DDA compliant 165/166 FGW

[Deepgreen]

I traveled in first class on 166201 this morning from Betchworth to Redhill. There were no '1' stickers on any of the windows, one table has been replaced with a useful partially-folding design but the other three remain untouched (and very scruffy/scratched, etc), and the vestibule doors did not work. Not impressive for a newly-"refurbished" unit!

 

[Rich McLean]

I traveled in first class on 166201 this morning from Betchworth to Redhill. There were no '1' stickers on any of the windows, one table has been replaced with a useful partially-folding design but the other three remain untouched (and very scruffy/scratched, etc), and the vestibule doors did not work. Not impressive for a newly-"refurbished" unit!

You sure you wern't in the de-classified bit, as First class is only at one end now

 

[cactustwirly]

I traveled in first class on 166201 this morning from Betchworth to Redhill. There were no '1' stickers on any of the windows, one table has been replaced with a useful partially-folding design but the other three remain untouched (and very scruffy/scratched, etc), and the vestibule doors did not work. Not impressive for a newly-"refurbished" unit!

Sound like you went into the declassified bit. Also nothing else has been done to the interior apart from the toilet and wheelchair bays.

 

[Deepgreen]

Sound like you went into the declassified bit. Also nothing else has been done to the interior apart from the toilet and wheelchair bays.

I was certainly in the first class section - FGW has, at least, painted a proper thick yellow stripe at cantrail level and applied a huge white '1' between the windows on the outside, but, as I said, inside the first class identification is poor. Also, as I said, they have installed a brand new design of partially-folding table in one seating bay only (is this for DDA-compliance, I wonder?), whereas the other three bays still have the tired and damaged old tables - the work may have been prompted by DDA-compliance, but it seems a wasted opportunity to do a good refurb. job.

 

[455driver]

They will only pay for the work needed, everything else is just money (or as they call it profit) down the drain.

When you take your car in for a service do you ask them to change the windscreen and tyres because they are a bit old but still usable with several years life in them?

 

[jimm]

I was certainly in the first class section - FGW has, at least, painted a proper thick yellow stripe at cantrail level and applied a huge white '1' between the windows on the outside, but, as I said, inside the first class identification is poor. Also, as I said, they have installed a brand new design of partially-folding table in one seating bay only (is this for DDA-compliance, I wonder?), whereas the other three bays still have the tired and damaged old tables - the work may have been prompted by DDA-compliance, but it seems a wasted opportunity to do a good refurb. job.

There is a very good reason that the work at this stage largely involves a coat of paint and the disabled toilet - because no one is going to spend lots of money on the interiors when exactly what the Turbo fleet will be doing come 2017 remains unclear. They could be doing everything from North Downs and residual Cotswold Line dmu services, to Bristol suburbans and longer-distance FGW West area duties - maybe Cardiff-Portsmouth, and East-West if some trains start running before wiring is completed there.

In the light of that, a degree of interior reworking may be needed to make the Turbos more suitable for these new roles, but until these become clear, no leasing company is going to spend a penny on seats, seat positions, tables or anything else, especially when you need every seat you can get in the Thames Valley right now.

There are other factors, such as the position of equipment under some of the seats, which I think includes coolant header tanks, so if you want to alter seating, you have to relocate this kit. And any redistribution of seats, therefore weight, means doing work on the brakes as well. None of which would come cheap.

 

[Deepgreen]

They will only pay for the work needed, everything else is just money (or as they call it profit) down the drain.

When you take your car in for a service do you ask them to change the windscreen and tyres because they are a bit old but still usable with several years life in them?

If they were damaged (as the old tables are) and contributing to my passengers' poor impressions of a service I provide, I probably would (or re-condition them to improve their appearance).

 

[455driver]

If they were damaged (as the old tables are) and contributing to my passengers' poor impressions of a service I provide, I probably would (or re-condition them to improve their appearance).

So you would spend £300 on a new windscreen because the old one had a few small scratches and £500 on new tyres because the old ones were half worn would you, really!

 

[fgwrich]

There is a very good reason that the work at this stage largely involves a coat of paint and the disabled toilet - because no one is going to spend lots of money on the interiors when exactly what the Turbo fleet will be doing come 2017 remains unclear. They could be doing everything from North Downs and residual Cotswold Line dmu services, to Bristol suburbans and longer-distance FGW West area duties - maybe Cardiff-Portsmouth, and East-West if some trains start running before wiring is completed there.

