Great Western Coffee Shop

Today I had the “pleasure” of undertaking my second journey on a 166 from Warminster to Salisbury.  I would have said “what a joke” – but a joke is funny, this was most certainly not !

The 1121 at Warminster, usually a pretty quiet service, was some 10 mins late due to the failure, at Westbury, of the Portsmouth Harbour train in front of it. The passengers off this train were transferred to my train – a perfectly sensible response, intended to get the passengers a bit further on their way towards Portsmouth.

However, this then showed up the gross unsuitability of the 165/166s on the Cardiff – Portsmouth route. The train was perhaps ¾ “full” in actual seat terms – but the 5 abreast seating in the 166 meant that many/most of the three abreast seats had only two people occupying them - the 3rd seat was totally unusable.  The two abreast seat that my wife and I occupied was cramped, width wise – every time that someone tried to walk down the aisle my wife had to lean towards me to let people pass. This was perhaps, just bearable, for the 20 min run to Salisbury – but for 2 or 3hr runs between Cardiff/Portsmouth/Great Malvern – hell on rails !! A 3 car 158 would probably have (just !) given everyone a seat - a reasonably comfortable seat .................and a trolley could have got through.

The return service from Salisbury (same rolling stock) was very lightly loaded – but by this time the AirCon had given up the ghost and free water was being handed out by the train crew.

Just who decided that these trains were suitable for this line ??  We are facing a repeat of the fiasco that occurred when FGW originally took over the franchise – all the 3 car trains that Wessex had managed to gather, vanished - to be replaced by clapped out 2 (or even 1 car) trains.
I often take the train to Salisbury rather than drive – but if this is a taste of the future, the Fiesta is going to accumulate even more miles !!

Finally; while we were waiting at Warminster – passengers waiting for the 1100 service to Cardiff were told it had been cancelled. The reason given ?  “a train fault – which has now been fixed !!”. Just who put together such an idiotic announcement ?  If it had been fixed where was the train ?? 

I don’t think you will find many passengers too pleased that the 165/166s are replacing the 158s on the Cardiff-Portsmouth line especially when the line came so close a few years back to getting brand new trains.

However, there is a big capacity problem on this line that a five carriage 165/166 combination is meant to solve but yes five across seating on a middle distance train is not ideal.

Similar to my awful Bank holiday experiences from Westbury to Weymouth standing on a scruffy knackered 166. Coming up from the west I have virtually given up GWR. I get a decent SWR 159 from Exeter to Axminster with a good seat and then the X53 bus to Weymouth. Might take longer but a much better trip and a very scenic bus ride through Lyme Regis, West Bay and Abbotsbury.

It was never ideal on a Thames valley short trip. I still use those trains on the North Downs occasionally but I will normally aim for the double seats rather than the triples. Those double seats are cramped as well. Not sure whose bottom size and inside legs they measured when they put the seats in but I don't miss those trains.

The 165 and 166 units were designed in the late 1980s ... and people were smaller then.  Best link I can come up with is The Mirror (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uks-mr-average-extraordinary-change-10127526) looking back 40 years.


Perhaps 2 + 3 was fine for people of the time of introduction?

Happy to have them on "TransWilts" through we could do with reliability please ... at least we can fit enough people on, which was getting impossible with a 153.

The standard seats on the 165/6 were designed for people without any arms. As someone who isn't tall at all, but is broad shouldered I have always found them very uncomfortable if someone is sitting next to me, especially if jammed up against the window.

A tip from a regular user- go for the down graded ex-first class at one end of a 166, or the first class end of a 165 on a service that is standard class only - these are the best seats in the house.

The Electrostars are so much better, even with the harder seats. I particularly like the way they seem to have configured the facing sets of four seats in a way that seems to make it difficult to allow the antisocial  to put their feet on the seat opposite.

Am I correct though in recalling that GWR have claimed that the Turbos will be refitted in due course with four across seats?

The original plan as I understand it was to run Portsmouth-Cardiff trains as 5 car units - a 166/165 combo. The 166 would be refurbished to have 2+2 seating, with the 165 remaining 3+2. Seat reservations would be put in the 166, so generally longer-distance passengers (who are more likely to book ahead) would have more comfortable seating. That was the theory anyway.

