Portsmouth - Cardiff service potential solutions?

[RedPostJunc]

I was dismayed to read that part of the planning to replace the Castle class HSTs on the Penzance - Cardiff route will be switching 158s from the Portsmouth - Cardiff route.

Although many services are diagrammed for 5 coaches (165+166), in practise anything from 2,3,4 and 5 cars are actually provided. I have been on 3 car trains where there is excessive dwell time at stations where passengers attempt to cram into a train that is already full of standing passengers or attempt to fight their way through the crowd to alight. I have also been on trains where passengers have been unable to board and have been left behind.

The service seems prone to cancellations due to issues with rolling stock. Two recent examples:

On 15/12 the 0721 Portsmouth - Cardiff was diverted between Fareham and Southampton via Eastleigh. It was cancelled at Southampton due to a problem with the traction equipment (MD).

The following 0823 Portsmouth - Cardiff was also terminated at Southampton. I understand that unit was then used to drag the failed unit somewhere for attention.

Today (29/12) the 0810 Southampton - Cardiff was cancelled due to a problem with the train (M8). The 1123 Portsmouth - Cardiff was also cancelled. According to the displays at Southampton, this was due to the lack of serviceable trains.

Clearly, this service is struggling. I would be interested to know how many days in 2022 every train scheduled on this route has actually run from end to end of its planned journey.

Switching 158 units away from this route will only lead to an even worse service.

 

[jfollows]

My recollection is that the Portsmouth-Cardiff service was operated by class 158 units when I lived in Bath in 1994 & 1995, I used them occasionally then. They were OK and at least they were reasonably new.
So 29 years later they're being replaced by something even worse?
It does sound like a service I'd want to avoid at all costs now.

 

[JonathanH]

I was dismayed to read that part of the planning to replace the Castle class HSTs on the Penzance - Cardiff route will be switching 158s from the Portsmouth - Cardiff route.

That has not been said.

The replacement stock for the Castle Class HSTs is spare class 80x units.

So 29 years later they're being replaced by something even worse?

158s already only run a small number of services on the route. It has been mainly 166s for four years now.

 

[Envoy]

The problem is that old commuter trains (165/6’s) from the Thames valley were switched to the west country / Cardiff to Portsmouth route when the main line got electrified. They did not electrify Didcot to Oxford and the branches to Windsor, Marlowe and Henley - which would have freed up more 165/6’s. So, Cardiff to Portsmouth has the worst trains and often only 3 coaches maximum. The 158’s although better and able to have a through corridor connection are prone to failed air-con and should really go for scrap.

GWR really needs a fleet of new trains for all their services that don't go to London. Ideally, these should be bi-mode so that they could use overhead wires where available and also work on diesel power. It looks like the Department for Transport don’t give a toss about routes that don’t go to London. Note how nothing has been done to resolve the overcrowding/high fares on the Cross Country services. I hear that Voyagers are going into storage from Avanti when they should really be added to the Cross Country fleet - but that is going off topic.

 

[jfollows]

158s already only run a small number of services on the route. It has been mainly 166s for four years now.

Makes sense, thank you for the update - if nothing else the 166 is easier/quicker to get off and on at stations anyway.

 

[busestrains]

The 165/166 are much better than the 158 for this route. The 165/166 have wide double doors at 1/3 and 2/3 positions where as the 158 only have narrow doors at the very ends. This route always gets very busy and overcrowded and lots of passengers use it for short journeys so the 165/166 have a more suitable layout than the 158 trains. Ideally they need more coaches though. I would like to see six coach trains introduced on this route as five is the maximum that they seem to use at the moment.

 

[Envoy]

I have just been on RTT and put in for Trowbridge to see what is operating the route today. It is mainly 165/6’s with some 158’s. Trains either have 2, 3 or 5 coaches. You certainly would not want to be on one of the 2 coach trains!

 

[JonathanH]

I would like to see six coach trains introduced on this route as five is the maximum that they seem to use at the moment.

Restricted by platform lengths to five coaches, which partly explains the use of 16x, along with the fact there aren't enough 158s.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/replacement-for-the-gwr-165-166s.230430/page-2#post-5624543

 

[RPI]

The problem is that old commuter trains (165/6’s) from the Thames valley were switched to the west country / Cardiff to Portsmouth route when the main line got electrified. They did not electrify Didcot to Oxford and the branches to Windsor, Marlowe and Henley - which would have freed up more 165/6’s. So, Cardiff to Portsmouth has the worst trains and often only 3 coaches maximum. The 158’s although better and able to have a through corridor connection are prone to failed air-con and should really go for scrap.

