Replacement for the GWR 165/166s?

[JonathanH]

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.

Some time well before then the HSTs will be withdrawn, with a ready supply of seats which could be fitted to the Turbos without a heavy refurbishment.

It really is profligate how the railway allows modern seats to be sent to the scrapyard then buys more for refurbishments - eg the way in which Northern reseated its 158s with brand new seat frames instead of using secondhand ones from GWR HSTs. It is all waste and profligate spending.

It the Turbos need to keep higher density seating, the seats in the SWR 455s could be used, noting that they are currently 2+2, they could be configured in a 2+3 pattern where needed.

 

[Irascible]

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.

Portsmouth-Cardiff might get something sponsored from the Welsh end, but I can see these units rattling around Devon & Cornwall for another 20 years. There's no 150 replacement & infinitessimal chance of wiring.

 

[JohnRegular]

I think 5 cars are the max due to platform length's. Could be wrong. Perhaps there is scope for extra services at peak times all week for the full route.

IIRC, there are only a handful of platforms that are too short for 6 cars. Warminster, Trowbridge P1, Bradford-on-Avon (I think?) and Filton can all handle 5 max, but I could myself be mistaken. I don't think extending any of those would present any major challenges, with the possible exception of Filton which might require realignment of tracks to keep the island wide enough. SDO would probably be an acceptable, if imperfect, solution.
Fixed-formation 6 car is probably not a sensible option though, massive overkill on some of the early and late services. Pairs of gangwayed 3 car units would be much more sensible, as long as GWR don't get in the habit of sending them out solo on Saturday mornings...

 

[Metal_gee_man]

Whilst we're going all crayonista a complete set of tri-mode Stadler Flirts 4 or 5 car trains would be perfect, the 755s run well on both the current propulsion options currently and adding some 750dc shoes shouldn't be difficult (Maybe becoming a Class 765)

 

[JohnRegular]

Whilst we're going all crayonista a complete set of tri-mode Stadler Flirts 4 or 5 car trains would be perfect, the 755s run well on both the current propulsion options currently and adding some 750dc shoes shouldn't be difficult (Maybe becoming a Class 765)

Even with the big box of crayons we have out, 4 car trains are probably less than ideal without more platform extensions- there would be quite a long list of platforms to extend for 8 car operation, and 4 car is really not sufficient for Portsmouth-Cardiff a lot of the time.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

Even with the big box of crayons we have out, 4 car trains are probably less than ideal without more platform extensions- there would be quite a long list of platforms to extend for 8 car operation, and 4 car is really not sufficient for Portsmouth-Cardiff a lot of the time.

And this is the only downside with the flirts, that damn power car and lack of end corridor makes running them in multiples very daft and fixed formations restrictive in busy time...you can't win

 

[Trainbike46]

Even with the big box of crayons we have out, 4 car trains are probably less than ideal without more platform extensions- there would be quite a long list of platforms to extend for 8 car operation, and 4 car is really not sufficient for Portsmouth-Cardiff a lot of the time.

But if required for the route stadler could build 5 or 6 car bimode flirts whithout too much trouble.

Just thinking of the class 755s, there is 2 diesel engines in the powerpack of the 3 cars, and 4 diesel engines in the powerpack of a 4 car. So, 4 diesel engines should be sufficient for a 6 car 755, and they should fit in the existing powerpack as they already do in that for the 4 car 755s

 

[JohnRegular]

But if required for the route stadler could build 5 or 6 car bimode flirts whithout too much trouble.

Just thinking of the class 755s, there is 2 diesel engines in the powerpack of the 3 cars, and 4 diesel engines in the powerpack of a 4 car. So, 4 diesel engines should be sufficient for a 6 car 755, and they should fit in the existing powerpack as they already do in that for the 4 car 755s

The problem, again, being that 6 car all day is excessive- not a problem as a passenger but I'm sure GWR don't fancy carting around so much fresh air late on weekday evenings, for example. Fixed 5 car has the same issue to some extent, but also squanders the opportunity to run 6 car when it is needed. Having said that, if we were so lucky to have the turbos replaced any time soon, fixed 5 car is probably the best case scenario.

I'm not very familiar with services like Norwich-Liverpool, or the XC routes currently operated by 170s, other than that they are also frequently overcrowded. However I imagine they would be served quite well with similar trains- new 5 car bimode flirts all around? We may be waiting a while...