Unfortunately it appears the DfT have told GWR the 3+2 seating in the 166s stays to give more seating capacity. The fact that this is only ever a solution on paper seems to escape them. True there may be more seats with 3+2 seating but you can't sit comfortably in them. You also can't stand comfortably in the aisles. With 2+2 seating you can sit more comfortably and if standing is necessary, you have more room. It is very difficult for 3 average-sized men to sit in the row of 3 - and given this is probably to seat commuters for statistical purposes, it really isn't a solution in reality.

I believe if and when the GWR franchise is put up for tender that refurbishing the 166s to 2+2 seating may be on the agenda - no doubt presented as an 'improvement' to simply reinstate the long-established status quo.

Hopefully something might also be done about the air conditioning, which does seem to be utterly, utterly pathetic - it's been unsual to see one carriage on any 166 with the windows shut over the last few weeks. The 158 air conditioning has also long been notorious, but definitely seems to have improved - usually at least 1/2 carriages have had the windows closed indicating that it is actually working. Even when the windows on a 166 are open the internal carriage walls seem designed to stop any kind of external air flow - not a problem on a 158 at least. Added to the hot air being pumped into the carriage, I've felt extremely hot on them just travelling from Bristol Parkway to Temple Meads recently - I pity anyone doing a long journey on one in the heat.

If a 166/165 combo does turn up on a hot summer's day on this route, make a bee line for the 165 - at least there are more opening windows and the 'air-con' isn't pumping out hot air.

The Bristol Area needs a new fleet of trains, suitable for slow services and fast(ish) e.g

Class *** for Portsmouth - Cardiff, Great Malvern-Bristol Temple Meads, and possible different routing in the next franchise

Class *** for Servern Beach, Parkway-Weston/Taunton and Westbury/Weymouth services (including TransWilts)

If not would there be any rolling stock on the agenda for the next 10 years? No “new trains” have been seen on the line(s) since privatisation. And GWR think these trains are “better” but less comfortable and not practical for short stopping lines?

Yea, I recall that too, it was supposed to happen when the transfer of the 165/166 that were coming west was complete and the units went for a major overhaul. With the financial state First Group seem to be in at the mo this may however have been put on the "back-burner".

In the short term, there was a need to get the 166s (or anything) into Bristol ... no time for anything more than pumping up the suspension.  Delayed electrification and some west fleet units going off lease and to be passed on to new operators who had contracts for them meant / means that anything available had to come into the area, even if a refurb first would have been nice.  Looking forward, though, I suspect that if the 166s as they are meet the franchise spec, they'll stay as they are; there is little appetite to reduce stock while a number are away for refit, little appetite to take on another project when so many are in trouble, and little appetite to spend money which would possibly not be balanced by an increase in income to pay.

I think everyone has already latched on to that one - there were almost more in "First" than in the rest of the train on the return leg of my trip yesterday !

One modification that could be made to these units quite cheaply - GWR may wish to take note - is to adapt the signs on the windows which instruct passengers what to do 'in the unlikely event' of an air conditioning failure. These signs could be updated to match the new operating conditions by simple covering the letters 'un'.

I have a vivid memory of travelling to Paddington in an ice-cold 166 in the hot summer of 1995. I guess it has stuck in the mind because I never had the experience again.

When they first came out the air con actually worked. It didn’t last long.

It lasted a matter or weeks when they first came out!  Then the refit five or so years ago helped and the majority worked for a while, but they seem to have given up trying to maintain them recently so I reckon only a third, perhaps less, of carriages now work.

The system being progressively fitted to the Class 165s does seem much better though and I’ve only once known one not working, which was fine again after the circuit breaker was reset.

The best thing to do is to write a letter to the department for transport about how uncomfortable and practical it is, the more people that complain about it now, the more likely it will be put as a requirement in the new franchise.

From the attached letter ... talking about Bedwyn services - typically 72 minutes to Paddington


I fully accept that the "existing diesel trains" are fine for shorter suburban journeys, but it strikes me that Network Rail and GWR who sent this letter have dual standards - for they are talking about making a 72 minute journey much more comfortable with modern, fit-for-purpose trains - yet sending the old ones which they're admitting really aren't up to snuff for such a journey to Cardiff, where they'll be making 200 minute runs to Portsmouth.

Wouldn't it make sense to provide trains with "more seats and tables in standard class, efficient air conditioning systems and a digital reservation system." on the 200 minute run?

Personally I would have rather had the Class 180s being moved over to the Cardiff - Portsmouth route, fixed 5 coach units and perfect for the job.

I do hope there are new train on the line for next franchise, a 7 year newer train is no upgrade in technology, i’m many ways is a downgrade on the interior side. More reservations, more seats (that are comfortable) and better seating patterns.

