Class 175 future speculation

[craigybagel]

I think the biggest obstacle of sending them to Northern is going to be persuading the DfT to pay for it. I can't see them agreeing to the costs if all you're achieving is retiring some other DMUs early. At least at GWR they're probably going to be cheaper to run than the Castle HSTs, and similarly with Chiltern and the 68/MKIIIs.

In our minds the 150s et al might be life expired, but good luck persuading the DFT of that fact.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I keep trying to explain that end doored 100mph trains are not what Northern is short of, especially as replacements for the (mid door, fast accelerating, 75mph 150s that are able to soak up passengers at Castlefield etc)

Before suggesting Northern as a dumping ground for any stock, I wish people would ask themselves “CIROTCLCS” (“could it run on the CLC stoppers” - i.e. the half hourly Oxford Road - Warrington Central - Lime Street trains), because that’s what Northern needs

I beg to differ. From a quick look at RealTimeTrains, Blackpool North - York services are being run using class 195s. Northern clearly are short of end-doored units since if they had more they could use those on York-Blackpool and release the 195s (with their doors-at-thirds) for services through Warrington Central. I'm not sure if a 100mph top speed is needed on York-Blackpool, but the 195s have a 100mph top speed anyway so that is no problem if using the 175s on York-Blackpool.

Northern has one class of stock that makes sense on the CLC stoppers - Class 195. Thus anything that can release those units for Manchester locals (Marple/Rose Hill too) is useful.

Well said. I suppose 150s may also make sense on those stoppers, apart from being due for replacement.

There are only two other classes that are suitable for that - 172 and 196 - and neither is spare.

Presumably 197s would also be suitable, since aren't they are basically 195s with end gangways and different interiors? You might want to rip out the strange catering cupboard thing (which I haven't had a good look at, probably because I've not been anywhere near a 197 yet) and replace it with more seats, but in terms of engineering they presumably aren't much different. One of the reasons I hate the 197s (and 195s) so much is that most of the services they are really suitable for (like the stoppers through Warrington Central) are routes that should be fairly high up the list to be electrified - so the fact they are diesel-only becomes an even bigger issue than it might otherwise have been.

Regional express standard stock (eg. 158s or 175s) is equally important on both Exeter-Penzance and Cardiff-Portsmouth and therefore the 175s wouldn't be wasted on either. It's just that I would tend towards 175s on Cardiff-Portsmouth and 158s on Exeter-Penzance (rather than the other way around)

It’s funny how all of your suggestions essentially boil down to “Wales gets end doored trains” (and other lines in the UK get the stock that you don’t like)

Err, no. There might be a leaning towards that since I'm (much) more familar with Welsh services (and possibly me being selfish) but it is certainly not all my suggestions. In fact, the example you quoted is actually one of the exceptions, since both the classes noted in the bit you quoted (158s and 175s) are end-doored stock that I normally rather like to travel on. For (hopefully) absolute clarity, the suggestion was:

• Cardiff-Portsmouth - class 175s (in 5-car formations): end-door stock
• Cardiff-Taunton/Exeter (stopping services via Weston-Super-Mare) - class 165s/166s: doors-at-thirds
• Bristol-Plymouth (fast services, probably XC from Edinburgh etc., which would overtake the above stoppers) - various end-door stock
• Exeter-Penzance - class 158s (in 4-car or 5-car formations): end-door stock

I think a better generalisation of my suggestions would be that they boil down to getting end-door EMUs with unit-end gangways everywhere unless there is an strong argument for that not being appropriate in a given suituation. Unfortunately that won't be possible if too many units that don't fit that description have been built in which case they need to be stuck somewhere until they can finally be disposed of as life-expired.

 

[RobShipway]

• Cardiff-Portsmouth - class 175s (in 5-car formations): end-door stock
• Cardiff-Taunton/Exeter (stopping services via Weston-Super-Mare) - class 165s/166s: doors-at-thirds
• Bristol-Plymouth (fast services, probably XC from Edinburgh etc., which would overtake the above stoppers) - various end-door stock
• Exeter-Penzance - class 158s (in 4-car or 5-car formations): end-door stock

I think a better generalisation of my suggestions would be that they boil down to getting end-door EMUs with unit-end gangways everywhere unless there is an strong argument for that not being appropriate in a given suituation. Unfortunately that won't be possible if too many units that don't fit that description have been built in which case they need to be stuck somewhere until they can finally be disposed of as life-expired.

