Cardiff-Portsmouth - Rolling Stock Solutions?

[Rhydgaled]

As a user of the Portsmouth-Cardiff route, the provision of suitable stock has been a concern for quite some time, the 158s providing the required ‘suitable quality’ but with capacity issue, and now we have the 165/66 units providing an uplift in capacity but with a woeful travelling experience.

This route has really become the UK’s Cinderella regional express route, linking no fewer than seven important cities, with tired high-density stock designed for relatively short-distance commuter journeys.

With no suitable stock available for transfer from other areas, a further batch of two and three car class 197s should be considered, to provide a much-needed uplift in quality and allowing for the knackered clapped-out NSE era units to be scrapped. Spending further money on upgrading such tired nearly life-expired stock, which is completely unsuitable having never designed for this type of service, is just a case of throwing good money after bad.

I was in agreement until the first comma of your third paragraph. However, construction of class 197s absolutely should not ever be considered for anything, except perhaps as what Northern's class 195s should have been. On routes like Cardiff-Portsmouth, they would be little better than the class 165/166 units. While the 197s have unit end gangways, wouldn't be tired and don't have 2+3 seating, other than that the class 197s are basically a similar train designed for relatively short-distance commuter journeys. While there are short-distance commuter routes out there that a class 197 would in theory be suitable for, the vast majority of those are routes like the Birmingham Snow Hill lines, which really should have been electrified by now. Therefore, the requirement for diesel short-distance commuter stock, that is not 'electrification ready', is zero and the 197s should not be being built.

Instead, what TfW and GWR should have been looking at is a new build of 100/110mph bi-mode units based on the class 397, but with the gangwayed cabs of a 196 (or, to put it another way, a bi-mode 444). In a few years time, when the 158s and 159s are life-expired, Northern will need something similar as well, for the likes of Settle-Carlisle, SWR will need some for the Exeter route, ScotRail for the few routes not included on it's electrification programme etc.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I would go for 158 and 159 replacement being with cascaded 220s, 221s & 222s. Those in turn cascaded from their present routes by 80Xs once more electrification has happened. But I can only dream.

 

[A0wen]

I would go for 158 and 159 replacement being with cascaded 220s, 221s & 222s. Those in turn cascaded from their present routes by 80Xs once more electrification has happened. But I can only dream.

Not particularly practical.

The 22x's are high speed units the 158/9s less so. And whilst younger than the 158/9s the 22x's are hardly in the first flush of youth. I'm not sure diesel cascades of 20+ year old units is a good idea - electrics are slightly different if the cascade is replacing diesels e.g Northern's 319s.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

One of the biggest flaws on the 158s on the Portsmouth to Cardiff route was the end doors, 1/3 and 2/3 doors are far more suited to the heavy intermediate traffic churn at stations.

The 166s were the Networker express built for London to Oxford and Worcester so we’re designed as inter-urban. Expectations have changed since then people expect tables for laptops etc where as before all that was needed was a table for a coffee etc. Look at the REPs which went to Bournemouth etc from London it was just the small trinket tables.

 

[75A]

33 + 7 Mark 1's used to work.

 

[43096]

I would go for 158 and 159 replacement being with cascaded 220s, 221s & 222s. Those in turn cascaded from their present routes by 80Xs once more electrification has happened. But I can only dream.

This has been done so many times on here and has been debunked every time. I'm not sure why people persist with this idea.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

33 + 7 Mark 1's used to work.

Exactly - USED to is the very apt phrase, they wouldn’t work now.

Traffic at Bristol Temple Meads has grown so much the paths required to run round loco hauled trains would require other passenger trains to be removed from the timetable.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Exactly - USED to is the very apt phrase, they wouldn’t work now.

Traffic at Bristol Temple Meads has grown so much the paths required to run round loco hauled trains would require other passenger trains to be removed from the timetable.

Well a 33 and a pair of 4TCs then !. Use some other EMUs and the 33 can come off where the third rail starts. An AC converted 73 to replace the 33 at the other end of the diesel bit. Oh for the days of quickly coupling and/or uncoupling a diesel locomotive from an Electric Multiple Unit.

I suppose the most likely nowadays is a GW 769.....

 

[RPI]

The Turbo's are fine, they just need a refurb which is on the cards.

 

[JN114]

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.

While comfortable, 158s no longer have anywhere near the capacity to effectively handle that churn of passengers at the major stations. Narrow aisles; Narrow, end doors.

