How should GWR organise its fleet by journey type?

[Rhydgaled]

Moderator note - split from:

Class 175 to GWR

So saw on rail express that 175s are to head to GWR suggesting 2025 entry to service? Quoted important sections GREAT Western Railway is set to take a fleet of 11 two-car and 16 three-car Class 175 diesel multiple units for use in the West of England. The fleet (Nos. 175001-011, 175101-116)...

www.railforums.co.uk

Even regional expresses (possibly even especially regional expresses) need doors and aisle arrangements better able to cope with major passenger churn than the 158s do.

I would struggle to disagree more; the clue is in the name, regional express. Fewer station calls mean dwells make up a smaller percentage of the overall journey time, and passengers will not be just making a 5 minute hop to the next stop (as they might be on a local stopper) - spending longer on the train as a result. As a result, passengers really shouldn't be expected to stand and are more likely to need to use a toilet. Indeed, the Rail Delivery Group best-practice document for train design appears to use the term 'inter-urban' rather than regional express to describe this type of service when making the following recommendation:

provision of toilets should be based on the following ratio of seats to toilets (D):
• For intercity or inter-urban services, 85 seats per toilet,
• For short distance / commuter services, 125 seats per toilet.

To me at least, a regional express / inter-urban service is just an InterCity service running on a route that isn't busy enough with through passengers to justify a 200 or so metre long, 125+mph, train with a first class (2+1 seating) section and hot meal facilities. Cardiff-Portsmouth (3hrs 20mins) takes a fair bit longer than Swansea-Paddington (typically under 3hrs) - I don't see why standard class passengers making the former journey should travel in less comfort than the latter. Class 175 bodyshells are near-perfect in that regard, due to not giving space up for standing room, although there may be a lesson or two that could be learnt from the layout of 158s and 444s for future designs (exterior doors slightly inboard compared to 175s) as well.

 

[The exile]

I would struggle to disagree more; the clue is in the name, regional express. Fewer station calls mean dwells make up a smaller percentage of the overall journey time, and passengers will not be just making a 5 minute hop to the next stop

The only type of service the 158s’ narrow doors and cramped vestibules (as opposed to the saloon, which I’m not referring to) are suited to are rural routes where you would expect no more than a handful dis/embarking at each stop. Widen the doors, lengthen the vestibules and lower the seating density and I’d agree with you.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The only type of service the 158s’ narrow doors and cramped vestibules (as opposed to the saloon, which I’m not referring to) are suited to are rural routes where you would expect no more than a handful dis/embarking at each stop. Widen the doors, lengthen the vestibules and lower the seating density and I’d agree with you.

If by 'lower the seating density' of a class 158 you mean that fewer seats and more legroom in the saloon would make a 158 better for longer-distance inter-urban services then I agree with you on that point - they are currently a bit cramped, but (unless you're happy to ignore window alignment) that can't be fixed. That (and more-modern door mechs, unlike the slow, clunky, class 158 doors) is where the class 175s really shine - 8 large windows per saloon on a 175 compared to the 9 smaller* ones on a 158.

As for wider doors and larger vestibules, that would in turn means more standing space and less 'furnishable space' (ie. a smaller saloon and/or fewer toilets). More standing space at the expense of furnishable space is the problem I have with GWR using class 165s/166s on Cardiff-Portsmouth and why the class 175s would be a better choice. Removing obstructions (perhaps including tip-up seats) from the vestibules might be an idea though.

*unless I'm missing something

 

[bramling]

I would struggle to disagree more; the clue is in the name, regional express. Fewer station calls mean dwells make up a smaller percentage of the overall journey time, and passengers will not be just making a 5 minute hop to the next stop (as they might be on a local stopper) - spending longer on the train as a result. As a result, passengers really shouldn't be expected to stand and are more likely to need to use a toilet. Indeed, the Rail Delivery Group best-practice document for train design appears to use the term 'inter-urban' rather than regional express to describe this type of service when making the following recommendation:



To me at least, a regional express / inter-urban service is just an InterCity service running on a route that isn't busy enough with through passengers to justify a 200 or so metre long, 125+mph, train with a first class (2+1 seating) section and hot meal facilities. Cardiff-Portsmouth (3hrs 20mins) takes a fair bit longer than Swansea-Paddington (typically under 3hrs) - I don't see why standard class passengers making the former journey should travel in less comfort than the latter. Class 175 bodyshells are near-perfect in that regard, due to not giving space up for standing room, although there may be a lesson or two that could be learnt from the layout of 158s and 444s for future designs (exterior doors slightly inboard compared to 175s) as well.