I think GWR, would be better to have the class 222 units, if they do not go to Cross Country doing the Exter - Penzance and Bristol-Plymouth services. Class 175 units doing Cardiff-Taunton/Exeter (stopping services via Weston-Super-Mare) and class 165/166 continuing to do Cardiff-Portsmouth services. The class 165/166 are better on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route, due to issues that I have seen in the past at Cosham, Fareham and Romsey stations with regards loading on to end carriage trains. I know that people have said well it is a 3 hour almost inter-city service, well you have the Thameslink Brighton - Bedford service which is 2.5 hours. Does that make the Brighton - Bedford service, an almost Inter-city service? The answer to the question is no, that it is a commuter service where for the most part not everyone that gets on the train is travelling the full Brighton - Bedford distance, likewise not everyone are travelling the full distance between Cardiff and Portsmouth. Yes, the same possibly could be said for the other services mentioned. But from what I have pre - covid, that is less likely.

You are more likely to get people travelling the full distance on the Cardiff-Taunton/Exeter, Bristol-Plymouth and Exeter-Penzance services.

For instance a passenger getting on at Cardiff, may only travel as far as say Bristol Temple Meads. A passenger getting on at Bristol Temple Meads, may only travel as far as Salisbury. Passengers from Salisbury, may travel the full distance to Portsmouth, but may also only go as far as Southampton. Then from Southampton, you have what is then just a local express train to Portsmouth Harbour.

 

[irish_rail]

• Cardiff-Portsmouth - class 175s (in 5-car formations): end-door stock
• Cardiff-Taunton/Exeter (stopping services via Weston-Super-Mare) - class 165s/166s: doors-at-thirds
• Bristol-Plymouth (fast services, probably XC from Edinburgh etc., which would overtake the above stoppers) - various end-door stock
• Exeter-Penzance - class 158s (in 4-car or 5-car formations): end-door stock

I'd argue swap your suggestion around in terms of Pompey Cardiff and Exeter to Penzance. The EX PZ route could do with the higher performance 175s due to all the gradients. Also it would give Laira something to maintain (175s) whereas more 158s would probably need to be allocated to Exeter which is already full.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Northern has one class of stock that makes sense on the CLC stoppers - Class 195. Thus anything that can release those units for Manchester locals (Marple/Rose Hill too) is useful.
There are only two other classes that are suitable for that - 172 and 196 - and neither is spare.

I'd have thought 185s could fit the CLC bill, with their extra power. Or any other stoppers.
If TPE would only clarify their fleet plan we would know if there are any spare.

While the TOCs have to do what DfT says, I'm sure DfT understands the cost implications of every switch of rolling stock.
The main issue with running 175s will be maintenance as they will have no base when they leave Chester.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Class 175 units doing Cardiff-Taunton/Exeter (stopping services via Weston-Super-Mare) and class 165/166 continuing to do Cardiff-Portsmouth services. The class 165/166 are better on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route, due to issues that I have seen in the past at Cosham, Fareham and Romsey stations with regards loading on to end carriage trains.

That's mad; if Cosham and Fareham (7 minutes apart, and personally I don't see why the GWR service calls at both, one of the two would do) present a problem for end-door stock then surely there is also a problem on the stoppers via Weston-Super-Mare (where some of the stops are only 3 or 4 minutes apart).

For instance a passenger getting on at Cardiff, may only travel as far as say Bristol Temple Meads. A passenger getting on at Bristol Temple Meads, may only travel as far as Salisbury. Passengers from Salisbury, may travel the full distance to Portsmouth, but may also only go as far as Southampton.

Yes, but you could equally have somebody going just from Paddington to Reading on a GWR InterCity service to Swansea or Penzance. The important thing here is what are passengers who are travelling a long way (such as Reading to Swansea, Cardiff to Southampton or even Portsmouth to Cardiff) supposed to do?

well you have the Thameslink Brighton - Bedford service which is 2.5 hours. Does that make the Brighton - Bedford service, an almost Inter-city service?

It depends. If the Thameslink service is stopping every few minutes (as it should be given the metro-style class 700s) and it's quicker to take an EMR service from Bedford to STP then change onto something else for the journey to Brighton then perhaps not. I've always been dubious about Thameslink going to Brighton at all (Gatwick Express should have held onto the 5-WES units, or aquired something similar new-build like a 444, running Victoria-Brighton fast services which the long-distance passengers should have been encourage to change onto eg. by having them overtake the Thameslink services). In other words, if Thameslink goes to Brighton at all it should be as the local stopper, much like Crossrail is on the GWML, not something that is the quickest way to make a long journey.

There appears to be an opportunity for long-distance passengers to be kept off the Bristol-Taunton/Exeter (via Weston-Super-Mare) stoppers by having a fast service overtake (using the direct route) while the stopper is doing the detour via Weston-Super-Mare. That isn't something that applies to the Cardiff-Portsmouth.