5 car Turbos have improved the space available to passengers and the horrendous dwell times that ensued at the likes of Bath or Southampton in the peaks, but in themselves would still end up full and standing.

A 5 or especially a 4 car 158 would be woeful capacity decrease, and all for the benefit of a minority who want to make the long journeys over a majority who need the space. And to achieve it you’d have to put those same “unsuitable” Turbos onto the work now covered by the 158s you want to release - Cardiff to Penzance trains, which is just trading them off one route they are not suitable for for another; except this time with the added disadvantage that there is a competitor (in the form of XC) that you want to actually try and entice passengers off of.

The vocal fans of the Cardiff Portsmouth route need to wake up and realise that their pseudo-intercity railway is far, far too busy nowadays. A victim of its own success maybe - but however uncomfortable the Turbos may be they are by far more suitable than the 158s they replaced. The poor interior condition is as a result of GWR being left in limbo about what refurbishment options they can take going forward. There is thankfully light at the end of that tunnel.

 

[RPI]

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.

While comfortable, 158s no longer have anywhere near the capacity to effectively handle that churn of passengers at the major stations. Narrow aisles; Narrow, end doors.

5 car Turbos have improved the space available to passengers and the horrendous dwell times that ensued at the likes of Bath or Southampton in the peaks, but in themselves would still end up full and standing.

A 5 or especially a 4 car 158 would be woeful capacity decrease, and all for the benefit of a minority who want to make the long journeys over a majority who need the space. And to achieve it you’d have to put those same “unsuitable” Turbos onto the work now covered by the 158s you want to release - Cardiff to Penzance trains, which is just trading them off one route they are not suitable for for another; except this time with the added disadvantage that there is a competitor (in the form of XC) that you want to actually try and entice passengers off of.

The vocal fans of the Cardiff Portsmouth route need to wake up and realise that their pseudo-intercity railway is far, far too busy nowadays. A victim of its own success maybe - but however uncomfortable the Turbos may be they are by far more suitable than the 158s they replaced. The poor interior condition is as a result of GWR being left in limbo about what refurbishment options they can take going forward. There is thankfully light at the end of that tunnel.

Where's the like button!

Spot.... on.....

 

[Dai Corner]

Exactly - USED to is the very apt phrase, they wouldn’t work now.

Traffic at Bristol Temple Meads has grown so much the paths required to run round loco hauled trains would require other passenger trains to be removed from the timetable.

Er, they didn't run round at Temple Meads.

Incoming loco detached in Platform 5 or 7, outgoing loco came off the adjacent spur, attached to the other end and right away. Incoming loco into the spur to await the next incoming train. All very slickly handled as I recall.

 

[Rhydgaled]

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.

While comfortable, 158s no longer have anywhere near the capacity to effectively handle that churn of passengers at the major stations. Narrow aisles; Narrow, end doors.

The number of passengers making the full end-to-end journey between Cardiff and Portsmouth is fairly immaterial, partial legs such as Bristol to Southampton and Portsmouth Harbour to Bath still take well over an hour and a half. These are comparable (or further) to the Waterloo-Portsmouth fasts where the use of wide doors-at-thirds (class 450s in that case) attracted major complaints and SWR were hearalding their plan to bring back 442s to address this (gutted that they've now changed tac in favour of 458s). While there will be lots of people doing short commutes as well, there's no getting away from the fact that it is still a long-distance (semi-)fast service that needs to cater for long-distance passengers. Otherwise, you are increasing the chances of long-distance passengers being lost to road.

I'm not sure why you have brought narrow aisles into this, don't 2+3 seated units as used on true suburban commuter type services also have narrow aisles? It is true that the 158s have narrow doors, and that this won't help dwell times, but that's a big part of the reason class 197s and the like are so inappropriate for a long-distance service. You are losing a large amount of floor area and as a result have to choose between reduced seating capacity, reduced legroom, reduced luggage space and reduced toilet provision. None of those things are things you want to skimp on for long-distance passengers.

Simply increasing the formations from 3-car to 4/5-car class 158s would increase capacity and the number of doors provided, which would result in a much-improved suituation compared to 3-car 158s. A new-build train based on the class 397 would probably perform slighlty better as the modern door mechanism is likely faster than the clunky old 158 doors and possibly they are very slightly wider. Yes a 5-car Turbo would still have shorter dwells than either, but I don't think the downgraded interior is a price worth paying - I'd much rather GWR stuck a minute or two additional dwell time allowance in the timetables at some of the busier stations.

