Cardiff-Portsmouth - Rolling Stock Solutions?

[The exile]

It’s been done to death many times, but we’ll go again

The trains go from Cardiff to Portsmouth, but only a minority of the passengers actually make the end to end journey - the vast, vast majority of passengers make shorter journeys within the 2 or 3 “commuter” flows along the route - Portsmouth <> Salisbury, Warminster <> Bristol and Bristol <> Cardiff.

Just as a belated comment on this - currently sitting on a comfortably full CDF -PMH going “down the bank”. Not one of the passengers on board is going to Bristol ( or they’re in for a surprise if they are). I’m surprised at how much S. Wales to “Bath and beyond” traffic there actually is (minimal churn at Parkway and Filton considering the time of day)

 

[Wookiee]

I can remember the days of the late 80s and early 90s when the calling patterns for the loco-hauled Portsmouth to Cardiffs were fairly erratic. Some were as fast as Southsea, Fareham, Soton, Romsey, Salisbury, Bath, Bristol, Newport, Cardiff (some might even have skipped Romsey). Stops between PMS and SLS were fixed, but anything after that was a bit more random - most stopped at Westbury and/or Warminster, some stopped at Trowbridge and Bradford-upon-Avon, fewer still stopped at Dilton Marsh, Keynsham and Severn Tunnel Junction. It all seemed to work pretty well then, but the modern fad seems to be for inter-regionals to stop at as many places as possible, unless they are on mainline inter-city routes.

 

[The exile]

I can remember the days of the late 80s and early 90s when the calling patterns for the loco-hauled Portsmouth to Cardiffs were fairly erratic. Some were as fast as Southsea, Fareham, Soton, Romsey, Salisbury, Bath, Bristol, Newport, Cardiff (some might even have skipped Romsey). Stops between PMS and SLS were fixed, but anything after that was a bit more random - most stopped at Westbury and/or Warminster, some stopped at Trowbridge and Bradford-upon-Avon, fewer still stopped at Dilton Marsh, Keynsham and Severn Tunnel Junction. It all seemed to work pretty well then, but the modern fad seems to be for inter-regionals to stop at as many places as possible, unless they are on mainline inter-city routes.

As you say - sometimes very random indeed! Reckon this one was in about 1987 - presumably a morning rush-hour arrival at Temple Meads as it's "odd" that far and pretty standard thereafter (other than not running through to the Harbour)

 

[Stigy]

I don't see why 800s or 397s are needed?
They are surely overkill, the linespeed of the routes doesn't really go above 75

Apart from between Nursling and Salisbury (ish) where it’s 85mph, and Bathampton and Bristol where it’s 90mph, as well as 90mph the other side of the Severn Tunnel. This is only because the units are only authorised for 90mph max, if 800s were used (although I agree that might be a little bit overkill), linespeed on the Cardiff end of the line and after Bathampton would be increased.

I didn’t mention the 85 in to Fratton because you’d be hard-pushed to reach that no matter what train you’re on

 

[JonathanH]

linespeed on the Cardiff end of the line

Huh? GWR and its predecessors have used 125mph rolling stock on other services at the Cardiff end of the line for 45 years and it hasn't encouraged anyone to increase the linespeed.

1K71 0510 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington via Westbury and 1F11 0927 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour both have a 39 minute run time from Bristol to Westbury.

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G59488/2021-10-19/detailed
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:G59294/2021-10-19/detailed

As the OP noted, 800s or 397s are not needed.

 

[Stigy]

Huh? GWR and its predecessors have used 125mph rolling stock on other services at the Cardiff end of the line for 45 years and it hasn't encouraged anyone to increase the linespeed.

As the OP noted, 800s or 397s are not needed.

I know, I was referring to if 90mph stock on the Portsmouth to Cardiff route was changed to 100mph+ stock. The argument for not needing such stock was that the linespeed doesn’t really go above 75mph, which it does.

I agree that the majority of the route is 90mph max.

 

[southern442]

How much time saving is there at the western end of the line if you're on a 158/166 rather than 75mph stock?

