Ideas for what DMU stock to use in the Thames Valley once post-GWML-electrification

[JamesRowden]

Once the planned Thames Valley electrification is completed, the three remaining DMU routes will be:

• Bedwyn-Newbury/Reading (1tph)
• Reading-Gatwick (2tph)
• Greenford Branch shuttle

The only diesel Thames Valley service with a significant proportion of the route having a greater line speed limit than 75mph will be the Bedwyn-Newbury/Reading service. Since it will be a local stopping service it would not seem efficient to use the UKs limited number of 90mph+ DMU stock in the Thames Valley. Therefore it would seem best to cascade all of the Networker Turbos from the Thames Valley if there are enough >75mph routes that are suitable for them without creating micro fleets.

It seems preferable to maintain the ability to run 3-car trains (or 69m). Toilets would seem necessary on the Reading-Gatwick service.

One option that comes to mind is to convert all of the class 153s into 2-car or 3-car class 155s and use the required number in the Thames Valley.

Another option would be Pacers or the potential converted D78s. The converted D78s would be slower and Pacers might not do well politically

What do other people think?

 

[fishquinn]

Once the 165/6s go to Bristol, there should be a fair few class 150s free to work those trains. I think that would be the most logical thing to do.

 

[JamesRowden]

Once the 165/6s go to Bristol, there should be a fair few class 150s free to work those trains. I think that would be the most logical thing to do.

Does anyone know if all of the stations of the Reading-Gatwick service have long enough platforms for 4-car 150 services?

 

[swt_passenger]

Why wouldn't they continue using the existing stock on Reading to Gatwick, augmented to allow longer trains and 2 tph to Gatwick? I don't think it has ever been suggested that the whole fleet will move to Bristol has it?

 

[JonathanH]

Does anyone know if all of the stations of the Reading-Gatwick service have long enough platforms for 4-car 150 services?

No. Dorking Deepdene and Sandhurst in particular only have platforms long enough for three coach Turbos.

 

[JamesRowden]

Why wouldn't they continue using the existing stock on Reading to Gatwick, augmented to allow longer trains and 2 tph to Gatwick?

There are services in the the country that have 75mph stock but greater line speeds. Therefore using 75mph stock on these three routes might allow 90mph stock to be cascaded to routes on which they can make more use of their speed. Would sending more Turbos west allow more 158s to be cascaded to other franchises?

 

[northwichcat]

D-Trains.

 

[swt_passenger]

There are services in the the country that have 75mph stock but greater line speeds. Therefore using 75mph stock on these three routes might allow 90mph stock to be cascaded to routes on which they can make more use of their speed. Would sending more Turbos west allow more 158s to be cascaded to other franchises?

Using 90 mph DMUs on this route might be better for the congested stretch between Redhill and Gatwick though.

 

[jimm]

Once the planned Thames Valley electrification is completed, the three remaining DMU routes will be:

• Bedwyn-Newbury/Reading (1tph)
• Reading-Gatwick (2tph)
• Greenford Branch shuttle

The only diesel Thames Valley service with a significant proportion of the route having a greater line speed limit than 75mph will be the Bedwyn-Newbury/Reading service. Since it will be a local stopping service it would not seem efficient to use the UKs limited number of 90mph+ DMU stock in the Thames Valley. Therefore it would seem best to cascade all of the Networker Turbos from the Thames Valley if there are enough >75mph routes that are suitable for them without creating micro fleets.

It seems preferable to maintain the ability to run 3-car trains (or 69m). Toilets would seem necessary on the Reading-Gatwick service.

One option that comes to mind is to convert all of the class 153s into 2-car or 3-car class 155s and use the required number in the Thames Valley.

Another option would be Pacers or the potential converted D78s. The converted D78s would be slower and Pacers might not do well politically

What do other people think?

You seem to be forgetting the following:

a. The Cotswold Line, where they may well still be a requirement for a limited number of dmu workings after bi-mode IEPs arrive, and the Oxford-Banbury locals pending wiring north of Oxford

b. East-West Rail, where, given the vagueness about opening dates and electrification work, there may also be a need for dmus for a period

c. Greenford workings will be cut back to West Ealing, making it an obvious candidate for handing over to Chiltern, which can supply two-car dmus from a local maintenance base.

a and b will need dmus able to run at 90mph, same as the Redhill-Gatwick section, and if it is decided to keep some sort of dmu service between Newbury and Reading, rather than a shuttle west of Newbury, then the same speed requirement would apply there as well.