The problem is that when 158s work busy services they seem to go over time on station dwells, which is a significant issue on something like Cardiff-Portsmouth which is both busy and has a lot of stops.

The slightly more spacious body of the 165/166 combined with not having an end door layout works so much better, and would work even better if the seating was fully 2+2.

 

[weeklycommuter]

The problem is that when 158s work busy services they seem to go over time on station dwells, which is a significant issue on something like Cardiff-Portsmouth which is both busy and has a lot of stops.

The slightly more spacious body of the 165/166 combined with not having an end door layout works so much better, and would work even better if the seating was fully 2+2.

Cardiff-Portsmouth is a limited stop train service, at least at the Portsmouth end where after Salisbury it calls only at Romsey, Southampton Central, Fareham, Cosham then the three end stations Fratton, Portsmouth and Southsea and Portsmouth Harbour where the train has half an hour to turn around. There are eight stations between Southampton Central and Fareham and this train does not stop at any of them.

Class 158s are preferred for this longer distance train service because they have two plus two seating. The hope is that with the introduction of the Class 175 trains in Devon and Cornwall all Cardiff-Portsmouth trains will be four car Class 158.

 

[Snow1964]

The problem is that when 158s work busy services they seem to go over time on station dwells, which is a significant issue on something like Cardiff-Portsmouth which is both busy and has a lot of stops.

The slightly more spacious body of the 165/166 combined with not having an end door layout works so much better, and would work even better if the seating was fully 2+2.

2car 158s occasionally get used on Cardiff-Portsmouth and when it happens, regularly lose 10-25 minutes between Bristol and Southampton. I have seen one take 7 minutes for passenger churn at Bath.

At busy times (and when there are multiple cruise ship turnarounds at Southampton), the 165/166 struggle to keep time too. The gangways are narrow and can get blocked with suitcases which slows alighting and boarding. Both Bath and Cardiff seem to be popular short break destinations, so the ex suburban seating layout with minimal luggage space is less than ideal.

As regional trains, because of luggage problems (and of course not everyone with luggage travels to/from London), none of 158, 165 or 166 is ideal. It is less of a problem when 4car or 5car formations are used, but even that doesn't work brilliantly because the stopping markers at the busy stations tend to mean lots of people stand on platforms near the middle coach as that is nearest the stairs/lifts, or where platform seats and waiting rooms are located. Of course some of this could be fixed by moving platform seats and next train displays so that passengers boarding are more spread out (rather than huddled at every stop by same coach), but it hasn't ever been done.

Personally I do hope they realise extra luggage capacity is needed (on a route serving weekend breaks, cruise passengers and Isle of Wight ferries), and it is incorporated into new fleet. Currently it can be miserable due to partly blocked aisles or lack of boarding doors.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The problem is that when 158s work busy services they seem to go over time on station dwells, which is a significant issue on something like Cardiff-Portsmouth which is both busy and has a lot of stops.

Cardiff-Portsmouth is a limited stop train service, at least at the Portsmouth end

It is a limited stop service throughout for 7 hours a day, at least if what GWR's journey planner is showing me for Tuesday 18/Nov/2025 can be considered the norm. Of the 15 through services each way, 7 have 15 (or fewer) intemediate stops. The only stretches where those trains call at 3 stations in a row without passing through any without stopping are (I think) Fratton - Portsmouth Harbour and Westbury - Bradford-On-Avon.

after Salisbury it calls only at Romsey, Southampton Central, Fareham, Cosham then the three end stations Fratton, Portsmouth and Southsea and Portsmouth Harbour

The last four services towards Portsmouth (20:05, 21:05, 22:07 and 23:09 GWR departures off Southampton Central) don't appear to stop at Cosham either. I wonder why?

There's another miss-mash at the other end of the route with 8 services calling at Severn Tunnel Junction while the other 7 don't. Hopefully the Filton Bank will be electrified soon so that GWR can run an hourly (or better) all-stations service between Cardiff and Bristol with their Electrostars (allowing staff to maintain traction knowledge to use them for Cardiff event-day crowdbusting without having to allocate them on PAD-Cardiff services at other times). With that in place, the Portsmouth trains should be able to run non-stop between Newport and Bristol.

Class 158s are preferred for this longer distance train service because they have two plus two seating. The hope is that with the introduction of the Class 175 trains in Devon and Cornwall all Cardiff-Portsmouth trains will be four car Class 158.

Hopefully most Cardiff-Portsmouths will be 5-car class 158, with the remainder (hopefully only one or two diagrams) being 4-car class 158; it's just a shame that GWR don't have quite enough 158s to reliably cover all the diagrams with five coaches.