 

[TheWalrus]

We already have a solution for the Cardiff-Portsmouth route - 158s. They’re very comfortable and suitable for the route. Same as 159s for Waterloo-Exeter which has been discussed many times. The longer they can continue in service the better.

 

[Stigy]

We already have a solution for the Cardiff-Portsmouth route - 158s. They’re very comfortable and suitable for the route. Same as 159s for Waterloo-Exeter which has been discussed many times. The longer they can continue in service the better.

I agree. Bigger fuel tanks too.

 

[JonathanH]

We already have a solution for the Cardiff-Portsmouth route - 158s

There aren't enough of them with GWR until such time as more can be released from another operator.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...165-166s-to-other-routes.207960/#post-4724219
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-class-165-166-turbo-diagrams.157030/page-19#post-3815481

 

[HamworthyGoods]

They’re very comfortable and suitable for the route

As has been done to death on here, with their slow end doors 158s are not suitable for the route, trains struggled to meet dwell times at several stations especially in the Bristol peaks, the current 158 diagrams on the route are planned to be at the other end of the route in the Bristol Peaks. The solution to this would have been to extend dwell times but this would upset those that say the route is already too slow.

Turbos have more suitable doors but far less suitable seating, what is actually needed is 1/3 + 2/3 door position and a decent interior….

 

[Mike Machin]

As has been done to death on here, with their slow end doors 158s are not suitable for the route, trains struggled to meet dwell times at several stations especially in the Bristol peaks, the current 158 diagrams on the route are planned to be at the other end of the route in the Bristol Peaks. The solution to this would have been to extend dwell times but this would upset those that say the route is already too slow.

Turbos have more suitable doors but far less suitable seating, what is actually needed is 1/3 + 2/3 door position and a decent interior….

Exactly, new Class 195s or similar!

 

[Rhydgaled]

We already have a solution for the Cardiff-Portsmouth route - 158s. They’re very comfortable and suitable for the route. Same as 159s for Waterloo-Exeter which has been discussed many times. The longer they can continue in service the better.

I agree, provided that enough 158s can be found to run them in sufficiently long formations I think they should remain until electrification is available for the service to use between Bath and Cardiff.

There aren't enough of them with GWR until such time as more can be released from another operator.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...165-166s-to-other-routes.207960/#post-4724219
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gwr-class-165-166-turbo-diagrams.157030/page-19#post-3815481

How many diagrams are needed to run Cardiff-Portsmouth? GWR have enough 158s to form eight 5-car sets with one 3-car set left over.

As has been done to death on here, with their slow end doors 158s are not suitable for the route, trains struggled to meet dwell times at several stations especially in the Bristol peaks, the current 158 diagrams on the route are planned to be at the other end of the route in the Bristol Peaks. The solution to this would have been to extend dwell times but this would upset those that say the route is already too slow.

Turbos have more suitable doors but far less suitable seating, what is actually needed is 1/3 + 2/3 door position and a decent interior….

Turbos have more-suitable doors for the suburban market but less-suitable doors for the long-distance market. What is needed is slightly longer dwell times, slightly fewer stops and more coaches (and therefore more (narrow) doors) compared to when 158s ran the route (when they were almost all 3-car). That way you can have a decent interior (which isn't possible with double-width doors at thirds, although a compromise door layout of narrow doors with one at the end and the other 1/3 from the other end might work) with less impact on dwell times.

Exactly, new Class 195s or similar!

Absolutely not. Even if you accept doors at thirds (which I do not) Network Rail's decarbonisation strategy (the TDNS) says we should not be ordering any more diesel-only trains. Even the 195s were ordered too late to be compatible with the need to decarbonise by 2050 - everything needs to be electrification ready.

 

[TXMISTA]

It’s a shame 170s aren’t available. They’re a good mix of a high quality, long distance interior and a 1/3 - 2/3 door layout. They’ve proven to work fine on both regional and commuter services so would be perfect for Cardiff - Portsmouth.