Which leads to the obvious answer - you leave some Turbo sets based at Reading, which can run at 90mph and which the depot already knows how to maintain.

 

[Bletchleyite]

c. Greenford workings will be cut back to West Ealing, making it an obvious candidate for handing over to Chiltern, which can supply two-car dmus from a local maintenance base.

Or closure. Is there anywhere on it not otherwise served? (edit: including by bus - I know there's no other rail service near the intermediate stations)

Neil

 

[D6975]

You seem to be forgetting the following:

a. The Cotswold Line, where they may well still be a requirement for a limited number of dmu workings after bi-mode IEPs arrive, and the Oxford-Banbury locals pending wiring north of Oxford

b. East-West Rail, where, given the vagueness about opening dates and electrification work, there may also be a need for dmus for a period

c. Greenford workings will be cut back to West Ealing, making it an obvious candidate for handing over to Chiltern, which can supply two-car dmus from a local maintenance base.

a and b will need dmus able to run at 90mph, same as the Redhill-Gatwick section, and if it is decided to keep some sort of dmu service between Newbury and Reading, rather than a shuttle west of Newbury, then the same speed requirement would apply there as well.

Which leads to the obvious answer - you leave some Turbo sets based at Reading, which can run at 90mph and which the depot already knows how to maintain.

What about Reading - Blazingsmoke as well, that's not due to be electrified just yet is it?

 

[JamesRowden]

You seem to be forgetting the following:

a. The Cotswold Line, where they may well still be a requirement for a limited number of dmu workings after bi-mode IEPs arrive, and the Oxford-Banbury locals pending wiring north of Oxford

b. East-West Rail, where, given the vagueness about opening dates and electrification work, there may also be a need for dmus for a period

c. Greenford workings will be cut back to West Ealing, making it an obvious candidate for handing over to Chiltern, which can supply two-car dmus from a local maintenance base.

a and b will need dmus able to run at 90mph, same as the Redhill-Gatwick section, and if it is decided to keep some sort of dmu service between Newbury and Reading, rather than a shuttle west of Newbury, then the same speed requirement would apply there as well.

Which leads to the obvious answer - you leave some Turbo sets based at Reading, which can run at 90mph and which the depot already knows how to maintain.

For a. I thought that those Turbos could be based at the West end of the Cotswald line (although I did forget about the Banbury-Oxford locals).

For b. I was assuming Oxford-Bedford electrification.

Your point c. seems like a good idea.

With your final a+b point, I would ask if there is enough 90mph+ diesel stock available for express services rather than local services elsewhere in the country. One example of a new service that could need them is the fast hourly Bristol-Southmapton-Brighton service that the Cross-Boundary Route Study draft is recommending.

 

[swt_passenger]

What about Reading - Blazingsmoke as well, that's not due to be electrified just yet is it?

Yes it is, it has been transferred from the electric spine into the 'Thames Valley branches' package, to be done with Windsor, Marlow and Henley.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

The Pacers may be suitable for Thames routes after the refurbishment.
Would they be seen as bad after Porterbrook convert them to 144e class?

 

[jimm]

For a. I thought that those Turbos could be based at the West end of the Cotswald line (although I did forget about the Banbury-Oxford locals).

For b. I was assuming Oxford-Bedford electrification.

Your point c. seems like a good idea.

With your final a+b point, I would ask if there is enough 90mph+ diesel stock available for express services rather than local services elsewhere in the country. One example of a new service that could need them is the fast hourly Bristol-Southmapton-Brighton service that the Cross-Boundary Route Study draft is recommending.

FGW doesn't have a depot at Worcester, a few trains just stable there overnight, and the LM depot only does light maintenance.

You can make all the assumptions you like about East-West, the fact remains that nothing is fixed as to scheduling and if it is deemed politically expedient to get trains running as soon as possible, rather than wait for wiring, then it will need something like Turbos.

It's not just about express v local services. There are a lot of 'local' services that need to be able to run at up to 90mph in places such as Redhill-Gatwick and Oxford-Banbury to keep out of the way of other services. And put a 75mph set on the Cotswold Line and you would have to slacken timings east of Moreton-in-Marsh and west of Evesham, where the speed limits are 90-100mph already and may be increased further to make the most of IEP capabilities.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Pacers may be suitable for Thames routes after the refurbishment.
Would they be seen as bad after Porterbrook convert them to 144e class?

Let's see now. No one in the North wants them whether or not they get a makeover, no one in the West Country wants them, so why on earth would anyone in the Thames Valley want them?

