Future of the Intercity 125s

[tbtc]

Ideal stock for Waterloo - Exeter?

Something that can run at 80-100mph...

...something which can do portion working to allow more capacity at the eastern end of the route than at the western end...

...and to allow portions for Bristol etc...

...something which has corridor connections (due to the need for portion working)...

...something suited to journeys of over an hour...

...something which doesn't waste a lot of space (due to the platform space available given that you need nine coaches east of Basingstoke)...

...basically a modern version of a 158/9.

Ideally you'd have something diesel that could cope with Third Rail electrification, but since we don't know when the Basingstoke - Waterloo line will get "proper" electrification I guess that's up in the air.

Putting 125mph stock on there (with crumple zones and sloped noses meaning no corridor connections) seems like a waste for a route that is never going to get much over 100mph.

(nothing to do with the future of 125s though!)

 

[HSTEd]

Why would 85/100 be any better than 85mph for Class 185 operations?

They are specifically disallowed from using any differentials at all.

The units are near worthless off TPE thanks to the rather overweight and overpowered nature of the design.
Frankly the best thing that can happen to them is an early grave followed by the redeployment of interior fittings and possibly the engines to newbuild units. (Would using the QSK-19s in new units be allowed because there are no new engines built, even if new vehicles that don't comply with regs are built?)

There is my analyses somewhere that appears to show that new Class 172s would work out cheaper than keeping the Class 185s....

 

[Eagle]

...basically a modern version of a 158/9.

A diesel 444 (which I was about to call a 144 ) would be pretty much that.

 

[LE Greys]

A diesel 444 (which I was about to call a 144 ) would be pretty much that.

Hopefully, someone who knows more than I will tell me if it's possible to take this 186 (as I might call it) and send it to Weightwatchers. Low-trackforce bogies and lightened bodies might work, I just don't know.

For formations, DMRFB-TBS-DMS

<EDIT> DMRFB-TGS-DMS

 

[ainsworth74]

For formations, DMRFB-TBS-DMS

You're fitting two buffets? Slight overkill surely in three car unit?

 

[LE Greys]

You're fitting two buffets? Slight overkill surely in three car unit?

Trailer Brake Second (somewhere to put bikes)

 

[ainsworth74]

Trailer Brake Second (somewhere to put bikes)

Oh, a B is not something I'm used to seeing in MU notation what with them not having a need for a Brake vehicle (modern ones at least). I'd suggest TLS, Trailer Luggage Second (as found on 460s).

 

[LE Greys]

Oh, a B is not something I'm used to seeing in MU notation what with them not having a need for a Brake vehicle (modern ones at least). I'd suggest TLS, Trailer Luggage Second (as found on 460s).

I'm a traditionalist (besides, 'L' tends to refer to a lavatory). TGS, if you must (for 'guard's').

 

[ainsworth74]

TGS, if you must (for 'guard's').

I can accept that as a compromise

 

[Xavi]

Interesting, sounds like 85/100 might be affordable if they ever get around to redualling. SWT could then take on the 185s, cascading the 159s to FGW and releasing quite a few 158s and 150s.

I find the current 159s excellent and would prefer to keep them until electrification can be justified, certainly over 185s with 1/3 2/3 doors and no gangways. I often use the route rather than FGW especially when travelling for leisure. Using Pinhoe saves me 20 mins on crossing to Exeter St Davids and Waterloo is convenient for the West End. The 3/6 cars west of Salisbury and 6/9/10 east to London is probably the most efficient use of rolling stock in the country. Not that the peaks aren't excessively crowded out as far as Andover, but that's like anything on the SW mainline.

 

[The Ham]

Not that the peaks aren't excessively crowded out as far as Andover, but that's like anything on the SW mainline.

..and that's not going to change until there is either more capacity on the lines into Waterloo and/or we get Crossrail 2 as a regional metro.

 

[Charlie2555]

A diesel 444 (which I was about to call a 144 ) would be pretty much that.

No way! 159s are much much better than 444s, I don't know why they're so popular! Preferably something built in Britain rather than Germany.444s are uncomfortable and I don't think they look very nice. For now I think we should retain the 159s until something better is found.

 

[LE Greys]

No way! 159s are much much better than 444s, I don't know why they're so popular! Preferably something built in Britain rather than Germany.444s are uncomfortable and I don't think they look very nice. For now I think we should retain the 159s until something better is found.