 

[JonathanH]

Unless I'm mistaken, a 166 and a 170 have pretty much identical window spacing and a 166 doesn't have tapered sides. Subject to the issue with the stuff that fits under the seat backs it really ought to be possible to refit a 166 to have an interior every bit as good as a 170. (I appreciate it may not actually happen.)

 

[jackot]

Unless I'm mistaken, a 166 and a 170 have pretty much identical window spacing and a 166 doesn't have tapered sides. Subject to the issue with the stuff that fits under the seat backs it really ought to be possible to refit a 166 to have an interior every bit as good as a 170. (I appreciate it may not actually happen.)

Yes, they are very, very similar. They could definitely be brought up to the same standard or better, given the right refurbishment with the right budget. However, it is likely that we will just see a smaller overhaul as part of the ongoing 166 refurbishment, with new carpeting and seat covers. However, as mentioned in the thread about the refurbishment, the change to 2+2 seating has been authorised if desired by GWR.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

How many diagrams are needed to run Cardiff-Portsmouth? GWR have enough 158s to form eight 5-car sets with one 3-car set left over.

8 circuits are needed for Cardiff to Portsmouth, however you need at least 2 x 3 car 158s for Exeter to Penzance services, there aren’t quite enough HSTs to cover everything on that axis and turbos aren’t cleared in Cornwall (the costs where prohibitive).

 

[Rhydgaled]

8 circuits are needed for Cardiff to Portsmouth, however you need at least 2 x 3 car 158s for Exeter to Penzance services, there aren’t quite enough HSTs to cover everything on that axis and turbos aren’t cleared in Cornwall (the costs where prohibitive).

Fair enough; my assumption was that all Exeter-Penzance services would be Castle HSTs.

 

[baza585]

8 circuits are needed for Cardiff to Portsmouth, however you need at least 2 x 3 car 158s for Exeter to Penzance services, there aren’t quite enough HSTs to cover everything on that axis and turbos aren’t cleared in Cornwall (the costs where prohibitive).

If common sense prevailed and the Romsey Rocket was run by Class 150s, with 158s transferred to GWR, that would surely help.

As a regular on part of this route, the 158s are so much more pleasant to travel on at high speed than the Turbos. Not sure the refurb will address that .......

 

[Kite159]

If common sense prevailed and the Romsey Rocket was run by Class 150s, with 158s transferred to GWR, that would surely help.

As a regular on part of this route, the 158s are so much more pleasant to travel on at high speed than the Turbos. Not sure the refurb will address that .......

The only issue with using 150s for Salisbury - Romseys is staff training.

And I can't imagine some users will be happy to go to an non AC 150, even with 2+2 seating.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

If common sense prevailed and the Romsey Rocket was run by Class 150s, with 158s transferred to GWR, that would surely help.

I’m not sure having an isolated route run by 150s would be common sense, any awful long way from their Exeter Home Depot for maintenance.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

We need a fleet of tri-mode 23 or 26m long, doors at ⅓ and ⅔ with end gangways, in car sets. They'd be flexible, able to run on 3rd rail, under wires and on diesel in-between on the SWR routes, the GWR routes and the Southern routes. Who I don't know bit that's the ultimate wish list.

Worst case scenario is we get another microfleet like the 769s added to GWRs complex depots already something like the 185s from TPE

 

[TheWalrus]

As has been done to death on here, with their slow end doors 158s are not suitable for the route, trains struggled to meet dwell times at several stations especially in the Bristol peaks, the current 158 diagrams on the route are planned to be at the other end of the route in the Bristol Peaks. The solution to this would have been to extend dwell times but this would upset those that say the route is already too slow.

Turbos have more suitable doors but far less suitable seating, what is actually needed is 1/3 + 2/3 door position and a decent interior….

Agreed the interior isn’t suitable on a turbo. Maybe something like a 170 would be better with 1/3 2/3 and higher top speed? The XC ones I’ve been on are reasonably nice.

 

[baza585]

The only issue with using 150s for Salisbury - Romseys is staff training.

And I can't imagine some users will be happy to go to an non AC 150, even with 2+2 seating.