The 158's are in far better condition than the turbos and the 158 air con is also far more reliable! The 158's are probably the best of the bunch!

 

[Clarence Yard]

The problem with this route is that it caters for a lot of local journeys as well as some longer distance ones. The 158 units were great for the latter but lousy for the former. There also wasn’t enough of them in the GWR fleet to go 5 car (they were 12 cars short).

So going Turbo to go 5 car was the only option available to GWR (the DfT having said no new stock) and the peak performance on the route did improve, the easier boarding and alighting with the Turbos making a real difference at key locations.

Ideally a replacement fleet should be 5 cars, 2+2 seating with some tables, 3 toilets, about 400 seats and 1/3, 2/3 doors for easy boarding, if the current timetable structure is still to be operated. If there were some peak relief trains added in to at least part of the route, you could consider end doors.

 

[Parallel]

The service seems prone to cancellations due to issues with rolling stock. Two recent examples:

On 15/12 the 0721 Portsmouth - Cardiff was diverted between Fareham and Southampton via Eastleigh. It was cancelled at Southampton due to a problem with the traction equipment (MD).

The following 0823 Portsmouth - Cardiff was also terminated at Southampton. I understand that unit was then used to drag the failed unit somewhere for attention

If I remember correctly, the 09:23 Portsmouth to Cardiff following these trains was a 2 coach 165. I really wouldn’t want to have been on that.

It’s not rare to see a list of Cardiff to Portsmouth trains shown as full and standing on JourneyCheck particularly if formed of 2 or 3 coaches.

Although I prefer a 158 over a 16x on the route, an appropriate number of carriages will always be better.

What is disheartening is seeing a packed 2 coach unit on one of these services pulling into Bristol, when there is a 3 car unit running a local service around Bristol more lightly loaded. With the amount of short forms, it wouldn’t surprise me if some of the longer distance customers on this route switched to driving and GWR were losing revenue. 2 coaches are only really appropriate for early morning or late evening services. The 07:30 CDF-PMH seems to regularly be formed of 2 coaches. Bearing in mind I’ve taken that train when it was 3 coaches and it was crushloaded, I’m not surprised they have to add additional stops in for the following IET to mop up those left behind!

 

[route101]

I used the service from Southampton to Portsmouth few days back. It was a 2 car 158 and 20 minutes late. I heard they turn back the service at Fareham often. I prefer the 158s if they are in five car formation.

 

[GWVillager]

GWR really needs a fleet of new trains for all their services that don't go to London.

Project Churchward?


Portsmouth to Cardiff is hideous at the moment, terrible reliability, near dangerous overcrowding and a real downgrade in travelling experience since the 165/6s came in (if you can get a seat that is!). Allocations are inconsistent to say the least, as the OP points out, though to all the people saying that 166s are better, I find a 4 car 158 can deal with crowds much better than a 3 car 166, perhaps even better than a 5 car 166+165 combination.

A solution needs to be found urgently or passenger numbers will start to decline.

 

[JonathanH]

near dangerous overcrowding

A solution needs to be found urgently or passenger numbers will start to decline.

A decline in passenger numbers would be one way to reduce overcrowding.

 

[RPI]

A decline in passenger numbers would be one way to reduce overcrowding.

Thats the worrying thing

 

[paul1609]

Project Churchward?


Portsmouth to Cardiff is hideous at the moment, terrible reliability, near dangerous overcrowding and a real downgrade in travelling experience since the 165/6s came in (if you can get a seat that is!). Allocations are inconsistent to say the least, as the OP points out, though to all the people saying that 166s are better, I find a 4 car 158 can deal with crowds much better than a 3 car 166, perhaps even better than a 5 car 166+165 combination.

A solution needs to be found urgently or passenger numbers will start to decline.

To be honest the Portsmouth Cardiff route has bee stifled ever since it became part of GWR and the passengers have already deserted it. The 166s are just a joke that should have never been allowed. Dare I say it but if this route was in the North huge investment would have provided for new Intercity style trains.

 

[Envoy]

I gave up using these trains about 5 years ago and now drive. Goodness knows how many others have done the same? Presumably the DfT want people to use the roads? What are the MP’s through which this route runs doing about bringing pressure to get new trains ordered? Nothing by the look of it.

