DMU cascades and Micro fleets

[The Ham]

don't forget scotrail will need a few extra trains for the re-opening of part of the waverly line.

There are 86 319s. Firstly i'd split them into 36 and 50. I'd send 36 to the cardiff valleys as the wg seem to want newish rolling stock for them. Then the other 50 can come up here for use on the newly electrified lines. From the valleys this displaces 143s and 150s. The 143s can be given the porterbrook overhaul along with the 144s and come up north giving 46 pacers. The 150s can also be refurbished and sent elsewhere / strengthen atw fleet.

we're trying to get rid of pacers up here, not adding to them! :roll:

Even if the 150's from the valleys just replace the pacers that AWT's has and strengthens their other services (although 36 sets of 319's would already be doing this as they would be 4 coaches long rather than 2; so there may not be the need for quite as many, if they ever run paired up). There would still be 50 sets of 319's for use by Northern, which is a little more than double the number of EMU's that they currently have and would be only 4 coaches less than the total number of pacer coaches that they currently have.

It is therefore unlikely that there would be a need to increase the number of pacers that Nothern had, no matter how much Peterbrook's want to keep on leasing out pacers to anyone who'll have them. Not that I'm saying that Northerm will be able to get rid of all their pacers either, as there seams to be a need to increase the number of seats (of course the new EMU's are likely to have a lot more seats due to the longer coach length, which removes the need for a straight like for like replacement on the number of coaches).

 

[D365]

At the very least, we should be able to rid ourselves of all 142s. The 143/144 builds are supposed to be somewhat better, which is why Porterbrook have proposed this overhaul; so that they then can flog them out to anyone who needs a diesel unit, seeing as no ROSCO wants to build any more (forgetting IEP as that is a different market altogether).

 

[tbtc]

The 175s will not run west of Cardiff

Has it been confirmed that electrification will mean the current Manchester - Milford Haven service will be split up? Makes sense (with EMUs running from Newport/ Cardiff to Swansea), and would allow the longer 175s to be concentrated on Manchester diagrams.

The question is what do you do with Wrexham- Bidston and Conwy Valley?

<heretic mode>give them to Northern - a nearby operator of 75mph DMUs who are based over the border in England?</heretic mode>

 

[YorkshireBear]

At the very least, we should be able to rid ourselves of all 142s. The 143/144 builds are supposed to be somewhat better, which is why Porterbrook have proposed this overhaul; so that they then can flog them out to anyone who needs a diesel unit, seeing as no ROSCO wants to build any more (forgetting IEP as that is a different market altogether).

Added to that some TOCs Northern will need to maybe lengthen the time between very cheap ROSCO charges with loads of Pacers to no Pacers Much large ROSCO charges. Good interim for Northern (and others) so it isn't one massive jump.

 

[northwichcat]

The 175s will not run west of Cardiff though may end up doing the Cheltenham runs and maybe the infill turnaround at Abergavenny. Cambrian and Brum to Holyhead will remain 158 worked.

I thought the recommendation by Network Rail was a Swansea split could be justified opposed to a Cardiff split?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

ATW get 158s released by FGW to deal with the long awaited Cambrian 1tph project and to cascade some 150s away from some of the longer distance jobs they are not suited for.
Result ATW only have 150s, 158s and 175s.

ATW currently have 153s as well.

What routes do ATW use 150s on that they aren't suitable for? Apart from when they run on what's supposed to be a 158 or 175 diagram I thought the reverse is more applicable and ATW have 158s and 175s running things that are more suited to 150s e.g. Crewe-Chester shuttles and peak time extras between Chester and Manchester (which don't extend in to Wales.)

Given there's capacity concerns about the diagrams ATW use the 2 car 175s on and they are long distance routes would giving them more 158s allowing the 175s to operate doubled up on long distance routes be a good idea?

The disadvantages of 2 x 175s over 2 x 158s on the long ATW routes:
1. Trolley services are more difficult.
2. Passengers can't see if the other train has available seats if they can't find one on the train they are on.
3. Reduces the number of toilets which can be accessed.
4. Revenue issues.

On a service like the Calder Vale line 1 isn't an issue while 2 and 3 are less of an issue (as journeys are shorter) and there aren't really any additional issues from using them on something like a Calder Vale service opposed to a long service.