2car 158s occasionally get used on Cardiff-Portsmouth and when it happens, regularly lose 10-25 minutes between Bristol and Southampton. I have seen one take 7 minutes for passenger churn at Bath.

If it really was only a single 2-car unit then I can easily believe that. Running such a short train to serve cities as big as Bristol and Bath is asking for dwell time trouble at busy times. Only one Cardiff-Portsmouth in each direction calls at Oldfield Park and two at Keynsham. Those two trains aside, the Cardiff-Portsmouth services are the same as the Bristol-Paddington services in that they are non-stop between Bristol and Bath.

As regional trains, because of luggage problems (and of course not everyone with luggage travels to/from London), none of 158, 165 or 166 is ideal. It is less of a problem when 4car or 5car formations are used, but even that doesn't work brilliantly

Does a 5-car class 800/802 have more or less luggage problems than a 5-car 158, I wonder?

 

[Snow1964]

Does a 5-car class 800/802 have more or less luggage problems than a 5-car 158, I wonder?

The 800/802 has one and a bit vehicles as first class so take to get most of the punters in 3.7 of 5 cars. Luggage tends to be a problem on holiday trains to South West (and events like Glastonbury) although single 5car sets tend not to happen on these busier services.

The 158s have problems on big cruise ship changeover days at Southampton (and some days have 15,000+ alighting and another 15,000+ joining), of course many get to/from cruise port by other means, but even 50-100 people with big suitcases tends to cause problems in the aisles.

So they both have problems on specific dates and times, but no idea which is worse overall.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The 800/802 has one and a bit vehicles as first class so take to get most of the punters in 3.7 of 5 cars. Luggage tends to be a problem on holiday trains to South West (and events like Glastonbury) although single 5car sets tend not to happen on these busier services.

The 158s have problems on big cruise ship changeover days at Southampton (and some days have 15,000+ alighting and another 15,000+ joining), of course many get to/from cruise port by other means, but even 50-100 people with big suitcases tends to cause problems in the aisles.

So they both have problems on specific dates and times, but no idea which is worse overall.

Thanks for that interesting answer (sometimes this forum could do with post-reaction buttons like RMWEB has).

70+ large suitcases (assuming they don't fit in overhead racks) would be a problem for most GB multiple-unit stock I can think of. In terms of GWR's fleet, perhaps the class 43 locos on the outgoing Castle HSTs would have done the job.

 

[The exile]

Those two trains aside, the Cardiff-Portsmouth services are the same as the Bristol-Paddington services in that they are non-stop between Bristol and Bath.

Between Bristol and Bath it is unfortunate that the largest gap in the service every hour is before the Portsmouth train (approx 20 minutes), rather than before a much longer London service.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Do Filton Abbey Wood and Cosham really need hourly calls by this service?

Filton Abbey Wood already has a very good frequency for Bristol and is served by other trains each hour to Cardiff and Westbury.

And Cosham is skipped in the evenings anyway, which has never surprised me as it’s already very well served by Southampton trains (2tph Southern, 1tph SWR) and is five minutes from Fareham.

 

[Snow1964]

Between Bristol and Bath it is unfortunate that the largest gap in the service every hour is before the Portsmouth train (approx 20 minutes), rather than before a much longer London service.

Bristol-Bath (non stop) suffers from an irregular service, and completely inconsistent train types, mixing 9car IETs with 2car, 3car DMUs that are 33-35 years old. Some have reservations, others just counted places, some have catering others don't, some have First class, others don't etc. Just a completely inconsistent service level.

The timetable in the area is clearly a bodge, having gained local trains with WECA funding, but no 4-5car regional trains, so newish IETs or ex suburban DMUs neither of which is ideal for a busy regional / cross country service are used.

The Bristol-Bath 20 minute gaps look nothing compared to Bath-Trowbridge section where gaps are upto 33 minutes, but as little as 6 minutes. Some of this is due to taking 4th platform out at Westbury and Salisbury and creating some long signal sections as rationalisations 40 years ago, but it has created a big mess trying to operate a sensibly timed, consistent quality service today.

 

[The exile]

Do Filton Abbey Wood and Cosham really need hourly calls by this service?

Filton Abbey Wood already has a very good frequency for Bristol and is served by other trains each hour to Cardiff and Westbury.

Filton AW may have plenty of services to Bristol, but looking at the next hour, with the timetable as it is, if you ran the Portsmouth through fast there would then be a 29 minute gap in the service - even though there would still be 6 trains in the hour! (Well, strictly speaking in 61 minutes)