Trivia: Rolling stock which isn’t really compatible for a route it operates

[PHILIPE]

what would you use then i use the tfw 153 regularly myself and find then acceptable i definitely rather them to a 150

A 175 over there one day last week but stayed at the north end and kept changing over.

 

[Anonymous10]

A 175 over there one day last week but stayed at the north end and kept changing over.

i dont believe the class 175 are cleared to run the route with passengers on board and the 175s are needed elsewhere on more utilized lines

 

[PHILIPE]

i dont believe the class 175 are cleared to run the route with passengers on board and the 175s are needed elsewhere on more utilized lines

175s are cleared throughout apart from the Down Platform at Llandovery in which case they divert via the up. Last week replaced failure. You are thinking of 158s without passengers and air bags deflated.

 

[Anonymous10]

175s are cleared throughout apart from the Down Platform at Llandovery in which case they divert via the up. Last week replaced failure. You are thinking of 158s without passengers and air bags deflated.

ah yes ok still for now 175s are needed elsewhere

 

[PHILIPE]

ah yes ok still for now 175s are needed elsewhere

But as I said only replaced 153 failure at Shrewsbury and would only work there for a sound reason.

 

[greyman42]

Voyagers would be OK on long thin routes like inverness- aberdeen. Or Carlisle - Glasgow via Kilmarnock. Not on busy inter city routes that need 8-10 carriages.

I think your right. I was using the XC Voyagers during lockdown and when there are relatively few passengers on board they are quite pleasant.

 

[Mikey C]

They're lovely to travel on, but their slow acceleration on third rail is a massive downgrade over the 375s, which in some sections can reach 15mph faster than the 395s. And with the 465s, it's not worth comparing. On third rail the 395s would probably be faster if they were powered by diesel!

The single leaf doors of the 395s are a bit of hindrance too, when chugging through all the stations in the Medway Towns for example.

Which isn't a criticism, but rather an acknowledgement that they operate on a unique set of routes

 

[Bikeman78]

I think that a heritage railway somewhere in the south of England can tell you that a 4 car 171 can considerably out accelerate a 37 + 4 mk1s + 33 combo to 25 mph, even if the rear engine is accidentally assisting.

Really? The 37s on the Rhymney line felt a lot faster from zero to 25 than a class 170. You could really feel the power as they pulled away.

 

[Ken H]

Really? The 37s on the Rhymney line felt a lot faster from zero to 25 than a class 170. You could really feel the power as they pulled away.

Think the noise made it seem faster!

 

[AlastairFraser]

This phrase really is getting tired now.

Each and every service is allocated a unit diagram and from experience over the last few years it is extremely rare to not get the booked traction.

It comes across as a lazy dig at Northern which I’m sure isn’t your intention.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Oct 2021 ==


Firstly. If any electrification was authorised where Northern run it would be an extra build of 331’s as they have already stated. They do not want to add ‘yet another fleet’ to their books.

Secondly. 350’s are 4 car units, not 5 (or are you going down the ‘it’s so easy to reform them as 5 cars’ route).

Thirdly. What do you do about Knaresborough with you proposed 5 car trains? Tunnel at one end, crossing at the other with 4 car max platform squeezed in between.

Why would they buy more CAF units when the 350s are coming off lease and will likely be offered at a substantial discount to ensure use by a TOC? They would get far superior units that outweigh the gains from simplified fleet maintenance.
I was unaware that 350s were 4 car units, that solves the Knaresborough problem; however, it still provides a significant increase in capacity from before.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Oct 2021 ==

150’s are perfect for the Clitheroe Rochdale services. It’s only between agecroft and burnden that’s it’s 100mph and it’s only in one direction.
The metro style door layout means passengers can load and unload quickly.

But 769s are of a similar layout and can take significant advantage of the electric times between Mcr and Bolton.

 

[Falcon1200]

What's wrong with the three cars on the Glasgow south suburban routes?

IMHO, nothing wrong with the 385s on any of the routes they are used on (even Edinburgh/Glasgow !). I find them perfectly comfortable and acceptable trains.

 

[TXMISTA]

Portsmouth Harbour to Cardiff via Southampton is 140 miles.

