Great Western Coffee Shop

I know the 180s are deemed as unreliable, but originally the 175s were but aren't still despite now being used on longer routes.  Could the 180s not be modified?

Also the 180s have been linked with the following TOCs:
Arriva Trains Wales
East Midlands Trains
First TransPennine Express
First Scotrail
Grand Central
Hull Trains
National Express East Coast
Northern Rail
Virgin Trains

Why are all these companies interested if they are that unreliable?  Although Arriva have withdrawn their interest due to the costs involved.
 

Have been reports (recent issue of Rail?) that First Group is talking to the leasing firm about doing reliability modifications if it takes some or all the fleet for Hull Trains and extra services from Harrogate and perhaps for TransPennine Express. And I'm sure National Express would also want things sorted out if they get the nod to use some on extra Harrogate trains instead of the Hull Trains proposal.

Relevant topic link.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=2454.msg18425#msg18425

Due to the fact that these were modified when Firstgroup threw them back! The Alstom Class 458 'Juniper' used by SouthWest Trains were also dogged by problems and were to handed back to their leasing company until the problems were sorted! At the time Scotrail were due to trial them. For those who don't know the C458 is a electric version of the Class 175/180 and can be seen at Reading on a daily basis!

They're fixed? News to me.

Give a number of them to wales, which wll then free up a number of 158s for the EMT franchise.

I think ATW need more 158s for Cambrian line (and to strengthen other services).

On recent staff memo Andrew Haines states We are still scouring the land for more rolling stock! Don't bet your life on all those 180's going elsewhere!

i have also heard a rumour fgw may well end up keeping some of the 180's long term

Would make sense if they did.

Yes - how about a 180 for the Melksham service? ;D

Whole it would be good for FGW to be able to keep some of the 180s, I sort of think this should be at the compromise of having so many HST sets, as the HST sets were sourced to fully replace them.

It would be nice however to see a refurbished adalente.

Could run Oxford Bristol  via Melksham reverse Trowbridge!


FGW is short of stock it needs all the HSTs plus the Adelantes running to allow other stock to be released to serve overcrowed routes. I am sure the train planners could devise suitable diagrams, to achieve these aims.

[/quote]

What a ridiculous move that would turn out to be. Besides, it is not possible to reverse at Trowbridge, as the reverse must be performed at Bradford Jn.

Do mean refurbishing internally?

The 175s, in theory inferior to the 180s, haven't been touched internally (expect for the automated PA system) and are still in excellent condition.  Although the seating could be more comfortable for long distance journeys.  (However, it's much better than the First TransPennine Express 185s, which are used on journeys of up to 4hrs, where the seats are firmer than the tables.)

The 180s can't be in a worse condition than some other trains in operation (some 150s and 156s haven't ever been refurbished and retain the original seats and also carpets in the case of the 156s.)

An idea by IndustryInsider on how Adelantes could be utilised can be found in the link below.
http://canber.co.uk/?q=node/31

Oh yeah, but it would be nice to see the new style first interior like is seen on all ofhter FGW units going tgrough a refurb? 

Great idea in the link. :)

However, the stop at Maidenhead would be even more beneficial, in preparation for Crossrail (i.e. longer distance passengers would not have to change at Reading as well).

The Thames Turbos released could provide the TransWilts service, or a Oxford to Bristol service.

Hmmmmm :-\


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 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, 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.

 when has a Turbo been more comfortable than a 150?....they might be newer but that is not a reason to deem them better.
180 reliability  has been quite poor, and wont improve untill some serious modifications are done to them ,in a nutshell they are an over complicated design thrown together by Alstom with parts from here there and eveywhere.
Modern Rubbish only silghtly more bearable than a Voyager

Your post is interesting, given FGW's reply when I asked them about the possible use of Turbos on Cross-Bristol services :


Gauge clearance for the routes mentioned by FGW features in the Network Rail Strategic Business Plan as an NRDF candidate scheme in CP4 (page 19 of the link below.)
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/StrategicBusinessPlan/RoutePlans/2008/Route%204%20-%20Wessex%20Routes.pdf

Obviously, this still leaves the issue of Weston-super-Mare unresolved. However, it is interesting to note that Jacobs Consultancy recommended the introduction of a Turbo-operated Weston-Bristol-Oxford service in their Greater Western Franchise Replacement reports :

Pages 40-41 of the link below.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/september06/swindonwestburytrainsservice/greaterwesternoutlinebusines1103

Pages 26-27 of the link below.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2006/september06/swindonwestburytrainsservice/bristolroute

Jacobs proposed timetable link.
http://www.raildocuments.org.uk/gw/jacobscrossbristoltt.xls

I am not necessarily saying you are wrong though, as there are obviously issues that would need to be sorted out. I'm just putting forward the other side of the argument.