A 5 or especially a 4 car 158 would be woeful capacity decrease, and all for the benefit of a minority who want to make the long journeys over a majority who need the space. And to achieve it you’d have to put those same “unsuitable” Turbos onto the work now covered by the 158s you want to release - Cardiff to Penzance trains, which is just trading them off one route they are not suitable for for another; except this time with the added disadvantage that there is a competitor (in the form of XC) that you want to actually try and entice passengers off of.

There is a competior on the Cardiff-Portsmouth route that we (should) want to try and entice passengers off: the private car. As for the extra space, a 5-car 158 is about the same length as a 5-car Turbo is it not? Thus the only 'extra space' is standing room in the (wider and non-segregated on a Turbo) 'vestibules' (at the expense of something else) and the middle seat in the groups of 3 (which others frequently argue is seldom used). As for pinching 158s from other routes, I consider that Turbos (perhaps only if refurbished with 2+2 seating) would be relatively suitable for Cardiff-Taunton - that is a stopper and there are faster alternatives (avoiding Weston-Super-Mare) for long-distance passengers. For the faster services between Exeter and Plymouth, there is the option of using the 'Castle class' HSTs which have the potential to offer a similar (or better) quality service to a 158. I would have suggested 2+5 Castles for the Cardiff-Portsmouth, but I know I would have been told that there is a guaging issue preventing that.

 

[D6975]

Er, they didn't run round at Temple Meads.

Incoming loco detached in Platform 5 or 7, outgoing loco came off the adjacent spur, attached to the other end and right away. Incoming loco into the spur to await the next incoming train. All very slickly handled as I recall.

It was indeed, the loco was often on the stock before the pax had finished detraining/boarding. Not as slick as Bournemouth used to be though, they were spectacularly good at swapping REPs for Bagpipes.

 

[JN114]

A refurbishment of the Turbos - which is very much on the cards - will cater for the needs of the longer distance passengers without compromising the train for its core market - short commuter journeys such as Bath Bristol, Filton Bristol, Southampton Portsmouth.

Cardiff Taunton as a segregated service won’t exist in a few years, the plan is Cardiff Penzance (hence mentioning it in my initial reply), and they’d have to compete against the Voyagers of XC.

Cardiff Portsmouth is managing full and standing 5 car 165s at leisure times during a Pamdemic. It has nothing to fear on losing passengers to the private car, and the passenger offering of the current stock will be improved in time.

158s will never be the solution.

 

[cactustwirly]

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

 

[JonathanH]

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

Yes, there is no need for a pointy nose (and the corresponding loss of capacity) on this route. However I think the OP was referring to the seating / door layout rather than the front ends (which they indicated should be through gangwayed).

 

[RPI]

My experience of working Turbo's (every day I'm at work) is that despite the 3+2 seats people will actually sit in all 3 seats on these units where they won't so much on the few 150's with 3+2 seating, im assuming that Turbo's have wider seats.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Er, they didn't run round at Temple Meads.

Incoming loco detached in Platform 5 or 7, outgoing loco came off the adjacent spur, attached to the other end and right away. Incoming loco into the spur to await the next incoming train. All very slickly handled as I recall.

And how does the loco get from the spur at the West End of Bristol Temple Meads to the spur at the East End of Bristol Temple Meads, it runs through the station which uses the same track capacity as running round.

However you look at it that needs double the paths of a unit arriving and reversing, that capacity is no longer there.

Efficient it might have been shunting in out the spur, there wasn’t a Big Hand that moved all the locos from one end of Temple Meads to another. The traffic at Temple Meads has probably near on doubled since then and platform re-occupation is very tight now.

It was indeed, the loco was often on the stock before the pax had finished detraining/boarding. Not as slick as Bournemouth used to be though, they were spectacularly good at swapping REPs for Bagpipes.

But at some point the locos still had to use track capacity to get from one end of the station to the other.

Bournemouth was more efficient in use of track capacity as the locos always stayed at the country end.

 

[Dai Corner]

And how does the loco get from the spur at the West End of Bristol Temple Meads to the spur at the East End of Bristol Temple Meads, it runs through the station which uses the same track capacity as running round.

However you look at it that needs double the paths of a unit arriving and reversing, that capacity is no longer there.

Efficient it might have been shunting in out the spur, there wasn’t a Big Hand that moved all the locos from one end of Temple Meads to another. The traffic at Temple Meads has probably near on doubled since then and platform re-occupation is very tight now.

