Railcare awarded £20m class 16x refurbishment project

[johnb]

The 455 work isn't really comparable to what's required for the 16x-en: they've got no toilets and they were deep-overhauled a bit over five years ago (indeed, I thought the current work was basically a repaint and a deep clean rather than anything major). So I'm not sure the in-house comparison works all that well.

 

[northwichcat]

a few thoughts - with FGW potentiall no longer being FGW soon is provision there to change the paint job part the way through?
O/T Onto the 321s etc its to be hoped the toilet and other work goes better than the 320s!

I imagine the repaint will be the last thing to happen.

When the 7 x 142s at FGW got a new base coat of plain blue and white doors, some people who weren't aware that they were about to go back to Northern thought they were about to get the dynamic lines livery.

 

[swt_passenger]

The 455 work isn't really comparable to what's required for the 16x-en: they've got no toilets and they were deep-overhauled a bit over five years ago (indeed, I thought the current work was basically a repaint and a deep clean rather than anything major). So I'm not sure the in-house comparison works all that well.

AIUI the clean and paint is ancillary to the real work (on doors, door alarms, warnings and audible indications etc) required to make them fully PRM-TSI compliant. The latter is the main aim of the project, to allow them to run on past the cut-off date. In that respect the work has a similar intent, although I agree the lack of toilets does remove a big chunk of work.

It must be assumed that PRM requirements were considered too far into the future last time - perhaps they thought back then that the stock might be replaced in time, or the rules might be relaxed...

 

[83G/84D]

What is the future plans for the 165/ 166 units? There was previous plans to cascade them to the West Country I believe.

 

[northwichcat]

What is the future plans for the 165/ 166 units? There was previous plans to cascade them to the West Country I believe.

An option considered by Network Rail was to use them as 158 replacement on Cardiff-Portsmouth but it would require track clearance work to be undertaken before that could happen.

Surprisingly, if they want to avoid track clearance costs the cheapest option would be to send the 165s and 166s to the Newcastle area.

 

[sprinterguy]

What is the future plans for the 165/ 166 units? There was previous plans to cascade them to the West Country I believe.

The following plan for the FGW Network Turbo class 165/166 fleet has been set out by Network Rail in the recently published CP5 enhancement plan, with regard to gauge clearance for "West of England Diesel Multiple Unit capability works" (page 106):

West of England Diesel Multiple Unit capability works

CP5 output driver
To provide infrastructure capability enhancements to enable operation of cascaded DMUs from the Thames Valley to the West Country.

Network Rail has assumed that the cascaded Class 165 and 166 units will operate over the following parts of the Western, Wales and Wessex Routes:
 Core routes:
o Cardiff - Bristol - Exeter – Penzance (including Weston-super-Mare)
o Bristol to Portsmouth
o Westbury to Weymouth
o Bristol to Worcester (including Gloucester)
o Bristol to Severn Beach
o Swindon to Gloucester
o Swindon to Westbury

 Diversionary routes
o Bristol to Parkway via Avonmouth
o Castle Cary to Exeter
o Castle Cary to Exeter via Yeovil
o Romsey to Fareham via Eastleigh

 

[swt_passenger]

Thanks for digging that out, it has been in various RUSs and route plans before, but without an explicit list of routes like that.

I reckon though that people will almost certainly post in a few months time that it can't be done, and the only possible use for them is on the Chiltern routes or something. :roll:

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'd have thought an ideal use for some of the 165/0s would be the former GWR branches in Devon and Cornwall, as presumably not much work would be required for clearance. Barnstaple and Gunnislake (along with possibly Okehampton and Tavistock, fingers crossed!) would need maybe need more work though!

 

[David Goddard]

The following plan for the FGW Network Turbo class 165/166 fleet has been set out by Network Rail in the recently published CP5 enhancement plan, with regard to gauge clearance for "West of England Diesel Multiple Unit capability works" (page 106):

Thanks so much for finding this, it is something that I have been thinking about a lot in my recent studies. I am pleased to see the whole main line to Penzance covered, but surprised it does not include the branches, even if only the Paignton line for a start.

