FGW Franchise

[pompeyfan]

Sorry, in my head that's what I was suggesting, but after re-reading my post I didn't make that clear... Would that be possible/likely/worth while?

 

[Flamingo]

Sorry, in my head that's what I was suggesting, but after re-reading my post I didn't make that clear... Would that be possible/likely/worth while?

What are you going to do with all the two-carriage sets then created?

 

[pompeyfan]

Run them doubled up around bristol?

 

[387star]

The turbos will be 1x 165 two car and 1x 166 three car on the majority of portsmouth to cardiff runs with long distance seating in the 166 only. However new air. con planned throughout ...

 

[Parallel]

A lot of people generally have queried whether the Turbos will be a good idea on Cardiff - Portsmouth runs. To me, 5 cars (unit type aside) does seem on the excessive side. 3 car trains generally run very well loaded (sometimes overcrowded, even on 'off peak' times) - 4 coaches would be adequate for most of the services (likely overcrowding at certain peak times and on weekends) but that's not possible with the stock available I guess. I assume the trolley would be based in the 166.

I do kind of wish the 158s were to be retained, reformed back into two carriages per unit, and then doubled up for the Portsmouth runs, but I guess it makes sense to have the Turbos based around one area. It's sounds strange on paper that 25 year old trains will replace 25 year old trains on the Pompey runs, and 25 year old trains will replace 30 year old trains on stoppers around Bristol, however extra capacity is indeed, very welcome.

I've never been on a 165/166 before. How do they compare with FGW's 158s for reliability and comfort?

 

[VisualAcid]

A lot of people generally have queried whether the Turbos will be a good idea on Cardiff - Portsmouth runs. To me, 5 cars (unit type aside) does seem on the excessive side. 3 car trains generally run very well loaded (sometimes overcrowded, even on 'off peak' times) - 4 coaches would be adequate for most of the services (likely overcrowding at certain peak times and on weekends) but that's not possible with the stock available I guess. I assume the trolley would be based in the 166.

I do kind of wish the 158s were to be retained, reformed back into two carriages per unit, and then doubled up for the Portsmouth runs, but I guess it makes sense to have the Turbos based around one area. It's sounds strange on paper that 25 year old trains will replace 25 year old trains on the Pompey runs, and 25 year old trains will replace 30 year old trains on stoppers around Bristol, however extra capacity is indeed, very welcome.

I've never been on a 165/166 before. How do they compare with FGW's 158s for reliability and comfort?

To me they feel weirdly dark. No tables in any of the ones I've been on either (only been on the North Downs ones though).

 

[fgwrich]

To me they feel weirdly dark. No tables in any of the ones I've been on either (only been on the North Downs ones though).

There a bit horses for courses really - the 158s were built of course for regional long ish distance regional services while the 165/166s were built to handle the commuter traffic in and out of London. Personally I find them ok, but have my doubts over the suitability of using a Turbo on lines like Bristol - Weymouth. They will handle the core traffic on the Cardiff - Portsmouth/Brightons well - by that I mean Portsmouth-Southampton, Salisbury - Warminster / Westbury, and Westbury - Bristol than that of a 158 but will possibly be a step back in comfort - although they will have Air Con fitted so presumably the spec of the 165s will match the 166s?

 

[D1009]

I doubt most people will care about the difference in comfort on the Cardiff Pompeys if there is a 40%ish increase in seating. The 166s worked Padd to Hereford (and probably still do on a couple of diagrams) before something better was introduced.

 

[VisualAcid]

I wonder if FGW missed a trick not negotiating a new London terminus without signals made of paper...

 

[LexyBoy]

To me they feel weirdly dark. No tables in any of the ones I've been on either (only been on the North Downs ones though).

I sort of know what you mean, the lighting is a little gloomy somehow. Far preferable to the HSTs though, during winter I would regularly take a Turbo over the HST to avoid a lighting-induced headache, despite the journey taking an extra 15 minutes.

166s at least do have a small section of 2+2 with proper tables at one end of the centre coach, BTW.

They will handle the core traffic on the Cardiff - Portsmouth/Brightons well - by that I mean Portsmouth-Southampton, Salisbury - Warminster / Westbury, and Westbury - Bristol than that of a 158 but will possibly be a step back in comfort - although they will have Air Con fitted so presumably the spec of the 165s will match the 166s?

