offer.

Just so - and we had some dmus that were very well matched to the needs of the Cotswold Line - they were called Adelantes, which may be able to do 125mph, but are really a souped-up regional dmu with a fancy nose - a hybrid, rather like the Cotswold Line itself, which is a mix of an express route and a regional railway rolled into one.

FGW put the 180s on the Cotswold Line in 2004 because the 166s were no longer adequate for the job (they had helped grow traffic so well) - something that hasn't changed, although the Turbos have now reappeared in force in the absence of anything better (ie 180s) due to someone at FGW twigging - after acquiring lots of HSTs to replace 180s - that a train twice the size of an Adelante wasn't actually a very sensible replacement for them outside the peaks.

And if you think a 166 is well matched to the business on offer here, then do come up here and try travelling on the 8.58 or 9.54 from Malvern, or the early Sunday evening services from Worcester and Hereford operated by 166s. Every bit as nasty as an overloaded Portsmouth-Cardiff train - and at least the 158s have 2+2 seats, not suburban 3+2, so if you do get a seat it's a sight more comfortable than an overcrowded Turbo.

When it comes to non-standard trains, how about FGW's eight Class 143s, or 12 Class 153s? Both less numerous than the 14 Class 180s FGW used to operate.

As for reliability, most of that was down to poor build quality and design faults (also affecting the 175s), which could and should have been sorted out years ago, had the will been there. And if anyone knows how to handle them it's Old Oak Common - so why not bring some back to FGW? Though that should be subject to a thorough electrical and mechanical overhaul, addressing the known flaws, before they are put to work.

And who should pay for them? Well, maybe First Group might dip into its profit margin. A modest ^264m, despite the state of the economy, a figure the City apparently believes will be north of ^300m for 2010-11.

How about we all just hope that the (very real) possibility that nobody will want them and they'll end up languishing in store for ages doesn't come to pass?  A sorry state of affairs that certain members of the class have already experienced.

they are not able to go through limpley stoke if memory serves me correctly also not passed south of warminster but maybe could be if needed???

they would be ideal on card-pomp just dont let SPM touch them or they will never get repaired properly,leave it to OOC.
maybe FGW could then get shot of the pacers for good

just out of interest why does northen not have any loco hauled services

Not sure that's correct, smithy. I've been on several diverted Reading-Bristol services via the Berks and Hants and Limpley Stoke over the years that have been formed of Adelantes, so it would seem they're cleared for Westbury - Bathampton Junction at least. I don't know about south of Warminster though, but you're right, maybe they could be passed for that, perhaps with the odd infrastructure tweak here and there.

I think Northern are not likely to use loco-hauled trains as their licence does not cover such operation. The Workington shuttles were run, I think, on DRS's licence. Remember FGW run loco hauled (the sleepers) as a regular part of their business. Northern could, of course, get their licence changed, but that would be an additional expense.

I believe the above is correct, but feel sure someone will correct it if I am wrong.

"Licence" "change" "expense"

Three words that sum up the crazy way we run railways.

If Northern are considerd competant to run passenger trains why do they need a licence change to run loco hauled?

What is DaFT worried about, that they might run more trains and actually provide seats for passengers?

Whatever next? You can't have that!

 

Surely GO http://www.go-now.coop/ will be looking for stock to run the services they are promising, although cost are probably prohibitive.

Cl180 sounds ideal for the distances they are considering, and would no doubt please Graham et al immensly.

maybe there is a speed restriction then like 143's it is something to do with going under the bridge/viaduct (cannot remember exactly what it is) and the clearence or lack of it with the camber of track.well that is what i was told some years ago anyway.maybe someone can confirm?

Salisbury to Southampton was always tight in steam days. GW Halls etc. could not travel on that line although they could reach Southamton/ Bournemouth/Pompey via Basingstoke and Eastleigh.

Although I think it was mainly due some crossovers being between platforms thus if there was emergency single line working the loco could not use the crossover without either knocking its cylinder cover off and/or the platform coping stones.

Which is an interesting approach in that it bans a loco in anticiaption of having to invoke single line working, so that the SLW can be implemented quickly without staff having to worry about one of the trains' locos being Out of Gauge for the crossover which could cause even more disruption if it hits the platfrom edge.

Presumably this wouldn't apply to Adelalntes  as the crossovers have probably gone and no-one knows how to invoke Single Line Working anymore.

They do indeed sound as if they would be worth a look, don't they  ;)

Talk of Grand Central taking over the shelved Lincoln services (and presumably the Adelante's to operate them):

http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/news/Lincoln-London-direct-rail-service-saved-train-operator/article-2344471-detail/article.html (http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/news/Lincoln-London-direct-rail-service-saved-train-operator/article-2344471-detail/article.html)

Let's hope that they are maintained better than currently. The 10.22 Bradford to Kings Cross (amongst others) has been cancelled at least twice this week.

How about Trans Pennine using them for their 'Scottish' services? 

Five units would only allow for four daily diagrams - so it could only be a small proportion of the existing WCML services presumably. Could it work if they used 180s only to Edinburgh, allowing doubled up 185s to Glasgow for example?

Paul

Some Class 180 Adelente's are set to return to FGW services apparantly!  Now there's a surprise.   Not known at this stage though what routes/services they will be used on.  I'd say it was a fair bet they'll be used on London-Oxford's though.

Not so sure about that...

I think it's too good to be true. But we'll have to see I guess.

Apparent to whom?

Well a post today on the http://www.railforums.co.uk said so.

I'll believe it when I see it though.

A little heads up, but when quoting someone from another forum, you should ask them before quoting directly what was said out of courtesy and incase of potential problems as a surprisng amount of people get arsey about this kind of thing. Don't mean to cause offence btw

Actually in this case I'm going to disagree a little with what matt473 said. The reason is that railforums.co.uk is entirely public, so anyone on the internet can read that post without having to register or log in. I would therefore consider that whoever posted that has knowingly placed that information in the public domain.

So, if you're going to make a claim like that again based on a post on a public forum (for which purposes I'm thinking of one where anyone on the web can view the post in question without need for a login or resistration) then please don't leave it unsourced. Tell people where they came from so that they can investigate for themselves.

I would guess that this one may well still be in the realms of fantasy (A said to B who overheard C at the depot saying...), but I'd love to be wrong.

And to keep things tidy, since there's already a thread running about the Adelantes, I'm going to merge this one in.

_{Edited to change my mind after discovering that the post in question on RailForums is publicly available: if anyone else wants to read the ensuing discussion it's here (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34010&page=4).}

Interesting considering the source. Will so some digging.

The North West has actually seen a reduction in capacity in the same period that rail growth has grown by 33% via the following:

* 3 car 185s replacing larger 4 car 220s on Manchester to Scotland routes, which only became available after DfT told TPE to terminate Windermere services north of Preston instead of running them to Man Airport to increase capacity on Arriva CrossCountry routes.
* Arriva CrossCountry predominately using 4 car 220s on Manchester-Birmingham services that were mainly 5 car Voyagers under Virgin.
* 2 car 170s running what was 2 and 3 car 156 or 158 routes on Manchester-Hull and South TPE.
* 3 car 185s running what was between 2 and 5 car 158s on Liverpool-Scarborough and Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough/Newcastle.
(Both 170s and 185s have less capacity per carriage than a 158)
* Mainly 2 car 158s replacing what was mainly 3 and 4 car 158s and 170s on Liverpool-Norwich.
* 10x150s replacing 10x158s due to a West Yorkshires Metro deal with Northern.
* 102 seater 142s from the Arriva Trains Northern area replacing the 120 seater old-First North Western 142s.

The one place where an increase in capacity has been seen is on London services through a more frequent service.  However, this was a controversial move by Virgin as it inolved other operators having to cut back well used commuter services to allow Virgin more paths.

And how many of these instances relating to the north west has the national media actually reported, compared to how much coverage the arrival of 142s at FGW got? 

DRS did operate Workington shuttles on behalf of Northern, but you have to remember that was seen as a temporary service until a new bridge could be constructed, DRS owned the stock and the last loco-hauled on local/regional North West services was FNW class 31 hauled mk3s (subleased from FM rail) operating Blackpool-Manchester-Chester ending in 2004, so any traction knowledge would have expired.  So it made financial sense for the service to by DRS operated opposed to Northern operated.

to add to this the rail forum thread comes up in a google search if you search for right target words so fully available quite easily even for someone who has never heard of RailForums!

Going back to the Adelante's returning to FGW shocker, then if it's come from a Reading ASLE&F Divisional Council rep then it must be true!  ::)  I assume it's all because of the fact that East Coast have gone back on their Lincoln intentions?  I thought Grand Central were looking at taking over those though (and possibly the 180's)?

Though in many ways I hope it is true as you could do a lot worse than bang them on the following diagrams that are currently Turbo's (or the odd HST with capacity in abundance):

Diagram 1:
1W12  06:48 Paddington to Great Malvern (due 09:43)
1P40  09:54 Great Malvern to Paddington (due 12:29)
1W33  13:21 Paddington to Great Malvern (due 16:00)
1P73  16:50 Great Malvern to Paddington (due 20:06)
1D77  20:51 Paddington to Oxford (due 21:47)
1P85  22:11 Oxford to Paddington (due 23:24)

Diagram 2: 
1D03  05:17 Paddington to Oxford (due 06:22)
1P22  07:21 Oxford to Paddington (due 08:58)
1W21  09:21 Paddington to Worcester F. St. (due 11:39)
1P47  12:06 Worcester F. St. to Paddington (due 14:29)
1D43  14:50 Paddington to Oxford (due 15:47)
1P57  16:01 Oxford to Paddington (due 16:59)
1D73  19:50 Paddington to Oxford (due 20:47)
1P83  21:31 Oxford to Paddington (due 22:41


A slight increase in capacity, and a huge increase in comfort for some of the trains that have now reverted to Turbos.  All that you'd need is for the 08:58 Great Malvern to Paddington to revert back to a HST and the Cotswold Line's lot would be much better with nearly all of the long distance trains having a sensible capacity and rid of the Turbo's on most trains beyond Moreton.

Guess what?  Those Turbo's freed could then be used to provide some much needed capacity on the peak time suburban service too!

Will the Adelante's return?  I would guess not, but if they did I would expect it would be have to be under a much cheaper lease arrangement than they were for FGW to show any interest!

Given that FGW are now maintaing 180s for Hull Trains at OOC, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they could take on a few more there if the price was right.

Possibly but somehow I doubt it. If they were used it would make sense to use them on services that can be crewed from either Padd, Oxford or Reading. I suspect the length of time they have been gone from depots further West that a full retrain will be required. Too much train for PMH-CDF, West drivers have never signed them, HSS drivers do not (in general) sign beyond Westbury and IIRC there was a problem running them on third rail routes anyway.

From what I read elsewhere it all seems a little unlikely anyway...

Shouldn't need to Google it. The inspector is right. If you are going to post something like this, then it is only right that you say where it came from. We've had similar issues before with things taken from that same forum being put up up here without any indication of where they came from, as though they are gospel truth. It's not much to ask.

I overheard an excitable debate in a messroom yesterday between drivers.  The gossip was that it was the Hull Trains Adelante fleet which was being lent to FGW over Xmas to help with the Reading Blockade.  When questioned, nobody seemed to know exactly how they'd help, or how Hull Trains would replace them for their services!  Could well be a case of chinese whispers and rumour mills going into overdrive, and probably asks more questions than it answers, but I thought I'd better put it on here!

Isn't this just another case of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

The main problem is there just aren't enough D(EHM) Units around to cater for the traffic on offer let alone providing additonal services to places like Melksham.

It seems to me whatever happens to the Adelantes they shoud be fully utilised. Particulary now they seem to have got their reliability to an acceptable level.

It also seems to me that they are eminently suitable for the Off Peak Cotswold/Stroud line services having sufficient capacity for Padd Reading Oxford/Swindon and not too much for the lighter loads West thereof. Having done Reading to Worcester Foregate Street on one I was quite impressed with the comfort and performance.   
 

From what I read elsewhere on cyberspace it seems 180 units are not destined to be used at all by FGW. Somebody has seen Hull Trains 180's being battered at Old Yoke, put 2 & 2 together and come up with 29847923874 as usual. Railway runs on Tea, paperwork and rumors......
 ;D

Seen on uk transport

According to the MD of FGW on Radio Wiltshire this morning, they (FGW)
are considering bringing back the 180s to increase capacity on the
region.

Is it true - cananybody confirm Mark Hopwood was on Radio Wiltshire yesterday morning (7 Sep).  If it is it seems there might be some truth in the various rumours which have been going around.

The interview with Mark Hopwood can be found on BBC iPlayer (available until midday 14th September):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p009qv9v/Mark_ODonnell_07_09_2010/

Mr Hopwood is in conversation from around the 2:04.00 mark.

Scanned thorugh the broadcast quickly, and didn't hear any specific mention of the Adelantes. (Although I may've missed it) There was mention of the hired in Arriva Trains Wales stock that will be replaced early next year, but this is I believe, in reference to the LM/LO cascade.

EDIT: super tm, could you provide a link to this 'uk transport' that you mentioned? Thanks.

Here you go BNM:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.railway/browse_thread/thread/9b6e7714962a01d5?hl=en#

It's not official but seems likely considering this rumour has been going around for a while now. A few people within FGW think it will happen but some are still in doubt. This unlike pervious rumours about them seems to have an element of truth about it so could be a real possibility

But what will TOCs using them now use?

Some of the 142s etc should be going back to Northern, and anyway their 180s hire ( from EC) is due to end at the end of the year. The 5 Adelantes that East Coast planned for the now abandoned Lincoln service are now available. There are no other Adelantes available. Any way Old Oak Common fitters have kept thei hand in by servicing First Hull Train's Adelantes (to good effect it seems as cancellationszare now very rare).

Its seems to be likely that FGW may get back some of the class 180's which could  be used on London Worcester/Hereford services.

 I suspect that these will be the few that are on Hire to Northern which are due to be replaced by the class 142's & class 150's which are due to be recieved from FGW & London  Midland from October

FGWs MD was on Radio Wiltshire earlier in the week, where he mentioned that they were looking into getting some back. Anything more than that is currently pure conjecture from other newsgroups & bulletin boards.

The opinion elsewhere is that there are 5 that may become available.

I know I've asked you this before, but it would be really nice if you could give us some idea where you're getting these rumours/gossip from. Makes it much easier for people reading what you've posted to judge whether there's any substance behind it or if it's just idle tittle-tattle. The same goes for your postings on Chiltern acquiring the ex-CIE mark 3s which despite requests you haven't backed up with any hard information either!

Thanks.

Chiltern have purchased those ex-Cargo D Mark IIIs - I think there's about 40 coaches now....! Sorry, was told this by Chiltern, so nothing in writing / on the web.

There is a mention further up about ukr newsgroup re the 180s....as I said, only the Mark Hopwood interview, otherwise its speculation. FGW are still in the investigation stage.

Thanks ChrisB - much appreciated! Any idea whether rumours posted by others on the board (see here (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=7489.msg74799#msg74799) and here (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=7489.msg74729#msg74729)) about Chiltern purchasing the Irish mark 3s have any basis in fact or if they're pure conjecture?

Don't know for sure - can make enquiries though....

I must admit I thought the earlier post was just badly phrased, and what he really meant was that Chiltern were going to fit power doors on the mark 3s (like on the Irish ones) that they were buying...

Brackets to the rescue...

Paul

I think the information that has been given is rumours from industry insiders that has been posted on the wnxx forum. Information can not obviously be copy and pasted without permission from posters of course and the forum can not be read without signing up so would only really reccomend it for people with a genuine interest in the railway and not the casual rail user. It is a good source of information as well as rumours if you know how to tell the difference between what are obvious lies.

(Btw not advertising the forum but giving an insight into where certain people get information from as well as letting people know it is not viewable to non-members like this site. If there is a problem with the post feel free to edit/delete mods)

From BBC Wiltshire:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/wiltshire/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8977000/8977230.stm

I have now listened to the Mark Hopwood interview on BBC Radio Wiltshire a bit more carefully and the Class 180s are indeed mentioned. Mr Hopwood actually replies to a specific question about the Adelantes.

He makes the point that there are rumours but people often put two and two together and get the wrong answer. He goes on to say that there is no deal in place, and it is just one option that FGW are looking at to increase capacity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p009qv9v/Mark_ODonnell_07_09_2010/ Forward to the 2.21:45 mark. (Available until 14th September)

Thanks, Timmer.

I think it's worth emphasizing just one key sentence in Mark Hopwood's comments, if I may:

Interesting that he mentions lengthening HSTs? 

How long ago is it that shortening some of them to make them faster was someone's bright idea? 

Paul

I have now listened to the Mark Hopwood interview and and just after the references to the Adalantes he goes on to say with reference to growth of the HST fleet in the last 15 years "We would like to put an extra carraige in some of those trains and we having a look on how we can achieve that,if there is rolling stock out there we can bring into the business and we can agree a deal with the government we would obviously love to do that".
 I wonder if that means a standard 2+8 fleet or even some 2+9 sets.What about those Irish Mk3s. 

i.e. if we can get someone else to pay for it...?


Given the enormous amount of engineering effort that it took to convert loco-hauled mk 3 stock for use in XC's somewhat underutilized HSTs, I don't think a mixed fleet of Irish and British mark 3 stock is a realistic prospect, putting things kindly!

Erm ... that was Mark Hopwood, not me!  :P ::) ;D

We don't want those expensive fire risks back. Bl**dy things always catch fire, or are breaking down, etc etc.

Although on the plus side, we will all have to get refresher training on how to dispatch one. Would also need a payrise, new trains to dispatch equals new conditions!!!!

If the "bl**dy things always catch fire" then can you tell me how many have been written off since their introduction. Their reliability has improved immensely despite the fleet being split to various TOCs.

As for what SDS pad says about the refresher training and extra pay; just the sort of thing said by rail staff and their union representatives that set them in a bad light. The last Class 180 was used by FGW in March 2009. Did staff take a paycut then?

Why? Paddington have dispatched them before, yes will need to be re-assessed but I don't see why you should get extra pay?

To my knowledge pay didn't change when 180's were removed from the franchise.

If anything 180's are easier to dispatch... compared to an HST anyway.

 :-[

Duly unmangled!

Frankly, nor do I....didn't you get extra when the 180s first came in? And you're *still* gertting that rise too, I bet?!! Even though FGW let them go?

Get a life.....

