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

[Wolfie]

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.

I'm inclined to agree... except that Chiltern spent a shedload of money refurbishing their 165s (including fitting aircon) whereas FGW spent the square root of not a lot on theirs... I suspect Chiltern might well prefer to regear their 165s to 90mph capability if their extant top speed really is a problem...

Could the gearboxes etc be switched over?

 

[The Ham]

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.

However having said that the number of DMU's in the Thames Valley is likely to be fairly low, so any improvements achieved by moving them elsewhere is likely to be fairly limited (more so if they leave the GW area) with potentially a fairly high price tag (given the potential need for clearance works) if they go somewhere other than routes that already see 16x's.

Also, given how much many on here spit feathers about 3+2 seating, the arrival of some of the 16x's may not go down that well.

Given the suggestion that there maybe a Oxford - Gatwick service at some point, there is likely to be a need for 90mph DMU's to stay to enable that to work between 125mph stock, or alternatively the electrification of the North Down's Line will be pushed through. If it is the latter (possible CP6 scheme) then I hope that they also consider extending platform lengths and/or providing ASDO equipment to enable longer trains to use the line.

 

[JamesRowden]

However having said that the number of DMU's in the Thames Valley is likely to be fairly low, so any improvements achieved by moving them elsewhere is likely to be fairly limited (more so if they leave the GW area) with potentially a fairly high price tag (given the potential need for clearance works) if they go somewhere other than routes that already see 16x's.

Will there be enough 16X's heading to Bristol already, including those needed to boost existing services and run new servcies, that all of the 158s can be cascaded to other franchises?

Also, given how much many on here spit feathers about 3+2 seating, the arrival of some of the 16x's may not go down that well.

They are far better than the 375/377 3+2 seating.

Given the suggestion that there maybe a Oxford - Gatwick service at some point, there is likely to be a need for 90mph DMU's to stay to enable that to work between 125mph stock, or alternatively the electrification of the North Down's Line will be pushed through. If it is the latter (possible CP6 scheme) then I hope that they also consider extending platform lengths and/or providing ASDO equipment to enable longer trains to use the line.

The Route Study draft suggests a 2tph East West Rail service between Oxford and Heathrow. If Gatwick gets expanded, the Route Study draft stated that 4tph Reading-Gatwick would be preferable, if so the case for electrifing the route should be significant and should be known in advance to any cascade deals.

 

[67018]

I'm inclined to agree... except that Chiltern spent a shedload of money refurbishing their 165s (including fitting aircon) whereas FGW spent the square root of not a lot on theirs... I suspect Chiltern might well prefer to regear their 165s to 90mph capability if their extant top speed really is a problem...

Could the gearboxes etc be switched over?

Oops - good point - forgot about that!

Am now having visions of a furtive Chiltern employee sneaking into the FGW depot to nick a few gearboxes

 

[jimm]

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.

I'll stick to one point. There is an established dmu fleet in the area, it is a known quantity to the depot and operating staff and it has the performance to mix it with other services locally, so common sense says that this type should form whatever residual dmu fleet is needed post-2017. Non-existent problem solved.

I'm inclined to agree... except that Chiltern spent a shedload of money refurbishing their 165s (including fitting aircon) whereas FGW spent the square root of not a lot on theirs... I suspect Chiltern might well prefer to regear their 165s to 90mph capability if their extant top speed really is a problem...

Could the gearboxes etc be switched over?

Bit more to it than just gearboxes. The suspension is also different on 165/1s and 166s, with the fitting of bogie yaw dampers due to the higher top speed.

 

[Clarence Yard]

It's the existing Turbo types for the residual services and we should find out officially what the full FGW unit cascade is when the GW Direct Award finally gets announced. The very earliest that can be is in March.

With all the change on GW taking place in the next few years, it will bad enough without introducing any more new diesel types into the London area so the word is the Turbos will be staying on the residuals. They do the job well and are a known quantity to both operators and maintenance staff.

The DfT are desperate for displaced 15x from Bristol to go north so it will be interesting to see what gets released when the Turbos go west.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Check out page 96 of the CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan

While the TV branches (except Greenford) are indeed being electrified, there is no completion date yet.
There may be a significant gap between electric working to Oxford/Newbury and the TV branches going live.
So the Turbo cascade may come in tranches (and lead to retaining some 16x operation to Paddington in the peak for some time).

 

[edwin_m]

You could maybe base the Turbos in the Bristol area with some stabling further east, being worked to and from depot by extending some Westbury commuter services to Bristol.

 

[The Ham]

The Route Study draft suggests a 2tph East West Rail service between Oxford and Heathrow. If Gatwick gets expanded, the Route Study draft stated that 4tph Reading-Gatwick would be preferable, if so the case for electrifing the route should be significant and should be known in advance to any cascade deals.

The point was that the 16x's, if the do stay on the North Downs line, would likely be needed with their 90mph speeds for longer distance services and even if they did stay it would likely be for a relatively short time (probably early CP6) so the effort of replacing them with something else for them to then be replaced with something else again shortly after would be a bit silly.

I wouldn't be surprised if XC were to (once the line was electrified and they had a decent amount of their core electrified so they could run EMU's) try and get one of those 4tph paths between Reading and Gatwick. There are a lot of people who would benefit from a service with fairly limited stops (i.e. only calling at those stations on the route which could cope with trains with more than 5 coaches). Not least those who are travelling short distances and have to share the same trains as people travelling longer distances and the problems that causes (i.e. large cases blocking access and seats).

Even if such a service was only one of three (an hour) it would make a big difference to the capacity of the other two services.