From the franchise consultation, there are a few option, but new trains will be explored. Don't forget that some TOC's will offer to buy them to win the franchise anyway.    The other options are the D stock modified trains for branchlines, and other stock having units to reduce engine emissions.

They aren't cleared to run between Westbury and Portsmouth.

Is there much 125mph track between Cardiff and Portsmouth?

(The 175s are likely to become available in 2021/2022, of course, and half the 185 fleet is without a home...)

Not thrilled with the idea of moving 2 and 3 car units without through corridors (175 and 185) onto Cardiff - Portsmouth.   I was tongue in cheek suggesting 80x - though that's the logic that comes from GWR and NR's letters to the folks of the upper Kennet valley about the Bedwyn turn back.

As passenger numbers grow / have grown, 1 car needs have become 2 - 3 car needs, and 2 - 3 car needs become 4 - 5 car needs.  And that's a serious issue where there's a lack of through gangways.    Saying you're increasing capacity by 25% by putting 5 seats across where there were four is naughty / inappropriate for journeys of over an hour (that Bedwyn letter again!).   And if you're going to couple up two trains into a larger one, there's an awfully big financial temptation for any operator (be it First group or another) to hire a bare minimum based on optimistic availability and run short forms far too often.

All 175 coaches are powered, so in theory you might be able to re-form 2x 3-coach as one 4-coach and one 2-coach, though no doubt it would require some head-scratching engineering.

Long-distance regional lines like this are always a bit of a cinderella - destined to be getting cast-offs forever, unless a Fairy Godmother arrives (like the Welsh Assembly...). The glut of new-build orders over the past few years, coupled with the first signs of a ridership downturn in several parts of the network, means that there'll be a lot of fairly recent units going spare.

(The next CrossCountry franchise is going to be particularly interesting from a rolling stock POV!)

Not a great deal of that on the Edinburgh circular but we're using 67's top and tailed. HST with DVT anyone?

Assuming there don't turn out to be any insurmountable obstacles to clearing them, Portsmouth-Cardiff could turn out to be one of the few routes where there could actually be many advantages to introducing 5-coach IET's :

- They could use their electric capabilities under the wires for part of the journey.

- The seating configuration vs capacity balance would be seen as superior to the Turbos.

- Portsmouth-Cardiff passengers are used to trolley service with no hot food.

- One day there may be something that's genuinely seen as better aircon and consistent digital reservations.

- They would enable First Class to be introduced on the route that came top of the list of "routes provided by respondents where First Class accommodation should be provided" in the DfT GWR Franchise Stakeholder Briefing Document - http://gwr.passenger.chat/gwf_consult_output.pdf

Assuming that nicking the IET's off Bedwyn ultimately leaves them reliant on 769's or something else we rigged up with a couple of loo rolls and some stickyback plastic, then we could always extend the London-Bedwyn services to Pewsey, Westbury and Frome as proposed by TransWilts to compensate ( https://www.transwilts.org/berks-and-hants ) and open Devizes Parkway (number 7 on the list of "schemes with a prospect of being funded cited by respondents" in the DfT GWR Franchise Stakeholder Briefing Document) to boot...

Use the 769s on the Cardiff to Portsmouth run instead, that way they can make full use of their tri-mode capabilities!

"more than naughty/inappropriate" - I call it insulting  >:(

I’m pleased to see the Cardiff-Portsmouth line topped the list of where First class should be provided. I think there is a market for it and with 5 carriage trains about to start operating on this route enough seating capacity to do so.

Neither were the class 166/165s 2 years ago, and extensive work has had to be done to them to allow them to go on the route, Class 180s im pretty sure can be used anywhere,  Just derate the engines too 100mph and get better acceleration.

The problem is that the 180s have gone to Grand Central who have also reserved those currently used by Hull Trains.  Their reliability is still poor and GC are now looking at hiring a loco hauled set to fills the gaps.

Well they shouldn’t have got rid their small fleet of HSTs then so keen they were to have GWR’s 180s.

“Not cleared” should usually be read as “there hasn’t been a need to check yet”, rather than a permanent limitation.

Paul

Don't hold your breath ............

I have just read (on another forum) that the 165s are having the 2 + 2 seating, in what was First, removed and replaced with cattle class 2 + 3  seating !!! 
Is this so ?
If it is, I will add the word "contemptible" to my use of "insulting" as yet another description of the way GWR are behaving towards their passengers !

