Portsmouth Harbour-Cardiff Central GWR

[HamworthyGoods]

There are 68 perfectly usable trimode cars sat in Long Marston which would actually save a lot of gas oil by running AC Cardiff-Filton and DC Redbridge-Pompey. I believe the other 8 cars are receiving attention in Scotland - possibly because Scotland sometimes have a more enlightened to trains than the English do. Tho problem is the DfT prefer the operators to burn diesel because it gets them off the hook for not electrifying the network.

They are not perfectly usable. The cab environment left a lot to be desired for the staff that have to spend vast amounts of time sat in them each day.

Just because they were acceptable when introduced in the late 1980s doesn’t mean they are acceptable now - I have sympathy with ASLEF over this. I wouldn’t appreciate my desk chair being replaced with a basic stool for example.

That’s aside from the reliability issues that saw them being the first legacy fleet withdrawn by TfW.

 

[Anonymous10]

They are not perfectly usable. The cab environment left a lot to be desired for the staff that have to spend vast amounts of time sat in them each day.

Just because they were acceptable when introduced in the late 1980s doesn’t mean they are acceptable now - I have sympathy with ASLEF over this. I wouldn’t appreciate my desk chair being replaced with a basic stool for example.

That’s aside from the reliability issues that saw them being the first legacy fleet withdrawn by TfW.

Well second as tfw withdrew the pacers first.

 

[Wyrleybart]

They are not perfectly usable. The cab environment left a lot to be desired for the staff that have to spend vast amounts of time sat in them each day.

Just because they were acceptable when introduced in the late 1980s doesn’t mean they are acceptable now - I have sympathy with ASLEF over this. I wouldn’t appreciate my desk chair being replaced with a basic stool for example.

That’s aside from the reliability issues that saw them being the first legacy fleet withdrawn by TfW.

We must disagree. The Northern 769s are still in traffic - without cab cooling, and IIRC the TfW 769s were a stopgap until the 231s were commissioned.

It is my belief that there was a huge and widening gulf between what Aslef wanted and what DfT would offer regarding 769/9s so they decided to cut their losses and never commission them, but AIUI two of the nineteen units are being prepared for use elswhere

 

[Clarence Yard]

The decision to hand the GW units back had nothing to with ASLEF - it was done by the DfT to save leasing costs as part of the exercise to reduce total DfT rail budget expenditure.

Every fleet that had its lease end date coming up was examined by the DfT to see if they could do without.

 

[BrianW]

The decision to hand the GW units back had nothing to with ASLEF - it was done by the DfT to save leasing costs as part of the exercise to reduce total DfT rail budget expenditure.

Every fleet that had its lease end date coming up was examined by the DfT to see if they could do without.

And, as 'custodians of the public purse' what's so wrong about that?

 

[The exile]

And, as 'custodians of the public purse' what's so wrong about that?

Nothing - if in the real world they can genuinely be done without. The level and persistency of short-forming suggests, however, that the theoretical number of carriages / trains required to operate the timetable on a reliable long-term basis is rather more that theorists would like to believe.

 

[Wyrleybart]

The decision to hand the GW units back had nothing to with ASLEF - it was done by the DfT to save leasing costs as part of the exercise to reduce total DfT rail budget expenditure.

Every fleet that had its lease end date coming up was examined by the DfT to see if they could do without.

That is fine then "CY", Not as if it is the first time a fleet of trains for a specific service never made it into traffic

 

[DelW]

The decision to hand the GW units back had nothing to with ASLEF - it was done by the DfT to save leasing costs as part of the exercise to reduce total DfT rail budget expenditure.

Every fleet that had its lease end date coming up was examined by the DfT to see if they could do without.

The downside, though, is that "do[ing] without" has meant significant overcrowding on other GWR services (including reportedly the line that is the subject of this thread). It has also led to stock reshuffles that resulted in unsuitable stock on some routes. None of that will matter to the DfT (or Treasury) mandarins though.

 

[Carlisle]

None of that will matter to the DfT (or Treasury) mandarins though.

It probably did matter to an extent given the alternatives probability involved cutting services, staff numbers or both.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

It probably did matter to an extent given the alternatives probability involved cutting services, staff numbers or both.

Indeed the option chosen was a least worst, do nothing was not an acceptable option to the treasury.

 

[Dan G]

The decision to hand the GW units back had nothing to with ASLEF - it was done by the DfT to save leasing costs as part of the exercise to reduce total DfT rail budget expenditure.