I'd argue swap your suggestion around in terms of Pompey Cardiff and Exeter to Penzance. The EX PZ route could do with the higher performance 175s due to all the gradients. Also it would give Laira something to maintain (175s) whereas more 158s would probably need to be allocated to Exeter which is already full.

The problem with that is that (assuming you don't want to reduce the current 2+4 Castle HSTs to 2-car or 3-car 175s) it would involve introducing an interuption in the middle of the train because the class 175s do not have unit-end-gangways. Meanwhile, the Cardiff-Portmouth route already suffers from an interuption with the Turbos so putting the class 175s there would not be a downgrade.

 

[43074]

I beg to differ. From a quick look at RealTimeTrains, Blackpool North - York services are being run using class 195s. Northern clearly are short of end-doored units since if they had more they could use those on York-Blackpool and release the 195s (with their doors-at-thirds) for services through Warrington Central. I'm not sure if a 100mph top speed is needed on York-Blackpool, but the 195s have a 100mph top speed anyway so that is no problem if using the 175s on York-Blackpool.

There is nothing wrong with using 195s on Blackpool North to York though? There are lots of stations en-route where you get large numbers of people boarding and alighting, similar to using 170s on the likes of Birmingham to Stansted they are ideally suited to that sort of work with nice wide doorways for getting people on and off quickly at stations with high passenger turnover.

I think you'll find plenty of 158s on stopping services in the Leeds area too, indeed the whole idea of the 195s was they'd be used on semi-fast services and cascade 158s to ultimately allow pacer replacement to happen.

 

[Rhydgaled]

There is nothing wrong with using 195s on Blackpool North to York though? There are lots of stations en-route where you get large numbers of people boarding and alighting, similar to using 170s on the likes of Birmingham to Stansted they are ideally suited to that sort of work with nice wide doorways for getting people on and off quickly at stations with high passenger turnover.

I disagree. In my view wide doorways (unless you reduce the number of doorways to compensate for the lost passenger space) are only appropriate where the train is stopping at every little station and (almost) all those stations are serving a fairly heavily populated area so have high footfall. In such cases the dwell times with narrow doors would add up to unacceptably high levels (for example Crossrail from Reading to PAD has 11 intermediate stops in 53 minutes, while Birmingham-Stansted has 10 intermediate stops in over 190 minutes). The only reason I didn't have Birmingham-Stansted on my list of suggestions for the 175s a few pages back is that I understand there would be issues with Sprinter differentials if 175s were to be used (as such, I think an end-doored FLIRT would be a better choice for that route).

170s are, in my view, poorly suited to anything and everything (though they are not necessarily the worst choice - one of the TfW 170s would for example be less poorly suited to Cardiff-Chester services than a 197). The wide doors make the 170s poorly suited to services with infrequent stops, while their poor acceletation (apparently) makes them poorly suited to services with frequent stops.

I think you'll find plenty of 158s on stopping services in the Leeds area too, indeed the whole idea of the 195s was they'd be used on semi-fast services and cascade 158s to ultimately allow pacer replacement to happen.

Indeed, the powers-that-be seem to have this idea that newer=nicer and therefore put their newest trains on the more glamorous routes even though (in the case of the 195s) the new trains are actually better suited to depolyment on local stopping services with the 158s on the regional expresses left alone.

 

[RobShipway]

That's mad; if Cosham and Fareham (7 minutes apart, and personally I don't see why the GWR service calls at both, one of the two would do) present a problem for end-door stock then surely there is also a problem on the stoppers via Weston-Super-Mare (where some of the stops are only 3 or 4 minutes apart).

Yes, but you could equally have somebody going just from Paddington to Reading on a GWR InterCity service to Swansea or Penzance. The important thing here is what are passengers who are travelling a long way (such as Reading to Swansea, Cardiff to Southampton or even Portsmouth to Cardiff) supposed to do?It depends. If the Thameslink service is stopping every few minutes (as it should be given the metro-style class 700s) and it's quicker to take an EMR service from Bedford to STP then change onto something else for the journey to Brighton then perhaps not. I've always been dubious about Thameslink going to Brighton at all (Gatwick Express should have held onto the 5-WES units, or aquired something similar new-build like a 444, running Victoria-Brighton fast services which the long-distance passengers should have been encourage to change onto eg. by having them overtake the Thameslink services). In other words, if Thameslink goes to Brighton at all it should be as the local stopper, much like Crossrail is on the GWML, not something that is the quickest way to make a long journey.