GWR wanted 2 + 2 seating but were overruled by DFT who count the seats, no interest in passenger comfort

Reflecting on the news that ORR are apparently insisting that the ex- first class sections of Thames Turbos be converted to 5 across seating, how will this work?

On three coach 165 units, there is just one first class "compartment", although the adjacent part of the middle section of this coach has a set of 4 across standard class seating. The first class has now been reinstated so is available when they are put on services which offer first class travel, they can be so used. I think that the two coach units have just the former first class compartment with 4 across seating - not sure if I've been on one that has run on a service that is meant to offer first class, and therefore if these first class seats have been "reinstated", however two car units sometimes run coupled together to form a four-car service, presumably meaning it is likely that they will still have to have first class accommodation available when they are used on such a service.

From this, I'd guess the only available seating that could be converted from 4 across to 5 across is the set of eight seats next to the first class in the composite driving coach of the three coach trains - ie a net gain of two seats at the expense of passenger comfort of the occupiers of the adjacent passengers for part only of the class 165 fleet.

If they really do mean that the first class compartments are going to be downgraded by changing from 4 across to 5 across (as opposed to the 4 across/5 across/4 across arrangement in the standard compartment at the other end of the train) they will only be able to get three extra seats, as on the cab wall end they have to leave room for the door to the cab, so cannot put 5 across on the outer row.

Seating capacity is not the problem with cascading class 165s westward. The problem is that these trains were built for high density commuter traffic for London/Reading/Oxford, with the bulk of passengers travelling for less than 20 minutes to these centres. They are unsuitable for cross country services as currently configured  - they were built for conveying as many people as possible over short distances so that comfort was a secondary (at least!)consideration. They already have considerably more seats than the trains they are replacing.

So - ORR is requiring GWR to add a maximum of 5 extra seats and removing the flexibility to use the units on services that are meant to offer first class seating - so they will no longer to able to use them on Gatwick semi-fasts, or some of the remaining Paddington - Oxford services for example. Much as I would rather not see 165s on the Gatwick trains - are there enough 166s available to cover -and will they be subject to the same order?

Have ORR got nothing better to do than make such ill-considered decisions with no discernible benefit to passengers? Can we please see if we can get someone from ORR to explain? If this is an example of their strategic thinking, it is no wonder we have so many problems with rolling stock availability, timetables, service reliability etc. Running train services people will want to use and that will encourage more to switch to rail is not a simple numbers game.   

 

I thought it was DfT who had made the decision not ORR!

You’d be right in saying that.

DfT should have allowed the refurbishment to go ahead, it is needed. They have worked a large amount of busy services and not only are they dirty but the seating layout is not practical. Having a 158 that has tables, comfy seats, 2+2 seating and larger seats is an ideal train to work many of those services, where as a 3+2 formation which can barely fit 3 people in a row on, next to no legroom, no tables and half the time broken air con and GWR advertise it as an improvement. Yes, if you want a seat, no if you want to feel like you are atcually on a semi-express service. And practically everyone has worked out on the 166s and some remaining 165s with first class about not being declassified, so you are unlikely to get a seat in there, especially traveling solo.

I am not sure whether even everyone in GWR who should be aware knows the real contempt that most in the Thames Valley hold with the 165/6 in their present state, especially with those who still have to use them regularly. The strong anti feelings expressed by Didcot-Oxford customers at the customer panel meeting at the beginning of the year seemed to be a surprise to some. It will be a big job to pull off making these seem a big improvement to those further west, increase in capacity not withstanding, if there isn't an appropriate refurbishment.

I think people’s expectations of what GWR provide is so low now that many will just shrug their shoulders and be grateful a train has turned up at all.

As i've said before write a letter or email the Dft expressing your concerns about the state of the Class 165,166s compared to the 158s, The last time i went on one from Paddington to Twyford I have to say it was very disappointing, dirty seats, leg room was incredibly cramped.  Being from the West Country, and having some guy with a baseball cap staring at me for nearly the entire journey did worry me, especially with no on board staff other than the driver. In fact it was at that moment I completely changed my attitude to DOO trains.   

Anyway if anyone wishes to tell the Dft what they think of 165/166s interior wise, here is the link: https://forms.dft.gov.uk/contact-dft-and-agencies/

Thanks for putting me right on the source of the "direction". I suppose my rhetorical question should have been "what's the point of ORR if DfT gets involved in micro-managing details like this"

If people want to make representations, perhaps they might trouble rail minister Jo Johnson directly - email address - jo.johnson.mp@parliament.uk - if you are interested.