The spurs were at the east end only. The incoming loco followed the train out and reversed into the spur. Barely took any longer than a DMU reversing does now.

(Apologies for going off-topic. Nobody thinks we're ever going to see loco-hailed, non push-pull fitted trains on Cardiff-Portsmouth in future).

 

[HamworthyGoods]

The number of passengers making the full end-to-end journey between Cardiff and Portsmouth is fairly immaterial, partial legs such as Bristol to Southampton and Portsmouth Harbour to Bath still take well over an hour and a half. These are comparable (or further) to the Waterloo-Portsmouth fasts where the use of wide doors-at-thirds (class 450s in that case) attracted major complaints and SWR were hearalding their plan to bring back 442s to address this (gutted that they've now changed tac in favour of 458s). While there will be lots of people doing short commutes as well, there's no getting away from the fact that it is still a long-distance (semi-)fast service that needs to cater for long-distance passengers. Otherwise, you are increasing the chances of long-distance passengers being lost to road.

The issue with the 450s from the public point of view wasn’t the vestibules it was the 2+3 seating instead of 2+2, the 442s were bought back to address that issue and in doing so showed the dwell time issues with end doors.

The spurs were at the east end only. The incoming loco followed the train out and reversed into the spur. Barely took any longer than a DMU reversing does now.

Signalling standards are different now, for example the Maltese Crosses have gone so in the modern world it would use more capacity. That’s what has killed so many non-push pull loco hauled trains and made the big push to push-pull saving all the shunt moves and crew costs associated.

 

[D6975]

And how does the loco get from the spur at the West End of Bristol Temple Meads to the spur at the East End of Bristol Temple Meads, it runs through the station which uses the same track capacity as running round.

However you look at it that needs double the paths of a unit arriving and reversing, that capacity is no longer there.

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. There wasn't a spur at the West end. The loco arriving from Pompey would tail the Cardiff departure and drop into the East end bay. It didn't use another platform. It didn't need an extra path.

 

[Grecian 1998]

There are only two real problems with the Turbos: the ineffective air conditioning on the 166s; and the lack of 2+2 seating. Neither seem to be insurmountable. AIUI the 166s could be fitted with the air cooling fitted to the 165s - not air con, but much cooler in summer. GWR wanted to fit the 166s with 2+2 seating and leave the 165s with 3+2. Long distance passengers could reserve seats in the 166s; everyone else could take their chances. A balance of quality and quantity regarding seating, as happens elsewhere e.g. 377s. They were refused permission but it seems to be hinted upthread that this might have changed.

Fix these two problems and there isn't really anything wrong with the Turbos apart from their advancing years. 1/3 2/3 doors really aren't a problem: 170s and 185s have them and it hasn't exactly deterred passengers on Cardiff - Nottingham or TPE routes. As others have said, they are needed to deal with the swift turnover of passengers at Southampton / Salisbury / Bath / Bristol.

 

[Snow1964]

The 158s are unsuitable as doors are too narrow for the passenger loadings at stations like Bath, last time I did the route about a month ago the swarm of passengers meant station stop was nearly 4 minutes at Bath as people tried to squeeze on (even though it was a weekend it was carrying about 150% of seat capacity, and that was before Covid restrictions eased)

The 165 and 166 are just uncomfortable, although they are sometimes used as 6car which isn’t great as not all platforms can handle 6x23m length so get the not all doors opening problem

Both are bit underpowered, and the lack of mid range acceleration on the winding sections in the Avon Valley, and near Hamble river makes them seem quite slow (they also have very noisy engines by modern standards).

Using a 30+ year old diesel train, is older than used in early 1980s when 33s and mk1 coaches did the route, at least they were comfortable which can’t be said about current trains.

Really needs a modern 5 car tri-mode with commuter doors, but intercity seating. The line is third rail electrified Portsmouth-Redbridge, and overhead electrified Cardiff-Filton (and still a chance one day the Filton-Bristol-Bathampton section will get done)

But I agree it is probably one of the busiest multi-city routes without any attempt to equip it like an intercity route.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. There wasn't a spur at the West end. The loco arriving from Pompey would tail the Cardiff departure and drop into the East end bay. It didn't use another platform. It didn't need an extra path.

I could write nonsense in capital letters and shout but won’t.

