Great Western Coffee Shop

The March edition of Today's Railways is reporting that "GWR is considering using HSTs on regional services such as Cardiff-Portsmouth". This is following the recent trial of running a 2+5 set in the SW. This would be in place of running turbos that are due to replace the current 158s that operate the route.

That would be consistent with the requirement in the franchise to look at more appropriate stock for that route.  And there will be lots of HSTs spare, so it's certainly feasible in the not too distant future.

Would suggest power operated doors would be needed if dwell times are not to suffer, but Chiltern (and soon Scotrail) have these on Mk 3 stock so that shouldn't be an issue.

As well as solving the capacity problem on the route, I'm sure the improved rolling stock would in time make a big difference to passenger numbers.

Not forgetting the requirement for Short Swing Link bogies for Redbridge/Eastleigh to Portsmouth :)

Would it be too much to hope that one of the five coaches would be one of the composite coaches bringing back First Class to the Cardiff-Portsmouth line?

Even if nothing comes of this, I really don't see any HSTs ending up at Booths of Rotherham (scrapers yard) for sometime to come. Hope the same can be said of the 18 class 442s about to come off lease.

A GWR insider posting in the wnxx forum has written within the last week or so that this is definitely NOT happening on this route.

Also, HSTs are not cleared to run on the Netley line, believed to be due to the power cars being out of gauge on the Hamble river bridge.

Paul

So yet again the rail press don't check their facts.....

... resulting in a capacity issue once again?

Given the current sets are 3 car units, 5 coach sets should be OK for a while. Ideally the services should be limited in stops, with  the other stations served by shorter services (e.g. Westbury to Bristol, covering the Trowbridge and Bradford stops).  That would  also create more capacity on the HST's and reduce journey times, making the services even more attractive for longer distance traffic.

Although from what paul7755 says, it isn't going to happen so maybe this discussion is academic. (Or maybe not, as the principle is the same even if the service is run by 5 car turbos.)

I probably just hanker after the service I used to take to get from Cardiff to Soton when at Uni... only 4 intermediate stops.

Instead, they could simply read the Coffee Shop forum.  ;) :D ;D

quite.

I am a little disappointed they didn't. If this story had been in certain other railway based magazines I wouldn't have bothered posting it. But as it was in Today's Railways, I thought better of them.

For what it's worth RAIL is also reporting the future use of shortened HSTs on Cardiff-Penzance and Cardiff-Weymouth (think they mean Portsmouth) services.

So they nick it from Today's Railways & a) can't proof their own work & b) check out the story/source either....our railbpress really are sh1t

Surely a few loco-hauled 442s is the obvious answer. They will be available, provide the improvement in passenger quality that the DfT asked GWR to look at as part of its franchise terms, and I'm guessing have no issue with the Netley line.  The only problem is if they are regarded as a stop-gap then passenger expectations would need to be managed carefully as to the longer term quality of rolling stock they can expect.

I would assume GWRs response top that DfT request might be in the publicly-accessible responses to the franchise consultation?

There's been no commitment as far as I know to that suggestion, however. I would expect to see it specified in the franchise doc.

Looks though as thisa has come up again though with discussions between DfT & GWR re stock provision for the delay in electrification & thus cascades being delayed....

From Rail Magazine (http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2016/02/25/gwr-and-dft-discuss-revised-plan-after-electrification-delays?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)

Unfortunately not, this was posted on the WNXX forum (http://www.wnxxforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=16&p=200084):


Barmy, absolutely barmy. If IC125s are being retained anyway, why not keep them at their full 2+8 length and use the 5-car AT300/class 802s on Cardiff-Portsmouth instead? The only possible issue I can see with that is that the 802s will presumably have 26m coaches like the IEPs, and thus might not be easily cleared to Portsmouth. Still, with their short length and underfloor engines, 802s are going to be more like regional express DMUs than the IC125s.

Your quote from wnxx is the same chap I was referring to in reply #5 earlier in this thread.    ISTM that Rail are rehashing a dud story.

As I mentioned back then, HSTs cannot run on the St Denys - Fareham route without infrastructure works; thought to be the River Hamble girder bridge where the power cars are foul of the structure.

Paul

Well, they've done that many times before....

