FGW unit queries

[TEW]

The 180s are diagrammed to be on services appropriate to their capacity, with the lamentable exception of the 15.51 from London to Worcester, where the HST was removed at the end of the summer to free a set for the overhaul programme.

I'd say the 1718 Paddington-Oxford isn't the best service for a 180 either mind, but then that was never really a suitable service for an HST either with all the stops it makes. Even now though it's only really completely wedged as far as Maidenhead, which isn't a long journey.

 

[jimm]

I'd say the 1718 Paddington-Oxford isn't the best service for a 180 either mind, but then that was never really a suitable service for an HST either with all the stops it makes. Even now though it's only really completely wedged as far as Maidenhead, which isn't a long journey.

There is a big difference between a train that is first stop Maidenhead on a route with plenty of other trains covering that journey around the same time
and the 15.51, which is the first train from London/Oxford on to the Cotswold Line for 90 minutes, which is also expected to form part of the half-hourly fast service between London and Oxford, is a key schools and commuting train out of Oxford, and where there is another 40-minute gap after it until the next westbound service from Oxford - and using the next train requires passengers from London to change trains in Oxford, something many people don't like doing.

 

[obrut165]

All of the 158 three car units are shortly. To. Be split back in to 2 car units when we receive some more 150s and then the 158s will be run as four car sets on peak services and then split off during the day

 

[TEW]

There is a big difference between a train that is first stop Maidenhead on a route with plenty of other trains covering that journey around the same time
and the 15.51, which is the first train from London/Oxford on to the Cotswold Line for 90 minutes, which is also expected to form part of the half-hourly fast service between London and Oxford, is a key schools and commuting train out of Oxford, and where there is another 40-minute gap after it until the next westbound service from Oxford - and using the next train requires passengers from London to change trains in Oxford, something many people don't like doing.

I didn't say the 1552 was suitable for a 180, just that the 1718 isn't either.

 

[Rhydgaled]

All of the 158 three car units are shortly. To. Be split back in to 2 car units when we receive some more 150s and then the 158s will be run as four car sets on peak services and then split off during the day

How shortly? ie. when? and how many 150s and where are they 150s coming from?

Also, would this mean some Cardiff - Portsmouths not being 158s?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I didn't say the 1552 was suitable for a 180, just that the 1718 isn't either.

Just goes to show that 5-car units aren't really a good idea for Great Western Intercity services. If they only have 5x 5-car units (4 diagrams) and still can't avoid having to diagram them onto two trips for which they aren't sufficient there are clearly not enough quiet services for 5-car units to be useful.

I suppose one thing you could do is only bring them out at quiet times and have them sat idle the rest of the day while longer trains do the work. The overhead of maintaining two fleets would probably exceed the savings from running shorter trains when the long ones aren't needed though.

 

[387star]

According to an internal source the 158s will see another refurbishment any further information?

 

[TEW]

Just goes to show that 5-car units aren't really a good idea for Great Western Intercity services. If they only have 5x 5-car units (4 diagrams) and still can't avoid having to diagram them onto two trips for which they aren't sufficient there are clearly not enough quiet services for 5-car units to be useful.

I suppose one thing you could do is only bring them out at quiet times and have them sat idle the rest of the day while longer trains do the work. The overhead of maintaining two fleets would probably exceed the savings from running shorter trains when the long ones aren't needed though.

The 1718 isn't an intercity service, it's semi-fast at best. The 1552 doesn't have to be covered by a 180 because there is nothing else the 180 could do but because there is no longer an HST to work it. The 180 used to work a couple more Oxford services instead. But it is better that a 180 replaces the HST on the 1552 than a Turbo.

 

[387star]

I will ask my trainer about the Portsmouth stock as I will sign that route. A lot of rumours at the moment
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

 

[jimm]

Just goes to show that 5-car units aren't really a good idea for Great Western Intercity services. If they only have 5x 5-car units (4 diagrams) and still can't avoid having to diagram them onto two trips for which they aren't sufficient there are clearly not enough quiet services for 5-car units to be useful.

I suppose one thing you could do is only bring them out at quiet times and have them sat idle the rest of the day while longer trains do the work. The overhead of maintaining two fleets would probably exceed the savings from running shorter trains when the long ones aren't needed though.

There you go again, you don't know the situation but that's not going to stop you demonstrating your blind prejudice about five-car trains, is it? A five-car IEP will have more seats anyway.

There are plenty of services that the 180s are useful for, as I keep trying to tell you, but yet again you just don't seem to take in information that people provide.

FGW is sending HST sets to Kilmarnock for heavy overhaul to get them through another few years of operation and in order to do so has withdrawn the diagram that saw an HST work the 06.40 Bristol-London service, then spend the day at Old Oak Common before going out on the 15.51.

FGW know full well a 180 is too small for the 15.51 but there's nothing else available now. And the 17.18 empties out nicely at Maidenhead - like pretty much everything else calling there at that time of the day, such is the demand at that station nowadays.

The 1718 isn't an intercity service, it's semi-fast at best. The 1552 doesn't have to be covered by a 180 because there is nothing else the 180 could do but because there is no longer an HST to work it. The 180 used to work a couple more Oxford services instead. But it is better that a 180 replaces the HST on the 1552 than a Turbo.

Not really, both types are grossly over-crowded on that service, and were years ago, which is why it needs an HST...

You seem to be confused about which Oxford semi-fast was an HST until last year - it wasn't the 17.18, which was always a three-car Turbo - I used to see it arrive in Oxford much of the time. The HST was, I believe, on the 17.35, which is now a pair of Turbos.

 

[ValleyLines142]

A class 180 I could perhaps agree on, but 175s are too short and 185s are too suburban. Personally, I think what the Cardiff - Portsmouth route really needs is 4-car formations of refurbished 158s (refurbished to improve legroom, and reliability if that's currently a problem).

