Future of Class 180s?

[whole diary]

[southwest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Celestial]

Even if XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) get all the voyager fleet, is that going to be able to cover the demand?

Adding the 100 or so Voyage vehicles from Avanti would be a big step up from the current fleet, more so if you added the Meridians. I doubt DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) would sanction both of those.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[eightonedee]

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

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

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

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

[Celestial]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[grahame]

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

[IndustryInsider]

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

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

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

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

[broadgage]

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

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

[Electric train]

Nails in the coffin for some units could be route gauge clearance approval, the ToC has to fund the assessment carried out by NR^» (Network Rail - home page); any route mods or mods to the units has to be funded.

The reason why SWT^▸ (South West Trains) wanted to use the 444 was their universal grandfather rights from the days of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways))

[MVR S&T]

Nails in the coffin for some units could be route gauge clearance approval, the ToC has to fund the assessment carried out by NR^» (Network Rail - home page); any route mods or mods to the units has to be funded.

The reason why SWT^▸ (South West Trains) wanted to use the 444 was their universal grandfather rights from the days of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways))

Do you mean the 442s?

[JontyMort]

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

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

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

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

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

[southwest]

Adding the 100 or so Voyage vehicles from Avanti would be a big step up from the current fleet, more so if you added the Meridians. I doubt DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) would sanction both of those.

I believe that is the plan for all 22x groups to be in one franchise

I'm not sure that is my recollection. They were very clearly ordered for the XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) network.

Yes they were ordered for XC but I remember reading it in an article about 220/221 testing, Unfortunately that was 10 years ago and I cannot find the article anymore.

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

Long Rock, Laira, Craigentinny already do maintenance for XC (Laira now does nearly all XC HST^▸ (High Speed Train) maintenance), Bristol Stoke Gifford has room, with also room to expand the depot if needed. For most depots it would be just a switch from HST/Voyagers to IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train).

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

XC fleet is a mix of 220,221,170s & HSTs. Swapping the 220,221 & HST's for IETs would mean a one type fleet for the entire long distance services, with 170s doing the local XC services until something more suitable could be found.

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

Plenty of routes which could use those voyagers, Scotrail could use them to replace it's HST fleet as well as the 158s/170s on some of the busier routes (Inverness to Aberdeen), They could also be used to replace multiple rolling stock at Transport for Wales.

[Celestial]

Plenty of routes which could use those voyagers, Scotrail could use them to replace it's HST^▸ (High Speed Train) fleet as well as the 158s/170s on some of the busier routes (Inverness to Aberdeen), They could also be used to replace multiple rolling stock at Transport for Wales.

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

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

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

[4064ReadingAbbey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[grahame]

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

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

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


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

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

[eightf48544]

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

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


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

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

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