Trivia: Rolling stock which isn’t really compatible for a route it operates

[PTR 444]

This is quite a broad question. Basically which services are operated by rolling stock that isn’t really suited to at least one route it operates? Could be for one or a combination of the following reasons:

• Not long enough
• Not fast enough
• Doors in the wrong place (end rather than at thirds etc)
• Diesel running under wires/above third rail for a significant proportion of the journey
• Seating not suited for journey type
• Significant gap/step between train and platform
• Lack of gangway connection
• Intercity stock working a commuter/regional route (and vice versa)
• Poor use of track/platform capacity
• Stock could be better utilised on another service

I will start by nominating the IETs which operate the London Paddington - Bedwyn service as they are designed for intercity rather than commuter operation. While locals would appreciate the faster journey and comfier seats than a 165, having end doors rather than doors at thirds doesn’t really help with boarding and unloading on a relatively busy commuter route. Besides there are many more lines in the UK where IETs could be put to much better use.

 

[462cd]

Mossley Hill only has diesel services despite being electrified, and the train doors open about 2 foot above the platform.

 

[irish_rail]

IETs on London to Penzance. One word, SEATS. Yes I know its subjective but its amazing how many "normals" comment on the abysmal standard of comfort. Funnily enough i don't recall the same comments about the IC70 seats or even the HST ones we had until 2019....

 

[Speed43125]

Various 170s on routes that are too stop-start for their relatively more inter-regional nature after replacing sprinters. EMR and Northern spring to mind.

 

[thejuggler]

195s. Dangerous to stand in door vestibules when packed with commuters, uncomfortable seats for long journeys.

 

[ginge8991]

Various 170s on routes that are too stop-start for their relatively more inter-regional nature after replacing sprinters. EMR and Northern spring to mind.

The Anniesland Line via Maryhill sticks out here.

 

[duffers2324]

The Anniesland Line via Maryhill sticks out here.

yeah agreed and the irony is i travelled on one on that line as it is my local line the other day, now according to Realtime Trains the 170 had just come off an Inverness turn to then go and do Annieslands for the rest of the night which again was purely ironic, going from Intercity to as local as you can get!

 

[Speed43125]

yeah agreed and the irony is i travelled on one on that line as it is my local line the other day, now according to Realtime Trains the 170 had just come off an Inverness turn to then go and do Annieslands for the rest of the night which again was purely ironic, going from Intercity to as local as you can get!

I suppose the benefit is that the unit will still get to do some longer distance running compared to some Northern diagrams where you'd be stuck stopping every 5 minutes all day long

 

[TXMISTA]

165s and 166s on Portsmouth - Cardiff. It’s been done to death so I won’t go into too much detail but 3+2 seating on a 150+ mile journey is unacceptable.

 

[DoubleO]

GC's 180s run from Doncaster and Northallerton to King's Cross, diesel traction under the wires and now the only operator to do so....

 

[coppercapped]

I will start by nominating the IETs which operate the London Paddington - Bedwyn service as they are designed for intercity rather than commuter operation. While locals would appreciate the faster journey and comfier seats than a 165, having end doors rather than doors at thirds doesn’t really help with boarding and unloading on a relatively busy commuter route. Besides there are many more lines in the UK where IETs could be put to much better use.

So what rolling stock would you suggest should operate this route? Consider that:

• it has to be able to run at 125mph in order to be compatible with all the other trains leaving Paddington on the Mains and not waste a path to Reading[1]
• it has to be a bi-mode as the section from Newbury to Bedwyn is not electrified
• all other Main Line services calling at Reading have end doors - so passengers are used to them
• to minimise costs and facilitate diagramming, any other stock has to be compatible with the stock already used on the route - essentially Class 387, 800 and 802
• small fleets should be avoided to minimise maintenance costs - spare sets, maintenance staff knowledge and spares holdings.

Of course, you may think that such a service should not be operated anyway - but that is another discussion.

