Future of SWR's class 158/159 fleet

[Energy]

there is logic in replacing them (and Cardiff-Portsmouth fleet) so existing trains can take over from aging 150s and 155s around the network, until some areas get pure electric units.

For 150s and Cardiff to Portsmouth you'd be better off leaving the 159s where they are and just sending the bimode 385s straight to there.

The 159s have the wrong door layout for Cardiff to Portsmouth (158s used to work it, they took too long to board) and for 150 workings (when on GWR a 158 turns up instead of a 150 it ends up getting later and later during the summer peaks).

They'd be fine for 156/155 replacement but sending the north the south's old trains doesn't fit with the government's levelling up plan. The Northern 156s also run a lot of local devices which would benefit from a suburban door layout

 

[Domh245]

Conversely, why are some so opposed to continuing with the flexibility that gangways provide? Sure, there's some added complexity at the design stage but that aside the main concerns seem to be aesthetic ones.

There is also a valid concern around the size of (and visibility out of) the cab when combining modern crashworthiness with a front gangway. The issues with the 385s were well documented, but even the subsequent gangwayed Aventras and Civities aren't exactly spacious as I understand it. Making driver's working conditions worse purely for the chance of flexibility isn't ideal

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There is also a valid concern around the size of (and visibility out of) the cab when combining modern crashworthiness with a front gangway. The issues with the 385s were well documented, but even the subsequent gangwayed Aventras and Civities aren't exactly spacious as I understand it. Making driver's working conditions worse purely for the chance of flexibility isn't ideal

Wasn't the 385 issue due to the curve of the windscreen causing refraction? So not directly linked to the presence of the gangway, just poor design. The fix was replacing the windows, not removing the gangway- which suggests the gangway wasn't a causal factor.

 

[Energy]

Wasn't the 385 issue due to the curve of the windscreen causing refraction? So not directly linked to the presence of the gangway, just poor design. The fix was replacing the windows, not removing the gangway- which suggests the gangway wasn't a causal factor.

Sort of, the original AT200 show the same cab without a gangway, with the seat in the centre. With the seat in the centre it might not have been a problem.

 

[zwk500]

Wasn't the 385 issue due to the curve of the windscreen causing refraction? So not directly linked to the presence of the gangway, just poor design. The fix was replacing the windows, not removing the gangway- which suggests the gangway wasn't a causal factor.

The 385 issues were directly linked to the gangway, because the normal front had to be redesigned to incorporate the gangway, and the drivers position moved from the centre which caused the double reflections. The fix had to keep the gangway, hence the flattening of the windows. (The issue was the curved double glazing giving double reflections, making drivers mistake single yellows for double yellows. It was fixed by redesigning the windscreen with flat glass).
Gangways also cause various other signal sighting issues as the cab view is restricted, so for gantry-mounted signals or tight right hand bends extra care needs to be taken. This would, of course, be fixed with ETCS.

Probably best to design them for 110mph (or 175km/h) max, although 100mph on third rail, and 95mph on diesel is probably ok for current limits. I wouldn’t rule out 105mph on SWML in future as 5% improvement with modern technology seems reasonable future proofing.

I don't. There'd be no benefit to train running as all the faster speed would permit is to catch up the train in front earlier. 100mph running doesn't start until Weybridge, to Basingstoke is about 25 miles. 25 miles at 100mph is 15 minutes, at 105mph is 14 minutes 20 seconds. The 100mph limit is as much a laws of physics issue as it is a technological capability.
It's debatable if they'd even bother raising the limit above 100mph if the line converted to OLE.

I think the era of allowing diesel trains to do long mileages over electric lines into polluted cities is ending, and it is basically a 100 mile trip Worting Junction - Waterloo - Worting Junction. (For same reasons I think the 220s on cross country will not stay on current routes for many more years)

I agree the era of ordering diesel-only trains for partly electrified runs is over, however I think the pure diesel trains already in service will survive for a while yet. Particulate filters can be used, as well as installing small batteries to assist acceleration in urban areas. The government won't reckon the cost to the environment as being greater than the cost to replace the trains outright.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The other option of course is that you withdraw the through service into London and run it as a connection instead. GWR have just done exactly that for Bedwyn.