It is no wonder that the Turbos are so unpopular between Didcot and Oxford. By now this sector was meant to be electrified, and worked by new Electrostars with 4 across seating, reasonably reliable aircon, and generally (so far) a good standard of internal maintenance and cleaning. Instead they have a broken service to London, changing at Didcot, and scruffy Turbos.

The list of deficiencies is long. While most have now been repainted green on the outside, they have not been repainted inside, and still have battered blue and pink seats, the impression often made worse by mixing cushions in various states of wear on the same seat or set of seats. Blue shows wear and dirt badly. Even without the problem of 5 across seating, the standard class seats are poor - the seat cushion is too short, the seat back poorly shaped (lumbar support too low), and often on damaged or broken seat casings.

There has been haphazard partial refitting - OK, there are now power and data points at seats, but tables have been lost from the 4 across section in the middle coaches of the 166s as part of the sacrifice for the disabled spaces and lavatories. Aircon is slowly spreading through the 165s, but reliability seems poor. Today for the first time I had working a/c on both legs of a journey! Whether pumping out cool air or not, the units make plenty of noise.

Cleaning standards are poor, not helped by carpets (where fitted) apparently being of a poor wear resisting quality, soon getting threadbare and clogged with dirt. The two car unit I rode this evening had 6 to 8 seats removed for a smart substantial new combined bike and luggage rack, yet the lino floor was filthy with ingrained dirt.

Where hopper windows have not been secured for a/c (and there seems no consistent approach to this), they fall open because the catches do not work properly. The replacement windows fitted at the last refit soon failed, with misting up between the double glazing layers. They are sometimes vandalised by pulling the rubber sealing out of the frames, and left in this state for a long time.

The on-board information systems are poor - the "walking writing" displays are often wrong - one station ahead on the first leg of my journey, but sometimes with information for a different line, running in the opposite direction to the route being run or randomly out of sync with the actual position of the train. The announcements are often inaudible.

What is there to like?

PS - should there be a new thread on Turbos in the "All across the West" section?

Personally I would rather see new trains or West Midlands Railway ordering new trains and the Class 172s being transferred to the GWR region.  Ideally though some form of Intercity 4 or 5 car unit is needed on Portsmouth to Cardiff, maybe more Castle Class HSTs?

Not enough around, hopefully whoever takes the next franchise will offer to order some new rolling stock, and maybe DfT could electrify some more areas.

WMR Have 27 of them, and are gaining all LO units so in total 35 units. From what im aware Cardiff to Portsmouth requires 6 units?  That leaves 29 units, left for other routes. Of course if Intercity style trains where brought onto P-C that would allow the 172s to be used on other routes, such as branchlines around Bristol, or replace all the Class 150s in the Devon/Cornwall region.

Was speaking about the castle sets, my mistake.

It seems like a good short term solution although it would be great to see some new West specific new rolling stock right down to Devon and Cornwall.

Oh right,  Plenty of spare HST coming available from 2020 which could be converted and used on the route.  5 Coaches, with good bicycle spaces, and the buffet car with 30 ish First Class seats.

Such spare HSTs would need to join the queue for the necessary modifications to comply with disability and accessibility legislation. Said modifications taking longer than planned due to the amount of corrosion on the Mk3s. There's a long queue already, modifying sets for ScotRail, CrossCountry and GWR's 'Castle' HSTs.

The 40 year old HST fleet is knackered after its intensive use in front line service. That's why it's taking so long to modify them. The time taken and costs involved are almost on a par with new build.

Unfortunately we have a government and industry that seems to think that its okay to fund short term solutions (HST life extension, Class 230, Class 769...) in England rather than order and build appropriate new stock. Unless its for London, the South East or to appease Tory marginals in the North.

Rolling stock needs are not being driven by what is actually required. Instead it is the RoSCo's offering up ever fanciful 'solutions' for their aging and knackered fleets in an effort to earn a few more million quid from them. The RoSCo's then promise the DfT and TOCs quick fixes which are anything but.

HSTs are not the answer for Cardiff-Portsmouth. Neither are hand-me-down Turbos. But that's what we've got to put up with until the short-termist policy changes. At the earliest that will be when the GWR franchise is retendered sometime this century. New build appropriate inter-regional stock is what should be ordered. There's plenty of appropriately designed stock to chose from, from a very healthy competitive rolling stock manufacturing industry.