Never mind my point about the need for dmus operating in the Thames Valley area to be able to mix it with trains running a tad faster than 75mph. A 90mph maximum is a basic minimum requirement in the area, which is why the GW Turbo fleet was built that way in the first place, compared with the 75mph Chiltern 165/0 sets.

 

[RobShipway]

There are two routes that have been forgotten in the first post of this thread which is as follows:

Twyford - Henley - On - Thames
Maidenhead - Bourne End

I think you will find that both the above two routes and three routes below will all continue to have class 165/166 trains on these routes even after electrification:

Bedwyn-Newbury/Reading (1tph)
Reading-Gatwick (2tph)
Greenford Branch shuttle

The only route that I can see that may not have class 165/166 trains in the future is the Reading - Gatwick service, if from Wokingham to Guildford section can be electrified.

 

[al.currie93]

The only route that I can see that may not have class 165/166 trains in the future is the Reading - Gatwick service, if from Wokingham to Guildford section can be electrified.

And you've got from Guildford to Reigate, which always meets heavy opposition.

Personally I'd like to see 73s, Mk 2s and DBSOs on this line (make use of the electrified sections and not require full electrification, nice easy work for the locomotives, and be a nice passenger environment as in my experience most people travel fairly long distances on this line), which would free up two or three Turbos for elsewhere while making use of existing and available resources, but I'll have to become transport minister for that to happen!

Other than that, the Turbos do the job perfectly well, despite not making use of electrified sections. 150s would be okay with me, though 158s are probably better suited for the route!

 

[GatwickDepress]

FGW earn a nice bit of first class revenue from the Gatwick Airport - Reading service, which makes me think Turbos will be kept on.

 

[swt_passenger]

There are two routes that have been forgotten in the first post of this thread which is as follows:

Twyford - Henley - On - Thames
Maidenhead - Bourne End

I think you will find that both the above two routes [...] will all continue to have class 165/166 trains on these routes even after electrification...

So why are the two branches being electrified then? I already mentioned Henley and Marlow, you get there via Bourne End.

It is inconceivable that following electrification to Windsor, Henley, Marlow that they'd carry on using DMUs. How would they possibly gain a positive BCR without using electric traction?

 

[RobShipway]

So why are the two branches being electrified then? I already mentioned Henley and Marlow, you get there via Bourne End.

It is inconceivable that following electrification of Windsor, Henley, Marlow that they'd carry on using DMUs.

Where has it been said that Windsor, Henley and Marlow will be electrified?

Any details that I have seen suggest that the only branch area off the GWML that will be electrified is Reading to Basingstoke.

 

[swt_passenger]

Where has it been said that Windsor, Henley and Marlow will be electrified?

Any details that I have seen suggest that the only branch area off the GWML that will be electrified is Reading to Basingstoke.

DfT announced it in the CP5 HLOS back in 2012:

40.Thames Valley: The Secretary of State wishes to extend the scope of electrification of the Great Western Main Line to include:
 Acton - Willesden
 Slough – Windsor
 Maidenhead – Marlow
 Twyford – Henley-on-Thames

and those branches have been in the CP5 enhancement plans since first issued last April. The Basingstoke - Reading 'branch' was added to the relevant project in the Sept 2013update of the enhancement milestones.

 

[The Ham]

Given that there are plans for 3tph between Reading and Redhill it might be possible to provide more seats per hour with trains with a fewer total number of seats. However given the number of people who can travel on the trains (bearing in mind the existing trains are 3+2 seating which many other busy services do not have and are unliked by many) it is unlikely that it would go down well for the number of seats per train were to drop by very much.

 

[JonathanH]

Using 90 mph DMUs on this route might be better for the congested stretch between Redhill and Gatwick though.

How much of the slow line from Redhill to Gatwick is good for 90mph? The slow line is hardly likely to be congested from December when the residual service will be 5tph. The fast line is obviously a different matter but FGW don't use that. The congestion is at Redhill but even that is just a result of timetables being constructed around other pinch points.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

a. The Cotswold Line, where they may well still be a requirement for a limited number of dmu workings after bi-mode IEPs arrive

You can uprate that "may" to "will" - we had confirmation from FGW tonight that there will be a significant number of non-IEP services on the Cotswold Line.

 

[Chris125]

Where has it been said that Windsor, Henley and Marlow will be electrified?

Check out page 96 of the CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan

 

[JamesRowden]

You can make all the assumptions you like about East-West, the fact remains that nothing is fixed as to scheduling and if it is deemed politically expedient to get trains running as soon as possible, rather than wait for wiring, then it will need something like Turbos.