 

[zwk500]

The other option of course is that you withdraw the through service into London and run it as a connection instead. GWR have just done exactly that for Bedwyn.

That would be quite silly for both revenue and operational reasons though.

 

[MattRat]

That would be quite silly for both revenue and operational reasons though.

But it does sound like something the London would do.

 

[D365]

What about disabled people, if a unit has to be detached?

What do you mean? If a wheelchair user is being assisted onto the train, one would expect that the train manager would direct them to the correct potion.

 

[Grecian 1998]

Whimple, Feniton and Tisbury are a major reason why a lack of gangways would be problematic for a replacement - they all have short platforms. Whilst guards on the line are proactive in informing intending users to be in the front 3 coaches, making sure everyone has moved before Cranbrook / Honiton and Gillingham / Salisbury is likely to be very challenging and will inevitably fall short on occasion - most likely due to passengers not paying attention, but this is still something which can be avoided with gangways.

There are no barriers anywhere between Exeter Central and Salisbury so revenue duties are important. No end gangways wouldn't help.

You could get around these issues by having the successors to the 159s be 5 and 10 coach trains with SDO, so Exeter-Salisbury stations are served by trains of a uniform length. Most of the day 5 carriages might only be excessive between Axminster and Yeovil Junction, which is only a quarter of the distance between Exeter and Salisbury. No end gangways should then be fine.

The other option of course is that you withdraw the through service into London and run it as a connection instead. GWR have just done exactly that for Bedwyn.

There are sizable numbers of passengers for London from all stations between Yeovil Junction and Salisbury - I'd be very surprised if that wasn't the primary destination.

The total passenger usage for Kintbury, Hungerford and Bedwyn pre-Covid in 2018-19 is given as just over 500,000. The total passenger usage for Tisbury, Gillingham, Templecombe, Sherborne and Yeovil Junction for the same period is over 1.1 million, with Gillingham alone used by almost 400,000. These places are also considerably further out of London and haven't got the fastest service to begin with, but it's still well-used. As trains have always gone through to London Waterloo in normal times, even during the grimmest years for the route between 1967-1980, running a shuttle and forcing a change of train would not be popular to say the least.

In any case, the only logical place to run a shuttle to would be Basingstoke. Salisbury is still off the juice so no benefit splitting there unless you use battery trains, which will immediately lead to the question of why they aren't being run over the whole route. Basingstoke is pretty busy most of the day and having one platform constantly blocked with shuttles to Exeter and Salisbury, which will also require low speed manoeuvres on and off the fast lines west of the station, isn't going to help operationally.

 

[Mikey C]

If you're using 3 or more units yes, although I'd argue if you used slightly longer units so they just ran as 2 sets coupled then lack of gangways wouldn't be overly problematic. After all, TPE, Avanti, XC, GWR and LNER all run non-gangways double sets.

Those are 125mph units though, so need the longer nose for crash purposes and aerodynamics, which wouldn't allow a gangway anyway

 

[zwk500]

Those are 125mph units though, so need the longer nose for crash purposes and aerodynamics, which wouldn't allow a gangway anyway

How long the nose is doesn't change the operational problems and solutions. It's not like conductors hop between Class 185s units on the move.

 

[JonathanH]

How long the nose is doesn't change the operational problems and solutions. It's not like conductors hop between Class 185s units on the move.

185s generally operated as single units from new, with hardly any double sets diagrammed. Only more recently have they been routinely doubled up.

159s have operated coupled throughout their existence, even if most 158s haven't.

 

[zwk500]

185s generally operated as single units from new, with hardly any double sets diagrammed. Only more recently have they been routinely doubled up.

159s have operated coupled throughout their existence, even if most 158s haven't.

Or Class 171s then, which have operated as 3 Units coupled for 10 Car trains on the Uckfield Line regularly. More frequent stops and shorter overall journey than a Waterloo-Exeter but still 100mph DMU with only Driver and Guard.