 

[fgwrich]

What is disheartening is seeing a packed 2 coach unit on one of these services pulling into Bristol, when there is a 3 car unit running a local service around Bristol more lightly loaded. With the amount of short forms, it wouldn’t surprise me if some of the longer distance customers on this route switched to driving and GWR were losing revenue. 2 coaches are only really appropriate for early morning or late evening services. The 07:30 CDF-PMH seems to regularly be formed of 2 coaches. Bearing in mind I’ve taken that train when it was 3 coaches and it was crushloaded, I’m not surprised they have to add additional stops in for the following IET to mop up those left behind!

I can certainly agree with this. During a trip to Bristol and Bath a few weeks ago, I saw a 166 spending most of its afternoon doing nothing (post arrival from Severn Beach), a 3 car 165 waiting it’s next turn on the Henbury spur at Filton, while a 2 car facing a very busy afternoon arriving into Bath. The consequence of moving the Turbos to Bristol seems to be that most services are becoming a lottery now between 165, 166 and 158 if you’re lucky.

 

[JohnRegular]

Allocations are inconsistent to say the least, as the OP points out, though to all the people saying that 166s are better, I find a 4 car 158 can deal with crowds much better than a 3 car 166, perhaps even better than a 5 car 166+165 combination.

5x158 works fine on the route and is probably more suitable than 165+166, but the slow end doors really do stuff up dwell times on shorter trains.

A problem not exclusive to this route is that some passengers board, see the saloon is busy (but not full) and choose to stand in the vestibule, and those boarding afterwards either assume that all seats are taken and themselves stand in the vestibule or have to squeeze past the standees.

As has been stated enough on other threads, the route caters for a lot of overlapping short, medium and long distance journeys, in contrast to the 'elevator-esque' intercity railways serving London. Something like a bi-mode 5-car 170 is what is needed but doesn't appear to be forthcoming.

 

[Energy]

It looks like the Department for Transport don’t give a toss about routes that don’t go to London.

Have a look at the Southern cuts.

GWR really needs a fleet of new trains for all their services that don't go to London. Ideally, these should be bi-mode so that they could use overhead wires where available and also work on diesel power.

Buying new trains isn't that easy, its not like a car which you can go to the dealership and say 'that one'. The DfT have to put a specification out to tender for any company to respond, this specification is currently being written.

Note how nothing has been done to resolve the overcrowding/high fares on the Cross Country services. I hear that Voyagers are going into storage from Avanti when they should really be added to the Cross Country fleet - but that is going off topic.

Again not that easy, XC certainly weren't going to get much more stock during COVID and any stock changes will happen at the end of the direct awards. Conveniently that is coming up now.

(the DfT having said no new stock)

FGW did propose 4 car 172s back in 2008, presumably this was shelved with the electrification announcement freeing up turbos?

Ideally a replacement fleet should be 5 cars

120m at 6 cars so a shorter version can replace 150s

5x158 works fine on the route and is probably more suitable than 165+166, but the slow end doors really do stuff up dwell times on shorter trains.

There aren't enough 158s.

Something like a bi-mode 5-car 170 is what is needed but doesn't appear to be forthcoming.

It is, the specification for tender is being written. Once they have responses from manufacturers it is up to the DfT to give the go ahead.

 

[JonathanH]

FGW did propose 4 car 172s back in 2008, presumably this was shelved with the electrification announcement freeing up turbos?

Something like that, although the direct link to Turbos wasn't clear.

Query: Cancelled Class 172 order for Northern Rail/TPE/FGW

Good evening, I was on Wikipedia last night doing some research for my rail database and I noticed something about an order for 200 Class 172 carriages to be delivered to Northern Rail, TransPennine Express and First Great Western. Out of interest, I was wondering if anybody knows how many...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[fgwrich]

Something like that, although the direct link to Turbos wasn't clear.

Query: Cancelled Class 172 order for Northern Rail/TPE/FGW

Good evening, I was on Wikipedia last night doing some research for my rail database and I noticed something about an order for 200 Class 172 carriages to be delivered to Northern Rail, TransPennine Express and First Great Western. Out of interest, I was wondering if anybody knows how many...

www.railforums.co.uk

It certainly didn’t get to an order stage, though knowing Hyundai Rotem had bid with a UK version of the excellent 22000 ICRs, I wish it had.

(Not my photos, and before anyone mentions, Rotem have made them customisable as 3/4/5/6 car units).

Irish Rail ICR Set 13 at Brittas.

