Portsmouth - Cardiff service potential solutions?

[swt_passenger]

I believe GWR initially wanted to operate castle HSTs on the route, but there are some issues with bogie clearance in the Portsmouth area (I could be completely wrong on this, it's just what I heard).

It’s power car clearances that prevents use on the direct route from St Denys to Fareham via Netley. Nothing to do with Portsmouth itself, which has been reached by HSTs running via Eastleigh.

But still, there’s no evidence that “Castles” were ever considered for the service, because GWR would have known they were not cleared for the normal route.

 

[Dai Corner]

So it could have happened? Why did they not go ahead? Not that it really matters now anyway, with the Castles going.

Cardiff-Cornwall was already cleared for HSTs, Laira depot familiar with them, traincrew knew them etc.

 

[Xavi]

AFAIK Project Churchward is about new rolling stock.

That’s correct and will likely come down to the usual question of whether the Treasury will pay.

Could gwr order a tri mode battery unit which could run on batteries from Westbury through to Redbridge.

Hopwood has hinted at this in several interviews including interchangeable battery / generator sets.

 

[baza585]

I do regularly. Whilst the numbers travelling the whole way are low, there are enough travelling between, say, Cardiff and Southampton or Salisbury and Bristol Parkway to justify keeping the route as one.


I believe GWR initially wanted to operate castle HSTs on the route, but there are some issues with bogie clearance in the Portsmouth area (I could be completely wrong on this, it's just what I heard).


It would be terribly inconvenient. Surprisingly large numbers stat on past Bristol in both directions.

Like you I travel regularly on this route (Fareham to Cardiff and beyond). The ideal stock is definitely 5 car 158s (much of the dwell issue is caused by severe overcrowding on shorter formations from my observation). Until further electrification, the 158s are the least bad option. In a sensible railway world, both of these would happen.

I don't think cutting back to Bristol is at all sensible, there is a big passenger flow across Bristol. Neither is cutting back to Southampton advisable for the same reason.

The Turbos are really not suitable for the route particularly the 165s. They would surely be better on Devon metros with 150s on Bristol locals.

Yea a half hourly stopper Westbury to Filton/ Parkway would make a lot of sense if the Cardiff's can't be strengthened.

But in reality GWR will struggle on with the hand they have been dealt, until DfT persuade Treasury that more investment is needed. At least we don't get 150s very often these days; that really made for an unpleasant journey in every sense.

 

[Snow1964]

That’s correct and will likely come down to the usual question of whether the Treasury will pay.

Hopwood has hinted at this in several interviews including interchangeable battery / generator sets.

And politics will no doubt play a part, in an area that is Conservatives to lose.
There are a surprisingly large number of constituency boundary changes proposed (expected from summer 2023) along the route
Conservatives have recently lost by-elections in SW, so might be desperate to look good.

From Bristol area, North East Somerset and Hanham, Bath (already LibDem), Frome, Chippenham constituency doesn’t reach line anymore it is now Melksham and Devizes, South West Wiltshire (covering Trowbridge, Westbury and Warminster), Salisbury, Romsey and Southampton North, (last 3 cover wide areas).

 

[bramling]

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.

It does seem to me that the solutions already exist but aren’t quite there.

The 165/166 seem fundamentally okay for the route but do need to be brought up to a decent standard. Meanwhile 158s are also okay for the route providing there are enough of them, which isn’t the case at the moment.

As stated elsewhere, unlikely to be any 158s from elsewhere for a little while yet, and with the 769 and HST withdrawals from GWR this isn’t going to help with fleet pressures even if the IETs are picking up the slack.

If GWR/DFT are now seriously looking at new stock for the west (I’ll believe it when they arrive!) then it may well impose some planning blight on the existing west fleet especially in terms of Turbo refurbishment.

A few ex TFW 150/2s to the Exeter area to displace a few 158/165/166?

 

[baza585]

It does seem to me that the solutions already exist but aren’t quite there.

The 165/166 seem fundamentally okay for the route but do need to be brought up to a decent standard. Meanwhile 158s are also okay for the route providing there are enough of them, which isn’t the case at the moment.

As stated elsewhere, unlikely to be any 158s from elsewhere for a little while yet, and with the 769 and HST withdrawals from GWR this isn’t going to help with fleet pressures even if the IETs are picking up the slack.

If GWR/DFT are now seriously looking at new stock for the west (I’ll believe it when they arrive!) then it may well impose some planning blight on the existing west fleet especially in terms of Turbo refurbishment.