The routes described would provide full employment for the 165/1 and 166 fleets, enabling a modernisation and standardisation for the core routes concerned, hopefully with some service enhancements.

For a start, the 166s would be well suited to an hourly Cardiff- Penzance service, and the three car 165/1s would provide a step change from the current mixture found on the South Devon locals taking in Exmouth, Paignton and Barnstaple.

The 150s could return North to join the rest of the fleet in Manchester, while the pacers could then be retired.

Of course if gauging turns out to be a big problem and future homes are limited, then the DfT may well end up decreeing (reaches for hard hat) that a large part of the fleet - at least the 165s- join their 75mph cousins on the already cleared Chiltern network and their 168s are released to the more width restricted routes. Just an idea if all else fails.

 

[jw]

I'm not sure if the 150s can be cascaded when the Turbos move west. If you look at the number of 142, 150 and 153 cars compared to the total number of Turbos currently with FGW then you get the exact same number of cars (124 by my count).

Remember that some Turbos will need to remain on the North Downs line, and given that there will be a desire for greater capacity/frequency on some routes, coupled with say the reopening of the Portishead link, then there could be a deficit unless some 150s stay.

I'd be surprised if Turbos were used on the Cardiff-Portsmouth route. Previous plans envisaged procuring 11 new build 4-car DMUs. Reforming the entire FGW fleet of 158s could give 10x4 car (20 2-cars doubled up) and the single 'native' 3-car unit.

 

[jimm]

Thanks so much for finding this, it is something that I have been thinking about a lot in my recent studies. I am pleased to see the whole main line to Penzance covered, but surprised it does not include the branches, even if only the Paignton line for a start.

The routes described would provide full employment for the 165/1 and 166 fleets, enabling a modernisation and standardisation for the core routes concerned, hopefully with some service enhancements.

For a start, the 166s would be well suited to an hourly Cardiff- Penzance service, and the three car 165/1s would provide a step change from the current mixture found on the South Devon locals taking in Exmouth, Paignton and Barnstaple.

The 150s could return North to join the rest of the fleet in Manchester, while the pacers could then be retired.

Of course if gauging turns out to be a big problem and future homes are limited, then the DfT may well end up decreeing (reaches for hard hat) that a large part of the fleet - at least the 165s- join their 75mph cousins on the already cleared Chiltern network and their 168s are released to the more width restricted routes. Just an idea if all else fails.

Sorry, but just can't see where you get the idea 166s would be suitable for Cardiff-Penzance, because if the idea is to use something more akin to a 158, then a 166 isn't that train. It is a tinkered-with suburban dmu, still with mainly 3+2 standard class seating - a layout which is being criticised in another thread about use of 150/1s in the West Country. There is more face-to-face seating in bays but the seats fitted were never intended for long journeys. Same considerations apply to using them to Portsmouth - and there you would surely have to be looking for a four-car formation of some sort.

Unless and until someone bites the bullet over carrying out the modifications to coolant header tanks and braking needed allow 2+2 seats to be fitted in the 165s and 166s (and vestibule doors to minimise heat loss when the exterior doors are opened at stations at this time of the year) they will continue to leave a lot to be desired when it comes to journeys of much more than an hour.

The gauging issues are, I'd surmise, pretty minor on former GWR routes and, as I have said before, a 166 has been to Weymouth in the past on an excursion, so I'm not sure why it is on the list of routes. From the list it is pretty clear that the idea is for the 16xs to take over the routes radiating from Bristol, releasing 15xs for both the West Country and other operators. If XC is then wired north of Bristol early in CP6, you might then free 16xs from Gloucester/Worcester services to move further west.