One current rumour circulating is the 5x180s are to go to FGW to displace 5x165s to Cardiff-Portsmouth (subject to route clearance.)  However, if that happens FGW will be expected to forfeit 4x158s to East Midlands Trains but that will leave FGW with a net gain of 7 carriages.

Given that there is little likelihood that fGW will take the 180s anyway, there is even less chance of them being operated a route that doesn't return them to Old Oak Common on a regular basis. Well that is my 2p worth!

The latest RAIL magazine reporting (page 13) that 5 of the fleet now not required by East Coast may be returning to FGW.  It 'undestands' they'll be used on Paddington-Oxford/Cotswold Line trains.  There'll probably be some more information in the next edition which promises an article about Mark Hopwood.

Hmmm - they've been reading the newsgroups too, I see.

I am not sure if i would be too happy about this if it is true. I would have thought FGW would have to have a class 166 rather than a class 165 because of their top speed which is 90 mph rather than the class 165's which is 75mph.


If  i have to travel from Cardiff to Portsmouth i would prefer to travel on a class 158 rather than a class 165/166 as the seats are much better.

Anyway dont they have a shortage of stock around the thames valley area?

I will check this with FGW management tonight at a Customer Panel Meeting. I'm getting fed up with rumours.....

I thought all the FGW Turbos were 90mph.  The 165/0s are 75mph, while the 165/1s and 166s are 90mph.


If Turbos replace the 158s and 180s replace Turbos on Paddington routes then it will be the Paddington routes that benefit.

Usually the reason for rumours is the lack of an official announcement and the official annoucement doesn't come until the operator confirms that they will take on the units, if it's one option they're exploring it usually is rumour only.

Not by many seats though, unless the turbos remain. a 5car Adelante has the same number of seats as a 3car turbo. One reason FGW let them go. The leasing charges were higher than a turbo with no increase in seats.

Well it is currently 280 or 286 total on a 3 car Turbo and 287 total on a 180.  However, the 180s could do with being refurbished and if part of the first class seating is converted to standard (like with what TPE did with the 170s) and the buffet is replaced by seating (like what XC have done with the Voyagers) then it could finish up being around 50 extra seats as well as loads of extra standing room.

2+2 seating does also have the advantage of a very large person doesn't finish up leaving an adjoining seat unoccupiable.

Where's the money to refurbish coming from?.....

If FGW take them, they'll be as is, I reckon.

Please do.  We'd all like to know the official story!

Seating wise, the 180's actually compare worse in regard to standard class seats (which after all is the important figure).  FGW 165's have 270 standard class seats, the 166's have 243, and the 180's a mere 226 - although there are an additional 16 'seats' if you count the tip-up ones by most of the doors.

I think thats unfair though - because the 165/166 count the middle of the set of three which with most 21st century normal sized people are often unusable

Because a lot of 21stC people are overweight....

Not necessarily...I'm 6'1" and just under 13 stone, so not exactly overweight (bordering on skinny actually) but the width of my shoulders is such that I take up more than my fair share of a Turbo seat. And there are plenty of people out there much bigger than I am!


Agree entirely - the trickle of scarcely credible, unsourced internet hearsay from some posters in this thread is rapidly becoming tedious.  ::) People - all you have to do is say where you got your information from! Then we can figure out for ourselves whether or not it's believable... Not a big ask, is it?

When the origional rumour of 165's going west was mooted, FGW were planning to refurb them with 2+2 seating for CDF-PMH, and yes all the FGW 16x units are 90MPH.

Wasn't it planned to send some class 165/166's to the Bristol area when they were displaced by the new EMU'S on crossrail?

Finally if FGW have enough class 180's, if they do receive the ones from Northern is it possible to run some services as 10 carriages i.e. 2X class 180's between Oxford & London? i am sure i have seen some photos somewhere of this happening.

10-car Adelantes certainly did happen - I travelled on a few. Not just on Oxford services but also on Bristol services and probably elsewhere as well. I think some ran 10-car to Oxford then split, with the front 5 going on to the Cotswold Line and the rear 5 returning to the yard before forming a service back to London.

0710 Oxford - Paddington used to be 10 car 180 afaik.

I don't think that ever happened, not with all 10-cars in service at least - but 10-car formations were used on a regular commuter service pretty much until the end of their tenure with FGW as devon_metro says.  That involved the trains first 6 carriages being opened with the SDO switch at Cholsey, Goring etc.  Also, a few years previously a 10-car used to work a peak time Paddington to Bristol service (17:15 I think) and the odd service over the weekend.

Agree with Insider this didn't happen on Cotswold services. What certainly did happen was that the pair of 180s which worked the 07.10 would then return empty stock to Oxford before being split in the sidings to work separately for the rest of the day.


But a recent Modern Railways article about the Turbo refresh said that when FGW and Angel Trains looked at fitting 2+2 seats when planning the refresh work, they realised that there were two big problems:
a. The coolant header tank is under one of the three-seat benches and is as wide as the seats and would have to be replaced or modified if 2+2 seats were fitted.
b. The different weight distribution, due partly to the extra space in the aisles, would have an impact on braking performance when a train was crush loaded, which would mean modifications to the brakes.
Can't see them rushing to do any of that on just a handful of Turbos.

Could well be my memory playing tricks. Although I'm sure I remember watching staff at Oxford station make a complete hash of either coupling or splitting a 10-car Adelante very early one Saturday morning just after the December 2004 FGWL timetable came into effect (which was when the 180s and HSTs were introduced in significant numbers on the Oxford - Paddington service).

I certainly remember 10-car formations on the Bristol route. And there was one occassion when a pair worked from Shrub Hill through to Paddington. One was so late that they ran the two together, albeit (as per II's memory) with only one of them in passenger use.

Right......

Firstly, 165/166 Turbos are unable to travel west of Bedwyn owing to the lack of NRN - National Radio Network - they have no in-cab radios.
The forthcoming GSM-R network that Chiltern are currently fitting to their turbos would sort that problem - but there's currently no plans to fit it to FGW turbos.

So, there's zero substance in anyone saying that FGW turbos are going west. Or that route clearance is the obstacle. Total crap.

FGW haven't considered changing turbo seating to 2+2 for a long time. So that's scotched that rumour too.

Absolutely NO decision yet taken on the 180s - discussions are taking place with interested parties. Funding needs to be found. All unfounded rumour, so far. As is any 158s going to EMT.

Hope this helps. All info gleaned from Directors at FGW.

The FC section wasn't in a brillant condition when the 3 arrived at Northern and it's been allowed to detirate further and that's been helped by Northern using it as standard class so everyone on Northern services wants to sit in carriage D if seats are available there.  If carriage D is returned to FC it will need at least replacement seat covers and faulty lights being replaced, otherwise there will be objections from people holding FC tickets.

THanks for that info - I'm sure FGW are aware - even more money to be found then.

I think that's the underlying reason for the rumours.  No operator who has been linked with the 180s has said they are not interested.  

Funding does need to found and whoever takes on the 180s can find some money by subleasing smaller units or returning them to the leasing company, which is where the 158 rumours could have originated from.

I think the general idea is to increase stock / seats.....

Thanks, Chris.  Interesting answers - Good to hear extra capacity is being looked at.  I'm not one to argue with a directors statements, but...

1)  Turbos (using GSM-P) were allowed to go to Bristol without being fitted with NRN.  They also run under GSM-P conditions all the while over the Costwolds at the moment.
2)  GSM-R is the replacement for NRN and GSM-P.  As I understand it, all trains will be fitted with it in time - including Turbos/HST's that FGW operate.  Though I'm not sure how far away that is from happening as the trials on the Cambrian line have hit difficulties as was recently discussed.

I'm not doubting that but a 180 is the same sort of capacity as 2x158s, so the 5x180s replacing 4x158s rumour would be equivalent to gaining 6x158s in capacity terms but with the disadvantage of reduced flexibility as you obviously can't spilt a 180 like you can spilt a 4 car 158.

Also while operators want more stock you can't stop DfT coming up with strange ideas.  Northern got more 158s with the idea of increasing capacity on Yorkshire services but DfT came up with the idea of sending the cascaded 142s to FGW as well as some of the 158s that were supposed to replace them to Scotrail leaving Northern short and having to take on 180s to fill the gap.  Northern are now due to get the rest of the FGW 142s back to replace the 180s, so it'll almost leave them back where they started!

Directors can make mistakes.  Apparently a FGW director once said Pacers can't cross third rail, despite them having done so at Hunts Cross (Merseyside) and Chester for many years.

And the DfT will have to come up with the funding too.

There are all sorts of permutations. Rather than try & report these as fact, why not start a 'Latest Stock Movement Rumour' thread?

What utter nonsense. So the fact that directors may not remember every single technical detail means that they won't have a clue what their company is planning strategically in terms of rolling stock procurement?

Are you seriously suggesting that the directors of FGW are less credible than the increasing quantities of unsubstantiated tosh posted above?

That isn't what I was suggesting.  I didn't think I needed to quote the whole post by IndustryInsider but he/she said they went to Bristol on a Turbo and the FGW Director said apparently they aren't permitted to do that, so I quoted an instance from when FGW first got the 142s to back up their point of Directors can make mistakes.

Regarding rolling stock procurement I think everyone reading this thread knows that FGW have not agreed to take on the 180s, otherwise there would be an official announcement.  However, if they are looking at them as a possible option, which has been suggested, then it means they will need to look at the option in detail before agreeing any deal, which is then a possible source of rumours as FGW staff may have heard something, but FGW are saying they haven't agreed to take them on.  One of the first posts on the internet on Northern getting the 180s was by a Manchester Victoria conductor but was laughed off by most people as Northern didn't have intercity routes, but it proved to be true.  Saying that it won't be the case that TPE and FGW both get 180s so one will prove to be just speculation/rumours.

If the DfT don't play ball, they'll end up in storage....

My guess it will be at least 7 years before there are any thoughts about moving the 165/6 from there current duties, that is once Crossrail time table starts in December 2017, by which time (2015) the GW franchise will have been reentered.  Currently the TV and North Downs services need more 165/6's not less

THe turbos will fail the DDA in 2013ish....

That's a little harsh I think Chris.

The use of 165/6s on Cardiff - Portsmouth services (part of the Bristol area in rail terms),  was mentioned in the 'NRDF candidate schemes' section of consecutive Wessex route plans from 2007 - 2009, wording in the tables being this:
Also, within the Adonis announcement on electrification, you'll find this:

I'd agree it all seems to have been airbrushed from current policy, based on the 2010 route plans and the new RUS, but it clearly must have been under consideration before the rolling stock plans were eventually thrown into chaos...

Paul
 

They'll be given grandfather rights if they do fail DDA.  The 323s also have very similar interiors and access as the 165s.

Why do you suggest they'll fail?  If it's a lack of wheelchair space then that's easily fixed by removing a few seats near a door.  If it's an accessible toilet then what about units that don't have toilets in the first place?

If a train does not have any toilets then all people are being treated equally.  AIUI That is why Southern on some of their new stock did not put any toiets in.  There is then no requirement to have a disabled toilet.

As I understand it, it's the width of the doors / walkways from vestibule to seating....

To add to my post from yesterday, perhaps the FGW Director can explain why some of the FGW Turbo fleet has already been fitted with a circuit breaker in the cab (i.e. an isolation switch if it is faulty) specifically marked 'GSM-R'? in the last couple of months?  I don't see why you'd fit equipment to isolate something which there are currently no plans to fit?

Hmmm - I've asked the question....

Have you possibly been taken in by recent headlines?

Southern have not had any 'new stock' that they 'did not put toilets in'.  The recent stories are about overhauled 313s (ex LO) that have never had toilets at all.

Paul

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only recent build units for mail line railways not built without a toilet are the 172's for London Overground aren't they?

I'm hoping to take a trip around the Overground network next week to see the revolution that is taking place there - last time I was there it was rather dilapidated 313's and 150's in charge!

At least you stood a chance of getting a seat on those....

Yes, that's one of the reasons for doing the trip - to see how busy 3/4 car 378's are on the off-peak services and whether anyone is standing (obviously getting a seat on a peak train has always been an issue) - before the frequency of the West London Lines are ramped up next May.

Don't know whether they'd necessarily be considered recent, but the class 376 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_376) units in use at Southeastern are also khazi-free.

Thanks Blakey - I was unaware of them and I'd certainly call them a recent build.  I bet there will be many more people travelling on those per day than there will on the 313's down on the South Coast - albeit on shorter journeys on average - I don't remember quite so much of a media circus then though?

If they were to ever find themselves being cascaded to a longer distance route, presumably retro-fitting of toilets would be possible if the bodyshell is based on a normal Electrostar?

I do remember there being a moderate stir at the time the units were introduced about the lack of toilets, although I don't think it ever amounted to much. Unfortunately I can't find any of those old news stories on the web (doesn't help that there are no sources quoted in the Wikipedia article). South Eastern (as I think they were spelling it at the time) did promise that station toilet facilities would be improved, although I don't really know if that promise was kept!

I'm pretty sure though that it wasn't whipped up into a hugely over-hyped media frenzy courtesy of the RMT at the time though!

Is there an official rule on trains without working toilets doing extended toilet stops at certain stations if the journey exceeds a certain length?

Northern have used 150s without working toilets on Blackpool-Buxton services of around 2 hr 30 and people stated Northern are breaking rules by not arranging an extended toilet stop, but the people saying that probably don't know if there are any rules!

Not sure what the exact rules are either.  It's not unheard to find a toilet out of use on Cotswold Line services - usually with the 2-car on the halts service given that the toilets in most of the 2-cars are a terrible design and block easily.  In which case I can remember the full range of options being utilised, i.e. train cancelled, another train stepped up with a delay, a toilet stop arranged at Moreton-In-Marsh, or no action at all.  So it's fairly random!

That set works two services of around 1 hour 45mins.  I do know that the Senior Conductor working the 17:31 halts train is specifically required to check the toilet is in working order before departure (and a travelling cleaner is also booked on the previous working of the train, the 16:30 to Bicester) though what action is taken in the event of it being out of service is unclear!

Note to Mods: We've drifted a little off-topic again- could you consider splitting the thread?

There must be plans to fit GSM(R) to the Turbos, even if not immediately, because NR have a plan in place (NCN 5) to change the whole network over to GSM(R).  Major pdf file here all about it, nearly 300 pages:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/network%20code/network%20change/current%20proposals/gsm-r%20project/ncn5%20national%20rollout%20in%20great%20britain/ncn5%20-%20gsm-r%20national%20rollout%20issue%201.pdf (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/network%20code/network%20change/current%20proposals/gsm-r%20project/ncn5%20national%20rollout%20in%20great%20britain/ncn5%20-%20gsm-r%20national%20rollout%20issue%201.pdf)

According to NCN 5, which was published in April this year, the fitting dates for FGWs turbos is:

Class 165/1 - First Great Western(GSM-R replaces GSMP) - (70 Radios) 21-May-10 21-May-13
Class 166 - First Great Western (GSM-R replaces GSMP) - (40 Radios) 26-May-10 25-Oct-13

 [shown in milestones on Page 153 of the pdf file - in Annex C]

FGW's fleet seems to include the first of class trial for 165 and 166, I think as opposed to Chiltern, who will not have a first of class 165, but do for 168s.  I get the impression from NCN 5 that a 'lead TOC' for each class in widespread use has been decided upon.

Paul



 


 

The new issue of Modern Railways has a story about Adelantes possibly returning to FGW, taking a similar line to the one in Rail, talking about them being "ideally suited" for off-peak services in place of HSTs (what about Turbos too??) and saying a return to FGW is "the most likely outcome". It adds that they would provide cover should an HST life-extension programme be needed if the IEP bites the dust.

We shall see. I expect more concrete news may emerge once DafT knows how much money it has to spend after the Government's spending review announcement next month.

The same article adds that all the six remaining London Overground Class 150s are expected to be with FGW by mid-October, once the Class 172s take over all the Gospel Oak-Barking runs.

Which in turn will mean the 142s with FGW will return to Northern in time from the December timetable change and the 180s with Northern will be off lease (the 180s had previously had the sub-lease extended from May 2010 to October 2010 to December 2010 due to delays with the 172 delivery.)

The rumours around Exeter say that the 150's will be arriving next week to replace the ATW units and one of the engine and coaches, the one that comes down to PGN.  If this is correct, next friday could be the last service.  The second loco hauled diagram is staying for a bit longer, around mid-october I think.

Now, at the moment it's only a rumour, I won't believe it until I see them!!!

I think some of the class 172's with london overground have gone back to Derby.

The latest date for the class 150's to be sent to FGW i have been told  is 15th october, but i suspect that this may be pushed back again.

Happened today in fact.  Three car 165 on the 18:29 Great Malvern to Paddington.  Journey time 3hrs, even though with no padding and pathing allowances, the journey should be over 30 mins quicker.  No toilet as it had packed up somewhere on the journey down from Paddington.  The S/Con told me that it's been reported as faulty several times the last few days.  The only relief [sorry] for anybody on board was at Worcester Shrub Hill where the train was booked a 15-minute layover - though anybody wishing to take advantage of it would have to traipse over the footbridge and down the end of the other platform as there's no toilets (or waiting room - STILL!) on that platform. 

No trolley service either, and the S/Con also told me that the train hadn't been cleaned before departure from Paddington and he'd managed to fill three plastic bags full of rubbish at Malvern.  Poor.  Very poor!

Yawn. We've been here repeatedly before in the last few weeks. Who told you that 172s had gone back to Derby, who told you that the "last date" for 150s to be sent to FGW was 15 Oct, and why do you suspect this may be pushed back again.

Mods have asked you time and again to source your gen, apparently to no avail as you're still ignoring us. Is it really too much to ask for you to have the courtesy to tell other forum members where you're getting all this "information" from?

 ESpecially as so much then turns out to be *wrong*.

I have put up links sometimes when i have them. As for where i have got the information from,  I either have been told by freinds who are working for some of the rail operators or  I have read the information on other rail forums.

I have said that this info could change or could be proved wrong!!!

Here is an example of a thread where i have put up the links:

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=7641.msg76223#new

If the stories in Modern Railways and Rail about the 172s can be considered reasonably accurate, it makes sense for the LO 172s to go back to Derby for their 'minor modifications' now, while they still have 150s. 

Seems as though the completely re-routed exhaust is no longer required - I guess there'll be further detail in the rail mags in due course.

(I've no idea if they have or have not gone to Derby though, IYSWIM)

Paul

Also in October Modern Railways someone seems fairly convinced that some Adelantes are coming to FGW.

Which brings us back to the original topic.

