Portsmouth Harbour-Cardiff Central GWR

[Envoy]

Because the DfT are behind in the process with the others (South Eastern as well the other two) in determining what they want GWR to go to the market for.

There is no “own cash” involved here - it’s the DfT wanting to go on fishing expeditions to see what they can get and what it will cost. There is no promise to actually order any new stock at the end of these individual procurement processes.

They certainly should go for at least a bi-mode being as Filton to Bath will hopefully be electrified in the not too distant future.

 

[Andy Ps Bricks]

It’s not about greed and arguably GWR is compliant with its contract. The lack of morality is with a DfT that pursues cost savings above passenger comfort and isn’t terribly fussed about the latter. It just cares about the money.

This week has seen the cl.158 fleet availability take a nose dive, as well as some operational issues which has upset the nightly fleet balances and in one case (Fratton on Monday), getting the units off depot. Fortunately 158798 is not that far away from finishing its C4 so that will help matters.

158798 is back out. I was travelling on it earlier on the 1F14 Portsmouth to Cardiff service.

 

[Carlisle]

Perhaps people from the DFT should get out of their London offices and take a ride on the 158’s during the current heatwave as invariably, the air conditioning is not working.

Would that achieve much ? That problem seems far more widespread than GWR. For example whenever there’s a heatwave the newly refurbished 11 car & original 9 car Pendilinos appear to suffer air conditioning failures in various coaches with no opening windows to mitigate either.

 

[Lurcheroo]

Well we’ve got the 158’s on the Cambrian until at least 2025 it seems (maybe even longer !!). The TFW units have plaques in the cabs and all the ones I’ve seen say ‘built in 1981/2’ so the units are already over 39 years old.
It will be interesting to see if they do end up with GWR, what GWR do with them and If so, how long they keep them for.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Well we’ve got the 158’s on the Cambrian until at least 2025 it seems (maybe even longer !!). The TFW units have plaques in the cabs and all the ones I’ve seen say ‘built in 1981/2’ so the units are already over 39 years old.
It will be interesting to see if they do end up with GWR, what GWR do with them and If so, how long they keep them for.

No 158s are that old. They were constructed by BREL at Derby between 1989 and 1992.

 

[Lurcheroo]

No 158s are that old. They were constructed by BREL at Derby between 1989 and 1992.

Woops ! I meant 91/92 thanks for pointing it out

 

[Anonymous10]

Well we’ve got the 158’s on the Cambrian until at least 2025 it seems (maybe even longer !!). The TFW units have plaques in the cabs and all the ones I’ve seen say ‘built in 1981/2’ so the units are already over 39 years old.
It will be interesting to see if they do end up with GWR, what GWR do with them and If so, how long they keep them for.

The 158s weren't built till 1989 though?

 

[Lurcheroo]

The 158s weren't built till 1989 though?

See above for my own typo, lol.

 

[david1212]

While you can never guarantee that there will be no cancellations due to stock unavailability (what happens when a unit fails 5 minutes before departure from Newquay, for example), I would define sufficient as meaning that at the start of each day there are enough units fully serviceable (includes lighting, heating, air con and toilets etc) and in the right place to cover every diagram with the allocated/ necessary number of coaches(including “hot spares”). Cancellation / short forming due to “more trains than usual requiring repairs” by definition cannot be valid on more than half of operating days.

My definition of 'sufficient' would be the same. Given the age of the 158's & Turbos there needs to be numerous hot spares or by routine sets stepped back at turnaround points so can step up if a failure.

I would be far less generous with your last definition though, no more than 10% unless a very exceptional reason - I'm thinking severe widespread flooding, very cold or heavy snow so trains severely delayed getting to the depot and additional problems beyond the typical numbers combined with depot staff not being able to get there.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

My definition of 'sufficient' would be the same. Given the age of the 158's & Turbos there needs to be numerous hot spares or by routine sets stepped back at turnaround points so can step up if a failure.