A few ex TFW 150/2s to the Exeter area to displace a few 158/165/166?

Not sure when 150s can be released from TfW! That would a start, but far too sensible!

The Turbos are in a really poor state internally and the so-called refurb has clearly been done on the cheap, and hasn't really helped.

 

[Snow1964]

Not sure when 150s can be released from TfW! That would a start, but far too sensible!

The Turbos are in a really poor state internally and the so-called refurb has clearly been done on the cheap, and hasn't really helped.

It might be a stopgap, but can’t realistically utilise a run down 37 year old class 150 that was expected to go to scrap until June 2028. If you want it then have to spend money on a 4-5 year life extension.

But if you have to spend money anyway, is throwing it at a 37 year old class 150 the best value.

 

[GWVillager]

This may sound absolutely ridiculous, but could some loco hauled stock be hired in as a cheap short term solution to the problem? If it's only power car clearance in the way, maybe some PRM modified Castle Mk.3s that have been relieved of their other duties could be hauled by, say, a Class 68. Obviously it wouldn't be ideal in the slightest and the dwell times would be laughable, but it would deal with overcrowding and hopefully encourage more passengers on in the short term.

 

[Energy]

This may sound absolutely ridiculous, but could some loco hauled stock be hired in as a cheap short term solution to the problem?

Doesn't sound very cheap...

maybe some PRM modified Castle Mk.3s that have been relieved of their other duties could be hauled by, say, a Class 68

HST mk3s have different electrical arrangements to loco mk3s. Where are you getting this 68 from? DRS have subleased a fair amount out already and need the remaining for their freight duties.

If more stock is needed id be looking at which 153s are in storage.

 

[43096]

Mk1s weren't great from a capacity perspective - seating capacity on a TSO was 48 - compare that with 142 on a 2 car 158 or 186 on 2 car 165.

That's not correct. Mark 1 TSOs had 64 seats.

 

[anthony263]

That’s correct and will likely come down to the usual question of whether the Treasury will pay.

Hopwood has hinted at this in several interviews including interchangeable battery / generator sets.

Alstom have said they can do a electric/battery and Hydrogen/electric version of the aventra. The later could be a good replacement for the 158/159's especially if a big order was done for both gwr/swr

 

[bramling]

It might be a stopgap, but can’t realistically utilise a run down 37 year old class 150 that was expected to go to scrap until June 2028. If you want it then have to spend money on a 4-5 year life extension.

But if you have to spend money anyway, is throwing it at a 37 year old class 150 the best value.

It isn’t necessarily great value, but it seems a relatively viable way of getting 158/166/166 onto Cardiff-Portsmouth in order to increase capacity in the relatively short term. I’m not sure what other options there are which don’t involve robbing stock off somewhere else. In any case, the routes around Exeter are short of stock themselves, so some extra 150/2 wouldn’t go amiss there either. Now the 769s aren’t happening there aren’t any extra 165/166 it seems, and there aren’t going to be any 158s for the time being from elsewhere.

 

[Snow1964]

Alstom have said they can do a electric/battery and Hydrogen/electric version of the aventra. The later could be a good replacement for the 158/159's especially if a big order was done for both gwr/swr

Hitachi (who of course built GWR 800 and 802s) also have a tri-mode (electric, diesel, battery) regional train in the new Blues train which recently entered service in Sicily. (Hitachi link attached of this train)


There is the UK loading gauge class 385 as used in Scotland, so if could put derivative of Blues train equipment in a 385 (25kv and 750v dc instead of 3kv dc)

Another potential option

Hitachi Rail

About Hitachi, Ltd.Through its Social Innovation Business (SIB) that brings together IT, OT(Operational Technology) and products, Hitachi...

www.hitachirail.com

 

[baza585]

It might be a stopgap, but can’t realistically utilise a run down 37 year old class 150 that was expected to go to scrap until June 2028. If you want it then have to spend money on a 4-5 year life extension.

But if you have to spend money anyway, is throwing it at a 37 year old class 150 the best value.

No it probably isn't value for money but stopgaps rarely are. Using 150s on Devon Metro and locals around Bristol might just free up enough Turbos and 158s to help with the Cardiff-Pompey capacity issue. Political pressure needs to be applied to MPs. Let's get to it..........