OK, that's fine, thanks for doing that. All I'm asking is a few things: not expecting links to be posted justifying everything. Just the following:

1. If you've got the information from somewhere on the web then provide a link (you're pretty good at doing this)
2. If you read it in a magazine, tell us which one and what edition
3. If you read it on a forum somewhere, tell us which one (certain forums have a reputation for spectacularly inaccurate speculation and "gen"!)
4. If someone told you something and you're reporting hearsay, then tell us where you got it from - was it a member of staff (of course I'm not asking you to name anyone), a friend of a member of staff, a friend of a friend of a friend of a conductor's cat, etc etc. These stories tend to get more and more garbled the higher the number of removes from the "horse's mouth".

Bottom line is that the sort of post that starts "I heard that...", "I read that...", "I think that..." aren't very helpful to people unless you indicate where you saw/heard/read etc!

_{Edited to remove bizarre hanging sentence that I somehow didn't spot when I made the original post.}

And bear in mind that the Railway magazines read forums and newsgroups to get their stories too....so, read them with a pinch of salt too, unless they reveal their sources in their articles (which they're pretty crap at too!)

Could be more information in the next RAIL as there's an feature on Mark Hopwood - perhaps he gave them a few titbits to work on which will be fleshed out in the full article?  Magazines sometimes do that too.

One of the two off-lease East Coast 180s has reportedly been spotted at Edinburgh this afternoon (on railforums.co.uk), which seems to suggest that either Scotrail or TPE have asked to have a look at them.

Or one of the First Hull Trains Adelantes heading up to Kilmarnock for refresh.

Well, he didn't do that - no mention about 180's at all.  Talk of adding TS's to HST 2+7 rakes, and lengthening of more Turbo's to 6-car length though.

Wonder where the extra turbos are coming from....

It does beg that question, yes.  The only possibilities I can see are by 'something else' working the services on the Cotswold Line that currently remove three units per day that could be used to strengthen other peak services (two in the morning and one in the evening).  And there will be an extra one or two sets available after the Turbo refresh is completed in 2012.  Also, the 2-car set which works the Bicester Town service will be released when the line is closed and Chiltern take over.  That's not enough to make much of a difference though!

THe one or two away being refreshed are due back on current services that have been de-strengthened currently, so those don't count.

Someone else could, I guess, operate services along the cotswold Line, but where do *they* get the stock requitred from if they don't inherit those trains currently running the services?

Yes, the Bicester Town turbo(s) will be released in May 2011 when Chiltern take over that branch (if they don't inherit that turbo of course - which they might do until EG3 is complete)

Something else, not someone else - i.e. a FGW HST or 180.  Chiltern will almost certainly 'hire' the FGW Turbo (and our drivers) from May 2011 from what I've heard, but it won't be long after that before the line shuts for its rebuild.

Well, the turbos on the Cotswold Line are only used off-peak, which is not really when the other turbo services need strengthening....so it's unlikely that they'll come from there.

Not sure how you could describe the 05.48 and 06.48 from London to Great Malvern as off-peak trains. Were something else to operate either or both of those services, then the Turbos would of course be available to strengthen morning peak services in the Thames Valley - and in the case of the 05.48's forerunners, something else did operate the service from the autumn of 2004 until February last year, in the shape of a 180 most of that period, then an HST.

Well, Off-Peak fares (SVR) are available on them!

Er, ho, ho. Only if you're travelling past Oxford. Nor for 'internal' Cotswold Line journeys. My point was pretty obviously related to rolling stock availability.

THose trains would be considered 'contra-peak'....

As Will says, they certainly aren't used off-peak!  The three units are effectively out of action between the following times as they pop off to Great Malvern:

05:48 until 11:29
06:48 until 12:29
13:20 until 20:00

All three could thus prove very useful to strengthen peak hour services around Paddington.  Two of then were operated by a HST/180 until last year (the loss of that HST for the first of them was especially criticised by users at the time), there's no reason in principal why the other couldn't be too.

The reason that these were replaced by turbos is that the loadinghs didn't warrant an expensive HST/180....nothing has changed, so unless the DfT makes recompense anything more expernsive won't be utilised.....

Yes, that's true.  I was originally suggesting where additional Turbo's could be sourced from to strengthen peak services, and then replying to your strange statement that Turbos weren't used during the peak on the Cotswold Line.  However, it's worth making the point that all three of those Turbo's do load to standing most days at some point during their journeys (the first of which usually has standing passengers from Slough as a 6-car!)  Sadly though, for the majority of the trip a HST is well over the top.

What might have changed is the leasing costs of a Class 180.  If nobody else wants them, and FGW can secure them on a cheaper deal than before, then perhaps, just perhaps, they could be used on two of those three services to good effect?

yes, that may be possible....

If I waited for some more replies I would have seen that it was indeed 180109 (a Hull Trains unit) that has gone up to Scotland.  However, it's been revealed that Hull Trains have taken out a short term lease on 180102 to cover diagrams during refurbishment.

Excuse me? The loadings didn't warrant a 180? In the case of the 05.XX ex-Pad/08.XX back from Worcester/Malvern for nigh on five years, oh yes they did. Which was why it was the first Cotswold working to be regularly operated by a 180 - and even with a 180 it often ran south of Oxford with people standing. An HST was too big, but only as far as Oxford. As Insider notes, another three-car Turbo is added to the set that has come from Malvern, to create a train with a remarkably similar seating capacity to, er, an HST.

And I'm sure with a bit of thought, one could come up with a mile-long list of HST workings, on the Cotswold Line and elsewhere, where the set is heavily loaded one way and very sparsely populated in the other direction.

The reason the HST was replaced was to cut running costs, pure and simple, irrespective of passenger comfort (resulting in the February half-term last year, just after the switch, in one of my worst-ever Cotswold Line journeys, and that's saying something) though we now have that six-car formation south of Oxford, plus, for the past 10 months, the 09.29 from Moreton operating, so I should think a large chunk of that supposed saving has vanished.

The next train out and back has never been worked by a 180/HST, even though there are times of the year, especially over the summer, when it leaves Hanborough with pretty much every seat taken - and it's not a train where lots of people do get off at Oxford, so can be very busy beyond there.

I think at the time the main reason for the change was the very tight turn around at Foregate Street.  Even when running on time there was hardly enough time for the driver to change ends and depart on time.

Well that's a new one on me - and since I used the 08.XX from Malvern most of the week, I think I would have noticed crippling timekeeping problems when using an HST - and if your timetable doesn't work properly, logic suggests you change it. It may have been turned back short at Worcester on occasion, but that would have been down to delays accumulated on the single line battling the flow of London-bound trains, not some inherent problem with that service's timings.

The official line from FGW last year was the one about loadings that ChrisB has repeated - though as I say south of Oxford that made no sense anyway in the case of the 08.XX, hence the second Turbo being added, and we now have an extra train running part of the route as well.

Think I'll stick with what I was told by the CLPG following their discussions with FGW - that managers were "hell bent" on cutting costs.

Indeed.....


a three-car turbo holds as many as a 180. My bad - I should have left it as an HST only.

It was a very tight turnaround at Great Malvern, but if the train arrived on time it would usually depart on time - just.  The removal of the Malvern Link stop in the down direction gave an additional couple of minutes to work with at Malvern Wells - this stop has now been re-introduced as being a Turbo it's a much quicker turnaround. 

The timings on the return journey were also quite tight for a HST with plenty of passengers joining at all the stops - I think it was timed to do Shrub Hill to Oxford faster than any other HST service during the whole day, quicker than the Cathedrals Express which misses out Hanborough, so a bike at the wrong end of a platform, or a door left open often knocked it by a couple of minutes. 

So, I'd go along with the 'cost' argument principally, but there was a performance benefit too.

But was it really a timing issue, or timing issues related to certain well-known infrastructure issues? Eg, the hefty timing allowance at Evesham to try to make sure it stays out of the way of the Cathedrals Express. And going to Malvern is a recent alteration (past two/three years?), as it turned back at Worcester for many years.


On paper, yes, but as we all know, the middle seat of the sets of three on Turbos is only occupied when things get seriously crowded, whereas on a 180 you actually get backsides on all the seats - and people are able to sit comfortably, which certainly ain't the case on a Turbo, unless you find 250 people without any arms!

Indeed, but you'll find cost per seat is the driver. 5 coaches copst far more to run around than three.

To be absolutely blunt about matters and its sad to have say this but if British Rail (worts and all) had not precured the rolling stock it did for the then Western Region in the 10/15 years prior to rail privatisation where would FGW be now.Firsts brief foray into the rolling stock market produced the class 180 a train too expensive to lease with too little capacity.Any talk of a return to FGW of the class 180s will need financial assistance from the tax payer.Basically all First can do out of its own resources is to refurbish and keep going the rolling stock it has,any new build will need government support,the same as it ever was.Privatisation was suppose to free the railways instead it has become even more ensnared to the treasury as we will all find out on October 20th when the government announces the outcome of its Comprehensive Spending Review.

The same would apply to any other operator getting them. And DafT is on record as saying that the five sets will go to a franchised operator - and won't want any stories in the papers and on TV about trains sitting in sidings like all those ex-Wessex dmus at Eastleigh in 2007 - so there will be negotiations going on about where they might go and how the leases are going to be paid for.

Had a chat with a fairly senior manager the other day who was very clear in that it was almost a certainty that 'some' Class 180's would be returning, so I was just about to make a post about it  and lo-and-behold the latest edition of RAIL popped through my letterbox pretty much confirming that fact!

The manager said that at least one set would be arriving around September for crew training/re-training, presumably in time to take on some workings around the December timetable change?

I've dragged up this old post I made on the subject last year, as it still stands as a sensible use of them in my opinion.  You could also add another diagram if all 5 surplus units were to return as follows:

Diagram 3:
08:22 Paddington to Hereford (due 11:44)
13:11 Hereford to Paddington (due 16:11)
18:51 Paddington to Oxford (due 19:50)

Or you could combine it with Diagram 2 in the evening peak and run a 10-car service out of Paddington calling Slough, Maidenhead, Twyford, Reading and stations at Oxford to replace the much missed 18:33?

Obviously there's a lot of fine tuning to be done and a whole raft of staff to re-train (along with an amended Cotswold Line timetable), but that gives you some idea of what could be done.

Maybe a class 165/166 could be spared  to provide a off-peak service between Swindon & Westbury if the stock can be cleared for the route.

No Chance of that happening, No West Drivers, Guards sign the Traction, anything that happens for Swindon & Westbury will utilise existing Traction Classes, 143,150, 153, 158

That's the trouble with modern traction now if it were 5 Standard Fives that would be would be ideal they could go most places, pull a resonable train and any depot  could run them. Or even some Standard 4 tanks would be ideal for Westbury Swindon.

i would have said 8Fs but they are not fast enough couldn't do 90!

Yes but HSS drivers and guards sign the route Swindon to Westbury.

Good news. Would be most welcome on the 06.48 diagram from September 5th, when an interim revised Cotswold Line timetable is likely to start. Oxford and Worcester staff were trained on 180s from August 2004 on the 05.48 diagram but to do that now would be asking for trouble in terms of the loading south of Oxford. I would have though they might be able to get their hands on one of the two floating sets (ie not on Northern's books) before September.

Would make sense to deploy them off-peak to Hereford in place of lightly-loaded HSTs but then again, they might also help address the question of how to offer more London-Worcester workings post-redoubling. And a 10-car formation would be very popular for the 07.33 from Oxford. Also raises the prospect of extra Shipton stops without the expense of extending the up platform as well as some 166s going back to Reading-Gatwick

My understanding is that the new TT is due to start a week later....


Depends on finance agreements with the DfT.....


More likely to be used to reduce overcrowding....any extra WOS trips will need to be self-financing if they're going to use a more-expensive-than-a-turbo set....one can hope though.

Really? Well I never.

But clearly an agreement of some sort is now in place and I'm not sure whether such an agreement would preclude them, subject to the leasing company's consent, going and having a play in the sidings at Old Oak Common, where I believe 180104 has been sitting around doing nothing for some months. What I meant, and clearly should have spelled out, was they might be able to get one for out-of-service training before September, or is DafT so daft as to stop them doing even that?


Any extra Worcester trips would be at times of the day when there isn't overcrowding in the Thames Valley, ie late morning and early afternoon. Perfectly feasible, (subject to finance...) to diagram them to be back in London to form up pairs for the peak or free HSTs from jobs like the 17.50 to Worcester and 17.48 to Cheltenham, though if the 17.50 is to have 20 minutes cut from the running time and make connections for Malvern, Droitwich and Kidderminster at Worcester, then it might become a much more attractive proposition for passengers heading west of Moreton-in-Marsh.

That would certainly be a possibility if you ran the units down with the 05:17 Paddington to Oxford (or equivalent).

180104 is as you rightly say is at OOC dont think its going to be going to far in a hurry because lots and lots of bits are missing as i understand its being used as a spares donor vehicle to keep the hull trains units operational as spares avalibility for the class have been critical for a considerable time now

And that will be an issue for any TOC looking to take any spare sets

precisely.... although similar to a 175 many parts are unique with only 14 Units and after 10 odd years the class could be regarded as obsolete.
The 180 has been very much a complete lash up from start to finish really

Whilst I'd never claim the Class 180 story has been an totally successful one, and it would be better to keep the fleet with one operator to maximise their efficiency, I'd hardly describe them as obsolete.  After all, in terms of availability of spares, there's exactly the same number of Class 180 vehicles (70) out there as there are Class 175's.  Would you describe them as obsolete?

I think it's fair to describe any product that can no longer be maintained other than by robbing another of the same product for spares, as obsolete, yes.

Absolute rubbish.  You're just annoyed that the rumours turned out to be true.  ;)

Really doesn't bother me - IF it'sd true, I'll be the first to accept I was wrong. They've got to go somewhere!

And further - it'll be likely that the DfT will have done a cheap deal - which was the sticking point anyway!

Seems a bit odd - trains built by Alstom, engines are Cummins diesels, hydraulic transmission manufactured by Voith. All of those are big, successful companies which are still in business, are they really not providing support for their products just 10 years after they were built? How on earth was a fleet of trains built with no allowance made for spares and maintenance beyond barely a third of their expected service life?

Someone would need to enter a contract....with that few built, it was easier to persuade the dft it was cheaper to canibalise....

Surely maintenance contracts are the responsibility of the rolling stock owner if they are off-lease, not the DfT?

There are plenty of systems that are not in themselves obsolete but which benefit from cannibalisation of components from others to speed up the supply chain response time.

I've never really understood why the 180s ended up with the reputation for being unreliable is there an underlying problem with them?
Of those I've travelled on (lots back when they were on FGW plus two Northern and even a GC example) all bar one ran on time. The audio carriage was a bit of a let down in that having the cables run exposed on its way through the arm joint seemed the most noticeable flaw in the design.
The one that did delay me was on a trip from Taunton to Reading where on approach to Newbury an emergency brake application brought us to a standstill, word from the train manager was that the empty five cars at the rear had triggered an emergency stop. Rumour had it that they had partially uncoupled but I never heard it confirmed.

The things were basically built on the cheap by Alstom a company not known for the production of DMUs to compete with  the Bombardier Voyager.
There was a lot of bad design faults which caused untold problems at 125mph running, as well as Random bits just falling off.
They seem to be better now though as a lot of work has been done to them. dont think spares provision has ever been brilliant with them

Crikey, cheer up. From the tone of some of these posts you'd think someone was taking five trains off FGW, not giving them five more, offering the prospect of 1,100 extra seats out there in the peaks - and of again meeting that pledge from 2004.

As for spares, as the inspector notes, all the major components are from big manufacturers and are in widespread use in rail applications here (the same engines as Voyagers and Meridians) and in Europe (the transmissions), so they won't have any problem with those. As for anything else, there's always someone out there who will make it, for a price.

Obsolete? For goodness' sake, the last Class 101s were finally pensioned off in 2003 - that's 47 years after BR took delivery of the first.

The leasing company might just get the parts in to repair 104 and build up a stock now that it knows where all the trains will be working - and it's probably a rather less challenging job to get 104 back in shape than one of the XC HST power cars, which was basically a rotting hulk that had been dumped at Neville Hill depot in Leeds  for years.


I know DafT are very keen on micro-management but the idea that they are actually being asked about whether a fitter at Old Oak Common can rob a part from 104 to keep a Hull Trains set in traffic takes the biscuit. And whatever OOC are doing with the HT sets is getting results, with steadily improving reliability. But it's to be hoped that the dmu cascade starts in good time, so they can get the FGW returnees in decent shape well before December.

And if 180s are so cripplingly expensive to lease and operate, how are Hull Trains and Grand Central still in business?

The difference when we think about obsolesence in the older units is that they weren't so dependent on the electronic components, now almost as the DMU is being built the components on the PCBs will be out of production.
The pace of component development means that where the components of the 1947 DMU would be available for some period and subsequently alternatives would be available that isn't as easy today.

With two sets leased but not in service (180102/4) then it does indeed make sense to 'cannibalise' them for spare parts if there would be a delay in getting that component from a supplier.  There's a world of difference between that situation and these sets being stripped of parts left right and centre just to keep the rest of the fleet struggling on for a little longer!

As it is, perhaps this deal for FGW only involves the three units in service with Northern Trains (i.e. for two diagrams) rather than the full five spare units (for three, or at a push, four diagrams),  in which case 102/4 could carry on being occasional donors to the rest of the fleet. 

If all 5 are to be taken on by FGW (as I hope), then expect components to be ordered, replaced and for them to be up and running again with little bother.

To be honest i do prefer the class 180's over the voyagers. The class 180's have  much better seating and you  feel a crammed in as you do with the class 220/221 units. Ideally you should have a class 180 bodyshell on the  voyager undercarriage.

Perhaps the reason we like the seating on an Adelante is that it is a little more generous in pitch?
The seats on the Adelante almost look old fashioned now in that the seats aren't quite so high backed as we see on the FGW HSTs and perhaps it helps in comparison to the Voyager that the seats are aligned somewhat more pleasantly for those wanting to wind gaze.
I wonder if the Adelante was to be fitted with high density seating if we would feel the same.
If the Adelante is going to come back to FGW the number of seats must be a consideration, I seem to recall when they were introduced there wasn't much difference in standard class seating numbers between the old layout HST and an Adelante and when run in ten car formation there was more standard class seating that a single HST. I presume since the switch to high density HSTs that has changed. If the Adelante fleet is going to end up on the Paddington-Oxford services the journey time is short so perhaps it lends itself to replacing the seating with more HST style seats? Certainly all the interiors were looking tired when they left FGW, they haven't improved much from my personal observation (indeed they could be a bit worse from wear) so maybe it is an opportunity when they come back, perhaps we could see the at seat audio return or volo added - or what about wifi, Grand Central have found a way to install it so perhaps the same modification could be applied before reintroduction to FGW service?

