Class 180 Adelantes - discussions, including their return to FGW

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s accounts department may be touched by your concern for their track access payments. I would be rather more concerned about the groans and shrugs of resignation from passengers on Cotswold Line platforms when a Turbo hoves into view. HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and Adelantes don't produce either effect - why might that be? And as several posters here frequently suggest, there are people who won't go near the Cotswold Line because they might encounter a Turbo, which must be hurting FGW's bottom line.

You got me wrong - I'm as little concerned about their bottom line as you are, Will. I was just advising what the snags might be that are obviously holding up these negotiations. And these are dragging, from what I've been told by FGW this morning.

Of course the Cotswold Line are a suitable place for this stock, as are the Bedwyn trains, and possibly Bristol TM^‡(resolve) in the peak in the 2x180 arrangement....As this is a public forum, your didactic assertion that they ARE coming to the Cotswold Line needs a modicum of IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), I think. It is NOT a done deal, at all, and even more so that FGW are definitely putting them on the Cotswold Line.

Of course it may happen, and I'm NOT saying it won't. But negotiations are still continuing & nothing is yet signed deal.

But don't be surprised if FGW hit the Cotswold Line with fares consistant with other HST routes if and when they arrive. The fares along the line are a lot lower mile for mile, than other HST routes. It can't be expected both ways.

[ChrisB]

You might hope that Volo would see a benefit in equipping the trains in that since they seem to end up moving between operators more often than has been true of the other units so they might be able to persuade whoever ends up with the 180s after FGW^▸ (First Great Western) to keep their service. :-)

I have yet to heart that Volo can make a profit on those units already installed....let alone instal even more!

I wonder if the franchises could be changed in future so rather than the return on investment calculation saying only invest in the initial years to something that would encourage innovation and change throughout the life of the franchise, it would perhaps help here with the 180s

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) recently published the results of its consultation into future franchises, so you can see what they're thinking now.

Except you could, if they'd post the blasted thing on their website.

[laird]

Since the 2x180 (perhaps targetting 4 out of 5 180s to be available Monday to Friday) are better provisioned with standard class seats than the equivalent HST^▸ (High Speed Train), would there be benefit in suggesting that allocating the 180s to the most heavily loaded peak hour services, they could perhaps still make an off peak run for the Cotswolds to keep the Cotswold line passengers happy?

In turn the two HSTs freed up could then be used to upgrade some Turbo services, the freed Turbos would then cascade to increase train lengths.

I guess we can't see new services being introduced by the 180s so a cascade might be the best result improving capacity on many more peak time services:
4 180s replace 2 HSTs
2 HSTs replace 2x2car Turbo and 2 x 3 car Turbo (presume replace the 5 car combinations)
4 Turbo sets available to add to any services not already running at maximum length?
Off peak there should be plenty of options, multiple shuttle trips to Oxford, a trip to Hereford, Exeter etc.

[ChrisB]

The HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) will be no good at making frequent stops, like most of the 2x3 turbos do....they coke up extremely quickly.
You're looking for limited-stop journeys....maybe once everything is in place, new patterns of service could be developed to say give a limited-stop along the Bedwyn line?....that sort of thing. Whether limited stop along the Cotswold would be entertained by CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about), I don't know. The 180s do frequent stop a lot better, so maybe swapping HSTs for 2x180 along there? That would give the benifit of splitting a 2x180 at Oxford, taking the front 180 only along the Cotswold - tha\t would be my suggestion....

[IndustryInsider]

The HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) will be no good at making frequent stops, like most of the 2x3 turbos do....they coke up extremely quickly.
You're looking for limited-stop journeys....maybe once everything is in place, new patterns of service could be developed to say give a limited-stop along the Bedwyn line?....that sort of thing. Whether limited stop along the Cotswold would be entertained by CLPG^» (Cotswold Line Promotion Group - about), I don't know. The 180s do frequent stop a lot better, so maybe swapping HSTs for 2x180 along there? That would give the benifit of splitting a 2x180 at Oxford, taking the front 180 only along the Cotswold - tha\t would be my suggestion....