If it's possible to extend the 175s to make them four or five car units, then that'd be great. They're lovely units and I'm so glad they operate in my area.

150/2 far more suitable than a 150/1? Other than no corridor connections and slam-doors for the staff there's not that much difference between 150/1 and 150/2 is there? ANY class 150 is woefully inappriate for a journey as long as Penzance to Cardiff (hell, ATW's 150/2s, the only 150s I have had much experiance of, aren't really comfortable enough for anything over an hour). There just aren't enough 158s to go arround everywhere that needs them unfortunately.

There is. Internally, not externally. There is a better layout on the 150/2's. They're generally a lot nicer looking than the 150/1s and have tables etc. Of course, NO 150 is appropriate on a journey such as 2U12, but then this is FGW we're referring to!

I agree, 158s are the ideal stock, much better for long distance (semi)fast services than anything with 1/3, 2/3 doors. The legroom on the FirstGW and SWT examples I've used has been a little on the tight side though (but not as bad as an ATW class 150). I once made a long journey from Hampshire to Pembrokeshire. Nice comfortable seats but insuffient legroom on the 158 to Cardiff followed by great legroom but rock-hard seats on the 175. Why can't trains have 175-legroom with nice-soft SWT158 seats?

158s are fine for the journey, pending they had better legroom and were extended to 4 or 5 coaches. But obviously that's not going to happen, so unfortunately we can only keep suffering.

FGW keep telling passengers on their Facebook page that there is a national shortage of stock. Fair enough, but then if the 0730 Cardiff to Portsmouth can have an additional 150 attached as far as Bristol, then the same can be done for the 1654 return quite frankly, otherwise the point they make is totally contradictory and invalid.

 

[Rhydgaled]

FGW know full well a 180 is too small for the 15.51 but there's nothing else available now.

So, if nothing is available but a 5-car IEP you have the same problem (yes, they would have more seats than a 180 but they still fall far short of a 2+8 IC125, which the vast majority of the trains they will be replacing are).

 

[TEW]

FGW keep telling passengers on their Facebook page that there is a national shortage of stock. Fair enough, but then if the 0730 Cardiff to Portsmouth can have an additional 150 attached as far as Bristol, then the same can be done for the 1654 return quite frankly, otherwise the point they make is totally contradictory and invalid.

The 150 used to attach to the 0730 Cardiff to Portsmouth in the morning works ECS straight to Weston-super-Mare and then goes onto the Taunton-Cardiff circuit. It's not like FGW are leaving a 150 lying in the depot when trains are overcrowded.

 

[JonathanH]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmutony
All of the 158 three car units are shortly. To. Be split back in to 2 car units when we receive some more 150s and then the 158s will be run as four car sets on peak services and then split off during the day​

How shortly? ie. when? and how many 150s and where are they 150s coming from?

Is this the four ex-London Midland 150s that were reported to only be allocated to Northern on a short-term lease - 150103/116/117/132? Perhaps made spare by the release of six 319s from Thameslink once electrification is live.

See http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=56287 even though there is some suggestion that the story was untrue.

 

[ValleyLines142]

The 150 used to attach to the 0730 Cardiff to Portsmouth in the morning works ECS straight to Weston-super-Mare and then goes onto the Taunton-Cardiff circuit. It's not like FGW are leaving a 150 lying in the depot when trains are overcrowded.

I realise that but at the same time it would be nice if there was a 150 or even a 153 around which could quickly do the return to Cardiff and back. The 1654 from Bristol gets into Cardiff at 1743, which then returns with the 1830 arriving into Bristol at 1922. The extra unit could then leave the formation, similarly to what currently happens with the 1900 Cardiff to Taunton (150+153 as far as Bristol, with only the 150 continuing down to Taunton).

At the moment it seems to be every other service out of Bristol which has extra units. The 1528 Warminster to Great Malvern, which is already a 150/9 alone, has a 153 attached at Temple Meads.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Is this the four ex-London Midland 150s that were reported to only be allocated to Northern on a short-term lease - 150103/116/117/132? Perhaps made spare by the release of six 319s from Thameslink once electrification is live.

See http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=56287 even though there is some suggestion that the story was untrue.

Looks like that story was untrue as the 150s in question seem to have recieved full Northern livery, not only half the height of the windows as suggested.

So, how are FirstGW supposed to form 4-car 158s?

 

[vicbury]

Am I the only one who hates the seating on the 158s? No legroom whatsoever, particularly at the tables where you are guaranteed to be wedged against someone's on leg. The seats are incredibly unsupportive, you just sink into them. The cushions (whatever they are called) that form the base of the seats are often ripped and usually come right off when you shuffle or stand up.

I'd go as far as saying I prefer the seating on some buses to that on the 158s.

However, a couple of weeks ago the 0602 Bath - Southampton and the 1810 Southampton - Bath was formed of a 3-car 150 with no working heating and self-opening windows. So I guess the 158s aren't that bad.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Am I the only one who hates the seating on the 158s? No legroom whatsoever, particularly at the tables where you are guaranteed to be wedged against someone's on leg. The seats are incredibly unsupportive, you just sink into them. The cushions (whatever they are called) that form the base of the seats are often ripped and usually come right off when you shuffle or stand up.

I'd go as far as saying I prefer the seating on some buses to that on the 158s.

I actually quite like the seats on FirstGW and SWT 158s (assuming they are all the same as I haven't travelled on many from either operator), but they do need more legroom.

 

[TEW]

The trade off with the poor legroom though is that there is perfect window alignment. If you had greater legroom the seats wouldn't align with the windows and there would be less seats.