GWR Class 165s due for a refurb?

[greatvoyager]

DFT put the dampers on it

Cramped conditions are here to stay then.

 

[Energy]

Unless they shift turbos away from Bristol and put new stock there. Then maybe the DfT would allow 2+2, its not like the services which sprinters are on get too busy

 

[387star]

The leather armrests in the ex 166 first class are mostly ripped as is the fabric on the little luggage rack in there. First great western dynamic lines stickers are still over the internal doors. Tables are horribly scratched and shabby looking.

Still not sure why there's a random couple of full sized tables in a tiny area of the standard saloon. Some facing seats seats there have no tables despite the same room being available

 

[JonathanH]

Still not sure why there's a random couple of full sized tables in a tiny area of the standard saloon. Some facing seats seats there

Originally all five bays in that area in 166s had tables. As they have become damaged and replacements have not been fitted, only the two tables nearest the gangway doors have been retained. Some of those tables have been used in the first class areas on certain 166s. 165s never had any tables in standard or first class.

 

[RichSwitch]

Is PMH - CDF the longest route - in terms of both distance and end-to-end time - over which trains with 3+2 seating are used? Personally I think it should be part of the CrossCountry franchise. But what do I know?

Just a thing on ‘internal train presentation’ while I’m here. I think the rail industry has problems distinguishing between the ‘big three’ issues:
Tidiness: papers, cups, bottles, wrappers, etc. (ie things that can be quantified)
Cleanliness: food spillages, liquid spillages, mud, chewing gum, etc. (ie things that aren’t generally quantified) affecting furnishings, windows, tables, vestibules, toilets...
Condition: largely, but not exclusively, aspects that are down to age, wear and tear, poor or no repair, vandalism, etc.

I think it would help inform managers responsible for train presentation if passenger surveys asked questions on each of the three rather than lumped cleanliness as an ‘all in one’ issue. Which it isn’t. The only way things will improve is if people high up in the industry understand this and give the people at the coal face the proper tools (time and proper staffing) to do the job.

 

[Deepgreen]

The fleet is generally pretty poor - some are dire. The North Downs line has a shabby train presence overall. Armrests are worn away to the core, the stupid little window tables cannot be made to stay solid, the internal doors are very unreliable and the PIS is sketchy. 166205 was refurbished fully many years ago but it was apparently considered lacking in durability, so...whole fleet seemingly abandoned rather than learning lessons from the 'prototype' and implementing them. Shareholders 1 - Passengers 0.

 

[cactustwirly]

The fleet is generally pretty poor - some are dire. The North Downs line has a shabby train presence overall. Armrests are worn away to the core, the stupid little window tables cannot be made to stay solid, the internal doors are very unreliable and the PIS is sketchy. 166205 was refurbished fully many years ago but it was apparently considered lacking in durability, so...whole fleet seemingly abandoned rather than learning lessons from the 'prototype' and implementing them. Shareholders 1 - Passengers 0.

They're not bad, not perfect either, but certainly better than a lot of train fleets of the same era like the GA 321s, 465s etc.
But they do need a refurbishment, the current interior is almost 10 years old now

 

[JonathanH]

Is PMH - CDF the longest route - in terms of both distance and end-to-end time - over which trains with 3+2 seating are used?

Yes, but it has been explained many times on here why trains with 3+2 seating have been introduced - the route sees a mix of short and long distance travellers with heavy commuting loads into Portsmouth, Southampton, Salisbury, Bath, Bristol, Newport and Cardiff - there aren't enough 158s spare at the moment to run longer trains - in this thread it is noted the DfT have refused permission to fit a 2+2 interior to the Turbos because it will reduce the number of seats.

Personally I think it should be part of the CrossCountry franchise.

On what grounds? The franchise it sits in does not make any difference in the short term to rolling stock or the pattern of operation. It isn't as if putting it with Cross Country instantly means it will be run with Voyagers or something similar.

Would you also switch Bristol to Weymouth and Cardiff to Taunton to Cross Country at the same time?

166205 was refurbished fully many years ago but it was apparently considered lacking in durability

166205 got a different interior for the launch of GWR but I wouldn't call it a full refurbishment as, apart from seat covers and internal paintwork it is pretty much identical to the other 166s.