The trouble with that idea - and on paper for some services it's a good one - is the added complication of uncoupling (and especially coupling) Class 180's together.  They weren't really designed for the kind of quick attach/detach that Turbos do day-in, day-out as the procedure is a more convoluted one.  The main problem being the set-up time of the cab desk from a driver 'keying-in' to actually being able to do anything - PIN numbers for ATP^▸ (Automatic Train Protection) and the TMS systems need to be entered for example!  So, it would be possible, but you'd probably have to build in an extra 3-5 minutes.

[ChrisB]

Against a goodly saving of paying double in access fees for the same service?.....possibly worthwhile, methinks.

Whether its do-able in the morning peak at Oxford, may be different. Trying to persuade impatient commuters at Oxford to wait while the two sets are joined up, hmmm

[Andy W]

All the problems with the 180 are down to the initial procurement:-

1)   Design Specification should include basic things like top speed / acceleration / fuel consumption / axle loading / route availability / reliability etc. It should also include time to couple (& no of staff required), time for doors to open / close and hundreds of other things that the railway fraternity understand. If it fails to meet these goals the manufacturer fixes it at no cost to the operator.
2)   It is unbelievable that spares are no longer directly available frmm the manufacturer. Manufacturer Support and Parts availability should be for a minimum of (say) 15 years (or whatever the required product life is), with notification of end-of-life support (ie the manufacturer won^t provide parts any longer) not less than 3 years before termination. This allows the option to replace that stock. So the minimum supported life is 15 years if notice is given at 12 years of discontinuation of logistic support as an example.
3)   Any lease is based on initial purchase price, interest rate & residual value at the end of the lease. If correctly drafted any new lease is based on the RV of the product, so any new lease should be considerably cheaper than the previous lease. Does anyone know what period the ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) has deprecated the 180s over? I^d take a guess that their asset value is currently way over their market value given that they are both modern & problematic.

[JayMac]

The DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) recently published the results of its consultation into future franchises, so you can see what they're thinking now.

Except you could, if they'd post the blasted thing on their website.

This one?

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/closed/2010-28/govresponse.pdf

[ChrisB]

That's it! Couldn't find the webpage it was linked from....

[laird]

Andy W, good to see Logistic Support being mentioned, along with Availability, Reliability and Maintainability.

The railways haven't adopted the theory in the same way that the Aerospace and Defence industries have, indeed the Defence industry is moving on now to talk in terms of requiring suppliers to produce a Supportability Case that shows they have in place sufficient support to meet the availability requirement throughout life. It isn't then a case of merely producing a train which meets the simple acceleration or seat numbers, instead the supplier takes responsibility for delivering the capability. When I read the requirements for miles per casualty I was surprised that this was still being used, yes number of incidents is an interesting statistic but if a train fails and can be instantly fixed the availability of that train isn't badly affected, conversly a train which can operate for miles without failure but when it fails takes too long to fix will badly affect the availability. So many contracts are now just Availability based, that isn't ideal but it represents a confidence in that a good manufacturer will therefore choose to design to make it easy to fix, easy to source, usually in so doing you end up with a design which is reliable and therefore available.

There is a theory around quality which gives that the quality of the interior is represented by the quality you can see from outside, I think that is something it would be nice to see FGW^▸ (First Great Western) take to heart, if they did so then the interior panels would be cleaned, torn and worn cloth repaired.

[Deltic]

Some very interesting and sensible comments on this thread.

We have become extremely averse to portion working these days, apart from Southern where there are regular splits such as Victoria to Bognor Regis / Southampton at Horsham.  This seems to work well despite fairly high frequencies, a complex network and mechanical signalling!  This ought to be more practical to do these days with self-propelled trains and no need to have a loco around to take away the portion.  Having said that I do accept the point about the computers in the two trains having to talk to each other.  But the public like through trains and we could provide more of them through this method.  And we can better align supply and demand by dropping off portions at, say, Oxford, with a shorter train continuing to Worcester and Hereford.  IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) work should be put into making these things happen.