That 10 mile difference that you felt the need to point out doesn’t detract from my point

 

[DelW]

The junk they use on the heart of wales line

what would you use then i use the tfw 153 regularly myself and find then acceptable i definitely rather them to a 150

The line ought to be able to be promoted for its scenery (despite the "green tunnel" effect in the summer), but the 150s don't suit that with their poor seat / window positioning.

The 153s are better in that respect but their legroom is inadequate and as single units they could become overcrowded (pre-Covid). Now that the line is stuck with them for the foreseeable future, one can only hope that the promised refurb will increase the seat pitch, and that there will be enough of them to operate in pairs on the busiest services.

 

[Omnishambles]

2+3 450s on the Pompey direct! A layout similar to the 350/1s would be ideal!

Was this what was meant to be replaced by 2+2 on refurbs by SWR, either in the 450s or 442s but after committing to it never happened ?

 

[DelW]

Was this what was meant to be replaced by 2+2 on refurbs by SWR, either in the 450s or 442s but after committing to it never happened ?

The 442s were meant to provide 2+2 on the Direct, but obviously that's not happening now.
I think the current plan is for 458s to be reduced to four cars and refitted with 2+2 seats, but they're not going to be released from the Windsor lines yet because of the delays to the Aventras, so who knows when or even if it will happen.
Just one more in SWR's long and shameful list of broken promises ☹️.

 

[cjmillsnun]

2+3 450s on the Pompey direct! A layout similar to the 350/1s would be ideal!

Thankfully the 458s should mitigate this somewhat when they arrive.

 

[DorkingMain]

165s and 166s on Portsmouth - Cardiff. It’s been done to death so I won’t go into too much detail but 3+2 seating on a 150+ mile journey is unacceptable.

Should really have been swapped with the 158s on Romsey rounders, which aren't suitable for the short-hop journeys on that route with their end doors.

 

[TPO]

The XC 170s with high density seats on the Cardiff-Nottingham via Birmingham and Derby.

Especially When running as 2 car vice 3 car in peak hour.....

TPO

 

[Efini92]

Why would they buy more CAF units when the 350s are coming off lease and will likely be offered at a substantial discount to ensure use by a TOC? They would get far superior units that outweigh the gains from simplified fleet maintenance.
I was unaware that 350s were 4 car units, that solves the Knaresborough problem; however, it still provides a significant increase in capacity from before.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Oct 2021 ==


But 769s are of a similar layout and can take significant advantage of the electric times between Mcr and Bolton.

True but they aren’t very reliable.

 

[AlastairFraser]

True but they aren’t very reliable.

That was the first batch of conversions. Lessons will have been learnt from the first time.

 

[Halish Railway]

I don’t know what 110mph trains with 2+2 seating are doing working stopping services around Birmingham where they rarely get to exceed 75mph, yet 350/2s often get allocated to the long distance LNWR work.

Does anyone know whether the Wolverhampton to Walsall services will be worked by the 90mph 730/0s or will they still be 350s? Likewise, the Chase line services should be worked by 730/0s, although this is unlikely given that the original LNWR plan that has been mothballed due to COVID & its poor reliability was to run these services through to Euston.

 

[DorkingMain]

The 442s were meant to provide 2+2 on the Direct, but obviously that's not happening now.
I think the current plan is for 458s to be reduced to four cars and refitted with 2+2 seats, but they're not going to be released from the Windsor lines yet because of the delays to the Aventras, so who knows when or even if it will happen.
Just one more in SWR's long and shameful list of broken promises ☹️.

Believe the first set has already been released for refurbishment. The plan wasn't for the 458s to be refurbished like this until 2022-2024, which all being well should match the introduction of 701s (barring continued disasters)

 

[DelW]

Believe the first set has already been released for refurbishment. The plan wasn't for the 458s to be refurbished like this until 2022-2024, which all being well should match the introduction of 701s (barring continued disasters)

On the parallel 458 thread, it's been stated that only two are being released this year, with the rest being retained until at least the middle of next year.

But whatever the situation with that fleet, the reality is that many Portsmouth trains will still be operated by unsuitable outer suburban stock for years to come. That was of course the source of much dissatisfaction and complaint during Stagecoach's tenure, and which SWR had promised to remedy.

 

[DorkingMain]

On the parallel 458 thread, it's been stated that only two are being released this year, with the rest being retained until at least the middle of next year.