Gangways may well be justified for the Waterloo-Exeter trains. If I was ordering the trains I'd certainly be putting them in the spec. However I don't think it's a dealbreaker for the service if they aren't there.

 

[RobShipway]

What do you mean? If a wheelchair user is being assisted onto the train, one would expect that the train manager would direct them to the correct potion.

What if they are having to change units, with say an attached unit that the disabled person is in. having square wheel problem as an example?

 

[zwk500]

What if they are having to change units, with say an attached unit that the disabled person is in. having square wheel problem as an example?

Then the Train Manager would manage the situation appropriately as they would if this situation happens today, wheelchairs being unable to use the gangways in any event.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

What's happening about the SCR / Eminox treatment to these trains?

 

[RobShipway]

Then the Train Manager would manage the situation appropriately as they would if this situation happens today, wheelchairs being unable to use the gangways in any event.

Not all disabled people are in wheelchairs and some may have difficulty in leg movement with stepping down or up from a train. But can walk with the use of sticks or frames. In this case, walking through gangways would be easier than having to step down from a train and then step up to another train.

Also, I have seen on many occasions train managers not managing the situation with such passengers and it has been other passengers such as myself helping those disabled passengers to move from one train to another, as the train managers do not seem to have a clue!

 

[Irascible]

Bimode would be better, but yes. Doors at thirds may be better for this sort of regional service.

If going DMU then CAFs would be fine too. If you really wanted end doors I'm sure they could do a DMU with the 397 bodyshell.

Dwell times certainly don't matter west of Salisbury and even more so if the new stock accelerates better - seats on the other hand do. There's some good points against bothering with gangways but on the other hand do you really want to limit where people can sit for that entire journey? it's not like it's just a quick jaunt into the London suburbs. You could, of course, extend the short platforms instead.

CAF vs ageing 159s? I'll keep the 159. Would be an advert for DfT procurement failure barring some miracle.

 

[D365]

Not all disabled people are in wheelchairs and some may have difficulty in leg movement with stepping down or up from a train. But can walk with the use of sticks or frames. In this case, walking through gangways would be easier than having to step down from a train and then step up to another train.

Also, I have seen on many occasions train managers not managing the situation with such passengers and it has been other passengers such as myself helping those disabled passengers to move from one train to another, as the train managers do not seem to have a clue!

Unfortunately I do not believe, when procuring new rolling stock, that such edge cases (i.e. very infrequent) would play a part in the decision on whether to spec end gangways. Note the hundreds of multiple units without gangways that operate portion work every day.

 

[Energy]

Unfortunately I do not believe, when procuring new rolling stock, that such edge cases (i.e. very infrequent) would play a part in the decision on whether to spec end gangways. Note the hundreds of multiple units without gangways that operate portion work every day.

Agreed, the chance that 1 out of 2 units becomes immovable (and not draggable) while a passenger is onboard and not at a station is very unlikely.

Gangways are needed because some of the platforms are short. Are these platforms only long enough for 3 cars (in which case 5 car units would be needed to not have gangways) or does the SDO system make it that they just open the first unit?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The 385 issues were directly linked to the gangway, because the normal front had to be redesigned to incorporate the gangway, and the drivers position moved from the centre which caused the double reflections. The fix had to keep the gangway, hence the flattening of the windows. (The issue was the curved double glazing giving double reflections, making drivers mistake single yellows for double yellows. It was fixed by redesigning the windscreen with flat glass).

That still sounds like the designers dropped the ball to be honest, rather than an inherent issue with gangways. Yes, any gangway will impact visibility to an extent, but we've been building trains with gangways on cab ends for decades and they've worked fine until someone decided they wanted fancy curvy windows without thinking about the refractive effects. If they'd gone for flat panes to start with (added bonus, also cheaper to replace) it wouldn't have been a problem.

 

[zwk500]

Gangways are needed because some of the platforms are short. Are these platforms only long enough for 3 cars (in which case 5 car units would be needed to not have gangways) or does the SDO system make it that they just open the first unit?