[willc]

As this is a public forum, your didactic assertion that they ARE coming to the Cotswold Line needs a modicum of IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion)

Was going by the tag on Rail's article - but then I'm a journalist and so are they, so it's bound to be wrong - even if the last jobs the 180s did for FGW^▸ (First Great Western) were on the Cotswold Line and even if my own discussions with FGW over recent years indicate they are well aware of the inadequacy of Turbos for the Cotswold Line - hence their hope they would get some four-car 172s or something similar to do the job, before that idea was scuppered. The talks may be dragging on - hardly a surprise if DafT is involved - but it looks pretty clear that a return to FGW is the only game in town.

But don't be surprised if FGW hit the Cotswold Line with fares consistant with other HST^▸ (High Speed Train) routes if and when they arrive. The fares along the line are a lot lower mile for mile, than other HST routes

That would depend on what fare you're paying now. The peak fares for most journeys into Oxford are no bargain - peak day return is ^14.20 Moreton-Oxford (up to and including the 08.15) - set against an MIM-PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) off-peak return (aka Saver) of ^34 valid from 07.29 onwards, for three times the distance. And if you ram up peak fares, then off-peak follows - hardly a great way to encourage use of your more reliable and frequent off-peak service post-redoubling, is it? Also pretty hard to start forcing up the peak fare to Swindon levels without a Swindon-type frequency - and there are no more peak Cotswold trains on offer in future, so far as I'm aware, since FGW doesn't have the stock available - anything that follows from a return by 180s would have to be focused on boosting peak capacity in the Thames Valley - or out to Swindon - how about a queue-buster HST from Swindon using an HST deplaced from Oxford duties by a 2X180 formation?

Since the 2x180 (perhaps targetting 4 out of 5 180s to be available Monday to Friday) are better provisioned with standard class seats than the equivalent HST, would there be benefit in suggesting that allocating the 180s to the most heavily loaded peak hour services, they could perhaps still make an off peak run for the Cotswolds to keep the Cotswold line passengers happy?

In turn the two HSTs freed up could then be used to upgrade some Turbo services, the freed Turbos would then cascade to increase train lengths.

I guess we can't see new services being introduced by the 180s so a cascade might be the best result improving capacity on many more peak time services:
4 180s replace 2 HSTs
2 HSTs replace 2x2car Turbo and 2 x 3 car Turbo (presume replace the 5 car combinations)
4 Turbo sets available to add to any services not already running at maximum length?
Off peak there should be plenty of options, multiple shuttle trips to Oxford, a trip to Hereford, Exeter etc.

4 180s paired up wouldn't replace 2 HSTs as you would - in a sensible world and if you can't find an HST for the 05.48 - be sending 180s separately out to Worcester/Malvern on the 05.48 and 06.48 - with a pair of 180s working a peak Oxford-London as they used to do. A quick turnround would get one of them back to Oxford to meet up with the return of the 05.48 to give lots of seats from Oxford at 10am or 10.30am, when they are needed to meet demand. After that, the 180s can cover pretty much any longer-distance working on the Cotswold Line until the peak services out of London start with the 15.51, which need HSTs. You could perhaps do with a pair of 180s on the 17.50, to cover demand for Maidenhead, Reading and Oxford, but a single one is fine for west of Oxford - subject to the ease or not of attaching and detaching - though a more reliable Cotswold Line would make building in time at Oxford rather easier than now.

It is unbelievable that spares are no longer directly available frmm the manufacturer

I'm not aware anyone suggested that is actually the case, maybe it's just no-one has ordered any when you can just nip out the back of the depot and take one off 180104 - modern trains are in any case bolted together out of components from all over the place, so who do you define as being the manufacturer?

Any lease is based on initial purchase price, interest rate & residual value at the end of the lease.

Perhaps in the real world but rolling stock leasing is not conducted in the real world. At the time of the inquiry into leasing launched in 2006, a 20-odd-year-old Pacer cost something like ^100,000 a year to lease - when the build price, adjusted for inflation, was ^700,000. And that initial cost had been written off years before under BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)).   

