My idea for FGW on the Arun Valley?

[Goatboy]

So would 153s be aloud to Pompey if there was Eastleigh diverts?

If the windows were open, one would assume this might be the case, yes.

 

[BestWestern]

I had a funny feeling it was also something to do with some curves but then thought that other 23m carriage stock can go round them. Guess this is one of the "quirks" of the 153s.

There is, I believe, a gauging issue regarding the 'number 2' ('new'/small cab) end crew steps on the bogie, which are supposedly unable to clear certain platform edges. The Class 155 sets, as the 153's once were, used to operate over the route prior to the 158 fleet being introduced, the problems are specific to 153's.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I...Others have already pointed out the rolling stock issues - would anyone really want to travel for 3 hours plus on a draughty 3+2 Class 150, or be crammed into a single 153 when for operational reasons these have to deputise for a 158?

FGW already would rather they didn't have to serve Brighton, as it is a nightmare to roster staff and allocate stock for. They have to because it is a franchise commitment.

The punters on the current Brighton - Malvern run sometimes get a draughty 3+2 150 for up to 5 hours! The pair of 'hybrid' three car sets (150 921 & 927) are the usual 'Plan B', presumably for reasons of capacity rather than comfort - a two car 150/2 is considerably nicer to travel any distance in.

There is a view that FGW actually do rather well out of the Brighton runs, in terms of revenue share. How true that is I don't know, but they are currently fully expected to remain in the next franchise (if there ever is one!). Roster-wise there is a morning and afternoon turn using Fratton-based crews, who took the work entirely rather than it being shared with Westbury as it once was. A Westbury Driver does bring the afternoon 1O98 working down south as far as Fareham though I believe, albeit with a Fratton man on the back. The main issue tends to be reliability, there are often delays to the service in the Worcester-Cheltenham-Gloucester area, which means the guys who pick it up later on are often left with a delayed train.

 

[Goatboy]

Every station along the proposed route, except Romsey and the tiny Dilton Marsh, already has a direct service to London. Others have already pointed out the rolling stock issues - would anyone really want to travel for 3 hours plus on a draughty 3+2 Class 150, or be crammed into a single 153 when for operational reasons these have to deputise for a 158?

Missed this bit earlier. FGW already use draughty 3+2 150's on many 5-6 hour journeys, a 153 would be an upgrade in comparison!

 

[JamesRowden]

How about extending the Cardiff - Bristol - Southampton - Horsham - Gatwick idea by reversing it at Gatwick to go to Ashford via the East Coastway (via Eastbourne).

At the momment there is a problem that the 2-car 171s that currently run the Brighton - Ashford service are not long enough for peak demand.

A North Downs service from Reading could join at Gatwick to continue to Ashford. I think that this would be more beneficial than a Reading to Brighton service due to the high frequency of services between Gatwick and Brighton that people can connect with.

Services to be replaced in my idea
Reading - Gatwick
Brighton - Ashford (fast)
London Victoria - Ore

New services of my idea
(Bristol/Cardiff-Southampton-Gatwick)/(Reading-Gatwick) - Eastbourne - Ashford
Brighton - Ore (fast)

East Coasway services untouched by my idea (excluding Seaford Branch)

Brighton - Ore (stopping)
London Victoria - Eastbourne

With my idea it would make sense for the Portsmouth/Brighton - Bristol/Cardiff and North Downs servcies to be taken over by Southern.

My service idea should allow good connections from it to Brighton.

Although Bexhill would be losing direct services to London there would effectively still be at least 4 tph available through connections at Gatwick, Brighton, Lewes, Hampden Park, St Leonards Warrior Square and Ashford.

 

[Goatboy]

Just where are FGW going to get the stock to run even longer services? They've not got enough as it is which is why they run 150/1's on long journeys.

 

[JamesRowden]

Just where are FGW going to get the stock to run even longer services? They've not got enough as it is which is why they run 150/1's on long journeys.

GWML Electrification

 

[bnm]

GWML Electrification

There's already a bun-fight between north and south over the 165/166s. I think it's a bit premature for all these pie-in-the-sky new service ideas to be given any consideration.

The first call on a DMU stock cascade has to, in my opinion, go toward replacing Class 14xs before even considering new services. Then strengthening of existing services should be considered - that is either by increases in train length or timetable frequency. Then the Greater Western frasnchisee should be looking at new services in their own territory.

Finally, if after all that there is a stock surplus, then maybe (and it's a small maybe), if the business and operational cases stack up, the Greater Western franchisee can look at revenue abstracting services outside their area. But most definitely not at the expense of existing services in those areas.

 

[JamesRowden]

There's already a bun-fight between north and south over the 165/166s. I think it's a bit premature for all these pie-in-the-sky new service ideas to be given any consideration.

The first call on a DMU stock cascade has to, in my opinion, go toward replacing Class 14xs before even considering new services. Then strengthening of existing services should be considered - that is either by increases in train length or timetable frequency. Then FGW should be looking at new services in their own territory.

Finally, if after all that there is a stock surplus, then maybe (and it's a small maybe), if the business and operational cases stack up, FGW can look at revenue abstracting services outside their area. But most definitely not at the expense of existing services in those areas.

I think that your idea of scrapping 14xs when there are not enough DMUs to meet demand is 'premature'. Surely the first priority should be that there is enough active stock to meet demand. I think it would be better to first put the displaced quality stock on the lines that need extra quality stock (e.g. top speed) and then start scrapping old units once the overall network no longer has a shortage of such stock.

I was suggesting running a Bristol-Southampton-Gatwick-Eastbourne-Ashford service as a joke (seemed better than those suggestions of sending it to Victoria)

 

[bnm]

Missed this bit earlier. FGW already use draughty 3+2 150's on many 5-6 hour journeys, a 153 would be an upgrade in comparison!

My point here was in comparison to the existing services to London from stations along the OPs proposed route. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think that your idea of scrapping 14xs when there are not enough DMUs to meet demand is 'premature'.

I didn't say 'scrapping' I said 'replacing'. When the GWML electrification sees 165/166s surplus to requirements (still dependent on another cascade) these should go to replace longer distance 15x services. The surplus 15xs can then replace the 14xs. Only then should the 14xs be retired. That's a stock cascade as I said. I'm not advocating a premature scrapping of 14xs before replacement stock is available. If, after this cascade there is then a surplus of DMUs, they should be used to strengthen existing services and provide for new 'in area' services, before even considering having them trundle miles out of their franchise area to provide the services suggested in this thread. If, and only if, there is demand, a business case, and it can be achieved operationally and robustly. Not just because one or two enthusiasts would like to bash them, or one or two passengers would like to travel all that way without changing.

I was suggesting running a Bristol-Southampton-Gatwick-Eastbourne-Ashford service as a joke (seemed better than those suggestions of sending it to Victoria)

You say it was joke but then say it's a better idea than the OPs? It would have been helpful to have used a smiley or two, as it doesn't read like a joke. :roll: