They are starting to go through a refurbishment programme, which at one point was meant to make the 166s more suitable for long distance work (2+2 seating) however not sure that is still in the programme.
It seems cheaper ironing boards from Fainsa are more the order of the day - a shame as I've always found those Grammer seats to be quite comfortable. Those FC Seats would have been nice to have been recovered and re-used as well, but with the ongoing reduction of First Class in both size and standards across the network, it would be harder to see where they could be re-used (and not in the Turbo's!).
. Wonder how far fuel prices have to rise the break-even for more efficient engines to be worth it. ( I don't think that'd be a small operation, to be clear ).gwr may yet take some ex tfw stock they have 158 and 175 along with 150 all leaving soon
I wouldn't count on any of those going onto Cardiff to Portsmouth though.
Weren't 166s originally (or still are) 2+2? They were higher speed (90) and intended for Oxford-London fasts.
No. There is one area of 2+2 in the centre carriage, five bays, with the same seats as in the 2+3 section. Many of the tables have now been removed from this area due to vandalism.
Thanks for the correction. That explains a few journeys now where the 165 kept time with a 166 diagram which would always puzzle me, I was certain the 165/1 was lower speed!
There’s something in the Networker design that prevents 2+2 from being used throughout, and this is why some 3+2 is retained on the 165s used by Chiltern - who I believe wanted a similar interior to their 172s.
If you’re still thinking of Cardiff - Portsmouth then HST power cars are not route cleared between St Denys and Fareham.
Yes, various equipment is fitted under the seats in the centre of each carriage, extending the full width of the three seat bays. Chiltern got 2+2 at the ends of the carriages but not in the centre, long before the 172s were thought of.
Looking slightly tatty now, but the 2+2 seating on the Chiltern 165s is very nice, while the air cooling system works well also
It's predominately the radiator header tanks which are saloon mounted among other components. Unless any retractioning removes the need for them to be located in the saloon, then it's something we will be stuck with unfortunately.
I can’t think of any small section without DC. Both routes Southampton to
168s aren’t much newer but they are in a different league in terms of onboard environment.
The biggest shame is that a 166 could be reconfigured to have an onboard environment every bit as good as a 168 other than for the radiator header tanks.
There is not enough service life left in the 166s or 165s for a heavy refurb to be viable. In the next 10 years they either get replaced by a new order of bi modes or cascaded 168s but mostly dependant on electrification. I wouldn't be surprised if they overstay their welcome on the GW.