The advantages of 2 x 175s over 2 x 158s on the long ATW routes:
1. Slightly faster
2. Passengers tend to like them more.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Added to that some TOCs Northern will need to maybe lengthen the time between very cheap ROSCO charges with loads of Pacers to no Pacers Much large ROSCO charges. Good interim for Northern (and others) so it isn't one massive jump.

Note that something like a 156+153 combination could replace the pairs of 142s running around and give more capacity by having 3 carriages instead of 4, rather than less.

 

[anthony263]

I have a feeling that ATW will get ride of the class 153's and just have class 150's do the local services around Wales with class 158's & 175's elsewhere.

I recon you could interwork the Manchester/Holyhead - Cardiff services with the Cardiff - Chepstow/Cheltenham services especially if the linespeeds are increased on the relief lines and the Cheltenham/Chepstow services are diverted to run along the reliefs between Cardiff & Severn Tunnel Junction.


I suppose it free's up some paths along the mainlines perhaps for the suggested 4tph between Cardiff and Bristol TM. If the Manchester - south wales services are cut back to Cardiff I wonder what will replace them between Cardiff & Swansea perhaps a 2tph Swanline service running through to Bristol?

 

[Gareth Marston]

Has it been confirmed that electrification will mean the current Manchester - Milford Haven service will be split up? Makes sense (with EMUs running from Newport/ Cardiff to Swansea), and would allow the longer 175s to be concentrated on Manchester diagrams.



<heretic mode>give them to Northern - a nearby operator of 75mph DMUs who are based over the border in England?</heretic mode>

Doesn't bother me in slightest, a continued rolling programme of electrification makes the Wales and border franchise a nonsense anyway. It's already going to create a west Wales and HOW dmu sub fleet based in Swansea. If n Wales coast is wired a small sub fleet of emu,s just for it is crackers. Wrexham to Bidston if Wired is a no brainier to be with Merseyrail. Likewise 1 atw dmu path per hour will not make business case for wolves to salop wires.

 

[anthony263]

If money is available I think the WG/Network Rail should do as they suggested in today railways a few months ago and continuing erecting the wires west of Swansea although the tunnel at Narbeth would be a bit difficult.

Problem then is that if you wire to west wales you should do the heart of wales line at least since that eliminates the requirement for some dmu's to be stabled at Swansea just for the heart of wales line.

Also keeps the direct services from west wales to Cardiff and help improve reliability on the Pembroke Dock branch.

 

[Gareth Marston]

If money is available I think the WG/Network Rail should do as they suggested in today railways a few months ago and continuing erecting the wires west of Swansea although the tunnel at Narbeth would be a bit difficult.

Problem then is that if you wire to west wales you should do the heart of wales line at least since that eliminates the requirement for some dmu's to be stabled at Swansea just for the heart of wales line.

Also keeps the direct services from west wales to Cardiff and help improve reliability on the Pembroke Dock branch.

It's several tranches down the list unless the road budget is diverted to rail. Wales will be doing well in next control period to get N Wales coast and Wrexham/ Bidston out of UK rail settlement.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

If money is available I think the WG/Network Rail should do as they suggested in today railways a few months ago and continuing erecting the wires west of Swansea although the tunnel at Narbeth would be a bit difficult.

Problem then is that if you wire to west wales you should do the heart of wales line at least since that eliminates the requirement for some dmu's to be stabled at Swansea just for the heart of wales line.

Also keeps the direct services from west wales to Cardiff and help improve reliability on the Pembroke Dock branch.

The problem with some of these things that get to the "Specialist Rail Media" is that they are un-funded and unlikly to be funded for many years. The point of this thread was to discuss a pragmatic solution for running our railway in the most cost effective way, with the infrastructure and DMU stock as it exists with allowance for "Commited" projects.

 

[Chrisgr31]

That just moves a micro fleet from one place to another.

Referring to my comment on moving London Overgrounds Class 172's to the Marshlink and the 171's hence released to to the Uckfield line.

This would be correct however what alternative is there? There is acknowledged overcrowding on the peak services on the Uckfield line and due to the single track they cannot run additional services. Therefore Network Rail propose to extend the platforms to allow longer trains.

There is no point increasing platform length without providing additional stock to service those platforms, therefore there must be an idea to provide more stock.

Where does that stock come from? All the Class 171s that exist are already on the Marshlink and Uckfield lines. To avoid creating an additional micro-fleet you would either need to take the Class 171s off these lines and replace them with a different class which had suitable capacity, or convert some Class 170s to CLass 171s which basically means changing the coupler.