Dublin to Cork Railway Line - MP Dublin 83 1/4. Irish Rail 22000 Class Hyundai Rotem / Tokyu InterCity Railcar Set 13 at Brittas, north of Thurles, Tipperary 2nd February 2015.

flic.kr

New 22000 InterCity inside, Irish Rail

Explore PiercePfeiffer's 9 photos on Flickr!

flic.kr

 

[Energy]

Something like that, although the direct link to Turbos wasn't clear.

Query: Cancelled Class 172 order for Northern Rail/TPE/FGW

Good evening, I was on Wikipedia last night doing some research for my rail database and I noticed something about an order for 200 Class 172 carriages to be delivered to Northern Rail, TransPennine Express and First Great Western. Out of interest, I was wondering if anybody knows how many...

www.railforums.co.uk

Looks like the electrification announced killed it off, shame that the electrification didn't work out.

 

[JohnRegular]

There aren't enough 158s.

It is, the specification for tender is being written. Once they have responses from manufacturers it is up to the DfT to give the go ahead.

I am aware there are too few 158s, but 5 car formations do appear on the route and are welcome when they do.

Very glad to hear new trains are being considered, I was under the impression nothing was to be done anytime soon. Whatever is ordered is probably also suitable for similar Cinderella regional routes like Liverpool-Norwich, if there is the appetite for a follow-on order.

 

[Snow1964]

Restricted by platform lengths to five coaches, which partly explains the use of 16x, along with the fact there aren't enough 158s.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/replacement-for-the-gwr-165-166s.230430/page-2#post-5624543

This is true, but of the handful of stations affected, they generally fit about 5.7 cars, so not talking about adding 20-25m platform extensions, as it is nearer 6-10m that is required. It really ought to be fairly easy to add these considering a kit of parts has been available ever since the Waterloo 10car suburban platform extensions.

I think if coaches on new stock were nearer 21.5m to 22m then could have 6car without extensions. If shortening modular bodywork is cheaper modification than some short platform extensions then that might be alternative.

My view is still that what is needed is a dual voltage bi-mode.
2 pairs of double doors to deal with boarding churn
2+2 seating, seats suitable for 3+ hour journeys
90-95mph on diesel & third rail, but 110mph on 25kv (for Filton-Cardiff)
Not sure if pairs of 65-69m units with end gangways are better choice than a fixed 130-138m set
Possibly articulated within unit, even if that means intermediate cars only about 16-17m long
915m floors near the doors, even if ramps over the bogies.

Although not technically an inter-city service, it does serve 7 cities, and a few other stations where passengers connect to other services. It is almost certainly the worst equipped service in the UK for its duration and busyness nowadays with its 30+ year old regularly short formed rolling stock.

 

[GWVillager]

A decline in passenger numbers would be one way to reduce overcrowding.

Not at all ideal!

5x158 works fine on the route and is probably more suitable than 165+166, but the slow end doors really do stuff up dwell times on shorter trains.

The dwell time as a result of end vestibule doors is minimal when compared to the extra time from overcrowded trains.

 

[Clarence Yard]

It really isn’t. There is quite a difference, which I found surprising, but it is there. The door size, I suspect.

 

[RPI]

It really isn’t. There is quite a difference, which I found surprising, but it is there. The door size, I suspect.

I can believe it, I had a 3 car 158 on an Exmouth-Paignton-Exeter today and even with it being fairy quiet we seemed to dwell at each station with people taking foreverto filter on and off, this was fast on both Paignton legs too, only takes one bike or pushchair into the mix and you start struggling. The only blessing being that we could do 90mph on Exminster straight which can claw back a minute or so.

 

[GWVillager]

I think people are missing the point. Dwell times are not really the main issue on Portsmouth to Cardiff, its capacity and comfort. Obviously it’s better to be able to board in 30 seconds, but they aren’t exactly stoppers and if that means a terrible travelling environment then it is most definitely not worth it.

I hate to sound aggravated but I am fed up with people acting as if Portsmouth to Cardiff is some sort of short distance local (justifying the debacle that is 165s running it). That’s like saying the Class 800s should be fitted with Metro interiors because lots of people only travel between Slough and Paddington.

 

[Energy]

I think people are missing the point. Dwell times are not really the main issue on Portsmouth to Cardiff, its capacity and comfort. Obviously it’s better to be able to board in 30 seconds, but they aren’t exactly stoppers and if that means a terrible travelling environment then it is most definitely not worth it.

And some are missing the fact that there aren't enough 158s at GWR for 5 car operation, even if the dwell times weren't a concern.