How about FGW swap some Turbos with Chiltern's new 172s?

The loading gauge would be more manageable, although the lower top speed of 75 mph could be a problem.

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?

It would be better to see 125mph trains on East Midlands Trains Liverpool to Norwich route (there's been talk of re-routing that service as the 90mph 158s that currently operate it can hold up HSTs on the East Coast Mainline, also the existing 2 and 4 car 158s can get very crowded.)

Likewise on the North and North West and Scottish Transpennine Express routes for similar reasons  as 100mph 2, 3 and 4* car units are too small and slow for the routes they run.
^{(* 185s mainly run as 3 car while 170s mainly run as 4 car, but there are some 2 car diagrams.)}

However, any 125mph with 5 cars would do, it just needs DfT to realise that long fast trains are needed on lots of routes, not just mainline services in and out of London.

What do you see as the ideal routing/stopping pattern for the Liverpool-Norwich route, and what benefits would it have over the current situation?

There is no point putting 180s on the Liverpool - Norwich circuit. There is very little line that can take advantage of 90mph+ linespeeds due to the long winding route it takes...

There is talk of there being a Liverpool to Sheffield service branded as East Midlands Connect and a re routed Liverpool to Norwich service possibly via Crewe and Derby rather than Sheffield which will be branded as a East Midlands Mainline service and EMT claim will be much faster

Right, via Crewe... then where? Birmingham? No paths come to mind. Besides, EMT haven't placed a bid for the 180s so I highly doubt they're gonna get any...

Nuneaton is another possibility apart from the fact the connections aren't available yet - and to keep ORCATS high it'd have to reverse in Leicester. Also no access to fast lines as it's not tilting stock.

Remaining 180s should be split between FGW (for Westbury services) and FTPE, to help with overcrowding, return direct trains to Windermere and to have 125 mph stock on the WCML.

First Hull Trains would keep their ones for Hull to London and Harrogate to London.

Actually my mistake the route would be Manchester-Stockport-Stoke on Trent-Derby-Nottingham avoiding Crewe and in any case not going near Birmingham.

I'm not saying EMT should get the 180s, I'm just saying it would be a better option than Arriva Trains Wales and that not all fast trains should go to London mainline services.  After all the Bristol to London via Hereford service isn't exactly a fast service.

Bristol to London via Hereford? WTF?

HT, GC and NXEC are the only ones competing for the 180s (apart from the VT 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.

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.

What about FTPE?

Believe FTPEs bid is a part of HTs, but HT have offered up two options.

A common pool between HT and FTPE seems the most likely in my eyes, releasing the 222s.

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.


Interesting comment as to the best of my knowledge 165's are fitted with CSR 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-P and there is none of the CCTV 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 at Cardiff.

and 1/13/15 at Bristol



There is a way around this problem which was acceptable to the RMT 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.

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.

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 to Driver as mentioned above. It happens all the time on Gatwick and Cotswold Line services (and others).

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.

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.

Er, why? If this method of operating is acceptable to ASLEF 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.


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.

You should remember that there are three groups of traincrew on FGW, 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 radios (in this instance known as IVRS) as the resignalling round Portsmouth requires use of the portable IVRS handsets. West units only have the standard NRN radio.

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.

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 Link) drivers have signed on Adelantes and HST'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 and NRN. 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.

There was a seperate agreement that the former Thames Trains (FGWL) drivers would learn the 180's and subsequently the HST's ahead of the proposed harmonisation of terms and conditions for traincrew across the whole of the FGW franchise. And the PM & LA depot drivers would learn 14x & 15x for movements within the depots. That was the extent that was agreed. Any further cross cover or traction retraining will not occur until the terms and conditions have somehow been bought into line. The 142's were different as they directly replaced 14 158's which were transferred away from FGW and only one 'West' traincrew depot was involved. The method of working the doors was in any case identical to the other 'West' rolling stock.

All a bit arbitary as I wouldnt think the 165's / 166's will be appearing in the Bristol area due to the gauging issues limiting their utility mentioned a while back.

All very true, SprinterMeister, but I don't think that had anything to do with different operating instructions regarding doors, etc. Wasn't it to allay fears from the FGWL drivers that they would be driving 125mph traction at a significantly reduced rate of pay compared with their FGW HSS colleagues, by saying that they would shortly be paid the same? 90mph Turbos are no faster than 158's of course, so I don't think West drivers could do very much about it if FGW said they wanted them to learn Turbos- the union might grumble a bit, but then again it always does. Just like in the old Thames Trains days when Oxford drivers were required to learn and work 158's on certain Bristol/Oxford/Bicester services. As you say though, there is nothing in the pipeline to suggest that Turbos will be plying their trade around the Bristol area anytime soon, anyway.