The exact time that East West Rail electrification is completed is not required since the Turbos can be cascaded as a gradual process. I haven't seen anyone yet prove that there won't be a shortage of 90mph+ DMUs in the UK in early 2020s. If there is such a shortage then I think that the Great Western franchise could save some money (and help the rest of the country) by using cheaper 75mph units on services which do not significantly disbenefit by using such stock.

The Turbos presently primarily operate services along the GWML where the difference between using 90mph and 75mph DMUs is significant. It also makes sense presently to exploit the benefits of using a uniform fleet for all the DMU routes in the Thames Valley (except for the use of a couple 150s). I can see that once certain planned electrification is complete Thames Valley DMUs will operate services which are almost completely <=75mph and a few local stopping services. This should therefore significantly reduce the business case for using 90mph+ stock if there is a shortage of such stock (which I don't have proof of and I would welcome somebody to prove that there will not be).

 

[Mikey C]

Aren't the FGW 165s fairly similar to the Chiltern ones except for the top speed. Could they be regeared down to 75mph for areas which don't require the 90mph speed but better acceleration?

 

[jimm]

The exact time that East West Rail electrification is completed is not required since the Turbos can be cascaded as a gradual process. I haven't seen anyone yet prove that there won't be a shortage of 90mph+ DMUs in the UK in early 2020s. If there is such a shortage then I think that the Great Western franchise could save some money (and help the rest of the country) by using cheaper 75mph units on services which do not significantly disbenefit by using such stock.

The Turbos presently primarily operate services along the GWML where the difference between using 90mph and 75mph DMUs is significant. It also makes sense presently to exploit the benefits of using a uniform fleet for all the DMU routes in the Thames Valley (except for the use of a couple 150s). I can see that once certain planned electrification is complete Thames Valley DMUs will operate services which are almost completely <=75mph and a few local stopping services. This should therefore significantly reduce the business case for using 90mph+ stock if there is a shortage of such stock (which I don't have proof of and I would welcome somebody to prove that there will not be).

Sorry, but this is a classic case of a solution in search of a problem.

The 165/1s and 166s are a known quantity in the Thames Valley and Cotswold area and there are only a limited number of places they will be able to go in future, even with gauge clearance, and how much of the time in the West Country will they be actually running at 90mph? They certainly won't on Bristol area stoppers, where their carrying capacity and acceleration is what's needed.

And I would suggest that acceleration is quite important on the rather busier routes - yes, even the limited number that will need dmus post-2017 - in their current sphere of operations, where there are a lot more trains about - and where the idea of introducing 75mph, slower-accelerating sets is hardly likely to find favour with Network Rail or other TOCs and freight operators, which you seem to have failed to take into account. It's all very well if everything runs perfectly to time, but when things go wrong, the ability to accelerate quickly and run at 90mph is handy to have - never mind that on the Cotswold Line it is essential to clear the single-line sections as fast as possible.

 

[JamesRowden]

Sorry, but this is a classic case of a solution in search of a problem.

It's actually case of (in sequence):

• Reading the posts of jcollins etc showing routes in the North which have slower stock than would seem appropriate.
• Previous threads including the argument for Turbos on the Thames braches being that it is to create a uniform fleet which cuts costs
• Realising that in a few years time the vast majority of the services in the Thames Valley that can make use of speeds above 75mph will be electrified.
• Seeing a thread title about 156s being cascaded to TPE
• Demand on the railways is increasing, as showed by the suggestion (in the Cross Boundary Route Study draft) for an hourly Bristol-Southampton-Brighton fast service which appears to show more use for 90mph DMUs by Great Western around Bristol.

If you put these points in sequence you will see that the primary purpose of this thread is to solve a problem. I do not know if this problem is being solved by other means. It is just an idea formed to solve a problem. No one has yet showed a better complete strategy to solve the problem even though I have welcomed people to do so many times in the thread. I am not saying that the Turbos should all be cascaded from the Thames Valley. It is just fun to think up and discuss new solutions to problems that one does not know of a solution.

 

[67018]

Aren't the FGW 165s fairly similar to the Chiltern ones except for the top speed. Could they be regeared down to 75mph for areas which don't require the 90mph speed but better acceleration?

Or, Chiltern might prefer to take the 90mph ones and pass their existing fleet on - given how much of a pain in the backside it now is having 75mph trains pottering along what's now a 100mph main line.