Are there any Class 170's which will be released under the current plans?

 

[D365]

Through current electrification plans? Well, obviously there are 8 LO 172s and perhaps the Chiltern 172s/168s, if replaced by the more restricted 165s and 166s, or more LHCS. But that's beside the point.

Don't think there will be many, if any 170s from Birmingham. If Hull is electrified under First proposals, the 9 TPE 170s might be released, 8 of which belonged to SWT. Scottish electrification will release some, but these will likely be cascaded internally so that mostly Sprinter DMUs will come south. Have only accounted for up to CP5, if I'm at all correct.

 

[jopsuk]

Much of the Scottish electrification will cascade to strengthnd services - Fife Circle, services to Perth/Dundee/Aberdeen/Inverness, south west, West Highland, and Far North-, removal of the loco-hauled peak services plus the Waverly line.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I thought the recommendation by Network Rail was a Swansea split could be justified opposed to a Cardiff split?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


ATW currently have 153s as well.

What routes do ATW use 150s on that they aren't suitable for? Apart from when they run on what's supposed to be a 158 or 175 diagram I thought the reverse is more applicable and ATW have 158s and 175s running things that are more suited to 150s e.g. Crewe-Chester shuttles and peak time extras between Chester and Manchester (which don't extend in to Wales.)

Given there's capacity concerns about the diagrams ATW use the 2 car 175s on and they are long distance routes would giving them more 158s allowing the 175s to operate doubled up on long distance routes be a good idea?

The disadvantages of 2 x 175s over 2 x 158s on the long ATW routes:
1. Trolley services are more difficult.
2. Passengers can't see if the other train has available seats if they can't find one on the train they are on.
3. Reduces the number of toilets which can be accessed.
4. Revenue issues.

On a service like the Calder Vale line 1 isn't an issue while 2 and 3 are less of an issue (as journeys are shorter) and there aren't really any additional issues from using them on something like a Calder Vale service opposed to a long service.

The advantages of 2 x 175s over 2 x 158s on the long ATW routes:
1. Slightly faster
2. Passengers tend to like them more.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Note that something like a 156+153 combination could replace the pairs of 142s running around and give more capacity by having 3 carriages instead of 4, rather than less.

That is a very good point. I can't find any list of leasing costs on the internet does anyone have any?

 

[tbtc]

Referring to my comment on moving London Overgrounds Class 172's to the Marshlink and the 171's hence released to to the Uckfield line.

This would be correct however what alternative is there? There is acknowledged overcrowding on the peak services on the Uckfield line and due to the single track they cannot run additional services. Therefore Network Rail propose to extend the platforms to allow longer trains.

There is no point increasing platform length without providing additional stock to service those platforms, therefore there must be an idea to provide more stock.

Where does that stock come from? All the Class 171s that exist are already on the Marshlink and Uckfield lines. To avoid creating an additional micro-fleet you would either need to take the Class 171s off these lines and replace them with a different class which had suitable capacity, or convert some Class 170s to CLass 171s which basically means changing the coupler.

Are there any Class 170's which will be released under the current plans?

I liked your suggestion.

There will be the nine TPE 170s freed up (as already mentioned), which are "non standard" in northern England, plus LM will save some from the Rugely - Walsall - Birmingham line.

Scottish electrification should save around fifty DMUs (the peak Edinburgh - Falkirk High - Glasgow service requires sixteen DMUs in operation, plus spares, and there are a similar number required for the Edinburgh/Glasgow - Alloa/Dunblane route, plus various Glasgow "branches" like Whifflet, East Kilbride). There's no way that all of these DMUs are going to be kept in Scotland at the end of the decade - the 156s are required for certain routes, so I reckon they'll jettison 158s and keep most of the 170s.

 

[northwichcat]

There will be the nine TPE 170s freed up (as already mentioned), which are "non standard" in northern England, plus LM will save some from the Rugely - Walsall - Birmingham line.

I wonder if it would make sense for more 170s to go North (to run the remaining TPE diesel services) and the entire 185 fleet to go somewhere else.

Given, apart from capacity, the 170s don't have any problems running South TPE or Manchester-Hull and they are cheaper to run if DfT are keen to keep the subsidy down for North of England local/regional operations (which we are frequently told is a reason we are stuck with Pacers) then 170s instead of 185s would make sense.

 

[Class172]

It's unlikely LM will give up any 170s, even after they will be released by Chase electrification, I'd thought they'd be used to boost capacity on Hereford and Shrewsbury services.

