Cardiff-Portsmouth - Rolling Stock Solutions?

[Diplodicus]

Just in case GWR management is reading this thread (we live in hope) Any chance of an additional three cars on the two post-home rugby match days between Bath and Salisbury? It's usually rammed on arrival from Bristol and come Christmas shopping season...

 

[Paul Jones 88]

What about hydrogen powered 321s?

 

[jackot]

The 158s are unsuitable as doors are too narrow for the passenger loadings at stations like Bath, last time I did the route about a month ago the swarm of passengers meant station stop was nearly 4 minutes at Bath as people tried to squeeze on (even though it was a weekend it was carrying about 150% of seat capacity, and that was before Covid restrictions eased)

The 165 and 166 are just uncomfortable, although they are sometimes used as 6car which isn’t great as not all platforms can handle 6x23m length so get the not all doors opening problem

Both are bit underpowered, and the lack of mid range acceleration on the winding sections in the Avon Valley, and near Hamble river makes them seem quite slow (they also have very noisy engines by modern standards).

Using a 30+ year old diesel train, is older than used in early 1980s when 33s and mk1 coaches did the route, at least they were comfortable which can’t be said about current trains.

Really needs a modern 5 car tri-mode with commuter doors, but intercity seating. The line is third rail electrified Portsmouth-Redbridge, and overhead electrified Cardiff-Filton (and still a chance one day the Filton-Bristol-Bathampton section will get done)

But I agree it is probably one of the busiest multi-city routes without any attempt to equip it like an intercity route

I couldn’t agree more with this. The 165/166 are uncomfortable and dated, and are unsuitable for the route.

The perfect idea of a train would have a similar in interior layout and design to the Class 444, making it good for intercity travel with a smooth ride and good sound proofing, whilst being capable of tri-mode operations, with either underfloor engines or Stadler style ones with a seperate engine car. Sadly, I doubt it is likely that new stock will be ordered by GWR for the route.

 

[PHILIPE]

Just in case GWR management is reading this thread (we live in hope) Any chance of an additional three cars on the two post-home rugby match days between Bath and Salisbury? It's usually rammed on arrival from Bristol and come Christmas shopping season...

Where would they get them from ?

 

[Diplodicus]

Hattons? Rails of Sheffield Peco?

Does that mean that all the available stock is in use on Saturdays and they can't "borrow" something from Bristol??

 

[RPI]

Hattons? Rails of Sheffield Peco?

Does that mean that all the available stock is in use on Saturdays and they can't "borrow" something from Bristol??

"Borrow" some units from the Cardiff Taunton maybe.... because they're not busy on a Saturday are they. (Sarcastic face)

 

[Rhydgaled]

Does that mean that all the available stock is in use on Saturdays and they can't "borrow" something from Bristol??

Not from Bristol, but if you're talking winter then perhaps some of the Devon & Cornwall routes can spare some 150s (in summer routes like St. Ives need to be doubled up, but I doubt that's a year-round requirement)?

 

[30907]

Not from Bristol, but if you're talking winter then perhaps some of the Devon & Cornwall routes can spare some 150s (in summer routes like St. Ives need to be doubled up, but I doubt that's a year-round requirement)?

St Ives is the only one that is seasonally doubled AFAIK.

 

[Kite159]

The 166s would be better when the former first class areas are reopened. At least those who want to use the train to do work have a better chance than the couple remaining small tables in the centre coach.

-------

Crayonist idea - the 175s when they get released from TfW, should be enough to run everything as 5 coach sets.

 

[iantherev]

Not from Bristol, but if you're talking winter then perhaps some of the Devon & Cornwall routes can spare some 150s (in summer routes like St. Ives need to be doubled up, but I doubt that's a year-round requirement)?

Then what do you do for strengthening units when Exeter Chiefs are playing at home. Devon &/Cornwallhave shoppers and sports fans too!

 

[Failed Unit]

What % of the route is electrified to some degree - Thinking about it not much. Portsmouth - Southampton and Bristol - Cardiff so I guess a 769 won't help.