In the light of that, a degree of interior reworking may be needed to make the Turbos more suitable for these new roles, but until these become clear, no leasing company is going to spend a penny on seats, seat positions, tables or anything else, especially when you need every seat you can get in the Thames Valley right now.

There are other factors, such as the position of equipment under some of the seats, which I think includes coolant header tanks, so if you want to alter seating, you have to relocate this kit. And any redistribution of seats, therefore weight, means doing work on the brakes as well. None of which would come cheap.

They do. Hence why the Chiltern sets have new seats only in the outer ends of each unit and not in the centre part as the Radiator and Coolant Header Pipes rise through the floor at this point. Having been inside a stripped out Turbo I can tell you there really isn't much room for reconfiguration without moving some of the underseat equipment.

 

[pompeyfan]

I know this has been asked before but why replace 158/9 with 166/165, apart from shorter dwell times and maybe a few more seats they don't have much over the 158s.... Supplementing them to increase frequency would on the other hand be beneficial.

 

[Deepgreen]

There is a very good reason that the work at this stage largely involves a coat of paint and the disabled toilet - because no one is going to spend lots of money on the interiors when exactly what the Turbo fleet will be doing come 2017 remains unclear. They could be doing everything from North Downs and residual Cotswold Line dmu services, to Bristol suburbans and longer-distance FGW West area duties - maybe Cardiff-Portsmouth, and East-West if some trains start running before wiring is completed there.

In the light of that, a degree of interior reworking may be needed to make the Turbos more suitable for these new roles, but until these become clear, no leasing company is going to spend a penny on seats, seat positions, tables or anything else, especially when you need every seat you can get in the Thames Valley right now.

There are other factors, such as the position of equipment under some of the seats, which I think includes coolant header tanks, so if you want to alter seating, you have to relocate this kit. And any redistribution of seats, therefore weight, means doing work on the brakes as well. None of which would come cheap.

Good points - thanks. Given that one table has been replaced in each section, and that it is larger, requiring the movement of a partition, I imagine it must have been required under DDA-compliance rules (with its folding sections making access to the inner seats easier).

 

[jimm]

I know this has been asked before but why replace 158/9 with 166/165, apart from shorter dwell times and maybe a few more seats they don't have much over the 158s.... Supplementing them to increase frequency would on the other hand be beneficial.

There is always the possibility of re-forming the Turbos to produce some four-car formations for Cardiff-Portsmouth by shuffling around centre cars. Time will tell, but I can't see other operators rushing to surrender any 158s to FGW with Pacers to replace, so Turbos may be the only way to get extra capacity on that route any time soon.

 

[Rich McLean]

There is always the possibility of re-forming the Turbos to produce some four-car formations for Cardiff-Portsmouth by shuffling around centre cars. Time will tell, but I can't see other operators rushing to surrender any 158s to FGW with Pacers to replace, so Turbos may be the only way to get extra capacity on that route any time soon.

It been doing the rounds that the current plan is to split the 158s back into 2 car units, and use them doubled up on Portsmouth - Cardiff to make them into 4 car trains, with 16x's helping out

16x's will have their coupling wiring and software altered, so that they can work with 15x units (but not pacers).

150s are unfortunately, likely to stay on Plymouth - Penzance workings (and branches) to begin with when Turbo's move to Bristol, and some 165s will work in the Exeter area.

Post Cornwall re-signalling, there is a possibility of an hourly Bristol - Penzance local service, as Extensions to the current Taunton Service. It may look like this post 2020 (Padd services not included)

1tph - Cardiff - Portsmouth to stay as is and run as 2 x 158s with the occasional 166 to cover for unavailable 158s.
1tph - Swansea - Bath EMU via BRI. This could potentially become a through E-W service in the future. This replaces the Cardiff - Bristol Temple Meads section of the Cardiff - Taunton Service
1tph - Bristol Temple Meads - Penzance stopper (most shacks to Penzance)
1tph - Padd - WSM via BPW
1tph - XC NW - SW
Selected XC MAN - PGN/EXD/PLY/PZN
1tph - BPW - WSM (all shacks)

That's just between Taunton and Bristol. I would imagine if the proposal for an hourly Bristol - Penzance service went ahead, 90mph stock would be used.

