Portsmouth - Cardiff service potential solutions?

[JonathanH]

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

They aren't an option.

Driver knowledge will have lapsed, they aren't PRM adapted, they only go 75mph and can't go to Portsmouth in any case.

They might be a source of spares.

 

[Energy]

Driver knowledge will have lapsed

How long is the conversion course from 150/158s?

they aren't PRM adapted

Not a problem if connected to a PRM 158.

and can't go to Portsmouth in any case.

Fair enough.

 

[43096]

Not a problem if connected to a PRM 158.

Here we go again, the old PRM chestnut. Even if they got a toilet exemption on the basis that they will always work with a fully compliant set (as TfW have with some of theirs), they still need all the other PRM modifications doing.

 

[baza585]

They aren't an option.

Driver knowledge will have lapsed, they aren't PRM adapted, they only go 75mph and can't go to Portsmouth in any case.

They might be a source of spares.

But they could go to Severn Beach....

 

[JonathanH]

But they could go to Severn Beach....

They wouldn't be ideal there though. Arguably, there would need to be a 153 > 150 > 158 cascade in Cornwall with 153s on the branches, 150s on the mainline and 158s released back up to Bristol area.

Either way it is pretty unlikely. As noted in previous postings GWR have the stock they need but not the spare parts to meet the required availability.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

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

I’m perfectly aware of that; it was a response to those who always go “but 158s don’t worrrrrk” when someone suggests GWR use 158s taken on from other operators.

 

[Energy]

I’m perfectly aware of that; it was a response to those who always go “but 158s don’t worrrrrk” when someone suggests GWR use 158s taken on from other operators.

I wouldn't say don't work but their door configuration isn't preferable, given that Clarence Yard has seen the numbers I'd trust him that their is a somewhat significant difference.

More 158s would be a solution, TfW ones were originally supposed to be off lease on 31/10/22 though a lot has changed there.

 

[Snow1964]

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.

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

I wouldn't say don't work but their door configuration isn't preferable, given that Clarence Yard has seen the numbers I'd trust him that their is a somewhat significant difference.

More 158s would be a solution, TfW ones were originally supposed to be off lease on 31/10/22 though a lot has changed there.

There are very few 3car 158s, so most are a bodge with one vehicle extra from a 2car set.

I think they have 10x 2car and 7 x3car which is not correct number to run every 158 as 5car

Does rather end up with messy coach lettering when start coupling up mixed sets, so hopeless for reservations.

 

[RedPostJunc]

It is a problematic route to serve as yes, it does act as a local commuter service throughout parts of the journey, but equally a surprisingly high number of passengers do travel longer distances, as others have said, Portsmouth to Westbury, Southampton to Cardiff, Fareham to Bath etc. A lot of military personnel use it between Portsmouth and Westbury - Navy people travelling from Portsmouth to Plymouth, and lots and lots of students between the various universities along the route. The Portsmouth/Southampton conurbation is the eighth largest in the UK, and considering the route connects this enormously-populated area of over 1.5 million people with Bristol and the Welsh Capital - the service today is positively woeful.

Another factor to bear in mind about providing suitable units to service this route is that increase in the use of this route for leisure travel. Two examples:

Example 1 - In the last 20 years, Southampton has developed as an embarkation point for cruise ships, both in terms of the number of cruise ships calling and the capacity of those ships. On several occasions recently, I have seen cruise ship passengers travelling between South Wales/Bristol and Southampton. These passengers do not travel lightly, but are often accompanied by large suitcases. The luggage can either be placed in luggage racks (if there is any space available - certainly not in the overhead racks); alternatively, they sit in the aisle, making it very difficult for other passengers to move through the train, especially when those passengers want to join or leave the train. I was on a train in September where the guard was shouting at passengers to move down inside the train to allow others on. The guard could not see that there was a very large suitcase blocking the aisle, which meant that passengers could not move down the train.

Example 2 - An increase in the number of passengers taking cycles onto trains operating this route. There is no facility to store those cycles, other than where the doors are. This again restricts how quickly passengers can join or leave the train.

 

[30907]

Another factor to bear in mind about providing suitable units to service this route is that increase in the use of this route for leisure travel. Two examples:

Example 1 - ....On several occasions recently, I have seen cruise ship passengers travelling between South Wales/Bristol and Southampton. These passengers do not travel lightly, but are often accompanied by large suitcases....

Example 2 - An increase in the number of passengers taking cycles onto trains operating this route. There is no facility to store those cycles, other than where the doors are. This again restricts how quickly passengers can join or leave the train.