Short platforms do not force the use of gangwayed stock. Regular announcements are made regarding which portions passengers for the short stations should be travelling in. It's less desireable and can cause issues but perfectly workable.

That still sounds like the designers dropped the ball to be honest, rather than an inherent issue with gangways. Yes, any gangway will impact visibility to an extent, but we've been building trains with gangways on cab ends for decades and they've worked fine until someone decided they wanted fancy curvy windows without thinking about the refractive effects.

Totally agree!

 

[Energy]

Short platforms do not force the use of gangwayed stock. Regular announcements are made regarding which portions passengers for the short stations should be travelling in. It's less desireable and can cause issues but perfectly workable.

Its not ideal and is likely to cause problems. Looking online all are at least 6 car so, assuming the front 2 can go past the platform, gangways aren't needed... but still should have them or go for 2x5 car units.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

5 and 10 coach trains

This would seriously impact unit maintenance as things stand. Salisbury depot (maint) shed consists of four roads, each with a capacity of three cars, within the shed. Most other stabling roads can accommodate 9 cars. The depot was designed around 159 operation, so any increase in fixed unit length would have major knock on effects!

 

[zwk500]

This would seriously impact unit maintenance as things stand. Salisbury depot (maint) shed consists of four roads, each with a capacity of three cars, within the shed. Most other stabling roads can accommodate 9 cars. The depot was designed around 159 operation, so any increase in fixed unit length would have major knock on effects!

Depots routinely get rebuilt for fleet replacement. Salisbury depot's currrent location also means lots of shunting around the station, and platform 1 being out of use. Any new fleet contract will include a maintenance agreement, and the opportunity could very well be taken to move the depot to a site further along the line where 10-car roads can be easily accomodated and trains will no longer be tripping up over each other trying to get into the depot, whilst at the same time permitting platform 1 to be brought back into use.

 

[43096]

Can this definitely not be attributed to the air conditioning being 5 years older now than it was in 2017?

SWT had a specialist maintenance contract in place for the 158/159 aircon systems. I would bet that SWR no longer think it is needed.

In the immediate future of the 159 fleet, SWR will receive an additional off lease 158 set from TfW to replace the one damaged in the collision.

Can you provide a source for that? You’ve written that as a statement of fact, which is something you’ve done before.

 

[LOL The Irony]

185s generally operated as single units from new, with hardly any double sets diagrammed. Only more recently have they been routinely doubled up.

Not to take this off topic but TPE inter-ran the Airport to Blackpool and Lake District services using double 185s, splitting and joining at Preston from 185 introduction until both were moved to Northern.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Depots routinely get rebuilt for fleet replacement.

Most certainly do, been there, done that. If they were to opt for longer fixed formations, which by their very nature can reduce actual siding vs car capacity, the pre 159 (loco hauled) arrangement of running some to/from Eastleigh might be an option?

tripping up over each other trying to get into the depot

Tell me about it. The situation was brought to a head with the arrival of the 159/1s, which brought about the re introduction of the East Carriage sidings (two them at any rate), as by then the depot and station had become swamped with stabled units every night.
There were tentative plans many years ago which looked in to resignalling p1 for passenger use, and also (possibly) providing a facing crossover at the London end, so any down terminator could run direct to p1, detrain, thence to depot, thus saving the double shunts to get to the reception. Think it was pushed in to the long grass due to any resignalling work that may have been undertaken at that time, would involve new technologies, and therefore the entire station area would need to be converted at the same time, the overall cost of same being off the scale compared to any overall benefit. At least, that's the feeling I got.
Not sure how effective any new facing crossover (as above) would have been though tbh, due to the operational needs for a certain amount of time to elapse between each empty move entering the depot? Think there would still have been a degree of gridlock at certain times. Having a completely separate depot arrival and departure roads (separate connections with the main line) would have been beneficial though, allowing overnight departures off shed to be conflict free of units going on shed. Lack of space on the ground.....?

 

[nw1]

Look to electrifying the lines (to Salisbury, at least) by the early 2030s (when the stock will be 40 years old, and by which time, hopefully the current era of austerity will be firmly in the past) and keep the 158s and 159s going until then?