 

[BestWestern]

Hmm, if they get Turbos to successfully talk to Sprinters I'll be amazed! A very big job and one which yells 'major headache' very loudly. And it's either going to cost an awful lot of money having the whole fleet done, or you'll need dedicated sets sat around permanently spare; seems a poor use of scant resources.

Has anybody considered what to do with 798 in that case?! Surrender it? Likely to go well against the grain on the hard pushed West. Obvious answer might be to split one of the two cars with one end attached to make a permanent 'hybrid', as per the current /9s, and a spare car - however, I'm pretty sure they'll already have run out of sets before getting that far....

Is there any value in using 90mph stock for an all stops Bri - Pnz? Much track with sufficient mileage between local stops and linespeed to make any use of it?

Bth - Swa seems an odd choice, I'd slate that as being more traditonal 'regional' Sprinter territory than intercity. Bri - Bth is surely covered sufficiently with local and Paddington services, and terminating a train there every hour sounds like asking for trouble. With some turnaround time, I presume we're suggesting running into Bathampton loop rather than crossing over and terminating in the down platform?

Sounds like some very complicated ideas being pondered on what is a very busy chunk of the network!

 

[Rich McLean]

Hmm, if they get Turbos to successfully talk to Sprinters I'll be amazed! A very big job and one which yells 'major headache' very loudly. And it's either going to cost an awful lot of money having the whole fleet done, or you'll need dedicated sets sat around permanently spare; seems a poor use of scant resources.

Has anybody considered what to do with 798 in that case?! Surrender it? Likely to go well against the grain on the hard pushed West. Obvious answer might be to split one of the two cars with one end attached to make a permanent 'hybrid', as per the current /9s, and a spare car - however, I'm pretty sure they'll already have run out of sets before getting that far....

Is there any value in using 90mph stock for an all stops Bri - Pnz? Much track with sufficient mileage between local stops and linespeed to make any use of it?

Bth - Swa seems an odd choice, I'd slate that as being more traditonal 'regional' Sprinter territory than intercity. Bri - Bth is surely covered sufficiently with local and Paddington services, and terminating a train there every hour sounds like asking for trouble. With some turnaround time, I presume we're suggesting running into Bathampton loop rather than crossing over and terminating in the down platform?

Sounds like some very complicated ideas being pondered on what is a very busy chunk of the network!

Everyone has got their idea's banded about. Logistically, it would make more sense to move 158s further West, and place Turbos onto Cardiff - Portsmouth workings, but many feel suburban 3+2 stock is not suitable for the route.

The Swansea - Bath idea could easily Terminate at Bristol instead of Bath, replaceing the current Cardiff - Taunton Route. This would ensure better utilization of des

90mph would be very useful between Taunton - Dawlish, with stops at Tiverton Parkway, Exeter St Davids, Dawslish, and Teignmouth, which would be easier to path on those 100mph sections and 158s/16xs would hit 90mph. Part of Teignmouth to Newton Abbot is also 90mph, but in practice you won't get anywhere near it before you hit the 60 PSR on approach to Newton Abbot.

Are you suggesting keeping 150s on those proposed services, or keeping it as separate local services with one of two running through as of now?

Besides, we will only know the real plan in a few years

 

[455driver]

Hmm, if they get Turbos to successfully talk to Sprinters I'll be amazed! A very big job and one which yells 'major headache' very loudly. And it's either going to cost an awful lot of money having the whole fleet done, or you'll need dedicated sets sat around permanently spare; seems a poor use of scant resources.

Its only a question of noving a few wire around in the coupler boxes, when built they were deliberately wired differently to stop the units being 'borrowed'.

 

[itsjamierawr]

I was under the impression that the 165/166s were too wide/out of gauge to run through to Portsmouth?

 

[Rapidash]

Some (vaguely related to) 165/6 questions....


Are there even any firm dates for when the Thames Valley's are going to wired up?

Wouldn't it be more logical for the 158's to be doing Bristol - Penzance and free up the 150's for Pacer replacement? Or am I, as always, speaking out of me wossname? 'Appropriate stock' and all that jazz?

Are the 143's going to survive the next few years until they can be dropped kicked elsewhere? (Hi East Anglia!!!)

 

[Rich McLean]

Some (vaguely related to) 165/6 questions....