The railways haven't adopted the theory in the same way that the Aerospace and Defence industries have

Given the defence industry's appalling track record over cost control, developing kit that doesn't actually do the job, over-charging, etc, I'm not sure I would wish to take anything they do as an example. And availability, reliability and maintainability are at the heart of train maintenance contracts like those Alstom (Pendolinos) and Siemens (SWT^▸ (South West Trains) 444s and 450s) have operated for some years now, to name but two examples.

[IndustryInsider]

After that, the 180s can cover pretty much any longer-distance working on the Cotswold Line until the peak services out of London start with the 15.51, which need HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train). You could perhaps do with a pair of 180s on the 17.50, to cover demand for Maidenhead, Reading and Oxford, but a single one is fine for west of Oxford - subject to the ease or not of attaching and detaching - though a more reliable Cotswold Line would make building in time at Oxford rather easier than now.

Quite right, though the return workings would struggle if they were a single 180 after Oxford on the 16:31 and 17:36.  You'd need some sort of extra capacity there, especially from Slough on the 16:31.  The 17:36 already misses out Slough but even as a HST there's very few seats left after Oxford- especially on a Friday.  So I think that Hereford service should remain a HST. 

The earlier one, which up until the December timetable change was a HST would really need the Slough stop removed (though it's a very popular one!) if it was to stand much of a chance as a 180 - mind you, I did hear that it was to revert back to a HST in the summer?

You could really do with having a larger fleet of these 180's at your disposal to maximise their effectiveness.  Off-peak 5-car sets working the Oxfords and some Cotswold Line trains and perhaps the Bedwyn's (extended to Westbury).  Then in the peak hours you could run a few 10-car capacity busters on the peak Bristol's/Swansea's.  I reckon about 14 of them would have done the trick. 

[Andy W]

Was going by the tag on Rail's article - but then I'm a journalist and so are they, so it's bound to be wrong -

yawn

I'm not aware anyone suggested that is actually the case, maybe it's just no-one has ordered any when you can just nip out the back of the depot and take one off 180104 - modern trains are in any case bolted together out of components from all over the place, so who do you define as being the manufacturer?

Well if you read earlier postings that is exactly what was suggested.
I can see no logic in raiding a modern unit - which should be revenue generating - I presume these parts are actually purchased from the ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) - or is the unit on lease? Any which way they will not be free. I assume that parts scavenged from 180104 are then replaced - if not what a waste of a unit. Finally you cannot rely on the quality of used / scavanged parts. 
The manufacturer is the company that built it - all others are sub-contractors & suppliers to the manufacturer.

Any lease is based on initial purchase price, interest rate & residual value at the end of the lease.

Perhaps in the real world but rolling stock leasing is not conducted in the real world. At the time of the inquiry into leasing launched in 2006, a 20-odd-year-old Pacer cost something like ^100,000 a year to lease - when the build price, adjusted for inflation, was ^700,000. And that initial cost had been written off years before under BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)).   

Surprisingly passengers actually live in the real world.
The concept that you lease on the inflation adjusted cost of the original build is frankly bizarre. If the initital cost was written off by BR what price did the ROSCO pay for them?

And availability, reliability and maintainability are at the heart of train maintenance contracts like those Alstom (Pendolinos) and Siemens (SWT^▸ (South West Trains) 444s and 450s) have operated for some years now, to name but two examples.

Relaibility, availability and serviceability are far more complicated than relying on the maintenance contract regardless of how good / bad that contract is. It is more down to the product design, build quality, diagnostic ability, spares quality & availability. All of these should be part of the initial product requirements and should be at the heart of the product not just the maintenance contract.

[Tim]

The concept that you lease on the inflation adjusted cost of the original build is frankly bizarre.

It is not bizare for the leasing cost to be related in to the new build cost.  When you lease a car that is exactly what you expect.  A cheap car is cheaper to lease than an expensive car.