Every fleet that had its lease end date coming up was examined by the DfT to see if they could do without.

Is it not the case that ASLEF were blocking the introduction of the 769s? If they had been in traffic, would have been a lot harder/impossible for DfT to cut them.

 

[FGW_DID]

Is it not the case that ASLEF were blocking the introduction of the 769s? If they had been in traffic, would have been a lot harder/impossible for DfT to cut them.

An agreement had been reached with ASLEF about their introduction and driver training was due to start, but the start of the current IA put paid to that.
I’m sure DfT would have done what they wanted regardless but having no drivers trained for the fleet probably made their decision a whole lot easier.

 

[Snow1964]

Is it not the case that ASLEF were blocking the introduction of the 769s? If they had been in traffic, would have been a lot harder/impossible for DfT to cut them.

Of course, had ASLEF allowed the 769s to be in service, and number of turbos moved west (where they were, and still are desperately needed), then very unlikely the DfT cuts would have happened because it would have left Thames valley and north Downs line with big gaps.

So in a way ASLEF made it easier to cut the fleet, and cut number of drivers needed.

Ultimately with population growth in the Bristol, Wessex and Exeter areas, all that has happened is lots of trains get overcrowded because unable to lengthen them, and often shorten them.

Eg trains on Cardiff-Portsmouth route today
1F03 2car
1F05 3car
1F07 5car
1F09 2car
1F11 3car

Remember just few months ago, reduction from 5car was supposed to be to 4car, not a mix of 2car trains due to lack of stock

 

[800301]

Just out of curiosity what are the longest trains that can be used without SDO on the route?

 

[158760]

Just out of curiosity what are the longest trains that can be used without SDO on the route?

Iirc 5, any 6 car movements are most likely broken turbos.

 

[Snow1964]

Just out of curiosity what are the longest trains that can be used without SDO on the route?

There are token number of platforms that can only take 5.5 cars of 23m. But many can take up 10car (23m) or even 12car (20m)

From memory about 10 platforms need extensions of 10-20m to operate unrestricted 6car operation.

 

[800301]

Cheers so 5 car turbos or 158’s would be ideal for this route but obviously with lack of stock available it’s not the case

 

[Western Sunset]

Just because they were acceptable when introduced in the late 1980s doesn’t mean they are acceptable now - I have sympathy with ASLEF over this. I wouldn’t appreciate my desk chair being replaced with a basic stool for example.

At least drivers are guaranteed a seat. Unlike many paying passengers on the route...

 

[Parallel]

Just out of curiosity what are the longest trains that can be used without SDO on the route?

I believe the platforms that are too short for anything beyond 5 are Filton Abbey Wood, Bradford-on-Avon, Trowbridge (the Northbound platform, the Southbound one can fit 6), Warminster and possibly Romsey.

Some of these trains also stop at Patchway, Oldfield Park and Freshford too which are all too short for 6, possibly Severn Tunnel Junction too but I’m not sure on that one.

 

[Towers]

Of course, had ASLEF allowed the 769s to be in service, and number of turbos moved west (where they were, and still are desperately needed), then very unlikely the DfT cuts would have happened because it would have left Thames valley and north Downs line with big gaps.

So in a way ASLEF made it easier to cut the fleet, and cut number of drivers needed.

Ultimately with population growth in the Bristol, Wessex and Exeter areas, all that has happened is lots of trains get overcrowded because unable to lengthen them, and often shorten them.

Eg trains on Cardiff-Portsmouth route today
1F03 2car
1F05 3car
1F07 5car
1F09 2car
1F11 3car

Remember just few months ago, reduction from 5car was supposed to be to 4car, not a mix of 2car trains due to lack of stock

The cuts would still have happened, as they have at every affected TOC, it just would have had to have come from somewhere else.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Indeed they would. All the HST sets would have gone and the DfT would have had a look at reducing the 150 or 158 fleet.

The Portsmouth-Cardiff provision would have been exactly the same as now.

Bit of a plea here. The morning run out of the Bristol based west DMU fleet is very dependant on what goes to the outstations the previous evening - the Portsmouth-Cardiff is a good case in point. So, in times of disruption, you can have reasonably good availability (such as this morning) but the fleet is in the wrong place for start of service and then Control is chasing it’s tail trying to get things back to normal.