Are there even any firm dates for when the Thames Valley's are going to wired up?

Wouldn't it be more logical for the 158's to be doing Bristol - Penzance and free up the 150's for Pacer replacement? Or am I, as always, speaking out of me wossname? 'Appropriate stock' and all that jazz?

Are the 143's going to survive the next few years until they can be dropped kicked elsewhere? (Hi East Anglia!!!)

It would be more logical, but some of the guys who work down Exeter and Bristol have said 158s are likely to stay on Portsmouth to Cardiff workings

XC provide the fasts anyway from Bristol to the South with 2+2 seating, so 2+2 seating on the Bristol - Penzance stopper while 3+2 on the Portsmouth's wouldn't make much sense, as the Cardiff - Portsmouth workings will have a higher percentage of long distance passengers and than the Penzance service.

Hope that makes sense

 

[WelshBluebird]

Bri - Bth is surely covered sufficiently with local and Paddington services

The local stops (Keynsham and Oldfield Park) certainly are not covered sufficiently. And with talk of Saltford reopening too, and the Bristol Metro scheme looking like it will happen, BRI to BTH will need more stopping services.

 

[Rich McLean]

The local stops (Keynsham and Oldfield Park) certainly are not covered sufficiently. And with talk of Saltford reopening too, and the Bristol Metro scheme looking like it will happen, BRI to BTH will need more stopping services.

That was my point being that it would be covered by a through EMU stopping service from South Wales, making good use of the wires. Plus 4 car EMUs doubled up at peak times on that corridor would act as Queue busters on the Cardiff - Bristol/Bath corridor as a whole and would move a lot of people without worrying about lack of DMUs

Infact, what would stop that EMU service running to Swindon apart from paths, as a base for a through E-W regional service via Oxford to Cambridge wholly under the wires once E-W rail is finally finished? Swansea to Cambridge hourly direct anyone?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The local stops (Keynsham and Oldfield Park) certainly are not covered sufficiently. And with talk of Saltford reopening too, and the Bristol Metro scheme looking like it will happen, BRI to BTH will need more stopping services.

There's currently a huge space between the two tracks at Bath Spa (former goods lines I assume), would it be feasible to build a platform here for terminating services? I suppose there might not be space for a lift shaft to the subway but if that can be worked out it would at least allow services to turn back without any conflicting moves.

 

[MarkyT]

There's currently a huge space between the two tracks at Bath Spa (former goods lines I assume), would it be feasible to build a platform here for terminating services? I suppose there might not be space for a lift shaft to the subway but if that can be worked out it would at least allow services to turn back without any conflicting moves.

Whilst there might have been space for an extra track at Bath between the platforms for a short distance, there's not sufficient for a platform alongside, never mind the access arrangements from the subway. Perhaps if not extending to Swindon, extra Bristol locals could go to Chippenham where there is a spare platform going begging. Such a service could also make additional calls at new stations for Batheaston and Corsham and might even be extended to terminate at Calne!

 

[fgwrich]

Perhaps if not extending to Swindon, extra Bristol locals could go to Chippenham where there is a spare platform going begging. Such a service could also make additional calls at new stations for Batheaston and Corsham and might even be extended to terminate at Calne!

That is what I've been thinking for a while now, extending up to Swindon would give potential pathing issues from Wooten Basset, terminating at Bath - Where do you go? Chippenham however could have a simple single platform re-instated while keeping the island platform open for the fast London / Bristol services.

 

[jimm]

It would be more logical, but some of the guys who work down Exeter and Bristol have said 158s are likely to stay on Portsmouth to Cardiff workings

XC provide the fasts anyway from Bristol to the South with 2+2 seating, so 2+2 seating on the Bristol - Penzance stopper while 3+2 on the Portsmouth's wouldn't make much sense, as the Cardiff - Portsmouth workings will have a higher percentage of long distance passengers and than the Penzance service.

Hope that makes sense

Seating layouts can be changed... and the 166s already have two sections of 2+2 seating in standard, one in the centre cars and now the declassified 1st class compartment as well. Form some four-car sets, fit 2+2 seats throughout and you would have a train with anything up to 260-270 seats, if a 168 is anything to go by, so delivering a very useful increase in capacity over a three-car 158, which would surely be welcomed by passengers on Cardiff-Portsmouth.

I was under the impression that the 165/166s were too wide/out of gauge to run through to Portsmouth?

Network Rail has a list of routes which will be gauge-cleared for 16x sets when they are redeployed, which includes Portsmouth.

Some (vaguely related to) 165/6 questions....

Are there even any firm dates for when the Thames Valley's are going to wired up?

Target date for Oxford and Newbury semi-fasts to go electric is officially December 2016, though that may slip into 2017, but so long as the wires are up and Siemens delivers Class 700s for Thameslink on time, there's no reason to suppose that there won't be some 16xs available for use away from the Thames Valley from some point in the first half of 2017.

 

[Chris125]

There's currently a huge space between the two tracks at Bath Spa (former goods lines I assume), would it be feasible to build a platform here for terminating services?

I believe the two central tracks were sidings rather than running lines, the layout dating from the broad gauge era.

Chris

 

[sd0733]

166215 passed me this morning heading through Milton Keynes from Wolverton in the new livery.

 

[Parallel]

It would be more logical, but some of the guys who work down Exeter and Bristol have said 158s are likely to stay on Portsmouth to Cardiff workings

XC provide the fasts anyway from Bristol to the South with 2+2 seating, so 2+2 seating on the Bristol - Penzance stopper while 3+2 on the Portsmouth's wouldn't make much sense, as the Cardiff - Portsmouth workings will have a higher percentage of long distance passengers and than the Penzance service.

Hope that makes sense

I do hope they stay on Cardiff - Portsmouth workings, and in fact I would go further to say I would actually like to see them reformed into 2 car units and then doubled up to create 4 car workings, which should alleviate a lot of the overcrowding this line faces for much of the day.

As for the remainder of services near Bristol, I'm unsure if they should keep the 150s and 153s which can attach to the 158s for additional capacity, possibly with 143s returning to Bristol to work the metro lines, maybe the Parkway - Weston Super Mare, BTM - Severn Beach and BTM to Portishead and peak capacity services between Bristol and Westbury. Then the 166s + 165s could work services around Taunton and Exeter and longer distance ones from Cardiff? And you'd also need stock for to/from Great Malvern and Weymouth? It's tricky as FGW already run so many different services with a variety of stock already. As a result, 150s would be displaced and could go to Northern and ATW to replace some of their 142s.

I think a South Wales - Chippenham service could work well with Chippenham using another platform. Where would it start from in South Wales though? Swansea? Bridgend? I think a Bridgend - Chippenham service could work, calling at Pencoed, Llanharan, Pontyclun, Cardiff Central, Newport, Severn Tunnel Junction, Pilning (on Saturdays)*, Patchway, Filton Abbey Wood, Stapleton Road (peak time only), Lawrence Hill (peak time only), Bristol Temple Meads, Keynsham, Oldfield Park, Bath Spa and Chippenham. Perhaps some of these trains terminating at Chippenham could connect with the Transwilts service providing a connecting service to Melksham. I think I'm just discussing fantasy now though.

*removing the parliamentary service from the Taunton trains on a Saturday.

 

[Rapidash]

Doubt the 143's would be welcome around Bristol - they are verging on inappropriate for the peaks for us down in the allegedly quiet hinterlands, so I can't imagine they'd be any better for Brizzle. That, and the fact at least one of 'em conks out every other week.

Most comfortable ride I've had on the metro in recent weeks has been the 153's coupled together. Nice bit of extra capacity compared to the single 143, and surprisingly the dwell times were not all that bad - until Exeter Central, anyway!

 

[Parallel]

Doubt the 143's would be welcome around Bristol - they are verging on inappropriate for the peaks for us down in the allegedly quiet hinterlands, so I can't imagine they'd be any better for Brizzle. That, and the fact at least one of 'em conks out every other week.

Indeed, I don't think Pacers are welcome many places! I just think it would be a good idea for extra capacity around Bristol, after all, a shortage of stock has put a halt to the reopening of Portishead, and with talk of improvements to the Severn Beach line and the severe overcrowding (at times) of the corridor to Westbury, I think any trains would be relief - (they could run doubled up, or attached to something else). I can't see anyone else wanting the Pacers particularly as they are far from the best trains out there, but they do get people from A to B (most of the time). Of course, 150s are better but other TOCs are going to need help with pacer replacements but FGW's lucky and only use 8 and should be easily replaceable at a later stage.