There appears to be an opportunity for long-distance passengers to be kept off the Bristol-Taunton/Exeter (via Weston-Super-Mare) stoppers by having a fast service overtake (using the direct route) while the stopper is doing the detour via Weston-Super-Mare. That isn't something that applies to the Cardiff-Portsmouth.

The problem with that is that (assuming you don't want to reduce the current 2+4 Castle HSTs to 2-car or 3-car 175s) it would involve introducing an interuption in the middle of the train because the class 175s do not have unit-end-gangways. Meanwhile, the Cardiff-Portmouth route already suffers from an interuption with the Turbos so putting the class 175s there would not be a downgrade.

The use of three car 165/166 with a two car on the cardiff - Portsmouth route there is no end gangways and there is not necessarily a need for it on this service.

You say that the train should stop at either Cosham or Fareham, rather than both, that is like saying an EMR Inter-City train from STP should not stop at Loughborough, but go on instead to Leicester! Cosham, Fareham and Loughborough ceratinly pre - covid are towns that have had growing populations and as such should have not only a local service, but the ability if only once every two hours to have a service that takes the people of these town further afield, otherwise you are ignoring the ability for the TOC to potentially have any income, if you are just selective in where the trains are stopping.

What would you have next, have no trains stopping at Birmingham International as passengers should be travelling on buses from Coverntry!

The Thameslink service like Crossrail serves a purpose with enabling people to travel through London without the need to be changing more than once, depending on where they are travelling too. So for instance, if I was travelling from Brighton to Cleethorpes, I could get on a Thameslink train from Brighton, then change at Kings Cross St Pancras to get a train northbound from King's Cross. yes, I would still have to change again at somewhere link Lincoln. But that would be fair less changes, than if I would have to change to the Underground at London Victoria to get to King's Cross.

The above, is where I believe that you and a few others are missing the point as to where the class 175 units would be most suited and what routes even though long distance, in some areas are basically commuter routes due to be the one or only service that can take them from A to B in that area.

I think that loading of the trains doing the Exeter - Penzance and Bristol-Plymouth services, is more so than the Cardiff-Taunton/Exeter (stopping services via Weston-Super-Mare). Hence, why if GWR where to have the class 222 units as well as the class 175 units, I would put the class 222 units on Exeter - Penzance and Bristol-Plymouth services and have the class 175 units working the Cardiff-Taunton/Exeter (stopping services via Weston-Super-Mare).

 

[Rhydgaled]

The use of three car 165/166 with a two car on the cardiff - Portsmouth route there is no end gangways and there is not necessarily a need for it on this service.

That was kind of the point I was trying to make - the Cardiff-Portsmouth route already has stock with no end gangways so class 175s (also with no end gangways) would be ok. However, the Castle HSTs are 4 carriages and gangwayed throughout, so in that respect it's better to replace the Castle HSTs with class 158s (thus preserving through gangways) than with class 175s.

You say that the train should stop at either Cosham or Fareham, rather than both, that is like saying an EMR Inter-City train from STP should not stop at Loughborough, but go on instead to Leicester! Cosham, Fareham and Loughborough ceratinly pre - covid are towns that have had growing populations and as such should have not only a local service, but the ability if only once every two hours to have a service that takes the people of these town further afield, otherwise you are ignoring the ability for the TOC to potentially have any income, if you are just selective in where the trains are stopping.

What would you have next, have no trains stopping at Birmingham International as passengers should be travelling on buses from Coverntry!

Many EMR InterCity services do skip Loughborough, and the ones that do stop are operated by the same (end-door) units as the ones that don't. Therefore keeping both shouldn't be an issue but if stopping at both Cosham and Fareham with a 5-car class 175 formation (or equivilant) causes a problem with dwell times on the Cardiff-Portsmouth then drop one of them* to allow end-door stock to be used - there are plenty of Southern and SWR services there to serve them.

* I would suggest dropping both except that they are useful for interchange with services towards Havant and Hedge End so at least one of them should remain as a call on the Cardiff-Portsmouth for that reason. Returning to your EMR example, I feel that dropping Bedford calls from the Market Harborough services was a mistake due to the lost potential for interchange with East West Rail.

The Thameslink service like Crossrail serves a purpose with enabling people to travel through London without the need to be changing more than once, depending on where they are travelling too.

The reduction in changes on some flows is a happy side effect, but looking at the specification of the rolling stock (Crossrail even more so than Thameslink) that is clearly not their primary purpose. For example if I was going from Reading to Norwich then (at least if the IET's had decent seats) the way to go would clearly be GWR to Paddington then Crossrail to get through London and then GA to Norwich, despite the fact it could be done with one change if using Crossrail from Reading.