What route would the footy specials have taken Fgw ran a few years ago from both Bristol to Portsmouth and Portsmouth to Swansea?

Videos of said services on you tube filmed from Eastleigh, hedge end and Fareham.

That's the Chandlers Ford/ Eastleigh/Botley route, not the Southampton/St Denys/ Fareham route

Yep. Wessex Sectional Appendix shows that Class 43s are not permitted between St Denys and Fareham.

I was expecting to read about the option of diesel-hauling class 801s, but haven't. Why not? They were designed for it, and AFAIK the capability hasn't been dropped even after Hitachi opted for bi-modes.

It would contribute most once the juice gets to Cardiff, but might be worth starting with it some way short of that. It would allow earlier operation to Swansea, and maybe Bristol. Of course, in terms of cascades, it would specifically liberate more HSTs. It would also blanch blushes at DfT about idle SET stock.

Are there spare locos around? There should be now, at least, and for a few years. A load of locos meeting NRMM IIIA were ordered ahead of its sunset date (2014), and in anticipation of a gap before any others will be ordered. There are NRMM IIIB engines available, but they are very expensive at the moment, so no-one will order one unless it's essential or the cost comes down. The operators complained they were not allowed to buy enough in those deals, but I think they were projecting demand forward quite a few years. In addition, any existing locos can have IIIB engines put in to keep them running. So there should be an adequate number for a few years yet.

There aren't currently any 'spare' 801s - they're allocated to a proposed timetable.

That's why there's mention of buying further AT300s in the article, I guess.

I doubt there are that many spare locos suitable for hauling the 801s too - on long-term basis, at least.

I don't follow. The 801s are the electric ones, remember? So they will be unable to run all or part of their routes for some 2-3 years. And if the supply of locos is that tight, and if (as seems likely) no new ones are bought for ten years, then it's going to get desperate by then.

The current thinking is to covert them all to bi-modes, isn't it?

Exactly - it's being thought about. But, given the short-term (we hope!) nature of the "no electricity" problem, I would expect the diesel-haulage option to be thought about as well. 

I thought DfT had decided coupling a diesel loco to allow IEP to reach places like Hull would take too long, hence the bi-mode idea. Something about it DfT thinking it would take nine minutes to couple the loco, I don't see how it could take that long myself if they had suitable couplers installed for the job, given 158s can couple up much quicker than that at Machynlleth (I think it normally takes less than 3 minutes). However, as a short-term solution I imagine fitting locos with suitable couplers would be too expensive, and DfT are unlikely to want their new trains to make journeys slower than currently.

Anyway, there have been hints in this topic on WNXX (http://www.wnxxforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10686&p=228072#p228072) that MTU have recieved an order for additional diesel engines. Whether that means there won't be any 801s for Great Western or whether only part of the 801 fleet is being converted to bi-mode is not clear. Given that most diversionary routes are not included in the electrification programme and that the 801s have a single near-useless engine weighing them down (and adding maintenance cost) anyway making the 801s bi-mode might not be a terrible idea. Otherwise diversions would have had to be short-formed with the 5-car 800s (although a better idea would have been a mix of 9-car bi-mode and straight-electric sets from the start, with just a few 5-car bi-modes as 180 replacements).

I should imagine that the 9 minutes included the time it would take to get the locomotive in position if it was coupling on, or out of the way if it was being detached.


Two engines, I think.  And I believe they will prove to be far from 'near-useless'.

I think that confuses the design choice - bi-modes or loco-hauled - with what the 801s can do as ordered, after that choice has been made.

AIUI, bidders were asked to choose between two options for part-wired routes: loco-hauling or bi-modes. Hitachi (Agility) chose bi-modes, and their tender was accepted. However, the requirement still includes a loco-hauled mode for operational service (there is a separate one for rescue). Unless this has been traded away since, the delivered trains can do it - and it has been paid for (it has a cost).
 
So there are two (well, really three) options for coping with the delayed electrification:

1. Stick with the contract as written, and use the inherent capability of the trains to be loco-hauled. Services will be a bit slower, and there will a lot of managing to do and stuff pay for outside the contract. Not just hiring motive power, but arranging for enough drivers, with training, will be difficult. There may be (realistically,there will be) other factors I haven't thought of.