 

[Trainbike46]

The problem, again, being that 6 car all day is excessive- not a problem as a passenger but I'm sure GWR don't fancy carting around so much fresh air late on weekday evenings, for example. Fixed 5 car has the same issue to some extent, but also squanders the opportunity to run 6 car when it is needed. Having said that, if we were so lucky to have the turbos replaced any time soon, fixed 5 car is probably the best case scenario.

I'm not very familiar with services like Norwich-Liverpool, or the XC routes currently operated by 170s, other than that they are also frequently overcrowded. However I imagine they would be served quite well with similar trains- new 5 car bimode flirts all around? We may be waiting a while...

for Norwich-Liverpool there might be some hope, because greater anglia got more 755s than they need, so an arrangement where 1 or 2 of those emr diagrams use 755s might be an option to efficiently use existing stock and improve passenger experience. Though I guess it will mostly depend on whether driver and guard training needs would be large (Maybe GA could crew them between Norwich and Peterborough?).

Alternatively, a few more 755s could be ordered, so that the entire norwich-liverpool operation can be 755, all of them maintained at Crown Point.

Back to GWR, if there are specific diagrams that tend to be busy they could go for a mix of 3/4/5 car and 6 car flirts, and use the 6-cars on the busiest diagrams, and the shorter units on the quieter diagrams

 

[Bletchleyite]

for Norwich-Liverpool there might be some hope, because greater anglia got more 755s than they need, so an arrangement where 1 or 2 of those emr diagrams use 755s might be an option to efficiently use existing stock and improve passenger experience. Though I guess it will mostly depend on whether driver and guard training needs would be large (Maybe GA could crew them between Norwich and Peterborough?).

Alternatively, a few more 755s could be ordered, so that the entire norwich-liverpool operation can be 755, all of them maintained at Crown Point.

Back to GWR, if there are specific diagrams that tend to be busy they could go for a mix of 3/4/5 car and 6 car flirts, and use the 6-cars on the busiest diagrams, and the shorter units on the quieter diagrams

755s would be too short for Liverpool-Norwich. You'd need 6-section units.

 

[JonathanH]

755s would be too short for Liverpool-Norwich. You'd need 6-section units.

It would be an increase in capacity for Nottingham to Norwich.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be an increase in capacity for Nottingham to Norwich.

It would be a reduction for Nottingham-Liverpool, though, and that needs a further increase, not a considerable reduction. 4.755 is roughly 3.158, indeed I think slightly less. It's now reaching the point where 6.158 will be needed on many trains, so you'd need double sets.

Unless you're talking about it being split and the 158s remaining west of Nottingham and operated by EMR?

 

[Snow1964]

IIRC, there are only a handful of platforms that are too short for 6 cars. Warminster, Trowbridge P1, Bradford-on-Avon (I think?) and Filton can all handle 5 max, but I could myself be mistaken. I don't think extending any of those would present any major challenges, with the possible exception of Filton which might require realignment of tracks to keep the island wide enough. SDO would probably be an acceptable, if imperfect, solution.
Fixed-formation 6 car is probably not a sensible option though, massive overkill on some of the early and late services. Pairs of gangwayed 3 car units would be much more sensible, as long as GWR don't get in the habit of sending them out solo on Saturday mornings...

Although rare, occasionally the line does see two 3car units coupled together (I have personally observed it), instead of a 3car + 2car

Part of the problem is the volume of short journeys means there is big churn at places like Bath, so units with just 2 double doors aren’t that suitable in long 23m vehicles. (A 115-120m train only has 10 pairs of doors instead of 12)

But the biggest problem short term is the random mix of train lengths, with various services reduced to single 3car sets often at short notice. So clearly there aren’t enough sets currently allocated which leads to so many trains suffering overcrowding on part of their journey.

I do wonder if a gangwayed power car (bit like those on the prototype class 210 DEMUs) are the answer, if there are surplus newish EMUs around (which there are) with a new power car added to a nearly new surplus EMU. But really it needs a dual electric bi-mode (not a 125mph version), nearer 90mph on diesel or 100-110mph on electric configured to be suitable for mix of outer suburban and 3-4 hour journeys.

I don’t actually know if 5 car set could provide the capacity required, and 6car operation needs a few short (but easy) platform extensions. Ideally there would be mix of 4car and 2car (but fully gangwayed), so that don’t need to run excessive long trains at quiet times (and before anyone comments, mixing 2car and 3car is already done today, so not more difficult to have mixed fleet going forward). Although I don’t really trust GWR to couple up sets for busy journeys so might be safer to just order 5 or 6 car units

But I also think the 165 & 166 turbos should be refurbished with seats from withdrawn trains, they are not life expired, but they are not really suitable for services of 3-4 hours (or 5+ hours in case of some services from Great Malvern to south coast) and should be redeployed to other shorter services.