Having done some sums, I believe FGW has 150 16x cars in its fleet, not 124, formed as 21x3-car 166s, 16x3-car 165s and 19x2-car 165s, plus a spare 165/1 driving car from 165115, the set involved in the Ladbroke Grove crash, with the other two vehicles scrapped.

 

[TEW]

Unless and until someone bites the bullet over carrying out the modifications to coolant header tanks and braking needed allow 2+2 seats to be fitted in the 165s and 166s (and vestibule doors to minimise heat loss when the exterior doors are opened at stations at this time of the year) they will continue to leave a lot to be desired when it comes to journeys of much more than an hour.

AFAIK when the 165/6s were refurbished by FGW the attitude to modifying the units to allow for 2+2 seating was not now rather than not ever. If any time is likely for a major refurbishment it would surely be when they are cascaded away from the Thames Valley. I'd agree about the need for vestibule doors, it is a problem at the moment. They'll also likely need modifications to the door controls to allow for proper guard controlled doors as is the norm on FGW West services. Hopefully someone will bite the bullet and carry out a proper refurbishment when they are cascaded, air conditioning on the 165s as Chiltern have fitted would be a nice addition as well. If all those modifications were carried out you could have a unit not far off a 170 in terms of ambience.

 

[Kali]

I'd have thought an ideal use for some of the 165/0s would be the former GWR branches in Devon and Cornwall, as presumably not much work would be required for clearance. Barnstaple and Gunnislake (along with possibly Okehampton and Tavistock, fingers crossed!) would need maybe need more work though!

Tavistock & Okehampton shouldn't be an issue, the line used to be double track ( and iirc the bottom part of the Barnstaple line was broad gauge originally ). Gunnislake would be another matter.

Be nice to get the 165s for locals, I'd rather sit in a 158 than a 166 if I had to go any distance, though.

 

[jimm]

AFAIK when the 165/6s were refurbished by FGW the attitude to modifying the units to allow for 2+2 seating was not now rather than not ever. If any time is likely for a major refurbishment it would surely be when they are cascaded away from the Thames Valley. I'd agree about the need for vestibule doors, it is a problem at the moment. They'll also likely need modifications to the door controls to allow for proper guard controlled doors as is the norm on FGW West services. Hopefully someone will bite the bullet and carry out a proper refurbishment when they are cascaded, air conditioning on the 165s as Chiltern have fitted would be a nice addition as well. If all those modifications were carried out you could have a unit not far off a 170 in terms of ambience.

I'd agree no-one ever said a switch to 2+2 would never happen but the key considerations at the time of the refresh programme were that FGW simply cannot afford to lose seating capacity of any sort in the Thames Valley (and the same factor would surely apply around Bristol in a few years' time given loadings around there) but also that quite considerable expenditure would be required to make the alterations to the coolant system and brakes I described. It is far from a 'take out one lot of seats and stick in new ones' job.

 

[fgwrich]

I'd agree no-one ever said a switch to 2+2 would never happen but the key considerations at the time of the refresh programme were that FGW simply cannot afford to lose seating capacity of any sort in the Thames Valley (and the same factor would surely apply around Bristol in a few years' time given loadings around there) but also that quite considerable expenditure would be required to make the alterations to the coolant system and brakes I described. It is far from a 'take out one lot of seats and stick in new ones' job.

Not only that, but remember the fun Chiltern had during their 165 refurbishment and fitting of their Air Con system. IIRC, they, like they way Bombardier products are put together today, where fitted out 'upside down' with the componant parts installed with the roof laying flat on a bench.

 

[TEW]

I'd agree no-one ever said a switch to 2+2 would never happen but the key considerations at the time of the refresh programme were that FGW simply cannot afford to lose seating capacity of any sort in the Thames Valley (and the same factor would surely apply around Bristol in a few years' time given loadings around there) but also that quite considerable expenditure would be required to make the alterations to the coolant system and brakes I described. It is far from a 'take out one lot of seats and stick in new ones' job.