I imagine most of the traffic would be short/middling distance hops (Cardiff-Bristol too), so arguably this is most important. They have been used on long-distance routes of course, on the Cotswold line where a significant amount of traffic will be going through to London.

I lose track, but I think the plan is now not to replace the seating with 2+2? With new seating the trains would be ideal I think, plenty of standing room and still a decent environment for longer distance travellers.

Currently 165s and 166s are essentially indistinguishable, I think both will be fitted with functional air-con.

 

[jimm]

I sort of know what you mean, the lighting is a little gloomy somehow. Far preferable to the HSTs though, during winter I would regularly take a Turbo over the HST to avoid a lighting-induced headache, despite the journey taking an extra 15 minutes.

166s at least do have a small section of 2+2 with proper tables at one end of the centre coach, BTW.



I imagine most of the traffic would be short/middling distance hops (Cardiff-Bristol too), so arguably this is most important. They have been used on long-distance routes of course, on the Cotswold line where a significant amount of traffic will be going through to London.

I lose track, but I think the plan is now not to replace the seating with 2+2? With new seating the trains would be ideal I think, plenty of standing room and still a decent environment for longer distance travellers.

Currently 165s and 166s are essentially indistinguishable, I think both will be fitted with functional air-con.

Don't forget the tables in the first class and ex-first class compartments at the driving ends of the 166s.

I'd agree that refurbished with 2+2 seats and a reliable air con system, they should be fine, bar the inevitable blasts of cold air into the train at stations on winter days, due to the 1/3 2/3 doors, unless sliding vestibule doors are added as well.

Re parallel's question about mechanical reliability, the Turbos are pretty much bombproof.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Currently 165s and 166s are essentially indistinguishable, I think both will be fitted with functional air-con.

The Chiltern system would be worth a look, it seems very reliable.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Don't forget the tables in the first class and ex-first class compartments at the driving ends of the 166s.

I'd agree that refurbished with 2+2 seats and a reliable air con system, they should be fine, bar the inevitable blasts of cold air into the train at stations on winter days, due to the 1/3 2/3 doors, unless sliding vestibule doors are added as well.

The 166s are supposedly going to be converted to 2+2 seating BUT they are all 3-car sets meaning the 5-car Cardiff-Portsmouth runs will include a 2-car 165 and they are apparently going to retain 2+3 seating.

I'm not sure the blasts of cold air are the only problem with the suburban door layout found on the likes of 166s and Turbostars, but I guess it can't be helped since it looks like there are no extra 158s available to FirstGW unfortunately.

 

[me123]

Could go the Scotrail have RPIs on every train and driver controls doors etc.

And is that not a better option? At least on local routes?

I used to regularly use two Scotrail lines, Whifflet (which had guards) and North Clyde (DOO). (This comparison no longer exists as Whifflet has gone DOO with electrification, but I'd hope

On the North Clyde, you had a ticket inspector constantly present on the train. They weren't distracted by operational concerns, they were a visible presence to passengers, able to provide assistance and customer service throughout the journey.

On the Whifflet trains, the stops were so frequent that the guard spent most of their time at the back door opening and closing it. Or, on outward legs from Glasgow, they spent most of their time locked in the back cab. They weren't providing customer service or assistance. They weren't visible. They weren't selling tickets (which, whilst I'd agree that it isn't the primary role of a guard, it is extremely inconvenient on a line with no ticket machines or offices!).

Which one do you think the travelling public prefers?

That's why I'm generally supportive of DOO on trains, albeit with a guarantee of a guard/train manager/customer service representative/ticket inspector/whatever on board.

 

[TheKnightWho]

And is that not a better option? At least on local routes?

I used to regularly use two Scotrail lines, Whifflet (which had guards) and North Clyde (DOO). (This comparison no longer exists as Whifflet has gone DOO with electrification, but I'd hope

On the North Clyde, you had a ticket inspector constantly present on the train. They weren't distracted by operational concerns, they were a visible presence to passengers, able to provide assistance and customer service throughout the journey.

