• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Autumn refresh for GWR Class 165/166 Turbos

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
I’m currently on 166208 and apart from the small toilet not working, it isn’t too bad. Yes it’s showing signs of ware and tare, they are hard working units but this one is no worse than the 150/1, 153s and HSTs were when they left/refurbed or even some of the other sprinters by the time they were GWRified.

It’s disappointing that GWR are still locking the First Class sections out of use at both ends. Surely 1 end for staff use would suffice.

I agree with the comments from others, they could do with changing. They are narrow and the lack of arm rests is annoying. They should have come up with a deal with the ROSCOs to obtain the scrapped HST seats to put in these and the 158s, maybe just swapping the headrests for the smaller ones. All of the long distance West non IET stock would have the same standard of seating.
Re your last para, unless things have changed DfT were blocking any seat reduction.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Stigy

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2009
Messages
4,881
I’m currently on 166208 and apart from the small toilet not working, it isn’t too bad. Yes it’s showing signs of ware and tare, they are hard working units but this one is no worse than the 150/1, 153s and HSTs were when they left/refurbed or even some of the other sprinters by the time they were GWRified.

It’s disappointing that GWR are still locking the First Class sections out of use at both ends. Surely 1 end for staff use would suffice.

I agree with the comments from others, they could do with changing. They are narrow and the lack of arm rests is annoying. They should have come up with a deal with the ROSCOs to obtain the scrapped HST seats to put in these and the 158s, maybe just swapping the headrests for the smaller ones. All of the long distance West non IET stock would have the same standard of seating.
It’s up to staff discretion if the 1st class is OOU. On busier trains, one, if not both are opened up. I like to have one to myself though….I’ve become accustomed to it :D
 

LiftFan

Member
Joined
27 May 2016
Messages
339
Re your last para, unless things have changed DfT were blocking any seat reduction.
Annoying if true, do that many people actually use the middle seats in a 2+3 formation? What is really needed though are seatback tables and bigger tables for the bays. The least people want on a longer distance train is the ability to put their cup of tea and sandwich on a table, as it gets a bit tricky grabbing your train ticket when you're having to keep hold of your cup in one hand!
 

HamworthyGoods

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
3,905
Annoying if true, do that many people actually use the middle seats in a 2+3 formation?

Yes they do and on the turbos the seats aren’t narrow due to the slightly wider loading gauge.

The least people want on a longer distance train is the ability to put their cup of tea and sandwich on a table, as it gets a bit tricky grabbing your train ticket when you're having to keep hold of your cup in one hand!

That maybe true but you can flip it the other way that the least people want commuting from Trowbridge to Bristol is a seat, no point being able to put your cup down with no seat.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
Chiltern reseated the outer sections in each carriage of their 165s with (comfy) 2+2 seating with armrests, so it can be done

I'm sure I read here somewhere, that the middle section couldn't be changed due to equipment under the seats?
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,252
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
Chiltern reseated the outer sections in each carriage of their 165s with (comfy) 2+2 seating with armrests, so it can be done

I'm sure I read here somewhere, that the middle section couldn't be changed due to equipment under the seats?
The coolant header tanks are saloon mounted in these, which is a bit of a pain!
 

D2007wsm

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,310
Re your last para, unless things have changed DfT were blocking any seat reduction.
Both ends had the doors shut with ‘Out of Use’ stickers stuck to them. I always look if a 166 pulls into the station to see if they have any seats and wait at the end of the platform where the doors closest to them are.

On my way home now, but its an IET. Whereas the seats aren’t perfect, they’re wider than those on the Turbos, have armrests and a decent amount of leg room unlike a lot of the Turbo seats.
 

superalbs

Established Member
Joined
3 Jul 2014
Messages
2,460
Location
Exeter
I’m currently on 166208 and apart from the small toilet not working, it isn’t too bad. Yes it’s showing signs of ware and tare, they are hard working units but this one is no worse than the 150/1, 153s and HSTs were when they left/refurbed or even some of the other sprinters by the time they were GWRified.

It’s disappointing that GWR are still locking the First Class sections out of use at both ends. Surely 1 end for staff use would suffice.

I agree with the comments from others, they could do with changing. They are narrow and the lack of arm rests is annoying. They should have come up with a deal with the ROSCOs to obtain the scrapped HST seats to put in these and the 158s, maybe just swapping the headrests for the smaller ones. All of the long distance West non IET stock would have the same standard of seating.
First Class section was available the other day on 166219.
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,340
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
Waste of money, at 28 years of age they should be pensioned off and sent for recycling. I no longer use the train as the abysmal third-world conditions on the Portsmouth - Cardiff route just aren’t worth the money. I can’t see any reason to pay ridiculous amounts of money to be deafened, overheated, frozen (depending on the time of year), subjected to toxic fumes and the dubious sticky substances found in these rattling mobile Petri dishes.

