Class 180 reliability

[whole diary]

[swlines]

Bristol to London via Hereford? WTF?

HT^▸ (Hull Trains), GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) and NXEC^▸ (National Express East Coast) are the only ones competing for the 180s (apart from the VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchises) rumour) - so they'll be the only ones to get it... although GC have less of a chance of getting it than the earth blowing up spontaneously following Paris Hilton farting on a street corner.

[northwesterntrains]

Bristol to London via Hereford? WTF?

I meant London to Hereford & Abgervany (or however you spell it) I think I merged it with the Cardiff to London via Bristol - don't get any ideas FGW^▸ (First Great Western).

[Btline]

What about FTPE^» (First TransPennine Express - website)?

[swlines]

What about FTPE^» (First TransPennine Express - website)?

Believe FTPEs bid is a part of HTs^▸ (Hull Trains), but HT have offered up two options.

[r james]

A common pool between HT^▸ (Hull Trains) and FTPE^» (First TransPennine Express - website) seems the most likely in my eyes, releasing the 222s.

[The SprinterMeister]

Current passengers would benefit from more comfortable rolling stock. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would benefit from extra rolling stock - 165/6's could perhaps assist with the capacity problems in the Bristol area?

Little bit of a loading gauge issue there methinks.

165/166's are built to 75 feet length but are built to the same width as C1^▸ ((on coaches) National route restriction) length (66 feet) rolling stock. The previous use of 165 on the Oxford - Bristol service was very restricted in what platforms they could use at Bristol TM^‡(resolve), 7/8 & 9/10 from memory. I very much doubt they will go through the platforms at Weston Super Mare without getting jammmed. And before anyone comes back with the idea of cutting back the platform edges, please think again, the gap between a class 150 and platform 3 at Bristol TM is worryingly large enough as it is.

Back to the drawing board on that I think.

There are loading gauge issues on certain routes in the Bristol area, but by no means all of them. As it would be a handful of units it would be fairly easy to select a sensible selection of services and routes that they would not have problems with gauge wise - perhaps they could operate a peak hours 'super-shuttle' between Bath and Bristol for example?

They should be able to run from Bristol to Bath and reverse at Bathampton no problem as they have done so before provided their passage is restricted to platforms 7/8 & 9/10 at Bristol TM. Weston Super Mare precludes them from going on the Cardiff - Taunton run.

Yes, we would like to cascade these west, the obvious move being to displace 143 and 15x on cross-Bristol services.  Not ideal for Cardiff-Portsmouth but the capacity would be useful to Weymouth.  Problem is that the GSM-R^▸ (Global System for Mobile communications - Railway.) radio system they are fitted with to work in LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) area is not compatible with that in the West area.  I understand NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are now to go straight to ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) rather than upgrade the networks for compatibility as appeared to be the policy in 2006.  This is likely to be a greater obstacle than route clearance.

Interesting comment as to the best of my knowledge 165's are fitted with CSR^▸ (Cab Secure Radio) not GSM-R radio systems. GSM-R is as yet in the future (Only 43093 having been trial fitted). The lineside masts are already in place although not as yet commisioned. There may well need to be modifications to the 165's to allow the conductor to operate the doors as none of the routes round Bristol are passed for DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard))-P and there is none of the CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) equipment / mirrors found on for example between Paddington & Reading.

There is of course the small matter of training the FGW 'West' staff up on the 165's, a not inconsiderable problem when you consider Exeter, Gloucester, Westbury & Bristol depot 'West' staff are involved with the local services in the Bristol area. Plus the hire in staff from ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) at Cardiff.

[12hoursunday]

They should be able to run from Bristol to Bath and reverse at Bathampton no problem as they have done so before provided their passage is restricted to platforms 7/8 & 9/10 at Bristol TM^‡(resolve). Weston Super Mare precludes them from going on the Cardiff - Taunton run.

and 1/13/15 at Bristol

There may well need to be modifications to the 165's to allow the conductor to operate the doors as none of the routes round Bristol are passed for DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard))-P and there is none of the CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) equipment / mirrors found on for example between Paddington & Reading.

There is a way around this problem which was acceptable to the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) during the Bristol/Oxford days. The guard gives the instruction via the buzzer for the driver to close the doors, and when he has closed his local door (rear cab) the instruction for RA.

[northwesterntrains]

A common pool between HT^▸ (Hull Trains) and FTPE^» (First TransPennine Express - website) seems the most likely in my eyes, releasing the 222s.

Wouldn't work.  FTPE prioirty for 125mph trains is the Manchester Airport to Scotland service via Bolton and Preston that was run by 220s by Virgin, previously to FTPE taking over the service.  (That service goes nowhere near Hull or Harrogate)

There's also more chance of a Manchester Airport to Scotland service holding up a London or Birmingham to Glasgow service as the line north of Preston is mainly double track.

So while routes like Manchester Airport to Newcastle via York could do with faster and larger trains, it's unlikely FTPE will put 125mph trains on that route while 100mph are on the Scottish service.

[IndustryInsider]

Yes, we would like to cascade these west, the obvious move being to displace 143 and 15x on cross-Bristol services.  Not ideal for Cardiff-Portsmouth but the capacity would be useful to Weymouth.  Problem is that the GSM-R^▸ (Global System for Mobile communications - Railway.) radio system they are fitted with to work in LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) area is not compatible with that in the West area.  I understand NR^» (Network Rail - home page) are now to go straight to ERTMS^▸ (European Rail Traffic Management System.) rather than upgrade the networks for compatibility as appeared to be the policy in 2006.  This is likely to be a greater obstacle than route clearance.