Agree staff training is an issue but not insurmountable. There aren't that many users on these trains tbh.......

I’m not sure having an isolated route run by 150s would be common sense, any awful long way from their Exeter Home Depot for maintenance.

I daresay the boys and girls at Salisbury depot would cope. They do a cracking job on the 158/9s, and whilst 150s at Salisbury would be a micro fleet, look at the wider benefits to the Cardiff Pompey route.

Thought came to me on a memorable (for all the wrong reasons) journey Fareham to Cardiff on Scud 1, passing a virtually empty 158 at Romsey on a Rocket

It makes sense though I accept it won't happen......

 

[Rhydgaled]

If common sense prevailed and the Romsey Rocket was run by Class 150s, with 158s transferred to GWR, that would surely help.

As a regular on part of this route, the 158s are so much more pleasant to travel on at high speed than the Turbos. Not sure the refurb will address that .......

The only issue with using 150s for Salisbury - Romseys is staff training.
And I can't imagine some users will be happy to go to an non AC 150, even with 2+2 seating.

I’m not sure having an isolated route run by 150s would be common sense, any awful long way from their Exeter Home Depot for maintenance.

If you ask me, the Salisbury-Romsey 'figure of six' should transfer to GWR, along with a few 158s, and GWR should deploy 165s (or maybe 166s if demand warrants 3-cars) on the 'figure of six'. Salisbury is closer to Bristol than Exeter which would help with cycling through the depot particularly if you extend the service on from Salisbury to Westbury or Bristol to provide a stopper for the likes of Dilton Marsh and Avoncliff.

We need a fleet of tri-mode 23 or 26m long, doors at ⅓ and ⅔ with end gangways, in car sets. They'd be flexible, able to run on 3rd rail, under wires and on diesel in-between on the SWR routes, the GWR routes and the Southern routes. Who I don't know bit that's the ultimate wish list.

Single-width doors, at one end and 2/3, please; a compromise between full suburban double-width doors at thirds and the pure end doors layout of a 175. Also, if you made the coaches 21.8m instead of 23m an 11-car formation (5+6) would fit the platforms at Waterloo better than 10x23m adding capacity on the Waterloo-Exeter route although 23m is probably better for most other TOCs. Actually, perhaps 24m vehicles is the best answer if it doesn't require extensive gauge clearance works as that would make a 10-car set the same length as a 12-car 450 and could be a better fit for other TOCs.

 

[Wolfie]

If common sense prevailed and the Romsey Rocket was run by Class 150s, with 158s transferred to GWR, that would surely help.

As a regular on part of this route, the 158s are so much more pleasant to travel on at high speed than the Turbos. Not sure the refurb will address that .......

So SWR get lumbered with a micro fleet of obsolescent stock. I really don't see that happening (particularly as the Salisbury MP is a junior Treasury minister).

 

[Mike Machin]

Until such time as suitable new or replacement stock arrives on this route, I and my clients who used to travel regularly from Romsey to Bristol TM, will continue to use our cars.

 

[zwk500]

Until such time as suitable new or replacement stock arrives on this route, I and my clients who used to travel regularly from Romsey to Bristol TM, will continue to use our cars.

Moving away from specific classes, what would make replacement stock 'suitable' in terms of performance, layout, amenities, etc?

 

[Mike Machin]

In an ideal world, the two very most important needs for us would be a quiet, smooth working environment with access to tables - the previous stock was absolutely fine. If there is a need for 1/3 + 2/3 doors, and I accept that at certain times of the day this would make life easier, some form of fully air-conditioned stock with comfortable 2+2 seating and a good mix of tables in groups and seat-back tables is necessary. Something like a 5-car diesel-powered or bi-mode version of the class 350/1 would be perfect!

 

[Kite159]

Slightly off topic but I was travelling on a 166 this morning which had a catering trolley on board. I couldn't help thinking how many sales of coffee are being lost solely due to the lack of seat back tables on the airline seats.

Only place someone could place the half drunk cup would be on the floor (or on the seat next to them if it was vacant).