 

[Sun Chariot]

All was not well with the 09:08 Portsmouth to Bath, today. Turbos 166215 + 221. Their first mile lost 10 minutes off booked time. As they came off Cosham Junction,, the high revs suggested something awry - and their subsequent walking pace up to a halt, right under my camera position, was ominous.

They stopped 300 metres short of Cosham Station and, from the RTT data - attached - their half hour halt was due to brake problems; necessitating a termination at Southampton.

 

[Snow1964]

All was not well with the 09:08 Portsmouth to Bath, today. Turbos 166215 + 221. Their first mile lost 10 minutes off booked time. As they came off Cosham Junction,, the high revs suggested something awry - and their subsequent walking pace up to a halt, right under my camera position, was ominous.

They stopped 300 metres short of Cosham Station and, from the RTT data - attached - their half hour halt was due to brake problems; necessitating a termination at Southampton.

166205 got cancelled Bristol-Frome on a Gloucester-Frome today due to problems with brakes

Something clearly going wrong with 166 brake maintenance, if three 166s have died mid route in 2 days

Realtime Trains | 2C17 1410 Gloucester to Bristol Temple Meads | 23/10/2023

Real-time train running information for 2C17 1410 departure from Gloucester to Bristol Temple Meads on 23/10/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[olivfry]

I believe the platforms that are too short for anything beyond 5 are Filton Abbey Wood, Bradford-on-Avon, Trowbridge (the Northbound platform, the Southbound one can fit 6), Warminster and possibly Romsey.

Some of these trains also stop at Patchway, Oldfield Park and Freshford too which are all too short for 6, possibly Severn Tunnel Junction too but I’m not sure on that one.

What about Keynsham? 800/801/802s stop there so I’m thinking 9 or 10 coaches can fit.

 

[Western Sunset]

Patchway is largely (totally?) served by Cardiff - Taunton/Plymouth/Penzance services; currently IETs and the few remaining HSTs. Sometimes they put a 9-car IET on the service, so presumably selective door opening is the order of the day. So do 158s/165s and 166s currently on Cardiff - Portsmouth not have SDO?

 

[thelongestroad]

The 158s and 165/166s don't have SDO. The 165/166s have or were being fitted with it but I'm not sure on the status of it.

 

[deltic08]

I believe the platforms that are too short for anything beyond 5 are Filton Abbey Wood, Bradford-on-Avon, Trowbridge (the Northbound platform, the Southbound one can fit 6), Warminster and possibly Romsey.

Some of these trains also stop at Patchway, Oldfield Park and Freshford too which are all too short for 6, possibly Severn Tunnel Junction too but I’m not sure on that one.

In the days of steam, London and Portsmouth trains stopping at STJ regularly were 10/11 mark !s long. I am sure the platforms were unaltered in the track alteration 20? years ago.
Plenty of room when 8+2 HST sets used to stop.

 

[Snow1964]

Looks like many trains reduced to 3car today, and even just a 2car 165 on 1F11 Cardiff-Portsmouth

I know GWR is short of stock but the reductions are ludicrous now.

 

[FGW_DID]

Looks like many trains reduced to 3car today, and even just a 2car 165 on 1F11 Cardiff-Portsmouth

I know GWR is short of stock but the reductions are ludicrous now.

You think GWR are short of stock, just because you keep repeating it time & time again doesn't make it true!
West today is 57 for 57 units! Yes there are shortformed services but that's down to stock misbalance which also means there are longformed services out there. Funny how a 3 vice 2 never seems to get mentioned!

 

[Snow1964]

You think GWR are short of stock, just because you keep repeating it time & time again doesn't make it true!
West today is 57 for 57 units! Yes there are shortformed services but that's down to stock misbalance which also means there are longformed services out there. Funny how a 3 vice 2 never seems to get mentioned!

I get your logic, but 57 trains are only useful if they are in correct place, adding extra carriages to trains where they are not scheduled and not required doesn't make it ok. That's insulting to schedulers to say you got it wrong so adding to train length, simply because operators can't deliver what is scheduled.

It's not a total quantity thing, it's about having sufficient of the right type of unit in the right place. Misbalance is polite way of saying got insufficient where needed. Pretending that because there are some elsewhere then job is satisfactory, it's very low quality standard. You wouldn't say wasn't a rail adhesion train, buts it's ok sent two along another line, so why do you think its acceptable that a different standard should apply.