The above, is where I believe that you and a few others are missing the point as to where the class 175 units would be most suited and what routes even though long distance, in some areas are basically commuter routes due to be the one or only service that can take them from A to B in that area.

So? I'm saying the almost exact same thing but for a different subset of passengers. The Cardiff-Portsmouth (and other similar routes) is also the only service that can take them from end-to-end, so it is just as vital for long-distance passengers as you're saying it is for commuters. In other words, it is both a series of commuter route(s) and a long-distance route.

A short-distance commuter isn't going to care if they have a nice big table, extra legroom, a clear view out of the window etc. - they just want to get to work/home and might not even mind having to sit on the floor (or stand). However, a long-distance passenger (particularly if travelling for leisure) does care so those 'quality features' need to be there for them and giving away space that could have been used for legroom/tables/toilets/seats by having wide doors doesn't help. Having wide doors cuts dwell times, but it almost certainly means fewer seats, tables and/or toilets. That increases the risk of the long-distance passenger having an unpleasant journey and vowing never to travel by rail (at least on that route) again. Just don't take that risk, make sure the long-distance passengers have access to class 175s (or equivilent/better).

Short version: a short-distance commuter doesn't care if he/she gets a 166 or a 175, a long-distance passenger does.

I think that loading of the trains doing the Exeter - Penzance and Bristol-Plymouth services, is more so than the Cardiff-Taunton/Exeter (stopping services via Weston-Super-Mare). Hence, why if GWR where to have the class 222 units as well as the class 175 units, I would put the class 222 units on Exeter - Penzance and Bristol-Plymouth services and have the class 175 units working the Cardiff-Taunton/Exeter (stopping services via Weston-Super-Mare).

If you are giving GWR (semi-)fast Bristol-Exeter services (direct services avoiding Weston-Super-Mare), plus the 175s and the 222s then I would do something similar:

• Bristol-Exeter (direct services avoiding Weston-Super-Mare) - class 222s (agreed with you)
• Exeter-Penzance - class 222s (agreed with you) or class 158s
• Cardiff-Taunton/Exeter (stopping services via Weston-Super-Mare) - class 166s/165s (disagreement)
• Cardiff-Portsmouth - class 175s (in 5-car/6-car formations)

 

[RobShipway]

That was kind of the point I was trying to make - the Cardiff-Portsmouth route already has stock with no end gangways so class 175s (also with no end gangways) would be ok. However, the Castle HSTs are 4 carriages and gangwayed throughout, so in that respect it's better to replace the Castle HSTs with class 158s (thus preserving through gangways) than with class 175s.


Many EMR InterCity services do skip Loughborough, and the ones that do stop are operated by the same (end-door) units as the ones that don't. Therefore keeping both shouldn't be an issue but if stopping at both Cosham and Fareham with a 5-car class 175 formation (or equivilant) causes a problem with dwell times on the Cardiff-Portsmouth then drop one of them* to allow end-door stock to be used - there are plenty of Southern and SWR services there to serve them.

* I would suggest dropping both except that they are useful for interchange with services towards Havant and Hedge End so at least one of them should remain as a call on the Cardiff-Portsmouth for that reason. Returning to your EMR example, I feel that dropping Bedford calls from the Market Harborough services was a mistake due to the lost potential for interchange with East West Rail.


The reduction in changes on some flows is a happy side effect, but looking at the specification of the rolling stock (Crossrail even more so than Thameslink) that is clearly not their primary purpose. For example if I was going from Reading to Norwich then (at least if the IET's had decent seats) the way to go would clearly be GWR to Paddington then Crossrail to get through London and then GA to Norwich, despite the fact it could be done with one change if using Crossrail from Reading.


So? I'm saying the almost exact same thing but for a different subset of passengers. The Cardiff-Portsmouth (and other similar routes) is also the only service that can take them from end-to-end, so it is just as vital for long-distance passengers as you're saying it is for commuters. In other words, it is both a series of commuter route(s) and a long-distance route.

A short-distance commuter isn't going to care if they have a nice big table, extra legroom, a clear view out of the window etc. - they just want to get to work/home and might not even mind having to sit on the floor (or stand). However, a long-distance passenger (particularly if travelling for leisure) does care so those 'quality features' need to be there for them and giving away space that could have been used for legroom/tables/toilets/seats by having wide doors doesn't help. Having wide doors cuts dwell times, but it almost certainly means fewer seats, tables and/or toilets. That increases the risk of the long-distance passenger having an unpleasant journey and vowing never to travel by rail (at least on that route) again. Just don't take that risk, make sure the long-distance passengers have access to class 175s (or equivilent/better).