2. Tear up the contract, and go grovelling to Agility asking for a new one - "and please don't charge the huge stupidity premium we deserve". In addition to that extra payment "for the insult", there a real costs of re-scheduling production, and all those engines to buy. And after a couple of years use, then either they are carried around unused for 25 years, or taken out and put in a shed. Maybe another user can be found, though the NRMM process may restrict that.

3. Do nothing - keep using HSTs while the 801s are held in store, built or unbuilt. Everyone seems to think this is impossible due to its cost or embarrassment for DfT, but in reality it is probably a rational choice (I'd rate it second best). Its cash cost is almost nil - its real cost is in the loss of rolling stock elsewhere in the system, borne by passengers on GWR and elsewhere.

Of course I may not have the history 100% correct, and I'm sure there are other things to consider, but they are going to have to be pretty big and insurmountable to make option 2 best in itself or as value of money.

As I said originally, I'm surprised not to have heard it mentioned.

 ... moreover - my options 1-3 are not exclusive, are they? I practice having a few more (and long) 800s, and delaying the in-service date of some 801s, can be combined with dragging others over some routes - Cardiff-Swansea is an obvious choice.

Or converting them to bi-mode.....(yes, at a (one-off) cost.

Wells yes, the AT300 series sets can be hauled; a class 66 has been used to move 800s between testing areas I believe. But the 801s presumably weren't designed to be attached/detached where the wires run out day in day out, so loco compatiblity might be an issue (I think the 66 noted above is a specially modified one dedicated to that work), and the train provision/maintenance contract might not allow for that either.
 
I think 'variation order' is the term rather than 'tear up the contract', but I dread to think what the stupidity premium will be, it was high enough on the original contract. As I noted in my previous post, the 801s would have carried around one (ok Industry Insider, maybe it's two, I never was clear on that but the draft seating layouts from ages ago seem to suggest just one, it isn't entirely clear) engine unused for years anyway, the (only?) silver lining in having more engines is that they might see some use during diversions.

Aside from the silver lining in getting some 9-car 800s for diversions as a result of the electrification delay, I would probably rate your option 3 quite highly as well, if only the 27.5 years of renting the 801s could be deferred to start when the wires are ready it might have been the best option I think.

As you say though, it might be a combiniation (ie. some 801s converted to 800s, the others left in store until one of the routes from PAD to BRI or CDF is fully wired).

I notice that the latest plans for redeploying dmus from the Thames Valley after electrification appear to have changed. At least one source is suggesting that the air-conditioned Class 166s are now to remain at Reading for the Gatwick services, and only the Class 165s will now move to Bristol.  I wonder if this means that the Cardiff-Portsmouth service will be covered by the rather unsuitable non-airconditioned Class 165s with 5-a-side seating ?  Definately a step in the wrong direction IMHO.

David

I think it has been changed again now with GWR looking to use HST GTI's (aka 4 or 5 carriage hst sets) on the Cardiff/Bristol/Exeter - Plymouth - Penzance route with eth1 58's being used in pairs on the Cardiff - Portsmouth service  like East Midlands do on the Liverpool - Norwich service.  The 165's would also be used on a stopper service along the route allowing the existing Portsmouth service to be sped up.

Don't forget that the 166s are also 3x2 seating

Apart from a small section, and the air-con really is hit-and-miss still.  But, yes, I do believe the current intention is to keep the 166s for the Gatwick's and keep the mojority of the 2-car 165s for the other stuff that'll need covering, with the majority (if not all) of the 3-car 165 heading west.  More sets should then be able to follow post 2019.

I understand a refurb is due including changing from 2+3 to 2+2 on units coming west.

Yes, I've heard the rumour.  Not sure it's true though - there's a lot of equipment positioned under the seats which has stopped them doing it before.  Not sure why it's any different now?

Are they going to fit the retained HSTS with controlled emission toilets

My recolection of what I've read in the past is that the 166s coming west would have at least some of the 2+3 seating replaced by 2+2, but that the 165s were retaining the same 2+3 configuration. I could be wrong though.

Retention toilets surely?
Din't think so...as they're not retaining them for long

So what will replace them and when?

I thought 158s were slated for Cardiff-Portsmouths?

The HSTs are simply a (costly) rumour.

