Portsmouth Harbour-Cardiff Central GWR

[AdamWW]

Yes, the inner and outer overhang has the potential to limit their usage over Cosham Junction to Portcreek Junction. It's a tight radius and it's access to Portsmouth (Portsea Island) from the west.
Here's Flying Scotsman negotiating it.

I believe that the IET coaches have the same bogie spacing as the Mk3's, and the body width does reduce where they overhang the bogies. I though the idea was that they would be OK wherever Mk3's are cleared.

But I don't think Mk 3's are allowed to Portsmouth.

So I don't think it's just length that matters.

 

[gobbybobby]

Occasionally do southampton to bristol and back mostly weekends but Occasionally weekdays for work. Delay repaid most of my recent trips.

I have had to stand from Southampton central all the way to Temple Meads when its been a 2 car, that sucked.

Something needs to be done people will just stop using the trains.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I believe that the IET coaches have the same bogie spacing as the Mk3's, and the body width does reduce where they overhang the bogies. I though the idea was that they would be OK wherever Mk3's are cleared.

But I don't think Mk 3's are allowed to Portsmouth.

So I don't think it's just length that matters.

Good point.

158 / 165 / 166 stock use the junctions at present. They are c.23m long - although I'm unclear how their profile or kinetic envelope compares to a Mk3.

 

[AdamWW]

158 / 165 / 166 stock use the junctions at present. They are 23m long l, although I'm unclear how their profile / kinetic envelope compares to a Mk3.

They do indeed, though I think 165s and 166s are limited to only platform 1 at Portsmouth Harbour unlike 158s.

There is clearly a different body profile.

(I think Mk 3's also have to have specific modifications to be allowed on 3rd rail lines).

 

[HamworthyGoods]

They do indeed, though I think 165s and 166s are limited to only platform 1 at Portsmouth Harbour unlike 158s.

Platform 1 and I believe platform 4.

 

[occone]

On a recent trip I found the train full and standing and yet the few bays of 6 seats I could see (it was a 3+2 configuration) there were one or two free seats at each.

Maybe when this was London commuter stock people would have pushed in and got comfy with strangers, but in the more gentle parts of the country I'm not sure it works efficiently at all.

The Stadler FLIRTs (e.g. 755 with the power pack in the middle of the train) would work well on this route

 

[AdamWW]

On a recent trip I found the train full and standing and yet the few bays of 6 seats I could see (it was a 3+2 configuration) there were one or two free seats at each.

Yes. I realise that many people are doing shorter journeys but 3+2 seating to travel the distance from Cardiff to Portsmouth seems somewhat unusual.

 

[Snow1964]

Good point.

158 / 165 / 166 stock use the junctions at present. They are c.23m long - although I'm unclear how their profile or kinetic envelope compares to a Mk3.

And 444s use the line too

When SWT had the 442s they went to Portsmouth, and they were virtually standard mk3 size

 

[Sun Chariot]

And 444s use the line too

When SWT had the 442s they went to Portsmouth, and they were virtually standard mk3 size

The eastern chord - Farlington Junction to Portcreek Junction (for Waterloo-Pompey direct line traffic) - definitely has 444s and had 442s. The eastern chord is a far straighter alignment.
I've yet to see a 444 on the western chord (Fareham-Cosham-Portsmouth)

 

[HamworthyGoods]

The eastern chord - Farlington Junction to Portcreek Junction (for Waterloo-Pompey direct line traffic) - definitely has 444s and had 442s. The eastern chord is a far straighter alignment.
I've yet to see a 444 on the western chord (Fareham-Cosham-Portsmouth)

444s regularly work on the Western Cord on 1Txx Portsmouth - Fareham - Waterloo trains.

 

[Snow1964]

They do indeed, though I think 165s and 166s are limited to only platform 1 at Portsmouth Harbour unlike 158s.

There is clearly a different body profile.

(I think Mk 3's also have to have specific modifications to be allowed on 3rd rail lines).

I think you are remembering that ones with long swing link bogies can't operate on third rail equipped lines.

I am sure the line via Fareham was cleared for 442s as a diversionary route around 30 years ago, and some clearance adjustments had been made around five years earlier (about 1987) when it was cleared for the 155s

 

[AdamWW]

I think you are remembering that ones with long swing link bogies can't operate on third rail equipped lines.

