Devon 165s

[Xavi]

Class 165s will be perfect for Devon metro services when released from London by electrification, but will they fit through the Dawlish tunnels and the Exeter tunnels on the Exmouth line? All other lines will be no problem as it was all originally broad gauge including Barnstaple. So was Exeter to Paignton, apart from the section through the tunnels.

BTW they could do with being 3-car 165s - can never get a seat in the morning peak travelling into Exeter on 2 x 143 from the likes of Digby.

 

[starrymarkb]

Class 165s will be perfect for Devon metro services when released from London by electrification, but will they fit through the Dawlish tunnels and the Exeter tunnels on the Exmouth line? All other lines will be no problem as it was all originally broad gauge including Barnstaple. So was Exeter to Paignton, apart from the section through the tunnels.

BTW they could do with being 3-car 165s - can never get a seat in the morning peak travelling into Exeter on 2 x 143 from the likes of Digby.

Shouldn't be a problem, they are no wider then a 150 and suspect that it will be a paperwork issue for the most part. They are wider then other 23m stock so any tight corners might need some work.

Both Barnstaple and Exmouth are LSWR (Southern) routes - so not broad gauge. but that didn't prove an issue with the Gatwick route

 

[Xavi]

Hope it will be just paperwork. The tunnels are fairly straight so comparison with 150s is a good point.

Surprisingly Barnstaple was originally broad gauge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Devon_Railway

 

[fgwrich]

Shouldn't be a problem, they are no wider then a 150 and suspect that it will be a paperwork issue for the most part. They are wider then other 23m stock so any tight corners might need some work.

Both Barnstaple and Exmouth are LSWR (Southern) routes - so not broad gauge. but that didn't prove an issue with the Gatwick route

The only problem i can see is the sideboards, but with some modification shouldnt be too much of a problem to reduce the width of them. IIRC they still have to be taken off when sending a unit to Ilford for overhaul.

 

[jopsuk]

just because the track was broad doesn't mean the stock was- part of Brunels advocacy of wide gauge was that by having the wheels further apart under the same width of train, the train would be more stable and thus be able to go faster safely.
Interesting Japanese "classic" network trains, running on 1,067 mm (3 ft 6 in) "Cape" gauge, are a bit wider than British trains at up to 2.95m wide

 

[Xavi]

just because the track was broad doesn't mean the stock was- part of Brunels advocacy of wide gauge was that by having the wheels further apart under the same width of train, the train would be more stable and thus be able to go faster safely.
Interesting Japanese "classic" network trains, running on 1,067 mm (3 ft 6 in) "Cape" gauge, are a bit wider than British trains at up to 2.95m wide

Fair enough, but the point here is that the tracks of the now standard gauge formations are wider apart and / or have greater clearance.

 

[jopsuk]

Are you sure about that?

 

[RPI]

a 165 went to Plymouth in around 1992? there was a pic going about of it passing through Totnes, it did have the step boards removed. Why would Dawlish tunnels be a problem? they're no narrower than any other tunnels. It looks as if the turbos will be heading west once the LTV electrification is done though.

 

[Xavi]

a 165 went to Plymouth in around 1992? there was a pic going about of it passing through Totnes, it did have the step boards removed. Why would Dawlish tunnels be a problem? they're no narrower than any other tunnels. It looks as if the turbos will be heading west once the LTV electrification is done though.

Because the tunnels were single line when broad gauge, whereas the rest of the route was double, so did they squeeze in the two tracks when converted to standard gauge? If, so you may have the problem that applies to running them on the wider network. However, as someone mentioned earlier, they're same width as 20m stock, so if the tunnels are straight enough things should be ok.

 

[RPI]

The dawlish tunnels were widened when the line was doubled, if you look at pictures of most of them you can see where they have been widened.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Try googling "Parsons Tunnel", you can see what looks like a rather hotch potch widening job!