Do the GW units not have a tip-up seating area? (Sorry, not familiar with them, but I was on a Northern unit yesterday...)

Back to the main topic:
the historic pattern on this route has been semi-fast services (back in the 50s the odd train skipped Romsey, but that's about it.
I doubt there is sufficient traffic to warrant an hourly express service over the Bath-Salisbury-Southampton section AND an hourly semi-fast, which would in any case increase the unit requirement considerably (unless you ran everything as 3 cars, which rather defeats the object).
I am not clear where the capacity pinch-points are, though, other than Bristol-Bath, when the booked formations are used, but I suspect a third tph on Bristol- Trowbridge would clear most of it.

I would also go for re-seating the Turbos to 2+2, but from the discussion it seems that there are reliability issues (158s included) which are greater priority?

 

[RedPostJunc]

Do the GW units not have a tip-up seating area? (Sorry, not familiar with them, but I was on a Northern unit yesterday...)

Back to the main topic:
the historic pattern on this route has been semi-fast services (back in the 50s the odd train skipped Romsey, but that's about it.
I doubt there is sufficient traffic to warrant an hourly express service over the Bath-Salisbury-Southampton section AND an hourly semi-fast, which would in any case increase the unit requirement considerably (unless you ran everything as 3 cars, which rather defeats the object).
I am not clear where the capacity pinch-points are, though, other than Bristol-Bath, when the booked formations are used, but I suspect a third tph on Bristol- Trowbridge would clear most of it.

I would also go for re-seating the Turbos to 2+2, but from the discussion it seems that there are reliability issues (158s included) which are greater priority?

I don't think there are any tip up seats.

Around five years ago there was talk of a TransWilts service, extending the Swindon - Westbury route to Salisbury and Southampton. That seems to have been revived, but as Swindon - Westbury - Taunton (and possibly Weston super Mare). Although other trains run between Cardiff-Bristol, Bristol-Westbury and Salisbury-Southampton, there are only a few other trains that run between Westbury and Salisbury. Usually, if a Cardiff - Portsmouth train is cancelled, it is a case of wait for the next train in an hour to progress beyond Westbury.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't think there are any tip up seats.

Around five years ago there was talk of a TransWilts service, extending the Swindon - Westbury route to Salisbury and Southampton. That seems to have been revived, but as Swindon - Westbury - Taunton (and possibly Weston super Mare)...

I’m pretty sure that’s the latest iteration of the infamous Go-Op open access scheme, and it is, AFAICT, nothing to do with the earlier Transwilts proposals which had the official support of various councils.

 

[Snow1964]

I don't think there are any tip up seats.

Around five years ago there was talk of a TransWilts service, extending the Swindon - Westbury route to Salisbury and Southampton. That seems to have been revived, but as Swindon - Westbury - Taunton (and possibly Weston super Mare). Although other trains run between Cardiff-Bristol, Bristol-Westbury and Salisbury-Southampton, there are only a few other trains that run between Westbury and Salisbury. Usually, if a Cardiff - Portsmouth train is cancelled, it is a case of wait for the next train in an hour to progress beyond Westbury.

Some trains terminate at Warminster, rather than Westbury, then head back north. (There is a trailing crossover just south of the platforms, which was also used by banking locos assisting heavy trains southbound from Westbury).

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

In the last 20 years, Southampton has developed as an embarkation point for cruise ships, both in terms of the number of cruise ships calling and the capacity of those ships. On several occasions recently, I have seen cruise ship passengers travelling between South Wales/Bristol and Southampton. These passengers do not travel lightly, but are often accompanied by large suitcases. The luggage can either be placed in luggage racks (if there is any space available - certainly not in the overhead racks); alternatively, they sit in the aisle, making it very difficult for other passengers to move through the train, especially when those passengers want to join or leave the train. I was on a train in September where the guard was shouting at passengers to move down inside the train to allow others on. The guard could not see that there was a very large suitcase blocking the aisle, which meant that passengers could not move down the train.