My car is cheaper, quieter, climate-controlled, relaxing, hygienic and often quicker.

Unless the refurbishment includes a totally new interior, a completely new air-conditioning system, new tinted double-glazed sealed windows, a new exhaust system and some serious sound deadening, anything less is just squandering good money after bad.
I imagine you won't be staying on this rail forum for long then?

Those pictures aren’t representative of all the GWR sets, just a few worse-case examples. The West units I regularly ride are clean and tidy inside, if a bit threadbare in places. Perhaps the Reading sets are in a worse condition?
The Turbos on the NDL are dire and have been for many years. They are very tatty, their internal and external information systems are almost as often wrong as right and they can't be relied upon to provide anything like a reasonable internal temperature in anything other than mild weather. They DO seem to have quite good availability, but that's the extent of their benefits.
 

jayah

On Moderation
Joined
18 Apr 2011
Messages
1,889
Waste of money, at 28 years of age they should be pensioned off and sent for recycling. I no longer use the train as the abysmal third-world conditions on the Portsmouth - Cardiff route just aren’t worth the money. I can’t see any reason to pay ridiculous amounts of money to be deafened, overheated, frozen (depending on the time of year), subjected to toxic fumes and the dubious sticky substances found in these rattling mobile Petri dishes.

My car is cheaper, quieter, climate-controlled, relaxing, hygienic and often quicker.

Unless the refurbishment includes a totally new interior, a completely new air-conditioning system, new tinted double-glazed sealed windows, a new exhaust system and some serious sound deadening, anything less is just squandering good money after bad.
Most people get their greatest exposure to air pollution while driving a car.

As for recycling, it costs around £1.5-2m per vehicle to replace a carriage. You would need a pot of gold.

With a refurbishment much of the value is retained in the UK, wherever the train is assembled that can't be said for new builds.

Let us hope it is a decent job.

Someone does need to find a way to Bi-Mode inter urban DMUs, given how much of that line is now electrified.
 

Western Sunset

Established Member
Joined
23 Dec 2014
Messages
2,495
Location
Wimborne, Dorset
Just been reading this thread.
We are now almost a quarter of the way through the 21st century and there are still arguments about the interior environment of these trains; provision for working space, seating capacity (2+3), room to eat refreshments, air-con, toilets etc. If we want people to use (and continue to use) trains, plus attract new passengers, then the whole quality of the package has to be considered.
The Portsmouth - Cardiff route is Inter-City in all but name. Problem is, it doesn't serve London, so will always be somewhat a Cinderella line.
 

Towers

Established Member
Joined
30 Aug 2021
Messages
1,658
Location
UK
Just been reading this thread.
We are now almost a quarter of the way through the 21st century and there are still arguments about the interior environment of these trains; provision for working space, seating capacity (2+3), room to eat refreshments, air-con, toilets etc. If we want people to use (and continue to use) trains, plus attract new passengers, then the whole quality of the package has to be considered.
The Portsmouth - Cardiff route is Inter-City in all but name. Problem is, it doesn't serve London, so will always be somewhat a Cinderella line.
It really isn't, though. It spends a significant chunk of the route running on secondary lines (arguably just about all of it until it reaches Bathampton Jcn!), and serves intermediate, local stations that no IC service would ever be likely to serve (with the exception of occasional obscure peak workings which come and go). Inter regional, certainly. But it's not intercity!
 

Towers

Established Member
Joined
30 Aug 2021
Messages
1,658
Location
UK
I was thinking more in terms of actually linking cities; Portsmouth, Southampton, Salisbury, Bath, Bristol, Newport and Cardiff.
Well, I suppose there's the literal meaning of "intercity", and then the accepted railway meaning!
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,538
I was thinking more in terms of actually linking cities; Portsmouth, Southampton, Salisbury, Bath, Bristol, Newport and Cardiff.
Yes, and the hinterland of those cities, Filton, Bradford-on-Avon, Trowbridge, Westbury, Warminster, Romsey, Fareham, Cosham, all of which are important stops.
 

southern442

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2013
Messages
2,186
Location
Surrey
It really isn't, though. It spends a significant chunk of the route running on secondary lines (arguably just about all of it until it reaches Bathampton Jcn!), and serves intermediate, local stations that no IC service would ever be likely to serve (with the exception of occasional obscure peak workings which come and go). Inter regional, certainly. But it's not intercity!
Arguably this is again a symptom of the neglect of the line and its services. I would argue it DOES serve an important inter-city corridor, being the only real way to get from Southampton to Bristol as just one example (unless you wanted to fork out for a train via Reading), it's also the only fast Portsmouth - Southampton service during the day too. But at the same time it has to serve smaller locations that a regular intercity service wouldn't serve.