As for 'harmonisation' - well, after the first botched attempt that was negotiated by ASLE&F was well and truly rejected by the membership despite the union's recommendation to accept, I wait with interest to see what it's members will be offered next time. Discussions are starting in September with talk of it all being resolved in time for the December '08 timetable. Personally, I'll be amazed if that happens!  ::)

You and me both! ::) ::)

I believe the current tack (called restructuring) is to renegotiate the terms & conditions of LTV & West towards the HSS level. There are significant numbers of staff who are against harmonisation per se on all three groups of traincrew. There is a lot of disinterest in HSS by some of the senior 'West' traincrew, some of whom drove HST's etc in the BR era.

As for Turbos, the method of working the doors is significantly different & would require negotiating in for West staff, September onwards would possibly be a good time to do it? However I would be surprised if we get 165's on the Bristol area services. Possibly it might have been feasible had the 180's stayed but they have not.

So let's not even bother trying to make it work.

The new issue of Rail makes it clear that First wants to take most, if not all of the 180s, for Hull and - if approved, Harrogate - services. But this would still leave a number free to do other things and a 125mph five-car purpose-built express train, with end doors, is obviously a better bet for long-distance Scottish services than a three-car 100mph unit with suburban-style doors, essentially designed to cope with Leeds and Manchester commuter traffic. The 185s may eventually get a fourth car, but progress towards this seems to be painfully slow.

As well as running FGW, Andrew Haines is also First's head of rail services, and given the way he has turned FGW round in the past year, I can well believe that if they do agree the leasing deal and want to use 180s on TransPennine services, then he will get it organised, no ifs, no buts.

No-one is suggesting putting in extra services at Manchester Airport, just a straight rolling stock swap. And getting 180s to cover the Scottish services would free up 185s to provide those extra seats on the core TransPennine routes in the peaks and give Windermere its through trains back.

Thought some stats from the Beeching report might be interesting.

1959 number of gangwayed coaches allocated to fast and semi fast services.

Total                                                           18500
Number in year round service                             5500
Additional coaches for regular summer service       2000
Available for high peak                                      8900! my exclamation
Under repair                                                    2100

Even more startling is that 6000 of the high peak carriages were used as follows.

Not required on more than 10 occasions               2000
 "      "         "     "      "    14 occasions               2000
 "     "         "      "      "    18 occasions               2000

Agreed that was profligate, but we've now gone to the other extreme whereby if it can turn a wheel it's in service and we're still short of stock, however, ingenious the train planners are rostering stock.

10% of the 6000 would give 600 new coaches and make this thread and that of the Pacer one  redundant.

The 142s can't be retired and the 180s can only work one train at a time so if they are doing Harrogate KX (under the wires most of the way!!!) they can't do Padd Worcester.

However the rolling stock cake is divided there isn't enough stock to go round.

Further because we haven't electrified we've got diesels running long distances under the wires.

Welcome to 'UK Railway PLC'. We hope you enjoy your journey with us........
 ::) ::)

What you really mean is because we've not electrified connecting and diversionary routes, just the main lines. In contrast, the LGV Est project in France included electrification of a series of existing lines branching off the high speed route, so towns in the Champagne region, for example, could have through TGV links with Paris.

There are a number of lines over here where electrification would eliminate a host of diesel workings, both passenger and freight, at a stroke. For example:

On the West Coast: Nuneaton-Birmingham (passenger diversion, but would serve both Birmingham container terminals); Walsall-Rugeley; Crewe-Holyhead; Liverpool/Manchester-Preston; Preston-Blackpool; Carnforth-Barrow; Windermere branch. Kidsgrove-Crewe was finally done to help with West Coast modernisation.

East Coast: Newark-Lincoln/Cleethorpes; Doncaster-Hull; Doncaster-Leeds via Colton jct; Leeds-York; Leeds or York-Harrogate and Leeds-Skipton (current power supply inadequate for Class 91s); Northallerton/Darlington-Teesside; Edinburgh-Dundee and Aberdeen.

If Network Rail can win round the blockheads at the DfT, assuming they have noticed the soaring price of oil - and that's a big if when the Government's official forecasts expected oil to be about 85 dollars a barrel at the moment (it was 132-133 dollars yesterday) - then an electrification programme could be expected to deal with a number of these as a matter of urgency.

In the meantime, the 180s will remain an attractive option for opening up new routes, or boosting capacity/quality. And the fact remains, FGW don't want them. Andrew Haines has undone a number of the previous regime's wheezes, eg buffet cars, but shows no sign of moving on this one.

The three 180s are really a hedge against HST availability until next year. While they are around, then they need booked work to keep them operating properly - the Oxford-London morning peak train and the Hereford return working - but once the full HST power car fleet is available - the two pioneer MTUs have recently gone back to Brush at Loughborough to be brought up to the specification of the rest of the fleet - and the East Midlands set is refurbished, then they will be history in these parts.