[1] I know that the Class 387s that operate the Heathrow Express service can only reach 110mph but they leave (and join) the Mains at Airport Junction and 125mph is only permissible on the Down Main from 4 miles 4 chains to 11 miles 15 chains, in other words just over 7 miles. This has a negligible effect on line capacity.

 

[SteveM70]

The junk they use on the heart of wales line

 

[Mikey C]

The Thameslink 7007s on the longer distance services

The needs of the 2 mile core section - lots of standing space, narrow seating cramped against the walls - mean an unpleasant experience on longer distance routes

 

[southern442]

Little bit niche, but 158s on local runs (off the top of my head I can only think of the Romsey-Soton-Salisbury, but no doubt there are more and will be more to come as 158s are displaced by modern units). The comfort level is lovely and these services are mostly fairly quiet, but when they're busy trying to get on and off from the end doors is an absolute nightmare. There's just something quite anxiety-inducing and uncomfortable about being stuck in a long queue to leave the train as it's pulling into the station, particularly if it's a small intermediate stop that you're not booked to spend very long at.

 

[PTR 444]

So what rolling stock would you suggest should operate this route? Consider that:

• it has to be able to run at 125mph in order to be compatible with all the other trains leaving Paddington on the Mains and not waste a path to Reading[1]
• it has to be a bi-mode as the section from Newbury to Bedwyn is not electrified
• all other Main Line services calling at Reading have end doors - so passengers are used to them
• to minimise costs and facilitate diagramming, any other stock has to be compatible with the stock already used on the route - essentially Class 387, 800 and 802
• small fleets should be avoided to minimise maintenance costs - spare sets, maintenance staff knowledge and spares holdings.

How did it work in the past when it was operated by a 90mph Class 165?

 

[jackot]

165s and 166s on Portsmouth - Cardiff. It’s been done to death so I won’t go into too much detail but 3+2 seating on a 150+ mile journey is unacceptable.

100% agree. At least there is now the prospect of refurbishment for the 166 fleet.

 

[Ken H]

Voyagers. Not enough seats. and running miles and miles under the wires. horrid plastickey things. And get horridly overcrowded with short distance commuters in the rush hours. West coast ones and XC ones. both as bad. So glad I have to use them rarely.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Thameslink 707s on the longer distance services

The needs of the 2 mile core section - lots of standing space, narrow seating cramped against the walls - mean an unpleasant experience on longer distance routes

707s are the similar inner suburban units being transferred SWR to SE. You must mean 700s?

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Done to death before, but 313's on Brighton/Littlehampton - Portsmouths as they lack toilets

 

[Bletchleyite]

TfW chucking out 150s on anything and everything including long distance regional expresses.

Northern's "random unit generator".

Class 195s on long distance services - yes, I know they were ordered for them and work just fine on them, but the high acceleration and door standbacks make them ideal for local services. Though "new Northern" does seem to have noticed and you do get them on some local services.

Class 170s on Harrogate stoppers - sluggish and fuel-hungry - should use 195s instead.

350/2s on Liverpool-Brum and Euston-Crewe services.

 

[Rick1984]

Class 385 on Glasgow suburban services.

 

[py_megapixel]

195s. Dangerous to stand in door vestibules when packed with commuters, uncomfortable seats for long journeys.

Voyagers. Not enough seats. and running miles and miles under the wires. horrid plastickey things. And get horridly overcrowded with short distance commuters in the rush hours. West coast ones and XC ones. both as bad. So glad I have to use them rarely.

I think this thread is "Rolling stock which is not allocated to the most appropriate use."
Not "Rolling stock I happen to dislike"!

 

[Bikeman78]

The Anniesland Line via Maryhill sticks out here.

I agree that 158s and 170s aren't really suited to that line. I'm amazed that it hasn't been electrified. All other local routes out of Queen Street are electric now.

So what rolling stock would you suggest should operate this route? Consider that:

• it has to be able to run at 125mph in order to be compatible with all the other trains leaving Paddington on the Mains and not waste a path to Reading[1]
• it has to be a bi-mode as the section from Newbury to Bedwyn is not electrified
• all other Main Line services calling at Reading have end doors - so passengers are used to them
• to minimise costs and facilitate diagramming, any other stock has to be compatible with the stock already used on the route - essentially Class 387, 800 and 802
• small fleets should be avoided to minimise maintenance costs - spare sets, maintenance staff knowledge and spares holdings.