I'm aware of the problems installing 2+2 seating but if they plan on running the 165/166s on any longer distance services then keeping 2+3 seating is hardly satisfactory. With any luck the influx of 165/166s would allow a change in capacity with 3 carriage trains becoming more standard as 3 car 165/166s take over from 2 car 150s, perhaps with the 2 car 165s allowing either 4 or 5 car formations. The increase in capacity that can be delivered will of course depend on how much of the current Sprinter fleet remains.

 

[anthony263]

According to the latest issue of Rail FGW are supposed to be looking at hiring in trains to cover for the class 165/166's which will be moving to Wolverton from August.

As someone stated earlier in this thread perhasp we could be seing loco hauled formations return to the GW region. Perhpas a possibility of the cardiff - Taunton loco hauled services resuming releasing some class 150's to go to Reading?

That said I would like to see the reactions of the comuters at Reading if a class 143 turns up.

 

[phil281]

Travelled all the way from Paddington to Worcester the other week 2 and a half hours on a 166, can confirm 3x2 seating is not great for this length of journey. However the length of the 3 seats made a nice bed for a nap once the train had emptied out at Oxford!

These units will be perfect for Bristol locals.

Possibly the 185's would be good for longer stuff down in the south west once after TPX electrification. These could be used on the Waterloo to Exeter route, Portsmouth to Cardiff and Cardiff to Penzance. The 158's/9's could be moved up north on longer routes such as the cumbrian coast, newcastle to carlisle and to lengthen services such as the cambrian, norwich to liverpool etc

 

[LexyBoy]

That said I would like to see the reactions of the comuters at Reading if a class 143 turns up.

Probably the same as when the 150 arrived - i.e. indifference for the most part. And the seats are nicer on the 143s than 3+2 150s IME (i.e., more than 2" of legroom).

Possibly the 185's would be good for longer stuff down in the south west once after TPX electrification. These could be used on the Waterloo to Exeter route, Portsmouth to Cardiff and Cardiff to Penzance. The 158's/9's could be moved up north on longer routes such as the cumbrian coast, newcastle to carlisle and to lengthen services such as the cambrian, norwich to liverpool etc

185s would be well placed replacing 150s on the Cornwall/Devon services - a much better ride for what can be a long journey, and powerful enough to cope with the hills. Portsmouth-Cardiff mainly needs longer trains and refurbed 16xs or 185s would both be fine.

Waterloo to Exeter is longer than most of the routes you suggest - even Waterloo to Salisbury is longer than Newcastle-Carlisle! This route needs proper semi-IC stock, and the 159s are fine. There are plenty of regional routes which would suit 185s better IMO.

 

[jopsuk]

Also, three 185s in multiple would be quite a reduction in capacity versus three 159s which would be an issue at peak times!

 

[tbtc]

158/159s are perfect for the Waterloo - Exeter route.

Any plans to put 125mph stock or stock with no corridor connections or stock with fewer seats would be A Bad Thing

 

[starrymarkb]

Travelled all the way from Paddington to Worcester the other week 2 and a half hours on a 166, can confirm 3x2 seating is not great for this length of journey. However the length of the 3 seats made a nice bed for a nap once the train had emptied out at Oxford!

These units will be perfect for Bristol locals.

Possibly the 185's would be good for longer stuff down in the south west once after TPX electrification. These could be used on the Waterloo to Exeter route, Portsmouth to Cardiff and Cardiff to Penzance. The 158's/9's could be moved up north on longer routes such as the cumbrian coast, newcastle to carlisle and to lengthen services such as the cambrian, norwich to liverpool etc

You do realise Waterloo to Exeter is almost the same distance as Kings Cross to Leeds!

 

[northwichcat]

You do realise Waterloo to Exeter is almost the same distance as Kings Cross to Leeds!

Do you realise that Waterloo to Exeter is shorter than the Manchester Airport to Edinburgh route that currently gets 185s?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Also, three 185s in multiple would be quite a reduction in capacity versus three 159s which would be an issue at peak times!