 

[paul1609]

Hitachi (who of course built GWR 800 and 802s) also have a tri-mode (electric, diesel, battery) regional train in the new Blues train which recently entered service in Sicily. (Hitachi link attached of this train)


There is the UK loading gauge class 385 as used in Scotland, so if could put derivative of Blues train equipment in a 385 (25kv and 750v dc instead of 3kv dc)

Another potential option

Hitachi Rail

About Hitachi, Ltd.Through its Social Innovation Business (SIB) that brings together IT, OT(Operational Technology) and products, Hitachi...

www.hitachirail.com

Its actually a tri mode train that is Electric/Diesel/Hybrid. Off the juice it only has last mile capability. The size of battery you'd need for the unelectrified sections of Portsmouth - Cardiff you wouldn't be able to fit on a train.

 

[GWVillager]

Doesn't sound very cheap...

HST mk3s have different electrical arrangements to loco mk3s. Where are you getting this 68 from? DRS have subleased a fair amount out already and need the remaining for their freight duties.

If more stock is needed id be looking at which 153s are in storage.

It was a throwaway suggestion, I was just inquiring as to the practicalities of it. HST mk3s have been modified to loco hauled versions in the past, and I can’t imagine this would be too expensive. Evidently other haulage would be needed than 68s, it was merely an example. There are plenty of 67s lying under-utilised though…

 

[HamworthyGoods]

It was a throwaway suggestion, I was just inquiring as to the practicalities of it. HST mk3s have been modified to loco hauled versions in the past, and I can’t imagine this would be too expensive. Evidently other haulage would be needed than 68s, it was merely an example. There are plenty of 67s lying under-utilised though…

But GWR are reducing the size of the fleet they lease to fit costs within agreed DfT budgets so it doesn’t really matter if a fleet is under-utilised or ‘not too expensive’ it’s more cost than the DfT is prepared to sanction.

 

[fgwrich]

I see 165129 did the honours of a day on the Cardiff - Portsmouth circuit yesterday (possibly shuttling to and from Bristol to Cardiff though as a 2 car).

Realtime Trains | 1F09 0827 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour | 31/12/2022

Real-time train running information for 1F09 0827 departure from Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour on 31/12/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[MattRat]

But GWR are reducing the size of the fleet they lease to fit costs within agreed DfT budgets so it doesn’t really matter if a fleet is under-utilised or ‘not too expensive’ it’s more cost than the DfT is prepared to sanction.

Pretty certain the DFT would prefer no passengers at all. Much more efficient.

However passengers do actually exist and eventually they'll have to accept that, so loco hauled Mk3 or Mk4 stock would probably be the cheapest solution to the problem.

 

[RedPostJunc]

That has not been said.

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

Quote from RAIL 972:

"Castle diagrams will be covered by the existing fleet of Class 800/802 bi-mode IETs and Class 158 released from the Cardiff - Portsmouth route". Other railway magazines also mention that other (unspecified) stock will be used to supplement the IETs on the Cardiff - Penzance route when the Castle trains are withdrawn.

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

When the 165/166s were introduced, they were meant to completely replace the 158s on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route, mostly as 5 car trains. In practise, the 165/166s have proved so unreliable that 158s are frequently drafted in to cover. My point is that if the 158s are switched to the Cardiff - Penzance route, they will not be available to cover for the 165/166s and there will be even more cancellations and short running on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route.

I understand that transferring additional 165/166s to Bristol is now unlikely to happen, due to issues with 769s covered elsewhere in this forum.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jan 2023 ==

I see 165129 did the honours of a day on the Cardiff - Portsmouth circuit yesterday (possibly shuttling to and from Bristol to Cardiff though as a 2 car).

Realtime Trains | 1F09 0827 Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour | 31/12/2022

Real-time train running information for 1F09 0827 departure from Cardiff Central to Portsmouth Harbour on 31/12/2022. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

A single 165 unit running from Cardiff - Portsmouth is not unusual these days. As per my original post (and as a frequent user of this service), I have seen anything from 2, 3, 4 or 5 coach trains on this route for some time now. For example, RTT tells me that 165136 will be working 1F15 1315 Bristol Temple Meads to Portsmouth Harbour and 1606 return to Cardiff today,

 

[Snow1964]

Here is a photo I took on a Portsmouth-Cardiff train recently. And yes luggage stacks are being used as seats. Rather proves the 158s are inadequate if short formed below 5cars

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Like you I travel regularly on this route (Fareham to Cardiff and beyond). The ideal stock is definitely 5 car 158s (much of the dwell issue is caused by severe overcrowding on shorter formations from my observation). Until further electrification, the 158s are the least bad option. In a sensible railway world, both of these would happen

Yes, everyone says 158s are unsuitable because of the layout, and points to how busy the service was before the Turbos joined the route - but this was a solid THREE carriage route then. 5 carriage 158s work fine. The diagram including 1530 CDF PMH went over to 5-158 last year and has always been rather lightly loaded including at Southampton where it’s at the height of rush hour. Similarly, the 158750+158956 I had on a different service earlier this week was lightly loaded despite passing Bristol in rush hour, and only became busy (and it was significantly busy then) when it dropped 750.