I have seen the Turbo / 158 debate a few times in the past.

You can refurbish the Turbo with some decent 2+2 seating and I suspect passengers will be happy. On services other areas where both could turn up the door spacing really helps the dwell times. However passengers so miss the corridor interconnect. It is frustrating when the rear set is full and the front set is empty you can't move between the 2. Guards will often highlight that and offer people to move between the sets at the next station, but again this doesn't help the dwell time and passengers don't like doing it.

 

[Snow1964]

What % of the route is electrified to some degree - Thinking about it not much. Portsmouth - Southampton and Bristol - Cardiff so I guess a 769 won't help.

I have seen the Turbo / 158 debate a few times in the past.

You can refurbish the Turbo with some decent 2+2 seating and I suspect passengers will be happy. On services other areas where both could turn up the door spacing really helps the dwell times. However passengers so miss the corridor interconnect. It is frustrating when the rear set is full and the front set is empty you can't move between the 2. Guards will often highlight that and offer people to move between the sets at the next station, but again this doesn't help the dwell time and passengers don't like doing it.

The electrification is to Redbridge (not Southampton) and there is a substation at the junction which was sized to allow first mile or two towards Romsey to be done (although third rail was never laid)

There is currently no electrification at Bristol, the wires end at junction near Patchway. It was one the sections dropped when Great Western electrification was cut back. Had it been done Patchway-Bristol-Bath-Bathampton (and onwards to Chippenham) would also have been electrified.

That only really leaves the middle section Redbridge - Bathampton (about 2 miles east of Bath) unelectrifed. There has also been suggestions of Basingstoke-Salisbury being done, and Laverstock (near Salisbury) to Redbridge being done as alternative electric freight route to Southampton docks, but none are active schemes at moment

 

[Rhydgaled]

Then what do you do for strengthening units when Exeter Chiefs are playing at home.

Hope that doesn't fall on the same weekend as Bath vs Salisbury...

 

[Energy]

However, construction of class 197s absolutely should not ever be considered for anything

What about 196s? WMR should be a lot easier than GWR to get electrified.

 

[Rhydgaled]

What about 196s? WMR should be a lot easier than GWR to get electrified.

No more of those should be ordered either. At least WMR only ordered 26 of them so even if the TDNS is implemented in full it might be possible to find work for all of them in 2050 (on routes earmarked for battery units in the TDNS but with zero wiring to charge said batteries) without burning diesel under the wires. The 77 class 197s and 58 class 195s on the other hand leave you a choice of not wiring routes that should be wired or scrapping them before life-expiry (which would be a waste of the embodied carbon).

As for using them on Cardiff-Portsmouth; no. They still have the same 1300mm wide doors as the 197s and the same limited toilet provision. Seat pitch (and therefore legroom) on the 196s is probably rubbish too, particularly given that the 196s seem to have even smaller windows than the 197s.

 

[Peter Sarf]

What % of the route is electrified to some degree - Thinking about it not much. Portsmouth - Southampton and Bristol - Cardiff so I guess a 769 won't help.

I have seen the Turbo / 158 debate a few times in the past.

You can refurbish the Turbo with some decent 2+2 seating and I suspect passengers will be happy. On services other areas where both could turn up the door spacing really helps the dwell times. However passengers so miss the corridor interconnect. It is frustrating when the rear set is full and the front set is empty you can't move between the 2. Guards will often highlight that and offer people to move between the sets at the next station, but again this doesn't help the dwell time and passengers don't like doing it.

Yes I always saw the lack of gangway connections on 2 and 3 car 170s as a backward step. After all the 150/2s, 155s, 156s and 158s all had unit end gangways. Was it done to save money ?.

 

[Diplodicus]

As the original poster (and septuagenerian member of Ian Allan's Locospotters Club) may I conclude that the days of the "SO up relief - runs as required" are long gone in these 'lean burn' schedules (i.e. no allowance for the unforeseen even though premiere rugby is scheduled a year in advance and the pre-Christmas rush starts in ... er... December?)