 

[northwichcat]

It's unlikely LM will give up any 170s, even after they will be released by Chase electrification, I'd thought they'd be used to boost capacity on Hereford and Shrewsbury services.

Even if DfT say they can have the LO 172s provided they give up some of their 170s? DfT quite often put conditions on cascades so it's not just one operator who benefits from it.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I wonder if it would make sense for more 170s to go North (to run the remaining TPE diesel services) and the entire 185 fleet to go somewhere else.

Given, apart from capacity, the 170s don't have any problems running South TPE or Manchester-Hull and they are cheaper to run if DfT are keen to keep the subsidy down for North of England local/regional operations (which we are frequently told is a reason we are stuck with Pacers) then 170s instead of 185s would make sense.

Would the 185 fleet be better sent to Scotland in return for 170's or 158's?

 

[Chrisgr31]

Even if DfT say they can have the LO 172s provided they give up some of their 170s? DfT quite often put conditions on cascades so it's not just one operator who benefits from it.

I have seen a letter from the rail minister which stated that the department do not tell TOCs what train to operate where and it was up to the TOCs to decide what train to operate where in conjunction with the ROSCOs. Smoke and mirrors sprung to mind!

 

[jopsuk]

as an aside, I know drivers don't like them, but from a passenger, catering, guard point of view it is something of a pity that the 170, 171, 172 (some of), 175 and 185 were all built without end gangways.

I'd even go further, and suggest that no MU, other than 125mph express ones, from 1980 onwards should have been built without a passenger-usable (secure cabs) gangway outer end.

 

[The Ham]

as an aside, I know drivers don't like them, but from a passenger, catering, guard point of view it is something of a pity that the 170, 171, 172 (some of), 175 and 185 were all built without end gangways.

I'd even go further, and suggest that no MU, other than 125mph express ones, from 1980 onwards should have been built without a passenger-usable (secure cabs) gangway outer end.

The other advantage of end gangways is that when you are running services longer than the platforms which they call at then it is fairly easy to use SDO. Now I am aware that this isn't too much of a problem for trains with up to 6 coaches, but it could start being more of a problem as time goes on and train lengths need to increase.

 

[northwichcat]

Would the 185 fleet be better sent to Scotland in return for 170's or 158's?

Scotrail having 185s instead of 170s does seem like a good solution. (The difference in unit numbers could be made up by electrification work and/or a few 158s cascaded north of the border.)

 

[Rhydgaled]

FGW only have 150s, 165s and 166s.
ATW get 158s released by FGW to deal with the long awaited Cambrian 1tph project and to cascade some 150s away from some of the longer distance jobs they are not suited for.
Result ATW only have 150s, 158s and 175s.

Do ATW get Cardiff - Portsmouth as well? If not, you've left FirstGW with no suitable trains to run the Cardiff - Portsmouth service (it is a regional express service, and 150s, 165s and 166s are all suburban stock).

<heretic mode>give them to Northern - a nearby operator of 75mph DMUs who are based over the border in England?</heretic mode>

Wrexham - Bidston is the probably only ATW route (unless you introduce a Bangor - Llandudno stopper perhaps) which will be suitable for class 150s after the valleys are wired, so transfering it to Northern sounds like a great idea. Similarly, since Cardiff - Cheltenham has been left off the electrification programme it needs some outer-suburban DMUs. Suggestion: give it to FirstGW and clear it for 165s or 166s.

The Conwy valley is always going to be an awkward island whoever operates it, putting on a Llandudno - Holyhead stopper might give it something to interwork with and get units back to Holyhead depot at night, but it still would be a microfleet.

At the very least, we should be able to rid ourselves of all 142s. The 143/144 builds are supposed to be somewhat better, which is why Porterbrook have proposed this overhaul; so that they then can flog them out to anyone who needs a diesel unit, seeing as no ROSCO wants to build any more (forgetting IEP as that is a different market altogether).

IEP isn't being built/specified by a ROSCO... IEP is being built to serve a different market yes, but the Intercity market sector is even more likely to have strong cases for electrification. I'm with the ROSCOs on this, don't build diesel trains. IEP has been signalled onto the wrong track.

What routes do ATW use 150s on that they aren't suitable for?

Fishguard daytime boat train for one.