I think you mis-remember. One of the reasons that FGW gave them up was that there were the same number of seats on a 5car Adelante as there are on a 3car turbo - and of course, track access charges are based on axle count....so they are 40% more expensive to run than a turbo, for the same number of seats. The old-style HST had far more seats than a 3car turbo.....there may have been more seats on a 10car Adelante coupling than an old-style HST though, that's true.


I'm sure that this will form part of the discussions FGW will be having with the DfT, but the DfT will have to find a way of paying for the conversion, because the TOC won't be interested....


Again, only if VOLO are interested in paying for it. I can't see FGW being inmterested, when there is little left in this franchise. Decisions, decisions, including whether FGW want to continue beyond 2013 all need taking by year-end....

Having now looked into it a bit courtesy of Wikipedia for the five car sets:
180s have up to 287 seats, reading elsewhere perhaps 42 of which are First Class
221s in Virgin West Coast format have 26 first class and 236 standard class seats
221s in Virgin North Wales format have 84 first class and 178 standard class seats
221s in CrossCountry format have 26 first class and 252 standard class seats
222s in East Midlands Trains format 50 first and 192 standard class seats

It somewhat challenges my initial perception that the 180 was nicer onboard because it had sacrificed seats for comfort. Given that the 180 has a cafe, full first class carriage (rather than being shared with the driving equipment and food prep area).
Maybe there are more luggage racks in a Voyager/Meridian? Is there some other technique that has squeezed in more seating to the 180?

You might hope that Volo would see a benefit in equipping the trains in that since they seem to end up moving between operators more often than has been true of the other units so they might be able to persuade whoever ends up with the 180s after FGW to keep their service. :-)
I wonder if the franchises could be changed in future so rather than the return on investment calculation saying only invest in the initial years to something that would encourage innovation and change throughout the life of the franchise, it would perhaps help here with the 180s and for West Coast would perhaps have meant the longer Pendolino would have come in automatically. It might also help when the operators change over in that the new operator would be taking on a company that hadn^t been starved of investment over the preceding year.

The 180 is a far nicer train, full stop. Though Meridians are slightly less nasty than a Voyager. If you want to see an interesting article about train comfort, get the latest Modern Railways, where there is a huge table rating journeys on all kinds of trains - the 180 is up near the top of the league. Voyagers and Meridians right at the bottom along with Pacers. One of the reasons 180s have a decent number of seats by comparison with a Voyager, in particular, is that they don't have three disabled toilets per five-car train taking up vast amounts of floor space.


Depends which variety of Turbo you mean Chris - there are 275 on a 165, more like 250 on a 166, due to the luggage spaces and 2+2 section with tables. A 180 has 284, though that I think includes the perch seats, so 270-odd proper seats on a 180. And these are seats you can sit comfortably in, as you well know Chris - quite unlike the 3+2s on a Turbo, which do not allow for the fact that human bodies have arms attached. And the Turbo seats are fitted right up against the bodyside, so you can't actually sit straight in the window seats anyway, even if the adjacent seat is unoccupied. Those seats were never intended for use on long-distance services.

FGW's accounts department may be touched by your concern for their track access payments. I would be rather more concerned about the groans and shrugs of resignation from passengers on Cotswold Line platforms when a Turbo hoves into view. HSTs and Adelantes don't produce either effect - why might that be? And as several posters here frequently suggest, there are people who won't go near the Cotswold Line because they might encounter a Turbo, which must be hurting FGW's bottom line.


But it isn't on services out to Worcester, Malvern and Hereford, which is what these trains will actually be used for most of the time, so the old seats with new trim will do just fine thanks. And 2x180 still has more standard seats than a high-density HST, something like 440-450 v 400, which was why FGW used a pair of 180s from Oxford into London every weekday morning pretty much until the end of Adelante operations in 2009.

Insider, I think it's a safe bet that FGW will be getting all five sets in working order. Even when FGW only had three sets left on the books, there was a degree of rotation with the stored sets, which won't be an option in future.

You got me wrong - I'm as little concerned about their bottom line as you are, Will. I was just advising what the snags might be that are obviously holding up these negotiations. And these are dragging, from what I've been told by FGW this morning.

Of course the Cotswold Line are a suitable place for this stock, as are the Bedwyn trains, and possibly Bristol TM in the peak in the 2x180 arrangement....As this is a public forum, your didactic assertion that they ARE coming to the Cotswold Line needs a modicum of IMHO, I think. It is NOT a done deal, at all, and even more so that FGW are definitely putting them on the Cotswold Line.

Of course it may happen, and I'm NOT saying it won't. But negotiations are still continuing & nothing is yet signed deal.

But don't be surprised if FGW hit the Cotswold Line with fares consistant with other HST routes if and when they arrive. The fares along the line are a lot lower mile for mile, than other HST routes. It can't be expected both ways.

I have yet to heart that Volo can make a profit on those units already installed....let alone instal even more!


The DfT recently published the results of its consultation into future franchises, so you can see what they're thinking now.

Except you could, if they'd post the blasted thing on their website.

Since the 2x180 (perhaps targetting 4 out of 5 180s to be available Monday to Friday) are better provisioned with standard class seats than the equivalent HST, would there be benefit in suggesting that allocating the 180s to the most heavily loaded peak hour services, they could perhaps still make an off peak run for the Cotswolds to keep the Cotswold line passengers happy?

In turn the two HSTs freed up could then be used to upgrade some Turbo services, the freed Turbos would then cascade to increase train lengths.

I guess we can't see new services being introduced by the 180s so a cascade might be the best result improving capacity on many more peak time services:
4 180s replace 2 HSTs
2 HSTs replace 2x2car Turbo and 2 x 3 car Turbo (presume replace the 5 car combinations)
4 Turbo sets available to add to any services not already running at maximum length?
Off peak there should be plenty of options, multiple shuttle trips to Oxford, a trip to Hereford, Exeter etc.

The HSTs will be no good at making frequent stops, like most of the 2x3 turbos do....they coke up extremely quickly.
You're looking for limited-stop journeys....maybe once everything is in place, new patterns of service could be developed to say give a limited-stop along the Bedwyn line?....that sort of thing. Whether limited stop along the Cotswold would be entertained by CLPG, I don't know. The 180s do frequent stop a lot better, so maybe swapping HSTs for 2x180 along there? That would give the benifit of splitting a 2x180 at Oxford, taking the front 180 only along the Cotswold - tha\t would be my suggestion....

The trouble with that idea - and on paper for some services it's a good one - is the added complication of uncoupling (and especially coupling) Class 180's together.  They weren't really designed for the kind of quick attach/detach that Turbos do day-in, day-out as the procedure is a more convoluted one.  The main problem being the set-up time of the cab desk from a driver 'keying-in' to actually being able to do anything - PIN numbers for ATP and the TMS systems need to be entered for example!  So, it would be possible, but you'd probably have to build in an extra 3-5 minutes.

Against a goodly saving of paying double in access fees for the same service?.....possibly worthwhile, methinks.

Whether its do-able in the morning peak at Oxford, may be different. Trying to persuade impatient commuters at Oxford to wait while the two sets are joined up, hmmm

All the problems with the 180 are down to the initial procurement:-

1)   Design Specification should include basic things like top speed / acceleration / fuel consumption / axle loading / route availability / reliability etc. It should also include time to couple (& no of staff required), time for doors to open / close and hundreds of other things that the railway fraternity understand. If it fails to meet these goals the manufacturer fixes it at no cost to the operator.
2)   It is unbelievable that spares are no longer directly available frmm the manufacturer. Manufacturer Support and Parts availability should be for a minimum of (say) 15 years (or whatever the required product life is), with notification of end-of-life support (ie the manufacturer won^t provide parts any longer) not less than 3 years before termination. This allows the option to replace that stock. So the minimum supported life is 15 years if notice is given at 12 years of discontinuation of logistic support as an example.
3)   Any lease is based on initial purchase price, interest rate & residual value at the end of the lease. If correctly drafted any new lease is based on the RV of the product, so any new lease should be considerably cheaper than the previous lease. Does anyone know what period the ROSCO has deprecated the 180s over? I^d take a guess that their asset value is currently way over their market value given that they are both modern & problematic.

This one?

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/2010-28/govresponse.pdf

That's it! Couldn't find the webpage it was linked from....

Andy W, good to see Logistic Support being mentioned, along with Availability, Reliability and Maintainability.

The railways haven't adopted the theory in the same way that the Aerospace and Defence industries have, indeed the Defence industry is moving on now to talk in terms of requiring suppliers to produce a Supportability Case that shows they have in place sufficient support to meet the availability requirement throughout life. It isn't then a case of merely producing a train which meets the simple acceleration or seat numbers, instead the supplier takes responsibility for delivering the capability. When I read the requirements for miles per casualty I was surprised that this was still being used, yes number of incidents is an interesting statistic but if a train fails and can be instantly fixed the availability of that train isn't badly affected, conversly a train which can operate for miles without failure but when it fails takes too long to fix will badly affect the availability. So many contracts are now just Availability based, that isn't ideal but it represents a confidence in that a good manufacturer will therefore choose to design to make it easy to fix, easy to source, usually in so doing you end up with a design which is reliable and therefore available.

There is a theory around quality which gives that the quality of the interior is represented by the quality you can see from outside, I think that is something it would be nice to see FGW take to heart, if they did so then the interior panels would be cleaned, torn and worn cloth repaired.

Some very interesting and sensible comments on this thread.

We have become extremely averse to portion working these days, apart from Southern where there are regular splits such as Victoria to Bognor Regis / Southampton at Horsham.  This seems to work well despite fairly high frequencies, a complex network and mechanical signalling!  This ought to be more practical to do these days with self-propelled trains and no need to have a loco around to take away the portion.  Having said that I do accept the point about the computers in the two trains having to talk to each other.  But the public like through trains and we could provide more of them through this method.  And we can better align supply and demand by dropping off portions at, say, Oxford, with a shorter train continuing to Worcester and Hereford.  IMHO work should be put into making these things happen.

Was going by the tag on Rail's article - but then I'm a journalist and so are they, so it's bound to be wrong - even if the last jobs the 180s did for FGW were on the Cotswold Line and even if my own discussions with FGW over recent years indicate they are well aware of the inadequacy of Turbos for the Cotswold Line - hence their hope they would get some four-car 172s or something similar to do the job, before that idea was scuppered. The talks may be dragging on - hardly a surprise if DafT is involved - but it looks pretty clear that a return to FGW is the only game in town.


That would depend on what fare you're paying now. The peak fares for most journeys into Oxford are no bargain - peak day return is ^14.20 Moreton-Oxford (up to and including the 08.15) - set against an MIM-PAD off-peak return (aka Saver) of ^34 valid from 07.29 onwards, for three times the distance. And if you ram up peak fares, then off-peak follows - hardly a great way to encourage use of your more reliable and frequent off-peak service post-redoubling, is it? Also pretty hard to start forcing up the peak fare to Swindon levels without a Swindon-type frequency - and there are no more peak Cotswold trains on offer in future, so far as I'm aware, since FGW doesn't have the stock available - anything that follows from a return by 180s would have to be focused on boosting peak capacity in the Thames Valley - or out to Swindon - how about a queue-buster HST from Swindon using an HST deplaced from Oxford duties by a 2X180 formation?


4 180s paired up wouldn't replace 2 HSTs as you would - in a sensible world and if you can't find an HST for the 05.48 - be sending 180s separately out to Worcester/Malvern on the 05.48 and 06.48 - with a pair of 180s working a peak Oxford-London as they used to do. A quick turnround would get one of them back to Oxford to meet up with the return of the 05.48 to give lots of seats from Oxford at 10am or 10.30am, when they are needed to meet demand. After that, the 180s can cover pretty much any longer-distance working on the Cotswold Line until the peak services out of London start with the 15.51, which need HSTs. You could perhaps do with a pair of 180s on the 17.50, to cover demand for Maidenhead, Reading and Oxford, but a single one is fine for west of Oxford - subject to the ease or not of attaching and detaching - though a more reliable Cotswold Line would make building in time at Oxford rather easier than now.


I'm not aware anyone suggested that is actually the case, maybe it's just no-one has ordered any when you can just nip out the back of the depot and take one off 180104 - modern trains are in any case bolted together out of components from all over the place, so who do you define as being the manufacturer?


Perhaps in the real world but rolling stock leasing is not conducted in the real world. At the time of the inquiry into leasing launched in 2006, a 20-odd-year-old Pacer cost something like ^100,000 a year to lease - when the build price, adjusted for inflation, was ^700,000. And that initial cost had been written off years before under BR.   


Given the defence industry's appalling track record over cost control, developing kit that doesn't actually do the job, over-charging, etc, I'm not sure I would wish to take anything they do as an example. And availability, reliability and maintainability are at the heart of train maintenance contracts like those Alstom (Pendolinos) and Siemens (SWT 444s and 450s) have operated for some years now, to name but two examples.

Quite right, though the return workings would struggle if they were a single 180 after Oxford on the 16:31 and 17:36.  You'd need some sort of extra capacity there, especially from Slough on the 16:31.  The 17:36 already misses out Slough but even as a HST there's very few seats left after Oxford- especially on a Friday.  So I think that Hereford service should remain a HST. 

The earlier one, which up until the December timetable change was a HST would really need the Slough stop removed (though it's a very popular one!) if it was to stand much of a chance as a 180 - mind you, I did hear that it was to revert back to a HST in the summer?

You could really do with having a larger fleet of these 180's at your disposal to maximise their effectiveness.  Off-peak 5-car sets working the Oxfords and some Cotswold Line trains and perhaps the Bedwyn's (extended to Westbury).  Then in the peak hours you could run a few 10-car capacity busters on the peak Bristol's/Swansea's.  I reckon about 14 of them would have done the trick.  ::)

yawn


Well if you read earlier postings that is exactly what was suggested.
I can see no logic in raiding a modern unit - which should be revenue generating - I presume these parts are actually purchased from the ROSCO - or is the unit on lease? Any which way they will not be free. I assume that parts scavenged from 180104 are then replaced - if not what a waste of a unit. Finally you cannot rely on the quality of used / scavanged parts. 
The manufacturer is the company that built it - all others are sub-contractors & suppliers to the manufacturer.


Surprisingly passengers actually live in the real world.
The concept that you lease on the inflation adjusted cost of the original build is frankly bizarre. If the initital cost was written off by BR what price did the ROSCO pay for them?


Relaibility, availability and serviceability are far more complicated than relying on the maintenance contract regardless of how good / bad that contract is. It is more down to the product design, build quality, diagnostic ability, spares quality & availability. All of these should be part of the initial product requirements and should be at the heart of the product not just the maintenance contract.

It is not bizare for the leasing cost to be related in to the new build cost.  When you lease a car that is exactly what you expect.  A cheap car is cheaper to lease than an expensive car.

It's an article of faith with a number of posters here


Are you actually suggesting that a maunfacturer should be able to guarantee continuity of supply of parts from its suppliers over an extended period, like the typical 30-year life of a train? What do you do if they stop trading? Bombardier had to buy some of its suppliers not that long ago when they ran into trouble, to ensure it could deliver new trains, never mind provide parts for older trains.

As for spares supply, it was asserted that spares were no longer available - asserted, no more than that - which doesn't count as proof, does it? And, as I said previously, if you can't find a part, someone, somewhere will make it for you, for a price. Railways have been robbing parts off one train to keep another running pretty much as long as they have been around. If the dmu cascade had all worked out and East Coast had taken the 180s as first planned, I'm pretty sure 104 would have been given a thorough refit last year - which it will presumably now be getting this year instead.

Passengers might live in the real world but what have they got to do with my point about the parallel universe of train leasing? I'll spare people the detailed saga, if they're interested they can investigate it all themselves, but BR's rolling stock was sold off for peanuts prices by the last Tory government in its privatisation splurge. The leasing firms were then sold on very quickly for far more than the taxpayer got, making some people very rich indeed on the back of former public assets. And the operators continue to pay eye-watering sums each year to run things like Pacers, which passengers in the real world have to use.

I wasn't suggesting the contracts were the be all and end all of the picture - merely that many trains are covered by similar arrangements of a kind that laird said weren't being adopted by the rail industry, whereas availability of a specified number of trains each day is the fundamental point of the Virgin and SWT arrangements with Alstom and Siemens, so it was in their own interests to make sure the things were built properly.

As for diagrams, yes, looking closely at what you might want to do with the 180s first thing in the morning and where that might put them in the mid-morning period, it may well be that you would have to keep HSTs on the Herefords anyway. And 14 Adelantes would be nice to give all that flexibility but FGW turned their face against that notion a few years back.

inflation adjusted -. Are you suggesting that if you lease a Capri today the lease price is based on the inflation adjusted price of the new car? You should lease on the current value. Leasing companies invariably offer that as the residual value (buy back value) on a car lease, lease / purchase agreement.

If you buy something that you expect to have a life span of 30 years then yes I expect manufacturer support for that time otherwise you cannot guarantee that life span. I assume many failed parts can be refurbished and that,again, should be factored in.

The problem with the suggestion of a 30 year life span is that all the trains bought will last 30 years. What the planners should be looking for is that all units are available for the first 15 years (say) then a gradual diminution of the fleet after that point until the 30 year point.So the manufacturer support would be 15 years (with notice of end-of-life).

That is how you achieve the 30 years you suggest, in later life is the time to use scavenged parts - not when the train is less than 10 years old (30% of it's projected life).

What happens if the manufacturer goes bust? While that can happen that shouldn't stop provisions being made for new spares supply.

Did you mean Southern the TOC, or the former Southern Region?  Portion working is pretty common in SWT's area as well, not necessarily for splitting to two different destinations like they do at Horsham, but there's plenty of splitting and joining for capacity reasons at both Salisbury and Bournemouth.  Which is the sort of thing FGW would presumably be looking at for the Cotswolds, ie two units to Oxford but only one beyond?

Paul

No I am not.  But if you do not inflation adjust the figure the leasing costs look even more out of proportion with the orginal cost of the asset.  Also it is the inflation adjusted cost that gives you some idea of that it might cost to build a new train to the same spec today.  if you are on a 20 year fancchise, wouldn't it make finacial sense to pay ^700,000 now rather than ^100,000 per year for twenty years.