I think the synergy of replacing old diesel stock elsewhere justifies electrifying Bristol-Bath (actually Filton-Bristol-Bathampton which has 3+ services each way per hour), then onto Chippenham and Westbury. However short term adding Westbury-Salisbury-Redbridge and Salisbury- Basingstoke-Reading West is harder to justify. If just this part of the route can be electrified then could probably reduce the size of the diesels or have an 80mph diesel top speed, but keep the 100-110mph electric top speed.

 

[swt_passenger]

But I also think the 165 & 166 turbos should be refurbished with seats from withdrawn trains, they are not life expired, but they are not really suitable for services of 3-4 hours (or 5+ hours in case of some services from Great Malvern to south coast) and should be redeployed to other shorter services.

Well at least the 5+ hour service (to Brighton) is no longer a problem, with GWR removing it completely from May 15th.

I think Weymouth is to be the longest, and that’s only once a day.

 

[Snow1964]

Well at least the 5+ hour service (to Brighton) is no longer a problem, with GWR removing it completely from May 15th.

I think Weymouth is to be the longest, and that’s only once a day.

Does being once a day become an acceptable reason to provide seats unsuitable for a 4 hour 24 minute journey

There is only one train a day that is booked for the fastest time of 4 hours 19 minutes Kings Cross - Edinburgh, and that is a quicker journey, so would less seat comfort be acceptable for this once a day fast train.

You can’t really base the seating comfort on nobody doing the whole route, I still think the seating choice on a 165 or 166 is not suitable for the lengthy (time wise) routes now being operated

 

[swt_passenger]

Does being once a day become an acceptable reason to provide seats unsuitable for a 4 hour 24 minute journey

I’m not sure at all. What is the “normal route” of these services, and should the various extensions define the rolling stock? What did they generally use on Bristol to Weymouth before 165/166?

 

[DJ_K666]

When I was still down south we had 3 car 150/1s on occasion, including 150001 and 002, I had the pleasure of riding in 002 as it has a good history, wasn't it the one that spent some time as the only class 154?

Either way it means that 'Suburban EMU' type mk3 bodyshells should be ok between St Denys and Fareham, and therefore the forthcoming 769s would be ideal, able to fit most stations except for DIlton Marsh Halt, Avoncliff and Freshford and not get too overcrowded. Plus they'd be able to make use of the electrification where they encounter it, like Southampton to Portsmouth and then the knitting between Bristol and Cardiff.

 

[Anonymous10]

When I was still down south we had 3 car 150/1s on occasion, including 150001 and 002, I had the pleasure of riding in 002 as it has a good history, wasn't it the one that spent some time as the only class 154?

Either way it means that 'Suburban EMU' type mk3 bodyshells should be ok between St Denys and Fareham, and therefore the forthcoming 769s would be ideal, able to fit most stations except for DIlton Marsh Halt, Avoncliff and Freshford and not get too overcrowded. Plus they'd be able to make use of the electrification where they encounter it, like Southampton to Portsmouth and then the knitting between Bristol and Cardiff.

the class 769s are for the thames valley routes

 

[Grecian 1998]

I’m not sure at all. What is the “normal route” of these services, and should the various extensions define the rolling stock? What did they generally use on Bristol to Weymouth before 165/166?

Previously Bristol - Weymouth was a mish-mash of 150/1s, 150/2s, 153s and 158s. Most winter services were 2-3 carriages, with longer trains in summer. All the 150/1s and some of the 150/2s had 2+3 seating. No particular consistency that I could see, although there probably was a plan of sorts. The 150s were probably most common, so there was a fair chance on any journey that 2+3 seating would be the only option, particularly in the winter.

 

[route101]

Class 769s on Portsmouth to Cardiff route, that's a downgrade on the 165/165.

 

[JonathanH]

Does being once a day become an acceptable reason to provide seats unsuitable for a 4 hour 24 minute journey

Great Malvern to Weymouth is just two services matched up at Bristol. 166s are entirely appropriate stock for just about any journey people actually make on the service.

I always found 165s and 166s perfectly comfortable rolling stock when I did an 80 minute commute on them. Worrying primarily about the handful of people making 4 hour journeys is irrelevant.

You can’t really base the seating comfort on nobody doing the whole route, I still think the seating choice on a 165 or 166 is not suitable for the lengthy (time wise) routes now being operated

Why not? Hardly anyone will be travelling the whole route. With reversals at Gloucester and Bristol there is time for a stretch anyway.