But whatever the situation with that fleet, the reality is that many Portsmouth trains will still be operated by unsuitable outer suburban stock for years to come. That was of course the source of much dissatisfaction and complaint during Stagecoach's tenure, and which SWR had promised to remedy.

Well, the original plan (I am told) was to run the 442s as a solution to that until 2024, with the 458s then taking over after that. Ultimately the problem is with the disastrous refurbishment + retractioning of the 442s.

I do agree the 450s aren't suitable for the Portsmouth route. That being said, it's hard to think what they are actually suitable for. Some of them end up on Poole stoppers (which is a 3 hour journey), some of them end up on Portsmouth via Basingstoke (a 2 hour journey, not suitable) or the Portsmouth Direct (another 2 hour journey). When SWR first took over it should have been a priority to configure them into 2+2, and let suburban stock take up the slack on the odd route where they are suitable (Reading / Alton / Basingstoke stopper)

 

[swt_passenger]

Well, the original plan (I am told) was to run the 442s as a solution to that until 2024, with the 458s then taking over after that. Ultimately the problem is with the disastrous refurbishment + retractioning of the 442s.

I believe it‘s more likely the 458s would all have been scrapped after replacement by 701s.

Keeping the 458s for some future use had never been mentioned before April this year.

 

[172007]

Class 172 /0's & /1's on Stratford OA work. Request stops are a nightmare; and we do have diagrams with Claverdon and Bearly these days too so both loops. If you get multiple people getting at extreme ends immediately before or during request stops you end up stopping at of them and losing time. Also difficult to get passengers to to front unit and can result in people changing vehicles which really slows the job down if they are on at mobility.

 

[pompeyfan]

442s were never suitable for anything other than their pre 2005 work, Weymouth Waterloo fast services. They’re too slow for stop start work, and they don’t like the hills on the PDL. How did they get on with Bincome on their previous tenure?

 

[satisnek]

The 172s on the Snow Hill lines [ducks] because of their transmissions. The only place where they can even approach their 100mph top speed is an all-too-short stretch in the Lapworth area. Everywhere else it's 75mph or less, often with frequent station stops, and the Stourbridge leg has steep grades and restrictive reverse curves thrown in for good measure. What's needed is a lower speed transmission offering the performance of an EMU. While 172s are very quick off the mark in ex-works condition, the performance seems to deteriorate in quite a short space of time.

 

[172007]

The 172s on the Snow Hill lines [ducks] because of their transmissions. The only place where they can even approach their 100mph top speed is an all-too-short stretch in the Lapworth area. Everywhere else it's 75mph or less, often with frequent station stops, and the Stourbridge leg has steep grades and restrictive reverse curves thrown in for good measure. What's needed is a lower speed transmission offering the performance of an EMU. While 172s are very quick off the mark in ex-works condition, the performance seems to deteriorate in quite a short space of time.

Yes, the transmissions probably did / do need changing so that the early acceleration continues up the speed curve. 90mph would have been a better speed cut off I immagine. Not sure the ex works are quicker, the boxes at London Midland where modified to reduce herbs etc when first received. Except Chilton /1's when one or working together are quicker as this is observed on the speedo leaving Cradley.

 

[A0]

Done to death before, but 313's on Brighton/Littlehampton - Portsmouths as they lack toilets

Not sure I agree - when on GN the 313s did Moorgate - Stevenage services which were a similar duration. And a number of journeys on the Underground are also of a similar duration with no toilets. The 313s don't run all the services either.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Oct 2021 ==

(1) 507/508 on Merseyrail, due to long-standing issues with wheel wear from the Loop.

(2) 700 on King’s Cross to Cambridge stopping service. A unit designed for the Thameslink core on a service which doesn’t go in it, and is looking increasingly unlikely to do so.

(3) the deployment of Sprinters on the Northern franchise based on seating capacity, which leads to end-door 156/158 on stopping services.

On 1 - they seem to gave acquitted themselves quite well over the last 30+ years.

On 2 - Cambridge stoppers for many years had 2+3 seated, non aircon class 317s - I'd take a 700 over a 317 any day.

On 3 - it's Hobsons Choice - I suspect most regular users would prefer the chance to get a seat.