Interesting comment as to the best of my knowledge 165's are fitted with CSR^▸ (Cab Secure Radio) not GSM-R radio systems. GSM-R is as yet in the future (Only 43093 having been trial fitted). The lineside masts are already in place although not as yet commisioned. There may well need to be modifications to the 165's to allow the conductor to operate the doors as none of the routes round Bristol are passed for DOO^▸ (Driver-Only Operation (that is, trains which operate without carrying a guard))-P and there is none of the CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) equipment / mirrors found on for example between Paddington & Reading.

There is of course the small matter of training the FGW 'West' staff up on the 165's, a not inconsiderable problem when you consider Exeter, Gloucester, Westbury & Bristol depot 'West' staff are involved with the local services in the Bristol area. Plus the hire in staff from ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) at Cardiff.

Yeah, turbos are fitted with Cab Secure Radio (CSR) and GSM-P (which is little more than a mobile phone in the cab). I expect they are getting their P's and R's mixed up as GSM-R is some years off yet. I am sceptical that any 'incompatibility' with the GSM-P system would be too difficult to overcome though.

As for train despatch, there are no problems using the buzzer-codes from TM^‡(resolve) to Driver as mentioned above. It happens all the time on Gatwick and Cotswold Line services (and others).

[willc]

A common pool between HT^▸ (Hull Trains) and FTPE^» (First TransPennine Express - website) seems the most likely in my eyes, releasing the 222s.

Wouldn't work.

Hull Trains' current fleet - 222s and 180s - is all based at Crofton, which ain't that near Hull anyway, just outside Wakefield to be exact, so really can't see why it would be a problem to organise duties from Leeds to get sets across the Pennines to Manchester to work Glasgow services.

[The SprinterMeister]

There is a way around this problem which was acceptable to the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) during the Bristol/Oxford days. The guard gives the instruction via the buzzer for the driver to close the doors, and when he has closed his local door (rear cab) the instruction for RA.

Probably not acceptable to ASLE&F as that method of working is not in line with 'West' driver terms and conditions. I suspect the RMT agreement would require re-negotiation now that the 'West' reps have entered the fold. Pobably easier to reconfigure the things so as the conductor has full control of the doors.

[willc]

Probably not acceptable to ASLE&F as that method of working is not in line with 'West' driver terms and conditions. I suspect the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) agreement would require re-negotiation now that the 'West' reps have entered the fold. Pobably easier to reconfigure the things so as the conductor has full control of the doors.

Er, why? If this method of operating is acceptable to ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) and RMT members in the Thames Valley and Cotswolds - and has been since 1992-3 - I'm sure a bit of negotiating would be possible. A tweak in terms and conditions would probably be rather more cost-effective than wiring up new door controls.

turbos are fitted with Cab Secure Radio (CSR^▸ (Cab Secure Radio)) and GSM-P

The GSM is for use on the Cotswold Line, where CSR is not available. On the north end of all three platforms at Oxford there are notices to drivers next to the train stop markers reminding them to switch on GSM before departure.

[The SprinterMeister]

Probably not acceptable to ASLE&F as that method of working is not in line with 'West' driver terms and conditions. I suspect the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) agreement would require re-negotiation now that the 'West' reps have entered the fold. Pobably easier to reconfigure the things so as the conductor has full control of the doors.

Er, why? If this method of operating is acceptable to ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) and RMT members in the Thames Valley and Cotswolds - and has been since 1992-3 - I'm sure a bit of negotiating would be possible. A tweak in terms and conditions would probably be rather more cost-effective than wiring up new door controls.

You should remember that there are three groups of traincrew on FGW^▸ (First Great Western), all of which are on seperate terms, conditions and rates of pay. The staff who would presumably operate 165's in the Bristol area were not in the employ of Thames Trains (as was) when that agreement was negotiated. Therefore that method of working would need to be agreed between FGW and the RMT / ASLE&F reps negotiating for the 'West' staff as it would presumably be those crews operating the 165's.

Certain West crews are familiar with GSM-R^▸ (Global System for Mobile communications - Railway.) radios (in this instance known as IVRS^▸ (Interim Voice Radio System)) as the resignalling round Portsmouth requires use of the portable IVRS handsets. West units only have the standard NRN^▸ (National Radio Network) radio.

[northwesterntrains]

Hull Trains' current fleet - 222s and 180s - is all based at Crofton, which ain't that near Hull anyway, just outside Wakefield to be exact, so really can't see why it would be a problem to organise duties from Leeds to get sets across the Pennines to Manchester to work Glasgow services.

It would require timetable changes to even do.  Manchester Airport station can't cope with any extra trains at present.  Trains between Leeds and Manchester Airport mostly originate from Newcastle or Middlesbrough, with some early morning trains originating at York.

Then there's still the problem of the larger trains being needed in the morning peaks between Preston and Manchester Airport as well as Liverpool and Leeds and the reverse in the evening peaks.

[IndustryInsider]

There is a way around this problem which was acceptable to the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) during the Bristol/Oxford days. The guard gives the instruction via the buzzer for the driver to close the doors, and when he has closed his local door (rear cab) the instruction for RA.

Probably not acceptable to ASLE&F as that method of working is not in line with 'West' driver terms and conditions. I suspect the RMT agreement would require re-negotiation now that the 'West' reps have entered the fold. Pobably easier to reconfigure the things so as the conductor has full control of the doors.

Again, I don't think this would be an issue. I can understand why it's been raised, but when crews learn new traction they learn the various methods of operation that go with it. Former Thames Trains (then FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Link) drivers have signed on Adelantes and HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s which both have different methods of despatch compared with the Turbos they have been used to, and also contain different in-cab equipment, i.e. ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) and NRN^▸ (National Radio Network). As far as I know there were no stumbling blocks preventing them from doing this - though it is of course an issue with some of the crews that drive HST's over the disparity in pay.