I don't think 150s are ideal for the journey times from Swansea to Pembrokeshire either, but the 90mph top speed of a 158 isn't needed west of Swansea. That's why I shall be suggesting class 156s, double 153s or 155s running HOWL and west-of-Swansea services (except any remaining through services to/from Cardiff, which should be 158s) to the Wales & Borders franchise consultation on the National Assembly for Wales website.

Given there's capacity concerns about the diagrams ATW use the 2 car 175s on and they are long distance routes would giving them more 158s allowing the 175s to operate doubled up on long distance routes be a good idea?

Since the 175's home is Chester the Wales & Borders franchise is probably stuck with them. Therefore I'd suggest removing the cabs on some of the driving vehicles and fitting inner-ends instead to form the 175 fleet into a mix of 3-car and 4-car sets. Some additional 158s would be needed to cover the reduction in number of units, unless north Wales is wired in which case EMUs can cover that and 175s can be concentrated on Chester/Manchester - Cardiff/Swansea/Bristol work. Alternatively, other than the excessive top-speed, the 2-car 175s would do nicely on HOWL (extend the service to Crewe at the north end and it's only a short hop to their Chester base).

Doesn't bother me in slightest, a continued rolling programme of electrification makes the Wales and border franchise a nonsense anyway. It's already going to create a west Wales and HOW dmu sub fleet based in Swansea. If n Wales coast is wired a small sub fleet of emu,s just for it is crackers. Wrexham to Bidston if Wired is a no brainier to be with Merseyrail. Likewise 1 atw dmu path per hour will not make business case for wolves to salop wires.

There would be two trains an hour (one ATW and one LM) to electrify between Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury if Cambrian and Wrexham services terminated at Shrewsbury.

As for north Wales electrification, I doubt current routes would make the case for wiring. If trains from Wrexham terminated at Chester and trains from Holyhead/Llandudno ran to Manchester/Crewe it might just cut it (the Crewe service would be extended to Birmingham once the wires go up), but there is no suitable rolling stock in existance for such a service. An OHLE version of the class 444, in a mix of 2-car and 3-car lengths (allowing 5-car workings with seperate portions for Holyhead and Llandudno) would do the job. Another TOC that could use trains like that (though more likely in 4-car sets) would be Trans Pennine Express. How well would giving north Wales services to TPE work? The Birmingham service might not fit, but 4-car OHLE 444s could fit with LM as well I suppose. This whole franchise boundaries malarky is complicated isn't it?

as an aside, I know drivers don't like them, but from a passenger, catering, guard point of view it is something of a pity that the 170, 171, 172 (some of), 175 and 185 were all built without end gangways.

I'd even go further, and suggest that no MU, other than 125mph express ones, from 1980 onwards should have been built without a passenger-usable (secure cabs) gangway outer end.

What I would say is that no multiple unit should be built without a passenger-usable (secure cabs) gangway outer end unless the units are long enough that you are pretty dam sure you will never need (or be able) to operate them in multiple in passenger service.

 

[The Ham]

Do ATW get Cardiff - Portsmouth as well? If not, you've left FirstGW with no suitable trains to run the Cardiff - Portsmouth service (it is a regional express service, and 150s, 165s and 166s are all suburban stock).

Depends on the timeframes involved, as if you electrify Bath to Southampton (about 60 miles) then the Cardiff/Portsmouth services would then be able to run by EMU's.

The 20 miles from Southampton to Sailsbury could be a fairly high priority for electrification, however from Sailsbury to Bath may not be that useful due to the limited number of services other than the above service and the SWT's service to Bristol (a total of 23 services a day each way over both services).

Although having said that, if you could also electrify the line to Exeter from Sailsbury SWT's could then get rid of all of their 158's and 159's, 41 DMU's anyone?

 

[David Goddard]

I fully agree that the scattering of microfleets across the country really needs to be addressed, in the interests of uniformity for maintenance and customer environment for a start. Although there are reasons for many of these small fleets, I do not think that these are insurmountable, and to concentrate fleets together can only be a good thing. As we have discussed there are a lot of changes likely in the coming five years, brought about by electrification and new electric railway schemes which will release EMUs and DMUs for cascade elsewhere, and this comes across as the perfect opportunity to reorganise the nation's fleet at the same time. Yes moving fleets around means that the TOCS then have to repaint/refit the interiors, but in many cases such work is probably due or overdue any way. Any changes to the franchise map need to be considered first, then the stock utilisation can be moulded around it.

 

[northwichcat]

Since the 175's home is Chester the Wales & Borders franchise is probably stuck with them.