No that'll be fine. TPE claim they have more capacity than the 3 car 158s including standing space, because you want a lot of people standing on long distance services. :roll:

 

[Wolfie]

Do No that'll be fine. TPE claim they have more capacity than the 3 car 158s including standing space, because you want a lot of people standing on long distance services. :roll:

TPE may do so....

SWT I doubt would do so!!! Not least because of the howls that would arise from the Tory heartlands.....

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Apologies for continuing the diversion away from the topic, but...

Once the GW electrification frees up the 165/166 fleet, the most obvious place for them (besides any remaining diesel routes in the Thames Valley) would be former GWR routes- so West Country locals & branches (along with boosting capacity on Chiltern) and maybe South-West Wales. The problem with 185s is that they're a compromise between Intercity stock and commuter stock- ideal for Huddersfield to Leeds or Manchester (capacity notwithstanding!) as the door layout reduced dwell-times compared to the 158s, but a bit draughty for longer journeys even on the original route let alone the Scotland-MIA runs. The ideal place for them post-TP electrification would be Scottish services between the Central belt and Inverness & Aberdeen, or perhaps the Marches or Aberystwyth services.

Surely it would be possible to fit doors in the vestibules to avoid exposing passengers to the harsh winters once they're on routes that don't require people to be packed in quite so tightly. The same could be done to the Turbos once they move further west, too.

 

[route:oxford]

According to the latest issue of Rail FGW are supposed to be looking at hiring in trains to cover for the class 165/166's which will be moving to Wolverton from August.

As someone stated earlier in this thread perhasp we could be seing loco hauled formations return to the GW region. Perhpas a possibility of the cardiff - Taunton loco hauled services resuming releasing some class 150's to go to Reading?

That said I would like to see the reactions of the comuters at Reading if a class 143 turns up.

Is ATP still required west of Reading? If so, what stock would be suitable?

 

[swt_passenger]

Is ATP still required west of Reading? If so, what stock would be suitable?

They'll only send a maximum of a couple of units away for overhaul at a time, hence the long overall timescales mentioned early in the thread. Then there are routes that could potentially use any type of DMU - the North Downs route for instance.

I suspect 'Rail' is just thinking aloud...

 

[anthony263]

They'll only send a maximum of a couple of units away for overhaul at a time, hence the long overall timescales mentioned early in the thread. Then there are routes that could potentially use any type of DMU - the North Downs route for instance.

I suspect 'Rail' is just thinking aloud...

True although I am sure many would be pleased to see some regular loco hauled trains brought back to release some dmu's to cover for the class 165/166's being away.

Are there any 67's available should FGW decide to take the loco hauled option such as what they did previously on the Cardiff - Taunton route?

 

[D365]

True although I am sure many would be pleased to see some regular loco hauled trains brought back to release some dmu's to cover for the class 165/166's being away.

Are there any 67's available should FGW decide to take the loco hauled option such as what they did previously on the Cardiff - Taunton route?

There's 57s :P

 

[jimm]

They'll only send a maximum of a couple of units away for overhaul at a time, hence the long overall timescales mentioned early in the thread. Then there are routes that could potentially use any type of DMU - the North Downs route for instance.

I suspect 'Rail' is just thinking aloud...

I don't think it is. The Turbos, like the rest of FGW's fleet, are stretched very thin. Losing one set to this overhaul programme means you are near enough out of any spare capacity over and above the sets needed to operate the weekday timetable and those on programmed maintenance. A lot of effort is going into getting the 180s running okay because as soon as one of those goes awol, you are taking Turbos off another duty to cover.

But you may well be right about using something other than a Turbo on a North Downs route diagram, as it and the Basingstoke service are fairly self-contained and you could presumably limit the number of crews who would need training to work say a 158, if they can hire one. Certainly can't see any lone stand-in set being let loose on the main line.

ATP is not an issue as the FGW Turbos don't have it, only the 125mph stock, ie HSTs and 180s.