I am indeed, though I thought that was the default arrangement and short swing link was a specific modification to permit operation over the third rail.

I am sure the line via Fareham was cleared for 442s as a diversionary route around 30 years ago, and some clearance adjustments had been made around five years earlier (about 1987) when it was cleared for the 155s

I've read (which doesn't of course mean it's true) that HSTs aren't cleared for somewhere on the Cardiff to Portsmouth Harbour route.

Hard to see though why they couldn't be used where a 442 can.

 

[43096]

I've read (which doesn't of course mean it's true) that HSTs aren't cleared for somewhere on the Cardiff to Portsmouth Harbour route.

Hard to see though why they couldn't be used where a 442 can.

There is an issue in various places on the Southern with power car bogie step clearances.

 

[route101]

I believe that the IET coaches have the same bogie spacing as the Mk3's, and the body width does reduce where they overhang the bogies. I though the idea was that they would be OK wherever Mk3's are cleared.

But I don't think Mk 3's are allowed to Portsmouth.

So I don't think it's just length that matters.

Did XC operate HSTs to Portsmouth?

 

[JonathanH]

Did XC operate HSTs to Portsmouth?

Via Guildford and Haslemere, yes.

There is a picture here.

P8270029 - 43097 Portsmouth Harbour after arrival with 1O71 0736 Blackpool North to Portsmouth Harbour 27/08/99

Explore VV773's 3872 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

There is, however, a restriction on their use via Netley.

 

[Geoff DC]

I used to use this service weekly from Bristol to Southampton & return in the mid 80s.
Whilst it was a Plodder it was reliable and usually within ten or so minutes of the timetable.

The 5-car Mark1 coaches were comfortable and many were re-furbished, they did sew the armrests in the closed position - but regular users knew to take something sharp and within a few days, all the armrests were fully functional again.

Slow but comfy - I dread to think what the journey is like now

 

[AdamWW]

I used to use this service weekly from Bristol to Southampton & return in the mid 80s.
Whilst it was a Plodder it was reliable and usually within ten or so minutes of the timetable.

The 5-car Mark1 coaches were comfortable and many were re-furbished, they did sew the armrests in the closed position - but regular users knew to take something sharp and within a few days, all the armrests were fully functional again.

Slow but comfy - I dread to think what the journey is like now

If you can get one of the seats in the ex-1st class bits, and the air conditioning there isn't making horrendous noises, then it can be a pleasant journey - good scenery for a fair part of the route and nice big windows to see it out of.

 

[Clarence Yard]

I've read (which doesn't of course mean it's true) that HSTs aren't cleared for somewhere on the Cardiff to Portsmouth Harbour route.

Hard to see though why they couldn't be used where a 442 can.

Comparative clearance went out years ago. For any class wanting to go where they haven’t been cleared you have to provide the physical and dynamic details for the vehicles and then run it through the NR model that compares it to the infrastructure. Each class has to be done on its own - even change the class number on existing stock and you have to start again from scratch.

The line into Portsmouth isn’t an easy one for 23m vehicles. Not only have you the length and width to look at, but also the throw at various speeds (low is often the worst) as well as anything “wide” that lies below the solebar.

I was heavily involved in all the Turbo clearance work in the West and it was not easy to get the Turbos into Portsmouth. I can say, with some degree of certainty, that IET units would have a lot of issues - they don’t fit within a Mark 3 profile and work had to be done in a number of areas on the GWML to make them fit. I would also say that an HST down to Portsmouth wouldn’t be straightforward to get approved either.

And that is all before what the door opening and closing times would do to the timetable on that route. The timings are not that slack in places and you need a speedier door cycle than you would get on an IET or HST. A five car DMU is probably your best bet here so you can minimise the punter on and off time.

 

[AdamWW]

Comparative clearance went out years ago. For any class wanting to go where they haven’t been cleared you have to provide the physical and dynamic details for the vehicles and then run it through the NR model that compares it to the infrastructure. Each class has to be done on its own - even change the class number on existing stock and you have to start again from scratch.

The line into Portsmouth isn’t an easy one for 23m vehicles. Not only have you the length and width to look at, but also the throw at various speeds (low is often the worst) as well as anything “wide” that lies below the solebar.