It since had the cloth covers replaced by the new standard covers now fitted to the IET fleet, 150s, 387s and short HSTs.

They're not bad, not perfect either, but certainly better than a lot of train fleets of the same era like the GA 321s, 465s etc.

All three are much of a muchness really. I wouldn't pick out one fleet as being better or worse than the others.

 

[PHILIPE]

Is PMH - CDF the longest route - in terms of both distance and end-to-end time - over which trains with 3+2 seating are used? Personally I think it should be part of the CrossCountry franchise. But what do I know?

Just a thing on ‘internal train presentation’ while I’m here. I think the rail industry has problems distinguishing between the ‘big three’ issues:
Tidiness: papers, cups, bottles, wrappers, etc. (ie things that can be quantified)
Cleanliness: food spillages, liquid spillages, mud, chewing gum, etc. (ie things that aren’t generally quantified) affecting furnishings, windows, tables, vestibules, toilets...
Condition: largely, but not exclusively, aspects that are down to age, wear and tear, poor or no repair, vandalism, etc.

I think it would help inform managers responsible for train presentation if passenger surveys asked questions on each of the three rather than lumped cleanliness as an ‘all in one’ issue. Which it isn’t. The only way things will improve is if people high up in the industry understand this and give the people at the coal face the proper tools (time and proper staffing) to do the job.

Just to add to a later reply explaining things to you, Cross Country operations run based on a Birmingham hub.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The fleet is generally pretty poor - some are dire. The North Downs line has a shabby train presence overall. Armrests are worn away to the core, the stupid little window tables cannot be made to stay solid, the internal doors are very unreliable and the PIS is sketchy. 166205 was refurbished fully many years ago but it was apparently considered lacking in durability, so...whole fleet seemingly abandoned rather than learning lessons from the 'prototype' and implementing them. Shareholders 1 - Passengers 0.

205 was done to show what could be done but the DfT were not interested. They have kicked back refurbishing these units twice - let’s see what they allow in DA3.

 

[jimm]

166205 was refurbished fully many years ago.

As others have said, it barely counted as a 'refresh', never mind a refurbishment. The rejected proposals Clarence Yard mentions were to do a thorough job on the interiors - something that I think pretty much everyone except the DfT agrees is long overdue.

 

[bramling]

Is PMH - CDF the longest route - in terms of both distance and end-to-end time - over which trains with 3+2 seating are used?

Don't see why 3+2 is such a massive issue, TBH. If not all seats are taken then it gives extra space to spread out, whilst if all seats are taken then that's people who would otherwise be standing. Meanwhile the commuter door layout gives a massive advantage over 158s in terms of station dwell times. Personally I'd rather have a 3+2 train that doesn't lose shed loads of time when overcrowded.

 

[cactustwirly]

Don't see why 3+2 is such a massive issue, TBH. If not all seats are taken then it gives extra space to spread out, whilst if all seats are taken then that's people who would otherwise be standing. Meanwhile the commuter door layout gives a massive advantage over 158s in terms of station dwell times. Personally I'd rather have a 3+2 train that doesn't lose shed loads of time when overcrowded.

Agreed tbh, Turbos are like a tardis, they have a surprising amount of seats, and a 3+2 seat is better than a full and standing 2+2 150 that I've had in the past.

 

[Steve14]

Those 165/166s have served the Thames Valley honourably! Despite the delays and hiccups, they done to their best ability during the years they served the TV route. I think GWR should and will most probably refurb it out as they still carry the old livery detailing. Moquette green and grey seating, remove the hideous purple plastic interior fit out to match the same colours as an IET/HST.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Agreed tbh, Turbos are like a tardis, they have a surprising amount of seats, and a 3+2 seat is better than a full and standing 2+2 150 that I've had in the past.

Me also - to have up to 472 seats you'd normally need a 2+2-seated train of 7 coaches. The 5-car Turbos with their 3+2 seating layout are a more economical way of providing over 400 seats, plus it's less coaches to fix (and less time consuming) for the maintenance team. I say 472 as the GWR Twitter feed said the 5-car Turbos provide up to 472 seats (subject to modifications).

GWR could have had a 5-car (3-car + 2-car) 165 on the Portsmouth duties - but the fact that 3 coaches are a Class 166 must indicate that GWR are trying to get the best use of the Turbos over 158's.