Also worth noting that despite what I've said it may be a tad unfair to say this has been brought about only by neglect, as the geography of the railway doesn't help either.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
17,867
Location
Airedale
Arguably this is again a symptom of the neglect of the line and its services. I would argue it DOES serve an important inter-city corridor, being the only real way to get from Southampton to Bristol as just one example (unless you wanted to fork out for a train via Reading), it's also the only fast Portsmouth - Southampton service during the day too. But at the same time it has to serve smaller locations that a regular intercity service wouldn't serve.

Also worth noting that despite what I've said it may be a tad unfair to say this has been brought about only by neglect, as the geography of the railway doesn't help either.
It is a neglect - or a situation - that has existed for decades if not a century.
No doubt it didn't help that it was a joint GW/LSW service, but (just checking 1958 for convenience) the differences are:
- the trains all stop at Fratton and Romsey (was 80% or so) but not at the likes of Avoncliff or Netley (some did back then)
- there are about 3x the number of them.
 

Stigy

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2009
Messages
4,881
It really isn't, though. It spends a significant chunk of the route running on secondary lines (arguably just about all of it until it reaches Bathampton Jcn!), and serves intermediate, local stations that no IC service would ever be likely to serve (with the exception of occasional obscure peak workings which come and go). Inter regional, certainly. But it's not intercity!
Between Portsmouth and Salisbury no intermediate stations are served. I appreciate it’s debatable as to what may be classed as “intermediate” admittedly, but if we go off the understanding that “intermediate” refers to a station that isn’t served by every other service on that line? All services (bar two) are class 1 services. I agree they’re not IC services as such, but they certainly deserve a better class of train (or at least to have a refurb worthy of the length of journey a lot of customers take) than what are fundamentally suburban workhorses.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
Between Portsmouth and Salisbury no intermediate stations are served. I appreciate it’s debatable as to what may be classed as “intermediate” admittedly, but if we go off the understanding that “intermediate” refers to a station that isn’t served by every other service on that line? All services (bar two) are class 1 services. I agree they’re not IC services as such, but they certainly deserve a better class of train (or at least to have a refurb worthy of the length of journey a lot of customers take) than what are fundamentally suburban workhorses.
The suitability of the Turbos for the route is discussed at length in this thread

 

REVUpminster

Member
Joined
3 Jan 2021
Messages
734
Location
Paignton
There are 21 166's at Bristol. There are 20 150/2s at Exeter. The 150s are due to go as 769' displace 165s. Exeter depot has been reconfigured for with it's 3 car lifting road. How many 166s will be left for "Intercity services". It very noticeable down here a 166 3+2 seating is preferred over a 2x150 for the school run to Torre. 2 x165 was even pressed into service, but only once.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,538
The 150s are due to go as 769' displace 165s.
Where are they going?

150s are needed for the Cornish branches. The whole 166 fleet isn't going to Exeter - it is needed among other things for the Cardiff to Portsmouth line even with 165s moving west.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
There are 21 166's at Bristol. There are 20 150/2s at Exeter. The 150s are due to go as 769' displace 165s. Exeter depot has been reconfigured for with it's 3 car lifting road. How many 166s will be left for "Intercity services". It very noticeable down here a 166 3+2 seating is preferred over a 2x150 for the school run to Torre. 2 x165 was even pressed into service, but only once.

I suppose there is one thing 3+2 seating is suitable for - children! :)
 

RPI

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2010
Messages
2,742
There are 21 166's at Bristol. There are 20 150/2s at Exeter. The 150s are due to go as 769' displace 165s. Exeter depot has been reconfigured for with it's 3 car lifting road. How many 166s will be left for "Intercity services". It very noticeable down here a 166 3+2 seating is preferred over a 2x150 for the school run to Torre. 2 x165 was even pressed into service, but only once.
As has been pointed out to you every time you bring this up, the 150's are staying in Devon and Cornwall, with a couple extra turbo diagrams. 2 x 150's are better for the Torre school trains as there is slightly more room on a 4 car 150 (room, not seats) and two lots of bike spaces as several of them seem to bring bikes.

Turbos will still go through Bristol for major works, you're forgetting that several 158's also go through Exeter depot for a lot of their exams and maintenance.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,994
Location
here to eternity
It would be helpful if posters could confine discussion in this thread to the Autumn Refresh for GWR Class 166s.

If anyone wants to discuss anything else then they are welcome to either find a more appropriate existing thread or start a new one.

thanks
 

Top