Could it be that the 377s were designed for ease of coupling and uncoupling given that it forms such a big part of the Southern timetable.
SWT have fewer locations where they couple or uncouple, and those locations also tend to be the stations with generous dwell times?
I was thinking barring termini SWT split and join trains at Southampton Central, Basingstoke (both in the station and yard), possibly at Poole/Bournemouth, I guess there will be others but it is certainly a less common site than on Southern.
The 180 was probably not designed with a split and join at Oxford in mind, my reasoning behind that is when the 10 car units began working on the Cheltenham-Swindon-Paddington route the rear five cars were locked out of use from Gloucester to Swindon rather than simply joining the five car set on arrival at Swindon.

Thinking about Oxford I guess the plan would be be to split the units in one of the two platforms, one unit turning back toward Paddington? Does the signalling permit that, otherwise wouldn't the platform be occupied for too long and delay the following services. There always seems to be something of a queue of trains when I go through Oxford so I'm guessing headway between trains there must be fairly tight?

There are windows in the timetable, as the trains aren't all evenly spaced out. At present, some Cotswold Line Turbo workings split and join and it's quite common for London-bound sets to arrive at 22 or 23 minutes past the hour for a departure at xx.31 so potentially feasible to couple a 180 in that window, so long as the sets agree to talk to each other. When trains split in platform 2, the set remaining at Oxford works into the carriage sidings before setting back to No 1 to go south.

You can split sets in No 1 and send them off in either direction, as it has bi-directional signals, but it's the 'wrong' side for Worcester-bound trains, so this is rarely done, usually only if it will help get a set going back towards London as fast as possible after a delay on the way up to Oxford - and where it won't get in the way of other services.

Though of course that might change over time, and you could argue it would be nice to make use of the extra freedom and punctuality given by the redoubling to remove such a pathing allowance in the timetable.

Five years of growth at between 8% and 10% compound per annum adds another 50% to the passengers.  That's what's happened in many parts of the FGW area.  Five years of growth at under 1% per annum add less that 5% to the number of passengers.   That's the base figure on which the current SLC was drawn up, and the basis on which the franchise was awarded.

How could a TOC who were new to the area / set of services (I'm thinking ex Wessex here) know that they had been fed such a pessimistic forecast?  So there's a need for extra trains ... to ease the overcrowding, and to cover the flows that weren't catered for in the sums bases on 2002 - 2004 data and almost no growth, but are very much there now.

Agreed - the problem for the DfT is that this is the same pretty much across the country - not just FGW-land.

London rail services get monitored a lot more closely than in other parts of the country and the media pick up on this and always make the FGW Paddington services, NXEA Liverpool Street and the FCC services sound like the worse in the country.

There is also a bizarre intercity defintion.  FGW's HST services are classed as intercity and so one person standing on a 7+2 HST between Paddington and Reading classes it as overcrowded, while 58 people standing on a 3 car Manchester Airport-Edinburgh (3 hour 40) express service between Manchester Piccadilly and Chorley is classed as 'busy.'

I mentioned in another post previously that if passenger numbers change it affects the amount of money changing hands with DfT but doesn't affect the amount of rolling stock allocated.  Northern had to refund a large part of a subsidy that DfT gave them because due to around a 33% growth in passenger numbers it meant Northern 'didn't need it', while with the former National Express East Coast and the intercity part of First Great Western the subsidy is paid by the operator to DfT and refunds were granted by DfT due to passenger numbers on long distance services being affected by the recession. 

You'll find that even if they produce spare parts for 30 years after production the costs of spare pairs will rise every year and become very expensive towards the end of the 30 years.

I don't think trains are guaranteed to last for 30 years.  I think it is an expected average life span of around 30 years for diesel units and around 40 years for electric units.  It's a bit like buying a TV, it should last around 10 years but the guarantee will be for between one and five years depending how much you want to pay and if it needs a few new parts after 8 years then it's non-economically viable to pay for replacement parts, but the TV might get to 12 years without any new parts if you're lucky.

I think the difference is just that Horsham is much more 'visible' because they split/join twice an hour nearly every hour in each direction, but in my experience the procedure on a 450 or 444 takes no longer (than SN) when SWT are timetabled to do it.  For instance in the weekday peak at Southampton they split 10 car down direction trains during an overall 5 min station stop, the front unit leaves 2-3 mins after arrival non stop to  Bournemouth, the rear follows as a stopper 2 mins later (which is the soonest it can due to signalling headways).  It is very similar at Horsham - the rear unit is constrained by the signalling, not the procedure.  On Sundays SWT split/join Portsmouth/Poole services at Eastleigh every hour.

But you are right about some units taking longer than others - the SWT 458s cannot be split and joined in service at all, it has to be done in a depot - basically because the gangway door design is totaly useless.   OTOH the 159s and 158s at Salisbury are practically as fast to split or couple as a modern EMU - I guess practice makes perfect...

Paul

There's only one train a day in each direction that I know of running non stop from Southampton to Bournemouth.
The more usual split is at Bournemouth, where a 10 car unit arrives on platform 3, splits - with the front 5 heading to Weymouth (I understand 10 car units can't run West of Poole due to power capacity on the juice rail) and the rear five shunting to the middle sidings then back to platform 2, forming the front 5 coaches of a Weymouth - Waterloo service.
As you mention there are the regular Sunday attaches / detaches at Eastleigh.

Were the SWT 458s intended to be coupled in service or coupling and uncoupling intended to be a depot task?
Certainly the nose design for the 458 seems very different to those of the other operators.

The up trains from Bournemouth at 0625, 0656, 0726; and the down departures from Southampton at 1821, 1851 and 1951 are non stop through Brockenhurst.  The 1654 and 1753 also split at Soton but do call at Brock, I'd missed that.

Paul

Is there currently any splitting in FGW-land?

What fun Andy, something I wrote two years ago when a series of people here were advocating running pairs of 180s between Oxford and London, then splitting or joining them at Oxford, with one dashing off to Worcester while the other sat kicking its heels at Oxford until it could set off to Charlbury to deliver people to all the stations at the eastern end of the line once the single line was clear for it to use, or two sets chasing each other towards Oxford to join there. All this was being suggested at the time FGW was getting rid of them from its fleet.

Maybe you would like to quote all the other posts I was responding to, in order to put my remarks in the context in which they were made? Or at least point people in the direction of the thread they were made in. I have no problem with you quoting my past remarks, if you have the common courtesy to do either of those things. I do have a problem with them just being plonked in here at random to make it appear I am contradicting myself.

Here I am suggesting splitting or joining of perhaps a couple of trains a day to better reflect the typical loadings on the sectors of the journey- and if the workings were to regain an HST (the 05.48/08.58 and what replaces it from September) or you retained the HST on the 17.50, you wouldn't need to do it anyway.

Rather than putting both down the Cotswold line, what about sending one forward to Banbury?
The Voyagers tend to be quite heavily loaded over that section so a 180 could alieviate the crush by taking Reading and Oxford passengers bound for Banbury, Leamington or Birmingham to Banbury to join the quieter Chiltern services at Banbury. It could be marketed as linking Oxford with Stratford on Avon too, I've certainly been on trains that have tourists making that journey.
Perhaps we could end up with a four train per hour service from Oxford to Banbury, non-stop every 30 minutes with Cross Country then followed by the stopping services from FGW. Now the signalling at Banbury permits turnbacks from both traditionally Northbound platforms in addition to the Southern end bay there wouldn't be too many infrastructure costs I guess.

Or thinking out of the box could the split be done after the station stop at Oxford, if the station duties were completed then the train pulled forward into the loop where the split would be performed, I've noticed before that because the doors are closed on both sets when uncoupling and then reopened to allow passengers on up to the departure time that this can result in little delays, perhaps if the split was done away from the platform the process might be quicker?

I'd hate to have the job of shunter in the sidings waiting to do the splitting....

I think the overall time taken to stop twice would be greater than performing the split during the station stop, although it would free up the platform.  Is the loop passed for passenger trains?

Yes, for a little while now, both on the up- and down-lines

Outside the peaks, FGW's Oxford-Banbury services are extremely quiet and there are usually seats on Voyagers too. FGW need the capacity south of Oxford, so if you split there, you do it so a train can go back to London sharpish. There is no access to the sidings from the loop north of Oxford and I'm not even sure the loop is signalled to allow you to turn a train back into platform 1.

There are yeah.
First one that springs to mind is the train in peak that goes from Paddington to Bourne End which splits at Maidenhead.

Fairly sure there is probably other services.

Pretty sure the 09.22 from Paddington splits at Oxford, with the front set going forward to Worcester and the rear one heading to the sidings at Oxford. The 08.58 from Malvern couples to another Turbo set at Oxford.

Tim, I would never suggest you have an initial lease over 20 years - you would lease over 10 years with a low residual value then a follow on peppercorn lease for subsequent years. A common practice for high value leases.
Now the 180s are around 10 years old their depreciated value should be far lower than when new hence a commensurate lowering of the lease costs.
Will correctly pointed out that this hasn't worked in the past with stock that is completely written down still having high lease costs. This is one factor the either a) increases fares or b) lowers profits. I don't see any reason why those in charge don't enter the real world the rest of us inhabit.

why not ? easy job

in the pouring rain / inclement weather, waiting for a couople of trains an hour? Nah, not for me. Not enough to do...

Shunters dont split 180's. Drivers do inside the nice warm cab :)

I agree that your proposal or something similar to it is normal accounting practice and that it OUGHT to apply to the railways.  Reason it doesn't is that there is not a free market in rolling stock (just a pointless phoney capitalism).  Short franchises, DfT specification (having to approve rolling stock orders and telling TOCs which stock to use), and our estrictive loading gauge (meaning unused stock can't be sold or leased to the rest of the world) are all factors in this

180103 has been sent to Woverton for major repairs after an accident at Newton Heath.  If someone picks up on part of that they may wrongly assume that Northern's 180s are getting ready to be transferred.

Be interesting to see how smoothly it goes for Grand Central and First Hull Trains this weekend - as they are joining the services to combine into one between Doncaster and King's Cross

Hopefully the HT and GC drivers won't be fighting over whose turn it is to blow the horn ;)

I assume it depends who gets to the front first :P

On the contrary, our smaller trains can go almost anywhere - eg Class 141s in Iran, Channel Tunnel sleeper stock in Canada. Class 37, 56s, 58s, 66s (and derivatives built for customers in Europe) used in countries across Europe...

Indeed so. I forget where but I've seen pictures of British-bound rolling stock built in the US looking like toys whilst being tripped to the point of embarkation by locomotives like the GE ES44 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CSX_5349_GE_ES44DC.jpg).

Just come back form Veolia territory under the HEX (Harz Elbe Express banner). watching what what I think are true Desiel Desiros (articulated) split and join at Halberstadt nearly every hour. The interesting thing is the trains leave in differnet directions after splitting and join nose to nose. The joning is quite interesting the first train arrives doors open then the second comes in nose to nose and stops short doors open. The first trains drivers I think shuts the doors and then couples up and does a quick pull back. I think this is done with the doors in the joined train still open. Both units doors open.

Although not seen this time they regulalry split two ICE 2 sets at Hamm. the join is quite interesting teh first unit arrives stops doors open, driver opens coupling cover, second unit rolls down the platform with couplings open and just joins straight onto the first unit. Doors don't close on first unit.

Also watch a couple of the Saxon 750mm lines in operation with auto couplings. Undo brake pipes remembering to shut air valves. Undo steam heat pipe wearing gloves! then open catch on one coupling and pull apart. Coupling up bang together do steam heat and brake pipes, remebering to open the valves somebody does need to be on the track but it was usually the loco crew. All done in the time it took to type this bit. 

Considering Southern Electric split trains regularly at least half a dozen places at least hourly or as at Staines half hourly.

We seem to have got got very squeamish about splitting and joning trains.

Which is a pity brecause it's major advantage of train over a bus is that it can be split into it's parts and serve severval destinations. Look at the ACE with it's half a dozen portions.

We've fogotten how to run railways.

Er no, we haven't. As you note, there is still portion working in Southern electric land and it still happens every day at Oxford, though just not on the scale it did in Thames Trains days, when they had to do it to provide capacity between Oxford and London, since they didn't have HSTs to call on like FGW does, and because they then provided the London to Stratford-upon-Avon service, so sets to and from the Cotswold Line and Banbury/Stratford split or joined all day.

It's also reasonably frequent in my experience at Bristol Temple Meads; I suppose it's not really portion working in the sense that different sections of a train are generally heading to different places (although Wessex used to have at least one split at Westbury where a 4-car 158, I assume from Portsmouth, had portions working to Cardiff and Penzance) but I've been on many trains that have had units added or removed at Temple Meads to adjust the capacity.

I agree.

To give them their due, First Trans Pennine Express have taken to splitting and coupling at Preston, so that a pair of 185 units from Manchester Airport will go forward to any two out of Blackpool, Barrow, Windermere, Glasgow and Edinburgh. With that set of destinations, splitting the units makes v sound sense. Shame that the timetable isn't as regular as it ought to be.

The other rationale here is to gain the track capacity over the Oxford Road section in Manchester.

I think the reluctance varies by company, South West Trains increased the number of joining/splitting moves for the Desiro fleet when they reduced the length of off-peak services?
The Preston 185 coupling is rather enforced by the lack of capacity through to Manchester, I suspect if they had the paths they would be tempted to run separately.
I guess the concerns that one service running late will result in a partial cancellation or occupation of platforms which are in short supply. Or that the complex coupling mechanism won't couple or uncouple on demand. Certainly a problem that affected the former Wessex fleet, often we sould see a yellow card in the cab window with its black x symbol denoting the coupling would not work.

Sometimes it wasn't a great problem so on one occasion I was on a train routed through the middle road at Gloucester toward Awre and then back onto another 158 for the run to Birmingham.

Scotrail probably don't have much choice with the West Higland split and join at Crianlarich, I've certainly been delayed there waiting for the other units to arrive but travelling North there is a small safety measure, having six cars means the split point can be moved if an uncoupling fails on one. It is a change from where it began though as this 2+4 from 6 was originally a 3+3 from six, very much in the style we see on FGW today with the 158s. What went wrong was that when the uncoupling was attempted rather than splitting at the mid-point the trains would split where the non-driving end of the carriage met the driving end of the next unit. It appears this has been fixed for the 158s though.

I don't think that ever happened, to any significant extent. Discussions in the SWT group at the time it was making headlines suggested it only applied to a very small number of services on weekdays. I didn't notice any significant changes to train lengths in Hampshire - although the doubling of frequency to Weymouth at around the same time led to some offpeak 444 services becoming single units all the way through for obvious reasons.

The main reason for the media coverage was that they decided to run only single 455s for most of the day at weekends, ie the inner suburban red units.  In much of the London area it was incorrectly assumed they'd do this in the midday offpeaks as well, but it never happened - apparently because it would have required too many ECS moves and additional drivers.

Paul 

Almost certainly the case.  There's really not that much time between the end of the morning peak at 10am and the start of the afternoon peak at just gone 4pm.  Many unit diagrams only have time for 1 or 2 round trips in that time, so the number of ECS moves and drivers required really just don't make it a worthwhile thing for such a short time.

I have it in mind that Basingstoke sees a few more parked up Desiros during the day now, not so much of a problem as the ECS is a booked turn anyway, effectively an extension of the service from Waterloo into the yard, drop a unit and turn back. I remember when the routine was changed on one of the morning services somehow the unit being left behind was not far enough down into the yard resulting in some discussion on the platform. I guess ultimately they would have changed to turning back in platform 1 or 4 as needed to get round the problem. Or waited for a driver to come along and move the unit in the yard the few metres more required. Apart from those 12 car trains the balance did seem to stay at 8 carriages.

The 185 coupling is more to do with passenger capacity than pathing capacity.  There are sufficient paths for at least 2 TPE and 2 Northern services on Manchester-Preston every hour all day, with Northern's hourly Manchester Airport-Southport service also serving Bolton.  The problem is a service departing Manchester towards Bolton at, for instance 17:15, has over 300 passengers wanting to board at the two Manchester stops so a single 185 cannot possibly cope.  TPE use the doubling up to their advantage and have the service going to both Barrow and Edinburgh which is to the advantage of long distance travellers as well as local commuters.

180108 appeared to catch fire last night while working the 19:20 Blackpool to Manchester.  At this rate there won't be any 180s in operation that can go to FGW.

Any corroboration of that rumour about 180108 northwesterntrains?

I've not found any information stating categorically that it was a fire.

I did say appeared to catch fire.  There are reports of a lot of black smoke coming out of it and the fire brigade were called.

Would you like to tell us what source you got that from, then? Or provide a link, perhaps?

Perhaps he's a staff member up north, just as we have FGW staffers here. You don't ask them for links/proof.

I'm not necessarily demanding proof, but it's very easy to propagate unsubstantiated internet gossip so I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to ask for an indication of where such "reports" came from...

Erm ... while I hesitate to quote another forum here, there is a discussion on http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=41696 which provides some useful information on this particular incident.

CfN  :-X

Two of Northern's 180s remain out-of-service.  It is believed Northern are subleasing 150285 off ATW to help cover the shortage and that it'll be sent up tonight coupled to the unit running the 19:52 Cardiff Central to Manchester service 1W37 CF333 2.

Management murmurings that all is not well with the Adelante's proposed return to FGW.  I've heard talk that the deal may well fall through - connected with the cost of retraining/lease and the likelihood of the franchise being given up three years early as discussed on here.

I hope it's not true, but if it is then it kinda makes the release given for the Dispatches documentary sound rather hollow:


So, that would be a potential 25 additional carriages spurned, preventing Turbo's being used to provide some kind of relief to the chronic overcrowding on the suburban routes out of Paddington.  Even shoulder-peak services are feeling the strain now, with the 3-car 16:27 Paddington to Oxford having its West Drayton stop removed last timetable change due to their simply not being enough room on board.  Something has to be done before Crossrail/GWML electrification arrives.

Don't agree with the tone - if it doesn't make commercial sense, then you can't expect much. Either you privatise and then do sensible deals - or you don't.

Update on this, there was a 11th April OJEU tender notification from FGW:

http://www.publictenders.net/tender/100424

Includes:

The refresh and/or conversion of high speed rolling stock. This shall include some or all of the following:

a. class 180 high speed rolling stock refresh and exterior paint - up to 6 units (30 vehicles),  ???
b. HST Mk3 TRFB conversion to HST TSHD vehicle refresh - up to 17 vehicles,
c. TSO loco hauled Mk3 Conversion to HST TSHD vehicle refresh,
d. HST TGS Mk3 conversion to HST TSHD vehicle refresh - up to 3 vehicles

Looks like a few HST formation tweaks might be in the wind as well...