Short version: a short-distance commuter doesn't care if he/she gets a 166 or a 175, a long-distance passenger does.


If you are giving GWR (semi-)fast Bristol-Exeter services (direct services avoiding Weston-Super-Mare), plus the 175s and the 222s then I would do something similar:

• Bristol-Exeter (direct services avoiding Weston-Super-Mare) - class 222s (agreed with you)
• Exeter-Penzance - class 222s (agreed with you) or class 158s
• Cardiff-Taunton/Exeter (stopping services via Weston-Super-Mare) - class 166s/165s (disagreement)
• Cardiff-Portsmouth - class 175s (in 5-car/6-car formations)

I kinda of agree with actually on the Cardiff-Taunton/Exeter (stopping services via Weston-Super-Mare) with using 166/165. However, if it was me at GWR I would have both class 175 and 165/166 doing the services on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route. The class 175 would do the 'inter-city' services on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route where you miss out stopping at say Cosham. I would have the trains still stop at Fareham as it is a junction station. I would also take out stopping at Filton Abbey Wood, Freshford, Avoncliff, Westbury, Warminster and Romsey.

The class 165/166, with a mix of tables and 3 + 2 seating could do the stopper services on the route.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

That's mad; if Cosham and Fareham (7 minutes apart, and personally I don't see why the GWR service calls at both, one of the two would do)

It doesn’t after about 6pm.

Gatwick Express should have held onto the 5-WES units, or aquired something similar new-build like a 444, running Victoria-Brighton fast services which the long-distance passengers should have been encourage to change onto eg. by having them overtake the Thameslink services).

Brighton is nowhere near a long enough route to justify Intercity style trains, and single door stock proved especially stupid for an airport service with difficult attempts to get wide suitcases through the narrow 442 doors. Gatwick Airport station can get very crowded and long dwell times aren’t ideal. The 460 did the job well. Not sure how we’ve managed to get onto this on the 175 thread mind you.

 

[Rhydgaled]

if it was me at GWR I would have both class 175 and 165/166 doing the services on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route. The class 175 would do the 'inter-city' services on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route where you miss out stopping at say Cosham. I would have the trains still stop at Fareham as it is a junction station. I would also take out stopping at Filton Abbey Wood, Freshford, Avoncliff, Westbury, Warminster and Romsey.

I think I agree with you in principle but why remove Filton, Westbury and Romsey? Those are also junction stations.

I think the Cardiff-Portsmouth should be operated by 158s, 175s or similar (with at least 5-cars throughout) and serve the following stations Cardiff Central, Newport, Severn Tunnel Junction*, Filton Abbey Wood*, Bristol Temple Meads, Bath Spa, Trowbridge*, Westbury, Warminster, Salisbury, Romsey*, Southampton Central, Fareham*, Fratton**, Portsmouth & Southsea and Portsmouth Harbour. Of course there would need to be seperate services to call at the stations not served by the fast Cardiff-Portsmouth and those stoppers could/should be operated using 165s/166s as you suggest, though I would probably have them refurbed to provide 2+2 seating and run them as seperate all-stops services (eg. Swansea-Bristol, Bristol-Westbury, Swindon-Warminster-Eastleigh-Southampton, Salisbury-Southampton and Poole/Bournemouth-Southampton-Portsmouth) rather than a single Cardiff-Portsmouth through stopper.

* included because it is a junction station and otherwise passengers could/would have to backtrack from one of the larger stations - I have not included stops at junctions like Patchway as these (normally) have no services calling on the joining route(s).
** included because everything seems to stop there so it must be rather important

Brighton is nowhere near a long enough route to justify Intercity style trains, and single door stock proved especially stupid for an airport service with difficult attempts to get wide suitcases through the narrow 442 doors.

And yet it takes about an hour (about the same as PAD-Swindon) and has only one intermediate stop (PAD-Swindon sometimes has one stop, sometimes two), and GatEx. was run with (essentially) mark 2F stock for about 15 years. Perhaps the 442 doors were particularly narrow and something more modern like a 444 or 397 would be ok?

Not sure how we’ve managed to get onto this on the 175 thread mind you.

Because somebody tried to compare the Cardiff-Portsmouth route (which I had listed as one of many possible homes for the class 175s) with Thameslink.

 

[Vanmanyo]

Can I just ask, has nobody mentioned (and I haven't looked through all 25 pages) the Chiltern clause in their agreement for 175s? Just interesting how nobody here has spoken about that.