In practise, the 165/166s have proved so unreliable that 158s are frequently drafted in to cover.

Most of the time it’s not to cover, but booked - so that Fratton crews can retain knowledge for if needed in future. For example, the fact you’re seeing so many 158s is for a while the 1330/1430 CDF PMH has been booked 4-158 and the 1530 CDF PMH booked 5-158, with the rest being Turbos. So it was until the Dec change anyway.

If anything the Turbos cover the Sprinters. The 1330 was 2-165 vice 4-158 several times this week, for example, and although the 1330 was usually a reliable 4-158 diagram, the 1430 would regularly produce a stand-in 166.

 

[fandroid]

We can all see what's wrong here, but nothing will change until DfT gets revised orders from Downing Street. The Cardiff-Portsmouth route goes through plenty of rural parliamentary constituencies. Those who use this route
need to get their MPs rattling cages about the awful service. If direct action doesn't achieve a result, letters to the local press is another option. I hate to see my railway staggering into decline and we all need to do our bit to reverse it.

 

[irish_rail]

We can all see what's wrong here, but nothing will change until DfT gets revised orders from Downing Street. The Cardiff-Portsmouth route goes through plenty of rural parliamentary constituencies. Those who use this route
need to get their MPs rattling cages about the awful service. If direct action doesn't achieve a result, letters to the local press is another option. I hate to see my railway staggering into decline and we all need to do our bit to reverse it.

Truoble is i think alot of the Tory MPs already know the game is up and will have lost interest knowing they will lose their seat within 18 months.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

If 175s do end up going to Chiltern as rumoured, that potentially frees up a number of 165s, particularly those currently used on Oxford services…

 

[Energy]

5 carriage 158s work fine.

And GWR don't have enough 158s for 5 cars.

 

[CBlue]

Doesn't sound very cheap...

HST mk3s have different electrical arrangements to loco mk3s. Where are you getting this 68 from? DRS have subleased a fair amount out already and need the remaining for their freight duties.

If more stock is needed id be looking at which 153s are in storage.

Pretty certain the DFT would prefer no passengers at all. Much more efficient.

However passengers do actually exist and eventually they'll have to accept that, so loco hauled Mk3 or Mk4 stock would probably be the cheapest solution to the problem.

Good luck finding Mk4 stock as any excess got scrapped. How is converting HST Mk3s cheaper than leasing some DMUs - and thats before we get onto finding suitable loco provision. 67s are very thirsty for example, and most older stuff wouldn't have the reliability or the performance needed to keep to time. Your suggestion doesn't have anything to back it up!

 

[bramling]

Pretty certain the DFT would prefer no passengers at all. Much more efficient.

However passengers do actually exist and eventually they'll have to accept that, so loco hauled Mk3 or Mk4 stock would probably be the cheapest solution to the problem.

I can’t see loco-hauled being cheaper than leasing a few units. The thing about leasing 150s or 158s is it should be possible to deploy them in a way which doesn’t require any crew training overall. The only issue is whether there’s capacity to maintain them. The reason 150/2s have been suggested is because the belief is the ex TFW ones should become available sooner than their 158s. As ever, it’s all a case of what DFT are prepared to pay for.

 

[Energy]

Good luck finding Mk4 stock as any excess got scrapped. How is converting HST Mk3s cheaper than leasing some DMUs - and thats before we get onto finding suitable loco provision. 67s are very thirsty for example, and most older stuff wouldn't have the reliability or the performance needed to keep to time. Your suggestion doesn't have anything to back it up!

68s with 5 mk3s and a DVT can keep to DMU timings at Chiltern. Not sure about 67s but anything older wouldn't keep to time

I can’t see loco-hauled being cheaper than leasing a few units. The thing about leasing 150s or 158s is it should be possible to deploy them in a way which doesn’t require any crew training overall. The only issue is whether there’s capacity to maintain them. The reason 150/2s have been suggested is because the belief is the ex TFW ones should become available sooner than their 158s. As ever, it’s all a case of what DFT are prepared to pay for.

If more stock is needed sooner then 153s are an option.