Although the cruise ship schedule is published, and can be upto 5 ships starting on same day, which can be anything upto about 15,000 berths, doesn’t really seem to get factored in to the stock allocated, as will short form on busy cruise days. Cross Country thinning of its services via Basingstoke has pushed up the number of cruise passengers coming via Bristol and Salisbury (and tickets are sometimes cheaper this way from Midlands)

For those not familiar, here is an example of Southampton cruise ship schedule (just click on dates in red to see the ships)

Southampton Cruise Ship Schedule | Southampton Cruise Port Schedule

www.cruisetimetables.com

EDIT, seems I went bit low on upto 15,000 berths, eg Sunday 14th May is over 15,000 (and Sundays don’t always have best rail services), or 1st July with over 19,000 berths (or nearer 23,000 when 3rd and 4th beds are in use)

Lets say 15% of those cruise passengers live in South West, South Wales, Gloucestershire etc (I am guessing a fraction), then on these peak days could be moving 3000 cruises passengers to Southampton and a similar number from Southampton via Salisbury route that have finished their cruise. Perhaps someone can advise how many extra class 158 vehicles do you need for 3000 people plus luggage.

Quite simply the current 158, 165, 166 fleet cannot cope with those kind of surges.

 

[JohnRegular]

Do the GW units not have a tip-up seating area? (Sorry, not familiar with them, but I was on a Northern unit yesterday...)

I would also go for re-seating the Turbos to 2+2, but from the discussion it seems that there are reliability issues (158s included) which are greater priority?

There are three tip-up seats in the 166s, which are adjacent-ish to the cycle area so frequently hosts cycles for which the designated area is often inadequate.

Incidentally the 165s have twice the nominal cycle space as 166s which are also inadequate for reasons I can rant about in another thread...

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

What the Cardiff - Portsmouth route needs is a Commuter bi-mode or tri-mode train with a good number of table seats, faster acceleration than the 158 and 16x fleet and a top speed of 90 or 100mph. I bet punctuality would be improved!

 

[bramling]

What the Cardiff - Portsmouth route needs is a Commuter bi-mode or tri-mode train with a good number of table seats, faster acceleration than the 158 and 16x fleet and a top speed of 90 or 100mph. I bet punctuality would be improved!

My personal view, FWIW, is that the 165/166s would be perfectly fine if only they were available in sufficient numbers and brought up to a decent internal state. For whatever reasons this just doesn’t seem to have happened.

There is no reason why 158/165/166 couldn’t be displaced from the Devon metro routes, for which 150s are perfectly adequate providing they run as pairs.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Perhaps it would be worth fixing the electrical connections on the Turbo couplers, so that they can work with the 158s as a mixed formation to keep both the short-hop and long-distance passengers happy?

 

[MattRat]

There is no reason why 158/165/166 couldn’t be displaced from the Devon metro routes, for which 150s are perfectly adequate providing they run as pairs.

And then the 150s fall apart due to age and the DFT refuses to buy replacements, causing even more stock shortages....

 

[Pete_uk]

A class 730 type train with three carriages, two engines and a battery that will reduce fuel burning in stations.

Whoever builds the 15x/16x replacements, take a 158 and coppy the bogies and all the suspension and dampers! BR made a very smooth train 30 years ago there is no reason for me to feel the track!

 

[anthony263]

A class 730 type train with three carriages, two engines and a battery that will reduce fuel burning in stations.

Whoever builds the 15x/16x replacements, take a 158 and coppy the bogies and all the suspension and dampers! BR made a very smooth train 30 years ago there is no reason for me to feel the track!

A hydrogen/electric bi mode version.of the class 730 with 3 or 4 carriages would do very well . If dft did go this route could they not reduce costs furthrr by purchasing units to replace the SWR class 158/159's?

 

[bramling]

And then the 150s fall apart due to age and the DFT refuses to buy replacements, causing even more stock shortages....

By then there’s the the option for the ex TFW 158s, and in the meantime 150 reliability seems to be holding up reasonably well, especially considering the extent to which pretty much all the 150 fleets have been and continue to be thrashed.

Realistically I don’t see what other alternatives exist if extra capacity is wanted on Cardiff Portsmouth in the short term. As ever though, it all depends on what DFT are prepared to agree to, which may well be nothing.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

By then there’s the the option for the ex TFW 158s, and in the meantime 150 reliability seems to be holding up reasonably well, especially considering the extent to which pretty much all the 150 fleets have been and continue to be thrashed.

Realistically I don’t see what other alternatives exist if extra capacity is wanted on Cardiff Portsmouth in the short term. As ever though, it all depends on what DFT are prepared to agree to, which may well be nothing.

It shouldn't matter what the DfT are prepared to agree to - that route needs improving regardless what the DfT thinks.

 

[CharlesR]

I’m perfectly aware of that; it was a response to those who always go “but 158s don’t worrrrrk” when someone suggests GWR use 158s taken on from other operators.