 

[JonathanH]

Can I just ask, has nobody mentioned (and I haven't looked through all 25 pages) the Chiltern clause in their agreement for 175s? Just interesting how nobody here has spoken about that. View attachment 124142

It has been mentioned. It is viewed as being facilitative rather than being fact - ie provision is made in case 175s go to Chiltern rather than because 175s go to Chiltern.

 

[Vanmanyo]

It has been mentioned. It is viewed as being facilitative rather than being fact - ie provision is made in case 175s go to Chiltern rather than because 175s go to Chiltern.

I assumed it has been mentioned yes. The fact it is mentioned suggests there have been some talks or something perhaps the DfT had in mind although whether this happens is unsure obviously. It still is something to go off and is some proof that Chiltern have/had interest in the units, possibly for 68 replacement.

 

[RobShipway]

I think I agree with you in principle but why remove Filton, Westbury and Romsey? Those are also junction stations.

I think the Cardiff-Portsmouth should be operated by 158s, 175s or similar (with at least 5-cars throughout) and serve the following stations Cardiff Central, Newport, Severn Tunnel Junction*, Filton Abbey Wood*, Bristol Temple Meads, Bath Spa, Trowbridge*, Westbury, Warminster, Salisbury, Romsey*, Southampton Central, Fareham*, Fratton**, Portsmouth & Southsea and Portsmouth Harbour. Of course there would need to be seperate services to call at the stations not served by the fast Cardiff-Portsmouth and those stoppers could/should be operated using 165s/166s as you suggest, though I would probably have them refurbed to provide 2+2 seating and run them as seperate all-stops services (eg. Swansea-Bristol, Bristol-Westbury, Swindon-Warminster-Eastleigh-Southampton, Salisbury-Southampton and Poole/Bournemouth-Southampton-Portsmouth) rather than a single Cardiff-Portsmouth through stopper.

* included because it is a junction station and otherwise passengers could/would have to backtrack from one of the larger stations - I have not included stops at junctions like Patchway as these (normally) have no services calling on the joining route(s).
** included because everything seems to stop there so it must be rather important


And yet it takes about an hour (about the same as PAD-Swindon) and has only one intermediate stop (PAD-Swindon sometimes has one stop, sometimes two), and GatEx. was run with (essentially) mark 2F stock for about 15 years. Perhaps the 442 doors were particularly narrow and something more modern like a 444 or 397 would be ok?


Because somebody tried to compare the Cardiff-Portsmouth route (which I had listed as one of many possible homes for the class 175s) with Thameslink.

The reason for taking away Romsey, is that most people would travel through Salisbury. There is also the South Western Railway circular service that starts at Romsey, goes through Southampton and Romsey to finish at Salisbury. If passengers want to connect to the GWR 'Fast Service' they can do so at Southampton or take the commuter service to Portsmouth.

With regards Filton Abbey Wood, you have services, that travel between Bristol Parkway to Bristol Temple Meads, that stop at Filton Abbey Wood.

Westbury has the service from Weymouth, that also travels through Bristol Temple Meads. Plus Westbury also has a service that starts there that goes through to Salisbury, which possibly for many routes would actually be quicker depending where the passengers are travelling too.

It doesn’t after about 6pm.

Brighton is nowhere near a long enough route to justify Intercity style trains, and single door stock proved especially stupid for an airport service with difficult attempts to get wide suitcases through the narrow 442 doors. Gatwick Airport station can get very crowded and long dwell times aren’t ideal. The 460 did the job well. Not sure how we’ve managed to get onto this on the 175 thread mind you.

Th comparison between the Cardiff - Portsmouth Harbour Service and Thameslink service was down to me, as with the Cardiff - Portsmouth Harbour service you have a service of 3 hours 48 minutes, depending where it stops. With the Thameslink service between Brighton - Bedford, the service depending where it stops is 2.5 - 3 hours. The point I was making is that like the Thameslink service where most passengers are not on the train the full journey, neither are the passengers between Cardiff - Portsmouth. You may have a passenger that is travelling from say Cardiff Central to Newport or Bristol Temple Meads who maybe using it as a commuter service. Although I notice today that the first service from Cardiff did not start until 9:28am. But certainly going the other way, a commuter could be using say the 07:21am service from Portsmouth Harbour to get to Southampton, Romsey or Salisbury as an example to get to work. For a service like this, would you not need more capacity and the ability for passengers to both get off and get on a train at the same time? Hence, why I say services like this should be run with class 165/166 units, but refurbished as has been mentioned to 2+2 rather than 2+3, which I believe that GWR are going to be doing in the future?

But I also think that faster services, as I have mentioned above should also be introduced with stops limited to major places or places where the GWR service is only 1 of 2 services at that station. The stops, that I have suggested be taken out have more than one service stopping at the station and people could travel on one of those services to the next major station as, is done in many other areas of the country. The faster services could be done with using the class 175 units.