I would be far less generous with your last definition though, no more than 10% unless a very exceptional reason - I'm thinking severe widespread flooding, very cold or heavy snow so trains severely delayed getting to the depot and additional problems beyond the typical numbers combined with depot staff not being able to get there.

And that is why GWR is working on a case for some cascaded rolling stock from TfW. Time will tell if this gets approved by the DfT.

 

[RobShipway]

And that is why GWR is working on a case for some cascaded rolling stock from TfW. Time will tell if this gets approved by the DfT.

There could also be Turbos being available to move from Reading, if GWR can get the class 230 units to work as required.

 

[DelW]

There could also be Turbos being available to move from Reading, if GWR can get the class 230 units to work as required.

GWR (and/or DfT) gave up on the 769s despite having an entire fleet sitting in sidings ready for use. Even if they are willing to put in the investment and effort this time, *and* the unproven technology can be made to work, I'd suggest that a fleet of battery 230s is at least five years away. Can GWR really run this line in its present state for another five years? There won't be many passengers left if so.

 

[RobShipway]

GWR (and/or DfT) gave up on the 769s despite having an entire fleet sitting in sidings ready for use. Even if they are willing to put in the investment and effort this time, *and* the unproven technology can be made to work, I'd suggest that a fleet of battery 230s is at least five years away. Can GWR really run this line in its present state for another five years? There won't be many passengers left if so.

Before, that though GWR need to look at where you have the most passengers get on/off the Cardiff - Portsmouth trains and as discussed on other threads, maybe have it such that more local passengers are not using the GWR Semi - Express service, but are actually using more of the local services, even if they are stopping at more stations. For instance, if you have a customer travelling from Cardiff Central to Newport (South Wales), then you have the GWR service as pickup only from Newport (South Wales) station. So for instance anyone travelling to Newport (South Wales) could for example go on a TFW service to Gloucester. It stops at the same amount of stops as the GWR service to Severn Tunnel Junction, so the time travelled would not be any different to using the GWR service.

 

[Towers]

Before, that though GWR need to look at where you have the most passengers get on/off the Cardiff - Portsmouth trains and as discussed on other threads, maybe have it such that more local passengers are not using the GWR Semi - Express service, but are actually using more of the local services, even if they are stopping at more stations. For instance, if you have a customer travelling from Cardiff Central to Newport (South Wales), then you have the GWR service as pickup only from Newport (South Wales) station. So for instance anyone travelling to Newport (South Wales) could for example go on a TFW service to Gloucester. It stops at the same amount of stops as the GWR service to Severn Tunnel Junction, so the time travelled would not be any different to using the GWR service.

That sounds awfully complex! It also removes journey options. Set-down only or pickup only are notoriously difficult to police, and lead to all sort of confusion. I’m not convinced that’s the answer here.

Unfortunately, we’re at a point where stifling usage of popular trains may actually appear a resonable aim, but in all honesty I don’t think we really want that?

 

[Dai Corner]

That sounds awfully complex! It also removes journey options. Set-down only or pickup only are notoriously difficult to police, and lead to all sort of confusion. I’m not convinced that’s the answer here.

Unfortunately, we’re at a point where stifling usage of popular trains may actually appear a resonable aim, but in all honesty I don’t think we really want that?

All regular travellers know all Up trains from Cardiff (except those to Ebbw Vale) call at Newport so just wait on platforms 1/2 and get on the first train. Similarly, they just board the first train from platform 2 at Newport. Not advertising the Newport stop at Cardiff or making 'this train has stopped to set down passengers only' announcements at Newport would serve only to confuse occasional travellers.

 

[The exile]

All regular travellers know all Up trains from Cardiff (except those to Ebbw Vale) call at Newport so just wait on platforms 1/2 and get on the first train. Similarly, they just board the first train from platform 2 at Newport. Not advertising the Newport stop at Cardiff or making 'this train has stopped to set down passengers only' announcements at Newport would serve only to confuse occasional travellers.

Not to mention (slightly tongue in cheek) that the passengers who are getting off mean that there is room for passengers who are getting on….