 

[PG]

33 + 7 Mark 1's used to work.

I must have been dead unlucky back in the day then since all my journeys only had 5 Mark 1's
Still recall one morning shortly before the 155's took over when only 3 Mark 1's rocked up! I didn't need any encouragement when the guard yelled out "you can use 1st class".

 

[Snow1964]

I must have been dead unlucky back in the day then since all my journeys only had 5 Mark 1's
Still recall one morning shortly before the 155's took over when only 3 Mark 1's rocked up! I didn't need any encouragement when the guard yelled out "you can use 1st class".

The comfort of the mk1s compared to 155s or the aging 158 or 166 was world apart.

Interestingly DMUs had been tried before, I believe the Swindon class 123 were actually built for, and used for a while on Cardiff-Portsmouth. It would probably help this debate if someone could remember why they were unsuitable. Then we will all know what any new trains shouldn’t be like.

But reading this thread, I am also leaning towards a tri-mode similar to a class 444 as most suitable solution.

 

[Mike Machin]

Having grown up in Netley, I remember the Swindon class 123 Inter City units - we used to hang around on the way home from school on the then-new footbridge alongside station road just north of Netley station to watch the D65er as we called them - not class 33, as it stormed towards Southampton with a heavily-laden tanker train from the BP facility at Hamble, at around 16.00.

In theory ‘the multi’ as we knew the class 123s was due at about the same time, and we would wonder in excitement as it raced under the bridge towards Portsmouth. They did look smart in their dark green livery with off-white cab roofs. Anyway, that was the theory.

However, it was often late and we would hang around until it appeared, and then be told off for being late home!

In around 1967/68, the 7-car class 123 formations were replaced by a class 35 plus 7 mk1s, and the timekeeping improved dramatically, so I suspect the 123s were hard-pressed to keep time.

Out of interest, the Hymek + 7 formation included two brake 2nds, one at either end, so plenty of space for luggage and bikes, and the formation included a properly-staffed buffet car too - with a selection of hot food available.

Although the frequency is far better today, it’s notable that the service then was considered worthy of having ‘proper’ main-line stock, equal then to any other provincial Inter-City service - very different to today’s provision of clapped-out superannuated commuter cast-offs.

So in theory, I suppose we should be looking at new replacement stock being at least equal to the latest trains operated by Trans Pennine Express.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Although the frequency is far better today, it’s notable that the service then was considered worthy of having ‘proper’ main-line stock, equal then to any other provincial Inter-City service - very different to today’s provision of clapped-out superannuated commuter cast-offs.

So in theory, I suppose we should be looking at new replacement stock being at least equal to the latest trains operated by Trans Pennine Express.

TransPennine Express' new 'Nova' trains are 125mph capable (except the class 68 locomotives). The Cardiff-Portsmouth route does not require such speeds, so the pointy noses of class 800s or 397s would be wasted space. What is needed is something similar to the 'Nova' trains but with a 100/110mph top speed (and better seats), which brings us back to something like 444s...

 

[HamworthyGoods]

TransPennine Express' new 'Nova' trains are 125mph capable (except the class 68 locomotives). The Cardiff-Portsmouth route does not require such speeds, so the pointy noses of class 800s or 397s would be wasted space. What is needed is something similar to the 'Nova' trains but with a 100/110mph top speed (and better seats), which brings us back to something like 444s...

But with 1/3 and 2/3 doors so we don’t go back to the issue of dwells times previously incurred on the 158s.

 

[JN114]

But with 1/3 and 2/3 doors so we don’t go back to the issue of dwells times previously incurred on the 158s.

So in essence a Turbo with a better interior?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

So in essence a Turbo with a better interior?

Exactly!
Possibly slightly better acceleration than a turbo though which is what you would expect on a new train.

 

[The exile]

Exactly!
Possibly slightly better acceleration than a turbo though which is what you would expect on a new train.

and preferably no under-floor Diesel engines!