I was heavily involved in all the Turbo clearance work in the West and it was not easy to get the Turbos into Portsmouth. I can say, with some degree of certainty, that IET units would have a lot of issues - they don’t fit within a Mark 3 profile and work had to be done in a number of areas on the GWML to make them fit. I would also say that an HST down to Portsmouth wouldn’t be straightforward to get approved either.

And that is all before what the door opening and closing times would do to the timetable on that route. The timings are not that slack in places and you need a speedier door cycle than you would get on an IET or HST. A five car DMU is probably your best bet here so you can minimise the punter on and off time.

Most informative - thanks.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If you can get one of the seats in the ex-1st class bits, and the air conditioning there isn't making horrendous noises, then it can be a pleasant journey - good scenery for a fair part of the route and nice big windows to see it out of.

It is quite telling how big the difference is that even now, several years after their introduction on the route, that I still see people boarding and avoiding those sections purely because they think it must be first class because of how much nicer they are to the rest of the train. Nice for those of us who do know, but not a great way to treat the general public IMO.

 

[Anonymous10]

It is quite telling how big the difference is that even now, several years after their introduction on the route, that I still see people boarding and avoiding those sections purely because they think it must be first class because of how much nicer they are to the rest of the train. Nice for those of us who do know, but not a great way to treat the general public IMO.

Agreed it's not ideal.

 

[occone]

This is not just standard class, this is M&S Standard Class

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

It is quite telling how big the difference is that even now, several years after their introduction on the route, that I still see people boarding and avoiding those sections purely because they think it must be first class because of how much nicer they are to the rest of the train. Nice for those of us who do know, but not a great way to treat the general public IMO.

Most do know by now, unfortunately for me who uses it! I far prefer a 166 over a 158 if I know I'll be boarding at the origin and can get on nice and early (I travel Cardiff - Fratton and wait just before the S marker at Cardiff, and travelling to Cardiff I arrive early and get on when it's travelling towards Portsmouth to guarantee my seat of choice) because I find the former first class seats so spectacularly comfortable.

 

[Snow1964]

I find the former first class seats so spectacularly comfortable.

Tends to highlight how uncomfortable the remaining seats are

Stupid cost cutting to retain two types of seat, for historic reasons, on a one class train

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Tends to highlight how uncomfortable the remaining seats are

Stupid cost cutting to retain two types of seat, for historic reasons, on a one class train

When the alternative is doing what they did to the 2-165s and just adding more 3+2 seats in place of the 2+2 squashy ones, I’m personally very glad they didn’t as someone who does the journey in full on the regular (including tomorrow!)

 

[occone]

I find the former first class seats so spectacularly comfortable.

They are indeed! Though looking a bit tired in the unrefurbushed ones

Terrible idea time:

Have one section for longer journeys (2h+) and the rest for short journeys. Probably a right headache for the staff to try and enforce

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

They are indeed! Though looking a bit tired in the unrefurbushed ones

Terrible idea time:

Have one section for longer journeys (2h+) and the rest for short journeys. Probably a right headache for the staff to try and enforce

Would never be practical realistically

 

[Towers]

Just to clear up some debate, MK3 HST trailers needed to be “short swing link” in order to run over third rail lines, and HSTs are/were cleared for Portsmouth but had to operate via Eastleigh & Botley as they are/were not permitted via the more direct route via Netley. FGW have operated HSTs to Fratton on Footex specials.

Is there no merit in clearing the route for IET in case one happened to be available (I know availability isn’t up to much) where a 2 car 158/165 is the only other option? I know they can’t go via Bursledon due to a bridge restriction, as was the same for HSTs, but in these circumstances it could divert via Eastleigh and Hedge End? Some already run that route now.

In short, no!

There is no opportunity to diagram the IET fleet for these services even if they were route cleared, plus fleet shortages plus lack of crew knowledge. Flying pigs would be more likely I think (and I don’t mean 442s! ).

 

[Anonymous10]

They are indeed! Though looking a bit tired in the unrefurbushed ones

Terrible idea time:

Have one section for longer journeys (2h+) and the rest for short journeys. Probably a right headache for the staff to try and enforce

Scan your ticket to enter?

 

[Dan G]

It's been said before that 175s would be unsuitable for the route as some services start the day after being stabled at a station not a depot, and 175s were viewed as being not too reliable in that situation. My inexpert RTT poking suggests the first services from Portsmouth to Cardiff and vice versa both come from depots. Which start after being stabled outside a depot?