The loco yes can tail the departure to the starting signal but not beyond. The headway/junction margin (as appropriate) for successive trains departing the platform still applies; you have to allow time out for the first train (in this case the departing Cardiff train) before setting the route (after the re-set allowance) for the loco going to the spur. That gives a higher platform re-occupation value than a single train departing the platform. With modern signalling standards that could be equivalent to an extra path.

You could never tail a train out the platform beyond the starting signal….

 

[Dai Corner]

I could write nonsense in capital letters and shout but won’t.

The loco yes can tail the departure to the starting signal but not beyond. The headway/junction margin (as appropriate) for successive trains departing the platform still applies; you have to allow time out for the first train (in this case the departing Cardiff train) before setting the route (after the re-set allowance) for the loco going to the spur. That gives a higher platform re-occupation value than a single train departing the platform. With modern signalling standards that could be equivalent to an extra path.

You could never tail a train out there platform beyond the starting signal….

D6975 and I are recollecting what we observed around 30 years ago. Were you there?

 

[MatthewRead]

What about 769's fitted with 2+2 seating?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

D6975 and I are recollecting what we observed around 30 years ago. Were you there?

I’m referring how Bristol would be planned on current signalling headways and how now it would eat capacity. Observations and technical planning headways on the railways are slightly different things. In planning terms a loco hauled train with a shunt released loco will require additional track capacity

As it happens yes I am of an age to remember loco hauled trains on Portsmouth to Cardiff services. Indeed aside from these loco hauled trains lasted at Bristol Temple Meads until the end of Loco Hauled on Cross Country in 2003(?).

However I accept we are getting off-topic here so maybe best left as I’m coming at this from a different point of view in terms of timetable planning on the modern railway.

 

[Dai Corner]

I’m referring how Bristol would be planned on current signalling headways and how now it would eat capacity. Observations and technical planning headways on the railways are slightly different things.

As it happens yes I am of an age to remember loco hauled trains on Portsmouth to Cardiff services. Indeed aside from these loco hauled trains lasted at Bristol Temple Meads until the end of Loco Hauled on Cross Country in 2003(?).

But as I said upthread, nobody thinks loco-haulage is going to return to Portsmouth-Cardiff services; certainly not non push-pull fitted. We were just reminiscing and pointing out that they didn't run round or use non-existent west end bays.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The 158s are unsuitable as doors are too narrow for the passenger loadings at stations like Bath, last time I did the route about a month ago the swarm of passengers meant station stop was nearly 4 minutes at Bath as people tried to squeeze on (even though it was a weekend it was carrying about 150% of seat capacity, and that was before Covid restrictions eased)

Being at 150% of seating capacity won't help the dwell times. If it is 4 minutes at 150% of seating capacity you could probably reduce that a fair bit: wild guess to about 2.5 minutes, by making the train longer and still having narrow doors (possibly 175/397 doors rather than 158 doors). Of course if you want 1 minute dwell times you need double-width doors at thirds, but quality would suffer as a result.

Really needs a modern 5 car tri-mode with commuter doors, but intercity seating. The line is third rail electrified Portsmouth-Redbridge, and overhead electrified Cardiff-Filton (and still a chance one day the Filton-Bristol-Bathampton section will get done)

I agree that the route would benefit from modern tri-modes*, but not with the use of stock with commuter doors. Perhaps the answer is a compromise, the same door width as a 175 (which I think is 860mm, compared to 1300mm on suburban units) but in a hybrid layout (similar to the pantograph well / micro-buffet coach on a 444) with a (space-saver) toilet and bike space at one end of the coach, followed immediately by a vestible, then an internal partion door leading into the main saloon with the second vestible being about a third of the way in from the other end of the coach, with internal partion doors around seperating it from the saloons either side of it. It wouldn't quite be doors-at-thirds, because the space-saver toilet is less than a third of the vehicle length, but it would be fairly close to doors-at-thirds (the big differences being the narrower doors and the existance of internal partition doors to screen off the vestibles).

* Really, I think we need a different term to avoid confusion. GWR have 'tri-mode' class 769s (overhead electric, third rail electric and diesel) while Stadler are building 'tri-mode' class 756 units for TfW Rail (overhead electric, diesel and battery). In the context of the Cardiff-Portsmouth route, the former is what we're after (ie. diesel, 3rd rail and OHLE); not the battery-type 'Tri-Modes' TfW have inbound. With a bit more electrification though, perhaps we could have yet another form of tri-mode (overhead electric, third rail electric and battery) with no diesel engines at all but then again a battery-fitted 379 wouldn't be far off being that and that was just called an IPEMU.