I can't find where these people are. Some keep reiterating that 158s work on the line so they should operate the line, completely missing the point that there aren't enough of them. Others are trying to get across they are not the best solution as they are old and have doors in inconvenient places

I would also go for re-seating the Turbos to 2+2, but from the discussion it seems that there are reliability issues (158s included) which are greater priority?

Considering it's been said quite a few times that trains are overcrowded, I'd probably assume that taking seats out of a train won't really help with that.



So many posts here suggest pulling some ancient stock from a prehistoric era and whacking them on the line, embarking on a mass training and clearance program. It's impratical. The ideal right now would've been that 769s operated services and there would be enough units to operate 5-car 165/166 services. Yes 3+2 seating, it doesn't have slam doors and smell of steam, but they run well enough and everyone has a seat. Ideal in the sense of DfT cost cutting as well. Now that's not the case, somethings going to have to change. And instead of dragging in a horse and cart for 3 years, it's clear that there needs to be a long term solution. And that solution isn't exactly difficult, it's a long enough train with a suitable design. The difficulty is that this won't happen, because that's the railway.

It's a obvious problem with an obvious solution but a not so obvious willingness to deal with it...

 

[MattRat]

So I touched on this in another thread, but a possible solution, albeit robbing Peter to pay Paul, would be to cut the Night Riviera service, which is unprofitable, and use the class 57s with most likely the mk3 coaches from the HSTs when they go, to boost capacity on the service. Ultimately GWR costs stay roughly the same, although the new service would bring in more money, so be a net benefit, and deal with the overcrowding.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

So I touched on this in another thread, but a possible solution, albeit robbing Peter to pay Paul, would be to cut the Night Riviera service, which is unprofitable, and use the class 57s with most likely the mk3 coaches from the HSTs when they go, to boost capacity on the service. Ultimately GWR costs stay roughly the same, although the new service would bring in more money, so be a net benefit, and deal with the overcrowding.

Just no on so many levels!
Would love to know how you figure costs would be roughly the same!!

Locos running miles away from their maintenance depot in Penzance

Locos and rolling stock not compatible electrically

Who pays for all that crew training such as drivers

The list of reasons for NO is endless

 

[Energy]

So I touched on this in another thread, but a possible solution, albeit robbing Peter to pay Paul, would be to cut the Night Riviera service, which is unprofitable, and use the class 57s with most likely the mk3 coaches from the HSTs when they go, to boost capacity on the service. Ultimately GWR costs stay roughly the same, although the new service would bring in more money, so be a net benefit, and deal with the overcrowding.

Costs would be the same but the income will be less with the loss of the Night Riviera. The HST mk3s will be electrically incompatible (there are seated mk3 day coaches but their layout is not suitable).

The DfT seemed happy enough to fund the riviera a few years ago.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Costs would be the same

Costs would be nowhere near the same!

 

[CBlue]

So I touched on this in another thread, but a possible solution, albeit robbing Peter to pay Paul, would be to cut the Night Riviera service, which is unprofitable, and use the class 57s with most likely the mk3 coaches from the HSTs when they go, to boost capacity on the service. Ultimately GWR costs stay roughly the same, although the new service would bring in more money, so be a net benefit, and deal with the overcrowding.

Goodness, that's quite far-fetched even for a speculative section of the forum.

 

[Energy]

Costs would be nowhere near the same!

For the entire GWR franchise the leasing costs would be the same, fuel might be a different story

 

[RedPostJunc]

By then there’s the the option for the ex TFW 158s, and in the meantime 150 reliability seems to be holding up reasonably well, especially considering the extent to which pretty much all the 150 fleets have been and continue to be thrashed.

Realistically I don’t see what other alternatives exist if extra capacity is wanted on Cardiff Portsmouth in the short term. As ever though, it all depends on what DFT are prepared to agree to, which may well be nothing.

The key point on my original post on this thread is that GWR (presumably with DfT approval) is to remove 158s from this route to facilitate withdrawal of the Castle class HSTs. My understanding is that although IETs will be used as the main replacements, there are not enough of them and 158s are going to be used to supplement the IETs. I cannot see how removing stock from a service which is suffering poor performance and reliability, will improve its performance by removing some of the stock used for that service.

IMHO, GWR should be told by the DfT that it cannot take away the 158s from the Cardiff - Portsmouth route until performance and reliability of that route is considerably improved. In reality, the DfT just seem intent on reducing costs.