This thread's been on the go since February, I think the HSTs were pretty much ruled out half way down page 1, but of course the thread title remains positive for any new readers...

Paul

I have heard that Long Rock in Penzance will have an allocation of five 2+5 HST sets.

Is that long-term, or simply to cover the (late?) arrival of the AT300s? I suspect the latter - so gone before the toilets need changing

From a Long Rock engineer on Rail Forums. I know of the poster and for him to be reputable and verified as an engineer at Long Rock

So 165/166s for Cardiff/Portsmouth pretty much confirmed. Presumably a mixture?

Interesting that the doors & CET (toilets I guess) are going to be done before its necessary (2020/1 isn't it?)

CET is Controlled Emission Toilets I believe.

you were right, apologies

Fair comment, Paul - I've therefore taken the opportunity to clarify the topic heading now.  :)

Except that I thought the current rumour is that class 158s will continue to work the Cardiff-Portsmouth, not 166s and 165s as the heading states (although some say the 165s will work stoppers alongside the 158s on the main Cardiff-Portsmouth regional express services).

So, would you like me to update this topic's heading again, or not?  ;D

The current heading is as advised by an engineering manager. I think it's a good bet!

A good bet maybe, but the rumours seems to be changing at a rate of knots. If I were to suggest re-naming it would be something like "Rumour of HSTs to operate Cardiff-Portsmouth discounted - who knows what else instead".

This from WNXX forum:

My source isn't a rumour, but current actual plans straight from the horses mouth! Of course plans may change if further delays or issues with electrification.
The current official plans is 1 tp2h 2+4 HST Penzance -Cardiff/Bristol. 165/6 Cardiff-Portsmouth. These are of course subject to change

Cardiff - Penzance on a hst I don't will be such a bad idea especially when you compare them to clas 150/1's that have 3+2 seating which I don't really like.


Still I suspect things are likely to change again now in the near future

Is this the latest.  I thought the 158 Fleet was going to be formed back into 2 Car Sets to enable the Cardiff to Portsmouths  to be worked by 2 x 2 Car Units. (4 Cars).   Still, if this bit or that bit of the jigsaw slips back, plans can change day by day.

Latest as of 24th June.

Assuming that Cardiff-Penzance would be an extension of the Cardiff-Taunton stoppers, it seems a bit silly to use IC125s on it which, being loco-hauled, probably won't be as quick off the mark as, say, a 5-car AT300 bi-mode (whether 800 or 802, although the 800's fuel tanks might not be big enough). If you're going to go to the trouble of making IC125s compliant with 2020 regs, surely they might as well keep them as 2+8 sets and use them on limited-stop services out of Paddington as was planned before the class 802 order.

Or you might want to use a common fleet of 800 series trains with pretty much identical and interchangeable performance into Paddington.   

You just never give up about keeping HSTs, you are a stuck record on this subject, and I doubt DfT or GWR are listening to you.

Paul

I hope that 158s are retained on theh Cardiff - Portsmouth service.  In my view the use of 165/6 with the 3 + 2 seating would be a retrograde step on a long distance service. Further the lack inter-unit gangways could also cause problems with localised overcrowding

I think someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the 3+2 seating would be modified when these units move west. The 158's are desperately short on leg room though, so be careful what you wish for!

I think the ideal solution for this sort of route would be something like ATW's class 175 - airconditioned, good top speed and fabulous amount of legroom for a modern train - not sure if they could do an interior refit on the 16x's to provide the sort of legroom found in the 175's (I suspect the number of door openings might be an issue), but some thought needs to be put in to this as the current 3+2 bay seating isn't the best suited to mid-distance routes imo.

Or some of the soon to be surplus 185s from TPE - though the better the internal layout, the more carriages you need!

The 185's would be an eminently sensible choice too, although what strikes me about the 175's is that there is ample leg space without apparently forfeiting too many seats (which imho are amongst the comfiest on the uk rail network currently), although obvious downside of increased dwell time at busy stops due to the doors being in the carriage ends.

Going off on a slight tangent, I wonder if ATW might collect (some of) the 185's as they'd be a good fit for many of their longer distance routes which will not see electrification any time soon and also the Maesteg to Cheltenham services which currently must be an endurance test in a rattly old 150!