On the Whifflet trains, the stops were so frequent that the guard spent most of their time at the back door opening and closing it. Or, on outward legs from Glasgow, they spent most of their time locked in the back cab. They weren't providing customer service or assistance. They weren't visible. They weren't selling tickets (which, whilst I'd agree that it isn't the primary role of a guard, it is extremely inconvenient on a line with no ticket machines or offices!).

Which one do you think the travelling public prefers?

That's why I'm generally supportive of DOO on trains, albeit with a guarantee of a guard/train manager/customer service representative/ticket inspector/whatever on board.

"The travelling public" is not one homogeneous block, I should add. People on here would do well to remember that for a variety of reasons.

 

[jimm]

The 166s are supposedly going to be converted to 2+2 seating BUT they are all 3-car sets meaning the 5-car Cardiff-Portsmouth runs will include a 2-car 165 and they are apparently going to retain 2+3 seating.

I'm not sure the blasts of cold air are the only problem with the suburban door layout found on the likes of 166s and Turbostars, but I guess it can't be helped since it looks like there are no extra 158s available to FirstGW unfortunately.

Wel aware of all that thanks, but as noted above by others, the substantial increase in seating capacity on the route is going to be welcomed by regular passengers - even if not by you, off on one of your favourite hobby horses again about how the sky will fall in if a train has 1/3, 2/3 doors. With the overall boost to capacity, people are unlikely to be packed in like sardines on the 165 portion, even if it does retain 2+3 seats, so will be perfectly comfortable most of the time.

Surprised you haven't mentioned the lack of corridor connections between the two sets yet, but that's probably only a matter of time...

 

[455driver]

Deleted.

 

[The Ham]

"The travelling public" is not one homogeneous block, I should add. People on here would do well to remember that for a variety of reasons.

It is true, but then I would have thought that a number of those who do not want to see a member of railway staff (whatever their designation) in the passenger area of the train assisting the public are more likely to be people who are up to no good (at the very least travelling without a valid ticket) and so it could be argued that we could ignore their views.

 

[me123]

This FGW proposal does NOT guarantee that there will be a second person on board the train though does it, it clearly states that if no TM is available then the train will be able to run DOO in passenger serviceman if there is no catering on board then it will be just the driver on board.

True, and I agree completely that operating a train with a driver and no public-facing staff member is inappropriate. I would not support a proposal to allow FGW to run trains without a guard/TTI/train manager/other customer facing staff member, and do not support this idea, particularly for these longer distance services.

I just think the belief that guards need to open and close doors is nonsense, and despite the claims of some on here doesn't actually contribute anything positive to passengers. Indeed, from my experience, I find that guards are less beneficial to the travelling public than a train manager or similar passenger-focussed role is.

So with respect to the many guards on here, I don't really think that guards (as they are) are needed all that often nowadays, but I would argue strongly that your job be maintained in a customer-facing role. (I know I've opened a can of worms here!).

 

[TheKnightWho]

It is true, but then I would have thought that a number of those who do not want to see a member of railway staff (whatever their designation) in the passenger area of the train assisting the public are more likely to be people who are up to no good (at the very least travelling without a valid ticket) and so it could be argued that we could ignore their views.

I'm not saying that people would object to seeing railway staff, but more that some people would rather have lower debt than railway staff. That doesn't apply to me, but making out like the only concern is what the public wants, as though they can't think for themselves, isn't too helpful.

 

[FenMan]

Wel aware of all that thanks, but as noted above by others, the substantial increase in seating capacity on the route is going to be welcomed by regular passengers - even if not by you, off on one of your favourite hobby horses again about how the sky will fall in if a train has 1/3, 2/3 doors. With the overall boost to capacity, people are unlikely to be packed in like sardines on the 165 portion, even if it does retain 2+3 seats, so will be perfectly comfortable most of the time.

Surprised you haven't mentioned the lack of corridor connections between the two sets yet, but that's probably only a matter of time...

Most of my journeys start/finish on a 166. They work perfectly well on the Reading-Gatwicks - apart from frying their passengers in the summer and freezing them in the winter.

I'd imagine after conversion to 2+2 seating a 166 would still have around 200 seats (the current 3+2 layout has 270 or so?). They ride well and can be quiet too if you know where to sit. They should be fine on the longer runs, particularly when the air con issue is finally resolved.