Paul

Hmmmm, interesting...   ???

Is this an indication that FGW will be taking their 3 year franchise extension?

Seems to me they'd want some use out of them....

That's an interesting one. Converting restaurant/buffet cars to Standard Class High Density seated coaches. What about the windows?

There is indeed an implication of some thought of more that 18 months ahead, though that wouldn't necessarily have to be on the terms set in the winter of 2005/06 - indeed, with 50 carriages in that advert that's quoted by adding up (a), (c) and (d), it's highly probable that there are adjustments.

It will be very interesting to see - should there be 50 extra vehicles in service on high speed / Cotswold services what the ripple effect is. Would all 50 be used to supplement trains that are currently HSTs through to the completion of electrification in 2016, or would some of the 180s displace HSTs to be transferred to East Coast? Or would some turbo workings become 180s, displacing turbos to strengthen service and perhaps to creep 165 and 166 territory to include some extra lines such as the Golden Valley, and the Great Malvern / Worcester to Bristol services, thus allowing the existing and planned West fleet to give better coverage over fewer lines?  These are purely questions of ripple / cascade theory by the way. I probably shouldn't speculate as I don't know ... :-\

Probably simpler than that....longer HSTs together with longer turbo sets formed of displaced turbos by the 180s. I doubt the turbis will run longer journeys than now - theres only 6 (max) 180s., so only 6 more turbos to reallocate.

I don't think it is quite as difficult as some people think, the Mk3 based 442 buffet cars have had a number of alterations to door and window layouts.  What I'm thinking is that even if it is a high cost proposal, it isn't actually impossible...

Paul

In terms of converting Mk3 catering cars, I think the practicalities of it are rather less of an unknown than they were back when GNER looked at converting sleeping cars a decade ago. Thanks to the recent heavy overhauls of Mk3s for FGW, East Coast, W&S and GC, where they were stripped back to the shell, there is now a lot of knowledge on the general condition of these coaches and any problem areas that need to be dealt with, plus, as Paul says, the Class 442 buffet cars have had a lot of work in a similar vein over the years.

I think we all know full well that FGW desperately needs extra stock, the DafT rolling stock plan admitted as much some years ago, although any action has been desperately slow in both the West of England and Thames Valley for various reasons, so arrival of any of the items mentioned in this tender seems highly unlikely to lead to FGW losing stock elsewhere, or moving 16X sets west at this stage.

The 180s would likely be used to put things back to where they were from 2006-8, with these and HSTs covering most Cotswold Line duties except for the halts trains and their balancing workings, with the 166s displaced from the Cotswold Line going back to Reading-Gatwick duties and 165s coming off that route to allow more or, more likely, as Chris suggests, longer Thames Valley main line commuter trains. The HST coaches would all appear from the letter coding to be intended to be high-density trailer standards, to be used to lengthen existing FGW sets, in line with remarks Mark Hopwood made some time back. The number of TRFB's pretty much matches the number displaced from FGW HSTs by the mini-buffet conversions, though quite where they may get any loco-hauled Mk3 coaches from, given DB's appetite for them for Chiltern duties, is a bit of a puzzle.

they could take out all the seats and have standing only that would increase capacity

A la Ryanair propsal? :-)

oh maybe i shouldn't have said that, i'm sure someone in transport will have the calculator out now

And there wouldn't be any pesky CAA rules to stop that, like there were for Ryanair...!

On the subject of 180s Mark Hopwood told the CLPG agm today that they are hoping to get the five EC sets back but that a decision was probably three or four months awayl, though DfT is sympathetic to FGW's case. If they do return, he wants them in traffic from December and they would be used on Cotswold diagrams in place of 166s. All Cotswold trains currently worked by HSTs would be keeping them, should the 180s return.

Thanks, Will.  As that's come straight from the horse's mouth I think we can now finally say for certain that a return is still very much on the agenda!

Indeed it is, but he agreed that it really is down toa DfT decision, and they could go any way....

The number of standees a local or regional train can take before being overcrowded is defined as 35% of the seating capacity, so technically a train with no seats is overcrowded if there is one passenger on board.

I imagine the 180s will be released when Northern revise their timetables in October.  The first set of London Midland 172s are expected to be in service in August, so October would also give a few weeks for the 150s to be cascaded and for Northern to check that their are no problems with the 'new' 150s before releasing the 156s and 180s.

found this today....


http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=640

Just a website page which has not been updated for two years, at which time the last three sets were on the way out.

 :o :o :o

The mind boggles. Well, mine does anyway.

thanks mate, it was the 3 sets bit that got me

Very close to signing a sub-lease deal with East Coast to get those 5 redundant 180's back says a very senior source (MH himself).

Draft diagrams have been compiled with a list of possibilities service wise, a list including a trip to Banbury to return with one of the morning peak services, and even more interesting a trip to Henley-On-Thames in the evening peak being considered seriously.

Interesting. Back in the days when I used to commute from Wargrave into Paddington, I often wondered if a 180 would fit down there- to be honest the rather packed morning peak train off the branch arriving at Paddington about 08:25 could do with being 180'd- there are more than enough 1st class punters on that train to fill up a carriage, and it would take the strain off the 08:00 HST at Maidenhead a bit.

Does a sub-lease mean that FGW can't touch the interiors or give them a coat of paint?

Well they're not in East Coast's colours (two are still in FGW's 'Quality Street' livery, and the other three are in Northern Rail colours with the interiors hardly touched since they were with FGW), and an ITT was issued covering a refresh of up to six units (see page 18 of this thread), so I think they'll be no problems there.

Actually there are in FGW livery with a purple vinyl over the top containing Northern branding - similar to what happened when FTPE gave the burgundy and gold livered 158s a blue vinyl with First branding.

Yes, I saw one stabled in Blackpool station the other week.  A bit of an odd colour mix.

I have no idea if this is of any significance, but one of the Adelante fleet was parked up in a shed at OOC yesterday lunchtime (c.1230). Do First use this location for servicing the Hull Trains machines?

I regulary see at least 1 class 180 at olad oak common each time i go past. yes i do believe the hull trains  class 180's are serviced there.

Isn't Spare Parts Adelante at OOC?!

The Hull Trains sets are maintained at OOC

But still proving to be very temperamental, even on the more limited stop Hull Trains services.

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/story-12927633-detail/story.html (http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/story-12927633-detail/story.html)

Which is presu,ably why they are on an amended timetable? (or were yesterday, at least)

Forgot to mention had a cracking run down the ECML on a Grand Central 180 from Youk to KX 3/6/ jsut after 10:00 from York.

Passed Peterborough with 78 minutes to go but took 20 minutes to get from Finsbury Park to KX to arrive ontime.

For an underfloor DMU they are remarkably comfortable we had a table for 2 of us. The only problem was there were no mains electricity  in our coach so my cousing couldn't charge his phone.

Hammond is attending a Press Briefing at Padd tomorrow. I wonder why?....

There's always the possibility it will be some sort of Crossrail do, I think they've just announced who is building the Crossrail station...

Paul

Indeed, there's the electrification project too....

Subsequent discussion about the launch of the Great Western Improvement Programme can be found here (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9223.0).

But if anyone hears about the Adelantes, please post in this thread!

What's the latest on this? Saw a First Hull Trains 180 sitting at Old Oak the other day. Are they coming back to FGW? Please say they're going to rid the Cotswold line/Oxford fasts of Turbos!

HT's units have been maintained at OOC for over a year now, that alone doesn't indicate anything significant.


Probably, yes.

Sorry - didn't realise. Bit of a pain getting them to Kings Cross surely? I suppose it's like Eurostar at the North Pole..

Guess so.  Probably they reverse at Acton Main Line then go via Willesden Jn, Crouch Hill, Hornsey, or via the Camden/North London Incline (that may be out of use - not sure though), but there are other routes available off the NLL used by ECS moves, such as at Canonbury...

Paul

...or even that nifty little freight link by Gospel Oak to allow Action Main Line to Crouch Hill via DHL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudding_Hill_Line)+MML.  (Really?!)

HMmm - Mark Hopwood was hopeful of the odd Cotswold service getting a 180 if FGW did get them, but there's no promiose of seeing them there wholesale. My guess is that the shoulder-peak might see one where a turbo is used now.

But the middle of the day services could be served capacity-wise by a bubble car 120.

'Bubble Cars' are Class 121's.  The Class 120 was a 3-car DMU which I always thought looked a little menacing! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_Rail_Class_120.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_Rail_Class_120.jpg)

yup, thanks!

Class 120 Swindon-built cross-country DMUs were one of the best DMUs built. Pity none survived into preservation.

Once reliability and service speed/ frequency gets better, there's no reason why a 180 can't be filled (not crammed, but "reasonably well used) all day.

The latest Modern Railways, a 'Great Western special', has an interview with Mark Hopwood. It states that FGW is seeking the five 180s for use on the Cotswold Line (and doesn't mention anywhere else), so that the Turbos freed up as a result can be reallocated to suburban services.

I know ChrisB will be along in a flash with his opinion of MR ;) so I'll just say that, in my view (and speaking as a magazine editor), it's a generally terrific magazine.

I do admit it is a good magazine, i liked the bit they had on the proposals to wire the valley lines.

I know there are a few who dislike it, but i find it goes more in depth compared the other railway magazines which are available.

Good. I hope it is just Turbos that are replaced, and not HSTs (unless there are enough).

Hopefully some Oxford fasts can be moved over.

Surely the only reason OXF - PAD is timetabled 1 hr is because of the risk of a Turbo turning up. A 180 can do it in 50 minutes. After Reading and electrfication, hopefully it will be 45 minutes all day. ;D

An announcement and subsequent staff (re)training will have to come soon if a December deadline can be achieved.

I've heard rumour that Northern haven't looked after the 180s they've been using particularly well. So FGW may need a bit of time to get them ship-shape and fit for inter-city travel again.

Funnily enough on the Northern Rail equivalent of this forum, there's a Northern driver claiming exactly the opposite - that FGW didn't look after them, and that several reliability mods have been made at Northern's instigation.

Though given the average state of a Northern Pacer I think I know who I believe. ;)

I travelled on a couple of Northern 158s a few weeks back and if the state of them is anything to go by then FGW may need to spend some money on the 180s bringing them back to a decent standard.

158s are great units and Northern have let them go so much so that the carpet on one unit I was on had completely worn out leaving just the plastic backing. The engines didn't sound that great either sounding a bit rough. Made me appreciate the work that FGW had done on their fleet of 158s.

I have limited experience of travelling on Northern, but I think I'd tend to agree that they may have let the 180s go a little. The fairly new Siemens electric units used on the Aire Valley line (class 333) were pretty smart, but all the ex-BR DMUs I used were looking pretty decrepit, not to mention grubby as well.

I suppose it'll be payback when the 150s go to Northern from LM. The 150s are in a horrendous condition - they are clapped out!

My opinion hasn't changed. 'nuff said.

At the Charlbury launch of Redoubling stage #1, Mark was heard to say that they may well be deployed on a shoulder-peak service or so, but not exclusively, that there would still be turbos on the Cotswold Line off-peak, and he said don't be surprised if one gets to Henley....

More than ever probably, given the extra services twixt Moreton and Paddington.

If you retain all the existing HST services on the Cotswold Line, you don't actually need all that many 180s to replace most of the Turbo duties out to Worcester and Malvern, where there is surely the most pressing need for something better than a Turbo. So long as they are not crush-loaded, 16Xs are tolerable between Moreton and London, especially if an extra set is added south of Oxford.

Someone else will know about the diagramming but casual observation suggests that several Cotswold diagrams are self-contined through the day

Assuming you were able to turn out four 180s per day from five, then you could have one each for the 05.48 and 06.48 from London, with the other pair reverting to their old peak job of being a 560-seat queue-buster on the 07.31 from Oxford/07.15 from Charlbury, splitting them in Paddington then offers a set for the 09.21, in between two Hereford HSTs, with the other then going spare or doing the 09.50 to Moreton.

The first set out to Worcester is then back at Paddington by 11am to pick up the 11.21, the set from the 09.21 to Worcester would be back to pick up the 14.21 of Paddington and then you're into HST-time after that.

Since the afternoon peak and evening services from London on to the Cotswold Line are HSTs, you could indeed send a 180 or two to Henley/Banbury, etc in that period.

That's the problem with a small fleet of five, I think asking for 80% availablilty from one of the least reliable fleets is asking for trouble on a regular basis, but just having three diagrams (60% availability) would hardly be an effective use of resources.  I think, but don't quote me, that there were 10 daily diagrams when there was a fleet of 14 units, just over 70% - that seemed to work OK most of the time.

I suppose you could have a lesser used diagram that is HST/180 swappable to cope with a shortfall of one type or the other, or perhaps have an agreement with Hull Trains' sets to pool resources for both TOC's from a larger fleet.  Otherwise I feel a 'this train will be formed of 3 carriages vice 5' message on the FGW service disruption page would be a commom theme.

I asked Mark Hopwood outright if they were likely to put most of the 180s onto the Cotswold Line, and I definitely got a negative. He thinks other services are just as in need

I think Willc's idea is best. I fail to see why they are "just as in need" elsewhere. They offer no capacity improvements over a Turbo, so surely the priority should be to replace Turbos on lightly loaded, long distance trains that use 125 mph track? What else, other than the Cotswold, has a long distance Turbo clogging up the fast lines?

If the fleet is unreliable, use 3 diagrams - three is better than none. Or put 4 or 5 out, and have substitutions when they're knackered- at least they'll be a general reduction in Turbos!

I hope FGW see sense. Are they definitely coming? Or are we still jumping the gun...

As I keep having to say here, year after year, yes they do - 280 proper human-sized seats, not 275 (3-car 165) or about 250 (166) for people whose arms magically disappear when they step through the door of a Turbo.


Newbury trains. And the Turbos are hardly clogging up the fast lines, given the leisurely schedules east of Reading these days.

Decision on what to do with them may be September.

A hunch or information from a good source?

It'll have to wait until Parliament is not in recess, thats for sure

FGW put out a tender for the refurbishment of up to 6 x 180s.  As only 5 are coming off-lease, where would the 6th one come from?

'up to'....

Yes but if it's just the East Coast 5 they plan on getting then it's up to 5.  Up to 6 suggests they're hopeful of getting an additional 180 from either Hull Trains or Grand Central.

that may have been the case when they put in the tender? Or maybe they were just covering bases? I would too....

These sort of tenders hardly ever work in specific numbers for some reason.  I've seen an SWT tender for something like 100 - 180 EMU carriages, when everyone expected 140.

It may just be that there's an HT unit needs an overhaul, and there are obvious economies of scale if they all get done sequentially...

Would it really need to wait for parliament to be open?  The DFT just announced the transfer of LM's 150s during the recess, that's not much different a decision.

Paul

That's probably to cover when DfT decide to not go ahead with the expected order.  The TPE order was expected to be 168 carriages initially, going up to 224. Yet only 153 were actually ordered.  If the tender had specified exactly 168 then Siemens could have probably taken legal action.



Doubtful the Hull Trains 180s have all received internal refurbishment at Kilmarnock.  It's only the EC sets (including those subleased to Northern) and Grand Central sets which have the full original interior.

There must be 180 flu going around at the moment.  Hull Trains and Grand Central are working together and maintaining and using each other trains due to the numbers failing.  Northern have all three out-of-order and are using 2x142s on one diagram and a single 150 on the other and that's with the extra 150 being subleased from ATW.  Someone was reported as passing out on the single 150 yesterday and the guard couldn't be informed as the train was so packed and the passengers realised that pulling the communication chord would stop the train in the middle of no-where which wouldn't have helped.

There has been since 2002 hasn't there?

Yes but it must be peak season for it.

Maybe Altsom's Chester depot have the vaccine, they seem to have found one for the 175s.

<<RUMOUR>>

A PAD TM told me yesterday that they would be learning the Henley branch and that Adelantes would be used on SOME services there, possibly as early as Dec, but more likely to be next May.  I have to stress that this is purely rumour and has no official foundation.

Yes, that is indeed the rumour.  Likely to be one of the down trains in the evening I believe, having worked an Oxford to Paddington service.  Certainly things are getting desperately tight for a December re-introduction now!

I've heard this rumour as well. Apparently some Oxford drivers will be learning the Henley branch as a result which Reading drivers aren't too pleased about.

The obvious train for it to be used on would be the 1906 as the 1712 and 1812 are direct, but painfully slow!

Mark Hopwood has been heard to say that Henley is one of the destinations that they wish to serve, should they get the 180s. So not a rumour.

Do Oxford drivers do the Oxford HSTs, or sre they purely turbo drivers, a la Reading depot?

All LTV depots, Oxford, Reading and Paddington have drivers that sign HST's.  The work was taken away from Reading depot quite recently, though I believe a couple of drivers have decided to retain their knowledge so they are able to cover the work on 'rest days'.

Roughly half of the Paddington LTV depot's drivers, and 2/3rds of the Oxford depot are supposed to sign HST's but a dispute over training (now in its fourth year) means nowhere near that number actually do sign them.  Curently about half of Oxford depot does, at Paddington it's in single figures.  The good news is that the dispute has finally been resolved and drivers that should sign the traction will be undertaking courses starting next month.

That's part of the reason getting the 180's in service for December is going to be difficult as all drivers will need a refresher course on them, and with HST training taking place at the same time that would be a real stretch on resources.

That's good news as long as they are not used off peak on such routes (where they're more needed on the Cotswold). But fair enough once the OXF fasts are all booked HSTs (i.e. evening peak). Hopefully the Henley service would be Turobed and not a Cotswold if an HST were to fail!

I think this will be the first time something other than a 165 or 166 has been used in passenger service on the Henley line since the early 90's! Does anyone know if an HST has ever been down the branch?

Not sure about an HST but don't forget Henley used to regularly get Castles on the through trains.

Is there a slot on these boards for unfounded rumours and gossip?    The railway runs on rumour and apart from a few nuggets, most of it comes to nothing. This is why I took pains to point out that the Henley issue was unconfirmed BTW.

That said, a Rumours section could be quite fun. ;D

My point was that Henley isn't 'unfounded'. Mark Hopwood has been heard to say FGW are aiming at that, ASsuming the 180s are assigned.

Now, any talk of the 180s definitely arriving *is* currently unfounded.

Overall, rumour or not, it's a queer way to run a railway.

Usable stock, which is possibly better than some currently running, is standing idle when there a number of obvious uses for it.

That's not good economics.

Its not idle though at present, is it?