I reckon Portsmouth - Cardiff has 8 trains in the cycle.
For example the 0823 departure gets back from its round trip in time to form the 1623.
 
Paul

That is the number I have seen quoted from official source too - together with a note that you really need 9 units to allow one to be away for heavy maintenance etc.

So a choice of 9 Class 172s or 9 (4 or 5 car) HST's with a small first class, trolley service and plenty of seats, I know what id go for.   I think St Philip Marsh is staying open, so with the current 11 Castle sets planned for Cardiff to Penzance, St Philips Marsh could be a day to day maintenance for both fleets and swapping the Portsmouth HSTs onto Devon services so they can get a full service at Laira?

Two hypothetical options at present - though goodness only knows what bidders will suggest / offer in future franchise bids.

I think I would prefer to see a wider overview than putting a group of trains in place for a specific route - start with the premise the "we need 3 sets of trains - intercity, regional and local" and run multiple routes from each of the three pools.  That allows for a more robust service with sets being swappable between routes, a team of maintenance engineers who are more familiar with less types making them more effective, and the prospect of holding a higher number of fewer types of spare parts - again good for both efficiency and cost. 

  Which we would of had when electrification was completed on time and on budge, oh wait :D , On balance I completely agree with you Grahame, but sadly the railways are in more of a mess now then back in 2015 when the GWR brand was rolled out especially rolling stock wise.

Personally I never got why we lost those 150s and 158s during the Wessex Trains era, would it not have been better to send the 153s, 143s away, and get 150 and 158s back, allowing for a common fleet in the West area, then inject a load of money to replace all the pacers in the North and Wales, Instead it's taken another 12 years to get fairly close. Whilst the Castle HST's aren't perfect they do have several things going for them such a reliability, comfort, cleared gauging along the whole route from Cardiff to Portsmouth as far as im aware. In terms of parts everything for them is scratch built and has been for many years now, whilst it has been reported about corrosion issues on the doors it can be fixed, it just depends how much money GWR and the leasing company want to spend.  Effectively, new floor beams, doors, reskin of the roof and body panels, a good interior tidy up, you could make them last another 10 - 15 years maybe longer its all a question of how much money they want to spend and for how long.


Edit just to fix quoting - Grahame

Class 172s are only 2 or 3 coaches long, surely you would want them doubled up otherwise capacity would be reduced from what it is today?

It took four minutes at Bath Spa to board the 158 and you can see the extra two carriages are needed.

All except for the direct line between St Denys and Fareham via Netley.  Problems exist for HST power cars with the bridges.  People usually reckon it’s the girder bridges.

Paul

Yes, 9 sets was the figure I remember from several years ago. And the 172/9's for the route would have been corridor ends. They would have had to build more of them in the intervening period after being first mooted.

Not sure which HST power car type has the Short Swing Link for use over third rail that would get them to Pompey as an enlarged Castle fleet.

You probably wouldn't need the second power car on the longer distances and just have it as a DVT and save weight.How many mainline registered 31's are there still about, might be cheaper to reengine a few of those and nice comfy Mk 2 stock with tables. ;D

The Short Swing Links are a variant of the Mk3 carriage bogies and nothing at all to do with the power cars.

Paul

Got the 0946 from Warminster to Salisbury this morning. Train re-hashed inside and out. Nice new dark blue carpet, lovely re-upholstered & re-cushioned comfy (4 abreast) seats with red/orange fabric, aircon working (as usual), everything gleaming clean..............heaven ! Of course it wasn't GWR - this was the SWR service to Waterloo.

Many thanks for the correction Paul. Memory fade since I last had a serious interest in the subject.

Bear in mind that the 80x's are 26m long vs 23m for a MK3. There was route clearance along the various routes used by HST stock (plus a few diversionary routes) as part of the IET project, but anything else will require that work to be done (assuming that a preliminary analysis doesn't find any big problems), plus potential beefing up of power supplies if you want to run them on third-rail. Then you'd need IET's to be ordered (and Hitachi have a fairly full order book), so it seems a little far-fetched.

There was a suggestion elsewhere that a passenger TOC was in the market for tri-mode locomotives. If that's not platform-end wibble then perhaps someone might fancy the idea of some MK5's and locos for the run?.   

Tri-mode 769's seem to be either one minute happening and the next minute not, almost like the TOC wanting to buy them so im sure they'll fit in perfectly. I do think HST Castle's would be a good short term option, although Network Rail might not be happy having to upgrade the line again as they already did not long ago for the 166s. 