 

[ainsworth74]

This FGW proposal does NOT guarantee that there will be a second person on board the train though does it, it clearly states that if no TM is available then the train will be able to run DOO in passenger serviceman if there is no catering on board then it will be just the driver on board.

Yes it is rather open to abuse at the moment. I would rather see something along the lines that trains can run without a TM (but a TM must be diagrammed for every service) but if it reaches a certain level per week (say more than 5% of SET services running without a TM for sake of argument) then the operator will be subject to fines and penalties.

I believe in Scotrail land where they are DOO but with ticket examiners the trains can run without a TE but any service that does leads to Scotrail being fined. Perhaps a similar thing is needed here? Ensure no TOC tries to bend the rules by making them pay a financial penalty.

Nowhere does it say that as TM's leave/retire they will be replaced by another person becoming a TM!

Agreed, there needs to be an assurance that a TM role (even without the doors/safety critical element) will always be maintained even as currents TMs leave/retire.

 

[The Ham]

I'm not saying that people would object to seeing railway staff, but more that some people would rather have lower debt than railway staff. That doesn't apply to me, but making out like the only concern is what the public wants, as though they can't think for themselves, isn't too helpful.

The problem is I'm not sure that fewer railway staff would equal lower debt. From the early days of SWT's (i.e. just after privatisation) when the guards had their own compartment (i.e. on the slammers and 442's*) it was rare to have ticket inspections (it still is fairly rare but with gate lines at the major stations it is less of a problem) as they would often have to go back to dispatch the train.

At least with the 444's and 450's they can dispatch from any door, meaning that they are more likely to move through the train (even if they don't actually always do a ticket check as they do so).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I realise my including the 442's (may they live forever) in above post could be seen as a potential tarnish on their saintly nature. I wish to clarify that it was not my intention, before the twitter tolls start issuing death threats against me.

 

[infobleep]

The turbos will be 1x 165 two car and 1x 166 three car on the majority of portsmouth to cardiff runs with long distance seating in the 166 only. However new air. con planned throughout ...

Why is long distance seating only required in the 166? They both types run along the whole route then wouldn't they require the same seating or do long distance travels only travel at set times of the day?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Most of my journeys start/finish on a 166. They work perfectly well on the Reading-Gatwicks - apart from frying their passengers in the summer and freezing them in the winter.

I'd imagine after conversion to 2+2 seating a 166 would still have around 200 seats (the current 3+2 layout has 270 or so?). They ride well and can be quiet too if you know where to sit. They should be fine on the longer runs, particularly when the air con issue is finally resolved.

Doesn't the 166 already have air con or is that the 165?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Doesn't the 166 already have air con or is that the 165?

Yes, but it plain doesn't work.

 

[anthony263]

I think they plan on fitting the same air con as those fitted to Chilterns turbo fleet which is more reliable

 

[fgwrich]

I think they plan on fitting the same air con as those fitted to Chilterns turbo fleet which is more reliable

Wabtec will enjoy that given the fun with the fitting of the Chiltern 165s - The Turbo family, constructed from Extruded Aluminium, were welded together in Derby & York Works in large Jigs - upside down. So while it was easier to complete the ceiling panels in the jigs, it now means all the wiring is effectively upside down. I gather working on installing the Air Con into the Chiltern ones were as a result, not fun.

 

[vicbury]

Will the Class 158s be getting replacement air-conditioning too? Assuming it is fixed on the 166s, it will be nice to make a journey towards Portsmouth which is no longer in tropical conditions!

 

[Parallel]

Why is long distance seating only required in the 166? They both types run along the whole route then wouldn't they require the same seating or do long distance travels only travel at set times of the day?

To be honest, I can imagine reservations appearing in the class 166 carriages aiming towards those doing longer distance journeys. It sounds like FGW will go towards trying to get those doing short distance hops in the 165. I'm not sure where guards/ticket examiners will be based. There's a relatively short amount of time between stops made at Warminster, Westbury, Trowbridge and Bradford On Avon, and there may well be an increase in fare evasion as a result, unless you have a ticket examiner based in the other unit - But that'd probably be overkill...

 

[Bletchleyite]

From observation on LM Trent Valley services when 350/2s appear, the groups of 6 in 3+2 are quite popular with families with children and the likes. So if there are 3 coaches of 2+2 most likely the other two being 3+2 isn't going to bother too many people.