 

[317 forever]

Now that Vivarail has gone into administration, some 175s could be used to replace former London Underground D stock on Bedford-Bletchley, and on the Isle of Wight. If some go to GWR to replace the 5-car 125s, it will retain current capacity. These would not need replacing as soon as the 158s.

 

[Energy]

Now that Vivarail has gone into administration, some 175s could be used to replace former London Underground D stock on Bedford-Bletchley

No, the Marston Vale platforms are setup for 20m and would be very expenisvie to change that,

If some go to GWR to replace the 5-car 125s, it will retain current capacity.

Already planned to use spare IETs, the phased reduction in castle sets is due to crew training.

 

[RobShipway]

Now that Vivarail has gone into administration, some 175s could be used to replace former London Underground D stock on Bedford-Bletchley, and on the Isle of Wight. If some go to GWR to replace the 5-car 125s, it will retain current capacity. These would not need replacing as soon as the 158s.

I think that you will find that the Vivarail trains if maintained by them, will be probably be maintained by a separate company to Vivarail train builders, which is the part that has gone into Administration.

 

[D365]

Now that Vivarail has gone into administration, some 175s could be used to replace former London Underground D stock on Bedford-Bletchley, and on the Isle of Wight.

Cor. Converting the 175s to third rail would be quite some job!

 

[skyhigh]

Cor. Converting the 175s to third rail would be quite some job!

And would they fit through the tunnel!

 

[Bletchleyite]

And would they fit through the tunnel!

Quite possibly not. There isn't a vertical issue but there is one with vehicle length due to reverse curves.

However regarding powering them this would have been under one of the de electrification proposals.

 

[D365]

Quite possibly not. There isn't a vertical issue but there is one with vehicle length due to reverse curves.

However regarding powering them this would have been under one of the de electrification proposals.

Indeed, but (thankfully) completely unrealistic as this would have required diesel facilities to be added to the Island Line. Not a lot of space in the depot for that.

 

[43096]

And would they fit through the tunnel!

Which was exactly what the platform end gibberings (and web equivalent) were at the time the 484s went to the island. Strangely enough, Vivarail knew more about it than the armchair experts did.

 

[Trainbike46]

175 to Island line will never happen. When the current trains came into service they upgraded the power supply; they're not going to switch to diesel now. They'll just keep the current trains there.

There are potential uses for the 175, but the island line isn't one of them

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That's a lot of responses to a point that I'm 99.9% certain was made in jest!

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a lot of responses to a point that I'm 99.9% certain was made in jest!

Used DMUs were actually considered for Island Line, but obviously it would have been de-electrified were that option chosen. Pacers may have been an option because the 16m vehicles would probably have been OK with the S curve in the tunnel. Fortunately this was not chosen.

 

[D365]

Which was exactly what the platform end gibberings (and web equivalent) were at the time the 484s went to the island. Strangely enough, Vivarail knew more about it than the armchair experts did.

As I had pointed out many times, Vivarail had been interested in selling units to Island Line since at least 2018!

 

[Parallel]

I don’t think gangways between units are really that much of a problem for passengers - I’m sure most are more bothered about being able to get a seat. 175s will be well suited on Cardiff - Penzance and Cardiff - Portsmouth services, but maybe you’d want to keep them away from the Bristol-Bath corridor at peak times, unless it runs as a 5 car or somehow has more dwell time added to the timetable.

Realistically, I don’t think you can chop out many/any of the stops on the Cardiff - Pompey route. Filton warrants a stop due to the MOD base and the University which sees good usage to/from Wales, and the Portsmouth train connects at Newport with the TfW train to West Wales with passengers from places like Abergavenny and Cwmbran alighting for connections. If you sever the connection, it’ll no doubt push more of these passengers to the road.

Freshford and Avoncliff aren’t a stop on many of the CDF-PMH trains except early mornings and late evenings, and on a few Sunday services.

Bradford-on-Avon is a fairly well used small station so reducing its service to hourly won’t go down well there. Trowbridge is the busiest station between Bath and Salisbury for entries and exits. Westbury has interchanges plus crew changes. Warminster only really has this hourly service plus a few extras.

As someone who uses this route for both long and short distance journeys, the Turbos are fine for short distance but can get uncomfortable on a longer journey, unless you are in one of the ex-first class sections. Maybe GWR could look at average journey time on each diagram on this route and prioritise the 158s (or 175s) on those services, whilst running 16x on the ones that tend to have passengers generally doing shorter hops… If there is such a distinction.