According to Wikipedia the 158/9 Has 207 seats for a 3 car unit, a 166(288+24) or (192) and 165(186) make 474 seats or 402 with a 2x2 seating on a 166 , a 5 car Castle with a small First Class area would be: 372 + 24 using the composite coach, or 328 + 24 with a full buffet car.  So although a slight downgrade in capacity, there would be more comfort and allow for a trolley service for the entire train.

In relation to the Mk3 bogies, HST's including a 8 coach HST have already been to Portsmouth, although as someone mentioned not along the exact route.

Only partly on this line ... but an illustration of the issues.   From a Facebook friend


3 hours and 6 minutes from Gloucester to Dorchester - on a Turbo ...

After my pleasant trip on a SWR 159 - I think my trip today was in an even better carriage.
Nice two tone blue cloth and leather seats, not overly padded but most comfortable. A good smattering of "4 man" tables, plenty of leg room - no "kneesies" underneath ! USB charging sockets and reading lights at every seat. In daylight, only 50% of the fluorescent lights were on. Good width aisle. Nice big windows which lined up with most of the seats............What was this wondrous train ? it wasn't - it was the upper deck of the X3 bus from Salisbury to Bournemouth !!
If bus designers/builders can make such huge improvements why can't they do it on the trains ?

The rail replacement bus I recently caught also surpassed the replaced Turbo on legroom and unimpeded view

How sad it’s come to a place when people are saying buses are more comfortable than trains!

Was talking to a lady on the new Y1 service to Yate on Wednesday who has switched from rail to the new Y1 because the train was getting too overcrowded and with the accelerated service via the M32 her front door to office desk journey was now only 5 minutes longer than by train.

Further to my previous post on this thread, the mystery of how the downgrading of the ex-first class section on the 165s will be achieved has been resolved, at least in relation to two car units.

The first leg of my journey this morning was on a two car unit where half the seats in the cab end of the former second only coach have been replaced by a luggage and cycle rack. I went for the ex-first class section in the other caoch, looking forward to a few minutes of 4 across (relative) comfort into Reading. Instead the section had been refitted with standard class Turbo seats (presumably recycled from the other end and others removed for disabled spaces on other units - they certainly looked well worn, the only new items being shiny floor bolts) in the standard class formation (4 across behind the cab, two rows of facing 5 across, then two rows of forward/cab facing 4 across).

One problem for the amenity of passengers - the end section built as standard class has a small window in the middle of the section, whereas there is a blank panel in the "first" end  where the middle two rows were "back to back" with a small space between them for luggage, often removed now. The lucky occupants of the new third row of seats therefore do not have a window (see attached). Someone has though fitted a new piece of old FGW dark blue with white and pink spots lino to replace the distressed carpet! Presumable there are rolls of this store somewhere "just in case"?   

So - I calculate 12 seats removed from the old cab end of the DMOS, the bikes and luggage enjoying a window view all along their side. 16 ex-first seats replaced by 22 standard, five "without" windows at the other end in the ex-composite coach.

But why didn't someone think of converting the ex-first section? (Although - why bother is just as pertinent a question) 

I am even more confused ! 
Someone has decreed that "old", 5 abreast seating, Class 165/166 commuter trains from the Thames Valley are now suitable for inter-regional use and are to be used on Cardiff to Portsmouth route.
Whilst wasting time at Paddington the other day I was looking at the new replacement trains (Class 387) for the 165/166 - these have 4 abreast seating !!

So London commuters, apparently, are not expected to suffer 5 abreast seating for, say an hour, from Reading into Paddington but passengers on Cardiff to Portsmouth are now expected to put up with this for, possibly, the best part of 4 hours.................

That’s because no one cares about the Cardiff-Portsmouth line. Just put any rubbish to run this service. 165s/166s were not built for use as a cross country train. It’s best years were when BR introduced brand new 158’s to the line. Even today they are still good. GWR have done a great job with the recent refurb. I for one will be a little sad to see them go. In my opinion the best DMU ever built.

I think I remember being told that the average journey length on the Cardiff - Portsmouth route was about 40 minutes.  A large proportion of short-distance commuters.

But for the benefit of the longer distance travellers, wouldn't it have been better to allocate the cut-down HSTs to this line?

A bold YES from me.

Hasn't it been said on here several times that the HSTs are not cleared to run beyond St Denys ?