Class 769s on Portsmouth to Cardiff route, that's a downgrade on the 165/165.

Yes, there are plenty of reasons why it isn't going to happen.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I always found 165s and 166s perfectly comfortable rolling stock when I did an 80 minute commute on them. Worrying primarily about the handful of people making 4 hour journeys is irrelevant.

Each to their own. I found them cramped and uncomfortable for a regular Reading-Charlbury commute, never mind the frequent Sunday Hereford-Charlbury journeys I’d make.

 

[TXMISTA]

Travelled on the 13:30 Portsmouth service today, usually diagrammed for a 4-car 158 but only 2 showed up. It was a miserable journey and easily the worst I’ve had post-COVID. I boarded the service at Temple Meads well before departure time and every single seat had already been occupied, as well as the vestibules almost being full with standing passengers. The 158s are my favourite units but even I’m willing to admit that a 166 would have felt less cramped and made boarding/alighting easier. Whatever stock is ordered in the future needs to have 1/3 doors.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Travelled on the 13:30 Portsmouth service today, usually diagrammed for a 4-car 158 but only 2 showed up. It was a miserable journey and easily the worst I’ve had post-COVID. I boarded the service at Temple Meads well before departure time and every single seat had already been occupied, as well as the vestibules almost being full with standing passengers. The 158s are my favourite units but even I’m willing to admit that a 166 would have felt less cramped and made boarding/alighting easier. Whatever stock is ordered in the future needs to have 1/3 doors.

A shortage of 158s today, both 4 car diagrams running as 2 cars today.

The pressure should ease in May with the removal of the Brighton trains and the number of traffic diagrams for 2 car 158s can be reduced by 1 which reflects the loss of a unit in the crash at Salisbury.

 

[Mikey C]

Travelled on the 13:30 Portsmouth service today, usually diagrammed for a 4-car 158 but only 2 showed up. It was a miserable journey and easily the worst I’ve had post-COVID. I boarded the service at Temple Meads well before departure time and every single seat had already been occupied, as well as the vestibules almost being full with standing passengers. The 158s are my favourite units but even I’m willing to admit that a 166 would have felt less cramped and made boarding/alighting easier. Whatever stock is ordered in the future needs to have 1/3 doors.

At some point in the future, you imagine displaced Turbostars will become available, and would seem ideal

Having said that, the reason the vestibules were so crowded was due to the shortness of the train. If that had been a (hypothetical) 6 car 158, there would have been loads of "door" capacity for loading and unloading.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

I'm a little confused as to why 4-car 158's have come back to the Portsmouth route. Was this in exchange for 166's from Exeter?

Nice trains the 158's yes (probably come back to the Portsmouth routes because of complaints about the Turbos) but not the best for punctuality at busy times.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

I'm a little confused as to why 4-car 158's have come back to the Portsmouth route. Was this in exchange for 166's from Exeter?

Nice trains the 158's yes (probably come back to the Portsmouth routes because of complaints about the Turbos) but not the best for punctuality at busy times.

Ever since turbos were introduced there have always been some 158 diagrams retained on the Portsmouth route to keep Fratton’s knowledge up on the units. The 158s two circuits are specifically timed to avoid the Bristol peaks.

At weekends it is necessary because the last two workings from Portsmouth stable overnight at Cardiff Canton as overnight engineering works don’t allow for them to return to Bristol. TfW drivers there don’t sign 16x to shunt them on/off Canton.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Ever since turbos were introduced there have always been some 158 diagrams retained on the Portsmouth route to keep Fratton’s knowledge up on the units. The 158s two circuits are specifically timed to avoid the Bristol peaks.

At weekends it is necessary because the last two workings from Portsmouth stable overnight at Cardiff Canton as overnight engineering works don’t allow for them to return to Bristol. TfW drivers there don’t sign 16x to shunt them on/off Canton.

I see, thank you .

 

[387star]

Turbos are unacceptably loud yet they are sluggish too

 

[Stigy]

Although rare, occasionally the line does see two 3car units coupled together (I have personally observed it), instead of a 3car + 2car

Although this does happen, they’re still only operated generally as a 3 car, with the rear locked OOU. Sometimes they’re run as a 5 car, but it’s preferable to lock a whole set out. They can run with 12 coaches if they need to (I’ve driven an 8 car before). It’s usually only to get stock to where it needs to be when there’s more than 5 vehicles. The platforms on the Bristol to Portsmouth stretch are all maximum 5 car platforms.