Aren't the units only 'spare' once other units are released to cover thdm by other TOCs?

I've often thought the same - a section of the board that comes with a strict health warning where those kinds of titbits can be posted and people can take them at face value... I like the idea.

It would also provide a helpful place for us moderators to put the occasional slightly far-out speculation posts that pop up...

I can think of someone who might find it a comfortable place to frequent... :-)

The latest information on the DfT website relating to the 180s is:

The Department is currently engaged in discussions with First Great Western about the future use of the Class 180s. These negotiations are subject to affordability and value for money. It is not currently possible to say how many of the Class 180s will be used in the future. An announcement is expected to be made later this year if these discussions are successful.

Dated: July 2011

I reckon they're FGWs if the price that FGW are willinmg to pay is right. The DfT seem keen on Revenue Protection at the present as it generates funds that are otherwise missed. So it's really down to FGW to seal the deal, and they want to enter the refranchising, so expect a done deal soon....

Mark Hopwood did say at the recent Customer Panel meeting that IF they land them, they won't be ready for service until what would have been the May12 TT change date though. Driver (re-)training and fleet repairs are the reasons

There's been suggestions that if Alliance Rail's ORR application is successful that they will order new Polaris trains for the new services, with current open access operators Grand Central and possibly Hull Trains adding to the order as HST/180 replacement.  This could mean starting late 2013 that the rest of the 180s will be released.

I wouldnt be surprised if grand central decided to jump onboard with alliance rail to order some polairs bi-mode trains, Hull trains is a little bit of a surprise.

Then again when FGW get the IEP's what will happen to the 180's that said FGW could get all 14 180's back and use them instead of all the bi-mode IEP'S or the 180's could be displaced to ATW etc.

If a order for polaris trains is made, then perhaps  CSRE could do a deal with the government about order cheap DMU's to replace the pacers, this could lead to them also opening a uk plant, like Hitachi.

I suppose it depends on whether Hull Trains will be allowed to extend their 180 lease.  DfT seems to have changed their policy with open access operators taking on stock originally ordered by BR or for franchised operations.

I think this thread should be moved to the rumour mill.

When the IEPs arrive, are there not also supposed to be a small number of existing (high speed) trains retained for use beyond Exeter ...

In common with comments in other threads to this effect, none of us mods really have the time nor the inclination to sift all the way back through 25 pages and extract the individual posts that are evidence-deficient. There is information here that has come from reasonably reliable sources too. Plus there's the issue that by surgically excising a selection of the posts that make up the thread, what is left may become incomprehsible and lacking in context.

You'll note that the title was amended some time ago to read 'Plus current rumours of a return to FGW', which I think ought to make the context fairly clear to all concerned.

Bottom line - now we have the Rumour Mill as a resource, we can and will actively be nipping things in the bud when they've veered too far in the direction of rumour and speculation. However, in a thread such as this which has been running for such a long time, it's not straightforward to seperate out rumour from fact, and doing so is likely to produce two different threads, both of which are a complete dog's breakfast because of the loss in continuity that teasing the two apart has led to.

Complaint therefore not upheld ;)

Your maths is way out.  FGW are down for 35 bi-mode IEP diagrams (which would normally be about 40 units) - but the 180s are a complete irrelevance as they are not a bi-mode equivalent.


Anything to do with GC's or HT's units really is purely hypothetical - but my own view is that despite their persistent advertising such as in Rail magazine [1] you'll never see a Polaris or any other sort of CSRE unit or train on those services.  GC are hardly a going concern using the existing units and a few HSTs that no-one else wanted - why would they suddenly be able to afford lease a fleet of new trains?

Orders for DMU's, however cheap, won't be achieved by CSRE 'doing a deal with Government' - normal EU competitive procurement rules would still have to apply...

[1] What I'm thinking here, is that really where you'd advertise to the people buying train fleets?)

Paul

 It is certainly feasible that IEP could work as far as EXD, but AFAIK the main squadron service from PAD to Devon and Cornwall will still be in the hands of our old friends the 253/4 fleet.  Without wishing to speculate, (or stray into Rumour Mill territory  :o), I have heard that the best of the HST fleet will have another refurb, plug type auto doors and retention WCs fitted.  Presumably, the rest will eventually be cannibalised and scrapped.  Once again, I am sure that someone from the 'fleet' side will have more authoritative info.

Yup, i've heard that too...

Yes, that's what I heard and indeed "a small fleet retained for services beyond Exeter" was part of a presentation in (I think) March.

One wonders just how much difference there is between the "best" and the rest - or at least the next-best.  If all the engineering work is being planned, productions set up, etc, to redo between 10 and 20 HSTs for the far South West services, then why not do a "run on" order for a further dozen, 2 x power car + 5 intermediates, for Cardiff Bristol - Portsmouth.   Sort out the capacity issues within the hourly train on that line for a year or two at just an incremental cost, and release 158 units to strengthen service anywhere from Falmouth to Truro through to Swindon to Salisbury. Both of these are lines where more frequent one or two coach trains that were running after the 2006 timetable changes should - by that point - have capacity issues. 

Driver knowledge, I suspect. Bristol - Portsmouth drivers won't have HST knowledge - ans gaining that isn't an incremental cost

158s Great for longer distance services, but the small, end door only layout makes them less than ideal for high density work, i.e. FAL-TRU

There are ways of Pacers DDA complaint but they are either non-economically viable compared to the cost of new 172s or would restrict which lines they can be used on.

Relating to 142s, with the exception of the ATW sets the seats aren't complaint as someone with mobility issues needs to be able to easily sit down and stand up which having low down seats doesn't comply with.  The ATW 142s, the 143s and the 144s don't have that issue.

The toilet and double step are the two big issues.  I'm not sure what it's like in the South West and South Wales but in the North there are a lot of platforms that aren't compatible with the Pacer ramps.  Rebuilding hundreds of platforms or getting rid of the double step would cost millions but not using them on certain lines would not cost millions.  Again adding a DDA compliant toilet at the end of one of the carriages would be expensive but using them on lines only with a frequent service and short journey time could get around having the expensive modification.

The cheaper workarounds would however mean a lot of Pacer operated lines couldn't still have Pacer use so they would need to be divided up a lot more than they are now.  Then we have the issue of convincing operators like LM to swap superior units for Pacers and issues around maintenance being more difficult with small fleets everywhere.

The discussion had wandered slightly towards the takeover of Grand Central by DB/Arriva - as ChrisB correctly pointed out there is a separate thread dealing with this issue, I've excised these posts and merged them in with the main thread. You can find the main topic here (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9748.0), hopefully it still makes some kind of sense.

Apologies if there is another thread about this - I had a look at previous threads but couldn't see one.

Interesting article in today's Evesham Journal (online version at http://www.eveshamjournal.co.uk/archive/2011/11/23/Latest+%28wn_news_latest%29/9381048.Rail_users_can_expect_a_better_service_after___29m_investment/) in which it mentions how 'most' of the turbo services will be replaced with Adelantes.

This is fantastic news in my opinion, I always felt the Adelantes (being halfway between the lacklustre capacity of a Turbo and the sometimes overkill capacity of an HST) were perfect for services on the Cotswold line and it's shorter platforms.

I recall there were concerns about reliability last time Adelantes were on the line but I, for one, never had an unpleasant trip on any of them.

Technically (at least as far as the bean-counters are concerned) the 180s have a near-identical capacity to a three-car 166. However that assumes full occupation of the middle seats on the Turbo units, which doesn't happen very often. It's certainly true that a 180 can carry more people better comfort!

According to UK railforums  the 1st class 180 is supposed to be on its way from Newton Heath to Old Oak Common.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=56429

Supposed to have left Newton Heath at 12:04 and the route is it supposed to be taking is:

Route is via Eccles, Hartford, Crewe, Stafford, Rugley, Rugby, Milton Keynes and Watford Junction.

Yes, it was due to arrive at OOC this week and will go straight into its 'Refresh'.  With regard to questions about the seating configuration post-refresh, does anyone know for definite if more seats are going to be installed?  My own hunch would be that the refresh will include an external lick of paint, and a minimal amount of work on the interiors (i.e. new seat covers, heavy clean and general spruce up), rather than a full refit of seat alignments and so on, but I emphasise that's only a hunch!

I have absolutely no knowledge of what's planned at all, but I'd have thought II's suggestion is probably the most likely option - gets the trains into service sooner than a full internal refit, and would FGW really want to spend all that money rearranging the interior of these trains with just over a year left to run on the franchise?

The Adelentes are very pleasant trains internally, so as long as there's a deep clean and light refresh to deal with the revolting state Northern's "lowest common denominator" approach to cleaning has allegedly allowed them to get into, I'd have thought the punters would be happy.

I like the legroom on the 180s, so I hope they don't try to ram more seats in.

Perhaps move First Class to an end coach. Not sure which bright spark thought having it in the middle was a good idea?

Does the "Audio" coach still work? Or has it been axed? (like VT)

Just a guess, but possibly to do with limited capacity in the end vehicles because of the driver's/guard's accommodation...?


Did it ever?!

Just read on uk railforums, that it was two class 180's that were supposed to have left Newton Heath.

180103 & 180106.

Anyone got any confirmation that they have arrived at old oak common?

Last reported 19 late at Harrow & Wealdstone, but that was just before 4pm.  No further reports either means they've snuck into Old Oak Common unannounced on TRUST, or they've conked out and are causing chaos on the WCML.  :D

At the CLPG Christmas dinner 10 days ago, Mark Hopwood announced that 5 Adelantes would be coming to FGW shortly but would not enter service until Spring 2012 with a phased introduction for all to be service the time of the Olympics. 4 of the 5 will be virtually dedicated to the Cotswold Line weekday services so that all CL services on weekdays will be HST or Adelante apart from the early morning Up stopper that will remain as a Turbo and, the new services that run only as far as Moreton. Substantial refurbishment will be necessary with 3 of the 5 being in a particularly poor condition. Refurbishment would be to a similar standard as the Hull Trains Adelantes.

Yeah, thanks Northern!  ::)

And to think we sent you back 7x 142s in tip top condition.... Well done Exteter TMD!

Anythink Northern rail touch seems to turn to sh*t!

They snuck in unnanounced - arriving Old Oak at 16:35.  Get to work on 'em boys!

Hear, hear. Go at it OOC!

The folks on the Cotswold Line are patiently awaiting your sterling work, OOC.

According to Today's Railways UK Jan edition all the 180s are going in for a Rosco funded overhaul, to include a 'full rewire'.  You don't hear of that on relatively new units too often...

I wonder if they really just mean some important part of the wiring, such as the fire alarm system...   ;D

Paul

To be fair, I think only one of the 180s had gone a bit 'toasty' since FGW got rid first time round. I await, with interest, their MPC figures once they are back in service with FGW....

'MPC' is 'Miles Per Casualty' - I've added the definition to our Acronyms/Abbreviations (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/acronyms.html) page.  ;)

... and I've also updated the heading of this topic, to more accurately reflect the current situation!  ;D

If they do get a full reiwre etc it should hopefully improve their reliability.

Its a shame that Northern have allowed them to get in such a bad condition, although I am glad to see them back on duties which will allow them to make good use of their 125mph top speed.

Slightly off topic but the full overhauls which were given to the class 175's seemes to have done a world of good apart from the occasional incident such as 175110 deciding to try and cook itself.

180108 is on its way down to Old Oak common according  to reports on uk railforums

Same path as yesterday.  Currently 7 early at Eccles.  It's due to come down Acton Bank and reverse in Acton Main Line station just before 4pm if anyone is interested in getting a glimpse?

From the Oxford Times (http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/9547389.Trains_overhaul_work_gathers_speed/):

I hope they move the 1st Class carriage to an end, adjacent to the buffet car - I wonder which dumbo thought it was a good idea to put it second from the end the opposite end to the buffet?

I also hope the music carriage is axed - out of date, people have iPods and don't want to pay huge amounts for earphones at the buffet.

Would it not be a good idea to remove the bike store from one end, to avoid confusion (so there's only one guard's van), and provide a additional exterior door for an end carriage? What will happen to the signs at stations telling people where to stand with bikes?

re BT's cooment on the location of first class on 180s, this query was raised when the Adelantes were first used on th CL. A comment was made, but I now do not recall who made it, that the first class travellers deserved greated protection in the event of a collision because the trains, being DMUs, do not have a power car to provide a buffer in the evnt of a collision. This comment did not seem right to me at the time as I think all travellers should have equal safety precautions regardless of class of travel. However no-one has come up with a better explanation unless someone knows differently.

This shocking explanation is appalling! >:( :o

Standard class passengers SACRIFICED...   ;D

Paul

Having first class away from the ends spares them the indignity of having the lower orders walk past their seats  when they've boarded the end coach to avoid missing their train.

I will be sad to see the music carriage axed, at least it offered the opportunity to listen to the radio.
Most of the operators who now provide wifi have blocked access to the streaming radio services so this was really the only practical way to have non-recorded audio entertainment.

Perhaps the First Class was more to do with provision of a second entry/exit door and catering facilities than safety. Unlike the Meridian/Voyager trains where the kitchen area was provided behind the cab Adelante's have something else in that position, perhaps to provide a safer location for the worker or to better distribute mass?

Perhaps it was decided that 1st Class should be in a full carriage for seating capacity reasons. 

On the Voyagers the 'brains' of the wi-fi is located where the old CD changer and receiver were located, one was sacrificed for the other. Saw a 180 headed south at Carstairs a few days back, looked fairly smart, hope the inside looks as good as the outside!

On a wider note, the First Class carriages at the front ends of the HSTs involved in the Southall and Ladbroke Grove crashes suffered particularly badly from the impacts.

I've heard suggestions in the past that putting First Class at the front of trains into Paddington is 'so the First Class passengers won't have to walk so far to the exit': an urban myth, I reckon.  ::)

No, that's true : same happens at Liverpool St, Kings Cross and Euston. Less consistent at St Pancras because of anything that reverses at Nottingham.
And if you look at the Eurostars, you'll realise what a diplomatic design they are - First class in the middle so as to avoid deciding which is the more important terminus.

Nope, it's an established railway tradition! Although it does of course have its disadvantages at termini like Penzance or Swansea where the first class passengers have to walk the farthest, putting it at the London end probably means on aggregate that it's more convenient for those in first.

Even SWT normally try to keep the First end of the 444s at the London end of the train at all times, although now and again disruption causes the odd discrepancy.

Paul

It also means that many non-First Class West-bound passengers board at Paddington in Coach G and annoy the heck out of First Class passengers there, and in Coach F, by walking through the train to their reserved seat in Coach A ...  ::)

Would appear to be the most logical suggestion as to the reason why.

When you consider that there is no kitchen or vestibule, how many fewer seats to the end coaches have though?

And remember that a Voyager has First in an end - plus the "kitchen" microwave.

The Class 180s were originally built to provide Bristol and Cardiff with a half hourly service. These are important business destinations and I assume the reasoning behind a full carriage of 1st Class in Coach D rather than cab ends A or E was because FGW believed the seats would be filled with the important revenue generating full fare business travellers.

With a catering station and at-seat service there's little concern about the distance to the buffet. Which even at times when 'at seat' was not offered is only one full carriage away at the end closest to 1st. Further to walk from H to F in a HST.

That's my take. I'm sure there were sound reasons for the layout settled upon. Doesn't make the person who signed off on it a dumbo.  ::)

As a 'quiet coach' regular I rather selfishly like the location of 1st Class in Adelantes... it acts as a buffer zone to stop the unaware from stumbling into the quiet coach!


Is this the usual 'dynamic lines'? Slightly surprised if DfT have agreed to an operator-specific branding so close to the end of the franchise.

i'm expecting the livery to be the same plain dark blue as the latest 150s have had applied!

It's got the same livery as Hull Trains, just with FGW branding.

Finally found the right place (after gatecrashing London to WofE) to ask my question - does anyone know what diagrams the 180's are going to take over, and will any HST turns be affecetd?

*anorak on*

I thought first class in the Adelantes was in D, with the isolated standard class vehicle being E (formerly offering some kind of audio thingy, and identified with a gold stripe at cantrail level rather than the yellow stripe for first class). That would mean that the quite carriage was actually A at the other end of the train. Or am I getting my proverbials in a twist?

*anorak off*

The short answer is 'kind of' and 'no'

See the third post down from 'CLPG' on the following thread (and following comments):

http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9485.15 (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9485.15)

That situation remains unaltered as far as I know (i.e. all weekday Turbo services that currently go west of Moreton-In-Marsh will be operated by 180s - except the morning 'halts' train), save that I've heard rumours that they'll also be deployed on a couple of stopping/semi-fast Thames Valley services as well.  But HST turns are not likely to be affected.

Many thanks for this.

Oh, and earlier possibilities of Henley's and Banbury's appear to be on hold for the time being at least.

Good.

I'm hearing through the grapevine that the full introduction of all 4 daily diagrams will be by September with, as previously stated, all services that run west of Evesham being either formed by HST's or Adelantes except for the early morning Moreton-Worcester service and its return 'halts' train.  The down 'halts' service is to be an Adelante (coming from Paddington at 16:20?).

Driver training has started (literally this week) with a progressive introduction of Adelantes (probably on the off-peak Turbo Cotswold Line services) before their full introduction as part of the driver retraining programme.

A couple of other services will also be Adelante operated, with one or both of the current (very full) three car Turbo operated 07:00 and 07:21 stopping services from Oxford (but semi-fast from stations such as Twyford, Maidenhead and Slough) being mentioned, as well as an evening service and workings the other way to get the stock there.

Hi II, any news on the interiors - will they stay the same layout or change to High Density like the HSTs?

The videos of the work in progress, posted a few days ago here: http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9841.75
...appeared to show the 180s having a refit but no layout changes.  People mistakenly thought the tables were being installed in an HST, but it turned out the train being shown was a 180.

Paul

Yes, I've not had chance to have a look myself yet, but I believe the seating configuration is going to remain the same.  A colleague who's seen one of them says they're very smart, especially first class.  As and when I get chance to take a visit to Old Oak I'll take a butchers and report back...

Indeed, interior layout unchanged, so still loads of legroom and plenty of tables. Refresh is pretty much as per the Hull Trains units other than the odd change of interor paint colour.

Improvement over as built interior in my view!

Good interview with Mark Hopwood in the latest Modern Railways in which he sets out more about the plans for the Adelantes, including the possibility of eventually fitting wifi to them.

I read somewhere the other day that the Adelantes are expected to start running (or is that re-running) between Paddington and Worcester / Malvern in July 2012 following refurbishment and crew re-training.