The next Northern franchise could see a lot more action close to Chester with there being proposals for a Calder Vale service to be extended to Chester via Warrington and a possible Greenbank-Stockport-Denton-Victoria service. If those proposals do go ahead then having Northern crews based at Chester (where they aren't currently based) would make more sense than having Northern crews based at Buxton (where there is a crew base.)

Also stabling 175s at Stockport sidings, Newton Heath, Allerton or even Neville Hill would keep them a lot closer to their Chester home than stabling them overnight in South Wales.

Fishguard daytime boat train for one.

Is that because of the loading or the length of journey? If it's just the loading then what's wrong with a longer formation consisting of 150s.

While Northern and ATW both have 142s and 150s, Northern have mainly 3+2 seating formations while ATW have all 2+2 seating formations which obviously means less seats on the ATW units but more comfortable seating on the ATW units.

 

[jimm]

Similarly, since Cardiff - Cheltenham has been left off the electrification programme it needs some outer-suburban DMUs

As you have been told before, it has not been left off any electrification programme, same as your other pet obsession, Swindon-Gloucester-Cheltenham, has not. They were never going to be in the first batch of routes for wiring and will just have to take their turn. When someone comes to look at XC wiring south-west from Birmingham for some date post-2019, they will look at this route.

Until then, the Wales franchise operator can perfectly well supply dmus from its fleet, just as it does now, with the GW franchise left to get on with focusing on getting a proper regular-interval service running between Gloucester, Cheltenham and Worcester.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Is that because of the loading or the length of journey? If it's just the loading then what's wrong with a longer formation consisting of 150s.

Length (and, to a certain extent, type) of journey. ATW do normally add an extra 150 (or sometimes a Pacer or 153, I've even seen it on the Swansea District Line with 150-153-150 when it needs strenthening. Cardiff to Fishguard Harbour is a long way and the boat train is an express working (THE express working) with only 3 intermediate stops (Llanelli, Whitland and Fishguard & Goodwick, though the eastbound journey calls additionally at Carmarthen). Cardiff-Llanelli non-stop could probably do with unit with a higher top speed than 75mph also.

As you have been told before, it has not been left off any electrification programme, same as your other pet obsession, Swindon-Gloucester-Cheltenham, has not. They were never going to be in the first batch of routes for wiring and will just have to take their turn.

If the Severn Tunnel Diversionary route is not on the electrification programme (which is the case) it has been left off. It has not been "dropped from the electrification programme' because it was never on it.

Until then, the Wales franchise operator can perfectly well supply dmus from its fleet, just as it does now, with the GW franchise left to get on with focusing on getting a proper regular-interval service running between Gloucester, Cheltenham and Worcester.

The trobble is the Wales operator currently has a large fleet of class 150s based at Canton for the ValleyLines. Once the valleys are wired the only Wales & Borders DMUs in Cardiff will (I hope) be regional express stock. Class 165s/166s or class 170s/172s are probably the ideal stock for the Cheltenham - Cardiff stoppers, but such stock would be a micro-fleet for Wales & Borders. Great Western on the other hand is likely to be operating a number of 166s/165s on Bristol metro services.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Length (and, to a certain extent, type) of journey. ATW do normally add an extra 150 (or sometimes a Pacer or 153, I've even seen it on the Swansea District Line with 150-153-150 when it needs strenthening. Cardiff to Fishguard Harbour is a long way and the boat train is an express working (THE express working) with only 3 intermediate stops (Llanelli, Whitland and Fishguard & Goodwick, though the eastbound journey calls additionally at Carmarthen). Cardiff-Llanelli non-stop could probably do with unit with a higher top speed than 75mph also.

If the Severn Tunnel Diversionary route is not on the electrification programme (which is the case) it has been left off. It has not been "dropped from the electrification programme' because it was never on it.

The trobble is the Wales operator currently has a large fleet of class 150s based at Canton for the ValleyLines. Once the valleys are wired the only Wales & Borders DMUs in Cardiff will (I hope) be regional express stock. Class 165s/166s or class 170s/172s are probably the ideal stock for the Cheltenham - Cardiff stoppers, but such stock would be a micro-fleet for Wales & Borders. Great Western on the other hand is likely to be operating a number of 166s/165s on Bristol metro services.

The Cheltenham service will be covered by 175's, remember that they won't be going west of Cardiff once the wires up this frees up about 6 of them each day.