Class 180 reliability

[whole diary]

[The SprinterMeister]

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.

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.

[IndustryInsider]

There was a seperate agreement that the former Thames Trains (FGWL) drivers would learn the 180's and subsequently the HST^▸ (High Speed Train)'s ahead of the proposed harmonisation of terms and conditions for traincrew across the whole of the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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^▸ (High Speed Services) 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! 

[The SprinterMeister]

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^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) & West towards the HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) 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^▸ (High Speed Train)'s etc in the BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) 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.

[willc]

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.

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^▸ (First Great Western), 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.

[eightf48544]

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.

[The SprinterMeister]

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^▸ (United Kingdom) Railway PLC'. We hope you enjoy your journey with us........
 

[willc]

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

What you really mean is because we've not electrified connecting and diversionary routes, just the main lines. In contrast, the LGV^▸ (Large Goods Vehicle) 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^▸ (Train a Grande Vitesse) 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^» (Department for Transport - about), 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^▸ (First Great Western) 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^▸ (High Speed Train) 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^▸ (Motor Traction Unit) 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^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) Class 43 is back in service after being fitted with an MTU engine, pictures at http://www.iain7754.fotopic.net/p52026467.html and http://jst.fotopic.net/p52027916.html though the first set of coaches is still being worked on at Doncaster.

[devon_metro]

And in FGW^▸ (First Great Western) land:

[r james]

I doubt FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would ever get to keep the additional HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) if GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) was ever to fold.  They would dfinetly go to XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)), to provide an increase in the already tight capacity, without any shaddow of a doubt. 

[The SprinterMeister]

I doubt FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would ever get to keep the additional HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) if GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) was ever to fold.  They would dfinetly go to XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)), 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^‡(resolve)) 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^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) to them which is required on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) for speeds over 100mph.

[r james]

So really XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) would be one of the only options for those HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train).

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^▸ (Train Operating Company), or to enable a double voyager to be created elsewhere.

[willc]

I doubt FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would ever get to keep the additional HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) if GC^» (Great Central Railway - link to heritage line) was ever to fold.  They would dfinetly go to XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)), 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^‡(resolve)) 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^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) to them which is required on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) for speeds over 100mph.

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^▸ (Advanced Passenger Train). 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.

[r james]

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^▸ (High Speed Train) for at least 10 more years, until the IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) 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^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) would!

Do any charter companies own any HSTs? 

[12hoursunday]

 

The Grand Central HSTS wouldn't last 5 minutes if they went under.  Somebody would snap them up! And I have every confidence XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) would!

 

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.

[The SprinterMeister]

But if you need to get another 10 years' work out of them, like FGW^▸ (First Great Western) would, then it may well be cost-effective to do the necessary work to fit APT^▸ (Advanced Passenger Train). Presumably no-one bothered to remove redundant DVT^‡(resolve) kit because they expected the HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) to be history at this point, after 30 years in service.

You will find that Firstgroup Holdings actually were briefly owners of one or more of the buffer fitted power cars. When the ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) 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^▸ (Motor Traction Unit) engines.