Just seen some timings published for the class 180's to be used for driver training runs etc. Be warned  they didnt run today so don't get your hopes up but keep an eye out.


First Great Western Class 180 Driver Training.
Booked to run 28th, 29th and 30th March.
Timed for 125mph running.

5Z29 08:55 Old Oak Common to London Paddington
Old Oak Common HSTD 0855
Old Oak Common East 0859
Kensal Green C.Serv.Plt. 0920
London Paddington 0928

5Z30 09:35 London Paddington to Oxford Down Carriage Siding
London Paddington 0935
Ladbroke Grove 0938
Acton West 0941
Southall 0943
Heathrow Airport Jn 0944
Slough 0948-0949
Maidenhead 0955
Twyford 0958-0959
Reading 1005
Reading West Jn 1006
Didcot East Jn 1015
Didcot North Jn 1016
Kennington Jn 1025
Oxford 1029
Oxford Down Carriage Siding 1031

5Z31 10:44 Oxford Down Carriage Siding to London Paddington
Oxford Down Carriage Siding 1044
Oxford 1047-1055
Kennington Jn 1058
Didcot North Jn 1106
Didcot East Jn 1107
Tilehurst East Jn. 1115
Reading West Jn 1117
Reading 1125-1126
Twyford 1131
Maidenhead 1136
Slough West 1147
Slough 1148-1149
Heathrow Airport Jn 1155
Southall 1156
Acton West 1158
Ladbroke Grove 1201
London Paddington 1224

5Z32 12:33 London Paddington to Oxford Down Carriage Siding
London Paddington 1233
Ladbroke Grove 1236
Acton West 1239
Southall 1241
Heathrow Airport Jn 1242
Slough 1247-1248
Maidenhead 1254
Twyford 1257
Reading 1302-1305
Reading West Jn 1306
Didcot East Jn 1315
Didcot Parkway 1316-1317
Didcot North Jn 1319
Kennington Jn 1325
Oxford 1329
Oxford Down Carriage Siding 1331

5Z33 13:50 Oxford Down Carriage Siding to London Paddington
Oxford Down Carriage Siding 1350
Oxford 1353-1354
Kennington Jn 1357
Didcot North Jn 1403
Didcot Parkway 1406-1408
Didcot East Jn 1409
Tilehurst East Jn. 1418
Reading West Jn 1420
Reading 1425-1426
Twyford 1431
Maidenhead 1436
Slough 1447-1448
Dolphin Jn 1451
Heathrow Airport Jn 1457
Southall 1458
Acton West 1501
Ladbroke Grove 1504
London Paddington 1526

5Z34 15:42 London Paddington to Old Oak Common
London Paddington 1542
Old Oak Common East 1609
Old Oak Common HSTD 1612

IF it runs I'm told the lay-over at London Paddington from 12:24 to 12:33 is booked to be in Platform 1 if anyone wants a good look.

It is running today utilising 180106.

The ECS movements are for the foreseeable future......

New interiors:
(https://p.twimg.com/ApJ0uc7CMAA5AO2.jpg:large)

(https://p.twimg.com/ApJ0qIRCQAAsTDm.jpg:large)

Very nice thank you for posting these photos

If anyone is interested, I understand there is a special running up the Cotswold line on Sunday. Its purpose is to verify stopping points, step clearances and check that ramps are usable. It is needed because of the realignment and new platforms built as part of the redoubling. Sorry, dont have any times.

Looking very smart internally, although I can't say I'm too impressed with the new carpets... :p

FGW have just tweeted a pic of Mark Hopwood standing next to 106 at Paddington, I assume taken earlier on today:

https://twitter.com/#!/FGW/status/185419817245876224/photo/1 (https://twitter.com/#!/FGW/status/185419817245876224/photo/1)

I saw it at Didcot yesterday, surrounded by a goodly number of amateur photographers, so I'd imagine there'll be plenty of photos online by now. It looked very smart.

Some here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/willc2009/

As ever, thanks to willc for those pictures.  :)

Some photos online of one of the class 180 on test at Moreton In Marsh

Refurbishment work on the 180s and the conversion of the buffet cars to TS vehicles were both covered in an article in a recent edition of RAIL (forget the number, sorry). It was mentioned in the article, almost as a footnote, that FGW was removing guard's door control panels installed whilst the units were at Northern and re-siting them in the driver's cabs.

Quite aside from the issues that this may well cause with the unions, this seems like a bit of a strange move. I'm assuming there is some sound reasoning behind it somewhere: my best guess would be to ensure FGW has a standard fleet because not all of the units they will be taking on have this modification. Is that the real reason?

Presumably that's the real reason, though the RMT aren't happy and consider it the first step to undermining the TM's duties and therefore being able to be done away with to help achieve the aims of the McNulty review.  They say fitting the non Northern units with the same control panels and giving TM's full control of the doors would be the best option.

Interestingly, with the 180s scheduled to operate only over the Cotswold Line, the actual method of despatch would be virtually identical to the Turbos that have plied the route for nearly 20 years (the exception being the permission part that is mentioned below).  The driver releases the doors, the TM tells the driver to shut the doors and then gives the driver the RA and the train departs.  The old method of Class 180 despatch involved the driver getting permission to open the doors once the train was platformed - which sometimes led to a long delay sat at a platform before the doors opened.  Not good for punctuality and not good for the anxiety levels of passengers waiting to board or alight!  Perhaps that's more to do with the real reasons?

One thing is for sure, the old method for 180s, a mixture of Turbo DOO and HSTs method of work was a bit of a hotch-potch arrangement and didn't work very well.

What about for DOO if a 180 is put on the halts? Can the driver just release one door?

What's the point in this driver/guard door thing. Either let the guard do it, or just the driver (with cameras/mirrors, etc)! A dual system causes delays, as bewildered commuters jab at the buttons, frustrated that the door doesn't open.

I wish they could get rid of those loud BEEPS that deafen shocked bystanders and sort out those SQUEAKY brakes that cause even the most seasoned commuter wince with pain.

Also, knock a door through the guards van into the carriage so bikes can be loaded/unloaded quicker without passengers getting off and running to the nearest door as agitated platform staff blow their whistle.

The 180s have SDO, so yes, one door can be released if selected by the driver.  I think my post explained why the dual system was settled on - unions not wanting to see the role of guards diminish.  Though, I agree, one method or the other should really be decided upon from an operational point of view.


The problem there is that there is no guards van as such and the bike compartment is located in the crumple zone of the train where passengers are not allowed to be when the train is moving.  If there was a public access door there then there would be nothing to ensure that the crumple zone is only occupied by the poor staff!

Pendolinos have through-access from passenger accommodation to the bike compartment in the "crumple zone", so it's possible. However, the external door to the bike compartment can only be unlocked by staff, and this can (and does) lead to delays.

That's the same set-up as an Adelante then I think, Richard.  There is a through door to the crumple/bike zone (only opened by staff) on our units as well.  Makes more sense, in terms of reducing delays, to tell the punters collecting bikes to leave the vehicle by one of the external doors and wait at the end of the train there bike is stored at as the TM could be anywhere on the unit.

The other problem is that there is a bike store at each end - how are cyclists meant to know which one to use?

I have seen passengers board the Pendolino bike store at Sandwell & Dudley and told to stay in there until New Street where they would be let out to re-join the passenger saloon. This was done because the train was running late because said cyclists had tried boarding, bikes and all, further up the train. The guard was fuming and didn't want to waste more time letting them run back down the platform after loading the bikes.

You haven't said why this system was used? If the unions didn't want to see the guard diminish - why have the driver doing stuff at all?

Operationally it used to be the one at the rear of the train, where the guard was.  Unless that one was full, or the passenger was joining or alighting at somewhere with a short platform in which case it was the front end, often with the drivers assistance.  It usually worked quite well, but sometimes left a little to be desired!



That's a good question, and one I don't know the answer to.  Anybody?

I have seen a driver of an HST, stopping at Nailsea & Backwell, climb down from his cab and nip back to the cycle store to assist the train manager at the rear of the train with despatch by ensuring that the door is closed properly.  :-X

The controls for how many doors are released under SDO are in the cab, so the driver needs to be in control of release. The Northern mod bypassed SDO hence the removal as some Cotswold line stations need it.

The compromise on build was to do a mod where the driver releases the doors but there are panels in the train to allow the guard to do door close. When they come back they'll be as they were when they left so unions can't complain!

Well, the unions are complaining (of course!).  Understood, and thanks for that information, but it still doesn't really the answer the question as to why, when they were originally built (and not initially intended for services on the Cotswold Line), the SDO controls weren't included in the TM's door panel, as per the HSTs? 

The only possible answers I can think of, is that when working in multiple it might present a few problems, or that the unions weren't on the ball (or consulted) when the design and consequent method of working were agreed.

I do have hazy recollections of this being an issue when the units were introduced back in 2001: as I recall (anyone help me out here...?) the unions "blacked" the units initially and refused to work them.

The first Adelante service was a "token" Bristol - London passenger working, crewed by management to meet a regulatory deadline of some description for the trains to be in use. Squadron service did not come until some while later.

Weren't the Class 180s also delayed from entering service because the safety case for having passengers in a lead vehicle of a 125mph unit was being argued over by Railtrack, the HSE and the manufacturer Alstom?

Although the Adelantes aren't that old, here's a bit of nostalgia from their introduction to FGW first time round:

http://vimeo.com/29773996

Also, a staff training update from those early days of Adelante operation.

http://vimeo.com/29773974

Thanks I watched one of these on youtube as well as some other training videos

Ah, yes.  Tears of nostalgia from watching that again! 

A real touch of class that the unit number appears to have been painted onto the coupler cover using Tipp-Ex in the last few minutes of the "introduction" video!

Looks like they've finally given up with those coupler covers on the refreshed sets.

Was a bit surprised by how shaky and arthritic those extending couplers and covers looked in the video too!

Sage words, willc, sage indeed. I am from up North, living in Bristol for many a long year, and agree with both sides. The problem is not that the stock is unfairly distributed, but that there isn't enough. The years of letting the railways rot will take much longer to get over.

They are being fitted! At a later date I believe.

Class 180 test runs today were cancelled... Due to a train fault   ::)

The reliability of 180106 has been, shall we say, 'patchy' since returning.  It sat in platform 5 at Paddington refusing to move for quite some time last week as well.  Of course these training/test runs are designed to get rid of any niggles, but personally I remain a little concerned!

Regarding the dispute concerning operation of the door controls, here's the RMT's take on the subject including their opinion that this is the thin end of the wedge and that IEP will be DOO unless they win this battle:

(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5467/7093151775_72bf3f6b9d_b.jpg)

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7059/6947081648_5375785dd6_b.jpg)

Bless them. I never knew there was a "former First Great Northern" franchise...

I'm hearing there's a hoped for phased introduction on Cotswold Line services commencing from the middle of next month.

Well, make that the end of May, but the plan (though don't hold me to it of course as it might go bang over the weekend) is to let an Adelante loose from next Monday on the following revenue earning services:

11:20 Paddington-Great Malvern
14:26 Great Malvern to Paddington
17:18 Paddington-Oxford (fast to Maidenhead then stopper)
19:31 Oxford-Paddington

There's also an early morning test run from Paddington to Oxford squeezed in.  Presumably it'll be 180106 as it's done all the test mileage so far despite a couple of others now being returned.

180103.

Yup!  I was slightly surprised by that.  Here is is, looking very smart, about to go onto the Cotswold Line at Oxford North Junction on the 11:21 PAD-GMV today, the first passenger service since their reintroduction:

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7237/7286384030_b6a9b52496_b.jpg)

About 10 late at Charlbury. Apparently one of the engines failed!

Service was running late because of a Bridge Strike at Langley

There was indeed one engine out, was strange to see the old auto announcements back in use, including a reference to the now removed audio entertainment in Carriage E.

I thought the 180s were having reliability modifications, or has that not happened for this unit yet?

They are, though I'm not sure that these modifications are (or will) making much difference!  Hot weather was never a friend of the 180s anyway and a 5-car unit has enough redundant power to easily keep to schedule with only four engines, much like a Voyager.  They may well bed in a little over time and I'll be keeping a close eye on them.

Article covering the new Chiltern sliding doors and the 180s.

http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/9730928.All_change_as_extra_trains_take_to_tracks/?

Oh my, is that a local newspaper that manages to report factually? Never in my lifetime did I think I'd see it!  ::)

I think the author may have something to do with it!

Indeed. Late of this parish and much missed.

After a 30-minute delay on Wednesday due to engine problems and spending yesterday with one engine isolated and another just idling (and losing time as a result), 180103 has been taken off of its usual duties today and been replaced by a Turbo*.  Listening to train crew feedback all the reliability modifications have made jack all difference - the vocal ones are generally negative about such issues anyway, but, so far at least, it does appear that there's been no wonder cure to their various ills.

* This could also of course be down to a lack of trained up crew to drive them today.

What is the reason for all these problems? Why are they so unreliable?

Hull Trains are having problems with their 180's too! Few of their services in the past few days have run between Kings Cross and Hull, with some running only the 40 miles or so between Doncaster and Hull. All are based at Old Oak Common.

A cynic might say that it's down to build quality: they have been a reliability headache since they were very first introduced into service. Significant amounts of time, effort and money have been spent trying to improve them, but they're still well below what you might hope for.

The class 175s (built by the same manufacturer to a closely related design at around the same time) were also a nightmare initially, although these seem to have settled down in the last few years to become more solid performers.

According to the MD we're still on target to get everything sorted in time for the Olympics.  A second Adelante diagram will be starting in early July, followed by the remaining units coming available by the end of July.  It's going to be a bit of a rush and getting enough crew trained will also not be easy, but we'll see!  Also, the first of the rebuilt Mk.3s is expected any day now with the rest following in time to extend all 2+7 HSTs also by the end of July.

After doing a bit of manoeuvring in Old Oak Common the last few days, 180108 had a shakedown test run to Worcester and back today.  Presumably that will be the unit rostered for the second diagram starting in the near future.

I've had a look through some of the open access timetabling data websites and I reckon I've worked out the 4 180 diagrams, the first two I've attached below. Most surprising trains I've found are the couple of Oxford-London stopping services which appear to be going over to 180 operation.

And here are the second two diagrams.

180108 was reported in service today on the 1120 London-Great Malvern so presumably a second diagram will be starting up soon.

Thanks for posting those diagrams, 'Southern Stag'.  They match up pretty well with what I've been told over the last few months - which did suggest that the 07:00 and 07:21 stoppers would be 180 operated (they are currently 3-car Turbo's).  They'll be busy, after their final calling point, but should just about cope.  Presumably they'll be shuffled around a little when (or if?) 2E95, 17:32 OXF-GMV starts back from Paddington later in the year.

I remain very concerned about 1P35, 08:26 WOF-PAD, though.  That's the train that is currently a 3-Car Turbo to Oxford and then attaches to a further 3-Cars.  It is pretty usual that virtually all seats in the part from Worcester are taken on its arrival at Oxford (standing passengers not uncommon during the school holidays), with the front three that start there loading reasonably well and then picking up more at Reading and a lot more at Slough so that as a 6-Car it is virtually full on arrival at Paddington.  It doesn't take a genius to work out that a 6-Car Turbo's worth of passengers into a 5-Car Adelante simply won't go! 

Unless the train is altered so that it omits the call at Slough and is set down only at Reading, I predict major problems!  Perhaps the answer would be a relief Turbo service running from Oxford just ahead of it calling at Reading, Slough and Paddington (and perhaps Maidenhead) around the 09:55 mark (with an easement on Network Card usage from Oxford)?

I completely agree, I was shocked when I read that this train will be 180 operated. it is the first Off Peak train of the day for Cotswold passengers (due to sneaky timetabling by FGW - yes I know 11am arrival is late for off peak!!) and it is normally RAMMED. It needs to be an HST and has always needed to be an HST.

It's interesting that even though that is the 180 diagram that's already up and running, that the 08:26 WOF-PAD is still being run by a Turbo for now.

Looks like the 17:32 OXF-GMV isn't going to be starting from Paddington yet, September timetables are pretty much confirmed now with reservations now open. Probably will have to December before it's changed now.

It's the first train on which Off-Peak Day tickets are valid (CDR), but Off-Peak tickets (SVR) are valid on the Cathedrals Express (6.30ish from Hereford) and later.

You can't really blame "sneaky timetabling by FGW" for this - it's been the case since Thames Trains days, at least. If you're going to have a go at any TOC for extortionate Off-Peak gouging, try the buffoons at CrossCountry.

The fare condition for Cheap Day Returns from Worcester changed in 2003 January - before then they were valid on the Cathedrals Express (out of Worcester at 07:52 in those days, and taking just under two hours to Paddington).

 >:(

FGW have finally announced that 5 180s will have Wi-Fi and internet access!

Yes, it took them some time to make that public!

Much more Adelante work is diagrammed from next week.  I hope there's enough driver cover as the training/re-training programme is only about half way through!

I noticed this (Friday) morning that an Adelante was pulling westbound out of Reading at about 610am. This is unusual - I am used to seeing a 180 come in for the Worcester service (0622?) but my train wasnt late..so is this another service that is using Adelantes?

Dave

Not sure what BerkshireBugsy saw this morning, but the 0622 Adelante ex Reading did not make it to Worcester.  I noticed on NREs that the return 0826 ex WOF started at Oxford due to an earlier train failure.

I undderstand that 004 was so extensively cannibalised that parts are being manufactured & it won't be in service until the end of next month at the earliest

What threw me about this 180 was the fact that the WOF service (I think) leaves RDG at 620ish our train pulled in on time and a 180 was leaving. I will never know :)

Today (Mon Aug 20), the 11:20 Paddington - Great Malvern has been terminated at Oxford, and the 14:26 Malvern - Paddington cancelled, both on account of a train fault.

3D22, 05:17 PAD-OXF empty stock would be my guess.  You can see from Southern Stag's diagrams on the previous page that it heads to Oxford in order to form 2P22, 07:02 OXF-PAD.

What's the difference between an empty train with a 3-prefix number and one with a 5-prefix number?

Importance.  Usually Class 3 ECS trains are longer distance moves forming key services when they get to their destination.

It was badly cannibalised, but is now back with FGW and is working trains today, so that's all 5 now back I think.  Perhaps the fourth diagram will start next week?  p.s. it's unit 180104  ;)

Fourth diagram introduced today.

What are the current diagrams, please? Not currently able to check myself.

They're the same as 'Southern Stag' posted on the previous page of this thread, except the 2nd and 4th diagram swap round at Oxford in the late afternoon.