 

[RobShipway]

That sounds awfully complex! It also removes journey options. Set-down only or pickup only are notoriously difficult to police, and lead to all sort of confusion. I’m not convinced that’s the answer here.

Unfortunately, we’re at a point where stifling usage of popular trains may actually appear a resonable aim, but in all honesty I don’t think we really want that?

All regular travellers know all Up trains from Cardiff (except those to Ebbw Vale) call at Newport so just wait on platforms 1/2 and get on the first train. Similarly, they just board the first train from platform 2 at Newport. Not advertising the Newport stop at Cardiff or making 'this train has stopped to set down passengers only' announcements at Newport would serve only to confuse occasional travellers.

While I agree with both comments, my suggestion I think would be the only way to make the GWR trains such that people are not standing. But as I said GWR need to look at where and when people are getting on the Cardiff - Portsmouth trains that makes them so packed when it is just a two carriage train.

 

[JN114]

There could also be Turbos being available to move from Reading, if GWR can get the class 230 units to work as required.

GWR are introducing a single Class 230 unit, on the Greenford branch, as a technology demonstrator only. That won’t even free up the Turbo off the Greenford branch initially as it will be kept in reserve for if the 230 breaks down.

A senior manager has been quoted in the railway press as foreseeing a fleet of 230-like trains, in future, IF the battery trial on the Greenford branch is successful. But we are years from an answer on that.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Before, that though GWR need to look at where you have the most passengers get on/off the Cardiff - Portsmouth trains and as discussed on other threads, maybe have it such that more local passengers are not using the GWR Semi - Express service, but are actually using more of the local services, even if they are stopping at more stations. For instance, if you have a customer travelling from Cardiff Central to Newport (South Wales), then you have the GWR service as pickup only from Newport (South Wales) station. So for instance anyone travelling to Newport (South Wales) could for example go on a TFW service to Gloucester. It stops at the same amount of stops as the GWR service to Severn Tunnel Junction, so the time travelled would not be any different to using the GWR service.

Such restrictions may make sense on other routes, but for Cardiff - Newport I just can't agree with how much hassle such a change would cause for passengers. For some of the day your suggestion would essentially mean a half hour gap between Cardiff - Newport services.

E.g. just looking at the timetable for the next hour (so 13.50 to 14.50) you have a GWR Paddington service at 13.53, a TfW Hereford service, which is only 2 carriages itself, at 13.57, a GWR Penzanze service at 14.00, a GWR Paddington service at 14.18, the Portsmouth service you want to block local passengers from at 14.30 and the XC Nottingham service at 14.45 - so remove the Portsmouth service and you get a 27 minute gap. The other services just aren't timetabled to pick up the slack that Portsmouth services can't deal with. Maybe if you change the timetables around you could get there, but how possible is that given the butterfly effect you'd create?

The issues you'd have are already obvious when GWR decide not to run the Cardiff - Bristol leg of the Portsmouth services when there's engineering work at the tunnel. The remaining services are often a lot fuller than what is comfortable because of the reduction in local capacity.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I notice one of today's Cardiff-Portsmouth turns uses a 3-car 158/9. RTT data shown attached. I didn't realise GWR still had the 3-car formations - I thought all were back into 2-car sets.

Which 158 sets are still formed that way?

 

[Deepgreen]

The same root cause as we have on the North Downs line - too little stock for the required service level, compounded by the disaster that was the class 769 programme. 2 car 165s are now common on the Gatwick runs with overcrowding sure to put any optional users off for life. The government is continuing its mantra that privatisation must be the cure for all ills, despite the opposite being the blindingly obvious truth (and not just on the railway).

 

[Dai Corner]

The same root cause as we have on the North Downs line - too little stock for the required service level, compounded by the disaster that was the class 769 programme. 2 car 165s are now common on the Gatwick runs with overcrowding sure to put any optional users off for life. The government is continuing its mantra that privatisation must be the cure for all ills, despite the opposite being the blindingly obvious truth (and not just on the railway).