Sit in the declassified section of the 166's and you'll find it provides a better environment than the 158's! It feels like being in one of the own compartments on a Mark 1 coach on heritage railways.

 

[387star]

Me also - to have up to 472 seats you'd normally need a 2+2-seated train of 7 coaches. The 5-car Turbos with their 3+2 seating layout are a more economical way of providing over 400 seats, plus it's less coaches to fix (and less time consuming) for the maintenance team. I say 472 as the GWR Twitter feed said the 5-car Turbos provide up to 472 seats (subject to modifications).

GWR could have had a 5-car (3-car + 2-car) 165 on the Portsmouth duties - but the fact that 3 coaches are a Class 166 must indicate that GWR are trying to get the best use of the Turbos over 158's.

Sit in the declassified section of the 166's and you'll find it provides a better environment than the 158's! It feels like being in one of the own compartments on a Mark 1 coach on heritage railways.

Popular all round

 

[Kite159]

Me also - to have up to 472 seats you'd normally need a 2+2-seated train of 7 coaches. The 5-car Turbos with their 3+2 seating layout are a more economical way of providing over 400 seats, plus it's less coaches to fix (and less time consuming) for the maintenance team. I say 472 as the GWR Twitter feed said the 5-car Turbos provide up to 472 seats (subject to modifications).

GWR could have had a 5-car (3-car + 2-car) 165 on the Portsmouth duties - but the fact that 3 coaches are a Class 166 must indicate that GWR are trying to get the best use of the Turbos over 158's.

Sit in the declassified section of the 166's and you'll find it provides a better environment than the 158's! It feels like being in one of the own compartments on a Mark 1 coach on heritage railways.

Assuming they have seats available and not full with business folk wanting to do work with the proper tables

 

[Energy]

Honestly, if they fitted the first class on 166 206 throughout all the trains then they would be great, I would considering reforming a few to 4 cars for the short HST services, although these could be better served by 5 car 802s

 

[387star]

are these the loudest DMUs in service? they seem incredibly noisy

 

[387star]

Originally all five bays in that area in 166s had tables. As they have become damaged and replacements have not been fitted, only the two tables nearest the gangway doors have been retained. Some of those tables have been used in the first class areas on certain 166s. 165s never had any tables in standard or first class.

I thought FGW a long time ago removed small tables in the 165s

 

[JonathanH]

I thought FGW a long time ago removed small tables in the 165s

I'd call those trinket trays rather than tables. They were large enough for two cups and situated in bay seats. The seatbacks in face to back seats also had flip down trays when built that were a bit of a maintenance liability.

Long ago, 166s were built with the trinket trays but got the triangular tables still fitted in the seating bays about two years after introduction.

 

[Energy]

I also think that all 165s should be modified to the higher speed of the 166

 

[greatvoyager]

I also think that all 165s should be modified to the higher speed of the 166

According to the Angel Trains website, the 165s have the 90mph top speed already.
https://www.angeltrains.co.uk/Products-Services/Regional-Passenger-Trains/8

 

[387star]

I'd call those trinket trays rather than tables. They were large enough for two cups and situated in bay seats. The seatbacks in face to back seats also had flip down trays when built that were a bit of a maintenance liability.

Long ago, 166s were built with the trinket trays but got the triangular tables still fitted in the seating bays about two years after introduction.

Interesting Thanks

 

[cactustwirly]

I also think that all 165s should be modified to the higher speed of the 166

The 165/1s and 166s have the same top speed?
Actually the 165s are a bit faster accelerating as they don't have the AC stealing engine power

 

[CC 72100]

I also think that all 165s should be modified to the higher speed of the 166

The Chiltern 165s are 75 max, all GWR 165s and 166s are 90 max.

 

[greatvoyager]

The 165/1s and 166s have the same top speed?
Actually the 165s are a bit faster accelerating as they don't have the AC stealing engine power

I believe you are right.

 

[Energy]

Ahh, AC would be nice on the 165s like the Chiltern ones, but it has to work.

 

[cactustwirly]

Ahh, AC would be nice on the 165s like the Chiltern ones, but it has to work.

I think it's in the process of being retrofitted, it's pretty good tbh.

 

[Energy]

I think it's in the process of being retrofitted, it's pretty good tbh.

Maybe new seats could be retrofitted at the same time