 

[richw]

a 165 went to Plymouth in around 1992? there was a pic going about of it passing through Totnes, it did have the step boards removed. Why would Dawlish tunnels be a problem? they're no narrower than any other tunnels. It looks as if the turbos will be heading west once the LTV electrification is done though.

Just googled "class 165 Totnes" and found it first result was 165001 departing Totnes
http://www.totnestrains.com/class-165.html

 

[tbtc]

they could do with being 3-car 165s - can never get a seat in the morning peak travelling into Exeter on 2 x 143 from the likes of Digby.

A two coach 165 will be a 46m train with 3+2 seating, so fairly high capacity. I don't know the seating capacity for two FGW 143s, but the Pacers are only 30m long each with 2+2 seats (and obviously four cabs/ two toilets takes up a bit of space in a doubled up unit).

 

[aylesbury]

FGW use mainly 166 they are built to a slightly bigger gauge because of the line fom Paddington.Dont hold your breath they will be in use for a long time as with all the franchise ,rolling stock order problems there will be wires but no trains to run under them.If they go anywhere they will go north to replace Notherns 144,150 units ,the 150,s will go to Devon to join all the other units there.Chiltern will perhaps have 165,s available if one day electrification happens but by then other lines will need them.

 

[jopsuk]

Aylesbury, most of what you say is wrong. As has been gone over many times, 165/166 (which are identical bodyshells) are not actually especially wide, and any indications seem to be that they're more likely to go west, than north

 

[richw]

Aylesbury, most of what you say is wrong. As has been gone over many times, 165/166 (which are identical bodyshells) are not actually especially wide, and any indications seem to be that they're more likely to go west, than north

I understand the main width is the wide loading steps, which I should imagine could easily be replace with narrower steps

 

[Xavi]

FGW use mainly 166 they are built to a slightly bigger gauge because of the line fom Paddington.Dont hold your breath they will be in use for a long time as with all the franchise ,rolling stock order problems there will be wires but no trains to run under them.If they go anywhere they will go north to replace Notherns 144,150 units ,the 150,s will go to Devon to join all the other units there.Chiltern will perhaps have 165,s available if one day electrification happens but by then other lines will need them.

You're right that we could be heading for an electric stock shortage unless government do something quite simple like order a decent size batch of probably more 350s or 379s to plug the gap that was always meant to be filled from the Thameslink cascade. It's not as though it will not have a job to do even when Thameslink and Crossrail stock is delivered. But then that would be common sense....

I think think there's little chance of 165/6 going north - there's definitely far less clearance work needed in the west country, hence the original question of whether Dawlish was a possible problem. Current west country 150s will move north to replace or supplement pacers.

 

[sprinterguy]

A two coach 165 will be a 46m train with 3+2 seating, so fairly high capacity. I don't know the seating capacity for two FGW 143s, but the Pacers are only 30m long each with 2+2 seats (and obviously four cabs/ two toilets takes up a bit of space in a doubled up unit).

A 143 has 92 seats, plus 12 tip-up seats per unit, so a total of 104 per 2-car unit. A 2-car FGW 165 seats 170 in standard class and 16 in first class: Replace the first class area with standard class seats and you would come up with a total not far short of a pair of 143s.

Mind you, on routes where pairs of Pacers are used, it would be pleasing to see 3-car 165s allocated to services to cater for future growth and to reduce levels of standing, but a 2-car 165 would be a big increase in capacity over a single Pacer, and still an improvement over a 150.

 

[paul1609]

You're right that we could be heading for an electric stock shortage unless government do something quite simple like order a decent size batch of probably more 350s or 379s to plug the gap that was always meant to be filled from the Thameslink cascade. It's not as though it will not have a job to do even when Thameslink and Crossrail stock is delivered. But then that would be common sense....

I think think there's little chance of 165/6 going north - there's definitely far less clearance work needed in the west country, hence the original question of whether Dawlish was a possible problem. Current west country 150s will move north to replace or supplement pacers.

Where routes already accept 23 m stock I dont think there is likely to be much in the way of clearance issues. Redhill to Selhurst was fairly recently cleared by the click of a mouse.