There are two types of bogies utilised on the HST Mk3 carriages. LSL (long swing link) and SSL (short swing link) and HST sets  with SSL bogies are cleared to run on third rail electrified lines although there may be local restrictions in some places. Such fitted carriages can be identified by the letters SSL on the carriage ends. HST's have run to Portsmouth Harbour one of which was a VSTP working when one of the Bristol Football teams played Portsmouth and the brains at GWR worked out that all the fans who travelled out would not be able to be shoehorned into the remaining scheduled services on the day of the match to return to Bristol and fearing unrest the VSTP Zulu special was organised. And, of course the HST operated Summer Saturdays Weymouth Wizard utilised a SSL fitted HST set.

Also I think the SSL carriages can't go via Hamble - have to go via Hedge End ??

Might be so.

It's not just LSL bogied Mk3s that are the problem for HSTs operating Cardiff-Portsmouth.

The Class 43 power cars are banned between St Denys and Fareham. Clearance issues on the Hamble Viaduct.  

The HST footex that FGW ran in the past (Swansea to Fratton), along with a Cotswold Line Promotion Group railtour from Hereford to Portsmouth, both in 2011, ran via Chandlers Ford, Eastleigh and Hedge End.

Taking that route wouldn't be practical in daily service as it misses out Southampton Central. Nor would it be practical to call at Southampton then Eastleigh and reverse for Fareham via Botley. That would lengthen the journey time and require a complete timetable recast, where paths between St Denys and Eastleigh would have to be found.

For those reasons, and ensuring you have sets with SSL bogies only for third rail running, means it has never been a serious consideration to run HSTs on Cardiff-Portsmouth services.

I noticed there was a 5 coach 166 + 165 on the 0830 Cardiff to Portsmouth today.  Are more diagrams going over to turbos since the start of the new timetable?

Learn something everyday. I saw the HST as a go anywhere train. Can't be many places they can't go though.

Surprising that it didn't get singled in the BR era.

I was going to say have a look at the CIS. Then I saw this load of visual diarrhoea !! Just how is my "granny" or a foreign tourist meant to understand this lot ??

(http://i63.tinypic.com/29p9lkp.jpg)

That's the staff CIS view ... plenty of choices available ... top 5 samples from GWR / Iris Tiger, bottom 2 from http://www.mrug.org.uk/wmn.html

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/wmn_v1.jpg)

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/wmn_v2.jpg)

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/wmn_v3.jpg)

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/wmn_v4.jpg)

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/wmn_v5.jpg)

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/wmn_v6.jpg)

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/wmn_v7.jpg)

One or two of these are scrolling displays - so above does not capture all the data available.

I think you missed one Grahame - the one that told you what size shoes the driver was wearing  ;)

I have seen the platform CIS at Warminster displaying exactly what I showed above - it does not help passengers, it just confuses them.

To return to the original point, not many 5 car trains to be seen still - one 4 car though,  2 X ?

It was quoted as D - E - D - E so probably 2 x 2 car 165 units.  Any, yes, I too have seen a variety of the displays on CIS screens including Staff view which is personally wonderful in telling me so much, but really not clever for passengers who think of stations by real names and haven't a clue where the train was "latest report Thingley Junction"

I was amused at the "most liked" ranking of 153 on this thread about 165 and 166. How quickly we move on. The guy at Transport for Wales on Saturday last was proud of his five extra trains coming into the timetable at the start of this week ... further enquiry brought out the fact that the five extras that took them up to 132 trains were the 153 added to the fleet.

[153] 165/166s on this route

And today 0730, 0830, 0930 CDF to PMH all short formed, and 0800 CDF to PGN too.  Somebody at GWR definitely had it in for the S Wales to Bristol commuters this morning.

Any Turbos released as a result of increasing use of IETs from Monday will need to be Ride Height Modified, and also possible fitted with door controls for the TM’s, so it might be a week or two until they come on stream.

Practically everything on the Cardiff<>Portsmouth axis should be a 5-car by December I’m told.

https://www.modern-railways.com/2020/04/22/west-of-england-capacity-boost-in-new-gwr-deal/

Hadn't seen this one before.   5 car, through corridor, 4 abreast (comfy) seats in a 165/6 hybrid ??

Actually, on that subject, I have noticed a 4 car 158 in regular use on this line recently - 80% of the best solution - perhaps.

Lengthened using a Class 365 carriage I believe and given battery technology to become bi-modes.  Very much at the development stage mind you, and, with experiences elsewhere, by no means certain to prove easy to do!