 

[Rhydgaled]

But with 1/3 and 2/3 doors so we don’t go back to the issue of dwells times previously incurred on the 158s.

No. Mike Machin said above that "we should be looking at new replacement stock being at least equal to the latest trains operated by Trans Pennine Express." If you make it 1/3 and 2/3 doors, particularly if they are 1300mm wide, then it would not be "at least equal" to the Nova trains, it would be an inferior product.

The new trains for Cardiff-Portsmouth should therefore be built with single-width doors (like the Nova trains) either at the vehicle ends (which I suppose you'd call 0/3 and 3/3) or, as a compromise, 0/3 and 2/3 doors (almost exactly like the pantograph well coach on a 444 (second coach in this pic) but with interior partition doors seperating ALL the vestibles from the saloons and assuming the window in front of the leading door of that coach is a bike space or toilet). The doors used should be a modern design of plug door, not the slow clunky ones found on a 158.

If there are still issues with dwell times after making the train longer (more coaches = more doors and less (hopefully zero) standees in the way of said doors to slow things down), using modern door mechanisms and moving the door at ONE END of the coach in about a third then that problem is with the timetable and not the train. If the timetable only allows 30 second dwells for long distance services at places like Bath then that timetable is not fit for purpose and the dwell time allowance must be increased for those services.

 

[JN114]

Intercity-style stock demonstrates a complete disconnect with the point of the route -

A commuter route needs commuter stock. It isn’t the 1980s anymore.

Single doors - even wide ones, and enclosed vestibules are not suitable for the high passenger churn at major stations.

The tail cannot wag the dog. End to end / long distance passengers make up a fraction of the users of the route.

 

[tomuk]

No. Mike Machin said above that "we should be looking at new replacement stock being at least equal to the latest trains operated by Trans Pennine Express." If you make it 1/3 and 2/3 doors, particularly if they are 1300mm wide, then it would not be "at least equal" to the Nova trains, it would be an inferior product.

The new trains for Cardiff-Portsmouth should therefore be built with single-width doors (like the Nova trains) either at the vehicle ends (which I suppose you'd call 0/3 and 3/3) or, as a compromise, 0/3 and 2/3 doors (almost exactly like the pantograph well coach on a 444 (second coach in this pic) but with interior partition doors seperating ALL the vestibles from the saloons and assuming the window in front of the leading door of that coach is a bike space or toilet). The doors used should be a modern design of plug door, not the slow clunky ones found on a 158.

If there are still issues with dwell times after making the train longer (more coaches = more doors and less (hopefully zero) standees in the way of said doors to slow things down), using modern door mechanisms and moving the door at ONE END of the coach in about a third then that problem is with the timetable and not the train. If the timetable only allows 30 second dwells for long distance services at places like Bath then that timetable is not fit for purpose and the dwell time allowance must be increased for those services.

NO NO NO

A 1/3 2/3 unit with gangways (CAF 196 for example) would be ideal for Cardiff to Portsmouth. The 1/3 2/3 doors keep dwell times down and give a bit of extra standing room for the peaks. A modern day Chiltern 168 with end gangways and better acceleration due to the ZF gearbox. For all the eco warriors fit the Hybrid MTU power pack. In the future when battery density has improved very easy to replace fuel tank and engine/gearbox raft with battery/motor replacement.

 

[43096]

Intercity-style stock demonstrates a complete disconnect with the point of the route -

A commuter route needs commuter stock. It isn’t the 1980s anymore.

Single doors - even wide ones, and enclosed vestibules are not suitable for the high passenger churn at major stations.

The tail cannot wag the dog. End to end / long distance passengers make up a fraction of the users of the route.

That’s the Great Western mindset: stuff the long distance passenger, we’re only interested in commuting. Great Western main line (now known as Thames Valley metro) is a good example.

 

[JonathanH]

A modern day Chiltern 168 with end gangways

A 5-car version wouldn't need end gangways because the platforms at intermediate stations are limited to that length anyway.