Er, the Government allocate rolling stock to operators, specify service levels, set the fares, pay the costs and receive the revenue. Or are you referring to the train leasing companies which are the only truly privatised part of the passenger railway besides the open access operators?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I notice one of today's Cardiff-Portsmouth turns uses a 3-car 158/9. RTT data shown attached. I didn't realise GWR still had the 3-car formations - I thought all were back into 2-car sets.

Which 158 sets are still formed that way?

There’s always going to have to be a number of 3 car 158 formations as 158798 is a ‘proper’ 3 car with a non-driving vehicle as opposed to the other sets. The other 158s still formed as 3 cars are 158950, 158951, 158958 and 158959. All are based at Exeter.

On paper there are 4 diagrams for the 5 sets, on weekdays these are the 3 Barnstaple diagrams and one Devon/Cornwall diagram which starts with the 06.25 EXD-PNZ. On weekends they are slightly different and of course the sets do wander too.

 

[Master29]

A polished Turbo?
Or, a polished turd....?

Hmm. They aren't the only units with GWR for which this term could apply.

 

[Deepgreen]

Er, the Government allocate rolling stock to operators, specify service levels, set the fares, pay the costs and receive the revenue. Or are you referring to the train leasing companies which are the only truly privatised part of the passenger railway besides the open access operators?

They do, but they have taken an effectively hands-off and ill-informed approach to actual requirements, and continue to do so - the public message is supposed to be that 'it's privatised so blame anyone but the government'.

 

[Snow1964]

I notice one of today's Cardiff-Portsmouth turns uses a 3-car 158/9. RTT data shown attached. I didn't realise GWR still had the 3-car formations - I thought all were back into 2-car sets.

Which 158 sets are still formed that way?

There are still a few, but none are supposed to be on Portsmouth-Cardiff as a single set

 

[Sun Chariot]

There’s always going to have to be a number of 3 car 158 formations as 158798 is a ‘proper’ 3 car with a non-driving vehicle as opposed to the other sets. The other 158s still formed as 3 cars are 158950, 158951, 158958 and 158959. All are based at Exeter.

On paper there are 4 diagrams for the 5 sets, on weekdays these are the 3 Barnstaple diagrams and one Devon/Cornwall diagram which starts with the 06.25 EXD-PNZ. On weekends they are slightly different and of course the sets do wander too.

Many thanks for that. The Exeter escapee is doing Cardiff-Pompey turns today, too - and photos, between deluges, at Cosham.

 

[FGW_DID]

The same root cause as we have on the North Downs line - too little stock for the required service level, compounded by the disaster that was the class 769 programme. 2 car 165s are now common on the Gatwick runs with overcrowding sure to put any optional users off for life. The government is continuing its mantra that privatisation must be the cure for all ills, despite the opposite being the blindingly obvious truth (and not just on the railway).

23 Units for 20 diagrams plus there are a couple of units in the West covering for the 166s while they go through the refresh program! The 769s never entered service and would only have replaced Turbos not supplemented them. There are no services on the North Downs Monday - Saturday that are booked for a 2 car 165.
If a 2 car has appeared its because something has failed and the 2 car is covering, if there wasn't enough stock to go round, how come there's a unit to cover said failure?

 

[Sun Chariot]

There are still a few, but none are supposed to be on Portsmouth-Cardiff as a single set

Many thanks - 158 959 has surfaced on weekday Cardiff-Pompey turns too. My above post has shots of the interloper, plus the (slightly!) more usual Turbos.

 

[Surreyman]

23 Units for 20 diagrams plus there are a couple of units in the West covering for the 166s while they go through the refresh program! The 769s never entered service and would only have replaced Turbos not supplemented them. There are no services on the North Downs Monday - Saturday that are booked for a 2 car 165.
If a 2 car has appeared its because something has failed and the 2 car is covering, if there wasn't enough stock to go round, how come there's a unit to cover said failure?

I am aware that 5 car 165 diagrams are (sometimes)scheduled on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route, I know that 3 car 158s also run, I have never myself seen a 5 car 158 on this route, have they ever?