Though if Grand Central was to fold, I wouldn't be surprised if First tried to get their hands on their HSTs as well, just to give a bit of extra flexibility to the fleet, though the Valenta engines would have to go.

Incidentally, the first reliveried XC Class 43 is back in service after being fitted with an MTU engine, pictures at http://www.iain7754.fotopic.net/p52026467.html (http://www.iain7754.fotopic.net/p52026467.html) and http://jst.fotopic.net/p52027916.html (http://jst.fotopic.net/p52027916.html) though the first set of coaches is still being worked on at Doncaster.

And in FGW land:
(http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l50/liamy_2006/43301.jpg)

I doubt FGW would ever get to keep the additional HSTs if GC was ever to fold.  They would dfinetly go to XC, to provide an increase in the already tight capacity, without any shaddow of a doubt. 

Via Brush for a complete re-fit and re-engineing if the track record of the GC HST sets is anything to go by.

The GC HST's are formed with the buffer fitted (former surrogate DVT) power cars. These retain in situ a lot of the cab equipment that was fitted for that purpose which apparently makes it very difficult if not impossible to fit ATP to them which is required on the GWML for speeds over 100mph.

So really XC would be one of the only options for those HSTs.

However, would the Department for transport allow it and over see the extra leasing costs?? Probably not!

But I would rather see them get the extra HST sets, and make them up to 8 carriage units using other MK3 stock, and release a voyager or two to either another TOC, or to enable a double voyager to be created elsewhere.

But if you need to get another 10 years' work out of them, like FGW would, then it may well be cost-effective to do the necessary work to fit APT. Presumably no-one bothered to remove redundant DVT kit because they expected the HSTs to be history at this point, after 30 years in service. The shiny XC power car pictured in this thread, 43301 (ex 43101) was little more than a hulk in the yard at Brush last year, so shows what can be done if you think you will earn the money back.

And the GC HSTS aren't leased, they were bought outright from Porterbrook by a sister company of GC called Sovereign Trains, so it would be probably be a case of who offered the most, if they stop operating, though today was supposedly the first day of normal GC services again after the Class 43s' latest trip to the workshop. If it all goes pear-shaped this time, I'm not sure they can survive, as any goodwill must have pretty much evaporated by now after seven months of problems.

it is amazing to see what was done with 43301.  As you say, goes to show what can be done with money if the demand exists.  The fact remains that there will be a use for HSTs for at least 10 more years, until the IEP is fully rolled out. 

The Grand Central HSTS wouldn't last 5 minutes if they went under.  Somebody would snap them up! And I have every confidence XC would!

Do any charter companies own any HSTs? 

Please don't get the understanding that XC are a money spending outfit. Remember they are owned by Arriva, a company renowned for creaming off the profits without putting anything in! Just look at the state of the of the Voyagers since the awarding of this franchise to Arriva to prove that this lot have short arms and deep pockets.

You will find that Firstgroup Holdings actually were briefly owners of one or more of the buffer fitted power cars. When the ATP fitting problem became evident they were swapped out with the leasing company for standard non buffer fitted ones. I don't think you should underestimate the work required to return these power cars to standard and allow ATP to be fitted. Over and above a proper overhaul and presumably fitment of MTU engines.

The Vomiters have started to look exceedingly tired internally since Arriva took charge at Cross Country. And I notice that the incidences of engines out and / or oil spitting appear to be on the increase. I gather the overall MPC for Voyagers is starting to drop as well. But they have a 'smart' new livery so thats ok then....

 ::) ::) ::)

I personally dont find that the voyagers have decreased in terms of internal standard that much?  The fact is that they are all going to be refurbished to some extent in the future when the internal changes are made, so I would suspect this is why arriva arent taking so much time investing in high maintenance regimes. 

And surely arriva arent stupid enough not to invest to the extent that it costs them on PPM charges etc?  If they keep having failed units, or cancelled ervices due to lack of trains, it will cost them. 

Voyagers have been crap for a while now .....and i am afraid Arriva have short arms and deep pockets mate

Not 180 news, but relevant to the Arriva dimension...Rumours and I stress rumours only, abound in the Brizzle area that several XC TM's are so fed up with the conditions imposed by Arriva that they are actively seeking transfers to FGW

It must be hard for the train managers on the XC routes.  I have been on trains where they get nothing but abuse from passengers, due to the overcrowding. 

I am sure arriva will give the voyagers new carpets and new seat covers as has been the case on the other XC unit which are being refurbished 

I'm not underestimating it - we're talking hypotheticals here after all - but at that time, it was easy to swap them for other Class 43s. Should the GC sets come on the market and should FGW want to boost their fleet, then in the absence of other sources since the full fleet is now taken, then it may well be the case that they would shell out - and I'd be surprised it would cost any more than rebuilding 43301 from little more than a shell.