Of course, you may think that such a service should not be operated anyway - but that is another discussion.

[1] I know that the Class 387s that operate the Heathrow Express service can only reach 110mph but they leave (and join) the Mains at Airport Junction and 125mph is only permissible on the Down Main from 4 miles 4 chains to 11 miles 15 chains, in other words just over 7 miles. This has a negligible effect on line capacity.

If Newbury to Bedwyn was electrified then 387s would be fine. They already run on the main lines to Reading. Given that Bedwyn is not electrified then I agree that 800s or 802s are the only practical option.

 

[paul1609]

165s and 166s on Portsmouth - Cardiff. It’s been done to death so I won’t go into too much detail but 3+2 seating on a 150+ mile journey is unacceptable.

Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff via Southampton is 140 miles.

 

[thealexweb]

150s on the Clitheroe-Rochdale services. 75mph DMUs on a section now used by 100mph EMUs. Up until last year there were 158s but alas no more…

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think this thread is "Rolling stock which is not allocated to the most appropriate use."
Not "Rolling stock I happen to dislike"!

I think the 195 comment highlighted what I did - they are perfect rolling stock for urban local stopping services (very similar to Class 172) and need reallocating to those services. Examples of where they would be very suitable indeed are Harrogate, Atherton, Rose Hill/Marple (where you do get them), CLC stopping services, Clitheroe (if these currently do Moses Gate etc) and the likes. They are fine on long distance stuff too, but because they are so well-suited to stopping services they should be put on them, with 158s, 170s and ideally incoming 175s doing the long-distance services.

If you've ever used one full and standing, they almost prove that Thameslink needn't have had such narrow seats.

 

[coppercapped]

How did it work in the past when it was operated by a 90mph Class 165?

In the days of HSTs and Class 165/166 and before electrification there were a couple of paths per hour fewer in the peaks (from memory, I haven't looked up the exact number as my records are in the attic because of painting work!) - but don't forget that the HSTs didn't accelerate as well as the IETs so didn't catch up 90mph trains quite so quickly. Even so, the running time of the 90mph services were five or six minutes longer than the 125mph services - in other words they cost two HST paths at 3 minute headways. In the peaks only a few Class 165/166 were scheduled on the Mains all the way to Reading - mainly the Newbury/Bedwyn services - others were commonly switched to the Reliefs at Slough West or Ruscombe.

The 'just pre-Covid' timetable was more intense than these earlier timetables. Assuming that traffic will not increase again over the next three or four years is a bit of a hostage to fortune so going back to a less intense operation is probably not a longer term option.

Anyway - my other points still hold.

Added in edit: Obviously the 15mph speed difference between the 387s and the Class 800/802 is not as significant as the 35mph 166/HST difference. The 387s can keep the Class 800/802 sectional times quite well, so I would expect that at the most one path would be lost between Paddington and Reading. But seconds count if one is trying to run a punctual but intense service and running trains with identical characteristics on the busiest section is imperative if consistent punctuality is to be achieved.

 

[Doomotron]

The 171s used by Southern on stopping services. They just accelerate too slowly for them, although they are generally comfortable inside. 395s on third rail routes is also a good mention, but isn't near the worst one.

 

[Iskra]

Voyagers. Not enough seats. and running miles and miles under the wires. horrid plastickey things. And get horridly overcrowded with short distance commuters in the rush hours. West coast ones and XC ones. both as bad. So glad I have to use them rarely.

Can't believe it took 17 posts before anyone said this!

 

[Ken H]

I think this thread is "Rolling stock which is not allocated to the most appropriate use."
Not "Rolling stock I happen to dislike"!

Voyagers would be OK on long thin routes like inverness- aberdeen. Or Carlisle - Glasgow via Kilmarnock. Not on busy inter city routes that need 8-10 carriages.