On balance, it depends on speed. I reckon they ought to be looking for something that can do 100 as that can challenge the FGW's HSTs on journey times provided the entire route was brought up to 100 and dualled. I don't like 444s either, but commonality of systems, plus extra speed, suggests that a Siemens design ought to work. There's still plenty of life in the 159s, though.

If the line doesn't get upgraded and dualled, they might as well stick with what they have.

 

[starrymarkb]

.444s are uncomfortable

Customer Spec... If you asked Siemens they could put other seats in them...

Anything built now would have the 380 nose (new design so must comply with current regs - 350s are a follow on to an existing design so are grandfathered)

BTW do Bombardier even have an offering to match the 444 in terms of layout?

 

[transmanche]

Preferably something built in Britain rather than Germany.

That's a daft reason not to buy them!

 

[sprinterguy]

The units are near worthless off TPE thanks to the rather overweight and overpowered nature of the design.
Frankly the best thing that can happen to them is an early grave followed by the redeployment of interior fittings and possibly the engines to newbuild units.

Only in your mind. The 185s will be able to be redeployed elsewhere if or when they are released from TPE duties, rather than some ludicrous suggestion to scrap a reasonably large fleet of what will then be fifteen year old units.

 

[HSTEd]

Only in your mind. The 185s will be able to be redeployed elsewhere if or when they are released from TPE duties, rather than some ludicrous suggestion to scrap a reasonably large fleet of what will then be fifteen year old units.

Noone has yet managed to come up with a reasonable place to put them that if off TPE.
They are just too expensive to run, and improvements to the Turbostar have eroded a large part of their acceleration advantage.

 

[Eagle]

Other than Scotrail's intercity routes (which gets mentioned quite often on here).

 

[tbtc]

Noone has yet managed to come up with a reasonable place to put them that if off TPE

There are still going to be a few hilly routes in northern England that have passengers doing journeys of an hour or so, like the Calder Valley (inc Blackpool services), the Buxton line... the Tyne Valley route isn't quite as hilly but is still a line where a two coach DMU service could be upgraded to a three coach one including First Class.

And, at the risk of sounding mildly envious, not *all* TPE lines are getting electrified...

 

[sprinterguy]

Noone has yet managed to come up with a reasonable place to put them that if off TPE.

I doubt that much serious consideration has yet been given by those in the industry to where the 185s can be moved to in around seven years time. That is not indicative of their being no alternate options for them away from the Transpennine corridors.

 

[SprinterMan]

Noone has yet managed to come up with a reasonable place to put them that if off TPE.
They are just too expensive to run, and improvements to the Turbostar have eroded a large part of their acceleration advantage.

True, a 172 can almost keep up with them, but they still leave a 170 for dead, which is what most turbostars are. 185s should go to ScotRail IMO, they already have 380s and 185s would be great on Edinburgh/Glasgow/Aberdeen/Inverness runs.

Adam

 

[AndyLandy]

A diesel 444 (which I was about to call a 144 ) would be pretty much that.

Or how about a 244? A DEMU version of the 444, but designed in such a way that pantographs could be fitted at a later date for conversion into an AC EMU.

 

[JamesRowden]

What about altering the peak service on the Basingstoke - Exeter line to create more capacity on that line and to reduce overcrowing on the route into Waterloo by running some services to Paddington via Reading.

Present Peak Service:
Exeter - (stopping) - Basingstoke - (fast) - Waterloo 1tph

Salisbury - (stopping) - Basingstoke - (fast) - Waterloo 1tph

Bristol - (semi-fast) - Salisbury - (semi-fast) - Basingstoke - (fast) - Waterloo 3tpd [only 1 in peak direction during the peak]

My Peak Service Idea:
Exeter - (stopping) - Salisbury - (stopping) - Basingstoke - (fast) - Waterloo 1tph

Bristol - (semi-fast) - Salisbury - (semi-fast) - Basingstoke - Reading - Paddington (HST/IEP) 1tph

Salisbury - (stopping) - Basingstoke - (stopping) - Reading 1tph

'(fast)' includes stops at Woking and Clapham Junction.

After the upgrades to Reading station there should be space for these services.

Potential benefits of my service idea:

- Freeing a path to Waterloo along the SWML (allowing an EMU [or possibly two due to greater acceleration] to fill the space).

- 3tph between Salisbury and Basingstoke.

