Class 180 reliability

[whole diary]

[Lee]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is short of stock it needs all the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) 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.

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

[r james]

It would be nice however to see a refurbished adalente.

Do mean refurbishing internally?

The 175s, in theory inferior to the 180s, haven't been touched internally (expect for the automated PA^▸ (Public Address) 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.)

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

[Btline]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is short of stock it needs all the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) 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.

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

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.

[The SprinterMeister]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is short of stock it needs all the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) 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.

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

Hmmmmm

Current passengers would benefit from more comfortable rolling stock. FGW 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.

[dog box]

 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

[Lee]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) is short of stock it needs all the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) 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.

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

Hmmmmm

Current passengers would benefit from more comfortable rolling stock. FGW 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.

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

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.

Gauge clearance for the routes mentioned by FGW features in the Network Rail Strategic Business Plan as an NRDF candidate scheme in CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014) (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.

[Btline]

How about FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

[IndustryInsider]

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?

[northwesterntrains]

Give a number of them to wales, which wll then free up a number of 158s for the EMT^» (East Midlands Trains - about) franchise.

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^▸ (High Speed Train) 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^» (Department for Transport - about) to realise that long fast trains are needed on lots of routes, not just mainline services in and out of London.

[Lee]

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^▸ (High Speed Train) on the East Coast Mainline, also the existing 2 and 4 car 158s can get very crowded.)

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?

[swlines]

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...

[northwesterntrains]

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^» (East Midlands Trains - about) claim will be much faster

[swlines]

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^» (East Midlands Trains - about) 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^▸ (Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services) high it'd have to reverse in Leicester. Also no access to fast lines as it's not tilting stock.

[Btline]

Remaining 180s should be split between FGW^▸ (First Great Western) (for Westbury services) and FTPE^» (First TransPennine Express - website), to help with overcrowding, return direct trains to Windermere and to have 125 mph stock on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line).

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

[northwesterntrains]

Right, via Crewe... then where? Birmingham? No paths come to mind. Besides, EMT^» (East Midlands Trains - about) 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^▸ (Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services) high it'd have to reverse in Leicester. Also no access to fast lines as it's not tilting stock.

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.