- There only being one direct train per hour to Waterloo should make the services to Paddington (1tph [two including connections with the slow service at Reading]) more appealing but still allow people to change at Basingstoke if they need to go to Waterloo rather than Paddington.

- The services to Paddington can be a lot longer than those to Waterloo and would be less crowded (and it would add one of the extra fast services that are required between Reading and Paddington).

- Direct services between more places.

By suggesting that a HST could run one of the services I have brought the discussion back to the topic.

 

[starrymarkb]

TBH there isn't currently room into Paddington either :P

The Bristol service usually attaches to an Exeter train at Salisbury...

 

[JamesRowden]

TBH there isn't currently room into Paddington either :P

There will be enough room at Paddington (thanks to Crossrail diverting metro services from the main station), the current capacity limit is that all west bound fast services have to use Platform 7 at Reading (which is soon to be resolved). The London South East RUS thinks that 4 new fast paths per hour will be able to be added between Reading and Paddington and that another four would be available if the Heathrow Express services are diverted onto the relief lines during the peak (that's a total of 20 tph rather than the present 12 tph).

The Bristol service usually attaches to an Exeter train at Salisbury...

There are only 3tpd between Bristol and Waterloo.

 

[Eagle]

There are only 3tpd between Bristol and Waterloo.

Of which two attach to an Exeter service, and one becomes a Salisbury stopper. (SWT also operates a fourth in the late evening from Bristol to Salisbury only.)

 

[The Ham]

What about altering the peak service on the Basingstoke - Exeter line to create more capacity on that line and to reduce overcrowing on the route into Waterloo by running some services to Paddington via Reading.

Present Peak Service:
Exeter - (stopping) - Basingstoke - (fast) - Waterloo 1tph

Salisbury - (stopping) - Basingstoke - (fast) - Waterloo 1tph

Bristol - (semi-fast) - Salisbury - (semi-fast) - Basingstoke - (fast) - Waterloo 3tpd [only 1 in peak direction during the peak]

My Peak Service Idea:
Exeter - (stopping) - Salisbury - (stopping) - Basingstoke - (fast) - Waterloo 1tph

Bristol - (semi-fast) - Salisbury - (semi-fast) - Basingstoke - Reading - Paddington (HST/IEP) 1tph

Salisbury - (stopping) - Basingstoke - (stopping) - Reading 1tph

'(fast)' includes stops at Woking and Clapham Junction.

After the upgrades to Reading station there should be space for these services.

Potential benefits of my service idea:

- Freeing a path to Waterloo along the SWML (allowing an EMU [or possibly two due to greater acceleration] to fill the space).

- 3tph between Salisbury and Basingstoke.

- There only being one direct train per hour to Waterloo should make the services to Paddington (1tph [two including connections with the slow service at Reading]) more appealing but still allow people to change at Basingstoke if they need to go to Waterloo rather than Paddington.

- The services to Paddington can be a lot longer than those to Waterloo and would be less crowded (and it would add one of the extra fast services that are required between Reading and Paddington).

- Direct services between more places.

By suggesting that a HST could run one of the services I have brought the discussion back to the topic.

Or you could just leave it as it is and add one train per hour from Salisbury to Reading and gain most of the benefits you listed (other than the extra path, I doubt very much it would be two because of all the metro services running with a max speed of 75mph).

 

[RobShipway]

Could the 185's be used on services like the Brighton - Cardiff or Portsmouth - Cardiff services?

 

[tbtc]

Could the 185's be used on services like the Brighton - Cardiff or Portsmouth - Cardiff services?

Yeah (though these services may get split at Bristol once the Bath - Bristol - Newport - Cardiff line is electrified, so that EMUs run the Cardiff end).

185s would be fine for that kind of route and maybe any other 158 routes that FGW have (far too heavy, but they are far too heavy on any line) - I guess the problem would be spreading the class thinly between various TOCs.

 

[AndyLandy]

Yeah (though these services may get split at Bristol once the Bath - Bristol - Newport - Cardiff line is electrified, so that EMUs run the Cardiff end).

Yuk, I hope not! (But then I'm biased, having occasionally travelled from Southampton to Newport)

I personally envisage that more wires will go up in the Southampton area in CP6. If that results in wires from Salisbury to Portsmouth, it's probably worth finishing the route and running the whole thing with EMUs.

To be honest, that route isn't far off being an Intercity service in its own right, it could really do with longer and faster trains.